Guest post by Tom Fuller
How glaciers have responded to the warming of the past 130 years is a complicated story, although many millions of words have been written to try and explain it.
How glaciers have been used to promote fears of a disastrous future is a much simpler story, but it really only gets told in skeptic weblogs. The story competes with a much easier tale, one that is told by the media strategists for environmental organisations and is repeated by politicians and others seeking temporary fame or permanent fortune through shaping our future to meet the challenges of climate change.
As a non-scientist, what I take from the many articles and papers I have read can be summarized as follows: Glaciers advance and retreat in response to a variety of forces, some mechanical, some climatic, some of each regular, some of each unusual. This has been going on as long as there has been ice. I realize that this is so vague as to be useless and vapid, but I want to start from a non-controversial position. It will probably start to get controversial with the next sentence, and will probably not stop after that.
It is my best understanding based on what I have read (and please feel free to correct errors or hints of bias), that at this point in time more glaciers are retreating than are growing, and probably by a significant percentage. However, some of those that are retreating actually began retreating before global warming started. So, many glaciers are retreating, many should be attributed to global warming, but there are many exceptions–it is by no means a universal phenomenon.
There has never been anything like a census, even using satellite photography over the past 30 years, although photographs of 100,000 glaciers are available at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. (I’d love to be proven wrong on that point, as continuous satellite coverage would be really useful.) The Assessment of The Status of The Development of The Standards For the Terrestrial Essential Climate Variables, published in 2009, references the inventory of the 100,000 glaciers, but draws no conclusions on overall status.
It is also my best understanding that those pushing the story of catastrophic global warming have used and misused glacier melt to advance their quest for political agreement to their preferred solutions. They started with the glacier at Kilmanjaro, prominently featured in Al Gore’s move An Inconvenient Truth. However, it turned out that Kilmanjaro’s glacier had been receding long before human contributions to global warming, and it sort of receded to the background.
But glaciers on a mountain make a pretty picture, and Kilmanjaro was replaced by Himalayan glaciers, which are just as pretty, and didn’t seem so controversial. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in their 4th Assessment Report wrote, “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world.
(see Table 10.9)
And, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).”
This finding was meat to a hungry press corps, and was featured prominently in print, on television and on the internet. But it was wrong, as most readers here already know. Worse, the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, had been informed it was wrong years before.
But again, as with polar bears, Antarctic ice and pictures of flooded cities, the image and the fear it produced was too important to let go. I’m not speaking of the scientists, although the warmist weblogs keep accusing me of doing so. I’m speaking of slick media strategists working hard to keep an issue alive, donations coming in, lobbyists full of talking points and committee votes on tough issues like Cap and Trade. So although the IPCC finally admitted their report was in error, it still gets spun as a typographical error that doesn’t change the inevitability of glacial disappearance.
The warming we have experienced has caused many glaciers to lose mass–in a few cases, glaciers have disappeared entirely, or are likely to do so soon. But the issue is not as simple as the media have been spoon-fed to believe, at least not according to the articles I have read.
But complexity gets in the way of a scare story, and so the narrative must be simplified–and exaggerated.
As has been the case in each instance of symbols being hijacked for political purposes, a sober and compelling story could have been told. It would have had many qualifications, and would have probably ended with a call for further research and keeping a close eye on the situation. I honestly believe such a story would have resulted in more and more effective action than the sledgehammer horror story approach the activists took.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
How glaciers have been used to promote fears of a disastrous future is a much simpler story, but it really only gets told in skeptic weblogs. The story competes with a much easier tale, one that is told by the media strategists for environmental organisations and is repeated by politicians and others seeking temporary fame or permanent fortune through shaping our future to meet the challenges of climate change.
As a non-scientist, what I take from the many articles and papers I have read can be summarized as follows: Glaciers advance and retreat in response to a variety of forces, some mechanical, some climatic, some of each regular, some of each unusual. This has been going on as long as there has been ice. I realize that this is so vague as to be useless and vapid, but I want to start from a non-controversial position. It will probably start to get controversial with the next sentence, and will probably not stop after that.
It is my best understanding based on what I have read (and please feel free to correct errors or hints of bias), that at this point in time more glaciers are retreating than are growing, and probably by a significant percentage. However, some of those that are retreating actually began retreating before global warming started. So, many glaciers are retreating, many should be attributed to global warming, but there are many exceptions–it is by no means a universal phenomenon. There has never been anything like a census, even using satellite photography over the past 30 years, although photographs of 100,000 glaciers are available at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. (I’d love to be proven wrong on that point, as continuous satellite coverage would be really useful.) The Assessment of The Status of The Development of The Standards For the Terrestrial Essential Climate Variables, published in 2009, references the inventory of the 100,000 glaciers, but draws no conclusions on overall status.
It is also my best understanding that those pushing the story of catastrophic global warming have used and misused glacier melt to advance their quest for political agreement to their preferred solutions. They started with the glacier at Kilmanjaro, prominently featured in Al Gore’s move An Inconvenient Truth. However, it turned out that Kilmanjaro’s glacier had been receding long before human contributions to global warming, and it sort of receded to the background.
But glaciers on a mountain make a pretty picture, and Kilmanjaro was replaced by Himalayan glaciers, which are just as pretty, and didn’t seem so controversial. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in their 4th Assessment Report wrote, “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).”
This finding was meat to a hungry press corps, and was featured prominently in print, on television and on the internet. But it was wrong, as most readers here already know. Worse, the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, had been informed it was wrong years before.
But again, as with polar bears, Antarctic ice and pictures of flooded cities, the image and the fear it produced was too important to let go. I’m not speaking of the scientists, although the warmist weblogs keep accusing me of doing so. I’m speaking of slick media strategists working hard to keep an issue alive, donations coming in, lobbyists full of talking points and committee votes on tough issues like Cap and Trade. So although the IPCC finally admitted their report was in error, it still gets spun as a typographical error that doesn’t change the inevitability of glacial disappearance.
The warming we have experienced has caused many glaciers to lose mass–in a few cases, glaciers have disappeared entirely, or are likely to do so soon. But the issue is not as simple as the media have been spoon-fed to believe, at least not according to the articles I have read.
But complexity gets in the way of a scare story, and so the narrative must be simplified–and exaggerated.
As has been the case in each instance of symbols being hijacked for political purposes, a sober and compelling story could have been told. It would have had many qualifications, and would have probably ended with a call for further research and keeping a close eye on the situation. I honestly believe such a story would have resulted in more and more effective action than the sledgehammer horror story approach the activists took.
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
RACookPE1978 Reur September 13, 2010 at 8:38 pm
AND, Robert….. Your various comments:
It occurs to me now from several comments above, that there may be a thought that the Greenland ice-sheet outlet glaciers may be considered to have different providence to “typical” mountain glaciers. But what pray is typical? Different mountains and their glacial valleys have different topography, and thus different varying gradients (gravitational effects) along the path of a glacier. Sure, the Greenland ice-sheet has a significant central elevation and in that parameter alone, a gravitational effect, but don’t forget that as it creeps towards the coastal outlets it has to sheer across the ice that is trapped below the outlet and even way below sea level. (or drag it uphill!?)
If you have ever done mountain hiking/climbing you would know that what may appear to be pyramidal mountain from a distance, actually usually has significant gradient variations. What may appear to be the top of a climb is but a crest, merely revealing a relative dip, followed by yet another climb, maybe even steeper.
I have to go now, but will expand on this when I have time, with a photographic example in the Italian Alps.
Robert Please respond to my earlier questions first.
I assume you understand the engineering concepts of creep, sheer, and gravitation etc.
Paul Pierett Reur September 13, 2010 at 1:46 pm AND 7:12 pm
Thanks; I enjoyed your first post particularly, but could you please give a more definitive link to your work on nationalforestlawblog.com?
Thanks, Bob_FJ
To Bob_FJ
Here is how to get to my stuff.
http://www.nationalforestlawblog.com/newsletters.htm
Go to October 2009
http://www.nationalforestlawblog.com/Pierett%20Cover.pdf
http://www.nationalforestlawblog.com/Global%20Warming%20By%20Paul%20Pierett.pdf
http://www.nationalforestlawblog.com/Atlantic%20Storm%20Correlation%20To%20Sunspot%20Activity.pdf
Summary:
Most historical data begins on Page 27 of “Low Sunspot Numbers Cools Global Warming”.
The first 26 pages is an argument addressing the Discovery Magazine Article from June 2009 stating that sunspot activity has no impact on the earth.
The other paper shows what I discovered from the previous year about the direct relationship between Accumulated Cyclone Energy and Sunspot Activity.
The cover letter is the cover to the “Low Sunspot…”. The first cover letter from Jan. 09 did not get a link, but states that we appear to be leaving global warming.
So, one doesn’t have to be a scientist to figure this stuff out. But, it takes a lot of time.
Thank you.
Paul Pierett
Policyguy says: “…This is one glacier we would not want to see add mass and begin to move again toward the sea. Check it out on google earth. Look at the land on the southwest shore of the melt water lake. Its been developed with residential subdivisions. Amazing.”
Hey, we build (and rebuild) cities below sea level. Why not put a city right downhill from a glacier?
Robert at September 13, 2010 at 12:17 pm whined about being nitpicked.
I see. It’s nitpicking to ask for accuracy, precision, traceability, and transparency. These don’t matter as long as a number is similar. If a number is similar then the science is sound. That’s a fairly distorted view of science. If you write something and fill it with inaccurate citations, it’s no good to anyone as it’s not accurate, precise, traceable, or transparent. If you state that a document reports something and the report says something different, no matter how slight, then your statement is not accurate or precise. Demanding accuracy, precision, traceability, and transparency is not nitpicking; it’s science in all of its mundane glory.
Additionally, Bamber and Riva 2010 in the supplementary information state explicitly: “We did not include the Himalayas and Karakorum in the total (~40 Gt/yr) as there is uncertainty about whether the glacier losses reach the ocean or whether they contribute to land water storage.” However they don’t provide a citation for this value. Granted that Bamber is a pre-eminent glaciologist, but what is the source for the data that provide this value? This isn’t a very traceable statement.
RACookPE1978 says:
September 13, 2010 at 8:38 pm
(1) There is a multitude of evidence which suggests that temperature reconstructions are accurate and not artificial inflating temperatures. These reconstructions have been displayed on WUWT and other websites and have been done by many independent and sometimes sceptical researchers. Perhaps before you open your mouth you should think carefully.
Reconstructions can be found here: (They are also found on WUWT but this one addresses a few more issues than the one on WUWT)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm
Further disproving your evidence is that satellite temperatures show warming from both UAH and RSS despite UAH being operated by two prominent skeptics. The only reason I said the skeptics part is that if you’re going to allege misconduct, lets be clear about who you’re making the allegations against. Recent temps can be found here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Also note that calling it Mann made instead of man-made just makes you look slanderous rather than an honest debater. I have not slandered anyone in any of my discussions therefore I would ask you would respond with the same amount of respect that I gave.
Also note, that I have not attributed anything to AGW and for you to create this strawman is very disingenuous. I would like you to point me to the sentence where I say glaciers have lost all there ice due to AGW?
Once again, you make a comment that individuals in favour of AGW are “zealots”
refer to my point above about slander.
(2) Changes in Glacier volume are generally associated with summer air temperatures and winter precipitation. In outlet and tidewater glaciers there are other dynamics but the most important for those are water temperatures. This is well understood among the glaciological community. As mentioned above in my previous comment
See Cogley 2009. Geodectic and direct mass balance measurements: comparison and joint analysis. Annals of Glaciology.
which does in fact show that globally glaciers gained ice during the cooling period of the 1960s-1970s. Furthermore it shows the rapid retreat of glaciers since the 1970s which has been remarked in many places. A study which I find particularly interesting on this subject is Nesje et al. 2008 which very much discusses a rapid decrease in glacier volume over the 2000s in southern Norway despite having seen growth (due to winter precipitation, in the 1990s).
The European Center for Medium and Long Range Forecasting has already concluded with certainty that 2009-2010 holds the warmest 12 month period on record. 2005 is considered the 2nd. This is the same as the GISS record and many of the reconstructions mentioned above do not show 1998 as the warmest on record. Furthermore, the satellite record shows that 2010 is within 0.06 of the UAH record for 1998 referred to at the website for drroyspencer above.
http://www.ecmwf.int/publications/cms/get/ecmwfnews/263
Therefore I find it highly unlikely that your pronouncement of “it hasn’t warmed since 1998 is true. This is addressed at sceptical science (which I know the moderator dislikes but it does address the issue) in the following post:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
(3) I do not need to prove to you the amount of air temperature change that would cause a corresponding glacier length change, it is not quite as simple as that. Do you know how many assumptions about the “typical” glacier would have to be made to do that? If you wanna plot up the data yourself go right ahead. These are fundamental things understood in glacier physics and if you want to read up on the relationship between summer air temperatures and glaciers you can read Glaciers and Glaciation (2010) by Doug Benn and David J.A. Evans. There is a plethora of literature on the topic and I’m not going to waste my time getting into glacier dynamics when your sole purpose is to confuse and dismiss. If I take glacier volume changes and compare it to temperature, my thoughts is I would receive a significant correlation with a statistical significance of greater than 99%. Will I confirm this for you right now? No thanks, but keep an eye on sceptical science where I will elaborate in the near future.
For the record, you have to start acting like a grown-up and not a child by throwing baseless allegations and accusations out there. You have no credibility in my books when you spew insults at those trying to help others understand the science of glaciers. There was no significant discussion of AGW and its associations with glacier changes but you felt obliged to join in, next time, Don’t until you’re grown up.
Taphonomic says:
September 14, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Okay buddy,
I called the himilayas and karakorum the same thing when they’re in close proximity and that is what you’re going crazy about? Frankly, most people don’t even know the difference so what is the point of your tirade?
And yet you sit by while
RACookPE1978 says:
September 13, 2010 at 8:38 pm
sits there filled with inaccuracies and say nothing? Lets hope it was because you missed his comment and not because his narrative fits well (minus things like facts) into the web of deceit you would like to partake in spinning?
I don’t mean to fling accusations but you are trying to lecture me on data accuracy and yet you let that comment just sit there? No one else called him out either, is there a reason?
Bamber and Riva 2010 use grace from my understanding for their estimate.
Bob_FJ says:
September 13, 2010 at 3:41 pm
BTW, I no longer go to the website that you recommend.
The link shown is a discussion of ice dynamics and ice sheets. Particularly the main drivers in their mass losses. I could care less if you like the website or not. The science is there, if you choose to ignore it and go on with your questioning then why should I dignify your questions with a response when you obviously and clearly aren’t willing to read up on the topic.
With respect to Jakobshavn, under the article that I posted to you, and the part 2 and part 3 to that article there is discussion regarding that specific glacier by Dr. Mauri Pelto who is a glaciologist who has studied that glacier in particular for years. It would be a useful resource for you to look at it. With respect to the retreat of glaciers globally and its erraticness I beg to differ. The retreat since the 1970s is extremely prominent.
See Cogley 2009. Geodectic and direct mass balance measurements: comparison and joint analysis. Annals of Glaciology.
for further confirmation of that.
You also made a commentary about Arctic sea ice and from what i’m assuming that it is being over exaggerated? My understanding is that this year will remain below the trend line (barely) for minimum extent so I do not really agree where you find that exaggeration to be dispelled. Under the same climatic conditions as in 2007 (particularly the wind patterns) we would likely see less ice today than then. I see that as being at least somewhat alarming from a climatological perspective. Certainly you could not make a statement such that sea ice is recovering or anything of the sort with a straight face could you?
Finally I would like to say something regarding the commentary by
RACookPE1978 says:
September 13, 2010 at 8:38 pm
I think that it is comments like his that explain the majority of the reason why professionals in fields like glaciology (such as myself) avoid these sorts of websites. Sure there are many individuals out there who can have a fair and reasoned debate on these subjects but allowing commentary such as RACOOKs just makes me not really want to come back. I enjoy discussing and educating on issues such as glaciology for those who have questions but when it is allowed for commentators to make accusations and to slander other individuals (who havent even declared a belief !) it is not worth my time.
I think that when some things have been just clear proven wrong that some individuals shouldnt be allowed to clutter up debate with non-sensible commentary. Furthermore as a researcher who is taking time to partake in the debate I do not appreciate being insinuated to be a zealot or to have theories which are “high school generalities” when in fact these theories, such as the relationship between summer air temperatures and glaciers, are completely factually based. I mean even the most skeptical of geologist or glaciologist cannot refute this and yet commentary such as RACOOKs is allowed to go unabated without any sort of response.
I believe skepticism is healthy and forces researchers to up their standards and so on, but I do not think that comments such as RACooks are conducive to the debate or helpful at all. It is commentary such as that, that will continue to keep my colleagues from debate at WUWT when they know that the second they talk science (And not even AGW) that they will be attacked by some commentator out there who is so convinced that AGW is a hoax that he will ignore any facts and hurl accusations.
This sort of thing occurs far too often on both sides of the debate but as the saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right. And idiotic commentary like that of RACOOK is clearly wrong.[noted . . b.mod]
Bob_FJ says:
September 14, 2010 at 1:28 am (Edit)
RACookPE1978 Reur September 13, 2010 at 8:38 pm
AND, Robert….. Your various comments:
It occurs to me now from several comments above, that there may be a thought that the Greenland ice-sheet outlet glaciers may be considered to have different providence to “typical” mountain glaciers. But what pray is typical? Different mountains and their glacial valleys have different topography, and thus different varying gradients (gravitational effects) along the path of a glacier. Sure, the Greenland ice-sheet has a significant central elevation and in that parameter alone, a gravitational effect, but don’t forget that as it creeps towards the coastal outlets it has to sheer across the ice that is trapped below the outlet and even way below sea level. (or drag it uphill!?)
If you have ever done mountain hiking/climbing you would know that what may appear to be pyramidal mountain from a distance, actually usually has significant gradient variations. What may appear to be the top of a climb is but a crest, merely revealing a relative dip, followed by yet another climb, maybe even steeper.
—…—…
Three distinct differences I would begin with:
Alpine: From a higher elevation ice mass fed from local precipitation (less than 100 km for example), the glacier run off down into a valley where the tip is isolated and has a distinct melted water runoff. The alpine glacier could intersect another glacier, but isn’t significantly blocked or restricted by the other moving glacier , and the alpine glacier itself could be fed from other valleys. Easiest to study = Ice is added to the top depending on local precipitation, falls and turns to a locally-defined ice mass, which presses down and pushes the ice over irregular terrain down towards the tip. Melted ice on the way down runs quickly down to the bottom of the glacier and runs out to the valley. Meltwater cannot get “trapped’ under the ice in large “pools” or “lakes” because the narrow sloped valley floor cannot stop water flow.
Continental Edge, Sea Terminus: Differs from alpine glaciers because the tip is out over water. Melt water from under the glacier can’t be seen nor measured, and the behavior of the tip will vary as the water conditions and water depth change as the glacier advances and retreats. Moraines left at the tip from previous advances (as in Alaska’s coast) may block the fjord, leave open spaces, or be swept by floods and tides to change water flow (tip melting.) Long shallow water areas under the glacier tip (as in some of the Antarctic Ice shelves) may support the ice in places, leave it floating in places, and then support it again. Ice islands may be left nhanging or locked in place for long periods of time, and may re-freeze as sea ice. Determinig why a particular block cracked off, and whether the glacier will move back out and recover the same area the same way may or may not happen. Souring and erosion under the tip changes since bare rock and tidal mud and dumped glacier deposits are get mixed up over time. t least in the valley glaciers, the valley floor gets scraped clear and the rock features left sticking up are consistent.
Greenland’s edge glaciers (the short glaciers from the exposed tops of the east and west coast rim mountains to the sea) are isolated from the central Greenland ice masses, and how they behave (expand or contract) depends on water behavior. They get “higher” – extend further up the mountains, and they can only get longer or shorter out the fjord on top of the water under their tips.
Continental ice masses differ from glaciers in two very significant ways: The ice masses are geographically static for very long periods of time (hundreds of thousands of years of ice sample are stacked right on top of each in neat layers – never “flowing” from where the ice was originally deposited), and the ice masses are blocked in from flowing by either equal-and-opposite ice masses or by continental mountain ranges rising equally high. So loss is only from the surface: wind loss, sublimation, melting. Gains – as in Greenland’s central area where 300 foot ice increases are found in only 60 years over top of WWII airplanes – are also “vertical”. The ice isn’t moving. The steady pressure of ice moves the continental crust down: SO now there is a very wide, very flat central valley between Greenland rim mountain ranges. But the ice in that region is static: it isn’t flowing towards any coast. And, because the rim mountains are higher than the central ice, it can’t “flow” either east nor west nor south out of the central valley as glacier ice. Theoretically, the ice could flow north since the rim mountains are lower than the central ice height, but there isn’t enough energy (difference in height) over the 1000 km difference in length to allow motion. Local mountains and their very localized valleys – such as the fjord that spawned the recent ice island about the size of Manhattan are very small when compared to the continental area they would be required to “drain”. So the central Greenland ice cannot flow north either.
Inland ice between the rim mountains doesn’t flow out “over” the rim mountains to the sea – the rim mountains are like a continental divide for regular water systems: If any rock is exposed between two glaciers sources, the rate that one glacier flows west does not depend on how the second glacier does or does not flow east. If there is a shared ice mass at the extending over the top of the mountain, then the two outflowing glaciers only “share” flow mass until the rock is exposed.
So any single 60 km glacier on the west side of Greenland’s rim mountains could retreat back to a zero length. And it would not affect the 600 km wide central ice mass in any way. Every 60 – 100 km glacier on the east coast of Greenland could retreat to a zero length – and their length would not affect the central ice mass at all either. Now, whatever precipitation change or melting cause that caused that retreat on either coast would clearly affect deposition rates across the central Greenland ice mass – but that ice mass would not move.
—…—
Measured daily summer temperatures at 80 north latitude from DMI since 1958 have decreased steadily since 1958, and now are cooler than 1960 by slightly less than 1 degree C. (Winter temperatures have increased slightly in that same time, but are substantially below freezing. Yearly average temperatures (raised by the warmer winters) are greater than they were in 1958-1960.) CAGW theory cannot explain this reduction in summer (melting season) temperatures since it contradicts NASA-GISS’s modeled arctic temperature gains of some 4+ degrees.
Colder melting seasonal temperatures across the north slope of Greenland, and measured ice deposit increases in central Greenland’s ice static masses of several hundred feet since WWII, do not show any threat to the Arctic. Well, actually, they do highlight the constant danger that exists from the next ice age, now overdue by some 2000 years.
Robert says:
September 14, 2010 at 10:38 pm (Edit)
Please continue. Your comments are …. entertaining. Enlightening.
Some Fundamentals.
Though there are comparisons between the Arctic and Antarctica, the North Pole is a floating sheet of ice and the South Pole is a land mass.
The North Pole is surrounded by land and the South Pole is surrounded by sea.
The two have a different set of variables.
Secondly, we have an enormous amount of information.
If we could put the chronology of information onto a huge sheet of paper we would see things going up and down.
What we are seeing and discussing are the affects. What I don’t see is the causes.
For example, What is the purpose of a hurricane?
Is it a global warming feature?
Why are there more hurricanes as the Earth warms up?
Another example: An observation: as the Earth hit peak global warming period during the last decade, so did Ozone hit critical levels. As the Earth cooled, the Ozone critical levels dropped.
Thus, when there is a full Ozone layer above us, is it a global warming feature that assists global warming?
As the Earth cools as it did in the 1970s, a hole formed in the Ozone Layer. Numerous chemicals were blamed for the whole during the infancy period of The EPA.
Have we miss-interpreted the purpose of the Ozone layer and how it is created and why it dissipates?
What is the Cause for its coming and going and what is the Ozone purpose?
Final example: What is a glacier?
What is the purpose of a glacier?
It is the affect of global cooling!
What is the cause?
If we would note what changes as the Earth warms up and note what changes as the Earth cools, a lot of this information would fall into place.
My conclusions:
Glaciers, Ice sheets and Polar Regions are the Earth’s ice storage much as your Refrigerator. They store water and CO2 for the earth as Topography grows and compresses. They control the green making materials.
What is the purpose of Ozone, as the earth warms up, it enhances global warming for more green production.
When the earth is warm, there is more water vapor in the high atmosphere? Why? Enhance more green.
What is the purpose of a hurricane? As stated 50 years ago by a weather man, hurricanes break up heat fronts over the US. If not our crops would burn up.
When are Hurricanes most prevalent?
During harvest. The hotter the heat fronts, the more hurricanes are needed to keep things moving.
The main cause right now for all this is sunspot activity. When there is an abundance of sunspot activity, there is more green. When there is a lack of activity, there is less green.
One final look at this. As the Earth moves through the seasons, we can see a 60-70 degree swing in temperatures here in Florida. The Northern states may experience. A 100 degree swing. In Alaska, a 179 degree swing in temperatures is noted at Coldfoot.
The Earth Axis is tilted in our favor now, but 5000 years from now, it will be closer by a couple of degrees to being more upright. The land mass covered by solar energy will change in the coming millenniums.
Global cooling will be severe. Topography will compress and glaciers will show growth. It is just One of the various global cooling periods.
The habitat for man will be reduced?
Why? .
It appears the Earth gets a full renovation every 115,000 years.
We need to get the big picture and, until Climate-gate last year, all the pieces were not allowed on the table.
We now stand in time and space to put the puzzle together in spite of the Alarmists and have a game plan for those who follow, less we go back to bows and arrows and chucking spears.
Sincerely.
Paul
Robert and Bob_FJ
Have been lurking re your exchange on glaciers, specifically Jakobshavn.
As we all know, glaciers are simply slow-flowing rivers of ice. As with a river of water, the net balance depends on what comes in and what flows out. If growth and melting balance, the glacier appears to be ‘stationary’. If precipitation exceeds melting the glacier advances; if melting exceeds precipitation the glacier recedes, but there will be a time lag between cause and effect. Air temperature itself (i.e. short-term response to “global warming”) seems to play a minor role.
Glaciologists tell us that the mountain glaciers in Switzerland (where I live) have been receding since they reached a 10,000 year high in the mid-19th century. Earlier periods, during which the glaciers were considerably smaller than today, have been confirmed by physical evidence as the glaciers retreat (signs of old vegetation and, more rarely, of earlier civilization).
http://alpen.sac-cas.ch/de/archiv/2004/200406/ad_2004_06_12.pdf
As far as Jakobshavn is concerned, it appears from the cited literature that the retreat since the 1970s is prominent, although no comparison with earlier periods is cited.
The mouth of Jacobshavn lies near Illulisaat.
A close look at the temperature record there shows that there has been essentially no long-term warming trend over the 20th century. There was pronounced warming during the first half of the century and slight cooling over the second half, with the warmest temperatures reached in the 1940s. The latest decade has shown a warming spurt, similar to that seen in the1930s, but the overall trend since the mid-1970s has been essentially flat.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2620/3797223161_16c1ac5e39_b.jpg
So we have to look somewhere else for the cause of the Jakobshavn retreat.
Max
Paul Pierret
An interesting post.
I had not seen a correlation between the ozone hole and global warming, although I have seen the White et al. study showing a response of global upper ocean temperatures to changing solar irradiance.
http://tenaya.ucsd.edu/~dettinge/white1.pdf
Using two independent data sets, the authors show global-average upper ocean temperature responses to changing solar irradiance on decadal and interdecadal scales, based on data collected over three different upper ocean basins (i.e. Atlantic, Pacific, Indian), on two different timescales (i.e. decadal and interdecadal), over the 95 years from 1900 to 1994.
The sun has entered a less active phase recently (since this study was made), and upper ocean temperatures are apparently cooling over the most recent years.
Then there is the Met Office acknowledgement that there has been a recent cooling of surface air temperature, which can most likely be attributed to “natural variability” (= “natural forcing factors”?), despite record CO2 levels..
Just another piece of the puzzle, which points to natural forcings as a much more important part of the cause of observed global temperature changes than assumed by IPCC in its AR4 WG1 report.
Max
Robert Reur September 14, 2010 at 10:26 pm
One reason I have not recently visited your favoured “Skeptical Science” blog is that they declare up-front that their agenda is not to discuss the science with sceptics but to reject whatever they have to say. (paraphrasing). However, after having been excommunicated from commenting at RC, I may take another look over there some time.
Another reason is that you still have not adequately commented on the data I presented above.
You wrote in part:
With respect to Jakobshavn… …With respect to the retreat of glaciers globally and its erraticness I beg to differ. The retreat since the 1970s is extremely prominent.
Sorry; here it is again, the NSIDC image, marked-up to show retreat rates, with no correlation to NH temperature:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26175880@N05/4753025383/
The retreat rate between 1964 and 2001 (37 years) was only about 0.3 Km/year, whereas between 2001 and 2006, (end of data), it was about 10 times faster at ~3.0
More recent data through to 2008 from MODIS, show differences to that of NSIDC, with very rapid retreat ONLY in 2003, and even a slight advance in 2007. (Jakobshavn)
http://bprc.osu.edu/MODIS/?paged=2
Several other Greenland glaciers in this source showed small advances in 2007/2008, but the general trend was for retreat.
You [Bob_FJ] also made a commentary about Arctic sea ice and from what i’m assuming that it is being over exaggerated?
No, I mentioned Arctic sea-ice loss as a crude indication that glacier retreat does not correlate well with temperature. The MODIS info shows that some glaciers, including Jakobshavn grew during the iconic maximum sea-ice melt. (yes, I know sea-ice floats on the open sea)
I see that Manacker does a better job below by showing a temperature graph, (quoting a reliable source), for Illulisaat.
The mouth of Jacobshavn lies near Illulisaat.
Again, there is no correlation with air temperature
See also racookpe1978 September 14, 2010 at 11:42 pm , concerning reducing summer T’s north of 80 latitude.
racookpe1978 Reur September 14, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Thanks for your interesting discussion. If I could add to it; As an engineer, as I see it, glaciology is a science that is closely associated with geology, engineering, and hydrology, (at least), and I wonder if it would be improved if it were more cross-disciplinary. I also feel that the associated disciplines that I mentioned are less alarmist, and less assumptive.
Concerning the differences that you describe between Greenland outlet glaciers at the rim mountains, compared with most mountain glaciers, I think it should be born in mind that topography, altitude, and weather-region all play a part in wide variation in all of them. Whilst Greenland glaciers may generally terminate in a fjord*, unless it is in a significant tidal situation, with warming ocean currents, it seems to me that the mechanical effect would be much like as on gently sloping downhill land. (gravitation roughly balances coefficient of friction). On the other hand, The “Manhattan Island”, calving you mentioned, on Petersen (?), must have been caused by mechanical failure resulting primarily from tidal action.
Here is a clearer image of ice-flow striations at the head of Jakobshavn, that I mentioned earlier.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/101954main_calvingstill_2001_t.gif
These are on the inland side of the rim mountains, and it seems that the ice-sheet is exerting pressure on the mountains to the north and the south, where it can‘t go. It would seem reasonable to assume that the bedrock here has negative slope, but the ice creeps and sheers around through the “throat”. I would think that there may be similar situations in typical alpine regions.
Of course, if one zooms out on a map of Greenland, even if you can actually see it, it is obvious that even this biggest glacier will have negligible effect on the ice sheet as a whole, be it retreating or advancing
* That would be more so, say 150 years ago. Currently, Jakobshavn termination is on bedrock.
Gotta go.