How about not telling us Glacier in NP is growing?

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Justoneman

So much for Global Warming and the flooding of perimeter states. Most of the mass of the iceberg is already under water, therefore already accounted for.

Freon the looks if it, the water level actually went down a little.

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist
Heh! Ya, its just bellow the one pint line now. They should probably do more tests on the way ice and water interact, maybe start simple like take one pound of water and one pound of ice, then melt it, and see what you get and then do some tests on a combination of both and there effects.

But ya, ice is heavier, so when it melts, what does that mean, you get less water? Or just that water is more dense. The age old battle of density versus weight. So if we got by that cup of water and ice. Then if all our ice melted, we would not get a rise in ocean water, but it would be slightly lower.

Or at least at the north and south poles the water would be lower, the rest of the world, likely nothing will happen. After all the mass is pretty much equal if water is ice or if ice is water. Its like sticking your hand in a bowl of water, it rises slightly because of your hands mass displaces and adds to the waters mass.

Unless off course one pound of water and one pound of ice when added together somehow makes 3 pounds.

So, I chose sticking to considering what I can prove to myself is the truth so that I can do it with conviction. When I mess up, I will admit it.

a reply to: Justoneman

LOL sure.

Is the Park’s glacier the only glacier the world?

What is it with you deniers, that you'll always pick local changes and parade them as proof for how science is wrong or lying?

How does it look for the hundreds of other glaciers? What is the global average?

I guess if it does not affect you personally, you simply don't give a f***.

Can someone provide a computer model that has gotten it right?

I mean, the models have been around since the early 90s, and from what I've seen none of them have ever been accurate. I just don't grasp how anybody can rely on them for any amount of faith.

I'd sooner believe God is real than the AGW doomsday scenario. The climate science community is constantly getting it wrong and yet millions still place their faith in the institutions selling it.

Gullible people still falling for the rain dance and virgin sacrifice to stave the volcano pitch... Oldest trick in the book and they are still falling for it...

a reply to: GenerationGap

The climate science community is constantly getting it wrong and yet millions still place their faith in the institutions selling it.

Gullible people still falling for the the rain dance pitch...

for God sakes man, think of the polar bears !!!

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

You realise that most of the ice in Antartica is on land Right? So if it melted it would flow into the Sea?

If the world naturally slips into a cold period/ice age.
What would the liberals do then?

The world is cooling too fast?

That would be the perfect scenario for them.

The world is cooling too fast....more blankets
Now the world is heating up too fast...less blankets

originally posted by: GenerationGap
Can someone provide a computer model that has gotten it right?

I mean, the models have been around since the early 90s, and from what I've seen none of them have ever been accurate. I just don't grasp how anybody can rely on them for any amount of faith.

I'd sooner believe God is real than the AGW doomsday scenario. The climate science community is constantly getting it wrong and yet millions still place their faith in the institutions selling it.

Gullible people still falling for the rain dance and virgin sacrifice to stave the volcano pitch... Oldest trick in the book and they are still falling for it...

Rain dance does have a scientific background.

Thousands dance around and kick up enough dust into the atmosphere can help trigger a rain storm?

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: 1947boomer

There is no methane or ammonia on Venus.

What ?
With that statement , I would have to assume I am not the one "babbling" and posting out of ignorance.
And , that right there prevents me from reading any further in your post

He's right and you ARE wrong about methane & ammonia in Venus' atmosphere -- they are not present. The next nearest planet that has any ammonia or methane is Mars, BOTH in trace amounts (i.e under 1%)

Jupiter has both in trace amounts under 1%, and Neptune, Uranus and Pluto do have methane, the aforementioned have 1% and 2% respectively, while Pluto has 10%.
Edit: Actually, I do believe Neptune also has traces of ammonia ice in one of the atmosphere layers, so there's that.

Stop peddling false info. I'm not going to be the only space buff twitching involuntary when reading that drivel.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Justoneman

They have to lie, constantly change their lies and hide them, yet the AGW crowd keeps believing these aholes...

Just an addendum to your thinking. Methane is not generally known as found on Venus but I googled planets with Methane and Venus was one that showed up. Can't be much Methane since they claim the Venusian atmosphere is CO2 96% or so and Sulfur compounds mostly making up the rest of the atmosphere. At this point I would like to say I have been able to trust NASA, but we know that is shaky trust the way they have handled the truth from time to time. I still support them 100% for now.

originally posted by: filthyphilanthropist
a reply to: Justoneman

Well, they only have cohesive global climate data going back to 1880. Even if they went back all the way to year 1000 AD that's barely flea flick of time for for the planet itself. Surely it's cycles are bigger than wet can predict. We know that climate changes radically add time goes on. Ice ages, tropical ages, great flood, extreme drought, comfortable conditions.

Scientists spend too much time trying to self-aggrandize our species, and not enough time objectively studying the natural design they are all so concerned with.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Very well stated. 1000 stars.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

originally posted by: moebius

So, I chose sticking to considering what I can prove to myself is the truth so that I can do it with conviction. When I mess up, I will admit it.

a reply to: Justoneman

LOL sure.

Is the Park’s glacier the only glacier the world?

What is it with you deniers, that you'll always pick local changes and parade them as proof for how science is wrong or lying?

How does it look for the hundreds of other glaciers? What is the global average?

I guess if it does not affect you personally, you simply don't give a f***.

I guess you didn't read the materials referenced in this thread did you?

originally posted by: GenerationGap

Can someone provide a computer model that has gotten it right?

Not that I can tell and I do work with Meteorologists in my section at work who will tell you their models don't do 7 days very confidently much less 30 days and onward.

So if the ice melts, global warming. If the ice grows, global warming. Perfect logic.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Well if it's growing then all of our efforts to stem global warming are working and we need to do more of them.

/sarcasm if yo didn't know that

a reply to: Justoneman

None of this matters, because as I learned in my sophomore honors chemistry class in 1990, the world will run out of oil by 2000, so CO² emissions have been on a rapid decline for nearly 2 decades!

That narrative wasn't just pushed by the teacher - it was in publications all over the place. I learned then, that agendas are pushed with lies only expected to hold up for a short time. That's all you need sometimes.

Peak Oil, WMDs in Iraq, Greenhouse gas Global Warming...

We should focus on a cleaner planet. Less toxins (glyphosate, pyrethrins, fossil fuel burning, cleaner, safer nuclear reactors, etc.) Reduction in overuse of antibiotics and chemicals that weaken immune systems and cause cancer (such as the reduction in BPAs which has taken place, and must continue.)

We may well be heading toward another glacial period - not in 20 years, but maybe in hundreds or a couple of thousands. "Global Warming" as a concern, should die now. Focus on a cleaner, better planet for us to live on. That's something we can actually address, and which will have a positive effect.

But...the things I mentioned mostly do not have profitability as a motivating factor. We need more people to see thru the BS and put a stop to the nonsense.

My concern has been the changes in climate. Pushing toward not just extremes, but also increased variability. This may be natural, caused by humans, some combination. How to cope, rather than how to avert, is a much more sensible approach.

originally posted by: Rob808
So if the ice melts, global warming. If the ice grows, global warming. Perfect logic.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Almost, if the ICE melt's through human activity unknown outcome is potential, if the ice melt's due to natural event's as has happened many times over the past 2.8 million years or so and as MAY have happened back when the SUN itself was much cooler and younger from about 2.2 to about 750 million years ago (a period much colder than the Quaternary glaciation period we are actually still in - in fact so cold the whole earth is thought to have frozen over right to the equators several times in that super long cool period that lasted about 1 and a half billion years or so - but had warm inter-glacial periods during it) then it we already know the most likely outcome by studying evidence of past glacial maximum's (ice ages) and there inter-glacial (like today) period's from ice cores taken from sites such as Greenland were tiny bubbles of trapped gas from the atmosphere can reveal the state of the climate at the time like snap shot's in history if you like.


What I was explaining is that if we cause global warming there is a potential for us to actually trigger an early onset of the next ice age and this would occur due to the affect of sea water becoming less salty and how this would then slow down the oceanic conveyor, this in turn would affect the Gulf Stream as thermal current's rising from the water affect the air current's.
And this also happen's in nature pretty much with no human intervention just on a more predictable cyclic time scale, as the ocean become less efficient at regulating temperature the tropic's become hotter while Northern Europe and America become COLDER - get it now.

IF enough snow fall's in the winter during this cooling then it will not melt in summer and the following winter will be even worse, the glaciers grow and the summer's become colder as more and more of the thermal radiation of the sun is reflected back into space by the ice cover, so it get's even colder and those glaciers grow some more, then the process of sea level rise goes into reverse, the sea retreats and land that has not been seen for over ten thousand years emerges from beneath the waves.

Meanwhile the land were many people now live in the northerly climes become's arctic tundra then full blown arctic ice land's forcing the people to head south or lower toward the retreating sea which by this point is getting SALTIER as there is LESS water in the ocean's, this in turn eventually causes a back swing and the ice age then retreats, sea level's rise and the hinterland now scoured of it's city's and infrastructure which for those future generations is thousands or tens of thousands of years in the past is then recolonized while the city's and home's they have now known for thousands' of years are lost as the sea engulf's them.

First the ice covers all trace of civilization, miles thick slow grinding glaciers crush and destroy the city's, road's and all sign's that man was ever there, almost all sign's, then were man has had to go to restart his civilization far down at the edge of the sea were it is warm or south were the land is now green once the climate settles enough the climate changes again, there city's, roads and homes are flooded and even washed away as sudden melting and ice damn collapse raises sea level's over 200 feet - the people are forced to flee to the still inhospitable and almost uninhabitable hinterland that is still cold even though the ice is now melting and spend thousands of years as the climate fluctuates in and out of cold and war spell's until it settles down to a new inter-glacial warm period by which time the survivor's have likely lost all trace of civilization once again and have to start all over again.

In time there world will grow but it will one day face a new ice age, by that time all trace and knowledge of what came before is so long gone that they will probably have to go through the whole cycle all over again, meanwhile those that fled south entered green Savannah which become's desert then Savannah then desert.

Of course I am expanding this and flavoring it a bit with WHAT if this has all happened before MANY TIMES in the past 2.8 million years or so - and what indeed if it has.

a reply to: Justoneman

Yeah I have been following their b's for 30 years and can say thru my local observations in nc their predictions are all bs none of them have I seen come true for my area. I would just as likely to beleive in a new ice age in next couple of centuries than runaway global warming. The earth is not a static system it is constantly influx or motion. If it gets to hot it will pop off a few hurricanes or cyclones to cool itself off gets too cold water salinity changes in onas water is frozen out of it and currents change bringing warm currents to areas affected by extreme cold to warm then up and root of most of these is the big ball of burning hydrogen plasma 93million miles away named sol.

a reply to: Justoneman

Yeah I have been following their b's for 30 years and can say thru my local observations in nc their predictions are all bs none of them have I seen come true for my area. I would just as likely to beleive in a new ice age in next couple of centuries than runaway global warming. The earth is not a static system it is constantly influx or motion. If it gets to hot it will pop off a few hurricanes or cyclones to cool itself off gets too cold water salinity changes in onas water is frozen out of it and currents change bringing warm currents to areas affected by extreme cold to warm then up and root of most of these is the big ball of burning hydrogen plasma 93million miles away named sol.

a reply to: Justoneman

Yeah I have been following their b's for 30 years and can say thru my local observations in nc their predictions are all bs none of them have I seen come true for my area. I would just as likely to beleive in a new ice age in next couple of centuries than runaway global warming. The earth is not a static system it is constantly influx or motion. If it gets to hot it will pop off a few hurricanes or cyclones to cool itself off gets too cold water salinity changes in onas water is frozen out of it and currents change bringing warm currents to areas affected by extreme cold to warm then up and root of most of these is the big ball of burning hydrogen plasma 93million miles away named sol.