Himalayan ice melt estimates get a major downsizing

[Digit]

Which GRACE will settle once and for all Min. But whatever the outcome the results will be somewhat better than the IPCC's guesses I'll guarantee that, and despite temps remaining stable for some years and CO2 continuing to rise the money grabbers will still keep telling us it's all down to us, I'll guarantee that as well!
The press here is still telling us that the Sun's influence is negligable!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Which GRACE will settle once and for all Min

No. This is where I think you are off the tracks, my friend.

The energy companies (and the politicians they own) will continue to deny it as long as there is a drop of oil or a lump of coal left in the ground.

We're talking money here. That trumps reality for a lot of people.

[Digit]

Yep! And the MMGW lobby recieves vastly more than the antis Min.
But how do you explain that our meterological office states that GW has been virtually zero since 98, during which period atmospheric CO2 has risen by 30ppm?
Those facts won't go away Min. If the MMGW lobby can't explain that anomally perhaps they are looking in the wrong direction. According to people like Mann, who produced his graph on the basis, temps must rise with CO2. They haven't! Why not?
The Sun is G4 variable star, it's output has risen continuously for over 100 yrs, Sun spot activity/climate variation is the subject with longest continous study, bar eclipses, having been observed since the invention of the telescope here in Europe.
The Sun's radiance has increased, the Earth has warmed, so also has Mars!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Global warming "zero" since 1998?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/13

The year 2011 tied with 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature over global land and ocean surfaces was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 35th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above the 20th century average.

(Italics added).

[Digit]

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... 4Q&cad=rja

Unlike Gore, Rose is a climatologist Min.
I would also ask you to look at this.....

This marks the 35th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above the 20th century average.

....again and see what it doesn't say. It does not say that the planet is getting warmer does it?
Also if you look at Rose's graph you will see that 97 is somewhat colder than those which followed, in other words it is colder now that it was!
There has been some very careful word smithing there my friend.

Roy.

[circumspice]

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... 4Q&cad=rja

Unlike Gore, Rose is a climatologist Min.
I would also ask you to look at this.....

This marks the 35th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above the 20th century average.

....again and see what it doesn't say. It does not say that the planet is getting warmer does it?
Also if you look at Rose's graph you will see that 97 is somewhat colder than those which followed, in other words it is colder now that it was!
There has been some very careful word smithing there my friend.

Roy.

I don't believe that global warming is very likely to be a strictly linear process. After all, Earth has a pronounced axial tilt AND it wobbles as it revolves. (precession)
The axial tilt accounts for the seasons we experience. So, it would seem to be sensible to factor in the variable nature of our sun in our long term weather analyses.
Since many people believe that global warming is at least in part cyclical in nature, we must also expect that global warming will procede somewhat erratically,
especially if it is influenced by mankind.

[Digit]

So, it would seem to be sensible to factor in the variable nature of our sun in our long term weather analyses.
Since many people believe that global warming is at least in part cyclical in nature, we must also expect that global warming will procede somewhat erratically,
especially if it is influenced by mankind.

Since many people believe that global warming is at least in part cyclical in nature

It is not a belief CS, there have been many warm and cold spells following each other and each warming spell has been abrupt, rather than gradual.

it would seem to be sensible to factor in the variable nature of our sun in our long term weather analyses.

The CRU says the affects are negligable.
There is much to this that you on your side of the pond may be unaware of.
This matter was first brought to prominence under Mrs Thatcher, despite being a qualified chemist she was renowned for her distrust of science. She was introduced to the matter by a Brit and she set up the Climate Research Unit (CRU)with this chap at its head. She famously stated on one occasion that no paid committee ever voted itself out of business. The CRU was founded to investigate possible GW, being paid, they found it!
The CRU is/was one of the main 'feeds' to the IPCC, over here there have been numerous complaints about the CRU.
It came to a head, as you may know, with the 'Climategate' E-Mails, the most famous of which was one by Prof Jones, the CRU head, that, 'Climate warming ended 15 yrs ago, and it is a tragedy that we can not explain it!'
He has subsequently admitted to it but claims that the phrase was 'out of context'. Fair enough, unfortunately, in the intervening period he has never explained what this context was!
Subsequently a governmental enquiry, by scientists, was ordered to look into the affair. They were horrified!
They found Jones' office littered with unread files, missing paperwork, no sort of order or control.
Prof Jones claimed that he was simply untidy.
The main complaint by the scientific community was the refusal by the CRU to publish the raw data behind their claims, 'too complex for the public to understand,' was their excuse.
One of their research stations had been built in the midland countryside many years ago, it now stood in the middle of a commercial airport! Other 'anomalies' began to appear. One for example was in the Antartic where they were short of weather stations, so they guessed what it would be if GW was a fact!
Eventually the data was handed the Royal Geological Society, IIRC correctly, for analysis. Late last year the CRU, without their usual fanfare released their data.
The graph I posted is by the RGS. The CRU are saying nothing!
The acid test of any theory is that it must explain known facts, better still it will suggest solutions to other problems etc.
An example is the orbital mechanics that were worked out by Newton et al. Using these Edmund Halley predicted the return of the comet that now bears his name. Einstein's general theory predicted that a stellar gravity well would bend light.
Not one climate prediction based on atmospheric CO2 has been fulfilled.


Roy.

[Minimalist]

This marks the 35th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above the 20th century average.

....again and see what it doesn't say. It does not say that the planet is getting warmer does it?

35 years in a row above average is going to increase the average, Dig.

Again, please understand that I am not arguing against a natural warming period. However, human activities do seem to be accelerating the process.

And...until someone shows me pictures of a glacier which is getting thicker I will continue to look at the ones of glaciers shrinking and say - "there is LESS ICE."

[Digit]

And...until someone shows me pictures of a glacier which is getting thicker I will continue to look at the ones of glaciers shrinking and say - "there is LESS ICE."

I did show you some earlier Min, on page one.
The problem with CO2 supporters such as the CRU is that they have nailed their colours firmly to the CO2 mast to the exclusion of all other potential causes.
They refute the Dutch work on Cosmic ray effects on clouds, state that Solar varience is unimportant, ignore Sun spot variations, deny that the 25% reduction in cloud cover will affect the planet's albedo, don't wish to know about changes in sea currents etc.
Everything is down to man's production of CO2, the problem is that when the temp does not rise in line with increasing CO2 concentration they have hit a brick wall, they have backed themselves into a corner and have no way out.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

But, Dig, even the story which accompanied that said

But as the Yahtse advances, it is also thinning, underscoring the mystery behind exactly how these glaciers change over time.

Yes, glaciers advance to the sea and break off. I don't see where this is evidence that the glaciers are growing. Rather, it seems more like they are hurrying themselves to extinction.

[Digit]

Min, are they thining at the leading edge or further up? As I explained, an increase in mass at high levels will accelerate the flow, thus thining it. This is why the mass measurements are so important, thick, thin, fast or slow does not matter one iota. Are they gaining mass or losing it? That is the only important parameter.
A glacier that is losing mass is doomed, but losing mass is not only a function of temp. If the local climate dropped to minus 90, and there was no precipitation, it would still be doomed!
But as to whether that is due to man made CO2 levels is an entirely different matter. If the Sun's radiance increases, as it has been doing until recently, how do you distinguish CO2 heating from Solar?
You may wish to read this....

In Switzerland, the increase in snow in wintertime and the glacier melt in summertime have been measured at measurement points at around 3,000 metres above sea level – on the Clariden Firn, the Great Aletsch glacier and the Silvretta glacier – without interruption for almost 100 years. As part of his doctoral work, Matthias Huss used this unique range of measurements to examine how climate change in the last century affected the glaciers. The work was carried out under the supervision of Martin Funk, professor and head of the Department for Glaciology at the Laboratory for Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology (‘VAW’) at ETH Zurich, who is also co-author of the study.
Solar radiation as the decisive factor

In its work, the research team took into account the solar radiation measured on the Earth’s surface in Davos since 1934. Studies over the past two decades have shown that solar radiation varies substantially due to aerosols and clouds, and this is assumed to influence climate fluctuations. Recent years have seen the emergence of the terms ‘global dimming’ and ‘global brightening’ to describe these phenomena of reduced and increased solar radiation respectively. These two effects are currently the subject of more and more scientific research, in particular by ETH Zurich, as experts feel that they should be taken into account in the climate models (see ETH Life dated July 9, 2009)

The new study, published in the journal ‘Geophysical Research Letters’, confirms this requirement. This is because, taking into account the data recorded for the level of solar radiation, the scientists made a surprising discovery: in the 1940s and in the summer of 1947 especially, the glaciers lost the most ice since measurements commenced in 1914. This is in spite of the fact that temperatures were lower than in the past two decades. “The surprising thing is that this paradox can be explained relatively easily with radiation”, says Huss, who was recently appointed to the post of senior lecturer at the Department of Geosciences at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland.

On the basis of their calculations, the researchers have concluded that the high level of short-wave radiation in the summer months is responsible for the fast pace of glacier melt. In the 1940s, the level was 8% higher than the long-term average and 18 Watts per square metres above the levels of the past ten years. Calculated over the entire decade of the 1940s, this resulted in 4% more snow and ice melt compared with the past ten years.

Furthermore, the below-average melt rates at the measurement points during periods in which the glacier snouts were even advancing correlate with a phase of global dimming, between the 1950s and the 1980s.
Less snow fall and longer melt periods

The researchers arrived at their findings by calculating the daily melt rates with the aid of climate data and a temperature index model, based on the half-yearly measurements on the glaciers since 1914. These results were then compared with the long-term measurements of solar radiation in Davos.

Huss points out that the strong glacier melt in the 1940s puts into question the assumption that the rate of glacier decline in recent years “has never been seen before”. “Nevertheless”, says the glaciologist, “this should not lead people to conclude that the current period of global warming is not really as big of a problem for the glaciers as previously assumed”. This is because it is not only the pace at which the Alpine glaciers are currently melting that is unusual, but the fact that this sharp decline has been unabated for 25 years now. Another aspect to consider – and this is evidenced by the researchers’ findings – is that temperature-based opposing mechanisms came into play around 30 years ago. These have led to a 12% decrease in the amount of precipitation that falls as snow as a percentage of total precipitation, accompanied by an increase of around one month in the length of the melt period ever since this time. Scientists warn that these effects could soon be matched by the lower level of solar radiation we have today compared with the 1940s.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

an increase in mass at high levels will accelerate the flow,

Warming temperatures will also increase the flow. Melt water acts as a lubricant to hasten the speed with which the ice flows.

By all means, let's see what the new method has to say for itself but recall what happened when the Koch Brothers tried to refute GW.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04 ... y-20110404

A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

The only surprise here is that the bastards admitted it.

[Digit]

Warming temperatures will also increase the flow.

Yes, they will indeed, higher temps is also almost certainly the reason for the reduced snowfall, that does not make CO2 the reason Min.
Take what isn't mentioned in the report, it states the high summer temp as surprising when the glacier advanced. That's no surprise at all, the 1940s were a series of very cold winters, (think battle of the Bulge,) one warm summer wasn't going to reverse that!
But then take a look at the CO2 for the period, war time production resulted in a massive peak in atmospheric CO2, yet the winter of 41 for example was so cold that RAF Bomber Command was grounded through snow and ice.
There appears to be very little coordination between CO2 and temps.
This winter Europe has experienced some of the highest snow fall for decades.

Roy.