2 feet of Global Warming coming your way, east coast.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Cobra - I have already pointed you to the World Glacier Monitoring Service which unequivocally states that the vast majority of the planet's glaciers are receding, not through photographic evidence, but through satellite mass-balance analysis. Ignoring the evidence again?

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/

And here's the 2008 summary, including data from 1980-2008:

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/sum08.html

[Wild Cobra]

Cobra - I have already pointed you to the World Glacier Monitoring Service which unequivocally states that the vast majority of the planet's glaciers are receding, not through photographic evidence, but through satellite mass-balance analysis. Ignoring the evidence again?

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/

And here's the 2008 summary, including data from 1980-2008:

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/sum08.html

Some of those data points do in fact show glaciers growing. If we were indeed in a global warming, shouldn't they all be receding?

Now does that site have an agenda, or maybe only started glaciers noted as receding? The number of glaciers they monitor falls far short of the world wide glaciers. How many of the monitored ones are impacted with melting from soot? Then on top of that, we can still expect some degree of melting since we have never started into the next ice age. As long as we are in this warming period, for the last 11,000 years, how can you say it's not natural.

Tell you what. Show me some photo's from say 6,000 BC to 1000 AD. Let's see the natural cycles before we had industrialization.

You alarmists rely on such a small window of observation.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Some of those data points do in fact show glaciers growing. If we were indeed in a global warming, shouldn't they all be receding? (1)

Now does that site have an agenda, or maybe only started glaciers noted as receding? The number of glaciers they monitor falls far short of the world wide glaciers. How many of the monitored ones are impacted with melting from soot? Then on top of that, we can still expect some degree of melting since we have never started into the next ice age. As long as we are in this warming period, for the last 11,000 years, how can you say it's not natural. (2)

Tell you what. Show me some photo's from say 6,000 BC to 1000 AD. Let's see the natural cycles before we had industrialization.

You alarmists rely on such a small window of observation. (3)

1. No. EGW does NOT imply that every part of the earth will warm, or that warming will be uniform. You should know that. You are simply using a syllogism - that the average temperature of the planet is increasing, therefore somehow that means that the same uniform thing will happen across the whole globe. That is not the case.

2. Agenda. Yeah, okay, everyone has an agenda, and it's all designed to rob YOU!

They do not cherrypick their data, they take it from all over the world (as you'd know if you bothered to read the site), and that data shows that over 90% of the world's glaciers are receding. But no, let's just ignore that because it doesn't fit your template of the world. The RATE of decline is what tells us this is not a natural cycle, as does the timing.

3. What? I'm talking about evidence from the last million years, through over 10 glacial-interglacial cycles. The geological record shows us how glaciers have behaved in during pre-industrial time and they don't melt this quickly under natural climatic influence.

I thought you were pretty well read on climate but you keep using the same rhetorical tricks and denier arguments that have already been addressed by the science and laid to rest. Sad, really.

Anyway, back to the topic, in which the OP suggested that a SNOWSTORM was evidence against EGW, when actually it's just an offshoot of a strong El Nino (which influences the path of the jet stream and changes the weather across the entirety of North and South America, the Caribbean and the Pacific basin). Who is using "such a small window of observation" again?

[Bukefal]

See, that post just shows me that you don't understand the science at all. Milankovitch cycles (look them up) trigger CO2/CH4 release, and that triggers changes in climate. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has naturally oscillated from 200-300ppm in recent geological history - humans have pushed that to 385ppm and rising, well beyond the natural range. "No gasses"!? Sorry? Before humanity there was no carbon cycle? Come on now, you simply don't know what you are talking about. The issue is that humans have dumped a huge quan y of 'artificial' carbon (that is, carbon that has been stored underground as fossil fuels for tens of millions of years) into the carbon cycle, which has changed the equilibrium of the cycle and thus the climate. It's all explained by the science.

As for solar activity, since the 80s it has been declining while the warming continues. Solar activity is currently as low as it has been in the last century.

First you are talking about gasses and the human cause of this warming, and then you say there were gasses before humanity. Of course there were gasses before humanity, but that's a natural process. I meant with gasses, our gasses, cars, industry etc..
You say it yourself, that there are gasses before humanity. So, its natural. Plus, these warmings have little to do with carbon mate and nothing confirms that nor is there any proof.

As for the glaciers, there are glaciers who are receding, but also growing as cobra already pointed out. Plus, that too is a natural phenomena which has been there for thousands of years, even when there was no industrialization. There are reports from before the industrialisation that mention glaciers receding.

Mate, it's just a hype and if you want to be hyped all up, fine, but don't come telling me in here or cobra or someone else that we 'know nothing', just because we have a different opinion. In this thread, you have already said several times to us 'you know nothing', 'learn something', 'educate yourself', 'you don't understand', 'sad', ' ' . What's with the belittling?
Do you see me or someone else saying that to you, just because we have different opinions? Get over yourself.

If you want to be scared and live up to it, fine, but not everyone believes this, at least in not such an extent. Plus, that you come up with all these nice and pretty numbers and reports, means nothing. Those are measures, not causes and certainly no proof. It does not help to prove your point with, which you are trying.

Of course humanity has a part in the process, I do believe, but not in such a way they make us believe. As I've already said; If people are scared, you can do anything with them and people will spend. This global warming fear and hype is very good for economics----> certain peoples pockets and power.

Besides, no one really knows it. Not the pro-people, nor the anti-people. We can't know and there is no real proof. If its caused by nature or humanity, we don't know, there is no real proof of that, but just theories.

The only thing we certain know is, is that these warmings have always been on earth. Thus, if that's the only thing we know for sure, then it must be clear to set value on that instead of all the unknown theories.

to the climate