|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 15, 2023 12:57:44 GMT
As far as the data set represented above it appears to be the early 1950s, that is 70 years ago,
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 15, 2023 17:00:23 GMT
That is not in any way definitive. Glaciers can retreat as it becomes colder and can advance as it becomes warmer. Precipitation, melt water lubrication, rockfalls and many other factors all have an input. A retreating glacier is a retreating glacier and some glaciers have retreated and advanced many times in the past. I believe there are very few areas in the world which are experiencing glaciers advancing and where they are it is the result of significant increases in precipitation. In Europe that is confined to parts of northern Norway. The overall trend is one of significant and permanent retreats, at least since historical records began.
And retreats can be caused by many things or a combination of many things including planetary warming. What a retreat is not is definitive evidence of global warming |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 15, 2023 17:05:12 GMT
I should have thought it obvious that glaciers retreating en masse is a reliable indicator of elevated temperatures generally. Isn't that what happened in the British Isles and much of north-western Europe in paleolithic times? I believe some of them came back a thousand years later during the Younger Dryas period when temperatures fell dramatically.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 15, 2023 18:38:56 GMT
I should have thought it obvious that glaciers retreating en masse is a reliable indicator of elevated temperatures generally. Isn't that what happened in the British Isles and much of north-western Europe in paleolithic times? I believe some of them came back a thousand years later during the Younger Dryas period when temperatures fell dramatically. Now you have moved from one glacier to en masse glacier retreat. I repeat it is not definitive of global warming. The Himalayan glaciers were supposed to be gone by 2035 or thereabouts yet there were many reasons for the retreat and soot is held as one of the reasons certainly for Alpine glacier retreat and with Asia industrialising then it is becoming a problem in the Himalayas. My point is saying look glaciers are retreating it must be global warming is an assumption |
|
|
|
Post by Fred on Jul 15, 2023 19:02:47 GMT
I should have thought it obvious that glaciers retreating en masse is a reliable indicator of elevated temperatures generally. Isn't that what happened in the British Isles and much of north-western Europe in paleolithic times? I believe some of them came back a thousand years later during the Younger Dryas period when temperatures fell dramatically. I repeat it is not definitive of global warming. The Himalayan glaciers were supposed to be gone by 2035 or thereabouts yet there were many reasons for the retreat and soot is held as one of the reasons certainly for Alpine glacier retreat and with Asia industrialising then it is becoming a problem in the Himalayas. My point is saying look glaciers are retreating it must be global warming is an assumption Personally, I would have thought that indicated global warming rather than a local event… |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 15, 2023 20:18:40 GMT
I should have thought it obvious that glaciers retreating en masse is a reliable indicator of elevated temperatures generally. Isn't that what happened in the British Isles and much of north-western Europe in paleolithic times? I believe some of them came back a thousand years later during the Younger Dryas period when temperatures fell dramatically. I repeat it is not definitive of global warming. The Himalayan glaciers were supposed to be gone by 2035 or thereabouts yet there were many reasons for the retreat and soot is held as one of the reasons certainly for Alpine glacier retreat and with Asia industrialising then it is becoming a problem in the Himalayas. My point is saying look glaciers are retreating it must be global warming is an assumption Actually not. The link I provided earlier provides photographic evidence of the shrinkage of almost all Swiss alpine glaciers. It's actually quite shocking since most appears to have happened in the last 15 or 20 years. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 15, 2023 20:23:54 GMT
Now you have moved from one glacier to en masse glacier retreat. I repeat it is not definitive of global warming. The Himalayan glaciers were supposed to be gone by 2035 or thereabouts yet there were many reasons for the retreat and soot is held as one of the reasons certainly for Alpine glacier retreat and with Asia industrialising then it is becoming a problem in the Himalayas. My point is saying look glaciers are retreating it must be global warming is an assumption Personally, I would have thought that indicated global warming rather than a local event… It may be an indication but glaciers are indeed retreating for many reasons. Some as agreed advance due to a change in precipitation but some also retreat due to a change in precipitation. Some retreat due to soot from industrialisation and there is little doubt industrialisation creates much more soot, some retreat due to rock slides onto the surface. Saying one glacier retreating is a sign of global warming is just plain wrong saying glaciers are retreating en masse due to global warming has better legs and most people agree that there is a warming trend. What is at issue is what is causing this warming trend, how rapid it will be and has been, is it accelerating and what can or should we do. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 15, 2023 20:38:59 GMT
Now you have moved from one glacier to en masse glacier retreat. I repeat it is not definitive of global warming. The Himalayan glaciers were supposed to be gone by 2035 or thereabouts yet there were many reasons for the retreat and soot is held as one of the reasons certainly for Alpine glacier retreat and with Asia industrialising then it is becoming a problem in the Himalayas. My point is saying look glaciers are retreating it must be global warming is an assumption Actually not. The link I provided earlier provides photographic evidence of the shrinkage of almost all Swiss alpine glaciers. It's actually quite shocking since most appears to have happened in the last 15 or 20 years. OK I can see that you referenced one but referred to many. As regards the Alpine glacier retreat I do not think anyone disputes there is a warming trend. There is also a drought in Europe starting in spring 2018 and ending end 2022 that is not an unknown climatic event in Europe (re 1540). Therefore many glacier feed areas will be receiving far less precipitation than normal which will greatly affect levels and speed of retreat. The retreat started in the 1800s in part due to the soot from industrialisation settling on the surface and hastening surface melt. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 16, 2023 12:47:00 GMT
SP is right. The issue here is not whether the planet is warming or not. At the moment it appears to be warming but in the '70's it appeared to be cooling and "the science" was predicting a mini ice age. The issue is whether the current changes (which are vastly overstated by the way) are "weather" or "climate change". At the moment the eco zealots have decided that it's climate change and that the cause is CO2.
However, the measured change in "global average temperature" since 1850 (when records began) is 1.1C - which is less than the accuracy of our measurements. And in that time the global human population has gone from about 1 billion to nearly 8 billion. Also the 75% of the Earth's land surface has been repurposed in one way or another - as can be seen from space photos. We've chopped down huge areas of forest and replaced them with either buildings and infrastructure or monocultures of crops - all of which are known to cause warming.
The politicians say that the "predominant" cause of warming is CO2. Yet the models that are built on this hypothesis patently don't work.
How long does it take people to work out what's going on here? It's been obvious for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 16, 2023 15:32:16 GMT
I believe there are very few areas in the world which are experiencing glaciers advancing and where they are it is the result of significant increases in precipitation. In Europe that is confined to parts of northern Norway. The overall trend is one of significant and permanent retreats, at least since historical records began.
And retreats can be caused by many things or a combination of many things including planetary warming. What a retreat is not is definitive evidence of global warming Nothing ever is. Sea colour change, glacial retreat, increased frequency of highest temperatures, melting sea ice. None are absolute proof of global warming. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 16, 2023 15:41:29 GMT
SP is right. The issue here is not whether the planet is warming or not. At the moment it appears to be warming but in the '70's it appeared to be cooling and "the science" was predicting a mini ice age. The issue is whether the current changes (which are vastly overstated by the way) are "weather" or "climate change". At the moment the eco zealots have decided that it's climate change and that the cause is CO2. However, the measured change in "global average temperature" since 1850 (when records began) is 1.1C - which is less than the accuracy of our measurements. And in that time the global human population has gone from about 1 billion to nearly 8 billion. Also the 75% of the Earth's land surface has been repurposed in one way or another - as can be seen from space photos. We've chopped down huge areas of forest and replaced them with either buildings and infrastructure or monocultures of crops - all of which are known to cause warming. The politicians say that the "predominant" cause of warming is CO2. Yet the models that are built on this hypothesis patently don't work. How long does it take people to work out what's going on here? It's been obvious for years. Which apparently all measure inaccurately in the wrong direction. "Also the 75% of the Earth's land surface has been repurposed in one way or another "I strongly question this number. 38% of the worlds land mass is given to agriculture 2% or less urbanized. Its generally accepted that over 50% of the worlds land surface is relatively untouched by man, having only a few tracks and occasional dwelling on it. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 16, 2023 21:46:27 GMT
And retreats can be caused by many things or a combination of many things including planetary warming. What a retreat is not is definitive evidence of global warming Nothing ever is. Sea colour change, glacial retreat, increased frequency of highest temperatures, melting sea ice. None are absolute proof of global warming. Well if there was not so much overegging and blatant 'we have had a heavy rainstorm and it is evidence of global warming' then that may help your case. As regards Alpine glaciers they should have continued growing until about 1910 if the CO2 theory holds water but they started retreating before that and were subject to other factors. Evidence should be incontestable in the normal course of events, so far the evidence is pretty flimsy, the models do not work and pointing at individual events is rife yet individual events are often not unprecedented unless of course expunged from history because they get in the way of a wonderful maximum temperature. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 16, 2023 22:01:31 GMT
SP is right. The issue here is not whether the planet is warming or not. At the moment it appears to be warming but in the '70's it appeared to be cooling and "the science" was predicting a mini ice age. The issue is whether the current changes (which are vastly overstated by the way) are "weather" or "climate change". At the moment the eco zealots have decided that it's climate change and that the cause is CO2. However, the measured change in "global average temperature" since 1850 (when records began) is 1.1C - which is less than the accuracy of our measurements. And in that time the global human population has gone from about 1 billion to nearly 8 billion. Also the 75% of the Earth's land surface has been repurposed in one way or another - as can be seen from space photos. We've chopped down huge areas of forest and replaced them with either buildings and infrastructure or monocultures of crops - all of which are known to cause warming. The politicians say that the "predominant" cause of warming is CO2. Yet the models that are built on this hypothesis patently don't work. How long does it take people to work out what's going on here? It's been obvious for years. Which apparently all measure inaccurately in the wrong direction. "Also the 75% of the Earth's land surface has been repurposed in one way or another "I strongly question this number. 38% of the worlds land mass is given to agriculture 2% or less urbanized. Its generally accepted that over 50% of the worlds land surface is relatively untouched by man, having only a few tracks and occasional dwelling on it. The point about accuracy of a thermometer is that you cannot infer a temperature within the accuracy limits of the thermometer. Even hundreds of thermometers. Millions of inaccurate thermometers cannot give you an accurate reading. If you had 500 people guessing the age of an elderly woman do you think the average would be an accurate assessment of her age if you told them she was. 90,91,92,93 or 94. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Jul 16, 2023 22:15:04 GMT
 The planet is warming, some of it caused by natural processes, some by the amount of shit we are putting into the atmosphere and the amount of trees we are felling... everything other argument is whataboutery. The only real arguments are about the pace of change we are willing to accept. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 16, 2023 22:22:32 GMT
The planet is warming, some of it caused by natural processes, some by the amount of shit we are putting into the atmosphere and the amount of trees we are felling... everything other argument is whataboutery. The only real arguments are about the pace of change we are willing to accept. I would disagree, the pace of change is beyond our control. We are not putting shit into the atmosphere we are putting in very important plant food which they need to keep supplying us with oxygen. Most trees evolved with and much prefer CO2 levels close to twice what we currently have. |
|
