Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ohh Chris?
- Thread starter RetiredGySgt
- Start date
As long as you explain these...
Shrinking glaciers evidence of global warming / Differences seen by looking at photos from 100 years ago
No More Glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2020?
Melting glaciers on China's Qinghai-Tibet plateau water source "worrisome"_English_Xinhua
http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Glaciers-in-the-Spanish-Pyrenees-Melting-Fast-105388.shtml
Last edited:
ScienceDaily (Feb. 4, 2009) — Glaciers around the globe continue to melt at high rates. Tentative figures for the year 2007, of the World Glacier Monitoring Service at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, indicate a further loss of average ice thickness of roughly 0.67 meter water equivalent (m w.e.). Some glaciers in the European Alps lost up to 2.5 m w.e.
The new still tentative data of more than 80 glaciers confirm the global trend of fast ice loss since 1980. Glaciers with long-term observation series (30 glaciers in 9 mountain ranges) have experienced a reduction in total thickness of more than 11 m w.e. until 2007. The average annual ice loss during 1980-1999 was roughly 0.3 m w.e. per year. Since 2000, this rate has increased to about 0.7 m w.e. per year.
Michael Zemp, glaciologist and research associate of the WGMS, said: «The average ice loss in 2007 was not as extreme as in 2006, but there were large differences between mountain ranges. Glaciers in the European Alps lost up to 2.5 meters water equivalent of ice, whereas maritime glaciers in Scandinavia were able to gain more than a meter in thickness. However, 2007 is now the sixth year of this century in which the average ice loss of the reference glaciers has exceeded half a meter. This has resulted in a more than doubling of the melt rates of the 1980s and 90s.
Glaciers Around The Globe Continue To Melt At High Rates
The new still tentative data of more than 80 glaciers confirm the global trend of fast ice loss since 1980. Glaciers with long-term observation series (30 glaciers in 9 mountain ranges) have experienced a reduction in total thickness of more than 11 m w.e. until 2007. The average annual ice loss during 1980-1999 was roughly 0.3 m w.e. per year. Since 2000, this rate has increased to about 0.7 m w.e. per year.
Michael Zemp, glaciologist and research associate of the WGMS, said: «The average ice loss in 2007 was not as extreme as in 2006, but there were large differences between mountain ranges. Glaciers in the European Alps lost up to 2.5 meters water equivalent of ice, whereas maritime glaciers in Scandinavia were able to gain more than a meter in thickness. However, 2007 is now the sixth year of this century in which the average ice loss of the reference glaciers has exceeded half a meter. This has resulted in a more than doubling of the melt rates of the 1980s and 90s.
Glaciers Around The Globe Continue To Melt At High Rates
- Thread starter
- #4
You are aware you dumb ass that with in nature there are cycles? That Glaciers have come and gone through out the ages? With out any help by man?
You have , what 30 years worth of data and want to claim that creates a pattern of some kind? Hell even if you have 100 years of data it is insignificant compared the life of the earth and the cycles it has gone through.
You still haven't explained why one of the poles had any ice at all after 1950 when for over 30 years the temperatures were HIGHER then the highest in the last 20 and for a longer period of time. And you keep claiming the poles are melting NOW.
You have , what 30 years worth of data and want to claim that creates a pattern of some kind? Hell even if you have 100 years of data it is insignificant compared the life of the earth and the cycles it has gone through.
You still haven't explained why one of the poles had any ice at all after 1950 when for over 30 years the temperatures were HIGHER then the highest in the last 20 and for a longer period of time. And you keep claiming the poles are melting NOW.
Global warming is going to kill us all...Republicans are to blame.
Anomaly- quote from link "BUENOS AIRES, Argentina Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier is one of only a few ice fields worldwide that have withstood rising global temperatures."
As with any temperature fluctuations this planet has gone through, when some places heat up some places will cool, just because our overall planets mean temps have increased doesn't mean all places are warmer, some have shown cooling.
Location, location, location. With temps higher now, some places that were drier are getting wetter and visa versa.
As with any temperature fluctuations this planet has gone through, when some places heat up some places will cool, just because our overall planets mean temps have increased doesn't mean all places are warmer, some have shown cooling.
Location, location, location. With temps higher now, some places that were drier are getting wetter and visa versa.
Attachments
Some places on earth will experience warming, some cooling, some drought, some places will get colder, some places will get more rain than usual, more hurricanes, tornado's, snow, etc.
See, you think its all global warming.
See?!!?!?!???
It doesn't matter what the weather does. Any which way the weather goes, it's all the fault of industrial man in general, and America in particular!!!
Isn't being an AGW Luddite easy and fun!!
It doesn't matter what the weather does. Any which way the weather goes, it's all the fault of industrial man in general, and America in particular!!!
Isn't being an AGW Luddite easy and fun!!
See?!!?!?!???
It doesn't matter what the weather does. Any which way the weather goes, it's all the fault of industrial man in general, and America in particular!!!
Isn't being an AGW Luddite easy and fun!!
Abnormal weather. Pay attention to abnormal weather. Lots of hurricanes, droubt, severe warming or freezing of the polar caps,
Forget about GW. Lets just clean up the planet from smog so we can breathe. And stop with the plastic. The Pacific is a toilet bowl. Lets go to wind turbines and use trees, but replant so we don't run out of trees. But plastic is bad.
And companies polluting need to stop.
Figure 3 compares 2008 with the mean for the first seven years of this century. Except for the relatively cool Pacific Ocean, most of the world was either near normal or unusually warm in 2008. The temperature in the United States in 2008 was not much different than the 1951-1980 mean, which makes 2008 cooler than all of the previous years this decade. As shown by the right side of Fig. 3, most of the United States averaged between 0.5 and 1°C warmer than the long-term mean during 2001-2007.
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2008 Annual Summation
The basic GISS temperature analysis scheme was defined in the late 1970s by James Hansen when a method of estimating global temperature change was needed for comparison with one-dimensional global climate models. Prior temperature analyses, most notably those of Murray Mitchell, covered only 20-90°N latitudes. Our rationale was that the number of Southern Hemisphere stations was sufficient for a meaningful estimate of global temperature change, because temperature anomalies and trends are highly correlated over substantial geographical distances. Our first published results (Hansen et al. 1981) showed that, contrary to impressions from northern latitudes, global cooling after 1940 was small, and there was net global warming of about 0.4°C between the 1880s and 1970s.
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)
So according to my reading the total climb in the last 129 years has been around .06 degrees? This does not take into account trends that cannot be measured prior to the data be taken. So this points to the fact we have a crisis manufactured in order to perhaps influence opinion perhaps?
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2008 Annual Summation
The basic GISS temperature analysis scheme was defined in the late 1970s by James Hansen when a method of estimating global temperature change was needed for comparison with one-dimensional global climate models. Prior temperature analyses, most notably those of Murray Mitchell, covered only 20-90°N latitudes. Our rationale was that the number of Southern Hemisphere stations was sufficient for a meaningful estimate of global temperature change, because temperature anomalies and trends are highly correlated over substantial geographical distances. Our first published results (Hansen et al. 1981) showed that, contrary to impressions from northern latitudes, global cooling after 1940 was small, and there was net global warming of about 0.4°C between the 1880s and 1970s.
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)
So according to my reading the total climb in the last 129 years has been around .06 degrees? This does not take into account trends that cannot be measured prior to the data be taken. So this points to the fact we have a crisis manufactured in order to perhaps influence opinion perhaps?
FactFinder
VIP Member
- Mar 1, 2009
- 2,689
- 208
- 83
My understanding is that the total rise in temps over those 100+ years has been wiped out in the last 2 cooling years.
My understanding is that the total rise in temps over those 100+ years has been wiped out in the last 2 cooling years.
I understand that total rise would be negated in the last two years Fact, but was factoring in the rise for the periods between 01 and 08. Still the point is that this rise in temp. crisis when you look at the raw data is in my opinion done as a selling point to promote "envirobusinesses". It makes perfect sense to do so, where one needs to create a demand where none exists.
- May 20, 2009
- 23,425
- 8,069
- 890
Navy1960 - I don't guess you understand that all of this global warming bullshit is just a ploy by folks like Al Gore and other associated meatheads to make a few bucks off of the idiots that they can get to buy into this nonsense. If there was anything to global warming, why has it just become fashionable here of late to dote on it? Man has been tossing crap into the environment ever since he learned how to rub two sticks together to make fire. So, why after dumping crap into the air since almost the beginning of time, have we suddenly neared the point of destroying the whole earth? It's because nobody up until now has found a way to make money off of the fear of the people they can get to believe this horseshit. In a well-known mattress commercial they have painted numbers on the sheep to make it easier to count them while falling asleep. I think we should number all of the environmental idiot sheep too so we can easily see them in a crowd.
Big Black Dog
You mean like if your happen to own a Cardon Capture trading company or consulting firm and go about the world promoting the "Global Warming" business? Or perhaps one of those lobby groups who advocate shutting down coal in the United States and at the same time don't say a thing to the world largest coal users China and Inida? those people? Trust me I'm well aware this is a marketing gimick that is used to promote business ventures. While yes, admittedly keeping pollution and keeping CO2 emissions down is always a good thing, the technologies exist to do just that and still use all energy resources available to us. Case in point Nuclear, you hear the environmentalisits cry a river about the storage issues with nuclear when there are to this days ways to recycle spent nuclear fuel. However, you dont hear much when they advocate clean coal and the impact of pumping billions of gallons of liquid CO2 in the ground as a waste product though now do you? Or perhaps the land usage and deforestation associated with buliding wind and solar farms. All if this "double standard" is applied because the interests of those that promote it is a financial one.
You mean like if your happen to own a Cardon Capture trading company or consulting firm and go about the world promoting the "Global Warming" business? Or perhaps one of those lobby groups who advocate shutting down coal in the United States and at the same time don't say a thing to the world largest coal users China and Inida? those people? Trust me I'm well aware this is a marketing gimick that is used to promote business ventures. While yes, admittedly keeping pollution and keeping CO2 emissions down is always a good thing, the technologies exist to do just that and still use all energy resources available to us. Case in point Nuclear, you hear the environmentalisits cry a river about the storage issues with nuclear when there are to this days ways to recycle spent nuclear fuel. However, you dont hear much when they advocate clean coal and the impact of pumping billions of gallons of liquid CO2 in the ground as a waste product though now do you? Or perhaps the land usage and deforestation associated with buliding wind and solar farms. All if this "double standard" is applied because the interests of those that promote it is a financial one.
Navy1960 - I don't guess you understand that all of this global warming bullshit is just a ploy by folks like Al Gore and other associated meatheads to make a few bucks off of the idiots that they can get to buy into this nonsense. If there was anything to global warming, why has it just become fashionable here of late to dote on it? Man has been tossing crap into the environment ever since he learned how to rub two sticks together to make fire. So, why after dumping crap into the air since almost the beginning of time, have we suddenly neared the point of destroying the whole earth? It's because nobody up until now has found a way to make money off of the fear of the people they can get to believe this horseshit. In a well-known mattress commercial they have painted numbers on the sheep to make it easier to count them while falling asleep. I think we should number all of the environmental idiot sheep too so we can easily see them in a crowd.
The planet is warming, period (it has been since the last mini ice age of the 1600's (1700's ?) the only debate is; is it all natural, or is it AGW? And no, 2-3 years years of cooling hasn't come close to a cooling trend or wiped out the warming that's taken place. We are now during more fossil fuels than any other time in this planets life, period.
Common sense and sustainability.
Green business=bad, is the Neocon talking point now
I wish big time that we'd enter a cooling trend, I'm tired of all the rain lately in the mountains, more snow would be welcomed.
Navy1960 - I don't guess you understand that all of this global warming bullshit is just a ploy by folks like Al Gore and other associated meatheads to make a few bucks off of the idiots that they can get to buy into this nonsense. If there was anything to global warming, why has it just become fashionable here of late to dote on it? Man has been tossing crap into the environment ever since he learned how to rub two sticks together to make fire. So, why after dumping crap into the air since almost the beginning of time, have we suddenly neared the point of destroying the whole earth? It's because nobody up until now has found a way to make money off of the fear of the people they can get to believe this horseshit. In a well-known mattress commercial they have painted numbers on the sheep to make it easier to count them while falling asleep. I think we should number all of the environmental idiot sheep too so we can easily see them in a crowd.
The planet is warming, period (it has been since the last mini ice age of the 1600's (1700's ?) the only debate is; is it all natural, or is it AGW? And no, 2-3 years years of cooling hasn't come close to a cooling trend or wiped out the warming that's taken place. We are now during more fossil fuels than any other time in this planets life, period.
Common sense and sustainability.
Green business=bad, is the Neocon talking point now
I wish big time that we'd enter a cooling trend, I'm tired of all the rain lately in the mountains, more snow would be welcomed.
I don't think I ever said green business is bad K2 what I am saying though is that to promote solutions as bad and one as good over the other is complete nonsense. When the same standards that "green business" applies to other businesses are applied to themselves they suffer generally the same fate. Anything can be seen as harmful to the environment. It's my contention that those promoting it are doing so in an effort not so much in a noble effort to save the planet but more so in an effort to promote profits for the business they support. As for your statement on common sense I'm in complete agreement and believe that we can USE all the technologies availble to us. I invite you to take a look at the temp. data from NASA over the last 120 plus years.
- May 20, 2009
- 23,425
- 8,069
- 890
k2skier - Look me up in another 200 years or so. If the world has been destroyed by "global warming" due to man being a complete idiot, I'll tell you how sorry I am for being a non-believer. However, I doubt very seriously if there will be any remarkable difference in the planet then as it is now - that is if we don't get hit by some big outter space rock or kill ourselves off with a nuclear war. As far as the rain goes, I think God has more to do with the weather than global warming... All of this global warming crap is just that - crap. The masterminds are a bunch of "make me feel good wackos" who can only use this nonsense to get their 15 minutes of fame. People that buy into this mess are just plain dumb...
The planet is warming, period (it has been since the last mini ice age of the 1600's (1700's ?) the only debate is; is it all natural, or is it AGW? And no, 2-3 years years of cooling hasn't come close to a cooling trend or wiped out the warming that's taken place. We are now during more fossil fuels than any other time in this planets life, period.
What debate? The consensus on man made global warming has been pushed by governments who see it as another cash cow to raise tax revenues. The studies produced by scientists who remain sceptical of mm global warming are ignored and there are thousands of scientists who take that position.
There is no debate. Only the claim of consensus, which historically has been the first refuge of scoundrels. It is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
The planet is warming, period (it has been since the last mini ice age of the 1600's (1700's ?) the only debate is; is it all natural, or is it AGW? And no, 2-3 years years of cooling hasn't come close to a cooling trend or wiped out the warming that's taken place. We are now during more fossil fuels than any other time in this planets life, period.
What debate? The consensus on man made global warming has been pushed by governments who see it as another cash cow to raise tax revenues. The studies produced by scientists who remain sceptical of mm global warming are ignored and there are thousands of scientists who take that position.
There is no debate. Only the claim of consensus, which historically has been the first refuge of scoundrels. It is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice is still melting.
Why?
KittenKoder
Senior Member
The planet is warming, period (it has been since the last mini ice age of the 1600's (1700's ?) the only debate is; is it all natural, or is it AGW? And no, 2-3 years years of cooling hasn't come close to a cooling trend or wiped out the warming that's taken place. We are now during more fossil fuels than any other time in this planets life, period.
What debate? The consensus on man made global warming has been pushed by governments who see it as another cash cow to raise tax revenues. The studies produced by scientists who remain sceptical of mm global warming are ignored and there are thousands of scientists who take that position.
There is no debate. Only the claim of consensus, which historically has been the first refuge of scoundrels. It is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice is still melting.
Why?
.... and the deserts are freezing ... hmmm ... explain that one.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 362
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 145
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 182
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 40
- Views
- 176
- Replies
- 65
- Views
- 276
- Replies
- 81
- Views
- 486
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 7998
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 465
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-