Swiss glacier finely tuned to climate changes

Jun 06, 2011
Around 1900 (hand coloured postcard)

(PhysOrg.com) -- During the last ice age, the Rhone Glacier was the dominant glacier in the Alps, covering a significant part of Switzerland. Over the next 11,500 years or so, the glacier, which forms the headwaters of the Rhone River, has been shrinking and growing again in response to shifts in climate.

Until now, scientists have had no accurate way of knowing the long-term history of the glacier. Local records of the ice date back to 1602, and it is clear that the Rhone, like other in the , has retreated dramatically in the past 150 years. This melting has exposed intriguing clues – remnants of trees from once-forested land, and artifacts of human settlements dating back thousands of years, to times when even more of the land was uncovered and green.
 
A team of researchers led by two scientists from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory have found a novel method to measure this crucial back-and-forth, by measuring isotopes in hunks of stone chipped out from recently exposed bedrock near the edge of the ice. They found that for most of the Holocene Epoch, dating from the end of the last about 11,500 years ago to the present, the Rhone Glacier has been smaller than it is today.
 
In a paper published last month in the journal Geology, the researchers said that their more robust history of the Holocene glacier fluctuations reflects how sensitive glaciers are to small changes in . And, they said, the new method they used to measure glacial movement may allow scientists to make more accurate predictions of what will happen as the earth continues to warm.
 

Rocks were chiseled from bedrock recently exposed at the edge of the receding glacier. Credit: Joerg Schaefer

The findings “may potentially open up our work to application globally at many different glaciers, to begin to piece together a global picture of Holocene glacier advance and retreat,” said lead investigator Brent Goehring, a former PhD student at Lamont and now a post-doctoral researcher at Pennsylvania State University.

Co-author Joerg Schaefer, a geochemist and Lamont associate research professor, is concerned the findings could be misinterpreted by skeptics of climate change. They might conclude that, if the glacier is larger than it has been over most of the time during the past several thousand years, then there is little to worry about today.
 
“Which is simply wrong,” Schaefer said.

He said the findings show that even though the climate shifts were relatively mild during the Holocene, “we find that the glaciers really reacted strongly … telling us they are very, very sensitive to even very small [changes]. With the addition of man-made warming, the glaciers will react catastrophically to what we are doing to the climate.”
 
The researchers chiseled samples from bedrock that had been scraped and scoured over time by the glacier, and most recently exposed in 2005-2006 by the retreating glacier. They pulverized the stone in the lab and measured the isotopes Carbon 14 and Beryllium 10, which were formed in grains of quartz when the ice melted back and the rock became exposed to cosmic rays. This new technique allowed them to calculate how much time the rock had been exposed during the Holocene.
 
Goehring said he was surprised by the evidence of exposure revealed by the isotopes. The amount of Beryllium 10 and Carbon 14 they found "told us that not only were the surfaces exposed for significant periods of time, meaning the Rhone Glacier was smaller than today, but it also told us that glacial erosion rates were much lower than expected.”
 
The study is the first to offer such detailed  evidence of the glacial back-and-forth during the Holocene, Schaefer said, unlike previous studies that have relied on tree rings, glacial moraines and lake sediments. The Swiss Alps record contrasts with the record of glacial movements in the Southern Alps of New Zealand, where the glaciers appear to have been larger than at present for most of the Holocene. That difference offers important clues about the evolution of summer temperatures in mid-latitudes of the Northern and Southern hemispheres, he said.
 
Goehring hopes to use the cosmogenic dating techniques elsewhere, including Norway. There are numerous records, he said, of farms and farmhouses there being overrun by ice during the unusually cold period known as the “Little Ice Age,” which continued into the mid-19th century.

Explore further: NASA sees Hurricane Edouard far from US, but creating rough surf

More information: geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/recent

Related Stories

Southern glaciers grow out of step with North

Apr 30, 2009

The vast majority of the world’s glaciers are retreating as the planet gets warmer. But a few, including ones south of the equator, in South America and New Zealand, are inching forward.

2 more glaciers gone from Glacier National Park

Apr 07, 2010

(AP) -- Glacier National Park has lost two more of its namesake moving icefields to climate change, which is shrinking the rivers of ice until they grind to a halt, a government researcher said Wednesday.

Melting glacier worries scientists

Jul 25, 2005

Scientists monitoring a Greenland glacier have found it is moving into the sea three times faster than a decade ago, The Independent reported Monday.

Tasman Glacier retreat extreme

Apr 23, 2008

The Tasman Glacier is retreating faster than ever and will ultimately disappear, glaciologists at Massey University are warning.

Recommended for you

NASA sees Odile soaking Mexico and southwestern US

9 hours ago

Tropical Storm Odile continues to spread moisture and generate strong thunderstorms with heavy rainfall over northern Mexico's mainland and the Baja California as well as the southwestern U.S. NASA's Tropical ...

NASA sees Tropical Storm Polo intensifying

9 hours ago

Tropical storm warnings now issued for a portion of the Southwestern coast of Mexico as Polo continues to strengthen. Infrared imagery from NASA's Aqua satellite showed powerful thunderstorms around the center ...

User comments : 40

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
1.9 / 5 (18) Jun 06, 2011
The world has been both warmer, and cooler, and this within historical times.

When Scotland again has commercial vineyards, producing grapes for wine superior to the wines of France . . . then the world will be as warm as it was in A.D. 1210.
Au-Pu
1 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2011
How can these scientists determine that the Berylliun 10 and the Carbon 14 were deposited only during the last 11,500 years?
Why could not these two substances have been produced during the time period they are looking at and at earlier times when the rock was exposed, thus building cumulative amounts of each substance. Earlier material is laid down and degrades over time and more is laid down at the next exposure and it too starts to degrade.
Then our friends come along and determine how much is present and calculate their time periods from that evidence without first determining if there may be an accumulation from earlier periods of exposure
SemiNerd
5 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2011
How can these scientists determine that the Berylliun 10 and the Carbon 14 were deposited only during the last 11,500 years?
Why could not these two substances have been produced during the time period they are looking at and at earlier times when the rock was exposed, thus building cumulative amounts of each substance. Earlier material is laid down and degrades over time and more is laid down at the next exposure and it too starts to degrade.
Then our friends come along and determine how much is present and calculate their time periods from that evidence without first determining if there may be an accumulation from earlier periods of exposure

Both of these elements decay and given enough time virtually disappear from the record. Before the Holocene started 11.5 kya, heavy glaciation covered the ice for a LONG time, reseting the record.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (17) Jun 06, 2011
"The world has been both warmer, and cooler, and this within historical times." - Shootist

Only slightly warmer than present.

Climatologists aren't concerned about the current temperature. They are concerned about the much larger temperature rise that will result in the near future, specifically the next 90 years, and the temperature change that will necessarily follow that even if CO2 emissions go to zero.

The projected increase in temperature is now expected to be the worst case scenario of 4'C to 5'C and double that over the long term.

Such a change over 90 years is an extinction class event.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 06, 2011
The Greater Alpine Region is sunnier.

Sunnier means a lot more energy.

If there is any warming it is because its a lot sunnier.

"The recent trends in winter precipitation have been accompanied by respective trends in sunshine (significant increase in all subregions of 17 to 29%)"

NTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY
Int. J. Climatol. 27: 1746 (2007)
Published online 6 July 2006 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1377

Even Keith Briffa and Phil Jones (of climategate fame) are co-authors on that paper.
http://coast.gkss...2007.pdf
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 06, 2011
"Sunnier means a lot more energy." = ParkerTard

In other words it's warmer.

Warming is causing the glacier's decline.

NotParker
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 06, 2011
Anyone who lives where it snows knows that snow will melt in bright sunshine even if it is still cold.

There is no need for it to be warmer if it is a lot sunnier.

"Clean snow melts slowly because 99 percent of the sunlight is reflected away. Dirty snow or ice melts quite quickly because much more of the sunlight is absorbed as heat by the soot. 10 parts per billion of soot in freshly fallen snow is enough to significantly enhance melting."

http://notrickszo...ore-3305

CO2 is irrelevant.

It is all the soot spewed out by the diesel cars "environmentalists" forced Europeans to buy because of all the carbon taxes. They needed higher mileage diesels to be able to afford to drive.

It wasn't Co2.

More sunshine and a little soot.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 06, 2011
WAIT!!!

"artifacts of human settlements dating back thousands of years, to times when even more of the land was uncovered and green."

OMG!

Its been warmer! Greenies who claim today's temperature is UNPRECEDENTED are lying!

Thanks for the confirmation.
MikPetter
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2011
@NotParker
IPCC 4th Assessment pp 30
"Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second
half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other
50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least
the past 1300 years. {WGI 6.6, SPM}"

RE Alpine areas and trends
I. AUER ET Al - Int. J. Climatol. 27: 44 (2007)
"....Key values (concerning the annual trends) are the 0.5 to 0.8 °C temperature decrease (signicant in all subregions) in the 19th century and the subsequent 1.0 to 1.4 °C increase
(also signicant in all subregions) in the 20th century.....
.....For example, the centennial evolution of total sunshine in summer
had a signicant decrease (9%) at low elevations, but a signicant increase (+8%) at high elevations."
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 06, 2011
The Greenland Ice Cores disagree with the IPCC.

The MWP was warmer.

"for most of the Holocene Epoch, dating from the end of the last ice age about 11,500 years ago to the present, the Rhone Glacier has been smaller than it is today."

Hmmm. 8% more sunshine at higher elevations ... isn't that where glaciers are?

A little soot ... a lot more sunshine. Melting. No need to even consider CO2.

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2011
"Anyone who lives where it snows knows that snow will melt in bright sunshine even if it is still cold" - ParkerTard

Ya, the sun warms the snow.

You don't seem to capable of comprehending the processes that produce global warming.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 07, 2011
"The Greenland Ice Cores disagree with the IPCC.

The MWP was warmer." - ParkerTard

Probably not, but it hardly matters, since global temperatures are rising rapidly. If current temperatures aren't warmer today (and most believe they are) then they will be in 10 to 20 years.

"for most of the Holocene Epoch, dating from the end of the last ice age about 11,500 years ago to the present, the Rhone Glacier has been smaller than it is today." - ParkerTard

And if that glacier covered the entire globe it would provide a good global metric.

It doesn't so it only provides a local one.

You Poor, Poor, Tard.

Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 07, 2011
"CO2 is irrelevant." - ParkerTard

This video shows that you are a liar.

http://www.youtub...n9m4whaw

and this video as well...

http://www.youtub...=related

and this video too.

http://www.youtub...=related

Poor, Lying ParkerTard...
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 07, 2011
What kind of cult ignores the sun as a driver of climate and worships a trace gas like Co2 ... and then misleads people by not telling them the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor?

And then spends all their time insulting people.

By the way ... it snowed in Hawaii. And those people on the summit were wearing parkas because it was warmer ( ha ha ).

http://www.bigisl...una-kea/

RobertMurphy71
4.4 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2011
"What kind of cult ignores the sun as a driver of climate and worships a trace gas like Co2 .."

Scientists have never ignored the Sun, and have taken great pains to understand and quantify solar forcings when they do their calculations.
All the GHG's combined are *trace gases* yet though less than 1% of the Earth's atmosphere they keep the Earth about 33C warmer than it would be otherwise.

"and then misleads people by not telling them the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor?"

Most abundant, perhaps; biggest contributer to the GH effect, granted; most important? No, not for controlling temperature change. Water vapor is a feedback only; it goes up or down in *response* to temperature changes, since it is the only GHG that precipitates out of the atmosphere at temperatures seen on Earth. CO2 , on the other hand, acts as both a feedback and a forcing. CO2 is up 40% in the last 150 years, and it all us; it was not a response to temps.
As for Hawaii-weather isn't climate.
MikeyK
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2011
So NotParker, we asked for links to your claims that huge glaciers are now covering farmland in Greenland....show us the links...SHOW US YOUR LINKS...unless off course you are making it up, or relying on the High Priest Watts for your info?
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 07, 2011
about 33C warmer than it would be otherwise.


So when Antarctica drops to -90C in the long winter with little or no sun, its Co2 keeping it that warm? I don't think so.

Its lack of sunshine and lack of water vapor.

Why do deserts get so cold at night compared to tropical jungles if the same amount of Co2 exists at both places?

The simple answer is water vapor is very scarce in deserts.

CO2 is trivial.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 07, 2011
So NotParker, we asked for links to your claims that huge glaciers are now covering farmland in Greenland....show us the links...SHOW US YOUR LINKS...unless off course you are making it up, or relying on the High Priest Watts for your info?


Ummm ...

Scroll up for this quote in the article"

"This melting has exposed intriguing clues remnants of trees from once-forested land, and artifacts of human settlements dating back thousands of years, to times when even more of the land was uncovered and green."
NotParker
1 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2011
"Unlike Earth, which has a thick, moist atmosphere that produces a strong greenhouse effect, Mars atmosphere is too thin and dry to produce as strong a greenhouse effect as Earths, even when you double its carbon-dioxide content.

Robert Haberle, planetary scientist at NASAs Ames Research Center

Its the water vapor ... not the CO2.
RobertMurphy71
5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2011
"So when Antarctica drops to -90C in the long winter with little or no sun, its Co2 keeping it that warm? I don't think so."

Are you denying that greenhouse gases keep the Earth about 33C warmer than it would otherwise be? I mean, even most climate "skeptics" aren't silly enough to make that claim. The claim scientists make, btw, is not at all dependent on AGW being correct. It's basic physics.

"Why do deserts get so cold at night compared to tropical jungles if the same amount of Co2 exists at both places?"

My God, you "are" denying the greenhouse effect (at least for most GHG's). The answer is the lack of water vapor in the desert, but that has nothing to do with the fact that CO2 is a stronger greenhouse gas.

"CO2 is trivial."
Not globally it isn't, and not when it comes to controlling global temperature. Water vapor, on the other hand, only responds to temperatures (and pressure too, but that's irrelevant to this discussion), it can't initiate temperature changes.
RobertMurphy71
5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2011
NotParker, Mars isn't the Earth. Our climate is nothing like Mars'. The forcings and feedbacks are very different.
Again, nobody is saying that water vapor isn't very important, or that it is not responsible for more than half of the greenhouse effect on Earth. What it doesn't do is control global temperature trends; it follows them. The CO2 that is being emitted had been locked out of the carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years; it's being release in a scant few hundred. This increase in CO2 preceded temp increases; it is what in fact caused most of the increase. CO2 is both a feedback and a forcing; water vapor is only a (fast)feedback.
NotParker
1 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2011
Are you denying that greenhouse gases keep the Earth about 33C warmer than it would otherwise be?


I know Wikipedia claims: "Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F).[35][C] The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 3670 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 926 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 49 percent; and ozone (O3), which causes 37 percent."

But I assume this is just a wild ass guess because the uncertainty in those numbers appears to be huge.

Certainly CO2 is NOT "a stronger greenhouse gas" according to those numbers.

And that 33C number is very suspect. Maybe you could elaborate?

NotParker
1 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2011
Robet, why do you think Co2 is the only thing that has changed over the last 100 years?
RobertMurphy71
5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2011
"But I assume this is just a wild ass guess because..."

... you don;t know what you're talking about.

"Certainly CO2 is NOT "a stronger greenhouse gas" according to those numbers."

Molecule by molecule it's quite a bit stronger than water vapor. Water vapor is only responsible for a lot more of the greenhouse effect because there is so much more of it. But, again, it can't drive temperature changes, it can only follow them. CO2 can act both as a feedback *and* a forcing. Usually, it's a feedback, like water vapor (but a much slower one). Now it's primarily a forcing because it has risen 40% in 150 years, from emissions not temp change.

"And that 33C number is very suspect. Maybe you could elaborate?"

It's the combined warming of all the GHG's above what the earth would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent to infrared radiation. It's not controversial, even among most climate "skeptics". It is independent of the veracity of AGW.
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2011
Maybe a reference to the 33C. The number 33 was missing from the IPCC document I checked.

"A new paper finds that observations of atmospheric water vapor show a decrease with global warming, leading to a negative feedback on global temperature, not positive as assumed by alarmist IPCC computer model projections. The entire basis of global warming alarmism is that a supposed 1.0-1.2C warming due to a doubling of CO2 levels (which will take 234 years at the current rate) is amplified by positive water vapor feedback to 2-5C. This paper finds water vapor feedback is instead negative, resulting in only a 0.3C warming due to doubled CO2 with water vapor feedback."

http://hockeyscht...ive.html
RobertMurphy71
5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2011
"Robet, why do you think Co2 is the only thing that has changed over the last 100 years?"

I don't. Lots of things have changed, like solar irradiance, and that increase during the first half of the 20th century contributed to warming during that time. Aerosols have also increased during the last 100 years, and this had a cooling effect, especially during the middle decades of the century. During the last decades, however, solar trends have been flat to negative, and aerosols have been controlled by clean air legislation, leaving rising CO2 to become the dominant forcing over the last 50 years. If CO2 had not increased, we would have had a slight cooling during that timeframe, not the dramatic warming we in fact had.

Oh, your link about water vapor is a crock. Water vapor has increased about 4%, and there has not been cooling for the last 13 years, it's warmed. And we've already had .7 of warming with 40% increase in CO2; their (-)feedback,low climate sensitivity is impossible.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2011
solar trends have been flat to negative


"The efforts of industrialised nations to cut smog pollution has had a bizarre side-effect - accelerating global warming.

New data show that after years of getting smoggier, our skies have become clearer since about 1990. And one effect has been to allow more solar radiation to reach the surface of the Earth."

http://www.newsci...ing.html

It is the sun (and cleaner air) causing a small amount of warming.

Not CO2.

"dramatic warming"

According to HADCRUT it warmed .7C from 1909 to 1944 and it is only .35C warmer than 1944 in 2010 (even less in 2011 but that isn't finished)

http://www.cru.ue...shgl.gif
RobertMurphy71
5 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2011
Your link doesn't contradict my claim that solar irradiance has been flat to cooling the last 40 years or so. In fact, it reiterates my point that aerosol forcing (which tends toward cooling) has stopped increasing due to efforts like the Clean Air Act. This means a little more solar radiation reaches the surface, but that is well known to climate scientists. As I said before, aerosols are why we had cooling at mid-century, despite rising CO2.

What has remained flat to declining slightly is the amount or irradiance the Sun is sending out to the Earth. Look at sunspot cycles for instance- they are declining in strength the last 40 years. Overall, if CO2 had not been rising, and even if aerosols were controlled, we should have had a slight cooling.

"It is the sun (and cleaner air) causing a small amount of warming."

No, it's CO2.

"According to HADCRUT..."
Why are you cherrypicking your start dates? Why 1909 and 1944? And a good deal of the early warming was from CO2.
NotParker
1 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2011
A lot more solar energy reaches the earth. I'm not talking TSI.

Japan:

http://www.jstage.../57/_pdf

"During the 20th century SS in Japan increased by 10%."

http://www.metoff...monthly/

Pick UK, Sunshine, Annual.

The 1971-2000 average was 1350 hours. The smoothed kernel filter value has 2010 at 1430 hours. And 1929 at 1340.

80 hours above the 1971-2000 average = 5.9%
90 hours above the 1929 average = 6.7%

Spain:

http://www.iac.es...8038.pdf

There is an overall increasing trend in the number of
bright sunshine hours, amounting to about 100 h in
the last 100 years (0.96 h/year), which represents an
increase in bright sunshine hours of about 4% in a
century.

Greater Alpine Region:

http://i54.tinypi...uot1.jpg
NotParker
1.1 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2011
Why are you cherrypicking your start dates? Why 1909 and 1944? And a good deal of the early warming was from CO2.


Just giving people an idea what warming during a warm phase PDO global brightening can do.

RobertMurphy71
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2011
"A lot more solar energy reaches the earth. I'm not talking TSI."

Global dimming trend switched about 1990. The warming started in the mid 70's. The radiative forcing for the increase in solar radiation hitting the Earth from global brightening is about 10 times smaller than the radiative forcing of CO2. Global brightening is just not capable of explaining the warming we have seen in the last 30-40 years. (It should be remembered, however, that the global brightening in question, while having a small effect, is still anthropogenic. It is not *the Sun*. It's us).
MikeyK
5 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2011
NotcleverParker.....so you think this is your source that Viking FARMLANDS, were covered in glaciers........Lmao!!!
Not clever...notclever at all parker!! You know when the Holocene started don't you!!?
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2011
Global dimming trend switched about 1990. The warming started in the mid 70's.


The mid 1970s was the height of the coming ice age scare that predated the global warming scare.

HADCRUT certainly thinks it was pretty cold from 1944 to about 1979

http://www.cru.ue...shgl.gif

The radiative forcing for the increase in solar radiation hitting the Earth from global brightening is about 10 times smaller than the radiative forcing of CO2.


Actually a doubling of CO2 (which is a long way from happening) is only 2.7W/sq.m. which is about 1/3rd the albedo change according to this paper:

http://hockeyscht...ral.html

"natural changes in global cloud cover over the 21 year period 1983-2004 are responsible for at least 3 times as much global warming as has been attributed to greenhouse gases over the 104 year period of 1900-2004."
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2011
NotcleverParker.....so you think this is your source that Viking FARMLANDS, were covered in glaciers........Lmao!!!
Not clever...notclever at all parker!! You know when the Holocene started don't you!!?


Vikings? Which quote of mine mentioned vikings?

I'm just reading the article above.

"Goehring hopes to use the cosmogenic dating techniques elsewhere, including Norway. There are numerous records, he said, of farms and farmhouses there being overrun by ice during the unusually cold period known as the Little Ice Age, which continued into the mid-19th century."
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2011
Glaciers at their maximum - LIA:

1740s: Glaciers advanced in all Alpine regions, including Chamonix glaciers, Grindelwald and Vernagt glaciers.

1741: Drangajökull destroyed another farm in Iceland.

1748-50: Norwegian glaciers achieved their historical maximum Little Ice Age positions.

1760-90: Long-term "normality" of glacier expansion accepted; no real sign of significant glacier retreats.

1810-1819: Coldest decade of the last 1250 years in the French Alps, according to tree-ring data (Corona et al. 2011). Mean summer temperature was 3 °C lower than the warmest decades (810s and 1990s).

1816: Coldest single year on record in many places in Europe and North America, following the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia.

1816-25: New glacier offensive throughout Europe; all Alpine glaciers showed advances reaching positions slightly short of 17th century Alpine maximum limits.

More:http://academic.e...cene.htm
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2011
And then retreat.

It is interesting that AGW believers think that glaciers at their maximum is normal, while sane people (skeptics) know that the LIA causesd advance and end of LIA caused retreat:

1830-40s: Moderate retreat shown by many glaciers.

1855: Signs of moderate retreats by Chamonix glaciers.

1860-80s: Evidence of pronounced glacier withdrawal all over continental Europe; many Alpine glaciers retreated &gt1 km by beginning of this century. Icelandic glaciers remained in advanced positions, however.

early 1900s: Rapid retreat by glaciers on Mt. Kenya, Africa--see Fig. 19-18.

1920-30s: Glaciers declined rapidly everywhere, except Antarctica; end of Little Ice Ages.

MikeyK
5 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2011


Vikings? Which quote of mine mentioned vikings?


A short memory as well as dumb! Remember previous posts, little clue for you....viking settlement....MWP...dairy farms...overrun by glaciers 2km thick...bring back memories....muppet

NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2011
You seem ... deranged.

Yes, Vikings did live and farm in Greenland when it was as warm as it is TODAY, and yes global cooling did drive them out of Greenland.

"The Vikings arrived in Greenland in the 980s, establishing a string of small communities along Greenland's west coast. Another grouping of communities, called the "Eastern Settlement" also was located on the west coast but farther south on the island. The arrival coincided with a time of comparatively mild weather, similar to that in Greenland today, but beginning around 1100, the climate began an 80-year period in which temperatures dropped 4 degrees Celsius/7 degrees Fahrenheit"

http://www.scienc...and-7950
wwqq
1 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2011
What kind of cult ignores the sun as a driver of climate and worships a trace gas like Co2


The sun was not ignored, it was ruled out, like so many other alternative explanations.

Water vapour is a very important greenhouse gas, it is not being ignored. It works in concert with CO2 to amplify the warming; it is a feedback and not a driver.
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2011
Where in the IPCC reports is bright sunshine ruled out?

I looked. Couldn't find it.