It getting faster (some glaciers are going 2 kilometers/year):
http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2015/11/how-warming-oceans-unleashed-ice-stream?utm_campaign=email-news-weekly&et_rid=33537079&et_cid=92473 (http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2015/11/how-warming-oceans-unleashed-ice-stream?utm_campaign=email-news-weekly&et_rid=33537079&et_cid=92473)
Quote from: BillT on November 14, 2015, 04:41:07 PM
It getting faster (some glaciers are going 2 kilometers/year):
http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2015/11/how-warming-oceans-unleashed-ice-stream?utm_campaign=email-news-weekly&et_rid=33537079&et_cid=92473 (http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2015/11/how-warming-oceans-unleashed-ice-stream?utm_campaign=email-news-weekly&et_rid=33537079&et_cid=92473)
Here's another on the same topic..
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/13/3722002/another-glacier-is-dying/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/13/3722002/another-glacier-is-dying/)
Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth?s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims ? that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.
The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the ?normal? baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/
http://www.c3headlines.com/arcticgreenlandantarcticglacierssea-ice/
Quote from: GraphicGr8s on November 14, 2015, 07:34:14 PM
Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth?s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims ? that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.
The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the ?normal? baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/
Except we're talking about glaciers melting elsewhere....my link was about Greenland... as is Bill's... ;D
Quote from: Mugwump on November 14, 2015, 07:39:58 PM
Quote from: GraphicGr8s on November 14, 2015, 07:34:14 PM
Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth?s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims ? that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.
The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the ?normal? baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/
Except we're talking about glaciers melting elsewhere....my link was about Greenland... as is Bill's... ;D
It's all tied in together Jon. It's all "man made global climate change" bs.
Quote from: GraphicGr8s on November 14, 2015, 07:44:07 PM
Quote from: Mugwump on November 14, 2015, 07:39:58 PM
Quote from: GraphicGr8s on November 14, 2015, 07:34:14 PM
Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth?s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims ? that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.
The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the ?normal? baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/
Except we're talking about glaciers melting elsewhere....my link was about Greenland... as is Bill's... ;D
It's all tied in together Jon. It's all "man made global climate change" bs.
your mixing apples and oranges on this thread topic....a straw man argument......nice try tho... ;D
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.
http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2012/07/unprecedented-greenland-ice-sheet-melt.html
Greenland was once upon a time a tropical country. That is proved absolutely by the remains of an extensive tropical flora which are found there. Where now a sheet of solid ice over a mile thick covers mountain and valley, and mighty frozen rivers called glaciers make their way to the sea and hatch icebergs, there was in earlier days a verdure-clad wilderness of luxuriant vegetation. Together with the palms and tree ferns, there were trees related to the giant sequoias of our own west coast; also representatives of the "gingko," the sacred tree of Japan and of the Eucalyptus family, which today is restricted to Australia. Climbing vines festooned the trunks of these monarchs of an ancient forest with draperies of foliage, while close to the ground grew those curious dwarf trees called "cycads," somewhat resembling palms in miniature, in the midst of a tangled undergrowth of ferns and other flowerless plants that carpted the densely wooded areas.
http://ku-prism.org/polarscientist/losttribes/Jan131897Boston.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel M?rner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr M?rner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
You are DEEPLY CONFUSED about the history of the earth.
The obvious explanation for Greenland tropical fossils is that it used to reside in tropical places, but moved to its present location due to continental drift.
I figure you will probably come up with some another pseudo-scientific excuse to not believe in continental drift, but then you should also explain how come geology, which continental drift is an integral part of, works so well at things like oil discovery. If you throw out part of it you will have to throw out the rest unless you could replace it with something functional.
By the way, what the NASA article said was there were similar melts at about 150 year intervals, but if there are more than one it would be something to worry about.
So, that argument rules out NOTHING!
You (and your cohorts) are just using these arguments as an excuse because you are psychologically incapable of admitting someone who disagrees with you on this could be right.
If each year is a new record hot year, then things are warming up.
Don't make long term real estate investments in low laying areas like Florida.
Quote from: BillT on November 14, 2015, 09:55:21 PM
You are DEEPLY CONFUSED about the history of the earth.
The obvious explanation for Greenland tropical fossils is that it used to reside in tropical places, but moved to its present location due to continental drift.
I figure you will probably come up with some another pseudo-scientific excuse to not believe in continental drift, but then you should also explain how come geology, which continental drift is an integral part of, works so well at things like oil discovery. If you throw out part of it you will have to throw out the rest unless you could replace it with something functional.
By the way, what the NASA article said was there were similar melts at about 150 year intervals, but if there are more than one it would be something to worry about.
So, that argument rules out NOTHING!
You (and your cohorts) are just using these arguments as an excuse because you are psychologically incapable of admitting someone who disagrees with you on this could be right.
If each year is a new record hot year, then things are warming up.
Don't make long term real estate investments in low laying areas like Florida.
Me and my cohorts Bill?
We are not the ones who think you should be RICO acted if you disagree.
Sorry Bill you're way to close minded to follow the money on "climate change". You are so blinded you are not in any way shape or form even able to listen to dissent.
Those scientists you say are discredited. Who discredited them? Scientists that lose funding if they agree? Are there any scientists that don't think warming is natural that discredited them?
You're a smart guy Bill. Open your mind.
BTW Bill, the answer to the question is yes.
http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/MKTNews/Global-Warming-climate-change/2014/11/17/id/607827/
7
Here's another article you probably won't read Bill.
http://100percentfedup.com/wow-worlds-top-physicist-democrat-obama-backs-wrong-side-war-climate-change-follow-money-carbon-far-good-harm/#
What's the big deal about global warming anyway? It just part of nature. The earth has gone through this before and it's still here.
Ok guys....the 'playground' is opened up again.....let's keep the banter there......
http://www.mugwump-fish-world.com//index.php?topic=6135.msg58229#new (http://www.mugwump-fish-world.com//index.php?topic=6135.msg58229#new)
Did look. These guys are paid to be look smart (by those afraid of losing their short term profits) while being dumb for the easily led.
The link to "the world's greatest physicist" links to a complete unknown with no real standing anywhere except for among gullible ignorants.
The websites you like are anti-data fox news wannabes. You and these clowns are living in a fact adverse dream world. This would be fine if you weren't taking everyone else down with you.
The real cases of money corruption are peoples statements is the former climate denier guy who was found to hiding his connections to denier groups, Exxon hiding its own findings from the 1980's about global warming, ...
A real question is:
QuoteWhat's the big deal about global warming anyway? It just part of nature. The earth has gone through this before and it's still here.
The big deal is:
1) It human caused and is preventable
2) Companies don't want to impinge their profits (follow the real money) and influence right wingers to oppose it politically
3) The rate of climate change will be increasing (unless changes are made). One example of how this acceleration is happening: Even now giant craters are forming in the Siberian north coast where the prema-frost is thawing and methane is being released in to the atmosphere. Some of these craters are a kilometer in diameter. Methane is a more potent global warming gas that CO
2.
4) Climate change is happening much faster than the rates of change that have occurred in the past. This makes it impossible for plants and animals to evolve fast enough to not go extinct.
5) The increase in atmospheric CO2 content is raising the levels of dissolved CO2 in the oceans. This increases ocean acidity, making it more difficult for things with calcium carbonate based shells to make their shells or reef structures. Near the BASE of the oceans ecological food chain are small plankton that are in this category. These guys are expected to not do so good and crash everything above them in the food chain.
6) Many biologists think we are going through the beginning of another great extinction. There have been several major extinctions in the history of our planet. The end of the dinosaurs was a large one (due to a giant meteor impact possibly combined with a major lava outflow). The largest we know of is the end Permian extinction (cause not clear) where 96% of all marine species, 70% of terrestrial vertebrates become extinct. Among insects, 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct.
The result of these extinctions is that most everything large dies. After the dinosaur extinction, the largest animals on land were about the size of your forearm. People would have a difficult time. I would not like my grand-kids or great-grand-kids to experience these things.
7) Most non-catastrophic climate changes in the past have been much slower, due to gradual changes in the the position of continents and slow (not fast like now) changes in atmospheric gases, energy from the sun, and the earth's position with respect to the sun.
This would not necessarily be fast but it will be inexorable, unremitting and unrelenting once it has gotten started well.
This is by far the greatest long term threat to humanity.
The big deal on the other side is denial, denial, denial, without any real facts because moneyed interests don't want to lose profits (just like the tobacco companies denying smoking being bad for so many years), because the Republican party and similar groups intentionally confusing the issue to prevent any action being taken, and because a pool of idiots who just want to attack anyone who disagrees, without being even able to coherently describe even their own sides arguments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
https://youtu.be/pgZtC3HnfJY
https://youtu.be/OSwaagXTKmA
At 1100 feet above sea level I don't think we in Ohio need worry about the rising sea level and as our temps rise to be more like what Florida has currently, many of the Ohio snowbirds will probably welcome the change. |^|
Dennis
Bill, how are you going to stop a volcanic eruption like Mt. St. Helens from dumping in more of these gases? Sure the eruptions have slowed from all the volcanoes but it still is going on. And it is still a factor Bill. Of course they also emit gases that reflect sunlight into the atmosphere and if we have enough large eruptions we may want a little warming.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/small-volcanic-eruptions-add-to-larger-impact-on-climate-17112
Bill, we don't say that our climate isn't changing. It is. It always is.
Hell even NASA has no clue whether the ice sheets are growing or shrinking yet you people want to throw billions upon billions of dollars at a problem that more than likely we can't control.
QuoteIt is uncertain, however, whether the world's two major ice sheets-Greenland and Antarctica-have been growing or diminishing.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html
Quote
Bill, how are you going to stop a volcanic eruption like Mt. St. Helens from dumping in more of these gases? Sure the eruptions have slowed from all the volcanoes but it still is going on. And it is still a factor Bill. Of course they also emit gases that reflect sunlight into the atmosphere and if we have enough large eruptions we may want a little warming.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/small-volcanic-eruptions-add-to-larger-impact-on-climate-17112
Your lack of coherent thought is showing again. If you want to talk about something you don't know about try looking something up where facts are actually considered instead of from places seeking the barest of justifications for some decrepit position. Otherwise you say stupid things.
There is no comparison between the eruptions of Mount St. Helens, or any of the other recent eruptions, even if they were all combined together at once. I was around here when MT. St. Helens went off. We got about .1 mm of dust. The Dead were playing a concert in Portland and they played fire on the mountain. Not much of a problem in relatively nearby areas. On the scale of geologically large eruptions, it was small. Although locally destructive, it did not really do much.
The Deccan traps in India covered half a million square kilometers with 6,000 meters of basalt. The Siberian traps covered four times as much area.
Quotehttp://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php
I'm thinking you did not even read this one. does not really say what you claimed it did.
Quotehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html
This one is just desperate denialism, kind like the "World's Most Famous Physicist"!
The reason Russia and several companies are interested in exploiting the arctic ocean is the reduction in the ice cap. Follow the money you might say.
Quotea problem that more than likely we can't control.
Says who? You? Based on what? Care to share the logical behind this conclusion?
Sounds like a rationalization designed to avoid thought!
There are plenty of possible ways to affect this, some from the left , others from the right; some preventative, others corrective.
Well Bill it is hard to find the proof of those that don't believe in man made warming. They don't have the government funding that the lamestream "scientist" has. And of those who disagree they are discredited by those who do whether they are right or wrong. Add to that the fact the government is pretty much eradicating and/or burying any evidence that goes against what they want you to believe. But there are still those of us that still can think for ourselves and will resist the Kool Aid.
Ah, been waiting for the 'strawman'......'Conspiracy'......cool.......climate change is actually a conspiracy to eradicate the earth's population....right?...
Who writes your stuff?...Steven King?....
Bill and Mug, you're both wasting your breath. Even I, the one who loves a good fight, knew that from the get go.
QuoteBill and Mug, you're both wasting your breath. Even I, the one who loves a good fight, knew that from the get go.
Of course you are right Liz, WRT changing his mind (what little is left).
I just don't like leaving his pathetic lies unanswered. unanswered lies can be taken as fact by the weak minded (such as Fox viewers).
QuoteWell Bill it is hard to find the proof of those that don't believe in man made warming. They don't have the government funding that the lamestream "scientist" has. And of those who disagree they are discredited by those who do whether they are right or wrong. Add to that the fact the government is pretty much eradicating and/or burying any evidence that goes against what they want you to believe. But there are still those of us that still can think for ourselves and will resist the Kool Aid.
By the way, this is a pathetic example of someone afraid reality will challenge his "beliefs".
If global warming alarmism is legitimate then why are they so desperate to silence those who present alternate scientific facts?
Just like ObamaCare. So good they have to hold a gun to your head (figuratively) to get it.
Bill if you were a real scientist you would realize that many sciences such as this are never truly settled. You're a fraud and a hack as a scientist Bill. And like a true liberal you resort to name calling etc.
...This topic is locked now...
...when it gets to name calling and personal insults....it's crossed the line...