Climate Questions - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By LaDexter
#14930654
The "warmers" have three sinking island chains, the Marshalls, the Solomons, and another by New Guinea...

Nothing else is sinking.

The warmers want you to believe these islands are sinking because of ocean rise via global "warming."

The warmers are LYING.

The Marshall Islands are sinking... but not because of rising ocean water, which would sink everything.

All three island chains are on the "lip" of the tectonic formation known as the "Pacific Ring of Fire," on the SUBDUCTION SIDE...

In short, in 3 million years, the Marshall Islands will not just be underwater... they will be UNDER THE EARTH's CRUST....



90% of Earth ice on Antarctica has done nothing but GROW since Algore's fraud began...

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/na ... han-losses

" the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."

" If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica,"

LMFAO!!!



The warmers cherry pick islands next to the Pacific Ring of Fire because THERE IS NO REAL OCEAN RISE AT ALL...
User avatar
By LaDexter
#14930655
"Greenland was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period."


One needs to be really careful accepting things like MWP. That "data" is just from European cities.

The warmers want you to believe that, at any one time, all of Earth is either warming or cooling because of CO2.

The Greenland/North America data disproves that entirely.
#14930747
Truth To Power wrote:I'll take all your money on that one.

Neither [i.e. Greenland nor Antarctica] is melting significantly.

He was off by an order of magnitude. But Greenland was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period.

I have no money to bet.
I guess it depends on your definition of "significantly". They are melting a lot, but you didn't define the word so I can't argue with your reply.
That would be 3 orders of magnitude. 1000 compared to 1,000,000.
And he doubled down on his claim and supplied a source after you posted. He meant 400,000 to 800,000 yr ago.
And he meant just the bottom 1/3 of Greenland was green.
#14930749
LaDexter wrote:The issue of the age of the Greenland ice sheet is from actual science....

https://www.livescience.com/7331-ancien ... green.html

"The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice,"

"The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest "

In other words, scientists dug through the thickest portion of the Greenland ice sheet, scooped up some pine cones etc. and carbon dated... under 1 million years old.

I pay no attention to the use of "ice age" by idiots who do not understand what one is. Greenland has been moving NW for 120 million years. It didn't fluctuate between frozen and un-frozen. It moved north unfrozen, and then it froze. Period. That is the data. That is why those pine cones dated to under 1 million years old.

Greenland was a Global COOLING talking point in the 1970s, because the vikings were still farming there until about 1400, when the permafrost from the glaciers made farming impossible.

From a Google search of "radiocarbon dating"
What are the limits of radiocarbon dating?
Despite its usefulness, radiocarbon dating has a number of limitations. First, the older the object, the less carbon-14 there is to measure. Radiocarbon dating is therefore limited to objects that are younger than 50,000 to 60,000 years or so.

It seems you misread the article. Carbon dating is limited to 60,000 yr ago and 450,000 is a lot more than 60,000.
I guess they used a different dating technique.
You also over stated your claim. You said Greenland was green, not that an estimated 1/3 of Greenland was green. I showed that Greenland had an ice sheet for the last 18M yr. Both can be true.
The Vikings moved to Greenland during the Medival warm period. Then came the "Little Ice Age" and it got colder slowly. But this is off topic of Greenland being warmer 1M yr ago.
#14930750
LaDexter wrote:Steve American also questions whether a few feet this way or that way makes much of a difference.

The point is that there is a point where the snow/ice from winter ceases to fully melt. There are other variables. Every once in a while the remnants of a hurricane blow onto Greenland. Such warm and moist air could trigger a quick rain and wipe out small accumulations.

But the same thing is true for North America, where 1 million years ago Canada was all under mile plus thick ice age glacier and the glaciers were in southern INDIANA.

Bottom line, Steve, the "Earth glacier manufacturing system" is either "on" or "off" and which year it starts can be influenced by "alternative" issues like runaway hurricanes.

The data is that Greenland was completely green until the last million years, and the "warmers" have ZERO evidence that Greenland was frozen more than a million years ago - ZERO.

No, your own article [which is very short and a summary] says that only about 1/3 of Greenland was green. And this was just 1 man's opinion with no reasons why we should take his word for it. It might have been much less.
But, we know from other data that there has been an ice sheet on Greenland for about 18M yrs.

Your exaggeration makes it possible for me to call BS on your claims.
#14930753
LaDexter wrote:The "warmers" have three sinking island chains, the Marshalls, the Solomons, and another by New Guinea...

Nothing else is sinking.

The warmers want you to believe these islands are sinking because of ocean rise via global "warming."

The warmers are LYING.

The Marshall Islands are sinking... but not because of rising ocean water, which would sink everything.

All three island chains are on the "lip" of the tectonic formation known as the "Pacific Ring of Fire," on the SUBDUCTION SIDE...

In short, in 3 million years, the Marshall Islands will not just be underwater... they will be UNDER THE EARTH's CRUST....



90% of Earth ice on Antarctica has done nothing but GROW since Algore's fraud began...

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/na ... han-losses

" the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."

" If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica,"

LMFAO!!!



The warmers cherry pick islands next to the Pacific Ring of Fire because THERE IS NO REAL OCEAN RISE AT ALL...

Below the erticle that you linked to I found this. Note the date [June 2018 vs your articles date of Oct., 2015]. My article is more recent than yours. But now we have competing articles, and both are pretty recent. How are we laymen going to know which is right?

Antarctica Is Melting Away: More Than 3 Trillion Tons of Ice Vanished Since 1992
By Mindy Weisberger, Senior Writer | June 13, 2018 01:08pm ET
0 0 MORE
Antarctica Is Melting Away: More Than 3 Trillion Tons of Ice Vanished Since 1992
On the Getz Ice Shelf in western Antarctica, photographed on Nov. 5, 2017, ice is in the process of calving from the front of the shelf, soon to become an iceberg.
Credit: NASA/Jeremy Harbeck
Antarctica has lost 3 trillion tons of ice in the past 25 years, and that ice loss has accelerated rapidly over the last five years.

In a new study, the most comprehensive to date of the continent's icy status, an international group of 84 researchers analyzed data from multiple satellite surveys, from 1992 to 2017.

They discovered that Antarctica is currently losing ice about three times faster than it did until 2012, climbing to a rate of more than 241 billion tons (219 billion metric tons) per year. Total ice loss during the 25-year period contributed to sea level rise of about 0.3 inches (around 8 millimeters), approximately 40 percent of which — about 0.1 inches (3 mm) — happened in the past five years. [In Photos: Antarctica's Larsen C Ice Shelf Through Time]

You may be LMAO, but Miami is being flooded almost every full moon which brings the highest tides of the month. It seems that there is a problem there. And there are many other articles that say that sea level is rising.

Climate change deniers are into cherry picking too it seems.
So far you have not convinced me that your cherry picked articles are not just so much BS wrapped in science.
Last edited by Steve_American on 07 Jul 2018 16:09, edited 1 time in total.
#14930761
LaDexter wrote:"Greenland was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period."

One needs to be really careful accepting things like MWP. That "data" is just from European cities.

The warmers want you to believe that, at any one time, all of Earth is either warming or cooling because of CO2.

The Greenland/North America data disproves that entirely.

You need to practice thinking straight.
All I said was that compared to later, Greenland was warmer in the MWP than it was later when you agreed or said it was too cold to grow crops. And this was at the same time as the LIA in Europe.

The climate scientists I've seen talking about the MWP and the LIA in Europe all said that it mostly applied to Europe and other areas may have been different.
But, like I said above, it doesn't matter, because YOU SAID that Greenland got colder over time and the Vikings there suffered as a result. What was happening elsewhere doesn't matter.

BTW --- thanks for coming back to try to support your claims.
#14930766
I copy and paste here some more of the article about the green Greenland below.
The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.

From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.

[Advertisement]

“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland … was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen.

Less glacial cover in ancient Greenland means the global ocean was probably between three and six feet higher during that time compared to current levels, the scientists say.

“To get this site ice free you would’ve had to remove the ice cover from about the southern third of Greenland,” study team member Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, told LiveScience.


The findings, detailed in the July 6 issue of the journal Science, demonstrate how far the young field of ancient DNA research has come: scientists can now recreate an environment’s climate and ecology using only recovered DNA, without the need for fossils that might be absent or hard to reach.

“To go from dirty water to a forest full of insects is pretty amazing,” study team member Matthew Collins, a biomolecular archaeologist at the University of York, said in a related Science news article.

Greenland’s thick ice sheets served as a perfect, natural freezer for preserving the prehistoric DNA. Older genetic samples have been found, but none in such pristine condition as the new Greenland samples.

The team says their technique could be applied to DNA found in other icy parts of the globe, such as Antarctica. “Given that 10 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial surface is covered by thick ice sheets, it could open up a world of new discoveries,” said study team member Enrico Cappellini of the University of York in the United Kingdom.

Plants still survive in Greenland today, although mostly along the island’s coast, since the interior is blanketed in ice. “There’s tundra vegetation,” Sharp said. “There’s also dwarf birch probably, and willows almost are certain. But not pine or spruce, which we have in the DNA here.”

Early Life Survived 'Snowball Earth'
Greenland Dumps Ice into Sea at Faster Pace
Runaway Glacier May Portend Rising Seas

This summary article contains another problem. In the part I bolded it says that sea level was 3 to 6 ft higher at the time that 1/3 of Greenland was green. And it has a wide time range of 400,000 yrs.
However, this indicates to me that this means that they are talking about an interglacial period. If there was 2 miles of ice on N. America at that time then sea level would be lower not higher.
Given the wide time range it is pretty easy to show that there was an interglacial or 2 over that time span. During interglacials even more ice melted than during the current interstadial.
So, maybe the DNA got to S. Greenland during an interglacial at a time when there was no ice sheet at all on N. America, just mtn. glaciers.
Sir, did you think of that? Or did you cherry pick the science articles to support your desired conclusion while not reading them carefully?
User avatar
By LaDexter
#14930922
Steve_American wrote:From a Google search of "radiocarbon dating"

I showed that Greenland had an ice sheet for the last 18M yr. Both can be true.
The Vikings moved to Greenland during the Medival warm period. Then came the "Little Ice Age" and it got colder slowly. But this is off topic of Greenland being warmer 1M yr ago.




You are hook line and sinker into the idea that the climate changes this way and that way and back again very quickly. The data does not support that. Greenland was further south the further back in time you go. It was completely green 1 million years ago. The "warmers" have no evidence that it wasn't, but the will claim otherwise and you will parrot. It is what you do...
User avatar
By LaDexter
#14930925
Steve_American is a classic left wing parrot. If it is written and he can parrot it, it is 100% true.

All the rest of planet Earth's ice stayed the same while Greenland's fluctuated.... according to Steve, never mind that North America was thawing and Antarctica was growing...

We need thinkers, not parrots. Global Warming is an obvious fraud. It is costing us tens of billions every year just to pay these liars to lie about it. Time to wake up and put it to bed.
#14930976
LaDexter wrote:Steve_American is a classic left wing parrot. If it is written and he can parrot it, it is 100% true.

All the rest of planet Earth's ice stayed the same while Greenland's fluctuated.... according to Steve, never mind that North America was thawing and Antarctica was growing...

We need thinkers, not parrots. Global Warming is an obvious fraud. It is costing us tens of billions every year just to pay these liars to lie about it. Time to wake up and put it to bed.

Sir, you claim there is zero evidence that Greenland had any ice 1M yrs ago and then it got ice covered. You supplied zero evidence to back that up.
I supplied a quote from Wikipedia that says there is ocean floor core evidence that Greenland has had glaciers and ice sheets for 18M yrs.
You claimed that Greenland was ice free and green all over and the evidence you linked to said it was 1/3 greem and maybe 2/3 ice covered. It didn't say what was on the other 2/3.
You claimed I said that the ice stayed on N. America all through the ice ages.
I said no such thing. I know the ice advanced and retreated many times over the 1-2M yrs of the ice age.
I said [this is from my memory and is 40 yr old info] that the are 2 kinds of retreats, interstadials (like now) and interglacials that are warmer and longer. 40 yrs ago it was taught that there were at least 3 interglacials and many interstadials. The scientists mostly had just evidence on land to work with. More recent ice advances bulldozed away earlier evidence, so it was hard to be really detailed. Nowadays we have many ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. So, I'm sure we have much more detailed info about the conditions in much finer detail. It would not surprise me to be told that what I learned 40 yrs ago has been corrected. But, I didn't ever say that the ice sheet sat on N. Am. continuously for all of the ice age. I knew it had not.
Yes, I plead guilty to parroting the info supplied by scientists. You do it too. We both must do it because neither of us is an actual climate scientist and so our personally know facts don't matter at all. Only Scientific facts matter.

AGW or CC is a scientific fact. Sea level rise is a scientific fact. That it is very likely that the warming will kill billions of people is the opinion of many climate scientists. I would go further and call that a scientific fact. But, fact claims about the future are very hard to prove, so scientists don't usually claim their predictions are facts.
Only in America is AGW still being argued about. It is past time to stop the argument and start the massive changes and programs to avoid the worst of it.
I hope I can drop this thread now and give you a last word or 2.
By Besoeker
#14931115
LaDexter wrote:Steve_American is a classic left wing parrot. If it is written and he can parrot it, it is 100% true.

All the rest of planet Earth's ice stayed the same while Greenland's fluctuated.... according to Steve, never mind that North America was thawing and Antarctica was growing...

We need thinkers, not parrots. Global Warming is an obvious fraud. It is costing us tens of billions every year just to pay these liars to lie about it. Time to wake up and put it to bed.

Navigation of The North West Passage suggests otherwise.

In the 21st century, major changes to the ice pack due to climate change have stirred speculation that the passage may become clear enough of ice to permit safe commercial shipping for at least part of the year. On August 21, 2007, the Northwest Passage became open to ships without the need of an icebreaker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
#14932293
Steve_American wrote:I guess it depends on your definition of "significantly". They are melting a lot, but you didn't define the word so I can't argue with your reply.

OK, abnormallly relative to previous Holocene warm periods like the Medieval, Roman and Minoan ones.
That would be 3 orders of magnitude. 1000 compared to 1,000,000.

I meant 1Mya vs 10Mya.
And he doubled down on his claim and supplied a source after you posted. He meant 400,000 to 800,000 yr ago.
And he meant just the bottom 1/3 of Greenland was green.

That's not such a stretch. Some interglacials have definitely been warmer than the current one.
#14932301
Steve_American wrote:Only Scientific facts matter.

Depends on what you mean by, "matter." People act on non-factual hypotheses like AGW theory and religious beliefs all the time, so those hypotheses obviously matter not only to them but also to those affected by their actions.
AGW or CC is a scientific fact.

No, it is not. It is a hypothesis, and not a very well supported or plausible one.
Sea level rise is a scientific fact.

Yes, it is. But it is not a fact that it has been primarily caused by increased atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel use. That is mere opinion.
That it is very likely that the warming will kill billions of people is the opinion of many climate scientists.

And it is an absurd opinion that mainly serves to divert attention from the economic institutions and activities that really DO kill millions of people, and have for millennia.
I would go further and call that a scientific fact.

Nonsense.
But, fact claims about the future are very hard to prove, so scientists don't usually claim their predictions are facts.

You -- and AGW theorists -- could learn something from that. Model predictions are not facts.
Only in America is AGW still being argued about. It is past time to stop the argument and start the massive changes and programs to avoid the worst of it.

No, it is past time to realize that CO2 does not drive global climate or temperature, and to focus our efforts on mitigating the harm caused by natural global climate change, which includes effectively all global climate change to date, and even more importantly, on ending the human activities that, unlike CO2 emissions, really do harm people.
I hope I can drop this thread now and give you a last word or 2.

I'll wait.
By Sivad
#14935200
From one point of view, scientific communities without adequate data have a distinct advantage: one can construct interesting and exciting stories and rationalizations with little or no risk of observational refutation. Colorful, sometimes charismatic, characters come to dominate the field, constructing their interpretations of a few intriguing, but indefinite observations that appeal to their followers, and which eventually emerge as “textbook truths.”

Consider the following characteristics ascribed to one particular, notoriously data-poor, field (Smolin, 2006), as having:

1. Tremendous self confidence, leading to a sense of entitlement and of belonging to an elite community of experts.

2. An unusually monolithic community, with a strong sense of consensus, whether driven by the evidence or not, and an unusual uniformity of views on open questions. These views seem related to the existence of a hierarchical structure in which the ideas of a few leaders dictate the viewpoint, strategy, and direction of the field.

3. In some cases a sense of identification with the group, akin to identification with a religious faith or political platform.

4. A strong sense of the boundary between the group and other experts.

5. A disregard for and disinterest in the ideas, opinions, and work of experts who are not part of the group, and a preference for talking only with other members of the community.

6. A tendency to interpret evidence optimistically, to believe exaggerated or incorrect statements of results and to disregard the possibility that the theory might be wrong. This is coupled with a tendency to believe results are true because they are ’widely believed,’ even if one has not checked (or even seen) the proof oneself.

7. A lack of appreciation for the extent to which a research program ought to involve risk.

Smolin (2006) was writing about string theory in physics. Nonetheless, observers of the paleoclimate scene might recognize some common characteristics.

Smolin’s (7) is perhaps the most important in his list. Good scientists seek constantly to test the basic tenets of their field–not work hard to buttress them. Routine science usually adds a trifling piece of support to everyone’s assumptions. Exciting, novel, important, science examines the basic underpinnings of those assumptions and either reports no conflict or, the contrary–that maybe it isn’t true. Imagine Darwin working hard to fit all of his observational data into the framework of Genesis (today we laugh at the so-called intelligent design community for doing just that).

The Hope for a Simple World

As both human beings and scientists, we always hope for explanations of the world that are conceptually simple yet with important predictive skills (in the wide sense of that term). Thus the strong desire that box models should explain climate change, or that simple orbital kinematics can explain the glacial cycles, or that climate change is periodic, is understandable. But some natural phenomena are intrinsically complex and attempts to represent them in over- simplified fashion are disastrous.

The pitfall, which has not always been avoided, is in claiming–because an essential element has been understood–that it necessarily explains what is seen in nature.

Extension of a simplified description or explanation outside of its domain of applicability is of little or no concern to anyone outside the academic community–unless it begins to control observational strategies or be used to make predictions about future behavior under disturbed conditions.

But strikingly little attention has been paid to examining the basic physical elements of “what everyone knows.”

The model problem

[General circulation] models now dominate discussions of the behavior of the climate system. As with future climate, where no data exist at all, the models promise descriptions of climate change–past and future–without the painful necessity of obtaining supporting observations. The apparent weight given to model behavior in discussions of paleoclimate arises, also, sometimes simply because they are “sophisticated” and difficult to understand, as well as appearing to substitute for missing data.

That models are incomplete representations of reality is their great power. But they should never be mistaken for the real world.

If a model fails to replicate the climate system over a few decades, the assumption that it is therefore skillful over thousands or millions of years is a non sequitur. Models have thousands of tunable parameters and the ability to make them behave “reasonably” over long time intervals is not in doubt. That error estimates are not easy to make does not mean they are not necessary for interpretation and use of model extrapolations.

Concluding remarks

Some of the published exaggeration of the degree of understanding, and of over-simplification is best understood as a combination of human psychology and the pressures of fund-raising. Anyone who has struggled for several years to make sense of a complicated data set, only to conclude that “the data proved inadequate for this purpose” is in a quandary. Publishing such an inference would be very difficult, and few would notice if it were published. As the outcome of a funded grant, it is at best disappointing and at worst a calamity for a renewal or promotion. A parallel problem would emerge from a model calculation that produced no “exciting” new behavior. Thus the temptation to over-interpret the data set is a very powerful one.

Similarly, if the inference is that the data are best rationalized as an interaction of many factors of comparable amplitude described through the temporal and spatial evolution of a complicated fluid model, the story does not lend itself to a one-sentence, intriguing, explanation (“carbon dioxide was trapped in the abyssal ocean for thousands of years;” “millennial variability is con- trolled by solar variations”; “climate change is a bipolar seesaw”), and the near-impossibility of publishing in the near-tabloid science media (Science, Nature) with their consequent press conferences and celebrity. Amplifying this tendency is the relentlessly increasing use by ignorant or lazy administrators and promotion committees of supposed “objective” measures of scientific quality such as publication rates, citation frequencies, and impact factors. The pressures for “exciting” results, over-simplified stories, and notoriety, are evident throughout the climate and paleoclimate literature.

The price being paid is not a small one. Often important technical details are omitted, and alternative hypotheses arbitrarily suppressed in the interests of telling a simple story. Some of these papers would not pass peer-review in the more conventional professional journals, but lend themselves to headlines and simplistic stories written by non-scientist media people. In the long-term, this tabloid-like publication cannot be good for the science–which developed peer review in specialized journals over many decades beginning in the 17th Century–for very good reasons.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9110001563
User avatar
By LaDexter
#14949395
The claim that sea level "rise" is a "scientific fact" is par for what passes as "fact" when fraud and fudge rule.

What is the evidence of sea level rise?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/col ... -told.html


"The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions"


instead of actual FACTS.


The "warmers" have three sinking island chains, yet nothing else on planet Earth is sinking. What causes that? The "warmers" claim ocean rise. The "warmers" once went to Hawaii and tried to BRIBE tribal elders to say Hawaii is sinking. It isn't. You can see that on the two Hawaii 5-0 shows, 50 years apart, on the same beach, with the same sea level. The three sinking island chains are all on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire, on the subduction side...



These people, the warmers, they lie, they fudge, they claim "models" are "fact" when they don't explain the data.


Biggest bust on ocean levels... right there, on the 90% of Earth ice that is NOT melting, but rather ADDING ICE....


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/na ... han-losses


"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."


which busted the ocean rise lie....


"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not real"


then those who parrot won't care whether it is real or not, but rather will continue to parrot lies....
#14949434
LaDexter wrote:The "warmers" have three sinking island chains, yet nothing else on planet Earth is sinking.

Sea level rise follows a classic normal distribution. Some places show a rapid increase, others a rapid decrease, most are in the middle. The average (arithmetic mean) is a slow, fairly steady increase over the last few centuries. There is no credible evidence of acceleration in recent decades. Focusing on and screaming about the few places where sea level is rising rapidly is grossly unscientific and ignores the statistical reality.
User avatar
By LaDexter
#14979945
Actually, the evidence is that the oceans are dropping, and this is why....


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/na ... han-losses


"“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”"



No, the truth is that there is NO SEA LEVEL RISE because 90% of Earth's ice is GROWING, not shrinking....

and THAT is why the "warmers" have to lie about three island chains in the south Pacific, all right

ON THE LIP OF THE "PACIFIC RING OF FIRE" on the SUBDUCTION side...
Ukrainegate

That really does seem to be the case with Democra[…]

@Rancid Tsk, tsk. You shouldn't talk about the p[…]

Trump and the Rule of Law

She had good reason to feel threatened. The most […]

i think i might be racist

i'm pretty sure white people evilly smelted crack […]