This is an OSU press release, timed to appear in Eurekalert for Cancun’s COP16 on December 8th, and reposted here verbatim, including the all caps headline. Even though the “melting on Kilimanjaro due to global warming” has been fully debunked by a recent peer reviewed paper (see Kilimanjaro’s snow – it’s about land use change, tree cutting) Dr. Thompson continues to push this false information.
For example, this is a photo (at left) of Dr. Thompson standing next to an ice spire on Kilimanjaro. Notice any meltwater pools nearby? You won’t, because they aren’t there. Read this quote from this entry to understand why:
The ice cap on Kilimanjaro consists of ice on the 5,700-meter-high flat summit, some with vertical edges, and several slope glaciers, mostly at altitudes where temperatures stay well below freezing and the major source of energy is solar radiation. Considerable infrared radiation is emitted from the glacier surface into the surrounding air, and the glaciers lose the most mass through sublimation-the direct conversion of ice to water vapor. Observers have seen only a trickle of meltwater.
Dr. Thompson seems not to want to understand the process of sublimation on Kilimanjaro – Anthony
RyanM chimes in: Tennis great(est) Martina Navratilova, who recently battled breast cancer, participated in a charity climb/hike up Kilimanjaro this week, but sadly had to turn back due to health concerns. However, an “unexpected blizzard” and really ugly “tropical winter” weather made her climb quite miserable. “We have sent a message down to our base camp to bring up thicker gloves, hand warmers and more heavy clothing. I was expecting it to be cold and snowy, but not so soon.”
CLIMATE SCIENTIST WARNS WORLD OF WIDESPREAD SUFFERING IF FURTHER CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT FORESTALLED.
COLUMBUS, Ohio – One of the world’s foremost experts on climate change is warning that if humans don’t moderate their use of fossil fuels, there is a real possibility that we will face the environmental, societal and economic consequences of climate change faster than we can adapt to them.
Lonnie Thompson, distinguished university professor in the School of Earth Sciences at Ohio State University, posed that possibility in a just-released special climate-change edition of the journal The Behavior Analyst.
He also discussed how the rapid and accelerating retreat of the world’s glaciers and ice sheets dramatically illustrates the nature of the changing climate.
 |
| Lonnie Thompson |
|
Photo by Thomas Nash
|
It is the first time in a published paper that he has recommended specific action to forestall the growing effects of climate change. During the last three decades, Thompson has led 57 expeditions to some of the world’s most remote high altitude regions to retrieve cores from glaciers and ice caps that preserve a record of ancient climate.
In the past Thompson has let his research data and conclusions speak for him but in this paper, intended for social scientists and behavior experts, he voiced his concern regarding the risks that ignoring the evidence of climate change may bring.
“Unless large numbers of people take appropriate steps, including supporting governmental regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, our only options will be adaptation and suffering,” he wrote in the concluding paragraph.
“And the longer we delay, the more unpleasant the adaptations and the greater the suffering will be.”
In the paper (available here), Thompson said that virtually all climate researchers “are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization.”
His opinion isn’t hyperbole, he said, but instead is based on a “very clear pattern in the scientific evidence documenting that the Earth is warming, that the warming is due largely to human activity, that warming is causing important changes to many of the Earth’s support systems, and that rapid and potentially catastrophic changes in the near future are possible.
|
“Unless large numbers of people take appropriate steps, including supporting governmental regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, our only options will be adaptation and suffering.” |
“Such future scenarios,” he says, “emerge not, as is often suggested, simply from computer simulations, but from the weight and balance of the empirical evidence as well.”
Thompson listed three options humanity has for dealing with global warming which, he says, “is here and is already affecting our climate, so prevention is no longer an option.”
“Clearly mitigation is our best option, but so far most societies around the world, including the United States and the other largest emitters of greenhouse gases, have done little more than talk about the importance of mitigation,” he says.
He says that there are currently no technological quick fixes for global warming.
“Our best hope,” he says, “is to change our behavior in ways that significantly slow the rate of global warming, thereby giving engineers and scientists time to devise, develop, and deploy technological solutions where possible.”
Thompson prefaced his advice with examples of the Earth’s diminishing ice cover, examples that constitute some of the strongest supporting evidence of the current threat of global climate change:
— The ice fields atop Mount Kilimanjaro have lost 85 percent of their coverage since 1912;
— The Quelccaya ice cap in southern Peru – the largest tropical ice field on Earth, has retreated 25 percent since 1978;
— Ice fields in the Himalayas that have long shown traces of the radioactive bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s have since lost that signal as surface melting has removed the upper layers and thereby reduced the thickness of these glaciers;
— All of the glaciers in Alaska’s vast Brooks Range are retreating, as are 98 percent of those in southeastern Alaska. And 99 percent of glaciers in the Alps, 100 percent of those in Peru and 92 percent in the Andes of Chile are likewise retreating;
— Sea levels are rising and the loss of ice coverage in the North Polar region continues to increase annually.
“Everyone will be affected by global warming,” Thompson wrote. “But those with the fewest resources for adapting will suffer the most.”
A research scientist with Ohio State’s Byrd Polar Research Center, Thompson is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. In 2007, he received the National Medal of Science, the highest honor the United States gives to American scientists.
#
Contact: Lonnie Thompson, (614) 292-6652: Thompson.3@osu.edu
Written by Earle Holland, (614) 292-8384; Holland.8@osu.edu.
Of course he does, and I am sure he would be perfectly willing to accept a healthy grant to do just that!
Thanks Anthony!
Lonnie Thompson hides all of the data that he finds inconvenient. Despite repeated requests, he has obstinately refused to archive data that he collected on the taxpayer’s dime. If he said it was freezing outside I’d go to the window to look. The man is as far from a scientist as can be imagined, and the fact that he is still feted and given awards is a terrible indictment of climate science in general.
Moron. If he wants to do something, support efforts to reforest and brush the area. Plant bird and wild life friendly flora instead of posturing like a dim-witted jackass.
Good assessment, Willis!!
OSU = Ohio State University! *whew!* For a minute, I was worried that this clown was from Oklahoma State University! I wouldn’t think that very likely….
Perhaps Dr Thompson should consult a real expert and ask his wife how a frost free refridgerator works.
“– Sea levels are rising and the loss of ice coverage in the North Polar region continues to increase annually.”
The mind boggles! This quote and others are just outright wrong. For starters, the North Polar region is not defined but the implication (as two things are combined herein) is that melting Arctic ice contributes to sea level rise. He knows better. So why say it this way?
As for sea level rise – I recently posted on Tips & Notes . . .
John F. Hultquist says:
December 7, 2010 at 8:00 pm
. . . about this issue. See Tips & Notes.
In any case, the “world” isn’t going to do anything soon about carbon based energy and the sooner activists and the U.N. begin addressing actual problems the sooner current issues of “widespread suffering” can be mitigated.
It is inconceivable how any scientist could look at such a short snippet of Earth’s history and conclude that we are doomed to suffer adaptation to global warming – even if all of his data were correct, how can any scientific mind extrapolate unchecked warming throughout the comming centuries? – (actually millions of years if evolutionary adaptation is to take place). I guess the answer is: there’s no science left in these people – they’ve all drunk the warm-aid.
Lonnie Thompson: “Such future scenarios emerge not, as is often suggested, simply from computer simulations, but from the weight and balance of the empirical evidence as well.”
Isn’t it surprising that he fails to give one single example of this “empirical evidence” (for CAGW).
It is obvious that, as Willis said, this man is “far from a scientist.” Sorry if this offends some – but I would describe him as a UN-IPCC whore.
Shouldn’t this article have been posted under the “Funny Friday” heading ??
Sorry a bit OT but i thought some may find interesting.
Climate talks stance under fire
Newstalk ZB
December 11, 2010, 12:47 pm
New Zealand’s stance at the international climate talks in Mexico is under fire from senior doctors here.
Health professional organisation Ora Taiao spokeswoman, Dr Alexandra Macmillan, says New Zealand negotiators are harming the talks which end today.
She says they are seeking complex loopholes that will allow New Zealand to continue counting harvested exotic forests as carbon sinks even after they have been chopped down.
“Essentially what are representatives are doing is trying to fiddle the numbers so our figures look better which isn’t helping a new global deal”, she told Newstalk ZB.
Dr Macmillan says this may seem a canny economic move for New Zealand in the short term, but it will create a loophole for countries to destroy native forests and wet
lands.
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/8492044/climate-talks-stance-under-fire/
I haven’t read all of this, but I caught the tag for ‘Ohio State University’ and decided that I absolutely HAD to post a comment thanking you for ignoring the ridiculous tradition of “THE” _____ University or “THE” University of _____. You have spared a blood vessel in my brain from explosion, and for that I am in your debt one beer, mulled wine, whiskey and tonic, ginger ale, or whatever you drink. Thank you sir!
[snip – a bit OTT, try toning down a bit – Anthony]
‘In the paper (available here), Thompson said that virtually all climate researchers “are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization.”’
=====================================
Nope. It should read:
“Virtually all climate researchers….pose a clear and present danger to civilization.”
Embedded in a current news story:
“Martina Navratilova has been hospitalised in Kenya with an accumulation of fluid in the lungs after attempting to climb Africa’s highest peak, according to a statement released on Friday evening.”
and
“The 27-person climbing team Navratilova was part of has faced heavy snows and mist since beginning the climb up the 5895-metre mountain on Monday.”
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/tennis-great-hospitalised-after-kilimanjaro-climb-20101211-18t71.html
Read it. I can’t imagine why you thought this was worthy of a response. It is a piece designed to build the street cred of Mr. Thompson. Note that he recites, “very clear pattern in the scientific evidence documenting that the Earth is warming, that the warming is due largely to human activity, that warming is causing important changes to many of the Earth’s support systems, and that rapid and potentially catastrophic changes in the near future are possible.”, just to show he’s putting his chips all in. The same boring tactic of making an outlandish claim that could go either way as far as anthropogenic sourcing and then citing a clear pattern of a bunch of others doing the same in scientific literature. Classic appeal to authority, except that even the authority is doing it now. What was so interesting about this one piece to merit a response? I am confused.
Thompson this man give science and scientists a bad name. I for one object. This is not science. Speculation, fiction, fabrication, opinion, religious faith, call it what you will but please not science.
“Dr. Lonnie Thompson pushes gloom and doom, still thinks the snows of Kilimanjaro are melting due to global warming”
Yet it was he who sought to convince “The Team” that “a lot of the tropical melting is due to sublimation, which isn’t accounted for by the degree day models” (Climategate email #0994186877). In email #1123685358 Phil Jones says “Lonnie Thompson has been on Quelccaya in the last couple of months and reports that it is in an awful state. Like Kilimanjaro, the recent annual layers aren’t distinguishable. Lonnie reckons a lot of retreat is caused by sublimation”.
In these and other emails, Thompson comes across as someone the “Team” (especially Jones) respect, and whose reasoned conclusions they trust, even when those conclusions run counter to their own, which worries them somewhat. So why the present “alarmist” stance? Either he’s changed his conclusions (which I doubt), or he’s simply decided to”pull for his own side” in the great debate, or he’s been cajoled into doing that. After all, the “settled science” has been melting, sublimating and generally shrinking for some time. Whatever the truth is, he’s gone down in my estimation.
I notice “The Behavior Analyst” also contained the following article:
“Wilhite, C. J., Wilhite, C., and Williams, W. L. Dragon Training and Changing Culture: A Review of DreamWorks’ How to Train Your Dragon.”
At least it had three co-authors that agree on the subject matter and write about it. Thompson, on the other hand, was the lone author of his article. So where are the thousands of scientists who believe in the consensus of AGW? Why are they not clamouring for co-authorship with Thompson?
Whistling in the dark if you ask me.
Sorry about the tone, I know it’s your blog, I am just confused as to what about this piece changed the status-quo position of the AGW crowd. They have ignored transpiration consistently, as far as I know.
I wish I had the time to research the geographical areas with large fauna losses and check the correlation to rainfall in surrounding areas. I am guessing this should actually be done with fauna cover concentration, similar to the measure of sea-ice area, but correlating loss of fauna area with drops in precipitation. Has it been done?
Anyhow, I’ll stop clogging up the thread with this rambling post, I just wanted to point out I wasn’t being so pointed, just confused what the point of this post was.
I echo Pat’s (9:46 PM) sentiments. Thompson stands at the top of the mountain to trumpet about global warming melting Kilimanjaro’s ice, having a clear view of the deforestation below. Yet he chooses to completely ignore what would be a clear, reasonable, and attainable solution – reforestation – preferring rather to beat the old CO2 dead horse again.
It’s people like Thompson who put the kibosh to many meaningful environmental programs by diverting attention and funding away from real problems that could benefit from real solutions.
You’ve gotta be kidding me. You snipped that?
It was not that bad.
Sometimes….it is hard to tell on here what can be written….and what can not.
Chris
Chris
David, UK says: December 10, 2010 at 10:18 pm
“It is obvious that, as Willis said, this man is “far from a scientist.” Sorry if this offends some – but I would describe him as a UN-IPCC whore.”
I’m offended.
What did whores do to deserve this cheap jibe? I’m sure some of them have integrity.
+1 savethesharks 🙂
Kilimanjaro, chekc this:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/kilimanjaro-44.php
K.R. Frank
I recently saw a photo of people who had summited Kilimanjaro bounding down a rocky slope that appeared quite close to the summit and some ice nearby. Clouds of dust was being stirred up. Unfortunately I haven’t come across it again, but surely dark dust would help cause sublimation?
“– Ice fields in the Himalayas that have long shown traces of the radioactive bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s have since lost that signal as surface melting has removed the upper layers and thereby reduced the thickness of these glaciers;”
This is also suspicious claim. What about half-life of isotopes.
And what is “radioactive bomb” A-Bomb, H-Bomb or so called dirty bomb.
Might I suggest a special archive bin for such ‘reports’ or ‘science’?
Rather than archiving it with proper stuff perhaps we should have an ‘EPIC FAIL’ Bin? At least then, it will have had some ‘peer review’ and who knows may even be reported as such by other media!
This kind of research (heck!, even using that term is downright blasphemous!) is likely produced by scientific trolls, but without much science part! It bugs me that this should get any media coverage at all! – clearly biased – it’s not even fit to be used for toilet training paper for my puppy!
One of the key scientists on the CAGW side and (unless I missed it) he offers absolutely nothing new in this paper. He packages up a lot of old, unproven or even debunked news and has had it published as if it was science. This rounds up a lot of grey references that may now be used in the next IPPC report because, having been repeated in a (presumably) peer reviewed paper, they constitute a legitimate reference.
Thompson has refused to admit the loss of Kilimanjaro’s ice cap is due to the deforestation of the adjacent rain forests. It is the declining precipitation which has caused the famous mountain to lose its snow cap.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
December 10, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Imagine my embarrassment over Andy Dessler’s (a Texas A&M climate researcher) idiocity in re clouds being a positive feedback.
Oh, the ignominy,
gary
That news about Martina Navratilov’s cancer is sad. I hope she gets better and lives long. I hope we can find technology that allows everyone to live to at least 80, even stupid scientists and misled tennis players.
Kilimanjaro, land use, transpiration, and sublimation aside … Virtually all the world’s glaciers have been retreating for at least 400 year. Our CO2 cannot have been the cause of most of that melting. (Google “Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data.”)
Thompson of all people must know that. I wonder how much “green” stock he owns.
My company, and all it wonderful employees, make green products. People mostly buy them because energy is expensive so saving it saves money, and money is nice.
GREEN … THE COLOR OF MONEY.
dT
That ice spire is very cool (no pun). How do they form? I don’t get how sublimation would create that sharp point. Just wondering …
dT
Google:
Kilimanjaro,fumaroles
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&client=firefox-a&hs=UFh&rls=org.mozilla%3Afr%3Aofficial&q=Kilimanjaro%2Cfumaroles
>>“– Sea levels are rising and the loss of ice coverage in the North
>>Polar region continues to increase annually.”
And as I have said before, most of the Roman and Greek sites I visit are at or above the sea-level they were built for (the Romans did have a warm period). Indicating that sea levels have not changed or are possibly lower.
Does anyone really know what sea levels are doing? Are there any sections of coastline that can be reliable said to have been stationary (not rising or falling) for two millennia, and can be used to accurately define this sea level rise? (Roman Herculanium near Naples, which is geologically seismic, seems to have gone up and down by four meters several times.)
.
Without “unprecedented” glacier melting Mr Thompson has no career. He’s nailed his colours to the mast in that respect.
Since directly contrary evidence is not going to make the slightest bit of difference, the chance that contradictory evidence (such as we see with glaciers) will be treated fairly is zero.
Could not some investigative journalists research these so called scientists and their ideological backgrounds? Wasn’t Phil Jones a former Greenpeace activist? (Or was that a false rumour?) What else but doom and gloom can you expect from ideological warriors? There are not many books that I have read that have been as scary as Mike Hulme’s. He lays it out open how AGW is a comprehensive and total world view to the members of the climate science community. And he has absolutely no problems with it, to him it’s completely normal, or rather positive, that ideological and political leanings affect scientific research. He paints a picture that this is a widespread trait in the community. I would really like to know if this is true and to what extent. Investigative journalism has failed us here.
Well it worked. The nutters in cancun did a deal. So the UK, which is massively in debt
Now has to pay for places like tuvalu to carry on exploding their population and then allowing them to jump over to NZ when they get bored…
Without supporting data, this can only be described as “Sandwich Board” science.
So essentially this guy has a lot of trips on his shoulders to show for and are using those happy tripping times as being correct in a show of appeal to authority as evidence?
Why is it that it seem to be only climate researchers and climate scientist that believe with religious fervor that can get away with not including all available know variables and take into account the known unknown variables and then out of a known population of over 100 000 glaciers compile statistics out only of “57” and call everything that evidence of God, err, AGW?
But of course they also took to mean that the 52 IPCC scientists, for the 2007 doctrine release, on the board to mean every scientist in the whole wide universe of U(N)topia. They’re really good like that in the statistic department.
“Does anyone really know what sea levels are doing?”
Evidence that Sea level has stayed steady since around 3000 BC
http://www.john-daly.com/
The 1841 sea level benchmark (centre) on the `Isle of the Dead’, Tasmania. According to Antarctic explorer, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross, it marked mean sea level in 1841. Photo taken at low tide 20 Jan 2004.
Mark is 50 cm across; tidal range is less than a metre. © John L. Daly.
———-
Rex and Heather Gilroy can be contacted at the “Australian-Pacific Archaeological Research Centre”.
http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/egyptians_australia_mainpage.html
What’s left of a stone Wharf still above high tide which dates from around 3000 BC,
The earliest Phoenician script, Canaanite, which dates from around 3000 BC,
As a fellow West Virginian (i.e., still living in Mr. Thompson’s home state), yet only a common man of limited academic experience (a masters degree in history, with lots of field work and employment in various academic projects for over a decade), I’d like to point out the odd USHCN temperature gauges here. Sorry about those missed ones as of yet, but so far, the ones found in West Virginia seem to always be beside/on/in little heat islands, while otherwise being officially listed as near-perfect rural sites (no big lights to see from orbit, no city around, guaranteed low population, etc., so they must be perfectly rural and correct, far from any asphalt, buildings, air conditioners, vehicles, right?). Gotta’ get those readings right, you know, when dealing in tenth’s of a degree.
I’ll be the first to say I am not an expert in climate science, but this basic temperature data collection thing keeps bugging me. Best reason: I keep thinking of when the long-time USHCN temperature gauge curator at Mannington, WV personally told me an interesting bit of information. While he was pointing to a spot just about 100 feet away from the MMTS temperature gauge mounted above the black asphalt driveway, outside the garages and house but close enough for an electric hookup, he told me: “On warm days, it’s usually about 3 or 4 degrees cooler over there by the fence.”
I am not kidding. And, as I believe was noted before in an article on WUWT, Mannington, West Virginia’s gauge is one of the top ten used to fill-in missing data for other gauges in the United States. Really wondering here…what would Professor Thompson have to say about such things? No scientists have shown up to solve this possible temperature reading issue, so maybe he could come back across the Ohio River to his home state for some work. No pesky coal companies, petroleum companies, logging companies, etc., could alter his finding I’d think, so that could give all sides some peace of mind and, better yet, temperature gauge accuracy.
In the meantime, I better go out back and milk the glacier that’s appeared on my hillside in the last week. Or, I better cut some trees so the sunlight gets in there for a bit. I think that might get rid of it.
Better pics here:
http://www.rexgilroy.com/uru_chapter16.html
The massive Sarina “Phoenician Wharf” constructed from discarded ores
from Bronze Age open-cut mines, found by the Gilroys at
nearby shoreline sites.
The Gympie Pyramid
Note the causeway that extends from left of picture.
A stone wharf once stood at the southern base [in from the road],
the pyramid being on the edge of the former harbour.
Photo copyright © Rex Gilroy 2004.
Tasmania is in an area where there haven’t been ice-age glaciers weighing down the surface, or active plate tectonics shifts. A sea level mark chiseled into a cliff in the 19th century indicates a falling sea level, according to an article on Daly’s site. Here’s a quote from someone here about it:
Is Thompson qualified to make sweeping pronouncements on the effects of radiative forcings on global climate? Does he even contribute to Working Group 1 of the IPCC reports? As a glacier expert, surely his research comes under one of the other working groups, that look at the effects of current warming, not their causes. His pronouncements sound more like opinion than fact.
Give the guy a break. His parents gave him a girl’s name…
Can we please stop funding this crap research? I love statements like ..”rapid and potentially catastrophic changes in the near future are possible”….potentially and possible? Everything is possible. In science the game isn’t about what’s possible but what’s probable. They sound like bad weather forcasters: “there’s a chance of rain tomorrow”. There’s always a chance of rain. Tell me for a fact if it will rain. It would be like me telling my boss “there’s a chance I’ll get my project done”.
Dr Lonnie Thompson drills an ice core sample and declares we are to blame for all the melting, think about it, no ice = studying puddles …oh, And that’s our fault as well.
Only looking out for his own butt/funding and Can’con is like a Nazi propaganda rally, you stand and give your Sieg Heil to keep your position and a sustainable retirement.
Con/cop/bail are all an example of AGW tent evangelism. Sacrifice is needed to save your souls from your evil ways, pay penance to the world of the EU/UN/WB for the sins of being human and living. The end is nigh, so repent, repent I say!!
We will be passing around the collection plate, pay for your sins and you will have redemption, those not contributing shall be shunned and burn in hell fire.
Of course, Thompson is totally ignoring or ignorant of the Indian Environmental Ministry report that basically said the entire Himalayan glacier melt was within normal parameters and the melting etc., was being badly overblown…. I think that paper was discussed here on WUWT in the past, but in not working back thru them all I’m not certain of that… what I did find was this one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/11/pachauri-claims-indian-scientific-position-arrogant/
And then there is the soot affect:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/15/soot-having-a-big-impact-on-himalyan-temperature-as-much-or-more-than-ghgs/
Which is also backed up by an LBNL paper:
LBNL on Himalayas: “greenhouse gases alone are not nearly enough to be responsible for the snow melt”
Posted on February 3, 2010 by Anthony Watts
re post by: RK says: December 11, 2010 at 12:37 am
Hi RK,
I’m quite certain that they are referring to the above ground nuclear weapons testing that went on in those decades. The problem they’ve got in using this info, however, is that all this means is there was a significant gain in cover during/after the 50’s and 60’s – and that now we’ve just gotten down to somewhere less that where it was in those decades after having had INCREASED ice/snow cover inbetween. This is hardly indicative of anything new or unusual, unless one wants to try to claim that the only ‘normal’ behavior is in continual gain – which of course makes no sense.
So…. my suspicion is that if the ice loss was significantly below the level’s there in the 50’s, they would be trumpeting that everywhere. Since they aren’t, my bet is that its barely below the levels from the 50’s – which is pretty meaningless/insignificant.
It just blows my mind that they’d try to use the “gee, the levels were higher, but have now decreased to levels seen back in the 50’s, and this is catastrophic or highly meaningful.” Its an utter joke its such a gross failure in logic. But that’s what they’re referring to, the global fallout from all the above ground nuclear weapons testing back then.
The behavior analysis that needs to be made is that of “scientists” like Thompson.
If science, and particularly climate science is to ever recover its credibility it is important to understand why they so sincerely and steadfastly promulgate what are clearly just their own misguided opinions, backed only by the much-vaunted “consensus”, dressed up in the clothing of Science. Further analysis needs to be made of those who take the thoughts and feelings (or “warnings”, as they call them) as the gospel truth.
The question is, why do people so readily believe in catastrophe that they are willing to sacrifice their own freedom, and the freedom of others? The folks at ABAI really need to start working on this, for the betterment of mankind.
Bruce Cobb,
Right on. “Consensus” in climate science takes the place of the scientific method, which is routinely ignored. And without following the scientific method, it isn’t science.
As Willis points out, “Despite repeated requests, he has obstinately refused to archive data that he collected on the taxpayer’s dime.”
Like many of his ilk, Thompson is defrauding the taxpayers. There is no excuse for withholding publicly funded weather data.
As a graduate of Ohio State’s GEOLOGY department (before they went for the politically correct Earth Systems Science nonsense) I’m embarrassed to even have a slight association with a hustler like Lonnie Thompson and his connections to a dunce like Al Gore.
Success at Cancún prepare for man made death and disaster
http://rarereaders.seablogger.com/2010/12/success-at-cancun-prepare-for-death-and-disaster/
They will never give up.
And now the building blocks for a new Kyoto Protocol including a 100 billion dollar financing deal has been signed last night, prepare for a new flood of hubris.
He’s right of course.
The Earth’s climate is static, there is no such thing as climate cycles. Anyone who says otherwise should be burned or stoned.
No ice ages, no medieval warm period, no Little Ice Age and no change in global temperatures from 1850 to today, except that caused by you and I.
Mannian maths is next to godliness. Hansen is the new Prophet. Jones will write the next epistles.
Clearly, Thompson is a man of integrity, not someone addicted to government grants or handouts.
Carbon dioxide is evil, we have no hope until the Earth’s atmosphere is purged of this wicked gas forever.
The cult followers of Real Climate and almost everyone in Cancun’s meeting halls, would believe this stupid obnoxious rant.
Thompson prefaced his advice with examples of the Earth’s diminishing ice cover, examples that constitute some of the strongest supporting evidence of the current threat of global climate change:
– The ice fields atop Mount Kilimanjaro have lost 85 percent of their coverage since 1912;…
I would have been more impressed had he said Kilimanjaro had lost 85 percent of their coverage since 1975 (alleged start of the present ‘warming’ period.) What’s interesting about 1912 is that he hints that the ice was already in retreat.
Preliminary Notes on the Glaciology of Kilimanjaro [pdf] – 1959
“…The glaciers and summit remnants are rapidly retreating, the Penck Glacier having retreated 3 m. in 3 months in 1957, and nearly 300 m. since 1912….
Glaciers of Kibo
…When Meyer reached the summit in 1889 the break-up was far advanced….
The Penck Glacier
….A photograph by Oehler (in Klute 1920) indicates that the glacier has retreated about 300 yeard (275 m.) since 1912…..”
Dr Thompson has it backwards, if there is widespread starvation and suffering it will be because of government regulations and interference in the maintenance and advancement of the modern world. And that dead horse he is beating should be buried. Someone call Peta.
Or should it be the vice squad.
Might he be happier if Columbus were under a mile of ice?
We have a similar broken record playing in BC. A natually occuring cycle along with a “snuff every fire” approch by forestry has resulted in a Pine Beetle outbreak. Of course the facts don’t matter and each true believer can point and say, “Look at our beautiful trees dying you see, global warming is having this huge impact.” One can be patient and explain and try to reason but like anyone who is guilty of skipping those critical steps of Logic, it falls on deaf ears.
Regarding Kilimanjaro – I thought that the surrounding air in the summer is rarely above freezing. I also thought that most of the retreat occurred before 1953. Am I correct in my thoughts?
——–
R. de Haan says:
December 11, 2010 at 6:41 am
Success at Cancún prepare for man made death and disaster
http://rarereaders.seablogger.com/2010/12/success-at-cancun-prepare-for-death-and-disaster/
Score one for eco-fascism. Let them do their little victory dance. Better targets.
That’s what I thought too when it happened to me. (The only time.) What made it worse was that three days later someone else posted the same thing!
The degree to which AGW is causing glacier treat on Mt K is an open question.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1934203,00.html
“Indeed, glacier experts have been waging an intellectual war for years over what’s really causing the ice loss atop Kilimanjaro. The simplest explanation would be that warming temperatures are making the ice melt — and indeed, Thompson believes this is a big part of what’s going on.
But other scientists insist that melting, if it’s occurring at all, has a relatively minor effect. “The fact that you have melting may mean air temperatures have increased, but it doesn’t necessarily,” says Philip Mote, who heads the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University. “And in fact, the temperature on the summit of Kilimanjaro is essentially always below freezing, which makes it hard to accept warming as the reason [for glacier loss].” ”
REPLY: Sorry, fail. Show the meltwater, and Time magazine, really? – Anthony
Anent to that, here’s what I posted 13 months ago on the “Kilimanjaro / Rubbish” thread:
I suggest a maddoff treatment…
“Rational Debate says:
December 11, 2010 at 5:02 am
Soot having a big impact on Himalyan temperature – as much or more than GHG’s”
We may as well kill two birds with one stone. According to NASA, soot (and other aerosols) are largely to blame for the ice melting in the north polar region as well. See
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html
1. This guy must have just finished watching the pop AGW climate propaganda movie “Day After Tomorrow” when he wrote this drivel.
2. Most of the students who flunked out of my engineering and science undergrad school and wanted to get the job ticket went to OSU where one with adequate intelligence and money to obtain, say a teaching or history degree, could obtain a degree in engineering or the sciences.
You had me sweating there. I thought “Oregon State University”, that once upon a time bastion of conservative education now turned Cankookish over global warming. We have enough eggheads already in Corvallis. Was REALLY glad this particular egghead was in Ohio!
“CLIMATE SCIENTIST WARNS WORLD OF WIDESPREAD SUFFERING IF FURTHER CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT FORESTALLED.”
[yawn] This is yet ANOTHER press release, to advertise (on the taxpayer’s dime) yet ANOTHER inane climate paper, which it is hoped leads to a continued flow of Climate Ca$h for useless (and wasteful) climate research projects. The formula is the same whether we’re talking about GISS, JPL, NOAA, NSIDC, or any of the hundreds of academic groups.
I think the headline should be written as:
“U.S. TAXPAYERS WARN WORLD OF WIDESPREAD DEBT AND SUFFERING IF FURTHER CLIMATE RESEARCH IS NOT FORESTALLED.”
Before anyone gets upset, no slam intended on teachers or history majors as these fields require DIFFERENT types of intelligence and skills which I readily admit that I do not have. But then I did not try to pass myself off as a history or teaching professional.
I appreciate the post because it is important to understand the degree to which ‘scientists’ will sacrifice their objectivity for other purposes.
I can’t say that I approve of the personal attacks though. They diminish those posting and at a minimum they’re somewhat redundant. He does it all himself ….
Kind of sad really.
Seems to me that this paper is merely a synopsis of all the usual alarmist garbage aimed at converting “social scientists and behaviorists” to the new faith . If , as it appears , some in the hard sciences are lapsing into apostasy then new recruits must be found . After all , social scientists and behaviorists have much better access to the hearts and minds of today’s youth , not to mention the means to exploit them to whatever end .
“…our only options will be adaptation and suffering,””
More suffering please!
Where is Judith Curry when you need her?
Hello, Dr. Curry, a little help please.
Often psychologists will point to a disorder in individuals.
But what about mass groupthink disorders?
Seems to me that would be a juicy topic for somebody’s PHD or thesis.
It happens many times in groups of intelligent, informed, modern homo sapiens.
I mean, we know this stuff occurs all the time with religious cults, bureaucratic organizations, news media talking heads, shady politicians, nationalist extremism, among many others.
But for the “the elect” of the scientific community to become deceived and caught up in the groupthink…
….where even THEY also become yes-men….nodding their heads to the circular reasoning and….looking the other way when white lies are told….is just nothing short of spectacularly insane!
Christopher Monckton has used this term “global groupthink” recently.
I would propose to expand that idea and codify a new type of mass psychological syndrome that is currently gripping the world:
Global Warming Groupthink Disorder. Or “GWGD”.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“Richard deSousa says:
December 11, 2010 at 1:03 am
Thompson has refused to admit the loss of Kilimanjaro’s ice cap is due to the deforestation of the adjacent rain forests. It is the declining precipitation which has caused the famous mountain to lose its snow cap.”
Now here is an idea: why don’t the groups like greenpe$$e and others help the locals
reforest the slopes and gain some development?
Of course that would probably restore the ice, and give some dark skinned
people some hope, so that’s probably not going to happen…
Jim, in case you haven’t noticed, a teaching degree is no longer a job ticket.
This post is an example of why I consider the globaloney warming lie to be one of the most serious threats to the well-being of the living forms on Earth. Not only is it 180 degrees wrong on both temperature and carbon dioxide as to what direction the optimums lie in from here; it also encourages absolute irresponsibility about the things that actually DO matter–such as land use patterns on Mt. Kilimanjaro.
As to Jim G’s remarks above-
You do realize that Thompson is not an engineering graduate of Ohio State-right?
IIRC, his undergrad degree is from Marshall in Geology, but I have not checked this. I do recognize your attitude. Usually this kind of self-appointed elitist arrogance comes from Case graduates or maybe Ohio Northern as those are the only typical source of transfers or “re-entry” engineering students at OSU. Fine. But it has seemed to me that the more prominent AGW proponents appear to be largely those from the more commonly (and I use that term advisedly) considered “elite” univesities. It was an Ohio State Collede of Engineering organization, incidently, that sponsored a presentation there by Steve McIntyre.
Regardless, this from US News and World Report:
OSU’s College of Engineering is ranked 26th nationally — among the more than 300 doctoral-granting universities. OSU’s engineering is15th among publics in the category, up from last year’s ranking of 28th overall and 17th among publics.
The only other Ohio school included in the prestigious listing of top universities is Case Western Reserve University, in a four-way tie for 38.
Sorry-“College” not “Collede”-typical by an engineer.
In the 1950s I was what is now called a youth but we were mostly called kids then; sometimes there was a preceding descriptor. We were advised to not eat the snow! It had radioactivity in it, especially strontium 90. We didn’t know what that was, and didn’t care, but we did avoid the yellow snow when we grabbed a handful to eat.
In any case, here is a link to the research mentioned in the post:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/radsignl.htm
The main thrust of the issue seems to be that if glaciers melt there will be water shortages.
But, will there not be water shortages if glacier ice stays ice?
And won’t it be worse if glacial ice grows?
Those currently living seem to have been born and live in a time when glaciers have melted, grown, stabilized, melted, and so on. Many societies and water users (farmers, orchardists) and their organizations (think USA Bureau of Land Management) have based use (extending plantings) on the most, not the least, water during the ups and downs.
What could go wrong with that?
In another recent thread someone pointed out that the streams and rivers in the mountains are not fed from melting glaciers, but from snowmelt.
/Mr Lynn
We haven’t heard much lately about the raw data used to estimate (yes, sounds like estimating to me) ‘global’ temperatures, but this anecdote reminds me of Anthony’s Surface Stations project, with its appalling compendium of severely compromised measurement sites; and of E. M . Smith’s “march of the thermometers” southward; and of the dearth of recent data from much of the cold north.
I know that many of the meteorologists and climatologists hereabouts agree with the Warmists that ‘the Earth’ has warmed up maybe .7º C over the past century or so. But given the state of the basic data, one has to wonder: Even if the concept of ‘global temperature’ has any meaningful referents (which I doubt), is there adequate data of sufficient quantity to support the observation that there has been any warming at all? Or is even that conceding too much to the Climatists?
Is it not time to focus down on the raw data and insist that those who constantly prattle on about ‘global warming’ actually demonstrate that there has been any?
/Mr Lynn
Mr Lynn says:
“Is it not time to focus down on the raw data and insist that those who constantly prattle on about ‘global warming’ actually demonstrate that there has been any?”
Mr Lynn, you have hit the nail squarely on the head. Assumptions that there has been quantifiable warming must be based on verifiable raw data. And as we have seen from the Climategate emails and the extensive Harry-Read_Me file, the claimed raw data is highly suspect, and very often non-existent; Wei-Chyung Wang and Phil Jones co-authored papers that referenced non-existent weather stations, which is nothing more or less than scientific fraud.
The data is not replicable, and it would never stand up in a court of law. Yet the climate charlatans, led by the UN/IPCC, base their ridiculous claims for reparations on this questionable temperature ‘data’.
Bernie Madoff would completely understand what is going on here.
Contrary to your conclusion, timing concerning the release of this story had nothing to do with the Cancun conference and everything to do with the publication date of the journal in which the paper was carried, which was December 8. It is SOP in science communications to coordinate the distribution of a release to the public with the actual publication date of the journal.
REPLY: Yes, people said the same thing last year about the boatload of articles that came out around Copenhagen. Yet, the pattern repeats itself this year. Besides, this isn’t a real scientific paper, it’s an op-ed. If it had gone through any peer review worth anything the sublimation issue on Kilimanjaro would have been called out.
The fact is that this press release is not science, but a call to action. Big difference. – Anthony
Barry Day says:
December 11, 2010 at 3:43 am
Eidence that Sea level has stayed steady since around 3000 BC
http://www.john-daly.com/
The 1841 sea level benchmark (centre) on the `Isle of the Dead’, Tasmania. According to Antarctic explorer, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross, it marked mean sea level in 1841. Photo taken at low tide 20 Jan 2004.
Mark is 50 cm across; tidal range is less than a metre. © John L. Daly.
Half of my time I spend at a sea lake on the Corinth sea, which used to be the naval base of Corinthians 2500 years ago. There still exist the wharf foundations where they tied their ships, covered only at the very high tides.
In addition, there are rock promontories that hang over the sea, showing clearly sequential erosion levels that are over 6 meters over the sea level now.
The only thing in question is that the area is also a site of major quakes, and it might be that the whole has moved up and down over the centuries and we are now at the same level as the Corinthians 🙂 so a major study would be necessary to draw any solid conclusions.
Barry Day:
December 11, 2010 at 3:43 am
a p.s. The John Daly link is not working. Looking at the temporary storage it seems that he has left us for different shores as there is an obituary.
Anna,
John died in 2004, Phil Jones is on record as saying that he found the news “oddly cheering”. His website has been maintained since by a writer in Chicago called Jerry Brennan. It was working last week when I re-posted an article by John.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/john-l-daly-the-deep-blue-sea/
I linked to the graphs on the site. I just hope I haven’t broken it by causing it to exceed bandwidth limits or something. I’ve relinked to cached copies. I’ll try to email Jerry.
Replying to Anthony:
I’m not responsible for the ” the boatload of articles that came out around Copenhagen” that you claim. It’s easy enough to check on my statement — contact the editor of the journal and ask for the publication date.
Moreover, Thompson’s warning amounts to perhaps 1-2 percent of the volume of the paper, and you’d know that if you read it. The paper was an invited paper at the journal and, of course, underwent peer review. And the sublimation issue on Kilimanjaro was ruled as insignificant by the scientific community a long time ago.
The release isn’t a “call to action” as you claim but an accurate representation of the content of the paper.
REPLY: Well sir, sorry, but you are wrong, and blinded. I never suggested you were responsible for the Copenhagen articles, I’m speaking of the issue beyond OSU world. Sublimation insignificant? What utter rubbish. You’ve presented nothing to bolster the claim or refute the citation I included. Being in the radio and TV news business for 30 years, my opinion is that this headline below is indeed a “call to action”.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST WARNS WORLD OF WIDESPREAD SUFFERING IF FURTHER CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT FORESTALLED.
It says “this will happen” if….”we don’t do this”. That’s classic CTA marketing.
I’m sorry but when we look at the Thompson scofflaw funding curve , it looks even more like marketing 101. That’s a lot of money. With such money comes responsibility to archive data and make it available.
If you can convince Dr. Thompson to provide his data, I’m sure opinions will change. So far there is zero reason to trust a researcher who refuses to provide his base data for replication by the scientific community while at the same time has an exponential funding curve. The people of the United States demand better. We demand accountability, and you Mr. Holland are contributing to the problem with your (SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS) scare headlines.
– Anthony Watts
Thompson’s data is routinely filed at the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology at Boulder, CO, a part of NOAA, and has been for years.
As for “shouting,” our editorial style is for headlines to be in all caps — Don’t read internet ettiquette.
And while I respect your 30 years of experience, you should equally respect my 42 years of the same kind of experience.
REPLY: Thanks for the reply. I’d simply peruse Eurekalert and look at headlines to see that your ALL CAPS style of headline is the exception for press releases today, perhaps even a singularity. The Eurekalert releases mostly end up on the Internet elsewhere, so “net ettiquette” is germane to the issue.
If the data is all available, why then do we have this issue? See:
Kaufman et al: Obstructed by Thompson and Jacoby
http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/12/the-making-of-kaufman-et-al-2009/
In fact there’s a whole category for missing OSU/Thompson data:
http://climateaudit.org/category/proxies/thompson/
But if Mr. McIntyre is in error, and you can direct either him or me to the data that is missing, but supposedly archived at the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology at Boulder, CO and available for replication, I’ll happily withdraw my claims, and post a positive note on WUWT about it and this available data.
If you wish, I’ll be happy to email you Mr. McIntyre’s contact details so you can provide him with access to the data. I’m sure he will be thrilled to hear this.
Thanks for your consideration. – Anthony Watts
Eurekalert follows the style of its clients, so they reproduce our style. I’ve been on the national advisory board for Eurekalert since it’s inception and it’s primary purpose is providing science news releases to the international science media. It’s secondary purpose is to provide information to the public. In that case, however Eurekalert’s style processes are managed is well with common net ettiquette.
MacIntyre and Thompson have been in correspondence for years and I know for a fact that Thompson has forwarded data to him with the directive that once he publishes in a peer-reviewed journal related to that data, then Thompson will share more. Regardless, their entire data sets are stored at the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology at Boulder.
I have no interest in a dialogue with McIntyre on this, or to do his inquiries for him. My feedback on your blog entry was simply to clarify points on the timing of the release and later on the availability of Thompson’s data sets. That I have done.
Clearly your interest is in perpetuating a specific position on climate change. Mine is simply to report on the science as it develops. You’re entitled to spin things any way you see fit, but as a public institution, we are obligated to report fact — which we have.
REPLY: Congratulations on elevating the refusal of Dr. Thompson and OSU once again to provide open access to the data.
It seems though that the actual evidence at Eurkealert doesn’t support your claim of: “Eurekalert follows the style of its clients, so they reproduce our style.”
Here’s your press release at Eurekalert:
And here’s your press release at OSU:
It seems to me that the Eurekalert editors did in fact have the good sense not to reproduce a headline THAT SHOUTS IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE A
SCIENTIFICALARMING PRESS RELEASE.– Anthony
http://www.john-daly.com is back up and running. Quick work guys, thanks.
Mike L says: December 11, 2010 at 12:08 pmAs to Jim G’s remarks above-
“You do realize that Thompson is not an engineering graduate of Ohio State-right?
IIRC, his undergrad degree is from Marshall in Geology, but I have not checked this. I do recognize your attitude. Usually this kind of self-appointed elitist arrogance comes from Case graduates or maybe Ohio Northern as those are the only typical source of transfers or “re-entry” engineering students at OSU. Fine. But it has seemed to me that the more prominent AGW proponents appear to be largely those from the more commonly (and I use that term advisedly) considered “elite” univesities. It was an Ohio State Collede of Engineering organization, incidently, that sponsored a presentation there by Steve McIntyre.”
You guessed it. But it was Case Institute of Technology in those days and ranked 2 or 3 for the years I attended. Never said he was an engineer from OSU or that I am one for that matter, but he is speaking from OSU, so there you go. Elitist, perhaps, but facts are facts. The liberal “elitists” have destroyed a once prominent science and engineering school by bringing in people just like this to create “CWRU” from the ashes of what was CIT. Nothing of much good is very often free and almost never easy even for the brightest among us. The latest rankings you mention are good proof of this. Today’s “elite universities” are a joke if you look ath the critera by which they are ranked. Not surprising that the AGW crowd is represented among their graduates.
Are Thompson’s data at Boulder publicly available? If Thompson is able to dole it out to McIntyre according to some arbitrary criteria of his own, then we must conclude that Thompson still controls access, no matter where the data are stored.
I realize that many scientists are quite jealous of their often hard-won data, especially if they are not done mining the data for publication, but to deny access to other researchers is at bottom contrary to the ethos and method of science. In this case the data have been obtained using taxpayer monies, so there can be no justification whatsoever for withholding them. It may in fact be against the law.
/Mr Lynn
So…that is what an internet asylum looks like.
Lucky me! I just found a treasure trove of material for my future research on human mass delusions and madness.
CYA