Reminder that climate change is, and always has been, based on computer models that cannot be regressed minus 100 years and produce accurate temperature predictions.
There's a fun demonstration of this for Ptolemy's epicycles on YouTube. His model can describe the movement of the planets from a geocentric frame of reference, but with enough epicycles it can describe any orbit no matter how contrived.
Basically so long as we don't nuke the poles, they aren't too much of an issue, especially one to justify 'net zero' policies.
My ONLY concern is the artic for one reason, polar bears. I'd like to ensure those mobile death machines have all the food they need up there so they don't decide to move down south...
There's a theory that when sufficient ice builds up on the poles, the weight causes a global crust slip as the ice sheets get flung too the equator by centripetal force.
Can you make sure you walk off California first? Just to make sure they don't devalue the new seaboard, or worse over here and give my retarded government even worse ideas
And I've heard a theory that dark matter is the interdimensional gravitic bleed through of a two dimensional fluidic substance. Doesn't mean a damn thing unless it's observable though.
Well, the theory is built upon geological evidence of geographic north having moved multiple times in the past. It could be flimsy, but so are most of our stupid theories, and this one is at least fun to think about.
The average temperature in Antarctica is well below zero year round even in the warmest parts. You would need global warming of >10C to lose Antarctic ice. I've never heard anyone worry about Antarctica, usually it's glaciers in greenland, permafrost in canada, polar bears, etc. In fact, I've consistently heard that you should expect Antarctic ice to increase due to increased precipitation, even from full koolaid anti-human types.
This is a retarded post even though it is true. If you want to make these kinds of claims, name the study. Name the researchers. Don't deliberately obfuscate your sources because doing so makes any skeptic justified in assuming you're hiding something.
It's also still possible to argue against your position using this data: the doomsday cult can simply say their reforms are the reason for the growth of the sea ice.
It's been growing every single time I checked ever since I started questioning the climate hoax so nothing really new. Just glad there's finally some studies on it. Anyone remember inconvenient truth? We were forced to watch that shit in school, no joke and ever since then I got skeptical. I checked out about Antarctica instead of checking the ice up north and it's always been growing... I remember getting into arguments with teachers on this back in the day, too
For the most part, all this is showing that the changes are from climate change, but they don't want to admit that humans changing atmospheric content of the atmosphere has enough of an effect to reject it.
That's not really the win you think it is.
At this time, two scientists claimed that the widespread industrial use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was destroying the protective ozone layer in the atmosphere. Subsequently, an annual appearance of an ozone hole was discovered over Antarctica. As a result, CFCs were banned by international agreement in 1995. ... The Nobel Prizes were accepted and the activists moved on to other scares and proposed bans. However, the ozone hole kept on expanding and contracting as it has always done. This year, the hole is as large as it has been for the last 30 years. The changes are due to natural variation, hence the media blackout
Now, this right here is bullshit. CFC's were genuinely terrible for the environment, and have a long-term effect on the atmosphere. And just because a ban takes place in 1995, it doesn't mean that no further CFC's will be used anywhere on Earth. Long term solution, with a long-term effect generate long-term results.
The biggest problem here is those last two sentences. The hole in the Ozone layer, which is not know to exist prior to the industrial revolution (I'd like to add), has been sealing very slowly over the past two decades. It's a major accomplishment, not a failure.
The hole in the Ozone layer, which is not know to exist prior to the industrial revolution (I'd like to add)
Almost as if it wasn't "known to exist" until the 1980s when we developed equipment that could measure it in the first place. Never mind that the first CFC was synthesized in 1928, close to 90 years after the industrial revolution.
Check this out, I can do it too: "82% of the geographical features on the far side moon were not known to exist prior to Weird Al's birth." This is 100% true. The first time they were seen was 3 days after his birth. If that's not causality, I don't know what is. He made those craters.
Chemistry is the causality, not the fact that you started measuring it. Also, those CFC were predominantly in refrigeration units, which were not common in the 1920's.
Your argument is closer to: "Germ Theory is a scam made up by the medical industry because diseases existed prior to it, and we don't know that any of those were caused by viruses or bacteria."
My argument is the line I quoted from you is, "Microbes were not known to exist prior to [event that preceded the intention of the microscope]" and a lame way of implying a relation when you know it's a non-sequitur.
This is just like how it turned out the ozone hole was a natural, seasonal thing that constantly repaired itself. Oopsie doodles. Hope you weren't too attached to using those Flurocarbons, because those bans ain't NEVER lifting.
I like the theory that geographic pole shifts happen whenever the ice caps build up too much, and the spinning weight becomes unstable until it's flung towards the equator by centripetal force. It implies were heading for a wild ride, soon.
They're just going to flip the script and start yammering about "global cooling". I'm on a vintage SF book kick and the 70s were all about the impending ice age.
That is incorrect when talking about sea ice. Any floating object displaces an amount of water equal to its mass, and this includes icebergs. A one ton iceberg displaces one ton of water, and when the iceberg melts it will shrink to fill that same volume.
I think ice sheets break off because of difference in rotational speeds. Giant ice sheets that are closer to the poles move slower than the part closer toward the equator. The ice sheets always breaks off nearest to the poles if anyone noticed. If it was because of temps.. it would melt the edges off and break off the side furtherst away from the pole. And even in that case of temperature.. temperatures is warmer away from poles... so it is natural for ice to break off on the edges. Its warmer because its further away from poles.
These ice sheets can extend 40.. 50 miles into the sea. And we all know weather and climate changes significantly with those distances.
Reminder that climate change is, and always has been, based on computer models that cannot be regressed minus 100 years and produce accurate temperature predictions.
It has been a scam from day one.
With 4 parameters you can fit an elephant, with 5 you can make it wiggle it's trunk. With 5 billion you can make anything say anything.
There's a fun demonstration of this for Ptolemy's epicycles on YouTube. His model can describe the movement of the planets from a geocentric frame of reference, but with enough epicycles it can describe any orbit no matter how contrived.
Basically so long as we don't nuke the poles, they aren't too much of an issue, especially one to justify 'net zero' policies.
My ONLY concern is the artic for one reason, polar bears. I'd like to ensure those mobile death machines have all the food they need up there so they don't decide to move down south...
If they move south they eat the poonadians, so no loss. It would probably make the bears sick though.
Do you want polar bears making scam calls?
There's a theory that when sufficient ice builds up on the poles, the weight causes a global crust slip as the ice sheets get flung too the equator by centripetal force.
Does that mean Arizona beachfront property will finally become a reality?
For sure. It'll be a great time had by all.
Can you make sure you walk off California first? Just to make sure they don't devalue the new seaboard, or worse over here and give my retarded government even worse ideas
And I've heard a theory that dark matter is the interdimensional gravitic bleed through of a two dimensional fluidic substance. Doesn't mean a damn thing unless it's observable though.
My "oh shit, someone mentioned the dark matter hoax" face tick was back, but you came through in the end.
Well, the theory is built upon geological evidence of geographic north having moved multiple times in the past. It could be flimsy, but so are most of our stupid theories, and this one is at least fun to think about.
But centripetal force doesn't act in that direction. It has a component that pushed towards the north pole, but not towards the equator.
Don't worry, you'll still have to pay your climate tax Global cooling confirmed, hand over your money.
ALSO CLIMATE CHANGE. EVERYONE CUT OFF YOUR DICKS AND TAKE TWO MINUTE SHOWERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The average temperature in Antarctica is well below zero year round even in the warmest parts. You would need global warming of >10C to lose Antarctic ice. I've never heard anyone worry about Antarctica, usually it's glaciers in greenland, permafrost in canada, polar bears, etc. In fact, I've consistently heard that you should expect Antarctic ice to increase due to increased precipitation, even from full koolaid anti-human types.
Shhhh stop using logic
aren't polar bear population increasing?
This is a retarded post even though it is true. If you want to make these kinds of claims, name the study. Name the researchers. Don't deliberately obfuscate your sources because doing so makes any skeptic justified in assuming you're hiding something.
For a better source, here's the data straight from NASA.
It's also still possible to argue against your position using this data: the doomsday cult can simply say their reforms are the reason for the growth of the sea ice.
It's been growing every single time I checked ever since I started questioning the climate hoax so nothing really new. Just glad there's finally some studies on it. Anyone remember inconvenient truth? We were forced to watch that shit in school, no joke and ever since then I got skeptical. I checked out about Antarctica instead of checking the ice up north and it's always been growing... I remember getting into arguments with teachers on this back in the day, too
Maybe ole Greta can calm down now and not feel so panicked.
She's already moved on to simping for Islamic terrorists.
Anyone have a link to the published sources?
Need to destroy my friend.
For the most part, all this is showing that the changes are from climate change, but they don't want to admit that humans changing atmospheric content of the atmosphere has enough of an effect to reject it.
That's not really the win you think it is.
Now, this right here is bullshit. CFC's were genuinely terrible for the environment, and have a long-term effect on the atmosphere. And just because a ban takes place in 1995, it doesn't mean that no further CFC's will be used anywhere on Earth. Long term solution, with a long-term effect generate long-term results.
The biggest problem here is those last two sentences. The hole in the Ozone layer, which is not know to exist prior to the industrial revolution (I'd like to add), has been sealing very slowly over the past two decades. It's a major accomplishment, not a failure.
Almost as if it wasn't "known to exist" until the 1980s when we developed equipment that could measure it in the first place. Never mind that the first CFC was synthesized in 1928, close to 90 years after the industrial revolution.
Check this out, I can do it too: "82% of the geographical features on the far side moon were not known to exist prior to Weird Al's birth." This is 100% true. The first time they were seen was 3 days after his birth. If that's not causality, I don't know what is. He made those craters.
Chemistry is the causality, not the fact that you started measuring it. Also, those CFC were predominantly in refrigeration units, which were not common in the 1920's.
Your argument is closer to: "Germ Theory is a scam made up by the medical industry because diseases existed prior to it, and we don't know that any of those were caused by viruses or bacteria."
My argument is the line I quoted from you is, "Microbes were not known to exist prior to [event that preceded the intention of the microscope]" and a lame way of implying a relation when you know it's a non-sequitur.
This is just like how it turned out the ozone hole was a natural, seasonal thing that constantly repaired itself. Oopsie doodles. Hope you weren't too attached to using those Flurocarbons, because those bans ain't NEVER lifting.
I like the theory that geographic pole shifts happen whenever the ice caps build up too much, and the spinning weight becomes unstable until it's flung towards the equator by centripetal force. It implies were heading for a wild ride, soon.
They're just going to flip the script and start yammering about "global cooling". I'm on a vintage SF book kick and the 70s were all about the impending ice age.
If there was a big net ice melt, sea levels would rise. Sea level hasn't rue n, so all of the melt necessarily became ice somewhere else.
That is incorrect when talking about sea ice. Any floating object displaces an amount of water equal to its mass, and this includes icebergs. A one ton iceberg displaces one ton of water, and when the iceberg melts it will shrink to fill that same volume.
I think ice sheets break off because of difference in rotational speeds. Giant ice sheets that are closer to the poles move slower than the part closer toward the equator. The ice sheets always breaks off nearest to the poles if anyone noticed. If it was because of temps.. it would melt the edges off and break off the side furtherst away from the pole. And even in that case of temperature.. temperatures is warmer away from poles... so it is natural for ice to break off on the edges. Its warmer because its further away from poles.
These ice sheets can extend 40.. 50 miles into the sea. And we all know weather and climate changes significantly with those distances.
Slay news. The most reputable of sources.
I also check the sun for biting critical reports