Atman wrote: 


That is a lot of grass some one will need to cut.....

Amtrak provides a nice 6 hour $55 ticket to Glacier National Park from my little hometown. Better go before it is renamed Rock National Park!

Somebody smarter than me please help me get the picture posted showing the status of the glaciers from 1850, 1950 and projected for 2030?

 OlderThanDirt wrote: 
That's what I guessed, but it's good to see it confirmed...

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Not at all seemingly, but I could care less about arguments.  have fun, guy.

 katzendogs wrote: 
Mucho gracias, hombre. The study of science or science itself?

 OlderThanDirt wrote: 
I'm not exactly sure what your seemingly snide remark is supposed to mean or who it's aimed at, but it (unsurprisingly) doesn't address any argument I made...

I guess anthropologists are in on the conspiracy too?

RichardPrins wrote:
when did the study of science begin? I need to start over.and overandover Happy belated birthday dude.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Wow! So the financial advisor has a degree in anthropology, too.  Who'd a thunk it?

 OlderThanDirt wrote: 
There's nothing new there that hasn't been discussed endlessly before.

The crux of the matter is whether anthropogenic influences are causing climate change. The problem then with data from 100K or 400K years ago should be apparent. Humans (H. sapiens) weren't around at the latter date, so they couldn't have impacted climate. 100K years ago they would have been around, but probably their numbers (and technology) wouldn't have had much more impact than their ancestors were able to achieve. Of course some people would argue that there weren't even humans around at either time at all. They magically appeared some 6 to 7000 years ago. A different type of science denial altogether.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Not at all, Rich.  But I do love it when I post something that wakes you up (yawn not withstanding).  The 1976 study was released about 1978 during the Carter administration, and the 2002 study would have been during the Clinton administration, but I don't think anyone would be surprised that I take the pronouncements of all politicians with a grain of salt.

 OlderThanDirt wrote: 
Cool, let's do some name calling. Regardless, it appears to me you're representing your (current) government's views far more than those scientists you accuse of being biased.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Government tool!

 OlderThanDirt wrote:
Conspiracy alert!

 phineas wrote: 
Try to find an online version of the 1976 Vostok Ice Core Study.  All you get now when you google "Vostok" is some lame report about an investigation around 2000 or 2002 or so, of a mysterious lake of liquid fresh water some 12 or 13 thousand feet below the surface of the Antarctic ice cap. (The borings never reached the lake, by the way.)  When I was looking for it back in the 90's, there was a lot of discussion of the 1976 study.  Some of it remains, but you'll have to sort through a lot of stuff to find it.  Below is a chart I saved from way back when.

The 1976 study charted the earth's warming  and cooling cycles over a 400,000 year period, showing an approximate 100,000 year period between ice ages.  Each ice age was followed by a 10,000 or so year period of warming, followed by a 90,000 or so year period of cooling down to another ice age.  The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago, and a warming peak seems to have been reached about 2,000 years ago.  Since then, the temperatures have varied within a fairly narrow range, on average.  It would seem to infer that global warming, which started about 12,000 years ago, has probably reached its peak and that we are more likely to experience global cooling in the future.

Now, that said, I have no more reason to believe the 1976 projections than those currently being promoted; they both come from "government researchers," meaning those that make their livings by telling the government what  it wants to hear.  Anyway, below is what they were saying 30 years ago, and it makes more sense to me than the current theories.  It stands to reason that global warming has been with us since the end of last ice age, generally accepted by geologists as 10k to 12k years ago, that probably 90% or more of the icecap then extant has already melted, and that we are probably closer to a downturn in overall temperatures than an upturn.

" alt="" />

 lowelltr wrote: 
Ah, a leading authority on climate science, and a political colossus that has the world hanging on his every word, from Belfast to Bangor. I can see your concern.
 
 
*Edit* BTW, very pleased to see someone in the USA taking an interest in the BBC's regional websites - do you have a particular interest in Northern Ireland, or was this item a lucky find? 

And it's just as dangerous as a religion!

 

 Inamorato wrote: 
From the Canadian Press story:

More than 90 per cent of Canada's ice shelves have been lost over the past century, the bulk of those during a warm period in the 1930s and 1940s. And temperatures in the Arctic are even warmer now.

So what happened in the 30s and 40s? See also Bill Bryson's noting that ice core samples from the Greenland ice sheet showed substantial warming (like 5 degrees C (don't quote me, that's OOM)) centuries ago, so what was happening then? These anomalies don't make me feel less concerned about humans pooping in their own nest, but they intrigues me...

 rosedraws wrote: 

That sure drives home the reality.  People who say that global warming is just part of a normal cycle are whistling in the dark...or have been bought off by major polluters.

Yesterday it was reported that an ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan has broken off and is adrift in the Arctic Ocean.

19-square-mile ice sheet breaks loose in Canada

rosedraws wrote:

Nor is the North Pole but it is now open to shipping for part of the year!