Slashdot Mirror

It is actually more or less a fact that except for very few very small gaps Australia was connected via Indonesia with Asia. So no idea why they think Luzon was not included.

https://www.iceagenow.com/Sea_...

We already had a steam age around 100 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

But people that time had no idea what to do with them, they used them for "spectacular tricks" like "magically" opening huge doors of temples.

If we once had another civilization (there are plenty of plausible reasons, which I will explain in another post) then two thinks are most important to consider:
a) coverage of the ground with dust. The city Troy has about 9 layers of destroyed buildings and rebuild buildings on top of it. And that is a town just 5000 years old. When it was found it was more or less unrecognizable covered under earth.
b) Considering the last "ice age", sea levels where some 120m lower than now. E.g. Australia was nearly connected with Asia via a land bridge. A civilized nation most likely would have many cities at the coast. Today that would be hundreds if not thousands of miles away from the coast line. In water depths of about 120+ meters. And obviously, depending of about what time frame we are talking, last "ice age", or 6 "ice ages" ago, those areas would be covered with perhaps a mile of mud.

No one is searching dozens or hundreds or thousands of kilometers out in the sea in depths around 150m - 60m under a mile or hundred meters of sludge. If you would try to get funding for something like this people would declare you mad. Anyway, if another Schliemann shows up and gets enough funding I could imagine we find something (note: I said imagine, not that I'm convinced or believe there is something)

Here, two nice pictures about coast lines and sea levels: https://www.iceagenow.com/Sea_... Note Japan, Indonesia, North America and Europe, the land bridge closing Spain with north Africa. The second picture has the outline of the coast lines during the last "ice age" as a grey frame around the green land masses.

Story where a liberal calls for jailing or executions of people who disagree with AGW.

Yea, Trump is the facist that wants to jail or kill people based on their political viewpoints, or is it liberals who have ACTUALLY done this.

Looks like its the left once again who is intolerant and sounds like Hitler wanting to march large portions of the population to the gas chambers.

at that time, Indonesia was connected to Malaysia/Singapore and thus the Asian continent. Map

Not sure what this proves, but is interesting...

Actually, science supports the theory of a Great Flood: the end of the last glacial age. Sea levels rose more than a hundred meters, glaciers collapsed, colossal floods submerged plains and coasts. It changed the whole map of the earth.

It didn't all happen at once, of course, but neither was it without punctuation. Bursting glacial dams and mega-tsunamis are sudden and apocalyptic by anyone's standards; combined with the incessant rise of the tides it's easy to see where so many cultures got their legends of civilization-ending floods.

when glaciers stop GROWING http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

Other glaciers in Canada are *growing* (an inconvenient truth), like Helm, Pace and on Mount Logan. In one swoop, this proves......

I like it when people post references for their claims.
I tried to verify yours on my own and was not successful.

The claim that Helm Glacier is growing seems to be out right false.

The claim about Mount Logan seem to be based on an increase in height - the assumption being that it's due to ice accumulation, but that does not translate one way or the other to the total mass of the glacier, just the thickness at one point.

I couldn't easily find what "Pace" refers to since the word "pace," as in speed, is commonly used with the word "glacier" so I couldn't verify your claim either way.

Get your facts straight before you start preaching. Not all glaciers are melting.

Phil Jones, the man who just stepped down has received $22.6 million in grants since 1990....

Research being the operative word. Or did you think he just pocketed what money?

Too fucking right! Those big money scientists are faking the whole global warming thing so they can rake in the big bucks.

Phil Jones, the man who just stepped down has received $22.6 million in grants since 1990.

Research has shown that when the Sahara was grassland it was due to a warmer global climate (including more CO2 in the atmosphere).

You're reaction is hilarious because you refuse to look at any facts or allegations. These e-mails show that only a few scientists were corrupt, but they happened to be the ones most influencing policy at the IPCC. The rest of the scientists just flock to grant money and worry about peer pressure.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

Global warming is real! But temporary. The real question is: "is it anthropogenic?" and "is it permanent?"

We have a very limited view of what weather should be like. Only now are we finding out that Cairo Egypt used to be a very fertile place, with water up to the pyramids. Of course, anthropogenic factors did not cause /that/ warming, but now for some reason, the /current/ warming is somehow our fault? Co2 has been 0.28 of one percent! Now it went up by 0.040 of one percent over two hundred years.

There are dicussions being started about the growing evidence to the anthropogenic contrary. How many outlier events do we have to have before the outliers are no longer outliers?

When is the warming trend over? And melting trend over as well? When are record lows a sign of a change in direction?

It seems there is as much more evidence against global warming continuing as there is for it to continue.

When will we see NASA AIRS co2 distribution factored into the IPCC models? (Right now they assume even atmospheric distribution)

Great points. For those interested here are some links dealing with the many issues surrounding "global warming". http://links.veronicachapman.com/OriginsOfOil.htm http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-68c808e8809e http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2871211.shtml http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...s/Aerosols.pdf http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articl...6_highlow.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/?ic http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269886,00.html http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=438 http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070507martianwarming.htm http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7&keywords=global%20warming#dest http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm

http://www.iceagenow.com/

When we're all snowed in and have ice up to our asses, you'll be praying for "global warming".

About Indonesian islands being submerged? It's been going on for 8,000 years at least; this is nothing new. At the same time, the big island of Hawaii is adding area daily. Guess what: islands - and coastlines - always change. Always have, always will.

Oh, and about the air in China being unbreathable? I just got back from 25 days working in the Shanghai area (from Suzhou down to Ningbo). I can assure you I didn't hold my breath for 25 days. And in fact the air was cleaner than what I was breathing 40 days ago in LA. Thick dust blew into Shanghai one day, but no worse than the dust I've experienced in McPherson, Kansas or Lubbock, Texas. Thankfully the dust was gone in a day as we had some strong thunderstorms roll in...

Lastly, you're correct that "climate scientists *have* shown that increased CO2 can lead to warming in all kinds of closed systems". However, the Earth is NOT a closed system. Over 30,000 metric tons of space dust are added to the Earth each year, and the dominant source of energy - the Sun - is constantly changing it's input to the Earth.

I'm not sure what there is not to buy. People can be jerks. Why is it so hard to believe some intellectually challenged individuals cannot deal with his opinion differing from theirs and turn verbally abusive and violent?

As for your questions, there is much that you have been mislead about:

Polar bears may be listed as an endangered species, but their population is thriving. As to why they are listed as endangered, that could be political. It certainly doesn't match with the facts.
Ice glaciers may be melting up north but there is no melting occuring in the Himalayas according to local experts and the South Pole is actually growing mass.

I was in school when we were taught to fear the oncoming Ice Age. The media was just as hysterical then as it is now. Several decades of dropping temperature will do that to them. Now we have the opposite. Several decades of climbing temperature have people apoplectic with media induced frenzy. Thousands will go without water! Florida will be submerged! It's all just noise to me. I've lived through the oncoming Ice Age. I've lived through the fear of nuclear winter. But just because those theories were possible didn't mean they were true.

The more political this Global Warming issue gets and the more shrill the proponents get to be heard and obeyed, the more it turns me off. Let's worry about things we can control like pollution in our environments and alternative energy sources beyond oil. Let's find ways to feed the hungry and allow third world countries to develop their resources. This is not to you specifically, but let's ratchet the rhetoric and hysteria down. Please?

Simple google search yields the info you obviously can't be bothered to hunt down. http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glacier s.htm

Depending on the legitimacy of this chart

--
Ron, we smell poniez: http://www.techp.org/

I wouldn't say that calling global warming 'highly doubtful' is inflammatory. While I have no doubt that continued destruction and pollution of our environment will have profound if not irreversable negative impact on our planet, attributing the sinking of an island to global warming is irresponsible journalism at best.

While ocean levels are rising around the world, Arctic levels are falling http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322. stm and the model predicting the globabl warming trend cannot explain why.

Another unexplained action is while consensus is that the planet is getting warmer and glaciers are melting, the Antarctic ice sheet - by far the biggest in the word is actually growing larger: http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_She et.htm. Glaciers in California are also growing: http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14317368p -15234887c.html

Given that the Northern Hemisphere at least is getting warmer, this is not entirely a bad thing as the food growing season is longer, and the increased productivity is an economic boon. From this government report on climate change: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalasses sment/overviewmidwest.htm "With an increase in the length of the growing season, double cropping, the practice of planting a second crop after the first is harvested, is likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertilization effect is likely to enhance plant growth and contribute to generally higher yields. The largest increases are projected to occur in the northern areas of the region, where crop yields are currently temperature limited."

But with the increase in global temperature, the worlds deserts would increase in size causing more environmental destruction you say? Not so - the Sahara desert, the largest desert in the world, is actually shrinking, again contrary to the global warming model. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523610.300 -africans-go-back-to-the-land-as-plants-reclaim-th e-desert.html

So given all of these environmental observations (not minor discrepancies but huge anomalies) that are contrary to the global warming prediction, I think its perfectly acceptableto have doubts as to the actual cause of sinking islands.

If you believe this guy sea levels are actually falling and glaciers are growing:

1 2 3 4 5

If you believe this guy sea levels are actually falling and glaciers are growing:

1 2 3 4 5

If you believe this guy sea levels are actually falling and glaciers are growing:

1 2 3 4 5

If you believe this guy sea levels are actually falling and glaciers are growing:

1 2 3 4 5

If you believe this guy sea levels are actually falling and glaciers are growing:

1 2 3 4 5

Nope. No trolling for me.
but here's two cents of your logic for you.
My logic costs more that two cents. Ya must've gotten some cheap knockoff.

Ice caps are melting - They will stop melting, it is illogical to say they will continue melting given the scientists are hedging on evidence of lack of logic in the arguements by scientists in the 90s.

1. There are some scientists who predict that 'globabl warming' will be followed by 'global cooling' if the deep ocean currents slow down and the carnot style weather patterns which move heat from the equators to the poles fail. You're welcome to lecture them on their 'illogic' in thinking that climate patterns can only move in one direction.

2. Instead of hunting around on Europa, google Nils-Axel Mörner.

"Local people report that the dhonis (local fishing boats) could pass
straight across the Maduvvare Falhus thila in the 1970s and 1980s,"
Mörner reports, "whilst they in the last 15 years have had to make
a detour around the thila, because it is now too shallow. The thila
has not grown, so it must be the sea that has fallen."
http://iceagenow.com/Sea_levels_are_falling.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR L&_udi=B6VF0-49C5G0W-2&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2004&_ alid=488820897&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_c di=5996&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1 &_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ce2f1fe2c68eba06a6eb c818408321ac

He's certainly a minority view, but not insignificant.

3. Ice which is floating in water raises water level minimally. (Ice cubes of fresh water water melting into salt water raise the level slightly.) Salinity of water, among other factors, affects density. Similarly, continents relieved of continental glaciers often 'rebound' upwards. If we're dealing with creating a predictive scientific model to solve a problem, these things could be important in predicting what will happen and how fast. If we're only interested in politics, of course, we'll already know the "right" answer.

4. Australia has been in drought for 10 years and climate has shifted so cities have no water - That is not science
I thought we were predicting stronger storms from global warming? Australia should be having problems with flooding not drought. So yeah, blaming every single environmental anomaly after the fact on 'global warming' is not at all science.

5. We can dump iron in a sensitive ecosystem like the ocean and it will grow disproportionate amounts of algae which will make more fish in the ocean and end climate change

First, the purpose would primarily be carbon sequestration. Replenishment of over-fished schools would be secondary.
Volcanoes dump huge amounts of iron in the ocean all the time. If they weren't natural, someone would probably be protesting them. Remind me again, are we trying to solve a major environmental problem here or aren't we? Bringing ocean iron levels up to where they were in the 1980s at the very least shouldn't be seen as moving the oceans outside of some undefined tolerance levels. Fish stocks are already depleted. Any political action we take to improve or alter our environment is going to have side effects. Either we take no action, or we do a rational cost-benefit analysis to determine the best solution, based on a reliable model. Carbon taxes and carbon sequestration both will have costs. And benefits as well, some of which will

You observed a single glacier that is said to have retreated 1.5 km in 60 years. Then what about this list of glaciers that is growing? http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glacier s.htm The rate of 1.5km in 60 years is quite slow compared to the rate at which other glaciers are growing larger, e.g. a glacier in Greenland growing at the rate of 11.5 km per year, or Argentina's Perito Moreno Glacier (the largest glacier in Patagonia), which is advancing at the rate of 7 feet per day. Do you think that this is just a coincidence? It is good to question authority. It is healthy, normal, and a trait that should be encouraged. But when the evidence is staring you in the face, and you still deny it... Then you're delusional.

http://iceagenow.com/

I won't clam that this source is somehow authoratative but the claims can be checked. The claims are that indeed many glaciers, including those near where glaciers are supposedly becoming extinct, are GROWING! What makes a glacier grow? More snow is the argument. Artic is melting? Sure the Northern most tip is but down further South they are having to continuosly build new research stations because old ones are getting buried!

Perhaps not something that will change your mind but certainly some interesting counterpoints to the belief that suddenly everything is getting too hot - and facts you can doublecheck complete with refrences. Funny thing the other day - someone mentioned global warming to me and how the seas were rising blah blah. So I asked this person how much they thought the seas had risen based on all that they had read - "Several feet at least" was the response. I then pointed out that a relatives home I'm aware of is less than 18inches above sea level and is within a block of the beach - and has been for my entire life. It has NEVER been flooded, despite multiple hurricanes passing over this year, and is apparently in no immediete danger. They got real quiet after that.

The general public is being spooked by the press. The sky is falling! I'm still not quite convinced but will certainly be happy to cut back on emissions to a reaosnable degree - makes sens to me.

realclimate.org has an agenda, and will happily quote any source that agrees with its agenda. Just for balance, I suggest http://www.iceagenow.com/ as having at least as much entertainment value.

Although this doesn;t prove a global trend it is what you asked for. http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

http://www.iceagenow.com/QandA.htm

Here's a list of glaciers that are actually GROWING. glaciers

Norwegian glaciers were unusual in that a large number are actually advancing

It's not just Norwegian glaciers. There are a lot of glaciers worldwide that are advancing. Ice Age Now

This was after the global cooling fad. The chicken littles were adopting their new global warming fad. Now, the new ice age fad is starting:

Thaw in Greenland Threatens New Ice Age" (this one is kind of funny, it combines global warming with global cooling).

Are We on the Brink of a New Little Ice Age?. From the Woods Hole institute. You will probably dismiss this as a right-wing think tank.

Ice Age Now!. Kind of nutty. Just like the global-warming kooks.

Here's one of the old ones The Cooling World (1975). The scientists quoted are from NOAA. True to the fad cycle, there are no NOAA scientists on the global warming bandwagon.

Including interesting graphs.. cause everyone understand graphs..

www.iceagenow.com

There are some pretty interesting theories.. including the ocean conveyer.. stopping.. due to increased fresh water entering from the artic.. causing an iceage.

Not to mention iceages occur every oh.. 11,500 years.. and the last one was about oh.. 11,500 years ago..

I think it's time to get stock in snowmobile companies and goretex :)

Yup.. they forgot the Ice Age that will be in full swing by 2030... www.iceagenow.com

That should cull the world population a bit.