Karakoram Glaciers EXPANDING!!!

[Old Rocks]

Laughing at this confirmation of the fact that the vast majority of glaciers are rapidly receding, including most of the ones in the Himalayas?

And yet...


if you accept the science that the glaciers in the Karakoram mountain range are increasing infinitesimally then it logically follows that you accept the science that global ice is decreasing at a rapid pace or, or do you pick and choose which parts of the same science you accept and reject --- ehem, please publish your credentials.



"Global average glacier mass balance is unequivocally negative" ~ Glaciologist Professor Jonathan Bamber

There are other parts of AGW Science that beg for explanation.

The rate of Sea level rise has recently increased from 2 mm/year to 3mm/year. If that rate of 2mm/year was actually happening, then the sea level would be about a vertical foot higher today than in 1900.

We have pretty clear and accurate records of where the sea shore was in 1900 and it's pretty much right where Teddy Roosevelt left it.

What happening?

What is happening is that you are lying.

How has our climate changed? - Met Office

Sea-level rise

Since 1900, sea-levels have risen by about 10cm around the UK and about 17cm globally, on average. Evidence shows the rate of sea-level rise has increased in recent decades.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.gov.ns.ca/coast/documents/state-of-the-coast/WEB_SLRSE.pdf

During the twentieth century, sea level in Nova Scotia rose approximately 30 centimetres. Researchers expect an additional increase from 70 to 140 cm over the next century. The increase will depend on global greenhouse gas emission levels, ice-cap melting rates, regional sea level response, and land subsidence. Researchers also expect that sea level rise will carry tides and storm surges farther inland.

 

[Old Rocks]

0.2 Meters in New Zealand

http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/pubs/3774.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientists pin down historic sea level rise

Sea levels have increased on average about 18cm since 1900 and rapid global warming will accelerate the pace of the increase, experts say, putting coastlines at risk and forcing low-lying cities to build costly sea defences.

 

[idb]

0.2 Meters in New Zealand

http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/pubs/3774.pdf

I never noticed.

 

[code1211]

And yet...


if you accept the science that the glaciers in the Karakoram mountain range are increasing infinitesimally then it logically follows that you accept the science that global ice is decreasing at a rapid pace or, or do you pick and choose which parts of the same science you accept and reject --- ehem, please publish your credentials.



"Global average glacier mass balance is unequivocally negative" ~ Glaciologist Professor Jonathan Bamber

There are other parts of AGW Science that beg for explanation.

The rate of Sea level rise has recently increased from 2 mm/year to 3mm/year. If that rate of 2mm/year was actually happening, then the sea level would be about a vertical foot higher today than in 1900.

We have pretty clear and accurate records of where the sea shore was in 1900 and it's pretty much right where Teddy Roosevelt left it.

What happening?

What is happening is that you are lying.

How has our climate changed? - Met Office

Sea-level rise

Since 1900, sea-levels have risen by about 10cm around the UK and about 17cm globally, on average. Evidence shows the rate of sea-level rise has increased in recent decades.

The increase in the rate of sea level rise from 2mm/year to 3mm/year is what we've been informed of by the AGW crowd who seek to instill panic in the uninformed.

All I did was to apply that rate of increase to the years from 1900 forward.

Since the rate we are accelerating above is not supported by the actual rise of sea level, we can expect that the acceleration predicted is also wrong and probably intentionally so.

 

[code1211]

http://www.gov.ns.ca/coast/documents/state-of-the-coast/WEB_SLRSE.pdf

During the twentieth century, sea level in Nova Scotia rose approximately 30 centimetres. Researchers expect an additional increase from 70 to 140 cm over the next century. The increase will depend on global greenhouse gas emission levels, ice-cap melting rates, regional sea level response, and land subsidence. Researchers also expect that sea level rise will carry tides and storm surges farther inland.

Okay, so in Nova Scotia, the sea level rise has been about what I quoted the prevaricating AGW crowd as having said. You said I was lying. Interesting. Being unable to tell a lie from the truth seems endemic to the AGW proponent, but that's a different topic.

Do you have a map of Nova Scotia showing how the shorelines have changed?

I Googled Halifax to see if there is a big problem with the ocean encroachment and there's not anything I could find. They have a river that floods due to heavy rains, but the vertical 1 foot rise of the ocean is not a problem.

Go Figure.

Dumb Cannucks probably don't know they're knee deep in sea water. Maroons!

 

[skookerasbil]

Liberals.............you can always lay $$$ on them changing the subject!!!!!! FTL


But heres the poop.........the AGW eco-nazi's efforts at making their case is about as effective as shooting spitballs at an M1 tank.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberals always know best.

They know what's best for the economy and for the environment

 

[RollingThunder]

Laughing at this confirmation of the fact that the vast majority of glaciers are rapidly receding, including most of the ones in the Himalayas?

And yet...


if you accept the science that the glaciers in the Karakoram mountain range are increasing infinitesimally then it logically follows that you accept the science that global ice is decreasing at a rapid pace or, or do you pick and choose which parts of the same science you accept and reject --- ehem, please publish your credentials.



"Global average glacier mass balance is unequivocally negative" ~ Glaciologist Professor Jonathan Bamber

There are other parts of AGW Science that beg for explanation.

It may seem that way to you but that is only because you are such a brainwashed retard.

The rate of Sea level rise has recently increased from 2 mm/year to 3mm/year. If that rate of 2mm/year was actually happening, then the sea level would be about a vertical foot higher today than in 1900.

LOL. Your math skills are on a par with your knowledge of AGW - both retarded.

2mm = .0065 feet = .078 inches
112 (years) x .078 = 8.7 inches

8.7 inches higher, retard, not "a foot higher".

Sea Level Changes
US Environmental Protection Agency
(excerpts)

Sea levels are rising worldwide and along much of the U.S. coast. Tide gauge measurements and satellite altimetry suggest that sea level has risen worldwide approximately 4.8-8.8 inches (12-22 cm) during the last century. A significant amount of sea level rise has likely resulted from the observed warming of the atmosphere and the oceans. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the primary factors driving current sea level rise include:
* the expansion of ocean water caused by warmer ocean temperatures
* melting of mountain glaciers and small ice caps
* (to a lesser extent) melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and the Antarctic Ice Sheet

Other factors may also be responsible for part of the historic rise in sea level, including the pumping of ground water for human use, impoundment in reservoirs, wetland drainage, deforestation, and the melting of polar ice sheets in response to the warming that has occurred since the last ice age. Considering all of these factors, scientists still cannot account for the last century's sea level rise in its entirety. It is possible that some contributors to sea level rise have not been documented or well-quantified. The rate of sea level rise increased during the 1993-2003 period compared with the longer-term average (1961-2003), although it is unclear whether the faster rate reflects a short-term variation or an increase in the long-term trend. While the global average sea level rise of the 20th century was 4.4-8.8 inches, the sea level has not risen uniformly from region to region. In the United States:
* Sea level has been rising 0.08-0.12 inches per year (2.0-3.0 mm per year) along most of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
* The rate of sea level rise varies from about 0.36 inches per year (10 mm per year) along the Louisiana Coast (due to land sinking), to a drop of a few inches per decade in parts of Alaska (because land is rising).

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

More k00k losing....................

From The Times of India...................



Warming? Karakoram glaciers are expanding

Reuters Apr 17, 2012, 06.59AM IST

LONDON: Some glaciers in the Himalayas mountain range have gained a small amount of mass between 1999 and 2008, new research shows, bucking the global trend of glacial decline. The study published in the Nature Geoscience journal also said the Karakoram mountain range in the Himalayas has contributed less to sea level rise than previously thought. With global average temperature rising, glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets melt and shed water, contributing to the increase of sea levels , threatening the populations of low-lying nations and islands.






And IM laughing.........................

Warming? Karakoram glaciers are expanding - Times Of India

Nothing to see here, move along people.......

 

[code1211]

And yet...


if you accept the science that the glaciers in the Karakoram mountain range are increasing infinitesimally then it logically follows that you accept the science that global ice is decreasing at a rapid pace or, or do you pick and choose which parts of the same science you accept and reject --- ehem, please publish your credentials.








"Global average glacier mass balance is unequivocally negative" ~ Glaciologist Professor Jonathan Bamber

There are other parts of AGW Science that beg for explanation.

It may seem that way to you but that is only because you are such a brainwashed retard.

The rate of Sea level rise has recently increased from 2 mm/year to 3mm/year. If that rate of 2mm/year was actually happening, then the sea level would be about a vertical foot higher today than in 1900.

LOL. Your math skills are on a par with your knowledge of AGW - both retarded.

2mm = .0065 feet = .078 inches
112 (years) x .078 = 8.7 inches

8.7 inches higher, retard, not "a foot higher".

Sea Level Changes
US Environmental Protection Agency
(excerpts)

Sea levels are rising worldwide and along much of the U.S. coast. Tide gauge measurements and satellite altimetry suggest that sea level has risen worldwide approximately 4.8-8.8 inches (12-22 cm) during the last century. A significant amount of sea level rise has likely resulted from the observed warming of the atmosphere and the oceans. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the primary factors driving current sea level rise include:
* the expansion of ocean water caused by warmer ocean temperatures
* melting of mountain glaciers and small ice caps
* (to a lesser extent) melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and the Antarctic Ice Sheet

Other factors may also be responsible for part of the historic rise in sea level, including the pumping of ground water for human use, impoundment in reservoirs, wetland drainage, deforestation, and the melting of polar ice sheets in response to the warming that has occurred since the last ice age. Considering all of these factors, scientists still cannot account for the last century's sea level rise in its entirety. It is possible that some contributors to sea level rise have not been documented or well-quantified. The rate of sea level rise increased during the 1993-2003 period compared with the longer-term average (1961-2003), although it is unclear whether the faster rate reflects a short-term variation or an increase in the long-term trend. While the global average sea level rise of the 20th century was 4.4-8.8 inches, the sea level has not risen uniformly from region to region. In the United States:
* Sea level has been rising 0.08-0.12 inches per year (2.0-3.0 mm per year) along most of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
* The rate of sea level rise varies from about 0.36 inches per year (10 mm per year) along the Louisiana Coast (due to land sinking), to a drop of a few inches per decade in parts of Alaska (because land is rising).

Never claimed to a mathematical wiz. Since my admin is not here, I'm glad you could fill in. Anyway, you are saying that the oceans have risen vertically by 8.8 inches. Good! Let's use that rise instead.

There should be ample evidence to support this on the shorelines of the major cities in the world on the coasts.

Care to present any photographic evidence?

 

[IanC]

Hmmm......

It would seem that the best place to look SLR is long measured tide gauges in areas that have little ISO rebound or depression. I read a paper on that a while back and it showed less than 2mm per year.

Satellite altimetry is useful but it has to be calibrated correctly. Is it?

 

[skookerasbil]

Who cares about the "math"?

Nobody


Guest Viewpoint: 'Green' power solutions just lead to more problems | The Ithaca Journal | theithacajournal.com

Dex Torricke-Barton: The Failure of the Green Movement

Has The Green Movement Been A Miserable Flop? | The New Republic


Kim Strassel: Cap and Trade Is Dead - WSJ.com

Ezra Klein - Cap-and-trade is dead

Epic Greenfail, Omnibus Edition | Power Line


Obama's Green Energy Investment Continues to Deliver Lousy Results - Investors.com

Obama’s Green Energy Fail


Spain's Solar-Power Collapse Dims Subsidy Model - WSJ.com


Power failure: UK's wind farm plans in disarray - Green Living - Environment - The Independent



And more good stuff on the increasingly irrelevant green movement. Like I said 10 years ago, "Its just to damn expensive s0ns!!!"


http://www.eco-business.com/news/world-rely-fossil-fuel-until-2050-shell-ceo/


http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40166#start


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dot.comments/2010/08/the_sky_is_falling_and_we_are.html


http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/21/the-great-green-german-solar-depression-green-revolution-brings-massive-layoffs/#comment-94258






sO mUcH wInNiNg!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Star]

s0n........you dont quite get it. You think that this is a science debate. But nbobody cares so I need not produce any credentials. Go google ANY poll.........."global warming" is so far down the list of the public's concerns, its virtually off the charts.


From Pew, November of last year................

So.......you see s0n......theres plenty enough out there to make people not take this AGW bomb throwing shit seriously.

Riiiiight, when you thought you had a climate change 'gotcha', you got all puffed up like a peacock in heat -- posted your climate change article In the "ENVIRONMENT" section of the USMB --- then, after you got your ass handed to you, you want to change the subject to the 2010 election?-----okeydoke. One of great things about living in America is you have the right to choose to bail out when you lose a M/B conversation, but dude, I'm SMH @U.

I think this is yours, I found it on a thread titled​

"Karakoram Glaciers are expanding!!!"​

Thats right...........what was I thinking?

Your side is dominating the skeptics!! After all..........the science is so compelling, the public is knocking doors down in DC to have their representatives pen legislation to cap carbon emmissions. Clearly, Cap and Trade is about to make a huge comeback!! The public is lurching towards the same mass hysteria that is embraced by the eco-nazi's...........coal will likely be shut down completely by 2013. By 2015, who knows, we may all have windmills on top of our cars and a big solar panel in our backyard!!! That half a degree has really moved public poicy to spend the 76 trilion to go green..........we skeptics dont have a leg to stand on anymore!!!!

What are you talking about?
Renewable energy sources are rapidly expanding in the United States and now represent more than 12% of today's energy needs.


I see lots-o-projection and smoke blowin' in your message but---but few facts. $76 trillion? - is $76 trillion a lot?




is $76 trillion a lot of money?

<snip>

Well, first of all, let’s break it down a bit. First up, this $76 trillion would be paid over 40 years. Second , it would be paid by all countries, the ones that are classed as “developing” as well as the ones that populate the ranks of the wealthy. Third, it would include private investment (of the profit-making kind) as well as public expenditures aimed at covering the incremental costs of an extremely accelerated transition, which is the kind we need.

And there’s more! For example, there are good reasons to think that green investments on this scale would sharply accelerate economic growth. Which would mean that, all things considered, we’d be richer in the future where we make them than in the future where we don’t. Also, that later future, the one in which we make no emergency climate / agriculture transition, is hardly going to be happy and free. It too would demand massive investments, and these would be made in the service of an extremely unstable, high-poverty world. Which would, of course, be crushingly expensive in its own way.

So maybe $76 trillion isn’t a lot of money.

Not that you’d know it by reading the wires. Fox News, for example, ran a piece on the 2011 Survey under the title of Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion. And a quick Google revealed lots and lots of other right-wing screeds, with titles like UN DEMANDS $76 Trillion: The Cost of “Going Green” Soars. This later piece was particularly interesting because it took the UN to task for raising its global climate-transition cost estimate, which indeed it has done since the 2009 Survey.

What’s the lesson?

I can think of two. First, don’t low-ball cost estimates to placate the right. As our understanding improves, cost estimates may well go up, and you’ll just get attacked for raising them. Second, and more importantly, this is a game of comparisons. The cost of saving the world should be compared, first of all, to the cost of not saving it, which will pretty predictably be a whole hell of a lot higher. And there are lots of other illuminating comparisons besides. Which is to say that the real art lies in finding better ways to think about costs, ways that don’t play into the neoliberal hysteria, ways that reveal the large numbers that characterize the climate transition literature for what they really are – small numbers.


<snip>



IOW's - pay now or pay more --a lot more-- later when emergency measures limit our choices.
It is wise to worry about tomorrow today. ~ Aesop's ant

 

[skookerasbil]

"Rapidly expanding?"


Indeed..........thats like sayng that Kate Hudson's boobs will soon rival those of Dolly Parton!!!!

Ooooooooooooooops!!! Welcome to Realville s0n!!! And in the past year, European countries are cutting subsidies to solar and wind as fast as people dropping the idea of repurchasing a hybrid car!!!


Realville ftmfw

 

[skookerasbil]

This forum is a fucking hoot when the k00ks check in............see post #37 >> "The cost of saving the world should be compared, first of all, to the cost of not saving it, which will pretty predictably be a whole hell of a lot higher."

Since 2006, the nutters get more and more hysterical and their agenda's fall deeper and deeper into the shitter.

ANd by the way.........anybody else notice how many times President Obama referenced "climate change" in his SOTU speech a few months ago?

Exactly zErO

 

[westwall]

More k00k losing....................

From The Times of India...................



Warming? Karakoram glaciers are expanding

Reuters Apr 17, 2012, 06.59AM IST

LONDON: Some glaciers in the Himalayas mountain range have gained a small amount of mass between 1999 and 2008, new research shows, bucking the global trend of glacial decline. The study published in the Nature Geoscience journal also said the Karakoram mountain range in the Himalayas has contributed less to sea level rise than previously thought. With global average temperature rising, glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets melt and shed water, contributing to the increase of sea levels , threatening the populations of low-lying nations and islands.






And IM laughing.........................

Warming? Karakoram glaciers are expanding - Times Of India

Laughing at this confirmation of the fact that the vast majority of glaciers are rapidly receding, including most of the ones in the Himalayas?

And yet...


if you accept the science that the glaciers in the Karakoram mountain range are increasing infinitesimally then it logically follows that you accept the science that global ice is decreasing at a rapid pace or, or do you pick and choose which parts of the same science you accept and reject --- ehem, please publish your credentials.



"Global average glacier mass balance is unequivocally negative" ~ Glaciologist Professor Jonathan Bamber

I suggest you actually research the rmatter. You will find that globally the ice is increasing and has been for at least 3 years. But that would be a fact and AGW supporters for the most part don't do facts.