Archaeologica.org

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01063.html

Some of the largest glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland are moving in unusual ways and are losing increased amounts of ice to the sea, researchers said yesterday.

Although the changes in Greenland appear to be related to global warming, it remains unclear what is causing the glaciers of frigid Antarctica and their "ice streams" to lose ice to the ocean in recent years, the researchers said.

Seems like global warming would be enough of an answer.
From the Daily Grail

Except that atmospheric warming should cause an increase in precipitation on the glaciers. Maybe that is what is happening because logic infers that increased precipitation should increase the flow rate of the glaciers as they thicken at source.

Yeah, I agree but the streams are going in odd directions it seems. But in any case, it's got to be due to global warming.

Absolutely Beag, the one question I have that the pros seem unable to answer is whether the amount of ice in any of these glaciers is lessening.
Apparently some glaciers are thickening at source, which of course steepens the incline and raises the flow rate, but is the thickening matching the higher melting rate or not?
If the Eskimo's are correct about the Sun, and they are not stupid, the amount of solar radiation on the high latitudes must rise and raise the temps.

There are so many variables that we can't be certain. The article suggests that the scientists are puzzled. That's worrisome. But there should be increased precipitation, and increased glacial movement, but we don't know how much water is accumulating in the glacier as the ambient temp. of the earth rises.

So, if it all goes at once....

Though the gloom and doom merchants will tell you that the Greenland ice cap is losing X amount of ice per year Beag they don't tell you the percentage loss. the last figures I saw was 0.4% so I don't think you'll need an Ark yet.
Our press over here is telling us that the Polar Bear is doomed, quite how it survived the loss of the ice the last time they don't say. According to the people counting them they are increasing in number, though I imagine being in the States you know more about that then me.

Our press over here is telling us that the Polar Bear is doomed, quite how it survived the loss of the ice the last time they don't say. According to the people counting them they are increasing in number, though I imagine being in the States you know more about that then me.

Exactly ... the Holocene Optimum was on average 3 degrees C warmer than today's temps. I really wonder how they survived the experience ... sunglasses?

Digit wrote:Our press over here is telling us that the Polar Bear is doomed, quite how it survived the loss of the ice the last time they don't say.

Anything to alarm people.

I don't know if we do or not. I have only read that there is an increase in the number polar/brown bear mixtures spotted, meaning that the brown bears must be ranging farther north. They are not hybrids since cubs have been seen.

the Polar Bear is doomed, quite how it survived the loss of the ice the last time they don't say

Scuba gear?

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=22152

The researchers found some clear links between the sun's activity and climate variations. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common - one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.

The researchers said the findings have climate implications that extend far beyond the Nile River basin.

From the Daily Grail

Won't make much difference to the faithful Beag, but in a straight fight I rate the JP Lab over Al Gore. Somebody pointed out me that Gore has received a n oscar, true, but then, so has Bugs Bunny!

Digit wrote:Somebody pointed out me that Gore has received a n oscar, true, but then, so has Bugs Bunny!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070321/sc_ ... gists_dc_2

MADRID (Reuters) - Some of the world's leading meteorologists said on Wednesday they had no doubt that humans were responsible for global warming.

He also dismissed as over simple other theories some scientists say undermine the idea humans are to blame, such as changes in solar activity, or the theory that carbon dioxide increases are lagging behind temperature rises.

"This is too complex a phenomenon to use one single scientific argument to knock it down," he said.

For balance, the other side of the argument. This just out from
Yahoo News.

I'd say that actually it's mush too complex a phenomena to have one simple cause

We'll get there eventually though .....