Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

It is well established that many glaciers worldwide have been in retreat since the 1850s. So what does this prove?

 

Nothing.

 

I'm surprised that guy replied to priushippie. Priushippie's posts were completely ridiculous. It's still amazing that a lot of people don't understand the difference between normal cycles of warming and cooling, and the idea of humans causing the earth to warm at an accelerated pace.

Even that very-pro AGW paper we talked about a few pages back basically attributed our current warming to the sun. Except for the last 30 years. If the sun is causing so much warming and cooling, I think we should bomb the sun because obviously it's bad for us! (kidding)

 

No. Actually they said this:

"Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on cen- tennial, millennial and even million-year timescales."

Regarding glaciers the consensus is that glaciers are retreating all over the world. This is one early clue that has climatologists concerned:

Glacier retreat references

And I like to leave you with another independent proxy!

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Smith et al. 2006 500-year Northern Hemisphere Speleothem Temperature Reconstruction

 

Alric, that is not the article I was talking about. That post had questions about two papers possibly being contradictory.

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf

They indicated a "marked (or even dominant) solar effect on climate variability until the middle of the 20th century"

From the conclusion:

Note that the most recent warming, since 1975, was not considered in the above correlations. The most recent warming was not evaluated in this study.

By the way, thanks for posting that proxy. For anyone reading, the speleothem (stalactites and stalagmites) record is the one Alric would like you to look at here. Notice the speleothem record is mostly reporting lower temperatures than Mann's tree ring proxy record, especially during the LIA. Also note the speleothem record trends down at the end. It does not hockey-stick.

(If anyone has forgotten, the Little Ice Age (LIA) is thought to have started anywhere from 1250-1650, and has supposed minima around 1650, 1770, and 1850.)

Again, it makes sense that we see warming when coming out of the Little Ice Age. My criticism of that graph is that it only goes back 500 years. It's very convenient and deceitful to post a graph that completely cuts off the Medieval Warm Period. Without seeing the LIA in context of the MWP, you can't fully appreciate the cyclical nature of temperature change on earth. That is, it's much easier to make it look like our warming is alarming if you remove past warming from the picture.

 

Jeebus, that's not a paper! That's a workshop handout.

The point of all proxies is to study temperature before we had the instrumental record. All proxies and the instrumental record agree on a dip on the temps on the 50's or so with a skyrocketing in temp after that. Coinciding with elevated human greenhouse gas production.

Understand; once you have instrumental records you don't need proxies.

 

Good point! I always point out that we had global warming when this planet came out of the ice age! I don't think that humans had anything to do with that!

 

Wouldn't you expect to see some sea-level rise by now if it was going to happen at all? Where's the rise? Are low-lying Pacific Islands under water? Is Florida submerged? Gore's "documentary" is a work of fiction. You'd do better worrying about a large asteroid splashing down in an ocean somewhere, which is much more likely than man-made sealevel rise.

 

This was previously posted.

 

Like this?



Using data from here..

PSMSL Home

Not published work as long as I can tell. But it is work done by a climatologist.

 

Wow what a phenomenal graph. Does that show warming coming out of the little ice age? LOL

 

Counting CRU “tricks” Watts Up With That?

 

No. That one answers the question on whether there is current warming or not. The historical comparison is here. As you've repeatedly seen and includes coming out of the ice age:



You need to understand the questions. Has the climate changed in the past? Yes. Has it ever warmed as fast and probably as much in historical and probably geologic times? No.

The warming after ice ages took centuries or millennia. The current warming is occurring in the timeframe of decades.

 

Lies.



I see tree ring data trending downwards, flattening out, and one trending upwards.

In fact wasn't the whole point behind the "hide the decline" trick to make it look like the tree ring proxies hockey-sticked when they in fact didn't?

Honestly, Alric, your posts should have to pass through a BS filter before you're allowed to post them.

I gotta go.

Further reading:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/10/counting-cru-tricks/
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#more-9483

Actually read it, Alric.

 

Wait you said "No" to my question "Does it show warming coming out of the ice age?" and then you said it shows us coming out of the ice age, including warming. LOL.

 

No. They were talking about a specific set of data that is not present in any graph we have discussed. Precisely because most tree-ring proxies do NOT show this decline.

 

Read that again. I am talking about the previous graph in comparison to the graph here.

 

Check this out. Wow, Bangladesh is going under water due to ocean levels rising due to the glaciers melting back!!!! Al Gore is absolutely correct! Again!!



Global warming, photography, pictures, photos, climate change, impact, science, weather, arctic, antarctica, climate zones, glacier, arctic warming, antarctica warming, documentation, effects, effects of climate change, paleoclimate, mountain glacier

 

Swiss scientists measure glacial melting with light

These Swiss scientists are obviously measuring the actual loss of glaciers. They are not in denial of the FACTS! They are so sure of it that they want to get a more accurate measurement of this catastrophy.

 

It was Lewie who posited, "Good luck, because the glaciers are doing fine, thank you"

I merely commented on the condition of certain glacial areas of N. America, but it seems that other deniers don't agree with your assertion. Seems like they don't believe in gravity either!