Now we're screwing up Mars

[bobtodrick]

Guess what, Mars is experiencing global warming.
Odd, as the global warming nazi's here on earth claim there is no way it can be natural http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

Guess what, Mars is experiencing global warming.
Odd, as the global warming nazi's here on earth claim there is no way it can be natural http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Likely stray lichen spores from Watney's potatoes.

[colroggal]

There's no money in blaming the sun.

My only contribution to the debate on anthropogenic global warming is to suggest looking into the Siberian basalt flood eruption

Colin

[TripleTTT]

Yah, so... Old news.
Nothings been done about it for over 50 years. Nothing has changed with the carbon cycle on the planet until the last 150 years. That is when our viral species learned how to harness mechanics for mass production. Then the large scale pollution started. Instead of being confined to local or regional hot spots it became more global. Affecting more and more species as our population migrates and grows. Now it affects the entire planet. Nobody wants to clean up the oceans because corporations that cause this pollution have laws to protect them. And no share holders would get good ROI.
NASA has warned that the micro organisms that support the world's food chain are declining rapidly and could be on the verge of collapse. And this is caused by pollution, not CO2 emissions. The micro-algae that converts CO2 to calcium carbonate are also in rapid decline because of this pollution. This is causing the oceans to become more acidic, thus slowing the CO2 conversion even more. A vicious downward cycle. But taxes will help.

Have a nice day!

[wags]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

Guess what, Mars is experiencing global warming.
Odd, as the global warming nazi's here on earth claim there is no way it can be natural http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

I don't recall anyone saying it can't be natural. Of course it's natural, and has cycled several times in earth's history. We're simply increasing the speed of that cycle.

Cheers

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Jet

Here the science put in an unbiased, easy to read context:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

You only have to have visited the Columbia Ice Fields over the last 20 years to see the changes that are happening and fast.

You realize that 13000 years ago the Columbia Ice Fields were at the Bow Valley campground?

You realize that in the 13000 years the glaciers shrunk and grew fast and slow yet has over that time shrunk to the point it is now?

You realize that just like the glacier has shrunk over the past 13000 years the sea levels have risen.

They have been rising since the last ice age. Recent studies show that there has been no increase to that rise due to man. In fact you can look at the data yourself to see since the 1800's sea level has risen on a straight linear relationship.

You appear to be falling into the short term vision trap that global warming zealots preach. Look to the past 30 years. Look to the past 30 years. However whatever you do...don't look to the past 13,000 years. Yikes. Might make you think warming is natural cycle type stuff.

Cheers

SDF




So before you panic about glacier retreat in the past 20 years...how about really look at this factual and longer term view in a picture format.

photo with text overlay showing the recession of the Illecillewaet Glacier from 1898 to 1931

Did my driving the car and heating the house and trucking in food cause the collapse of this glacier from 1887 to 1931?

[Bitumen Bullet]

Originally Posted by Jet

You only have to have visited the Columbia Ice Fields over the last 20 years to see the changes that are happening and fast.

IMO NASA has been caught out too many times to be considered unbias but some of them do admit such issues as failing to predict and erroring on the "safe" side so I often link to them as well.

As for the Columbia ice fields before Global Warming became an industry it was proven that building a road, in particular a gravel road with diesel traffic, would result in an ice field retreating. Europe had many examples. Using the albedo effect (dark soot, gravel, small rocks and dust to heat the ice) to create water flow was not uncommon and dated back hundreds, maybe thousands of years.

Of course today all melting is due to Global Warming which means the Columbia Ice Fields have not been melting due to pollution or albedo effects but has been melting due to Western CO2 emissions. And of course Canada is a climate villain even though Canada sinks far more Carbon than Canada emits.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by TripleTTT

Yah, so... Old news.
Nothings been done about it for over 50 years. Nothing has changed with the carbon cycle on the planet until the last 150 years. That is when our viral species learned how to harness mechanics for mass production. Then the large scale pollution started. Instead of being confined to local or regional hot spots it became more global. Affecting more and more species as our population migrates and grows. Now it affects the entire planet. Nobody wants to clean up the oceans because corporations that cause this pollution have laws to protect them. And no share holders would get good ROI.
NASA has warned that the micro organisms that support the world's food chain are declining rapidly and could be on the verge of collapse. And this is caused by pollution, not CO2 emissions. The micro-algae that converts CO2 to calcium carbonate are also in rapid decline because of this pollution. This is causing the oceans to become more acidic, thus slowing the CO2 conversion even more. A vicious downward cycle. But taxes will help.

Have a nice day!

Judging by this we can say the human race is doomed in the long run.

[stuckincity]

It might be us.
The Martians don't drive SUVs or burn coal to generate electricity.
They only drive flying saucers and use Atlantean crystals for all their power requirements. Just ask Giorgio A. Tsoukalos or David Hatcher Childress.
Maybe NASA should stop sending all those polluting probes there.

[rugatika]

Can't wait to hear the crying when Earth returns to normal climatic conditions. (and it's not far away) Most of the world's bread baskets will be covered in sheets of ice for starters.

I find it astonishing that anyone that thinks CO2 has any appreciable affect on Earth's temperature wouldn't be an advocate for it's proliferation IF they have any sort of understanding of the brevity of interglacial periods and our current temporal location in this one.

As the planet is approaching our next ice age, the idiocy of advocating a decrease in global temperatures is mind boggling. (but not entirely surprising given the advocates)

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Jet

Sure. But's it's not about the fact it changes, it's about the recent rate of change.






Look at rate of change from 1887 to 1898. Massive volume lost. Very short period of time. Only 11 years in fact. So. Was that caused by man?

Incorrect: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
There is a delayed effect between increase in temp and water level rising, ice does not melt immediately, and water spreads out. But despite that, you can still see it's not linear.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/slt...?stnid=190-091

tell me that actual data from 1800 to present is not linear?
I used to be a climate change skeptic, but with all the science in now and as new science comes in, there's really no argument anymore that we are having an effect on a planet. When 97% of scientists are in agreement, it's only the quacks in the 3%.

Ahh. The reborn again comment to help sway people from the evil side. Doesn't make for a good argument. Also the 97% in agreement has be proved false in another thread. Someone else can pull that up for you.

Even if you throw out the science, you're still left with the fact that since the 1950's we've been polluting our environment more and increasing the CO2 level dramatically and it's naive to think otherwise and that it wouldn't have an effect.

Pollutants does not include CO2. CO2 is a requirement for all life on Planet Earth. CO2 is not the same as CO, or SO2 or particulates, or Methane etc.


Non of this is about the fact that sun output varies, our orbit varies and the planet goes through warm/cold cycles, it's about the impact on top of those changes.

Some see the next ice age cooling starting in 4-5 years.

Bottom line is these variations aren't enough to justify the changes happening.

Change is constant and natural on earth. Has been and always will be.



So we had 3 options, we either:

1. Don't believe the science, continue what we're doing and essentially do nothing, let it play out. See what happens and look at it in hindsight.

Or assume a natural cycle and understand the pros and cons and mitigate the cons and enjoy the pros.

2. Update our view as new information comes in, and act according to the available information at the time, i.e. do the best with what we have Most studies are purely speculative as the computers models keep failing and need to be redone.

3. Act regardless

Knee jerk rarely is the best solution. Waste money for nothing versus putting it towards feeding the poor, providing clean drinking water, improving health care etc.

2/3 are really similar, but 2 is prudent. It was a different argument 5-10 years ago because there was a lack of data/information, not the case now.

If you're heading in a train towards a cliff you can't see and have some limited information on it's existence, do you slow or stop the train and not take the chance or wait until you see it before applying the brake. I am not scared of something that can't be proven. You can't make me cower out of the what if scenarios that scientists begging for funding dollars keep eating at the socialist trough. If everyone believe this scenario option you put forth...why wake up in the morning? Likely you have a chance at being in a car accident. Eating food that makes you choke or causes cancer or obesity leading to heart disease. Could have a fight with the wife or break a leg. Nope. Chicken little scenario does not compute.

Answers in red and pictures

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by Jet

Here the science put in an unbiased, easy to read context:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

You only have to have visited the Columbia Ice Fields over the last 20 years to see the changes that are happening and fast.

Columbia Ice field has been melting since the early 1800s. Early explorers bypassed the valley cause the glacier covered it. Gonna dissapoint a lot of tourists, but glaciers are temporary features.

Grizz

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Jet

Glaciers retreat and advance naturally, not just due to melting, but snow fall.

Here is a longer term view (160 years) than the 33 year span of one glacier.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/hima...rs-growing.htm

It undeniable that volume change has accelerated in recent years.

Is that recent increase due to humans? It comes down to:

** Are you feeling lucky?

and

** Who cares, I'll be dead before it becomes a real problem

so snow fall causes glacier movement. LOL

I am feeling like a scam artist is at the door. Am I lucky they have the cure to ail me. It will just cost me tens of thousands of dollars...hundreds of thousands in a lifetime with no way to prove it did any good. We should just trust them according to you.

Rather than feel lucky...I just feel I need to think for myself.

For your info...I have a science degree. I don't go blindly into the night being led by the nose by anyone. I think with a critical eye and ask the question...can this theory be proved wrong with any study? Most statements are not provable and therefore have no scientific basis in fact. Just emotion.

[Newview01]

Drudge Report had an article posted today, the earth cooled 1.2 deg C in 8 months, faster than ever recorded.

[Sundancefisher]

Here is another cool photo.



Check out the dates.

[Sundancefisher]

[Sundancefisher]

Amazing how much ice left before man could be blamed for carbon tax reasons.

[Sundancefisher]

And some glaciers grew in the 1970's.

[bergman]

I have posted this before, from an out of the way sign at the Columbia Icefields visitor centre.

We know that circa 13000 the last ice age ended.
We know that circa 8000 what we now call the Athabasca Glacier was completely absent & melted out of the valley it occupies - a MAJOR warming.
We know that since circa 8000 years ago the glacier advanced significantly, to levels that were recorded in the 1800's.
We know that since then the glacier has been slowly retreating, but has nowhere near approached the retreat seen circa 8000 years ago.

We don't know much else. But everyone seems to have an opinion on it.

[stuckincity]

Greenland wasn't called that because it sounded nice. It really was green before the "little ice age" starting in the 11th century.
And centuries before that the Romans grew vinyards in Northern England, and in Scotland.

Musta been pretty warm back then.

I won't bother with links - there's too many.

Don't take my word for it - check it out for yourself at google.

Start with the "little ice age", with quotation marks, if you're so inclined.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by stuckincity

Greenland wasn't called that because it sounded nice. It really was green before the "little ice age" starting in the 11th century.
And centuries before that the Romans grew vinyards in Northern England, and in Scotland.

Musta been pretty warm back then.

I won't bother with links - there's too many.

Don't take my word for it - check it out for yourself at google.

Start with the "little ice age", with quotation marks, if you're so inclined.

Greenland was civilized enough to have it's own Catholic bishop at one time.

Grizz

[thumper]

If you're having a hard time choosing who to believe, try trusting your own eyes. Albertans are very fortunate to have the story of climate change laid out before them, if they take the time to do some weekend exploring.

Regarding glaciers:

It is the Columbia Icefield - singular, as there is only one - not Columbia Ice fields.
Highway #93 N running by the Columbia Icefield is called 'The Icefields Parkway', plural, - as it runs by a number of different icefields.

The road that is carved on the Athabasca Glacier surface for the Snocoaches, and maintained (shaved with an ice bladed grader) daily during the summer operating season, starts the season deeper than the surrounding surface as there is deep snow covering the glacier. As the season progresses, the snow melts off the ice surface of the lower glacier (the ablation zone), and the ice surface is covered by dust particles that have been left behind by the melted snow, and summer pollen, wind-blown dust, debris and undoubtedly some pollutants. This grey topping on the glacier absorbs heat from the sun and so melts the underlaying ice surface FASTER than the clean, white, daily-shaved road surface. So the road surface in the latter part of the summer is actually higher than the surrounding glacier surface and must be 'shaved' more aggressively to mimic the natural, surrounding rate of melt.

Wilcox Ridge, directly across from the Athabasca Glacier and behind the Icefield Centre has some excellent hiking trails, with minimum elevation gain required to reach the tree-line and above. Parks Canada has kindly placed some red Muskoka-style chairs up there for terrific photo ops! Well above the existing tree-line, there are plenty of old, dead, stumps and logs that take a very long time to rot away in the dry, harsh climate. They clearly indicate that at one time in the not-to-distant past, the tree line was considerably higher, and so this elevation had to be much warmer than present. In addition, periodically, chunks of trees melt out of the toe of the Athabasca Glacier, indicating that at one time, the valley now occupied by the glacier was once occupied by vegetation.

It's been a lot warmer, and a lot colder, than it is now.
IMO, just because the present climate that we've all loved and built our infrastructure around is to our liking, doesn't mean that it was 'meant to be' forever. To believe otherwise is the height of arrogance.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Jet

Trying reading what I said instead of misquoting me.

If you have no snowfall, the a glacier will retreat, simple. Snow is what creates the glacier.

Also, all the photos you've presented are meaningless. It's not about extent, it's about volume lost per year.

It's also not about 1 glacier, it's about them all. Weather patterns are different for different glaciers and different years.

How about you look at the studies and the data instead.

Do you have an opinion on previous fluctuations in global ice pack and glacier levels? As in 1000s of years ago? Just curious..

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by thumper

If you're having a hard time choosing who to believe, try trusting your own eyes. Albertans are very fortunate to have the story of climate change laid out before them, if they take the time to do some weekend exploring.

Regarding glaciers:

It is the Columbia Icefield - singular, as there is only one - not Columbia Ice fields.
Highway #93 N running by the Columbia Icefield is called 'The Icefields Parkway', plural, - as it runs by a number of different icefields.

The road that is carved on the Athabasca Glacier surface for the Snocoaches, and maintained (shaved with an ice bladed grader) daily during the summer operating season, starts the season deeper than the surrounding surface as there is deep snow covering the glacier. As the season progresses, the snow melts off the ice surface of the lower glacier (the ablation zone), and the ice surface is covered by dust particles that have been left behind by the melted snow, and summer pollen, wind-blown dust, debris and undoubtedly some pollutants. This grey topping on the glacier absorbs heat from the sun and so melts the underlaying ice surface FASTER than the clean, white, daily-shaved road surface. So the road surface in the latter part of the summer is actually higher than the surrounding glacier surface and must be 'shaved' more aggressively to mimic the natural, surrounding rate of melt.

Wilcox Ridge, directly across from the Athabasca Glacier and behind the Icefield Centre has some excellent hiking trails, with minimum elevation gain required to reach the tree-line and above. Parks Canada has kindly placed some red Muskoka-style chairs up there for terrific photo ops! Well above the existing tree-line, there are plenty of old, dead, stumps and logs that take a very long time to rot away in the dry, harsh climate. They clearly indicate that at one time in the not-to-distant past, the tree line was considerably higher, and so this elevation had to be much warmer than present. In addition, periodically, chunks of trees melt out of the toe of the Athabasca Glacier, indicating that at one time, the valley now occupied by the glacier was once occupied by vegetation.

It's been a lot warmer, and a lot colder, than it is now.
IMO, just because the present climate that we've all loved and built our infrastructure around is to our liking, doesn't mean that it was 'meant to be' forever. To believe otherwise is the height of arrogance.

the bold..

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Jet

Trying reading what I said instead of misquoting me.

If you have no snowfall, the a glacier will retreat, simple. Snow is what creates the glacier.

Also, all the photos you've presented are meaningless. It's not about extent, it's about volume lost per year.

It's also not about 1 glacier, it's about them all. Weather patterns are different for different glaciers and different years.

How about you look at the studies and the data instead.

Are you saying that shrinking glaciers are a bad thing? What is a "normal" rate of growth or shrinkage that would be considered "good"? Do you think glaciers should be static in size? Over what period?

[colroggal]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Drudge Report had an article posted today, the earth cooled 1.2 deg C in 8 months, faster than ever recorded.

This is why the buzz word is climate change rather than global warming. But in all fairness the same spin was used with the tar sands.

Colin

[TreeGuy]

It's almost creepy how quickly one banned chicken little gets replaced by another....

[hal53]

Originally Posted by TreeGuy

It's almost creepy how quickly one banned chicken little gets replaced by another....

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Jet

Trying reading what I said instead of misquoting me.

If you have no snowfall, the a glacier will retreat, simple. Snow is what creates the glacier.

Also, all the photos you've presented are meaningless. It's not about extent, it's about volume lost per year.

It's also not about 1 glacier, it's about them all. Weather patterns are different for different glaciers and different years.

How about you look at the studies and the data instead.

I was smiling cause I hope all people know that glaciers need snow to grow.

I was showing that glaciers grow and shrink over time and your 20 years is insignificant to make generalizations with.

Just like the icefields grew in the 1970's they have been shrinking fast and slow for 13000 years.

Nothing man does will change that.

Glaciers may be destined to disappear or weather patterns could grow back to Exshaw.

If you can't think longer term then we just agree to disagree.

By the way. You mentioned the glacier. I showed proof they changed lots before man supposedly hurt them.

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/o...01/MQ30670.pdf

Study on Columbia Icefields for anyone who can't sleep.