Seas Rising 60 Percent Faster Than Projected, Study Shows

[RickBradford]

It will affect some of our childrens' generation, and a greater number of our grandchildren and their offspring.

Even if that were established as fact rather than speculation, our childrens' generation and so on are going to be much better placed to deal with whatever impacts (natural or man-made) occur, because they are going to be much richer than us.

The increase in wealth worldwide (or, more accurately, the rise in earnings compared to the cost of living) is one of the true miracles of the 20th century. Think of where Thailand's people, or India's or China's people, were in economic terms 50 years ago compared with where they are now. More wealth naturally correlates with greater ability to deal with disaster.

The growth in wealth is expected to continue -- by 2200, by figures the IPCC itself uses, we'll all be seven times as wealthy as today. Bangladesh, the poster child for problems caused by putative sea-level rise, is wealthier now than Holland was when it built its system of dykes. It could most certainly handle sea-level rises of 18cm-59cm or 7-24 inches (IPCC figures) by 2100.

The idea that we should beggar today's real-live people through Green-inspired cost of living increases, job losses and higher taxes in order to counter a possible and unquantified threat to yet-unborn people who will be immeasurably richer than we are seems absurd, and frankly immoral and inhumane.

But that's the Green/Left for you; they love humanity, and hate people.

[maidu]

Interesting. I don't see wealth increasing much and I certainly don't see the concept of increased wealth as doing much to clean up a polluted planet. Increased wealth means more toys - particularly things which burn fossil fuels and things made of plastic (which also necessitates fossil fuels for raw material, manufacturing and shipping).

What good is added wealth if you're living in ever smaller, more polluted, and dangerous spaces? Some of the most expensive places (HK, Shanghai, Bangkok, Moscow, Delhi) are also the most polluted, and have the highest population densities and crime stats.

Wealth does not equal increased quality of life.

If anything, I see average ww incomes, in real terms, as going down (perhaps not in numbers, but in purchasing power). Take Rio or Mumbai for example: In the tourist brochures They're beautiful cities, blah blah blah. What % are driving around in late model cars and laughing at life? Probably under 5 %. The majority of their populations are in the slums, and their # is growing weekly (so is crime and pollution). Pretty much the same for any Asian city, and about half of western cities.

[RickBradford]

^^

I agree that it often doesn't look like the world's getting richer, but all the figures suggest that it is.

And of course, wealth means more than personal possessions; it includes money that governments can spend on health care, schools, and infrastructure (which should improve a country's ability to deal with disasters, however caused).

In some extreme cases, you can almost see the wealth growing; Vietnam went in 20 years from being a country with significant malnutrition problems to one with obesity problems, and from a bicycle-powered populace to a motorcycle economy (and now heading fast to becoming a car economy) in about the same time frame.

[chuckd]

Interesting. I don't see wealth increasing much and I certainly don't see the concept of increased wealth as doing much to clean up a polluted planet. Increased wealth means more toys - particularly things which burn fossil fuels and things made of plastic (which also necessitates fossil fuels for raw material, manufacturing and shipping).

What good is added wealth if you're living in ever smaller, more polluted, and dangerous spaces? Some of the most expensive places (HK, Shanghai, Bangkok, Moscow, Delhi) are also the most polluted, and have the highest population densities and crime stats.

Wealth does not equal increased quality of life.

If anything, I see average ww incomes, in real terms, as going down (perhaps not in numbers, but in purchasing power). Take Rio or Mumbai for example: In the tourist brochures They're beautiful cities, blah blah blah. What % are driving around in late model cars and laughing at life? Probably under 5 %. The majority of their populations are in the slums, and their # is growing weekly (so is crime and pollution). Pretty much the same for any Asian city, and about half of western cities.

Maidu, I know you live in Thailand but not the location. I live in a small village located between Nong Bua Lamphu and Loei where we built a house over four years ago and I retired. In this one small village I can find 13 new homes that have been built since I retired, only one of them being a farang home. The remainder are Thai citizens that have been successful enough to afford a new home.

Business is booming in our village and all along highway 210. Wealth is spreading up here.

Perhaps you need to get out more.

[maidu]

Interesting. I don't see wealth increasing much and I certainly don't see the concept of increased wealth as doing much to clean up a polluted planet. Increased wealth means more toys - particularly things which burn fossil fuels and things made of plastic (which also necessitates fossil fuels for raw material, manufacturing and shipping).

What good is added wealth if you're living in ever smaller, more polluted, and dangerous spaces? Some of the most expensive places (HK, Shanghai, Bangkok, Moscow, Delhi) are also the most polluted, and have the highest population densities and crime stats.

Wealth does not equal increased quality of life.

If anything, I see average ww incomes, in real terms, as going down (perhaps not in numbers, but in purchasing power). Take Rio or Mumbai for example: In the tourist brochures They're beautiful cities, blah blah blah. What % are driving around in late model cars and laughing at life? Probably under 5 %. The majority of their populations are in the slums, and their # is growing weekly (so is crime and pollution). Pretty much the same for any Asian city, and about half of western cities.

Maidu, I know you live in Thailand but not the location. I live in a small village located between Nong Bua Lamphu and Loei where we built a house over four years ago and I retired. In this one small village I can find 13 new homes that have been built since I retired, only one of them being a farang home. The remainder are Thai citizens that have been successful enough to afford a new home.

Business is booming in our village and all along highway 210. Wealth is spreading up here.

Perhaps you need to get out more.

I see a lot of development where I reside, in northernost Thailand, also. I put a mention on the Chiang Rai forum about the plethora of Chinese-Thai housing developments popping up everywhere, like mushrooms after a spring rain. We also have a giant new mall and thousands of new shops, etc. Yet, houses and malls and shops are things that are most evident. What's not readily seen are the many who are falling between the cracks. I'm in touch with dozens of hill tribers. All but a few are barely scraping by - rarely have more than 30 baht in their pockets. Their kids don't even have basic toys like dolls, teddy bears, bicycles, blocks, etc. We can call them the 'silent majority.' They're not as evident now, but historically, those are the types of people who rise up, every hundred years or so, and make things very uncomfortable for the favored rich.

To put it another way: The Chinese have a history (to put in a nutshell) of nobility and pampered upper crust, who get fat and lazy at the top. Every couple hundred years or so, a horde of lean and mean warriers come charging out of the north and take over. Then those new conquerers get fat and lazy, and another new horde come charging through the inneffective 'Great Wall' and the cycle goes over again. It's a different dynamic, but getting back to the first paragraph: The comfortable rich and upper middle class can ignore the needs (and exponentially growing populations) of the downtrodden for awhile - but there will come a time when it spills over, and it won't be pretty.

[thaibeachlovers]

Interesting. I don't see wealth increasing much and I certainly don't see the concept of increased wealth as doing much to clean up a polluted planet. Increased wealth means more toys - particularly things which burn fossil fuels and things made of plastic (which also necessitates fossil fuels for raw material, manufacturing and shipping).

What good is added wealth if you're living in ever smaller, more polluted, and dangerous spaces? Some of the most expensive places (HK, Shanghai, Bangkok, Moscow, Delhi) are also the most polluted, and have the highest population densities and crime stats.

Wealth does not equal increased quality of life.

If anything, I see average ww incomes, in real terms, as going down (perhaps not in numbers, but in purchasing power). Take Rio or Mumbai for example: In the tourist brochures They're beautiful cities, blah blah blah. What % are driving around in late model cars and laughing at life? Probably under 5 %. The majority of their populations are in the slums, and their # is growing weekly (so is crime and pollution). Pretty much the same for any Asian city, and about half of western cities.

Maidu, I know you live in Thailand but not the location. I live in a small village located between Nong Bua Lamphu and Loei where we built a house over four years ago and I retired. In this one small village I can find 13 new homes that have been built since I retired, only one of them being a farang home. The remainder are Thai citizens that have been successful enough to afford a new home.

Business is booming in our village and all along highway 210. Wealth is spreading up here.

Perhaps you need to get out more.

New wealth is also obvious in my wife's village, with homes being improved, new shops etc.

However, the difference between prosperity and poverty is but one bad decision. I know someone that was relatively well off, then bought a new car they couldn't afford. If anything goes wrong, they lose it all.

Could be that it's all on the credit card or the money lender, and there will be tears in the future.

[teatree]

Global warming enthusiasts don't seem to be able to connect the dots.

Al Gore and Maurice Strong are heavily invested in the Chicago Carbon Exchange....trading in 'carbon credits'.

Conflict of interest or what?

Some of the sheeple might want to do research on 'agenda 21'

What irritates me the most is that the powers that be, who traditionally were very anti-environment, suddenly had a 'change of heart' and started fanatically pushing a green agenda.

Excuse me? Alarm bells should start ringing.

The bottom line....there is an agenda behind all this.

The first is obvious....money...

...but there are more sinister aspects to it.

They are penalizing us for just being alive....because life equals CO2...think about it.

....so you start hearing calls for cutting the earths population to manageable levels.

That can only happen in a 'violent' manner...there is no way you can persuade large chunks of the third world to stop having children.

The future looks interesting indeed.

My suggestion to 'greenies'...stop being 'useful idiots' to a dark agenda that you can't fathom.

While you're pontificating, you might want to get a higher soapbox - the water is rising around your ankles.

I don't understand, everything he said is correct. Perhaps the wrong person is stood on the soap box, check your ankles maidu.

Seems like you missed the point, any change in policy direction implicates that the flow of money goes from one place to another. Seeing deep conspiracies behind any change isn't necessarily an intelligent way of seeing the big picture. Do some reading instead of watching Fox News.

I remember years ago saying that the AGW hype was going to lead to carbon taxes. I was called a 'kook', a 'conspiracy theorist' and a Fox news watcher (I don't even own a TV), yet that is exactly what we have now. Australia has recently introduced carbon taxes and expect them to deepen and spread throughout the entire globe eventually. Apparently it isn't all that kooky anymore.

After that will be the carbon rationing, where you will be restricted in what you can eat, how far you can travel and how much you can heat/cool your home.

It's coming folks. It may take a few years but understand the idea of incrementalism. We will get there step by step.

The power to tax, control and micro manage everyone's life is an authoritarian's wet dream.

Control the use of carbon and you control every aspect of human activity on the planet.

[canman]

An interesting article:

How Fossil Fuels Have Greened the Planet http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323374504578217621593679506.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[RickBradford]

And the same article not paywalled: http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-fossil-fuels-greened-planet/

[maidu]

Runaway greening can be good in some ways, and can be a hassle in other ways. The drawback is increased fire danger - more vegetarion growth + dry seasons = you know what. It doesn't help that people are spreading their settlements/encroachments everywhere they can. Another side of it is weed growth. I have secured 3 rural properties in northern Thailand. Each one started out completely weed covered. I jest not when I say a person could not take two steps on any part of the properties - because of 3 to 4 meter high prickly weeds everywhere. Attacking weeds is like warfare. It starts with a major campaign and entails continual efforts for ensuing years. Now my parcels are park-like, with soaring 170 ft. trees and flowering bushes - all planted by me and my helpers.

Any green areas added because of global warming, are far outweighed by areas scraped for land for development. Our species moves more earth annually, with our fossil fuel belching machines than all the volcanos, tsunamis, tides, surf and rivers combined. Who says Mankind can't have an effect on the planet or its atmosphere?

[thaibeachlovers]

Runaway greening can be good in some ways, and can be a hassle in other ways. The drawback is increased fire danger - more vegetarion growth + dry seasons = you know what. It doesn't help that people are spreading their settlements/encroachments everywhere they can. Another side of it is weed growth. I have secured 3 rural properties in northern Thailand. Each one started out completely weed covered. I jest not when I say a person could not take two steps on any part of the properties - because of 3 to 4 meter high prickly weeds everywhere. Attacking weeds is like warfare. It starts with a major campaign and entails continual efforts for ensuing years. Now my parcels are park-like, with soaring 170 ft. trees and flowering bushes - all planted by me and my helpers.

Any green areas added because of global warming, are far outweighed by areas scraped for land for development. Our species moves more earth annually, with our fossil fuel belching machines than all the volcanos, tsunamis, tides, surf and rivers combined. Who says Mankind can't have an effect on the planet or its atmosphere?

You are right as far as it goes, but the reason man has so much effect is because there are too many of us. If we weren't overpopulated, there would be no need to scrape land to build new houses.

However, no current politician has the guts to call for a restriction on child numbers, except in China, and they are criticized for having the only sane population policy in the world.

I just saw on tv a new US politician with SIX children, and no one seemed to think that that is a bad thing. With that sort of attitude, it's hopeless, so just enjoy life and hope to die before the poo hits the fan.

[teatree]

Runaway greening can be good in some ways, and can be a hassle in other ways. The drawback is increased fire danger - more vegetarion growth + dry seasons = you know what. It doesn't help that people are spreading their settlements/encroachments everywhere they can. Another side of it is weed growth. I have secured 3 rural properties in northern Thailand. Each one started out completely weed covered. I jest not when I say a person could not take two steps on any part of the properties - because of 3 to 4 meter high prickly weeds everywhere. Attacking weeds is like warfare. It starts with a major campaign and entails continual efforts for ensuing years. Now my parcels are park-like, with soaring 170 ft. trees and flowering bushes - all planted by me and my helpers.

Any green areas added because of global warming, are far outweighed by areas scraped for land for development. Our species moves more earth annually, with our fossil fuel belching machines than all the volcanos, tsunamis, tides, surf and rivers combined. Who says Mankind can't have an effect on the planet or its atmosphere?

You are right as far as it goes, but the reason man has so much effect is because there are too many of us. If we weren't overpopulated, there would be no need to scrape land to build new houses.

However, no current politician has the guts to call for a restriction on child numbers, except in China, and they are criticized for having the only sane population policy in the world.

I just saw on tv a new US politician with SIX children, and no one seemed to think that that is a bad thing. With that sort of attitude, it's hopeless, so just enjoy life and hope to die before the poo hits the fan.

Take a look at the world from Google Earth and you will see that the land is almost entiely free of houses. Even in densly populated countries like the UK.

The CITIES are overpopulated. Being forced into little shoe boxes in big cities is all part of Agenda 21.

[thaibeachlovers]

Runaway greening can be good in some ways, and can be a hassle in other ways. The drawback is increased fire danger - more vegetarion growth + dry seasons = you know what. It doesn't help that people are spreading their settlements/encroachments everywhere they can. Another side of it is weed growth. I have secured 3 rural properties in northern Thailand. Each one started out completely weed covered. I jest not when I say a person could not take two steps on any part of the properties - because of 3 to 4 meter high prickly weeds everywhere. Attacking weeds is like warfare. It starts with a major campaign and entails continual efforts for ensuing years. Now my parcels are park-like, with soaring 170 ft. trees and flowering bushes - all planted by me and my helpers.

Any green areas added because of global warming, are far outweighed by areas scraped for land for development. Our species moves more earth annually, with our fossil fuel belching machines than all the volcanos, tsunamis, tides, surf and rivers combined. Who says Mankind can't have an effect on the planet or its atmosphere?

You are right as far as it goes, but the reason man has so much effect is because there are too many of us. If we weren't overpopulated, there would be no need to scrape land to build new houses.

However, no current politician has the guts to call for a restriction on child numbers, except in China, and they are criticized for having the only sane population policy in the world.

I just saw on tv a new US politician with SIX children, and no one seemed to think that that is a bad thing. With that sort of attitude, it's hopeless, so just enjoy life and hope to die before the poo hits the fan.

Take a look at the world from Google Earth and you will see that the land is almost entiely free of houses. Even in densly populated countries like the UK.

The CITIES are overpopulated. Being forced into little shoe boxes in big cities is all part of Agenda 21.

It's not just houses that destroy the planet as we know it. Because there are too many people to feed, more and more fertile land is converted to cultivation and feeding animals for our consumption. That in turn reduces land available for other animals with the consequent extermination of many species.

Were humans to start eating seaweed etc, and living on floating cities or in the deserts there would be no problem, but we want to eat steak and to live in an area with lots of trees.

[teatree]

Runaway greening can be good in some ways, and can be a hassle in other ways. The drawback is increased fire danger - more vegetarion growth + dry seasons = you know what. It doesn't help that people are spreading their settlements/encroachments everywhere they can. Another side of it is weed growth. I have secured 3 rural properties in northern Thailand. Each one started out completely weed covered. I jest not when I say a person could not take two steps on any part of the properties - because of 3 to 4 meter high prickly weeds everywhere. Attacking weeds is like warfare. It starts with a major campaign and entails continual efforts for ensuing years. Now my parcels are park-like, with soaring 170 ft. trees and flowering bushes - all planted by me and my helpers.

Any green areas added because of global warming, are far outweighed by areas scraped for land for development. Our species moves more earth annually, with our fossil fuel belching machines than all the volcanos, tsunamis, tides, surf and rivers combined. Who says Mankind can't have an effect on the planet or its atmosphere?

You are right as far as it goes, but the reason man has so much effect is because there are too many of us. If we weren't overpopulated, there would be no need to scrape land to build new houses.

However, no current politician has the guts to call for a restriction on child numbers, except in China, and they are criticized for having the only sane population policy in the world.

I just saw on tv a new US politician with SIX children, and no one seemed to think that that is a bad thing. With that sort of attitude, it's hopeless, so just enjoy life and hope to die before the poo hits the fan.

Take a look at the world from Google Earth and you will see that the land is almost entiely free of houses. Even in densly populated countries like the UK.

The CITIES are overpopulated. Being forced into little shoe boxes in big cities is all part of Agenda 21.

It's not just houses that destroy the planet as we know it. Because there are too many people to feed, more and more fertile land is converted to cultivation and feeding animals for our consumption. That in turn reduces land available for other animals with the consequent extermination of many species.

Were humans to start eating seaweed etc, and living on floating cities or in the deserts there would be no problem, but we want to eat steak and to live in an area with lots of trees.

So the problem is not overpopulation, but rather inventing ways to make food supply more efficient so that enough is produced without imposing too much on nature.

Yes, I think we can terraform parts of the planet. What about irrigating the interior of Australia for example. Think of the amount of food that could be grown.

I wouldn't consider totally changing the environment of certain parts of the planet imposing too much.

[maidu]

In some earlier posts on this thread, both GW deniers and GW believers agreed that those folks who are actually 'on the ground' at sites where climate change can be gauged, were worth listening to. "Lonnie Thompson (is someone who) has been climbing to mountaintop glaciers from Peru to China for the past 38 years, pulling crucial climate data from deep inside the ice. Some say Thompson has spent more time above 18,000 feet than anyone alive—1,099 days, at last count. His data show the planet is warming at a historic rate."

source

Another indication is those parts of Australia which are currently experiencing devastating firestorms. It's yet another part of the world which is also experiencing record-breaking heat (hottest sustained temperatures ever, in some sectors). How deniers can keep insisting that the Earth is not warming - borders on the astonishing. It appears they simply just don't want to accept the facts, regardless of overwhelming data which indicates that many parts of the planet are experiencing record heat (annual averages, etc).

[RickBradford]

Ah, yes, Lonnie Thompson, scientific adviser to Al-Gorzeera's sci-fi horror movie.

He does indeed gather data, and here is what the data says:

(e-mail from Prof Phil Jones (UEA) to Dr Geoff Jenkins (UEA) on 18 Sep 2004:)

I’ve heard Lonnie Thompson talk about the Kilimanjaro core and he got some local temperatures – that we don’t have access to, and there was little warming in them.

(Dr Jenkins to Prof Jones:)

would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?

be grateful for your help

cheers

So, once again, Thompson's data says one thing, he says another. And we often can't check his data, because his dog eats it, or something. (he has a reputation as being one of the worst archivers of original data in the field).

Second, the Kilimanjaro ice caps have been recovering rapidly since 2000, according to Tanzania's Minister of Natural Resources Shamsa Mangwunga.

"... contrary to reports that the ice caps were decreasing owing to effects of global warming, indications were that the snow cover on Africa’s highest mountain were now increasing."

As so often, the activists rush around saying one thing; the actual data and observations say something completely different.

For the sake of the future, I hope we can return to a stage where facts are deemed more important than activist agit-prop.

[maidu]

For anyone interested in the state of glaciers worldwide, and how their sizes/bulk compare to the past century, would do well to check out this site. The comparative photos are compelling. Excerpts below......

"(I) keep up with investigations of glacier terminus change around the globe. In historic times, glaciers grew during the Little Ice Age, a cool period from about 1550 to 1850. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as climate warmed. Glacier recession declined and reversed, in many cases, from 1950 to 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. Since 1980, glacier retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that it has threatened the existence of many of the glaciers of the world. This process has increased markedly since 1995, leading to such bizarre steps as covering sections of Austrian alpine glaciers with plastic to retard melting. The World Glacier Monitoring Service has noted 19 consecutive years of negative mass balances, that is volume losses."

"in Antarctica, the collapsing Larsen B Ice Shelf is similar in area to the U.S. state of Rhode Island. The collapse has been due to warmer melt season temperatures leading to surface melting and the formation of shallow ponds of water on the ice shelf. The Larsen Ice Shelf lost 2,500 square kilometers from 1995 to 2001. Then, a total of about 3,250 km2 of shelf area disintegrated in a 35-day period beginning on 31 January 2002. The ice sheet is now 40 percent the size of its previous minimum stable extent. (In another region of Antarctica) the Wilkins Ice Shelf has experienced substantial ice losses in 2008 and 2009."

source, Mauri S. Pelto

[maidu]

"All over Australia - Alice Springs, Adelaide, Sydney, Wagga Wagga - it's been an extremely hot summer and it's expected to get hotter. The continent is experiencing a record-breaking heat wave. Roads have melted in 108-degree temperatures in the Outback and wildfires are raging in New South Wales. The heat is so persistent that the Bureau of Meteorology added two new colors to its official maps - pink and deep purple. Get into the purple and you could be talking 129 degrees F."

source, NPR

[canuckamuck]

For anyone interested in the state of glaciers worldwide, and how their sizes/bulk compare to the past century, would do well to check out this site. The comparative photos are compelling. Excerpts below......

"(I) keep up with investigations of glacier terminus change around the globe. In historic times, glaciers grew during the Little Ice Age, a cool period from about 1550 to 1850. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as climate warmed. Glacier recession declined and reversed, in many cases, from 1950 to 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. Since 1980, glacier retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that it has threatened the existence of many of the glaciers of the world. This process has increased markedly since 1995, leading to such bizarre steps as covering sections of Austrian alpine glaciers with plastic to retard melting. The World Glacier Monitoring Service has noted 19 consecutive years of negative mass balances, that is volume losses."

"in Antarctica, the collapsing Larsen B Ice Shelf is similar in area to the U.S. state of Rhode Island. The collapse has been due to warmer melt season temperatures leading to surface melting and the formation of shallow ponds of water on the ice shelf. The Larsen Ice Shelf lost 2,500 square kilometers from 1995 to 2001. Then, a total of about 3,250 km2 of shelf area disintegrated in a 35-day period beginning on 31 January 2002. The ice sheet is now 40 percent the size of its previous minimum stable extent. (In another region of Antarctica) the Wilkins Ice Shelf has experienced substantial ice losses in 2008 and 2009."

source, Mauri S. Pelto

No one is disputing that there has been a warming since the little ice age (or else it would still be an ice age). So the reduction in glaciers is part of that. It proves nothing as to cause.

It is one of those things that warmists put up as proof of AGW a straw man. Glaciers advanced and retreated before the industrial revolution. That is an inconvenient truth.

Ice shelves break off as a natural function of glaciers. It is inevitable regardless of conditions. Antarctic ice has increased in recent years

[thaibeachlovers]

For anyone interested in the state of glaciers worldwide, and how their sizes/bulk compare to the past century, would do well to check out this site. The comparative photos are compelling. Excerpts below......

"(I) keep up with investigations of glacier terminus change around the globe. In historic times, glaciers grew during the Little Ice Age, a cool period from about 1550 to 1850. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as climate warmed. Glacier recession declined and reversed, in many cases, from 1950 to 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. Since 1980, glacier retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that it has threatened the existence of many of the glaciers of the world. This process has increased markedly since 1995, leading to such bizarre steps as covering sections of Austrian alpine glaciers with plastic to retard melting. The World Glacier Monitoring Service has noted 19 consecutive years of negative mass balances, that is volume losses."

"in Antarctica, the collapsing Larsen B Ice Shelf is similar in area to the U.S. state of Rhode Island. The collapse has been due to warmer melt season temperatures leading to surface melting and the formation of shallow ponds of water on the ice shelf. The Larsen Ice Shelf lost 2,500 square kilometers from 1995 to 2001. Then, a total of about 3,250 km2 of shelf area disintegrated in a 35-day period beginning on 31 January 2002. The ice sheet is now 40 percent the size of its previous minimum stable extent. (In another region of Antarctica) the Wilkins Ice Shelf has experienced substantial ice losses in 2008 and 2009."

source, Mauri S. Pelto

No one is disputing that there has been a warming since the little ice age (or else it would still be an ice age). So the reduction in glaciers is part of that. It proves nothing as to cause.

It is one of those things that warmists put up as proof of AGW a straw man. Glaciers advanced and retreated before the industrial revolution. That is an inconvenient truth.

Ice shelves break off as a natural function of glaciers. It is inevitable regardless of conditions. Antarctic ice has increased in recent years

Global warming is the wrong term to use. Climate change is more accurate, and has been going on for as long as the planet has existed.

I'm sure it's colder up in Chiang Mai this year as I had to put on a shirt a couple of nights recently.

<Antarctic ice has increased in recent years>

Something many won't know- it doesn't snow in Antarctica as the air is too dry. The snow that is there was laid down thousands of years ago, and just blows around. However, if the air warms enough it will start snowing again, which means that more water will be taken out of the atmosphere and kept as snow in Antarctica, thus reducing sea level rise.

[Thai Dreamer]

Are they also saying that Bangkok is sinking at a few cm a year and will keep on sinking till it is a swimming pool?

There must be money to be make scaring people

[canman]

"All over Australia - Alice Springs, Adelaide, Sydney, Wagga Wagga - it's been an extremely hot summer and it's expected to get hotter. The continent is experiencing a record-breaking heat wave. Roads have melted in 108-degree temperatures in the Outback and wildfires are raging in New South Wales. The heat is so persistent that the Bureau of Meteorology added two new colors to its official maps - pink and deep purple. Get into the purple and you could be talking 129 degrees F."

source, NPR

Alaska and China are seeing the coldest winters in decades, but I would not use that as evidence of global cooling.

[maidu]

For anyone interested in the state of glaciers worldwide, and how their sizes/bulk compare to the past century, would do well to check out this site. The comparative photos are compelling. Excerpts below......

"(I) keep up with investigations of glacier terminus change around the globe. In historic times, glaciers grew during the Little Ice Age, a cool period from about 1550 to 1850. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as climate warmed. Glacier recession declined and reversed, in many cases, from 1950 to 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. Since 1980, glacier retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that it has threatened the existence of many of the glaciers of the world. This process has increased markedly since 1995, leading to such bizarre steps as covering sections of Austrian alpine glaciers with plastic to retard melting. The World Glacier Monitoring Service has noted 19 consecutive years of negative mass balances, that is volume losses."

"in Antarctica, the collapsing Larsen B Ice Shelf is similar in area to the U.S. state of Rhode Island. The collapse has been due to warmer melt season temperatures leading to surface melting and the formation of shallow ponds of water on the ice shelf. The Larsen Ice Shelf lost 2,500 square kilometers from 1995 to 2001. Then, a total of about 3,250 km2 of shelf area disintegrated in a 35-day period beginning on 31 January 2002. The ice sheet is now 40 percent the size of its previous minimum stable extent. (In another region of Antarctica) the Wilkins Ice Shelf has experienced substantial ice losses in 2008 and 2009." source, Mauri S. Pelto

No one is disputing that there has been a warming since the little ice age (or else it would still be an ice age). So the reduction in glaciers is part of that. It proves nothing as to cause.

It is one of those things that warmists put up as proof of AGW a straw man. Glaciers advanced and retreated before the industrial revolution. That is an inconvenient truth. Ice shelves break off as a natural function of glaciers. It is inevitable regardless of conditions. Antarctic ice has increased in recent years

The relevent data is mostly around the prior century compared this one. In other words; 20th century averages vs this stage of 21st century. The 'Little Ice Age' is not a pressing issue in this discussion. If it were, then we could go back as far as you like, when there was a mile thick ice all over the planet, or further still when all rocks were liquified. If Antarctica is calving glaciers at increasing rates, that could be cause for serious interest ww, because it doesn't snow there, so ice won't be replaced there anytime in the next several millenia.

Are they also saying that Bangkok is sinking at a few cm a year and will keep on sinking till it is a swimming pool?

There must be money to be make scaring people

It's sinking, fersure, and it definately won't be a swimming pool. If you want a comparason of what it might look like in 20 to 30 years, try Dhaka, much of which is a toxic soup. Even hard-core microbes will have a tough time swimming in that.

[maidu]

Someone mentioned a few posts ago that GW deniers don't deny the Earth is warming. That's only partly true. Some admit it, others don't want to give credence to the overwhelming data showing that. Below are two undoctored photos of Beijing, taken 11 days apart. Some deniers on this thread have denied that human activity can have an effect (large or otherwise) on the surface of the planet. The 'before and after' photos don't lie. The smog you see in the 2nd photo is not cloud cover - it's man-made smog, mainly from fossil fuels. The Great Wall of China cannot be seen from space (despite those that believe it can), but smog cover can definately be seen from space. Go see for yourself.........

source

[TommoPhysicist]

Runaway greening can be good in some ways, and can be a hassle in other ways. The drawback is increased fire danger - more vegetarion growth + dry seasons = you know what. It doesn't help that people are spreading their settlements/encroachments everywhere they can. Another side of it is weed growth. I have secured 3 rural properties in northern Thailand. Each one started out completely weed covered. I jest not when I say a person could not take two steps on any part of the properties - because of 3 to 4 meter high prickly weeds everywhere. Attacking weeds is like warfare. It starts with a major campaign and entails continual efforts for ensuing years. Now my parcels are park-like, with soaring 170 ft. trees and flowering bushes - all planted by me and my helpers.

Any green areas added because of global warming, are far outweighed by areas scraped for land for development. Our species moves more earth annually, with our fossil fuel belching machines than all the volcanos, tsunamis, tides, surf and rivers combined. Who says Mankind can't have an effect on the planet or its atmosphere?

You are right as far as it goes, but the reason man has so much effect is because there are too many of us. If we weren't overpopulated, there would be no need to scrape land to build new houses.

However, no current politician has the guts to call for a restriction on child numbers, except in China, and they are criticized for having the only sane population policy in the world.

I just saw on tv a new US politician with SIX children, and no one seemed to think that that is a bad thing. With that sort of attitude, it's hopeless, so just enjoy life and hope to die before the poo hits the fan.

Many other routes to saving land.

How about passing a law to compel all single people to live in condos.

Another law to seize and demolish all vacant properties.

Child numbers have little correlation to land area occupied for housing.

[cooked]

The term is 'climate change' and not 'global warming', although that is a part of it.

[thaibeachlovers]

Runaway greening can be good in some ways, and can be a hassle in other ways. The drawback is increased fire danger - more vegetarion growth + dry seasons = you know what. It doesn't help that people are spreading their settlements/encroachments everywhere they can. Another side of it is weed growth. I have secured 3 rural properties in northern Thailand. Each one started out completely weed covered. I jest not when I say a person could not take two steps on any part of the properties - because of 3 to 4 meter high prickly weeds everywhere. Attacking weeds is like warfare. It starts with a major campaign and entails continual efforts for ensuing years. Now my parcels are park-like, with soaring 170 ft. trees and flowering bushes - all planted by me and my helpers.

Any green areas added because of global warming, are far outweighed by areas scraped for land for development. Our species moves more earth annually, with our fossil fuel belching machines than all the volcanos, tsunamis, tides, surf and rivers combined. Who says Mankind can't have an effect on the planet or its atmosphere?

You are right as far as it goes, but the reason man has so much effect is because there are too many of us. If we weren't overpopulated, there would be no need to scrape land to build new houses.

However, no current politician has the guts to call for a restriction on child numbers, except in China, and they are criticized for having the only sane population policy in the world.

I just saw on tv a new US politician with SIX children, and no one seemed to think that that is a bad thing. With that sort of attitude, it's hopeless, so just enjoy life and hope to die before the poo hits the fan.

Many other routes to saving land.

How about passing a law to compel all single people to live in condos.

Another law to seize and demolish all vacant properties.

Child numbers have little correlation to land area occupied for housing.

If someone pays for it I'll happily live in a condo.

I never said child numbers affects land occupied for housing, what it does affect is the amount of land used for food production.

[canuckamuck]

The relevent data is mostly around the prior century compared this one. In other words; 20th century averages vs this stage of 21st century. The 'Little Ice Age' is not a pressing issue in this discussion. If it were, then we could go back as far as you like, when there was a mile thick ice all over the planet, or further still when all rocks were liquified. If Antarctica is calving glaciers at increasing rates, that could be cause for serious interest ww, because it doesn't snow there, so ice won't be replaced there anytime in the next several millenia.

Well that is accommodating Let's decide that the 900 previous years of cool temperatures are irrelevant; then we can look at the last 100 years and be terrified that the temperature has increased 0.7 degrees in a century. Of course before that we had a substantial warming, but we must not pay any attention to that either. Because as you said it is not a pressing issue.

Yes if we only look at the statistics that fit our theory we will all come to the right conclusion. In fact if you create better statistics then you can prove any theory you like.

[maidu]

The relevent data is mostly around the prior century compared this one. In other words; 20th century averages vs this stage of 21st century. The 'Little Ice Age' is not a pressing issue in this discussion. If it were, then we could go back as far as you like, when there was a mile thick ice all over the planet, or further still when all rocks were liquified. If Antarctica is calving glaciers at increasing rates, that could be cause for serious interest ww, because it doesn't snow there, so ice won't be replaced there anytime in the next several millenia.

Well that is accommodating Let's decide that the 900 previous years of cool temperatures are irrelevant; then we can look at the last 100 years and be terrified that the temperature has increased 0.7 degrees in a century. Of course before that we had a substantial warming, but we must not pay any attention to that either. Because as you said it is not a pressing issue.

Yes if we only look at the statistics that fit our theory we will all come to the right conclusion. In fact if you create better statistics then you can prove any theory you like.

temperatures have increased more than .7 of a degree in a century, and they're increasing at a sharper rate. There are people who make careers from studying glaciers - everything from time-lapse photos to dynamics of melt-water plunging down to the ice-rock level (which 'lubricates and hastens the creep of a glacier) to effects of warmer ocean water seeping in to replace colder melt water (which also hastens calving). .....and more. A consensus of those who study glaciar dynamics comes up with a figure of between 90 and 125 cm rise in sea levels by 100 years from now.

I recommend for anyone who wants to get apprised of the type of people and research going on with the mightiest glaciers, watch the video link below. It's cutting-edge research, fascinating and based on hard-science. If I was Education Minister, I would make the video mandatory in all schools.

source

[lovetotravel]

The relevent data is mostly around the prior century compared this one. In other words; 20th century averages vs this stage of 21st century. The 'Little Ice Age' is not a pressing issue in this discussion. If it were, then we could go back as far as you like, when there was a mile thick ice all over the planet, or further still when all rocks were liquified. If Antarctica is calving glaciers at increasing rates, that could be cause for serious interest ww, because it doesn't snow there, so ice won't be replaced there anytime in the next several millenia.

Well that is accommodating Let's decide that the 900 previous years of cool temperatures are irrelevant; then we can look at the last 100 years and be terrified that the temperature has increased 0.7 degrees in a century. Of course before that we had a substantial warming, but we must not pay any attention to that either. Because as you said it is not a pressing issue.

Yes if we only look at the statistics that fit our theory we will all come to the right conclusion. In fact if you create better statistics then you can prove any theory you like.

temperatures have increased more than .7 of a degree in a century, and they're increasing at a sharper rate. There are people who make careers from studying glaciers - everything from time-lapse photos to dynamics of melt-water plunging down to the ice-rock level (which 'lubricates and hastens the creep of a glacier) to effects of warmer ocean water seeping in to replace colder melt water (which also hastens calving). .....and more. A consensus of those who study glaciar dynamics comes up with a figure of between 90 and 125 cm rise in sea levels by 100 years from now.

I recommend for anyone who wants to get apprised of the type of people and research going on with the mightiest glaciers, watch the video link below. It's cutting-edge research, fascinating and based on hard-science. If I was Education Minister, I would make the video mandatory in all schools.

source

Very interesting video. Thanks for the link.

I was in Patagonia for a month a few years ago. Seeing how much the glaciers have receded first hand was shocking.

I'm sure climate change has a big part to do with this, but so do we.