But I thought all the ice was melting?

[QP!]

Explain why a glacier in the shade is a "scientific curiosity".

How about you explain your point instead of asking others to do it?

 

[Yakuda]

How about you explain your point instead of asking others to do it?

Do you see the question mark? Theres another one! They indicate a question is being asked not that a point is being made. Do you know why "scientific curiosity"is in quotations? And yet another question mark, it a point being made. It's a simple question.

 

[QP!]

So what you are saying is that even though there is global warming that some glaciers will continue to expand.

So what's the problem again?

Tink,

I will try to walk you threw it but i have little faith you can comprehend any of it.


I invite you to do this test. take 3 ice cubes out of the freezer. Put one in the refrigerator, one on a counter in the shade, and one in spot in the sun. Watch the results.

We have 'warming' relative to the freezer in all three situations but the pace of melt is very different. Explain why?

Explain what factors can impact a rate of melt or freezing and then apply that to why you could have globally a warming trend and yet parts of the Artic might STILL see glaciers that can grow while glaciers in Canada or S.America could be shrinking?


You seem to be arguing that melt must happen everywhere at once or global warming is not happening so lets see if the above can turn on a light bulb in that dim head of yours.

 

[QP!]

Do you see the question mark? Theres another one! They indicate a question is being asked not that a point is being made. Do you know why "scientific curiosity"is in quotations? And yet another question mark, it a point being made. It's a simple question.

make your point or don't. I do not care. Just be less stupid over all and all will be good.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Tink,

I will try to walk you threw it but i have little faith you can comprehend any of it.


I invite you to do this test. take 3 ice cubes out of the freezer. Put one in the refrigerator, one on a counter in the shade, and one in spot in the sun. Watch the results.

We have 'warming' relative to the freezer in all three situations but the pace of melt is very different. Explain why?

Explain what factors can impact a rate of melt or freezing and then apply that to why you could have globally a warming trend and yet parts of the Artic might STILL see glaciers that can grow while glaciers in Canada or S.America could be shrinking?


You seem to be arguing that melt must happen everywhere at once or global warming is not happening so lets see if the above can turn on a light bulb in that dim head of yours.

The problem with your equation is that you can't explain while one of the ice cubes is expanding.

And still you fail to realize that glaciers are growing and expanding meaning global warming isn't affecting them.

Do you get that part?

 

[Yakuda]

make your point or don't. I do not care. Just be less stupid over all and all will be good.

You can't answer a simple question but you want me to be less stupid?????? You're a fucking idiot!!!!

ONCE AGAIN, why would a glacier in the shade be a "scientific curiosity"? It's a question NOT a point.

 

[QP!]

You can't answer a simple question but you want me to be less stupid?????? You're a fucking idiot!!!!

ONCE AGAIN, why would a glacier in the shade be a "scientific curiosity"? It's a question NOT a point.

Yes you are stupid as you are the one who cannot answer it. You've proven that.

 

[QP!]

The problem with your equation is that you can't explain while one of the ice cubes is expanding.

And still you fail to realize that glaciers are growing and expanding meaning global warming isn't affecting them.

Do you get that part?

But i can explain that and have.

Temperature RISING does not mean that temperature across the planet is all the same.

it can be rising globally while still cold enough in certain areas to see some expansion while seeing ice shrink in others.

Just because glaciers might be shrinking in a place like S.America or parts of Canada at a point in time does not mean they are shrinking in all parts of the artic, at that same point in time.

Do you understand that not all places have the SAME year around average temps, so while it can WARMING everywhere, not everywhere is the same.

Breaking this down to local weather to try and help you past your stupidity, a cold front can hit the entire US and cause snow Up State NY and yet not cause snow in Arizona. Do you understand why, when it is the same cold front?


It is because even though the temperature might be dropping nation wide that is not the only factor that matters when it comes to forming snow.

So the entire planet can be warming but due to certain local conditions you might see ice melt in one area but still see ice accumulation in another.

 

[Yakuda]

Yes you are stupid as you are the one who cannot answer it. You've proven that.

place tmy you can't either Einstein. Let try AGAIN why would a glacier in the shade be a "scientific curiosity"? You have syphilis of the brain?

 

[Nomad]

How can this be?

Apparently you never actually read or even looked at the page YOU linked....

You're contradicting your own source, genius.

 

[QP!]

place tmy you can't either Einstein. Let try AGAIN why would a glacier in the shade be a "scientific curiosity"? You have syphilis of the brain?

You continue to write without actually trying to make your own point as you know you have no point. You have lost and are just too stupid to understand that.

 

[Yakuda]

You continue to write without actually trying to make your own point as you know you have no point. You have lost and are just too stupid to understand that.

AGAIN a question is a question not a point you brain dead muppet. Why would a glacier in the shade be a "scientific curiosity"?

 

[Nomad]

You continue to write without actually trying to make your own point as you know you have no point. You have lost and are just too stupid to understand that.

Why do you bother getting into extended back and forth pissing matches with these idiots?

They're just trolling you to see how long they can keep you

Why give them the satisfaction?

 

[QP!]

Why do you bother getting into extended back and forth pissing matches with these idiots?

They're just trolling you to see how long they can keep you

Why give them the satisfaction?

You are correct. I like to refute their stupidity and shine the spotlight as to how stupid it is, but as with Yakuda above who refuses to even try to make or explain his point, and yet wants me to, it is pointless to go back and forth, so i am done with him.

A person either makes their point and explains it or they don't and if they don't they should not expect others to do it for them.

 

[Truth Detector]

Shut up, disturbing the solidarity is a crime which gets punished.

 

[Truth Detector]

How to say “you don’t understand climate change” without saying “you don’t understand climate change”.

Ironic coming from someone so woefully lacking in common sense and intelligence. Man caused global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated by governments.

 

[Yakuda]

Why do you bother getting into extended back and forth pissing matches with these idiots?

They're just trolling you to see how long they can keep you

Why give them the satisfaction?

That's an easy question, like most leftists he's a self absorbed asshole who just loves proving to others what a self absorbed asshole he is.

A simple question was posed to that self absorbed asshole, why would a glacier in the shade to called a "scientific curiosity"? There would be no reason to "keep" anyone if they just answered the fucking question or just admitted they couldn't or just didnt want to. Instead they need to prove what self a sorbed assholes they are.

 

[Nomad]

You are correct. I like to refute their stupidity and shine the spotlight as to how stupid it is, but as with Yakuda above who refuses to even try to make or explain his point, and yet wants me to, it is pointless to go back and forth, so i am done with him.

A person either makes their point and explains it or they don't and if they don't they should not expect others to do it for them.

Except that you're not really shining a spotlight on anything other than that you've allowed yourself to be goaded into a pointless argument.

 

[Yakuda]

Except that you're not really shining a spotlight on anything other than that you've allowed yourself to be goaded into a pointless argument.

There is no argument just a question, why would a glacier in the shade be referred to as a "scientific curiosity"?

 

[Nomad]

That's an easy question, like most leftists he's a self absorbed asshole who just loves proving to others what a self absorbed asshole he is. .

Sounds like one of those pot, kettle situations.

A simple question was posed to that self absorbed asshole, why would a glacier in the shade to called a "scientific curiosity"? There would be no reason to keep anyone if they just answered the fucking question or ust admitted they couldn't it or just didnt want to. Instead they need to prove what self a sorbed assholes they are.

There is no argument just a question, why would a glacier in the shade be referred to as a "scientific curiosity"?

The simple answer is because most glaciers don't form in deep chasms with steep walls that produce shade.

Most glaciers are wide, flat, open expanses that sit in the sunlight and absorb heat.

This one is inside of Mt. St. Helens volcano.