Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Melting of mountain glaciers is accelerating

Mountain glaciers are retreating three times faster than they were in the 1980s, says the World Glacier Monitoring Service. On average, they lost about 66 centimetres in depth in 2005, according to the latest report from the UN-affiliated body, released on 30 January. This loss rate is 1.6 times more than the annual average for the 1990s and three times the 1980s average. While the rate of change is certainly alarming, it is not a surprise, says Michael Zemp of WGMS. He says it fits in with the accelerating trend of the past 25 years, and simply serves to "make it sharper". The truly worrying observation, he says, comes when the past 150 years are analysed in the context of the past 10,000 years of glacial history. Mountain glaciers reached their maximum extent for 10,000 years in 1850. But since then they have lost 50% of their area and retreated to their minimum extent for 10,000 years. For the full story Click Here .

Must be part of the solar system warming.

Really it doesn't prove anything, and least of all, man made global warming.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=eabbe10d-3891-41eb-9ee1-a59b71743bec

interesting read, if your want to be entertained. this quote is entertaining but not at all usefull in understanding the current debate on "global warming"
"Rahmstorf says there are so many possible factors and feedback mechanisms that affect sea level that it is almost impossible to derive a meaningful model of future rises from purely physical modelling. Instead, he uses a method similar to that used for calculating tide tables."
http://environment.newscientist.com/arti...celerating.html

so i gather he is saying there are so many variables to look at i will not use any of them .

more "However, the strongest conclusion of the new work, he says, is that uncertainties in sea level rise predictions are far greater than expected."

I wonder if Rahmstorf is certain of the uncertainties ?
Or that there are just to many uncertainties ?

"Doesn't prove anything"

Bmax, certainly, to goodness, the vanishing Glaciers SUGGEST something? And the consequences of what is being suggested are severe and species-threatening? Or, in your view, Humanity is "Special" and cannot possibly go extinct?

What are you, a Real Estate Agent?

Wolfman,
Please leave off with the insults. This is a Science forum; please respect your fellow human beings.

Amaranth

AR II, you are absolutely right. No one has the right to call somebody else a Realtor. I apologize.

Selling Global Warming seems to even harder than selling Darwinism (do we have a forum for that too?). It's taken 2000 scientists a few years to come to the conclusion that human beings are at least largely responsible for the climate changes. I suppose, if we feel inclined to, we can ignore them and try to analyse the whole thing ourselves; and when that's done do it again, just to be sure; and again - by which time we may find that the process is irreversible, and dear ol' planet Earth is on it's way to becoming another Venus.

redewenur wrote:
"Selling Global Warming seems to even harder than selling Darwinism"

There is a huge difference. Global warming is indisputable. Darwinism does not exist and never has except in the minds of those fighting with their last breaths to pretend they are direct descendants of Noah.

Ok DA Morgan, "global warming is indisputable" Maybe if you break the word down a bit it becomes in dispute able. But it seems it is of no use to you as your mind is closed. Someone who says it is indisputable has stopped being scientific. If you remember back to about this time last year we had over 200 scientist coming to the conclusion that the world was about to run out of Oil. Surely we remember the thousand of media articles backed with science re "The end of Oil". funny how that topic is off the radar now the price of oil is down 30% from its peak. remain open to new ideas. Oh yes, those of us old enough remember the 70s when the world was running out of oil. And then there are those who do the research and have read of the social mania in the 70s over oil. well we have a social mania today on Climate Change.

There are many who would reverse your claim, and say that Darwinism is indisputable, and global warming is a myth. Whilst there's strong evidence for both, wouldn't you say that the evidence supporting Darwin's evolution theory has been thoroughly documented over the past century? Those who are well qualified in related subject matter vigorously support Darwinism. I gather that you are not likewise qualified. Perhaps I?m not giving you credit for a sense humour, DA.

fvf ... global warming is indisputable. The relative contributions caused by human activity and natural cycles may be in dispute but fact that that the planet is warming is simple physics.

Fact 1:
Polar ice is melting. Ice does not melt unless energy is applied.

Fact 2:
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising. CO2 traps energy and it is a violation of the laws of physics for CO2 to not trap energy and it is a violation of the laws of physics for that energy, once trapped, to not cause warming.

If you've got some facts by all means put them up here using simple declarative sentences.

If I disagree I will challenge you to support them by demonstrating a link to a publication I can find at the University of Washington library or a website that does not belong to a special interest group.

Now if you still think the facts are in dispute ... fire away.

redewenur ... how can Darwinism be in dispute when there is no such thing?

Is relativity referred to as Einsteinism? Is quantum mechanics referred to as Bohrism? Is the theory of an asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs referred to as Alvarezism?

Darwin was a scientist who proposed an explanation for observations of nature. He did not start a new religion. He did not ask that his observations and conclusions be accepted as an article of faith. He did not proclaim himself a spokesperson for the almighty and not one biology teacher on the planet has ever said "This is true because it is what is written in a book."

"DarwinISM" is the invention of religious zealots.

Hello everyone,

Fact 1:
Polar ice is actually gaining in mass.

Fact 2:
CO2 only absorbs one type of infrared radiation. CO2 absorbs this radiation when it collides with other molecules, then releases what little heat it managed to maintain, higher in the atmosphere under different atmospheric pressure. The laws of Thermodynamics state that CO2 can not retain this heat. In other words?Heat can not be ?trapped.? Try using about 100 ppm of CO2 as insulation in our walls. (lol) It is physically impossible for 100 ppm of CO2 to produce enough energy to heat the entire planet. The CO2 will start to cool to ambient temperatures the second after it heats. The two oxygen atoms offer almost no insulation for the one carbon atom to retain the heat.

We need to realize that ?global warming? is also happening on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and Triton, and maybe others that we haven?t noticed. Maybe the term should be ?solar warming.?

The IPCC has now admitted that the 2001 report was bogus. They admit they knew the numbers were wrong and never should have been used.

Plate tectonics are the cause of climate change. India used to be connected to Antarctica?Just think about the climate changes recorded in India?s past as it moved from the South Pole, across the equator to its current position. 10,000 years ago, Egypt was a tropical paradise. Climate change has, and will, always occur. The earth has never had a constant climate.

If we pay attention to Gore?s movie, we?ll see he is talking about the effects of the ?atmospheric brown cloud? and not CO2. It?s a shame that so many of us missed the main point of the movie. Here?s a NASA link. Funny, notice the third picture, of China. This picture is proof that sea level has lowered over the years?HMMM.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/brown_cloud.html


?Darwinism? or ?evolutionists? are a cult of people that run around claiming that the theory of evolution proves there is no god. But, the theory of evolution needs a god for life to have started. The theory of evolution avoids the origin of life. Evolution (change) is real?But the theory of evolution is not. The Cambrian Explosion is proof enough. (My opinion)

Fact:
American Heritage Dictionary ?
Dar?win?ism (d?r'wĭ-nĭz'əm)
n. A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.
End fact :-)

I would stick to the LAW of Biogenesis, not the theory of evolution. The law of biogenesis was firmly established in science long before the contrivance of modern evolutionary theories.

Abiogenesis is the theory of life from non living matter?or, the start of life. Some claim this theory is no longer valid, but the Miller-Urey experiment proved that amino acids cam form under certain conditions. Amino acids are the building blocks of life. Amino acids are everywhere. Even in space, and in meteorites. I?m sure that the amino acids that started life on Earth simply fell from space. Thousands of tons of organic materials from deep space called micrometeorites, or Brownlee particles, fall on the Earth every year.

The Earth has been warming for over 10,000 years, when the last glacial period ended. We had a brief mini ice age that ended in 1850. Why do all of the GWer?s insist on using charts that start at the end of an ice age? Naturally, the data will show ?warming? from 1850 to present.

You know, I believe that the Earth?s magnetic field has something to do with everything that is wrong today. The magnetic field has been weakening right along with global warming, soaring cancer rates, the moving magnetic poles, stronger geomagnetic storms, even Bermuda triangle phenomenon could be associated with the magnetic field. (My opinion) See this link and think for yourself.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm

Peace

DA, I have no bone to pick with you over the issue of the nomenclature. If you choose not to call it Darwinism, I'm sure you'll be tolerated. I'll stick with it if you don't mind too much, since it's long since found it's way into common usage. There's really no sense in getting hung up about it. Not all 'isms' are connected with religion.

Max wrote:
"Fact 1:
Polar ice is actually gaining in mass."

Do you really believe this? Based on what? Certainly not on this:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06315_sea_ice.html
or this
www.nasa.gov/pdf/157359main_Comiso_GRL06_AbrChArcWntrRevf1.pdf
or this
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-107
or this
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2006/2006091323081.html

Max wrote:
Fact 2:
CO2 only absorbs one type of infrared radiation.

Do you really believe this? If you do it would seem you are the only person on the planet that does.

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,4338075350454b5452554d5f7375626b6174092d09436172626f6e2b64696f786964655f434f32093a095350454b5452554d5f6b6174092d09436172626f6e2d6f7869646573093a095350454b5452554d5f73746f66666e616d65092d09636172626f6e2b64696f78696465/Spectra/Catalogue_1m4.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ZhPS...21..893M
http://naftali.aos.wisc.edu/wiki/index.php?title=Algorithms
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

But then why should anyone pay attention to those dolts at NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, and Harvard University when we have an anonymous poster named Max to set us straight.

No, not those sites. Try any of these...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...G=Google+Search



Your links seem to agree with me.



You mean Soloman and the group? Well, they were wrong about CFC's, and now admit they knew the numbers they used for fear mongering about CO2 were wrong. This means that all of the websites that use info from the 2001 report are wrong. Or, the NASA scientist who admitted to knowingly using high numbers in his Antarctica report? We need to stay away from using links that use data from the 2001 report. The IPCC has admitted the truth. The 2007 report is out, and has much lower numbers.


I like to discuss this topic, but I can't play the link game...too many bogus sites that use info from the 2001 report.

You're a mod. Please tell me what I need to do to remove my "anonymous" status. I just joined...give me a chance. lol!

Peace

Max do you see a problem here?

I posted links to the most reputable government agencies and universities on the planet. You posted a link to google. But to be fair I followed your google link and only one item on the first page was to a site worth more than the cost of a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

I don't get my science news from Paris Hilton and you shouldn't either. Go to the sites with credibility ... NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, etc. and you will find a very different story.

I teach at the University of Washington and can tell you, for an absolute fact, there isn't a single person studying climatology here who would agree with the statement you made: Not one!

What you have done with your google query is guarantee a prejudicial result. Suppose one were to take your inquery and slant it the other way replacing the word "gaining" with "losing." Would you consider those results equally valid? Why? Why not? Try it. If you want to be a scientist you MUST be objective. Try these queries instead:

"Arctic ice cover"
"Arctic ice coverage"
"Polar ice coverage"

and let the "pro" and "con" show themselves without prejudice.

When you do you will find articles such as this:
Greenland ice cap may be melting at triple speed
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9717&feedId=online-news_rss20
containing statements such as this:
"The Greenland Ice Sheet shrank at a rate of about 239 cubic kilometres per year from April 2002 to November 2005, a team from the University of Texas at Austin, US, found. In the last 18 months of the measurements, ice melting has appeared to accelerate, particularly in southeastern Greenland."

You can't have it both ways. Even the President of the United States has now acknowledged the reality of global warming in his 2007 State of the Union speech.

That pretty much leaves anyone still arguing the point looking a bit like a member of the flat-earth society.

The planet is round ... climb aboard for a spin.

Da Morgan,
I'm not into politics at all. I love science, not politics. Honestly. Let's try to leave politics and religion out of this science conversation.

All of the links I have posted have been NASA links. There is no need to suggest that I leave bogus links...that's a desperate tactic. I left the google list because no matter which link I chose, you would play the "discredit the link" game...I'll let you chose your own link. I don't get my science from bogus websites that use the false data from the 2001 report, but to be fair, I did read your links...did you?
I love this link, thanks...

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Please read it. Scroll down to the part about the linear projections. I love it. Thanks again!

Congrats on the teaching job. I work for a chemical company developing new refrigerants to replace the HFC's that are 10,000 times more powerful greenhouse gases than CO2. I would love to discuss this with you on a civil, at least college level...not a C&P from out dated websites and political assault level.
Here's a link you might like...

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news-print.cfm?release=2006-112

I agree with leaving politics and religion out of it.

I didn't suggest your links were bogus. I stated flat out, in plain English, that they have zero credibility on a topic of serious science.

I posted links to actual research conducted by actual researchers with PhD's who are subject-matter experts. Take for example the statement by the researchers at the University of Texas at Austin.
Are they wrong? If so show me a link to peer reviewed research the argues the point that they are wrong. A link to "brneurosci.org" is meaningless if, as you said in your first paragraph ... you are interested in serious science.

I've no argument with the statement about linear projections. But then again I've no reason to believe that this argument isn't bogus as the PhD's I know are remarkably intelligent people.

I'd be happy to discuss refrigerants with you but I will hold you to a standard rather higher than that of the links you have posted so far.

PS: I like the jpl.nasa link you posted. Did you read it? If not here are the salient points:

1. "Short-Term ... 'Speed Bump'"

2. "... the decline is a fraction of the total ocean warming over the previous 48 years. "

3. "The recent cooling episode suggests sea level should have actually decreased in the past two years. Despite this, sea level has continued to rise. This may mean that sea level rise has recently shifted from being mostly caused by warming to being dominated by melting."

Global warming is not about one specific geographic area or one specific year or one specific storm. It is rather the determination of climatology and meteorology experts from all countries looking at serious science covering a very large number of years.

I note you ignored my point about your search criterion being biased. I note you ignored my point about the equally low value of biasing in the other direction. You are conversing with someone who not only teaches at a university but has spent more than a few hours at Stanford and CalTech and who has lectured at NASA and both Lawrence Livermore and Argonne National Laboratories. If you wish serious science from me ... then anticipate that I expect the same from you.

As I have made a promise to Kate ... if you don't post serious science ... I will ignore your response.

Yes I did, and you're welcome. I thought you would like it. Now, if I had cared to continue a discussion with you, we could have had an agreeable link to debate. This is how civil a discussion should take place.


No, I addressed that.


No, I took the comment for what it was worth. In fact, you ignored most of my post and only want to debate two very small aspects of my first post.


Then why did you mention them. Republicans and democrats are the same people to me. Sick people that insist on manufacturing hate. Republicans bankrupt the country and democrats tax us to no end. It's a game, and they are quite good at fooling people. Religion is a personal issue and there is no benefit to science with insulting religion.


That is an outright lie. Once again, I will repeat myself...I have only left NASA links. Your desperate attempts to fool the few that read this forum (yourself) are obvious. Now, you're even trying to discredit your own recommended "brneurosci.org" link. I guess the google link blew a fuse in your brain, and you didn't know how to discredit such a wealth of scientific information. Your opinion of a link is meaningless. The content of the link is all that is relevant. Again...I don't play the link game, and I could tell that you do, so I left the list for you to choose from hoping to avoid this link game nonsense. I'm a busy man, and have no time to search for links that you will accept. I have no time to play the "discredit the link" game with you. There is nothing to be gained with the link game. Especially, if you only post a link without reference to what you are talking about.

If you like UT links, this one states the ice gain/loss is yet to be determined. But you are completely sold on loss, without evidence.
http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2002/polarice.html

Another from Ohio State
www-bprc.mps.ohio-state.edu/rsl/documents/science.ppt

A .gov site...
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

Three links for you to tear apart...have fun. I?m through. No,I didn?t bother to read them. I accept that both are occurring.

I guess we'll have to disagree with the statement about linear projections. I have a HUGE problem with it. I'll let you try to figure out why.

Here is a link to an article with the IPCC admitting that they knew the numbers were wrong in the 2001 report, and said nothing for 6 years. Many scientists took these studies as being accurate. Many websites are based on the bogus 2001 report. I'm sorry, but it is the truth. You claim to be a teacher. Did you teach from the 2001 report? LOL. Please read the last few paragraphs on page two, and also pay close attention to this statement.

"The first chapter, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries," then "The 12-page summary for policymakers will be edited in secret word-by-word by government officials for several days in Paris next week and released to the public on Feb. 2."

Do you not have alarms going off? Secretly edited word by word, BY BUREAUCRATS? Do you not see something wrong here? Do you really want science reports that are edited in secret by government officials?

And the closing statement...
"I think probably the low value (in the 2001 report) and also the high value came from models that probably had mistakes in them," Trenberth recently told the Rocky Mountain News of Denver. "The confidence in those numbers was probably not that good, and they probably never should have been used in the way in which they were used."

"Never should have been used in the way in which they were used!"


WOW! I agree.
Thousands of website used the bogus 2001 report and are now discredited. The internet is full of pseudo-science and they let it happen. Just think of all the wasted work, and those poor scientists that stood behind the 2001 report. So much for their credibility. Why anyone would listen to them, after backing the CFC scam and now the confession of CO2 misinformation, is beyond me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16760730/#storyContinued

If you would like, I can give you another link to a climate modeling scientist from Scripps that also speaks of how their models are inaccurate. I know you love Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Roger Revell was Gore's favorite teacher. Here it is.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/somerville.html

Also, I won't fall for the alarmist language. Websites that use language such as..."highly likely, could happen, probably, appeared to accelerate, could reach" Been there, done that. That's bad science.

I have two EPA licenses, obtained in 1992 and started in this business in 1980. The company I work for produces CFC's, and also developed the HFC's that do not destroy ozone, and have less GWP. I understand (more than most) chemical reactions with the atmosphere. It's my job. Here's what the IPCC says. Read this and tell me why everyone is more worried about CO2 than anything else is.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gwp.html

If you are serious about human impact,this is another good read.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/other_gases.html

Oh, NASA and NOAA all have an agenda. Funding. Drew Shindell of NASA just admitted at the hearing that he knew of unrealistically high numbers being used in the reports. He also admitted they wanted to alarm people with his Antarctica report, because his funding decreased. The IPCC was wrong about CFC's just like all of the real scientists said they were, but they still managed to make billions off of the industry from impact fees, licensing, fines...They even named a glacier after the NOAA scientist that did the CFC research. They now admit to fear mongering with CO2 for 6 years with false data. The IPCC has zero credibility in my books.

(FYI) The Union of Concerned Scientists? Great group! What does it take to become a member of the UCS? $25 and no education required. $35 will get you a free mouse pad. Join today.
https://secure.ga3.org/03/Join_UCS?qp_source=wacpromogooglefr

Who has actually read the Kyoto Protocol? Please tell me how selling carbon credits will do anything other than make the IPCC scientists rich.

You should really look at the real environmental problems instead of focusing on CO2. Humans are doing a lot of damage to the planet, and CO2 is the least of our problems. CO2 is the basis of all food on the planet. Do you really want to starve the planet into another ice age? (GWer's logic, not mine) Read up on the Atmospheric Brown Cloud. Pick any website that you feel is credible.

Hey, did you realize that we didn't have one hurricane hit the US in 2006? Not one. In fact, it was the mildest hurricane season recorded in years. What happened to the predictions that said we would have a very active season in 2006? It must be the cooling oceans. Remember all of the fear mongering after Katrina? Remember how they used Katrina and the 2006 predictions to DOUBLE home insurance rates. I?m sure a federal carbon tax will help...fund wars. WAKE-UP!

It's easy to see the limits of ones education when they use terms like "round earth, flat earth." and such. Not too many people thought the earth was flat. (Until the modern flat earth society...lol) Even Plato knew the Earth was a sphere. Here, read and learn?and stop getting your science from Washington Irving's fantasy.

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

You know, I would mention simple facts like "where are we going to get the fuel to force CO2 levels to double." We have used up about half of our fossil fuels and only added about 100 ppm CO2. Isn't it safe to say the other half will only add another 100 ppm? Where are we supposed to get the fuels to reach the alarmists claims of +-750 ppm? It won't happen due to human impact. Why didn't the runaway greenhouse effect happen when the Earth was at 7000 ppm CO2? Why didn't the temps rise when CO2 levels were at 7000 ppm?

How much research has gone into the earthquakes in Indonesia? You do realize that the 2004 earthquake raised the floor of the ocean so high that 10 or 12 new islands emerged. (going off of my memory) This displaced a lot...A LOT of water. Where did it go? The tsunami that followed also washed away entire islands and coast lines. How much water did all of that soil and rock displace? You know it had to raise the sea level. What about the millions of gallons of water that is being displaced due to the lava from the Mauna Loa volcano? Not to mention, the hundreds of underwater volcanoes. How much water do they displace? Erosion? No, the alarmists will blame the rising sea level on global warming and runoff from polar ice melt. I would wonder if this recent ocean cooling was due to the earthquake and tsunami displacing the cooler water from the depths. The timeline fits with the observed cooling. Hmmm. Just a passing thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Driving_forces_of_plate_motion

Another new island in Tonga. It had to have displaced water.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17462

How about a man-made island? This had to have displaced water.
http://geography.about.com/b/a/132077.htm
.
I must admit, that picture of China that shows lower sea levels really has me confused. Could plate tectonics be lifting Asia, and be a driving factor in sea level change?

Do you want to terraform Mars? Forget it, it will never happen. The magnetic field on Mars is too weak to sustain life. Not to mention...the gravity is too weak to create an atmosphere and all gases would be lost to space.

About your comment,
"It is rather the determination of climatology and meteorology experts from all countries looking at serious science covering a very large number of years."
I agree. Do you know any of them? I do. My father is a very well known meteorologist. He co-founded what became a worldwide weather company in 1958. In fact, he has been credited with being a pioneer in the field. They now have offices in over 180 countries, and have hundreds of meteorologists/climatologists working for them. He retired last year, but he worked with NASA on a daily basis. His opinion of CO2 forced GW? Junk science fueled by politics. (Not his exact words, but close enough)

I hope you gain some insight before you delete this post. LOL

Anyway, I'm off to the real science forums. I was looking for a new forum and found this pseudo-science a go-go nonsense. Have fun with it. LOL!

Peace, and chill out. I think your temper may be causing GW.

Yes I did, and you're welcome. I thought you would like it. Now, if I had cared to continue a discussion with you, we could have had an agreeable link to debate. This is how civil a discussion should take place.


No, I addressed that.


No, I took the comment for what it was worth. In fact, you ignored most of my post and only want to debate two very small aspects of my first post.


Then why did you mention them. Republicans and democrats are the same people to me. Sick people that insist on manufacturing hate. Republicans bankrupt the country and democrats tax us to no end. It's a game, and they are quite good at fooling people. Religion is a personal issue and there is no benefit to science with insulting religion.


That is an outright lie. Once again, I will repeat myself...I have only left NASA links. Your desperate attempts to fool the few that read this forum (yourself) are obvious. Now, you're even trying to discredit your own recommended "brneurosci.org" link. I guess the google link blew a fuse in your brain, and you didn't know how to discredit such a wealth of scientific information. Your opinion of a link is meaningless. The content of the link is all that is relevant. Again...I don't play the link game, and I could tell that you do, so I left the list for you to choose from hoping to avoid this link game nonsense. I'm a busy man, and have no time to search for links that you will accept. I have no time to play the "discredit the link" game with you. There is nothing to be gained with the link game. Especially, if you only post a link without reference to what you are talking about.

If you like UT links, this one states the ice gain/loss is yet to be determined. But you are completely sold on loss, without evidence.
http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2002/polarice.html

Another from Ohio State
www-bprc.mps.ohio-state.edu/rsl/documents/science.ppt

A .gov site...
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

Three links for you to tear apart...have fun. I?m through. No,I didn?t bother to read them. I accept that both are occurring.

I guess we'll have to disagree with the statement about linear projections. I have a HUGE problem with it. I'll let you try to figure out why.

Here is a link to an article with the IPCC admitting that they knew the numbers were wrong in the 2001 report, and said nothing for 6 years. Many scientists took these studies as being accurate. Many websites are based on the bogus 2001 report. I'm sorry, but it is the truth. You claim to be a teacher. Did you teach from the 2001 report? LOL. Please read the last few paragraphs on page two, and also pay close attention to this statement.

"The first chapter, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries," then "The 12-page summary for policymakers will be edited in secret word-by-word by government officials for several days in Paris next week and released to the public on Feb. 2."

Do you not have alarms going off? Secretly edited word by word, BY BUREAUCRATS? Do you not see something wrong here? Do you really want science reports that are edited in secret by government officials?

And the closing statement...
"I think probably the low value (in the 2001 report) and also the high value came from models that probably had mistakes in them," Trenberth recently told the Rocky Mountain News of Denver. "The confidence in those numbers was probably not that good, and they probably never should have been used in the way in which they were used."

"Never should have been used in the way in which they were used!"


WOW! I agree.
Thousands of website used the bogus 2001 report and are now discredited. The internet is full of pseudo-science and they let it happen. Just think of all the wasted work, and those poor scientists that stood behind the 2001 report. So much for their credibility. Why anyone would listen to them, after backing the CFC scam and now the confession of CO2 misinformation, is beyond me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16760730/#storyContinued

If you would like, I can give you another link to a climate modeling scientist from Scripps that also speaks of how their models are inaccurate. I know you love Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Roger Revell was Gore's favorite teacher. Here it is.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/somerville.html

Also, I won't fall for the alarmist language. Websites that use language such as..."highly likely, could happen, probably, appeared to accelerate, could reach" Been there, done that. That's bad science.

I have two EPA licenses, obtained in 1992 and started in this business in 1980. The company I work for produces CFC's, and also developed the HFC's that do not destroy ozone, and have less GWP. I understand (more than most) chemical reactions with the atmosphere. It's my job. Here's what the IPCC says. Read this and tell me why everyone is more worried about CO2 than anything else is.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gwp.html

If you are serious about human impact,this is another good read.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/other_gases.html

Oh, NASA and NOAA all have an agenda. Funding. Drew Shindell of NASA just admitted at the hearing that he knew of unrealistically high numbers being used in the reports. He also admitted they wanted to alarm people with his Antarctica report, because his funding decreased. The IPCC was wrong about CFC's just like all of the real scientists said they were, but they still managed to make billions off of the industry from impact fees, licensing, fines...They even named a glacier after the NOAA scientist that did the CFC research. They now admit to fear mongering with CO2 for 6 years with false data. The IPCC has zero credibility in my books.

(FYI) The Union of Concerned Scientists? Great group! What does it take to become a member of the UCS? $25 and no education required. $35 will get you a free mouse pad. Join today.
https://secure.ga3.org/03/Join_UCS?qp_source=wacpromogooglefr

Who has actually read the Kyoto Protocol? Please tell me how selling carbon credits will do anything other than make the IPCC scientists rich.

You should really look at the real environmental problems instead of focusing on CO2. Humans are doing a lot of damage to the planet, and CO2 is the least of our problems. CO2 is the basis of all food on the planet. Do you really want to starve the planet into another ice age? (GWer's logic, not mine) Read up on the Atmospheric Brown Cloud. Pick any website that you feel is credible.

Hey, did you realize that we didn't have one hurricane hit the US in 2006? Not one. In fact, it was the mildest hurricane season recorded in years. What happened to the predictions that said we would have a very active season in 2006? It must be the cooling oceans. Remember all of the fear mongering after Katrina? Remember how they used Katrina and the 2006 predictions to DOUBLE home insurance rates. I?m sure a federal carbon tax will help...fund wars. WAKE-UP!

It's easy to see the limits of ones education when they use terms like "round earth, flat earth." and such. Not too many people thought the earth was flat. (Until the modern flat earth society...lol) Even Plato knew the Earth was a sphere. Here, read and learn?and stop getting your science from Washington Irving's fantasy.

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

You know, I would mention simple facts like "where are we going to get the fuel to force CO2 levels to double." We have used up about half of our fossil fuels and only added about 100 ppm CO2. Isn't it safe to say the other half will only add another 100 ppm? Where are we supposed to get the fuels to reach the alarmists claims of +-750 ppm? It won't happen due to human impact. Why didn't the runaway greenhouse effect happen when the Earth was at 7000 ppm CO2? Why didn't the temps rise when CO2 levels were at 7000 ppm?

How much research has gone into the earthquakes in Indonesia? You do realize that the 2004 earthquake raised the floor of the ocean so high that 10 or 12 new islands emerged. (going off of my memory) This displaced a lot...A LOT of water. Where did it go? The tsunami that followed also washed away entire islands and coast lines. How much water did all of that soil and rock displace? You know it had to raise the sea level. What about the millions of gallons of water that is being displaced due to the lava from the Mauna Loa volcano? Not to mention, the hundreds of underwater volcanoes. How much water do they displace? Erosion? No, the alarmists will blame the rising sea level on global warming and runoff from polar ice melt. I would wonder if this recent ocean cooling was due to the earthquake and tsunami displacing the cooler water from the depths. The timeline fits with the observed cooling. Hmmm. Just a passing thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Driving_forces_of_plate_motion

Another new island in Tonga. It had to have displaced water.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17462

How about a man-made island? This had to have displaced water.
http://geography.about.com/b/a/132077.htm
.
I must admit, that picture of China that shows lower sea levels really has me confused. Could plate tectonics be lifting Asia, and be a driving factor in sea level change?

Do you want to terraform Mars? Forget it, it will never happen. The magnetic field on Mars is too weak to sustain life. Not to mention...the gravity is too weak to create an atmosphere and all gases would be lost to space.

About your comment,
"It is rather the determination of climatology and meteorology experts from all countries looking at serious science covering a very large number of years."
I agree. Do you know any of them? I do. My father is a very well known meteorologist. He co-founded what became a worldwide weather company in 1958. In fact, he has been credited with being a pioneer in the field. They now have offices in over 180 countries, and have hundreds of meteorologists/climatologists working for them. He retired last year, but he worked with NASA on a daily basis. His opinion of CO2 forced GW? Junk science fueled by politics. (Not his exact words, but close enough)

I hope you gain some insight before you delete this post. LOL

Anyway, I'm off to the real science forums. I was looking for a new forum and found this pseudo-science a go-go nonsense. Have fun with it. LOL!

Peace, and chill out. I think your temper may be causing GW.

Trying to be objective I took one of your links and followed it:

Here's what you wrote:
"Another new island in Tonga. It had to have displaced water.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17462"

Your statement is: "It had to have displaced water."

For those who haven't check the link ... here is its essence:
"In August 2006, travelers yachting through the Tonga Islands discovered pumice floating on the ocean surface. The pumice resulted from an underwater eruption of the marine volcano Home Reef. Although the pumice eventually floated away, the new volcanic island could still be seen by satellites in the fall of 2006."

If your point is that one small island in the middle of the Pacific, after millions of years, finally broke the surface I agree ... some water was displaced. Relative to the size of the Pacific Ocean ... about a teaspoon's worth.

The relevance to the melting of mountain glaciers, the topic of this thread, escapes me. So you are on your own.

I think people need to stop trying to convince other people that we are without a doubt responsible for global warming, but take the approach that we MIGHT or probably are responsible for it. Cause for me, if there is even a chance it's our fault then why not look for ways to help? Besides, oil is going to run out and even if you don't think emissions are a cause of global warming there is no denying they contribute to health issues. On the other hand, if anyone says they are 100% sure that global warming is the fault of humans then they are either lying or following their party blindly. I've been researching this subject up and down and it is not cut and dry.
We're all on the same team. Even NASCAR is looking to turn to biofuels in the next couple years. We have to be open to the fact that we may be responsible for global warming but we don't need to demand others to be convinced. Far lefters, change is a process and it has started, be patient. It seems that there are some people on here that are so far left they're close minded to baby steps. And right wingers, you can't dismiss global warming as a hoax, it is deffinitely possible and it doesn't take a whole lot of research to realise that. Now let's be one nation move forward.

I'm not aware of anyone who is a serious climatologist who claims that "we" are 100% responsible.

Except perhaps if stated as "we are 100% responsible for doing essentially nothing to preserve the climate that has made possible human progress in the last 10,000 years."

The question of to what verifiable percentage we may be responsible is a red herring designed to keep us from doing something about it.

What exactly do you want people to do?

If I may - We (the Human Race) could get out of this mess, but it's a long shot. We need to educate the next generation to learn from our mistakes. Step One - Cease exponential population growth. Unfortunately Western Society is sick, and Third World Society is licking their proverbial chops at the chance to "catch up" to what we have taken for granted for years, Material Wealth.

I don't see us lasting very much longer.

I see us lasting a lot longer Wolfman. I just see the quality of life for our descendants dipping strongly into negative territory.

What do I want people to do jamc? Lets start the list:

1. Love their children more than their personal creature comforts.

2. Demand of their governments concrete international steps to decrease the creation of greenhouse gases. And if their governments don't act within months throw the rascals out.

The steps must be international or those that don't go along with them gain a competitive advantage. So nations that refuse to join in should be boycotted.

3. Stop reproducing. That is the one thing everyone alive can do to help solve the problem. No excuses. No need for government intervention. No need for laws.

4. Publicly scorn and condemn those who are selfish, whether nations or individuals, who behave contrary to the best interests of the majority of people on this planet.

When the balance tips to a planet with too few people, too much food, too much wealth, and CO2 levels decreasing to 1750s levels, etc. let me know and we can reconsider our options.

I'm pessimistic 'cause I've seen so many [censored]-holes in the World. Just one, of many, instances - On Java, I took a trip with some journalists from Sweden to an open pit Mine. It was either diamonds or gold they were after, it was over 30 years ago. Whatever. The authorites wouldn't let us bring our cameras inside. Everything was run by the Government. The Government was led by a Military Dictator named Mohammed Suharto. You'd see these big red concrete Helicoptor pads painted with a big white "S" on the top. They were all over the place, as were big photos of Suharto. They were to remind people that Suharto himself could show up any time, any place, you better be good. OK, the mine. It was like nothing I've ever seen. As big across as ten football fields. The sides were steep, with steps cut out of the bank. Thousands of these little Indonesian peasants were climbing, like ants, down to the bottom of the pit, and then back up again. Accoding to whoever you spoke to, there were between 15,000 and 40,000 of these little guys in the pit. Every one of them was either carrying a sack of mud up out of the pit or digging with picks and shovels. There was filthy, muddy water everywhere. You had to figure that landslides were common. Outside the pit there was a shanty town where the workers lived. The kids I went in with were in their 20's, just kids like me. They were laughing and joking on the way out to the mine, but the trip back to Djakarta was deathly quiet.
We, in the West, are vastly, vastly outnumbered by the have-nots in the poor parts of the World. It is they, not us, that will be our collective undoing. But we in the West sure aren't doing much to help the situation.

I haven't seen a mine like that but in the Gambia in 1982 I saw some white powder the locals were usuing as insecticide. Guess what it turned out to be. I'm sure I don't need to tell you. I sometimes wonder if they still use it.

There are a near endless number of these horror stories.

And not to invite a troll but did you also notice the lack of attention paid by those who claim to be leaders and concerned about the welfare of others?

See any first-world politicians?
See any first-world theologians?
See any first-world news photographers?

Judge them by what they do and by what they don't do.
Judge them by their acts not their words.
Judge them harshly.