Glaciers in the Swiss Alps

[Mike Davis]

Ice core records do not have the required resolution to determine the variability! That is a form of smoothing because of the state of resolution. By the way what is the resolution for that data and what smoothing was used to produce the graphs? Was it 1 year? 1 decade? 1 century? A thousand years? Or longer? Yet you want to compare Ice core records with recent history of 20 to 50 years.
You might think that because I use Ice Core records also that I present a contradiction. I use Ice core records to show the over all pattern of climate based on long term records and do not claim the recent history is proof of anything because there is no short term proof for either side of the argument because historical records show we are in a cooling phase by observing the ice core records. As well as records with a little finer resolution but still contain the last 10 thousand years and even the reliable records of the last 1 thousand years show a continuing cooling but 5 thousand is a better representation of climate trends and 800 thousand is a better representation of long term climate cycles.
"SO?"
We are talking about regional versus global climate reconstructions.
Actually Dixie or any other musical composition requires a variable scale of frequencies just like weather and climate! Other wise it would be a flat and monotonous just like your position on climate! Low and repetitious rising to a wailing shriek at the end.

[Ravenna]

The change in temperature due directly to a doubling of C02 is estimated to be 1 degree C. AGW theory proposes that catastrophic temperature changes result from amplification of the 1 degree C by feedbacks. The proposed feedbacks apply irrespective of the cause of the original temperature change. Past retreat of the glaciers indicates that past Holocene temperatures have been higher than today. Those higher temperatures did not lead to catastrophic temperature changes then, and therefore it is implausible that this would happen today. What is your answer?

Water Vapor is too busy removing surface heat upward to be interrupted by a minimalist gas that does not promote anything.

By the way please state it as a HYPOTHESIS or even CONJECTURE.It has never reached status as a theory.

It can not be a theory when several posted predictions have failed... totally.

[Mike Davis]

Ravenna:
Sorry! I always get the issue confused because a pseudo scientific theory does not even qualify as conjecture but the equivalent of a Tarot Card reading or an Astrology Chart. Maybe it could be related to "Conjecture" as in a "Fairy Tale" or a Fantasy with a really large leap of faith!

[Ravenna]

Ravenna:
Sorry! I always get the issue confused because a pseudo scientific theory does not even qualify as conjecture but the equivalent of a Tarot Card reading or an Astrology Chart. Maybe it could be related to "Conjecture" as in a "Fairy Tale" or a Fantasy with a really large leap of faith!

Take it easy,I was quoting Philip.

[Mike Davis]

I forgot: That was a reply formed as a parody of the state of "Climate Science"
I have the habit of using the term "THEORY" loosely also.

[questioner]

The change in temperature due directly to a doubling of C02 is estimated to be 1 degree C. AGW theory proposes that catastrophic temperature changes result from amplification of the 1 degree C by feedbacks. The proposed feedbacks apply irrespective of the cause of the original temperature change. Past retreat of the glaciers indicates that past Holocene temperatures have been higher than today. Those higher temperatures did not lead to catastrophic temperature changes then, and therefore it is implausible that this would happen today. What is your answer?

Your opinion about what is plausible is worthless. Positive feedback has been measured and accepted as part of the physics of climate change for 150 years and used it to explain the ice ages.

Water Vapor is too busy removing surface heat upward to be interrupted by a minimalist gas that does not promote anything.

By the way please state it as a HYPOTHESIS or even CONJECTURE.It has never reached status as a theory.

It can not be a theory when several posted predictions have failed... totally.

You are too busy posting nonsense about climate science, and cutting and pasting from denialist bloggers like Sunsettommy to read the physics of climate.

First of all, the Clausius Clapeyron equation relating saturated vapor pressure to temperature predicts that water vapor will be a positive feedback in models. This equation was used to derive the positive feedback effect of water vapor, before there were adequate measurements.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... r-feedback

More recently measurements of atmospheric water vapor content have been made and the results show that the climate models are taking water vapor concentration into account correctly.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... rming.html

[Mike Davis]

Q:
If those researchers found what you describe they were looking a mirror because the real world provides the opposite effect of water vapor being an overall cooling factor.
Of course it is possible to get the cause and effect backwards by ignoring the timing factor just as you do with historic CO2 records. Lower humidity allows warmer temperatures that drive evaporation which cools the area.

[Philip]

Could you be more specific about your argument?

Yes, here is the argument again.

The change in temperature due directly to a doubling of C02 is estimated to be 1 degree C. AGW theory proposes that catastrophic temperature changes result from amplification of the 1 degree C by feedbacks. The proposed feedbacks apply irrespective of the cause of the original temperature change. Past retreat of the glaciers indicates that past Holocene temperatures have been higher than today. Those higher temperatures did not lead to catastrophic temperature changes then, and therefore it is implausible that this would happen today. What is your answer?

[questioner]

Could you be more specific about your argument?

Yes, here is the argument again.

The change in temperature due directly to a doubling of C02 is estimated to be 1 degree C. AGW theory proposes that catastrophic temperature changes result from amplification of the 1 degree C by feedbacks. The proposed feedbacks apply irrespective of the cause of the original temperature change. Past retreat of the glaciers indicates that past Holocene temperatures have been higher than today. Those higher temperatures did not lead to catastrophic temperature changes then, and therefore it is implausible that this would happen today. What is your answer?

If you are talking about the last 400,000 years the past temperatures were never much higher than they were today. The Vostok ice core shows a 2C higher temperature at the Antarctic just after the last ice age and a rise in sea level as was discussed was 140M. Note that a 2C increase at the poles is equivalent to a 1C average over the entire earth. With a 3C increase going forward, the increase at the poles would ultimately be 6C, which is more than the Vostok ice cores have shown in 400,000 years.

There is definitely an ancient flood story in the history of many ethnic groups. This is evidence of a catastrophe that affected mankind as a result of warming. To claim that paleo climatology shows catastrophic climate change due to warming is implausible seems to me incorrect.

[Mike Davis]

Q:
Are you again attempting to prove your lack of comprehension of what is being said? Historical records show NO runaway warming due to CO2 or CH4 or any GHG of any sort. Just natural climate variations are evident in the historical records with recent research providing a better detail of the evidence. Historically people lived on river deltas where the best soil and growing conditions existed along with the best climate. On the other hand those areas were more susceptible to major flooding events during normal spring thaw which could have been compounded by heavy snows during the preceding winter. This would be like the Eureka flood of 1964 or flooding of towns along the Mississippi. Today the 40 day rains are called the Monsoon season which sometimes last more than 40 days.
Excerpt:
During the 20th century, floods were the number-one natural disaster in the United States in terms of number of lives lost and property damage. They can occur at any time of the year, in any part of the country, and at any time of the day or night. Most lives are lost when people are swept away by flood currents, whereas most property damage results from inundation by sediment-laden water. Flood currents also possess tremendous destructive power, as lateral forces can demolish buildings and erosion can undermine bridge foundations and footings leading to the collapse of structures. The accompanying map and table locate and describe 32 of the most significant floods of the 20th century.
From here:
http://ks.water.usgs.gov/pubs/fact-shee ... 24-00.html
I realize this only represents a small portion of the globe and a short period of history.
The other factor related to destructive floods of coastal regions are Tsunamis:
http://210.8.186.60/tsunami/history/index.shtml
If you notice these events become more evident in recent history because of better recording and wider coverage.
And another reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_tsunami