How Is Greenland Dealing With Climate Change?

(edited)

On 1/14/2019 at 7:21 PM, NickW said:

Below is your first comment on this thread. The Emian was >100,000 years ago. Greenland was named Greenland a thousand years ago. Greenland was pretty much then what it was like today

Does anyone ever wonder why Greenland was named Green Land? It is because it was much more green at that time. Climate has always changed and some just refuse to admit it. So called scientists are the best example. 

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian 

Ronwagn is correct.

 

Like the politicians like to say :  "It is the Economy stupid."

I hereby create the phrase :  "It is Normal Climate Change stupid."  9_9

..............................................................................................................

I have avoided joining this thread so far because,  as most of you know,   i do not believe in Global Warming under the standard definition of it being something that "IS CAUSED BY MANKIND."

.............................................................................................................

 

Nonetheless,  since everyone else is here,   i will give you my 2 cents.......

.............................................................................................................

There is an ebb and flow to the changes in ICE in Greenland.

 

In the past,  it was greener than it is now,  but ALSO, even farther in the past,  Greenland was under miles of ice much thicker than mankind has ever experienced.

 

It goes back and forth...

 

Greenland is at that "special place" heme-spherically on Earth,   just like that Earth is in that "special orbit" in comparison to the other planets around  the SUN.  

 

Greenland is in a place where it drifts back and forth,  losing ice for a time,  then gaining it back for a time,  then losing it again...

 

This is all known history...

 

What is happening in Greenland is just another piece of Normal CLIMATE CHANGE that has been going on for millions of years and will continue to do so for millions more in the future.

 

And it has nothing to do with mankind...

 

Back in the 1970's,  everyone in Science and the Media stated that the Earth was facing another ICE AGE in the future..?

ICE AGE:    Remember that ?

All of America,  and All of Europe used to be under glaciers..............

 

Are we going to state that all of those glaciers retreated because the Neanderthals learned how to use fire ?

 

Obviously not.

 

SO THE ICE ON EARTH HAS BEEN RETREATING FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS........

 

THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.........

 

AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MANKIND.........

 

What is happening in Greenland is just a continuation of that retreat.

 

Recently,  there have been several articles stating the MAGNETIC NORTH POLE is moving   ( IT IS ),  and that it MUST BE because of Global Warming.....!

 

Garbage..

 

I do not recall the exact details,  but if i recall,  back in the 1960's i read that scientists,  (REAL SCIENTISTS,  NOT THE PC CHUMPS WE HAVE TODAY),  had discovered that thousands of years ago,   the MAGNETIC NORTH POLE USED TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE AFRICAN SAHARA DESERT..........!

 

That interested me at the time because i was born not far from there in Morocco.

 

They subsequently found that the MAGNETIC NORTH POLE IS ALWAYS MOVING,  AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN MOVING,  AND WILL ALWAYS BE MOVING...   

THEY DO NOT KNOW WHY,  BUT BELIEVE IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE MAGNETIC QUALITIES OF LAVA DEEP BELOW THE MANTLE OF THE EARTH...   

That magnetic lava creates the "effect" that we call "Magnetic North Pole",  and the pole moves around,  as the lava moves around,  deep under the mantle...

 

So tell me,   if the Magnetic North Pole used to be in Northern Africa,  and moved to it's current position at the top of the Northern Hemisphere,  and all of this happened thousands of years before Mankind invented fire,    HOW CAN THE CURRENT MOVEMENT OF THE MAGNETIC NORTH POLE BE BLAMED ON THE ACTIVITIES OF MANKIND ?

 

The answer is that it cannot.

 

And in that same way,   what is happening in Greenland is just a normal part of the continual evolution of the Planet Earth.

 

MANKIND must adjust to it,   BUT,  MANKIND did not cause it...

 

In conclusion,    over the last few decades,  there has been a dramatic increase in the number,  and strength,  of EARTHQUAKES on the "circle of fire" around the Pacific Rim.

It is my belief that what is happening there is far more important to Mankind,  and our ability to survive on this planet,  than what is happening in Greenland.

And NO,  the "ring of fire" is not caused by Mankind either...

Edited by Illurion
  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

46 minutes ago, Illurion said:

I have avoided joining this thread so far because,  as most of you know,   i do not believe in Global Warming under the standard definition of it being something that "IS CAUSED BY MANKIND."

That's actually called Anthropic Global Warming (AGW).  Global warming by a "standard" definition is simply when the planet's temperature gets measurably warmer.

46 minutes ago, Illurion said:

There is an ebb and flow to the changes in ICE in Greenland.

GrnLndMassTrnd.png

Hmmm, not too much flow.

46 minutes ago, Illurion said:

In the past,  it was greener than it is now,  but ALSO, even farther in the past,  Greenland was under miles of ice much thicker than mankind has ever experienced.

People lived on Greenland around 4500 years ago because the coastal areas have been habitable since that time and were only affected by seasonal snow accumulations.

 

46 minutes ago, Illurion said:

What is happening in Greenland is just another piece of Normal CLIMATE CHANGE that has been going on for millions of years and will continue to do so for millions more in the future.

There is no science available which supports that view. 

 

46 minutes ago, Illurion said:

What is happening in Greenland is just a continuation of that retreat.

There is no science available which supports that view. 

46 minutes ago, Illurion said:

MANKIND must adjust to it,   BUT,  MANKIND did not cause it...

There is no science available which supports that view. 

 

46 minutes ago, Illurion said:

It is my belief that what is happening there is far more important to Mankind,  and our ability to survive on this planet,  than what is happening in Greenland.

There is no science available which supports that view. 

Edited by Red
Doubled-up on a quote.
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Red said:

That's actually called Anthropic Global Warming (AGW).  Global warming by a "standard" definition is simply when the planet's temperature gets measurably warmer.

GrnLndMassTrnd.png

Hmmm, not too much flow.

People lived on Greenland around 4500 years ago because the coastal areas have been habitable since that time and were only affected by seasonal snow accumulations.

 

There is no science available which supports that view. 

 

There is no science available which supports that view. 

There is no science available which supports that view. 

 

There is no science available which supports that view. 

(1)   Congratulations on finally learning how to properly format a post.   (kind of at least )

(2)   The chart you posted is so ridiculous,  as it covers a mere 16 years.   What is really going on here has been going on since the creation of this planet,  and you want to make judgments on such things with such a silly chart.   irrelevant..

(3)   as for all of your other "there is no science" etc.    There is actually plenty of science,  it is just that you do not know about it,  or you ignore it,  or you do not agree with it...   

As for the "ring of fire"...   There are thousands of studies, and books, and college programs about it....   

But of course,  none of that exists because RED says so....

Edited by Illurion
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Illurion said:

The chart you posted is so ridiculous,  as it covers a mere 16 years.   What is really going on here has been going on since the creation of this planet,  and you want to make judgments on such things with such a silly chart.   irrelevant..

The technology to reliably determine this data did not exist before this date.

 

1 hour ago, Illurion said:

 as for all of your other "there is no science" etc.    There is actually plenty of science,  it is just that you do not know about it,  or you ignore it,  or you do not agree with it...   

The chance is pretty good that I have read it, and can link to it, if it exists.  If you can show me any science to confirm your statements I would be grateful.

 

1 hour ago, Illurion said:

As for the "ring of fire"...   There are thousands of studies, and books, and college programs about it....   

So what.  These influences have been present for billions of years and nothing you say is consistent with the facts.

Edited by Red
fixed "many" = me any

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Red said:

You are looking in the mirror.

Your "so what" statement is exact proof of what i stated about you.  ie:  that you ignore any and all facts that you disagree with.  Which is pretty much everything you read...  

As for your statement that "nothing you say is consistent with the facts",   the exact opposite is true.

What i wrote is consistent with the facts,  what you wrote is factless other than a silly chart with limited numbers,  taken out of context.

The bottom line is that Greenland will be fine,  and the people there will adapt to the normal climatic changes that are occurring.

Have a nice day.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Illurion said:

You are looking in the mirror.

Your "so what" statement is exact proof of what i stated about you.  ie:  that you ignore any and all facts that you disagree with.  Which is pretty much everything you read...  

As for your statement that "nothing you say is consistent with the facts",   the exact opposite is true.

What i wrote is consistent with the facts,  what you wrote is factless other than a silly chart with limited numbers,  taken out of context.

The bottom line is that Greenland will be fine,  and the people there will adapt to the normal climatic changes that are occurring.

Have a nice day.

You need to provide facts.  You do not.

I consistently show you know nothing about climate science and you consistently post nonsense.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Red said:

You need to provide facts.  You do not.

I consistently show you know nothing about climate science and you consistently post nonsense.

Neither I, or anyone else on this forum needs to provide you with anything.

The only thing you "consistently show" is that you are self-absorbed,  have the liberal syndrome of "you believe what you want to believe",  and have an unusually high opinion of yourself.

Some day you may want to climb down from that ivory pedestal that you have placed yourself upon,  and join all us normal people who can have conversations without conflict.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Illurion said:

Neither I, or anyone else on this forum needs to provide you with anything.

Then do not lie about having "facts" when you offer none.  It really is that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2019 at 4:48 AM, Illurion said:

Ronwagn is correct.

 

Like the politicians like to say :  "It is the Economy stupid."

I hereby create the phrase :  "It is Normal Climate Change stupid."  9_9

..............................................................................................................

I have avoided joining this thread so far because,  as most of you know,   i do not believe in Global Warming under the standard definition of it being something that "IS CAUSED BY MANKIND."

.............................................................................................................

 

Nonetheless,  since everyone else is here,   i will give you my 2 cents.......

.............................................................................................................

There is an ebb and flow to the changes in ICE in Greenland.

 

In the past,  it was greener than it is now,  but ALSO, even farther in the past,  Greenland was under miles of ice much thicker than mankind has ever experienced.

 

It goes back and forth...

 

Greenland is at that "special place" heme-spherically on Earth,   just like that Earth is in that "special orbit" in comparison to the other planets around  the SUN.  

 

Greenland is in a place where it drifts back and forth,  losing ice for a time,  then gaining it back for a time,  then losing it again...

 

This is all known history...

 

What is happening in Greenland is just another piece of Normal CLIMATE CHANGE that has been going on for millions of years and will continue to do so for millions more in the future.

 

And it has nothing to do with mankind...

 

Back in the 1970's,  everyone in Science and the Media stated that the Earth was facing another ICE AGE in the future..?

ICE AGE:    Remember that ?

All of America,  and All of Europe used to be under glaciers..............

 

Are we going to state that all of those glaciers retreated because the Neanderthals learned how to use fire ?

 

Obviously not.

 

SO THE ICE ON EARTH HAS BEEN RETREATING FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS........

 

THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.........

 

AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MANKIND.........

 

What is happening in Greenland is just a continuation of that retreat.

 

Recently,  there have been several articles stating the MAGNETIC NORTH POLE is moving   ( IT IS ),  and that it MUST BE because of Global Warming.....!

 

Garbage..

 

I do not recall the exact details,  but if i recall,  back in the 1960's i read that scientists,  (REAL SCIENTISTS,  NOT THE PC CHUMPS WE HAVE TODAY),  had discovered that thousands of years ago,   the MAGNETIC NORTH POLE USED TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE AFRICAN SAHARA DESERT..........!

 

That interested me at the time because i was born not far from there in Morocco.

 

They subsequently found that the MAGNETIC NORTH POLE IS ALWAYS MOVING,  AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN MOVING,  AND WILL ALWAYS BE MOVING...   

THEY DO NOT KNOW WHY,  BUT BELIEVE IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE MAGNETIC QUALITIES OF LAVA DEEP BELOW THE MANTLE OF THE EARTH...   

That magnetic lava creates the "effect" that we call "Magnetic North Pole",  and the pole moves around,  as the lava moves around,  deep under the mantle...

 

So tell me,   if the Magnetic North Pole used to be in Northern Africa,  and moved to it's current position at the top of the Northern Hemisphere,  and all of this happened thousands of years before Mankind invented fire,    HOW CAN THE CURRENT MOVEMENT OF THE MAGNETIC NORTH POLE BE BLAMED ON THE ACTIVITIES OF MANKIND ?

 

The answer is that it cannot.

 

And in that same way,   what is happening in Greenland is just a normal part of the continual evolution of the Planet Earth.

 

MANKIND must adjust to it,   BUT,  MANKIND did not cause it...

 

In conclusion,    over the last few decades,  there has been a dramatic increase in the number,  and strength,  of EARTHQUAKES on the "circle of fire" around the Pacific Rim.

It is my belief that what is happening there is far more important to Mankind,  and our ability to survive on this planet,  than what is happening in Greenland.

And NO,  the "ring of fire" is not caused by Mankind either...

😄😄😂🤦‍♀️

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2019 at 9:21 PM, Red said:

Then do not lie about having "facts" when you offer none.  It really is that simple.

i DO NOT LIE.....

I present the facts as i know them....

You just don't like it........

That is your problem........

Not mine...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NickW said:

😄😄😂🤦‍♀️

I do not know what the above symbol combination means ?

Since juvenile RED seems to like it,  i assume it is an insult of some kind...

If so,  you should be ashamed of yourself...

If not,  please translate.......

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Illurion said:

I do not know what the above symbol combination means ?

Since juvenile RED seems to like it,  i assume it is an insult of some kind...

If so,  you should be ashamed of yourself...

If not,  please translate.......

Some posts simply cannot be responded to in words although to be fair Red had a good go at it. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NickW said:

Some posts simply cannot be responded to in words although to be fair Red had a good go at it. 

?

Well,  if it is an insult,  which is what i interpret your answer to be saying,   then back at you,  whatever it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

52 minutes ago, Illurion said:

?

Well,  if it is an insult,  which is what i interpret your answer to be saying,   then back at you,  whatever it was.

Its a bit like when I watch my son do a silly show off dance round the lounge. There are no words to respond - its just funny. 

 

 

BTW - he is 3 years old. 

Edited by NickW
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, NickW said:

Its a bit like when I watch my son do a silly show off dance round the lounge. There are no words to respond - its just funny.

BTW - he is 3 years old. 

Nick, in another forum where I post anonymously I replied by saying "that was an Illurion".

The repose was "you mean, an illusion"?  I said "probably but not really.  I mean it's a response which does not make sense, is devoid of facts and is about a question not asked."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2019 at 6:51 PM, Red said:

Nick, in another forum where I post anonymously I replied by saying "that was an Illurion".

The repose was "you mean, an illusion"?  I said "probably but not really.  I mean it's a response which does not make sense, is devoid of facts and is about a question not asked."

Funny...

I see the term "RED" in pretty much the same way...

 

To be "RED",    is to ignore the facts presented,   or claim they aren't facts,   or  "spin"  a loss by claiming the facts "do not make sense",  and then make matters worse by asking even more irrelevant questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Illurion said:

Funny...

I see the term "RED" in pretty much the same way...

 

To be "RED",    is to ignore the facts presented,   or claim they aren't facts,   or  "spin"  a loss by claiming the facts "do not make sense",  and then make matters worse by asking even more irrelevant questions.

Why not back up your baseless assertions?

Just moments ago you posted an article about Nils Mörner which was devoid of a single fact.  My post below it showed what the measured trend was, and that it was increasing.  Data barely a month old contradicts the claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Red said:

Why not back up your baseless assertions?

Just moments ago you posted an article about Nils Mörner which was devoid of a single fact.  My post below it showed what the measured trend was, and that it was increasing.  Data barely a month old contradicts the claims.

your post was irrelevant,  as it did not  "prove or dis-prove"   anything,  just gave someone else's opinion of Morner.......

i appreciate everyone's opinion....

even yours...

but opinion's are not always factual...

Morner,  on the other hand,  pointed out many specific "facts"....

you do not "have" to believe him...

but that doesn't "mean he is wrong."

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Illurion said:

your post was irrelevant,  as it did not  "prove or dis-prove"   anything,  just gave someone else's opinion of Morner.......

i appreciate everyone's opinion....

even yours...

but opinion's are not always factual...

Morner,  on the other hand,  pointed out many specific "facts"....

you do not "have" to believe him...

but that doesn't "mean he is wrong."

 

The only fact in this is that Nils Morner is a crank. Wasn't he teaching dowsing at the Uni he worked at until they banned him from teaching what is effectively divination. Perhaps he prefers to use a couple of sticks to predict sea level change rather than satellite altimeter readings which he chooses to ignorexD

BTW - My Gran could teach people how to read the future from tea leaves but she never got a well paid job at a Uni. Neither did she win the football pools every week either.........

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 hours ago, Illurion said:

comments in Red

 

your post was irrelevant,  as it did not  "prove or dis-prove"   anything,  just gave someone else's opinion of Morner....... False - I linked to an article in a science paper (the peer reviewed article is behind a pay wall) which showed the measured trend for global sea level was increasing.  It is a FACT of science and not an opinion. 

i appreciate everyone's opinion....

even yours... I seldom offer an opinion.

but opinion's are not always factual... That's true - they are different things entirely

Morner,  on the other hand,  pointed out many specific "facts".... I watched the entire video and he did present some charts which were reliable but had nothing to do with his specific claims.  For example, the video showed a temperature chart (somewhere from 6:30 to 7:00 minutes in) which only included data to 2013, yet it's now 2019.  The hottest years since records have been kept have occurred after 2013.  Chinese loans have nothing to do with claims about sea levels.  His comments were of no scientific merit.

you do not "have" to believe him...  He would need to present reasoned evidence - he never did.

but that doesn't "mean he is wrong."  It means he has no basis for his claims.  Yet you regard him highly as a scientist.

Edited by Red
Add a sentence about irrelevant Chinese loans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Red said:

your post was irrelevant,  as it did not  "prove or dis-prove"   anything,  just gave someone else's opinion of Morner....... False - I linked to an article in a science paper (the peer reviewed article is behind a pay wall) which showed the measured trend for global sea level was increasing.  It is a FACT of science and not an opinion. 

i appreciate everyone's opinion....

even yours... I seldom offer an opinion.

but opinion's are not always factual... That's true - they are different things entirely

Morner,  on the other hand,  pointed out many specific "facts".... I watched the entire video and he did present some charts which were reliable but had nothing to do with his specific claims.  For example, the video showed a temperature chart (somewhere from 6:30 to 7:00 minutes in) which only included data to 2013, yet it's now 2019.  The hottest years since records have been kept have occurred after 2013.  Chinese loans have nothing to do with claims about sea levels.  His comments were of no scientific merit.

you do not "have" to believe him...  He would need to present reasoned evidence - he never did.

but that doesn't "mean he is wrong."  It means he has no basis for his claims.  Yet you regard him highly as a scientist.

You seem to like RED...

So i therefore rename you BLUE........

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0