1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today
Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers. Danish explorers in Greenland in 1932. Credit: National Survey and Cadastre of Denmark We're not worried about rising sea levels. Well, we are in a seaplane. The …
This topic is closed for new posts.
1840 the start of the industrial revolution?
"as early as 1840, before the industrial revolution and human-driven carbon emission had even got rolling".
Sorry, completely factually wrong. 1840 was towards the end of the industrial revolution, the industrial revolution started in the mid 1700s. To take one example out of hundreds, the well known Iron Bridge in Shropshire, for instance, dates from 1775.
No chance of a rational debate then?
I see that Science has prevailed and any one asking any questions, is not only questioning Science itself, but is a filthy Climate Holocaust Denier to boot.
Well, seeing as I'm not allowed to ask questions, gather resources, evaluate data, 'Be Sceptical' and use the Scientific Method, as I understand it, I suppose I will have to use the Scientific Method as others understand it and are forcing on me - 'shit or get off the pot'.
I've seen many things purporting to be and masquerading as Scientific Method, but this is a new one on me.
You climate trolls made one rather silly mistake: You all pounced at once like rabid dogs totally disproportionate to the argument (if indeed it even was an argument) at hand. You made fence/pot sitters like me sit up and take notice, saying to themselves 'whoah, bloody 'ell, what's goin' on 'ere then?'. (Please feel free to ad hominem me over a misplaced apostrophe ;-))
You CACC heads are stifling scientific debate. The game is up according to you. You are starting to resemble a certain country on Planet Earth that is constantly bringing up all the terrible things that happened to them, to further justify doing just as horrible things to others. Can you guess which country I mean. In short, you are behaving like *****.
To quote a great scientific mind of our times, a man of the Scientific Method as I understand it:
"I'm not really concerned whether the world is heating up, boiling or just about to explode. I couldn't care less."
http://www.dedoimedo.com/physics/global-warming.html
And I have to thank the CACC heads for turning me on to the GWPF, never heard of them before - thanks.
I particularly like that when searching on Google for said organisation, my WOT goes through the roof warning me that this is a malicious site. Agenda much? Free time too much? One particular wag said of his reasoning for the red-circling: "Climate change denial website which rails against the predominant scientific opinion on climate change, that the Earth is in an ongoing phase of global warming primarily caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect due to the anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. "
Yes, you stupid fuckstick it is called balanced debate, necessary to the Scientific Method as I understand it.
It is good that you little climate trolls are coming out of the closet and showing yourselves for what you really are. Let's not even get into the falsification of Scientific Data. Your mob mentality, really has me scratching my chin here, as to what your game is. I think I know. Your behaviour is only consolidating my opinion. There's a bit more going on with this than meets the eye, isn't there?
Do you think we even deserve to survive as a species? Do you? Do you jump to your keyboard so quickly about matters and affairs in the Democratic Rebublic Of Congo. Don't ever say you are humanists, because you are not. You make me sick.
Well played little trolls. Kinda back fired a little bit that one didn't it?
</off pot>
Actually, I lie, I am still on the fence. If anyone has any scientific data they can point me to, to make me swing the other way, I would be most grateful. Genuinely. If that is ok with you? If you don't mind? If you will 'allow' it?
And more than that, if someone could actually tell me what the question was in the first place, I would be even more indebted.
Re: No chance of a rational debate then?
So errr...which side are you on then?
You went off ranting and lost the plot a bit.
Re: No chance of a rational debate then?
This is science not football. There should be no 'sides' just reasoned debate and healthy scepticism.
Re: No chance of a rational debate then?
Only five downvotes for that?
Looks like the climate miltia hit squad can't be arsed to hang around for the long game and we're getting past the kneejerk sniping and into the discussion at this point in the comments.
Re: No chance of a rational debate then?
@Fibbles: But: The debate isn't reasoned, and the scepticism isn't healthy.
There is no real debate, it's just people shouting at each other, neither side of which is qualified in any way to comment. The scepticism isn't healthy because there is no deference to people who actually know about the subject in question. I actually got told in a "debate" here by someone that when I quoted a climate scientist, who has a phd and post doc research career of many years, that the opinion quoted didn't count because the person I was speaking to didn't recognise authority.
Yet I bet he still goes to the doctor.
I despair at the piss-poor ability demonstrated in debate at this site, particularly on this subject. Arguments are childish, poorly argued and often resort to non-sequitur, straw man and the like in order to hammer a point across.
An Unfortunate Truth
Looks like yet another black eye for the climatologists. But this isn't a game. The warmists want us to spend billions on their pet fixes for the AGW problem, while ignoring any evidence that the Sun impacts us much more then autos.
We may in fact be tipping into another cool minimum. This would be bad, since the impact on growing seasons in our most productive farming areas would be serious. But, a lot of places would need much more oil, and perhaps here we see a convergence of needs. Whether we are trying to alleviate AGW, if it exists, or handle a mini-ice-age, we will need to prepare for oil scarcity.
At base, the warmist movement is intended to stretch out our fossil fuel reserves, while an ice-age would increase demand. The solution ends up being identical. We need replacement energy sources. Sadly, we have such a hangup about nuclear power that we are not actively exploring a thorium cycle reactor, which promises very abundant power at low cost, with little radiation risk. The alternatives of wind and waves really don't offer much benefit in comparison.
Which 'side' am I on?
I'm on the side that says 'Let me make my own mind up. Don't harangue and harass me and get all Ad Hominem just because I have not come to the same conclusion as you, yet'.
Yes it was a rant, but surely not that incoherent for a Reg reader to debug? Oh well.
With all the dirty tricks it is not looking good for the AWG movement.
And if you had read my previous 'rant', I made the point - Maybe the Earth is warming up, maybe Mankind is causing it. But why do you care? And why do you try to intimidate me so much to tow your line? There is obviously a not-so-hidden agenda working here. That is all I care about and am focusing on from now on.
And why does there even need to be a side to be on? What good is the polarisation of debate? That thing is best kept for political arguments. Oh wait a minute....
Re: Which 'side' am I on?
Complaining about ad hominem attacks after your own post had many ad hominems in it..(.fuckwits)?
No one harangued or harassed you. You're the one who started ranting thus drawing response in similar vein. I really do look for sensible discussion on both sides of this debate but you weren't debating or offering anything useful.
Re: Which 'side' am I on?
@Bradley Hardleigh-Hadderchance
That wasn't a rant .. It was pure poetry
The irony is the CACC heads and Guardianista greentards who now flock to the Reg to diss every Andrew Orlowoski and Lewis Page article have no doubt massively boosted the coffers of El Reg via their Google doubeclick adverts..
One commentard above even posted demanding to know who the sinister force is funding Lewis !
I reckon Lewis could have a bought his third SUV just from the revenue the greentards generate for him here last month.
Re: Which 'side' am I on?
@Bradley - How are you making your mind up? Are you taking an evening course in environmental chemistry/physics? Maybe you're going the whole hog and taking a phd in climate science or related disciplines? Maybe you're researching the literature and making your own meta study?
Like radioactive cadmium in fish caught in California
but according to the gospel of Lewis Fukushima was a good example for how good a small nuclear incident can be handled.
Don't you mean radioactive cesium?
Note that radio-isotopes can easily be detected at levels far below what would be considered harmful. As an example, Carbon 14 dating works because all food sources have some carbon-14 in them, but there has been no hysteria about removing carbon 14 from the food chain.
The global impact of radiation leakage from Fukushima is still dwarfed by the remnants of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. It is also even less of an issue on a global scale than naturally occurring radioactive materials such as the potassium 40 in your body.
Re: Don't you mean radioactive cesium?
IvyKing: Be gentle on Volker Hett he's a Apple fanboi you know
cesium, cadmium... meh .. it's all silver and shiny to him
@Yamal Dodgy Data (was: Re: Don't you mean radioactive cesium?)
Indeed.
"Silvery and shiny" just about sums up most of the loudmouth AGW set. If only the sorry sods could take three or four steps back and see how daft they sound, at least from a scientific perspective.
On the other hand, from a human psychology perspective, it's fascinating to watch the pack behavior. Sheeple will believe anything that a shamen repeats often enough, even if they don't have enough knowledge to actually understand it for themselves.
Re: Like radioactive cadmium in fish caught in California
And if you read the actual reports about the cesium-134 (not cadmium so you probably haven't read the reports) then you'll find that the levels were 10 times previous levels, these new levels were still 1/30th of natural levels of radioactivity in marina life. It's only because the measuring equipment is so accurate that such tiny levels can be detected.
Finally, cesium-134 has a half life of just ove 2 years (cesium-137 has 30 year half life but that comes from bombs), so within a decade the levels will be very low and nothing to worry about. Ignore the phrase "there is no safe level of radioactivity", there is; emperical evidence proves with areas like northern Iran and the Rockies in Montana where natural levels of radiation are high and no one there are dropping like flies, in fact they are healthier than the average.
Silver and shiny
Cesium needs to be in an inert atmosphere to say silver and shiny. Perusing an MSDS on metallic cesium would discourage most people from wanting to deal with the non-radioactive stuff.
Re: Silver and shiny
"Perusing an MSDS on metallic cesium would discourage most people from wanting to deal with the non-radioactive stuff."
However it would encourage the rest to throw a chunk into a bath full of water and post the video to youtube.
Hipster cause
Global warming is probably happening, human behaviour may or may not be the cause.
What is true, however, is that the trendy hipsters are driving the agenda, regardless of what's actually happening. How else can we have a situation when people say "The ice glaciers are melting faster than ever before, this proves we need to act now" and then go on to say "The ice glaciers are not melting faster than ever before, this proves we need to act now"?
There's a whole lot of stuff being driven through governments on dodgy evidence simply because it's trendy, politically correct and is driven by influential people (the rich and famous).
Whatever is actually happening in nature, this is what's actually happening in human society.
Re: Hipster cause
Even getting in a dig at POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. Proving what you think worthless.
The Planet
I do wish that when people discuss climate change they would refrain from using the phases "Damage The Planet", "Destroy The Planet" or "The Earth Is Going To Be Destroyed". What tosh! none of these things is going to happen. The Planet Earth has been happily orbiting the Sun for about 4.5Billion Years and any actions of the puny human race that has only been around for the blink of an eye in comparison are not going to stop The Earth carrying on spinning for the next 4.5+Billion Years.
What might happen is that we might make the planet too hot, too cold or otherwise inhospitable for mankind and the other species that share our narrow ecological comfort zone. Sad but there you go.
Re: The Planet
Too true!
Whilst I strongly believe you should behave in a responsible manner and not 'shit in your backyard', I too am annoyed with the constant aligning of planetary cycles and changes in terms of a human lifespan.
A human lifespan is just too small. It's like trying to work out the plot of a book from one sentence. Looking at data from say just 100 year is daft. You need to analyse over thousands to find any sense of scale or pattern (if there is one).
forgotton but not lost
Lewis forgot to mention
"From these images, we see that the mid-century cooling stabilized the glaciers," Box said. "That suggests that if we want to stabilize today's accelerating ice loss, we need to see a little cooling of our own."
& he didn't mean by pumping sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere again which would be a little dangerous
just so we're absolutely clear on the difference between 30's & modern warming effects on the glaciers as Lewis seemed to forget to include a few things from the study
In the 1930s, fewer glaciers were melting than today, and most of those that were melting were land-terminating glaciers.Those that were melting retreated an average of 20metres per year. 55% of the glaciers in the study had similar or higher retreat rates during the 1930s than they do today. The modern average ice loss of the larger number of melting glaciers is 50metres per year., the significantly higher modern average is very largely due to a small number that are retreating extremely rapidly.
Re: forgotton but not lost
With comments like you posted, we readers need to know: who you are; your qualifications to provide such details; your source of information; and other reasons we should take your word on details.
The carbon in fossil fuels was once in the air
How the carbon in fossil fuels came to be trapped there is through the miracle of photosynthesis. It was captured from the air by plants. The Earth was warmer then, and will be warmer again - but it wasn't toxic to humans even then. It's been colder since, and not a good habitat for Men because cold is toxic to men. For the most part the plants were not on land but in the sea - since most of the world is covered by sea. Sea algae made oil, and there's a lesson there. It may yet be possible to close this cycle and harness the solar energy storing powers of algae on the open sea.
Regardless, if all the fossil fuels yet discovered were in an instant burned, it wouldn't turn the air toxic nor cause Venus-like conditions because it didn't when that carbon was previously in the air. Much of the carbon then in the air has since been subducted into the mantle, absorbed in metamorphic rock (marble, for example) and forever lost - so we cannot even approach dinosaur levels of CO2 even if we wanted to, and certainly not Venus level runaway greenhouse conditions.
Between now and then we're likely to harness the energy in Methane Clathrates, which cover the world's oceans some six feet deep on average and are a many-times greater carbon fuel resource than all the oil yet discovered. We had better because as the world warms if we don't use it, it may accelerate warming beyond a tolerable pace on its own.
Cause and effect?
I think we should do what we can to reduce emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases. That said, I think that climate researchers are assuming the role of the little boy that hit a power pole with a stick and thought he caused the great blackout that affected the US in the 1960s.
rhone gletcher
Well, the rhone gletcher has been melting since the late 1800's, and retreating rapidly ever since.
I would think the warm spell we had in the 30's would hardly be news ?
Just as the fact that we were worried about global cooling in the 70s would hardly be news
This is interesting
"Other scientists have said recently that late-20th-century temperature rises in the Arctic may result largely from clean-air legislation intended to deal with acid rain: some have even gone so far as to suggest that rapid coal- and diesel-fuelled industrialisation in China is serving to prevent further warming right now."
So, as I see it, AGW is happening because we've stopped pumping shit into the atmosphere? Now that's AGW I can believe in. Let's bring back the old mile-per-gallon big-block V8s and get those factory chimneys belching!
Re: This is interesting
"Let's bring back the old mile-per-gallon big-block V8s....."
Typical Yank overengineering. A 4.5 litre Blower Bentley will easily chew through a gallon in every mile using only four cylinders. Let's here it for British craftsmanship!
Re: This is interesting
e.g.
http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39
The 1930's vs the 2010's
Here in the technical vastness of the future, we can guess that surely the past was very different.
Our children's children will LOL at us, especially over the great Global Warming Hoax.
Re: The 1930's vs the 2010's
I hope they will LOL at us - I'd like nothing better.
But I suspect that they are more likely to say "How the FUCK could our grandparents have been so stupid as to let this happen without at least trying to do something about it?"
Global warming is the biggest Liberal hoax ever perpetrated on the people of this planet and notice that somehow it only affects civilized countries, but somehow misses third world holes and all communist countries. Why is that? First it was global cooling, then it was the ozone hole, which fluctuates constantly, then thirty years ago the oceans would be depleted in twenty years, then it was global warming, and when that was proven to be a fantasy, it was climate change. All brought to you by environmentalists that have never been right about anything and using a "consensus" in science to claim they have facts. What is so laughable is the idiots that willingly bend over and grab the ankles for the greenies who use all these fantasies to "control " people and then fleece them of their hard earned money with gimmicks like "carbon" offsets. Environmentalism is the new home of the worlds communist control freaks. You people really need to get a grip and get over yourselves. The earth has taken care of itself for millions of years, always has, always will and you are nothing more than an insignificant bump in the road. You morons are reacting to the call of the greenies like Pavlov's dog reacted to the bell. What's so funny is you don't even question the crap you are being fed, you just lap it up, without a single skeptical thought in your heads as you feel so good about your recycling and using the green products that you buy, probably even wear a ribbon proclaiming your fealty to environmentalism. Amazing the amount of ludicrous gullibility in people that were given a brain, but never seem to use it.
Err?
Just signed up to post that? I hadn't noticed that JackDRipper had gone as a handle.
Muir
Two points. The glaciers have been receding now for 11,000 years. The other is that John Muir was shocked at the glacier recession he saw in 1890.......
So all you chicken little's take heart.
You probably won't be seeing this story in the Mainstream Media [MSM.] It doesn't mesh well with the phony Global Warming [GW] hype. The only purpose of the GW hysteria is to increase Al Gore's income. Gore lost more than the 2000 election. He's a complete loser, a hypocrite, and a destroyer of manufacturing, mining and retail businesses and jobs. Those of us who managed to stay sane through all the nonsense, knew that the GW hysteria was a false God---named Al Gore. He got rich, won the peace prize for his hysteria, and the rest of us paid through the nose for baseless hype. The Earth warms and cools as it and the Sun dictate. Gore should be tried and convicted for crimes against mankind.
Panic!!
The situation has completely changed. But don't stop panicking over global warming. We don't want to let a perfectly good crises go to waste. So just keep on doing what we tell you and we will keep control...
Facts are pointless to AGW believers
Show opposing information to the AGW believers and all you get in return is name calling, "you grew up in bum Fnck Alabama", "you are a glenn beck idiot", "you are a faux news fool" and so on.
You pro AGW folks can no more PROVE the cause of warming than non-believers can disprove it. Yet somehow you feel justified in name calling, questioning their intelligence and claiming they are propagandist working for "big oil".
So when images like this come out and you respond with name calling it just goes to show everyone that you have no firm position....so you go to the liberal "backstop" of personal attacks.
A tactic as old as time and employed (generally) by those on the wrong side of the argument....sort of the "nuts and sluts" argument that politicians use when caught with a woman who's not their wife.
So instead why don't you explain the variations in both ice coverage and temperatures which have occurred over the centuries? Not with made up data(as has been PROVEN on more than one occasion)....not with theory but irrefutable proof.
And claims that "scientists have declared it case closed" are the equivalent to the consensus that the earth was flat....yet so many treat it as heresy to even question. Remember all fact are true until new information make them false(flight, space travel, gravity, flat earth, global cooling??)
Perhaps explain how we "keep earth happy" when one volcano can completely undo in a few weeks (and by orders of magnitude) all best case reductions we could possibly achieve over multiple decades and $trillions of spend.
Face it, the equation(the sinks and unexpected counter actions the earth constantly surprises us with) have too many variable and you understand too few of the exceptions that occur DAILY to say with any kind of certainty what is happening.
Understanding why they call it Anthropogenic is key.
Unfortunately it means that "Man" is just full of him/herself. A bundle of cells with the greatest Ego ever conceived. For man to believe that he has ANY effect upon the Earth, is among the most conceited and egotistical acts ever purpetrated. Perhaps that is the "original sin"?
The Earth and the Universe have been in existence longer than anyone can measure. Man's tiny little mind cannot comprehend that fact, so he makes up stories that make him feel better, starting with "Religion". Now, it's "global warming". The utter vastness of the Earth or the Universe just scares the living shit out of Man without a whole pantheon of little bedtime stories to put things in perspective.
Nature, Earth, Universe do not care what man does because all humanity is just an insignificant speck of festering DNA and bacteria. Man has had and will have no effect in terms of millions or billions of years , which are the time cycles of the Universe.
Re: Understanding why they call it Anthropogenic is key.
Yes, Yes, man has no effect on the earth.
The ozone hole didn't happen
The planet can't be seen lit up from space
I didn't use a road to get to work this morning
The 1980s smogs in California didn't happen, likewise the pre-clean air act smogs in London.
There are no heat islands around cities.
I mean, this has to be about the most piss-poor argument possible.
800 to a 1,000 years ago it was warm enough to farm, and raise live stock like sheep and goats.. Sweeds. Norweegwns and Danes did well there a good fishing business too.And then it got too colder ,again..
Until it was put into the Memory Hole, most of the geological and climate research of the early 20th Century related to understanding the understand the ebb and flow of ice ages over the last few million years.
“The Earth is in an ice age now. It started about 2 million years ago and is known as the Quaternary Period. Despite the many warm periods since then, we identify the entire time as one ice age because of the continuous existence of at least one large ice sheet—the one over Antarctica. (The glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet are also of long standing, but they are more recent). We are currently enjoying a warm interval: our climate represents an interglacial period that began about 10 000 years ago. The preceding glacial period lasted about 80 000 years” Canadian Museum of Nature
http://nature.ca/notebooks/english/iceage.htm
We are still recovering from the last one which covered Europe and North America in mile high glaciers and extinguished many species under the weight of ice and fierce cold weather.
We will know when we are fully recovered when Greenland glaciers disappear and the Arctic and Antarctic Ice is gone. Then the next Ice Age will start.
What About the Sea Level?
The big fear of the glaciers melting is the sea levels rising so high that coastal cities and low lying islands are flooded.
If the glaciers in Greenland had partially melted back in the 1930's was there a corresponding rise in the global sea level?
If people and more importantly scientist weren't worried back in the 30's they must not have noticed an asociated problem. Perhaps the global warming alarmist predictions of a killer sea level rise is exaggerated.
Re: What About the Sea Level?
My family has had boats in Noyo Harbor (just south of Fort Bragg, in Northern California) since roughly 1860. Sea level hasn't changed appreciably in that time frame.
Re: What About the Sea Level?
You wouldn't notice, because the boats are lying lower in the water, as each generation of yank bible-bashing anti-science hamburger munching fucktards that fills said boats is a little bit more grossly obese.
At least in centuries gone by, you tidally bobbing sea-turds could only whoop and holler within waddling range of the nearest barbecue or baseball game. Now that we have internets y'all gonna spread your righteous, homely fisherman's 'wisdom' over in parts of the world where we read books n stuff and rightfully pour scorn on hill billy bubbas homespun yarns.
Re: What About the Sea Level?
You wouldn't know this this, as clearly judging by your manners it is unlikely you're allowed out of your garden gate without a strong tether, bit and Hannibal Lecter-esque entourage but most harbours have water level meters so folks capable of being in charge of vehicles not made by matchbox, know how much water is under the keel. Presumably that is what the gentleman was talking about.
His observations are also backed up by the science, there has been no increase in sea levels.
Ad hominem attacks
..are the last refuge of the factually challenged.
Keep at it Lewis. I for one am fed up with these denialists who simply cant accept that the world is not getting any warmer and certainly not fast enough to even remotely support IPCC projections. :)
"the warming trend which resulted in the melting seen by Rasmussen's expedition actually started as early as 1840, before the industrial revolution and human-driven carbon emission had even got rolling. In that scenario, variations in the Sun seem to have much more weight than is generally accepted by today's climatologists."
Except that the Industrial Revolution started a hundred years before 1840, and was practically over by then.
But apart from just moving time to fit the facts, they could have a great point. :o/
@Graham Wilson
FWIW quite a number of the scientific community are adamant that the best way to deal with global warming is to somehow limit the human population.
9 billion people wanting fridges/cars/clean drinking water/etc has a lot more impact than 6 billion, etc.
This topic is closed for new posts.
