global warming data...garbage in...

[Xue Sheng140 11]

A quick look at Himalayan glaciers...

http://whyfiles.org/2012/himalayan-glaciers/



And glaciers around the world...

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/nasa-satellite-debunks-melting-glacier-myth








So you were saying about melting glaciers...

And a little more...

http://www.iceagenow.com/Our_glaciers_are_growing_not_melting.htm

You do know there are more glaciers then just the Himalayas don't you... or maybe you don't

Look at Greenland, Alps, and the Glaciers in South America, Alaska and Canada....

Do you have any idea what Global warming really means and what the resault of it is? I am guessing no based on your posts

 

[granfire]

You do know there are more glaciers then just the Himalayas don't you... or maybe you don't

Look at Greenland, Alps, and the Glaciers in South America, Alaska and Canada....

Do you have any idea what Global warming really means and what the resault of it is? I am guessing no based on your posts

I was looking at a comparison picture of a glacier on Mt Rainier...it was really drastic how the ice had receded in very recent years.

But no, it's the coming ice age that does that....


Anyhow...
A general question:
With all the asphalt we put out, and glass and such...paving places over....don't we create more heat yet?
(not to mention the A/C units...I know the energy balance is +/- but since the cold air is inside...doesn't it war up the outside?)

 

[billc]

Do you mean this Greenland glacier...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...reenland-glacier-survived-warmer-temperatures

Greenland's ice sheet is no closer to melting than that of Antarctica, indicates a study reported by five scientists at Britain's University of Southampton in the March 8 issue of Naturemagazine.
The scientists report extensive ice-rafted sedimentary debris was deposited in the Norwegian-Greenland Sea roughly 30 to 38 million years ago. Evidence indicates the sediment was carried by glacial ice rather than sea ice, which in turn indicates glaciers existed on Greenland "about 20 million years earlier than previously documented, at a time when temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were substantially higher" than they are today.
According to the University of Southampton scientists, at the time Greenland glaciers deposited the sedimentary debris, ocean bottom-water temperatures were 5 to 8 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today, and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were up to four times greater than today's.
"Our data provide the stratigraphically extensive evidence for the existence of continental ice in the Northern Hemisphere during the Palaeogene," the scientists report, which "is about 20 million years earlier than previously documented, at a time when global deep water temperatures and, by extension, surface water temperatures at high latitude, were much warmer."
Given the existence of Greenland glaciers when temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were much greater than exist today, "there is great reason to not only doubt, but to reject out-of-hand, Mr. Gore's scare stories of sea levels rapidly rising tens of feet in response to his implied rapid demise of the Greenland Ice Sheet," said Craig Idso, founder and former president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. "We now have evidence of a much warmer period of time that failed to bring about such a catastrophic consequence."

Did you miss this about Greenland Ice in my earlier post...

Today comes a similar report from the UK-based Register newspaper: “1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today”:

Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
The photos in question were taken by the seventh Thule Expedition to Greenland led by Dr Knud Rasmussen in 1932. The explorers were equipped with a seaplane, which they used to take aerial snaps of glaciers along the Arctic island’s coasts.
After the expedition returned the photographs were used to make maps and charts of the area, then placed in archives in Denmark where they lay forgotten for decades. Then, in recent years, international researchers trying to find information on the history of the Greenland glaciers stumbled across them.
Taken together the pictures show clearly that glaciers in the region were melting even faster in the 1930s than they are today, according to Professor Jason Box, who works at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University.

​

Or Kilimanjaro...Not global warming?

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2004/02/01/nature-study-debunks-kilimanjaro-glacier-myth

Deforestation “More Likely Culprit”
According to Nature’s Betsy Mason, “Although it’s tempting to blame the (Kilimanjaro) ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit.”
Forests at the base of Kilimanjaro have been steadily disappearing for decades. “Without the forests’ humidity,” Mason reports, “previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.”
“Why has [the Kilimanjaro ice cap] been melting so relentlessly?” asked climatologist John Daly. “The greenhouse industry say ‘global warming,’ but then they would say that, wouldn’t they?
“The only problem with that knee-jerk explanation is that there has been no measurable atmospheric warming in the region of Kilimanjaro,” noted Daly. “Satellites have been measuring temperature since 1979 in the free troposphere between 1,000 and 8,000 meters altitude, and they show no tropospheric warming in that area. None.”
Said Daly, “Kilimanjaro is above most of the weather and is thus exposed to the equatorial sun, a sun that has been hotter during the twentieth century than at any time since the medieval period. That would be a sufficient explanation in itself for the depletion of the ice cap.”

Why would glaciers be melting...

According to the Center, “Following the peak of Little Ice Age coldness, it should come as no surprise that many records indicate widespread glacial retreat, as temperatures began to rise in the mid- to late-1800s and many glaciers returned to positions characteristic of pre-Little Ice Age times.

But if some are melting...but others are growing...and others are staying the same...how can it be global warming?

Some Glaciers Shrinking, Others Growing
“What people may find surprising, however, is that in many instances the rate of glacier retreat has not increased over the past 70 years; and in some cases glacier mass balance has actually increased, all during a time when the atmosphere experienced the bulk of the increase in its CO2 content.”
A study published in Progress in Physical Geography (Braithwaite, R.J., 26: 76-95 (2002)), analyzed mass balance measurements of 246 glaciers from around the world between 1946 and 1995. According to the study’s author, “there are several regions with highly negative mass balances in agreement with a public perception of ‘the glaciers are melting,’ but there are also regions with positive balances.”
Within Europe, for example, “Alpine glaciers are generally shrinking, Scandinavian glaciers are growing, and glaciers in the Caucasus are close to equilibrium for 1980-95,” according to Braithwaite. Significantly, regarding this most recent 15-year period of time, Braithwaite noted “there is no obvious common or global trend of increasing glacier melt in recent years.”
Daly predicts that because of mountain base deforestation, and all other things being equal, “What happens on Kilimanjaro will also be happening on countless mountains all over the world where forests on lower slopes have been replaced by open pasture.
“Blaming it all on ‘global warming’ was just too glib and convenient for an industry desperate to convince a skeptical public that the end of the world was nigh,” said Daly. “With a more down-to-earth cause like this identified, other ‘global-warming-did-it’ phenomena should be looked at again for simple local causes like this.”

Added Singer, “The National Academy of Sciences published a report (in 2000) that defines the geographic regions of warming and cooling during the last 20 years. Surface measurements of East Africa show no warming trend. Weather satellites show a pronounced cooling trend of the atmosphere there. No one has questioned these data.”
“One of the endlessly fascinating aspects of modern journalism is the absolute lack of critical insight tendered towards environmental scares,” said Pat Michaels, research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. “A cursory inspection of (Kilimanjaro) data shows that Kilimanjaro’s glaciers would be dying even if Homo sapiens were still just hanging around the trees of the Rift Valley, a few hundred miles to the West.
“From 1953 through 1976, 21 percent of the original (ice cap) area was uncovered. This was during a period of global cooling--yes, cooling--of 0.13º F,” said Michaels. “Around Kilimanjaro, satellite data show a cooling of 0.40º F since 1979 Still, Kilimanjaro’s glaciers continued to shrink.”
Added Michaels, “Kilimanjaro turns out to be just another snow job, precipitated by a journalistic community that has lost its desire for critical factual investigation when it comes to our globe’s environment.”

 

[Xue Sheng140 11]

I was looking at a comparison picture of a glacier on Mt Rainier...it was really drastic how the ice had receded in very recent years.

But no, it's the coming ice age that does that....


Anyhow...
A general question:
With all the asphalt we put out, and glass and such...paving places over....don't we create more heat yet?
(not to mention the A/C units...I know the energy balance is +/- but since the cold air is inside...doesn't it war up the outside?)

The lack of green space is an issue, asphalt can be an issue but not for creating more heat, heat comes from solar radiation, it affects water retention, erosion and heat retention more, and any or all of that can be a problem. As for AC units, don't know, never really looked at it much beyond the fossil fuels that are used in production and transportation of them and the refrigerant they use to use.

 

[billc]

And a last little bit on glaciers...


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...limatefail.php

It now appears that the glaciers were retreating even faster eighty years ago: but nobody worried about it, and the ice subsequently came back again. Box theorises that this is likely to be because of sulphur pollution released into the atmosphere by humans, especially by burning coal and fuel oils. This is known to have a cooling effect.
Unfortunately atmospheric sulphur emissions also cause other things such as acid rain, and as a result rich Western nations cracked down on sulphates in the 1960s. Prof Box believes that this led to warming from the 1970s onward, which has now led to the glaciers retreating since around 2000.
Other scientists have said recently that late-20th-century temperature rises in the Arctic may result largely from clean-air legislation intended to deal with acid rain: some have even gone so far as to suggest that rapid coal- and diesel-fuelled industrialisation in China is serving to prevent further warming right now.
Still other scientists, differing with Prof Box, offer another picture altogether of Arctic temperatures, in which there were peaks both in the 1930s and 1950s and cooling until the 1990s: and in which the warming trend which resulted in the melting seen by Rasmussen's expedition actually started as early as 1840, before the industrial revolution and human-driven carbon emission had even got rolling. In that scenario, variations in the Sun seem to have much more weight than is generally accepted by today's climatologists.
At any rate, the new information from the old Danish pictures adds some more data to the subject. The new study by Box and his co-authors is published by Nature Geoscience, here. ®

 

[Xue Sheng140 11]

Do you mean this Greenland glacier...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...reenland-glacier-survived-warmer-temperatures




Or Kilimanjaro...Not global warming?

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2004/02/01/nature-study-debunks-kilimanjaro-glacier-myth



Why would glaciers be melting...



But if some are melting...but others are growing...and others are staying the same...how can it be global warming?

Where are you getting this from because it is mostly wrong, well all except the Al Gore bits, if you were paying attention you would have noticed I said a while ago he made things worse, basically he was sensationalizing things to make money. As for the rest it is rather incorrect. I mean it is supporting your ranting but it is still mostly wrong. Oh and don't forget Ice Sheets, I did mention those too... now go find some wrong bit of news to show the Antarctic Ice sheet is not breaking up and those Icebergs big as small states do not exist... which will also be wrong... but it will keep you busy for a few minutes

Now I shall ask this for the third time

Do you have any idea what Global warming really means and what the resault of it is? I am guessing no based on your posts

Now look here http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/08/arctic-sea-ice-and-greenland-h.html

Here http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

and here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18978483

 

[billc]

Oh, you must have missed this part in your article...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18978483

Watch this spaceHe said that, because this Greenland-wide melting has happened before - in 1889 - scientists are not yet able to determine whether this is a natural but rare event, or if it has been sparked by man-made climate change.
Continue reading the main story“Start Quote

The observation is in my view much more important than the recently reported break up of a large iceberg from Petermann Glacier”
​

Poul ChristoffersenScott Polar Research Institute
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," said Lora Koenig, a glaciologist from Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland and a member of the research team analysing the satellite data.

and this...

Scientists said they believed that much of Greenland's ice was already freezing again.

Hmmm...that sounds like a cycle to me...

Hmmm...melting cycles and deforestation...doesn't sound like "man made" global warming to me...

 

[billc]

I already posted this, but here it is again on NASA and Greenland. Of course, NASA, an organization that just experienced obama era budget cuts wouldn't be looking for a reason to get more money would it, like say..."man made" global warming research? Hmmm...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/more-from-the-climatefail-files.php

We reveal two independent dynamic ice loss events on the northwestern Greenland Ice Sheet margin: from 1985 to 1993 and 2005 to 2010,which were separated by limited mass changes. Our results suggest that the ice mass changes in this sector were primarily caused by short-lived dynamic ice loss events rather than changes in the surface mass balance. This finding challenges predictions about the future response of the Greenland Ice Sheet to increasing global temperatures. (Emphasis added.)

And on the NASA budget crunch hurting their environmental agenda...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012405139.html

NASA's earth science budget shrank from about $2 billion to $1.4 billion between 2000 and 2006, when the Bush administration's greater funding priority was space exploration. Several environment-related satellite missions were either cut or shelved:
l The Global Precipitation Measurement mission, designed to replace the 13-year-old Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission, was delayed from 2010 until at least 2012 during the Bush administration. President Obama's 2011 budget proposes a mid-2013 launch.
l The Landsat series of Earth observation satellites, a nearly 40-year-old mission run by the U.S. Geological Survey, had its next satellite delayed from this year, with the latest plans estimating a 2012 launch. This mission watches rising sea levels, glacial movement and coral reef decline, and it charts environmental conditions for military and intelligence uses. But one of its two satellites is experiencing degraded image quality and the other has been up since 1984, far past its life expectancy.

Meanwhile, NASA must rely on limited aircraft surveillance to measure ice sheet thickness in the cryosphere - the Earth's surface where water is in solid form, including sea ice, glaciers and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica - since its Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) failed nearly a year ago. A new version of that satellite, ICESat-2, is planned for launch in 2015, but until then NASA will be limited to three narrower flight-path views, observing only key regions where NASA knows it can't afford to go blind.
"Since the cryosphere is changing so fast right now, we really need to continue those measurements," said Thorsten Markus, ICESat-2 program manager at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt.
Given financial constraints, it is unclear what will happen to satellite surveillance of the environment. In its budget request for this year, the Obama administration has proposed increasing NASA's earth science budget to about $1.8 billion, moving it back toward the 2000 level, as the National Research Council recommended in a 2007 report.
For now, the scientists wait and hope.

Or, NASA scientists can lean on that "crisis" button to help shake the money tree...

 

[Xue Sheng140 11]

Bill

I didn't miss anything, I knew it already... I studiied this stuff before, there are melts and freezes all the time, just not at the scale and speed we are currently witnessing

And I am not arguing whose fault it is, I am just saying it is getting warmer, don't care about politics in association with this issue

now for the forth time, in red in a larger font

Do you have any idea what Global warming really means and what the resault of it is? I am guessing you don't based on your posts

 

[billc]

Err...the earth is getting warmer...? The earth gets warmer? Of course, the earth gets warmer...and cooler, and all without our help.

 

[ballen0351]

Bill

I didn't miss anything, I knew it already... I studiied this stuff before, there are melts and freezes all the time, just not at the scale and speed we are currently witnessing

How do we know that? How do we know it does not warm up faster towards the end of every ice age as part of nature? How do we know its not the earths natural cycle? I'm not trying to be a smart butt I'm just asking I'm not a scientist so do we really without a doubt know this does not happen every few thousand years

 

[billc]

Exactly Ballen. Also, if these global warming scientists are so sure of what they believe, why the attempts to destroy people who question their findings, why destroy the original data, why go after the journalists and editors of the peer reviewed journals if they let skeptics articles get published?

 

[elder999]

And a last little bit on glaciers...


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...limatefail.php

That's clearly, once again, wrong:

From the Andes to Alaska, and the Himalayas to Europe. From Washington to Greenland, ice is melting. Period.
View attachment $Grinnell%20Glacier%20Loss.jpg







(How about that, billi? They say a picture's worth a thousand words-I gues I just trumped all 8 thousand words of your copypastas with seven pictures of my own, though....:lfao: )

 

[elder999]

How do we know that? How do we know it does not warm up faster towards the end of every ice age as part of nature? How do we know its not the earths natural cycle? I'm not trying to be a smart butt I'm just asking I'm not a scientist so do we really without a doubt know this does not happen every few thousand years

I've posted about this before. Because we drill for Antarctic ice cores. These cores go to levels in the ice that date back 800,000 years. From the content of the ice, and its captured atmospheric bubbles, we can determine tthe chemical constituents of the water and atmosphere-from these we can deduce climactic conditions at the time. By taking samples from several different dates and graphing them, we can clearly see how climate-and climate change-behaved in the past-without a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Xue Sheng140 11]

Err...the earth is getting warmer...? The earth gets warmer? Of course, the earth gets warmer...and cooler, and all without our help.

err.... yes and no..... so I guess I was mostly right…you don’t know

Global warming means the average global temperature increases but that does not mean the entire surface of the globe is getting warmer. Global warming causes climate change and ice melt and ice melt sends large amounts of fresh water into a salt water system which causes all sorts of problems with levels of acidity and t thermohaline circulation (for elder ). Basically it shuts down thermohaline circulation which causes all sorts of climate and temperature issues. And then guess what… some places get a little warmer, some places get a lot warmer some get cooler and other places get a lot cooler. And you also get a sea level raise and is the entire Greenland ice sheet melted you get a rather substantial raise, I am typing from memory here so I could be off but I think it may be as much as 7 meters. And I apologize because again I am typing from memory, if one of the larger Ice shelves in Antarctica melted (can’t remember which one) it raises sea level enough to reverse flow and several large rivers (one of those is the Hudson) as well as put a few major cities underwater. Have any idea what reverse flow o major fresh water rivers mean or what major cities underwater means to population and disease issues. And did you know warmer means more water in the atmosphere which equates to draught.

Now has the earth gotten warmer and cooler all by itself in the past? Yes, yes it has but not at this rate without something contributing to it. And even then I do not think there has been a melt at this rate covering so much of the globe.

But there all sorts of reasons for warming, and cooling and frankly I don’t care whose fault it is and threads such as this one you started here do nothing to figure out what is really happening or to see if there is a solution all they do is try to find someone to blame so we (humans) can feel real good about ourselves since well…it is not our fault… and maybe it isn’t… or maybe it is…. Actually it does not much matter….. we need to stop arguing and figure out what the problem is, if we can fix it and if we can’t how do we survive it.

Now is if CO2, is it a solar radiation increase, is it a decrease in the magnetic field, is it the earth’s orbit, is it some guy named Murray who lives in central Japan…. Can we make it better?

But I do not think you care about this.. it seems to be more important to you to prove it is not our fault and or it is some political parties fault and not the other……

Want to know more of what I know and what I have said before feel free to search here on MT, I have been in multiple discussions about this topic but I am done here because this is a waste of my time, you could be standing on a melting Iceberg from Antarctica floating off South America and still be arguing whose fault it is and how the whole thing is fake.

Now I'm tired and sick of computers so I am going to log off, shutdown and read a book...have a good weekend and hey…. Have fun storming the castle

 

[elder999]

And the island nation of Tuvalu, already under negotiations with a variety of places for their ultimate, and inevitable relocation, is the "canary in the coal mine" for rising sea levels from global warming.

View attachment $Copy of 4b2653316.jpg
View attachment $SP1109072.jpg

 

[ballen0351]

I've posted about this before. Because we drill for Antarctic ice cores. These cores go to levels in the ice that date back 800,000 years. From the content of the ice, and its captured atmospheric bubbles, we can determine tthe chemical constituents of the water and atmosphere-from these we can deduce climactic conditions at the time. By taking samples from several different dates and graphing them, we can clearly see how climate-and climate change-behaved in the past-without a shadow of a doubt.

So this is so accurate it can tell if during a 100 period 100000 years ago the temps changed a few degrees faster then it normally did. And from that we can tell that the rate we have now is faster then ever before and can tell its our fault?

 

[billc]

As to pictures...

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060920/20060920_17.html

[CSPP Note: The 9-9-06 Issue of The Economist has global warming as a cover story, The Heat is On. On page 8 of the special section, the Economist lends support to the quip that environmental writers have a post-it-note on their computer screens that reads: “never, ever check facts.” We take note of the fact that it prints two pictures of a Svalbard Glacier from 1918 and 2002 respectively called Blomstrandbreen as implicit
proof of melting ice. Danish professor Ole Humlum from Oslo University, who used to work at the university’s branch in Svalbard, years ago revealed the photos as a Greenpeace hoax. Blomstrandbreen is a so-called galloping glacier, which periodically advances and retreats, regardless of the climate. We reach back to 2002 for a report on the hoax. The Economist seems either oblivious or unconcerned with reality. Makes one wonder what else in the report is science fiction.]

Now you see it, now you don't: Blomstrandbreen glacier, Norway, 1918 and 2002


*****
Jo Knowsley, The Mail on Sunday
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/climate/greenpeacestunt.htm

11th August 2002
Scientists dismiss Greenpeace pictures as stunt - Global warming claim meaningless as glacier photos show 'natural changes in shape'.
The pictures appeared to be the most shocking evidence so far of the devastating effects of global warming. But last night scientists who work on the spot where they were taken dismissed them as a misconceived publicity stunt. The two photographs, taken 84 years apart, were released by Greenpeace International last week. They appear to show a radical shrinking of the Blomstrandbreen glacier, on Svalbard, 375 miles north of Norway.
But scientists on the ground at Svalbard say the illustration is 'meaningless' as a measure of climate change because glaciers retreat and advance constantly as part of a natural cycle. At the same time, there has been no significant drop or increase in temperature in the region since the Twenties.
They argue that Greenpeace used the pictures to highlight the effects of global warming caused by what they see as man's pollution.
Blomstrandbreen might now be retreating, but on the west side of Svalbard is Friddjovbreen glacier which has advanced more than a mile in the past seven years - one of dozens of glaciers to do so.

 

[ballen0351]

And the island nation of Tuvalu, already under negotiations with a variety of places for their ultimate, and inevitable relocation, is the "canary in the coal mine" for rising sea levels from global warming.

View attachment 17203
View attachment 17204
View attachment 17205
View attachment 17206

There is a small island in the middle of the Chesapeake bay that is similar its slowly been flooded over last 50 years. Its down to 1 house left from an island of about 15 houses and a small store. They have all been reclaimed by the bay or moved. One house left and its got no yard and the water is up to its foundation.

 

[elder999]

So this is so accurate it can tell if during a 100 period 100000 years ago the temps changed a few degrees faster then it normally did. And from that we can tell that the rate we have now is faster then ever before and can tell its our fault?

yeah-we can sometimes tell if there were massive forest fires that year, and just how massive they were, and sometimes-going back a few hundred or thousand instead of hundreds of thousands of years-even where they were. We can tell how bright the sun was.One thing we know as an incontravertible fact: the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased in the last 100 years to a level unseen on the planet for more than 450,000 years-and when the CO2 was last that high...............
...........the earth was much, much warmer.