Some days I think it can’t get any crazier out there, and then I’m surprised yet again.
From Dr. Loonie Lonnie Thompson, of Ohio State University:
“I think we’ll have to get off this planet for glaciology to have a future,” Thompson, a climate researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center said at an international symposium at Ohio State University.
His next surprise came just last month, when he and a crew of OSU researchers went to Papua New Guinea’s largest ice cap to collect ice core samples.
The temperature was 50 degrees Fahrenheit when it should have been at least at the freezing point. Rain, not snow, fell on the crew.
The rain and the warm air threatened to erase the ice cap.
“That’s the scary part – the surprises and the things you don’t understand,” Thompson said.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/23/1788090/vanishing-ice-caps-have-experts.html#ixzz0xRKGw8MB
=================================
Dr. Thompson if you leave Earth, will you leave the ice core data archives behind that Steve McIntyre has been asking for, for years now?
Kaufman et al: Obstructed by Thompson and Jacoby
“Thus, several years later, not just me, but young Arctic scientists are frustrated by data obstruction by Thompson and Jacoby. Unfortunately, these young scientists are unable or unwilling to record these frustrations in public and the records remain incomplete to this day.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Jason Box, an OSU geologist and climate expert, said getting the “small community” of glacier researchers together on a regular basis is key to keeping the conversation going about disappearing ice caps.”
Wow, so what they’re doing is all getting together and hyperventilating about a non-problem, thus self-reinforcing their silly, irrational fears. And these are the so-called “experts”. Now, that’s scary.
Anthony, I must commend you. While Mr. Telford has grown increasingly antagonistic, you have responded calmly and reasonably.
As to the article, it most certainly is pertinent to the science. A large portion of the “ClimateGate” controversy surrounded scientists’ refusal to provide raw data, while proclaiming that the science-is-settled(tm). Here, we have the same thing on-going, while the scientist provides a carefully crafted snippet to the media to support a particular belief.
The article you link to on ClimateAudit is interesting reading. This type of data stonewalling needs to be made highly visible. Perhaps Dr. Thompson can catch some of the new fever sweeping through scientific establishments of data transparency; else, his feet should be held to the fire.
maz2 says:
August 23, 2010 at 8:52 am
“Selected quotes: 1-6.
James Cameron’s key climate quotes:”
More context: Newspaper article: “James Cameron blasts Glenn Beck”
http://www.macondaily.com/news.asp?id=27730
OT, but I cant help it;
If your mansion is larger than this, then can you please, please consider a more sustainable lifestyle?
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/08/friedman-lovins-wow-crowd-at-aspen.html
Re Cameron’s comments…
I would argue that he is eminently qualified to make the arguments he makes as he is one of the premier creators of the most realistic fantasies on the planet.
Actual reality is a much more difficult proposition for him.
Is this the same Anthony Watts who is hiding the surface station data?
REPLY: No, you are wrong. I’m holding it until paper publication since NCDC decided to use what preliminary data I did publish (in the spirit of openness) inappropriately, without my permission, and against my protestations of it being incomplete and not quality controlled yet. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/ When our joint paper is published it will all be included in an SI just like McShane and Wyner did. Then people can beat it up all they want. The paper is finished, it is in final mathematics and statistics review by a person we invited to review it with a critical eye. Won’t be much longer.
Having learned the lesson that people have no scruples and will use your own data to disprove you before you even get your paper finished, it is a prudent thing to do. It is my right to hold it until publication, as do most researchers. My experiment with openess allowed the unscrupulous to take advantage. Thompson on the other hand has published using the data, advised Al Gore and provided graphics for AIT, and yet refuses to share the data for legitimate academic replication. Big big difference. – Anthony
Bob Tisdale says:
August 23, 2010 at 8:26 am
Anthony: Does he suggest a specific planet, Zork or Jkjuuvserfchsswq maybe?
REPLY: I figured it was assumed. Planet Green – Anthony
_____________________________________________________________________
Clearly, he is referring to the planet visited by the Starship Enterprise, where the crew took shore-leave, and all their fantasies came true………………….
50F, wow! That’s what we call a mild summers day in northern England, lucky chap!
Sounds like he’s (Lonnie) been ‘away’ before and when he is ‘here’, does he now regard himself as a visitor?
You have to laugh:>)
~All the ‘serious science’ ( and it didn’t amount to much) has been debunked.
Here, another one backs down.
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/481
As an ex- marine I refer to the concept of a few good men.
That’s the first time I’ve ever seen anyone claim to be an “ex-Marine.”
Someone should inform Jacoby the obligatory phrase is “former Marine”…
@Bernie
‘According to Wikipedia, the area with glaciers in Papua is at 4000+ metres. Evidently they have been receding since the end of the LIA. The average temperature is about 0C. They are already small and anomalous. Their disappearance hardly justifies a call for us to abandon the planet.’
You missed the point that he and his ilk had to leave the planet to save glaciology. This it with the assumption that you’re not a glaciologist of his ilk, what with checking with wikipedia and all, especially since it should be known who’s probably now gonna try and manipulate the page you read.
Glaciers in Papua New Guinea are quite an interesting thing. Mean free air temperature at the highest peak (4884 m ) is around 1.1C and it has been very similar since the 50’s. It can snow at 1C, and in Papua New Guinea it snows a lot, so snow accumulates. As it has a high albedo and it cools very efficiently it is not easy to melt, so it remains and form glaciers. If you look at the reanalysis data, there is an interesting shift upwards in geopotential height at the end of the 70’s, with a corresponding shift in mean temperature (upwards), of may be 0.3C. However, the most important change might be a shift in precipitation in the 60’s (downwards). Thus the fate of Papua New Guinea’s glaciers might be similar to that of Kilimanjaro’s, they are drying up, rather than warming up.
Some reanalysis charts here and here.
Patagon says:
August 23, 2010 at 10:45 am
That is true of almost all glacier declines. It is not a lack of cold, it is a lack or decline of precipitation in the accumulation zone that shrinks glaciers.
These guys will never take their own advise. Anyway, an appropriate message to James Cameron would be, “Yes, James, we are all going to die and belief in AGW will not change that.”
In keeping with the modern age of science lunacy, as depicted by Thompson’s statement, WUWT readers may want to check out the latest (Sept 2010) issue of Scientific American Magazine. With any luck the December issue should be my last after about 40 years of continuous readership.
The front cover is in a dark shade of red and carries the title: “the end.” No caps !
So it is the doomsday issue of SA that carries the message: “We’re all gonna die !”
One of the first essays on Sustainable Developments, carries the title: “The Deeepening Crisis” by Jeffrey D. Sachs; Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
He opens his essay with the glad tidings that this will be his final column under this shingle in Scientific American; to which I say good riddance, although I will no longer be a subscriber after December.
But in this one page, Sachs manages to drag out his whole sorry tale of woe; the sky is falling, and it’s too late to stop it; and Copenhagen was a bust. If you really want to depress yourself in a sea of misery, you should read Sachs’ last essay.
I think basically he is decrying that the awakening public is no longer buying the doomsday scenario that the AGW crowd and the green weenies promulgate.
His third point in his woeful yarn is that the problems are global but politics is local. Obviously Sachs is another of these one world Government do it my way or else kooks.
I’m not going to drag the whole sorry tale out here; but Sachs leaves no stone unturned in the looney left’s clamor to take over all our lives for the good of the planet.
So good riddance Jeffrey Sachs; it’s time for you to try and earn an honest living at areal job.
One other piece of curiousity in this issue is the information that Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group so “Nature” is a kindred publication to SA; which surely helps explain why SA has long since ceased reporting on interesting Science and has become an advocacy journal for the watermelon sect.
And then enjoy reading a whole issue about why humans won’t be here for ever; well even here, won’t be here for ever; and surprisingly some say, forever itself, will not be here forever.
Time for a Capuchino again. (isn’t that some kind of monkey ?)
Glacierman,
I wonder if you kmow what may have caused that shift in precipitation
[You can make your point without the insults and snarkiness directed at our host. ~dbs, mod.]
Aug 23, at 10:45 am
Patagon, checking snow-forecast.com, they show the “normal” 83 cm of new snow the next 6 days… I don’t check so often now as I used to do some years ago, would 20 cm
a day be sufficient for non-retreat?? According to Wiki, LT says the glaciers will be gone in 4-5 years…[2010] Comparing Mark Serreze…oh not me…
Having a fair amount of experience of glaciers, both in the arctic and elsewhere I would say that while 50 F is indeed rather warm when you are on a glacier it is not that unusual in summer. I can remember it being even warmer (and raining too) at 79 degrees north in Svalbard. The rain as a matter of fact is almost compulsory in such weather situations as the warm air is cooled by the glacier.
Patagon
I suspected something like that which is why I brought it up. Similar things are causing the famous glaciers in Glacier National Park to shrink. Microclimate changes in a location that is really not all that high or cold.
How do they know it’s a warm temperature anomaly where they went? We only have a few years of temperature data for the entire planet! It’s not like glaciers are cast in stone! It seems to me that way too many scientists have a set picture of what the world is supposed to be and when it doesn’t match their picture they freak out soothsaying doomsday the sky is falling get into your rocket ships and abandon our only home in the universe before it’s too late!
I hate to be the one to remind them but the Earth is a wee bit older than their doomsday scenarios permit and it’s doing just fine for a very long time.
Humans have a huge range of adaptability to temperatures, oh at least 80c to 100c from in the minus range to the 40c or so. Personally I’ve lived across the 85c range having lived in Edmonton (-45c) and in Costa Rica (+40c). No big deal either way, although I prefer +25c to 30c). So what is the panic? I just don’t get it.
Athelstan says:
August 23, 2010 at 10:23 am
50F, wow! That’s what we call a mild summers day in northern England, lucky chap!
That’s what we call a heatwave in Scotland…
I’ve read that the plains around the base of Mt Kilimanjaro were once lush rain forest, that provided its own local tropical wet climate that was the source of the snows of Kilimanjaro. Supposedly the native tribes living around the mountain over thousands of years cut all that forestry down for their uses and the area slowly started to desertify. Ofr course the lower slopes of the mountain still retain some forest; but evidently it isn’t like its former glory; so the snow caps sublime from lack of humidity even at Kilimanjaro’s altitude, and equatorial location.
Papua on the other hand has always seemed to me to be the epitome of remoteness from civilization; even moreso than the Amazon. In my yourth, nothing could match the sense of primitive isolation that Papua conjured up. Sadly WW-II changed all of that; and then the USA and others compounded the felony, in their ignorance, and anti-colonial zeal, and in the Kennedy era pushed for the inclusion of half of Papua into the hodgepodge that is Indonesia; which has about as much ethnic commonality with Papua, as I do.
Prior to that, I believe Australia had some sort of United Nations protectorate relationshsip with Papua; somewhat similar to the relationship that NZ has or had with some Polynesian outposts like the Cook Islands, and Raratonga; which simply are too small to support common infrastructures of society; like schools and medical facilties (which NZ supplied in the case of those Polynesian islands.
But the rain forests of Papua have also been under cosntant threat for the hardwood timbers; and mineral explorations; so if it is ongoing, I could see that aiding in desertification on the back burner.
But luckily we have Vostok and other such magnificanet ice caps; remote from head hunters and tropical rain forests alike.
As luck would have it; my Cap-of-the-day is a recent birthday present my daughter brought back from Roswell New Mexico; so I shall don that and set out for lunch and hopefully attract some sort of off planetary conveyance for Dr Thompson.
Can’t say at this time regarding Papua New Guinea. I know the Kilimanjaro retreat has been found to be mainly due to deforestation near the mountain, especially early last century, that led to a decrease in precipitation.
I guess that means it was due to man, but not due to CO2 (Mann made warming).
Actually, although I know the next glacial period is probably quite a ways off yet in human life span terms, it would be kind of nice not to start the next glacial period for as long as possible.
This interglacial we have now is just fine, and I hope it continues for quite a while. NGW (Natural GW) has been kind of nice since the LIA. Now, can we utilize that pesky AGW to help forestall the next glacial period?
John
Maybe that is why the attention is now shifted to Papua New Guinea, seeing how the cause of the retreat in Africa is pretty well understood, and is not due to increased temperatures. This has been pretty definatively shown.
Funny how a disappearing glacier is more interesting if the cause is CO2. I wonder how many more trips to Kilamanjaro Dr. Thompson will make.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/digest.msp?id=2130
But Thompson noted the Kilimanjaro melting seems to mirror trends elsewhere in the world, including rapid ice-field melting in South America, Indonesia and the Himalayas. “It’s when you put those together,” he said, “that the evidence becomes very compelling.”