Video: Global Warming Swindle

[mountainpete]

Apparently this video is making quite a stir in Europe. It is the counter-view to Al Gore's Inconvienient Truth. It is about 75 mins long and I have not viewed the whole video myself yet.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en

[paulj]

There are some indepth reactions to this 'swindle' on Realclimate.

http://www.realclimate.org/

[pwc]

Ok, that second link had WAY the hell too many parenthetical phrases (don't you think?)

[Grim Reaper]

Well good now we can get global warming into perspective. Everybody hates Gore so they will throw GW out the window as being what it is. The Sun got warmer...we got warmer. Same reason Mars is warmer and we sure didn't have any influence on that. One day the sun will blow us out of existance. We have no control over it and what it is doing is natural part of our cycle.

Don't get me wrong. I am all for pollution control and better use of our resources just tired of Global warming and its fall out leading to loosing me places to visit.

[kcowyo]

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e99/auditeer007/Gore.gif

[DaveInDenver]

Same reason Mars is warmer and we sure didn't have any influence on that.
Not true, the warming of Mars is our fault, too. Betcha didn't know the rovers run out-of-tune 2-strokes.

[teotwaki]

Not true, the warming of Mars is our fault, too. Betcha didn't know the rovers run out-of-tune 2-strokes.

I was gonna blame Mars-Warming on Donald Rumsfeld :ar15:

[paulj]

Don't get me wrong. I am all for pollution control and better use of our resources just tired of Global warming and its fall out leading to loosing me places to visit.

I don't quite see how GW is loosing you places to visit. Not many islands have been drowned by rising sea levels, yet. It is still possible to drive ice roads, and even if they melt out earlier, you can still visit those areas by boat. Retreating glaciers have exposed new land for you to visit.

Or are you referring to areas where access is restricted by some administrative action? Predictions of GW have little to do with creating Wilderness areas.

Big storms in 2003 and 2006 have damaged roads and trails in the Washington forests and national parks. That means some areas that I could easily drive to are not accessible. While various climate models do predict greater storminess in this area, I suspect it is too early to blame those particluar storms on GW.

Here's one road that I used to drive, camp, and hike
http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/07/03/13/100loc_b1road001.cfm

Last fall I camped half a mile up from the washout featured in this North Cascades NP newsletter. Despite current administration policies, the article on page 3 dares to suggest the storm frequency has something to do with climate change.

http://www.nps.gov/noca/parknews/upload/Storm%20damage%20final.pdf

This article suggests that retreat of glaciers on Mt Rainier has something to do with the extent of road damage during last Novemeber's floods.
http://www.nps.gov/mora/naturescience/the-science-behind-the-november-2006-floods.htm

GW isn't going to go away just because you or I are tired of it.

paulj

[teotwaki]

The hand-wringers and tree-huggers have an agenda and will ruthlessly suppress opinions that might endanger their control of the vast amounts of money being funnelled into "Global Warming" studies, grants and other boondoggles.

They would have us believe that all of the natural ice in the world is melting. However, they really hate to hear that there are glaciers that are growing!!

Calving Glaciers are Unresponsive to Climate

Hubbard Glacier is defying the global paradigm of valley or mountain glacier shrinkage and retreat in response to global climate warming. Hubbard Glacier is the largest of eight calving glaciers in Alaska that are currently increasing in total mass and advancing. All of these glaciers calve into the sea, are at the heads of long fiords, have undergone retreats during the last 1,000 years, calve over relatively shallow submarine moraines, and have unusually small ablation areas compared to their accumulation areas

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/

Hubbard Glacier, Alaska: Growing and Advancing in Spite of Global Climate Change and the 1986 and 2002 Russell Lake Outburst Floods
U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 001-03
January 2003
by D.C. Trabant, R.S. March, and D.S. Thomas

[paulj]

They would have us believe that all of the natural ice in the world is melting. However, they really hate to hear that there are glaciers that are growing!!


The fact that tidewater glaciers march to their own drummer is well known among glaciologists. That was a common topic when I studied the subject in the 1990s. I was hearing about those glaciers from the same scientists who were worried about the retreat of many other glaciers. As your quote states, the position of the terminus of these tide water glaciers is determined by the submarine moraine, not the climate. As long as the glacier can push this moraine forward it will advance; once the water gets too deep, the glacier starts calving rapidly, and retreats like the nearby Columbia glacier. Glacier Bay is another example of a tidewater glacier in retreat.

No one is hiding or suppressing knowledge of this kind phenomena. A glaciologist is just as happy studying an advancing glacier as a retreating one. A climatologist would be just as happy studying a cooling climate as a warming one. Arctic people still have to deal with climate changes (changing sea ice seasons, changing animal migrations, thawing permafrost), regardless of whether humans are to blame or not. People who depend on melting glaciers for mid summer water are still worried about the disappearance of those particular glaciers.

Here's a discussion on a scientific survey of glaciers around the world
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129
There is a more recent comment focusing on tropical glaciers.

paulj

[pwc]

The non-hand-wringers and non-tree-huggers have an agenda and will ruthlessly suppress opinions that might endanger their control of the vast amounts of money being funnelled into non-"Global Warming" studies, grants and other boondoggles.

Amazingly enough, it reads the same. Neither side is completely right. Neither side is completely wrong. Learn to play well with others and life is easier. Call a bunch of people names and life is harder. At least that's what I've learned.

[teotwaki]

The fact that tidewater glaciers march to their own drummer is well known among glaciologists. That was a common topic when I studied the subject in the 1990s. I was hearing about those glaciers from the same scientists who were worried about the retreat of many other glaciers. As your quote states, the position of the terminus of these tide water glaciers is determined by the submarine moraine, not the climate. As long as the glacier can push this moraine forward it will advance; once the water gets too deep, the glacier starts calving rapidly, and retreats like the nearby Columbia glacier. Glacier Bay is another example of a tidewater glacier in retreat.

No one is hiding or suppressing knowledge of this kind phenomena. A glaciologist is just as happy studying an advancing glacier as a retreating one. A climatologist would be just as happy studying a cooling climate as a warming one. Arctic people still have to deal with climate changes (changing sea ice seasons, changing animal migrations, thawing permafrost), regardless of whether humans are to blame or not. People who depend on melting glaciers for mid summer water are still worried about the disappearance of those particular glaciers.

Here's a discussion on a scientific survey of glaciers around the world
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129
There is a more recent comment focusing on tropical glaciers.

paulj

Paul,

Thanks for the links and the notes. Being ex-NASA (JPL ), I know of nothing more joyful than studying things without politics or practicality imposing limits.

However, I never said that the scientists were supressing the information. But, I did not hear about these glaciers from glaciologists or climatologists or any other real scientist (not Al Gore either). I also found absolutely no mention of them on "Real Climate" if you care to know. The point is that GW hand wringers don't want people to be confused by the fact that there are glaciers that grow and retreat irregardless of mankind and its evil designs. It is easier to sell an apocalyptic view that all natural ice in the world is melting because of careless homo-sapiens.

People in the Arctic having to deal with melting ice? Boo hoo! What about when North America was entirely ice covered? Whose fault was that? Who cried for the humans that had to adapt to the world? No one. We adapted.

How about for you older folks you may remember around 1975 "Global Cooling" and all of the now-familiar hysteria. Many wrong premature conclusions were drawn from all sides. Again, more ridiculous human "know-it-all" arrogance.

I get daily doses of the such arrogance from a brother-in-law espousing the GW mantra. He opposes any new oil drilling but happliy jets around the world to Africa and other impoverished area to view their wildlife and quaint stone-age lifestyles. He wears Patagonia fleece made from petro products, Nike shoes made from petro products and buys many things made of plastic/petro-products. Total joke, especially as most of those things are made in China, one of the bigger and dirtier polluters around. He hates it when I tell him that he is the root cause of the pollution caused GW trend.

If you think I am against conservation or only pro-Big Enterprise then think again. I still don't believe in GW either. I am not opposed to every person screwing in just one energy saving bulb in their house. But Al Gore telling me that GW and not the Soviets drained the Aral Sea, the Caspian Sea or the Sea of Azov??? Bah humbug. Al Gore should go home and reduce his own electric bill first.

[teotwaki]

The non-hand-wringers and non-tree-huggers have an agenda and will ruthlessly suppress opinions that might endanger their control of the vast amounts of money being funnelled into non-"Global Warming" studies, grants and other boondoggles.

Amazingly enough, it reads the same. Neither side is completely right. Neither side is completely wrong. Learn to play well with others and life is easier. Call a bunch of people names and life is harder. At least that's what I've learned.

Exactly. NEITHER side is completely right.

I am open to learning. So far what I have learned is nowhere near convincing me of "Global Warming" being any more real than "Global Cooling" was 30 years ago. I do not believe in unrestrained business pollution as is occurring in China and I don't believe in "no new oil drilling". Achieve balance but PLEASE spare me Al Gore's self serving hysteria. I'll read papers, web site etc. and discuss them pleasantly and politely. Cite your sources..... :beer:

[Grim Reaper]

I don't quite see how GW is loosing you places to visit.
That was pretty bad wording on my part. As a whole the environmentalist movement has gotten to be an extreme. They will site anything they can to limit actions. Global warming being a big one that they use to sell their agenda to the lemmings.

The Lemmings are that a VAST majority of the money they raise comes from people they solicit that have absolutely know idea about environmentalism. They sell by pulling on their heart strings with pictures of a hunter getting Bambi and threats that their grandchildren are going to have to wear SPF bazillion under a radiation suit. Then the fat house wife that made the donation, that NEVER goes more rural then the outlet mall to get a good price on her hiking boots that make her feel more in tune with the earth and is a fashion statement, feels like they did their part. She goes and draws the shades in the living room and turns on all the accent lighting at high noon and sits on he 80lb over weight butt eating bon bons watching days of our lives on the big screen feeling good about themselves. Then they go to their weight watchers get together and brag how they are now an "environmentalist" because they just gave money to some whacked out group that wants her to give up her $80k Mercedes and become a socialist.

They just gave money to a group that will limit access to people like you and I (the actual people who are a better description of environmentalist) that use as few lights as possible, sets the thermostat at 65 in the winter 78 in the summer, Does go and enjoy the forests and does clean ups, boondock camps etc.

Putting Global warming into proper context will remove one of the "selling points" of these extremest groups.

[Super Doody]

Like posters have said, there is always two sides to every story. The truth is in between.

About your hypocritical brother in law comments, if you dig deep enough everyone is hypocrit.




I get daily doses of the such arrogance from a brother-in-law espousing the GW mantra. He opposes any new oil drilling but happliy jets around the world to Africa and other impoverished area to view their wildlife and quaint stone-age lifestyles. He wears Patagonia fleece made from petro products, Nike shoes made from petro products and buys many things made of plastic/petro-products. Total joke, especially as most of those things are made in China, one of the bigger and dirtier polluters around. He hates it when I tell him that he is the root cause of the pollution caused GW trend.



The only way to have 100% non-impact to the environment, we as a human will need to be deceased or live in huts. Since thats not pratical we have conserve (not preserve) limited resources.

[paulj]

The greenhouse gas theory can be traced back to 1900, when Svante Arrhenius proposed the idea that an increase in CO2 could produce warming. Being a resident of cold Sweden he thought that was a good idea.

I don't recall much about the warnings in the 70s about impending ice age. There, of course, have been lots of speculation about what triggered the ice ages, and how long it might be before continental ice sheets might again advance. I suspect the more alarmist talk was coupled with nuclear winter warnings.

However our ability to model the earth's climate, and to make observations, has advance significantly since the 1970s. Our knowledge of past climate has also advanced significantly, using ice cores, deep ocean cores, tree rings, lake bottom cores, and other indicators.

paulj

[teotwaki]

Like posters have said, there is always two sides to every story. The truth is in between.

About your hypocritical brother in law comments, if you dig deep enough everyone is hypocrit.

The only way to have 100% non-impact to the environment, we as a human will need to be deceased or live in huts. Since thats not pratically, we have conserve (not preserve) limited resources.

Yes, everyone is a hypocrite about something, but that is such a general statement as to be disingenuous with respect to our discussion.

I don't want my brother-in-law or Al Gore or anybody to lecture me specifically about Global Warming when they have different rules for themselves.

The truth that is in between? If blatant pollution is curbed and when "Global Warming" is as thoroughly debunked as "Global Cooling" was we'll be in a nice middle ground. The fact is that the two extremes battle it out and the middle ground yields some nice dividends. Cars that use less or no gas. Airliners that are bigger, quieter, faster and more reliable that allow us to access the entire world. Cheap and high quality goods from China (and then their pollution blows here, sigh).

I will not roll over and die to bring about 100% non-impact. Living in a hut is no answer as the "peaceful-respectful" Mayans wreaked havoc on the environment in their day.

Being a cheapskate, I rarely run the heater at home and when appropriate, new vehicles are chosen with fuel-efficiency as a big factor. However, I won't melt down my perfectly good 1989 full-sized Ford Bronco. My son drives it 25 miles a week for school so little gas is used. However, the energy invested in its manufacture and raw materials that are lost upon scrapping are not worth its premature demise. It is better to continue using it than spend $20k on a new car that eats up more irreplaceable natural resources soley in the name of fuel economy.

[teotwaki]

The greenhouse gas theory can be traced back to 1900, when Svante Arrhenius proposed the idea that an increase in CO2 could produce warming. Being a resident of cold Sweden he thought that was a good idea.

I don't recall much about the warnings in the 70s about impending ice age. There, of course, have been lots of speculation about what triggered the ice ages, and how long it might be before continental ice sheets might again advance. I suspect the more alarmist talk was coupled with nuclear winter warnings.

However our ability to model the earth's climate, and to make observations, has advance significantly since the 1970s. Our knowledge of past climate has also advanced significantly, using ice cores, deep ocean cores, tree rings, lake bottom cores, and other indicators.

paulj

Time Magazine has written an embarassed rebuttal of a previous 1974 Global Cooling shill piece. So did Newsweek about their 1975 article. In 30 years they'll do the same for Global Warming.

[paulj]

So Hubbard Glacier advanced in 1996 and 2002, threatening to dam an inlet and form a 'Lake Russell'. As best I can tell, it hasn't surged since then. The Google Earth image looks similar to the image in the 2003 paper. I can't find any news of a further advance.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/images/fig8.gif

Apart from disproving any simplistic 'all glaciers are melting' claim, the behavior of Hubbard Glacier does not disprove GW. I suspect the Hubbard Glacier case is being used to knock down a strawman, rather than advance a serious dialog about the subject.

Wiki has a lengthy article on glacier retreat, with lots of photos.

paulj

[Super Doody]

Yes, everyone is a hypocrite about something, but that is such a general statement as to be disingenuous with respect to our discussion.

"disingenuous"? You brought up your brother in law not me. I'm just commenting on it.

[Super Doody]

here is another good video on GW:)

http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=1147

[teotwaki]

"disingenuous"? You brought up your brother in law not me. I'm just commenting on it.

Super Doody

Sorry for being too sharp sounding. I used that word because I was being specific about Global Warming and my irritating b-i-l's hypocrisy but to me your comment was a non-related generalization about human nature that only served as a distracting tangent to the core issue.

Wow. What a run-on sentence generator I am.... :oops:

[teotwaki]

here is another good video on GW:)

http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=1147


God that busted me up. Will Ferrell for President!

[teotwaki]

So Hubbard Glacier advanced in 1996 and 2002, threatening to dam an inlet and form a 'Lake Russell'. As best I can tell, it hasn't surged since then. The Google Earth image looks similar to the image in the 2003 paper. I can't find any news of a further advance.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/images/fig8.gif

Apart from disproving any simplistic 'all glaciers are melting' claim, the behavior of Hubbard Glacier does not disprove GW. I suspect the Hubbard Glacier case is being used to knock down a strawman, rather than advance a serious dialog about the subject.

Wiki has a lengthy article on glacier retreat, with lots of photos.

paulj

the strawman is "Global Warming" which is where the fear-mongering and simplistic "all glaciers are melting" mantra originates.

Typical quote with emphasis added by me:

"Photographer Gary Braasch holding a 1932 photo of Broggi glacier near Huascaran in the Peruvian Andes, while rephotographing this receding glacier in 1999. Glaciers everywhere in the world (with a very few exceptions) have been shrinking throughout the 20th Century, a prime signal of rapid global warming. Loss of tropical glaciers is particularly rapid. This glacier, previously photographed by the Austrian Hans Kinzl, receded about one kilometer in 67 years.

Note the dismissive "with very few exceptions" since we don't want to confuse the sheep with this minor issue.....


This poor Russian scientist stepped into a maelstrom for doubting "Global Warming".

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Given that I helped put the first Mars Rover there it must be my fault.... :)

[Haggis]

I can remeber being in elementry school in the mid 70's and being taught all about how in thirty years that glaciers would extend as far down south as here in NW PA and that there would be hundreds of feet of ice covering our ruined towns. There were videos and worksheets, there was even a "expert" that came and visited our school to educate us poor dimwitted hick childrens. If an "expert" (ie. educated idiot) tells you something on any subject first check to see what his monetary interest in the subject is and you will most likely find someone looking for a handout (govt. grant or your donation) to finance himself instead of actually doing something productive with his time.

[paulj]

Note the dismissive "with very few exceptions" since we don't want to confuse the sheep with this minor issue.....


So one exception has been mentioned, any more?
I recall one other exception (from a glaciology gather several year ago), Taku Glacier south of Juneau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taku_Glacier
http://www.nichols.edu/departments/Glacier/juneau%20icefield.htm

Lets say someone claimed that Toyotas are very reliable trucks. Does the fact that my RAV4 has problems with freezing doors disprove that claim?

Aren't you curious as to why some many glaciers are retreating? Or are you going to take the attitude that since there are exceptions to a blanket statement, it is impossible to use glaciers as an indicator of climate change?

paulj

I might add that there is another category of glacier that advances every so often, surging glaciers. Black Rapids in the Alaska Range is one that has been well studied; if it really 'kicked up it's heels' it could over run an Alaska highway. Variegated Glacier near Hubbard is another. McGinnis is one that surged recently. Surging is something that facinates glaciologists, but like the advance of tidewater glaciers, has more to do with conditions at the bed of the glacier than global climate changes.
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/earth_icy_planet/glaciers05-en.html

another page on the swiss site shows other retreating and advancing glaciers. Lots of good material on glaciers at this site.
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/earth_icy_planet/glaciers04-en.html

Here's an accessment of glacial changes in Norway. Norway depends strongly on glacial meltwater for hydro power, and, thus has spent a lot of money studying them. There is even a tunnel under one glacier that gives access to a cavity in the base of the glacier. I know a prof who installed some strain guages there.
http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext.asp?id=3561&lang=en

[teotwaki]

[THREAD JACK]

Say, what do you do? I ask because I worked on and around a couple of the JPL Mars programs, MGS and Odyssey that the rovers talk to, and MRO. I work at SEAKR, hardware side of things (SEAKR did the SSRs and we also do CTIF, C&DH, etc).

[/THREAD JACK]

Mars sort of runs in the family. My oldest brother wrote software for image processing on the Viking landers back in in those days. On Sojourner I was the RF/Telecom fix-it guy. When the original Rover team had trouble testing the lander/rover radio modems for bit error rate I helped them rebuild the test set up. The modem's main reference oscillator had to be redesigned (long story). I took over the procurement and test and install of the lander's low gain antenna waveguide stack and I also did the same for the receive/transmit diplexing filter. I was flight hardware certified and got to wear the bunny suit and all in the assembly room. :beer:

As a side note I designed and built the original 4 channel DDS phase-continuous RF sources for the Deep Space Network 70 meter dishes. Those were used to talk directly to the rover. On the first day of landing when they had trouble talking to the rover, who did they call? (Even though I had left the Labs)

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/3359/mars2vc5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Not quite a thread-jack! This actually helps me to bring up that I worked with scientists and mathematicians of the highest caliber in a government funded pure research environment. I knew PLANETARY climatologists that were the best in the Solar System. Some GW proponents need to understand that I know enough that "global warming" sets off my very qualified bull**** detector. As recalled by others, we saw it all before in the 70's and the familiar smell is back.

Again, mankind is not innocent of pollution and waste. We can improve and I know conservation is a good thing. It is unfortunate that GW is so politicized and hyped that mildly interesting basic climate research has been perverted into a politician's run for office and scare-mongering to control vast sums of money.

[elcoyote]

Here's something for contemplation:

Memos Tell Officials How to Discuss Climate
Source: Copyright 2007, New York Times
Date: March 8, 2007
Byline: Andrew C. Revkin
Original URL


Internal memorandums circulated in the Alaskan division of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service appear to require government biologists or other employees traveling in countries around the Arctic not to discuss climate change, polar bears or sea ice if they are not designated to do so.

In December, the Bush administration, facing a deadline under a suit by environmental groups, proposed listing polar bears throughout their range as threatened under the Endangered Species Act because the warming climate is causing a summertime retreat of sea ice that the bears use for seal hunting.

Environmentalists are trying to use such a listing to force the United States to restrict heat-trapping gases that scientists have linked to global warming as a way of limiting risks to the 22,000 or so bears in the far north.

It remains unclear whether such a listing will be issued. The Fish and Wildlife Service this week held the first of several hearings in Alaska and Washington on the question.

Over the past week, biologists and wildlife officials received a cover note and two sample memorandums to be used as a guide in preparing travel requests. Under the heading “Foreign Travel — New Requirement — Please Review and Comply, Importance: High,” the cover note said:

“Please be advised that all foreign travel requests (SF 1175 requests) and any future travel requests involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice and/or polar bears will also require a memorandum from the regional director to the director indicating who’ll be the official spokesman on the trip and the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears.”

The sample memorandums, described as to be used in writing travel requests, indicate that the employee seeking permission to travel “understands the administration’s position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues.”

Electronic copies of the memorandums and cover note were forwarded to The New York Times by Deborah Williams, an environmental campaigner in Alaska and a former Interior Department official in the Clinton administration.

“This sure sounds like a Soviet-style directive to me,” Ms. Williams said.

A spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Alaska, Bruce Woods, confirmed the authenticity of the notes, but interpreted them differently.

“The cover memo makes it clear nobody is being told they can’t talk about these issues,” Mr. Woods said. “What the administration wants to know is who is going to be spokesperson and do they understand administration policy? It’s not saying you won’t talk about it.”

Limits on government scientists’ freedom to speak freely about climate change became a heated issue last year after news reports showed that political appointees at NASA had canceled journalists’ interview requests with climate scientists and discouraged news releases on global warming.

Can you say "Spin Doctors" 10 times real fast????

[teotwaki]

Here's something for contemplation:

Memos Tell Officials How to Discuss Climate
Source: Copyright 2007, New York Times
Date: March 8, 2007
Byline: Andrew C. Revkin
Original URL

.................SNIP..................

Can you say "Spin Doctors" 10 times real fast????


OOOOOOHHHHHHHHH. Black helicopters and conspiracies! Big governments and big companies love to control information flow. So does the UN, Green Peace and Earth First. Money and politics have polarized the whole discussion.

[teotwaki]

So one exception has been mentioned, any more?
I recall one other exception (from a glaciology gather several year ago), Taku Glacier south of Juneau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taku_Glacier
http://www.nichols.edu/departments/Glacier/juneau%20icefield.htm

Lets say someone claimed that Toyotas are very reliable trucks. Does the fact that my RAV4 has problems with freezing doors disprove that claim?

Aren't you curious as to why some many glaciers are retreating? Or are you going to take the attitude that since there are exceptions to a blanket statement, it is impossible to use glaciers as an indicator of climate change?

paulj

I might add that there is another category of glacier that advances every so often, surging glaciers. Black Rapids in the Alaska Range is one that has been well studied; if it really 'kicked up it's heels' it could over run an Alaska highway. Variegated Glacier near Hubbard is another. McGinnis is one that surged recently. Surging is something that facinates glaciologists, but like the advance of tidewater glaciers, has more to do with conditions at the bed of the glacier than global climate changes.
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/earth_icy_planet/glaciers05-en.html

another page on the swiss site shows other retreating and advancing glaciers. Lots of good material on glaciers at this site.
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/earth_icy_planet/glaciers04-en.html

Here's an accessment of glacial changes in Norway. Norway depends strongly on glacial meltwater for hydro power, and, thus has spent a lot of money studying them. There is even a tunnel under one glacier that gives access to a cavity in the base of the glacier. I know a prof who installed some strain guages there.
http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext.asp?id=3561&lang=en

Thanks for the links and the other bits like this:

"Lets say someone claimed that Toyotas are very reliable trucks. Does the fact that my RAV4 has problems with freezing doors disprove that claim?"

Therefore (in my best Monty Python voice) if your Toyota has freezing doors, then you are the cause of all freezing doors!!!

One exception does not necessarily blow down the Global Strawman of "Warming" yet one exception seems to have you pretty determined to stamp it out. That helps other folks to further question the total facade of "global warming" and not rush to worship at the altar of climatalogical apocalypse.

I don't dismiss glacial melting as being part of climate change. Show me where I said that. Glacial melting has happened billions of times on this planet and others. What I do dismiss is the supposedly foregone conclusion that glacial melting is the fault of mankind.

Yeah, yeah. Science is so much more wonderful and accurate since the BS about Global Cooling 30 years ago so how could we possibly be wrong this time??? :xxrotflma

[teotwaki]

I can remeber being in elementry school in the mid 70's and being taught all about how in thirty years that glaciers would extend as far down south as here in NW PA and that there would be hundreds of feet of ice covering our ruined towns. There were videos and worksheets, there was even a "expert" that came and visited our school to educate us poor dimwitted hick childrens. If an "expert" (ie. educated idiot) tells you something on any subject first check to see what his monetary interest in the subject is and you will most likely find someone looking for a handout (govt. grant or your donation) to finance himself instead of actually doing something productive with his time.

I just don't know..... science is so much more accurate now than 30 years ago. How could they be wrong this time??? :yikes: :exclaim: :hehe:

[paulj]

Since I don't recall much about coming ice age warnings in the 70s - even though I was in college at the time - I did a Google search on 'coming ice age 1970', and came up with quite a few items.

There's a wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
and Real Climate article
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
and
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

The gist in all those is that while there were some alarmist news magazine articles, there was little in the peer reviewed scientific literature. There had been something of a cooling trend at that time. There were also new discoveries and theories about the ice ages, and interglacial times, but nothing that would point to glacial ice rolling out of Canada in a matter of decades.

paulj

[calamaridog]

I love the GW debate. Reminds me of the Crest commercials where 9 out of 10 dentists prefer Crest.

I'm not saying that human activities don't impact the environment, but I'll say that the actual understanding of the extent of the problem is grossly overstated. Study of GW is definitely in the infancy stage.

Scientists who have no knowledge of the subject are asked to lend credibility to the position that is espoused by people like Al Gore.

And in the academic community you can't debate the merits of these arguements without getting hamstrung. It is VERY unpopular in the academic community to question GW. Unpopular in the media too.

This whole thing has taken on a life of its own. The local paper is running articles every week saying that GW is responsible for pretty much everything.

[teotwaki]

PaulJ,

Fairly poor returns I'll agree. Google will sometimes only find as much as a searcher wants it to find within the limits of the overly specific search terms.
What I am sharing here is that "Global Cooling" was very much the fad of the day as is "Global Warming" today. Lets not get off on tangents about the validity of those studies but instead look at the "climate of fear" that was stoked.

In January1972 a working conference of top European and American investigators was convened at Brown University to discuss “The Present Interglacial, How and when will it End?”[1] Soon fashionable panic was about global cooling. In 1974 Fortune magazine warned that the temperatures had already dropped about 2.7° F (ca. 1,5°C) since the 1940s. Newsweek magazine published an article “The Cooling World”[2] from which following remarks is taken:

“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”

(WOW. Sounds SO Familiar) :)

On Dec. 3, 1972 the head of the Dept. Of Geological Sciences of Brown University even wrote a letter to the President of the United States, warning him of global cooling.

“…a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon. The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of deep sea sediments.”

more..........

Science 9 May 1975:
Vol. 188. no. 4188, pp. 535 - 541
DOI: 10.1126/science.188.4188.535

Weather Variability, Climatic Change, and Grain Production
Louis M. Thompson 1
1 College of Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames 50010

A cooling trend in the world's climate would have serious effects in the monsoon belts depending on whether or not the recent changes in snow and ice cover in the polar regions were responsible for the droughts in Africa and the failure of the monsoons over South Asia. The cooling and shrinking of the atmosphere at the higher latitudes is believed to have brought the subtropical anticyclones nearer to the tropical rainbelt and have caused a shifting of the monsoon belt.

and more of That 70's Global Cooling show:

— Science, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate,” July 9, 1971

[I]t is projected that man’s potential to pollute will increase six to eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present global background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5° K [3.5° C]. Such a large decrease in the average surface temperature of the Earth, sustained over a period of a few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

— Business Week, “The world’s climate is getting worse” August 2, 1976
Climatologists have advanced a number of theories to explain why the world’s climate is getting worse. The dominant school maintains that the world is becoming cooler, resulting in a loss of arable land at the higher latitudes and major shifts in rainfall patterns. A second school believes the world is warming, with equally serious consequences.

— National Geographic, “What’s Happening to Our Climate?” November 1976
Most scientists agree that today’s ice movement may reflect a worldwide cooling trend, but their explanations vary widely.

— National Science Board, 1972
Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end … leading into the next glacial age....

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 1974
"Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect"
Reported that "glaciers have begun to advance"; "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter"; and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool".

Science News, March 1, 1975
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it."

Newsweek, April 28, 1975
"The Cooling World"
"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now."

International Wildlife, July-August, 1975
"But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime."

New York Times, May 21, 1975
"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"


http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

And even BEFORE the 70's the fads flipp-flopped numerous times:


GLOBAL COOLING: 1890s-1930s
The Times, February 24, 1895
"Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again"
Fears of a "second glacial period" brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia's climate.

New York Times, October 7, 1912
"Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age"

Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923
"The possibility of another Ice Age already having started ... is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak."

Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923
"Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."

Time Magazine, September 10, 1923
"The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age."

New York Times, September 18, 1924
"MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1930s-1960s

New York Times, March 27, 1933
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise"

Time Magazine, January 2, 1939
"Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right.... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Time Magazine, 1951
Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.

New York Times, 1952
Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.

U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954
"[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."


I'll close with this Google Gem which has been argued about endlessly:

Dr. Schneider..."We need to get broadbased support to capture the public's imagination, which entails getting loads of media attention. We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have"

Dr. Stephen Schneider of Stanford University and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Colorado, and Dr.Reid Bryson, Director of Environmental Studies at University of Wisconsin, were leading voices of the scientific community warning about global cooling. The theory actually blamed dust and particles, not CO2, for blocking sunlight and freezing the planet. The dust effect was adding to natural astronomical forces. Greenhouse effect from CO2 was supposed to help, but could not overcome the problem.

[GeoRoss]

Time Magazine has written an embarassed rebuttal of a previous 1974 Global Cooling shill piece. So did Newsweek about their 1975 article. In 30 years they'll do the same for Global Warming.


There is a world of difference getting scientific information from the scientific literature and mainstream media. One of the biggest shortcomings in science is in the accurate dissemination of information. I rarely see or read anything on science related subjects that don't have mistakes, are poorly organized or don't skew the results.


In the 70's there was a marked reduction or leveling off of solar activity (sunspot period length). Temperatures rise had leveled off or even delclined abit for about 30 years. We knew from the past periodicity of glaciation that we were due for another large glaciation event if the same periodicity remained the same. That led to the speculation that another cooling event may be in evidence.

What happen though is temperatures began to rise again in the mid 70's in the absence of increase solar event length.

[teotwaki]

There is a world of difference getting scientific information from the scientific literature and mainstream media. One of the biggest shortcomings in science is in the accurate dissemination of information. I rarely see or read anything on science related subjects that don't have mistakes, are poorly organized or don't skew the results.


In the 70's there was a marked reduction or leveling off of solar activity (sunspot period length). Temperatures rise had leveled off or even delclined abit for about 30 years. We knew from the past periodicity of glaciation that we were due for another large glaciation event if the same periodicity remained the same. That led to the speculation that another cooling event may be in evidence.

What happen though is temperatures began to rise again in the mid 70's in the absence of increase solar event length.

Thanks G-R, I appreciate your comments as well as PaulJ's. I learn more and think more due to each post. Your comments reinforce what I have believed all along and probably why this thread was started: Let science proceed, remove the politics and agendas, give the research adequate time without speculation and conclusion-jumping leading us to pass bogus laws and kill progress.

[PhulesAU]

Al Gores Truth!!! A convenient Lie. Like the invention of the Interwebnet.

[calamaridog]

If we could all just agree not to jump to conclusions, you know, measure the data for a good long time, say perhaps several ten thousand years or so:shakin: