By Don J. Easterbrook, Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA
The recent Portland State University study of glaciers on Mt. Adams by is a good example of bad science, i.e., how a dogmatic bias and selectively leaving out contrary factual data can lead to bad conclusions. As an exercise in critical thinking, I used to have my graduate students take a paper like this apart, piece by piece, to show any scientific errors. Here is an analysis of bad assumptions and errors in the Mt. Adams study.
First, what are the basic contentions in this study?
- Washington’s gradually warming temperatures have caused Mount Adams [glaciers] to shrink by nearly half since 1904.
- The Mt. Adams glaciers are receding faster than those of nearby sister volcanoes.
- The glacier recession is another sign of gradually warming temperatures.
- The study lends urgency to an earlier federal report that shows the water content of Cascade Mountain snowpacks could dwindle by as much as 50 percent by the 2070s.
Let’s take a careful look at each of these. Have the Mt. Adams glaciers indeed shrunk by nearly half since 1904? How do we prove such a statement? The best way is to have photographic evidence of where the glacier termini were in 1904 and where they are now. For the moment, let’s assume they have shrunk significantly since 1904. But the rest of the conclusion (gradually warming temperatures have caused them to shrink) isn’t a logical consequence of smaller glaciers. Two important aspects of this question are (1) has the climate gradually warmed over the past 100 years and (2) what were the glaciers doing before 1904?
The answer to the question, has the climate gradually warmed over the past 100 years, is no, the climate has not gradually warmed—it has oscillated back and forth between warm and cool periods four times during the past century (Figure 1), and the glaciers have fluctuated back and forth with the climate changes. The inference that the Mt. Adams glaciers began to retreat near the turn of the past century and have gradually shrunk because of gradual warming due to increased CO2 is false.
The answer to the question, what were the glaciers doing immediately prior to 1904 is that they were strongly advancing during the 1880 to 1915 cool period, and many reached terminal positions close to their maximum extent during the Little Ice Age (1300 AD to this century) (Figure 2). Most of the subsequent retreat of the glaciers occurred during the following warm period from 1915 to 1945, well before CO2 began to rise sharply after 1945.
Let’s look at the second contention–Mt. Adams glaciers are receding faster than those of nearby sister volcanoes. The advance and retreat of glaciers on two of those sister volcanoes, Mt. Baker and Mt. Rainier, has been well documented (Figure 4) (see references in Easterbrook 2011 and 2010).
Glaciers on Mt. Rainier and Mt. Baker advanced strongly during the 1880 to 1915 cool period, retreated strongly during the 1915 to 1945 warm period, advanced again during the 1945 to 1977 cool period, and retreated during the 1978 to 1998 warm period. The contention that Mt. Adams glaciers are retreating faster than those on nearby volcanoes and that they have been retreating gradually since 1904 is false. Glaciers on Mt. Adams have not been gradually retreating and are ‘not retreating faster than the others’–all of these volcanoes have fluctuated strongly back and forth during each period of warming and cooling.
The third contention of the study, that glacier recession is another sign of gradually warming temperatures is only partially true. Although climatic warming does indeed cause glacier recession, the inference that gradual warming has caused gradual glacier retreat since 1904 is not true. The glaciers have clearly been periodically advancing as well as retreating.
The fourth contention of the study, that the study lends urgency to an earlier federal report that shows the water content of Cascade Mountain snowpacks could dwindle by as much as 50 percent by the 2070s is totally unfounded. It assumes (1) that gradual climatic warming dating back to 1904 will continue at a constant rate until 2070, (2) that the supposed warming is continuous, (3) that the climate will continue to warm, and (4) that it is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. The first assumption of gradual warming since 1904 has been shown above to be incorrect—there have been warming and cooling periods that have caused glaciers not only to retreat, but also to advance during this time. The assumption that the climate is presently warming is also not true–in fact, the climate has been cooling slightly since 2000, not warming, so projecting continuous gradual warming into the future is not warranted.
The assumption that CO2 is causing climatic warming is also not true. Much of the glacial retreat was caused by climatic warming that occurred from 1915 to 1945, well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise sharply, so this warming cannot be attributed to rising CO2. In addition, the glacier re-advance from 1945 to 1977 was caused by climatic cooling during the same time that CO2 was rising most rapidly, just the opposite of what should have happened if CO2 caused climatic warming.
So what credence can be given to the contention that Cascade Mountain snowpacks could dwindle by as much as 50 percent by the 2070s? Temperatures in the Pacific NW have been cooling over the past decade, not warming (Figure 5, 6) and the snowpack in 2010 was about 70-200% above normal. In the late summer of 2011, some areas normally snow-free were still covered with 30 feet of snow. Thus, the conclusion of Cascade snowpacks declining by 50% by the 2070s is not credible.
Figure 6. The trend of global temperature since 2001 has been cooling at a rate of -4.0°C (-7°F) per century. Computer models had predicted a 1°F rise in temperature during this same period—that did not happen, showing that the computer models are invalid.
Summary
- Rather than glacial retreat since 1904 due to gradual warming, glaciers have advanced and retreated four times in the past century.
- Glacier termini advanced from 1945 to 1977 during the time of most sharply rising atmospheric CO2,. showing that rising CO2 does not cause climatic warming.
- Glacier recession on Mt. Adams does not prove a gradually warming temperature.
- No climatic warming has occurred during the past decade. Instead a cooling trend of -7° F per century has occurred.
- Cooling during the past decade is not consistent with a claim of 50% reduction of Cascade snowpack caused by climatic warming.
- The 1904 position of glacier termini resulted from strong cooling from 1880 to 1915. Comparing the position of recent minimal glacier termini following 20 years of warming from 1978 to 1998 with 1904 maximum glacier termini gives an exaggerated view of glacier recession.
- Because glaciers on Mt. Rainier and Mt. Baker advanced and retreated four times in the past century, there is no basis for assuming that glaciers on Mt. Adams are retreating faster than those on nearby volcanoes.
References
Easterbrook, D.J., ed., 2011, Evidence-based climate science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming: Elsevier Inc., 416 p.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global climate changes: The Past is the Key to the Future: in Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p.3-51.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2010, A walk through geologic time from Mt. Baker to Bellingham Bay, WA: Chuckanut Editions, Bellingham, WA, 329 p.
==============================================================
Addendum:
Something’s odd here. I tried to find the paper, and found references to AP news articles like this one:
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/01/glaciers_shrinking_on_mount_ad.html
From that article:
In the first comprehensive study of its kind, a Portland State University study has found Mount Adams’ 12 glaciers have shrunk by nearly half since 1904 and are receding faster than those of nearby sister volcanoes Mount Hood and Mount Rainier.
The link in that AP story on OregonLive.com is to a paper, Sitts Et Al 2010 …and it’s a dead link. (It was dead at about midnight last night, it has since been restored)
Found it here: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3955/046.084.0407
And… no mention of a 2012 study in Portland State University news:
Its like AP recycled old news from a 2010 paper or something. The closest thing I could find was this on PSU news site from December:
http://www.pdx.edu/news/node/16390
I’m thinking perhaps the reaction in the NW press is to a presentation by Fountain, and not a new paper. If readers can find a more recent 2011/2012 paper that I’ve missed, please leave links in comments. – Anthony
=============================================================
UPDATE: Don Easterbrook responds to comments, I’ve elevated his response here:
Easterbrook writes: A couple of points of clarification—
1. We’ve been warming up from the Little Ice Age for several hundred years but not at a continuous rate. The figure of the series of moraines in front of the Deming glacier was meant to point out that glaciers have been see-sawing back and forth for centuries but present glaciers are well upvalley from their Little Ice Age maximums as we ‘thaw out’ from the colder climate. Thus, the idea that glaciers have gradually retreated in response to gradual warming the past century and that it will continue until the 2070s is nonsense. Yes, it’s warmer now than during the Little Ice Age, but because CO2 could not have been a factor hundreds of years ago, the warming must be due to natural causes.
2. I agree that projecting a temperature history of one decade 2070 would be ridiculous (actually we can use a much longer historic record to project to 2070). The point here is that the 1978 to 1998 warming trend is over and cannot be projected indefinitely into the 2070s. The cooling experienced over the past decade began with the switch of the eastern Pacific Ocean from its warm mode to its cool mode in 1999. This mode switch, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has happened four times during the past century and every time the global climate has remained warm or cool for three decades (depending on whether the mode switch was to a warmer or cooler mode). We have been entrenched in a cool PDO mode for the past decade and temperatures have cooled slightly. What we know from this is that we have several more decades of cooling to go before the Pacific switches back into its warm mode. Thus, predicting 50% reduction in Cascade snowpack in the 2070s due to global warming is ridiculous.
3. The main point of my comments is that you can’t look at glacier termini in 1904 after 30 years of cooling and glacier expansion, compare it with present termini after 20 years of warming, and extrapolate that as ‘gradual warming’ over the past century as a continuous process that didn’t begin until CO2 began to rise.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That’s fine too, but strong skepticism always focuses on strong science, while weak skepticism always focuses on weak science.
Regrettably, there is no shortage of weak science and weak skepticism — on that everyone on the WUWT forum can agree.
Conversely, any kind of strong skepticism, that seeks to illuminate the effects of climate change upon glaciers in the Pacific Northwest, has to grapple with the strong science of the North Cascade Glacier Climate Project. And we all benefit when strong skepticism grapples with strong science.
That’s just plain common-sense, right?
REPLY: From your limited vision, I’m sure your position seems perfectly fine. But Easterbrook isn’t grappling with what you wish, but rather one paper, and a strange two year later media blitz on it. Rather than point away from the article above, why don’t you address it first. So far you’ve only done hand waving to say “look, over here!”
As we know from experience, consensus heard mentality science doesn’t always mean correct science. Plate tectonics, gastric ulcers, and all that. – Anthony
Is the first graph (historical climate, beginning in 1880) for the Mount Adams region, the USA or is it global?
We don’t have global data going back that far, and the climate data for the USA shows 1934 as the warmest year on record.
The most often cited critique above is lack of “local temperature/ weather conditions” data. I agree. In the end neither the paper nor the response here necessarily has much relevence to climate but rather local conditions and all of the variables which may have influenced that.
“1) Rather than glacial retreat since 1904 due to gradual warming, glaciers have advanced and retreated four times in the past century.”
Don starts the month with a thousand dollars in the bank
Don adds 100 dollars four times and Dons wife withdraws 200 dollars 4 times
Question:is the balance declining?
Only a thief would say… ‘no.. its advancing and declining….’
Is the first graph (historical climate, beginning in 1880) for the Mount Adams region, the USA or is it global?
We don’t have global data going back that far, and the climate data for the USA shows 1934 as the warmest year on record. Please clarify.
Another point I would add to the critique of this paper, is that these kinds of predictions/projections have largely (if not completely) crashed and burned over the last 30 years.
So what makes this one, or any other new paper any different?
Yes, that’s a 2010 paper, so why all the AP and newspaper stories about it now?
That’s a good question, 2011 in the PNW was pretty close to ‘the year without summer’ and the current winter running cooler then normal.
izen on January 11, 2012 at 4:33 am said:
Izen. Who are you quoting??
Anthony, why do you let such sloppy science be presented under your name? As others have noted, comparisons of local phenomena with global temperatures are absurd, as is an assertion of -7 degrees F per century from a cherry-picked starting point. And the omission of CO2 data in the graph that purports to show it is childishly sloppy.
Had this been presented to me for publication, I would have sent it back to Mr. Easterbrook for revision after only a cursory review.
Like others, I am deeply appreciative of your efforts, especially those that popularize and explain the weaknesses of CAGW. But this post damages, rather than enhances, those efforts.
REPLY: Question for you Jim, did you note the Pacific NW decadal trend map? If so, how is it not relevant to a study done within the scope of the time period (2010) presented in the paper? Every paper cherry picks something. For example, Sitts, Fountain, and Hoffman paper starts at 1900 in their graphs. Why start there?
My personal view is that glaciers are a much better proxy for rainfall and overall atmospheric moisture than temperature. Just look at the deforestation > evapotranspiration issue around Mt. Kilimanjaro that translates to sublimating glaciers there. I would not be surprised to find such an issue at Mt. Adams.
What Don is pointing out is that the Mt. Adams glacier response doesn’t seem locked in to temperature trends.
Here’s a photo of the Mt. Adams glacier taken Thursday, July 09, 2009 (summer)
Curious that there doesn’t seem to be meltwater streams coming from it. It suggests sublimation.
– Anthony
steven mosher says:January 11, 2012 at 7:56 am
“1) Rather than glacial retreat since 1904 due to gradual warming, glaciers have advanced and retreated four times in the past century.”
Don starts the month with a thousand dollars in the bank
Don adds 100 dollars four times and Dons wife withdraws 200 dollars 4 times
Question:is the balance declining?
Only a thief would say… ‘no.. its advancing and declining….’
As if glaciers were something we have been accruing. Steven, they have been melting since the last glacier maximum, concurrent with the advancement of civilization.The only cause and effect is that the glaciers got out of the way so we can live where we are. I prefer it sans ice, thank you.
Glacial changes are often more linked to changes in precipitation than temperature. At the altitude of those glaciers, the number of days below freezing probably hasn’t changed much. The glacier doesn’t care much about exact temperature, it mostly cares about just above or below freezing and precipitation. If they get a lot of winter precipitation, the glacier will grow. If they get a lot of rain in summer, it can shrink rapidly with little change in temperature at all.
This winter, for example, will likely result in further retreat of the glacier because it has been dry. The winter storms are being pushed through British Columbia while the Cascades and Sierra Nevada are being left dry.
Another thing, even steady but warmer climate will cause the glaciers shrink, until a balance is restored. The same is valid for gradually cooling last interglacial (google GISP2 core) and rising sea level (google post-glacial sea level rise).
The fact is, that cold AMO phase in 70-80ties caused stop of Swiss glaciers retreat, even in some years the advancing ones prevailed. With AMO now heading down, the inevitable will happen again.
Present glaciers are still a remnant from the LIA. Here is Sussen pass in European Alps during the Hannibal times and today.
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/252537/sussen.jpg
The assumption that CO2 is causing climatic warming is also not true. Much of the glacial retreat was caused by climatic warming that occurred from 1915 to 1945, well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise sharply, so this warming cannot be attributed to rising CO2.
Don, Don, Don… Clearly you do NOT understand the power of CO2 and climate, or of modeling and complex systems! The climate started pre-warming in anticipation of the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere – the climate system was using a pre-emptive move to moderate the warming we’ve experienced, in an attempt to help us puny, misunderstanding homo sapiens out…
/sarc
Anthony, as for a “strange media blitz”, there ain’t none … because “glacier melting” stories aren’t news up here in the Pacific Northwest. Heck, everyone can *see* that the glaciers are melting. That’s why, if it weren’t for your own WUWT post, no-one up here in the Pacific Northwest would ever have heard of the Fountain paper at all.
As for the scientific merits of the Fountain paper, please let me say that it *is* a weak paper, and therefore, it provides an excellent example for teaching students how to recognize weak research.
But that doesn’t mean the mountain glaciers up here in the Pacific Northwest aren’t melting (as some posters on WUWT have inferred). Because the evident fact is, our glaciers are melting d*mn fast.
REPLY: “Anthony, as for a “strange media blitz”, there ain’t none” Jeez you are such a waste of effort.
Search Results
Researchers: Mount Adams’ glaciers half gone
The Seattle Times – 2 days ago
A Portland State University study has found Mount Adams’ 12 glaciers have shrunk by nearly half since 1904 — another sign of gradually warming temperatures …
Shrinking glaciers on Mount Adams signal growing water problem Yakima Herald-Republic
all 20 news articles »
Yakima Herald-Republic
Mt. Adams Glaciers Are 50 Percent Smaller
OPB News – 1 day ago
New research shows that glaciers on Mount Adams are shrinking at a faster rate than those on neighboring peaks. Over the past century the glaciers have …
Disappearing glaciers in the Pacific Northwest: Science run amuck
NewsNet5.com – 6 hours ago
The report claims 12 glaciers on Mount Adams, near Yakima, Washington, have declined by a whopping 50-percent since 1904. The study also claims the glaciers …
Studies in Alaska suggest glaciers began retreating around 1780 and that the rate of retreat then was similar to now, with the exception of a expansion around 1880.
Also tree logs dated to around 1300AD are reappearing as glaciers retreat now, confirming MWP glaciers must have smaller than now.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/the-truth-about-alaskan-glaciers/
As a Washingon State resident I hereby declare myself an EXPERT on Mt Adams…hah, well at least I know a few things that have not been addressed here. (Full disclosure…WWU class of ’91, go Vikings…mild sarc)
@whoever will read this:
Regarding the 4 points mentioned by Dr Easterbook and a few more thoughts on this study and other possible causes, my thoughts:
Mt Adams is about 30 miles due east of Mt St Helens. The prevailing winds in this region are from west to east. Right?
Have the ash deposits from St Helens played any role in the glacier shrinking since 1980?
Think Kilimanjaro’s snow issues… Has the massive logging activities had any impact? Did the deforestation of pretty much EVERYTHING living on May 18, 1980 to the immediate west have any long term impact on the amount of snow falling on Adams?
Anybody ever been to the top of Mt Adams? There is an old mine at the top, a sulfur mine I think. The miners would use pack mules to bring stuff up and down. Has the Donkey Crap Heat Absorption Index (DCHAI) been properly factored in? Yes, poor attempt at humor, however, I am sure ice core samples would reveal many tons of sequestered carbon for miles approaching the summit. That must have had come impact on the heat absorbed by the glaciers.
Is it even valid to compare glaciers of active volcano’s to non volcano’s? I have pictures of people swimming in a lake at the top of Mt Rainier at 14,000 feet. The lake is caused my steam vents. Almost all of the big peaks in the PNW are active, right Professor?
Pacific (Multi)Decadal Oscillation?
Andrew
Anthony, how does one give you constructive criticism?
For the record, I agree with everything you’ve said here (except maybe the hyperbolic statement that ALL papers cherry-pick data points). I also agree with Dr.(?) Easterbrook’s conclusions that the Mt. Adams paper is seriously flawed.
But right answers aren’t enough. We must get there via scientific rigor. I’m not asking you to fall on your sword, retract the post, or even admit that you didn’t give this enough review. I’m just hoping for better next time.
How about just fixing Figure 6 by adding the CO2 data that is supposed to be there, and let’s call a truce?
REPLY: I’ll ask Don about Figure 6, as for the statement about cherry picking, I was drawing from your inference, but basically what I’m saying is that any paper with a time series has to pick a period. By picking a period, some data is left out. That data may/may not be useful – Anthony
A couple of points of clarification—
1. We’ve been warming up from the Little Ice Age for several hundred years but not at a continuous rate. The figure of the series of moraines in front of the Deming glacier was meant to point out that glaciers have been see-sawing back and forth for centuries but present glaciers are well upvalley from their Little Ice Age maximums as we ‘thaw out’ from the colder climate. Thus, the idea that glaciers have gradually retreated in response to gradual warming the past century and that it will continue until the 2070s is nonsense. Yes, it’s warmer now than during the Little Ice Age, but because CO2 could not have been a factor hundreds of years ago, the warming must be due to natural causes.
2. I agree that projecting a temperature history of one decade 2070 would be ridiculous (actually we can use a much longer historic record to project to 2070). The point here is that the 1978 to 1998 warming trend is over and cannot be projected indefinitely into the 2070s. The cooling experienced over the past decade began with the switch of the eastern Pacific Ocean from its warm mode to its cool mode in 1999. This mode switch, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has happened four times during the past century and every time the global climate has remained warm or cool for three decades (depending on whether the mode switch was to a warmer or cooler mode). We have been entrenched in a cool PDO mode for the past decade and temperatures have cooled slightly. What we know from this is that we have several more decades of cooling to go before the Pacific switches back into its warm mode. Thus, predicting 50% reduction in Cascade snowpack in the 2070s due to global warming is ridiculous.
3. The main point of my comments is that you can’t look at glacier termini in 1904 after 30 years of cooling and glacier expansion, compare it with present termini after 20 years of warming, and extrapolate that as ‘gradual warming’ over the past century as a continuous process that didn’t begin until CO2 began to rise.
Do lahars play a role in glaciers retreating and advancing?
What about earthquakes?
What about erosion on a massive scale? I am thinking of Little Tahoma 1963. How is it possible to compare active volcano glaciers with the glaciers in Greenland or in the Himalayas?
Anthony mentions sublimation; That would vary based on temp, altitude and humidity right? It seems to me that comparing ‘glaciers’ world wide as a indicator of anything substantive is a total Red Herring.
Which does seem to be a species thriving due to climate change…
But I digress…
Andrew
ps, did anyone ever ask you to teach part of ES 201? You could have taken Dr Clarks spot!
Glacier National Park’s Sperry Glacier area had shrunk 81% of its 1850-2003 shrinkage by 1945, Don’s date of the beginning of rapid CO2 growth.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/cirmount/wkgrps/ecosys_resp/postings/pdf/pederson_etal2006.pdf
I would have been much more impressed if their critical analysis had been done better — particularly their figures.
No — it has it has oscillated back and forth between WARMING and COOLING periods four times during the past century. I don’t know anyone would call the last 10 years a “cool period”.
This is at the very least misleading. The graph itself is the warming rate (averaged over a 10 year period). At the very beginning of the graph there was a cooling rate of about -0.1 C/century. At the very end there was a cooling rate of about -0.7 C/century. For almost all of the time, there was a strong warming trend. THERE WAS NEVER A COOLING RATE OF -4 C/century.
If they want to speak specifically about a trend, then the RATE is -4 C/century over the course of ~ 10 years, or a rate of ~ -0.4 C/(century*year).
The colors reinforce the misconceptions. Most of the “blue arrows” actually correspond to a decade of WARMING. They simply mean the warming is not as fast as it had been the year before. (Only the last arrow or two indicate a 10-year cooing trend. And even these would of course some a warming trend for the century.)
I can’t comment on the glacier parts, but this much is just sloppy — especially in a report calling out someone else for being sloppy.
Nick says:
January 11, 2012 at 6:34 am
“…Unless there is a lag.
However, I don’t believe that there is a massive lag….”
Well, Nick, do you think there is a tiny lag? Or maybe a small lag? Or perhaps a middling lag?
NetDr says:
January 11, 2012 at 6:52 am
The claim that Mt Adams glaciers have receded faster than surrounding glaciers seems to indicate that global warming is not the cause. Possibly the air is drier or some other cause but since all have been subjected to similar warming the shrinkage should be similar !>>>>
That was my first thought too. If the surrounding mountains are receding slower than Mt Adams, then the only logical conclusion is that there is some set of factors unique to Mount Adams that cause its glaciers to retreat faster than the trend in the climate.
Apparently Global Warming is now exhibited by warming to one mountain but not any of the nearby mountains? How do they do that? Special training for the photons?
Anthony, regarding the “strange media blitz”, you don’t imagine (do you?) that the links you provided mean that our local newspapers actually printed that story?
Providing internet links to UPI stories is cheap, but printing stories on paper costs money! What our reporter friends tell us is that if it weren’t for the (immensely profitable) business of printing obituaries, even flagship newspapers like Seattle Times would have to fold. The result is that more-and-more stories are appearing on the internet, that *never* make it to ink-and-paper.
Now, what folks up here *do* care about is the mountain snowpack, which varies considerably: it was heavier than usual last winter, but (so far) is lighter than usual this year. Because whenever snow doesn’t fall in the winter, farmers can’t irrigate in the summer.
So as our mountain glaciers disappear, folks up here *are* feeling uneasy (and rightly so).
@ur momisugly A physicist
A challenge for you to consider.
Please use the following words in a sentence.
Straw Man(n)
Logical Fallacy
plurium interrogationum
I am just saying…
@ur momisugly A physicist
You said:
“Now, what folks up here *do* care about is the mountain snowpack, which varies considerably: it was heavier than usual last winter, but (so far) is lighter than usual this year. Because whenever snow doesn’t fall in the winter, farmers can’t irrigate in the summer.
So as our mountain glaciers disappear, folks up here *are* feeling uneasy (and rightly so).”
I say:
How do these points you make have anything to do with the point of this thread?
Your points may be 100% accurate or not. Are they relevant to this discussion?
Do they somehow prove an assertion you have made? Because I am confused.
Also, the farmers you are concerned about have been irrigating their farms for the last 160 years approximately. They have diverted rivers and streams. Dammed rivers and blocked salmon and steelhead runs, causing extinction of a number of species. Billions of dollars of tax payer money is being spent every year in mitigation cost to protect the surviving endangered stocks. Not to mention the additional billions of dollars that are passed on to the utility customers of the Western United States and Canada to pay for the same issues.
What was your point?
Andrew
A physicist says:
January 11, 2012 at 5:28 am
“Who would have thought glacial ice-worms are real, for example?”
http://www.robertwservice.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=306&page=1
“The Ballad of the Ice-Worm Cocktail”
Sorry, Anthony, I realize this has nothing nothing to do with the question you are asking and nothing to do with dbunny’s post.
But because he (A physcist) did ask, only someone that has never been on a glacier nor read about them would question their existence. Wikipedia claims they were “discovered” in 1887 – probably in the same context that North America was “discovered” by Columbus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_worm
————————————
In the “weather is not climate” department: Local temperatures are in the low ‘teens’ (F) this morning in central Washington State.
In response to Black Adder, yes it is so very frustrating.
How can you state that there is no warming trend when Figure 1 shows a very clear warming trend that even Baldrick would recognise?
Your cunning plan has a monumental hole in it, Black Adder. The globe is warming, glaciers in general are in retreat and the Arctic ice is thinning and disappearing.
THESE are the inconvenient truths that sceptics won’t face.