A Skeptic's View of Global Warming...

**Ava Estelle** · 02-25-2007, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by j2k4

Prove that, please.

You're very fond of placing the onus of proof onto others j2, so why don't you prove this ... "For those who aren't aware, calving is a sign of glacial growth." ... seeing as you made the claim in the first place.

Originally Posted by j2k4

Now you claim that, in a preponderance of cases (enough to constitute a rule-of-thumb presumption), calving indicates glacial recession, and therefore any footage of such an event is suitable evidence of global warming and nothing else, correct?

Making things up again j2? Show me where I said that?

This is what I said, "Now, we know that calving is NOT just a sign of glacial growth"

This is such fun, you remind me of the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar!

**Ava Estelle** · 02-25-2007, 05:51 PM

DECLINE OF WORLD'S GLACIERS EXPECTED TO HAVE GLOBAL IMPACTS OVER THIS CENTURY

The great majority of the world's glaciers appear to be declining at rates equal to or greater than long-established trends, according to early results from a joint NASA and United States Geological Survey (USGS) project designed to provide a global assessment of glaciers. At the same time, a small minority of glaciers are advancing.

Source

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Since the early 1960s, mountain glaciers worldwide have experienced an estimated net loss of over 4000 cubic kilometers of water – more than the annual discharge of the Orinoco, Congo, Yangtze and Mississippi Rivers combined; this loss was more than twice as fast in the 1990s than during previous decades.

WWF, Clacier Facts.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The World Glacier Monitoring Service reports on changes in the terminus, or lower-elevation end, of glaciers from around the world every five years.(WGMS) In their 1995–2000 edition, they noted the terminal point variations of glaciers across the Alps. Over the five-year period from 1995 to 2000, 103 of 110 glaciers examined in Switzerland, 95 of 99 glaciers in Austria, all 69 glaciers in Italy, and all 6 glaciers in France were in retreat.

Source

etc., etc., etc..

**j2k4** · 02-25-2007, 06:18 PM

Cookie jar, indeed.

A little selective editing, huh?

"Most"= preponderance, unless you'd care to argue that, too.

Here you go, by the way.

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Now, we know that calving is NOT just a sign of glacial growth, but also, and far more often, a sign of glacial decline. We also know that glaciers all over the world, not all of them, but most, are in decline.

**Ava Estelle** · 02-25-2007, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by j2k4

Here you go, by the way.

Here you go ... what?

Is that your proof?

You made the comment, and then claimed Gore had got it wrong, now we ask for proof and you either cannot, or will not, provide it. My money's on the former.

Why don't you be a man for once and admit you made a mistake?

When a glacier experiences calving, large pieces of the ice break off at the margin, usually during the retreating stage in the glacial life cycle. Specifically, tidewater calving glaciers are those whose margin, or terminus, ends into a body of water. When calving occurs, these broken pieces of ice fall into the water and become icebergs. Calving is the most efficient way for tidewater glaciers to experience a loss of their ice mass, as well as for the world's oceans to gain more water through the melting of icebergs.

Source.

**j2k4** · 02-25-2007, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

DECLINE OF WORLD'S GLACIERS EXPECTED TO HAVE GLOBAL IMPACTS OVER THIS CENTURY

The great majority of the world's glaciers appear to be declining at rates equal to or greater than long-established trends, according to early results from a joint NASA and United States Geological Survey (USGS) project designed to provide a global assessment of glaciers. At the same time, a small minority of glaciers are advancing.

Source

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Since the early 1960s, mountain glaciers worldwide have experienced an estimated net loss of over 4000 cubic kilometers of water – more than the annual discharge of the Orinoco, Congo, Yangtze and Mississippi Rivers combined; this loss was more than twice as fast in the 1990s than during previous decades.

WWF, Clacier Facts.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The World Glacier Monitoring Service reports on changes in the terminus, or lower-elevation end, of glaciers from around the world every five years.(WGMS) In their 1995–2000 edition, they noted the terminal point variations of glaciers across the Alps. Over the five-year period from 1995 to 2000, 103 of 110 glaciers examined in Switzerland, 95 of 99 glaciers in Austria, all 69 glaciers in Italy, and all 6 glaciers in France were in retreat.

Source

etc., etc., etc..

Here is where you discredit yourself once and for all.

This last reference you've included tells us all we need to know about you and your intent.

First of all, Wikipedia is the least credible source you could possibly quote, and anyone who uses it is certainly no more than one-tenth as credible as someone who uses, say, Fox News.

But the really hilarious part is right in the title of the article, Retreat of Glaciers since 1850.

As well you know, the idea of global warming is largely uncontested (I certainly don't have a quarrel with it); the point at issue here is whether or not 1) man is responsible, and, 2) whether man can effect a change in the current trend by altering his activities.

Isn't it odd, then, that Wikipedia doesn't trace glacial "retreat" from the time of the British Industrial Revolution (which predates the American one by a century), but of the American Industrial Revolution, which wasn't different other than it's milieu?

The problem with both would have been the burning of coal, you see.

Interesting, too, that they chose 1850 as the beginning of glacial recession, when any determinable effect man's industrial activities might have would be many decades away, and technologically almost impossible to measure until the global warming alarmists became involved?

I ask you:

Where would they have come up with "1850", absent a predetermined outcome?

**j2k4** · 02-25-2007, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ava Estelle

Originally Posted by j2k4

Here you go, by the way.

Here you go ... what?

Is that your proof?

You made the comment, and then claimed Gore had got it wrong, now we ask for proof and you either cannot, or will not, provide it. My money's on the former.

Why don't you be a man for once and admit you made a mistake?

When a glacier experiences calving, large pieces of the ice break off at the margin, usually during the retreating stage in the glacial life cycle. Specifically, tidewater calving glaciers are those whose margin, or terminus, ends into a body of water. When calving occurs, these broken pieces of ice fall into the water and become icebergs. Calving is the most efficient way for tidewater glaciers to experience a loss of their ice mass, as well as for the world's oceans to gain more water through the melting of icebergs.

Source.

I've read that, and, if you had continued, you'd have bumped into this:

Several attempts have been made to quantitatively determine a "universal calving law" that can be applied to any calving tidewater glacier in the world (i.e. Brown et al., 1982, Venteris, 1999). While numerical models have been formulated for individual glaciers and regions of glaciers, this hypothetical universal law is unlikely to exist because of the different climatic and non-climatic mechanisms that control calving rates.

One question that remains to be answered is whether calving depends on glacial retreat, or vice versa (Venteris, 1999). Some researchers agree that the linear relationship between calving rate and water depth (Figure 4) leads to the assumption that calving rates drive glacial retreat (Brown et al., 1986, Meier, 1994). However, others have stated that retreat drives calving rate because of the observation that calving occurs faster when the terminus position retreats into deeper water (Van der Veen, 1996). This relationship is unclear to date, and further study is needed to fully understand this aspect of tidewater glaciers.

In any case, you said "most", and I, in referring to your post, said "preponderance".

You tried to posit that in doing so I implied you'd lied.

Now here we are quoting "Wooster" back and forth, because your pants are down and you don't want to admit you've tried a cheap deflection.

You've made a mistake, be a good boy and admit it.

**Ava Estelle** · 02-25-2007, 07:03 PM

Why don't you answer the question instead of trying to steer this away from your cock-ups.

This has nothing to do with Global Warming, this has only to do with your original, erroneous, remarks about Al Gore and carving.

This is what you wrote, "For those who aren't aware, calving is a sign of glacial growth."

I, and others, contend that this is wrong, I have asked you to prove it, and you can't.

As to Wikipedia, it doesn't write itself, had you bothered to scroll to the bottom of the page you would have noticed the sources, each one linked.

Come on j2, this could be your finest hour!

**GepperRankins** · 02-25-2007, 07:23 PM

far more often = usually - what billy said is what the scientists say

universal law != usually - universal is not the same as usual, but lack of universal does not mean lack of usual

is = universal law - you made an explicit statement that contradicted teh scientists

give it up j2