Climate Change!

[thaumaturgy]

No, I couldn't have.

Sorry, forgot about God's "Thoughtcrime" policing.

You're just despicable, and your tongue shows it.

Wow. Hit a nerve there? Sorry.

Sorry you feel so angry right now.

 

[Greatcloud]

I don't want to take away from the fact that you have a belief, but I hope you can recognize that the context of your belief has only a tenuous grip on fact. That is, believe that snowfall HAS made a few glaciers bigger, but then accept that the VAST majority of glaciers ARE losing ice and that, when taken as a whole, ice volume is decreasing.

Wow! Your numbers are increasing? Up from 12? I've read this one, and the article from that ice age now guy. From what I remember, I only got about 30-40 worldwide glaciers that are growing. So I'll just assume that's uncited hyperbole and get to your main message.

I don't believe there are glaciers growing on Earth. I KNOW there are glaciers growing. I know that because the scientific evidence presented, indicates as such. I KNOW this in the same way that I KNOW most glaciers are retreating.

I believe some glaciers grow due to heightenned precipitation trends (that's probably the most obvious one) and/or localized cooling trends. From what I recall hearing, the himilayan glaciers are growing because they are soooooooo high up, though I don't understand why that would be.

That's my own words.

IF there is increased snowfall AND the temperature has been stagnate as you report (leading to a few bigger glaciers), could you explain to me how so much ice, on the whole, is being lost? Why are there not MORE glaciers growing?

Himalayan Glaciers Seem to Be Growing : Discovery News

The PJ Tatler » “Scientific Consensus” doesn’t work? Forge Something

Glaciers in Alaska starting to grow again? - YouTube this video is pro AGW but is still very imformative about growing glaciers in Alaska. Also it says climate change may cause an ice age.

The answer to why are the glaciers and ice being lost is of course GW but then to follow up that. The era of GW is over and has been for 15 years now and is currently going down in temperature and that will most likely continue. So my answer is also that more and more glaciers will begin growing in the years to come.

 

[CabVet]

Who told you it was religion?

What if I submitted God stretching the universe out as proof of the universe expanding for peer review?

What if I submitted the Jews as God's chosen people for peer review?

What if I submitted the tribe of Asher for peer review?

It sounds to me like you're saying you're trained to spot certain key words, such as 'God', as indicators to view the material as non-scientific, and therefore automatically reject it.

Negative, science (and let us limit the field to biological sciences here) deals with we can observe and measure. We can do neither of those things with God, so that is not science. I am not "trained" to reject anything based on any keyword. If I was to review a paper about the "evidence of God" I would gladly do it if it was based on observations of the natural world, and not supernatural feelings.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Please don't tell me I can say things as easily as you can; you're an atheist, remember?

Actually you really got worked up on that one and I am kind of sorry! When I say "you could easily have said..." I was speaking more metaphorically. Obviously you couldn't say them. God would be angry with you.

I was trying to have a descent conversation, but I guess I overlooked the source.

Yes, you are always having decent conversations. Again, I didn't actually mean it to be as "offensive" as you seem to be taking it, so again, my apologies.

/thread

Let me wax philosophical here for a moment: I think blasphemy is an extraordinarily powerful thing. It truly is "thoughtcrime". It is policing the thoughts in your own mind. It was one of my biggest hang ups in religion.

To merely think the "bad words" or "bad names" was truly scary to me. I still have trouble being really blasphemous, but it is, in a sense a true freedom.

One of the things you develop over years of being a "believer" is an ingrained aversion to blasphemous thoughts. So even if I don't believe God is actually there it's still hard to think the truly awful thoughts.

So, you call me "despicable". You've said it. You've laid it out there. You can say that to a fellow human being who is real, but you can't say "Aharu Mazda"?

I find that fascinating. And quite insightful. A light unto the darkness I guess.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Himalayan Glaciers Seem to Be Growing : Discovery News

Guess you didn't see my post HERE (a nice object lesson in getting a fuller version of the science)

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Actually you really got worked up on that one and I am kind of sorry! When I say "you could easily have said..." I was speaking more metaphorically. Obviously you couldn't say them. God would be angry with you.



Yes, you are always having decent conversations. Again, I didn't actually mean it to be as "offensive" as you seem to be taking it, so again, my apologies.




Let me wax philosophical here for a moment: I think blasphemy is an extraordinarily powerful thing. It truly is "thoughtcrime". It is policing the thoughts in your own mind. It was one of my biggest hang ups in religion.

To merely think the "bad words" or "bad names" was truly scary to me. I still have trouble being really blasphemous, but it is, in a sense a true freedom.

One of the things you develop over years of being a "believer" is an ingrained aversion to blasphemous thoughts. So even if I don't believe God is actually there it's still hard to think the truly awful thoughts.

So, you call me "despicable". You've said it. You've laid it out there. You can say that to a fellow human being who is real, but you can't say "Aharu Mazda"?

I find that fascinating. And quite insightful. A light unto the darkness I guess.

I'm completely in the dark as to what the awful thought is that has caused a stir.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm completely in the dark as to what the awful thought is that has caused a stir.

I sugggested AV could say the names of various false gods or the angel in Mormonism in place of the ONE God. I was trying to make a point about using random terms or terms that had no real meaning but I made him afraid that he'd anger God by saying these "wrong names".

I think the "Yahweh and his Asherah" thing might have taken it a bit over the edge. There's a carving that was found near Khirbet el-Kom that reads "Yahweh and his Asherah" and has lead some scholars to think that early forms of worship of Yahweh might have been derived from a polytheistic background. Some think that early Yahwists thought of Asherah as the wife of Yahweh. I didn't really want to get into it in detail, but obviously it is a touchy subject with some people of faith.

It's part of the hard parts of archaeology. Sometimes people find things that indicate that a history goes on before the development of a "religion". I personally find it absolutely fascinating but it is probably not comfortable for those who are vested in the "uniqueness" of their religion and hence don't really want a "history" to it other than "In the beginning..."

I honestly actually did not mean as much offense as AV took! I will grant that AV is correct, I am despicable, so I can't really fight that charge. But it was kind of scary how badly he took it.

Still kind of shaken by that one. Didn't mean to step on his toes that hard! (Even if I am despicable and I am one of those people who practice science and "science can take a hike" according to AV).

 

[idscience]

Negative, science (and let us limit the field to biological sciences here) deals with we can observe and measure. We can do neither of those things with God, so that is not science. I am not "trained" to reject anything based on any keyword. If I was to review a paper about the "evidence of God" I would gladly do it if it was based on observations of the natural world, and not supernatural feelings.

What if I submitted multiple universes as peer review
What if I submetted universes can spontaneously create themselves out of nothing as peer review
What if I submitted this 200 million year old fossil is my descendant becasuse it has a similar ear bone for peer review?
What about dark energy or dark matter? All excepted by science because of the key words "evolution" "naturalism" "no God exists"

None of these are observed or measured. double standards.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually you really got worked up on that one and I am kind of sorry! When I say "you could easily have said..." I was speaking more metaphorically. Obviously you couldn't say them. God would be angry with you.

I deleted the post with an apology.

The "Asherah" thing caught me off-guard.

Again, my apologies.

 

[Elendur]

I believe some glaciers grow due to heightenned precipitation trends (that's probably the most obvious one) and/or localized cooling trends. From what I recall hearing, the himilayan glaciers are growing because they are soooooooo high up, though I don't understand why that would be.

I hope that I can help with that.

When below a certain temperature (talking sea level) it won't snow. The air will be to dry for that.
I'm not sure how air pressure will affect snowing, but the high altitude will decrease (if not eliminate) the chance of precipitation melting before it lands (that is, preventing rain).

This is just based on what I've experienced here in Sweden, at sea level, but I assume it won't change to much when you climb a few (thousand) feet.

Edit: Forgot to say that during those times it doesn't snow, sublimation takes over. Great way to dry laundry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28phase_transition%29

Edit 2: Heh, this sounded a lot better in my head. Oh well, hope someone will find it interesting.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I sugggested AV could say the names of various false gods or the angel in Mormonism in place of the ONE God. I was trying to make a point about using random terms or terms that had no real meaning but I made him afraid that he'd anger God by saying these "wrong names".

I think the "Yahweh and his Asherah" thing might have taken it a bit over the edge. There's a carving that was found near Khirbet el-Kom that reads "Yahweh and his Asherah" and has lead some scholars to think that early forms of worship of Yahweh might have been derived from a polytheistic background. Some think that early Yahwists thought of Asherah as the wife of Yahweh. I didn't really want to get into it in detail, but obviously it is a touchy subject with some people of faith.

It's part of the hard parts of archaeology. Sometimes people find things that indicate that a history goes on before the development of a "religion". I personally find it absolutely fascinating but it is probably not comfortable for those who are vested in the "uniqueness" of their religion and hence don't really want a "history" to it other than "In the beginning..."

I honestly actually did not mean as much offense as AV took! I will grant that AV is correct, I am despicable, so I can't really fight that charge. But it was kind of scary how badly he took it.

Still kind of shaken by that one. Didn't mean to step on his toes that hard! (Even if I am despicable and I am one of those people who practice science and "science can take a hike" according to AV).

Thank you for the explanation, it's fascinating. I'm a little dumbstruck that such things really are sensitive issues. It shows me how much I underestimate the difference in outlook there is between me and a person with those beliefs. I suppose I always imagine they're not really being serious, not really, so when I'm shown something like the above I don't know what to say. It shows me that we might as well be writing in different languages on the forum for all the mutual understanding there is.

 

[Cromulent]

What if I submitted multiple universes as peer review
What if I submetted universes can spontaneously create themselves out of nothing as peer review
What if I submitted this 200 million year old fossil is my descendant becasuse it has a similar ear bone for peer review?
What about dark energy or dark matter? All excepted by science because of the key words "evolution" "naturalism" "no God exists"

None of these are observed or measured. double standards.

I think you mean "ancestor", not "descendant".
I think you mean "accepted", not "excepted".

Now, moving on to your actual post, none of these things are "accepted" by science. They are either hypotheses with little evidence supporting them, or what a crazy anti-science loon believes science to be.

I'll leave you to work out which is which.

 

[RickG]

Rambot I read your article but was unconvinced. Why are any glaciers growing ? Why are all the Himalayin glaciers growing at least the of ones we monitor about 250 are growing. Why if AGW is true are any glaciers growing ?

The Earth does not heat or cool evenly. However, when considering the complete overall global average temperature (GAT), the trend is increasing. There are many peaks and valleys from year to year. Earth is a dynamic and complex system, please consider looking at all the data, not just parts.

 

[Nabobalis]

What if I submitted multiple universes as peer review
What if I submetted universes can spontaneously create themselves out of nothing as peer review
What if I submitted this 200 million year old fossil is my descendant becasuse it has a similar ear bone for peer review?
What about dark energy or dark matter? All excepted by science because of the key words "evolution" "naturalism" "no God exists"

None of these are observed or measured. double standards.

Most of those papers would be mathematical, published in theoretical math/physics journals.

 

[rambot]

Himalayan Glaciers Seem to Be Growing : Discovery News

The PJ Tatler » “Scientific Consensus” doesn’t work? Forge Something

Glaciers in Alaska starting to grow again? - YouTube this video is pro AGW but is still very imformative about growing glaciers in Alaska. Also it says climate change may cause an ice age.

The answer to why are the glaciers and ice being lost is of course GW but then to follow up that. The era of GW is over and has been for 15 years now and is currently going down in temperature and that will most likely continue. So my answer is also that more and more glaciers will begin growing in the years to come.

If I'm being honest, I don't know where this conversation is going anymore. We are both in agreement that there are growing glaciers. I BELIEVE we are both in agreement that the large majority of glaciers are receding. I answered your question about why glaciers would be growing....so I'm not sure what's going on now. Sorry.
As a rebut to your "15 years of GW being over", that REALLY does not explain how, ice loss has almost doubled each decade (as per my link). If the earth has not been getting warmer, why is net ice loss getting to be so gigantic in size.

 

[Greatcloud]

If I'm being honest, I don't know where this conversation is going anymore. We are both in agreement that there are growing glaciers. I BELIEVE we are both in agreement that the large majority of glaciers are receding. I answered your question about why glaciers would be growing....so I'm not sure what's going on now. Sorry.
As a rebut to your "15 years of GW being over", that REALLY does not explain how, ice loss has almost doubled each decade (as per my link). If the earth has not been getting warmer, why is net ice loss getting to be so gigantic in size.

Yes I believe that most glaciers are receding however most glaciers are not monitored either so the whole story there is not known. To rebut your rebuttal the temperature is still at a high(hence the melting) but stagnant and even dropping. Therefore it would still be melting but the earth is on a downward trend in temperature or at least stagnant for the last 15 years.

I am a firm believer that an ice age is coming or rather a little ice age like the Maunder minimum that came after the MWP. This coming LIA will be after the modern warm period we are in now (although it's waning) so there is a precident to this happening before.

As to the glaciers and the graph I look for an upswing in the near future. As I think we are headed for an ice age.


CO2

 

[rambot]

Yes I believe that most glaciers are receding however most glaciers are not monitored either so the whole story there is not known. To rebut your rebuttal the temperature is still at a high(hence the melting) but stagnant and even dropping. Therefore it would still be melting but the earth is on a downward trend in temperature or at least stagnant for the last 15 years.

Well, at this exact point, we do not know exactly what % of glaciers have data kept on them. But what do we do GC? Honestly, it seems like you just want to hope for the best; even against really really poor odds.

I am a firm believer that an ice age is coming or rather a little ice age like the Maunder minimum that came after the MWP. This coming LIA will be after the modern warm period we are in now (although it's waning) so there is a precident to this happening before.

As I've said before, you are welcome to believe what you will but we've discussed the LIA from 1000 years ago and we've discussed the Maunder minimum (though other posters had better information on that topic) and on both of these subjects, your understanding was demonstrated as incorrect. So I won't STOP you from believing what you want but you have already been presented with some pretty arresting information IMHO.

As to the glaciers and the graph I look for an upswing in the near future. As I think we are headed for an ice age.

As I've said, your belief seems to be based on hope and slightly misplaced information.


ps

CO2

Can you make this into a signature instead? It boggles my tiny little mind that you bother to put this thing up for every GW post; even ones that don't discuss carbon dioxide....

 

[Greatcloud]

Satellite readings of temps. in the lower troposphere show no warming since readings began there 23 years ago. Only land based stations show warming and are often contaminated by urban heat island effect. They are also subject to human error. These stations also do not cover the entire globe.

Satellite Data Show No Warming Before 1997. Changes Since Not Related to CO2 « An Honest Climate Debate

For RickG or Rambot.

 

[RickG]

I am a firm believer that an ice age is coming or rather a little ice age like the Maunder minimum that came after the MWP. This coming LIA will be after the modern warm period we are in now (although it's waning) so there is a precident to this happening before.

As to the glaciers and the graph I look for an upswing in the near future. As I think we are headed for an ice age.

That is indeed an interesting comment and not at all in line with what the long term data shows. I am curious, why do you think we are headed into another ice age? Climate change requires an imbalance of forcings and feedbacks, which ones do you think are coming into play? Let's take a serious look at it. Cheers!

 

[Greatcloud]

That is indeed an interesting comment and not at all in line with what the long term data shows. I am curious, why do you think we are headed into another ice age? Climate change requires an imbalance of forcings and feedbacks, which ones do you think are coming into play? Let's take a serious look at it. Cheers!

It's the sun that is shutting down soon as to sunspot cycle 25 which is going to be very cool and this will begin a down turn in temps. look here:

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online