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.
If you can't see what's so upsetting, you're not paying attention. Thousands of communities worldwide depend on the fresh water from melting glaciers for their domestic use. Some countries depend on the melting water from glaciers for their production of electricity. Agriculture in many nations depends primarily on melting glacier water that flows in their rivers. All this melting water is constantly replaced by fresh snow that compresses into ice over time and will subsequently melt into water. This cycle goes on and on maintaining a perfect balance in the generation of fresh water and size of the glacier.
Oh, we will adapt. The question is how much will humans have to adapt? If population drops enough then there may be no need to take any steps to stop global warming.If you can't see what's so upsetting, you're not paying attention. Thousands of communities worldwide depend on the fresh water from melting glaciers for their domestic use. Some countries depend on the melting water from glaciers for their production of electricity. Agriculture in many nations depends primarily on melting glacier water that flows in their rivers. All this melting water is constantly replaced by fresh snow that compresses into ice over time and will subsequently melt into water. This cycle goes on and on maintaining a perfect balance in the generation of fresh water and size of the glacier.
Perhaps you might stop wringing your hands long enough to take a look around the real world. Has it escaped you that as glaciers retreat, very old settlements are often being uncovered?
When something happens that is outside the realm of natural variability, or even approaching the borders of natural variability, let me know. Till then, we are just along for the ride and being the top shelf predators on earth, we will adapt. That is what we do.
so we should not be over run by polar bears for about 5000 yrs!!About 2,000 species examined are moving away from the equator at an average rate of more than 15 feet (five meters) per day, about a mile per year, according to new research published Thursday in the journal Science which analyzed previous studies. Species are also moving up mountains to escape the heat, but more slowly, averaging about four feet a year.
The species mostly from the Northern Hemisphere and including plants moved in fits and starts, but over several decades it averages to about eight inches (20 centimeters) an hour away from the equator.
The speed is an important issue, said study main author Chris Thomas of the University of York. It is faster than we thought.
Its already affected the entire planets wildlife, Thomas said in a phone interview. Its not a matter that might happen in the lifetime of our children and our grandchildren. If you look in your garden you can see the effects of climate change already.
Animals moving away from global warming faster | Sci-tech | DAWN.COM
A heat wave is sweeping the planet, and animals and plants are making a break for cooler climes. Or so scientists have always assumed. It's been hard to tie a species' migration directly to climate change, particularly with human activity destroying ecosystems every year. But researchers have now gathered more evidence for that link by compiling data from 54 scientific papers that collectively map the habitat ranges of more than 2000 species during the past 4 decades. On average, the team finds, creatures move both up mountains and farther away from the equator at a speed that keeps pace with the rate of climate change and at a pace that is far faster than previously predicted.
In Warming World, Critters Run to the Hills - ScienceNOW
I don't like the direction this is taking. It seems to be saying animals understand what Republicans can't.
so we will be over run by polar bears in about 5000 yrs!!About 2,000 species examined are moving away from the equator at an average rate of more than 15 feet (five meters) per day, about a mile per year, according to new research published Thursday in the journal Science which analyzed previous studies. Species are also moving up mountains to escape the heat, but more slowly, averaging about four feet a year.
The species mostly from the Northern Hemisphere and including plants moved in fits and starts, but over several decades it averages to about eight inches (20 centimeters) an hour away from the equator.
The speed is an important issue, said study main author Chris Thomas of the University of York. It is faster than we thought.
Its already affected the entire planets wildlife, Thomas said in a phone interview. Its not a matter that might happen in the lifetime of our children and our grandchildren. If you look in your garden you can see the effects of climate change already.
Animals moving away from global warming faster | Sci-tech | DAWN.COM
A heat wave is sweeping the planet, and animals and plants are making a break for cooler climes. Or so scientists have always assumed. It's been hard to tie a species' migration directly to climate change, particularly with human activity destroying ecosystems every year. But researchers have now gathered more evidence for that link by compiling data from 54 scientific papers that collectively map the habitat ranges of more than 2000 species during the past 4 decades. On average, the team finds, creatures move both up mountains and farther away from the equator at a speed that keeps pace with the rate of climate change and at a pace that is far faster than previously predicted.
In Warming World, Critters Run to the Hills - ScienceNOW
I don't like the direction this is taking. It seems to be saying animals understand what Republicans can't.
I suspect we currently have much more proof of evolution. The study of earth's climate is still in it's infancy. "Study" being the operative word. Scientists "study", right wingers "wish and imagine". No study involved.
Why is it that whenever a right winger points out the fallacy of your positions you just imagine they have no idea what they are talking about if you are a wannabe scientist? Shouldn't you actually study the facts instead of just wishing yourself right?
Really, you have shown the fallacy of global warming and GHGs? Since most here that have actually studied the issue post articles from real scientists, versus the nonsense from Heritage, it would seem that you are the one that is ignoring the facts.
Simple, show one Scientific Society, one National Academy of Science, or even one major University that states that AGW is not a fact.
Oh, we will adapt. The question is how much will humans have to adapt? If population drops enough then there may be no need to take any steps to stop global warming.
Proof? There is no proof. There is a huge amount of evidence. You won't have enough proof until the end of the century to convince governments to take decisive action. If we were dealing with just a bunch of temperature studies by climatologists, the whole issue could be dismissed but we aren't. We're seeing supporting evidence from oceanologists, botanists, zoologists, geophysicists, and glaciologists from around world. Loss of biodiversity, decline in polar bears, shrinking arctic sea ice, melting glaciers, rise in acidifying of oceans, thinning ice, rising sea levels, coral bleaching, shifting wildlife habitat are just few of hundreds of studies that provide supporting evidence that the climate is rapidly changing.Actually, there are none so blind as those who are hopelessly dupted, but never mind.
I see you are posting old rocks' scripture. I have read the whole thing and even checked the links that are imbedded within it. I have asked rocks repeatedly and he remains unable to answer so I will ask you; which part of that drivel do you believe represents any sort of proof that the present temperature is at the optimum for life on earth, or some sort of proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, or that reducing the amount of socalled greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will lower the temperature, or that the presence of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere raise the temperature, or that the greenhouse effect even exists?
Rocks repeatedly posts that bit of sputum but remains unable to point to any part of it that constitutes proof of any of his beliefs. Which part do you beleive represents proof. Just state the paragraph and I will gladly explain how nothing there is proof of anything for you.
Of course the opposition will dismiss all the evidence as a great left wing conspiracy. NASA, NOAA, National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, 32 national science academies, and 75 out of 79 climate scientists, have got it all wrong.
As with evolution, there will never be enough definative evidence to convince those that are willfully ignorant.
Virtually every branch of science that deals with the earth, geology, biology, oceanography, ect. has seen major changes in the last five decades. Changes that can only be accounted for by a warming earth.
The only major factor that has changed in the prior 150 years that would account for that warming is the increased retention of heat by the GHGs emitted from the use of fossil fuel.
But no action will be taken, and no precautionary measures will be put into place, and even the funding for the study of what is happening will be cut, in our nation. Sad, but the citizenery of this nation are so much into the 'way things oughta be', that they can no longer see the way that things are. And those that try to point out what is happening will have their funds cut, the Knownothings have won.
I suspect we currently have much more proof of evolution. The study of earth's climate is still in it's infancy. "Study" being the operative word. Scientists "study", right wingers "wish and imagine". No study involved.
Why is it that whenever a right winger points out the fallacy of your positions you just imagine they have no idea what they are talking about if you are a wannabe scientist? Shouldn't you actually study the facts instead of just wishing yourself right?
I think you did a pretty good job of putting that knowledge into words. Thank you.
think about the MEANING of the phrase GreenHouse effect?
can you really be this stupid?
Do you think there is some bit of wisdom in that comment? I have thought long and hard about the meaning of the phrase greenhouse effect. Not only that, I have considered the actuality of the greenhouse effect and then applied physical laws and mathematics to the claimed meaning of the phrase. They don't add up.
Perhaps you might like to describe the mechanism by which a trace gas in the atmosphere with no capacity to absorb and retain heat might be responsible for the surface of the earth being able to radiate more than twice the amount of energy that it receives from its only energy source.
Actually, everywhere there is ice (think Antarctic, Greenland and the Arctic), the suns rays and most of their effects are reflected back into the atmosphere. Everywhere there is dark land or dark water, the heat is absorbed and very little is reflected back. When the ice is gone, well, you get the picture.
Just thought I would point that out.
Actually, everywhere there is ice (think Antarctic, Greenland and the Arctic), the suns rays and most of their effects are reflected back into the atmosphere. Everywhere there is dark land or dark water, the heat is absorbed and very little is reflected back. When the ice is gone, well, you get the picture.
If by "get the picture" you mean do I see you rambling on while remaining completely unable to describe a mechanism, supported and predicted by the laws of physics by which the surface of the earth might be able to radiate more than twice the energy it receives from its only energy source, then yes, I get the picture.
Just thought I would point that out.
And you really didn't need to point it out. I already knew that you couldn't actually discuss the topic, and especially describe a mechanism or the physical laws that might or not predict or support a planet's surface being able to radiate more than twice the energy it receives from its only energy source.
But did I really need to point that out?
Proof? There is no proof. There is a huge amount of evidence. You won't have enough proof until the end of the century to convince governments to take decisive action. If we were dealing with just a bunch of temperature studies by climatologists, the whole issue could be dismissed but we aren't. We're seeing supporting evidence from oceanologists, botanists, zoologists, geophysicists, and glaciologists from around world. Loss of biodiversity, decline in polar bears, shrinking arctic sea ice, melting glaciers, rise in acidifying of oceans, thinning ice, rising sea levels, coral bleaching, shifting wildlife habitat are just few of hundreds of studies that provide supporting evidence that the climate is rapidly changing.
Of course the opposition will dismiss all the evidence as a great left wing conspiracy. NASA, NOAA, National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, 32 national science academies, and 75 out of 79 climate scientists, have got it all wrong.
As with evolution, there will never be enough definative evidence to convince those that are willfully ignorant.
Virtually every branch of science that deals with the earth, geology, biology, oceanography, ect. has seen major changes in the last five decades. Changes that can only be accounted for by a warming earth.
The only major factor that has changed in the prior 150 years that would account for that warming is the increased retention of heat by the GHGs emitted from the use of fossil fuel.
But no action will be taken, and no precautionary measures will be put into place, and even the funding for the study of what is happening will be cut, in our nation. Sad, but the citizenery of this nation are so much into the 'way things oughta be', that they can no longer see the way that things are. And those that try to point out what is happening will have their funds cut, the Knownothings have won.
That is not the only factor.
By the way, if that is the factor that actually is driving this increase in temperature, why is the increase so small when the GHG emissions have been so high? Why hasn't water vapor increased as predicted because of the increased temps? Why have all the models that are used to chart temperatures on the basis of increased GHGs all predicted more rapid increases than have actually occurred?
Do you think there is some bit of wisdom in that comment? I have thought long and hard about the meaning of the phrase greenhouse effect. Not only that, I have considered the actuality of the greenhouse effect and then applied physical laws and mathematics to the claimed meaning of the phrase. They don't add up.
Perhaps you might like to describe the mechanism by which a trace gas in the atmosphere with no capacity to absorb and retain heat might be responsible for the surface of the earth being able to radiate more than twice the amount of energy that it receives from its only energy source.
Actually, everywhere there is ice (think Antarctic, Greenland and the Arctic), the suns rays and most of their effects are reflected back into the atmosphere. Everywhere there is dark land or dark water, the heat is absorbed and very little is reflected back. When the ice is gone, well, you get the picture.
Just thought I would point that out.
You point that out, and are wrong.
Again.
Do some rudimentary research and come back when you don't look so stupid talking about the subject.
Albedo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[Proof? There is no proof. There is a huge amount of evidence.
There is exactly zero hard, observed repeatable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. If you believe there is, by all means, stop wringing your hands long enough to bring it here for consideration. Lets see it. I am all ears.
As with evolution, there will never be enough definative evidence to convince those that are willfully ignorant.
Virtually every branch of science that deals with the earth, geology, biology, oceanography, ect. has seen major changes in the last five decades. Changes that can only be accounted for by a warming earth.
The only major factor that has changed in the prior 150 years that would account for that warming is the increased retention of heat by the GHGs emitted from the use of fossil fuel.
But no action will be taken, and no precautionary measures will be put into place, and even the funding for the study of what is happening will be cut, in our nation. Sad, but the citizenery of this nation are so much into the 'way things oughta be', that they can no longer see the way that things are. And those that try to point out what is happening will have their funds cut, the Knownothings have won.
That is not the only factor.
By the way, if that is the factor that actually is driving this increase in temperature, why is the increase so small when the GHG emissions have been so high? Why hasn't water vapor increased as predicted because of the increased temps? Why have all the models that are used to chart temperatures on the basis of increased GHGs all predicted more rapid increases than have actually occurred?
LOL. So there has been no increase in the water vapor in the atmosphere? Why don't you tell that to the people from the headwaters of the Missouri all the way to the Gulf. The flooding started in March, and is still going on. How about explaining that to the people in Northeastern Australia. Pakistan.
Remember all the people here yowling about how Snowzilla disproved global warming? Now you state that there was no increase in atmospheric water vapor driving that event. OK, did the water originate in a comet or something?
Proof? There is no proof. There is a huge amount of evidence. You won't have enough proof until the end of the century to convince governments to take decisive action. If we were dealing with just a bunch of temperature studies by climatologists, the whole issue could be dismissed but we aren't. We're seeing supporting evidence from oceanologists, botanists, zoologists, geophysicists, and glaciologists from around world. Loss of biodiversity, decline in polar bears, shrinking arctic sea ice, melting glaciers, rise in acidifying of oceans, thinning ice, rising sea levels, coral bleaching, shifting wildlife habitat are just few of hundreds of studies that provide supporting evidence that the climate is rapidly changing.Actually, there are none so blind as those who are hopelessly dupted, but never mind.
I see you are posting old rocks' scripture. I have read the whole thing and even checked the links that are imbedded within it. I have asked rocks repeatedly and he remains unable to answer so I will ask you; which part of that drivel do you believe represents any sort of proof that the present temperature is at the optimum for life on earth, or some sort of proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, or that reducing the amount of socalled greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will lower the temperature, or that the presence of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere raise the temperature, or that the greenhouse effect even exists?
Rocks repeatedly posts that bit of sputum but remains unable to point to any part of it that constitutes proof of any of his beliefs. Which part do you beleive represents proof. Just state the paragraph and I will gladly explain how nothing there is proof of anything for you.
Of course the opposition will dismiss all the evidence as a great left wing conspiracy. NASA, NOAA, National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, 32 national science academies, and 75 out of 79 climate scientists, have got it all wrong.
We've had global warming since the Ice age genius
Here are few articles summarizing hundreds of climate and earth science related scientific research projects.Feel free to show us evidence that is not tainted and doesn't involve a computer model.
Abrupt climate change
Antarctic Cold Reversal
Antarctic oscillation
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
Arctic shrinkage
Atmospheric circulation
Attribution of recent climate change
Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage
Broad Spectrum Revolution
Callendar effect
Bio-geoengineering
Catastrophic climate change
Clathrate gun hypothesis
Climate change and agriculture
Climate cycle
Cloud reflectivity enhancement
Cool tropics paradox
Coral bleaching
Dendroclimatology
East Antarctic Ice Sheet
Effects of climate change on marine mammals
Effect of climate change on plant biodiversity
Effects of global warming on Australia
Effects of global warming on India
Global dimming
Greenhouse effect
Holocene Climatic Optimum
Keeling Curve
Long-term effects of global warming
Milankovitch cycles
North Atlantic Deep Water
North Atlantic oscillation
Ocean acidification
Ocean anoxia
Ozone depletion
Pacific decadal oscillation
Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project
Polar amplification
Quasi-biennial oscillation
Radiative forcing
Regional effects of global warming
Retreat of glaciers since 1850
Runaway climate change
Satellite temperature measurements
Sea level rise
Table of Historic and Prehistoric Climate Indicators
Temperature record of the past 1000 years
Temperature record since 1880
Thermohaline circulation
Stratospheric sulfur aerosols
West Antarctic Ice Sheet
World climate research programme
Index of climate change articles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Repeatable lab experiments showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature = 0.
Proof? There is no proof. There is a huge amount of evidence. You won't have enough proof until the end of the century to convince governments to take decisive action. If we were dealing with just a bunch of temperature studies by climatologists, the whole issue could be dismissed but we aren't. We're seeing supporting evidence from oceanologists, botanists, zoologists, geophysicists, and glaciologists from around world. Loss of biodiversity, decline in polar bears, shrinking arctic sea ice, melting glaciers, rise in acidifying of oceans, thinning ice, rising sea levels, coral bleaching, shifting wildlife habitat are just few of hundreds of studies that provide supporting evidence that the climate is rapidly changing.
Of course the opposition will dismiss all the evidence as a great left wing conspiracy. NASA, NOAA, National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, 32 national science academies, and 75 out of 79 climate scientists, have got it all wrong.
We've had global warming since the Ice age genius
No, we have not. It warmed up rapidly, did a retreat in the Younger Dryas, and then pretty much stabalized for the last 10,000 years. Some warmer periods, one that exceeds where we are at present about 7 to 8 thousand years ago, related to the Storegga Slide. And a few minor coolings, like the little ice age. However, for the most part, a very stable period, until now.
I'm not a climate scientist. I don't need to understand the scientific details of climate change, but I do understand the recommendations and positions of the most prestigious scientific organizations on earth. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with the findings that the earth is warming and the vast majority state man is likely cause.Oh, we will adapt. The question is how much will humans have to adapt? If population drops enough then there may be no need to take any steps to stop global warming.
Tell me flopper, what do you suppose we can do about the changing climate? Do you really believe that a trace gas in the atmosphere which has no capacity to absorb and retain heat can actually be responsible for a changing climate?
If you really believe it, then describe the mechanism by which you believe it happens.
Here are few articles summarizing hundreds of climate and earth science related scientific research projects.
Abrupt climate change
Antarctic Cold Reversal
Antarctic oscillation
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
Arctic shrinkage
Atmospheric circulation
Attribution of recent climate change
Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage
Broad Spectrum Revolution
Callendar effect
Bio-geoengineering
Catastrophic climate change
Clathrate gun hypothesis
Climate change and agriculture
Climate cycle
Cloud reflectivity enhancement
Cool tropics paradox
Coral bleaching
Dendroclimatology
East Antarctic Ice Sheet
Effects of climate change on marine mammals
Effect of climate change on plant biodiversity
Effects of global warming on Australia
Effects of global warming on India
Global dimming
Greenhouse effect
Holocene Climatic Optimum
Keeling Curve
Long-term effects of global warming
Milankovitch cycles
North Atlantic Deep Water
North Atlantic oscillation
Ocean acidification
Ocean anoxia
Ozone depletion
Pacific decadal oscillation
Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project
Polar amplification
Quasi-biennial oscillation
Radiative forcing
Regional effects of global warming
Retreat of glaciers since 1850
Runaway climate change
Satellite temperature measurements
Sea level rise
Table of Historic and Prehistoric Climate Indicators
Temperature record of the past 1000 years
Temperature record since 1880
Thermohaline circulation
Stratospheric sulfur aerosols
West Antarctic Ice Sheet
World climate research programme
Index of climate change articles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Repeatable lab experiments showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature = 0.
Is the Earth Warming?
