From the University of Innsbruck, another modeling study.
This news release is available in German.
The ongoing global glacier retreat causes rising sea-levels, changing seasonal water availability and increasing geo-hazards. While melting glaciers have become emblematic of anthropogenic climate change, glacier extent responds very slowly to climate changes. “Typically, it takes glaciers decades or centuries to adjust to climate changes,” says climate researcher Ben Marzeion from the Institute of Meteorology and Geophysics of the University of Innsbruck.
The global retreat of glaciers observed today started around the middle of the 19th century at the end of the Little Ice Age. Glaciers respond both to naturally caused climate change of past centuries, for example solar variability, and to anthropogenic changes. The real extent of human contribution to glacier mass loss has been unclear until now.
Anthropogenic Causes
By using computer simulations of the climate, Ben Marzeion’s team of researchers simulated glacier changes during the period of 1851 and 2010 in a model of glacier evolution. “The results of our models are consistent with observed glacier mass balances,” says Marzeion. All glaciers in the world outside Antarctica were included in the study. The recently established Randolph Glacier Inventory (RGI), a complete inventory of all glaciers worldwide, enabled the scientists to run their model. “The RGI provides data of nearly all glaciers on the Earth in machine-readable format,” explains Graham Cogley from Trent University in Canada, one of the coordinators of the RGI and co-author of the current study.
Caption: This image shows the Artesonraju Glacier in Cordillera Blanca, Peru.
Credit: Ben Marzeion
Since the climate researchers are able to include different factors contributing to climate change in their model, they can differentiate between natural and anthropogenic influences on glacier mass loss. “While we keep factors such as solar variability and volcanic eruptions unchanged, we are able to modify land use changes and greenhouse gas emissions in our models,” says Ben Marzeion, who sums up the study: “In our data we find unambiguous evidence of anthropogenic contribution to glacier mass loss.”
Significant Increase in Recent Decades
The scientists show that only about one quarter (25 +/-35 %) of the global glacier mass loss during the period of 1851 to 2010 is attributable to anthropogenic causes. However, during the last two decades between 1991 and 2010 the fraction increased to about two thirds (69+/-24%). “In the 19th and first half of 20th century we observed that glacier mass loss attributable to human activity is hardly noticeable but since then has steadily increased,” says Ben Marzeion. The authors of the study also looked at model results on regional scales. However, the current observation data is insufficient in general to derive any clear results for specific regions, even though anthropogenic influence is detectable in a few regions such as North America and the Alps. In these regions, glaciers changes are particularly well documented.
The study is supported, among others, by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) and the research area Scientific Computing at the University of Innsbruck.
Yet, Dr. Christian Schlüchter discovered that 4,000 years ago, the Swiss Alps were almost glacier free:
http://www.sott.net/article/280759-Receding-Swiss-glaciers-reveal-4000-year-old-forests-Warmists-try-to-suppress-findings
But he didn’t use a computer model, so he must be wrong?
Article is available online at Science Express
Published Online August 14 2014
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1254702
The final paragraph of their report reads:
“Because the glaciers are considerably out of balance with both mod-eled FULL and NAT climate at the beginning of the simulation period, it is not possible to distinguish between glacier mass losses caused by internal variability and natural forcing. In order to address this question, it would be necessary to identify the causes that led to the buildup of glacier mass during the Little Ice Age, a period not covered by the CMIP5 experiments. However, our results indicate that a considerable fraction of 20th-century glacier mass loss, and therefore also of observed sea-level rise, was independent of anthropogenic climate forcing. At the same time, we find unambiguous evidence of anthropogenic glacier mass loss in recent decades.”
Really what happens, is their model’s outputs work (matches reality in about 1/3) in some places, grossly underestimates Mass Balance loss in some places, and grossly overestimates MB loss in others.
So they decided to disregard those places it fail to match reality, and focus on the places it did as a validation of their model. How’s that for sound science? Answer: Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. That doesn’t mean the squirrel can see, IMO.
By using computer simulations….
..the planet is now on fire
“Since the climate researchers are able to include different factors contributing to climate change in their model, they can differentiate between natural and anthropogenic influences on glacier mass loss.”
I live near (and climb and ski on) glaciated parts of Canadian Rocky Mountains and if you look at the precipitation and temp records at nearby stations you will find little signal above the noise in the data. How anyone could take that noise and THEN differentiate between natural and anthropogenic changes is fooling themselves.
Here is last 30 years of “climate change” in Banff, Canada, an Environment Canada station close to major glacier icefields:
http://daviditron.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screen-shot-2013-05-06-at-3-27-05-pm.png
I think I just invalidated their model.
“The scientists show that only about one quarter (25 +/-35 %) of the global glacier mass loss during the period of 1851 to 2010 is attributable to anthropogenic causes. However, during the last two decades between 1991 and 2010 the fraction increased to about two thirds (69+/-24%). “In the 19th and first half of 20th century we observed that glacier mass loss attributable to human activity is hardly noticeable but since then has steadily increased,”
They ‘forgot’ to mention worldwide glacier retreat has decelerated since 1950, inconsistent with the above statement.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/04/new-paper-finds-worldwide-glacier.html … pic.twitter.com/NwkVAxYxcg
And is also based upon climate models previously falsified at 98%+ confidence levels
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/ipcc-conveniently-claims-models.html
which use invalid, circular logic to delineate AGW from natural variability
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/climate_science_does_not_support_ipcc_conclusions.html
This belongs in a different thread but I can’t figure out how to start a new one so I leave it to the moderator. Looking at the sea ice page and the Danish graphic of sea ice cover I note that you STILL can’t plot a path from Norway to Alaska where you don’t need and ice-breaker. This while we’re only a couple of weeks away from minimum (maybe less if you look at the mean temperature graph). Anyone remember what year it was we’re supposed to be ice free in the Arctic?
“In our data we find unambiguous evidence of anthropogenic contribution to glacier mass loss.”
Evidence is an observation or experimental result. A computer simulation is not evidence of anything except that they can set up a simulator with a particular paradigm that then runs simulations that are consistent with that paradigm.
(sarc)
Amazing breakthrough!
(/sarc)
“However, during the last two decades between 1991 and 2010 the fraction increased to about two thirds (69+/-24%). ”
So how does one go about detecting which part of a glacier has “natural” melting symptoms and which bits are man made?
What they are clearly doing is projecting attributions _programmed into_ GSMs on the rate of glacial melting. Since those models have failed to get the last 17y of non-warming right, it is pretty clear their attributions are not suitable for derivative work.
No suprise here, as long as we contribute to the warming, we will be contributing to the melting of glaciers as well, which means that this will be faster than if we didn’t. Where’s the news? However, we’re still waiting for someone to demonstrate that melting glaciers are a bad thing.
Nylo says:
August 15, 2014 at 11:00 am
We’re also still waiting for someone to demonstrate that humans contribute to global warming, as opposed to locally as around cities. “We” don’t even know the sign of human contribution to climate change, if any. Humans may have a net cooling effect, but whatever the sign, it’s probably really too small to measure with any precision.
Each time/period in history needs to rethink and revaluated old accepted theories and thesis from new ”days” advancing analyse methods and/or new facts brought to the ”table”. Theories of Science – Basic knowledge
But that’s said it’s empiri not computer models is what it all is about in the end. One need to know about the Earth history and present situation in order to be able to analyse it at all.
Pangea, Earth history essential for world as we know it
Haaaa haaaa. It’s clear now.
William Grubel says:
Anyone remember what year it was we’re supposed to be ice free in the Arctic?
Maybe this will help:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/06/27/north.pole.melting/
Joel O’Bryan says:
August 15, 2014 at 10:11 am
“Article is available online at Science Express
Published Online August 14 2014
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1254702″
———————————————————————————————————————–
Thanks for that. I didn’t need to create a login as the first paragraph set up as a teaser had what I was looking for, to wit:
” Melting glaciers are an icon of anthropogenic climate change.”
Nice to know they went into this modeling with an open mind.
“While we keep factors such as solar variability and volcanic eruptions unchanged, we are able to modify land use changes and greenhouse gas emissions in our models”. Key words, if they include solar variability and the volcanic history then they have nothing.
2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2023 and so on.
Hey what, they modelled models in a model? Well that must be all right then (no need for sarc tag I trust?)
milodonharlani says:
August 15, 2014 at 11:03 am
We’re also still waiting for someone to demonstrate that humans contribute to global warming
I personally consider that fully demonstrated already, even though the extent of the contribution is unclear. But even if I didn’t, I would not waste my time arguing whether we do or do not contribute to the warming when the facts are that, be it us or not, we have been warming, and it has been good. Why shouldn’t we want to plead guilty?
Jimbo says:
August 15, 2014 at 11:42 am
— Impressive and timely results. Well done!
It’s always interesting to see how science would operate within an alternate dimension where everything works opposite of how it works in this one. Have a conclusion in mind, then create a computer model to create your conclusion and call it evidence while completely ignoring observations, that’s some good science right there.
“However, during the last two decades between 1991 and 2010 the fraction increased to about two thirds (69+/-24%). ”
///////////////////////
A bit strange since (according to satellite data) there has been no warming for about 17 years 10 months, and the only warming in the 1990s appears to be due to the Super El Nino of 1998, which was not manmade.
Nylo says:
August 15, 2014 at 11:49 am
What makes you believe human contribution to warming has been demonstrated? I haven’t seen any evidence to that effect.
Naturally I agree that so far the world is better off now that it is warmer than during recent centuries, but CACA advocates claim all kinds of terrible things will happen if humans continue contributing to or causing more warming (or climate change), so it matters IMO whether our species is “to blame” or not for some or all of whatever warming has actually been observed since AD 1700, 1850, 1900, 1950, 1977 or whenever.
Dave in Canmore says: August 15, 2014 at 10:31 am
“Since the climate researchers are able to include different factors contributing to climate change in their model, they can differentiate between natural and anthropogenic influences on glacier mass loss.”
Dave is the Columbia Icefield now 2/3 smaller? After-all those Snowcat buses are anthopogenic.
http://jasperjournal.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012-07-31-IMG_5474-edited-1.jpg
milodonharlani says:
August 15, 2014 at 12:05 pm
What makes you believe human contribution to warming has been demonstrated? I haven’t seen any evidence to that effect.
I’ve seen our CO2 emissions rocket, I’ve seen atmospheric concentration of CO2 rocket, I’ve seen the CO2 absorption bands and I have seen the Earth’s infrared radiation spectrum. I know that more CO2 means slightly narrower radiation spectrum for Earth, which means that, incoming energy being equal, the remaining frecuencies need to carry more energy, and for that to happen, the elements responsible for the emissions in those frequencies have to be warmer. Given that I have seen no evidence of reduced incoming energy and I have seen the world warm, everything adds up.
DD More says:
August 15, 2014 at 12:12 pm
Alaskan glaciers are growing now, not retreating. Look at recent history of Hubbard Glacier, not far from Columbia, for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbard_Glacier
Or temperature history of Juneau, where record high of 90°F was set in 1975. Even in “adjusted” Anchorage figures, hottest year was 1978, despite all the development there since then, & record daily high was in 1953.
http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/climate/
Can someone explain the melting percentages listed (25% +/- 35%)???
I have seen persentages listed as say 25% +/- 5% indicating a range of 20% – 30%
But this would give the warming percentage a range of -10% to +60%
What exactly is stated by 25% +/- 35%???
Ignore Dr. Christian Schlüchter and his findings. He is not a Team member and therefore must be considered unreliable. Even worse, his work is not supported by a computer simulation.
During the Little Ice Age (~1300 to ~1915 AD), alpine glaciers reached their maximum extent since the last big Ice Age ended ~12,000 years ago. Little Ice Age glaciers oscillated back and forth over multiple periods of warming and cooling, mostly lasting about 25-35 years. At the end of the last significant cool period (1880-1915), many alpine glacier termini were not far from their maximum Little Age positions. Most of the glacier recession this century took place during the 1915-1945 warm period, before human CO2 emissions began to increase significantly (after 1945). With this in mind, how does their model account for these pre-CO2 recessions? Their paper claims “during the last two decades between 1991 and 2010 the fraction (of anthropogenic-caused ice loss) increased to about two thirds (69+/-24%).” But wait a minute–there has been no global warming for 15-18 years while CO2 has continued to increase. Global climate has actually been cooling for more than a decade and glaciers in Scandinavia, Alaska, and South America have stopped retreating and have begun to advance, so how can ‘human-caused CO2 warming’ be to blame? The disparity between their model results and reality is astounding.
And it gets even worse the farther back in time we look. There have been 40 periods of warming and cooling since 1500 AD, none of which involved CO2. The Medieval Warm Period was significantly warmer than present, and almost all of the past 10,000 years have been several degrees warmer than now without anthropogenic CO2.
Computer models are not evidence of anything–they are incapable of ‘proving’ anything because they are all based on assumed numbers, not real-life data. Computer models have totally failed to correctly predict temperatures over even the past few decades. Whoever said ‘garbage in, garbage out’ certainly had it right!
Nylo says:
August 15, 2014 at 12:23 pm
In the unlikely event that CO2 works in the atmosphere as it does in a lab, then the effect of increasing its concentration from three molecules per 10,000 in dry air to four molecules should not even be measurable. The increase will be entirely swamped by the GHG effect of about 400 molecules of water vapor (whose absorption bands largely overlap CO2’s) in the moist tropics & perhaps 300 on average in temperate zones, but might register in dry polar regions, but not enough for a meaningful climatic effect.
If a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm produces in nature the ~1.2 degrees C increase derived in lab experiments, then the majority of that putative rise has already occurred (given enough time for equilibrium), due to the logarithmic nature of the effect. However during the past 150 years, global temperature has risen while CO2 levels were falling, as during the Depression years, & fallen while CO2 was increasing, as from the late 1940s to ’70s. Only for a brief accidental interval from about 1977 to 1996 did average global T (poorly measured) rise while CO2 was also rising.
Besides which, there are most likely powerful negative feedbacks to whatever scarcely measurable (at best) effect “our” presumed additional molecule per hundreds of GHG molecules in dry air might actually have. The climate system is homeostatic. The positive feedback from water vapor assumed in climate models is simply not in evidence, indeed has been shown false.
The net effect of human activity might be cooling because our other potential influences, such as aerosols & CCN creation, could cancel out whatever small effect our GHGs might have, if any. Thus, I have seen no evidence of a net human contribution to “climate change” on a global scale, although clearly we have heated up some localities.
So I’m still waiting for conclusive, convincing evidence of a global effect of human activity on the climate system.
reposted from another thread;
I have done a lot of research on glaciers aided by such books as Laduries ‘Tines of Feast times of Famine’ from which we are able to reconstruct the generalities (but not the nuances) of Glacial advances and retreats in the Northern Hemisphere over the last few thousand years. I have also visited several glaciers and examined their records in the local museums
Here are these retreats and advances against which has been set the Hockey Stick and CET
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image010.jpg
“Fig 5-3000 year Glacier movements with CET decadal/50 year steps and Mann et al 1998
A closed blue horizontal line at the top of the graph equates to a period of glacial retreat (warmth) and a closed blue line at foot of graph demonstrates glacier advance (cold)
That glacial movements can be surprisingly short lived can be seen in the century long glacier advance around 1200 to 1300 AD, and to a lesser extent the 30 year retreat around 1730. Such short changes as noted in this latter period may be relatively common, but the records are unlikely to exist to be able to trace them in earlier times.
The small temperature deviations from the ‘norm’ shown in paleo proxy reconstructions- including that of Mann et al 1998-seem most unlikely to be of a scale that can precipitate glacier movements of any consequence. Several consecutive warm cold decades that can be noted in the instrumental records will however likely start such movements which will be accentuated if the prevailing characteristic of warmth or cold lasts for some time. In the case of the MWP this period of warmth lasted around 450 years . (Clearly however brief Warm periods can occur during a general glacial retreat and brief cold periods during glacial advance.) ”
Glaciers have been retreating in part since 1750. They have been rather volatile items in their retreats and advances over the ages and the idea that we have impacted on them via co2 over the last 20 years is fanciful.
They are currently generally retreating from a considerable high point of glacial action during the LIA . Eventually history tells us they will generally advance.
tonyb
Nylo:
At August 15, 2014 at 12:23 pm you say
You have seen different things from me.
I’ve seen our CO2 emissions continue unabated, I’ve seen atmospheric concentration of CO2 unabated, I’ve seen the CO2 absorption bands and I have seen the Earth’s infrared radiation spectrum. I know that at present atmospheric CO2 concentration more CO2 means trivially narrower radiation spectrum for Earth, which means that, incoming energy being equal, the remaining frequencies need to adjust a little, and for that to happen, the compounds (e.g. water vapour) responsible for the emissions in those frequencies have to be warmer or to change concentration. Given that I have seen no evidence of reduced incoming energy and the world has not warmed for nearly two decades, everything indicates that the CO2 changes are not relevant to global temperature change.
Richard
There is a plenty of similar “research” reported… Today’s university is what used to be called a high school a century ago
There is no credible experiment that proves that the greenhouse gas effect exist. There are many experiments that show that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist.
Here is something for the supposed scientists to ponder.
The 1.5 to 2.0 million scientists that are “skeptics” are accused of ignoring two hundred years of science when they claim that the Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect (GHGE) does not exist. This is a falsehood ,just the opposite is true. To prove this we must start with a definition and procedure of science. Science is never settled!
A scientist looks at some event in nature and asks why?
The scientists start to gather data that will help explain the event.
To organize the data a hypotheses is proposed.
The data is rearranged to see if it correlates to the hypotheses.
If the data and the hypotheses seem to agree, more data is obtained and an experiment most be developed to prove the hypotheses.
The experiment is performed with variations of the perimeters.
The results are compared to the hypotheses.
Does results agree with the hypotheses and the original “nature event “
If the original “nature event” , hypotheses and experimental results agree a paper would be prepared to present to the scientists with the most knowledge of the subject to review and attempt to duplicate the results.
If the results do not agree with either the” nature event” and /or the hypotheses then back to the drawing board. Many hypotheses fail. Some succeed and go on to further testing and evaluation.
Progress in science is made from both successful and failed hypotheses. Failed hypotheses can only help if they are analyzed honestly why they failed.
With this outline as a basis, lets look at the Hypotheses of the Greenhouse effect and then the modified Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect. These are often confused by the public and especially the nitwits in the media. They really don’t understand that a few wrong words make a difference especially in science.
During the 1800’s it was thought that The greenhouse effect was do to resonance of IR within the glass wall of the structure. IR and visible light passed through the glass, heated the contents, which radiated IR of a different wavelength that did not go through the glass but reflected back to build up the heat within the greenhouse.
In 1909 Robert W. Wood an expert in both IR and UV radiation did a very simple experiment that proved that the original Hypotheses was wrong. His experiment which can be found on the internet and is listed in the list of references proved that what happens in the “greenhouse or any other similar hot box is “ confined space heating”. This concept is address in many papers and other experiments including The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner and Wood is correct: There is no Greenhouse Effect
Posted on July 19, 2011 by Dr. Ed (Berry @ www. ClimateClash.com)
Repeatability of Professor Robert W. Wood’s 1909 experiment on the Theory of the Greenhouse (Summary by Ed Berry. Full report here or here. & PolyMontana.)
by Nasif S. Nahle, June 12, 2011
University Professor, Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet® San Nicolas de los Garza, N. L., Mexico.
End part 1
Part 2.
Although the concept of back radiation (back forcing) is still believed to exist and is covered in the papers of G&T but it can not be proven by experiment.
Now lets look at the other Hypotheses of greenhouse gas effect.
The original Hypotheses was proposed by Fourier in 1824. Fourier is a very credible mathematician and physicists but I have not found any indication that he actually attempted to prove the Hypotheses that gases could cause the back forcing of radiation or heating of the gases in the atmosphere.
In the 1850-60 period John Tyndall a scientists and physicists carried out experiments that proved that certain gases will absorb IR; there is no question about this,every IR spectrophotometer uses this as an analytical tool millions of times a day. A question I ask myself is would the spectrophotometer work if back-forcing exists.
When I first learned about IR absorption I was told that that only three or more atom molecule would absorb IR. Since doing more research it is shown that both O2 and N2 absorb IR, this has a significant impact on what are “greenhouse gases”.
When reading the papers of Tyndall he stated that the most significant “GHG is water vapor” This is questionable see the following experiment http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.htmlWater Absorption Spectrum by Martin Chaplin. What phase we are looking at is very important which will be discussed later. Tyndall himself stated that there was not enough “traces gases in the atmosphere “ (including CO2 )to cause measurable temperature change.
His experiments did not prove that when a gas absorbs IR that it caused gas molecules around it to heat.
In 1896 Arrhenius gave a paper that “speculated” that increasing the CO2 concentration would cause the atmosphere to heat. Quoting a foot note by the IPCC Fouth Addition-In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”
Now Arrhenius was a very accomplished Biological physicists having been recognized with a Noble prize for his work. To him more CO2 and higher temperatures were beneficial to growing plants. However in 1903 Knut Angstrom pointed out significant flaws in Arrhenius’s work. Later I ‘ve been told that Niels Bohr told Arrhenius that he was all wrong. Niels Bohr knew something that Arrhenius did not know.( now called quantum physics)
When Arrhenius did his paper , he did a series of experiments however he was not able to prove that the effect existed. Another failed hypotheses.
After the turn of the century many significant developments in physics, quantum physics , and thermodynamics changed how we look at the world. The works of R.W.Wood, Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, Max Plank, etc. etc. etc. etc. During this period between 1900 and 1970 there were many paper claiming that based on observations of atmospheric conditions that showed the “greenhouse gas effect” existed. The problem is that observation could not be repeated, because there are to many variable that can not be controlled. These observations are subject to subjective interpretation. Because the researchers had an ax to grind they blamed CO2 and other “GHG’s” for the effect.(They have ignored the fact that O2 and N2 which compose 96% of the atmosphere also absorb some IR thus should be called GHG’s) They never bothered to actually prove that the Hypotheses existed. Experiment after experiment( really only observations) were performed by people that had no business attempting to do scientific experiments, they called themselves “climatologist” most did not have any training in the field that really should be studying “ atmospheric physics “ – physicists, meteorologists, radiation scientists, and mechanical engineers trained in thermodynamics and HVAC. IF any of these observation were meaningful why can’t they decide what the atmosphere sensitivity of CO2 is supposed to be? There is absolutely no reason to spend billions of dollars to control CO2 when there is not one experiment that shows what effect reducing the CO2 will cause. Everything is “speculation” and bad speculation at that.
End part 2
Part 3
n the list of references are experiments that show that mixtures of Water/liquid/ solid and CO2 cause the atmosphere to cool not heat. Again there are experiments that prove that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist. These are experiments not speculation.
The reference http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html Water Absorption Spectrum by Martin Chaplin. Which is based on experimenters; it is shown that ice absorb significantly more IR that liquid and vapor. This has to be understood when we evaluate the melting of glaciers. Air temperature is insignificant when observing the melting of ice. When it is sunny,snow and ice melts at significant rates even when the air temperature is below 32 degrees F. A simple observation proves this. For those of us that get ice dams and icicle go out on a below 32 degree F but sunny day, look at snow and ice in the shade, not a sign of melting. Then go to a part of your house that is in bright sunshine the snow and ice will be melting and flowing like you’re under Niagara Falls.
It is claimed by the cult of AGW that when the north pole is white it reflects significant visible light thus it does not cause the glaciers to melt and that small changes in average atmospheric temperature is responsible for the loss of the glaciers. They are wrong which is proved by the above. Ice absorb significant IR even when the visible light is reflected. IR melts ice far faster that air temperature. The world is in an inter-glacier period the glaciers are supposed to be receding. The fear -mongers are at it again. If the glaciers had not melted much of the northern and southern hemisphere would be under 2 miles of ice.
The Greenhouse Effect Explored
Written by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012
Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?
Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment
Your right : what John Tyndall said in 1850-60 was based on the misconception that the Greenhouse effect was caused by resonating IR within the container. This was proved false in 1909 by Robert w. Wood a professor of Optics at John Hopkins University. His experiment proved that the “greenhouse effect ” is really “confined space heating” a totally different concept. R.W.Woods was a recognized expert in IR and UV radiation, Many of his finding are referenced today in the world of optics ,IR ,and UV radiation.
The Wood experiment was verified in 2009 referenced below.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme Many link are included that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
Wood is correct: There is no Greenhouse Effect
Repeatability of Professor Robert W. Wood’s 1909 experiment on the Theory of the Greenhouse (Summary by Ed Berry. Full report here or here. & PolyMontana.)
by Nasif S. Nahle, JunPosted on July 19, 2011 by Dr. Ed
e 12, 2011
University Professor, Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet® San Nicolas de los Garza, N. L., Mexico
Science is never settled. When the Cult of AGW goes back 200 years and claims that a Hypotheses or similar reference is valid but does not look at the developments that have occurred since that disprove the old hypotheses then we know they don’t know a thing about science. Science is built on failed and correct hypotheses.
New information trumps old unprovable data.
Ah, more console games…
Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.
The Experiment that Failed which can save the World Trillions:
Proving the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!
By Berthold Klein P.E (January 15, 2012)
Edited by John O’Sullivan, incorporating comments by Dr. Pierre Latour, Professor Nasif Nahle, Edward J. Haddad Jr. P.E, Ganesh Krish, and others.
Dedication
To Professor Robert W. Wood (1909), the first scientist to demonstrate that the Hypothesis of the “Greenhouse effect in the atmosphere” was unscientific. To all other scientists since Professor Wood who have added sound technical and scientific knowledge in many related fields to strengthen the case against the greenhouse gas effect hoax.
To protect my grandsons JJ and BA plus their generation and all the generations that follow – because we finally got it right. For the generations that would otherwise suffer extreme economic harm if the Hoax of (Michael) Mann-made global warming – AKA the “greenhouse gas effect” (GHGE) is not stopped now and forever.
Nylo says:
I’ve seen our CO2 emissions rocket, I’ve seen atmospheric concentration of CO2 rocket, I’ve seen the CO2 absorption bands and I have seen the Earth’s infrared radiation spectrum. I know that more CO2 means slightly narrower radiation spectrum for Earth, which means that, incoming energy being equal, the remaining frecuencies need to carry more energy, and for that to happen, the elements responsible for the emissions in those frequencies have to be warmer. Given that I have seen no evidence of reduced incoming energy and I have seen the world warm, everything adds up.
You think everything adds up to anthropogenic global warming? OK then…
Please post testable scientific evidence showing the fraction of a degree of global warming caused by human emissions. Please quantify that with measurements, because simply throwing out various observations is not proof that human-emitted CO2 is the cause of AGW. It may be. But we need verifiable evidence, not random obsevations.
See, it could be that the change in CO2 is the result of past global warming. We know there is a lag time involved in ocean outgassing. Could it not be that the rise in CO2 is due to recent global warming? Or even due to global warming during the MWP, ≈800 years ago?
There is a wealth of empirical evidence showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2. But there is no comparable evidence showing that the rise in temperature is caused by rising CO2. That is only an evidence-free conjecture.
You have to be careful to not make evidence-free assumptions. As Richard Feynman pointed out, the person it is most easily to fool is yourself.
Q: How many computer modelers does it take to change a light-bulb?
A: None; the model says it’s still working.
dbstealey says:
August 15, 2014 at 1:40 pm
” showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2.”
…
All your link shows is that the 6-month variation is due to summer-winter changes in CO2 absorption due to the uptake of CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere in summer.
If only their models were reality-based instead of fantasy-based they’d be somewhere.
“The real extent of human contribution to glacier mass loss has been unclear until now.”
——————————————————————————
We knew man was destroying the glaciers all along, though cause that was settled science.
Isn’t it amazing how this settled climate science just keeps getting settleder and settleder.
(Odd, my computer doesn’t recognize settleder.)
I suppose this is more better perfect science since everything is finally clear now.
cn
richard verney (August 15, 2014 at 12:02 pm) challenges the statement: “However, during the last two decades between 1991 and 2010 the fraction [of the global glacier mass loss during the period of 1851 to 2010 attributable to anthropogenic causes] increased to about two thirds (69+/-24%).”.
rv, it’s actually very straightforward. The model calculates a rising AGW effect and subtracts it from a constant overall effect in order to estimate a negative natural effect.
In the world of climate models, there aren’t any turtles. It’s circular logic all the way down.
The retreat of the glaciers has provided a very insightful tidbit of data that proves the MWP was not warmer than today. All one needs to do is visit Glacier National Park, and obtain samples from tree stumps exposed by the melting glaciers. When dated by radiocarbon technices, the stumps are not 1000+/- years old as would be expected if the MWP was warmer than today. If the MWP was warmer than today, these glaciers would have melted, and trees would have grown up in the exposed surface. Re-glaciation during the LIA would have covered them up again.
The tree stumps data at 3000 years…..so obviously the MWP was NOT warmer than today.
http://www.geog.uvic.ca/dept/uvtrl/2000-02.pdf
http://alaskaresearch.voices.wooster.edu/files/2010/07/AppletonIS.pdf
Edward Richardson says:
August 15, 2014 at 2:49 pm
This blog has exploded & exposed this bogus argument at great length already. Please see comments in this post. Search for “stumps”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/08/receding-swiss-glaciers-incoveniently-reveal-4000-year-old-forests-and-make-it-clear-that-glacier-retreat-is-nothing-new/
You aren’t by any chance “H Grouse” are you?
The evidence from all over the world that the MWP was warmer than now is overwhelming. Same for the Roman & Minoan WPs (even warmer) & the Holocene Climatic Optimum (warmer still), plus the previous interglacial, the Eemian, & earlier interglacials. Current warmth is nothing special. Indeed far from it.
The Null Hypothesis of natural climate variation has not been shown false.
milodonharlani says:
August 15, 2014 at 3:07 pm
“Null Hypothesis ”
If the MWP was warmer than today, the tree stumps exposed at Glacier National Park would not date as 3000 years BP, they would date at 1000 years. Only takes one data point to prove that the MWP was not warmer than today.
All the data you can find doesn’t prove anything about the MWP, but one data point proving it wrong falsifies your hypothesis that the MWP was warmer than today.
Your “null hypotheisis” of the MWP was warmer than today is falsified by the radiocarbon dating of tree stumps at Glacier National Park.
..
Edward Richardson says:
August 15, 2014 at 3:15 pm
I’m not going to rehash the whole long discussion in the comments to which I linked. Please read it & get back to me.
The alleged age of the alleged stumps falsifies nothing. Even if it did, which it doesn’t, glaciers are affected by local conditions, so those in one small area are hardly dispositive for the entire globe. Besides which, they could have been exposed during the MWP, too, but didn’t rot away due to a high & cold environment.
You’ve got nothing.
milodonharlani says:
August 15, 2014 at 3:07 pm
BTW….
…
Your link also shows that the MWP and the Roman warm period was not warmer than today. IF they were, the remains at the edge of the Swiss glaciers would date younger than 4000 years BP.
Just for laughs
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/melting-glacier-in-italy-gets-a-giant-thermal-blanket.html
http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19170081-glacier-covered-with-blankets-to-reduce-summer-ice-melt
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-06/duct-tape-methods-save-earth-insulate-glaciers.
Edward Richardson says:
August 15, 2014 at 3:24 pm
Don’t know to which link you refer.
The Swiss glaciers which are retreating have confirmed that the Holocene Optimum, Minoan, Roman & Medieval WPs were warmer than now. Artifacts found in their exposed valleys date from these intervals. How do you know that more such finds aren’t still buried under remaining ice?
From the geology of the valleys, it’s clear that glaciers had generally retreated more during the previous warm cycles. But again, local conditions mean that different glaciers behave differently, not all in unison. The same is true today, when some glaciers are advancing & some retreating.
milodonharlani says:
August 15, 2014 at 3:41 pm
“Roman & Medieval WPs were warmer than now”
If the MWP were warmer than now, the artifacts would date at 1000 BP not at 3 or 4000 years BP.
Edward Richardson says:
“We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
Yeah, they tried to, really really tried. Bless their hearts. But failed. Miserably.
Edward Richardson:
At August 15, 2014 at 3:46 pm you assert
Why? Glaciers are not thermometers.
The growth and decline of glaciers is more related to precipitation than temperature.
What can be said is that warmer temperatures act to reduce glacier advance but that does NOT lead to your assertion.
And, of course, the MWP was warmer than now. The evidence from around the world is overwhelming.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2014 at 3:55 pm
:” The evidence from around the world is overwhelming.”
The radiocarbon dating from both the Swiss glaciers, and the glaciers at Glacier Ntation Park confirm that the surface being exposed today was covered during both the Roman and the MWP.
Richardd, you can provide a hundred examples of where you think the MWP was warmer, but these two glacier data points falsify your hypothesis.
Even Skeptical Science admits it can’t erase that warmth; the best they can do is call it a local anomaly. That it lasted over 300 years and greened Greenland is one hell of an anomaly.
Hockey Schtick says:
August 15, 2014 at 10:35 am
They ‘forgot’ to mention worldwide glacier retreat has decelerated since 1950, inconsistent with the above statement.
=========
You are only looking at length changes from glaciers, which does not take into account any potential thinning from underneath glaciers. When you do that, there has been an increased decline in glacier mass since the mid-20th Century.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-foAxGE3chGw/U-6VtMdMWRI/AAAAAAAAARM/GHiawnonEFc/s1600/wgms.png
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/5.pdf
Edward Richardson says:
August 15, 2014 at 3:46 pm
Why do you say that?
The artifacts date from about 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 3000 years ago & 5000 years ago, ie they are from the MWP, Roman & Minoan WPs & the Holocene Optimum, like Oetzi the Iceman. In between they were covered by glaciers. The older items just happened never to have been picked up by later people while exposed & didn’t decay away.
Edward Richardson says:
August 15, 2014 at 3:59 pm
For the many reasons which you refuse to consider, exposed stumps don’t falsify the observable fact (not hypothesis) that the MWP was warmer than now.
milodonharlani says:
August 15, 2014 at 4:39 pm
,,,
” that the MWP was warmer than now.:
..
Find a tree stump exposed by the receding glaciers that dates back 1000 BP via radiocarbon dating, and I will accept your assertion that the MWP was warmer than now.
Edward Richardson says:
August 15, 2014 at 4:42 pm
They abound! I’ve climbed over them.
Had you bothered to read the link to prior discussion of this topic on this blog, you’d already know about them.
http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
Alaska’s receding Mendenhall Glacier exposed trees from both the Medieval & Roman WPs. You really ought to study a topic before presuming to comment upon it.
milodonharlani says:
August 15, 2014 at 4:49 pm
“They abound! I’ve climbed over them.”
Glacier National Park and the Swiss glaciers you mentioned in a previous post.
…
These two data points prove the MWP was ***NOT*** warmer than today.
..
Edward Richardson says:
August 15, 2014 at 4:54 pm
Your examples “prove” nothing. That some stumps from Banff have been dated to almost 3000 years ago “proves” nothing, for the reasons you have repeatedly been shown but ignored. Not that anything is ever “proved” in science.
I gave you what you asked for, yet you still don’t accept my well supported statement (not assertion) that the MWP was warmer than now.
It’s looking more & more likely that Ed is indeed the ineducable troll H Grouse.
Edward Richardson says:
August 15, 2014 at 4:54 pm
…
“Your examples “prove” nothing”
…
It only takes one example to falsify a hypothesis. Both GNP and the Swiss glaciers falsify the hypothesis that the MWP was warmer than today. That’s how science works.
You might want to turn up the volume….
it drowns out the noise:
The Europeans have done a lot in the last thirty years to clean up pollution and this may explain the warming and melting. Back in the mid nineties I can clearly recall the black smog sitting above the Italian Alps that came from heavy industry. I believe you science guys have told us that this pollution reflects solar heating and cools the surface. A dirty Europe is a cold Europe perhaps.
For Richard Courtney: The other day I commented about Lief Svelgaard that he was testy, did not suffer fools gladly, and was a man to be admired and respected, at least in part because of those personality traits. Well, you are testy and don’t suffer fools gladly. Since you began commenting on WUWT I made it my business to check into your bona fides. As I said of Lief, you deserve our respect and admiration; It is a privilege and a delight that you comment so frequently.
Edward Richardson says:
August 15, 2014 at 5:01 pm
That is not how science works. You don’t know the difference between an observation & an hypothesis, so you have no clue about how science works.
That the MWP was warmer than now is an observation from paleoclimatic data, ie a scientific fact, not a hypothesis. An hypothesis based upon this fact would be that solar cycles explain the observation that the MWP was warmer than now.
The lengths of glaciers worldwide, across the whole range of microclimates, confirms the warmth of the MWP & cold of the LIA (as do all other paleo data), but as I noted there are lots of reasons why individual glaciers might vary.
Edward Richardson:
If your datapoint PROVES that the MWP was not warmer than today, that the Antarctica temperature graphs ‘prove’ that global warming has not happened in the last 34 years.
It appears everyone is missing this: whether or not a glacier melts enough to expose tree stumps depends on THREE things: temps, temperature and the ORIGINAL DEPTH of the glacier. Clearly, a much deeper glacier will take substantially longer to melt, and the MWP may simply have not lasted long enough to completely melt it.
Jtom says:
August 15, 2014 at 5:53 pm
There are also other factors involved in glacier extent, mass & duration.
milodonharlani says:
August 15, 2014 at 5:52 pm
“That the MWP was warmer than now is an observation”
.
If the MWP was warmer than today, the ground being uncovered by the GNP and Swiss glaciers would have been uncovered 1000 years ago. You would find tree stumps with carbon that carbon dates back 1000 years.
.
The fact that you cannot find tree stumps in the recently uncovered areas that date back less than 3000 year BP prove that glaciers covered those areas 1000 years ago.
..
Please explain to me why the glaciers 1000 years ago did not melt if it was warmer then than today.
Edward Richardson says:
August 15, 2014 at 6:06 pm
Now there can be no doubt that you are the troll H Grouse.
I showed you that North American glaciers do indeed expose trees from the MWP when they recede. You lied that you would accept this fact as evidence show your false belief wrong.
You have no credibility & are thus best ignored, just as when you stank up this blog as H Grouse.
OK, who wants the first shot at Edward Richardson? ☺
Jtom says:
August 15, 2014 at 5:53 pm
” the MWP may simply have not lasted long enough to completely melt it.”
…
The LIA ended only 150 years ago, so the MWP was 300 years longer than the current warming period.
Edward Richardson says:
August 15, 2014 at 6:12 pm
======
Hang around here long enough, the confusion only gets worse.
It’s great :)…… and you learn things.
Oh yeah, leave out Antarctica and stop in 2010. They all stop at 2010 – ya know, the decadal thingy. Alaskan glaciers, New Zealand glaciers, Canadian, Alpine glaciers … are beginning to rebound again.
http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm
It’s normal for university professors to be teaching knowledge somewhat out of date. I studied classical geochemistry (late 1950) and when I graduated and went into mining exploration geology, industry had to re-educate me on its use in exploration – the technology was a decade or two in advance of what was being taught. This is why we see so many papers in climate science coming from grad students who are unaware of the ‘pause’. Embarrassing but normal.
dbstealey says:
August 15, 2014 at 6:11 pm
OK, who wants the first shot at Edward Richardson? ☺
=================================================
30 seconds of Googling and 20 minutes of excellent reading:
http://faculty.fgcu.edu/twimberley/EnviroPol/EnviroPhilo/Glacial.pdf
A nice excerpt:
http://i62.tinypic.com/6tcqyh.png
Birdbrain, print out the entire pdf, roll it up and shove it up your climate parasite ass.
philincalifornia says:
August 15, 2014 at 7:04 pm
An otherwise good study from “Climate Change” 1994 marred by the Team’s early attempt to move the end of the MWP back from c. 1450 to AD 1250, although it does recognize 1450-90 as the conventional date for onset of the LIA, based upon the whole range of paleo proxies, and suggests the interval 1250 to 1450 as still MWP, although in glacier data it could be seen as transitional.
philincalifornia says:
August 15, 2014 at 7:04 pm
..
” print out the entire pdf, roll it up and shove it up your climate parasite…..”
…
You can post a hundred, or a thousand data points to support your hypothesis that the MWP was warmer than today. However, I want you to address the data point at both the GNP and the Swiss Alps that falsify your hypothesis.
J.Swift says:
August 15, 2014 at 2:08 pm
Q: How many computer modelers does it take to change a light-bulb?
A: None; the model says it’s still working.
—————————————————-
LOL – like all great humour, exceptionally demostrates a truth.
Meanwhile
“While we keep factors such as solar variability and volcanic eruptions unchanged…”
Has someone told the sun and and volcanoes they are no longer allowed variability?
I understand the need to isolate functions in order to build an understanding of complex systems, but to confuse an isolated function with the system itself is…well..unforgivable.
Re: glaciers. Some are growing, and some are receding. That has more to do with local conditions than ‘global warming’. If global warming was the cause, they would all be receding.
Next, the MWP was a global phenomenon. If Mr. Richardson disputes that he is wrong, but it doesn’t matter. There is always the Roman Warm Period, the Holocene Optimum, and several others. They were all warmer than now, and they all occurred before human industrial activity was a factor.
Finally, it does seem that “Edward Richardson” is the erstwhile H Grouse [“chuck” before that]. They all argue the same way: always changing the subject, and throwing out extraneous facts, and cherry-picking. And confirmation bias permeates his comments; his conclusion is already arrived at. He then argues toward his preconceived conclusion. He absolutely will not learn anything. And when one of his sockpuppets would disappear, the next one would appear in its place.
That’s too much of a coincidence.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but until it’s proven one way or another, my default assumption is: H Grouse.
dbstealey says:
August 15, 2014 at 7:21 pm
.
“They were all warmer than now”
..
If they were warmer than now, how come we don’t find tree stumps at GNP that date 1000 BP or 2000 BP?
…
They are dating at 3000 years BP which proves the MWP and the Roman warm periods were NOT warmer than today.
For dbstealey: Can I take my first shot with my 12 gauge with slugs?
In case you haven’t heard, agricultural buildings, and tree stumps, and even people are being discovered as the permafrost melts. “Otzi” is an example.
They were frozen or buried in permafrost after they died, so it must have gotten much colder following the MWP. It is just warming up now, to the same temps as during the MWP, which must have been warmer. Those warm/cold cycles have been going on throughout the Holocene.
But we obviously still haven’t reached MWP temperatures because objects are still appearing, as the ground continues to thaw. That will probably keep on happening for quite a while longer — until modern temperatures reach those of the MWP.
Not my area of expertise, but aren’t proxy data very noisy? One point does not prove much then.
Edward Richardson says: […]
I know this guy is a troll, and I normally don’t feed trolls because when you do the nonsense never ceases. However…
Hey ER! Here’s a chance to prove your point, instead of cherry picking tree stumps. Wherever you are, sell everything and buy a herd of dairy cows, Guernseys, Holsteins, whatever you prefer, and some grass seed and whole oats. Buy passage on a freighter for yourself, your cows and your seeds to SE Greenland. Set up shop and keep us posted on the success of your dairy operation.
If Vikings from Iceland could do it for 300 years, I’m sure you’ll manage it as well. Seeing as how it was not as warm during the MWP as it is now.
stan stendera says:
August 15, 2014 at 7:30 pm
Only if they’re Green, environmentally friendly steel slugs and not lead.
Michael Wassil says:
August 15, 2014 at 7:39 pm
ER will be waiting a long time for the Norse dairy farms to thaw out of the permafrost. Unless he has nuclear powered giant blow driers.
Read the paper you f-kin dumbcluck. I’ll defer to someone else to pwn you on GNP. I can’t have all the fun.
http://i59.tinypic.com/2u8gymu.png
Edward Richardson says:
August 15, 2014 at 7:25 pm
…”They are dating at 3000 years BP which proves the MWP and the Roman warm periods were NOT warmer than today.”
——–
So what ?
You gonna just roll over and die at the first challenge ?
“All glaciers in the world outside Antarctica were included in the study.”
Most glaciers in Alaska don’t even have names. –AGF
philincalifornia says:
August 15, 2014 at 7:41 pm
He won’t. He didn’t even read the 1999 paper whence the dimwit got his crazy fixed idea about stumps (actually on the Canadian side of the international park):
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CFIQFjAK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geog.uvic.ca%2Fdept%2Fuvtrl%2F2000-02.pdf&ei=0sXuU4yyIoz-oQSbkoLABA&usg=AFQjCNEgMNG6sNQGeDgwzDGrWhwVpiVCDg&sig2=aHOgbnkeIbWaJCzN_RZe7w&bvm=bv.73231344,d.cGU
“This report describes the results of dendroglaciological investigations at
Saskatchewan Glacier, Banff National Park, Alberta. The Saskatchewan
Glacier flows ca. 10 km eastward from the Columbia Icefield through a
steep-walled valley between Mt. Castleguard and Mt. Adromenda. Since it
was first photographed in 1921, the glacier snout has receded several kms up
valley. Within the last two decades detrital wood (dating between 3180 and
2540 14C years BP) has periodically appeared at the ice front. It has been
assumed that these detrital branches and logs were derived from trees
overridden by a Neoglacial advance of the Saskatchewan Glacier.
In late-August 1999, a severe rainstorm resulted in ice proximal incision
along the northern periphery of the Saskatchewan Glacier. This resulted in
the erosion of over 6 m of till and outwash deposits, and the flushing of
large quantities of detrital boles, logs and stumps onto the outwash surface.
At the channel base, in situ stumps rooted within a well-preserved paleosol
were exposed. Radiocarbon dating established the stumps represented trees
killed between 2910 +/60 and 2830 ± 60 14C years BP. These radiocarbon
dates substantiate previous circumstantial evidence of a Neoglacial advance
at Saskatchewan Glacier and are illustrative of the approximate position of
the icefront at 3000 14C years BP.”
Notice nowhere does it say that other stumps of younger age have not been found in the valley. Note further that the c. three Ka carbon 14 years (uncalibrated for calendar years) dated stumps were exposed as a result of an unusual event, not a normal meltback retreat controlled by temperature and precipitation.
Note also that the amount of retreat 1921-38 v. 1977-94 is not included in the abstract.
sturgishooper says:
August 15, 2014 at 7:50 pm
—————————————–
Hopefully, whoever’s paying the saddo will grade him on this performance.
It’s models all the way…..oh wait, the glaciers on Mt. Shasta have been growing in mass since 1950. Well some data that didn’t fit the CAGW model must have been left out.
It seems as if they are running out of time for CAGW and don’t have time for studies of observational data. The models are now evidence, it must be the new science.
I would think that temperature and precipitation would be the two biggest factors in whether glaciers advance or retreat.
The global retreat of glaciers observed today started around the middle of the 19th century at the end of the Little Ice Age.
=================
so, here we have it. 1850 is the middle of the 19th century. The end of the Little Ice Age. Glaciers started to retreat as temperatures started to increase. And have kept increasing in fits and spurts for the next 150 years.
Since Climate Science has no idea what caused the Little Ice Age, they have no idea what caused it to end, and they can’t say with any certainty when the temperatures will stop increasing following the end on the LIA.
1850 is also the start of the modern temperature record. what a co-incidence, the LIA ends at the same time we start keeping thermometer records. Cause and effect?
To Sturgishooper,
The period 1250-1450AD was almost certainly climate transitional in North America. The Anisazi Indian Cliff Dwellers (of today’s preserved ruins at Meas Verde NP) rapidly abandoned their 7500-8000ft plateau cliff homes very abruptly around 1250AD. The best evidence indicates that a rapidly cooling climate, and thus too short a growing season for their plateau-top maize crops, resulted in their societal collapse and dispersement to lower warmer areas in New Mexico and Arizona. The NPS about 4 years ago changed their park documentation of that collapse to erase climate change as the reason, a gesture almost certainly politically motivated to erase the MWP.
JMO
Edward Richardson says:
August 15, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Find a tree stump exposed by the receding glaciers that dates back 1000 BP via radiocarbon dating, and I will accept your assertion that the MWP was warmer than now.
===============
milodonharlani says:
August 15, 2014 at 4:49 pm
http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
A protective tomb of gravel likely encased the trees more than 1,000 years ago, when the glacier was advancing, Connor said, basing the date on radiocarbon ages of the newly revealed wood.
============
Ed, glad to see you have accepted that the MWP was warmer than today!
Joel O’Bryan says:
August 15, 2014 at 9:27 pm
The 14th & 15th centuries in North America were indeed challenging climatic times, & not just in the US SW. Europe too booked rapid shifts during that period. But average temperatures globally remained elevated compared to the 18th, 19th & 20th centuries, let alone the depths of the LIA in the 16th & 17th centuries.
I see rampant rewriting of climate history & temperature records by the feds. The corruption of science is spreading, but the disease might soon run its course. This year’s election will be crucial, but still the Administration, EPA, other agencies & their impish minions will wage a fierce delaying action against the new Congress.
ferdberple says:
August 15, 2014 at 9:35 pm
Good job on pasting the money quote. I should have done that. Maybe Ed/Grouse has an inkling now as to how glaciers work.
A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise.
===========
agreed. A stopped clock is right more than 700 times a year. It is the times that it is wrong, not the times that is right that are important.
As per IPCC about 50% of the raise in global temperature is attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere since 1951. That means the base year of global warming is 1951. Since then the global warming is less than 0.2 oC. Then the question is will sich temperature has any effect on sea level rise or glacial melt??? There are several other factors that contribute to glacial melt — human direct influence [nuclear tests, wars, oil & gas drilling, tourism/sports, dams construction, deforestation, etc and natural hazards such as earthquakes & Volcanoes, etc
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Joel O’ Bryan @ 9:27 pm
You mentioned the Mesa Verde Cliff Dwellings near Cortez, CO. I have relatives in the Mancos Valley near there and in the 1960’s we would visit them and stop by Mesa Verde. As children we liked climbing up and down the cliffs.
It was told that the cooler/drier climate that existed then would cause droughts that would last for a century or more. This was given for the explanation of their abandonment. It’s a shame that they would change that without evidence to contradict it.
Curious George says:
August 15, 2014 at 12:53 pm
“There is a plenty of similar “research” reported… Today’s university is what used to be called a high school a century ago”
================================================================
No, they used to be called a Theological Seminary. Now, it’s the ‘Progressive Bible’ that is used for indoctrination at our state-sponsored seminaries. No funding if they don’t teach official doctrine.
I am struck by how many have not watched an ice-cube melt.
Why does he call his model output data?
“While we keep factors such as solar variability and volcanic eruptions unchanged, we are able to modify land use changes and greenhouse gas emissions in our models,” says Ben Marzeion, who sums up the study: “In our data we find unambiguous evidence of anthropogenic contribution to glacier mass loss.”
“In our data we find”?
Should it not be in our model conjecture we surmise?
Ben meet Sophie. Sophie meet Ben.
Edward Richardson “All your link shows is that the 6-month variation is due to summer-winter changes in CO2 absorption due to the uptake of CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere in summer.”
Having done the simple process to check data against your statement. I blew up the curves and looked at them in 5 year increments. Sorry there is nothing like a 12 month cycle here. Again on close examination, some cycles are short, some are several years, vast majority are nowhere near yearly. Wonder where you got that idea.
See for yourself http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958
“Since the climate researchers are able to include different factors contributing to climate change in their model, they can differentiate between natural and anthropogenic influences on glacier mass loss. “While we keep factors such as solar variability and volcanic eruptions unchanged, we are able to modify land use changes and greenhouse gas emissions in our models,” says Ben Marzeion, who sums up the study: “In our data we find unambiguous evidence of anthropogenic contribution to glacier mass loss.””
———————-
At least there is one thing to appreciate here.
The word used is “contribution” instead of the “causing” climate change.
There is a huge difference inbetween.
ACC-AGW is all about causality not contribution.
Basically it means that while we are contributing to the greenhouse effect, we are not actually changing it’s natural atribute of amplifying the warming, or more precisely it’s natural attribute of stabilazing the climate change.Therefor we not causing any climate change.
Simply it states that while anthropogenic forcing is contributing to a kinda of warming, that warming has not been started or caused from the ARF. For the luck of better word that is a had-on contradiction to the AGW-ACC.
cheers
CMS says:
August 16, 2014 at 8:38 am
…
I like your data plot.
I modified it slightly
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958/trend
Wonderful correlation you have in that data.
Fit of pique for being caught out. Sorry about that inconvenient truth.
CMS says:
August 16, 2014 at 9:47 am
” inconvenient truth.”
Better take a second look at this….
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958/trend
…
Because due to your “Isolate 60” and “mean(samples) 12” has altered the HADCRUT3 data beyond recognition.
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1958/trend/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1958
The actual trend is positive (second link) and your processing turned it negative (first link)
From Berthold Klein on August 15, 2014 at 1:14 pm:
From cleanwater2 on August 15, 2014 at 1:19 pm:
Second nut quoting the first nut just 5 minutes later, and neither provides a link?
Who else believes that’s the same guy?
CMS says:
August 16, 2014 at 9:47 am
PS….
Here is the how CO2 data depends on time of year
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1999
see the ‘wiggle?”
CMS:
Make the scale factor 0.26. It works a little better:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.26/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958
kadaka,
No doubt it’s the same guy.
Edward Richardson Because you can’t respond, are you being intentionally obtuse. No one but you believes, and I find it hard to believe even you really think the graphs that I posted are about a trend and yes I am quite familiar with yearly variations. This is about what leads, the temp or CO2 since 1958. And once again, if you look at it in 5 year increments, there is absolutely nothing about this data that suggest that it is an annual phenomena.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958
Always happy to display this data again, because it really is quite interesting
Edward Richardson says:
“However, I want you to address the data point at both the GNP and the Swiss Alps that falsify your hypothesis.”
Have you ever considered the fact that the age of tree stumps uncovered by glaciers does not indicate the time the area was last ice-free, but the last time the area was ice-free and warm enough for forest to grow there. I’ve visited glaciers in fifteen countries on five continents and it is actually quite rare for forest to grow right up to the glacier front. It only occurs at glaciers at middle latitudes which have a large accumulation area with heavy precipitation and a narrow front and which can therefore push down to an altitude low enough for trees to grow.
I have only visited a few of the glaciers in GNP, but none of the ones I’ve seen there are in this category (they are to small for one thing). Historical data shows that there were a few such glaciers in the Alps during the LIA (e. g. untere Grindelwaldgletscher), but I strongly doubt that there is any now, I’ve certainly never seen one.
Such conditions are of course much more likely to occur during periods of glacier expansion than during retreat, since forest treees are capable of surviving for long periods in conditions too harsh for new trees to be able to establish, sometimes even until being overrun by a glacier.
As rgbatduke has comprehensively explained here more than once, climate science is an illusion. We dont know what changes climate. And the fact that current alarmist climate science is predicated on the assumption that a change in climate is something unusual and threatening underlies the totality and profundity of that ignorance. To achieve this colossal pinnacle of ignorance has taken decades of hard work both undermining and destroying the existing edifice of scientific knowledge and also destroying the Popperian philosophical basis and logical integrity that a few decades ago were the foundation of the practice of science.
Not only do these authors claim without basis to understand why glaciers have recently receded, but they claim the be able to split hairs and establish a percent of human attribution. Again the underlying and absurd assumption is that there is something unusual and problematic about changing extent of glaciation.
Edward Richardson:
In your post at August 16, 2014 at 9:36 am you say
They do not correlate. They cohere.
CMS said and showed they cohere
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958
But I would not expect you to know or to understand the difference.
Richard
I couldn’t get the paper. Is it safe to say that they did not actually examinee themselves what is the anthropogenic portion of the warming that has melted glaciers, but, rather, they started with (as a condition/assumption of simulation comparisons) what is thought/assumed/estimated to be the anthropogenic portion of observed warming and then modeled glacial melting to decide how much of the melting was from that portion of the observed warming? They started out with some fixed value/assumption about what part of the general warming is AGW and then looked at melting as a thermodynamics exercise (not a climate exercise, save for precip changes, I guess? It is a seemingly subtle difference not noted in media reports, but is of course different than how some of the headlines read. If the latter, then of course their methods could be 100% correct and yet still not know how much of that melting was actually AGW…since general attribution of AGW was the work of others, eh?
(and my apologies if covered above, I did not read the comments first.)
Over at Bishop Hill, Patagon pointed me at the SI for the paper.
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2014/08/13/science.1254702.DC1/Marzeion.SM.pdf
According to the SI, it would appear they’re getting their precipitation/temperature data from the Mitchell & Jones 2005 dataset, which for those who don’t recognise it is the CRU TS2.1 database that ‘Harry’ wrote about in his readme. The original one, that ‘Harry’ was trying to fix.
I find it hard to believe, after Climategate, that anyone would actually use the thing. I mean, you can understand them not wanting to talk about it when that would mean admitting to the problems and having to explain how it happened and why they’re not doing anything about it, but I’d have thought they’d have just let it fade quietly into obscurity.
Interesting.
Nullius, thanks! The BHill excerpts and summary mostly answered my questions. (I guessed wrong about the mechanics of what they did, but think I had the flavor mostly correct about them using existing climate change attribution work.) I’ll have to read closer to see how using a model that attributes most of the recent warming as AGW could conclude recent glacier melting was from any other source but AGW. Could they have expected a different outcome using that model? (I think it is conceivable—considering glacier dynamics like precip, high altitude changes being different from overall changes, or dust—but to this layman the conclusion seems fairly pre-determined by the method.)