World's Ice Caps are Melting!

milkweed

09-30-05, 08:13 AM

Yes, it seems the polar ice is melting again. Is this "normal"? It happens. I found an interesting story from 2000. I do not know if this theory has been disproved. Snippets of article:

"Hearty has come to the cliffs searching for a distinctive limestone band from 400,000 years ago, a warm interlude known as stage 11. For decades, coastal geologists such as Hearty have been finding scattered hints of greatly elevated sea levels during stage 11.

For much of the past million years, Earth has shuddered through a series of ice ages, each lasting close to 100,000 years. Punctuating these chills are relatively brief interglacial periods like the current time. In the 1950s, when oceanographers first discovered signs of this glacial cycle recorded in deep-sea sediments, they named the various epochs going backward, starting with the present interglacial as stage 1. Four separate glacial periods separate modern times from the epoch known as stage 11.

The presence of relatively modern algae indicates that much or all of West Antarctica must have melted sometime within the past million years, leaving open ocean in its place.

Scientists base the comparison on features of Earth's orbit. Every 400,000 years, the shape of the orbit varies from a squashed circle to a more nearly perfect one. This shape alters the amount of summer sunlight hitting the Northern Hemisphere—the factor believed to push Earth into and out of ice ages. "

Full article here:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000226/bob10.asp

Now another instance of possible climate change is the sunspot cycle. There are links to increased sunspot activity causing heating on the earth, and the lack of sunspots causing cooling. There is still much debate. One article here:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sunspot_record_041027.html

How can sunspots be linked to climate changes? Maybe because of the solar flares associated with them.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solar_flares_031103.html

A solar flare results in temporary enhancement of radiation at wavelengths including x-ray, ultraviolet, visible, and radio. The brightest parts visible in the movie http://www.sunspot.noao.edu/sunspot/pr/flare.html probably reached a temperature of about 20 million degrees Fahrenheit (10 million degrees Celsius), while the visible surface of the Sun has a temperature of about 11,000 degrees F (6,000 degrees C).

There have been a number of huge x-class solar flares over the last 5 years.

Another article (and links) I was reading over pointed out some evidence of rapid changes in tempatures. A much harder read for sure:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm

Now I am no expert on such things for sure. Thoughts?

DwayneD.L.Rabon

09-30-05, 08:25 AM

locked

Xylene

10-01-05, 12:50 AM

About eighty metres of sea-level rise if all the ice melts--plus further sea-level rise because the Greenland and Antarctic continents will rise out of the sea, displacing more water.

may_wentee

10-01-05, 01:05 AM

About eighty metres of sea-level rise if all the ice melts--plus further sea-level rise because the Greenland and Antarctic continents will rise out of the sea, displacing more water.

Can you give us a date when this infamous event (the global sea-level rise) will have infact, taken place in total? It will be helpful to help me and others decide when to buy some sea-front property, especially in California.

May_wentee :cool:

duendy

10-01-05, 06:06 AM

So i suppose this will mean then that Holland will diappear, so will Venice, Britain will bcome little islands....South Sea islands will all disappear, etc........
how much of all this is due to mankind's effect on Nature?

Avatar

10-01-05, 06:08 AM

Quite little, the same has happened many times with no humans around.
Earth is a dynamic geo- and ecosystem, it has no static state.

Ophiolite

10-01-05, 07:01 AM

Avatar

10-01-05, 07:05 AM

It's already floating in the sea.
True, but there's the aspect of no ice, i.e., with no ice the reflectivity of Sun's light will seriously go down and that will result in more heat absorbed by the world ocean = water will get hotter.
That will affect our climate more than any increase in sea water.

Ophiolite

10-01-05, 08:06 AM

Agreed. There is a lot of detail like that I could have addressed. For example as the newly melted water rises in temperature it will initially decrease in volume. But my central point was that some of the posters appeared to be confusing the loss of the Arctic ice (which is a bloody, human induced screw up) with the loss of Antartic ice, which is an entirely different (bloody, human induced screw up) matter.

eburacum45

10-01-05, 12:24 PM

The global temperature went up and down like a Munroe walker during the Quaternary, and the Antarctic ice didn't melt except around the edges; I don't see any real evidence that it will melt due to Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Unless the Antarctic ice melts we won't see 80 metre sea level rises.

may_wentee

10-01-05, 02:26 PM

The Arctic sea ice is melting. That's what this item is about. It's already floating in the sea. When it melts it will not generate any rise in sea level. What we have to worry about is loss of the Greenland and more importantly the Antarctic ice, because they are on land. Sea level rise - up to 300'. Am I worried? My house is at 315'. My grandchildren will have a nice beach front property.

Don't forget the Arctic ice cap. Better get a mobile home just to be safe. That sea level mark of 300' could go a little higher (like 325' plus) once the North Arctic caps starts to melt a little more too.

May_wentee :p

Ophiolite

10-02-05, 06:15 AM

May, read the bloody thread. Read my earlier posts. I don't mean to be rude, but what do you think we have been saying in here. The melting of the bloody Arctic ice will have no practical effect on sea level. Get with the program.

And in more measured terms welcome to the forums.

eburacrum45 - the only thing wrong with your argument is is that the Antarctic ice sheets are melting, and if you don't believe that try living as a penguin with a chick to feed for a season.

Anomalous

10-02-05, 06:48 AM

Dont worry , its natural for species to become extinct, this time it includes humans.

I hope we can create robots that will out last this extinction, at least something will be left of us. We the shameless, busy making money , ignoring the doom of earth for personal gains.

Avatar

10-02-05, 06:56 AM

We've survived quite a few ice ages with no technology at all, I see no reasons why we wouldn't survive the next one.

eburacum45

10-02-05, 08:33 AM

SkinWalker

10-02-05, 11:05 PM

The real question regarding the melting Arctic ice is whether or not it's anthropogenic. I don't discount the possibility but can it really be demonstrated?

Also, there are those crackpots with theories about the "polar reversal" causing higher temperatures. A completely unsubstantiated load of poppycock.

Perhaps the melting of the ice will disrupt the Gulf Stream, which brings warm water to Northern Europe and greatly influences climate. Would effect would all that fresh water have on the thermohaline circulation of the Atlantic Ocean?

may_wentee

10-02-05, 11:28 PM

Anomalous

10-03-05, 04:32 AM

the melting of ice itself adds to global warming

duendy

10-03-05, 05:47 AM

the melting of ice itself adds to global warming
so. some say an ice age is coming. some floods, and some global warming--which suggests to me arid desert spreading. which view is correct? or isit more complex than that?

Avatar

10-03-05, 05:56 AM

I'd say that it is safe to think that the climate is changing. Nobody really knows what will be the next enduring state.

Anomalous

10-03-05, 06:13 AM

so. some say an ice age is coming. some floods, and some global warming--which suggests to me arid desert spreading. which view is correct? or isit more complex than that?

Why Do U think there were floods all over planet this years. increased number Powerful huricanes all over planet. Thats because large chunks of Polar ice has melted, 30 % in last 50 years. this has put more water evapourated in the atmosphere which in turn has a green house effect and more heat, this cycle will stop only after CO2 levels crash. But till then face the warth

duendy

10-03-05, 06:27 AM

yes sorry, i am awre...very of how floods and huuricanes, tornados etc are connected with global warming........

what i want then to ask is ...what then? more of that OR an ice age?
for insance i have heard a while back tat if cold water gets into te Gulf Stream ten a VERY drmatic change occurs which catapults us into an ice age

Ophiolite

10-03-05, 02:46 PM

Climatology is like economics. Guesswork masquerading as advanced mathematics.

Anomalous

10-04-05, 02:03 AM

Flunch

10-04-05, 11:25 PM

Climatology is like economics. Guesswork masquerading as advanced mathematics.

exactly

Roman

10-05-05, 01:15 AM

We should build lots of freezer like apparatus at the ice caps and refreeze them!

MetaKron

10-05-05, 04:45 AM

It is obviously much more important to keep marijuana cigarettes out of the hands of our children than it is to reverse global warming. Everyone tell the DEA to keep up the good work.

Gudgeon

10-05-05, 09:47 AM

Yes, and revert to hybird cars ASAP to reduce the amount of emmissions

valich

10-21-05, 10:38 PM

can you explain what you mean by 'magnetic pole reversal'?
Acording to computerized scenarios and evidence in geological rock formations the Earth's magnetic poles reverse about every 40,000 years. The magnetic fields of the Noth and South Poles are generated from the continuous movement of the Earth's iron core within the center of the Earth. Sometimes this reversal occurs relatively fast but other times it has been documented to take place at a rate of about 6 degrees in 16 million years. I'm not sure at how they arrived at this figure, but it is a fact that the Earth reverses it's magnetic poles and this is scientifically documented through the analysis of the orientation of historical records of rock formations.

Avatar

10-22-05, 12:06 AM

valich

10-22-05, 12:14 AM

As I remember (which may be not 100% correct) every rock when created then also gets its' magnetical aligment, i.e., its' tiny magnetic field is set to where magnetic N and S is. So, if analysing old rocks from different periods of time we can see where the N and S magnetic poles were at the moment the rocks were created.
That's exactly correct! This is one way, aside from carbon isotope dating, that geologists use to date rocks and geological formations. Right on bud!

SkinWalker

10-22-05, 12:59 AM

Acording to computerized scenarios and evidence in geological rock formations the Earth's magnetic poles reverse about every 40,000 years.

You are keeping in mind that the last geomagnetic reversal was at about 780,000 years ago and that there is no apparent periodicity to the events in the geologic record. Some are a few thousand years apart; some a few million; some are tens of thousands; still others separated by hundreds of thousands of years.

The evidence for these reversals is found best in the sea-floor spreading outward from the mid-oceanic rifts where the curie points of the rocks have oriented the molecules of magnetically affected minerals such as magnetite so as to orient themselves in the direction of the north pole of a give point in time.

valich

10-22-05, 01:31 AM

The Antarctic is actually pressed down by the weight of the ice so much that it is partly below sea level- if the ice were suddenly removed by teleporting it away the Antarctic could be seen to be in fact two island continents separated by a strait.

So, much of the Antarctic ice can melt without affecting sea levels at all; only the ice domes on land themselves will affect sea-level directly. The ice domes have never melted, even when the Earth was much warmer than today; nor will they.

If all the ice were to suddenly melt the land surface of Antarctica would recover isostatically untill the strait between the two islands disappeared.
The Antarctic is a "land" continent, while the Arctic is composed of total ice. You cannot say that we are now seeing two island continents being formed in the Antarctic. There is a massive slab of ice sheet(s) and icebergs seperating away from the outer edges of that Antarctic land continent that are drifting North and will melt to increase the overall sea level.

In the Arctic, it is predicted that in about fifty years, the summers in the Arctic will be totally ice-free. This is good news for shipping-freight transportation, but terrible news for rises in ocean waters. Both the Arctic and Antarctic will become smaller ice caps. Polar bears, seals, and other Arctic wildlife will diminish. Already scientists are seeing a decrease in the permafrost level (lowering of the permanent underground ice level) in the upper regions of Alaska and Canada that is causing large destructions of forest regions because of the decrease in water that is available for their growth.

The Native American Inuit Indians in Northeast Canada (Labrador) and other Northern regions are filing lawsuites with the government because they can no longer obtain their subsistence food by fishing in the surrounding areas because they can no longer walk out onto the former ice sheets and cut through these ice sheets to fish, because the ice sheets are now too thin to walk on. They are unable to go out in the winters to obtain food (fish) that they depend on for survival because the ice is now to thin to walk on safely without falling through.

The glaciers of Greenland are now receeding at a rate of over 100 ft. per year, compared to just 5-10 feet a few years ago. Even in the United States, talk to anyone who works at or knows much about Glacier National Park in Montana at the Canadian border and they will tell you that the glaciers that were there fifty years ago no longer exist.

Isostatic forces refer to the force of gravity that tends to balance the height and depression of landmasses. This has nothing to do with the permanent human-induced climatic changes that we are seeing today: global warming through the covering of our atmosphere with pollutants and the excessive deadly, cancer-producing ultraviolet rays now coming in because of the destruction of our ozone layer by the realease of man-made manufactured chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons released in aerosal cans. Every year, in the last five years or so, since we've been monitoring it, we have been seeing a larger and larger hole in the ozone layer that is continously growing between the Antarctic and South America. The reason that we are seeing it there, and not directly over the most polluting countries on Earth, like the United States, is because of wind convection, the rotation of the Earth, vortex forces, etc. I'm not sure exactly why but a meteorologist could certainly supply a more detailed explanation.

Either way, we are destroying our environment at a "rate" that has never before seen in the history of the Earth. The Earth has gone through similar cycles, some of which have resulted in mass extinctions, but we have never been able to document such a detrimental change as we are seeing right now.

valich

10-22-05, 01:45 AM

You are keeping in mind that the last geomagnetic reversal was at about 780,000 years ago and that there is no apparent periodicity to the events in the geologic record. Some are a few thousand years apart; some a few million; some are tens of thousands; still others separated by hundreds of thousands of years.

The evidence for these reversals is found best in the sea-floor spreading outward from the mid-oceanic rifts where the curie points of the rocks have oriented the molecules of magnetically affected minerals such as magnetite so as to orient themselves in the direction of the north pole of a give point in time.
Does your source suggest any periodicity in the reversals? I'm afraid that the geological book that I quickly looked this up in might be too outdated. It stated a reversal 40,000 years ago and another gradual change of 6 degrees per year over about a 150,000 year period. It would be beneficial to us all if you could post exactly what your source states as I'm sure that the factual information has progressed tremendously since what is stated in my apparently outdated source. Thanks!

Xylene

10-28-05, 01:03 AM

Can you give us a date when this infamous event (the global sea-level rise) will have infact, taken place in total? It will be helpful to help me and others decide when to buy some sea-front property, especially in California.

May_wentee :cool:

It depends who you listen to, may_wentee. If the conservative scientists are right, you're looking at a metre or so of sea-level rise by 2100. (Which would be bad enough). If you listen to the people who talk about the possibility of methan clathrate deposits being released from the ocean floor--well, if they're right there'll be about 80-90 metres of sea-level rise by 2100 AD, which would be rather drastic :eek: to put it politely. I tend to think the second group are a bit more on the mark. At the very least, I'd say we'd be looking at the Greenland Icesheet going this century, (which would add 6.5-7 meters to sea-level) but I'm not sure how much of Antarctica will go. Hopefully not all by 2100, but plan for it anyway just in case (God forbid).

valich

10-28-05, 08:13 PM

The estimates are underestimated to pacify the masses. Does anyone know if land is for sale on Mt. Everest? Just thought I'd add in a little humor, but there are large sections of the U.S. that are going to be underwater unless our government builds dikes. Look what just happened to New Orleans and it even had levees in place - yes I know this is unrelated. But the Outer Islands of North Carolina will be gone along with most of the Chesapeake Bay area around Norfolk - only a few inches above sea level - just to name a few!

Xylene

10-28-05, 10:12 PM

300 feet of sea level rise will put most of the Eastern US underwater, valich.

valich

10-28-05, 11:50 PM

That's an over estimate though. 300 feet will touch some of the Appalachian mountains. Need not be nearly that high to put most of the continent in jeopardy. A few inches will cause major havoc.

Anomalous

10-30-05, 01:04 AM

Avatar

10-30-05, 05:42 AM

There is not so much water in the world to make Water World happen,
a 80-100m increase is the absolute maximum.

EmptyForceOfChi

10-30-05, 07:14 AM

i agree with avatar there isnt enough water to make it like water world there will still be high land marks hilly areas and mountinous peaks above water level, but something simular to water world will happen possibly, our main transportation would be boat type crafts, possibly flying crafts, but what will we do for recourse gathering when our land is under water levels. it will be alot harder to function as a society, i predict wars, and fighting like water world and chaos, but not so much water, be fun if a meteor impacted with earth when the water levels are so high, (fun to see but not live throgh ofcourse)

valich

10-31-05, 01:29 AM

I never saw the movie, but we are feeling the effects of the oceans rising and the ice caps melting right now! Read my post above. There's already an overpopulation problem on earth: this will only cause it to be worse. I think that the world is already too overcrowded. Where do we go to not feel overcrowded: to have more individual freedom and relief? To feel calm and in harmony with Nature? To relieve our everyday stress? To find our individual space or to be alone? Hundreds of miles of glaciers are melting and the surrounding pristine forsts are dying because of the thermofrost layer melting.

Anomalous

11-02-05, 06:29 AM

.... There's already an overpopulation problem on earth: this will only cause it to be worse. I think that the world is already too overcrowded. Where do we go to not feel overcrowded: ...

Thats a very important point, I never thought about that before. Infact we are so dumb, we never think about these things, I think now its too late

valich

11-02-05, 09:23 PM

can you explain what you mean by 'magnetic pole reversal'?The solid Earth's core consited mostly of iron with a surrounding fluid core that circulates in patterns around it. This is what produces the Earth's magnetic field.

The North and South poles deviate by a few degrees every million years or so. The last reversal occurred about 780 million years ago but the "average" reversal occurrs about every 250-300 million years: geographic history is like a grain of sand to us.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

Facial

11-02-05, 09:31 PM

Where's Edufer? I would like to see him deny this and brand this a conspiracy.

valich

11-03-05, 09:25 PM

You are keeping in mind that the last geomagnetic reversal was at about 780,000 years ago and that there is no apparent periodicity to the events in the geologic record. Some are a few thousand years apart; some a few million; some are tens of thousands; still others separated by hundreds of thousands of years.

The evidence for these reversals is found best in the sea-floor spreading outward from the mid-oceanic rifts where the curie points of the rocks have oriented the molecules of magnetically affected minerals such as magnetite so as to orient themselves in the direction of the north pole of a give point in time.You are referring to human transient time periods though. The average reversals throughout the Earth's time period is 250,000 years, and this is substantiated especially through measuring the North-South orientation of rocks spread out over time from the Atlantic Mid-Ocean Ridge.

SkinWalker

11-03-05, 10:57 PM

You asked about periodicity in an earlier post... I forgot to answer, but there really isn't any. You can average the reversals, but the fact remains that they simply don't have a periodicity. The occurrances are random.

I would, however, recommend the below reference in Nature. Glatzmaier et al has done some work at discovering the causes of dipole reversal. There is no evidence that any adverse or deleterious effects are associated with these reversals. No correlated patterns of mass extinction or tectonic activity. It would seem, that the poles simply "wander" their way to new positions.

Glatzmaier, Gary A., Coe, R., Hongre, L., and Roberts, P. (1998) The role of the Earth's mantle controlling the frequency of geomagnetic reversals, Nature, 401, 885-90

Xylene

11-04-05, 12:27 AM

Saw something on the news today about the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions--they slow down the effects of global warming by cooling the sea-surface.

valich

11-06-05, 11:06 PM

As I just stated:

"The North and South poles deviate by a few degrees every million years or so. The last reversal occurred about 780 million years ago but the "average" reversal occurrs about every 250-300 million years: geographic history is like a grain of sand to us.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal "

They have been correlated these and they are not random, but what does this have to do with volcanic eruptions? You think that the more we have, the cooler the Earth gets???

I'd be very interested to know where you read this. But not so much interested in what reportor wrote the article, but where they got their scientific information from? Thanks!

SkinWalker

11-06-05, 11:43 PM

I think you need to edit your post above. Surely you meant to say "780 thousand years ago" instead of million?

Also, I've read several primary sources in journals like Earth & Planetary Sciences Letters and Physics of the Earth & Planetary Interiors that suggest some periodicity, but there is some disagreement as to the nature of it and what it is specifically. Some estimate 33 million years, others 200,000 million years. If we accept the latter, then we are overdue, but there are many periods in the geologic record that go millions of years without a reversal -the Cretaceous Quiet Period for instance.

valich

11-07-05, 01:10 AM

Oh yes. Very sorry, My mistake: last one was 780,000 years ago, average is at 250,000 years. My dwelling reseaerch in paleontology cause me to sometimes cross numbers, but yours too no?

eburacum45

11-07-05, 07:09 AM

The increased warmth of the air in the south has been causing an increase in snowfall in Eastern Antarctica; this has caused the glaciers there to grow in thickness according to this study,
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/pf/050516-10_pf.html
and this represents a decrease in global sea levels of 0.12 millimeters per year.
Not enough to reverese the sea level rise, but enough to show that a melting of Western Antarctica is unlikely. As I said elsewhere, Western Antarctica is partly below sea level, so will not contribute to sea level rise as much if the parts below sea level melt.

protostar

11-07-05, 01:51 PM

they are not melting they are growing. The ice sheets are melting
or are broken up but the polar ice caps are growing...

valich

11-07-05, 06:38 PM

It is predicted that in about fifty years the summers in the Arctic will be totally ice-free. Both the Arctic and Antarctic will become smaller ice caps. There is now a descreasing level in the permafrost (lowering of the permanent underground ice level) in the upper regions of Alaska and Canada that is causing large destructions of forest regions because of the decrease in water that is available for their growth. A large chunk of the Antarctic has relatively recently broke off and is migrating North where it will melt. This has never been sen before.

The Native American Inuit Indians in Northeast Canada (Labrador) and other Northern regions are filing lawsuites with the government because they can no longer obtain their subsistence food by fishing in the surrounding areas because they can no longer walk out onto the former ice sheets and cut through these ice sheets to fish, because the ice sheets are now too thin to walk on. This has never happened before.

The glaciers of Greenland are now receeding at a rate of over 100 ft. per year, compared to just 5-10 feet a few years ago. Even in the United States, talk to anyone who works at or knows much about Glacier National Park in Montana at the Canadian border and they will tell you that the glaciers that were there fifty years ago no longer exist.

Edufer

11-17-05, 07:47 PM

Not All Glaciers Lost Mass Over the Past Quarter-Century
Volume 8, Number 46: 16 November 2005

The coldest period of the current interglacial or Holocene was likely the Little Ice Age, when land-based glaciers around the world achieved their maximum extensions and ice volumes. Once the planet was safely on its way to recovering from this unprecedented multi-century cold spell, however, they began to lose mass and recede. In Norway and New Zealand, "as in many other glacier regions," in the words of Chin et al. (2005), this recession was most strongly expressed in "the middle of the 20th century," which they describe as "a period of spectacular retreat as the glaciers responded to climate warming that occurred since the end of the cooler 19th century."

However, as they add, "glaciers in [these] two widely separated regions have recently shown the opposite behavior towards the end of the 20th century."
In Norway, the international team of researchers reports that the main glacial retreat "ended during the late 1950s to early 1960s," and that "after some years with more or less stationary glacier front positions, [the glaciers] began to advance, accelerating in the late 1980s."

Around 2000, a portion of the glaciers began to slow, while some even ceased moving; but they say that "most of the larger outlets with longer reaction times are continuing to advance." In fact, they report that "the distances regained and the duration of this recent advance episode are both far greater than any previous readvance since the Little Ice Age maximum, making the recent resurgence a significant event." Mass balance data reveal much the same thing, "especially since 1988" and "at all [western] maritime glaciers in both southern and northern Norway," where "frequent above-average winter balances are a main cause of the positive net balances at the maritime glaciers during the last few decades."

In New Zealand, equilibrium line altitude (ELA) measurements of fifty index glaciers "spread throughout the length and width of the Southern Alps" have likewise revealed "two periods of positive mass balances from 1980 to 1987 and from 1991 to 1997." The most spectacular of the resultant glacial advances was experienced by the Franz Josef Glacier, which "regained 1200 m from 1984 to 2000, an extension which recovered a significant 41% of length lost since 1900." Associated with the positive mass balance period, Chinn et al. additionally report there "has been a mean lowering of the snowline by 67 m since the 1970s."

Why have these changes occurred? "Common to both countries," in the words of Chinn et al., "the positive glacier balances are associated with increases in the strength of westerly atmospheric circulation which lowered ablation season temperatures in Norway and increased precipitation to the glaciers in both countries." How long will the new regimes persist? In Norway, the researchers write that "glaciers with longer response times continue to advance and mass balance measurements continue to be mainly positive, suggesting at least some ongoing advances during the next few years." In New Zealand, on the other hand, they say "ELA values indicate that after 2000 balances have settled to near equilibrium values." In none of the affected parts of either country, however, has there been a return to significant glacier wastage.

It is interesting to note, in this regard, that at the apex of a global warming that has been characterized as the greatest of the past two millennia (Mann and Jones, 2003), maritime glaciers at these two ends of the world have not been wasting away, just as the Greenland Ice Sheet has also not been wasting away (see our Editorial of 2 Nov 2005). Indeed, all of these huge land-based repositories of ice have been experiencing a phenomenal period of growth.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

References
Chinn, T., Winkler, S., Salinger, M.J. and Haakensen, N. 2005. Recent glacier advances in Norway and New Zealand: A comparison of their glaciological and meteorological causes. Geografiska Annaler 87 A: 141-157.
Mann, M.E. and Jones, P.D. 2003. Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters 30: 10.1029/2003GL017814.

valich

11-21-05, 05:58 PM

I am not able to access the most recent addition of Geografisk Annaler, but the latest edition of Geophysical Research Letters contain the following two interesting articles. There has been rapid change in the (glacier retreat) in the last two years:

Rapid retreat and acceleration of Helheim Glacier, East Greenland, Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 32, No. 22, L22502, 10.1029/2005GL024737, 22 November 2005

Arctic Ocean change heralds North Atlantic freshening, Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 32, No. 21, L21606, 10.1029/2005GL023861, 15 November 2005

You quote, THEN STATE IN YOUR OWN WORDS: "In Norway, the international team of researchers reports that the main glacial retreat "ended during the late 1950s to early 1960s," and that "after some years with more or less stationary glacier front positions, [the glaciers] began to advance, accelerating in the late 1980s."

Around 2000, a portion of the glaciers began to slow

Again, we are not looking at the 1950's or 60's; what are they saying about 2004 and 2005? There is no one her that is doubty that glaciers and ice ages come and go in cycles, but we are now accelerating the cycle of global warming and glacier retreat at an unprecidented level never seen before in history!

So what's with the large-font bold-faced titled in red? Are you suggesting that our pollution to atmosphere today is NOT accelerating global warming???

URI

11-21-05, 06:28 PM

>> main glacial retreat "ended during the late 1950s to early 1960s," and that "after some years with more or less stationary glacier front positions, [the glaciers] began to advance, accelerating in the late 1980s." >>

Reasonable and understandable in respect to oil and climate.

After WW2 the thickness of the oil microlayer on the seas was thick.... precipitating glacial retreat
then the layer was partially broken up over the following decades

until modern industrialisation and motor vehicle use again increased the microlayer
leading up to our time

I am sure the burning of the Kuwait oil fields would be etched into the glacier history.

Edufer

11-21-05, 09:33 PM

Again, we are not looking at the 1950's or 60's; what are they saying about 2004 and 2005? There is no one her that is doubty that glaciers and ice ages come and go in cycles, but we are now accelerating the cycle of global warming and glacier retreat at an unprecidented level never seen before in history!

So what's with the large-font bold-faced titled in red? Are you suggesting that our pollution to atmosphere today is NOT accelerating global warming???
You have it all wrong. CO2 is not pollution, on the contrary, it is plant's food. Without CO2 there would be no plants, hence, no mankind, and no animal life on Earth.

Polluting gases are something different, as soot, sulphur oxides, etc. In any case, they are contributing to slowing down warming by obscuring the atmosphere. Even James Hansen has acknowledged that soot is cooling the Earth and CO2 is not as important as a greenhouse gas as they used to believe.

But, if you have read studies and reports, you should know that "pollution" of the atmosphere has been decreasing for many decades now (the air above London, and most cities in the USA are cleaner now than in the 19th century).

I am not suggesting: I am asserting that glacier retreat seen now has many (MANY) precedents in history. You should study some geology and the history of Earth's climate. You might even get to know that glaciers take centuries, even millennia to react to air temperatures. That most glaciers have been retreating since the 18th century, and while some glaciers retreat many other advance --even in the same region, few kilometers away from each other.

This is the case of the Upsala glacier in Patagonia, Argentina, that has been retreating since 1900 (long before man was burning fossil fuels and spewing CO2), while the Perito Moreno (world famous, barely 50 km away to the southeast) is advancing steadily and breaking ice (calving) every four years in a spectacle that attract tourists from all over the world. On the other side of the Andes, at the same latitude, on the Chilean side, there is glacier Pio XI, the glacier that grows so fast it is setting world records since many, many decades ago.

The fact is small glaciers have a tendency to retreat, while most big glaciers are advancing. See this study and watch the graphs: Surface Properties, Topography and Motions of Patagonian Glaciers (http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/SIRC_Pat/term.html)

<img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-11/term_west.gif><br>
See the brown line? That’s Pio XI’s growth. South and North faces.

<img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-11/term_east.gif>

The brown line at the top is the Perito Moreno glacier, while the blue line at the bottom is the Upsala glacier. Greenpeace claimed last year that the Upsala was retreating because global warming. Here you have the real story: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Ingles3/UpsalaEng.html “Greenpeace Newest Fraud: The Upsala Glacier Melting”. With references to studies on those glaciers.

Perhaps a Google search on these glaciers would give you a better idea of what glaciology is about.

valich

11-23-05, 02:39 PM

WORLDWIDE GLACIERS ARE RETREATING

“The general picture is one of widespread glacier retreat, notably in Alaska, Franz-Josef Land, Asia, the Alps, Indonesia and Africa, and tropical and sub-tropical regions of South America. In a few regions a number of glaciers are currently advancing (e.g., Western Norway, New Zealand). In Norway this is very likely to be due to increases in precipitation owing to the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation and in the Southern Alps of New Zealandand due to wetter conditions with little warming since about 1980.

Finally, indications in the European Alps that current glacier recession is reaching levels not seen for perhaps a few thousand years comes from the exposure of radiocarbon-dated ancient remains in high glacial saddles. Here there is no significant ice flow and melting is assumed to have taken place in situ for the first time in millennia (e.g., the finding of the 5,000-year-old Oetzal “ice man”).”

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/064.htm

valich

11-23-05, 02:55 PM

""I think climate change is really the biggest problem facing the U.S., and in some sense, the biggest problem facing the world," he said. "We are contributing to the carbon dioxide ... that the world will have to live with for a long time."

Although some countries are clamping down on greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change, the United Nations predicts that the next century could bring temperature increases as high as 5.8 degrees Celsius (10.4 Fahrenheit). If trends continue, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will double from pre-Industrial Revolution levels (280 parts per million) within 50 years, according to the journal Science."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/08/earth.past.future/index.html

"Is global warming really a threat? Absolutely! ... First, the Earth has gotten warmer. Since 1850, average global temperatures have risen about .6 degrees Celsius, the United Nations says. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide released by humans burning fossil fuels and clearing land are the likely culprits. Sea levels have also risen about 4 to 8 inches during the past century, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Second, the concentration of greenhouse gases (or GHG) in the atmosphere is near its highest point in recorded history. Since the Industrial Revolution, concentrations of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas, have risen 30 percent.

Based on studies of air bubbles trapped in ancient ice, today's levels are higher than any time in at least 420,000 years, said David King, chief science adviser for the British government. If GHG concentrations rise, as expected, concentrations could cross what some consider a "dangerous" threshold, although that designation is contentious.

Finally, almost every scientist agrees upon one thing: the future is highly uncertain. While most scientists support projections by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that temperatures will rise 1.4 degrees Celsius (2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) to 5.8 degrees Celsius (10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, the scientific consensus shows cracks beyond this point.....we can say very clearly, with the same amount of energy going in and less going out, [the Earth] has to warm up...That's elementary physics.

This growing confidence is the result of progress being made with climate models and deciphering cryptic clues about ancient climate in tree rings, lake sediments and ice cores. Paleo-climate measurements, once unattainable, now offer a record of global temperatures stretching back 750,000 years.

"There is no doubt that humans are warming the planet. That's very clear now," says Jeffrey Severinghaus, a geoscience researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. "The data is beautiful. It's very strong. Humans are changing the climate, and we're expected to change it a lot more in the future."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/08/earth.science/index.html

note: can someone tell me how to post graphs on this forum? In my last post, the website that I cited has a nice graph showing twenty of the world's largest glaciers all dramatically retreating. Would've been a nice post.

Edufer

11-23-05, 03:07 PM

note: can someone tell me how to post graphs on this forum? In my last post, the website that I cited has a nice graph showing twenty of the world's largest glaciers all dramatically retreating. Would've been a nice post.

You need to have the right address for the graphic file, ie.: http://www.anysite.com/images/graph.gif and use the advanced facility where you can link the file to this server.

One way to get the addres fro a file is

1) press the right button on the page you have the graph you like.
2) Select "See source code" (or something like that) from the little window.
3) In the newly opened window locate (scrolling down) in the code page the address for the specific file. It takes time so be patient.

Then try you skill at html coding in the advanced mode. Wish you luck!

Edufer

11-23-05, 03:10 PM

Valich, try not to link or mention "press releases" because they have no credibility in any forum. Only scientifc studies (peer reviewed) as the one I linked you to deserve some faith.

valich

11-23-05, 05:03 PM

You have it all wrong. CO2 is not pollution, on the contrary, it is plant's food. Without CO2 there would be no plants, hence, no mankind, and no animal life on Earth.

Polluting gases are something different, as soot, sulphur oxides, etc. In any case, they are contributing to slowing down warming by obscuring the atmosphere.

You should study some geology and the history of Earth's climate. You might even get to know that glaciers take centuries, even millennia to react to air temperatures. That most glaciers have been retreating since the 18th century, and while some glaciers retreat many other advance --even in the same region, few kilometers away from each other.It goes like this: In the beginning the Earth had no atmosphere. Early Earth's atmosphere contained primarily helium and hydrogen, then helium, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane. This is when life originated on Earth - about 4 billion years ago. O2 did not exist in the atmosphere; nor did C02. The first forms of bacteria on Earth thrived on methane and other gases - then on C02. We have evidence dating back 3.83 billion years ago of cyanobacteria. This is important because cyanobacteria are thought to have been the first form of life on Earth that used C02 and water in photosynthesis to generate 02 in the environment. During this period of history, oxygen 02 is considered as a "poison" because it killed other C02 forms of life, as it also does today to humans (people die from C02 poisoning?).

Oxygen concentrations increased rapidy around 2.5 billion years ago allowing animal life to evolve and flourish. Now however, the Earth contains too much C02, and not enough plant life to absorb the C02 and reconvert it to back into oxygen (lots of talk about the alarming rate of deforestation, especially the Amazon rain forest?). This is why C02 is now considered as a pollutant: it is contributing to the temperature increases (global warming) by helping to block out photons in the upper atmosphere. It is also contributing to Ozone depletion because the more C02 that you have in the atmosphere, the less 02 you have, and Ozone 03 is produced from chemical reactions between 02 and H20.

We receive energy from the sun's photons, but we emit energy back from the Earth in the form of infrared radiation. The tri-atomic gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone, absorb, but also block this infrared radiation from escaping the Earth's atmosphere. The result is increases in the Earth's temperature (global warming).

You see, today, the Earth's "life-sustaining" lower atmosphere contains 78.1% Nitrogen (N2), 21.0%, Oxygen (O2), 0.93% Argon (Ar), and only trace amounts of Carbon dioxide (CO2) 365 ppmv, Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv, Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv, Methane (CH4) 1.745 ppmv, Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv, Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv. If you upset this delicate balance: you upset the survival of life.

I think I learned all this in my geology, physics, astronomy, geography, chemistry, biology, and environmental science classes?

valich

11-23-05, 05:09 PM

Valich, try not to link or mention "press releases" because they have no credibility in any forum. Only scientifc studies (peer reviewed) as the one I linked you to deserve some faith.These press releases contain quotes from scientific researchers and references to the latest journal editions of Science which I do not yet have access to unless I run up to the library to get them. And I have little time to do that right now.

Try not to belittle people by saying that they aught to do this or that to learn more, and act as if you know more, as then you lose your credibility.

valich

11-23-05, 05:20 PM

You need to have the right address for the graphic file, ie.: http://www.anysite.com/images/graph.gif and use the advanced facility where you can link the file to this server.

One way to get the addres fro a file is

1) press the right button on the page you have the graph you like.
2) Select "See source code" (or something like that) from the little window.
3) In the newly opened window locate (scrolling down) in the code page the address for the specific file. It takes time so be patient.

Then try you skill at html coding in the advanced mode. Wish you luck!This is the graphic file. Would you like to post it for me so that we can all view it? http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-18s.gif

I right-clicked on the page but see nothing about the "source code." I donna?

valich

11-23-05, 06:31 PM

The so-called "press release" above was a CNN coverage of scientific debate filled with quotations. Some were taken from an email sent directly to CNN's Michael Coren by John Christy, Director of the Earth System Science Center. Other direct sources, the scientists involved in the debate, include:

The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
David King, Chief Science Adviser for the British government
Dr. Drew Shindell, a NASA climate modeler at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Dr. Jeffrey Severinghaus, geoscientist at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography
Dr. Richard Sommerville, meteorologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Dr. Tim Barnett, a researcher with the Scripps Institute of Oceanography
Dr. Richard Lindzen, meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and a 1979 report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences

Also see:
"Protections for the Earth's Climate," Scientific American, Dec2005, Vol. 293 Is. 6, p55.

"Wind or fury?," by Potter, Sean. Science News, 11/5/2005, Vol. 168 Issue 19, p303.

"The Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric Moistening," by Soden, Brian J.; Jackson, Darren L.; Ramaswamy, V.; Schwarzkopf, M.D.; Huang, Xianglei. Science, 11/4/2005, Vol. 310 Issue 5749, p841-844.

"Global change: Sea level and volcanoes," by Cazenave, Anny. Nature, 11/3/2005, Vol. 438 Issue 7064, p35-36.

"Greenhouse gas production: A comparison between aerobic and anaerobic wastewater treatment technology," by Cakir, F.Y.; Stenstrom, M.K.. Water Research, Nov2005, Vol. 39 Issue 17, p4197-4203.

"Anthropogenic climate change and abatement in a multi-region world with endogenous growth," by Greiner, Alfred. Ecological Economics, Nov2005, Vol. 55 Issue 2, p224-234.

"Global Warming and Infectious Disease," by Khasnis, Atul A.; Nettleman, Mary D.. Archives of Medical Research, Nov2005, Vol. 36 Issue 6, p689-696.

"Theory and performance of an infrared heater for ecosystem warming," by Kimball, B. A.. Global Change Biology, Nov2005, Vol. 11 Issue 11, p2041-2056.

"THE GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS," by Jordan, Stuart. Humanist, Nov/Dec2005, Vol. 65 Issue 6, p23-29.

"Global Warning. By: Kaufman, Marc. Science & Spirit, Nov/Dec2005, Vol. 16 Is. 6, p19

"U.S. Great Lakes Thawing Earlier," by Mastny, Lisa. World Watch, Nov/Dec2005, Vol. 18 Issue 6, p7.

"Global Warming for Dummies," by Kellner, Tomas. Forbes, 10/31/2005, Vol. 176 I 9, p58

"Lake algae confirm global warming link" New Scientist, 10/29/2005, Vol.188 I 2523, p19

"Role of Land-Surface Changes in Arctic Summer Warming," by Chapin III, F.S.; Sturm, M.; Serreze, M.C.; McFadden, J.P.; Key, J.R.; Lloyd, A.H.; McGuire, A.D.; Rupp, T.S.; Lynch, A.H.; Schimel, J.P.; Beringer, J.; Chapman, W.L.; Epstein, H.E.; Euskirchen, E.S.; Hinzman, L.D.; Jia, G.; Ping, C.-L.; Tape, K.D.; Thompson, C.D.C.; Walker, D.A.. Science, 10/28/2005, Vol. 310 Issue 5748, p657-660.

"Ministers agree to act on warnings of soaring temperatures in Africa," by Cherry, Michael. Nature, 10/27/2005, Vol. 437 Issue 7063, p1217

"Siberia Is Melting," Current Science, 10/21/2005, Vol. 91 Issue 4, p15-30.

"Old Ways of Life Are Fading as the Arctic Thaws," by Myers, Steven Lee; Revkin, Andrew C.; Romero, Simon; Krauss, Clifford. New York Times, 10/20/2005, Vol. 155 Issue 53373, pA1-A14

"Steamed up at global warming," New Scientist, 10/15/2005, Vol. 188 Issue 2521, p18.

"Water vapor is rising in high troposphere," Chemical & Engineering News, 10/10/2005, Vol. 83 Issue 41, p39.

"Arctic ice shrinking as it feels the heat," by Pearce, Fred. New Scientist, 10/8/2005, Vol. 188 Issue 2520, p12.

"Onset of recent rapid sea-level rise in the western Atlantic Ocean," by Gehrels, W. Roland; Kirby, Jason R.; Prokoph, Andreas; Newnham, Rewi M.; Achterberg, Eric P.; Evans, Hywel; Black, Stuart; Scott, David B.. Quaternary Science Reviews, Oct2005, Vol. 24 Issue 18/19, p2083-2100.

"Ice-free Arctic Ocean?," Science Teacher, Oct2005, Vol. 72 Issue 7, p20-22.

These are the most recent articles on the facts of Global Warming written in scientific journals within the last month.

Edufer

11-23-05, 07:29 PM

I think I learned all this in my geology, physics, astronomy, geography, chemistry, biology, and environmental science classes?
Yes. We learned all that in high school too. But I think you spent more time in Greenpeace’s kindergarten than in a College. Everything you say can be found in Wikipedia (and remember that Wikipedia is written by the common people and not by experts in scientific disciplines, as Wikipedia is full of mistakes, assumptions presented as facts, mistakes, and hypothesis presented as already proven.

Now let us analyze what your knowledge has made you to write and claim as facts: (Jesus!)

Now however, the Earth contains too much C02, and not enough plant life to absorb the C02 and reconvert it to back into oxygen (lots of talk about the alarming rate of deforestation, especially the Amazon rain forest?).
The amount of CO2 absorbed by vegetation is trifle. Sinks for CO2 are in other parts as the oceans. Actually, mature forests as the Amazon jungle (and ALL other mature forests in the world have a negative CO2/O2 balance, that is, they produce more CO2 than they absorb. Only newly planted and growing forests absorb CO2 from the air and convert carbon molecules to lignine for wood production.
This is why C02 is now considered as a pollutant: it is contributing to the temperature increases (global warming) by helping to block out photons in the upper atmosphere.
Amazing. I have read many weird and flawed explanations for the action of the CO2 gas in the atmosphere, but this is the first time I’ve heard about the “blocking” properties of CO2 in the stratosphere.

CO2 is absolutely transparent for the incoming radiation from the Sun. Much later, it has a small ability to “hold” some long wavelengths irradiated from the surface. And that’s it. If it were “blocking” radiation (photons as you say…) in the upper stratosphere, then the Earth would be a snowball. 
It is also contributing to Ozone depletion because the more C02 that you have in the atmosphere, the less 02 you have, and Ozone 03 is produced from chemical reactions between 02 and H20.

That’s utter nonsense! Ozone depletion is only occurring at some altitudes, at special dates of the year, in very localized regions of the world. And CO2 has nothing to do with it. The amount of O2 is independent of the amount of CO2, as Ozone (O3) could be a function of (1) amount of oxygen in the higher parts of the stratosphere --45 km and up-- and (2) Enough UV-C radiation able to dissociate oxygen molecules.

I would advise you to go back to school and learn your chemistry again (or read with a greater attention wikipedia). Ozone is the result of short wavelength radiation (UV-C, 230 nanometers and less) hitting oxygen molecules at an altitude above 40 km. Below 40 km the amount of UV-C radiation has decreased and lost its capacity to “split” more oxygen molecules. The radiation present from 40 km down is mostly UV-B and UV-A (besides longer wavelengths, of course, that are not affected by gases in the atmosphere).

However, UV-B radiation has energy enough to dissociate ozone making oxygen molecules again –and more ozone molecules too, as oxygen atoms encounter oxygen molecules! There are not chemicals reactions between H2O (water) and ozone (O3). Down at the surface, ozone is produced locally by electric discharges for sterilizing water, because ozone is a highly reactive gas with bactericide properties.
The tri-atomic gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone, absorb, but also block this infrared radiation from escaping the Earth's atmosphere. The result is increases in the Earth's temperature (global warming).
You are forgetting (or perhaps you ignored it?) that temperature goes back to space not only by re-radiation (physically it does not happen, but that would take to science forums pages for explaining it) but also and mainly by convection. See those beautiful high white clouds in summer? Thet are so high because convection. Warm air, heated by the sun and the warm surface is going up because it is being pushed from underneath by cold air. Then convection cannot be seen going up and up because water vapor is left behind and no condensation makes clouds to be seen.

…If you upset this delicate balance: you upset the survival of life.
Man has not the ability or power to upset this delicate balance. At least has not the power exerted by Mother Nature. Mommie Gaia injects in a year more CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind ever did in its whole history on this planet. Mankind used to release 7.000 tons of chlorine contained in CFC annually to the atmosphere, while oceans release 650 MILLION tons of chlorine every year, volcanoes spew 36 MILLION TONS of chlorine, forest fires 8.4 million tons, and so on. Not to mention ocean algae releasing 4.5 million tons of chlorine each year.

So, who’s upsetting this delicate balance? Mankind or Mommie Gaia?

I think I learned all this in my geology, physics, astronomy, geography, chemistry, biology, and environmental science classes?
That’s a good question. Did you learn something at all in your classes? Or you were just smoking pot and making passes at your female companion students? :m: :D

Your other posts will be answered later. Don't go away.

valich

11-23-05, 07:35 PM

for the latest scientific info on glaciers worldwide, you can download the pdf file: "Glacier Mass Monitoring Buletin" - a contribution to the Global Terrestrial Network for Glaciers (GTN-G), as part of the Global Terrestrial/Climate Observing System (GTOS/GCOS), the Division of Early Warning and Assessment and the Global Environmental Outlook, as part of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and UNESCO, compiled by the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS), 2005:
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb8/MBB8.pdf

I still can't find anyway to access the html source coding for that graphic file:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_ta...es/fig2-18s.gif

Edufer

11-23-05, 07:59 PM

This is the graphic file. Would you like to post it for me so that we can all view it? http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-18s.gif

I right-clicked on the page but see nothing about the "source code." I donna?
Valich: you didn't get the source code because the image was not a html page but simply an image file.

When yo have an image file then copy the address from the address bar in your browser and paste it in the advanced writing window but with this html tag: <img src= >

<img src=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-18s.gif>

I have added the width=500 at the end because the letters are too small and by dding the width=xxx pixels you can control the size.

<img src=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-18s.gif width=500>

OK, you owe me $10 for the html coding lesson.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

But that is an unfortunate image you chose. The graph show glaciers that have started to retreat during the Little Ice Age, when Earth's temperatures were 2º C colder than now! What made those glaciers start their retreat during a cold period?

Then you can see those glaciers from Norway (Engabreen, Nigardsbreen), the Swiss U. Grinderwald, the New Zealand Franz Joseph, etc, that have been advancing during the period of warming of Earth. What made them start growing when the Earth was warming?

Finally, the graph (a quite biased one) didn`t show data from Pio XI and Perito Moreno in Patagonia -growing glaciers, and FAST growing ones ...

Please, never show this graph if you want to prove that glaciers are shrinking due to global warming. :D

<img src=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-18s.gif width=500>

valich

11-23-05, 08:32 PM

Edufer: I don't see where you have even said anything above in your last post except by suggesting that I smoke marijuana and chase girls while you laugh.

What I posted without references is what I learned in my advanced graduate university classes during the last thirty years (big shit - but you're the one saying "high school"); the other posts were cited from highly advanced scientific sources.

03 is created by a double reaction: first 02>20, then 02 + 0 > 03. If you increase the proportion of C02 in the atmosphere then where's it going to go? Fact: It contributes to global warming. The less plant life, the less photosynthesis to convert it to 02, the greater the amount of C02 in the atmosphere, thus the greater the proportion of C02. By simple mathematics, the greater the proportion of one element, the lesser the proportion of another (proportions total to 100%?).

Those "big white clouds" are called Cumulus clouds. They are in the lower troposphere: not the stratosphere or above. The ozone layer and the pollutants such as C02 that trap in the Earth's heat and form the "geenhouse effect" (global warming) occur in the stratosphere and the ozone layer.

Your first huge, flashy, bright-red-letter post above seemed to imply that we should all suddenly drop what we are doing and stand back to marvel and wonder in "awe" at your apparently "new discovery" that "one" glacier in Norway is advancing rather than retreating like all the rest. What the heck was that all about?

"Space to base. Hello?" Let's get back down to Earth now.

valich

11-23-05, 08:35 PM

Okay, you're right! I owe you ten dollars for the coding lesson. Now for another ten tell me how you do the bold fonts and colors?

valich

11-23-05, 08:51 PM

Then you can see those glaciers from Norway (Engabreen, Nigardsbreen), the Swiss U. Grinderwald, the New Zealand Franz Joseph, etc, that have been advancing during the period of warming of Earth. What made them start growing when the Earth was warming?You're not even reading what I post. Researchers state that "In Norway this [the Franz Joseph glacier advance] is very likely to due to increases in precipitation owing to the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation [wind currents? the Polar Easterlies that are now effecting Northern Europe?] and in the Southern Alps of New Zealand and due to wetter conditions with little warming since about 1980."

valich

11-23-05, 09:12 PM

Life is harsh on the freezing tundra of the Arctic Circle, but it can be much harder when snows do not fall. In recent years, snows have failed to fall as normal across large parts of the barren land dotted with low birch and pines.

source: the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Dr. Albert Klein Tank of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (member of IPCC).
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/22/norway.warming.reut/index.html

Edufer

11-23-05, 10:11 PM

You're not even reading what I post. Researchers state that "In Norway this [the Franz Joseph glacier advance] is very likely to due to increases in precipitation owing to the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation [wind currents? the Polar Easterlies that are now effecting Northern Europe?] and in the Southern Alps of New Zealand and due to wetter conditions with little warming since about 1980."

The Franz Joseph is not in Norway. It is in New Zealand. And there are notONE advancing glcier in Norway. There are many. If you cannot, I will explain later why.

Glaciers are not good indicators of warming. They react too slowly to temperature (their mass is so big their thermal inertia is also huge). They retreat due mostly to calving (Do you know what calving is?)

And as my final contribution to your enlightening on glaciers, here is a summary of ALL files contained in the World Glacier Inventory. You should know that the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS), only survey a small portion of glaciers in the world, and because they are short on resources (money) they concentrate on those glaciers that seem to be shrinking because they guarantee a steady cash flow for research. Study the paste job from an Excel file of those 58.585 glaciers. Read the summary, analyze it and weep… for the way they have been conning you.

TOTAL GLACIERS = 58.585

RETREAT TOTAL = 8.691

STATIONARY TOTAL = 10.621

ADVANCING TOTAL = 1.180

UNCERTAIN = 38.093

RETREAT: 14,84%
ADVANCE: 2%
UNCERTAIN: 65%
STATIONARY: 10,25%

NO RETREAT: 77.25%

STATIONARY + ADV: 12,25%

Total retreating = 14.84%
Total No change + advancing = 85,16%

* * * * * * * * * * *
PS: For bolds and color, fonts and other options click on the Go Advanced instead of the "Post quick reply", and work with the Advanced mode window with all those nice buttons and smileys and the cherry on top.

valich

11-24-05, 12:49 AM

Thanks!

But why are you constantly using the large fonts with red and blue colors?

The majority of glaciers in the world are retreating! Where do you get the "No retreat: 77.25%" from"? You chastize me for citing a presumed "press release" but then you yourself provide no sources at all! Say what you mean and mean what you say!

Edufer

11-24-05, 01:28 AM

But why are you constantly using the large fonts with red and blue colors?
For clarity and impact. Psychology. Journalist experience. Besides, I like colorful posts.
The majority of glaciers in the world are retreating! Where do you get the "No retreat: 77.25%" from"?
The data was downloaded directly from the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) database two years ago. No update of their database is available. They haven’t updated their reports since 2003. The last one published in 2005 is a repetition of the 2001-2003 report.

The majority of glaciers are retreating? No, they don't. Only those in the WGMS database. And their own database shows 77.25% of world glaciers are NOT RETREATING. They are either stable or advancing.

Retreating glaciers are only 14,84% of those believed to exist. Don’t believe me, just download their database, spend about two months analyzing all those 58.585 glaciers and inputting data to an Excel spreadsheet, and get the statistic. Easy. Just press the "enter" key.

I am sorry to take the veil from your eyes. I know it is a painful experience. It is as when somebody told us that Santa Claus was our daddy. But then we grew up to reality, and swore no one was ever going to deceive us. And then we went and cast our votes to some politicians. It is called, “the vicious circle” of gullible people.

The only known vaccine is a combination of skepticism and search for knowledge. It takes a lot of patience.

Anomalous

11-24-05, 07:58 AM

...
So what's with the large-font bold-faced titled in red? Are you suggesting that our pollution to atmosphere today is NOT accelerating global warming???

Ignorance is bliss !

http://www.newbuilder.co.uk/news/NewsFullStory.asp?ID=1053

Humans SUCK !

Ophiolite

11-24-05, 08:28 AM

RETREAT: 14,84%
ADVANCE: 2%
UNCERTAIN: 65%
STATIONARY: 10,25%

NO RETREAT: 77.25%

STATIONARY + ADV: 12,25%

Total retreating = 14.84%
Total No change + advancing = 85,16%I look forward to an explanation of how uncertain becomes the equivalent of no change. It should be fascinating.
Based upon the figures you quote, and using your own methodolgy, I find the data to reflect this.

Advancing 2%
Stationary 10.25%
Total No Change + Retreating79.84%

I am sure you will do your best to educate me in the error of my ways. [By the way, you were wrong about Santa Claus too.]

Edufer

11-24-05, 10:40 AM

OK, here we go again. The discussion is between retreating (shrink, melting, etc) glaciers and non-retreating glaciers (advancing and stable). We could include here those glaciers classified as “uncertain”. The word “uncertain” is used by the WGMS when they know nothing about a glacier, so it is better to leave uncertain things out. Right?

Then, it follows that we cannot put together non-changing glaciers with retreating glaciers. That lies out of the discussion parameters: “retreating or non-retreating”. Wrong?

From 58,585 known glaciers in the world (by the WGMS):

8,691 are retreating.
10,621 are stationary (no change)
1,180 are growing.

Translated into statistics (the most elegant way of lying):

Growing: 2%
Retreating: 14.84%
No change: 10.25%
Sheer ignorance: 65%

TOTAL: 92.09%

The difference lies in the “Uncertain” figure that could be between 60% and 73%)

Leave “uncertain” out of the discussion. Then we can deal with 20,492 glaciers whose status is well known. (They say so, but…) A new statistic will give us a different idea:

Growing: +5.6%
Retreating: +42.4%
No change: +52%

So the final result is:

Growing + No change = +57.6%
Retreating: +42.4%

What looks as more reasonable situation, if we accord that the uncertain glaciers can be split half and half between no change and retreating.

Conclusion: Less than half of world's glaciers are retreating, not MOST glaciers as commonly claimed and believed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BTW: It is refreshing to know that I am wrong about Santa Claus (or Père Noël?) existence. By any chance, do you have Santa’s address or phone number? I would like to give him a call. As I say to my children: "Santa, I have never believed in you --but I have always loved you."

Avatar

11-24-05, 02:18 PM

Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the last 650,000 years.

That is the conclusion of new European studies looking at ice taken from 3km below the surface of Antarctica.

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm

Ophiolite

11-24-05, 04:25 PM

OK, here we go again. Don't try patronising me little boy, I have a post-graduate degree in patronising. I reserve it for wallies such as yourself who couch their ignorance in a cornucopia of terminology, citations, and self righteous expositions.

Your original position, in large red letters was

Total No change + advancing = 85,16%

Your revised position is

Growing + No change = +57.6%
Retreating: +42.4%

Don't try dissembling. You are smart enough to know you are guilty of intellectual dishonesty, by posting these two disparate figures, without retracting the first. Your detailed explanation of how each was arrived at simply illustrates where you were lying, it does not excuse it.

As for Santa Claus, I, and millions of other parents are Santa Claus. Santa Claus is a concept made real each Christmas by loving parents. You're not having a very good day, are you.

valich

11-24-05, 08:00 PM

Ignorance is bliss !

http://www.newbuilder.co.uk/news/NewsFullStory.asp?ID=1053

Humans SUCK !And it says in the first paragraph:
"The scientists say that rising temperatures caused by greenhouse gases are increasing humidity, which in turn amplifies the temperature rise. This is potentially a positive feedback mechanism which could increase the impact of greenhouse gases such as CO2."

C02 is greenhouse gas. And this is what this article also says?

valich

11-24-05, 08:17 PM

Edufer

11-24-05, 11:27 PM

I write in big bold red fonts because that seems to be the only way morons understand what they are reading. In this case it fully applies.

None of you has understood why the difference between the first figures given and a correction that takes out of the calculations that 65% of uncertain glaciers –just to give a chance to warmer’s stupid and fallacious claim that MOST of world glaciers are retreating.

Some moron said: “Don't try dissembling. You are smart enough to know you are guilty of intellectual dishonesty, by posting these two disparate figures, without retracting the first. Your detailed explanation of how each was arrived at simply illustrates where you were lying, it does not excuse it.“

"You still have not adequately documented ANY of your sources as you scorned me that I do: and I did! Years, dates, journal article source, authors, website? Be scientific!
You never read what is written on black and white, don't you? That's why I use red bold fonts. The source is, and I repeat this for the Nth time, the official data from the WGMS, the same link you provided. You cannot have nothing better. I am being more scientific than you that only post press releases of studies you haven't read (and will not understand even if you finish reading one).

And I have been honest enough as to make a new statistic estimate of the data contained in the WGMS (World Glacier Monitoring Service), that no one of you lazy bums have made the attempt of downloading the database and check the veracity of my claims.

So, until you make just that, then all you are saying is breathing through the wound and showing your frustration for having been debunked in your Green Litany recitation: MOST glaciers retreating?. I have proved beyond doubt they are not.

And for those with a master degree in patronizing, they already know where they can shove their degree into…

Edufer

11-24-05, 11:53 PM

by Valich: “That's about 43% retreating: a lot different then your post above uncited post stating 72%. So what should we believe from what you post?”
That’s is 42.4% not 43% , and you find it “A LOT DIFFERENT” because I’ve left out those 38,093 glaciers that no one knows what is going on with them. That's scientific honesty.

And please show the rest of the people here where I write 72% for any item in the list. The nearest figure is 77.25% - Now read my original post and repeat after me: “I can’t read, I will try harder next time”.

Originally Posted by Edufer

RETREAT: 14,84%
ADVANCE: 2%
UNCERTAIN: 65%
STATIONARY: 10,25%

NO RETREAT: 77.25%

STATIONARY + ADV: 12,25%

(SOURCE: World Glacier Monitoring Service)

So I stand now by my first figures: 77.25% of world glaciers are NOT retreating –and disprove me!

You bore me.

SkinWalker

11-25-05, 02:32 AM

From 58,585 known glaciers in the world (by the WGMS):

There are about 160,000 known glaciers in the world (Armstrong et al 2005). The WGMS is including "glacial inventories" and not all "known" glaciers. These inventories include data such as geographic location, area, length, orientation, elevation, and classification of morphological type and moraines, though ablation versus accumulation isn't necessarily known.

Glaciers are not good indicators of warming.

On the contrary, they've been found to be very good indicators (Dyurgerov 2003; Oerlemans 2005), particularly if ablation rates of mountain or non-polar glaciers are examined. Those that question whether or not the climate is warming are simply not looking at the data. However, it is fair to question the extent to which that warming is anthropogenic.

Simply basing assumptions about global warming on the retreat/advance of quantity of glaciers isn't productive. It is the mass of glacial retreat or advance that is important. Also, singling out one or two fast advancing glaciers, such as the Franz Josef, can be misleading, because detailed analysis of this particular glacier has been used to demonstrate that "[t]here is a strong correlation among glacier behaviour, key climatic variables, and atmospheric circulation patterns [and to] demonstrate that some maritime glaciers can advance, even during global warming, if the suitable circulation patterns are favourable (Hooker & Fitzharris 1999)." This study showed some very strong correlations between localized weather patterns and net accumulation. Localized weather patterns that were, very likely, in response to climate warming.

Measurement of the 160,000 known glaciers will necessarily be the work of satellites, which have shown already that mountainous, sub-polar glaciers are receding at alarming rates (Kargel et al 2005).

References:

Armstrong, R.; Raup, B.; Khalsa, S.J.S.; Barry, R.; Kargel, J.; Helm, C.; and Kiefer, H. (2005). [url=http://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0272.html GLIMS glacier database[/url]. Boulder, CO: National Snow and Ice Data Center. [Digital media].

Dyurgerov, M. (2003). Mountain and subpolar glaciers show an increase in sensitivity to climate warming and intensification of the water cycle, Journal of Hydrology 282, 164–176.

Hooker, B. L. and Fitzharris, B. B. (1999). The correlation between climatic parameters and the retreat and advance of Franz Josef Glacier, New Zealand, Global and Planetary Change, 22(1-4), 39-48

Kargel, J; Abrams, M; Bishop, M; Bush, A; Hamilton, G; Jiskoot, H; Kääb, A; Kieffer, H; Lee, E; Paul, F. et al. (2005). Multispectral imaging contributions to global land ice measurements from space, Remote Sensing of Environment, 99(1-2), 187-219.

Oerlemans, J.H., (2005). Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records, Science, 5722: 675–677.

valich

11-25-05, 05:40 AM

The more you read about glacier retreating the more astounding, fascinating, yet alarming the results show and get!

"Taking the two reported years 2002/2003 together, the mean mass balance was -965 mm per year. This value is more than three times the average of 1980-1999 ( -289 mm per year) and by far the most negative value reported so far for two year averages. The proportion of glaciers with positive balances was 13% in 2001/2002 and 10% in 2002/2003. This is roughly one-third the average observed during the two decades 1980-1999 (32%). During this period 15% of the mean specific annual net values were positive. Since then all annual mean values have been negative. The melt and rate loss in glacier thickness has been extraordinary. This development further confirms the accelerating trend in worldwide glacier disappearance, which has become more and more obvious during the last two decades.
"Glacier Mass Monitoring Bulletin," by the World Glacier Monitoring Service, 2005, p.87.
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb8/MBB8.pdf

Ocean Levels Rising: Earth's ocean levels have risen twice as fast in the past 150 years, signaling the impact of human activity on temperatures worldwide. Sea levels were rising by about 1 millimeter every year about 200 years ago and as far back as 5,000 years, but since then levels have risen by about 2 millimeters a year. Human induced carbon dioxide emissions are having a clear impact on this warming period.
Source: Dr. Kenneth Miller, Science, November 2005

Global Warming: Using three large samples of polar cap ice found carbon dioxide levels were stable until 200 years ago. Today's rise is about 200 times faster than any rise recorded in the samples....Trapped gas bubbles in the ice, drilled out from Antarctica depths of about 3,000 meters, provided information on the Earth's air up to 650,000 years ago... measured levels of carbon dioxide as well as methane and nitrous oxide - two other gases known to affect the atmosphere's protective ozone layer.
"The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica," by Thomas Stocker, Science, Nov. 2005.

Snows Fails to Fall in Arctic Tundra:
"In recent years, snows have failed to fall as normal across large parts of the barren land dotted with low birch and pines. Evidence that humans are pushing up global temperatures is growing ever stronger, ranging from a shrinking of ice in the Arctic to a warming of the Indian Ocean. In September, polar ice contracted to its smallest size in at least a century, according to measurements by space agency NASA and the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Reindeer are especially vulnerable when winter snows do not fall. Snow is cold for people but for reindeer it is a soft winter bed. Lack of snow makes it hard for reindeer to feed on lichen because the plants can get covered by sharp ice, which cuts their soft muzzles.

Less bone-chilling winters have helped some pests to thrive, like beetles and worms that destroy Arctic forests. In northern Russia, frogs have been spotted more often on the tundra and some birds are not even bothering to migrate.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/22/norway.warming.reut/index.html

Billy T

11-25-05, 07:01 AM

Readers of this thread, who want to make a change for the better, may want to look at new thread in the Science & Citizen forum's "Fuel Choices, Global Warming & Pollution"

Edufer

11-25-05, 01:15 PM

Hi, Skin Walker, a refreshing burst of air, at last. It is good to start a talk with someone who knows about science. I share with you my deep interest in anthropology (founder member of the Anthropological Society of Córdoba, Argentina in 1982 and having lead exploration expeditions to the Amazon jungle between 1971 and 1995). Just a glimpse of our work there: we have advanced the hypothesis that the Jivaro people in Ecuador (Untsuri Shuara) have their origin in Okinawa Island, Japan. Interested?

So our interest in climatology is in a lower level of professional activity. (Excellent website you have!).

I agree with you on many things you said, and disagree in part with other things. My view as well as other more expert scientists view, is that glaciers are not very good indicators of air temperature. But this must also be taken with a pinch of salt, as there are other factors governing the issue as size (total mass, length, width, height of the front), altitude, location (maritime, mountain, polar, etc), prevailing winds, etc. Most glaciers are affected by dynamical stress rather than temperature, although opinions here are divided. As we can see very clearly, in no scientific field there has ever been a consensus on anything. This is shown very clearly in small mountain glaciers, especially on glaciers where the snow has not yet been packed and transformed into solid ice. Our mid Andes (north of 40ºS and below 15ºS) is a good example.

Some months ago, during a discussion I had with a glaciologist friend of mine, he sent me this message that I am glad to share with sciforum readers (bolds are mine):

“A simple analysis of the time series (1925-1999) of the fractions (%) of the Italian Alpine glaciers monitored by the Italian Glaciological Committee under growing or melting phase, appears to underline the role of inertia in the response of Alpine glaciers to decadal or multidecadal climate fluctuations.

The time series indicates that: until 1960 the fraction of melting glaciers was above 80%; between 1960 and 1980 the number of growing glaciers increased up to almost 90%; after 1980 the number of melting glaciers increased again up to 95%.

The comparison of these periods with the major periods of temperature anomalies in the Northern Hemisphere (relatively warmer between 1915 and 1942; relatively colder - and dryer in the Alpine region – between 1943 and 1976; warmer again since 1976) suggests that the inertia of the Alpine glaciers to these multidecadal anomalies of hemispheric temperature could be of about 10-15 years.

These indications may also suggest that although the known differences between the dynamics of Arctic and Alpine ice, inertia could be an explanation of the actually observed melting of Arctic ice, besides Arctic temperatures are indexed as lowering.

I presented some graphs taken from a study, but my guess is nobody bothered to read the full study (in several web pages) about Patagonian glaciers (some of them shrinking, the small ones, and other growing, the big ones) that support the hypothesis that the glacier’s mass and thermal inertia is the governing factor behind glacier change.

I also would suggest you to read an article at the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology (http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Ingles3/UpsalaEng.html) about a false claim made by Greenpeace on the Upsala glacier that, according to them, was shrinking because global warming was melting it faster than butter pack on a fry pan. In that article you will see

Quotes from a paper published in a Japanese website, dedicated to the study of glaciers:

http://glacier.lowtem.hokudai.ac.jp/project/patagonia/patagonia.htm

Thinning and retreating of Glaciar Upsala, and an estimate of annual ablation changes in southern Patagonia
(R. Naruse, P. Skvarca and Y. Takeuchi)

Glaciar Upsala, a fresh-water calving glacier in southern Patagonia, has been retreating since 1978, and after a drastic recession of about 700 m/a in 1994 the retreat seems to have stopped in 1995. A large ice-thinning rate of 11 m/a was obtained between 1990 and 1993, by surveying surface elevations near the terminus of Glaciar Upsala. In 1993-1994, the thinning was estimated at about 20 m/a near the lateral margin. Some possible causes of the thinning behavior are considered. In the ablation area of Glaciar Perito Moreno, 50 km south of Glaciar Upsala, ablation rates were measured during 110 d in summer 1993-94, and air temperature was continuously recorded throughout 1994.

Using a degree-day method with temperature data at the nearest meteorological station, Calafate, annual ablation during the last 30 years was estimated to fluctuate from about 12 +- 2 m/a to 16 +- 2 m/a in ice thickness, with a mean of 14 +- 2 m/a. Thus, the temperature anomaly alone cannot elucidate the thinning of 11 m/a at Glaciar Upsala.

As a possible mechanism of the ice-thinning, it is suggested that the considerable retreat due to calving may have resulted in reduction of longitudinal compressive stress exerted from bedrock rises and islands near the glacier front, causing a considerable decrease in the emergence flow. Thus, the ice may have thinned at a rate close to the annual ablation rate.

(Annals of Glaciology, Vol. 24, 1997)

In other paper published in the same webiste, (Dynamic features of glaciers in Patagonia, by R. Naruse), its is repeated that temperature (global or regional warming) it is not the causal factor for the retreat of the Upsala glacier between 1978 y 1994, but there are more notorious causes as:

Mechanisms of large shrinkage of Glaciar Upsala were discussed. Based on measured ablation rates with temperature data at Calafate, annual ablation thickness near the front of Glaciar Upsala was estimated to fluctuate from 14 m/a to 18 m/a (1962-94). The range (4 m/a) of year-to-year variations in annual ablation is much smaller than the mean thinning rate of 11 m/a. Thus, temperature change alone could not elucidate the ice thinning phenomenon. Measurements of water depth were made in 1994 and 1997 at the proglacial lake, and a large bump of about 250 m high was found on the bed near the glacier terminus. From a continuity analysis, it was revealed that the normal stresses from the bump and islands near the terminus play an important role to the dynamics of Glaciar Upsala. A possible mechanism may be such a feedback as: frontal retreat - reduction in longitudinal compressive stress - decrease in emergence flow - ice thinning - frontal retreat.

(2nd International Symposium on Arctic and Antarctic Issues; Punta Arenas, Chile; November 1998)

Again, there is no consensus on the subject if global warming is affecting glaciers, and if it is doing so, at which extent. Satellite survey on glaciers have been shown to render tricky results, as there is difficult to differentiate glacial ice from snow cover, and much snow melting has been taken as ice melting, thus glacier retreat.

It is, of course a highly debatable issue, but it should be debated looking at serious data as you presented –not through press releases or magazine articles (especially those from Science, Nature, The New Scientists, or Scientific American –when they deal with climatology or atmospheric sciences.)

Ophiolite

11-25-05, 01:59 PM

Some moron said:Quite easy to get you worked up, isn't it. Gotta love that staid scientific objectivity. :cool:

The fact is, if the condition of the majority of the worlds glaciers, in terms of advance/retreat/stasis is unknown, then it is misleading to say that they are advancing or retreating. Period. It was your presumptive, absolute statement, (poorly articulated, depsite your extensive use of visual aids) promoting one of these views, to which I objected.

I have not studied the data in detail, so I do not know the truth of the matter. Therefore, please do not classify me as part of the Green Chorus, based upon the evidence you have seen so far. My interest in posting was to attack the clumsy manner in which you communicated your point of view - I accept your word that it was not intellectually dishonest: that only leaves sloppy writing as an option.

I would be interested in studying your views over a longer time frame and determining whether you have arrived at that them
a) By reactionary preferences
b) Through political inclination
c) Actually studying the facts

Regards
some moron

Edufer

11-25-05, 03:38 PM

a) According to Newton’s Laws, to every action correspond a reaction of the same intensity and opposite direction. But I’ve seen that the term “reactionary” is used exclusively by the left intelligentsia to characterize what they call “fascists” or right wing.

b) if there is an absurd (and most of the times criminal) activity, that is politics. I considered myself detached of such categories as left or right, or even center. That kind of two dimensional thinking forgets there are three elemental physical dimensions, that includes the ABOVE position –or the BOTTOM. I have been attracted from my childhood by the sweet smell of anarchism because its inherent loathe of anything related with imposed Authority , as opposed to voluntarily accepted authority.

c) Most likely this is the explanation for my running across every flawed or unscientific statement or claim that I read. It is embedded in Spaniard’s (and their descendents) blood and genes: we despise authority (to be honest, other people’s authority, not ours :) ), and love to stand against anything we feel is wrong, biased, flawed, or dishonest.

After many years (25) of dealing with the climate variability (former “climate change”, former “global warming”, etc) I have come to realize that the present hype on Arctic melting (the subject of this topic that developed into glaciers), and everything related to the catastrophic predictions about global warming is based on assumptions called “GCM” or General Circulation Models, or computerized climate simulations.

And of course, there must be a reason for the hoax, and that reason has 2 well identified faces: Money and Power, and others not fully acknowledged by the general public: Geopolitics conductive to neocolonialist policies driven and based on Malthusian philosophies, racism, eugenics, and noogen neurosis. (Viktor Frankl, remember?)

Is there a conspiracy? Not necessarily. Just a general agreement that going along and dancing at the music played by a band onboard of the “greenhouse industry bandwagon”, money will pour from the sky in the form of government research money (grants, subsidies, etc). Scientists have discovered that if they want money (they must feed their children) they must first scare the public and then those ignorant politicians.

And as politicians believe that science and scientists can provide answers to all their questions on public policies and perceived risk and threats, if they have been scared enough by scaremongers, politicians will provide funding, laws, and regulations that are the heaven of bureaucrats, and delight of crooked scientists.

A friend of mine, a well known and respected scientist once wrote to me telling about what he felt about the greenhouse hoax, and the part about computer modeling (the foundation of the Global Warming Hoax) that gives a real picture of the issue:

“Adding to the confusion are the computer models. These are basically great big computer games, called simulations. Each game, and there are many, starts with a version of the earth's climate system. This may include the atmosphere, clouds, oceans, polar icecaps, sun, forests, and humans, each represented in a myriad of different ways. Each model of climate is like a fortress within which an endless series of scenarios can be played out.”

”Given a basic game, one can try different factors to see what happens. People use these climate games to try to figure out why the temperature has gone up and down, and up again, and what it might do in the future. Extreme scenarios are often used, to try to make the effect of a given factor stand out. For example, in the last 150 years the CO2 level has increased by just about 30% but modelers look at future increases of 300% or more, ten times reality.”

”Unfortunately the results of playing these climate computer games with extreme scenarios are often reported as facts about the earth and our future climate. The reality is that, as with any computer game, a great deal is possible that is not realistic. This is especially true given that we really do not understand why the climate is behaving as it is. We do not know why the earth has warmed and cooled, so we cannot predict the future. We do not know which game to believe.”

So it goes, people is being scared by the media -- an excellent accomplice that look for scandals, higher TV ratings, increased newspapers and magazine sales -- and everybody is kept in an “alienated” state of mind (alienate comes from Alien, (foreign, strange), in turn from “the other”, “the outside”.

It means that people is alert to external stimuli, as animals always are when they are awake. In such condition, man has not the ability to reflect, to reason, to think deep, to analyze problems and information because he’s distracted by the neurosis he’s has been injected by scaremongers. Then, as animals, neurotic people don’t think or reason; they only react instinctively to what they perceive as a danger or a menace. He’s then an easy prey of scaremongers. Scaremongers scare people for they money; people oblige. That is, by the way, the history of Human Tragedy since the Beginning of Times.

valich

11-25-05, 10:28 PM

No one is "getting scared by the media." I read the facts as presented in scientific journals and clearly see that there is cause for concern to avoid a trajedy. History is filled with such errors of people not heeding the warnings and then suffering the consequences (Hitler and WWII?, the Space Shuttle disaster, 9/11, the recent outbreak of the Avian Flu?).

Ophiolite

11-26-05, 11:38 AM

Edufer, hoax is an emotive word. You are simply pushing an agenda under the guise of being objective. I find that objectionable.

guthrie

11-27-05, 06:01 AM

Hey Edufer! A while ago I typed your name into google. TO your credit you dont hide who you are, so I found a page in which you said you took DDT since it had anti-cancer properties. But I cant find any more information on said properties other than the one small study you linked to. Seeing as several distant acquianatnces have died this year od cancer, I was wondering if you still take DDT and have any more up to date information on its possible anti-cancer uses.

duendy

11-27-05, 06:45 AM

Confucious, he say: careful when taking pill that stops head falling off, you dont lose your legs!
legs!

URI

11-27-05, 02:37 PM

>> the catastrophic predictions about global warming is based on assumptions called “GCM” or General Circulation Models, or computerized climate simulations. >>

GIGA, who programs the computers ?

>> we really do not understand why the climate is behaving as it is >>

Yes so true... Co2 is a negligible ingredient

Water vapour is the driver of the atmosphere.... and when its level recedes due to a liquid water/oil interface all over the Earth's surface,,,,, this something the Earth has never seen before... it is very hard to predict the future here, other than a general drying, and ice melting......

Ultimately if the oil layer is thick enough and stays long enough, desert conditions must prevail.

valich

11-27-05, 09:40 PM

I don't understand what you refer to as the water/oil interface. Are you talking ground level? Certainly not covering the entire Earth and oceans?

The Kyoto Protocol states that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, and chlorofluorocarbons) are causing the earth's atmosphere to heat up:

"The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth; carbon dioxide, which causes between 9-26%; and ozone, which causes between 3-7%."

Percent increases since 1750:
Carbon dioxide: 31%
Methane: 150%
Nitrous oxide: 16%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

"In 1996, in a paper in Nature entitled "A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere", Benjamin D. Santer et al. wrote: "The observed spatial patterns of temperature change in the free atmosphere from 1963 to 1987 are similar to those predicted by state-of-the-art climate models incorporating various combinations of changes in carbon dioxide, anthropogenic sulphate aerosol and stratospheric ozone concentrations. The degree of pattern similarity between models and observations increases through this period."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

Also:
"Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties", Soon W et al., 2001, Climate Research 18(3).

"Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide", Soon W et al., 1999, Climate Research 13(2).

"Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?" Lindzen RS, 1997, PNAS 94(16).