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
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?
@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.”
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
“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?
H Grouse says:
August 8, 2014 at 9:43 am
According to that infallible source Wikipedia:
Without a control, it is impossible to test for CAGW; therefore, it is a conjecture.
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?
“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.
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.]
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@ur momisugly H Grouse says: August 8, 2014 at 10:37 am
Almost is not GONE – learn the meaning of words.
dbstealey says:
August 8, 2014 at 10:33 am
“Wrong. As usual.”
Arguing about the meaning of words is not winnable
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.
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?