It's all a myth. The melting ice caps, glaciers, etc are all a statistical illusion, don't you know.

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

How do we know which trend is the cause for the current warming period?

co2 or solar?

 

How do we know which trend is the cause for the current warming period?

co2 or solar activity?

 

The glaciers are melting for one reason: god farted.

 

Huh, expanding Glaciers too:

http://www.iceagenow.com/growing_glaciers.htm

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

 

This is an interesting subject who's effects have a direct impact on where I live.. Florida. There is much to learn here;

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/

This is the new monthly feature, but there are tons of other links on this page at the bottom.

The Cryosphere: Snow and Ice
Arctic Sea Ice
The Northwest Passage Opens
Polar Bears
Greenland
Antarctica
Permafrost
Glaciers

Other Topics:
Extreme Weather
Acid Oceans
Sea Level Rise
Abrupt Climate Change
The Ozone Hole
Resources

The Artic Sea Ice page;

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce.asp

is interesting to me. What just three years ago was predicted to take until the end of the century, now looks possible in just twenty odd years.

anyway, lots of stuff on Dr. Masters weather site about this subject.

 

Why does it even frickin matter!? When conservatives use this argument it makes so frustrated.. "There is no evidence that HUMANS are responsible for global warming! Blah Blah blah! Obama is the messiah HAR HAR."

Honestly, regardless of HOW it is happening, it DOES appear to BE happening.. Even if it is a perfectly natural cycle of climatic change, it most certainly doesnt help to pump out unneccesarily high levels of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.. The waste humans produce (and the striking AMOUNTS of waste) are simply unnatural.. Life did not evolve with these things around. It would appear to be rather common sense that this must have a negative effect on our environment and its ability to continue to suit life as we know it..

Honestly, what IS the conservative agenda in regards to global warming? Why are they so adamant against doing little things to help thwart global warming? Unless you have frickin stock in Texaco, I dont understand why anyone would be against taking little steps to help keep this planet suitable for life for our grandchildrens' generation.. Seems like an awful anti-family stance to take..

 

B/c that's human nature, skape. Think of it like this: Your just coming into the awareness of your teen years and starting to ask big questions, like 'Is there a God?', 'What am I here for?', etc. b/c you sense something is up. You've seen things you can't explain w/ the knowledge you currently have, and so you wonder.

In the meantime, your parents sense there is a disturbance in the force, and immediately go into over-reaction mode and start blaming your doubts on demonic influence. You're forced-fed religion 6 days-a-week (and twice on Sunday), with them stating day after day after day that it's YOU that's the problem.

Now, how are you going to feel??? Are you going to be a little reactive?? Combative, maybe? Possibly reject any possibility of anything they say being right, simply b/c they leave no room for you to be right (on anything) and constantly dismiss your questions/POV every time you open your mouth?? Most likely. The same is happening here, albeit with the details changed and on a much grander, nee global, scale.

Bottom line is, we are the caretakers of the Earth. Our job as the only creatures who don't rely on instinct but intellect is to protect this planet and it's finite resources. No other creature has the ability to do that. Right now, we're not doing a very good job as caretakers. Regardless of political/scientific/whatever position, I think we all can admit to that.:up:

 

Bro, I am not familiar with the site you cited or but here is alternative perspective:

Glaciers in retreat
(NYTimes)

RETREATING GLACIERS SPUR ALASKAN EARTHQUAKES
(NASA)

Warming Triggers ‘Alarming’ Retreat of Himalayan Glaciers


Antarctic glaciers show retreat
(BBC)

Tropical Glacier Retreat
(Realclimate.org)

 

Well, when you consider that CO2 makes up about .04% of one percent of our atmosphere, and that man made CO2 makes up about .117% of that .04, you begin to see how foolish this argument has become. Especially when you further consider that 30 times the amout of man made CO2 enters Earth's atmosphere from bio activity in our oceans, decaying plant life, volcanic eruptions, and strangely enough......not George Bush.

Past Earth climates have almost never shown global warming after increased CO2 levels. Infact, it's shown warming first, THEN increased CO2 levels followed. In other cases, when earth's temperatures were close to present day, CO2 levels were 12 times higher than today, but instead of being on Venus like many people would love for you to believe, we were in a freakin ICE AGE.

The problem is not our current warming trend, which started 18,000 years ago by the way. Its the arrogant, pompus *** humans who not only think they actually have this kind of power over mother nature, but also the constant finger pointing to elevate themselves up even higher than they think they are.

We have been enjoying global warming for 18,000 years. It's what has allowed us to advance the way we have. We are currently in what's called an Interglacidal Period, which on the grand scheme of things, won't last much longer. It is inevitable that we WILL revert back to another ice age. And no, that one will not be George Bush's fault either.

 

This month's feature at the climate change page I posted is about glaciers.

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/Feature_200805_Glaciers.asp



Figure 2. "On the left is a photograph of Muir Glacier taken on August 13, 1941, by glaciologist William O. Field; on the right, a photograph taken from the same vantage on August 31, 2004, by geologist Bruce F. Molnia of the United States Geological Survey (USGS). According to Molnia, between 1941 and 2004 the glacier retreated more than twelve kilometers (seven miles) and thinned by more than 800 meters (875 yards). Ocean water has filled the valley, replacing the ice of Muir Glacier; the end of the glacier has retreated out of the field of view. The glacier.s absence reveals scars where glacier ice once scraped high up against the hillside. In 2004, trees and shrubs grow thickly in the foreground, where in 1941 there was only bare rock." Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center, W. O. Field, B. F. Molnia.

 

Here is some recent information from the Department of Energy concerning anthropogenic CO2 levels and the "very likely" effects on climate change.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm

Concerning the imbalance on carbon cycling:

 

anthropogenic...showoff...

 

I'd hazard a guess that 95% of the world's glaciers and ice caps are shrinking. Sea levels wouldn't be rising if they weren't. A handful of counter observations does not make a trend like that.

There are entire nations in the Pacific that are basically low atolls, and will be 99% underwater in a few decades. Crazy stuff.

 

Seawater is only a few percent dissolved salts, transforming something critical for us to something poisonous- so basically, a little can go a long way

Unless there's been an upsurge in bio activity, decaying plant life etc those things are like constants. If anything, deforestation of the tropics may have altered nature's ability to soak up the CO2

 

Yes indeed. Lets work in a lab to create ideal conditions for the conclusions we already came to. Conditions that can't even begin to describe the real world we live in. Let's rely heavily on computer models that do the same thing. Computer models that can't even run properly unless certain data is fudged first.

Let's not look at the 180 billion metric tons of CO2 that nature puts up there, but rather the 6 that man does. This reminds me of my days living in the Florida Keys. When we, the 60,000 residents, were blamed for any enviromental problem, rather than the 3 million annual visitors who came down and crapped on the place.

 

Actually, at 180 tons, the fluctuation year to year can easily exceed what we do.

 

There's no debate. Man influences the climate. We pump massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and that'll cause devastating consequences. Cyclical phenomena, warming peroids, increased solar ouput, that's all gobbledy-gook non-sense. Humans are increasing global temperature beyond background growth.

 

According to the link I posted earlier, here is how things break down:



Figure 2. Global Carbon Cycle (Billion Metric Tons Carbon)

If that is correct, the uptake in CO2 from forest and vegetation is greater than the release. The same is true of the ocean. Given those values, the 7.2 billion metric tons of CO2 that is released annually by man is a major contribution to unchecked CO2 levels.

 

Here is the one thing I have always wondered when considering this-

Its widely accepted that some time ago there was an ice age that covered large portions of the earth. We were not driving cars or doing any of the stuff that we are doing now and yet the earth got cold enough to have an ice age. Then it got warm enough to melt all that ice and leave us with the world we currently have.

It makes me wonder if this stuff goes in cycles that don't necessarily depend as much on what we are doing as we think.

 

This is true, the greenhouse effect assisted in altering the ice age however the levels are CO2 now are greater than ever in the history of the planet.

 

LMAO.. I think you woefully underestimate humanity's impact on the world.. Fact is, there is not another species on the planet that has the ability to divert the flow of water of RIVERS, have forced several other species into extinction, can destroy entire FORESTS and replace them with WAL-MARTs, and so forth.

When wildlife is exclusively found in either large bodies of water (which humans do not inhabit) or small plots of land peppered throughout humanity's large concrete kingdom, I think it becomes quite clear that humans have found a way to hold mother nature at bay for the most part.. Our countless artificial creations certainly must have some sort of impact on this delicate ecosystem. Just one slight change can make a significant impact on an intricate SYSTEM like nature.. It is a butterfly effect.

If you were to view the Earth as a living organism, you would have to say that humanity is a VIRUS that it cant quite shake... yet. (Maybe hurricans, earthquakes, tornadoes, and tsunamis are agents of its immune system!) It is true that we mere mortals cannot destroy the world.. Afterall, long after we are gone, it will heal itself and move on to the next stage in its evolution.. However, we can destroy the world that we feeble humans are capable of inhabiting..

 

How do we know that? Do we have any data on this stuff for anything other then the last 100 years or so?

 

Im really not even very conservative at all(and I have yet to vote R), I simply would like to know the facts...is that such a bad thing? I have no idea where the Obama comment came from either, maybe you should calm down and stick to the topic?

Where did I say anything to the point where you would feel it necessary to lecture me about human waste and pollution? I am in full support of cutting down our pollution, but I am one of those realists who laugh at the idea of signing onto the Kyoto Protocols.

I have no idea what the "conservative agenda" is, in fact I am sure you know far more about it than I- since you are apparently frothing at the mouth in hatred of conservatives.

Wanting to know if the Sun or Human impact is the cause for global warming is anti-family....gotcha.

 

yes, we are able to extract gas levels from ice core samples

 

Ummm.. most of that post wasnt directed toward you.. It was directed toward conservative talk show hosts and pundits (who admittedly, will never read this).. And LOL at me frothing at the mouth over any political idealogues.. While my views tend to be more liberal, I honestly dislike those super libs just as much as I dislike those super conservatives.. Believe me, I have done my share of playing devil's advocate regarding Iraq and other conservative issues to uninformed college liberals in the past..

But listen to Rush, Schnidt, or O'Reilly any time, and you will hear those talking points in that quote over and over again (thats where the obama is the messiah thing came from).. It is pretty nauseating..

 

Oh now it makes sense :up:

I can't stand listening to the hardcore pundits. Even when I do agree with O'reilly's position he still manages to come off like an utter jackass most of the time. He is quite possibly the most stubborn host in the history of programming as well.

While I see how it gets tiring hearing the same old one-liners thrown at Obama, I will say that Obama certainly has an unfair media advantage on his opponent and that seems to be where all of that comes from.

I think Mccain would be wise to halt the negative campaigning immediately though. With current events in Iraq working in his favor, he should be focusing on his own plans rather than trying to tarnish his opponent.

 

Good god brother, have you and so many others been duped. I am amazed at how many people keep saying this. Compared to past Earth's climates, we are actually CO2 deficient. Only once (during the Carboniferous Period 300 million years ago) were CO2 levels even close to being as LOW as they are today. Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm of CO2, or about 0.038%. During the Late Ordovician Period (about 450 million years ago), Earth was in an Ice Age, while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were 4400 ppm, nearly 12 times higher than it is today. According to the greenhouse theory, Earth should have been a steam bath. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than they are today. There are many other instances throughout the last 550 million years of our history where atmospheric temperatures and CO2 levels went in opposite directions like that. Other times, CO2 would spike or plummet, yet temperatures stayed constant and vise versa. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon have a more profound influence on earth's temperatures and global warming. But interestingly enough, the only one that gets the blame, is the smallest contributor of all, but also the only one that can be CONTROLLED. Yeah, this doesn't smell of power, money, and corruption. Naaah.

 

You are absolutely right.

Our current global warming trend began 18,000 years ago (I'm preeeety sure that's before the Industrial Revolution) as we slowly got out of the Pleistocene Ice Age.

Earth has been dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million years. But, about every 100,000 years or so, Earth's climate warms up temporarily. These warming trends are called interglacial periods where glaciers receed and life flourishes. These periods last about 15,000 to 20,000 years before going back to a cold ice age climate. Right now, we are at about year 18,000 and counting. We WILL eventually revert back into another ice age. And again, it won't be George Bush's fault. And no, Al Gore and the UN will not be able to stop it.

 

Oh dear, :sidelol::sidelol::sidelol::sidelol: Thank you I needed that!:hi5:

 

The scary part is that most pilgrims believe what they say. My daughter thinks Al Gore is next to God and when I try to even descuss this issue I get rolling eyes and pats on the head! It drives me up a wall cause other wise she's a very smart woman.:tantrum::lol::wink2: To me it is the height of arrogance to think we can control mother nature and yet turn away from those things we can control such as our use of oil and gas.

 

Are you kidding me? Where have I said that I don't agree with current CO2 levels, or how they were achived? Who is discounting our current situation? Me? Nope. And who is attacking ice core data? Seriously bro, did you really read my posts, or just pick out a few buzz words that got you going like this.

My problem is the interpretation of the data. Or fudged data that is more "what if" than real life. Discounting the fact that CO2 levels have been tremendously higher than today's levels during every ice age the Earth has ever seen is ludicrous. Discounting the fact that past global temperatures remained constant for millions of years despite CO2 levels drastically spiking and/or plummeting during that time is ludicrous. Discounting the fact that when global temps and CO2 levels actually did mirror each other, we saw global warming first, followed by increased CO2 years later. These actual occurances from our past history don't resemble anything we are being told today.

So if you can't see an argument here, and consider anyone who disagrees with you as "pretending to be a scientist" (does that include many climatologists world wide?), then your even more pigheaded than I am.

 

That's it in a nutshell....both sides of the same story..no conclusions!

 

Ice core science can obviously be flawed, but as long as it's few, but well known limitations are taken into account in the final analysis, I wouldn't question it. Now, some of the high level CO2 data I shared about past climates, actually did occur when climates were much like ours today. And as far as interglacial periods go, it's not my only argument. Infact, that's my whole point through all of this. That too many people are putting all their eggs in the CO2 basket, when there are clearly other factors that have a more profound effect on global warming.

 

Actually no, the evidence that glaciers is shrinking is very substantial. So far, the only site that I could find that say that glaciers are growing is the one you posted and sites that cite the same source. Take a look at some of the pictures that were posted in this thread bro and tell me that you believe the site you referenced. I have no doubt that there are glaciers at high altitude and during years of above-average precipitation, that have held steady or grown slightly but I do not believe that it is a significant trend.

I took a look at some of the glaciers that iceagenow.com listed as growing:

Helm Glacier:

Place Glacier:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/01/14/bc-shrinkingglaciers.html

Mt. Blanc

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/10/news/tunnel.php

Antizana:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/francou.pdf

Here is some information about Norway glaciers. Overall, the Norwegian government says:

http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext/index_e.aspx?id=3561

I could have gone on but I am sure that you see my point.