"Heed the Goracle"

Gore swept into Toronto yesterday using an environmentally controversial airline on Toronto Island – a service that is opposed by friends of Toronto’s waterfront (including myself.) The departing headlines read: Heed the Goracle.

I reported here on Gore’s speech at the AGU:

He spoke for an hour and was a far more accomplished speaker than one remembers from Presidential debates, glancing only occasionally at notes. It was like a Southern Baptist orator had seamlessly changed texts. His speech was a type of sermon: a few well-practised jokes to start, a commentary on selected verses followed by a call to commit. … His presentation

and appearance resulted in a type of secular avatar of Jerry Falwell.

A number of posters thought that I was too snarky. However, it seems that my take on Gore was not that far off the take of most of the Toronto reporters – all of whom, like me, were struck by the revivalist character of the Goracle. Here are a few excerpts and links:

Globe and Mail (very pro-IPCC)

They came in their hundreds to hear him speak, and even those left standing outside the crowded hall would not be deterred from lingering in the proximity of the Baptist prophet from Tennessee. …

There were vegans seeking new recruits, people calling for the closing of Ontario’s coal-fired power plants, a Greenpeace mascot dressed as a polar bear — even the UFO believers showed up. “I know you won’t believe this,” one of them, a man named Victor Viggiani, said with a practised tongue, “but the extraterrestrial technology involved in this . . . it’s free energy, man. Absolute free energy, and it’ll be the end of fossil fuels.” Mr. Viggiani, a retired school principal, tried to get an information package to Mr. Gore when he arrived at a side door, but “the Secret Service were there; they saw my backpack and they pushed me away.”

Across the driveway in front of the hall, a large banner exhorted the crowd to “Heed the Goracle.” Belonging to a fledgling group called ecoSanity, it was still there hours later, as Mr. Gore enjoyed a reception at the adjacent Simcoe Hall and the dispersing crowd voiced its praise.

National Post (Financial Post is anti-Kyoto; reporters vary)

Then, after taking the Porter Airways afternoon commuter flight to Toronto, he gave a sold out lecture at the University of Toronto, where he was greeted by a throng of supporters, two of whom displayed a bedsheet with the slogan “Heed the Goracle.”

At Mr. Gore’s request, media were barred from taking notes at the Montreal event and from even attending the Toronto one, which was based largely on his celebrated film, An Inconvenient Truth.

Toronto Star (very pro-Kyoto)

From “Gore the Bore” to American Idol. And, with James Brown gone to soul heaven, inheritor of the title: Hardest Working Man in Showbiz.Who needs the Oval Office when you’ve got a cosmic platform from which to preach the Gospel of Global Warming Warning?”Hello, I’m Al Gore,” he said by way of introduction. “I used to be the next president of the United States.” Ba-da-boom.”Heed the Goracle”!, urged one placard among many welcoming signs outside the University of Toronto’s Convocation Hall, where pro-demonstrators (and a polar bear) held a candlelit vigil for Kyoto, just beyond the bank of gas-guzzling limousines.

It was at Harvard, in the ’60s, that Gore was pulled into the gravitational orbit of ecology-devotees, taught by Roger Revelle, the first scientist to monitor carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.Presumably, this was all happening simultaneous to the charmed existence of an Ivy League swain-on-campus, Gore once claiming he was the prototype for the Ryan O’Neal character in Love Story. Author Erich Segal, who was a classics scholar at Harvard at the time, demurred. Turns out Gore’s roommate — Tommy Lee Jones — was the actual “Oliver” model.

That episode was embarrassing for Gore. He’s had quite a few — embarrassments — over the length and breadth of his career. Like, say, when he claimed to have invented the Internet, just a slight exaggeration.

Or that notorious kiss he planted on wife Tipper’s lips after accepting the Democratic presidential nomination in 2000, a lung-buster PDA in which he bent the Missus so far back it looked like her spine would snap.

Toronto Sun (iconoclastic and not pro-Kyoto by nature)
Temporarily has a video of the Gore epiphany in Toronto here Story here

Tree Huggers Gored: Green giant Al Gore swept into town last night for his one night show on global warming that generated more heat than a rock concert.

and here

120 Comments

  1. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Feb 22, 2007 at 3:14 PM | Permalink

    At Mr. Gore’s request, media were barred from taking notes at the Montreal event

    Sounds like the class Gore taught at Columbia U several years back – leave your backpacks, laptops, notebooks, pens, and pencils at the door.

  2. Reid
    Posted Feb 22, 2007 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    The Goracle got a Masters degree in Theology from Vanderbilt. He is now putting that knowledge to work.

  3. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Feb 22, 2007 at 3:40 PM | Permalink

    RE: “It was at Harvard, in the ’60s, that Gore was pulled into the gravitational orbit of ecology-devotees”

    That’s all one needs to know. Yet another fractal fragment of 1960s’ bizarre events and happenings, continuing to wormhole its way through the institutions at Warp 5.

  4. Fred
    Posted Feb 22, 2007 at 3:48 PM | Permalink

    “It was at Harvard, in the ’60s, that Gore was pulled into the gravitational orbit of ecology-devotees””

    Did he inhale ???

  5. jae
    Posted Feb 22, 2007 at 3:51 PM | Permalink

    That episode was embarrassing for Gore. He’s had quite a few ‘€” embarrassments ‘€” over the length and breadth of his career. Like, say, when he claimed to have invented the Internet, just a slight exaggeration.

    Yeah, and his present Sermons on the Mount may add to the list of embarassments, when all the catastrophes predicted by the radical AGW crowd fail to materialize. A couple of cold years might even be enough to do it.

    Of course he comes across as a preacher, since Divinity was his major field of study, as I recall.

  6. John West
    Posted Feb 22, 2007 at 3:58 PM | Permalink

    If He didn’t want them shorn, He wouldn’t have made them sheep.

  7. brent
    Posted Feb 22, 2007 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

    I think they goofed on the nickname
    It shouldn’t be “Goracle”, but “Gorgon”
    Sigh.. where’s Perseus when you need him.

    http://msms.essortment.com/perseusgorgonm_rzzi.htm

  8. Ross McKitrick
    Posted Feb 22, 2007 at 4:24 PM | Permalink

    The Gore effect — intense winter conditions wherever Al shows up to speak about global warming — brought heavy snow in the Toronto area starting at night after the speech ended. Traffic was slow and treacherous this morning due to accumulation of several centimeters before road crews had time to start clearing it.

  9. Fred Harwood
    Posted Feb 22, 2007 at 4:33 PM | Permalink

    Amen.

  10. Reed
    Posted Feb 22, 2007 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

    Here’s a link to a prescient cartoon from last year that illustrates the concept…

  11. John A
    Posted Feb 22, 2007 at 5:28 PM | Permalink

    Sounds like the class Gore taught at Columbia U several years back – leave your backpacks, laptops, notebooks, pens, and pencils at the door.

    …and equally clearly, intellects as well.

  12. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Feb 22, 2007 at 6:01 PM | Permalink

    Re #8 – Ross, are you sure it was all white stuff out there?

  13. John G. Bell
    Posted Feb 22, 2007 at 6:54 PM | Permalink

    We laugh at Gore but he is only a category 5 hit on Miami away from the Presidency. Let us hope long long odds. Dr. Pielke thinks Gore has a shot without mentioning a precipitating disaster. Frankly, Dr. Pielke’s knows more about the way the wind blows than I ever will. Perhaps he calculates a hurricane in on the sly and is only waiting for a good time to place his bet.

  14. John M
    Posted Feb 22, 2007 at 8:13 PM | Permalink

    John G.Bell #13

    “Dr. Pielke thinks Gore has a shot…”

    I think RP Jr was just goofing around. I think he was experimenting to see if he could stick his tongue in his cheek and his foot in his mouth at the same time.

  15. John G. Bell
    Posted Feb 22, 2007 at 9:06 PM | Permalink

    Re #14
    You are at least half right.

  16. roger dueck
    Posted Feb 23, 2007 at 12:19 AM | Permalink

    Re #4
    If you remember the 60’s, you weren’t there!

    But serieously, folks. Al has responded to a political opportunity in the manner that only a “previously next President of the United States” could do. The issue is now totally political and with the invocation of the Bob Geldof “World Concert” principle, how can anyone dis a movement that will not only save the Earth, but has Cameron Diaz as a headliner!

  17. Hans Erren
    Posted Feb 23, 2007 at 1:43 AM | Permalink

    This isn’t science anymore, this an appeal to emotion.

    “Don’t you want to save the earth?”

  18. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Feb 23, 2007 at 7:37 AM | Permalink

    Yeah, and his present Sermons on the Mount may add to the list of embarassments, when all the catastrophes predicted by the radical AGW crowd fail to materialize. A couple of cold years might even be enough to do it.

    Nah, it will just be spun. Gore will probably take/receive credit for bringing AGW awareness and preventing the catastrophes.

    And do you think the surface record would really show “a couple of cold years” with all of the tinkering that’s been going on?

  19. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Feb 23, 2007 at 9:49 AM | Permalink

    I don’t want to discuss U.S. presidential politics here. There are plenty of other places to do so. I realize that a “Heed the Goracle” thread rather invites such a discussion, but I still don’t want to do it. It was pretty hard for me not to comment on the coverage of Gore’s epiphany in Toronto, but this type of discussion can easily take over the blog and I want to avoid it.

  20. Hans Erren
    Posted Feb 23, 2007 at 10:05 AM | Permalink

    fair enough, after all you are a canadian.

  21. brent
    Posted Feb 23, 2007 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

    Canadian Newspaper Asks Is Al Gore Bad For Your Mental Health?’

    http://www.thestar.com/article/184121

  22. Sara Chan
    Posted Feb 23, 2007 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

    The current edition of The Economist has a story entitled “Waiting for Al”, about Gore’s candidacy for the 2008 presidential election:

    … there is a huge opportunity for somebody to arrive late and steal the show.
    Step forward Al Gore. Mr Gore has enough of a national profile to command instant credibility. He has rich friends to finance him. He will also command plenty of attention in his own right over the next few months: his film “An Inconvenient Truth” could win an Oscar for best documentary on Sunday, and he may be up for the Nobel peace prize in the autumn.
    Mr Gore is the ideal candidate for the Democratic stalwarts who turn out to vote in the primaries. …

  23. jae
    Posted Feb 23, 2007 at 10:37 AM | Permalink

    21: Note the responses to that article. Every one of them indicates a negative reaction to all the hype. The public is not as stupid as Al Gore, et. al. think.

  24. Hans
    Posted Feb 23, 2007 at 3:07 PM | Permalink

    Men, it has been well said, think in herds;
    it will be seen that they go mad in herds,
    while they only recover their senses slowly,
    and one by one.”

    – Charles Mackay

  25. K Hays
    Posted Feb 23, 2007 at 4:19 PM | Permalink

    “…environmentally controversially airline..”

    What kind of writing is this?

  26. Nicholas
    Posted Feb 24, 2007 at 3:03 AM | Permalink

    K Hays, I think it’s a typo. He probably meant to say “environmentally controversial airline”. That’s what I parsed it as, although it was a bit confusing…

  27. John A
    Posted Feb 24, 2007 at 3:46 AM | Permalink

    Re: #25

    It’s a bad case of adverb-itis, and is another symptom of the “Gore Effect”. It’s gone now.

  28. Ken Fritsch
    Posted Feb 24, 2007 at 1:38 PM | Permalink

    I don’t want to discuss U.S. presidential politics here. There are plenty of other places to do so. I realize that a “Heed the Goracle” thread rather invites such a discussion, but I still don’t want to do it.

    Certainly Gore cannot be taken seriously as a scientist and that really leaves only Gore the politician/policy guy to talk about — but I agree those discussions can go on forever and are essentially wasted bandwidth.

    His popularity on the policy front, I would think, comes from those who are really into AGW/ environmental causes. He does not have to make the measured comments of scientists and that makes working a crowd less restraining. His persona does not suffer from a mean streak from which most politicians suffer and the apparent caricature he does of himself when on the stage makes any self importance easier to take. I would think, however, that there are scientists out there with an advocacy bent for AGW who must cringe on occasion when Gore attempts to make arguments for AGW and dramatically prescribe actions for mitigating the effects thereof.

  29. Hans Erren
    Posted Feb 26, 2007 at 6:49 AM | Permalink

    It’s the wrong cate-gory: it should have been for best science fiction movie or party political broadcast.

    http://oscars.movies.yahoo.com/news/associatedpress/20070225/1196.html

  30. Gary
    Posted Feb 26, 2007 at 8:46 AM | Permalink

    Hollywood’s stock in trade is fictionalizing history and the future so Al Gore has navigated precisely to the center of gravity with An Inconvenient Truth. The fawning over him was revealing and chilling. I almost expected a Sally Field moment, except he really thinks its deserved praise.

  31. John A
    Posted Feb 26, 2007 at 9:40 AM | Permalink

    I wonder how he got there so quickly from Toronto? It must have been one hell of a bikeride…

  32. welikerocks
    Posted Feb 26, 2007 at 10:11 AM | Permalink

    They are making fun of Al Gore on almost every radio station in town here this morning; and not the political talk radio stations either, the music stations discussing the Oscar broadcast. They keep playing the sound bites recorded by reporters who were there of all the laughter that erupted after Al Gore proclaimed global warming wasn’t a political issue. They edited it out somehow on the telly. That is pretty chilling as well.

  33. jae
    Posted Feb 26, 2007 at 2:01 PM | Permalink

    Rocksy: I can understand the laughter. For some reason, the thought or mention of Gore always makes me smile. I cannot quite put my finger on just why. He reminds me of eeyore in Winnie-the-Pooh (especially because he’s a Democrat). Maybe I’ve just seen too many cartoons about him inventing the internet. I wonder if a lot of people don’t feel the same about him.

  34. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Feb 26, 2007 at 2:09 PM | Permalink

    Is that a carbon fibre suit in the picture?

  35. jae
    Posted Feb 26, 2007 at 2:15 PM | Permalink

    Here’s what one of the guys I went to college with thinks of Gore’s Oscar.

  36. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Feb 26, 2007 at 4:47 PM | Permalink

    RE: #31 – A secret composite supersonic biz jet, made with investment by Algore and Sir Richard, in a stealth hangar at the Mojave Airport … I heard it burns a special kerosene that can only be derived from high sulfur Chinese coal … ;)

  37. David Smith
    Posted Feb 26, 2007 at 7:33 PM | Permalink

    Interesting, wrt Mr Gore ( link )

  38. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Feb 26, 2007 at 7:51 PM | Permalink

    RE: #37 – RE: ‘The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh’€”more than 20 times the national average.”

    And to think that our humble abode, peopled by so called rich (at least according to the tax man) GOP card carrying knuckle dragging reputed “denialists,” consumes but a fraction of the average household figure. We get the maximum rebate whenever PG&E offers a reduction related reward. And this is with the house as is, we have things planned which will shave off even more. Perhaps someday we’ll be feeding into the grid. I can afford to be very harsh regarding AGW hysteria, given that my figurative “house” is made from stone, not glass. I could be giving the vast majority of Green extremists lessons on how to walk the talk.

  39. John Creighton
    Posted Feb 26, 2007 at 8:38 PM | Permalink

    With all this toke of Gore what about Suzuki’s land Ark:

    http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2007/02/22/3653785-sun.html

    http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9231&whichpage=1

  40. John Creighton
    Posted Feb 26, 2007 at 11:58 PM | Permalink

    Al, Gore was vice president of the United States and won best documentary. Anyone see any connection. Best documentary is kind of like a consolation prize. Atleast that is what Michael more thought when he turned it down because he wanted to win best film. I guess Al Gore has no trouble being the best loser.

  41. MarkW
    Posted Feb 27, 2007 at 7:54 AM | Permalink

    I’m sure Gore will tell you that it’s ok for him to use lots of energy, since he also purchases “green credits”. Pay people to plant
    trees. Pay other people to use less energy. Etc.

    The actual result is what happens whenever rich liberals start telling the rest of us how to live our lives. They can easily afford
    the extra costs they are impossing on society. The rest of us however, get to starve in the dark, so that our lords and masters can
    feel good about themselves.

  42. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Feb 27, 2007 at 12:57 PM | Permalink

    RE: #41 – Of note, forests in Europe increased greatly during the Dark Ages (cold period) and continued to increase a bit during the MWP. Only with the Renaissance was there renewed growth in cleared land …. ;)

  43. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Feb 27, 2007 at 12:57 PM | Permalink

    I meant, renewed growth in the amount of cleared land …

  44. James Erlandson
    Posted Feb 28, 2007 at 11:09 AM | Permalink

    From The Tennessean:
    Gore says media miss climate message

    “I think … it is important to look at the pressures that made it more likely than not that mainstream journalists in the United States would convey a wholly inaccurate conclusion about the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced.”

    Gore would not answer any questions from the media after the event.

  45. Reid
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 9:22 AM | Permalink

    Gore is a founding partner of the carbon credit company that he is buying indulgences from. Looks like Gore has a massive conflict of interest.

    Generation Investment Management LLP

    http://www.generationim.com/

  46. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 9:50 AM | Permalink

    During his time as vice president of the USA in 2000 a Kyoto conference was held in the Hague (COP6) in which the USA delegation torpedoed the agreement by insisting that USA forests should count as sink in the national CO2 budget.

    Anybody hear Al Gore comment on this?

  47. L Nettles
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 10:41 AM | Permalink

    Gore blames media for being soft on AGW

    Gore says media miss climate message

    I am not making this stuff up.

  48. Ken Fritsch
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 11:18 AM | Permalink

    Gores admonishment of the media simply shows his and, I believe, other AGW advocates for more immediate action for mitigation, growing frustration that they will have to eventually face head on. That is the resistance of the public to agree to changes for climate disaster avoidances that firstly have not been proven with any certitude and secondly with consequences not yet experienced nor expected to be experienced for some time.

    Gore is a politician and politicians normally do not want to attack the voting public nor even admonish them and therefore they look to surrogates such as in this case the “denialists” and skeptics and evidently now the media. I see this same tendency of the scientist/advocate to use scapegoats when they should honestly know better. Can one rationally find evidence that skeptics have that much power and influence on this issue and can one really say that on the whole that the media is sympathetic to the skeptic’s case?

    This continued spanking of the media when it gives any voice at all to the skeptical case reminds me of times of war (less so now than in former times) when the tendency can be a call to dispense with the views of the opposition minority in the name of more efficiently waging that war.

  49. James Erlandson
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 11:38 AM | Permalink

    A New Yorker piece on Al Gore includes this from Saturday Night Live:

    President Gore reviewed some of his actions and their unintended consequences:

    “In the last six years we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack. As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine. But I assure you: we will not let the glaciers win.”

  50. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

    Gore blames media for being soft on AGW

    Gore was also the first person to suggest the IPCC (and scientists in general) don’t come close to going far enough on projected 21st century sea level rise.

  51. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 12:16 PM | Permalink

    Enough venting about Gore. Let’s leave it for now.

  52. John Creighton
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 8:39 PM | Permalink

    Steve then what is the purpose of this thread?

  53. Ian S
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 8:51 PM | Permalink

    Steve,

    Please don’t start ‘flame’ threads if you don’t want flames.

  54. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Mar 1, 2007 at 9:44 PM | Permalink

    If Gore visited Toronto, I could hardly not comment. And yes, it leads to some venting. I realize this. I’m not complaining about the venting to date. I’d just like to have a Goratorium on it for a while.

  55. johnmccall
    Posted Mar 4, 2007 at 8:37 PM | Permalink

    South Park aired their “most quoted” episodes, last evening — the former Vice President’s “I’m serial … Man-Bear-Pig” episode was on, of course.

  56. Jim Edwards
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 9:49 PM | Permalink

    Conserving power is certainly a good thing.

    Assuming reducing CO2 is some sort of moral imperative to save the Earth, Gore’s using 20x as much energy as the average American, while maintaining ‘Carbon neutral’ status through investment strikes me as being the logical equivalent of going on a murder spree, but arguing its ‘Life neutral’ because one has donated money to immunization efforts.

  57. John Creighton
    Posted Mar 5, 2007 at 10:48 PM | Permalink

    The sad part is Gore couldn’t even pay the few cents more per kilowatt hour for wind power.

    http://no-libs.com/?p=1473

  58. MarkW
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 6:18 AM | Permalink

    What I find interesting is that Gore’s company GIM invests in alternative energy companies. So when other people also invest
    in such companies, their stock prices go up, which makes GIM’s and hence Gore’s investments, more valueable.

    Those on the alarmist side of this debate frequently tell us that anyone who has a financial interest in this debate, must be
    ignored.

    Or does that restriction only apply to those on the skeptic side?

  59. Jim Edwards
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

    Is it OK to club harp seal pups if you buy some land for harp seals to breed on ?

  60. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 2:19 PM | Permalink

    RE: #59 – Look at the payments being made to princelings in China, supposedly to pay for “air pollution equipment.” What a scam.

  61. MarkW
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 2:22 PM | Permalink

    “Is it OK to club harp seal pups ”

    Only if you pray to them first.

  62. JerryB
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 3:10 PM | Permalink

    The Gore effect strikes again: he visits Toronto which then
    has the coldest February in over twenty years. :-)

    http://www.thestar.com/article/188324

  63. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 3:22 PM | Permalink

    #62. It’s bitterly cold in March as well. Wind chill last night was minus 35 (!). The main highway in downtown Toronto (Gardiner Expressway) was closed yesterday due to falling ice. Our fuel bills are way up this year due to keeping increased cold out as well as higher fuel prices. Notwithstanding all of this, I’m sure that CRU will report that winter 2007 was the 5th warmest ever and GISS the 2nd warmest ever.

  64. David Smith
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 3:50 PM | Permalink

    Re #62 The Star article says there’s only a 21% chance of snow in Toronto in March, April or May, if I read that correctly.

    That’s odd. I lived in western Ontario in the 1990s and (seem to) remember March snow rather regularly. I guess Ontario has warmed tremendously in the last 10 years.

  65. jae
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 3:58 PM | Permalink

    Falling ice? Where is it falling from?

  66. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 4:17 PM | Permalink

    The CN Tower!!

  67. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 4:20 PM | Permalink

    #64. Toronto gets a lot less snow than surrounding areas, especially western Ontario (which gets lake effect snow). Most of the snow from the west falls prior to Toronto and the little ridge to the north of the city (a glacial moraine) seems to remove quite a bit. So statistics from Toronto cannot be compared to western Ontario.

  68. John A
    Posted Mar 6, 2007 at 4:24 PM | Permalink

    Steve, then you’ll appreciate this open letter to Global Warming

  69. David Smith
    Posted Mar 12, 2007 at 7:42 PM | Permalink

    Even the New York Times says, Cool The Exaggeration ( link )

  70. Pat Frank
    Posted Mar 12, 2007 at 8:23 PM | Permalink

    #69 — David, here‘s the abstract to the paper Don Easterbrook gave at the GSA meeting mentioned in the NYT article at your link.

    CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF LATE PLEISTOCENE, ABRUPT, GLOBAL, CLIMATE CHANGES AND GLOBAL WARMING EASTERBROOK, Don J., Dept. of Geology, Western Washington Univ, Bellingham, WA 98225, dbunny@cc.wwu.edu

    The sensitive, global synchroniety of abrupt Younger Dryas [(YD)] climate oscillations, shown by double YD moraines in the Pacific NW, Rocky Mts., Swiss Alps, Canada, Scandinavia, and New Zealand, challenges the viability of changes in the North Atlantic deep current to explain such abrupt changes in both hemispheres with no time lag. New cosmogenic dates from twin YD moraines in the North Cascades and Sawtooth Mts. confirm that the western U.S. was sensitive to these abrupt climate changes, far removed from any oceanic connection to the North Atlantic.

    These late Pleistocene, global, climate changes have implications for understanding present’€”day global warming. Climatic modelers have predicted that global temperatures will soar in the next several decades as a result of increased atmospheric CO2. However, evidence from glaciers and the oceans suggest that these predictions may be premature. Advance and retreat of glaciers in the Pacific NW and elsewhere show three distinct oscillations, each having a period of ~25’€”30 years. Glaciers advanced from about 1890 until the early 1920s (cool cycle), retreated rapidly from ~1930 to ~1950-55 (warm cycle), readvanced from ~1955 to ~1980 (cool cycle), then retreated rapidly from ~1980 to the present (warm cycle). Comparable, cyclical, oscillation patterns occurred in the North Pacific (PDO), the North Atlantic (NAO), Europe, and Greenland. Global temperature curves show a cool reversal from ~1950 to 1980) at a time when large amounts of CO2 were introduced into the atmosphere, inferring that global temperatures then were not driven by atmospheric CO2. During this cool cycle, solar irradiance curves almost exactly match the global temperature curve. Satellite data indicate intensifying solar radiation over the past 24 years, coinciding with the present 25’€”year warm cycle and suggesting a solar cause for the warming. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end in the next few years, and global warming should abate, rather than increase, in the next 25’€”30 years, followed by renewed global warming in the following 25’€”30 years.”

  71. EW
    Posted Mar 13, 2007 at 7:43 AM | Permalink


    Here’s the 13-page handout to the above abstract:

  72. MarkW
    Posted Mar 13, 2007 at 8:22 AM | Permalink

    All I get is an infinite series of new windows, all with the same message.

  73. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 13, 2007 at 8:53 AM | Permalink

    Here are three issues well spotted in AIT (8 mins youtube):

    The scare tactics of Al Gore

  74. John Baltutis
    Posted Mar 14, 2007 at 1:43 AM | Permalink

    Re: # 72

    Downloaded with the title 214.doc and opened as a 13-page Word document on my Macintosh.

  75. Hans Erren
    Posted Mar 14, 2007 at 4:37 PM | Permalink

    Al Gore was threatening his Amsterdam audience with increasing earthquakes in Greenland

    start looking at 2min 33 seconds

  76. Angry Dane
    Posted Mar 14, 2007 at 5:19 PM | Permalink

    “Al Gore was threatening his Amsterdam audience with increasing earthquakes in Greenland”

    Stupid American. Greenland is Danish, not Dutch. We’re not the same.

  77. Mark T.
    Posted Mar 15, 2007 at 1:08 AM | Permalink

    It’s got nothing to do with him being American.

    Mark

  78. Gerhard H. Wrodnigg
    Posted Mar 15, 2007 at 1:26 AM | Permalink

    The Tennessee Center for Policy Research spotted Al’s personal energy bill at the Nashville Electric Service (NES):

    Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

    The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh’€”more than 20 times the national average.

    Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

    In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

  79. Mark T.
    Posted Mar 15, 2007 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

    Already noted. In fact, the Nashville Tennessean already had the story, but sat on it for a month.

    Mark

  80. MarkW
    Posted Mar 20, 2007 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

    Al Gore has a new book due out in May, The Assault on Reason. Description from Amazon:

    A visionary analysis of how the politics of fear, secrecy, cronyism, and blind faith has combined with the degration of the public sphere to create an environment dangerously hostile to reason.

    The sad thing is, he isn’t talking about himself here.

  81. Mark T.
    Posted Mar 20, 2007 at 11:31 AM | Permalink

    Most hypocrites are incapable of recognizing their hypocrisy.

    Mark

  82. fFreddy
    Posted Mar 20, 2007 at 11:49 AM | Permalink

    Blimey, there must be good money in this hate-preaching stuff

  83. L Nettles
    Posted Mar 30, 2007 at 4:08 PM | Permalink

    I hesitate to post this since Steve would surely not approve, but its too funny not to. listen

  84. Lee
    Posted Mar 30, 2007 at 11:30 PM | Permalink

    I will assume that a thread titled “heed the goracle” is immune from ‘off topic’ issues, having no substance to begin with, and will post this here so as not to ‘contaminate’ the serious work going on elsewhere.

    Ekstrom et al. 2006, Science, 311, 1756

    Clearly, it’s all due to UHI…

  85. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Mar 30, 2007 at 11:41 PM | Permalink

    You’re right, Lee. Gore does have not substance.

    As to the graph, how about one showing the energy spectra of said quakes. And then one showing how far away such quakes could be detected, followed by one showing when such locations received equipment capable of such detection.

    IOW, I expect the glacial quakes are on the less energetic side and that locating and attributing such quakes wasn’t a high priority until recently.

    Anyway, we know there are thousands of non-glacial earthquakes a year, not one or 2 hundred. What in the world is this graph supposed to be?

  86. KevinUK
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 5:32 AM | Permalink

    #83 LN

    Thanks for your very amusing link. This surely has to be adopted by ClimateAudit as its official blog theme tune? What do you think Steve M and John A?

    KevinUK

  87. L Nettles
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 6:20 AM | Permalink

    This surely has to be adopted by ClimateAudit as its official blog theme tune? What do you think Steve M and John A?

    Kevin, I hesitated to post this because I think it would be inappropriate to call Steve M a “denier” since he has not taken a position on AGW, his work is too focused to do that and its all about what you are “denying”.

    I am willing to be calling a “denier” if I get to define what I am denying. If I am allowed to say, I would say that I deny that there is satisfactory proof of significant human induced global warming as the result of increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    I do embrace the power of humor and ridicule in public debate, but this is a science blog.

  88. bernie
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 7:21 AM | Permalink

    Lee (#84):

    What were the measurements prior to 1993? Where are these measurements from? How do they correlate with local temperatures?
    What is the minimum energy to count as an earthquake? What about a link to the actual paper?
    What has this got to do with correcting local temperature measurements for UHI?

    Are all marked increases or decreases in phenomena over the last 30 years due to Global Warming? Have you and Gore stumbled on a Theory of Everything?

  89. KevinUK
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 7:54 AM | Permalink

    #87 LN

    Firstly I agree with what you’ve said.

    Steve M and John A have on several occasions on this blog said that they do not ‘deny’ the existence of the current global warming trend. For the record neither do I nor the vast majority of people who post on threads on this blog. However many (including myself) do have a problem and therefore in the eyes of some ‘deny’ (i.e. fail to agree that the current warming trend is prdominant caused by man’s emissions of CO2) the existence of anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming. When a poll was conducted recently on the blog asking for opinions on what were thought man’s contribution to the current warming trend was my ‘top-limit’ estimate was 30% i.e. that I think that no more than 30% of the current warming trend was due to man’s emissions of CO2. I recollect that my opinion was somewhat higher than most and so in a sense I am nearer to being a ‘warmer’ than a ‘denier’than others on this blog. Nonetheless I’m happy to be labelled a ‘denier’ by the ‘warmers’ hence my suggestion for adopting the Monkey’s parodied song ‘I’m a Denier’ you linked to as a theme tune.

    Yes, this blog is very much a scientific blog but from time to time it does benefit in my opinion from an injection of humour so oncemore thank you for you very amusing link.

    KevinUK

  90. lee
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 9:37 AM | Permalink

    Greenland earthquakes.

    Highly correlated with season.

    Glacial quakes were first identified as distinct events in 2003, by the same authors. They co-locate with marginal glaciers, and have a ‘characteristic period” of 30-60 seconds.

  91. Lee
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 9:50 AM | Permalink

    BTW, looks like the oceans didn’t cool in 2003-2005.

    http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/03/28/did-the-oceans-really-cool-between-mid-2003-and-mid-2005/

  92. David Smith
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 10:39 AM | Permalink

    RE #91 Thanks for the link, Lee. The idea of rapid ocean cooling in that timeframe seemed quite unlikely to me. I would expect flatline, based on the subsurface temperature readings from buoys in 2003-2005.

    Do you know of any free copies of the article in #90? I have questions about the detection methodology over 1993-2005.

  93. bernie
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 10:53 AM | Permalink

    Glacial quakes were first identified as distinct events in 2003, by the same authors. They co-locate with marginal glaciers, and have a characteristic period” of 30-60 seconds.

    I assume you meant 1993, since that’s when their data series starts. If this is a new phenomena, its a bit off showing this graph without being clear about the extent of the surveillance available. The graph implicitly says that over the 13 year period that no change in measurement methodologies has taken place. Assuming that the measurement device previously failed to distinguish between glacial and non-glacial, a stacked bar chart would be a more appropriate way of summarizing the data since there is clearly an issue with the recognition of glacial and non-glacial earthquakes.

    When you do create the stacked histogram it becomes immediately clear that there is a critical need to ensure that glacial quakes have a distinct signature, both from land quakes and seaquakes. I assume that the article demonstrated that measurement process could distinguish them in a way that allowed for independent verification.

  94. bernie
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 11:01 AM | Permalink

    Lee:
    It would have been better if you had provider a fuller discussion of your chart. Apparently there were others who strongly disagreed with the “convenient” conclusion that this pattern reflected AGW.

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N13/EDIT.jsp

    Talk about cherry picking.

  95. Lee
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 12:01 PM | Permalink

    re 93 – no, I men 2003. I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out how a phenomenon first identified in 2003 can be studied in data going back to 1993.

    re 94, that absurd CO2 “science” article, here are the relevant “cites:”

    Joughin says the record only goes back to 1993, so we dont know what happened with glacial quakes before that. Well, duh! This doesn’t alter the correlation with season (and temp) and the upturn over the last couple years, with the clear implication of increasing temperatures.

    Hanna and Cappelen (2003) looked at Greenland temps from 1958 – 2001, found a decline in temps over the entire period. The Idsos do not report any details about the record over the last few years of that analysis, and of course it doesnt include period of the significant upturn in glacial quakes.

    Przybylak (2000) data ended in 1999.

    Comiso et al. (2001) looked at characteristics of the Odden ice tongue for the period 1979 – 1998. Again, it stops before it has any meaning for this current result.

    Chyklek at all also looks at data ending in 2000.

    Despite this, the Idsos say:

    “In light of these several real-world observations, it is clear that the recent upswing in glacial activity on Greenland likely has had nothing to do with anthropogenic-induced global warming, as temperatures there have yet to rise either as fast or as high as they did during the great warming of the 1920s, which was clearly a natural phenomenon.”

    This is obviously and fundamentally dishonest. The Idsos are dismissing a link between temp and the increase in a phenomenon that shows marked change AFTER 2002, with temperature data that ALL ends BEFORE 2002. I’m not cherry picking, bernie, I’m ignoring the Idsos dishonest and absurd commentary.

  96. bernie
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 12:42 PM | Permalink

    Lee:
    I just read the pre-print version of this article Fascinating. It is far more measured in its linkage of these events to GW.

    5. Conclusions and Implications
    All 184 observed Greenland glacial earthquakes occur south of 78⸠N and in regions with ice flow velocities greater than 800 m/yr (ice streams and large outlet glaciers). All events have amplitudes between 0.1-2.0à—1014 kg m. Events of smaller amplitude may exist but are not detected. All mechanisms are consistent with sliding of large masses of ice in the direction of glacial flow over a period of about 50 s, although additional observations are required to determine the degree to which this model is just an approximation of the actual source mechanism. The seasonality and increase in total number of events in the past few years suggests that glacial earthquakes are sensitive to temperature or variables affected by temperature. Although events are tightly clustered, locations have a wider spread in the sliding direction implying that events are not all co-located.
    Different glaciers display different glacial-earthquake behavior. Each glacier has slightly different seasonal behavior, with peaks in activity in different months. Some glaciers but not all show the dramatic increase in number of events in the past few years. Some regions (e.g., region K) are consistent with a constant number of events per year whereas other regions (e.g., region NWG) have had an unmistakable dramatic increase during the same time period. Glacial earthquakes in region K are larger on average than in any other region, with these events comprising all of the events larger than 0.9à—1014 kg m. The distribution of these (region K) events does not resemble a Gutenberg-Richter distribution, but instead has a peak at 0.6à—1014 kg m, suggesting that glacial earthquakes may have a characteristic size that depends on attributes of the glacier where they occur.

    Moreover, counterintuitively at least for me the frequency of glacier quakes was higher in the higher latitudes. It seems that the 1993 limit is based upon the limited records. The signature of a glacial quake does seem somewhat unique. The annual pattern of the 184 quakes spread over a 13 year period was deemed temperature related – a general summmer peak, but the small N, the dispersion of the patterns over 7 locations and the variations by location suggest that other factors are operating. I have yet to read the Science article, but judging from the other commentaries it looks like somebody “juiced it”.

  97. David Smith
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 12:44 PM | Permalink

    Lee, a link to the GISS data for Greenland temperatures can be found on the Climate Audit left sidebar. The stations reporting up to 2007 are:

    here
    here
    here
    here
    here
    here

    Recent (post-1975) temperatures have risen but I don’t see anything extraordinary, except for the station that starts with an E, for 2003-2005.

    My main curiosity has to do with what you noted in this quote:

    I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out how a phenomenon first identified in 2003 can be studied in data going back to 1993.

    I suppose they are looking at older seismograph records, looking for weak-energy events (icequakes). It can be tricky to detect trends if instrument sensitivity and coverage changed (improved) over time.

  98. bernie
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 12:52 PM | Permalink

    Lee:
    One more point. Given the number of weather stations and their relative proximity to these events, I am curious as to why at least the origiinal report makes no mention of the year over year changes.
    In addition given the dispersion of the earthquakes why no correlation with the non-glacial earthquakes. Could not the latter trigger the other? Seems to me that strong conclusions are not warranted and were not made in the very interesting pre-Science draft!!

  99. bernie
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 1:15 PM | Permalink

    Lee:
    I have to apologize, the article I referenced above is not the pre-pub version of the Science article. It is a different article covering thr same basic data. The “juiced” assertion was unwarranted.

  100. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 4:39 PM | Permalink

    Lee, thank you for your interesting link to the Ekstrom article. I noted some curiosities:

    1) Why start the analysis in 1993? Seismological records extend to well before that time, and even if they are only using the Global Seismographic Network data referenced in the paper, it goes back to 1986.

    2) The numbers don’t add up. There are 184 icequakes listed, 136 of which received detailed analysis. However, the seasonality chart lists 151 quakes, and the year-by-year data lists 154 quakes. Thus, they have left about 20% of the data out of their analysis, and have used different numbers for the seasonality and year-by-year data … which may mean nothing, but I always get nervous when the numbers don’t add up and there is no explanation why.

    3) The two closest stations to the icequakes with air temperature records that run to modern times are Egedesminde and Angmagssalik. Both of these are within 50 km or so of a large concentration of icequakes. Both of them show cooling temperatures since 2002. If the increase in icequakes is due to rising air temperature, why have the icequake numbers not fallen from 2002 – 2005?

    4) To determine if the icequakes are related to regular quakes, they compare the number of icequakes in Greenland to the number of regular quakes north of 45° N … say what? Why didn’t they compare the number of icequakes in Greenland to the number of normal quakes in Greenland?

    Overall, my conclusion is that the record is simply too short to draw many inferences from the data. In fact, when adjusted for autocorrelation, the trend in icequakes is not significantly different from zero … the pitfalls of short datasets. Seems crazy, I know, because it sure looks like a trend, but statistical analysis says we don’t have enough data yet to establish the existence of a trend, much less to assign causality.

    w.

  101. Lee
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

    On Greenland:
    increased summer melt ponding
    increased glacier mobility
    increased glacial quaking that seems associated wtih glacial mobility
    longer and warmer growing season – greenland farmers are reporting getting two cuttings of hay over the last few seasons, for the first time.

    These are all qualitative, but they are all in agreement. It is clearly getting warmer on Greenland. And it isn’t because of urban heat island effects.

  102. Rob
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 6:53 PM | Permalink

    Not to be too snarky here, but

    On Greenland:

    longer and warmer growing season – greenland farmers are reporting getting two cuttings of hay over the last few seasons, for the first time.

    perhaps for the first time since the 1300s ?

  103. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Mar 31, 2007 at 7:50 PM | Permalink

    Lee, thanks for your response. You say “It is clearly becoming warmer in Greenland”. However, temperatures have peaked in 2002 and have dropped since then. In addition, increased glacier mobility does not necessarily imply warming. As the ice cap thickens, glaciers may increase in speed, and indications are that the ice cap has been thickening.

    Overall, I would agree with you that the Greenland temperatures have risen since the 1960s … with the caveat that there is no indication that this is anything unusual, as the temperatures in Greenland were higher during the 1930s-1940s than they are at present.

    However, none of this means anything about whether UHI is affecting temperatures in Greenland, or anywhere else for that matter. It is possible to have warming and UHI effects, which would mean that it is warming but not as much as the temperature records indicate. It is a particular possibility in Polar regions, as it takes fewer people to make a difference in cold temperatures.

    w.

    PS – a Google search has failed to turn up any reports of farmers getting two crops of hay in Greenland … cite?

  104. Gamail
    Posted Apr 1, 2007 at 8:40 AM | Permalink

    Willis, it seems to me that Lee is referring to an article that quotes a farmer who says that if Greenland’s warming keeps up it – could soon allow him to grow 2 crops of hay – it is conditional on rising temps

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356-2,00.html

  105. Lee
    Posted Apr 1, 2007 at 12:32 PM | Permalink

    Nope, two cropsare happehign right now.

    From the WSJ. the article is sub only – you can read a copy of it here:

    http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/forums/travel-to-greenland-vt13.html

    Ive also read severalotherarticles about his, bu tthisone should suffice.

    “The conditions for living are getting better,” says Kaj Egede, the chairman of Greenland’s Board of Agriculture, in his office in Qaqortoq.

    Some farmers are trying new types of produce, such as broccoli, cauliflower and Chinese cabbage. Most are getting more from their old crops. “Usually we only have one cut of hay,” says Kenneth Hoegh, a farming consultant for Greenland’s Department of Agriculture. “But because it is getting warmer — it is definitely getting warmer — more and more farmers are getting two cuts of hay.”

    Those higher yields are rippling through the agriculture chain. Over the past five years, a doubled hay crop has helped sheep farmer Erik Rode Frederiksen. He was named after Eric the Red, a Viking explorer who settled Greenland around 980. The extra hay gives him fatter sheep worth more money at slaughter. Sheep flocks across the country have increased 10% in the past three years, according to government statistics.

    From the early 1960s to 1998 cows were rare in Greenland, and Greenlanders relied on powdered milk subsidies from the Danish government. But improved grazing and hay fodder are tempting some farmers and sheep ranchers to add cows to their livestock holdings.

    For Greenlanders, adapting to the effects of climate change is nothing new. Oxygen isotope samples taken from Greenland’s ice core reveal that temperatures around 1100, during the height of the Norse farming colonies, were similar to those prevailing today. The higher temperatures were part of a warming trend that lasted until the 14th century.

  106. bernie
    Posted Apr 1, 2007 at 3:16 PM | Permalink

    Lee and Willis:
    I took a closer look at the Science Article and made some inferences based on what Ekstrom & Tsai indicated in their earlier paper. Willis I think you are right to look carefully at the number of events.

    The Science article indicates the following geographic distribution of glacial events:

    DJG – Daugaard Jensen Glacier — 5 events in 12 years — 8 in Analysis of Glacial Quakes
    KG – Kangerdlugssaug Glacier — 61 events — 64 in AGQ
    HG – Helheim Glacier — 26 events — 49 in AGQ
    SG – South east Greenland — 6 events — 7 in AGQ
    JL – Jakobshavn Isbrae — 11 events — 13 in AGQ
    RI – Rinks Isbrae — 10 events — 10 in AGQ
    HG – Northwest Greenland glaciers — 17 events – 33 in Analysis of Glacial Quakes

    The Science article goes on to note that ” a part of the increase in the number of glacial earthquakes is due to the occurrence of more than two dozen of these earth quakes in 2000 to 2005 at the northwest Greenland glaciers, where only one event (in 1995) had previously been observed.” (p1757)

    Now Tsai and Ekstrom also say in the earlier paper:
    “Some regions (e.g., region K) are consistent with a constant number of events per year (emphasis added) whereas other regions (e.g., region NWG) have had an unmistakable dramatic increase during the same time period.” page 10 Analysis of Glacial Quakes

    NWG and RI glacier comples account for 43 of 182 or 27 of 136. The net increase in earthquakes from 2000 to 2005 is 51 out of a total of 182. Obviously if all but one of the 43 NWG/RI GQs occurred in this period we have the overwhelming percentage (80%) of the increase coming from 2 glacier complexes in Greenland. If this is true, then the numbers are such that whatever seems to be happening is not a Greenland event but a Northwest Greenland event and should be interpreted as such.

    I can’t understand why the editors at Science would not have queried this?

  107. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Apr 1, 2007 at 3:25 PM | Permalink

    Lee, thanks for the citation. Any answers to my other questions gladly accepted.

    w.

  108. MarkW
    Posted Apr 1, 2007 at 4:01 PM | Permalink

    allegedly glaciers have been shrinking for decades, why do the “earthquakes” only start showing up in 2000?

  109. MarkW
    Posted Apr 1, 2007 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

    lee,

    A correlation that covers a grand total of 4 years means what?

  110. bernie
    Posted Apr 1, 2007 at 4:12 PM | Permalink

    Mark W:
    I do not believe there is any correlation with the events and any local temperature trend whatsoever and the results were heavioly localized though not reported explicitly as such. (See 106)

  111. Ken Fritsch
    Posted Apr 1, 2007 at 7:22 PM | Permalink

    Re: #105

    “But because it is getting warmer ‘€” it is definitely getting warmer ‘€” more and more farmers are getting two cuts of hay.”

    Lee, thanks for pointing to the positive aspects of global warming. Outside of a recent paper by Lobell and Field, much the same has been predicted for agriculture in general. We seem to be too ready to concentrate on the negative aspects – whatever they may be.

  112. John Baltutis
    Posted Apr 2, 2007 at 2:18 AM | Permalink

    Interesting comparison on houses at http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

  113. Hans Erren
    Posted Apr 5, 2007 at 3:45 PM | Permalink

    Just discovered this in AIT:

    AIT: 17:06 “In the himalayas there is a particular problem because 40% of all the people in the world, get their drinking water from rivers and spring systems that are fed more than half by the meltwater coming off the glaciers and within this next half century those 40% of the people on earth are going to face a serious shortage because of this melting.”

    However a hydrological study of the Himalayas reveals:

    http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80a02e/80A02E05.htm

    “The eastern Himalaya, in general, provide moisture surpluses from direct runoff of the abundant summer monsoon rainfall; the snow-melt contribution is comparatively insignificant. With increasing distance toward the west-northwest meltwater becomes critically important. A particularly heavy summer monsoon, for instance, which produces excess water (and flooding) in the eastern half of the region, may only serve to lower the summer flow of the western rivers since the increased cloud cover (with little or no rain/snow) will serve to reduce incoming solar radiation and thus limit meltwater production. Additionally, summer snow at high altitudes in the northwest, by greatly increasing surface reflectance (albedo), will curtail melting. “

    Al Gore’s claim is: “40% of all the people in the world” 40% of 6 billion is 2400 million or the population of China, India and Bangladesh.

    Bangladesh and China are not dependent on the himalayan glaciers, (and besides that China just completed the Three Gorges Dam for seasonal regulation. In India only the western states bounding the himalaya are depending on its meltwater. This reduces the alledged affected number to 200 million. However even that region has more problems when the snow is not melting in the dry season.

    So it is 200 million people (or 3% of “all the people in the world”) who are depending on the meltwater of the himalayas, and they suffer most when the snow is not melting.

    A particular problem in Bhutan and Nepal is that natural Glacial moraine lakes are bursting their banks which leads to flash floods. Partial draining projects are already tackling this specific problem.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_lake_outburst_flood

  114. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Apr 5, 2007 at 4:29 PM | Permalink

    #113. Hans, imagine how many climate scientists would been apoplectic if it had been Swindle getting an order of magnitude wrong?

  115. Ken Fritsch
    Posted Apr 5, 2007 at 6:04 PM | Permalink

    Re: #114

    #113. Hans, imagine how many climate scientists would been apoplectic if it had been Swindle getting an order of magnitude wrong?

    Does not the author get a pass on this because of the low expectations we have, or at least should have, of a politician masquerading as — well as something other than a politician?

  116. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Apr 5, 2007 at 7:44 PM | Permalink

    RE: #113 – If those moraines are anything like the ones here in the Western US, then they are ~ at the maximum extent lines of the Younger Dryas, mas o menos. So, bursting moraines means? Only that there was wicked massive snowpack during the previous Monsoon and winter seasons (there are accumulations during both). Then the snowpack melts during the March – April hot season, and lo and behold, the moraines get overtopped or overpressured and burst. I’d also be willing to bet that either rodents or human disturbance plays a prominent role in weakening the moraines.

  117. Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 4:10 PM | Permalink

    Here are all quakes from the NEIC database within a radius of 2000 km from central greenland.

    Annual number of earthquakes within 2000 km from 45W 75N
    source: online NEIC database 2 nov 2007

    year earthquakes
    1973 54
    1974 55
    1975 52
    1976 83
    1977 38
    1978 54
    1979 35
    1980 38
    1981 43
    1982 44
    1983 83
    1984 59
    1985 64
    1986 70
    1987 43
    1988 47
    1989 94
    1990 66
    1991 52
    1992 64
    1993 66
    1994 69
    1995 109
    1996 107
    1997 123
    1998 116
    1999 159
    2000 126
    2001 131
    2002 122
    2003 136
    2004 164
    2005 294
    2006 160
    2007 93

  118. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 4:30 PM | Permalink

    RE 117.

    I did a linear regression on the last two data points and the fit was excellent!

    In less than 2 years Greenland will run out of earthquakes!

  119. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 7:58 PM | Permalink

    Do a quadratic fit on the last 3, and they’ll stop even faster.

  120. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 8:38 PM | Permalink

    My evil twin Larry.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,323 other followers

%d bloggers like this: