Alaska Glaciers - key indicator of climate change

[code1211]

I'd be very interested on seeing anything which suggests that South American or New Zealand glaciers were in retreat during the Minoan Period.

That's an easy one. Take a look at the respective warm periods over the past 10K years and tell me how a warming period of the magnitude of the Minoan could possibly be local, or hemispherical in nature. And again, the minoan signal in the graph below is from the Vostok ice cores. Tell me how you believe such a warming compared to today could not result in retreating glaciers.

There is such a thing as common sense here and looking at a warming of that magnitude and claiming that it wouldn't have resulted in glaciers retreating to a greater extent than today pushes the notion of common sense. Further, didn't I give you an article describing archaeological finds dating back to the minoan warming in peru? The glacier had to be absent for the find to be laid down.

I do think this is a good post (which is why I wanted time to read it more carefully), and I do think you make a good point here about the Minoan Period very likely having a global impact.

But given the Minoan Period is largely associated with sunspot acitivty - why do you feel it is relevant to the situation we face today?

What makes you think that the current warming is not the result of solar activity?

 

[code1211]

Global glaciers have been retreating for the past 14,000 years

You mean except for the ones which grew steadily throughout the 19th century.

On the good side - this is an issue which we can settle quite quickly.

Studies of glacier history throughout the world have shown that, following glacier recession at the end of the last glacial age, mountain glaciers expanded in size during the last three millennia, many reaching their greatest postglacial size during the last 700 years. This recent interval of glacier growth, widely referred to as the Little Ice Age, culminated in major glacier expansions during the early to middle 17th century and the early to middle 19th century. Since about 1850, glaciers worldwide have experienced fluctuating retreat, so that today we commonly see belts of sparsely vegetated deglaciated terrain beyond receding ice margins. Whereas the largest glaciers have retreated a mile or more during the past century, some small glaciers have disappeared entirely in recent decades in response to the general 20th century warming of the climate.

Untitled Document

I do think this establishes exactly why many experts are so concerned about the current trends....

Outside of Antarctica and Greenland, what is the age of the oldest glaciers on the planet?

 

[Old Rocks]

Um, tell it to East Anglia, IPCC, NASA and Old Rocks

And once again you are full of shit, Frankie Boy. The words that I have used are the same as those used by the scientists studying the changing climate. The primary driver of todays warming are the GHGs emitted by mankind. However, never fear, if we warm the Arctic enough, we will take a back seat to the CH4 and CO2 emitted by the permafrost and ocean clathrates in that region.

Primary driver?

After this top driver, where does the Sun fall on the ranked list of climate drivers?

My, my, your reading ability is starting to resemble Frankie Boy's. "Primary driver of todays warming". And, as has been shown to you many times, the total solar Irradiance has had a very minor decline over the last 50 years. So, in that period, we should be cooling, not warming.

We have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, 250% more CH4, and a slew of industrial gases for which there are no natural analogs, many of which are thousands of times as effective as CO2 as a GHG.

Now, one more time for the thick of skull here, there are only two factors that matter for heat at the surface of the Earth over the long run. The first is the source of the heat, the Sun, and the amount of heat that it puts out. The second is the amount of heat retained withing the atmosphere. And that is controlled by the amount of GHGs within the atmosphere.

The amount of heat put out by the sun is on a gradual increase, geological time, as it goes through the main sequence outlined by the astrophysicists in the H-R Diagram. Pretty much not even notacible in the life time of our species. The amount of GHGs within the atmosphere is far more variable, and has varied a lot in the geological past. In that record, we have seen where there was a very small amount of GHGs in the atmosphere and the oceans froze over almost to the equator. We have also see where there was a massive injection of GHGs, primarily CH4, and the Earth warmed very rapidly, creating extinction events for the life of that period.

The differance is today, we are the creators of the massive injections of GHGs, rather than natural events like the eruption of the Siberian Traps. But the physics does not change, merely because we are creating the heat trapping gases.

 

[Old Rocks]

That's an easy one. Take a look at the respective warm periods over the past 10K years and tell me how a warming period of the magnitude of the Minoan could possibly be local, or hemispherical in nature. And again, the minoan signal in the graph below is from the Vostok ice cores. Tell me how you believe such a warming compared to today could not result in retreating glaciers.

There is such a thing as common sense here and looking at a warming of that magnitude and claiming that it wouldn't have resulted in glaciers retreating to a greater extent than today pushes the notion of common sense. Further, didn't I give you an article describing archaeological finds dating back to the minoan warming in peru? The glacier had to be absent for the find to be laid down.

I do think this is a good post (which is why I wanted time to read it more carefully), and I do think you make a good point here about the Minoan Period very likely having a global impact.

But given the Minoan Period is largely associated with sunspot acitivty - why do you feel it is relevant to the situation we face today?

What makes you think that the current warming is not the result of solar activity?

Greg's TSI Page

Because the TSI is lower now than it was 30 years ago.

 

[code1211]

And once again you are full of shit, Frankie Boy. The words that I have used are the same as those used by the scientists studying the changing climate. The primary driver of todays warming are the GHGs emitted by mankind. However, never fear, if we warm the Arctic enough, we will take a back seat to the CH4 and CO2 emitted by the permafrost and ocean clathrates in that region.

Primary driver?

After this top driver, where does the Sun fall on the ranked list of climate drivers?

My, my, your reading ability is starting to resemble Frankie Boy's. "Primary driver of todays warming". And, as has been shown to you many times, the total solar Irradiance has had a very minor decline over the last 50 years. So, in that period, we should be cooling, not warming.

We have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, 250% more CH4, and a slew of industrial gases for which there are no natural analogs, many of which are thousands of times as effective as CO2 as a GHG.

Now, one more time for the thick of skull here, there are only two factors that matter for heat at the surface of the Earth over the long run. The first is the source of the heat, the Sun, and the amount of heat that it puts out. The second is the amount of heat retained withing the atmosphere. And that is controlled by the amount of GHGs within the atmosphere.

The amount of heat put out by the sun is on a gradual increase, geological time, as it goes through the main sequence outlined by the astrophysicists in the H-R Diagram. Pretty much not even notacible in the life time of our species. The amount of GHGs within the atmosphere is far more variable, and has varied a lot in the geological past. In that record, we have seen where there was a very small amount of GHGs in the atmosphere and the oceans froze over almost to the equator. We have also see where there was a massive injection of GHGs, primarily CH4, and the Earth warmed very rapidly, creating extinction events for the life of that period.

The differance is today, we are the creators of the massive injections of GHGs, rather than natural events like the eruption of the Siberian Traps. But the physics does not change, merely because we are creating the heat trapping gases.

And the reason that your "primary driver" driver rises with constancy while the temperature rises, falls, stalls and drops is what?

 

[code1211]

And once again you are full of shit, Frankie Boy. The words that I have used are the same as those used by the scientists studying the changing climate. The primary driver of todays warming are the GHGs emitted by mankind. However, never fear, if we warm the Arctic enough, we will take a back seat to the CH4 and CO2 emitted by the permafrost and ocean clathrates in that region.

Primary driver?

After this top driver, where does the Sun fall on the ranked list of climate drivers?

My, my, your reading ability is starting to resemble Frankie Boy's. "Primary driver of todays warming". And, as has been shown to you many times, the total solar Irradiance has had a very minor decline over the last 50 years. So, in that period, we should be cooling, not warming.

We have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, 250% more CH4, and a slew of industrial gases for which there are no natural analogs, many of which are thousands of times as effective as CO2 as a GHG.

Now, one more time for the thick of skull here, there are only two factors that matter for heat at the surface of the Earth over the long run. The first is the source of the heat, the Sun, and the amount of heat that it puts out. The second is the amount of heat retained withing the atmosphere. And that is controlled by the amount of GHGs within the atmosphere.

The amount of heat put out by the sun is on a gradual increase, geological time, as it goes through the main sequence outlined by the astrophysicists in the H-R Diagram. Pretty much not even notacible in the life time of our species. The amount of GHGs within the atmosphere is far more variable, and has varied a lot in the geological past. In that record, we have seen where there was a very small amount of GHGs in the atmosphere and the oceans froze over almost to the equator. We have also see where there was a massive injection of GHGs, primarily CH4, and the Earth warmed very rapidly, creating extinction events for the life of that period.

The differance is today, we are the creators of the massive injections of GHGs, rather than natural events like the eruption of the Siberian Traps. But the physics does not change, merely because we are creating the heat trapping gases.

You point to an event that occurred millions of years ago and claim that you can site the difference of a few hundred years to support that the GHG's were emitted first, in opposition to every other occurrence in the history of the planet.

In every other occurrence, the temperature has risen and then the GHG's were emitted.

You're grasping at straws.

 

[code1211]

I do think this is a good post (which is why I wanted time to read it more carefully), and I do think you make a good point here about the Minoan Period very likely having a global impact.

But given the Minoan Period is largely associated with sunspot acitivty - why do you feel it is relevant to the situation we face today?

What makes you think that the current warming is not the result of solar activity?

Greg's TSI Page

Because the TSI is lower now than it was 30 years ago.

The current warming started as the ending of The Little Ice Age. This was in about 1600. This is also when the current trend of rising TSI started.

Hmmm...

I wonder if there might be a connection there?

A cause with a demonstrable effect?

This is certainly not the kind of science accepted the AGW crowd. We probably need to ignore this.

 

[Old Rocks]

Primary driver?

After this top driver, where does the Sun fall on the ranked list of climate drivers?

My, my, your reading ability is starting to resemble Frankie Boy's. "Primary driver of todays warming". And, as has been shown to you many times, the total solar Irradiance has had a very minor decline over the last 50 years. So, in that period, we should be cooling, not warming.

We have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, 250% more CH4, and a slew of industrial gases for which there are no natural analogs, many of which are thousands of times as effective as CO2 as a GHG.

Now, one more time for the thick of skull here, there are only two factors that matter for heat at the surface of the Earth over the long run. The first is the source of the heat, the Sun, and the amount of heat that it puts out. The second is the amount of heat retained withing the atmosphere. And that is controlled by the amount of GHGs within the atmosphere.

The amount of heat put out by the sun is on a gradual increase, geological time, as it goes through the main sequence outlined by the astrophysicists in the H-R Diagram. Pretty much not even notacible in the life time of our species. The amount of GHGs within the atmosphere is far more variable, and has varied a lot in the geological past. In that record, we have seen where there was a very small amount of GHGs in the atmosphere and the oceans froze over almost to the equator. We have also see where there was a massive injection of GHGs, primarily CH4, and the Earth warmed very rapidly, creating extinction events for the life of that period.

The differance is today, we are the creators of the massive injections of GHGs, rather than natural events like the eruption of the Siberian Traps. But the physics does not change, merely because we are creating the heat trapping gases.

And the reason that your "primary driver" driver rises with constancy while the temperature rises, falls, stalls and drops is what?

Show me where the temperature has stalled or dropped. There is a natural variability over the curve of the rise in temperature. We saw a record set on a super El Nino in 1998. In 2010, we saw that record matched in a year that saw a moderate El Nino for one half, and a strong La Nina for the other half. This year we may match or exceed that record with a moderate La Nina for the first quarter and neutral conditions for the rest of the year. In spite of the aerosols that India and China are putting into the atmosphere that provide a masking effect for the warming.

Really now, does this graph look like a cooling or stalled trend?

UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2012: +0.30°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

+0.30. That is higher than any high point prior to 1998. And it comes on the last month of a double La Nina.

 

[wirebender]

You mean except for the ones which grew steadily throughout the 19th century.

You reallyaren't much for analysis are you? My bet is that glaciers were growing worldwide during the little ice age and shrinking world wide during both periods of the holocene maximum, the roman, and the medieval warm periods. The point is that what is going on today is in no way unusual or unprecedented. Hand wringing is simply no substitute for actual science.

Studies of glacier history throughout the world have shown that, following glacier recession at the end of the last glacial age, mountain glaciers expanded in size during the last three millennia,

Except for the warm periods in which they were receeding. You know, the periods when all of the present archaeological finds were being laid down. Trees, villages, animals, plant life, neolithic, roman and medieval artificats, etc.

I do think this establishes exactly why many experts are so concerned about the current trends....

Do you think those responsible for that bit you posted make wine from the cherries they pick? It is clear that they are not being anywhere near honest since we know beyond doubt that glaciers worldwide have undergone at least for major advances and retreats during the past 5000 years.

 

[code1211]

My, my, your reading ability is starting to resemble Frankie Boy's. "Primary driver of todays warming". And, as has been shown to you many times, the total solar Irradiance has had a very minor decline over the last 50 years. So, in that period, we should be cooling, not warming.

We have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, 250% more CH4, and a slew of industrial gases for which there are no natural analogs, many of which are thousands of times as effective as CO2 as a GHG.

Now, one more time for the thick of skull here, there are only two factors that matter for heat at the surface of the Earth over the long run. The first is the source of the heat, the Sun, and the amount of heat that it puts out. The second is the amount of heat retained withing the atmosphere. And that is controlled by the amount of GHGs within the atmosphere.

The amount of heat put out by the sun is on a gradual increase, geological time, as it goes through the main sequence outlined by the astrophysicists in the H-R Diagram. Pretty much not even notacible in the life time of our species. The amount of GHGs within the atmosphere is far more variable, and has varied a lot in the geological past. In that record, we have seen where there was a very small amount of GHGs in the atmosphere and the oceans froze over almost to the equator. We have also see where there was a massive injection of GHGs, primarily CH4, and the Earth warmed very rapidly, creating extinction events for the life of that period.

The differance is today, we are the creators of the massive injections of GHGs, rather than natural events like the eruption of the Siberian Traps. But the physics does not change, merely because we are creating the heat trapping gases.

And the reason that your "primary driver" driver rises with constancy while the temperature rises, falls, stalls and drops is what?

Show me where the temperature has stalled or dropped. There is a natural variability over the curve of the rise in temperature. We saw a record set on a super El Nino in 1998. In 2010, we saw that record matched in a year that saw a moderate El Nino for one half, and a strong La Nina for the other half. This year we may match or exceed that record with a moderate La Nina for the first quarter and neutral conditions for the rest of the year. In spite of the aerosols that India and China are putting into the atmosphere that provide a masking effect for the warming.

Really now, does this graph look like a cooling or stalled trend?

UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2012: +0.30°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

+0.30. That is higher than any high point prior to 1998. And it comes on the last month of a double La Nina.

The trend line imposed as the averages is tailing down at the end in what looks a little like a pretty good representation of a cycle in progress.

The end of the curve is downward. This is just like the TSI, no?

How much has the level of your "primary driver" dropped during the period of temperature decrease?

 

[Old Rocks]

What makes you think that the current warming is not the result of solar activity?

Greg's TSI Page

Because the TSI is lower now than it was 30 years ago.

The current warming started as the ending of The Little Ice Age. This was in about 1600. This is also when the current trend of rising TSI started.

Hmmm...

I wonder if there might be a connection there?

A cause with a demonstrable effect?

This is certainly not the kind of science accepted the AGW crowd. We probably need to ignore this.

Code, you know exactly what the story is there. It is called the Meander Minimum. And it involved a period in which there were far fewer sunspots, with a lower TSI. Something we just saw in the last solar cycle. Nor did the Little Ice Age end in the 1600's. As you well know!

The Little Ice Age

The Little Ice Age was a time of cooler climate in most parts of the world. Although there is some disagreement about exactly when the Little Ice Age started, records suggest that temperatures began cooling around 1250 A.D. The coldest time was during the 16th and 17th Centuries. By 1850 the climate began to warm.
During the Little Ice Age, average global temperatures were 1-1.5 degree Celsius (2-3 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than they are today. The cooler temperatures were caused by a combination of less solar activity and large volcanic eruptions. Cooling caused glaciers to advance and stunted tree growth. Livestock died, harvests failed, and humans suffered from famine and disease.

You really need to start documenting your yap-yap. Your veracity is descending to Frankie Boy's level.

 

[wirebender]

That really is a terribly childish response.

Is there a left wing position and a right wing posiition on gravity?

You were the one who suggested that it must be true because european conservative politicians were on the bandwagon.

Scientific proof does not rely on politics, and isn't - IMHO - a political subject.

I don't believe that reams of evidence of falcification of data on gravity can be produced as is the case with AGW. And there is no scientific proof, not a single shred that would stand as evidence that man is responsible for the changing global climate. We keep asking for the proof you guys claim and it never materializes. Why do you think that might be?

The fact that you feel scientific proof relies on political opinions says quite a lot about how you read science, doesn't it?

Again, you were the one who introduced politicians into the discussion as if their beliefs constituted any sort of evidence.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here we go again. All the scientist in all the nations in the world are in on a conspiracy to decieve poor Bent.

 

[wirebender]

But given the Minoan Period is largely associated with sunspot acitivty - why do you feel it is relevant to the situation we face today?

Really? Who was observing and noting sunspot activity 5000 years ago. Which records from 5000 years ago are do you do you refer to as reference for that claim?

You can feel free to believe whatever you are told, but I am not that sort. I don't buy information simply because it falls in line with my political leanings. In scientific matters, I accept information hesitantly if it is backed up by credible data, credible experimental data, is supported and predicted by known natural laws, and there is no evidnece of fraud associatied with it. None of the above can be said for climate pseudoscience.

There doesn't exist a shred of evidence that could be considered credible that would lay the minoan period at the feet of sunspot activity. That, my friend is just one more example of climate pseudoscience making it up as they go.

 

[wirebender]

What makes you think that the current warming is not the result of solar activity?

I would be more interested in why he thinks that there is current warming considering that world temps have been flat, if not going down slightly for the past decade and a half.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bent, you are full of shit.

UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2012: +0.30°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[wirebender]

Really now, does this graph look like a cooling or stalled trend?

This graph?

This graph shows a clearly decreasing trend. You have shown us before that reading graphs isn't really your thing, but see that black line curving downward, that is the trend line and the trend is obviously down. Thanks for the graph, it shows clearly how either congenitally dishonest, or abysmally ignorant you are.

 

[wirebender]

Here we go again. All the scientist in all the nations in the world are in on a conspiracy to decieve poor Bent.

Same old fantasy. Are you really so stupid that you can't differentiate between the political head of an organization and the body? Guess you are. Nothing like all of the scientists in the world are on the bandwagon. The fact is that you would have a hard time finding any who are who don't depend on grant money for their daily bread and those are the vast minority rocks. Sorry to break it to you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really now, does this graph look like a cooling or stalled trend?

This graph?

This graph shows a clearly decreasing trend. You have shown us before that reading graphs isn't really your thing, but see that black line curving downward, that is the trend line and the trend is obviously down. Thanks for the graph, it shows clearly how either congenitally dishonest, or abysmally ignorant you are.

LOL. That shows a decreasing trend? Can you read a graph at all?

That shows a natural variation over a rising curve. Look at the average lows since 1998, they are above most of the average prior to 1998. How on earth can you see that as a decrease?

Look at 2011. One of the strongest La Ninas on record, barely gets to neutral, then goes back into a moderate La Nina, but the average bottoms out at +0.1. That is above every high average mark prior to 1998.

Bent, you are either really stupid, considering your posts on the physics of light, a real possibility, or you are purposefully lying for your political position.

 

[wirebender]

LOL. That shows a decreasing trend? Can you read a graph at all?

Why, yes I can. See the curving line? That is the trend. The trend is down. Sorry you can't. Blame the educational system.