Irrefutable evidence showing climate change.

This is not about the politicians.
Or the scientists.
Its not about the blame.
Its not about the apathy.

This is about the truth.
The planet is warming.
That is a fact. Below is the evidence. Take the time to watch the video it is only 20 minutes long and look at the web site. The images are plain and not open to interpretation by politicians or scientists, economists or environmentalists, media commentary or fanatical blog spin doctors from either side of the debate.
James Balog at TED time lapse proof of extreme ice loss.



It is happening and we need to deal with it.
These are not computer models. They are not projections or estimations. They are real.
It shows Glacial Ice melting. Melting fast. Faster then the models, and the projections and the estimations.
Extreme Ice Timelapse survey video's

We have to deal with this reality now, regardless of whether you think it is a natural cycle or AGW.

Here are some other links that are related to the OP.
Some info on the extreme ice survey.
en.wikipedia.org...

Global Glacial monitors.
www.geo.unizh.ch...

And the changes that are noted by the World Glacier Monitors.
www.grid.unep.ch...

Its too late to do anything now the damage is done. For over 20 years people have been warning others that we need to change our lifestyles and policies. The siberian permafrost which has laid frozen since the last ice age is now thawing and at present is releasing 8 million tonnes of methane(20 times more potent than CO2) and that figure is set to rise over the next few years adding more greenhouse gas.
I cant believe the human race has a whole is so mentally challenged arrogant and ignorant. Well serves people right, you made your bed now lie in it.....

The only problem that you fail to see is that humans are not causing this climate change.

This is a natural cycle and nothing more.

Weather changes and it's not just about what is happening on earth that decides the outcome.

We as humans have such a minute amount of climate data that is absurd to even think we can predict how our climate should stay or change.

There is nothing we can do about it IMO, but we can stop polluting the earth for other benefits.

I find it so funny that we think that 100 years of climate data can even begin to tell the story of the earths cycles. People tend to forget that our time on this planet is basically a blip in time that means pretty much nothing let alone our tiny time-line of climate data.

reply to post by TV_Nation


they say if the earths entire life could be counted on a 24hr clock we've been here 5 seconds and 4 of those seconds we didn't even know how to write...

Originally posted by TV_Nation
The only problem that you fail to see is that humans are not causing this climate change.

The only problem you see is actually not even stated in the OP.
I clearly say this in the OP.

Its not about the blame.
We have to deal with this reality now, regardless of whether you think it is a natural cycle or AGW.

So you point out that there is a problem in that I fail to see that humans are not to blame. This is your problem because you have invented it as a problem.
This is called a strawman argument.

This is a natural cycle and nothing more.

But we need to act to the cycle.
That is my point. The cycle has consequences, the video and photographic evidence points to climate change. Therefor we need to react to it regardless of its cause.

Weather changes and it's not just about what is happening on earth that decides the outcome.

I agree, but we as humans can effect the outcome of climate change on billions of other humans, hence my point that we acknowledge it as happening and act accordingly.

We as humans have such a minute amount of climate data that is absurd to even think we can predict how our climate should stay or change.

The video evidence and photographic proof are not predictions. Read that twice so it sinks in.

There is nothing we can do about it IMO, but we can stop polluting the earth for other benefits.

You think that this is just about the weather. This is about how water will rise, how precipitation across the globe will change, how water ways and sources of irrigation and drinking water will dry up as glaciers melt for millions and millions of people. It will effect populations,food production, agriculture and livestock around the globe.

I find it so funny that we think that 100 years of climate data can even begin to tell the story of the earths cycles. People tend to forget that our time on this planet is basically a blip in time that means pretty much nothing let alone our tiny time-line of climate data.

What is funny is that we have hundreds of thousands of years of Ice core data, correlated with soil data and tree ring data. This details hundreds of thousands of years of earths climatic history.
And one of those records, the ice, is disappearing.
One of those records is disappearing, that has given us hundreds of thousands of years of its history.
And it is disappearing. Faster than we thought.

I think we ought to take note and act accordingly.


[edit on 7/3/10 by atlasastro]

reply to post by spearhead

And that means what? That we should not act when our planet changes.
I would guess if we do not adapt to or change in accordance to the earths changes, we will only be here a for few metaphorical seconds longer.

Originally posted by loner007
Its too late to do anything now the damage is done. For over 20 years people have been warning others that we need to change our lifestyles and policies.

It may be too late to act in relation to those that feel AGW is the cause, but we can act on the changes regardless. Scientists are aware of the implication of glacier melts will have around the globe. So we can act.

The siberian permafrost which has laid frozen since the last ice age is now thawing and at present is releasing 8 million tonnes of methane(20 times more potent than CO2) and that figure is set to rise over the next few years adding more greenhouse gas.
I cant believe the human race has a whole is so mentally challenged arrogant and ignorant. Well serves people right, you made your bed now lie in it.....

We are also increasing our output and I agree it is past the tipping point as there is evidence sinks like the ocean have reached the capacity to act as compensation.
But we can still act.
I believe we can.

Big deal:

1. Even if this is true, I doubt Humans are a cause or contribute any significant amount. And

2. Even if Human's are the main cause, I doubt there's any possible solution to reverse or stop the trend at this point. And

3. Even if there are possible solutions to reverse or stop the trend, I doubt the benefits would outweigh the harms of said solutions. And

4. Even if some miraculous solution did exist that was low on harm and large on benefit, I doubt our leaders could ascertain said solution, much less implement it in a pure fashion.

So, I'll just choose to adapt instead. Thanks!

The Earths climate has been changing ever since it came into existence. Only 10,000 years ago most of London was under ice more than a mile thick. The planet is warming, the question is to what extent is human activity to blame? And to what extent is it easyier to change the climate than change our lifestyle? E.g the oxzone whole has caused extensive global cooling.

Just 0.038% en.wikipedia.org... of Earths atmosphere is CO2 and this has gone up by 40 percent in the last 200 years (26 percent from non-fossil fuel sources!!!). Plants are also growing faster, in part because of the warming. Also the effect of C02 is limited when you rember it's still one part O2 that was free in the air, and still absorbing heat.

Also did you know that coal mine fires emit more CO2 than all cars in America, or that Indonesia emits almost as much C02 than the United States? Strangely these things seem to get forgotten when it comes to talk of changing our lifestyle.

reply to post by reptoidsonice


Ah, moved so fast into the four points that I almost forgot the first. Guess I'll label it "0..."

0. Even if climate change is happening (which I do not doubt that it is), I've never seen any reasoned and sober-sounding arguments as to why that is such a bad thing.

reply to post by atlasastro


ok superman.... what should i do? build a bunker? by all the bottled water i can afford? smoke something i shouldn't? buy a boat?
maybe if i pay 15% more on my energy bills there will be less chance i will sweat my ring out next summer?

perhaps if we all put our minds together we could have a large pile of brain matter... we could then add some vodka, whisk it up and have cocktails while the oceans boil....

Actually i've got it.... we'll wrap the world in aluminum foil so when the sun throws out its flares we can bake like a potatoe!


[edit on 7/3/10 by spearhead]

Originally posted by reptoidsonice
Big deal:

It is a big deal.

1. Even if this is true, I doubt Humans are a cause or contribute any significant amount. And

What do you mean if it is true? Point out the conjecture in the video, or the assumptions. Point out wee the video's and photographic evidence of the ice loss is not telling the truth.
And, whether we cause it or not is not the argument. Humans don't cause cancer to exist as a disease, but we generally react to it when we know it is a threat to our current status quo. The melting of this ice is a threat to the current status quo of how we as humans live on the planet.

2. Even if Human's are the main cause, I doubt there's any possible solution to reverse or stop the trend at this point. And

again irrelevant and not even on topic.
Did I suggest we reverse it? There are solutions to the problems that the changes present. We need to act on those by first acknowledging the changes are taking place(which you seem to be in denial of:

1. Even if this is true,

and acting on the changes that will inevitably happen on a global scale.

3. Even if there are possible solutions to reverse or stop the trend, I doubt the benefits would outweigh the harms of said solutions. And

Please enlighten us with your risk assessment detailing the benefits of action versus the harm of the implementation of the solutions to said problems.
Please list the problems from the glacial melts, their local, regional, global implications in terms of water sustainability to serve existing demands for municipal, industrial, agricultural, and environmental uses especially in regions dependent on glacial melts. You can do the same with the effect of glacial melts on sea levels.
What are the risks and harm assessments of preparing action plans to relocate populations and to prepare alternative water sources.
What are the geopolitical risks associated with implementing policy(both nationally and internationally) in relation to resource security specifically regarding water.
Will you assess a risk to third party nations keen to reduce the movement of refugees predicted or displaced peoples due to sea level rises or drought inflicted regions as a consequence of the observed and continuing trend of glacial melts around the globe.
I am really looking forward to your thoughts.

4. Even if some miraculous solution did exist that was low on harm and large on benefit, I doubt our leaders could ascertain said solution, much less implement it in a pure fashion.

You should know, apparently you can answer this question simply with doubt-

3. Even if there are possible solutions to reverse or stop the trend, I doubt the benefits would outweigh the harms of said solutions.

So, I'll just choose to adapt instead. Thanks!

No you won't. Because you don't even know what the actual problem is, or the scale. What will happen is you will be told what to do, by your leaders, because you probably won't actually get involved in the process of trying to raise awareness, implement change or become active in the process. Apathy is not adaptation.


That is what will happen.

Originally posted by spearhead
reply to post by atlasastro

 

ok superman.... what should i do? build a bunker? by all the bottled water i can afford? smoke something i shouldn't? buy a boat?

Build a bunker and lock yourself in there dude. That will be a start.

maybe if i pay 15% more on my energy bills there will be less chance i will sweat my ring out next summer?

Maybe, I guess you probably sweat a lot from your ring because you let it do all the talking for you.

perhaps if we all put our minds together we could have a large pile of brain matter... we could then add some vodka, whisk it up and have cocktails while the oceans boil....

I doubt your mind would add much, but people are already doing that and I am sure they have probably built you a bunker already to reduce the harm to society.

Actually i've got it.... we'll wrap the world in aluminum foil so when the sun throws out its flares we can bake like a potatoe!


[edit on 7/3/10 by spearhead]

Or you could acknowledge that there is a real problem that will have implications for us all, and exercise your right to influence those that run your country that may want to implement policies that will deal with the problems so as to reduce the time you have to spend in your bunker talking to your own sweaty ring.

Can I take my cape of now.

so, because there are glaciers that recede we are all doomed?

did it ever occur to you that things aren't set in stone and that you just might be missing out on contradicting data?

let's try this:

www.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Antarctic pack ice season increased by 20 days in a less than 30 years. what does it tell you? evidence viewed in isolation can be used to draw any desired conclusion. glaciers undergo change, why shouldn't they? the notion that you can somehow control them is ludicrous and is based in metaphysics and i still to this day fail to see the relevance, because it's not like glaciers produce water, only store it and vegetation could do that too, but with obvious benefits. i'm starting to get worried about the ice fan club that is the church of GW.

reply to post by atlasastro


ouch!...

maybe you could be a little more constructive. the breath your wasting trying to hurt my feelings is adding to the global warming you feel so strongly about!

i have a genuine one for you, i'll sell all my winter cloths and buy more singlets and short shorts, i'll purchase beer, an easy chair and a bottle of sun lotion and enjoy the heat while its on, because in 10 years when the agenda has changed, so will your views!

Untill 'western' governments stop dumbing down the populace, and educate them instead, not much will happen, apart from plants growing faster, which perhaps will mean more food production, one good thing from 'global warming/climate change/new ice age'.
I wonder if the speaker was fed his figures by a global warming fanatic or did his own research?
I just cannot see less than 0.004% of the atmosphere heating up the rest.
Volcanic activity has gone up 300% in the last 2,000 years, all that sulfur dioxide, particulates, nitrogen, CO2, etc, actually more than humans produce per year on year.
As my son noted, if 0.004% of carbon dioxide can heat up a planet this size that much, with Mars atmosphere being 75% CO2, why isn't Mars boiling?

Wow, in the face of recent revelations the "ARROGANCE of IGNORANCE" is astounding.....

how about some truth....

The period 900 - 1200 AD has been called the Little Climatic Optimum. It represents the warmest climate since the Climatic Optimum. During this period, the Vikings established settlements on Greenland and Iceland. The snow line in the Rocky Mountains was about 370 meters above current levels. A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. A great drought in the American southwest occurred between 1276 and 1299. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s.

From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1.0 degree Celsius lower than today. During the period 1580 to 1600, the western United States experienced one of its longest and most severe droughts in the last 500 years. Cold weather in Iceland from 1753 and 1759 caused 25% of the population to die from crop failure and famine. Newspapers in New England were calling 1816 the year without a summer.

www.physicalgeography.net...

So since currently around 2/3's of the northern hemishpere is unusable for 6-9 months out of the year (siberia and n canada), how is it BAD that these vast fertile lands could become productive with a warming period?

It has happened before and it was a good thing......

Originally posted by pikestaff
Untill 'western' governments stop dumbing down the populace, and educate them instead, not much will happen, apart from plants growing faster, which perhaps will mean more food production, one good thing from 'global warming/climate change/new ice age'.

Maybe.

I wonder if the speaker was fed his figures by a global warming fanatic or did his own research?

What part of the video and photographic evidence taken by the speaker did you suspect was given to the speaker by fanatics. Maybe instead of injecting hypothetical scenario's you could research the figures you question and then come to a conclusion that they were supplied by fanatics.

I just cannot see less than 0.004% of the atmosphere heating up the rest.

Did you see the video and photo's of all that ice melting?

Volcanic activity has gone up 300% in the last 2,000 years, all that sulfur dioxide, particulates, nitrogen, CO2, etc, actually more than humans produce per year on year.
As my son noted, if 0.004% of carbon dioxide can heat up a planet this size that much, with Mars atmosphere being 75% CO2, why isn't Mars boiling?

What part of the fact that ice is melting and will impact on the globe do you not understand? Ask your son if all the glaciers on land melt, what happens to see levels? What happens to water systems supplied by glaciers. What happens to populations that depend on the land that will be covered by sea rises and what will happen to those people that rely on the water supplied by the glaciers.

Tell your son that Martian atmosphere is much, much thinner to earths, the surface pressure of the martian atmosphere is 100 times less than the earths. So while it may be 75% CO2, it is not anything like our atmosphere so as to equate the two. Martian greenhouse effect has little absorption of solar irradiation. So while its atmosphere is 75% CO2 it is really thin with not much else. A lot of the CO2 actually freezes in winter which further reduces the atmosphere.

Tell your son though, that Venus has an out of control greenhouse effect that has the planet at 900F. Its planet has a dense CO2 atmosphere 90 times that of earths surface pressure, without which the planet would actually have a temperature of below 0 if it did not have its dense CO2 atmosphere.

Thank you for your reply.
Say hi to your son for me.




[edit on 7/3/10 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by Long Lance
so, because there are glaciers that recede we are all doomed?

Point out where I say that lance, or the video states that, or the websites I linked say that.

Please save your strawman for the denial farm.

did it ever occur to you that things aren't set in stone and that you just might be missing out on contradicting data?

Show me the data contradicting the glacial melts dude.

let's try this:

Sea Ice. Its sea ice dude.

Antarctic pack ice season increased by 20 days in a less than 30 years. what does it tell you? evidence viewed in isolation can be used to draw any desired conclusion.

Yes you display a fine example of using isolated evience to argue against glacial melts. Your link also shows that the Arctic has seen losses of sea ice. So it look like all you have is isloated sea ice growth in the south. That is it.

glaciers undergo change, why shouldn't they? the notion that you can somehow control them is ludicrous and is based in metaphysics and i still to this day fail to see the relevance, because it's not like glaciers produce water, only store it and vegetation could do that too, but with obvious benefits. i'm starting to get worried about the ice fan club that is the church of GW.

I agree, I am actually pointing out those changes, which you seem to arguing about. Where did I say that we could control or stop the changes Lance, just point it out bro. ust once.

When are you going to actually read the OP?

It is happening is what I am saying. We need to acknowledge that, which you seem to be arguing against.
There will be effects, is what I am saying.
We will need to act.
How hard is that for you to comprehend.

Your link is sea ice.
We are talking about glacial ice.
Look at your link, www.... gsfc. nasa. gov/topstory/ 20020820southseaice.html

You are equating seasonal sea ice to glacial ice that has been there for hundreds of thousands of years. Unbelievable.
The glacial images and links ARE GLOBAL.
Where is the isolation dude?

While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s,

www.gsfc.nasa.gov...
You are using the southern seasonal sea ice in isolation. I can add the Arctic sea ice losses that your link raises along with the global( see global and not regional and seasonal like your attempt) recording of glacial melts that my OP points out. So there is actually correlation from two sources now with you holding onto the isolated incidence of southern seasonal sea ice increasing. Thanks for that Lance!
You actually argue against yourself dude!

evidence viewed in isolation can be used to draw any desired conclusion.

Go ahead bro, draw your own conclusion from the increase in seasonal southern sea Ice taken from 2002 because that is all you have. You have nothing that contradicts the evidence in the OP.
Nothing.
It is happening.
It will have effects.
We will have to act.
What part of that do you not understand Lance?