• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Glacier Bay

Lord of Planar said:
I responded to your post 49 with post 66 saying all of Greenland would never melt without some catastrophe. You then said "Ludicrous to you, but not to the 98%."
Click to expand...

Post #49 said nothing about ALL the Greenland Ice melting. Please don't misquote me.
 
Media_Truth said:
Post #49 said nothing about ALL the Greenland Ice melting. Please don't misquote me.
Click to expand...

You left this in the quote: "The only way we will ever see all that ice melt is with extreme warming that will already be an extinction event, Greenland spouting multiple volcanoes, or some other natural disaster"

Are we suppose to be mind readers?
 
Lord of Planar said:
You left this in the quote: "The only way we will ever see all that ice melt is with extreme warming that will already be an extinction event, Greenland spouting multiple volcanoes, or some other natural disaster"

Are we suppose to be mind readers?
Click to expand...

You're delusional. That is not my statement in #49 or any other post. Look at Post #66 - THAT'S YOUR QUOTE... Please stop misquoting me!!!
 
Media_Truth said:
You're delusional. That is not my statement in #49 or any other post. Look at Post #66 - THAT'S YOUR QUOTE... Please stop misquoting me!!!
Click to expand...

My God.

You replied to all of my statement saying the 98% would disagree with me, on post 67.

You are in denial...

You may not have meant that, but it read as if you were saying the 98% agreed that all the ice can melt.
 
Threegoofs said:
It's pretty obvious. The study suggests that microbes are acting as feedback in ice melting, thus making the consequences of AGW worse.

Deniers here see it as the cause.

Jack has no opinion, but just vomits up WUWT posts and pretends he's 'spreading knowledge'.
Click to expand...

Jack expects you to understand the link between the dirt of pollution landing on the ice and the amount of bacteria in it.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Quite possibly due to the retreat of a glacier resulting in a local fast landslide.
Click to expand...

Things like this are natural. They happen from time to time. It doesn't mean warming was the cause.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Things like this are natural. They happen from time to time. It doesn't mean warming was the cause.
Click to expand...

No. But the rate at which these events will happen is vastly higher as the supporting glaciers retreat and the now unstable cliffs suddenly collapses.

They often leave behind the long run out landslide formations which are bolder fields. These are very confusing to work out how they formed when you can only see the head of them as the rest fell over a glacier that is not there any more.
 
Speaking of glaciers . . . .

Glaciers / Paleoclimatology
[h=1]Glaciers Cause Global Warming?[/h]Guest post by David Middleton Rice University Torres, who joined the Rice faculty in July, is lead author of a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He wanted to know how and when chemicals released by weathering of the land reached the atmosphere and ocean, and what effect they have had. The…
 
Jack Hays said:
Speaking of glaciers . . . .

Glaciers / Paleoclimatology
[h=1]Glaciers Cause Global Warming?[/h]Guest post by David Middleton Rice University Torres, who joined the Rice faculty in July, is lead author of a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He wanted to know how and when chemicals released by weathering of the land reached the atmosphere and ocean, and what effect they have had. The…
Click to expand...

Uneducated drivel by Watts again...
 
Media_Truth said:
Uneducated drivel by Watts again...
Click to expand...

Rice University will be very disappointed by your low opinion of their work. From the link:

Rice University
Torres, who joined the Rice faculty in July, is lead author of a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He wanted to know how and when chemicals released by weathering of the land reached the atmosphere and ocean, and what effect they have had.
The study shows that glaciation, through enhanced erosion, probably increased the rate of carbon dioxide released to the environment.
The researchers determined enhanced oxidation of pyrite, an iron sulfide also known as fool’s gold, most likely generated acidity that fed carbon dioxide into the oceans and altered the carbon cycle. The oscillation of glaciers over 10,000 years could have changed atmospheric carbon dioxide by 25 parts per million or more. While this is a significant percentage of the 400 parts per million measured in recent months, present anthropogenic carbon dioxide release is occurring at a much faster rate than it is naturally released by glaciation.
Over long timescales, they found, glaciers’ contribution to the release of carbon dioxide could have acted as a negative feedback loop that may have inhibited runaway glaciation. . . .
​
 
Jack Hays said:
Rice University will be very disappointed by your low opinion of their work. From the link:

Rice University
Torres, who joined the Rice faculty in July, is lead author of a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He wanted to know how and when chemicals released by weathering of the land reached the atmosphere and ocean, and what effect they have had.
The study shows that glaciation, through enhanced erosion, probably increased the rate of carbon dioxide released to the environment.
The researchers determined enhanced oxidation of pyrite, an iron sulfide also known as fool’s gold, most likely generated acidity that fed carbon dioxide into the oceans and altered the carbon cycle. The oscillation of glaciers over 10,000 years could have changed atmospheric carbon dioxide by 25 parts per million or more. While this is a significant percentage of the 400 parts per million measured in recent months, present anthropogenic carbon dioxide release is occurring at a much faster rate than it is naturally released by glaciation.
Over long timescales, they found, glaciers’ contribution to the release of carbon dioxide could have acted as a negative feedback loop that may have inhibited runaway glaciation. . . .
​
Click to expand...

When someone with a semblance of education, links to Rice's work, fine, I'll read it. Watts does not fit that category. If you quote Rice University's work directly, I will be glad to read it. I don't need Watt's uneducated, lying opinion drivel.
 
Media_Truth said:
When someone with a semblance of education, links to Rice's work, fine, I'll read it. Watts does not fit that category. If you quote Rice University's work directly, I will be glad to read it. I don't need Watt's uneducated, lying opinion drivel.
Click to expand...

Your loss. Virtually the entire post is Rice University material.

Your obsession with credentials suggests you failed to achieve one you strongly desired at some point.
 
Jack Hays said:
Glaciers
[h=1]Some Of The World’s Largest Non-Polar Glaciers Are Expanding, Despite Global Warming[/h]Energy Some Of The World’s Largest Non-Polar Glaciers Are Expanding, Despite Global Warming From The Daily Caller Michael Bastasch 12:36 PM 08/11/2017 Some of the largest non-polar glaciers in the world are either stable or growing due to a “vortex” of cold air over a 1,200-mile section of the greater Himalayan mountain range in central…
Click to expand...

I'll bet they are in areas not subject to the soot from Asia. The Himalayas for example almost always have a wind from the west, rather from the east.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'll bet they are in areas not subject to the soot from Asia. The Himalayas for example almost always have a wind from the west, rather from the east.
Click to expand...

“While most glaciers are retreating as a result of global warming, the glaciers of the Karakoram range in South Asia are stable or even growing,” Hayley Fowler, the study’s co-author and professor at Newcastle University, said in a statement.
 
Jack Hays said:
“While most glaciers are retreating as a result of global warming, the glaciers of the Karakoram range in South Asia are stable or even growing,” Hayley Fowler, the study’s co-author and professor at Newcastle University, said in a statement.
Click to expand...

Here is the first paragraph after the abstract, from the Nature Climate Change article.

Untitled.jpg

Here is the article, probably paywalled:

Karakoram temperature and glacial melt driven by regional atmospheric circulation variability
 
Last edited:
Glaciers
[h=1]Are the glaciers in Glacier National Park growing?[/h]By Roger Roots, J.D., Ph.D., Founder, Lysander Spooner University http://www.lysanderspooneruniversity.comGlacier National Park (GNP) straddles the continental divide along Montana’s border with Canada. Ever since Al Gore’s 2006 film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” the Park has been seen as ground zero in the international battle over manmade global warming. Almost every major figure promoting apocalyptic-manmade-global-warming-by-CO2 hysteria…
 
Jack Hays said:
Glaciers
[h=1]Are the glaciers in Glacier National Park growing?[/h]By Roger Roots, J.D., Ph.D., Founder, Lysander Spooner University http://www.lysanderspooneruniversity.comGlacier National Park (GNP) straddles the continental divide along Montana’s border with Canada. Ever since Al Gore’s 2006 film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” the Park has been seen as ground zero in the international battle over manmade global warming. Almost every major figure promoting apocalyptic-manmade-global-warming-by-CO2 hysteria…
Click to expand...

I was just in Glacier Bay. The answer to this question is an emphatic NO. People who have studied the glaciers, and long-time residents all agree that the glaciers are receding substantially. More GARBAGE from the high-schooler, Watts.
 
Media_Truth said:
I was just in Glacier Bay. The answer to this question is an emphatic NO. People who have studied the glaciers, and long-time residents all agree that the glaciers are receding substantially. More GARBAGE from the high-schooler, Watts.
Click to expand...

Back in he 1880's Muir traveled to Glacier Bay and found that the ice had retreated some 40 miles since the last measurement 80 years earlier. This was long before the first automobile.

Ice travels toward the sea. Retreats from the sea. Been doing that for millions of years.
 
jimbo said:
Back in he 1880's Muir traveled to Glacier Bay and found that the ice had retreated some 40 miles since the last measurement 80 years earlier. This was long before the first automobile.

Ice travels toward the sea. Retreats from the sea. Been doing that for millions of years.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't be ignoring the fact that Alaska temperatures are averaging 3 deg F warmer than 60 years ago? Alaska is warming faster than the rest of the US.

Over the past 60 years, the average temperature across Alaska has increased by approximately 3°F.[3] This increase is more than twice the warming seen in the rest of the United States. Warming in the winter has increased by an average of 6°F [3] and has led to changes in ecosystems, such as earlier breakup of river ice in the spring. As the climate continues to warm, average annual temperatures in Alaska are projected to increase an additional 2 to 4°F by the middle of this century.[3] Precipitation in Alaska is projected to increase during all seasons by the end of this century. Despite increased precipitation, the state is likely to become drier due to greater evaporation caused by warming temperatures and longer growing seasons.

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-alaska_.html

Will any of this information hit the Deniers over the side of the head, and say WAKE UP? Or will they just continue to blissfully watch their FOX News misinformation from the fossil fuel industry?
 
Media_Truth said:
I was just in Glacier Bay. The answer to this question is an emphatic NO. People who have studied the glaciers, and long-time residents all agree that the glaciers are receding substantially. More GARBAGE from the high-schooler, Watts.
Click to expand...

I guess he must have planted these tree stumps under retreating glaciers too then otherwise how did they get there ?

mendenhall-glacier-tree.jpg
 
Media_Truth said:
You wouldn't be ignoring the fact that Alaska temperatures are averaging 3 deg F warmer than 60 years ago? Alaska is warming faster than the rest of the US.

Over the past 60 years, the average temperature across Alaska has increased by approximately 3°F.[3] This increase is more than twice the warming seen in the rest of the United States. Warming in the winter has increased by an average of 6°F [3] and has led to changes in ecosystems, such as earlier breakup of river ice in the spring. As the climate continues to warm, average annual temperatures in Alaska are projected to increase an additional 2 to 4°F by the middle of this century.[3] Precipitation in Alaska is projected to increase during all seasons by the end of this century. Despite increased precipitation, the state is likely to become drier due to greater evaporation caused by warming temperatures and longer growing seasons.

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-alaska_.html

Will any of this information hit the Deniers over the side of the head, and say WAKE UP? Or will they just continue to blissfully watch their FOX News misinformation from the fossil fuel industry?
Click to expand...

No, I'm aware temperatures rise and temperatures fall. Been doing so long before man was around. Ice sheets grow, ice sheets diminish. Temperatures rise, temperatures fall. Nothing new here.
 
Media_Truth said:
You wouldn't be ignoring the fact that Alaska temperatures are averaging 3 deg F warmer than 60 years ago? Alaska is warming faster than the rest of the US.

Over the past 60 years, the average temperature across Alaska has increased by approximately 3°F.[3] This increase is more than twice the warming seen in the rest of the United States. Warming in the winter has increased by an average of 6°F [3] and has led to changes in ecosystems, such as earlier breakup of river ice in the spring. As the climate continues to warm, average annual temperatures in Alaska are projected to increase an additional 2 to 4°F by the middle of this century.[3] Precipitation in Alaska is projected to increase during all seasons by the end of this century. Despite increased precipitation, the state is likely to become drier due to greater evaporation caused by warming temperatures and longer growing seasons.

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-alaska_.html

Will any of this information hit the Deniers over the side of the head, and say WAKE UP? Or will they just continue to blissfully watch their FOX News misinformation from the fossil fuel industry?
Click to expand...

Alaska "average temperature has increased, because it does not get as cold at night.
The maximum temperature in the summer has actually fallen a bit, at least in August according to NOAA.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom