T1B

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

Fuck. The ice is growing while it’s shrinking. Maybe they should just stick with studying space as opposed to predicting “climate change”?

This is for only Antarctica.

Fuck, when you wake up in the morning do you intend on kicking your own ass?

Screw_Michigan wrote:
This is for only Antarctica.

Damn, Spray's post was mighty short for you to have made up shit thatwasn't there.

Fuck, when you wake up in the morning do you intend on kicking your own ass?

Anyone else notice that the author here is kinda bummed that his whole "the oceans are rising!!!!! We're all gonna fukkkin' die!!!!" meme isn't supported by this.

Poor NASA. They really were counting on climate change for a chunk of their budget.

The fact is, the erf does appear to be warming slightly, as it has been doing for many thousands of years as we continue to emerge from an ice age.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Nobody really knows in the long run.

What we do know is that all the carbon we have sucked out of the ground and pissed into the air has increased CO2 levels markedly. And as any 5th grader or greenhouse weed or tomato farmer knows, that is a good thing. The erf has had a substantial "greening" over the last 50 years...outside of cali, anyway.

Here's an article that talks about what pretty much any honest person would agree is a good thing (our ability to grow more food).

But then they throw in this....

"But don’t get your hopes up. We don’t know how far into the future the greening trend will continue as the CO₂ concentration ultimately peaks while delayed global warming continues for decades after. Regardless, it is clear that the benefits of a greening Earth fall well short compared to the estimated negative impacts of extreme weather events (such as droughts, heat waves, and floods), sea level rise, and ocean acidification."

So, it is "clear" that a know, measurable and documented effect, greening, fall short of the ESTIMATED negative effects.

Wanna know why they use the word "estimated"?

Because it's a fukking fairy tale.

There has not been a rise in these calamities. We had more tornadoes in the 50s. Droughts are not up, globally, nor are hurricanes. The sea level has been rising for thousands of years . Some of it may be ice melt. A good bit is erosion.

smackaholic wrote: A good bit is erosion.

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

Fuck. The ice is growing while it’s shrinking. Maybe they should just stick with studying space as opposed to predicting “climate change”?

Why would you ever believe NASA in the first place? I mean they’re at the forefront of the “earth is a globe” scam.

Papa Willie wrote:

Mikey wrote:

smackaholic wrote: A good bit is erosion.

Millions of years ago, Macon used to be on the coast. Now we're about 175 miles from the coast.

So what saying here is that any semblance of intelligence and reasoning ability you might have once possessed is a good bit eroded?

Of course erosion is a fact. But a major cause of sea level rise?

What can I say but

Mikey wrote:Of course erosion is a fact. But a major cause of sea level rise?

What can I say but

Ever look into the grand canyon?

Or any other canyon?

Guess what?

It is erosion. Every last fukking bit of it.

Where did all this erosion go? Did it evaporate into dust clouds, only to be dropped later as dirt snow?

No. Eventually, a whole fukking lot of it makes it to the sea. And every fukking bit of it, which settles on the ocean bottom displaces water.

Now don't go all soft ball bat on me with this really basic science concept.

What percentage of the rise can be attributed to erosion?

No fukking clue. But to dismiss it with a few dozen chuckling emoticons makes you look like poop-tah.

I suspect that once the AGW teat has been milked dry, perhaps erosion will become the new one. And I do believe that it would be more worthy, since erosion has a tendency to decrease that most basic of human needs, twinkie production, in contrast to CO2 poisoning, which actually helps.

smackaholic wrote:

Mikey wrote:Of course erosion is a fact. But a major cause of sea level rise?

What can I say but

Ever look into the grand canyon?

Or any other canyon?

Guess what?

It is erosion. Every last fukking bit of it.

Where did all this erosion go? Did it evaporate into dust clouds, only to be dropped later as dirt snow?

No. Eventually, a whole fukking lot of it makes it to the sea. And every fukking bit of it, which settles on the ocean bottom displaces water.

Now don't go all soft ball bat on me with this really basic science concept.

What percentage of the rise can be attributed to erosion?

No fukking clue. But to dismiss it with a few dozen chuckling emoticons makes you look like poop-tah.

I suspect that once the AGW teat has been milked dry, perhaps erosion will become the new one. And I do believe that it would be more worthy, since erosion has a tendency to decrease that most basic of human needs, twinkie production, in contrast to CO2 poisoning, which actually helps.

The reason I'm laughing at you is because your contention is completely ridiculous, and it was discussed at some length earlier this year.

https://www.livescience.com/62613-erosi ... rooks.html

But, at least you're in admirably brilliant company with the good Congressman from Alabama. Try reading the article. I know that there's some really high level math involved, with areas and volumes and complicated stuff like that, but suffice it to say that attributing even a small part of sea level rise to erosion is...well, completely on a par with your usual dumbass statements. In reality, sea level rise probably contributes more to erosion than vice versa.

I put together some numbers myself to check out your question on the Grand Canyon. Feel free to QC my math and get back to me.

According to several websites, the volume of the Grand Canyon is about 5.45 trillion cubic yards. OK pretty fucking big. I pulled some of these other numbers from various sources. Like I said, feel free to check my math and get back to me, if you're up to it.



In other words, it would take almost 3 1/2 Grand Canyons full of "erosion" per year, every year, to account for 3.3 mm per year of sea level rise.
Care to guess how long it took for the Grand Canyon to shed those 5.46 trillion cubic yards? Most estimates put it at 6 million years. Some say it's a lot older. The Sierra Nevada mountain range is about 40 million years old. Think of it this way...a lot of that volume washed out of the Grand Canyon was offset by those mountains getting pushed up at about the same time.

What I'm also laughing at is that you're so convinced that a theory held by the vast majority of scientists is some kind of fairy tale, that you're completely willing to make up your own fairy tale that's easily debunked by simple math to explain it away.

Not actually funny. Just fucking sad.

I know you asked me to stay away from basic science but, in the long run, I trust it a lot more than your pathetic (il)logic.

Papa Willie wrote: Millions of years ago, Macon used to be on the coast. Now we're about 175 miles from the coast.

So, see if I've got this right -- Macon being inland from the coast was caused by... erosion? Did you by any chance borrow some science books from Poptart?

Mikey wrote:..a lot of that volume washed out of the Grand Canyon was offset by those mountains getting pushed up at about the same time.

Link ??

Derron wrote:

Mikey wrote:.getting pushed up .

Link ??

OK, here you go you old horn dog.

OK I found my own mistake which, obviously, none of you fuckers are smart enough to see. Pretty simple too.

I divided the Grand Canyon volume by the sea level rise volume instead of the other way around. It should be:

1,587,418,372,703 / 5,450,000,000,000 = 0.291 years

Doesn't change the point though because it's really a difference in orders of magnitude.

One Grand Canyon would account for 3.433 years of sea level rise instead of the other way around. The fact still remains that it took millions of years to carve out the Grand Canyon.

Mikey wrote:

Derron wrote:

Mikey wrote:.getting pushed up .

Link ??

OK, here you go you old horn dog.

Pretty tame really, but beats all the science shit you clones are arguing about.

I was told there'd be no math in this thread. :?

Mikey.

Did I imply that GC erosion, all by itself, is the cause of sea level rise?

No, I did not.

I simply sited it as an example of the power of erosion. What percentage of the land surface is the GC? I've been there. It is fukking big, but it is a small fraction of a percent. Hell, it's prolly even smaller than CO2 is of the atmosphere. And that's pretty fukking small folks!

And I didn't say it was the cause of the "majority" of rise. I think I used some scientific term like "a good bit".

As for the "experts" claim that our climate is indeed changing, no one is saying it isn't. I have actually watched a fair number of youtube videos over the last few weeks on the topic. Videos put together by some pretty seriously credentialed folks and have learned a few things.

The erf is anywhere from 15-30% greener over the last half century or so, depite our attempts to turn the whole fukking sordid clambake into a strip mall. Actually, strip malls are so 70s. More like turn it into Amazon warehouses. And there is an extremely simple explanation. Plants like CO2 the way 'spray likes fried chicken. We all learned this in elementary school. And they are able to do it with less water. The edges of many arid regions are greening. There are exceptions. You live in one.

Antarctica is hording ice like crazy. Our most recent south pole station was built so it can be jacked up every few years. We did this so we didn't have to build ANOTHER fukking station, because it became buried.....like the first 2 we built.

GW has pretty much stalled over the last 20 years. It is still happening, as we continue to emerge from an ice age, but, it has slowed down considerably, as it always does, due to solar, or even interstellar cycles. One of those really smart fukkers babbled on about how cosmic radiation does stuff that, were I as edumacated as you, I might understand. Apparently the extremely long period cycles the erf goes through are tied to what galactic zipcode we are in at the moment.

These highly edumacated folk generally tend to be old. Their academic careers are either extremely secure, or even over. They do not have to concern themselves with being academically balck-balled. They say their are plenty of youngsters in the field that agree with them, but hide it as it would mean the end of their careers if the become "deniers". There are actually people in this movement who support legal consequences against these denier rabble rousers. What are they scared of? Scientists used to welcome challenges. It was a means of enforcing their theories....or disproving them.

And possibly the biggest most important fact. The positive feedback model the doomsayers rely on goes against the fact that the erf is currently habitable. If it existed, we'd have gone the way of venus before goobs was out of high school. Maybe even sooner. The fact that the planet bouces around within the habitable range, which is actually quite narrow, proves that there is a negative feedback system that keeps us from freezing/boiling.