Glacier melting hysteria

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Sep 10, 2018.

  1. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not only were they wrong about Himalayan glaciers vanishing, the glaciers are actually growing. You really can't get more wrong than that.

    "The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded."

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake
     
  2. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed I do. There is an agenda bring pushed here and it is decidedly pro AGW.
     
  3. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The LIA wasn't a cataclysm, it was just climate. History shows us these glaciers have grown and shrunk countless times. It's "normal" for the Earth's climate to vary a couple of degrees.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2018
  4. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Scientist still debate what caused the LIA and the "current concensus" has changed several times over the last decades and likely will change again.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2018
  5. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, that's not the question. The question is how the hell we'd ever know how well they represent the rest without measuring the rest.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  6. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree. That is a good question. If it's like how the rest of the scientific community handles proxy data then they could spot test the population at random but on regular intervals to make sure the proxy really is doing it's job. So you tell me. Do they do that or not? It's serious question because really don't know. This your guy's opportunity to educate me. I'm all ears.
     
  7. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What the scientific consensus before it changed?
     
  8. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great. How much error is introduced by sampling a subset of the population in this particular case?
     
  9. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How the heck should I know? I'm not the one saying there's even any point to collecting all this data in the first place. I'm just saying if you're gonna claim your assertions are based on observations, you need to have some idea of what's actually being observed.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  10. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This was the concensus for many years.

    "The Little Ice Age was caused by the cooling effect of massive volcanic eruptions, and sustained by changes in Arctic ice cover, scientists conclude. An international research team studied ancient plants from Iceland and Canada, and sediments carried by glaciers.Jan 30, 2012
    Volcanic origin for Little Ice Age - BBC News - BBC.com

    Howerver there were other theorirs and scientist still debate just when the LIA started.


    "The Little Ice Age is the name for a period of widespread cooling on Earth. Scientists don’t agree on when it started and ended, but it’s generally agreed to have lasted into the 19th century. Its beginning point is less certain. Still, it’s known that northern Europe felt cooling temperatures. Advancing glaciers in mountain valleys destroyed European towns. Paintings from the 1600s depict people ice-skating on the Thames River in London and on canals in the Netherlands, places that were ice-free before and after the Little Ice Age. Places as far away as South America and China might also have cooled. Scientists don’t know exactly what caused the Little Ice Age – but there are theories.

    A recent theory came in early 2012. It’s the idea that an unusual, 50-year-long episode of four massive tropical volcanic eruptions triggered the Little Ice Age between 1275 and 1300 A.D.

    Those dates might correspond with the beginning of the Little Ice Age, which might have begun as early as the 13th century. Meanwhile, others say the beginning was more like the 16th century.

    Their results are in contrast to the work of other scientists who contend that decreased radiation from the sun is what caused the Little Ice Age. Their study was published in January 2012 in Geophysical Research Letters."

    "Bottom line: What caused the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling that’s generally agreed to have ended in the 19th century. One idea is that decreased radiation from the sun caused this period of widespread cooling on Earth. In early 2012, scientists at University of Colorado Boulder with co-authors at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and other organizations announced evidence suggesting that volcanoes caused the Little Ice Age. They used radiocarbon-dating of samples of dead plant material, collected from high northern latitudes, in combination with a computer model, to show that four massive volcanoes could have triggered the widespread cooling. Their study was being published in Geophysical Research Letters in January 2012."

    http://earthsky.org/earth/volcanoes-might-have-triggered-the-little-ice-age

    "The cause of the Little Ice Age is not known for certain; however, climatologists contend that reduced solar output, changes in atmospheric circulation, and explosive volcanism may have played roles in bringing about and extending the phenomenon"

    https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age


    The really funny part here is see are supposed to believe scientist today that say they know for certain the planet is warming now and know for certain that man is the cause but they are still confused on when the LIA started, what caused it and when it ended. Who are they trying to BS here?

     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2018
  11. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmm...you're posting a lot of information here that is suggesting that the LIA was caused by a combination of volcanism and reduced solar radiation. My question was...before scientists thought it was volcanism and solar radiation what other causes (aside from volcanism and solar radiation) did scientists rally around to form a consensus? Again, I'm looking for a change in the consensus where the consensus was a collective agreement based on the abundance of evidence. Remember, one of anything whether it is a person or a single publication does not define the consensus. It is the abundance of evidence that defines the consensus. Consensus is born out of the abundance of evidence.
     
  12. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree. Do you have reason to believe that this isn't the case? Can you show me the smoking gun that scientists were too stupid to figure this out?
     
  13. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmmm, first it was volcanoes then it was sun activity then it was who knows maybe both? Point is scientist don't know or agree on what caused the LIA, when it started or when or why it ended but they can for certain tell us what is causing climate change now.

    Don't want to let you derail the thread here too far though. This thread is about glacier melting hysteria and I don't want to see it devolve to the usual debate on agw in general. Fact is glaciers melting now were by and large created or greatly increased in size during the LIA period so their melting is really nothing to be alarmed about.

    Do you at least agree with that?
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2018
  14. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What the hell do you think started this conversation, Sherlock?
     
  15. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The hard data says that theory is wrong, as I demonstrated in the other thread. Current sea level is way above what it was at the beginning of the LIA. Global average temperature is much higher now than it was prior to the LIA.

    Speaking of the LIA, another contributing factor was the drop in CO2 levels. Plague in the old world and old world diseases in the new world decreased the human population, causing vast areas of farmland to go back to forest and jungle. That global reforestation dropped CO2 levels by about 7 ppm, and less CO2 means cooler temperatures.
     
  16. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you're not parroting some big lie that your cult masters fed to you, you can now demonstrate where the IPCC predicted every glacier would shrink. However, as the IPCC said no such thing, you're in a pickle. You repeated a lie you got from a conspiracy blog. However, you lack the integrity to admit that. Hence, you'll have to do some weaseling now. My guess is you'll do that gutless thing where you pout that since I'm being so mean to you by pointing out how badly you acted, it proves how you're right. Please proceed.

    Given your track record, the simplest and most obvious answer to any question you bring up is "you're projecting your own side's flagrant dishonesty on to the ethical people".

    Here's a thought. Do like we do. Look at actual data instead of conspiracy blog cherrypicking. Try this. World glaciers are losing mass. That's not debatable, and it makes your cherrypicking of the 10% of glaciers that are growing look flagrantly dishonest.

    https://wgms.ch/latest-glacier-mass-balance-data/

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2018
    Cosmo likes this.
  17. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your sea level so called data is pure garbage as is your theory on human population causing the LIA but I'd love to see the actual study on that hypothesis. Feel free to post it.
     
  18. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What I said and what you are running from was the IPCC said Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 and instead they have increased in size and volume
     
  19. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, that topic wasn't in the post I responded to. You look to be lying, in a vain attempt to deflect from your failures.

    Now, stop running. What I was responding to was your conspiracy theory about how most glaciers were really growing, but scientists were trying to hide that by cherrypicking just a few glaciers. I shredded that conspiracy theory.

    By the way, can you decide on a single conspiracy theory and stick with it? You keep switching between "glaciers are really growing!" and "glaciers are melting because earth is still recovering from the LIA!". Those two positions contradict each other. You appear to be tossing every bit of crap you can think of at the wall, in the vain hope that something will stick.

    Because you say so? How convincing. I post hard data. You reply with tantrums and conspiracy theories.

    I educate those willing to learn for free. Those actively hostile to learning, such as you, I charge. After all, the Bible instructs me not to cast pearls before swine. If you want private tutoring, you'll need to pay ahead.

    However, for those who do wish to learn, I owe them this for free. Start with the wiki article, and look at the sources it references.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Decreased_human_populations
    ---
    Some researchers have proposed that human influences on climate began earlier than is normally supposed (see Early anthropocene for more details) and that major population declines in Eurasia and the Americas reduced this impact, leading to a cooling trend. William Ruddiman has proposed that somewhat reduced populations of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East during and after the Black Death caused a decrease in agricultural activity. He suggests reforestation took place, allowing more carbon dioxide uptake from the atmosphere, which may have been a factor in the cooling noted during the Little Ice Age. Ruddiman further hypothesizes that a reduced population in the Americas after European contact in the early sixteenth century could have had a similar effect.[91][92] Faust, Gnecco, Mannstein and Stamm (2005),[93] and Nevle (2011)[94] supported depopulation in the Americas as a factor, asserting that humans had cleared considerable amounts of forest to support agriculture in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans brought on a population collapse. A 2008 study of sediment cores and soil samples further suggests that carbon dioxide uptake via reforestation in the Americas could have contributed to the Little Ice Age.[95] The depopulation is linked to a drop in carbon dioxide levels observed at Law Dome, Antarctica.[93]
    ---
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2018
    Cosmo and iamanonman like this.
  20. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll overlook your usual personal attacks and focus on your response to my question about your depopulatiin theory on the cause of the LIA. As I said earlier and often in multiple threads scientist still debate just what caused the LIA and I must thank you for adding yet another hypothesis to the mix thus proving my point that it's rediculous to think AGW is settled science when scientist still debate and hypothesize the cause of the LIA. Thank you for your support.

    Now on the subject of glaciers the IPCC did indeed predict Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 and they have had to retract that prediction. Furthermore and most importantly pertaining to the main subject of this thread, the glaciers melting now were created during the LIA or greatly increased in size during that era and are currently melting to pre LIA levels so glacier melting hysteria is just that, hysteria. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that point.

    Now let's move on to glaciers that are growing as others shrink. The Himalayan glaciers I've already noted but the really interesting ones are the Alaskan calving glaciers that despite the scary pics the warmers put on of calving events are actually growing. Scientist don't know why these particular glaciers shrunk during the LIA and are growing now but again we are supposed to believe they are omnipotent in their current AGW so called settled science. Lots of moving parts here which seems to confuse you but calm down and think it through. You may learn something.
     
  21. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Heat. Kitchens. If you're going to be so consistently insulting, you shouldn't whine about getting it back.

    I never said "cause". Those are your words. I said "contributing factor".

    According to your standard, if we don't know everything about a topic perfectly, we know nothing. Since we don't know everything about gravity, we can't launch rockets.

    Oh wait, you don't say that. You're wildly inconsistent with your standard. You fabricated a special standard so you could apply it only to climate science. Thus, your standard gets laughed at.

    And all scientists disagreed with that prediction. The consensus said it was wrong. The science was good, the IPCC just botched reporting the science there.

    No, that's a big steaming pile. The other thread illustrates that in excruciating detail. Sea levels and temperatures are much higher now than they were at the start of the LIA, so your theory is garbage.

    Your refusal to accept basic reality only makes you look bad.

    After your junk pseudoscience was debunked, you could have just said "oops, you're right". Or, you could have just quietly walked away. It's what a normal person would have done. Learn from your mistakes here. When in a hole, stop digging.

    That's gibberish. You're devolving mentally as you get more hysterical. Don't let your butthurt over me send you into a sanity death spiral. It's just a message board.

    In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be intelligent and informed. So, I can do it. You can't.
     
    Cosmo and iamanonman like this.
  22. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are obviously emotionally invested in this subject to the point where adult rational discussion with you is just not going to happen so ill have to pull the plug on you snowflake. I am in essence sending you to your room like your mom should have done instead of letting you turn into the tantrum thrower you are. Maybe in a year or so I'll take you off ignore and see if you have matured a little. Bye bye..
     

Share This Page