Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Getting a Grip on Future Ice Sheet Changes
And this only addresses the melting in Greenland. The Antarctic Ice Cap is also losing mass.
For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
19 May 2005 - According to a new study published in the online edition of Science, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet gained about 45 billion tons of ice between 1992 and 2003. The ice sheets are several kilometers thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world's ice.
Using data from the European Space Agency's radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2, a research team from the University of Missouri, Columbia, measured changes in altitude over about 70% of Antarctica's interior. East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimeters per year over the time period studied, the researchers discovered.
The region comprises about 75% of Antarctica 's total land area and about 85% of the total ice volume. The area in question covers more than 2.75 million square miles - roughly the same size as the United States.
If you review this article "Large and Rapid Melt-Induced Velocity Changes in the Ablation Zone of the Greenland Ice Sheet" in the July 2008 issue of Science Magazine, I believe you will find that the contentions you report are not supported by the evidence. But, don't let a 17 year study of the Greenland ice sheet get in the way of hyping up a bunch of science fantasy.
If you want to remain even mildly credible on this you may want to steer clear of those two particular sources.
The consensus that their is no consensus grows by the day.
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
Like the AMS position statement that I took you to the cleaners with last week?....Show me on[e] scientific society that does not completely endorse the fact the the earths atmosphere is warming, and that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of that warming. ....
Like the AMS position statement that I took you to the cleaners with last week?
Repeat the lie often enough and many fools will begin to believe you. I must admit its a great tactic.
Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.
Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.
AMS Information Statement on Climate Change
Now Glock, even given your limited comprehension, what part of the first sentence do you not understand?
It doesn't surprise me that you would ignore the fact that the AMS lists natural causes first, followed by human causes, and then, finally discusses CO2 (in your link). But do keep spouting how CO2 is the most important. It makes you look like the fool that you wish the rest of us were.
Repeat the lie often enough and many fools will begin to believe you. I must admit its a great tactic.
I prefer to use the articles that you post, and prove that they actually say something other than you opine.Once again, you are the liar here. I cut and paste from scientific sources that support the overwhelming scientific consensus on the subject. There is nothing at all keeping you from using real scientific articles to support your opinion, other than the fact they are very hard to find.
The Inhofe Blog! LOL. That energy company whore? Come on, people. Show me on scientific society that does not completely endorse the fact the the earths atmosphere is warming, and that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of that warming. Show me one National Academy of Science of any major nation that does not endorse that consensus. Show me on major university that does not have a policy statement on global warming that states this. You cannot, because there are not any. The scientific consensus on global warming and it's cause is as solid as that on evolution.
Now if you are able, accept the challenge and show me a scientific society that states that global warming is not happening, or that the burning of fossil fuels is not the primary cause of the warming.
