Greenland glaciers receding SLOWER then in the 1930s..

[Saigon]

It's good to see the OP sensibly ditched this train wreck!

 

[healthmyths]

Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today ? The Register

OK AlGore and all you chicken littles.. please explain!!!

Maybe that's why James Lovelock has retracted his alarmist views on global warming. Noted author of the Gaia hypothesis garnered attention in 1979 with his views on the globe as a self-managing system. He now recants his position that the world is headed for catastrophic change in climate. According to an MSNBC report, Lovelock admitted, “all right, I made a mistake.” He admits that global warming is not happening as he expected. What did he expect? Along with other alarmists like Al Gore, Lovelock expected rising temperatures to force folks to live in the Arctic, the only place on earth for tolerable temperatures.

Gaia author James Lovelock recants on global warming - Worldnews.com

So, let's look at the whole article by the scientists.


Analyzing the images, the researchers found two events that stood out most over the past 80 years: glacial retreats in 1933-34 and from 2000 to 2010. In the 30s, fewer glaciers were melting than are today, and most of those that were melting were land-terminating glaciers, meaning they had no contact with the sea.
But those that were melting were retreating at the average rate of 65 feet per year and up to 1,225 feet per year. More than 50 percent of the glaciers in the study had similar or higher retreat rates in the 30s than they do today.

While melting rates are not occurring as fast as they were in the 30s, more glaciers are retreating today. And, while the average ice loss is around 150 feet per year, that is because a few glaciers have very fast melting rates, driving the average up.

Source: redOrbit (80-Year-Old Photos Aid In Greenland Ice Melt Study - Science News - redOrbit)

And you should please discredit then glacier melt water adds the equal to one cup of water being added to a swimming pool.

Supposedly 385 billion tons of ice equal at 2,000 lbs/ton at 64 oz per gallon a total of
12,031,250,000,000 gallons (12.03 trillion)

But with 343 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.
How many gallons of water does the ocean have

that is equal to 0.0000351% or equal to adding a cup of water to a swimming pool!


Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.”

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Climate change lies are exposed

 

[Old Rocks]

You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.

Silly ass. In a very short term, we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%, and the CH4 by over 150%. That adds up to far more change than it took to go from continental glaciation to the glaciers present around 1900.

Perhaps were you to actually research what the climatologists and geologists that study this subject are saying, rather than repeating the nonsense of an obese junkie on the radio, you would understand the urgency of the scientists words.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

 

[Old Rocks]

Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today ? The Register

OK AlGore and all you chicken littles.. please explain!!!

Maybe that's why James Lovelock has retracted his alarmist views on global warming. Noted author of the Gaia hypothesis garnered attention in 1979 with his views on the globe as a self-managing system. He now recants his position that the world is headed for catastrophic change in climate. According to an MSNBC report, Lovelock admitted, “all right, I made a mistake.” He admits that global warming is not happening as he expected. What did he expect? Along with other alarmists like Al Gore, Lovelock expected rising temperatures to force folks to live in the Arctic, the only place on earth for tolerable temperatures.

Gaia author James Lovelock recants on global warming - Worldnews.com

So, let's look at the whole article by the scientists.


Analyzing the images, the researchers found two events that stood out most over the past 80 years: glacial retreats in 1933-34 and from 2000 to 2010. In the 30s, fewer glaciers were melting than are today, and most of those that were melting were land-terminating glaciers, meaning they had no contact with the sea.
But those that were melting were retreating at the average rate of 65 feet per year and up to 1,225 feet per year. More than 50 percent of the glaciers in the study had similar or higher retreat rates in the 30s than they do today.

While melting rates are not occurring as fast as they were in the 30s, more glaciers are retreating today. And, while the average ice loss is around 150 feet per year, that is because a few glaciers have very fast melting rates, driving the average up.

Source: redOrbit (80-Year-Old Photos Aid In Greenland Ice Melt Study - Science News - redOrbit)

And you should please discredit then glacier melt water adds the equal to one cup of water being added to a swimming pool.

Supposedly 385 billion tons of ice equal at 2,000 lbs/ton at 64 oz per gallon a total of
12,031,250,000,000 gallons (12.03 trillion)

But with 343 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.
How many gallons of water does the ocean have

that is equal to 0.0000351% or equal to adding a cup of water to a swimming pool!


Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.”

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Climate change lies are exposed

Lordy, lordy. You really are that stupid. No one is saying that Greenland will lose all it's ice by 2035. What they are talking about is the possibility that by present trends of melting, the Arctic Ocean will be essentially ice free for part of the summer by 2035. Really, you should ramp up your reading comprehension.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.

Silly ass. In a very short term, we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%, and the CH4 by over 150%. That adds up to far more change than it took to go from continental glaciation to the glaciers present around 1900.

Perhaps were you to actually research what the climatologists and geologists that study this subject are saying, rather than repeating the nonsense of an obese junkie on the radio, you would understand the urgency of the scientists words.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

I have NEVER heard ANYONE talk about global warming on the radio dumbass. If you think the posts I've made are not based in scientific fact then you are too stupid to be debating in this thread.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Anyone can find links to post. Hell you don't even have to understand what your link is communicating to appear like you're clued in.

All I see are links with agendas. From both sides. Can no one argue the points with their own brain?

 

[Old Rocks]

I am open to all scientific ideas but to claim one source is credible over another defies the very nature of scientific fact. One side has an unproven hypothesis that they are trying to promote as facts.

Good lord. Virtually every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Quite on the contrary, you are not open to any science that contradicts your political ideology. Reality has a way of trumping ideology, usually to the chagrin of the ideologues.

 

[Old Rocks]

Anyone can find links to post. Hell you don't even have to understand what your link is communicating to appear like you're clued in.

All I see are links with agendas. From both sides. Can no one argue the points with their own brain?

Yes, I can argue that point. However, in a scientific arguement one has to go to the source of the evidence. That you object to that simply demonstrates that you have no such evidence for your side. Just political yap-yap.

A 100 ppm increase, from 180 ppm to 280 ppm, in CO2 caused the continental glacier to melt. During the last interglacial, the CO2 level hit 300 ppm and the sea level was roughly 10 meters higher than today.

Now we are at 390+ ppm of CO2. While the glaciers cannot respond quickly to the rise, they are responding. And the melting of the continental glaciers will raise the sea level far higher than the last interglacial. Not in my lifetime, nor those of my children, but it will happen. And the cost will be major, far more than it would have cost to address this issue 40 years ago.

By the midpoint of this century, I expect the CO2 level to be around 500 ppm, and the CH4 to be near 4 ppm.

 

[RDD_1210]

Mars was once in the distant past a geologically active planet with liquid water on its surface. No cars to kill the planet. No humans to pollute it, yet it is now dead.

Our own moon is slowly drifting away from our planet just as we are drifting away from the sun. Is that man's doing too?

Your unproven alarmist scare tactics are just that....UNPROVEN.

Holy shit dumbest post of the day. Congrats!

What any of what you listed out has to do with Global warming or whatever loose connection you are trying to make is fucking hilarious. You idiots never cease to amaze and entertain.

 

[Old Rocks]

You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.

Silly ass. In a very short term, we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%, and the CH4 by over 150%. That adds up to far more change than it took to go from continental glaciation to the glaciers present around 1900.

Perhaps were you to actually research what the climatologists and geologists that study this subject are saying, rather than repeating the nonsense of an obese junkie on the radio, you would understand the urgency of the scientists words.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

I have NEVER heard ANYONE talk about global warming on the radio dumbass. If you think the posts I've made are not based in scientific fact then you are too stupid to be debating in this thread.

Post your 'scientific' sources, asshole.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

 

[bobgnote]

You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.

Silly ass. In a very short term, we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%, and the CH4 by over 150%. That adds up to far more change than it took to go from continental glaciation to the glaciers present around 1900.

Perhaps were you to actually research what the climatologists and geologists that study this subject are saying, rather than repeating the nonsense of an obese junkie on the radio, you would understand the urgency of the scientists words.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

I have NEVER heard ANYONE talk about global warming on the radio dumbass. If you think the posts I've made are not based in scientific fact then you are too stupid to be debating in this thread.

Fuck you, you foil-hat piece of shit. The reason this doesn't get discussed on radio is because radio appeals to tinfoil-hat fucktards who would be cartoon-ostriches because real ostriches don't put their heads into the sand.

Sure let's listen to Rush, and sort anything out. At every forum like this are loads of skeptics, who won't add up the big picture, how CO2 went all the way to 400 ppm, how it forms carbonic acid in water, how methane is added in, how warming and acidification are accelerating.

You are just the latest asshole, to try to rant up a fight, with your ass in traffic. The skeptics all try to get a thread like this, in any forum I've seen, operate with wingpunk-wingmen, post a load of shit, all dealing with foil-hat theories and junk science. Meanwhile, warming and acidification and species die-offs are accelerating.

Monkeys will wind up as Bush-meat, asshole. If the oceanic food chain goes, the food chain on land is next. Humans can lose population and habitat. And over at the other threads, the wingnuts are spamming with a lot of junk science, about how GHGs actually function, like ozone, but their quote in quote in quote is really only a lot of cheerleading, with their heads up each others' asses, and their tinfoil-hat science is in the shitter.

Who cares who thinks he is liberal or conservative? We re-green, biomass and all, or we risk death, loss of habitat, and extinction. Shove your Rush-show radio up your butt!

You ought to head on over there, to the other threads, Pissmonkey. The wingpunk posses are tired. One of them, Q-bag, admitted he's gay, when I pointed out how the wingpunk posses were all like the queers of the 1970s and 80s, who wanted to keep bath-housing, shooting speed, and tricking, while HIV moved quickly, to full-blown AIDS. Eat shit and die, Pissmonkey. Your monkeylove is queer as a three-dollar-bill.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I am open to all scientific ideas but to claim one source is credible over another defies the very nature of scientific fact. One side has an unproven hypothesis that they are trying to promote as facts.

Good lord. Virtually every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Quite on the contrary, you are not open to any science that contradicts your political ideology. Reality has a way of trumping ideology, usually to the chagrin of the ideologues.

The only one to bring politics into this IS YOU. Science trumps politics because its based in FACT while your politics is based in EMOTION.

I have yet to see anything but CLAIMS of proof of anything in this thread. Nothing but emotional hyperbole disguised as fact.

I will also admit that it is likely we are having an impact. Difference being to what degree and of course the fact that I'm not willing to settle for some bullshit lifestyle so some schmuck 2000 years from now doesn't have to deal with a one or two degree increase in temperature. You guys are the same wackos that would stop driving cars if you thought it would save some exotic species of grasshopper in South America.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGU Responds to Op-ed

AGU Responds to Op-ed entitled "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," published by The Wall Street Journal, 27 January 2012

03 February 2012

Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.”

As we look at the ever-increasing attacks on those whose research has established the fact that climate change is real and human activity is most probably the cause, Moynihan’s sentiment still holds true. There are those who would want us to believe that climate change isn’t happening and that human activity isn’t playing a role, but unfortunately wishful thinking won’t make the facts disappear.

Attacking the character and motives of a scientist or organization because they stand behind a conclusion that is politically charged – that the Earth's climate is out of balance and human activities are in all probability responsible for global warming – is counterproductive and short sighted. Likewise, we ignore the scientific evidence for climate change at our peril because it will have an impact on national security, the economy, our food supply, and many other areas that affect our health and well-being.

The research and discovery process that has led scientists to these conclusions is governed by well-established and widely accepted practices designed to ensure the integrity of scientific findings. These same methods have also brought civilization profound achievements like human flight, life-saving vaccines, electric power and the Internet.

As leaders from around the world tackle the challenge of addressing and mitigating the impacts of changing climate, there are three things they can be assured of: (1) Climate change is real, and in all likelihood is being caused by human behavior; (2) There is wide-spread consensus on this point, with 97 percent of the climate science community agreeing; (3) That consensus is rooted in a foundation of scientific knowledge gained through careful, thoughtful, and thorough research, not political or ideological rhetoric.

 

[Old Rocks]

Real science from the world's largest scientific society of physicists'

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

This is where you lose all credibility. The hole in the Ozone has repaired itself.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today ? The Register

According to a guy who thinks man can influence the global climate:

It now appears that the glaciers were retreating even faster eighty years ago: but nobody worried about it, and the ice subsequently came back again. Box theorises that this is likely to be because of sulphur pollution released into the atmosphere by humans, especially by burning coal and fuel oils. This is known to have a cooling effect.

Unfortunately atmospheric sulphur emissions also cause other things such as acid rain, and as a result rich Western nations cracked down on sulphates in the 1960s. Prof Box believes that this led to warming from the 1970s onward, which has now led to the glaciers retreating since around 2000.

OK AlGore and all you chicken littles.. please explain!!!

Are you unable to read?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Bobgnote,

Welcome to ignore fool. I should neg you, but wont stoop to your level.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

This is where you lose all credibility. The hole in the Ozone has repaired itself.

Only because of the ban on CFCs.

Ozone Hole Watch: What is the Ozone Hole?

Are you ever going to research anything before you post foolishness?