Florida's cold snap disaster for tropical wildlife

Jan 09, 2010 by Juan Castro Olivera
Iguanas dropping from trees, manatees huddling around waters warmed by power plants and marine turtles being whisked away to shelters -- Florida's unusual cold snap is a deadly one for tropical wildlife. When temperatures drop below about 60 F (15 C), they become less able to move around. Below about 40 F (5 C), they become completely immobile due to a lack of blood flow.

Iguanas dropping from trees, manatees huddling around waters warmed by power plants and marine turtles being whisked away to shelters -- Florida's unusual cold snap is a deadly one for tropical wildlife.

The cold front sweeping in from the Arctic, with temperatures below freezing in parts of the southeastern state, is killing many animals accustomed to a temperate climate that sends droves of tourists swarming to enjoy yearlong warmth in the "Sunshine State."

The cold-blooded iguanas' comfort level begins at 73 degrees Fahrenheit (23 Celsius) and they positively thrive at 95 F (35 C).

When temperatures drop below about 60 F (15 C), they become less able to move around. Below about 40 F (5 C), they become completely immobile due to a lack of blood flow. Unable to hold on, the mohawked lizards, which shelter in tree branches and crevices, drop to the ground.

Iguanas and other tropical wildlife are bearing the brunt of the severe Arctic weather in , where Miami's subtropical beaches have been left all but deserted this week with temperatures plummeting to around 32 F (zero degrees Celsius).

" impacts iguanas severely and many are killed," said Gabriella Ferraro, spokeswoman for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).

"That is not a bad thing. It's a good thing, because iguanas are an exotic animal, they don't belong to Florida. This seasonal kill helps us to manage the population."

Travelers from Mexico, Central and South America originally introduced the creatures to Florida in the 1960s.

Although suffering from the cold, python snakes, which abound in particularly large numbers in Florida's Everglades swamp reserve, can survive in cooler temperatures.

"The good thing is that the cold weather brings the pythons out of the vegetation. They need warmer bodies and they come out to get some sun and so it is easier for hunters to find them," Ferraro explained to AFP.

and sea turtles are the most vulnerable during the cold , she added, noting that some of the animals had died in central Florida.

Known as sea cows for their bulky frame -- adults are an average of three meters (10 feet) long and weigh between 800 and 1,200 pounds (360 and 540 kilograms) -- manatees abound in Florida's warm waters close to river mouths and can die from prolonged exposure to low temperatures.

When water temperatures drop, manatees gather in warm-water habitats, such as discharge canals at power plants, canal systems or springs to avoid a deadly "cold stress syndrome."

With thermometers dropping to record lows, large groups of manatees huddled in recent days seeking the warmth of power plants in Riviera Beach, north of Miami, and Apollo Beach, near Tampa off the Gulf of Mexico.

The FWC says it has rescued about 250 so far and placed them in special shelters where they can rest while waiting for the sea to warm.

The seemingly lifeless iguanas can be revived, however. Passersby can usually bring them back to life by picking up the lizards and setting them in the sun. After a brief warm-up, most will scamper off into the bushes.

Florida's exotic creatures may have to brace for worse, with forecasters saying a new polar front could sweep in over the weekend in the state, where some parts have already seen temperatures 20 degrees below normal.

Explore further: Rising anger as Nicaragua canal to break ground

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Florida grapples slippery giant snake invasion

Nov 06, 2009

Florida homes and swamps more used to dealing with dangerous critters like alligators now face a more foreign invader -- giant pet snakes escaped into the wild whose numbers are growing at an alarming rate.

NASA eyes warm sea surface temperatures for hurricanes

Aug 17, 2007

Sea surface temperatures are one of the key ingredients for tropical cyclone formation and they were warming up in the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean and eastern Atlantic Ocean by the middle of August. As a result, ...

Experts: Cold snap doesn't disprove global warming

Jan 06, 2010

(AP) -- Beijing had its coldest morning in almost 40 years and its biggest snowfall since 1951. Britain is suffering through its longest cold snap since 1981. And freezing weather is gripping the Deep South, ...

Government to remap manatee habitat

Sep 30, 2009

It has been more than 30 years since federal wildlife managers formally mapped the places where endangered manatee live in Florida. On Tuesday, they acknowledged it's probably time for an update.

Recommended for you

Rising anger as Nicaragua canal to break ground

Dec 21, 2014

As a conscripted soldier during the Contra War of the 1980s, Esteban Ruiz used to flee from battles because he didn't want to have to kill anyone. But now, as the 47-year-old farmer prepares to fight for ...

Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

Dec 20, 2014

One of the most prolific oil and gas basins on the planet sits just off Cuba's northwest coast, and the thaw in relations with the United States is giving rise to hopes that Cuba can now get in on the action.

User comments : 129

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (30) Jan 09, 2010
Clearly global warming at play, (sarcasm). I forgot, now they call it global change, as if Al Gore and the left wing discovered something new. I find it cute when 'scientists' worry over a speces or two due to environmental changes (polar bears). Millions of speces have evolved and become extinct over the course of the earths history for various reasons. Trying to "fix" nature or "repair" dynamics of global weather is like trying to hold back the ocean. Remarkably naive. Seriously what's the point of this article?
bbd
2.8 / 5 (25) Jan 09, 2010
Clearly Man's reductions in CO2 emissions have gone too far and we are now the cause of Global Cooling. Al Gore and the AGM's are destroying the planet! It's time to hole ourselves up in Bill Gates' Doomsday Seed Vault and weather the storm.
croghan27
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2010
The weather maps I see show cold coming down from the north to Florida. I can see how this would effect the birds, does this really have much effect on the water temperature?

I know manatees gather about a power plant in SW Florida, Fort Pierce, every winter - what makes it so special this year?

Is there any evidence of some shift in ocean currents?
Damon_Hastings
3.4 / 5 (18) Jan 09, 2010
Noumenon/bbd,

Be careful not to mistake weather for climate. Any climate "trend" consisting of less than a decade of data is just random statistical noise.

Moreover, global warming is predicted to make winters *colder* in many places (I don't know whether Florida is one of them.) It also is predicted to cause more snow and other precipitation worldwide -- though it will cause LESS precipitation in some places, such as the southwest US. (Yes, increased snowfall was predicted by, and is evidence for, global warming.) The effect of global warming is highly complex, varies by region, and has a lot of random fluctuation from year to year. Don't just expect every region of the world to be hotter and wetter each year than the previous one.

There are maps you can consult to see region-specific predictions of multi-decade trends in the future (though not of year-to-year trends, of course.)
marjon
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 09, 2010
It is called survival of the fittest.
Adapt or die.
Damon_Hastings
2 / 5 (14) Jan 09, 2010
bbd,

I welcome contrary opinions. There is no need to suppress my comment with a "1" ranking, unless you simply have no other way to express your opinion. As I understand it, the ranking system is intended as a way to hide inappropriate or off-topic comments -- not to register your disagreement with a particular point of view. I do not attempt to hide comments that I disagree with, any more than I would burn a book I disagree with or pass a law forbidding free speech that I disagree with. I simply respond to others' reasoned comments with my own.
croghan27
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2010
It is called survival of the fittest.
Adapt or die.


From my understanding, marjor, that is true but a tad on the simplistic side .... sharks, turtles and cockroaches have been about in their current form for hundred of millions of year - so they must have hit the right note at an early try.

Damon_Hastings - that is the reason I asked about changing ocean currents - a cold January in Florida is unusual, but not unheard of .. a major change in ocean currents would certainly be - and would be more permanent than a dip in the gulf steam wind vector.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 09, 2010
Damon, what did you 'rate' my comment? Lets see, three people rated me, so.. if bdd gave me a 5, than the other two must have given me a 1; (1 + 1 + 5)/3=2.33
Damon_Hastings
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2010
Yeah, I'm sorry about that, man -- I was attempting to leave a retaliatory "1" on bdd's comment. This isn't the first time I've accidentally ranked the wrong comment -- physorg puts the ranker right next to the *next* comment's rank, and that seems to trick me every time! And I leave rankings so rarely that I always forget to watch out for this problem by the next time I do it. Anyway, I'm very sorry. I actually spent several minutes searching for a way to undo my ranking of your comment, but I couldn't find one. Do you know of any way?
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2010
Yeah, I'm sorry about that, man -- I was attempting to leave a retaliatory "1" on bdd's comment. This isn't the first time I've accidentally ranked the wrong comment -- physorg puts the ranker right next to the *next* comment's rank, and that seems to trick me every time! And I leave rankings so rarely that I always forget to watch out for this problem by the next time I do it. Anyway, I'm very sorry. I actually spent several minutes searching for a way to undo my ranking of your comment, but I couldn't find one. Do you know of any way?


A 'retaliatory 1', LOL. Your entitled to give me a one if you added a comment in response to mine, so no problem. What I don't like is the drive by ranker's like gmurphy, antialias_physorg, etc,... I'm off to give out some retaliatory ones,.... lol
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 09, 2010
BTW, my first post was tongue in check. I know it's amply complicated enough to entail all matter of convoluted predictions and mush headed political responses. If fact my contention is, it is too complicated for climate scientists to have a handle on it. Global cooling, then global warming, now climate change,.... it's all social engineering and redistribution of wealth to me without a viable replacement for oil/coal IN PLACE.
marjon
3 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2010
From my understanding, marjor, that is true but a tad on the simplistic side .... sharks, turtles and cockroaches have been about in their current form for hundred of millions of year - so they must have hit the right note at an early try.

You don't think sharks, turtles and cockroaches have adapted?
freethinking
3 / 5 (18) Jan 09, 2010
If the weather is unusually hot, its global warming, if the weather is unusually cold, its climate change. If a polar bear is swimming its because of CO2. If a bird freezes its CO2.

My Profit Al Gore will win no matter what. You all will need to pay a tax to him. Pass the coolaid

Sarcasm intended...
peteone1
2.9 / 5 (18) Jan 09, 2010
Some common sense empirical observations that distinctly show the completely absurd notion of Man-made global warming (AGW):
Millions across US endure record-setting cold...Threatens $300 million worth of crops, from strawberries and citrus fruits to tomatoes and green beans... http://iceagenow....cold.htm

Mother Nature Exacts Her Revenge (on AGW Alarmists)...http://newsmax.co...d/344897

It's a cycle, it's a cycle, it's a cycle! A True Inquiry Into Climate & Weather, Part 1: A Hot Potato. Humans have nothing to do with it...http://iceagenow....ycle.htm

Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict...http://www.telegr...ict.html

There are lots more AGW-busting, fact-filled articles out there. All of us doing our part to piss off the Left! ;-)
croghan27
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 09, 2010
"There are lots more AGW-busting, fact-filled articles out there. All of us doing our part to piss off the Left! ;-)"

I would think your time would be better spent supporting the science than playing pretend politics.
peteone1
2.9 / 5 (17) Jan 09, 2010
The entire myth of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a hoax perpetrated by anti-capitalist leftwing socialist zealots who are desperately seeking a way to remain relevant in this post-Soviet Evil Empire/post-communism era. They seek nothing more, IMHO, to reestablish some sort of totalitarian style Soviet control over the world through this AGW hoax, a new way to destroy capitalism if you will.

These people must be exposed for the frauds and charlatans that are before they shackle and silence us and our children to economic & political tyranny.
peteone1
2.9 / 5 (17) Jan 09, 2010
"I would think your time would be better spent supporting the science than playing pretend politics.
"
Um, dude...isn't part of scientific methodology all about OBSERVATION?! Hence all of the available observations so far indicate non-linear relationship pattern of temperature cycles associated with capitalistic/industrial activity. That means for those otherwise intellectually-challenged anti-God, anti-capitalist Leftwing tree-huggers, the science does NOT support the completely pseuoscientific claims of their non-scientist lying prophet, AlGore.
marjon
3.1 / 5 (15) Jan 09, 2010
"There are lots more AGW-busting, fact-filled articles out there. All of us doing our part to piss off the Left! ;-)"

I would think your time would be better spent supporting the science than playing pretend politics.

One would think scientists would not be afraid to stand up for science. Alas, too many have been intimidated to keep quiet and keep their jobs.
Shootist
4.1 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2010
Bloody heck. Iguanas are an invasive species, not native to Florida, and Manatees have been in FL for the last million years (can you say for half of the last ice age?). It was a lot colder in Miami on January 9th 15000 B.C. than it is today. And no nuke power plant to huddle by, in any case.

The turtles have been on the planet since time immemorial, has it never been cold in a sub-tropical zone before now?

No need to answer that, I was born in Florida. I have seen ice, snow, sleet and freezing rain. The coldest camping trip I was ever on was 40 miles north of Frostproof, Fl, where the thermometer dropped below 15F all night. The lake we camped beside was covered with a thin sheet of ice in the morning.

I guarantee you, nobody "whisked the freezing sea turtles" to safety in 1963. Yet they survived. Amazing.

Really nothing to see here.
jama
3.3 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2010
When fridgid air arrives from the arctic it is replaced with warm air from the south which is why Greenland was actually warmer than Florida for a day or so. While US/UK is getting chilled Alaska/Greenland is having record heat waves. Look at the big picture.
Shootist
3.1 / 5 (15) Jan 09, 2010
The entire myth of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a hoax perpetrated by anti-capitalist leftwing socialist zealots who are desperately seeking a way to remain relevant in this post-Soviet Evil Empire/post-communism era. They seek nothing more, IMHO, to reestablish some sort of totalitarian style Soviet control over the world through this AGW hoax, a new way to destroy capitalism if you will.

These people must be exposed for the frauds and charlatans that are before they shackle and silence us and our children to economic & political tyranny.


Well. It is true that a bunch of former Reds are now Greens. Look at the membership roles of International Communism prior to the fall of USSR. Then compare those names to the boards of such notables as the Sierra Club, WWF, and Green(no)Peace.

Communists hate Capitalists like dogs hate baths. What better way to to control the means of Production than by regulating it to death?
croghan27
3.1 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2010
GEEZE - is there anything else that you can accuse them of in your mindless anger ... how about drug dealing? child molesting? Maybe rejecting tea parties?

The next thing you're going to tell me is that the Jets have a chance again the Bengals this afternoon.

Never having reached the sublime, this thread has drifted off into the ridiculous.
droom
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 09, 2010
Ok all you AGW deniers, I have one question for you.

Did the glaciers come back?? Because in the past 50 years over 84% have gone away. That is the single biggest evidence of GLOBAL warming, ice melting around the world. And that fact has never been disproven, actually, satellite imaging has only really drove home how bad it is.

So again, AGW deniers, where did the glaciers go?
barkster
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2010
So again, AGW deniers, where did the glaciers go?


Apparently, to Florida.

I'm so glad to see that such spirited trashing of AGW survives here, despite the cold. And more especially after PhysOrg threatened me with being blocked for my anti-AGW stance.
dachpyarvile
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2010
Be careful not to mistake weather for climate. Any climate "trend" consisting of less than a decade of data is just random statistical noise.
...


True enough. I am glad that you wrote that. Have you looked at the overall trend for the last two decades?

Something else of interest is a fairly recent paper presented to the American Geophysical Union. Observation data from two periods seems to show that temperature rises in Greenland are not "unprecedented" after all. In fact, 1995-2005 warming period temperatures recently were 50% lower than those that occurred between 1920-1930.

Here is the abstract:
http://www.agu.or...10.shtml

Snippets of Discussion and Conclusion to be seen here:
http://meteo.lcd....ing.html
marjon
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2010
Ok all you AGW deniers, I have one question for you.

Did the glaciers come back?? Because in the past 50 years over 84% have gone away. That is the single biggest evidence of GLOBAL warming, ice melting around the world. And that fact has never been disproven, actually, satellite imaging has only really drove home how bad it is.

So again, AGW deniers, where did the glaciers go?

They melted thousands of years ago, before SUVs and the industrial revolution.
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2010
Ok all you AGW deniers, I have one question for you.

...

So again, AGW deniers, where did the glaciers go?


84% is an exaggeration. Some glaciers have either grown or stayed the same. Others have lost mass.

However, temperatures are not the only reasons for melting of glaciers. The melting point of a glacier is also affected by a drop of 0.7°C / km of height from the base of the glacier upward. Additional factors are ablation and lower precipitation.

In the case of Kilimanjaro the cause of the decline in that glacier was the removal of the rain forest that supplied it with moisture. Deforestation rather than AGW caused the decline of that glacier.

Moral of the story: There are many causes to glacial decline.

Glaciers must be taken on a case-by-case basis. Even glaciers in regions that do not rise above freezing can decline.
croghan27
2.4 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2010
From Mount Kilimanharo - Peakware
http://www.peakwa...l?pk=139

"Beneath its ice dome, snow extends down long gullies that have been eroded in the mountain sides. The ice cap, which formed 11,000 years ago, has retreated significantly in recent years, as much as 80% in the last century. Scientists expect it to be gone within the early half of the 21st Century."

How there could be a forest under the ice dome is something I have to have explained to me.
dachpyarvile
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2010
The forest was below the glacier and at ground level at the base of Kilimanjaro. Nowhere did I say it was under the ice dome.
tk1
Jan 09, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dachpyarvile
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2010
Now, take a quick look at the summary of some important recent information:

http://216.69.164...550.html

and set the 'Period' for 'Annual' and parameters for BegYr and 'First Year to Display' to 1989 for both and end to 2009 for both. Note the near 'flatline' (actually a very, very slight decline) for the last two decades and then change both BegYr and 'First Year to Display' to 1999 and end point to 2009 and note the decline for this decade.

You can also examine information for the last two decades of any other region if you look for the data. You will see overall the same thing occurring--at least until they find a way to smooth away the decline. :)
dachpyarvile
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2010
The 2nd website got cut off when I edited the post. Here is the post again.

Now, take a quick look at the summary of some important recent information:

http://216.69.164...550.html

Having done so, take a look at this website and do the following to observe two decades of climate trend for the United States.

Go to: http://www.ncdc.n.../na.html

and set the parameters for BegYr and 'First Year to Display' to 1999 for both and end to 2009 for both. Note the decline for the last decade.

You can also examine information for the last decade of any other region if you look for the data. You will see overall the same thing occurring--at least until they find a way to smooth away the decline. :)
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2010
Just cannot seem to get the editing right without screwing up some portion of my text with mistypes and so forth. Trying to get the final post as I intended to post it one more time.

The 2nd website got cut off when I edited the post. Here is the post again.

Now, take a quick look at the summary of some important recent information:

http://216.69.164...550.html

Having done so, take a look at this website and do the following to observe the last decade of climate trend for the United States.

Go to:
http://www.ncdc.n.../na.html

and set the 'Period' to 'Annual' and parameters for BegYr and 'First Year to Display' to 1999 for both and end to 2009 for both. Note the decline for the last decade.

You can also examine information for the last decade of any other region if you look for the data. You will see overall the same thing occurring--at least until they find a way to smooth away the decline. :)
croghan27
2.9 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2010

In the case of Kilimanjaro the cause of the decline in that glacier was the removal of the rain forest that supplied it with moisture. Deforestation rather than AGW caused the decline of that glacier.

Moral of the story: There are many causes to glacial decline.

Glaciers must be taken on a case-by-case basis. Even glaciers in regions that do not rise above freezing can decline.


Last I checked moisture fell down and did not climb mountains .. even yet - I do agree with you on the other two points .... to blandly say it that AGW is totally the cause is missing a point - there are few things in this world that have a single cause.

That being said - to ignore world trends is missing something as well. Glaciers are declining world wide and that implies a global cause.
NeilBlanchard
4 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2010
Do you think that the Theory of Gravity is correct? Because you can't see it, or measure it -- Science has it right, though.

What about atomic and molecular structure? You can't see it! Very mysterious stuff... Science has it right, though.

What about plate tectonics? Pretty bizarre having the land floating around on molten rock! The land moves, causing mountain ranges to form, earthquakes and volcanoes -- are you sure this is right? Science has it right, though.

The theory of the universe is mind-blowing! Are there really trillions and quadrillions of stars out there? Do all elements heavier than iron come from supernovas? Do we have stardust in our bodies? Wild! Science has it right, though.

So, how *did* scientist figure all this strange and mysterious stuff out, anyway? Answer is: they used the exact same methods of inquiry, data collection, testing theories, discussion, peer review -- as they used for Global Climate Change.

All of science works the same, folks.
marjon
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 09, 2010
Do you think that the Theory of Gravity is correct? Because you can't see it, or measure it -- Science has it right, though.

What is the theory of gravity? How does it really work? How can we control it? We can control other forces, but we cannot control gravity. Why is that?

Science has it right, though.

Science has what right? I thought science was a process of discovery. Every day new data is collected and tested against theory. Some theories are discarded, new ones are declared and others are sustained. That is NOT the process used by Al Gore or the IPCC to declare human produced CO2 is causing AGW. Supporters conspired to suppress opposition data. Look up the Wegman Report about Mann's hockey stick and look up the NSF report about Mann's 'research', if you are serious about science.
Damon_Hastings
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2010
No scientist will claim that the current theory of gravity is absolutely correct -- mainly because there are a dozen such theories, all of which are contradictory and incomplete, and coming up with a complete theory of gravity is the "Holy Grail" of modern physics. However, that doesn't mean we just toss science out the window and cancel funding for all NASA projects which depend upon precise calculations of gravity (i.e. all of them). At some point, you just have to make policy decisions based on the best available model -- and the best available model comes from science. That's what our leaders are faced with right now when it comes to global warming. They have to make a policy decision -- and waiting until the science is perfect (i.e. never) before making a decision is itself a decision. A risky one.
GrayMouser
3 / 5 (12) Jan 09, 2010
So, how *did* scientist figure all this strange and mysterious stuff out, anyway? Answer is: they used the exact same methods of inquiry, data collection, testing theories, discussion, peer review -- as they used for Global Climate Change.

Arrhenius' theory of Green House Effect was peer reviewed and found to be wrong over 100 years ago. How is it that, until recently, a discredited hypothesis, was left in the trash bin of science until political utility declared it to be true?

FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS by GERLICH & TSCHEUSCHNER in International Journal of Modern Physics B (IJMPB)
http://ejournals....84X.html
Damon_Hastings
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2010
Arrhenius' theory of Green House Effect was peer reviewed and found to be wrong over 100 years ago. How is it that, until recently, a discredited hypothesis, was left in the trash bin of science until political utility declared it to be true?

Many scientific theories are discarded, revived, discarded, and revived again. Heck, just look at the history of the question "Is there an aether?"

Just because a previously discarded theory is revived doesn't necessarily mean there were political machinations behind it. Science is constantly changing as new information and methods become available.
marjon
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2010
the best available model comes from science.

That model can't predict the future. It is very uncertain.
What is the emergency? Why MUST any policy decision be made?
Congress has failed to act on nuclear energy policy for over 30 years. For the entire Bush administration, Congress failed to enact any energy policy decision.
According to theory, doubling CO2 will NOT double heat absorption. A molecule of CO2 can only absorb specific wavelengths of photon/s. The sun radiates a finite number of such photons. When they are all absorbed, more CO2 will do nothing. Adding more shades to a window will not make the room darker.
The model is so bad, NASA is trying to launch CLARREO to collect more accurate radiometry data to verify the model.
dachpyarvile
2 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2010
Last I checked moisture fell down and did not climb mountains ..


You're kidding, right? You do not remember the water cycle? How do you think the H2O gets up into the sky? Some kind of sky-god pull it up via pail and pour it into a sieve? Please...

The truth is that there is a combination of atmospheric mixing and winds which carry the vapor up to Kilimanjaro.

That being said - to ignore world trends is missing something as well. Glaciers are declining world wide and that implies a global cause.


Other glaciers in other places on the globe are either growing or remaining near what they were decades ago. A fully global cause should affect them all the same way.
Parsec
4.2 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2010
Every time we have a cold snap, I see bogus comments declaring that global warming is obviously not real. I am quite surprised that people with such a small amount of knowledge feel justified in making any comment at all.

Global warming is a trend. It is a small amount of extra heat added to the atmosphere on a continuous basis. We will still have weather, with cold winters and warm summers. On a year over year basis, adding 1 or 2% extra energy to the atmosphere won't affect the weather much, and still allows for cold snaps, blizzards, etc.

It is the accumulative effect that is worrisome, because each year the amount added increases. This is what is meant by a trend.

Anyone that thinks glaciers are not showing a world wide retreating trend has not been paying attention to the literature, or is cheery picking the data. A few grow or remain the same, nearly all retreat.
Parsec
5 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2010
Another comment I would like to make about gravity. It is true that there are numerous alternate gravitational theories out there. However the salient point to remember is that every one of these theories without exception produce the same answers as the accepted one on small scales (small being on the order of the size of the solar system).
Parsec
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2010

That model can't predict the future. It is very uncertain.
...
The model is so bad, NASA is trying to launch CLARREO to collect more accurate radiometry data to verify the model.


Everyone is trying to collect more data to verify all the models. That doesn't make the models bad. It makes the modelers competent scientists.

You see that is how real scientists work (unlike the AGW deniers). They do not start from an established position and find data to justify it. They get data and then form a position. Most climate scientists are currently scrambling trying to understand more about whats really going on, and trying to get better data to improve their models.

Every scientist I have every met (and I have met lots) is quite proud of their ability to look at all sides of every question. Open-mindedness is a prized professional ethic.
croghan27
4.5 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2010

The truth is that there is a combination of atmospheric mixing and winds which carry the vapor up to Kilimanjaro.

Other glaciers in other places on the globe are either growing or remaining near what they were decades ago. A fully global cause should affect them all the same way.


I went to your links to see if there was a basis for your intransigence in the face of well documented reality,

Three of the five go to something called: "IPPMedia" that I have never heard of and is certainly not a rigorously reviewed scientific publication, (and to the same article 3 times). The best I can say is that the article is a reprint from the Guardian. (speaking of socialists!): while the other is to NOAA. That section describes local and temporary weather happenings, not long term climate trends.

If you would care to go to the proper NOAA page and read the FAQ about Climate Warming: http://www.ncdc.n....html#q3 you would see:

(continued on down)
croghan27
4.6 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2010
"Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995."

This is from YOUR source .... "THE TEN WARMEST YEARS HAVE ALL OCCURRED SINCE 1995"

So, as far as I can see you cherry pick from legitimate sources and refer to non-scientific publications for confirmation of your blue-skied theories.

Here I want to thank both Parsec and Damon_Hastings as I have learned considerable science in their musings.
marjon
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2010
Open-mindedness is a prized professional ethic.

Is that why they always qualify their statements regarding how much sea levels will rise in 50 years?

seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995."

Still doesn't explain the 1000 AD. NSF said that uncertainty was too great to make a claim that those 8 years are warmest, ever. Also, since the land surface temperature stations have been demonstrated, by concerned citizen, not those dedicated scientists, to be subject to significant errors, the data you cite is in question.
Bottom line is those scientists have much trust to regain.
marjon
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2010
Everyone is trying to collect more data to verify all the models.

What is done with the data that does not verify the model? Is it ignored and not published?
croghan27
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2010
Supporters conspired to suppress opposition data. Look up the Wegman Report about Mann's hockey stick and look up the NSF report about Mann's 'research', if you are serious about science.


Here is a lively discussion of the Wegman Report and its' authors ... it appears they manage to quote each other in some incestuous circle of self aggrandizement.

http://deepclimat...visited/
MikeyK
4 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2010
Surely the moisture that ultimately forms the glaciers comes from the two wet seasons in this part of the world, the long rains in the NH spring and the short rains in the NH autumn/fall. Changes of transpiration rates from forests would have a slight effect on water content at higher latitudes but there are a lot of plants and a variety of species around Mt. Kilimanjaro ( I have climbed it twice so can vouch for that!) The changes in plant density is a small contributing factor to the accelerating glacial loss, but only a small factor.
An answer AGW deniers cannot answer is why the snow-line is rising as the glaciers retreat, this is independent of less moisture reaching the peak. There are a number of comments about ablation, what the commentator fails to appreciate is that ablation rates increase dramatically as temperatures increase.

dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2010
Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.


Exactly! You should note that 2009 was ranked the ninth warmest (or, in other words, the second coolest of this decade). But, you need to look at the ranking of the years. Overall, this decade was a cooling trend. The United States data in the second link is part of a global trend this decade. I told you to look around for the other data and that you would see the same things.

As to the links, you need not pay attention to the IPPMedia source but to what the source references--a Nature article and a couple other published studies. Nature and the other sources certainly are peer-reviewed scientific journals. In only linked to the article but I did state that the article was a summary of the studies.

But, glory be! You found an easy out to ignore what it says on what you falsely think are substantial grounds...
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2010
An easy answer to the so-called dilemma MikeyK proposes about the snow-line actually becomes a dilemma for AGW adherents because of the fact that the actual tropospheric satellite data for the region as well as other regions where glaciers are shrinking show zero net warming in the troposphere in those places. No atmospheric warming, no warming as the cause of glacial retreat.

We must look to other causes, therefore.
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2010
Everyone is trying to collect more data to verify all the models. That doesn't make the models bad. It makes the modelers competent scientists.


Not when they message the data to match the models, it doesn't! :)

The proxies show declines. Satellite data shows little to no net warming in the troposphere. ARGO data--before they are about to message the data to remove the decline--shows a leveling to a slight decline. How much raw data from many sources does it take to establish a recent decline?

No problem, the CRU and others of their ilk simply message the data with things like 'fudge factor' and voila! declines in the data eliminated and rebent to indicate faster than normal heating in spite of the fact that there has been an overall cooling trend this decade.
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2010
Here is one of the original articles summarized by the IPPMedia/Guardian source:

"The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed?"

http://www.americ...blamed/1
dachpyarvile
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2010
From a Nature article (entitled: "African ice under wraps: Secrets locked in Kilimanjaro's ice cap need urgent protection") on Kilimanjaro and a scheme proposed to save the glacier thereon, dated November 24, 2003:

Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit.


And again from the same article:

Without the forests’ humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.


http://www.nature...7-8.html

You will need a subscription to view the whole article or will need to pay a fee to read it but I think you will find this Nature News article of interest as a whole.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2010
The NSF report regarding temperature reconstructions for the past 2000 years:

http://www.nap.ed...09102251

"Widespread, reliable instrumental records are available only for the last 150 years or so"

"#

Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
#

Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900"
croghan27
4 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2010
Here is one of the original articles summarized by the IPPMedia/Guardian source:

"The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed?"

http://www.americ...blamed/1


Are you sure you want to refer to that - one of the authors is Phil Mote. Dr. Mote was:

" ...... a lead author for the fourth assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which received a Nobel Prize for its efforts."
dachpyarvile
1.8 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2010
I have no problem with the fact that Phillip W. Mote was a lead author. That would be an ad hominem approach to the science were I to reject what he and a co-author/co-researcher wrote merely because he is an author. I applaud him for his candor and honesty in the article I referenced above.

I am more concerned with the data and information presented in the article, as should you be.
MikeyK
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2010
An easy answer to the so-called dilemma MikeyK proposes about the snow-line actually becomes a dilemma for AGW adherents because of the fact that the actual tropospheric satellite data for the region as well as other regions where glaciers are shrinking show zero net warming in the troposphere in those places. No atmospheric warming, no warming as the cause of glacial retreat.

We must look to other causes, therefore.


No warming of the troposphere? You obviously haven't seen the latest data (as usual)showing record high lower global stratospheric temperatures:
http://discover.i...msutemps
You still haven't addressed your problems of rising snow lines and increase in sublimation and other forms of ablation with higher temperatures...or do you expect these issues to 'vanish'.
MikeyK
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2010
Here is a graph showing changes to GLOBAL glacial thickness:
http://nsidc.org/...ness.gif
See, the glaciers are not just receding but also thinning. Incidentaly did you know that itrequires 7 x more energy for a given volume of ice to sublimate than to melt? The higher the temperatures the faster the process of ablation.
marjon
1.2 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2010
7 x more energy for a given volume of ice to sublimate than to melt?

To pick a nit, the energy required for 1 g of ice to become 1 g of vapor is the same whether it becomes 1 g of liquid first.
However, the energy required at sea level is more than required at lower atm pressure.
dachpyarvile
1.3 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2010
Here is a graph showing changes to GLOBAL glacial thickness:
http://nsidc.org/...ness.gif
See, the glaciers are not just receding but also thinning. Incidentaly did you know that itrequires 7 x more energy for a given volume of ice to sublimate than to melt? The higher the temperatures the faster the process of ablation.


That is a very intersting link. I get "Error return (1) from MCU_GetPost" when I click it. By the way, have you a link to the raw data? I want to see it and compare it to the data you looked over. I want to ensure it has not been "de-declined" first. :)

As to the amount of radiation required, you also have to consider other environmental factors such as air pressure, ambient temperature, weight of the glacier, height of the glacier from the underlying rockface, relative humidity, and a whole host of calculations in combination with the delayed feedback melt caused by a previous warm period.
dachpyarvile
1.1 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2010
I also wanted to point out that the glacier at Kilimanjaro currently gets more solar radiation than it used to get decades ago due to decline in cloud cover. This is why one scientist made the suggestion of covering the glacier with a huge tarpaulin back in 2004. Let me guess, you did not read the Nature News article...
dachpyarvile
1.3 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2010
No warming of the troposphere? You obviously haven't seen the latest data (as usual)showing record high lower global stratospheric temperatures:
http://discover.i...msutemps
You still haven't addressed your problems of rising snow lines and increase in sublimation and other forms of ablation with higher temperatures...or do you expect these issues to 'vanish'.


Correction to the above, this link is the one that produced the error.

Furthermore, I think this link would be of even more interest considering that you would be foolish enough to counter TROPOSPHERIC data with STRATOSPHERIC data! Unbelieveable!

The Troposphere is the lower level and the stratosphere above that. That is Earth Science 101. Doing such a thing as that is proof positive that you do not understand the science like you make out that you think you do. :)
dachpyarvile
1.1 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2010
I do not usually quote from WikiPedia but here is something a little more along your comprehension level.

Tropopause
Main article: Tropopause
The tropopause is the boundary region between the troposphere and the stratosphere.

Measuring the temperature change with height through the troposphere and the stratosphere identifies the location of the tropopause. In the troposphere, temperature decreases with altitude. In the stratosphere, however, the temperature remains constant for a while and then increases with altitude. The region of the atmosphere where the lapse rate changes from positive (in the troposphere) to negative (in the stratosphere), is defined as the tropopause.[1] Thus, the tropopause is an inversion layer, and there is little mixing between the two layers of the atmosphere.

http://en.wikiped...posphere
dachpyarvile
1.1 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2010
MikeyK,

Climate Science 101: Climate takes place in the Troposphere.

And, the Troposphere wherein Kilimanjaro is located showed no net warming at all and, in fact, the raw data showed a decline in overall temperatures there in East Africa.

Kilimanjaro also does not get much above freezing--ever. The normal temperature is -3 degrees C there (freezing is 0 degrees C), pretty much year-round, so melting of that glacier is not due to heat-forcing by an alleged warming atmosphere.

We must look to other causes for the loss of ice at Kilimanjaro. That people want to refuse to do that even in the face of the evidence is telling.
MikeyK
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2010

Correction to the above, this link is the one that produced the error.

Furthermore, I think this link would be of even more interest considering that you would be foolish enough to counter TROPOSPHERIC data with STRATOSPHERIC data! Unbelieveable!

The Troposphere is the lower level and the stratosphere above that. That is Earth Science 101. Doing such a thing as that is proof positive that you do not understand the science like you make out that you think you do. :)


Thanks for confirming that you obviously have no scientific training or depth of knowledge, just the drivel you pick up from the paranoid conspiracy theorist sub-culture you belong to.
Look at the link, http://discover.i...sutemps/
Now look at channel 5, at 4,400m this is well within the troposphere, it is known universally amongst those who have a scientific background and/or interest as the LOWER TROPOSPHERE.
Next time look instead of winging.
MikeyK
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2010
And still no counter to the problems for AGW deniers of rising snowline, thinning and receding glaciers....just a meaningless essay that completely misses the point and illuminates this charlatan for what s(he)/it is!
MikeyK
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2010
Kilimanjaro also does not get much above freezing--ever.... so melting of that glacier is not due to heat-forcing by an alleged warming atmosphere.


So how do you explain that ablation increases when temperature increases? How do you explain the world glaciers accelerating thinning and recession since 1990?
How do you explain that, despite an exceptionally quiet sun the last decade has been the warmest recorded? 2009 was the 5th warmest on record, and the sun was soooo quiet, explain?
Oh wait, you can't, all you have is half a dozen illegally obtained emails (extracted from thousands) taken out of context, oh, and some lines of code with no context whatsoever (incidentally the 'e' version is date stamped 6 months prior to the 'd' version, Hmmm . People are starting to see that this, fuelled by the paranoid conspiracy theorist subculture, is all you have.
MikeyK
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2010
7 x more energy for a given volume of ice to sublimate than to melt?

To pick a nit, the energy required for 1 g of ice to become 1 g of vapor is the same whether it becomes 1 g of liquid first.
However, the energy required at sea level is more than required at lower atm pressure.


The point I was making was that sublimation requires a lot more energy to remove a set volume of ice than if it melted. What you are saying is true but what are you nit picking about?
To sublimate 1g of ice requires approximately 720 calories, to melt 1g of ice requires only around 80 calories. Of course if you then converted the melted ice to vapour you would need an additional 640 calories but that is not relevant in this case.
dachpyarvile
1.3 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2010
The melting on Kilimanjaro is caused by direct sunlight, not warming ambient atmospheric temperatures.

When scientists were up there between 2000 and 2002 observing rapid melting, they also noted that the weather stations there recorded and verified that temperatures at the glacier never exceeded –1.6 degrees C.*

* See Georg Kaser, "Modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro as evidence of climate change: observations and facts", in International Journal of Climatology, vol. 24, 2004, pp. 329-339.

0 degrees C, of course, is freezing. Thus, while they were up there the temperature never rose above freezing and always stayed below freezing. Once again, warming did not play a part in the demise of Kilimanjaro. Further evidence of this fact can be seen in the melt patterns of the ice that were recorded. They were too sharp to have been atmospheric warming, which would have produced much smoother melt patterns across the ice. Think what you will...
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2010
...Oh wait, you can't, all you have is half a dozen illegally obtained emails (extracted from thousands) taken out of context, oh, and some lines of code with no context whatsoever (incidentally the 'e' version is date stamped 6 months prior to the 'd' version, Hmmm ....


No, actually the total count of the emails extracted was 1,073. However, these text files contained the contents of a few emails each in some cases.

In addition, the date of the 'e' version is earlier than the 'd' version because the 'd' version was modified after the date of the creation of the 'e' version.

The 'e' version of the code worked as intended so there was no need to modify it, whereas it is obvious that the 'd' version was modified for another purpose six months later. How hard is that to figure out? Think about it just a little bit harder and you might just prevent yourself from putting your foot further into your mouth. :)
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2010
By the way, I have made no direct references to the code, the emails or to the other documents in this thread. I only offhandedly used a quote to make a point as to what has happened to the data when the proxies did not show what was desired.

Instead, I have linked to several articles rather than these. The CRU data in essence are irrelevant to the question of Kilimanjaro. Read the articles I linked and those I have mentioned.

One thing is certain about Kilimanjaro and that is that global warming does not account for its loss of ice. That is not to say that warming isn't affecting other glaciers but Kilimanjaro for now needs to be left out of the equation when all facts are considered.
dachpyarvile
1.1 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2010
From the abstract:
Results suggest glaciers on Kilimanjaro are merely remnants of a past climate rather than sensitive indicators of 20th century climate change.


N. J. Cullen, T. Mölg, G. Kaser, K. Hussein, K. Steffen, and D. R. Hardy (2006), Kilimanjaro Glaciers: Recent areal extent from satellite data and new interpretation of observed 20th century retreat rates, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L16502.
dachpyarvile
1.1 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2010
Wow, I like the fact that several people have swung by and ranked anything with an article to read with a 1 to hide the comments.

AGW scientists hide the decline. AGW students destroy the evidence. AGW adherents hide the posts. Classic.

Must be doing something right... :)
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2010
...
Look at the link, http://discover.i...sutemps/
Now look at channel 5, at 4,400m this is well within the troposphere, it is known universally amongst those who have a scientific background and/or interest as the LOWER TROPOSPHERE.
Next time look instead of winging.


Next time, post a link that works on first click and make sure you write TROPOSPHERE instead of STRATOSPHERE. Might leave no room for misunderstanding if you did that. After all, YOU are the one who wrote stratosphere above. :)
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2010
7 x more energy for a given volume of ice to sublimate than to melt?

To pick a nit, the energy required for 1 g of ice to become 1 g of vapor is the same whether it becomes 1 g of liquid first.
However, the energy required at sea level is more than required at lower atm pressure.


The point I was making was that sublimation requires a lot more energy to remove a set volume of ice than if it melted. What you are saying is true but what are you nit picking about?
To sublimate 1g of ice requires approximately 720 calories, to melt 1g of ice requires only around 80 calories. Of course if you then converted the melted ice to vapour you would need an additional 640 calories but that is not relevant in this case.

One nit was the original comment stated vol. of ice. The density of ice is less than that of water. What else are you imprecise about?
dachpyarvile
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2010
A lot. When others, however, call his information into question or begin posting links to bona fide scientific literature he swoops in, as do others, and rampantly down-ranks the comments to hide them from readers who have filtering enabled.
croghan27
5 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2010
A lot. When others, however, call his information into question or begin posting links to bona fide scientific literature he swoops in, as do others, and rampantly down-ranks the comments to hide them from readers who have filtering enabled.


The Manchester Guardian, that you linked to may be a lot of things .... it even has communists writing articles, but it is in no way a 'scientific journal' - and would reject being cast as such; even if you link to its' articles.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2010
I never said that the Guardian was a scientific journal. But, I did link to it in order to call attention to some information. When you dismissed it out of hand I simply switched gears and cited the actual scientific articles which formed the basis of the Guardian article. The information still seems to be ignored notwithstanding some of it was actually written by the lead author of the IPCC. :)
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2010
The boiling point of water on Kilimanjaro, ~+19k feet, is < 86C.
Less energy is required for sublimation at altitude.
Just wanted to be accurate.
MikeyK
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2010
By the way, I have made no direct references to the code, the emails or to the other documents in this thread. I only offhandedly used a quote......

Isn't this what the emails are all about, offhand comments to colleagues? Yet this is now your main argument...pathetic.
One thing is certain about Kilimanjaro and that is that global warming does not account for its loss of ice. Kilimanjaro for now needs to be left out of the equation when all facts are considered.

Err, no it doesn't, or is the warming over East Africa over the last 20 years merely coincidental.
http://data.giss....;pol=reg
Just because a small change in vegetation has CONTRIBUTED to the glacial decline doesn't mean that the PRIME driver, increased temperatures, is not the main cause. Ever heard the Monty Python logic sketch?
MikeyK
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2010
The boiling point of water on Kilimanjaro, ~+19k feet, is < 86C.
Less energy is required for sublimation at altitude.
Just wanted to be accurate.

Hmmm, my original point was that far more energy was required to sublimate a given amount of ice than to melt it, surely you muct agree that original assertion is correct, or do you want to hide behind pedantics again?
Parsec
5 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2010
I had not realized that the temperature on Kilimanjaro never gets above freezing. This does indicate that that warm air is probably not causing the glacier to shrink directly. It is typical however for the opponent of any theory to point to exceptions with unknown causes as evidence against. We have to look at both the context and the overwhelming majority of glacier retreats. Each piece of data requires explanation. Global warming certainly is the simplest, cleanest, and most consistent across the board theory I have heard. In fact, alternate explanations have been looked at and every one people have come up with have been eliminated. Satellite data show that solar radiance has been steady. The heat island effect can be easily factored out by looking at global warming effects far outside major urban area's, etc.
MikeyK
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2010
True, unfortunately some do not realise this.
MikeyK
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2010
If the temperature doesn't get above freezing it doesn't mean that extra heat isn't responsible. For example ablation is much faster at -3C than it is at -15C. The evidence also shows a warming of between 0.5 and 1C in Northern Tanzania.
What is true is that other factors have an effect, but that doesn't mean you remove the prime driver because of this.
The glacier lost a quarter of its mass between 2000 and 2006, even if you take the sceptics claim that global warming had 0% effect prior to 2000, then, as deforestation of the lower slopes had been almost complete (thankfully a few still exist and you walk through these up to the mountain) by 2000, regional warming must be over 0%!
The snow line has also risen dramatically, both these factors indicate that warming is a major contributing factor.
Shootist
1 / 5 (7) Jan 11, 2010
And still no counter to the problems for AGW deniers of rising snowline, thinning and receding glaciers....just a meaningless essay that completely misses the point and illuminates this charlatan for what s(he)/it is!


Lot of noise in here. Retreat of glaciers is usually related to drought, not warming...

http://www.jerryp...#Retreat
marjon
1 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2010
If the temperature doesn't get above freezing it doesn't mean that extra heat isn't responsible. For example ablation is much faster at -3C than it is at -15C. The evidence also shows a warming of between 0.5 and 1C in Northern Tanzania.
What is true is that other factors have an effect, but that doesn't mean you remove the prime driver because of this.
The glacier lost a quarter of its mass between 2000 and 2006, even if you take the sceptics claim that global warming had 0% effect prior to 2000, then, as deforestation of the lower slopes had been almost complete (thankfully a few still exist and you walk through these up to the mountain) by 2000, regional warming must be over 0%!
The snow line has also risen dramatically, both these factors indicate that warming is a major contributing factor.

What is the rate of precipitation on Mt. K lately?
El_Nose
not rated yet Jan 11, 2010
Iguana's are not indigeneous to FL and most people are saying good riddance to them.
GrayMouser
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 11, 2010
Many scientific theories are discarded, revived, discarded, and revived again. Heck, just look at the history of the question "Is there an aether?"

Just because a previously discarded theory is revived doesn't necessarily mean there were political machinations behind it. Science is constantly changing as new information and methods become available.

I might agree if the experiment to disprove it wasn't so very simple that any 10 year old can (almost) do it at home.
The first clue was when one scientist compared, side by side, the temperature of two containers (both with a black cardboard surface) with a glass window to one with a NaCl window. If IR radiation was the driving force the container with the glass windows would be hotter that the salt window (which is transparent in the IR region.) Both containers were the same temperature. Infrared radiation was not the driving force for greenhouses, the blocking of convective cooling was.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2010
MikeyK, the prime driver is sublimation on Kilimanjaro.

Meteorological and glaciological measurements obtained at 5873 m a.s.l. on Kersten Glacier, a slope glacier on the southern flanks of Kilimanjaro, are used to run a physically-based mass balance model for the period February 2005 to January 2006. This shows that net shortwave radiation is the most variable energy flux at the glacier-atmosphere interface, governed by surface albedo. The majority of the mass loss (~65%) is due to sublimation (direct conversion of snow/ice to water vapour), with melting of secondary importance. Sensitivity experiments reveal that glacier mass balance is 2-4 times more sensitive to a 20% precipitation change than to a 1°C air temperature change.


For this and more information, see:

Mölg, T.; Cullen, N. J.; Hardy, D. R.; Kaser, G.; Klok, L., "Mass balance of a slope glacier on Kilimanjaro and its sensitivity to climate", International Journal of Climatology 2008 Vol. 28 No. 7 pp. 881-89.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2010
barakn, MikeyK, yyz, croghan27:

Don't forget to downrank the post directly above this with ones like you did the other ones in this thread. It turns out that people get curious when they see so many posts ranked with ones by the same author. Well, there is that and the fact that you continue to exhibit the trend of AGW supporters to attempt to hide declines, hide and/or destroy evidence, and try to hide anything that does not fit in with your worldview. Thanks for the downranking. It does more good than you know. :)
croghan27
5 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2010
GEEZE - you certainly are pugnacious ... now we have a 'down ranking gap'

(If it is of interest and FWTW - I usually do not rank the posts at all ..... it must be [da da da] THE PHANTOM DOWNRANKER.)
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2010
Nope. I checked the activity log. Your name is listed amongst the four downrankers who all contributed ones to a couple posts in a thread.

Florida's cold snap disaster for tropical wildlife January 10, 2010, 5:56 pm 1 MikeyK | croghan27 |

Florida's cold snap disaster for tropical wildlife January 10, 2010, 5:41 pm 1 MikeyK | croghan27 |

The ones in the placeholder just before your names is the average ranking of your votes. It shows that you were among those who contributed ones on the ranking. Both you and MikeyK downranked those posts with ones. No paranoia here--just facts.

In other posts, you contributed higher than a one but not by much, as in several posts. I give a couple of several as examples:

Florida's cold snap disaster for tropical wildlife January 10, 2010, 3:12 pm 1.3 MikeyK | yyz | croghan27 |

Florida's cold snap disaster for tropical wildlife January 10, 2010, 2:25 pm 1.3 MikeyK | yyz | croghan27 |

Try denying it again... :)
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2010
The fourth downranker in this thread is barakn.

Florida's cold snap disaster for tropical wildlife January 10, 2010, 6:53 pm 1.3 barakn | MikeyK | croghan27 |

In this case you gave the particular post a 2 ranking. Both MikeyK and barakn gave 1 rankings before you voted. 1+1+2/3=1.3

The end result is the same in all cases; hiding of the posts when rank filtering is enabled. Rather than rampant downranking, why not engage the science rather than hiding the evidence as AGW adherents are wont to do?

Now, let's get back to the science, shall we?
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2010
Just played around with the GISS site for a few moments. MikeyK had it plot results across a wider period of time and this plot hid the current temperature declines for the last decade.

Try this plot on for size, restricted to the decadal period from 1999-2009:
http://data.giss....;pol=reg

Now, notice the trend in the equatorial regions of East Africa and compare that to the trend MikeyK gave above using GISS data. One will be struck with the trend in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. But also notice the very different trends in the region of East Africa by Lake Victoria--between a -.2 and-.5 C drop!

I set the Time Interval and Base Period parameters to limit the trend and base period to 1999-2009, set the Mean Period parameter to Annual Mean, Smoothing Radius to 1200km and Projection Type to Regular, and included no ocean data.
VeIanarris
3 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2010
barakn, MikeyK, yyz, croghan27:
Don't forget to downrank the post directly above this with ones like you did the other ones in this thread. It turns out that people get curious when they see so many posts ranked with ones by the same author. Well, there is that and the fact that you continue to exhibit the trend of AGW supporters to attempt to hide declines, hide and/or destroy evidence, and try to hide anything that does not fit in with your worldview. Thanks for the downranking. It does more good than you know. :)


maybe the down ranking is because you're talking b*ll*cks?
JayK
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2010
I see that dachpyarvile has tried to convince people that the "greenhouse effect" in terms of global climate is something similar to the greenhouse effect that a gardener would use. Why hasn't anyone answered this egregious offensive misdirection?

I also see that he is actively using small timelines in order to try to convince others that there is a global cooling period currently happening.

And then when his unscientific misdirections are downrated, he blames everyone else and tries to convince everyone that he's just trying to talk about the "science", as if he knows anything about it.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2010
I love this. MikeyK gave a broken link for a website and misused a term--perhaps by accident. Now when the link was given correctly, one is shown the data against a 20-year Mean and Average. The problem is that the previous decade was one of warming. Thus, as a result of the data given it showed a warming trend overall.

Unfortunately, the site did not seem to have an option for limiting the trend, mean and average to 10-years to show the trend of the current decade--essentially "hiding the decline." Given the above GISS site comparison and limiting the data from that site to show a single decadal trend, I am reasonably sure the same thing would be show in the previous data were it available to manipulation.

In any case, the above GISS data I plotted shows a net cooling in East Africa in the region of Lake Victoria and Kilimanjaro during this decade, as I said before and as pointed out in a couple studies and article linked to above in posts ranked as ones.
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2010
Now JayK and VeIanarris (with an 'I' rather than an 'L' in the name) have swung in to award gratuitous one rankings to posts to hide the information from the reader.

Florida's cold snap disaster for tropical wildlife January 12, 2010, 10:43 am 1 JayK | VeIanarris |

Yes, the trend of the AGW adherents hiding data and unliked information continues. :)

Above, the two usernames complained about my limiting the data to the current decade only as problematic. But, notice that it was over an entire decade. A decade also is climate. But, don't let the AGW party be confused with the facts when their minds have already been made up.

Facts are facts: This decade saw a cooling trend that the AGW crowd wants to see go away. Will the trend go up again in the next decade? Possibly. But, none of this changes the fact that this decade saw a cooling trend in places where glaciers still are disappearing.
dachpyarvile
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2010
I see that dachpyarvile has tried to convince people that the "greenhouse effect" in terms of global climate is something similar to the greenhouse effect that a gardener would use. Why hasn't anyone answered this egregious offensive misdirection? ...


Did no such thing. Make all the claims you wish, however. And, keep on downranking. Let's not break the trend of the AGW crowd hiding declines, destroying evidence and sliding facts under the radar. The public expects it. You are giving them what they want. Thanks again. :)
JayK
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2010
Ah, it was greenmouser that made the mistake of greenhouse effect, my apologies.

Nevertheless, your concern trolling is obviously one of the reasons that I'm so excited to give you a low rating, you are attempting to bait others into arguments about "science" when you're barely educated about the subject yourself, much like marjon.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2010
Ah, it was greenmouser that made the mistake of greenhouse effect, my apologies.

Nevertheless, your concern trolling is obviously one of the reasons that I'm so excited to give you a low rating, you are attempting to bait others into arguments about "science" when you're barely educated about the subject yourself, much like marjon.

Typical response, insult instead of educate.
I recall a Nobel Conference I attended at Gustavus Adolfus in the early 80s. One Nobel prize winners in physics said to the the effect that if one can't explain his research to a 6th grader, he doesn't understand the research himself.
AGW believers can't prove their faith.
JayK
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2010
"Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it."
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2010
"Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it."


Feel better?
VeIanarris
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2010
I see that dachpyarvile has tried to convince people that the "greenhouse effect" in terms of global climate is something similar to the greenhouse effect that a gardener would use. Why hasn't anyone answered this egregious offensive misdirection? ...


Did no such thing. Make all the claims you wish, however. And, keep on downranking. Let's not break the trend of the AGW crowd hiding declines, destroying evidence and sliding facts under the radar. The public expects it. You are giving them what they want. Thanks again. :)

Still talking B*ll*cks. For once stop hiding behind the 'declines' etc. Joe public is starting to realise that this is the only argument you guys have, and it doesn't stand up to any deep investigation...no massive conspiracy there.... so stop using it in every argument and start using real science, not the nutjob blog misinformation you get your information from.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2010
Still talking B*ll*cks. For once stop hiding behind the 'declines' etc. Joe public is starting to realise that this is the only argument you guys have, and it doesn't stand up to any deep investigation...no massive conspiracy there.... so stop using it in every argument and start using real science, not the nutjob blog misinformation you get your information from.

Is it a coincidence we are now seeing studies published that don't tow the IPCC/AGW CO2 line?
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2010
...Still talking B*ll*cks. For once stop hiding behind the 'declines' etc. Joe public is starting to realise that this is the only argument you guys have, and it doesn't stand up to any deep investigation...no massive conspiracy there.... so stop using it in every argument and start using real science, not the nutjob blog misinformation you get your information from.


Don't you wish. Problem for you is that the information I have been sharing does not come from blogs. On the other hand, much I have seen from your end of the situation seems to share a lot of verbiage with so-called 'climate science' blogs.

Every post you have downranked tends to link directly to information, some of which is actually written by people who were lead authors of the 4th IPCC report as well as people who have a belief in AGW. You just do not like some of the other information contained at the end of the links so you do what many AGW adherents do and hide posts rather than engaging the information.
JayK
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2010
Perhaps you're talking about Dr. Latif?

If so, you're an even bigger fool than I previously believed.
dachpyarvile
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2010
Perhaps you're talking about Dr. Latif?

If so, you're an even bigger fool than I previously believed.


Not at all. One of the studies and the summaries of a study I cited was none other than Philip W. Mote, AGW believer, climate scientist and lead author for the IPCC fourth report. See his CV here:

http://cses.washi...tecv.pdf

He admitted that Kilimanjaro's glacier did not get above freezing. I applaud his honesty in stating something like that. Also inherent in the study was other very interesting information relative to Kilimanjaro.

You really should read the summary and look over the information.
dachpyarvile
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2010
From page 7 of above link in hidden post to Phil Mote co-authored study:

Comparison of historic photographs indicates that over the past century the thinning of the plateau ice has amounted to perhaps 10 meters—a rate of loss that can be explained by snowfall insufficient to balance sublimation. The observed reduction of the ice's surface area has taken place mainly at the vertical edges, however, which is not explained by snowfall patterns.

The mass balance of the slope glaciers is somewhat different from that of the plateau ice. Retreating midlatitude glaciers typically lose most mass below the ELA and little or none above. The Kibo slope glaciers, though, show shrinkage at both top and bottom. Their history suggests that in 1900 they were already far from equilibrium, but their retreat appears to be slowing; that and their convex shape suggests that they are approaching a new smaller equilibrium between the (relatively constant) loss term and the smaller accumulation term.
dachpyarvile
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2010
From page 8 of the same link in a hidden post above:

The observations described above point to a combination of factors other than warming air—chiefly a drying of the surrounding air that reduced accumulation and increased ablation—as responsible for the decline of the ice on Kilimanjaro since the first observations in the 1880s. The mass balance is dominated by sublimation, which requires much more energy per unit mass than melting; this energy is supplied by solar radiation.

These processes are fairly insensitive to temperature and hence to global warming. ... But the sharp-edged features have persisted for more than a century. By the time the 19th-century explorers reached Kilimanjaro's summit, vertical walls had already developed, setting in motion the loss processes that have continued to this day.


Interestingly, Kilimanjaro is the victim of processes that began long before today.

And, no, none of this came from a blog even if you want it to have come from one. :)
dachpyarvile
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2010
This I find of interest regarding Kilimanjaro. From the first portion of the closing paragraph of page 8 of the link given in an above hidden post from me:

Imagine, though, a scenario in which the atmosphere around Kilimanjaro were to warm occasionally above 0 degrees. Sensible and infrared heating of the ice surface would gradually erode the sharp corners of the ice cap; gentler slopes would quickly develop. If, in addition, precipitation increased, snow could accumulate on the slopes and permit the ice cap to grow. Ironically, substantial global warming accompanied by an increase in precipitation might be one way to save Kilimanjaro's ice.


Global warming coupled with more precipitation could save Kilimanjaro's ice? Could be. True enough--it is ironic. :)
Phelankell
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2010
Still talking B*ll*cks. For once stop hiding behind the 'declines' etc. Joe public is starting to realise that this is the only argument you guys have, and it doesn't stand up to any deep investigation...no massive conspiracy there.... so stop using it in every argument and start using real science, not the nutjob blog misinformation you get your information from.

To state that the science is settled when the central predictions of the hypothesis hold false shows an unwillingness to involve yourself in the scientific method.

Effectively you're propagandizing an opinion.
marjon
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2010
What 160 physicists think:
"Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.
"
http://www.openle...ter.html
JayK
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2010
That's nice.
Phelankell
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2010
I see that downranking for the purpose of obfuscation is still occuring. Woudl someone care to tell us all what the central hypothesis, as lain out by the IPCC is for AGW?
JayK
Jan 15, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JayK
3 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2010
IPCC Fourth Conclusions:
1) "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
2) "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

Perhaps your sockpuppet would care to tell us all how these have been unequivocally refuted by a current scientific study with an appropriate citation?
marjon
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2010
IPCC Fourth Conclusions:
1) "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
2) "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

Perhaps your sockpuppet would care to tell us all how these have been unequivocally refuted by a current scientific study with an appropriate citation?

How is 'likely' refuted?
This terminology is used in failure analysis: 'impossible', 'not likely','likely', etc.
I have been told that such a process is not 'science'.
JayK
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2010
How is 'likely' refuted?


marjon: These are quotes directly from the IPCC, which was mentioned above. Do you have anything relevant to add, or just nitpicking in order to troll this forum?
marjon
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2010
How is 'likely' refuted?


marjon: These are quotes directly from the IPCC, which was mentioned above. Do you have anything relevant to add, or just nitpicking in order to troll this forum?

Just questioning the 'science' of the IPCC report. A report that was assembled by politicians.
dachpyarvile
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2010
Speaking of questioning the IPCC reports, rapid glacial decline and so forth, take a quick gander at the following of which I became aware in another article.

"World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown"

http://www.timeso...1177.ece

Fascinating! Not a scientific publication, but simply fascinating--and by this time somewhat expected. :)
dachpyarvile
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2010
Something else of interest is the following study regarding the melting of glaciers. See the following in both OCR and image formats:

http://unesdoc.un...523e.pdf

http://unesdoc.un...23Eb.pdf

This study is interesting in that it has a year for the obliteration of most glaciers, which is 2350. That number, of course, is a suspicious transposition of the number that later showed up in the IPCC report, which was 2035.

Of further interest is that this paper does not state that all glaciers in the Himalayas will perish. Rather, it states that Himalayan glaciers will be among the only glaciers left by 2350 (yes, that is 2-3-5-0, which is a few hundred years' difference).
dachpyarvile
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2010
Here is a relevant quote from page 66 of the above linked study. Get it while it is hot. It will be hidden in short order from readers by the one-rankers.

The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates—
its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2350. Glaciers will survive
only in the mountains of inner Alaska, on some Arctic archipelagos, within Patagonian ice
sheets, in the Karakoram Mountains, in the Himalayas, in some regions of Tibet and on the
highest mountain peaks in the temperature latitudes.


The study here also maintains a future potential warming in Central Asia of 1.5 degrees C by 2350. This contradicts the IPCC reports of much more rapid increases.

So, one question remains to be answered by the IPCC and others who support their politically-motivated statements as fact: If the Himalayan glaciers are to remain as late as 2350, how is it that they will be gone by 2035, as the IPCC has claimed?
JayK
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2010
Maybe you're downgraded because you're a liar?

"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)."

Thats the only 2035 date in the IPCC fourth that has anything to do with glaciers, and says nothing about it being "gone", unless you selectively quote it.

Now go away.
Velanarris
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 18, 2010
IPCC Fourth Conclusions:
1) "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
2) "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

1)No evidence to this effect as we don't know what's warming or cooling.

2) The required tropospheric hotspot is not present on any analysis of the tropopause.

So that definition of AGW has been soundly refuted by observation and lack of evidence. FYI: to the sockpuppet above, you may want to recognize I'm not english, so I typically do not use the term bollocks. I also do not self censor with asterisks.
dachpyarvile
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2010
Thanks for the quote from the IPCC report quotation. It lines up rather nicely with the above cited quotation in a now hidden post.

Note that the IPCC report quotation above speaks of "THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEM DISAPPEARING BY THE YEAR 2035 AND PERHAPS SOONER" concerning the Himalaya glaciers.

But, the fact is, the original source study which supplied information to the source then quoted by the IPCC report says 2350 in a couple places. Somehow, the WWF source carried a transcription error which the IPCC then quoted verbatim without fact-checking!

There is quite a bit of difference between 2350 and 2035. In addition, the wording of the IPCC report is confirmed to imply the demise (the report says DISAPPEARANCE, does it not?) of the Himalaya glaciers.

But, the original document that supplied some information to another middle source which erroneously transcribed the year marker and was used by the IPCC shows that the glaciers will survive even until 2350 and possibly afterward.
dachpyarvile
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2010
Note that there is a "likely" date-fixing to the prediction of glacial decline. The IPCC report quoted by JayK says "Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035."

"Will likely shrink...by the year 2035."

However, the IPCC quotes from a source that did not get its facts right. The original source of the information preceding the WWF information places that actual date of shrinkage at 2350, a few hundred years further into the future than the erroneous, un-peer-reviewed WWF source makes allowance for.

There is no "likely disappearance" of the Himalaya glaciers by 2035. They will survive into 2350 and beyond, even if smaller--and that is making the assumption that we will remain at current technology and burn fossil fuels at the current rate!

This is another substantially major and erroneous assumption made by the authors of the IPCC report, who are exaggerators of first rank in said reports.
DachpyarviIe
Jan 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dachpyarvile
Jan 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dachpyarvile
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2010
Just because something lives in a symbiotic arrangement does not make it a complex life form. The same goes for coral animals.

They are nothing much more than tubes with 'tentacles', with algae living in their cells. They eat and poop out of the same cavity. The most complex thing about them is the nematocysts--which they share in common with jellyfish, sea anemonies, and several forms of microscopic life armed with the same.
Phelankell
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2010
I really love it when things like this come to light with such perfect timing.

http://www.physor...942.html
A U.N. warning that Himalayan glaciers were melting faster than any other place in the world and may be gone by 2035 was not backed up by science, U.N. climate experts said Wednesday

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.