pigseye

I'm not saying that there isn't a problem and that we shouldn't be doing everything we can to abate it but you are drawing a conclusion that science and the IPCC don't even support. Everyone knows we have been warming up since coming out of the little Ice Age and that's just the way it is. Have we been contributing to the warming in the past 60 years, absolutely, there is scientific evidence to back it up as I posted above, but that contribution isn't the cause of the glaciers melting in the first place, that started long before an AGW signal was detected. I just have a problem with alarmists drawing conclusions that the science doesn't support.

You know FA about the science of it, well here it is right from your own Bible, First NOAA showing when the AGW started, somewhere in the 1950's https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature Then the IPCC's conclusion on the AGW, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3 °C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C." "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." From the statement above, it is just as likely that just over half of the .5C warming since 1950 is AGW. You still want to argue that the glaciers melting 125 years ago is somehow a human induced condition? Not even the IPCC or the staunchest warming alarmists have suggested such nonsense. PS I'd rather be dense than just another sheep in the herd, bah.....

Still waiting for a reply...…..

So they've been melting for the past 125 years but you just discovered that now? Good for you.

More sarcasm I take it?

You guys thought it was the same picture, I just called you out on it, sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Are you suggesting it started melting because of CO2 levels 125 years ago?

It's been melting for over 125 years, what's you're point? https://www.sealevel.info/co2.html It started melting before CO2 levels started to become the scape goat.

Well even NASA isn't sure anymore https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/03/one-part-of-greenland-ice-growing/ NASA's Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project has revealed Greenland’s Jakobshavn Glacier, the island’s biggest, is actually growing, at least at its edge. In research published Monday in Nature Geoscience, researchers report that since 2016, Jakobshavn’s ice has thickened slightly, thanks to relatively cool ocean waters at its base—which have caused the glacier to slow down its melt. This reverses the glacier’s 20-year trend of thinning and retreating. “The thinking was once glaciers start retreating, nothing's stopping them,” explains Josh Willis, an oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and OMG’s lead scientist. “We've found that that's not true.” Other Arctic glaciers may be undergoing similar growth. That suggests the ebb and flow of glaciers in a warming world may be more complicated and harder to predict than previously thought, says Willis. but I'm sure you know more than NASA, or maybe Nat Geo is just a **** site or something?

At a cursory glance- the website is not credible and the graph... I don't even know what t hat graph is suppose to show. I did notice the "charity tip jar" link at the bottom of that chart. Also, what "wild claim" are you demanding data for? If you don't understand the graph why even comment? Like the article says, sea ice follows the AMO, the graph is the AMO cycle and how ice grows and shrinks with it, geez, at least try pretend you're even remotely interested if you're going to reply.

Which is were you can find the data on the glaciers. I know most you don't actually look at the data, you just swallow whatever CNN or CBC are telling you but why show a little initiative and actually look if the data even supports the claim being made.

lol, only someone completely dense would think it's the same picture used in both, it's obviously not, but the conditions were the same in 1984 for those of you who aren't smart enough to figure that out.

Meanwhile the glaciers in Austria have recovered quite nicely, how is that even possible? https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/26/austrian-weather-agency-glaciers-have-recovered-due-to-a-snowy-winter-record-june-snow-depth/ and the data to back it up. https://www.zamg.ac.at/cms/en/climate

https://i2choose.wordpress.com/2019/06/29/arctic-sea-ice-surprise-global-warming-experts-by-remaining-stable/ Follow the AMO if you want to know what the ice in the Arctic is doing http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/mean:120 At least try to find some data to back up your wild claims please.

The same photo was taken in June 1984, but whatever right? https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1143919025740746757/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1143919025740746757&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnotrickszone.com%2F

Just because these sites post the studies, doesn't mean the study is wrong, unless you can find fault in their research, the results of their studies need to be taken as seriously as all others.

Which is why I prefer to post from no tricks zone.

I like to post new studies on the subject not just insult people for having a differing opinion.

Facts, you don't need facts, just yell and scream the loudest, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/02/climate-advocate-outrage-over-global-cooling-congress-tweet/ https://realclimatescience.com/?s=Adjustments+

Here's another one then. https://www.thegwpf.com/whatever-happened-to-the-global-warming-hiatus/ https://realclimatescience.com/2019/06/nasa-data-tampering-not-just-for-temperatures/

Half the warming is made up and the other half is due to natural events such as ocean currents, according to the deniers anyways, just saying. https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/25/adjusted-unadjusted-data-nasa-uses-the-magic-wand-of-fudging-produces-warming-where-there-never-was/

That's misleading and inaccurate, Again misleading and inaccurate, He didn't agree, he posted false statements then linked to the right answers.

As an aside, it’s worth noting that even if the Holocene had been as warm as or warmer than today, it would do nothing to undermine the theories and data that indicate today’s warming is rapid and anthropogenic. Wrong, it was a global event even wiki has it right, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).[1] Northwestern Europe experienced warming, but there was cooling in Southern Europe.[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude and so essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and middle latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef about 5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in 18O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.[3] In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably warmer than now (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns).[citation needed] While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the Tropics and parts of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.[4] and orbital forcing doesn't explain it, However, orbital forcing would predict maximum climate response several thousand years earlier than those observed in the Northern Hemisphere. The delay may be a result of the continuing changes in climate as the Earth emerged from the last glacial period and related to ice-albedo feedback. It should also be noted that different sites often show climate changes at somewhat different times and lasting for different durations. At some locations, climate changes may have begun as early as 11,000 years ago or persisted until 4,000 years ago. As noted above, the warmest interval in the far south significantly preceded warming in the north. Science is constantly evolving, don't let anyone tell you they have all the answers. Another new study that looks like it will contradict the CO2 theory and long wave radiation https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL082220 Downward longwave radiation (DLR) is often assumed to be an independent forcing on the surface energy budget in analyses of Arctic warming and land‐atmosphere interaction. We use radiative kernels to show that the DLR response to forcing is largely determined by surface temperature perturbations. We develop a method by which vertically integrated versions of the radiative kernels are combined with surface temperature and specific humidity to estimate the surface DLR response to greenhouse forcing. Through a decomposition of the DLR response, we estimate that changes in surface temperature produce at least 63% of the clear‐sky DLR response in greenhouse forcing, while the changes associated with clouds account for only 11% of the full‐sky DLR response. Our results suggest that surface DLR is tightly coupled to surface temperature; therefore, it cannot be considered an independent component of the surface energy budget.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252572926_Ice_free_Arctic_Ocean_an_Early_Holocene_analogue https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162 Nothing new about the study I posted.

Another recent reconstruction for this region also indicated the Early Holocene was sea ice free and that modern sea ice conditions are among the most extensive of the last 9,500 years. https://climatechangedispatch.com/paper-less-arctic-sea-ice-early-holocene/