Comments on: CloudGate: Denialism Gets Dirty, Reputations Are At Stake

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:54:25 +0000

Raging Bee:First, how, exactly, would deforestation cause an ice-cap retreat, except by contributing at least to regional if not global warming?

Deforestation (reginoally) can contribute to reduced rainfall. It might actually be the case that I was the first scientists to suggest this (in 1992) but my work was IGNORED!!!!

Anyway, reduced rainfall means that the grow-melt-grow-melt cycles of glaciers over the normal seasons would have less grow but the same amount of melt, thus decreasing their size. And that could happen, but it is not the reason for the melting of all of the tropical glaciers.

And second, how could global warming NOT cause ice-cap retreat?

While the lower atmosphere heats up, the upper atmosphere cools down. Thus, the idea that glaciers, stuck up high and all, would be in a place that does not warm up. However, the part of the upper atmosphere that cools down is not where these glaciers happen to be! So that idea is dead too.

By: Raging Bee

Raging Bee — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:57:59 +0000

Hasn’t it been well established that deforestation in the lands surrounding Kilimanjaro is the cause of the ice cap retreat, not global warming?

First, how, exactly, would deforestation cause an ice-cap retreat, except by contributing at least to regional if not global warming?

And second, how could global warming NOT cause ice-cap retreat?

By: TTT

TTT — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:46:12 +0000

Hasn’t it been well established that deforestation in the lands surrounding Kilimanjaro is the cause of the ice cap retreat, not global warming?

If you don’t believe global warming is a problem, there is no reason to take seriously your feigned concerns over deforestation.

By: hoogreg

hoogreg — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:30:49 +0000

morganism: “…there have been some questions…

What a novel concept: U-Pick conspiracy theories!

By: Midnight Rambler

Midnight Rambler — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 03:55:44 +0000

Greg, I was speaking generally because that’s what it sounded like you were doing, rather than the specifics of how this paper was reviewed. FWIW, I’m an invertebrate biologist. Among the ones I know of, Molecular Ecology/ME Resources, Insect Systematics & Evolution, and the Journal of Morphology send out the decision letters (including editors’ comments and all reviews) to the reviewers as well as authors; Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution and Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society don’t.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 22:54:25 +0000

Juice, no, not at all. I assume you are referring to Kaser et al 2004. There is a reasonable argument that reduced precip has reduced glacial size at Kilimanjaro (which may or may not be, in turn associated with deforestation…)

However, if there was such an effect, is was certainly only part of the effect, and the assertion that the reduced precip accounts for Kilimanjaro’s glacial loss is probably not true.

The idea that it is “well established” is certainly not even close to the mark.

If you have data over the pertinent time scales (i.e. ca 1850 to the present … because the Kilimanjaro argument links to a parallel Lake Victoria argument covering data going back to the mid 1800s) the I’d love to see it! (And a ride in your Tardis would be great too!)

If you are talking bout the troposphere at that level generally, then no, it has not cooled. For the period for which we have data there is a pronounced warming trend from 1960 to the present in the tropics. Which is what you would expect if warming was melting glaciers.

By: dean

dean — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 21:55:18 +0000

They are melting in Peru (and Bolivia, and Columbia, and Ecuador, and Venezuela) also Juice – what are you going to cobble together in a lame attempt to explain that?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17113441/ns/us_news-environment/t/perus-mountain-glaciers-are-melting-away/#.TmU2Oxz5xTc

By: Neil B.

Neil B. — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 21:39:33 +0000

Juice: perhaps the deicing of Mt. K is not from increased CO2 after all, but any general trend would be expected to have additional events including counter moves, coincidental changes for other causes, etc. BTW, the is less CO2 above a high mountain to absorb IR anyway.

By: Juice

Juice — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 20:31:06 +0000

Hasn’t it been well established that deforestation in the lands surrounding Kilimanjaro is the cause of the ice cap retreat, not global warming? The temperature up there has not increased and remains well below freezing. The moisture that makes it up there is decreasing because of deforestation. So when are you planning your hiking trip, Greg?

By: tony

tony — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 17:48:27 +0000

“Laugh all you want. Your movement is dying on the vine. Phil Jones even said there has been no warming since 1995. Where have you been?”

Gordon, if you were intellectually honest, you would at this point withdraw the claim that Phil Jones admitted there has been no warming after 1995 since Greg, Jason and StevoR have provided evidence debunking your claim. But I don’t expect that you will.