Antarctic glaciers melting faster than thought

reply to post by alienesque

Actually, alienesque, recently I read that 30,000 scientists reject global warming.....

30,000 Scientists reject global warming

Why are the voices of thousands of scientists being silenced by a few hundred ideologues? Is the ideology of communism and that of climate change identical? Before we pass any more legislation designed to cripple ourselves economically for generations to come, we had better start asking ourselves a few important questions. Why has the world-wide media glommed onto the notion that global warming is primarily man-made? Has environmentalism become a quasi-religion? Is the U.N. using global warming as a way to gain power over governments and citizens of the world? Why isn’t the other side of the debate ever discussed in polite company? Why are we afraid to entertain the possibility that we might just be all wrong about global warming?

and

Ann Marie Banfield explains in simple terms why environmental extremism is leading to inflated prices. Global warming seems to be a significant issue in politics and our everyday lives lately. Politicians are now campaigning on this issue and regulating companies due to the assumption that carbon emissions are a contributing factor. Our politicians decided no offshore drilling for various reasons, including their dogma of CO2 emissions. Of course, we are now all paying the price for this legislation at the gas pump. What's missing from this debate is the fact that these politicians aren't scientists and this agenda is driven by environmental extremism. Extremism in any form can be detrimental to society. There is no scientific proof that man is helping or causing global warming. However, that doesn't stop them from passing legislation, which causes us to pay inflated prices, based on pure speculation. Politicians are not scientists but speculators risking our tax dollars and future.

And I read in a different article (that I won't look for right now) that human impact on CO2 levels only comprises about 2% of the total. And that cutting trees and paving over green space with concrete and asphalt keep some of the CO2 from being absorbed, which may have more of an impact.

But as another poster stated, the Sun has more of an impact than anything else, and all the other planets in the solar system are experiencing "global warming" right now also.

There is nothing we can do about that!

By the way, this solar cycle 24 is supposed to be a doozy!

The solar maximum will peak in the years 2010, 2011

Dec. 21, 2006: Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one. see captionSolar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

Nasa article solar cycle 24

This is awesome. I cant wait till all the glaciers are melted. im tired of hearing about them.
Our world is in a constant state of change. sometimes we have glaciers and some times we don't. Get over it.
The gap left from life forms disappearing will be filled in mere days. Trees and ground cover are already overtaking the once frozen tundra.
The world evolves if you don't evolve with it you will be left behind.

Originally posted by sezsue
Actually, alienesque, recently I read that 30,000 scientists reject global warming.....

Why are the voices of thousands of scientists being silenced by a few hundred ideologues?

Firstly, they are not being silenced, otherwise how would you know about them. Secondly, they are just ignored. Mainly because very very few of them have any sort of expertise in the appropriate area. Having any old science degree doesn't give weight to an opinion in any realm of science - as that's all they are expressing.

The people who matter are those who actually study climate and produce the evidence. And the vast majority of those scientists accept the main thrust of the science.

For example, I wouldn't really depend on a dermatologist to give a useful opinion on some aspect of neurology.

And I read in a different article (that I won't look for right now) that human impact on CO2 levels only comprises about 2% of the total.

We can account for almost all of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. 'Twas 280ppm, is now well over 380ppm. each year we emit billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Much of it is removed by oceans and terrestrial sinks, the remainder accounts for the yearly rise.

But as another poster stated, the Sun has more of an impact than anything else, and all the other planets in the solar system are experiencing "global warming" right now also.

Wrong again. Not all the planets are warming, for one Uranus has been cooling. For another, the sun appears to have had minimal influence on warming for decades.

As noted by someone earlier, to even blame the sun for the proposed 2'C warming on somewhere like Pluto is crazy. Just think about it. In fact, go light a match or lighter. Put your finger 30cms away from it. That could be pluto. Now put your finger a 1cm away. That could be the earth. If you increased the energy to give strong warming at 30cm, then at 1cm...

Crazy that people just swallow that stuff without a thought.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by soficrow
Then again Long Lance, I know what you mean.

My two favorite responses, in all their self-contradictory glory:

sos37:
...you've bought into the so-called "proof" that global warming exists, despite being disproven time again by real scientists. ...Most of us, however, know this is all part of a natural cycle that the Earth goes through.

Hmmm. Are you saying global warming has been disproven and does not exist? Or that global warming does exist as part of a natural cycle which is not dynamic and therefore cannot be influenced by other factors or forces?

The term "global warming" has been connected with the warming of the earth due to man-made causes. I believe this was sufficiently debunked. To call it "global warming" in the sense of what we know it as would be a mistake, in my opinion. Just call it what it really is - normal weather patterns on a cycle.


[edit on 26-2-2009 by sos37]

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by soficrow
sos37 said:
...you've bought into the so-called "proof" that global warming exists, despite being disproven time again by real scientists. ...Most of us, however, know this is all part of a natural cycle that the Earth goes through.

sofi: Hmmm. Are you saying global warming has been disproven and does not exist? Or that global warming does exist as part of a natural cycle which is not dynamic and therefore cannot be influenced by other factors or forces?

sos37: The term "global warming" has been connected with the warming of the earth due to man-made causes.

The term "global warming" also has been connected with the warming of the earth prior to "global cooling."

sos37: I believe this was sufficiently debunked (global warming due to human activity).

I prefer to focus on fact rather than belief.

sos37: To call it "global warming" in the sense of what we know it as would be a mistake, in my opinion. Just call it what it really is - normal weather patterns on a cycle.

"Global warming" involves climate change, not weather patterns. And there is no single cycle - as I recall, there are 6 known climate cycles referred to as ice age cycles, along with a pile of anomalous climatic events.

Numerous factors are known to impact our planet's climate - which is a complex dynamic system. Human activity is one such factor, along with solar, galactic and other events, for example:

Ancient Interstellar Collision: May Help Explain Climate Change

...All of which begs the central issue: Our planet is facing massive social and economic upheaval due to climate change; and the question:

Are we civilized enough to do something about it, together?

.

cooling in the 70's warming in the 90's

how many ways can ya cry wolf??

oh ya its not global warming any more...its climate shift...lol, cuz if its too hot or cold we are doomed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gimme a break, we have what a hundred years of recorded temps....

this earth has been around for billions of years....

knock it off chicken little!!!!!!!!!!!!





[edit on 2/26/2009 by redseal]

Well, the only way we'll know if they're telling the truth or not is if and when it's all seawater.

To add though...

The melting "also extends all the way down to what is called west Antarctica,"

There's a "West" Antarctica?
Funny name... considering everything but the center is "North".

Hey,

Choose your facts... here are some from an article "trying to make us believe" in Antarctic warming.

www.nytimes.com...

Reads good, makes it sound like a "discovery" was made but if you read between the lines it is ALL HYPE.

Let's go:

Study Finds New Evidence of Warming in Antarctica

But weather stations in other locations, including the one at the South Pole, have recorded a cooling trend. That ran counter to the forecasts of computer climate models, and global warming skeptics have pointed to Antarctica in questioning the reliability of the models.

In the new study, scientists took into account satellite measurements to interpolate temperatures in the vast areas between the sparse weather stations.

So, the weather stations all record a cooling trend... oh crap, how do we keep up the global warming hoax if all the recording stations are recording cooling???? I know, another computer model!!

OK, So ALL of the temperature measuring stations are recording COOLING but that is not the result wanted. So what do they do... INTERPOLATE

In the new study, scientists took into account satellite measurements to interpolate temperatures in the vast areas between the sparse weather stations.

What does INTERPOLATE mean??

in⋅ter⋅po⋅late
   /ɪnˈtɜrpəˌleɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-tur-puh-leyt] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, -lat⋅ed, -lat⋅ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to introduce (something additional or extraneous) between other things or parts; interject; interpose; intercalate.
2. Mathematics. to insert, estimate, or find an intermediate term in (a sequence).
3. to alter (a text) by the insertion of new matter, esp. deceptively or without authorization

So, I would take this for what it is worth.... measuring stations are showing drops but that result is NOT WANTED so they use some computer models to ESTIMATE to get the result they want.

We all saw the articles about there being "no ice" at the north pole in 2008 but it didn't happen either.... LOL

I don't understand how the alarmist can keep up the fear with this when all the data (except their computer models) show that it isn't true.

newsbusters.org...

Good news! Despite the recent global warming alarmism in the media that Arctic ice might melt away completely from the North Pole this summer, the latest scientific observations show that Arctic ice has actually increased by nearly a half million square miles over this time last year. This is in stark contrast to the Chicken Little hysteria that was being promoted less than a month ago on the CBS Early Show as reported by Kyle Drennen on June 27

www.theregister.co.uk...

The problem is that this graph does not appear to be correct.* [See Editor's note, below] Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. (2008 is a leap year, so the dates are offset by one.)

More preparation for the "carbon credit" scam. They will convince you that CO2 does something in order to make the largest scam of all time come to pass. Now that "Global Warming" is freezing up, they are now trying to convince us that CO2 is responsible for causing an Ice Age! LOL

I just find it ironic that people still support and believe this Co2 is causing global warming crap... oops I mean climate changes.... oops I mean Ice Age ... ooops, I don't know what we mean but anything bad with the weather means CO2 now give us our carbon credit scam so we can get richer! Shhh.. don't ask questions, just give us the money and power we want to regulate everyone's lives and charge you trillions in taxes and fees in order to line our pockets!

www.telegraph.co.uk...
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
english.pravda.ru...

Global warming has benefited from one of the greatest public relations and marketing efforts in recent history. You'll hear plenty from environmentalists about carbon emissions, clean energy, and the disappearing arctic, but here's what you will NEVER hear them admit:

Scientists have reaped MILLIONS from their global warming "research." They've turned supporting global warming - into a cash cow!

These same scientists were trying to convince us the world was cooling just a few decades ago, when that's where the grant money was.

Read up on the carbon credit scam & so called "cap and trade". This "creates" a whole new paper trading / subsides industry. If this is allowed to happen there will be to much money in it for it to ever go away.

What Governments and Special Interest groups believe in is all the money that will come with the "carbon credit" scam and all the power it gives a government to do as it wishes against the will of the people in the "interest" of mankind

Companies are figuring out how to work the ridiculous "Carbon Credits" debacle to make big bucks. (and as they get paid, traders trade paper and real industries have to buy the paper and pass on the cost to .... wait for it... US!)

Rhodia, is a French Company, makes adipic acid which is a chemical used in the production of nylon. They have moved their operation to South Korea and Brazil. Why?

A by-product of their manufacturing process is the creation of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that is over 300 times more potent as an atmospheric warming agent than carbon dioxide. Rhodia destroys the nitrous oxide after it has been created and then claims carbon credit reimbursement for the green house gasses it has eradicated.

Rhodia, makes more money from this scam than they do from their primary business, They are raking in around a three hundred million dollars a year - more money than the whole of Africa is from Carbon credit reimbursements!

Also, Al Gore has a very big personal investment into bringing this carbon credit (cap & trade) to America.

www.capitalresearch.org...

Here is the deal, this whole Kyoto protocol is nothing but a money grab. Even many die hard global warming groups are starting to see that this scheme will do little to nothing in reducing carbon emissions.

daily.stanford.edu...

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change.

In addition, as the Telegraph article goes on to say, this is not the first time Hansen has been caught fixing the climate data! As Christopher Horner reported last September that the very same Anthony Watts caught NASA fixing the data by placing thermometers “… in Arizona parking lots, overhanging black asphalt pads, near cell towers and hot-air blowing air conditioner exhausts or next to trash burn barrels, … setting one just away from a chimney directly above a Weber barbecue grill …”

Horner goes on to explain:

This embarrassment came amid NASA also having to correct its data since the year 2000, which has been used to support many of the global warming alarmists’ “money claims”, such as Al Gore’s line that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the past decade.

Well, no. We now know that this is false and that NASA has corrected the record to reflect that the warmest year in the U.S. was 1934, 4 of the 10 warmest here occurred in the 1930s, 3 during the 1990s, and one each in the 1920s, 1950s and this decade. That this claim has now been debunked, like most every other statement of substance in Mr. Gore’s movie.

vocalminority.typepad.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

These power hungry nuts want the power to "punish" those they see as not paying them the money they want. (This is a great scam...awesome way to consolidate money and power).

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Great article from newscientist.com with James Lovelock the man whos work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion. He is an ultimate greenie and knows carbon credits / cap & trade is a scam and will do nothing to CO2 levels... He has a solution that doesn't require subsidies, scams, etc but he doesn't expect it to happen because the money for the corrupt can't be made with his solution.

2009 promises to be an exciting time for James Lovelock. But the originator of the Gaia theory, which describes Earth as a self-regulating planet, has a stark view of the future of humanity. He tells Gaia Vince we have one last chance to save ourselves - and it has nothing to do with nuclear power

Your work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion. Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?

Not a hope in hell. Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It's absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt - that's an awful lot of countryside.
What about work to sequester carbon dioxide?

That is a waste of time. It's a crazy idea - and dangerous. It would take so long and use so much energy that it will not be done.

So are we doomed?

There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.

Would it make enough of a difference?

Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it.

Carbon credits are a scam.... Even some of the "greenest" people know this. I am all for reducing the use of fossil fuels as it causes not only CO2 but a crap-ton of pollution and poison run-off into our rivers, lakes, and streams.

I just get worked up when I see the "carbon credit / cap & trade BS" being promoted as a solution more than anything else. As you can tell, I want everyone to know about this scam as it does nothing to reduce CO2 and will cause the ultimate "stealth" tax on the people in order to make a few paper traders and politicians rich..

[edit on 26-2-2009 by infolurker]

Originally posted by soficrow

Are you sure? I'm thinking about the starving, dispossessed sufferers of great upheaval.

Is man civilized? What might that mean?

the reason for suffering afaics, is in the overwhelming number of instances, structural violence. GW is already being used do grow biofuels which cause every negative consequence imaginable, from soil depletion to a lack of food to subsidizing industrial agriculture and opening the door for GM crops, which have so far proven to be no more than enablers for even more structural violence.

(two links which might be of interest in this context)

Fall in Food production forecast for 2009

as well as

www.abovetopsecret.com...



so, i rest my case, better to do nothing about 'climate change', because we do not have the power to control the weather and any attempt at doing that will only end in tears.

this does not mean we shouldn't improve water retention and agricultural practices or even skimp on reactive solutions like dams for Holland, just no direct playing god trying to control the climate. we can adapt to anything if we just wrap our minds around the concept of spending (our time, i mean, fiat money is an illusion and a tool of subjugation) on real things rather than corporations and their detached leadership.

if the current state of affairs proves one thing, it is that all laws and rules get tossed and anything is possible - when it helps the 'right' people! if so, it's very obvious that adressing real issues is but a step away. we just have to stop believing in the current paradigm, which is blood-lust darwinian based.

selectionism = 'progress' through suffering

if things go wrong, more suffering will fix them. this is the mindset people currently seem to live in.

in the beginning i tried a more balanced approach only to find out the hard way that facts no longer matter to a lot of people.

'Tis but the Sisyphus conundrum. Knowledge being what it is (learned as opposed to hardwired), one must always begin at -well- the beginning.

Sucks I know. Doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

one thing at a time. i could write stuff nobody would read. been there done that. currently i'm capable to killing the odd thread and if i keep working on it i just might become convincing. times change and i do, too, so, maybe that's just around the corner.

i'm all for going your way and never straying, although a forum is for handing out information and posting opinions, whatever floats your boat. i want to keep that in mind. without readers, it would be an exercise in futility, because then i might just as well keep it to myself.

[edit on 2009.2.27 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance

...better to do nothing about 'climate change', because we do not have the power to control the weather and any attempt at doing that will only end in tears.

I think we can reduce our impact on the environment and our planet's system(s) without making things worse or necessarily attempting to play God by interfering with systems we don't understand.

this does not mean we shouldn't improve water retention and agricultural practices or even skimp on reactive solutions like dams for Holland, just no direct playing god trying to control the climate. we can adapt to anything if we just wrap our minds around the concept of spending (our time, i mean, fiat money is an illusion and a tool of subjugation) on real things rather than corporations and their detached leadership.

My point exactly.

Maybe "adapt" is the key word? Maybe a combination of adaptation and clean-up, with a pinch of reconceptualization?


.

if you believe there's a lack of funds and productivity, try

www.abovetopsecret.com...

the black economy. i've always expected something like this to exist. the short of it is that all gov't institutions actually derive 2/3 of their money from Return on Investments, ie they are the largest entity in the markets and it's not just taxes going to them, it's a large portion of every nickel of profit or markup.

the open budget is only taking taxes and operating cost into account...

ever wondered how (western) gov't could always summon money from the market at will and in any quantity? ever asked why and how all gov't could maintain a deficit for decades? the slush funds are regularly used, but the transfers are booked and interest payments are demanded.

the net result is obvious: total control and ownership. now, how exactly does GW factor into that picture? diversion and extortion? two birds with one stone, if you only bothered to look. at their organisation (top down again) at their methods, at their group think and mass meetings, it's all there.

[edit on 2009.3.1 by Long Lance]

reply to post by alyosha1981


I find it hard to believe that with all the proof that global warming is real and happening we still find those who blind themselves with political conspiracy and deny the devasting truth.
Rising seawater will soon result in catastrophic earthquakes, volcanic activity, loss of coastal lands, it is real, and the danger is so much more than high water!!!

The biggest part that tees me is china will have to do nothing and they are building a new coal fired power plant every week.

This means that products from china will not cost more because there companies(read government)will not have to buy carbon credits while companies in the US will have to charge more for there products because they now will have to buy carbon credits.

This means even more jobs will go to china and china will create more carbon
canceling the reduction in carbon output in the rest of the world.

The net result will be the same amount of carbon or more being put into the air.

This will result in more rules against carbon output in the western countries and china putting out more carbon.

The US and OTHER WESTERN COUNTRIES MUST PUT A CARBON TAX on all imports from countries that do not pay there share of the carbon tax or control there carbon output.
if for no other reason then to protect there own industries from the unfair advantage of china and other countries that do not meet the carbon reduction or pay a carbon tax

Get with the programming it's climate change NOW

Back in the 70's it was though we were headed to another ice age , I remember the Space channel used to air a conspiracy show (old re run)with Leonerd Lemoy as the narrator, one episode was about the coming ice age .
How in a matter of a decade did it become global worming , and now the push is to call it climate change , I mean wtf.

www.theclimatescam.se...

www.climate4you.com...

Look I'm not saying human activity isn't damaging the environment and burning mass amounts of fossil fuels can't be good. It's just what when you start hearing about carbon credits , carbon foot prints and paying carbon taxes to the BANKS one must go HMMMMMM

Also keep in mind aspects the green movement are starting to push to limit the number of children parents can have .


[edit on 1-3-2009 by OpusMarkII]

[edit on 1-3-2009 by OpusMarkII]

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by alyosha1981

 

I find it hard to believe that with all the proof that global warming is real and happening we still find those who blind themselves with political conspiracy and deny the devasting truth.
Rising seawater will soon result in catastrophic earthquakes, volcanic activity, loss of coastal lands, it is real, and the danger is so much more than high water!!!

i the Fragile Earth forum, i recently posted a link, which said

Originally posted by Long Lance
..
when it gets serious, the numbers plummet, take the following example:

www.sciencemag.org...

After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth's ice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. This is only a modest contribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimeters per year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade. In both continents, there are suspected triggers for the accelerated ice discharge—surface and ocean warming, respectively—and, over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidly counteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climate models.

now, the total is supposed to be 3mm/a with 0.35mm being attributed to GW, taken from

www.abovetopsecret.com...

from www.abovetopsecret.com...


all i can see is that you took a bunch of possible catastrophies and call it the result of GW. i still remember back in early 2005 when the local greenies had to silence a few of their own, because they tried to attribute the Christmas 2004 tsunami to Global Warming.

tectonics, well...


how does religion establish and exercise its deleterious control? threaten non-compliance with hell - there you have it.

[edit on 2009.3.1 by Long Lance]

Global warming is complete B.S. and the Japanese are now suing NASA for lying... Only idiots believed it in the first place..

www.timothybirdnow.com...

Good Lord. Is this really the best you-all can do?

The earth is NOT warming - the WHOLE solar system is.

Duh.

Originally posted by xstealth
Propaganda, the glaciers aren't going anywhere. Glaciers have variance, its a normal cycle.

This just really helps justify the new carbon tax.

I am personally sick of hearing about the global warming fraud, the entire solar system is warming. Its the sun, nothing we can do about it, but the government thinks that taxing us for farts and emissions will solve it.

While agree with you on the carbon tax that it isn't necessary. I disagree that you think global warming is a fraud. It's real, we feel it get worse every year. I know about the average sea levels rising, it's no conspiracy, I've interviewed many people who lived near the sea about this.

But right, taxing the people for it isn't the solution, they should instead cut the budget spending on say, military? And spend it instead on how to combat global warming than combat people.

And another thing, use the media to brainwash the masses that helping save the planet, like spending less(says it all) must be the sexiest thing to do nowadays.

While I still think global warming is indeed real and occuring, based on some of the links as well as article posts I'm finding myself less worried and leaning to the side of no human involvement in this occurance. Thanks all for the good info