Climategate - Page 31

Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures


Chapter 6 has a nice global inventory IMHO.

[CENTER]Planet Earth to ape-like hominids: I'm STILL Melting![/CENTER]

Except there's science and reasoning behind the GW side and there's DERRR, COLD ISN'T WARM DERRRR on the other.

Thank you for the clarification of your position. I obviously misinterpreted your main point. However, you did not make it clear from the outset. It is difficult sometimes to figure out if you are coming form a racial point or another point as you have done both in my previous conversations with you. I apologize for not getting this one right.

Not hypocritical, a simple misunderstanding.

Really. When I read things like what trunptman wrote I think it's really a stupid and childish remark. It's not trying to understand the mechanics of the situation at all. If climate was uncomplicated like that we'd have been predicting the weather 100 % accurately since time began! It'd be easy. It's just making a childish remark like you'd hear in the school yard " Yeah you say it's colder so that proves global warming ". How unintelligent.

More fear mongering. I don't buy it!!!

Seriously though. This guy predicted that the ozone hole would be bigger than ever this year based on his galactic cosmic ray theory and it was just "average". You might want to read this-

"The subject concerns the polar ozone hole in Antarctica and a possible role for cosmic rays in its variability on solar cycle timescales. The proponents of this link are a small research group at the University of Sherbrooke in Canada, who find themselves up against the mainstream stratospheric chemistry community and whose ideas are twisted out of all recognition by the more foolish of the usual suspects.

The story hit the tubes earlier this year when researcher Q.B. Lu predicted that this years Antarctic ozone hole would be the biggest ever due to the actions of increased galactic cosmic rays (GCR) (because we are at solar minimum and GCR are inversely correlated to solar activity). This years peak ozone hole has now come and gone, and the prediction can therefore be evaluated. Unfortunately for Dr. Lu, this years hole was merely about average for the decade a result that wasnt too supportive for his theory.

As we stated above, the un-exceptional ozone loss this year pretty much undermines the correlations that were at the heart of Lus idea. Thus I predict that this is unlikely to be discussed very much more in the literature except as an example of how interesting ideas are generated, discussed, tested and (in this case) found wanting. This indeed is how scientific progress is made."
~ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...d-cosmic-rays/

Thanks Noahj. I think I have at times inadvertently mischaracterized racial matters, so I understand where you were coming from. Sorry about not making things clearer initially.

If the climate scientists had been predicting a much larger ozone hole then the ozone hole would have been EVEN BIGGER than they were predicting. In Lu's case the ozone hole wasn't even larger than normal. But hey, put your faith in him amongst all the other conflicting odd ball theories you now believe in.

And he may be right but when you factor in that people will have much less clean drinking water and that there will be huge food shortages, both of which lead to weakened immune systems and numerous other health issues, the picture turns a lot uglier. Remember too that millions of people will loose their incomes. Especially in developing countries that are more reliant on fishing and agriculture. I read somewhere that 125 million people make their living from the Coral Reefs around the world at the moment and GW is significantly damaging them. Refugees cramped into tent cities often have outbreaks of infectious diseases too. To try and make out that infectious diseases won't be an issue is really quite naive at best and something quite hideous at worst.

His point is that variations in climate alone won't necessarily lead to more infectious diseases. As soon as you look at the implications on humans though of GW, through some of the things I mentioned, it's a completely different picture. What part of this conversation don't you understand?

At higher altitudes there are far fewer resources to utilize, hence the earlier migrations.

I think you went off the rails here. He was asking if you think that sometimes peer reviewed papers can be wrong, or if only AGW Skeptic papers that are peer reviewed could be wrong. You are plowing forward on a tangent, while possibly very interesting, does not complete the previous thought...

I said "And he may be right but when you factor in that people will have much less clean drinking water and that there will be huge food shortages, both of which lead to weakened immune systems and numerous other health issues, the picture turns a lot uglier."

So I didn't dismiss the link as rubbish I dismissed his all too obvious attempt to imply that infectious diseases won't become more prevalent due to GW. Sheesh!

Globally overall, glaciers are in rapid retreat. Increased precipitation, as opposed to lower temperatures in certain locations (obviously snowfall at high elevations) is the major factor re. the formation of new glacier ice.

Glaciers have been in "rapid retreat" since we've been watching them. Note Vancouver's and Cook's observations of Alaska in the 18th century, and the Muir's related observation of Glacier Bay in the 19th century.

It is astonishing that even something as binary as this is simply ignored -- we are coming out of an ice age in the recent past, and most glaciers in North America are evidence of this. The Kenai peninsula's southern edge was a near-continous ice sheet in the 18th century -- look at the maps of that era -- but the continuous retreat since that time is used as evidence of AGW.

Compound that with the evidence that most of that area in South Central Alaska -- and others like that in the continental US, are plainly one recent moraine after another

It's fraud, pure and simple.

I can't say that it's fraud...but I'd say much of it is at least debatable. I ran across an interesting list of papers that contribute to skeptical view at Watt's Up...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/1...viewed-papers/

I expect that many of them might not be accurately classified as "skeptical", but none the less they make an interesting resource for those seeking a more critical eye.

I don't know about current modeling, but when it comes to proxy reconstructions I doubt they lack the accuracy to say much more than "warm" or "very warm" or "cool".

The problem with this is that we should be going into an ice age. The earth is still gaining distance from the sun and will do so for another 2000 + years before it turns around. Glaciers should be growing to the point of scary.... Alaska should be frozen over and half of Canada.

I posted a link to earth - sun distance graph earlier in this thread.

Something is counteracting our natural cooling cycle. If it is not CO2 and Methane content, what is it?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

So in the 70's, there was panic about Global Cooling and an incoming ice age.
The last decade has seen an increasing hysteria about Global Warming.

Now we are worried that the world should be freezing over, but isn't?

No, we are not.

The last Ice Age ended some 12,000 years ago.

The global climate has been stable, meaning no different in any serious way, since the beginning of the Holocene, or at least 10,000 years.

In geologic terms, 10,000 years is a rounding error.

The estimated age of the earth is 4.5 billions years.

The estimate age of the Lucy fossil is 3.2 million years.

What are you, some sort of creationist? 10,000 years is absolutely nothing in terms of time when considered on a planetary scale.

Folks like this prove my pet theory that WarmMongers are simply Baby Boomers expressing fear that life will go on and things will change after they die. If it isn't the same temp as the Summer of 69, then we must all be doing something wrong.

Man that's some alternate universe you live in!

Let me guess. You wake up every morning and look at a dart board you have mounted to your bedroom door that has a picture of a couple in their 50's on it.

Thanks for the bad-tempered, provocative, ad hominem-strewn off-topic spit. Been banned from anywhere lately? Keep it up.

Firstly, 12,000 years is not the 'recent past', notwithstanding the antiquity of the planet and your curious obsession with the 1960s.

Another name for the Holocene is 'the Recent'. The advent of the present epoch is considered to mark the boundary between recent and ancient epochs. The end of the Ice Age marked the point when northern Europe became habitable. Portugal and Spain were no longer tundra.

Now I have explained my post, you may attempt to make discussion impossible, as you usually do.

Worried is not the word. In truth we could care less. However mankind as a whole is in very serious existential trouble when the earth - sun distance starts to decrease and current CO2 and Methane levels are as high as they are now or higher. It is more than obvious that the feedback loop between gases and sun exposure will be amplified.

Boston will be part of the Sahara in a second (geological time).

6 billion people obviously have absolutely nothing to do with any increases in these gases. That's just crazy talk. We need to kill more forests, burn more oil and coal, build bigger diesel trucks and raise more cattle otherwise is going to get cold.

You do realize that science is never settled right? Maybe not I guess given you keep writing this as if it were profound.

That mankind impacts the environment is a given though. Depending on what those effects really are that's either a plus or a minus.

I'm a technophile green. I figure if we invest more into technology and science we can minimize or move all our pollution to somewhere it doesn't matter. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you don't want to live in a highly polluted environment. Like say China.

The environmental laws here are a plus even if it requires more capital investment on the part of corporations to meet them. Left to themselves, business folks optimize toward making more money. That's not a dig. Left to themselves technophiles optimize toward more tech for the sake of tech. Crazy treehuggers optimize toward saving whales instead of humans. None are particularly optimal overall.

Taken together as a balanced approach it works a lot better. This is why things like Kyoto and Copenhagen don't bother me. Anyone who really believes that would have a significant impact on our lives or making money isn't taking human nature and the capitalist system into account.

Even if we elected to do a 40% reduction in green house gasses it simply means that some things become more profitable and will see a greater infusion of investment and eventually economies of scale will make life not a whole lot different from today other than we produce less green house gasses. Sokay. Just like child labor laws and environmental laws caused short term disruption but in the long term life got better for everyone and corporations made more money anyway.

Well I'm not the generation arguing that the Earth and all of humanity is endangered the second my soul leaves the planet. That would be Al Gore and his ilk. I'm perfectly content to believe it will continue on just fine.


Be careful, you're starting to drop your guise of being the "new guy" here instead of the guy who was banned from here and keeps accounts at AN as well. As for AN, they get very upset when you reveal the location of their boobie party and keg where all the frat boys hang out.


Sorry but you are just wrong. As noted, in absolute terms, which is what always matters, it is nothing more than statistical noise.


But see, those Northern Europe could not have been uninhabitable. It could not have been cold. The climate could not have shown that variation because that would mean variation is natural. If variation is natural then claiming the current variation is man-made requires proof above, "well it is different than has been and thus we have to fix it."

Forgive me for saying this but your posts are really starting to sound " Out there " and kind of obsessive. And do you really in your wildest imagination believe it's only Boomers that support the idea of GW?

I think you just made a big tactical error in your argument trumptman ( not that it held any water anyway ). I work at a university of students half my age that are concerned. As a matter of fact they seem more concerned than the Boomers since they're more likely to live to an age where they or their kids will have to deal with this.

I don't even have to think about it. I know that's not true.

Good. Fucking. God.

The planet has had ice ages.

And therefore the explosion in human populations and industry in the last 5,000 years can't have anything to do with "variation" such as dangerously fast climate change.

Are you arguing this because you don't want to "lose" or because you actually believe it?

The planet HAS suffered ice ages. Recent climate change can STILL HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY.

Hey ho. Congratulations on your unshakeable and deeply-held political beliefs. Have you been banned from anywhere recently?

Just once, I would like to see you debate an actual fact in your posts, and not some silly observation that means absolutely nothing to anyone interested in the topic we're currently talking about.

What a nice strawman this happens to be. Claiming the origin of an idea is not the same thing as saying support is exclusive to a group. The boomers were the generation that originated the idea that humankind is altering the planet and making it uninhabitable. The belief is not exclusive to them as they have indoctrinated many other parties.


The error is your own with regard to reasoning.



Clearly you haven't done any reading on the hockey stick. The turn up in temp doesn't occur unless everything is static before that. Thus many warm-mongers are stuck arguing that the temp in the past couldn't have been warmer or colder than now.

I didn't claim that it is impossible for recent climate change to have been caused by human activity. What you are failing to understand is that when presented with a need to prove the assertion, other warmmongers declare no need to provide proof. They declare this is because the previous climate condition was static and now it has changed. The proof is the change. Declaring change the default state is heresy to them.

So understand we are in agreement when declaring that there have been ice ages. There have also been warming periods. Climate variation is the default state of the planet. Stasis is not the default state and thus someone declaring stasis is the default state and any variation from it is proof of something, must prove their contention. The variation isn't proof.

Look up Cook's and Vancouver's maps. Visit Alaska and hike the moraines, take pictures of the little signs with years marked on them -- going back to the 18th century -- that the forest service places along the path of the receding glaciers. Read Muir. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Something was melting those glaciers, and it wasn't Al Gore's motorcade.