ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
lol this is one big thread of circle jerking by deniers
OK ,what are we in denial of, this time?
the vast majority of scientific journals on this
but i dont doubt your ability to cherry pick the ones you like
so it's science by consensus?
does everybody get a vote, or only those who publish in journals approved by you?
when you can explain how man made global warming is effecting the climate on mars then maybe ill listen to your theory on how humans are responsible for the current glacial retreat thats been going on since 800ad.
no its science by evidence and peer review you side is very lacking in that regard
mars is not earth it has no atmosphere, no moon (to keep a steady precession) a different orbit and the pretence that we have an accurate temperature on mars but are unable to do the same for earth with all the measurements we're undertaking speaks volumes about the straws your grasping at
so how much historic data do we have on mars?mars DOES have a negligible atmosphere, and it has TWO tiny moons/captured asteroids. we actually have excellent temperature readings on mars, due to the global surveyor, several probes, and even a few rovers. as compared to our many satellites and ground based weather stations
mars does have a different orbit. obviously. if it had the same orbit we would be fucked by Anthropogenic Global Impact Warming.lol again mars isnt earththeres room in this orbit for more than earth although i was never suggesting that it should be on earths orbit (lovely strawman you got there)
well done you realised that earth has cycles different to the one we're forcing on it ATMthis does not change the fact that the earth's northern hemisphere has been undergoing a glacial retreat since a glacial peak around 800ad (when greenland stopped being green) while the southern hemisphere is experiencing an increase in glaciation.
and no the southern hemishpere isnt as a whole increasing in glaciation (you may be talking about Antarctica but then theres the whole issue about increased temperature in somewhere as cold as that leading to increased humidity and increased precipitation BEFORE you get to full scale melting)
{quote]meanwhile the increase in temps on mars are likewise the result of
variations in solar energy output from the maunder cycle.
variations in the orbit of mars (earth wanders and wobbles a bit too, just not quite as much)
a constant and measurable process of cooling and warming based on the interactions of the various forces at play, the greatest of them being the sun.
here on earth we add in:
volcanic disturbances are less than human emmisions
biological action sequestering or releasing energy into the environment cannot keep up with human emmisions
human activity now your getting ityeah and this is the section you prove your full of shithuman hubris
human gullibility
human greed
human stupidity
human credulity
human egos
al gore's constant lies and exaggerations
and the tyranny of orthodoxy.
so in a way youre right, most of the "climate change" is being driven by people, but its the HYPE they are driving, not the facts. "climate change" as a concept, as far as anyone has proven yet, is solely a product of human creation, and has no basis in reality or the physical universe.
More bullshit from someone that obviously is using the title "Doctor" as irony or maybe just an honorarium. Your beliefs are counter to what actual scientists have measured, you know the ones that go out into the field and actually measure shit like ice core samples rather than rely on internet rumor and innuendo to support their theories.
Greenland used to be green in 800 AD? LOL! Where did you come up with this gem?
so many words yet so little evidence... sing it again but this time make it seem like you mean itthe norse setlements on greenland were doing great until the mini iceage which peaked around 800 ad in the northern hemisphere. this was the cooling that occurred BEFORE the medieval warm period. and yes, before 800 ad-ish greenland was quite habitable. before it froze over. it was called Thule on maps, which for hundreds of years were regarded as fanciful imaginings. till greenland was "rediscovered" by europeans.
this increased glaciation is what drove the visigoths down from the north around 400 ad-ish to cause so many problems fro imperial rome. reports from contemporary authors indicate that the visigoths had been migrating south for some time, ahead of advancing snows and cold winters looking for a warmer place to live.
and let us not forget that after the medieval warm period dark ages monks recorded their failed attempts to invoke jesus to stop the advancing glaciers in switzerland, scandinavia and other areas of europe with glacial problems.
the climate has, does and will continue to cycle.
determining if human emissions play a part in accelerating these changes, and whether or not this is a good thing remains to be determined.
the vast majority of scientific journals on this
but i dont doubt your ability to cherry pick the ones you like
Well, do you know what a Parmisian Shot is? It ain't cherries.
so many words yet so little evidence... sing it again but this time make it seem like you mean it
"The Medieval Warm Period was not as uniformly warm as we once thought—we can start calling it the Medieval Period again," said the study's lead author, William D'Andrea, a climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. "Our record indicates that recent summer temperatures on Svalbard are greater than even the warmest periods at that time."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-09-high-arctic-tops-year-high.html#jCp
well weather done changed! stop the presses!
you suffer from the normalcy bias. im old enough to remember when these same assholes were predicting the coming doom by iceages, and we would all have to move down to mexico or freeze. in some cases its EXACTLY THE SAME DUDES! using the same "data" to prove opposite results.
maybe you missed the gist of what i am saying so ill use BIG WORDS!
Last glacial advance ended around 1300 ad. we have had a warming trend since then IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE!
Most reputable actual climatologists with degrees in climatology not ethno-botany or women's studies agree that the trend should continue for another 20-40 years, maybe even 100 years before it peaks, and begins to once again get cooler up here in the northern hemisphere.
meanwhile the exact same trend will occur in the southern hemisphere but in the opposite direction.
this all presumes to occur WITHOUT any human influence since this cycle has occurred since long before the industrial revolution, and some ice cores show it occurred while dinosaurs roamed the earth and we still lived in caves with baby mammoth vacuum cleaners.
Are you familiar with the Pollyanna Shot? Where you have to end everything with a gratuitous insult?
the norse setlements on greenland were doing great until the mini iceage which peaked around 800 ad in the northern hemisphere. this was the cooling that occurred BEFORE the medieval warm period. and yes, before 800 ad-ish greenland was quite habitable. before it froze over. it was called Thule on maps, which for hundreds of years were regarded as fanciful imaginings. till greenland was "rediscovered" by europeans.
this increased glaciation is what drove the visigoths down from the north around 400 ad-ish to cause so many problems fro imperial rome. reports from contemporary authors indicate that the visigoths had been migrating south for some time, ahead of advancing snows and cold winters looking for a warmer place to live.
and let us not forget that after the medieval warm period dark ages monks recorded their failed attempts to invoke jesus to stop the advancing glaciers in switzerland, scandinavia and other areas of europe with glacial problems.
the climate has, does and will continue to cycle.
determining if human emissions play a part in accelerating these changes, and whether or not this is a good thing remains to be determined.
whats that?
a wall of text with zero evidence to back it up?
yeah you're still full of shit
that was a wall of text?
i guess this is just TLDR.
sorry youre so intellectually lazy.
Where's your evidence? Just making claims without citations again I see. How about if you present evidence that Greenland was not covered in an ice sheet since I'm inclined to believe the experts that have studied this, especially the paleoarcheologists that demonstrate it is over 100,000 years old by multiple methodologies.