Polar ice advancing, global warming is dead

I'm not working at or for National Geographic. You should ask them.

You posted it...can I assume you support their position ? I would like to think you would know the topic if you are posting, so I ask again, What period of time should be considered before making a statement like the ice is shrinking ?

Surely such a question is at the heart of GW and whether you believe it to be true or not...so you would have faced that decision when making up your own mind, wouldn't you ?

Continental Ice sheets are diminishing in Greenland and Antarctica, A thicker fresh water layer in the Southern Ocean would seem to freeze at higher temps than salt water.

I think these conspiracy sites get tiresome. A bunch of bloggers with an agenda, Before I can even assess the validity of anything (as a trend), I think we need more than a year or two of data. Pwrhaps this is an interesting trend that can be explained or perhaps not.
"Bandwagon science" is only there because the internet allows instant assessment (Usually wrong).

You and gunga have agendas, scientists with agendas must declare their beliefs

Well, I don't have all their atlases they mentioned mentioned in their quoted report.
But those I've got (on dvd, going back to the first edition), suupport their position.
Do you have earlier editions of the National Geographic Atlas then the first printed?

The question I ask is how much data over what time period do we need...it is a scientific question that scientists have not answered because they have an agenda to prove GW so they must use what they have...hardly scientific is it ?

You have an agenda too .

You are in avoidance mode . I did not question the accuracy of the atlas...I asked what time period should be considered as showing significant trends....this will also include where and how the data is gathered . As you haven't responded, I will assume you support the position that we have enough data gathered over a sufficient time period collected in the right locations to conclude GW is man made and is actually occurring . Would you like to tackle those points ?

The ice is shrinking. Over quite some years. There's evidence of it. It's mapped on the quoted atlas.
I agree with that.

The glaciers are melting. That's visible on old photos and today's visits.
I agree with as well.

I agree as well that in some unknown future, we might have more ice everywhere. And the earth might flatten - nothing is impossible already Toyota said.

I really have no agenda except to make sure that all the issues re GW are presented as science .
The continental ice is thinning and the runnoff is going to sea and floats atop the seawater wedge. This freezes at a higher temperature.

Gunga and you are using data from a mere 2 years duration to claim that "GLOBAL WARMING IS DEAD"=--You say thats not unscientific and not agenda driven??

It seems that most all continental glaciers (with the exception of a single flank of Kilimanjaro ) are receeding and obviously melting. You dont deny that do you? Thats a feature thats been going on for almost a century so I have always asserted that the GW we see today may be a cycle and the Anthropogenic folks have still not convinced me.
We have strong fossil and pollen evidence that palms occupied New England at least a couple of times during the Cenozoic

There goes the neighborhood...

GW is real, of that there is no doubt. Whether it is all caused by human efluvia needs better data.

Perhaps climate change would happen in the very same way as we experience it now with human influence. When we find a planet identical to ours without living persons on it, we'll know better

We should probably start thinking of how we are going to deal with it. A global government will be required.

http://youtu.be/deNbnxaJYOU

[youtube]http://youtu.be/deNbnxaJYOU[/youtube]

We will always need more data, but we can already conclude with a fair degree of certainty.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-resources-on-climate-change/climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

Summary:
GREENHOUSE GASES such as carbon dioxide (CO2) absorb heat (infrared radiation) emitted from Earth’s surface. Increases in the atmospheric concentrations of these gases cause Earth to warm by trapping more of this heat. Human activities—especially the burning of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution—have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations by about 40%, with more than half the increase
occurring since 1970. Since 1900, the global average surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F). This has been accompanied by warming of the ocean, a rise in sea level, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and many other associated climate effects. Much of this warming has occurred in the last four decades. Detailed analyses have shown that the warming during this period is mainly a result of the increased concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Continued emissions of these gases will cause further climate change, including substantial increases in global average surface temperature and important changes in regional climate. The magnitude and timing of these changes will depend on many factors, and slowdowns and accelerations in warming lasting a decade or more will continue to occur. However, long-term climate change over many decades will depend mainly on the total amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activities.

we could also be in the early stages of a series of atmospheric and geophysical cycles (Dansgaard Eschger especially).

Actually, in the 70;s I recall that the big to do was the "coming Ice age".
Then we modified this opinion with a GW story. I dont think much real science was in it.

Some sea level rise measurements were predicted along the our East Coasts by guys like Rhodes Fairbridge and , while a few were correct, many were just flat wrong.

SHow me the coastal tidal range hsitory for a place like Mt ST Michel, I havent looked at that for several years and wlways wonder about whether there is any sea level rise realized. Also, places like Venice, I think can be more attributed to massive dewatering from oil pumping which causes compression of the trata and an "apparent" sea ;evel rise.

I agree that , over the planet, most areas can show sea level rises and GW data, but, like so many things we assert, Im not certain we can yet attribute it to humans. Actually, if you look at atmospheric CO2 since the Mesozoic, we see that the CO2 level is dropping markedly, and this recent rise may be an artifact.

I believe its only recently that SOx, NOx, and CH3 have been "put on the list" as important gases.

This is a rather bad attempt by the author to hide the fact that hes skirting the edges of being a tautology.
"Global Warming is caused by atmospheric gases that are responsible for global warming"

I dont have any valid conclusions but I dont see one that is convincing me that this is a human caused problem. SO Im really not gonna be dragged further in to the debate, (too many sides, none of them, with which I can agree, or can be convinced that there is a pile of compelling data )

I'm kind of in agreement with hawkeye on this one, except that the concept of a global government seems to imply that if man can fix it, man has caused it.



In other words, GW is real for whatever reason, and my thinking is that it's too far along to stop. We should devote our resources to dealing with it, instead of trying to halt a process that I don't believe can be halted.

Yeah . . . right . . . the climatic warming cycle will have ended, and we'll be headed back into a cooling cycle before a global government is formed . . . if ever.

Only if we're still here to enjoy the coolth.