|
Post by stanb999 on Sept 11, 2013 13:30:30 GMT
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. The issues with "glacier photos" are so many they expand to the point of absurdity. For starters... Glacier size is governed by precipitation not temperature. Your posting of pictures of a glacier is either to distract or out right cloud the issue. Your foolish to think google translate doen't work... From the article with the remarkable glacier photo... Excess of snow Glacier in 2003 - 2003: The glacier has generally declined in recent years. 2003: The glacier has generally declined in recent years. Glacier in 2008 - 2008: This is what the glacier out five years ago. 2008: This is what the glacier out five years ago. Glacier 2012 - 2012: To see the glacier out this year. - Photo: Atle Nesje / 2012: To see the glacier out this year. Photo: Atle Nesje The reason glacier arm wax with 70-80 meters each year in the 90 century, was the heavy precipitation. - It was 10 feet of snow on the glacier for several years, says Nesje to NRK.no. This year has also been surplus of snow on the glacier, but Nesje says it will take three to four years before they see the glacier will grow again.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 11, 2013 15:32:55 GMT
None of the documents dates 400 years back.
Norway has 1,600 glaciers, of which 8 have been mentioned in a historical extent study. Before there were any pictorial documents, a couple of sporadic mentions is not a systematic archiving of the conditions, and specifically any taxation records have had no role in determining the state of the glaciers.
From the other paper:
Since Norwegian glaciers were relatively far from populated areas and generally of little interest to people, the amount of historical data is much less than in the Alps (Le Roy Ladurie, 1967; Nicolussi, 1990; Nussbaumer et al., 2007; Zumbühl and Holzhauser, 1988). No direct historical evidence has yet been found concerning the expansion of Scandinavian glaciers before the seventeenth century ...
Written accounts are available back to the seventeenth century, whereas the oldest drawings date back to about ad 1800
Briksdalsbreen. There is no direct historical evidence for Briksdalsbreen before the nineteenth century (Pedersen, 1976). ... Bøyabreen. ... Direct historical evidence is not available until 1819, ... Store Supphellebreen. .. However, the glacier has been frequently visited which explains the wealth of (pictorial) documents, e.g. by Jacob Neumann for 1819 (Øyen, 1900), Hans Fredrik Gude for 1845 (Messel, 2008), James David Forbes for 1851 (Forbes, 1853), Christen de Seue for 1867 (de Seue, 1870),
Bergsetbreen. 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
Nigardsbreen. Nigardsbreen is the best-documented glacier in Norway, ... In 1735, the first known piece of written information reveals that the glacier was ‘only a stone’s throw away from a nearby farm’ (Eide, 1955). The farm was destroyed by the advancing glacier in 1742–1743,
Lodalsbreen. Lodalsbreen is situated at the very end of Jostedalen and is more difficult to access. The historical record is sparse and has not been evaluated so far.
Bondhusbrea. The oldest historical information for Folgefonna, and Bondhusbrea in particular, is owed to Niels Hertzberg, famous vicar and dean in Hardanger. Hertzberg indicates in 1817/1818 that for several hundred years before, Folgefonna was much smaller (Øyen, 1900). Erik Pontoppidan writes in 1752 in his renowned ‘Natural History of Norway’ that Folgefonna is said to have covered a whole parish (Pontoppidan, 1752).
Buerbreen. Buerbreen, an eastern outlet of southern Folgefonna, is a typical valley glacier with the tongue flowing downwards with a constant slope (in contrast to the steep ice fall of Bondhusbrea). Many landmarks allow a precise delineation of former glacier extents based on historical pictures. Remarkable is the amount of historical photographs available for Buerbreen, hardly evaluated so far. From 1869 until the start of systematic measurements in 1900,
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 11, 2013 15:52:27 GMT
This year has also been surplus of snow on the glacier, but Nesje says it will take three to four years before they see the glacier will grow again. Google Translate, yes. The original is: "I år har det også vore overskot av snø på breen, men Nesje seier det vil ta tre-fire år før dei ser om brefronten igjen vil vekse." Which I translate as: This year there has also been a surplus of snow on the glacier, but Nesje says it will take three to four years before it can be seen if the glacier front might grow again.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 11, 2013 17:51:39 GMT
This year has also been surplus of snow on the glacier, but Nesje says it will take three to four years before they see the glacier will grow again. Google Translate, yes. The original is: "I år har det også vore overskot av snø på breen, men Nesje seier det vil ta tre-fire år før dei ser om brefronten igjen vil vekse." Which I translate as: This year there has also been a surplus of snow on the glacier, but Nesje says it will take three to four years before it can be seen if the glacier front might grow again. which of course also means it will take four to five years before it can be seen if the glacier might continue its shrinking. Doncha just gotta love how bias works?
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Sept 11, 2013 21:27:39 GMT
Google Translate, yes. The original is: "I år har det også vore overskot av snø på breen, men Nesje seier det vil ta tre-fire år før dei ser om brefronten igjen vil vekse." Which I translate as: This year there has also been a surplus of snow on the glacier, but Nesje says it will take three to four years before it can be seen if the glacier front might grow again. which of course also means it will take four to five years before it can be seen if the glacier might continue its shrinking. Doncha just gotta love how bias works? which also means glaciers are not the first signs of an ice age ..
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Sept 11, 2013 21:28:32 GMT
now can we get this topic back on track without all the girl fighting ...plz
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 11, 2013 23:08:29 GMT
Google Translate, yes. The original is: "I år har det også vore overskot av snø på breen, men Nesje seier det vil ta tre-fire år før dei ser om brefronten igjen vil vekse." Which I translate as: This year there has also been a surplus of snow on the glacier, but Nesje says it will take three to four years before it can be seen if the glacier front might grow again. which of course also means it will take four to five years before it can be seen if the glacier might continue its shrinking. Doncha just gotta love how bias works? Nope, it does not "of course" mean that! If the accumulation of snow at the accumulation area is lacking (and this you can measure, any given time), the glacier WILL shrink. It can ALSO shrink by the increased melting, in any melting season. It's only the completion of the accumulation pipeline that we will need the many years for. Do your Glaciology 101, first.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 11, 2013 23:23:41 GMT
which of course also means it will take four to five years before it can be seen if the glacier might continue its shrinking. Doncha just gotta love how bias works? which also means glaciers are not the first signs of an ice age .. Yes they are. The first signs of the ice age would be prolonged winters, and early falls. This will lead to increased snow remaining in the glacier accumulation areas, and this would be reflected in the glaciers after a delay of years to decades. If you have signs that are earlier than the actual increase of glaciers, your signs could be a sign of anything at all, and nothing in particular! If your glaciers are growing widely, then you have much evidence that you are at least in the right ballpark with your signage,
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 11, 2013 23:49:20 GMT
well that's it then the Antarctic is in an ice age and as a next point it also shows that the represented temperatures from the various institution are BS because they all show the area literally exploding in temperature.
it may be a little more complex than that me thinks.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 12, 2013 2:15:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 12, 2013 3:40:07 GMT
which of course also means it will take four to five years before it can be seen if the glacier might continue its shrinking. Doncha just gotta love how bias works? Nope, it does not "of course" mean that! If the accumulation of snow at the accumulation area is lacking (and this you can measure, any given time), the glacier WILL shrink. It can ALSO shrink by the increased melting, in any melting season. It's only the completion of the accumulation pipeline that we will need the many years for. Do your Glaciology 101, first. I am assuming you are talking about an "ignorance" pipeline. Ignorance pipelines are common in science and a big problem in the policy arena. I take Nesje to mean that the accumulation of snow is currently in surplus over the ablation of the glacier but that since the snow has not yet converted to ice, its long term fate is more uncertain and its more susceptible to melting. But that says nothing whatsoever about what is going to happen eventually. Even if natural variation is enough to take it to zero or even somewhat below zero uncertainty there will be more uncertainty about the future of the glaciers. Its like CAGW. More warming is not good enough, the rate of warming has to be greater than ever to just catch up with the beliefs of the orthodoxy. We have already seen the same kind of denialism from the warmists in global temperatures. We watched as the standard went from 5 years to 10 years, and then to the current 17 years, a standard currently under intense review now that we are 16+ years into the pause. Then we saw it again in ENSO. Enso cycles were perceived to last at most 5 years. And then the El Nino dominance began to fade, La Nina dominance has set it and it still seems a little uncertain (Hansen is now in about his 13th year of claiming El Nino dominance will return next year. Every few years nature as it always has throws Hansen a carrot in the form of an El Nino, but El Nino dominance has remained elusive. Ultimately its an ignorance pipeline where beliefs have been adopted and the world is entirely viewed through the lens of belief. To change it you need years of data indicating a new regime. You need to process the data, get a grant to work on it, write a paper, find a publisher, go through peer review, then comes the marketing making people believe your paper. You have to convince politicians who want to be viewed as perfect who once endorsed the view you are now showing to be incorrect to issue a Mia Culpa, or wait for him to lose a reelection. Here the ignorance pipeline can be for a long long time. How many years did it take the Pope to recognize the earth circled around the sun? That usually takes a lot more than 3 or 4 years. So I see Nesje as talking about a process that is required to convert honest and neutral scientists that the surplus is not temporary. I think its interesting that in the Nesje paper I read, of 6 glaciers in Norway 3 have larger mass balances than they had in 1961 and 3 have smaller balances. Kind of sounds like to me that solar activity that hit a one month smoothed peak in 1957 and a cyclewide peak in about 1987 might be the best indicator that the ice age started actually around then, maybe 10 or 12 years later for the oceans to catch up. So the early indicator might be the sun. And it might take 20 years to recognize it. With 10 year smoothing you need 10 years to get the first millimeter, so it no doubt takes another 10 years to see it as a trend. Then of course there are the blockheads that want the entire ignorance pipeline to play out before they dare saying anything embarrassing about their leaders.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 12, 2013 5:21:57 GMT
Before we can use Glaciers as a measure of climate change we would need to be sure we can differentiate between glaciers that change due to precipitation levels from ones that grow because the world is colder.
We also need confidance that warming would lead to a certain change in precipitation, where currently for reasons i cannot understand, global warming is going to lead to a dryer world according to Mark serreze.
I would have thought that generally speaking a warmer world will be humid with a huge increase in rainfall, where the poles currently are dry places.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 12, 2013 6:23:35 GMT
so we have so little comfort that the temperatures records are a representation of the actual climate movements on planet earth, that is that the changes are significant relative measuring errors. We go searching for proxies or symptoms of change to take us away from the obvious madness that is highlighted.
the key problem is that as per happened with tree rings we are asking for resolution on one variable when there are three at least in action. (temperature, rainfall and sunshine in this example.)
so here go, all glaciers to be classed for various inputs such as which will be affected by precipitation or melting or average temperature or maybe wind or maybe some other variable then we can build a clear picture of the temperature of the world.
save me from this madness, the worlds temperature has not risen for 17 years, it did before for 20 years we think CO2 is in there but with some luck not much and every year that the climate looks to be largely disconnected to the world of CO2 cheer!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 12, 2013 7:09:18 GMT
so we have so little comfort that the temperatures records are a representation of the actual climate movements on planet earth, that is that the changes are significant relative measuring errors. We go searching for proxies or symptoms of change to take us away from the obvious madness that is highlighted. the key problem is that as per happened with tree rings we are asking for resolution on one variable when there are three at least in action. (temperature, rainfall and sunshine in this example.) so here go, all glaciers to be classed for various inputs such as which will be affected by precipitation or melting or average temperature or maybe wind or maybe some other variable then we can build a clear picture of the temperature of the world. save me from this madness, the worlds temperature has not risen for 17 years, it did before for 20 years we think CO2 is in there but with some luck not much and every year that the climate looks to be largely disconnected to the world of CO2 cheer! Even if the temperature of the world fell slightly over the last 150 years ago and it happened that all of the worlds northern sea ice melted i think it would suggest a warmer NH once the ice was all gone and the arctic continued this process of having less heat content. Imagine the amount of heat required to melt metres of ice on millions of square kilometres of ocean! Other things being equal if the ice does not stop melting we are all going to be cooking big time!
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Sept 12, 2013 8:31:15 GMT
so we have so little comfort that the temperatures records are a representation of the actual climate movements on planet earth, that is that the changes are significant relative measuring errors. We go searching for proxies or symptoms of change to take us away from the obvious madness that is highlighted. the key problem is that as per happened with tree rings we are asking for resolution on one variable when there are three at least in action. (temperature, rainfall and sunshine in this example.) so here go, all glaciers to be classed for various inputs such as which will be affected by precipitation or melting or average temperature or maybe wind or maybe some other variable then we can build a clear picture of the temperature of the world. save me from this madness, the worlds temperature has not risen for 17 years, it did before for 20 years we think CO2 is in there but with some luck not much and every year that the climate looks to be largely disconnected to the world of CO2 cheer! Even if the temperature of the world fell slightly over the last 150 years ago and it happened that all of the worlds northern sea ice melted i think it would suggest a warmer NH once the ice was all gone and the arctic continued this process of having less heat content. Imagine the amount of heat required to melt metres of ice on millions of square kilometres of ocean! Other things being equal if the ice does not stop melting we are all going to be cooking big time! you see there we go again just thinking about the arctic yes it had a big melt .. but the Antarctic grew and this is where the weak point is
|
|