Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Global warming nears ?dangerous? level

DA Morgan, you proveded five links. The first one ( http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm ) is a condensed version of a 1998 study. It shows that the glaciers in Montana have been shrinking since the Little Ice Age. Table 1 shows "Glacier sizes at the end of the 'Little Ice Age' appear under '1850 Area'." The rest (28 of 39 glaciers) are single year values, most (25 of 39 glaciers) of which come from 1966. The values that were updated show that the earth has warmed since the little ice age. That does not surprise me. How does that contribute to your argument of anthropogenic global warming?

It also discusses some glaciers in specifics like the Agassiz and Jackson glaciers. "Retreat rates increased steadily to 14-42 m a-1 by 1926, and to 112-117 m a-1 by 1932." Is the 14 for Agassiz and the 42 for Jackson? Unless I am reading it wrong, the difference is at least (117-42=75m or 112-14=98m) 75 meters of retreat in the six years between 1926 and 1932 (12.5 m/year). In the 14 years between 1979 and 1993, it only retreated 50 meters (3.6 m/year). In other words, it seems like it was hotter in Montana during the late 1920's than it was in the 1980's. How does that contribute to your argument of greenhouse effect? Actually, it shows that 80's were warmer than 1850, but are cooler than the early 1930's.

The next link shows how the Upsala glacier retreated in the 4 years up to 2004. All that means is that the region around that glacier is now warmer than when the glacier was growing. That news article says that a "worldwide retreat of glaciers was observed during the twentieth century and most of the Patagonia's glaciers, including Upsala were no exception." That most means that there are exceptions. How much is most? I wonder how the scientists quantified it if at all. What percentage makes up that most. And the retreat does not mention thickening like Greenland was thickening.

It had a link to http://pubs.usgs.gov/prof/p1386i/chile-arg/wet/historic.html , so I checked out that page too. Similar to the Agassiz glacier, this shows that the San Quint?n glacier retreated 2 km in the 14 years starting in 1921 (143 m/year). It receded another 3.7 km in the 33 years starting in 1959 (112 m/year). This is confirmed by Table 11 (Mean variation of the glaciers area) lower on the page. Some showed an increase in area retreat rate while some showed a decrease in retreat rate. Table 12 shows the area of some glaciers grew while others receded between 1945 and 1986. In both cases the net was negative. That page does not mention thickness at all, so it is incomplete, but interesting none the less. Does it prove your dangerously warm hypothesis? No. It does prove that the area of some glaciers were growing while others were shrinking between 1945 and 1986 with a net area reduction of 3.7%. Not too bad from a link from a news article. Now we just need data on the rest of the world's glaciers. And it would be nice if they had data comparing it to the 1800's and early 1900's if not thousands of years so a more general trend could be seen.

You have not provided a link to any study that conclusively shows global warming. Why do you provide links to news articles (like the rest of your links) when you won't accept them yourself?

Anyway, the last 3 links are all about the same two studies. The first of the three says that the studies "show that Arctic summers by 2100 may be as warm as they were nearly 130,000 years ago." Ignoring the "may be" since this data is from computer models (that are out by at least 12% to 41%), that page contradicts your original post about 2005 having the highest temps for the past million years. There is a big difference between 130,000 years and 1,000,000 years.

The second of the bottom 3 links starts with the picture of how much thicker Greenland's ice is now as compared to the last Interglaciation. It also has the 130,000 years quote. Again, this contradicts your original post about 2005 having the highest temps for the past million years.

The last has the same "Arctic summers by 2100 may be as warm as they were nearly 130,000 years ago" quote. So are you contradicting yourself on purpose? Or have you simply changed your argument without letting us know? If you are trying to use these to argue against my glaciers thickening post, then why not post links that mention thickening instead of just area?

So what do we have from your links? That some glaciers shrank quickly in the early 1930. We also know that some increased while others decreased between 1945 and 1986 with a net area shrink rate of -3.7%. The oldest data included in those links was a picture from a computer model of the thickness of Greenland's ice during the last interglaciation. Since you suggest that you are not grasping at straws, perhaps you can fill me in on how this proves that 2005 was the warmest in a million years. Or at least, please explain what does this all prove to you?