Su Moo Nein The Belgium Comeex Foliatet Hist Wat Is Leepking Ingin Thes Tifler
-
How on earth did a thread about the dangers of Turkish terrorists, or whatever turn into a debate about climate change?!
They're Turkish Climate Terrorists.
-
How on earth did a thread about the dangers of Turkish terrorists, or whatever turn into a debate about climate change?!
Welcome to TDWTF, where
is a way of life. Enjoy your stay.Filed under: YMBNH
-
How on earth did a thread about the dangers of Turkish terrorists, or whatever turn into a debate about climate change?!
Well, sometimes it happens that we stay in the general region of the original thread. In this case, more or less related to the world we believe we live in.
I think we should foolow @loopback0's suggestion and talk a bit more about BTtF.
-
I find this typo to nice to correct
It seems that you found two typos that were too nice to correct.
-
-
-
Two-shay.
-
Stop editing the title of this thread and sending me useless notifications, fuck you all.
-
Stop editing the title of this thread and sending me useless notifications, fuck you all.
Someone needs to relax. Have a spa day. Get your Hitler exfoliated.
-
Stop editing the title of this thread and sending me useless notifications, fuck you all.
You may as well have invited the entire forum to change the title 700 times.
-
Now I'm actually looking forward to the next rank so I can join in the festivities which shall occur in the coming months on this thread.
-
I am looking forward to you fucking off back to tumblr.
-
GL with that.
-
I am looking forward to you fucking off back to tumblr.
Even they don't want him. 4chan is taking out a restraining order. MySpace will have him, but even @Fox has some standards.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
but even @Fox has some standards.
I will believe it when I see it. I would say more, but I don't want that thread to bleed again.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
but even @Fox has some standards.
I will believe it when I see it. I would say more, but I don't want that thread to bleed again.
Wait, we're not in that thread? {checks thread title} Motherfu
-
You are making blakey mute his own thread now
-
It is not the first time, and won't be the last either.
-
-
Define "no", because 10 years of record lows of mass of the Arctic Ice Sheet
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
Filed Under: Oops
-
-
Filed Under: "Oops"
You're right, I quoted the wrong part or that post:
OH, and Antarctica, the largest ice sheet in the world, which contains the vast majority of fresh water in the world, and the one ice sheet which everyone thought wasn't melting and all the climate change deniers used as proof that global warming isn't happening? Guess what. It's started to melt.
Thanks for helping me get it right in showing you're wrong.
-
Thanks for helping me get it right in showing you're wrong.
Yeah, I'm still not wrong.
“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,”
That means it's melting. Sure, it's not a net loss, but snowfall can change rapidly, whereas melting ice is more steady. The Antarctic Ice Sheet, once thought to be nearly static, is turning out to be extremely dynamic, and thus extremely unstable. A shift in this system, either less snowfall or faster melting, could easily result in net losses rather than net gains.
And guess what?
Melting ice sheets have a tendency to start melting faster.
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
Thanks for showing that Antarctica isn't quite as much of an immediate threat as I thought, but you still haven't shown that I'm "wrong".
-
Thanks for showing that Antarctica isn't quite as much of an immediate threat as I thought, but you still haven't shown that I'm "wrong".
Yes, don't let the Narrative die.
-
Tell me more about how the experts at NASA are wrong and Antarctica can expect boundless snowfall over the next century.
-
The Antarctic Ice Sheet, once thought to be nearly static, is turning out to be extremely dynamic, and thus extremely unstable. A shift in this system, either less snowfall or faster melting, could easily result in net losses rather than net gains.
So, we used to think that it was unchanging and static, now we know that Antarctica is dynamic and ever-changing. So, who is to say what is "normal" for Antarctica then? How are we to know that the changes we are seeing are not "normal"?
-
Tell me more about how the experts at NASA are wrong and Antarctica can expect boundless snowfall over the next century.
The arctic will get boundless snowfall.
The magnetic poles will reverse.
Now Arctic is Antarctic, therefore snow!!!!!!
-
This post title is truly and sincerely amazing.
-
dynamic
!=
every-changing.
You are literally too stupid to debate.
-
Oh god, the Transbelgium thread is leaking...
-
@Polygeekery said:
dynamic
!=
every-changing.
You are literally too stupid to debate.
Really?
dy·nam·ic
dīˈnamik/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a process or system) characterized by constant change, activity, or progress.
-
Yes, really.
-
But still changing.
-
But no significant net change.
-
But no significant net change.
And as @boomzilla pointed out:
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
It is a positive net change.
-
And regardless, you were wrong. You are literally too stupid to debate, or you use those fancy SJW definitions for "change" again.
-
That means it's melting. Sure, it's not a net loss, but snowfall can change rapidly, whereas melting ice is more steady.
Tell me more about how the experts at NASA are wrong and Antarctica can expect boundless snowfall over the next century.
I must have missed a page from your script, because I thought the regular narrative was that increasing snowfall actually proves global warming. Global warming was gonna cause record-shattering levels of snowfall, last I heard. Now all of a sudden you're worried about it petering out. <like the vestigial penis of a pre-op trans-woman, rendered impotent from massive doses of hormones>
-
It is a positive net change.
But for how long?
Melting ice sheets have a tendency to start melting faster.
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
And regardless, you were wrong. You are literally too stupid to debate, or you use those fancy SJW definitions for "change" again.
Tell me more about how Antarctica isn't melting at an unprecedented and increasing rate.
-
Tell me more about how Antarctica isn't melting at an unprecedented and increasing rate.
Tell me more about how "dynamic" does not mean "changing".
-
Tell me more about how Antarctica isn't melting at an unprecedented and increasing rate.
If the above quoted article is correct, then maybe Antarctica is headed toward:
-
Tell me more about how "dynamic" does not mean "changing".
ceases to change
-
Because the Antarctic Ice Sheet is magically going to stop melting without any change, right? It's actually melting at a decreasing rate, and NASA was wrong, and everything will be sunshine and rainbows and snowfall for everyone.
-
I am not entirely sure which side you are arguing now. That last post seemed to be arguing both sides?
-
Not sure if whooshing on the sarcasm... or poorly-executed reciprocal sarcasm.
-
I am sick and misread the middle part. Disregard.
-
I must have missed a page from your script, because I thought the regular narrative was that increasing snowfall actually proves global warming. Global warming was gonna cause record-shattering levels of snowfall, last I heard. Now all of a sudden you're worried about it petering out.
You misspelled Narrative. Also, the Narrative doesn't have a fixed prediction because that would be falsifiable.
-
Tell me more about how the experts at NASA are wrong and Antarctica can expect boundless snowfall over the next century.
"More?" I wasn't aware that I said anything like that. It's funny, because if you read what they said, the NASA guy had to throw a bone to the Narrative by declaring that we shouldn't get complacent, because it's possible that it all might change in a few decades. Always gotta speculate about how bad stuff can get.
-
Tell me more about how Antarctica isn't melting at an unprecedented and increasing rate.
Ice piles up on the land and eventually flows to the water. Which is warmer and it melts. This is normal. It's what glaciers tend to do. I don't know what you're thinking about, but what you write makes it sound like the penguins are having balmy summers or something.
Ice flows are more complicated than we think. I read something recently about how the ice movements on Greenland are apparently very different than what we thought. But a simple model of the world makes scaring the shit out of people easier.
-
"More?" I wasn't aware that I said anything like that.
By calling it a "narrative", you imply that it is fiction, and thus that either Antarctica isn't melting faster and faster, or snowfall will increase to match the increased melting.The NASA guy had to throw a bone to the Narrative by declaring that we shouldn't get complacent, because it's
possiblelikely thatit all might change incurrent trends will continue for a few decades, which means melting will eventually overtake snowfall and Antarctica will begin losing ice mass, and quickly.FTFY
-
Ice piles up on the land and eventually flows to the water. Which is warmer and it melts. This is normal. It's what glaciers tend to do.
You glossed over the key point, again.
@Fox said:unprecedented and increasing rate.
Dynamic equilibrium - Wikipedia