Global warming

[Pipirr]

Why, if the planet is getting warmer, would some of the glaciers show a rather dramatic advance?

I'm really trying to understand how warmer = more ice ...

Here's some background from the publication in Science:

Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records
Johannes Hans Oerlemans 1

1 Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University

A temperature history for different parts of the world has been constructed from 169 glacier length records. Using a first-order theory of glacier dynamics, changes in glacier length were related to changes in temperature. The derived temperature histories are fully independent of proxy and instrumental data used in earlier reconstructions. Moderate global warming started in the middle of the 19th century. The reconstructed warming in the first half of the 20th century is 0.5 K. This warming was remarkably coherent over the globe. The warming signals from glaciers at low and high elevations appear to be very similar.

Some commentary from statured climate scientists:

From the compilations of World Glacier Monitoring Service (and many other groups and individuals), we know that glacier retreat is in fact an essentially global phenomenon, with only a few isolated (and well understood) counter-examples, such as western Norway.

Diogenes, in the study some of the glaciers showed 'a rather dramatic advance' but most of them do not. The ones that do are the exceptions, for "well understood" reasons. For the rest, it was possible to identify "warming signals from glaciers at low and high elevations".

One of the counter examples from that figure is the Franz-Josef glacier in NZ.

The glacier is currently 12 km long and terminates 19 km from the Tasman Sea. It exhibits a cyclic pattern of advance and retreat, driven by differences between the volume of meltwater at the foot of the glacier and volume of snowfall feeding the névé.

Having retreated several kilometres between the 1940s and 1980s, the glacier entered an advancing phase in 1984 and at times has advanced at the phenomenal (by glacial standards) rate of 70 cm a day. The flow rate is about 10 times that of typical glaciers. Over the longer term, the glacier has retreated since the last ice age, and it is believed that it extended into the sea some 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.

From the description, it is an atypical glacier.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

From the description, it is an atypical glacier.

Of course it is ..

Looks like several in the chart were atypical ...

Retreating since the last ice age ... Hmmmm.. Who would have guessed ?

 

[mhaze]

Can you point me in the direction of the evidence for a 60-80 year sea ice cycle?

Sure. Here are just two references, one is from an interview in the Scotsman of the arctic climatologist Dr. Chad Dick. The fisherman's guide IMHO much more interested but you be the judge. There are lots of more (technical, peer reviewed) references and this is well known - the newspapers shouting "Alarm" simply are not telling the public about it.

The short story is that the low arctic ice is a good sign because it means the end of the cycle is near and ice will start going up, with climate getting cooler in some areas - those affected by these issues. Note that Dr. Dick does not say his work shows no AGW, he simply says that if the sea ice goes down and does not come back, that would be due to AGW.

In other words, the next few years and the sea ice would tell you pretty conclusively if there was any AGW at all.... Smart guy, that scientist. Discusses all sides of the issue quite intelligently.

But first the fish story.

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e00.pdf
Climate Change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches: The ppossibility of forecasting. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper #410 (UN Document, seems mostly Russian scientists).

From Chapter 3.

Commercial fish catches shows R=0.84 correlation between Californian sardine and the ACI (Atmospheric Circulation Index), and R=0.68 for the Japanese sardine. Pacific salmon R=0.82, Peruvian sardine 0.90, R=0.85 Chilien Jack Mackeral and others are similar.

The ACI index exhibits regular, roughly 30 year, alternation of the "circulation epochs" characterized by predominance of either zonal or meridional components. These epochs correspond to the periods of either global warming or global cooling...maximum production of seven of the twelve major commercial species fall on the "warm" period, whereas the production of the remaining 5 species is in good agreement with the "cool" period.

Regular alternation of the epochs for the last 110 years suggests that the present epoch of "zonal" circulation is coming into its final phase and the new "meridional" epoch is due....recent data confirm this viewpoint. The population of Atlantic (and Pacific) herring has already started to rise.


Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be a natural cycle

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-04-21/polar.htm

Wed 9 Mar 2005
IAN JOHNSTON
THE melting of sea ice at the North Pole may be the result of a centuries-old natural cycle and not an indicator of man-made global warming, Scottish scientists have found.
After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature. The finding opens the possibility that the recent worrying changes in Arctic sea ice are simply the result of standard cyclical movements, and not a harbinger of major climate change.

The amount of sea ice is currently near its lowest point in the cycle and should begin to increase within about five years. As a result, Dr Chad Dick, a Scottish scientist working at the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromso, believes the next five to ten years will be a critical period in our understanding of sea ice and the impact, if any, of long-term global warming. Concern has been expressed recently that animals such as polar bears could become extinct because sea ice is disappearing. The new research by Dr Dick and a colleague, Dr Dimitry Divine, gives rise to hopes the melting will stop soon.

However, Dr Dick warned that if the ice carried on melting, it would mean that man-made global warming had disrupted the natural process - with potentially disastrous results. He said: "Cycles of 60 to 80 years have been identified before in atmospheric temperature records in the Arctic. The old records that we recovered from ships’ logs and other sources may show that similar cycles are present in sea ice.

"I’ve this gut feeling that within ten years from now we’ll know for certain whether we’re losing sea ice long term or whether it’s coming back.
"If it doesn’t come back it shows we are in serious trouble. Sea ice has a whole lot of effects on climate and it is pretty important."

 

[mhaze]

Where is the advance that would correlate with the little ice age?

Do not expect the chart from Realclimate to show that. That would refute their basis for existence. They are only showing recent measurements during the time frame in which we came out of the little ice age.

Note that "coming out of the little ice age" of course we expect the planet to warm up slightly - that is just saying the same thing twice, right? The question is whether AUP's chart illustrates AGW, as asserted and whether, as stated, it shows an "accelerating trend".

I don't see that at all. Two people can look at the same ink blot and one sees an ink blot, the other a rabbit.

Actual numerical data is used to solve a problem of this sort. Going from memory here, total glacial mass loss was in the -450 cu km to + 150 cu km with a confidence level of 95%. We could take the midpoint there and agree that 300 cu km was being lost per year, but that actually isn't what the scientists say. They state the range and say it is 95% certain it is somewhere within that range.

Back to the question that AUP attempted to answer with this chart - does it show an "accelerating trend in glacier loss" that is obviously due to AWP?

If so, please substantiate that. Don't just say it is obvious from looking at the chart.

 

[varwoche]

Note that Dr. Dick does not say his work shows no AGW, he simply says that if the sea ice goes down and does not come back, that would be due to AGW ... Smart guy, that scientist. Discusses all sides of the issue quite intelligently.

I hope you noticed what your esteemed scientist said:

We know there is warming and that it’s caused by humans

 

[mhaze]

I hope you noticed what your esteemed scientist said:

Unlike you I have no fundamentalist, alarmist belief set that constricts what or who I quote or consider a reputable scientists.

By the way, neither you nor AUP have taken me up on my rather generous offer to abstain from mentioning or quoting 3 aggravating sources. I am concerned that you may have missed this.

I'd pick ones that if they were engaged in business development and promotion, and used the same tactics, would be behind bars.

Your chance - either take my offer, or expect to see references to and from Idso, Daly, and co2science as and when appropriate.

Your choice. Want to know whom my picks would be?

 

[varwoche]

The burden of proof that the world will not end tommorrow is not on the one that says the world will not end tomorrow, but on the one that says it will.

Seeing as I'm unaware of a climate scientist who says the world is ending tomorrow, nor have I seen posts here that say the world is ending tomorrow, when you complain incessantly about AGW alarmism and you bandy about alarmistic straw in the process, it's a curious thing to behold.

 

[mhaze]

Seeing as I'm unaware of a climate scientist who says the world is ending tomorrow, nor have I seen posts here that say the world is ending tomorrow, when you complain incessantly about AGW alarmism and you bandy about alarmistic straw in the process, it's a curious thing to behold.

Let's rephrase the argument then, which was addressed to AUP, not a climate scientist, by the way.

The burden of proof that there is a problem that requires action, that urgent action is required, that taxation and penalties on business and individuals worldwide is required, and that said taxation and penalties will effect a solution to said problem, is upon the one that asserts that there is a problem, that urgency is required, that taxation and penalties on business and individuals worldwide is required, and that said taxation and penalties will effect a solution to said problem.

The short story? You believe and want A,B,C,D, you prove A, B, C, D.

(We are probably all skeptics on D...)

 

[Pipirr]

Let's rephrase the argument then, which was addressed to AUP, not a climate scientist, by the way.

The burden of proof that there is a problem that requires action, that urgent action is required, that taxation and penalties on business and individuals worldwide is required, and that said taxation and penalties will effect a solution to said problem, is upon the one that asserts that there is a problem, that urgency is required, that taxation and penalties on business and individuals worldwide is required, and that said taxation and penalties will effect a solution to said problem.

The short story? You believe and want A,B,C,D, you prove A, B, C, D.

(We are probably all skeptics on D...)

Are you banging on about taxation again?

Why not take it to the politics or business sections. You might actually get a response to it over there.

 

[a_unique_person]

Of course it is ..

Looks like several in the chart were atypical ...

Retreating since the last ice age ... Hmmmm.. Who would have guessed ?

Look at the rate of retreat, it accelerates after CO2 starts accumulating. If you can't see an overall trend, I don't know why.

 

[a_unique_person]

Let's rephrase the argument then, which was addressed to AUP, not a climate scientist, by the way.

The burden of proof that there is a problem that requires action, that urgent action is required, that taxation and penalties on business and individuals worldwide is required, and that said taxation and penalties will effect a solution to said problem, is upon the one that asserts that there is a problem, that urgency is required, that taxation and penalties on business and individuals worldwide is required, and that said taxation and penalties will effect a solution to said problem.

The short story? You believe and want A,B,C,D, you prove A, B, C, D.

(We are probably all skeptics on D...)

Read the IPCC report. It's all in there.

 

[CapelDodger]

Are you banging on about taxation again?

We may not think taxation is scientific, and for good reason, but mhaze thinks it is, for what passes for good reason in his mind.

Why not take it to the politics or business sections. You might actually get a response to it over there.

Nobody ever died from lack of response in the Politics forum .

 

[CapelDodger]

Looks like several in the chart were atypical ...

Several out of how many?

 

[CapelDodger]

Let's rephrase the argument then ...

Tell it like it is; lets retreat to yet another indefensible position.

 

[Pipirr]

Nobody ever died from lack of response in the Politics forum .

Heck yeah. I'd bring popcorn

 

[CapelDodger]

Seeing as I'm unaware of a climate scientist who says the world is ending tomorrow, nor have I seen posts here that say the world is ending tomorrow, when you complain incessantly about AGW alarmism and you bandy about alarmistic straw in the process, it's a curious thing to behold.

It has a peculiar fascination, doesn't it?

mhaze seems to have (probably unwittingly) taken on, or been gifted with, the role of point-man in this foray. Expendable, and emerging from the jungle like a Japanese Imperial soldier, in about 2025. Dazed and confused.

 

[mhaze]

Are you banging on about taxation again?

Why not take it to the politics or business sections. You might actually get a response to it over there.

If you are referring to the Bush bashing, war-bashing, and various other things I agree. However....

The IPCC documents are intimately interwoven with economic analysis. In implementation that means tax and fine, cap and trade, and the like. Regulation and taxation is proposed to achieve a goal of reduction of atmospheric CO2 content. These are inseparable.

Going to the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

The very essence of this is development of "scenarios", each with certain economic model assumptions. These are labeled B1, A1T, B2, A1B, A2, and A1F1. Each of these has -

• a predicted temperature change "likely range" and a predicted "sea level rise".
• a "storyline" with specific economic development and technological infrastructure presumed for various regional areas of the world.
• various attempts (or lack of) to cope with various greenhouse gas scenarios that develop as a result of that "world model".

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/089.htm

It is in the area of economics you find the actual work, and actual answers - to assertions like these which are often made here -

• "we must take action now"
• "urgent action is required"
• "cap and trade emissions programs" will or will not work
• what optimum levels per ton of CO2 would produce the desired results

Here are a few examples of current - thought in these areas. Note that we have some history (of failure) of Kyoto, so this is not as speculative as it was a decade ago.

Keller et al 2007 Environmental Research Letters "The regrets of procrastination in climate policy"


"Is the world waiting too long to start serious action to abate CO2 emissions?"
The regrets increase with increasing procrastination period and with decreasing limits on global mean temperature increase.

Pielke, Roger Jr., 2007 Science Direct "Mistreatment of the economic impacts of extreme events in the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change."

(the Stern Report) "overestimates propagate through the report's estimate of future global losses...a more comprehensive analysis underscores the importance of adaptation in any comprehensive portfolio of responses"

Nordhaus 2007 The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy


Nordhaus establishes that for $13 trillion in economic benefits from abating CO2 (using some middle of the road presumptions about the effects of CO2) to cost $17 trillion. Therefore, he argues that doing nothing or doing careful adaptive strategies would be better on a cost benefits basis than massive implementation of Kyoto type plans.

Nordhaus, 2007 - The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change


"....the (Stern) Review's unambiguous conclusions about the need for extreme immediate action will not survive the substitution of assumptions that are consistent with today's marketplace real interest rates and savings rates.....Hence the central questions about global warming policy - how much, how fast, and how costly - remain open. The (Stern) Review informs but does not answer these fundamental questions.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Look at the rate of retreat, it accelerates after CO2 starts accumulating.

Except where the ice is advancing ..

And yes, I would expect the glaciers to show an overall trend of retreating after an ice age has ended ..

You would have to show that man made CO2 is the main culprit, if that is your claim.

 

[mhaze]

Look at the rate of retreat, it accelerates after CO2 starts accumulating. If you can't see an overall trend, I don't know why.

What year about is that, AUP, where you see the accelerating trend start?

We are either mis communicating on this, or it actually is a case of different people looking at an inkblot and one seeing an inkblot, and the other a rabbit.

 

[Pipirr]

The IPCC documents are intimately interwoven with economic analysis. In implementation that means tax and fine, cap and trade, and the like. Regulation and taxation is proposed to achieve a goal of reduction of atmospheric CO2 content. These are inseparable.

Nope. The evidence of climate change, the evidence for global warming, these are scientific issues. They can be kept completely separate from the economics, if you were so minded.

Perhaps you would be amazed by how many papers in climatology don't segue into discussions of cap and trade?

If you really want to discuss the economics, take it elsewhere. Seriously, if you genuinely want to discuss that aspect, start a thread in politics or business. I would expect that you would get a lively debate.