• 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!

Fox: Global Warming Shrinking Glaciers

NWRatCon said:
Boy does That leave open a world of possibilities..
Click to expand...

Funny thing is that it was obvious that he never even considered Canada in his original post on this issue of North American glaciers. But, of course, now he will pretend to be an expert on Canadian ice fields.
 
Deuce said:
You know Google Maps isn't live imagery, right?
Click to expand...

What in hell does that mean?

You think you need the information to be absolutely immediate for it to be valid? Can't you tell what amount of ice there was if there was some hundreds of cubic kilometers of glacial ice in Canada when those images were taken??
 
It appears to me we have progressed. The progression seems to be from climate denier, to science denier, to logic denier, to reality denier.

By the way, Steve, I live in one of those areas that relies on snow melt. Funny thing about water, it behaves differently as snow and ice than as a liquid. Scientists have known this for... oh, a millennium or two. Liquid water does this funny thing called "flowing". It flows away to these things called "oceans". Sadly, we can't drink oceans.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You think you need the information..... for it to be valid?
Click to expand...
I think that's what you meant...

Tim, please, engage your brain before you start typing. It will go better for everybody.
 
NWRatCon said:
I think that's what you meant...

Tim, please, engage your brain before you start typing. It will go better for everybody.
Click to expand...

My position is that there in not much glacial ice in Canada. Less than 2,000Gt. You can presumably find evidence to show me wrong. Go for it.
 
calamity said:
have at it...now that you know to look for Canadian ice. :roll:
Click to expand...

You are making the claim that there is lots of ice, enough to last more than 10 years at a loss rate of 200Gt/yr. Well where is all this ice?
 
Tim the plumber said:
You are making the claim that there is lots of ice, enough to last more than 10 years at a loss rate of 200Gt/yr. Well where is all this ice?
Click to expand...

Melting...

Why is it that everything had to be a challenge to somebody else? Why is it that someone else has to "disprove" something you just claim to "know"? Do you have any personal curiosity? It took me, literally, nanoseconds to find a dozen articles on Canada's glacial ice fields. That's what I mean by "engaging".
 
Melting glaciers in the Canadian Arctic have revealed landscapes not seen in 40,000 years (CNN). 40,000 years. That is, like,... before I was born!
Canada’s landmass and climate supports approximately 20% of the Earth’s glacier ice volume excluding the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. Outside of the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland, Canada has more glacier coverage in the form of mountain glaciers, icefields and ice caps than any other nation.
Click to expand...
(National Resources Canada).
Glaciers in this region have become the 3rd largest contributor to global sea-level rise outside of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. Run-off from glaciers in this region also impact local streamflow and freshwater fluxes into the Arctic Basin.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
NWRatCon said:
Melting...

Why is it that everything had to be a challenge to somebody else? Why is it that someone else has to "disprove" something you just claim to "know"? Do you have any personal curiosity? It took me, literally, nanoseconds to find a dozen articles on Canada's glacial ice fields. That's what I mean by "engaging".
Click to expand...

Yes, Canada has glacial ice fields. None of which have a thousand cubic kilometers of ice in them.

Please engage your brain enough to understand that it is a mater of volume, a bit of maths, that is needed.
 
From National Resources Canada article: The latest published estimate of water equivalent mass loss from Canada’s Arctic glaciers is 60 +/- 4 Gt a-1 between 2003 – 2009 (Gardner et al, 2013) compared with 81 +/- 37 Gt a-1 and 263 +/- 30 Gt a-1 loss from the Greenland and Antarctic Ice sheets respectively between 2005-2010 (Shepard, 2012)

Based on long-term annual glacier mass balance series' and glacier volumetric change data derived from repeat glacier inventory efforts, a coupled mass balance - regional glacier dynamics model was used to simulate future glacier changes under the influence of IPCC scenario A1-b climate. The projections suggest that glaciers on the eastern slopes of the Canadian Rocky Mountains will lose 80-90% of their volume by 2100, while glacier contributions to streamflow in Alberta will suffer an order of magnitude reduction (Marshall et al., 2011).

I engage the northern part of my body, rather than the southern where it appears you site your knowledge.
 
NWRatCon said:
From National Resources Canada article: The latest published estimate of water equivalent mass loss from Canada’s Arctic glaciers is 60 +/- 4 Gt a-1 between 2003 – 2009 (Gardner et al, 2013) compared with 81 +/- 37 Gt a-1 and 263 +/- 30 Gt a-1 loss from the Greenland and Antarctic Ice sheets respectively between 2005-2010 (Shepard, 2012)

Based on long-term annual glacier mass balance series' and glacier volumetric change data derived from repeat glacier inventory efforts, a coupled mass balance - regional glacier dynamics model was used to simulate future glacier changes under the influence of IPCC scenario A1-b climate. The projections suggest that glaciers on the eastern slopes of the Canadian Rocky Mountains will lose 80-90% of their volume by 2100, while glacier contributions to streamflow in Alberta will suffer an order of magnitude reduction (Marshall et al., 2011).

I engage the northern part of my body, rather than the southern where it appears you site your knowledge.
Click to expand...

No actual place which has a lot, more than 100Gt, of ice then?
 
[h=2]Arctic Glaciers ADVANCED 16 km During 2008-2016 In A Region That Was 6°C Warmer ~9,000 Years Ago[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 20. December 2018
Newly published science indicates glaciers in the High Arctic Svalbard/Barents Sea region have rapidly advanced in the last decade — surging 16 kilometers since 2008, which is the greatest ice growth since 1890. About 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, this region was 6°C warmer than today. Consequently, the region’s glaciers were much smaller (or non-existent) at that […]
 
[h=2]Observations Show No Warming Trend, Mostly Stable Glaciers In The Himalayas…Contradicting IPCC’s ‘Fake News’[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 23. February 2017
IPCC Intentionally Uses Catastrophic Non-Science To Incite Policy Action “The most striking feature of the present reconstruction is the absence of any warming trend in the 20th century” — Yadav et al., 1997 Bhattacharyya and Chaudhary, 2003 In 2007, IPCC Claimed The Himalayan Region Has Been Warming So Rapidly Its Glaciers Would ‘Disappear’ By […]
 
Tim the plumber said:
My position is that there in not much glacial ice in Canada. Less than 2,000Gt. You can presumably find evidence to show me wrong. Go for it.
Click to expand...

WTF?

A google search gives you an answer immediately?

Why ask questions that are easy to look up? Lazy or stupid is the obvious explanation usually, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you answer.

(FYI. To see the answer, you must click on the underlined text below. But beware, to get back to this page, you might need to click the ‘back’ button on your browser. Let me know if you need any more help if this is too challenging)

Glaciers in Canada | The Canadian Encyclopedia
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yes, Canada has glacial ice fields. None of which have a thousand cubic kilometers of ice in them.

Please engage your brain enough to understand that it is a mater of volume, a bit of maths, that is needed.
Click to expand...

Where did you come up with 1000 cubic kilometers? You seem to be off by a ****load. Probably because you're **** at math. Remember when you invented numbers and did the math wrong to come up with biofuel deaths?
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
WTF?

A google search gives you an answer immediately?

Why ask questions that are easy to look up? Lazy or stupid is the obvious explanation usually, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you answer.

(FYI. To see the answer, you must click on the underlined text below. But beware, to get back to this page, you might need to click the ‘back’ button on your browser. Let me know if you need any more help if this is too challenging)

Glaciers in Canada | The Canadian Encyclopedia
Click to expand...

He did the math wrong and came up with an ice volume off by several orders of magnitude.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Observations Show No Warming Trend, Mostly Stable Glaciers In The Himalayas…Contradicting IPCC’s ‘Fake News’[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 23. February 2017
IPCC Intentionally Uses Catastrophic Non-Science To Incite Policy Action “The most striking feature of the present reconstruction is the absence of any warming trend in the 20th century” — Yadav et al., 1997 Bhattacharyya and Chaudhary, 2003 In 2007, IPCC Claimed The Himalayan Region Has Been Warming So Rapidly Its Glaciers Would ‘Disappear’ By […]
Click to expand...

2017 - that's ancient Jack. Here's a 2019 article...

Rising Temperatures Could Melt Most Himalayan Glaciers by 2100 - The New York Times

NEW DELHI — Rising temperatures in the Himalayas, home to most of the world’s tallest mountains, will melt at least one-third of the region’s glaciers by the end of the century even if the world’s most ambitious climate change targets are met, according to a report released Monday.

If those goals are not achieved, and global warming and greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rates, the Himalayas could lose two-thirds of its glaciers by 2100, according to the report, --->

The Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment | SpringerLink


Warning - this book is very scientific, written by highly educated scientists, and may not be suitable for all audiences.
 
Deuce said:
Where did you come up with 1000 cubic kilometers? You seem to be off by a ****load. Probably because you're **** at math. Remember when you invented numbers and did the math wrong to come up with biofuel deaths?
Click to expand...
I provided a link earlier. Here's the data that was ignored:
In Canada, glaciers and ice caps are found in the Arctic where they occupy ~150,000 km2 of the Queen Elizabeth Islands, Baffin Island, and Bylot Islands, and in the Western and Northern Cordillera region which supports ~50,000 km2 of glacier coverage.
Click to expand...
Let's see, a little slow math here... 200,000 square kilometers, and the depth of the glaciers reach "240-to-1,400-metre" thick, averaging... whatdyaknow... a kilometer. (Arctic glaciers can reach over 4.5 km deep) In the United States, glaciers cover over 75,000 square kilometers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom