New photos vs old: comparisons show dramatic Swiss glacier retreat

[Scot123]

I looked at those photos but they do not line up. The doom and gloom photo looks as if it is taken further away and the mountains look at a different angle. The fact is some glaciers in the world are contracting and some are expanding. As for global warming why are people still going on about it when it was disproved years ago and they changed the name to Climate Change which ironically has always happened. Why worry the world is ending in 8 years time. Strange how you can still buy property on the coast and get 30 year mortgages. Those banks are just so stupid....... NOT. 

[teacherofwoe]

So, a glacier from the last ice age has gone leaving an abundance of plant life to consume deadly nasty evil co2, so the Climate Cult should be happy. Apparently not; you just cant please religious maniacs, can you? Don't worry sheeple, it will start coming back in about thirty to forty years as the next solar minimum is well on it's way now. And, that's from true science where empirical data is used rather than repeating a narrative that suits an agenda. Don't believe me? But you believe everything that comes out of a box in the corner of the living room. Programming! 

[Happy Grumpy]

Good.

 

Much nicer to have green hills and trees than cold, hard ice. 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

You do realise that the above can apply equally to both sides, Right?

 

Putting aside all the graphs charts  and research, all the other articles that show pollution ruining the world, in so many different ways,  (plastic everywhere, oil spills, garbage islands, sea life washing on beaches full of plastic,cant breath in thailand because of fires.. etc etc

Put all that away and consider the following.

If we are wrong , maybe we lose some money, but we end up with a cleaner environment.

If you are wrong , suffering and death, but on the bright side the fat cats get fatter. 

 

 

 

 

You do realise that the above can apply equally to both sides, Right?

 

True.  But one side is rooted in common sense and the other side is rooted in fear.

 

If we are wrong , maybe we lose some money, but we end up with a cleaner environment.

 

That's assuming all of the money makes it's way to it's intended target.  Big assumption.

 

In any case I do agree with you that we need to be better stewards of this earth.  But why wait?  It begins and ends with individual effort.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Thomas J said:

For billions of years the earth has gone through glacial and interglacial periods.  We are in an interglacial period at the present time.  There are several causes most pronounced is that the orbit around the sun is not precisely the same.  At times the earth loops further out and it is colder.  Also the earth's revolution is like a top and it bobbles.  The more it bobbles over centuries, the closer the poles move towards the sun and they get warmer.  So this current interglacial period is not anything the earth has not seen before and when the next glacier period hits it will be far far more devastating than any warming. 

Yes, Malenkovitch cycles are a real thing and do affect the climate profoundly. But the changes are very slow. The effect over a few centuries can be undetectable.  Now, maybe you, unlike most of us, will live 10's of thousands of years so these cycles will be relevant during your lifespan.  But most of us probably won't make it to see 100. And for us, or our children and their children, what happens in the next 100 years is a lot more concerning. And what has happened, particularly since 1975, is that the global average temperature has jumped sharply. 19 of the 20 warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st century. And it's projected to keep on climbing. 

[sirineou]

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

True.  But one side is rooted in common sense and the other side is rooted in fear.

Nothing common about common sense. 

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

That's assuming all of the money makes it's way to it's intended target.  Big assumption.

I have to agree with you on this one.

There is always the fear that   some of the money will indeed miss it's intended target, All the money certainly goes on target now.

The top 3%. 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

You do realise that the above can apply equally to both sides, Right?

 

True.  But one side is rooted in common sense and the other side is rooted in fear.

 

If we are wrong , maybe we lose some money, but we end up with a cleaner environment.

 

That's assuming all of the money makes it's way to it's intended target.  Big assumption.

 

In any case I do agree with you that we need to be better stewards of this earth.  But why wait?  It begins and ends with individual effort.

Sure, that's how science gets one. With common sense. All that nonsense about space time curvature. I don't see any curves. And time slowing down the faster you go? Ridiculous! And the globe getting warmer? Nonsense Why just last summer in my hometown we had a spell of really really cold days. It's about time those scientists pulled their heads out of the clouds and all that so-called data and start to breathe the same air that we commonsensical folk do.

[Tippaporn]

31 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 

Nothing common about common sense. 

 

<snip>

My point is as I have mentioned multiple times before; scientists can't accurately predict weather one month from now.  How, then, can they claim to accurately forecast rising seas inundating large coastal areas 30~100 years from now?  Does common sense see a contradiction?

 

The earth has been known to go through warming and cooling cycles throughout it's history.  Are we experiencing the tail end/beginning of another natural cycle?  Or is it possibly just a short term cycle?  No one knows.  And no one knows what causes these cycles to begin with.  Isn't that common sense?

 

Science has yet to understand fully the complex functioning of the human body (if they did hospitals would not exist and yet they're brimming to capacity).  Imagine, now, not just the complexity of the functioning world with all of it's life forms but how the whole is connected with and affected by the influences of the rest of the solar system.  Given all of that complexity scientists confidently claim that the major, and perhaps sole, factor of so-called climate change is CO2.  Really?  Is that common sense?

 

Those are just a scant few of the issues I have with this entire faux subject.  Never mind the climategate scandal.  Never mind the human psychological aspects.  So much that just doesn't add up.

[Tippaporn]

31 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Sure, that's how science gets one. With common sense. All that nonsense about space time curvature. I don't see any curves. And time slowing down the faster you go? Ridiculous! And the globe getting warmer? Nonsense Why just last summer in my hometown we had a spell of really really cold days. It's about time those scientists pulled their heads out of the clouds and all that so-called data and start to breathe the same air that we commonsensical folk do.

I don't dispute at all the practical knowledge science has gained.  I don't, though, put them on the level of god, even with a small 'g.'  Some believe them to be infallible.  How often have they revised their doomsday forecasts?  That's using common sense.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

My point is as I have mentioned multiple times before; scientists can't accurately predict weather one month from now.  How, then, can they claim to accurately forecast rising seas inundating large coastal areas 30~100 years from now?  Does common sense see a contradiction?

 

The earth has been known to go through warming and cooling cycles throughout it's history.  Are we experiencing the tail end/beginning of another natural cycle?  Or is it possibly just a short term cycle?  No one knows.  And no one knows what causes these cycles to begin with.  Isn't that common sense?

 

Science has yet to understand fully the complex functioning of the human body (if they did hospitals would not exist and yet they're brimming to capacity).  Imagine, now, not just the complexity of the functioning world with all of it's life forms but how the whole is connected with and affected by the influences of the rest of the solar system.  Given all of that complexity scientists confidently claim that the major, and perhaps sole, factor of so-called climate change is CO2.  Really?  Is that common sense?

 

Those are just a scant few of the issues I have with this entire faux subject.  Never mind the climategate scandal.  Never mind the human psychological aspects.  So much that just doesn't add up.

The London Times, which gave us the Climategate scandal, had to retract in full, its allegations.

NEWSPAPERS RETRACT 'CLIMATEGATE' CLAIMS, BUT DAMAGE STILL DONE

https://www.newsweek.com/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-damage-still-done-214472

Comments like yours support the claim of the headline.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I don't dispute at all the practical knowledge science has gained.  I don't, though, put them on the level of god, even with a small 'g.'  Some believe them to be infallible.  How often have they revised their doomsday forecasts?  That's using common sense.

I don't know. Share with us how often they've revised their doomsday forecasts. And while you're at it, share with us exactly who "they" are.

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The earth has been known to go through warming and cooling cycles throughout it's history.  Are we experiencing the tail end/beginning of another natural cycle?  Or is it possibly just a short term cycle?  No one knows.  And no one knows what causes these cycles to begin with.  Isn't that common sense?

 

.

More like common ignorance. Plenty is known. Start with Malenkovich cycles. 

Edited November 26, 2019 by bristolboy

[lust]

We would be so naive to believe that our planet should remain the same. Adapt.

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, lust said:

We would be so naive to believe that our planet should remain the same. Adapt.

Without human interference changes would be very gradual. 

[torturedsole]

If you look at photos from Walking Street circa 1980 as opposed to today then you'll also notice dramatic change.  That's how it works. has always worked and will work forever more.  

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, lust said:

We would be so naive to believe that our planet should remain the same. Adapt.

 

3 minutes ago, torturedsole said:

If you look at photos from Walking Street circa 1980 as opposed to today then you'll also notice dramatic change.  That's how it works. has always worked and will work forever more.  

2 more parties who don't seem to understand what "rate" means.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Sure, that's how science gets one. With common sense. All that nonsense about space time curvature. I don't see any curves. And time slowing down the faster you go? Ridiculous! And the globe getting warmer? Nonsense Why just last summer in my hometown we had a spell of really really cold days. It's about time those scientists pulled their heads out of the clouds and all that so-called data and start to breathe the same air that we commonsensical folk do.

Ah, the old scientists know all so I don't need to think religious teaching.  Which way to the alter, my lord?

 

The problem is all the absolutism in the media is not scientific. For all the effort to measure the past and predict the future, there are countless unknowns. The biggest one is is how living organisms, which created and control Earth's climate, will respond. Mostly unknown, reports just starting to come in.

 

Another one often skipped is error bars. Large error bars in climate modelling make it difficult to know what causes what and can throw predictions way off. Look at the size of these EBs! And most feedbacks are not included.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

 

Kindly tell me, how certain are you where we will be in the future? Enough to authorize spending most of everyone's money even as they are already loosing out to the 1%? I am not that certain and neither is the science.

 

Edited November 26, 2019 by rabas

[torturedsole]

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

2 more parties who don't seem to understand what "rate" means.

Sir, you do not understand.  Don't be blinkered and your outlook will expand exponentially.

[seajae]

its like the so called rising oceans, pics taken in Sydney harbour of the fort over 100 years ago show that the high tide mark is still exactly the same now as it was then, it totally debunks all the rising ocean <deleted>. Same with all the ice and glacier claims, while I think there is something to the changing climates I am not 100% convinced it is global warming when there is also cooling involved, you really have to look at the billions, no trillions of dollars involved with global warming to see that maybe the lure of money has a lot more to do with it

[stevenl]

21 minutes ago, seajae said:

its like the so called rising oceans, pics taken in Sydney harbour of the fort over 100 years ago show that the high tide mark is still exactly the same now as it was then, it totally debunks all the rising ocean <deleted>. Same with all the ice and glacier claims, while I think there is something to the changing climates I am not 100% convinced it is global warming when there is also cooling involved, you really have to look at the billions, no trillions of dollars involved with global warming to see that maybe the lure of money has a lot more to do with it

You made the same point in an earlier thread, debunked already.

[sirineou]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

My point is as I have mentioned multiple times before; scientists can't accurately predict weather one month from now.  How, then, can they claim to accurately forecast rising seas inundating large coastal areas 30~100 years from now?  Does common sense see a contradiction?

 

The earth has been known to go through warming and cooling cycles throughout it's history.  Are we experiencing the tail end/beginning of another natural cycle?  Or is it possibly just a short term cycle?  No one knows.  And no one knows what causes these cycles to begin with.  Isn't that common sense?

 

Science has yet to understand fully the complex functioning of the human body (if they did hospitals would not exist and yet they're brimming to capacity).  Imagine, now, not just the complexity of the functioning world with all of it's life forms but how the whole is connected with and affected by the influences of the rest of the solar system.  Given all of that complexity scientists confidently claim that the major, and perhaps sole, factor of so-called climate change is CO2.  Really?  Is that common sense?

 

Those are just a scant few of the issues I have with this entire faux subject.  Never mind the climategate scandal.  Never mind the human psychological aspects.  So much that just doesn't add up.

Just because something happened naturally in the past does not mean that it is happening naturally now.

All the evidence seems to indicate that it is not happening naturally. and that humans are contributed. 

I am not going to play the .link, graph, and chatt game, if all the evidence have not convince your side by now, IMO nothing will . We just will have to do the best we can   without yous.

Even if we are wrong all we will MAYBE lose is some money, but will end up with a cleaner environment. If you guys are wrong................ 

[XJ650]

New Zealand's incredible shrinking glaciers

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/116233362/new-zealands-incredible-shrinking-glaciers

 

 

[Odysseus123]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I don't know. Share with us how often they've revised their doomsday forecasts. And while you're at it, share with us exactly who "they" are.

There is always a "they"....????

 

Them thar they's come thick and fast in internetland.

[Tippaporn]

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

The London Times, which gave us the Climategate scandal, had to retract in full, its allegations.

NEWSPAPERS RETRACT 'CLIMATEGATE' CLAIMS, BUT DAMAGE STILL DONE

https://www.newsweek.com/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-damage-still-done-214472

Comments like yours support the claim of the headline.

The climate warming change theory has long been politicised.  Once that happened you can be sure that all sorts of machinations went into play.  The reason the London Times retracted in full is anybody's guess but political pressure certainly can't be ruled out.  It was certainly politicised during the Bush era.  Good luck figuring out who's truthful and who's not.

 

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-change-research-distorted-and-suppressed

 

Despite the fact that the London Times retracted it doesn't negate the content of the emails.

 

https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

 

And what of the fact that climategate scientists won't release their data?  Gee, I wonder why?

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/michael-mann-refuses-to-produce-data-loses-case.php

 

Believe what you will but there's much more to the story than what your post seems to suggest.  My common sense doesn't buy it.

 

Edited November 26, 2019 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I don't know. Share with us how often they've revised their doomsday forecasts. And while you're at it, share with us exactly who "they" are.

All of that has been posted here and elsewhere already.  But you know that.

[Tippaporn]

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

More like common ignorance. Plenty is known. Start with Malenkovich cycles. 

It's a hypothesis, not a "known."  But you understand that.  And ignore the fact.

 

This from Wikipedia:

 

Now, materials on Earth that have been unchanged for millennia (obtained via ice, rock, and deep ocean cores) are being studied to indicate the history of Earth's climate. Though they are consistent with the Milankovitch hypothesis, there are still several observations that the hypothesis does not explain.

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, sirineou said:

Just because something happened naturally in the past does not mean that it is happening naturally now.

All the evidence seems to indicate that it is not happening naturally. and that humans are contributed. 

<snip>

". . . seems to indicate . . ."

 

That says it all.  Keep your paws outta my pocket.

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

". . . seems to indicate . . ."

 

That says it all.  Keep your paws outta my pocket.

Sure ,

get yourself a comfortable seat on the Titanic and count your money

[canuckamuck]

8 hours ago, stevenl said:

You made the same point in an earlier thread, debunked already.

I remember Sydney harbor pics were shown. I don.t remember them being debunked. Can you elaborate?

[mokwit]

14 hours ago, stevenl said:

Thanks, I can google myself. I stand by the scientific consensus, not by someone who uses google because he doesn't like the truth.

Fake consensus used for propaganda purposes.

https://www.thegwpf.com/ian-plimer-97-of-scientists-agree-on-nothing/