I posted this over at my place too and gave KT a h/t as well. My father and I have been discussing AGW a bit lately, and he was stationed at the embassy in La Paz during some tense times. This might help convince him.

Geez. That is bad. I'd like to think that the deniers would take a lesson from this vid, but I know they won't.

re: #1 Thanos

It is really sad to watch they guy ski the last patch of glacier.

They mentioned that the loss of the ice and the delay of the rainy season has already casued a national emergency. With the melting due to warming, I suspect the next phase will be intense competition for fresh water. It's gonna get really ugly when it comes to water. Oil is nothing compared to that.

re: #2 Dark_Falcon

I know what you're saying. I have several friends who are deniers and it's like they're intentionally deaf. It's amazing.

But... but... where is the consensus on it being gone??

related (sorry if this has been posted before):

Kiliminjaro glacier melt

re: #6 Mark Winter

But... but... where is the consensus on it being gone??

If there no ice sheet left, its gone. This is a matter that will not wait for consensus. Deniers can deny that too, but it still will not wait.

re: #7 windsagio

Likely the Kiliminjaro glacier lost would have happened without AGW. It's one of those cases where one has to be careful about generalizing.

Thanos posted in the spin-offs a better example of AGW and glaciers, from Alaska. Very stunning.

There's a factual in the headline "World's Highest Glacier is Nearly Gone" It's may be the world's highest glacier ski run at 5,300 meters but there are certainly other glaciers higher.

re: #7 windsagio

related (sorry if this has been posted before):

Kiliminjaro glacier melt

Ludwig has spoken about that one before. It looks like AGW is not the primary cause of glacier loss on Kiliminjaro, though it can't be helping matters.

Oh come on, some ice melted, so what, isn't that what Ice does?
///

We are in for much more of this, not only the lack of water for hydropower projects that have been going for decades but also a simple lack of drinking and irrigation water to tens of millions of people. The dislocation of people has already begun, within another ten years it will be in the millions instead of being only tens of thousands.

Hmm...I wonder what lines the deniers will have dreamed up by then to claim that it isn't happening?

re: #8 Dark_Falcon

If there no ice sheet left, its gone.

It's just "resting"

re: #10 Killgore Trout

There's a factual error in the headline "World's Highest Glacier is Nearly Gone" It's may be the world's highest glacier ski run at 5,300 meters but there are certainly other glaciers higher.
/I stink

Wiki has a good page on Glacier retreats - I've seen similar retreats in Alaska since the 1970's.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

So, there I was, signing copies of my latest and amazing book, "Going Rustic", when somebody told me about this huge glacier which is melting somewhere in the Middle East, like Bolivar or something...not too sure but I'm sure we've all seen it on the map someplace in high school, right? And you know, I've looked at all the countries on the world map anyway. They all look so great and come in so many different colors, isn't that just wonderful, the way God's plan just works out?

Anyway, so there it was, melting in the news and I was thinking: heck if ya don't know, I grew up in Alass-ka, dontcha know? And I bet these brainy reporters never grew up around snow. Heck, I betcha they never even seen snow and ice before!

Well, I just got to opening my mouth and lettin' them know something we all grow up with as a fact of God's plan in Alass-ka: Snow melts!

That's what a glacier is made of, yannow? Snow! It melts! Like it's some sorta "big deal" or something! These smart guys who all went to college and learned all those brainy classes about figures and science and stuff, and they can't even get that basic part right! Didn't they all have snow days at one point in time when they were kids? What did they think? The snow lasts forever?? Even in Alass-ka, it melts!

So then I smiled and got back to signing copies of my new book for plain and honest and smater folks who understand this kinda stuff, just like I do!

re: #16 Summer

So, there I was, signing copies of my latest and amazing book, "Going Rustic", when somebody told me about this huge glacier which is melting somewhere in the Middle East, like Bolivar or something...not too sure but I'm sure we've all seen it on the map someplace in high school, right? And you know, I've looked at all the countries on the world map anyway. They all look so great and come in so many different colors, isn't that just wonderful, the way God's plan just works out?

Anyway, so there it was, melting in the news and I was thinking: heck if ya don't know, I grew up in Alass-ka, dontcha know? And I bet these brainy reporters never grew up around snow. Heck, I betcha they never even seen snow and ice before!

Well, I just got to opening my mouth and lettin' them know something we all grow up with as a fact of God's plan in Alass-ka: Snow melts!

That's what a glacier is made of, yannow? Snow! It melts! Like it's some sorta "big deal" or something! These smart guys who all went to college and learned all those brainy classes about figures and science and stuff, and they can't even get that basic part right! Didn't they all have snow days at one point in time when they were kids? What did they think? The snow lasts forever?? Even in Alass-ka, it melts!

So then I smiled and got back to signing copies of my new book for plain and honest and smater folks who understand this kinda stuff, just like I do!

Great Palin impression. You truly sound like someone who can see Russia from their house.

re: #10 Killgore Trout

Yeah, there are many glaciers in the Himalayas (melting, btw.) The Bolivian story is about a glacier that is used for something other than just meltwater.

Another case where famous glaciers are disappearing is in Glacier National Park. The namesakes are going.

re: #16 Summer

You nailed it! ;)

re: #17 Dark_Falcon

Great Palin impression. You truly sound like someone who can see Russia from their house.

I'm blonde, so I can revert and channel her really well sometimes. =)

re: #17 Dark_Falcon

See Russia from their house?
Tina Fey...

From the wikipedia entry for Glacier National Park:

During the middle of the 20th century, examination of the maps and photographs from the previous century provided clear evidence that the 150 glaciers known to have existed in the park a hundred years earlier had greatly retreated, and in many cases disappeared altogether.[21] Repeat photography of the glaciers, such as the pictures taken of Grinnell Glacier between 1938 and 2005 as shown, help to provide visual confirmation of the extent of glacier retreat.

In the 1980s, the U.S. Geological Survey began a more systematic study of the remaining glaciers, which continues to the present day. By 2005, only 27 glaciers remained, and scientists generally agree that if the current global warming continues, all the glaciers in the park will be gone by 2030.[21]

Read earlier today that climate change isn't the only thing damaging the Himalayan glaciers - it's another man-made pollution, black soot, from China and India:

[Link: www.usnews.com...]

The Jaw dropping Pakistan that you never see!

All I can say is that I'm doing a lot of hiking and skiing in the Alps and the glaciers I used to know as a kid are a sorry sight today.

If you scroll through that wikipedia page there are quite a few "then and now" comparison photos, most with GNU, Wikicommons or public domain permissions. You might consider sharing some around.

re: #21 PowerFlip

See Russia from their house?
Tina Fey...

I know, but it perfectly captured the cheerful ignorance that is Sarah Palin.

re: #8 Dark_Falcon

If there no ice sheet left, its gone.

As long as one person remembers, it will live in our hearts!

///

re: #23 KingKenrod
Oh, then we're cool. China and India are bound to get an attack of conscience in the next decade or so and clean up their act.///
Or not.

re: #27 Dark_Falcon

Tina Fey is a stellar example for the fact that a smart woman can play dumb easily.

Palin proves that the opposite is not true

Pfft. Five years off. Can't these scientists get anything right?

///

I don't understand people who don't realize this is a crisis, and don't act like it's a crisis.

It's like living during the Fall of Rome, with everyone denying it until the Visigoths were knocking at the gate and inquiring about hotel vacancies and lootable statues.

re: #24 Racer X

Amazing when you consider what turmoil pakistan constantly goes through that they live in a land as close to Eden as anywhere on our planet. Beautiful vid. Thanks Racer!

re: #32 Obdicut

I don't understand people who don't realize this is a crisis, and don't act like it's a crisis.

It's like living during the Fall of Rome, with everyone denying it until the Visigoths were knocking at the gate and inquiring about hotel vacancies and lootable statues.

Just send them down to the Chamber of Commerce, get them a good hotel with a warm bed and a shower (and accommodations taxes!) and find them a place to get a decent meal, it'll be cool.

Time for me to go, but before I do Kasey Sez "Merry Christmas"

re: #32 Obdicut

I don't understand people who don't realize this is a crisis, and don't act like it's a crisis.

It's like living during the Fall of Rome, with everyone denying it until the Visigoths were knocking at the gate and inquiring about hotel vacancies and lootable statues.

I wish Cato was here to reply that line. Please repost it when he's on the board.

"This is like medical science in the 15th century," David Holland, director of the Center for Atmosphere Ocean Science at New York University, told the AP.

Let's hope he's exaggerating about the 15th century thing...
[Link: www.redorbit.com...]

re: #32 Obdicut

Once again, and I realize I'm becoming a bit of a broken record on this, AGW is too slow for the daily decision-making of the average person. We just don't do long term thinking well. Why should we care about someone 50 years in the future, especially if they are on another continent?

re: #24 Racer XExcellent. Thank you for posting.

re: #22 freetoken

During the middle of the 20th century, examination of the maps and photographs from the previous century provided clear evidence that the 150 glaciers known to have existed in the park a hundred years earlier had greatly retreated, and in many cases disappeared altogether.[21] Repeat photography of the glaciers, such as the pictures taken of Grinnell Glacier between 1938 and 2005 as shown, help to provide visual confirmation of the extent of glacier retreat.
In the 1980s, the U.S. Geological Survey began a more systematic study of the remaining glaciers, which continues to the present day. By 2005, only 27 glaciers remained, and scientists generally agree that if the current global warming continues, all the glaciers in the park will be gone by 2030.[21]

What caused most of the glaciers to retreat or disappear between 1850 and 1950?

re: #38 freetoken

Which indeed is the biggest problem. The frog and hot water thing.

What do y'all have to say about the following? [Link: www.made-in-southamerica.org...]

Seems that the temps are going in the wrong direction for AGW.

re: #31 JasonA

Pfft. Five years off. Can't these scientists get anything right?

///

That is the part that really should be scareing people, that so far the models have consistently predicted smaller changes than those that have actually been observed. Look at the IPCC and their recent revision of the ocean rise estimates, why, because they were starting to look like totally clueless fools by so drastically underestimating the Ice loss.

Yup, here we go again.

That's one evil glacier that won't be sinking any ships!
/

re: #38 freetoken
That may be true, but AGW stories often focus on the catastrophic near-future, not the long term. People can definitely understand what five years means. Part of the problem may be that the accuracy of short term consequences and predictions has not been particularly reassuring.

re: #42 skidancer

You awoke o sleeper!

re: #43 ausador

Maybe people will start taking this seriously when the Maldives are gone.

Maybe.

re: #48 JasonA

Maybe people will start taking this seriously when the Maldives are gone.

Maybe.

No, the citizens of the Maldives are all Muslims (I'm not kidding, to be a citizen of those islands one must be a Muslim) so the deniers will call the flooding of the Maldives a good thing.

/I wish I was kidding.

re: #42 skidancer

You do know that you're an idiot, right? Right?

I mean, you know that much, right? This is understood?

re: #42 skidancer

One of the reasons I prefer "climate change" to "global warming" is that changes in precipitation are at least as important as the perception of temperature.

re: #36 Dark_Falcon

Actually, I'm badly misrepresenting the fall of Rome, since the German dude who took over was a vassal of Rome before he did, and it was kind of internal politics. It was a huge change, but it was more equivalent to Hengist and Horsa in Britain than it was Attila. I should have said "Like the Turks dismissing rumours of the Mongol herds as the fantasies of peasants."

(typing on my fiancee's laptop tonight, blame any typos on her tiny, feminine keyboard.)

But anyway: Global warming is a problem already, and it'll be more of a problem every year. Maybe there'll be a titanic even that really hits home, otherwise I think one of the first things that'll really get noticed is an expansion of the Malarial Zone.

re: #22 freetoken

Glacier is a wonderful place!

Jose Cuervo Christmas Cookies

1 cup of water
1 tsp baking soda
1 cup of sugar
1 tsp salt
1 cup or brown sugar
4 large eggs
1 cup nuts
2 cups of dried fruit
1 bottle Jose Cuervo Tequila

Sample the Cuervo to check to be sure it is of the highest quality, pour one level cup and drink.

Turn on the electric mixer.
Beat one cup of butter in a large fluffy bowl.

Add one peastoon of sugar. Beat again.
At this point it's best to make sure the Cuervo is still ok, try another cup just in case.

Turn off the mixerer thingy.

Break 2 leggs and add to the bowl and chuck in the cup of dried fruit.

Pick the frigging fruit off the floor.

Mix on the turner.

If the fried druit gets stuck in the beaters just pry it loose with a drewscriver.

Sample the Cuervo to check for tonsisticity.

Next, sift two cups of salt, or something.

Who geeves a sheet. Check the Jose Cuervo.
Now shift the lemon juice and strain your nuts.

Add one table.

Add a spoon of sugar, or somefink.
Whatever you can find.

Greash the oven.

Turn the cake tin 360 degrees and try not to fall over.

Don't forget to beat off the turner.

Finally, throw the bowl through the window, finish the Cose Juervo and make sure to put the stove in the wishdasher.

Cherry Mistmas!

re: #42 skidancer

FIVE Comments since 2007? And a Karma of - 3?!?!?!

The is the NFL, and that stands for Not For Long if you keep that shit up.

re: #55 SteveC

Obviously been in a deep freeze all that time. But now (s)he's melting!

re: #55 SteveC

FIVE Comments since 2007? And a Karma of - 3?!?!?!

The is the NFL, and that stands for Not For Long if you keep that shit up.

Karma of -6 now and falling. That comment is Bottom 10 bound and deserves to be there.

re: #42 skidancer

What do y'all have to say about the following? [Link: www.made-in-southamerica.org...]

Seems that the temps are going in the wrong direction for AGW.

Do me a favor and watch this video, I mean really watch it while listening and paying attention. Then come back and ask again why it isn't hotter every single year than the year before. At least then we will know you are stupid or willfully in denial instead of just misinformed.

[Link: www.youtube.com...]

re: #56 Irenicum

Obviously been in a deep freeze all that time. But now (s)he's melting!

"You cursed brat! Look what you've done! I'm melting! Melting! Oh, what a world, what a world! Who would've thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness? I'm gone! I'm gone! I'm going!"

re: #42 skidancerSince the photographs cover a 70 year period (1940 - present) but the temperature data covers only a 15 year period (1995 - present), I wonder if the data presentation has been manipulated so as to show something which does not exist.

Plus, the 1995 temps are roughly the same as the present temps. I would be curious to see a longer temperature history so as to make a more definitive statement.

I write as a statistician.

Well let's pretend for a while that skidancer has asked a honest question.
He seems to ignore the difference between world climate and local weather. Not everything a specific glacier does can always be attributed to AGW alone. Local weather factors apply. Despute AGW you might even see a few glaciers growing.

If winter months were colder but summer months warmer the glacier would still melt even if the local yearly average temperature declined slightly.

If winter months turn warmer (but subzero) and summer months cooler, with less sun, a glacier would grow even if the local yearly average temperature rose slightly.

One glacier's behavior would not explain AGW. That of hundreds or even thousands do.

re: #59 SteveC

Thanks! I was hoping someone would get the reference. I love that scene!

Skidancer, are you out there? Are we in conversation? Or did you just want to make a single-posting, a sort of hit-and-run, and then feel smug? Care to converse?

re: #62 Irenicum

Thanks! I was hoping someone would get the reference. I love that scene!

There's a scene from Futurama (I think) where the witch jumps in the shower. (WTH?)

"I am so stupid! I'm Melting...etc" Great scene!

re: #63 Stuart Leviton

Skidancer, are you out there? Are we in conversation? Or did you just want to make a single-posting, a sort of hit-and-run, and then feel smug? Care to converse?

According to the Show Users panel 'skidancer' is still logged in. Come out and play, skidancer, or be know and as a spew-and-run troll!

Oly Oly Ocean Free Free Free

re: #65 Dark_Falcon

According to the Show Users panel 'skidancer' is still logged in. Come out and play, skidancer, or be know and as a spew-and-run troll!

You up here, Boyington?

re: #67 SteveC

You up here, Boyington?

Yes, I'm here, Rice-Ball. ;)

You surprised I speak your language! I was educated in your country at U-C-L-A!

[Link: www.inesad.edu.bo...]

Lykke Anderson, Director, Institute for Advanced Development studies, La Paz, writes:

“Bolivia’s rapidly diminishing Chacaltaya glacier has been widely used as a symbol of Anthropogenic Global Warming However, it is an unfortunate choice of symbol, because the retreat of this specific glacier is demonstrably not due to increasing temperatures caused by CO2 emissions.

In fact, temperatures in the area, says Andersen, are declining many decades, and his analysis says the melting is likely due to decreasing cloud cover and precipitation.

"
If the rapid melting of Chacaltaya since the mid 1970s were caused by increasing temperatures due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, we would have observed increased night time temperatures, increased average temperatures, and increases in cloud cover and precipitation (that is what CO2 driven climate models would suggest). But instead we have observed decreasing cloud cover, decreasing average temperatures (likely the result of night time temperatures falling more than day time temperatures increased), and decreasing precipitation, all of which conspired to melt the glacier.

The observed evidence from Chacaltaya is thus inconsistent with the Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming (AGW) theory, or, at least, if there is an AGW signal, it is completely drowned by other climatic changes unrelated to AGW.

It is ironic that the melting Chacaltaya glacier has become such an important symbol of the AGW theory, when in fact the evidence from Chacaltaya seems to refute this theory. (In contrast, the evidence from Chacaltaya is fully consistent with Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory (5), but that is another story)."

I invite readers of LGF to visit the story and draw their own conclusions about whether the cause of this particular local event is at least open to question by rational people, rather than serving as a slam-dunk spectacular example of CO2 caused AGW in action..

I don't doubt that Charles is a exceptionally bright guy, and even more brilliant controversialist, and his conversion on AGW is the product of considerable research and reflection. I can only say that I don't think I am a dumb guy, or a dupe of faith, and the more I read in good faith, the more sceptical I become about the validity of large scale climate models. (And that includes authors who have published in refereed journals, such as McIntyre of Climate Audit). Data from the past and present has a considerable degree of uncertainty, and much of the science is still open to debate. Put together uncertainty about facts and causal models, and you have models that are unreliable in their projections and the extent to w hich we can reliable know how much of past, present and future change is due to the greenhouse effect of C02 and the extent to which its feedbacks are positive or negative.

The lunacy of some "denialists" does not prove that the theory of CO2 caused dangerous AGW is correct, any more than lunacy among "warmists" proves the theory is wrong.

I am braced for the usual reflexive downdinging, but I still hope LGF that LGF can be a forum for genuine discussion on this point.

re: #69 SteveC

You surprised I speak your language! I was educated in your country at U-C-L-A!

Black Sheep Squadron, classic. Good show for its time. The F4U Corsair truly did change the game for Marine Aviation in the Solomons. It could run down Zeros with ease, was very manuverable, and its 6 .50 cals could shred its unarmored IJN and IJA opponents,

re: #70 NogenDavidGee Nogen, by mere coincidence someone else had just posted the same story and we have been trying to engage that person in conversation. Did you bother to try to read?

re: #71 Dark_Falcon

Black Sheep Squadron, classic. Good show for its time. The F4U Corsair truly did change the game for Marine Aviation in the Solomons. It could run down Zeros with ease, was very manuverable, and its 6 .50 cals could shred its unarmored IJN and IJA opponents,

What scares me is than not only do I remember these shows, I remember dialogue from them!

re: #70 NogenDavid

Even looking at that stupis two decade temperature graph posted on that page shows prolonged warm spikes mixed in with short cold spikes here and there. We are talking about ice here, not a living thing, you honestly do not think that those prolonged above average temperature periods served to decrease the ice more than the short periodic below average temperature periods increased it?

You also see fit to show that has been a decrease in cloud cover and precipitation, but then say "AGW models" show they should be increaseing. Which models and what specific predictions do they give? Perhaps other peoples "AGW models" might account for the decrease in both?

It would seem to be a pretty biased peice that is written from the denier slant to me. I need a bit more than the "authors" suppositions to base my opinion on.

#72

I didn't see the earlier post because I was busy researching and cutting and pasting from the story I posted. Hopefully my additional comments added some value. As for "engage that person in conversation.." do you mean the torrent of downdings? Do you mean comments such as "You do know that you're an idiot, right? Right?
I mean, you know that much, right? This is understood?"
#50, a nuanced and substantive response that produced four updings.

The last time I posted, it was to suggest that rather than questionning Joe Lieberman's motives, it might be worthwhile debating his concern over the unsustainability of increasing the US debt. I was downdinged, while a nearby comment comparing Lieberman to a piece of excrement swirling in a toilet when by without comment.

Well, I am sure LGF will do fine whether I post or not on AGW and whether my sensitives are offended or not, so I don't imagine whether I am personally concerned about the tone and intolerance of discussions over AGW counts for much in the larger scheme. But I actually do think, against the majority here, that debates over many issues connected with AGW are sustainable on the part of rational people, and for whatever it is worthy, some open-mindedness would be truer to LGF's abiding mission.

Goodnight all. 1 a.m. here in Baltimore.

Wow, what are the odds of two different posters no one ever heard of before posting two different links to two different sites that show the exact same anti-AGW data within minutes of each other?

Whoa, it's a miracle!
(well, either that or sock puppets)

re: #77 ausador

Wow, what are the odds of two different posters no one ever heard of before posting two different links to two different sites that show the exact same anti-AGW data within minutes of each other?

Whoa, it's a miracle!
(well, either that or sock puppets)

Hopefully two sock puppets, that way we get a matching pair of socks.

Well there is a much better explanation :-)

Alfredo Martínez, 72, a sprightly former skier and mountain climber, said global warming had nothing to do with the snow’s disappearance.
Mr. Martínez said it was because “Bolivia’s women have grown too mischievous.” He did not explain his joke further, and the younger women who had come for the first day of skiing this year were not amused.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

re: #75 NogenDavid

Oh look now it has morphed into a concern troll.

Yes, yes, NogenDavid I'm quite sure that this site would be vastly superior to it's current misinformed and shoddy status if only we listened to your inspired wisdom on how it should be run. Why havn't we seen this great truth before now? Please, oh please, tell us what we need to do to be deemed worthy by you oh great Guru of the internets!

re: #70 NogenDavid

That your "source" text is essentially the same as that of skidancer's, it becomes evident that this is a story that gets copied and pasted around the blogosphere.

In either case, it is a very misleading argument. Plotting annual temperature averages and finding a slight decline at any given location would in no way indicate that there was no global increase in temperature.

Furthermore, changes in precipitation pattern are expected with AGW.

Please read the previous sentence a second time.

Then read the quoted text attributed to Lykke Anderson that you included:

the retreat of this specific glacier is demonstrably not due to increasing temperatures caused by CO2 emissions.

Please understand the difference between the nouns "temperature" and "precipitation."

Furthermore, anyone who claims that changes in precipitation are not expected as a result of AGW is not telling the truth.

Finally, I down dinged you because you expected it. If you want to play the victim, I have no compunction to stop you.

re: #75 NogenDavidI am sorry that you have encountered difficulties here at lgf. At the same time, I can not speak for anyone other than myself. I hope I have not been disrespectful towards you. Please, do let me know if you believe I have been and I will go through teshuvah with you? Okay. My soul, your soul are important to me.

Anyway, if you are knowledgeable about GCC, I am not the one to engage in the conversation - although I am sincerely curious about the data represented in that Bolivian article and why a longer trend has not been presented. There are some people at lgf who seem knowledgeable. Perhaps you might want to engage them. kol tuv.

re: #82 Stuart Leviton

I am sorry that you have encountered difficulties here at lgf. At the same time, I can not speak for anyone other than myself. I hope I have not been disrespectful towards you. Please, do let me know if you believe I have been and I will go through teshuvah with you? Okay. My soul, your soul are important to me.

Anyway, if you are knowledgeable about GCC, I am not the one to engage in the conversation - although I am sincerely curious about the data represented in that Bolivian article and why a longer trend has not been presented. There are some people at lgf who seem knowledgeable. Perhaps you might want to engage them. kol tuv.

I don't know why he ran into difficulties. I thought concern trolls were aware of all internet traditions.

re: #70 NogenDavid

It is ironic that the melting Chacaltaya glacier has become such an important symbol of the AGW theory

This is a strawman's argument. It's just the author who claims that this special glacier is "such an important symbol of the AGW theory".

when in fact the evidence from Chacaltaya seems to refute this theory

No it does not. AGW scientists NEVER ever quote one example to prove their theory. They quote hundreds (and not just glaciers). That a specific glacier can melt although average temperatures are slightly lower does not disprove anything. You'd need hundreds of similar examples all around the world to build up evidence.

(In contrast, the evidence from Chacaltaya is fully consistent with Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory (5), but that is another story).

Again a false argument. Glaciers in the Alps, the Himalaya and other regions in the world are melting AND temperatures ARE higher. Would that be inconsistent with the cosmic ray theory?

Just did a quick check the on the La Pax WX station temps.

Here's the first 10 days of January 1995

Dayton Avg. Temps

1 1 1995 51.3
1 2 1995 48.6
1 3 1995 48.3
1 4 1995 45.9
1 5 1995 46.4
1 6 1995 47.5
1 7 1995 50.7
1 8 1995 52.1
1 9 1995 50.7
1 10 1995 46.4

GSOD Ave. Temps. Station 764050 La Paz

STN--- WBAN YEARMODA TEMP
764050 99999 19950101 60.8
764050 99999 19950102 64.6
764050 99999 19950103 62.9
764050 99999 19950104 59.0
764050 99999 19950105 58.7
764050 99999 19950106 62.9
764050 99999 19950107 66.5
764050 99999 19950108 63.5
764050 99999 19950109 64.8
764050 99999 19950110 62.4

Big differences here.

For the heck of it here's 2009 from GSOD

764050 99999 20090101 66.5
764050 99999 20090102 70.3
764050 99999 20090103 66.6
764050 99999 20090104 68.1
764050 99999 20090105 66.0
764050 99999 20090106 67.7
764050 99999 20090107 64.8
764050 99999 20090108 62.8
764050 99999 20090109 64.6
764050 99999 20090110 68.5

All temps are Mean temperature (.1 Fahrenheit)

re: #85 Gus 802

La Paz that is.

Lykke E. Andersen needs to go back and use the GSOD data.

Upon further investigation, it looks like Ms. Lykke Andersen is an economist, which explains why she had to call up the Hadley Center to get the basics of clouds and temperatures.

Her conclusion is false, and as I stated before she clearly doesn't understand AGW.

Furthermore, in her footnotes she links to a book which claims that cosmic rays are much more important than CO2. The author of that book, Svensmark, is well known for this claim and a search on his name at sites dealing with climatology will give you more insight.

Denialists continually try to hide behind this claim about cosmic rays; the problem for them is that we've been counting cosmic ray fluxes for a while now, and they have not shown to have the effect that denialists claim.

re: #85 Gus 802Thanks. I take it that GSOD is LaPaz. GSOD has data going back to 1929. This could be fun to look at.

re: #89 Stuart Leviton

Thanks. I take it that GSOD is LaPaz. GSOD has data going back to 1929. This could be fun to look at.

That's the one I used. I linked to the FTP for all the data going back to 1929. La Paz starts in 1995.

I gotta be honest, I havnt followed the torrent of denial vs. climate change arguments here...are there two sides to the issue? ie is there in fact climate warming and is man the cause?

re: #85 Gus 802

Just did a quick check the on the La Pax WX station temps.

Here's the first 10 days of January 1995

Dayton Avg. Temps

1 1 1995 51.3
1 2 1995 48.6
1 3 1995 48.3
1 4 1995 45.9
1 5 1995 46.4
1 6 1995 47.5
1 7 1995 50.7
1 8 1995 52.1
1 9 1995 50.7
1 10 1995 46.4

GSOD Ave. Temps. Station 764050 La Paz

STN--- WBAN YEARMODA TEMP
764050 99999 19950101 60.8
764050 99999 19950102 64.6
764050 99999 19950103 62.9
764050 99999 19950104 59.0
764050 99999 19950105 58.7
764050 99999 19950106 62.9
764050 99999 19950107 66.5
764050 99999 19950108 63.5
764050 99999 19950109 64.8
764050 99999 19950110 62.4

Big differences here.

For the heck of it here's 2009 from GSOD

764050 99999 20090101 66.5
764050 99999 20090102 70.3
764050 99999 20090103 66.6
764050 99999 20090104 68.1
764050 99999 20090105 66.0
764050 99999 20090106 67.7
764050 99999 20090107 64.8
764050 99999 20090108 62.8
764050 99999 20090109 64.6
764050 99999 20090110 68.5

All temps are Mean temperature (.1 Fahrenheit)

You and your damned liberally biased facts, so what, just because temps this year were about six degrees warmer everyday than in 1995 doesn't prove anything.

It is only warmer because there are no clouds there anymore, there should be more clouds, according to some AGW model we will not name!

Therefore AGW is wrong, hah! So there!

Of course we didn't actually try to explain why the glacier melted or why precipitation and cloud cover has dropped, we just know that it isn't because of AGW, nosiree!

re: #91 Tats66

ie is there in fact climate warming and is man the cause?

"Yes", and "mostly".

#80 No one ever heard from before? 158 comments since 2005 according to my LGF profile. And what is the allegation? I signed up for LGF a few minutes ago during a non-registration period so I could coordinate an overlapping post - which would accomplish what?

Faced with a contrary explanation, your response is what? Speculative ice science based on an impressionist view of the chart? A speculation that some theory of AGW predicts decade after decade of cooling accompanied by lower precipitation? Speculation that the author must be a "denialist" rather than having rational, even if ultimately mistaken, grounds for their view?

I don't know exactly what causes long term climate change, and how much is caused by CO2 produced AGW. I do think that the article posted provides a reasonable argument that the glacier melt itself cannot be confidentally cited as a demonstration of the theory. Then again, no local effect or medium term effect provides anything in particular about the long term global picture. So, consistently, I don't think the steadying of temperature in the last decade definitively disproves the CO2-produced AGW theory (I do think the failure of the models to predict it says something about th e limitations of the models). What I do believe overall is that there is much more room for scientific humility and uncertainty than is allowed by the majority view on this site, and that this is a position that should be debated on the evidence not razzed away. To me, LGF ethos, at its best, is about rationalism and tolerance, and that ethos is best served by engaging in a open-minded discussion about AGW rather than viewing sceptics as necessarily ill-informed, faith-based or dupes of special interests.

re: #93 freetoken

Definately agree with the "yes" ...just wasnt certain if or to what extent the "mostly" was yet...:)

re: #92 ausador

You and your damned liberally biased facts, so what, just because temps this year were about six degrees warmer everyday than in 1995 doesn't prove anything.

It is only warmer because there are no clouds there anymore, there should be more clouds, according to some AGW model we will not name!

Therefore AGW is wrong, hah! So there!

Of course we didn't actually try to explain why the glacier melted or why precipitation and cloud cover has dropped, we just know that it isn't because of AGW, nosiree!

:)

Some poor fool can graph the GSOD data.

Also, another note. La Paz station is in the city.

La Paz altitude is 3640 meters.
Chacaltaya altitude is 5421 meters.

It's cool...(unless it's a hose job)...
[Link: www.associatedcontent.com...]

re: #94 NogenDavid

I will tell you the exact same thing I told skidancer, watch this video.

It explains very well why we do not see each and every year being hotter than the year before and why we can even have a decade or more that seemingly goes against the warming trend. It has happened before, it will happen again, yet overall the temperature will continue to increase.

You are being nearsighted and latching onto flimsy short-term evidence because it supports the view that you wish to believe in. If you really are interested in intelligent and factually based discussion as you claim to be then you need to take a longer viewpoint. And you need to watch the video to understand why...

[Link: www.youtube.com...]

GSOD Data for 764050 La Paz actually starts in 1973.

Index of ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/gsod/

Here's a more serious assessment of Chacaltaya, not written by economists... (emphasis mine)

[Link: ambio.allenpress.com...]

On a monthly scale, the data confirm that the mass-balance variability is closely controlled by the ENSO-related climate forcing. During the ENSO warm phases, mass balance is generally negative, a feature principally caused by an increasing ablation. This leads to the conclusion that the sharp succession of ENSO warm events since the late 1970s could have played an important role in the process of ice wasting in the central Andes, together with global warming.

In the future, 2 types of analyses will need to be conducted to identify the climatic background of this recent evolution.

i) The physical response of glaciers to the contrasted situations will have to be precisely analyzed in terms of heat budget at the glacier's surface. A first attempt to characterize the warm/cold ENSO phases was made at 5150 m a.s.l. on the Zongo Glacier (15). The results during the warm events point to albedo as the key-factor, magnifying the response of the glacier to an anomalous situation involving a decrease in precipitation and an increase in air temperature.

ii) The evolution of the medium troposphere during the ENSO events needs to be precisely characterized. A significant increase in temperature has been noted at 4000 m a.s.l. in Peru and Bolivia during the warm ENSO phases (13), a departure also well observed in the Andes of Ecuador and in the free atmosphere at 500 hPa. At more global scale, a recent analysis of the evolution of the freezing heights close to Equator by Diaz and Graham (25), confirmed that important changes have occurred in the mid-tropical troposphere of the Andes in the deep tropics (ca 15°N – 15°S).

The positive height anomaly for the 1970–1988 is about 100 m, a trend which is related to a long-term (over decades) increase in sea-surface temperature in the tropics, and the consequent enhancement of the hydrological cycle. In addition to temperature, analysis will have to focus on other variables which could have changed in the recent times, such as humidity, which is known to affect strongly the energy balance in tropical glaciers

#72

Thank you, Stuart, I sincerely appreciate your kind and thoughtful expression. Kol tov.

I have no illusions that LGF needs me, but in the past I needed LGF, and I would be sorry to have to keep my distance for it. Blogs come and come, comments appear and disappear into the cybervoid. But during the war with Hezbollah in particular, LGF was a place I could come to some solidarity and information about an embattled Israel. I have lived many years, and never felt that the existence of the Jewish people was as imperilled as it is now. A murderous regime in Teheran has supported the murder of Jews as Jews in everywhere from Buenos Aires to Israel, and it is fast acquiring nuclear weapons. I don't expect that Israel will always be right in its policies, but it it is the only democratic, pluralistic, tolerant state in the region, it would gladly live in peace with independent Palestinian state were it not for endless Arab rejectionism, and LGF was a place that defused many of the insane lies thrown at it. It did so in the larger interest of rationalism and truthfulness. So whever LGF goes now, it will always have an honourable place in my memory.

LGF should not be a place where I am insulted for defending the honour of an honourable politician, Joe Lieberman, while no one apparently has an issue with a poster comparing him to a swirling piece of excrement. And I think Lieberman's concern about the debt is not just a fiscal issue - it is about the potential end of an American role as a world leader that promotes an agenda of democracy and modernity.

Nor should it be a place where scepticial views about the majority view on AGW are reflexively razzed and tarred with the phrase "denialist". ANd with all due respect to Charles, I think Ron Rosenbaum was right to take issue with the use of that term beyond the Holocaust. There are enough other terms of vituperation out there to choose from if one is needed.

Excessive certainty and puritanism about global warming and its supposed remedies is also not just a fiscal issue. If you stunt growth unnecessarily or irrationally, some people in poor countries will suffer and die. If you create cap and trade schemes that are vehicles for fraud on a global scale, you ultimately undermine democracy and stability. The policy debate rests on views about science, and I have to respectfully dissent from the majority view on LGF that scepticism about the scope of CO2 caused AGW is comparable to denying evolution or any of a score of anti-rationalist views. It's not that I reject the truth of the mainstream view because of the policy consequences. The policy consequences have encouraged me to take a look at the science, and so far, I am not convinced that we know anywhere near as much as the mainstream view purports to know.

re: #101 NogenDavid

Well as the study you cited above shows it is easy to find climate denial "science" as written by an economist and dressed up as supposedly actual science. I have seen denial "science" on the internet by all types of people and proffessions, it is very easy to find, all one has to do is look.

Of course if you are not going to take into account their qualifications, their education, or whether the material has been published under peer review then what is the point? You might as well just walk down a crowded street and ask people at random what you should believe about climate science.

As with evolution "debate" there simply is no real debate within science any longer about the validity of AGW, but that isn't stopping an awful lot of non-scientists from making up and writing about their own views. The fact that you believe an economist more about AGW than the actual authorities in the field tells me quite a lot. You believe that AGW is wrong because you want to believe that, not because of the evidence.

That is why we call you people deniers, it isn't a put-down, it is an accurate description of your mindset.

re: #101 NogenDavid

Joe Lieberman is no more an honorable politician than any other, which is to say there is no such thing. Lieberman's concern for the debt is extremely newfound, as up until a few years ago he was one of the more liberal members of the senate.

I suggest that if "the potential end of an American role as a world leader that promotes an agenda of democracy and modernity" is your concern, that you should be squarely behind any and all efforts to replace fossil fuels with clean renewable fuel technology that the U.S. can sell to the rest of the world to ensure the next American century.

As far as AGW, the reason that people get so worked up is because this has been debated ad nauseum here, and if you care to spend some time reading, you'll come to the same conclusions.

re: #101 NogenDavid

Instead of lamenting that there is no discussion, how about actually addressing the points people make here?

102: Note that scientific article cited in 100 focuses primarily on the potentially explanatory effect of ENSO - the El-Nino related climate forcing that is not caused by human activity, but is a ongoing cycle that is not fully understood in its own rights, let alone in its impact on glaciers in South America. (the article does refer to AGW as a possible co-factor). Notice how much of the article says that further analysis is needed. So much for all the supposedly settled explanations of that particular melt, or the view that it stands as a clear cut warning about AGW.

My comments cited McIntyre at Climate-Audit as an example of an author who is a peer-reviewed scientific sceptic. Try giving the site a read sometime.

The article I cited raised questions based on data and the views of specialists, just as any generalist (including almost all of us here) do. It's primary claim is that the local effect cannot be expected by general AGW theory. I do not know whether the possible counterexplanation - cosmic ray effects related to solar activity - is valid, but I think there is a lot we still don't know. I have repeatedly said that no local or short or even medium term effect proves or disproves AGW. That includes the levelling of temperature increases in the past decade. I don't think the fact that it snowing and bitterly cold in Copenhagen during the conference proved anything. What I am cautioning is that the local effect at the heart of this thread, a glacier melting South America, is not clearly related to AGW, and that view is supported not only by the initial article I cited, but by the article cited at post 100. (Again, that article suggests that AGW might be part of the explanation, but the focus is on ENSO).

Let me give you a analogy that, like all analogies, has its limitations, but might be useful. Few systems have been studied as much as the human body. We can even conduct various kinds of ethical and controlled experiments on people. There is a lot we know. It's really true that smoking can cause cancer and very often does. There is a lot we don't know. What is the cause of MS and how do you fix it? Well, the planet might be of an order of complexity of a human body, and we can't conduct controlled experiments on it, and we don't have a whole bunch of similar planets to compare and contrast with, and our data on its past is spotty and inexact, and even the current data is to some (albeit lesser) extent conflicting, and there are far fewer scientists who are knowledgeable about it than there are expert medical researchers, and within the group of client scientists there is much reliance on even a smaller group of key experts, such as those who produce the models.

So Shalom to you all, and my thanks again to Stuart for showing that
menschen still roam the internet.

103: I do think a rational and measured move towards energy self sufficiency, and much increased use of alternative energy sources, should be among the most urgent domestic and foreign policy objectives for the United States. I think cap and trade is a likely vehicle for fraud, but carbon taxes are a good way to promote energy independence. I've said that before on this site. You can look it up.

As for no such thing as an honourable politician...you don't think Abraham Lincoln was an honourable politician? Winston Churchill? To typecast all of them as dishonourable foregoes the opportunity to distinguish the truly evil (Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah) to the ordinary to the occasionally example of moral heroism. I might be mistaken, but my view is that Joe Lieberman is a distinguished public servant, that when he says he has grave concerns about an exploding debt, he means it, and that he is factually and morally right. I don't think that my expressing that view warranted insult, and I certainly don't think that denizens of a site that identifies the rhetorical excesses at places like Hot Air should be accepting of scatalogical insults directed at Lieberman. If the United States overcomes its current fiscal madness and projection of weakness to the world, it will be because of politicians like Lieberman.

re: #105 NogenDavid

The article I quoted tries to explain a local phenomenon but unlike the article you quoted it does not make up strawman points.

You won't find a single serious climatologist saying: This local phenomenon is caused by AGW and that's that. This is not how science works.

Thousands of scientists have for decades contributed to that puzzle, which may still have some missing pieces, but the picture is clear enough.

Imagine you were the President and the leading scientists of the world agreed on an imminent danger like an asteroid hitting the Earth, but said... well, we're 90, 95% sure but there might be factors that might, if we're very lucky spare us the impact without doing anything.

Now imagine that we could do something. Would you just sit idle and wait for the remaining 5% to come in... along with the asteroid?

And wouldn't you be even more prepared to act if those proposed measures were actually beneficial to mankind even if the asteroid missed us?

re: #106 NogenDavid

As for no such thing as an honourable politician...you don't think Abraham Lincoln was an honourable politician? Winston Churchill?

Do not confuse statesmen with politicians.

re: #105 NogenDavid

My comments cited McIntyre at Climate-Audit as an example of an author who is a peer-reviewed scientific sceptic.

BZZZ...strike two, but please do try again.

Steve McIntyre is just a statistician who again has no degrees whatsoever that qualify him as a climate scientist. Heck he never even bothered to get a doctorate in his own feild of mathematics.

Keep going, want to cite your hairstylist as an authority on climate change next maybe?

107: I have said that the risk of AGW could be factored into a rational policy response. You can also look that up. What I disagree with is the usefulness of the statement that AGW is like 95% chance of an asteroid hitting the earth.

Well, first of all, how big and distructive is the AGW asteroid? Warming will do some good as well as harm, and how much good and harm requires a lot of study and thinking and depends on how muich warming and how fast. I doubt that the temperature we happen to be at is the absolute optimal one, more people die from extreme cold each year than extreme heat, and there is plenty of room for discussion about appropriate strategies for managing the impacts of GW, whether it is anthropogenic or not.

Second, what is the probability? You say 90-95%? Of what level of warming and owing how much to anthropenic C02? I think we know much less about the probabilities than you think we do.

Third, what is the cost of countermeasures? There are profound risks in the wrong policy reactions. Economic growth promotes health, longevity and increased public support for environmental protection. Curtail unnecessarily, and you will cause much suffering.

So I think we have a very difficult public policy challenge under conditions of considerable scientific uncertainty and as I have also said on this site, we could be looking for areas of consensus, such as carbon taxes that promote energy self sufficiency and the development of alternate energy.

As for the attempted semantic escape from the dismissive claim politicians are all dishonourable, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill were very much practising politicians. There is a quip that a statesman is a dead politician. I hope Joe Lieberman will not have to die to earn the respect he deserves for standing up on the runaway debt issue, and he most certainly does not deserve the execration he has received from some at this site.

Second, what is the

re: #105 NogenDavid

Actually what that study suggests is that the dark surface pollutants that are present atop the ice field are the primary reason for it's current faster melting. They cite a decrease in new snow covering these pollutants possibly due to ENSO as an contributing factor.

They also say that the "sharp succession of ENSO warm events since the late 1970s could have played an important role in the process of ice wasting in the central Andes." Hmmm...what do you suppose could have caused a sharp increase in these warming events? Surely not AGW?

re: #110 NogenDavid

... more people die from extreme cold each year than extreme heat, ...

That gets repeated over and over by the denialists, I guess it somehow reverberates with their thinking process, but I noticed that you didn't bring any evidence to the table.

I think we know much less about the probabilities than you think we do.

You can "think" whatever you want, but in the physical world we have discovered that the physical universe follows certain rules. There is no reason to believe the Earth's climate follows its own physics. Attribution of energy balance, the radiation balance to and from the Earth's surface, can be accounted for. The transmittance of the atmosphere is now well understood, as well as albedo. What is left to understand are the long term changes and consequences that depend upon the biosphere, and as the research comes in the answers are indicating that the long term warming due to anthropogenic factors will be larger than originally estimated as summarized in the IPCC reports, not smaller. Indeed, there was just an article published on the 20th in Nature Geosciences about this.

re: #110 NogenDavid

Blah, blah, blah, watch as I write six more paragraphs without adressing one single substantive issue, blah, blah, blah.

Oh, and btw glAGW is fake!

///

Before you were just overly wordy, now your becoming tiresome as well.

109: McIntyre's variously celebrated and contested writings are on errors in mathematical modelling, including treatment of data and graphing techniques, and has been published in places that include the refereed Geophysical Research Letters. He is not a climate physicist, but climate physicists are generally not experts in the analysis of the mathematics of climate modelling. Indeed, McIntyre has, in my view - and that of many, but not all, experts - shown that they can be inept. I simply invite readers of LGF to visit his writings and decide for yourself on the merits of his arguments.

re: #110 NogenDavid

Third, what is the cost of countermeasures? There are profound risks in the wrong policy reactions. Economic growth promotes health, longevity and increased public support for environmental protection. Curtail unnecessarily, and you will cause much suffering.

Just to address this point because it's another strawman's argument.
Who is asking to "Curtail economic growth"? As a matter of fact measures against AGW will do just the opposite... bring about the changes in energy use we desperately need.

Do you think we can foster the economic development of Africa, Asia and South America with fossile energy. Do you think we can bring prosperity to the 9 bn of people who will populate the earth in 2050, with dwindling supplies of fossile energy?

Oil will almost be gone by then. Do you think we can burn enough coal, poisoning the atmosphere to an extent hardly imaginable, to enable a decent life for 9 bn people?

Renewable clean energy is the only answer. Only the fossile energy corporations will tell you otherwise.

re: #114 NogenDavid

We are not unfamiliar with McIntyre. For example, in his persecution of Briffa, McIntyre lied about how much access to data he really did have, wrongly leading others to believe he didn't have any.

re: #114 NogenDavid

109: McIntyre's variously celebrated and contested writings are on errors in mathematical modelling, including treatment of data and graphing techniques, and has been published in places that include the refereed Geophysical Research Letters. He is not a climate physicist, but climate physicists are generally not experts in the analysis of the mathematics of climate modelling. Indeed, McIntyre has, in my view - and that of many, but not all, experts - shown that they can be inept. I simply invite readers of LGF to visit his writings and decide for yourself on the merits of his arguments.

Yes, he has harped incessantly about this for well over a decade now, what has he accomplished? He got McMann to show a correction of and further explain the data in one graph that was submitted to the IPCC.

Oh, and he aslo got NASA to change the correction factors for it's GISS data by 0.15 degrees for six years of data, whoop-de-doo.

He is not a climatoligist, all he is is a man with a calculator desperately checking and rechecking every number that the climate scientists release and hoping and praying to find an error somewhere to crow about. The man is an obsessive whack-job.

#115. The subject of this thread was the melting of a particular glacier.
I posted an article that presents a reasonable argument it cannot be explained by AGW. In response to post 100, I pointed out that the argument in the scientific article appended to it was actually focused on ENSO, a non-AGW forcer, and that it called for more study. Readers can determine whether I made my substantive point about the unsupportability at this stage of knowledge of using this local case as an illustration of the perils of AGW.

I also made the wider observation that some in this community can be intolerant, dismissive and insulting in response to expressions of scepticism about the state of global warming science, and that a more open minded view would be truer to the best traditions of LGF. Readers can judge for themselves whether a number of responses also supported that observation as well.

WIth that, I wish you all a good night.

re: #118 NogenDavid

I posted an article that presents a reasonable argument it cannot be explained by AGW.

And we showed you that it does not present a reasonable argument. Oh the intolerance!

re: #118 NogenDavid

Your original post was a link to an economist who clearly did not understand climatology.

The only other link offered which referred to the particular glacier in question left open whether AGW was a direct driver of the changes in the glacier.

What is being overlooked by you is the worldwide shrinkage in glaciers, and shrinkage that has accelerated over the last few decades.

You then try to bring in McIntyre, a person with a spotty record, at best.

You also made repeated claims that AGW is somehow not established because, again somehow, there is too much which is not understood. To which I responded that the basic physics is indeed understood, documented, and unequivocal.

No matter how many sweet words in which you try to wrap your allegations, they still don't add up to much substance.

re: #118 NogenDavid

Well thank you for pinting out to us that economists and statisticians should be believed as reliable sources on AGW and not actual scientists. I'm will try to take that lesson in "openmindedness" to heart I and go ask the bag boy at my supermarket for advice on investing my stock portfolio tomorrow.

Your intent here was no more than to attempt to cloud the issue while saying nothing of actual substance, you have. BTW what do you attribute the ever increaseing ENSO events to if not to global warming? Or do more frequent and warmer surface currents in the Pacific just create themselves from nothing?

re: #121 ausador

Yes, this is one of the standard tactics: obfuscate with as many trivialities as possible while ignoring the immense body of scientific discoveries all of which point to anthropogenic causes of the recent climate changes.

Stratagem XIX (Schopenhauer, The Art Of Controversy)

Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his argument, and you have nothing much to say, you must try to give the matter a general turn, and then talk against that. If you are called upon to say why a particular physical hypothesis cannot be accepted, you may speak of the fallibility of human knowledge, and give various illustrations of it.

Good night or good morning

re: #101 NogenDavid

He's so honorable that he completely and totally reversed course on his own positions on the Medicare buy-in, and also supports censorship. Free speech? No, let's honor those who try and take it from us! Good job.

Nogen, nice try but let's grant for a moment that the paper you posted might be correct [which I don't believe or a moment to be true] that still doesn't explain all of the glacier retreats all over the world. Please check the wiki page on glaciers above, and the video posted at the top of the thread.
At best this casts a minor doubt, but the probabilities are still so high that this was just another glacier melted by AGW that I don't understand how or why you are arguing about it.

Being from the UP of Michigan I like the fact that glaciers melt. If not I would be under several thousand feet of ice. Lake McDonald in Glacier National Park would not exist. Canada would not exist either. So before we boo hoo glacier melt please inform me as to what the freeze line is near this glacier. The Kilamanjaro(sp) item of several weeks ago was a flop as the USGS site pointed out that at no time was the temperature near MK above freezing so global warming was not the cause. Let's get some facts first.

ie is there in fact climate warming and is man the cause?

Yes, man made global warming is so intense that it is even causing the temperatures of planets all over the solar system to increase. Do not believe those who say its changes in the sun...

I'm pretty much of a newbie and moreover I signed on in part because I was happy to find a site that was calling out all the AGW denialist shit. Nevertheless, I also appreciate NogenDavid's attempt to civilly debate aspects of this issue. Statistics and statisticians are important here, as he says: without them, the scientists' data are meaningless. I think that most scientists, who often collaborate with statisticians, would agree on that.

So I appreciate too those who, instead of just dinging NogenDavid down, took time to address his arguments.

This site has alot of great debate, lets hope it does not degenerate into alot of name calling... Calling people idiots:

You do know that you're an idiot, right? Right?

I mean, you know that much, right? This is understood?

Name calling does nothing but take focus away from real fact...

[Link: www.inesad.edu.bo...]

Bolivia’s rapidly diminishing Chacaltaya glacier has been widely used as a symbol of Anthropogenic Global Warming (1). However, it is an unfortunate choice of symbol, because the retreat of this specific glacier is demonstrably not due to increasing temperatures caused by CO2 emissions.

All long-run monthly temperature series for the Bolivian highlands, including the La Paz/El Alto station, which is located near Chacaltaya, show cooling trends over the last six decades of about -0.2ºC/decade (2). This is confirmed by more recent daily temperature anomalies from the University of Dayton Daily Temperature Archive since 1995 (see Figure 2). There is a statistically significant negative trend of -0.11ºC/decade since 1/1/1995 (98% confidence). The average anomaly for the 1995-2009 period is -0.6ºC, suggesting that the recent negative trend is a continuation of a longer trend, as suggested by the monthly data.

re: #130 ckb

OK, now explain the quote you just copied and pasted.

The cutting and pasting can be a bit much but basically the temperature data for that region has been trending down, yet the rate of melting has increased.

The author is basically stating that he the melt is not being caused by raising of temperature but by a decrease in precipitation cause by a decrease in low level cloud cover... He references NASA/GISS statistics which show a decrease in cloud cover for that region.

Interesting article...

I, for one, will miss the opportunity to ski this glacier in my lifetime.

It kind of bums me out.

/carry on

re: #132 huggy77

The cutting and pasting can be a bit much but basically the temperature data for that region has been trending down, yet the rate of melting has increased.

The author is basically stating that he the melt is not being caused by raising of temperature but by a decrease in precipitation cause by a decrease in low level cloud cover... He references NASA/GISS statistics which show a decrease in cloud cover for that region.

Interesting article...

The article is complete bunk. I'm not surprised that it was dug up to try to refute this post -- but it's not even a "minority" opinion.

It's extremely easy to find sources documenting the effects of global warming on the world's glaciers. Here's one.

Chacaltaya Glacier in Bolivia.

The recent quickening of glacial melt in the Andes matches the greater intensity and frequency of El Niño events for the same period of time. Andean glaciers are particularly sensitive to climatic fluctuations owing to the position of most of them in the tropics, the ambient air temperature and the specific mechanisms by which they function. This in contrast with the glaciers in the Alps which have a long period of accumulation in winter. The glaciers in the tropics are subject to a higher rate of melting in the lower half of the glacier. This makes the snow and ice mass of tropical glaciers sensitive to the slightest sudden variation in climate.

The glacier shrinkage observed during the 1991-2001 period indicates a clear acceleration glacial melt. The Chacaltaya Glacier in Bolivia is not alone, and research indicates that glaciers are increasingly receding throughout the Andes. Jaime Argollo Bautista, director of the Institute of Geological Investigation at the University of San Andrés, in La Paz said that “Chacaltaya's melting has been especially quick, with more than 80 percent of the glacier being lost in 20 years.” In February of 2007, Jaime said he would give the glacier three more years and it would all be gone.

Around the world glaciers are retreating , and a number of other them, such as the, Himalayan Gangotri glacier, Athabasca, glacier in the Canadian Rockies, and Davos in the Swiss Alps are melting quickly.

The article is complete bunk

I was just commenting on the article, The article is talking about a SPECIFIC glacier, not EVERY glacier... i think it that it raises some interesting questions about that specific glacier...

There are tons of articles out there talking about both glacial expansion and glacial melting... The Hindu Kush and the Karakoram region glaciers are increasing in size, the average temperature is decreasing...

Global warming may have some effect on the loss in some places but local activities in these developing areas are also leading to melting. A Lot of the problems in the Himalayan glaciers are being caused locally by deforestation and burning of fossil fuels. Are we going to tell developing nations to slow down development (which is taking there people out of poverty)? Are these nations going to listen?

just trying to point out how interesting our planet is and how broad global statements should be examined..

re: #131 Charles

OK, now explain the quote you just copied and pasted.

I think it explains itself. There has been no increase in temperature at this glacier while it has been melting. You want to say that AGW is reponsible for the weather patterns that caused this glacier to melt, while the temperature has gone down there? OK, you go right ahead.

The article makes the following case:

"If the rapid melting of Chacaltaya since the mid 1970s were caused by increasing temperatures due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, we would have observed increased night time temperatures, increased average temperatures, and increases in cloud cover and precipitation (that is what CO2 driven climate models would suggest). But instead we have observed decreasing cloud cover, decreasing average temperatures (likely the result of night time temperatures falling more than day time temperatures increased), and decreasing precipitation, all of which conspired to melt the glacier. "

AMBIO is published by the Sweedish Academy of Sciences. This is not an anti-AGW organization.

The article you linked to has some factual problems, as another AMBIO article concludes 50% of the glacier melt came before 1980. And note that the article you linked makes no mention of temperature.

[Link: ambio.allenpress.com...]

[Link: ambio.allenpress.com...]

This glacier is just a poor example of trying to show AGW is causing climate change. As was the Barrow picture. I'm sure there are good examples, but these aren't them.

re: #136 ckb

Your link refutes your own point, sorry. From the conclusion section:

This leads to the conclusion that the sharp succession of ENSO warm events since the late 1970s could have played an important role in the process of ice wasting in the central Andes, together with global warming.

Oops!

Very nice analysis ckb!

We need to know at what altitude the freeze line is before global warming caused by CO2 can be labeled as the cause. Also AUSADOR the O in ENSO stands for oscillation and has been going on for years. No one knows what is the cause so your attempt to name global warming as the cause is off base. However, if you are saying the sun heats the ocean and the sun is the cause of global warming I might join you in that.

re: #138 huggy77

Very nice analysis ckb!

Sure -- except that it's wrong.

re: #136 ckb

The article you quote is the article we criticized, NOT published by Ambio, but by an economist clueless about the basics of climate.

"If the rapid melting of Chacaltaya since the mid 1970s were caused by increasing temperatures due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, we would have observed increased night time temperatures, increased average temperatures, and increases in cloud cover and precipitation (that is what CO2 driven climate models would suggest). But instead we have observed decreasing cloud cover, decreasing average temperatures (likely the result of night time temperatures falling more than day time temperatures increased), and decreasing precipitation, all of which conspired to melt the glacier. "

You know, that's why it's preferable to call it Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), not Global Warming. ACC does not have the same effect everywhere in the world. ACC changes weather patterns dramatically. In one place it may generate more clouds and precipitation, in others devastating droughts (check out Australia or the Sahel zone).

It seems obvious that a glacier in the tropics will be influenced a lot by precipitation and cloudless skies, because the tropical sun has a lot more strength. And the smaller a glacier is, the faster it will melt because the sun will heat up dark patches (or sooty patches on ice). Whether temperatures of the surroundings are -15 or -12 degrees Celsius is of no concern to the glacier. Temperatures measured in the city (!) of La Paz (which is a very polluted place) may matter very little to the glacier higher up.

re: #140 Charles

He didn't even bother to find out that there are TWO articles. He wrongly attributes the clueless one of Lykke Andersen to AMBIO (I posted the latter).

Excellent Mr. Winter. That is what I have been pointing too on several occasions. You said it better than I about what a glacier might care about. If the area is in a drought there doubtless less cloud cover, less snow, and more sunshine all having nothing to do with CO2 induced global warming.

re: #99 Gus 802Thank you for posting this. Is there a reason why that AGW site uses 1995 as the starting date for their data?

re: #144 Stuart Leviton

Thank you for posting this. Is there a reason why that AGW site uses 1995 as the starting date for their data?

You're welcome.

I'm not sure about the start dates. Sometimes this depends on when the particular WX station started operations. The GSOD data goes back to 1929. The particular La Paz station I mentioned starts in 1973. However, I did come across a PDF of a typed annual report from Bolivia from the 1950s.

re: #143 MKelly

Did you f*** ever bother to read what I wrote?

re: #143 MKelly

If the area is in a drought there doubtless less cloud cover, less snow, and more sunshine all having nothing to do with CO2 induced global warming.

Unless the drought is caused by the CO₂ induced warming..?

I think a lot of people in this thread have made the point about climate change not being uniform very clear. The retreat of one specific glacier might very well be subject to any number of factors, but the point being made here is that there is a global trend with glaciers receding.

I know the analogy with creationists is overdone sometimes, but really, the classic tactic of focusing on one specific area which can be cast in doubt while ignoring the bigger picture and the data supporting it, is evident in the contrarian comments here.

re: #101 NogenDavid
Shalom Nogen, You have got my respect. I too came to lgf for its support of Israel.

Lgf welcomes intelligent dissent though dissenting may also earn you a zillion down dings. Not to worry. The folk here like the intellectual challenge. There are even several people at lgf who frequently get down dinged and yet they have the respect of the community. So the down dings in your case might be an intellectual badge of honor. To quote Pirkei Avot 2:5 ובמקום שאין אנשים, השתדל להיות איש

As for cursing and disrespect on this site, I too regret it. The people here are too smart (and too good hearted) to befoul this site with the language that is sometimes used. The use of words such as "whore" and "bitch" which unfortunately do occasionally appear here is inconsistent for a site which honors the dignity of everyone. that's a reflection of that member's personality and not of you. And to again quote Pirkei Avot 2:5 ובמקום שאין אנשים, השתדל להיות איש

So stick around, draw up a 1,000 down dings. I am sure you will hone many skills on this site. Recently, Charles asked a very well-educated and articulate member on this site to assist him in doing GCC work. While Charles probably did not have you in mind, I think your questions and insights might help in honing their pro-GCC arguments. So I would encourage you to engage this community more frequently.

re: #117 ausador

Yes, he has harped incessantly about this for well over a decade now, what has he accomplished? He got McMann to show a correction of and further explain the data in one graph that was submitted to the IPCC.

Oh, and he aslo got NASA to change the correction factors for it's GISS data by 0.15 degrees for six years of data, whoop-de-doo.

He is not a climatoligist, all he is is a man with a calculator desperately checking and rechecking every number that the climate scientists release and hoping and praying to find an error somewhere to crow about. The man is an obsessive whack-job.

He is to AGW as Dembski is to ID.

re: #149 AFBG

Post and run? Not expecting an answer? Registered today, I see. Just for the Fiskie?

This one was a sock puppet who was banned a few days ago for spewing the same garbage. Just re-registered and started spewing again.

re: #42 skidancer

Actually cosmic rays are back in the news.

[Link: insciences.org...]

re: #134 Charles

There is no temperature data provided for the area in that article. Do you have a link with some?

You're the fifth person who showed up today to promote that article.

Please get busy debunking the thousands of peer reviewed articles that show CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. Then I'll pay attention to this latest bogus paper, promoted by Anthony Watts. (Yes, I know where you got it from.)

Damn, no more skiing in Bolivia for me! Here, let me shell out my hard earned bucks to the rest of the world to fix this problem.
Sheesh...

Damn! Some posting one debunked denier talking point after another!