As Alaska Glaciers Melt, It’s Land That’s Rising
Surfer
<Start extract>
The geology is complex, but it boils down to this: Relieved of
billions of tons of glacial weight, the land has risen much as a
cushion regains its shape after someone gets up from a couch. The land
is ascending so fast that the rising seas � a ubiquitous byproduct of
global warming � cannot keep pace. As a result, the relative sea level
is falling, at a rate �among the highest ever recorded,� according to
a 2007 report by a panel of experts convened by Mayor Bruce Botelho of
Juneau.
<snip>
Relative to the sea, land here has risen as much as 10 feet in little
more than 200 years, according to the 2007 report. As global warming
accelerates, the land will continue to rise, perhaps three more feet
by 2100, scientists say.
<End extract>
Bob Casanova
in sci.skeptic, posted by Surfer <n...@spam.net>:
Sure, continental "rebound" of once-glaciated land is a
well-known phenomenon; IIRC northern North America and
northern Eurasia are *still* rising measurably, 10ky after
the end of the Wurm glaciation. And the rising land in the
arctic regions will cause the sea level in *non*-Arctic
regions to rise even more (albeit minimally, due to the
relatively small glaciated areas involved) due to
displacement. Your point?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Surfer
wrote:
Well, the article attributed noticeable rising to current melting of
glaciers.
<Start extract>
"Greenland and a few other places have experienced similar effects
from widespread glacial melting that began more than 200 years ago,
geologists say. But, they say, the effects are more noticeable in and
near Juneau, where most glaciers are retreating 30 feet a year or
more"
<End extract>
I interpreted that as alternative evidence for global warming.
As questions have been raised about the reliablity of surface
temperature measurements, I think thats interesting.
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am very dubious about the base claim. 10 ft sounds much too fast.
Then
there is that Eskimo village that is having to relocate due to their
village being flooded by rising seas. Added to that, except for
Greeland and some of themountainous regions, almost none of the coast
line is under glaciers
Harry K
Bob Casanova
Sure; that's the "rebound" effect I mentioned.
><End extract>
>
>I interpreted that as alternative evidence for global warming.
There's plenty of evidence for global warming.
Unfortunately, the only *direct* evidence that part of it is
anthropogenic is the known behaviors of greenhouse gases,
which the idiots on the "There ain't no such thing!" side
refuse to consider relevant. And the idiots on the "It's
*ALL* anthropogenic!" side are just as fanatical. We know,
from SST (Sea-Surface Temperature) data, melting glaciers
and a long-term reduction in Arctic ice (and other things
such as precipitation patterns) that global warming is a
fact. We *don't* know what percentage is anthropogenic.
>As questions have been raised about the reliablity of surface
>temperature measurements, I think thats interesting.
SST measurements are reliable (land measurements probably
less so). Glacier volume measurements are reliable. Arctic
ice measurements are reliable. All show a long-term warming
trend. Unfortunately, short-term data (a decade or less) is
incorrectly cited by the first class of fanatics mentioned
above as "evidence" that global warming is a myth.
Eunometic
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:35:53 +1030, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by Surfer <n...@spam.net>:
> Unfortunately, short-term data (a decade or less) is
> incorrectly cited by the first class of fanatics mentioned
> above as "evidence" that global warming is a myth.
It's cited to support as a counter to weather phenomena being used to
support AGW alarm so as to suggest that there is no long term trend.
A hot day or a long summer is now attributed to 'global warming'
whereas once people just accepted it or attibuted it to El Nino etc.
Interviews and use of some tribal Eskimo or African villages is used
as 'evidence' of global warming. Half the time the 'native' isn't
even elderly.
Last Post
• Do not expect any land rising north of the
Arctic circle. Expect the next 50 years to rebuild
any ice losses from the past 200 and more. The
pressure on the tectonic plates will push more
magma into the tropical waters whieh will bring
on more snow which will not melt in the summer
because the sun's penetration of the cloud cover
will be next to nil and the land of the midnight sun
becomes the land with no sun.
• Also do not look for sea levels rising - there may be
a bit of lowering but not a lot before 2200
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Last Post
> <End extract>
>
> I interpreted that as alternative evidence for global warming.
• Since global warming is NOT happening what
else can you blame.
Your AGW alarmist buds are no help now.
Last Post
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:35:53 +1030, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by Surfer <n...@spam.net>:
>
> There's plenty of evidence for global warming.
> Unfortunately, the only *direct* evidence that part of it is
> anthropogenic is the known behaviors of greenhouse gases,
> which the idiots on the "There ain't no such thing!" side
> refuse to consider relevant. And the idiots on the "It's
> *ALL* anthropogenic!" side are just as fanatical. We know,
> from SST (Sea-Surface Temperature) data, melting glaciers
> and a long-term reduction in Arctic ice (and other things
> such as precipitation patterns) that global warming is a
> fact. We *don't* know what percentage is anthropogenic.
• I know that there is ZERO influence by
greenhouse gasses on climate
Tyndall, in the lab, proved that CO2 will absorb
radiative energy. He also proved H2O will not.
Now all of the atmospheric CO2 arises from
warm waters embedded in H2O (call it carbonic
acid gas) and carried upward where it forms
clouds. So how could that CO2 store sunlight.
IR passes right through the clouds.
• When a cloud bank meets a cold front we get
precip, rain or snow or ..., and when the precip
hits the deck it becomes fertilizer.
Every year 100,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 is
converted by photosynthesis into biomass.
That includes everything you eat— your coffee,
the sugar and cream, toast etc etc.
• The reality is that "global warming" is a myth
and does not exist. On the other hand
"Climate Change" is functioning as it has for 5
million years or more.
> >As questions have been raised about the reliablity of surface
> >temperature measurements, I think thats interesting.
• There are two faults in surface temperature
measurements, first in the station locations;
2nd the hi/low thermometer does not
necessarily give you the mean; 3rd all of the
raw data has all been 'adjusted' to provide a
constant trend on the 'up' side
>
> SST measurements are reliable (land measurements probably
> less so). Glacier volume measurements are reliable. Arctic
> ice measurements are reliable. All show a long-term warming
> trend.
• No one on earth has shown anything at all
corresponding with a cause for global warming.
• Nature has built and destroyed and rebuilt
hundreds of glaciers before a bunch of
profiteers came up with man-made global
warming.
Kilimanjaro glacier has been melting for
almost 200 years. Why has no one blamed
AGW for that. They tried but had to wipe
the crow feathers off their silly faces.
> Unfortunately, short-term data (a decade or less) is
> incorrectly cited by the first class of fanatics mentioned
> above as "evidence" that global warming is a myth.
• No one has proved that anthropogenic global
does exist
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excellent summary of the 'idiot' types. I have tried explaining that
before but never had it put so clearly.
Harry K
Morton Davis
"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:5v5vj5ttrqkmobvav...@4ax.com...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/science/earth/18juneau.html
>
>
Global warming is a proven lie.
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by harry k
<turnk...@hotmail.com>:
>Excellent summary of the 'idiot' types. I have tried explaining that
>before but never had it put so clearly.
Thanks. The correspondence to
"ultraliberal/archconservative" and "religious
fanatic/immoral atheist" (and other false dichotomies) isn't
unexpected; people, especially poorly educated people, tend
toward fanaticism.
harry k
If unsupported baseless asertions mean anything I guess that settles
it.
Harry K
Bob Casanova
>On Jan 4, 2:18�pm, "Morton Davis" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
Yeah, I ignored his crap when he posted it. There's enough
data available (Google or Ask search on "sea surface
temperature" and "historical data") to show beyond any
reasonable doubt that global average temperatures have been
increasing fairly rapidly over the past century and a half,
but I guess it's not enough to get past unreasonable (and
unreasoning) doubt. The fanatics seem to think the
"greenhouse effect" was invented just to support the
"unproven claim" that the Earth is warming, and that
anthropogenic greenhouse gases are at least partly
responsible.
BradGuth
So were Muslim WMD. However, we're still getting dead and
bankrupted. Go figure.
Your profound lack of remorse is noted.
~ BG
BradGuth
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:49:19 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by harry k
But you are not employed or otherwise benefited by Big Energy, so your
form of truth doesn't count.
~ BG
BradGuth
"Greenland appears to be floating upwards - its landmass is rising up
to 4 centimetres each year, scientists reveal."
"And the large country's new-found buoyancy is a symptom of
Greenland's shrinking ice cap, they add."
"The Earth is elastic and if you put a load on top of it, then the
surface will move down; if you remove the load, then the surface will
start rising again," explains Shfaqat Khan of the Danish National
Space Center in Copenhagen.
"In the case of Greenland, the "load" is its ice cap, he says."
At the rate of rising <4 cm/year, there's no way any ocean rise is
ever going to flood Greenland, although massive land erosions and
otherwise torrents of surface fresh water runoff could do you in.
Best to make your Greenland home into a boat.
~ BG
Last Post
that would prove that anthropogenic global
warming is real and functioning.
harry k
Well Mr. Last Brain Cell, why don't you point out where I said
anythign about there _being_ AGW.
I guess reading comprehension isn't among your strong points.
Harry K
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by harry k
Recall my comments about fanatics; each end of the curve
sees *only* the assertions of the other end. Rationality and
an ability to read data objectively aren't among their
strengths.