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

Himalayan glaciers 'grew' during warmer period

Quote:

A small group of Himalayan glaciers grew in size when the earth became hotter 9,000 years ago, new research shows.

Summer Rupper, professor of geology at Brigham Young University in the United States, reports in the September issue of Quaternary Research that a small group of Himalayan glaciers grew by several kilometres 9,000 years ago " during an 'inter-glacial' period when central Asia grew hotter by six degrees Celsius.
[...]
Rupper reports that shifting weather patterns at the time brought more clouds and winds to the area, making it cooler and helping ice formation. Her team is now extrapolating the findings to a new project to predict future water changes in the area " now under threat as glaciers melt because of global warming.

The report helps us better understand how a rise in temperature affects the height at which snow accumulates, Anil Kulkarni, coordinator of the snow and glacier project at the Space Applications Centre, Ahmedabad, told SciDev.Net.

However, the paradox of glaciers increasing in size " and not melting " during warmer conditions occurred under very different conditions.

During the last four inter-glacial periods, including the period addressed in Rupper's research, that occurred in the past 350,000 years, carbon dioxide concentrations remained below 300 parts per million (ppm). Present carbon dioxide levels have exceeded 380 ppm because of global warming, Kulkarni told a South Asian media workshop on climate change last month (27 August).
... ... ...

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Great, heads you win, tails I lose. If glaciers grow, it could now be known that it is because of warming. And if they recede, it is also probably due to warming. Great science lesson, Walter.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Great, heads you win, tails I lose. If glaciers grow, it could now be known that it is because of warming. And if they recede, it is also probably due to warming. Great science lesson, Walter.

That's exactly it okie ... global warming is responsible for what ever happens to the climate, and it's all man made. Just ask all the doomsters.

0 Replies

Why didn't the two of you read the linked source before posting?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Why didn't the two of you read the linked source before posting?

And what difference would that have made ?

0 Replies

re adanac: well, for one thing, it might have saved you (but probably not) from making another ill-informed comment. As has been pointed out on this topic several times before, each glacier has a unique set of altitude, precipitation, and temperature characteristics, so they're each going to react differently to temperature changes. As glaciologists already know, the vast majority of the world's glaciers and icefields are melting, and faster than expected, but not all of them are,, because the conditions each one exists under are different. And the melting is attributed to global warming.

1 Reply

@parados,

I do not think that dictionaries or that science is silly but people can do silly things. The origin of the word silly is in respect to a wheel that does not run straight and true. It applies here because the term Ice Ages was coined to describe a collection of glacial advances and retreats. I want to know what will you call a collection of glacial events. Your definition is silly because you have now eliminated a word without replacing it yet there is still a need to talk about a collection of glacial advances and retreats with ease. To say a "collection of glacial advances and retreats" instead of Ice Ages is silly. To call a glacial advance an Ice Age is equally silly because it is a geographically limited event.

Are you a Lemming just running with the pack because that is not good for dictionaries or science. Your new God of science has rarely ever been 100% correct, but you cite science as though it is impossible to argue with. Are you the sort of person that cant stand up against the crowd even though science and definitions may be wrong?

In the past, people of limited intelligence have been taught by rote learning, and so you dont have to look it up in the dictionary, it means "to fix in memory by means of frequent repetition". Quotes, references, all other peoples work but not a word from you about what you think and why you have made a decision.

"You have not provided a single source." May I use your own words and say that you either cant or wont do the research yourself ? Double standards by you yet again.

"That looks like the word "ask" to me in your statement. " Your english is getting better. That is the word ask, and it is preceded by 'people may', so that when put together (and I want you to pay close attention here) the meaning is 'people may ask'. Explain to me how I was asking.

Is being a very young inexperienced person by its very nature, an insult ? You do appear to me to have a personality disorder. This is only an insult if people with personality disorders are some kind of reject. I dont believe they are, but it is important they are told so they can seek help. Anyone can have a problem, only an arrogant fool does not seek help. You have called people idiots and liars whilst sneering and laughing at them anonymously from on high. This behaviour is not tolerated face to face. Doing it on the internet can be seen by some as cowardice and bullying. In the final analysis, it seems you can dish it out but cant take even only a small faction of it returned. Double standards by you yet again.

If you would only state something, ANYTHING about your beliefs in Global Warming then perhaps we could end this trivia and get back on subject ? But you wont will you ? Because you might be wrong.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

re adanac: well, for one thing, it might have saved you (but probably not) from making another ill-informed comment. As has been pointed out on this topic several times before, each glacier has a unique set of altitude, precipitation, and temperature characteristics, so they're each going to react differently to temperature changes. As glaciologists already know, the vast majority of the world's glaciers and icefields are melting, and faster than expected, but not all of them are,, because the conditions each one exists under are different. And the melting is attributed to global warming.

So it appears to me therefore that previous assumptions that melting of glaciers being due to warming may not be true then? After all, if the opposite can be true, due to the unique set of circumstance such as altitute, precipitation and temperature characteristics, then common sense tells me that perhaps people have been jumping to conclusions about the cause of melting glaciers? It could be due to global cooling, perhaps in conjunction with alot less precipitation? I don't know that, but it is entirely possible. After all, a receding glacier goes through cycles of snow accumulation and melting, and all that needs to happen is that melting exceeds snow accumulation. If melting happens at the same rate, but snow accumulation decreases to an amount below the level of melting, a glacier could recede with no difference in temperature at all. Funny, I have yet to see much discussion of this, it has always been two factors, melting and temperature, not much discussion of snowfall.

1 Reply

@okie,

Yes. It's global cooling. That's the period we just live in.

0 Replies

Here's the problem, okie. There is no evidence that there's less rain. There is evidence that temps are rising. Temps are rising more in the Arctic, as climate models predict. The arctic ice cap is at historic low extents. The Greenland ice cap in the last decade is melting at three times its historic rate. Greenland is ceretainly warmer than it has been in the last several centuries, and probably warmer than when the Vikings settled it, as witnessed by the spread of agriculture to areas it has apparently never been seen since humans have been living there. Lower latitude ecozones have been moving northward, and lowland ecozones have been moving up the world's mountains, i.e. they're warmer higher There is also evidence that snow packs are melting earlier in the year, because spring temps are warmer earlier.The nearly universal melting of the world's ice caps and glaciers theoretically, I suppose, could have some other explanation but glaciologists don't think so, and the evidence on the ground doesn't support it. The article dealt with one out-of-the-ordinary situation, which was running against what was happening virtually everywhere else, for conditions specific to that case, which were different from most of the rest of the world. To try to generalize from that case to the rest of the world and say that maybe the explanation for the rest of the world, where those conditions don't apply, is wrong, isnot supportable.

1 Reply

ionus, Parados is saying that an ice age is one global advance and retreat, and is the period when there is a LOT of ice on the ground. That's what evceryone else calls it too. To the extent you are intelligible, you seem to be saying that "ice age" is the term for the last x millions of years--it is all one Ice Age., encompassing all the advances and retreats. No one else uses the term that way. People who unilaterally define well-established terms and then say that others are wrong when they use the term correctly tend to be loons.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Here's the problem, okie. There is no evidence that there's less rain.

Is there evidence of more rain? Is there good data on precipitation in places, such as the Arctic? If you have a link, show it. Is this factor hardly every mentioned in global warming stories where melting glaciers are discussed or reported on. I haven't noticed it much. Perhaps I have missed it, but just asking a question here.

0 Replies

I don't dispute that changes are happening in the weather but I am not convinced it is man made. The climate is continually changing as it has done since day one. CO2 has been at higher levels in the past and has not caused climate change, but all of a sudden it's the big bad boogie monster and man has caused it. Well I am not convinced and neither are a lot of scientists, but we only hear of the ones who support trading in carbon credits. It is always the consumer on the end of the chain that carries the burden. Have you notice how " global warming " is the new catch phrase to explain any kind of weather happening ? The idea is to make people frightened, then they will happily part with their money to "save" the world. Doomsters have found a new way to do business.

0 Replies

See any parallels here ????

Quote:

Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor. For patriotism is indeed a double- edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and patriotism, will offer up all of their rights to the leader and gladly so.
How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Julius Caesar."

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

It might be best if we let parados say what he means. Perhaps your ESP will not be welcomed by him. I take it you are unaware that my definition was the "in vogue' one not so long ago.When you say no-one, what percentage of 6 billion people are you referring to ?

"People who unilaterally define well-established terms and then say that others are wrong when they use the term correctly tend to be loons. " From this I take it you are saying that anyone who goes by the latest definition, your definition, for an Ice Age is a loon ? I prefer the older definition of an Ice Age but I will change if you will tell me what the latest fashion is for "a series of glacial advances and retreats". Or didnt you read what you are commenting on?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Your argument about "ice ages" is making no sense at all Ionus. "Ice ages" is the plural of "ice age". Like all plurals it would mean more than one. The term "ice age" was coined to describe a specific thing. It has a specific meaning that is accepted by science and defined in dictionaries. Your attempt to change that meaning is pointless. Ice age means a period of time when ice covers a large portion of the continents. Trying to say a single glacier is an "ice age" is ridiculous on your part. Trying to say a period of time when ice does NOT cover most of the continents is an "ice age" is ridiculous.

Ionus wrote:

"That looks like the word "ask" to me in your statement. " Your english is getting better. That is the word ask, and it is preceded by 'people may', so that when put together (and I want you to pay close attention here) the meaning is 'people may ask'. Explain to me how I was asking.

parados wrote:

That is a pretty stupid question, don't you think?

Where does my question imply that YOU asked the question?
If "people" ask something then it would be "people" that asked the question and it would still be a stupid question.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

I prefer the older definition of an Ice Age but I will change if you will tell me what the latest fashion is for "a series of glacial advances and retreats". Or didnt you read what you are commenting on?

Could you please present a written source that defines "ice age" the way you do? If you want to argue that your use of the term is common then it should be found in a scientific text or dictionaries and clearly defined. (You already seem to have changed your definition Ionus since you have gone from the singular "ice age" in previous posts to the plural in your latest posts.)

I presented 5 dictionaries that clearly use the term the way I do. You have presented no source as of yet.

1 Reply

@parados,

You said : "Could you please present a written source that defines "ice age" the way you do? "

Cetainly -

From your reference of Wikipedia :
Extensive evidence now shows that a number of periods of growth and retreat of continental glaciers occurred during the ice age, called glacials and interglacials.

From Answers.com :
Ice Age
n.
1. A cold period marked by episodes of extensive glaciation alternating with episodes of relative warmth.

The same definition is given by :

From your ref of thefreedictionary.com
ice age
n.
1. A cold period marked by episodes of extensive glaciation alternating with episodes of relative warmth.

This definition is derived from :

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

and :

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

If you dont understand it, never mind, I will explain, just ask.

"I provided several sources that agreed with my definition." In your opinion. In reality you provided some references that disagreed with each other. You did not provide 5 dictionary references, you provided one Wikipedia, one dictionary and on school lesson plan.

Are you still protesting that you are not avoiding my question that you havent answered ? How much ice should have melted ?

0 Replies

@parados,

Is the major part of your defence of global warming going to be playing dumb ? Is it your hope to wear me down explaining everything to you ?

"It has a specific meaning that is accepted by science and defined in dictionaries" Have you opened two dictionaries and compared them ? Is it accepted by science like the ocean bottoms are dead flat, or any number of areas where science got it wrong. In fact, science ALWAYS gets it wrong? Only by exploring different possibilities, only one of which can be right, does science achieve anything.
"You are really quite humorous Ionus in a sad sort of way." Back to sneering ? Did you take my advice and seek help ? If you cant debate without losing your temper and resorting to insults, maybe you should be on another web site..one that approves of swearing and insults. I would like to keep the argument scientific, and I understand you will need to look that up in your dictionary.

Do you remember my original post ? Are you being hysterical ? Or do you treat everyone the same way ? I was serious in my suggestion that you seek help, and any debate aside, if you cant type without losing it you should seek the reason with the aid of a qualified person. For your safety and that of those around you.

I will repeat my question :
"No one has said all animal life will die if we increase CO2." So what will happen? Enlighten me, parados, this is your chance to shine...
Or will you hide in nit picking detail again ? I do hope you are not scared....

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

I will repeat my question :
"No one has said all animal life will die if we increase CO2." So what will happen? Enlighten me, parados, this is your chance to shine...
Or will you hide in nit picking detail again ? I do hope you are not scared....

I see you want to hide from defending your statements still. I doubt you will ever address the veracity of the statements in your list.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know