Canadian Glaciers

[westwall]

Well now, I have only observed Canadian glaciers one time in my life, so have no personal data to base any opinion on, other than what scientists dealing with glacier in that area state. However, in my own backyard, I have seen substancial glacier melt in the North Cascades and on the Cascadian volcanic peaks. I have also seen the tree line in one area in the North Cascades where I hunt mineral move upward 500'. From 1973 to 2005.

Much of the John Day River is now to warm for trout after July, and smallmouth bass has become the primary gamefish downstream from the John Day Valley. The glacial terminus for the Nisqually Glacier has been steadily retreating. These are things that I have personally observed.

Once again, who cares. You're personal experience is so vanishingly short in the scheme of the planet that to assert is being somehow meaningful, is laughable. I find it amusing that you acknowledge the existence of long term cycles and then completely ignore the reality of those very same cycles.

 

[westwall]

What happened before 1919? Global cooling? The industrial revolution was going full swing with coal, coal, coal fumes darkening the sky for the greater part of the 19th century but no warming.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have gone up by about 40% in the last 150 years but over half of that increase has happened in the last 30 years. The increase in CO2 started slowly and built up gradually until around mid 20th Century when the increase began to accelerate sharply. The heat trapping effect of CO2 adds thermal energy to the system in a cumulative way like a snowball rolling downhill. We're at the point where the accumulated heat energy is starting to radically affect the Earth's climate systems.

Yes, CO2 levels have shot through the roof, and counter to every prediction made by the warmists, the temps have remained flat for the last 16 years. That makes the theory (in the words of Feynman) WRONG!

 

[RollingThunder]

What happened before 1919? Global cooling? The industrial revolution was going full swing with coal, coal, coal fumes darkening the sky for the greater part of the 19th century but no warming.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have gone up by about 40% in the last 150 years but over half of that increase has happened in the last 30 years. The increase in CO2 started slowly and built up gradually until around mid 20th Century when the increase began to accelerate sharply. The heat trapping effect of CO2 adds thermal energy to the system in a cumulative way like a snowball rolling downhill. We're at the point where the accumulated heat energy is starting to radically affect the Earth's climate systems.

Yes, CO2 levels have shot through the roof, and counter to every prediction made by the warmists, the temps have remained flat for the last 16 years. That makes the theory (in the words of Feynman) WRONG!

That's your denier cult myth and I see that you're still jacking off to it but it is just as false as your other idiotic denier cult myths.

No, Global Warming Hasn't 'Stopped'
Discovery News
Oct 17, 2012
(excerpts - amounts to less than two paragraphs of text plus the graphs)
...there’s a wrong way to look at long-term trends:

And there’s a right way:

In response to the ‘Daily Mail’ article, the Met Office posted a graph that includes a larger number of years and show the real trend quite clearly:

As can be seen, at first glance, the years seem to follow no discernible order: 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2006. But the decades are color-coded, which shows that the vast majority of the hottest years are in this century, followed by the 1990s etc. As the Met Office pointed out in December 2009, “the first decade of this century has been, by far, the warmest decade on the instrumental record.”

The farther back in the instrument record one goes, the clearer the trend. Witness, for example, this graph, from last year:

That graph is the work of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, led by former climate skeptic - yes, skeptic – Richard Muller. As we noted last year, Muller was surprised to find that his own analysis of temperature data closely matched those of the scientists he had previously criticized. He wrote:

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.​

 

[Old Rocks]

All the graphs in the world will not help convince those that have decided to ignore reality.