Article re: Global warming (good read)

Re: Major Man-Made Global warming: True or not ?

lot of good articles and commentary was posted in the original thread you started (Global Warming Good Read). And, as this article points out, there is a lot of conflicting opinion on the subject. I wish this was one of those issues that had clear yes and no answers. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case anytime soon; and, like the various articles, I can't say true or not. My answer is: will these scientist please lock themselves in a room until they can come out with at least one united conclusion - they don't know either!

QueEx
 
Re: Major Man-Made Global warming: True or not ?

These mofos all spout a lot of complex scientific explanations for global warming.
In real simple terms there i a harmony between most existing elements in a given environment. Trees in the woods create a shield with their leaves that keeps the earth cool and moist. A warm wind entering a woods or forest exits as a cool wind especially if there is a lake pond or stream within. The more woods cleared away, in the name of development, the fewer sources available for keeping the earth cool. every time they block the path of water thereby severing a vein of coolant for the earth in the name of "development" again another source of keeping the earth cool is removed from the equation. There are also atmospheric factors that add to the big picture. But man is definitely responsible for global warming. :hmm:
 
Re: Major Man-Made Global warming: True or not ?

the collector said:
These mofos all spout a lot of complex scientific explanations for global warming.
In real simple terms there i a harmony between most existing elements in a given environment. Trees in the woods create a shield with their leaves that keeps the earth cool and moist. A warm wind entering a woods or forest exits as a cool wind especially if there is a lake pond or stream within. The more woods cleared away, in the name of development, the fewer sources available for keeping the earth cool. every time they block the path of water thereby severing a vein of coolant for the earth in the name of "development" again another source of keeping the earth cool is removed from the equation. There are also atmospheric factors that add to the big picture. But man is definitely responsible for global warming. :hmm:
You do have some point, but you are not totally correct. For example, I read that there is about as much forest (treed areas) in the US as there was 100 years ago. I'm not sure about that, but I do not remeberber it being debunked.
Second, trees only provide "islands" of temperature, and trees actually contribute to warming in the winter, as they put off heat from the dacaying plant matter.
 
Re: Major Man-Made Global warming: True or not ?

Fuckallyall said:
You do have some point, but you are not totally correct. For example, I read that there is about as much forest (treed areas) in the US as there was 100 years ago. I'm not sure about that, but I do not remeberber it being debunked.
Second, trees only provide "islands" of temperature, and trees actually contribute to warming in the winter, as they put off heat from the dacaying plant matter.
Yeah you're right I neglected to factor in the ocean etc.
 
From the American Spectator.


August 09, 2007
Revised Temp Data Reduces Global Warming Fever
Marc Sheppard

1998 was not the hottest US year ever. Nor was 2006 the runner up.


Sure, had you checked NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website just days ago, you would have thought so, but not today. You see, thanks to the efforts of Steve McIntyre over at http://www.climateaudit.org/, the Surface Air Temperature Anomaly charts for those and many other years have been revised - predominately down.


Why?


It's a wild and technical story of compromised weather stations and hack computer algorithms (including, get this - a latent Y2K bug) and those wishing to read the fascinating details should follow ALL of the links I've provided. But, simply stated, McIntyre not only proved the error of the calculations used to interpret the data from the 1000 plus US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) weather stations feeding GISS, but also the cascading effect of that error on past data.


You see, as Warren Meyer over at Coyoteblog.com (whose recent email expressed a delight we share in the irony of this correction taking place the week of the Gore / Newsweek story) points out:
"One of the interesting aspects of these temperature data bases is that they do not just use the raw temperature measurements from each station. Both the NOAA (which maintains the USHCN stations) and the GISS apply many layers of adjustments."
It was the gross folly of these "fudge factors" McIntyre challenged NASA on. And won.


Today, not only have the charts and graphs been modified, but the GISS website includes this acknowledgement that:
"the USHCN station records up to 1999 were replaced by a version of USHCN data with further corrections after an adjustment computed by comparing the common 1990-1999 period of the two data sets. (We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.)"
But, as only the Gorebots actually believe the hype that recent year to year temperature shifts are somehow proof of anthropogenic global warming, why is this significant?

As explained by Noel Sheppard over at Newsbusters:

"One of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by [GISS head James] Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995."
Additionally, as broken by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show this afternoon, Reuters is now reporting in a piece entitled Scientists predict surge in global warming after 2009 that:

"A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record."
As so deftly observed by El Rushbo, who wonders how long NASA has been aware of the errors, many greenies have spread their nonsense using 1998's bogus distinction to generate angst amongst the weak-minded.


Yet - thanks to a Blogging Scientist -- that's all changed now - check the newly revised GISS table.

1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930's are in the top 10. Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006). The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20.
So, we're not really on a roller-coaster to hell, then?


Of course, eco-maniacs will argue that it's the global readings that count, not those of the USA alone. Nuts to that. It's nearly impossible to believe that when put to similar close scrutiny, global mechanisms will stand the heat any better than ours.


Besides, as GISS hosts the reference database of choice for all manner of enviro-mental-cases, one would think such a significant content correction itself would spark huge news and greenie-card reevaluation, right?


Well -- as Noel asked and answered his readers:
"Think this will be Newsweek's next cover-story? No, I don't either."
Perfect.
 
From the NY Times



Article published Aug 13, 2007
When it's not, it's not


August 13, 2007


Mark Steyn - Something rather odd happened the other day. If you go to NASA's Web site and look at the "U.S. surface air temperature" rankings for the Lower 48 states, you might notice something has changed.

Then again, you might not. They're not issuing any press releases about it. But they have quietly revised their All-Time Hit Parade for U.S. temperatures.

The "hottest year on record" is no longer 1998, but 1934. Another alleged swelterer, the year 2001, has now dropped out of the Top 10 altogether, and most of the rest of the 21st century — 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 — plummeted even lower down the Hot 100. In fact, every supposedly hot year from the '90s and Oughts has had its temperature rating reduced. Four of America's Top 10 hottest years turn out to be from the 1930s, that notorious decade when we all drove around in huge SUVs with the air-conditioning on full-blast. If climate change is, as Al Gore says, the most important issue anyone's ever faced in the history of anything ever, then Franklin Roosevelt didn't have a word to say about it. And yet we survived.

So why is 1998 no longer America's record-breaker? Because a very diligent fellow called Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.com labored long and hard to prove there was a bug in NASA's handling of the raw data. He then notified the scientists responsible, and received an acknowledgment that the mistake was an "oversight" that would be corrected in the next "data refresh." The reply was almost as cool as the revised chart listings.

Who is this man who understands American climate data so much better than the National Aeronautics and Space Administration? Well, he's not even America: He's Canadian. Just another immigrant doing the jobs Americans won't do, even when they're federal public servants with unlimited budgets? No. Mr. McIntyre lives in Toronto. But the data smelled wrong to him, he found the error, and NASA has now corrected its findings — albeit without the fanfare that accompanied the hottest-year-on-record hysteria of almost a decade ago. Sunlight may be the best disinfectant, but, when it comes to global warming, the experts prefer to stick the thermometer where the sun don't shine.

One is tempted to explain the error with old the computer expert's cry: That's not a bug, it's a feature. To maintain public hysteria, it's necessary for the warm-mongers to be able to demonstrate something is happening now. Or as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram put it at the end of 1998: "It's December, and you're still mowing the lawn. You can't put up the Christmas lights because you're afraid the sweat pouring off your face will short out the connections. Your honeysuckle vines are blooming. Mosquitoes are hovering at your back door.

"Hot enough for you?"

It's not the same if you replace "Hot enough for you?" with "Yes, it's time to relive sepia-hued memories from grandpa's Dust Bowl childhood."

Yet the fakery wouldn't be so effective if there weren't so many takers for it. Why is that?

In my book, still available at all good bookstores (you can find it propping up the wonky rear leg of the display table for Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"), I try to answer this question by way of some celebrated remarks by the acclaimed British novelist Margaret Drabble, speaking just after the liberation of Iraq. Miss Drabble said:

c "I detest Coca-Cola, I detest burgers, I detest sentimental and violent Hollywood movies that tell lies about history. I detest American imperialism, American infantilism, and American triumphalism about victories it didn't even win."

That's an interesting list of grievances. If you lived in Poland in the 1930s, you weren't worried about the Soviets' taste in soft drinks or sentimental Third Reich pop culture. If Washington were a conventional great power, the intellectual class would be arguing that the U.S. is a threat to France or India or Chad or some such. But because it's the world's first nonimperial superpower the world has had to concoct a thesis that America is a threat not merely to this or that nation-state but to the entire planet, and not because of conventional great-power designs but because — even scarier — of its "consumption," its very way of life.

Those Cokes and cheeseburgers detested by discriminating London novelists are devastating the planet in ways that straightforward genocidal conquerors like Hitler and Stalin could only have dreamed of. The construct of this fantasy reveals how unthreatening America is.

And, when the cheeseburger imperialists are roused to real if somewhat fitful warmongering, that's no reason for the self-loathing to stop. The New Republic recently published a "Baghdad Diary" by one "Scott Thomas," who turned out to be Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp. It featured three anecdotes of American soldiering: the deliberate killing of domestic dogs by the driver of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle; a child's skull worn by a U.S. serviceman as a fashion accessory; and the public abuse of a woman to her face, a half-melted face disfigured by an improvised explosive device (IED). The soldier doing the abusing was said to be the author himself, citing it as evidence of how the Iraq war has degraded and dehumanized everyone.

According to the Weekly Standard, army investigators say Pvt. Beauchamp has now signed a statement recanting his lurid anecdotes. And even the New Republic's editors concede the IED-victim mockery took place in Kuwait, before Pvt. Beauchamp was anywhere near Iraq.

They don't seem to realize this destroys the entire premise of the piece, which is meant to be about the dehumanization of soldiers in combat. Pvt. Beauchamp came pre-dehumanized. Indeed, he was writing Iraq atrocity fantasies on his blog back in Germany. It might be truer to say he was "dehumanized" by American media coverage. In this, he joins an ever lengthening list of peddlers of fake atrocities, such as Jesse MacBeth, an Army Ranger who claimed to have slaughtered hundreds of civilians in a mosque. He turned out to be neither an Army Ranger nor a mass murderer.

There are many honorable reasons to oppose the Iraq war, but believing that our troops are sick monsters is not one of them. The sickness is the willingness of so many citizens of the most benign hegemon in history to believe they must be.

As Pogo said, way back in the 1971 Earth Day edition of a then famous comic strip, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Even when we don't do anything: In the post-imperial age, powerful nations no longer have to invade and kill. Simply by driving a Chevy Suburban, we can make the oceans rise and wipe the distant Maldive Islands off the face of the Earth.

This is a kind of malignant narcissism so ingrained it's now taught in our grade schools. That may be why, even when the New Republic's diarist goes to Iraq and meets the real enemy, he still assumes it's us.

Mark Steyn is the senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc. Publications, senior North American columnist for Britain's Telegraph Group, North American editor for the Spectator, and a nationally syndicated columnist.
 
From Townhall.com

Deadly Environmentalists
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Environmentalists, with the help of politicians and other government officials, have an agenda that has cost thousands of American lives.

In the wake of Hurricane Betsy, which struck New Orleans in 1965, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed building flood gates on Lake Pontchartrain, like those in the Netherlands that protect cities from North Sea storms. In 1977, the gates were about to be built, but the Environmental Defense Fund and Save Our Wetlands sought a court injunction to block the project.

According to John Berlau's recent book, "Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism is Hazardous to Your Health," U.S. Attorney Gerald Gallinghouse told the court that not building the gates could kill thousands of New Orleanians. Judge Charles Schwartz issued the injunction despite the evidence refuting claims of environmental damage.

We're told that DDT is harmful to humans and animals. Berlau, a research fellow at the Washington, D.C-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, says, "Not a single study linking DDT exposure to human toxicity has ever been replicated." In one long-term study, volunteers ate 32 ounces of DDT for a year and a half, and 16 years later, they suffered no increased risk of adverse health effects.

Despite evidence that, properly used, DDT is neither harmful to humans nor animals, environmental extremists fight for a continued ban. This has led to millions of illnesses and deaths from malaria, especially in Africa. After WWII, DDT saved millions upon millions of lives in India, Southeast Asia and South America. In some cases, malaria deaths fell to near zero. With bans on DDT, malaria deaths and illnesses have skyrocketed.

Environmental extremists see DDT in a different light. Alexander King, co-founder of the Club of Rome, said, "In Guyana, within almost two years, it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time, the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem." Jeff Hoffman, environmental attorney, wrote on grist.org, "Malaria was actually a natural population control, and DDT has caused a massive population explosion in some places where it has eradicated malaria. More fundamentally, why should humans get priority over other forms of life? . . . I don't see any respect for mosquitos in these posts." Berlau's book cites many other examples of contempt for human life by environmentalists and how they've made politicians their useful idiots.

In 2001, thousands of Americans perished in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. In the early 1970s, when the World Trade Center complex was built, the asbestos scare had just begun. The builders planned to use AsbestoSpray, a flame retardant that adhered to steel. The New York Port of Authority caved in to the environmentalists' asbestos scare and denied its use. An inferior substitute was used as fireproofing.

After the attack, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) confirmed other experts' concerns about asbestos substitutes, concluding, "Even with the airplane impact and jet-fuel-ignited multi-floor fires, which were not normal building fires, the building would likely not have collapsed had it not been for the fireproofing."

Through restrictions on asbestos use, our naval vessels are more vulnerable to our enemies, a disaster waiting in the wings. The Columbia spaceship disaster was a result of the EPA's demand that NASA not use freon in its thermal insulating foam.

Congress mandates auto fuel mileage standards -- Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards -- resulting in lighter, less crashworthy cars. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences calculated that CAFE standards caused 2,000 additional traffic deaths each year. In 1999, a USA Today analysis of government and Insurance Institute data found that since the 1970s CAFE standards went into effect, 46,000 people died in crashes which they would have likely survived had they been riding in heavier cars.

None of this is news to politicians. It's just that environmental extremists have the ears of politicians, and potential victims don't.




Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.
 
<font size="6"><center>
So much for 'settled science'</font size>
<font size="4">
Global warming is now likely to take break for a decade or more</font size></center>


ntnp_20080520_a014_somuchforsettle_46025_mi0001.jpg



Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Tuesday, May 20, 2008

You may have heard earlier this month that global warming is now likely to take break for a decade or more. There will be no more warming until 2015, perhaps later.

Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U. N.'s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.

Of course, Mr. Keenlyside-- long a defender of the man-made global warming theory -- was quick to add that after 2015 (or perhaps 2020), warming would resume with a vengeance.

Climate alarmists the world over were quick to add that they had known all along there would be periods when the Earth's climate would cool even as the overall trend was toward dangerous climate change.

Sorry, but that is just so much backfill.

There may have been the odd global-warming scientist in the past decade who allowed that warming would pause periodically in its otherwise relentless upward march, but he or she was a rarity.

If anything, the opposite is true: Almost no climate scientist who backed the alarmism ever expected warming would take anything like a 10 or 15-year hiatus.

Last year, in its oft-quoted report on global warming, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a 0.3-degree C rise in temperature in the coming decade -- not a cooling or even just temperature stability.

In its previous report in 2001, the IPCC prominently displaced the so-called temperature "hockey stick" that purported to show temperature pretty much plateauing for the thousand years before 1900, then taking off in the 20th Century in a smooth upward line. No 10-year dips backwards were foreseen.

It is drummed into us, ad nauseum, that the IPCC represents 2,500 scientists who together embrace a "consensus" that man-made global warming is a "scientific fact;" and as recently as last year, they didn't see this cooling coming. So the alarmists can't weasel out of this by claiming they knew all along such anomalies would occur.

This is not something any alarmist predicted, and it showed up in none of the UN's computer projections until Mr. Keenlyside et al. were finally able to enter detailed data into their climate model on past ocean current behaviour.

Less well-known is that global temperatures have already been falling for a decade. All of which means, that by 2015 or 2020, when warming is expected to resume, we will have had nearly 20 years of fairly steady cooling.

Saints of the new climate religion, such as Al Gore, have stated that eight of the 10 years since 1998 are the warmest on record. Even if that were true, none has been as warm as 1998, which means the trend of the past decade has been downward, not upward.

Last year, for instance, saw a drop in the global average temperature of nearly 0.7 degrees C (the largest single-year movement up or down since global temperature averages have been calculated). Despite advanced predictions that 2007 would be the warmest year on record, made by such UN associates as Britain's Hadley Centre, a government climate research agency, 2007 was the coolest year since at least 1993.

According to the U. S. National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th-Century mean for the first time since 1982.

Also in January, Southern Hemisphere sea ice coverage was at its greatest summer level (January is summer in the Southern Hemisphere) in the past 30 years.

Neither the 3,000 temperature buoys that float throughout the world's oceans nor the eight NASA satellites that float above our atmosphere have recorded appreciable warming in the past six to eight years.

Even Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, reluctantly admitted to Reuters in January that there has been no warming so far in the 21st Century.

Does this prove that global warming isn't happening, that we can all go back to idling our SUVs 24/7? No. But it should introduce doubt into the claim that the science of global warming is "settled."

lgunter@shaw.ca

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=f6fa4aca-61b4-4824-adb4-78eb8fa9081a
 
Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/
 
Nobody talks about the results of the proposed fix, of what good the Kyoto Protocol and like proposals will do. If, as Kyoto requires, greenhouse gas production is cut back to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels, what effect will it have? Three separate analyses showed that this reduction would cut the projected increase in temperature by only 0.13 to 0.15 degrees Celsius (0.23 to 0.27 degrees F.) in the year 2100. In other words, even if the world is warming and even if greenhouse gases are the cause, Kyoto restrictions make no difference.

Hurricane Strength Chart
Code:
Category		1	2		3		4		5
Central Pressure (inHg)	28.94	28.5-28.91	27.91-28.47	27.17-27.88	<27.17
Sustained winds (mph)	74-95	96-110		111-130 	131-155 	>156
Storm Surge (ft) 	4-5	6-8		9-12		13-18		>19

Small changes in pressure lead to big changes in hurricane force.

Exercise for the reader: Discover how temperature changes lead to pressure changes.

Teach your kids science: Simulate a bath with a bowl of water. Heat the water to a comfortable temperature. What temperature is it? At what temperature does the water become uncomfortable? What happens if you heat the water another 0.27 degrees after that?

Try this with a bowl of goldfish if you don't care about cruelty to animals.
 
Last edited:
Hurricane Strength Chart
Code:
Category		1	2		3		4		5
Central Pressure (inHg)	28.94	28.5-28.91	27.91-28.47	27.17-27.88	<27.17
Sustained winds (mph)	74-95	96-110		111-130 	131-155 	>156
Storm Surge (ft) 	4-5	6-8		9-12		13-18		>19

Small changes in pressure lead to big changes in hurricane force.

Exercise for the reader: Discover how temperature changes lead to pressure changes.

Thanks for the feedback. However, some(?)Global warming estimates indicate that you actually would have FEWER hurricanes, not more. Hurricanes are driven by temperature difference, not overall temps.
 
<font size="5"><center>
Bad weather was good for Alaska glaciers


Alaska glaciers grew this year, thanks to colder weather</font size><font size="4">
MASS BALANCE: For decades, summer snow loss
has exceeded winter snowfall.</font lsize></center>


216-14Juneau_IceFieilds2.graphic_large.prod_affiliate.7.gif



454-glacierstudy.embedded.prod_affiliate.7.jpg

Hydrologists Eran Hood and Mike Hekkers, left, adjust
instruments on the upper north branch of Mendenhall
Glacier. Most of the glaciers stretching from Yakutat
Bay to the Stikine Icefield, which crosses into north-
western British Columbia, are thinning at twice the rate
previously estimated, according to a new study.


Anchorage Daily News
By CRAIG MEDRED
cmedred@adn.com
October 13th, 2008


Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.

Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.

"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.

"It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," Molnia said.

That's the way a scientist says the glaciers got thicker in the middle.

Mass balance is the difference between how much snow falls every winter and how much snow fades away each summer. For most Alaska glaciers, the summer snow loss has for decades exceeded the winter snowfall.

The result has put the state's glaciers on a long-term diet. Every year they lose the snow of the previous winter plus some of the snow from years before. And so they steadily shrink.

Since Alaska's glacial maximum back in the 1700s, Molnia said, "I figure that we've lost about 15 percent of the total area."

What might be the most notable long-term shrinkage has occurred at Glacier Bay, now the site of a national park in Southeast Alaska. When the first Russian explorers arrived in Alaska in the 1740s, there was no Glacier Bay. There was simply a wall of ice across the north side of Icy Strait.

That ice retreated to form a bay and what is now known as the Muir Glacier. And from the 1800s until now, the Muir Glacier just kept retreating and retreating and retreating. It is now back 57 miles from the entrance to the bay, said Tom Vandenberg, chief interpretative ranger at Glacier Bay.

That's farther than the distance from glacier-free Anchorage to Girdwood, where seven glaciers overhang the valley surrounding the state's largest ski area. The glaciers there, like the Muir and hundreds of other Alaska glaciers, have been part of the long retreat.

Overall, Molnia figures Alaska has lost 10,000 to 12,000 square kilometers of ice in the past two centuries, enough to cover an area nearly the size of Connecticut.

Molnia has just completed a major study of Alaska glaciers using satellite images and aerial photographs to catalog shrinkage. The 550-page "Glaciers of Alaska" will provide a benchmark for tracking what happens to the state's glaciers in the future.

Climate change has led to speculation they might all disappear. Molnia isn't sure what to expect. As far as glaciers go, he said, Alaska's glaciers are volatile. They live life on the edge.

"What we're talking about to (change) most of Alaska's glaciers is a small temperature change; just a small fraction-of-a-degree change makes a big difference. It's the mean annual temperature that's the big thing.

"All it takes is a warm summer to have a really dramatic effect on the melting.''

Or a cool summer to shift that mass balance the other way.

One cool summer that leaves 20 feet of new snow still sitting atop glaciers come the start of the next winter is no big deal, Molnia said.

Ten summers like that?

Well, that might mark the start of something like the Little Ice Age.

During the Little Ice Age -- roughly the 16th century to the 19th -- Muir Glacier filled Glacier Bay and the people of Europe struggled to survive because of difficult conditions for agriculture. Some of them fled for America in the first wave of white immigration.

The Pilgrims established the Plymouth Colony in December 1620. By spring, a bitterly cold winter had played a key role in helping kill half of them. Hindered by a chilly climate, the white colonization of North America through the 1600s and 1700s was slow.

As the climate warmed from 1800 to 1900, the United States tripled in size. The windy and cold city of Chicago grew from an outpost of fewer than 4,000 in 1800 to a thriving city of more than 1.5 million at the end of that century.

The difference in temperature between the Little Ice Age and these heady days of American expansion?

About three or four degrees, Molnia said.

The difference in temperature between this summer in Anchorage -- the third coldest on record -- and the norm?

About three degrees, according to the National Weather Service.

Does it mean anything?

Nobody knows. Climate is constantly shifting. And even if the past year was a signal of a changing future, Molnia said, it would still take decades to make itself noticeable in Alaska's glaciers.

Rivers of ice flow slowly. Hundreds of feet of snow would have to accumulate at higher elevations to create enough pressure to stall the current glacial retreat and start a new advance. Even if the glaciers started growing today, Molnia said, it might take up to 100 years for them to start steadily rolling back down into the valleys they've abandoned.

"It's different time scales," he said. "We're just starting to understand."

As strange it might seem, Alaska's glaciers could appear to be shrinking for some time while secretly growing. Molnia said there are a few glaciers in the state now where constant snow accumulations at higher elevations are causing them to thicken even as their lower reaches follow the pattern of retreat fueled by the global warming of recent decades.

http://www.adn.com/news/environment/story/555283.html
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/55758.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/55758.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/58124.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/58124.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
From the NY Times

January 22, 2009
Warming in Antarctica Looks Certain
By KENNETH CHANG
Antarctica is warming.

That is the conclusion of scientists analyzing half a century of temperatures on the continent, and the findings may help resolve a climate enigma at the bottom of the planet.

While some regions of Antarctica, particularly the peninsula the stretches toward South America, have warmed rapidly in recent decades, weather stations including the one at the South Pole have recorded a cooling trend. That ran counter to the forecasts of computer climate models, and global warming skeptics have pointed to Antarctica in questioning the reliability of the models.

In the new study, scientists took into account satellite measurements to interpolate temperatures in the vast areas between the sparse weather stations.

“We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases,” said Eric J. Steig, a professor of space sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle and the lead author of a paper appearing Thursday in the journal Nature.

“We’re highly confident our calculation is very good,” Dr. Steig said.

Because of the climate record is still short, more work needs to be done to determine how much of the warming results from natural climate swings and how much from the warming effects of carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels, Dr. Steig said.

He and another author, Drew T. Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, presented the findings at a news conference on Wednesday.

From 1957 through 2006, temperatures across Antarctica rose an average of 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, comparable to the warming that has been measured globally.

In West Antarctica, where the base of some large ice sheets lies below sea level, the warming was even more pronounced, at 0.3 degrees per Fahrenheit. In East Antarctica, where temperatures had been believed to be falling, the researchers found a slight warming over the 50-year period.

With the uncertainties, East Antarctica may have indeed been cooling, but the rise in temperatures in the west more than offset any cooling.

The average temperature for Antarctica is about minus 58 degrees.

“There is very convincing evidence in this work of warming over West Antarctica,” said Andrew Monaghan, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who was not involved with the research reported in Nature.

As with earlier studies, the scientists found that temperatures had cooled in East Antarctica since the late 1970s, a phenomenon that many atmospheric scientists attribute to emissions of chloroflurocarbons, a family of chemicals used as coolants that destroyed high-altitude ozone. Those chemicals have since been phased out, the ozone hole is expected to heal, and the cooling trend may reverse.

The region of East Antarctica, which includes the South Pole, is at much higher elevation and extends farther north than West Antarctica. The Transantarctic Mountains separate the two.

While the scientists said the ozone hole most likely had a significant influence on Antarctic temperatures, other factors, including sea ice and greenhouse gases, may play a larger role.

“Obviously the situation is complex, resulting from a combination of man-made factors and natural variability,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences at Princeton, who was not involved in the research. “But the idea of a long-term cooling is pretty clearly debunked.”

Dr. Monaghan, who had not detected the rapid warming of West Antarctica in an earlier study, said the new study had “spurred me to take another look at ours — I’ve since gone back and included additional records.”

That reanalysis, which used somewhat different techniques and assumptions, has not yet been published, but he presented his revised findings last month at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

“The results I get are very similar to his,” Dr. Monaghan said.

Andrew C. Revkin contributed reporting.
 
<font size="5"><center>
Study: More evidence
Arctic's rapid warming isn't natural</font size></center>



McClatchy Newspapers
By Renee Schoof
September 3, 2009


WASHINGTON — The Arctic was cooling for 1,900 years because of a natural change in Earth's orbit until greenhouse gas accumulation from the use of fossil fuels reversed the trend in recent decades, according to a study published Thursday in Science magazine.

Scientists reconstructed the temperature record of the past 2,000 years using evidence from tree rings, ice cores and lake sediment, and found a steady cooling trend in Arctic summer temperatures of about 0.5 degrees Celsius — 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit — during the first 1,900 years. The cooling was caused by a slow natural cycle in Earth orbit that continues in this century.

"The summer cooling would likely be continuing today were it not for the increase of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning," said David Schneider, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and one of the authors of the study. "The results are important in showing that the dramatic changes happening today — and particularly the rapidity of the changes — are not natural."

Darrell Kaufman, a professor of geology and environmental science at Northern Arizona State University and the lead author of the study, put it this way: "The warmth in the Arctic during the second half of the 20th century, combined with the last decade, is striking against the backdrop of the previous 1,900 years. ... The second half of the 20th century was warmer in the Arctic than any other half-century of the last 2,000 years."

Further, 1999 to 2008 was the warmest decade in the Arctic of any in that period, the report in Science said. Temperatures were about 1.4 degrees Celsius — 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit — higher than would have been expected if the natural cooling trend had continued.

Scientists already knew that the Arctic is warming two to three times faster than the rest of the planet is.

The new study gives a better understanding of how the climate system behaves over longer time scales, Schneider said. Previous studies with that level of detail went back only 400 years, and most of the record from thermometers in the Arctic dates back only about 50 years.

"We have a lot more data than we had before, and better climate models for understanding that data," Schneider said.

One of the most important findings from the study was that its findings matched the output of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's climate-system computer model, Kaufman said.

"The climate model used in this study is among those that have been used to predict future climate. The match between our proxy temperature record and the climate-model output adds to our confidence in the model's ability to accurately simulate temperature responses to factors that influence climate change," he said. "This is especially important for the Arctic, where the influence of global warming is amplified."


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/74861.html
 
<font size="5"><Center>
As Climate Summit Nears,
Skeptics Gain Traction</font size>
</center>


global_warming_1201.jpg



T I M E
By BRYAN WALSH
Wednesday, Dec. 02, 2009


When "Climategate" broke on Nov. 20, with hackers stealing and subsequently releasing more than a thousand apparently dubious e-mails by renowned climate scientists, the timing couldn't have been more inconvenient for advocates of action on climate change. The major U.N. global-warming summit in Copenhagen was just a few weeks away, and the U.S. Senate was starting work on a bill that would cap U.S. carbon emissions. It was the eve of a month in which crucial decisions could be made in the global effort to curb climate change before its effects become truly dangerous.

The publication of private e-mails from researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at Britain's East Anglia University, which raised questions about whether scientists had distorted or scrubbed data on global warming, "could scarcely be more damaging," in the words of English environmental writer George Monbiot. But it was only one in a series of troubling indicators that skepticism about global warming is on the rise. A survey released in October by the Pew Research Center found that the number of Americans who believed there is solid evidence that the world is warming had dropped from 71% in April 2008 to 57% in October 2009; over the same period, the percentage who believed climate change is a very serious problem had dropped from 44% to 35%.
(See pictures of a glacier melting in Peru.)

Meanwhile, in Australia — where two years ago climate skeptic and former Prime Minister John Howard was voted out of office — the opposition Liberal Party in December elected Tony Abbott, another warming skeptic, as its leader. Abbott threatens to scuttle Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's proposed cap-and-trade bill. Even in green Europe, there are worrying signs, including the selection of Nick Griffin, leader of the ultra-right British National Party and a man who has called climate science an "Orwellian consensus," as a representative for the European Parliament at Copenhagen. "Climate-change denial in Europe is actually increasing over the past few months," says James Hoggan, blogger and author of the new book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming.

Why? The debate over climate-change science was closed two years ago, after the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that global warming was "unequivocal" and that it "very likely" owed to man-made greenhouse-gas emissions. While there is still plenty of room to argue over the precise pace of climate change or the best way to deal with global warming going forward, the case for man-made warming was definitively made. Or wasn't it?
(See how global warming is threatening penguins.)

Indeed, for all the sound and fury over Climategate, there was little in the CRU's hacked e-mails that significantly damaged the overall case for climate change. Deniers claim that an e-mail from CRU chief Phil Jones demonstrates that the CRU's historical global temperature data have been exaggerated. Jones wrote that he would use a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. The phrasing was unfortunate, but Jones was merely referring to an accepted method of concatenating data sets, one that has been discussed openly in scientific journals for years. Further, the British unit is just one of four groups around the world, including NASA, that compiles records of global temperatures — and all four offer conclusions about warming that are virtually identical. As for claims that the CRU is hiding information, fully 95% of its climate data are available to the public.

But the e-mails shed an unflattering light on climate science and some of the political jockeying that goes on within the community, not to mention the very personal debates that can sometimes break out among opponents. If Jones is found to have actively encouraged his scientists to dodge Freedom of Information Act requests, which some of the e-mails suggest, he should almost certainly resign from his post. But it is vital to remember that the e-mails, which remain incomplete and out of context, do not overthrow all of climate science. "There remains after the dust settles on this controversy a consensus on the key characteristics of the climate question," said White House science adviser John Holdren at a congressional hearing on Dec. 2.
(Watch TIME's video "The Icy Clues to Global Warming.")

And yet the e-mails will weaken the fight against climate change, while also helping to explain why skepticism seems to be on the rise. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to note that the e-mails — which were stolen, after all — were released right before the Copenhagen summit. Despite continued bickering and disagreement, the world is now closer to acting on global warming than it has ever been. Three years ago, under former President George W. Bush, the chances of a U.S. cap-and-trade bill's passing were so remote that the potential political influence of climate-change advocates seemed nonexistent. That's no longer the case. So it's not surprising, then, that the conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending millions to fight cap and trade, in part by casting suspicion over the science of climate change. "Basically what they're doing is trying to sell doubt," says Hoggan. "If you can produce enough doubt, you don't need a logical counternarrative. You just undermine any effort to deal with this."

Even a small amount of doubt is enough to shatter consensus. That is why a number of researchers have suggested in the wake of the CRU e-mail hack that climate scientists be more open with their data and engage with critics in the future. "Climate McCarthyism" — as Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute have called the knee-jerk attacks by some climate-change advocates on those who deviate from the green mainstream — must stop. That may not seem fair — industry groups have played dirty for years smearing climate scientists — but researchers will need to be above reproach. "Scientists need to consider carefully skeptical arguments and either rebut them or learn from them," wrote Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist and climate researcher at Georgia Tech, on the blog Climate Audit.
(Read "Is There Any Hope for Agreement at Copenhagen?")

That advice was surely heard at East Anglia University, which announced on Dec. 1 that Jones would temporarily step down while the school carried out an investigation into the e-mails. Shortly afterward, Penn State University announced that it would carry out its own investigation of the e-mails; prominent Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann was another high-profile figure in Climategate. "What is most important is that CRU continues its world-leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible," said Jones in a statement. "After a good deal of consideration, I have decided the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the director's role during the course of the independent review."

At the same time, the public — that includes the media — should learn to think like scientists. Scientists debate, often furiously. That is the nature of the scientific method, and it can be ugly, as the hacked e-mails, many of which insult climate skeptics, demonstrate. But scientists also know that continued debate and disagreement over the smaller points — whether in climate science, medicine or any other scientific field — do not necessarily threaten the overall argument. "Scientists are brutal in their criticism," said Holdren. "Science is rough."

But unless the public's scientific literacy is improved, science itself risks becoming a political debate, like everything else today, with no room for objective data or authority. "Right now for many people, their ideology is driving their view of science," says Hoggan. "Ideology decides what makes a fact a fact." Now that is a real scandal.

See why Russia is dragging its feet on climate change.



http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070,00.html
 
As globe warms, melting glaciers
revealing more than bare earth​


dtg9N.AuSt.91.jpeg


McClatchy Foreign Staff
By Tim Johnson
June 19, 2015



CIUDAD SERDAN, Mexico — As a result of warming temperatures, Mexico’s tallest volcano, Pico de Orizaba, is performing an all-natural striptease, the ice patches near its summit melting away to bare rock.

The same process is taking place in the permafrost of Russia, the ice fields of the Yukon and the glaciers of New Zealand. And as the once-frozen world emerges from slumber, it’s yielding relics, debris – and corpses – that have laid hidden for decades, even millennia.

The thaw has unnerved archaeologists, given hope to relatives of lost mountain climbers and solved the mysteries of old plane crashes.

What emerges is not always apparent – or even pleasant. That pungent smell? It’s a massive deposit of caribou dung in the Yukon that had been frozen for thousands of years, and now is decomposing in the air, its sharp odor unlocked.

Pico de Orizaba towers above all other mountains in Mexico at 18,491 feet. It is the highest peak in North America after Mount McKinley in Alaska and Mount Logan in Canada’s Yukon Territory. A challenging dormant volcano, Orizaba is a training ground for those interested in high-altitude climbing.

For a handful of climbers, it has been their last peak. They’ve been buried by avalanches or swallowed by crevasses. Now, the mountain is spitting back their bodies.

Late in February, a climbing party circled the jagged crater atop Orizaba.

“One of them slipped, and they later said he skidded down and came to a stop. When he got up, he saw a head poking out of the snow,” said Hilario Aguilar Aguilar, a veteran climber.

It was a mummified climber, a member of a Mexican expedition hit by an avalanche on Nov. 2, 1959. Some climbers fell near the Chimicheco Ridge, their bodies frozen in an icy time machine, only to re-emerge 56 years later.

Hearing of the macabre discovery, prosecutors dispatched Aguilar and other climbers March 4 to document the scene of death.

“Upon clearing away some snow so that I could take some photographs, I saw another hand. Suddenly, there were one, two, three hands. It didn’t seem possible. Digging a little more, we discovered that there was another body,” Aguilar said.



The natural fiber rope connecting the two bodies had disintegrated to little more than a stain in the ice, he added. Aguilar said one of the mummified climbers appeared to be wearing remnants of a red sweater.

“I tried to bring a piece as a sample, for evidence, but it turned to dust when I touched it,” he said, adding that the mummified bodies are unlikely to be retrieved from the mountain until weather clears, perhaps in November.



Then word came of another body, this one at an oxygen-deprived elevation of about 16,900 feet on another side of the crater. Aguilar and his crew went up June 4 and brought the body down on a metal gurney, dragging it down a steep scree slope.

Wearing a suit inappropriate for a freezing clime, the victim may have been thrown from a small plane that crashed on Orizaba in 1999, although his identity is not yet known.



Elsewhere around the world, explorers and scientists are stumbling upon mountainside plane wrecks, finding mummified Incan children, and discovering a frozen graveyard of ancient marine reptiles once hidden under a Chilean glacier.



Archaeologists are turning into unlikely beneficiaries of a warmer Earth, and several have started a new publication: the Journal of Glacial Archaeology.

Its editor, E. James Dixon, an anthropologist at the University of New Mexico, frets about the phenomenon of ancient ice melting after thousands of years.

“For every discovery that is made, there are thousands coming out of the ice and are decomposing very rapidly,” Dixon said. “In the ice, some of the most delicate artifacts are preserved. We’ve found baskets, arrow shafts with the feathers intact and arrowheads and lashings perfectly preserved.”

Once the ice melts and the artifacts are exposed, they decay quickly.



Norwegian archaeologist Lars Holger Pilo said that about 3,500 artifacts have been found near melted ice patches and glaciers around the globe, with more than half in his country.

In Norway’s Oppland County, only short distances separate valleys from mountains, where caribou once gathered on ice patches to flee swarming insects. The ice patches, which are immobile and distinct from moving glaciers, became hunting grounds for ancient people.

Starting with a warm summer and autumn in 2006, Pilo said ice patches have melted significantly, revealing weapons, tunics, shoes and other implements, including a complete arrow shaft dating from 5,900 years ago.

“They look exactly as they did when they were lost. It’s like they were in a time machine. Once they are out, the clock starts to tick. They deteriorate rapidly,” he said. “We used to get Iron Age implements. Now, we’re starting to get the really old Stone Age arrows.”

The most notable discovery of a mummified body coughed up by a melting glacier occurred in 1991 in the Italian Alps, where two German tourists found a 5,300-year-old mummy, dubbed Otzi the Iceman, presumably a high-altitude shepherd.

In 1999, high-altitude archaeologists found three mummified Incan children near the summit of towering Llullaillaco mountain in the Argentine Andes, the highest Incan burial ever discovered. The Incans performed such sacrifices to propitiate mountain spirits and serve as messengers to the other world.



Ill-fated modern mountaineers are also melting out of glaciers.

Hikers in Canada’s Columbia Icefields in 2010 came across the body of an American, William Holland, 38, who fell off a precipice and was subsequently buried by an avalanche in 1989. His body was so well-preserved that his spiked boots were still on his feet and his climbing rope was still coiled around his body.

Last month, the body of a New Zealand teenage climber, David Erik Moen, was returned to his family 42 years after an avalanche near Mount Cook in the Southern Alps buried him.

Another glacier and icefall in the area, Hochstetter, spit out human remains in March. News reports say police are still working to provide an identity.



In Canada’s Yukon Territory, melting has sparked new interest in finding the wreckage of lost aircraft.

“I’m actually investigating a cold case,” said Gerald Holdsworth, a glaciologist and member of the Arctic Institute of North America at the University of Calgary. The crash involves a Norseman single-engine bush plane that went down in 1951.

“We think that the plane hit a mountain, Mount Eaton, at no more than 6,000 feet,” Holdsworth said.

Aircraft wreckage and relics alike, he said, are “being uncovered by melt down and melt back of glaciers worldwide.”

Email: tjohnson@mcclatchydc.com; Twitter: @timjohnson4



Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/06/19/270558/as-globe-warms-melting-glaciers.html#storylink=cpy



 
Back
Top