Global Warming

[Pooeypants]

See, all that information about water vapour is there and it doesn't require a computational model to get that, those are just facts about how water is involved in atmosphere and yet, we get so called "experts" attempting to use it to hide the extent of CO2's significance.

[xyzer]

deepk..

Some of the scientists have predicted by 2020 16% of the worlds land will be under water. The effects of global warming are visible from sattelite images of the Antratic where huge glaciers are simply melting awaya and breaking free from the main ice cap. This could be the start of the End of Humans on earth.

Start by half filling a glass of water then add 3 ice cubes... mark the water level and then wait until the icecubes melt. See if the water level has risen over your mark? I think it's an insult to call people who spout such nonsense, scientists! When ice shelves in Antarctica break off and melt they don't raise the oceans levels?

By the way there are no glaciers in Antarctica?

[grandpa]

Quote by: xyzer By the way there are no glaciers in Antarctica?

What?

List of glaciers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grandpa h.

[nmspl]

List of Glaciers in Antarctica

Canada Glacier.Abbot Ice Shelf
Academy Glacier
Amundsen Glacier
Antarctica
Antarctic ice sheet
Axel Heiberg Glacier
Beardmore Glacier
Beaver Glacier (Enderby Land)
Beaver Glacier (Ross Ice Shelf)
Berkovitsa Glacier
Borchgrevink Glacier
Branscomb Glacier
Brunt Ice Shelf
Byrd Glacier
Canada Glacier
Collins Glacier
Commonwealth Glacier
Crescent Glacier
Crevasse Valley Glacier
Darwin Glacier (Antarctica)
Dater Glacier
David Glacier
Debelt Glacier
Denman Glacier
Dennistoun Glacier
Devils Glacier
Dotson Ice Shelf
Drygalski Glacier
Ebbe Glacier
Ellen Glacier
Erebus Ice Tongue
Ferrar Glacier
Fisher Glacier
Foggydog Glacier
Fortuna Glacier
Frost Glacier
Getz Ice Shelf
Greenwell Glacier
Hammond Glacier
Harker Glacier
Hatherton Glacier
Hayes Glacier
Irvine Glacier
Keltie Glacier
Ketchum Glacier
Koettlitz Glacier
Kohler Glacier
Lambert Glacier
Larsen Ice Shelf
Leppard Glacier
Leverett Glacier
Lillie Glacier
Lucy Glacier
Marsh Glacier
Martin Glacier
Mellor Glacier
Mertz Glacier
Mill Glacier
Minnesota Glacier
Moscow University Ice Shelf
Murgash Glacier
Nash Glacier
Nimitz Glacier
Nimrod Glacier
Ninnis Glacier
Nordenskjold Glacier
Northcliffe Glacier
Northeast Glacier
Pine Island Glacier
Polar Times Glacier
Priestley Glacier
Quartermain Glacier
Quensel Glacier
Quito Glacier
Quonset Glacier
Rayner Glacier
Recovery Glacier
Reedy Glacier
Robert Glacier
Ronne Ice Shelf
Ross Ice Shelf
Scott Glacier
Seaton Glacier
Shackleton Ice Shelf
Shackleton Glacier
Shirase Glacier
Skelton Glacier
Slessor Glacier
Smith Glacier
Socks Glacier
Stancomb-Wills Glacier
Support Force Glacier
Taylor Glacier
Thwaites Glacier
Totten Glacier
Tucker Glacier
Vanderford Glacier
Veststraumen Glacier
West Antarctic Ice Sheet
West Ice Shelf
Wetmore Glacier
Wordie Ice Shelf
Wulfila Glacier
Zykov Glacier

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer deepk.. Start by half filling a glass of water then add 3 ice cubes... mark the water level and then wait until the icecubes melt. See if the water level has risen over your mark? I think it's an insult to call people who spout such nonsense, scientists! When ice shelves in Antarctica break off and melt they don't raise the oceans levels? By the way there are no glaciers in Antarctica?

You do realise that an ice has around only 90% density of water?
And the others have already pointed out the number of glaciers in Antarctica. I think it's quite clear to me that you've got nothing to grasp at but straws at this point and it shows, badly.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Pooeypants Are we going through that global cooling myth again? Again, I'll stress there was no global cooling period.

As far as I can tell, no one read your source. From that ...

Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's

which supports the assertion that there was cooling during the period of the most rapid period of increase of CO2. The article attempts to debunk the idea that there were widespread scientific predictions about additional and extreme global cooling imminent, not that the data doesn't indicate what was claimed in the post to which you were responding.

Try again. Explain why temperatures decreased during the 40s and 50s when carbon content in the atmosphere was increasing so rapidly.

Keith

[rmnunez]

I thought it was settled science that the earth has gone through numerous climate changes, back when the dinosaurs the planet was swampy and tropical. At other times most of the northern hemisphere was buried under glaciers while giant furry prehistoric elephants roamed the planet. Ice Ages have warmer intervals between them, we are probably in one of those now. The question is whether the warming in this interval between Ice Ages is that much worse as a consequence of man-made pollutants, and whether reducing those pollutants will make that much of a difference.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger As far as I can tell, no one read your source. From that ... which supports the assertion that there was cooling during the period of the most rapid period of increase of CO2. The article attempts to debunk the idea that there were widespread scientific predictions about additional and extreme global cooling imminent, not that the data doesn't indicate what was claimed in the post to which you were responding. Try again. Explain why temperatures decreased during the 40s and 50s when carbon content in the atmosphere was increasing so rapidly. Keith

The explanation is given in one of my other sources, click here. Allow me to quote

After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again. The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space. The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases. The mid-century cooling can be seen in this NASA/GISS animation, which shows temperature variation from the annual mean for the period from 1880 through 2006. The warmest temperatures are in red.

Is that satisfactory to your needs?

[rmnunez]

Could only be improved with a link to the NASA animation.

[xyzer]

Hey Pooey..

You do realise that an ice has around only 90% density of water? And the others have already pointed out the number of glaciers in Antarctica. I think it's quite clear to me that you've got nothing to grasp at but straws at this point and it shows, badly

I'll eat crow on that post. I was assuming that the continent was so cold that it was mostly covered by ice and did not contain individual glaciers. Do you have any info on the freshwater flow into the oceans from the melt of those glaciers? I'm not sure it will be significant enough to raise ocean levels even though we assume the ice mass in Antarctica, is shrinking from global warming?
I guess you'r not immune from error either? As Kieth pointed out. You stressed there was no global cooling period! You may be guilty of straw grasping too?

After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.

And you did tacitly admit you overstated something.

As a matter of fact your reference..

Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.

Re asserts my expressed doubt about the myths about global warming causes. Note the second and third points. rmnunez points it out..There is a history of climate change over the years.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Pooeypants You do realise that an ice has around only 90% density of water? And the others have already pointed out the number of glaciers in Antarctica. I think it's quite clear to me that you've got nothing to grasp at but straws at this point and it shows, badly.

The point is that when a solid is placed in water it displaces the liquid around it, albeit less so when it's a floating solid.
Thus, much of the liquid is already displaced, especially since most of the mass of a glacier is already under water, in addition to the fact that when water freezes, it increases in volume as well as decreasing in density.

This means that much of the rising ocean levels that scientists would predict has already happened.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Hey Pooey.. I'll eat crow on that post. I was assuming that the continent was so cold that it was mostly covered by ice and did not contain individual glaciers. Do you have any info on the freshwater flow into the oceans from the melt of those glaciers? I'm not sure it will be significant enough to raise ocean levels even though we assume the ice mass in Antarctica, is shrinking from global warming?

I don't know and I certainly aren't going to pursue the matter a la Al Gore style.

Quote by: xyzer I guess you'r not immune from error either? As Kieth pointed out. You stressed there was no global cooling period! You may be guilty of straw grasping too?

You were using the said event as a means to discredit the current findings on the account that they were wrong in the past. Further more, you should note that "cooling" was actually partly due to human activity which again breaks down your assertion that human activity cannot affect global climate.

Quote by: xyzer And you did tacitly admit you overstated something. As a matter of fact your reference.. Re asserts my expressed doubt about the myths about global warming causes. Note the second and third points. rmnunez points it out..There is a history of climate change over the years.

I still don't see how they invalidate the current modelling of global warming.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Fangrim The point is that when a solid is placed in water it displaces the liquid around it, albeit less so when it's a floating solid. Thus, much of the liquid is already displaced, especially since most of the mass of a glacier is already under water, in addition to the fact that when water freezes, it increases in volume as well as decreasing in density. This means that much of the rising ocean levels that scientists would predict has already happened.

Which glaciers are underwater? As far as I know, the Antarctica has a large central land mass that a few kilometres of ice rests on.

[xyzer]

Thanks for injecting reality into Pooeys obvious attempt at misrepresentation Fangrim..It's not on his agenda to believe anything but humans are causing warming and the resultant alarmist predictions of rising sea levels?

The point is that when a solid is placed in water it displaces the liquid around it, albeit less so when it's a floating solid. Thus, much of the liquid is already displaced, especially since most of the mass of a glacier is already under water, in addition to the fact that when water freezes, it increases in volume as well as decreasing in density. This means that much of the rising ocean levels that scientists would predict has already

Glacial melt is a factor but the global warming alarmists make big press out of the breaking off of enormous ice shelves in antarctica as somehow causing the oceans to rise? They forget that the shelves already displaced(in volume) more than the melt will overcome. Hence the ice cube example Pooey.

[xyzer]

You were using the said event as a means to discredit the current findings on the account that they were wrong in the past. Further more, you should note that "cooling" was actually partly due to human activity which again breaks down your assertion that human activity cannot affect global climate.

That is a misrepresentation of my theory. I have repeatedly said with examples, that human caused CO2 is a minor fraction of less than 1% of atmospheric gas. I have questioned the magnitude of its affects and repeatedly said that natural factors are much more likely to cause climate change. As a matter of fact I have posted a reference of some scientists who feel tha clouds(atmospheric moisture) are an influencer on global cooling. I have also posted references by scientists who say that the 'hockey stick' graph was misaapplied because if ommitted the global warming data of the past, and thus accentuated the recent warming trend? It was statistically flawed!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer That is a misrepresentation of my theory. I have repeatedly said with examples, that human caused CO2 is a minor fraction of less than 1% of atmospheric gas.

I've told you before, this is a misleading figure because the relationship of the greenhouse gases' thermal absorbance and it's concentration aren't directly linear, CO2 may be at low concentrations but that doesn't mean it isn't significant. I implore you to read here and here.

Quote by: xyzer I have questioned the magnitude of its affects and repeatedly said that natural factors are much more likely to cause climate change. As a matter of fact I have posted a reference of some scientists who feel tha clouds(atmospheric moisture) are an influencer on global cooling. I have also posted references by scientists who say that the 'hockey stick' graph was misaapplied because if ommitted the global warming data of the past, and thus accentuated the recent warming trend? It was statistically flawed!

Please stop bringing up the Hockey stick myth.

But we all know where this is going to end, you'll just continue to blank the evidence and insist on a global conspiracy.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Pooey only cites one source now, an agenda driven site that built and geared to promote "man made global warming"

When in doubt, there is an article there that "debunks anything and everyone whose against global warming"

Face it, Pooey is a "Global Warming Acolyte". He's bought into to it, hook line and sinker. It doesn't matter that say...

The Calgary Sun - Spring snowfall sets city record

Blustery winds and a record 7 cm of snow for this day in history took down trees and electrical and telephone lines, causing power outages for more than 7,000 homes and damaging cars and buildings around Calgary, say city fire and Enmax officials. The wintry blast topped the previous snowfall mark of 5.1 cm for May 24, set in 1911, with communities on the city's northwestern edge among the hardest hit.

That's just one record set this winter. Did anyone see South Africa was getting the first may snows in like 50 some odd years?

Does that not tell you people something? The climate does what the climate wants, and right now the cycle of heating is about topped, it's going to swing the other way and people like Pooey will go on about "global ice age"

meh

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Pooey only cites one source now, an agenda driven site that built and geared to promote "man made global warming"

Newscientist is a scientific magazine, it merely reports the papers from journals in an easily understandable form. How exactly is it agenda driven? Can you cite some specific cases? Particular funding?

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio When in doubt, there is an article there that "debunks anything and everyone whose against global warming"

It's a collection of articles but you wouldn't know that because you have read any of them. I wager that you're afraid to find out the truth.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Face it, Pooey is a "Global Warming Acolyte". He's bought into to it, hook line and sinker. It doesn't matter that say... Does that not tell you people something? The climate does what the climate wants, and right now the cycle of heating is about topped, it's going to swing the other way and people like Pooey will go on about "global ice age" meh

Those are big claims, do you have evidence to back up your accusations? Let's see your real evidence instead of just anecdotes.
PS. Just because you choose to ignore the evidence doesn't make me an Acolyte. That is, unless you consider science to be a cult.

[xyzer]

Pooey..direct quotes from your ref on the hockeystick..

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can – and has – been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.

I added the emphasis!
I'm suprised you imply centainty to this admittedly flawed study that has been used as a starting point about the cause of climate change?

[Mr.Vicchio]

No Pooey, it's a Global Warming fear machine. They thrive off people like you.