New Study Casts Doubt on Cause of Himalayan Glaciers Melting

Weather variations, not global warming cause glacier melt

Himalayan_glaciers

Image courtesy: National Science Foundation

From the The Hindu, 9 August 2009

excerpts:

New Delhi (PTI): Himalayan glaciers, including the world’s highest battlefield Siachen, are melting due to variations in weather and not because of global warming, Jammu University scientists have claimed.

Geologists R K Ganjoo and M N Koul of Jammu University’s Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research of Himalayan Glaciology visited the Siachen glacier to record changes in its snout last summer.

“To our surprise, the Siachen glacier valley does not preserve evidences of glaciation older than mid-Holocene, suggesting that the glacier must have advanced and retreated simultaneously several times in the geological past, resulting in complete obliteration and modification of older evidences,” they said reporting their findings in ‘Current Science’.

Ganjoo and Koul dubbed as “hype” some earlier studies which suggested that the Himalayan glaciers were melting fast and caused serious damage to the Himalayan ecosystem.

There is sufficient field and meteorological evidence from the other side of Karakoram mountains that corroborate the fact that glaciers in this part of the world are not affected by global warming, they said.

Ganjoo said that the east part of the Siachen glacier showed faster withdrawal of the snout that is essentially due to ice-calving, a phenomenon that holds true for almost all major glaciers in the Himalayas and occurs irrespective of global warming.

Ganjoo contended the Siachen glacier shows hardly any retreat in its middle part and thus defies the “hype” of rapid melting.

The research findings by R.K. Ganjoo and M.N. Koul are published in today’s issue of CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 97, NO. 3, 10 AUGUST 2009 and are available at http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/aug102009/309.pdf

(h/t to Benny Peiser)

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate_change, Earth. Bookmark the permalink.

148 Responses to New Study Casts Doubt on Cause of Himalayan Glaciers Melting

  1. Phillip Bratby says:

    This evidence will be ignored by the warministas, the WWF, FoE, all the greenies and the media.

  2. Curiousgeorge says:

    No doubt will be accused of “cherry picking” (sigh).

  3. Nogw says:

    There is sufficient field and meteorological evidence from the other side of Karakoram mountains that corroborate the fact that glaciers in this part of the world are not affected by global warming, they said.
    Yes, indeed, and simply because there is no such a thing called “global warming”, at least in the real world. There are many global warmings in computer games (“models”) and “adjusted statistics”.

  4. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Count me as not surprised in the slightest with the results of this study.

    I can already hear the warmistas/warmongers/warmorons screaming: “But they’re only geologists – they’re not ‘climate scientists”!!!!!”

  5. Mark Fawcett says:

    Those pesky glaciers, no doubt funded by ‘big-oil’ to not retreat so much…the nerve.

  6. Dave says:

    Whilst I dont believe in runaway Global Warming to AGW, I think we must recognise that some countries have a vested interest now, in not believing in Global Warming. India would be one.

    The evidence here cannot be dismissed lightly, but we should acknowledge that the government that may have sponsored these scientists, might not welcome undue pressure to curb their own carbon emissions.

  7. Pofarmer says:

    Golly gee, weather changes over time. Color me shocked. Fits in nicely with the evidence uncovered by other melting glaciers all over the world, too.

  8. Smokey says:

    OK class, for extra points on your mid term: What is the primary cause of glacier advance and retreat?

    a) Sublimation
    b) Precipitation changes at higher altitudes
    c) Global warming
    d) The Gore Effect

  9. UK Sceptic says:

    Well this Himalayas report might just explain what this other report from the BBC is all about:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8189000/8189937.stm

    And then there’s this one:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8189549.stm

    Someone ought to tell them that the potential food shortage wouldn’t be so bad if they warmists would quit growing food crops for meant for biofuels rather than bellies.

  10. Lee says:

    Dave (07:50:06) :
    I’m not having a go especially since I actually read your first sentence and bore it in mind to the end of your statement but you are about to get a torrent of;

    “Are you saying America and Europe don’t have a political agenda in continuing to promot the AGW belief!”

    Just an observation.

  11. Lee says:

    That was clearly meant to be promote!

  12. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Dave (07:50:06) :

    Could be a fair point Dave but I guess you could also reword your post to something along the lines of:

    “… I think we must recognise that some countries have a vested interest now, in believing/not believing (delete your choice) in Global Warming. (Insert the country of your choice) would be one.

    … but we should acknowledge that the government that may have sponsored these scientists, might welcome/not welcome (delete your choice) undue pressure to curb their own carbon emissions.”

  13. tj says:

    Isn’t it: e) — Ablation?
    The temperature on Mt. Kilimanjaro remains steady as the glacier retreats, or so I read. The Himalayas surely follow the pattern.

  14. Skeptic Tank says:

    I understand that temperate glaciers are melting/shrinking. What I don’t understand is why that, in and of itself, is a problem. Now, if ice sheets were advancing into populated areas, I could definitely see that as a problem.

  15. Nogw says:

    Smokey (07:51:32) : Answer is “a” :-)

  16. nofreewind says:

    This has to be the most sadly hilarious glacier story printed. It is absolute proof that the crisis of global warming is “man-made”.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1203500/In-pictures-How-global-warming-changing-face-northern-hemisphere.html
    The glacier is growing madly, choking a lagoon with ice, yet this is all claimed to be from global warming. Here is on of the comments from a geologist on that story.
    “I am a geologist who has worked frequently in Alaska for 45 years. I would like to state that the reason the lagoon is filling up with ice is that the glacier is apparently advancing towards the sea. Glaciers advance when snowfall increases and temperatures decline enough for the snow to remain throughout the year. Less snow melts than falls in the year. Glaciers recede when melting exceeds the amount of new ice that forms from each year’s accumulation of snow. I hope that your article was a test to see how many people would believe the ridiculous conclusion you presented. Better yet, I hope it was a joke. I am not laughing, however. I am only shocked that the advance of a glacier could be presented as “evidence” of global warming.”
    Here is an article in The Times of India, March09, regarding their glaciers.
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/No_threat_to_Gangotri/articleshow/2892632.cms
    We are fed NONSENSE on every single angle of this fabricated crisis.

  17. Jimmy Haigh says:

    UK Sceptic (07:59:15) :

    Hillary Benn – one of the screaming warmers – said:

    “The food supply was currently secure but population growth and climate change could have an impact, he warned. ”

    I agree with him but would say instead that population growth WILL have an impact – not COULD – WILL. (it’s a bit of a no brainer really that one.)

    I also agree that climate change could have an impact. Especially if it gets colder… (I notice he didn’t say “global warming” so maybe it’s even getting through his skull.)

    And I totally agree with your point about the absolute madness of growing crops for biofuel.

    I’ve said before – why don’t all these AGW believers just give up their carbon profligate lifestyles and leave us normal people to live life as normal? After all, we don’t expect any other people to live by our religions (if we have any – personally, I don’t) so why should we have to live by theirs?

    (Minor rant over…)

  18. tallbloke says:

    Dave (07:50:06) :

    The evidence here cannot be dismissed lightly, but we should acknowledge that the government that may have sponsored these scientists, might not welcome undue pressure to curb their own carbon emissions.

    Just as the state sponsored scientists in the U.S. are discouraged from producing work which might undermine the new regime’s tax policy ?

  19. Arn Riewe says:

    I had to dig up this oldie but goodie from Nat Geo. It’s from the heads I win, tails you lose department, i.e., glaciers melting – global warming; glaciers growing – global warming!

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-growing-glaciers.html

  20. rickM says:

    Smokey, I would have to pick B). (Changes in precipitation in the snow accumulation zone…to ablate or not to ablate)

  21. Mike Davis says:

    Smokey:
    A and B with Albedo thrown in. Then there is the Indian Ocean Dipole which is a natural multidecadal oscillation.

  22. TonyB says:

    Dave (07:50:06) : said

    “Whilst I dont believe in runaway Global Warming to AGW, I think we must recognise that some countries have a vested interest now, in not believing in Global Warming. India would be one.”

    Sorry Dave, I don’t understand your logic here. India wants the transfer to them of very large sums of money and free technology to compensate for the efforts they are expected to make to reduce their own emissions and in order to ensure the blame for AGW is put firmly on the West.

    Creating scientific reports that claim there is no AGW effect is entirely contrary to their interests as that reduces the liability and culpability of the west .

    tonyb

  23. Sam the Skeptic says:

    Dave (07:50:06) :
    “Whilst I dont believe in runaway Global Warming to AGW, I think we must recognise that some countries have a vested interest now, in not believing in Global Warming. India would be one.
    The evidence here cannot be dismissed lightly, but we should acknowledge that the government that may have sponsored these scientists, might not welcome undue pressure to curb their own carbon emissions.”

    You’ll have to forgive me not quite getting to grips with this one, Dave.
    If there isn’t going to be any runaway global warming then the Indians don’t need to worry about their so-called “carbon emissions”.
    And it seems quite reasonable that they should have “sponsored” that research if only because someone has to unless we have scientists who are independently wealthy and I have not met one of those in a long time.
    Your suggestion must be:
    The Indians don’t want to curb their carbon emissions.
    They don’t want to be seen not to want to curb their carbom emissions.
    So they send out a group of people to make up some story about glaciers.

    And I thought I was a cynic!

  24. RW says:

    “Weather variations, not global warming cause glacier melt”

    You frequently make this sort of elementary mistake. This is not an either/or question. It makes as much sense to say what you’ve done as it would to say “Bald tyres, not high speeds cause road crashes”.

    Reply: Why do you say “you” to Anthony when the article is just quoting a news item about a study? ~ ctm

  25. Smokey says:

    rickM (08:20:50) noticed the word “primary” in the test question. He gets a gold star.

  26. Mac says:

    Glaciers ‘naturally’ wax and wane. Again man’s signature is absent.

  27. Nogw says:

    Another question to the attending class: What is the goal of those who promote “global warming” and/or “climate change” in the developed world?

  28. Stephen Wilde says:

    What a surprise, the melting and reformation of Himalayan glaciers responds routinely to the latitudinal positions of the main air circulation systems as they move poleward in response to increased energy output from the oceans and equatorward from decreased energy output from the oceans.

    Just like everywhere else on the planet.

  29. Curiousgeorge says:

    @ Jimmy Haigh (08:16:14) : & UK Sceptic (07:59:15) :

    You may find this article of interest – http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/the-omnivore2019s-delusion-against-the-agri-intellectuals

  30. Tenuc says:

    Nothing new here – please move along.

    Clear historical evidence that glaciers are never static, but always in a state of advance or decline. Glaciers are not an indicator of global climate, although could be considered to be one of local micro-climate, perhaps. This is evidenced currently by glaciers around the world being in one state or the other at the same moment in time.

    There is so much rubbish science / political spin around this topic it beggars belief!!!

  31. cbullitt says:

    Well since the AGW minions referenced here will doubtless point to glacial melt as evidence, perhaps this isn’t entirely off topic. BTW, anyone know people in St. Louis?
    http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/want-a-job-selling-agw-door-to-door-for-algore/

  32. Bill Marsh says:

    “the glacier must have advanced and retreated simultaneously several times ”

    I’m not sure but I don’t think they intended to use the word ‘simultaneously’ here. Is this a translation error?

    I guess if it retreated and advanced ‘simultaneously’ it pretty much just stayed where it was?

  33. Pearland Aggie says:

    but, but, but….the weather variations are CAUSED BY global warming…

    LOL

  34. Paddy says:

    Per Wikipedia:

    “In glaciology, ablation refers to processes that remove snow and ice from a glacier[2] . Ablation may refer to the melting of snow or ice that runs off the glacier, evaporation, sublimation, calving, or removal of snow by wind.”

    “Sublimation of an element or compound is a transition from the solid to gas phase with no intermediate liquid stage. Sublimation is an endothermic phase transition that occurs at temperatures and pressures below the triple point (see phase diagram). “

  35. GeoS says:

    Thought that glacier loss on Kilimanjaro and the Himalayas was due to local deforestation.

  36. Sam the Skeptic says:

    Nogw (08:55:27)
    I think you also might benefit from a look at the link Curiousgeorge just posted.
    Not directly on topic but it gives a good flavour of what actually drives the eco-luddites which is all the warm-mongers really are.

  37. Stefan says:

    Dave: we should acknowledge that the government that may have sponsored these scientists, might not welcome undue pressure to curb their own carbon emissions.

    The trouble with arguing that scientisct can be corrupted, is that it implies that scientists can be corrupted. So we may as well ignore scientists, unless someone has a magic purity of heart test they can administer to find the one true and pure scientist.

    If someone has an interest in proving something wrong, let them try to do it. Their motives don’t matter. If they succeed in uncovering greater truth, even if only for selfish reasons, then they have still done us all a favor.

  38. TerryS says:

    Dave (07:50:06) :

    Whilst I dont believe in runaway Global Warming to AGW, I think we must recognise that some countries have a vested interest now, in not believing in Global Warming. India would be one.

    I guess this is going to be the new attack vector for the AGWers. For years they have been pointing the finger and screaming “funded by big oil”. That doesn’t work because any so called funding by “big oil” is minuscule compared to the amount of funding pumped into climate “science”. We will now be hearing them scream “vested interest” instead.

  39. Robert says:

    It is true that countries like India and China have shown a remarkable insensitivity to the needs of the Western radical left.

    Well heck, to illustrate the point the Chinese are now doing what they call an “American Fire Drill.”

    They stop the car at a light and everyone gets out and runs about yelling things like “Millions will die” and “The seas are rising 20 feet”, etc.

    It is a sign of our times.

  40. Nogw says:

    Sam the Skeptic (10:02:33) :eco-luddites or plainly traitors of their respective countries ?

  41. John Galt says:

    But if we had up weather variations over a period of time — isn’t that climate change? Yeah, that’s the ticket. Climate is weather over a period of time, so if the weather varies over a period of time — that’s climate change!

    Yeah, that’s the ticket.

  42. Mr Green Genes says:

    Sam the Skeptic – “Eco-luddites”.

    Thanks, I might have to steal that some time. Nice one.

  43. Nogw says:

    Stefan (10:16:07) :
    So we may as well ignore scientists, unless someone has a magic purity of heart test
    I do have that test, it is very simple: Anyone who never betrays his own convictions.

  44. Mark Bowlin says:

    Dave (07:50:06) :
    “Whilst I dont believe in runaway Global Warming to AGW, I think we must recognise that some countries have a vested interest now, in not believing in Global Warming. India would be one.”

    Dave, I understand where you’re coming from in that it’s not in India’s near term economic growth interests to support the various CO2 limiting schemes being floated by the west.
    However, if the alarmist agenda is correct and all the bad predicted things come to pass – flooding, drought, mass extinctions, halitosis, cats and dogs living together, etc. – the developing states will suffer far more from the effects of global warming than the developed ones.
    It’s really in India’s best interests to have science be neutral in the policy debate, get to the truth of the matter and plan their future appropriately – as it is in our best interests as well.

  45. Scott says:

    So wait, I thought one of the primary proofs of AGW was the Himalayan glaciers melting. If AGW is not effecting them… then what is it doing?

  46. Hank Hancock says:

    “I do have that test, it is very simple: Anyone who never betrays his own convictions.” – Nogw (10:48:05):

    Darn. I guess I failed that test. The “vested interest” lie I told when I was 12 will always come back to haunt. Yes, I broke the vase and have long regretted that I blamed the the dog.

  47. Rob says:

    Sikkim has the largest number of glaciers in India

    The present number of glaciers at 84, with the mapping exercise still underway to find about out more ice caps in the state has grown by about four times over the past six years as the figure of glaciers stood at 21 at that time.

    The rise in the number of glaciers belied the impact of the global warming phenomena in this region with the scientist pointing out that the impact of global warming has never been a factor in the climate of the border state with the state.

    http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_sikkim-has-the-largest-number-of-glaciers-in-india_1144565

    The problem is these are only real time observations.

  48. jim papsdorf says:

    OT: Americans cool to global warming !!!!!! [ up on Drudge]
    “Recent surveys show Americans cooling to global warming, and they’re even less keen on environmental policies they believe might raise power bills or imperil jobs. Those sentiments could mean a tougher road ahead for elected officials looking to fund investments in renewable power or install a carbon cap-and-trade system……

    http://www.lvrj.com/news/52828402.html

  49. Nogw says:

    Scott (11:18:14) :then what is it doing?
    Easy: Check your wallet now vs. last year and vs.next year’s

  50. RW says:

    “Why do you say “you” to Anthony when the article is just quoting a news item about a study? ~ ctm”

    Does it make it any less of a mistake if it’s “just quoting”?

  51. Pamela Gray says:

    Lack of water in streams after the snow and ice are gone? Hardly!!!! Most of the snow and ice is gone from the Wallowa Mountains, yet we have more water in the river right now than we had for most of the summer after the initial summer-induced melt. Why? Because of nimbus clouds rising into the mountains and dumping buckets of water on us. To tell you the truth, I haven’t seen this much water in the rivers in August and stay that way for longer than a flash flood in my entire 53 years of life. There is so much water that some irrigation ditches now have fish in them from the water level rising over the fish screens. If we are warming, there will be rain. And there will be water available. Especially near mountains. The argument than global warming will decrease water down slope is nonsense.

  52. Gary P says:

    I’m a little puzzled by this posting. Is there a lack of correlation with the MWP and Little Ice Age that indicates there is not a global effect on these glaciers?

    If these glaciers do have a correlation with past global warm and cool periods then this paper shows the world was indeed warmer in the past, long before SUV’s and that it is not especially warm now.

  53. pinkisbrain says:

    no matter at all!

    if global warming will go one and temperatures will rise about 4 degrees C in 100ys, the melting zone will increase maybe 600 to 800 meters in elevation.
    this is almost nothing in regions like himalaya.

    what are you talking about?

  54. Smokey says:

    RW (12:48:49),

    If you believe that story, then you’ll get really excited over this: click.

    But don’t worry, this will help: clicky. Or this: clicky2.

    Good luck!

  55. pinkisbrain says:

    Nogw (08:55:27) :

    —Another question to the attending class: What is the goal of those who promote “global warming” and/or “climate change” in the developed world?—

    i think, first off all “we” like to rule the world as long as possible
    and it is a very smart idea to trade nothing more expensive than “cool air”.

    its only, to rule the world, but there are a few good arguments.

  56. arch stanton says:

    The surging and even growth of glaciers in the high western Himalaya has been noted in journals for years as it is inconsistent with the retreat of the majority of Himalayan glaciers. It has to do with the weather patterns and increased precipitation in that area. It is actually very compatible with AGW.

    Nothing new here, except a lot of “hype”.

    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3860.1

    http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1659/0276-4741%282005%29025%5B0332%3ATKAGEA%5D2.0.CO%3B2

    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=klV7jReHIPcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA131&dq=Conflicting+Signals+of+Climatic+Change+in+the+Upper+Indus+Basin&ots=v1sF1k1cqv&sig=Mkj0oz-7SpZHMJWQ2Ga2YhJ64_I#v=onepage&q=&f=false

  57. Britannic no-see-um says:

    Perhaps their choice of ‘advanced and retreated simultaneously several times in the geological past’ is not perhaps the most fortunate of phraseology, but at least they as geologists are best placed to attempt to understand the palaeo-history of the glaciers. They will need it. Quite apart from the Indian-Pakistani territorial dispute and fighting across the Siachen glacier, the Himalaya has probably the Earth’s most complex and active recent histories of collision zone tectonism, uplift, fault seismicity, erosion, rapid geomorphological changes due to gravity mass movement, landslides, mudflows, lake ponding quite apart from its climatic influence due to extreme elevation. Not really an optimum geologically stable location to study subtle climate change.

  58. pinkisbrain says:

    Smokey (14:14:06) :

    RW (12:48:49),

    If you believe that story, then you’ll get really excited over this: click.

    But don’t worry, this will help: clicky. Or this: clicky2.

    Good luck

    smokey: and this is yours?

  59. Paul Vaughan says:

    Climate will change.

    Some alarmists will claim every bit of climate change (whether up, down or sideways) is proof of anthropogenic impact.

    Sensible people will resist such simplistic reasoning.

    Meanwhile, the biggest threats facing our environment are NOT making headlines.

    Am I the only ecologist who is outraged that irrationalism has hijacked the environmental movement? Certainly not. [Some have - so far - chosen not to confront rabid coercion.]

    The allegiance of true environmentalists is to the lakes & trees, not the (misinformed) “green” nut-jobs who would best be purged from the environmental movement.

    We need serious people defending the environment (not a league of con-artists who have abandoned common sense, favoring the embrace of anthropogenic computer fantasies).

    Liberally-swung alarmist baseball-bats are insufficient for ensuring nature’s compliance with alarmist theory. Nature need not be bludgeoned, misrepresented (for example by ‘revised’ data), and subjected to the [attempted] influence of anthropogenic computer fantasies.

    Is toxic pollution bad? Of course!
    Should we have more forest & less pavement? Of course!
    So Alarmists: Why suppress & misrepresent these serious issues? If by some insidiously-twisted logic you think the pursued-ends justify dishonest means, then you cannot be trusted to avert further corruption. Without honesty, credibility is destroyed. Try honesty.

  60. dorlomin says:

    “To our surprise, the Siachen glacier valley does not preserve evidences of glaciation older than mid-Holocene, suggesting that the glacier must have advanced and retreated simultaneously several times in the geological past, resulting in complete obliteration and modification of older evidences,” they said reporting their findings in ‘Current Science’.

    Mid Holocene. You mean the the holocene climate optimum.

    So during temperatures similar (perhaps even slightly warmer) to today these glaciers retreated enough too leave no trace of their older selves.

    And this is a reason to declare climate change is a hoax, again.

    And not a reason to sit down and ask, so just how vulnrable to small changes are these glaciers? Why is it almost as warm now, when we are at the trough of a Milankovitch cycle as we were when it would have been a strong warming signal?

    Skepticism means asking questions of evidence that on the face supports what you believe. But this is a forum full of true skeptics.

  61. Pamela Gray says:

    Come now Arch, are you saying that natural weather pattern variation is responsible for one mountain’s glacier while global warming is responsible for a neighboring mountain’s glacier? That is a rather glib statement don’t you think? It reminds me of the frustrating world of black sheep kids. If you are a good parent and you have a black sheep anyway, you were unlucky. But if you were not such a good parent and had a blacksheep, it is the fault of the parents.

    Good parents have bad kids. Bad parents have bad kids. Weather is responsible for poor conditions as well as good conditions. Genes are responsible for good kids and bad kids. That means that if you, being a good parent with a good family environment adopt a kid at birth who has a family history of bad personality disordered family members, don’t expect an angel.

    You cannot, without fingers crossed behind your back, say that Wallowa County is cooler than normal because of weather and Union County is hotter because of global warming. But essentially, this is what you have said in your post on the mountains under consideration.

  62. Brandon Dobson says:

    Glacial retreat is a poor metric of climate because of the influence of precipitation, and the individual complexities of the mountain geography in which each glacier resides. Taken together with the other questionable aspects of mainstream global warming theory, it’s reminiscent of that saying “What a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive.”

    To illustrate, here we have a study of thawing permafrost in Alaska:

    http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF19/1962.html

    Their observations are that thawing causes increased plant growth which takes up more CO2 –

    “In the paper, the authors ponder whether faster plant growth that results from a warmer northern landscape will take up the carbon dioxide released by microbes as permafrost thaws.”

    “At Eightmile Lake, the early thawing that Osterkamp noticed has stimulated tundra plants to take up more carbon dioxide than the microbes have been giving off.”

    They end up caving in to AGW –

    “Should the big thaw continue, the tundra of Alaska, Canada, and Siberia could release as much locked-up carbon as does the current deforestation of the tropics, the researchers said.”

    Once again, it’s the all-too-familiar outcome of global warming no matter what happens, heads I win, tails you lose.

  63. Smokey says:

    pinkisbrain (14:32:45),

    I love those dubbed in scenes from that movie! Must’ve seen a dozen of them by now. I’d give that one a B+.

    You asked, “is this yours”? Sorry, Pink, it’s not.

    Didn’t you notice about ten seconds in, when Hitler said, “Pink has pulled out as Justin Timberlake’s supporting act!” LOL!

  64. F Rasmin says:

    Dave (07:50:06) When you intimate that these scientists ‘may’ be sponsored by government, you are including every scientist who does anything as ‘maybe’ bought!

  65. Gene Nemetz says:

    So it’s normal. It’s not caused by man. Just like eclipses are normal, not caused by man. There was a time and place when man was blamed for eclipses. We think now it’s so ridiculous, and primitive, that that could have happened. What will people think of man made global warming in the future?

  66. eric says:

    The headline of the article that is the basis of this thread is clearly incorrect.
    ” New Study Casts Doubt on Cause of Himalayan Glaciers Melting”

    The field studies seem to have provided data that the glaciers have melted away in the past in warmer times.

    If this is so, there is every reason to believe they could disappear easily in the future if global warming occurs in the future, and this is projected to happen because of AGW.

    The fact that climate fluctuated in the past, due to natural causes, does not contradict the possibility that the projections of global warming due to GHG’s will melt glaciers. There is no scientific logic to this argument.
    Field studies which measure the extent and age of glaciers cannot possibly determine the cause of present and future glacial melting.

  67. arch stanton says:

    Pamela, No I am not. Did you look at the links I provided? Glacier movement is not only a product of changing temperatures, but also of changing precipitation patterns.

    Glib? You single my comment out of this list as glib?

  68. Nogw says:

    pinkisbrain (14:17:47) :

    Nogw (08:55:27) :

    —Another question to the attending class: What is the goal of those who promote “global warming” and/or “climate change” in the developed world?—

    i think, first off all “we” like to rule the world as long as possible
    and it is a very smart idea to trade nothing more expensive than “cool air”.

    its only, to rule the world, but there are a few good arguments

    I would say, instead, that for “them” in order to control the world, first they must destroy the first world economies and specially the US with that silly thing of “global warming” and oblige you to kneel before them.

  69. Pamela Gray says:

    Arch, my comment was related to your idea (supported or not by a literature review) that neighboring mountain glaciers have different reasons for concurrent advance or retreat, one being AGW for retreat, the other being natural weather pattern variation for advance. Again, explain your understanding of how this can be in these mountains.

  70. rbateman says:

    India already has a religion going back thousands of years.
    Why would they want to scrap it in favor of a new one created by an outsider whose total theology rests on a movie script?
    Were it not for glaciers advancing & retreating, we would not be so lucky to have places like Yosemite to sit and ponder the grandness.
    Al Gore should spend a year there, pondering the meaning of Earth.
    But not life, as that’s an Eastern thing.

  71. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Dave (07:50:06) :

    Whilst I dont believe in runaway Global Warming to AGW, I think we must recognise that some countries have a vested interest now, in not believing in Global Warming. India would be one.

    The evidence here cannot be dismissed lightly, but we should acknowledge that the government that may have sponsored these scientists, might not welcome undue pressure to curb their own carbon emissions. “””

    Well I believe that Indian Scientists who influence the Indian Governmnet have already said that they believe the whole IPCC global warming position is a scam, and they simply aren’t going to take any notice of either the IPCC or anybody else who tries to pressure them. Adn I believe China will do the same thing.

    So they are staying away from carbon nonsense out of a belief that the “science” is false; noy because of any National need to ignore it.

    As for the Himalayan glaciology report; I’m not at all surprised, given the altitude of those glaciers.

    it’s similar to the antarctic warming “Crisis”; hey the south pole is warming and now it is only fifty degrees C below the melting point; whoop de doo !

    Likewise, the waxing and waning of the “Snows of Kilimanjaro” doesn’t have anything to do with any global warming imagined or real.

    You might make some kind of GW argument relative to the Fox, and Franz Joseph glaciers of the Southern Alps, which essentially come down to sea level; but even there the story is not quite so simple; I believe both are currently advancing; but have been in historical retreat for some hundreds of years which would befit emergence from an ice age.

  72. oakgeo says:

    dorlomin (14:46:57) :

    “So during temperatures similar (perhaps even slightly warmer) to today these glaciers retreated enough to leave no trace of their older selves.”

    Not exactly. The “complete obliteration and modification of older evidences” of previous advances occured during subsequent glacial advances, not retreats. I think you misunderstand what glacial retreat implies. It is not a physical movement of the ice (that can only be an advance); rather, a retreat occurs when melt-off exceeds advance. Melt-offs will deposit glacial sediments (i.e tills, moraines, glaciofluvial) and subsequent advances scour those deposits.

  73. Karl says:

    “Whilst I dont believe in runaway Global Warming to AGW, I think we must recognise that some countries have a vested interest now, in not believing in Global Warming. India would be one.

    The evidence here cannot be dismissed lightly, but we should acknowledge that the government that may have sponsored these scientists, might not welcome undue pressure to curb their own carbon emissions.”

    Just as our government sponsors and encourages AGW hype:

    http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts

  74. savethesharks says:

    Paul Vaughan (14:45:55) : “The allegiance of true environmentalists is to the lakes & trees, not the (misinformed) “green” nut-jobs who would best be purged from the environmental movement. We need serious people defending the environment (not a league of con-artists who have abandoned common sense, favoring the embrace of anthropogenic computer fantasies).”

    MONEY.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  75. p.g.sharrow "PG" says:

    Back in the early 1970’s I lived in Prince William Sound and one of the jobs that I did was to help with an ongoing survey of the glaciers in that area. I don’t remember the name of the university that sponsored the research but I do remember the dismay at the melt back observed at that time. The survey’s had been done regularly done since the late 1800’s and I was wondering about the latest information. Anyone out there that can help?

  76. p.g.sharrow "PG" says:

    A personal observation of the snow fields was that warm winter resulted in heavier snows and greater accumulation by the end of winter, this also caused a delay in the onset of spring. In this part of Alaska there is no summer, spring is followed by fall.

  77. collapsing wave says:

    You can’t explain away the FACT that the planet is warming by believing it is not true.
    Get your science from scientists.
    Get belief from your church.

    Anybody who is ready for some real science should visit realclimate.org
    Look at the wiki for the sound rebuttals for every single piece or rubbish written by people who want to believe the world is not heating up.

    The world is warming and putting your fingers in your ears while going La La La will not cool it down one little bit.

    I used to be a sceptic and so I investigated the science. And made up my own mind. If you have read the science and have not seen that the earth is heating then you haven’t understood it or are willfully not seeing what is plainly obvious.

  78. J.Hansford says:

    [Dave (07:50:06) : ....Whilst I dont believe in runaway Global Warming to AGW, I think we must recognise that some countries have a vested interest now, in not believing in Global Warming. India would be one.

    The evidence here cannot be dismissed lightly, but we should acknowledge that the government that may have sponsored these scientists, might not welcome undue pressure to curb their own carbon emissions.]
    ————————————————————-
    Well Dave if you are going to recognize Government bias that is Anti AGW. You then have to recognize a Pro AGW agenda by Governments also.

    …. I think we need to get back to basing science on observation and empirical evidence….. Computer modeling is not science…. It seems more like Science Fiction.

  79. davidc says:

    eric (16:08:33) :

    Anywhere there is a glacier retreating there is someone prepared to claim that this must be caused by humans. That there couldn’t possibly be any other cause. This study (and many others) clearly shows that that position is wrong. In some particular instances there might be a human influence, but the fact there has been a retreat does not amount to evidence for that.

  80. Francis says:

    The Siachen Glacier is located in the eastern Karakoram range in the Himalaya Mountains at about 35.5deg N 77.0degE, just east of the Line of Control between India-Pakistan…At 70km (43mi) long, it is the longest glacier in the Karakoram and second-longest in the world’s non-polar areas…The Siachen Glacier lies immediately south of the great watershed that separates China from the Indian subcontinent in the extensively glaciated portion of the Karakoram that is sometimes called the “Third Pole.” The glacier lies between the Saltoro Ridge immediately to the west and the main Karakoram range to the east…The glacier’s melting waters are the main source of the Nubra River, which drains into the Shyok River. The Shyok in turn joins the Indus River, thus the glacier is a major source of the river Indus. Global warming has had one of its worst impacts here in the Himalayas with the glaciers melting at an unprecedented rate and monsoon rains now appearing north of the mountains. The volume of the glacier has been significantly reduced over recent decades; military activity since 1984 has also been blamed for much of the degradation of the glacier. (Wikipaedia)

    There’s always been a special place for the Karakorams. They’ve always been on the short list, of expanding glaciers:

    …in the Karakoram and Hindu Kush Mountains of the Upper Indus Basin..over the period 1961-2000..
    …Winter mean and maximum temperature show significant increases while mean and minimum summer temperatures show consistent decline. Increase in diurnal temperature range (DTR) is consistently observed in all seasons and the annual dataset, a pattern shared by much of the Indian subcontinent but in direct contrast to both GCM projection and the narrowing DTR seen nationwide. This divergence commenced around the middle of the twentieth century and is thought to result from changes in large scale circulation patterns and feedback processes associated with the Indian monsoon.
    …Decreases of ~20% in summer runoff in the rivers Hunza and Shyok are estimated to have resulted from the observed 1degC fall in mean summer temperature since 1961…The observed downward trend in summer temperature and runoff is consistent with the observed thickening and expansion of Karakoram glaciers, in contrast to widespread decay and retreat in the eastern Himalayas. This suggests that the western Himalayas are showing a different response to global warming than other parts of the globe. (Fowler & Archer, 2005 abstract)

    P.S. …the melting of ice in the Siachen glacier is accelerated by military presence from both India and China. If the region is not demilitarized now, the glacier will vanish by 2050. (Upadhyay, 2009)
    ???

  81. I suspect the ice melted because it got too warm. Could there be any doubt about that?

    Global warming doesn’t constitute weather variations?

  82. NS says:

    You mean they actually went up there and took a look-see?
    What kind of climate science is that?!?

  83. gtrip says:

    I am assuming that you are being facetious with what you posted. Is it the military’s body heat melting the glaciers or the heat from the RPG’s? This kind of nonsense has no place in a discussion concerning what may be the largest takeover of liberty yet tried upon mankind.

  84. E.M.Smith says:

    RW (12:46:07) :
    “Why do you say “you” to Anthony when the article is just quoting a news item about a study? ~ ctm”

    Does it make it any less of a mistake if it’s “just quoting”?

    This has got to be one of the most lame, brain dead statements I’ve ever seen.

    Just exactly HOW does one go about making a “quote” if one is expected to change the content of the “quote”? The whole idea of a quote is that you EXACTLY reproduce what the person said without expansion, omission, or elaboration. There is exactly ZERO connection between the quoter and the quote if it is done correctly.

    Sheesh. Get a grip on reality, please. A QUOTE is reproduced for all to see, be it “peace in our time” or “in my hand I hold a paper” or “we will bury you” or “are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?” and says exactly and completely NOTHING about the person reliably reproducing the quote. It may be for you to endorse, to denigrate, or to have a good laugh at: but it is NOT about the person producing the quote.

    I have to explain this?

  85. gtrip says:

    collapsing wave (21:37:20) :

    What is the matter c wave? The twenty people over at Climate Progress not giving you enough mind food for your brain? You know, when life gets too easy, man creates his own adversary to build himself up against. The left tries to make you gather around them and charge people to battle against money, power, and servitude and promise you a utopia if you follow them. The industrialists offer life and sustainability at a price but don’t promise utopia. They leave it up to you to make what you will out of what you have. That is (or was) the American way. And it was good enough to lead our country into prosperity and innovation…which is now lacking under or current system because we now have advancement dictated by government…..MUST HAVE GREEN ENERGY….I fear for my children….but then again, all generations have done the same and we still keep going on..though a little less free, generation after generation…

  86. JER0ME says:

    You can’t explain away the FACT that the planet is not being warmed by humans by believing it is not true.
    Get your science from scientists.
    Get belief from your church.

    Anybody who is ready for some real science should visit climateaudit.org
    Look at the sound rebuttals for every single piece or rubbish written by people who want to believe the humans are heating up the world.

    The humans are not warming the world and putting your fingers in your ears while going La La La will not heat it up, cause sea levels to rise, poles and glaciers to melt and storms to increase.

    I used to be a believer and so I investigated the science. And made up my own mind. If you have read the science and still believe humans are heating the earth then you haven’t understood it or are willfully not seeing what is plainly obvious.

    (sorry, I just couldn’t resist….)

  87. E.M.Smith says:

    collapsing wave (21:37:20) : You can’t explain away the FACT that the planet is warming by believing it is not true.

    But you can show that it is an artifact of the way the temperature data are collected. The world is not warming, we are just putting more thermometers in warm places:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/agw-is-a-thermometer-count-artifact/

    Anybody who is ready for some real science should visit realclimate.org
    Look at the wiki for the sound rebuttals

    Care for some kool-aid with those fries? I would rather look to the raw data than to some pre-processed pap, but I do have to address the wiki statement. I was an early supporter of the whole “barn raising” aspect of wiki, but it has become a place where barn burnings are done by pressure groups. What was done to the Jevon’s Paradox page was sinful:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/jevons-paradox-coal-oil-conservation/

    I used to be a sceptic and so I investigated the science. And made up my own mind. If you have read the science and have not seen that the earth is heating then you haven’t understood it or are willfully not seeing what is plainly obvious.

    Well, I believe that science is “done” not “read”… and I’ve done a bit. Please explain how it is that CO2 warms the planet, but takes the summer off?

    Yes, that’s right. The warming does not happen in the summer when it is hottest (and when the “runaway greenhouse effect” ought to be greatest).

    CO2 is French, it spends August on vacation. Please explain how this fits into your AGW thesis:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/co2-takes-summers-off/

    Oh, and explain to me how “global warming” can happen in short lived thermometers, but does not happen in those thermometers with the longest and best record. Here, I’ll even give you the tools to look at the data:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/will-the-good-ghcn-stations-please-stand-up/

    The only “global warming signal” in the raw data are in those stations, newly added, that are in warm locations and with a short temperature history:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/well-theres-your-global-warming-problem/

    And no, you don’t need to argue with me about this at all. I am but the messenger. You don’t even have to “read the science”. You can do it. You have the data. I’ve even given you the computer code to analyze it. Heck, I’ll even give you a copy of GIStemp ported to run on Red Hat Linux on any old PC you can scrounge from the yard sale. (It isn’t a big program).

    The bottom line is sad: There has been a terribly simple, and all too human, error made by well intentioned and well educated folks. They did not “characterize the data” well as their first step. They ran off to embrace their muse, and did not take the time to look at, and understand, the nature of the raw data they were dependent upon. All the rest is a tragedy of consequences.

    But don’t trust me. By all means, assume I’m an absolute ass and idiot. Just take the raw data from GHCN, and look at the seasonal, annual, and ‘by station lifetime’ patterns of the data. Draw whatever conclusions you like.

    But be ready to defend them… I am.

  88. TerryS says:

    Re: collapsing wave (21:37:20) :

    realclimate is an advocacy blog not a science blog. Just try submitting a comment that questions their pet theories and see how far it gets. That is what makes it advocacy and not science.

    The world is warming and putting your fingers in your ears while going La La La will not cool it down one little bit.

    There is a vast difference between the world warming due to natural causes and the world warming due to an increase in a trace gas. AGWers make the claim that nearly all of it is due to the trace gas while skeptics make the claim that nearly all of it is due to natural or other changes (eg land use, UHI etc).

    You say you investigated the science and made your own mind up. Well thats fair enough but perhaps you could point me to which papers had the most influence on your opinion and what it was about them that convinced you? That way you might convince others.

  89. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: savethesharks (20:25:34)

    Alarmist fantasy: Raping nature with a computer.

    These people are sick and must be stopped.

  90. Lindsay H says:

    Francis

    summer temperature since 1961…The observed downward trend in summer temperature and runoff is consistent with the observed thickening and expansion of Karakoram glaciers, in contrast to widespread decay and retreat in the eastern HimalayasWe see something “:

    We see something similar in the souther Alps of New Zealand, the Franz & Fox glaciers are growing (all be it intermittantly ) on the west while the Tasman on the east has shunk back signifigantly, new lakes several km long have formed in the last 20 years.

    A combination of factors are at work reduced snowfalls due to a shift in the strength of prevailing wind patterns and some climate warming from the cool of the 17th c cool period.

  91. Dave says:

    To all those that pointed out to me that certain nations have a vested interest in promoting AGW.

    Yes they do. The US and the UK would be two countries in particular that seem to have a huge interest in finding evidence to support the AGW theory. Not least of which is the humiliation that will come when they have to admit that the theory is wrong.

    I was just pointing out that India as a nation, may well have a vested interest in finding the theory to be wrong.

    I believe that my own vested interest is finding out the truth.

    Currently I believe that CO2 emissions have had a negligible affect on global temperatures. But I have to remain open to the fact that I could be wrong.

    I was just trying to point out that the findings of this study need to be treated with as much scepticism as every other study. We must doubt and try and find errors, so we can put those errors right. Not least of which is considering if there are motives in the authors work, which may be subconcious motives.

    Lets stay open minded and critical. Let the data influence us, not dogma.

  92. RW says:

    E.M. Smith:

    “Just exactly HOW does one go about making a “quote” if one is expected to change the content of the “quote”? The whole idea of a quote is that you EXACTLY reproduce what the person said without expansion, omission, or elaboration”

    What a bizarre misunderstanding. Watts is under no obligation to make his subheaders exact quotes from whatever material he is pushing, is he? He chooses what to write. In this case, he’s chosen to write something that is a logical error that a schoolchild could point out to him. Whether he’s merely regurgitating someone else’s error or not is irrelevant.

  93. dorlomin says:

    TerryS (02:26:21) :

    Re: collapsing wave (21:37:20) :

    realclimate is an advocacy blog not a science blog.

    Hello mr pot, this is the kettle calling.

  94. gtrip says:

    I have googled my self silly looking for a photo of the South Cascade Glacier 2009…the closest I can get is 2006 and that is compared to a 2000 photo. I did come across a glacial skier that had some awesome pics from ground level and he noted that the glaciers are doing just fine….go figure eh?

  95. eric says:

    davidc (21:40:29) :
    wrote
    “eric (16:08:33) :

    Anywhere there is a glacier retreating there is someone prepared to claim that this must be caused by humans. That there couldn’t possibly be any other cause. This study (and many others) clearly shows that that position is wrong. In some particular instances there might be a human influence, but the fact there has been a retreat does not amount to evidence for that.”

    This study is about the magnitude of the changes in glaciers in a particular region. It shows that past natural climate change has resulted in the disappearance of past glaciers. There is no way that the information could be used to shed any light on the reasons for the current behavior of glaciers.
    A different methodology is required to do that involving analysis of atmospheric condition, precipitation patterns and modeling.
    Such studies have revealed that GHG induced global warming, and soot particles have been responsible for increased glacial melting in most of the Himalayas.

  96. Mark Fawcett says:

    dorlomin (04:43:21) :

    Hello mr pot, this is the kettle calling.

    Interesting isn’t it ‘dorlomin’ that at this blog there are sidebar links to Pro AGW blogs / Lukewarmers / Skeptical views and so on. Go over to RC and check out their balanced lists…wait, anyone would think that WUWT / CA and a host of others simply don’t exist.

    I’ve tried numerous times to post a comment at RC; each time the comment has been deliberately non-confrontational but has stated, what I felt to be a valid, counter-argument. Each time the result was… nul point; zip; nada; nuffink. There are many times on this (and other) non ProAGW sites where the pro comments are allowed through, unmolested.

    In addition there have been several articles / postings on this blog where the general audience has highlighted issues or errors and the original poster has either acknowledged these or corrected the article (and I’m not talking about typos).

    Cheers

    Mark

  97. Smokey says:

    collapsing wave (21:37:20) :

    You can’t explain away the FACT that the planet is warming by believing it is not true… Anybody who is ready for some real science should visit realclimate.org …Look at the wiki for the sound rebuttals for every single piece or rubbish written by people who want to believe the world is not heating up… I used to be a sceptic and [blah, blah, etc., etc...]

    Anyone who “used to be a sceptic” has given up thinking skeptically, and has settled into the comfortable position of letting goron propagandists set up his belief system for him. Every real scientist — and every real scientific thinker — is a skeptic. Skepticism is required, unless you want to believe witch doctors have better answers than medical doctors. Skepticism is such an integral part of the scientific method, that anyone who says they ‘used to be a skeptic’ is telling the world that alarmist propaganda has taken over their thought process.

    collapsing wave’s delusion that the planet is warming is easily debunked:

    click1
    click2
    click3
    click4
    click5

    [More on request.]

    ‘collapsing wave’ fails to realize that realclimate censors views that question AGW. RC is financed by George Soros, who has no science background — but plenty of experience in disseminating the Leftist propaganda that realclimate emits.

    Contrast realclimate’s censorship of any opposing views with WUWT, and you will begin to understand this result: click.

  98. arch stanton says:

    Pamela (17:15:15) Last time I checked the Himalayan range was some 1,500 miles long. The glaciers in discussion are towards the far western end. Your concept of “neighboring valleys” must be quite a broad one. Just like some states in our country can experience drought while neighboring ones don’t so it is with a large mountain chains’ valleys. As The global climate changes, weather patterns are expected to shift.

    One theorized shift is for mountains on the windward side of ranges, that traditionally receive the bulk of the precipitation, to receive even more precipitation (warmer air holding more water and all, but still releasing the bulk of it as it passes over a 20,000’+ range). This effect is expected to be significantly greater on the windward side than farther leeward. Another effect is that differing amounts of rain and snow are expected to fall in different areas due to shifting of jet streams, Hadley cells, etc. This accounts for some glaciers behaving differently than others.

    You give me undue credit. This is not my idea, but that of the scientists I cited. Nor were my citations actually a true review, as they were very limited.

  99. dorlomin says:

    ‘Mark Fawcett’ this site was pumping the whole ‘volcanoes are melting the arctic’ line last year. Skepticism is being able to do the basic maths to work out the energy required and being skeptical that it was coming from undetected volcanoes. Not reading about a volcano in the arctic and spinning wildley improbable suppositions.

    Flights of fancy do not a science make. RC may not be ‘unbaised’ but it is a sceince site that largely focuses on very widely accepted science.

    Pielke Snrs blog is what an AGW skeptical science blog looks like.

  100. Jimmy Haigh says:

    NS (23:36:10) :

    “You mean they actually went up there and took a look-see?
    What kind of climate science is that?!?”

    The guys who did the study aren’t ‘climate scientists’ – they are geologists.
    QED!

  101. RW says:

    Smokey, you obviously don’t really understand what climate is (still), or what your graphs mean. Let’s explain each one:

    1. The data in this graph actually shows an upward trend in temperatures of 0.1°C per decade over the period chosen.
    2. This one stops before the most recent data. None the less, the data shows an upward trend
    3. This graph actually shows you that you can’t measure climate change over short time periods. Clearly you didn’t understand this, but what you think this graph indicates is not clear.
    4. A graph that arbitrarily begins in 2002, and arbitrarily ends in late 2008… what use is that supposed to be, exactly?
    5. A comparison between two arbitrary months out of 360 in the record – again, what use is that supposed to be, exactly?

    You seem desperate to believe that global temperatures are not rising, even to the extent of posting evidence that you’re wrong and failing to understand that it contradicts you. Why is this?

  102. Smokey says:

    RW,

    Since you seem to believe you’re so smart and I’m so stupid, why don’t you prove it by making a prediction? Predict when your HE-RO Al Gore will debate his cockamamie conjecture. Or when Gavin the midget will debate Viscount Monckton again, after Schmidt’s last hard spanking. Since you’re so smart and all. Show us with a prediction.

    BTW, chart #1 shows declining temps over most of the past decade [prior to that there was warming]. So who are we supposed to believe? You?? Or our lyin’ eyes? Same with chart #2, which shows current temps not much different than 1979-80 temps. The planet hasn’t warmed noticeably in thirty years. And so on, with the rest. Where is your god now?

    RW, the planet is laughing in your face, and all you can do is bluster that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. The basic debunked hypothesis is that anthropogenic CO2 [about 3% of total CO2] will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.

    That might be believable – if the planet’s temperature was rising right along with the increase in CO2. But it’s not, no matter how much you wish it was.

    Planet Earth gets the last word. And she says you’re wrong.

  103. Jeff Alberts says:

    Or when Gavin the midget will debate…

    That was pretty beneath you, Smokey. You should really apologize.

    Reply: I would normally agree, but I vaguely remember that it was Gavin who said his team lost the I squared debate partially because the opposing side was taller. ~ ctm

    Reply 2: Ah here it is:

    So are such debates worthwhile? On balance, I’d probably answer no (regardless of the outcome). The time constraints preclude serious examination of any points of controversy and the number of spurious talking points can seriously overwhelm the ability of others to rebut them. Taking a ‘meta’ approach (as I attempted) is certainly not a guaranteed solution. However, this live audience were a rather select bunch, and so maybe this will go over differently on the radio. There it might not matter that Crichton is so tall…

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/adventures-on-the-east-side/comment-page-2/

    ~ ctm

  104. Mark T says:

    RW (09:12:54) :

    Smokey, you obviously don’t really understand what climate is (still), or what your graphs mean. Let’s explain each one:

    1. The data in this graph actually shows an upward trend in temperatures of 0.1°C per decade over the period chosen.
    Using a linear trend for data that is either non-stationary/chaotic or cyclical provides a meaningless trend. Smokey may not know what climate is, but you certainly do not understand statistics.

    2. This one stops before the most recent data. None the less, the data shows an upward trend
    Again, meaningless.

    3. This graph actually shows you that you can’t measure climate change over short time periods. Clearly you didn’t understand this, but what you think this graph indicates is not clear.
    Really? Why not? What is the proper length? There are dozens if not hundreds of cycles present in the temperature record so any length “trend” is just as arbitrary as the next. Why don’t we use a length of 100,000 years? I’ll tell you why: because the trend doesn’t go the way YOU want it to go.

    4. A graph that arbitrarily begins in 2002, and arbitrarily ends in late 2008… what use is that supposed to be, exactly?
    Just as arbitrary as any other beginning and end point YOU choose. So what’s the difference? Because you pick a length that fits your hypothesis, that’s the difference.

    5. A comparison between two arbitrary months out of 360 in the record – again, what use is that supposed to be, exactly?
    You’re like a hypocrite, aren’t you?

    You seem desperate to believe that global temperatures are not rising, even to the extent of posting evidence that you’re wrong and failing to understand that it contradicts you. Why is this?
    No, you seem desperate for temperatures to be rising, why? Ask yourself this: would you prefer temperatures to be rising, or would you prefer them to be falling? Why? If you prefer them to be falling, are you prepared for the consequences of a cooler planet? I’m not, nor do I think the rest of the world is. I prefer them to be rising because contrary to the gloom and doom echo chamber members such as you constantly put forth, a warmer planet is a more productive planet.

    Mark

  105. Mark T says:

    I should add, even random data with stationary statistics will yield trends one way or another, not that I expect RW would understand why.

    Mark

  106. arch stanton says:

    [url=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kfG8pUItVjU/Sn8mJZeY-LI/AAAAAAAAAio/D3U3mGHRIEU/s1600-h/ThroughTheMagnifyingGlass.jpg]Through the looking glass[/url]

  107. arch stanton says:

    Another way of looking at it[url=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kfG8pUItVjU/Sn8mJZeY-LI/AAAAAAAAAio/D3U3mGHRIEU/s1600-h/ThroughTheMagnifyingGlass.jpg]here[/url].

  108. Jeff Alberts says:

    Reply: I would normally agree, but I vaguely remember that it was Gavin who said his team lost the I squared debate partially because the opposing side was taller. ~ ctm

    Gavin acknowledging that Crichton was taller (he was taller than most people) is no call for calling Gavin a “midget”, which is a derogatory term in any sense.

    Reply: WAS taller. He has passed away. ~ ctm

  109. Jeff Alberts says:

    Reply: WAS taller. He has passed away. ~ ctm

    Umm, yeah, I said “was”, twice.

    You still think it was ok for Smokey to say that? I get the distinct impression that if something like that was said about Anthony, an apology would be demanded.

    Reply: First, have you read what they call Anthony at RC with no apologies? Second, by editing, censoring, misrepresenting posts by Anthony and others, Gavin has earned whatever derision, be it petty or not, that is directed at him. By whining that he lost the debate because the audience was too stupid and Crichton was too tall earns him the right to be referred to in the manner in which Smokey described him. The rules of decorum here generally prohibit attacks between posters here. Saying insulting things about well known people (I would not call Gavin a celebrity) is generally not prohibited. ~ ctm

  110. dorlomin says:

    The rules of decorum here generally prohibit attacks between posters here. Saying insulting things about well known people (I would not call Gavin a celebrity) is generally not prohibited. ~ ctm
    ——————————–

    Let us remember that this forum allows people too make libelous attacks claiming that a group of politicians and scientists have an ongoing criminal conspiracy to defraud governments and people around the world and to impose (depending on the poster) various forms of totalitarian government.

    You are not supposed to say anything upsetting to the regulars here but you can claim scientists (who post on other blogs) are part of criminal conspiracies.

    Offcourse I would not want to discourage this. Someone in Britain may one day use British libel laws to challange this sort of thing published round here.

    Reply: You’re characterization of “..say anything upsetting to the regulars here..” is false. Passers by and contrarians to this site are defended to the same or greater extent than regulars as long as they remain polite and respectful. ~ ctm

  111. jeez says:

    dorlomin:

    And other posters disagree stating all that is necessary to explain behavior is confirmation bias, groupthink, big egos, funding bias, and perhaps a smidge of postmodern advocacy science theory. No conspiracy necessary. This is called a D I S C U S S I O N.

  112. Mark Fawcett says:

    dorlomin (08:31:52) :

    ‘Mark Fawcett’ this site was pumping the whole ‘volcanoes are melting the arctic’ line last year. Skepticism is being able to do the basic maths to work out the energy required and being skeptical that it was coming from undetected volcanoes. Not reading about a volcano in the arctic and spinning wildley improbable suppositions.

    From memory I recall it was the antarctic but I may well be wrong…I also seem to remember that there was plenty of healthy debate on the comments on exactly the subject you mention. (As a side note, there’s no need to stick my name in single-quotes; I only did yours as I guessed it wasn’t your real name – if it is then my bad.)

    Flights of fancy do not a science make. RC may not be ‘unbaised’ but it is a sceince site that largely focuses on very widely accepted science.

    Pielke Snrs blog is what an AGW skeptical science blog looks like.

    We agree on something :o) – without wishing to speak on behalf of Mr. Watts, I don’t think WUWT claims to be a science blog per se – the subtitle says it all. It is however a good place to come for some lively debate, some interesting articles and a launching pad to go and check on the science.

    Best regards,

    Mark

  113. Smokey says:

    Jeff Alberts (12:00:19),

    You’re right, that was unfair. I apologize.

    Reply: Ok Jeff now I have to recant just about everything I said as well. Damn you Smokey! ~ ctm.

  114. Smokey says:

    My apologies to ctm, too.

  115. dorlomin says:

    “From memory I recall it was the antarctic but I may well be wrong”
    There was also a post on the Arctic, the post that incidently brought this place to my attention as it was suddenly turning up all over the place.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/25/surprise-explosive-volcanic-eruption-under-the-arctic-ice-found/
    “Watts, I don’t think WUWT claims to be a science blog per se”
    Well someone does.
    “2008 Winner Best Science Blog”

    Jeez
    “No conspiracy necessary. This is called a D I S C U S S I O N”
    Accuations of dishonest and conspiracy:

    Denny (14:07:15) :
    Isn’t amazing how Baum thinks that AGW is Science! Consensus is not Science and Science is not Consensus! By the late Michael Crichton…That it’s totally proven without a doubt! Wow! Good thing He isn’t a Scientist, or is he?? Either way He deserved this for it shows the real truth about what Scientists believe in many different fields…It’s a big HOAX!!!

    Mike Bryant (14:20:03) :
    For at least a year Anthony and others have been saying that the leadership of many scientific organizations did not represent the membership… finally the members themselves have had enough of the dishonesty…
    Mike
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/american-chemical-society-members-revolting-against-their-editor-for-pro-agw-views/

    The “global warming hoax” is an obvious fallacy, Ganahl said in a YouTube video posted Jan. 23.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/10/daily-kos-whips-up-an-email-campaign-agains-meteorologist-who-spoke-candidly-about-climate-change/

    Other international scientists have called the manmade warming theory a “hoax,” a “fraud” and simply “not credible.”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/20/national-post-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof/

    The IPCC uses the hoax of man made global warming to increase its power and that of a corrupt, anti-American United Nations that has proven itself impotent in combating world wide acts of terrorism, genocide in Sudan, the real threat of nuclear proliferation in the mid-east from Iran and Syria, or human rights violations in China and Africa
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/04/alleviate-world-hunger-produce-more-clean-carbon-dioxide/

  116. Jeff Alberts says:

    Smokey (14:24:30) :

    Jeff Alberts (12:00:19),

    You’re right, that was unfair. I apologize.

    Reply: Ok Jeff now I have to recant just about everything I said as well. Damn you Smokey! ~ ctm.

    Thank you, gentlemen. Let’s continue to rise above, and argue the facts…

    Sorry for the diversion, folks.

  117. collapsing wave says:

    As I said before
    Sticking your fingers in your ears and going La La La doesn’t change the fact that the world is warming.

    I don’t want it to be true. I hate it that it is true. I am as wary as the next man about undue influence from my government

    But either you accept the science or you don’t; and if you don’t then you need to show why.
    Pointing out stuff that has been debunked thoroughly is just a zombie lie. (you shoot it down and it gets back up again).
    Read the IPCC reports (or at least the abstracts)

    There is no commie conspiracy. This is not a tax grab, although it will cost money and plenty of it, but one way or the other life as we know it will change.

    Regards

  118. Mike D. says:

    … and cancel the clown, too.

  119. Francis says:

    Has anyone read the Ganjoo & Koul article, and/or the Upadhyay 2009 article that it critiques? These concern the glacial geomorphology of just one glacier (Siachen). (I enjoyed both…glacial features were underplayed in long ago Arizona geology classrooms)
    Per our authors: “Overwhelming field geomorphological evidences suggest poor respons of the Siachen glacier to global warming. The snout of the Siachen glacier…since 1995…an average retreat of 0.6m/yr.”
    This article merely restates the previously discussed (Fowler & Archer 2005) healthiness of the glaciers in the NW Himalayas. And obscures the decline in the Eastern Himalayas.

    qtrip (100:25:56) 11 Aug
    Yes, this was bedtime non-sense: I didn’t have time to research the quote. This Siachen glacier is the site of the highest (21,000ft) battlefield on earth.
    “Since 1984, the Indian army has been in physical possession of most of the heights on the Saltoro Range west of the Siachen Glacier, while the Pakistan army has held posts at lower elevations of western slopes of the spurs emanating from the Saltoro ridgeline. The Indian army has secured its position on the ridgeline.”

  120. Francis says:

    qtrip continued

    For you: “it is learnt that the Indian army is launching a massive clean-up operation as part of its ‘Green Siachen, Clean Siachen’ plan. The Indian army will take help from the air force to lift garbage from the glacier…Due to much lower activity on the Pakistani side, western glaciers are stable…While vehicular traffic from the Indian side and heat generated from activities on this 21,000ft high glacier have led to unprecedented melting and diminishing of this 72-km long glacier.” March 18, 2007

    For me: How did China get into this?

  121. Francis says:

    Lindsay H (103:12:26) 11 Aug

    Might the Greenland and Antarctica generalization also apply to the few high latitude glaciers that are expanding?

    Increasing evaporation over warmer polar seas leads to increasing snowfall on land.

    Franz Josef & Fox glaciers, New Zealand
    PIO XI glacier, Chili
    Perito Moreno glacier, Argentina
    Briksdal glacier, Norway

  122. collapsing wave says:

    Smokey

    The planet is warming. I thought that even the most hard line sticking-fingers-in-ears-going-La-La-La had stopped denying that it is, in fact, warming. And had moved on to arguing about why it was warming.

    The planet is warming. I am not deluded, and you have your fingers in your ears going la la la.

    Regards

  123. Jeff Alberts says:

    The planet is warming. I thought that even the most hard line sticking-fingers-in-ears-going-La-La-La had stopped denying that it is, in fact, warming. And had moved on to arguing about why it was warming.

    It’s most likely warmed since the LIA, but by how much, and what causes, are still unknown. And that’s a fact.

  124. Mark Fawcett says:

    dorlomin (15:15:00) :
    “From memory I recall it was the antarctic but I may well be wrong”
    There was also a post on the Arctic, the post that incidently brought this place to my attention as it was suddenly turning up all over the place.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/25/surprise-explosive-volcanic-eruption-under-the-arctic-ice-found/

    Thanks for the pointer – before my time at WUWT. Reading the article is interesting – I quote: “What is unique about this situation is that it was a large eruption that went completely undetected, and under pressures that they thought not possible. The big question is then; where did the heat from the volcano go, and what effect did it have on the sea ice environment? Another question is how much CO2 would such an eruption emit, and how long would it take to outgas?”

    Seems to be raising some quite reasonable points to me – nothing wrong with asking questions and/or suggesting alternatives; when we’re talking fractions of percentages of gas volumes, temperature changes and so on, it seems sensible to ask if other factors could be contributing to that.

    “Watts, I don’t think WUWT claims to be a science blog per se”
    Well someone does.
    “2008 Winner Best Science Blog”

    Indeed and when the time to vote comes around it’ll get my nod too. Do I think WUWT is a true ‘hard-science’ blog – no. Do I think it’s informative, friendly, accessible and a good route to some interesting science (which may well not get a wider audience in the current ‘climate’) then yes, absolutely.

    Do I think the BBC’s ‘Sky at night’ is an excellent astronomy TV programme – yes for the same reasons as above; is it on the same technical level as the the (ex BBC) Open University’s Astronomy BSc-Course TV programmes – no. (Does it therefore mean that the ‘Sky at night’ isn’t presenting valid facts/theories/views – no).

    Cheers

    Mark

  125. ralph ellis says:

    When I was up in the high Karakoram in the late ’90s, our guide pointed out all the glaciers that were retreating and extending. There did not seem to be much rhyme or reason to the pattern.

  126. RW says:

    Smokey:

    “BTW, chart #1 shows declining temps over most of the past decade”

    Seriously, how delusional can you get? The data comes from HadCRUT. Get hold of it. Fit a trend. It’s going up, regardless of your constant stream of misunderstandings. The data is laughing in your face, Smokey.

    “Same with chart #2, which shows current temps not much different than 1979-80 temps.”

    Take a cold month in a hot period, and a hot month in a cold period, and they might look similar. Very young children can actually grasp the point that comparing outliers is stupid.

    “anthropogenic CO2 [about 3% of total CO2]”

    110ppm out of 390 total = 28%.

    “That might be believable – if the planet’s temperature was rising right along with the increase in CO2. But it’s not, no matter how much you wish it was.”

    Are you blind?

    Mark T:

    “Really? Why not? What is the proper length? There are dozens if not hundreds of cycles present in the temperature record so any length “trend” is just as arbitrary as the next. Why don’t we use a length of 100,000 years? I’ll tell you why: because the trend doesn’t go the way YOU want it to go.”

    Would you try to measure the growth of an oak tree over 20 minutes? If not, why not? What about over 5,000 years?

    How very weirdly presumptuous, to tell me which way I “want” a trend to go. The behaviour of people like you gets odder by the day.

    “Just as arbitrary as any other beginning and end point YOU choose. So what’s the difference? Because you pick a length that fits your hypothesis, that’s the difference.”

    I think most people can see that ignoring data from the last year is foolish. I don’t know if you’re just gullible or if you genuinely think it’s OK to ignore a year’s worth of data because it doesn’t fit in with your beliefs, but it’s quite obviously not.

    “a warmer planet is a more productive planet.”

    A banal and meaningless statement.

  127. Sandy says:

    ““anthropogenic CO2 [about 3% of total CO2]”

    110ppm out of 390 total = 28%.”
    Hmm 110ppm is an over estimate of Man’s total CO2 output. If Man had not output it then the oceans would have supplied it in order to get to the present concentrations, commensurate with its temperature.
    There is an excellent short story writer called Saki and you, RW, remind me of one of his characters:

    “Leonard Bilsiter was one of those people who have failed to find this world attractive or interesting, and who have sought compensation in an “unseen world” of their own experience or imagination – or invention. Children do that sort of thing successfully, but children are content to convince themselves, and do not vulgarise their beliefs by trying to convince other people. Leonard Bilsiter’s beliefs were for “the few,” that is to say, anyone who would listen to him.”

  128. dorlomin says:

    Mark Fawcett

    “Seems to be raising some quite reasonable points to me – nothing wrong with asking questions and/or suggesting alternatives; when we’re talking fractions of percentages of gas volumes, temperature changes and so on, it seems sensible to ask if other factors could be contributing to that”

    ~snip~

  129. Lindsay H says:

    Francis
    Might the Greenland and Antarctica generalization also apply to the few high latitude glaciers that are expanding?

    Increasing evaporation over warmer polar seas leads to increasing snowfall on land

    Yes
    Antartica is esentially a desert Snowfall equivalent 100-200mm per year at the pole – 300 -600mm at the coast. Still the accumulation less ablation is signifigant , 13million sq km x 150.mm of ice = 2000 cubic km of ice thats a lot of icebergs to calf every year. Greenland is probably the same. The key is the boundary at the ocean.

  130. Jason says:

    The crazy thing is that no one reports this while everyone jumps on the story of how this is affecting the newly discovered species in the area–even though there is no data to back up those claims!

    http://nonmodern.blogspot.com/2009/08/353.html

    http://news.google.de/news?q=eastern%20himalayas&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=de&tab=wn

  131. Michael Jennings says:

    Interesting that the dorlomins and RW’s of the AGW advocacy are spending more time over on this “non science” blog and becoming increasingly strident and shrill. It is merely a result that their house of cards is starting to collapse and will do so in earnest in the next 5 years, and they know it deep down and have little time to implement massive and deleterious changes to our political system. Tell you what, I am willing to state unequivically that the PDO now turned to the cool phase followed in a couple of years by the ADO doing the same will finally end the nonsense known as AGW. RW and dolormin, you want to act like men for a change (if indeed you actually are) and tell us how much AGW will raise the temps over the next 5 years and then we will meet back here and see who was right?

  132. Smokey says:

    RW (02:12:24) is so full of misinformation, cherrypicking, and outright obfuscation that it’s no wonder most everyone disagrees with him. Mark T (12:05:53) deconstructs every RW point above. And not only on this site. The posters at Jennifer Marohasy’s site routinely rub his nose in the playground dirt for his easily debunked statements. A couple of examples from upthread:

    I correctly pointed out that “…anthropogenic CO2 [about 3% of total CO2]…”. RW tried to pull a fast one again, by pretending that 28% of CO2 is manmade: “110ppm out of 390 total = 28%.”. But even his craven heroes, the thoroughly corrupt, science-fiction oriented UN, shows: click. Human activity doesn’t produce 28% of CO2 — it accounts for only one molecule in every 34 of CO2. 33 out of every 34 CO2 molcules emitted are of natural origin. Nothing to be alarmed about.

    RW claims that the globe is heating up. As usual, he is wrong: click. And whenever the alarmist contingent tries to convince the more knowledgeable folks here that everybody needs to PANIC!!, I refer them to this chart: click. For that we’re supposed to give up our sovreignty, and $trillions in national wealth?? Who are these Bozos trying to kid? CO2=AGW is a scam intended to separate U.S. taxpayers from their savings. If it were about science, we would be having routine debates about it, and Al Gore would be setting the example by living in an average sized house and using average electricity. But since CO2=AGW is a scam, there are no debates and Gore and his hypocritical ilk profligately wastes limited resources. Some HE-RO.

    Also, arguing that CO2 causes rising temperature by showing RW’s [bogus] chart, which completely omits CO2, indicates an inability to make a rational case. Why bogus? Because the temperature rise is exaggerated [I have blink gifs showing how GISS diddles with the numbers in order to show non-existent warming. Just ask, and you shall receive].

    The noaa also admits their upward temperature “adjustments”: click. More proof: note that in the first half of the last century, raw temperatures and urban temperatures were almost identical. But gradually, urban temps began creeping higher and higher over the raw temps: click.

    As I’ve pointed out many times, natural variability completely explains the climate without any need for an extraneous entity like CO2. After thirty years of rising CO2, the planet’s temperature is essentially the same as it was in 1979: click.

    And once again, since some folks just don’t get it: it is not the responsibility of the mainstream scientists to disprove any wacko conjecture that comes along, whether it’s CO2=AGW, phrenology, or Scientology.

    Rather, according to the Scientific Method it is the duty of those purveying their CO2=AGW conjecture to prove [or at least provide solid, falsifiable and reproducible evidence] that their new conjecture explains reality better than the long accepted theory of natural climate variability.

    That they have failed to do so is clear from their weak, shaky arguments, and from the fact that any “evidence” comes from computer models. But that is not evidence; it is opinion, programmed into GCMs to obtain a particular result.

  133. dorlomin says:

    Michael Jennings (11:27:36) :

    Interesting that the dorlomins and RW’s of the AGW advocacy are spending more time over on this “non science” blog and becoming increasingly strident and shrill. It is merely a result that their house of cards is starting to collapse and will do so in earnest in the next 5 years, and they know it deep down and have little time to implement massive and deleterious changes to our political system

    ———————————-
    I think your tinfoil hat is constraining the blood to your head. :D

  134. arch stanton says:

    Smoky (11:38:13) – The chart he posted does not support your position. It reflects annual fluxes to the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, not total amounts. There is no need to be belligerent about your ignorance.

    This chart indicates that in the 90s humans contributed 23,100 million metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere PER YEAR of which approximately half was reabsorbed by “sinks” (mostly the ocean). Thus, each year during the 90s alone we added 11,700 million tons of CO2 to the air. That is 117,000,000,000 tones of carbon THAT WAS NOT REMOVED FROM THE ATMOSHERE added by man DURRING THE 90S ALONE.

    At this time the overall mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~3,000 gigatonnes (3,000,000,000,000 metric tons). If this number reflected the preindustrial CO2 number (actually preindustrial levels were much lower). We could simply cancel some zeros and come up with the fraction for the human contribution to the CO2 content of the atmosphere that DURRING THE 90S ALONE as: 117/3000 or ~ 4%. This number is way too low because the preindustrial CO2 mass value (the denominator) was significantly lower.

    How do I know that it was our CO2 that was not removed you may ask? Before we started burning the long sequestered carbon extracted from the ground the atmospheric CO2 levels were relatively stable for thousands of years. We know we released it. We know where it went. It should be no surprise that we find it accumulating in the air and oceans (except possibly to someone of extreme faith). Our activities are indeed now responsible for (387ppmv-280ppmv) / 387ppmv = ~28% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

    RW was right.

    So many errors so little time (sigh).

  135. Michael Jennings says:

    dorlomin (12:24:13) :

    Michael Jennings (11:27:36) :

    Interesting that the dorlomins and RW’s of the AGW advocacy are spending more time over on this “non science” blog and becoming increasingly strident and shrill. It is merely a result that their house of cards is starting to collapse and will do so in earnest in the next 5 years, and they know it deep down and have little time to implement massive and deleterious changes to our political system

    ———————————-
    I think your tinfoil hat is constraining the blood to your head. :D

    No tinfoil hat but enough guts to offer you a challenge which you convienently ignored.

  136. Smokey says:

    arch stanton (15:31:16)

    “There is no need to be belligerent about your ignorance.”

    Well then, I’m glad to see you’re above it all.

    Now, which particular chart were you referring to? This chart? I doubt it, since the UN/IPCC numbers contradict your numbers.

    So, was it this chart? Yes? No?

    You need to be more specific than: “The chart he posted does not support your position.” Which chart? And, “This chart indicates that in the 90s humans…”. But again, what chart? You don’t say.

    And regarding your claim that: “Our activities are indeed now responsible for (387ppmv-280ppmv) / 387ppmv = ~28% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    “Indeed”?? Is that so? Or is that your opinion? Do you have an empirical measurement that proves the entire 28% increase is due to human emissions? Do you have a factual reason that the change in a minor trace gas can only be explained by human activity? Show me how that logically follows.

    At this point, another recital is in order: I have never said that global warming does not occur. Of course it does. So does global cooling. And there is little doubt that human emissions make a *small* contribution to global warming; it is the magnitude that is in dispute. And at this point the planet is telling us that the climate sensitivity due to CO2 is low. Very low.

    I am a skeptic. I am perfectly willing to accept everything that is proven, and most everything that has a strong evidentiary basis.

    CO2=AGW does not have such a basis. Carbon dioxide has been an order of magnitude or more higher at various times in the past, and those increases can not be laid at the feet of the industrial revolution, since they preceded it.

    Skeptics understand that the current climate is well within the natural parameters of past climate changes. Nothing out of the ordinary is happening. Therefore, there is no requirement that we must add carbon dioxide to the explanation.

    Speculating that an increase in CO2 is causing anything noticeable only muddies the waters. No one has to believe that for most of the past decade both the atmosphere and the deep ocean has cooled, while CO2 has steadily risen. But as you can see from the charts I’ve been posting, several government agencies take that position. Argue with them if you don’t believe it.

    What you lack is real world, empirical evidence; reproducible, falsifiable evidence. Provide that, and I will sit up straight and pay attention.

    So far there has been no measurement of atmospheric CO2 produced by human activity. The planet breathes CO2 in and out in far greater volumes than puny mankind is able, and the planet’s year-over-year fluctuations in CO2 are greater than total human emissions. How can anyone even know what happens to the one molecule out of 34 that is attributable to humans?

    Furthermore, all the evidence points to the fact that CO2 is completely beneficial, not harmful; more is better. CO2 is every bit as harmless and beneficial as H2O. Life could not exist without both.

    Skeptics reject speculation masquerading as evidence. Get some real evidence if you can, then we can discuss it.

  137. Craig Moore says:

    Smokey, Arch Stanton was the name on the grave in the movie The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. The treasure was in the grave next to his marked ‘Unknown.’

  138. collapsing wave says:

    [snip]

    Repy: Adopt a more respectful tone or post elsewhere. ~ charles the moderator

  139. collapsing wave says:

    And my comment at 21.37.20
    which was then changed by jerome at 01.01.56
    shows you up.

    [snip]

    Go find your own word jerome. Stop co-opting mine

  140. arch stanton says:

    Smoky, my previous post contained several typos. For those I appologise. The chart I was referring to was indeed: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/eia_co2_contributions_table3.png that was taken from the IPCC TAR. You cited it to calculate your 1/34 fraction that had nothing directly to do with RW’s 28% percentage. I then used it to demonstrate approximately how far off you were, except that I used 2008 CO2 mass as a denominator (instead of preindustrial CO2 mass) which skewed my result to be erroneously low (but still much higher than you had indicated as relevant).

    The 28% number: Given the mass of CO2 in the preindustrial atmosphere, and the mass of the CO2 that we have subsequently released into it through carbon burning and land use changes, the increase in atmospheric CO2 should actually be about twice as high as it is. These values have been measured. Most of the other half of the carbon has been absorbed into the ocean (also measured).

    Since the transfer of CO2 in and out of the ocean is not only driven by water temperature but also by partial pressure of the gas, it is fallacy to try to claim that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to a warming ocean. The gradient runs the other way despite the increased warmth. If you want to claim that the ocean warming is not anthropogenic and therefore the 28% is a couple points high, you and I will have to disagree and even if you were right you would be picking at nits.

    Quite true that atmospheric CO2 was much higher at periods in the past. So? This is a straw man. There were forest fires before man came along also, that does not mean that man cannot start forest fires. We know we put the CO2 into the air, why should there be any doubt at all about where it came from when we find it there? There is no lack of empirical real world evidence for these facts. The are falsifiable, and have been reproduced many times. To claim otherwise is false. Time for you to sit up straight.

  141. dorlomin says:

    Michael Jennings (15:53:23) :

    No tinfoil hat but enough guts to offer you a challenge which you convienently ignored.
    ———————————————–
    You have the most remarkable idea of what constitutes masculinity if you think that posting wild guesses about short term climate fluxations makes one a man. You also seem to be projecting an illusion of what you wish I and my opinions are. What a curious individual.

  142. RW says:

    ~snip~

    Multiple “denial” comments. ~dbstealey, moderator.

  143. dorlomin says:

    RW (02:35:31) :

    ~snip~

    Multiple “denial” comments. ~dbstealey, moderator.

    ———————————

    Will you snip with mulitple ‘alarmist’ or ‘cultist’ coments….. of course not.

    Jolly good laugh though.

    Reply: Comments about ‘deniers’ are deliberately made to equate skeptics with Holocaust deniers, and are therefore extremely objectionable. ‘Alarmist’ does not rise to that level. Therefore, we do not snip ‘alarmist’ comments. I trust this makes the distinction clear. ~dbstealey, moderator.

  144. RW says:

    Oh, good one dbstealey. I’m actually trying to tell the pitiable smokey that he’s embarrassing you all. It would be to your credit if any of you other “sceptics” were to point out his wildly obvious mistakes. Perhaps you too don’t know the difference between annual emissions of CO2, and atmospheric concentrations of CO2?

  145. evanmjones says:

    Gentlemen, please!

    My own take is that man is putting out a little over 7 BMTC (Bil. Metric Tons Carbon) into the atmosphere per year. That is about 3%, give or take, of overall output per year.

    But, all the natural output was reabsorbed–and then some (over half of what man contributes). CO2 has been declining since the end of the Cretaceous. So man’s contribution seems to be increasing CO2 by a little under half a percent per year.

    So I find the 28% figure for man’s contribution since 1900 to be quite plausible.

    On the other hand, I do not think a 28% increase in CO2 has had much of an effect, and I don’t think even a doubling of CO2 will have very much effect. I accept the direct effect computations as plausible, but the entire emergency is based on positive feedbacks which have been (preliminarily) falsified.

    So, yes, I buy man’s “contribution” to CO2 levels. But I do not think it is any sort of an emergency, and I think mankind will, in his own good time, have left fossil fuels behind long before it becomes an emergency.

    And it will do a great deal of harm, worldwide, if we rush in and break the bank to do it. That could cause more environmental — and human — harm than it would solve (if, indeed, it would solve anything).

Comments are closed.