Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Reefmagnet, I've watched this film again, just to make sure I didn't miss things and check what you posted. Having watched it again I 'must' conclude that you deliberately misrepresented what was in the film. Which is not very encouraging around your integrity. It leads me to suspect that you really have no interest in anything called 'evidence' to inform you.

M'kay.

With the following comment from YOU in mind, " if all other glaciers were experiencing 'massive' retreats then I would concede that this could quite possibly be concerning event", I'll point out a few facts from the film.

Quantify "Massive". I have a massive headache; the Sun is a massive object; I have a massive problem with AGW scare mongering tactics.

What exactly is a "massive" retreat for a glacier?

Let me quantify my idea of "massive" for you in this context. At the end of 2013, ALL the glaciers in Iceland combined were calculated to be losing 11 billion tonnes of ice annually.

I got that figure from here: Iceland's vanishing ice — The Daily Climate

Not sure if that is a metric ton or imperial ton, but I'll assume it's a metric tonne (which is heavier). Knowing fresh water is approx 1 ton per cubic metre, lets convert that into cubic volume. 11 billion tons of fresh water is equal to 11 billion m3 in volume. This is in turn equal to 11 km3.

That's a hefty number, hey?

Let's compare that figure to, I dunno, the flow to ocean of the Mississippi River which is 530 km3 per year

So 11 / 530 * 100 = 2.1%
Ok, how about the Amazon @ 6500 km3? Well that's just a figure 0.17%
Yangtze? 1.16%
Congo? 0.85%
Saint Lawrence? 2.07%
Ganges? 2.09%
Columbia? 4.65%

Remember the melting Antarctic, sorry West Antarctic, ice sheets? Can't be bothered looking back for the number but it was something between a claimed 150 km3 and 310 km3 or so per year loss from memory. Either way, that glacial retreat/melt starts to look less impressive aka less "massive" imo.

You can run the numbers on other rivers yourself if you want. Here's the link: List of rivers by discharge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, I get that most of the river water eventually works it's way back to land, but still it's a little ice cube in a big bucket. If the earth can precipitate all the waters of all the rivers flowing into the oceans back to land, I'm confident it can handle the addition of some minor i.e. non-massive glacial melt water for the time being.

Another interesting kind of related fact. The atmosphere itself is estimated to contain 12,900 km3 of water at any time on average. This represents 0.04% of all the world's freshwater or 0.001% of all the world's water in total.

That must be true because I read it here: Water in the Atmosphere, the Water Cycle, from USGS Water-Science School

The normal expectation of the Solheim glacier would be to expect a little advance in summer and a little retreat in winter. That's normal. To be expected. Keep in mind that glaciologists believe these things to be tens of thousands of years old, possibly as much as 100 thousand years old. And yet between 1984 to 2009 it retreated 11 miles, and thinned in height equal to the Empire State Building. During the years of the study, just three years between 2006-2009 it both deflated and retreated at never before observed rates.

Columbia glacier in Alaska, in just 3 years it retreated 2 1/2 miles.

The Yuken in Canada has some 1400 glaciers in 1958, (this is where you pointed out in the film that some were growing Reefmagnet) four (4 Reefmagnet) got bigger, 3 disappeared completely and all the rest got much smaller. Remember, these are ancient glaciers disappearing in less than our lifetimes.

Well, I'm not sure that anything to do with climate change can be called normal as there is no normal. The climate has always changed and will continue to change. It only had one of two ways to go and thank goodness it's heading north, not south.

All the rest of the glaciers got much smaller? Ok, It was late and it was the end of the film, but I don't recall that. So in a catastrophically warming climate, 4 glaciers got bigger? Could it not be that the sample period was too short. 3 years in "100 thousand years" as even you state is not what trends are built upon.

At the end of the film they showed the film of one I didn't quite grab, but it was the one where they pointed out that from 1902 to 2001 (100years), it retreated 8 miles, but from just 2000 to 2010 (10 years) it retreated 9 miles. That means Reefmagnet, it receded more in just ten years than it previously did in 100 years. Is that "massive" enough for you?

Ask yourself this question. How could that possibly occur as a result of air temperature aka MMGW theory alone? It's not possible. I'm not going to do it, but go see what the temperatures were for the period at the face of that glacier. See if they are to blame. In my opinion there can only have been other factors at play for example above average rain, mild winters, winds etc - perhaps even expansion in preceding years. Again, if all glaciers experienced the same radical melt at the same latitudes or within the same region then the alarm bells would be sounding, but I assume that didn't happen (and as I've said before, I could be wrong on that).

Another interesting thing I thought during the film was that they pointed out regarding ice coring evidence, that the evidence suggests that for the past 800 000 years co2 raised and lowered consistent with temperatures. Throughout the 800 000 years the co2 remained around 280p/m, but now, in our decade temperature has remained consistent but co2 has gone through the roof and is currently 390p/m and still rising. It's expected to reach 500p/m. That was alarming to me.

Look at my IPCC "lion's den" link. CO2 lags temperature i.e. the hotter it gets the more CO2 is naturally, repeat, naturally released into the environment. Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not saying that there is no man made component, I'm simply saying there is good evidence that more CO2 is released by the environment when temps are warmer.

On the lion's den link you will also notice (even though I didn't mention it) that the CO2 line is skyrocketing yet temperature for the same period hasn't.

I'm not that knowledgable about a lot of this stuff. To me I rely on experts who have the credentials, experience and the integrity. And over the past ten years particularly that I've been paying attention I've been swayed by such a huge sway of credible science to believe their is something very serious going on. The other side of things that sway me is listening to some of the skeptics and so called scientists who dispute it. Almost entirely I find either their credentials are ***** or they have some other incentive that comes out. And you can tell with their science because like yours, they just sound rediculous and almost comical. Like creationists, which I was for my younger years. They claim all sorts of things, make claims to all the scientists that support them, but if you really start looking at the 'evidence' their creationist evidence is comical.

In other words, you have a closed mind. I don't agree with Creationist's views of the world, but they're entitled to it as long as they don't attempt to use their views to interfere with my life. The same thing cannot be said for AGW proponents.

If anyone is 'open minded' on this subject around melting glaciers, I'd encourage you to watch Chacing Ice. It's a photographic documentary. So if your like me and get board with all the graphs and figures, just look at the pictures. There really an illumination.

Can I recommend certain a Bay on the Internet where Pirates reside to all those disappointed that this film is freely unavailable on Youtube

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by roverhi

Typical response from a true believer, don't refute the facts, attack the person. I guess we should not believe the mythical 97% of supposed climate change believers because they get their money from lily white sources like Tom Steyr, George Soros, government grants and other tainted non profits.

Yes climate change is true, it may be sunny, it may rain tomorrow, there will be droughts and rainy periods, storms will happen, nice weather may prevail. The environment is in a constant state of flux and has been for a few billion years. That is except here in Hawaii where it's just another lousy day in paradise every day. I remember back in the '80s when global warming was the new delusion, the Seattle paper posted what the City would like in 40 years with the rise of the waters from melting ice caps. Strange, the sea level today is virtually unchanged from what it was then. It's the conceit of man that we assume the conditions today are what they have been and always will be and that we are causing any change.

That's not to say that we shouldn't waste things. Just that our efforts to stop certain 'pollutants' should be in line with our ability to change things. By the way that's virtually nil without a major die off and even then, would have very little effect. If you serious believe that CO2 is a dire threat then you should be offering your home to the nuclear industry so they can build a power plant there. Nuclear is the only viable non CO2 producing means to provide the energy that we need.

The video itself posits the logical fallacy of argument by authority. I simply refuted that fallacy.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

<snip>
<snip>
<snip>
The normal expectation of the Solheim glacier would be to expect a little advance in summer and a little retreat in winter. That's normal. To be expected.
<snip>
<snip>
<snip>

Oh yeah, forgot to mention. Take a guess which is the fastest retreating glacier on the planet?

Hint: It's mentioned above.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Look at my IPCC "lion's den" link. CO2 lags temperature i.e. the hotter it gets the more CO2 is naturally, repeat, naturally released into the environment. Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not saying that there is no man made component, I'm simply saying there is good evidence that more CO2 is released by the environment when temps are warmer.

During the glacial-interglacial Milankovitch cycles, temperature and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), a powerful greenhouse gas, recorded in the ice sheets of Antarctica have been nearly in lockstep (Figure 2). Since changes in past temperatures generally precede changes in CO2 by several centuries, many scientists believe that CO2 acted as an amplifier and not an instigator of temperature changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that there is greater than a 90 percent probability that CO2 variations strongly amplified climate but did not trigger the end of glacial periods.

Increased temperatures , probably due to Milankovitch cycles, release CO2 resulting in an further increase increase in temperature as CO2 becomes an amplifier - a positive feedback loop.

Today CO2 is being released through the burning of sequestered carbon (fossil fuels) which is causing a temperature increase. Currently there are other factors that are dampening this effect:

• volcanic and industrial aerosols,
• a small of effect of declining solar activity,
• ocean uptake of heat, and
• a cooling phase in Milankovitch cycles.

The last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million, the current level, was during the ancient Pliocene Era, three to five million years ago, and humans didn’t exist.

• Global average temperatures were 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than today (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F).
  
• Polar temperatures were as much as 10 degrees C warmer than today (18 degrees F).
  
• The Arctic was ice free.
  
• Sea level was between five and 40 meters higher (16 to 130 feet) than today.
  
• Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs.

The Last Time Atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million Humans Didn’t Exist – Significant Figures by Peter Gleick

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

it does not at all stand to reason that those who believe in MMGW are also adamant environmentalists.

No...it just means they are members of a Religion that Believe what they believe based on Faith. That's fine we have Religious Freedom in the USA, but until they can prove that their indulgences of CO2 credits are more than spiritual cleansing...well, then leave the rest of us alone. Remember, we have a Separation of Church and State.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Increased temperatures , probably due to Milankovitch cycles, release CO2 resulting in an further increase increase in temperature as CO2 becomes an amplifier - a positive feedback loop.

Today CO2 is being released through the burning of sequestered carbon (fossil fuels) which is causing a temperature increase. Currently there are other factors that are dampening this effect:

• volcanic and industrial aerosols,
• a small of effect of declining solar activity,
• ocean uptake of heat, and
• a cooling phase in Milankovitch cycles.

The last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million, the current level, was during the ancient Pliocene Era, three to five million years ago, and humans didn’t exist.

• Global average temperatures were 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than today (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F).
  
• Polar temperatures were as much as 10 degrees C warmer than today (18 degrees F).
  
• The Arctic was ice free.
  
• Sea level was between five and 40 meters higher (16 to 130 feet) than today.
  
• Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs.

The Last Time Atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million Humans Didn’t Exist – Significant Figures by Peter Gleick

Well that's all very nice cut and paste but 1) it's not the reason why atmospheric temperatures lead CO2 by 800 years (approx) and 2) The forced feedback mechanism would seem to become a negative feedback at pretty specific min and max values if historical average climate temperature extremes are to be believed.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

All the rest of the glaciers got much smaller? Ok, It was late and it was the end of the film, but I don't recall that. So in a catastrophically warming climate, 4 glaciers got bigger? Could it not be that the sample period was too short. 3 years in "100 thousand years" as even you state is not what trends are built upon.

Here is a glacier that is growing at break neck speed and has been since 1980.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqcjF5C03DI

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Here is a glacier that is growing at break neck speed and has been since 1980.

When did they move Mt St Helens to Alaska?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

When did they move Mt St Helens to Alaska?

Missed the humour, did you?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Missed the humour, did you?

Yes. It's 1:30 am and I'm supposed to be finishing an assignment not debating whether the causes of global warming are due to milankovitch cycles or motor cycles lol.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

No...it just means they are members of a Religion that Believe what they believe based on Faith. That's fine we have Religious Freedom in the USA, but until they can prove that their indulgences of CO2 credits are more than spiritual cleansing...well, then leave the rest of us alone. Remember, we have a Separation of Church and State.

The ones who keep spouting religious fervor are politicians like Inhofe. For real religious fervor look to the likes of Roy Spencer, John Christy, David Legates, Ross McKitrick, Joseph D’Aleo etc.. who are signatories to the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming.

And Pat Boone signed it too; there is an influential voice.

WHAT WE BELIEVE
We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009...lobal-warming/

BTW - I am opposed to carbon credits which, as instrument of cap and trade, do nothing to solve to the problem.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

M'kay.



Quantify "Massive". I have a massive headache; the Sun is a massive object; I have a massive problem with AGW scare mongering tactics.

What exactly is a "massive" retreat for a glacier?

Let me quantify my idea of "massive" for you in this context. At the end of 2013, ALL the glaciers in Iceland combined were calculated to be losing 11 billion tonnes of ice annually.

I got that figure from here: Iceland's vanishing ice — The Daily Climate

Not sure if that is a metric ton or imperial ton, but I'll assume it's a metric tonne (which is heavier). Knowing fresh water is approx 1 ton per cubic metre, lets convert that into cubic volume. 11 billion tons of fresh water is equal to 11 billion m3 in volume. This is in turn equal to 11 km3.

That's a hefty number, hey?

Let's compare that figure to, I dunno, the flow to ocean of the Mississippi River which is 530 km3 per year

So 11 / 530 * 100 = 2.1%
Ok, how about the Amazon @ 6500 km3? Well that's just a figure 0.17%
Yangtze? 1.16%
Congo? 0.85%
Saint Lawrence? 2.07%
Ganges? 2.09%
Columbia? 4.65%

Remember the melting Antarctic, sorry West Antarctic, ice sheets? Can't be bothered looking back for the number but it was something between a claimed 150 km3 and 310 km3 or so per year loss from memory. Either way, that glacial retreat/melt starts to look less impressive aka less "massive" imo.

You can run the numbers on other rivers yourself if you want. Here's the link: List of rivers by discharge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, I get that most of the river water eventually works it's way back to land, but still it's a little ice cube in a big bucket. If the earth can precipitate all the waters of all the rivers flowing into the oceans back to land, I'm confident it can handle the addition of some minor i.e. non-massive glacial melt water for the time being.

Another interesting kind of related fact. The atmosphere itself is estimated to contain 12,900 km3 of water at any time on average. This represents 0.04% of all the world's freshwater or 0.001% of all the world's water in total.

That must be true because I read it here: Water in the Atmosphere, the Water Cycle, from USGS Water-Science School



Well, I'm not sure that anything to do with climate change can be called normal as there is no normal. The climate has always changed and will continue to change. It only had one of two ways to go and thank goodness it's heading north, not south.

All the rest of the glaciers got much smaller? Ok, It was late and it was the end of the film, but I don't recall that. So in a catastrophically warming climate, 4 glaciers got bigger? Could it not be that the sample period was too short. 3 years in "100 thousand years" as even you state is not what trends are built upon.



Ask yourself this question. How could that possibly occur as a result of air temperature aka MMGW theory alone? It's not possible. I'm not going to do it, but go see what the temperatures were for the period at the face of that glacier. See if they are to blame. In my opinion there can only have been other factors at play for example above average rain, mild winters, winds etc - perhaps even expansion in preceding years. Again, if all glaciers experienced the same radical melt at the same latitudes or within the same region then the alarm bells would be sounding, but I assume that didn't happen (and as I've said before, I could be wrong on that).



Look at my IPCC "lion's den" link. CO2 lags temperature i.e. the hotter it gets the more CO2 is naturally, repeat, naturally released into the environment. Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not saying that there is no man made component, I'm simply saying there is good evidence that more CO2 is released by the environment when temps are warmer.

On the lion's den link you will also notice (even though I didn't mention it) that the CO2 line is skyrocketing yet temperature for the same period hasn't.



In other words, you have a closed mind. I don't agree with Creationist's views of the world, but they're entitled to it as long as they don't attempt to use their views to interfere with my life. The same thing cannot be said for AGW proponents.



Can I recommend certain a Bay on the Internet where Pirates reside to all those disappointed that this film is freely unavailable on Youtube

Your responses are typical of the arguments a creationists will use. You ignore the very clear 'evidence' and want to introduce an argument over what is 'massive'. OMG, what is displayed in such a short period of time IS massive to anyone but someone with a closed mind.

It's clear with your responses that NOTHING will lead you to concede anything at all if you think it will in any way support MMGW arguments.

[Reefmagnet]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, I'm afraid. Melting glaciers are not proof of MMGW. That's an assumption you've made.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SV THIRD DAY]

Well this pretty much sums up much of the cut-n-paste "science" this thread has produced.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...-they-are.html

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Well this pretty much sums up much of the cut-n-paste "science" this thread has produced.

Google 'makes people think they are smarter than they are' - Telegraph

How exactly did you come across this?