Guest post by Marc Hendrickx
The case for dangerous man made global warming hangs on the wall like a frayed medieval tapestry. By pulling just one loose thread the whole thing starts to unravel. We pulled one of those threads recently…
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) was recently caught making a mistake in a report on melting ice on Mount Everest. The ABC claimed that “Studies show temperatures are rising faster at Mount Everest than in the rest of South Asia.” When ABC were requested to provide details of the “Studies” they cited Table 10.2 from IPCC’s AR4 Working Group 2 report. However, contrary to ABC’s claims this table showed that the area of fastest rising temperature in South Asia was Sri Lanka, not the Himalaya (and hence not Mt Everest). ABC’s gaffe however served to highlight a few errors made by the IPCC. It turns out the IPCC incorrectly cited references that backed up the Himalayan temperature trends in Table 10.2, citing two conference papers and one peer reviewed paper that related to precipitation, not temperature (also covered in Table 10.2). Additionally references to support the high Sri Lankan temperatures appear to be from conference papers not from peer reviewed journal articles-(Follow references in Table 10.2).
After some digging the original work on the Himalayan temperature trends was found to be:
Shrestha, Arun B.; Wake, Cameron P.; Mayewski, Paul A.; Dibb, Jack E., 1999. Maximum Temperature Trends in the Himalaya and Its Vicinity: An Analysis Based on Temperature Records from Nepal for the Period 1971–94. Journal of Climate, 9/1/99, Vol. 12 Issue 9 pp:2775-2786.
It’s odd that the IPCC could not find more recent to back up its claims of rapid warming in the Himalaya in AR4. Readers may re-call the IPCC has a tainted record in reporting climate change in the Himalaya having been caught out using “grey literature” to back claims that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. These have now been shown to be false and the IPCC has issued a correction.
IPCC’s trend of 0.09º C.yr-1 for the Himalaya cited in Table 10.2 comes from Table 2 of Shrestha et al., 1999. This presents the regional mean temperature trends for the period 1977-1994 (just 17 years) based on a Kriging analysis. This is a geostatistical method of filling data gaps, great when you are calculating the extent of an ore body with loads of drill hole information but not so good when the data are limited, as is the case here. For the Himalaya, the IPCC also cherry pick the highest seasonal value, the figure for winter (0.09º C.yr-1). The annual figure given by Shrestha et al., 1999 is less: 0.057º C.yr-1.
But that’s not the end of the story; let’s look at the paper by Shrestha et al, 1999 in more detail. It provides an analysis of maximum temperature data from 49 stations in Nepal.
The abstract states:
Analyses of maximum temperature data from 49 stations in Nepal for the period 1971–94 reveal warming trends after 1977 ranging from 0.06 to 0.12C yr-1 in most of the Middle Mountain and Himalayan regions, while the Siwalik and Terai (southern plains) regions show warming trends less than 0.03C yr-1. The subset of records (14 stations) extending back to the early 1960s suggests that the recent warming trends were preceded by similar widespread cooling trends. Distributions of seasonal and annual temperature trends show high rates of warming in the high-elevation regions of the country (Middle Mountains and Himalaya), while low warming or even cooling trends were found in the southern regions. This is attributed to the sensitivity of mountainous regions to climate changes. The seasonal temperature trends and spatial distribution of temperature trends also highlight the influence of monsoon circulation.
The Kathmandu record, the longest in Nepal (1921–94), shows features similar to temperature trends in the Northern Hemisphere, suggesting links between regional trends and global scale phenomena. However, the magnitudes of trends are much enhanced in the Kathmandu as well as in the all-Nepal records. The authors’ analyses suggest that contributions of urbanization and local land use/cover changes to the all-Nepal record are minimal and that the all-Nepal record provides an accurate record of temperature variations across the entire region.
The time covered for the bulk of stations does not cover a single climate cycle so it’s hard to get excited about the results and we assume someone, somewhere will provide an update to extend the analysis to the present. Of the stations selected for the analysis only 5 stations with records dating from or before the mid 1960s were located in the Himalayan Region: Jiri (elevation-2003m), Okhaldunga (elevation-1720m), Chialsa (elevation-2770m), Chainpur (elevation-1329m), and Taplejung (elevation-1732m). Shrestha et al., 1999 define the Himalaya region in their figure 1 reproduced below.
The location of the stations is shown in the following image from Google Earth, note they are all concentrated in the very eastern part of Nepal (click to enlarge), with none in the western Himalaya, none west of Long 86.23. The vast bulk of the Himalaya is empty of real data.
The temperature trends (Max/Min) for weather stations with records extending back to the early 1960s are shown in Figure 2 of the paper (reproduced below with a red H next to the 5 Himalayan stations-click to enlarge).
We extracted figures for the Himalayan stations and reproduce them in the chart below. It also shows the trend cited by the IPCC of 0.09º C.yr-1 in red.
It’s quite clear the trends of the actual data across the entire record do not support the figures produced in Shrestha’s Kriging analysis, which is limited to 1977-1994. The temperature trends for the Himalayan stations are as follows:
| Station | Max ºC.yr-1 | Min ºC.yr-1 |
| Jiri | 0.063 | -0.044 |
| Okhaldunga | 0.0016 | 0.0045 |
| Chialsa | 0.039 | 0.066 |
| Chainpur | 0.013 | -0.0094 |
| Taplejung | -0.0057 | 0.0036 |
| Average | 0.022 | 0.0041 |
These trends, based on the reported station data, are much lower than the trends reported by Shrestha et al., 1999 and do not appear in any way unprecedented or alarming. The absence of data in the Western Himalaya invalidates the Kriging Analysis (you can’t interpolate into a data void), combine this with the crime of cherry picking recent trends to confuse weather with climate and a big part of the IPCC’s fragile tapestry of dangerous man made global warming suddenly falls through your fingers. All thanks to a loose thread revealed by the ABC.
Not if those decades coincide with the warm phases of important (Atlantic, Pacific, …) oceanic oscillations.
From what I recall of prior threads on this matter:
1. The Himalayan glaciers (which are the ones that large numbers of people rely on for meltwater) can’t melt back much further, because most of them are so high that the temperature hardly ever gets above freezing. They aren’t analogous to glaciers elsewhere.
2. Even if they did vanish, river flow would not be much affected, because rivers are fed by an annual snow-melt that is stretched out over most of the year. It is summer snow-melt, not glacier melt, that “2 billion people” (including me) rely on for water, not glacier-melt.
3. Himalayan glaciers (like many other glaciers alarmists cite) have been retreating since long before 1950, which tends to largely exculpate manmade CO2.
4. Soot, aerosols, infra-red solar variation (in the Alps), and precipitation-variation may be responsible for some of the glacial retreat.
Fuzzylogic19: August 7, 2010 at 7:28 pm
The cliff is, in thjis case, is 2 billion people relying on summer glacier melt to feed the rivers. Weather that happens in 10-30-50 or 100 years is a moot point. Even half melted, the problems will be obvious. Call me alarmist if you feel the need.
Wrong. They depend, first, on spring and summer meltwater from the *snowfall* on the mountain slopes, second, on the seasonal monsoons, and only finally on glacier melt. And the problem isn’t that the glaciers are melting, it’s that annual snowfall has been reduced — the glaciers are ablating, even in the wintertime. The snowfall has been reduced because the forested area at the base of the mountains has been reduced by logging, fuel gathering, and land-clearing for agriculture.
Trees exhale water vapor, among other things, and if they’re around the base of a mountain range, the vapor is carried upslope until it condenses and falls as snow (it’s *cold* up there). Wet snow falls in the lower elevations, but the lighter powder is carried higher — if there’s less overall evaporation, there’s less overall snowfall, and the decrease is most-noticeable at higher elevations. The high glaciers in the Himalayas can only keep their mass by receiving regular snowfall — which at that altitude, is light powder — and it takes a lot of powder to compact into just an inch of ice.
justcherrypicked (August 7, 2010 at 10:29 pm):
Thanks for the verification that the “2 C/yr” for the temperature trend in Sri Lanka’s highlands, was a simple typo for “2 C/century.”
For some reason, when attempting to download Ch 10’s FOD comments last night, my computer stopped about 80% of the way through. Several times, in both IE and Firefox. So then I had to resort to find inferior references.
[And then naturally, your link to the FOD comments worked perfectly this morning…]
The IPCC is about politics NOT science. One more time.. The IPCC is about politics NOT science.
In other words… The IPCC uses the guise of science to achieve political ends.
PS: It matters VERY much who we listen to, and read, and believe, and vote for. It matters more than most of us can, or will, ever imagine.
I say we stipulate to the warmists and take the following steps:
1. Agree to cut CO2 emissions to the maximum extent possible without negatively impacting the economy.
2. Because the issue is settled, cut all sources of government funding to climate research.
3. At a future time of budget surplus, consider resuming some basic level of research spending (except, this time, insist on some minimum standards of quality), assuming spending priorities warrant.
So in summary after a lazy media organisation cite IPCC as a source we find:
1. Table 10.2 indicates that warming in the Himalaya is 0.09º C.yr-1 and the trend for Si Lanka is 2°C increase “per year” in central highlands.
2. IPCC provide the incorrect reference to back their temperature figure for the Himalayas. They cite two conference papers and one peer reviewed paper that relate to precipitation, not temperature. The correct reference is found to be: Shrestha, Arun B.; Wake, Cameron P.; Mayewski, Paul A.; Dibb, Jack E., 1999. Maximum Temperature Trends in the Himalaya and Its Vicinity: An Analysis Based on Temperature Records from Nepal for the Period 1971–94. Journal of Climate, 9/1/99, Vol. 12 Issue 9 pp:2775-2786.
3. The references for the Sri Lankan Temperatures are not from peer reviewed journals, they relate to precipitation, not temperature-see FOD Expert Review Comments .
4. The figure quoted for the Himalaya is the winter trend, not the annual trend. The annual trend is 0.057 º C.yr-1.
5. The highest annual trend for Nepal cited in Shrestha et al., 1999 is 0.09º C.yr-1 for the Trans-Himalaya.
5. The basis of the Himalayan trends (Shrestha et al 1999) is just 6 weather stations,. The average trend of 5 of these stations dating back to the 1960s is (Max/Min) 0.013º C.yr-1, much less than the 0.057º C.yr-1. All five of these stations are located in the eastern Himalaya. There are problems with use of Kriging method to obtain regional trends.
6. The trend cited for Sri Lankan is incorrect and was brought up in the review of IPCC AR4 WGII but not corrected.
And this is considered to be the gold standard of climate science!
Roger Knights says:
August 8, 2010 at 6:26 am
3. Himalayan glaciers (like many other glaciers alarmists cite) have been retreating since long before 1950, which tends to largely exculpate manmade CO2.
***
I thought CO2 emissions began in earnest about 200 years ago. What’s 1950 based on?
Bill Tuttle says:
August 8, 2010 at 6:47 am
Fuzzylogic19: August 7, 2010 at 7:28 pm
“Wrong. They depend, first, on spring and summer meltwater from the *snowfall* on the mountain slopes, second, on the seasonal monsoons, and only finally on glacier melt. And the problem isn’t that the glaciers are melting, it’s that annual snowfall has been reduced — the glaciers are ablating, even in the wintertime. The snowfall has been reduced because the forested area at the base of the mountains has been reduced by logging, fuel gathering, and land-clearing for agriculture.
Trees exhale water vapor, among other things, and if they’re around the base of a mountain range, the vapor is carried upslope until it condenses and falls as snow (it’s *cold* up there). Wet snow falls in the lower elevations, but the lighter powder is carried higher — if there’s less overall evaporation, there’s less overall snowfall, and the decrease is most-noticeable at higher elevations. The high glaciers in the Himalayas can only keep their mass by receiving regular snowfall — which at that altitude, is light powder — and it takes a lot of powder to compact into just an inch of ice.”
***
When a glacier retreats @ur momisugly 22m/year since 1931 it amounts to about 1.8 Km. That’s a very large store of fresh water gone, melted. In a warming world (sorry, no upset intended) the frost line moves up and the glacier matches by retreating. Mountains are not rectangular colums reaching for the shy, with elevation the area of land upon which the snow falls and glacier habitat decreases. In a stable atmosphere the temperature drops 7C per 1000m elevation. There are two causes for ice/snow melt, temperature above freezing point and direct solar exposure. The winter snow does not really add to the ice thickness by compacting, but by melting from direct sun exposure at the higher altitudes and re-freezing in shady areas. As you said it takes a lot of powder snow to add to glacial mass. Most snow falls near the freezing line and much less at the higher peaks because the colder air is also drier.
Therefore, any glacier gain at high altitude requires an awfull lot of snow, not over decades but thousands of years. The ice on Antarctica did not fall in convenient 1 cubic metre blocks from the sky. It accumulated from snow over hundreds of millions of years. The compacting of ice takes place withing the ice itself from sheer massive weight. Even on Antarctica, a lot of winter snow will melt in summer and refreeze as ice, except for what runs of the ice shelf into the ocean. Given that Antarctica is essentially a dessert in terms of precipitation, the amount fallen on it must amount to hundreds of kilometers cumulative snow depth over hundreds of millions of years. Any ice loss must be seen in the context of how much snowfall was needed to create it in the first place. Ice loss is a worry because there is an enormous time lag between snow fall and ice accumulation.
If monitored glaciers on the Himalayan/Tibettan area are speeding up retreat, it does not make sense to say “Yes but there are 7000 known glaciers, so all the others may not be melting, blimey, they may be increasing, so let’s ignore it until they are all monitored”. Any volunteers? I don’t mind argueing a point, but let’s remain sensible.
No matter how much it is spun into discussions about temperature data being right, wrong or in between. The glaciers don’t care; the proof is in the melting.
Pascvaks says:
August 8, 2010 at 9:49 am
The IPCC is about politics NOT science. One more time.. The IPCC is about politics NOT science.
In other words… The IPCC uses the guise of science to achieve political ends.
PS: It matters VERY much who we listen to, and read, and believe, and vote for. It matters more than most of us can, or will, ever imagine.
***
Are you that gullible?
Fuzzylogic19,
You thought wrong.
It is generally accepted that co2 concentrations prior to 1950 (about 280 ppm) were too low to have any impact whatsoever. The IPCC claims that their models can accurately reproduce the earths temperature prior to 1970 without including co2, and the inclusion of co2 post 1970 is needed for models to match reality. These statements are vital to the IPCC position.
Just to be clear. The ICC claim their climate models accurately reproduce past climate up until 1970 without taking co2 into account. This must mean that co2 concentrations up until 1970 (approx 310 ppm) were having no effect on the climate, and therefore that climate changes prior to 1970 were natural. The IPCC further claim that the climate models accurately reproduce climate since 1970 only by increasing co2 concentrations.
Now ask yourself some tough questions. If climate changes prior to 1970 were natural, what cause the temperature to rise since 1890. What caused glaciers to retreat since 1890. What caused sea-level to rise since 1890. etc. etc. etc.
Let me help with an answer. Not co2.
Marc Hendrickx says:
August 8, 2010 at 4:21 pm
So in summary after a lazy media organisation(s) cite IPCC as a source we find …
—…—…—
Good summary!
Fuzzylogic19,
Your ignorance of the basic facts is outstanding. You are way out of your depth here and it clearly show. Might I suggest you do some reading on the topic first.
Just 2 causes? Really?
I sure hope you are either too young, or too lazy to vote. Last thing we need is another ill informed global gladiator like you voting green.
The winter snow, and the year round snow, does add to ice thickness by compacting. Can you please point out where the “shaddy” bits are at the poles?
Just realised you have also contradicted yourself only a few sentences later.
If the snow has been there for hundreds of millions of years, why didn’t it melt during past interglacial periods when average temperature were much much higher than they are now and much higher than even the worst IPCC forecasts for 2100.
In 2007, Antarctic sea ice had reached its greatest ever recorded extent. Antarctica is normally below zero all year. Winter: -40 to -94°F (-40 to -70°C)
Summer: -5 to -31°F (-15 to -35°C)
Bit hard to melt ice when the temperature is below zero.
Then why have they been melting since 1890? Like you said. The glaciers don’t care.
To continue what
justcherrypicked (said) @ur momisugly August 8, 2010 at 7:50 pm to Fuzzylogic19,
Several other (minor) facts make Fuzzy’s logic even weaker 8<)
1) The CAGW theory cannot explain the AMO/PDO-linked 66 year 1/4 of one degree sinusoid climate temperature cycle seen in all temperature records worldwide since thermometers where invented. CO2 CAGW theory requires a near-continuous constant increase in temperature with increasing CO2 levels – which has NOT been found anywhere.
2) CAGW-CO2 theory cannot explain the Medieval Warming Period (when temperatures were warmer than today by 1 degree, the Little Ice Age, nor the earlier dark ages and Greco-Roman Warming Periods. So Mann-made global warming papers and theories must remove them from the record; must remove them from the textbooks and computer programs and propaganda we face.
3) CAGW-CO2 theories cannot explain the decrease in temperature between 1940 and 1970, and so must "invent" a global heat reflection change due to unnamed – and never measured! – aerosols somehow effective worldwide, but coming strictly from limited areas in the northeastern US and (central) western Europe. (If anybody else worldwide between 1945 and 1970 was emitting such level of aerosols, please show the industrial output records for those nations ….) Today? Nobody can produce mythical aerosol screens that are cooling the world (because CO2 is needed to create the CAGW-fears), but UNRESTRICTED wide-area solids pollution from China and India is greater than what came from the US in its most-polluting days.
Instead, forced amounts of aerosols and solid pollution is used (er, assumed) to "calibrate" GCM programs to CO2 levels and recorded temperatures in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, then such models are allowed to run with "clear skies" in the 80-90-2000's and are projected into the 2100 and 2200 year points. Yet actual temperature records are manipulated with local UHI heat-affect areas to create the "data" that the computer models are calibrated against!
… All for the 1.3 trillion in taxes and global energy control they need.
Fuzzylogic19,
I don’t want you to think you are not welcome here. You have as much right to comment as the rest of us, although you might do some reading first.
You can search for information in many locations. If you have already decided the earth is doomed, then the IPCC, Real Climate, Deltoid and Deep Climate will help with your alarmist arguments. Don’t waste your time with wikipedia – it’s just plain crap. I won’t point you to any so called skeptical sites because you can find them on your own.
You are entitled to have an opinion – informed or otherwise. Try, if you can, not to look at this as an alarmists v skeptics battle. It’s far more nuanced than that.
Cheerio.
Fuzzylogic19: August 8, 2010 at 7:09 pm
In a stable atmosphere the temperature drops 7C per 1000m elevation.
That’s close enough to the *standard* adiabatic lapse rate, but the actual adiabatic lapse rate depends on humidity — in dry air, it’s 3°C per thousand feet, and in moist air, it varies between 1.1°C and 2.8°C. Even in a warming world, you can’t predict a constant, climbing level of condensation in orographic areas because of the mechanical turbulence associated with the terrain — the air is wildly unstable.
The winter snow does not really add to the ice thickness by compacting, but by melting from direct sun exposure at the higher altitudes and re-freezing in shady areas.
Show me the shade on the Greenland ice cap. Show me the shade in Antarctica.
As you said it takes a lot of powder snow to add to glacial mass. Most snow falls near the freezing line and much less at the higher peaks because the colder air is also drier. Therefore, any glacier gain at high altitude requires an awfull lot of snow, not over decades but thousands of years.
You’re obviously unfamiliar with just how much snow *can* fall at higher elevations, and not just in the wintertime. I know where there’s A Pakistani army Llama helicopter buried under a meter of snow at the 6,000 meter contour line in the Hindu Kush — it landed there in 2007.
The ice on Antarctica did not fall in convenient 1 cubic metre blocks from the sky. It accumulated from snow over hundreds of millions of years.
The Antarctic ice cap is only about 900,000 years old.
http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=34595
And you’re forgetting (or never knew) that the paleo folks have found some very nice dinosaur fossils there, including plesiosaurs — which automatically makes the ice cap much younger than 65 million years old.
The compacting of ice takes place withing the ice itself from sheer massive weight.
Congratulations. In contradicting yourself, you got it right.
Given that Antarctica is essentially a dessert in terms of precipitation, the amount fallen on it must amount to hundreds of kilometers cumulative snow depth over hundreds of millions of years.
Annual snowfall in Antarctica varies between 20 and 50cm per year, which would easily give you about 400km of snowfall in 900,000 years.
The glaciers don’t care; the proof is in the melting.
So, that means you will also accept glacial advances as proof that the temperature is *not* increasing catastrophically, right?
*psssst* — Fuzzylogic: I hid a *beautiful* logical fallacy for you at 12:53am if you want to jump on it…
justcherrypicked says:
August 8, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Fuzzylogic19,
“Your ignorance of the basic facts is outstanding. You are way out of your depth here and it clearly show. Might I suggest you do some reading on the topic first.”
***
May I bounce this one back?
***
“There are two causes for ice/snow melt, temperature above freezing point and direct solar exposure.
Just 2 causes? Really?”
***
Cite the others, that do not involve a temperature above 0C and if water (self explanatory) but let it be free of salt.
***
“The winter snow, and the year round snow, does add to ice thickness by compacting. Can you please point out where the “shaddy” bits are at the poles?”
***
Unless Antarctica is perfectly flat, the topography and low sun angle will do it. Ever looked at a snow field near you and seen the snow melt on the sun exposed side of any ridge? Need not be high either. Ever seen icicles melt on the sun exposed side of a house, yet form on the shady side?
***
“Just realised you have also contradicted yourself only a few sentences later.
It accumulated from snow over hundreds of millions of years. The compacting of ice takes place withing the ice itself from sheer massive weight.”
***
The lowest ice bearing the weight of a kilometre of ice or more above it, will compact and become fluid like lava. Snow will settle over time but has inherently low weight by volume when deposited. There are no great forces other than another layer of snow do do some compacting, if that’s what you would call it, I prefer settling.
Where’s the contradiction?
***
“If the snow has been there for hundreds of millions of years, why didn’t it melt during past interglacial periods when average temperature were much much higher than they are now and much higher than even the worst IPCC forecasts for 2100.”
***
Where did I say that snow has been there for hundreds of millions of years? I said that it took hundreds of millions of years of snowfalls to create the ice cap. As for temperature, how much higher? We are at the end of the present Holocene (about 13,000 years) and (disregarding the last 200 years) the heat balance was such that the Antarctic ice cap did not melt. How warm was the previous interglacial and if warmer, would it have melted arctic and Antarctic ice? How warm was the one before? How far do you want to go back? Ice core data goes back at least 5 interglacials, meaning that the ice did not melt, so how much warmer was it? If you can give me a difinitive answer, please oblige.
***
“In 2007, Antarctic sea ice had reached its greatest ever recorded extent. Antarctica is normally below zero all year. Winter: -40 to -94°F (-40 to -70°C)
Summer: -5 to -31°F (-15 to -35°C)
Bit hard to melt ice when the temperature is below zero.”
***
The landfast ice sheets melt from below. Grace satelite measurements show ice volume loss.
***
“Then why have they been melting since 1890? Like you said. The glaciers don’t care.”
***
So you agree that they are melting.
justcherrypicked says:
August 8, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Fuzzylogic19,
“I don’t want you to think you are not welcome here. You have as much right to comment as the rest of us, although you might do some reading first.”
***
Thank you, but for reading, I have about 300 books covering both sides of the argument and now a choked hard drive as well. Patronising based on assumption is risky.
***
“You can search for information in many locations. If you have already decided the earth is doomed, then the IPCC, Real Climate, Deltoid and Deep Climate will help with your alarmist arguments. Don’t waste your time with wikipedia – it’s just plain crap. I won’t point you to any so called skeptical sites because you can find them on your own.”
***
I don’t find the language used very helpful. If I believe that global warming is real, why am I immediately called an ‘alarmist’, ‘thermo-maniac’ etc while respectfully referring to the other side as sceptics. Not that I get the impression that every one commenting here is a genuine sceptic by definition. Too many attack science irrationally or refer to conspiracies. Why do you call Wikipedia crap, is that fair? Surely there’s a lot of good stuff there. If it is just a personal gripe, isn’t it better kept to yourself?
Yes.
Icarus,
Get a clue.
The natural 0.7° rise in temperature [since partially retraced] is not gonna melt the planet’s glaciers.
But if you feel the need to panic, have at it. The world will go on normally with or without you.
Would you take Richard Lindzen’s word for it?:
“At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%. ”
“The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming. “
Smokey: How much warming would it take to melt the planet’s glaciers?
Icarus, get a clue:
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
~ Prof Richard Lindzen,
Head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fuzzy,
So does that mean we are heading into anther ice age?
I’m curious. What evidence do you have for this statement? Because if it’s true, global warming hardly seems important.
BTW. The Holocene is the name for the current geological epoch which began 10-12,000 years ago. Holocene is not a term meaning interglacial as you imply by calling it the “present Holocene”. You must’ve been sleepy when you reading about that.
I’m curious about your claim of owning 300 climate books. I didn’t know so many had been written. I would be most interested if you would kindly list them.