soundwash says:

#40 Mr. Fusion said:

#37, soundwash,

Please take your meds.

First, the satellite that found evidence of water, it didn’t actually discover any water, only evidence, used American (read NASA) developed technology. The data was interpreted by American and Indian scientists. And finally, it was only found in the rims of crater which is in total darkness all the time.

And yes, sometimes a little knowledge is dangerous. NASA is making the announcement this afternoon

Excuse me?

Where did you get that dribble from?

They confirmed water “practical everywhere” on the surface.
On top of that, it’s
“renewing” itself daily.

The amount of water molecules increase during the lunar night, decrease during the lunar day, then begin again to increase during the lunar night.

The real kicker for them was that it
did not completely dissipate even at
the peak of the moons 250+ degree “noon”

And yes, sometimes a little knowledge is dangerous. NASA is making the announcement this afternoon

Heck, for you, a little knowledge is
useless. -you could not even parrot the news correctly.

Did you even bother to listen or read
the whole release? what i wrote above was released on the Indian, U.K. and a few other European sites news sites on 23rd.

I have no problem being flamed, however the least you could do is
be a worthy opponent. You effectively reduced yourself to flame bait.

I dunno, maybe your the one who need the meds.. *shrug*

-s

Henny Penny says:

#44, Mike N

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.

First year ice is inferior. Your not understanding that is merely a testament to your comprehension level. First year ice, being less dense is more inclined to fracture and break into flows. And yes, that does allow more mobility and more melting.

Older ice is stronger and will remain. By not breaking up (as easily or as much) it will continue to reflect sunlight.

The ice sheet grew because it had decreased during the summer melt. That makes it more a seasonal cover than a permanent ice sheet. In years past, it was a permanent sheet.

Toxic Asshead says:

#56 – Unnacceptable. That’s a horrifying reduction in lifestyle. Your solutions in #39 are ok as long as none of them reduce the size and power of cars, reduce house size, reduce amount of property, reduce urban sprawl. etc.

Living close to each other and using mass transit, etc. is worse than any possible effect of Global Warming.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#67 – Hastur,

You are assuming that the money collected by the tax actually goes towards covering the costs caused. If that was the case I would not be so concerned. What happens now is that all these taxes just go directly into the general budget.

And the expenses get paid out of the general budget, no? Sounds like a wash to me. It sounds to me as if you are just generally predisposed to hate taxes. I think you may have listened to carefully to Ronald Reagan, the orchestrator of the current global financial crisis via his voodoo economics and rampant deregulation that have continued unimpeded since he took office. He was truly persuasive and truly changed the paradigm. Too bad he changed it to something so catastrophic.

MikeN says:

>First year ice, being less dense is more inclined to fracture and break into flows. And yes, that does allow more mobility and more melting.

That’s what the experts said. Only it didn’t happen. The 2009 minimum ice level has been reached, and it is 500K sq km more than 2008, exactly the opposite of what the experts predicted. The thinner ice and so forth was one of their alarmist talking points. Let’s see what they say next year. Maybe they’ll repeat the same thinner ice mantra next year, since there was another ten percent increase.
But those same doom arguments didn’t fly this year, so if they say that again it’ll be weird.

Toxic Asshead says:

#69 – talk about an off topic assumption. I’m not against speed limits. I’m against unreasonably slow speed limits. 75mph on rural freeways is just fine. With a 5mph allowance, you can set the cruise control to just under 80 and that’s perfectly acceptable. Most people’s reaction times aren’t safe faster than that anyway.

dumbledorf says:

Hope the spam filter doesn’t take this post:

So i tried to look up information in the internet archives aka google/ixquick.. especially the locations in question in the video. Tough to find pictures of Iceland and Greenland 100 years ago, but i did find a map of Alaska and especially so the glacier in question “Columbia Glacier”:

So here it is on google maps – satellite picture:
Google

So if the melting was so extreme.. miles and miles of it disappearing. This should be evident when comparing it to old images/maps.. not from 1950, but earlier..

and guess what.. i found just what i was looking for:

“The Columbia Glacier in Prince William Sound was surveyed by G. K. Gilbert from June 25 to 28, 1899. Gilbert took readings from the lower end of the glacier, and drew upon mineralogist Charles Palache’s study of the details of the area. The map shows the bay at high tide; at low tide, Heather Island is joined to islands north of it by mud flats, and extensive shoals are bared along the northeast coast of the bay.”

Old Columbia Map
Columbia Glacier, 1899. By Gilbert Thompson. Source: National Archives.

As the description states.. you see the measurements at low and high tide.. and wow.. it is at the exact same spot as google maps satellite view 110 years later! If you see where the 2000 number is on the map, that is where the calving starts.. as does it on google maps satellite view.

For more historical maps take a look here: Old Glaciers

So.. yes as impressive as calving is in the video, I think Columbia Glacier is a horrible example of this global warming phenomenon. Just look at data 110 years back.. same exact location, at that point it looks like it has less ice.

So then i thought.. why not compare all of those maps with satellite pictures taken by google? I mean.. maybe this is just the case with Columbia – since the scientist in the TED video said it was a global phenomenon that glaciers are heavily disappearing, this should be easily spotted.

“Map artist Gilbert Thompson drew the map showing the Hubbard and Turner Glaciers at the head of Disenchantment Bay, near Yakutat. The map is based on surveys made by Henry Gannett on June 21 and 22, 1899; Thompson gleaned additional information on the glaciers from the Canadian International Boundary Commission.”

Hubbard Map

let us compare it with google maps satellite view:
Google Map 2

Wait.. it has grown for the last 110 years? Both being horrible examples of global warming if you ask me.

I thought i would check the third one Muir Glacier… and yes, it would probably be a better example:

Muir Glacier Google

“By 1899, Muir Glacier had been studied, photographed and charted for decades. This map, prepared by Henry Gannett during the Harriman Expedition, draws on almost twenty years of description and survey to show the position of the front of the glacier at various dates. The chart lines show that the glacier had retreated 1.6 miles in nineteen years, with one period of advancement taking place between 1890 and 1892.”
Muir Historical

How did i know it was the same location, thanks to this map, from 1896:
Map Muir

So Muir Glacier would be a far better example of Global Warming instead of Columbia. Columbia still larger now than 110 years back.. the only problem with all of this is that, Glaciers breath.. they increase and decrease all the time. Norway’s fjords were shaped by glaciers from the last ice age.. and I am sure we don’t want to go back to that stage anytime soon.

To quote the jostedals national park’s (norway) website:

“Is global warming melting the glaciers?
Come to Jostedalen and check it out! So far the glacier arms are reacting very individually. The Nigardsbreen Glaciers almost unaffected, while other glacier arms are melting away.”

Of course having to come check it out.. you have to fly; so you shouldn’t come! … ah screw it, it’s great for tourism

Misanthropic Scott says:

#74 – Toxic Asshole,

So, my assumption in #69 was exactly correct. You want to be able to drive whatever speed you like regardless of the speed limit. You truly are an asshead. And, despite your moniker, when someone calls you on it, you deny it.

So, again, why do you want to kill someone with your car? Are your neighbors really that annoying? What do they think of you?

Misanthropic Scott says:

#74 dumbledorf,

Well done. Here are a couple of sites that have done the work already. I included kilimanjaro just to show that it’s not all arctic.

http://tinyurl.com/das6n

(to be continued)

Toxic Asshead says:

Epic fail again Scott. I’ve never said I wanted to break the speed limit – but I don’t want it mechanically forced on me. It’s MY choice.

You have very eloquently proved my point that progressive/liberal solutions always about limiting freedom and forcing other to live a certain way. I haven’t seen a proposed solution to anything yet that doesn’t tell me what to sacrifice or what I can’t do. Sorry, I choose freedom instead.