71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 11:31 am
miniTAX wrote:
Melting of 30 glaciers while just India has 10 thousand glaciers! I call it massive cherry picking.
BTW, I doubt their "fastest in past 5,000 years" is nothing more than cheap sensationnalism. The Swiss who have long and consistent data... for the past 200 years for their glacier show that retreat & advance are cyclical: most glaciers retreat around 1900 when emission was not a problem, then advance in the 1980 when it was supposed to be an "unprecedented" warming. Peskey reality Rolling Eyes


The headline itself in the article Walter posted is dishonest. From the article:

Quote:
Based on historical records and other evidence, the rate at which the glaciers are melting is also thought to be faster that at any time in the past 5,000 years, said Professor Wilfried Haeberli, director of the monitoring service. 'There's no absolute proof, but nevertheless the evidence is strong: this is really extraordinary.'

Experts have been monitoring 30 glaciers around the world for nearly three decades and the most recent figures, for 2006, show the biggest ever 'net loss' of ice. Achim Steiner, head of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), told The Observer that melting glaciers were now the 'loudest and clearest' warning signal of global warming.


So, (gasp), they've been monitoring 30 glaciers for just less than30 years and this is evidence to suspect this is the 'fastest warming in 5000 years?'. Come on. I'm not a scientist, but anybody with ANY understanding of basic 9th grade science would have to suspect this is a major stretch to further propaganda for global warming.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 12:58 pm
I agree, junkscience and totally dishonest.

I bow to the judgement of A2K's glacier experts Foxfyre and MINItax.

From the wgms

Quote:
The continuous mass balance statistics below are calculated based on the 30 glaciers in 9 mountain ranges with long-term data series back to 1980. The statistics for the year 2005 are based on 29 glaciers from 9 regions, and the preliminary values for the year 2006 result from 27 glaciers in 8 regions.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 01:00 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I agree, junkscience and totally dishonest.

I bow to the judgement of A2K's glacier experts Foxfyre and MINItax.

From the wgms

Quote:
The continuous mass balance statistics below are calculated based on the 30 glaciers in 9 mountain ranges with long-term data series back to 1980. The statistics for the year 2005 are based on 29 glaciers from 9 regions, and the preliminary values for the year 2006 result from 27 glaciers in 8 regions.


But that still doesnt equate to the last 5000 years.
So how do they know, if there were no measurements taken that go back 5000 years?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 01:02 pm
miniTAX wrote:
Melting of 30 glaciers while just India has 10 thousand glaciers! I call it massive cherry picking.


Okay, you certainly will have better ideas how to it:

Quote:
2 Mass balance data 2003/04, 2004/05, and 2005/06


Name b 04 b 05 b06
[mm w.e.] [mm w.e.] [mm w.e.]
Antarctica
Bahia del Diablo -110 -230 -584
Argentina
Martial Este -1318 -991 -510
Austria
Hintereisferner -877 -1061 -1507
Jamtalferner -230 -975 -1290
Kesselwandferner -188 -59 -617
Sonnblickkees 8 -323 -621
Vernagtferner -407 -523 -882
Wurtenkees -333 -448 -778
Kleiner Fleisskees 82 -111 -655
Grosser Goldbergkees 132 -260 -1077
Pasterze n.a. -899 -1232
Bolivia
Chacaltaya -1822 -2057 -1199
Charquini sur -1486 -2499 -376
Zongo -521 -1559 -122
Canada
Baby Glacier n.a. -370 n.a.
Devon Ice Cap -46 -262 n.a.
Helm -1995 -2765. -2750
Peyto -550 -810 -1650
Place -2210 -1295 -1900
White 37 -612 -93
Chile
Echaurren Norte -570 -850 560
China
Urumqihe E-Br. -706 -480 n.a.
Urumqihe S.No.1 -562 -443 n.a.
Urumqihe W-Br. -844 -503 n.a.
Ecuador
Antizana 15 Alpha -572 -789 -450
France
Argentìere -1310 -1930 -1420
Gebroulaz -790 -1510 -1000
Ossoue -1220 -2490 -2710
Saint Sorlin -2450 -2500 -1440
Sarennes -2820 -3280 -2380
Greenland
Mittivakkat n.a. n.a. -590
Iceland
Breidamjökull E. B. -1330 -1530 n.a.
Bruarjökull -800 -1557 -790
Dyngjujökull n. a. -1327 -353
Eyabakkajökull -1310 -2202. -1425
Hofsjökull E -1500 -20 -490
Hofsjökull N -1370 -430 -510
Hofsjökull SW -1500 -570 -610
Koeldukvislarjökull -776 -627 -402
Langjökull Southern Dome -1487 -894 -1080
Tungnaarjökull -1699 -1757 -1569
India
Chhota Shigri -1227 144 -1413
Hamtah -1857 -1856 -1391
Italy
Calderone 252 -194 1090
Careser -1562 -2005 -2169
Ciardoney -991 -2149 -2100
Fontana Bianca -994 -1471 -1753
Malavalle -208 -787 -1327
Pendente -427 -936 -1780
Vedretta Lunga -1524 -1233 -1460
Japan
Hamaguri Yuki -1196 -181 n.a.
Kazakhstan
Ts. Tuyuksuyskiy 62 -340 -969
New Zealand
Brewster n.a. 1141 241
Norway
Aalfotbreen -100 668 -3190
Austdalsbreeen -960 190 -2060
Austre Broeggerbreen -1120 -1000 -760
Breidalblikkbrea -940 -280 -2940
Elisebreen n.a. n.a. -726
Engabreen 817 897 -1430
Graafjellsbreen -820 10 -3040
Graasubreen -492 -493 -2080
Hansbreen -577 47 90
Hansebreen -500 -90 -3980
Hardangerjoekulen 80 723 -2220
Hellstugubreen -843 -287 -2010
Irenebreen -605 -862 -822
Kongsvegen -770 -480 20
Langfjordjoekul -1920 -1250 -2410
Midtre Lovénbreen -970 -740 -480
Nigardsbreen -43 1098 -1400
Rundvassbreen -210 n.a. n.a.
Storbreen -585 -63 -2150
Storglombreen 110 330 n.a.
Waldemarbreen -641 -722 -747
Peru
Artesonraju n.a. 475 n.a.
Yanamarey n.a. -122 n.a.
Russia
Djankuat 730 390 -800
Garabashi 250 200 -650
Leviy Aktru -260 40 -190
Maliy Aktru -150 160 -140
No. 125 (Vodopadniy) -220 60 -260
Spain
Maladeta -1516 -1479 -1783
Sweden
Marmaglaciaeren -580 -790 -1640
Rabots Glaciaer n.a. -1170 -1190
Riukojietna n.a. -350 -1390
Storglaciaeren -190 -70 -1680
Tarfalaglaciaeren -380 -920 -2520
Switzerland
Basodino -490 -1172 -2501
Findelen n.a. -200 -1200
Gries -1330 -1670 -2110
Silvretta 119 -651 -845
USA
Colombia (2057) -1830 -3210 -980
Daniels -2130 -2900 -1250
Easton -1060 -2450 -790
Emmons n.a. n.a. -1
Foss -1940 -3120 -1020
Gulkana -2290 -260 n.a.
Ice Worm -2000 -2850 -1350
Lemon Creek -650 -470 n.a.
Lower Curtis -1510 -2750 -1060
Lynch -1980 -2620 -1050
Nisqually n.a. n.a. -76
Noisy Creek n.a. -2410 -32
North Klawatti n.a. -2060 -338
Rainbow -1670 -2650 -610
Sandalee n.a. -2290 -310
Sholes -1860 -2840 -710
Silver n.a. -1490 -101
South Cascade -1650 -2450 -1450
Wolverine -2280 n.a. n.a.
Yawning -1780 -3020 -930
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 01:07 pm
mysteryman wrote:
So how do they know, if there were no measurements taken that go back 5000 years?

In short, more or less what the Guardian report says: "Based on historical records and other evidence."

If that wouldn't be known, e.g. a lot of our (local and regional) history would be fiction.


But I'm sure, you'll find a lot of scientists who object the work of the WGMS's scientists and who provide different data ...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 01:36 pm
Yes and any honest assessment of glaciers and global warming HAS to include the record of advancement and retreat of that glacier for longer than less than 30 years, and also has to include acknowledgment that the normal behavior of glaciers are to advance and retreat. Even now some glaciers are advancing while other are retreating and these cover a wide range of territory too:

2002 - Advancing Glacier Coming Close to Blocking Fiord Near Yakutat, Alaska
http://www.usgs.gov/features/glaciers.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E5D7113CF934A25755C0A9649C8B63

1999 - Behavior of World's Glaciers Fails to Prove Global Warming Theory
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.html

2008 - List of expanding glaciers
http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 01:42 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Yes and any honest assessment of glaciers and global warming HAS to include the record of advancement and retreat of that glacier for longer than less than 30 years ...


Well, the WGMS does so since 1894. And actually as the first institution ever.

And until now, it's the only institution collecting worldwide data.

But surely iceagenow is a more reputable ...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 01:48 pm
It certainly appears to be at least as reputable as your source, Walter.

We showed how the Guardian piece is imprecise and flawed in its assessment and how the headline it put on its piece is dishonest.

Why don't you show a rationale for how the list of advancing glaciers posted in Iceage is incorrect?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 01:58 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
It certainly appears to be at least as reputable as your source, Walter.


Well, actually, the WGMS (then called "International Glacier Commission") observed since ... 1894 the Silvretta Glacier and that it is getter smaller.

Your "at least as reputable source" says that it's growing.

There are eben photos from pre-1900 and today online ...

But okay, Robert W. Felix (a former architect according to his own bio*) might be as reputable as the WGMS.

Quote:
Robert Felix, a former architect, became interested in the ice-age cycle back in 1991. He spent the next eight and a half years, full-time, researching and writing about the coming ice age. He then concentrated on spreading the word. Robert's book, "Not by Fire but by Ice" has achieved international acclaim with readers around the world. Today, Felix continues his research, and is more firmly convinced than ever that the next ice age could begin any day. In fact, he believes it has already begun.
Source


Foxfyre wrote:

Why don't you show a rationale for how the list of advancing glaciers posted in Iceage is incorrect?


Well, I admit that I'm biased re Lyndon LaRouche and his movement.
I just rely more on the WGMS-data.

For instance take the Silvretta Glacier. Felix says, it's one that grows - the Swiss have data since 1881 that this glacier is getting smaller and smaller: Gletscherberichte (1881-2002) "Die Gletscher der Schweizer Alpen", Jahrbücher der Glaziologischen Kommission der Akademie der Naturwissenschaften Schweiz (SCNAT) herausgegegeben seit 1964 durch die Versuchsanstalt für Wasserbau, Hydrologie und Glaziologie (VAW) der ETH Zürich. No. 1-122 (Unfortunately, these books are only in the reference library here in the university, and I can't copy the data.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 03:10 pm
Yes, nobody disputes that the mean temperatures of Europe have increased over the last 30 years. Given that it was unusually cool during the 1970's, that would be a rather normal and expected trend wouldn't you think? In the 1970's and early 1980's most of the Swiss glaciers were advancing. As late as 1985 more were still advancing than were retreating. By 1990 to present that was changing; though I think it will be not unexpected that we probably peaked in the early 2000's and we will begin to see more glaciers that are now retreating will begin to advance again. That is the life cycle of a glacier as I understand it.

Here is an excellent site to see the trends....just plug in different years to see the changes:

http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/glacierlist?year=1980&submit=Go%21&order=&field=
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 03:14 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Yes, nobody disputes that the mean temperatures of Europe have increased over the last 30 years.

Correct. But I don't think that this was questioned ...



Foxfyre wrote:
Here is an excellent site to see the trends....


Well, thanks - I gave the print version as source above.

They publish the WGSM data, btw - both institutions not only share some scientists ...

(The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology [ETH] and the Department of Geography University of Zurich have an "Inter-University Partnership")
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 04:57 pm
i assume that i need not add any personal comments to this report by the BBC .
i'm reasonably sure the report speaks for itself .
hbg


Quote:
Glaciers suffer record shrinkage

The rate at which some of the world's glaciers are melting has more than doubled, data from the United Nations Environment Programme has shown.
Average glacial shrinkage has risen from 30 centimetres per year between 1980 and 1999, to 1.5 metres in 2006.

Some of the biggest losses have occurred in the Alps and Pyrenees mountain ranges in Europe.

Experts have called for "immediate action" to reverse the trend, which is seen as a key climate change indicator.

Estimates for 2006 indicate shrinkage of 1.4 metres of 'water equivalent' compared to half a metre in 2005.

Achim Steiner, Under-Secretary General of the UN and executive director of its environment programme (UNEP), said: "Millions if not billions of people depend directly or indirectly on these natural water storage facilities for drinking water, agriculture, industry and power generation during key parts of the year.

"There are many canaries emerging in the climate change coal mine. The glaciers are perhaps among those making the most noise and it is absolutely essential that everyone sits up and takes notice.

Litmus test

He said that action was already being taken and pointed out that the elements of a green economy were emerging from the more the money invested in renewable energies.

Mr Steiner went on: "The litmus test will come in late 2009 at the climate convention meeting in Copenhagen.

"Here governments must agree on a decisive new emissions reduction and adaptation-focused regime. Otherwise, and like the glaciers, our room for manoeuvre and the opportunity to act may simply melt away."

Dr Ian Willis, of the Scott Polar Research Institute, said: "It is not too late to stop the shrinkage of these ice sheets but we need to take action immediately."

The findings were compiled by the World Glacier Monitoring Service which is supported by UNEP. Thickening and thinning is calculated in terms of 'water equivalent'.

Glaciers across nine mountain ranges were analysed.


Dr. Wilfried Haeberli, director of the service, said: "The latest figures are part of what appears to be an accelerating trend with no apparent end in sight.

"This continues the trend in accelerated ice loss during the past two and a half decades and brings the total loss since 1980 to more than 10.5 metres of water equivalent."

During 1980-1999, average loss rates had been 0.3 metres per year. Since the turn of the millennium, this rate had increased to about half a metre per year.

The record annual loss during these two decades - 0.7 metres in 1998 - has now been exceeded by three out of the past six year (2003, 2004 and 2006).

On average, one metre water equivalent corresponds to 1.1 metres in ice thickness. That suggests a further shrinking in 2006 of 1.5 actual metres and since 1980 a total reduction in thickness of ice of just over 11.5 metres or almost 38 feet.

In its entirety, the research includes figures from around 100 glaciers, with data showing significant shrinkage taking place in European countries including Austria, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Spain and Switzerland.

Norway's Breidalblikkbrea glacier thinned by almost 3.1 metres in one of the largest reductions.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/in_depth/7299561.stm

Published: 2008/03/16 19:51:14 GMT


source :
BBC
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 07:29 pm
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide5.png
US Surface Temperature Trends versus Solar Activity

Average Solar Irradiance w/m^2 increase, 1975 to 2005
1975 less than 1370.5.
2005 greater than 1371.5
Difference =~ 1371.5 - 1370.5 = 1.0
%increase = 100% x 1.0/1370.5 = 0.07297%

Average Global Temperature Increase, 1975 to 2005
1975 = 287.06°K - 0.0319°K = 287.0281°K
2005 = 287.06°K + 0.6046°K = 287.6646°K
Difference = 287.6646°K - 287.0281°K = 0.6365°K
%increase = 100% x 0.6365°K/287.0281°K = 0.2218%

Average CO2 Atmospheric Increase, 1975 to 2005.
1975 = 330.54 ppm.
2005 = 380.06 ppm.
Difference = 380.06 ppm - 330.54 ppm = 49.52 ppm.
%increase = 100% x 49.52 / 330.54 = 100% x 49.52 ppm /330.54 ppm = 14.98%.


What is the scientifically derived equation for computing the amount of average global temperature caused by a specified amount of sun irradiance, for a given amount of CO2 ppm in the atmosphere?
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 08:59 pm
Our resident numerologist, ican, is back with the same old bullsh*t, I see.

ican, when studying the effect of a variable on a system, it is customary to hold everything else constant and calculate the various values you get when you change only that variable.

Your CO2 axis computes the percentage change of CO2, all right.

However your temperature scale compares the temperature change presumptively due to increased CO2, to the total change in temperature from the earth with no CO2 in the atmosphere, no methane, or water vapor in the atmosphere, no atmosphere at all, and no sun, i.e. the earth as a cold dead rock drifting in space far from any solar system(i.e. absolute zero) to the earth as we know it today with sun, atmosphere, water, and greenhouse gases. In other words, you change ALL the variables acting on the earth to get your starting point and use today's conditions as your end point, and then compare that to just the change due to increased CO2 to get your temperature change ratio, and then compare that to the change in a single variable in the atmosphere, and claim that they don't compare.

Well, duh.

You derive a completely invalid conclusion from a completely invalid comparison.

That, whether you realize it or not, is an example worthy of inclusion in the classic book, "How To Lie with Statistics", which you have apparently never read.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Mar, 2008 09:21 pm
A valid comparison, on the other hand, would be the range in temperature change you get when you hold constant insolation and atmospheric composition (and other relevant variables), and you change CO2 from zero ppm to say a thousand ppm. And you compare the amount of change in degrees to the amount of change in ppm. A comparison, as a totally off the top of the head figure, of say 20 degrees versus a change of say zero to a thousand ppm is a valid comparison (and those figures, I repeat, are winged).And you don't use a comparison point like absolute zero which results from a change in ALL the variables.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 09:15 am
username wrote:
A valid comparison, on the other hand, would be the range in temperature change you get when you hold constant insolation and atmospheric composition (and other relevant variables), and you change CO2 from zero ppm to say a thousand ppm.
There will be a temperature increase due to CO2 increase. But it will increase convection (hot air rises) and accelerate heat evacuation, hence a negative feedback.

The problem is this increased convection (change in "lapse rate") is UNKNOWN and is just parameterized in models. You can get 1:10 range for warming for the SAME CO2 change just by changing the lapse rate parameterization and lapse rates are different in each and every of the 20 GCMs.
But hey, that's climate "science" Cool
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 09:19 am
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/times_poll_greentaxes.png
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 09:52 am
Thanks for that YouGov poll, published in the Sunday Times under the headline "Voters turn tax anger on Labour" - followed today with a report in the Times that the Tories won't cut taxes .... at least not for the first four years if they were elected.


But there's still a different than a conservative government in the UK.
From a letter of the PM to the Fabian Society (published 17.03.08)
Quote:
[...] I also support changes to the World Bank , the International Monetary Fund and the G8 that reflect the rise of India and Asia. As I said in New Delhi in January "we can and must do more to make our global institutions more representative".

The first change we must consider is reform of our international rules on institutions to reflect the urgency of tackling climate change and global poverty. I will continue to explore with EU partners how we can take forward this agenda together.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 06:37 pm
username wrote:

...

You derive a completely invalid conclusion from a completely invalid comparison.

That, whether you realize it or not, is an example worthy of inclusion in the classic book, "How To Lie with Statistics", which you have apparently never read.

Find for me a statement of a conclusion in that post of mine you are criticizing here.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2008 07:00 pm
Solar Irradiance w/m^2 increase, 1975 to 2005
1975 less than 1370.5.
2005 greater than 1371.5
Difference =~ 1371.5 - 1370.5 = 1.0
%increase = 100% x 1.0/1370.5 = 0.07297%

Average Global Temperature Increase, 1975 to 2005
1975 = 287.06°K - 0.0319°K = 287.0281°K
2005 = 287.06°K + 0.6046°K = 287.6646°K
Difference = 287.6646°K - 287.0281°K = 0.6365°K
%increase = 100% x 0.6365°K/287.0281°K = 0.2218%

Average CO2 Parts per Million Atmospheric Increase, 1975 to 2005.
1975 = 330.54 ppm.
2005 = 380.06 ppm.
Difference = 380.06 ppm - 330.54 ppm = 49.52 ppm.
%increase = 100% x 49.52 / 330.54 = 14.98%.

Average CO2 Billions of Metric Tons Atmospheric Increase, 1975 to 2005
1975 = 76.25 bmt
2005 = 152.5 bmt
Difference = 152.5 btm - 76.25 btm = 76.25 btm.
%increase = 100% x 76.25/76.25 = 100%.


What is the scientifically derived equation for computing the amount of average global temperature caused by a specified amount of sun irradiance, for a given amount of CO2 ppm or CO2 bmt in the atmosphere?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/09/2024 at 08:23:23