Half of Britons deny climate change man-made: poll

39 percent of Britons polled said climate change had not yet been proven to be man-made
Smoke billows from a factory chimney. Almost half of Britons do not believe human behaviour is the main cause of global warming, a new poll showed Sunday, a day before world leaders begin crunch climate talks in Copenhagen.

Almost half of Britons do not believe human behaviour is the main cause of global warming, a new poll showed Sunday, a day before world leaders begin crunch climate talks in Copenhagen.

The ICM survey for The Sunday Telegraph newspaper found 52 percent of respondents thought humans were largely responsible for modern day rises in temperatures, but 39 percent said had not yet been proven to be man-made.

A further seven percent did not believe climate change was happening at all.

Meanwhile, 23 percent thought climate change was "the most serious problem faced by man", with 58 percent saying it was merely "one of a number of serious problems", while 17 percent said it was "not a very serious problem".

The findings are likely to concern world leaders such as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown who believe an international deal in Copenhagen on cutting is the best way to combat climate change.

They follow a row over leaked emails from a key climate research unit in Britain, which sparked claims that scientists were trying to suppress data which did not support the view that climate change is happening.

Some US lawmakers and a top Saudi official have said the emails undermine the science of climate change.

However, Brown this weekend said people who denied man's impact on were "behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics".

ICM questioned 1,001 adults by telephone on December 2-3.

(c) 2009 AFP


Explore further

Climate change not man-made, say majority of Britons: poll

Citation: Half of Britons deny climate change man-made: poll (2009, December 6) retrieved 23 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2009-12-britons-deny-climate-man-made-poll.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 06, 2009
"However, Brown this weekend said people who denied man's impact on global warming were "behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics""

Such childish drivel just has to be answered with; I know we are but what are you?

bbd
Dec 06, 2009
Globe no longer warming? ...

Looks like we've already done a great job of reversing the warming trend by driving our SUVs less.

Give yourself a pat on the back humanity!

Dec 06, 2009
"Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth"
http://en.wikiped...ariation

Dec 06, 2009
But the conclusion that you can draw from this is that the majority of Britons do believe that climate change is man-made and it is a problem.

This is a good thing because it means that there is motivation to do something about it.

Dec 07, 2009
Global warmer tricksters are having a blast

http://www.telegr...ges.html

While the AGW scammers/believers/profiteers demand that the rest of the world ride bikes, stay home instead of going on vacation, eat only food that is grown within 20 miles of where a person lives, have no heat in the home or air conditioning, not taking hot showers, drying cloths outside, they live the life of luxury.

Spread the word, AGW has been exposed as a fraud.

Dec 07, 2009
There is too much evidence that global warming is happening, whether it's man-made or not, it wouldn't hurt to switch over to getting our energy from other sources especially ones that are unlimited like the sun, water, and wind. Whoever would deny switching to that is obviously losing it.

Dec 07, 2009
Comrade Brown continues to push Britain toward a command economy. In the 1980s the Tories took away our industry. Now "new" Labour is conspiring to take away what little of our economy is left.

It would be easier to believe and accept Global Warming as a legitimate issue if it didn't look like just another scam to transfer wealth and power from working folk to the oligarchy.

Dec 07, 2009
First the facts: Global temperatures are still rising contrary to what the gullible have been reading in the deniersphere. Proof: here is a link to current and past lower atmospheric temperatures (no urban heat island etc!) http://vortex.nss...hmam_5.2
Note that last November is the warmest global temperature on this timescale. This year is definately one of warmest 5 years recorded,and sea levels are now at the highest recorded: http://sealevel.c...bal.jpg.
I know (in much the same way as many prefer tabloids to spreadsheets)that to many of the commentators above facts probably don't carry as much weight as sound-bites and conspiracy theories, as they tend to be , well, boring. But take time to cut through the, bull dust read some real science (sometimes not easy but certainly worth the effort)and get an accurate picture of what is actually happening (not information from some agenda driven blog). You may well be surprised.

Dec 07, 2009
First the facts: Global temperatures are still rising

Irrelevant. If we are not THE cause of the warming, which we are not. Then logic follows that we CANNOT do anything to ameliorate it.

Climatic trends should not dictate national and world goals, as the climate will always change and we cannot control the world climate, we can't even affect it significantly. We should aim directly for attainable goals, which will at the same time move us away from fossils (energy independence = renewables).

Climate change legislation only regresses economies and hurts the People. It DOES NOTHING to decrease CO2 emissions. The only climate change legislation that will ever pass lawmakers, cap-and-trade, DOES NOTHING to lower your precious CO2. GET A CLUE!!

Dec 07, 2009
First the facts: Global temperatures are still rising

Irrelevant.

OK, so now we are starting to get agreement that temperatures ARE rising despite the denialist nonsense, it's a start. All but a small fraction of scientists agree that human activity is responsible for global warming. What other main drivers of climate do you suggest is responsible, not forgetting that these alternatives have been explored and discounted?

Dec 07, 2009
I know that Physorg has the right to remove any posts they want as this is their board, but for peoples information, they are starting to remove posts critical of the media's handling of Climategate.

Dec 07, 2009
I know that Physorg has the right to remove any posts they want as this is their board, but for peoples information, they are starting to remove posts critical of the media's handling of Climategate.

Ooooooh, the conpiracy theorists have been let out!! Put on those aluminium foil hats everyone!

Dec 07, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 08, 2009
Answers in order:
Yes of course changes in land use have been studied and found not to be the driver that certain blogs suggest it is.....by a long way;
Solar radition [sic] has been measured at stratospheric levels and outside the Earth's atmosphere by a number of different satellites, how would you say that a stratospheric solar budget would be more relevant than tropospheric?
Of course biomass changes (actual and potential) have been quantified, estimated and qualified ..where do you get this garbage from.?
How can I 'recant' a statement neither myself or any scientist would say? We leave it to the politicians!

Dec 08, 2009
All those disbelieving Brits need to take a trip North and interview some Inuits.. or polar bears.

Dec 09, 2009
Mikey,
Evidence please?

Oh dear, typical denier response, they have no data to support their beliefs.
Here is a link summarising US government research on two of the issues mentioned, http://www.usgcrp...land.htm

As for observations of solar radiation there are many satellites observing this, for example AMSU and SORCE. I've provided links to AMSU previusly, here is SORCE http://lasp.color...ndex.htm
Your claim that these "have not been measured" is obviously false, as is your claim that David Millibrand [sic] is a scientist. I'm assuming you are referring to the RH David Miliband MP for South Shields and certainly a politician?


Dec 09, 2009
Hey, calm down dear!
Can I remind you of your original assertion:
Land use change hasn't been explored.
Solar radition budget as measured at non-troposperic content has not been measured. Active biomass reconstitution has not been measured,[/g]
Can you admit, if only to yourself, 1)that these ARE being explored and 20that these have been and are continuing to being measured. Science is like that, it carries on gathering more data etc.
So the only link you can provide...the only evidence to support your cultish belief is some 'right leaning' blog. Woww!
Next time bring some REAL science into the equation and try to understand why raw data has to be adjusted. An essay, no more than 1,000 words on my desk by 10.00am if you please......You can think for yourself...can you?

[/blockquote]

Dec 09, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 09, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 09, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 10, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 10, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 10, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 10, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 10, 2009

What is great about science is not consensus, but what can be proven. One individual, with proof, can destroy a consensus.
A medical doctor proved that some ulcers were caused by bacteria and could be treated with antibiotics, in spite of the consensus of the day.

Strawman. medical science as in any science is always making new advances and not all ulcers are caused directly by bacteria.
No one has proven that CO2 is causing any observed warming. But, in fact, increased CO2 is NOT NOW increasing temps.

You raise two points. The first point is that all evidence points to CO2 as the main driver of recent rapid warming, the second point is that temperatures are still increasing. Despite a particularly strong La Nina recently this decade will be the warmest decade recorded.

Dec 12, 2009

Recorded by whom?

World Meteorological Association
http://www.wmo.in..._en.html
And no, not all evidence points to CO2 as a main driver of anything.

Yes it does, of the main climate drivers only increased CO2 can account for recent warming.
http://data.giss....elforce/

There is a large body of evidence tying solar and oceanic cycles to the current fluxuation in global climate.

Any correlation between solar output and global temperatures ended in the 1970's. Over the last 1150 years temperature lagged behind solar activity by 10 years. This changed after the 1970's. http://www.mps.mp...153.pdf.
ENSO events do correlate closely with global temperatures and affects global temperature in the short term but there is no long term trend.

Dec 12, 2009
Seriously, using smoothed data, algorithmically adjusted data, and the like is pseudoscience at its best.

Let's let everyone have access to the raw data instead of hiding it, deleting it, or otherwise stonewalling the public before they get access to it. I am sick and tired of people hiding the full datasets from the rest of us.

I have been monitoring CO2 levels for several years. I have yet to see a correlation demonstrated beyond all doubt.

Dec 12, 2009
First the facts: Global temperatures are still rising contrary to what the gullible have been reading in the deniersphere. Proof: here is a link to current and past lower atmospheric temperatures (no urban heat island etc!) http://vortex.nss...hmam_5.2
I know (in much the same way as many prefer tabloids to spreadsheets)that to many of the commentators above facts probably don't carry as much weight as sound-bites and conspiracy theories, as they tend to be , well, boring. But take time to cut through the, bull dust read some real science (sometimes not easy but certainly worth the effort)and get an accurate picture of what is actually happening (not information from some agenda driven blog). You may well be surprised.


There are neither dairy farms in Greenland nor commercial vineyards in Scotland; but there were c. A.D. 1250. The climate today is too chill for such activities. Facts is facts.

Dec 13, 2009
Agree that facts are facts. Here is something from the leaked data:

From 1800 BC to 1300 BC, a continuous deterioration of climate conditions was underway. Then warming followed that lasted for the next four centuries. A further onset of worsening conditions began at 900 BC and continued to 100 BC, with the least favourable period occurring in the period 400-300. From the second half of the first century BC to the end of that millennium, generally warm conditions prevailed. The most favourable punctuated by conditions during the last two millennia apparently occurred between about AD 500 and 1400, though punctuated by cooler summers in 600-700 and at about 1000. Following the second half of the 15th century, climatic conditions again became worse, though the second half of the 16th marked the next period of warming, which then changed to cooling in the 19th century, culminating in the present period of relative warmth.


Note the use of "relative warmth" here.

Dec 13, 2009
The above data was taken from page 10 of "A Continuous Multi-Millennial Ring-Width Chronology in Yamal, Northwestern Siberia", written by Rashit M. Hantemirov and Stepan G. Shiyatov at the Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ekaterinburg 620144, Russia

The data in the tree rings shows that the most favorable climate to the trees occurred in the same time range as our little Medieval Warm Period that many climate scientists want to see go away. The climate scientists were aware of this data all along.

The data supports other statements about how warm it was 1000 years ago and how today is "relatively warm" compared to the more favorable (read "warmer") climate of the past to these trees.

Further data that is ignored is the fact that tree and other plant roots occur in what is now permafrost! These roots are found in soil from the MWP. This also shows that it was warmer in Greenland 1000 years ago than it is today.

Dec 14, 2009
It is all to easy to confuse regional events such as the MWP and LIA with global events.
In the Andes glaciers are now at their lowest extent for at least 5,000 years. This is shown from carbon dating plant remains from plant beds uncovered by the retreating glacier.http://www.scienc...1454.htm
This shows that the Peruvian Andes are warmer now than during the so called MWP. Not exactly a global phenomenon was it?

Dec 14, 2009

In the Andes the temperature hasn't risen above freezing.
You can blame the elevation change effect on prevailing precipitation patterns coupled with high altitude sublimation for that loss of glaciation.
It does not show any form of warming.


Looking at the link there is a photo of the glacier. In front of the glacier is a 200ft deep lake (liquid water!) which only formed in 2001.

Dec 14, 2009

In the Andes the temperature hasn't risen above freezing.

Obviously false, unless you mean that temperatures don't fall below freezing about 30cm above the meltwater lake!

You can blame the elevation change effect on prevailing precipitation patterns coupled with high altitude sublimation for that loss of glaciation.

Again false, see above
It does not show any form of warming.

Hmmm, melting glacier.... vegetation uncovered for first time in 5,200 years....hmm

Dec 14, 2009
Looking at the link there is a photo of the glacier. In front of the glacier is a 200ft deep lake (liquid water!) which only formed in 2001.


Interesting that you say 2001 while the article itself says 1991. Things definitely were warming up during the 1990s. I do not dispute that. But, I have seen an overall cooling trend over the last few years that has been consistent thus far.

The public would have seen more of that had not the IPCC, CRU, and others "smoothed" their data. In point of fact, they set up software routines that would "smooth out" or "get rid of" the proxy decline shown in tree-ring data from 1961 to the present. This decline is why they avoid using proxy data from 1961 to the present and substitute other data that makes the average temperatures appear to rise rather than decline. (They just did not tell the public).

By the way, please don't try to tell me climate scientists didn't do that with the data. I have seen the files myself and know better.

Dec 14, 2009
It is all to easy to confuse regional events such as the MWP and LIA with global events.
In the Andes glaciers are now at their lowest extent for at least 5,000 years. This is shown from carbon dating plant remains from plant beds uncovered by the retreating glacier.http://www.scienc...1454.htm
This shows that the Peruvian Andes are warmer now than during the so called MWP. Not exactly a global phenomenon was it?


And, we have the "word" of climate scientists on that. Excuse me if I completely mistrust them after it has been proven beyond doubt that the data has been messaged and much of the raw data hidden from the public and scientific community in spite of repeated FOIA requests.

Did I say that the MWP was a global phenomenon? But, now that we know that the data has been altered, can we now really be sure that the MWP really had zero impact on the rest of the world? Can we really take climatologists' "word" for it anymore?

Dec 15, 2009

Did I say that the MWP was a global phenomenon? But, now that we know that the data has been altered, can we now really be sure that the MWP really had zero impact on the rest of the world? Can we really take climatologists' "word" for it anymore?

Don't take my word for it! Here is a link showing composite isotopic records from Greenland, Tibet, Andes and Antarctica. http://books.nap..../69.gif.
Notice how high latitude peaks and troughs occur at different times, as one warms the other cools, similar on a micro scale as we have seen between the Arctic and Antarctica in the last few years, as the Arctic ice sheets shrank, Antarctica grew. Low latitude ice sheets are interesting, during the 'MWP' it was relatively warm in the Andes but relatively cool in Tibet, the reverse is true for the 'LIA'. Combine the low latitude results and you get this: http://books.nap..../70.gif. Look familiar?

Dec 15, 2009
Combine the low latitude results and you get this: http://books.nap..../70.gif. Look familiar?

Just like all your other source material: Error 404 File Not Found. Yep, it does look familiar.

Simply removing the full stop at the end of the link will do that trick, not rocket science! In case you can't do it here is the link sans spot. http://books.nap....d/70.gif

Dec 16, 2009
Yep...more 50-year triangularly smoothed data. Show us the RAW data and let us do the math for ourselves, buddy. :)

Dec 16, 2009
If you look you can see the data points prior to applying 50 triangular smoothing. The preceding graphs show the data points clearly. If you want more information then these references should help you:
Thompson, L.G., E. Mosley-Thompson, H. Brecher, M. Davis, B. León, D. Les, P.-N. Lin, T. Mashiotta, and K. Mountain. 2006. Abrupt tropical climate change: past and present. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(28):10,536-10,543.

Thompson, L., E. Mosley-Thompson, M.E. Davis, P.-N. Lin, K. Henderson, and T.A. Mashiotta. 2003. Tropical glacier and ice core evidence of climate change on annual to millennial time scales. Climatic Change 59(1-2):137-155.


Dec 16, 2009
No, the whole of it is modified data. I quote:
FIGURE 6-3 Composite isotopic record from low latitudes, including four ice cores from Tibet and three from the Andes. The isotope records have been normalized to mean and standard deviation and averaged. The solid line is a smoothed version of the composite record created using a 50-year triangular filter. ...


Your eye apparently missed this line:
The isotope records have been normalized to mean and standard deviation and averaged.


Again, we want to see the RAW data. Can Thompson, et al. supply it? Verified and verifiable?

Dec 16, 2009

Again, we want to see the RAW data. Can Thompson, et al. supply it? Verified and verifiable?

I gave you the info, why don't you check it out dachvelapyararrisvile? That's what scientist do, but if you find the basic statistical concept of means and SD too difficult..what's the point?

Dec 16, 2009
Your info is lacking. Two remote sources are local weather,


Actually if you bothered to read the articles there are 5.

we enjoy reading statistical analyses.

Shame you and your alter ego don't understand them.

You claim you want serious debate but you state
"In the Andes the temperature hasn't risen above freezing.
You can blame the elevation change effect on prevailing precipitation patterns coupled with high altitude sublimation for that loss of glaciation.
It does not show any form of warming."

When there is a large body of meltwater at the base of the glacier!
This is why polls show so many people doubting AGW, it's not what they know it's what they don't want to see.

Dec 16, 2009
I gave you the info, why don't you check it out dachvelapyararrisvile? That's what scientist do, but if you find the basic statistical concept of means and SD too difficult..what's the point?


No, you gave me articles with smoothed and altered data. Don't get me wrong. I do enjoy reading scientific articles and looking at statistical data as well. In fact, statistical analysis is one of many tools I have used over the years to do various jobs that required its use.

But, there is something else I enjoy more. I enjoy looking over the raw data and checking for errors as well as doing my own calculations when necessary. Sometimes there are interesting anomalies hidden by smoothing/averaging the data.

The unfortunate reality is that the articles present to the reader manipulated data. Virtually anyone can read such articles. It is another matter entirely to fact-check someone else's work when the raw data isn't made available.

And, I and Velanarris are 2 different persons.

Dec 16, 2009
When there is a large body of meltwater at the base of the glacier!


From the AGW propaganda-crafting tool entitled, "Rules of the Game":
17. Use emotions and visuals

Another classic marketing rule: changing behaviour by disseminating information doesn’t always work, but emotions and visuals usually do.


Without knowing a thing regarding the mechanics of glaciation and physical mechanics of H2O, you fell for the visual, didn't you? :)

Dec 16, 2009
Took a break going through various data and files. :)

Want to know what is the funniest thing of all when I look at glacial meltwater in that 1991 photo? It is classic legerdemain (French: leger de main) or trickery.

These glaciers are always melting. Depending upon which time of the year the photos were taken will show more or less meltwater gathering at the bases of these glaciers.

It is like Gore's infamous footage of the polar bear floating on a loose piece of Arctic ice. The picture looks sad and stirs emotions. However, the "trick" is in that the video was taken during the hottest time of the year!

Recall the various articles which have been written over the years about this. The biggest worry that these articles have in common is that there will not be enough meltwater to supply their power and drinking needs. Meltwater!

The true trouble is in the amount of precipitation not temperatures, which temperatures were falling in the region over the last several years.

Dec 17, 2009

These glaciers are always melting. Depending upon which time of the year the photos were taken will show more or less meltwater gathering at the bases of these glaciers.


I'm not sure how you can describe it as trickery when this was the exact point being made. If you remember Vellaranus stated that:
"In the Andes the temperature hasn't risen above freezing.
You can blame the elevation change effect on prevailing precipitation patterns coupled with high altitude sublimation for that loss of glaciation.
It does not show any form of warming."

The presence of a large body of liquid water at the base renders that statement false. Where is the trickery?


Dec 17, 2009
This is your statement "In the Andes the temperature hasn't risen above freezing"
The lake proves you are 100% totally wrong...admit it...you'll feel better for it!


Dec 17, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 17, 2009

The lake doesn't prove anything other than the presence of the lake.

Off course it does, if it contains liquid water it shows that temperatures go ABOVE FREEZING despite your earlier claim to the contrary.

Dec 17, 2009
The devil is in the physics of the thing, too. One can melt water without raising temperatures. One also can have three states of matter exist in relatively the same place at the same time with the proper interaction.

One also can sublimate ice directly into water vapor with the right conditions. And, all of this can be done without raising the temperature above freezing.

Ice skaters do it all the time and this little bit of physical science at work accounts for the ability of a skater to move on ice.

Do yourself a favor and listen to Velanarris for a moment. There is more afoot than just temperature variation here, as in any situation.

Besides, how do you account for the fact that several glaciers in the world are actually growing? Did you know another glacier Perito Moreno, located in nearby Argentina, actually still is growing, as is the Pio XI glacier in Chile?

Were you aware that Antarctican ice pack extents grew overall by 4.7% since 1980?

Dec 18, 2009
There you go, deflecting the discussion away from the points in hand. Answer this, are you still standing by your statement "In the Andes the temperature hasn't risen above freezing", despite the fact it is unequivocally incorrect?

Dec 18, 2009
So you are standing by the statement then? Can you at least answer that?

Dec 18, 2009
Here is a funny factoid regarding the ice cores taken from the glacier we have been discussing. The ice core records only go as far back as about 2,000 years. That means that there was no glacier over 2000 years ago. We did not do it. AGW did not do it. :)

Here is another factoid taken from Thompson, et al, "A 1500-Year Record of Tropical Precipitation in Ice Cores from the Quelccaya Ice Cap, Peru":
The annual mean temperature at this high ice cap (elevation 5670 m) is -3°C...


That would be 26.6°F for you. Freezing is 0°C (32°F for you).

It gets worse for you, yet. From "Climatic Ice Core Records from the Tropical Quelccaya Ice Cap":
Daily mean temperature ranges from about -5°C in southern winter to -2° to -3°C in summer.


Thus, the annual mean temperature for the ice cap to which the glacier being discussed is attached is below freezing way up there in the Andes.

Might I suggest a little more careful reading of such things as you recommend that we read?

Dec 19, 2009
To continue:
As someone who says they enjoy statistics you seem to be deficient in its understanding. Mean temperatures are not important in the context of glacial movement. What IS relevant is the amount of time the glacier is exposed to above freezing temperatures, and how much above freezing it is. As an example if you measure the rate of ice melt at 30°C, it will be quicker than at 20°C, which will be quicker than at 10°C. There will be virtually no ice loss at 0°C, decrease the temperatures to -10°C, no difference, -20°C, no difference etc.
You previously mentioned 2 glaciers that are increasing, well if you look carefully you will find a few more, still doesn't change the undeniable fact that more glaciers are in retreat than increasing.

Dec 19, 2009
Your logic is also unfortunately flawed, just because there isn't any published data on ice core samples over 2000 years doesn't mean that there are no glaciers over 2,000 years! To remind you of the original discussion before being deflected out before coming full circle read (again) this link. http://www.scienc...1454.htm
As the glacier retreated it uncovered ancient plant beds with the plant material over 5,000 years old. Plant material of a similar age has been found in around 50 sites.
You also mentioned Antarctic pack ice increases, which was true, they are now decreasing again (just below 'normal'. They have also been thinning considerably. To take a global view, the sea ice area peak, which occurs around October was the lowest recorded and of very short duration http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg
As we have gone full circle, there isn't much point in carrying on this discussion. Happy reading.

Dec 19, 2009
No, MikeyK, the author of the studies you recommended himself stated that there is no record available before 2,000 years. He himself was involved in obtaining the cores.

Given the fact that there is plant material underneath that is 5,000 or older years old, it is proof positive that ice retreat came and comes in cycles, none of which happened as a result of AGW. It also proves that there was no ice there at all 5,000 years ago. Plants do not grow in ice or in permafrost.

Annual mean, daily mean, raw data. Raw data is preferable so as to see exactly the changes occurring up there in the ice cap. I understand fully about the differences between mean values and variant data.

What you fail to realize, however, is that you do not need to have warming to have melting. Again, physics is involved here, which you clearly do not understand. Simply stated, glacial pressure also lowers the melt point of ice as well as contributes to melting. But, feel free to flee discussion anytime. :)

Dec 24, 2009
I think someonee doesn't share the view of myself and virtually all relevant scientists. Perhaps one should also point out that sublimation is a form of ablation and nowhere would any credible scientist suggest that the accelerating retreat of the Qori Kalis glacier is due in its entirety on ablation. This is especially relevant as, according to Lorrie Thompson who has been there more than anyone in recent history, in 35 years the glacier has decreased over 25%, and the rate of retreat is now 10 X what it was when he first visited the glacier.Oh..and daytime temperatures in the summer regularly reach the high teens centigrade, more than enough to melt the glacier.

Dec 24, 2009
I can think of no one here who actually has suggested that the shrinking of Qori Kalis is due entirely to ablation. But, melting due to temperature is not the only reason as many seem to suggest. Several factors appear to be in effect here.

The name of the fellow involved with the glacier is LoNNie Thompson, not Lorrie.

Raw temperature data, please. I highly doubt that the glacier reaches the high teens centigrade considering that the mean daily temperature there during the summer is -3°C. But, I could be wrong. Source of raw temperature data, please. I'd like to see the unmanipulated data for myself.

Also, consider the fact that 5,000 years ago, much of Qori Kalis did not exist. CO2 levels were nowhere near then what they are today. You have yet to come to grips with and explain that.

Dec 28, 2009

I don't think anyone is saying that ablation is the only mechanism for glacial retreat.

Err, read again. Half the post was trying to show to one idiot that temperatures DO go above freezing, as far as I can see he still hasn't acknowledged that! If, as he mysteriously thinks, above freezing temperatures don't occur there, that only leaves ablation, unless you have a 'magic' way that you want to make up?

As I said before, the researcher isn't wrong, he's not being thorough.

Not being thorough!!! He has been to that glacier more times than you've had sane scientific thoughts! He knows that glacier better than anyone else,and has written more papers on it than anyone else. If you can't trust his knowledge, experience and thoroughness then you can't trust anybody, and, frankly, I don't think you do. This is all just a huge CT to isn't it?

Dec 29, 2009
You are displaying misunderstanding of physical properties still. Pressure exerted onto the bottom of the glacier by glaciation not only produces meltwater the melt point of water is lowered. A similar glacier in the United States has a similar melt factor as Qori Kalis. Temperatures ranging between 0 and 0.4 °C can also result in melt because the melt point has been lowered by the pressure from the weight of the glacier.

Temps need not rise above freezing to still have the ice melt in a glacier.

By the way, you still have not dealt with the fact that the Qori Kalis glacier was not there 5,000 years ago. Given that plants existed there 5,000 years ago it shows that man had not a whit to do with it's not being there at the time.

Dec 29, 2009
Neglected to mention something pertinent before the edit function expired. Melting point can be lowered by about 0.7°C per km of ice measured from the ground up. For the larger glaciers the temperature never need be above freezing to accelerate melt.

Dec 29, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Dec 29, 2009
MikeyK,

Your post is of interest, particularly as you use a term borrowed from a blog, namely, oilcaholic. :)

You still have refused to deal with real science, however. What do you think of the fact that the meltpoint temperature of ice is lowered by 0.7°C per km of ice from the ground up in glaciers?

Fact is, more is going on than warming up at Qori Kalis. Consider precipitation, lowered meltpoint and ablation as additional causes for this shrinking glacier. Consider also the fact that it was not there 5,000 years ago, as plant matter dating from that time was found.

Pull your fingers out of your ears and take a look at some real science for a change. You might be pleasantly surprised. :)

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