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.

 

World’s third largest ice store vanishing!

page: 4
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HotSauce
 



Originally posted by HotSauce
My apologies.


No worries.



Originally posted by HotSauce
Ok the retreat of the Tibeten glaciers could have horrific consequences by those in the area who benefit from the glaciers. I highly recomend that they start planning on how they are going to take care of THEIR problem before it harms THEIR countries citizens.


I think you are thinking too small about this one. The consequences could likely be far more reaching. How much is worthy of consideration, imo.




posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Ok, everyones needs to come down, relax and watch this....






posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
It's called climate change. It happens all the time on this planet. Whether or not humans are involved. It's going to happen anyways.
Peddling ourselves to work isn't going to make a lick of difference.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


nice break I get your point.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by genius/idoit
 



Originally posted by genius/idoit
Hey! Mr. altruistic you should have named your thread how can we help the thirsty Tibetans.Know why you didn't?
replies; 0
flags; even less




Yes. I live for flags and largely meaningless replies....






Originally posted by genius/idoit
Hot Sauce and I didn't make it political your post did that all by itself.



They brought back a visual lesson in global warming so stark that censors allowed the programme makers to broadcast a frank exposé. Their film attracted the attention of the Communist party’s leaders and has put climate change at the centre of a remarkably open debate in China ahead of a summit on the issue in Copenhagen next month.



That quoted sentence from the article also mentions..."censors"...."communism"...the concepts of 'frankness' and 'openess'... Does that mean my thread is about all of those issues as well?


I hadn't understood that is how it works.


reply to post by endisnighe
 



Originally posted by endisnighe
Oz, this maybe why the rest of us is jumping on the OP, not Loam.
As you know, weather cannot be locked down by regional observations. Hell, meteorology is one of the newest sciences. And with the quack scientists out there and the quacks in Washington using the quack science, we are a little gung ho on shooting down any gloom and doom crap they will use to institute the largest tax increase, one world government and largest takeover by the US government.

So sorry if we jumped all over Loam for another doom and gloom Global Warming type post. Really sorry-NOT.


Except this thread isn't another "global Warming type post".

I bet you politicize toast in the morning.




reply to post by grey580
 



Read above.



Now I know how it is possible for people to play music on a sinking ship.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


LMAO.. that was hilarious. You know tht is probably exactly how it will play out.
I nearly busted a gut laughing my way through that.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by HotSauce]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


O.K. Uncle you win you are right and we are all wrong happy?



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by kdubbicles
 



Originally posted by kdubbicles
Well if the global temperature has actually decreased, while water has disappeared, perhaps we should entertain the notion that someone may be stealing the water.


Since this is a conspiracy site, kdubbicles, your post deserves absolute respect.



(It would be fun to see a Skunk Works thread on the concept.)

[edit on 8-11-2009 by loam]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus


Originally posted by wx4caster
sure you notice that in the last ten years or so... but what happens when in another ten years you guys are buried in snow.


I find it hard to believe that you're a meteorologist and believe that the Earth goes through 10 year cycles of warming and cooling...


[edit on 11/8/2009 by ZombieOctopus]


the earth does o through warming and cooling cycles. it is not 10 years exactly, i simply put a nice even figure out there so as not to get into useless semantics, but if you must then fine...

the earth has a major cyle of about 1500 years based on the sun. it is not clock work and 1500 years is an average. this information is based loosley upon historical data from ice samples and other natural tell tales such as tree growth and sediment types.

but there are other cycles, that can be based on other things such as ocean temperature and salinity. these cycles are still not understood, and can be as small as 5-50 years.

sea surface temperature (SST) has an enormous role in weather as you may have heard of the el-nino and la-nina, both are climate chages based on SST. the temperature effects evaporation rate and available water vapor, and oceanic circulation has a global effect on general climate and global and macroscale weather patterns.

interestingly enough, there are still more things that can effect even yearly cycles such as longwave patterns. this describes the ridging and troughing of the heights of the upper atosphere. generally sepaking there are about 7 long wave troughs in the northern hemisphere, and these patterns "steer" the baroclinic mid-lat lows that are what cause rain and snow.

the normal or "positive" pattern for the north in the winter is ridging in the west and troughing in the east. this causes the lows that develp in the mid west east of the rockies (due to adiabatic warming from drier air...its long and complicated, but if you wanna know just ask) to trake into the great lakes and occlude, eventually becoming a decaying wave in the vicinity of the james bay. or the lows that form off the the coast of north carolina (due to Cp airmasses interacting with the warmer gulfstream waters) to track NE along the coast and sometimes developing rapidly and becoming those pesky nor'easters, occluding in the new england and decaying in novascotia or being absorbed by the icelandic low.

if the pattern is reversed with troughing in the west and ridging in the east, the lows tend to track further northward. this has a two fold effect. one: lows need moisture to produce precipitation. so the lows that try to form east of the rockies will form further north, similar to what is called an alberta clipper, and lacking any moisture source, they really just drop the temperature by dragging artic air out of central canada. and lows generally dont form off of hatteras because in ridging the source airmass is the Mt iarmass that would be homogenous with the gulf stream. you do see some pretty nasty storms on the west coast, but they still have to get across the rockies, and the rockies act like a sponge drying out the storm and generally disrupting the low, causing it to undergo cyclolosis.

the long wave pattern changes by the order of weeks. so if you enter winter with a negative pattern, and have weak troughing through the positive cycle, you could very well see little snow. and if the ridging is strong enough you could see what is calle "unseasonally" warmer temperatures that could easily result in snow melt and having bare ground in winter.

this is out of the "ordinary" sure.

see there are what is called semi permanent pressure features. the equature is marked by lower pressures, while the 30º lat is marked by generally higher pressures, 60 is generally lower and the poles are generally higher. this is due to a vertical global circulation known as the 3 cell theory consisting of the polar ferral and hadley cells. that is why you have the aleutian low ner the aleutian island chain, and the icelandic low, and you also have the pacific high and the bermuda or atlantic high pressure. these features help to create cyclogenisis downstream of the longwave trough axis.

petterson's rule tells us that if an area of upper level divergence is superimposed over a surface boundary, cyclogenisis will occur, and downstream of the longwave trough axis is where you see the most U/L div.

snowfall, temperatures, rain amounts, all of that is based upon basic meteorological synoptic features and earths surface terrain...

and it all happens in cycles, sometimes cycles line up and cause extremes, sometimes they dont.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Unfortunately, most Americans are completely incapable of grasping the science behind global warming - or anything else, basically. Science is not well taught in schools here. Neither is critical thinking. Our educational system is geared towards making "good citizens", sheep who do not question authority, who obey instructions, who do not think for themselves or try to be creative. Creative, thoughtful, inquisitive students are harshly punished as discipline problems and often drugged into compliance.

Many Americans think there is no global warming, because many locations on land are actually gettting colder. As I understand it, the US had one of the coolest summers in decades. Therefore, the doubters say, there is no global warming.

The point is that this is *global* warming, not local. The temperature of the oceans is rising. As this happens, there is often a corresponding drop in some temperatures on land. However, 75% of the earth's surface is water. The warming is affecting the most frigid places more severely - that being the poles, and apparently this "ice store" in China.

Whether this warming is a result of human activity is less clear; and whether we can do anything to reverse it is even more doubtful. But global warming is an unpleasant fact of life.

The water from melted ice runs off into rivers, and then to the oceans. It evaporates and rains down elsewhere, often in the oceans, sometimes on land that doesn't usually get much rainfall. The "ice store" has gone somewhere. So have massive amounts of ice at the poles. This doesn't happen unless the ice melts, which doesn't happen unless the temperatures rise above freezing and stay there for a while.

Personally, I don't much care. I'm old enough that I won't live to see the results of this arrogance, ignorance, and greed. I have no kids who are going to have to suffer. So I have no personal interest one way or the other. Still, it's a shame to allow our ignorance to keep us from taking steps to mitigate the damage.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

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]


Go back to the 16th century? That's actually not a bad idea! However, once TSHTF we might have that done automatically for us!

You're playing this ridiculous, child-minded black and white game, actually presenting the false argument that we don't know if global warming will be good or bad yet. Are you kidding me?? You're obviously not a man of science, but speaking as somebody who seeks to be-- do your HOMEWORK. Sure the effects of global warming/climate change wont be all terrible, but it'll be enough terrible to give us serious regrets for changing the ENTIRE EARTH'S climate in such a historically/ridiculously short timespan.

Also you're dead wrong about the "whole solar system" warming. The actual science shows that some planets/moons are actually COOLING right now. And on top of that, the warming seen on other planets can be explained by their own, non-solar-related, contained cycles.


Originally posted by wx4caster
sigh...

if the snow is melting and lakes are drying up, where the hell is the water supposed to be going?

do you even comprehend the volume of water that has supposedly disappeared?? there is such a thing as the law of conservation. that water has to go some where. it cannot just vanish. and it is very highly unlikeley that it has been taken to the sea in rain clouds considering the effects of orographic lifting and the mechanisms involved with moisture interaction with terrain.

we would be hearing of massive flooding along major rivers if there was really that much water being transferred.


I dont know. Why don't you ask the SCIENTISTS who actually study these things?

You're bringing up the law of conservation as if it explains away everything. But the reality is THE CHINESE ARE EXPERIENCING WATER SHORTAGES. You're in denial and it's striking those of us with half a brain as just silly and unnecessary. Of course the water had to go somewhere, but as the article stated, it DIDN'T go into the Yellow River for any sustained period of time. And perhaps it actually DID flood in the past few years, do you know that it didn't? The law of conservation has a sister, that's the law of cause and effect- if there is no source of melt-water left, then rivers and lakes dry up. Just as nothing completely disappears, something ALSO doesn't come from nothing. Disappearing source of fresh-water = no water. The incredibly rapid pace of glacier retreat is a serious jolt to not only the steady/balanced trickle of fresh melt-water, but also to ecosystems which thrive upon those systems.

When these glaciers dry up, it will not be pretty for the rest of the farmers who have escaped becoming impoverished thus far, it won't be pretty for many millions of Chinese civilians. The real world isn't some vacation spot like Jamaica. Hell, Jamaica ITSELF isn't even like Jamaica. That place is piss-poor and is continually screwed over by the IMF/World Bank so that American banks/corporations can rake in some more profits off the backs of poor farmers. Huh... ain't it funny how screwed over farmers have gotten in our world? I mean, that's what most of our wars are composed of... two armies of poor farm boys not completely knowing why they're killing each other while rich industries profit off the spoils of war. SSDD.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
The Earth is heated in by a fire ball we call the sun and that sun is not constant. It goes through this cycle thingy and the energies released go up and down. As a direct effect of these fluctuations, the energies absorbed by the Earth correspond with those put out by the sun.

The real Inconvenient Truth is that some people want to believe that they can do something to change the situation, so they except a theory that allows their hope to be nourished.

Then there are others who are more than willing to sell you the theoretical solutions. All the while preparing themselves for the inevitable climate change; inevitable, because it has happened countless times in the vast history of the planet. Geological history tells us so.

Sadly people will die, but who would want to live through it?



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 




i am one of the scientists, does that give me a whole brain?

perhaps you should become a scientist in your own right.

go get a bucket of ice and pour it in your kitchen table. place napkins around the edge and watch the ice melt. tellme... do the napkins get wet???


sublimation is the only real way to explain this, and that is when ice changges straight to a vapor state, skipping liquid. glaciers and snow dont go through this...




posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
Unfortunately, most Americans are completely incapable of grasping the science behind global warming - or anything else, basically. Science is not well taught in schools here. Neither is critical thinking. Our educational system is geared towards making "good citizens", sheep who do not question authority, who obey instructions, who do not think for themselves or try to be creative. Creative, thoughtful, inquisitive students are harshly punished as discipline problems and often drugged into compliance.

Many Americans think there is no global warming, because many locations on land are actually gettting colder. As I understand it, the US had one of the coolest summers in decades. Therefore, the doubters say, there is no global warming.

The point is that this is *global* warming, not local. The temperature of the oceans is rising. As this happens, there is often a corresponding drop in some temperatures on land. However, 75% of the earth's surface is water. The warming is affecting the most frigid places more severely - that being the poles, and apparently this "ice store" in China.

Whether this warming is a result of human activity is less clear; and whether we can do anything to reverse it is even more doubtful. But global warming is an unpleasant fact of life.

The water from melted ice runs off into rivers, and then to the oceans. It evaporates and rains down elsewhere, often in the oceans, sometimes on land that doesn't usually get much rainfall. The "ice store" has gone somewhere. So have massive amounts of ice at the poles. This doesn't happen unless the ice melts, which doesn't happen unless the temperatures rise above freezing and stay there for a while.

Personally, I don't much care. I'm old enough that I won't live to see the results of this arrogance, ignorance, and greed. I have no kids who are going to have to suffer. So I have no personal interest one way or the other. Still, it's a shame to allow our ignorance to keep us from taking steps to mitigate the damage.


if you are old enough then what happened to global cooling of the 1970s? and the gasoline shortages that occured because of it?

this is a sensationalist movement based on incomplete data pushed by greedy coorporations in an effort to line their pockets.

70% of the earths surface is covered by water. pollutants stay in the atmosphere for a few days to weeks at the most. it takes something like a volcanic eruption to put particulates into the stratosphere where it takes years to fall.

the real concern would be polluting the quality of the water table, not warming the globe. rest assured. the globe will cool again. and i am sure there will be some company out there selling space heaters that is gonna make money by trying to make a giant space heater to warm the andes...
and there will still be fools out there that eat it up like candy and pass laws taxing refridgerators....



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by loam
 


Not for me it doesn't. I don't live in Asia. We have plenty of water where I live. So maybe we can get a little cash back from the Chinese by selling them overpriced lead tainted water.

Plus, you need to prove to me that it is caused by C02 and not solar activity. Also, you need to explain why the Earths average temp has dropped for the last 10years. For all I know we could be heading to an ice age.

There is about as much proof that there is going to be massive global warmng as there is that Nibiru is going to come crashing into earth on a particular date and time determined by a bunch of savages thousands of years ago.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by HotSauce]


Prove that global warming is caused by CO2 and not solar activity? The Earth's average temp has dropped for the past 10 years? Ice age? Jeez, where do I begin??

First of all, you're the one who has to prove that solar activity is causing global warming, because so far there is no convincing science to back up that claim. Whereas the science behind CO2 and other greenhouse gases is indisputable as to their effects. You see, in the early part of last century, there was a lot of scientific skepticism about CO2 and global warming, but then the evidence became unavoidably clear by about mid-century. So, the debate was over over 50 years ago. The scientific community knows what's going on and human emissions of CO2 are contributing greatly to this rapid global warming.

Also, you're wrong on your facts, the FACT is that the last decade was the WARMEST on record with 2005 being arguably the hottest year on record in contention with 1998. And even if there was cooling over the last couple years, this would mean NOTHING in the holistic climatological picture. Such ebbs and flows of a couple years are to be expected, but the overwhelming and undeniable trend in global climate is a rapid climb upwards in temperature. The IPCC has actually been called TOO conservative by scientists on the global warming issue. Case in point- the most recent studies show that climate projections from just a few years ago were also TOO conservative and the rate of warming (and its effects) are actually quite a bit worse than was stated publicly.

As for an ice age... that's not going to happen for thousands of years, plain n' simple.

That whole Planet X thing is more in line with global warming SKEPTICISM than it is with the knowledge that global warming is real.


Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by HotSauce
 


Let me lend you a hand buddy

dsc.discovery.com...
or
www.foxnews.com...
uh oh that 2nd one is from FOX news so it's probably right wing propaganda

so
www.treehugger.com...
3 to 1 we win!


genius/idoit (did you purposely misspell your own name? lol),
If you actually read your articles, you'd know that it doesn't bolster your case at all. In fact those articles still overwhelmingly bolster evidence of human-induced global warming. There's ONE glacier in the US that's growing and the highest mountains in the Himalayas are too. So what? This means nothing in the face of global warming, and in fact can be explained (as is stated in those articles) by regional WEATHER patterns. As was also stated in those articles, most of the other glaciers on Earth are in retreat. Now keep in mind, weather and climate are two different things. Weather is short-term and localized, whereas climate is much more global and historical. This is why meteorologists are useless for the hard science of climate.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by wx4caster

Originally posted by HotSauce
Look the way I see it is the day I wake up gasping for oxygen and the earth is so hot that just walking to my car makes me spontaneously combust... then maybe, just maybe, I would be willing to pay extra money for global warming. But I would still have to sit down and think about it.





here is the thing. people want to save the environment form an impending disaster. if you really really feel that humans are the cause of this, then stop breeding. there is no plausible solution that can decling human pollution faster than human population growth.

and paying carbon taxes dont do a damn bit of good for anything other than lining the pockest of a few people. and those friggin people are STILL flying around in private jets and taking more money from companies who are creating this so called crisis.

unless you want government to start sialing the high ses via canvas and roaming the countryside via horse and carriage again... like THAT will ever happen



I'm with you on decreasing human population. Gradually of course.

Carbon taxes lining the pockets of... who??? If anything it will TAKE money from the pockets of the richest elite execs in the fossil fuel industries and make them pay for their damages. That sounds like a damn good deal to me! FINALLY some progress. And if we the PEOPLE get off our butts and actually hold our government accountable to US rather than those corporate special interests, then we can get them to use that very money for things WE want. If ANYTHING, these companies are fueling global warming skepticism. It's proven that companies like Exxon have put out disinfo/propaganda campaigns, lobbied like crazy, bribed politicians, and funded pseudo-scientists and phony industry studies that put global warming denial FALSELY on par with the overwhelming science that shows that global warming is real, man-made, and caused mostly by fossil fuel emissions over the last century. The fossil fuel industries have EVERYTHING to lose if we abandon them and hold them accountable. These are the richest industries EVER to exist and when they face global warming, peak oil, and general lack of public trust because they screw us over, pollute our air/water/land, and corrupt our political process, then of course they're going to delay any action on global warming. And what better way than to make people like YOU think you're "fighting the elites" when you're actually fighting FOR them.


Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by ZombieOctopus
 


What if all the things you want to do to help(which I find commendable)are based on misinformation?


The science on human destruction of the environment is pretty sound and immutable. However, our landscape is rife with misinformation. Of course it's in the opposite direction than you are leading on... Industry has a huge part in what is called "greenwashing", meaning they take their dirty image and put out extensive AD campaigns to make themselves look green, sustainable, friendly, and on the forefront of renewables when the opposite is actually true. Also, many people think that they can simply buy fluorescent light-bulbs and recycle more to save the planet. However, with nearly 7 billion people on the planet, and westerners consuming as much as we do, we're going to have to do a HELLUVA lot more than that to prevent gross ecological destruction. Did you know scientists are calling the modern age the 6th Great Extinction? During Earth's 4.5 billion year history (and ok, a bit less so for life), there have been 5 great extinctions of most species on the planet, and we're currently causing the 6th in just the blink of an eye. This is unconscionable, unacceptable, and needs to be stopped by all means necessary.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
i reccomend that everyone who believes in global warming go out and take a few climatology and meteorology classes so that they can get an understanding as to what exactly they are trying to say.

then take the knowledge that they gain from the classes and apply it to thier hypothesises and watch them crumble to logic.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Nice thread, Loam. Pity it has to turn into groundhog day.

Anyways...


Glacier change and glacier runoff variation in the Tuotuo River basin, the source region of Yangtze River in western China
Journal of Environmental Geology

Issue Volume 56, Number 1 / November, 2008

Abstract

Glaciers in the Tuotuo River basin, western China, have been monitored in recent decades by applying topographical maps and high-resolution satellite images. Results indicate that most of glaciers in the Tuotuo River basin have retreated in the period from 1968/1971 to 2001/2002, and their shrinkage area is 3.2% of the total area in the late 1960s. To assess the influence of glacier runoff on river runoff, a modified degree–day model including potential clear-sky direct solar radiation has been applied to the glaciated regions of the river basin over the period 1961–2004. It was found that glacier runoff has increased in the last 44 years, especially in the 1990s when a two-thirds increase in river runoff was derived from the increase in glacier runoff caused by loss of ice mass in the entire Tuotuo River basin.



Changing streamflow patterns in the rivers of northwestern Himalaya: Implications of global warming in the 20th century

M. R. Bhutiyani1,*, Vishwas S. Kale2 and N. J. Pawar3
1Department of Geology, College of Military Engineering, Pune 411 031, India
2Department of Geography, and 3Department of Geology, University of Pune, Pune 411 007, India

The results of trend analyses of the discharge data of four rivers in northwestern Himalaya, namely Beas, Chenab, Ravi and Satluj, are presented here and the impact of climate change in the last century is discussed. In the case of Satluj river, studies indicate an episodic variation in discharge in all three seasons on a longer timescale of about 82 years (1922–2004). Statistically significant decrease in the average annual and monsoon discharge and insignificant increase in winter and spring discharge, despite increasing temperatures during all the three seasons can also be seen. Decreasing discharge during winter and monsoon seasons in the post-1990 period, despite rising temperatures and average monsoon precipitation strongly indicates decreasing contribution of glaciers to the discharge and their gradual disappearance. On a shorter timescale of the last four decades of the 20th century, barring the Beas river, which shows a significantly decreasing trend, the other three rivers have shown a statistically insignificant change (at 95% confidence level) in their average annual discharge. Annual peak flood discharges show significant increasing trends in the Satluj and Chenab basins, significant decreasing trend in the Beas river and insignificant trend in the Ravi river. Notwithstanding these variations, the studies indicate an increase in the number of ‘high-magnitude flood’ events in the rivers in northwestern Himalaya in the last three decades.


The interesting data from the Indian study above is for the Satluj and Chenab rivers, both largely fed by glaciers.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by ZombieOctopus
 


I live in Chicago baby don't tell me about cold.


Yeah? I live a hop/skip/jump from Chicago and I ask you, how do you explain the crazy warm (in the 70's) weather this weekend, HUH?


Also, keep in mind, everyone. That "global cooling" of the 1970's was bogus. There wasn't that much scientific evidence or support backing up any of those claims. And as for the satellite readings showing global cooling, well it's quite well known that those satellites were actually malfunctioning and allowing contamination by water vapor, I believe, on the sensors. This showed false readings for cooling when there was actually warming. And once any glitchy temperature monitors were fixed to measure temps correctly, they showed warming again. The overwhelming and constant trend of the past century has been global increase in temperatures. There is no evidence for any global cooling, and another ice-age isn't due for about ohhhh 10,000 years give or take? On the other hand, the science and the science community behind global warming is overwhelming and nearly full in consensus. In the fields of climatology (you know, the folks who ACTUALLY study all this), there is a 97% consensus on global warming existing, being man-made, and a serious problem. Also there are ZERO peer-reviewed studies that dispute the main tenets of anthropogenic global warming.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DINSTAAR

The IPCC report on climate change was not that catastrophic. In fact, the projected effects are relatively insignificant. The unsubstantiated fear-mongering is a tool to convince us to obey the will of a small minority.

Also, glacial growth and shrinkage is not a good example for warming. Warmer air holds more moisture and precipitates more. Assuming parallel universes, a glacier at 31 degrees Fahrenheit would more likely be bigger then the same glacier at 27 degrees.

I am not saying that the earth is not warming, it just isn't happening the way Al Gore and his ilk say it is. Al Gore would not make money and would not be relevant if he told the truth.


The IPCC report was actually scary enough without mentioning recent studies that show that such projections were actually too conservative. The effects of global warming will hardly be insignificant. With ice caps being completely melted in the summers just a couple decades from now, desertification running wild, rising sea levels (no matter how little or lot), the effects on global ecosystems/species, the effects on food production/disease/refugees, etc. things will not be pretty or desirable no matter how we handle the symptoms. We're playing with fire, and quite literally heat, and on a rapid global scale, only bad can ultimately come of it.

Glacial shrinkage is not quite the foundation of evidence for global warming, but it is an alarming and obvious symptom of it. Also, perhaps I'm not understanding your point... but wouldn't a glacier at 27 degrees actually be bigger considering the crystal-structure of ice EXPANDING the volume of water as it freezes (thus the reason ice cubes overflow in the tray beyond the level of original liquid)...?


Originally posted by FortAnthem

Exactly what I was thinking. If the glaciers were melting, Why werent the rivers flooding during the melt off? Instead there were reports of the rivers drying up .


I also find it suspicious that there are no before & after photos in any of the links provided. Am I just to take their word for it that this area was covered with glaciers just a few years before? Show me the proof.

It seems to me there is a strange situation of the Earth not producing Ice at the same rate it once did and it cannot any longer produce ice at a rate sufficient to keep up with melting.

Is the Earth's atmosphere drier now than it was before?

Are we experiencing less rainfall in galcial areas than previously during winter months?

What is affecting the rain cycle in these areas?


When global climate shifts in this manner, all sorts of unpredictable things can happen. Not to mention, weather becomes more polarized. So instead of having balanced, even, predictable precipitation in regions all over the world, you'll have erratic weather and extreme droughts in a formerly wet place, while getting flooding in a formerly dry place. This creates a huge imbalance in weather, climate, and ecosystems. Not good. Also, when glaciers melt and freshwater evaporates, this can cause much of our freshwater to be dumped into saline oceans. Also not good since we can't drink salt water.

I don't think this is a situation where you need to demand proof that there was ice/snow there before. It's common knowledge that the Himalayas were rich in glacial cover, and I'm sure a quick google search will prove to you that this land isn't supposed to be as dry as it is.

Earth's atmosphere isn't necessarily drier than it was before. And actually there is probably an average increase in precipitation around the globe due to global warming. However, like I said, due to polarized/erratic weather and desertification, you do have vast areas which are much drier than they were even a couple decades ago. This is neither good for the environment nor for any food production on that land.

Once again a google search will probably give you any figures you need on rainfall.




top topics



 
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join