Environmentalism is a Religion Complete with Miracles

Mr mugwumps, I'm not surprised a science deniar such as yourself espouses this view. However as Trump and his minions slowly wake up to the realisation that the rest of the world does indeed embrace life, they may actually turn their heads around and say, 'where the hell is our support?' Trump won with fewer votes than Hillary, (whom I loath BTW). He has no support from his economic gurus or captains of industry. But most imporatant, even if you factor out world opinion (which you obviously have), he is going against the majority of US public opinion, which does indeed support envioronmentalism. rvb8

mugwump3, this is just sourgrapes. Whether or not I am Marxist (I am not), the world is in another herculean revolution; it is changing, and you and yours, fighting against this innevitability merely expose your weaknesses. Trump, by this decision has made his administration (if you can call this administring), internationally, and more importantly domestically, isolated. You say Marxism, fiscal irresponsibility, cronyism, do you? I don't want a mediocre businessman, who inhrtited his money, is an academic ningcompoop, and childish tantrum thrower, in charge of anything. Apparently I, many US Governors, the Mayor of Pitsburg, US coorporate leaders, China, the EU, every NGO, and THE PEOPLE, agree! rvb8

Rvb8, giving away the shell game that is AGW marxist redistribution. According to you, the Paris agreement wasn't about saving the planet. It was about corporate and government accumulation of wealth through cronyism, through coercion, not market forces. Yes, states like California can choose to maintain their utopian fantasies while refusing to acknowledge their fiscal liabilities, higher and higher taxes, mass exodus of businesses and entrepreneurs, on and on....and to whom will Cali, Illinois, N.Y., etc.. turn when other ppl's money runs out? Why, they'll be crawling on hands and knees to fiscally responsible, free market states that saw through the junk science scam that would've made even pseudo-science carnival barker, Karl Marx, blush for its complete lack of actual scientific grounding. Course, I'm not surprised to discover the same folks who worship at the feet of the other pseudo-science guru, Darwin, also believe in AGW...both confuse theory and just-so modeling for demonstration and falsifiability. mugwump3

I don't want to give you ammunition asauber, but I have to say that the term, 'loser' is such a ubiquitous and infantile word these days, that you might like to exchange it for something less reflective. Maybe; the defeated, the disadvataged, flunkee, hasbeen, or just the dud. I don't know, anything but, 'You goddamn loser!' Heh:) rvb8

The winners; the minority of Americans who voted for Trump, Virginian coal, and a fossil fuel industry that is backward yearning.

The Loser: rvb8 Andrew asauber

asauber, 'herculean', in common english means, 'difficult'. I think you are confusing the mythecal Hercules for the adjective, 'herculean'. rvb8

I also note Trump has pulled the US out of the Paris accords on climate. I think this will quite literally come back to bite him in the arse. In the US states have far more reach in environmental law making than the federal government, and I see already California, and several other states have balked. Their long term investment in environmentally friendly power sources, and technologies is not something these savvy states legislatures will give up. More important however is how the multi national companies of the US, so heavily invested in the change of course already begun, have rejected Trump's Ludditeism. More important still is how quicly the EU and China joined hands to increase the speed of defossilisng their economies. Also, how outside these two huge economies, the other countries looked at Trump as if he were some mildly insane narcissist. The winners; the minority of Americans who voted for Trump, Virginian coal, and a fossil fuel industry that is backward yearning. This decision is going to be entertaining to watch as it unravels, and Trump, true to form will at some time next year expain how he never actually endorsed it; despite the television footage showing him saying, 'I endorse this.' Heh:) rvb8

given the herculean task of extrapolating years in advance

rvb8, Yes, it's all quite mythological. This is the closest thing to insightful you've ever been in a comment (although it's obviously accidental). Andrew asauber

asauber @40, firstly Barry's posts are becoming like most posts here these days, short click bate opinions, often less than three paragraphs, and often just an attempted, 'hook by outrageousness', comment. Secondly, meteorology is the science, and climate change fits witin its boundaries. Meterology is unusual amongst the sciences because throughout the ages those trying to predict the weather were the butt of so much mockery and general derision. I well remeber the seventies and early eighties when the weather broadcast on the news the night before was the subject of gentle but amused conversation the next day. We have come along way, and today forecasts can be quite accurately predicted days, and increasingly a few weeks in advance. These scientists today, using the most powerful of super computers are given the herculean task of extrapolating years in advance. The amazing thing is that the scientists in this field in all the serious institutions are in agreement about global warming and its future effects. You can call this a religion if you want but that exposes the same kind of ignorance that calls evolution, 'only a theory'. rvb8

I think its an amazing (but not surprising) phenomenon of nature that the Warmers on this thread still haven't spoken to the topic of the OP after at least a couple comments each. Andrew asauber

mugwump3 - precipitation (and temperature change) isn't constant across the planet, so reduced rainfall in the Rockies may not reflect a global change. Globally we're still cutting down forests faster than they are re-growing. Bob O'H

And, anecdotally and slightly empirical, I've worked in commercial kitchens for 20+ years. Within minutes of power loss or mechanical failure, the ambient local temperature begins to rise in my freezers. That's with no wind, no sunlight, nothing. True, if the thermometer was squeezed between two frozen packages or had been frozen into an ice block, no change would be seen for hours. But the air temp begins to rise. Indeed, no kitchen would ever be able to monitor their freezers without that rise. In fact, we're also expected to monitor the duration of defrosting intervals based on this truth. So, why would aforementioned icebox story expected to be believed by millions upon millions of chefs who depend on these air readings to keep their product from being compromised as well as their jobs? mugwump3

On a mostly curious note, if precipitation, at least in terms of snow pack, is down significantly enough to cause, in conjunction with the heat absorbing property of ice, a recession of a glacier...wouldn't we expect more cloud cover, a greening of the planet, CO2 and thermal sinks in the the form of forestation? And, wouldn't more available land exponentiate this feedback as more greening? Where's the catastrophe? Where's the rising sea levels, or anomalous non-cyclical temperature increases, desertification, or mass extinctions? In short, why is CO2 playing the great and powerful villain in AGW doomsday scenarios, albeit, only if to point the finger at the Anthro behind the curtain? Especially given a complete lack of historical corollation, nevermind causation? Given the only demonstrable effect of believing in AGW modeling fiction is a global wealth redistribution largely supported by the "have-not" victims of modern human advancement, why would a skeptic of the dogma ever be compelled by the climate conquistadors? Marxism is still Marxism even when you dress it up in the Emperor's lab coat. mugwump3

Of course, Global Warming isn’t a term coined by the skeptics, so they can hardly be blamed for the confusion.

And what is more frustrating is that the AGW deniers jump on the shift in terms from global warming to climate change as if this is some sort of conspiracy. Which just highlights their ignorance of the subject. kmidpuddle

The effect of heat on ice is to melt the ice. There will be very little temperature rise until most of the ice is melted. The heat energy all goes toward the melting.

I hate to say it, but in this particular case, Neil is actually making some sense. Of course, Global Warming isn't a term coined by the skeptics, so they can hardly be blamed for the confusion. Phinehas

If snowfall in the winter exceeds snow melt in the summer, the glacier grows. If the snowfall is less than melt, the glacier recedes. Both of these can happen without and change in annual average temperatures around the glacier. In the latter situation the question is, what is responsible for the lower snowfall? kmidpuddle

Global warming has caused the glaciers to melt even though there has been no warming in the local area where the ice is actually melting. I don't think you've allowed for telecalorification, Barry.... Axel

The answer to that question is a resounding “no” for the simple reason that the climate around the glaciers HAS NOT CHANGED.

What is the basis of this claim? Squinting at a graph of daily (?) temperatures where seasonal cycles swingr ~100F does not seem a useful way of assessing a trend. It might also be helpful to insert a tiny bit of knowledge about how glaciers work into the discussion. It's is quite possible for a glacier to retreat (or have its retreat hastened) without the local temperature changing at all. Glaciers retreat when the water added through snow (mostly in winter) is not enough to counterbalance the water lost through melting at the terminus (mostly in Summer). Changes in precipitation or seasonal weather patterns (e.g. earlier springs) can alter the dynamics of glacier growth even as the mean annual temperature remains flat. wd400

Neil, you still don't get it. No one is arguing that the glaciers are not melting. They are. They have been for 10,000 years. The issue is whether the melting can be attributed to recent climate change, especially climate change that might have been caused by humans -- i.e., global warming. The answer to that question is a resounding "no" for the simple reason that the climate around the glaciers HAS NOT CHANGED. From this we can conclude that whatever is causing the glaciers to melt, it is most certainly not global warming. Barry Arrington

But it does not require an increase in temperature

MIT: "Global warming refers to climate change that causes an increase in the average *temperature* of the lower atmosphere" http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2010/finalwebsite/background/globalwarming/definition.html Andrew asauber

Neil, you have attempted to defend the following proposition: Global warming has caused the glaciers to melt even though there has been no warming in the local area where the ice is actually melting.

"Warming" is a vague and ambiguous term. I have been trying to express things in terms of "heat" and "temperature" which are more precise. The trouble with "warming" is that it can sometimes refer to an increase of heat, and at other times it can refer to an increase in temperature. For ice to melt, requires an increase in heat (i.e. in thermal energy). But it does not require an increase in temperature. Temperature and heat are very distinct, defined separately in physics. One measures temperature in degrees. One measures heat in calories. The link that you provided, was to an argument that confused heat with temperature. The effect of heat on ice is to melt the ice. There will be very little temperature rise until most of the ice is melted. The heat energy all goes toward the melting. Google "latent heat ice melting" for more information. Neil Rickert

NYT Articles: Cold - December 16, 1934 - Nation Is Held on Verge of Climate Shift; Experts See Old-Fashioned Winters Back America is believed by Weather Bureau scientists to be on the verge of a change of climate, with a return to increasing rains and deeper snows and the colder Winters . . . ____________________________________________________________ Warm - October 28, 1956 - SCIENCE IN REVIEW; Warmer Climate on the Earth May Be Due To More Carbon Dioxide in the Air The general warming of the climate that has occurred in the last sixty years has been variously explained. Among the explanations are . . . ____________________________________________________________ Cold - December 7, 1958 - Frozen Key To Our Climate; The world’s ice masses may be ushering in a fifth Ice Age. Frozen Key To Our Climate SEVERAL thousand scientists of many nations have recently been climbing mountains, digging tunnels in glaciers, journeying to the Antarctic, camping on floating Arctic ice. Their object has been to solve a fascinating riddle: what is happening to the world’s ice . . . ____________________________________________________________ Warm - February 15, 1959 - A WARMER EARTH EVIDENT AT POLES; Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — The theory that the world is growing slightly warmer is receiving added confirmation . . . ____________________________________________________________ Cold - January 30, 1961 - SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER; But Climate Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder . . . ____________________________________________________________ Warm - February 20, 1969 - Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea; Catastrophic Shifts in Climate Feared if Change Occurs Other Specialists See No Thinning of Polar Ice Cap Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two . . . ____________________________________________________________ Cold - July 18, 1970 - U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic; U.S. and Soviet Press Arctic Studies The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages . . . ____________________________________________________________ Cold - January 27, 1972 - Climate Experts Assay Ice Age Clues After invading Nebraska and Colorado, the armadillos, faced with increasingly frigid weather, are in retreat from those states toward their ancestral home south of the Mexican border. The winter snow accumulation on Baffin Island has increased . . . ____________________________________________________________ Cold - October 31, 1972 - Scientist Fears Equable Climate Around World Could Be Ending The current 12,000-year-old era of comfortable climates around the world may be coming to an end . . . ____________________________________________________________ Cold - May 21, 1975 - Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead; Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable The world’s climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are subjects of deepening debate . . . ____________________________________________________________ Warm - August 14, 1975 - WARMING TREND SEEN IN CLIMATE; Two Articles Counter View That Cold Period Is Due Articles in two scientific journals have questioned widely publicized predictions that, in coming decades, the world climate will deteriorate severely affecting food production and, perhaps, initiating a new ice age . . . ____________________________________________________________ No Change - February 18, 1978 - Climate Specialists, in Poll, Foresee No Catastrophic Weather Changes in Rest of Century; Warning About Carbon Dioxide WASHINGTON, Feb. 17—A poll of climate specialists in seven countries has found a consensus that there will be no catastrophic changes in the climate by the end of the century. But the specialists were almost equally divided on whether there would be a warming, a cooling or no change at all . . . ____________________________________________________________ Warm - February 3, 2007 - Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’ In a grim and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is “unequivocal” and that human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950 . . . ____________________________________________________________ Fraud - November 20, 2009 - Hacked Email is New Fodder for Climate Dispute Heartlander

Neil, you have attempted to defend the following proposition: Global warming has caused the glaciers to melt even though there has been no warming in the local area where the ice is actually melting. I understand your argument. You don't understand mine. Barry Arrington

Convergent warming at work, don't you know. OldArmy94

Barry:

Do you care to comment on that [Neil's] assertion?

Neil:

No, I never made such an assertion.

I will let you and Neil agree over what Neil asserted before I comment further on it. kmidpuddle

The discussion is centered on Neil’s assertion that the melting of the glaciers can be attributed to increases in ambient temperatures even though local ambient temperatures did not rise.

No, I never made such an assertion. Please reread my earlier comments, and try to understand what I actually said. Neil Rickert

A @ 20: Well said. Nothing but the truth! Truth Will Set You Free

kmid: "But I note that you did not address my comment." Because it was not relevant to the discussion. The discussion is centered on Neil's assertion that the melting of the glaciers can be attributed to increases in ambient temperatures even though local ambient temperatures did not rise. Do you care to comment on that assertion? Barry Arrington

Barry:

kmidpuddle, we will let you come back once again. I expect it will end the same way as all the other times...

I suspect it will as well. But I note that you did not address my comment. How can ice melt if the water surrounding it stays at zero C? kmidpuddle

Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?

They do understand it. They just won't accept anything that might undermine the narrative. The amusing part is these same people who are very prideful about identifying themselves with 'science' can watch this train wreck day after day, year after year and not utter a single inquisitive peep about what's being presented to them. They've had their conceptual parts removed. Andrew asauber

kmidpuddle, we will let you come back once again. I expect it will end the same way as all the other times -- expulsion for trollish behavior. You seem to have an obsession with commenting on this site. No matter how many times we toss you out, you always come back. As for your comment, no, Neil is manifestly not right. Good grief, what is wrong with you people? The point of the linked article is glaringly obvious and indisputable: You can't blame an increase in ambient temperature on the melting of the glaciers if the ambient temperature did not increase. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this? Barry Arrington

Barry, I'm afraid that Neil is correct. For example, fill a bucket with ice and water and let it equilibrate. From that time until after all of the ice has melted, the temperature of the water does not deviate. This physical fact is so well known that it is used to calibrate thermometers. kmidpuddle

A @ 16: Warmists...nice. Truth Will Set You Free

See, what Neil is doing is relying on a conceptual error about Global Warming: That it's Global. The only thing Global about it is that it's a statistical smear of temperature 'data' together. It has no real world Globalness to it. This way, Warmists can concoct their scare stories around a fantasy statistical boogeyman and he can have his gnarly imaginary fingers in all the stuff that happens. Andrew asauber

The USGS give more details about why the glaciers are retreating:

Glaciers, by their dynamic nature, respond to climate variation and reveal the big picture of climate change. Unable to adapt, like living creatures, GNP’s relatively small alpine glaciers are good indicators of climate, the long-term average of daily weather conditions. A glacier forms when winter snowfall exceeds summer melting. Glaciers retreat when melting outpaces accumulation of new snow. Despite occasional big winters or frigid weeks that occur, the glaciers of GNP, like most glaciers worldwide, are melting as long term average temperatures increase. Analysis of weather data from western Montana shows an increase in summer temperatures and a reduction in the winter snowpack that forms and maintains the glaciers. Since 1900 the mean annual temperature for GNP and the surrounding region has increased 1.33°C (Pederson et al. 2010), which is 1.8 times the global mean increase. Spring and summer minimum temperatures have also increased (Pederson et al. 2011), possibly influencing earlier melt during summer. Additionally, rain, rather than snow, has been the dominant form of increased annual precipitation in the past century (Selkowitz et al. 2002). Despite variations in annual snowpack, glaciers have continued to shrink, indicating that the snowpack is not adequate to counteract the temperature changes. In conjunction with the past century’s long-term temperature increase, ocean-driven climate trends (Pacific Decadal Oscillation of PDO) influence GNP’s regional climate. Tree-ring based climate records reveal PDO effects that have resulted in 20-30 year periods of hot, dry summers coupled with decreased winter snowpack (Pederson et al. 2004). These periods have induced rapid recession, as high as 100 m/yr between 1917-1941, and influence the current rate of recession. Even during cooler phases of the PDO cycle, glaciers have continued to shrink, albeit at a slower rate. Glacier National Park, located in the mountainous region of northwest Montana, is experiencing effects of climate change related to changing snowmelt and precipitation patterns, exacerbating ecological and socioeconomic issues tied to water supply.

Also note that Pederson et al. 2010 use a different set of stations & find a clear trend. I'm not sure what's going on here & not all of the data seems to be available. (editted to close blockquote correctly) Bob O'H

God help us. Barry Arrington

A circuit breaker malfunction cut the electricity to my garage freezer, resulting in a meltdown (first in the freezer, second when the wife & I discovered it the next day). However, the power was not cut off on our kitchen refrigerator/freezer. The contents of that freezer did not change temperature. Unsurprisingly, there was no meltdown. So no, warming & melting ice in one locale does not necessarily entail warming & melting ice in another. Unless, of course, one argues that freezers & glaciers are quantum entangled... anthropic

Barry @8, I like the way one side of this argument remains professional, and not given to emotional outbursts. The heat build up due to carbon emmission is trapped by our atmosphere. This leads to increased annual temps worldwide, and smaller glaciers. Surely this mean increase in global temps will one day effect Antarctica, hell, maybe even Montana. Once again I'll throw in the related question; what is so wrong with trying to eliminate CO2 emmissions? It's what is known as a win/win/win achievement. rvb8

How does warming elsewhere cause melting in Montana?

The temperature increase is not a cause. It is an effect. The heat buildup is the cause. And the melting of the glaciers, and the warming in other areas are effects of that heat buildup. By "heat buildup", I mean the accumulation of thermal energy. Neil Rickert

Neil at 9. Then how would you put it? How does warming elsewhere cause melting in Montana? Again, in order for your assertions to work, ambient temperatures would have to have a non-localized effect. Tell us how that works Neil. Barry Arrington

Glaciers in Montana are melting because it is warmer on average in England?

I certainly would not put it that way. The glaciers are melting and it is warmer in England. Both are because there is a build up of heat on the planet. But the temperature in Glacier National Park won't change much, because the melting glaciers keep it cool. Neil Rickert

rvb8 @ 4. Are you going to join Neil and suggest that the heat caused by global warming has a non-localized effect such that warming in other parts of the planet can cause glaciers to melt in Montana where temps have remained constant? Drop a science bomb on us and tell us how that works. Barry Arrington

Which do you prefer, human-caused warming or an ice age that sends all of the earth's population racing toward the equator? Sarah Kramer on glaciologist Brenda Hall: "One such effect may be that human-caused warming is delaying an overdue ice age. Hall’s research dated the beginning of the end of the last ice age to 18,000 years ago, but “interglacials” — the periods of relative warmth between glacial periods of an ice age—usually last only 15,000 years, meaning we’re overdue for another cold snap." http://climatechange.medill.northwestern.edu/2015/01/29/climate-change-may-be-stalling-overdue-ice-age/ Truth Will Set You Free

Good grief Neil @ 5. Are you really going to go there? You understand that you are now positing that the heat caused by global warming has a non-localized effect. Really? Glaciers in Montana are melting because it is warmer on average in England?

The article to which you linked is talking about the temperatures in Glacier National Park. That’s pretty much like talking about the temperature inside the icebox.

Uh, yeah. That's because the melting ice in your example is in the ice box where temps have remained constant. I was half kidding about the whole "unthinking fideistic zealot" thing. I see now that I needn't have been. Barry Arrington

Neil, suppose it were demonstrated that the temperature in your icebox remained constant. Anyone who said the ice was melting because the icebox was warmer than it used to be would be considered a fool, an idiot or a liar, no?

I would call them wrong, rather than the other terms. But scientists would not say that ice is melting because the icebox is warmer. They would say that the ice is melting because area outside the icebox (presumably a room in a home) is warmer. Similarly, scientists don't say that the glaciers are melting because the temperature near the glaciers is getting warmer. Rather they say it is due to average temperature of the globe getting warmer. The article to which you linked is talking about the temperatures in Glacier National Park. That's pretty much like talking about the temperature inside the icebox. Neil Rickert

Living for a period in Henan China,( and now in a different part) I can say quite strongly that even the peasant farmers of this region have a more rational grasp on this growing disaster than do many posters here. Although corruption is rife throughout the government here, some parts of the beureaucracy work remarkably well. The ward of the Agricultural Dept responsible for water conservation, soil conservation, and addressing issues concerned with Manmade Global Warming, is very well run. The people I have met in this ward are professiona scientists not given to emotion or panick. This post by Barry would shock them into disbelief. rvb8

Complete with miracles and, as Neil demonstrates in his comment at 1, like all religions at least some of its adherents are unthinking fideistic zealots. Neil, suppose it were demonstrated that the temperature in your icebox remained constant. Anyone who said the ice was melting because the icebox was warmer than it used to be would be considered a fool, an idiot or a liar, no? Barry Arrington

Neil, Global Warming is allegedly determined by calculating temperature anomalies derived from thermometer readings and estimations. Are you suggesting that method is erroneous? Andrew asauber

It's not religion. It's not miracles. It is just science. I grew up in the era of iceboxes. You would buy a block of ice to put in the icebox. The ice would melt, but the temperature in the icebox would not go up. Well, it would go up slightly, but not by very much. The melting ice absorbed most of the heat, and that prevented the temperature in the icebox from rising much. Glaciers are doing something similar. In the icebox era, you would not use a thermometer to check how fast the temperature was rising. Instead, you would look at how fast the ice is melting as the measure of the amount of heat. Scientists are doing the same with glaciers -- measuring how fast they are melting as a measure of the amount of heat. Neil Rickert