Alaska Glaciers - key indicator of climate change

[Saigon]

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.

.

I'd be very interested on seeing anything which suggests that South American or New Zealand glaciers were in retreat during the Minoan Period.

 

[Saigon]

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.

We are going to have to agree to disagree about that one.

To me saying that you can be paid in Euros or dollars patently does not mean dollars are Euros - likewise saying people can not be fired for relogious or philosophical beliefs does not mean philosophical beliefs are religions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So CO2 is not the culprit.

Perfect

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

I suspect Conservative control of government is the only antidote to Global Warming. The last time we had Conservative Government was 1920-8, right before Dems took over and started the Dust Bowl.

Democrats cause AGW. Has to be. What else fits the facts?

 

[wirebender]

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!)

If you are suggesting that the fact of a PhD means that the scientist in question has presented a well thought out and accurate paper, then you haven't spent much time looking at the pseudoscience that passes for cliamte science. Lets take a quick look at the foundation for modern climate science.

This is the latest version of the K/T energy budget upon which modern climate science is based. This bit of crap was put together by not one, but two PhDs. In looking at it, two blatant violations of well known and understood physical laws literally leap off the page.

The first is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The second law states: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Look at the yellow bar at the far right of the graphic. See the 333 watts per square meter of backradition that is portrayed as being absorbed by the surface of the earth? The claim is that the cooler atmosphere is radiating energy which is being absorbed by the warmer surface; and not just some, but twice as much energy as is being received from the sun.

That brings us to the second physical law being flagrantly violated. That would be the law of conservation of energy which states that energy can neiither be created nor destroyed. Look at the big orange bar on the left side of the page. It states that 161 watts per square meter of energy is being absorbed by the surface of the earth by the sun. 161 watts per square meter. That's all there is. The sun is the only source of energy and according to these two PhDs 161 watts per square meter is what is reaching the surface.

If the earth were a perfect reflector/radiator and it was receiving 161 watts per square meter of energy from its only source of energy, then it could radiate 161 watts per square meter back into the atmosphere. It isn't anywhere near a perfect reflector, or radiator. Now look at the big yellow bar just to the right of center. It states that the earth is radiating 396 watts per square meter back into the atmosphere. 396 is more than twice the energy being received from the only energy source. Where does this extra energy come from? According to the two PhDs it comes from the 333 watts per square meter violating the second law of thermodynamcis being absorbed by the surface of the earth.

And speaking of the surface of the earth. It is no coincidence that the whole earth is represented as a flat disk because this energy budget produced by two PhDs literally represents a flat earth that has no night time and doesn't rotate.

Now, you tell me why anyone, and I mean ANYONE should take climate science seriously when such a flawed and rediculous energy budget forms its basis.

 

[wirebender]

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

Reading about glaciers is not necessary to make a factual statement that CO2 is not the culprit. Tell me, by what mechanism do you believe CO2 results in a warming climate? What mechanism, that is, that doesn't violate a law of physics? CO2 absorbs a very small band of IR radiating from the earth as evidenced by its absorption spectrum. Its emission spectrum shows us that immediately emits the same amount of radiation that it absorbed. This tells us that it isn't capable of retaining energy so what does it do with it? It scatters it which is a cooling mechanism, not a warming one.

 

[Saigon]

Wirebender -

I can only say that my experience of the PhD process (i.e. my wife's work) is grueling and epic. Twice a year she is drilled for three days by assorted professors, who at times quiz her on work barely referenced in her footnotes and appendices.

I am sure there are some poor universities out there, but as far as I am concerned, if someone has a PhD from a good school in a western country - they probably know more than I do.

The topic here is glaciers, btw, I'd rather leave other topics for other threads.

 

[Saigon]

I suspect Conservative control of government is the only antidote to Global Warming.?

Yes...except conservative goverments and parties in almost every major country have stated categorically that human acitivity is involved in climate change.

Feel free to check the UK, Germany, France, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand.....basically the world.

That climate science is a political issue is a US phenomenon.

 

[wirebender]

I'd be very interested on seeing anything which suggests that South American or New Zealand glaciers were in retreat during the Minoan Period.

That's an easy one. Take a look at the respective warm periods over the past 10K years and tell me how a warming period of the magnitude of the Minoan could possibly be local, or hemispherical in nature. And again, the minoan signal in the graph below is from the Vostok ice cores. Tell me how you believe such a warming compared to today could not result in retreating glaciers.

There is such a thing as common sense here and looking at a warming of that magnitude and claiming that it wouldn't have resulted in glaciers retreating to a greater extent than today pushes the notion of common sense. Further, didn't I give you an article describing archaeological finds dating back to the minoan warming in peru? The glacier had to be absent for the find to be laid down.

Here are a few studies in the AU and New Zealand area Describing the various warm periods. Feel free to look them up. The all describe warming during periods the hockey team claim was restricted specific areas of the northern hemisphere.

Wilson, A.T., Hendy, C.H. and Reynolds, C.P. 1979. Short-term climate change and New Zealand temperatures during the last millennium. Nature 279: 315-317.

Williams, P.W., King, D.N.T., Zhao, J.-X. and Collerson, K.D. 2004. Speleothem master chronologies: combined Holocene 18O and 13C records from the North Island of New Zealand and their palaeoenvironmental interpretation. The Holocene 14: 194-208.

Eden, D.N and Page, M.J. 1998. Palaeoclimatic implications of a storm erosion record from late Holocene lake sediments, North Island, New Zealand. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 139: 37-58.

Wirrmann, D., Semah, A.-M., Debenay, J.-P. and Chacornac-Rault, M. 2011. Mid- to late Holocene environmental and climatic changes in New Caledonia, southwest tropical Pacific, inferred from the littoral plain Gouaro-Deva. Quaternary Research 76: 229-242.

Lorrey, A., Williams, P., Salinger, J., Martin, T., Palmer, J., Fowler, A., Zhao, J.-X. and Neil, H. 2008. Speleothem stable isotope records interpreted within a multi-proxy framework and implications for New Zealand palaeoclimate reconstruction. Quaternary International 187: 52-75.

Lorrey, A., Williams, P., Salinger, J., Martin, T., Palmer, J., Fowler, A., Zhao, J.-X. and Neil, H. 2008. Speleothem stable isotope records interpreted within a multi-proxy framework and implications for New Zealand palaeoclimate reconstruction. Quaternary International 187: 52-75.

 

[wirebender]

Wirebender -

I can only say that my experience of the PhD process (i.e. my wife's work) is grueling and epic. Twice a year she is drilled for three days by assorted professors, who at times quiz her on work barely referenced in her footnotes and appendices.

That doesn't say anything about what she will do with the prestige of that degree after she has it.

The topic here is glaciers, btw, I'd rather leave other topics for other threads.

Sure the topic is glaciers, but the question is why are they melting. That goes to the science that the AGW community is pushing forward as an explanation. Clearly, that science is lacking. If the science is flawed, what is the point of making the argument?

 

[wirebender]

That climate science is a political issue is a US phenomenon.

Perhaps you should take another look in europe. Germany for example is asking that regulations regarding coal fired power plants be suspended so they don't become a third world country due to regulation restricting the making of electricity.

Take that wall outlet away and in 3 weeks you are no more and no less than a hunter gatherer.

 

[Saigon]

Wirebender -

I can only say that my experience of the PhD process (i.e. my wife's work) is grueling and epic. Twice a year she is drilled for three days by assorted professors, who at times quiz her on work barely referenced in her footnotes and appendices.

That doesn't say anything about what she will do with the prestige of that degree after she has it.

The topic here is glaciers, btw, I'd rather leave other topics for other threads.

Sure the topic is glaciers, but the question is why are they melting. That goes to the science that the AGW community is pushing forward as an explanation. Clearly, that science is lacking. If the science is flawed, what is the point of making the argument?

I have never understood the thinking that someone who has spent 10 years studying a subject suddenly decides to produce fradulent research based on poor science once they graduate. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Most research units run according to the highest ethical standards - and thus most scientific reports they produce will meet those standards.

I don't think glaciers alone tell us why the climate is changing. What they do provide is one large piece in a puzzle - along with rising ocean levels and melting polar caps, ocean Ph, desertification and so forth. I prefer to view those as individual topics, and not just argue endlessly about CO2.

 

[Saigon]

That climate science is a political issue is a US phenomenon.

Perhaps you should take another look in europe. Germany for example is asking that regulations regarding coal fired power plants be suspended so they don't become a third world country due to regulation restricting the making of electricity.

Take that wall outlet away and in 3 weeks you are no more and no less than a hunter gatherer.

I live in Europe. I live in a country with 7 nuclear plants.

I also live in a country where both of the two major conservative parties have stated that human acitivity is involved in climate change.

I lived in Finland - but this is also true of France, Germany, the UK, Sweden...you name it.

 

[wirebender]

I have never understood the thinking that someone who has spent 10 years studying a subject suddenly decides to produce fradulent research based on poor science once they graduate. It doesn't make any sense to me.

It isn't difficult to understand at all. Before the AGW cult came into vogue, about the best gig a climate scientist (then meteorologist (a more difficult course of study by the way than climatology) could get was as a weatherman on one of the networks or newly emerging cable channels and even that didn't pay a great deal. Just a bit more than a college professor might expect to make.

Toss in about 600 billion in grant money and give these guys the opportunity to live in upscale neighborhoods, drive beemers and have upscale women with upscale boob jobs seeking relationships as if they were rock stars and you have all the ingredients necessary to make corrupting science a worthwhile endeavor. As they say, follow the money.

Ask your wife if she might consider bending her ethics a bit for the opportunity to make 5 times what she might currently expect to make with that PhD or how many people she knows who might.

Most research units run according to the highest ethical standards - and thus most scientific reports they produce will meet those standards.

Not in climate science. In climate science, data from computer simulaitons is accepted as observation, hiding data, distorting data and tampering with data are widely accepted norms within the field.

I don't think glaciers alone tell us why the climate is changing. What they do provide is one large piece in a puzzle - along with rising ocean levels and melting polar caps, ocean Ph, desertification and so forth. I prefer to view those as individual topics, and not just argue endlessly about CO2.

All glaciers tell us is that they are melting again. We have no more evidence of cause than at any other time they have retreated in the past. And the fact that some are still advancing and a few at an alarming rate only poses more questions and calls any conclusions drawn from retreating glaciers into further question.

 

[wirebender]

I live in Europe. I live in a country with 7 nuclear plants.

I also live in a country where both of the two major conservative parties have stated that human acitivity is involved in climate change.

By American standards, european conservatives are rabid liberals so claiming that your conservatives believe the hoax is like telling me that greenpeace believes the hoax.

Here is an interesting comment on the power situation there as opposed to here.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/05/11/lawrence-solomon-green-power-failure/

 

[daveman]

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.

I label AGW cultists as such because they believe what they believe without the support of non-perverted science. And they believe with a religious fervor.

In other words, if they have to lie to make their point, their point isn't worth making.

 

[daveman]

I suspect Conservative control of government is the only antidote to Global Warming.?

Yes...except conservative goverments and parties in almost every major country have stated categorically that human acitivity is involved in climate change.

Feel free to check the UK, Germany, France, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand.....basically the world.

That climate science is a political issue is a US phenomenon.

European conservatives are not synonymous with American conservatives.

 

[wirebender]

In other words, if they have to lie to make their point, their point isn't worth making.

They seem to never notice that when asked for anything even beginning to approach hard evidence that man's activities are responsible for the changing global climate, they simply can't deliver. Being a thinking person, if I ever found myself in that position, I would have to seriously re evaluate my position. Guess there aren't many thinkers on the other side.

 

[wirebender]

European conservatives are not synonymous with American conservatives.

By our standards, european conservatives are liberal activists.

 

[daveman]

In other words, if they have to lie to make their point, their point isn't worth making.

They seem to never notice that when asked for anything even beginning to approach hard evidence that man's activities are responsible for the changing global climate, they simply can't deliver. Being a thinking person, if I ever found myself in that position, I would have to seriously re evaluate my position. Guess there aren't many thinkers on the other side.

They can't produce evidence, so they start suggesting deniers be rounded up and executed.

Typical leftists.

 

[daveman]

European conservatives are not synonymous with American conservatives.

By our standards, european conservatives are liberal activists.

Indeed.