Greenland glaciers receding SLOWER then in the 1930s..

[Bloodline]

So please tell me how ignoring 12.5% of the world's land mass would NOT have an affect of advancing the perception that global warming as presented by increasing temperatures taken at urban setting recording stations?
In other words, why were only 4 temperature stations readings used from 12.5% of the land mass out of more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world.
Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

Plus there is a "cool bias"which these pictures illustrate.

A temperature reading station which was there FIRST I'm sure.. but the window air condition does what??? Blows warm air out of the room and into what?? the temperature reading station!

View attachment 19316

How can this "official" temperature sensor POSSIBLY get an accurate reading after being placed so close to the outputs of two very large air conditioner exhausts?
View attachment 19318


The False Global Warming Temperature Readings. Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

Well...let's look at your post.

First of all you cite this....

Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

Hmmm.....sounds like it might just be a LITTLE biased to me. How about you?

Kinda like somebody's mind might have been made beforehand on what the conclusions were going to be.

Next, is there any scientific data for the claims on the air conditioners? Sounds like a real grab at straws?

Also you ask this question...

"In other words, why were only 4 temperature stations readings used from 12.5% of the land mass out of more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world."

Isn't the answer in your question though?

12.5% of the land mass of one continent is actually a very small percentage of the total surface area of the earth isn't it?


Put down the Kool-Aid OK? You sound like there still may be hope for you!

It is 12.5% of the WORLD's land mass not one continent.
Of the 57,491,000 square miles: 36,794,240,000 acres of the entire world,

7,186,375 square miles NOT included in these reading!

You should also consider this. The earth's atmosphere is not defined by borders. It is constantly in motion. The atmosphere over one continent does not remain "fixed" in one spot for very long. Average readings from other places on earth can do an adequate job of measuring trends.

The readings are from FIXED sites around the world. Except for 12.5% of the world's land mass is "cold biased".. i.e. discounted because it is too cold! Too cold!

Again, the atmosphere over the particular landmass doesn't stay there!

EVER!

It moves away to mix with rest of the atmosphere which IS being measured at other points around the globe.

You don't seem to understand that.

Even if your argument had any merit (which it doesn't) what would it mean?

12.5% of the LAND on the planet doesn't appear to be warming while the other 87.5% of the surface of the earth IS warming?

It's not possible but even if it were so what?

The earth's atmosphere is STILL warming....we know that greenhouse gasses contribute to this....and we know that WE as a species contribute to greenhouse gasses at a rate which the planet cannot process naturally (like say....natural volcanic eruptions, ect.)

Gee, maybe we can just move the entire 7 billion population of the earth to that magical little 12.5% of land and then we can continue to foul the entire atmosphere and everybody will survive anyway?

Or better yet we can ignore the FACTS and just depend on that little patch of Siberia to magically reverse the trend and COOL the rest of the planet at the last minute!

 

[bobgnote]

Nature always repair itself. Two years after the eruption of |Krakatoa, only Al Gore and his acolytes would argue otherwise. Same thing about Mt. St. Helens.

Nature only has problems when self-promoting idiots try to interfere.

You pompous punkhole. When volcanoes erupt, nature is not repairing the human habitat.

Sure, nature will adjust. Species die, when their habitat won't support them, any longer. Fuck you, if you think the way to deal with climate change is to let the seas acidify, rise, claim coastal cities, and then tides massage up some eruptions, so the volcanoes get to settle all this, you incredible, dumbfuck moron.

Let's roll tide all the way to bacteria blooms, so Yellowstone will hurry the fuck up, where the 25 by 35 mile wide magma chamber is pushing up the land an average of 1", per year, and this big fucker will take out the US breadbasket, for years at a time, when it blows.

Of course! Let's let carbonic acidification take out the oceanic food chain, right away. Nature will fix THAT, won't she. She'll fix it faster, the more you fuck her up, punk.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

You lose all credibility.

Antarctic ozone hole still there. Climate Change: News

Levels of most ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere have been gradually declining as the result of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, an international treaty to protect the ozone layer. That international treaty caused the phase-out of ozone-depleting chemicals, which had been used widely in refrigeration, as solvents and in aerosol spray cans.

However, most of those chemicals remain in the atmosphere for decades. Global atmospheric computer models predict that stratospheric ozone could recover by midcentury, but the ozone hole in the Antarctic will likely persist one to two decades longer, according to the latest analysis in the 2010 Quadrennial Ozone Assessment issued by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme, with co-authors from NASA and NOAA.

The depth and area of the Antarctic ozone hole are governed by the temperature of the stratosphere and the amount of sunlight reaching the south polar region. Temperatures that are cold enough can form polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). PSCs are an important component in the destruction of ozone molecules. PSCs can be formed when temperatures fall below a given threshold for each type of PSC. The formation temperature is dependent on concentrations of nitric acid and water vapor, and the potential temperature of the air. PSCs can be formed from sulfate aerosols, nitric acid trihydrate (NAT), or ice.

Ozone Hole Watch: 2012 Antarctic MERRA Temperature

The conditions

Decomposition of the CFC's leads to chlorine monoxide radicals (ClO). These can then react with nitrogen dioxide (NO2) to form chlorine nitrate (ClONO2) or with nitrogen monoxide (NO) and methane (CH4) to form hydrochloric acid (HCl) and nitric acid (HNO3). We will not focus on the chemistry here, but it is important to know that both HCl and ClONO2 do not react with ozone but are rather stable compounds and remove chlorine from the ozone destruction mechanism.

It is only under certain meteorological conditions that ozone holes form. It took over two years of research at the British Research Station at Halley Bay in Antarctica to finally understand what these conditions are.

1. One factor is the extremely low temperatures in the stratosphere. During the night temperatures can be as low as -80 oC over Antarctica. Under these conditions, nitric acid and water form stratospheric ice clouds. On the surface of the ice, hydrochloric acid and ClONO2 react with each other to form nitric acid and molecular chlorine (Cl2).

2. Molecular chlorine (Cl2) is a stable molecule which does not react with ozone. However, it is easily broken down by ultra-violet radiation from the Sun to form two chlorine radicals which can then attack and destroy ozone.

So high levels of molecular chlorine (Cl2) can be produced in the stratosphere at the poles during the winter. In the spring, the Sun reappears and levels of solar ultra-violet radiation increase. This ultra-violet radiation breaks down the Cl2 into chlorine radicals, these then destroy ozone and an ozone hole forms. As a result, we see the ozone hole at the same time each year and ozone levels don't recover until the ice clouds thaw and the chlorine radicals are removed by other reactions.

- ozone hole & CFC's

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You lose all credibility.

Antarctic ozone hole still there. Climate Change: News

Levels of most ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere have been gradually declining as the result of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, an international treaty to protect the ozone layer. That international treaty caused the phase-out of ozone-depleting chemicals, which had been used widely in refrigeration, as solvents and in aerosol spray cans.

However, most of those chemicals remain in the atmosphere for decades. Global atmospheric computer models predict that stratospheric ozone could recover by midcentury, but the ozone hole in the Antarctic will likely persist one to two decades longer, according to the latest analysis in the 2010 Quadrennial Ozone Assessment issued by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme, with co-authors from NASA and NOAA.

The depth and area of the Antarctic ozone hole are governed by the temperature of the stratosphere and the amount of sunlight reaching the south polar region. Temperatures that are cold enough can form polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). PSCs are an important component in the destruction of ozone molecules. PSCs can be formed when temperatures fall below a given threshold for each type of PSC. The formation temperature is dependent on concentrations of nitric acid and water vapor, and the potential temperature of the air. PSCs can be formed from sulfate aerosols, nitric acid trihydrate (NAT), or ice.

Ozone Hole Watch: 2012 Antarctic MERRA Temperature

The conditions

Decomposition of the CFC's leads to chlorine monoxide radicals (ClO). These can then react with nitrogen dioxide (NO2) to form chlorine nitrate (ClONO2) or with nitrogen monoxide (NO) and methane (CH4) to form hydrochloric acid (HCl) and nitric acid (HNO3). We will not focus on the chemistry here, but it is important to know that both HCl and ClONO2 do not react with ozone but are rather stable compounds and remove chlorine from the ozone destruction mechanism.

It is only under certain meteorological conditions that ozone holes form. It took over two years of research at the British Research Station at Halley Bay in Antarctica to finally understand what these conditions are.

1. One factor is the extremely low temperatures in the stratosphere. During the night temperatures can be as low as -80 oC over Antarctica. Under these conditions, nitric acid and water form stratospheric ice clouds. On the surface of the ice, hydrochloric acid and ClONO2 react with each other to form nitric acid and molecular chlorine (Cl2).

2. Molecular chlorine (Cl2) is a stable molecule which does not react with ozone. However, it is easily broken down by ultra-violet radiation from the Sun to form two chlorine radicals which can then attack and destroy ozone.

So high levels of molecular chlorine (Cl2) can be produced in the stratosphere at the poles during the winter. In the spring, the Sun reappears and levels of solar ultra-violet radiation increase. This ultra-violet radiation breaks down the Cl2 into chlorine radicals, these then destroy ozone and an ozone hole forms. As a result, we see the ozone hole at the same time each year and ozone levels don't recover until the ice clouds thaw and the chlorine radicals are removed by other reactions.

- ozone hole & CFC's

Thanks for making my point. The holes form every September then recover (naturally)

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ozone Hole Gone | Musings from the Chiefio

An intresting read on the ozone...

snip:

IMHO, the “Ozone Hole” has gone away. At best, it’s now a “chaotic density” pattern. More likely, it’s just packed up and left town. To me, the ozone pattern does not look at all like a diffuse atmospheric phenomenon from a set of ‘well mixed gasses’ and it looks a whole lot more like something being driven by external forces. UV from the sun, Birkeland Currents from the sun, perhaps even cosmic ray variations.

Why do I say this? Look at these two maps of the South Pole view of Ozone. First up is the 16th of May, then the 17th of May, 2011. In particular, notice that the “deviation” is, on average, about nil. There are a couple of spots a bit high, and a couple a bit low, net nil.

Second off, notice how rapidly the concentrations of Ozone change in the “hot spots” by the next day. The one near New Zealand is almost gone. Overnight. Things changing that fast are not due to a gas that takes 50 years to diffuse to the upper atmosphere. They are due to flux changes of some highly rapidly changing thing. “Southern Lights” particles from space. Birkeland currents. UV blocked by clouds. Whatever. But not a “well diffused gas” with a 50 years residency time…



I suggest you read the entire thing and look at the maps before just blowing it off.

 

[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

Tundra Shrubs Turn into Trees as Arctic Warms
Tundra Shrubs Turn into Trees as Arctic Warms - Yahoo! News

No matter the cause, we need to all agree climate change is happening and plan ahead. Rising sea levels will impact the coastline of America and continuing to argue the cause and not plan for the effect is stupid.

I for one am NOT accepting that rising sea levels will force as you and AL Gore frantically declaim BECAUSE THE FACTS don't support your screeches!!
A) If all the glaciers melt into the oceans it will be the equivalent of adding enough water
into an Olympic swimming pool enough water to raise the level of the 6.56 foot depth
1.4 INCHES!!!!! Tell me would YOU be able to detect this 1.79% increase???

B) FACTS there are 6.350 quintillion gallons of water in all the glaciers in the world.
How much water is there on Earth, from the USGS Water Science School
C) FACTS: there are 353.1 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.

D) 6.35 quintillion gallons is 1.79% of 353.1 quintillion gallons!

So TELL ME how YOU will notice or AL Gore will notice a rise in SEA LEVELs enough to as Gore has claimed: of sea level rise of up to 20 feet “in the near future”. .
See in Florida where I live, the gulf goes for 100s of miles at a depth of less then 100 feet!
So if ONLY 1.79% of the water will be from melted glaciers that is less then 2 feet.. NOT 20!

 

[BlindBoo]

The depth and area of the Antarctic ozone hole are governed by the temperature of the stratosphere and the amount of sunlight reaching the south polar region. Temperatures that are cold enough can form polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). PSCs are an important component in the destruction of ozone molecules. PSCs can be formed when temperatures fall below a given threshold for each type of PSC. The formation temperature is dependent on concentrations of nitric acid and water vapor, and the potential temperature of the air. PSCs can be formed from sulfate aerosols, nitric acid trihydrate (NAT), or ice.

Ozone Hole Watch: 2012 Antarctic MERRA Temperature

The conditions

Decomposition of the CFC's leads to chlorine monoxide radicals (ClO). These can then react with nitrogen dioxide (NO2) to form chlorine nitrate (ClONO2) or with nitrogen monoxide (NO) and methane (CH4) to form hydrochloric acid (HCl) and nitric acid (HNO3). We will not focus on the chemistry here, but it is important to know that both HCl and ClONO2 do not react with ozone but are rather stable compounds and remove chlorine from the ozone destruction mechanism.

It is only under certain meteorological conditions that ozone holes form. It took over two years of research at the British Research Station at Halley Bay in Antarctica to finally understand what these conditions are.

1. One factor is the extremely low temperatures in the stratosphere. During the night temperatures can be as low as -80 oC over Antarctica. Under these conditions, nitric acid and water form stratospheric ice clouds. On the surface of the ice, hydrochloric acid and ClONO2 react with each other to form nitric acid and molecular chlorine (Cl2).

2. Molecular chlorine (Cl2) is a stable molecule which does not react with ozone. However, it is easily broken down by ultra-violet radiation from the Sun to form two chlorine radicals which can then attack and destroy ozone.

So high levels of molecular chlorine (Cl2) can be produced in the stratosphere at the poles during the winter. In the spring, the Sun reappears and levels of solar ultra-violet radiation increase. This ultra-violet radiation breaks down the Cl2 into chlorine radicals, these then destroy ozone and an ozone hole forms. As a result, we see the ozone hole at the same time each year and ozone levels don't recover until the ice clouds thaw and the chlorine radicals are removed by other reactions.

- ozone hole & CFC's

Thanks for making my point. The holes form every September then recover (naturally)

You can lead a horse to water but you just can't make them drink........

 

[Bloodline]

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

Tundra Shrubs Turn into Trees as Arctic Warms
Tundra Shrubs Turn into Trees as Arctic Warms - Yahoo! News

No matter the cause, we need to all agree climate change is happening and plan ahead. Rising sea levels will impact the coastline of America and continuing to argue the cause and not plan for the effect is stupid.

I for one am NOT accepting that rising sea levels will force as you and AL Gore frantically declaim BECAUSE THE FACTS don't support your screeches!!
A) If all the glaciers melt into the oceans it will be the equivalent of adding enough water
into an Olympic swimming pool enough water to raise the level of the 6.56 foot depth
1.4 INCHES!!!!! Tell me would YOU be able to detect this 1.79% increase???

B) FACTS there are 6.350 quintillion gallons of water in all the glaciers in the world.
How much water is there on Earth, from the USGS Water Science School
C) FACTS: there are 353.1 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.

D) 6.35 quintillion gallons is 1.79% of 353.1 quintillion gallons!

So TELL ME how YOU will notice or AL Gore will notice a rise in SEA LEVELs enough to as Gore has claimed: of sea level rise of up to 20 feet “in the near future”. .
See in Florida where I live, the gulf goes for 100s of miles at a depth of less then 100 feet!
So if ONLY 1.79% of the water will be from melted glaciers that is less then 2 feet.. NOT 20!

Why do you continue to blast Al Gore?

Because that's what your POLITICAL PARTY has taught you to do!!!

They learned pretty fast it's easier than trying to refute with SCIENCE!

Speaking of science, the estimates out there predict sea levels rising several METERS within the next ten years at the current rate of thawing. That is not even considering the "what ifs" of ALL glacial and polar ice melting.

BTW...how much water is locked in the ice of Greenland and Antarctica?

Yes....Antarctica!

Don't try to deny it. More and larger icebergs are breaking off of the Antarctic ice shield every year and being reported in the ocean of lower southern latitudes previously unheard of.

Back to rising sea levels. Since most coastal cities are right at or slightly above sea level even a rise of a few meters would flood them.

Most of Florida would be underwater.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The conditions

Decomposition of the CFC's leads to chlorine monoxide radicals (ClO). These can then react with nitrogen dioxide (NO2) to form chlorine nitrate (ClONO2) or with nitrogen monoxide (NO) and methane (CH4) to form hydrochloric acid (HCl) and nitric acid (HNO3). We will not focus on the chemistry here, but it is important to know that both HCl and ClONO2 do not react with ozone but are rather stable compounds and remove chlorine from the ozone destruction mechanism.

It is only under certain meteorological conditions that ozone holes form. It took over two years of research at the British Research Station at Halley Bay in Antarctica to finally understand what these conditions are.

1. One factor is the extremely low temperatures in the stratosphere. During the night temperatures can be as low as -80 oC over Antarctica. Under these conditions, nitric acid and water form stratospheric ice clouds. On the surface of the ice, hydrochloric acid and ClONO2 react with each other to form nitric acid and molecular chlorine (Cl2).

2. Molecular chlorine (Cl2) is a stable molecule which does not react with ozone. However, it is easily broken down by ultra-violet radiation from the Sun to form two chlorine radicals which can then attack and destroy ozone.

So high levels of molecular chlorine (Cl2) can be produced in the stratosphere at the poles during the winter. In the spring, the Sun reappears and levels of solar ultra-violet radiation increase. This ultra-violet radiation breaks down the Cl2 into chlorine radicals, these then destroy ozone and an ozone hole forms. As a result, we see the ozone hole at the same time each year and ozone levels don't recover until the ice clouds thaw and the chlorine radicals are removed by other reactions.

- ozone hole & CFC's

Thanks for making my point. The holes form every September then recover (naturally)

You can lead a horse to water but you just can't make them drink........

The horse must first be thirsty.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Tundra Shrubs Turn into Trees as Arctic Warms
Tundra Shrubs Turn into Trees as Arctic Warms - Yahoo! News

No matter the cause, we need to all agree climate change is happening and plan ahead. Rising sea levels will impact the coastline of America and continuing to argue the cause and not plan for the effect is stupid.

I for one am NOT accepting that rising sea levels will force as you and AL Gore frantically declaim BECAUSE THE FACTS don't support your screeches!!
A) If all the glaciers melt into the oceans it will be the equivalent of adding enough water
into an Olympic swimming pool enough water to raise the level of the 6.56 foot depth
1.4 INCHES!!!!! Tell me would YOU be able to detect this 1.79% increase???

B) FACTS there are 6.350 quintillion gallons of water in all the glaciers in the world.
How much water is there on Earth, from the USGS Water Science School
C) FACTS: there are 353.1 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.

D) 6.35 quintillion gallons is 1.79% of 353.1 quintillion gallons!

So TELL ME how YOU will notice or AL Gore will notice a rise in SEA LEVELs enough to as Gore has claimed: of sea level rise of up to 20 feet “in the near future”. .
See in Florida where I live, the gulf goes for 100s of miles at a depth of less then 100 feet!
So if ONLY 1.79% of the water will be from melted glaciers that is less then 2 feet.. NOT 20!

Why do you continue to blast Al Gore?

Because that's what your POLITICAL PARTY has taught you to do!!!
They learned pretty fast it's easier than trying to refute with SCIENCE!

Speaking of science, the estimates out there predict sea levels rising several METERS within the next ten years at the current rate of thawing. That is not even considering the "what ifs" of ALL glacial and polar ice melting.

BTW...how much water is locked in the ice of Greenland and Antarctica?

Yes....Antarctica!

Don't try to deny it. More and larger icebergs are breaking off of the Antarctic ice shield every year and being reported in the ocean of lower southern latitudes previously unheard of.

Back to rising sea levels. Since most coastal cities are right at or slightly above sea level even a rise of a few meters would flood them.

Most of Florida would be underwater.

Has nothing to do with party and everything to do with the two sides of Gore.

On one side you have a man who appears to care about the issue.

On the other side you have a man who has profitted massively from the matter while at the same time not practicing what he preaches.


No matter what affilliation he holds any man under such circumstances should have his feet held to the fire.

 

[Bloodline]

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

Tundra Shrubs Turn into Trees as Arctic Warms
Tundra Shrubs Turn into Trees as Arctic Warms - Yahoo! News

No matter the cause, we need to all agree climate change is happening and plan ahead. Rising sea levels will impact the coastline of America and continuing to argue the cause and not plan for the effect is stupid.

I for one am NOT accepting that rising sea levels will force as you and AL Gore frantically declaim BECAUSE THE FACTS don't support your screeches!!
A) If all the glaciers melt into the oceans it will be the equivalent of adding enough water
into an Olympic swimming pool enough water to raise the level of the 6.56 foot depth
1.4 INCHES!!!!! Tell me would YOU be able to detect this 1.79% increase???

B) FACTS there are 6.350 quintillion gallons of water in all the glaciers in the world.
How much water is there on Earth, from the USGS Water Science School
C) FACTS: there are 353.1 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.

D) 6.35 quintillion gallons is 1.79% of 353.1 quintillion gallons!

So TELL ME how YOU will notice or AL Gore will notice a rise in SEA LEVELs enough to as Gore has claimed: of sea level rise of up to 20 feet “in the near future”. .
See in Florida where I live, the gulf goes for 100s of miles at a depth of less then 100 feet!
So if ONLY 1.79% of the water will be from melted glaciers that is less then 2 feet.. NOT 20!

Where did you get this BOGUS math anyway?

Let's look at your swimming pool analogy....

You addad enough water to the swimming pool to raise the water level roughly 1/78th of its original depth.

The average depth of the ocean is 12,430 feet. Shouldn't your rise in sea level according to your own analogy be 1/78th of that?

 

[Bloodline]

I for one am NOT accepting that rising sea levels will force as you and AL Gore frantically declaim BECAUSE THE FACTS don't support your screeches!!
A) If all the glaciers melt into the oceans it will be the equivalent of adding enough water
into an Olympic swimming pool enough water to raise the level of the 6.56 foot depth
1.4 INCHES!!!!! Tell me would YOU be able to detect this 1.79% increase???

B) FACTS there are 6.350 quintillion gallons of water in all the glaciers in the world.
How much water is there on Earth, from the USGS Water Science School
C) FACTS: there are 353.1 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.

D) 6.35 quintillion gallons is 1.79% of 353.1 quintillion gallons!

So TELL ME how YOU will notice or AL Gore will notice a rise in SEA LEVELs enough to as Gore has claimed: of sea level rise of up to 20 feet “in the near future”. .
See in Florida where I live, the gulf goes for 100s of miles at a depth of less then 100 feet!
So if ONLY 1.79% of the water will be from melted glaciers that is less then 2 feet.. NOT 20!

Why do you continue to blast Al Gore?

Because that's what your POLITICAL PARTY has taught you to do!!!
They learned pretty fast it's easier than trying to refute with SCIENCE!

Speaking of science, the estimates out there predict sea levels rising several METERS within the next ten years at the current rate of thawing. That is not even considering the "what ifs" of ALL glacial and polar ice melting.

BTW...how much water is locked in the ice of Greenland and Antarctica?

Yes....Antarctica!

Don't try to deny it. More and larger icebergs are breaking off of the Antarctic ice shield every year and being reported in the ocean of lower southern latitudes previously unheard of.

Back to rising sea levels. Since most coastal cities are right at or slightly above sea level even a rise of a few meters would flood them.

Most of Florida would be underwater.

Has nothing to do with party and everything to do with the two sides of Gore.

On one side you have a man who appears to care about the issue.

On the other side you have a man who has profitted massively from the matter while at the same time not practicing what he preaches.


No matter what affilliation he holds any man under such circumstances should have his feet held to the fire.

And so should political hack corporate apologists who STILL try to deny global warming with faulty "logic."

 

[bobgnote]

I for one am NOT accepting that rising sea levels will force as you and AL Gore frantically declaim BECAUSE THE FACTS don't support your screeches!!
A) If all the glaciers melt into the oceans it will be the equivalent of adding enough water
into an Olympic swimming pool enough water to raise the level of the 6.56 foot depth
1.4 INCHES!!!!! Tell me would YOU be able to detect this 1.79% increase???

B) FACTS there are 6.350 quintillion gallons of water in all the glaciers in the world.
How much water is there on Earth, from the USGS Water Science School
C) FACTS: there are 353.1 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.

D) 6.35 quintillion gallons is 1.79% of 353.1 quintillion gallons!

So TELL ME how YOU will notice or AL Gore will notice a rise in SEA LEVELs enough to as Gore has claimed: of sea level rise of up to 20 feet “in the near future”. .
See in Florida where I live, the gulf goes for 100s of miles at a depth of less then 100 feet!
So if ONLY 1.79% of the water will be from melted glaciers that is less then 2 feet.. NOT 20!

OK, since you didn't flame, I won't flame you, even if you are not very well-informed, and your logic is not good.

The CO2 and CH4 increases will increase warming, which will cause release of landed ice, to water systems, which will raise sea levels. We don't know how much, but Canadian and Russian tundra is losing permafrost, while 97% of all Antarctic, Greenland, Alaskan, and other glaciers are receding. Former landed ice and water ends up in the atmosphere, in bodies of water, and in the ground.

Both warming and acidification will affect living creatures. If bacteria bloom, instead of algae, more CO2 will be released, and we will eat shit, literally. If algae bloom, we don't get to use the water, then, either, but this releases O2. This is expected, see also University of Alabama Crimson Tide, Tulane Green Wave, etc.

The sea level will rise, but how much?

Coastal Zones and Sea Level Rise | Climate Change - Health and Environmental Effects | U.S. EPA

Flood Maps

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/s...sing-sea-levels-a-risk-to-coastal-states.html

"If the pace of the rise accelerates as much as expected, researchers found, coastal flooding at levels that were once exceedingly rare could become an every-few-years occurrence by the middle of this century."

The problem of rising seas is concurrent, with other problems you ignore. Subsidence of landed areas is dramatic, as humans exhaust groundwater. As sea levels rise, the waters are warming, which will intensify the rise. Tides will get heavier, which can trigger volcanic eruptions, at which time ice will reform. But we will be backed away from current coastlines, by then. We will eat shit, and die.

You go ahead and guess just how much the sea level will rise, since whatever that is, by the time all the sequestered methane enters the atmosphere, our ice is going. And the CO2 will yield carbonic acid, which will stop food chains. We can be forced to eat and swim, in shit. Don't eat or swim, in shit. Re-green.

 

[healthmyths]

I for one am NOT accepting that rising sea levels will force as you and AL Gore frantically declaim BECAUSE THE FACTS don't support your screeches!!
A) If all the glaciers melt into the oceans it will be the equivalent of adding enough water
into an Olympic swimming pool enough water to raise the level of the 6.56 foot depth
1.4 INCHES!!!!! Tell me would YOU be able to detect this 1.79% increase???

B) FACTS there are 6.350 quintillion gallons of water in all the glaciers in the world.
How much water is there on Earth, from the USGS Water Science School
C) FACTS: there are 353.1 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.

D) 6.35 quintillion gallons is 1.79% of 353.1 quintillion gallons!

So TELL ME how YOU will notice or AL Gore will notice a rise in SEA LEVELs enough to as Gore has claimed: of sea level rise of up to 20 feet “in the near future”. .
See in Florida where I live, the gulf goes for 100s of miles at a depth of less then 100 feet!
So if ONLY 1.79% of the water will be from melted glaciers that is less then 2 feet.. NOT 20!

OK, since you didn't flame, I won't flame you, even if you are not very well-informed, and your logic is not good.

The CO2 and CH4 increases will increase warming, which will cause release of landed ice, to water systems, which will raise sea levels. We don't know how much, but Canadian and Russian tundra is losing permafrost, while 97% of all Antarctic, Greenland, Alaskan, and other glaciers are receding. Former landed ice and water ends up in the atmosphere, in bodies of water, and in the ground.

Both warming and acidification will affect living creatures. If bacteria bloom, instead of algae, more CO2 will be released, and we will eat shit, literally. If algae bloom, we don't get to use the water, then, either, but this releases O2. This is expected, see also University of Alabama Crimson Tide, Tulane Green Wave, etc.

The sea level will rise, but how much?

Coastal Zones and Sea Level Rise | Climate Change - Health and Environmental Effects | U.S. EPA

Flood Maps

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/s...sing-sea-levels-a-risk-to-coastal-states.html

"If the pace of the rise accelerates as much as expected, researchers found, coastal flooding at levels that were once exceedingly rare could become an every-few-years occurrence by the middle of this century."

The problem of rising seas is concurrent, with other problems you ignore. Subsidence of landed areas is dramatic, as humans exhaust groundwater. As sea levels rise, the waters are warming, which will intensify the rise. Tides will get heavier, which can trigger volcanic eruptions, at which time ice will reform. But we will be backed away from current coastlines, by then. We will eat shit, and die.

You go ahead and guess just how much the sea level will rise, since whatever that is, by the time all the sequestered methane enters the atmosphere, our ice is going. And the CO2 will yield carbonic acid, which will stop food chains. We can be forced to eat and swim, in shit. Don't eat or swim, in shit. Re-green.

It's not a guess! There are 6.35 quintillion gallons of water in all the glaciers. Fact.
There are 353.1 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.
That works out to 1.79%... less then 2% of all the oceans and you tell me Florida will be under water as Gore /and other chicken littles claim.. even though water depth off Florida is less then 100 feet for 100+ miles!
1.79% is 1.79 feet.
I live less then 20 feet from the gulf of Mexico waters and am so in fear of 1.79 foot rise!

Also regarding CO2...
Obviously YOU are totally unaware that the USA is a NET Carbon Sequester?

"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).
This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors.
More information on U.S. carbon sequestration estimates and historical trends can be found under the National Analysis section of this Web site.
Frequent Questions | Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

 

[healthmyths]

SUMMIT COUNTY — Glaciers in the Himalaya are not shrinking as fast as once predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Some glaciers in the Karakoram Range have grown slightly in the past decade, according to a team of European researchers who recently completed one of the most detailed surveys of the region to-date.

Global warming: New study says Himalayan glaciers not melting as fast as previously predicted, at least for now « Summit County Citizens Voice

 

[Old Rocks]

I for one am NOT accepting that rising sea levels will force as you and AL Gore frantically declaim BECAUSE THE FACTS don't support your screeches!!
A) If all the glaciers melt into the oceans it will be the equivalent of adding enough water
into an Olympic swimming pool enough water to raise the level of the 6.56 foot depth
1.4 INCHES!!!!! Tell me would YOU be able to detect this 1.79% increase???

B) FACTS there are 6.350 quintillion gallons of water in all the glaciers in the world.
How much water is there on Earth, from the USGS Water Science School
C) FACTS: there are 353.1 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.

D) 6.35 quintillion gallons is 1.79% of 353.1 quintillion gallons!

So TELL ME how YOU will notice or AL Gore will notice a rise in SEA LEVELs enough to as Gore has claimed: of sea level rise of up to 20 feet “in the near future”. .
See in Florida where I live, the gulf goes for 100s of miles at a depth of less then 100 feet!
So if ONLY 1.79% of the water will be from melted glaciers that is less then 2 feet.. NOT 20!

OK, since you didn't flame, I won't flame you, even if you are not very well-informed, and your logic is not good.

The CO2 and CH4 increases will increase warming, which will cause release of landed ice, to water systems, which will raise sea levels. We don't know how much, but Canadian and Russian tundra is losing permafrost, while 97% of all Antarctic, Greenland, Alaskan, and other glaciers are receding. Former landed ice and water ends up in the atmosphere, in bodies of water, and in the ground.

Both warming and acidification will affect living creatures. If bacteria bloom, instead of algae, more CO2 will be released, and we will eat shit, literally. If algae bloom, we don't get to use the water, then, either, but this releases O2. This is expected, see also University of Alabama Crimson Tide, Tulane Green Wave, etc.

The sea level will rise, but how much?

Coastal Zones and Sea Level Rise | Climate Change - Health and Environmental Effects | U.S. EPA

Flood Maps

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/s...sing-sea-levels-a-risk-to-coastal-states.html

"If the pace of the rise accelerates as much as expected, researchers found, coastal flooding at levels that were once exceedingly rare could become an every-few-years occurrence by the middle of this century."

The problem of rising seas is concurrent, with other problems you ignore. Subsidence of landed areas is dramatic, as humans exhaust groundwater. As sea levels rise, the waters are warming, which will intensify the rise. Tides will get heavier, which can trigger volcanic eruptions, at which time ice will reform. But we will be backed away from current coastlines, by then. We will eat shit, and die.

You go ahead and guess just how much the sea level will rise, since whatever that is, by the time all the sequestered methane enters the atmosphere, our ice is going. And the CO2 will yield carbonic acid, which will stop food chains. We can be forced to eat and swim, in shit. Don't eat or swim, in shit. Re-green.

It's not a guess! There are 6.35 quintillion gallons of water in all the glaciers. Fact.
There are 353.1 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.
That works out to 1.79%... less then 2% of all the oceans and you tell me Florida will be under water as Gore /and other chicken littles claim.. even though water depth off Florida is less then 100 feet for 100+ miles!
1.79% is 1.79 feet.
I live less then 20 feet from the gulf of Mexico waters and am so in fear of 1.79 foot rise!

Also regarding CO2...
Obviously YOU are totally unaware that the USA is a NET Carbon Sequester?

"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).
This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors.
More information on U.S. carbon sequestration estimates and historical trends can be found under the National Analysis section of this Web site.
Frequent Questions | Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

How do you get a positive sequestration out of the fact that we took up about 15% of the carbon we emitted? That is a negative 85% according to your article.

 

[Old Rocks]

The glaciers have advanced and retreated hundreds of times throughout history. Which of course was long before humans ever came to be.

OK...let's go with your current statement here.

BTW, there have been five major glaciations in the history of the earth....not hundreds.
Approximately 20,000 years ago the last ice age was at its peak. How do scientists know this? By studying chemical isotopes in existing sediments, geological evidence in the form of structures and core samples from ice and sediment, and paleontological evidence.

Based upon this, scientists know this interglacial period we humans have lived in began about 11,000 years ago. The natural cycle (based on the earth's evidence) is for an interglacial period to last anywhere from 28,000 to 50,000 years.

So you see....there is just NO way to explain the rate of glacial melting away on "natural" cycles. Nature requires thousands of years for changes like we've seen in just the past 50 to occur.

We DON'T have much more time for skeptics like you to mess around with debating on whether the science is "real." This argument was formulated by industry to protect the profit driven interests of industry. It's all about the status quo and short term fortunes. It is disengenious of you to simply assume the role of unwitting mouthpiece for these interests but that is what you and others like you are doing even though you may not even have any vested interest at all of your own in their agenda. It is NOT a "liberal" versus industry argument!

We MIGHT already be past the point of no return in this climate catastrophe. If you're as old as me you might just get out of here in time. If you have any children and grandchildren though....forget about it. They are doomed!


"However, climate change is happening even faster than
previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000
have been higher than even the highest predictions,
Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster
than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become
more rapid. Feedbacks in the climate system might lead
to much more rapid climate changes."


http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

In this context, the kind of material used by climate-change skeptics to cast doubt on global warming — whether it be a handful of emails stolen from an East Anglian research facility or a few errors in an IPCC report — are meaningless. The mountain of climate data assembled over decades by the scientific community as a whole is irrefutable. The records collected and analyzed by independent scientists from many disciplines and thousands of locations, paint a consistent, verifiable picture of a rapidly warming world.

Make no mistake: Science has given us unequivocal warning that global warming is real. The time to start working on solutions is now.

Scientific consensus on global warming | Environmental Defense Fund

Actually to be technical about it there have only been 3 major ones. However there have been hundreds of mini ice ages

On the contrary.

What are the Major Ice Ages of the Earth's History?

The Earth has experienced at least five major ice ages in its 4.57 billion year history: the Huronian glaciation (2.4 to 2.1 billion years ago), the Sturtian/Marinoan glaciation (710 to 640 mya), the Andean-Saharan glaciation (460 to 430 mya), the Karoo Ice Age (350 to 260 mya) and the most recent Ice Age, which is currently ongoing (40 to 0 mya). The definition of an Ice Age is a long-term drop in global temperatures from the historical norm, accompanied by an extension of continental ice sheets. Each Ice Age is cyclical, generally on timescales of 44,000 and 110,000 years, during which glacial ice rhythmically extends and recedes.

The precise causes of historical Ice Ages are unknown, but likely emerged due to a variety of factors, including: positions of the continents, atmospheric composition (greenhouse gases), volcanic activity, the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), variations in the Earth's distance from the Sun (Milankovitch cycles), variations in solar output, and asteroid impacts. When the right variables are in place, an Ice Age begins, and once it gets started, positive feedback effects come into play. The strongest is simply that ice is more reflective than land or forest, so large areas covered in ice sheets reflect away the Sun's rays, causing further drops in temperature and increased glaciation.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Old rocks that would mean that we're warming up towards earth's 'means' temperature? Right. So life on this planet developed in conditions about 6-8c warmer than today(15.8c, while 22-26c was seen in history).

I wouldn't worry about life dieing out on this planet.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

Map shows 542 million years until 60 million years within a small space, but shows the last 60 million way more detail...But overall the vast majority of the last 500 million years has been warmer than today.

 

[Old Rocks]

Grampa, I have posted real scientists statements in support of my arguement. Where are your supports for your side? Peer reviewed sources for articles, scientific societies for policy, please.

I don't know where to look for shit on this subject but I will try. Almost all of my knowledge comes from watching 3 channels on tv. NASA, Science, NatGeo/Discovery.

Start here.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

AGW Observer

A23A

The last is a lecture from the 2009 AGU convention by Richard Alley, one of the world's leading glaciologists. There are many other lectures available from that year and the following years on this subject.

 

[Old Rocks]

Old rocks that would mean that we're warming up towards earth's 'means' temperature? Right. So life on this planet developed in conditions about 6-10c warmer than today(15.8c, while 22-26c was seen in history).

I wouldn't worry about life dieing out on this planet.

LOL. Never said that I was worried about life dying out on this planet. What I have said is that I was worried about the impact on agriculture with a human population of 7 billion +. That number could be significantly lowered if the change is rapid enough.