Comments on: Glacier Bay, Alaska

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:38:04 +0000

I wonder where the trees in Wiles’ tree ring chornology are located then. It’s too bad that tree ringers don’t provide (more) maps.

By: Paul Gosling

Paul Gosling — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:24:45 +0000

Steve

To answer your original question (speculate at least). If the glaciers had already reached the sea before the LIA advance there would be no trees to overide and provide evidence.

Paul

By: Mark T

Mark T — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 04:11:39 +0000

Off topic, but I just need to mention in this thread that there is a bay/creek/some body of water in Alaska that shares my last name. I do not know how it got there.

Mark

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:42:04 +0000

#63. It may be a little outside the scope of local guides, but I’m puzzled as to why the original radiocarbon dates cited above didn’t have anything mentioned from the LIA moraine. Maybe you could get some information from the original authors as to where the samples dated to 1.6-1.2 kyr BP were taken on the ground; then compare that location to where the LIA moraine is. It would be worthwhile asking them for a sample location map – they sound like geologists and, unlike dendro people, might have one.

By: Sam

Sam — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:58:36 +0000

I find the comments regarding Glacier Bay very interesting since I will be going there next week. I recently watched a documentary regarding the area on cable and found it gratifying that the lady National Park Ranger who was discussing the history of the bay very matter of factly stated that within 300-400 years the entire area would probably be completely iced-under again. Apparently, the people who live and work in the area don’t by into the idiocy of the Warmers. Please disregard the trolls who torment this site (Dano, Bloom, Mureigo or alter ego or whatever.. they are just playing tag team and trying to stir up the natives. Dano frequents many sites to do just this and should not be given the time of day) No ad hom intended, just the observation of experience.

By: Tom Brogle

Tom Brogle — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 08:37:21 +0000

I read the article cited by Steve Bloom.
It is just scientific rubbish.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 07:56:31 +0000

Re #56/7: Things appear to be more complicated. Among other things, it is not snowing more in Antarctica even though it should be. See the current post at RC for some interesting details. Also, strictly technically the business about warmer air holding more water vapor is an example of Bad Meteorology (although the distinction has no consequences for this particular application).

By: Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 05:10:50 +0000

JMS, if you think the idea that clouds increase albedo is a “brilliant theory”, you haven’t been following the plot …

By: JMS

JMS — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 04:58:14 +0000

Water vapor doesn’t increase albedo, clouds increase albedo. [stop flaming please]

By: Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 04:57:15 +0000

Re #51, gbalella/muirgeo, are you serious?

You say:

Willis just asked me an incredibly good question on CO2 and temperature trends through the holocene…which I’ve been waiting for….. but I guess it’s inappropriate for me to give a response? If this is the new law then fine I’ll impose my own self ban…..There is nothing more to say until the MWP forest start showing from underneath receding glaciers. If you figure out a way for trolls like me to contribute I’ll see you then. Otherwise, the support group can carry on with statistical machinations on Mann’s paper and other “relevant issues”.

Willis….look at graph C for your answer. oops sorry..couldn’t help myself…. BYE BYE…gbalella/muirgeo troll signing off.

When I went to your reference, I saw the graph of decreasing insolation in the northern hemisphere over the Holocene … It looked too smooth to be real, so I went to the underlying document and found that it’s the change due to the Milankovich astronomical cycle …

Are you really sure, muirgeo/gbalella, you want to claim that the holocene cooled because of the Milankovich cycle? Dude, Thompson has suckered you …

You see, because the change shown in his neat little graph is precession driven, the SH insolation increased as much as the NH decreased during that time, and he’s talking about the SH, Quelccaya and Kilimanjaro.

Thompson claims that “The general shape of the 18O profile from both HuascaràÆà⠮ and Kilimanjaro is consistent with the Holocene tropical insolation curve between latitude 0° and 30°N (Fig. 8C), suggesting that the warmer temperatures of the early Holocene were largely insolation-driven in response to the Earth’s precession.”

Ooooh, that’s real scientific. The general shape of two curves, one of which is a sine curve, “is consistent”. This “suggests” that the sine curve is the cause of the other curve … suggests? The general shape suggests? I thought this was science, but no, no r^2, no measures of correlation, he’s just finding out who is suggestible …

However, somehow he doesn’t remind the audience that both Kilimanjaro and HuascaràÆà⠮ are in the Southern Hemisphere … or that there was no net global precession driven change in insolation during that time …

So let me ask my question again. For thousands of years, the CO2 rose during the Holocene while the temperature fell … why?