 Poster: A snowHead
|
The article on glaciers raises just the point I have been making. If one reads the article it goes on to discuss the glacier on Kilimanjaro, siting global warming as the cause and alluding that the problem is man made.
The glacier on Kilimanjaro has been in retreat since the 1800s, well before the "global warming" that we're all being warned about, began. Being an equatorial volcano it exists in a warm region. Satelite measurement of the region show no warming trends at the glacier level. The blame for it melting? Almost certainly the deforestation of the rain forests at the base of the mountain. The air blowing up the mountain is no longer moist.
That theory was expounded in 2003 in Nature. Environmentalists, including those scientists that contributed to the above link fail to acknowledge the most likely cause of the melting glacier. Conveniently ignored? Who knows, but it does demonstrate that there is a huge potential mislead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Anyone who reads those links will see that what I'm about to say is blatantly obvious, but I'll mention it for anyone who doesn't have time to read it. I realise that replying now is going against what I said in my first post about debating this, but whatever, I have a couple of free minutes and it's an interesting subject.
The first mention of Kilimanjaro is in the comments section - i.e. it is not part of the article which discusses completely different glaciers. The comment that mentions it is a reference to a paper (Moelg, Hardy & Kaser, 2003) on one mountain and if you read comment 8 you'll see that the paper can't really be used to bring a conclusion one way or the other - which is why many people like Michael Cricthon have picked it up, and not the broader papers like the one talked about in the article by J. Oerlemans, (which unfortunately can't be read without a Science subscription). That paper shows how using a range of glaciers around the globe (though limited to mid-latitudes) can be used to calculate a global (as opposed to regional) temperature rise. The article summarises what Oerlemans says in his paper with:
| Quote: |
| In any case, what Oerlemans’s paper does very well is to demonstrate (one more time) what we already knew: global temperatures have risen more than 0.5 degrees C in the last century (up to 1990 -- we don't yet have a compilation of the latest data). As Oerlemans points out, the only way for this to be substantially in error is if there has been worldwide decreases in summertime cloudiness (by 30% or so!), or in winter precipitation (by 25%!). There is no evidence for either of these changes occurring, and if there were, it would be a remarkable discovery in and of itself. |
The important thing is that using glacial information, i.e. a completely different method of calculation, you get a very similar result to the other proxy measurements as well as the direct satellite and reporting station data.
The RealClimate is likely to have an article about Kilimanjaro soon, which should make the position (more) clear - e.g. it is not being avoided, but as the quote 8 points out:
| Quote: |
The Kase paper...does not claim that deforestation is causing the melting of Kilimanjaro, and they have no data that would support that claim.
|
.
It goes on to quote a (NY?) Times article on it:
| Quote: |
[One author, Kase, said,]"We have a mere 2.5 years of actual field measurements from Kilimanjaro
glaciers, unlike many other regions, so our understanding of their
relationship with climate and the volcano is just beginning to develop,"
Dr. Douglas R. Hardy, a geologist at the University of Massachusetts and
an author of the paper, wrote by e-mail. "Using these preliminary
findings to refute or even question global warming borders on the
absurd."
|
They talk about an increased solar radiation input being the main cause of the melting. The cause of the increased solar input is
| Quote: |
is understood as a direct consequence of the 20th century dry East African climate with a lack of accumulation, allowing the mass balance of the glaciers to be dominated by ablation that, in turn, is enhanced by greater net shortwave radiation due to decresed cloudiness. Moreover, this study highlights that modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro is much more complex than simply attributable to ‘‘global warming only’’, a finding that conforms with the general character of glacier retreat in the global tropics [Kaser, 1999]: a process driven by a complex combination of changes in several different climatic parameters [e.g., Kruss, 1983; Kruss and Hastenrath, 1987; Hastenrath and Kruss, 1992; Kaser and Georges, 1997; Wagnon et al., 2001; Kaser and Osmaston, 2002; Francou et al., 2003; Mo¨lg et al., 2003], with humidity-related variables dominating this combination.
|
So the main question is what is the cause in the decrease in humidity? Deforestation could be a factor, but so equally be a change in (local) climate.
For those who wish to read the paper, it is here: http://geowww.uibk.ac.at/glacio/LITERATUR/moelghardykaser03.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
skanky, good point well made. But whether you concede one arguement or the other, it does demonstrate that there is sufficient data and scientific research to make the point one way or the other. One can state that one reason is more likely than the other. Given sufficient exposure in well read publications and journals, one arguement will gain more status than the other.
Also, anyone providing evidence that may suggest a counter to global warming theories is usually shot down in flames and written off as anti-environmental or accused of sticking their heads in the sand.
I personally believe we do have a responsibility to manage the potential damage we're doing to "our" planet. I do, however, find the "evidence" on both sides conflicting and misleading and the result is likely that "normal" people will distrust both positions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
One of the things I find hilarious is that those who say current data, and projections are wrong, or inaccurate, are the ones who rely on guesswork as to the temperature 1000 years ago, because I don't believe that accurate global measurements were available back when the world was flat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Mark Hunter, I have never yet read any counter-argument that holds any water (some have gotten a little too technical for me but then that has generally within a narrow band of one particular point of the whole raft of information and evidence that anthropogenic global warming is occuring). It is notable that there is a general scientific consensus for the theory (as shown in a previous link) and that very few (if any) anti-papers are puiblished in any peer-reviewed literature. I have only seen one or two climatologists who have expressed any scepticism. Most nay-sayers have really shown a lack of understanding (indeed some of the stuff that's out there is ridiculous). So as I say, I have not yet seen any evidence that it is not happening (or any that stands up to any scrutiny), and plenty that it is happening. But I'm willing to look for the opposite - I would be very happy if it all turned out to be wrong.
You may see people in political or media discussions accused of "anti-environmental" or "sticking their heads in the sand" (in fact I have - though I've since started to avoid those as they are very circular), but I've never seen that in any discussion that pretty much sticks to the science. The idea that only environmentalists accept that it is happening is interesting as I never had NASA (for example) down as an environmentalist organisation.
In the meantime there is still a reasonable chance that we can keep the change to mainly localised damage (though as I've said before localised damage can still be catastrophic - if not impossible without the change), but eventually we'll be past that point. Then we'll just have to try and adapt as best we can. Maybe this will save us? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, the whole argument about pre-1600 record temperatures is based on "proxy" measurements and is a whole area of study called paleoclimatology. Accurate temps are difficult and proxy information tends to be localised, but by combining data sets a reasonable idea of global temperatures is posible. However most of these studies so far (AFAIA) back the AGW theory and most of the more technical attempts to "debunk" the theory are aimed at these records, despite the fact that they are not the main evidence for AGW (the other attempt is in the interpretation of some of the satellite temperature data).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depressing. Wonder which one will happen first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
skanky, that 2nd link of yours makes for some interesting reading - think I should sell my car now whilst there's still a market for them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Hunter, no idea I only came across "peak oil" very recently and haven't read around it much, so have no idea whether it's imminent, realistic, flawed, rubbish, wacko or whatever. You could always take the engine out and buy a horse?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Resurrected this thread rather than starting yet another 'climate change' thread. A report in Science (second hand from the BBC) suggests that rises in sea level are much less than have been predicted on the basis of global warming, due to an increase in precipitation (snow) in Antarctica, also caused by global warming. Of course, if temperatures continue to rise, such an effect would be a temporary buffer against rising sea level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
quite popular at some point, I believe 