"Note that "before 1941" means before substantial anthropogenic CO2 contributions."
.
Again, read the link carefully. This time all of it. Read where it says 100,000 other glaciers.
Then read my answer. Read where I said that glacier retreat is as common as glacier expand. This was so in the past, it is now and will be in the future.
Anf then understand that this is all taken in consideration and that the current global warming (and its effects) still is different.
@wimahlers, your link supports my point. Here's a sample quote: "For nearly 2 centuries before 1941, Muir Glacier had been retreating; in places, a thickness of more than two-thirds of a mile of ice had been lost."
Note that "before 1941" means before substantial anthropogenic CO2 contributions.
In other words, glacial retreat is NOT evidence of CO2-driven anthropogenic warming, because it predates any significant anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2.
"if glacier retreat is caused by anthropogenic CO2, why were these glaciers retreating faster BEFORE that CO2 was produced?"
.
Yes? And? Some glaciers are even growing today. So what?
What you are doing is cherry picking and overstating anomalies that all serious scientists are aware of. You cherry pick a specific and desired local event and extend it to a global, non sequitur, conclusion.
I suggest you ask your question to the USGS. You can start here: tinyurl*com/6tq64o5
@wimahlers, here's a US Geological Survey map showing glacier extent at Glacier Bay, Alaska, in the 18th, 19th & 20th centuries:
webcitation*org/64cUlXmSZ
Notice the big deceleration in rate of glacial retreat during the 20th century.
But there was no significant anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric CO2 before about the 1930s or 1940s. So if glacier retreat is caused by anthropogenic CO2, why were these glaciers retreating faster BEFORE that CO2 was produced?
Anyway, I don't care about the statement or the signers. It is a "Steve List". It is like "100 scientists against Einstein". I am sorry you waisted your time and energy on signing this petition.
Do something useful. Produce a credible peer reviewed scientific paper having an alternative scientific explanation (meaning: not a wild guess) explaining the current loss of arctic and glacier ice.
It's a list of 31,487 American scientists (& engineers in relevant disciplines) who signed the following:
"...There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide... or other greenhouse gasses... cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects..."
"BTW, I did "do something." I signed the petition (and had to identify my credentials to do so"
.
So, in fact, you did nothing.
Do something and write a scientific paper that proves NOAA, NASA et.al. studying the climate, to be wrong.
I would be delighted if all these scientific institutions are wrong.
As for the consequence of AGW ... that is a bit of a grey area. But the negative consequences (affected coasts, water supply) seem to outperform the positive consequences.
"What the Petition Project proves is simply that there are over 31,000 American scientists"
.
It proves that you have a list. But what does the list prove? Nothing!
And I even ignore the fact that this list contains names like "Geri Halliwell"(Spice Girls) and questionable or unrelated/irrelevant credentials. It is a "Steve list". To understand what a "Steve List" is google "Project Steve".
@ncdave4life Your reasoning...
There have been people in the past that murder. Therefore war genocide is the same as a single murder.
wimahlers 1 month ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"Note that "before 1941" means before substantial anthropogenic CO2 contributions."
.
Again, read the link carefully. This time all of it. Read where it says 100,000 other glaciers.
Then read my answer. Read where I said that glacier retreat is as common as glacier expand. This was so in the past, it is now and will be in the future.
Anf then understand that this is all taken in consideration and that the current global warming (and its effects) still is different.
wimahlers 1 month ago
@wimahlers, your link supports my point. Here's a sample quote: "For nearly 2 centuries before 1941, Muir Glacier had been retreating; in places, a thickness of more than two-thirds of a mile of ice had been lost."
Note that "before 1941" means before substantial anthropogenic CO2 contributions.
In other words, glacial retreat is NOT evidence of CO2-driven anthropogenic warming, because it predates any significant anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2.
Do you understand?
ncdave4life 1 month ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"if glacier retreat is caused by anthropogenic CO2, why were these glaciers retreating faster BEFORE that CO2 was produced?"
.
Yes? And? Some glaciers are even growing today. So what?
What you are doing is cherry picking and overstating anomalies that all serious scientists are aware of. You cherry pick a specific and desired local event and extend it to a global, non sequitur, conclusion.
I suggest you ask your question to the USGS. You can start here: tinyurl*com/6tq64o5
wimahlers 1 month ago
@wimahlers, here's a US Geological Survey map showing glacier extent at Glacier Bay, Alaska, in the 18th, 19th & 20th centuries:
webcitation*org/64cUlXmSZ
Notice the big deceleration in rate of glacial retreat during the 20th century.
But there was no significant anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric CO2 before about the 1930s or 1940s. So if glacier retreat is caused by anthropogenic CO2, why were these glaciers retreating faster BEFORE that CO2 was produced?
ncdave4life 1 month ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"Geri Halliwell isn't on the list"
.
She was ... in 2007.
Anyway, I don't care about the statement or the signers. It is a "Steve List". It is like "100 scientists against Einstein". I am sorry you waisted your time and energy on signing this petition.
Do something useful. Produce a credible peer reviewed scientific paper having an alternative scientific explanation (meaning: not a wild guess) explaining the current loss of arctic and glacier ice.
Good luck!
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, Geri Halliwell isn't on the list.
It's a list of 31,487 American scientists (& engineers in relevant disciplines) who signed the following:
"...There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide... or other greenhouse gasses... cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects..."
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"BTW, I did "do something." I signed the petition (and had to identify my credentials to do so"
.
So, in fact, you did nothing.
Do something and write a scientific paper that proves NOAA, NASA et.al. studying the climate, to be wrong.
I would be delighted if all these scientific institutions are wrong.
As for the consequence of AGW ... that is a bit of a grey area. But the negative consequences (affected coasts, water supply) seem to outperform the positive consequences.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"What the Petition Project proves is simply that there are over 31,000 American scientists"
.
It proves that you have a list. But what does the list prove? Nothing!
And I even ignore the fact that this list contains names like "Geri Halliwell"(Spice Girls) and questionable or unrelated/irrelevant credentials. It is a "Steve list". To understand what a "Steve List" is google "Project Steve".
wimahlers 2 months ago