Glacier Bay (1 Viewer)

[Jack Hays]

I was just in Glacier Bay. The answer to this question is an emphatic NO. People who have studied the glaciers, and long-time residents all agree that the glaciers are receding substantially. More GARBAGE from the high-schooler, Watts.

Glacier Bay is in Alaska. Glacier National Park is in Montana. I guess Watts took geography in high school. Did you sleep through that class?:lol:

 

[Jack Hays]

Himalayan Glaciers Have Been Melting For 400 Years, Scientists Discover [link]

 

[Media_Truth]

Alaska "average temperature has increased, because it does not get as cold at night.
The maximum temperature in the summer has actually fallen a bit, at least in August according to NOAA.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

Last time you posted your your Tmax graph, I demonstrated how wrong you were, using the same NOAA data. More falsehoods.

 

[Media_Truth]

No, I'm aware temperatures rise and temperatures fall. Been doing so long before man was around. Ice sheets grow, ice sheets diminish. Temperatures rise, temperatures fall. Nothing new here.

Nothing new?

 

[Media_Truth]

Glacier Bay is in Alaska. Glacier National Park is in Montana. I guess Watts took geography in high school. Did you sleep through that class?:lol:

Then you were OFF-TOPIC, weren't you?

 

[Jack Hays]

Then you were OFF-TOPIC, weren't you?

If you weren't claiming Glacier Bay is part of a wider phenomenon then there is no topic. And you still failed geography, unlike Anthony Watts, who passed.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Himalayan Glaciers Have Been Melting For 400 Years, Scientists Discover [link]

As for their acceleration of melting, why don't we see numbers of the albedo changes from the alarmists?

 

[Jack Hays]

As for their acceleration of melting, why don't we see numbers of the albedo changes from the alarmists?

Inconvenient truth.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Inconvenient truth.

It sure is.

In some areas, we can see a change from around 0.9 to around 0.8 in ice and snow albedo, which if in an average global region would increase the forcing by around 45 W/m^2, but they want to claim our increase of 1.8 W/m^2 by CO2 is melting the ice abnormally?

They time and again deny the realities of real science.

 

[Media_Truth]

If you weren't claiming Glacier Bay is part of a wider phenomenon then there is no topic. And you still failed geography, unlike Anthony Watts, who passed.

Yes, but I have a BS in EE, while Watts has a BS in BS.

 

[Threegoofs]

It sure is.

In some areas, we can see a change from around 0.9 to around 0.8 in ice and snow albedo, which if in an average global region would increase the forcing by around 45 W/m^2, but they want to claim our increase of 1.8 W/m^2 by CO2 is melting the ice abnormally?

They time and again deny the realities of real science.

'They' of course means..... the scientists who actually do the research.

But armchair scientists such as yourself (who are extremely busy posting on multiple forums on multiple computer screens! Hard workin'!) know better.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, but I have a BS in EE, while Watts has a BS in BS.

He seems to know more than you.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, but I have a BS in EE, while Watts has a BS in BS.

Quite frankly, I don't believe you.

Why is three phase power used?

Basic electrical question. Can you explain to the class?

 

[Media_Truth]

Quite frankly, I don't believe you.

Why is three phase power used?

Basic electrical question. Can you explain to the class?

Is this the equivalent of the Republican Birther claims? I make no claims to higher education than a BS, and I certainly owe you nothing. As such, I accept the findings of the highly educated climatologists. These are the same academics who instructed me through undergraduate work. If I ignored their teaching, I wouldn't have gotten very far. But it's the loud, obnoxious, uneducated non-scientists who like to question their work. A bunch of bombastic Rush Limbaughs.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Is this the equivalent of the Republican Birther claims? I make no claims to higher education than a BS, and I certainly owe you nothing. As such, I accept the findings of the highly educated climatologists. These are the same academics who instructed me through undergraduate work. If I ignored their teaching, I wouldn't have gotten very far. But it's the loud, obnoxious, uneducated non-scientists who like to question their work. A bunch of bombastic Rush Limbaughs.

If you have an BS in EE, that is a super simple question for you to answer.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I make no claims to higher education than a BS, and I certainly owe you nothing.

I call BS on your BS, because you think three phase power is a topic higher than a BS...

 

[longview]

Last time you posted your your Tmax graph, I demonstrated how wrong you were, using the same NOAA data. More falsehoods.

The data is the data, the numbers are included on the bottom of the graph.
The summer T-Max temperature in Alaska have not increased much.
The T-Min are where the majority of the changes in "average" temperatures is occurring.
If you want to say otherwise, you need to provide data, to support your case.

 

[Manc Skipper]

He seems to know more than you.

That's Watt's gift. Selling crackpot conspiracies to the credulous. Science, not so much.

 

[jimbo]

Nothing new?

View attachment 67222984

Aside from the fact I have no way of verifying your non attributed post, and the fact that it is not a long term anything, and has nothing to do with Glacier Bay, it proves nothing.

Meanwhile back to the OP. When the bay was first discovered, in the early 1800's, there was no bay, only a small indent in the glacier. (The beginnings of a melt or the cointuation of the retreat from the ice age). When Muir returned in the late 1800's, the glacier had melted back some 40 miles and formed a bay. Since there was nothing there to interest man, virtually no humans had visited the site in he 1800's. So Glacier Bay suggests if not proves that mankind may not have as much to do with this melt as AGWers would like to believe.

 

[Jack Hays]

That's Watt's gift. Selling crackpot conspiracies to the credulous. Science, not so much.

He knew Glacier Bay and Glacier National Park are in two different states. M-T, not so much.

 

[Media_Truth]

The data is the data, the numbers are included on the bottom of the graph.
The summer T-Max temperature in Alaska have not increased much.
The T-Min are where the majority of the changes in "average" temperatures is occurring.
If you want to say otherwise, you need to provide data, to support your case.

OK, I will prove you wrong again, from your own data. After I do, are you going to stop posting these ridiculous Tmax assertions from the NOAA?

From your data, from 1925 to 1975, there are 7 years with a max temperature over 60 deg F - just barely over 60 deg F. From 1975 to 2017 there are 10 years over 60 deg F, with one year over 62 deg F, and one a whopping 64.9 deg F.

 

[longview]

OK, I will prove you wrong again, from your own data. After I do, are you going to stop posting these ridiculous Tmax assertions from the NOAA?

From your data, from 1925 to 1975, there are 7 years with a max temperature over 60 deg F - just barely over 60 deg F. From 1975 to 2017 there are 10 years over 60 deg F, with one year over 62 deg F, and one a whopping 64.9 deg F.

I am not saying that no T-max warming exists, but that the majority of the increase in the "average"
temperature is in the T-Min area.
Display the August T-Max and T-Min, with the trends.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2017
T-Max has a trend of .1 F per decade.
While T-Min has a .2 F per decade trend.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2017

So am I wrong when I say that,
"The T-Min are where the majority of the changes in "average" temperatures is occurring."

 

[Media_Truth]

I am not saying that no T-max warming exists, but that the majority of the increase in the "average"
temperature is in the T-Min area.
Display the August T-Max and T-Min, with the trends.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2017
T-Max has a trend of .1 F per decade.
While T-Min has a .2 F per decade trend.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-...ase=10&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2017

So am I wrong when I say that,
"The T-Min are where the majority of the changes in "average" temperatures is occurring."

NOT. This was your statement in #100.

Alaska "average temperature has increased, because it does not get as cold at night.
The maximum temperature in the summer has actually fallen a bit, at least in August according to NOAA.

I proved this wrong, with your own data.

From your data (August temperatures), from 1925 to 1975, there are 7 years with a max temperature over 60 deg F - just barely over 60 deg F. From 1975 to 2017 there are 10 years over 60 deg F, with one year over 62 deg F, and one a whopping 64.9 deg F.

The problem is that you posted a truth and then a falsehood in #100, in an attempt to water-down the AGW argument.

 

[longview]

NOT. This was your statement in #100.

Alaska "average temperature has increased, because it does not get as cold at night.
The maximum temperature in the summer has actually fallen a bit, at least in August according to NOAA.

I proved this wrong, with your own data.

From your data (August temperatures), from 1925 to 1975, there are 7 years with a max temperature over 60 deg F - just barely over 60 deg F. From 1975 to 2017 there are 10 years over 60 deg F, with one year over 62 deg F, and one a whopping 64.9 deg F.

The problem is that you posted a truth and then a falsehood in #100, in an attempt to water-down the AGW argument.

Since the August 1925 temp was 60.6°F
and the August 2017 temp was 57.2°F,
and the form 2008 until now the August temp has not exceeded the 1925 temp,
yes, one could say it is falling, at least for the last 9 years.
The long term still has a slight warming trend, and I think they like 15 to 30 years before
they can say something is a trend.
As to the AGW argument the measured climate sensitivity to added CO2 is still way below that used in the models.

 

[Media_Truth]

Since the August 1925 temp was 60.6°F
and the August 2017 temp was 57.2°F,
and the form 2008 until now the August temp has not exceeded the 1925 temp,
yes, one could say it is falling, at least for the last 9 years.
The long term still has a slight warming trend, and I think they like 15 to 30 years before
they can say something is a trend.
As to the AGW argument the measured climate sensitivity to added CO2 is still way below that used in the models.

Sure pick out the exact data that you want, and draw your conclusion. Ignore the whopping 65 deg F year. Ignore the 62+ degree year. Both of these in the 21st century. Ignore the fact that in the last 42 years, there have been 10 years with 60+ deg F highs, and prior to that, for 50 years, there were only 7 of those. You made the claim originally, and the data proves it errant.

If you want to move onto CO2 sensitivity, I will be glad to. I know you would like to change the subject. Hint in advance - look at the United States 2014 Climate Assessment, where they discuss the accuracy of the models.