Why are the glaciers melting?

[KitemanSA]

...11 years? you are totally on the wrong scale, dude.

this is what you are talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

notice the period is about 10 years, so your choice of 11 years as a "cooling period" was quite unfortunate given your (false) assertion that the closest correlation is to solar cycles. you'd have to pick a span of no more than half that for it to even be _possible_ for the _sun_ -- not to mention the earth, by extension -- to be in a "cooling period".

this is what "climate change" refers to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

notice the time scale is different by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. and the role that solar cycles play on global temperature is all but invisible compared to the overal total variation.

"Dude" so are you. There are cycles and there are cycles. And when the cycles align destructively you get a sun-spot minimum and a cold time. Not sure anyone knows why. But we are just on a local max. And as you see here, the l o n g term temperature is DOWN. Perhaps the best thing we could do is boost our CO2 output to give the world a bit more to play with.

[djolds1]

secondly, 11 years? you are totally on the wrong scale, dude.

??

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming was "evolved" from Global Cooling (1945-'75) with barely 10 years of recorded data (1975-'85). 1998 was a temperature peak, and depending on how you draw the best fit line, temperatures have either been stable or declining since then.

[MSimon]

firstly, the second law of thermodynamics works across surfaces not volumes,

I'd really like to see a cite on that. Really.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/s ... p-in-2010/

BTW it appears the oceans are cooling. According to ARGO buoys.

[happyjack27]

firstly, the second law of thermodynamics works across surfaces not volumes,

I'd really like to see a cite on that. Really.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/s ... p-in-2010/

BTW it appears the oceans are cooling. According to ARGO buoys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_equation

EDIT: point is the volume of say ice will grow or shrinks in proportion to the spatial temperature differential between the water/ice and the air times the _surface area_ , NOT the volume. for an easy example of this, put some ice in a plastic bag, then put the same amount of ice in another plastic bag. throw one against the wall, breaking up the ice into smaller chunks (increasing the surface area). which one melts faster, or do they both melt at the same speed?

[happyjack27]

...11 years? you are totally on the wrong scale, dude.

this is what you are talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

notice the period is about 10 years, so your choice of 11 years as a "cooling period" was quite unfortunate given your (false) assertion that the closest correlation is to solar cycles. you'd have to pick a span of no more than half that for it to even be _possible_ for the _sun_ -- not to mention the earth, by extension -- to be in a "cooling period".

this is what "climate change" refers to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

notice the time scale is different by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. and the role that solar cycles play on global temperature is all but invisible compared to the overal total variation.

"Dude" so are you. There are cycles and there are cycles. And when the cycles align destructively you get a sun-spot minimum and a cold time. Not sure anyone knows why. But we are just on a local max. And as you see here, the l o n g term temperature is DOWN. Perhaps the best thing we could do is boost our CO2 output to give the world a bit more to play with.

i don't really consider that second picture from a reliable source. and i can tell that you didn't read the data in my references.

[KitemanSA]

i don't really consider that second picture from a reliable source. and i can tell that you didn't read the data in my references.

Fine, why not?
But as to your source, I know beyond a reasonable doubt that the wikipedia articles on global warming have been hijacked by the pro-AGW crowd, so they are tainted too.

[happyjack27]

i don't really consider that second picture from a reliable source. and i can tell that you didn't read the data in my references.

Fine, why not?
But as to your source, I know beyond a reasonable doubt that the wikipedia articles on global warming have been hijacked by the pro-AGW crowd, so they are tainted too.

lol. the standard conspiracy-theory argument conservatives make for any facts that they don't want to accept. doesn't it ever get old?

[KitemanSA]

lol. the standard conspiracy-theory argument conservatives make for any facts that they don't want to accept. doesn't it ever get old?

First, I find it offensive that you label me a conservative. Please don't be a troll.
Second, when the hijack issue was first raised, I went and viewed the history of the various sights and did observe a ... call it a "purification war" going on where none but the AGW "facts" were allowed in the article. So why should I waste my time there?
And since you brought up the "non-reliability" issue, why do you try to condemn me for using it? Why do you think the second picture is from an unreliable sourse. I told you why I don't rely on YOUR sources. Be a man, return the honor.

[happyjack27]

lol. the standard conspiracy-theory argument conservatives make for any facts that they don't want to accept. doesn't it ever get old?

First, I find it offensive that you label me a conservative. Please don't be a troll.
Second, when the hijack issue was first raised, I went and viewed the history of the various sights and did observe a ... call it a "purification war" going on where none but the AGW "facts" were allowed in the article. So why should I waste my time there?
And since you brought up the "non-reliability" issue, why do you try to condemn me for using it? Why do you think the second picture is from an unreliable sourse. I told you why I don't rely on YOUR sources. Be a man, return the honor.

wikipidea has a very strict policy of reliable sources and you can see them all at the bottom of the article and pretty much every sentence in the article is reliably sourced and that applies to all the subarticles to.
they are not my sources, they are the sources that have been vetted by a very large community. and if you find any thing you have a problem with you can take it up with the WP:RS noticeboard.

and actually not you haven't told me why you don't rely on any of these sources (which aren't mine). you gave me some circuitious conjectural ad hominem logical fallacy b.s., which doesn't even speak to the sources used in the first place.

oh, and just because a person doesn't happen to have the exact some opinions as you doesn't make them a troll. (and besides, we're not even talking about opinions (at least i'm not), we're talking about facts and logic. (at least i am))

also i didn't say the second picture was from an unreliable source. i said the converse, that i don't see any evidence that it is from a reliable source. those are logically two different things. and the burden of proof lies with showing the source to be reliable, not the other way around.

[KitemanSA]

Boy, you have a fairy tale understanding of wikipedia it seems. Being a fairly regular contributer to it, I know how it works.

wikipidea has a very strict policy of reliable sources and you can see them all at the bottom of the article and pretty much every sentence in the article is reliably sourced and that applies to all the subarticles to.

Wikipedia has a strict policy of SOURCES, no original work. It relies on the authors and the general public to maintain "reliability". However, a small group of hijackers can and do take over articles and maintain UNreliable sources and exclude other reliable sources.

they are not my sources,

You posted them, either own them or disown them.

they are the sources that have been vetted by a very large community. and if you find any thing you have a problem with you can take it up with the WP:RS noticeboard.

This is where you are wrong (or were when I investigated). The sources were being maintained by a small group of hijackers. They were NOT vetted by the community.

and actually not you haven't told me why you don't rely on any of these sources (which aren't mine). you gave me some circuitious conjectural ad hominem logical fallacy b.s., which doesn't even speak to the sources used in the first place.

I did tell you. I don't rely on the because the articles were NOT vetted by the community. All attempts to correct or insert other countering content were deleted. This subject was HIJACKED. Vetted content effectively nill.

oh, and just because a person doesn't happen to have the exact some opinions as you doesn't make them a troll. (and besides, we're not even talking about opinions (at least i'm not), we're talking about facts and logic. (at least i am))

You implied I was a conservative and thems fight'n words. Folks what write fight'n words are trolls! (In case you can' tell, the "troll" was sarcasm, a hit upon the conservatives. Keep up, dude!)

also i didn't say the second picture was from an unreliable source. i said the converse, that i don't see any evidence that it is from a reliable source. those are logically two different things. and the burden of proof lies with showing the source to be reliable, not the other way around.

i don't really consider that second picture from a reliable source.

To me this reads that that you considered it ("don't consider") and have decided it is un-reliable. If you meant differently, perhaps you should have worded it differently.
Regarding "not seeing evidence", the graphic has the web-site and references on it. Read the web site and sources. Then decide. I have read yours. Read mine.

None-the-less, there is ample evidence that the temperature is abnormally low and that the CO2 is also epochly low. But since the sun is slowly warming, there is no more CO2 to remove to cool down the earth. What is needed is two things. First, a reliable method to reduce the insolation and second, an increase in CO2 to compensate. JMHO.

[happyjack27]

i went to geocraft.com. all i get is this: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/TableOfCont.html

not real professional looking; looks like a small organization. and in any case i can't find where the picture is from or what the sources are. if its been peer reviewed what have you.

and whatever the case may be it's a drop in the bucket.

[Betruger]

There's no conspiratory thought inherent in calling corrupt something involved in GW. That's the signature of GW: corruption all over the place, on both "sides". Especially not if it's in wikipedia. That thing is filled with politics in the first place.

[happyjack27]

yeah that's called a conspiracy theory.

[KitemanSA]

yeah that's called a conspiracy theory.

Yup, the purveyors of AGW have certainly been in a conspiracy. They were caught and now folks yell, "don't look behind that curtain... its all just a conspiracy theory.

Check Articles:Climate and the Carboniferous Period.

[Betruger]

It's a conspiracy that contemporary human nature is such that politics generally go hand in hand with corruption? GW hasn't been a textbook case of this trend? If you say so..

Here we see an example of what you describe as conspiracy thinking:

the standard conspiracy-theory argument conservatives make for any facts that they don't want to accept. doesn't it ever get old?

Do you deny this looks like double standard?