Receding Swiss glaciers incoveniently reveal 4000 year old forests – and make it clear that glacier retreat is nothing new

By Larry Bell

Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”

Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.

Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, “I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had found something that the [more recent time-focused] Holocene and climate experts should have found.”

Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.”

Schlüchter criticizes his critics for focusing on a time period which is “indeed too short.” His studies and analyses of a Rhone glacier area reveal that “the rock surface had [previously] been ice-free 5,800 of the last 10,000 years.”

More here: http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/warming-global-climate/2014/06/17/id/577481/#ixzz355f6L5y2

==============================================================

On Pierre Gosselin’s “No Tricks Zone” we have this:

Distinct solar imprint on climate

What’s more worrisome, Schlüchter’s findings show that cold periods can strike very rapidly. Near the edge of Mont Miné Glacier his team found huge tree trunks and discovered that they all had died in just a single year. The scientists were stunned.

The year of death could be determined to be exactly 8195 years before present. The oxygen isotopes in the Greenland ice show there was a marked cooling around 8200.”

That finding, Schlüchter states, confirmed that the sun is the main driver in climate change.

Today’s “rapid” changes are nothing new

In the interview he casts doubt on the UN projection that the Alps will be almost glacier-free by 2100, reminding us that “the system is extremely dynamic and doesn’t function linearly” and that “extreme, sudden changes have clearly been seen in the past“. History’s record is unequivocal on this.

Schlüchter also doesn’t view today’s climate warming as anything unusual, and poses a number of unanswered questions:

Why did the glaciers retreat in the middle of the 19th century, although the large CO2 increase in the atmosphere came later? Why did the earth ‘tip’ in such a short time into a warming phase? Why did glaciers again advance in 1880s, 1920s and 1980s? […] Sooner or later climate science will have to answer the question why the retreat of the glacier at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 was so rapid.”

On science: “Our society is fundamentally dishonest”

CO2 fails to answer many open questions. Already we get the sense that hockey stick climate claims are turning out to be rather sorrowful and unimaginative wives’ tales. He summarizes on the refusal to acknowledge the reality of our past: “Our society in fundamentally dishonest“.

– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/09/giant-of-geologyglaciology-christian-schluechter-refutes-co2-feature-interview-throws-climate-science-into-disarray/#sthash.z6pKzqtQ.dpuf

5 4 votes
Article Rating
499 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
August 8, 2014 12:14 am

The knives will be out for him.

August 8, 2014 12:20 am

Reblogged this on New Life Narrabri and commented:
Swiss glaciers come and they go. The planet warms and it cools again. Scientists who are truthful are not popular in the global warming community!.

August 8, 2014 12:27 am

This is indeed great news, because it really cannot be refuted in any way. You cannot fake radiocarbon dating correlated with tree rings. Not the hockey stick tree rings, but just good old chronology done by counting back. Pretty hard to argue with. So what do they do? Make asses of themselves by heaping scorn on the discoverer.
Bravo Dr. Christian Schlüchter. Not just a fly in the ointment, but a goddamn jumbo jet.

Adam Gallon
August 8, 2014 12:33 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7580294.stm, http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/
The Schnidejoch glacier, produced evidence of Roman & Neolithic people being active in the high Alps, back in 2003. Took the BBC another 3 years to notice this.

jones
August 8, 2014 12:45 am

“Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, “I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had found something that the [more recent time-focused] Holocene and climate experts should have found.”
.
Who does he think he is…..Alfred Wegener?
Best ignore him then I guess…..

kim
August 8, 2014 12:46 am

The sun? What could the sun possibly have to do with the Earth’s climate? It’s literally(I could look it up) millions and millions of miles away.
================

August 8, 2014 12:53 am

“The year of death could be determined to be exactly 8195 years before present. The oxygen isotopes in the Greenland ice show there was a marked cooling around 8200.”
The sudden cooling around 8200 years ago has been known since about 1960. It even has its own Wiki page.
The warmth of the mid-Holocene is also well known, and was quantified in Marcott et al, who wrote
“Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago)

Current global temperatures of the past
decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values"

Sec 6.5.2 of the AR4 describes this period and its changes, including the 8.2K event, and sudden growth of sea ice about 5000 years ago.

ichael Asten
August 8, 2014 1:06 am

Full marks to Dr. Christian Schlüchter. But the general point about existence of large glacial advance and retreat over thousands of years has been around for some time, at least to those who have eyes to read or ears to hear.
Example notes on archaeology from 9 years ago at
http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/
Also I recall remains of a Roman bridge being uncovered a few years ago below a retreating alpine glacier. Anyone recall a reference?

Michael Asten
August 8, 2014 1:07 am

Full marks to Dr. Christian Schlüchter. But the general point about existence of large glacial advance and retreat over thousands of years has been around for some time, at least to those who have eyes to read or ears to hear.
Example notes on archaeology from 9 years ago at
http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/
Also I recall remains of a Roman bridge being uncovered a few years ago below a retreating alpine glacier. Anyone recall a reference?

hunter
August 8, 2014 1:12 am

Those darn flat earthers! Their backers, the Koch brothers have gone and fabricated physical evidence again. Good thing the enlightened climatocrats know what to do about inconvenient problems like this.

hunter
August 8, 2014 1:13 am

Nick, you are being obtuse.
But you know that.

Stephen Richards
August 8, 2014 1:31 am

hunter says:
August 8, 2014 at 1:13 am
Nick, you are being obtuse.
But you know that.
It’s nick’s own defense against going completely ga-ga.

ducdorleans
August 8, 2014 1:43 am

I often ask warmistas whether they have heard of “Otzi” … and why he was discovered only recently …
but further on, I also ask them how he got there in the first place … and the possible circumstances about not only him being there, but clearly also his agressors …
the conversation usually ends there and then …

Village Idiot
August 8, 2014 2:01 am

“Receding Swiss glaciers incoveniently reveal 4000 year old forests – and make it clear that glacier retreat is nothing new”
An estimate of the last 12,000 yrs temps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum#mediaviewer/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Caption: “Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right. Note that the recent warming is not shown on the graph.”
Significant that 4,000 yr old stuff is turning up

Pierhache
August 8, 2014 2:11 am

Swiss glacier Aletsch has been extensively studied by Holzhauser
http://archive.sciencewatch.com/dr/erf/2011/11feberf/11feberfHolz/

Leigh
August 8, 2014 2:19 am

Boy, is he in trouble!

Alan the Brit
August 8, 2014 2:37 am

No! Really? You mean to say that what we’re supposedly experiencing temperature wise is NOT, repeat NOT unusual? Go figure! Next I’ll be starting to think that we know very little about how the Earth’s climate actually works! I may even begin to think that these warmista scientists are just in it for the money, salary, pension plan, self-agrandisement, because it is easier to go with the flow than stand against the tide! Maybe somebody is trying to pull the wool over our eyes for nefarious purposes because they have egos the size of the Universe & think they know what’s best for everyone else, & want people to bow down before them & worship them like idols! No, that’s going a tad too far me thinks……………….surely? (Sarc off!)

Oldseadog
August 8, 2014 2:38 am

If Michael Mann had found the bits of wood he would have hidden them or turned them into hockey sticks and pucks.

August 8, 2014 2:51 am

“Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.
I had read the fact that in Roman times the records and histories they left us told of an Alps with far less ice than now and trees higher up. But now a scientist decided to risk his considerable reputation by trying to put evidence of the warming into the record. Bravo!
Sadly, there are many inconvenient facts in science that get ignored if the fact goes against the prevailing paradigm. Science itself has the tendency to try to form a consensus and often does form some sort of general mythology that all must adhere to or be considered a “crank”.
I am hoping that over the next decade more and more open minded scientists from all disciplines will come forward and present honest data and their honest views. I am hoping the internet will help to make that possible and to help spread the word when it does happen.
Only in open, free, and honest debate can science and the knowledge of mankind move forward. Let us have more of it!

August 8, 2014 2:52 am

Quick, climate scientists, find a volcano from the period. Re-write the wiki. And don’t mention the Optimum. Scramble! What do you think you’re hired for? Now’s the time to pay for the free drinks at Cancun.

Greg Goodman
August 8, 2014 2:54 am

“Our society is fundamentally dishonest“.
Our scientific societies are fundamentally dishonest

BioBob
August 8, 2014 2:55 am

This is not that unique an problem for warmists. In 1991 hikers in the Italian/Austrian Alps found a Bronze Age corpse named Ötzi was uncovered intact and in situ at the bottom of glacial melt. oops !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman

johnmarshall
August 8, 2014 2:56 am

How did Hanibul cross the Alps if they were deep in snow and ice? Why did the ice man undertake his journey if the route was deep in snow?
Answer— the snow was much higher up the mountains then.

Mark
August 8, 2014 2:56 am

Adam Gallon says:
The Schnidejoch glacier, produced evidence of Roman & Neolithic people being active in the high Alps, back in 2003. Took the BBC another 3 years to notice this.
Artifacts (and bodies) could have started on the top of ice and moved through it. What would be more solid evidence of the past being warmer would be buildings and other structures. e.g. Greenland.

jim hogg
August 8, 2014 2:57 am

Nick Stokes: thanks for that . . .

BioBob
August 8, 2014 3:00 am

bah, my sentence structure sux….please excuse

Mark
August 8, 2014 3:04 am

Michael Asten says:
Also I recall remains of a Roman bridge being uncovered a few years ago below a retreating alpine glacier. Anyone recall a reference?
Which would be conclusive evidence that the glacier wasn’t there as recently as Roman times.
Most likely that any glacier was a distance from the bridge if it was intended to carry traffic. Possibly closer if the structure was part of an aquaduct intended to carry melt water.
It’s not as if the Romans would have dug through a glacier, built a bridge which could never be used (or seen), then refilled the hole.

Ken Hall
August 8, 2014 3:18 am

Don’t confuse climate alarmists with facts and real data. It stops them from psychologically projecting their own failings onto their critics. It is much easier for them to ignore the scientific method and deny real evidence as they wrap themselves in imaginary scenarios that come out of computer climate models which have been coded to produce those scary scenarios.

Oatley
August 8, 2014 3:43 am

Good stuff, but be reminded that the EPA is marching forward on GHG emissions. If we don’t find a way to stop it, this country will be shackled.

August 8, 2014 4:05 am

SO not only is the warmth not unprecedented. But the rate of increase is not even close to what has been experienced in the recent past.

David, UK
August 8, 2014 4:11 am

Thanks for the great piece, but please correct the typo in the final (italicised) sentence, thanks.

John Finn
August 8, 2014 4:17 am

Hmmm – unfortunately I have to agree with Nick Stokes on this one. The early Holocene climate and it’s causes are pretty well understood. Larry Bell’s report is misleading (at best) when he suggests that experts were caught “off guard” by Schlüchter’s discovery.

Edim
August 8, 2014 4:20 am

I didn’t know it was controversial that the holocene maximum (Holocene Climate Optimum, also known as Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P. and that it’s cooling since then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

Gin
August 8, 2014 4:20 am

Alan the Brit: love the snark.

Jared
August 8, 2014 4:24 am

You have to love Rick Rokes. As someone on here mentioned before his name must be ‘adjusted’ by us ‘climatologicbloggers’ because he incorrectly wrote Nick Stokes in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. Luckily we are here to correct his incorrect keystrokes. Raw names v Adjusted names, no difference the Adjusted names are more realistic because they fit well in my model.

t brandt
August 8, 2014 4:27 am

Julius Caesar, in his “De Bello Gallico,” took great pains to describe in detail the flora, fauna and geographic encountered in his military campaign north of the Italian peninsula. He never mentioned glaciers- which surely would have been noteworthy features.

Chris Thixton
August 8, 2014 4:30 am

Thats actually quite funny, in a Monty Python sketch kind of way.

Village Idiot
August 8, 2014 4:32 am

“Review of Holocene ‘Climate Optimum’ shows Temperatures 2°C hotter than Present”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.dk/2010/11/review-of-holocene-climate-optimum.html
And yet this old stuff is turning up from under melting glaciers.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
“More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.”

cnxtim
August 8, 2014 4:43 am

How much more reasoned evidence is required before the world at large recognises CAGW for the cynical fraud it is?

August 8, 2014 4:44 am

John Finn says: August 8, 2014 at 4:17 am
“Larry Bell’s report is misleading (at best) when he suggests that experts were caught “off guard” by Schlüchter’s discovery.”

Indeed. Here is a 2007 paper by mainstream paleo climate people which describes in detail finds from this period in receding Swiss glaciers, and the climatological context.

Alan Robertson
August 8, 2014 4:48 am

Some years ago, another Austrian glacial retreat uncovered an ancient mine, with stacked tools, etc. The miners left one day and never returned. Many such anecdotal examples of glacial ebb and flow have been found.

Alan Robertson
August 8, 2014 4:56 am

Nick Stokes says:
August 8, 2014 at 4:44 am
John Finn says: August 8, 2014 at 4:17 am
“Larry Bell’s report is misleading (at best) when he suggests that experts were caught “off guard” by Schlüchter’s discovery.”
Indeed. Here is a 2007 paper by mainstream paleo climate people which describes in detail finds from this period in receding Swiss glaciers, and the climatological context.
__________________
Bell did not suggest that experts were caught off guard, but instead, was reporting Schlüchter’s own words, which in proper context, do not say that the experts were caught off guard that such a discovery could be made…

Mike M
August 8, 2014 5:01 am

I recall Rush Limbaugh from a couple years back describing the recent discovery of medieval silver mines in the Alps (?). The mine entrance was sealed and the tools were neatly stored waiting for the next summer period of mining when the snow line again receded high enough above the elevation to pack the mules with food supplies and make the trek up there. At some point the date was too late in the summer and it wasn’t worth going up there for only a few weeks so they skipped doing it that summer – and then another, and another … until NOW when it has warmed back up enough to reveal the silver mine still up there waiting for them to return a dozen generations later.
To me such accounts as that and revelations of ancient forests under glaciers are all irrefutable evidence of periods of warmer times in the past that simply obliterate CAGW theory. They should all be FORCED to admit that their theory cannot explain those warmer periods… before Congress.

CodeTech
August 8, 2014 5:04 am

David, UK, perhaps the original typist has a hairlip.

Richard T
August 8, 2014 5:04 am

I recall a news article of several years ago of the Mendenhall glacial retreat uncovering a 1000 year old forest.

Nylo
August 8, 2014 5:07 am

I’m surprised not to be able to find any photos of the recently discovered chunks of wood. Shouldn’t they exist somewhere?

August 8, 2014 5:10 am

Alan Robertson says: August 8, 2014 at 4:56 am
“Bell did not suggest that experts were caught off guard…”

He said:
“This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century.”
But he didn’t give any support for saying that those were the accepted theories. And they weren’t.

Steve Keohane
August 8, 2014 5:16 am

Nicely defined in Alley’s reconstruction of the Holocene.
http://i49.tinypic.com/oji4b7.jpg

Alan Robertson
August 8, 2014 5:16 am

Mike M says:
August 8, 2014 at 5:01 am
To me such accounts as that and revelations of ancient forests under glaciers are all irrefutable evidence of periods of warmer times in the past that simply obliterate CAGW theory. They should all be FORCED to admit that their theory cannot explain those warmer periods… before Congress.
________________
That would give Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and his cohorts another excuse to stand up and prevaricate about global warming and why you must be made to give up your money and your freedom.

John Finn
August 8, 2014 5:17 am

Alan Robertson says:
August 8, 2014 at 4:56 am
Bell did not suggest that experts were caught off guard, but instead, was reporting Schlüchter’s own words, which in proper context, do not say that the experts were caught off guard that such a discovery could be made…

So Bell reported that part of the interview “out of context”.. I’d say that’s misleading. Bell did also write

Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment……

Alan Robertson
August 8, 2014 5:21 am

Nick Stokes says:
August 8, 2014 at 5:10 am
But he didn’t give any support for saying that those were the accepted theories. And they weren’t.
__________
What purpose is served with your employment of a logical fallacy?

August 8, 2014 5:22 am

Mike M says: August 8, 2014 at 5:01 am
“To me such accounts as that and revelations of ancient forests under glaciers are all irrefutable evidence of periods of warmer times in the past that simply obliterate CAGW theory. They should all be FORCED to admit that their theory cannot explain those warmer periods… before Congress.”

AGW theory is about what happens when you dig up and release a whole lot of new carbon (as CO2) in the air. This hasn’t happened before. It is not about the complete climatic history, which has obviously varied a lot in the past, without fossil fuel release. Noone contests that. That doesn’t mean burning FF won’t make the climate warmer.

rgbatduke
August 8, 2014 5:24 am

John Finn says: August 8, 2014 at 4:17 am
“Larry Bell’s report is misleading (at best) when he suggests that experts were caught “off guard” by Schlüchter’s discovery.”
Indeed. Here is a 2007 paper by mainstream paleo climate people which describes in detail finds from this period in receding Swiss glaciers, and the climatological context.

I think that the issue here isn’t that the facts here aren’t known, but the way they are treated. One can find literally hundreds of places where climate scientists who — given inconvenient facts like these — should know better assert that the modern warm period is the warmest in the entire Holocene. This specific assertion is implicit (or, often, explicit) in all of the hypothetical dangers of SLR that are amplified out of all proportion to observation including these past intervals of thousands of years of greater warmth, implicit in all of the hypothetical risks to existing species and extinction, implicit in all of the supposed devastation warming will wreak on the most flexible and adaptable species on the planet (us) and generally presented without any discussion of the possible counterbalancing benefits. As you say, there is plenty of evidence that this is not true, that the Holocene Optimum lasted for thousands of years and was degrees Centigrade warmer than it is today. Yes, it was probably hard on wooly mammoths and certain other large furry mammals who had adapted to the preceding 90,000 year Wisconsin glacial episode, but the exploding human population had a lot to do with that as well. It certainly didn’t wipe out polar bears or seals or penguins, and it did not suffice to melt either Greenland or Antarctica to the point where they were “ice free” (although Greenland was more free of ice as late as the MWP before the LIA iced it up again — following an ancient natural fluctuation of the climate).
No the issue isn’t that there isn’t a rather lot of evidence for all of this stuff, just as even Briffa and Jones sniffed and turned up there noses at Mann’s initial “erasure” of the LIA and MWP in his cooked PCA of the tree-ring data because they had all published numerous papers, including some that appeared in the same AR, clearly showing the MWP and LIA, which were known and corroborated by multiple data sources. It is that the IPCC didn’t choose their graphs as cover art. Nor did Al Gore, when he promoted public panic that fed directly into his own pocket via his investments in to-be-subsidized alternative energy sources while continuing to drive his SUV and to live in his enormous, energy-expensive mansion and to fly all over the world to his many speaking engagements, burning kerosene all the way way up in the stratosphere where it can screw up the GHE and ozone. And when the news media incorrectly and repeatedly report that tired old meme — that the modern warming is “unprecedented” and hence requires CO_2 for explanation — where, exactly are the honest climate scientists who stand up and refute these assertions on television and say sorry, that’s just not true and here’s why?
Then there are the SPMs in the ARs — which can best be described as a pack of lies dressed up in the misused language of statistics and which are not written by the scientists whose work they supposedly summarize, but rather by a tightly-knit group committed to selling the belief that It Is All Our Fault, whether or not the data supports this. Indeed, in spite of data that does not support this. Where are the honest scientists who call them on this abuse of language? Sure, in Chapter 9 of AR5 it is acknowledged that taking the mean of multiple models is meaningless and presents “challenges” (understatement indeed) in providing any sort of axiomatic statistical basis for assertions of confidence, but who reads the one paragraph where this is acknowledged? Instead they read the SPM where they cheerfully rattle off pronouncement after pronouncement of doom, all supported by assertions of “confidence” that the naive or ignorant might think are tied into a computation of the error function like they are everywhere else in statistics, instead of being tied into the personal opinions of the people permitted to write the SPM, who are hand-picked so that they don’t make inconvenient assertions like “we have no idea how accurate the models are going to be in the long run, or if they have any predictive value whatsoever, either individually or collectively”.
rgb

Don B
August 8, 2014 5:27 am

A similar message has emerged in Alaska:
“An ancient forest has thawed from under a melting glacier in Alaska and is now exposed
to the world for the first time in more than 1,000 years.
“Stumps and logs have been popping out from under southern Alaska’s Mendenhall Glacier — a 36.8-square-mile (95.3 square kilometers) river of ice flowing into a lake near Juneau — for nearly the past 50 years. However, just within the past year or so, researchers based at the University of Alaska Southeast in Juneau have noticed considerably more trees popping up, many in their original upright position and some still bearing roots and even a bit of bark, the Juneau Empire first reported last week.”
http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

Alan Robertson
August 8, 2014 5:32 am

John Finn says:
August 8, 2014 at 5:17 am
Alan Robertson says:
August 8, 2014 at 4:56 am
Bell did not suggest that experts were caught off guard, but instead, was reporting Schlüchter’s own words, which in proper context, do not say that the experts were caught off guard that such a discovery could be made…
——–
“So Bell reported that part of the interview “out of context”.. I’d say that’s misleading. ”
______________________
Nope. Bell did not report that portion out of context. That’s your own misinterpretation of what I said in rethe article content and comments here.
—————-
“Bell did also write
Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment…… ”
_____________
That’s right, but your reason for including that snippet remains unclear. Is there some conclusion to be drawn from those words?

Jim Clarke
August 8, 2014 5:33 am

Oh, you silly skeptics. This is just another example of regional climate change. Proxy studies indicate that this warming was strictly confined to Europe and the Arctic….and parts of North America…..and much of Asia….maybe the North Atlantic….the Pacific too….and some in the Southern Hemisphere, although not as much. REGIONAL! And it was offset by other ‘regional’ areas that were colder (although we haven’t really found those yet).
Today’s warming is GLOBAL! Granted, it is mainly been in Europe and the Arctic….and parts of North America…..and much of Asia….maybe the North Atlantic….the Pacific too….and some in the Southern Hemisphere, although not as much. But it is certainly GLOBAL! (You can tell the difference by my use of capitalization!)
(sarc off)

August 8, 2014 5:34 am

rgbatduke says: August 8, 2014 at 5:24 am
“One can find literally hundreds of places where climate scientists who — given inconvenient facts like these — should know better assert that the modern warm period is the warmest in the entire Holocene.”

Examples?

BFL
August 8, 2014 5:35 am

Where’s Mosh??
Oh well, I’ll carry on for him:
“one site”
/sarc

Mike M
August 8, 2014 5:35 am

Nick Stokes says: August 8, 2014 at 5:22 am “AGW theory is about what happens when you dig up and release a whole lot of new carbon (as CO2) in the air. ….That doesn’t mean burning FF won’t make the climate warmer.”
No… it means that not only does there remain no empirical evidence that burning FF makes the climate warmer, there is abounding evidence that, whatever role ALL of CO2 plays in driving earth’s temperature, it is undeniably miniscule, unmeasurable and irrelevant – let alone the weenie amount we add to it by burning FF.

August 8, 2014 5:36 am

Nick Stokes says: August 8, 2014 at 5:22 am
That doesn’t mean burning FF won’t make the climate warmer.
Nor does it mean that burning FF will make the climate warmer.
Onus probandi. It’s up to AGW theorists to prove that burning FF will make the climate warmer.

John Finn
August 8, 2014 5:36 am

Mike M says:
August 8, 2014 at 5:01 am
To me such accounts as that and revelations of ancient forests under glaciers are all irrefutable evidence of periods of warmer times in the past that simply obliterate CAGW theory. They should all be FORCED to admit that their theory cannot explain those warmer periods… before Congress.

Well they can certainly explain the mid-Holocene warming – right down to the exact regional warming pattern. I don’t know about the Rush Limbaugh silver mines, though. Do you (or does he) have a link?

JustAnotherPoster
August 8, 2014 5:38 am

@ Nick Stokes
Quick Question. CAGW / AGW is based on the hockey stick.
10,000 years of stable temperatures with a sharp current warming.
i.e the period were in is completely outside the realms of normal and the only thing that can be causing it is CO2……
If the historical climate has been just as warm as todays climate, if not far warmer….. AS these tree rings show.
We can’t prove than our current climate is unusual in any way at all.
Thus the theory of AGW fails.

August 8, 2014 5:38 am

Alan Robertson says: August 8, 2014 at 5:21 am
“What purpose is served with your employment of a logical fallacy?”

What is that fallacy?

August 8, 2014 5:39 am

t brandt: “Julius Caesar, in his “De Bello Gallico,” took great pains to describe in detail the flora, fauna and geographic encountered in his military campaign north of the Italian peninsula. He never mentioned glaciers- which surely would have been noteworthy features.”
Not that it’s important, but would you by any chance be able to cite an example by book and chapter?

Editor
August 8, 2014 5:40 am

Schlüchter has been finding stuff for a while, as have other people. My interest was piqued by two or three articles I read within a week’s time, and recorded them, and later ones, in Glacial Retreat of 5,000-7,000 Years Ago
Events are not limited to the Alps, for example, in Peru Lonnie Thompson found

Ancient plant beds have been newly uncovered as the ice retreats. The first were discovered in 2002, more are uncovered each year, and carbon dating indicates that most have been buried for at least 5,000 years.

Oetzi died during this period, his final resting spot was exposed 5500 years after his death.
A common theme of these articles is to report how anomalous our current temperatures are compared to the past. (Warmest in 7,000 years! Disaster is near!) Surprisingly absent is speculation that there may be more botanical and archaeological remains to be found should glaciers retreat further.

Mike M
August 8, 2014 5:41 am

Jim Clarke says: August 8, 2014 at 5:33 am “Oh, you silly skeptics. This is just another example of regional climate change. Proxy studies indicate that this warming was strictly confined to Europe…”
Yeah.. and only for a few hundred years!

Leonard Weinstein
August 8, 2014 5:44 am

Nick, either CO2 is the control knob for warming or it is not. If the early Holocene was warmer than present, and periods later in the Holocene were close to if not as warm or warmer than present temperatures, and CO2 was not the driving factor for any previous times, then the claims that the present is unique, and CO2 is the main cause is not supportable. Even recent high rates of heating or cooling as being unique are not supported, and the current temperature flattening is a strong contradiction to claims of human effects being dominate. While the previous published reports do include some admissions of previous warm periods, the so called main stream conclusions still say that only human activity could be the cause for the present warming, and that we have to do something. It is the consensus position that seems to go against the clear facts that is the issue here.

August 8, 2014 5:46 am


kim says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:46 am
The sun? What could the sun possibly have to do with the Earth’s climate? It’s literally(I could look it up) millions and millions of miles away.

Yeah, and just go outside and look at it (but not too long) and you’ll see it is really quite small too.

Alan Robertson
August 8, 2014 5:46 am

Nick Stokes says:
August 8, 2014 at 5:38 am
Alan Robertson says: August 8, 2014 at 5:21 am
“What purpose is served with your employment of a logical fallacy?”
What is that fallacy?
__________________
My hard drive recently burned a valve and threw a rod, so I no longer have my lists of fallacies available. Why don’t we just call it the “move the goal posts” fallacy.

Robert of Ottawa
August 8, 2014 5:47 am

Wait for it … wait for it …But it’s only regional, not global.

August 8, 2014 5:48 am

Mike M says: August 8, 2014 at 5:35 am
“there is abounding evidence that, whatever role ALL of CO2 plays in driving earth’s temperature, it is undeniably miniscule, unmeasurable and irrelevant”

No, there is no such evidence. There has been nothing to change the amount of carbon in the environment in the last millions of years. Recently we have dug up 400 Gtons and burnt it. Radiative physics says that the extra CO2 will impede outgoing IR and cause warming. And indeed it has warmed. And we’re on track to burn a lot more C.

Tom in Florida
August 8, 2014 5:48 am

Kind of makes the recent paper posted here “Recent paper finds 1950-2009 Solar Grand Maximum was a ‘rare or even unique event’ in 3,000 years” look a little short sided.
————————————————————————————————————————–
Nick Stokes says:
August 8, 2014 at 5:22 am
“AGW theory is about what happens when you dig up and release a whole lot of new carbon (as CO2) in the air. This hasn’t happened before. It is not about the complete climatic history, which has obviously varied a lot in the past, without fossil fuel release. No one contests that. That doesn’t mean burning FF won’t make the climate warmer.”
Yes, Nick but warmer isn’t bad at all. And as you mention it is just a theory, and a failing one at that. Perhaps, as this article and other evidence shows, that temperatures since the LIA have been less than the norm for an interglacial and that the climate is getting back to where it should be (for an interglacial that is). So why the gigantic push to pretend to stop the warming? To instill a certain agenda which includes more government control. Does anyone still doubt that?

Alan Robertson
August 8, 2014 5:52 am

Nick Stokes says:
August 8, 2014 at 5:34 am
rgbatduke says: August 8, 2014 at 5:24 am
“One can find literally hundreds of places where climate scientists who — given inconvenient facts like these — should know better assert that the modern warm period is the warmest in the entire Holocene.”
———-
“Examples?”
____________________
Oh, that’s a neat, albeit well known trick. Why should we play Google for you? You already know of many instances which we could mention. After all, aren’t such examples found on your own website?

Mike M
August 8, 2014 5:52 am

John Finn says: August 8, 2014 at 5:36 am “Well they can certainly explain the mid-Holocene warming…”
Huh? They never had to explain it because Michael Mann disappeared it! Yeah, “regional warmth” in places like in Europe, Machu Picchu, Alaska, Greenland, Tibet and the Vostok ice core record…

August 8, 2014 5:55 am

Nick Stokes (and indeed others) seem to be missing the point here: the evidence presented demonstrates that climate changes abruptly without human intervention. Indeed a great deal of evidence has accumulated by now (as can be seen if you browse WUWT) that world climate has changed abruptly many times without that intervention, and in spite of apparent atmospheric CO2 levels.
Stokes claims that the current warming is different in some way, when it is neither unprecedented nor unusual. Of course if you start from the assumption that climate change is caused by CO2…
But that assumption rests on the claim that current change is unprecedented, when the evidence demonstrates it isn’t, which leads to a circular argument now presented by Stokes: that the release of CO2 makes this change unprecedented, and that the unprecedented nature of that change is evidence that the release of CO2 is the cause.

August 8, 2014 5:55 am

Joe Born says: August 8, 2014 at 5:39 am
Not that it’s important, but would by any chance be able to cite an example by book and chapter?
For example, in book 6 chapters 25 to 28 Ceasar describes the “Hercynian forest” and some of the “wild beasts” which have not been seen in other parts. The “Black forest” formed the western side of the Hercyinian forest.

August 8, 2014 5:57 am

“extreme, sudden changes have clearly been seen in the past“. History’s record is unequivocal on this.” From the mouths of Siberian mammoths to God’s ears.

richard verney
August 8, 2014 5:58 am

Last year, the Daily Mail carried an article regarding an archaelogical find in Norway. Some article of clothing (and possibly huiman remains) was found as one of the glaciers had retreated.
The clothing was carbon dated and found to be about 2000 years old. The conclusion was that the glacier was less extensive some 2000 years ago, and it is only now as the glacier is retreating that evidence of settlements sitting on the edge of this glcaier ar being revealed.
Of course, we also know that similar finds (but dating to the MWP) are being made in Greenland as the glacier there retreats,
It is clear that in the Northern Hemisphere that there have been many warmer periods in Northern Europe (Minoan, Roman, MWP) than the temperatures that we see today.
The position with respect to the Southern Hemisphere is less certain since it is more oceanic and civilisation was less advanced so there is less evidence of archaelogical finds pertaining to human settlements.
CO2 (if constant at pre industrial level) cannot explain any of this.

August 8, 2014 5:59 am

That a tree, or even several trees, would die within one year leads me to NOT consider it to be caused by a change in the Sun. A sudden cooling within such a short period of time is catastrophic. There are several other events to consider. A tsunami during a swing into a colder weather pattern, a nearby large volcanic event obscuring the Sun, a change to polar vortex loops extending South, a significant drop in solar recharge in the equatorial ocean band due to a catastrophically large equatorial volcanic event, etc…
Like the AGW scientists, solar proponents make sudden unjustifiable leaps into the cause.

August 8, 2014 6:01 am

Leonard Weinstein says: August 8, 2014 at 5:44 am
“Nick, either CO2 is the control knob for warming or it is not.”

That’s meaningless. The AGW theory is that adding CO2 will make it warmer. It does not say that warming could not be caused by something else.
“the so called main stream conclusions still say that only human activity could be the cause for the present warming”
Yes, that is based on the rapid rise consistent with AGW, and with no alternative explanation from present data. But it is not the proof of AGW, which is based on radiative physics.

Latitude
August 8, 2014 6:01 am

Nick Stokes says:
August 8, 2014 at 5:22 am
That doesn’t mean burning FF won’t make the climate warmer.
====
You will let us know when it starts, right?

August 8, 2014 6:02 am

I am waiting for some climate scientist to publish a paper on what the optimum climate is for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current trend in relation to this finding.
That nobody seems interested in this vital comparison indicates that the climate is being studied for other purposes. Since all the urgent demands that flow from today’s climate science all converge on policy solutions that involve statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, the bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”. It is socialism and Gaia worship by other means.

Mike M
August 8, 2014 6:02 am

Nick Stokes says: August 8, 2014 at 5:48 am “Radiative physics says that the extra CO2 will impede outgoing IR and cause warming. “
Physics says that wood floats and ducks are like wood so if she’s lighter than duck she’s a witch!
Apparently simpleton applications of physics are unable to explain why natural climate forcings appear to to be MUCH stronger than any role CO2 can play. We are at ~400 ppm and still going up but warming stopped over 15 years ago. Why?

Latitude
August 8, 2014 6:05 am

Don B says:
August 8, 2014 at 5:27 am
http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
====
Don, thanks for that….it was funny
First they say an Alaskan glacier is retreating….and they are finding old big trees under it
…then they say they are worried about sea levels rising because of it
Then they say a neighboring glacier…right next door….is advancing and burying trees at the same time

Taylor
August 8, 2014 6:15 am

Nick Stokes says:
No, there is no such evidence. There has been nothing to change the amount of carbon in the environment in the last millions of years. Recently we have dug up 400 Gtons and burnt it. Radiative physics says that the extra CO2 will impede outgoing IR and cause warming. And indeed it has warmed. And we’re on track to burn a lot more C.
Reply:
Sorry Nick, got to call you on that – how many gigatons of carbon were sequestered when glaciers buried ancient vegetation? And how many were removed from the atmosphere when the glaciers retreated and vegetation returned? And how many were recreated when animal life returned to breathe all that released oxygen, basking in the new warmth? I don’t have the skill to calculate it, but it’s just nonsense to say there are no drivers of carbon shifts since hydrocarbon storage millions of years ago.

Mike M
August 8, 2014 6:16 am

Nick Stokes says: August 8, 2014 at 6:01 am “… with no alternative explanation..”
Yes there is! It’s called NATURE! It’s been going on for a long time. If human CO2 from FF has any affect on earth’s temperature you have miserably failed to prove that it is even measurable.
Why was the warming greater from 1910 to 1945 than it was from 1965 to 2000 when there was less CO2 in the earlier 35 year period? Do your precious computer models replicate that fact? Don’t think so. The central England temperature record shows that there is NOTHING “unprecedented” about the rate of warming and cooling cycles today – it’s just natural climate change. Accept it, we are NOT in control of the climate and there is nothing anyone can ‘do’ about it … other than pray that we do not enter another ice age.

August 8, 2014 6:16 am

t brandt says: August 8, 2014 at 4:27 am
“Julius Caesar, in his “De Bello Gallico,” took great pains to describe in detail the flora, fauna and geographic encountered in his military campaign north of the Italian peninsula. He never mentioned glaciers- which surely would have been noteworthy features.”

Here is a map of his campaigns, from this site. He crossed into Gaul via the coast. There is no reason to think that he came near any modern glacier sites.

Bruce Cobb
August 8, 2014 6:20 am

Yes, but THIS time is different, because WE’RE doing it. Because shut up.

Mike M
August 8, 2014 6:23 am

buckwheaton says: August 8, 2014 at 6:02 am “I am waiting for some climate scientist to publish a paper on what the optimum climate is for our biosphere. “
We’ll all have to remember to check in on you once in a while. comment image

August 8, 2014 6:23 am

Taylor says: August 8, 2014 at 6:15 am
” Sorry Nick, got to call you on that – how many gigatons of carbon were sequestered when glaciers buried ancient vegetation? And how many were removed from the atmosphere when the glaciers retreated and vegetation returned? And how many were recreated when animal life returned to breathe all that released oxygen, basking in the new warmth?”

Well, we know that CO2 dropped (and then rose) by about 100 ppmv during the ice age. That’s about 220 Gtons C. And the temperature changed by about 6-8 °C, even though CO2 change was less than recent. CO2 may have had an effect, but it can’t have been the main cause.

Catcracking
August 8, 2014 6:26 am

rgbatduke says:
August 8, 2014 at 5:24 am
“I think that the issue here isn’t that the facts here aren’t known, but the way they are treated. One can find literally hundreds of places where climate scientists who — given inconvenient facts like these — should know better assert that the modern warm period is the warmest in the entire Holocene”.
Well said!
I would hope that Nick Stokes et. al. would come out and correct all those who have spread the misinformation, since they knew this all along. Why have they been silent?
It is time to set the record straight and admit that the Mann Hockey stick is wrong and stop the defense of the apparent errors and let the Administration be so informed.

JustAnotherPoster
August 8, 2014 6:28 am

Nick Stokes says:
August 8, 2014 at 6:01 am
Leonard Weinstein says: August 8, 2014 at 5:44 am
“Nick, either CO2 is the control knob for warming or it is not.”
“That’s meaningless. The AGW theory is that adding CO2 will make it warmer. It does not say that warming could not be caused by something else” <—–
The ENTIRE IPCC remit is that CO2 causes global warming.
This is such a ridiculous statement its insane.
We are taxed based on CO2 already in the UK.

JustAnotherPoster
August 8, 2014 6:30 am

Right nick…
Nick Stokes says:
“Well, we know that CO2 dropped (and then rose) by about 100 ppmv during the ice age. That’s about 220 Gtons C. And the temperature changed by about 6-8 °C, even though CO2 change was less than recent. CO2 may have had an effect, but it can’t have been the main cause ”
If CO2 WASN’T the cause of the ice age. What was ?
Were currently being taxed on the premise that CO2 IS the cause of warmer temperatures and controls the climate……
If your now admitting it doesn’t. Would you be so kind as to tell the UK Government to remove its carbon taxes.

eyesonu
August 8, 2014 6:32 am

On science: “Our society is fundamentally dishonest”
====
Now that is a statement that is truly unequivocal, to borrow from one of the earlier buzz words often used in the “literature” of so-called “climate science.”

richard verney
August 8, 2014 6:32 am

Further to my comment (richard verney August 8, 2014 at 5:58 am), the facts regarding the find were not quite accurate. The article of clothing was dated to about 300AD (so a little after the Roman Warm Period, alternatively showing that perhaps that period extended a little longer at least in the very north of Europe).
Apparently there have been about 600 finds from various places in Norway, as glaciers have retreated. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/pre-viking-tunic-found-glacier-climate-change_n_2932431.html
It is clear from all these finds that there were period when it was considerbly warmer in Norway some 1700 to 3400 years ago than it is today. The point is that if CO2 levels remained constant at about 280ppm as the warmists claim, then CO2 cannot explain those warming trends. There is nothing at all unusual or unprecedented about today’s climate.

Steve Keohane
August 8, 2014 6:37 am

Nick Stokes says:August 8, 2014 at 5:34 am
rgbatduke says: August 8, 2014 at 5:24 am
“One can find literally hundreds of places where climate scientists who — given inconvenient facts like these — should know better assert that the modern warm period is the warmest in the entire Holocene.”
Examples?

Steve Keohane says: August 8, 2014 at 5:16 am
Nicely defined in Alley’s reconstruction of the Holocene.
http://i49.tinypic.com/oji4b7.jpg

Bill_W
August 8, 2014 6:41 am

They are in a directory marked “censored”.
But now to be serious. Nick Stokes, do you not agree that
reports of glaciers shrinking get way more press and even
attention in abstracts of papers and are sold as evidence of
CAGW while news of this sort gets less press and attention?
Didn’t Marcott (at a reviewer’s insistence) tack on the temperature
record at the end of his proxy study (or am I thinking of the wrong paper?)
and didn’t his abstract and the press it got (both university press release and
news media) suggest more that it was much warmer now? Didn’t he have to
belatedly say that the modern part was not robust? I rarely see the evidence
for the MWP and RWP being warner being hyped in abstracts, press releases,
and statements to and by the media whereas the hype in the other direction
is continuous and nauseatingly, mind-numbingly stupid.

Bill_W
August 8, 2014 6:44 am

Robert of Ottawa – That is my favorite too. It’s only regional.
But then most of the evidence for increased temperatures and
melting ice is northern hemisphere today as well. Polar amplification
and all that. The clearest evidence today is also regional and coincidentally in the
same places that were warm 1,000 and 2,000 years ago.

John Finn
August 8, 2014 6:46 am

Mike M says:
August 8, 2014 at 6:16 am
Nick Stokes says: August 8, 2014 at 6:01 am “… with no alternative explanation..”
Why was the warming greater from 1910 to 1945 than it was from 1965 to 2000 when there was less CO2 in the earlier 35 year period?

It wasn’t.

Do your precious computer models replicate that fact? Don’t think so

They do actually – by using the obsolete TSI reconstructions that many readers of this blog like to use. According to theses reconstructions (e.g. Lean et al) there was a strong increase in solar activity up until ~1960.

August 8, 2014 6:46 am

JustAnotherPoster says: August 8, 2014 at 6:28 am
“The ENTIRE IPCC remit is that CO2 causes global warming.”

Yes. And arsenic will kill you. But that doesn’t mean that by avoiding arsenic, you are immortal.

August 8, 2014 6:54 am

Johan: “book 6 chapters 25 to 28”
Much obliged. I have to confess, though, that I can infer little from glaciers’ not being mentioned in that context. (Also, I’m curious about what kind of animal in that forest could have been “magnitudine paulo infra elephantos.” And I’m a little skeptical about the hunting technique he writes about.)

more soylent green!
August 8, 2014 6:55 am

It obviously ain’t true unless you can create a computer model for these forests!

Edim
August 8, 2014 6:55 am

“Well, we know that CO2 dropped (and then rose) by about 100 ppmv during the ice age.”
That’s highly uncertain and IMO very likely wrong.
http://robertkernodle.hubpages.com/hub/ICE-Core-CO2-Records-Ancient-Atmospheres-Or-Geophysical-Artifacts

David Ball
August 8, 2014 6:56 am

I can no longer stomach reading Stokes posts. They contributing nothing but confusion, and are clearly intended to derail any constructive discussion. His intent is only to attract attention to himself. Like a child.

Mike M
August 8, 2014 7:05 am

Nick Stokes says: August 8, 2014 at 6:46 am “… And arsenic will kill you.”
So can water but people keep right on drinking it anyway, go figure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

Mike M
August 8, 2014 7:06 am
August 8, 2014 7:16 am

David Ball says: August 8, 2014 at 6:56 am
I can no longer stomach reading Stokes posts.
Like any good troll commenter, he uses state of the art ignoratio elenchi (i.e. the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question).

August 8, 2014 7:19 am

Nick Stokes is a Trollolololol
Please, stop feeding the trolls. They get their pleasure and paycheck by getting you all riled up. He was going by some other name on a CBS thread yesterday. The tactic is: throw out some pathetic challenge, watch you run in circles, then throw out another pathetic challenge. His one minute post takes an hour to research and respond to. Once you realize their game, you will stop feeding them.

PeterK
August 8, 2014 7:30 am

Nick Stokes…one brick short of a full load!

rgbatduke
August 8, 2014 7:31 am

Yes, that is based on the rapid rise consistent with AGW, and with no alternative explanation from present data. But it is not the proof of AGW, which is based on radiative physics.

What? First of all, the present data is not consistent with the modelled AGW. That’s why everybody is worrying so much about “the pause”, to the point where it got its own box in AR5 and is up to 30 possible alternative explanations, all supported by, nay necessitated by present data. The problem isn’t that there is no alternative explanation, it is there are too many and we have no way of resolving any of them in a complex, nonlinear, multivariate system where linearization of response is almost certainly impossible.
Second, even the climate record of just the last 100 years — if you want to call that “present data” — refutes the assertion that most of the warming is probably due to CO_2. CO_2 is not a plausible explanation for the warming observed in the first half of the 20th century, which was within 0.2C of the warming observed in the second half. In both cases the warming was limited to a single stretch of roughly 15-20 years (1920-1940 and 1980-2000 in ROUGH terms). In both cases the warming was followed by a plateau or weak cooling, encouraging yet another linearization fantasy as you well know trying to assign a “simple cause” to two whole “cycles”. But how are the models any better, or even different, from connecting this to e.g. the PDO, a plausible cause with roughly the right timescale at a macroscopic quasiparticle level much largers than the supposed “microscopic” dynamics in the GCMs?
Truthfully, we cannot explain either one of these cycles — the individual models in CMIP5 are laughable when compared to the data, and the meaningless multimodel ensemble (MME) mean skates right over the 1930’s warming showing that collectively they don’t have a clue about natural variability of the climate either. Assigning the cause to an even larger scale dynamic is surely no worse, and of course it fits these two cycles pretty well even if it fails miserably everywhere else and still explains almost nothing (and, of course, neglects the possible effects of other things that surely — well, probably — contributed to the climate, more CO_2, varying aerosols, big volcanoes, the varying solar cycle, the slow/steady orbital progression that makes tiny but possibly significant changes in just where things like perigee and apogee happen relative to the oceans and continents, the manifold timescales of oceanic turnover, and various nonlinear feedbacks). However, the existence of the former cycle reduces the plausibility that CO_2 is the dominant cause of the second.
Indeed, the only place that the CMIP5 MME mean works is in the reference period used to parameterize the models! which just happens to be the single stretch in the latter half of the 20th century where rapid warming occurred. I cannot begin to tell you how dumb it is to initialize/validate models on a short data segment exhibiting a rapid change that is not fully characteristic of the full set, especially not when one has the full set to work with. It isn’t even surprising that the models fail almost immediately thereafter. Confounding, ignored causes abound, the models are almost certainly incorrectly balanced in their gain vs loss terms (that had to cancel out to fit the rapid rise in the reference) and even small errors in this sort of balancing of large, opposing terms in a nonlinear model often lead to divergence from reality downstream.
Finally, while I (as you know) fully acknowledge that the GHE is real and that there is likely to be an approximately linear first order partial derivative in the total climate response to increasing CO_2, in this sort of system that sort of information is nearly useless in terms of estimating the total derivative. The system might do anything from nearly completely cancel it via nonlinear feedbacks to enhance it via nonlinear feedbacks to wash it out in much larger terms that dominate the dynamics and make the response irrelevant. Given the general stability of the climate system and the fact that in past data glacial epochs have occurred on numerous occasions when CO_2 levels were 2 to 10 times its current level, it is at least plausible-plus that the feedbacks will tend to cancel, not augment, the linearized CO_2-only partial derivative. Which, by the way, we only know at best approximately, making a number of egregious assumptions (one of which I’ve been discussing on another thread, others of which relate to the marginal response over, say, ocean water as opposed to land).
We not only cannot seem to build plausible, verifiable physical models of climate evolution, we have rather excellent reasons to believe that we cannot build such a model at an operational scale five to seven orders of magnitude larger than the known Kolmogorov scale of the nonlinear chaotic dynamics, which is order of a few millimeters. The models we are using are not “physics based” in the sense that we can derive that physics. They are semiphenomenological models where ad hoc approximations are applied all over the place to get them to where the computations can proceed at all, even at the absurdly large length scales. They are justified only because related ad hoc models have been sufficiently tuned that they can predict the weather a few weeks in advance before the prediction becomes too random relative to eventual reality to be of much use. We have no reason whatsoever to think that these models, that egregiously and visibly fail in roughly 90% of the time record outside of the reference period in the last 130 or so years (to the extent that we actually know the data they are trying to fit, which is itself rather dubious), will magically become predictive still later. Given the non-Markovian nature of the climate, this is almost certainly not going to be the case — even the models themselves will give a different prediction if re-initialized to fit a reference period now relative to what they predicted initialized to fit a reference period back in the 80’s.
Of course, the models themselves — one at a time — produce a dazzling array of possible futures from any perturbation of the initial state — clearly illustrating the strong nonlinear chaotic nature of the dynamics even at the current resolution. Quite seriously, I would challenge you to demonstrate to me with any counterexamples a single case of a deterministic highly multivariate nonlinear system exhibiting chaos that can be accurately solved by a phenomenological replacement integrated at a scale a million times larger than its Kolmogorov scale. Why is it that we, as theoretical/computational physicists, should even think that such a thing is possible, even with far simpler systems?
Why is it that when I tell my classes to try to integrate even very simple chaotic systems to numerically “observe” chaos in e.g. a driven oscillator consisting of a mass on a rigid rod or a “bender bouncer”, I caution them to use a very small stepsize and rigorous tolerances because if they don’t, the chaotic nature of the dynamics can actually be erased by de-facto introducing stronger damping and at the very least will give you incorrect patterns of oscillation, a false idea of the phase space that is accessed. Should I be telling them to just use a large stepsize, that will work just fine? Should I tell them to use Euler’s method to do the integration (which AFAICT is more or less what climate models do implicitly) rather than a halfway decent ODE solver, perhaps one capable of dealing with local/limited stiffness?
Again, the thing that is hard for me to understand is how anyone could think that we have actually solved the problem correctly with GCMs at all. This is a hard problem, a “grand challenge” problem, in general nonlinear dynamics long before one tries to build a climate model as arguably the most extreme and most difficult exemplar of the general class of nonlinear dynamical models. Sorry, but it isn’t even about to be solved by climate scientists and computer science geeks (speaking as a card carrying member of the latter class and diligent amateur in the former) — they seem to be cheerfully oblivious to the difficulty and what we’ve already learned from far simpler problems. Even if we had a perfect model, one that could integrate the entire system down to the millimeter/millisecond scale, we’d still have the enormous problem of simply not knowing the initial state at anything like that resolution, and requiring still other models to generate plausible initial conditions from the pitiful set of observations at the even courser grid of spatiotemporal locations available at any given instant. We have to use models just to start the models out, and the data those models are built on is terrible and inadequate.
So please — let’s not — ever, ever again — bring out the tired old wheeze that “only CO_2 can explain the recent warming” which is no longer all that recent. We have almost no idea at all of how much — or little — of the one burst of 20th century warming that occurred when CO_2 was increasing was caused by the CO_2. That is because we cannot predict with the slightest bit of confidence what the temperature would have/should have been without that CO_2, and because even if we had a believable answer for that for one set if initial conditions, if a butterfly beat its wings in Brazil to slightly alter the initial state, we’d get an entirely different answer in as little as a single year.
rgb

tadchem
August 8, 2014 7:31 am

This pretty much establishes that both the Minoan Warm Period and the Roman Climate Optimum were not only warmer than the current warm period, but also long-lasting enough to melt glaciers and to support forests with a much higher tree line than today’s.
It does not support the contention that such warmth would be an environmental catastrophe that would lead to mass extinctions.

John C
August 8, 2014 7:36 am

All the posts regarding Nick Stokes reminds me of discussions I used to have with an ex wife. Never will it make him see the error in CO2 worship.

August 8, 2014 7:36 am

Similarly, every time I hear a warmist lament the glaciers disappearing in Glacial National Park in Montana, the official web site used to proclaim the glaciers there are only about 3000 years old which should shatter most people’s assumptions that the ice was there since the last ice age.

Mike M
August 8, 2014 7:39 am

Nick Stokes says: August 8, 2014 at 6:01 am “The AGW theory is that adding CO2 will make it warmer. It does not say that warming could not be caused by something else.”
You are blatantly avoiding the fundamental basis of contention in that remark. The AGW theory claims that tiny amount of CO2 humans add is a MAJOR cause of warming. It claims that if humans were not burning FF that CO2 would be “substantially” lower than it is now. You will find no one here claiming humans have no affect on the climate, the question has always been HOW MUCH? (Recall Sarah Palin being hounded by Charlie Gibson in 2008 and excoriated by vile leftists in LSM afterward just for hinting at the idea that humans might not have as much influence on the climate as people are being led to believe?)
I think it was Brother Christopher who proved that less than 1% of climate scientists actually believe that human CO2 is responsible for more than one half of late 20th century warming?

August 8, 2014 7:51 am

Our society is fundamentally dishonest“: oh yes, and in so many ways…
I discover a veritable flood of universally accepted lies, prejudice and hype in every field where I really know the ropes, from music to translation to art history to food industry to currency exchange. Politics and “climate change” are only a tip of the iceberg. Extrapolation suggests that the same situation prevails in virtually any other field (comes to mind, for example, how long and how stubbornly Leif Svalgaard insisted on WUWT that Solar activity cannot influence climate).
Amazing that in our age, when factual information is sometimes so easily accessible (though not always easily recognizable), most of the people prefer to fiercely hold on to their prejudices and fall for the besotting media propaganda and self-serving drivel spread by “educators.”
Glad to hear the truth from somebody who still can be heard.

Gordon Ford
August 8, 2014 7:54 am

Trees under glaciers is not news here in British Columbia.

Latitude
August 8, 2014 7:58 am

rgbatduke says:
August 8, 2014 at 7:31 am
=====
that slams the lid on it…..
thanks!

Jim G
August 8, 2014 8:01 am

Oatley says:
August 8, 2014 at 3:43 am
“Good stuff, but be reminded that the EPA is marching forward on GHG emissions. If we don’t find a way to stop it, this country will be shackled.”
With 82% of the energy produced in the US being carbon based fossil fuels, I have been trying to get my state, one of the eight that produce most of these resources, to start the ball rolling and get together with the others to push back against the EPA. How about a nice sales tax to enrich our states and raise energy prices throughout the country? Call it an “EPA Tax”. We need to get the attention of the American people. Can’t think of a better way to do it than to make the EPA’s policies REALLY hurt.

Richard Sharpe
August 8, 2014 8:05 am

Nick, either CO2 is the control knob for warming or it is not. If the early Holocene was warmer than present, and periods later in the Holocene were close to if not as warm or warmer than present temperatures, and CO2 was not the driving factor for any previous times, then the claims that the present is unique, and CO2 is the main cause is not supportable.

You have failed to understand the evil combination of CO2 and Homo sapiens. They have overwhelmed and destroyed the other control knob, so now it is CO2 all the way down.

Bruce Cobb
August 8, 2014 8:05 am

John C says:
August 8, 2014 at 7:36 am
All the posts regarding Nick Stokes reminds me of discussions I used to have with an ex wife. Never will it make him see the error in CO2 worship.
They don’t worship it. It’s more like they ascribe evil, magic powers to it. Not unlike the so-called “witches” of yore.

Richard D
August 8, 2014 8:12 am

Nick Stokes says: August 8, 2014 at 5:48 am
And indeed it has warmed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A frightening 1/3 of one degree C in the 35 year satellite record. Eeeks!.

Robert W Turner
August 8, 2014 8:18 am

“What’s more worrisome, Schlüchter’s findings show that cold periods can strike very rapidly.” And I’m willing to bet that as the period formally known as the Modern Grand Maximum of the Sun comes to an end this will be all too painfully evident. Maybe the warmists have good bargains on their winter clothes they no longer need.

Carbon500
August 8, 2014 8:18 am

Surely the Earth operates within a range of temperature values? The temperature records look as if this could well be the case. The mild 20th century warming about which so much fuss has been made seems to have stalled, perhaps at a peak before average temperatures fall again.
Given the vastness of the Earth and its atmosphere, it’s remarkable that such a tight control of its surface temperatures is possible – and clearly how it works is not as yet fully understood.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 8:23 am

tadchem says:
August 8, 2014 at 7:31 am
“he Minoan Warm Period and the Roman Climate Optimum were not only warmer than the current warm period”
John Mason says:
August 8, 2014 at 7:36 am
“the official web site used to proclaim the glaciers there are only about 3000 years old ”
..


Only one of you can be right. Which one?

Reply to  H Grouse
August 8, 2014 1:48 pm

@H Grouse – no both can be. The glaciers are still here with the AGW Warm period, so they could easily have been around for the Roman and Medieval. The Minoan was about 3000 years ago.
really, try some history.

August 8, 2014 8:29 am

Latitude says:August 8, 2014 at 7:58 am
rgbatduke says:August 8, 2014 at 7:31 am
=====
that slams the lid on it…..

Hardly. But what I haven’t seen is any substantiation of this:
“One can find literally hundreds of places where climate scientists who — given inconvenient facts like these — should know better assert that the modern warm period is the warmest in the entire Holocene.”
Though the key quote really for this post is the original
“This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century.”
This “disproving accepted theories” is what I’ve been pressing. If that isn’t true, then what is the post about? And I’ve given several examples where the accepted science is quite the opposite – that the mid-Holocene was warm, and quite consistent with much reduced glaciers. So Schlüchter’s findings are no surprise, and contradict no AGW theory (not that AGW is relevant there anyway).
No-one seems to be able to counter that.

rgbatduke
August 8, 2014 8:34 am

(comes to mind, for example, how long and how stubbornly Leif Svalgaard insisted on WUWT that Solar activity cannot influence climate).

Having just finished an extensive discussion with him and reading of his review of the literature, I cannot help but correct this. Lief has never said that solar activity cannot influence climate. He has stated that the evidence that variable solar activity has a strong (dominant) influence on climate is extraordinarily weak and mostly based on incorrect assertions about just how relatively large/extraordinary the levels of solar activity were in the late 20th century. Having just finished reading through the evidence he provides, I have to agree. Even if you “want” to believe that it is the explanation, before you can or should go around asserting that it is, at the very least you have to address the very serious issues with consistency raised by the substantial evidence that while the late 20th century had comparatively high solar activity relative to the overall level of the last 180 years that we have good records of solar magnetism and hence inferrable state, it wasn’t that extraordinary, certainly was nothing like a “grand maximum” over that or any other plausible interval, and in any event isn’t well-correlated with temperature changes over any particular stretch of temperatures 100 years in length or more. You cannot just cherrypick an interval, accept one particular scientist’s claim for solar state when it is evaluated by just one proxy and inconsistent with results consistently obtained by four or five alternative means, some of them effectively direct measurement and not proxies at all, and claim success.
The challenge he establishes is straightforward. A) Reconcile the solar activity data you wish to use with that which you don’t wish to use (because it doesn’t support your assertion). One or the other has to be incorrect, and the first order of business is to determine which one is more likely to be in error. Lief’s presentation and discussion convinced me — and I’d like to think that as a physicist I’m not an idiot when it comes to the underlying reasoning even if it isn’t my field — that it would be very very difficult to assert that the methods that show no grand maximum are in error, as there are several of them, they independently lead to results that can be cross checked, and they are manifestly consistent with sunspot observations and the modern instrumental record where they overlap. Alternative presentations — e.g. Ushokin’s — are not in and of themselves implausible, but they do not resolve the inconsistency, and by failing to do so are at the very least not a good basis for making egregious statements about climate causality. B) Explain why and how the tiny changes in solar irradiation can explain large changes in the climate.
Note well that he doesn’t assert that such explanations cannot exist, only that they haven’t been proven and often are asserted on the basis of carefully selected data inconsistent with what should be considered a reliable, multiply verified record of solar activity back to at least the early to middle part of the 19th century. Such an explanation is not likely to be simple — a linear response model, for example. And so far, we have had damn-all luck in building multivariate nonlinear models for the climate that can explain why solar state is important in explaining this burst of warming or cooling, but not that one when almost exactly the same solar conditions held. But that sort of linear response is exactly what is constantly being asserted, based on sketchy data that contradicts some really, really solid data, without explanation or resolution of the conflict.
This is actually good science. In fact, it is great science. Skeptics are just as easily infected or equipped with confirmation bias and data blinders and cherrypicking combines and data dredges as warmists. It doesn’t help the science (which is probably leading to some really, really complex explanations, not plural, all tightly coupled and nonlinear and chaotic and non-Markovian) to constantly try to assert an ill-supported, inconsistent, linearlized explanation — which includes both one-knob CO_2 and one-knob solar state — for the climate.
rgb

August 8, 2014 8:37 am

“extreme, sudden changes
Sorry I can’t remember where I read it but here is what it said.
Frozen Mammoths were to have whole strawberries in there
stomach. Now that is fast!

Al in Cranbrook, BC
August 8, 2014 8:38 am

From earthsciencescanada.com…
Quote: “Will the Athabasca Glacier melt away altogether? It’s possible. Some 5000 years ago, during a period not much warmer than the present, the middle of the Columbia Icefield was forest, not ice.”
http://www.earthsciencescanada.com/geovista/PDFs_en/vistas8_agci.pdf
Also, a recent documentary on the Rocky Mountains, narrated by none other than Suzuki, noted that 5000 years ago the Columbia Ice Fields didn’t exist. This is fact, and had nothing to do with SUVs or a lack of wind farms!
Another recent documentary explained that circa 5000 BC the Sahara Desert wasn’t a desert, but instead something resembling the Serengeti along with extensive herds of every kind of African plains species found there.
Climate change is a fact of life, always has been, always will be. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about our current global climate changes.

Latitude
August 8, 2014 8:39 am

Nick Stokes says:
August 8, 2014 at 8:29 am
Hardly.
===
Nick…we don’t know anything…it’s all a bunch of hooey

Editor
August 8, 2014 8:40 am

Nick Stokes
In an article here in 2013 I reconstructed (highly variable) temperatures and compared them to the virtually static (until modern times) hockey stick.
I took the opportunity of assessing thousands of glacier records and compiled a first version of a chart showing glacier advances and retreats over the last 3000 years. I overlaid the Hockey stick on top of it.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image010.jpg
(note) A closed blue horizontal line at the top of the graph equates to a period of glacial retreat (warmth) and a closed blue line at foot of graph demonstrates glacier advance (cold)
As can be seen, there are many glacial advances and retreats which seem to give the lie to the static nature of the climate recorded by the Hockey stick.
Here is the full article;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/historic-variations-in-temperature-number-four-the-hockey-stick/
Nothing today seems to be unprecedented or even unusual.
tonyb

markx
August 8, 2014 8:42 am

Interesting concepts put forward by Nick Stokes.
LIA cooling caused a reduction in CO2 levels, but warming must be caused by a rise in CO2 levels.

Billy Liar
August 8, 2014 8:51 am

Joe Born says:
August 8, 2014 at 6:54 am
Strabo writes about Cisalpine Gaul (the Alps) in his Geography [my emphasis]:
And beyond Comum, which is situated near the base of the Alps, lie, on the one side, with its slope towards the east, the land of the Rhaeti and the Vennones, and, on the other, the land of the Lepontii, Tridentini, Stoni, and several other small tribes, brigandish and resourceless, which in former times held the upper hand in Italy; but as it is, some of the tribes have been wholly destroyed, while the others have been so completely subdued that the passes which lead through their territory over the mountain, though formerly few and hard to get through, are now numerous, and safe from harm on the part of the people, and easily passable — so far as human device can make them so. For in addition to his putting down the brigands Augustus Caesar built up the roads as much as he possibly could; for it was not everywhere possible to overcome nature by forcing a way through masses of rock and enormous beetling cliffs, which sometimes lay above the road and sometimes fell away beneath it, and consequently, if one made even a slight misstep out of the road, the peril was one from which there was no escape, since the fall reached to chasms abysmal. And at some places the road there is so narrow that it brings dizziness to all who travel it afoot — not only to men, but also to all beasts of burden that are unfamiliar with it; the native beasts, however, carry the burdens with sureness of foot. Accordingly, these places are beyond remedy; and so are the layers of ice that slide down from above — enormous layers, capable of intercepting a whole caravan or of thrusting them all together into the chasms that yawn below; for there are numerous layers resting upon another, because there are congelations upon congelations of snow that have become ice-like, and the congelations that are on the surface are from time to time easily released from those beneath before they are completely dissolved in the rays of the sun.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/4F*.html

Mick
August 8, 2014 8:53 am

climatology is the poorly marked and dimly lit intersection of art and science

August 8, 2014 8:56 am

Adam Gallon says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:33 am
The retreating Swiss glacier you cite showed that an intermittently open pass exists in the Alps which had been forgotten in recent centuries.
The finds exposed by its retreat came from specific time periods, during the Medieval, Roman & Minoan Warm Periods & the Holocene Climatic Optimum (like Ötzi, the Italian-Austrian Iceman).

Johanus
August 8, 2014 8:58 am

Nick Stokes said:

The sudden cooling around 8200 years ago has been known since about 1960. It even has its own Wiki page.
The warmth of the mid-Holocene is also well known, and was quantified in Marcott et al, who wrote

Nick,
So we all agree that the current retreat of glaciers is not unprecedented.
Then do you agree that this natural variation explains any recent warming (or cooling)?
I suspect not because I think you still want to believe that recent warming is “unprecedented”.
That is implied by your response to Weinstein:
“Yes, that is based on the rapid rise consistent with AGW, and with no alternative explanation from present data.”
That sounds like the “theory” proposed by CAGW believers, which compel us to believe that 1) all these climate ‘catastrophes’ have happened recently and 2) there were 600 jillion tons of manmade CO2 released in the same period. So, somehow [waving hands] 2) is the cause of 1)
But you were clever not to claim that argument as scientific proof:
“But it is not the proof of AGW, which is based on radiative physics.”
But you did not present any compelling proof based on radiative physics either. Yes, we know CO2 absorbs long-wave radiation, but so does H2O and the other GHG’s. And it is well-known that climate models can be twiddled to produce any desired result, and have little or no skill in predicting real world climate events.
So where is the compelling proof, based on radiative physics, that manmade CO2 released into the atmosphere will have these dire, catastrophic consequences?
There is no compelling proof, except for a lot hand waving and loudly acclaimed 97% “support” for CAGW.
But it does not make any difference how many people believe in a theory, it is not a valid theory if it can be falsified by experimental observations.
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
-Albert Einstein
The MSM obviously do not agree with Einstein because they think they can prove CAGW, through implication, by merely increasing the number of news reports on “extreme weather” catastrophes. => “Twin hurricanes hit Hawaii! Must be that manmade CO2. What else could it be!?”
But the notion that the modern retreat of glaciers is unprecedented and therefore can only be caused by excessive CO2 is certainly shot down by these many apparently well-known historically ancient retreats.
And, finally you complain that no one can counter your claim that AGW is consistent with ancient receding glaciers. Perhaps that is because AGW has been transformed into a kind of religion, which can’t be falsified because it continuouslly redefines itself to counter criticism. It used to be about “global warming” when that fizzled it switched to “extreme climate”. Very adaptive, like a human.
Again, show me your _compelling_ proof that manmade CO2 causes glaciers to recede.

August 8, 2014 8:58 am

Tony
“I took the opportunity of assessing thousands of glacier records and compiled a first version of a chart showing glacier advances and retreats over the last 3000 years.”
Even at present, some glaciers are advancing while others (even close by) are retreating. They respond to precipitation as well as temperature. So that is yet another reason why finding evidence of some diminished glaciers in Mid-Holocene wouldn’t contradict anything.
But the fact is, no-one is saying that is was a lot colder then.

johann wundersamer
August 8, 2014 9:02 am

jones on August 8, 2014 at
12:45 am
“Following the ancient forest
evidence discovery Schlüchter
became a target of scorn. As
he observes in the interview,
“I wasn’t supposed to find
that chunk of wood because I
didn’t belong to the close-knit
circle of Holocene and climate
researchers. My findings thus
caught many experts off
guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had
found something that the
[more recent time-focused]
Holocene and climate experts
should have found.”
.
Who does he think he
is…..Alfred Wegener?
Right, ‘jones’, but then…
is it you, Mr. Wegener?
Only asking – Hans

August 8, 2014 9:18 am

RGB at Duke says it for me in characterizing the problem as predicting the behavior of a complex, nonlinear, multivariate system. Complex system theory is not exactly a secret so one would think climate scientists would be aware of the unpredictability of the particular tiger they have by the tail. Then it occurs to me that while they cannot prove the system is controlled by CO2 it also cannot be proven that turning up the knob on CO2 can’t result in global warming. If the proverbial butterfly flapping its wings in China can lead to that tornado in Kansas why can’t CO2 lead to warming? It becomes a contest between who can provide the most likely explanation and since the people to whom the explanation is being presented are the ‘man in the street,’ green houses and warming are more familiar and easier to understand than complex systems theory. Of course this makes climate scientists pushing the CO2 explanation total frauds which I hate to think is true. Maybe complex system theory is not that well known.

Resourceguy
August 8, 2014 9:23 am

Big oil planted the wood there for others to find, right Al?

August 8, 2014 9:33 am

Same thing in Alaska. Forest from Medieval Warm Period exposed by retreating Mendenhall Glacier:
http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

August 8, 2014 9:37 am

Mick says:
climatology is the poorly marked and dimly lit intersection of art and science
Good quote. But I’d make it ‘art and pseudoscience’.
===========================
markx says:
LIA cooling caused a reduction in CO2 levels, but warming must be caused by a rise in CO2 levels.
Nick Stokes is nothing if not illogical.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nick Stokes says:
…AGW theory…
Nick, AGW is not a ‘theory’. To be a theory, AGW would have to be able to make repeated, accurate predictions. It can do neither. AGW is merely an unproven conjecture.
……………………………………………………….
johann wundersamer says:
…is it you, Mr. Wegener? Only asking – Hans
Mr. A. Jones has commented here for years. I very much doubt that he uses sockpuppet identities.

dp
August 8, 2014 9:37 am

It seems time has stood still for Nick Stokes who is discounting this story today with the same dull arguments it was originally discounted with so many years ago. One has to be profoundly driven by something more important than truth to discredit the importance of a mature forest where glaciers existed before the mature forest and which exist again today. He appears to be indistinguishable from being fundamentally dishonest and therefor an unreliable source of science. Sad if true.

Udar
August 8, 2014 9:41 am


Nick Stokes says:
But the fact is, no-one is saying that is was a lot colder then.

That is very surprising to me, because “unprecedented” nature of current warming is THE driving factor in all of the publicity around CAWG.
I think the problem is that the only reason people are worried about CAGW is because they are being told that high temperatures are really, really bad, they create horrible problems, catastrophic problems to be exact – mass extinction, death of polar bears, death of corrals, complete destruction of cities, etc.
Well, it appears that we have hard proof that higher temperatures do not have that effect. So, whether caused by humans or not, and explained by models or not, higher temperatures are not going to kill polar bears.
If that is so, the whole argument becomes pretty academic and of little interest of anybody outside of very narrow circle of climate researches.
But that is not what you want, is it? Because if it’s contained to obscure field of science, the funds will dry up, the fame will disappear, together with all of the perks of “planet saviors” that you got so used to.
So you will continue to be telling us that, one one hand, you knew all along that it was much warmer before but current moderate warming is going to be a horrible thing.
Is that correct for the summary of how you going to play this?

MarkW
August 8, 2014 9:42 am

Nick Stokes:
“And indeed it has warmed. And we’re on track to burn a lot more C.”
We burned FF, it got warmer, ergo FF caused the warming.
Thank you for providing another example of logical fallacies.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 9:43 am

dbstealey says:
August 8, 2014 at 9:37 am
“AGW is merely a conjecture.”
..
..
No, the correct term is “hypothesis”

Reply to  H Grouse
August 10, 2014 5:45 am

@H Grouse – no, until the null hypothesis is disproven, DbStealey is correct.
Science 101.

MarkW
August 8, 2014 9:46 am

Nick Stokes
“and with no alternative explanation from present data.”
—-
And yet another logical fallacy.
I wonder if Nick will be able to get all of them before the day is over.

Al in Cranbrook, BC
August 8, 2014 9:47 am

Resourceguy, if you’re referring to my post, you lost me…??? My point was that glacial historical evidence…such as provided by my link, and consistent with the topic at hand…proves that somewhat radical shifts in global climate are a natural occurrence.
Or I’m misunderstanding your post?
IMHO, AGW is a load of garbage!

richard verney
August 8, 2014 9:47 am

Richard D says:
August 8, 2014 at 8:12 am
//////////////////
And not due to CO2!
The satellite record shows zero first order correlation with rising levels of CO2. The staellite record shows us that temps were essentially flat before the 1998 Super El Nino, and essentially flat as from the 1998 Super El Nino.
The approx one thrird of a degree that you note is a one off step change, occuring in and around the Super El Nino of 1998. Unless that Super El Nino was itself caused by the increase in CO2 over say the preceding 20 years (and as far as I am aware no one seriosly argues that it was, or puts forward an explanation as to how CO2 drove that Super El Nino), then CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature record recorded by the satellite data.
CO2 cannot explain the past temperature record of CO2. Further, and not least because, it appears that CO2 lags temperature and therefore is not the driver of those temperatures, but rather merely a response.
The relevance of all of this is that the only reason why CO2 is said to be the driver of the post 1970 warming is because the IPCC could not think of any other reason to explain that warming. There is no direct evidence that CO2 drove the post 1970 warming, and the IPCC does not cite any direct evidencei.
However, until one can explain all past temperaure events/anomalies there can be no merit in the claim we cannot think of anything other than CO2 as being the driver behind the post 1970 warming, since what drove the past temperatures may be driving the post 1970 warming. The claim of not being able to think of any thing else is worthless, and the fact that we cannot explain the past is proof positive that there is a big whole in our knowledge and understanding of what drives climate/temperature changes. In other words, we know that we do not know!

Ian W
August 8, 2014 9:47 am

Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.”
Well then that can’t be true can it Steven Mosher? After all that is recorded history and history doesn’t mean anything whereas upside down dendro proxies than don’t validate against instrumental metrics are far more believable. /sarc

Eric
August 8, 2014 9:48 am

Nick Stokes says:
No, there is no such evidence. There has been nothing to change the amount of carbon in the environment in the last millions of years. Recently we have dug up 400 Gtons and burnt it. Radiative physics says that the extra CO2 will impede outgoing IR and cause warming.
Nick,
You forgot to add “all other things being equal”.
In nature, of course, all other things rarely stay equal. And that is the fundamental issue that the Doom and Gloom crowd doesn’t seem to get. That and the fact there is more that we don’t know we don’t know than there is stuff that we actually know.
It seems that it might be a very good thing to require all climate scientists (actually all scientists) to read Feynman’s Cargo Cult Science speech. Repeatedly.
The most important part of that speech is widely ignored by a large number of climate scientists. That portion is:
“That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school–we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”
Compare that to the ever popular sentiment expressed by Phil Jones:
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it…”
So we know that, all other things being equal, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will lead to warming. That should be relatively easy to model. However, as Freeman Dyson noted:
“The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in…”
So your assertion “Radiative physics says that the extra CO2 will impede outgoing IR and cause warming.” is true. However, it is true in a trivial way. It doesn’t address the complexities of the climate and is an appeal to authority which misses the point. And it completely fails Feynman’s ideal on how science should be done.
Eric

rgbatduke
August 8, 2014 9:58 am

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/02/10/el-nino-prediction/5368631/
(Indeed, one could probably reach 100 times from Michael Mann alone. It’s also amusing to note the “success” the new method has just enjoyed predicting another super-El Nino this year and the obvious relish that scientists like Mann have that it will lead to lots of warming and put skeptics in their place and vindicate the GCMs (even as it leads to supposed human catastrophe — but I suppose that’s less important than him being “right”.)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm
(Except that AR5 has an entire box devoted to “the pause” and the “missing heat in the ocean” argument is doubly problematic — it is almost impossible to detect or resolve (I’d argue that it IS impossible, but hey, 4000 ARGO buoys are plenty to cover 70% of the Earth’s surface, at depth, with black magic used to transport heat down from a stable buoyant surface layer to depth) and if it IS going into the ocean, problem solved as the oceans could eat 100% of the proposed global forcing imbalance for the next dozen centuries and not change one full degree in temperature.)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
(Greenhouse gases controlled most past climate changes? Oh. My. God. Somebody needs to learn how to do statistical correlation and learn enough physics to realize the causes need to precede the effects. It is precisely this sort of nonsense that the article above specifically refutes. But where are climate scientists speaking out against it? And where is the evidence for the assertion fairly compared to the much more substantial evidence against it, such as the mere fact that greenhouse gases where in no possible way responsible for the beginning of the current Pleistocene ice age and in no possible way explain either the variable periodicity or depth of glacial episodes over the last 3.5 million years, let alone the last 600 million — Ordovician-Silurian transition anyone? Or any of the other glacial episodes that occurred with Phanerozoic CO_2 2-10 times what it is today?)
http://www.climatechange.ie/quotes_all.html
(Numerous examples, most of them dated and with their garish claims of certainty about the future refuted by the mere progress of time, all backed eventually by “climate scientists”.)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/sep/01/research.high
(For example, Phil Jones and the unquenchable Michael Mann. The warmest in 2000 years? Really, Phil? And where are the climate scientists saying oops, sorry, we were mistaken, maybe the MWP and RWP were just as warm, certainly within our ability to resolve temperatures at all on this sort of time scale. But no one ever thinks to present error bars, eh?)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/14/1299306/-NASA-Last-month-was-second-warmest-April-in-history-of-temperature-data-recording#
(But the article simply headlines “in history” and again, conveniently ignores possible error. We only know modern temperatures — excuse me, temperature “anomalies” relative to an arbitrary modern baseline in absolute temperature we do not know within one full degree Centigrade — to within an acknowledged 0.15C (in e.g. HADCRUT4 — GISS keeps mum on error). If we assume, very reasonably, that the error back in the 1930s (say) was 0.5C and in the 19th century was closer to 1C, we have no idea what the warmest years are only in the thermometric record, which is not “in history” or even “in the history of temperature data recording”, but rather only that part of the latter where somebody has built a model that might, possibly, conceivably, be able to krige the samples into a “global anomaly” with an error bar smaller than infinity. Warmest, or second warmest, in 1000 years? Almost certainly not. Warmest in 2000 years? Certainly not. Warmest in 3000 years? See top article — many of the glaciers that we are worried about melting didn’t even exist to melt 3000 years ago, or 8000 years ago.)
And I haven’t even gotten to Cliimategate yet, or the need to “erase” the MWP, or to the SPM of the various ARs. The latter is where this stuff is really poisonous.
Quite seriously, Nick. The news is full of assertions that our weather, the state of the climate, etc etc are “unprecedented”. If the Jones and Briffa graph of the temperatures of the last 1000 years — including the MWP — had been used as cover art instead of Mann’s hockey stick, do you really think that anyone would have done anything but yawn, politically speaking? If if that beneficial thing had happened, there would have been two consequences:
a) Climate funding would be at most 10% of what it is today.
b) The climate research and modeling that did occur wouldn’t have bet the ranch on the predictions of one single man — Hansen — who had an absolutely insane level of influence, who benefited enormously in terms of political influence, power, and financial support, and who was perfectly willing to state in public, ex cathedris that seas were likely to rise 5 meters by 2100. See, for example, his TED Talk on global warming, made while he was still head of NASA GISS.
Who — in the scientific community doing climate science — calls the media on this sort of stuff, which is often traceable back to a comparatively small group that probably isn’t representative, as you say, of what the science actually says? Who speaks out against the crap that makes it into the media, the assertions of certain knowledge where we don’t even have arguably probable knowledge, the lack of acknowledgement of error, and of course the assertions of “confidence” that utterly lack foundation?

tadchem
August 8, 2014 10:00 am

@H Grouse: (from above)
“In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.”

August 8, 2014 10:01 am

Nick Stokes says:
August 8, 2014 at 6:01 am
Leonard Weinstein says: August 8, 2014 at 5:44 am
“Nick, either CO2 is the control knob for warming or it is not.”
That’s meaningless. The AGW theory is that adding CO2 will make it warmer. It does not say that warming could not be caused by something else.
“the so called main stream conclusions still say that only human activity could be the cause for the present warming”
Yes, that is based on the rapid rise consistent with AGW, and with no alternative explanation from present data. But it is not the proof of AGW, which is based on radiative physics.
————————–
What’s your excuse now for calling AGW a “theory”. In other comments you claimed you only called it that because it was so called in the post. Is AGW or is it not a theory, in your opinion?
IMO it’s not even an hypothesis, since it has been shown false so consistently.
The “rapid rise” is not consistent with AGW, since temperature has risen much more rapidly in the past without being preceded by an increase in CO2, and temperature has risen, fallen and stayed about the same all during the time that CO2 has risen from ~280 to 400 ppm over the past 150 years. Only for a brief interval from the late 1970s to ’90s did rising temperature happen accidentally to coincide with rising CO2. From the 1940s to ’70s, CO2 rose and temperatures fell. Since the late ’90s, CO2 has risen while temperatures stayed flat or fell. During the 1920s to ’40s, CO2 fell or stayed the same while temperature rose.
Moreover, there are far better alternative explanations, which much more closely coincide with the actual record than AGW. Saying, “What else could it be?” is not only unscientific, but antiscientific.
Just why is it that you believe in this “theory”, so repeatedly falsified? There is not a single shred of actual evidence in support of the “theory”. In the lab, a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm produces about one degree C of warming. This has not been observed in nature, but remains theoretically possible, I suppose. However such an increase would be a good thing, not bad, were it to happen. The only way to get “catastrophic” consequences is to assume an unrealistic positive feedback from water vapor, which not only is not in evidence but is shown false by the best available evidence.
You’ve got nothing, nada, zip, zilch, except a naive faith in the failed religion of CAGW.

tetris
August 8, 2014 10:06 am

US Government maps show that the glaciers in what today is Glacier National Park in Alaska lost 80% of their volume between the 1770s and the 1850s, a phenomenon for which there is no coherent explanation. Most certainly not increases in CO2.
Another inconvenient reality showing that suddenly retreating glaciers are not unprecedented.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 10:07 am

tadchem says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:00 am
.
“In fact the Alps”
..
If it were warmer in Roman times, than it is now the glaciers at Glacier National Park would not be 3000 years old.

John Finn
August 8, 2014 10:10 am

Mike M says:
August 8, 2014 at 7:06 am
John Finn says: August 8, 2014 at 6:46 am It wasn’t.
Twas. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1965/to:2000/trend

What are the calculated trends.? Also the more recent period you chose includes a decade when temperatures were flat or cooling (i.e. 1965-75). The 1975-2010 trend shows more warming. (0.18 degrees per decade)

Leonard Weinstein
August 8, 2014 10:11 am

Nick Stokes says:
August 8, 2014 at 6:01 am
First, it IS the position of the majority on AGW and CAGW that CO2 (and CH4) is the main control knob, and that nothing else can explain the temperature rise over the last 150 or so years. I recognize that you personally are not so extreme, and qualify the statement to only that CO2 can cause heating due to radiation theory, and allow heating may be caused by other means. However, most skeptics also agree with that last statement. The AGW hypothesis (it is far from meeting a theory status) has been falsified on many claims associated with it’s main accepted description, and especially by the reality of large variation of climate in the past with no significant CO2 change, and by the recent 17 year temperature leveling out. There is nothing that AGW claims that can’t be demonstrated without pulling in the need to explain the warming by human production of CO2 and positive feedback. If you don’t need to use CO2 and positive feedback to explain the temperature changed, and consider how natural variation can explain all the level of variation (solar effects, ocean long period currents, long period cloud variation, random chaotic processes, etc.), using the necessity of AGW is violating Occam’s Razor. I think almost all agree that CO2 alone can cause a small temperature increase and this is not the issue, rather it is the net sensitivity, feedback, and natural variation. Since essentially all models have demonstrated no skill, especially for the last 17 years, and the fact that it is just as likely (or more so) that we will see falling temperatures from the present as resumption of warming, how can you possibly defend the full AGW hypothesis? What has it shown that is clearly demonstrating it is valid?

August 8, 2014 10:11 am

Nick Stokes says:
August 8, 2014 at 6:16 am
Caesar would certainly have seen glaciers had they then been in the same places as they were in the 19th and 20th centuries. He was at Geneva in 58 BC, for instance.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 10:13 am

tetris says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:06 am
“the glaciers in what today is Glacier National Park in Alaska”
Glacier National Park is not in Alaska.
http://pics3.city-data.com/ccdmapsf/ccdmf835.png

August 8, 2014 10:16 am

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:07 am
Can you really be this dim?
The glaciers in Glacier National Park advance and retreat with changes in temperature and precipitation. That they have not completely melted, so that their highest reaches are thousands of years old, is evidence for natural climate change, not against it.
They were longer than now at the end of the LIA in the 19th century. They were shorter than now during the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 10:18 am

sturgishooper says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:16 am
“Can you really be this dim?”
If it was warmer during the MWP and at Roman times, the glaciers in GNP would not be dated as being 3000 years old.

Reply to  H Grouse
August 10, 2014 6:08 am

@ H Grouse says: August 8, 2014 at 10:18 am
Question #1 – Are the glaciers there today?
Question #2 – What was the period of 3000 years ago known as?
Answers, since the glaciers are there today, then that means they survived the temperatures of today. It does not tell you at what temperatures they did not survive. Ergo, there is insufficient data to make the leap of faith you did. 3000 years ago was the Minoan Warm period. Which is generally seen (by most except Mann) as being warmer than the current warm period and the Roman warm period. So logic dictates that somewhere between the temperatures of today and those of the Minoan is the point where the glaciers disappear. Since that is a RANGE (not a single point) of temperatures, the Roman could be warmer and the glaciers still there since it is recognized (by most except Mann) that the RWP was not was warm as the Minoan.

August 8, 2014 10:20 am

I guess you are that dim.
Bits of them are that old, but GNP was almost ice free during the Medieval and Roman WPs, c. 1000 and 2000 years ago.

August 8, 2014 10:21 am

“But he didn’t give any support for saying that those were the accepted theories. And they weren’t.”
Oh I get it now… scientists know that the glacial retreat is nothing special, but it’s no big deal that the IPCC and scaremongers conveniently ignore that scientific knowledge when pushing the world to adopt its agenda?

Steve P
August 8, 2014 10:21 am

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 9:43 am

dbstealey says:
August 8, 2014 at 9:37 am

“AGW is merely a conjecture.”

No, the correct term is “hypothesis”

According to that infallible source Wikipedia:

Conjecture is related to hypothesis, which in science refers to a testable conjecture.

Without a control, it is impossible to test for CAGW; therefore, it is a conjecture.

Udar
August 8, 2014 10:22 am


H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:18 am
If it was warmer during the MWP and at Roman times, the glaciers in GNP would not be dated as being 3000 years old.

What does it matter? It was, by your methodology, warmer 3000 years ago than today. So, how is current temperature being unprecedented?

August 8, 2014 10:25 am

“That’s meaningless. The AGW theory is that adding CO2 will make it warmer. It does not say that warming could not be caused by something else.”
Yes, the IPCC reports pretty much say exactly that. They completely rule out natural causes for the temperature rise from 1950 to present. If it was possible for it to happen back then, it’s possible for natural processes to be partly responsible now. And if it’s possible that natural causes are a contributor, then it’s an utter lie to claim that the rise is proof of catastrophic AGW due to CO2.

August 8, 2014 10:33 am

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 9:43 am (Edit)
…the correct term is “hypothesis”.
Wrong. As usual.
A theory is a more rigorous hypothesis. It is still an hypothesis. A theory must be validated, but AGW has never been validated.
[‘H Grouse’ <—(a sockpuppet name) is sure posting a lot on a workday. Either he is unemployed, or employed as a sockpuppet, or he is cheating his employer.]

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 10:34 am

Udar says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:22 am
What does it matter?
It matters a lot. If the glaciers in GNP are 3000 years old, why didn’t them melt away during the MWP and Roman times which are thought to be “warmer” than today?

lemiere jacques
August 8, 2014 10:36 am

nice finding but wrong interpretation as usual with deniers,first we notice that trees don’t grow in the coldest place on earth …second if tree grew in glaciers it mean glaciers were not the coldest place, so how do you call a name were glaciers are a warm place???? glaciers are a cold place on earth nowaday…conclusion world was colder.

August 8, 2014 10:36 am

For Nick Stokes
Radiative physics says that the extra CO2 will impede outgoing IR and cause warming. And indeed it has warmed. And we’re on track to burn a lot more C.
Radiative physics? The question is not that it does not happen, the question is the magnitude and relative contribution. Neither of the basic equations, related to temperature and pressure support the current computer models related to temperature rise.
For the current argument….
From this link, from the scientist that has extensively studied this glacier.
http://archive.sciencewatch.com/dr/erf/2011/11feberf/11feberfHolz/
The paper shows that glacier maximums (cold and moist periods) coincide with phases of higher lake levels. Furthermore, in agreement with previous studies, a comparison between the fluctuations of the Great Aletsch glacier and the variations in the atmospheric residual 14C (radiocarbon) records supports the hypothesis that variations in solar activity were a major forcing factor of climatic oscillations in west-central Europe during the late Holocene.

August 8, 2014 10:37 am

H Grouse has no understanding of the term “unprecedented”.
What is being observed today has happened repeatedly throughout the Holocene. There is nothing unprecedented or unusual about current temperatures.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 10:37 am

sturgishooper says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:20 am
“but GNP was almost ice free during the Medieval and Roman WP”
Well, then you’d better check with the people that have dated the glaciers in GNP as being 3000 years old.

Reply to  H Grouse
August 10, 2014 6:20 am

@ H Grouse says: August 8, 2014 at 10:37 am
Almost is not GONE – learn the meaning of words.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 10:39 am

dbstealey says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:33 am
“Wrong. As usual.”
Arguing about the meaning of words is not winnable

August 8, 2014 10:42 am

The sockpuppet says:
Arguing about the meaning of words is not winnable
Wrong. As usual.
Words matter. “H Grouse” just wishes words didn’t matter. Without words there would be no Constitution, no books, no lawyers, no science, and no H Grouse.

August 8, 2014 10:43 am

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:34 am
As I’ve repeatedly tried to get you to understand, the glaciers in GNP did almost entirely melt during prior warm periods, which were warmer than now. They grew during the LIA and Dark Ages Cold Periods. Since the 19th century, they have been retreating again, but not as far as they did during prior warming periods.
During glacial phases, they are much bigger. Yet even those large glaciers did entirely disappear during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, which ended about 5000 years ago.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Climate changes naturally. Glaciers advance and retreat naturally. Those in GNP were smaller during previous warm periods of the past few thousand years. Got it?

Barry
August 8, 2014 10:43 am

Larry Bell has a bachelor or arts in architecture and a master’s degree in fine arts. He has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate science. With all due respect (I’m sure he a tremendous architect and ubran planner), I’m not putting much stock in his opinion of climate science. In his blog (linked above), he asks why the earth “tipped” to warming in the mid-1800s, before the industrial age began. Well, maybe it had something to do with clearing large tracks of land, which also upset the CO2 balance. You would think he would know something about land use change. http://forestry.about.com/library/bl_us_forest_acre_trend.htm

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 10:44 am

dbstealey says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:37 am

“unprecedented”.
I’d suggest you re-read my posts and point out to me where I used the term “unprecedented”. (excluding this one)

August 8, 2014 10:45 am

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:37 am
What part of “almost” don’t you understand?
Have you actually read any of the papers on the advance and retreat of glaciers in GNP? Apparently not.
Have you seen the moraines reached by the glaciers during the Little Ice Age, from which they have now retreated, just as they did during the Medieval WP after the Dark Ages Cold Period?

August 8, 2014 10:46 am

sturgishooper says:
Got it?
‘H Grouse’ will never get it. Understanding is beyond his grasp.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 10:48 am

sturgishooper says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:43 am

“which were warmer than now”
Since, according to you it was WARMER than it is now, and today it is warm enough to melt the last remaining (out of 25) in about 10 years, that means the were ALL gone during the MWP and Roman times.

But then, there’s that pesky little fact that the glaciers there TODAY date back 3000 years.

Reply to  H Grouse
August 10, 2014 6:25 am

@H Grouse – sorry, future predictions are not facts. The facts are they are NOT gone. The facts are they were ALMOST gone during the MWP and RWP (and ALL gone during the Minoan).
Until they are ALL gone, they are still here. Those are the facts.

JOHN 1000
August 8, 2014 10:48 am

After reading this, I looked up articles on how Hannibal and the elephants crossed over the Alps over 2,000 years ago. Archeologists, historians and other scientists have been researching just that.
It appears the tree line was much higher then and the temperature was much warmer than today.
Even more embarrassing, he crossed the glaciers in late autumn-early winter.
Try finding some elephants and doing that today – even in the summer.

August 8, 2014 10:53 am

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:48 am
The ten years estimate, if anyone other than you actually made it, is totally bogus and spewed by lying alarmists without any scientific basis. Besides which, it would have to assume temperatures warmer than the past decade for the coming decade, which is unlikely.
But even if the “pause” is followed by more warming, the USGS predicts 30 years, not your totally unfounded ten:
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/

Richard Sharpe
August 8, 2014 10:56 am

H Grouse says:

If it was warmer during the MWP and at Roman times, the glaciers in GNP would not be dated as being 3000 years old.

This web site: http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm says:

While the glaciers that carved GNP’s majestic peaks were part of a glaciation that ended about 12,000 years ago, current glaciers are considered geologically new, having formed about ~7,000 thousand years ago. (Emphasis added.)

I have so far found no information on the extent of the glaciers during the years they are claimed to have been in existence. However, I will note that their existence during the WMP and during Roman times in no way disproves the existence of these warm periods. I think you will have to show that they grew during those times to cast doubt on the MWP and Roman warm periods.

Richard Sharpe
August 8, 2014 10:59 am

H Grouse says:

and today it is warm enough to melt the last remaining (out of 25) in about 10 years,

Where did you get this claim from? Did you make it up or find it on some web site? If the latter, I would like to check it.

August 8, 2014 11:00 am

I should add that in 2003, the USGS estimated 2030 for the demise of GNP’s glaciers, but now they’ve pushed it back to an ever-receding “30 years”.

August 8, 2014 11:02 am

Richard Sharpe says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:59 am
The assertion is a lie. USGS’s Fagre estimated they’d be gone by 2030 in 2003, but in 2013 said “30 years”, according to Nat Geo writer Glick.

August 8, 2014 11:07 am

Around the world, glaciers are growing again:
http://iceagenow.info/category/glaciers-are-growing-around-the-world/
Along with Antarctic sea ice. The world is cooling.

JP
August 8, 2014 11:08 am

Along the Swiss-Austrian border, high up in the Alps archeologists found the remains of a large man dated from 3000BC. A little lower in elevation, and further inside Switzerland. archeologists found Roman coins, pottery, and camp remains. All of these finds were once covered under 60 foot ice snow and ice.In other words, the glaciers that so many are shedding tears over (their melting, that is) are of a recent nature (perhaps less than 1000 years old).

Bruce Cobb
August 8, 2014 11:10 am

Barry says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:43 am
Can you say “ad hominem” “and appeal to authority” logical fallacies?
I knew you could.

August 8, 2014 11:14 am

Rocky Mountain glaciers growing, too, including Sperry in GNP:
http://iceagenow.info/2011/11/glaciers-growing-rockies/
Don’t have data for 2012 or last year.

Joseph Murphy
August 8, 2014 11:15 am

Nick Stokes says:
August 8, 2014 at 5:22 am
Mike M says: August 8, 2014 at 5:01 am
AGW theory is about what happens when you dig up and release a whole lot of new carbon (as CO2) in the air.
————————-
You could have put a ‘should’ in there somewhere but, nonetheless I agree 100%. Although, understanding how the climate works would certainly aid us in understanding how changing CO2 levels will affect it. We spend a lot of time pointing out the nonesensical ‘science’ surrounding this issue when, most of the time, it is simply irrelevant to the core issue whether true or not. We don’t know what will happen if CO2 levels are doubled. Luckily, we don’t realy have a reason to be concerned either.

August 8, 2014 11:17 am

“Grouse” is just “grousing”. PNA

Richard Sharpe
August 8, 2014 11:18 am

It is interesting that this paper: http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/GCC/SattelliteAtlas_Key_02.pdf
says:

Because of the apparently long and relatively stable climatic interval preceding the Little Ice Age, it is believed that most of the glacier ice remaining in Glacier National Park was formed during the Little Ice Age and is not a relic from the Pleistocene Epoch (Matthes, 1939, 1940).

Of course he is quoting someone from 1939/40 and perhaps the consensus has changed since then.

Doug Proctor
August 8, 2014 11:20 am

A warden told me the same thing has happened for the front of the receding Athabasca Glacier: he said 3000 year-old stumps are being revealed. The University of Calgary is supposedly (his account) sampling and studying the revealed stumps.
Duh.
However, that was then, and this is now. Today is “special”, so it is irrelevant to the warmists: nature might have done that, then, but CO2 is doing it now. Apples and oranges.
Until we can show that CO2 is NOT causing the temp rise, the argument from history has no relevance in the Climate Wars.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 11:22 am

sturgishooper says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:53 am
Wayne Delbeke says:
August 8, 2014 at 11:17 am
And others.

All you need to do to is find plant material recently uncovered by the melting glaciers at GNP that date back 1000, or 2000 years to prove the MWP and Roman times were “warmer” than today. That’s the problem, the carbond dating is 3000 years.

Ian W
August 8, 2014 11:32 am

Nick Stokes says:
August 8, 2014 at 8:29 am
{{SNIP}}}
Though the key quote really for this post is the original
“This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century.”
This “disproving accepted theories” is what I’ve been pressing. If that isn’t true, then what is the post about? And I’ve given several examples where the accepted science is quite the opposite – that the mid-Holocene was warm, and quite consistent with much reduced glaciers. So Schlüchter’s findings are no surprise, and contradict no AGW theory (not that AGW is relevant there anyway).
No-one seems to be able to counter that.

Nick, the theory is the Michael Mann Hockey Stick – for a change what is in contention is the shaft of the hockey stick which you will remember was long and straight neatly (as requested in the climategate papers ) removing the Medieval and Roman warm periods and reinforcing the often quoted Earth is now the hottest ever!!
If I understand you correctly you are saying that you and other climate scientists knew that this claim that we are now in the hottest times was wrong – but nevertheless you kept schtum and didn’t point out that Mann’s hockey stick was obviously totally incorrect as you knew as did hundreds of climate scientists (including John Finn) and presumably those in the climategate papers who wanted to ‘get rid’ of the previous optima, that there were many previous optima in the Holocene much warmer than the present.
That puts you all into an interesting ethical bind.
If you knew that what Mann and the IPCC said and used as their poster graphic for their reports was completely incorrect – as you are telling us now – why did you keep silent and watch politicians use the incorrect data for self enrichment, power and a way to raise taxes and fuel costs – leading to thousands of deaths in fuel poverty in the UK alone? Can you live with that? What caused the silence – desire for funding? Maintenance of a steady job? Billions are being spent based on the claim that it is warmer now than ever – and you are saying well we all know that’s not true. Can you not stand in front of Congress and tell them the same thing? John Finn could do the same for a parliamentary committee. In the mean time whole industries are suffering and people facing unemployment because the politicians know they are onto a good little earner and nobody is standing up and telling them they are wrong. Why are you not telling them they are wrong if you know it was warmer in the past?
People will be asking this question more insistently in future so it might be an idea to have a satisfactory answer.

crabalocker
August 8, 2014 11:34 am

Eric says:
August 8, 2014 at 9:48 am
It seems that it might be a very good thing to require all climate scientists (actually all scientists) to read Feynman’s Cargo Cult Science speech. Repeatedly.
The most important part of that speech is widely ignored by a large number of climate scientists. That portion is:
————————————
Like math….we are in the age of the ‘New Science’ 😉

August 8, 2014 11:38 am

Article states:

In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned””.
——————–
Actually it was more like 2,300 years ago for sure.
I figured that out several years ago via the historical record and a wee bit of logical reasoning and intelligent deducting ….. and here is part of what I said about it at the time, to wit:
————
Hannibal lucked out when he decided to march his army and herd of elephants across the Alps to attack the Romans in 218 BC because there surely could not have been many glaciers or heavy snowpack blocking his route since documented history proves he accomplished that feat”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal

August 8, 2014 11:41 am

Have you considered curing your total ignorance by reading actual studies, and improving your morals by at least trying to tell the truth?
You’re off by a factor of about 100%, ie 5900 years ago (from 1989) rather than 3000.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpubs.usgs.gov%2Fbul%2F1902%2Freport.pdf&ei=lhflU-WYN8b5oATXsIHwDA&usg=AFQjCNH5Z-9TuOOlw1VQri4iLUMc3japWg&sig2=1y1u2lHrIfmeDYjgyLYh_g&bvm=bv.72676100,d.cGU
The younger group of moraines was formed by
advances that culminated in the mid-19th century as
indicated by tree-ring studies at several localities in the park.
During that time, Glacier National Park contained more than
150 glaciers. The climatic cooling of the mid-19th century that
produced these moraines, although mild compared to fullglacial
conditions, was the most severe climatic deterioration
in the Glacier National Park region since the end of the
Wisconsin glaciation.
Since the mid-19th century, glaciers in Glacier National
Park have shrunk dramatically. From the mid-19th century
until about 1920 retreat rates were slow. From 1920 to the
mid-1940’s the Glacier National Park region experienced a
period of above average summer temperatures and below
average annual precipitation that caused the glaciers to
retreat drastically; many disappeared altogether. After the
mid-1940’s, the overall retreat rates slowed. Between 1966
and 1979, several of the larger glaciers in the Mount Jackson
area advanced slightly…
During the early to middle Holocene warm period
there were probably even fewer glaciers in the park than
at present. Several of the larger glaciers in Glacier
National Park may have survived this warm period,
although many of the park’s glaciers probably did not
exist at this time. Oxygen-isotope ratios determined by
B.H. Luckman on fir fragments from Jasper National
Park suggest that the mean annual temperature at 5,900
yr. BP was about 1.9 oc warmer than present (Osborn,
1982). Although a similar amount of warming would
certainly eliminate many of the smaller, marginal glaciers
in Glacier National Park, the larger, higher glaciers such
as the Blackfoot, Harrison, Sperry, Rainbow, Grinnell,
and Jackson probably survived the early to middle
Holocene warm period. It is interesting to note that as
early as 1942, Matthes stated that most of the presentday
glaciers in the park were not the shrunken remnants
of late Wisconsin glaciers but were new glaciers that
probably formed when the climate cooled after the
middle Holocene (Matthes, 1942).

August 8, 2014 11:42 am

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 11:22 am
Above addressed to H’s latest pack of lies at 11:22 AM.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 11:49 am

sturgishooper says:
August 8, 2014 at 11:41 am
5900 years ago???
Thank you.
..
You just gave MORE evidence that the MWP and Roman warming were NOT warmer than today.
PS….Here are some “3000 year” studies
..
http://www.geog.uvic.ca/dept/uvtrl/2000-02.pdf
http://alaskaresearch.voices.wooster.edu/files/2010/07/AppletonIS.pdf

Udar
August 8, 2014 11:50 am


H Grouse says:
Udar says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:22 am
What does it matter?
It matters a lot. If the glaciers in GNP are 3000 years old, why didn’t them melt away during the MWP and Roman times which are thought to be “warmer” than today?

You, sir, should quote me in full. Here is what I have said:

What does it matter? It was, by your methodology, warmer 3000 years ago than today. So, how is current temperature being unprecedented?

I don’t care which particular time period was warmer than today. I care that it was warmer than today in recent history, and it did not created catastrophe. That kills concept of CAGW dead. The rest is details that some obscure scientists can argue about for al eternity.

Richard Howes
August 8, 2014 11:55 am

Oldseadog says:
August 8, 2014 at 2:38 am
If Michael Mann had found the bits of wood he would have hidden them or turned them into hockey sticks and pucks.
——————————————————–
Careful, Oldseadog, the Mann is known to sue.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 11:58 am

Udar says:
August 8, 2014 at 11:50 am
That kills concept of CAGW dead.
Not really, because ****IF**** the current warming is being caused by CO2, then the fact we are at unprecedented (i.e. 800,000 years) levels of CO2 is significant.

Robertvd
August 8, 2014 12:00 pm

This is nothing new.
Prof. Dr. Patzelt
http://youtu.be/glplSyZM7uE

richardscourtney
August 8, 2014 12:02 pm

H Grouse:
re your post at August 8, 2014 at 11:58 am.
The year 1942 AD was much more recent than “800,000 years” ago.
Just thought you should know.
Richard

August 8, 2014 12:04 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 11:49 am
The fact that glaciers haven’t melted in the Park for 6000 years or more shows there is nothing unusual about their advance and retreat. At present, they are growing again. Their record extent came during the LIA, so retreat after that exceptionally cold period is to be expected.
Different glaciers in Banff and GNP will of course show different patterns.
Do you even read what you link?
As you’ve already been instructed, Glacier Bay NP is in Alaska, not Montana. And here is the history it gives for glaciers there:
“The glacial history of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve is complex and
based on a combination of factors including the tidewater glacier cycle and the overall
climate of the region (Barclay et al., 2009). During a previous retreat the glaciers
retreated to approximately their modern positions (Mann and Hamilton, 1995).
Approximately 12,500 cal yr BP marks the period post glaciation when vegetation
began to enter the Bay following the retreat of the ice. The expansion and diversification
of flora in the area continued until 10,800 cal yr BP to 9,800 cal yr BP when a shift is
thought to correlate with the Younger Dryas period in Europe and caused the vegetation
in the Bay to change (Mann and Hamilton, 1995). Present trees, Sitka Spruce, Western
Hemlock, Mountain Hemlock, and cedar are an analog for those that entered into the Bay
after 10,000 cal yr BP. The trees move into the area in the previously stated order with
the western red cedar as one of the last tree varieties to travel north, not arriving until the
middle Holocene (Mann and Hamilton, 1995). The migration of the species completed in
4,000 cal yr BP (Mann and Hamilton, 1995). However, progress made by the tree taxa in
their migration north during this 6,000 year period would be greatly undone by the harsh
climate of the Little Ice Age, which was too extreme for trees and other vegetation to
survive (Mann and Hamilton, 1995).
Pollen records used to reconstruct paleoclimate suggest a warm period between
9,000-6,000 cal yr BP, called the Hypsithermal (Mann and Hamilton, 1995). By 9,000 cal
yr BP, sea level had reached its present height in most of southeast Alaska not
experiencing uplift of subsidence (Mann and Hamilton, 1995). During the Neoglacial
period the glaciers in the West Arm began to advance in a slow process broken up by
stand stills and minor retreats (Mann and Hamilton, 1995). This advance began with the
advance to the mouth of Reid Inlet, 5,750 cal yr BP, and Johns Hopkins Inlet, 5,430 cal
yr BP (Connor et al., 2009). Between 5,220 and 4,790 cal yr BP gravel outwash sediment
buried trees along Whidbey Passage, Francis Island and Sturgess Island respectively
(Connor et al., 2009). Shallow marine sediment with a lack of dropstones present at
Kidney Island and in Berg Bay, 4,560 and 4,290 cal yr BP respectively, gives evidence of
an outwash plain in front of the glacial advance. Willowby Island outwash buried in situ
stumps that were radiocarbon dated to between 3,710 and 3,420 cal yr BP marking the
advance that far down the Bay (Connor et al., 2009). Geikie Inlet shows an advance at
approximately 3,000 cal yr BP based on radiocarbon dating of a tree-ring series (Wiles et
al., 2011). A wetter and cooler climate trend followed this trend appearing in the pollen
records after 3,300 cal yr BP (Mann and Hamilton, 1995). The glaciers of the eastern
arm of Glacier Bay joined with the glaciers of the western arm of the inlet around 2,700
cal yr BP.
Un-rooted wood found in a glacial outwash till in Berg Bay radiocarbon dated to
between 2,520 and 2,270 cal yr BP suggesting the forefield of the western arm extended
well to the south of this location. Many glacial lake silts dating to 2,660 cal yr BP are
found throughout the east arm showing the presence of Glacial Lake Muir (Figure 8).
This indicates that the ice of the west arm had advanced far enough to dam the east arm
and cause the lake to form (Connor et al., 2009; Goodwin, 1988).
Trees in mid-Wachusett Inlet were killed by the advance of Carroll Glacier in
2,560 cal yr BP. A vegetated outwash located at the mid-point of Muir Glaciers upper
fjord dates to 2,790 cal yr BP. This matches the tree-ring and radiocarbon dating of the
Muir Inlet advance dating between 2,310 and 2,750 cal yr BP (Aughenbaugh, 2010). At
some point after 2,520 cal yr BP the west arm ice retreated behind the east arm causing
the release of Glacial Lake Muir.
A retreat occurred at this time. The ice advanced again to the mouth of the East
arm by 1,860 cal yr BP and lasted until 1,220 cal yr BP forming Glacial Lake Adams
(Figure 8). The forefield edge of the glacial outwash was located at Berg Bay in 1,780 cal
yr BP. 900 cal yr BP saw the ice come to a standstill, or in some cases a minor retreat. In
850 cal yr BP, the ice of the west arm retreated, releasing Glacial Lake Adams and
allowed for the growth of vegetation to be reestablished in the lower Bay area. After 850
cal yr BP the glaciers resumed their advance (Mann and Hamilton, 1995). By 420 cal yr
BP, the ice front was located north of Beardslee Island at Kidney Island. The ice
continued to advance until it reached Bartlett Cove between 280-170 cal yr BP (1750
AD) (Connor et al., 2009).
After 280 to 170 cal yr BP the glacier began its rapid and catastrophic retreat.
Several reasons for this rapid retreat have been proposed by the scientists that study
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve and the surrounding area (Figure 9). One
hypothesis formed is that the ablation is based on warmer climate and aggravated by ice
calving into the waters of the fjord (Mann and Hamilton, 1995).”
The retreat turned out not to be so “catastrophic”. Glaciers there advanced in the 21st century:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nps.gov%2Fglba%2Fnaturescience%2Fupload%2FOverview%2520of%2520Glacier%2520Bay%2520Glaciers2.pdf&ei=GB7lU4bpM834oASX6oDQBA&usg=AFQjCNGBJcV_GZr8gooyH4JZmuJIRNFW0g&sig2=Rj-Pshj1WO5Z06PftuJk2w&bvm=bv.72676100,d.cGU

August 8, 2014 12:06 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 11:58 am
Earth is currently cooling. There is zero evidence to support the conjecture that whatever warming might have occurred between c. 1977 and 1996 was primarily (or at all) “caused” by CO2, and all the evidence in the world is against that unfounded assertion.

Bob Boder
August 8, 2014 12:07 pm

Proctor says
“Until we can show that CO2 is NOT causing the temp rise, the argument from history has no relevance in the Climate Wars.”
17 years 10 months no warming. 17 years 10 months accelerating CO2 rise.
DONE!

Udar
August 8, 2014 12:12 pm


H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 11:58 am
Udar says:
August 8, 2014 at 11:50 am
That kills concept of CAGW dead.
Not really, because ****IF**** the current warming is being caused by CO2, then the fact we are at unprecedented (i.e. 800,000 years) levels of CO2 is significant.

You continue to quote out of context and misdirect. I am sure it’s on purpose.
All that regular people, politicians, and everyone who is not a climate scientists, care about is whether global warming is catastrophic or not. They don’t care if it AGW or N(atural)GW or any other GW or C(limate)C(hange), as long as it’s not C(atastrophic)GW.
The fact that temperatures that were significantly higher than today did not destroy life as we know it is all that we care about.

Bob Boder
August 8, 2014 12:13 pm

H Grouse says
“No, the correct term is “hypothesis””
No the correct term is “Debunked hypothesis”

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 12:16 pm

richardscourtney says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:02 pm
1942 AD

You should see what the readings are today if you take them today FROM THE SAME locations.
Paris has well over 900 ppm !!!

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 12:21 pm

Bob Boder says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:07 pm

“17 years 10 months no warming.”

Yes, and during those 17 years and 10 months we’ve had about 50 mm of sea level rise.

August 8, 2014 12:23 pm

H. Grouse: “Not really, because ****IF**** the current warming is being caused by CO2, then the fact we are at unprecedented (i.e. 800,000 years) levels of CO2 is significant.”
If the current warming is caused by pinto-bean consumption, then the fact that we are at unprecedented (i.e., 4,500,000,000-year) levels of pinto-bean consumption is significant.

MarkW
August 8, 2014 12:23 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:21 pm
Yes, and during those 17 years and 10 months we’ve had about 50 mm of sea level rise.
—-
Which is less than the previous 20 years.

MarkW
August 8, 2014 12:25 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 9:43 am
No, the correct term is “hypothesis”

Don’t theories have to get at least an occasional prediction correct?

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 12:28 pm

MarkW says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:23 pm
Which is less than the previous 20 years.
Doesn’t matter if it is less. That wonderful “thermal expansion” and “melting ice” problem still exists for all the folks saying “no warming”

MarkW
August 8, 2014 12:31 pm

lemiere jacques says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:36 am
—-
Would you mind repeating that? In English this time.

MarkW
August 8, 2014 12:32 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:28 pm
—–
You really aren’t any good at this science thing.
Thermal equilibrium is not achieved over night.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 12:33 pm

MarkW says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:25 pm
.
at least an occasional prediction correct?
This one worked out fine
..
http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/82629/nsidc_sept_sea_ice.png

MarkW
August 8, 2014 12:34 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:37 am
—–
Sturgis says almost ice free.
You proclaim that if it was warmer they must have ice free.
I guess this is just one of those words, whose meaning doesn’t matter to you.

August 8, 2014 12:35 pm

MarkW,
H Grouse has no understanding of the lag time between warming and thermal expansion. He has argued incessantly that thermal expansion happens instantaneously. He even posted a link that explained that there is such a lag time. Didn’t matter. ‘H Grouse’ argues incessantly for the sake of argument. He is incapable of learning anything.

August 8, 2014 12:35 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:28 pm
Sea level has been increasing since the Little Ice Age. Humans have nothing to do with it. Ice expanded during the LIA. Since its trough in the late 17th century, ice has been on balance waning, but also waxing. Same as for the past four billion years.
Its warmer now than 300 years, but cooler than 1000, 2000, 3000 and 5000 years ago, indeed cooler than about 2/3 of the Holocene, which has been a cooler interglacial than the Eemian and MIS 11, among recent ones. Ice has been in a downward trend on earth since the Last Glacial Maximum about 20,000 years ago, at various paces of retreat.
There is no evidence that humans have anything to do with warming observed since the depths of the LIA during the 1690s.

MarkW
August 8, 2014 12:35 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:33 pm
—–
Notice how the troll left the last 3 years of data out of his cherry picked chart.

Mike M
August 8, 2014 12:35 pm

Mike M said: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1965/to:2000/trend
John Finn says: August 8, 2014 at 10:10 am What are the calculated trends.? Also the more recent period you chose includes a decade when temperatures were flat or cooling (i.e. 1965-75). The 1975-2010 trend shows more warming. (0.18 degrees per decade)
Yes, your later period was steeper, I must have missed it. The worst case I could find was about a difference in warming rate of about 0.3 degrees per century so if we double CO2 and CO2 is that influential we might make it back to MWP warmth in another 300 or 400 years. Is that a good reason to stop me from buying 100W light bulbs or doubling my electric bills? Is it worth putting coal miners out of work?

MarkW
August 8, 2014 12:36 pm

I should add, that according to the leading lights of CAGW, the arctic was supposed to be completely ice free this year.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 12:36 pm

MarkW says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:32 pm
“this science thing.”
..
Thermal expansion does not wait. Thermal expansion is not “thermal equilibrium” Keep your apples separate from your oranges.

August 8, 2014 12:36 pm

dbstealey says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:35 pm
Maybe in his home universe, it works like that.

August 8, 2014 12:38 pm

As usual, the sock puppet ‘H Grouse’ cherry picks only the Arctic when posting about sea ice.
For a chart of global ice cover, see here.
We see that global ice is rising. So much for the ‘global warming’ nonsense.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 12:39 pm

sturgishooper says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:35 pm
“Sea level has been increasing since the Little Ice Age”

So have global temperatures.

Udar
August 8, 2014 12:39 pm


H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:28 pm
MarkW says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:23 pm
Which is less than the previous 20 years.
Doesn’t matter if it is less. That wonderful “thermal expansion” and “melting ice” problem still exists for all the folks saying “no warming”

I don’t know why I bother, you’ll just quote me out of context again, but It’s been increasing at faster rate for much longer than man had been producing any noticeable amount of CO2. The fact that it increased only by 50mm in last 18 years actually signifies that sea rise is slowing down. Which directly proves that you are wrong.

Mike M
August 8, 2014 12:41 pm

H Grouse says: August 8, 2014 at 12:33 pm at least an occasional prediction correct?
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
Did anyone predict this? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

August 8, 2014 12:41 pm

Grouse says:
So have global temperatures.
Which debunks the claim that human CO2 emissions cause global warming.
[BTW, does Grouse work? If so, he is cheating his employer by posting throughout the work day.]

August 8, 2014 12:42 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:39 pm
Well, duh! How do you suppose the LIA is characterized except by average temperature as implied by proxies and shown by instruments.
That a warmer world should have higher sea level is not at issue. The cause of post-LIA warming is. There is no reason to suppose that humans have had much or anything to do with it. Maybe a tiny bit from groundwater pumping. CO2, not so much.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 12:43 pm

MarkW says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:35 pm
“Notice how the troll left the last 3 years of data out of his cherry picked chart.”
This is better, …..
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/06/Figure3.png
Doesn’t change the trend line.

Reply to  H Grouse
August 11, 2014 4:39 am

@H Grouse
#1 – Sea ice melting does not increase sea level. Physics 101
#2 – Half a world is not the whole world. Keep your cherry picking to yourself. The better one shows TOTAL – which includes ANTARCTICA

richardscourtney
August 8, 2014 12:44 pm

H Grouse:
The trouble with you trying to be clever is that you reveal you are not. Your post at August 8, 2014 at 12:16 pm says in total

richardscourtney says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:02 pm
1942 AD

You should see what the readings are today if you take them today FROM THE SAME locations.
Paris has well over 900 ppm !!!

I was referring to the value obtained by Massen & Beck for global background CO2 as later measured at Mauna Loa.
You really don’t have a clue what you are talking about or you would not have made such a mistake.
Richard

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 12:45 pm

sturgishooper says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:42 pm
.
“Well, duh! ”
..
OK, please explain to me how we get 50 mm of sea level rise if there has not been any warming in the past 17 years and 10 months.
Doesn’t it stand to reason that if it is not getting warmer, then sea levels should stop rising?

MarkW
August 8, 2014 12:47 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:36 pm
—–
Did you take classes in how to make yourself look dumb, or do you come by this skill naturally.
Take an iron bar. Apply a torch to one end. A few seconds later go to other end of the bar and touch it. Did you get burnt? Of course not, for the simple reason that the heat hasn’t moved to the other end yet. And iron is a good thermal conductor compared to most other things.
It takes time for heat to move from the atmosphere into everything else. Until the heat has moved, then thermal expansion can’t take place.
It’s really simple, unless you are dedicated to protecting your religious beliefs at the expense of your integrity.

Bob Boder
August 8, 2014 12:48 pm

H Grouse says
“Thermal expansion does not wait. Thermal expansion is not “thermal equilibrium” Keep your apples separate from your oranges.”
The same thermal expansion that was happening before Rockefeller started selling Gas and and Edison invented the light bulb. Man made Global warming at work.
If the oceans are warming and the air ain’t then something else is warming the oceans bub. There’s your next bit of proof that it’s not the CO2. Work on your next theory this one is done.

MarkW
August 8, 2014 12:48 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:39 pm
So have global temperatures.
—-
However CO2 levels didn’t start rising until almost 100 years later.

August 8, 2014 12:49 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:43 pm
The global temperature trend line is down:
MIS 11 warmer than Eemian Interglacial.
Eemian warmer than Holocene.
Holocene Climatic Optimum warmer than Old Kingdom Warm Period.
OKWP warmer than Minoan WP.
Greek Dark Ages Cold Period warmer than Dark Ages Cold Period.
Minoan warmer than Roman WP.
Dark Ages Cold Period warmer than LIA.
Roman warmer than Medieval WP.
LIA colder than DACP.
Modern Warm Period cooler than Medieval WP.
Not a happy trend for the fate of humanity.

August 8, 2014 12:50 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:45 pm
The rate of increase in sea level rise has indeed slowed, but we’re still in a warmer cycle than the LIA. But that has little or nothing to do with human GHGs.

MarkW
August 8, 2014 12:51 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:43 pm
—-
Actually it does change the trend line. It flattens it noticeably.
However the problem with your graph is that it starts at the beginning of the warm cycle of the PDO, which is well known to melt arctic sea ice.

Udar
August 8, 2014 12:52 pm


H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:45 pm
sturgishooper says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:42 pm
.
“Well, duh! ”
..
OK, please explain to me how we get 50 mm of sea level rise if there has not been any warming in the past 17 years and 10 months.
Doesn’t it stand to reason that if it is not getting warmer, then sea levels should stop rising?

I haven’t got a clue. SInce it is obviously not going to cause catastrophe, why should I care? I am perfectly happy for you to spend all of your life trying to figure that out. As long as you leave me alone and don’t try to change my way of life, trying to stop sea rise that had been happening for ages.

MarkW
August 8, 2014 12:52 pm

Doesn’t it stand to reason.
—-
No Grouse, it doesn’t stand to reason at all.
Glaciers take time to melt. Also ground water pumping is still going on.

Editor
August 8, 2014 12:53 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:43 pm (responding to)

MarkW says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:35 pm
“Notice how the troll left the last 3 years of data out of his cherry picked chart.”

This is better, …..
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/06/Figure3.png
Doesn’t change the trend line.

But your plot doesn’t predict a warmer future.
It doesn’t match decreasing summertime Arctic air temperatures up where the ice actually is.
It doesn’t even relate to rising CO2 levels.
Now, explain why the Antarctic sea ice has been steadily expanding since 1996, and has been above 0.0 anomaly ever since 2006?
The ever-increasing Antarctic sea ice at 58-59 south latitude receives 5x times more energy in September than does Arctic sea ice up at 80 north latitude that same day. Today, at the actual sea ice limits of the Arctic, more energy is LOST from the open ocean by evaporation, convection, conduction, and long-wave radiation than can be gained by the few hours of sunlight each day at 5 – 7 degree solar elevation angles.
So, why should we care about receding Arctic sea ice?
Less Arctic sea ice in August, September, October => more heat loss => colder futures.
More sea ice in those months => less heat loss => warmer futures.
Yes, losing Arctic sea ice seems like a problem to me.
And, according to the DMI, the daily summertime temperatures up at 80 north have been getting colder since 1959. So, why do you not fear a colder future?
Why do you NOT care about the ever-increasing Antarctic sea ice?
More Antarctic sea ice => more reflected energy 7 months of the year => colder futures. And Antarctica has been getting colder!

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 12:54 pm

richardscourtney says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:44 pm

“You really don’t have a clue”
..
“Those done by chemical methods prior to 1960 are often rejected as being inadequate due too poor siting, timing or method. ”
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/CO2_versus_windspeed-review-1-FM.pdf
Thanks RIchard.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 12:57 pm

RACookPE1978 says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:53 pm
“Now, explain why the Antarctic sea ice has been steadily expanding”
Shifting wind.
..
Also note, that Antarctic ice MASS has been decreasing.
..
http://congrexprojects.com/docs/12c20_docs2/2-grace_esa-clic_forsberg.pdf?sfvrsn=2

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 12:59 pm

Udar says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:52 pm
I: haven’t got a clue.”
..
I will give you two.
1) Thermal expansion
2) Melting ice.

August 8, 2014 12:59 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:57 pm
Actually, Antarctic mass is not diminishing. The EAIS quit retreating about 3000 years ago, as shown by radionuclides in the soil around its margins.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 1:03 pm

sturgishooper says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:50 pm

“but we’re still in a warmer cycle”

There are thousands of “cycles”……. PDO+AMO+Indian+sunspot+Milankovicth+tarot cards????
Ever hear of Occam’s razor ?

Udar
August 8, 2014 1:04 pm


H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:43 pm
MarkW says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:35 pm
“Notice how the troll left the last 3 years of data out of his cherry picked chart.”
This is better, …..
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/06/Figure3.png
Doesn’t change the trend line.

No, not really. 2012? You still left out 2 last years of data. The years when ice started to increase.

Editor
August 8, 2014 1:04 pm

H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:33 pm (responding to)

MarkW says:
August 8, 2014 at 12:25 pm
.
at least an occasional prediction correct?

This one worked out fine
..
http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/82629/nsidc_sept_sea_ice.png

Er, uhm, ah … NO.
That is NOT a “prediction” of Arctic sea ice trends, that is a two-year old “plot” of what happened to Arctic sea ice.
See, a prediction is made “ahead of time” about the “future” of sea ice.
And, what Sereze (and hundreds of other co-religion propagandists) have predicted is a “Arctic feedback” where “loss of sea ice => increased heat absorbed in the open ocean + less solar energy reflected into space each day => more Arctic warming => more sea ice loss => more Arctic warming.”
And that is NOT what has happened when Arctic sea ice was lost in 2007, 2012, 2002, or any other year. Each year, after a new “sea ice low record” was set, more sea ice was found the next year.

H Grouse
August 8, 2014 1:04 p