ProDee... you're talking about a period of just 92 years (1923 to 2015)... just how many thousands of years had those glaciers survived up to your first sited report of 1923? You don't think that melting ice affects the warmer currents (cooling them down) and that in turn can create colder than normal weather in parts that are usually affected by warm currents? You think that a glacier losing up to one third of its ice in the space of 18 years after surviving for thousands of years, is normal? Ok.

I think CO2 has no effect on glaciers melting.

Thanks. It explains why you've been sniping from the sidelines, but haven't repudiated one of my posts - except the bit about millions having to pay more than necessary for their energy, which I stand by.

As for "millions having to pay more than necessary for their energy" that's not what you said (you're doing it again).

And just on the sniping: I've made two comments unbidden on this thread, one to Wrecker and one to you.* All my other contributions have been in response to various attempts to distort or avoid or attack what I've said. Not much of a record of sniping in that but read it however you wish since that's what you'll do anyway.

I don't happen to share your view that your posts are significant enough to warrant repudiation. They're coming from a doctrinaire denialist position anyway, one which admits no repudiation. You don't raise anything as a contribution to any kind of debate and your primary tactic is (you're doing this again too) merely to try turn things back on anyone who comments on what you've said.

* For accuracy I might need to amend that to 3 since I also commented on your grubby little effort on Jara's post. But since yours was, of course, a comment contributed without invitation it presumably meets your definition of sniping ... come to think of it, 3? You'd rack up that many in an afternoon with your gratuitous additions to others' otherwise pleasant conversations. Pots and kettles as they say.

I'll leave you to your mirror.

I think CO2 has no effect on glaciers melting.

so why does the ice in my Pepsi melt so quick then, PD?

Wind gusts of up to 100km an hour are expected.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-weather-damaging-winds-expected-to-lash-victoria-on-wednesday-20151124-gl6mks.html#ixzz3sQdH9KUx

As for "millions having to pay more than necessary for their energy" that's not what you said (you're doing it again).

And just on the sniping: I've made two comments unbidden on this thread, one to Wrecker and one to you.* All my other contributions have been in response to various attempts to distort or avoid or attack what I've said. Not much of a record of sniping in that but read it however you wish since that's what you'll do anyway.

I don't happen to share your view that your posts are significant enough to warrant repudiation. They're coming from a doctrinaire denialist position anyway, one which admits no repudiation. You don't raise anything as a contribution to any kind of debate and your primary tactic is (you're doing this again too) merely to try turn things back on anyone who comments on what you've said.

* For accuracy I might need to amend that to 3 since I also commented on your grubby little effort on Jara's post. But since yours was, of course, a comment contributed without invitation it presumably meets your definition of sniping ... come to think of it, 3? You'd rack up that many in an afternoon with your gratuitous additions to others' otherwise pleasant conversations. Pots and kettles as they say.

I'll leave you to your mirror.

You have Malcolm Turnbull's waffling disease.

You needn't have bothered.

so why does the ice in my Pepsi melt so quick then, PD?

Water transfers heat quicker than air.

You have Malcolm Turnbull's waffling disease.

You needn't have bothered.

Obviously not. You've got a mind like a steel trap, Ben. A permanently closed steel trap.

Water transfers heat quicker than air.

yes, & the oceans are absorbing cool water from the ice & spreading it via the currents, also the warmth from the atmosphere, but in general we are still warming, even if it seems slowly.

the thing is its mixing the conditions which suited a mild sort of climate that suits our lifestyles. including the islands & low lying lands.

..... but we should ignore our humanity, for a 'fist-full of dollera', within an already broken monetary system .

Obviously not. You've got a mind like a steel trap, Ben. A permanently closed steel trap.

Johnny come lately's call me Ben.

Call me Trav or "H".

"Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013."

— John Kerry on Monday, August 31st, 2009 in an op-ed published in the Huffington Post

No change to Arctic Sea ice in 10 years.

The Argus 17 July 1954

Johnny come lately's call me Ben.

Call me Trav or "H".

Among other things.

I'd forgotten about that other obsession of yours to have the last word no matter how banal. So I should leave some space here for you:

Given your fondness for unacknowledged material appropriated from elsewhere on the web, perhaps you can nick something from one of your heroes:

26 May, 1906

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/38087689?searchTerm=%22climate%20change%22&searchLimits=

July 31, 1906

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/61454507

The last couple have had links for you.

Edited November 25, 20159 yr by ProDee

December 1900

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/71384883?searchTerm=&searchLimits=l-publictag=Glaciers+melting

October 1922

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/63769747?searchTerm=antarctic%20ice%20melting&searchLimits=exactPhrase|||anyWords|||notWords|||l-textSearchScope=*ignore*%7C*ignore*|||fromdd|||frommm|||fromyyyy|||todd|||tomm|||toyyyy=1925|||l-word=*ignore*%7C*ignore*|||sortby

Sept 1929

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/29619090?searchTerm=glaciers%20melting&searchLimits=

Nothing to do with numbers of hurricanes... most scientists say that the numbers have not changed... the issue is that the intensity is increasing and will continue to increase (and I would have thought this is probably borne out by the fact that we have recently seen a number of extremely powerful storms, including the strongest recorded (I believe).

"We should not be worried about the frequency of hurricanes; we should be worried about the frequency of intense hurricanes," said Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

http://www.livescience.com/28489-sandy-after-six-months.html

Edited November 26, 20159 yr by hardtack