Massive Arctic ice island drifting toward shipping lanes The biggest Arctic “ice island” to form in
nearly 50 years — a 250-square-kilometer behemoth described as four times the size of Manhattan —
has been discovered after a Canadian scientist scanning satellite images of northwest Greenland spotted
a giant break in the famed Petermann Glacier.Canada.com – Aug 07 10:16am
In another research, using Autosub, an autonomous underwater vehicle, researchers led by the British Antarctic
Survey have captured ocean and sea-floor measurements, which revealed a 300 meter high
ridge on the sea floor. Pine Island Glacier was once sitting atop this underwater ridge,
which slowed its flow into the sea. The warm water, trapped under the ice, is causing the
bottom of the ice shelf to thaw, resulting in continuousthinning and acceleration of glacial
melt. Lead author Adrian Jenkins said, “The discovery of the ridge has raised new questions
about whether the current loss of ice from Pine Island Glacier is caused by recent climate
change or is a continution of a longer-term process that began when the glacier disconnect
from the ridge”. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100620200810.htm
Not only warm water, but also concentrated Magnesium Chloride =7,100 p.p.m & Sodium

Chloride= 31,000 p.p.m. (de-icing agents) trapped under the ice, is causing the bottom of the
ice shelf to thaw, resulting in continuous thinning and acceleration of glacial melt
(under water glacier cutting).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-KU_s9tjE4&sns=fb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fGHlEBvKYw&sns=fb

Last Winter, Australian Glaciologist, Neal Young, declared that more than 300 icebergs are
floating in the East Antarctica.

DISINTEGRATED ICE SHELVES DISINTEGRATION DATES

Worde Ice shelf March 1986
Larsen A Ice shelf January 1995
Larsen B Ice shelf February 2002
Jones Ice Shelf 2008
Wilkins Ice shelf March 2008

If the Ice shelves are disintegrating during WINTER, it is not SUN or CO2.
U.N. Secretary General, BAN KI-MOON recently declared that ” Let me be clear, the thread of
Climate Change is real “.

“The Climate is changing” said JAY LAWRIMORE, Chief of Climate Analysing at the National
Climate Data Center in Asheville, N.C. “Extreme events are occuring with greater frequency and
in many cases with greater intensity”.

The current Climate Change is due to the following:-
1. Mushrooming of Sea water desalination systems in the Middle East: Discharging of desalination
& Cleaning chemicals & Concentrated brine into Oceans & Seas.
2. Artificial Island developments in the Arabian Gulf since 1985: dredging, drilling, dynamiting &
excavation of sea floor shifted Magnesium Chloride, Sulfur & Sodium Chloride.
The geographic position of the Arabian Gulf, Ocean circulations bringing it to Arctic & Antarctic Oceans
during Monsoon seasons along with hot water of the Middle East.
Those who are having the Oceans water Analysis since 1980 will WIN the Climate WAR. Concentrated
7,100 p.p.m. of Magnesium Chloride & 31,000 p.p.m. of Sodium Chloride are detected in the Arabian Gulf.
These are De-icing agents which are helping to disintegrates the Arctic & Antarctic Ice shelves. Now
International Desalination Association (IDA) formed a committee to investigate about it.
If we enforce strict Environmental regulations, recover MgCl3 and NaCl3 at Straight of Hormosa and
Straight of Gibraltar and recover those at closed eddies of Baffin Bay & Green Land Sea. Sea ice & Ice
shelfs in Arctic & Antarctic are Natural Air Conditioners of the Planet EARTH. When more ice in both
Poles, the third Pole, as Scientists described, Himalayas will have abundance of ice and Snow & Bolivi
will have more Glaciers & water.
Book releasing soon in USA ” Environmental Rapes & H. R. abuses Lead to Climate Change Control”.
(Full color 450 pages) by Raveendran Narayanan also visit SARVA KALA VALLABHAN GROUP in
Face book.
Raveendran Narayanan, U.S.A.
Tel-1-347-847-0407
E- mail : bestfriend97usa@yahoo.com
narayananraveen@gmail.com

I hope some of them look at it and tell me why I am wrong in their view.

In previous decades sceptics told us that there was no firm link between tobacco and cancer, those sceptics must have killed millions of people, the climate sceptics seem to lack caution and compassion, a bit like addicts.

But we may not simply ignore the warnings of the scientists! Too many researchers agree about the consequences of the carbon output. And it is a consideration case: What are the total costs we must raise now? Do we really have to react? What will happen if we don’t react? What price shall the next generation, our children and our grandchildren pay if we would fail?
What will happen when the sea level will rise? Do we have to fear a migration which never has been in the history of mankind? How many billions people live near the coast? What would be the outcome of such climate conditional displacement?
Asked in an economic way: What kind of damage could result and is it generally regulable or repairable?

Moderation is offered. On both sides the sceptics and the alarmists. We may not go to ruin in panic, but we also may not ignore the fact with ostentation. Both will harm.

PS I don’t know where the good pr4ofessor gets his ideas on CO2 levels being higher than they have ever been. Ice cores from Vostok and Greeenland totaslly disprove his statement.

What a pity he doesn’t look at the evidence rather than parroting what people like that famous scientist Al Gore say.

And sea levels are not rising.

Basically it is not the carbon dioxide – it is the pollution we need to deal with – and that will cost a great deal less than cap and trade.

Global temperatures are falling – and have been for the past 8 to 10 years – but carbon dioxide is still rising.

Furthermore all the IPCC models are predicated on a positive feedback – AR4, chapter 8,- but Lindzen and Choi have demonstrated that the real world data give a negative feedback. Their estimate of a temperature rise for a doubling of carbon dioxide is 0.5 degrees.

There is further evidence that the sun and radiation from the sun have a much greater effect than applied in the IPCC models. Not to mention land use, urban heat islands etc. In fact as Rumsfeld said there are an awful lot of unknown unknowms! The science is not settled – it is only just beginning.

Sadly the appalling behaviour of the cabal of scientists at the University of East Anglia – the subject of Climategate – and the incredible ignorance of the main stream media – have prevented a proper reasoned scientific debate.

If you want to get a non histrionic and reasoned view, try wattsupwiththat.com and climateaudit.org. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/15/the-pachauri-nexus.html has a good summary of the emails and the computer codes as well as an interesting run down on the commercial activities of the chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri.

As Deep throat said at Watergate – follow the money. Or as Cicero said cui bono!

Happy digging.

This statement conveys a misunderstanding of the scientific method. As I always tell my students, a thousand experiments in support of a theory makes the theory more accepted, but one nullification and the theory is wrong. The last 10-12 years of global cooling (using actual, uncorrupted, data) is a glaring nullification of AGW via CO2. Based on this, and many other factors that point to significant flaws in the AGW theory, I have come to believe that it takes a very poor scientist, indeed, to believe the theory is still tenable. But I will keep an open mind to genuine scientists being able to prove my belief is incorrect.

Where is the study (or studies) that established the causal link between human produced CO2 and Global Warming?

The IPCC report, as near as I can see, shows only that there is a coincidence, not a causation.

I seem to remember some old saw about that.

– Climate scientists have not been examining and correcting the work of their colleagues.
– Climate scientists have not voluntarily released their source data, methods, and program codes. Much of this information still remains hidden. Scientific review is impossible under these conditions. It is not science. By scientific review, I don’t mean peer review for publication, which is a minimal standard, subject to the standards or politics of each journal. I mean review by other experts in any relevant field.
– Emails show the IPCC managing the scientific results to get the desired presentation. This questions the integrity of the IPCC and all results that it has organized and reported.

IPCC and the Trick
12/10/09 – Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre

[edited] Relevant Climategate correspondence in the period (September-October 1999) leading up to the email about “the Trick” is incomplete, but, in context, is highly revealing.

There was a meeting of IPCC lead authors between Sept 1-3, 1999 to consider the “zero-order draft” of the Third Assessment Report. The emails provide clear evidence that IPCC had already decided to include a proxy diagram reconstructing temperature for the past 1000 years and that a version of the proxy diagram was presented at the Tanzania meeting showing the late twentieth century decline.

The emails show that
– The late 20th century decline in the Briffa reconstruction was perceived by IPCC as “diluting the message”,
– “everyone in the room at IPCC” thought that the Briffa decline was a “problem” and a “potential distraction/detraction”,
– this was then the “most important issue” in chapter 2 of the IPCC report, and
– there was “pressure” on Briffa and other authors to show a “nice tidy story” of “unprecedented warming for a thousand years or more”.