Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Wel-l-l, I suppose China's "THREE GORGES" + other proposed major dam projects can't be responsible for everything. DARE ALL OF CHINA'S-INDIA'S-PAKISTAN'S, ETC. MISSING WATER BEING WILY DASTARDLY TURNED INTO GLACIAL ICE VEE THE HIMALAYAS??
* RUSSIA TODAY > US HIT WID WORST DROUGHT IN YEARS. US Weather + Soil, Crop Boyz starting to get worried.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-04-17 01:34||
#4 According to the climate models, one of the surest signs of global warming is a mile-thick layer of ice covering the planet.
Posted by SteveS 2012-04-17 01:44||
#5 I made an interesting discovery a while back. Its south facing glaciers that are retreating. North facing glaciers are advancing. Its the same in all the places I've looked, Himalayas, Cascades, Greenland.
Rising atmospheric temperatures can't be the cause. Its almost certainly caused by increased solar insolation from decreased clouds.
Posted by phil_b 2012-04-17 02:05||
#6 Glaciers expand when there's more water-ice added than melts.
Glaciers can shrink because of less rainfall.
Glaciers can also grow because of more snowfall.
It's not totally temperature dependent.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-04-17 07:32||
#7 BP, you are, of course, correct. This, though, points up the major flaw with all the "climate" science models, theories and screaming.
The people in charge of the global warming/climate change/climate chaos scam have never been concerned with multiple variables, uncertainty and complexity.
Can't expect the world to pay you trillions unless you can sum it all up in a simple catch phrase.
This isn't science it's hucksterism.
Posted by AlanC 2012-04-17 09:08||
#8 Thing is people quote GIGO (garbage in garbage out).
Climate models are actually a lot WORSE than this. Using model outputs to "predict" further into the future exponentially magnifies even small errors into vast ones.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-04-17 09:42||
#9 as bright pebbles says,
the south asian monsoon is a big driver of the snow accumulation and thus the glaciation in the Himalayas
it is thought to have decadal cycles of strength but the causation isn't understood well
Posted by lord garth 2012-04-17 10:00||
#10 We could have another Ice Age, and the global warming/climate change hucksters would still be defending their religion and asking for more government money to do so.
Posted by JohnQC 2012-04-17 12:09||
#11 "We could have another Ice Age"
We WILL have another ice age. What we call "Ice Age" is the NORMAL state of climate over the past 3 to 5 million years. Glacial periods are about 100,000 years interspersed with 10 to 20 thousand year warm interglacial periods. We are nearing the end of this interglacial but due to the orbital mechanics, this one might be a fairly long one. We are due for a bit of an period of increasing polar insolation for another 5000 years or so before it drops considerably.
Posted by crosspatch 2012-04-17 14:18||
#12 I'll trust their models when they can feed it historical data, and produce historical results. Start with the last ice age and what cause ti to warm into what we have now. Or better yet, try to have the models show the Medieval Warm period, and then the "little Ice Age", based on climatic data during the preceding centuries of the Roman Empire and its decline.
Right now, it cannot. You give it historical data, based on what I have read, none of the models can show why the MWP happened (and why it abated), nor can any of them predict the Little Ice Age given the preceding centuries of data.
These so-called "scientists" need to open up their data (raw), their models and their research, completely, so someone can help them spot the flaws. until they have a model that can reliably predict the past with data from the past (and the known outcomes), they need to shut up about any prediction their stuff makes - false premises yield unproven and unfounded conclusions.
That's not science, its snake oil salesmanship. Sorry, I aint buying it and neither should anyone else.
Posted by OldSpook 2012-04-17 15:12||
#13 OldSpook, They just deny that the MWP or little ice age ever happened. At best they claim it was just some "local noise" in the system.
I reviewed some of the model code that was published in the "Climategate" release from UEA. Given 30 yrs in software it was very easy to see the lies and tricks the models use. I particularly like the one where they reference a sequential data set (in Fortran) to change any value that was too low for their needs.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Posted by AlanC 2012-04-17 15:23||
#14 OldSpook, I do models for a living (such as it is). Do not, repeat do not trust any model based on computer simulations---too many variables can take too many values.
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2012-04-17 15:35||
#15 The funniest one is when they take a few models and say they've averaged them out of the possibility space.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-04-17 17:28||
#16 And Greenland is called Greenland.... why?
Posted by Besoeker 2012-04-17 17:54||
#17 g(r)omgoru, Some of that 30 yrs I mentioned was doing modeling too. The genesis of gigo. Modeling can be a big help if done for the right reasons with conservative techniques but they rapidly can get out of hand, can't they?
Posted by AlanC 2012-04-17 19:44||
#18 Interestingly, in a recent paper co-authored by Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, it was discovered that the LIA and the MWP also were evident in the Patagonia region of South America.
Posted by crosspatch 2012-04-17 19:46||
#19 I also do models for a living and what you want to do is use the same model to compare different scenarios. That way you remove the potential bias between the two or more alternatives. The relative difference is what is useful for making decisions.
Posted by rammer 2012-04-17 23:52||