Largest Tide Water Glacier In N. America Greatly Expanding

[k2skier]

Still waiting for you to explain the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40%....

Still waiting for you to explain how 40% of .04% is statistically significant.

Bingo.

Dude - you continue to smack the realtor around on this issue.

And he has the nerve to want to ignore the Cap n Trade issue when discussing the concerns he has over CO2??

Ah, focus on the one hand and ignore the other.

You know, the hand about to gut the entire U.S. economy...

You're the one spinning it, comparing apples to oranges, trying to compare a calving tidewater glacier to high alpine glaciers.

 

[code1211]

Glaciers throughout Alaska are shrinking more and more rapidly, and scientists comparing old photos taken up to a century ago with digital images made during climbing expeditions today say the pictures provide the most dramatic evidence yet that global warming is real.

And it's not only the glaciers reflecting the climate change. Everywhere on the treeless tundra north of the jagged slopes of Alaska's Brooks Range, explosive bursts of vegetation -- willows, alders, birch and many shrubs -- are thriving where permafrost once kept the tundra surface frozen in winter.
Two geophysicists and a government geologist who spend much of their working lives exploring changes in the Arctic displayed dozens of photographs from the thousands in their files Thursday at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

"You don't need science to prove the point," said Matt Nolan of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. "This evidence is visual, and it's real.

"All the glaciers in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are retreating from their most extended positions thousands of years ago, and the only scientific explanation for their retreat is a change in climate. There's no doubt at all, and the loss of glacial volume is accelerating."

Bruce Molnia, a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, has gathered more than 200 glacier photos taken from the 1890s to the late 1970s and has visited more than 1,000 Alaskan glaciers in the past four years to photograph them from precisely the same locations and pointing in the same directions as the older ones.

Where masses of ice were once surging down wide mountain passes into the sea, or were hanging from high and perilously steep faces, the surfaces in Molnia's images now stand bare. What remains from many of the retreating glaciers are stretches of open water or broad, snow-free layers of sediment.

Shrinking glaciers evidence of global warming / Differences seen by looking at photos from 100 years ago

This article seems to beg the question. Since this vegetation is appearing in "explosive bursts", from what source are these plants growing?

If the memory of the biology classes that I admittedly slept through serves, most plants grow from seeds. It might have been all plants, but you get the point. Where did the seeds of the plants appearing in the "explosive bursts" come from if they were not already there, under the snow, waiting for the perma frost's grip to weaken to allow them to grow where the plants that had dropped them in the dark past once grew?

Unless there has been an expansive seeding project, these "explosive bursts" of plant growth reveal not that this is a departure from the norm, but a return to a previous condition. This previous condition was ended by something and whatever it was that caused the unusual cooling has apparently been corrected.

We may be thankful that the Good Earth changes and corrects as it is now doing.

 

[Sinatra]

Glaciers throughout Alaska are shrinking more and more rapidly, and scientists comparing old photos taken up to a century ago with digital images made during climbing expeditions today say the pictures provide the most dramatic evidence yet that global warming is real.

And it's not only the glaciers reflecting the climate change. Everywhere on the treeless tundra north of the jagged slopes of Alaska's Brooks Range, explosive bursts of vegetation -- willows, alders, birch and many shrubs -- are thriving where permafrost once kept the tundra surface frozen in winter.
Two geophysicists and a government geologist who spend much of their working lives exploring changes in the Arctic displayed dozens of photographs from the thousands in their files Thursday at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

"You don't need science to prove the point," said Matt Nolan of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. "This evidence is visual, and it's real.

"All the glaciers in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are retreating from their most extended positions thousands of years ago, and the only scientific explanation for their retreat is a change in climate. There's no doubt at all, and the loss of glacial volume is accelerating."

Bruce Molnia, a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, has gathered more than 200 glacier photos taken from the 1890s to the late 1970s and has visited more than 1,000 Alaskan glaciers in the past four years to photograph them from precisely the same locations and pointing in the same directions as the older ones.

Where masses of ice were once surging down wide mountain passes into the sea, or were hanging from high and perilously steep faces, the surfaces in Molnia's images now stand bare. What remains from many of the retreating glaciers are stretches of open water or broad, snow-free layers of sediment.

Shrinking glaciers evidence of global warming / Differences seen by looking at photos from 100 years ago

This article seems to beg the question. Since this vegetation is appearing in "explosive bursts", from what source are these plants growing?

If the memory of the biology classes that I admittedly slept through serves, most plants grow from seeds. It might have been all plants, but you get the point. Where did the seeds of the plants appearing in the "explosive bursts" come from if they were not already there, under the snow, waiting for the perma frost's grip to weaken to allow them to grow where the plants that had dropped them in the dark past once grew?

Unless there has been an expansive seeding project, these "explosive bursts" of plant growth reveal not that this is a departure from the norm, but a return to a previous condition. This previous condition was ended by something and whatever it was that caused the unusual cooling has apparently been corrected.

We may be thankful that the Good Earth changes and corrects as it is now doing.

You mean the earth and the sun are mightier than human kind!

Blasphemy!!!!!

Oh, you shall be reported - post haste!

How dare you question my non-science and profit potential!!!!!!

 

[code1211]

STILL waiting for Chris to explain the graph from the other thread. Notice how he just ignores it?

Still waiting for you to explain the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40%....

Not everything makes straight line, logical sense. F'rinstance: Burning a pound of gasoline creates more than a pound of CO2 due to the chemical reaction that grabbs the O2 part of the CO2. I've found a similar conundrum in my own life.

I happen to love Quarter Pounders. I rarely eat them anymore due to Cholesterol and gaining weight, but I do really enjoy them when I do. So what's the conundrum? When I eat a Quarter pounder, I gain a whole pound.

There is no justice! And I suspect that this has something to do with AGW.

 

[Chris]

STILL waiting for Chris to explain the graph from the other thread. Notice how he just ignores it?

Still waiting for you to explain the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40%....

Still waiting for you to explain how 40% of .04% is statistically significant.

The next major scientist to consider the question was another man with broad interests, Svante Arrhenius in Stockholm. He too was attracted by the great riddle of the prehistoric ice ages. In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level. But this idea could only answer the riddle of the ice ages if such large changes in atmospheric composition really were possible. For that question Arrhenius turned to a colleague, Arvid Högbom. It happened that Högbom had compiled estimates for how carbon dioxide cycles through natural geochemical processes, including emission from volcanoes, uptake by the oceans, and so forth. Along the way he had come up with a strange, almost incredible new idea.

It had occurred to Högbom to calculate the amounts of CO2 emitted by factories and other industrial sources. Surprisingly, he found that human activities were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate roughly comparable to the natural geochemical processes that emitted or absorbed the gas. The added gas was not much compared with the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere — the CO2 released from the burning of coal in the year 1896 would raise the level by scarcely a thousandth part. But the additions might matter if they continued long enough.(2) (By recent calculations, the total amount of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total amount in the atmosphere.) So the next CO2 change might not be a cooling decrease, but an increase. Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth's temperature some 5-6°C.(3)

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[code1211]

Still waiting for you to explain how 40% of .04% is statistically significant.

Bingo.

Dude - you continue to smack the realtor around on this issue.

And he has the nerve to want to ignore the Cap n Trade issue when discussing the concerns he has over CO2??

Ah, focus on the one hand and ignore the other.

You know, the hand about to gut the entire U.S. economy...

You're the one spinning it, comparing apples to oranges, trying to compare a calving tidewater glacier to high alpine glaciers.

Well, now, just a minute, there. Glaciers on mountains are not all the same. The one on Kilamanjaro is often cited as being proof of AGW and yet the actual cause of this glacier shrinking is lower humidity, not warming.

All that aside, though, the state of glaciers is not a thing of permanence as the brevity of the glaciers' lives around the world would indicate. The Ice Core records from the Antarctic and Greenland span Ice Ages, but elsewhere, this is not the case. Elsewhere, glaciers that span several thousand years are more common.

Important to note in this is that if a glacier's life spans several thousand years as opposed to 100 thousand years, it formed after the last Ice Age ended. Obviously, it was cooler during the last Ice Age than it is now. What should be just as obvious is that it has been warmer than now since that time.

Our current warming is not unique in history or even in this Interglacial. We are not warming beyond anything natural. We are returning to a climate that was prevalent quite recently.

 

[Chris]

Bingo.

Dude - you continue to smack the realtor around on this issue.

And he has the nerve to want to ignore the Cap n Trade issue when discussing the concerns he has over CO2??

Ah, focus on the one hand and ignore the other.

You know, the hand about to gut the entire U.S. economy...

You're the one spinning it, comparing apples to oranges, trying to compare a calving tidewater glacier to high alpine glaciers.

Well, now, just a minute, there. Glaciers on mountains are not all the same. The one on Kilamanjaro is often cited as being proof of AGW and yet the actual cause of this glacier shrinking is lower humidity, not warming.

All that aside, though, the state of glaciers is not a thing of permanence as the brevity of the glaciers' lives around the world would indicate. The Ice Core records from the Antarctic and Greenland span Ice Ages, but elsewhere, this is not the case. Elsewhere, glaciers that span several thousand years are more common.

Important to note in this is that if a glacier's life spans several thousand years as opposed to 100 thousand years, it formed after the last Ice Age ended. Obviously, it was cooler during the last Ice Age than it is now. What should be just as obvious is that it has been warmer than now since that time.

Our current warming is not unique in history or even in this Interglacial. We are not warming beyond anything natural. We are returning to a climate that was prevalent quite recently.

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice is still melting.

Why?

 

[manu1959]

Glaciers throughout Alaska are shrinking more and more rapidly, and scientists comparing old photos taken up to a century ago with digital images made during climbing expeditions today say the pictures provide the most dramatic evidence yet that global warming is real.

And it's not only the glaciers reflecting the climate change. Everywhere on the treeless tundra north of the jagged slopes of Alaska's Brooks Range, explosive bursts of vegetation -- willows, alders, birch and many shrubs -- are thriving where permafrost once kept the tundra surface frozen in winter.
Two geophysicists and a government geologist who spend much of their working lives exploring changes in the Arctic displayed dozens of photographs from the thousands in their files Thursday at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

"You don't need science to prove the point," said Matt Nolan of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. "This evidence is visual, and it's real.

"All the glaciers in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are retreating from their most extended positions thousands of years ago, and the only scientific explanation for their retreat is a change in climate. There's no doubt at all, and the loss of glacial volume is accelerating."

Bruce Molnia, a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, has gathered more than 200 glacier photos taken from the 1890s to the late 1970s and has visited more than 1,000 Alaskan glaciers in the past four years to photograph them from precisely the same locations and pointing in the same directions as the older ones.

Where masses of ice were once surging down wide mountain passes into the sea, or were hanging from high and perilously steep faces, the surfaces in Molnia's images now stand bare. What remains from many of the retreating glaciers are stretches of open water or broad, snow-free layers of sediment.

Shrinking glaciers evidence of global warming / Differences seen by looking at photos from 100 years ago

This article seems to beg the question. Since this vegetation is appearing in "explosive bursts", from what source are these plants growing?

If the memory of the biology classes that I admittedly slept through serves, most plants grow from seeds. It might have been all plants, but you get the point. Where did the seeds of the plants appearing in the "explosive bursts" come from if they were not already there, under the snow, waiting for the perma frost's grip to weaken to allow them to grow where the plants that had dropped them in the dark past once grew?

Unless there has been an expansive seeding project, these "explosive bursts" of plant growth reveal not that this is a departure from the norm, but a return to a previous condition. This previous condition was ended by something and whatever it was that caused the unusual cooling has apparently been corrected.

We may be thankful that the Good Earth changes and corrects as it is now doing.

so let's see.....more plants......sucking up all the "extrea" co2.....which will cause a fall in co2 which will cause cooling.....

 

[k2skier]

Bingo.

Dude - you continue to smack the realtor around on this issue.

And he has the nerve to want to ignore the Cap n Trade issue when discussing the concerns he has over CO2??

Ah, focus on the one hand and ignore the other.

You know, the hand about to gut the entire U.S. economy...

You're the one spinning it, comparing apples to oranges, trying to compare a calving tidewater glacier to high alpine glaciers.

Well, now, just a minute, there. Glaciers on mountains are not all the same. The one on Kilamanjaro is often cited as being proof of AGW and yet the actual cause of this glacier shrinking is lower humidity, not warming.

All that aside, though, the state of glaciers is not a thing of permanence as the brevity of the glaciers' lives around the world would indicate. The Ice Core records from the Antarctic and Greenland span Ice Ages, but elsewhere, this is not the case. Elsewhere, glaciers that span several thousand years are more common.

Important to note in this is that if a glacier's life spans several thousand years as opposed to 100 thousand years, it formed after the last Ice Age ended. Obviously, it was cooler during the last Ice Age than it is now. What should be just as obvious is that it has been warmer than now since that time.

Our current warming is not unique in history or even in this Interglacial. We are not warming beyond anything natural. We are returning to a climate that was prevalent quite recently.

Not in overall temperature increase, you are correct, it's the short time frame the increase has taken place is what's puzzling.

Birds transplant seeds, to the middle of the dessert to the high alpine.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Don't you know if you disprove Chrissy in one thread, he'll just post in another thread about the same thing, playing ignorance.

Yes - I have noticed this of the realtor.

Alas, his method is much the same as most of the GW supporters.

Billions are to be made on Cap n Trade - so while Obama is President and Democrats run the Congress, those corporations are determined to see their investment pay off.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

Disprove that and stop changing the subject to "cap and trade."

Dumb ass we have been over this CO2 has a DIMINISHING effect on heat retention as it increases. The greatest heat retention is by water in the air and THAT is not increasing.

 

[code1211]

Don't you know if you disprove Chrissy in one thread, he'll just post in another thread about the same thing, playing ignorance.

Yes - I have noticed this of the realtor.

Alas, his method is much the same as most of the GW supporters.

Billions are to be made on Cap n Trade - so while Obama is President and Democrats run the Congress, those corporations are determined to see their investment pay off.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

Disprove that and stop changing the subject to "cap and trade."

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tropospheric-temperature-trends-for-march/

Since 2001, the global temperature has been on a downward trend. During the same period, if we are to believe what you have been telling us, the additions to the planet's CO2 has been increasing. Also, the cummulative total has been increasing as has the rate of increase.

If CO2 was decreasing and the Global Temperature was dropping that would support your case.

If CO2 was increasing and the Global Temperature was increasing, THAT would support your case.

In the real world, CO2 has been increasing and the rate of increase has been increasing. The temperature has been falling. Your case seems to be falling apart.

If your assertion is correct, then natural law is being broken and all that we depend upon for consistancy in the universe is ending. If your assertion is wrong, then we may continue in the knowledge that natural law persists.

Since you are proposing something that is not proven and is not apparent, it is incumbant on you to prove it. Go ahead.

 

[Sinatra]

Yes - I have noticed this of the realtor.

Alas, his method is much the same as most of the GW supporters.

Billions are to be made on Cap n Trade - so while Obama is President and Democrats run the Congress, those corporations are determined to see their investment pay off.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

Disprove that and stop changing the subject to "cap and trade."

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tropospheric-temperature-trends-for-march/

Since 2001, the global temperature has been on a downward trend. During the same period, if we are to believe what you have been telling us, the additions to the planet's CO2 has been increasing. Also, the cummulative total has been increasing as has the rate of increase.

If CO2 was decreasing and the Global Temperature was dropping that would support your case.

If CO2 was increasing and the Global Temperature was increasing, THAT would support your case.

In the real world, CO2 has been increasing and the rate of increase has been increasing. The temperature has been falling. Your case seems to be falling apart.

If your assertion is correct, then natural law is being broken and all that we depend upon for consistancy in the universe is ending. If your assertion is wrong, then we may continue in the knowledge that natural law persists.

Since you are proposing something that is not proven and is not apparent, it is incumbant on you to prove it. Go ahead.

Once again, well done.

 

[Oddball]

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tropospheric-temperature-trends-for-march/

Since 2001, the global temperature has been on a downward trend. During the same period, if we are to believe what you have been telling us, the additions to the planet's CO2 has been increasing. Also, the cummulative total has been increasing as has the rate of increase.

If CO2 was decreasing and the Global Temperature was dropping that would support your case.

If CO2 was increasing and the Global Temperature was increasing, THAT would support your case.

In the real world, CO2 has been increasing and the rate of increase has been increasing. The temperature has been falling. Your case seems to be falling apart.

If your assertion is correct, then natural law is being broken and all that we depend upon for consistancy in the universe is ending. If your assertion is wrong, then we may continue in the knowledge that natural law persists.

Since you are proposing something that is not proven and is not apparent, it is incumbant on you to prove it. Go ahead.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to code1211 again.

 

[Chris]

Yes - I have noticed this of the realtor.

Alas, his method is much the same as most of the GW supporters.

Billions are to be made on Cap n Trade - so while Obama is President and Democrats run the Congress, those corporations are determined to see their investment pay off.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

Disprove that and stop changing the subject to "cap and trade."

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tropospheric-temperature-trends-for-march/

Since 2001, the global temperature has been on a downward trend. During the same period, if we are to believe what you have been telling us, the additions to the planet's CO2 has been increasing. Also, the cummulative total has been increasing as has the rate of increase.

If CO2 was decreasing and the Global Temperature was dropping that would support your case.

If CO2 was increasing and the Global Temperature was increasing, THAT would support your case.

In the real world, CO2 has been increasing and the rate of increase has been increasing. The temperature has been falling. Your case seems to be falling apart.

If your assertion is correct, then natural law is being broken and all that we depend upon for consistancy in the universe is ending. If your assertion is wrong, then we may continue in the knowledge that natural law persists.

Since you are proposing something that is not proven and is not apparent, it is incumbant on you to prove it. Go ahead.

No my case is that CO2 will cause the Earth to warm within the context of the Sun's activity, so my case has not "fallen apart." You have just misrepresented my case. Why? Because you have nothing left but lies.

 

[Oddball]

Solar activity isn't the only variable, numbnuts.

 

[Chris]

Solar activity isn't the only variable, numbnuts.

That's right.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is one of the other variables.

 

[KittenKoder]

Solar activity isn't the only variable, numbnuts.

That's right.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is one of the other variables.

Which is highly dependent on the amount which plants can convert ... which depends on solar activity ... Dude said "other factors", not related factors.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Solar activity isn't the only variable, numbnuts.

That's right.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is one of the other variables.

Once again you retard, water vapor is the main cause of increased heat and THAT is not increasing in the atmosphere. CO2 has a DIMINISHING effect as it increases.

Ohh and you still haven't explained how we had any ice left to melt by 1950?

 

[code1211]

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

Disprove that and stop changing the subject to "cap and trade."

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tropospheric-temperature-trends-for-march/

Since 2001, the global temperature has been on a downward trend. During the same period, if we are to believe what you have been telling us, the additions to the planet's CO2 has been increasing. Also, the cummulative total has been increasing as has the rate of increase.

If CO2 was decreasing and the Global Temperature was dropping that would support your case.

If CO2 was increasing and the Global Temperature was increasing, THAT would support your case.

In the real world, CO2 has been increasing and the rate of increase has been increasing. The temperature has been falling. Your case seems to be falling apart.

If your assertion is correct, then natural law is being broken and all that we depend upon for consistancy in the universe is ending. If your assertion is wrong, then we may continue in the knowledge that natural law persists.

Since you are proposing something that is not proven and is not apparent, it is incumbant on you to prove it. Go ahead.

No my case is that CO2 will cause the Earth to warm within the context of the Sun's activity, so my case has not "fallen apart." You have just misrepresented my case. Why? Because you have nothing left but lies.

That is only a part of your case. You have tied the warming of the planet to the rise of CO2 and tried to demonstrate that this warming is occurring caused primarily by CO2 and extending that to a prediction of dire consequence.

You have also tied a program of prudent reductions of the emissions of CO2 by Man to a way in which we can stop the warming and avoid the dire consequence. If CO2 is not a primary causer of the warming, reducing the amount of CO2 is a particularly stupid thing to do given the almost universal use for the stuff for the good of man.

You case seems to be that Man is affecting the climate, making it warmer, that this will ultimately be a bad thing and Man can undo this effect by reducing man-made emissions of CO2.

My case is that while Man is emitting CO2, the warming effect is so slight as to be unnoticable and I present as evidence the vascillation of temperature both up and down in the face of consistantly rising CO2 and the recent, 2001-2009, downward slide of temperature again in the face of consistantly rising CO2.

So, my challenge to you is to prove the case or drop it. I was once a proponent of your side of the argument and found it to be unsupportable. Support it and I might go back to your side.

 

[Oddball]

I was once a proponent of your side of the argument and found it to be unsupportable.

Same here.

Once one applies logic, analytical thought, scientific acid tests that have survived centuries (i.e. repeatability and falsifiability), and the history of Malthusian declinism and all its modern permutations, the anthropogenic global warming myth comes apart like a cheap suit.