Global Warming

[libby]

That's not the point. There will always be variations in weather. BUT, just try to imagine what would have to be going on for the glaciers to be melting!   

[Palehorse]

That's BS I've lived through warmer, colder, rainer, and dryer years than this one and so have you if you'd think about it.

Translation (partial) My little world is the 🌎. . . 🙄

[Palehorse]

That's not the point. There will always be variations in weather. BUT, just try to imagine what would have to be going for the glaciers to be melting!   

Too late. She's already drank enough of the "glaciers aren't melting " Kool Aid to float 10 aircraft carriers. 🙄

[me]

Too late. She's already drank enough of the "glaciers aren't melting " Kool Aid to float 10 aircraft carriers. 🙄

Of course they're gonna melt when the water warms up but they are refreezing and the glaciers are refreezing now, cycles ya know.
http://canadafreepress.com/article/our-glaciers-are-growing-not-melting-more-falsehoods-from-al-gore/

Contrary to Gore's assertions, almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are growing, not melting --and the seas are not rising
Our glaciers are growing, not melting - More falsehoods from Al Gore
Robert Felix image

By Robert Felix——Previous Articles--March 8, 2010

"Almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are melting — and seas are rising," said Al Gore -in an op-ed piece in the New York Times on February 27.

Both parts of Gore's statement are false.

8 Mar 10 - "Almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are melting—and seas are rising," said Al Gore -in an op-ed piece in the New York Times on February 27.

Both parts of Gore's statement are false.

Never mind that Mr. Gore makes only passing reference to the IPCC's fraudulent claims that the Himalayan glaciers will all melt by 2035. ("A flawed overestimate," he explains.)

Never mind that Mr. Gore dismisses the IPCC's fraudulent claims that the oceans are rising precipitously. ("Partly inaccurate," he huffs.)

Never mind that Mr. Gore completely ignores the admission by the CRU's disgraced former director Phil Jones that global temperatures have essentially remained unchanged for the past 15 years.

I'll let someone else dissect Gore's lawyering comments, and concentrate on just the one sentence about melting ice, because neither part of that sentence is true.

Contrary to Gore's assertions, almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are growing, not melting—and the seas are not rising.

Let's look at the facts.

If you click on the words "are melting" in Gore's article, you're taken to a paper by Michael Zemp at the University of Zurich. Mr. Zemp begins his paper by warning that "glaciers around the globe continue to melt at high rates."

However, if you bother to actually read the paper, you learn that Zemp's conclusion is based on measurements of "more than 80 glaciers."

Considering that the Himalayas boast more than 15,000 glaciers, a study of "more than 80 glaciers" hardly seems sufficient to warrant such a catastrophic pronouncement.

Especially when you learn that of those 80 glaciers, several are growing.

Growing. Not melting.

"In Norway, many maritime glaciers were able to gain mass," Zemp concedes. ("Able to gain mass" means growing.)

In North America, Zemp also concedes, "some positive values were reported from the North Cascade Mountains and the Juneau Ice Field."  ("Displaying positive values" means growing.)

Remember, we're still coming out of the last ice age. Ice is supposed to melt as we come out of an ice age. The ice has been melting for 11,000 years. Why should today be any different? I'm guessing that most Canadians and Northern Europeans are very happy that the ice has been melting.

Unfortunately, that millenniums-long melting trend now appears to be changing. No matter how assiduously Mr. Gore tries to ignore it, almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are now gaining mass. (Or, displaying positive values, if you will.)

For starters, let's look at those Himalayan glaciers. In a great article, entitled "World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown," Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings show that the IPCC's fraudulent claims were based on "speculation" and "not supported by any formal research."

As a matter of fact, many Himalayan glaciers are growing. In a defiant act of political incorrectness, some 230 glaciers in the western Himalayas - including Mount Everest, K2 and Nanga Parbat - are actually growing.

"These are the biggest mid-latitude glaciers in the world," says John Shroder of the University of Nebraska-Omaha. "And all of them are either holding still, or advancing."

And get this. Eighty seven of the glaciers have surged forward since the 1960s.

So much for Mr. Gore's "more than 80 glaciers."

(I don't know how many Himalayan glaciers are being monitored, but my guess would be fewer than a thousand, so it's possible that hundreds more are growing. There aren't enough glaciologists in the world to monitor them all.)

But we don't need to look to the Himalayas for growing glaciers. Glaciers are growing in the United States.

Yes, glaciers are growing in the United States.

Look at Washington State. The Nisqually Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing. The Emmons Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing. Glaciers on Glacier Peak in northern Washington are growing. And Crater Glacier on Mt. Saint Helens is now larger than it was before the 1980 eruption. (I don't think all of the glaciers in Washington or Alaska are being monitored either.)

Or look at California. All seven glaciers on California's Mount Shasta are growing. This includes three-mile-long Whitney glacier, the state's largest. Three of Mount Shasta's glaciers have doubled in size since 1950.

Or look at Alaska. Glaciers are growing in Alaska for the first time in 250 years. In May of last year, Alaska,Äôs Hubbard Glacier was advancing at the rate of seven feet (two meters) per day - more than half-a-mile per year. And in Icy Bay, at least three glaciers advanced a third of a mile (one half kilometer) in one year.

Oh, by the way. The Juneau Icefield, with its "positive values," covers 1,505 square miles (3,900 sq km) and is the fifth-largest ice field in the Western Hemisphere. Rather interesting to know that Gore's own source admits that the fifth-largest ice field in the Western Hemisphere is growing, don't you think?

But this mere handful of growing glaciers is just an anomaly, the erstwhile Mr. Gore would have you believe.

Well, let's look at a few other countries.

    Perito Moreno Glacier, the largest glacier in Argentina, is growing.
    Pio XI Glacier, the largest glacier in Chile, is growing.
    Glaciers are growing on Mt. Logan, the tallest mountain in Canada.
    Glaciers are growing on Mt. Blanc, the tallest mountain in France.
    Glaciers are growing in Norway, says the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE).
    And the last time I checked, all 50 glaciers in New Zealand were growing.

But this is nothing. These glaciers are babies when you look at our planet's largest ice masses, namely, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

Contrary to what you may have heard, both of those huge ice sheets are growing.

In 2007, Antarctica set a new record for most ice extent since 1979, says meteorologist Joe D'Aleo. While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years, and ice near it diminished during the summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and the ice extent greater.

Antarctic sea ice is also increasing. According to Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison, sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years have been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

The Antarctic Peninsula, where the ice has been melting, is only about 1/50th the size of east Antarctica, where the ice has been growing. Saying that all of Antarctica is melting is like looking at the climate of Oregon and saying that this applies to the entire United States.

There was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting, says Dr. Allison. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west." And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

"A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded."

What about Greenland?

Greenland's ice-cap has thickened slightly in recent years despite wide predictions of a thaw triggered by global warming, said a team of scientists in October 2005.

The 3,000-meter (9,842-feet) thick ice-cap is a key concern in debates about climate change because a total melt would raise world sea levels by about 7 meters.

But satellite measurements show that more snow is falling and thickening the ice-cap, especially at high altitudes, according to the report in the journal Science.

The overall ice thickness changes are approximately plus 5 cm (1.9 inches) per year or 54 cm (21.26 inches) over 11 years, according to the experts at Norwegian, Russian and U.S. institutes led by Ola Johannessen at the Mohn Sverdrup center for Global Ocean Studies and Operational Oceanography in Norway.

Not overwhelming growth, certainly, but a far cry from the catastrophic melting that we've been lead to believe.

Think about that.

The Antarctic Ice Sheet is almost twice as big as the contiguous United States.

Put the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets together, and they're one hundred times bigger than all of the rest of the world's glaciers combined.

More than 90 percent of the world's glaciers are growing, in other words, and all we hear about are the ones that are shrinking.

But if so many of the world's glaciers are growing, how can sea levels remain the same?

They can't. The sea level models are wrong.

During the last ice age, sea levels stood some 370 feet (100 meters) lower than today. That's where all of the moisture came from to create those two-mile-high sheets of ice that covered so much of the north.

And just as the ice has been melting for 11,000 years, so too were sea levels rising during those same years.

But the rising has stopped.

Forget those IPCC claims. Sea levels are not rising, says Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, one-time expert reviewer for the IPCC.

Dr. Mörner, who received his PhD in geology in 1969, is one of the greatest - if not the greatest - sea level experts in the world today. He has worked with sea level problems for 40 years in areas scattered all over the globe.
"There is no change," says Mörner. "Sea level is not changing in any way."

"There is absolutely no sea-level rise in Tuvalo," Mörner insists. "There is no change here, and there is zero sea-level rise in Bangladesh. If anything, sea levels have lowered in Bangladesh."

"We do not need to fear sea-level rise," says Mörner. "(But) we should have a fear of those people who fooled us."

So there you have it. More falsehoods from Al Gore, the multimillionaire businessman who some say is set to become the world's first carbon billionaire.

Our glaciers are growing, not melting—and the seas are not rising.

I agree with Dr. Mörner, but I'd make it a tad stronger. We should have a fear of those people who have conned us.

And here is another article: https://www.livescience.com/48256-asia-karakoram-glaciers-stability.html

[The Troll]

  If the sea level hasn't raised, why do the street of Miami fill with water from the sewers? When there is a strong wind from the East and a high tide.   

[Palehorse]

Of course they're gonna melt when the water warms up but they are refreezing and the glaciers are refreezing now, cycles ya know.
http://canadafreepress.com/article/our-glaciers-are-growing-not-melting-more-falsehoods-from-al-gore/

And here is another article: https://www.livescience.com/48256-asia-karakoram-glaciers-stability.html

So all of these people are liars, and the photographs were photoshopped. . . And the science is bullshit. . .

Last I checked the islands off the coasts of this nation are indeed being submerged and erosion has accelerated beyond what is considered normal.
There are entire populations of people in Alaska that have had to abandon the homelands their ancestors inhabited for centuries because they are now under water.

Deny it all you want, but I'd like to see you tell these displaced families it is a lie to their faces. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/24/the-remote-alaskan-village-that-needs-to-be-relocated-due-to-climate-change/?utm_term=.d41764d717e0

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/shishmaref-alaska-elocate-vote-climate-change.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kivalina,_Alaska

Then there is Tangier Island, Virginia and Louisiana's Isle de Jean Charles southwest of New Orleans:

https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-07-12/rising-seas-are-washing-away-two-us-towns-how-theyre-responding-matter-faith

Here's a more recent article on Louisiana's Isle de Jean Charles: (Note the progression between the two articles-above and below, in the 5 years between the two articles)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/us/heart-of-the-matter-climate-change-louisiana/index.html

Then there is the Global impact:

http://www.businessinsider.com/islands-threatened-by-climate-change-2012-10/#kiribati-1

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

[me]

So all of these people are liars, and the photographs were photoshopped. . . And the science is bullshit. . .




https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

All liberal leaning publications.

[Exterminator]

That's BS I've lived through warmer, colder, rainer, and dryer years than this one and so have you if you'd think about it.

That is absolutely untrue.  Google warmest year on record and see what the results say.  How can anyone be so fucking ignorant?

[Exterminator]

All liberal leaning publications.

NASA? 

[Palehorse]

All liberal leaning publications.

Get a clue. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🙄

[libby]

First I have to say there is no joy in posting this -- or hope that maybe a denier or two or three will read it and stop and think. (Why do I keep thinking about the biblical Noah?) 

From today's Washington Post:

Trump administration releases report finding 'no convincing alternative explanation' for climate change
 
By Chris Mooney, Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis  November 3 at 4:00 PM 
Government's dire climate change report blames humans

The government's National Climate Assessment released on Nov. 3 cited human influence as the "dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."  (Patrick Martin/The Washington Post)

This story has been updated.

The Trump administration released a dire scientific report Friday calling human activity the dominant driver of global warming, a conclusion at odds with White House decisions to withdraw from a key international climate accord, champion fossil fuels and reverse Obama-era climate policies.

To the surprise of some scientists, the White House did not seek to prevent the release of the government's National Climate Assessment, which is mandated by law. The report affirms that climate change is driven almost entirely by human action, warns of a worst-case scenario where seas could rise as high as eight feet by the year 2100, and details climate-related damage across the United States that is already unfolding as a result of an average global temperature increase of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900.

"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century," the document reports. "For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence."

Does the Trump administration believe in climate change?

President Trump and many of his top aides have expressed skepticism about climate change, while others say human activity is to blame for global warming. So what's the administration's real position?  (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

The report's release underscores the extent to which the machinery of the federal scientific establishment, operating in multiple agencies across the government, continues to grind on even as top administration officials have minimized or disparaged its findings. Federal scientists have continued to author papers and issue reports on climate change, for example, even as political appointees have altered the wording of news releases or blocked civil servants from speaking about their conclusions in public forums. The climate assessment process is dictated by a 1990 law that Democratic and Republican administrations have followed.

The White House on Friday sought to downplay the significance of the study and its findings.

"The climate has changed and is always changing. As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on 'remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,'" White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement. "In the United States, energy related carbon dioxide emissions have been declining, are expected to remain flat through 2040, and will also continue to decline as a share of world emissions."

Shah added that the Trump administration "supports rigorous scientific analysis and debate." He said it will continue to "promote access to the affordable and reliable energy needed to grow economically" and to back advancements that improve infrastructure and ultimately reduce emissions.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and President Trump have all questioned the extent of humans' contribution to climate change. One of the EPA's Web pages posted scientific conclusions similar to those in the new report until earlier this year, when Pruitt's deputies ordered it removed.

The report comes as Trump and members of his Cabinet are working to promote U.S. fossil-fuel production and repeal several federal rules aimed at curbing the nation's carbon output, including ones limiting greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants, oil and gas operations on federal land and carbon emissions from cars and trucks. Trump has also announced he will exit the Paris climate agreement, under which the United States has pledged to cut its overall greenhouse-gas emissions between 26 percent and 28 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2025.

[Scott Pruitt blocks scientists with EPA grants from serving as agency advisers] 

The report could have considerable legal and policy significance, providing new and stronger support for the EPA's greenhouse-gas "endangerment finding" under the Clean Air Act, which lays the foundation for regulations on emissions.

"This is a federal government report whose contents completely undercut their policies, completely undercut the statements made by senior members of the administration," said Phil Duffy, director of the Woods Hole Research Center.

The government is required to produce the national assessment every four years. This time, the report is split into two documents, one that lays out the fundamental science of climate change and the other that shows how the United States is being affected on a regional basis. Combined, the two documents total over 2,000 pages.

The first document, called the Climate Science Special Report, is a finalized report, having been peer-reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and vetted by experts across government agencies. It was formally unveiled Friday.

"I think this report is basically the most comprehensive climate science report in the world right now," said Robert Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers who is an expert on sea-level rise and served as one of the report's lead authors.

It affirms that the United States is already experiencing more extreme heat and rainfall events and more large wildfires in the West, that more than 25 coastal U.S. cities are already experiencing more flooding, and that seas could rise by between 1 and 4 feet by the year 2100, and perhaps even more than that if Antarctica proves to be unstable, as is feared. The report says that a rise of over eight feet is "physically possible" with high levels of greenhouse-gas emissions but that there's no way right now to predict how likely it is to happen.

Floods are getting worse and more frequent. Here's why.

Scientists like Bill Nye say there is an increased risk of flooding due to climate change and it's "only going to get worse." Here's why.  (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)

When it comes to rapidly escalating levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the report states, "there is no climate analog for this century at any time in at least the last 50 million years."

Most striking, perhaps, the report warns of the unpredictable — changes that scientists cannot foresee that could involve tipping points or fast changes in the climate system. These could switch the climate into "new states that are very different from those experienced in the recent past."

Some members of the scientific community had speculated that the administration might refuse to publish the report or might alter its conclusions. During the George W. Bush administration, a senior official at the White House Council on Environmental Quality edited aspects of some government science reports.

Yet multiple experts, as well as some administration officials and federal scientists, said Trump political appointees did not change the special report's scientific conclusions. While some edits have been made to its final version — for instance, omitting or softening some references to the Paris climate agreement — those were focused on policy.

"I'm quite confident to say there has been no political interference in the scientific messages from this report," David Fahey, an atmospheric scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a lead author of the study, told reporters on Friday. "Whatever fears we had weren't realized. ... This report says what the scientists want it to say."

A senior administration official, who asked for anonymity because the process is still underway, said in an interview that top Trump officials decided to put out the assessment without changing the findings of its contributors even if some appointees may have different views.

Glynis Lough, who is deputy director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists and had served as chief of staff for the National Climate Assessment at the U.S. Global Change Research Program until mid-2016, said in an interview that the changes made by government officials to the latest report "are consistent with the types of changes that were made in the previous administration for the 2014 National Climate Assessment, to avoid policy prescriptiveness."

Perhaps no agency under Trump has tried to downplay and undermine climate science more than the EPA. Most recently, political appointees at the EPA instructed two agency scientists and one contractor not to speak as planned at a scientific conference in Rhode Island. The conference marked the culmination of a three-year report on the status of Narragansett Bay, New England's largest estuary, in which climate change featured prominently.

[EPA removes climate pages from public view after two decades] 

The EPA also has altered parts of its website containing detailed climate data and scientific information. As part of that overhaul, in April the agency took down pages that had existed for years and contained a wealth of information on the scientific causes of global warming, its consequences and ways for communities to mitigate or adapt. The agency said that it was simply making changes to better reflect the new administration's priorities and that any pages taken down would be archived.

Pruitt has repeatedly advocated for the creation of a government-wide "red team/blue team" exercise, in which a group of outside critics would challenge the validity of mainstream scientific conclusions around climate change.

www.washingtonpost.com

[Palehorse]

A January storm moving up the east coast that is akin to a winter hurricane.

Blistering cold across the nation. Record breaking.

Keep telling yourself there is no such thing as global warming. . . 🙄

[Henry Hawk]

A January storm moving up the east coast that is akin to a winter hurricane.

Blistering cold across the nation. Record breaking.

Keep telling yourself there is no such thing as global warming. . . 🙄

AS MAN-MADE global warming....

[Exterminator]

AS MAN-MADE global warming....

Yeah and people didn't cause the dustbowl in the 30's either.   

[Henry Hawk]

Yeah and people didn't cause the dustbowl in the 30's either.   

I'm not denying MAN can indeed have an effect. I'm not buy that we are having an extra cold winter or some crazy hot summers because of man's contribution.