http://www.physorg.com/news85073557.html
the only known glacier study was done at kilimenjaro and showed that snowfall was the only factor that determined glacier growth or shrinkage.
get the facts straight
Sounds like the "only glacier study" known to you.
Global warming will mean less snowfall anyway, so the glaciers will be shrinking.
Global warming will mean less snowfall anyway, so the glaciers will be shrinking.
QUOTE (N O M+Dec 12 2006, 03:22 AM)
Sounds like the "only glacier study" known to you.
Global warming will mean less snowfall anyway, so the glaciers will be shrinking.
Why?
Are you just making things up?
A colder atmosphere is drier and doesn't hold water vapor. Warmer climates are more humid because water evaporates. This is how clouds are formed and rain and snow result.
Just in case you need a refresher, here's a nice graphic:
When you have temperatures below freezing, atmospheric water vapor freezes and becomes snow (in some cases sleet/hail, depending upon the temperature profile).
This isn't the artic, but here's a plot showing the number of days each year that snow was on the ground at Braemar, Scotland (it's a location with a long historical database)
(It's from this link http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/kd01/lightgreen/ccsnow_04.htm )
Snowfall in Wisconsin
Percent days with snow in a few locations around the world.
No, not many people have been around measuring snowfall and glacier sizes at the poles for long but snow elsewhere appears to be fine.
Please post more information regarding why you believe global warming would reduce snowfall available to glaciers. A warmer atmosphere is associated with higher humidity and as long as temperatures get cold enough (which they obviously do at the poles), what thermal pumping sends sends up, comes back down again. The most that would happen, IMO, is that glacier boundaries would be pushed further toward the poles (not a bad thing, from many perspectives, either).
Global warming will mean less snowfall anyway, so the glaciers will be shrinking.
Why?
Are you just making things up?
A colder atmosphere is drier and doesn't hold water vapor. Warmer climates are more humid because water evaporates. This is how clouds are formed and rain and snow result.
Just in case you need a refresher, here's a nice graphic:
When you have temperatures below freezing, atmospheric water vapor freezes and becomes snow (in some cases sleet/hail, depending upon the temperature profile).
This isn't the artic, but here's a plot showing the number of days each year that snow was on the ground at Braemar, Scotland (it's a location with a long historical database)
(It's from this link http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/kd01/lightgreen/ccsnow_04.htm )
Snowfall in Wisconsin
Percent days with snow in a few locations around the world.
No, not many people have been around measuring snowfall and glacier sizes at the poles for long but snow elsewhere appears to be fine.
Please post more information regarding why you believe global warming would reduce snowfall available to glaciers. A warmer atmosphere is associated with higher humidity and as long as temperatures get cold enough (which they obviously do at the poles), what thermal pumping sends sends up, comes back down again. The most that would happen, IMO, is that glacier boundaries would be pushed further toward the poles (not a bad thing, from many perspectives, either).
The article this thread is about already mentions at least one glacier that has been measurably shrinking in the last 20 years.
You mentioned yourself, in another thread, about the California glaciers that have dissapeared since the last ice age. It's warmer and wetter since then, why isn't LA covered in ice?
You are at least starting to admit that global warming will affect the Earth's climate, so we're getting somewhere.
You mentioned yourself, in another thread, about the California glaciers that have dissapeared since the last ice age. It's warmer and wetter since then, why isn't LA covered in ice?
You are at least starting to admit that global warming will affect the Earth's climate, so we're getting somewhere.
QUOTE (N O M+Dec 12 2006, 07:30 PM)
The article this thread is about already mentions at least one glacier that has been measurably shrinking in the last 20 years.
You mentioned yourself, in another thread, about the California glaciers that have dissapeared since the last ice age. It's warmer and wetter since then, why isn't LA covered in ice?
You are at least starting to admit that global warming will affect the Earth's climate, so we're getting somewhere.
I'm not "starting to admit" global warming can affect the climate, I've been stating it's not only possible for human actions to affect temperatures on Earth some but that warming (whether from human influences or not) can affect the climate (warming, I'd have to say almost by definition would be a change in climate), but I've been trying to emphasize a few things in regard to this and discourage a lot of the propoganda that comes along with it:
1) CO2 (and especially the amounts of CO2 attributed to human actions) have only a small influence on temperatures. There are many other factors that have a more significant effect on global temperatures and there's too little attention paid to these, which will likely cause harmful overreactions with regard to natural energy resources and deny better, more direct and less costly remedies to temperatures.
2) The estimated increases in temperatures over the last 100 years or so are still mild and the ideas of a "runaway greenhouse" effect occuring are just hype, IMO. If nature already had a mechanism whereby increased CO2 levels were capable of sufficiently heating the Earth to cause additional CO2 releases, there have already been many times when this should have occured, yet it didn't and we've lost the vast majority of our atmosphere over time and the Earth has continued (and in the long run, especially considering below the mantle, can only continue) to cool. Having a warmer surface would only slow the rate at which the Earth cools.
3) Life on Earth is not in as delicate a balance as many people try to portray (If life is capable of surviving miles underground or near volatile superheated vents deep under the oceans, people aren't giving nature much credit by assuming nature can't deal with some additional organic materials, from which life is composed, being extracted to the surface). Animals migrate as well and generally colder temperatures are more threatening to life than warmer temperatures (the places where life is most abundant on the Earth are in tropical areas).
4) If we don't extract natural reserves from underground for energy then more people will simply use vegetation on the surface for energy (if you can't afford energy to heat your home in the winter, you're likely to use firewood instead). This still creates CO2, though it decreases vegetation absording it. Ironically, many environmental policies trying to artificially encourage recycling of organic material discourage returning some of this underground (placing organic materials in a landfill is a perfect way to remove the carbon from this cycle, if that's considered desirable).
5) For people who consider themselves to have some legitimate grievance over global warming (which happens to not be occuring to much of any significant extent in populated areas of the Earth anyway ... the poles are supposed where most the warming is occuring ... what's there to cry about if some glaciers melt?) and seriously consider the fraction of a degree increase in temperatures over the last hundred years or so, claimed to be attributed to human actions, is a problem with global temperatures that must be addressed (not that nature signed on to the deal, but instead has been swinging temperatures around on Earth for a long time to a much more significant extent), then you probably have a lot of other people who could just as easily claim a right to having the Earth warmer. I'd hazard a guess close to half the population in the world, if asked whether or not they'd want to see the Earth grow colder would say no and that those areas which would supposedly be most affected by warming (at more extreme latitudes) would likely even prefer seeing a slight shift toward warmer temperatures (not to mention the indirect benefits to many environmental issues by having more carbon and the life dependent upon it available at the surface). So if the solution is to create the equivalent of a global monopoly, deciding who can extract what amount of natural reserves from the ground is considered the remedy for those who have some legitimate grievance over global temperatures, what about the compensation for this imposition on everyone expected to live by those decisions? I don't see why those proposing creation of such an institution should automatically have their wishes granted at the expense of a ton of other people ... imagine how much of an impact on developing nations a large increase in energy costs would have (and until we stop handing over legally enforced monopolies in the energy industry, I don't think any truly viable alternatives are going to result ... biodiesel and solar are either legislated by government into being commercially impractical after legal compliance or held off the markets by a few lawyers and judges deciding that such and such technology could only be the sole property of so and so, ignoring the fact that there are many people working in parrallel with parrallel interests at stake). So to me, Kyoto seems like yet another part of the energy scams that have been going on (here in California we've already seen at least one of these and it appears we could be in for another).
...
I could keep going, but I originally posted on this thread simply to point out that your assumption that snowfall decreases when the Earth is warmer, is just another idea you came up with, yet again, no reasoning or evidence behind it except that it likely sounds good to you and fits into your envisioned doomsday warming scenario. If you think that helps, then consider that half the reason there's so little science and so much politics in this issue, is because of those "sound bite" claims meant to push an agenda without contributing any real insight into it and hence everyone else gets polarized because when you give an inch, the other guy takes a mile. (Yes, I'll admit I'm guilty of this somewhat, but how else can you counter the hype machine?)
You mentioned yourself, in another thread, about the California glaciers that have dissapeared since the last ice age. It's warmer and wetter since then, why isn't LA covered in ice?
You are at least starting to admit that global warming will affect the Earth's climate, so we're getting somewhere.
I'm not "starting to admit" global warming can affect the climate, I've been stating it's not only possible for human actions to affect temperatures on Earth some but that warming (whether from human influences or not) can affect the climate (warming, I'd have to say almost by definition would be a change in climate), but I've been trying to emphasize a few things in regard to this and discourage a lot of the propoganda that comes along with it:
1) CO2 (and especially the amounts of CO2 attributed to human actions) have only a small influence on temperatures. There are many other factors that have a more significant effect on global temperatures and there's too little attention paid to these, which will likely cause harmful overreactions with regard to natural energy resources and deny better, more direct and less costly remedies to temperatures.
2) The estimated increases in temperatures over the last 100 years or so are still mild and the ideas of a "runaway greenhouse" effect occuring are just hype, IMO. If nature already had a mechanism whereby increased CO2 levels were capable of sufficiently heating the Earth to cause additional CO2 releases, there have already been many times when this should have occured, yet it didn't and we've lost the vast majority of our atmosphere over time and the Earth has continued (and in the long run, especially considering below the mantle, can only continue) to cool. Having a warmer surface would only slow the rate at which the Earth cools.
3) Life on Earth is not in as delicate a balance as many people try to portray (If life is capable of surviving miles underground or near volatile superheated vents deep under the oceans, people aren't giving nature much credit by assuming nature can't deal with some additional organic materials, from which life is composed, being extracted to the surface). Animals migrate as well and generally colder temperatures are more threatening to life than warmer temperatures (the places where life is most abundant on the Earth are in tropical areas).
4) If we don't extract natural reserves from underground for energy then more people will simply use vegetation on the surface for energy (if you can't afford energy to heat your home in the winter, you're likely to use firewood instead). This still creates CO2, though it decreases vegetation absording it. Ironically, many environmental policies trying to artificially encourage recycling of organic material discourage returning some of this underground (placing organic materials in a landfill is a perfect way to remove the carbon from this cycle, if that's considered desirable).
5) For people who consider themselves to have some legitimate grievance over global warming (which happens to not be occuring to much of any significant extent in populated areas of the Earth anyway ... the poles are supposed where most the warming is occuring ... what's there to cry about if some glaciers melt?) and seriously consider the fraction of a degree increase in temperatures over the last hundred years or so, claimed to be attributed to human actions, is a problem with global temperatures that must be addressed (not that nature signed on to the deal, but instead has been swinging temperatures around on Earth for a long time to a much more significant extent), then you probably have a lot of other people who could just as easily claim a right to having the Earth warmer. I'd hazard a guess close to half the population in the world, if asked whether or not they'd want to see the Earth grow colder would say no and that those areas which would supposedly be most affected by warming (at more extreme latitudes) would likely even prefer seeing a slight shift toward warmer temperatures (not to mention the indirect benefits to many environmental issues by having more carbon and the life dependent upon it available at the surface). So if the solution is to create the equivalent of a global monopoly, deciding who can extract what amount of natural reserves from the ground is considered the remedy for those who have some legitimate grievance over global temperatures, what about the compensation for this imposition on everyone expected to live by those decisions? I don't see why those proposing creation of such an institution should automatically have their wishes granted at the expense of a ton of other people ... imagine how much of an impact on developing nations a large increase in energy costs would have (and until we stop handing over legally enforced monopolies in the energy industry, I don't think any truly viable alternatives are going to result ... biodiesel and solar are either legislated by government into being commercially impractical after legal compliance or held off the markets by a few lawyers and judges deciding that such and such technology could only be the sole property of so and so, ignoring the fact that there are many people working in parrallel with parrallel interests at stake). So to me, Kyoto seems like yet another part of the energy scams that have been going on (here in California we've already seen at least one of these and it appears we could be in for another).
...
I could keep going, but I originally posted on this thread simply to point out that your assumption that snowfall decreases when the Earth is warmer, is just another idea you came up with, yet again, no reasoning or evidence behind it except that it likely sounds good to you and fits into your envisioned doomsday warming scenario. If you think that helps, then consider that half the reason there's so little science and so much politics in this issue, is because of those "sound bite" claims meant to push an agenda without contributing any real insight into it and hence everyone else gets polarized because when you give an inch, the other guy takes a mile. (Yes, I'll admit I'm guilty of this somewhat, but how else can you counter the hype machine?)
Stevena writes "the reason there's so little science and so much politics in this issue", and he's right on about that.
The science is done, anybody who wants to can read that anywhere. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere WILL increase the greenhouse effect, hence cause global warming. Period. Human activities since the industrial revolution DO add CO2 to the atmosphere. Period.
The only science left is to sort out more accurately "how much and when?".
But the entire debate above and everywhere else is "How much do I care?" "Why should I care?" "Might the solution make it so I can't afford to drive a huge SUV any more?" That's just a political debate. Please take it off the physics forum onto your favourite political debating fora, people.
The science is done, anybody who wants to can read that anywhere. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere WILL increase the greenhouse effect, hence cause global warming. Period. Human activities since the industrial revolution DO add CO2 to the atmosphere. Period.
The only science left is to sort out more accurately "how much and when?".
But the entire debate above and everywhere else is "How much do I care?" "Why should I care?" "Might the solution make it so I can't afford to drive a huge SUV any more?" That's just a political debate. Please take it off the physics forum onto your favourite political debating fora, people.
I am pleased to see Professor Pfeffer’s observation and analysis
Glaciers, as more snow falls and precipitation melts the ice, produce much more water and ice block to transfer downstream
The natural process of rock fragments is to move to a lower gradient
Local conditions affect glacier melts.
The glaciers with no data are so as they are in places nobody wants to work or perhaps the conditions are impracticable at date
Those that are melting rapidly are alongside towns grown up over the decades because there is water supply and other facility.
When it becomes practicable, they will probably be melting.
Tourism forms an enormous load on glacier melt.
Dust, subsidence as the glacier and ice pack compresses the earth beneath
Erosion by the glacier, fracture of the ice mass.
Changes from old ice snow pack to new forms
Volcanic action
All cause melt.
What we wish to do in science
Geology petrology sedimentology oceanography hydrology soils geomorphology climate glaciology
Is work, what we do not want to do is panic.
Research and teach
Try and find out what is happening when it happens.
Form hypothesis and test the possible occurrence to see if the opposite is occurring by data features, or error, or patterns not known and then reject and form a conclusion.
We spend more time trying to reject our own conclusions than we do making them.
If we cannot then there is a fair certainty as we cannot test everything in all situations at all times that the work is correct.
People spend a lot of time and resource trying to refute science and fact
So the best answer is to attack your own work then send it out if it still stands.
It took hundreds of years to get here, I would not expect science to suddenly resolves this issue in two decades.
A little alike a glacier cutting a trench
It is obviously defeating itself by flowing downhill and up over a ridge which it cuts and then falls on a lowered gradient section even more easily to melt and deposition of rock.
We take a terrible toll trying to wreck our own work and avoid damage to the site
So that you may live
Enjoy the sites
Use the data.
So one observation may require ten thousand researchers to parachute into Kilimanjaro
Then there will be no Kilimanjaro
No Tundra vegetation
No cold drainage
Just a lot of waste flowing down the slopes
Some of it carrying journalists
Swamping out the plains and towns below.
Base camp is a massively difficult practice and few know how to arrange it.
As about forty thousands bits of scared ribbon cloth blowing in the wind on Everest and Karakoram prove.
We makes a desert we deserve what we get
One day the ice will cover it up again.
If you want to know about Kilimanjaro and White Mountain geomorphic soils and events
Ask Osmaston
He at least knows something about it
Just as Peel knew the desert sands.
The panic on earth at present is that that good which our parents knew so well may not be here for our children.
That needs attention obviously.
Prof Peel had a dreadful old tradition of calling everybody by their surname
So from
Stagg
Best wishes in your research
Michael Dennis Stagg
mdstagg interflow
SLIP STREAM
VORTEX
University RESEARCH
College B.Sc.Wales
of magna cum laude
Wales 1969
Hydrology INTERFLOW
Soils
The Ghost of Welsh Sheep Past
Hydro Meteorology
Revelation 3 . 8
Soil Water Flow Engineering Geology
Structure
Hydraulic critical state Geophysics
Geotechnical Design Mass Flow Shear
Fluid Plane Interface Deflection
P compression Particle Energy Momentum
Senior Research
College University
Lecturer Demonstrator
1978 Ezekial 3 . 8
My Expertise is only as Good as That I have sought recent expertise to so do
Universitas Cambrensis Michael Dennis Stagg
Ex Collegio de Aberystwyth In gradum Baccalaurei in SCIENTIA
magna cum laude
die quinto decimo mensis Iulii A.D. MCMLXIX admissus est.
Master of Science
MDSUnivResInstHydrol@tiscali.co.uk John 10.10
Glaciers, as more snow falls and precipitation melts the ice, produce much more water and ice block to transfer downstream
The natural process of rock fragments is to move to a lower gradient
Local conditions affect glacier melts.
The glaciers with no data are so as they are in places nobody wants to work or perhaps the conditions are impracticable at date
Those that are melting rapidly are alongside towns grown up over the decades because there is water supply and other facility.
When it becomes practicable, they will probably be melting.
Tourism forms an enormous load on glacier melt.
Dust, subsidence as the glacier and ice pack compresses the earth beneath
Erosion by the glacier, fracture of the ice mass.
Changes from old ice snow pack to new forms
Volcanic action
All cause melt.
What we wish to do in science
Geology petrology sedimentology oceanography hydrology soils geomorphology climate glaciology
Is work, what we do not want to do is panic.
Research and teach
Try and find out what is happening when it happens.
Form hypothesis and test the possible occurrence to see if the opposite is occurring by data features, or error, or patterns not known and then reject and form a conclusion.
We spend more time trying to reject our own conclusions than we do making them.
If we cannot then there is a fair certainty as we cannot test everything in all situations at all times that the work is correct.
People spend a lot of time and resource trying to refute science and fact
So the best answer is to attack your own work then send it out if it still stands.
It took hundreds of years to get here, I would not expect science to suddenly resolves this issue in two decades.
A little alike a glacier cutting a trench
It is obviously defeating itself by flowing downhill and up over a ridge which it cuts and then falls on a lowered gradient section even more easily to melt and deposition of rock.
We take a terrible toll trying to wreck our own work and avoid damage to the site
So that you may live
Enjoy the sites
Use the data.
So one observation may require ten thousand researchers to parachute into Kilimanjaro
Then there will be no Kilimanjaro
No Tundra vegetation
No cold drainage
Just a lot of waste flowing down the slopes
Some of it carrying journalists
Swamping out the plains and towns below.
Base camp is a massively difficult practice and few know how to arrange it.
As about forty thousands bits of scared ribbon cloth blowing in the wind on Everest and Karakoram prove.
We makes a desert we deserve what we get
One day the ice will cover it up again.
If you want to know about Kilimanjaro and White Mountain geomorphic soils and events
Ask Osmaston
He at least knows something about it
Just as Peel knew the desert sands.
The panic on earth at present is that that good which our parents knew so well may not be here for our children.
That needs attention obviously.
Prof Peel had a dreadful old tradition of calling everybody by their surname
So from
Stagg
Best wishes in your research
Michael Dennis Stagg
mdstagg interflow
SLIP STREAM
VORTEX
University RESEARCH
College B.Sc.Wales
of magna cum laude
Wales 1969
Hydrology INTERFLOW
Soils
The Ghost of Welsh Sheep Past
Hydro Meteorology
Revelation 3 . 8
Soil Water Flow Engineering Geology
Structure
Hydraulic critical state Geophysics
Geotechnical Design Mass Flow Shear
Fluid Plane Interface Deflection
P compression Particle Energy Momentum
Senior Research
College University
Lecturer Demonstrator
1978 Ezekial 3 . 8
My Expertise is only as Good as That I have sought recent expertise to so do
Universitas Cambrensis Michael Dennis Stagg
Ex Collegio de Aberystwyth In gradum Baccalaurei in SCIENTIA
magna cum laude
die quinto decimo mensis Iulii A.D. MCMLXIX admissus est.
Master of Science
MDSUnivResInstHydrol@tiscali.co.uk John 10.10
QUOTE (lengould+Dec 13 2006, 07:55 AM)
Stevena writes "the reason there's so little science and so much politics in this issue", and he's right on about that.
The science is done, anybody who wants to can read that anywhere. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere WILL increase the greenhouse effect, hence cause global warming. Period. Human activities since the industrial revolution DO add CO2 to the atmosphere. Period.
The only science left is to sort out more accurately "how much and when?".
But the entire debate above and everywhere else is "How much do I care?" "Why should I care?" "Might the solution make it so I can't afford to drive a huge SUV any more?" That's just a political debate. Please take it off the physics forum onto your favourite political debating fora, people.
Well said. Not if, but when?
The science is done, anybody who wants to can read that anywhere. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere WILL increase the greenhouse effect, hence cause global warming. Period. Human activities since the industrial revolution DO add CO2 to the atmosphere. Period.
The only science left is to sort out more accurately "how much and when?".
But the entire debate above and everywhere else is "How much do I care?" "Why should I care?" "Might the solution make it so I can't afford to drive a huge SUV any more?" That's just a political debate. Please take it off the physics forum onto your favourite political debating fora, people.
Well said. Not if, but when?
A problem is that ice is good at reflecting sunlight and heat back into space. What replaces it will not be as good so there will be increased warming.
It would appear though to be a self limiting issue.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+)
It would appear though to be a self limiting issue.
Since ice-free sea heats up faster, and this then melts more ice, would Arthur like to explain his reasoning in time frames of interest to our children and grand-children?
Some actual science concerning glaciers: http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/cryosphere/data1.html
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
Since ice-free sea heats up faster, and this then melts more ice, would Arthur like to explain his reasoning in time frames of interest to our children and grand-children?
Some actual science concerning glaciers: http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/cryosphere/data1.html
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
QUOTE
the discovery meant that this glacier had reached a 5,000-year minimum. With few exceptions, glaciers around the world have retreated at unprecedented rates over the last century. Some ice caps, glaciers, and even an ice shelf have disappeared altogether. Many more are retreating so rapidly that they may vanish within decades. Some scientists attribute this retreat to the Industrial Revolution; burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and affects our environment in ways we did not understand before.
As THIS graph points out:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1...l_Sea_Level.png
The glaciers have been disappearing for 20,000 years.
There is a point when the majority of them will be gone.
Or do you not understand what this graph is TRING to tell you?
Arthur
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1...l_Sea_Level.png
The glaciers have been disappearing for 20,000 years.
There is a point when the majority of them will be gone.
Or do you not understand what this graph is TRING to tell you?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 17 2007, 07:03 PM)
As THIS graph points out:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1...l_Sea_Level.png
The glaciers have been disappearing for 20,000 years.
There is a point when the majority of them will be gone.
Or do you not understand what this graph is TRING to tell you?
Arthur
Hi Arthur,
I gave you a graph showing the recent changes.You appear to have ignored that one, and have posted one showing a much longer period. Such a scale will not show recent changes. So yes, I understand what you are TRYING to do, mask the truth and confuse the unwary.
There is nothing new in this, but here is some news which warms my heart:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2790313&page=1
Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit
advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of
greenhouse emissions.
The fact that Exxon is trying to debate solutions, instead of whether climate change even exists, represents an important shift, said Andrew Logan, a climate expert at Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmentalists that works with companies to cut climate change risks.
Regards,
Smithy
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1...l_Sea_Level.png
The glaciers have been disappearing for 20,000 years.
There is a point when the majority of them will be gone.
Or do you not understand what this graph is TRING to tell you?
Arthur
Hi Arthur,
I gave you a graph showing the recent changes.
You appear to have ignored that one, and have posted one showing a much longer period. Such a scale will not show recent changes. So yes, I understand what you are TRYING to do, mask the truth and confuse the unwary.There is nothing new in this, but here is some news which warms my heart:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2790313&page=1
QUOTE
Exxon cuts ties to warming skeptics
Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases
MSNBC staff and news service reports, Jan 12, 2007
NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims
moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-
trapping gases.
Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases
MSNBC staff and news service reports, Jan 12, 2007
NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims
moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-
trapping gases.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Exxon cuts ties to warming skeptics Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases MSNBC staff and news service reports, Jan 12, 2007 NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat- trapping gases. |
Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit
advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of
greenhouse emissions.
QUOTE
Given how large and influential Exxon is and that they are basically the last big industry climate sceptic standing, even small moves can have a very big impact, said Logan.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Given how large and influential Exxon is and that they are basically the last big industry climate sceptic standing, even small moves can have a very big impact, said Logan. |
The fact that Exxon is trying to debate solutions, instead of whether climate change even exists, represents an important shift, said Andrew Logan, a climate expert at Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmentalists that works with companies to cut climate change risks.
Regards,
Smithy
QUOTE (Smithy+Jan 19 2007, 03:31 AM)
I gave you a graph showing the recent changes. You appear to have ignored that one, and have posted one showing a much longer period. Such a scale will not show recent changes. So yes, I understand what you are TRYING to do, mask the truth and confuse the unwary.
The shorter term graph HAS to be looked at in terms of the LONGER term graph.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1...l_Sea_Level.png
The glaciers have been retreating for 20,000 years.
The glacial retreat of the late 20th century is because much of it was from the recent build up during the LITTLE ICE AGE that ended ~ 1850. Though that period involved a massive build-up (in human terms) of glaciers its still not even visible on the long term graph.
As the article you linked to points out, the level of glacial ice HAS fluctuated before, hence the finding of the IceMan buried by ADVANCING Glaciers 5,000 years ago.
If we had projected the GLACIAL mass balance increase for the last 40 years of THAT period we would likewise have a chart showing a lot of change, but the OPPOSITE direction of the one you posted.
Short term studies, like the one you posted of a 40 year period, can't be used alone.
Arthur
You appear to have ignored that one, and have posted one showing a much longer period. Such a scale will not show recent changes. So yes, I understand what you are TRYING to do, mask the truth and confuse the unwary.The shorter term graph HAS to be looked at in terms of the LONGER term graph.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1...l_Sea_Level.png
The glaciers have been retreating for 20,000 years.
The glacial retreat of the late 20th century is because much of it was from the recent build up during the LITTLE ICE AGE that ended ~ 1850. Though that period involved a massive build-up (in human terms) of glaciers its still not even visible on the long term graph.
As the article you linked to points out, the level of glacial ice HAS fluctuated before, hence the finding of the IceMan buried by ADVANCING Glaciers 5,000 years ago.
If we had projected the GLACIAL mass balance increase for the last 40 years of THAT period we would likewise have a chart showing a lot of change, but the OPPOSITE direction of the one you posted.
Short term studies, like the one you posted of a 40 year period, can't be used alone.
Arthur
Hi Arthur,
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 20 2007, 01:46 PM)
The shorter term graph HAS to be looked at in terms of the LONGER term graph.
- True
QUOTE
The glaciers have been retreating for 20,000 years.
- But the end of the last true ice-age was actually just over 11,000 years ago. And your graph shows stability for the last 8,000 years. I don't believe these facts are incompatible, however...QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The glaciers have been retreating for 20,000 years. |
- But the end of the last true ice-age was actually just over 11,000 years ago. And your graph shows stability for the last 8,000 years. I don't believe these facts are incompatible, however...
The glacial retreat of the late 20th century is because much of it was from the recent build up during the LITTLE ICE AGE that ended ~ 1850. Though that period involved a massive build-up (in human terms) of glaciers its still not even visible on the long term graph.
The glacial retreat of the late 20th century is because much of it was from the recent build up during the LITTLE ICE AGE that ended ~ 1850. Though that period involved a massive build-up (in human terms) of glaciers its still not even visible on the long term graph.
-So we need data showing the last 500 years...
QUOTE
As the article you linked to points out, the level of glacial ice HAS fluctuated before, hence the finding of the IceMan buried by ADVANCING Glaciers 5,000 years ago.
- But how much has it actually fluctuated? In the Little Ice Age they skated on the Thames, but I don't recall seeing stories about 95% of the glaciers being affected ... I seem to recall that it was a regional effect, not world wide ... ?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As the article you linked to points out, the level of glacial ice HAS fluctuated before, hence the finding of the IceMan buried by ADVANCING Glaciers 5,000 years ago. |
- But how much has it actually fluctuated? In the Little Ice Age they skated on the Thames, but I don't recall seeing stories about 95% of the glaciers being affected ... I seem to recall that it was a regional effect, not world wide ... ?
If we had projected the GLACIAL mass balance increase for the last 40 years of THAT period we would likewise have a chart showing a lot of change, but the OPPOSITE direction of the one you posted.
If we had projected the GLACIAL mass balance increase for the last 40 years of THAT period we would likewise have a chart showing a lot of change, but the OPPOSITE direction of the one you posted.
- I suspect the change would not be noticeable on that scale (140 metres full scale, when we are predicting much less that this after 100 years)?
Short term studies, like the one you posted of a 40 year period, can't be used alone.
ArthurTrue, but there is so much evidence of so many different types around the world... perhaps that's why the EU and UN are taking action, and ExxonMobile has withdrawn sponsorship for 5-6 'skeptic' groups...
Regards Smithy
QUOTE
Short term studies, like the one you posted of a 40 year period, can't be used alone.
Arthur
Regards Smithy
What action has the EU taken?
Arthur
Arthur
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.