astrolab standing on a glacier that has retreated over a mile in the last 100 years is not scientific proof of Man Made Global Warming


It proves that ice melts

It doesn't prove that it is Mans fault

Glaciers have been retreating since the end of the last ice age

Now prove to me that your glacier melted as a direct consequence of Mans emissions of CO2

I will point you instead to the Sun. Which throughout the 20th Century became more active. The Globe really did warm throughout the 20th century but was that on account of our emissions of CO2 or the Sun?

Now how much of your melting is down to Mankind?

Can you quantify the component of the melting seen in your Glacier that is directly on account of Man

The answer is that you cannot. We don't have the data or the complete understanding of our Climate

By focusing all your belief on CO2 without questioning the influence of the many other variables over which we have no control in this equation is short sighted and unscientific

Climate has always changed. Let's not get fixated on CO2 as to it's cause

Dave

Did we miss any?

Ah, we've gone full circle again, the Ain't True side that is, so let's take it from the top (rather not, it's deeply deeply boring, which some will experience as quite trawlish)

In the real world, where the climate is not doing fine and is not following the Earth's orbital re-glaciation route it should have been doing since about the year 0 AD, instead the glaciers are melting rapidly on a global scale (exceptions there always are), and where snow, though falling in abundance in winter, just happens to be melting faster too with all the dire effects on crop growing and feeding the 6.8 billion.

So, the Ain't True siders are called to wait for September 13. By July 20, yesterday, the Arctic sea ice extent state for 2010 has already fallen below the full month means of 2008 and 2009 and all years before 2006. The actual per yesterday is already 600,000 km square below the 20 day mean, so it looks like 2010 will most probably end second lowest on record... some recovery in the making.

Chart:



and for those who like it in numbers and rankings, the JAXA period:



How curious, 61,000 km square daily average for past 93 days of melt period in 2010, where last year it was 47,000. Quite a recovery, or?

PS, marysduby, exhaling is a CO2 neutral effect. Use the gray cells, yawn maybe, as that reoxygenizes the brain. 1 gallon of gasoline produces 20 lbs of CO2 gas. How is that? Something about physics, we've started to understand somewhere in the middle of the 19th century AD.

PPS, DA, we know why the Antarctic on the glossy surface APPEARS to be growing, but is the VOLUME/Thickness holding? The answers are all in this and the disappeared thread... more vapor & man made ozone hole & narrowing of the Antarctic vortex are a few of the elements (no magical variables). It's so easy to ignore the inconvenient truths. Remember what the UK Judge ruled about the Kilimanjaro white stuff cover loss... man made!

PPPS, littlepeaks, the chart ** of esoteric17 will of course only detail the "significant" influencers, and not the "insignificant" or short lived. Alternate presentations you may find in the AGGI and OGDI indices, discussed before in this and the disappeared thread: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ Glad though you've discovered the formula for the atmospheric energy effect that SF6 has. Care to find the one for CO2 and CH4?

** The Solar factor is as per DA's favored Judith Lean the enormous 0.21 Watts per square meter (between maximum and minimum). CO2 alone has added a multiple of that. Without CO2 the planet would be global average, minus 17C... return to ice ball earth conditions that existed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

and we could go on and on and on... yawn.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html

Well why dont you tell us what is the solution?--go back living in caves??