It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
a reply to: mobiusmale
nope...didn't confuse a thing...we are still talking about two different things.....you are talking about a second in cosmic time and im talking about a minute....so what...its cold one year....the total weight of the ice mass is decreasing as a whole
"The big majority of glaciers have been retreating over the past century," he told Reuters. "We even have an accelerated retreat in recent decades." Glaciers have also varied widely - many Alpine glaciers advanced in the 1970s and 1980s.
Thursday's study estimated that water from melting glaciers has contributed a total of 13.3 cm (5 inches) from 1851-2010 to rising sea levels. Without human influences the rise would still have been 9.9 cm (4 inches).
Until now, scientists have struggled to quantify the impact of human behaviour on glaciers because the frozen rivers of ice take decades, perhaps centuries, to respond to rising temperatures and shifts in snow and rainfall. The study published on Thursday used historical observations of glaciers around the world, except in Antarctica, twinned with computer models to simulate all factors that could explain the retreat. It found that natural variations were not enough on their own, meaning man-made greenhouse gases played an increasing role.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: mobiusmale
There is no debate on natural climate change factors. That is just a red herring invented by the right wing media to make it sound like a climate change denier isn't really denying science. But like I said, no debate exists around natural climate change. Climate scientists believe in it just as much as they believe in man made climate change, so mentioning it is irrelevant. Scientists DO factor in natural factors into their climate change models. Then they factor in the man-made ones and get the results they do.
originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: mobiusmale
It's funny how the original source makes no mention of global warming.
CBC
I'll repeat, No mention of global warming in the article. Read it yourself.
Except that your link is not the one referenced in the OP...
originally posted by: mobiusmale
I have no problem with the idea that CO2 (and other) emissions can have a measurable impact on the atmosphere (denying that would be like saying that smog doesn't damage lungs, or that acid rain doesn't happen).
I just happen to be in the camp that believes that there are also larger natural-based forces at work in the present - and discussion about these factors...and how they should be worked into the prediction models...are getting drowned out by the man-made climate change crowd, who like to throw around derisive labels like "denier" if anyone has any other ideas they feel should be considered.
originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: Krazysh0t
And you think you do? funny stuff...
originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Are you a democrat/liberal/progressive?
originally posted by: mobiusmale
Really...there is no debate on natural climate change factors? There is new science being done on this all the time...including the recent "stunner" that suggests that new predictions concerning solar activity might mean that we may enter a mini ice age in as little as 15 years.
I am pretty sure that little tid-bit was not included in Al's Academy Award winning performance (supported by a "cast of thousands" of consensus scientists)...how could it - it wasn't understood at the time the grand consensus was formed.
I am wondering as well, if "deniers" are all just part of some right wing political spin, as you say...if it would be just as fair to claim that "man-made climate change" is just part of some left wing political spin effort?
In summary, climate change theory is a work in progress...and so nobody should reasonably be hanging their hat on any current summary take.
originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
this issue will never be addressed because of the monumental idiot that decided to call it "global warming" when the more accurate description is "climate change"
I find it amazing how to win the issue what you really need is to get the naming right.
originally posted by: pikestaff
a reply to: mobiusmale
CO2 is 400 parts per million now, that is less than half of one percent, of the total atmosphere, so little can have so much effect?
Arctic sea ice extent for June 2015 was the third lowest in the satellite record. June snow cover for the Northern Hemisphere was the second lowest on record. In contrast, Antarctic sea ice extent remained higher than average. The pace of sea ice loss was near average for the month of June, but persistently warm conditions and increased melting late in the month may have set the stage for rapid ice loss in the coming weeks.
That ones says, "An expedition to study the effects of global warming was put on hold Wednesday. The reason? Too much ice."