news.aol.com...|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fperito-moren o-glacier%2F526529]news.aol
Does this prove global warming isn't real? If it's not real, why lie to us?


mod edit, fix link

[edit on 14-6-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]

reply to post by joe82

---

I saw this one on ScienceDaily... followed immediately by
Greenland Ice Sheet Melting Faster Than Expected; Larger Contributor To Sea-level Rise Than Thought

All this and any of the data really proves is that noone is really sure that the hell is going on. This is not global warming or cooling. This is destabilization. Anything that can happen will happen.

if we had destabilization we would all be dead

everything is pretty stable still from my position on earth

this is a very mild year as weather goes

I just recently read that there's a glacier in Alaska that's now advancing(ie. growing) at the rate of 7 feet a week. The oceans of the world have been rising at a steady 3mm (less than 1/8th of an inch) per year for the last century even when there was no global warming. I've been noticing on the weather channel that for the last two years, the projected daily high temperature for the following two weeks has been below the historical average for the same time of year roughly 70-80% of the time. Prior to the last two years, the projected high was usually higher than the historical average. This supports the notion that the world has stopped getting warmer. The hottest year on record for global average temperature is STILL 1998. At the very least this means that temperatures have leveled off. There is almost a perfect correlation between sunspot activity and global temperatures for the last couple of centuries.

This is good stuff. Nothing is more inevitable than climate change. When it was getting warmer the sky was falling. When it gets a bit cooler it is because before it can get warm it must first get cold. Sounds like a spooky ancient Chinese proverb. This is the modern time civil rights. A black man is the President of the United States. People are all about the environment because it is the most blatant to whine about.

reply to post by Studenofhistory

---

I will follow you, oh wise one. Finally someone else connects hot earth to sun activity.. Thank god.

reply to post by muzzleflash

---

Why would we be dead? We survived the last period of unstable climate just fine. Mind you our populations were much smaller. *shrug* I think the honeymoon is over. Earth is going back to its apparently normal cycle of swinging back and forth between hot and cold. So be it, we'll adapt.

Hot Earth? What planet are we talking about, here?

The temperature has been cooling recently.

Extremely low sun-spot activity last year and this year.

Ice age is coming.

Except that the last person to do so had almost the entire global scientific population laugh at them - flat earthers.

Wow. That was a long list of ignorant statements. That some glaciers are not receding fast doesn't mean that there isn't global warming. Local microclimates vary but the fact remains that on average glaciers are losing ice fast all over the earth. And yes, sea levels have already gone up a bit. Who's saying there hasn't been global warming until now? The CO2 levels in the atmosphere have gone up by about 50% since the beginning of industrialization (from 280 ppm to 380 ppm) because of pollution and forest burning, and it's impossible that that wouldn't have an effect on global temperatures. Which explains why the temperatures have been going up since the beginning of 20th century when the CO2 levels started to be noticeably high, and the rise has been exponential ever since. Also, short-term fluctuations are irrelevant. You can't see climate change on weather channel, you need long-term global data for it. Also, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have been overwhelmingly better in explaining recent temperatures than solar activity - of course solar weather matters, and we could be heading to a new ice age, if it were not for the huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. The fact remains that even with the unprecedented low in sunspot activity, the glaciers are retreating in Greenland, Antarctica and most highlands, the Arctic Sea is losing its pack ice, and extreme weather phenomena are on the rise. Please tell how you counter these and remaing stubbornly living in your own fantasy. It's ironic that not long ago global warming was a subject mostly debated by crackpots like you.

Star!

No one has a da#n clue what is happening with the climate. Nature is much more powerful than man. If she needs to she could wipe the human race out in months if not less.

Life is fragile.

reply to post by cnuum

---

Okay, now I know why you designated me as a respected foe so no need to respond to my U2U message. Here's the thing. Over 31,000 scientists, including over 9,000 Phds, have signed a petition to Congress that says that there is no conclusive proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming and that the Kyoto agreement will be a huge mistake. So much for Al Gore's contention that the scientific debate is over and that there's a consensus. Oh I forgot to mention that these 31,000 scientists are ALL American so there are bound to be more worldwide that also agree. Now your contention that glaciers and polar ice caps are melting may have been true up to a couple of years ago but there is conflicting data coming out now. The most recent data for polar ice coverage is that the maximum coverage is 30% larger than the year before. I'm not saying that all glaciers are growing but some clearly are and the only way they can grow is if new accumulations of snow add more mass than is lost by melting. Your contention that CO2 levels have gone up 50% due to manmade sources is a guess. The world's oceans both absorb and give off CO2 depending on water temperature. which is a function of energy received from the sun. When the average temperature of oceans goes up, more CO2 will be released than absorbed and vice versa and the amount of CO2 involved is an order of magnitude larger than even the highest estimates of human produced CO2. If you had bothered to do your homework like I did, you would have come across the report of the scientist who analyzed the ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica. His data was used by Al Gore to generate the large screen charts covering 600,000 years of temperature and CO2 levels in the movie Inconvenient Truth. In his report, he states quite clearly that average temperature and CO2 levels don't move together. There is a lag of at least 400 YEARS up to a maximum of 1700 years where CO2 lags behind average temperature ie. when the trend changes from up to down or from down to up, average temperature ALWAYS changes direction first and CO2 levels ALWAYS changes direction later. That means that there were periods of at least 4 centuries when average temperatures had already started to drop even while CO2 levels were still rising (because ocean temperatures were still too high). Since the laws of physics and chemistry haven't changed in the last 600,000 years, if rising CO2 levels couldn't stop temperatures from dropping, then they CAN NOT be causing them to rise. Not then and not now. What we're seeing now is the exact reverse. Rising ocean temperatures are CAUSING the rise in CO2 levels. Rising ocean temperatures also by the way explain rising sea levels. Cold water is more dense than warm water so as the oceans warm up, they expand slightly. That can explain the 3mm rise per year even during the three decades from the 1940's to the 1970's when air temperatures were dropping(at the same time that CO2 levels were still increasing I might add). The oceans being so huge take a long time to react to temperature changes due to sheer mass just like a supertanker takes a long time to change direction.

Most of the mainstream media do not report evidence that contradicts manmade global warming so those of you who don't do your homework, are only getting one side of the story. What Al Gore didn't talk about is the previous 3 or 4 spikes in CO2 levels over the last 600,000 years and how CO2 levels dropped on their own due to some natural feedback mechanism. Why do global warming proponents assume that this same natural feedback mechanism won't work again this time?

I'm not saying that climate change isn't a potentially serious issue. What I'm saying is that IF average temperatures are STILL going up, and there is more and more evidence that they are no longer doing so, then it's a natural cycle that we will have to adapt to rather than try to resist.

Except the deniers - they know that nothing humans can do can affect climate at all. Burn a forest the size of the USA and it doesn't make a difference to anything at all.

We know this in the same way we know guns do not kill people because people died before guns were ever invented and smoking doesn't cause cancer because people who have never smoked get cancer.

But that's religion for you

reply to post by joe82

---

Hur hur hur, it snowed today, global warming is fake, nur hur hur, scuze me doodz gotta snort s'more draino, nurrr

No. First the term is "climate change". Second, a single local thing does not change global trend. Third, welcome to science, where we learn new stuff and revise previous ideas as data is updated.

You may now return to your Ann Coulter and beer bong.

I thought I should point out, you made a typo. It should have read "Wow. Now here is a long list of ignorant statements."

Unless of course, you were being extremely hypocritical.
I would dissect your post to show where you erred, but it looks like Studenofhistory already did a pretty good job of it. Star for you, Studenofhistory.


That is way, way off the mark. "Deniers" generally don't deny that humans have any effect on our climate, but that CO2 is not having the devestating effects on our climate that climate alarmists would have you believe. CO2 levels have been much higher than today when temperatures were dropping, yet somehow we are meant to believe that CO2 is now the driving force influencing our climate?
Now I'm speaking for myself here, and I know we are having an effect on our environment. I know that burning "a forest the size of the USA" will have an effect, but that's not the point. My point is that the devestating effects of CO2 that the politically driven panel known as the IPCC predicts (well, they make projections), is grossly exagerated, misrepresented and down right fallacious. But don't just take my word for it. Just ask Chris Landsea or Dr Vincent Gray (both IPCC expert panel reviewers) or Nils-Axel Mörner. There's also over 31,000 scientists in USA alone who think the same. Or they could all just be funded by big oil (sarcasm).

Climate change profiteers have conned 'environmentally concious' people into thinking that CO2 is the new age devil. Now i would consider myself, at least partly 'environmentally concious', but that doesn't mean I have to believe every single scare story that comes from climate alarmists. Just look at the fallacies that Gore spewed , and the profit he is now making trading carbon credits. Or the fact that the UN have been proposing for over 15 years to intorduce a global 'pollution tax' to fund reform of the UN, not to prevent climate change.

If you want to talk about climate change religion, look no further than the "green movement" (which the MSM is increasingly becoming a part of). They use emotionaly charged stories of disaster, or extinction of polar bears (do some research, and you'll find that polar bears are doing just fine). All very scary, but with little to no evidence proving we are causing all this harm. They then try to silence or ridicule any oppposition to AGW or the 'green' religion. But then again, that's religion for you

No, it's spot on the mark I'm talking about deniers - you're talking about true sceptics - of which I am one - who accept AGW and other aspects of anthropogenic climate change but argue that projections based on CO2 emissions are flawed and importantly that other aspects of humans activity are as, if not more, important.

We do not refute the idea that CO2 has an effect, but question the extent.

Whether a particular glacier is retreating or advancing no more proves or refutes AGW than whether a life long smoler dies or does not does of cancer proves or refutes the smoking cancer link.

As an aside, I'd be looking closely at Baffin island. It's where the glaciers will first start advancing and ice caps start growing when we start to shift towards the next Glacial. They did start doing so ..... until the modern warm period reversed the trend.

reply to post by Essan

---

Ok, I see what you mean But the thing is, whenever anyone even questions the the severity of AGW projections, they get labelled a "Denier" by some ignorant individual who hasn't actually done any research on the matter at hand. A lot of people on here, would generally think you're refering to "deniers" as anyone who doesn't agree with the severity of CO2 emmisions.

I agree, glaciers are a poor proxy for temperature, as they have completely different reaction times to temperature anomolies, depending on amount of precipitation, wind effects and many other variables. Some glaciers have been shown to have reaction times of over 500 years! (so any advance or retreat, is caused by weather events 500 years ago.)

Sea ice coverage is much better to get a rough idea on temperatures. While many have predicted an ice free North Pole, it has shown to grow back much faster than anticipated. Take for instance, the guy who tried to raise global warming awarenes by kayaking to the North Pole. Sadly, it had to be abandoned due to underestimating the ice extent. Go figure.
Much is publicised about the Antarctic Larsen B ice shelf collapse (due to warmer ocean currents flowing around the Western Antarctic peninsula), yet not much mention to the increasing ice levels in the rest of the Antarctic. But when you look at global sea ice coverage, you'll see it is at roughly the same level as when records began in 1979, as the antarctic ice extent has been growing, compensating for the Arctic loss. Some will say that that still agrees with IPCC's projections, as they were less certain on the South Pole, (yet they fail to mention this?) and was always going to be worse in the Northern Hemisphere. There is an interesting post on global sea ice here, which shows how flawed the IPCC's projections were.


True, but I would be more in line with "we know temperature has an effect on CO2, but question the extent."

Just like to second that

There is far from enough historical meteorological data to determine whether global warming is a fact. Ive been a firm believer for a number of years now, that the earth goes through long periods of warming and cooling. Like all weather patterns (eg, low air pressure moves to high pressure and vice versa), stabilisation has to occur. Therefore, the earth should go through a period of significant cooling, (which it has over the last two years).

Thats discounting the El Nino and La Nina weather patterns effects

reply to post by OzWeatherman

---

OZ can you tel lus more on the el ninos please and why they can be discounted?
Cheers Zazz

I just meant they could be discounted when talking about stabilisation of the environment. All in all I believe they are responsible for some of the weather extremes.

Here's a thread I wrote a while ago about it, didnt generate much interest (depsite the effort i put into it), but i thought it was plausible

www.abovetopsecret.com...