Scientists are starting to admit that glaciers have been melting for over 150 years, but say it was “natural” melting as opposed to Mann-made melting.
Scientists found that while much of the melting a century or more ago was most probably due to natural variability in the climate, it is now primarily caused by anthropogenic global warming resulting from industrial greenhouse gases.
“We can clearly detect an anthropogenic effect on glaciers and it’s been steadily rising over the last 100 years,” said Ben Marzeion, a climate scientist at the University of Innsbruck in Austria.
“In the 19th century and first half of the 20th century we observed that glacier mass loss attributable to human activity is hardly noticeable but since then it has steadily increased,” said Dr Marzeion, the lead author of the study published in the journal Science.
Melting glaciers are caused by man-made global warming, study shows – Environment – The Independent
How can so many supposed smart people be so dumb.
Money
Isn’t logic supposed to be part of the scientific method? Geesh!!
Not if it is the Lysenko scientific method.
“Scientists found that while much of the melting a century or more ago was most probably due to natural variability in the climate”
Probably. They aren’t sure.
“It is now primarily caused by anthropogenic global warming resulting from industrial greenhouse gases.”
Now they are sure.
By what attribute of melting are they able to make their determination?
I am pretty sure they communicate with the water using a scientific tool such as this: http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/witching-for-water-zmaz70ndzgoe.aspx#axzz39koIEAg5
Remember, water always flows from North to South, so you can learn a lot about it by watching the stick.
Do I need to add the ?
Oops, WordPress stole my /sarc. My bad.
Here’s a convertor that will change HTML tags into displayed text that won’t be interpreted as HTML. You can use it to amaze your friends and neighbors by being able to add </sarc> at the end of your comments and it will stay there… (assuming that I can manage to put a real link in.)
I have problems getting links into WordPress…
http://www.plus2net.com/html_tutorial/tags-page.php
Better not use them and clear up a rare misunderstanding with an individual.
And if the misunderstandings are not rare one should consider looking for a better audience.
Probably, possibly, may, could, can. Seems that almost every headline or abstract I read from alarmists include some of these qualifiers. When I see them, I know that what I’m reading is conjecture. Those words are the out. The lack of total commitment to lay their reputations down on what they claim is the result or conclusion.
The article completely supports AGW. Your comment makes no sense.
Your statement makes no sense. It helps if you can read instead of getting talking points from a parrot.
The article completely supports AGW.
Yes dear, know clear-up and go to bed or you mummy will be cross.
Your contention is irrational. Unless you are claiming that AGW started 150 years ago. Which would not surprise anyone. They long ago recognized you for a lunatic.
Pesce, are you really so obtuse as to not understand the gist of Steven’s post. Do you not find it ludicrous that these so called scientists can distinguish between natural glacial retreat and the alleged man made glacial retreat when the retreats have the same observational characteristics. Of course the article supports AGW, how else can one get funding?
Now, Robert, I don’t find it ludicrous that climate scientists can distinguish between AGW and natural GW. It’s what they do all the time. They have it down to a science. 🙂
Name one time they have done so. Just one. And as before, opinions are not facts.
Robert Austin says: “Pesce (Fish, in Italian), are you really so obtuse as to not understand the gist of Steven’s post.”
pesce9991 says: “Now, Robert, I don’t find it ludicrous that climate scientists can distinguish between AGW and natural GW.”
Translation from Fish’s broken Italian “Yes, I am really so obtuse”.
(With apologies to real Italians.)
The sky is falling!
His comment, though tongue-in-cheek, is about them admitting that melting did not begin in 1979, but has been going on for 150 years. Small progress to be sure, but still something to note.
It completely supports the notion that idiots can delude themselves into drawing irrational conclusions which suit their agenda.
Pesky, it is the same old argument from ignorance.
“What is happening in recent decades is not explicable by natural climate effects such as variations in solar radiation or volcanic activity”
A freshman philosophy student can see this is stupid. No meteorology training needed.
You seem so scattered, pesce.
Are you busy jumping from place to place to argue without taking the time to understand what is being said?
You know there are places for that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
That’s not the argument sketch!
Yes, it is.
It was not AGW before it was AGW – has Kerry become a spokesman for the clown car now?
This study has been all over climate news…. The study uses a computer model to gage between natural and Mann made melting….
While they indirectly acknowledge a natural melt… Journalists main point is the vast majority of melting… according to this computer model… was caused by Mann since the Industrial Revolution. .. All our soot and CO2….
The Glacier Bay Map posted here previously blows their theory out of the water… With the vast majority of melt… miles and miles of it occurred well before the 1860’s… today glacial retreat is measured in yards and feet… not miles…
This is just another animation to scare people and keep Climate Change in the news…. A computer model straight Lining CO2 with glacial melt… of course it ignores Antarctica. .. and the Arctic which is back to 1974 levels…
Seems to ignore those pesky tree and forest remains they keep finding under receding glaciers also.
Alaska’s Glacier Bay was filled with glaciers to the Pacific Ocean in the mid-1700’s, and the glaciers began retreating in the second half of that century. Naturally.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/glacier-bay-ice-retreated-50-miles-between-1780-and-1892/
I would like to know the switchover year when natural glacier decline became man-made glacier decline.
pesce9991? Anyone… ?
I don’t think there was a switchover year but they say that maybe 25% was AGW in the early years. I would guess very little was happening in the early years.
A long while back melting was measured in miles. Now it is yards and feet (meters and centimeters?). This does not suggest any melting was caused by CAGM. It’s all part of the climate change scam.
Not to mention any use of computer models against reality is always a bad idea for Warmists. All that tells us is that they are good at plugging figures into a spreadsheet until they get the result they are hoping for.
Fish says “I don’t think…”
Kinda says it all, huh?
+1
Who is “they”? And how can 25% be due to AGW, when not a single model or study says that AGW was a factor 150 years ago?
Keep digging. China awaits you.
Unfortunately, you guessed wrong. See http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/alaskas-most-famous-glacier-retreated-eight-feet-per-day-between-1794-and-1897/. Search for glacier on this site for other articles on glacier retreat. Stop guessing!
Or the link therein http://www.glacierbay.org/glaciers.html
Because Occam’s Razor says always use two explanations when one is enough.
We can spend the next thousand years debating what percentage of angels on the head of a pin are natural and which percentage are Mann-made.
The state of climate change advocacy is summed up in this article. Fabricated evidenced (ie a computer program) is touted as proof. This behavior is proof that there are too many morons engaged in climate change advocacy. Other than that there is no story here.