global warming data...garbage in...

[ballen0351]

Just to clarify some of the misconceptions that seem to be creeping in from those that are more politically motivated than scientifically engaged, the last ice age was less than 12,000 years ago.

According to most things Ive read we are still coming out of the last ice age. Thats not politics its science. How does Ice melt? Warmer air again science not politics. So then the earth naturally warms itself up. So we are currently coming out of the last ice age which would mean the earth is warming

The world has not been warming for millions of years for Inter-glacials tend to be quite short, speaking in geological time, as Ice Age seems to be the default condition for Earth. Most guesstimates are that we have several thousand years to go before this inter-glacial is over but the influence we are having on the chaotic system that is climate could swing things either way i.e. we could either delay the onset of the next Ice Age or precipitate it through a 'snap inversion' (where the system trends in the opposite way than that that is expected).

So if the earth dose not warm all by itself with out help from our cars then how did we come out of the last few glacial periods?

What has caused the worry of late is the rate of warming, which coincides with the flowering of human agricultural and industrial expansion - what many people forget is that we are more responsible for the release of methane from our livestock than we are for the release of CO2 from our cars.

So now its the cows farting that is causing this crisis. Thats great news Im all for eatting more Steak see you want me to go green by eatting a Tbone then call me Green. Or we need to kill off all livestock and become vegans.

Change the composition of the atmosphere and you change the composition of the biosphere - the danger is that it changes to the point where humans are stretched in their ability to adapt - it's happened before when we went down to as few as 10,000 individuals world wide, which is why we are all related to each other very closely.
In biological terms we are not very diversified, which makes us vulnerable to environmental change and our current focus on consumption rather than preparation is undermining the ability we have to manage the environment to suit us (which is what has made us so successful a creature).

So to stick to the 'I'm going to consume and pollute as much as I want' path is not very helpful to our survival.

So whats the answer then to this "problem"

 

[billc]

There is an easy answer to man made global warming. Be prepared. Put away supplies that you might need for the disaster that is global warming. You can just put them next to all the supplies you saved up for Y2K. Those supplies should still be usable.

In order to be prepared for man made global warming, please read this book...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Populatio...0&sr=8-1&keywords=the+population+bomb+ehrlich

The Population Bomb [Hardcover]

Paul R. Ehrlich (Author)

A review by a reader as he explains what the book is about...

Ehrlich predicted that, by the end of the 20th century, human want would outstrip available resources; whole areas of human endeavor would screech to a halt due to resource scarcity; England would, in all likelihood, cease to exist; India would collapse due to its inability to feed itself; and "inevitable" mass starvation would sweep the globe (including the US). We were on the brink of disaster in 1968, and the future looked very, very dark. In fact, he asserts, "it is now too late to take action to save many of those people."

and from wikipedia...

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

It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Fears of a "population explosion" were widespread in the 1950s and 60s, but the book and its charismatic author brought the idea to an even wider audience.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]The book has been criticized in recent decades for its alarmist tone and inaccurate predictions. The Ehrlichs stand by the basic ideas in the book, stating in 2009 that "perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future" and believe that it achieved their goals because "it alerted people to the importance of environmental issues and brought human numbers into the debate on the human future."[SUP][2][/SUP]

In answer to the question, "what needs to be done?" he wrote, "We must rapidly bring the world population under control, reducing the growth rate to zero or making it negative. Conscious regulation of human numbers must be achieved. Simultaneously we must, at least temporarily, greatly increase our food production." Ehrlich described a number of "ideas on how these goals might be reached."[SUP][6][/SUP] He believed that the United States should take a leading role in population control, both because it was already consuming much more than the rest of the world, and therefore had a moral duty to reduce its impact, and because the US would have to lead international efforts due to its prominence in the world. In order to avoid charges of hypocrisy or racism it would have to take the lead in population reduction efforts.[SUP][7][/SUP] Ehrlich floats the idea of adding "temporary sterilants" to the water supply or staple foods. However, he rejects the idea as unpractical due to "criminal inadequacy of biomedical research in this area."[SUP][8][/SUP]He suggests a tax scheme in which additional children would add to a family's tax burden at increasing rates for more children, as well as luxury taxes on childcare goods. He suggests incentives for men who agree to permanent sterilization before they have two children, as well as a variety of other monetary incentives. He proposes a powerful Department of Population and Environment which "should be set up with the power to take whatever steps are necessary to establish a reasonable population size in the United States and to put an end to the steady deterioration of our environment."[SUP][9][/SUP] The department should support research into population control, such as better contraceptives, mass sterilizing agents, and prenatal sex discernment (because families often continue to have children until a male is born. Ehrlich suggested that if they could choose a male child this would reduce the birthrate). Legislation should be enacted guaranteeing the right to an abortion, and sex education should be expanded.
After explaining the domestic policies the US should pursue, he discusses foreign policy. He advocates a system of "triage," such as that suggested by William and Paul Paddock in Famine 1975!. Under this system countries would be divided into categories based on their abilities to feed themselves going forward. Countries with sufficient programmes in place to limit population growth, and the ability to become self sufficient in the future would continue to receive food aid. Countries, for example India, which "were far behind in the population-food game that there is no hope that our food aid will see them through to self-sufficiency" would have their food aid eliminated. Ehrlich argued that this was the only realistic strategy in the long-term. Ehrlich applauds the Paddocks' "courage and foresight" in proposing such a solution.[SUP][10][/SUP] Ehrlich further discusses the need to set up public education programs and agricultural development schemes in developing countries. He argues that the scheme would likely have to be implemented outside the framework of the United Nations due to the necessity of being selective regarding the targeted regions and countries, and suggests that within countries certain regions should be prioritized to the extent that cooperative separatist movements should be encouraged if they are an improvement over the existing authority. He mentions his support for government mandated sterilization of Indian males with three or more children.[SUP][11][/SUP]

Wow, he should have switched over to global warming...

Why is it that in all these left leaning scares they want to cut down on 3rd world populations? What do they have against these people and their desire to advance their prospects in life?

 

[Sukerkin]

Do you really want to discuss this, Ballen? Let me know if you do rather than it being a desire to 'be right'.

For a start, I'll even tell you, at the level of an individual you are right. It is hard to even conceive of any degree of responsibility when you don't really have any power and it is difficult to see what iota of difference any changes you make to your lifestyle will cause in the grand scheme of things.

Speaking from my perspective, to carry on kicking holes in the side of the ship because it's going to sink anyway is still not rational. We are an adaptable species in terms of our intelligence and inventiveness. If we give ourselves enough time, we might be able to devise ways to survive the changes that are coming. As a species I think we'll make it but whether our civilisation will is another matter.

Oddly, there is a positive to find in the fact that climate, whilst predictable in broad strokes over long periods, is a chaotic system and inherently hard to predict in the short term. That means that small changes in the short term can cause big changes in outcome over the longer term. Which in turn means that, just maybe, things we do now will be of benefit in the future. So there is some hope.

 

[Tgace]

Its all coming to an end this December anyway....I'm trading in my Honda for an H2.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[ballen0351]

Do I want to discuss it sure that's what I'm doing. I'm waiting for anyone to tell me why I should believe the current global warming trend is not a natural occurrence that happens every so often at the end of an ice age which you yourself even said we are coming to the end of the last one. That alone is enough evidence for me.to see this is a natural cycle that happens to exit an ice age the ice must melt for the ice to melt the temp needs to rise

 

[Tgace]

Its all coming to an end this December anyway....I'm trading in my Honda for an H2.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Not to be too flip, but I'm with Ballen...Ive been a hunter, climber, camper, outdoors type for a large chunk of my life. I want to maintain a clean healthy environment for my children. What I don't like is the quasi religious environmentalists driving us into decisions with unknown economic consequences using a campaign of Armageddon fear mongering.

And the more years I live, the more acid rain, Ozone hole, supervolcanoe, meteor impact, global warming doomsday I seem to see come and go. It leaves me with less and less give a ****. If one isn't gonna wipe us out they seem to tell us its gonna be another.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Big Don]

I'd be more apt to believe in global warming in general, if there wasn't ALWAYS a group of chicken little's running around screaming that we are doomed...
I'd be more apt to believe in man caused global warming, if those who lecture us on it, and what we should and shouldn't do, i.e. cars, planes, etc, rode horses to get from NY to LA and/or sailed in actual sailing ships from NY to London, etc...
You know, instead of marketing the fear and getting rich from it, like, Al Gore...

 

[Sukerkin]

Do I want to discuss it sure that's what I'm doing. I'm waiting for anyone to tell me why I should believe the current global warming trend is not a natural occurrence that happens every so often at the end of an ice age which you yourself even said we are coming to the end of the last one. That alone is enough evidence for me.to see this is a natural cycle that happens to exit an ice age the ice must melt for the ice to melt the temp needs to rise

I think the key thing to latch on to with this topic is that it is the rate of change that makes it different. That and the fact that temperatures are rising all around the globe, rather than in a 'local' and sequential fashion, is reckoned to be the 'finger-print' of an external force (or an overly stimulated internal 'driver') at work.

The stance that I always take on this issue, mind you, is that it makes no difference to the common sense of the changes required to reduce our species environmental impact. Wasting less, polluting less and making the best use of the resources we have is the intelligent thing to do at the end of the day. If it turns out that our adding methane, CO2, tar particulates and so on to the atmosphere is not appreciably adding to the big problem of rising temperatures then it's still the clever thing to limit what we emit anyway - because even if it's not bad for the planet it is bad for us.

 

[Sukerkin]

Here's an article that came out today on the BBC which touches on the 'naturalness' of the climatological variations:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19348427

And for a bit of a deeper wade into the 'numbers':

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

 

[billc]

And as to the world heating up...the models might be a little off...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/09/wheres-the-heat-its-hiding.php

Global warming alarmists have long been embarrassed by the fact that the Earth isn’t heating up to the extent that their models predict (assuming that it is heating up at all). In the world of science, when empirical observation contradicts a theory, the theory is deemed to be refuted. But global warming alarmism exists in the world of religion, so when empirical observation contradicts the theory, its proponents merely tinker with the theory so as to make it harder to falsify. A case in point is this AP story, which suggests that the “missing” heat may be hiding–their word, not mine–where we can’t find it:

The mystery of Earth’s missing heat may have been solved: it could lurk deep in oceans, temporarily masking the climate-warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions, researchers reported on Sunday.
Climate scientists have long wondered where this so-called missing heat was going, especially over the last decade, when greenhouse emissions kept increasing but world air temperatures did not rise correspondingly. …
The world temperature should have risen more than it did, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research reckoned.
They knew greenhouse gas emissions were rising during the decade and satellites showed there was a growing gap between how much sunlight was coming in and how much radiation was going out. Some heat was coming to Earth but not leaving, and yet temperatures were not going up as much as projected.
So where did the missing heat go?
Computer simulations suggest most of it was trapped in layers of oceans deeper than 1,000 feet during periods like the last decade when air temperatures failed to warm as much as they might have.
​

Note that there is zero evidence that the “missing” heat is hiding deep in the oceans; this is simply a hypothesis that has been developed by tweaking those trusty computer programs, which will say whatever the alarmists who create them want them to say.
The most significant point in the AP story is this one, which it reports as fact:

…satellites showed there was a growing gap between how much sunlight was coming in and how much radiation was going out.

​

And this is the neat part...

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. …

 

[billc]

And here, today is an article from Americanthinker on climate modeling...and how the models are off...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/models_not_climate_are_hypersensitive_to_carbon_dioxide.html

JunkScience.com has done this work and we have come to the conclusion that the Kyoto Protocol is a clunker that should be allowed to expire without progeny.

As a column like this is too short to cover any real detail, we have prepared about 20 pages of explanation in downloadable PDF format. But here is a very brief and simplified overview.

Climate concern originally began because the planet appeared to have warmed about seven tenths of one degree (0.7[SUP]o[/SUP]) Celsius since preindustrial times. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, these events are seen by alarmists as related and, therefore, human activity causal of the rise in global mean temperature.

Some people still ask how we know what the global temperature is or should be, so here's a quick refresher:
We know the size and emission temperature of the sun, how far away it is and how much sunlight the Earth intercepts. We've got a pretty good idea what proportion of sunlight is reflected away without warming the Earth, so we know its effective equilibrium temperature (the temperature at which it radiates energy to space to balance the amount it gets from the sun).
We also know that within the atmosphere, below the point where incoming and outgoing radiation is in balance, we have a nice little life-friendly incubator of atmosphere warmed by compression, conduction, evaporation and transpiration and through absorption of infrared radiation.
The greenhouse effect you hear so much about is because the atmosphere is composed of some infrared radiation absorbers, mainly water in its various forms but including carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]), inter alia, which absorb and re-radiate energy helping to keep the lower atmosphere warmer. As the warmed air is displaced by cooler, more dense air it is forced upward where it expands in the lower pressure, cooling until there are no absorbers remaining and energy is radiated to space, balancing that coming from the sun.
Enhanced greenhouse theory postulates that adding more absorbers, like CO[SUB]2[/SUB], will absorb more infrared near the surface and increase temperatures in the zone where we live. Based on atmospheric modeling, a doubling of pre-industrial era CO[SUB]2[/SUB] levels was thought to yield an increase of about 1.2ºC in surface temperature.

It turns out that base estimate is a dud -- i.e., it is far too large. We know this because the -- gasp -- the alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tells us so.

The method for calculating a change in forcing (something that makes temperature change) is net "down minus up" expressed in Watts per meter squared (W/m[SUP]2[/SUP]). The IPCC is most definite that a doubling of atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] adds 3.7 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP]. This makes the calculation actually: incoming solar radiation minus albedo plus feedback, which (if you do the math like we have) resolves to less than a 0.7ºC increase from a doubling of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] -- not 1.2ºC.

Unfortunately for alarmists, the situation goes downhill from there.
Climate models have been tortured to guesstimate future climate decades and even a century in advance even though they are not suited to that purpose. They are merely process models which, like economists, can be very helpful for understanding what we have seen but useless for telling us what we will see.


Because we do not fully understand the climate system and do not know how to represent such important functions as cloud formation -- and we still lack sufficient processing power to represent the Earth at fine enough resolution to capture such important heat transports as thunderstorms -- many of Earth's climate processes are parameterized (i.e., faked) in models.

Also because we do not really know how to model the climate we pretend some things are more important than they really are -- like making CO[SUB]2[/SUB] responsible for a large effect because we don't know what is required for models to properly calculate near-surface temperature, for example. CO[SUB]2[/SUB] levels are used simply as a multiplier to adjust model output to more or less match previously measured temperatures.

So tell me again how I am anti-science when the science doesn't even have the tools yet to really know what is going on.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...ensitive_to_carbon_dioxide.html#ixzz24U12BosA
​

​

 

[billc]

And More...

But this still isn't enough, so marvelous magical multipliers are applied to further magnify CO[SUB]2[/SUB]'s alleged effect in an effort to curve-fit historical measures.

Unfortunately for modelers (and their alarmist backers), the world doesn't believe them. The world is not warming in response to increasing atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB].

According to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) we have already added 3.15 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] worth of additional forcing from greenhouse gases -- some 85% of the figure for a doubling of CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. As the doubling of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is supposed to have yielded 3[SUP]o[/SUP]C warming, we should have seen 85% of 3[SUP]o[/SUP]C, a little over 2.5[SUP]o[/SUP]C.

We have not.


According to the most recent IPCC Assessment Report 4 (p103, AR4 WG1 FAQs) we've only seen 0.7[SUP]o[/SUP]C from enhanced greenhouse -- and land use change, black and brown carbon (soot and smoke) and everything else of which humanity stands accused. While it's a long list, there has been little global temperature effect.

Some will claim this is because warming takes a long time to equilibrate and that most of the warming is "in the pipeline." That's outright nonsense.

As the National Climatic Data Center points out, Earth reacts rapidly to the extra absorption of incoming solar radiation by northern hemisphere land masses, increasing the planet's mean temperature by almost 4[SUP]o[/SUP]C from January to July and cooling back to January again. The mean land surface temperature changes more than 11[SUP]o[/SUP]C over the same period. In our new analysis, we provide a multi-source time series of Earth's warming and subsequent cooling with the 1997-1998 "super El Niño" event -- it was done and dusted in under 30 months.
We also use Earth's natural greenhouse effect as a template to determine that doubling the atmosphere's CO[SUB]2[/SUB] will only deliver 0.4[SUP]o[/SUP]C warming, over half of which has already occurred unnoticed in the background of natural variation many times larger.

​

​

​

 

[Xue Sheng]

:hmm: So glaciers and ice sheets are not melting... ahhh so that is all propaganda too

 

[granfire]

:hmm: So glaciers and ice sheets are not melting... ahhh so that is all propaganda too

I am sure the penguins and Polar bears will understand...

 

[Xue Sheng]

I am sure the penguins and Polar bears will understand...

Yeah but the Hot-Headed Moles won't and THOSE are the ones you really need to worry about...well... at least as long as there is ice in Antarctica

 

[billc]

A quick look at Himalayan glaciers...

http://whyfiles.org/2012/himalayan-glaciers/

The decline of the Himalayan glaciers does not prove climate change, Kääb says. “What we did was measure glacier thickness over five or six years; no more, no less. Climate is defined as weather over 30 years, so our study did not talk about climate-induced change.”
Further, five or six years is “not a long time,” Kääb says. “It could be that they were very good or very bad years for the glaciers, but there are almost no sufficient meteorological measurements on the ground.”

And glaciers around the world...

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/nasa-satellite-debunks-melting-glacier-myth

The story of melting glaciers has been told ad nauseam by climate catastrophists and the scientifically gullible news media for years. This blog has reported on the purported “rapid melting” of the Himalayan glaciers several times before (see “Himalayan Glaciers Not Melting” and “Himalayan Glacier Disappearance Overstated&#8221. It is true that glaciers melt, they are the primary source of water in a number of regions around the world.
As I have often stated, this is an interglacial period, ice is supposed to melt. Otherwise there would still be a mile of ice on top of New York City. But despite evidence to the contrary, warmists continue to claim that glaciers are disappearing at an alarming rate. According to an accompanying News & Views article appearing in the same issue by Jonathan Bamber, from the Bristol Glaciology Centre:

Glaciers and ice caps are pivotal features of both water resources and tourism. They are also a significant contributor to sea-level rise. About 1.4 billion people are dependent on the rivers that flow from the Tibetan plateau and Himalayas1. Yet significant controversy and uncertainty surround the recent past and future behaviour of glaciers in this region. This is not so surprising when one considers the problem in hand. There are more than 160,000 glaciers and ice caps worldwide. Fewer than 120 (0.075%) have had their mass balance (the sum of the annual mass gains and losses of the glacier or ice cap) directly measured, and for only 37 of these are there records extending beyond 30 years. Extrapolating this tiny sample of observations to all glaciers and ice caps is a challenging task that inevitably leads to large uncertainties.
​

It is certainly no exaggeration that previous estimates of glacial melting have been fraught with error, sparking contentious debate among glaciologists. “Discussion of the demise of the Himalayan glaciers has been mired in controversy, partly because of basic errors, but also because of the dearth of reliable data on past trends,” Bamber explains. Indeed, estimates for the Himalayan glaciers, based on a few easy to access sites, was roundly criticized by experts world wide. Now comes a “surprising” new set of estimates, based on satellite measurements of glacier ice mass.
Most previous global mass balance estimates for Glaciers and ice caps (GICs) rely on extrapolation of sparse mass balance measurements, which represent only a small fraction of the GIC area. Based on a global, simultaneous inversion of monthly GRACE-derived satellite gravity fields, Thomas Jacobet al, calculated the mass change over all ice-covered regions greater in area than 100 km[SUP]2[/SUP]. In “Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise,” the authors describe their work:

“Our results for HMA disagree significantly with previous studies,” the article plainly states. Even though previous GRACE based studies showed significant mass loss, the authors state that those measurements were in error—the outcome of “leakage” of readings from surrounding plains that was included by the Gaussian smoothing functions used. The excessive readings from the plains have been attributed to groundwater movement, not ice loss. They also dismiss any contribution from broad-scale tectonic uplift. In short, they found minimal ice loss from the glaciers of the Himalaya.
According to the report: “The GIC rate for 2003–2010 is about 30 per cent smaller than the previous mass balance estimate that most closely matches our study period. The high mountains of Asia, in particular, show a mass loss of only 4 ± 20 Gt yr[SUP]−1[/SUP] for 2003–2010, compared with 47–55 Gt yr[SUP]−1[/SUP] in previously published estimates.” Bamber summarizes the article's findings this way:

The bungled estimates for melting in the Himalaya are exposed as total fabrications. Science works, but there is no easy defense against lazy or biased scientists who produce “facts” that support a political agenda. That is why it is best to remain skeptical of claims of impending disaster backed by weak minded consensus arguments.
Hopefully this new evidence will put and end to the exaggerated claims of glacial melting from those who want to prove that the world around us is afflicted by the evil works of man. The alarmists' previous estimates were “well over ten times larger” for some areas according to these experts. It would appear that, when it comes to climate science, if you are going to tell a lie, you should tell a big lie. That ensures you make the evening news.

So you were saying about melting glaciers...

And a little more...

http://www.iceagenow.com/Our_glaciers_are_growing_not_melting.htm

If you click on the words "are melting" in Gore's article, you're taken to a paper by Michael Zemp at the University of Zurich. Mr. Zemp begins his paper by warning that "glaciers around the globe continue to melt at high rates."
However, if you bother to actually read the paper, you learn that Zemp's conclusion is based on measurements of "more than 80 glaciers."
Considering that the Himalayas boast more than 15,000 glaciers, a study of "more than 80 glaciers" hardly seems sufficient to warrant such a catastrophic pronouncement.


Especially when you learn that of those 80 glaciers, several are growing.

Growing. Not melting.

"In Norway, many maritime glaciers were able to gain mass," Zemp concedes. ("Able to gain mass" means growing.)

In North America, Zemp also concedes, "some positive values were reported from the North Cascade Mountains and the Juneau Ice Field." ("Displaying positive values" means growing.)
Remember, we're still coming out of the last ice age. Ice is supposed to melt as we come out of an ice age. The ice has been melting for 11,000 years. Why should today be any different? I'm guessing that most Canadians and Northern Europeans are very happy that the ice has been melting.
Unfortunately, that millenniums-long melting trend now appears to be changing. No matter how assiduously Mr. Gore tries to ignore it, almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are now gaining mass. (Or, displaying positive values, if you will.)

 

[billc]

Oh wait, I was wrong...here is a news article that details the melting of polar ice...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/another-epic-climatefail.php

“The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface. . . .
“Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. . . . Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared. The change in temperature has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the Arctic.”

Here is a picture of the actual story....from 1922!!!!

Here’s an image of the actual story:

And the rest of the story...

Today comes a similar report from the UK-based Register newspaper: “1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today”:

Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
The photos in question were taken by the seventh Thule Expedition to Greenland led by Dr Knud Rasmussen in 1932. The explorers were equipped with a seaplane, which they used to take aerial snaps of glaciers along the Arctic island’s coasts.
After the expedition returned the photographs were used to make maps and charts of the area, then placed in archives in Denmark where they lay forgotten for decades. Then, in recent years, international researchers trying to find information on the history of the Greenland glaciers stumbled across them.
Taken together the pictures show clearly that glaciers in the region were melting even faster in the 1930s than they are today, according to Professor Jason Box, who works at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University.


​

From the embedded story on the 1930's glacial melt...and return...

It now appears that the glaciers were retreating even faster eighty years ago: but nobody worried about it, and the ice subsequently came back again. Box theorises that this is likely to be because of sulphur pollution released into the atmosphere by humans, especially by burning coal and fuel oils. This is known to have a cooling effect.

Like I said before, put your global warming survival equipment next to your Y2K survival gear...then make some room for the next scare...like heterosexual aids or one of the other oldy but goody scares...

 

[Empty Hands]

Like I said before, put your global warming survival equipment next to your Y2K survival gear...then make some room for the next scare...like heterosexual aids or one of the other oldy but goody scares...

AIDS has a prevalence of about 19% in most of Sub-Saharan Africa. Nearly all heterosexuals.

 

[Sukerkin]

:grins: And you know why Y2K wasn't an unmitigated disaster? Because people like me and companies like the one I work spent any awful lot of time and money making sure it didn't get the chance to.

You can pay me a nice bonus (or a "thank you" would do) for the two weeks I spent on call over the Christmas/New Year period that year if you like? Tho' of course I was only safe-guarding British systems so that probably doesn't count.

 

[billc]

Not quite the global plague that was predicted in the 80' is it? I'm sure the Queen thanks you for your effort Sukerkin.