More research debunks GW claims

[Stinger]

Experts question theory on global warming
Experts question theory on global warming : HindustanTimes.com

"Believe it or not. There are only about a dozen scientists working on 9,575 glaciers in India under the aegis of the Geological Society of India. Is the available data enough to believe that the glaciers are retreating due to global warming?

Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.

He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on the spot research.

Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.

It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina claimed. Throwing a gauntlet to the alarmist, he said the issue should be debated threadbare before drawing a conclusion."................

Maintaining that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes, witnessed periodically, he said recent studies in the Gangotri and Zanskar areas (Drung- Drung, Kagriz glaciers) have not shown any evidence of major retreat.


So much for the consensus.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Well, one can base their views on Global Warming and glacial retreat off of an OP/Ed in the Hindustan Times. Or, one can look at the peer reviewed science on this issue:

[SIZE=+2] Abrupt tropical climate change: Past and present

[/SIZE] Lonnie G. Thompson*, Ellen Mosley-Thompson*, Henry Brecher, Mary Davis, Blanca León, Don Les, Ping-Nan Lin, Tracy Mashiotta, and Keith Mountain

*Byrd Polar Research Center and Departments of

Geological Sciences and

Geography, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210; ¶Herbarium, Plant Resources Center, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712; ||Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269; and **Department of Geography and Geosciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292
Contributed by Lonnie G. Thompson, May 12, 2006


Three lines of evidence for abrupt tropical climate change, both past and present, are presented. First, annually and decadally averaged

18O and net mass-balance histories for the last 400 and 2,000 yr, respectively, demonstrate that the current warming at high elevations in the mid- to low latitudes is unprecedented for at least the last 2 millennia. Second, the continuing retreat of most mid- to low-latitude glaciers, many having persisted for thousands of years, signals a recent and abrupt change in the Earth’s climate system. Finally, rooted, soft-bodied wetland plants, now exposed along the margins as the Quelccaya ice cap (Peru) retreats, have been radiocarbon dated and, when coupled with other widespread proxy evidence, provide strong evidence for an abrupt mid-Holocene climate event that marked the transition from early Holocene (pre-5,000-yr-B.P.) conditions to cooler, late Holocene (post-5,000-yr-B.P.) conditions. This abrupt event,

5,200 yr ago, was widespread and spatially coherent through much of the tropics and was coincident with structural changes in several civilizations. These three lines of evidence argue that the present warming and associated glacier retreat are unprecedented in some areas for at least 5,200 yr. The ongoing global-scale, rapid retreat of mountain glaciers is not only contributing to global sea-level rise but also threatening freshwater supplies in many of the world’s most populous regions.

Read more here: Inaugural Article: Abrupt tropical climate change: Past and present -- Thompson et al. 103 (28): 10536 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

 

[Stinger]

Well, one can base their views on Global Warming and glacial retreat off of an OP/Ed in the Hindustan Times.

Written by one of the few experts who are on the scene studying them.

Or we can use the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory

" BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 13 (UPI) -- A U.S. study suggests two of Greenland's largest glaciers are melting at variable rates and not at an increasing trend."

BREITBART.COM - Study: Glacier melting can be variable

Peer reviewed when it comes to GW depends on who the peers are.

So much for the claimed consensus.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Written by one of the few experts who are on the scene studying them.

Or we can use the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory

" BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 13 (UPI) -- A U.S. study suggests two of Greenland's largest glaciers are melting at variable rates and not at an increasing trend."

BREITBART.COM - Study: Glacier melting can be variable

Peer reviewed when it comes to GW depends on who the peers are.

So much for the claimed consensus.

Did you even read the article?

From the article:

"Our main point is that the behavior of these glaciers can change a lot from year to year, so we can't assume to know the future behavior from short records of recent changes," he said. "Future warming may lead to rapid pulses of retreat and increased discharge rather than a long, steady drawdown."

This exactly what many scientists have been warning us about. The IPCC in its latest Assessment very conservatively estimates sea level rise by estimating that the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica will melt at a slow steady rate. There have been serveral studies over the last couple of years like this one that indicate that the ice caps could remain stable for periods of times, then rapidly melt for a period, then stabilize for a time again. Thus, sea level rise could be a good bit more rapid than the IPCC is conservatively estimating it will be.

 

[Stinger]

Did you even read the article?

Yes, did you read the operative word? "may". They don't know, there is no consensus. The GW chicken littles who point to the glaciers recent history are dealing in folly. Couple that with the first article I cite. There is no consensus.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Yes, did you read the operative word? "may". They don't know, there is no consensus. The GW chicken littles who point to the glaciers recent history are dealing in folly. Couple that with the first article I cite. There is no consensus.

There is no concensus as to whether future warming will lead to a steady drawdown of the ice caps, or to rapid melting cycles.

No one thinks that future warming will not lead to melting though. The fact that there is no concensus on whether future warming will lead to a steady drawdown of the ice caps, or to rapid melting cycles, is why the IPCC went with the more conservative estimates of a steady drawdown.

So I am not sure what your point is. Either way it seems that you are wrong.

 

[Stinger]

There is no concensus as to whether future warming will lead to a steady drawdown of the ice caps, or to rapid melting cycles.

There's no consensus on future warming and catastrophic GW.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

There's no consensus on future warming and catastrophic GW.

If that is your contention, then nothing you have posted so far supports it.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I'd like to recommend a Global Warming Subset within Environment.

 

[Stinger]

If that is your contention, then nothing you have posted so far supports it.

Actually it has.

 

[StrawHat]

I don't understand. Why so invested in disproving global warming? What harm can possibly come from taking steps to help the environment? Just because a few scientists think global warming doesn't exist, it doesn't make the vast majority of the scientific community wrong. Even if it turned out to be a hoax, why would it be a bad thing to take steps towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the like?

 

[talloulou]

I don't understand. Why so invested in disproving global warming? What harm can possibly come from taking steps to help the environment? Just because a few scientists think global warming doesn't exist, it doesn't make the vast majority of the scientific community wrong. Even if it turned out to be a hoax, why would it be a bad thing to take steps towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the like?

It's not a bad thing. I'm all for improving the environment. However I'm not sure we should sign treaties and what not that could potentially cripple our economy when climate change may be something that we have little to no abiltiy to influence or change.