Re: Stubborn glaciers fail to retreat
zonbo
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:C6625C4B.1702D0%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> On 20/06/09 6:43, in article rNZ_l.10942$7C4....@newsfe04.iad, "Green
> Turtle" <Super...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
>
>> Furthermore a British study published two years ago by the American
>> Meteorological Society found that glaciers are only shrinking in the
>> eastern
>> Himalayas. Further west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram, glaciers
>> are
>> "thickening and expanding".
>
>
> Look worldwide.
>
> "World's glaciers melting at record rate � UN"
>
> http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25995&Cr=climate&Cr1
So why are some "thickening and expanding" then?
Come on let's see your answer.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
BDR529
Local weather conditions my son,
Q
--
Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail me now!
zonbo
"BDR529" <jake> wrote in message
news:4a3cdea8$0$191$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
GOTCHA!
When they contract it's global warming, but when they expand it's local
weather!
ROTFLMAO
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
BDR529
No my son, what we see in observations is usually a mishmash of
different effects, if you are clever then you can exclude some obvious
stuff.
But what generally is done is to look for larger patterns, and then the
conclusion is that there are hundreds of glaciers of which most of them
are ablating.
Since there are no little Martians causing the global glaciers ablation
it is hypothesized that global warming is the cause.
Earl Evleth
<x...@i.com> wrote:
> So why are some "thickening and expanding" then?
Most aren't. In some cases, as the melting speeds
up and lubricates the base the glaciers move
forwaded, giving the illusion of expanding.
The total ice mass can be going down even as
the glacier appears larger.
But the bottom line, when all glaciers are
taken into account is a loss of total ice mass.
Greenland is losing ice mass, for instance.
(do a google on: greenland ice mass loss)
but for particular glaciers might be speeding
up
"Fastest Glacier in Greenland Doubles Speed"
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/jakobshavn.html
" The researchers found the glacier's sudden speed-up also coincides with
very rapid thinning, indicating loss of ice of up to 15 meters (49 feet) in
thickness per year after 1997. Along with increased rates of ice flow and
thinning, the thick ice that extends from the mouth of the glacier into the
ocean, called the ice tongue, began retreating in 2000,"
Eric Gisin
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:C662D2C5.17048A%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
BDR529
> Nope, Greenland gained ice mass in 2008. Wonder why the MSM never
> reported that?
Why do you lie? Or are you just badly informed? Or are you just stupid.
Greenland happens to be the largest fresh water source in the world, and
Greenland's mass loss is known to accelerate for a while.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm
AGW deniers, I don't know what to think of them.
Q
>
> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:C662D2C5.17048A%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>>
>> Greenland is losing ice mass, for instance.
>> (do a google on: greenland ice mass loss)
>> but for particular glaciers might be speeding
>> up
>>
>> "Fastest Glacier in Greenland Doubles Speed"
>
Tom P
> Come on let's see your answer.
>
>
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> Bonzo
>
>
There's plenty of photo series showing glaciers vanishing over the last
100 years, but we're still waiting for just one photo series of a
glacier growing.
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
http://glims.colorado.edu/glacierdata/
http://www.glims.org/
This shows what the trend is really like:
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/massbalance.html
T.
Ouroboros Rex
> Nope, Greenland gained ice mass in 2008. Wonder why the MSM never
> reported that?
Because it's a lie?
Let's see your cite.
leona...@gmail.com
> > "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> >news:C662D2C5.17048A%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>
> >> Greenland is losing ice mass, for instance.
> >> (do a google on: greenland ice mass loss)
> >> but for particular glaciers might be speeding
> >> up
>
> >> "Fastest Glacier in Greenland Doubles Speed"
•• Evleth, as usual, can't catch a cold. He cites
an AGW alarmist site and ignores the real
scientists working in the field
All Greenland ice is growing not shrinking
no matter what the computer models say.
- -
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.
leona...@gmail.com
> zonbo wrote:
> > "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> >news:C6625C4B.1702D0%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> >> Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Furthermore a British study published two years ago by the American
> >>> Meteorological Society found that glaciers are only shrinking in the
> >>> eastern
> >>> Himalayas. Further west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram, glaciers
> >>> are
> >>> "thickening and expanding".
>
> >> Look worldwide.
>
> >> "World's glaciers melting at record rate UN"
>
> >>http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25995&Cr=climate&Cr1
>
> > So why are some "thickening and expanding" then?
>
> some? like 0.01%? growing 10 feet? lol
>
> > Come on let's see your answer.
>
> > Warmest Regards
>
> > Bonzo
>
> There's plenty of photo series showing glaciers vanishing over the last
> 100 years, but we're still waiting for just one photo series of a
> glacier growing.
•• Tom Tom the pipers son has never seen a photo
or a movie "showing glaciers vanishing".
•• Glaciers wax and wane annually according
to the seasons. Over the centuries some gain
more than they lose, others the reverse.
Currently more glaciers are growing than
shrinking.
•• Run, run Tom, a glacier might catch you
John M.
> zonbo wrote:
> > "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> >news:C6625C4B.1702D0%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> >> Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Furthermore a British study published two years ago by the American
> >>> Meteorological Society found that glaciers are only shrinking in the
> >>> eastern
> >>> Himalayas. Further west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram, glaciers
> >>> are
> >>> "thickening and expanding".
>
> >> Look worldwide.
>
> >> "World's glaciers melting at record rate UN"
>
> >>http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25995&Cr=climate&Cr1
>
> > So why are some "thickening and expanding" then?
>
> some? like 0.01%? growing 10 feet? lol
>
> > Come on let's see your answer.
>
> 100 years, but we're still waiting for just one photo series of a
> glacier growing.
Surely these are just photo-montage, put together by the same team
that faked the Apollo moon landings and passed off pictures of brown
styrofoam as the dissected lungs of a lifetime heavy smoker. Will they
stop at nothing? Next thing you know they'll be faking pictures of
babies coming out of women's vaginas instead of them being found under
gooseberry bushes.
BDR529
>>> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>>> news:C662D2C5.17048A%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>>>> Greenland is losing ice mass, for instance.
>>>> (do a google on: greenland ice mass loss)
>>>> but for particular glaciers might be speeding
>>>> up
>>>> "Fastest Glacier in Greenland Doubles Speed"
>
> an AGW alarmist site and ignores the real
> scientists working in the field
>
> All Greenland ice is growing not shrinking
> no matter what the computer models say.
You didn't understand or even look at the science papers listen on that
site, nothing is modeled, it is OBSERVED by the GRACE satellite system,
but you did not understand this.
>
> - -
> 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.
BDR529
> On Jun 20, 1:18 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>> zonbo wrote:
>>> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>>> news:C6625C4B.1702D0%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>>>> On 20/06/09 6:43, in article rNZ_l.10942$7C4.1...@newsfe04.iad, "Green
>>>> Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
>>>>> Furthermore a British study published two years ago by the American
>>>>> Meteorological Society found that glaciers are only shrinking in the
>>>>> eastern
>>>>> Himalayas. Further west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram, glaciers
>>>>> are
>>>>> "thickening and expanding".
>>>> Look worldwide.
>>>> http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25995&Cr=climate&Cr1
>>> So why are some "thickening and expanding" then?
>> some? like 0.01%? growing 10 feet? lol
>>
>>> Come on let's see your answer.
>>> Warmest Regards
>>> Bonzo
>> There's plenty of photo series showing glaciers vanishing over the last
>> 100 years, but we're still waiting for just one photo series of a
>> glacier growing.
>
> or a movie "showing glaciers vanishing".
>
> to the seasons. Over the centuries some gain
> more than they lose, others the reverse.
>
> Currently more glaciers are growing than
> shrinking.
Lie!
Greenland has an observed ablation of 190 Gton/year, Antarctica has 150
Gton/year. One Gton is a little more than 1 cubic km of ice.
This is OBSERVED by the GRACE satellite system.
AGW deniers are liars.
Q
>
> �� Run, run Tom, a glacier might catch you
>
> - -
> 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.
Earl Evleth
26930271-5e26-418c...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com,
"leona...@gmail.com" <leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All Greenland ice is growing not shrinking
> no matter what the computer models say.
Cite please. All the scientific sources I have
come up with says Greenland ice mass is decreasing.
For instance
"Assessment of the data and techniques suggests a mass balance for the
Greenland Ice Sheet ranging between growth of 25 Gt/yr and loss of 60 Gt/yr
for 1961 to 2003, loss of 50 to 100 Gt/yr for 1993 to 2003 and loss at even
higher rates between 2003 and 2005.[26]
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060920193210.htm
"Greenland Ice Sheet Still Losing Mass"
Recent Greenland Ice Mass Loss by Drainage System from Satellite
...
Mass changes of the Greenland Ice Sheet resolved by drainage system regions
... of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets. A. Shepherd and D. Wingham
(2007) ...
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1130776 - Similar
from http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035417.shtml
Mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet from 1958 to 2007
E. Rignot
Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine,
California, USA
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,
California, USA
J. E. Box
Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
E. Burgess
Department of Geography, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
E. Hanna
Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
We combine estimates of the surface mass balance, SMB, of the Greenland ice
sheet for years 1958 to 2007 with measurements of the temporal variability
in ice discharge, D, to deduce the total ice sheet mass balance. During that
time period, we find a robust correlation (R2 = 0.83) between anomalies in
SMB and in D, which we use to reconstruct a continuous series of total ice
sheet mass balance. We find that the ice sheet was losing 110 � 70 Gt/yr in
the 1960s, 30 � 50 Gt/yr or near balance in the 1970s�1980s, and 97 � 47
Gt/yr in 1996 increasing rapidly to 267 � 38 Gt/yr in 2007. Multi-year
variations in ice discharge, themselves related to variations in SMB, cause
60 � 20% more variation in total mass balance than SMB, and therefore
dominate the ice sheet mass budget.
***
The last reference is direct, from a journal and "increasing rapidly to 267
� 38 Gt/yr in 2007"
2008 data is probably not yet available.
What A. Fool
>Eric Gisin wrote:
>> Nope, Greenland gained ice mass in 2008. Wonder why the MSM never
>> reported that?
>
>Why do you lie? Or are you just badly informed? Or are you just stupid.
>
>Greenland happens to be the largest fresh water source in the world, and
>Greenland's mass loss is known to accelerate for a while.
>
>http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm
>
>AGW deniers, I don't know what to think of them.
>
>Q
You apparently don't know that your url does not show
"in 2008", it ends at January 2008, want to try again?
Mitchell Holman
news:49568d94-e546-4f3d...@r16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> Currently more glaciers are growing than
> shrinking.
Why do you keep post the above lie?
Melting glaciers start countdown to climate
The Observer
16 March 2008
Worldwide, the vast majority of the planet's 160,000
glaciers are receding, 'at least' as much as this, says
Haeberli, probably more - a claim supported by evidence
from around the world.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/16/glaciers.climatechange
What A. Fool
See the date there? Actually, it would be rather
astonishing if the vast majority were growing, if the growth
was very much, it might mean an approaching ice age,
meaning a lot of people would have to live in a lot less
space, with possibly less food.
I tried to find up to date glacier data, but the search
engines are flooded with hysterical articles about warming.
A more rational approach might include seeing what
the people that actually live and work in, and study the
changing ecosystems, have to say, for instance;
"Climate
change is affecting the amount of snow and ice and rainfall
patterns, but there is a severe lack of the data needed to
understand these processes."
[Unquote]
from;
http://books.icimod.org/uploads/tmp/icimod-biodiversity_and_climate_change_in_the_himalayas.pdf
where 1.3 Billion people have to cope with whatever
nature throws at them.
I don't see much anxiety in that wonderful document,
let alone hysteria.
Most of the whining and screaming seems to be from
gossip mongers repeating outhouse rumors and exaggerating
some of the important factors and omitting others, which is
common in gossip.
leona...@gmail.com
> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote innews:49568d94-e546-4f3d...@r16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > Currently more glaciers are growing than
> > shrinking.
>
> Why do you keep post the above lie?
•• ROTFLMAO
•• It is only a lie to anthropogenic global warming
alarmist jackasses like your self.
>
> Melting glaciers start countdown to climate
> The Observer
> 16 March 2008
>
> Worldwide, the vast majority of the planet's 160,000
> glaciers are receding, 'at least' as much as this, says
> Haeberli, probably more - a claim supported by evidence
> from around the world.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/16/glaciers.climatechange
•• the Guardian is an anthropogenic global warming
alarmist propaganda mouthpiece.
What A. Fool
More in depth information about the opportunities and
problems for these 1.3 Billion people can be found at;
http://books.icimod.org/index.php/search/publication/601
where I found;
http://books.icimod.org/uploads/tmp/icimod-climate_change_in_the_himalayas.pdf
that says;
"Glacial lake outburst floods
Glacial lakes have formed in many places in the area left at the foot of
retreating valley glaciers. An inventory compiled by ICIMOD identified
8790 glacial lakes within selected parts of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas.
Some 204 of the glacial lakes were considered to be potentially
dangerous, that is liable to burst out leading to a glacial lake
outburst flood (GLOF). There have been at least 35 GLOF events in
Bhutan, China and Nepal during the 20th century."
-[Unquote]-
NOW, this does not seem to be a recent development,
it seems to have been ongoing during the 1900s, and certainly
does seem to be a big problem for people down stream of the
glacial lakes.
I would think it took a long time, possibly hundreds of
years for this situation to develop, but regardless, I would
suggest moving to high ground out of the valley below the
lakes.
Claudius Denk
> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> >>>news:C662D2C5.17048A%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> >>>> Greenland is losing ice mass, for instance.
> >>>> (do a google on: greenland ice mass loss)
> >>>> but for particular glaciers might be speeding
> >>>> up
> >>>> "Fastest Glacier in Greenland Doubles Speed"
>
> > an AGW alarmist site and ignores the real
> > scientists working in the field
>
> > All Greenland ice is growing not shrinking
> > no matter what the computer models say.
>
> You didn't understand or even look at the science papers listen on that
> site, nothing is modeled, it is OBSERVED by the GRACE satellite system,
> but you did not understand this.
Observation is where science BEGINS.
DAVID GREENE
> "leona...@gmail.com" <leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Currently more glaciers are growing than
>> shrinking.
>
> Why do you keep post the above lie?
Well, Mitchell, he considers ice cubes in the freezer to be glaciers. And
now that the weather is getting hotter there are more ice cubes than ever
being grown in freezers around the world to cool our drinks. So, you'll
have to excuse Leonard on this, after all he did attend the Sarah Palin
Accademy of Science.
Dave "on the rocks" Greene
leona...@gmail.com
•• Well Denk you!
Those satellites still haven't got their act
together especially where it comes to ice.
BTW it is all computer operated
BSI = BSO.
•• A good example is NASA's "Antarctic Lake the
Size of California". I am sure you posted on it
from the "Nature", "National Geographic", et al
articles that were debunked before the articles
were printed. It seemed like every AGW alarmist
jackass was flouting the story. Two years later you
all have developed amnesia about Hansen's fuck up.
"California-sized melt in Antarctica discovered
www.earthsky.org/article/california-sized-melt-in-antarctica-discovered
"(May 25) Earlier this month, NASA scientists said they have found
clear evidence of a California–sized area of snow melting in west
Antarctica in January 2005, in response to warm summer temperatures.
"An area of more than 411,000 square kilometers in West Antarctica
melted and then re–froze in only seven days. Data from NASA’s QuikScat
satellite revealed melting in places that scientists thought such
melting would be unlikely; far inland, at high latitudes and at high
elevations.
"The scientists say that the melt happened in the southern summer of
2005 when temperatures were unusually high, peaking at more than five
degrees Celsius (41 degrees Fahrenheit.) But the melt was not
prolonged enough for the melt water to flow into the sea."
•• The melt was never fluid. Mid-day the surface
of the snow crust melted but froze before the
sun set. After 5 days there was a thin glaze (1
to 3 mm). A week later the satellite passed
through and read the black ice crust as ~ water.
leona...@gmail.com
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Currently more glaciers are growing than
> >> shrinking.
>
> > Why do you keep post the above lie?
>
an excellent pair, not a clue between them.
BDR529
Why don't you google for it, the melt continues to up to date.
Q
BDR529
> On Jun 20, 5:26 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 12:02 pm, BDR529 <jake> wrote:
>
>>> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:C662D2C5.17048A%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>>>>>>> Greenland is losing ice mass, for instance.
>>>>>>> (do a google on: greenland ice mass loss)
>>>>>>> but for particular glaciers might be speeding
>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>> "Fastest Glacier in Greenland Doubles Speed"
>>>> an AGW alarmist site and ignores the real
>>>> scientists working in the field
>>>> All Greenland ice is growing not shrinking
>>>> no matter what the computer models say.
>>> You didn't understand or even look at the science papers listen on that
>>> site, nothing is modeled, it is OBSERVED by the GRACE satellite system,
>>> but you did not understand this.
>> Observation is where science BEGINS.
>
>
> Those satellites still haven't got their act
> together especially where it comes to ice.
> BTW it is all computer operated
> BSI = BSO.
Man, you're so full of shit.
>
> �� A good example is NASA's "Antarctic Lake the
> Size of California". I am sure you posted on it
> from the "Nature", "National Geographic", et al
> articles that were debunked before the articles
> were printed. It seemed like every AGW alarmist
> jackass was flouting the story. Two years later you
> all have developed amnesia about Hansen's fuck up.
I was not talking about WA, I was talking about Greenland you nitwit.
>
> "California-sized melt in Antarctica discovered
>
> www.earthsky.org/article/california-sized-melt-in-antarctica-discovered
>
> "(May 25) Earlier this month, NASA scientists said they have found
> clear evidence of a California�sized area of snow melting in west
> Antarctica in January 2005, in response to warm summer temperatures.
>
> "An area of more than 411,000 square kilometers in West Antarctica
> melted and then re�froze in only seven days. Data from NASA�s QuikScat
> satellite revealed melting in places that scientists thought such
> melting would be unlikely; far inland, at high latitudes and at high
> elevations.
>
> "The scientists say that the melt happened in the southern summer of
> 2005 when temperatures were unusually high, peaking at more than five
> degrees Celsius (41 degrees Fahrenheit.) But the melt was not
> prolonged enough for the melt water to flow into the sea."
>
> �� The melt was never fluid. Mid-day the surface
> of the snow crust melted but froze before the
> sun set. After 5 days there was a thin glaze (1
> to 3 mm). A week later the satellite passed
> through and read the black ice crust as ~ water.
>
> - -
> 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.
Mitchell Holman
news:ad456365-e3f9-44fb...@l21g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 20, 4:00�pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:49568d94-e54
> 6-4f3d-8443-...@r16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > � � Currently more glaciers are growing than
>> > � � shrinking.
>>
>> � � Why do you keep post the above lie?
>
> �� ROTFLMAO
> �� It is only a lie to anthropogenic global warming
> alarmist jackasses like your self.
>>
>> Melting glaciers start countdown to climate
>> The Observer
>> 16 March 2008
>>
>> � Worldwide, the vast majority of the planet's 160,000
>> glaciers are receding, 'at least' as much as this, says
>> Haeberli, probably more - a claim supported by evidence
>> from around the
>> world.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/16/g
> laciers.climatechange
>
> �� the Guardian is an anthropogenic global warming
> alarmist propaganda mouthpiece.
Evasion noted.
"As many glaciers that are shrinking an equal number are growing"
"Leonard78sp", unproven claim, 1/6/09
"Currently more glaciers are growing than shrinking.
"Leonard78sp", unproven claim, 6/20/09
leona...@gmail.com
> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote innews:ad456365-e3f9-44fb...@l21g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 4:00 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:49568d94-e54
>
> >> > Currently more glaciers are growing than
> >> > shrinking.
>
> >> Why do you keep post the above lie?
>
> > •• ROTFLMAO
> > •• It is only a lie to anthropogenic global warming
> > alarmist jackasses like your self.
>
> >> Melting glaciers start countdown to climate
> >> The Observer
> >> 16 March 2008
>
> >> Worldwide, the vast majority of the planet's 160,000
> >> glaciers are receding, 'at least' as much as this, says
> >> Haeberli, probably more - a claim supported by evidence
> >> from around the
> >> world.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/16/g
> > laciers.climatechange
>
> > •• the Guardian is an anthropogenic global warming
> > alarmist propaganda mouthpiece.
>
> Evasion noted.
•• What evasion? That I posted a fact that the
Guardian is an anthropogenic global warming
alarmist propaganda mouthpiece.
You call it evasion because your hollow head
refuses to recognize facts that refute your
religious beliefs (Church of Algore)
> "As many glaciers that are shrinking an equal number are growing"
> "Leonard78sp", unproven claim, 1/6/09
>
> "Currently more glaciers are growing than shrinking.
> "Leonard78sp", unproven claim, 6/20/09
•• Yes indeed things have changed a bit in 6 months.
Mitchell Holman
news:13a56c2d-dcb7-4a40...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 21, 10:05�am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:ad456365-e3f
> 9-44fb-979d-...@l21g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
That goes for every source that proves you wrong, no doubt.
>>
>> "Currently more glaciers are growing than shrinking.
>> "Leonard78sp", unproven claim, 6/20/09
>
> �� Yes indeed things have changed a bit in 6 months.
Just post your proof of your claim.
BDR529
> "leona...@gmail.com" <leona...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:13a56c2d-dcb7-4a40...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Jun 21, 10:05 am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> innews:ad456365-e3f
>> 9-44fb-979d-...@l21g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 20, 4:00 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> innews:49568d94-e54
>>>> 6-4f3d-8443-40bafbb29...@r16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>> Currently more glaciers are growing than
>>>>>> shrinking.
>>>>> Why do you keep post the above lie?
>>>> �� It is only a lie to anthropogenic global warming
>>>> alarmist jackasses like your self.
>>>>> Melting glaciers start countdown to climate
>>>>> The Observer
>>>>> 16 March 2008
>>>>> Worldwide, the vast majority of the planet's 160,000
>>>>> glaciers are receding, 'at least' as much as this, says
>>>>> Haeberli, probably more - a claim supported by evidence
>>>>> from around the
>>>>> world.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/16/g
>>>> laciers.climatechange
>>>> alarmist propaganda mouthpiece.
>>> Evasion noted.
>> Guardian is an anthropogenic global warming
>> alarmist propaganda mouthpiece.
>
>
>
> That goes for every source that proves you wrong, no doubt.
>
>
>
>>> "Currently more glaciers are growing than shrinking.
>>> "Leonard78sp", unproven claim, 6/20/09
>
>
> Just post your proof of your claim.
This is yet another episode of
AGW DENIERS ARE LIARS!
Thanks for you contribution, soon, all contributions will be compiled
and aired on TV.
Q
Tom P
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:00:32 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "leona...@gmail.com" <leona...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:49568d94-e546-4f3d...@r16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>>> Currently more glaciers are growing than
>>> shrinking.
>> Why do you keep post the above lie?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Melting glaciers start countdown to climate
>> The Observer
>> 16 March 2008
>>
>> Worldwide, the vast majority of the planet's 160,000
>> glaciers are receding, 'at least' as much as this, says
>> Haeberli, probably more - a claim supported by evidence
>>from around the world.
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/16/glaciers.climatechange
>
>
> See the date there? Actually, it would be rather
> astonishing if the vast majority were growing, if the growth
> was very much, it might mean an approaching ice age,
> meaning a lot of people would have to live in a lot less
> space, with possibly less food.
>
> I tried to find up to date glacier data, but the search
> engines are flooded with hysterical articles about warming.
>
It's very easy, go the right places. Here are a few:
Swiss Glacier Monitoring Network:
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/
United Nations Environment Programme:
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
Global Lan Ice Measurements from Space:
http://www.glims.org/
National Snow and Ice Data Center:
http://glims.colorado.edu/glacierdata/
T.
Tom P
DAVID GREENE
>"DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Currently more glaciers are growing than
>> >> shrinking.
>>
>> > Why do you keep post the above lie?
>>
>>now that the weather is getting hotter there are more ice cubes than ever
>>being grown in freezers around the world to cool our drinks. So, you'll
>>have to excuse Leonard on this, after all he did attend the Sarah Palin
>>Accademy of Science.
>>
>>Dave "on the rocks" Greene
>
> an excellent pair, not a clue between them.
hmmm ... mebee this is the first ime you are right, leonard, 'cuz instead of
a clue we got facts, man.
- -
>In real science the burden of proof is always on
>the proposer, never on the sceptics.
Yes, you say there are more glaciers growing than shrinking, leonard, so the
onus of proof is on you for proposing that. But I am skeptical of your
claim because there are too many before and after pictures of glaciers that
have shrunk over the years. I know you will probably not provide any
evidence of your claim that more glaciers are growing than shrinking. In
fact I'll give 10 to 1 odds that you will not.
Dave "any takers" Greene
What A. Fool
You are not only a reciprocal respondent, you
are a slimeball for snipping the great reference I posted,
where a large part of the world's glaciers are, and the
reference was put together by some kind of UN organization,
and specifically named changes in snow and rainfall patterns
as the big problem, but said there is not enough data to
understand what is happening.
The Global Warming premise is badly damaged by
the likes of you parroting such a simplistic result as the
proportion of glaciers receding.
I suggest you respond properly to posted articles
and discuss what was posted, or don't respond at all
to my messages.
Or you could be like the AGW nutcases and just
insert a few lines saying, "liar", or post some math with
29 nines after the decimal point.
Tom P
you consider the proportion to be unreasonable? Then, let's look at the
data in the Swiss Alps, not for any reason as to favor an unbiased view
of the data, but simply because glaciers in the Swiss Alps have been
more precisely monitored over a longer period of time than anywhere else.
We do indeed find a few glaciers that have grown. For example, just take
the first one, the Allalin Gletscher grew in length by 14 metres between
2007 and 2008.
Wow- that's like - three cars parked behind each other.
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/swiss-glaciers/download/allalin.html
However, put this in comparison with the 400 metre loss since 1980. What
do you conclude?
Just pick any one of those glaciers at random, you get the same result.
Then we have the mass balance data for three intensively studied glaciers:
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/massbalance.html
Conclusion? Growth? You must be blind on both eyes.
> I suggest you respond properly to posted articles
> and discuss what was posted, or don't respond at all
> to my messages.
>
> Or you could be like the AGW nutcases and just
> insert a few lines saying, "liar", or post some math with
> 29 nines after the decimal point.
>
>
The URL you posted is broken. What are we supposed to discuss?
T.
Tom P
> <leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Currently more glaciers are growing than
>>>>> shrinking.
>>>> Why do you keep post the above lie?
>>> Well, Mitchell, he considers ice cubes in the freezer to be glaciers. And
>>> now that the weather is getting hotter there are more ice cubes than ever
>>> being grown in freezers around the world to cool our drinks. So, you'll
>>> have to excuse Leonard on this, after all he did attend the Sarah Palin
>>> Accademy of Science.
>>>
>>> Dave "on the rocks" Greene
>> an excellent pair, not a clue between them.
>
> hmmm ... mebee this is the first ime you are right, leonard, 'cuz instead of
> a clue we got facts, man.
> - -
>> In real science the burden of proof is always on
>> the proposer, never on the sceptics.
>
> Yes, you say there are more glaciers growing than shrinking, leonard, so the
> onus of proof is on you for proposing that. But I am skeptical of your
> claim because there are too many before and after pictures of glaciers that
> have shrunk over the years. I know you will probably not provide any
> evidence of your claim that more glaciers are growing than shrinking. In
> fact I'll give 10 to 1 odds that you will not.
>
> Dave "any takers" Greene
>
>
They have repeatedly failed to provide any evidence of significant
prolonged glacier growth. The only evidence is of extremely localized
snowfall in a few locations (Norway, NZ, central Greenland) and derisory
growth rates measured in single meters in various other locations for
single seasons.
If you push a denialist into a corner, at some point he simply turns
round and says that well, glaciers melt all the time anyway so what the
shit.
T.
leona...@gmail.com
> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 20, 5:26 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> On Jun 20, 12:02 pm, BDR529 <jake> wrote:
>
> >>> leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:C662D2C5.17048A%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> >>>>>>> Greenland is losing ice mass, for instance.
> >>>>>>> (do a google on: greenland ice mass loss)
> >>>>>>> but for particular glaciers might be speeding
> >>>>>>> up
> >>>>>>> "Fastest Glacier in Greenland Doubles Speed"
> >>>> an AGW alarmist site and ignores the real
> >>>> scientists working in the field
> >>>> All Greenland ice is growing not shrinking
> >>>> no matter what the computer models say.
> >>> You didn't understand or even look at the science papers listen on that
> >>> site, nothing is modeled, it is OBSERVED by the GRACE satellite system,
> >>> but you did not understand this.
> >> Observation is where science BEGINS.
>
>
> > together especially where it comes to ice.
> > BTW it is all computer operated
> > BSI = BSO.
>
> Man, you're so full of shit.
>
>
> > •• A good example is NASA's "Antarctic Lake the
> > Size of California". I am sure you posted on it
> > from the "Nature", "National Geographic", et al
> > articles that were debunked before the articles
> > were printed. It seemed like every AGW alarmist
> > jackass was flouting the story. Two years later you
> > all have developed amnesia about Hansen's fuck up.
>
> I was not talking about WA, I was talking about Greenland you nitwit.
•• Indeed you were not making any sense
about anything, as usual.
>
>"California-sized melt in Antarctica discovered
>
> >www.earthsky.org/article/california-sized-melt-in-antarctica-discovered
>
> > "(May 25) Earlier this month, NASA scientists said they have found
> > clear evidence of a California–sized area of snow melting in west
> > Antarctica in January 2005, in response to warm summer temperatures.
>
> > "An area of more than 411,000 square kilometers in West Antarctica
> > melted and then re–froze in only seven days. Data from NASA’s QuikScat
> > satellite revealed melting in places that scientists thought such
> > melting would be unlikely; far inland, at high latitudes and at high
> > elevations.
>
> > "The scientists say that the melt happened in the southern summer of
> > 2005 when temperatures were unusually high, peaking at more than five
> > degrees Celsius (41 degrees Fahrenheit.) But the melt was not
> > prolonged enough for the melt water to flow into the sea."
>
> > •• The melt was never fluid. Mid-day the surface
What A. Fool
Try a different number than 99.9 and you will get
a different response, your name isn't Roger.
All of the links in my response to you were from;
It is a UN associated group that deal with the reality
of changes in climate and weather, and I am actually
somewhat bewildered at the lack of whining and hysteria
by them that I see present in the most active AGW articles.
What A. Fool
>DAVID GREENE wrote:
>> <leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Currently more glaciers are growing than
>>>>>> shrinking.
>>>>> Why do you keep post the above lie?
>>>> Well, Mitchell, he considers ice cubes in the freezer to be glaciers. And
>>>> now that the weather is getting hotter there are more ice cubes than ever
>>>> being grown in freezers around the world to cool our drinks. So, you'll
>>>> have to excuse Leonard on this, after all he did attend the Sarah Palin
>>>> Accademy of Science.
>>>>
>>>> Dave "on the rocks" Greene
>>> •• Dave " rocks-in-head" Greene and the Hollowman
>>> an excellent pair, not a clue between them.
>>
>> hmmm ... mebee this is the first ime you are right, leonard, 'cuz instead of
>> a clue we got facts, man.
>> - -
>>> In real science the burden of proof is always on
>>> the proposer, never on the sceptics.
>>
>> Yes, you say there are more glaciers growing than shrinking, leonard, so the
>> onus of proof is on you for proposing that. But I am skeptical of your
>> claim because there are too many before and after pictures of glaciers that
>> have shrunk over the years. I know you will probably not provide any
>> evidence of your claim that more glaciers are growing than shrinking. In
>> fact I'll give 10 to 1 odds that you will not.
>>
>> Dave "any takers" Greene
>>
>>
>We have repeatedly challenged these denialists to justify their claims.
>They have repeatedly failed to provide any evidence of significant
>prolonged glacier growth. The only evidence is of extremely localized
>snowfall in a few locations (Norway, NZ, central Greenland) and derisory
>growth rates measured in single meters in various other locations for
>single seasons.
>
> If you push a denialist into a corner, at some point he simply turns
>round and says that well, glaciers melt all the time anyway so what the
>shit.
>
>T.
Depends on what you call "glacier".
I checked your link of glaciers and found;
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/glaciers/valtorta.html
I never expected to see a stretch of ice 0.55 km
long called a glacier, I don't understand how it gains mass,
surely not by snowfall on it's surface alone, and it did gain
substantial mass or length about 30 years ago.
Surely the earlier history would be required to make
any assessment of what is happening, and I hope you are
willing to discuss whether or not warmer air is what caused
the increase in mass or the decrease in mass or length, or
is it more related to precipitation.
Is 0.55 km really long enough to cause gravity flow
of the ice? Usually a glacier advances because snow
adds weight, and pressure causes the ice to melt temporally
at the pressure points, allowing it to deform and slide.
I just don't see how a glacier as small as 0.55 km
would have enough surface area for snow to cause any
advance at all.
Apparently there is some other mechanism at work
here, possibly mountain springs adding the mass as water
that freezes on the ice when it is cold enough, and that
might allow warmer weather to affect the size and mass,
and overall length as measured from end to end, but
would not necessarily mean that the glacier ever slides
at all.
I suppose almost every facet of the premise of
Global Warming is like this, with the possibility of any
data or remarks being misinterpreted often, and sold
as sensationalism.
For this glacier, 50 meters shorter since 1970
is hardly a headline, and the earlier history being
missing lessens any concern I might have.
zonbo
"BDR529" <jake> wrote in message
news:4a3cf82b$0$183$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> zonbo wrote:
>> "BDR529" <jake> wrote in message
>> news:4a3cdea8$0$191$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...>>>> news:C6625C4B.1702D0%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>>>>> On 20/06/09 6:43, in article rNZ_l.10942$7C4....@newsfe04.iad, "Green
>>>>> Turtle" <Super...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore a British study published two years ago by the American
>>>>>> Meteorological Society found that glaciers are only shrinking in the
>>>>>> eastern
>>>>>> Himalayas. Further west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram,
>>>>>> glaciers
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> "thickening and expanding".
>>>>> Look worldwide.
>>>>>
>>>>> "World's glaciers melting at record rate � UN"
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25995&Cr=climate&Cr1
>>>>
>>>> So why are some "thickening and expanding" then?
>>>>
>>>> Come on let's see your answer.
>>> Local weather conditions my son,
>>
>>
>> GOTCHA!
>>
>> When they contract it's global warming, but when they expand it's local
>> weather!
>>
>
> No my son, what we see in observations is usually a mishmash of
> different effects, if you are clever then you can exclude some obvious
> stuff.
>
> But what generally is done is to look for larger patterns, and then the
> conclusion is that there are hundreds of glaciers of which most of them
> are ablating.
>
> Since there are no little Martians causing the global glaciers ablation
> it is hypothesized that global warming is the cause.
>
Yep, the warming due to coming out of the Little Ice Age!
Nothing to do with CO2.
Glaciers Have Been Decreasing Linearly Since The Early 1800s
So much for CO2!
23 Mar 2009
Sea level rises in some locations and falls in others around the world
(mainly due to isostatic rebound from the last ice age).
Overall, the average sea level has been rising by about 1.5 mm / year since
measurements began.
This figure shows cumulative sea level change for 1900 to 2002 and shows a
linear trend that shows no increase in rate since measurements began
[http://www.wamis.org/agm/meetings/rsama08/S304-Shum_Global_Sea_Level_Rise.pdf].
Since according to the IPCC, CO2-based warming is only evident since the
1970s, all of this sea level rise since prior to 1970 cannot be caused by
anthropogenic CO2, and yet the trend has not increased.
See also: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_SeaLevel.htm
A similar trend exists for the decrease in glaciers around the world -
glaciers have been declining since the early 1800s.
See also: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_Glaciers.htm
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_SimplifiedNutshell.htm
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
zonbo
"Tom P" <wero...@freent.dd> wrote in message
news:7a4jtcF...@mid.individual.net...
> zonbo wrote:
>> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>> news:C6625C4B.1702D0%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>>> On 20/06/09 6:43, in article rNZ_l.10942$7C4....@newsfe04.iad, "Green
>>> Turtle" <Super...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Furthermore a British study published two years ago by the American
>>>> Meteorological Society found that glaciers are only shrinking in the
>>>> eastern
>>>> Himalayas. Further west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram, glaciers
>>>> are
>>>> "thickening and expanding".
>>>
>>> Look worldwide.
>>>
>>> "World's glaciers melting at record rate � UN"
>>>
>>> http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25995&Cr=climate&Cr1
>>
>>
>> So why are some "thickening and expanding" then?
>>
>
>> Come on let's see your answer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bonzo
>
> There's plenty of photo series showing glaciers vanishing over the last
> 100 years, but we're still waiting for just one photo series of a glacier
> growing.
>
> http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/
> http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
> http://glims.colorado.edu/glacierdata/
> http://www.glims.org/
>
> http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/massbalance.html
BDR529
You should better study the facts, Greenland mass loss is accelerating
in the last 6 years. What other explanation did you have in mind, is
Jenny Craig at work here.
>
> So much for CO2!
>
> 23 Mar 2009
>
>
>
> Sea level rises in some locations and falls in others around the world
> (mainly due to isostatic rebound from the last ice age).
Check the facts again, GIA is a small signal compared to the ongoing
melt rates.
>
>
>
> Overall, the average sea level has been rising by about 1.5 mm / year since
> measurements began.
>
>
>
> This figure shows cumulative sea level change for 1900 to 2002 and shows a
> linear trend that shows no increase in rate since measurements began
> [http://www.wamis.org/agm/meetings/rsama08/S304-Shum_Global_Sea_Level_Rise.pdf].
Why don't you extend the series till today?
>
>
>
> Since according to the IPCC, CO2-based warming is only evident since the
> 1970s, all of this sea level rise since prior to 1970 cannot be caused by
> anthropogenic CO2, and yet the trend has not increased.
>
>
>
> See also: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_SeaLevel.htm
>
>
>
> A similar trend exists for the decrease in glaciers around the world -
> glaciers have been declining since the early 1800s.
>
>
>
> See also: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_Glaciers.htm
>
>
>
> http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_SimplifiedNutshell.htm
>
>
Bonzo is not a scientist.
Earl Evleth
"BDR529" <jake> wrote:
> Bonzo is not a scientist.
I think that is spelled Bozo. He is always clowning around.
He knows nothing and he learns nothing.
Mitchell Holman
news:Xns9C31772B76A59...@216.196.97.130:
"leonard78" has left the notestream.
Tom P
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:34:16 +0200, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>
>> DAVID GREENE wrote:
>>> <leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Currently more glaciers are growing than
>>>>>>> shrinking.
>>>>>> Why do you keep post the above lie?
>>>>> Well, Mitchell, he considers ice cubes in the freezer to be glaciers. And
>>>>> now that the weather is getting hotter there are more ice cubes than ever
>>>>> being grown in freezers around the world to cool our drinks. So, you'll
>>>>> have to excuse Leonard on this, after all he did attend the Sarah Palin
>>>>> Accademy of Science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave "on the rocks" Greene
smallest glacier in the list?
I don't understand how it gains mass,
> surely not by snowfall on it's surface alone, and it did gain
> substantial mass or length about 30 years ago.
Yes. 20 metres.
>
> Surely the earlier history would be required to make
> any assessment of what is happening, and I hope you are
> willing to discuss whether or not warmer air is what caused
> the increase in mass or the decrease in mass or length, or
> is it more related to precipitation.
>
Changes in snowfall are incapable of explaining the mass loss of the
larger glaciers in the Alps.
> Is 0.55 km really long enough to cause gravity flow
> of the ice? Usually a glacier advances because snow
> adds weight, and pressure causes the ice to melt temporally
> at the pressure points, allowing it to deform and slide.
>
> I just don't see how a glacier as small as 0.55 km
> would have enough surface area for snow to cause any
> advance at all.
>
> Apparently there is some other mechanism at work
> here, possibly mountain springs adding the mass as water
> that freezes on the ice when it is cold enough, and that
> might allow warmer weather to affect the size and mass,
> and overall length as measured from end to end, but
> would not necessarily mean that the glacier ever slides
> at all.
>
> I suppose almost every facet of the premise of
> Global Warming is like this, with the possibility of any
> data or remarks being misinterpreted often, and sold
> as sensationalism.
>
> For this glacier, 50 meters shorter since 1970
> is hardly a headline, and the earlier history being
> missing lessens any concern I might have.
>
>
As the glacier was only 550 long in 1973, that's quite a difference.
Tom P
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:34:16 +0200, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>
>> DAVID GREENE wrote:
>>> <leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Currently more glaciers are growing than
>>>>>>> shrinking.
>>>>>> Why do you keep post the above lie?
>>>>> Well, Mitchell, he considers ice cubes in the freezer to be glaciers. And
>>>>> now that the weather is getting hotter there are more ice cubes than ever
>>>>> being grown in freezers around the world to cool our drinks. So, you'll
>>>>> have to excuse Leonard on this, after all he did attend the Sarah Palin
>>>>> Accademy of Science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave "on the rocks" Greene
Do you have any special reason for concentrating your myopic view on the
smallest glacier in the entire list? Not only is this the smallest, the
data record only starts in 1970.
> I don't understand how it gains mass,
> surely not by snowfall on it's surface alone, and it did gain
> substantial mass or length about 30 years ago.
Yes. 20 metres. Substantial, lol.
>
> Surely the earlier history would be required to make
> any assessment of what is happening, and I hope you are
> willing to discuss whether or not warmer air is what caused
> the increase in mass or the decrease in mass or length, or
> is it more related to precipitation.
>
Changes in snowfall are incapable of explaining the mass loss of the
larger glaciers in the Alps.
Look at the data for the three longest glaciers, the Aletsch, Gorner and
Fiescher. They show a continuous accelerating mass loss.
> Is 0.55 km really long enough to cause gravity flow
> of the ice? Usually a glacier advances because snow
> adds weight, and pressure causes the ice to melt temporally
> at the pressure points, allowing it to deform and slide.
>
> I just don't see how a glacier as small as 0.55 km
> would have enough surface area for snow to cause any
> advance at all.
>
> Apparently there is some other mechanism at work
> here, possibly mountain springs adding the mass as water
> that freezes on the ice when it is cold enough, and that
> might allow warmer weather to affect the size and mass,
> and overall length as measured from end to end, but
> would not necessarily mean that the glacier ever slides
> at all.
>
> I suppose almost every facet of the premise of
> Global Warming is like this, with the possibility of any
> data or remarks being misinterpreted often, and sold
> as sensationalism.
>
..compared with the fantastic ability of denialists to dream up
alternative explanations, lol...
> For this glacier, 50 meters shorter since 1970
> is hardly a headline, and the earlier history being
> missing lessens any concern I might have.
>
>
So how about looking at some different ones? The Gorner Glacier near
Zermatt for example has been documented since 1882 and lost 1500 metres
since 1950.
T.
What A. Fool
>What A. Fool wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:34:16 +0200, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>
>>> DAVID GREENE wrote:
>>>> <leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Currently more glaciers are growing than
>>>>>>>> shrinking.
>>>>>>> Why do you keep post the above lie?
>>>>>> Well, Mitchell, he considers ice cubes in the freezer to be glaciers. And
>>>>>> now that the weather is getting hotter there are more ice cubes than ever
>>>>>> being grown in freezers around the world to cool our drinks. So, you'll
>>>>>> have to excuse Leonard on this, after all he did attend the Sarah Palin
>>>>>> Accademy of Science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave "on the rocks" Greene
>>>>> •• Dave " rocks-in-head" Greene and the Hollowman
I wasn't aware I selected the smallest, a number are quite
small, but aren't you interested in the least how the small glaciers
were formed and how they are sustained to replace the melting
from the bottom?
Ouroboros Rex
>>
>>>> Greenland is losing ice mass, for instance.
>>>> (do a google on: greenland ice mass loss)
>>>> but for particular glaciers might be speeding
>>>> up
>>
>>>> "Fastest Glacier in Greenland Doubles Speed"
>
> �� Evleth, as usual, can't catch a cold. He cites
> an AGW alarmist site and ignores the real
> scientists working in the field
>
> All Greenland ice is growing not shrinking
> no matter what the computer models say.
Satellites say you are lying.
Ouroboros Rex
> On Jun 20, 5:26 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 12:02 pm, BDR529 <jake> wrote:
>
>>> that site, nothing is modeled, it is OBSERVED by the GRACE
>>> satellite system, but you did not understand this.
>>
>> Observation is where science BEGINS.
>
>
> Those satellites still haven't got their act
> together especially where it comes to ice.
> BTW it is all computer operated
> BSI = BSO.
>
> Size of California". I am sure you posted on it
> from the "Nature", "National Geographic", et al
> articles that were debunked before the articles
> were printed. It seemed like every AGW alarmist
> jackass was flouting the story. Two years later you
> all have developed amnesia about Hansen's fuck up.
>
>
> www.earthsky.org/article/california-sized-melt-in-antarctica-discovered
>
> "(May 25) Earlier this month, NASA scientists said they have found
> clear evidence of a California�sized area of snow melting in west
> Antarctica in January 2005, in response to warm summer temperatures.
>
> "An area of more than 411,000 square kilometers in West Antarctica
> melted and then re�froze in only seven days. Data from NASA�s QuikScat
> satellite revealed melting in places that scientists thought such
> melting would be unlikely; far inland, at high latitudes and at high
> elevations.
>
> "The scientists say that the melt happened in the southern summer of
> 2005 when temperatures were unusually high, peaking at more than five
> degrees Celsius (41 degrees Fahrenheit.) But the melt was not
> prolonged enough for the melt water to flow into the sea."
>
> �� The melt was never fluid. Mid-day the surface
> of the snow crust melted but froze before the
> sun set. After 5 days there was a thin glaze (1
> to 3 mm). A week later the satellite passed
> through and read the black ice crust as ~ water.
Your article says no such thing.
leona...@gmail.com
> What A. Fool wrote:
>
> >> DAVID GREENE wrote:
> >>> <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Currently more glaciers are growing than
> >>>>>>> shrinking.
> >>>>>> Why do you keep post the above lie?
> >>>>> Well, Mitchell, he considers ice cubes in the freezer to be glaciers. And
> >>>>> now that the weather is getting hotter there are more ice cubes than ever
> >>>>> being grown in freezers around the world to cool our drinks. So, you'll
> >>>>> have to excuse Leonard on this, after all he did attend the Sarah Palin
> >>>>> Accademy of Science.
>
> >>>>> Dave "on the rocks" Greene
•• BULLSHIT
- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
Ouroboros Rex
"We are convinced that climate
change and its influence on biodiversity will have a significant impact not
only on the lives of mountain people in
the Himalayas but also on the role and perception of the Himalayas in the
region and the world. Not only are the
Himalayas a source of freshwater and provider of ecosystem services for
close to one fifth of the world's population
living in the downstream river basins; this massive barrier also has a
direct influence on regional and global climate,
which will become ever more apparent with the increasing change."
"Says Dawa Steven Sherpa, "Everest is the highest place in the world and the
problems faced by this region are not only Nepal's but of the entire world".
Climate change is affecting people and the environment around the globe and
this is especially evident in the Himalayas. The greater Himalayan region
has the largest concentration of snow and ice outside the two poles. Warming
in the Himalayan region is greater than the global average. Although the
Himalayan people contribute little to global warming, they experience some
of the most severe impacts. "
Looks pretty straightforward to me. Is English your second language?
Ouroboros Rex
What you mean is, your single off-purpose cite which can prove nothing is
trumped by his four cites of concerned organizations with hard data. lol
leona...@gmail.com
> On 22/06/09 8:42, in article 4a3f27d9$0$201$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl,
>
> "BDR529" <jake> wrote:
> > Bonzo is not a scientist.
>
> I think that is spelled Bozo. He is always clowning around.
> He knows nothing and he learns nothing.
•• Why is it that Evleth is describing himself
instead of Bonzo??
Ouroboros Rex
> On Jun 20, 4:00 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>> Currently more glaciers are growing than
>>> shrinking.
>>
>> Why do you keep post the above lie?
>
> �� It is only a lie to anthropogenic global warming
> alarmist jackasses like your self.
>>
>> The Observer
>> 16 March 2008
>>
>> Worldwide, the vast majority of the planet's 160,000
>> glaciers are receding, 'at least' as much as this, says
>> Haeberli, probably more - a claim supported by evidence
>> from around the
>> world.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/16/glaciers.climatechange
>
> alarmist propaganda mouthpiece.
>
> 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.
As always, lenny post = lies.
Ouroboros Rex
>
> For scientific study about periodically change receding and growing
> glacier, that has nothing to do with AGW see here:
>
> http://pdf.umweltluege.de/nl2003_1.pdf (page 13 ff.)
Sorry, that does not rule out AGW in any way. In fact, it supports it.
Nice hockey stick on page 6, BTW. lol
Ouroboros Rex
> On Jun 21, 10:05 am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 20, 4:00 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> innews:49568d94-e54
>>
>>>>> Currently more glaciers are growing than
>>>>> shrinking.
>>
>>>> Why do you keep post the above lie?
>>
>>> �� It is only a lie to anthropogenic global warming
>>> alarmist jackasses like your self.
>>
>>>> The Observer
>>>> 16 March 2008
>>
>>>> Worldwide, the vast majority of the planet's 160,000
>>>> glaciers are receding, 'at least' as much as this, says
>>>> Haeberli, probably more - a claim supported by evidence
>>>> from around the
>>>> world.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/16/g
>>> laciers.climatechange
>>
>>> alarmist propaganda mouthpiece.
>>
>
> �� What evasion? That I posted a fact that the
> Guardian is an anthropogenic global warming
> alarmist propaganda mouthpiece.
> refuses to recognize facts that refute your
> religious beliefs (Church of Algore)
>
>
>> "As many glaciers that are shrinking an equal number are growing"
>> "Leonard78sp", unproven claim, 1/6/09
>>
>> "Currently more glaciers are growing than shrinking.
>
> �� Yes indeed things have changed a bit in 6 months.
Both claims are still ridiculous lies.
Ouroboros Rex
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:34:16 +0200, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>
>> DAVID GREENE wrote:
>>> <leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Currently more glaciers are growing than
>>>>>>> shrinking.
>>>>>> Why do you keep post the above lie?
>>>>> Well, Mitchell, he considers ice cubes in the freezer to be
>>>>> glaciers. And now that the weather is getting hotter there are
>>>>> more ice cubes than ever being grown in freezers around the world
>>>>> to cool our drinks. So, you'll have to excuse Leonard on this,
>>>>> after all he did attend the Sarah Palin Accademy of Science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave "on the rocks" Greene
No, it doesn't.
What A. Fool
wrote:
No, Our Burro, you ignored the part I quoted where they said
they don't have enough data, and the glacial lakes have been
known since at least 1880, and it must have taken a lot of
warming before that to create them.
My interest would be to try to get the UN and world
governments to stop spending money on the climate alarmist
salaries, and start building a series of dams downstream of
the glacial lakes so that the people in the region are protected
and will have water and flood management no matter what
happens.
I did not see any discussion by them about asking
energetic economies to roll over and play dead because
some nuts thing the CO2 god is causing the ice to melt
200 or more years ago, is that a "Back To The Past"
movie, did my carbon emissions cause those glaciers
to melt 300 years ago?
hanson
more and more like "Scott Nudds" aka "V-for-Vendicar"
sang his Green L'Internationale while he wrote... nothing of
value nor interest due to his own, all consuming proclivities:
http://tinyurl.com/l65gsu -- &-- http://tinyurl.com/lb8wjv
What A. Fool
Have you ever seen any other Nutts respond to
80 messages a day and write none original?
Tom P
> You just see what you want to see and blaze it as "truth".
>
> How much have glaciers gained and lost before?> This so far for Aletsch glacier.
>
> Your an idiot, a liar and a misleader of people.
>
Interesting quotes from that document:
" ... Rates of mass change and
associated energy fluxes, during the
20th century as a whole, lie between
the average and the extreme of histori-
cal values, but appear to have recently
increased beyond these limits."
"..Accelerated atmospheric warming
could soon lead to rates of mass
change beyond such historical ex-
tremes. In fact, directly measured
mass losses of Alpine glaciers since
1980 have been comparable with a
doubling of mean 20th century loss."
leona...@gmail.com
> Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
>
> >> What A. Fool wrote:
>
> >>>> DAVID GREENE wrote:
> >>>>>> "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Currently more glaciers are growing than
> >>>>>>>>> shrinking.
> >>>>>>>> Why do you keep post the above lie?
> >>>>>>> Well, Mitchell, he considers ice cubes in the freezer to be glaciers. And
> >>>>>>> now that the weather is getting hotter there are more ice cubes than ever
> >>>>>>> being grown in freezers around the world to cool our drinks. So, you'll
> >>>>>>> have to excuse Leonard on this, after all he did attend the Sarah Palin
> >>>>>>> Accademy of Science.
>
> >>>>>>> Dave "on the rocks" Greene
>
> > This so far for Aletsch glacier.
>
> > Your an idiot, a liar and a misleader of people.
>
> Interesting quotes from that document:
> " ... Rates of mass change and
> associated energy fluxes, during the
> 20th century as a whole, lie between
> the average and the extreme of histori-
> cal values, but appear to have recently
> increased beyond these limits."
> "..Accelerated atmospheric warming
> could soon lead to rates of mass
> change beyond such historical ex-
> tremes. In fact, directly measured
> mass losses of Alpine glaciers since
> 1980 have been comparable with a
> doubling of mean 20th century loss."
•• Nonsense
- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
BDR529
> On Jun 22, 8:30 am, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> On 22/06/09 8:42, in article 4a3f27d9$0$201$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl,
>>
>> "BDR529" <jake> wrote:
>>> Bonzo is not a scientist.
>> I think that is spelled Bozo. He is always clowning around.
>> He knows nothing and he learns nothing.
>
> instead of Bonzo??
Ploink
>
> - -
> 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.
Ploink.
Ouroboros Rex
Bullshit.
Ouroboros Rex
Got to love that denialist science! lol
Ouroboros Rex
As always, lenny post = lies.
Ouroboros Rex
> Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>
>> What A. Fool wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:34:16 +0200, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> DAVID GREENE wrote:
>>>>> <leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Currently more glaciers are growing than
>>>>>>>>> shrinking.
>>>>>>>> Why do you keep post the above lie?
>>>>>>> Well, Mitchell, he considers ice cubes in the freezer to be
>>>>>>> glaciers. And now that the weather is getting hotter there are
>>>>>>> more ice cubes than ever being grown in freezers around the
>>>>>>> world to cool our drinks. So, you'll have to excuse Leonard on
>>>>>>> this, after all he did attend the Sarah Palin Accademy of
>>>>>>> Science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave "on the rocks" Greene
> You just see what you want to see and blaze it as "truth".
>
> How much have glaciers gained and lost before?
>
>
> This so far for Aletsch glacier.
>
> Your an idiot, a liar and a misleader of people.
As always, petey post = lies.
Ouroboros Rex
As always, lenny post = lies.
Ouroboros Rex
As always, lenny post = lies.
Ouroboros Rex
> Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
>> Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>
>>> What A. Fool wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:34:16 +0200, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> DAVID GREENE wrote:
>>>>>> <leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Currently more glaciers are growing than
>>>>>>>>>> shrinking.
>>>>>>>>> Why do you keep post the above lie?
>>>>>>>> Well, Mitchell, he considers ice cubes in the freezer to be
>>>>>>>> glaciers. And now that the weather is getting hotter there
>>>>>>>> are more ice cubes than ever being grown in freezers around
>>>>>>>> the world to cool our drinks. So, you'll have to excuse
>>>>>>>> Leonard on this, after all he did attend the Sarah Palin
>>>>>>>> Accademy of Science. Dave "on the rocks" Greene
Yes, I also let him know he was quoting a source that verifies what he is
whining against, but he pretended I was lying. lol
Ouroboros Rex
> BDR529 <jake> wrote:
>
>> leona...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jun 22, 8:30 am, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>> On 22/06/09 8:42, in article
>>>> 4a3f27d9$0$201$e4fe5...@news.xs4all.nl,
>>>>
>>>> "BDR529" <jake> wrote:
>>>>> Bonzo is not a scientist.
>>>> I think that is spelled Bozo. He is always clowning around.
>>>> He knows nothing and he learns nothing.
>>>
>>> instead of Bonzo??
>>
>> Ploink
>
> Sounds like you have a screw loose somewhere.
>
>>> - -
>>> 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.
>>
>> Ploink.
>
>
> But it's ok, you're finally an AGW nutcase.
hanson
hanson
You
"Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
> leona...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> >>> news:C662D2C5.17048A%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> >>
> >>>> Greenland is losing ice mass, for instance.
> >>>> (do a google on: greenland ice mass loss)
> >>>> but for particular glaciers might be speeding
> >>>> up
> >>
> >>>> "Fastest Glacier in Greenland Doubles Speed"
> >
> > �� Evleth, as usual, can't catch a cold. He cites
> > an AGW alarmist site and ignores the real
> > scientists working in the field
> >
> > All Greenland ice is growing not shrinking
> > no matter what the computer models say.
>
> Satellites say you are lying.
Hey Dufus, the "Satellites" don't SAY anything.... they just download a
Dataset.....
DAVID GREENE
> <leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> > "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> Currently more glaciers are growing than
>>> >> shrinking.
>>>
>>> > Why do you keep post the above lie?
>>>
>>>Well, Mitchell, he considers ice cubes in the freezer to be glaciers.
>>>And
>>>now that the weather is getting hotter there are more ice cubes than ever
>>>being grown in freezers around the world to cool our drinks. So, you'll
>>>have to excuse Leonard on this, after all he did attend the Sarah Palin
>>>Accademy of Science.
>>>
>>>Dave "on the rocks" Greene
>>
>> an excellent pair, not a clue between them.
>
> hmmm ... mebee this is the first ime you are right, leonard, 'cuz instead
> of a clue we got facts, man.
>>In real science the burden of proof is always on
>>the proposer, never on the sceptics.
>
> the onus of proof is on you for proposing that. But I am skeptical of
> your claim because there are too many before and after pictures of
> glaciers that have shrunk over the years. I know you will probably not
> provide any evidence of your claim that more glaciers are growing than
> shrinking. In fact I'll give 10 to 1 odds that you will not.
>
> Dave "any takers" Greene
Been ten days now and haven't heard a peep form lenny. Guess he know he
cannot support his claims.
Dave "bye, bye, lenny" Greene
Mitchell Holman
news:h0g3m.2137$9l4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
Any google search of "glaciers shrinking worldwide" will
prove lenny wrong.
But then he knows that.
Running away from his claims is the only exercise he gets....
"Currently more glaciers are growing than shrinking.
leona...@gmail.com
"DAVID GREENE"
•• Two silly lamebrains with nothing better to do
than whine about others who know far better
than they.
You have company in your misery - Keating,
Cahill, Dekker, John Morgan, Richp, kT and fran.
- -
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.
2- the religious fanatic
If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."
3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years
There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,
serial_killers_paedophiles_and_predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.
leona...@gmail.com
DAVID GREENE
"It is precisely because it is fashionable for Americans to know no science,
even though they may be well educated otherwise, that they so easily fall
prey to nonsense. They thus become part of the armies of the night, the
purveyors of nitwittery, the retailers of intellectual junk food, the
feeders on mental cardboard, for their ignorance keeps them from
distinguishing nectar from sewage."
-- Isaac Asimov, "The Armies of the Night"
"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9C3D6F3B8C162...@216.196.97.130...
DAVID GREENE
> Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Any google search of "glaciers shrinking worldwide" will
>> prove lenny wrong.
>
> Counting Google hits instead of doing science is very scientific.
Well actually, Peter, one can follow up the Google hits and get to the
scientific evidence fairly easily.
Dave Greene
leona...@gmail.com
> > > Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Any google search of "glaciers shrinking worldwide" will
> > >> prove lenny wrong.
>
> > > Keep on believing that google hits are evidence.
> > > Counting Google hits instead of doing science is very scientific.
>
> > Well actually, Peter, one can follow up the Google hits and get to the
> > scientific evidence fairly easily.
>
> "... 526.000 for David Greene idiot"
>
> Fairly clear, you are the greater idiot of you both.
•• Hmmmm interesting concept particularly since
the Hollow man has a longer record of vacuity.
- -
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.
2- the religious fanatic
If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."
3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years
There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
John M.
wrote:
Posting twice doesn't mean anyone will take notice of what you say.
This despite the oft repeated claim that suggests the same lie over-
and-over again can become accepted as truth.
leona...@gmail.com
•• ROTFLMAO
YOU REALLY ARE STUPID
#1 above redoubled in spades.
- -
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.
2- the religious fanatic
If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."
3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years
There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
hal
>There are three types of people that you
>can_not_talk into behaving well. The
>stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
>
>1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
>follow the logic of what you say. You
>have to tell them what is right in very
>simple terms. If they don't agree, then
>you'll never be able to change their mind.
>
>2- the religious fanatic
>?If what you say goes against their
>religious belief, they will cling to that
>religious belief even if it means their
>death."
>
>3- There is no way to reform evil-
> Not in a million years
>?There is no way to convince the terrorists,
>anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
>serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
>to change their evil ways. They knew what
>they were doing was wrong, but that
>knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
>them more careful in how they went about
>performing their evil acts.
you've just identified three different types of conservatives. Well
done.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 23:27:38 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >There are three types of people that you
> >can_not_talk into behaving well. The
> >stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
>
> >1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
> >follow the logic of what you say. You
> >have to tell them what is right in very
> >simple terms. If they don't agree, then
> >you'll never be able to change their mind.
>
> >2- the religious fanatic
> >?If what you say goes against their
> >religious belief, they will cling to that
> >religious belief even if it means their
> >death."
>
> >3- There is no way to reform evil-
> > Not in a million years
> >?There is no way to convince the terrorists,
> >anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
> >serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
> >to change their evil ways. They knew what
> >they were doing was wrong, but that
> >knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
> >them more careful in how they went about
> >performing their evil acts.
>
Oh, just another oh so clever one, citing a bit
from a signature, divorced from context and
without any reference to the subject.
Yes indeed Hal has not a first clue. He knows
nothing of any subject to which he posts, just
plays the little fascist clown.
- -
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.
2- the religious fanatic
If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."
3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years
DAVID GREENE
> "... 526.000 for David Greene idiot"
Whoa Peter! That really answers th challenge, LOL.
Do they really grow them that dumb in Deutschland?
Dave Greene
leona...@gmail.com
> "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> > "DAVID GREENE" <david_b_gre...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> > Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Counting Google hits instead of doing science is very scientific.
>
> >> Well actually, Peter, one can follow up the Google hits and get to the
> >> scientific evidence fairly easily.
•• Perhaps! But you never do.
> > Google for "David Greene idiot":
> > "... 526.000 for David Greene idiot"
- -
DAVID GREENE
>> Currently more glaciers are growing than
>> shrinking.
>>
>>In real science the burden of proof is always on
>>the proposer, never on the sceptics.
>
> Yes, you say there are more glaciers growing than shrinking, leonard, so
> the onus of proof is on you for proposing that. But I am skeptical of
> your claim because there are too many before and after pictures of
> glaciers that have shrunk over the years. I know you will probably not
> provide any evidence of your claim that more glaciers are growing than
> shrinking. In fact I'll give 10 to 1 odds that you will not.
>
> Dave "any takers" Greene
Been ten days now and haven't heard a peep form lenny. Guess he know he
cannot support his claims.
Dave "bye, bye, lenny" Greene
z
> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20/06/09 6:43, in article rNZ_l.10942$7C4.1...@newsfe04.iad, "Green
> > Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
>
> >> Furthermore a British study published two years ago by the American
> >> Meteorological Society found that glaciers are only shrinking in the
> >> eastern
> >> Himalayas. Further west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram, glaciers
> >> are
> >> "thickening and expanding".
>
> > Look worldwide.
>
> > "World's glaciers melting at record rate UN"
>
> >http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25995&Cr=climate&Cr1
>
> So why are some "thickening and expanding" then?
>
> Come on let's see your answer.
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> Bonzo- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
here it is the middle of summer and liberals would have you believe
it's 80+ degrees ouutside, yet my fridge insists on frosting up around
the door opening which it never does in winter, proving they're lying.
z
> >>>>>> glaciers
> >>>>>> are
> >>>>>> "thickening and expanding".
> Glaciers Have Been Decreasing Linearly Since The Early 1800s
there's that skeptical ability to argue two completely opposed
positions simultaneously, assuming that since they both disagree with
your adversary's position, they must add up to a coherent argument.
z
wrote:
> In real science the burden of proof is always on
> the proposer, never on the sceptics.
"When testimony is dead against you, you can always refuse to believe
it." -William Mitchell Ramsay
z
wrote:
> It seemed like every AGW alarmist
> jackass was flouting the story.
your grasp of english is equal to your grasp of climatology.
leona...@gmail.com
•• ROTFLMAO
I see you are still working as a pretzel bender.
You have no grasp science or anything else of importance.
- -
[IPCC report] "But this report is not what it appears to be - it is
not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists
listed on the title page."
[Fredrik Seitz, former chairman of the American Science Academy]
DAVID GREENE
> I'm only demonstrating your methods by making you look like a fool.
Well, I did not bring up "counting Google hits" so it is not "my" method, in
fact it was only *you* who brought up counting Google hits. Nevertheless,
by using Google, you can follow up the Google hits to find actual actual
content - like science papers and stuff. What I fret about is why you
cannot tell the difference between "counting Google hits" and following
Google hits to the primary sources So you really have not answered the
challenge.
Dave Greene