West Antarctic Ice Sheet is now "Beyond the point of no return"

[Hervé]

Posted by Frederick Jackson (here)

Posted by sirdipswitch (here)
WOE!! Now I think I'm a bit confused??!!
[...]

[...]

.... The argument was made that with less fresh water in the Eastern Mediterranean because of the reduced flow of the Nile, less warm and salty water was sinking and flowing over the Giibralter sill and thus diminishing the strength of the Atlantic Intermediate Water surfacing near the Grand Banks. (I have not seen any follow up on this research.)

[...]

Now it's me that's getting confused with the above since less fresh water from the Nile river would mean less dilution and cooling of the Mediterranean salty sea, etc...

All I can infer is an an overall reduction of the Mediterranean overflow into the Atlantic.

However, what I know of Gibraltar is that the water column is divided into two layers with the bottom one (denser) flowing in one direction and the top one flowing in the opposite direction which allowed submarines of various flags to go in and out of the Mediterranean without a sound having all engines stopped.

[Hervé]

Oooopss...


Proof that we’re not enduring “unprecedented” warming

By Robert On May 24, 2014 · 24 Comments

Are your leaders misguided? Or are they deliberately lying?

“Ancient trees emerge from frozen forest ‘tomb’,” reads the headline in the Juneau (Alaska) Empire. “Retreat of the Mendenhall Glacier reveals the remains of trees which grew more than 2,000 years ago.”

“Stumps from an ancient forest emerged in July from their ice tomb,” the article continues. “Some still have their bark.”

This article by Mary Catharine Martin really caught my attention because many years ago I lived just a quarter mile in front of the Mendenhall Glacier. My wife and I visited it often, took our dog for walks there, and corralled ice from the glacial lake for our scotch on the rocks. I was wary of ice worms, of course, but I figured the alcohol would kill them. (Young guys are invincible, don’t you know?)

But I digress.

Global warming zealots must have been overjoyed when they read that headline, because to them it’s proof of global warming.

But I see it a different way. I see it as undeniable proof that it has been warmer in the past.

Undeniable proof that it has been warmer in the past
The most recent stumps are between 1,400 and 1,200 years old, says UAS Professor of Geology and Environmental Science Program Coordinator Cathy Connor, who has been tracking the emergence of the ancient forest. The oldest stumps she’s tested are around 2,350 years old. She’s also dated some at around 1,870 to 2,000 years old.

So let me ask you. How is it possible that those not-so-ancient forests could have grown if it wasn’t warmer at the time?

It is not possible.

Those stumps are undeniable proof that it has been warmer in the past; undeniable proof that today’s warming is not unusual or unprecedented. You don’t need five advanced degrees in order to see this, it’s simple common sense.

And the warming must have lasted for quite some time.

It’s hard to tell from the photos, but some of those stumps look to be two, three, even four feet in diameter. It would have taken many years of warmth to have developed entire forests of such large trees in those now-glaciated areas.

As one of my readers points out, even at the smaller diameter, it takes 60 to 70 years for pines in the UK at around 500 feet in altitude to get to that size. “It’s possible that the trees were seeded at the time the Romans advanced for the first time or second time into Britain during the Roman warm period.”

Ice advances ‘faster than a running dog’
In other areas of Southeast Alaska, tree remains tell stories about other glaciers, Martin continues.

“In Glacier Bay, Connor and other researchers have found evidence of ice advances more than 5,000 years ago. They’ve also documented the glacial advance between 1724 and 1794 A.D. that pushed Huna Tlingit off their land, and written a paper incorporating those cultural and geographic histories. In that paper they cite Tlingit histories recorded by Richard and Nora Dauenhauer as saying that glacier was growing and advancing ‘faster than a running dog.’”

Even today, the Taku Glacier south of Juneau is slowly advancing, pushing live cottonwoods out of the way, says Martin. It’s the only glacier of the 32 glaciers in the Juneau ice-field that is now advancing.

(Let me point out however, that as a whole the Juneau ice-field, which is the fifth-largest ice field in the Western Hemisphere, is growing. See http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20801 )

It’s a cycle, it’s cycle, it’s a cycle
“It’s an ongoing process,” said Professor Emeritus of Geophysics Roman Motyka. The recession of Eagle and Herbert glaciers is revealing trees of a similar age.

“We’re seeing the Mendenhall wax and wane through time a little bit,” said Connor.
It’s a cycle, in other words.

It’s a cycle, it’s cycle, it’s a cycle, and humans have nothing to do with it.
So let me ask you again.

Are your leaders misguided? Or are they deliberately lying?

http://juneauempire.com/outdoors/201...en-forest-tomb

Thanks to Rosco Mac for this link

“This proves beyond dispute that today’s warmth is not anything other than totally within natural changes,” says Rosco.

“Obviously the glacier was FAR smaller than today which proves beyond doubt the climate then was significantly warmer than today.

“If current warming continues it will take hundreds of years if not more for trees this size to re-establish where they once thrived.

“Unprecedented man made warming ?? – BS.

“Unprecedented glacial retreat ?? – BS.

“This is the ‘smoking gun of climate change’ – they’re all lying !!!”

Exposing the global warming con job.

I previously posted an article about the receding Mendenhall Glacier here:
http://iceagenow.info/2013/09/recedi...0-years-today/

Easterbrook - Natural global warming
Created by Cuffy and Clow in 1997, and based on Greenland ice core records, this chart shows global temperatures for the past 15,000 years.




Easterbrook - Projected Cooling

And forget human influence, says Easterbrook. Cooling and warming are both natural.
Natural global warming much more intense than modern warming has occurred many times in the geologic past without CO2 change, says Easterbrook. And it can happen fast. Fifteen thousand years ago, temperatures rose 10 to 20 degrees in just one century.


"About 12,800 years ago we dropped into the Younger Dryas," says Easterbrook. "When we came out of the Younger Dryas, temperatures rose 15 degrees in just 40 years."


"Then, from about 10,000 years ago to 3,000 years ago, temperatures were warmer than now." (So much for today's so-called "unprecedented" warming.)

How's that for "CONTEXT"!

I am not saying that man-made CO2 is a good thing, what I am saying is that I also smell a "PSY-OP" designed to funnel funds out of the pockets of slaves into the ones of the usual suspects...

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
... trim ...

The article didn't pretend anything else than correcting the false winter temperatures fudged by the Weather Channel... right?

So, who started the cherry-picking and for what purpose?

Regardless, of the he said / she said on the temps, the larger picture needs to be included in any analyses, not that the smaller data sets are invalid, just out of context unless laid against the larger dataset.

[sirdipswitch]

WOW!!! Y'all sure spend a bunch o time worryin over stuff that even the scientists in the field don't agree on. Whatever happens, will happen, but it ain't gonna be today. And today, we see a change in the wind towards fossil fuels. A change possibly for the better, that will bring about free energy technologies that will end "Global Warming", within the next hunderd years or so. So... lighten up and enjoy.

And just think... tomoro, the world may flip over on its' side, and none of this will matter anyway. chuckle chuckle

[Hervé]

To corroborate and add to post # 22:

Scientist Reveals Inconvenient Truth to Alarmists

Written by Larry Bell, NewsMax on June 19, 2014.

Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”

Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.

Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, “I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had found something that the [more recent time-focused] Holocene and climate experts should have found.”

Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.”

Schlüchter criticizes his critics for focusing on a time period which is “indeed too short.” His studies and analyses of a Rhone glacier area reveal that “the rock surface had [previously] been ice-free 5,800 of the last 10,000 years."

Such changes can occur very rapidly. His research team was stunned to find trunks of huge trees near the edge of Mont Miné Glacier which had all died in just a single year. They determined that time to be 8,200 years ago based upon oxygen isotopes in the Greenland ice which showed marked cooling.

Casting serious doubt upon alarmist U.N.-IPCC projections that the Alps will be nearly glacier-free by 2100, Schlüchter poses several challenging questions: “Why did the glaciers retreat in the middle of the 19th century, although the large CO2 increase in the atmosphere came later? Why did the Earth 'tip' in such a short time into a warming phase? Why did glaciers again advance in the 1880s, 1920s, and 1980s? . . . Sooner or later climate science will have to answer the question why the retreat of the glacier at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 was so rapid.”

Although we witness ongoing IPCC attempts to blame such developments upon evil fossil-fueled CO2 emissions, that notion fails to answer these questions. Instead, Schlüchter believes that the sun is the principal long-term driver of climate change, with tectonics and volcanoes acting as significant contributors.

Regarding IPCC integrity with strong suspicion, Schlüchter recounts a meeting in England that he was “accidentally” invited to which was led by “someone of the East Anglia Climate Center who had come under fire in the wake of the Climategate e-mails.”

As he describes it: “The leader of the meeting spoke like some kind of Father. He was seated at a table in front of those gathered and he took messages. He commented on them either benevolently or dismissively.”

Schlüchter’s view of the proceeding took a final nosedive towards the end of the discussion. As he noted: “Lastly it was about tips on research funding proposals and where to submit them best. For me it was impressive to see how the leader of the meeting collected and selected information.”

As a number of other prominent climate scientists I know will attest, there’s one broadly recognized universal tip for those seeking government funding. All proposals with any real prospects for success should somehow link climate change with human activities rather than to natural causes. Even better, those human influences should intone dangerous consequences.

Schlüchter warns that the reputation of science is becoming more and more damaged as politics and money gain influence. He concludes, “For me it also gets down to the credibility of science . . . Today many natural scientists are helping hands of politicians, and are no longer scientists who occupy themselves with new knowledge and data. And that worries me.”

Yes. That should worry everyone.

Source