Thanks to Luke Walker for alerting me to this story:
WESTERN EUROPE’S HIGHEST SUMMIT GETS TALLER
CHARMONIX, France, Oct 13, 2007 (AFP) – Western Europe’s highest mountain Mont Blanc is taller than ever due to snow piled atop its summit, in what experts meeting in France Saturday described as a climate-change related phenomenon.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Let me think…
This proves anthropogenic global warming.
I know that. Can you guess why?
Because any change in that sort of stuff is blamed on AGW.
Even though global temperatures peaked in 1998 and seem to be dropping off.
That’s a darn shame. I was hoping for a return to the Medieval Optimum.
Shewt.
Well Schiller you do have to have the intellectual ability to read the article. What’s your theory on why it’s happening? God?
Any resulting avalanches will be evidence of global warming while the increased volume in the glaciers will be ignored because it is at the inconvenient top of the hill, not the bottom where the photographers can remain in their car and still get their crappy snaps.
Well, it’s obvious. As the Earth warms up, it expands and the mountains expand, too. I suppose a lot of people might believe that.
Schiller – are you keeping temperature records from Uranus? I suppose it doesn’t matter if the top half of the world was 20 degree warmer and the bottom half was 20 degrees colder cos then there would be no increase in global temperatures right?
While your fiddling with your instruments over there, care to explain the latest Arctic sea ice melt season – beating the previous record by 20% when the decadal average is 10% decline looks a little strange don’t ya think?
Ian, repeat after me. Snow is not ice. Ice is not snow. Try this for a couple of days…
Anthony,
Compacted snow becomes ice. That’s how the ice dome of Antarctica was formed.
And Arctic sea ice could be responding to wind, not just warming.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JC002678.shtml
thanks for the geology lesson Davey – now I can sit back and relax while the arctic melts…
Paul, they are using a model. By the reasoning on this blog that means the result is meaningless, unreliable, unverifiable, manipulated, bogus etc etc. But your right, lets just dismiss seas ice melt as being down to wind.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml
nothing to do with temperature of course.
Anthony, you’ve just demonstrated typical warmongering logic. What do the words “could” and “not just” in my post mean to you?
It seems to me that global warming on Mars was just dismissed as being down to wind.
I’m just saying.
They suggest to me you are distancing yourself from a position you would like to endorse because it suits your purpose, but are reluctant do endorse because you realise to do so would make you an idiot.
Paul, two questions.
Do you think wind (regardless of the wind temp) is the principle cause of the melt?
Do you think models are reliable in assessing climate outcomes?
Anthony, more warmongering style debate from you I’m afraid. Not really good enough. Yawn. What do you hope to achieve by misrepresenting my comment in the way that you have?
If your first question is asking; do I think more than 50% of the reduction in Arctic sea ice is caused by wind rather than warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions?
then the answer is maybe. If you’re asking do I think the reduction is caused by something other than warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions then I would say almost certainly.
Your second question is too open to interpretation and misrepresentation to be worth answering, although it seems obvious that you are trying to score internet debating points, for some reason.
Bravo Paul.. the answer to the first question is maybe – strong and convincing I hear the audience cry!
So if it’s not CO2 and it might be wind, do you care to offer any other alternative hypothesis or are you happy to leave it ambiguous?
Paul, I think any chimp would find my second question pretty stragit forward, why don’t you try again?
Do you think that physical relationships between various climate variables can be accurately described and used reliably in model simulations of the real world?
If the answer is no – then i’m afraid wind is not your friend unless yuo dig up some other reference. If the answer is yes – then we can cross the old ‘models are bunkum’ argument from the 10 reasons not to beleive in AGW list. Your choice.
Anthony, the answer to your reframed second question is “it depends”. I doubt that GCMs can accurately model the totality of global climate over long periods. More limited models may be able to model some aspects of limited areas for short time intervals with a degree of accuracy.
That’s my opinion.
But that answer won’t satisfy an internet warmonger, will it?
Anthony,
The fact that snow turns to ice when it is compressed is not geology – that is the study of rocks. Physics is the discipline you seek.
Davey, you are clearly well educated there mate. So if all the ice in the world was melted, evaporated and returned as snow do you think that would be a problem?
Or can we assume that if the amount of ice melt is equal to the amount of snow fall, everything is hunky dorey?
Paul – as for your opinion – If you ram yourself any harder onto that fence you might have some health issues.
Anthony, that’s just gratuitous crap from you. So let’s hear your considered opinion on models.
The usual dishonest twist pushed by the AGW Fraternity…The headlines screamed… “Mont Blanc, the highest mountain in France and western Europe, has grown mor than two metres in two years….ironically as a result of global warming.”
The truth is that the Mont Blanc glacier has doubled in size in four years.
The volume of ice on Mont Blanc’s slopes over 4800 metres high was first calculated at 14,600 cubic metres in 2003. It dropped 14,300 cubic metres two years later, but almost doubled to 24,100 cubic metres in 2007.
Just like thousands of other glaciers around the world…Advancing!
However, with a fully compliant media, showing not a sign of investigative journalism on the claims of the AGW industry, they can get away with anything.
We’ve all heard it before, ‘If glaciers shrink and retreat, it’s “global warming”. If they advance and expand and pack on more ice, it’s still “global warming”.
my considered opinion appears after more ranting on the China emissions thread.
Sid, the mountain grew because of snow dump, not glacier growth. Meanwhile, in nearby antarctica, ice melt smashed the previous record by 20%. All that ice has to go somewhere right?
Had internet problems since yesterday, and just back on the air.
Anthony, you are so right and yet so wrong.
‘The monntain grew because of the snow dump’. Right.
The snow dump grew because of “global warming”. Wrong…And how incredibly stupid. Yet that what the article says.
The fact is that the snow dump grew because “global warming” only exists in the virtual world of ‘computer models’, and in fact extremely cold conditions and extremely heavy snow falls created the snow dump.
And guess what you can learn in Yr. 7 Geography?
Snowfalls on mountains turn to ice and form glaciers which push down the slopes. Colder climatic conditions and heavy snow at the source causes glaciers to advance. Warmer conditions and less snow at the source causes the glacier to retreat.
Well it appears that the Mont Blanc glacier will be advancing for some time…”global warming” indeed!
Wow ice melt in antarctica. Does ice melt below zero? Better give us some facts on that one.
sorry sid, Arctic.
So if the ice in the arctic keeps melting and the snows get heavier and heavier, what happens then?
Can’t melt eh?
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0215-ice_streams.html