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
richard verney:
I write to provide an important (n.b. not picky) correction to your post at August 9, 2014 at 1:32 am which adds to the point you were making.
You say
Yes. All that you say is very true. But we do know some things “other than CO2” that would explain all the warming periods you mention and also the post 1970s warming.
A redistribution of surface temperature (induced for example by random variation to ocean currents) would alter radiative balance to cause change to global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) and such changes to GASTA could be larger than those under discussion.
As you say, nobody knows what has caused variations in GASTA to cause the Minoan, Roman, Medieaval, and present warm periods. But Nick Stokes is wrong to suggest that altered atmospheric CO2 concentration is the only known possible cause.
Richard
sturgishooper says:
If the Team recognizes past cycles, then why did they want to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period, and why did Mann et al engage in such criminal activities in order to do so?
Money, fame, all expenses paid jaunts to holiday locales, unearned professional success… the standard trade-offs for corruption. The usual enticements.
crabalocker says:
August 9, 2014 at 1:00 am
He worked for it diligently, digging faster and deeper. People were kind enough to hand him new shovels, which was nice. But enough was enough.
I would suggest bookmarking this thread. The entire discussion is illustrative of the nature of the opposition we face in this great war for control over our lives which has been posed to the world at large as a quest to save the planet from man made global warming. We truly are standing in opposition against the dark side.
Nick Stokes says
Again you say that the forcing (factors) for the last century are well known and you use Hansen’s BS as your proof, but once again if the forcing is well known why don’t the models work? Answer, they aren’t well know.
Now go back to your dorm room and talk with Finn, Grouse and Carter and have another sit down with professor Hansen and get some new instruction, because friend your not even interesting any more your just boring, when I can’t even get a laugh out of you it becomes worthless.
I also agree with crispin, RGB don’t waist your time with Nick Stokes address his masters you are waisting your time on him he is a puppet/robot incapable of learning anything, he is programmed and set in motion that is all. Your posts are to good to be held down responding to him and the other groupies.
“They analyse the known forcings for the last 50 years, and show that alternatives could not produce the observed warming. This is by successive elimination, and confidence grows gradually.
But that is given knowledge of all forcings during the last fifty years. It does not claim that CO2 must have caused warmings in the past, when forcings were different, and not well known. It says that CO2 is the only remaining “control knob” in that 50-year period, when others have been eliminated.”
Unfortunately, you’re assuming that the forcings are well known over the past 50 years. Most skeptics would stipulate that you do not. “alternatives could not produce” assumes that you know all of the alternatives, which is an argument from ignorance.. the fact that you don’t know of alternative forcings means that you’ve proven CO2 as the culprit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
You have models. You have numbers. You don’t have a real clue, however. Physical processes are always the same. If you can’t explain the past, you can’t explain the present either. The fact that you can’t explain the past should be a giant blinking neon light indicating that you’ve overlooked something. Sticking your head in the sand about it doesn’t make it go away, despite how “certain” you are.
I also agree with crabablocker don’t ban these puppets, they have a right to speak and they will grow up someday/maybe.
“But that is given knowledge of all forcings during the last fifty years. It does not claim that CO2 must have caused warmings in the past, when forcings were different, and not well known. ”
Addendum: Obviously CO2 wasn’t the only forcing in the past causing these things. THAT’S the point. If there was another forcing in the past that could do it that you’re unaware of, then it’s entirely possible (or even likely) that the same forcing is still going on behind the scenes today that you’re blissfully ignorant of.
PeterK says: “Nick Stokes…one brick short of a full load! ”
Just one?
Nick Stokes says:
August 8, 2014 at 7:41 pm
Forcings in the last century are rather well known.
=====
well that’s a relief…..now we know the computer games are as good as they will get
and we can stop paying attention to this BS and f.a.k.e science now……..
Nick Stokes says:
August 9, 2014 at 2:09 am
How can you possibly claim to know all the forcings for the alleged warming of the 20th century but not for prior warming periods and the warm cycles of previous cooling periods?
Just another example of the unscientific approach of the Team.
In the past there have been warming periods of longer duration, higher and more rapid temperature change than for the twenty years after c. 1977. What makes the recent warming different from those? That CO2 was higher is simply an observation, not a cause.
ALl this stuff about Schluchter’s being a “skeptic” who is causing considerable disquiet among “warmists” is undermined by the fact that one of his co-authors for this work is arch-warmist fraudster and lead author of IPCC WG1, THomas Prechter:
http://tmtfree.hd.free.fr/albums/files/TMTisFree/Documents/Climate/Multicentury_glacier_fluctuations_in_the_Swiss_Alps_during_the_Holocene_joerin06hol.pdf
NIce bit of theorising, my Wattite friends, but it might help if you research the evidence first (I know: it’s so dreary gathering evidence when one could be glorying in one’s hypothesising instead).
Bill H,
We leave it up to you to get us the info. ☺
Mr. Stokes knows the known knowns but seems unaware there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. If all the unknowns were known then climate science would truly be settled. They’re not and it isn’t. Neither side knows enough to silence the other. The battle ground, therefore, is the remedy and that is a purely political issue.
Think before you vote and stop voting for stupid people.
OT – the ‘Like’ button is nothing less than a tracking beacon.
Conclusions
The radiocarbon ages of tree fragments and peat discs found
on proglacial forefields indicate 12 phases of glacier recessions
during the Holocene. Locations and type of occurrence of the
dated samples show that trees and mires grew where glaciers
exist at present and, therefore, glaciers were smaller at that
time. The extended data set of recessions limits periods of
glacier advances in a complementary way and improves on the
chronology of natural climate fluctuations in the Alpine
region. As a result, it is suggested that major glacier fluctua-
tions occurred on a multicentennial scale and that their pattern
changed from long recessions (>500 yr) interrupted by short
advances (<200 yr) during the early Holocene to the opposite
pattern with relatively short recessions and prolonged advances
during the late Holocene (after 3.3 cal. kyr BP). It is important
to recognize that this natural variability of glacier extent, which
occurs on a centennial timescale, is superimposed on a much
longer term, multimillennial-scale trend towards increased
glacier extent culminating in the ‘Little Ice Age’. This is
indicated in our data as a progressively reduced occurrence of
wood and peat remnants through the course of the Holocene,
which is consistent with a long-term reduction of sea surface
temperatures in the North Atlantic.
Do not the conclusions of the paper go against the ‘official’ party line?
Do they not point to a warmer, more variable past?
Don’t they flat out state that glacial fluctuations are ‘natural’ and implied to be cyclical?
So, even if the ‘skeptic’ label is misapplied, this is still worth something…because, at the least it doesn’t confirm the ‘party line’ and makes headway to falsifying at least chunks of it…ie that the past was ‘flat’ and cooler. Warmer than now and wide, fairly rapid swings in temperature really does put the screws on the idea that what we have now is ‘unprecedented’.
@Joe Kirklin Borne How do I quote a chapter & verse for something he didn’t say?
A fer instance of his descriptions of fauna: Book 6 Chapter 6:
“26. Est bos cervi figura, cuius a media fronte inter aures unum cornu exsistit excelsius magisque directum his, quae nobis nota sunt, cornibus: ab eius summo sicut palmae ramique late diffunduntur. Eadem est feminae marisque natura, eadem forma magnitudoque cornuum.”
If you go to this site http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0002:book=6:chapter=26&highlight=cervi and search for the word “glacies” (ice) you will see that Caesar never used it in the entire work.
Glaciers are dynamic.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/10562017/Melting-glaciers-in-northern-Italy-reveal-corpses-of-WW1-soldiers.html
I have tried and tried to convince people that ice is never a permanent geological feature, but many don’t get it.
Of course he knows all the forcings. How else stay sound in wind and limb?
========================
What an astoundingly clear and simple ( and factual ) description of the corruption. Three cheers to this genuine Scientist!
H Grouse back again talking about glaciers when s/he doen’t understand why Venus is hot, Mars is cold, Earth is great and Mecury is not as hot as Venus.
philjourdan says:
It is interesting that H Grouse will not tell us where he got the claim that the GNP glaciers (if he was not confused with Glacier Bay National Park) are 3000 years old.
This web site (which I quoted upstream): http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm
Suggests that they are ~7,000 years old.
Do you have a reference for the claim that they disappeared during the Minoan Warm Period?
@richard Sharpe – I was not claiming they were gone during the Minoan. I was merely pointing out that the Minoan was 3000 years ago after Grouse said the Minoan was not as warm. He apparently did not do the math to date the Minoan.
H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 1:51 pm
“Really, please find some vegetation at the edge of the melting glaciers that carbon date back less than 3000 years. If you find some, then we’ll know the MWP and/or Roman warming was “warmer” than today””.
————————
A little common sense reasoning would tell most any semi-learned individual that the above quoted text was an utterly asinine and/or silly statement.
Given the proxy based FACT that the Roman Warm Period (2,200 BP) and the Medieval Warm Period (1,100 BP) were both much “warmer” than today (late 20th Century) ….. and the FACT that the glaciers are still in “melt mode” today (late 20th Century), …. then the remains of the highest extent of any mountain vegetation that grew during the RWP or MWP would still be underneath the glacial ice and thus could not be found at the current “melt-water” edges of said glaciers.
And given the proxy based FACT that the Minoan Warm Period (3,300 BP) was even “warmer” than both the Roman WP and Medieval WP ….. then the “melting” of the Minoan WP glaciers, the Roman WP glaciers and/or the Medieval WP glaciers could have caused severe erosion of the surface and thus there would be no vegetative remains underneath the current glaciers.
When mountain erosion by glacier movement “scrapes” the surface down to “bedrock”, it will require several hundred continuous years of “warm” temperatures to re-vegetate said eroded areas. Vegetation growth clear across northern Russia and Siberia to the edge of the Arctic Ocean required from 1,000 to 3,000 continuous years of “warm” temperatures. Ref: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589499921233
And the author’s reason and/or intent for posting said could be “one (1) or more” of several. And it has been my experience that females have a propensity for refusing to admit being “wrong” about anything and thus are noted for offering such “tripe n’ piffle” in their rebuttal commentary.
And I think there are far more important issues for resolving than to be arguing with F Grouse about ….. “The little end of nothing”.
Cogar says
While much of what you say makes sense, your personal experiences with women is not a reason to make generalized comments about the gender. There are plenty of guys on this site that behave in just this manor when challenged and plenty of women who don’t. Judge each person on their actions not on their being.
WIth Nick Stokes you always need to watch the pea.
He is arguing that ‘climate forcings’ are rather well known. Of course, the compositions of ‘forcings’ in the team’s models are defined by the team, and in general everything that is less known is assigned as a ‘feedback’. CO2, of course, is assigned as the key ‘forcing’ in the model. Nick is simply derailing the thread, as per usual, and directing you all to argue on the terms he and the team have defined. Much as Grouse was earlier in arguing the age, not the extent or growth/decline, of glaciers. Many asked about how he can post so much while doing his day job, perhaps consider that he WAS doing his day job.
Whenever you have a discussion with someone like Nick you need to step back and figure out where the trick or technicality in the argument is.