(03-28-2019 01:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 01:14 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 12:49 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-28-2019 10:31 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  If you have 100 tumors and 2 of them are shrinking while the other 98 are growing, it isn't good news. Maybe it's better than 100 growing tumors, but that isn't saying much.

Do you have any evidence that 98% of glaciers are shrinking?

That was an analogy but this is a brief statement from an article about mountain glaciers:

"The new study reinforces previous research showing the power of climate change over small glaciers worldwide. A groundbreaking 2016 paper, one of the first to conduct a large-scale analysis of shrinking mountain glaciers around the globe, concluded that all but one of the 37 studied sites were "very likely" retreating because of climate change—and at 21 of those sites, the influence of climate change was just about certain. The researchers wrote that the shrinking presented "categorical evidence" of climate change, making mountain glaciers a kind of underrepresented canary in the coal mine for global warming."

You do know that just a sneeze ago, geologically, woolly mammoth and sabre tooth tigers were roaming the ice age on glaciers as far south as Arizona and beyond. West Texas was an ocean eons prior to that.

The "climate" is ALWAYS changing. What part did we play in the Ice Age?
Should we strive to be good and better stewards? Well, of course. Who argues otherwise? What sanctions are we prepared to force on China, India, and other areas? Like apparently Greenland?

The question was, is the fact that one glacier in Greenland having increased lately good news? It is if you ignore all the other glaciers.

(03-28-2019 11:15 AM)Kronke Wrote:  The house eunuch claims it's because it's a slow news week lolol