J
Joerg
Guest
Jon Kirwan wrote:
more graphs and tables from official or at least credible sources.
glaciers in Europe that are going almost totally bare. What the
warmingists don't seem to grasp or sometimes deny tooth and nail is that
this is quite normal. A few thousand years ago they wear also iceless or
nearly iceless, as evidence by the findings of ancient weaponry, shoes,
coins, and the typical litter that unfortunately always happens along
major thoroughfares. They must have lacked an "Adopt-a-Highway" program
back then ;-)
Since they found Roman coins there the last warm period without ice on
the glacier cannot have been be that long ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm
case
where warmingists are often making shaky assumptions.
Oetzi was for sure not doing a glacier hike just for the fun of it. He
was probably hunting on fertile grounds that were ice-free, and then
from what archaeologists have determined killed if not murdered up there.
[...]
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
I meant a pronounced increase in precipitation.On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:17:20 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:43:33 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:03:28 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
But the glaciers, those will further retreat from Europe, and north of America,
only to come back then later, in thousands of years cycles.
Since we've messed up the positive feedback that drove that cycle and
added more than enough CO2 and methane to the atmosphere, the glacier
aren't going to be coming back any time soon.
The shapes and locations ofof the continents will still be pretty much
the same. I doubt if the world will look that different.
Ahm, the glacier north of us on Mt.Shasta is growing ...
Maybe it hasn't heard of AGW and someone should tell it
Joerg, you should know better than to be this highly selective in what
you consider a good argument. Read this USA Today article from a year
and a half ago more closely:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-08-mt-shasta-growing-glaciers_N.htm
Only problem is that the proof doesn't seem to be in the pudding:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtpre.pl?ca5983
Did you read through at least half the article I mentioned above?
Yes. Thing is, with all the AGW claims there ought to be a significant
average rise since 1948.
I'm not sure what you are saying.
There wasn't that much meat in it. As an engineer I am used to seeingThey should know better than to publish something like this without
_showing_ the underlaying statistics
Which publisher, Joerg? The link I mentioned or the link you did?
Yours, USA Today. Mine is affiliated with NOAA, which I believe even the
warmingists wouldn't dispute.
USA Today is just the news article I had imagined you'd glimpsed
before. I thought maybe it would be good to read it more fully, if
so. Thanks for clarifying your point.
more graphs and tables from official or at least credible sources.
I am not disputing that. As I wrote in my reply to Bill, there areIf you are talking about the USA Today article, my motivation was to
show you that you are being very selective in choosing that isolated
data point.
Just as I might choose a 6-sigma noise-spiked data point to try and
show you a rise when you know darned well the trend of the data was to
fall. You'd rightly point out my mistake.
As I did, yours.
I am not so sure it is one. But I also don't want to rule it out.
Climate is averages, not noise. Not weather. And no one I know of,
least of all climate scientists, are stating that there will be
absolutely no cases where some particular glacier won't increase.
Cripes, if that were exactly true we'd be in a lot worse mess!
There is an increased hydrologic cycle. In some cases, precipitation
(in terms of annual averages) may not even change, but the
distribution over the year may.
For example, in my area (which, by the way, is where Andrew Fountain
is .. or was .. located... who is a primary contact regarding Mt.
Shasta's glaciers), the precipitation is remaining similar on an
annual basis, but is shifting away from summer/fall precipitation
(which used to be a near constant complaint I'd hear from California
transplants) and towards winter/spring. Larger annual amplitude,
similar average value. It does have a real impact, though. We will
have to create more summer-time storage to supply the 1.5 million
people who depend upon the glaciers now for their fresh water supply
during late summer. Glaciers, normally quite decently sized here in
Portland and northward, are receding quite rapidly. We've lost almost
50% of the mass balance at Mt. Hood, for example, and expect to see it
reach zero in the late summertime perhaps in 30 years or so if the
current rate remains unchanged. The reasons why these mountains are
losing them faster than some areas is largely understood -- they are
neither insulated by lots of rock, nor highly reflective by being
completely free of rock; instead, they have the right mix of loose
gravel and dirt on them for higher melt rates. We've had a few unique
_slides_ that took out important roadways in the last few years, as
well. (As you can see, I can cherry-pick data, too.
glaciers in Europe that are going almost totally bare. What the
warmingists don't seem to grasp or sometimes deny tooth and nail is that
this is quite normal. A few thousand years ago they wear also iceless or
nearly iceless, as evidence by the findings of ancient weaponry, shoes,
coins, and the typical litter that unfortunately always happens along
major thoroughfares. They must have lacked an "Adopt-a-Highway" program
back then ;-)
Since they found Roman coins there the last warm period without ice on
the glacier cannot have been be that long ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm
Thanks, but right now I have to first find some inductors for an EMI
case
True. But the question is whether it's 90%, 50%, or maybe only 2%. ThatHere in Northern California people look at their water bills, they see
drought rates being charged more and more often. Warmingists predicted
we'd be swamped with precipitation by now. Didn't happen.
Then they look at their heating bills. Amounts of required fuel rising,
for example we went from 2 cords to 4 cords. So it ain't getting warmer.
We would never again buy a house with a pool around here.
This is a middle class neighborhood with a fairly high percentage of
engineers, so you'd normally assume people with a pretty level head.
Nearly all now think that AGW is just one gigantic ruse to raise taxes
in one way or another. Again, this is not me ranting, it's what we hear
from the people. Meaning voters
None of that changes anything about what I said. Climate is averages
and I think you _know_ this.
If you said, "the average voltage, at 1Hz bandwidth, at this node is 4
volts" and I responded by using a high bandwidth tool and pointing out
a 5 nanosecond spike at 8V and said, "no, it's 8V", you'd know I was
being disingenuous. And you'd be right.
And that 8V spike could be the root cause why a chip always fails so
you'd have made a valid and concerning observation
Not the point when talking about averages, is it?
If you are interested in access to specific details, you might read:
http://nsidc.org/glims/
However, if scarfing through a database is a pain, an informed summary
of the circumstances of mountain glaciers around the world can be had
from: Cogley, J. G., 2009, "Geodetic and direct mass-balance
measurements: comparison and joint analysis," Annals of Glaciology 50,
96-100. I can get you a copy, if you intend to read it.
I know that most glaciers are receding for a while now.
Accepted.
That has
happened in the past as well, and then they grew again. What I harbor
doubts about is that this is human-caused. These doubt haven't exactly
been reduced after the revelations of emails lately.
Understood. It is the __attribution__ that you are questioning. In
many cases, it's worth keeping that in view. Not __everything__ in
the world is 100% due to humans.
where warmingists are often making shaky assumptions.
Thing is, there's tons and tons of other cases. I mean, guys like oldAs you said, climate is averages, but we must look much, much farther
than just 50, 100 or 150 years. As has been discussed here before, there
has for example been homesteading and farming in areas of Greenland that
are now under a thick layer of ice. Of course that is an inconvenient
truth for warmingists. Bill might claim that Exxon-Mobil has gone there
in the dead of night, drilled holes, dropped some Viking tools and
artefacts down those holes and then poured water back into them
Those cases have been addressed in the literature. I've read a few
and felt those I saw were reasoned as well as my ignorance allowed me
to determine and didn't overstate or understate the cases. I can
track down more and we can read them together, if you are interested
in reading more comprehensively on these specifics. At that point,
I'd probably take what you said afterwards as a much more serious
criticism.
Oetzi was for sure not doing a glacier hike just for the fun of it. He
was probably hunting on fertile grounds that were ice-free, and then
from what archaeologists have determined killed if not murdered up there.
[...]
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.