A Citizen’s Guide to Global Warming Evidence

[asterism]

LOL. Ian, you are a hoot. So, over the last ten or fifteen years the evidence has been evaporating? The cryosphere as a whole is melting at a rate not seen in recorded history. We have had 3 or the warmest years in recorded history in that period for which you claim the evidence is evaporating.

In fact, the whole of the data is 180 degrees opposite of your claims, Ian. Even the sceptic, Dr. Spencer, records the rapid increase in warming in the last 10 or 15 years.

Just exactly how long is that "recorded history?" Is it even statistically relevant?

 

[wirebender]

The models are nonfalsifiable, thus they are nonscientific.

Those who play at science must think the models are scientific. It's pretty cringeworthy.

Very good point. I am constantly asking alarmists to describe exactly what might falsify AGW theory in thier minds. I never get an answer because they know that whatever they say, there exists peer reviewed studies showing the very thing they claim might falsify the hypothesis.

Hell, in the scientific method, one of the first steps toward putting forward a credible hypothesis is the criteria necessary to falsify the claim. I have seen very little mentioned from the alarmist with regard to what will falsify the hypothesis.

 

[Old Rocks]

Everything he said is in point of fact backed up by loads of empirical data. Your POV on the other hand is supported only by crappy computer models.

Ol' Walleyes is once again a hoot!

Crappy computer models are melting the alpine glaciers worldwide? Melting gigatons of ice off of both Greenland and Anarctica at an accelerating rate? Melting the permafrost and releasing vast amounts of CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere? Warming the oceans as measured by the worldwide array of bouys and gliders? Creating the sea level rise that the satellites are measuring? A rise that is also accelerating.

My goodness, if you didn't have lies, you would have nothing at all, Walleyes

Here are some wiki sites plus a couple of others that show that both in the northern and southern hemispheres glaciers are advancing which refute your statement.

Whitney Glacier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bolam Glacier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hotlum Glacier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Argentine glacier grows despite warming - US news - Environment - Climate Change - msnbc.com

Contrarian New Zealand Glaciers Grow In The Age Of Global Warming

Well, yes, the glaciers on Shasta have been growing. And the article gives a good explanation of that. However, they are about the only glaciers in the lower 48 that are.

Whitney Glacier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2002, scientists made the first detailed survey of Mount Shasta's glaciers in 50 years. They found that seven of the glaciers have grown over the period 1951-2002, with the Hotlum and Wintun Glaciers nearly doubling, the Bolam Glacier increasing by half, and the Whitney and Konwakiton Glaciers growing by a third.[6] The study concluded that though there has been a two to three degree Celsius temperature rise in the region, there has also been a corresponding increase in the amount of snowfall. Increased temperatures have tapped Pacific Ocean moisture, leading to snowfalls that supply the accumulation zone of the glacier with 40 percent more snowfall than is melted in the ablation zone. Over the past 50 years, the glacier has actually expanded 30 percent, which is the opposite of what is being observed in most areas of the world. Researchers have also stated that if the global warming forecast for the upcoming next 100 years are accurate, the increased snowfall will not be enough to offset the increased melting, and the glacier is then likely to retreat.[7][8] Note that both these references make the claim that the Whitney Glacier is now the only glacier in the world known to be larger than it was in 1890, but this is erroneous. For example, several glaciers in Alaska, most notably the Hubbard Glacier, are larger now than in 1890.[9] However, Hubbard Glacier, along with a few other notable glaciers whose termini are at sea level, is what is known as a calving glacier. "Glaciologists often point out that glaciers are sensitive indicators of climate. This paradigm should not be applied to calving glaciers. During most of the calving glacier cycle, the slow advances and relatively rapid retreats are not very sensitive to climate. For example, the calving glaciers that are currently growing and advancing in the face of global warming, were retreating throughout the little ice age. Calving glaciers become sensitive to climate only late in the advancing phase, when the mass flux out of the accumulation area approaches the mass lost by melting in the ablation area and losses due to calving can no longer be replaced. No reasonable change in climate will change this imbalance and stop the advances of these few glaciers".

Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The retreat of glaciers since 1850 affects the availability of fresh water for irrigation and domestic use, mountain recreation, animals and plants that depend on glacier-melt, and in the longer term, the level of the oceans. Studied by glaciologists, the temporal coincidence of glacier retreat with the measured increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases is often cited as an evidentiary underpinning of global warming. Mid-latitude mountain ranges such as the Himalayas, Alps, Rocky Mountains, Cascade Range, and the southern Andes, as well as isolated tropical summits such as Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, are showing some of the largest proportionate glacial loss.[1]The Little Ice Age was a period from about 1550 to 1850 when the world experienced relatively cooler temperatures compared to the present. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed temporarily, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened. In locations such as the Andes of South America and Himalayas in Asia, the demise of glaciers in these regions will have potential impact on water supplies. The retreat of mountain glaciers, notably in western North America, Asia, the Alps, Indonesia and Africa, and tropical and subtropical regions of South America, has been used to provide qualitative evidence for the rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century.[2] The recent substantial retreat and an acceleration of the rate of retreat since 1995 of a number of key outlet glaciers of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, may foreshadow a rise in sea level, having a potentially dramatic effect on coastal regions worldwide.

 

[Old Rocks]

Argentine glacier grows despite warming - US news - Environment - Climate Change - msnbc.com

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier is one of only a few ice fields worldwide that have withstood rising global temperatures.

Nourished by Andean snowmelt, the glacier constantly grows even as it spawns icebergs the size of apartment buildings into a frigid lake, maintaining a nearly perfect equilibrium since measurements began more than a century ago.

"We're not sure why this happens," said Andres Rivera, a glacialist with the Center for Scientific Studies in Valdivia, Chile. "But not all glaciers respond equally to climate change."

 

[Old Rocks]

Contrarian New Zealand Glaciers Grow In The Age Of Global Warming

News Staff

Most of the world's glaciers are retreating as the planet gets warmer but some, including glaciers south of the equator in South America and New Zealand, are growing.At least for New Zealand glaciers, scientists have offered an explanation: for the last 7,000 years, they have often moved out of step with glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere, pointing to strong regional variations in climate, the authors write in Science.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Walleyes, seems all of your articles note that these glaciers are the exception. And I will add that there a few Himalayan glaciers that are also gaining. While most in that range have lost much of their length, and hundreds of feet of thickness.

A42D

 

[FactFinder]

And still the ice melts, the weather continues to become more erratic, causing foodstocks worldwide to dwindle, and the seas continue to acidify and rise.

But whatever it takes to avoid looking at the reality.

you may know something about that, heh?

 

[FactFinder]

OK, Walleyes, seems all of your articles note that these glaciers are the exception. And I will add that there a few Himalayan glaciers that are also gaining. While most in that range have lost much of their length, and hundreds of feet of thickness.

A42D

So why the inconsistency?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, try to find some facts by actually reading some of the articles.

 

[FactFinder]

Well, try to find some facts by actually reading some of the articles.

I am asking you to back up your inconsistent statements. You think that is some wily trick to place the burdon back on me? You made the claims. Get some balls! Answer the f'ing question.

 

[Foxfyre]

The thing is Old Rocks, there is simply too little data existing on the world's glaciers, and especially for the North American glaciers in areas that have been seriously populated for only a couple of hundred years or less.

In this concise but well done article for instance:

http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/epa/CO2ScienceEPACommentsCH4.pdf

(I can't post pertinent paragraphs because of the format that doesn't allow any copy and paste of the content.)

The scientists compared the computer models to the data the scientific community has been able to collect compared to what we know.

Of the world's 160,000 known glaciers, only 42% or 67,000 have been inventoried at all, and of those only 200 have had any kind of mass balance research done for a single year. If you extend the research to ten years, only 42 glaciers qualify.

The scientists who wrote and peer reviewed this article on glaciers seem to conclude that all glaciers have retreated and have more or less continually retreated since the last ice age and there was a period of rapid retreat after the last little ice age that has now slowed. The ratio of ice loss on the glaciers being watched is less each year.

All this needs to be included in the analysis before any conclusions are drawn.

 

[westwall]

OK, Walleyes, seems all of your articles note that these glaciers are the exception. And I will add that there a few Himalayan glaciers that are also gaining. While most in that range have lost much of their length, and hundreds of feet of thickness.

A42D

In point of fact MOST of the Himalayan glaciers are gaining. It is the minority that are losing mass.

 

[wirebender]

News Staff

Most of the world's glaciers are retreating as the planet gets warmer but some, including glaciers south of the equator in South America and New Zealand, are growing.At least for New Zealand glaciers, scientists have offered an explanation: for the last 7,000 years, they have often moved out of step with glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere, pointing to strong regional variations in climate, the authors write in Science.

Again. The ice has been retreating for some 14,000 years now. What precisely do you find unusual, or upsetting about the fact that it continues to retreat. We are, after all, still in the process of exiting an ice age.

What you and yours don't seem to understand is that proof of an event does not constitute proof of the cause of that event. Can you offer up even one piece of unequivocal, observed evidence that proves that man is responsible for the changing climate?

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks considers the Pakistan floods and the Russian heat wave to be incontravertable, unequivical proof. you just can't argue with that logic. of course I have tried and it couldnt hurt if you try too.

 

[wirebender]

Old Rocks considers the Pakistan floods and the Russian heat wave to be incontravertable, unequivical proof. you just can't argue with that logic. of course I have tried and it couldnt hurt if you try too.

Proof that they happened or proof that man is responsible? Has he really drank that much kookaid?

 

[Oddball]

The models are nonfalsifiable, thus they are nonscientific.

Those who play at science must think the models are scientific. It's pretty cringeworthy.

Very good point. I am constantly asking alarmists to describe exactly what might falsify AGW theory in thier minds. I never get an answer because they know that whatever they say, there exists peer reviewed studies showing the very thing they claim might falsify the hypothesis.

Hell, in the scientific method, one of the first steps toward putting forward a credible hypothesis is the criteria necessary to falsify the claim. I have seen very little mentioned from the alarmist with regard to what will falsify the hypothesis.

Falsifiable is he very last thing that globalclimatecoolerwarmering is....Doesn't matter what happens, the warmist nutbars can blame it on the Great Climactic Googly-moogly.

Robust Science! More Than 30 Contradictory Pairs Of Peer-Reviewed Papers

A complete list of things caused by global warming

 

[wirebender]

Hell, in the scientific method, one of the first steps toward putting forward a credible hypothesis is the criteria necessary to falsify the claim. I have seen very little mentioned from the alarmist with regard to what will falsify the hypothesis.

Falsifiable is he very last thing that globalclimatecoolerwarmering is....Doesn't matter what happens, the warmist nutbars can blame it on the Great Climactic Googly-moogly.

Robust Science! More Than 30 Contradictory Pairs Of Peer-Reviewed Papers

A complete list of things caused by global warming[/QUOTE]

I have read both those links and the very fact of their existence should embarass alarmists away from their stance. If I believed a thing that depended on that sort of evidence, I would certainly not speak about it in public. It amazes me how far some people are willing to drag their intellects through the gutter in an effort to hold to a position.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Walleyes, seems all of your articles note that these glaciers are the exception. And I will add that there a few Himalayan glaciers that are also gaining. While most in that range have lost much of their length, and hundreds of feet of thickness.



USGS Confirms Himalayan Glaciers Are Melting & Climate Change is to Blame : TreeHugger

In point of fact MOST of the Himalayan glaciers are gaining. It is the minority that are losing mass.

Oh my goodness, who to believe, Walleyes, or the USGS. Decisions, decisions.


USGS Confirms Himalayan Glaciers Are Melting & Climate Change is to Blame : TreeHugger


In case you were convinced otherwise by the quasi-scandal of 'Himalayagate' earlier in the year: The US Geological Survey has released a new report on the state of glacier retreat in the Himalaya and it makes perfectly clear the situation, "Many of Asia's glaciers are retreating as a result of climate change. This retreat impacts water supplies to millions of people, increases the likelihood of outburst floods that threaten life and property in nearby areas, and contributes to sea level rise."

Indian Glaciers Show Marked Retreat in Past Two Decades
Looking at glaciers throughout South and Central Asia, and working with nearly 40 international scientists, the report points out that the rate at which glaciers are retreating varies. Bhutan's 66 glaciers have retreated 8.1% in the past 30 years. In the Indian Himalaya melting has been more pronounced, with the Chhota Shigri Glacier retreating 12% in the past 13 years and the iconic Gangotri Glacier, where the River Ganga originates, retreating 12% in the past 16 years.

Separate recent reports note that beyond rising average global temperatures, black carbon soot from diesel engines and other industrial processes falling on Himalayan glaciers is responsible for up to 90% of the melting in the region. Though not technically a greenhouse gas, this particulate air pollution is increasingly being cited as a significant cause of warming temperatures, glacier melting, and changing weather patterns.

 

[Big Fitz]

There is obviously a lot of interest in this subject since on ALL political message boards, somebody starts a new thread on it every few days.

We're looking for record warm temperatures here in New Mexico over the next several days. That follows on the heels of record setting cold over this past winter. The problem with records of course is that we have been keeping them for such a short time relative to the length of time there has been weather on Planet Earth.

The 'record' is only seconds of the many eons of Earth science making it relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

The thing I can't figure out is why some are hanging onto the whole AGW schtick so tenaciously? I mean I know why scientists depending on liberal governments for their funding do. I know why corporate big wigs like General Electric who stand to make billions if the AGW crowd is successful in their agenda do.

But why are our fellow USMB members so gung ho to insist that AGW is real and a threat and a terrible problem?

The basic analogy is to take one frame of film of a long running TV series and the TV Guide overview on it's series finale and then trying to extrapolate the whole plot, character, acting and cinematography from it.

It cannot be done with anything less than a giant chunk of religious faith.

And that's what we see in the Chicken Little Brigade.

I would love to see the scientific PROOF that mankind is THE source of all this climatological change and not some insignificant blip in a planetary and astrological scale cycle of interconnected systems. It's akin to claiming that beavers are controlling the local hydrological process because they build dams.

 

[wirebender]

OK, Walleyes, seems all of your articles note that these glaciers are the exception. And I will add that there a few Himalayan glaciers that are also gaining. While most in that range have lost much of their length, and hundreds of feet of thickness.



USGS Confirms Himalayan Glaciers Are Melting & Climate Change is to Blame : TreeHugger

In point of fact MOST of the Himalayan glaciers are gaining. It is the minority that are losing mass.

Oh my goodness, who to believe, Walleyes, or the USGS. Decisions, decisions.


USGS Confirms Himalayan Glaciers Are Melting & Climate Change is to Blame : TreeHugger


In case you were convinced otherwise by the quasi-scandal of 'Himalayagate' earlier in the year: The US Geological Survey has released a new report on the state of glacier retreat in the Himalaya and it makes perfectly clear the situation, "Many of Asia's glaciers are retreating as a result of climate change. This retreat impacts water supplies to millions of people, increases the likelihood of outburst floods that threaten life and property in nearby areas, and contributes to sea level rise."

Indian Glaciers Show Marked Retreat in Past Two Decades
Looking at glaciers throughout South and Central Asia, and working with nearly 40 international scientists, the report points out that the rate at which glaciers are retreating varies. Bhutan's 66 glaciers have retreated 8.1% in the past 30 years. In the Indian Himalaya melting has been more pronounced, with the Chhota Shigri Glacier retreating 12% in the past 13 years and the iconic Gangotri Glacier, where the River Ganga originates, retreating 12% in the past 16 years.

Separate recent reports note that beyond rising average global temperatures, black carbon soot from diesel engines and other industrial processes falling on Himalayan glaciers is responsible for up to 90% of the melting in the region. Though not technically a greenhouse gas, this particulate air pollution is increasingly being cited as a significant cause of warming temperatures, glacier melting, and changing weather patterns.

Maybe you should try some peer reviewed science in lieu of the proclamations of a political entity.

Spatially variable response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change affected by debris cover

Spatially variable response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change affected by debris cover : Nature Geoscience : Nature Publishing Group

Nature Geoscience Volume: 4, Pages: 156–159 Year published: (2011)
DOI: doi:10.1038/ngeo1068

From the abstract: Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for understanding glacier retreat, an effect that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability9, 10 or global sea level11.


Is the recessional pattern of Himalayan glaciers suggestive of anthropogenically induced global warming?

SpringerLink - Arabian Journal of Geosciences, Online First

Arabian Journal of Geosciences DOI: 10.1007/s12517-010-0155-9

From the abstract: However, the recent studies of some of the Himalayan glaciers indicate that the rate of recession of most of the glaciers in general is on decline. These observations are in contradiction to the widely popularized concept of anthropogenically induced global warming. It is believed that the rise of temperature of around 0.6°C since mid-nineteenth century is a part of decadal to centennial-scale climatic fluctuations that have been taking place on this Earth for the past few thousands of years.


http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/aug102009/309.pdf

Temperature patterns over the past eight centuries in Northern Fennoscandia inferred from sedimentary diatoms | Mendeley

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/mar102009/703.pdf

Do the western Himalayas defy global warming?