Get with the program!
"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, an assistant professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who led a team studying Shasta's glaciers. "These glaciers seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean."
Except the ocean seems to be cooling, at least lately.
One of the signs of a conspiracy theorist is that every bit of evidence, even counterevidence, is spun to support the theory.
Except the ocean seems to be cooling, at least lately.
Not on the time scale of the article that you quoted, it hasn't. The article talked about the trend in ice on Mount Shasta in the past 50 years or more. The oceans certainly have warmed on that time scale, even though they gave up a tiny fraction of their century of gains in the past two years.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A4.lrg.gif
You can put a happy face on just about anything by using the wrong scale. Oil "seems to be cooling lately" too --- this week it fell from $140 to $135.
So there, that's a sign that the run on oil is just a conspiracy theory. (Not.)
So, you're saying that there is no correlation between ocean temperature and Shasta glacier growth?
More evidence for the theory!
No, I'm saying that your reading of the article is bogus. No one is spinning Mount Shasta to support "the theory". There isn't any "program" for Shasta to "get with". All of that is just your invention.
It's an observed fact that the Western US warmed in the past 50 years. Tulaczyk wants to know why ice expanded on one particular mountain in a warming region. The man is studying Mount Shasta, not global warming. If Tulaczyk were studying global warming, which he isn't, then he would look at all glaciers, not just those on Mount Shasta. As the article says, 90% of the world's mountain glaciers are shrinking.
Jim claims:
The man is studying Mount Shasta, not global warming. If Tulaczyk were studying global warming, which he isn't, then he would look at all glaciers, not just those on Mount Shasta.
In other words, an anomaly is understandable, but certainly its best to ignore the hypothesis that the Mt. Shasta glaciers are expanding due to higher levels of humidity from the nearby warming ocean. Cause the corollary to that hypothesis is that cooling oceans would create dryer climates which would reduce glacier size. It's better to look at satellite photos, develop complex and confusing models, and then guess about the actual mechanics going on at a macro-level rather than test such theories at the micro-level, where anomalies could occur and require explanation.
Oh, it's like BDS.
In other words, an anomaly is understandable, but certainly its best to ignore the hypothesis that the Mt. Shasta glaciers are expanding due to higher levels of humidity from the nearby warming ocean.
No, those are your words. No one should ignore the hypothesis that Mount Shasta's ice expanded due to extra humidity. That is one way that ice sometimes expands in the midst of warming.
Cause the corollary to that hypothesis is that cooling oceans would create dryer climates which would reduce glacier size.
No, there is no such corollary for most glaciers, because what Tulaczyk is studying is only happening to a few glaciers. As the article says, most mountain glaciers are receding. And, as the article explains, even Mount Shasta's ice trend has limits. If there is too much warming, then there won't be enough extra humidity, or the extra humidity will wash away the ice instead of expanding it.
It's better to look at satellite photos, develop complex and confusing models
If the question is global warming, then it is a very good idea to look at the whole globe with satellites. No, their photos aren't all that complex or confusing. Now models at all levels also have their place and they have to be as complex as what they are modeling. But Tulaczyk's work is a local answer to a local question.
Has anyone ever studied the effects of liberal, hot air generator like Jim Harris? His two main products are CO2 and BS.
That has to have a destructive net effect on the planet.
Hey Jim, I have a question for you.
If the Earth is warming, why was nearly 4/5ths of state temperature records set prior to 1950 instead of after say Hansons phantasmorgorical year of warming 1998?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001416.html
Mike: perhaps because the period over which records were kept prior to 1950 is considerably longer than the ten years since 1998? This was a longer time period over which improbable outliers could occur. If the standard deviation of the annual temperature at any given location is sufficiently large, compared to the mean global warming being claimed, then the behavior you mock would be expected.
Mocked with good reason.
Seems those records don't go back past the mid-1800's, you make it sound like it has gone back hundreds of years.
Yet 75+% of those high temps occured within the first two thirds of that time span. The part that predated the whole anthropogenic global warming spiel.
Considering our current monitoring efforts from an historic perspective, there should be a noted shift in favor of the last 50 years. Yet there is not, if anything, it's the opposite.
Do you really think the number of and sampling frequency of temperature monitoring stations were greater in 1850 than 1950?
If the Earth is warming, why was nearly 4/5ths of state temperature records set prior to 1950
Because the United States isn't the Earth, and because record highs aren't averages. North America had a record heat wave in the summer of 1936, which is the year in which 14 states set temperature records that still stand. But North America is less than 5% of the Earth's surface area, and the summer of 1936 is less than 1% of the temperature record since 1900. Global warming is a century-long trend, not one hot summer.
If you care to see the whole elephant instead of just half of one ear, you should look here.
> Western US warmed in the past 50 years.
> But North America is less than 5%
In other words, north american temperatures are relevant if they support the global warming hypothesis but not if they don't.
Mr. Harris is quite gullible and he can recite, or cut 'n' paste, the Hansen script quite well.
Gistemp, huh? Try RSS or UAH or HadCRuT.
Gistemp has been adjusted, spindled, folded and otherwise mutilated beyond belief.There are serious questions raised about the methods to do this. Take a look at www.climateaudit.org and www.surfacestations.org(the latter raises interesting questions about the data collection).
In other words, north american temperatures are relevant if they support the global warming hypothesis but not if they don't.
No, those are your words and not mine. North American temperatures are 5% of the picture either way.
Gistemp, huh? Try RSS or UAH or HadCRuT.
Okay, fine, HadCruT and more HadCruT. Just like GISS, it shows a century of global warming.
Take a look at www.climateaudit.org and www.surfacestations.org
I did. Where would climatology be without a TV weatherman such as Anthony Watts and a mining executive such as Stephen McIntyre? As you might expect, it would be about where it is with them. Occasionally they have a useful criticism --- but it's a lot easier to criticize science than to do any yourself.
Where was Jim Harris, when the continent-spanning glacier that covered the piece of terrain I'm typing from right now (Piedmont, NC) melted and receded?
It was Bush's fault for not ratifying Kyoto, I'm sure of it...
The United States has some of the best-quality and most complete surface temperature records since 1900. For much of the rest of the world, the story is nowhere near as good. Such things as site metadata and urbanization corrections may be incomplete or missing altogether. Having a larger database is of decidedly reduced benefit if it's plagued with uncorrected systematic errors.
"If you care to see the whole elephant instead of just half of one ear, you should look here."
Would that be the same GISS database where the March 2008 temperature readings caused the temperatures for 1946 and 1903 to drop?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964
Talk about rewriting history...
"Where would climatology be without a TV weatherman such as Anthony Watts and a mining executive such as Stephen McIntyre? As you might expect, it would be about where it is with them."
Typical ad-hom. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Personalization_of_issues
No, those are your words and not mine. North American temperatures are 5% of the picture either way.
Actually Jim, he quoted you accurately. You started your rebuttal debate with a comment:
It's an observed fact that the Western US warmed in the past 50 years.
Mike Puckett's response asked if this is true then why were 4/5th of the state's record set prior to 1950?
Let me know when we get to the world, because I thought the US Western states is actually a subset smaller than Mike Puckett's states, which you claim don't matter because it's too small a sample.
Mike Puckett's response asked if this is true then why were 4/5th of the state's record set prior to 1950?
First, Andy Freeman's question was misaligned with reality: The Western US did warm on average in the past 50 years, but no considers that, by itself, much evidence for global warming. As I said, that inference is his invention. It is, however, the relevant data for studying ice on Mount Shasta.
Second, the observed warming trend in the Western US from 1950 to 2007 does not contradict Mike Puckett's trivia-minded comment about records high temperatures, because: (1) record highs aren't averages, and (2) a record set before 1950 has nothing to do with the trend from 1950 to 2007.
If that explanation sounds subtle, here is an analogy:
Reasonable person: Annual car thefts in Nebraska generally went up from 1950 to 2007.
Mike Puckett: There were a record 14 car thefts in Omaha on August 20, 1936! How do you explain that?
Reasonable person: By waiting until you admit that 1936 isn't between 1950 and 2007, and a one-day record isn't an annual trend?
Andy Freeman: Gotcha! You're eager to accept evidence in favor of an increase in car thefts, but not evidence against.
Reasonable person: No, you're eager to compare apples to oranges.
> but no considers that, by itself, much evidence for global warming
Oh really? Let's see three cites of an AGW supporter saying, previous to it becoming known that the 10 hottest years weren't recent, that records weren't relevant. It is, after all, trivial to find cites to AGW supporters saying that the opposite, that the "fact" that the 10 hottest years were recent "proved" global warming.
So all is fine when you get to set the time frame you consider reasonable. Well then, I select the range from 1998 to 2008. 1950 doesn't make sense then, because that was 58 years before. No, Jim, can't complain about that, because you threw out data only 14 years previous to that, so why can't I throw out data 50 years prior to mine?
Oh, you say 58 years is a better representation sample than only 10 years? Ok then, how about 75 years, 1933 to 2008. Let's use that then?
So all is fine when you get to set the time frame you consider reasonable
It's not that I think that a 100-year time frame is reasonable, it's that that time frame is actually relevant to the question. Industrialization takes a century. Carbon dioxide hangs in the atmosphere for most of a century. It takes decades to melt glaciers, and (fortunately) longer than that to melt Greenland and Antarctica. So a grab bag of local heat waves was never really the point; it was always about the 100-year trend.
The annual global average temperature is relevant, because that is just enough averaging to see the pattern if you graph a full century. A five-year moving average is better though.
Ok then, how about 75 years, 1933 to 2008. Let's use that then?
2008 is only half of a year so far. If you take the last full year, the temperature anomaly (relative to the average from 1951 to 1980) was -0.17C in 1933 and +0.57C in 2007. Five-year moving averages would be better, but one-year averages serve to make the point. The planet warmed up from 1933 to 2007; why do you care about 1933 in particular?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Cute - the only allowable time frame is one that includes industrialization.
If there's warming in that time frame, then industrialization has to have caused it. Except that no, other things also happened during said time frame, so why not blame them?
Unless you're willing to admit more time frames, there's no more reason to blame industrialization than there is to blame the invention of pizza.
Nope, not pizza, bikinis. Bikinis made warm weather more valuable so the producers increased the supply.