Irrefutable evidence showing climate change.

reply to post by treesdancing


I suggest you also look Arctic sea Ice trends.
It is often sited as denial propaganda that there is no GLOBAL warming by individuals trying to deny climate change because regional southern sea ice has seen an increase.
But what are your thoughts relating to Antarctic Glacial Ice that is seeing losses?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ee3db98e4da1.gif[/atsimg]

Figure 1: Ice mass changes (solid lines with circles) and their best-fitting linear trends (dashed line) for the West Antarcica Ice Sheet (red) and East Antarcica Ice Sheet (green) for April 2002 to August 2005 (Velicogna 2007).

Using measurements of time-variable gravity from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites, we determined mass variations of the Antarctic ice sheet during 2002–2005. We found that the mass of the ice sheet decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year, which is equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 millimeters of global sea-level rise per year. Most of this mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

www.sciencemag.org...

Do you have any comment on the OBSERVED and DOCUMENTED trends in melting of GLOBAL glaciers as indicted in the OP video and the World Glacier Monitoring Service and the Extreme Ice Survey?

What are your thoughts on the correlation between these observed and documented melts in global glaciers and the arctic sea ice losses? Especially now that I can also present Antarctic Mass Ice Losses, and a continuing trend of Antarctic Mass Ice Loss.

What part of the OP did you not understand or do you dispute?

Some easy questions for you to answer, if you will, my friend.
Do you accept that Glaciers are melting around the Globe?
Do you accept that it is warming that would melt these glaciers around the Globe?
Do you think we should act?

Simple questions.

I see many people site previous Ice cycles, so I will point out an interesting abstract that uses past cycles. This is significant as it correlates with the OP video which illustrates evidence of faster than expected melts.

Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise
Jonathan T. Overpeck,1* Bette L. Otto-Bliesner,2 Gifford H. Miller,3 Daniel R. Muhs,4 Richard B. Alley,5 Jeffrey T. Kiehl2
Sea-level rise from melting of polar ice sheets is one of the largest potential threats of future climate change. Polar warming by the year 2100 may reach levels similar to those of 130,000 to 127,000 years ago that were associated with sea levels several meters above modern levels; both the Greenland Ice Sheet and portions of the Antarctic Ice Sheet may be vulnerable. The record of past ice-sheet melting indicates that the rate of future melting and related sea-level rise could be faster than widely thought.

www.sciencemag.org...;311/5768/1747

You refer to these past changes in a previous post.
So we have a history of the effects on the planet from Global Ice melts.
Do you think we should acknowledge these effects in view of all the material pointing out clearly that we are seeing rapid melts NOW and that these rapid melts will have effects like they did in previous eras.
And do you think we should act accordingly?


Thank you for the reply.

[edit on 9/3/10 by atlasastro]

reply to post by atlasastro


All this re-hashing is to what purpose?

What I state is that regardless of what you or I think causes these melts, the melts will impact the globe and we need to acknowledge that and act accordingly.

Most people already acknowledge the cyclical warming and cooling changes. So what?

Most people acknowledge that glacial melt will affect nearly a billion people over the next 250 years. So what?

You repeatedly aver that we must "act accordingly," yet have not offered a single significant suggestion of what must be done.

You've taken up 2 days and 3 pages thus far whining about action.

Your OP is worthless if you have no concrete suggestions.

People still live and invest in, and move to, coastal regions despite cyclones and hurricanes.

People still live and invest in, and move to volcanically and seismically active regions, despite volcanoes and earthquakes.

Come up with a suggestion or abandon this otherwise meaningless thread.

Neither China, nor India nor Indonesia are doing much regarding black soot and resultant effects on Himalayan ice and the IndoChina haze.

What are YOU going to DO? (Besides repeating observations we've been making for generations.)

I'll ask again: "To what purpose did you post the OP?"

jw



[edit on 9-3-2010 by jdub297]

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by treesdancing

 

Do you have any comment on the OBSERVED and DOCUMENTED trends in melting of GLOBAL glaciers as indicted in the OP video and the World Glacier Monitoring Service and the Extreme Ice Survey?

Ok, ice is melting. Do you show any IRREFUTABLE evidence that this is a man-made cycle... nope.

What part of the OP did you not understand or do you dispute?

What's irrefutable? There are examples of glaciers receding with air temperatures below freezing, the most famously shown to be purely solar is Mt.Kilimanjaro

Despite air temperatures always being below freezing, areal retreat of plateau glaciers is governed mostly by solar radiation induced melt on vertical walls that characterize their north and south margins [Mölg et al., 2003]

and

Most glacier ablation is due to sublimation, and where ice does melt it immediately evaporates into the atmosphere… The scenario presented offers a concept that implies climatological processes other than increased air temperature govern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro in a direct manner.

here

I suggest you read the source material from that list. But if it's too much just look at these pictures






Suggesting that we can do something about 'climate change' (which, is retarded because if climate didn't change IT WOULDN'T BE A CLIMATE) means man-made causes, even you would agree that C02 levels were not an issue in 1900, but the receding has steadied out since then even in this era of unprecedented pollution.

Some easy questions for you to answer, if you will, my friend.
Do you accept that Glaciers are melting around the Globe?

Sure.

Do you accept that it is warming that would melt these glaciers around the Globe?

Not necessarily.

Do you think we should act?

[sarcasm] Yeah sure, by instilling 'green police' around the globe and putting huge taxes on people to pay for their carbon footprint [/sarcasm]

...Polar warming by the year 2100 may reach levels similar to those of 130,000 to 127,000 years ago that were associated with sea levels several meters above modern levels...

www.sciencemag.org...;311/5768/1747

...Do you think we should acknowledge these effects in view of all the material pointing out clearly that we are seeing rapid melts NOW and that these rapid melts will have effects like they did in previous eras.
And do you think we should act accordingly?

Yes acknowledge them, but act how? You just admitted that ancient sea levels will match ours in 100 years. So by your own admission man has little to do with sea level rise and we're assuming that we have any say in what the sea will do? So, what are we to do? Move billions of people inland and decimate the economy rebuilding all coastlines (which would cost the world unimaginable amounts of money and resources btw) based on pure speculation?!

Because thats all we really can do in the case that the sea level will rise, there would be no stopping it.


[edit on 9-3-2010 by afterschoolfun]

reply to post by afterschoolfun

Excellent example of a worthless OP. Only extreme species hubris leads anyone to believe man can alter natural processes on a global scale. Star for your efforts.

(Of course, all this blathering ignores countervailing pressures in which glacial ice and sea ice are INCREASING, and regional or tropospheric temperatures are decreasing.

jw

reply to post by afterschoolfun

Originally posted by afterschoolfun


Ok, ice is melting. Do you show any IRREFUTABLE evidence that this is a man-made cycle... nope.

Point out where I say that. Just once dude. point out in the OP or any of my posts on this thread where I say that.
Just once.

What's irrefutable? There are examples of glaciers receding with air temperatures below freezing, the most famously shown to be purely solar is Mt.Kilimanjaro

Just out of interest, did they come to a conclusion that Mt. Kilimanjaro was isolated from the earth and the atmosphere so that is was only being acted on purely by solar energy. I'll come to that in a moment.

But Georg Kaser, a glaciologist at the Institute for Geography of the University of Innsbruck in Austria, said that the ice measured was only a few hundred years old and that it had come and gone over centuries.

What is more, he suggested that the recent melting had more to do with a decline in moisture levels than with a warming atmosphere.

www.nytimes.com...
No mention of solar here. Global Warming gets the boot and a decline in moisture levels gets the nods as the culprit. Hmmm.....decline in moisture levels? Would that be a change, a change in the climate, climate change? Just remember the bit I pointed out about moisture.

Despite air temperatures always being below freezing, areal retreat of plateau glaciers is governed mostly by solar radiation induced melt on vertical walls that characterize their north and south margins [Mölg et al., 2003]

Very interesting.

Most glacier ablation is due to sublimation, and where ice does melt it immediately evaporates into the atmosphere… The scenario presented offers a concept that implies climatological processes other than increased air temperature govern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro in a direct manner.[

This actual quote is important because it gives us a clue as to other CLIMATOLOGICAL PROCESSES other then air temperature that are influencing the Ice melts. Climate.
hereNow that is a really great link there.

The excellent link you provided actually highlights the lack of MOISTURE at Kilimanjaro-

An article in the American Scientist (“The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed” by Philip Mote and Georg Kaser, July-August 2007) blames a decrease in precipitation and an increase in sublimation.

Sublimation increase due to climactic conditions and a loss of precipitation.
Why has the precipitation been lost?

that drier conditions (reduced humidity) in East Africa during the 20th century (after several wetter decades before 1880) have reduced precipitation and cloud cover and thereby increased both incoming solar radiation (insolation) and net solar radiation (caused by less snow).

So there is climate change that has flow on effects and not isolated solar causes.

On a larger scale, East Africa (10°N - 15°S; 25°E - 40°E) exhibits an overall warming trend (1901–2000) with large decadal variability and no overall precipitation trend, although the 1961–1970 precipitation maximum is present (figure 3 in ref. 3). A 25-year temperature and precipitation history recorded in the Amboseli Basin, a few kilometers from the northern base of Mount Kilimanjaro, reveals a warming trend in both maximum and minimum temperatures and large interannual variability in precipitation but no long-term trend (11). Altmann et al. (11) note that the weather and water availability at Amboseli are highly affected by conditions on the mountain. Over recent decades there has been a continual transformation of the landscape surrounding Kilimanjaro into agricultural land, thus, unraveling large-scale climate forcing from regional forcing caused in part by landscape changes is difficult.

www.pnas.org...

The last bit is important, the landscape changes in regional forcing are important to Kilimanjaro. Again this is pointed out in your link that you provided in the following.

Research by Britain’s Portsmouth University indicated the decline of Mt. Kilimanjaro glaciers is: “caused more by local than regional factors. Pepin believes that deforestation which is mainly due to extensive farming is the major cause. … Deforestation of the mountain`s foothills is the most likely culprit because without forests there is too much evaporation of humidity into outer space. The result is that moisture-laden winds blowing across those forests have become drier and drier.”

www.appinsys.com...

Remember the bits about moisture? The lack of moisture, the lack of clouds, the lack of moisture and clouds that create greater exposure to solar radiation. That increases melting.


There is a lot in there my friend besides the sun shining on ice.

So it ain't just the sun. Its the climate. The climate is changing, but anyway, we know that. Don't we.

I suggest you read the source material from that list. But if it's too much just look at these pictures

Its a great link. I suggest you read it too. Thanks.

Suggesting that we can do something about 'climate change' (which, is retarded because if climate didn't change IT WOULDN'T BE A CLIMATE) means man-made causes,

Again, where in the OP do I address man made causes.
You are inventing an argument that is just not there.

even you would agree that C02 levels were not an issue in 1900, but the receding has steadied out since then even in this era of unprecedented pollution.

I am not interested in the CO2 debate in this thread, in fact I have not mentioned it once.
The receding has not steadied out mate, that is the whole point of the thread, it is getting faster. Did you look at the Video?

Do you accept that it is warming that would melt these glaciers around the Globe?

Not necessarily.

I can see that.

[sarcasm] Yeah sure, by instilling 'green police' around the globe and putting huge taxes on people to pay for their carbon footprint [/sarcasm]

What a stupid solution.

Yes acknowledge them, but act how? You just admitted that ancient sea levels will match ours in 100 years. So by your own admission man has little to do with sea level rise and we're assuming that we have any say in what the sea will do?

Again, just in case you missed it the first time, where do I say man is responsible. Just point it out mate.
What I am also pointing out is that it is actually happening faster. That link to those ancient levels is a few years behind the links in my OP. So the estimates are wrong. The time line is moving faster then predicted. The footage in the OP is significant in that for the first time we can see that process actually happening.

So, what are we to do? Move billions of people inland and decimate the economy rebuilding all coastlines (which would cost the world unimaginable amounts of money and resources btw) based on pure speculation?!

OMG, not the economy, don't hurt the economy.

I think it will cost us more to do nothing, in the past that has always been true, whether it be in a cost of life or infrastructure or economics.

Yes, we can work out cheaper and effective ways to move people. Lets face it, it would be cheaper and smarter to actually plan for something like that so we can maintain things like our economic systems etc.
Don't you think the two activities could be compatible instead of your scenario that they are somehow mutually exclusive or detrimental to one another.

Because thats all we really can do in the case that the sea level will rise, there would be no stopping it.

I know that dude. I don't ever at all say that we need to stop nature. Not once.
And if you acknowledge that there is no stopping it, why wait around until it is there to react to rather then prepare for. That is all I am asking?
Don't you think we should act accordingly?
Accordingly would mean, to not try and stop the unstoppable but try and minimize and reduce the impact on our societies.


Thank you for the reply.

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by afterschoolfun

 

Because thats all we really can do in the case that the sea level will rise, there would be no stopping it.

I know that dude. I don't ever at all say that we need to stop nature. Not once.

And if you acknowledge that there is no stopping it, why wait around until it is there to react to rather then prepare for. That is all I am asking?
Don't you think we should act accordingly?

Accordingly would mean, to not try and stop the unstoppable but try and minimize and reduce the impact on our societies.

It's such a simple idea.

Ya gotta wonder why there's so much resistance to such a basic idea. ...And who's pushing the resistance.

reply to post by soficrow


It is so simple isn't it.

Yet, time and time again on this thread people have injected an argument about whether its man made or not or whether we can stop it.

When quite clearly, I say absolutely nothing about those in the OP other then this thread has absolutely nothing to do with that.

reply to post by atlasastro




When are people going to realise that the concept of Climate is change and that you, me or 6 Billion are not going to stop it, change it, or even influence it!

My 10 year old knows why the climate changes both here on Earth and on the other planets its the big yellow disc dad!

So no need for IPCC quango (the same crew that brought us Global Cooling in the 70/80’s)or Climate science or more accurately profit/career science and control from the ECO crusaders. If you want to not use Oil cool, recycle cool but stop the Climate Change Cult religion I don't want to be part of it or pay for it!

reply to post by atlasastro


Oh no! Snippy comments from a amateur climatologist!

We're not going to be alive in 100 years, and if I was a betting man I'd say the effects predicted will turn out to be a load of BS. Science has been wrong so many times before, and predicting the weather isn't even 100 years old. And blah, blah... its like talking to a brick wall.

On the bright side I'd be a whole lot closer to the beach if you're little theory is correct.

reply to post by mlmijyd

When are people going to realise that the concept of Climate is change and that you, me or 6 Billion are not going to stop it, change it, or even influence it!

When will people like you realize that this thread has nothing to do with that?

Can you read? I assume you can. Read the OP again.

My 10 year old knows why the climate changes both here on Earth and on the other planets its the big yellow disc dad!

No crap sherlock. You 10 year old sounds rather bright, I bet if your 10 year old read the OP he/she would probably actually address the actual topic.

So no need for IPCC quango (the same crew that brought us Global Cooling in the 70/80’s)or Climate science or more accurately profit/career science and control from the ECO crusaders. If you want to not use Oil cool, recycle cool but stop the Climate Change Cult religion I don't want to be part of it or pay for it!

Wow, quite a lot of stereotypes you squeezed in there. Top stuff.

Point out the IPCC in any of the links in the OP. I don't refer to anything they say, but I do by association of predictions I mention in conversation, I point out that they are wrong. What they predicted is actually happening faster.

But it seems the real response here is to deny the contents of the OP by trying to make the argument about politics, mans influence and some kind of scam.
Just look at the video dude.
Do the math yourself, better still, get your 10 year old to do it because the 10 year old will probably actually have to deal with these changes because his father languished in denial whilst ranting conspiracy dribble and strawman arguments.


Thanks for you reply and I wish your 10 year old all the best at overcoming the ignorance that may be passed on just by association.


[edit on 11/3/10 by atlasastro]

If the planet was warming i would be glad.

Might reduce my damn heating bills!

Actually a cooling trend has been continuous since the late 90's.

This has been masked by cosmic weather introducing energy into the system.

As a previous poster has stated, what we must do is adapt.

PS. Actually most Glaciers have been steadily growing.

All MSM information and pictures are conveniently taken in the summer.

Don't believe the hype.

Everything is cool.

And possibly getting a lot cooler.

reply to post by atlasastro



Ok it does not matter if i is man made or not (its not its cyclical but that is not the point of this thread right ) , You are calling for the acknowledgment of global climate change. Great we acknowledge it .... now what ?

I mean You want us to act accordingly to the knowledge of global climate change .. umm so any bright ideas on how to influence the whole globe ?

And don't tell me carbon tax will do anything because I will laugh You out and so will most of the thinking people .

So please tell us what You have in mind ? I mean You have 3 pages of text calling for action ... great , just what kind of action do You want ?

Hurricanes , Tornados , earthquakes -- we usually deal with those natural disasters after they have happened (as in consequences) , because we cannot do much to prevent it (please ,earthquake proof buildings will crumble like a leaf when You see a 9.0+ quake )

Great fires is the only natural disaster that we can fight while it is happening , but still if the fire is really big there is NOTHING we can do about it until nature helps out .

Climate Change -- Ok so let me ask again ,what do YOU propose we do ? How would You see us act ? Build a spaceship and get out of here ? Make underground bunkers ? make a seed vault ? I guess most the stuff has already happened . What else ?

Now in my humble opinion the only thing we can do is try and adapt to the new climate , because in my humble opinion we have absolutly NO influence over mother nature or our planet Earth .

I mean how full of ourselves would we be to think that we could influence the behavior of a planet on a global scale . And I mean global , because on a local scale maybe we have some slight influence here and there but that is nothing compared to what is needed to be able to influence the whole climate.

I mean earth has been here for what , 4.5 billion years ...it survived cosmic bombardment , meteor and planetoid hits , extreme climate changes , etc .. and now look at us .. we are nothing more than critters on the surface of this planet , and frankly earth can do with us anything it wants ,and we are powerless against it , we are not even in the same scale of influences . Its like trying to tell me that an ant can influence the behavior of a mammoth



[edit on 11-3-2010 by Thill]

AGW is a fact. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a simpleton - or profoundly deceived by powerful vested interests. Either way - it is an absolute fact.

[*SNIP*]

Unlike conspiracies such as 911, JFK assassination, etc - AGW does not have any questions surrounding it beyond vacant utterly meaningless assertions - while in contrast there are literally thousands of studies, with thousands of scientists and academies all independant, totally impossible of collusion or conspiracy in absolute and total agreement - with dissent ONLY arising from paid, salaried oil and energy lobbyists.

[*SNIP*]



Mod Edit: Removed personal comments.

Mod Note: Courtesy is Mandatory – Please Review Link.

[edit on 3/12/2010 by AshleyD]

The issue here is not whether people believe or not , because most of the people even the "man made GW" deniers (me included) believe the climate is changing but the fact is it is a cyclic event that has been happening forever . This fact is documented and supported by data.

Even thou we do not have the ability to influence it lets say we could star making changes to the global climate system . Now it is safe to assume that since this event is cyclic , that is has some purpose on a global scale for our planet earth . Now imagine what could happen if we frack this global cycle up. I mean how full of yourself do You have to be to think that playing God with climate and changing it to meet the needs of humans is the smart thing to do .

For what we know we could frack up the whole climate system and make huge changes that would badly damage this planet . Is that what You want ?

I still stand by the notion that we have no influence over the climate on a global scale so this scenario will never happen , but just think about it for a minute .

Why is it alright to frack with mother nature just because we think we know better ? How do we know that influencing the climate will not bring about even more deadly consequences to us and the whole planet (when we get the technology to do so that is) ?

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Thill]

reply to post by afterschoolfun

Oh no! Snippy comments from a amateur climatologist!

Next to your effort, I now look like a pro! Thanks champ.
What is funny is that you don't see what my being an amateur really relegates you to. When you see how easily I picked apart your appalling explanation of Kilimanjaro with your own sources.

The majority of your previous post is irrelevant and not even remotely related to the thread. I simply pointed that out.
If you think that is "snippy commentary", well so be it. I can't do anything about the emotional insecurity that is triggered in someone by being corrected in a reply.

You encouraged me to read your links. I did. It showed you lied or didn't understand the actual contents you used to state that Kilimanjaro was only being effected by Solar forces when it is clearly linked to local forcing change due to MAN MADE INFLUENCES(:lol that contributed to warming and climate change. Especially related to moisture content that in conjunction with Regional African warming and climate changes, had profound effects on Kilimanjaro Ice melts.
Your sources said all that.

What I think is worth noting is that when people like you say we can't effect the weather, and then actually link studies that show just that, you spit the dummy.
You are being fooled by yourself. Because you simply don't know what you are talking about.
That upsets you when it is presented to you.
So you need to attack the source.
The "amateur".

We're not going to be alive in 100 years

With a mentality like that, I agree, we're not going to be alive in 100 years.

, and if I was a betting man I'd say the effects predicted will turn out to be a load of BS.

You are already betting my friend. Given the fact that you can hardly build a solid discussion related to just one climate change matter(that being Kilimanjaro) I would say that the safer bet would be to place money on your own opinion related to climate change as being the definition of B.S. I am sure you are onto a winner there.

Science has been wrong so many times before, and predicting the weather isn't even 100 years old. And blah, blah... its like talking to a brick wall.

This takes the cake.

You were happy to quote mine science when it suited you. But now you have switched your position to dismiss science. I can't remember saying Science was perfect, I do remember asking people to watch a video though.

Your flip flopping is rather telling.

But you seem to be ignoring that science has been right about a lot of stuff too. Like time lapse camera controlled by computers powered by solar panel that video and photograph glacier around the world melting faster then thought.
I guess it is convenient for you now to fall back on this position, that science is sometimes wrong, when it suits you. Flip and a flop. Well, mostly your point just flops.
But this won't change the images in the links in the OP.

Just look at the video. Again I clearly say that this thread is about.
Just watch all that Ice melting.
You can be an amateur climatologists and understand it, you don't need science to explain it.

On the bright side I'd be a whole lot closer to the beach if you're little theory is correct.

Actually, the beaches will be lost. Most beaches are formed over thousands of years.
Wave and tidal actions move sand, small rocks or pebbles, sea shells and gravel to the coastal shorelines of oceans seas and lakes. The sand etc is either transported by erosion from the continental landmass by streams and rivers, or created by the mechanics of weathering of waves against rocks and such that make formations near the shore. Wind and storms can deposit the rock and shell particles further inland, creating a gently sloped beach.

Not that I want to be picky, but what you will be actually living close to will probably be muddy banks littered with submerged infrastructure and debris that will be slowly eroded by tidal actions which will eventually become beaches after many, many, many, many years.
Think of what a storm surge does to beaches and low lying regions. These are essentially isolated and localized rises in sea levels driven by storm systems. Beaches disappear. Now think of that as being permanent. That would be your beach.
It always helps if you actually consider the possibility of the future based on a reality derived from the evidence available from past experiences.
From these past experiences we can arrive at logical conclusion of what an actual rise in sea level might actually mean to coastal regions.
Maybe its time you started to get real.

On the bright side I'd be a whole lot closer to the beach if you're little theory is correct.

Thanks for the reply dude.

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
If the planet was warming i would be glad.

Might reduce my damn heating bills!

You will probably need air conditioning to cool your place.

Actually a cooling trend has been continuous since the late 90's.

That is simply not true.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade because of a strong La Nina that cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to a near-record global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The past year was a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest on record, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with a cluster of other years --1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 -- for the second warmest on record.

We had the hottest year on record in 2005, some cooling due to la Nina, and now a return to warming trend in 2009.
We are also at a deep solar minimum. Just think what its going to be like when the solar cycle kicks back in. Did you watch the OP video, the Ice is melting faster in a period you say is trending as cool,in a solar minimum.
I wonder what will happen to the observed trend in increasing ice melts when the solar cycle kicks back in. I think that is something that is really interesting and significant.

This has been masked by cosmic weather introducing energy into the system.

I agree. All our weather comes from energy. The Sun.

As a previous poster has stated, what we must do is adapt.

Yep.

PS. Actually most Glaciers have been steadily growing.

Actually, prove it.

All MSM information and pictures are conveniently taken in the summer.

Don't believe the hype.

I don't use MSM. I have linked time lapse images over three years that go through the seasonal changes, it shows losses in winter as well as summer.
It is obvious you have not watched the OP.

Everything is cool.

And possibly getting a lot cooler.

Everything is cool, go back to sleep, thats a good, good sheep.

Thanks for the reply dude.

reply to post by atlasastro

What I state is that regardless of what you or I think causes these melts, the melts will impact the globe and we need to acknowledge that and act accordingly.

You've had time to mock many other members, yet you've chosen to ignore and completely failed to address the only real issue that this otherwise worthless thread supports:

All this re-hashing is to what purpose?

Most people already acknowledge the cyclical warming and cooling changes. So what?
Most people acknowledge that glacial melt will affect nearly a billion people over the next 250 years. So what?
You repeatedly aver that we must "act accordingly," yet have not offered a single significant suggestion of what must be done.

You've taken up 4 days and 3 pages thus far whining about action, without saying anything close to what that "action" is. The OP is a troll, and an ineffective one at that, if you do not follow up on your premise.

Your OP is worthless if you have no concrete suggestions.

People still live and invest in, and move to, coastal regions despite cyclones and hurricanes.
People still live and invest in, and move to volcanically and seismically active regions, despite volcanoes and earthquakes.

Come up with a suggestion or abandon this otherwise meaningless thread.

So, "What are YOU going to DO?" (Besides repeating observations we've been making for generations.)

I'll ask again: "To what purpose did you post the OP?"

(other than to troll?)

jw

Many Changes are around the corner.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.poleshift2011.com...

"The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you, depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed."
Buddha


[edit on 11-3-2010 by ET_MAN]

OK, I finally took the time to watch Al Gore the Third give another Inconvenient Truth.

That's all this was. The same chart showing the supposed cause and effect of CO2 levels on global temperatures was used, without a single mention that temperature changes preceded CO2 level increases. No, just as in the Fake-umentary by Mr. Gore, that little fact was conveniently left out, but unlike its predecessor, this chart actually showed something interesting... at the end, where CO2 levels skyrocketed beyond this imaginary limit on natural CO2 levels, temperatures and sea level did not increase... at all... Of course,that wasn't pointed out in the seminar; it would have been too counterproductive to the argument being presented, I suppose.

Another correlation with An Inconvenient Truth was the seemingly-endless parade of photos showing the 'devastation', this time with time-lapse photography, no less! Of course, some of the time lapses showed the winter-to-summer transition (who would have guessed that ice melts in the summer! ), while others showed a retreat and then the beginnings of what could have been an advance (of course, the shots cut off there; no sense in countering one's own argument). And of course, he shot himself in the foot as well close to the end when it was mentioned that one particular glacier was melting 100 times faster in the water than it was on land. I have been saying for years on this board now that it is the water temperatures, not the air temperatures, causing Arctic melt! That means that since the warming aspect of CO2 is atmospheric-based, it cannot be CO2 causing the melting.

That is a scientific analysis... shooting time-lapse photography is not.

But I was impressed by one thing from the speaker. At the beginning, he admitted openly that his forte was art rather than science. In that respect, it would appear he did good; those are right purty pichers he's got there.

But it's not science.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

... since the warming aspect of CO2 is atmospheric-based, it cannot be CO2 causing the melting.
That is a scientific analysis... shooting time-lapse photography is not.
But I was impressed by one thing from the speaker. At the beginning, he admitted openly that his forte was art rather than science. In that respect, it would appear he did good; those are right purty pichers he's got there.
But it's not science.

Yeah, but if'n he's got 20 hunnert pichers, than thats about 20 hunnert thowsin werds.

With that many werds, he's gotta be rite.

Mebbe we cud muve all them beech livers to a mountin or dig a big whole for the dry peeple to git watter frum?

The OP sure hazen tole me nuthin bettur.

star fur ewe