What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or

Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence

still learning wrote:
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or

Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence

The evidence that there is global warming now?
Two main lines of evidence, increasing temperatures and rising sealevel.

still learning wrote:
Some other evidence such as retreating mountain glaciers.

still learning wrote:

For temperature, see ...deleted Holy Link...
The surface temperature anomaly is almost a degree (C) so far. So far, not a big deal.

still learning wrote:
Sea level rise also no big deal so far, some slight flooding some places at highest tides.

still learning wrote:

Evidence from lots of ordinary temperature and sealevel measurements collected over decades by multiple agencies.

still learning wrote:

The evidence is there that there has been a little warming, though some deny it.

still learning wrote:

Know that is is caused by humans though? That's harder to understand. Really helps to remember some physics. A little chemistry maybe too. Kind of have to try to understand what affects temperatures and then figure out what has changed. The most obvious candidates, a change in the Sun's energy output or a change in the Earth-Sun distance have been looked at and ruled out.

still learning wrote:

Beyond that you get into what is usually called the "greenhouse effect." Not an especially accurate name but it is used. Find some online explanations for the greenhouse effect. The Wikipedia entry might be a good place to start. There are explanations online that are oversimplified to the point of being wrong though. If you want to go deeper, try the textbook Principles of Planetary Climate by R Pierrehumbert.

still learning wrote:

A threat to the Earth or humanity if global warming continues, even accelerates? People do exaggerate.

still learning wrote:

In a million years the Earth itself won't seem any more different because of AGW.
Humanity: Not a threat to the existence of our species that I can tell, but maybe harm to individuals.

still learning wrote:
Depends on how far things go and how fast. A meter of sealevel rise can be handled. Enough sealevel rise and seaports will have to move. Move New York and London and Shanghai and Tokyo to where?

still learning wrote:
Temperatures affect agriculture,

still learning wrote:
when to plant and what crop varieties to plant for best yields.

still learning wrote:
Small changes can be handled. Large changes, not so easy, especially in some third-world countries.

still learning wrote:
Possible famine, eventually, some places. I won't see that, but grandchildren might.

still learning wrote:
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or

Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence

The evidence that there is global warming now?
Two main lines of evidence, increasing temperatures and rising sealevel. Some other evidence such as retreating mountain glaciers.

For temperature, see http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
The surface temperature anomaly is almost a degree (C) so far. So far, not a big deal. Sea level rise also no big deal so far, some slight flooding some places at highest tides.

Evidence from lots of ordinary temperature and sealevel measurements collected over decades by multiple agencies.

The evidence is there that there has been a little warming, though some deny it.

Know that is is caused by humans though? That's harder to understand. Really helps to remember some physics. A little chemistry maybe too. Kind of have to try to understand what affects temperatures and then figure out what has changed. The most obvious candidates, a change in the Sun's energy output or a change in the Earth-Sun distance have been looked at and ruled out. Beyond that you get into what is usually called the "greenhouse effect." Not an especially accurate name but it is used. Find some online explanations for the greenhouse effect. The Wikipedia entry might be a good place to start. There are explanations online that are oversimplified to the point of being wrong though. If you want to go deeper, try the textbook Principles of Planetary Climate by R Pierrehumbert.

A threat to the Earth or humanity if global warming continues, even accelerates? People do exaggerate.
In a million years the Earth itself won't seem any more different because of AGW.
Humanity: Not a threat to the existence of our species that I can tell, but maybe harm to individuals. Depends on how far things go and how fast. A meter of sealevel rise can be handled. Enough sealevel rise and seaports will have to move. Move New York and London and Shanghai and Tokyo to where? Temperatures affect agriculture, when to plant and what crop varieties to plant for best yields. Small changes can be handled. Large changes, not so easy, especially in some third-world countries. Possible famine, eventually, some places. I won't see that, but grandchildren might.

still learning wrote:
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or

Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence

The evidence that there is global warming now?
Two main lines of evidence, increasing temperatures and rising sealevel. Some other evidence such as retreating mountain glaciers.

For temperature, see http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
The surface temperature anomaly is almost a degree (C) so far. So far, not a big deal. Sea level rise also no big deal so far, some slight flooding some places at highest tides.

Evidence from lots of ordinary temperature and sealevel measurements collected over decades by multiple agencies.

The evidence is there that there has been a little warming, though some deny it.

Know that is is caused by humans though? That's harder to understand. Really helps to remember some physics. A little chemistry maybe too. Kind of have to try to understand what affects temperatures and then figure out what has changed. The most obvious candidates, a change in the Sun's energy output or a change in the Earth-Sun distance have been looked at and ruled out. Beyond that you get into what is usually called the "greenhouse effect." Not an especially accurate name but it is used. Find some online explanations for the greenhouse effect. The Wikipedia entry might be a good place to start. There are explanations online that are oversimplified to the point of being wrong though. If you want to go deeper, try the textbook Principles of Planetary Climate by R Pierrehumbert.

A threat to the Earth or humanity if global warming continues, even accelerates? People do exaggerate.
In a million years the Earth itself won't seem any more different because of AGW.
Humanity: Not a threat to the existence of our species that I can tell, but maybe harm to individuals. Depends on how far things go and how fast. A meter of sealevel rise can be handled. Enough sealevel rise and seaports will have to move. Move New York and London and Shanghai and Tokyo to where? Temperatures affect agriculture, when to plant and what crop varieties to plant for best yields. Small changes can be handled. Large changes, not so easy, especially in some third-world countries. Possible famine, eventually, some places. I won't see that, but grandchildren might.

paramount99 wrote:

still learning wrote:
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or

Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence

The evidence that there is global warming now?
Two main lines of evidence, increasing temperatures and rising sealevel. Some other evidence such as retreating mountain glaciers.

For temperature, see http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
The surface temperature anomaly is almost a degree (C) so far. So far, not a big deal. Sea level rise also no big deal so far, some slight flooding some places at highest tides.

Evidence from lots of ordinary temperature and sealevel measurements collected over decades by multiple agencies.

The evidence is there that there has been a little warming, though some deny it.

Know that is is caused by humans though? That's harder to understand. Really helps to remember some physics. A little chemistry maybe too. Kind of have to try to understand what affects temperatures and then figure out what has changed. The most obvious candidates, a change in the Sun's energy output or a change in the Earth-Sun distance have been looked at and ruled out. Beyond that you get into what is usually called the "greenhouse effect." Not an especially accurate name but it is used. Find some online explanations for the greenhouse effect. The Wikipedia entry might be a good place to start. There are explanations online that are oversimplified to the point of being wrong though. If you want to go deeper, try the textbook Principles of Planetary Climate by R Pierrehumbert.

A threat to the Earth or humanity if global warming continues, even accelerates? People do exaggerate.
In a million years the Earth itself won't seem any more different because of AGW.
Humanity: Not a threat to the existence of our species that I can tell, but maybe harm to individuals. Depends on how far things go and how fast. A meter of sealevel rise can be handled. Enough sealevel rise and seaports will have to move. Move New York and London and Shanghai and Tokyo to where? Temperatures affect agriculture, when to plant and what crop varieties to plant for best yields. Small changes can be handled. Large changes, not so easy, especially in some third-world countries. Possible famine, eventually, some places. I won't see that, but grandchildren might.

In 874AD the Vikings set off to colonise Iceland - some years later, with continued very hot weather they moved to Greenland also, as the weather heated up yet again. They grew crops in these places that today you can not grow - because it is too cold to do so. This Viking fun went on for nearly 400 years... In 1203AD, things changed, suddenly. Bad weather (VERY BAD) and low-lying countries almost vanished before the waves. This naughty weather continued until mid-to-late 19th century.
It has been steadily warming ever since. Get the big picture yet?!?
What did the amazing Mr Trump once say: "It's only weather!"
He's right you know...

What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or not

Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence

Into the Night wrote:

paramount99 wrote:

still learning wrote:
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or

Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence

The evidence that there is global warming now?
Two main lines of evidence, increasing temperatures and rising sealevel. Some other evidence such as retreating mountain glaciers.

For temperature, see http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
The surface temperature anomaly is almost a degree (C) so far. So far, not a big deal. Sea level rise also no big deal so far, some slight flooding some places at highest tides.

Evidence from lots of ordinary temperature and sealevel measurements collected over decades by multiple agencies.

The evidence is there that there has been a little warming, though some deny it.

Know that is is caused by humans though? That's harder to understand. Really helps to remember some physics. A little chemistry maybe too. Kind of have to try to understand what affects temperatures and then figure out what has changed. The most obvious candidates, a change in the Sun's energy output or a change in the Earth-Sun distance have been looked at and ruled out. Beyond that you get into what is usually called the "greenhouse effect." Not an especially accurate name but it is used. Find some online explanations for the greenhouse effect. The Wikipedia entry might be a good place to start. There are explanations online that are oversimplified to the point of being wrong though. If you want to go deeper, try the textbook Principles of Planetary Climate by R Pierrehumbert.

A threat to the Earth or humanity if global warming continues, even accelerates? People do exaggerate.
In a million years the Earth itself won't seem any more different because of AGW.
Humanity: Not a threat to the existence of our species that I can tell, but maybe harm to individuals. Depends on how far things go and how fast. A meter of sealevel rise can be handled. Enough sealevel rise and seaports will have to move. Move New York and London and Shanghai and Tokyo to where? Temperatures affect agriculture, when to plant and what crop varieties to plant for best yields. Small changes can be handled. Large changes, not so easy, especially in some third-world countries. Possible famine, eventually, some places. I won't see that, but grandchildren might.

In 874AD the Vikings set off to colonise Iceland - some years later, with continued very hot weather they moved to Greenland also, as the weather heated up yet again. They grew crops in these places that today you can not grow - because it is too cold to do so. This Viking fun went on for nearly 400 years... In 1203AD, things changed, suddenly. Bad weather (VERY BAD) and low-lying countries almost vanished before the waves. This naughty weather continued until mid-to-late 19th century.
It has been steadily warming ever since. Get the big picture yet?!?
What did the amazing Mr Trump once say: "It's only weather!"
He's right you know...

Those Vikings are still there. They still grow vegetables and such. Most of their economy is on fishing and trade. It always was.

Sand wrote:
I have my own theories - MOSTLY GREED. All the debate going on is creating a lot of financial gain for the creators, as per usual, like all chaos does. The earth did not tell us that we had to PAY another human being to live on this planet, in itself has caused a mass of destruction. If GW is the fault of humans then -

2. - Too enforce people to earn very small wages while paying for expensive items, leads to a lot of waste. For example buying cheap garbage that deteriorates very rapidly, creates a lot of pollution. Also creates a lot of manufacturing and depletion of natural resources, which creates a lot of air pollution. GREED

3. - Cars have been proven to run on water but it has been covered up so many times, that the masses believe the ones who hold all the money monopoly and media monopoly. All for the sake of oil. This has created fake terror wars and the like, which creates destruction and fear. Oil in my opinion is the earths lubricant and "cooler!" GREED

4. - The removal of forests - Firstly the Amazon Jungle creates its own rain, by removing forests you are taking rain away from certain areas of our planet. All rain forests create their own rain. This will dry up the earth surface. Secondly - by removing so many trees, you are removing a lot of suspended water, which is heading to the ocean because it is not raining as much in the outback; and if it does rain, there is nothing holding the water behind because the trees have been removed far too much. All the farmers crying about drought - is mostly because of what they have done by clearing so much land. Trees filter the earths air and also creates precipitation. GREED

5. - Apparently the earth moves closer to the sun each years. It may not be by much but it would have an effect on temperatures. Is this another form of scare tactic - hence GREED?

6. SO-CALLED EXPERTS such as engineers have gotten it wrong from the beginning. Here in Australia, our middle is drying out. I am not a bible person and have no experience with it but I am sure I heard or read that sewerage should not enter the oceans; it should be buried. I believe that if there was a super sewage plant to clean our human waste, located in the center of the country, we would be able to release the cleaned water into the natural streams, water courses, rivers, lakes etc, so that it flowed towards the ocean, thereby filtering it more and creating much needed water throughout the country, which in turn could evaporate and create rain, which would be even more filtering, that is able to drench the inland to create vegetation. This is also apparent with storm water drains. Storm water drains flow rubbish to our oceans unnaturally. Natural creeks filter the water before it arrives. This alone could hurt coral reefs. Over fishing also hurts the ocean. Sending water to the center of a country would not only create water for middle Australia, it could also have water blockages in place like dams do. This would then allow areas that are flooding to have the water supply halted and sent in different directions. This is also apparent with areas lacking water, giving that area more. It is obvious that it is our birthright to drink water and our Governments have harnessed it and sell it also, which is more criminality and GREED.

They say that we waste water, yet there will be too much water and flood us out. SO which is it? The rise is so negligible that it is hard to spot with the naked eye. By removing water from the outback, it has to go somewhere and the oceans are the only place left. Melting ice caps is just more fear mongering and they still use ice breakers?

The earth does not have any more or less water. Sure it goes from one area to another area. It becomes suspended, in trees, in humans - but it does not become more or less. There are twice the humans on earth since the early 1900's. This alone suspends water. There are less trees on earth, this releases water to the earth. Winter suspends water in the polar areas, which are at the top and bottom of the planet. One side melts, while the other freezes. When someone says you are wasting water, there is no such thing. You can not waste it and if so then why have the engineers created storm water drains that direct water to the oceans?

If cars ran on water - how much water would be in suspension there? How much evaporation and rain would this create?

Man made canals remove ocean water from its natural area. there are literally millions all over the world.

In essence, everything is designed for money - GREED and CONTROL. This is why everything is done wrong and not how it should be done.

Harness all the water, harness all the land, harness all the food, harness all the resources, harness all the skies, harness all the oceans, harness all the rules, harness all the children, harness all the rest of us, harness all the weapons, harness all the knowledge = harness all the money, which equates to HARNESS ALL CONTROL - We are doomed, including the ones who harness.

IBdaMann wrote:

What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or not

Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence

Why was the question framed around the evidence supporting Global Warming as opposed to the science supporting Global Warming? Is it already understood that there is no science supporting Global Warming?

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or not

Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence

Why was the question framed around the evidence supporting Global Warming as opposed to the science supporting Global Warming? Is it already understood that there is no science supporting Global Warming?

By measuring glacial retreat, science has established that warming is happening. Yet when that fact is ignored, then the cause of warming cannot be rationally discussed because an extreme bias exists.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or not

Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence

Why was the question framed around the evidence supporting Global Warming as opposed to the science supporting Global Warming? Is it already understood that there is no science supporting Global Warming?

By measuring glacial retreat, science has established that warming is happening. Yet when that fact is ignored, then the cause of warming cannot be rationally discussed because an extreme bias exists.

What about glaciers that are expanding?

Science does not establish anything...ever. Science is a set of theories, not proofs.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or not

Zloppino wrote:
is a threat to the Earth or humanity. I mean other than everybody says so, which conveys zero evidence

Why was the question framed around the evidence supporting Global Warming as opposed to the science supporting Global Warming? Is it already understood that there is no science supporting Global Warming?

By measuring glacial retreat, science has established that warming is happening. Yet when that fact is ignored, then the cause of warming cannot be rationally discussed because an extreme bias exists.

What about glaciers that are expanding?

Science does not establish anything...ever. Science is a set of theories, not proofs.

So what you're saying is that it can't be proven that water becomes ice if the temperature drops below 0° C. or ice turns to water if the temperature rises above 0° C.?

James___ wrote:
That's too absurd to consider. You show that you attack what you don't understand or can't control.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I'd like to read more about the cars, proven to run on water. I've seen two in my life time. The first, was an obvious hoax, hidden internal combustion engine, running on gas. The more recent, was the Stanley Meyers car, though there was only one demonstration video, before his 'mysterious' death, and the details were never published. Stan did sell a lot plans, videos of a device to split water with electricity... Won't go into it, plenty of it on the internet. Takes more energy to split water molecules, than you can get back, burning the gasses.

James___ wrote: So what you're saying is that it can't be proven that water becomes ice if the temperature drops below 0° C.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: So what you're saying is that it can't be proven that water becomes ice if the temperature drops below 0° C.

Correct. It cannot be proven. It can be demonstrated. It can also be demonstrated that water boils at/near freezing.

Proofs are for logic and math. Science has only falsification through internal and external inconsistency and scientific method demonstration.

James___ wrote: You did not explain why atmospheric air pressure is increasing where glaciers are.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: You did not explain why atmospheric air pressure is increasing where glaciers are.

Because atmospheric pressure is not related to glacier proximity.


.

James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: So what you're saying is that it can't be proven that water becomes ice if the temperature drops below 0° C.

Correct. It cannot be proven. It can be demonstrated. It can also be demonstrated that water boils at/near freezing.

Proofs are for logic and math. Science has only falsification through internal and external inconsistency and scientific method demonstration.

I think this is where you and itn show that you only wish to be difficult for who knows what reason. You did not explain why atmospheric air pressure is increasing where glaciers are.

James___ wrote:
Like I said, if a basic fact

James___ wrote:
and observation are ignored,

James___ wrote:
there's really nothing to discuss.

James___ wrote: Dismissing known science is something only fools would do.

James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased. It's a well known fact.

James___ wrote: Going up a mountain, atmospheric pressure is not known to increase. Yet you and itn say that you disagree.

James___ wrote: As you are fools, other fools will embrace you and your words.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: You did not explain why atmospheric air pressure is increasing where glaciers are.

Because atmospheric pressure is not related to glacier proximity.


.

Dismissing known science is something only fools would do.

James___ wrote:
Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased. It's a well known fact.

James___ wrote:
Going up a mountain, atmospheric pressure is not known to increase. Yet you and itn say that you disagree.

James___ wrote:
As you are fools, other fools will embrace you and your words.

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased.

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/32841/the-effect-of-air-pressure-on-the-melting-point

"For most substances, higher pressure (or air pressure, in your case) will cause the melting temperature to go up."

That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.

IBdaMann wrote:
I would never dismiss known science;

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
I would never dismiss known science;

But James remember that "Known Science" cannot come from a book or any citeable source. ITN/IBD learned it from a guy they know, the oral tradition of science, and then IBD did his own private lab work. So it'll be really hard to know what he does. Secret club.

tmiddles wrote:That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased.

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/32841/the-effect-of-air-pressure-on-the-melting-point

"For most substances, higher pressure (or air pressure, in your case) will cause the melting temperature to go up."

That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.

Nope. Increasing pressure on water makes it melt at lower temperatures.

Otherwise things like ice skates wouldn't work.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased.

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/32841/the-effect-of-air-pressure-on-the-melting-point

"For most substances, higher pressure (or air pressure, in your case) will cause the melting temperature to go up."

That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.

Nope. Increasing pressure on water makes it melt at lower temperatures.

Otherwise things like ice skates wouldn't work.

And yet glaciers are moving up mountains (retreating) I'm not sure about this but can ice climb up a mountain on its own? If not then something else must be happening. Like maybe melting?

http://www.bartholomewmaps.com/fragileearthnew/FE%20172-173%20Muir%20Glac.jpg

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased.

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/32841/the-effect-of-air-pressure-on-the-melting-point

"For most substances, higher pressure (or air pressure, in your case) will cause the melting temperature to go up."

That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.

Nope. Increasing pressure on water makes it melt at lower temperatures.

Otherwise things like ice skates wouldn't work.

And yet glaciers are moving up mountains (retreating) I'm not sure about this but can ice climb up a mountain on its own? If not then something else must be happening. Like maybe melting?

http://www.bartholomewmaps.com/fragileearthnew/FE%20172-173%20Muir%20Glac.jpg

spot wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased.

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/32841/the-effect-of-air-pressure-on-the-melting-point

"For most substances, higher pressure (or air pressure, in your case) will cause the melting temperature to go up."

That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.

Nope. Increasing pressure on water makes it melt at lower temperatures.

Otherwise things like ice skates wouldn't work.

And yet glaciers are moving up mountains (retreating) I'm not sure about this but can ice climb up a mountain on its own? If not then something else must be happening. Like maybe melting?

http://www.bartholomewmaps.com/fragileearthnew/FE%20172-173%20Muir%20Glac.jpg

ITN will deny that photography exists next.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't really get why glacier ice melting, or any ice for that matter.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's normal and natural, been going on for a long time.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly, it's been melting, but some of it gets rebuilt over the winter months, sometimes more ice is added, than melted the year before.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Glaciers have completely melted in pasts, and we can see many place where it's likely glaciers melted long ago.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The landscape is constantly changing, but is usually very slow, takes generation to notice much of it. We haven't had the historic record to realize just how much.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Erosion happens everywhere, all the time. Even stuff we built, breaks, falls apart, needs repair and replacement. Nothing lasts forever, our life is short, compared to many things in nature.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased.

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/32841/the-effect-of-air-pressure-on-the-melting-point

"For most substances, higher pressure (or air pressure, in your case) will cause the melting temperature to go up."

That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.

Nope. Increasing pressure on water makes it melt at lower temperatures.

Otherwise things like ice skates wouldn't work.

And yet glaciers are moving up mountains (retreating) I'm not sure about this but can ice climb up a mountain on its own? If not then something else must be happening. Like maybe melting?

http://www.bartholomewmaps.com/fragileearthnew/FE%20172-173%20Muir%20Glac.jpg

What about glaciers that are advancing?

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

James___ wrote:Ice melts at 1° C if unless atmospheric pressure is increased.

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/32841/the-effect-of-air-pressure-on-the-melting-point

"For most substances, higher pressure (or air pressure, in your case) will cause the melting temperature to go up."

That's +1 for James and -1 for IBD. Come on IBD you're losing badly here.

Nope. Increasing pressure on water makes it melt at lower temperatures.

Otherwise things like ice skates wouldn't work.

And yet glaciers are moving up mountains (retreating) I'm not sure about this but can ice climb up a mountain on its own? If not then something else must be happening. Like maybe melting?

http://www.bartholomewmaps.com/fragileearthnew/FE%20172-173%20Muir%20Glac.jpg

ITN will deny that photography exists next.

No, but cherry picking does also.

What about the glaciers that are advancing?