@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Sure. You were the one questioning if all glaciers were melted during the Roman period, not me: from your post #79, your Quote: If there really had been a period with no glaciers in the alps 2000 years ago, Ötzi would have benn rotten during this period.

Yeah - after you linked these pictures, where the reconstructed "Roman View" seemed to imply exactly that:

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: A picture to illustrate:

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: "Don`t trust any statistics as long as you didn`t fake it yourself!" This resonates well with the known Quote: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - Benjamin Disraeli (attributed)

Yeah - oh, those statisticians...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

thx,

with all these volcanoes going off all over the world they MUST effect all the climate models toward cooler. All that ash is blocking solar.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Dandy

After a little digging, I have found what the picture represents ; it seems to be the Gwächtenhorn mountain in the Swiss Alps:



The top culminates at 3420 meters (infos from here), Google map here.

IceMan was found at 3210 m above sea level in the Ötztal Alps, South Tyrol, Italy (infos from here, Google map here). It may be that there was still ice at this height even in the Romanian period.

Is there any information in the German paper where the pictures come from?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

There is another article which discusses green Alps in the past:



Quote:

Moreover, Schlüchter draws another conclusion from the results: "Between 1900 and 2300 years ago the lower tips of the glaciers lay at least 300 metres higher than today. At the time of the Romans they would hardly have been recognised as glaciers for the simple reason that their lower reaches lay above the Alpine passes that were used at the time and would not have been an obstacle.“ This would also explain why, in the otherwise very detailed accounts, the Roman chronicles contain hardly any mention of glaciers. Schlüchter says, "These findings call for a fundamental revision of the prevalent view of a relatively strong coverage of the Alps with glaciers since the ice age. Because for long periods the Alps were greener than they are today."

Quote:

The fact that the Alpine glaciers are melting right now appears to be part of regular cycle in which snow and ice have been coming and going for thousands of years. The glaciers, according to the new hypothesis, have shrunk down to almost nothing at least ten times since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. "At the time of the Roman Empire, for example, the glacier tongue was about 300 meters higher than today," says Joerin. Indeed, Hannibal probably never saw a single big chunk of ice when he was crossing the Alps with his army. The most dramatic change in the landscape occurred some 7,000 years ago. At the time, the entire mountain range was practically glacier-free -- and probably not due to a lack of snow, but because the sun melted the ice. The timber line was higher then as well.The scientists' conclusion puts the vanishing glaciers of the past 150 years into an entirely new context: "Over of the past 10,000 years, fifty percent of the time, the glaciers were smaller than today," Joerin states in an essay written together with his doctoral advisor Christian Schluechter. They call it the "Green Alps" theory. "The history of the glacial cover apparently is more dynamic than had been assumed until now," says Schleuchter. According to this model, the glaciers were smallest about 7,000 years ago, largest during the "mini ice age" of 1650 to 1850. Since this last cold spell, the tongues of ice have been receding quickly -- for a paleo-climatologist 150 years are just a wink in time.

Some peer-reviewed papers:
Hormes, A., Müller, B. Schlüchter, Ch. 2001. The Alps with little ice: evidence for eight Holocene phases of reduced glacier extent in the Central Swiss Alps. The Holocene 11, 255-265.
Ivy-Ochs, S., Schäfer, J., Kubik, P.W., Synal, H.-A., Schlüchter, Ch. 2004. Timing of deglaciation on the northern alpine foreland (Switzerland). Eclogae geolgicae Helvetiae 97, 47-55.
Schlüchter, Ch., Jörin, U. 2004. Holz- und Torffunde als Klimaindikatoren. Alpen ohne Gletscher? Die Alpen 6, 34-47.

The following is for BrianK: Quote:

Many studies now strongly suggest that there is something wrong with this hockey stick model that Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia published in 1999 in Geophysical Research Letters.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy After a little digging, I have found what the picture represents ; it seems to be the Gwächtenhorn mountain in the Swiss Alps:

You`re right.
The text in the German original to the left pic says:

"At the Sustenpass: View on the "Stei"-lake (left), "Steilimi"-glacier (mid of picture) and the "Gwächtenhorn" (top left) around 1993, with marked glacier extension states of 1856 (end of "little ice age") and 1922."

(Sorry, but to me it rather looks like the lake is situated at the lower right side of the picture, while the glacier stretches fron the upper left side of the pic (partially hidden) to the left end of the lake at the right side of the pic.
Which of the mountains really is the "Gwächtenhorn" I cannot tell you.
I really hope that the rest of this paper is more precise...)

The text in the German (Swiss?) original to the "Roman View"-pic says:

"The same landscape at the "Sustenpass", as it might have looked like during the "Roman Times (Age?)" roughly 2000 years ago, when the "Stei"-glacier (Note: the text to the other pic labels it as "Steilimi"-glacier - annother discrepancy) retracted to about the height of the "Animalhillhut (Tierberglihütte)" (2795 m). Timber line was at an corresponding height and the landscape offered a completely different view than today."

I`d like to add that in German language the equivalent to "timber line" usually refers to a wider landscape than just a single valley - rather to an entire massive. Equally the German word for "landscape" usually refers to a wider area than just a single valley.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: The top culminates at 3420 meters (infos from here), Google map here.

Hmmmm - the height for the end of the glacier tongue 2000 years ago was given with roughly 2795 m.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: IceMan was found at 3210 m above sea level in the Ötztal Alps, South Tyrol, Italy (infos from here, Google map here). It may be that there was still ice at this height even in the Romanian period.

Yes.
I don`t know the height of the mountains around Ötz-valley, but given that glaciers usually move downhill with a given speed, Ötzi must have been a fair amount of meters further up 2000 years ago - and even further up 5300 years ago, when he died.

But nevertheless - the header in German language of this paper means:
"Wood and turf findings act as an indicator for the state of the climate" and then in huge, bold letters: "ALPS WITHOUT GLACIERS?" - and now you know wher I got "my" idea from...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Is there any information in the German paper where the pictures come from?

Ooooops - look above...

Last edited by Dandy on 24-Mar-2009 at 12:32 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @TMTisFree There is another article which discusses green Alps in the past: [quote] Moreover, Schlüchter draws another conclusion from the results: "Between 1900 and 2300 years ago the lower tips of the glaciers lay at least 300 metres higher than today.

Yes 2795 m - as mentioned earlier...

Quote:

At the time of the Romans they would hardly have been recognised as glaciers for the simple reason that their lower reaches lay above the Alpine passes that were used at the time and would not have been an obstacle." This would also explain why, in the otherwise very detailed accounts, the Roman chronicles contain hardly any mention of glaciers.

But Roman chronists frequently reported about soldiers struggeling in snowstorms on the alp passes - and where frequent snowstorms are in the alps, glaciers aren`t far away (as frequent snowstorms usually feed them and make them grow)...

Quote:

Schlüchter says, "These findings call for a fundamental revision of the prevalent view of a relatively strong coverage of the Alps with glaciers since the ice age. Because for long periods the Alps were greener than they are today."

I don`t object "greener than they are today" - I would oblect on "icefree" or "alps without glaciers" as the title of this peer reviewed (as you claim) paper.

Quote:

The fact that the Alpine glaciers are melting right now appears to be part of regular cycle in which snow and ice have been coming and going for thousands of years.

That`s not really what I`d call new - I`ve been taught that at school 40 years ago, you know...

Quote:

The glaciers, according to the new hypothesis, have shrunk down to almost nothing

How much is "almost nothing"?

Quote:

at least ten times since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. "At the time of the Roman Empire, for example, the glacier tongue was about 300 meters higher than today," says Joerin.

Hmmmm - I don`t know his peer(s) or how drunk they were that it obviously escaped their attention - but if the glacier tongues ended at a height of 3200 m in 1993 releasing Ötzi (roughly today), they cant have ended "300m higher than today" (which means 3200+300=3500) "at the time of the Roman Empire" at an height of 2795 m (as he claims in the very same paper) - this math simply does not sum up!

Quote:

Indeed, Hannibal probably never saw a single big chunk of ice when he was crossing the Alps with his army.

But it has definitely been handed down that he feared to loosed all his African elephants in the icy snow storms in the alps...

Quote:

The most dramatic change in the landscape occurred some 7,000 years ago. At the time, the entire mountain range was practically glacier-free -- and probably not due to a lack of snow, but because the sun melted the ice.

Normally ice covered regions reflect the sunlight back to space - with one exemption: if the ice sheets are covered with dark material like ashes from volcanoe eruptions (Vesuvius - Pompeji?) or from the impact of an celestial body (Nördlinger Ries).

Quote:

The timber line was higher then as well.

The wood and turf findings must have come from somewhere...

Quote:

The scientists' conclusion puts the vanishing glaciers of the past 150 years into an entirely new context: "Over of the past 10,000 years, fifty percent of the time, the glaciers were smaller than today," Joerin states in an essay written together with his doctoral advisor Christian Schluechter.

I have to take this statement as it is for the moment, as I can`t proove or disproove it.

Quote:

They call it the "Green Alps" theory.

They had better called it "Greener Alps" theory - would have been more scientific correct and less misleading.

Quote:

"The history of the glacial cover apparently is more dynamic than had been assumed until now," says Schleuchter. According to this model, the glaciers were smallest about 7,000 years ago, largest during the "mini ice age" of 1650 to 1850.

Could indicate reasons like volcanoe eruptions and/or impacts, like I said before.

Quote:

Since this last cold spell, the tongues of ice have been receding quickly -- for a paleo-climatologist 150 years are just a wink in time.

And exactly herein lies the flaw of AGW: The speed of the current retraction is frightening - and today its accelerating - despite multiple volcanoe eruptions during the last and the current century...

That makes rational people like me think - how about you?

Quote:

Some peer-reviewed papers: Hormes, A., Müller, B. Schlüchter, Ch. 2001. The Alps with little ice: evidence for eight Holocene phases of reduced glacier extent in the Central Swiss Alps. The Holocene 11, 255-265. Ivy-Ochs, S., Schäfer, J., Kubik, P.W., Synal, H.-A., Schlüchter, Ch. 2004. Timing of deglaciation on the northern alpine foreland (Switzerland). Eclogae geolgicae Helvetiae 97, 47-55. Schlüchter, Ch., Jörin, U. 2004. Holz- und Torffunde als Klimaindikatoren. Alpen ohne Gletscher? Die Alpen 6, 34-47. ...

I`d like to add regarding peer reviews in general:

Even if
all agree -
there is no
guarantee
that they`re right!

Last edited by Dandy on 24-Mar-2009 at 12:19 AM.
Last edited by Dandy on 24-Mar-2009 at 12:17 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Many studies now strongly suggest that there is something wrong with this hockey stick model that Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia published in 1999 in Geophysical Research Letters.

Myth of hockey stick shown wrong

Good example create it yourself appears to fail to include error bars of the Mann model. Look at the first graph for the error bars. This recreation here falls within the error bars, aka 95% confidence range of the Mann reconstruction. Commonly the attemps are these where the difference is still within the Mann range.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics it appears Wegmann didn't use Mann's data directly?


I think what can be said of the anti-gw they've put doubt in the hockey stick. (rightly or wrongly). This has been able to focus the public away from the truth that the scientific consensus is still with the GW.

@Dandy

Quote:

But Roman chronists frequently reported about soldiers struggeling in snowstorms on the alp passes - and where frequent snowstorms are in the alps, glaciers aren`t far away (as frequent snowstorms usually feed them and make them grow)...

It seems to me that asses are usually lower than the height of the mountains surrounding (hence the name). In addition, the lifetime of a glacier is not of the time scale (climatic) as snowstorms that are weather events (typically less that annual).

Quote:

I don`t object "greener than they are today" - I would oblect on "icefree" or "alps without glaciers" as the title of this peer reviewed (as you claim) paper.

I agree on this one. Is "icefree" or "alps without glaciers" written in the German paper or is it a not-so-uncommon journalistic exaggeration?

Quote:

That`s not really what I`d call new - I`ve been taught that at school 40 years ago, you know...

Same here. That why hearing of "unprecedented warming/melting/à-la-All Gone/Mannian-like-event" is so 'misleading' (an euphemism).

Quote:

How much is "almost nothing"?

Probably a little more than nihil, something like just over the top.

Quote:

Hmmmm - I don`t know his peer(s) or how drunk they were that it obviously escaped their attention - but if the glacier tongues ended at a height of 3200 m in 1993 releasing Ötzi (roughly today), they cant have ended "300m higher than today" (which means 3200+300=3500) "at the time of the Roman Empire" at an height of 2795 m (as he claims in the very same paper) - this math simply does not sum up!

I think he was speaking of the lower tips of the glacier studied by Pr Schlüchter and himself.

Quote:

But it has definitely been handed down that he feared to loosed all his African elephants in the icy snow storms in the alps...

The difference between climate (glacier) and weather (storm) perhaps? See the cold winter we have had in 2008-2009 and the previous not-so-cold ones.

Quote:

I have to take this statement as it is for the moment, as I can`t proove or disproove it.

You will have to read the papers to knwo for sure.

Quote:

They had better called it "Greener Alps" theory - would have been more scientific correct and less misleading.

Greener than when/what/where? If you don't provide a reference, the adjective is not that clear. I think that Green Alps is almost correct if you keep in mind that it is not 'Entirely Green Alps'.

Quote:

And exactly herein lies the flaw of AGW: The speed of the current retraction is frightening - and today its accelerating - despite multiple volcanoe eruptions during the last and the current century... That makes rational people like me think - how about you?

I read some papers last year demonstrating that sudden shifts (in less than 5-15 years) occurred many times through past climate. Triggers could be oceanic oscillation(s)' changes and/or solar activity modulation and/or others unknown/poorly understood factors. What is clear is that relatively high warmings or coolings is not exactly uncommon and unprecedented. That seems trivial, but some even contests such evidences. About glaciers, some are receding, some not: there is nothing global at short time scale. Some local components might play a greater role than thought. This study for example show that vegetation can be independent of the climate.

Quote:

Even if all agree - there is no guarantee that they`re right!

Sure, peer-reviewing increases plausibility, it does not always caught statistical flaws or incorrect/fraudulent results. That why the modern web area of scientific dissemination and discussion (blogs) is so interesting. It forces scientists to not stay in their ivory tower (most scientists are honest, though).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Almost 700 papers demonstrate there was a past warmer period warmer (called MWP) that current time. I don't need to and will not discuss distorted journalist's views or back to the envelop blogger plots, even if skeptics.

Quote:

Lies, damned lies, and statistics it appears Wegmann didn't use Mann's data directly?

Read the 3 comments below at the link.

Quote:

I think what can be said of the anti-gw they've put doubt in the hockey stick. (rightly or wrongly).

I agree with the first euphemistic part. The second is a matter of personal judgement unrelated with Science.

Quote:

This has been able to focus the public away from the truth that the is still with the GW.

The ontological aim of Science is to cast doubt on itself. Repeating 'scientific consensus' on flawed statistical methodologies and incorrect data will not modify the convincing evidences outlined in the first § above.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Almost 700 papers demonstrate there was a past warmer period warmer (called MWP) that current time.

Viewing many of these reconstructions they appear to not have error bars around their calculations? Initially I throw those out because they simply do not handle the accuracy of their own calculations. They aren't going to be 100% accurate we are attempting to reconstruct periods where we don't have data. The others with error bars most frequently intersect with Mann.

Many others appear to be focused on the trees and other items from Europe during this timeframe. Other papers have shown that India and China areas were experiencing much cooler weather than Europe during this time.

Then a last part of the anti-gw story here comes from the ancedotal writings of individuals. How grapes were grown in England for wine. How people lived in Greenland. Though they in the same course neglect that today grapes are grown in England and north of areas, that glaciers have shrunk north of where we have evidence for medieval farming in Greenland...

Quote:

The ontological aim of Science is to cast doubt on itself. Repeating 'scientific consensus' on flawed statistical methodologies and incorrect data will not modify the convincing evidences outlined in the first § above.

Just because a scientific consensus is had doesn't mean it's true. There are certainly many demonstrations of that in the history of science.

That being said my comment was that I found it interesting that a significant minority of the masses reject Global Warming. A poll of climatologists resulted in a 97% response that man's use of CO2 has warming effects on the environment. Here's one Link . Within that information is a link to a poll that appears to me to be even more representative.

If you want to argue the scientific consensus is wrong then feel free. But, today the scientific consensus is that man's use of CO2 has influenced to warm the environment.

@BrianK

Quote:

Viewing many of these reconstructions they appear to not have error bars around their calculations? Initially I throw those out because they simply do not handle the accuracy of their own calculations. They aren't going to be 100% accurate we are attempting to reconstruct periods where we don't have data. The others with error bars most frequently intersect with Mann.

If you want to kill the dog, pretend he is ill. Why not focussing on quantitative studies then? There are many:

MWP: Mediaval Warm Period
CWP: Current Warm Period

Quote:

Many others appear to be focused on the trees and other items from Europe during this timeframe. Other papers have shown that India and China areas were experiencing much cooler weather than Europe during this time.

We are not dealing with weather, we are dealing with climate. There are quantitative-based papers from Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, Europe, North America, Northern Hemisphere, Oceans and South America here. Papers from Asia all demonstrate a warmer MWP between 0.5 and 2.5°C hight than current period. This one for example:

BP: before present
Liu, Z., Henderson, A.C.G. and Huang, Y. 2006. Alkenone-based reconstruction of late-Holocene surface temperature and salinity changes in Lake Qinghai, China. Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2006GL026151.

Quote:

...we have evidence for medieval farming in Greenland

Say it all.

Quote:

A poll of climatologists resulted in a 97% response that man's use of CO2 has warming effects on the environment.

I am also sure that almost 100% of the hens produce eggs as they want to be funded feed.

For the rest, it appears you prefer outdated polls and surveys instead of convincing scientific evidences. I can't help.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting

Global warming is anti-American.

_________________
X5000 / microA1(OS4.1 FE U2) / CodeBench / Imagine / Blender
Lightwave 2019 / Microsoft Visual C++

@thinkchip

Global warming propaganda is just anti-scientific.

From Zombie science: A sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest: Quote:

Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status. The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists. However, in practice even the most conclusive ‘hatchet jobs’ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding. And when a branch of science based on phoney theories serves a useful but non-scientific purpose, it may be kept-going indefinitely by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose interests it serves. If this happens, real science expires and a ‘zombie science’ evolves. Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down. It keeps twitching and lumbering around so that (from a distance, and with your eyes half-closed) zombie science looks much like the real thing. But in fact the zombie has no life of its own; it is animated and moved only by the incessant pumping of funds. If zombie science is not scientifically-useable – what is its function? In a nutshell, zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda to be deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion. Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science; and it is precisely the superficial face-plausibility which is the sole and sufficient purpose of zombie science.

I could not have said it better.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Speaking of zombie and somewhat related to this thread, I have recently watched this funny video called 'Achmed the dead terrorist' (subtitle in French).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@thinkchip

Quote:

Global warming is anti-American.

Long live the Rebels !

Link to modern day rebels

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@thinkchip

Quote:

thinkchip wrote: @Interesting Global warming is anti-American.

Exactly.
GW is attacking America.

I hope the US stand up and strike back.

And I don`t want to hear excuses like:
"It`s not a country - we can`t bomb and invade it!"

Last edited by Dandy on 25-Mar-2009 at 01:16 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: But Roman chronists frequently reported about soldiers struggeling in snowstorms on the alp passes - and where frequent snowstorms are in the alps, glaciers aren`t far away (as frequent snowstorms usually feed them and make them grow)... It seems to me that passes are usually lower than the height of the mountains surrounding (hence the name). In addition, the lifetime of a glacier is not of the time scale (climatic) as snowstorms that are weather events (typically less that annual).

Yes, of course - but I think you`ll agree that the "long term" glacier only can exist as long as enough "short term" weather events like snow storms occur to feed them.
As long as the snow storms occur frequntly enought in the catchment area of an glacier, so that the amount of fresh snow exceeds the amount of melted ice, the glacier will grow.
If the amount of fresh snow and the amount of melted ice is in balance, the glacier will stay as it is and if the amount of fresh snow falls below the balance value, the glacier will shrink and retract.

If the snowstorms stop entirely the glacier will melt down completely, if the climate is warm enough.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: I don`t object "greener than they are today" - I would oblect on "icefree" or "alps without glaciers" as the title of this peer reviewed (as you claim) paper. I agree on this one. Is "icefree" or "alps without glaciers" written in the German paper or is it a not-so-uncommon journalistic exaggeration?

I would call it a "journalistic exaggeration".
And exactly things like this "journalistic exaggeration" in the title and all the other inaccuracies I already mentioned convinced me that this cannot be a serious scientific paper - it`s just a mere politically motivated pamphlet to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt - nothing else.

At best suited to be put in the toilet as replacement for toilet paper...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... Quote: How much is "almost nothing"? Probably a little more than nihil, something like just over the top.

See, annother inaccurate phrase that must not be in a serious scientific paper.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... Quote: But it has definitely been handed down that he feared to loosed all his African elephants in the icy snow storms in the alps... The difference between climate (glacier) and weather (storm) perhaps?

I think above I explained the interrelation between climate and weather with view on glaciers good enough.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: See the cold winter we have had in 2008-2009 and the previous not-so-cold ones.

So what?
This just means that the glaciers will grow a little bit or will stay as they are just a little while longer.

But if the trend of warming with less and less "snowstorm rich" winters continues and it takes again 22 years (or even longer this time) until we have such an "hard" winter again, the current winter is just like "a drop of water on a hot plate" - its "growing effect" on the glaciers will be not very significant.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: I have to take this statement as it is for the moment, as I can`t proove or disproove it. You will have to read the papers to knwo for sure.

The quality of the one we`re just dicussing is so bad that I don`t want to waste my time just to see the other papers are not a single iota better - sorry.

Furthermore I`m not the one who desperately tries to support AGW...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: They had better called it "Greener Alps" theory - would have been more scientific correct and less misleading. Greener than when/what/where? If you don't provide a reference, the adjective is not that clear. I think that Green Alps is almost correct if you keep in mind that it is not 'Entirely Green Alps'.

This might be the case if the paper was in English language originally.
But in the German language you would automatically assume "Green Alps" equals to "glacier free".

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: .... Quote: Even if all agree - there is no guarantee that they`re right! Sure, peer-reviewing increases plausibility, it does not always catch statistical flaws or incorrect/fraudulent results. ...

That`s what I meant...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @thinkchip Global warming propaganda is just anti-scientific. ...

I just demonstrated that this "peer-reviewed scientific" paper you provided "is just anti-scientific", while I failed to see from the presented "evidence" why Global warming should just be propaganda.

And I equally fail to see the benefit of any AGW propaganda - what at all is it meant to be good for?

Just to lull mercantile perverted minds that there`s still time enough to make some bucks to the disadvantage of this planet and the future of its inhabitants, without having to fear to get the bill presented or what?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Yes, of course - but I think you`ll agree that the "long term" glacier only can exist as long as enough "short term" weather events like snow storms occur to feed them. As long as the snow storms occur frequntly enought in the catchment area of an glacier, so that the amount of fresh snow exceeds the amount of melted ice, the glacier will grow. If the amount of fresh snow and the amount of melted ice is in balance, the glacier will stay as it is and if the amount of fresh snow falls below the balance value, the glacier will shrink and retract. If the snowstorms stop entirely the glacier will melt down completely, if the climate is warm enough.

Correct but does not contradict the paper though.

Quote:

I would call it a "journalistic exaggeration". And exactly things like this "journalistic exaggeration" in the title and all the other inaccuracies I already mentioned convinced me that this cannot be a serious scientific paper - it`s just a mere politically motivated pamphlet to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt - nothing else. At best suited to be put in the toilet as replacement for toilet paper...

Sure the title is a little catchy. That does not automatically implies their findings are incorrect.

Quote:

See, annother inaccurate phrase that must not be in a serious scientific paper.

Not precise enough because they tried to sort very localized evidences 2000 years ago. Again not necessarily incorrect.

Quote:

So what?

This means that you can not infer of the size of the glacier at that time when you have only weather events (see below).

Quote:

But if the trend of warming with less and less "snowstorm rich" winters continues and it takes again 22 years (or even longer this time) until we have such an "hard" winter again, the current winter is just like "a drop of water on a hot plate" - its "growing effect" on the glaciers will be not very significant.

Do you know the weather 2000 years ago? No. Do you know the rate of glacier receding/growing at that time? No. So why trying to guess?

Quote:

The quality of the one we`re just dicussing is so bad that I don`t want to waste my time just to see the other papers are not a single iota better - sorry.

I agree the title is generalizing. But did you go there and have you found evidences that contradict the findings of the paper? No. Is there a paper with opposite evidences? Not I know of.

Quote:

Furthermore I`m not the one who desperately tries to support AGW...

I fear your (absence of) support does not really matter...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

I just demonstrated that this "peer-reviewed scientific" paper you provided "is just anti-scientific", while I failed to see from the presented "evidence" why Global warming should just be propaganda.

Sorry but you demonstrate nothing. First no one has said this particular article was peer-reviewed. The list of papers I gave afterwards are though. Second just because they have given an 'attractive' title to the paper does not mean their findings are incorrect.

Quote:

And I equally fail to see the benefit of any AGW propaganda - what at all is it meant to be good for?

About the scientist side the editorial deals with, it is written in plain English. About the politics, well I am sure politicians in Germany are the same in USA:

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."
- Sir Ernest John Pickstone Benn

Quote:

Just to lull mercantile perverted minds that there`s still time enough to make some bucks to the disadvantage of this planet and the future of its inhabitants, without having to fear to get the bill presented or what?

The editorial is not specifically referring to AGW BadScience (it was published in a medical journal). But it is so easy to do the link.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".