Comments 1 to 13:

1. Lionel A at 22:01 PM on 9 October, 2012
   I hope you don't mind me dropping in a post I made at Deltoid about a week ago, with slight edits.
   
   Of course when the 'usual suspects' of the world try to rubbish the scientific data they should consider going out on the ice like Dr. Mauri Pelto on Easton Glacier nr. Mt Baker in the Cascades – (video in a recent Climate Crocks post) and take Watts, Montford, Monckton, Bast, Bastardi, old uncle Tom Cobbly an’ all (that latter BTW idiom for the short list of high profile one-time scientists turned advocacy shills) with them. Think of the fun they would have howling at the moon that global warming is a hoax. Inhofe & co. could be dropped in by parachute – after all they could find a ready made igloo – in a crevasse.
   
   Those described above should pay attention to this bit, transcript as close as I could make out:
   
   

   This is just one measurement. Obviously the last two day we’ve marched around these glaciers, arggh, we’re going to cover about ten miles to get those two hundred measurements. Do that for thirty years on ten different glaciers and you get an idea of what it takes you to – just one little – you look at those graphs and you see a data series, a time series, even for an individual glacier or a series of glaciers in one range it gives you an idea of the kinda effort you need to put in.

   
   
   That is what it is about, collecting the data for analysis to provide the information that informs us that global warming is for real. Anybody now continuing to obfuscate this basic fact should be sent for correction training to find out how science really works.
   
   Hey Watts & co., guess what, it isn’t sitting in a nice office somewhere comfortable confabulating over weather station photographs. You are behaving in a despicable deceiving manner by trying to deflect from the physical and mental effort of real scientists working in hostile and dangerous places. And yes I remember an acquittance of mine who disappeared, never to be seen again, into a crevasse on Greenland.
   0 0
2. Lambda 3.0 at 02:23 AM on 10 October, 2012
   When I tell people about the glacier melting or the arctic melting, I sometimes get asked, "why does it matter?"
   
   These glaciers make up a large part of the water supply for major cities and agriculture in many parts of the world. Without them, a lot of Great Plains agriculture would be impossible. A lot of western cities would be impossible as well. Not to mention a lot of the south Asian population would be put under severe distress. We're talking about potential upheavals of millions of people having no water to drink and less food to eat.
   
   Yes, it is a serious problem.
   0 0
3. william at 04:28 AM on 10 October, 2012
   The only reason the Fox and the Frans Yosef glaciers in New Zealand are advancing is because of the unbelievable amounts of precipitation falling in the snow fields where they start and these short periods of advance are in the middle of a long term retreat. The mountains are very very steep on the west coast of South Island where they occur and the glaciers poke right down into a temperate rain forest. If you walk up from the bottom of the valley you see a wonderful sequence of land reclamation by nature with forests at the bottom and only lichens and mosses right up beside the toe of the glacier. All this has happened within the past couple of hundred years. In no meaningful way can we say that these glaciers are advancing.
   0 0
4. Rob Painting at 05:23 AM on 10 October, 2012
   The Franz Josef glacier has undergone spectacular retreat in the last few years. See the images here.
   0 0
5. funglestrumpet at 07:15 AM on 10 October, 2012
   I really would like to think that this video is real, but it conflicts with what Lord Monckton says, and he is a Viscount, no less, so he should know.
   0 0
6. vrooomie at 09:28 AM on 10 October, 2012
   "...this video...conflicts with what Lord Monckton says..."
   
   Yes; reality and facts are often at odds with the good Viscount. Fortunately, it's easy to figure out where reality ends and Monckton's Myths begin...
   
   The deniers really are going to look (even more) *really* idiotic, and sooner rather than later will be fine by me. One can only argue against empirical data for so long.
   0 0
7. scaddenp at 10:16 AM on 10 October, 2012
   "he is a Viscount, no less, so he should know."
   
   splorff! Now I have coffee in my keyboard and scratches from the cat.
   0 0
8. Daniel Bailey at 10:26 AM on 10 October, 2012
   Phil, you doing a Dr. Evil thing? Monocle too?
   
   And here I thought that I was the only one who did that...
   0 0
9. skywatcher at 18:06 PM on 10 October, 2012
   Rob #4 (and #3 William) glad you mentioned that, was at Franz and Fox last year and it seemed pretty clear to this geomorphologist that they were both decidedly retreating. The information board at Sentinel Rock was IMHO out of date. Very soon, Franz won't actually be visible from the famous Peter's Pool too.
   
   Lionel A, well said indeed. Most of the clowns that claim various egregiously wrong things about the climate have no concept whatsoever about the efforts, hazards and challenges involved in collecting field data from remote and often hostile environments.
   0 0
10. Jeffrey Davis at 07:50 AM on 11 October, 2012
    We saw a glacier in Alaska this summer that had retreated ~500 ft. In a year.
    0 0
11. Steve Case at 03:57 AM on 21 October, 2012
    "These glaciers make up a large part of the water supply for major cities and agriculture in many parts of the world. Without them, a lot of Great Plains agriculture would be impossible. A lot of western cities would be impossible as well. Not to mention a lot of the south Asian population would be put under severe distress. We're talking about potential upheavals of millions of people having no water to drink and less food to eat.
    
    Yes, it is a serious problem."
    
    Just because a glacier recedes does not mean that the rain and snow stops falling. Indeed, in a warmer world, the IPCC tells us that there will more evaporation, more water vapor and more precipitation. The rivers in those watersheds that currently have glaciers will still flow even if the glaciers disappear.
    0 0
12. DSL at 04:38 AM on 21 October, 2012
    Steve, I think you've brought this up before. The problem is not with available moisture. The problem is that life in these areas of the world have developed around glacial water supplies. Glaciers provide a more consistent water supply throughout the growing season than does rain/snow only. In order to mimic the role of glaciers, more dams will be necessary -- more infrastructure, more money, more ecological questions, more local politics. And there are critical rivers in the world where dams would seriously restrict movement of materials (thus forcing the construction of more elaborate and costly infrastructure).
    0 0
13. Steve Case at 11:13 AM on 21 October, 2012
    That's right DSL I've brought it up before, (-snip-).
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [DB] Yes, you did indeed pursue this line, here. Thus, if you wish to continue pursuing it, do it there, not here, where it is off-topic. Sloganeering snipped.

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.