After 2 centuries of shrinking, Alaska glaciers got thicker this year

[audtatious]

http://www.physorg.com/news145187972.html

Cool!!! If it were not for Al Gore it would not have happened.....

Wait......Did they say "Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska"? That can't be! Why, we had no cars nor an industrial revolution back then...

[480sx]

Im not going to get into a huge debate with you on 'Science', im just going to make a quick point.

There has been a 70 percent die off of coral reefs over a 30 year period caused by an increase in ocean temperatures.

Either way, nothing wrong with thickening glaciers.

[S13_love]

It's just a fluke, probably wont happen again til 10,000 years from now

[ishkabibble]

Why, we had no cars nor an industrial revolution back then...

No industrial revolution back then? What are you smoking?

[audtatious]

Lots

Who ****ing cares, my point was made regardless.

[dusred]

Lots

Who ****ing cares, my point was made regardless.

[audtatious]

Im not going to get into a huge debate with you on 'Science', im just going to make a quick point.

There has been a 70 percent die off of coral reefs over a 30 year period caused by an increase in ocean temperatures.

http://www.eoearth.org/article...reefs

"It is estimated that 10% of all coral reefs are already degraded beyond repair, with 30% estimated to be in critical condition and at risk of death within 10 – 20 years. If current pressures continue then 60% of the world’s coral reefs may be severely damaged by 2050. The damage/degradation can be due to natural events and or anthropogenic effects."

So, 60% may be damaged by 2050 but you state that 70% are already gone and it's all due to global warming and water temps? Care to say where it is man made global warming or just natural global warming you attribute this loss of 70% to be?

Dude, you really need to contact the scientists that are investigating the causes and tell them to stop wasting their time on finding coral diseases and measuring pollution and the like because you know it to be just [man made] global warming.

Either way, nothing wrong with thickening glaciers.

Never said there was anything wrong with it other than the alarmists constantly saying the poles are melting.

[ishkabibble]

Who ****ing cares

Why did you make the statement if nobody cares? And why are you trying to deflect when half of your threads contain accusations of others deflecting? You were wrong. Period.

I don't see you making a point in your telco-esque post. At best, you are parroting someone else's point. But hey, what's this:

"One cool summer that leaves 20 feet of new snow still sitting atop glaciers come the start of the next winter is no big deal, Molnia said."

So you don't really have a point at all. One might be buried in there somewhere, though. See if you can coax it out.

[ishkabibble]

[audtatious]

Why did you make the statement if nobody cares? And why are you trying to deflect when half of your threads contain accusations of others deflecting? You were wrong. Period.

I don't see you making a point in your telco-esque post. At best, you are parroting someone else's point. But hey, what's this:

"One cool summer that leaves 20 feet of new snow still sitting atop glaciers come the start of the next winter is no big deal, Molnia said."

So you don't really have a point at all. One might be buried in there somewhere, though. See if you can coax it out.

Yes I was wrong, I was 48 years off to be precise. I'm not going to coax as damn thing out. Don't like it then go elsewhere.

[ishkabibble]

You've made a good case against global warming in your other threads. I don't know why you don't continue there. At best, this is circumstantial evidence, but it's meaningful if it's included with the broader information you've provided in the past.

[dusred]

[audtatious]

You've made a good case against global warming in your other threads. I don't know why you don't continue there. At best, this is circumstantial evidence, but it's meaningful if it's included with the broader information you've provided in the past.

Forum needed a new thread that was something other than Obama and I figured this would work.

Of course, you had to step up and ruin it by catching me not paying attention to dates.

[480sx]

http://www.eoearth.org/article...reefs

"It is estimated that 10% of all coral reefs are already degraded beyond repair, with 30% estimated to be in critical condition and at risk of death within 10 – 20 years. If current pressures continue then 60% of the world’s coral reefs may be severely damaged by 2050. The damage/degradation can be due to natural events and or anthropogenic effects."

I misspoke, from the research paper i did a couple years ago about 25 percent of the worlds coral has died in the last 30 years and 70 percent of it is in eminent danger.

Care to say where it is man made global warming or just natural global warming you attribute this loss of 70% to be?

Fact is, no one really knows. Theres no enough raw data around to determine this. However, to say that the massive amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere has nothing to do with it is ignorant.

Dude, you really need to contact the scientists that are investigating the causes and tell them to stop wasting their time on finding coral diseases and measuring pollution and the like because you know it to be just [man made] global warming.

The warming of the oceans is the main factor in this increase in coral disease. Warmer oceans support the disease while the oceans of 40-50 years ago did not. A warmer ocean also makes coral less active, and less likely that it can fight off the disease.

Maybe you should have a talk with coral scientists yourself.

I would love to hear your case against global warming, this seems like a good place and time. So far it just seems pretty.. Ostrichy.

Maybe link me to your other threads or something.

Its really just beating a dead horse i suppose, your argument isnt going to be much different than the leading 'head in the sand' argument, and i doubt your going to change your mind.

There is simply to much data that points to us effecting climate change to ignore.

How seriously? No one knows.

Are we the only cause? Probably not.

Are we doing something to the climate by putting 200 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly?You betchya.
Modified by 480sx at 10:48 PM 11/7/2008

[SmithSR]

Mount St. Helens would beg to differ with all man made theories.

End volcanoes in our time.

Imagine if Al Gore had pitched THAT slogan in an effort to stay relevant.

[audtatious]

I misspoke, from the research paper i did a couple years ago about 25 percent of the worlds coral has died in the last 30 years and 70 percent of it is in eminent danger.

Which is far different than saying 70% is dead

Fact is, no one really knows. Theres no enough raw data around to determine this. However, to say that the massive amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere has nothing to do with it is ignorant.

And it's ignorant to simply point to the minute percentage of CO2 that we put in the air as the cause of global warming as a whole. CO2 represents 3.6% of all greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and of that 3.6% only 0.3% is man made. The rest is naturally occurring. Regardless, environmentalists are on a nut-kicker tour to try and save the planet at all costs by utilizing computer models that don't work and forcing opinion by flooding the news with their vomit. UN still believes it even though the IPCC hockey stick has been shown to be total BS (missing the medieval warm period and showing temp rise that simply does not exist).

The warming of the oceans is the main factor in this increase in coral disease. Warmer oceans support the disease while the oceans of 40-50 years ago did not. A warmer ocean also makes coral less active, and less likely that it can fight off the disease.

Maybe, maybe not. Studies posted in '06-07 have shown that deeper-water coral has only declined by a minute percentage in comparison to shallow water coral. Other studies have shown that the oceans have not warmed in the last 4-5 years as well ( http://www.npr.org/templates/s...20025 ) when the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. Other studies have shown additional heating in some locations (including Antarctica) are due to underwater volcano's that were unknown.

Maybe you should have a talk with coral scientists yourself.

Maybe they should work together and come to a real consensus. Seems everyone is trying to prove some point today. Of course, if a scientists comes out with data that does not support the environmentalist predetermined direction then they are shouted down and dismissed.

I would love to hear your case against global warming, this seems like a good place and time. So far it just seems pretty.. Ostrichy.

I don't have a case against global warming. I have a case against the impact that man makes on global warming. Do I think we may have some minute impact? Sure. Do I think we need to "be kind to mother earth"? Of course. Do I think we should destroy our economy to fix something we technically can't fix right now? no. Sorry, I'm not for knee-jerk reactions.

Maybe link me to your other threads or something.

See that flashing button up top? I'm sure you can find it.

[audtatious]

Mount St. Helens would beg to differ with all man made theories.

End volcanoes in our time.

Imagine if Al Gore had pitched THAT slogan in an effort to stay relevant.

It's nice knowing that the glacier within Mount St. Helens is growing as well. Of course, the downside is that it may cause it to blow its top again if it grows to cover the dome.

[Jesda]

I ate pieces of glacier when I was in Alaska. I refuse to feel bad about it.

[hsckris]

Imagine if Al Gore had pitched THAT slogan in an effort to stay relevant.