|
Post by numerouno on Sept 9, 2013 21:59:53 GMT
Any tax records are not mentioned in your link at all. The glaciers were not taxed, as I said. What the heck is the Tax records from western Norway, ... Østrem G, Dale Selvig K, Tandberg K (1988) Atlas of glaciers in south Norway." supposed to be?
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 9, 2013 22:00:51 GMT
There is nothing here so far. You have jumbled together more nonsense in panic.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 9, 2013 22:01:41 GMT
This link is not a scientific paper. Moreover there are no Norwegian tax records mentioned in the story at all! The point is not about Norway, but some unspecified part of Europe in general! You are trying to cheat us! This I definitely do not like!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 9, 2013 22:25:20 GMT
numerouno: No it isn't a scientific paper. But it does refer to papers.....maybe?
I read a paper that was based on tax records showing that the glaciers were much higher or non-existent during the MWP.
So do a Finnish search, as I am sure it is your repository somewhere.
I can't help it if you don't know your local history and study of such. Finland and Norway used to be pretty close together. But maybe the rising sea levels in the gulf, and the treck over a few kilo's through Sweden has widened the gulf between the two countries so much that is is impassible going west.
We know that going to the northern route is not an option.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 9, 2013 22:37:20 GMT
I am talking about latest, up to date information... Being suspicious about these things I wonder if the data is so sensitive the public can't be allowed to find it. Gosh, please, no conspiracies. What data would be so sensitive that is would be "banned form the public"? The simple fact of life is that not all research data is automatically published according to any schedule. Science projects are always underfunded and can work on-off-on for a longer time as financing allows. And of course the intentions of all funders is to ensure everybody has expedited access to the most relevant data! Yah! Numno, you really aren't that gullible are you?
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 10, 2013 10:39:48 GMT
numerouno: No it isn't a scientific paper. But it does refer to papers.....maybe? I read a paper that was based on tax records showing that the glaciers were much higher or non-existent during the MWP. So do a Finnish search, as I am sure it is your repository somewhere. I can't help it if you don't know your local history and study of such. Finland and Norway used to be pretty close together. But maybe the rising sea levels in the gulf, and the treck over a few kilo's through Sweden has widened the gulf between the two countries so much that is is impassible going west. We know that going to the northern route is not an option.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 10, 2013 10:43:54 GMT
numerouno: No it isn't a scientific paper. But it does refer to papers.....maybe? Your links show you were lying all along. You had no paper to begin with, just as I knew, and you just went and cobbled together a mishmash of "studies", and forged some "citations" to boot. I'm thankful though I was able to extract your true nature as a "science person" out. Arrogance and ignorance and outright lies combined, that is you, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Sept 10, 2013 11:14:00 GMT
as I was saying ... weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom_new.gifif those cold spots off sa and Africa are indeed upwelling then they are quiet a ways off where there supposed to be .. the sea will show signs of a ice age well befor the glaciers will first you have the cold and then a pause before glaciers will start to show anything ..they have had a lot of melting in the last 20 yrs so will not show much growth till well after the fact .. atm i'm reading a bit by Muller and MacDonald and if you do combine that with very low sun activity then you may have a very fast ice age ..
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 10, 2013 13:56:30 GMT
numerouno: No it isn't a scientific paper. But it does refer to papers.....maybe? Your links show you were lying all along. You had no paper to begin with, just as I knew, and you just went and cobbled together a mishmash of "studies", and forged some "citations" to boot. I'm thankful though I was able to extract your true nature as a "science person" out. Arrogance and ignorance and outright lies combined, that is you, unfortunately. Numerouno: No lies, the links I provided talk about tax records and glaciers. The idea doesn't come out of the blue, sorry to disappoint you. Impact of Glaciers During the post-MWP cooling of the climate, glaciers in many parts of Europe began to advance. Glaciers negatively influenced almost every aspect of life for those unfortunate enough to be living in their path. Glacial advances throughout Europe destroyed farmland and caused massive flooding. On many occasions bishops and priests were called to bless the fields and to pray that the ice stopped grinding forward (Bryson, 1977.) Various tax records show glaciers over the years destroying whole towns caught in their path. A few major advances, as noted by Ladurie (1971), appear below: 1595: Gietroz (Switzerland) glacier advances, dammed Dranse River, and caused flooding of Bagne with 70 deaths. 1600-10: Advances by Chamonix (France) glaciers cause massive floods which destroyed three villages and severely damaged a fourth. One village had stood since the 1200's. 1670-80's: Maximum historical advances by glaciers in eastern Alps. Noticeable decline of human population by this time in areas close to glaciers, whereas population elsewhere in Europe had risen. 1695-1709: Iceland glaciers advance dramatically, destroying farms. 1710-1735: A glacier in Norway was advancing at a rate of 100 m per year for 25 years. 1748-50: Norwegian glaciers achieved their historical maximum LIA positions.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 10, 2013 14:25:57 GMT
quick reference Maunder Minimum 1645 and continuing to about 1715
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 11, 2013 2:00:10 GMT
It would appear that advances of Norwegian Glaciers are not an early signal. They are temperature sensitive, but the variation of their retreat and advance did not result in long term change, but rather the normal fluctuations of the Halocene.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 11, 2013 6:48:55 GMT
Looking at the pictures: The first picture is taken nearer to spring than the second The first picture is taken from a higher position than the second. However..... It is fairly clear the first picture has more ice in the lower part than the second picture. Interesting. Also it has been very warm in Finland this summer. Cant be good for glacier building if that has been repeated in Norway
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 11, 2013 12:30:49 GMT
Andrew, these glaciers are not really sensitive to the season.
The ice is steadily flowing down from the accumulation area, and if the rate of melting wins the rate of accumulation and flowing down, the glacier will appear to be shrinking.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 11, 2013 12:35:14 GMT
Your links show you were lying all along. You had no paper to begin with, just as I knew, and you just went and cobbled together a mishmash of "studies", and forged some "citations" to boot. I'm thankful though I was able to extract your true nature as a "science person" out. Arrogance and ignorance and outright lies combined, that is you, unfortunately. Numerouno: No lies, the links I provided talk about tax records and glaciers. The idea doesn't come out of the blue, sorry to disappoint you. Impact of Glaciers During the post-MWP cooling of the climate, glaciers in many parts of Europe began to advance. Glaciers negatively influenced almost every aspect of life for those unfortunate enough to be living in their path. Glacial advances throughout Europe destroyed farmland and caused massive flooding. On many occasions bishops and priests were called to bless the fields and to pray that the ice stopped grinding forward (Bryson, 1977.) Various tax records show glaciers over the years destroying whole towns caught in their path. A few major advances, as noted by Ladurie (1971), appear below: 1595: Gietroz (Switzerland) glacier advances, dammed Dranse River, and caused flooding of Bagne with 70 deaths. 1600-10: Advances by Chamonix (France) glaciers cause massive floods which destroyed three villages and severely damaged a fourth. One village had stood since the 1200's. 1670-80's: Maximum historical advances by glaciers in eastern Alps. Noticeable decline of human population by this time in areas close to glaciers, whereas population elsewhere in Europe had risen. 1695-1709: Iceland glaciers advance dramatically, destroying farms. 1710-1735: A glacier in Norway was advancing at a rate of 100 m per year for 25 years. 1748-50: Norwegian glaciers achieved their historical maximum LIA positions. None of your links are referring to those supposed Norway tax links. I knew all along there are no links that would bind any Norwegian tax records to any glaciers, and you made your position far worse yourself by inventing some "quotes from sources". This is telling purposeful lies. If you had ever been to a college or university, your professor would have singled you out for some serious one-to-one talk. It's curious you would be the one demanding absolute scientific transparency, yet are yoursef the first to dump scientific practices if it suits your purposes! Pretty disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Sept 11, 2013 13:29:57 GMT
Is this of any interest? From the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo:"Historic reduction in taxes as an indication of climate change Historic tax documents provide outstanding documentation of what happened before and after glaciers in western Norway began to advance at the end of the 17th and 18th centuries during what is referred to as the Little Ice Age." Link: www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext/index_e.aspx?id=7659_____________________________________________ There's also this research paper: Extract: For Bergsetbreen in Krundalen (side valley to Jostedalen), historical evidence is more plentiful compared with other glaciers. There is even the earliest reliable written evidence of direct damage to farmland by an advancing glacier in Scandinavia (Grove, 2004). According to this document from 1684, the summer pastures (on the higher ground) of the farms Grov and Bergset (both located in inner Krundalen) were overrun by Tuftebreen (Eide, 1955; Grove and Battagel, 1983; Øyane, 1994). Tuftebreen is located next to Bergsetbreen, and we can thus assume that a dramatic glacier advance had begun by the end of the seventeenth century. According to Rekstad (1905a), the advance of Bergsetbreen lasted until 1743, when people complained about burdensome and cold years prevailing over Jostedalen. Damages by the advancing Tuftebreen were appraised on 21 August 1742. According to this documentation, Tuftebreen was only 880 feet (~270 m) away from the hamlet of Bergset, and the inward valley in the west was completely filled by ice (Bergsetbreen). As a consequence, the tax load was reduced (Bohr, 1820;Eide, 1955). The menacing proximity of the glacier to settlements in Krundalen is also stated by Foss (1802) (more details about Matthias Foss, vicar of Jostedalen, can be found in the section ‘Nigardsbreen’). Link: www.geo.uzh.ch/~snus/publications/nussbaumer_et_al_2011a.pdf
|
|