more extreme weather? -

less tornados and hurricanes in the US over the past 50 years, fewer droughts and floods as well. read satanic gases by patrick and ballings.

I agree with the usual suspect to a certain degree. There is simply not enough data to say what the trend of global weather patterns have been in the past. The best knowledge we have of weather conditions over periods of five hundred to one thousand years come from paintings and literature, which seem to indicate it is cyclic (there is a surprise). However, it can't do any harm to keep an eye on it, can it? And reducing polution can't actually hurt either.

I wouldn't go so far as to say global warming is a good thing though, because, again, there is not enough data. It is still supposition to say it will reduce extreme weather and increase productivity. No one knows that yet, as no one knows what other effects it will have. If it disrupts the current in the Atlantic, Europe will freeze. Of course, it might not...

[Editor's note - some of this post has been deleted for copyright reasons. This note is so that other posters understand the comment has been changed.]

The calibre of Greenpeace’s expertise in environmental matters can be judged by the silly stunt they tried to pull in August 2002 regarding the Blomstrandbreen glacier, on Svalbard. It should be noted that the 2002 publicity shot could have just as easily been taken in the 1920s when the bulk of the glacier had retreated. So much for their "evidence" of recent global warming.

http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/climate/greenpeacestunt.htm

Greenpeace glacier photo stunt
Jo Knowsley, The Mail on Sunday
11th August 2002

Scientists dismiss Greenpeace pictures as stunt - Global warming claim meaningless as glacier photos show 'natural changes in shape'.

The pictures appeared to be the most shocking evidence so far of the devastating effects of global warming. But last night scientists who work on the spot where they were taken dismissed them as a misconceived publicity stunt. The two photographs, taken 84 years apart, were released by Greenpeace International last week. They appear to show a radical shrinking of the Blomstrandbreen glacier, on Svalbard, 375 miles north of Norway.

But scientists on the ground at Svalbard say the illustration is 'meaningless' as a measure of climate change because glaciers retreat and advance constantly as part of a natural cycle. At the same time, there has been no significant drop or increase in temperature in the region since the Twenties.

...

A is A, you say "Earlier this year, the journal Science published evidence that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet had not only stopped shrinking, but was growing at a rate of nearly 27 billion tons a year"

Here is a short extract from a BBC World News report dated 24 September 2004, entitled "West Antarctic glaciers speed up":

"Many glaciers in West Antarctica have substantially increased their rate of shrinkage compared with the 1990s. US-Chilean teams report to the journal Science that the glaciers are losing 60% more ice into the Amundsen Sea than they accumulate from inland snowfall. They say the ice loss corresponds to an annual sea-level rise of 0.2mm, or more than 10% of the total global increase of about 1.8mm per year. The study incorporates satellite data and measurements from aircraft.

It also shows the glaciers are moving faster. One, the Pine Island Glacier, has sped up by about 25% over the last 30 years. Bob Thomas, who is attached to the US space agency's (Nasa) Wallops Flight Facility and one of the authors on the Science report, cautions that the observed changes apply to only a short time period. It is too early, he says, to tell if the accelerated thinning is part of a natural cycle or is a sign of a longer-term change. "Continued observation is important," he added.

What gives, A is A?

Grace,

If you had read the article I posted, carefully, you would have seen that the increase in Antactic ice metioned occurred at that time, in 2002.

Please be more careful, in future, before you rush in to comment.

A is A, my posting was in the nature of a question to you, not a rushed comment. But now I will comment that I think your original assertion was unclear, and could even be construed as misleading. Not your intention, I am sure.