Catholicism and Climate Change

[Calliso]

Here’s the low down on that graph, which supposedly disproves AGW.

It was taken from Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, by well-known AGW denialists in the business of sowing whatever seeds of doubt unsupsecting lay persons might grasp at – those who wish AGW were not happening & will llisten to any nefariously created argument against it.

Now those guys got their information from the draft article, “Deriving Global Temperature from Glacier Length Records,” at home.badc.rl.ac.uk/mjuckes/mitrie_files/docs/mitrie_glaciers.pdf. Note that on pg. 3 the author gives the results of his analysis – that using glacier length retreat as a proxy for warming, it shows a very good hockey stick…even better than M. Mann’s.

Just another line of evidence that proves AGW, and makes the evidence all that more robust.

There is a good full rebutall of that whole paper which can be found here.
climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Comment_on_Robinson_et_al-2007R.pdf

This is the part that seems to refer to that graph. Fourth paragraph and Figure 2: The curve for changes in glaciers appears to be mainly for
Europe, which essentially has to be the case for that is where data are available. It is not at all
clear that this record represents the average for the globe. More significantly, showing a
correlation with hydrocarbon use, shows no recognition of the roles of other factors (e.g.,
other gases, sulfate aerosols, changes in solar radiation and volcanic eruptions, etc.) in
affecting the climate, or of how emissions from the use of coal, oil, and gas accumulate in the
atmosphere and exert their influence on the climate. The analysis also fails to recognize that
in very cold areas, some warming leads to more snow (e.g., lake effects snows around the
Great Lakes) and glaciers can expand (e.g., in much of Antarctica, and Scandinavia)—
interpretations are not nearly so simple and linear.

 

[lynnvinc]

There is a good full rebutall of that whole paper which can be found here.
climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Comment_on_Robinson_et_al-2007R.pdf

This is the part that seems to refer to that graph. Fourth paragraph and Figure 2: The curve for changes in glaciers appears to be mainly for
Europe, which essentially has to be the case for that is where data are available. It is not at all
clear that this record represents the average for the globe. More significantly, showing a
correlation with hydrocarbon use, shows no recognition of the roles of other factors (e.g.,
other gases, sulfate aerosols, changes in solar radiation and volcanic eruptions, etc.) in
affecting the climate, or of how emissions from the use of coal, oil, and gas accumulate in the
atmosphere and exert their influence on the climate. The analysis also fails to recognize that
in very cold areas, some warming leads to more snow (e.g., lake effects snows around the
Great Lakes) and glaciers can expand (e.g., in much of Antarctica, and Scandinavia)—
interpretations are not nearly so simple and linear.

Good work, Calliso. The usual advancement of science involves legitimate skeptics questioning every new idea that comes out, raising issue after issue. Others then address those issues, until the provisional scientific truth wins out. It is a highly competitive field, and plenty of skeptics to keep others on their toes, to the betterment of science.

With AGW, it’s like denialists using deceptive tactics after deceptive tactics – not aimed at scientific studies so much (bec the scientists can see thru their deceptions), as at laypersons to confuse them and convince the unlettered-in-science of their falsehoods.

A guest commentator at RealClimate just recently showed how Monckton (associate of those authors of the deceptive glacier chart here) had fudged all sorts of things to come up with his graphs. This “glacier graph” seems to be along the same lines. Like a deceptive picture is worth 1000 words in their nefarious mission to encourage us to greatly harm life on earth.

 

[kimmielittle]

Here’s the low down on that graph, which supposedly disproves AGW.

Actually, no - It was not used to disprove AGW. It is used to disprove this claim

Mountain glaciers worldwide "disappearing"

**
Mr. Gore**

It was taken from Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, by well-known AGW denialists

CAN you prove it wrong ? it matters not where it came from or who authored it .

in the business of sowing whatever seeds of doubt unsupsecting lay persons might grasp at – those who wish AGW were not happening & will llisten to any nefariously created argument against it.

1st off, I think you will find that I’m well prepared to debate AGW. Not some unsuspecting soul. The hypothesis of AGW stands or falls on it’s own merits.

I have taken almost every one of your misinformed statements and claims… and proved otherwise.

HMMMmmm you seem bent on calling names and associations. So with it being fair game:

Let’s look at just part of the funders of CRU - You know, the folks that feed this AGW hypothesis.

This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Council,
British Petroleum,
Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre,
Central Electricity Generating Board,
Centre for Environment,
Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS),
Commercial Union,
Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU),
Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC),
Department of Energy,
Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA),
Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI),
Eastern Electricity,
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),
Environment Agency,
Forestry Commission,
Greenpeace International,
International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED),
Irish Electricity Supply Board,
KFA Germany,
Leverhulme Trust,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food (MAFF),
National Power,
National Rivers Authority,
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC),
Norwich Union,
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate,
Overseas Development Administration (ODA),
Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates,
Royal Society,
Scientific Consultants,
Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC),
Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research,
Shell,
Stockholm Environment Agency,
Sultanate of Oman,
Tate and Lyle,
UK Met. Office,
UK Nirex Ltd.,
United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP),
United States Department of Energy,
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Wolfson Foundation and the
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

Now those guys got their information from the draft article, “Deriving Global Temperature from Glacier Length Records,” at home.badc.rl.ac.uk/mjuckes/mitrie_files/docs/mitrie_glaciers.pdf. Note that on pg. 3 the author gives the results of his analysis – that using glacier length retreat as a proxy for warming, it shows a very good hockey stick…even better than M. Mann’s.

I hate to break it to you - but if the receding glaciers show AGW - what do the growing Glaciers show? there are far many more growing than retreating - take the 200+ in western Himalayas Or the thousands growing throughout the world. PS the IPCC gives credit to the Himalayas melting scare to WWF.
theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-blunder-on-glaciers-exposed/story-e6frg6n6-1225820614171

Science demands ALL variables be validated - Not "cherry picked ".

 

[kimmielittle]

Good work, Calliso. The usual advancement of science involves legitimate skeptics questioning every new idea that comes out, raising issue after issue. Others then address those issues, until the provisional scientific truth wins out. It is a highly competitive field, and plenty of skeptics to keep others on their toes, to the betterment of science.

The problem is the CRU Scientists hid and deleted raw material, then proposed suppressing of reports that countered their claims. VERY DISHONEST AND DECEPTIVE.

In Wikipedia v Connelly It absolutely suppressed any rebuttal.

With AGW, it’s like denialists using deceptive tactics after deceptive tactics –

Actually, it’s not my denialist stance that was deceptive. THAT alone is recorded history - From the first Time Mr. Hansen turned off the AC So it would impact a conference, he was giving.

The great thing about the internet - get caught making false claims - someone will challenge you.

not aimed at scientific studies so much (bec the scientists can see thru their deceptions), as at laypersons to confuse them and convince the unlettered-in-science of their falsehoods.

I’ve asked you to prove many things here - after I gave you rebuttal for misconceptions and claims made by you.

A guest commentator at RealClimate just recently showd how Monckton (associate of those authors of the deceptive glacier chart here) had fudged all sorts of things to come up with his graphs. This “glacier graph” seems to be along the same lines. Like a deceptive picture is worth 1000 words in their nefarious mission to encourage us to greatly harm life on earth.

You can’t seem to release yourself from Ad Hominems Ah?

 

[lynnvinc]

CAN you prove it wrong ? it matters not where it came from or who authored it .

Yes, look at the original going back to 1600 with the error bars – which are pretty large. The take off into above average glacier retreat (above the tops of those error bars) seems to occur sometime in the early or mid-1900s.

According to the Robinson-Soon tweaked graph, it appears that the above average glacier retreat (you can’t really very well establish a stable average with such a short record), seems to be (without the error bars in the original) around 1875. Then they add in the same graph a totally difference figure – fossil fuels used, as if they are much less and much later than the glacier retreat. That is very deceptive graphing. The Abominable Graph up there in the glaciers.

I hate to break it to you - but if the receding glaciers show AGW…

That graph showed that they were greatly receding. Look at the signs (it’s inverted, with negatives on top).

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It is possible to argue and argue and argue.

The problem is that the ENTIRE basis for man-made global warming / climate change is a bunch of BOGUS computer models used by IPCC for their reports.

They fed bad data [that read high by as much as five degrees] into defective and constantly tweaked computer models and came up with a forecast 100 years out of a +1º increase in temp.

We know that by adjusting for the bad (name removed by moderator)ut data that the REAL bogus forecast would be about -2º. NOT +1º.

So, the whole idea is just false.

THEN, you need to take a look at the 30+ OTHER scientific scandals. ESPECIALLY the 1000 emails that someone swiped from East Anglia. [You can just visit Amazon.com and buy a book with those emails and read them for yourself. Just ask for “Climategate”.] The emails DEMONSTRATE and PROVE beyond any shadow of a doubt … just read the darned things … that the scientists have been communicating behind the scenes for ten years to fake the global warming / climate change results.

What that shows is an active on-going, long-term conspiracy to commit (basically) perjury … making deliberately deceptive and false statements … and misusing government money. When you and I do that, we go to jail. [Try faking your tax return and see what happens.]

So, you can argue whatever you want, the fact is that there are glaciers that are growing, when all along they AGW people have been saying that the glaciers are disappearing. That some islands in the Pacific are going to be affected by rising sea levels, when they are volcanic islands that normally sink. That arctic ice extent is just fine, and you can’t go around suddenly changing the argument to ice density, when there is no data on ice density [besides the Russians have noted variable ice density for many many years; they even have special words for the ice holes].

And the polar bears are doing just fine; not endangered. When those little kids find out that the polar bears are doing just fine, the little kids are going to be VERY angry with the people who tried to deceive them.

And … hey … where IS Al Gore these days? He seems to have given up on the climate change / global warming debate.

[Probably too busy counting his carbon credit profits.]

[Or something]

 

[kimmielittle]

Yes, look at the original going back to 1600 with the error bars – which are pretty large. The take off into above average glacier retreat (above the tops of those error bars) seems to occur sometime in the early or mid-1900s.

First you accepted the graph as **" evidence of AGW’ ** …Now you claim that the graph was manipulated / adjusted.

Let’s say we agree.

Then Logically, ALL proven manipulated /adjusted graphs should be thrown out - correct?

Since the CRU used nothing but proven subjectively - preducdical ] manipulated / adjustments that because of purposely dumping the raw data - So that any valididy can be confirmed as truthful - The throw out of Medieavl Warming and Little Ice Age to get their graph. If included, the graph changes like this bottom graph http://americanelephant.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/mwp-hockey-warming_graph.gif?w=419&h=307 ]…

Logically, we can throw out any graphs made by CRU or Mr. Hansen…Mr. Mann…Mr. Briffa…et al

you can’t really very well establish a stable average with such a short record),

ABSOLUTELY!!! You are now catching on Ergo ALL of the AGW hypothesis.

That graph showed that they were greatly receding. Look at the signs (it’s inverted, with negatives on top).

Actually, no. The Graph does NOT show that. Many other Glaciers are stable and many are growing, using not a model but observational evidence, Hard Science, to support this claim…

Are they receding OR shifting? Something, NOT addressed by IPCC.

Can you tell by a picture…used by IPCC IF receding or shifting? No.

If receding… can a cause - effect be established to support the claims this is because of AGW? - NOT as yet Example, the Mt. Kilimanjaro EVIDENCED, at one time by IPCC - Mr. Gore et al… as proof of AGW…Proven NOT to be because of AGW.

The greatest threat to the hypothesis of AGW - is not the denalists - it’s observational HARD ] Science, NOT one claim of the hypothesis of AGW has withstood the light of observational science. . -kimmie

Does this mean the temperatures are not warming OR cooling? ABSOLUTELY NOT. IT means the hypothesis of AGW is based on flawed (name removed by moderator)ut going in - flawed output coming out.

 

[kimmielittle]

I hate to break it to you - but if the receding glaciers show AGW…

 

[lynnvinc]

I’ve asked you to prove many things here - after I gave you rebuttal for misconceptions and claims made by you.

Reputable science articles on AGW are too numerous to list. I would suggest reading such articles in credible science journals re the topic of AGW, such as:
*

• Science
• Nature
• Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
• Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A
• Geophysical Research Letters
• EOS (Transactions of the American Geophysical Union)
• Geology
• Global Biochemical Cycles
• Bioscience

Here are some BOOKS ON GW:

• Archer, D. 2009. The Long Thaw: How Humans are Changing the Next 100,000 years of Earth’s Climate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Benton, M. J. 2003. When Life Nearly Died: The Greatest Mass Extinction of All Time. London: Thames & Hudson. (This is about the great warming during the end-Permian extinction, which has implications re what we might be heading for).
• Hansen, James. 2009. Storms of My Grandchildren.

Here are some CONFERENCES you can virtually attend:

• 4 Degrees and Beyond, International Climate Conference, 28-30 September, Oxford, UK. You can listen to and see PowerPoints of sessions linked off eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/
• American Geophysical Union conferences archive: agu.org/meetings/meeting_archive.shtml (can see videos of various presentations, some dealing with AGW)

Hope this helps. I’ve been following this topic academically for 20 years now in journals such as these above, and have seen the science coming in stronger and more robust with each passing year. In 1995 the first studies reached tentative scientific certainty on AGW, though the GH theory has been around for over 100 years (based on laws of physics), and they have been expecting industrial GHGs to cause warming for as long.

Please note that science is an inherently conservative and reticent enterprise; scientists usually require 95% confidence before making a claim, and even then include lots of caveats in their articles. However, as laypersons living in this world, it is morally indefensible for us to wait until 95% confidence to start helping to mitigate a threat as serious as AGW, which is why JPII in 1990 said it was EVERYONE’S responsibility to mitigate serious environmental problems, such as AGW. Would you feed some food thought to be poisonous to your children just because it was only 94% sure it would kill them; how about 50% sure…

It is astonishing that there are denialists (can’t call them skeptics, bec I don’t think there are ANY legitimate AGW skeptics left) going full force, striving to get people not to turn out lights not in use, and to use energy and resources profligately, wastefully, and inefficiently. It just boggles my mind and GREATLY GREATLY SADDENS MY HEART.

My life is now one of prayers and tears, tears and prayers, until God calls me home.

 

[kimmielittle]

Receding and Shifting.

Physics…weight shifts to gravity.

Much like when we lay down…blood shifts to the lowest gravity - in effect it DOES recede from top extremities to lower extremities - but it doesn’t mean our body has less blood…or volume. It has merely shifted because of weight and gravity.

What hasn’t been addressed by IPCC - Are Glaciers receding outward losing blood, if you will ] or receding inward levity ] ?

We are under another scare of rising sea levels. Scientists are watching a new calving of Greenland ice and how much sea level rise it will bring as it melts.

Hummmmmmm…no need to watch folks. If any sea level rise where to take place - it already has. As soon as it hit the sea like dropping an ice cube in a glass of water - it raises instantly ] Melting in the sea does not raise the level - it’s already displaced ALL the water it can.

 

[lynnvinc]

Actually, no. The Graph does NOT show that. Many other Glaciers are stable and many are growing, using not a model but observational evidence, Hard Science, to support this claim…

As I and Calliso have mentioned here, glaciers are impacted by many factors – not just warming. For instance, precipitation, which can come down as snow. In a globally warming world, there will be more water vapor evaporated from water bodies into the atmosphere. In cold places (high latitudes and high mountains) this will likely come down as snow. Yes, there is expected some glaciers increasing in mass during the early decades of AGW maybe up to 2100 due to this, and some decreasing more due to the warming. However, if you look at the total glacial mass around the world, it is decreasing.

There are additional factors, as well, such as black soot, which causes more melting than just from the warming.

Here’s a site that might help in understanding glaciers and changes happening: geo.unizh.ch/wgms/, and an update about world glaciers by Mauri Pelto, a glaciologist, at realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/a-global-glacier-index-update/, and a report on changes in world glaciers atgrid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/glaciers.pdf.

Here’s an article I’m citing in a paper I’m writing: Kehrwald, N. M., L. G. Thompson, Y. Tandong, E. Mosley-Thompson, U. Schotterer, V. Alfimov, J. Beer, J. Eikenberg, and M. E. Davis. 2008. “Mass Loss on Himalayan Glacier Endangers Water Resources.” Geophysical Research Letters 35: L22503; online here.

I could spend the entire day looking up sources for you, but I hope these help.

 

[lynnvinc]

http://americanelephant.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/mwp-hockey-warming_graph.gif?w=419&h=307

The red hump you have in your graph for the medieval warming period around the 1200s is localized warming – your lower graph seems to overstate it (which is the current science consensus…that it was earlier overestimated).
Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce, the warmest period prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980 [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period”]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period and see image below]; note this is referring to Northern hemisphere temps, not soley Eurpopean ones].


Reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the 2nd millennium according to various older articles (bluish lines, Mann’s evidence), newer articles (reddish lines), and instrumental record (black line). Note that Mann’s hockey stick is the blue lines – this is what he got in the 1990s from tree ring proxy evidence. He did NOT falsify or distort his evidence – this is only one line, and the others make the science more robust.

The hockey stick in your graphs above is for northern hemisphere average temperatures, and the lower graph appears only as European temps. As mentioned before, one must consider the GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURES over a long time, not localized (even over a long time), or global (over less than 50 years, otherwise we just won’t see a clear pattern). They were lucky and hard-working enought to be able to derive temps from proxy data in the Northern Hemisphere. That’s better, but the whole world temps as God would know them, might just prove to be somewhat different.

See the difference in the 2 graphs; the more localized temps in the lower graph swing wildly, while the northern hemisphere average temps in the upper graph hover back and forth more closely, until recently.

Now, that is not necessarily how it has been through all of earth’s history (see below). We have been in what climate scientists call the “holocene” for the past 11,000 or so years, during which agriculture and civilizations arose. Its global climate has been relatively stable, and that’s what human agriculture and civilization have been adapted to. By causing global warming, now, we are headed into dangerous territory for our life-sustaining systems, such as agriculture and seafood. We in the rich north may not experience as many harms as the poor south over the next 50 years – some increase in floods, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires, and hurricane intensity, but our agriculture should be slightly increasing due to carbon fertilization and longer growing seasons – but the global south will likely be seeing net harms from the present, and more severe harms in the future. Some people say that we are now in the “anthropocene” due to AGW changes.

There have been some very great warmings in the more distant past, well above the medieval warming period. Look up the PETM and end-Perminan extinction due to massive GW. The scientists are familiar with these. In fact they use knowledge about them to help them understand the current warming, and what we might expect.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

We are under another scare of rising sea levels. Scientists are watching a new calving of Greenland ice and how much sea level rise it will bring as it melts.

Hummmmmmm…no need to watch folks. If any sea level rise where to take place - it already has. As soon as it hit the sea like dropping an ice cube in a glass of water - it raises instantly ] Melting in the sea does not raise the level - it’s already displaced ALL the water it can.

This melting ice causing sea level rise is a good example of the scientific background of the gullible.

 

[lynnvinc]

lynnvinc;6953811:

I hate to break it to you - but if the receding glaciers show AGW - what do the growing Glaciers show?

In the context of GW, as I’ve stated several times: decreasing glacial mass shows that there is net melting going on due to the warming. In the rarer cases of increasing glacial mass, that shows that the heavier precipitation expected in a GW world is causing more snow to fall on the glaciers, outpacing the melting, with a net increase in glacial mass.

Sorry, I’ve got to get to work, so I won’t be able to answer Qs for a while…

But climate science and glaciology ARE fascinating fields, and I’m glad you and others are interested in learning about them. You might do better, however, to read what the scientists say, or contact them directly and ask Qs. They’ve been quite gracious in answering my lame questions over the past 10 years…

 

[kimmielittle]

Hansen, James. 2009. Storms of My Grandchildren.
Hope this helps.

Actually, it helps It shows., me. how one sided your information base is. Do you wish for me to take, say Mr. Hansens word? You as a Christian seem to have strange bedfellows - I would not buy any material of Mr. Hansens
Here is part of the reason why

Prominent NASA global warming alarmist Dr. James Hansen has endorsed an eco-fascist book that calls for cities to be razed to the ground, industrial civilization to be destroyed and genocidal population reduction measures to be implemented in the name of preventing climate change.
Hansen, who was back in the news today commenting on a NASA press release that claims the last decade was the warmest on record, said that Keith Farnish, author of a new book called Time’s Up, is correct in calling for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age.
Hansen is a key figure in the global warming movement, for it was his 1988 with testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore that really got the ball rolling for the elite in their mission to hijack the environmental movement and promote apocalyptic fears of climate change as a means of seizing absolute power over humanity.
Author Farnish “believes – as the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt does – that mankind is a blot on the landscape and that breeding (or for that matter, existence) should be discouraged,”

What about the Royal Society “Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, admitted that the case for man-made global warming has been exaggerated in the past.” Just how much exaggeration ? We will never know, the raw data is gone…for starters. WE know IPCC has out right lied…CRU moved to suppress. Mr. Hansen has lied and manipulated data…

I’ve been following this topic academically for 20 years now in journals such as these above, and have seen the science coming in stronger and more robust with each passing year.

Then you should know better than to make statements such as you have here. I.e…

                 Originally Posted by **lynnvinc**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6949396#post6949396)                 
             *Let me explain it a bit better. The warming causes such vectors to move into new territories, thus spreading their diseases to new areas. Is that a bit clearer?*

…rice yields failing because of AGW. … “The chart is very good evidence of the impact of CO2 on melting glaciers…better than I’d thought.”…

etc etc etc. If your 20 years of Science has this many misconceptions - that can be countered by a kid???

In 1995 the first studies reached tentative scientific certainty on AGW, though the GH theory has been around for over 100 years (based on laws of physics), and they have been expecting industrial GHGs to cause warming for as long.

History tells us this is wrong…For a decade, at least, it was Global cooling…Starting in the hippie era of the 1970’s

Please note that science is an inherently conservative and reticent enterprise; scientists usually require 95% confidence before making a claim, and even then include lots of caveats in their articles. However, as laypersons living in this world, it is morally indefensible for us to wait until 95% confidence to start helping to mitigate a threat as serious as AGW,

Oh oh a change in strategy? I think, I remember you saying, in this very thread, that there was a 95% confidence already.

which is why JPII in 1990 said it was EVERYONE’S responsibility to mitigate serious environmental problems,

ABSOLUTELY - Good Stewardship of ecology is not thes same as AGW

such as AGW. AGAIN I ask you to prove that any Holy Father has endorsed / embraced AGW - Man Made Global Warming.

Would you feed some food thought to be poisonous to your children just because it was only 94% sure it would kill them; how about 50% sure…

Nope, neither will I feed the the poison of AGW hyperbole.

It is astonishing that there are denialists (can’t call them skeptics, bec I don’t think there are ANY legitimate AGW skeptics left) going full force, striving to get people not to turn out lights not in use, and to use energy and resources profligately, wastefully, and inefficiently. It just boggles my mind and GREATLY GREATLY SADDENS MY HEART.

It saddens my heart that:

1 after 20 years…you can’t separate good stewardship in ecology / conservation - with AGW schemes.

2 It saddens my heart - that you seem not to know who these Alarmists are - what they represent. In future posts I’ll give you some quotes by them. Here is one to sleep on…

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

My life is now one of prayers and tears, tears and prayers, until God calls me home.

Oh there is no need at being a drama queen - I for one don’t buy into such theatrics - it is the same that AGW’er Alarmist use.

 

[kimmielittle]

As I and Calliso have mentioned here, glaciers are impacted by many factors – not just warming. For instance, precipitation, which can come down as snow. In a globally warming world, there will be more water vapor evaporated from water bodies into the atmosphere. In cold places (high latitudes and high mountains) this will likely come down as snow. Yes, there is expected some glaciers increasing in mass during the early decades of AGW maybe up to 2100 due to this, and some decreasing more due to the warming. However, if you look at the total glacial mass around the world, it is decreasing.

Surely, If this statement were true, IPCC wouldn’t need to make up lies.

There are additional factors, as well, such as black soot, which causes more melting than just from the warming.

ABSOLUTELY, including TradeWinds - Solar Cycles…etc etc

Here’s an article I’m citing in a paper I’m writing: Kehrwald, N. M., L. G. Thompson, Y. Tandong, E. Mosley-Thompson, U. Schotterer, V. Alfimov, J. Beer, J. Eikenberg, and M. E. Davis. 2008. “Mass Loss on Himalayan Glacier Endangers Water Resources.” Geophysical Research Letters 35: L22503; online here.

Be careful…IT is proven the drinking / agri waters used are from snowmelts of the Himalayans - NOT Glacier runoff

I could spend the entire day looking up sources for you, but I hope these help.

Thank you. I have done extensive reading on Glaciers.

The problem, you don’t seem to want to address , is before I challenged you - you were trying to attribute Glacier melt to AGW.

 

[kimmielittle]

The red hump you have in your graph for the medieval warming period around the 1200s is localized warming –

Well of course it is, the South Americans, for example, have no climate records …

The hockey stick in your graphs above is for northern hemisphere average temperatures, and the lower graph appears only as European temps. As mentioned before, one must consider the GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURES over a long time, not localized (even over a long time), or global (over less than 50 years, otherwise we just won’t see a clear pattern).

Simple question…IS IT PART of the Global Temperatures? ARE Temperatures being used from that SAME location to Support AGW? - Then it can not be ignored

BUT an ignored research project shows in Observational Evidence

Moving back to the east and further south, Doose-Rolinski et al. (2001) analyzed an annually-laminated sediment core extracted from the bed of the northeastern Arabian Sea just south southeast of Karachi, Pakistan, using oxygen isotopes of planktonic foraminifera and measurements of long-chain alkenones to derive a detailed sea surface temperature and evaporation history for the area. The greatest temperature fluctuations of the 5,000-year record occurred between 4600 and 3300 years ago and between 500 and 200 years ago, which periods were also the coldest of the record. Of the latter interval, the authors note that “in northern and central Europe this period is known as the ‘Little Ice Age’,” and they say their results “confirm [the] global effects” of this cold climatic excursion. ** Also apparent in their temperature history is a period of sustained warmth that prevailed between about 1250 and 950 years ago, which corresponds nicely with the Medieval Warm Period of northern and central Europe.**
In light of the findings of these many reports, it is clear that the Little Ice Age left its imprint over essentially all of Asia. In addition, several of the reports actually refer to this significant climatic anomaly as being of global extent, while openly disagreeing with the revisionist temperature history of Mann et al. (1999) that makes it totally disappear.

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

NOW here is the Question:
Why would Mr. Mann ignore ALL these Scientists and observations? You see, It isn’t just one or two stating the MWP and LIA were global.

References
Ambrose, S.H. and DeNiro, M.J. 1989. Climate and habitat reconstruction using stable carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios of collagen in prehistoric herbivore teeth from Kenya. Quaternary Research 31: 407-422.
Bell, B. and Menzel, D.H. 1972. Toward the observation and interpretation of solar phenomena. AFCRL F19628-69-C-0077 and AFCRL-TR-74-0357, Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories, Bedford, MA, pp. 8-12.
Chen, J., Wan, G. and Tang, D. 2000. Recent climate changes recorded by sediment grain sizes and isotopes in Erhai Lake. Progress in Natural Science 10: 54-61.
Chu, G., Liu, J., Sun, Q., Lu, H., Gu, Z., Wang, W. and Liu, T. 2002. The ‘Mediaeval Warm Period’ drought recorded in Lake Huguangyan, tropical South China. The Holocene 12: 511-516.
Chu, K.C. 1973. A preliminary study on the climatic fluctuations during the last 5000 years in China. Scientia Sinica 16: 226-256.
Demezhko, D.Yu. and Shchapov, V.A. 2001. 80,000 years ground surface temperature history inferred from the temperature-depth log measured in the superdeep hole SG-4 (the Urals, Russia). Global and Planetary Change 29: 167-178.
Doose-Rolinski, H., Rogalla, U., Scheeder, G., Luckge, A. and von Rad, U. 2001. High-resolution temperature and evaporation changes during the late Holocene in the northeastern Arabian Sea. Paleoceanography 16: 358-367.
Esper, J., Cook, E.R. and Schweingruber, F.H. 2002a. Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability. Science 295: 2250-2253.
Esper, J., Schweingruber, F.H. and Winiger, M. 2002b. 1300 years of climatic history for Western Central Asia inferred from tree-rings. The Holocene 12: 267-277.
Frumkin, A., Magaritz, M., Carmi, I. and Zak, I. 1991. The Holocene climatic record of the salt caves of Mount Sedom, Israel. Holocene 1, 191-200.
Hassan, F.A. 1981. Historical Nile floods and their implications for climatic change. Science 212: 1142-1145.
Hong, Y.T., Jiang, H.B., Liu, T.S., Zhou, L.P., Beer, J., Li, H.D., Leng, X.T., Hong, B. and Qin, X.G. 2000. Response of climate to solar forcing recorded in a 6000-year ð18O time-series of Chinese peat cellulose. The Holocene 10: 1-7.
Issar, A.S. 1990. Water Shall Flow from the Rock. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.
Issar, A.S. 1998. Climate change and history during the Holocene in the eastern Mediterranean region. In: Issar, A.S. and Brown, N. (Eds.), Water, Environment and Society in Times of Climate Change, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 113-128.
Issar, A.S., Govrin, Y., Geyh, M.A., Wakshal, E. and Wolf, M. 1991. Climate changes during the Upper Holocene in Israel. Israel Journal of Earth-Science 40: 219-223.
Issar, A.S. and Makover-Levin, D. 1996. Climate changes during the Holocene in the Mediterranean region. In: Angelakis, A.A. and Issar, A.S. (Eds.), Diachronic Climatic Impacts on Water Resources with Emphasis on the Mediterranean Region, NATO ASI Series, Vol. I, 36, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 55-75.
Issar, A.S., Tsoar, H. and Levin, D. 1989. Climatic changes in Israel during historical times and their impact on hydrological, pedological and socio-economic systems. In: Leinen, M. and Sarnthein, M. (Eds.), Paleoclimatology and Paleometeorology: Modern and Past Patterns of Global Atmospheric Transport, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 535-541.
Kar, R., Ranhotra, P.S., Bhattacharyya, A. and Sekar B. 2002. Vegetation vis-à-vis climate and glacial fluctuations of the Gangotri Glacier since the last 2000 years. Current Science 82: 347-351.
Krenke, A.N. and Chernavskaya, M.M. 2002. Climate changes in the preinstrumental period of the last millennium and their manifestations over the Russian Plain. Isvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics 38: S59-S79.
Man, M.Z. 1998. Climate in Tang Dynasty of China: discussion for its evidence. Quaternary Sciences 1: 20-30.
Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 1999. Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations. Geophysical Research Letters 26: 759-762.
Naurzbaev, M.M. and Vaganov, E.A. 2000. Variation of early summer and annual temperature in east Taymir and Putoran (Siberia) over the last two millennia inferred from tree rings. Journal of Geophysical Research 105: 7317-7326.
Nicholson, S.E. 1980. Saharan climates in historic times. In: Williams, M.A.J. and

continued

 

[kimmielittle]

continued

Faure, H. (Eds.), The Sahara and the Nile, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 173-200.
Paulsen, D.E., Li, H.-C. and Ku, T.-L. 2003. Climate variability in central China over the last 1270 years revealed by high-resolution stalagmite records. Quaternary Science Reviews 22: 691-701.
Qian, W. and Zhu, Y. 2002. Little Ice Age climate near Beijing, China, inferred from historical and stalagmite records. Quaternary Research 57: 109-119.
Qin, X., Tan, M., Liu, T., Wang, X., Li, T. and Lu, J. 1999. Spectral analysis of a 1000-year stalagmite lamina-thickness record from Shihua Cavern, Beijing, China, and its climatic significance. The Holocene 9: 689-694.
Schilman, B., Bar-Matthews, M., Almogi-Labin, A. and Luz, B. 2001. Global climate instability reflected by Eastern Mediterranean marine records during the late Holocene. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 176: 157-176.
Schoell, M. 1978. Oxygen isotope analysis on authigenic carbonates from Lake Van sediments and their possible bearing on the climate of the past 10,000 years. In: Degens, E.T. (Ed.), The Geology of Lake Van, Kurtman. The Mineral Research and Exploration Institute of Turkey, Ankara, Turkey, pp. 92-97.
von Rad, U., Schulz, H., Riech, V., den Dulk, M., Berner, U. and Sirocko, F. 1999. Multiple monsoon-controlled breakdown of oxygen-minimum conditions during the past 30,000 years documented in laminated sediments off Pakistan. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 152: 129-161.
Wang, S.W. and Gong, D.Y. 2000. The temperature of several typical periods during the Holocene in China. The Advance in Nature Science 10: 325-332.
Wu, H.Q. and Dang, A.R. 1998. Fluctuation and characteristics of climate change in temperature of Sui-Tang times in China. Quaternary Sciences 1: 31-38.
Xu, H., Hong, Y., Lin, Q., Hong, B., Jiang, H. and Zhu, Y. 2002. Temperature variations in the past 6000 years inferred from ð18O of peat cellulose from Hongyuan, China. Chinese Science Bulletin 47: 1578-1584.
Yadav, R.R. and Singh, J. 2002. Tree-ring-based spring temperature patterns over the past four centuries in western Himalaya. Quaternary Research 57: 299-305.
Yang, B., Braeuning, A., Johnson, K.R. and Yafeng, S. 2002. General characteristics of temperature variation in China during the last two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters 29: 10.1029/2001GL014485.
Zhang, D.E. 1994. Evidence for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period in China. Climatic Change 26: 287-297.

Is this the answer?

Also apparent in their temperature history is a period of sustained warmth that prevailed between about 1250 and 950 years ago, which corresponds nicely with the Medieval Warm Period of northern and central Europe.**
In light of the findings of these many reports, it is clear that the Little Ice Age left its imprint over essentially all of Asia. In addition, several of the reports actually refer to this significant climatic anomaly as being of global extent, while openly disagreeing with the revisionist temperature history of Mann et al**. (1999) that makes it totally disappear.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/l/summaries/asialia.php

 

[kimmielittle]

This melting ice causing sea level rise is a good example of the scientific background of the gullible.

:thumbsup: