Alaska Glaciers - key indicator of climate change

[Saigon]

Off the top of my head Id include micro variations in water vapor, local solar irradiance and Earth orbit on par with the .002% variation in CO2 that you claim is the culprit

I'm not claiming that.

I would agree that water vapour, solar activity and the earth's orbits would be factors to consider - I would also imagine that a guy with a PhD in geophysics is probably going to have a better handle on that than I do.

If you are suggesting he hadn't thought this through...my guess is you have never defended a PhD dissertation. (My wife is doing hers this year, and it is BRUTAL!)

 

[wirebender]

I do not aim with my hand;
He who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I aim with my eye.
I do not shoot with my hand;
He who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I shoot with my mind.
I do not kill with my gun;
He who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my heart.

Roland Deschain of Gilead.

Excellent series of books. Not long back I finished my 5th reading of the set.

 

[daveman]

I do not aim with my hand;
He who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I aim with my eye.
I do not shoot with my hand;
He who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I shoot with my mind.
I do not kill with my gun;
He who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my heart.

Roland Deschain of Gilead.

Excellent series of books. Not long back I finished my 5th reading of the set.

Thankee, sai.

 

[daveman]

We've been repeatedly assured that the only thing driving climate change is CO2 emitted by man's activities.

That is complete and utter garbage.

I have never heard ANYONE suggest that CO2 emitted by man was the only cause. There will always be variations in natural cycles of CO2 release, plus volcanic activity etc etc.

Not according to the AGW cult.

 

[Saigon]

Not according to the AGW cult.

Well, there are some wacky nutjob extremists on all sides of this debate, and I'm not going to claim that no fruitloop hippy ever said that ONLY human activity claimed that.

But what I will say is that the sources I tend to rely on don't claim that.

I think it's obvious that people are not the only variable on earth...for me that's kinda self-evident.

 

[daveman]

Not according to the AGW cult.

Well, there are some wacky nutjob extremists on all sides of this debate, and I'm not going to claim that no fruitloop hippy ever said that ONLY human activity claimed that.

But what I will say is that the sources I tend to rely on don't claim that.

I think it's obvious that people are not the only variable on earth...for me that's kinda self-evident.

Indeed. But the Cult doesn't do self-evident.

 

[wirebender]

And I look forward to seeing evidence of that presented which suggests that the current trends are nothing unusual. Including, perhaps, some explanation as to why 97% of the worlds glaciers have been in retreat for the past 60 years.

The evidence isn't that hard to find if you have any interest at all in looking. All one need do is look for archeological writeups on the finds being left in the wake of retreating glaciers in those areas where they are not advancing.

Geotimes — April 2005 — Trends and Innovation
Ancient Tides: Retreating Glaciers Reveal Neolithic Artifacts
The Iceman's Last Meal: Goat - Science News
Peru - Ampato photos on Fotopedia
Ancient Tides: Masked Female Mummy Discovered in Peru

And the list goes on and on and on. Everyting from flower fossils, to extinct animals, to bodies, to villages have been found in the paths of retreating glaciers. Glaciers advance and they retreat and the fact is that we don't have a clear indication as to why.

I don't know if you are aware of the fact, but the earth is still in an ice age. We are presently in a not particularly warm spot in an interglacial period. It can take from tens, to hundreds of thousands of years to exit an ice age. That time is punctuated with cold and warm periods of varying lengths with an overall upward trend over the long view till such time as there is no ice at all......anywhere.

The fact is that if you look across earth's history, you will see that for most of that time, the temperature of the earth was such that it is highly unlikely that there was any ice anywhere, even the tops of the highest mountains.

The ice age the earth is in the process of exiting began at some point in the early Eocene period about 50 million years ago. it reached its depth during the pliestoocene about 14 thousand years ago at which time, the earth began warming again. It has been an up and down process ever since with periods that have been both a good deal warmer than the present and cooler than the present with an over all long term trend to warm.

Here, have a look at a temperature graph spanning the history of the earth and then tell me, considering both the long term and relatively recent history of the earth, what exactly what it is about the present climate that you find so distressing.

The graph comes from the paleomap project. It is a highly respected and credible site that doesn't push warming or skepticism. It merely presents the history of the earth as best we know it.

Home Page

 

[Saigon]

Daveman -

I don't get all of this stuff about cults and religion. I've been called a 'true believer' a few times here, and I don't know what is more cultish than labeling people who disagree with you.

 

[Saigon]

Wirebender -

Yes, definitely glaciers advance and retreat - I don't think there is any secret there.

The question is why 97% of the world's glaciers would be in decline all at the same time, right around the world, and largely showing a similar pattern of retreat (i.e. accelerating from 1990).

 

[wirebender]

Well, there are some wacky nutjob extremists on all sides of this debate, and I'm not going to claim that no fruitloop hippy ever said that ONLY human activity claimed that.

The present head scientist on the AGW side of the discussion is just such a wacky nut job extremist. James hansen is as crazy as they get and he is steering the boat.

Take a few minutes to look at his history and tell me seriously that a movement being steered by anyone that crazy should be taken seriously.

 

[wirebender]

Daveman -

I don't get all of this stuff about cults and religion. I've been called a 'true believer' a few times here, and I don't know what is more cultish than labeling people who disagree with you.

In europe, the courts have stated that belief in AGW qualifies as a religion. Belief in AGW is, in fact a matter of belief, or faith because there isn't a shred of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that supports the AGW claims. Faith is defined as a belief in something that can't be proven.

 

[wirebender]

Wirebender -

Yes, definitely glaciers advance and retreat - I don't think there is any secret there.

The question is why 97% of the world's glaciers would be in decline all at the same time, right around the world, and largely showing a similar pattern of retreat (i.e. accelerating from 1990).

If you looked at any of the links I gave you, you can't help but note that many neolithic, and iron age discoveries are being made in the paths of retreating glaciers from the alps to china, to the urals to peru. That means that during the times of the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period, glaciers all across the earth were in retreat as well. Warmist tend to establish very convenient cut off dates for thier research and ignore climate a hundred years earlier which would falsify their claims if they adhered to the scientific method.

The present climate is in no way unusual or unprecedented. It is simply business as usual in a chaotic system that has always and will always be chaotic.

Tell me, looking at the long term temperature history of the earth, what do you see in the present that is an any way unusual or unprecedented?

 

[Saigon]

In europe, the courts have stated that belief in AGW qualifies as a religion.

Can we see a link for that?

 

[Saigon]

Tell me, looking at the long term temperature history of the earth, what do you see in the present that is an any way unusual or unprecedented?

The fact that the melting pattern for glaciers is:

a) global

b) displays the same pattern globally.

During periods such as the Minoan, the melting patterns were often geographically isolated, particularly in the northern hemisphere.

Also:

Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. As we’ll see in the next section, those kinds of natural changes have not been detected in the past few decades. Charles Jackson noted that when computer models take into account paleoclimatologists’ reconstructions of solar irradiance and volcanoes for the past 1,000 years, the models reproduce the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. Those events turn out to not be random noise after all.

Medieval Warm Period not so random « Know

 

[wirebender]

In europe, the courts have stated that belief in AGW qualifies as a religion.

Can we see a link for that?

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion - Telegraph
UK court rules that global warming is a religious belief, not science | TG Daily
UK Court: ‘Global Warming’ Is A Religion | Sweetness & Light


Asking me for links on every thing will soon grow tiresome. I don't make things up as there is no need to make things up on this side of the argument.

 

[Saigon]

Asking me for links on every thing will soon grow tiresome. I don't make things up as there is no need to make things up on this side of the argument.

I'm sure you don't - but if you make claims it makes sense to back them up.

In this case you seem to have misread the story.

What it says is that he could not be dismissed on the basis of:

"any religion, religious belief, or philosophical belief"

The word 'or' is key to understanding this sentence.

 

[wirebender]

During periods such as the Minoan, the melting patterns were often geographically isolated, particularly in the northern hemisphere.

Sorry, but that is simply not true. There are strong Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm period signals in the Vostok ice cores collected near the south pole. Trying to minimize past warming periods is nothing more and nothing less than propaganda issued by the hockey time. There are literally dozens of peer reviewed studies that demonstrate that the above warming periods were both warmer than the present and global in nature. Feel free to name a continent and I will provide you with peer reviewed sudies.

Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming.

It wasn't long ago that climate scientists said that the sun had nothing to do with climate change. As the studies began to mount up proving that past warm periods were both global and warmer than the present, then they stated the sun was the culprid. The fact is that we remain unsure. What we do know and history bears out is that the present climate does not even begin to approach the boundries of natural variability.

And to claim that present climate scientists "understand" anything is a bit of a stretch. Hell, they can't even say for sure what the albedo of the earth is and that is rock bottom basic to figuring out a climate budget.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Off the top of my head Id include micro variations in water vapor, local solar irradiance and Earth orbit on par with the .002% variation in CO2 that you claim is the culprit

I'm not claiming that.

I would agree that water vapour, solar activity and the earth's orbits would be factors to consider - I would also imagine that a guy with a PhD in geophysics is probably going to have a better handle on that than I do.

If you are suggesting he hadn't thought this through...my guess is you have never defended a PhD dissertation. (My wife is doing hers this year, and it is BRUTAL!)

So CO2 is not the culprit.

Perfect

 

[wirebender]

Asking me for links on every thing will soon grow tiresome. I don't make things up as there is no need to make things up on this side of the argument.

I'm sure you don't - but if you make claims it makes sense to back them up.

I have backed them all up before. You know what remains un backed up eventhough the claim has been made ad nauseum since this board opened? The claim that there exists actual observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a link between our activities and the changing global climate. What hard evidence do you base your belief on?

The word 'or' is key to understanding this sentence.

I didn't misunderstand anything. I just don't feel the need to torture the meaning into something that it isn't. The fact of the case states volumes.

 

[Saigon]

So CO2 is not the culprit.

Perfect

Please read the science about GLACIERS that has been presented. THEN comment.