Greenland glacier recedes 10 miles in 8 years

[CrusaderFrank]

"Its calving rate (breaking off of ice) has never been so rapid," Andreas Peter Ahlstroem

LOL.

Andreas, did you mean to preface it by saying, "Well except for the time in recent history when a deglaciated Greenland appears on medieval maps...Its calving rate (breaking off of ice) has never been so rapid"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Greenland's glaciers under threat from climate change
By Slim Allagui – 14 hours ago

ILULISSAT, Greenland (AFP) — One of the world's largest glaciers, on the west coast of Greenland, is shrinking at an alarming rate as a result of global warming -- with potentially dire consequences.

Ilulissat, a UNESCO-listed glacier, is shedding ice into the sea faster than ever before, according to one of Denmark's top experts on glaciology.

Andreas Peter Ahlstroem, a researcher with the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland institute, told AFP that the glacier has receded by more than 15 kilometres (10 miles) since 2001.

"Its calving rate (breaking off of ice) has never been so rapid," he said.

The Ilulissat glacier and icefjord have been on UNESCO's world heritage list since 2004 and is the most visited site in Greenland, its ice and pools of emerald-blue water admired by tourists and studied by scientists and politicians around the world.

The Danish government chose Ilulissat as the venue for recent talks with some 30 countries to discuss ways to slow global warming -- a place that Shfaqat Abbas Khan, a glacier expert from the Danish Space Centre, describes as the "most visible and striking example of climate change."

The glacier is the most active in the northern hemisphere, producing 85 million tonnes of icebergs per day, according to Khan.

AFP: Greenland's glaciers under threat from climate change

Greeting to both of you, Ruler of RisingTemperatures, and the Caliph of CarbonDioxide.

Remember me? I used to tell you that it's not man-made global warming, but rather another attempt by the left to put America under the auspice of the United Nations, and should be called Global Governance.

You guys said I was paranoid.

Check this out:

"Former Vice President Al Gore, whose "An Inconvenient Truth" video epistle on the claims of global warming has not weathered recent scientific research, now has promised at a conference in the United Kingdom that the impending virtual energy tax under the U.S. "cap-and-trade" legislation will bring about "global governance."
'Global governance' coming with carbon tax, says Gore

Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth's temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.

Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.”

Gore's call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac's call in 2000."
- Gore Says Climate Bill to Bring Global Governance

Get it yet?

Wise up.

 

[Missourian]

Ancient Greenland was actually green!




The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.
From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter — the temperature range that the tree species prefer.

Ancient Greenland was actually green! - LiveScience- msnbc.com

Must have been dinosaur fart induced global warming and Viking-made climate change that melted it the last couple times.

There have been many periods in geological history during which the Earth warmed rapidly. The rapid addition of GHGs from volcanic action and outgassing of clathrates was the cause in both the Permian-Triassic Extinction, and in the PETM, which also involved an extinction period. Just because human beings are the cause of the rapid buildup of the GHGs today does not excuse us from the consequences of that buildup. That is determined by physics, not somebody's idea of "how things ought to be".

Methane catastrophe - 05 March 2005 - New Scientist

Methane catastrophe

Clathrate gun hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Melting Arctic Ocean Raises Threat of ‘Methane Time Bomb’ by Susan Q. Stranahan: Yale Environment 360

30 Oct 2008: Report
Melting Arctic Ocean Raises Threat of ‘Methane Time Bomb’
Scientists have long believed that thawing permafrost in Arctic soils could release huge amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Now they are watching with increasing concern as methane begins to bubble up from the bottom of the fast-melting Arctic Ocean.
by susan q. stranahan

For the past 15 years, scientists from Russia and other nations have ventured into the ice-bound and little-studied Arctic Ocean above Siberia to monitor the temperature and chemistry of the sea, including levels of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Their scientific cruises on the shallow continental shelf occurred as sea ice in the Arctic Ocean was rapidly melting and as northern Siberia was earning the distinction — along with the North American Arctic and the western Antarctic Peninsula —of warming faster than any place on Earth.

Until 2003, concentrations of methane had remained relatively stable in the Arctic Ocean and the atmosphere north of Siberia. But then they began to rise. This summer, scientists taking part in the six-week International Siberian Shelf Study discovered numerous areas, spread over thousands of square miles, where large quantities of methane — a gas with 20-times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide — rose from the once-frozen seabed floor.

Did you miss this part?

The study, published in the journal Science, does indicate that it did take a 20,000 year warm period to melt back the ice sheet enough to allow the spruce forest to grow over southern Greenland, but paleoclimatologist and co-author Alexander Wolfe notes that these warm spells occurred with greenhouse gas emissions 30% lower than they are today.

​

 

[Chris]

It continues to amaze me that we cannot even settle on something so obvious as whether glaciers are retreating.

Now clearly I'm not in a position to know since I'm not there, but surely somebody must be.

When we cannot even come to agreement about something that must clearly exist in the world (like the state of glaciers worldwide) there's not a change that we can agree on issues that are less obvious.

Look, either (none, few, some, many or all) glaciers are melting or they're not.

The reality (whatever it is) is really not subject to debate, is it?

So what is it?

Are glaciers melting or not?

Only the idiots are denying that the glaciers are melting.

Glacier National Park used to have 150 glaciers.

Now it has 25. Soon it will have none.

 

[Chris]

Must have been dinosaur fart induced global warming and Viking-made climate change that melted it the last couple times.

There have been many periods in geological history during which the Earth warmed rapidly. The rapid addition of GHGs from volcanic action and outgassing of clathrates was the cause in both the Permian-Triassic Extinction, and in the PETM, which also involved an extinction period. Just because human beings are the cause of the rapid buildup of the GHGs today does not excuse us from the consequences of that buildup. That is determined by physics, not somebody's idea of "how things ought to be".

Methane catastrophe - 05 March 2005 - New Scientist

Methane catastrophe

Clathrate gun hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Melting Arctic Ocean Raises Threat of ‘Methane Time Bomb’ by Susan Q. Stranahan: Yale Environment 360

30 Oct 2008: Report
Melting Arctic Ocean Raises Threat of ‘Methane Time Bomb’
Scientists have long believed that thawing permafrost in Arctic soils could release huge amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Now they are watching with increasing concern as methane begins to bubble up from the bottom of the fast-melting Arctic Ocean.
by susan q. stranahan

For the past 15 years, scientists from Russia and other nations have ventured into the ice-bound and little-studied Arctic Ocean above Siberia to monitor the temperature and chemistry of the sea, including levels of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Their scientific cruises on the shallow continental shelf occurred as sea ice in the Arctic Ocean was rapidly melting and as northern Siberia was earning the distinction — along with the North American Arctic and the western Antarctic Peninsula —of warming faster than any place on Earth.

Until 2003, concentrations of methane had remained relatively stable in the Arctic Ocean and the atmosphere north of Siberia. But then they began to rise. This summer, scientists taking part in the six-week International Siberian Shelf Study discovered numerous areas, spread over thousands of square miles, where large quantities of methane — a gas with 20-times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide — rose from the once-frozen seabed floor.

Did you miss this part?

The study, published in the journal Science, does indicate that it did take a 20,000 year warm period to melt back the ice sheet enough to allow the spruce forest to grow over southern Greenland, but paleoclimatologist and co-author Alexander Wolfe notes that these warm spells occurred with greenhouse gas emissions 30% lower than they are today.

​

Thanks for pointing that out.

So how much warmer would those periods have been with 30% more greenhouse gases?

 

[Missourian]

There have been many periods in geological history during which the Earth warmed rapidly. The rapid addition of GHGs from volcanic action and outgassing of clathrates was the cause in both the Permian-Triassic Extinction, and in the PETM, which also involved an extinction period. Just because human beings are the cause of the rapid buildup of the GHGs today does not excuse us from the consequences of that buildup. That is determined by physics, not somebody's idea of "how things ought to be".

Methane catastrophe - 05 March 2005 - New Scientist

Methane catastrophe

Clathrate gun hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Melting Arctic Ocean Raises Threat of ‘Methane Time Bomb’ by Susan Q. Stranahan: Yale Environment 360

30 Oct 2008: Report
Melting Arctic Ocean Raises Threat of ‘Methane Time Bomb’
Scientists have long believed that thawing permafrost in Arctic soils could release huge amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Now they are watching with increasing concern as methane begins to bubble up from the bottom of the fast-melting Arctic Ocean.
by susan q. stranahan

For the past 15 years, scientists from Russia and other nations have ventured into the ice-bound and little-studied Arctic Ocean above Siberia to monitor the temperature and chemistry of the sea, including levels of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Their scientific cruises on the shallow continental shelf occurred as sea ice in the Arctic Ocean was rapidly melting and as northern Siberia was earning the distinction — along with the North American Arctic and the western Antarctic Peninsula —of warming faster than any place on Earth.

Until 2003, concentrations of methane had remained relatively stable in the Arctic Ocean and the atmosphere north of Siberia. But then they began to rise. This summer, scientists taking part in the six-week International Siberian Shelf Study discovered numerous areas, spread over thousands of square miles, where large quantities of methane — a gas with 20-times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide — rose from the once-frozen seabed floor.

Did you miss this part?

The study, published in the journal Science, does indicate that it did take a 20,000 year warm period to melt back the ice sheet enough to allow the spruce forest to grow over southern Greenland, but paleoclimatologist and co-author Alexander Wolfe notes that these warm spells occurred with greenhouse gas emissions 30% lower than they are today.

​

Thanks for pointing that out.

So how much warmer would those periods have been with 30% more greenhouse gases?

Chris, that might be the least thought out statement you've ever posted...and you've had some doosies.

If you had reasoned it out before posting you'd have realized that for your statement to be true, the ice on Greenland would have already melted long ago.

Remember...think twice, post once.

Try again.

 

[Old Rocks]

Did you miss this part?

The study, published in the journal Science, does indicate that it did take a 20,000 year warm period to melt back the ice sheet enough to allow the spruce forest to grow over southern Greenland, but paleoclimatologist and co-author Alexander Wolfe notes that these warm spells occurred with greenhouse gas emissions 30% lower than they are today.

​

Thanks for pointing that out.

So how much warmer would those periods have been with 30% more greenhouse gases?

Chris, that might be the least thought out statement you've ever posted...and you've had some doosies.

If you had reasoned it out before posting you'd have realized that for your statement to be true, the ice on Greenland would have already melted long ago.

Remember...think twice, post once.

Try again.

Missouri, don't go stupid on us. As pointed out, it took 20,000 years for the warmup to occur with 30% less GHGs. Now by that measure, it should take about 13,000 years for the present amount to warm Greenland up to the previous level. However, the present warmup, and the accelerating buildup of GHGs, is happening much faster than that.

 

[Old Rocks]

Greenland's glaciers under threat from climate change
By Slim Allagui – 14 hours ago

ILULISSAT, Greenland (AFP) — One of the world's largest glaciers, on the west coast of Greenland, is shrinking at an alarming rate as a result of global warming -- with potentially dire consequences.

Ilulissat, a UNESCO-listed glacier, is shedding ice into the sea faster than ever before, according to one of Denmark's top experts on glaciology.

Andreas Peter Ahlstroem, a researcher with the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland institute, told AFP that the glacier has receded by more than 15 kilometres (10 miles) since 2001.

"Its calving rate (breaking off of ice) has never been so rapid," he said.

The Ilulissat glacier and icefjord have been on UNESCO's world heritage list since 2004 and is the most visited site in Greenland, its ice and pools of emerald-blue water admired by tourists and studied by scientists and politicians around the world.

The Danish government chose Ilulissat as the venue for recent talks with some 30 countries to discuss ways to slow global warming -- a place that Shfaqat Abbas Khan, a glacier expert from the Danish Space Centre, describes as the "most visible and striking example of climate change."

The glacier is the most active in the northern hemisphere, producing 85 million tonnes of icebergs per day, according to Khan.

AFP: Greenland's glaciers under threat from climate change

Greeting to both of you, Ruler of RisingTemperatures, and the Caliph of CarbonDioxide.

Remember me? I used to tell you that it's not man-made global warming, but rather another attempt by the left to put America under the auspice of the United Nations, and should be called Global Governance.

You guys said I was paranoid.

Check this out:

"Former Vice President Al Gore, whose "An Inconvenient Truth" video epistle on the claims of global warming has not weathered recent scientific research, now has promised at a conference in the United Kingdom that the impending virtual energy tax under the U.S. "cap-and-trade" legislation will bring about "global governance."
'Global governance' coming with carbon tax, says Gore

Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth's temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.

Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.”

Gore's call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac's call in 2000."
- Gore Says Climate Bill to Bring Global Governance

Get it yet?

Wise up.

Grap your pop gun and little tin hats, the ONE WORLDERS are coming!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[editec]

Honestly sometimes I fail to get some of you folks.

Consider the possibility that more than one pehnomena can heat up or cool off the earth.

Consider the possibility that such events can even be working in two different directions at once.

Consider the meaning (and the well understood scientific principle of) TIPPING POINT.

You people post with absolutely certainty of outcomes that science doesn't have, I think.

Both side of this debate do that, and for the life of me, I wonder what motivates you to do so.

Cap and Trade?

Hey, that's probably a good idea even if the earth isn't warming.

Sadly, even if it is a good idea in the long run, in the short run it is going to make our lives more difficult.

There is a middle course here, folks.

But you have to start out with the presumption that you don't really KNOW what the fuck is happening.

In other words, you have to think like real scientists instead of internet scientists.

 

[KittenKoder]

Honestly sometimes I fail to get some of you folks.

Consider the possibility that more than one pehnomena can heat up or cool off the earth.

Consider the possibility that such events can even be working in two different directions at once.

Consider the meaning (and the well understood scientific principle of) TIPPING POINT.

You people post with absolutely certainty of outcomes that science doesn't have, I think.

Both side of this debate do that, and for the life of me, I wonder what motivates you to do so.

Cap and Trade?

Hey, that's probably a good idea even if the earth isn't warming.

Sadly, even if it is a good idea in the long run, in the short run it is going to make our lives more difficult.

There is a middle course here, folks.

But you have to start out with the presumption that you don't really KNOW what the fuck is happening.

In other words, you have to think like real scientists instead of internet scientists.

You really see that Cap and Trade is a good thing? Then you know nothing of it. Sorry, but that's the flaw with environuts, they scare people, even a hint of fear, a touch of nervousness, it's terrorism .... stop and think of why they are pushing this so hard and making small minded people like Chris so scared they will jump on the band wagon without even looking at what they are supporting. There is an ulterior motive here, it's money. Cap and Trade is simply taking money from one "bad" location and giving it to another equally "bad" location by force.

 

[HUGGY]

Honestly sometimes I fail to get some of you folks.

Consider the possibility that more than one pehnomena can heat up or cool off the earth.

Consider the possibility that such events can even be working in two different directions at once.

Consider the meaning (and the well understood scientific principle of) TIPPING POINT.

You people post with absolutely certainty of outcomes that science doesn't have, I think.

Both side of this debate do that, and for the life of me, I wonder what motivates you to do so.

Cap and Trade?

Hey, that's probably a good idea even if the earth isn't warming.

Sadly, even if it is a good idea in the long run, in the short run it is going to make our lives more difficult.

There is a middle course here, folks.

But you have to start out with the presumption that you don't really KNOW what the fuck is happening.

In other words, you have to think like real scientists instead of internet scientists.

You really see that Cap and Trade is a good thing? Then you know nothing of it. Sorry, but that's the flaw with environuts, they scare people, even a hint of fear, a touch of nervousness, it's terrorism .... stop and think of why they are pushing this so hard and making small minded people like Chris so scared they will jump on the band wagon without even looking at what they are supporting. There is an ulterior motive here, it's money. Cap and Trade is simply taking money from one "bad" location and giving it to another equally "bad" location by force.

environuts?

So what is an enviro nut? People that recycle? People that care about the future of our planet?

What solutions or positive answers to some of these questions do you offer?

Why don't you come clean..spare us the bullshit talking points and just admit you don't give a shit about anyone or any thing else but your sad neurotic self. And therefore in the final analysis you don't even care about that.

 

[Missourian]

Thanks for pointing that out.

So how much warmer would those periods have been with 30% more greenhouse gases?

Chris, that might be the least thought out statement you've ever posted...and you've had some doosies.

If you had reasoned it out before posting you'd have realized that for your statement to be true, the ice on Greenland would have already melted long ago.

Remember...think twice, post once.

Try again.

Missouri, don't go stupid on us. As pointed out, it took 20,000 years for the warmup to occur with 30% less GHGs. Now by that measure, it should take about 13,000 years for the present amount to warm Greenland up to the previous level. However, the present warmup, and the accelerating buildup of GHGs, is happening much faster than that.

Sorry Old Rocks, but that dog won't hunt.

Man-made GHG only account for 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, the other 94.5% is naturally occuring. And that calculation excludes water vapor as a GHG.

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
​

​

So if mankind gave up all fossil fuels, industry and livestock, built mud huts and returned to hunting and gathering, 94.5% of greenhouse gas emissions would remain because they are naturally occurring.

And even if you could find some outrageous source that claimed 30% of GHGs were caused by human activity (a ridiculous assertion), that would still leave natural GHG emissions at the same levels that turned Greenland green.

P.S. - I tried diligently to locate a pro-global-warming-theory site from which to pull the percentages of GHG caused by human activity. I found not one that included them...go figure.

 

[KittenKoder]

Chris, that might be the least thought out statement you've ever posted...and you've had some doosies.

If you had reasoned it out before posting you'd have realized that for your statement to be true, the ice on Greenland would have already melted long ago.

Remember...think twice, post once.

Try again.

Missouri, don't go stupid on us. As pointed out, it took 20,000 years for the warmup to occur with 30% less GHGs. Now by that measure, it should take about 13,000 years for the present amount to warm Greenland up to the previous level. However, the present warmup, and the accelerating buildup of GHGs, is happening much faster than that.

Sorry Old Rocks, but that dog won't hunt.

Man-made GHG only account for 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, the other 94.5% is naturally occuring. And that calculation excludes water vapor as a GHG.

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
​

​

So if mankind gave up all fossil fuels, industry and livestock, built mud huts and returned to hunting and gathering, 94.5% of greenhouse gas emissions would remain because they are naturally occurring.

And even if you could find some outrageous source that claimed 30% of GHGs were caused by human activity (a ridiculous assertion), that would still leave natural GHG emissions at the same levels that turned Greenland green.

P.S. - I tried diligently to locate a pro-global-warming-theory site from which to pull the percentages of GHG caused by human activity. I found not one that included them...go figure.

The environut sites don't tell you most of the facts, they will only mention the few that support their scare tactics. Thus why they are no better than terrorists really. Hell, even some of the major environmental scientists are finally speaking out that the government policies do not truly follow our original ideologies. The newest environmental bills and policies are not for helping the environment, they are instead for pushing failed products and services, nothing more.

 

[Missourian]

Wikipedia has this

Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

They cite this UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change page as a reference.

Vital Climate Graphics | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Vital Climate Graphics​

That corresponds with the 5.5% posted above...20 times greater equals 20 to 1 equals 100 to 5 equals 5%.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Its calving rate (breaking off of ice) has never been so rapid," Andreas Peter Ahlstroem

LOL.

Andreas, did you mean to preface it by saying, "Well except for the time in recent history when a deglaciated Greenland appears on medieval maps...Its calving rate (breaking off of ice) has never been so rapid"

Get real. First a link to this wild claim. Then explain why, if Greenland were deglaciated in Medivial times the sea level was not meters higher.

 

[Old Rocks]

Chris, that might be the least thought out statement you've ever posted...and you've had some doosies.

If you had reasoned it out before posting you'd have realized that for your statement to be true, the ice on Greenland would have already melted long ago.

Remember...think twice, post once.

Try again.

Missouri, don't go stupid on us. As pointed out, it took 20,000 years for the warmup to occur with 30% less GHGs. Now by that measure, it should take about 13,000 years for the present amount to warm Greenland up to the previous level. However, the present warmup, and the accelerating buildup of GHGs, is happening much faster than that.

Sorry Old Rocks, but that dog won't hunt.

Man-made GHG only account for 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, the other 94.5% is naturally occuring. And that calculation excludes water vapor as a GHG.

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
​

​

So if mankind gave up all fossil fuels, industry and livestock, built mud huts and returned to hunting and gathering, 94.5% of greenhouse gas emissions would remain because they are naturally occurring.

And even if you could find some outrageous source that claimed 30% of GHGs were caused by human activity (a ridiculous assertion), that would still leave natural GHG emissions at the same levels that turned Greenland green.

P.S. - I tried diligently to locate a pro-global-warming-theory site from which to pull the percentages of GHG caused by human activity. I found not one that included them...go figure.

150 years ago the CO2 in the atmosphere stood at 280 ppm. Today it is right at 390. That is nearly a 40% increase. Now consider that CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of about 200 years. So the coal burned at the beginning of the Industial Revolution is still having some affect on us. If you calculate all the coal and oil burned in the last 160 years, you will find that the figure should be far higher than 40%. The oceans have absorbed a very high fraction of the CO2. Enough that we can see the effect of that in the increasing acidification of the ocean.

Here are sites that tell you how much of the present atmospheric GHGs are anthropogenic.

Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

Impact of Earth’s Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Found in World’s Oceans : News

Impact Of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Levels Found In World Oceans

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - Climate Impact of Quadrupling CO2

 

[Missourian]

Missouri, don't go stupid on us. As pointed out, it took 20,000 years for the warmup to occur with 30% less GHGs. Now by that measure, it should take about 13,000 years for the present amount to warm Greenland up to the previous level. However, the present warmup, and the accelerating buildup of GHGs, is happening much faster than that.

Sorry Old Rocks, but that dog won't hunt.

Man-made GHG only account for 5.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions, the other 94.5% is naturally occuring. And that calculation excludes water vapor as a GHG.

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
​

​

So if mankind gave up all fossil fuels, industry and livestock, built mud huts and returned to hunting and gathering, 94.5% of greenhouse gas emissions would remain because they are naturally occurring.

And even if you could find some outrageous source that claimed 30% of GHGs were caused by human activity (a ridiculous assertion), that would still leave natural GHG emissions at the same levels that turned Greenland green.

P.S. - I tried diligently to locate a pro-global-warming-theory site from which to pull the percentages of GHG caused by human activity. I found not one that included them...go figure.

150 years ago the CO2 in the atmosphere stood at 280 ppm. Today it is right at 390. That is nearly a 40% increase. Now consider that CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of about 200 years. So the coal burned at the beginning of the Industial Revolution is still having some affect on us. If you calculate all the coal and oil burned in the last 160 years, you will find that the figure should be far higher than 40%. The oceans have absorbed a very high fraction of the CO2. Enough that we can see the effect of that in the increasing acidification of the ocean.

Here are sites that tell you how much of the present atmospheric GHGs are anthropogenic.

Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

Impact of Earth’s Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Found in World’s Oceans : News

Impact Of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Levels Found In World Oceans

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - Climate Impact of Quadrupling CO2

Ok, I read your links (one was a repeat).

None answered the question.

Is 95% of ghg naturally occuring? This is the most important question.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You won't get real answers from the likes of Chris or Old Rocks, they have their heads so buried up Al Gores ASS they can tell you hours ahead of time when he will fart.

Greenland is NAMED Greenland because when it was found it was GREEN. The coasts and areas near the cost were ICE FREE. Vikings thrived there for several hundred years until the ice moved back in. Now Old Rocks would have you believe Greenland was never ice free even though we have HISTORY to prove it.

My question about melting ice is simple, if the ice is melting at these supposed rates and not being replaced else where why are the coast of the US still the same, how come I am not underwater already? Where has all the water gone?

 

[Chris]

You won't get real answers from the likes of Chris or Old Rocks, they have their heads so buried up Al Gores ASS they can tell you hours ahead of time when he will fart.

Greenland is NAMED Greenland because when it was found it was GREEN. The coasts and areas near the cost were ICE FREE. Vikings thrived there for several hundred years until the ice moved back in. Now Old Rocks would have you believe Greenland was never ice free even though we have HISTORY to prove it.

My question about melting ice is simple, if the ice is melting at these supposed rates and not being replaced else where why are the coast of the US still the same, how come I am not underwater already? Where has all the water gone?

RGS, real answers???

The above post is the perfect attempt at deflection.

Al Gore is not the issue.

Greenland's past is not the issure.

The Vikings are not the issue.(They had a couple of small outposts on the southern coast of Greenland and got frozen out and left)

The issue is, how much will raising atmospheric CO2 by 40% heat the earth? The scientists from MIT say there is a 90% certainty that it will heat the earth 4 to 7 degrees by the end of this century.

That's it. Those are the facts. Does this mean the earth will heat up 4 to 7 degrees by the end of the century? No, it does not. The earth might heat up more, a lot more if the arctic methane gets released. It also might heat up a lot less if the sun goes into a dormant stage.

RGS, asked why the coastline hasn't changed with the melting ice. It has. The seas rose 20 feet with the melting of the ice during the last Ice Age. But those were continental ice sheets on the land. Ice in the water such as the North Polar Ice Cap will not raise the seas much when they melt. It is land based ice such as the Greenland ice sheet or the ice in Antarctica that will raise the seas if they melt. That is why they are so important.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You won't get real answers from the likes of Chris or Old Rocks, they have their heads so buried up Al Gores ASS they can tell you hours ahead of time when he will fart.

Greenland is NAMED Greenland because when it was found it was GREEN. The coasts and areas near the cost were ICE FREE. Vikings thrived there for several hundred years until the ice moved back in. Now Old Rocks would have you believe Greenland was never ice free even though we have HISTORY to prove it.

My question about melting ice is simple, if the ice is melting at these supposed rates and not being replaced else where why are the coast of the US still the same, how come I am not underwater already? Where has all the water gone?

RGS, real answers???

The above post is the perfect attempt at deflection.

Al Gore is not the issue.

Greenland's past is not the issure.

The Vikings are not the issue.(They had a couple of small outposts on the southern coast of Greenland and got frozen out and left)

The issue is, how much will raising atmospheric CO2 by 40% heat the earth? The scientists from MIT say there is a 90% certainty that it will heat the earth 4 to 7 degrees by the end of this century.

That's it. Those are the facts. Does this mean the earth will heat up 4 to 7 degrees by the end of the century? No, it does not. The earth might heat up more, a lot more if the arctic methane gets released. It also might heat up a lot less if the sun goes into a dormant stage.

RGS, asked why the coastline hasn't changed with the melting ice. It has. The seas rose 20 feet with the melting of the ice during the last Ice Age. But those were continental ice sheets on the land. Ice in the water such as the North Polar Ice Cap will not raise the seas much when they melt. It is land based ice such as the Greenland ice sheet or the ice in Antarctica that will raise the seas if they melt. That is why they are so important.

You keep claiming MILLIONS upon Millions of ice has melted from the poles. Why am I not under water? You keep claiming Greenland is going green. Why am I not underwater?

You keep claiming 4 percent of supposed greenhouse gasses are man made, which means 96 percent is NATURAL. Which means even if we shut down all CO2 production by man including breathing, 96 PERCENT of the gasses are coming from the EARTH. You want us to believe that CO2 , which has a diminishing effect on heat retention is the culprit for supposed future warming when science shows us that CO2 FOLLOWS rising heat it does not come first. And in fact the current events prove that to be TRUE.