AGW cons email how to bullshit about glaciers

[polarbear]

email doc# 1110150877
From: "olgasolomina" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Glacier box - comments and suggestions
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 1837 +0300 (MSK)
Reply-to: [email protected]
We are focusing on the continuous records, which is one of the main achievement of the last years, indeed. But the real continuous records come from Scandinavia only – even the Alps are mostly based on moraine datings (wood etc.). The records from FJL and Brooks Range are not continuous
So, two potential strategies can be suggested – to forget the rest of the World and keep the picture Scandinavia
During a good half of the Holocene the glaciers were SMALLER than now. I attach here the figure with the same axes as at the Valerie’ picture (warmest/wettest periods), and the detailed comments on it. To be “scientifically correct” we probably can shade these periods for the regions that we are presenting at our figure (see a separate file “smaller than now” ). What is unusual about the modern retreat is the RATE, though we do not know much about the rate of the former retreat
These spin doctors make the best ones the Dems have look like amateurs

 

[Crick]

Is there some reason you don't show us the finished product about which this monologue speaks? Or, again, the responses from the folks to whom this was actually addressed?

 

[Old Rocks]

Polar, I have walked on many of the glaciers in the Cascades. They are receding and thinning. I really don't care what they did 8000 years ago, as that does not affect the water supplies at present. And the changes are far faster now than at that time. The only time that there has been faster changes than at present during the time since the continental glaciers melted was at the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas. And we certainly don't want to see anything like that.

Shrinking glaciers evidence of global warming / Differences seen by looking at photos from 100 years ago

 

[CrusaderFrank]

email doc# 1110150877
From: "olgasolomina" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Glacier box - comments and suggestions
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 1837 +0300 (MSK)
Reply-to: [email protected]
We are focusing on the continuous records, which is one of the main achievement of the last years, indeed. But the real continuous records come from Scandinavia only – even the Alps are mostly based on moraine datings (wood etc.). The records from FJL and Brooks Range are not continuous
So, two potential strategies can be suggested – to forget the rest of the World and keep the picture Scandinavia
During a good half of the Holocene the glaciers were SMALLER than now. I attach here the figure with the same axes as at the Valerie’ picture (warmest/wettest periods), and the detailed comments on it. To be “scientifically correct” we probably can shade these periods for the regions that we are presenting at our figure (see a separate file “smaller than now” ). What is unusual about the modern retreat is the RATE, though we do not know much about the rate of the former retreat
These spin doctors make the best ones the Dems have look like amateurs

If half of the Holcene glaciers are smaller than now, that can only mean that the internal combustion engine is far older than anyone can imagine

 

[TNHarley]

Ice melting! HOLY SHIT

 

[Crick]

email doc# 1110150877
From: "olgasolomina" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Glacier box - comments and suggestions
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 1837 +0300 (MSK)
Reply-to: [email protected]
We are focusing on the continuous records, which is one of the main achievement of the last years, indeed. But the real continuous records come from Scandinavia only – even the Alps are mostly based on moraine datings (wood etc.). The records from FJL and Brooks Range are not continuous
So, two potential strategies can be suggested – to forget the rest of the World and keep the picture Scandinavia
During a good half of the Holocene the glaciers were SMALLER than now. I attach here the figure with the same axes as at the Valerie’ picture (warmest/wettest periods), and the detailed comments on it. To be “scientifically correct” we probably can shade these periods for the regions that we are presenting at our figure (see a separate file “smaller than now” ). What is unusual about the modern retreat is the RATE, though we do not know much about the rate of the former retreat
These spin doctors make the best ones the Dems have look like amateurs

If half of the Holcene glaciers are smaller than now, that can only mean that the internal combustion engine is far older than anyone can imagine

Or this is correct.

 

[mamooth]

The email was discussing AR4 Working Group 1, chapter 6. Here's the page it's specifically talking about. Polarbear is invited to tell us exactly what was misleading about that page. If he can't, he should apologize for slurring honest scientists.

6.5.1.3 Was Any Part of the Current Interglacial Period Warmer than the Late 20th Century? - AR4 WGI Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate

Here's the full email. The parts that polarbear deleted, without mentioning it, are bolded. After doing his deleting, he ran it all together to hide the deletions. Given how it's the second time I've caught him doing that, it should be assumed every ClimateGate post by polarbear is another attempt to scam through fudging-by-unattributed-deletion.

---
1. We are focusing on the continuous records, which is one of the main achievement of the last years, indeed. But the real continuous records come from Scandinavia only – even the Alps are mostly based on moraine datings (wood etc.). The records from FJL and Brooks Range are not continuous, they are just the same as in any other place in the World, presented as continuous curves. So, two potential strategies can be suggested – to forget the rest of the World and keep the picture Scandinavia and Alps only or add more discontinuos records drawn as curves. I would go for the second solution for obvious reason to keep the global prospective. I attach more curves that I got from publications + I asked Tom Lowell and Wibjorn Karlen to make something of this kind for NZealand and Africa. I suggest to focus in detail (with dates etc.)on the Scandinavian records (as we did in our text), but briefly discuss the general picture of Holocene glacier variations referring to the updated picture. I need your opinion before changing the graphics (see comments and suggestions in “Box comments SO” file)

2. During a good half of the Holocene the glaciers were SMALLER than now. I attach here the figure with the same axes as at the Valerie’ picture (warmest/wettest periods), and the detailed comments on it. To be “scientifically correct” we probably can shade these periods for the regions that we are presenting at our figure (see a separate file “smaller than now” ). What is unusual about the modern retreat is the RATE, though we do not know much about the rate of the former retreat (again because of the lack of continuous records).

3. I changed the introduction. I believe that it is really important to keep the general prospective and mention the exceptions, namely glacier advances (at a Holocene global scale) reflect mostly temperature, therefore a kind of global synchroniety can be visible, though occasionally precipitation may trigger certain advances – maritime and tropical regions are likely to experience it more often than the rest of the World) . Two papers justifying this point of view appeared recently (Oerlemans, 2005, Mayewski et al., 2004) and deserve attention. I included the refs in the updated text. I am ready to discuss further this part, but I believe that we need changes here!
---