Dumbledorf says:

So i have seen the time lapses.. the only problem is that most of them (the video) only measures 2 years or so.. and i have seen pictures that go back 60-80 years.

An example of this would be Briksdalsbreen in Norway, comparison over the years:

Step by step 2001-2007

1993 and 2006

And here is the same glacier and location in 1989 and 1996

So yes.. pretty drastic and you see some movement or “breathing” of the glacier. Glaciers are known to move.. this is nothing new, and it is not caused by mere heat (it moves in the winter as well) and the heat in the summer only really heats the snow on top, but due to the tremendous pressure and weight of the ice, causing a water layer under the ice to slowly allow the glacier to slide down the slope. Same effect that happens when you use ice skates.. there is actually a layer of water that allows you to slide forward on your ice skates due to the tremendous pressure – this is why if you zoom in on the rear end of an ice skate there will be a small ice/snow fountain as the water instantaneously freezes when the pressure is released. So enough of that explaining…

Back to Briksdalsbreen, have a look at this picture from 1900 – 100 years ago.. exact same location and same glacier (check the mountains if you don’t believe me).

And wow.. there is hardly any ice what-so-ever. At one point the glacier only slightly fell over the mountain top. Something todays Al Gore scientists forget to tell you, because they rather not show pictures of these places 100 years ago.. but they do show pictures from 1940, 1980, 1990 etc.. when these glaciers were at their peak. Only reason why i know of this, is because of anecdotes from friends and family and some old photos from grand-grand parents. Luckily i found a newspaper that could back it up with a photo online.

I am not going to deny global warming or pretend to be a scientist that knows, but I do have evidence of far more melting only 100 years back, and at least for this one glacier that has been quoted over and over again as a spectacular example of global warming and Norway loosing one of its great tourism spots. If it continues to melt, it may be of a concern, because the local population depends on it, but it still has some distance to go…

MikeN says:

>The Arctic Icesheet has melted and now contains mostly new, less dense and thus inferior ice.

Henny, the alarmists like to throw around whatever facts they can to make things look worse. Their prediction of inferior ice meaning it is less likely to stay frozen has not happened. Ice increased again in 2009, by 500,000 square kilometers, another 10 percent.
All of the thin ice that was supposedly going to melt away, it didn’t. That was just something they threw out to keep the scaremongering intact.
Next year look for them to talk about lack of three-year ice, and perhaps a dropoff in ice freezing(if you have more ice to being with, you don’t recover as much). Also, they might switch to ice volume now that they have satellite data for it.

JimR says:

Toxic A, Re: “I haven’t seen a single suggested solution that doesn’t damage the general human condition”

…what about my solution in post #9?

Alfred1 says:

The glaciers melt…that changes ocean currents, then the earth goes into another ice age…then melts…that changes ocean currents, then another ice age…

Its a natural cycle.

JimR says:

Re #49, Alfred… “you are being sold a bill of goods by those who hate energy…industry…suv’s…and 3 ply toilet paper.”

… no, they hate greedy, self-serving people who support industries that poison our environment, waste precious resources, and generally don’t give a shit about anyone else.

CO2 is just the poster boy… representative of much bigger more insidious problems. The hidden agenda IMO is… cut out the CO2, and you probably create a more environmentally friendly world.

MikeN says:

So the IPCC is predicting that for a doubling of CO2, the planet will warm 2-4C, with some alarmists predicting higher numbers like 5,6,or 7C

Yet when growing from 270-370ppm, a 40% increase, the growth has been much less than 40% of whatever numbers they are predicting. This along with the lack of warming the last 11 years(not a cooling), suggests that warming will be on the low end of projections, and the worst case estimates are similarly unlikely.

Sea level is not going to rise by 50 feet.
This was never a likely scenario, since it is too cold in Antarctica for global warming to melt ice there. In fact in global warming you will get more ice in Antarctica, as sea water evaporates and snows on the ice sheet.
Sea level rise will be more like 4-10 feet.

JimR says:

Re: MikeN, #51…“Except wind power opposed by environmentalists if it blocks the view, solar power opposed by environmentalists to preserve the desert, and of course nuclear power everywhere.”

So? Who cares what a few crackpots think?

Are you participating in keeping our water and habitat free of man-made poisons, and protecting our food chain… or not? Start there. The rest will follow.

JimR says:

MScott, Although I agree that some (okay, a lot) of people need an incentive to behave with decency, a carbon tax will only punish the poorest of those people. I would be more in favor of a tax of say $30,000 on new passenger vehicles that get less than 30 mpg (with some exceptions)? Or how about a mandatory engine device where cars can’t exceed 110 kph (roughly 65 mph). Trucks already require them here, and the roads are a little safer as well. The reason…

“According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:”

– 3% less efficient at 60 mph
– 8% less efficient at 65 mph
– 17% less efficient at 70 mph
– 23% less efficient at 75 mph
– 28% less efficient at 80 mph

MikeN says:

>Who cares what a few crackpots think?

The crackpots have enough influence to prevent solutions from happening. Already Yucca mountain is being blocked, and nuclear power is off the table for Obama’s green energy initiative. Another solar plant is being blocked by an environmentalist group in the California desert. When Nantucket gets its wind power, then I’ll agree its just a few crackpots saying things.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#56 – JimR,

How about a $1,000 tax per mile per gallon every new car gets below 50 MPG? Maybe a discount above 50 MPG. So, for example, a vehicle that gets 30 MPG would pay $20,000.