World’s third largest ice store vanishing!

reply to post by crimvelvet


Too bad India and China (2 of the fastest-growing economies in the world) have teamed up to fight restrictions on their own emissions, yet call for additional cuts in the "developed" world.

reply to post by ANNED


Recent studies confirm that "black carbon" from soot and diesel in China and India are directly responsible for the loss of ice in the Tibetan Plateau. I've posted the links to the studies on p.8.

s4uX2

jw

[edit on 11-11-2009 by jdub297]

Another implication:

Big Thaw Could Unleash Ancient Plague

Yet every skeptic continues to ignore my big question. What is driving this"natural cycle?" When you can actually answer that question for a change, then you have an arguement.

reply to post by nixie_nox


What's driving the cycle - in the case of the OP its Techtonic Uplift - look it up, its well documented. In so far as the US is concerned, there's no issue to debate - the US (according to NOAA) is NOT warming, but is in a cooling trend - again, look it up. Want to know the truth? Have a look at this: news.yahoo.com... - China has the ability to make it snow whenever they want, that means that the US also has this ability....if "Global Warming" was such a HUGE problem, then the US could simply make it snow. The US has been using weather modification as a weapon since Vietnam - I suggest you look up "Operation Popeye". Global Climate Change is a FRAUD being perpetrated on the world's population in the interest of profits for those involved in the fraud.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Yet every skeptic continues to ignore my big question. What is driving this"natural cycle?" When you can actually answer that question for a change, then you have an arguement.

Sorry, but every time you asked that question, it seemed like you'd answer it in the next sentence.

Natural factors affecting the Earth's climate include solar radiance and activity; Ocean currents and cycles such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation and El Nino/La Nina (ENSO); changes in the Earth's orbital path and axis wobble; changes in albedo and absorption due to particulates and aerosols, snow and cloud cover; naturally-occurring GHGs (O, H2O, CO2, N2O, SO2, CH4; and volcanic activity.

Jw

We tend to ignore where our solar system is in space. Once we go into an area with more ice particles we will get our ice back. We might even get another Noarian flood.

Very True...

The actual BIG factors involved in climate fluctuations will turn out to be generated by Space, we have ZERO understanding of the forces actually at work on Our planet and Sun in it's course around the Galaxy, from particles, to radiation, Dark Matter even Gravity waves...

Bottom line is, as stated by others the whole solar system is warming and we just aren't 100% sure why.

I am not upset about the Glaciers nor worried about it.

We have Brains and are the only species that doesn't have to sit back and take what the Universe throws at us, we can fix things.

Person above said "make it snow"

and in the end there is your real answer... make it snow for a month or so over the region and you'll have the glaciers reforming at breakneck speed...

and of course...

Desalinization is always an option and god forbid they ever build a Water Pipeline not just oil... Not actually sure when we can pump oil from Alaska to So Cal by Pipe why we have a desert down here lol.... it really is pretty cheap and retarded of our leaders to watch wilderness burn and make people use low flow toilets when.... you sit by the Pacific Ocean and to the North is the NORTH POLE....

I have to say... our climate concerns and the impositions placed on us are moronic given the realities of what we can do...

I mean...

For the Love of God... It's Water it FLOWS, 2/3rds of the Earth is covered in the stuff... and you have Iran building Nuclear reactors in the middle of the desert but not monstrous desalinization plants...

It's all such contrived control BS it sickens me... we aren't heating the planet, water is NOT a crisis nor ever has to be and we already control the weather quite nicely...

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by ZombieOctopus

 

Well lets all go back to the 16th century because some f'ing ice melted. There may well be global warming, but can you prove it is going to be any better or worse for humans than the temp 50 years ago.

Truth is the whole solar system has shown signs of warming, so maybe it has to do with Sun activity and there isn't a darn thing we can do about it, except embrace change and get a nice tan in places where we couldn't before.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by HotSauce]

Wrong! But in order to understand why it's wrong you need to know about statistics.

Unfortunately skeptics can't even read a full scientific article so I very much doubt they understand stats.

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
Haven't you heard? The Americans have decided global warming is a hoax and the Earth is actually cooling. If the American public has something to say about science, surely it must be true!

If all the ice on the planet disappeared over night, global warming would still be viewed as a leftist conspiracy in the only country that can lead the rest of the developed world by example.

Take a good look at those glaciers, or what's left of them, we're the last generation to lay eyes on them.

Sigh

And the replies have proved you to be a prophet. It is very sad that the US is soooo ignorant and yet they believe with such passion that they are right. Even after its own government admitted to distorting the evidence of global warming for political reasons. I mean how dumb do you have to be to continue to believe in a lie AFTER the liars after admitted to it......JESUS!!!

The Good News this morning is that Mr. Obama is dropping the aggressive "Cap and Trade" legislation that was planned for early next year - see here: www.politico.com... - apparently he now agrees with his rivals on the Right (or is it "IN the right", but I digress...) that the mounting US Deficit is a more important issue than so called "Man Made Global Climate Change". Now- once again, let's take a look at this from a common sense standpoint - if "Man Made Global Climate Change" is SUCH a HUGE threat to the very survival of humankind (as has been professed by Mr. Gore's movie and the Global Warming movement) SURELY it would be the TOP priority of this "Green" President (pun DEFINITELY intended), wouldn't it? But its not - the deficit is - by the White House's own admission in the article attached. So this "Global Climate Change" must not be SO important after all to our survival and the survival of the poor polar bears. WHY? Because its all a bunch of crap, that's why. COMMON SENSE.

Originally posted by HotSauce

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

Not only that we don't know if it's warming or cooling

Seems to me what we have is global warming then global cooling which leads me to believe we will all die horrible deaths due to global averaging.

I've only been looking at this for a little while, whilst teaching an Environmental Science class...

but it appears that the Indian Ocean and the Tibetan Plateau are the major heat sinks. I've also seen graphics that show that Australia is also a heat sink. Now clearly the US is in a cooling mode.

And if the data is correct and the North Pole and Greenland are melting very rapidly for the last two years, then the US could be caught in a swift cool convection current coming off the North Ocean.

And the bottom line causing this uneven cooling is the schizophrenic magnetosphere. The force lines are all uneven and screwed up from day to day therefore, the solar winds loaded on those lines are unevenly distributed as they reach the earth.
Sucks to be in the Yukon or China in the near now and the future.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by DChenO]

Originally posted by malcr
And the replies have proved you to be a prophet. It is very sad that the US is soooo ignorant and yet they believe with such passion that they are right. Even after its own government admitted to distorting the evidence of global warming for political reasons. I mean how dumb do you have to be to continue to believe in a lie AFTER the liars after admitted to it......JESUS!!!

And you're trusting the government on it now!!
I don't think you even realise how hypocritical you were just then.

So you've established that governments can lie about topics such as global warming (don't you mean "climate change"?) for political reasons. Now governments around the world, inluding the US, are pushing for urgent action to combat the "disastrous" effects of anthropogenic CO2...

I think I'll re-quote you to show the hypocritical nature of your post (even if it doesn't really make sense).

I mean how dumb do you have to be to continue to believe in a lie AFTER the liars after admitted to it......JESUS!!!

reply to post by TSZodiac

Originally posted by TSZodiac
The Good News this morning is that Mr. Obama is dropping the aggressive "Cap and Trade" legislation that was planned for early next year - see here: www.politico.com...

That may have been fortunate, but I think you've misread the article you posted. I'll post some excerpts here.

President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year's State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 – and will downplay other new domestic spending beyond jobs programs, according to top aides involved in the planning.
.............................................................................
All presidents promise deficit reduction – and almost always fall short. There is good reason to be skeptical of this White House, too, on its commitment.

For starters, the White House has not dropped plans for an aggressive global warming bill early next year that will be loaded with new spending on green technology and jobs – that would be paid for with tax increases. Democratic lobbyist Steve Elmendorf says the White House focus on deficit reduction could easily kill the cap-and-trade effort. “I think this means cap-and-trade has to go to the backburner,” he said.

The Obama administration has continuously lobbied for urgent action against climate change. So I'd say it is highly unlikely that they'll be dropping any aggressive (so-called) remedies for climate change any time soon.

You only have to look at who Obama appointed as his climate change "czar" to see what direction the US government is headed.

Carol Browner was a member of an organization called Socialist International. Although, on her appointment, her name dissapeared off the Socialist Internationational website, but screenshots can be found in this article. Why it was taken off, I don't know.

Socialist International have close ties to the UN and have produced some "interesting" papers regarding the UN's vision of becoming a world government, via funding from climate change.

For more information on Socialist International and the UN's intentions regarding climate change, see this thread I started here

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Uhm, only ignorant people get their facts from the government, the rest of us like doing our own studies, trying to dig up as much data as we can find.

Don't know why you wanna spin this into some obama/socialist thing, but whatever rocks your boat, champ.

I tend to search for the most unbiased info i can get, and anything the government says will always be biased. Networking is a pretty good tool - that is if you have any friends.....

I understand that the ice is melting.

The problem is that we "think" we know why.....and we really don't.

What if this is a natural trend for the planet? We may be trying to influence something that happens naturally.

We just don't know but everyone is willing to jump on one band wagon or another. Scientists can't even agree and politicians should have nothing to do with the environment.

Humans really screwed up Yellow Stone National park at one time. What makes you think we couldn't make Global mistakes in trying to manage "Global Warming"?

findarticles.com...

reply to post by K-Raz

OK, no offense but I think you need to re-read my post. I generally agree with you that only ignorant people get their facts from the government, which is why I didn't post any.

I was merely replying to other posters who had brought up the government and their stance on climate change. I had no intentions of de-railing this thread, or turning it into a left vs right, capitalist vs socialist thing. Just pointing out some relevent points.

As far as the OP is concerned. I believe JDub already summed it up adequately, so I won't comment further on that at this stage (got to get back to work )
Cheers

C'mon people, the science is there. While Al Gore was pushing his carbon credits through this "Global Warming", the temperatures were dropping. Certain areas of the planet the icecaps are melting, yes.

Oh wait, because those areas have contact with solar activity!

Saying that we are causing the destruction of the earth through co2 is like saying the earth is flat. We really think too much of ourselves at times. I know we are ego driven, but we cannot destroy the planet. Look at project lucifer. We could drop all our nukes at once, and the planet would still recover.

Ultimately we are hardly making a dent. Consider us a mild mold infestation on the planet. If it needs to get rid of us, it will.

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by ZombieOctopus

 

Well lets all go back to the 16th century because some f'ing ice melted. There may well be global warming, but can you prove it is going to be any better or worse for humans than the temp 50 years ago.

Truth is the whole solar system has shown signs of warming, so maybe it has to do with Sun activity and there isn't a darn thing we can do about it, except embrace change and get a nice tan in places where we couldn't before.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by HotSauce]

Wrong! But in order to understand why it's wrong you need to know about statistics.

Unfortunately skeptics can't even read a full scientific article so I very much doubt they understand stats.

actually proponents of global warming only like to use data from the last couple hundred years or so. when looking at the data available from everal hundred thousand years ago, we see that this is not out of the ordinary.

UPDATE:

It is worth posting this newest article in the context of this thread:

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

It is fairly clear that one should believe very little of what one reads today. Unfortunately, examples such as this one continue to reinforce my general sense that it is largely futile to read anything anymore. What purpose does it really serve?

Originally posted by loam

The TV team found bare rock where glaciers had retreated. Lakes had dried up. Lush grassland had turned to desert.....

This is inconsistent ... When glaciers retreat ... lakes tend to fill ....

[edit on 17-1-2010 by pilot70]

I think it is a load of BS for some political reason.

As was mentioned further up, the water has to go somewhere. You can't lose that much water so quickly without someone noticing.

If the article was true, it would surely have been all over he MSM in the UK? AFAIK this was never mentioned at any time (and they are so pro-GW they are almost wishing it to happen ).