No time left to adapt to melting glaciers in Peru

No BS allowed... and no counter arguments either unless they can be 'explained' away by the 'scientists'. This site is well known as a disinformation site developed by the small group of activists that are driving the whole "man is cooking the planet" theory. You should see the questions that have been asked, and comments presented that never made it past the aggressive censors at skepticalscience.

One line in the link you provide states, "We can even quantify this: when you include positive feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3°C."
This is the theory that rising CO2 causes an ever-increasing escalation of temperature and related weather events. Real-world evidence shows time and time again that this is nonsense, irrespective of what models might say. Had that theory been correct we would not be having this conversation now, the planet would be a chaotic ball of fire and steam. Feedbacks so far observed have all been negative. Unfortunately for those hell-bent on promoting some kind of catastrophic conclusion to our existence, the planet actually has a very capable system of self-regulation and stabilisation. No, that does not mean we can pollute at will (CO2 is not pollution) but it does mean we don't need to scare people into thinking their planet is broken - it isn't, and whatever is happening now with our weather and climate is not the fault of man.

As a scientist my belief shifts as the data accumulates. I always have two or more opposing theories going on, sort of like playing chess with myself. Humans are very susceptible to filtering out facts that do not support their beliefs and we are all prone to this and have to be on guard. My present position on GW is towards GW but I could change my position if compelling data comes in and my ego would not be offended.

PS. My current top project is trying to fuse, Ultimate L, with theoretical physics.

??? => "4) Retreat since 1900 has been near continuous and the rate of this retreat has not accelerated, "

#1. Wouldn't "continuous retreat" lead to the same result as acceleration?

#2a. Am I missing something heah? Continuous retreat IS increasing rate.

#2b. Continuous retreat IN PLANET TIME would be a straight-ish line.

Yeah, first it was ozone, then CO2, and just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water up pops methane. Altogether now, "it's worse than we thought"!!!

Problem is, methane isn't the problem you'd like to think it is.

New sin taxes gives people a pass on continuing to sin.

New sin taxes gives people a pass on continuing to sin by giving them the idea the matter has been taken care of.

New sin taxes gives people a pass on continuing to sin by giving them the idea the matter has been taken care of simply by throwing more money at it.

That is the lie of taxes. Not "regressive" => a lie; a big fat lie.

That's why whorehouses aren't taxed: it makes it "OK".

Taxes makes sin a permanent fixture.

Just like "Big Tobacco" that everyone knows is killing people all over the world but, it pays TAXES so it cannot be done away with. Once taxes are put on carbon it becomes the same permanent pass, the same permanent fixture, the same permanent sin, and finally the fabric & structure of society realizes it can't function without the new sin baby tax on carbon.

THAT'S CALLED MESTASTASIS. A PERMANENT CANCER YA CAN'T DO WITHOUT. WHICH MEANS IT BEGINS STOPPING CARBON REDUCTION.

Stuck with cigarettes, stuck with carbon, stuck in the ribs with polluting engines.

REDUCTION STOPS NOT PRODUCTION.

I googled Himalayan glaciers not melting and found some articles to support your statement, then I found some to confirm the melting as recent as December 5, 2011.

How do we know which is correct?

Again, the word "extent" is different than volume, and people here know that. And don't you find it so coincidental this person comes back now just when the evidence and reality is presenting itself so much more clearly? It is absolutely frustrating to the extreme that after months we are still sitting here talking to someone who even denies CO2 traps heat trying to do what exactly? Those who continue to come here to spread their lies already know what the scientific evidence has proven as do the people living it.

Looks like a one-way spiral into an ice-free Arctic, doesn't it? Obviously due to global warming caused by man's use of fossil fuels. Did I get that right? Great, I'm almost ready for my "I'm scared of CO2" badge.

Oh, is there any chance of you answering my question? Why did all these glaciers begin melting hundreds of years ago? And since research shows that (among the ones that are shrinking) the rate of retreat has not increased, how does that correlate with the so-called man-made global warming of the last century?
Why has the Arctic melt season not increased? The alarmists said global warming would increase the melt season, this has not happened. Why?

But to get back to your PIOMAS chart. Some people have strong disagreements with PIOMAS data, personally I'm not sure, but real-world evidence seems to be in dispute with the data shown. That would take a whole post of its own, but even if your chart is entirely correct, that would suggest sea ice is now thinner and therefore should continue to decline in years to come. Let's see.
Apart from a couple of weeks this year, 2011 sea ice has been well above that of the previous few years. And while I agree that you can't use that as a trend, it certainly isn't looking like the Arctic is melting away. Don't worry, within your lifetime you will see the Arctic ice increasing, although that still won't mean it's correct or normal, there is no correct amount of sea ice! And even if all the ice was to melt away it wouldn't mean the earth is broken, or that it's your fault.

All could be correct. Some glaciers are shrinking and have been doing so for hundreds of years, long before man's actions could possibly have been the cause. Some are growing. There's a lot more to glacier melt/expansion than temperature.

Don't be fooled by the red herring talking points deniers throw out even now. Overall the majority of glaciers worldwide from Africa, to South America, to Europe, to North America to the Arctic are melting at an excelerated rate and that is having a negligable effect on water resources and threats to villages downstream in the Himalayan regions due to glacial lakes bursting. That information corroborated by scientists and by those living there can also be found if searched for. Research is also linking extreme weather patterns to Arctic ice melt as well. I also don't recall anyone here saying they are ALL melting. The study posted by a glaciologist regarding the reality of the Cordilera Blanca in Peru is showing distinct signs of climate change not attributed to their other La Nina /El Nino fallback excuse due to the pace, which I am sure made heads explode hence the appearance here. Now if the person you are responding to was actually a glaciologist, then I suppose they would have some credibility. But seeing they are only someone who would say anything to throw off the conversation (and you will see the personal attack soon enough) I think that says it all.

Problem is Jan, there is a wealth of real-world evidence, (not models or predictions) that disputes your BS. There are plenty of long-term studies that show conclusively that things aren't as bad as you'd like them to believe.

"Now if the person you are responding to was actually a glaciologist, then I suppose they would have some credibility."

Ah yes, but only if it's the glaciologist that speaks the words you want to hear. If it's a glaciologist that states, as I presented here, that glaciers began growing long before man could have been responsible, and that glacier melt rates have not accelerated at all, then you'll dismiss his findings instantly and go in search of a link to big oil.

And here's a couple of questions you won't answer (You never do. You can't) why did the glaciers begin melting long before man could have been responsible? Why are only some glaciers melting? Did you ever do any research that correlated glacier melt, not to temperature, but to cloud cover? Oh, but that would implicate the sun, wouldn't it, and there's absolutely no way the sun could ever have an influence on our climate, is there?
I mean, that big burning star that fluctuates its output (there's more to the sun than TSI) couldn't possibly have an effect on the earth, could it?

Never heard of Glacier National Park ? I have stood on those Glaciers . They will be gone soon , and with them their high mountain lakes of glacier flour hues ... I hope i am wrong , however , this can be seen by anyone who goes to look ....

That's the problem, most people aren't looking at the whole picture.
People where I live haven't suffered the effects of global warming yet so they could care less.
It's NIMBY -- if it's 'not in my back yard' then why worry?

I am sorry but your view is not taking into consideration all the facts. yes, the planet has its own cycles, people are pushing it into an unnatural cycle. over the edge as it were. And even if you don't quite adhere to the science as it sits, one way or the other the planet is warming at an alarming rate and we are not in anyway prepared because we refuse to think about, talk about, out leaders are of the stance; oh well adapt....which is a fine attitude for a group that is only thinking of themselves. Ever see the old movie Life Boat?

There is an interesting hypothesis put forward by Prof. William Ruddiman of Virginia University that "the little ice age" was the direct result of a sudden lowering of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by the genocide of tens of millions of Native Americans shortly after Columbus and Cortez arrived in the Americas (Plows, Plagues & Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate, Princeton 2005).

Yes we were. Which makes this all the more outrageous and sad. And it is people who have not contributed to this as much as we have who are now suffering the effects of it at a quicker pace. This is what indigenous people were talking about in Durban as were our young people. But all we get is a "roadmap" when we should already be at the destination.

Yes, we see it globally, simultaneously and it is quickening. The Alps, glaciers in Africa, the Arctic, all the way to Washington state. Signs we need to be aggressively reforesting this planet and working to revamp our agricultural methods especially in developing countries to sequester more carbon in soil and replenishing it instead of stripping it.To keep destroying the sinks when you see this excess is simply beyond foolish. I cannot wrap my head around those who still say we don't even need to plant trees because everything is Ok. I truly think people still so in denial either need to seek mental therapy, or they are getting paid way too much to spread their lies.

did you see the article about the methane plumes of Russia? We aren't prepared. I try to think about just where I am and what will be the outcome in twenty years climate wise.. You heard what the Pres. of the Phillipines said: he is done! He sees climate change as a national security issue. He banned logging and they keep doing it for pineapple farms. He will have to bring out armed soldiers to protect the land so it doesn't come rushing down and keep killing people by the thousands. He basically said that he doesn't expect the rest of the world to give a crap what happens to his people and he will have to get crazy to get his people on board.

absolutely right...here is an article from 08 saying that and more

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-ti...

History will remember him , well , i hope there IS a history ....

It makes me wince to think of . I do not doubt it .

So do you also support a carbon tax? Or if you wish to change the semantics, a renewable incentive? ;-). I agree that America should have a major reforestation effort. Matter of fact I started a petition a couple of years ago and called my initiative Plant America that I sent to the White House but it didn't get any attention, which really wasn't a surprise. Reforestation is a major key to sequestering the excess CO2 in the atmosphere, and of course that doesn't go over too well with the fossil fuel benefactors in DC. However, there has to be a balance to this at the source because let's face it we will still cut down trees. Deforestation and the loss of CO2 through unsustainable industrial agriculture wastes more than cars do. I firmly believe sustainable agriculture along with a major reforestation effort in this country and globally would go a long way to beginning to sequester CO2 and is not an impossible task. However, we also must move corporations to sustainable capitalism which balances our atmosphere and our economy.

To reforest the entire country is wonderful, but if you are going to continue to allow the same pace of emissions it will be a lost cause. Those making the pollution willfully must be held accountable for the pollution they make. We need to start holding them accountable and moving to a clean energy economy and also incentivizing farmers who preserve our environment through sequestration, permaculture, agroecology, agroforestry, etc. Now I know we live in a "modern" industrial age and there are many people we need to feed. However, the methods we are using now are not feeding people. They are feeding the corporate Monsanto/Syngenta//Cargill/GMO/Pesticide/fossil fuel war machine. So this then also goes to landgrabbing and deforesting huge swaths of land ( in places like Peru) to grow GM soy and corn for animal feed and biofuel not to feed people and it is exacerbating these climate effects. The industrial agricultural system is failing us and our climate. Therefore I am interested in your views on this. You do not hear of anyone running for president who discusses this important crisis.

Oh, and by some chance were you to be elected... Could I head the USDA? ;-) Thanks for your time.

Great post. I'm not to keen on a general carbon tax. I prefer focused taxes that people understand. For instance a $5 per barrel fee for tar-sands oil for environmental mitigation and clean-up or a 10% tax on coal produced electricity to fund tree planting, etc. This way consumers can identify the benefit of the tax. I feel that much of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the fact that we cut down the natural carbon sinks. We can reforest without impacting food supplies by ending ethanol production and switching to bio-algae oil. We can move vegetable and base fruit production to hydroponics in urban areas as well as around power plants to increase yields and reduce the transport carbon emissions. We can build HSR to replace growth in air transport as well. I would not envision a plan that did not include eliminating coal fired-plants from the electricity system. There is a lot of land in the agricultural set aside program that could be planted with trees but there isn't much we can do about other countries as long as the US is not setting an example. It seems hypocritical to go to Brazil and say you can't cut your forest but we can cut ours. I would eliminate paper from schools and switch to electronic notebooks expecting businesses to follow. We could achieve the paperless office finally. I would simplify the tax system to reduce paper usage. Both these actions would save vast amounts of water, energy use and reduce timber harvesting. I would shut-down the post office and install electronic mail terminals in every household eliminating the cheap mailers that everyone gets. These are all really simple changes in society that do not require vast sums of money and actually make things more efficient and reduce costs. I have no candidates for USDA so you can move to the front of the line. LOL. Look for me on Americans Elect when they post candidates on January 15th.

Yes, much of this is because of land use changes, agricultural changes, deforestation, etc. However, the majority is from he burning of fossil fuels which we need to decrease drastically within this next decade starting now in order to maintain any sort of hope to adapt to what we have already brought upon ourselves. And in all honesty I still believe a price per ton on carbon at the source (revenue neutral) would also move businesses faster into decreasing emissions at the source in the first place and spur more investment in renewable energy sources while also giving back to consumers so they as well can afford to make the changes necessary for adaptation. Scientists state we have just about five years in order to avoid irreversible climate change, which then means that while we can still work to decrease emissions it will be more expensive the longer we wait.

I like your ideas about decreasing paper usage and of course, water is a big part of that as well as our energy and agricultural sectors. I also like the idea of hydroponics on a local scale and think that not only a major reforestation effott here is necessary but a major nationwide move to local farms (community supported agriculture) will not only help in decreasing carbon emissions, but also bring healthy food to areas that lack it. They would bring health, jobs and a boost to local economies. Schools as well can play an integral part in this "agricultural remaissance" where we can move forward into the future by employing the tried and true methods of sustainable agriculture on a wider scale. I like that you at least have ideas on these important topics and thanks for sharing them here. Oh, and thanks for the vote of confidence...I'll wait on the name plaque though. ;-).

It would be good for us if we did , less mad cows ...

My primary reason for not pushing a"carbon" tax is that it has developed too many opponents. I prefer to fight the fights I can win and compromise on the ones I can't. I would like to put a carbon tax in the WTO agreements to level the playing field, then focus on a tax for coal. All fossil fuels are dirty but instead of trying to punish them all, use a divide and conquer strategy and focus on one at a time. All carbon taxes are regressive in nature so we can use a rebate payment for the poor if it is done on electricity through billing but it is more difficult to manage on petrol.

Is everything about spreading doubt and confusion?
Yes science can be wrong about things. That's what science is all about -- learning.
How does science underestimating the speed of climate change help your case that global warming is a hoax?

Sources for what? If you're looking for a source for the quoted, "This is happening 20 to 30 years earlier than forecasted. " look no further than the second paragraph in the article being discussed here... or don't you actually read the items posted? Maybe you just vote up and add a complementary comment even though you haven't read the article or understood it!!!

Now your turn. Explain why these glaciers were melting long before man could have had an influence due to his small contribution to natural CO2 levels, and why these glaciers were melting when CO2 was supposedly at 'safe' levels.

Edit: seeing as you removed your original comment because you would have looked pretty stupid (obviously you don't actually read the articles!!!), "Provide sources or shut up" I'll have to re-write my reply.

Yes science can be wrong, so why then do you continue to hold dearly onto science that has since been debunked? Science is about learning, I agree, so why are the so-called eminent climate 'scientists' so keen to destroy and withhold data? Surely any scientist worth his salt is willing for his work to be seen and understood, and his results to be replicated.
Climate change a hoax? You said that, not me. Climate change is real and is happening now, but that's nothing new. The climate has never been stable, although a good example of a relatively stable climate is the one which you and your grandparents lived in.

But, more to the point of this discussion, why did the Peruvian glaciers begin to retreat long before man could have had an influence, and long before CO2 levels rose above the fictitious 'unsafe' level? You seem unable to answer that question! Don't worry about it, I understand ;)

Of course climate has been changing for billions of years, all driven by CO2 levels in the atmosphere as science has confirmed for 150 years now.
The entire point you fail to grasp is the unprecidented rate we humans are changing it right now!
For the first time in Earth's history (that we know of) humans are altering the chemistry of the air to the point where these changes are occurring in centuries rather than millennia. And for the first time in history we can do something about it!
The dinosaur could do nothing about the asteroid that changed their climate.
We can.

Stratfor?

I think if you do some reading and research you'll find that the science has moved on from the theory that man is cooking his planet due to CO2 emissions. Only 3% of atmospheric CO2 is from man anyway! Had your theory been true the planet would have burned to a cinder centuries ago, and if you follow the subject you'll soon discover that the only time CO2 and temperature rises correlated was during a very small period between the late 70s and the late 90s, around twenty years.
With increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the planet continues to cool - why? Don't answer that, I'm sure you can't, just as you can't answer the questions why did Peruvian glaciers begin retreating before man could have had an effect, and why did they begin to retreat while CO2 concentrations were at a 'safe' level?

"Is everything about spreading doubt and confusion?"

Absolutely that is transparently so. Voted up.

First step ? We ALL must STOP using OIL , NOW . Second , Plant trees .... everywhere .