South Cascade Glacier - Gone in a century?

[Dr_Crash]

Why weep for the glaciers? Weep because it affects route selection and beauty at certain times of year, not because we humans are having a negative impact on them .. because there's certainly not sufficient proof to substantiate that claim.

 

Regardless of human impact (or not), glaciers receding also will have a dramatical effect on our water procurement system. Drinkable water is one of our precious resources, and glaciers an important source for it. If they recede, that resource shrinks too.

 

drC

[Dr_Crash]

Why weep for the glaciers? Weep because it affects route selection and beauty at certain times of year, not because we humans are having a negative impact on them .. because there's certainly not sufficient proof to substantiate that claim.

 

Regardless of human impact (or not), glaciers receding also will have a dramatical effect on our water procurement system. Drinkable water is one of our most precious resources, and glaciers an important source for it. If they recede, that resource shrinks too.

 

drC

[TBay]

(j_b) ...the increase in greenhouse gas concentration (human induced) is the only credible explanation for the observed rise in temperature over the last century (and increasingly so with each new study). all other hypotheses (change in solar activity, earth albedo change, etc ...) do not explain most of the increase in temperature especially that observed over the last 50years.

I think there are other credible hypotheses that explain the increase in surface temperature, especially concerning observation methods as addressed in the link below.

It seems that the newest and best way to determine global temperature is to use satellites to measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, giving the Earth a uniform global sweep, oceans included, with no cities to create a false warming bias.

The following link is an argument for an independent review of the `surface record'. The satellites have been independently reviewed several times (with orbital drift and decay error being resolved and producing accuracies to within one hundredth of a degree), so why has the `surface record' escaped an independent examination in the public interest?

 

"The Surface Record: ‘Global Mean Temperature’ and how it is determined at surface level"

 

As far as recent solar activity is concerned, i think its going to turn out to be a major player.

 

Hotter-burning sun warming the planet

Note the comments made by Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research

"The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures,"...

"The sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently — in the last 100 to 150 years," ...

is there a correlation? Most likely.

Me, you, and everyone who's be camping would agree that if someone stokes a campfire and throws some more fuel into it, what happens, the fire will put off greater heat. now imagine if the distance between you and the fire is fixed during the stoking and fueling, the surface of your skin (as would The South Cascade Glacier pertaining to the increase in solar activity) will feel the increase of energy output in the form of heat.

 

and Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society

"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor," ...

...the brighter sun and higher levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

 

sometimes science overlooks the obvious (maybe because of the blinding power of politics)

[Bushwhacker]

Excellent post TBay.

[j_b]

It seems that the newest and best way to determine global temperature is to use satellites to measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, giving the Earth a uniform global sweep, oceans included, with no cities to create a false warming bias.

 

[...]

 

"The Surface Record: ‘Global Mean Temperature’ and how it is determined at surface level"

 

satellite data of the earth skin temp shows greater warming than the surface temp record: " The 18-year Pathfinder data in the study showed that average global temperatures increased 0.43 Celsius © or 0.77 Fahrenheit (F) per decade, while ground station data indicated a rise of 0.34 C (0.61 F)."

 

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/Earth_Temperature.html

 

moreover, a recent study shows that older satellite radiometric reading of the troposphere were in fact measuring microwave emissions from the stratosphere where indeed no mixing takes place.

 

by the way, as far as your source is concerned: "The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries."

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=499

 

 

As far as recent solar activity is concerned, i think its going to turn out to be a major player.

 

Hotter-burning sun warming the planet

Note the comments made by Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research

"The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures,"...

"The sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently — in the last 100 to 150 years," ...

 

selective reading!

 

"However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time."

 

www.maxplanck.de

 

next time go to the scientific source. not a washington times article (a moonie-owned paper btw)

[j_b]

So how much CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution anyway then?

 

atmospheric co2 has increased 35% since the beginning of the industrial revolution (~1850) and 20% over the last ~45years.

 

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/07.htm

 

compared to the last 400,000years

[Fairweather]

by the way, as far as your source is concerned: "The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries."

 

Classic j_b open-mindedness:

 

Attack the source.

 

Ignore the data.

 

Post some windbag biased tripe link of your own for all to behold.

 

Finally, hurl an insult or two at the intellect of your antagonist.

 

 

The recipe never changes!

[j_b]

Attack the source.

 

Ignore the data.

 

err ..... i first showed that the analysis presented by tbay was bunk: satellite data of the earth skin temp shows greater warming than the surface temp record: " The 18-year Pathfinder data in the study showed that average global temperatures increased 0.43 Celsius © or 0.77 Fahrenheit (F) per decade, while ground station data indicated a rise of 0.34 C (0.61 F)."

 

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/Earth_Temperature.html

 

moreover, a recent study shows that older satellite radiometric reading of the troposphere were in fact measuring microwave emissions from the stratosphere where indeed no mixing takes place."

 

Post some windbag biased tripe link of your own for all to behold.

 

since when is nasa a "windbag biased tripe" organization? and the authors of the recent study about radiometric readings are from noaa and the university of washington (don't have a link though)

 

Finally, hurl an insult or two at the intellect of your antagonist.

 

where? i only noted that tbay's sources were coal industry shills and a moonie-owned paper.

 

The recipe never changes!

 

no, it doesn't: when trying to make a scientific argument use scientific sources independent from industry.

[JayB]

How about we get back to the nuclear question.

[j_b]

i know little about nuclear power so i'll let others discuss the topic. it seems that waste disposal is a huge issue though.

[ski_photomatt]

What j_b said. It's also worth pointing out that the MSU satellites don't measure the surface temperature, they indirectly measure the temperature in the low-mid troposphere (and even this is somewhat dubious, as it is masked by the upper atmosphere). Comparing it to the surface temperature record is like comparing apples to oranges. The surface temperature record isn't just land based measurements either, ship and ocean buoy data is also used.

 

This is the reference: Fu, Q., C.M. Johanson, S.G. Warren, and D.J. Seidel, 2004: Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends. Nature, 429, 55-58.

[Jake]

So how much CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution anyway then?

 

atmospheric co2 has increased 35% since the beginning of the industrial revolution (~1850) and 20% over the last ~45years.

 

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/07.htm

 

compared to the last 400,000years

 

 

Good graphs. Thanks. How accurate is the data they get from ice cores? What exactly do the measure in the ice cores that allows them to figure how much CO2 is in the air? Is it CO2 itself in the ice and then they just extrapolate that somehow to get concentrations in the air or what?

[Lowell_Skoog]

sometimes science overlooks the obvious (maybe because of the blinding power of politics)

 

I'd like to hear your take on the political motivations of the IPCC, NASA, the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, National Academy of Science, various universities, and other organizations cited in this thread. What do they have to gain by concluding that climate change has a human component?

 

On the other hand the motivation for the Western Fuels Association to downplay the human factor is pretty obvious.

[Alpinfox]

ABC News is going to do a story on "Disappearing Glaciers" as part of their newscast tonight. 6pm to 6:30 in Seattle on Channel 4.

 

Edit: Pfffttt! nevermind. That was a waste of time.

Edited September 18, 2004 by Alpinfox

[ncascademtns]

Sad thing to hear. I saw the research station when I did the Ptarmigan T in 97'. I hope to take my boys that way when they grow up but what about their kid's kids?

[Ursa_Eagle]

Hey Bushwhacker, were you the Iraqi information minister by any chance?

[j_b]

How accurate is the data they get from ice cores?

 

difficult question. there are of course a number of problems associated with interpreting ice core data. oxygen isotope ratios are usually understood to be good proxies for ice volume landlocked in glaciers and icesheets. in turn, some modeling is needed to derive temperature from the raw data which requires some assumptions notably w.r.t. the trajectory of air masses. but, there are independent ways to calibrate the relationship between oxygen isotopre ratios and temperature to insure a reasonable fit (notably via the thermal profile found in borehole).

 

establishing the right chronology is a major issue as well and that becomes more difficult the deeper one gets in the ice mass. site selection for simple flow patterns (ice divide) is critical to insuring a core that isn't messed up by ice deformation. the chronology of the core is then established by counting annual layers via various means, identifying volcanic ash layers, etc ...

 

i recall the following site having a good discussion of the theory behind the methods: http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/isotope.htm

 

What exactly do the measure in the ice cores that allows them to figure how much CO2 is in the air? Is it CO2 itself in the ice and then they just extrapolate that somehow to get concentrations in the air or what?

 

air found in the interstitial space in firn eventually becomes trapped in air bubbles as snow becomes ice. these bubbles are samples of the paleo atmosphere which can be processed to deliver concentrations of co2, ch4, etc ..