Global Warming

[xyzer]

This is what that cement is doing to your thought processes Pooey?

So if you're asking for certitude for GW, science can never provide it because there will always be an element of uncertainty. That is how science operates and that is what you fail to understand.

Glad you finally looked up the word certitude.

If you admit that certainty doesn't exist in sciencetific studies then how can we logically take action on the conclusions of the IPCC if they are based on uncertain information? Besides that, the conclusion that an anthropogenic affluent(CO2) is proven to be an influencing factor in climate change is inferred not proven in any so called scientific study?

There are other studies that show that certain natural influences(which we can't affect or control) have either been ignored or countered as flawed,.because they dont meet your admitted scientific test of certitude?

The suns shifting magnetic influence on cosmic particles which can and demonstrably do, affect cloud cover , the eruption of major volcanos, tectonic drift, shifting ocean currents and temperatures, a long geologic recordof global warming and cooling cycles long before major human manufacturing and carbon fuel use, etc.
. To repeat, there is no one study to support that conclusion about human influence, it is inferred from certain correlations( the flawed hockey stick comes to mind) between facts revealed in several studies? Inferred by a political body? Inflated by a sensation seeking press and demagouguery from the likes of AlGore?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer This is what that cement is doing to your thought processes Pooey? Glad you finally looked up the word certitude. If you admit that certainty doesn't exist in sciencetific studies then how can we logically take action on the conclusions of the IPCC if they are based on uncertain information? Besides that, the conclusion that an anthropogenic affluent(CO2) is proven to be an influencing factor in climate change is inferred not proven in any so called scientific study?

Once again you strive to misunderstand the meaning of my post even though I have spelt it out to you. Science cannot give you absolute certainty, that is the nature of science. There will always be uncertainty in the findings with varying significance.

Quote by: xyzer There are other studies that show that certain natural influences(which we can't affect or control) have either been ignored or countered as flawed,.because they dont meet your admitted scientific test of certitude?

Please cite these exact influences.

Quote by: xyzer The suns shifting magnetic influence on cosmic particles which can and demonstrably do, affect cloud cover , the eruption of major volcanos, tectonic drift, shifting ocean currents and temperatures, a long geologic recordof global warming and cooling cycles long before major human manufacturing and carbon fuel use, etc. .

You claim that all of these have been omitted, do you? What's the source of these claims? Clearly you have a lot explaining to do.

Quote by: xyzer To repeat, there is no one study to support that conclusion about human influence, it is inferred from certain correlations( the flawed hockey stick comes to mind) between facts revealed in several studies? Inferred by a political body? Inflated by a sensation seeking press and demagouguery from the likes of AlGore?

I've already corrected you on the status of the "Hockey stick graph" a couple of times so I shan't bother again. If there are no studies that point fingers towards human influence, how does the IPCC, which reviews the hundreds of independently published papers come to that conclusion? Why would all the major National Academies of Science in the world make a joint statement regarding their stance on global warming?

[rmnunez]

So the uncertainty (if any) in the IPCC's forecasts is insignificant?

[xyzer]

Why would all the major National Academies of Science in the world make a joint statement regarding their stance on global warming?

Careful Pooey, your absence of logic is showing...As the usual demagogues are want to do you use the global warming words to cover the real culprit,,that humans are causing warming? We are not in a discussion about the latest warming trend are we? I've admitted there is evidence of that. The difference arises in whats causing it? You believe implicitly that humans are responsible, I dont!

Don't 'duck bob an weave' by saying I misunderstand your posts. Believe me I do. The basis for them is valid in some cases, but I fear you resort to conjectural reasoning about the CO2 issue. That is inferred from certain correlations of trends and has not been proved. There are also correlations, or the lack of them, that have not been used? As a matter of fact nor has humans attempts to change the use of fossil fuels been shown to possibly have any effect on long term climate change.Have we any scientific studies confirming that? In reality its a conclusion by a political body..the IPCC. As a matter of fact that issue is clouded because of the minute percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere and the minute fraction of CO2 actually created by human activity.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Careful Pooey, your absence of logic is showing...

Where? Please cite the specific text

Quote by: xyzer As the usual demagogues are want to do you use the global warming words to cover the real culprit,,that humans are causing warming? We are not in a discussion about the latest warming trend are we? I've admitted there is evidence of that. The difference arises in whats causing it? You believe implicitly that humans are responsible, I dont!

It's not about the belief, it's about where the evidence points us. Seeing we've already established that the Sun cannot be blamed for the warming of the last couple of decades, you're going to have to come up with an alternate culprit.

Quote by: xyzer Don't 'duck bob an weave' by saying I misunderstand your posts.

I spelt it out to you in very clear terms after you misunderstood me the first time. The only one dodging the points are you.

Quote by: xyzer Believe me I do. The basis for them is valid in some cases, but I fear you resort to conjectural reasoning about the CO2 issue.

Such as?

Quote by: xyzer That is inferred from certain correlations of trends and has not been proved.

Define proved.

Quote by: xyzer There are also correlations, or the lack of them, that have not been used? As a matter of fact nor has humans attempts to change the use of fossil fuels been shown to possibly have any effect on long term climate change.

Says who?

Quote by: xyzer Have we any scientific studies confirming that? In reality its a conclusion by a political body..the IPCC.

No, the IPCC draws its conclusions from that of hundreds of independent studies. If none of them found the human foot print, wouldn't someone have pointed that out?

Quote by: xyzer As a matter of fact that issue is clouded because of the minute percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere and the minute fraction of CO2 actually created by human activity.

We've already covered this, you're using misleading figures to make a flawed point. Despite the fact that CO2 is a small constituent of the atmosphere it represents a significant part of the thermal forcing component. I've already stated this fact many times over and each time you'll conveniently ignore it and repeat your same lies. So, do we need to recap on why Carbon dioxide is important? And do you need me to explain how the greenhouse gases work or have you grasped that now?

[xyzer]

If I wasn't already convinced that I'm dealing with an ill informed, illogically inclined juvenile dolt I would resent your insinuation that my opinions and conclusions are lies? You state this as a refutation of an opinion? Ad hominem nonsense!

I've already stated this fact many times over and each time you'll conveniently ignore it and repeat your same lies.

As one whose obvious mental gyrations are a conundrum are you seriously using that dodge as a reasoned counter argument?
I've in effect, repeatedly said that the IPCC used numerous studies and correlations to conclude that CO2 was responsible for the current warming trend. A truism which you ignore. It, a political organization did not conduct any studies, instead it correlated data from several studies and issued a conclusion that CO2 was the forcing element in the current warming cycle. It followed that by issuing alarming warnings about the consequences of we humans (who contribute less than 1% of the atmospheric C02 )not trying to stop the warming trend! It did not count the economic or social costs? It merely intimated that if humans didn't do something to control C02 emissions the world, as we know it, was in trouble. To compound the slant and convince the illogical, it indicated that its conclusions were approved by thousands of scientists? That, which you have used repeatedly is not proved,

. How many qualified scientists have indicated that it is likely that New York City will be flooded in 50 years? That life as we know it depends on curtailing the use of fossil fuels which are the cheapest energy source for the worlds wealth?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer If I wasn't already convinced that I'm dealing with an ill informed, illogically inclined juvenile dolt I would resent your insinuation that my opinions and conclusions are lies? You state this as a refutation of an opinion? Ad hominem nonsense!

My, aren't you just the best at describing my situation? Yes, I am ill-informed because I read science written by scientists as opposed to economists. That must be my real downfall. :rolleyes:
Now, seeing as you're playing your usual game of general ignorance, I will take the time to repost some of the counter evidence.
Let's see, for example you said

Quote by: xyzer To repeat, there is no one study to support that conclusion about human influence, it is inferred from certain correlations( the flawed hockey stick comes to mind) between facts revealed in several studies?

No sir, the Hockey stick graph by Mann et al. is just fine. Now, don't take Newscientist's word for it, they are just a magazine but read it straight from America's National Academy of Science. Of course, if you believe that you're more of an expert than the NAS....

Next up, are you misleading points about the importance of CO2

Quote by: xyzer As a matter of fact that issue is clouded because of the minute percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere and the minute fraction of CO2 actually created by human activity.

You are understating the significance of CO2 and understating the human contribution to CO2 increase. Minute fraction of CO2 created by human activity? From 280ppm to 380ppm is like a 30% increase and in a mere few centuries! Normally this rise is seen in tens of thousands of years!!

Quote by: xyzer As one whose obvious mental gyrations are a conundrum are you seriously using that dodge as a reasoned counter argument?

If I had a penny for every question I've given you that you've dodged on this thread alone I'd probably get enough money to buy a car. But I digress.

Quote by: xyzer I've in effect, repeatedly said that the IPCC used numerous studies and correlations to conclude that CO2 was responsible for the current warming trend. A truism which you ignore.

And what of it?

Quote by: xyzer It, a political organization did not conduct any studies, instead it correlated data from several studies and issued a conclusion that CO2 was the forcing element in the current warming cycle.

This is from the IPCC website

Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the UN and WMO.

So, can you tell me, how many politicians are involved in the review of scientific evidence for the IPCC? But you are right, the governments involved do have a say in what goes into the report, for example China and USA wanted the report to be "weakened". Thank you for bringing up that point.

Quote by: xyzer It followed that by issuing alarming warnings about the consequences of we humans (who contribute less than 1% of the atmospheric C02 )not trying to stop the warming trend! It did not count the economic or social costs?

The IPCC has an entire Working group to assess the economic and social impacts of global warming & actions to curb it. In addition, have you not heard of the Stern report issued by a prominent Economist (the type of people that you seem to trust on issues of science).

Quote by: xyzer It merely intimated that if humans didn't do something to control C02 emissions the world, as we know it, was in trouble. To compound the slant and convince the illogical, it indicated that its conclusions were approved by thousands of scientists? That, which you have used repeatedly is not proved,

No, I have repeated supported my statement. I will, once again cite the joint statement made by all the major National Academies of Science in the world which unanimously support the conclusions of the IPCC. Are you aware of how big the National Academies of Science are? Are you aware of how many members they include? Well, the USA's NAS has around 2100 members. So my point stands solid.

Quote by: xyzer How many qualified scientists have indicated that it is likely that New York City will be flooded in 50 years? That life as we know it depends on curtailing the use of fossil fuels which are the cheapest energy source for the worlds wealth?

I don't know but I doubt NYC would have a problem building sea defences against rising waters, although as far as I know this will not be necessary for the next foreseeable century.

I'm sure my sources will be completely overlooked and you will ignore any relevant counter evidence in this post because that is your prerogative. It seems to be some kind of religious belief you have that science is right or wrong based on the opinion of economists as opposed to the scientist themselves. Must be that special sense of logic you've installed in between the cranium.

[xyzer]

There you go again Pooey..

Now, don't take Newscientist's word for it, they are just a magazine but read it straight from America's National Academy of Science. Of course, if you believe that you're more of an expert than the NAS....

I read your reference and it doesn't say what you imply? It admits we don't know enough about warming prior to and around 900 AD to say it wasn't a warmer period. ergo..the hockey stick graph ignored that period? Isn't that a flaw? It counters the myth approach you like to use.
In addition it admits that some of the ancient warming assumptions are inferred from proxy data. Isn't that exactly what I said.."correlations inferred from admittedly uncertain data? Surely you aren't claiming that proxy data is certain? But that still doesn't directly prove that warming is caused by human activity?

And then you come up with this one?

You are understating the significance of CO2 and understating the human contribution to CO2 increase. A minute fraction of CO2 is created by human activity? From 280ppm to 380ppm is like a 30% increase and in a mere few centuries! Normally this rise is seen in tens of thousands of years!!

You use a figure(30% increase in CO2 in a mere few centuries) with out any reference to what contributed to the increase? As usual you relatew unrelated data? How much of the 30% was humanly created? Human contributions to the very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are miniscule ..how can such a precise rise be attributed to human activity? By inference! How can humans have Importantly contributed to CO2 creation more than 100 years back before the industrial revolution?? How about the rise and fall of the oceans temps which affecte CO2 absorption? How about the contribution of plant life to the use of CO2 and creation of oxygen?

You don't consider any other factors..You buy into the flawed reasoning that humans can affect long term climate..I don't. It's using guesses and inferences to prove an assertion..

[Zeebadee]

I haven't read through all 24 pages of this thread, but I did scan them quickly. Every post seems to concern the various greenhouse gases and their effects on the retention of heat at the earth's surface. I didn't see any post that dealt with actual heat production itself.

The generation of electricity produces large quantities of heat, and the use of that energy generates even more heat. Every time we turn on a light, or switch on a motor, use the oven, even when we apply the brakes on our cars we generate heat. I've been trying to find some correlation between heat radiation from earth to global warming. The best I have been able to find is this:

"Over longer time-scales there is no net heat inflow to Earth since incoming solar energy is re-emitted at exactly the same rate. To maintain Earth's thermal equilibrium, however, there must be a net outflow equal to the geothermal heat flow. Performed calculations show that the net heat outflow in 1880 was equal to the geothermal heat flow, which is the only natural net heat source on Earth. Since then, heat dissipation from the global use of nonrenewable energy sources has resulted in additional net heating. In, e.g. Sweden, which is a sparsely populated country, this net heating is about three times greater than the geothermal heat flow. Such thermal pollution contributes to global warming until the global temperature has reached a level where this heat is also emitted to space. Heat dissipation from the global use of fossil fuels and nuclear power is the main source of thermal pollution. Here, it was found that one third of current thermal pollution is emitted to space and that a further global temperature increase of 1.8 °C is required until Earth is again in thermal equilibrium." ScienceDirect - Global and Planetary Change : Thermal pollution causes global warming

It seems to me that the problem isn't only greenhouse gases, it's the actual production and retention of the heat when we use any energy source. Even if we had absolutely clean energy production, the increasing use of that energy is going to continue to contribute to global warming. There can be no controversy about the source of that heat, it's undeniably human.

[xyzer]

zee posts...

I didn't see any post that dealt with actual heat production itself.

I start off with this in my reply..

Traditionally, greenhouse gas levels are presented as dimensionless numbers representing parts per billion (ppb) multiplied by a scaling factor (global warming potential or GWP) that allows their relative efficiency of producing global temperature increases to be compared. For carbon dioxide, this scaling factor is 1.0. The factors for methane and nitrous oxide are 21 and 310, respectively, while sulfur hexafluoride is 23,900 times more effective than carbon dioxide [5]. The GWP from carbon dioxide is primarily due to the position of its absorption bands in the critical longwave infrared region at 2, 3, 5, and 13-17 micrometers.

I post this because the bone of contention on this site has been the importance of CO2 on thermal forcing. It is promoted by the IPCC and warming alarmists as important in inhibiting the reflection of heat back off the earth.
My contention throughout has been that since CO2 is not a major atmospheric gas and human contributions to it are a small fraction of that small amount... I don't believe it is of major concern in influencing climate change?.
The economic and even social effects of drastic cutbacks in the cheapest form of energy we have(fossil fuels) would burdern major economies and severely cripple growing societies. Participation in the Kyoto Protocol was voted down 95 to 0 by the US Senate. This was because of the economic effects and the unfairness of those who would be doing the major cutbacks. There is doubt that it will have any effect.

In response to your suggestion there has been no reference to heat production
Its obvious, and I have posted it, that the major contributors to warming(climate change) are natural. The suns fluctuating billiance, the suns magnetic influence on cosmic particles coming into the solar system and hitting earth, Plus others like ocean temperatures and currents, volcanic action, tectionic drift and as you suggest the use of energy by humans, etc.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: xyzer Its obvious, and I have posted it, that the major contributors to warming(climate change) are natural. The suns fluctuating billiance, the suns magnetic influence on cosmic particles coming into the solar system and hitting earth, Plus others like ocean temperatures and currents, volcanic action, tectionic drift and as you suggest the use of energy by humans, etc.

I think you miss the point of my link. Up until relatively recently, the net gain of heat on the earth has been zero, as it radiates as much heat as it gets from the sun. Recently, there has been a net gain of heat, the main source of which has been the global use of fossil fuels and nuclear power, resulting in an increase of 1.8 degrees C to maintain equilibrium. Further increases in energy use, from whatever source, will cause that increase to continue to rise. This is in addition to whatever natural fluctuations that might occur.

[xyzer]

Yes but will it overcome natural changes? I didn't miss your point zee, What is equilibrium if it can be so easily tipped by changes to a minor component of the atmosphere? Is the so called equilibrium based on some invented human optimum when we know that the major climate influencers on the earth over its existence have been natural? We know that the earths climate changed way before it was peopled by humans? Those many changes in climate were not caused by humans? I have pointed out the suns natural variations in intensity as much more important to climates change over the life of this planet.

What is the optimum balance of climate variables that we seek? Is it possible to predict or even control this optimum when we know our human version has only been reached in the past decade or so? It's based on inferences resulting from scientific studies and .the correlation of temperature trends with atmospheric gases but as I've pointed out does not consider the variability of the suns influence? We can't stay fixed in time and then predict change based on current measurments IMO. We don't know enough yet? Better to adapt.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Xzyer, why do you do this to yourself?

The real answer to the C02 problem, has been outlined by Al Gore and the Jet Setters telling us that Global Warming is coming. Their excuse for living large is they buy carbon credits. Ergo,t he simple solution to America's C02 problem is to pass a "Carbon Credit Tax" on everyone, thus solving the problem. America could, in one simple step, solve it's C02 output, save the world, and be the greenest country on the planet.

[xyzer]

Xzyer, why do you do this to yourself?

I enjoy the riposte!

And I detest illogical alarmist rant. e.g. carbon trade offs? Rising ocean water covering the streets of downtown New York City? Ice melt harming polar bear cubs? Generalized creation of strawmwn like "thousands of anonymous scientists" ?
Balderdash and nonsense!

[Mr.Vicchio]

It is. Have you seen the latest from Greenland? Not only are the glaciers NOT melting, it's cooler up there now then it was between 1910 and 1930.

Go figure, global warming!! Melting Glaciers!!! Oh wait... it's cooler, and the glaciers are growing where it counts most...

Amazing that eh

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio It is. Have you seen the latest from Greenland? Not only are the glaciers NOT melting, it's cooler up there now then it was between 1910 and 1930. Go figure, global warming!! Melting Glaciers!!! Oh wait... it's cooler, and the glaciers are growing where it counts most... Amazing that eh

"MAJOR GREENLAND GLACIER, ONCE STABLE, NOW SHRINKING DRAMATICALLY" Major Greenland Glacier, Once Stable, Now Shrinking Dramatically

"Fastest Glacier in Greenland Doubles Speed"
NASA - Fastest Glacier in Greenland Doubles Speed

"Greenland's Glaciers: Melting and On The Move"
Greenland's Glaciers: Melting and On The Move: Scientific American

" The Big Thaw: Global Disaster Will Follow If the Ice Cap on Greenland Melts
Now scientists say it is vanishing far faster than even they expected."
The Big Thaw: Global Disaster Will Follow If the Ice Cap on Greenland Melts

" Greenland Glacier Retreats"
Greenland Glacier Retreats - Brightcove

Just to quote a few.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer There you go again Pooey.. I read your reference and it doesn't say what you imply? It admits we don't know enough about warming prior to and around 900 AD to say it wasn't a warmer period. ergo..the hockey stick graph ignored that period? Isn't that a flaw? It counters the myth approach you like to use. In addition it admits that some of the ancient warming assumptions are inferred from proxy data.

If we're talking about the infamous Hockey stick graph then we're only covering the time period of the last one thousand years. It wasn't me that was implying anything but you when you said that the said graph was flawed. This is a quote from the NAS's report

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world.

See previous post for source.
If you want to talk about prior 900AD, that's another matter and a red herring at this point.

Quote by: xyzer Isn't that exactly what I said.."correlations inferred from admittedly uncertain data? Surely you aren't claiming that proxy data is certain? But that still doesn't directly prove that warming is caused by human activity?

There is no other way to make a measurement of past temperatures except via proxy. If you have a direct method to do it, perhaps a time machine, then do get in touch with the appropriate organisations.

Quote by: xyzer And then you come up with this one? You use a figure(30% increase in CO2 in a mere few centuries) with out any reference to what contributed to the increase? As usual you relatew unrelated data? How much of the 30% was humanly created? Human contributions to the very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are miniscule ..how can such a precise rise be attributed to human activity? By inference! How can humans have Importantly contributed to CO2 creation more than 100 years back before the industrial revolution?? How about the rise and fall of the oceans temps which affecte CO2 absorption?

Does the economist websites not tell you the details of why we know that the CO2 is ours? Well, for your sake I think you should read about it to prevent further embarrassment.

Quote by: xyzer How about the contribution of plant life to the use of CO2 and creation of oxygen?

They're part of the carbon cycle in that over the period of 1 year, all things being even then the net carbon change is probably zero (plants fixing carbon and then dying to release etc.).

Quote by: xyzer You don't consider any other factors..You buy into the flawed reasoning that humans can affect long term climate..I don't. It's using guesses and inferences to prove an assertion..

I do consider the other factors, I look at the data and see that we've observed a carbon dioxide increase that usually takes tens of thousands of years to reach but happen in a few hundred years, this happens coincidentally with the rise of human industrial activity and, as I cited above, it is back isotropic measurements of carbon.
It's evident that you have little knowledge of science and yet you're trying to argue with me on this issue. Sure, I can understand your doubts about the predictions etc but something as basic as this stuff just makes it clear that you haven't a clue about what's going on except what little propaganda certain economists will spout.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Hey Zee, now I'm gonna stomp on ya :) TY for the oppurtunity:

Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming. Danish researchers from Aarhus University studied glaciers on Disko island, in western Greenland in the Atlantic, from the end of the 19th century until the present day. "This study, which covers 247 of 350 glaciers on Disko, is the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland's glaciers," glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde, who carried out the study with Niels Tvis Knudsen, told AFP. Using maps from the 19th century and current satellite observations, the scientists were able to conclude that "70 percent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s at a rate of around eight meters per year," Yde said. "We studied 95 percent of the area covered by glaciers in Disko and everything indicates that our results are also valid for the glaciers along the coasts of the rest of Greenland," he said. The biggest reduction was observed between 1964 and 1985. "A three-to-four degree increase of the temperature on Greenland from 1920 to 1930, and the increase recorded since 1995 has sped up the ice melt," he said. The effect of the rising temperatures in the 1920s and 1930s was "visible dozens of years later, and that of the 1990s will be (visible) in 10 or 20 years," Yde said, adding that he expected Greenland's glaciers to melt even faster in the future. The shrinking of the glaciers since the 19th century is "the result of the atmosphere's natural warming, following volcanic eruptions for example and greenhouse gases, created by human activities, which have aggravated the situation further," he said. The study also showed new results on galloping glaciers, the name given to glaciers that surge very quickly for a few years, up to 50 meters a day, before advancing more slowly at a rate of 20 meters per year," he said. "We have identified, thanks to new analyses of aerials photographs and satellite images, almost four times more galloping glaciers, or 75 compared to just 20 in previous estimates," he said. The two authors of the study were to present their results on Monday at a conference in Cambridge, England on the impact of global warming on glaciers.

Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for 100 years: study

Try staying with the times there Zee and not relying on flawed biased agenda driven politicos for your info.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Hey Zee, now I'm gonna stomp on ya :) TY for the oppurtunity: Try staying with the times there Zee and not relying on flawed biased agenda driven politicos for your info.

Yeah, V, you sure stomped on me there!!

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Have you seen the latest from Greenland? Not only are the glaciers NOT melting, it's cooler up there now then it was between 1910 and 1930. Go figure, global warming!! Melting Glaciers!!! Oh wait... it's cooler, and the glaciers are growing where it counts most...

Then you turn around and claim.....

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for 100 years: study

So, which is it, Mr. V?? You've contradicted yourself! (again)

[Mr.Vicchio]

... they have been, over 100 years, I.E. before this MMGW hooey.

I.E. it's not GW.