It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another Possible Antarctic shelf breaking off?

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wheelindiehl

Considering that there is an abnormally large amount of ice in that area ... is it really a surprise that some of the ice is breaking off? Also, they are at the end of their melt season heading into their winter.


Oh my God quick tell the scientists working down there they obviously have no idea.


It's not the scientists I'm concerned about. The media on the other hand ... are blithering idiots.




posted on May, 17 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: ketsuko

Americans, more than the citizens of ANY other nation, are more likely to think (a) climate change isn't real (b) Dinosaurs lived with men (c) The Earth was created in seven days (actually it was six, according to The Bible)

Americans are LEAST likely to believe in Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, Climate Change, and many other issues which the rest of the World accept because they follow the SCIENCE, rather than listen to rhetoric from the likes of Fox News.



Gee, when you use terminology like that, I can almost hear the congregation in the background behind you shouting, "Can I get an AMEN!"


"AMEN, brother!"


"AMEN! AMEN!"


How can anyone fail to be converted with that kind of impassioned preaching?


Well it seems very true to me as an outside observer from the UK. Whenever I have visited the US I never see, hear or read anything to convince me that that opinion is wrong. The religious right over there Jesus H


Considering I used that language as a poke at the person who posted, a known atheist (or at least anti-theist), your comment is really humorous.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

A fit? All I did was explain why it's not a small thing.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

A fit? All I did was explain why it's not a small thing.


Then why was I "having a fit" by simply disagreeing while giving valid reasons?

You said it first babe.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

There's a very clear difference of tone between your posts and mine.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: johnwick

There's a very clear difference of tone between your posts and mine.


They are entirely in your interpretation, not implied by me.

I don't magically add context to text speech, you are inferring it all by yourself.

I speak directly, I'm a no nonsense type.

I don't say in 57 words what can be stated in 5.

Sorry if I wasnt ...kind, subtle, considerate? Enough?

I really just looked over my posts, I don't see what your implying.

Sorry I am a male member...hint hint.

I will attempt to be less harsh in the future.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

Oh my God your hyperbole is ridiculous. In one thread according you I attacked Jews. Now I'm attacking you for being male? Your harshness doesn't affect me. Me calling you on your BS is not because you've offended me, it's because you're just simply, wrong.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: johnwick

Oh my God your hyperbole is ridiculous. In one thread according you I attacked Jews. Now I'm attacking you for being male? Your harshness doesn't affect me. Me calling you on your BS is not because you've offended me, it's because you're just simply, wrong.


Now we are talking.

Honest wording, no bs involved.

I am wrong in your opinion.

There is a difference.

This is the dialect I want.

Real unadulterated your version, no games played or semantics involved.

Cold hard truth here, why am I wrong?

I disagree for many reasons, but please be blunt.

I am the direct type, I just want the cold hard facts.

Don't pull punches, why am I wrong more co2 is proven to be great for the world?

Why am I wrong there is no evidence co2 can even cause "out of control warming"?


Why am I wrong AGW is bs based on models designed to prove it is true not find the truth?

Please squash me here, let's here it.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick
Any chance you could put two thoughts together? One sentence paragraphs are not only poor writing, they are distracting.


Why am I wrong there is no evidence co2 can even cause "out of control warming"?
Have you seen Venus lately?


Why am I wrong AGW is bs based on models designed to prove it is true not find the truth?
Because the models are based on physics.
edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

I was referring to your wrongness about me and your use of hyperbole to attack people that you disagree with. You want it kept simple and direct? Try it yourself.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: johnwick
Any chance you could put two thoughts together? One sentence paragraphs are not only poor writing, they are distracting.


Why am I wrong there is no evidence co2 can even cause "out of control warming"?
Have you seen Venus lately?


Why am I wrong AGW is bs based on models designed to prove it is true not find the truth?
Because the models are based on physics.


Did you just try, badly mind you, to use Venus as an example of global warming?

Bwahaha!!!!!

Stfu, no seriously, I mean it right now, you are obviously being sarcastic!!!!

The earth and Venus are not even compatible.

Earth 14 psi at surface level Venus 90 earth atmospheres.

That is over 1000 psi.

We are not even close to atmospheric content or any other factor but size, which is still way off.

Hey phage on Jupiter.... Bwahahaha


Hey on Mars... Ahahahaha....


Just stop.

Take it to the kiddy table over there.

I am not in awe of you or your intelligence.

In fact your use of it offends me.

Play dumb and bait questions for the uneducated....ya you are the epitome of knowledge....

I don't respond to you most times for a reason.

You just might be the smartest idiot I ever met!!!!



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

The earth and Venus are not even compatible.
You asked if CO2 can cause "out of control warming." It can, as demonstrated on Venus. You said nothing about Earth. I've already addressed "out of control warming" on Earth.





edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: yorkshirelad



and yet the consensus (by a fricking huge margin) is that man is responsible.


There is no such scientific concenses. Perhaps you mistake media attention to global warming as scientific consensus but I like to remind you of the enormous media attention given to wmd in Iraq which also was a lie.

The temperature changes we have seen in last 100 years is not abnormal when you examine temperature changes for last 10,000 years as given by GISS,



So if CO2 wasn't responsible for the more dramatic temperature changes in our past 10,000 years (no man made industrial age) then obviously something natural is causing the swings,

Dr jasper kirkby of CERN suggests that there is a strong possibility that variabilities in solar output might be causing the changes in world temperatures. Interesting video to watch for those that have an open mind.

cds.cern.ch...



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: glend



Dr jasper kirkby of CERN suggests that there is a strong possibility that variabilities in solar output might be causing the changes in world temperatures.

The possible relationship between cosmic rays and climate is interesting and a topic of quite a bit of speculation in regard to climate. But you know that cosmic radiation levels have not changed much, right? You also know that the theory says that lower solar activity leads to increased cosmic radiation which leads to more low level cloudiness which leads to decreased radiative forcing, right?

Didn't you say that solar activity is decreasing? Doesn't that mean that there is more cosmic radiation? Doesn't that mean there should be more low level clouds? Doesn't that mean that the planet should be cooling rather than warming?

edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: johnwick

I was referring to your wrongness about me and your use of hyperbole to attack people that you disagree with. You want it kept simple and direct? Try it yourself.


Nice one!!!

But I adapt to the environment.

I'm not wrong about you at all.

You are a lefty, you do use what I and many others think is bs to justify your claims.

You honestly retort little more than bs lefty talking points.

It is very boring for me.

If any of you lefties ever had a different line I would praise you for it. Instead I get the same old tag lines nonstop in every thread.

Lefty, and for that matter righty bs is tired.

It is played out to the Nth degree.

It didn't work before it won't work now any better.

I get it, you are worried humans are destroying the environment.

I applauad this.

We are!!!

I am tired of hearing these same tag lines though.

Never once in Terra's( that is earth's name BTW) history has co2 at much higher concentrations than now wrecked the ecosystem.

Not once.

This is a fact that is known by science.

In fact every time co2 is higher it is good for life.
Look into it, I am not wrong.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick



Never once in Terra's( that is earth's name BTW) history has co2 at much higher concentrations than now wrecked the ecosystem.

Really? Everything changed quite dramatically when plants evolved that could turn that CO2 into oxygen. It really did sort of wreck things for the life that was around before that. But it turned out to be good for us.

But once again, that really doesn't have anything to do with what rising CO2 levels and their associated effects will have, and are having on us. Here. Now. And for the next couple of hundred years.

edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I have a few points on all this...

1. A large volcano eruption or two can reset it all. I read a while back that Mt Pinatubo basically slowed down warming for about 25 years that basically skewed all data showing a rather large temperature increase over a very short period of time before it's eruption.

2. Large amount of ice build up on the south pole is not a good sign. At first one might suggest, hey look at all the ice in Antarctica so there must be no global warming, but the reality is that the salt water has been deluded by melting old ice and so it doesn't need the lower temperatures to freeze like in the past.

3. Large ice shelves breaking off will cause havoc to shipping lanes and will raise the oceans some, not to mention what it may do to the currents.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick

Terra's( that is earth's name BTW)



I thought earth's name was earth...Terra is Latin for earth, so you would not suggest it is earth's name, maybe the third planet from the sun name, but to say earth's name is Terra is kind of strange..

BTW it has other names too

in hindi dharti
in chinese 地球
in spanish la tierra
in russian земля (zemlia)
in german Erde
in norwegian jord
in dutch De aarde



edit on 17-5-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


1. A large volcano eruption or two can reset it all.
So...we can hope that Yosemite erupts and continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere? What about oceanic acidification? Doesn't matter?


2. Large amount of ice build up on the south pole is not a good sign.
Please provide a source for this datum. The south pole is pretty distant from the Antarctic coast.


3. Large ice shelves breaking off will cause havoc to shipping lanes and will raise the oceans some, not to mention what it may do to the currents.
Indeed. Unpleasant consequences.






edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: glend



Dr jasper kirkby of CERN suggests that there is a strong possibility that variabilities in solar output might be causing the changes in world temperatures.

The possible relationship between cosmic rays and climate is interesting and a topic of quite a bit of speculation in regard to climate. But you know that cosmic radiation levels have not changed much, right? You also know that the theory says that lower solar activity leads to increased cosmic radiation which leads to more low level cloudiness which leads to decreased radiative forcing, right?

Didn't you say that solar activity is decreasing? Doesn't that mean that there is more cosmic radiation? Doesn't that mean there should be more low level clouds? Doesn't that mean that the planet should be cooling rather than warming?


I did just crap talk you, but I not only starred this post, I agree!!!!

Now this is a valid use of your gifts.

I don't just JP on all anti AGW info.

I understand much about the science.

You called it correct here.

More cosmic rays, which are mostly a constant except the stray gamma ray burst or supernova, create more clouds which deflect radiant energy from the sun, thus cooling the earth.

( I know, another paragraph "sentence")

( you called me on that, I didn't address it because you are right and it is obvious, none of us are perfect)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join