NASA/GRL/Science - Collapse Of West Antarctic Ice Sheet Appears To Be Under Way, Likely Unstoppable

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Flavian
That is kind of the point i was making. In reality, we have no way of knowing our impact on climate without other results from other climates with other humans. We may be wrecking the planet, we may be having as much impact as a gnat on a windshield - we just can't prove it from one set of results. We can postulate, extrapolate and theorise all we want but that is all it is - for both sides of the argument.

And we can measure. We know the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases is from man. We know the physics in the infrared emissivity and the effect of that (this is not just theory any more it is comprehensive experimental fact), and we can calibrate that magnitude effect vs past effects on climate from natural causes.

Yes, you can measure. But what exactly are you measuring? Human CO2? Volcanic CO2? CO2 released from the oceans? CO2 from underground sources?

Without knowing exactly what you're measuring, you have nothing but a data set that can't properly be used for anything.

Mr Gore said the arctic would be ice free this year : www.washingtontimes.com...

But unfortunately all these treads always go to AGW versus the non believer camp.

And its derailed and now nobody speaks of the original post premise, my view on the matter is that we are heading to a mini ice age and almost all indicators point to that outcome, the great thing is that in time we will see who was right, and after seeing how the arctic has record, ice, the Antarctic also is recovering and little by little evidence will make people see the scam AGW is.

To me Al Gore Nobel prize as a Scientist is exactly the same Obama received for peace A BIG JOKE.

originally posted by: kix
Mr Gore said the arctic would be ice free this year : www.washingtontimes.com...
(article: '“entire North Polar ice cap will be gone in five years,” 'Gore' solemnly told a German TV audience.')

This is an editorial. It is not necessarily fact-checked. This was said in front of an audience, the claim goes. It is also claimed to be on video elsewhere. Where is the video or transcript?

Also, it's the Washington Times:

en.wikipedia.org..."the Times was established by Moon to combat communism and be a conservative alternative to what he perceived as the liberal bias of The Washington Post."

a reply to: gspat

Without knowing exactly what you're measuring, you have nothing but a data set that can't properly be used for anything.

We know what is being measured. The CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels is identifiable by its isotopic signature.

Measurements of the mole fraction of the CO2 and its isotopes were performed in Paris during the MEGAPOLI winter campaign (January–February 2010). Radiocarbon (14CO2) measurements were used to identify the relative contributions of 77% CO2 from fossil fuel consumption (CO2ff from liquid and gas combustion) and 23% from biospheric CO2 (CO2 from the use of biofuels and from human and plant respiration: CO2bio).

www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net...

a reply to: kix

Mr Gore said the arctic would be ice free this year :

Are you sure?
That's not a lot of context there. Is that his entire statement? Or was it more like this? Which is similar to his 2007 Nobel acceptance speech? He doesn't actually say what you say he said, does he?
www.youtube.com...

To me Al Gore Nobel prize as a Scientist is exactly the same Obama received for peace A BIG JOKE.

He did not get a Nobel prize for science. You need to check your facts...twice.

originally posted by: kix
my view on the matter is that we are heading to a mini ice age and almost all indicators point to that outcome,

Continental West-Europeans are going to disagree with you as we didn't have a winter this year. No snow and no feezing days and a very shiny dry spring (March and April).

There are no mini ice ages, but let's give your "guts" feeling a second thought.

We just don't know what triggers the beginning of a global cooling, resulting in a glacial period, the so known Ice-Age.

What we do know is that during global cooling CO2 sinks, less CO2 in the air, and during the warming up (period we're actually in) the sinked CO2 gets released so more CO2 in the air. If I remember corectly we do have data about this for about the past 800 000 Years or so by getting the data out of the Ice Caps.

So if, and read if as just a speculation on your "guts" feeling as we have no data or any proof,
the trigger for global cooling is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If the global CO2 eco-system of our plantet being the regulator for Global cooling and global warming.

Imagine, our CO2 emissions wouldn't trigger a global warming but would sent us straight into the next Global Cooling alas your Ice-Age.

Extreme heat or extreme cold don't necessarily prove global warming or a mini ice age, but they do indicate climate change. And the largest impetus for climate change has been human-caused rise in greenhouse gases. Study after study has indicated vacillations in weather would be a side-effect from global warming. It's the average, mean temperature of the planet that is rising.

Even the Department of Defense is now acknowledging global warming/climate change:

Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security

DOD Wraps Climate Change Response into Master Plans

You can be a naysayer about climate change all you want, but if the military is treating it as a real threat, then maybe we should stop listening to the corporate talking heads on Fox and start paying attention to real science for a change. Certain bought-and-paid for media types are only speaking on behalf of a small number of billionaires interested only in protecting their energy sector profits.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: kix
Mr Gore said the arctic would be ice free this year : www.washingtontimes.com...
(article: '“entire North Polar ice cap will be gone in five years,” 'Gore' solemnly told a German TV audience.')

This is an editorial. It is not necessarily fact-checked. This was said in front of an audience, the claim goes. It is also claimed to be on video elsewhere. Where is the video or transcript?

Also, it's the Washington Times:

en.wikipedia.org..."the Times was established by Moon to combat communism and be a conservative alternative to what he perceived as the liberal bias of The Washington Post."

Its from Washington Time
And yes i do believe it
I would take this seriously but its unlikely to effect our generation.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
You can be a naysayer about climate change all you want, but if the military is treating it as a real threat, then maybe we should stop listening to the corporate talking heads on Fox and start paying attention to real science for a change.

The military is a good gauge, but insurance and re-insurance is better - they've been taking some serious hits for a while. So they've been covering their butts and "modifying coverage" for over a decade. At least. For example:

Managing climate and natural disaster risk

Re/insurance plays an important role in managing climate and natural disaster risk, and that's why it's part of Swiss Re's core business.

Natural disasters cost the global insurance industry around USD 45 billion in 2013, but the human toll was higher: according to the Swiss Re sigma publication "Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2013," 26,000 lives were lost.

These high numbers can be contributed to the fact that cities are becoming larger, attracting more people and sparking infrastructure growth, and climate change. When a natural disaster strikes, the dense population and asset concentration leads to losses. These losses can severely impact not only a country's economy, but its population as well.

Disaster risk mitigation and climate adaptation are keys to strengthening the resilience of communities around the world. Re/insurance plays an important role in achieving this goal.

Swiss Re understands the relationship between climate and natural disaster risk and the societal impact of both. We've been shaping the global climate agenda through dialogue with our public and private sector partners, cutting-edge research and innovative risk transfer solutions for over two decades.

.....But what's a "risk transfer solution"?

double
double

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Again, the issue is AGW, not climate change. It is obvious the climate changes on the earth...we are still coming out of an ice age.

a reply to: soficrow

Neither of which has anything to do with AGW. We just know what's going to eventually happen.

Why do you guys keep bringing up Al Gore and the (debunked) global cooling theory of the 70s?

The global cooling theory was just a very small group of scientists and a couple of studies. It was in no way mainstream or scientific consensus or anything. You guys say things like first it was global cooling and now global warming who are we to believe. LOL Do some research please.

Secondly, Al Gore is NOT a climate scientist and is actually not a scientist at all. Just saying.

a reply to: amazing

Secondly, Al Gore is NOT a climate scientist and is actually not a scientist at all. Just saying.

There are THREE distinct levels the climate debate and BIG buisiness behind it all are operating on.

#1. The public one, where debate is settled. Consensus is complete and anyone who argues is an ignorant ass.

#2. The Scientific one, where they are told about how their consensus had better match the majority if they like grants, research funding and advancement within their field in this lifetime.

#3. The political one, where men like Al Gore not only created but continue to nurture the dream of a global regulatory structure with revenue collection authority to control all aspects of this thing. It may never happen how he and others have and continue to work very hard toward, just under the public radar.

Number Three is why we do not and will not forget to give credit where it's very much due. Gore didn't INVENT anything (internet included..lol) but he has been absolutely instrumental in keeping things going and giving support for the cause in good times and bad.

** You're right. Al Gore isn't a scientist. He just fancies himself ACTING like he's one in movies, the lecture circuit and in giving speeches to our children and others with impressionable attention spans. The man once told a group of school kids that they knew better than their parents. You ask why some of us hate Albert Gore Jr? Oh...He's created many a reason and way to be the target of very strong dislike and total lack of respect on all levels.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I see your points there, but here is the issue...

I read articles from lots of sources as part of my morning routine on a several news aggregates as well as ATS and scanning some main stream media outlets to get a good overview of what's going on and what people think is important.
I read Articles on Internet security, the environment, Solar power, renewable energy,Ufology, Global Warming, Climate science, motorcycles, various earth sciences like geology and astronomy, martial arts etc.

You can probably guess that a lot of it is liberal and some if it is very contentious like here on ATS but I never... hear or read anything about Al Gore that isn't written but someone who opposes the idea of Man Made Global Warming. It's like Al Gore has slipped off the face of the planet and only lives on in the minds of people who use him as an argument against Man Made Global Warming. He's not part of the argument any longer. It's way past him and I think you guys give him too much credit.

I only mention what I read, so you guys can see that if he was really in the news or speaking out publicly on this issue, or still part of this discussion, he would have to pop up in my articles somewhere. He never does.

You can see my issue with him, yes?

a reply to: amazing

I see your issue entirely, yes. I don't agree with you, but I say that with respect. Your situation isn't by ignorance or any lack of due dilligence to know your current events or know who is a move and shaker in them from day to day. The issue, if any, is that your soruces have a radically different agenda than you would assume of them, and your staying fully informed isn't even on the list of short concerns.

Former Vice President Al Gore is co-founder and chairman of Generation Investment Management. He is a senior partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and a member of Apple, Inc.'s board of directors. Gore spends the majority of his time as chairman of The Climate Reality Project, a non-profit devoted to solving the climate crisis.

Gore was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1976, 1978, 1980 and 1982 and the U.S. Senate in 1984 and 1990. He was inaugurated as the forty-fifth Vice President of the United States on January 20, 1993, and served eight years.

Source: Al Gore.com (Yes..it really is just his name.com. No ego thing going there..lol)

He's not a public mover or shaker and by public view? He has all but dropped out of sight. However, to think that makes him less a concern for this agenda is mistaken. He's MORE a concern in his current 'mode' where media attention is seen as a negative, than a life long politician like him can ever be when trying for the spotlight.

As his appointments, current duties and primary focus in life show, he's anything but removed or sidelined from this debate. He's still very instrumental in guiding it. He's simply working from a very different level than where front news pages peek for information. They aren't "invited" there...and media today forgot how to look around that anyway.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000
Quite frankly, there's a lot of data to support the idea of man-made climate change.

Al Gore is just a guy who agrees with it.

The only people who seem to care otherwise are mistaken or ignorant critics of the data.

For all the outcry about carbon taxes by U.S. citizens, the U.S. sure hasn't seen much of it - parts of three states have enacted such legislation.

a reply to: Greven

Quite frankly, there's a lot of data to support the idea of man-made climate change.

There sure is a lot. Mountains of it. Could it all be wrong? Possible....but highly unlikely, even without touching the science behind it.

The thing is....there is a great deal of evidence supporting *MORE* than just that, and the melting of ice began before white men set foot in some of the areas currently being recorded for some of the most profound impact. Glacier national Park has photos over time that sit on record with the USGS showing 1850, 1937, and onward for positions of major glacier retreat by melt off. Man wasn't doing crap on a cracker in 1850.

Al gore is a politician. He's a politician who was serving in office when I was in diapers and Carter was just realizing the 'President' thing was kinda cool to win. He's corrupt as they come ...like most politicians...but prone to babble whatever crosses his mind, accurate or not. Biden and he share much in that way (with Quayle for that matter..what IS it with VP's anyway??)

The only people who seem to care otherwise are mistaken or ignorant critics of the data.

That absolutist position is taken to measure precisely how much respect or courtesy is shown or extended in debate across the nation and world today, as I watch it played out from ATS to MSM interviews to the halls of the United Nations itself.

Absolutists want to say "Anyone who doesn't believe is a fool!!"....while others no less ignorant say "Anyone who believes is a fool!!". The only fools I see are those with absolute positions in the first place. It's not compatible with science, on any level. Politics? Yes. Science? No.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000
You take that sentence out of context.

The context is found immediately before it, Al Gore.

Science doesn't care about a man's opinion; that's the point.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Glacier national Park has photos over time that sit on record with the USGS showing 1850, 1937, and onward for positions of major glacier retreat by melt off. Man wasn't doing crap on a cracker in 1850.

Photos of GNP from 1850? Really?


There was an unusually cold period before the middle of the 19th century. A period when glaciers grew.
www.swisseduc.ch...

While the glaciers that carved GNP’s majestic peaks were part of a glaciation that ended about 12,000 years ago, current glaciers are considered geologically new, having formed about ~7,000 thousand years ago. These glaciers grew substantially during the Little Ice Age (LIA) that began around 1400 A.D and reached their maximum size at the end of the LIA around A.D.1850. Their maximum sizes can be inferred from the mounds of rock and soil left behind by glaciers, known as moraines (Key, 2002), which provide a scientific baseline for comparison to current glacial extent.

nrmsc.usgs.gov...

Analysis of weather data from western Montana shows an increase in summer temperatures and a reduction in the winter snowpack that forms and maintains the glaciers. Since 1900 the mean annual temperature for GNP and the surrounding region has increased 1.33°C (Pederson et al. 2010), which is 1.8 times the global mean increase. Spring and summer minimum temperatures have also increased (Pederson et al. 2010), possibly influencing earlier melt during summer. Additionally, rain, rather than snow, has been the dominant form of increased annual precipitation in the past century (Selkowitz et al. 2002). Despite variations in annual snowpack, glaciers have continued to shrink, indicating that the snowpack is not adequate to counteract the temperature changes.