General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Some of the statements on here amaze me, much like the quote above.

How can the variations in output of the thing that provides ALL warmth on this planet NOT have an effect on climate. That's just stupid talk.

Anyway, only came on to say there is a rather interesting article in The Sunday Times regarding the glaciers in the Himalayas, the IPCC report that said they would be all gone by 2035 came from a New Scientist article, 7 years earlier, gained from a short telephone conversation with an obscure Indian scientist... that was the gist anyway. Now it seems they are so thick it would take hundreds of years for them to melt completely.

Back track on its way no doubt.

[sunny starry skies]

...We're back to the fact that there's no demonstrable evidence that that Sun's variations are dominating global climate...

If solar influence is so small, can I take it that the Maunder minimum and the associated downturn in temperature is a coincidence, and nothing to do with the absence if sunspots?...

I learn something new every day!

The key thing is the present tense of my statement. Back at the time for the Maunder minimum, GHG release by people had to that point been relatively small (mainly agriculture), and so the 'natural' drivers (including solar) were a greater influence on the system. Although we have no data to prove it, it would seem likely that the TSI level during Maunder minimum was unusually low, and had a consequent effect on global climate of that time. I don't think that climate science, ah, denies that the sun can have an effect. Indeed there is some agreement that the Sun is having a (small) negative effect at present, partially offsetting GHG warming, along with La Nina-type conditions).

Remember there is more than one way to alter global climate - it's just that GHGs are driving the trend of the last 40 years. Do you dispute that temperatures are rising within predicted errors? (see links above)

Dartmoor_Matt - see above again, the point is that the scale of recent solar variation is insufficient to drive recent temperature change. Additionally, as we know that global temperature is heading to places not seen in millennia, what variation in the Sun explains that one? Given that large temperature changes on our sensitive Earth have been driven by orbital forcing for much of the Late Quaternary, and not by surprising changes in the Sun, why would the Sun suddenly act up now? Funny coincidence, then, that the Sun should suddenly produce heretofore unseen changes just at the point at which we increase the concentrations of known greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by a third?

As far as the Himalayan glaciers are concerned - yup, looks like that particular statement should never have made it into the IPCC report.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html

But does that change the science in the rest of the IPCC report? No. Does it change the observations of worldwide glacier retreat, as predicted by the theory of AGW, including in the Himalaya? No, of course not!

Check out the World Glacier Monitoring Service: http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/index.html

And peruse their data - here's a summary of changes, with neat graphs showing advancing(blue)/retreating(red) glaciers. Note how the great majority of glaciers worldwide are retreating...

(not every glacier is coupled to climate, e.g. surge-type glaciers, precipitation-dominated cases can also produce advances, hence why not every one is 'red')

http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/5.pdf

sss

[Devonian]

I'm afraid until they dismember the IPCC, then science will always play second fiddle, to corruption and deceit! All of their previous guesses, have been either OTT, or just plain wrong!

The sceptics big mistake is to cry foul too often, to hammer too many final nails into to many final coffins, to accuse named scientists of lies and fraud over and over and over and over and over again...

I guess it's because the best ammo you have is to blow mistakes up into 'corruption and deceit'. Bit sad really

[Devonian]

Some of the statements on here amaze me, much like the quote above.

How can the variations in output of the thing that provides ALL warmth on this planet NOT have an effect on climate. That's just stupid talk.

Huh? Who's said variation in solar output don't? I will say I think variations of less than a watt around a figure of 1350 watts (well, 340watts/sqM averaged across the globe) wont have very much effect. They better not because AGW is already about 1.5watts/sqM...

Anyway, only came on to say there is a rather interesting article in The Sunday Times regarding the glaciers in the Himalayas, the IPCC report that said they would be all gone by 2035 came from a New Scientist article, 7 years earlier, gained from a short telephone conversation with an obscure Indian scientist... that was the gist anyway. Now it seems they are so thick it would take hundreds of years for them to melt completely.

Back track on its way no doubt.

It's called a 'mistake'.

[Solar Cycles]

The sceptics big mistake is to cry foul too often, to hammer too many final nails into to many final coffins, to accuse named scientists of lies and fraud over and over and over and over and over again...

I guess it's because the best ammo you have is to blow mistakes up into 'corruption and deceit'. Bit sad really

Two words for you Dev. HOCKEY STICK! Also, how come you are always willing to defend those good scientists of the IPCC, with such passion. But yet dismiss any scientist who disagrees with this odious bunch of ideologists!

[Dartmoor_Matt]

...

As far as the Himalayan glaciers are concerned - yup, looks like that particular statement should never have made it into the IPCC report.

http://www.newscient...iers-claim.html

But does that change the science in the rest of the IPCC report? No. Does it change the observations of worldwide glacier retreat, as predicted by the theory of AGW, including in the Himalaya? No, of course not!

Check out the World Glacier Monitoring Service: http://www.geo.unizh...wgms/index.html

And peruse their data - here's a summary of changes, with neat graphs showing advancing(blue)/retreating(red) glaciers. Note how the great majority of glaciers worldwide are retreating...

(not every glacier is coupled to climate, e.g. surge-type glaciers, precipitation-dominated cases can also produce advances, hence why not every one is 'red')

http://www.grid.unep...iers/pdfs/5.pdf

sss

Actually, I think if you delve into some recent reports, the glaciers in the Himalaya Range have actually been observed to be expanding. I shall report on my return from the region in December.

Huh? Who's said variation in solar output don't? I will say I think variations of less than a watt around a figure of 1350 watts (well, 340watts/sqM averaged across the globe) wont have very much effect. They better not because AGW is already about 1.5watts/sqM...

It's called a 'mistake'.

We're back to the fact that there's no demonstrable evidence that that Sun's variations are dominating global climate

Mistake, maybe, but the cynical amongst us might call it jumping on anything and everything that might possibly give our (read IPCC) theory that the world is doomed to warming.

Not me though, I just await the apology for misleading and possibly scaring the odd hill farmer in Nepal.

[Devonian]

Two words for you Dev. HOCKEY STICK! Also, how come you are always willing to defend those good scientists of the IPCC, with such passion. But yet dismiss any scientist who disagrees with this odious bunch of ideologists!

I'm not convinced when people are found guilty by the kangaroo court of blog science. Year after year after year these be-gloved marsupials pronounce this scientist or that bit of the science dead. An endless repetition of accusations and blog science that gets scepticism no where - it must be a bit much even for you? Not one scientist shown to be wrong, no science re written.

AGW scepticism? It's just a load of exaggeration and politicing.

Not me though, I just await the apology for misleading and possibly scaring the odd hill farmer in Nepal.

A mistake can't, by definition, be misleading since to mislead is a deliberate act.

[Solar Cycles]

I'm not convinced when people are found guilty by the kangaroo court of blog science. Year after year after year these be-gloved marsupials pronounce this scientist or that bit of the science dead. An endless repetition of accusations and blog science that gets scepticism no where - it must be a bit much even for you? Not one scientist shown to be wrong, no science re written.

AGW scepticism? It's just a load of exaggeration and politicing.

A mistake can't, by definition, be misleading since to mislead is a deliberate act.

We've been over this so many times Dev, Hansen fudged the data, was found out. Then the IPCC dropped it temporarily, only for it to make a come back, with even more fudged data! Then they wonder why the general public, liken them to sleazy politicians!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Now there's a whole can of worms - TSI, length of cycle, degree of lag, magnetic field, Solar wind.

What are your thoughts about the logarithmic effect of CO2 and seeing the largest impacts at the beginning of the industrial revolution?

Regarding the industrial revolution, one common point was that many of the "dirty" pollutants early on in the industrial revolution may have provided a greater "global dimming" effect, reducing the extent of the resulting warming. Also, only limited parts of the world were industrially developed at that stage and so global CO2 emissions were significantly lower. In recent years we've had less in the way of global dimming-inducing aerosols and higher CO2 outputs- and CO2 concentrations have been increasing at a rate which is close to exponential.

Regarding the logarithmic effect of CO2, I'm under the impression that projections of the effects of anthropogenic CO2 on future climate are dependent on the various atmospheric feedbacks that come into play with the increased GHGs and resulting surface warming. I think you've mentioned before your doubts about the way most of these feedbacks are assumed to be strongly positive, and to some extent, I have doubts as well, with aerosols and clouds in particular proving to be a significant problem. It all goes back to the core point about the AGW debate revolving more around extent rather than existence.

The logarithmic nature of the relationship may be a major factor in why the Earth hasn't seen a runaway greenhouse effect in the past due to the CO2-temperature relationship. Indeed, from the way past climate has operated it is very clear that the Earth has in-built "stabilising" limits, but those do contain the warning that the Earth's climate has been at least 5-10C warmer than today in some past eras, so there's still a lot of warming we could feasibly have before we reach the "ceiling".

One major problem, though, is that there's a lot more to anthropogenic emissions than just CO2- CO2 is widely considered to be the main one, but we also have contrails, aerosols, methane and various other chemical compounds, some of which are prone to considerable uncertainty.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

A mistake can't, by definition, be misleading since to mislead is a deliberate act.

However, if you are being told that everything from the IPCC is gospel (a fault mostly of politicians of a certain persuasion) and are then told that the information they are providing is wrong, then something was misleading.

Stop defending these people when they can't even man up and admit they are wrong before a newspaper gets in there first.

I'm sure people would be more understanding if they did.

[Devonian]

However, if you are being told that everything from the IPCC is gospel (a fault mostly of politicians of a certain persuasion) and are then told that the information they are providing is wrong, then something was misleading.

Stop defending these people when they can't even man up and admit they are wrong before a newspaper gets in there first.

I don't think any of us here have the right to tell anyone else to stop posting what they think?

Anyway, Matt, afaik no one is saying the IPCC is 'gospel' - though I guess you must have seen that else you wouldn't claim such? Can we therefore have a quote, any quote, where someone claims the IPCC is 'gospel'?

We've been over this so many times Dev, Hansen fudged the data, was found out. Then the IPCC dropped it temporarily, only for it to make a come back, with even more fudged data! Then they wonder why the general public, liken them to sleazy politicians!

Believe what the marsupials tell you SC if you want to, me I want better 'evidence' than that

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I don't think any of us here have the right to tell anyone else to stop posting what they think?

Anyway, Matt, afaik no one is saying the IPCC is 'gospel' - though I guess you must have seen that else you wouldn't claim such? Can we therefore have a quote, any quote, where someone claims the IPCC is 'gospel'?

As I'm sure you are aware, that is a saying. Politicians are keen to back up their reasoning with a line akin to 'the IPCC said in a report...' With very little leeway for mistakes. So in that respect it is misleading and if politicians and the media are placing them on such a high pedestal, perhaps a little research into things might not go amiss. Or would that be too much like hard work?

Anyway, as I said. They should take responsibility for what they say and if/when they make a mistake, just admit it.

That they don't seem able to speaks volumes.

[Devonian]

As I'm sure you are aware, that is a saying. Politicians are keen to back up their reasoning with a line akin to 'the IPCC said in a report...' With very little leeway for mistakes. So in that respect it is misleading and if politicians and the media are placing them on such a high pedestal, perhaps a little research into things might not go amiss. Or would that be too much like hard work?

The IPCC reports are the hard work of many thousands of scientists...

Anyway, as I said. They should take responsibility for what they say and if/when they make a mistake, just admit it.

That they don't seem able to speaks volumes.

You expect perfection?

[Dartmoor_Matt]

The IPCC reports are the hard work of many thousands of scientists...

You expect perfection?

Some of them perhaps, just not that one re the glaciers. Tip of the proverbial iceberg perhaps?

No, not perfection, just some responsibility for the things they churn out. Not much to ask is it? I mean, we are supposed to pin our futures on them.

[jethro]

This is the place to discuss the science of the AGW debate, anyone who wishes to take endless pot shots at one another, or to just generally bicker, then I suggest you all take it to PM. These ever decreasing circles have been endlessly navigated, numerous times already.

[noggin]

Hi, peeps.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

In view of Jethro's gentle reminder, can I firstly make it clear that I am not having a dig at anybody on NW?

Well, that's that out of the way!

What are the levels of expertise required for the scientists who contribute information to the IPCC? I ask because reading the attached link seems to indicate to me that no expertise or proper research is required.

Surely, with GW/AGW/CC dominating the political agenda and dictating how we live our lives, the science upon which the whole issue is based ought to be far, far more certain than it is. It doesn't seem to have taken much to expose the incorrectness of the claim re glaciers.

Here we appear to have a scientist who has done no research and a professor who has accepted said scientist's submission seemingly without question.

If this is typical of the calibre of the people involved, then it does not inspire me with confidence. What is their agenda?

Being a lifelong observer of human nature, I can only wonder if there is some self-agrandissement and /or financial motive involved.

Even Dr. Pachauri, it seems, dismissed sceptics' claims re the impossibility of the claim as "voodoo science".

I take it all with a pinch of salt and draw my own conclusions.

Peace and love to all.

Edit. I'm just adding another link with regard to Dr. Pachauri's accusation that the Indian government were "arrogant" to say that their was no scientific evidence to back up the "melting" claim.

It really is time for Dr. Pachauri to go and for the whle IPCC to be disbanded.

Edit. Edit! Forgot the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/india-pachauri-climate-glaciers

Edited January 18, 2010 by noggin

[noggin]

http://politicsofclimatechange.wordpress.com/priorities-for-low-carbon-transition/benny-peiser/

An interesting take on the politics of it all, by Dr Benny Peiser.

---------------------------------------------------------

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1243963/UN-science-report-stated-Himalayan-glaciers-melt-25-years-guess.html

Here is more from Dr. Peiser.

A couple of quotes from the article....

re the IPCC review process... "is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer reviewed are often highlighted in IPCC reports."

and, re the IPCC..... "it is also losing the trust of more and more governments who are no longer following it's advice".

Edit. Re the last bit.....no such hope for us whilst we have Gordon the moron in charge. Those are my words, by the way, not Dr.Peiser's!

Edited January 18, 2010 by noggin

[jethro]

Just a quickie from me (that dull old thing called work is calling) I thought the major driver for these glaciers was humidity caused precipitation from the forests at the foot hills. My understanding of the situation was that the decline in glaciers had been caused by the felling of the forests,creating a dryer atmosphere, leading to less precipitation - nowt to do with AGW in the first place.

Or have I got that completely wrong?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I was under the impression that hot dry summers were a significant contributory factor to the retreat of many of the glaciers and that the heat of the summers may have been accentuated slightly by AGW.

In areas dominated by tropical rainforests, though, the felling of trees and associated lack of precipitation are indeed likely to be the dominant factor- though note that the en-masse felling of trees is, in itself, an anthropogenic forcing. In other areas, declining precipitation caused by natural variability can contribute to receding glaciers, while in a few areas, such as Norway, increasing precipitation caused by natural variability, arguably with a bit of AGW thrown in there as well, has actually led to advancing of the glaciers.

[Devonian]

Hi, peeps.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

In view of Jethro's gentle reminder, can I firstly make it clear that I am not having a dig at anybody on NW?

Well, that's that out of the way!

What are the levels of expertise required for the scientists who contribute information to the IPCC? I ask because reading the attached link seems to indicate to me that no expertise or proper research is required.

Surely, with GW/AGW/CC dominating the political agenda and dictating how we live our lives, the science upon which the whole issue is based ought to be far, far more certain than it is. It doesn't seem to have taken much to expose the incorrectness of the claim re glaciers.

Here we appear to have a scientist who has done no research and a professor who has accepted said scientist's submission seemingly without question.

If this is typical of the calibre of the people involved, then it does not inspire me with confidence. What is their agenda?

Being a lifelong observer of human nature, I can only wonder if there is some self-agrandissement and /or financial motive involved.

Even Dr. Pachauri, it seems, dismissed sceptics' claims re the impossibility of the claim as "voodoo science".

I take it all with a pinch of salt and draw my own conclusions.

Peace and love to all.

Edit. I'm just adding another link with regard to Dr. Pachauri's accusation that the Indian government were "arrogant" to say that their was no scientific evidence to back up the "melting" claim.

It really is time for Dr. Pachauri to go and for the whle IPCC to be disbanded.

Edit. Edit! Forgot the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/india-pachauri-climate-glaciers

Should we accpet the Indian govts paper you quote without question? Why should Dr P go and the IPCC disbaned because of one report on glaciers made for the Indian govt that is so far uncorroborated? I've looked at it and to me all the glaciers pictured look dirty and in poor condition with vast new moraines all over the place. It's almost as if they're in retreat

[Iceberg]

I have to admit it's this kind of rubbish (re the Indian Glaciers) that has led me to try and avoid this thread like the plague.

However to set a few things straight.

The Indian report is a government comissioned report, by a minister who's main aim in recent years has been to downplay climate change to the indian people so that India does not have to adopt any carbon control measures.

This report has NO peer review science in it.

This report has very little science in it and consists of a few cherry picked glaciers.

It concentrates on the nose of the glacier rather than the speed, mass, height width changes in it's conclusion.

This report has been authored (at considerable profit to him by a retired geologist(who just happens to have a new book out).

Contrary to the Times reporting (those good old authors again who I shall not name).

This report actually says that glaciers ALL the glaciers studied have loss mass over the last 30 years.

It lays most of the blame on dark particle melting, but provides no evidence to support this.

IT does not say that the glaciers will not melt dramtically over the next 30 years, only that those who have said this are westerners(untrue) who don't understand Indian Glaciers (barmy), It then goes on to say that most of the data the report uses has actually been gathered by the self same western glacier experts.

The comment that the glaciers are at altitude hence they are not like alaskan glaciers is correct, the comment that this makes them some how less effected by CC is wrong, altitude glaciers have been shown to be more vulnerable across the globe.

Come on skeptics provide some real science if you want to disprove AGW and it's effects as outlined in the IPCC. This drip drip of stories from the Times and Murdock has become very boring.

[sunny starry skies]

I'd like to add to Jethro's comment about cheap potshots at each other - we shouldn't also take cheap potshots at people or organisations (IPCC or whoever) without justification. And to suggest that it be disbanded on account of one error in one small fragment of one (of many) lines of supporting evidence, is frankly laughable. I won't dispute that it's a notable error, but only in that branch of the report. The general conclusion of the great majority of global glaciers retreating still stands solid as you like. Don't judge the work of thousands on the mistakes of a few!

As for various tales of glacier advance, and the reasons for mass balance change, that depends on the environment you are in. In most environments, the dominant controls are summer temperature and winter precipitation (such as temperate and high latitudes. There are exceptions though... some tropical glaciers lose significant mass through sublimation, not melting. For the Himalaya, many glaciers are heavily debris-mantled because of the steep mountain sides, so they have a more muted response to climate - the glacier has huge lateral and terminal moraines that inhibit advance, and on retreat they're covered by a thick mantle of debris that can be on the order of metres thick. This insulates the ice underneath, preventing the glacier from responding smoothly to climate. As Dev says, they look like they are in retreat because they are dirty and debris-mantled, and the termini of the glaciers are stagnating in place under the debris mantles. I've seen this effect on glaciers I've studied in Iceland. Look on Google Earth if you don't believe me, for example around Everest at the Khumbu Glacier (nice high resolution imagery) - the glacier does not end at the bottom of the white bit, but 8km further down at the end of a stagnant mass of debris with visible melt pools on the surface. Further NW you can see a hazard associated with these retreats - lakes dammed by the giant moraines, which can burst and flood unsuspecting villages below. This has happened several times already - the scars are visible on Google Earth (eg 35km WSW and 30km SSW of Everest), and more floods will happen as these glaciers continue to retreat. The general point is that AGW will affect different glaciers in different ways, but the dominant response is one of retreat, worldwide.

For Norway: here's the WGMS page on it: http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/6_4.pdf "Since 2001 all monitored glaciers have experienced a distinct mass deficit (Andreassen et al. 2005)." You could expect some mass gain through increased high elevation precipitation in Scandinavian environments, but this has been overridden by enhanced summer melting it would seem. TWS, do you know where you heard there were many advancing Norwegian glaciers? I've not heard that one so far?

[From WGMS report, Fluctuations of glaciers 2000-2005, Chapter 8] "While 34% of the reference glaciers had an overall positive balance during 1976–1995, only two (7%) of them had an overall mass gain over the past decade (1996–2005). This indicates that glacier shrinkage not only becomes faster but also more spatially uniform. Further analysis requires detailed consideration of such aspects as glacier sensitivity and feedback mechanisms. The cumulative mass balances reported for the individual glaciers not only reflect regional climatic variability but also marked differences in the sensitivity of the observed glaciers."

The same pattern is observed in their 'full' dataset of glaciers as in their 'reference' set.

http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/5.pdf

The one cheap potshot I'll take is the one against Benny Peiser... And only then to point out again, justifiably, that he's not qualified to inform the public on climate as he's a social anthropologist and an historian of sport. Trust the Daily Mail to believe him! noggin, you wonder about political axes to grind? Look no further than the unqualified Benny Peiser!

I would like to move the debate on anyway - I'll post this again as nobody seems to want to criticise it:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/

Anyone care to dispute the observation that there is no change to the trend since 1975, whatever temperature index you care to use (3 shown with errors here)?

sss

[Devonian]

Excellent posts from Iceberg and SSS, I've learnt a lot of background info from both of them

[Iceberg]

To add the Gangtori Glacier (one of the ones mentioend in the report) has a rather different picture if you look at it sensible.

Between 1936 and 1996 is retreated at an average annual rate of 19m a yr. Between 1975 and 2000 it retreated at 34m a year.

This is the largest feed into the Gangees.

See the picture below to see for yourselves how it has retreated, unless your one of those that believes that NASA doctors its sat pictures, in which case don't bother looking.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Iceberg

[Thundery wintry showers]

For Norway: here's the WGMS page on it: http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/6_4.pdf "Since 2001 all monitored glaciers have experienced a distinct mass deficit (Andreassen et al. 2005)." You could expect some mass gain through increased high elevation precipitation in Scandinavian environments, but this has been overridden by enhanced summer melting it would seem. TWS, do you know where you heard there were many advancing Norwegian glaciers? I've not heard that one so far?

sss

I don't remember the name, but I'm pretty sure it was in my A-Level geography textbook back in 2002, which was merely suggesting that sometimes higher temperatures can be accompanied by higher precipitation which may result in temporary advances of the glaciers. It may well be out of date now though- much of Scandinavia has certainly had some very hot summers since then.