The New Ice Age Has Begun, The Glaciers Are Growing.

[Old Rocks]

How many lies can Old Crock create? Who can count. Here is another Glacier calling Old Crock a liar. Since the Industrial Revolution, this Glacier has always grown.

Glaciological and marine geological controls on terminus dynamics of Hubbard Glacier, southeast Alaska - Stearns - 2015 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface - Wiley Online Library

Hubbard Glacier, located in southeast Alaska, is the world's largest nonpolar tidewater glacier. It has been steadily advancing since it was first mapped in 1895; occasionally, the advance creates an ice or sediment dam that blocks a tributary fjord (Russell Fiord). The sustained advance raises the probability of long-term closure in the near future, which will strongly impact the ecosystem of Russell Fiord and the nearby community of Yakutat. Here, we examine a 43 year record of flow speeds and terminus position to understand the large-scale dynamics of Hubbard Glacier. Our long-term record shows that the rate of terminus advance has increased slightly since 1895, with the exception of a slowed advance between approximately 1972 and 1984. The short-lived closure events in 1986 and 2002 were not initiated by perturbations in ice velocity or environmental forcings but were likely due to fluctuations in sedimentation patterns at the terminus. This study points to the significance of a coupled system where short-term velocity fluctuations and morainal shoal development control tidewater glacier terminus position.

View attachment 95005 View attachment 95006

Hubbard Glacier, located in southeast Alaska, has an intriguing history; it retreated during the Little Ice Age when neighboring glaciers advanced and is currently advancing while neighboring glaciers recede [Barclay et al., 2001; Trabant et al., 2003; McNabb and Hock, 2014]. While Hubbard Glacier may behave independently of climate trends [Trabant et al., 1991], its flow dynamics suggest a strong correlation with seasonal forcings [Motyka and Truffer, 2007; Ritchie et al., 2008].

Glaciological and marine geological controls on terminus dynamics of Hubbard Glacier, southeast Alaska - Stearns - 2015 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface - Wiley Online Library

 

[Old Rocks]

It is true and here is another link List of expanding glaciers

Even Mt St Helens is rebuilding itself and forming new glaciers

lmao.....just posted that same link up in another thread just 2 minutes ago..........cleaning the clocks of the alarmist nutters..........


funny shit...........

did you even check any of the links within it? To see where they obtained their information???

Yes. However, concerning the Nisqually Glacier, and the other glaciers in the Cascades, I don't need their links. Not only have I walked on many of those glaciers, but my fun is geology, and glacial geology is an important study in both Washington and Oregon. And almost all the glaciers in both states are receding.

 

[elektra]

Yes. However, concerning the Nisqually Glacier, and the other glaciers in the Cascades, I don't need their links. Not only have I walked on many of those glaciers, but my fun is geology, and glacial geology is an important study in both Washington and Oregon. And almost all the glaciers in both states are receding.

Why are Glaciers growing Old Crock, you have no answers, do you. Glaciers have been Growing since 2005, and some Glaciers never quit growing, all through the Industrial Revolution. The fact is, Ice is growing in this World and Warmers ignore the facts, Warmers ignore the Science. But, Democrats have always been anti-science, which is as easy as PIE to prove. The Scientific solution to the phony problem of Warming is to build a lot more of the biggest things in the World with Heavy Industry. Build Old Fashion Wind Mills Big. That is not Science. Build lots and lots of lots of Solar Panels covering 1,000's of miles, hardly technology or science. Either way, the Glaciers are growing and Warmers are proven to ignore this fact.

 

[elektra]

I bet, Glacier Scientists fake the data just like all the other Warmer "scientists".

Glacier scientists says he knew data had not been verified | Daily Mail Online
Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

 

[SSDD]

Now as for the rest of the nonsense here, we are In no way headed for a new ice age, at least not for the few thousand years it takes to get the GHGs out of the atmosphere that we have put in.

CO2 has no bearing on the temperature beyond its contribution to the total weight of the atmosphere...and you know good and damned well that the ice age that the earth is still crawling out of began with atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 1000ppm....or maybe you don't due to your habit of denying reality in favor of your dogma.

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD, you are a fucking idiot. No, the CO2 level was not 1000 ppm at the beginning of the present ice age.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report

You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

"Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history," she said.
The present ice age began about 2 million years ago. Like Silly Billy, you pull your supposed facts out of your ass, and they stink.

 

[skookerasbil]

So we have one guy saying glaciers retreating in Alaska and something about CO2 and the rest of the evidence ( see links ) shows glaciers growing at phenomenal rates all over the world.

Who's not winning?

 

[gipper]

Now as for the rest of the nonsense here, we are In no way headed for a new ice age, at least not for the few thousand years it takes to get the GHGs out of the atmosphere that we have put in.

CO2 has no bearing on the temperature beyond its contribution to the total weight of the atmosphere...and you know good and damned well that the ice age that the earth is still crawling out of began with atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 1000ppm....or maybe you don't due to your habit of denying reality in favor of your dogma.

Truth never changes dupes like OldCrook. Whatever the AGW elites tell him, he believes cause he thinks they are so smart and entirely unbiased.

Can't fix stupid.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, you are a fucking idiot. No, the CO2 level was not 1000 ppm at the beginning of the present ice age.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report

You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.[/quote]

I would say that you would need to go back a bit further than that...as you can see, the decent into the ice age began before the ice age actually began...the decent happening about 30 million years ago...when CO2 was around 1000ppm...the ice age didn't begin till ice started forming at the poles some time later...at what global mean do you think ice began to form?....and the ice age will be over when the ice has all melted....not before...there are differences between ice ages and interproximals...interproximals happen during ice ages, but the ice age itself isn't over till the ice is gone and the earth has returned to its normal state...that being no ice.

Your dogma makes you myopic...it keeps you from seeing the larger picture...and how insignificant man is to the global climate.

 

[SSDD]

Now as for the rest of the nonsense here, we are In no way headed for a new ice age, at least not for the few thousand years it takes to get the GHGs out of the atmosphere that we have put in.

CO2 has no bearing on the temperature beyond its contribution to the total weight of the atmosphere...and you know good and damned well that the ice age that the earth is still crawling out of began with atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 1000ppm....or maybe you don't due to your habit of denying reality in favor of your dogma.

Truth never changes dupes like OldCrook. Whatever the AGW elites tell him, he believes cause he thinks they are so smart and entirely unbiased.

Can't fix stupid.

I know...but I like to push his buttons and see him go into paroxysms of righteous indignation over someone daring to question his failed hypothesis...and it never fails. At least those who bother to read the threads get to see the truth in spite of old rock's seemingly bottomless well of propaganda and dogma.

 

[elektra]

I know...but I like to push his buttons and see him go into paroxysms of righteous indignation over someone daring to question his failed hypothesis...and it never fails. At least those who bother to read the threads get to see the truth in spite of old rock's seemingly bottomless well of propaganda and dogma.

Does Global Warming even reach the level of a hypothesis? I do not see how. Sure they have billions invested into research, developing computer models, but that still in my opinion does not elevate a lie into a hypothesis.

 

[SSDD]

I know...but I like to push his buttons and see him go into paroxysms of righteous indignation over someone daring to question his failed hypothesis...and it never fails. At least those who bother to read the threads get to see the truth in spite of old rock's seemingly bottomless well of propaganda and dogma.

Does Global Warming even reach the level of a hypothesis? I do not see how. Sure they have billions invested into research, developing computer models, but that still in my opinion does not elevate a lie into a hypothesis.

It does, but if you look at the definition of hypothesis, it is a piss poor one.

 

[Crick]

SSDD, you are a fucking idiot. No, the CO2 level was not 1000 ppm at the beginning of the present ice age.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report

You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

I would say that you would need to go back a bit further than that...as you can see, the decent into the ice age began before the ice age actually began...the decent happening about 30 million years ago...when CO2 was around 1000ppm...the ice age didn't begin till ice started forming at the poles some time later...at what global mean do you think ice began to form?....and the ice age will be over when the ice has all melted....not before...there are differences between ice ages and interproximals...interproximals happen during ice ages, but the ice age itself isn't over till the ice is gone and the earth has returned to its normal state...that being no ice.

Your dogma makes you myopic...it keeps you from seeing the larger picture...and how insignificant man is to the global climate.

[/QUOTE]

And what applicability to the current HUMAN situation do you find data from 550 millions years back?

 

[Crick]

I know...but I like to push his buttons and see him go into paroxysms of righteous indignation over someone daring to question his failed hypothesis...and it never fails. At least those who bother to read the threads get to see the truth in spite of old rock's seemingly bottomless well of propaganda and dogma.

Does Global Warming even reach the level of a hypothesis? I do not see how. Sure they have billions invested into research, developing computer models, but that still in my opinion does not elevate a lie into a hypothesis.

Global warming is a widely accepted theory bordering on fact as it relies on nothing but observations and is accepted by over 99% of all scientists. You're a fool to even suggest otherwise. AGW is slightly less widely accepted: >97% of climate scientists and probably >90% of all scientists. It would be YOUR position that has failed to rise above hypothesis. And that is has the status of hypothesis is simply because there are no qualifications at all for such a state. That the moon is made of green cheese is a perfectly qualified hypothesis.

 

[elektra]

I know...but I like to push his buttons and see him go into paroxysms of righteous indignation over someone daring to question his failed hypothesis...and it never fails. At least those who bother to read the threads get to see the truth in spite of old rock's seemingly bottomless well of propaganda and dogma.

Does Global Warming even reach the level of a hypothesis? I do not see how. Sure they have billions invested into research, developing computer models, but that still in my opinion does not elevate a lie into a hypothesis.

Global warming is a widely accepted theory bordering on fact as it relies on nothing but observations and is accepted by over 99% of all scientists. You're a fool to even suggest otherwise. AGW is slightly less widely accepted: >97% of climate scientists and probably >90% of all scientists. It would be YOUR position that has failed to rise above hypothesis. And that is has the status of hypothesis is simply because there are no qualifications at all for such a state. That the moon is made of green cheese is a perfectly qualified hypothesis.

Yes, Global Warming theory, which is just that, a theory. Thank you. That the moon is made of green cheese is not a perfectly qualified hypothesis. It is simply a statement that crick the moron just made.

 

[elektra]

That the moon is made of green cheese is a perfectly qualified hypothesis.

No, wrong again, genius, a hypothesis requires a bit of evidence. Crick has confused Philosophy with Science. If Crick was speaking of Philosophy Crick would be correct, but speaking of Science, Crick is simply a fool.

 

[elektra]

Global warming is a widely accepted theory bordering on fact as it relies on nothing but observations and is accepted by over 99% of all scientists.

Technically, 99% of all scientists were never questioned. A person studied some papers that were published in one place and came up with what you refer to. Now of course you have changed the statement to reflect Global Warming and not AGW which the paper attempts to make claims of, erroneously.

 

[Crick]

YOU used the term "global warming". If you wanted to talk about AGW, you should have said "AGW". I didn't change a fucking thing. And, just like global warming, AGW is a WIDELY ACCEPTED THEORY.

PS, if you don't want the world to know you're a complete vacuum wrt sampling, statistics and probability, don't try to criticize that of which you have no understanding.

 

[elektra]

YOU used the term "global warming". If you wanted to talk about AGW, you should have said "AGW". I didn't change a fucking thing. And, just like global warming, AGW is a WIDELY ACCEPTED THEORY.

PS, if you don't want the world to know you're a complete vacuum wrt sampling, statistics and probability, don't try to criticize that of which you have no understanding.

post the list of scientists names that support either theory, you know where we are going, I bet you can only come up with a study which at best is opinion. Show how you come up with 99%, so I can point out the flawed opinion of crick and the propaganda you can only post.

 

[Crick]

So you wish to go even FURTHER to demonstrate your ignorance. I can produce over a dozen studies, surveys and polls, all of which collect and accurately characterize observational DATA from which conclusions are drawn. If you think those are some sort of worthless opinions, you are REALLY going out of your way to demonstrate you don't have the faintest fuck of an idea how real science actually works.