Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Please cite your references to the last paragraph as being "pure spin". Frankly, your statement is unsupported pure spin.

"...the University of Washington in Seattle, who led the research. ''We found we are certainly not on the worst-case scenario, but the glaciers are speeding up and we see no sign of that stopping.''"

The above statement from the article conflicts with your conclusions from the article. You attempt to imply that Antarctic ice melting cannot contribute to the problems associated with climate warming, when in fact if all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). Of course, all Antarctic ice won't melt, but if even 1/2 a degree warming will make a big difference. Even a little of those 200 feet will cause massive erosion to coastlines and large cities.

I don't know how qualified you are in glaciology, but I rather doubt that your comment about increasing snow deposition has escaped the attention of climate scientists, who in the vast majority agree that the melting is accelerating because of warming, not the opposite that you assert.

 

I make no comments about all Antarctic ice melting. There's a good reason for that and I suggest that you do your own homework.

Hint: look at the height of the Antarctic plateau and its temperature. What is a 2 or 4C temperature rise going to do?

I only bother with this thread out of occasional boredom & amusement. I really don't care what you think of my qualifications or lack thereof.

One thing I can tell from your posting though, you know bugger-all about glaciers. Glaciers do *not* calve because they're melting. If they're melting, they retreat and *stop* calving. This is why I don't bother much.

http://photobucket.com/images/Arguing on the internet/

PDW

 

TRUE and truth is far from the minds of those pushing the climate warming agenda.

When glaciers retreat they are melting, when glaciers speed up there is more snow and ice forming. Which is what happened during the ice age when glaciers pushed down south covering more of N America.

Common sense does not exist with the global warming crowd as it is like a militant religion for them. Truth wont make any difference. In the past and today bloody wars are fought over dogmas regardless of any real truth or facts.

 

For the participants in this thread, most have already been convinced one way or the other about this issue and belaboring points wont alter the mindset. For those who are silently reading, I have contributed a few things in the past here for them to think about. But mostly you will get lost in all the nonsense pumped out here.

 

Here's the difference between me and you. I make absolutely NO claims to understand glaciology, rather I accept the accredited authorities on the subject and refer to their conclusions. Maybe I was lazy in my phrasing, but you can't deny that the vast majority of scientists in this area accept melting, even though there are certainly anomalies as there always will be.

On the other hand, you have stated that there is no melting and argued against global warming (in essence) and then asserted that your opinions are based in "basic glaciology" as if you know more about it than the experts.

 

global warming, faith in the ignorance of experts.

 

This is disgusting. Calling someone an outright liar, in this instance, is appalling. You have gone too far by any standard in civil discourse and should make an apology.

I have seen numerous authorities on this subject stating that warming is accelerating faster, in some cases, than the worst estimates even a few years ago. I imagine Boston will find a stack for you, I'm not going to the trouble. I know most people looking into this forum have read the same things.

You may not accept these reports, but to call someone a liar for referring to them is despicable.

 

Yobarnacle sounds like a young child at a keyboard. In debate class, they teach you to debate rationally instead of yelling liar at people you disagree with

 

Too bad everyone was too busy to listen to the link to the podcast about global warming. Man, it had every one of you to a "T" on there. (It had me too)

 

This is the electronic billboard the Heartland Institute put up along the Eisenhower Expressway, near Chicago.

And this is a quote from the press release they sent out about it:

Who anointed Charles Manson, Fidel Castro, the Unabomber, Osama bin Laden and some nutcase hostage taker as "the leaders of the global warming movement?"

I'd say that puts paid to any claim that the lobbyists at the Heartland Institute are just advocates for scientific objectivity.

They're sleazy hired guns who get paid for bamboozling the public, by clouding legitimate scientific issues and manufacturing bogus scientific 'debate.' When they started, they were funded by the tobacco companies. Nowadays, they get their money from the oil companies instead.

 

An interesting question is, "who funds the heartland institute and why does this funder stand to lose money if people decide global warming is an issue?"

We can be pro or con on this stuff, but that is an awfully loud message against the theory. There has to be something financial behind it.

 

The below charts show actual and predicted sealevel increase and temperature increases.

So whats more offensive. For Boston to lie and say reality is worse than the worst scenarios, or for me to say he's a liar. Here, I PROVE he's a liar. Stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it!


http://www.c3headlines.com/are-oceans-rising/

Oh, doesn't Boston ridicule me practically every post? But you aren't offended Ray. Your double standards are apparent. You don't like what I say so I shouldn't say them. LOL
Typical liberal control freak response!

 

AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHHA and you think Ray knows "buger-all about glacial dynamics, better yet you suggest he go read up a little AAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH ho lly **** I'm falling off my chair over here.

I'd have to conclude you know "diddly squat" about glaciers and are just pushing the same old tired uneducated bunk hoping your talking to the ignorant few who might actually believe that tripe.

when "some" glaciers that contact the ocean melt; and ice melts because of warming temps :idea::idea:, the melt water lubricates the underlying boundary layer, which in "most" circumstances creates less friction. Gravity + less friction and an object on a slope =

anyone

sing it out if you know it

Melting glaciers often speed up under many circumstances and end up not only melting faster because the movement tends to break them up faster but because "they calve more ice"

Some glaciers on the other hand either don't have the mass of ice behind them to drive them forward or don't exist in the kinda topography thats conducive to glacial movement. IE pocket glaciers. Sure those retreat as they melt and generally experience little calving. But claiming that a land locked glaciers lack of calving in some way detracts from the theory of climate shift is ludicrous in the extreme.

Diddly, you gotta compare apples to apples, or is that one really all that hard to understand.

 

I couldn't care less Ray, I'm sure any readers with more than a couple brain cells rubbing together can see right through the trash talk and the ludicrous misrepresentations.

Let him rant, he only proves the point that the type of people who deny climate shift are generally uneducated and will stoop to any depth to try and distract, disrupt and deter any reasonable conversation about this very important issue.

He's got no intelligent rebuttal so he descends to infantile tantrums. Let him rant. Its really pretty funny once you realize it represents his own insecurities more than anything else . But it does serve to show the readers how base and childish the deniers arguments really are.

cheers
B

 

I'm just in Cat, I'll check it out soon as I get a chance