I am requesting comment on this proposition….the retreat of the Grand Pacific
Glacier–located to the north of Glacier Bay–represents glacial retreat
opposite of what anthropogenic warming requires for the theory to be valid and
thus for this glacier and this glacier only the theory is contradicted by direct
physical evidence.

Here are the baseline facts upon which the proposition is based:

> The Grand Pacific Glacier [hereafter the GP] is thought to have commenced
retreating 300 years ago. At that time the length is thought to have been at
least 100 miles, extending into the Pacific Ocean.

> At its peak the GP was 4000 feet in hight proven by flat mountains below that
elevation and striations on mountains exceeding that hight.

> Glacier Bay [hereafter GB]–a fjord created by the GP–measures 67 miles at
present.

These are the observations central to the proposition:

> GB was discover in 1794 by Capt. Vancouver who measured its length at 5 miles
thus establishing that on that date 62 miles of GB was still ice covered by the
GP to an elevation of under 4000 feet.. [and not likely affected by ocean
current]

> In 1879 while studying the area’s geology John Muir measured and recorded the
length of GB at 40 miles, thus establishing additional retreat by the GPof 35
miles over a period of 95 years, representing annual average recession
of approximately 1/3 mile per year.

> Given the present length of GB, 67 miles, further retreat of 27 miles has
occurred in the past 128 years since Muir measured the length at 40 miles,
representing average annual recession of approximately 1/5 mile per year.

> Taken as a whole blended research on the present rate of glacial retreat in
North America are in a range of 10 -120 feet per year.

Conclusion:

The retreat of the GP is decelerating [and doing so at significantly lower
volumes of ice measured by depth of ice] in contradiction of both anthropogenic
theory and predicted rate of glacial retreat.Thus, anthropogenic warming theory
does not explain behavior of the GP and calls into question the theory itself.

Where is my analysis wrong/ Kindly advise.

Charlie Messina

charlesmessina@comcast.net

This is venting.

http://www.gigagraphica.com/geyser/oldfaithful/oldfaithful.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf

Worth reading.

Also, interesting twist. “Gore’s spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider”, in her publication in Washington Post, alleged that:

“Stewart Dimmock, who brought this case, appears to have been funded by the very same fossil fuel interests who have sought to undermine the scientific consensus behind global warming in the past. The Observer has reported that he was funded by mining interests as well as the Scientific Alliance, an industry-backed non-profit with links to other groups in the U.S. like the U.S. based George C. Marshall Institute which has received funding from Exxon. This was also reported in the U.S. Our experience is that when the vested interests do not like the message, they tend to use diversionary tactics to create uncertainty or to fund individuals and groups to shoot the messenger. In this instance, it appears they are trying to do both. According to these reports, Mr. Dimmock will still not fully reveal who funded the case.”

Which raises the question: does Mr. Gore imply that British judge, who made actual decision on the case, is also on payroll of Exxon-Mobil, or he is just plain dumb?

Strange. One moment it was there and then it was gone. Was it venting?

Eh bien

P