Con-Climate Science Fudged - But Why?

[flacaltenn]

I'd like present some slightly more robust evidence of global glacial decline.

The best material I have yet found is in the: Global glacier changes section of this site. It is a then a 4 page pdf file.

Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures

The material tracks glaciers back to 1845, and covers the entire globe.

On the top right hand side of page 1 is a large red and blue graphic showing glacial advance/retreat 1825 - 2010.


Frank -

I challenge you directly to look at this material and commenting on it. Let's try actually discussing some real science and staying on topic. You want to debate for once - let's see it.

Your source is quite comprehensive. And it appears to be quite useful.. But NOT for your purpose of showing "Global Glacier retreat due to Global warming"..

Too many instances of glaciers in the same region having different reactions to the local climate. Also -- many instances that show relative stabilization or REDUCED melt trends after significant "pre-CO2" retreats.. Pretty much what IanC was showing by example.

This is NOT a good proxy for you alarmists.. Because we already KNOW what the temperature has done globally. It's about 1degC higher in your lifetime. If you want to panic about just how much glacier tail that eats up ---- you'll have to leave me out of the discussion.. I don't fight about ice melts.. Same reason why a doctor doesn't waste time counting pimples before they treat for measles..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd like present some slightly more robust evidence of global glacial decline.

The best material I have yet found is in the: Global glacier changes section of this site. It is a then a 4 page pdf file.

Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures

The material tracks glaciers back to 1845, and covers the entire globe.

On the top right hand side of page 1 is a large red and blue graphic showing glacial advance/retreat 1825 - 2010.


Frank -

I challenge you directly to look at this material and commenting on it. Let's try actually discussing some real science and staying on topic. You want to debate for once - let's see it.

The glaciers are melting.

OK.

Now what?

 

[westwall]

I have actually been to glaciers the world over You? I have stood on glaciers that were retreating and are now advancing in both hemispheres.

Really?

Interesting given there are 130,000 glaciers in the world, of which are know for a fact that 123,500 are in decline.

But you have been to two which are increasing.

Can you explain to me how this is NOT cherry-picking?

btw, I've seen glaciers in Chile, Argentina, New Zealand, Norway, Nepal, India, Peru and Tanzania. Presumably you have been to many more.

No, I've been to 14 that are increasing. But let's look at just India shall we? The Times of India reports that 2,000 glaciers are advancing...that they know of! And that was in 2011.


MANALI: Record snowfall in Himachal this year has revived more than 2,000 glaciers.

Almora's G B Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development's senior scientist J C Kuniyal said apart from reviving the glaciers, this year's record snowfall would also boost the crop cycle. "It is difficult to understand the environment. As we start talking about the dry winters, record snowfall leaves stunned everyone," he said.


Record snowfall in HP revives 2,000 glaciers - Times Of India

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd like present some slightly more robust evidence of global glacial decline.

The best material I have yet found is in the: Global glacier changes section of this site. It is a then a 4 page pdf file.

Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures

The material tracks glaciers back to 1845, and covers the entire globe.

On the top right hand side of page 1 is a large red and blue graphic showing glacial advance/retreat 1825 - 2010.


Frank -

I challenge you directly to look at this material and commenting on it. Let's try actually discussing some real science and staying on topic. You want to debate for once - let's see it.

Is your 200 years data set "more robust" that a 600,000 year set?

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

When you've read the material, then we can talk.

I think it's fairly clear from your comments here that you have not read it - in which case there is nothing to talk about.

Take a look at it, and tell us what your thoughts on it were.

 

[Saigon]

No, I've been to 14 that are increasing.

Really?

And how many have you been to that were not increasing?

Again - we know for a fact that 95% of the worlds glaciers are rereating. As far as I know, this is not challenged or disputed by any serious source.

 

[Saigon]

Your source is quite comprehensive. And it appears to be quite useful.. But NOT for your purpose of showing "Global Glacier retreat due to Global warming"..

Too many instances of glaciers in the same region having different reactions to the local climate. Also -- many instances that show relative stabilization or REDUCED melt trends after significant "pre-CO2" retreats.. Pretty much what IanC was showing by example.

This is NOT a good proxy for you alarmists.. Because we already KNOW what the temperature has done globally. It's about 1degC higher in your lifetime. If you want to panic about just how much glacier tail that eats up ---- you'll have to leave me out of the discussion.. I don't fight about ice melts.. Same reason why a doctor doesn't waste time counting pimples before they treat for measles..

Thanks - I'm glad you found it thorough.

Glaciers do very much respond to local conditions, I totally agree, which is why Ian's posting of material on look at one single glacier struck me as so infuriating.

But the source strikes me as useful because it is global. We can compare glaciers in Asia with those in New Zealand with those in Europe - and that I think is key.

Temperature is the key here, but in glaciers we really see the impact climate change is having in the real world today. It is not all based on models, it is not a theory - it is something anyone of us can go and see.

I think that is useful.

 

[Politico]

The glaciers are melting.

OK.

Now what?

Drill baby drill.

 

[westwall]

No, I've been to 14 that are increasing.

Really?

And how many have you been to that were not increasing?

Again - we know for a fact that 95% of the worlds glaciers are rereating. As far as I know, this is not challenged or disputed by any serious source.

How about those 2000?

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

I'm surprised you didn't think that through before posting it.

Himachal Pradesh was the site of the most catastrophic collapses in glacial stock during the end of the last century. I can post material on this if you are unware of it, but at that stage it seemed like the entire region was in freefall.

If a series of glaciers lose 20% of their mass in 10 years, it is hardly surprising that we might see small advances during the following years. What we won't see is those glaciers ever approaching the size they were in 1990.

Again, the fact that 95% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat, and that this is unprecedented, is not being challenged by any credible source.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

I'm surprised you didn't think that through before posting it.

Himachal Pradesh was the site of the most catastrophic collapses in glacial stock during the end of the last century. I can post material on this if you are unware of it, but at that stage it seemed like the entire region was in freefall.

If a series of glaciers lose 20% of their mass in 10 years, it is hardly surprising that we might see small advances during the following years. What we won't see is those glaciers ever approaching the size they were in 1990.

Again, the fact that 95% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat, and that this is unprecedented, is not being challenged by any credible source.

In 1900 they had allready lost over 60% of their mass since the end of the Little Ice Age. They have lost less mass during this "most unprecedented" 100 year period than they did in that 50 year stretch. Color me unimpressed.

Your figures leave a lot to be desired.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Your figures leave a lot to be desired.

Perhaps if you tried reading the material linked earlier...even Flac commnented in how thorough it was.

If you do look at the material and actually try and understand it, I think you'll start to agree with what scientists are saying about glacial melt.

 

[flacaltenn]

Westwall -

Your figures leave a lot to be desired.

Perhaps if you tried reading the material linked earlier...even Flac commnented in how thorough it was.

If you do look at the material and actually try and understand it, I think you'll start to agree with what scientists are saying about glacial melt.

I really don't get the importance of this.. Glaciers are NOT THERMOMETERS.. We don't NEED a glacier study -- we have a satellite..

Many of the glaciers in that inventory are receeding at LOWER rates than their historic highest rates.. Soo???????????????

What are you trying to prove????
Alaska had their coldest and snowiest winter in a decade last year.. Sooooo?????

 

[Saigon]

Flac -

I have answered this before, but the key issue with both glaciers and the poles is that they are happening NOW.

It's not about models, projections or predictions - it is about what we simply know as a locked down and indisputable fact. Which is that 95% of the world's glaciers are in retreat.

That should have most people worried right there.

There is also the issue with both poles and glaciers that they have such an intense impact on the local environment. Glaciers provide not only drinking water, but create conditions for agriculture downstream. Plus having an effect on sea levels, of course.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's examine the logic here about why we should be panicked about glacial retreat..

Of all the sources of melting ice to raise the sea level -- glacial melt is the smallest problem.

And I'm asking you what the impact on agriculture and human existence would be IF YOU got your way and the climate conditions changed to a favorable state to make those GLACIERS GROW..

So Saigon -- discuss the impacts of a climate where glaciers are ADVANCING!!!!

 

[Saigon]

flac -

The impact of rapidly growing glaciers could be catastrophic.

It's a good thing no one is suggesting we try to make that happen.

 

[flacaltenn]

flac -

The impact of rapidly growing glaciers could be catastrophic.

It's a good thing no one is suggesting we try to make that happen.

So -- you don't LIKE the idea of GROWING glaciers, but you're haranguing folks about glacial decline. I'd say you're very hard to please...

 

[Saigon]

Flac -

No, I'm not hard to please. I think global temperatures need to be stablised, and I think lowering CO2 emissions is the best way to do that.

Every scientific organisation I've ever heard of seems to take a similiar view.

I would never advocate trying to "cool" the earth anymore than I would suggest we try to warm it.

 

[westwall]

Flac -

No, I'm not hard to please. I think global temperatures need to be stablised, and I think lowering CO2 emissions is the best way to do that.

Every scientific organisation I've ever heard of seems to take a similiar view.

I would never advocate trying to "cool" the earth anymore than I would suggest we try to warm it.

The temps today are roughly .7C greater than they were 1000 years ago. This is a problem? And appeals to authority are not science, no matter how hard you try to make it so.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

When you go to 100 doctors and 99 of them diagnose the same thing - this is not an appeal to authority. It's proof of scientific fact.

Essentially all scientific bodies agree that humans play some role in climate change - I appreciate this makes being on the other side discomforting, but that is hardly the fault of the scientists.

The temps today are roughly .7C greater than they were 1000 years ago. This is a problem?

Yes, because they are still rising and we already see the impacts on glaciers and the Arctic.

I don't want to see what +2.0C might look like, personally.