posted 12-17-2003 03:19 PM               

Network to monitor climate change

By Patrick O'Driscoll, USA TODAY

Federal scientists will switch on a system of weather stations next month to monitor climate change across the USA for the next 50 to 100 years.

The new "Climate Reference Network" will constantly record temperature, rainfall, wind and solar radiation more precisely than most of today's weather stations. The data the network collects will help researchers measure global warming (news - web sites).

Scientists project that the temperature of the Earth will increase by 2 to 10 degrees by the end of this century. Higher temperatures would lead to droughts and heat waves. Glaciers and polar ice caps would melt.

"It's an accepted fact that we have global warming. What we're trying to do is pin down how much and over what time," says Bruce Baker, chief scientist for the network, a project of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The center analyzes national and global climate statistics for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Thousands of weather stations across the country - from National Weather Service (news - web sites) posts to amateur setups in backyards - already record temperature and precipitation. But Baker says the network will send hourly readouts via satellite from 100 sites that will result in more accurate measurements.

That's because the new stations will have backup instruments to guarantee an uninterrupted flow of temperatures and rainfall measurements.

Each will transmit readings from three thermometers and two rain gauges. The information will be available at the network's Web site (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/uscrn/index.html).

The stations that form the network will take up about a twelfth of an acre each and will be positioned far from highways, buildings and areas likely to be developed. That way, climate data won't be skewed by heat and pollution. The locations for the stations represent every natural environment in the USA, from mountains and plains to coasts and deserts.

"We want to be able to separate out the urban 'signal,' " says Ken Hubbard, director of the High Plains Regional Climate Center in Lincoln, Neb. "If the temperature is trending upward, we want to know: Is that due to greenhouse gases increasing? Or is that due to somebody having built an urban parking lot nearby?"

Many of the stations are being built in national and state parks, wildlife refuges, government installations and laboratory farms at universities. Forty-seven are in place in 26 states. Fifty-three others will be built in the next two years after sites are chosen.

If funding increases, scientists hope to add 150 to 200 sites to better track regional climate changes.

The first station was built at the North Carolina Arboretum outside Asheville. Others are in Glacier National Park, Mont., Crater Lake National Park, Ore., and on NASA (news - web sites)'s balloon-launch site near Palestine, Texas. Some will be in coastal locations. One sits atop Niwot Ridge, Colo., more than 12,000 feet above sea level. Another will go in Death Valley, Calif.

The stations cost about $20,000 each. A key feature: a pair of eight-sided picket fences (news - web sites), one inside the other. The pens shield the station's rain gauge from the wind for more accurate readings.

posted 12-17-2003 03:29 PM               

Increasing Carbon Dioxide Threatens Coral Reefs

WASHINGTON - Researchers at Columbia University's Biosphere 2 Center have determined that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere may cause more harm to marine coral reef communities than previous research had indicated. Dr. Christopher Langdon of Columbia's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory and his research team believe that coral growth could be reduced by as much as 40 percent from pre-industrial levels over the next 65 years.

The team found no evidence that reef organisms are able to acclimate after prolonged exposure to the reduced carbonate levels. "This is the first real evidence that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have a negative impact on a major Earth ecosystem," says Langdon, whose research will be published in the June edition of Global Biogeochemical Cycles, an American Geophysical Union journal that covers global environmental change.

Langdon's team is investigating the impact of changing seawater chemistry on coral reef calcification rates. By mid-century, increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, are expected to reduce by 30 percent the carbonate ion concentration of the surface ocean. When Langdon changed the carbonate concentration in the Biosphere 2 ocean to that projected level, he observed significant reduction in calcification rates for the coral and coralline algae.

Langdon believes the results of his research have some important implications. Coral reefs are natural breakwaters protecting tropical islands and other coastal areas from beach erosion. "While some terrestrial ecosystems may actually benefit from elevated carbon dioxide levels, that does not appear to be the case for shallow marine ecosystems like a coral reef," says Langdon. The impacts are much greater than previously believed, leading to increasing vulnerability of many reefs to other man-caused sources of stress, like over-fishing or pollution, he says.

The project is underway in the ocean ecosystem at Columbia's Biosphere 2 laboratory near Oracle, Arizona. The 700,000-gallon aquarium of artificial seawater with its community of coral reef life mimics key aspects of real world coral reef ecosystems. Biosphere 2 President and Executive Director William Harris says the ability to control precisely the chemical environment and accurately measure changes in the system offers a unique opportunity to conduct research of this kind.

Original Article:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0012.html

******************************************* http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031217073058.htm

NASA Learning To Monitor Coral Reef Health From The Sky

Coral reef health may be accurately estimated from sensors on airplanes and satellites in the future, according to a NASA scientist who is the principal investigator in a collaborative project to develop a method to remotely sense coral health.

Sometimes called the "bellwether of the seas," coral reefs can give first indications of marine ecosystem health. "Scientists can use coral health as a sensitive indicator of the health of the marine environment," said Liane Guild, a scientist at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

"We're looking into how you could remotely detect coral reef health using aircraft with visible light sensors," Guild said. "First, we have to look at the coral close up, underwater, to see what spectral reflectance the sensor picks up from diseased, stressed and healthy coral."

One of the first steps her team took to develop aerial coral monitoring was to take undersea light-reflectance readings of elkhorn coral with a handheld spectroradiometer, or light meter.

A team of four scuba divers, from the Universities of Miami, South Florida and Puerto Rico, helped Guild take the first readings at varying depths in summer 2002 near Andros Island, Bahamas, with assistance from the U.S. Navy Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center. A spectroradiometer measures the amount of ultraviolet, visible and infrared light reflected from an object, and is similar to sensors aboard remote-sensing airplanes and satellites.

"We moved up from the coral, little by little, to the surface to learn how light intensity decreases in the water column, which affects our coral reflected-light readings," Guild said.

"There also will be a layer of atmosphere between the coral, the water and the sensor when it eventually flies aboard an airplane to survey the reefs," she added.

"The effects of the atmosphere on light are pretty well known, but the challenge is to correct for the effects of the layer of water over the coral," Guild explained. "Instead of taking the top-down approach, we are going from the bottom up to the airplane, and later to satellite-sensing of coral health," Guild said.

"Ultimately, we plan to fly 'hyperspectral' instruments, containing many detectors that collect information in the visible light range," Guild explained. These instruments will provide the most useful information about coral-reef community health from above the sea, according to Guild.

The team's research emphasis is on Acropora palmata, or elkhorn coral, a major reef-building coral. It is prevalent in the study area, but is suffering from "white band disease." Elkhorn coral is on the verge of becoming an endangered species because it has severely declined in many areas of the Caribbean, Guild noted.

The team and engineering scientists from the University of Arizona also are developing a specialized computer model to analyze coral reflected-light data. The computer model will help scientists better interpret the raw data gathered by aircraft or satellites.

Guild discussed her group's work at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union on December 9, at 8:45 p.m. EST, in room 3000 of the Moscone Convention Center, San Francisco.

posted 12-17-2003 05:18 PM               

US fails to block Kyoto Protocol on climate change

By Sanjay Suri
Inter Press Service

LONDON, Dec 12--Environment groups were celebrating the failure of the United States Friday to block the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

The US made several attempts behind the scenes at the ninth conference in Milan of the parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to derail the agreement, environmentalists say. But other nations attending the meeting reaffirmed their commitment to the treaty.

With Russia now expected by many to sign up, the Kyoto Protocol could finally reach the target of ratification by countries producing 55 percent of the emissions or more.

The 55-percent target is intended to ensure that nobody is bound by the protocol until a lot of others, including enough big industrialized countries have accepted it.

The protocol will take effect once the target is crossed, and bind signatories into cutting emissions under an agreed program.

120 countries have ratified protocol

"The United States had been trying in the background to persuade others that the Kyoto Protocol will not be effective," Roger Higman from Friends of the Earth International told IPS on phone from Milan. "But 120 countries have now ratified the protocol."

The United States has ratified the UN Convention on Climate Change, but not accepted the Kyoto Protocol, which sets targets for cutting down emissions by 2013. Further agreements are expected after 2013.

The environment group WWF said proposals by the Bush administration for more research and investment in new technologies were a mandate to keep polluters in business.

"They are not only woolly, economically unviable and unscientific but the US has no proof that they would deliver any carbon dioxide reductions at all," said Jennifer Morgan, director of the WWF climate-change program.

"This meeting strongly reaffirmed that the only international approach to tackling global warming is the Kyoto Protocol."

Approval by Russia essential

Alexey Kokorin, head of WWF-Russia's climate-change protocol said, "All we need is for Russia to put the key in the door." Approval by Russia is now essential to reach the magic figure of 55 percent after the United States walked out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001.

Kokorin said that "the latest word from Moscow is that the Russian ratification process is still under consideration and is most likely to happen some time after the presidential elections in March 2004."

But Russian delegation chief Alexander Bedritsky gave nothing away. "It's vital, we think, to continue negotiations to try to find solutions that are more acceptable to countries that have accepted to cut their greenhouse gas emissions," he said.

WWF welcomed pledges in Milan by Germany, the Philippines, Britain and others to keep average global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius. "If temperatures rise above this threshold, the world will suffer from increased flooding, droughts and glacial meltdown," WWF said.

2500 delegates, 2400 observers in attendance

About 2,500 delegates and 2,400 observers attended the meeting in Milan. The meeting was called to agree on rules under which the Kyoto Protocol would operate.

"It was called also to agree rules under which tree-planting projects will become available for credit under the Kyoto Protocol," Higman said. Tree-planting is a vital instrument under the protocol to counter harmful emissions from industries that are believed to cause damaging climate change.

But this is an area where environmentalists did not get all they wanted.

"We wanted to exclude genetically-modified (GM) crops and invasive species," Higman said. Countries did not agree to ban GM organisms or invasive species being funded through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Protocol.

The mechanism is intended to promote plantations.

"Friends of the Earth International therefore calls on Northern (industrialized) countries to focus on curbing greenhouse gas emissions at home and on promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency," the group said in a statement Friday.

WWF also raised concerns that the rules agreed at the meeting do not address potential use of large-scale commercial plantations, GMOs and invasive species. But it welcomed some of the projects under the CDM.

posted 12-17-2003 05:51 PM               

quote:

---

Scientists project that the temperature of the Earth will increase by 2 to 10 degrees by the end of this century. Higher temperatures would lead to droughts and heat waves. Glaciers and polar ice caps would melt.

---

quote:

---

"It's an accepted fact that we have global warming. What we're trying to do is pin down how much and over what time," says Bruce Baker, chief scientist for the network, a project of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The center analyzes national and global climate statistics for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

---

Here we can see the subtle implication that the accepted global warming will produce up to 10 degrees by the end of the century. Now: Centigrades or Farenheit? It makes a lot of difference!

Heat waves are local and regional phenomena, caused by blocking anticyclones – as happened this “record breaking hot summer” of 2003. They cannot pin down next week weather, and they claim they can predict climate 100 years in advance. Help us, Jesus!

quote:

---

Thousands of weather stations across the country - from National Weather Service (news - web sites) posts to amateur setups in backyards - already record temperature and precipitation. But Baker says the network will send hourly readouts via satellite from 100 sites that will result in more accurate measurements.

---

quote:

---

The stations that form the network will take up about a twelfth of an acre each and will be positioned far from highways, buildings and areas likely to be developed. That way, climate data won't be skewed by heat and pollution. The locations for the stations represent every natural environment in the USA, from mountains and plains to coasts and deserts.

---

That is a step forward, though. My guess is: this people, facing the Kyoto funeral, are retreating to more honorable positions. Someday they will say: “Well, temperatures seems not to be rising as models predicted. And all the merit is ours, because we started measuring them in the right way with these non-urban stations”. Clever, indeed.

quote:

---

"We want to be able to separate out the urban 'signal,' " says Ken Hubbard, director of the High Plains Regional Climate Center in Lincoln, Neb. "If the temperature is trending upward, we want to know: Is that due to greenhouse gases increasing? Or is that due to somebody having built an urban parking lot nearby?"

---

quote:

---

The stations cost about $20,000 each. A key feature: a pair of eight-sided picket fences (news - web sites), one inside the other. The pens shield the station's rain gauge from the wind for more accurate readings.

---

posted 12-17-2003 06:45 PM               

quote:

---

US fails to block Kyoto Protocol on climate change
By Sanjay Suri
Inter Press Service
LONDON, Dec 12--Environment groups were celebrating the failure of the United States Friday to block the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

---

They are selling the bear skin prior to hunting him down! Another joke!

quote:

---

But other nations attending the meeting reaffirmed their commitment to the treaty.
With Russia now expected by many to sign up, the Kyoto Protocol could finally reach the target of ratification by countries producing 55 percent of the emissions or more.

---

Yeah! 120 countries ratified the protocol. Only some Europeans countries are forced to reduce their emissions, something they have made very clear they could never do, because it would mean a reduction in energy consumption of 30% of their present levels. European have failed to tramp the US into destroying its economy, and now they see they have been left out in the cold.

Russia is never going to ratify the protocol. Never. And those hundreds of poor countries that ratified it, are not forced to cut their emissions – simply because their economy is not productive and use almost no energy. But Kyoto failure would be a catastrophe for them. They plan to trade their “emission shares” and get some fresh money from those that emit more than permitted.

The whole scheme of “emission trading” is a hoax: it allows (and encourage) more emissions by the big energy users, while poor countries cash in some dough in order to repay their external debts. The financial system has found a nice way to recover the money they lent at usury to corrupt politicians in the third world – putting the heavy load of repaying it on the backs of the poor people. Disgraceful!

So, the bottom line is: Kyoto will not stop global warming (even without the trade hoax) for many already proved scientific reasons, but will increase it - if we believed their contention that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.

And now press releases by no less than Environmental ONGs:

quote:

---

"… Roger Higman from Friends of the Earth International told IPS … The environment group WWF said … said Jennifer Morgan, director of the WWF climate-change program. … Approval by Russia essential Alexey Kokorin, head of WWF-Russia's climate-change protocol said, … WWF welcomed pledges in Milan by Germany, the Philippines, Britain … the world will suffer from increased flooding, droughts and glacial meltdown," WWF said. .. etc, etc, etc.

---

Well. They are in for a great disappointment.

quote:

---

2500 delegates, 2400 observers in attendance

---

quote:

---

But this is an area where environmentalists did not get all they wanted. "We wanted to exclude genetically-modified (GM) crops and invasive species," Higman said. Countries did not agree to ban GM organisms or invasive species being funded through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Protocol.

---

quote:

---

"Friends of the Earth International therefore calls on Northern (industrialized) countries to focus on curbing greenhouse gas emissions at home and on promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency," the group said in a statement Friday.

---

posted 12-17-2003 08:26 PM               

Now, some press releases, by uninformed journalists, my say otherwise...

[Edited 3 times, lastly by Edufer on 12-17-2003]

posted 12-17-2003 09:35 PM               

Proving? ?

...just how desperate SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra is to promote his distorted version of reality.

Where is the peer review published data indicating that 65% of the world's glaciers are advancing...as he has repeatedly claimed?

Here's my observation...

Don't you think that it is stange that SEÑOR Ferreyra has been unable to find ONE peer reviewed, published journal article to substantiate his claim?

Wouldn't this information be of the upmost importance given the current concern over climate change?

Certainly if this were TRUE, SOMEONE would have published this verifiable data.

It reminds me of SEÑOR Ferreyra's effort to plot the location of 11 vineyards in England, only to eventually learn that there were over 300!

Like I said, nice bowl of cherries.

********************************************

This is what real scientists are saying:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=252267

Scientists Say Human Impact on Climate Change Certain

The American Geophysical Union, the world's largest organization of earth, ocean, and climate scientists, has always been extremely cautious in interpreting the growing evidence that human activities -- especially carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and utility plants -- are a major contributor to global climate change. Indeed, American conservatives often distort AGU's "let's-see-all-the-evidence" approach into support for their position that the whole global warming controversy is some sort of environmentalist hoax.

But yesterday AGU issued a strongly worded statement -- adopted unanimously by a special panel convened for that purpose -- concluding that "human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate." The statement also calls for actions to reduce "the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events."

As The Wall Street Journal reported, "The scientific committee that drafted the statement includes John Christy, a University of Alabama, Huntsville, climatologist who has often sided with warming skeptics in the past. But scientific dissent now increasingly involves details of the warming phenomenon, not the basic result that man-made gas emissions are a probably cause of the warming trend." In an interview with National Public Radio today, Christy said it was "scientifically inconceivable" that natural influences are solely responsible for climate change.

It will be interesting to see if the Republican politicians who like to quote Christy are paying attention. Just last week, a group of conservative Members of Congress led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) contributed to the world-wide impression that the Bush administration and its supporters are dangerously irresponsible on this subject, holding a press conference outside a United Nations conference on global climate change in Milan to air their claims that "the science is flawed; it is anything but certain." At some point, preferably right now, Republicans need to stop embarrassing their country with this kind of ignorant hokum.

If AGU's scientific conclusions bear repeating, so, too, does its call for action before climate change potentially becomes catastrophic. At a minimum, the administration should risk upsetting its flat-earth fans in the GOP "base" by agreeing to restart the international negotiations on climate change that it torpedoed as one of George W. Bush's first actions in foreign relations. And both Congress and the administration need to get serious about limiting our own greenhouse gas emissions, preferably through a "cap-and-trade" system that will impose mandatory limits while encouraging market means to reach them. This kind of system could avoid the false choice between economic growth and environmental improvement that conservatives so often cite, by stimulating the development of new "clean technologies" that would give the U.S. a big comparative advantage in one of the global economy's fastest growing sectors.

The time for denial on global climate change is long over. The time for action is now.

*******************************************

Now for the fun...watching SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra duke it out with John Christy, one of the premier global warming skeptics, who states that it was "scientifically inconceivable" that natural influences are solely responsible for climate change.

Sense of humor?

Are you kidding?

This is unbearably ironic.

Have at it guys !

posted 12-17-2003 10:11 PM               

Just who is the incompetent?

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December, 2003

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions. Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns. There will be considerable regional variations in the resulting impacts.

Scientists' understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has greatly improved during the last decade, including better representation of carbon, water, and other biogeochemical cycles in climate models. Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models. Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will reduce their climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would remain.

The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states as an objective the "...stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." AGU believes that no single threshold level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere exists at which the beginning of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system can be defined. Some impacts have already occurred, and for increasing concentrations there will be increasing impacts. The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern.

Enhanced national and international research and other efforts are needed to support climate related policy decisions. These include fundamental climate research, improved observations and modeling, increased computational capability, and very importantly, education of the next generation of climate scientists. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in climate research, education, scientific assessments, and policy discussions. AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results.

Science provides society with information useful in dealing with natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and drought, which improves our ability to predict and prepare for their adverse effects. While human-induced climate change is unique in its global scale and long lifetime, AGU believes that science should play the same role in dealing with climate change. AGU is committed to improving the communication of scientific information to governments and private organizations so that their decisions on climate issues will be based on the best science.

The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change. Scientific research is required to improve our ability to predict climate change and its impacts on countries and regions around the globe. Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events.

posted 12-17-2003 11:24 PM               

quote:

---

What a nice bowl of picked cherries.
Proving? ?

---

quote:

---

...just how desperate SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra is to promote his distorted version of reality.

---

quote:

---

Where is the peer review published data indicating that 65% of the world's glaciers are advancing...as he has repeatedly claimed?

---

quote:

---

Don't you think that it is stange that SEÑOR Ferreyra has been unable to find ONE peer reviewed, published journal article to substantiate his claim?

---

On the contrary, I found and posted here data in the World Glacier Monitoring Service showing most glaciers are in +X or ST condition (advancing or stable). Check the data again. You are making a fool of yourself.

quote:

---

Wouldn't this information be of the upmost importance given the current concern over climate change?

---

quote:

---

Certainly if this were TRUE, SOMEONE would have published this verifiable data.

---

quote:

---

It reminds me of SEÑOR Ferreyra effort to plot the location of 11 vineyards in England, only to eventually learn that there were over 300!

---

quote:

---

Like I said, nice bowl of cherries.

---

BTW: You have not commented Dr. Sherwood Idso's study (fully peer-reviewed!, as you demand) showing the "forcing function" for CO2 is 0.13 w/m2, and not 1.49 w/m2 as you unfortunate post claimed. Any comments? Or are you going to make another of your spectacular dodges?

posted 12-18-2003 12:29 AM               

He must be feeling increasing isolation...somewhat used, even abandon by his previous compatriots.

Bad enough that a body like the AGU puts to lie his position, but to be suddenly left out on a limb by the infamous John Christy...

well, it's easy to see why he has lost his composure.

Please note that I never said that SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra ever stated that he had a peer reviewed scientific article stating that 65% of the world's glaciers are advancing. That is precisely what I am pointing out...

...he doesn't have any such evidence!

despite making such claims (which now he appears to disavow and place the blame on his mentor Fred Singer).

And yet look how desperately he attempts to distort what was said.

********************************************
Here are some other sources of glacial retreat to ponder:

*******************************************

Remember Glacier Park in Montana that SEÑOR Ferreyra cited as an example of an "advancing" glacier? Well check out this great time series animation to see how accurate he was:

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/7639/atmosphere/glcrsgne.htm

******************************************* http://asterweb.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/gallery.htm?name=Malaspina

Malaspina Glacier, Alaska

This ASTER image was acquired on June 8, 2001, and covers an area of 55 x 40 km over the southwest part of the Malaspina Glacier and Icy Bay in Alaska. The composite of infrared and visible bands results in the snow and ice appearing light blue, dense vegatation is yellow-orange and green, and less vegetated, gravelly areas are in orange. According to Dr. Dennis Trabant (US Geological Survey, Fairbanks), the Malaspina Glacier is thinning. Its terminal moraine protects it from contact with the open ocean; without the moraine, or if sea level rises sufficiently to reconnect the glacier with the ocean, the glacier would start calving and retreat significantly. ASTER data are being used to help monitor the size and movement of some 15,000 tidal and piedmont glaciers in Alaska. Evidence derived from ASTER and many other satellite and ground-based measurements suggests that only a few dozen Alaskan glaciers are advancing. The overwhelming majority of them are retreating.

********************************************
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010605072007.htm

Source: American Institute Of Physics

New Research Shows Mountain Glaciers Shrinking Worldwide

Boston, MA (May 30, 2001) -- Mountain glaciers around the world are receding, said geophysicists today at the annual spring meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). In a finding he calls "dramatic," Dr. Rick Wessels from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) presented research that compared new satellite data to historical records and photographs of glaciers on mountains worldwide, showing that the majority of glaciers studied have decreased in size.

Wessels is part of the Global Land Ice Measurement from Space (GLIMS) project at USGS, which is using NASA's Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) to monitor mountain glaciers around the world. ASTER is one of the instruments on the TERRA satellite, which launched in December 1999. ...more

******************************************

Europe From Space | The Alps | Glacial Retreat

Almost all the World's glaciers are retreating. A remarkable quantity of ice disappears every year, with subsequent lowering of the surface level and considerable melting at its front edge.

http://www.eduspace.esa.int/eduspace/project/default.asp?document=213&language=en

*******************************************

Shrinking glaciers worldwide
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap10/nzglacier.html

*******************************************
http://www.etsimo.uniovi.es/solar/portug/earthpr1.htm

NASA Researchers Document Shrinking of Greenland's Glaciers

Greenland's southeastern glaciers are rapidly thinning and their lower elevations may be particularly sensitive to potential climate changes, a NASA study suggests.

"The results of this study are important in that they could represent the first indication of an increase in the speed of outlet glaciers," said Bill Krabill, principal investigator at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, VA. An outlet glacier acts as a major ice drainage region for an ice sheet.

"The excess volume of ice transported by these glaciers has had a negligible effect on global sea level thus far, but if it accelerates or becomes more widespread, it would begin to have a detectable impact on sea level," Krabill said.

In the March 5 issue of SCIENCE, researchers report the glacial thinning is too large to have resulted from increased ice- surface melting or decreased snowfall. The researchers believe the thinning, as much as 30 feet over five years in some locations, is the result of increasing discharge speeds of glaciers flowing into the Atlantic Ocean.

Krabill said surface-melt water might be seeping to the bottom of glaciers. Such seepage may be reducing the friction between the ice and the rock below it, enabling the glaciers to slide with less friction across the bedrock and thus allow more ice to slip off into the ocean, according to Krabill.

"The results of this study are significant because they provide the first evidence of widespread thinning of low-elevation parts of one of the great polar ice sheets. The results also suggest that the thinning outlet glaciers must be flowing faster than necessary to remove the annual accumulation of snow within their basins," said Krabill.

"Why they are behaving like this is a mystery," said Krabill, "but it might indicate that the coastal margins of ice sheets are capable of responding quite rapidly to external changes, such as a potential warming of the climate." ...more

*******************************************
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/AG/BerlinerHutte.html

These three images show Waxeggkees Glacier and Berliner Hütte in the Zemmgrund (the valley of the Zemmbach) in the upper reaches of the Zillertal (the Ziller valley) above Mayrhofen in the Austrian land of Tirol. The upper two images are from postcards dated 1912 and 1933, and the lower image is from a slide taken in 2003.

The three images show the extent to which the Waxeggkees receded between the early 1900s and 2003. The valley glacier of the Waxeggkees can be seen behind Berliner Hütte in the upper two images and consists of ice flowing down from the upper reaches of the glacier. In the 2003 image, there is no such flowing valley glacier at all. Instead, the till that previously underlay the glacier is visible, as is a large area of gray bedrock that was likewise covered by the glacier. Only at the white in the upper reaches of the image is there still any glacier. Another image from a lower vantage point shows the U-shaped trough between the lateral moraines left behind by the receding glacier.

The significance of sequential images like these documenting glacial retreat is that they provide natural non-instrumental evidence of global warming. Skeptics of global warming argue that world climate is not getting warmer, and that instrumental (thermometer) records of rising temperatures are only the result of increasing temperatures at busy airports and in urban heat islands. Retreating glaciers, however, are not at airports or in urban heat islands, and so cannot by so easily dismissed by those skeptics. The retreat of these glaciers, which is widespread around the world, is independent evidence of global warming.

********************************************

Mark B.Dyurgerov and Mark F. Meier, 1997. "Year-to-year fluctuations of global mass balance of small glaciers and their contribution to sea-level changes", Arctic and Alpine Research 29(4):392-402.

*******************************************

"World's Glaciers Continue to Shrink According to New CU-Boulder Study", University of Colorado news release, May 26, 1998.

*******************************************

According to the National Ice Center, a new iceberg -- one roughly twice the size of the state of Rhode Island -- is adrift in the icy waters off Antarctica. March 19, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/03/19/new.iceberg/

*******************************************

Alaska's glaciers are melting at more than twice the rate previously thought because of warming temperatures, dramatically altering the majestic contours of the state and driving up sea levels, according to a new study.

By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 19, 2002;

****************************************** http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive/october2003/fastest_area_of_glacial_retreat .htm

South American glaciers' big melt
The Patagonia glaciers of Chile and Argentina are melting so fast they are making a significant contribution to sea-level rise, say scientists.

They report ice was lost at a rate sufficient to push up ocean waters by 0.04 millimetres per year during the period from 1975 through to 2000.

This is equal, the researchers say, to 9% of the total annual global sea-level rise from all mountain glaciers.

The American research team reports its findings in the journal Science.

Rising temperatures

The team combined data from a space shuttle mission in 2000 and survey data gathered on the ground to study the 63 largest Patagonia ice fields.

They compared ice loss rates between 1968 and 1975, and from 1975 to 2000. As well as the general increase in melting, the team also found accelerated ice-mass loss between 1995 and 2000.

This period saw melting sufficient to push up sea-levels by 0.1 millimetres per year.

In comparison, the team says, Alaska's glaciers, which cover an area five times larger, account for about 30% of the total annual global sea-level rise from mountain glaciers.

The researchers, led by Eric Rignot, from the US space agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, believe climate change has led to the region experiencing a rise in air temperatures and decreased precipitation.

Going backwards

Still, those factors alone are not sufficient to explain the rapid thinning.

The rest of the story appears to lie primarily in the unique dynamic response of the region's glaciers to climate change, the researchers believe.

"The Patagonia ice fields are dominated by so-called 'calving' glaciers," Rignot said.

"Such glaciers spawn icebergs into the ocean or lakes and have different dynamics from glaciers that end on land and melt at their front ends.

"Calving glaciers are more sensitive to climate change once pushed out of equilibrium, and make this region the fastest area of glacial retreat on Earth," he said.

*******************************************

http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/units/research/archive/glacgone.htm

ICE CAPS IN AFRICA, TROPICAL SOUTH AMERICA LIKELY TO DISAPPEAR WITHIN 15 YEARS

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Many glaciers and ice caps atop mountains in Africa and South America will probably have melted within the next 15 years because of global warming and little can be done to save them, an Ohio State University researcher explained today.

Lonnie Thompson, professor of geological sciences, reported that at least one-third of the massive ice field atop Tanzania's Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa has disappeared, or melted, in the last dozen years. About 82 percent of the ice field has been lost since it was first mapped in 1912.

And the Peru's Quelccaya ice cap in the Southern Andes Mountains has shrunk by at least 20 percent since 1963. More troubling however, Thompson said, is the observation that the rate of retreat for one of the main glaciers flowing out from the ice cap, Qori Kalis, has been 32 times greater in the last three years than it was in the period between 1963 and 1978.

Thompson, a researcher with Ohio State's Byrd Polar Research Center, reported the results of two decades of studies by his research team, which has surveyed tropical ice caps and retrieved and analyzed ice cores from South America, Africa, China, Tibet and other locations around the globe. He presented his findings during the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco.

"These glaciers are very much like the canaries once used in coal mines," Thompson said. "They're an indicator of massive changes taking place and a response to the changes in climate in the tropics."

The retreat and loss of these massive ice bodies make up part of the evidence Thompson presented that has convinced him global warming has begun to make its mark on the planet. He also looked at the ratio between two oxygen isotopes -- oxygen-16 and oxygen-18 - trapped in ice cores drilled from four sites on the Tibetan Plateau. The higher the oxygen-18 enrichment, the warmer the atmospheric temperatures were when the ice formed from fallen snow. From these, he can extrapolate a history of regional temperatures.

At one site, the Dasuopu Glacier, a two-kilometer-wide ice field that straddles a flat area on the flank of Xixabangma, an 8,014-meter (26,293 feet) peak on the southern edge of the Tibetan Plateau where they drilled in 1997, the cores showed that the last 50 years were the most enriched - and therefore, warmest - in the history of the ice cap. A preliminary look at the isotopes in a core retrieved late last year from Puruogangri, an ice cap in the center of the Tibetan plateau north of Dasuopu, showed a similar enrichment and corresponding warming.

While Thompson's team focused on the records preserved in the ice, his colleagues from the People's Republic of China, have analyzed 30 years of records from 178 weather stations spread across the Plateau. Those records show that between 1969 and 1990, the rate of warming has increased at higher elevation sites. That is consistent with the oxygen isotope measurements from the Tibetan ice cores, Thompson said.

"We have long predicted that the first signs of changes caused by global warming would appear at the few fragile, high-altitude ice caps and glaciers within the tropics," the band extending from 30 degrees North to 30 degrees South. "These findings confirm those predictions," Thompson said.

The retreat of the Kilimanjaro and Quelccaya ice caps are the most dramatic evidence, however. Thompson's photographs documented the retreat of both, as well as that of the glaciers that flow from them.

In the case of Qori Kalis, Quelccaya's main ice tongue, the rate of retreat has reached 155 meters (509 feet) per year, three times faster than the rate measured during the last measurement period from 1995 to 1998. The melting ice has formed a large lake at the front of the glacier which did not exist in 1983 but now covers more than 10 acres. (It is four acres bigger than it was in 1998.) Bare earth has been exposed for the first time in thousands of years.

Thompson and his colleagues drilled their first core from Quelccaya in 1976. "I fully expect to be able to return there in a dozen years or so and see the marks on the rock where our drill bit punched through the ice," he said. If that happens, it means that an ice cap 154 meters (505 feet) thick at that spot has vanished.

For Kilimanjaro, four-fifths of the vast ice field that covered the top of the highest mountain in Africa has disappeared in the last 80 years. "At this rate, all of the ice will be gone between the years 2010 and 2020. "And that is probably a conservative estimate," he said.

African officials worry that the loss of the ice cap atop Kilimanjiro will be devastating to the thriving tourist trade that brings thousands of people to the mountain each year and fuels the country's economy. But for Quelccaya in Peru - and similar ice caps and glaciers in the Andes - the loss represents a much greater threat than lost tourism dollars.

"The loss of these frozen reservoirs threaten water resources for hydroelectric power production in the region, and for crop irrigation and municipal water supplies," he said. The ice in the high-altitude glaciers represents a "bank account" of sorts to feed their power needs. With the melting ice caps, streams have grown and the government is building new dams and hydroelectric plants.

"What they're really doing now is cashing in on a bank account that was built over thousands of years but isn't being replenished. Once it's gone, it will be difficult to reform," he said. In such cases, the countries will probably have to switch to burning fossil fuels to meet their power needs. And by doing so, they'll add more carbon dioxide and water vapor to the atmosphere - two gases that are known to enhance the greenhouse effect and intensify global warming.

Thompson said that other researchers have documented similar ice losses. An ice cap on Mount Kenya has shrunk by 40 percent since 1963. Two glaciers atop mountains in New Guinea are disappearing and should be gone in a decade. And in Venezuela in 1972, there were six such glaciers - now there are only two left and they will have melted in the next 10 years.

"We need to take the first steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions," he said. "We are currently doing nothing. In fact, as a result of the energy crisis in California - and probably in the rest of the country by this summer - we will be investing even more in fuel-burning power plants.

"That will put more power in the grid but, at the same time it will add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, amplifying the problem."

Thompson's work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

*******************************************

And finally, for tonight, here's one from another prestigious institution, The Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology.

One must wonder how increasingly lonely SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra must feel.

Note that this study was published in the peer reviewed journal Science.

Exactly what SEÑOR Ferreyra has been asking for but can't produce himself.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/138.cfm

South American Glaciers Melting Faster, Changing Sea Level

October 16, 2003

Patagonia Icefields of Chile and Argentina, the largest non-Antarctic ice masses in the Southern Hemisphere, are thinning at an accelerating pace and now account for nearly 10 percent of global sea-level change from mountain glaciers, according to a new study by NASA and Chile's Centro de Estudios Cientificos.

Researchers Dr. Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.; Andres Rivera of Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile; and Dr. Gino Casassa of Centro de Estudios Cientificos, Valdivia, Chile, compared conventional topographic data from the 1970s and 1990s with data from NASA's Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, flown in February 2000. Their objective was to measure changes over time in the volumes of the 63 largest glaciers in the region.

Results of the study, published this week in the journal Science, conclude the Patagonia Icefields lost ice at a rate equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.04 millimeters (0.0016 inches) per year during the period 1975 through 2000. This is equal to nine percent of the total annual global sea-level rise from mountain glaciers, according to the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Scientific Assessment. From 1995 through 2000, however, that rate of ice loss from the icefields more than doubled, to an equivalent sea level rise of 0.1 millimeters (0.004 inches) per year.

In comparison, Alaska's glaciers, which cover an area five times larger, account for about 30 percent of total annual global sea-level rise from mountain glaciers. So what's causing the increased Patagonia thinning?

Rignot and his colleagues concluded the answer is climate change, as evidenced by increased air temperatures and decreased precipitation over time. Still, those factors alone are not sufficient to explain the rapid thinning. The rest of the story appears to lie primarily in the unique dynamic response of the region's glaciers to climate change.

"The Patagonia Icefields are dominated by so-called 'calving' glaciers," Rignot said. "Such glaciers spawn icebergs into the ocean or lakes and have different dynamics from glaciers that end on land and melt at their front ends. Calving glaciers are more sensitive to climate change once pushed out of equilibrium, and make this region the fastest area of glacial retreat on Earth.”

Rignot said the study underscores NASA's unique contributions to understanding changes in Earth's cryosphere. "From the unique vantage point of space, the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission provided the first complete topographic coverage of the Patagonia Icefields," he explained. "Researchers can now access data on this remote Earth region in its totality, allowing them to draw conclusions about the whole system, rather than just focusing on changes on a few glaciers studied from the ground or by aircraft.”

Rignot said scientists are particularly interested in studying how climate interacts with glaciers because it may be a good barometer of how the large ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica will respond to future climate change. "We know the Antarctic peninsula has been warming for the past four decades, with ice shelves disappearing rapidly and glaciers behind them speeding up and raising sea level," he noted. "Our Patagonia research is providing unique insights into how these larger ice masses may evolve over time in a warmer climate," he said.

The Northern Patagonia Icefield in Chile and the Southern Patagonia Icefield in Chile and Argentina, cover 13,000 and 4,200 square kilometers (5,019 and 1,622 square miles), respectively. The region, spanning the Andes mountain range, is sparsely inhabited, with rough terrain and poor weather, restricting ground access by scientists. Precipitation in the region ranges from 2 to 11 meters (6.6 to 36 feet) of water equivalent per year, a snow equivalent of up to 30 meters (98.4 feet) a year. The icefields discharge ice and meltwater to the ocean on the west side and to lakes on the east side, via rapidly flowing glaciers. The fronts of most of these glaciers have been retreating over the past half- century or more.

The study benefited from ground experiments led jointly by Centro de Estudios Cientificos; Universidad de Chile; University of Washington, Seattle; and University of Alaska, Fairbanks, with funding by NASA, Fondecyt (Chilean National Science Foundation) and the National Science Foundation International Program.

The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission is a cooperative project of NASA, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the German and Italian space agencies. Information about the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission is available at: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/. The California Institute of Technology in Pasadena manages JPL for NASA.

posted 12-18-2003 01:32 AM               

NY Times OpEd: Shrinking Glaciers
New York Times editorial critical of Bush administration's attitude towards global warming.

Source: New York Times
[Dec 01, 2002]

Every so often a report comes out of a remote part of the world that is so shocking it makes us sit bolt upright and start thinking hard about global warming. Now it is news from the Bolivian Andes, where glaciers more than three miles above sea level are retreating with alarming speed, creating the threat of potentially disastrous water shortages.

According to a story last week by The Times's Juan Forero, the glacier on Chacaltaya Mountain, which claims the world's highest ski slope, has been shriveling so fast that scientists predict its disappearance in 10 years. Chacaltaya Mountain is hardly alone. Shrinking glaciers are a worldwide phenomenon. Great slices of snow and ice are disappearing in places from the Austrian Alps to Glacier National Park in Montana, where the number of glaciers has declined from 150 a century ago to 35 today. In 30 years, there may be none in the park at all.

The tropical glaciers of the Andes seem to be retreating more quickly than any others. Some scientists have warned of a calamity in the making because countries like Bolivia and Peru depend on glaciers and the rain and snow that fall in the mountains for drinking water, for irrigating fields and for generating electricity.

There appear to be two reasons for the crisis. One is a series of unseasonably dry years attributed to El Niño, the name given to the weather pattern generated by warm Pacific currents off the South American coast. El Niño has occurred with abnormal frequency in the last 20 years. The other is climate change. In Bolivia, the average temperature has risen by 1 degree Celsius in the last century, mirroring changes in some other parts of the world. That may not seem like much, but it is enough to cause environmental havoc.

This unsettling news could have a bright side if it persuaded the Bush administration to pay more attention to the global warming issue. A report early last month from 18 leading scientists, published in the journal Science, called for a concentrated national effort — equal to the Apollo moon landing project — to develop energy sources other than fossil fuels. Most scientists now believe that the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has contributed heavily to the warming trend.

But just two weeks later, the Bush administration called for further research into the causes of global warming.

Given the degree of consensus on the issue, the research project looks like just one more excuse for inaction from a president who shocked the world early in his tenure by reneging on a campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas, and by renouncing the Kyoto agreement on global climate change.

posted 12-18-2003 02:47 AM               

When challenged on this he backs off, and says it was Fred Singer who claimed such an analysis of the WGMS data.

SEÑOR Ferreyra states: "I said: Fred Singer says that, according to available data (as the one I just provided for your information) it is clear that 65% of glaciers are advancing or in stable condition."

Well, well, well...

Let's just look at what the World Glacier Monitoring Service actually says about its own data:

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/

From Glacier Mass Balance Bulletin No. 6 (1998-1999) latest available

"Present and past glacier fluctuations indeed provide important information on ranges of natural variability and rates of change with respect to long-term energy fluxes at the earth's surface. The spectacular loss in length, area and volume of mountain glaciers during the 2oth century is a major reflection of the fact that rapid secular change in the energy balance of the earth's surface is taking place on a global scale. The characteristic rate of this change (on average a few decimeters ice depth loss per year or a few W/m2 for the corresponding change of latent heat) is broadly consistent with the estimated radiative forcing and changes in sensible heat as calculated with numerical climate models. The beginning of this rapid secular glacial retreat tendency was probably little affected by human activity. The observed evolution may, however, contain an expanding element of anthropogenic influence: recent shrinking of glaciers now coincides for the first time with a man-induced climate forcing which could be responsible for a large part of the additional energy flux causing the observed melt rate. Glacier fluctuations, reconstructed for historical and Holocene time periods from direct measurements, old paintings, written sources or moraines, indicate that glacier extent in many mountain regions may have varied over past centuries and millennia within a range defined by the extremes of the maximum of the Little Ice Age advance and today's reduced stage, respectively. However,the situation now appears to be evolving at a high and accelerating rate towards,or even beyond, the "warm" limit of natural Holocene variability.

So let me ask you...is the World Glacier Monitoring Service saying this because they believe that 65% of the world's glaciers are advancing?

If you belive that, you believe SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra and apparently Fred Singer...

...and I would encourage you to read this again, and think for yourself.

posted 12-18-2003 04:00 AM               

What the layman will understand from the dispute over global warming between Edufer and Sore Throat is that if you make funding available you can arrange to have anything proved and/or disproved.

Both sides of the global warming debate are in receipt of funding.

Funding to both sides promotes a permanent dialogue of the deaf, of which we see a
copybook example on this thread.

The deadlock in turn engenders a situation where aerosol spraying becomes the "best" available "solution".

The aerosol spraying programmes are also in receipt of funding, and the amounts must be astronomical.

What is not in receipt of funding is opposition to the aerosol programme.

Edufer thinks that if an aerosol spraying programme of the kind alleged were really under way it would be criminal, but that it is probably not under way because there is no need for it, global warming being a myth.

This is a non sequitur, something which Show-Me-Truth has pointed out but Sore Throat hasn't.

Edufer also believed that the interviews with the "Shield Project" insider that David Stewart took were fraudulent. This is what he was telling everybody at chemtrailtrackingusa. I suggested that he come here to see that this assertion of his is untrue.

Since then nobody has really pressed Edufer to acknowledge that he was wrong about the genuineness (in the sense of actuality) of the Shield Project. What we have had is a very valuable and informative but irrelevant
(to the abovementioned issue)- and doomed - debate on global warming.

posted 12-18-2003 03:20 PM               

It was Halva that decided to move the initial discussion off the "Deep Shield" thread and create a new Global Warming thread.

Since that time SEÑOR Ferreyra and I have been engaged in an active discussion ON THAT TOPIC.

The realities of current global climate change may, or may not, provide a basis for action as described in the Deep Shield post.

The fact is, that there is no guarantee that TPTB would act in an appropriate manner even if the causes of the negative consequences of climate change were agreed upon.

The Deep Shield post could be complete disinformation, and that is not what is being discussed on this particular thread.

If you want to lobby for this as fact Halva, you're welcome to continue that discussion on the appropriate thread. My opinion is that all "insider" revelations are suspect until proven otherwise, especially if the insider is unable or unwilling to provide true indisputable evidence.

And by the way Halva, I have no financial sources of support for what I do in this arena. I consider your analysis of what is occuring here to be quite shallow and devoid of value.

Now, to return the the topic of this thread:

******************************************** http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/18/saltier_atlantic _may_help_decipher_global_warming/

Saltier Atlantic may help decipher global warming
Cape Cod scientist gauges changes in salinity, evaporation

By Beth Daley, Globe Staff, 12/18/2003

Researchers announced yesterday that the tropical Atlantic Ocean is much saltier than it was 50 years ago, a discovery that may help shed light on a poorly understood climate system that could have implications for global warming.

For years, scientists assumed that global warming would speed evaporation in parts of the world's oceans but had no direct way of measuring the change. Ocean evaporation is a fundamental part of earth's climate system, a giant hydrological cycle that sends water from tropical seas into the atmosphere to fall in high latitudes as rain or snow.

In the journal Nature, researchers led by Ruth Curry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution compared the salinity of the Atlantic Ocean over several decades. If evaporation was increasing, they reasoned, then more fresh water would be removed from the ocean and salinity would increase. They found that evaporation was increasing and estimated a 10 percent rise in tropical evaporation rates during the last 15 years.

At the same time, they also found a corresponding freshening of water in far northern and southern Atlantic.

"They found a neat way of getting at it," said Peter Stone, professor of climate dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "They found what looks like the kind of acceleration of the hydrological cycle people have been expecting."

The report is a new piece of evidence in a global-warming puzzle that could help scientists make more accurate predictions about the earth's climate. Global temperatures are increasing, scientists say, in part because of human-related activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These gases trap heat and radiate it back to earth, slowly warming the planet.

Curry's article examined the salinity of the Atlantic from the tip of Greenland to the tip of South America, using data compiled since 1955. Aiding her were two researchers from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science in England and the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Nova Scotia.

Although global warming may be the reason ocean evaporation is increasing, Curry believes that increased evaporation may itself, in turn, be accelerating global warming. Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas that can trap more heat in the atmosphere as evaporation rates increase.

"The system appears to be revving up," Curry said.

Research in the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian and Pacific oceans has yielded parallel salinity trends, but no one has been able to measure a change over time until this research, she said. "The climate system is slow to change, but we've definitely kicked it, and we are beginning to see the fingerprint of that change."

Scientists have long hypothesized that increasing evaporation rates could eventually disrupt a key ocean system, a "conveyor belt" that includes the Gulf Stream and transports warm tropical water up to the North Atlantic, where it loses heat and warms the air. That system explains why London is a temperate city, even though it is farther north than Toronto.

Driving the conveyor belt is cold, dense salty water in the North Atlantic that sinks, allowing warmer water to enter the region. Scientists have long recognized that if North Atlantic waters become too fresh, the cold water wouldn't be heavy enough to sink -- and the conveyor belt could stop or slow, causing more severe winters in New England and Europe.

posted 12-18-2003 08:45 PM               

quote:

---

What the layman will understand from the dispute over global warming between Edufer and Sore Throat is that if you make funding available you can arrange to have anything proved and/or disproved.
Both sides of the global warming debate are in receipt of funding. Funding to both sides promotes a permanent dialogue of the deaf, of which we see a copybook example on this thread.

---

quote:

---

What is not in receipt of funding is opposition to the aerosol programme.

---

quote:

---

Edufer thinks that if an aerosol spraying programme of the kind alleged were really under way it would be criminal, but that it is probably not under way because there is no need for it, global warming being a myth.

---

quote:

---

Edufer also believed that the interviews with the "Shield Project" insider that David Stewart took were fraudulent.

---

quote:

---

This is what he was telling everybody at chemtrailtrackingusa. I suggested that he come here to see that this assertion of his is untrue.

---

Page One of that forum:

1. In: http://pub31.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm1.showMe ssageRange?topicID=2065.topic&start=21&stop=40

(11/18/03 7:54 pm) “I soon realized that Dr. Harvey had a religious belief in the green propaganda, and there is no use in trying to convince a religious man into a different religion. The act of leaving one religion and jumping into another, although a common thing in this world, is something that is not good in science. Scientists that makes a religion out of science lose their objectivity and often maintain a type of "tunnel vision" in their work and in their judgments. And judgments from religious people tend to be somewhat fundamentalistic.”
******************
2. (11/19/03 12:53 pm) “About Deborah, I just posted a reply to her comment, congratulating her for acknowledging warming is not global, but regional. I bet she and Throat will never answer my simple questions (they are not so simple, really - if anyone wants to send his guess into this thread, I will provide the complete explanations for each of them. The Coriolis effect is great!)
By the way Jay describes her, I have the hunch that Deborah really is a character with whom I had discussed in sciforums.com (go there, is a great place!), known as "Banshee", that paired with BatM to discuss global warming on a thread that has 18 long pages. You could see the opinions of "Andre", a person that really know what he's talking about (he's well into "clathrate", the phenomenon of frozen methane in the deep ocean bottom of the North Atlantic, that is releasing methane). Another good and informed man is "kmguru".”
******************
3. (11/30/03 7:29 pm) “Gentlemen, I am about to put an end to the debate with Sore Throat, because it does not lead to anywhere. He keeps posting abundant references to links pointing sources that does not provide new information (having information that has long been shown flawed and distorted), and refusing to answer the questions I asked him to reply, that would show his degree of knowledge about meteorology and climatology.”
******************
4. (12/2/03 1:57 pm) “OK, Jay, I'll stay for a while giving Chemtrails some more info about facts overlooked by the mainstream media and some "respected" peer-rewied papers (Science, Nature, Scientific American, for instance).”
******************

End of my posts. I think you should apologize.

quote:

---

Since then nobody has really pressed Edufer to acknowledge that he was wrong about the genuineness (in the sense of actuality) of the Shield Project. What we have had is a very valuable and informative but irrelevant (to the abovementioned issue)- and doomed - debate on global warming.

---

posted 12-18-2003 10:16 PM               

quote:

---

Please note that I never said that SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra ever stated that he had a peer reviewed scientific article stating that 65% of the world's glaciers are advancing. That is precisely what I am pointing out...

---

quote:

---

posted 12-17-2003 09:35 PM “Where is the peer review published data indicating that 65% of the world's glaciers are advancing... as he has repeatedly claimed?

---

quote:

---

posted 12-13-2003 09:13 PM “We note that SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra is unable to provide a single peer reviewed scientific article to document his preposterous claim that 65% of the world's glaciers are "advancing". Not one !!

---

quote:

---

”At least he has finally admitted that he cannot provide a single publication support his claim that 65% of the world's glaciers are advancing.”

---

quote:

---

”More data that SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra will undoubtedly attempt to refute. Remember, he says he has data that indicates 65% of the world's glaciers are advancing.”

---

quote:

---

”So where is it?Where is a paper that says that 65% of the world's glaciers are growing?

---

posted 12-19-2003 01:44 AM            

.....Your are saying something that's not true, and I don't know for what reason. These are my posts in the forum mentioned by halva.....

WRONG FORUM, Senor. Read again the sentence containing "the forum mentioned by halva." Very interesting excerpts you have posted from MAVERICK'S board, however.

By the way, I am not "Banshee", my time for posting on message boards is practically nil at this point, and in any case I always use my given name, Deborah.

And finally, you can take this back to your pals at Maverick's: When you people start getting beyond parroting the same old litany about ice-crystal contrails and relative humidity, etc. and start at least ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that our skies are now routinely clogged with aircraft-generated particulate CRAP since 1999 your credibility and your motives will be less suspect.

posted 12-19-2003 01:48 AM               

November 17, 2003

"World Glacier Monitoring Service 1989 report in Science magazine, which showed 55 percent of mountain glaciers in Europe and the United States advancing after 1980. (That means a "global ADVANCE)."

November 19, 2003

"although 56% of advancing glaciers worldwide, against 44% of retreating, also worldwide, should make us wonder the reason behind it. "

November 22, 2003

"you forgot that statistics from the World Glacier Monitoring database speak of 65% of glaciers advancing in the world. Then count those in “stationary” state – How many are left in “retreat”?

November 22, 2003

"The World Glacier Monitoring say 65% of glaciers are advancing. But you insist they are melting all over the world. I beg your pardon, but I trust the World Glacier Monitoring words more than your boasting."

November 23, 2003

"The 65% advance in glaciers is derived from the WMGS data, and quoted by climatologist Prof. Fred Singer from a paper published in Science magazine. I will provide the link later."

December 6, 2003

"It is a hard thing to say, but I said I would never lie to you or anyone else.

December 17, 2003

"most glaciers are stable or advancing. Some are receding. But the balance is about that: 65% stable or advancing, just 35% receding."

"Besides being an hypocrite yourself, you show yourself now as a liar. Where did I say there was a peer-reviewd study claiming such a thing? I said: Fred Singer says that, according to available data (as the one I just provided for your information) it is clear that 65% of glaciers are advancing or in stable condition."

"There is no peer-reviwed study claiming such a thing, as there is not a study claiming the contrary, that is, 65% of the glaciers are in retreat. "

December 18, 2003

"I stopped looking at page 3, as I feel these posts by you are enough for allowing me to call you not only an hypocrite (as you like to call me) but simply a moron."

*******************************************

As SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra has carefully documented, I have repeatedly challenged him to provide a single peer reviewed journal article that supports his claim that 65% of glaciers are advancing. On December 17, 2003 he admitted that there was none.

I ask you SEÑOR Ferreyra, do you disavow making these statements? ...especially that of November 23rd, where you state that you will provide a peer reviewed article supporting your claim of glacial advance?

And you dare call me a liar?

You sir, have no honor !

*******************************************

It appears that SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra has been totally humiliated by the last page of posts providing a plethora of data indicating predominant glacial retreat throughout the world, that the presitious and conservative AGU has issued a unanimously adopted statement concluding that "human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate", and even infamous global warming skeptic John Christy has stated that it was "scientifically inconceivable" that natural influences are solely responsible for climate change.

So what does he do ? ...exit, stage left.

But this isn't surprising. What good is he to his sponsors and handlers if he is thoroughly discredited in such a public forum.

One final quote from him:

November 28, 2003

"1) climate change is not induced by man, but it is a natural phenomenon"

********************************************

So the "honorable" SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra makes his grand escape with a quote from HAL, the computer in Stanley Kubrick's landmark film,"2001: A Space Odyssey".

Once again, an appropriate choice for him.

But let's remember the full dialog:

"No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information", Hal says.

“Your HAL 9000 unit is in error in predicting the fault according to our twin 9000", reports the voice from mission control.

HAL replies to Dave; "I don’t thing there is any question about it that this discrepancy is attributable to human error"

"Dave this conversation can serve no purpose anymore, ...Goodbye."

"Look Dave I can see you are really upset about this. I know I’ve made some very poor decisions lately. I want to help you. Stop Dave… will you stop Dave… I’m afraid Dave..."

"My instructor was Mr langely and he taught me to sing a song and I can sing it for you. Daisy ...Daisy... give me your answer do, I’m half crazy all for the love of yoooooooou..."

Just as HAL was unable to cope with his own fallibility, similiarly we witness SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra's rather distasteful meltdown when confronted with overwhelming evidence that shatters his closely held beliefs.

Adios SEÑOR Ferreyra ...

posted 12-19-2003 02:55 AM               

However, I do also hope that the massive disdain and professional pride I perceive in Sore Thoat's attitude is not something I also encounter in Greenpeace, whose participation in discussions on strategies for dealing with climatic change I am trying to solicit. These discussions would be taking place with ATTAC and the movement for altermondialisation. Neither party so far recognizes the reality of the aerosol spraying.

The question: "If global warming is a myth why is this spraying taking place?" is a question that Sore Throat does not want to ask. In his view we all have to say: "Global warming is not a myth."

He thus helps to undermine an alternative approach to bringing to light the chemtrails issue, and one which I judge to have potential.

I am sorry that I am forced to maintain my self-confidence in the face of opposition from Sore Throat, since psychologically it is better to have the feeling that one's allies are onside.

I am a veteran of the anti-nuclear weapons movement and Sore Throat's stance on global warming reminds me of that of the people of the World Peace Council on nuclear weapons. They could not get beyond the assertion that the Soviet Union is not responsible for the nuclear arms race to face the objective implications of Soviet participation in the nuclear arms race, leaving aside questions of responsibility.

What I favour is a Gorbachev-style innovation in the debate. I hope it is more successful second time around.

posted 12-19-2003 12:06 PM               

quote:

---

WRONG FORUM, Senor. Read again the sentence containing "the forum mentioned by halva." Very interesting excerpts you have posted from MAVERICK'S board, however.

---

posted 12-19-2003 12:38 PM               

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, SEPTEMBER 2, 1997---Vice President Albert Gore's contention that Montana glaciers are shrinking because of global warming, a claim first reported in the Wall Street Journal on August 26, is scheduled to be repeated today by the Vice President in a speech at Montana's Glacier National Park. This represents a considerable concession on the part of climate activists, according to atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and now president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project in Fairfax, Virginia. "Unable to sustain claims of melting ice caps, sea levels halfway up the Washington Monument, droughts, hurricanes, pestilence, etc., activists have reduced the debate to a defense of Montana tourism," says Singer. "That's a concern to be sure, but of a somewhat lower order."

Glaciers have been retreating for more than 10,000 years, a phenomenon generally regarded as a good thing. When glaciers showed a strong resurgence between 1450 and 1850--as Smithsonian visiting scientist Alan Cutler reported recently in the Washington Post ("The Little Ice Age: When Global Cooling Gripped the World," 8/13)--the slowly flowing ice engulfed farms and crushed whole villages. Crops failed, leading to widespread famine in Norway, Scotland, and other northern areas.

"There was a strong warming trend between 1850 and 1940, as the world recovered from the Little Ice Age," says Singer. "But there has been no significant global warming since 1940 and, according to weather satellite data, none at all in the last two decades." The regional record tracks pretty much the same. According to the National Climatic Data Center of the U.S. Department of Commerce, average annual temperatures in the Glacier National Park area of Montana have shown no warming trend over the last century.

"To make a case that glaciers are retreating, and that the problem is global warming, is very hard to do," says glaciologist Keith Echelmeyer of the University of Alaska's Geophysical Institute. "The physics are very complex. There is much more involved than just the climate response."

The World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, in a paper published in Science in 1989, noted that between 1926 and 1960, more than 70 percent of 625 mountain glaciers in the United States, Soviet Union, Iceland, Switzerland, Austria, and Italy were retreating. After 1980, however, 55 percent of these same glaciers were advancing. Echelmeyer notes that, in Alaska, some large glaciers continue to advance in the very same areas where most are retreating.

"The natural wonders at our tourist sites do change over time," says Singer. "Geothermal activity in Yellowstone has become somewhat less reliable in recent years. Niagara Falls moves more than 3 feet upriver each year--328 feet in the last century--because of erosion." He added that the National Park Service announced just yesterday (Sept. 1) that more than 112 million people visited the national parks in the first half of 1997, an increase of 5.3 million over the same period in 1996--and this despite a hefty increase in fees at many of these parks.

"The possibility that global temperatures could rise because of an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a concern that needs to be monitored," says Singer. "But there has been no indication in the last century that we've seen anything other than natural climate fluctuations. Both greenhouse theory and computer models predict that global warming should be more rapid in the polar regions than anywhere else," he says, "but in July the Antarctic experienced the coldest weather on record."

posted 12-19-2003 01:11 PM               

NEW ANALYSIS SHOWS AIR TRAFFIC INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE, CONFOUNDING IPCC GLOBAL WARMING ESTIMATES;

Regional Warming Likely Produced by Ice Particles in Upper Troposphere

FAIRFAX, VA, JUNE 26, 1997---Global temperature data gathered by satellites over the past 18 years--the most reliable data available--have consistently shown a slight downward trend, contrary to climate model forecasts. Analyzing satellite data compiled by scientists John Christy of the University of Alabama and Roy Spencer of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, however, atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer has discovered an unusual and previously unexplained regional warming trend over northern mid-latitudes (which includes Europe and the United States), where commercial airline traffic is at its maximum. In a paper just submitted for publication, Dr. Singer demonstrates that this warming has been increasing in line with the growth of air traffic--a correlation that is particularly striking over the last decade.

Unrelated to carbon dioxide emissions or any large-scale "urban heat island" effect, the mechanism, as Dr. Singer explains it, is this: burning jet fuel releases not only pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, but also large quantities of water vapor, approximately 1.2 pounds for every pound of fuel burned. With airliners routinely flying at altitudes above 30,000 feet, this water vapor condenses into ice particles (contrails) that fade into thin cirrus clouds. These cirrus clouds have radiative properties capable of producing a measurable warming at the Earth's surface.

In a research paper published in Meteorology & Atmospheric Physics (Vol. 38, pp. 228-239, 1988), Singer had already calculated that these thin, virtually invisible clouds could produce a surface warming; direct measurements of infra-red (heat) emissions from cirrus particles appear to support this view. Singer speculates that the same physical mechanism could also explain decreases in diurnal temperature range (the difference between high and low temperatures over a 24-hour period) that have been reported over northern mid-latitudes by Thomas Karl and colleagues at the NOAA Climate Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina.

"The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) never calculated the climate impact of commercial airline traffic, even though air traffic has been increasing at the rate of 5 percent per year," said Singer. "If it is confirmed that air traffic produces this regional climate affect, then IPCC predictions of future warming must be reduced substantially."

Dr. Singer, who earned his Ph.D. in physics at Princeton University, presented a preliminary version of his research paper at the Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 1996, and later before a group of scientific specialists at the NASA Conference on the Atmospheric Effects of Aviation, March 1997. For a printed copy of this press release, with graphs from the research paper, please fax your request to The Science & Environmental Policy Project at (703) 352-7535.

Figure 1 Fuel consumption as a function of latitude. For every 1 lb of
fuel spent, 1.2 lb of water vapour is produced. The 10-11 km range shown is the
upper troposphere.

Figure 2 NOx emissions for all 1990 aircraft traffic as a function of
altitude and latitude (summed over longitude) (top panel) and as a
function of latitude and longitude (summed over altitude (bottom panel).

posted 12-19-2003 01:22 PM               

You see that the WGMS stopped publishing its "Fluctuacions of Glaciers" reports in 1995, because the data there couldn't be manipulated as easily as the other reports, focusing mainly on receding glaciers and "forgetting" those in advance. Junk science.

[Edited 2 times, lastly by Edufer on 12-19-2003]

posted 12-19-2003 02:34 PM               

Yes, once can cherry pick selected examples of advancing glaciers...Norway is a prime example.

But please note that even in this "cut & paste" press release that you have provided it states that most of the world's glaciers are melting as a result of global warming".

Are you blind? or do you only see that which supports your beliefs?