My Glacier National Park Picture

This is at Jackson Glacier in Glacier National Park, Montana. The display put up by the park service shows how the glaciers (frequently cited by alarmists as proof of AGW) have been receding since at least 1850.....long before i bought my first SUV.

 

I noticed that 37 people viewed this with ZERO replies. Assuming half were alarmists I am still waiting for the clever answers about how those thoughtless native Americans set global warming going in the early 1800's............

Come on.....I saw an article by alarmists that explains why the world temperature is not increasing like predicted by the IPCC.....they said the "heat was hiding in the oceans"......

Be creative guys....I'm getting bored

 

"Science is settled" advocates are generally loath to discuss any climate changes prior to their favorite, and most recent, one. There are a few of course, the most notable being the hockey stick which managed to not notice past episodes of warming and cooling, but the instant much in the way of historical change jumps into the conversation, they run back to mommy, as it were. After all, the science is settled.

 

Glaciers act as protective caps...

Alpine glaciers 'protect mountain peaks from erosion'
2 August 2013 > Instead of wearing mountains down, evidence from Europe's high Alps shows that glaciers shield summits from erosion, acting as a protective lid.

 

Some glaciers advance and some recede. Athe behavior of a single glacier has absolutely no relevance to a discussion on global warming but you probably knew that.

 

Yup. Right about the time coal burning began in earnest, due to railroads. Which leads to soot from coal falling on glaciers. Which darkens the ice, so the ice absorbs more sunlight, which leads to glacial melting.

Thanks for confirming yet another aspect of anthropogenic climate change.

 

nope he didn't...and some move only appearing to advance(grow)...and some have unique local weather that effects them differently...

 

Well, I guess you should mail your picture to the thousands of scientists studying global warming and let them know all of that scientific data stuff is wrong. You gots a picture. And let's ignore the fact that everyone knows glaciers recede, but that it's a matter of how fast they are receding.

 

*******NEWSFLASH!!!!******

Local is not the same as global

 

So the difference was immediate? As soon as we started using trains the temperature dropped? I always assumed it took a while but I guess you don't..

You do realize that there is about a 600-800 year lag between CO2 and temperature inceases historically? And that's using your sides infamous "hockey stick" data... But not now of course... This is different...

ROFL..

 

Next time, please read the post. As soon as we started burning coal, glaciers started shrinking. I didn't say anything about temperature. And this isn't a greenhouse effect, it's an albedo effect, so yes, it was immediate, but localized.

 

So when we burnt wood and lived in caves that was OK then ?

 

From a greenhouse gas standpoint, wood is fine because the CO2 from burning wood came from the atmosphere to begin with.

From the soot production standpoint, there's not much difference between wood and coal per se. The difference comes when we start burning fuels not just for heating and cooking, but to power an industrial civilization too. That brings a much more massive soot load into the air.

 

It also has tended to more than double our life expectancy and vastly improve our quality of life too lets not forget. The environmental payoff has been more than worth it for the great majority of us.

 

Why edit my post? You cut out a pertinent part of it...

Again the lag between CO2 and temperature, why wasn't it a factor like it is in your side's infamous hockey stick graph?

And as to your claims about you "didn't say anything about temperature" so what? It doesn't matter if you said it or not, the fact is temperature rises are the entire premise of your claim. Say it or not that is what the point is... And Albedo would not be effected instantly anymore than temperature would be. It takes time for soot to cover the snow ice, and not to mention the fact the snow and ice would have to be visibly darker to be considered a near instant factor.. I see pictures of the arctic and antarctic and the snow and ice doesn't look grey or even off-white to me.. It's white... ANd worse still, as more snow falls, or ice melts and freezes, that soot is no longer on top, therefore not a factor...

Sorry but that's a claim that wasn't very well thought out in the big picture..

 

LOL what difference would it make where the CO2 came from? Not to mention the fact CO2 doesn't remain CO2 once absorbed by a plant. It's broken down and molecules reorganized with Hydrogen and Oxygen from H2O to create any number of substances used by that plant to survive. It's not as if it remains CO2 the whole time...

And again, show me the grey or even off-white snow and ice covering the poles...

 

It makes all the difference in the world edit/bait/insult When a plant grows, it takes CO2 out of the air. When you burn that plant, that same CO2 goes back into the air. The net effect is zero: what goes out, comes back.

But when you burn fossil fuels, you're putting carbon into the air that hasn't been there for tens of millions of years. So you're adding carbon to the system that wasn't there before. Which is why CO2 in the air is rising.

Doesn't matter. It reverts to CO2 once the plant is burned.

If you insist ...

"I had always thought that the snow was white. And in fact, the snow is not even that white. Especially when we're faced with the evidence."
[video=youtube;uOIHjoUEUwE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOIHjoUEUwE#t=96[/video]

 

Precisely why we should do everything we can to preserve civilization in the face of existential threats like climate change. There are much better ways to power civilization than fossil fuels.

 

LOL, okay junior we can do your circle think for a post..

So fossil fuels came from very old plant and animal remains.. So then using your logic, all those plants and aniamls way back when, breathed and took CO2 from the air, and then they died and became oil and coal, natural gas, so on. So now we dig them up and burn them, and so the net change is zero again.. Right....

ROFL, you are too funny junior...Do you plan on publishing your theory soon??

HAHAHAHAHHAHAA!!!

 

There is only a threat to civilisation in the minds of extremist activists. In truth most of them are just worried that anyone might actually get richer than they are and want to impede that eventuality using whatever methods are available. The AGW agenda is just the latest vehicle for doing so and is simply the politics of envy in another form

Not currently there arent. More expensive is never 'better'

 

The difference is speed. It took tens of millions of years for nature to take that carbon out of the air and make coal and oil with it. Over that long period of time, life can evolve to a very slowly changing climate with no problems at all.

Now we're putting that same tens of millions of years of accumilated carbon back into the air within a couple of centuries. The result is going to be massive worldwide ecosystem collapse. In fact we now know that pretty much every mass extinction in geological history was caused by abrupt climate change.

 

The odds are the extra CO 2 will represent a net benefit to the biosphere, given the ideal growing conditions are around three times the level of today.

Thats pure catastrophist shroud waving speculation

Asteroid strikes have often been the primary factor. Others like supervolcanos count too. Theres nothing particularly 'abrupt' about the current warming phase either. There have been many such phases since the last glaciation and todays is quite unremarkable in either its level nor rate of change frankly

 

Every economist who has looked at this issue has determined that it will cost us less to solve the problem than to do nothing.

Fossil fuel is only cheap because they externalize the cost and let the taxpayers clean up the mess. If we taxed fossil fuels enough to recover those external costs, fossil fuels couldn't compete with hydro, wind, or nuclear.

 

Experience has shown that mother nature has been far better at cleaning up our mess than we have ever been. Experience has also shown that penalising wealth creation solves nothing yet adversely affects many

Nonsense .Why does the government subsidize oil and gas production? Oil and gas gets a tiny amount of government funding, less than one one-thousandth of the funding that wind and solar gets relative to production. The effect is for the government to give these industries a small rebate on the billions of taxes they pay. What's the point?

The point is in part to control the industry, to encourage oil and gas producers to follow certain policies the government likes by offering them some money. This means mostly pro-environmental policies advocated by environmentalists, such as getting oil and gas companies to put R&D money into alternative energy ideas.

Wind and solar subsidies are different. Without them those industries could not exist. They would lose money for every watt-hour they sold to the grid. They thus represent the economics of the madhouse

A megawatt hour costs about $150 at the meter. Oil, coal and gas get about $0.62 in government subsidies per megawatt hour. Hydropower gets $0.82, nuclear $3.14, wind $56.28 and solar $775.64 (US official EIA 2010 figures)

Some have said that subsidies on wind and solar were merely seed money, something to get the industry going until it could make it on its own. But it's pretty clear that "making it on its own" isn't even remotely in sight for these forms of energy production. Taxpayers are paying a lot of money over and beyond what they pay to utilities to have part of their energy produced in this way apparently as a form of religious atonement or something.

Doing if for religion actually makes more sense than the "scientific" rationale for it, which is to reduce carbon emissions. This is because it would mean that we are paying $35 billion a year over and above utility costs to reduce carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere by an amount that can't even be detected

 

CO2 only benefits plants when they already have plenty of water, phosphorus, and fixed nitrogen. Some plants in some places will do well, but some plants in other places will do poorly, especially because global warming increases the likelihood of drought. Further, land is only 28% of Earth's surface, and ocean ecosystems are already suffering because of acidification.

No, it's peer-reviewed science.
http://www.marinespatialecologylab..../11/Mumby-et-al-2011-Frontiers-in-Ecology.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/4297812
http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/suppl_2/ii202.short
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/6/c006p179
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/fzUZd7Z748TeHmB7p8cn/full/10.1146/annurev-marine-041911-111611

What have you been smoking?



You think this isn't "abrupt"?