Glaciergate is worse than you think

Tim Lambert points us to this excellent analysis by John Nielsen-Gammon and the Glaciergate story is perhaps even worse than we first thought. This is not just a simple error or transcription problem.

the available evidence indicates that the IPCC authors of this section relied upon a secondhand, unreferreed source which turned out to be unreliable, and failed to identify this source.

Nielsen-Gammon also finds a remarkable consistency between the IPCC statement (on the left in the panel below) and a statement at the India Environment Portal (on the right in the panel below).

The inartfulness of the transfer of verbiage from the IEP to the IPCC explains the first word (“Its”) of the second IPCC sentence: there’s no single noun to which “Its” can refer in the IPCC quote, but in the IEP quote, “Its” refers to “The glacier” (poor English, but singular) in the previous sentence. To me, this is like a fingerprint: I am convinced that the IPCC author paraphrased the IEP article and leaving off or altering the references.

It just doesn’t look good at all.

He is also able to track down a potential origin of the 2035 date (emphasis added).

According to Kotlyakov, the loss of 80% of the extrapolar glaciation on the Earth’s surface will be by 2350, not 2035. And even after 2350 there will still be some glaciers surviving in the Karakoram, the Himalayas, and in parts of Tibet.

There are other errors too.

Recall that the IPCC quote referred to a table. The table lists the retreat of 8 Himalayan glaciers. Only one such retreat is as stated in the WWF report. Another retreat, recorded as 2840 m from 1845-1966, is listed as a rate of 134 m/yr, but the actual rate is 23 m/yr. Whoever did the calculation for the IPCC divided by 21 years instead of 121 years! The rest of the values are from other, unnamed sources.

Lambert’s own analysis is also quite interesting. He looks at the reviewing process itself.

There was no cite at all for the claim and more than one reviewer noted that a citation was needed. If the chapter authors had followed this comment, all would have been well:

I am not sure that this is true for the very large Karakoram glaciers in the western Himalaya. Hewitt (2005) suggests from measurements that these are expanding – and this would certainly be explained by climatic change in precipitation and temperature trends seen in the Karakoram region (Fowler and Archer, J Climate in press; Archer and Fowler, 2004) You need to quote Barnett et al.’s 2005 Nature paper here – this seems very similar to what they said. (Hayley Fowler, Newcastle University)

But the response was this:

Was unable to get hold of the suggested references will consider in the final version

Instead the authors added to a cite to this WWF report, which says

“In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”.

And here we see the perils of lazy citing. The IPCC report should have cited the WGHG/ICSI report, but the authors weren’t able to get hold of it. If they had, they would have found that it doesn’t say anything about the glaciers disappearing by 2035. The WWF report authors hadn’t seen the WGHG report either, but relied on this New Scientist story, by a reporter that hadn’t seen the report either, but had talked to the author of the WGHG report.

So Lambert concludes its all about lazy citation. But that isn’t what he has found. The IPCC state that they are unable “to get hold of the suggested references” but that isn’t the WGHG/ICSI report they can’t get hold of. The reviewer is suggesting they get hold of a paper in Nature. Furthermore the reviewer is saying that the peer-reviewed literature is suggesting that glaciers are expanding not melting away. The IPCC ignore that, claim they can’t find a reference in Nature, and then publish the false information anyway.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Glaciergate is worse than you think

  1. daddy dave

    Credit where it’s due to Lambert for looking at this with clear, critical eyes.

  2. C.L.

    Dave, he was actually trying to dishonestly dismiss it as a bibliographical oversight.

    As I pointed out on the other thread, the Glaciergate fraud was deliberate propaganda. More generally, the whole point of the IPCC was to “prove” catastrophic and saleably imminent “AGW.”

  3. daddy dave

    ah, I see you are right. and yes, glaciergate wasn’t just a slip of the tongue.
    I hope they issue a retraction in every class in every school where they’ve taught this rubbish.

  4. Tim R

    Lambert’s deluded.

    Anyway, you’d expect the IPCC – who will ultimately be responsible for significant reduction in human prosperity (ie: human life) – would have the decency to think a little more critically.

    I was indoctrinated and propagandised to about the “dangers” of global warming over 20 years ago as a primary school student. I was taught that inanminate objects, and blades of grass are of greater value than human life (nihilism).
    These days I don’t know anybody my age that is sceptical of government economic restrictions in the name of climate science. The ideology of environmentalism has taken the world by storm and I don’t think it’s going away anytime soon.

    However this is a serious issue and needs to be fought. Governments encouraged by the IPCC will hurt us all.

  5. JC1

    Why are they using the WWF (World Wrestling Federation of environmentalism) as a reference? We’re constantly reminded the IPCC was peer reviewed.

    This is a shambles.

  6. JC1

    Lambert’s deluded.

    That’s perhaps the mot offensive comment I’ve seen in a long time about an other blogger, Tim. Even I’m offended. 🙂

    He’s perhaps the smartest, most intelligent dude in this whole debate. … perhaps even as honest and ethical as Doc. Pauchauri n a bad hair day.

    Shiny’s honesty and enthusiasm at getting to the truth is infectious.

  7. Sinclair Davidson

    Let’s all stay on topic.

  8. rog

    Howabout cutting to the chase – are the worlds glaciers shrinking or not?

    And is it faster than previous or not?

    The Extreme Ice Survey could give an oversight – to date the evidence has been patchy, in part due to the enormous area covered. Individual sites, such as Switzerland, show a steady decline

  9. JC1


    There are basically two glaciers we need to worry about. Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheet. If they ever melted sea levels would rise 80 feet. At the present rate of melt Greenland would take around 14,000 years by one estimate and there’s no real evidence that the Southern ice sheet is doing anything much-growing on one side and possibly losing on another.

    there are 200,000 glaciers around the world. At this stage we don’t have a handle on what’s happening. Some Swiss ice cubes may be melting while others are growing.

    Merely pointing out Swiss icebergs as a data point tells us nothing.

    Most importantly we don’t have enough long term data to make any real accurate estimate on recession of the ice cubes as it was only recent that anyone even gave a shit.

  10. rog

    “we don’t have enough long term data”

    Crap, they have data from 1894

  11. JC1

    No Rog, you simpleton, we don’t have enough data on all the estimated 200,000 icebergs unless you’re suggesting Switzerland holds all 200,000 icebergs. Surely you’re not.

    If you bothered to read comments properly, stopped being oppositional and took your new found “positions” seriously by reading up a little more you wouldn’t be replying with silly comments starting with “crap” and making an idiot of yourself… again.

    You want to start again, or do what you usually do, which is make a stupid comment, get rightly ridiculed, disappear for a day hoping the nonsense is hidden way up the thread and then start again with your incessant trolling and your obsession… (CL and I). Then repeat the process all over again.

  12. JC1

    Just to make it easier for you, Rog so you understand, the 200,000 glaciers are the estimated glaciers around the world and not switzerland.

    I’ll repeat in case you forget… Around the world NOT Switzerland.

  13. rog


    Only JC is stupid enough to argue that the worlds glaciers are not shrinking or if they are, we dont have enough data to prove it.

    HQ of the World Glacier Monitoring Service is in Switzerland.

    Here is their data

  14. rog

    JC says “If you bothered to read comments properly”

    There is nothing in the comments that refutes the claim that glaciers in the Himalayas are melting and that they are melting faster than originally.

    The issue is confined to a date, 2035

  15. JC1


    Just worry about paying back your creditors and not glaciers, you freaking moron.

    The only thing retreating is your credit rating.

    “The issue is confined to a date, 2035”

    You brought up the Swiss, you loon.

  16. dover_beach

    There is nothing in the comments that refutes the claim that glaciers in the Himalayas are melting and that they are melting faster than originally.

    The issue is confined to a date, 2035

    Bull twang, Rog. And which are the glaciers in the Himalayas that are retreating faster than normal that are supposedly referenced in your link?

    Further, so far as that list is concerned for glaciers worldwide we have:

    Number of positive/reported balances 30/96 8/27

    So 30 of 96 glaciers are advancing as opposed to retreating incl. 8 of their 27 reference glaciers. In other words, almost a third of the world’s glaciers are currently advancing.

    So far as the glaciers of the Himalayas melting faster, we have this most recent report:

    In a remarkable finding, the report claims the Gangotri glacier, the main source of the River Ganges, actually receded fastest in 1977 – and is today “practically at a stand still”.

    Some scientists have warned that the river beds of the Gangetic Basin – which feed hundreds of millions in northern India – could run dry once glaciers go. However, such concerns are scotched by the report.

    According to Raina, the mistake made by “western scientists” is to apply the rate of glacial loss from other parts of the world to the Himalayas. “In the United States the highest glaciers in Alaska are still below the lowest level of Himalayan glaciers. Our 9,500 glaciers are located at very high altitudes. It is completely different system.”

    “As long as we have monsoons we will have glaciers. There are many factors to consider when we want to find out how quickly (glaciers melt) … rainfall, debris cover, relief and terrain,” said Raina.

    Your attempt to whitewash this failure is amusing.

  17. rog

    Jeepers, another catallaxy first

    Glacier feeding Jehlum melting faster than Himalayas

    * Report says glacier feeding Kashmir melting at the rate of 0.08 sq km per year
    * Human interference, including Amarnath pilgrimage, among reasons for glacier’s fast depletion

    Just get over it, will ya?

  18. rog

    C’mon JC, dont be such a girly sook;

    Are glaciers melting or are they not?

    (you can join in too DB but do try limit yourself to 25 words or less, JC has a habit of nodding off)

  19. daddy dave

    Are glaciers melting or are they not?
    I’ll answer: not at a rate that should cause alarm.

  20. daddy dave

    here’s how to turn the climate change debate around. Skeptics should stop attacking the scientists and instead attack An Inconvenient Truth, endlessely and mercilessly. Of course the scientists will scoff… but it would be eye-opening for the general public especially young people, who still consider that film to be the last word on climate change. I think if it became well-known that most of the claims in AIT are false, public sentiment wouldb e very different.

  21. Sinclair Davidson

    rog – that link is broken.

  22. C.L.

    Takes after Rog’s mind.

    Rog used to haunt Marohasy’s and Blair’s ridiculing lefties and greenies and now he’s afraid he’ll be swept away by a melting glacier.

  23. JC

    Rog, you freaking numbskull…

    Some glaciers may be melting while some others may not be.

    We don’t have enough information if they all are, you freaking turkey, as there are 200,000 of them. We can’t measure on an individual basis, as that would offer us little about the other 199,999.

    The only accurate way of figuring it out is through satellite pics and that process started recently (mid 70’s) to make any accurate prediction.

    What you need to do is stay way from this stuff as it’s beyond your level of competence. It would be like reading a novel to a dog.

    Let’s get back to your first argument. You don’t even have Homer’s bull –in-a- china-shop method of trying to change the subject.

    You presented a pathetic argument that Swiss glaciers are melting. The obvious answer to that is .. So what?

    Answer the question, so what?

    Rog, you’re not smart, not pithy nor mentally agile for things beyond short sentences.

  24. C.L.

    So what? indeed.

    Glaciers melt, sea level drops.

    “The geology is complex, but it boils down to this: Relieved of billions of tons of glacial weight, the land has risen much as a cushion regains its shape after someone gets up from a couch. The land is ascending so fast that the rising seas — a ubiquitous byproduct of global warming — cannot keep pace. As a result, the relative sea level is falling, at a rate ‘among the highest ever recorded, according to a 2007 report by a panel of experts convened by Mayor Bruce Botelho of Juneau,” the New York Times reported.

  25. JC

    Your link doesn’t work again Einstein. No kidding, but you make Homer look good.

    Hey Rog is it time for another “early years” supplement in Wikirogette in the open forum? LOL. It’s treasure trove at Jen site.

  26. rog

    Sleep deprived JC stumbles dementedly from one meaningless statement to the other.

    We don’t have enough information…we can’t measure…we dont know…just who is this “we”?

    When confronted with evidence and an easy decision, yes or no, he fumbles it by saying – “So what?”

  27. rog

    JC, you seem to labouring under the impression that your style of bluster is a legitimate form of debate. It isn’t and it reflects badly on you and those that associate with you.

    You should seek professional advice.

  28. C.L.

    The link is here, Rog.

    What is the “human interference” mentioned in the story’s epigraph?

    “The glacier has developed several crevices and cracks over the years. Human interference, including the Amarnath pilgrimage, is one of the reasons for the glacier’s recession. Nomads who are putting up in the glacier’s core area are also contributors to its meltdown,” the study said, recommending declaring the area as a protected ecological park.

    Rog left out the quote and ran with the headline teaser. The IPCC beckons as a career option, Rog.

  29. JC


    I’m not sleep deprived and you’re a total freaking moron.

    Einstein like you came up with a link accompanied by a short sentence suggesting that Swiss glaciers are melting as though that counteracted the fraud contained in the IPCC on the Himalayan glaciers.

    I patiently explained to you that the Swiss ice-blocks are not really a marker for the other 200,000 or so around the world.

    I also patiently explained to you that the way to get a decent reading in terms of what’s happening with the ice-blocks around the world is through satellite measurement. However this process was only begun in the 70’s so at this stage it is too soon to confirm whether there is worrying recession.

    I also patiently explained to you that there are only two big ice-blocks to worry about.

    I referred them to ice-bergs in an attempt at being ironic but as usual anything other than basic thinking at the puppy level is beyond you and you left a series of question marks wondering what that all meant. Obviously it was too complex. Sorry.

    So I ask the question again and instead on trying on this low rent way of trying to avoid what’s too hard, man-up and answer it.

    So what if Swiss ice-blocks are in recession then what long term evidence do you have that there is a broad ice-block recession occurring that complements and in fact is also as accurate as satellite pics? Keep in mid that the satellites are only a recent thing which I mentioned before but you’re certain to have forgotten.

    Grow a set and answer the question or fess up that you’re a idiot, Rog…. even worst than Homer.

  30. JC

    The IPCC beckons as a career option, Rog.

    Or perhaps a road gang cleaning up freeways.

  31. JC

    JC, you seem to labouring under the impression that your style of bluster is a legitimate form of debate.

    Rog, I make fun of you and treat you like a low rent troll because you don’t deserve any other treatment. You are a dishonest troll with little understanding of issues and when presented with superior contrary facts you go homer like into Skank-ho mode.

    It isn’t and it reflects badly on you and those that associate with you.

    No rog , it reflects badly on you which is why no one wants to associate with you. Your stupidity and dis-likability quotient is through the roof, you dishonest low rent dickhead.

    Recall it was only yesterday when someone else asked you why do you post here? Remember? Remember the reasons why?…. That you’re an oppositional troll who makes dumb comments and inflames threads.

  32. dover_beach

    Are glaciers melting or are they not?

    rog, glaciers are receding and advancing as they have always done, as they always will. To repeat, 30 of 96 glaciers are advancing as opposed to retreating incl. 8 of their 27 reference glaciers.

    In other words, almost a third of the world’s glaciers are currently advancing.

    Your attempt, again, to whitewash the failure of the IPCC in this instance is very amusing.

  33. rog

    yes or no, are they shrinking or not

    “The biggest glacier in Kashmir, the Kolahoi glacier that is just a little over 11 square kilometres has shrunk to 2.63 sq km in the past three decades,” the study said.

  34. rog

    DB likes to sit in the middle of the road, along with the yellow line.

  35. rog

    DB links to this and this and then adopts an easy come easy go approach.

  36. rog

    JC, the penultimate troll calls me a troll.

    Do you want me to dig up your humiliating put down JC?

    Nothing like the threat of legal action to sort the men from the boys.

  37. JC

    Here’s a decent explanation though why it’s important to keep our eye on the ball by focusing also on the big picture and not throw out the baby with Doc. Pach.

    It is written by a fully fledged climate scientist who also trades weather related stocks.

    Long Term Thoughts

    I have stated several times that I would do a global warming post at some point during my time as a tabbed blogger. Because, you know, I’d hate to finish up on a positive note or anything…

    Quickly, I believe in the phenomenon of climate change and I believe that it is caused by anthropogenic influences. You will find very few climate scientists out there today who refute the existence of global warming. Rather, the occasionally heated debate revolves around the severity and timescale of the warming. These are now the people who are commonly referred to as “Skeptics.” I have had the opportunity to work with such a scientist and I believe I greatly benefited from seeing both sides of the coin.

    Anyways, instead of pulling out an epic Here’s-Why-Your-Great-Grandchildren-Will-Drown sort of post, I am going to focus on one particular aspect of climate change that I believe the be of greatest concern in our lifetimes: The melting of the Polar Ice Caps.

    First, to refute one commonly held belief: the melting of the polar ice sheets will NOT directly contribute to sea level rise. Because they are floating on top of the Arctic Ocean and displacing their weight in water, their complete melting theoretically should contribute zilch to sea level rise.

    What is of concern, however, is that the melting of the polar ice caps is part of a proposed positive feedback cycle (aka a Vicious Cycle) that has the potential to accelerate the rate of warming much faster than has been projected by many climate models. Here is how it works.

    1. Humans burn carbon-based fuel which generates carbon dioxide.
    2. The carbon dioxide behaves as a greenhouse gas raising the temperatures a small amount.
    3. The marginally elevated temperature slightly accelerates the melting of the Polar Ice Caps exposing more of the Arctic Ocean during the summer melt season. This is the stage we are right now.
    4. The Heat Capacity of water is greater than that of ice, meaning that is better at absorbing incoming radiation (i.e. heat) rather than reflecting it back into space. This introduces the idea of an Albedo, or the extent to which an object reflects rather than absorbs light, expressed as a ratio. Sea Water has an albedo of near .90 while sea ice has an albedo of around 0.70, meaning sea water absorbs more heat than ice.
    5. Newly exposed ocean absorbs more heat than the ice that used to cover it, compounding the warming from greenhouse gasses
    6. This leads to further ice-cap melting, exacerbating the compounded warming, which melts more ice, and so on and so forth…a vicious cycle that feeds on itself.

    This is illustrated in graphic form below in Figure 1 for the visual readers.


    Figure 1: Proposed positive feedback loop due to the melting of the polar ice caps

    Polar Sea Ice is generally very thin (less than 75 feet thick) compared to continental glaciers (over a mile thick) and thus it forms a very cyclical pattern of melting during the summer and reforming during the winter. Figure 2 below shows the maximum extent of ice coverage in March following winter and in September following the summer melt season.


    Figure 2: Maximum ice extent in March after Northern Hemisphere winter and minimum extent in September after summer (Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center)

    Basically, this transient nature of sea ice means that the polar ice cap is very vulnerable to small changes in temperature when compared to more permanent continental glacial ice. Since it responds very quickly to small changes in temperature, it is also a very sensitive measurement of global warming.

    Polar ice caps have been melting consistently since the mid-1970s (and probably before that, though detailed records were not kept), with the pace accelerating over the past 10 years. 2007 saw the greatest melting on record, with the minimum ice extent in September diverging nearly 5 standard deviations from the 30-year mean, or about 60% of normal.

    For the past three years including this summer, the melting has been substantial enough to open the fabled Northwest Passage around Canada and Northeast Passage around Russia for the first time since the human race has turned its eyes to the seas. One final piece of investment advice: Take a look at Canadian and Russian shipping companies. They could make a bundle off of this once the various license agreements are sorted out.

    Anyways, the extent of arctic sea ice melting since the mid-1950s is shown below in Figure 3.


    Figure 3: Ice Cap extent, deviation from 30 year average (Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center)

    You will notice that the past two years have seen a bit of a recovery. However, I just equate this to an “oversold” rally, in which some negative feedback mechanisms/flukey cold winters kick in and stop the bleeding. Figure 4 below shows the melting over just the past five years and indicates that while 2009 is comfortably above 2008 and 2007, it still remains more than 2 standard deviations below the mean.


    Figure 5: Polar Ice Cap melting over the past four years, compared to a 20 year average (Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center)

    I predict with near 100% confidence that we will see new arctic sea ice lows within the next five-to-ten years. There is even an outside chance that sea ice may disappear altogether during the summer months by 2030-2040.

    Okay, so based on the Positive Feedback cycle I outlined above in Figure 1, the next step in the cycle is warming of the water exposed/near the melted sea ice due to its increased heat capacity. Well, Figure 6, which shows sea surface temperature anomalies for this past August, indicates that the greatest warming is localized in the extreme northern latitudes exactly as expected.


    Figure 6: Sea Surface Temperature anomalies showing the greatest departure from average in the far northern latitudes. Some warming is also seen in the equatorial east Pacific, indicative of a weak El Nino (Source: NOAA)

    Such extreme (>5 degree) warming in the arctic has been a common theme in the arctic for the past half decade or so. Global temperatures respond much slower and it will be several years before we begin to see the effect of melting polar ice caps on accelerating the rate of Global Warming. In the short term, however, I expect the warming of the Arctic Ocean to continue to positively feedback on the rate of sea ice melting and a gradual downtrend of summer polar ice coverage will resume.

    What will be the end result should the ice caps vanish for part of the year? There are several “doomsday” scenarios that result in runaway climate change, and while I am somewhat skeptical of all of them, I see the rapid increase in warming from melting polar ice caps as a possible trigger. These scenarios include:

    * The overturning and release of carbon dioxide and methane currently sequestered in the oceans (i.e. the dire sounding “Clathrate Gun Hypothesis”)
    * The accelerated melting of the Greenland Polar Ice Sheet since the continental ice sheets are no longer held back by sea ice. Compared to the melting of polar sea ice, the collapse of the Greenland Ice sheet will raise sea level (by about 20 feet)
    * The collapse of the Thermohaline Circulation that drives heat transfer in the oceans. Interestingly, this is believed to have resulted in the Younger Dryas, a period of rapid cooling and glaciation about 12,000 years ago (The movie The Day After Tomorrow tries to show something like this)
    * The extinction of the poor polar bears.

    These theories likely sprung up as the result of a bunch of climate scientists getting together late at night in tents and trying to top each-other’s scary stories, while illuminating their faces with cheap flashlights. While they may logically make sense, there is no reason to become concerned in the short term.

    This is the reason we should be concerned and not worry about Rog’s Swiss ice-blocks. It’s the big picture.

    AGW is quite possibly a long term problem, however the existence of very fast warming does exist. Not all climate scientists are like Doc. Pach and the rest of that gaggle.

  38. JC

    Yes, Rog, you are a troll because you conduct yourself like one.

    You made statements about Swiss ice-blocks and were shown to be idiot in presenting that as any sort of evidence.

    Do you want me to dig up your humiliating put down JC?

    Go ahead. I’m not a coward like you are.

    Nothing like the threat of legal action to sort the men from the boys.

    What threat, Rog? You trollish clown.

    Seriously, why don’t you just fuck off out of here and not come back you deranged loon…. and pay back your creditors, you loser.

  39. rog

    “Seriously, why don’t you just fuck off out of here and not come back you deranged loon”


  40. rog

    That’s the only argument you are able to sustain

    “just fuck off”

  41. dover_beach

    yes or no, are they shrinking or not

    They are doing both. There are 9500 glaciers in the Himilayas and you reference a single glacier. Here is what a recent report referred to above notes:

    Glaciers in the Himalayas, over a period of the last 100 years, behave in contrasting ways. As an example, Sonapani glacier has retreated by about 500m during the last one hundred years. On the other hand, Kangriz glacier has practically not retreated even an inch in the same period. Siachen glacier is believed to have shown an advance of about 700m between 1862 and 1909, followed by an equally rapid retreat of around 400m between 1929 and 1958, and hardly any retreat during the last 50 years. Gangotri glacier, which had hitherto been showing a rather rapid retreat, along its glacier front, at an average of around 20m per year till up to 2000 AD, has since slowed down considerably, and between September 2007 and June 2009 is practically at a standstill5. The same is true of the Bhagirathkharak and Zemu glaciers.

  42. JC

    That’s the only argument you are able to sustain

    “just fuck off”

    Well it’s the only argument to use seeing you deserve even less respect than Homer.

    But don’t let me be the only one ……..

    Any particular reason you post here, Rog? I assume it’s because you’re a contrarian turd or maybe you’ve read all the magazines in your husbands waiting room.

    Infidel Tiger

    19 Jan 10 at 9:50 pm

    I agree with him and add what I said before… Just fuck off.

  43. rog

    DB, you say “They are doing both” and then link to a source that says the nett effect is a substantial loss.

    The Swiss one, the one that JC refuses to acknowledge.

  44. JC

    The Swiss one, the one that JC refuses to acknowledge.

    You really are a stupid, dishonest troll, Rog.

    Anyone can flick up the thread and would see I turned your stupid argument into mince as the Swiss galciers do not in themselves demonstrate anything in addition to presenting decent evidence that you’re a full-on moron. Even worse than Homer.

  45. rog

    So you deny the opinion of glaciologists?

    World Glacier Monitoring Service 2005 survey of 442 glaciers, 398 were retreating, 18 were stationary and 26 were advancing.

  46. JC

    Another way of saying that is

    (442/200,000) Of the 200,000 ice-blocks .221% were investigated. Of the .221% investigated .199% were retreated while .009% were stationary and .013 were advancing. Lol.

    Also…….Retreated from when you fucking retard.. from the 70’s. From when?

    I have already patiently explained to you that the information for ice blocks is limited as it only goes back to the 70’s.

    You really are a first rate troll, Rog. Just an oppositional troll loser.

    As I said before.. Just fuck off out of here.

  47. rog

    Try to read up a bit on the subject before making such foolish and thoughtless statements JC.

  48. rog

    “information for ice blocks is limited as it only goes back to the 70’s.”

    Measurements and records have been kept since the 1890s and carbon dating and isotope detection from ice cores extends way back in time

  49. JC


    Wtf? You’re now talking to us about carbon dating and Isotope detection from ice cores?

    Dude, you graduated from a building lot. Let’s get real here. LOL.

    You Google graduate you.

  50. dover_beach

    DB, you say “They are doing both” and then link to a source that says the nett effect is a substantial loss.

    Rog, I say they’re doing both because some glaciers are retreating while others are advancing, that is simply a fact. Look at the individual mass balance for glaciers in 2007/8 as reported in your own link:

    So far as the loss being substantial, I can’t say. On the page provided, I can’t seem to find a report of what the total mass of the glaciers is in order to judge whether the net loss is substantial or not.

    You could also refer to my quote in my previous comment which shows a mixed history in terms of glacier advancement and retreat in the Himalayas. Some have retreated others have neither advanced or retreated in the last hundred years. The reasons for this will depend on changes to the local/regional climate. I’d imagine the many of the glaciers in the Alps would have been retreating during the MWP.

    World Glacier Monitoring Service 2005 survey of 442 glaciers, 398 were retreating, 18 were stationary and 26 were advancing.

    Why refer to a survey conducted in 2005 (a warm year) when we have more up-to-date information already being quoted from the years 2007/8? Cherry-picking, indeed.

  51. Pingback: ClimateGate and Insurance Again at Catallaxy Files

Comments are closed.