Global Warming Debate

[majorm]

This link describes the current state of glaciers worldwide, showing global, not local, retreat of glaciers:

http://www.nichols.edu/departments/g...er_retreat.htm

[PBzeer]

Are glaciers static objects that should never change? I have this vague recollection that at one time they covered most of North America, but then, I also know that at one time farming was done in Greenland.

One thing I have failed to see, is at what level we are suppose to stabilize the climate? How much warming is acceptable? How much cooling? What should be the constant tempurature of the planet?

If we are to alter present conditions, just what are we to alter them to?

[majorm]

PBzeer- of course glaciers change in both directions over time. I posted this in response to an earlier post claiming that global glacier mass has not changed, with only some changes in specific glaciers. This and many other references are easily available showing global recession of glaciers. This is more objective data supporting global temperature increases, although obviously oversimplified as there are other factors which affect glaciers.

The reason for the first post regarding glaciers was in response to criticism of the quality and accuracy temperature measurements.

This is an interesting link which discusses in a slightly less biased fashion the debate about global warming. It is long, but worth reading for people on both sides of the debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

[camaraderie]

I don't know who posted glacier mass is not receding. Some are, some are not but overall glaciers have been receding since the 1850's BEFORE MAN could possibly influence climate and the overall rate of recession has not changed and even if it had it is not evidence of man made global warming. The glacier thing is more about scaring us that oceans will rise even faster than the 1 foot a century we've enjoyed in the past hundred years.


By the way...i am tired of constantly typing out "man made global warming.
" natural global warming" and "global warming. "
I am gonna switch to mmgw, ngw and gw respectivly.

[Giulietta]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Geez...makes you wish her parents had similar feelings 28 years ago.
Chalk it up to another whacko but she is apparently not the only one doing this as it is now chic to do so!! First step is making us feel guilty...next step is legislation like in China.
"First they came for my cigarettes...next they came for my transfats...finally they came for my gonads" , he said in a lilting soprano voice! (g)

Originally Posted by camaraderie

By the way...i am tired of constantly typing out "man made global warming.
" natural global warming" and "global warming. "
I am gonna switch to mmgw, ngw and gw respectivly.

cof cof....order....order....

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Giu...I know you are trying to insert some levity here...but I take this thread seriously and would appreciate it if you don't muddy it up! It is long and daunting enough.
More to come....

[majorm]

"and the WORLD WIDE rate of glacier change has not accelerated...it is only localized changes that have some receding more quickly and others actually expanding."

This is the earlier post to which I was referring. There is a graph at this link (http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html) showing changes in the GLOBAL glacier mass which also shows times when they expanded in response to other natural factors.

This article ( http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...urnalCode=geoa ) discusses the fact of ACCELERATING glacial loss, while at the same time acknowledging the complexity of the issue and making inferences from this data about global warming:

"The rate of average annual mass loss (a few decimetres per year) measured today on mountain glaciers in various parts of the world now appears to accelerate accordingly, even though detailed interpretation of the complex processes involved remains difficult. Within the framework of secular glacier retreat and Holocene glacier fluctuations, similar rates of change and acceleration must have taken place before, i.e. during times of weak anthropogenic forcing. However, the anthropogenic influences on the atmosphere could now and for the first time represent a major contributing factor to the observed glacier shrinkage at a global scale."

[camaraderie]

the anthropogenic influences on the atmosphere could now and for the first time represent a major contributing factor to the observed glacier shrinkage at a global scale."
**********
Could is a scientific term meaning "maybe but we just can't say with any degree of certainty, then again maybe not, but perhaps so, nevermind!!"




Oerlemanns, J. (2005) Science 308, 675-677
(note...he is responsible for the blue line only...the rest may be true but is unscientific and not peer reviewed. Oerlemanns is a mmgw advocate, not a skeptic.

The glaciers overall HAVE been retreating since the 1800's before man could influence global warming. The rate of retreat (slope) has not change...hence it is not global warming related.

[majorm]

The status of research on glaciers and global glacier recession: a review
Roger G. Barry
National Snow and Ice Data Center/WDC for Glaciology, Boulder; CIRES and Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0449, USA

Mountain glaciers are key indicators of climate change, although the climatic variables involved differ regionally and temporally. Nevertheless, there has been substantial glacier retreat since the Little Ice Age and this has accelerated over the last two to three decades. Documenting these changes is hampered by the paucity of observational data. This review outlines the measurements that are available, new techniques that incorporate remotely sensed data, and major findings around the world.

[camaraderie]

Giu...Smart*ss! (g)

[danjarch]

Not to wade into the debate but,

Cam, would you use ManGw, NatGw, and GW respectively. This makes it easier to remember what your referencing, and keeps the flow alitle better.