E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA
This view of the Himalayas was taken from the International Space Station.
Are global warming skeptics being armed with a new weapon? Estimates from satellite monitoring suggest the melt rate from the Himalayas and other high-altitude Asian mountains in recent years was much less than what scientists on the ground had estimated, but those monitoring the satellite data warn not to jump to the skeptical conclusion.
The region's ice melt from 2003-2010 was estimated at 4 billion tons a year, far less than earlier estimates of around 50 billion tons, according to the study published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature.
But study co-author John Wahr, a physics professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, emphasized that it's important to note that the region is a small contributor to overall ice melt and that the satellite estimates for the largest contributors, Antarctica and Greenland, are in line with ground-based estimates: about 385 billion tons a year.
"It's Greenland and Antarctica that pose by far the greatest threat to rising sea levels in the future," he told msnbc.com. "That's, basically, where all the ice is."
In the study itself, the authors also noted that the Asian mountain region has seen a lot of variability in ice melt and that the time period might be too short to be of much use. "These results suggest that care should be taken in extending the 2003–2010 results presented in this paper to longer time periods," they wrote in the study published online.
One potential reason for the huge difference, Wahr noted, is that scientists on the ground are limited to where they can sample the ice.
The NASA satellite used for monitoring, on the other hand, can cover the entire globe and its 200,000 glaciers.
Dubbed GRACE, the satellite "does this by mapping out the Earth's gravity field, all over the globe, every month," Wahr said.
Satellite tracks where ice is melting
"One way to think of this is that as GRACE passes over Alaska, say, it feels the gravitational pull of all the Alaskan glaciers," he added. When it passes over Alaska later on, it also feels the pull of all those glaciers, but now that pull is smaller because there is less mass in those glaciers to do the pulling. So you end up learning about the change in the cumulative mass of all those glaciers. You don't miss any of the glaciers; you see the combined effects of all of them."
"The price you pay with GRACE," he said, "is that because you're 500 kilometers above the Earth, you can't distinguish the effects of an individual glacier from the effects of its neighbor. Individual glaciers are usually just too close to one another for you to separate them in the GRACE data. If you want to know what individual glaciers are doing, you need to rely heavily on those traditional, ground-based methods."
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
I don't give a rip what they say. GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL!!!!!. Just look people. All that government corruption in Chicago caused the Great Lakes to form. What more proof do you need?????
Don't forget our present meltdown going on in the white house right now ....
Yeah no kidding. Anyway I wish the liberal global walarmists and their media would actually phrase it correctly. We are NOT global warming skeptics. We ARE mankind- caused global warming skeptics.
And if they had the media technology back when the Ice Age hit, they would have screamed Global Cooling!! The Earth has to go thru changes! It's NATURAL! I do agree, humans have accelerated certain aspics of atmospheric/enviromental change, but not to the extent Libs and the Government wants you to believe so they can have more control over how we live.
This is expected when you have a conclusion that you must arive at in order to receive future grants. Unfortunately, too many scientists need to rely on grants.
Really, and does that mean they will take back Al's Nobel prize???
Next they should take back Obama's, or maybe not since they didn't say what he won it for, maybe it was for nothing so his having done nothing right is ok.
Well so much for global warming, I'm freezing my #$%^! off!
Global warming starts at 25 feet above sea level..Gore was in Florida then and said this..now at that height in mountains..be hundreds of years to melt.
It is "Global Climate Change!" This way whatever the temperature is, it fits!
And Co2 levels weren't this high any time in the past 60 million years!
Carrie, et al: The Earth's climate has been very stable for the past 35 million years, where the billions of years before this period, it was highly unstable and prone to great periods of extinction. The difference: 350 ppm CO2 level. Scientists determined through ice cores and rock analysis that the earth was prone to spikes in CO2 levels caused by volcanoes and other natural events and once the CO2 levels reached those levels, the resulting warmth triggered a melting of ice methane in the oceans, causing extinction events.
We are now at 390 ppm and climbing higher than anytime before man's existence. Mankind has never survived in a world with CO2 levels this high.
Rep/dem, conservative/liberal, whatever, this is a human issue. The science is pretty solid. Without significant change, humankind may survive but society won't.
What was the climate like 20,000 years ago Monkey? I must say you are talking out of the wrong hole.
Who'd a thunk?
Monkey - Is there any evidence that society will not survive higher levels of CO2?
Also, you mention that the climate has been very stable for the last 35 million years, what is your definition of stable? Myself, I would consider ice ages to be significant changes in climate, while I would not really consider a 1 degree increase in global temperature since the industrial revolution to be all that drastic.
You are concerned with temperature, where it's CO2 that's the critical key.
20k years ago, CO2 was at 190ppm while the warmer periods had levels in the 290ppm. (http://co2now.org/Know-the-Changing-Climate/Climate-Changes/ipcc-faq-natural-causes-of-ice-ages-and-climate-change.html)
I realize that scientific evidence doesn't impede your world view, but you really should read up on the science so you know what to criticize.
Try this article: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090618-co2-highest-carbon-dioxide.html
It's got pictures.
You can bet the statement would have been different if the statistics had.
And if you want evidence, try looking at this graph: http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson220210.htm
Note that the Permian extinction and the very sudden rise in CO2 levels. it wiped out 92 percent of all land life on earth.
Yes, and through the earth's history, every rise in CO2 was preceded by an increase in temperatures, not the other way around. Al Gore even published a book in which he mislabled the chart to show that the CO2 rose first!
Everyone please read Climate of Extremes by two climatologists who believe in man-made global warming, but give the facts about its effects.
You put the cart before the horse, CO2 levels rise 800 years AFTER the temperature rises. A can of coke goes flat becauase its warm, it doesn't go warm because its flat! CO2 is soluble in water at colder temps, in warmer temps its less soluble, this is a basic facts of physics. The truth is CO2 levels in our atmosphere are a result of a rise in ocean temps, simple REAL PHYSICS!
BTW- If you look at the so called ice cap satellite photos that show decline of ice over 30 years.. the group that posted it doesn't show actual total ice area, because there is no decrease to show, instead they use an "estimations of ice extension".. tghis with all the other derived estimations comes the Global Warming "proofs" Its just one estimation to prove another... its ALL CRAP!
Uh, yes, that's the point, duh?
C02 goes up, heat follows.
What's the problem?
Greenland's melt is "performance enhanced" by a nearby volcano, but that's an "inconvenient truth" to those with the whole AGW agenda. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep working on developing sustainable solutions for power and transportation, but it does mean we can lay off the thought of ending modern civilization for the sake of the enviro-nuts (I am a proud former environmentalist who still supports conservation of resources and limits on toxic emissions, but not the anti-capitalist/anti-democracy stance of the folks who took over the environmental movement in the '90's) !!
I concede that CO2 levels are high and rising but where's the proof that this is catastrophic for mankind? We are not even close to to levels were it is directly harmful to humans.
But hey, let's face it the climate is going to change anyway most likely due to a combination of natural and man-made causes. We're also pretty adaptable and I am confident that we will learn to live with whatever happens. I also believe resources should be directed towards that end rather than a desperate attempt to change something that may not even be an important piece of the climate puzzle.
I don't think we are at the point where we understand how it all ties together otherwise we would be able to properly and accurately predict how it will behave. We should also be able to influence it in testable and verifiable ways.
Slight correction, we are now at 391.57 ppm of atmospheric CO2.
Right, and dumping 26.7 BILLION TONS of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels every year couldn't POSSIBLY cause atmospheric CO2 levels to rise at all, right? *rolleyes*
What a load of crap....
Greenland and Iceland still lost 385 billion tons, in line with ground estimates. But I'm sure this will be enough to arm you with another decades worth of denial. After all, it takes very little for people like you.
...and what makes this statement right? Did you get this from rock solid scientific conjecture? haha
I think it has something to do with the positioning of highly accurate satellites over Chinese space. They tend to deny those scientific requests.
I am sure he was there himself to measure every ounce. Yeh and pigs fly too.
Ray: Statistics has been around for quite sometime.
And yes, pigs do fly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_WWbWBRV-c
It was in the article... toward the end... duh.
They just told you in the article how they take measurements! Let me say that again just to help you out here. They... Just... Told... YOU... In... The... Article... How... They... Take... Measurements! Hang on let me pull out Slowslow the sock puppet for you. Trust me he has a bunch of neat streamers and boogly eyes to try and hold your attention better. Slowslow says "They just told you in the article how they take measurements!" And it's has nothing to do with some poor body standing out there with a measuring cup. Just like me sending this post has nothing to do with an envelope and a mailman... Same results YES, but you know how technology is always making things a lot easier on people. Or maybe not?
Monkey, have you ever taken statistics? If you did, you would know you can make them say WHATEVER you want.
I don't know about Monkey, but I've taken statistics, and aced it... and the thing I noticed is that it was the people in the class that didn't understand statistics that thought the way you do.
Global ice cover has been decreasing for the last 10,000 years. Sometimes slower, sometimes faster. It has been good for people in most parts of the world. You can't stop it. Adapt or die. Earth is forever in motion.
Messenger, yes the sun drives climate but there are other factors at play other than just the sun. Here, check this article out. http://sciencedude.ocregister.com/2012/01/31/nasa-warming-driven-by-humans-not-sun/167369/
Max, how has glacier loss been "good for people in most parts of the world"? Are you suggesting it has freed up more land for people to live or cultivate? There's a bad side to that that outweighs some extra land area. There are many, MANY tens of millions of people (maybe more) that depend strictly on glacial melt for their drinking water. When those glaciers dissapear so does their drinking water and so do they. Would you like to be in their situation because others in different parts of the world won't curtail their lifestyle?
We may not be able to stop it, but we can lower our emissions to maintain things for as long as possible. This is not just an American problem but a world problem.
I agree with Max. Theres nothing you people can do about this. Just accept it and enjoy the warm weather ;)
I read an article in National Geographic several months ago about the ice melt in Greenland. Seems that they are now finding old sites where the Vikings settled that has been under ice for hundreds of years. The viking settlements failed due to the weather getting so cold there. Looks like Greenland is getting back to where it was in the early 1400's. Is the earth warming or just getting back to where it was before it froze?
Global warming is always good for the planet as it invariably leads to more biological growth. All coal deposits were formed during periods when Earth was warmer than it is today. That was a tremendous explosion of plant life. Yes, there will be winners and losers in that change but there is nothing we can do about it. I do not believe for one moment that the human factor in GW is even remotely significant. In the past climate change events humans were not a factor either.
So in the face of sketchy, inconsistent data, its ok if THEY jump to the doomsday conclusion but everybody else shouldnt jump to the skeptical conclusion. That's rich. And they wonder why people are still skeptical.
Is that a pig bear man??
Nooo stupid, its a man bear pig!!! EXCELSIOR !!!!
Do people have some kind of impact on the earth? Sure, but to think we have any say in when our current ice age ends is counter to what i learned in 4th grade science. Mr Gores speech in nyc on one of the coldest days EVER RECORDED pretty much summed it up for me. People the poles melt and freeze and melt and freeze over and over so saying its proof of global warming is hilarious.
Greg-835986,
Here are several multi-year studies concerning the ice volume of Greenland...
Here is the direct quote from the 13Nov2009 Science Daily article on Greenland ice loss.
"Since 2000, the ice sheet has lost about 1500 Gt in total, representing on average a global sea level rise of about half a millimetre per year, or 5 mm since 2000."
This amounts to 0.05% change in the TOTAL ice mass over a 9+year period. Gt equals a cubic kilometer of water/ice...
Unfortunately the Greenland ice volume has INCREASED 10% during the last 60+years... see http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0092_greenland_ice_thickness/parca_paper1.pdf
I'll throw out the 10% INCREASE over a 50+year period to worry about a 0.05% LOSS over a 9+year period... Ha! Ha!
Someone quick....send this article to Mr. Gore's 20,000 + SQFT residence in Nashville.
Send it BEFORE he takes off in his corporate jet to Copenhagen for that next Global Warming "go get'um" World seminar with the main topic: "How to make a fortune in selling Global Warming Exchange Vouchers".
What does Al Gore have to do with the science of global warming?
Still spewing your right wing bs aren't you Ido. Been watching Fox lately?
verno
And he is still pulling his facts out of his a@s.
Reverend Al is the high priest of man-made global warming. He hands out pieces of solar panel at the Church of CO2 every Sunday and baptises his followers with acid rain water.
The sun is getting warmer. Mars has had temp increases similar to those cited for the same periods here on Earth. Did man cause this too?
jock59801, where have you been hiding for the past few decades?
When will we wake up to the threat of the ManBearPig?
The Mars claim is very likely not correct ... see the article on skepticalscience.com. Measurements of Mars are very sparse, and dust storms have a large effect on surface temperatures. And measurements from space very clearly show that the Sun is not getting warmer ... see the latest detailed NASA report.
citation needed.
Global warming is real. That is why we have had 5 major ice ages that can be dated. The earth goes through warming than cooling cycles.
I prefer to call it the natural cycle of the earth instead of so called global warming. It's like a doomsday prediction for some. You know our population has grown, so we'll have to adapt. It's sad to think that many will die along the course of time as the world goes through it's natural cycle. But that's the way it's been...and going to be. If I die due to it, then so be it.
Exactly, UPS1, we petty little humans might change things a bit, but the reality is... climate changes, just like the one we're going through now, have been happening since the dawn of time here on earth.
As I've said before, we'll run out of fossil fuels long before we change things anywhere near as much as mother nature can.
Ice ages are caused by something very different (the Earth's long-term orbital and rotational axis cycles) than what's happening now, and the rate of warming when ice ages end is typically much slower than the rate of warming during the past 35 years.
NyNY,
Great post. We all will meet our fate, guaranteed. It's just that some inhabitants of our planet feel a need to habitat longer than needed.
The sky is falling, they sky is falling AAAAAAHHHHHHHH !!!!
Oh, btw, can we get another multimillion dollar taxpayer paid grant to determine if the sky falling has any effect on the use of the letters A and H on computer keyboards ?
:D
Of course its a natural cycle but how does that help create a phoney crisis to justify the socialists scaring everybody into letting them grab more power and tell us how to live? And dont forget about the massive wealth transfers from productive people to the long-term failures.
The latest ice core studies cover almost 800,000+years...
These studies indicate 11+ temperature cycles...
The most current data for the last 12,000+years has indicated DECREASING temperature trends...
"Meanwhile, the warmest period was during the last interglacial period, which is an interval of warmer global average temperature that separates ice ages. At that time, around 130,000 years ago, it was a balmy 4.5 degrees Celsius (8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today." reference http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html
But I guess it is more fun to pull BS from dark areas...
As is so tiresomely customary, the usual herd of climate change denier fools will soon strut and puff and pound their chests all over these pages, entirely missing the point.
What we see here is the usual self correcting mechanism of true scientific inquiry, a strength rather than a weakness, and part of why the rabid bumper sticker thinkers have such a hard time refuting the science of climate change.
Awe, we have an Algorebot to the rescue! Turn off your PC. You are part of the reason for global warming, hypocrite.
Give it up, reterry. People believe what they want to believe. Facts have very little to do with it.
AG99: You don't have to live like a refugee.
You mean that scientific inquiry where gorebot waves his hands and says the debate is over-- before it even started?
The earth does go through warming and cooling stages. I am a chemist. I am not on Mr. Green's payroll. But, because my name is not Mr. Gore. I am not as smart as he is. But, I make more than he does. And history will bring out the real truth. You can believe the hype if you want, or just read a book. Take your pick.
I just read the scientific literature, which makes it quite clear that anthropogenic global warming is happening. All that is still being debated is the severity.
And Al Gore has nothing to do with the science. You need to get over your obsession with him.
It's because we're still in the warming phase coming off the last Ice Age. 2012 may turn things around.
I think the earth is warming but there are factors that are beyond human contribution.
Well, let's see. The average rate of warming during the past 35 years is about 0.16 deg C (0.29 deg F) per decade. In the 10,000 or so years (1,000 decades) since the last ice age ended, that would give us a temperature increase of 290 F if we were just coming out of the ice age at that rate. The oceans would be boiling! Clearly something else has been going on recently.
If you are indeed a chemist as you stated, CSA, then you better than most would know what and how CO2 effects the chemical balance of the Earths system. What does making more money than someone else have to do with climate change again??
IF the climate changes so much that our lifestyles must change THEN our lifestyles will change-- and not before. I have total confidence that the human race can adapt to any change just like we have over the last few millions years-- which included REAL climate changes and using much less technology.
Please please giant asteroid hurry up....
You might want to be careful with what you wish for... It might come to pass... A Giant Asteroid will kill you as well as kill the rest of us.
Maybe we should just call it "Polar Warming".
Well it's not just the poles that are warming, it's also the tropics... meanwhile in the so called temperate zones the tropical easterlies and prevailing westerlies increase in strength which tends to bring down more cold arctic air which keeps the temperate zones from experiencing the same degree of warming as the tropics and the poles but results in more extreme weather events.
And oh yeah to all of the global warming freaks out there:
nana nana boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.
Thanks for summing up the intelligence level (or more accurately the lack thereof) of denialists.
no, thank you for showing how butthurt you know it all type can get.
its all in good fun ya stick in the mud.
should read "types"
I'm not to concerned about the validity of the science of global warming in light of the new suggestive evidence in that most of what I've read hasn't really focused on high-altitude warming at all. I wouldn't even suspect that such warming described here would be the first place anyway to look. I'm more concerned with the low-lying ice sheets and their impact on ocean temperatures and sea levels. These new claims are a pretty far reach for me to try to begin unraveling global climate change. So, the critics will need to look elsewhere or else they will be looking pretty desparate.
When do they not?
If you want to understand the real agenda, just look at the only issue that made progress at the last chicken little conference. "Adaptation fund" for the 3rd world. Massive wealth transfers from productive societies to the same 'ol failed ones.
The God of Global Warming will annihilate all deniers, and they will die a horrible death in searing pain, with none to save them.. so it is written, so shall it be done
LOL...now I'm going to have Yul Brenner (as Ramses II) in my head.
Compared to socialists, I'll take my chance with your sky spirit.
Now that's an inconvenient truth .....
This "revelation" isn't a surprise to the skeptics. Whats surprising is that MSNBC posted the story.
Is the climate changing? Well Duh. It has been for the last 4.5 billion years and its going to continue to change for the next 4.5 billion years whether Human beings are on the Earth or not.
20 years ago it was "Man Made Global Warming". Ten years ago the fear was that man made "Global warming" would cause the Earth to go into another Ice age. They really don't know what the hell is going on so now its called "Climate Change" so that no matter what happens they can say the climates changing and we caused it.
The Left has been trying for years to push an agenda of a "green economy", "Redistribution of Wealth" and a One World Government. For years they have been using propaganda and mass media to try and convince people that that the World is going to suffer catastrophe if we don't change the world now.
I'm sure that there will be Plenty of "Fox Lies" comments. Before you do that how about disputing it and proving its as lie?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/09/un-chief-aides-plot-green-economy-agenda-upcoming-summit/?test=latestnews
http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/mind-control-theories-and-techniques-used-by-mass-media/
I'm sure the Earth Is warming up at the moment. How can you claim the current trend is unnatural when the earths climate cycles are hundreds or thousands of years long? The earth is 4.5 billion years old and were supposed to be able to predict the climate with what a hundred years of data or flawed computer models where the data has been "adjusted"?
Anyone who doesn't question everything they read, watch, or hear with some skepticism is the ones that should be questioning if they are the fools.
I'm tellin ya, horrible searing pain. But hey, whatever...
You can tell it's very likely not natural because there is no other credible explanation (besides greenhouse gases) for the increase in global air and ocean temperatures since the 1970s. The cycles that take thousands of years are too slow; the Sun isn't getting brighter (measured accurately from space); the Earth isn't getting darker (aside from the small feedback effect due to ice melt and the small effect of soot); so what else is it?
It isn't a surprise to the non-skeptics either... the difference is that we have a better understanding of why a satellite that only measures changes in gravitational pull would register less loss of mass in the Himalayan mountains than what would be expected if it were only measuring loss of ice. Let's see if you can figure it out with the clues I just gave you.
Yes, David, I'm sure the U.N. and many of the nations within it are planning a 'adjustment' program for everyone around the globe. Why? Because the effort it's going to take to change things and peoples attitudes is going to have to be a global effort not an individual nation effort.
I don't blame you, or anyone else, for questioning what's going on and the reason(s) behind it. That's how good science works rather than taking a few persons word for it. But, when you take something (fossil fuels) that have taken 200+ million years to create then release it in 200 you can't seriously think that would NOT have an effect on the global chemical makeup. When you change the chemical makeup of anything it also effects the final product. In this case our climate and the weather associated with it.
The only manmade factor causing general warming is the removal of all those particulates as a result of the clean air act.
EricH-3359508,
Google - 'SST anomalies' and then research how these numbers are generated...
OI.v2 SST anomaly data is available through the NOAA NOMADS website:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite
Since this article covers only 10+years of data, the same as the ARGOS data. Which the AGW supporters report, as too short of a period or BOGUS...
Which is correct???
1. Thousands of direct readings recorded around the world...
2. A Satellite system that cannot be accurately verified??? Similar to the satellite SST readings that are in ERROR: when the wind is blowing, waves are present, there is cloud cover, or the sensors are out of calibration. IE - NOAA-16...
3. Or SST recorded by ships and their engine intake water temperatures, from VERY limited areas, around the Globe...
BTY - The ARGOS buoys are indicating a DECLINING temperature trend...
Much ado about nothing. The bull@!$%# brigade continues ...
This has always been a hot topic ....
Well I guess since the ice has not melted as much as prior predictions , we can say that's cool ....
Big Ben what can I say, they get excited about a .0016 degree warming over the previous year (nomal annual averages .01 Degrees), and term a .5 Degree decline in the mid-ocean level over 5 years as not "appreciable".
Actually, it's 0.016 deg C per year (10 times what you said), and ocean heat content increased in 2011. The latest NASA analysis (the most detailed analysis ever of the Earth's heat balance) shows that the oceans are still being heated by an energy imbalance in excess of 0.5 watts per square meter.
It is the farting of the 7 billion people now on earth that is the main cause. Pass the X-Gas please.
I've heard of Gas-X, but what is X-Gas?
OMG...Sad day for libs and poor Al. He'll have to go out and reinvent another internet now that the global warming scam is falling apart...damn science. LMAO.
He needs to capture Manbearpig!
Estimating melting rates is a ridiculous idea. The climate will not produce any steady weather effects, its going to bounce around all over the place. You have to look at long term trends. Loooong term trends. It would be more accurate to estimate melting, on a year to year basis. Understanding that this year has nothing to do with whats coming next year.
The NASA satellite does make estimates on a year-to-year basis, for about 10 years now. You can see some of the long-term data for the Greenland ice sheet on the NOAA and NASA websites.
The looonger we look at it, Freedom, the more we see that there's an upward trend in the global temps. Why is estimating melting rates ridiculous? That shows increases in temperature thus pointing to a cause for the increase. What would you suggest? Also, looking at the past indeed gives you a look at what's to come in the future. Why else would you suggest we look at looooong term trends of the past??
A low temperature of minus two tomorrow night here in Wisconsin. I say let's get that warming in here.
Highest January temperatures on record in 2012 in North America. Quit being a pussy.
Lowest temps in Europe and Asia... Quit being a pussy Greg!
Greg-what you got against puzzy? Oh, you ain't got nothin' against it, that's your problem..LOL!
Think of all the cocktails that will go un-iced now.
we have the technology, etc ..... :)
A convenient truth is that just as half the stimulus money has gone down the tubes at the hand of the likes of Solyendra and Pelosi's kinfolks we find out there is nothing to worry about...Asia is not melting.
A phoney crisis is a terrible thing to waste. ;)
"...those monitoring the satellite data warn not to jump to the skeptical conclusion."
Well, of course they don't want the global warming skeptics to jump to any conclusions ..... it's the global warming PROPONENTS' job to jump to conclusions!!!
Global warming is getting the big chill. Sorry, Al, you will have to get rich on something else. Ice age can be it.
I don't think so ... the 385 billion ton per year ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica isn't what I would call an ice age. An "ice melt age," maybe. And even the high-altitude glaciers that are the subject of this article are still melting, just at a lower rate than some ground-based measurements had suggested.
What EVERY comment against manmade global warming on this forum shows is two things. One, the enormous power and influence of the right wing propaganda machine. And two, the ignorance of Americans who do not want to dig below the surface of the propaganda and actually look at the reality. And that reality is global warming is happening, it is man made an unless we do something about it, this planet is in deep you know what. In fact, it already is.
Google the following: "Global Warming & Climate Change Myths" Read the step by step analysis. Then follow that analysis to the science behind it. Hate to rain on your man made global warming denialist parade, but the SCIENCE behind the reality of man made global warming is MUCH stronger than the science that denies it. In fact, it is not even close.
But of course what's the use. Conservatives hate science because it continuously proves them wrong.
Excellent answer....
And the religious zealots strike again. With nothing coherent of course, but no surprise there. And for the record. I clearly stated "Read the step by step analysis. Then follow that analysis to the science behind it." THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT. Not as you put it, the "propaganda". And also for the record, NOBODY "replaced" God with science. I am not sure what is more laughable, your ignorance, or the fact you actually wallow in it.
And "brokeincolorado" I am not sure if you are referring to my reply, or his answer. if you believe he gave a "excellent answer" then much like him, you must both be very happy people since obviously for yourself and "Really" ignorance is indeed bliss.
There has been one bad news after another for the global warming nuts of late. Has Fox bought out MSNBC?
http://www.impactlab.net/2010/06/21/antarctic-glacier-melting-due-to-undersea-ice-ridge-rather-than-climate-change/
Road Warrior: You are quoting an irrelevent blog entry that actually took a UK newspaper story on valid reporting of climate science and changed the headline to make it seem like it was proving the opposite.
Just another example of the idiot machine.
Progressive, you realize Science isn't always right, right?
Of course I do. But on this subject, it is.
ckbry: Science isn't right as opposed to what, Creationism, the tooth fairy, you?
I know that I'm not always right I'm human. Science ALWAYS changes what is truth! When "facts" don't change maybe I'll put more faith in science.
Blah blah blah puke
We are incapable of understanding...at present time. The more we look, the more we find, thusly the more we understand. THAT is how science works. And, Really, it seems obvious you haven't discerned weather from climate as your statement about your weathermans forecast in your area proposes. The weather forecast has NOTHING to do with climate. They are two completely different things.
And, I have yet to get an answer for this question; WHAT AGENDA???? You seem to have an inside track on this "agenda" that scientists from all parts of the globe are in. Can you answer it?
It shows you dont have to have a PhD to know what BS smells like.
It should be noted, since it was in the article, is the fact that while the results of the Himalayas is significant, it was done over a very short time-frame. Even allowing that the figures are right, the glaciers there are still retreating. The evidence of the scans backs up the melting rates in Greenland, and Antartica, where the vast majority of Earth's ice sits. "One monkey don't stop no show."
stupid
We have to remember why the Vikings gave Greenland its name - now of course they could have been sarcastic but most historians doubt the sarcasm part.
It's only limited coastal areas of Greenland that were green during the era of the Vikings. The main 10,000-foot thick ice sheet has been there for a long time.
"Greenland" was viking propaganda to get people to move there.