Now it's...global freezing

[Brandon Live Veteran]

My apologies for getting one tidbit of information wrong. The rest of my post still stands.

Tidbit? I was addressing the main point of your post.

Before the whole global warming craze they were telling us we were heading towards an ice age. Are we just going in circles here?

No. The scientific community never said that. A couple of misinformed media outlets in the 70s don't count.

[Solid Knight]

No. The scientific community never said that. A couple of misinformed media outlets in the 70s don't count.

Older than that.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Older than that.

To whom were you referring then?

[HeretikSaint]

Tidbit? I was addressing the main point of your post.

You corrected me about beef cattle emitting methane rather than CO2. The main point in my post was about misinformation in documentaries such as "An Inconvenient Truth" are misinforming people by omitting information and leading people to believe relationships are not as they actually are. You may have missed the main point of my post. I do, however, thank you for your correction within my post.

[TrueMonolith]

You corrected me about beef cattle emitting methane rather than CO2. The main point in my post was about misinformation in documentaries such as "An Inconvenient Truth" are misinforming people by omitting information and leading people to believe relationships are not as they actually are. You may have missed the main point of my post. I do, however, thank you for your correction within my post.

I think you'll find most people dont like Gore.

Fewer people like Derkin (the fool that made the great climate swindle).

Anyone who relies on those two mockumentories or listens to Lord Monckton is gonna be a little f*cked in the head.

[HeretikSaint]

I think you'll find most people dont like Gore.

Fewer people like Derkin (the fool that made the great climate swindle).

Anyone who relies on those two mockumentories or listens to Lord Monckton is gonna be a little f*cked in the head.

This is actually why I stopped watching documentaries. They are (most of the time) severely one-sided and they refuse to point out where the holes/problems with their sides are. Even Darwin dedicated an entire chapter within "On the Origin of Species" to where his theory might break down (i.e. irreducible complexities).

[petrossa]

Tidbit? I was addressing the main point of your post.

No. The scientific community never said that. A couple of misinformed media outlets in the 70s don't count.

dates from the 70's:

Holdren: Ice age will kill 1 billion

Obama's science chief blames man-made carbon emissions

Posted: October 09, 2009

12:00 am Eastern

John Holdren

White House science czar John Holdren has predicted 1 billion people will die in "carbon-dioxide induced famines" in a coming new ice age by 2020.

As WND previously reported, Holdren predicted in a 1971 textbook co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul Ehrlich that global over-population was heading the Earth to a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization.

Holdren's prediction that 1 billion people would die from a global cooling "eco-disaster" was announced in Ehrlich's 1986 book "The Machinery of Nature."

Holdren based his prediction on a theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming would cause global cooling with a consequent reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster.

On pages 273-274 of "The Machinery of Nature," Ehrlich explained Holdren's theory by arguing "some localities will probably become colder as the warmer atmosphere drives the climatic engine faster, causing streams of frigid air to move more rapidly away from the poles." (Emphasis in original text.)

"Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change"

The movement of the frigid air from the poles caused by global warming "could reduce agricultural yields for decades or more – a sure recipe for disaster in an increasingly overpopulated world," Ehrlich wrote.

Holdren and Ehrlich had previously articulated the theory in their 1973 textbook "Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions" in which they argued on page 198 that the main effect of carbon-dioxide-induced global warming "might be to speed up circulation patterns and to bring arctic cold farther south and Antarctic cold farther north."

In their 1970s textbook, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Environment," last revised in 1977, Holdren together with co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich argued on page 687 that "a man-made warming trend might cancel out a natural cooling trend."

Equivocating between whether human-caused global warming or global cooling were the more likely future trend, the authors concluded that, either way, any rapid climate change would produce an eco-disaster because any rapid change in climate, regardless whether toward global warming or global cooling, would produce hazardous effects upon agriculture and food production.

Still, worrying that human-caused climate changes either toward global warming or global cooling would be rapid, the authors concluded "there is no leeway in the world situation to absorb a significant climate-induced drop in production over broad areas of the world."

"Whatever adjustments in crop characteristics and cultivation patterns might eventually be made in response to rapid climate change would come too late to save hundreds of millions from famine," the authors argued on page 688. (Emphasis in original text.)

On page 377, the authors returned to their constant theme: The only way to control a foreseen increasing global food crisis was to control population.

They noted that a 1967 presidential science advisory commission had concluded that the solution to the "world food problem" likely after 1985 "demands that programs of population control be initiated now." (Emphasis in original text.)

Commenting on the conclusions of the 1967 presidential advisory report, the authors wrote, "We emphatically agreed then, and the situation is even more urgent today."

Biofuels and world hunger

Examining Holdren's extensive publications, WND does not find him balancing his concern that anthropogenic-induced climate change will cause world hunger with a concern that the production of biofuels to reduce carbon emissions could itself be a source of global famine.

WND has reported that, ironically, a major cause of world famine has not been climate change but the increased cost of basic food products including corn caused by the production of biofuels such as ethanol.

A controversial report released earlier this month by the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, documented that the increasing demand for corn to produce ethanol contributed between 10 to 15 percent to an overall 5.1 percent increase in the price of food from April 2007 to April 2008, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.

"Producing ethanol for use in motor fuels increases the demand for corn, which ultimately raises the prices that consumers pay for a wide variety of foods at grocery stores, ranging from corn syrup sweeteners found in soft drinks to meat, dairy and poultry products," the CBO concluded.

An International Monetary Fund assessment was even more pessimistic.

"With respect to food, biofuels policies in some advanced economies are spilling over to the price of key food items, particularly corn and soybeans," John Lipsky, first managing director of the IMF, told the Council on Foreign Relations May 8, 2008. "IMF estimates suggest increased demand for biofuels accounts for 70 percent of the increase in corn prices and 40 percent of the increase in soybean prices."

In an article entitled "How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor," published in the Council on Foreign Relations Foreign Affairs magazine for May/June 2007, economists C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer concluded that if the prices of staple foods increase because of the demand for biofuels, "the number of food-insecure people in the world would rise by over 16 million for every percentage point in the real prices of staple foods."

Runge and Senauer projected that as many as 1.2 billion people could be chronically hungry by 2025, with 600 million more than previously projected, with the increase being due to the production of biofuels.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=112317

[petrossa]

Source: Daily Mail

Is 'climate change' nudging us closer to a new ice age?

January 13, 6:32 PMSeminole County Environmental News ExaminerKirk Myers

Is global warming the prelude to real climate change - the next ice age?

As large swaths of the Northern Hemisphere – from the eastern half of North America to Europe, Asia and India – shiver through a big freeze, global warming diehards insist the onslaught of cold weather is an anomaly and warmer temperatures, driven by man-made CO2 and the greenhouse effect, will return with a vengeance.

But several well-known scientists – adherents of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory – are dismissing, at least in the near term, dire predictions of soaring global temperatures.

Bolstering the climate-change-is-natural argument, Professor Mojib Latif, an author for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said that recent fluctuations in ocean currents in the North Atlantic (Arctic Oscillation) may signal cooler temperatures ahead, perhaps for the next 30 years.

"For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling," Latif said, although he stressed the lull is only temporary and may be masking the ongoing effects of man-caused global warming.

"The natural variation [of ocean currents] occurs side by side with the manmade warming. Sometimes it has a cooling effect and can offset this warming and other times it can accelerate it," he explained.

In a New York Times interview last year, NASA solar physicist David Hathaway said the earth’s climate could enter a cold phase if the lull in solar activity, characterized by low sunspot numbers and a weak geomagnetic field, over the past three years continues through the current solar cycle. (Changes in solar geomagnetic activity are thought to influence earth’s climate.)

If the sun remains in its sleepy state, we could see a replay of the Dalton Minimum (a period of very low solar activity when sunspots numbers peaked at only 50), which occurred two centuries ago, Hathaway told the Times.

During the Dalton Minimum (1790 - 1830), global temperatures plummeted, resulting in the “Year Without a Summer” in 1816. The abnormally cold weather destroyed crops in northern Europe, the northeastern United States and eastern Canada. Historian John D. Post called it "the last great subsistence crisis in the Western world.”

Many scientists believe solar activity is earth’s major climate driver, while citing other causes such as ocean currents, volcanic eruptions, undersea geothermal activity, and small fluctuations in the earth’s orbit and tilt.

Recent monitoring of solar activity shows that sunspots have declined both in numbers and strength. In a paper published last year in the American Geophysical Union's EAO magazine, astronomers Dr. William Livingston and Dr. Matthew Penn reported that “the magnetic field strength in sunspots [was] decreasing with time, independent of the sunspot cycle."

“Whether this is an omen of long- term sunspot decline, analogous to the Maunder Minimum [a very cold period during the Little Ice Age], remains to be seen. Other indicators of the solar activity cycle suggest that sunspots must return in earnest within the next year,” they wrote.

Geophysicist Phillip Chapman, a former NASA astronaut-scientist and president of the National Space Society, says the sun’s spotlessness could be temporary, but if the muted activity continues, it may be a sign of much colder times ahead.

"The next Little Ice Age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do,” Chapman says. “It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning . . . .”

During the Maunder Minimum, in the depth of the Little Ice Age, hundreds of thousands of people in Europe died from starvation when the climate turned rainy and cold and cut short the growing season.

"There are many more people now, and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the U.S. and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it," Chapman says.

Robert Felix, author of "Not by Fire but by Ice" and host of www.iceagenow.com, notes that mankind has enjoyed a relatively warm climate during the past 11,500 years – the recent interglacial period (Holocene Epoch) – but is now on the brink of a new ice age.

Glacial periods over the past 800,000 years have occurred about every 100,000 years, interspersed with interglacial stretches that last about 12,000 years. Ice core research shows the transition from a warm to cold climate can be very abrupt.

Ice samples, some as old as 200,000 years, from the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) show the earth slipping quickly from periods of warmth into full-fledged glacial severity in less than 20 years, Felix says.

“We’re being told there’s global warming, but I think we’re headed in the other direction . . . we’re right on the precipice of the next ice age. When it happens, we’ll be fighting in the streets for food long before we’re covered by ice.”

Despite mounting evidence of global cooling, AGW alarmists cling steadfastly to their claim that man-made CO2 is triggering a runaway greenhouse effect and rising global temperatures. But the same Casandras almost never mention water vapor – by far the most abundant greenhouse gas – and its dominate role in the atmosphere. Compared to water vapor, the CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect from human activity is negligible – about 0.117 percent.

Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics says the influence of human-induced CO2 emissions on climate is vastly overstated.

“Saying the climate system is completely dominated by how much carbon dioxide we have in the system is crazy – completely wrong . . . Carbon dioxide is not the major driver for the earth-climate system.”

Soon is among a growing number of skeptics who disagree with alarmists who say the “science is settled” and the earth is warming – claims they continue to make even as many regions of the Northern Hemisphere freeze in sub-zero temperatures and dig out from record-setting blizzards, further evidence, skeptics say, of a cooling trend that began nine years ago.

Geophysicist David Deming, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis and an associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma, calls global warming a “fraud.”

“To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over. It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history, next to Aristotelean physics, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, phlogiston, and a plethora of other incorrect scientific theories, all of which had vocal and dogmatic supporters who cited incontrovertible evidence,” he says.

“Weather and climate change are natural processes beyond human control. To argue otherwise is to deny the factual evidence.”

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-32936-S...o-a-new-ice-age

[TrueMonolith]

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-32936-S...o-a-new-ice-age

Petrossa...this is the science sub forums.

Means you're gonna have to link published peer review if you wanna dissent.

Public opinion = RWI stuff.

[petrossa]

Petrossa...this is the science sub forums.

Means you're gonna have to link published peer review if you wanna dissent.

Public opinion = RWI stuff.

You re free to follow your definition of science, if prefer the common definition as in the dictionary that way we are all talking about the same thing

Noun

S: science, scientific discipline (a particular branch of scientific knowledge) "the science of genetics"

S: skill, science (ability to produce solutions in some problem domain) "the skill of a well-trained boxer"; "the sweet science of pugilism"

It says nowhere in the community rules for this forum that science equals peer review. Science is science on itself.?

[petrossa]

Here's a (partial) list of the specific glaciers that are growing:

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

_______________________________________________________

Glaciar Perito Moreno, Patagonia: climate sensitivities and glacier characteristics preceding the 2003/04 and 2005/06 damming events

Authors: Stuefer, Martin; Rott, Helmut; Skvarca, Pedro

Source: Journal of Glaciology, Volume 53, Number 180, January 2007 , pp. 3-16(14)

Publisher: International Glaciological Society

Abstract:

Mass balance and climate sensitivity of Glaciar Perito Moreno (GPM), one of the main outlet glaciers of Hielo Patag?nico Sur (southern Patagonia icefield), were investigated. Field measurements were carried out from 1995 to 2003, including ice ablation and velocity at stakes, seismic profiling, bathymetry of the lake near the calving fronts and meteorological data. The database was complemented by satellite observations, to derive the motion field by interferometric data, map glacier boundaries and snowlines from multi-year time series of radar images, and obtain glacier topography from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. In September 2003, GPM started to dam the southern arm of Lago Argentino, resulting in a maximum rise of the lake level of 9.35 m before the dam burst in March 2004. The ice dam formed again in August 2005, bursting in March 2006. Analysis of mass fluxes indicates no long-term trend in mass balance. This behaviour, contrasting with most retreating glaciers in the vicinity, can be attributed to a particular glacier geometry. Monthly climate sensitivity characteristics for glacier mass balance were derived using a degree-day model, showing similar importance of both temperature and precipitation. Also, the reconstruction of the mass balance for the last 50 years from local climate data shows a near-steady-state condition for GPM, with some small fluctuations, such as a slightly positive balance after 1998, that may have triggered the minor advance leading to damming events in 2003 and 2005.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igso...000180/art00001

__________________________________________________________________________

West Antarctic Ice Sheet May Not Be Losing Ice As Fast As Once Thought

ScienceDaily (Oct. 20, 2009) — New ground measurements made by the West Antarctic GPS Network (WAGN) project, composed of researchers from The University of Texas at Austin, The Ohio State University, and The University of Memphis, suggest the rate of ice loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet has been slightly overestimated.

"Our work suggests that while West Antarctica is still losing significant amounts of ice, the loss appears to be slightly slower than some recent estimates," said Ian Dalziel, lead principal investigator for WAGN. "So the take home message is that Antarctica is contributing to rising sea levels. It is the rate that is unclear."

In 2006, another team of researchers used data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites to infer a significant loss of ice mass over West Antarctica from 2002 to 2005. The GRACE satellites do not measure changes in ice loss directly but measure changes in gravity, which can be caused both by ice loss and vertical uplift of the bedrock underlying the ice.

Now, for the first time, researchers have directly measured the vertical motion of the bedrock at sites across West Antarctica using the Global Positioning System (GPS). The results should lead to more accurate estimates of ice mass loss.

Antarctica was once buried under a deeper and more extensive layer of ice during a period known as the Last Glacial Maximum. Starting about 20,000 years ago, the ice began slowly thinning and retreating. As the ice mass decreases, the bedrock immediately below the ice rises, an uplift known as postglacial rebound.

Postglacial rebound causes an increase in the gravitational attraction measured by the GRACE satellites and could explain their inferred measurements of recent, rapid ice loss in West Antarctica. The new GPS measurements show West Antarctica is rebounding more slowly than once thought. This means that the correction to the gravity signal from the rock contribution has been overestimated and the rate of ice loss is slower than previously interpreted.

"The published results are very important because they provide precise, ground-truth GPS observations of the actual rebound of the continent due to the loss of ice mass detected by the GRACE satellite gravity measurements over West Antarctica" said Vladimir Papitashvili, acting director for the Antarctic Earth Sciences Program at the National Science Foundation, which supported the research.

more: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...91019122838.htm

______________________________________________________________________

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

(Simon Fraser/Science Photo Library)

The west Himalayan range includes 15,000 glaciers

Image :1 of 2

Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings

259 Comments

Recommend? (221)

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

More: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6991177.ece

and on and on and on........

[TrueMonolith]

Petrossa...i hope you actually contacted those particular scientists before quoting their work.

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm <--- not peer review literature. Infact, they seem to quite lacking on research.

Why does http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igso...000001/art00006 cite http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igso...000180/art00001 and mentions a loss of 53 m³?

Maybe the abstract isnt telling the full story...maybe you should contact the scientists you're citing?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...91019122838.htm <--- Not losing as fast....is not the same as saying its slowing down.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6991177.ece <--- didnt know timesonline became a site for peer review literature, not to mention its pretty much he said they said.

Lift your game petrossa old bean....your shonkyness is fine in RWI, but here, Research reigns.

[Emil Valsson]

Al Gore can now stop making millions of this bull**** campaign of his.

[TrueMonolith]

Al Gore can now stop making millions of this bull**** campaign of his.

Pretty much...i wish he would shut up too.

Durkin is worse....making up info as he goes along.

[petrossa]

Petrossa...i hope you actually contacted those particular scientists before quoting their work.

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm <--- not peer review literature. Infact, they seem to quite lacking on research.

So refute it. Show me a list of glaciers that are actually melting away in the scorching heat. And i don't care whose peer reviewed it.

Why does http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igso...000001/art00006 cite http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igso...000180/art00001 and mentions a loss of 53 m³?

Maybe the abstract isnt telling the full story...maybe you should contact the scientists you're citing?

Maybe i'll let you refute it with something else than snide remarks? A loss of 53 m3 is hardly 'oh god the glaciers disappear' now isn't it. Glaciers are on average 1000 ft thick and miles long, it's such a tiny loss it wouldn't be seen without precision measurements.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...91019122838.htm <--- Not losing as fast....is not the same as saying its slowing down.

Yes, slowing down; Indeed. As in: The inverse of speeding up because the earth is warming.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6991177.ece <--- didnt know timesonline became a site for peer review literature, not to mention its pretty much he said they said.

What's it with you and peer review? It use to mean something before science became politicized, now?peer review doesn't mean diddly squat except that the grants flow more to one side than the other.

You just use it just as an cop out in ?order to evade addressing to content.

[TrueMonolith]

"Refute it"

Not how it works in science. You have to prove your claim....and you clearly havent met your burden of proof.

Go back to RWI thread if you're just gonna avoid doing research.

[petrossa]

The claim has been made by AGW proponents, it's their onus to prove it. I just have to show data contradicting their claim, that's science.

Another one:

Yesterday, critics accused the IPCC of boosting the man-made global warming theory to protect a multi-million pound industry.

Climate scientist Peter Taylor said: “I am not surprised by this news. A vast bureaucracy and industry has been built up around this theory. There is too much money in it for the IPCC to let it wither.”

Professor Julian Dowdeswell, a glacier specialist at Cambridge University, said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one even at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is a lot faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistically high.”

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152422...-change-scandal

[TrueMonolith]

The claim has been made by AGW proponents, it's their onus to prove it. I just have to show data contradicting their claim, that's science.

Another one:

Yesterday, critics accused the IPCC of boosting the man-made global warming theory to protect a multi-million pound industry.

Climate scientist Peter Taylor said: ?I am not surprised by this news. A vast bureaucracy and industry has been built up around this theory. There is too much money in it for the IPCC to let it wither.?

Professor Julian Dowdeswell, a glacier specialist at Cambridge University, said: ?The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one even at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is a lot faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistically high.?

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152422...-change-scandal

The AGW proponents made their claim already...Theres an enormous document that undergoes the explaination of all the data that lead to the conclusion....you should look it up...its called the IPCC 2007 report. IPCC 2011 will contain the new research about the changes in Satellite data and more knowledge on Localised warming/cooling events.

Now, you on the other hand, are presenting a different arguement, with no research to back it up. Your posts (and my replies for the most part) belong in RWI...not the Science discussion forums. Now if i were you, i would just stop and let the mod's move the Off topic posts.

[petrossa]

The AGW proponents made their claim already...Theres an enormous document that undergoes the explaination of all the data that lead to the conclusion....you should look it up...its called the IPCC 2007 report. IPCC 2011 will contain the new research about the changes in Satellite data and more knowledge on Localised warming/cooling events.

Now, you on the other hand, are presenting a different arguement, with no research to back it up. Your posts (and my replies for the most part) belong in RWI...not the Science discussion forums. Now if i were you, i would just stop and let the mod's move the Off topic posts.

Sorry True. But if you follow your logic the whole thread should be in RWI.?

AGW is a scientific claim. ?I make no claim, I show scientific data contradicting that claim. So if in your eyes the AGW isn't science, i'm not going to argue that.?

Taking sheer size of a document is as its scientific weight is somewhat unscientific though, so mentioning the IPCC report volume is hardly a proper argument.

You just can't refute what is posted here, so you try to have the data shown as being flawed but without a real argument other than baseless claims.

[TrueMonolith]

Sorry True. But if you follow your logic the whole thread should be in RWI.?

AGW is a scientific claim. ?I make no claim, I show scientific data contradicting that claim. So if in your eyes the AGW isn't science, i'm not going to argue that.?

Taking sheer size of a document is as its scientific weight is somewhat unscientific though, so mentioning the IPCC report volume is hardly a proper argument.

You just can't refute what is posted here, so you try to have the data shown as being flawed but without a real argument other than baseless claims.

I dont need to refute what hasnt been researched.

AGW is a scientifically proven theory. Theories have only one way to go really, and thats down, until someone proves a theory that replaces AGW, it is the current scientific theory on explaining the "oddness" of climate patterns.

You havent yet posted a single scientific claim, conjecture is fine in RWI, but if you're going to have a scientific discussion and going to say "Well i think the current theory is incorrect"...show your research.

What you are doing, is pretty much the same tactic we've seen with creationists...flat earthers...ect ect. Just because your position is unscientific, doesnt mean the current theory is unscientific.

[petrossa]

I dont need to refute what hasnt been researched.

AGW is a scientifically proven theory. Theories have only one way to go really, and thats down, until someone proves a theory that replaces AGW, it is the current scientific theory on explaining the "oddness" of climate patterns.

You havent yet posted a single scientific claim, conjecture is fine in RWI, but if you're going to have a scientific discussion and going to say "Well i think the current theory is incorrect"...show your research.

What you are doing, is pretty much the same tactic we've seen with creationists...flat earthers...ect ect. Just because your position is unscientific, doesnt mean the current theory is unscientific.

Wow. What can i say but: wow.

So, AGW's 'proven' theory states that glaciers are melting at a furious pace due to Anthropogenic extra warming.

I post clear empirical observations showing that glaciers don't melt at any faster pace then since when we started measuring them, that an great majority of glaciers actually grows and that those that do melt, melt slower than 10 years ago.

Which falsifies at least one major cornerstone of GW in general and by consequence renders the AGW theory distinctly 'unproven'

[TrueMonolith]

Wow. What can i say but: wow.

So, AGW's 'proven' theory states that glaciers are melting at a furious pace due to Anthropogenic extra warming.

I post clear empirical observations showing that glaciers don't melt at any faster pace then since when we started measuring them, that an great majority of glaciers actually grows and that those that do melt, melt slower than 10 years ago.

Which falsifies at least one major cornerstone of GW in general and by consequence renders the AGW theory distinctly 'unproven'

Actually, i dont think the thing you posted says even that. The paper was cited by the 2nd one i showed as showing the rate of melt at a particular glacier and how much has melted now. If what im understanding of the abrstracts is correct, they state that the rate has slowed down due to increased precipitation. This is cited by the 2nd paper, which states that the rate of increasing still.

So, yes...it falsifies YOUR theory of AGW, but it doesnt really touch the AGW everyone else is talking about.

Now, i suggest you get in touch with these scientists so you can get your hands on the actual paper and perhaps their data, because the abstracts do not support your claim.

[petrossa]

You have particular form of interpretation of data. What does this phrase means to you (so we get a baseline)

Results indicate pronounced mass-balance sensitivity to temperature during the summer, with monthly values of -0.27?0.01 m w.e.K-1

[TrueMonolith]

You have particular form of interpretation of data. What does this phrase means to you (so we get a baseline)

Results indicate pronounced mass-balance sensitivity to temperature during the summer, with monthly values of -0.27?0.01 m w.e.K-1

Its inconclusive.

The data you are offering speaks about a certain summer period where there rate of melt was less than expected (which is explained by percipitation in the Abstract).

The amount of melting during summer doesnt tell me about the over all rate of melting (i suspect the actual paper would explain that data).

My suggestion to you, is to get in touch with the scientists who performed this experiment, or better yet....grab a copy of the paper and share it with us here. It seems you're more eager to prove your ideology more than the actual events of the planet. Just because you dont understand something...doesnt mean everyone doesnt.

[petrossa]

Its inconclusive.

The data you are offering speaks about a certain summer period where there rate of melt was less than expected (which is explained by percipitation in the Abstract).

The amount of melting during summer doesnt tell me about the over all rate of melting (i suspect the actual paper would explain that data).

My suggestion to you, is to get in touch with the scientists who performed this experiment, or better yet....grab a copy of the paper and share it with us here. It seems you're more eager to prove your ideology more than the actual events of the planet. Just because you dont understand something...doesnt mean everyone doesnt.

Weird. To me it means that melt is seasonal and therefore WEATHER dependent sooner than CLIMATE dependent and as such not a candidate for long term climate modeling.

Furthermore the conclusion of the paper:

Also, the reconstruction of the mass balance for the last 50 years from local climate data shows a near-steady-state condition for GPM, with some small fluctuations, such as a slightly positive balance after 1998, that may have triggered the minor advance leading to damming events in 2003 and 2005.

means to me that past events shwo there's no marked change in overall GPM during the last 50 years so either:

a) glaciers don't respond to the manmade warming as predicted by the IPCC models

b) the manmade signal, and actually the overall GLOBAL warming didn't take place.

We can rule a) out because it has been shown glaciers respond even to seasonal temperature changes, that is what the phrase Results indicate pronounced mass-balance sensitivity to temperature during the summer, with monthly values of -0.27?0.01 m w.e.K-1 actually means. So if they are so sensitive to temperature changes they should reflect a GLOBAL warming immediately. But they don't so it isn't there.

Which leaves as with b) as the only valid option and that falsifies the AGW theory.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.