Thread: Survey for Climate Change Sceptics

Originally Posted by Poptech

While some glaciers are melting, others are growing and those that have been melting have been doing so since the LIA.

From the first few links you posted:

Glaciers - Bolam Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (FOX News)


“Climate change has cut the number of glaciers at Montana's Glacier National Park from 150 to 26 since 1850”

Glaciers - Briksdal Glacier, Norway's glaciers growing at record pace (Agence-France Presse)


"The growth of Norway's glaciers is unparalleled, as most of the world's glaciers are melting as a result of global warming. In the Alps, glaciers have melted to about half of their size since the 1850s."

Glaciers - Dôme du Goûter Glacier, Permanent Ice Fields Are Resisting Global Warming (Science Daily)


"So the Mont Blanc and Dôme du Goûter ice fields have not yet been affected by climate change. However, during exceptional climatic events like the 2003 heatwave, positive temperatures caused some of the surface ice to melt. If episodes like this were to occur more often, this partial melting would no longer be negligible, and would have a significant effect on the ice mass. So there is no guarantee that "permanent" ice fields will stay that way in the future."

There are more like that.

"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, an assistant professor of earth sciences at the University of California.

At a time when most of the nation's glaciers are receding, this one has advanced as much as 135 feet annually, flowing downhill toward the blasted north edge of the crater like a muffler draped around the neck of the lava dome.

The general consensus from the links you posted seems to be that most glaciers are melting.


Was that your intended point?

Originally Posted by Besoeker

...since 1850 [...] ...since the 1850s

Looks like the culprit must gave been SUVs!

The point is many glaciers are not melting and those that have, have been doing so since the end of the Little Ice Age which has nothing to do with CO2.

I agree in part that humans are too blame with global warming. We can easily see that tempature has rose above natural cycles as in ice core dates taken from the north pole or certain types of glaciars. The immitions of co2 particles seem in part to do with it, however, to what percentage? I mean since the 1850's till now days especially the nineties the tempature around the world has shifted upwards rather than chilling off. Look at Alaska with the permafrost also diminishing at astromonotical rates. What is also dangerous underneath a lot of Alaska's permafrost or glaciars is that there are large numbers of methane deposits. Shocking when that will increase 10% of the current global warming gases said to be part of global warming. Anyways, it is better when you think of it without having coal as more people cme onto Earth with almost unlimited amounts of energy through wind, solar, nuclear, biodiesel, biofuel, etc and more efficency in electronics and automobiles

There is no empirical evidence that current temperatures have risen above natural cycles. The ice cores show nothing of the sort.

Just because it's not your method of scientific reasoning can it not still be true? I mean to say that " us humans need to agree about this matter before yapping about solutions in the wrong direction". Moreover, I don't think everything is badabout agw except for inposing taxes leveled at struggeling people. I do believe there are a lot ofgood outcomes overall except the ideal of redistribution of wealth in an nongradual means.

Since when is the scientific method not the method of scientific reasoning? Do you understand what "empirical evidence" means?

AGW cannot be proven using the Scientific Method, thus it is not science.

AGW is more of an hypothesis by an evoloutionary stand point by using the information age technologies to predict hopefully with the best analysis as possible to expectations of the worse or best of a given scenario. The imperical method I know full and well by using traditional methods but global warming goes far beyond convententional means to locate the root of the issue of what is affecting the climate. For example, experimentation, independent, dependent variables, hypothesis and theory ultimately to get a given result by a scientific panel by use of a scientific journal to be debated over it's legitamecy or it's falsehood. I disagree with all formerly held traditional means as global warming is something that us humans are in part ignorant of it's end result or where it's really coming from at all.

Originally Posted by Poptech

Looks like the culprit must gave been SUVs!
.

.......since 1850.
Industrial revolution/evolution, growth in power generation, growth in GDP per capita?

Please prove Global Warming is caused by man-made CO2 using the Scientific Method.

Industrial revolution/evolution, growth in power generation, growth in GDP per capita?

The Industrial Revolution began way before the 1850s but 1850 was the end of the Little Ice Age.

Thanks all. I appreciate the comments, even the hostile ones. Very informative.