150 meters of ice only covers 200 years? Somehow that doesn't seem right to me. That means each year the area adds .75 METERS (roughly 1 foot) of ice?

Reply: That was my first reaction as well.

urbainzation in the arctic?

uhh Brett; there are no urban areas in the arctic. Do you honestly believe that is can be a factor?

Reply: Andrew, read the post clearly. I was not talking about the arctic. C'mon! The pielke blog is a different subject, unrelated to the top part of the post. Most of the GISS temps are recorded where people live.

I like the dig in the article that the team is not use to working on "warm" glaciers.

Yea, I was thinking of taking a vacation to a glacier to soak up the "warmth".

By the way, I don't play a scientist in real life but I was under the distinct impression that the LIA occurred a little more than 200 years ago. And more importantly, if in 200 years 450 feet of ice and snow accumulated, that's a bit daunting. I kinda thought that glaciers took a little longer to develop those depths.

Reply: Yes, they are hoping to get a little lucky.

I believe all the data coming from these "environmentalists" or field scientists, if you can twist into that frame of reference, is going to be "biased" based on the fact that if the numbers are too normal they'll all be out of a job and the grants would dry up. We have people taking air samples from directly behind the city bus and daytime temperatures on the roofs of buildings right next to heat pump units. Given just a little thought a few people can make things look really bad. I'm trying to sort out what is real science and what is propaganda for more taxes. I'm wondering if environmentalists aren't taxed at the same rate as the rest of us. It's bizarre that any thinking person can follow this subject and not go "Huh!". It's like they want us all to go back to living in caves "but don't burn the wood for heat". It would make so much more sense to invest all that time, money and effort into real scientific solutions.

Andrew:

Pretty lame getting called out by Brett. Maybe you should make your anonymous posts from another computer.

The surface layers of relatively "warm" glaciers with high snowfall are buried quickly and are subject to considerable ongoing movement. A good example of this effect is what happened to the aircraft that were abandoned on the southern (warmer) end of the Greenland ice sheet during World War II. In fifty years, they were 25 stories deep and had drifted about a mile. The ice moves fast in such areas!

This effect means that even the northern Greenland ice cores make up a shorter record than the ones fron Antarctica (where it's much colder and snows very little in the locations the cores are taken from).

mrsund should be aware that many computers won't accept the "cookie" that automates the filling in of the name and email address fields, forcing those with such computers (I'm one of them) to manually fill in the information each time. It's easy to forget, and I suspect this is what happened to Andrew above.

Here is some more GW nonsense. Have a good laugh!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080714210823.ys7a8mb8&show_article=1

I have a question. Isn't carbon dioxide heavy relative to our atmosphere. Doesn't it hang around the ground where it used. How did it get way up in the atmosphere?

I agree with Darren, the whole time reading this story I'm thinking, why is this only 200 years of ice, the little ice age was longer ago than that and they hope to collect data from that time. Am I missing something with the story?

Amazing that the glacier has accumulated 150 meters of ice, during a time when we are told that all the world's glaciers are melting.

Except for one in California.

You cursed brat!, look what you've done!, I'm melting!" "What a world! "Who would've thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
-Wicked Witch of the West

About the same amount of ice in the Arctic as 13 years ago.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=15&fy=1995&sm=07&sd=15&sy=2008

More ice in Hudson Bay than on this date 28 years ago.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=15&fy=1980&sm=07&sd=15&sy=2008

Thank goodness the EPA decided to protect the polar bears. Lord knows they need and want the sympathies of clueless Washington bureaucrats.

RICH:
Hi back: I think I am as patient as the next guy!
I am just of the opinion that we never needed to go to Iraq and Afghanistan should have been nailed down first. I am really not for cap and trade first and I think your right on that point. However, as American entrepreneurs we need to act with most haste. Other countries like China are selling more solar panels then anyone else. At least now we can have a patent of our own timestamped on the new ones which are far cheaper and cleverly built. Look at today's news and you can see the changes GM must face, to make smaller cars. Why didn't we do that first. The one thing the futures market did well was to speculate on oil production so now and perhaps forever we will not see gas prices go down. Even if they let us. In photography you don't take a picture, you make a picture and candids are for amateurs. One learns to look for the effect first, not the cause, as that is where you will find your best "Candids". If we look toward tomorrow, we can take advantage of a lot of new technology and jobs. It is a bad thing to see good tax paying citizens loose their job. It sucks. I have a mortgage at indymac. Are you still in your house today. Lucky I got in early.wow!
best, KIPP

The June temperature anomaly was +.26 C or +.47 F, making the month the closest to normal since July of 2004.

REPLY: Closests to normal??? GASP!!! Normal???? Better call old Al Gore and tell him we can't have this. After all, he is a memeber of the "we can't have" (unless you are a fellow elitest) party.

The polar cap in the Arctic may well disappear this summer due to the global warming, Dr. Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, said on Friday.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/01/content_7696460.htm

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?T081972345

Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
I am Arthur, King of the Britons.

The medieval warm period localized to the northern hemisphere? Not according to the ice core record from Antarctica.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_2000_yrs.html

Talking of melting glaciers, here's an extract from a recent Indian Government report:-

"The available monitoring data on Himalayan glaciers indicates while some recession of glaciers has occurred in some Himalayan regions in recent years, the trend is not consistent across the entire mountain chain. It is accordingly, too early to establish long-term trends or their causation, in respect of which there are several hypotheses."

Interestingly, the report has been endorsed by Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC.

The quote is on p15 of the report which can be found at http://pmindi.nic.in/Pg01-52.pdf

I know that Americans struggle with the metric system, but its not difficult to realise that 1 foot does not equate with 0.75 metres.

According to my conversion tables 1ft = 0.3048m

Perhaps this might explain your disbelief of the figures claimed on depth of ice.

Reply: I was just relaying what the article stated, OK. Yes, it is not 1.5 football fields, but 1.5 + 13 yards (a little more than a first down) not major difference in the context of this story Dave.

Lets hope they get good data. Glacial ice moves a lot so they presumably had to pick ice that was at the end of a long straight valley. I also hope they have considered Jaworowski's concerns about ice bubbles from cores not being accurate because of pressure, drilling cracks, ice formation physics, and presure drop when the cores is brought up, etc.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf

Roger Pielke Sr, has very nicely summed up problems with the science behind AGW.

Until, and unless the climate science community returns to the proper scientific method of examining the climate system, policymakers will continue to be fed erroneous information. Only poor policy decisions can result due to this failure.

Political concerns have overshadowed the science. IPCC started with a conclusion and built their reports specifically to support that conclusion. That is not how science should be done.

I encourage everyone to read the Climate Science blog and pay special attention to the conclusions: http://climatesci.org/main-conclusions/.

Dr. Pielke is not a skeptic or a denier, either, as you can tell by the last paragraph of his conclusions page:

Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response
that would occur.

Nice to see more scientific ice core research. More data is always good.

Brett says, "there is a significant warm bias (nighttime temperatures) that is not accounted for by the IPCC and their global temperature trend assessments. I would assume he is talking about the increase in urbanization (the heat island effect, which is most pronounced at night)."

As Pielke himself says, this effect accounts for almost a third of the IPCC increase. If that is so, between the urban heat island effect and solar, which IPCC recognizes but at roughly 20%,then one half of the rate of IPCC measured temperature increase (a number itself in dispute) is not due to the hypothethized CO2 effect. Far from "settled science" it would be most prudent to avoid hysterical CO2 reducing measures that would wreck world economies. This does NOT mean avoiding concerted measures to get away from dependency on oil as a fuel.

Interesting, scientific reportage on temperature measurement bad practises can sometimes be found at...

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

John Galt, RP Sr. is a skeptic (as scientists are supposed to be), although I think his colleagues generally think he should be a bit more skeptical of his own conclusions. Nor is he a denialist as such, although he's so far out on the scientific fringe that sometimes it's hard to tell.

This is slightly off-topic, but what has happened in the oil markets over the past two days has proved my point all along: Lower your demand, then the price will lower too.

Let's take a look at the recent evidence:
1) Brazil discovers 33 billion barrels of new oil, which is more than the size of our offshore oil reserves and ANWR combined. Result: Oil prices increase the next day
2) Saudi Arabia increases oil production by 500,000 bbl. THEN...they announce that, by next year, they will open up a new oil field and add another 1.2 million barrels per day. Result: Oil prices increase the next day
3) Iraq announces that they'll accept bids from oil companies to drill their fields. Result: Oil prices increase the next day

Now let's examine what has happened over the past two days:
1) OPEC reduces their demand forecast, thus confirming that growth in world demand is decreasing a bit. Result: Oil drops by $6 a barrel.
2) Inventories are reported to be higher than anticipated today, providing more evidence that demand is decreasing. Result: Oil drops another $5

Conclusion: Reducing demand has a significant -- and immediate -- effect on oil prices. Making new oil discoveries, or announcing that you'll be drilling more, has only served to increase prices even more.

As I've said many times, if you think gas prices are too high, cut your consumption and prices will go down. Stop driving that SUV to the grocery store. Get off your rear, get out and walk there. Better yet, if your destination is within three miles of your house, ride your bike there. You'll get some exercise along the way, and maybe also help another of this country's massive problem (no pun intended) -- obesity.

Stop whining, stop believing that filling up your Tahoes and Expedititions with cheap gas to go to the post office is your birthright, and start realizing that you're lying in the bed that you made. Then -- and only then -- will things improve.

I'm slightly skeptical about AGW. I realize global warming is occuring, but then we are in an inter-glacial period, and the earth started warming 18,000 years ago. So, I'm left with how much humans have contributed to the warming.

Phil says "it would be most prudent to avoid hysterical CO2 reducing measures that would wreck world economies." I agree.

If anything, our temperatures have not spiked as high during this inter-glacial period as previous ones:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

IF Milankovitch is right about the variances in the Earth's orbit, it's likely the Earth is due for another ice age.

Hi Steve Bloom,

Here is a guy who is far out on the scientific fringe. No wonder the alarmists treat him as a god.

In stark contrast to estimates put forward by the IPCC, Prof. Hansen and his colleagues argue that rapidly melting ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland could cause oceans to swell several metres by 2100 - or maybe even as much as 25 metres

http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/news_repository/will-oceans-surge-59-centimetres-this-century-or-25-metres

Mark:

No one ever said you were incorrect about the concept of using less gas will lower prices.

I don't suppose you think Bush killing the federal limit on offshore drilling, and his demand that Congress take action to do the same had anything to do with it, do you?

Guess what, the temp is above normal here today!

Good for the tomatoes, bad for the lettuce. Beans are doing well.

See, I report even when the temps don't bolster my short term cause.

it's likely the Earth is due for another ice age

Hi Steve,

I just rode my bike home for lunch in 90 degree weather, and it didn't feel much like an impending ice age. In fact it felt just like every other summer I can remember.

Oiznop:
The June temperature anomaly was +.26 C or +.47 F, making the month the closest to normal since July of 2004.

REPLY: Closests to normal??? GASP!!! Normal???? Better call old Al Gore and tell him we can't have this. After all, he is a memeber of the "we can't have" (unless you are a fellow elitest) party.

What is normal? If you take the average temperature for the last 100,000 years, we are probably +4-5c above normal.

Steve Bloom "although he's so far out on the scientific fringe that sometimes it's hard to tell".

Knowing Roger, I am sure he will appreciate the compliment Steve! After all, that puts him into the same company as:
Galileo
Arrhenius
Nikola Tesla
George Zweig
Karl Gauss
Julius Mayer
Lynn Margulis
Orville and Wibur Wright
Robert Bakker
Hans Alfven
Ernst Chladni
CJ Doppler
George Ohm
Louis Pasteur
Alfred Wegener
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
John Baird
Robert Goddard
Stanley Prusiner
Robert Folk
William Harvey
Barbara McClintlock
Peyton Rous
etc... etc.. etc...
Count me in as one who would be proud to be part of that "fringe" group

Reply: I have a feeling we may hear directly from Roger.

Patrick knows the attribution to Hansen of a prediction of a possible 25 meters of sea level rise by 2100 is an error in the article he linked and quoted, yet he did so anyway. Who was he trying to trick?

In fact Hansen said that several meters (meaning two or three) was possible for this century, and that 25 meters was likely over a longer period of time if the planet does indeed warm to the same temperatures seen the last time sea levels were that high.

Patrick needs help with more than just his backyard weather forecasts.

Not my argument but Steve can you please show me the temps for the last 100,000 years, I would love to see them.

Thank you for posting a comment about the warm bias we have documented. It is much more than just for urban areas, but applies anywhere there has been nighttime boundary layer warming for whatever reason (e.g. cloud cover, landscape change, etc). We report on this in our papers. Reply: Thanks for the additional info. Roger. We appreciate it.

Lin, X., R.A. Pielke Sr., K.G. Hubbard, K.C. Crawford, M. A. Shafer, and T. Matsui, 2007: An examination of 1997-2007 surface layer temperature trends at two heights in Oklahoma. Geophys. Res. Letts., 34, L24705, doi:10.1029/2007GL031652.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-333.pdf

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf

Not exactly Mark.

The most basic law of economics is the law of supply and demand. It states that the price of some good changes in relation to the supply of it and the demand for it.

The first law of supply and demand states: when demand is greater than supply, prices rise and when supply is greater than demand, prices fall.

The second law of supply and demand states: the greater the difference between supply and demand, the greater the forces on prices are.

The third law would say: when supply is the same as demand, prices do not change.

Price equals= demand divided by supply

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080716/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices

excerpts from above:

*Sharply increased crude and gasoline supplies were the immediate cause of Wednesday's decline.*

*The Energy Information Administration reported that U.S. crude oil supplies rose by 3 million barrels, or 1 percent, last week. That is the opposite of the 3 million barrel draw analysts surveyed by energy research firm Platts expected. Gasoline supplies also leapt unexpectedly.*

Joe D'Aleo has some strong words about the GISS and NOAA June temperatures:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/latest_noaa_press_release_in_total_disagareement_with_nasa_satellite/

Mary,

You beat me to it on a response to Mark's July 16, 2008 1:09 PM post, but I don't think he meant that supply increases don't drop price.

I think his statement; "Making new oil discoveries, or announcing that you'll be drilling more, has only served to increase prices even more." may have been referring to situations where the supply is not yet increased. However, because oil is traded on the futures market, any forward looking statemnt about future supply increases will drop price and that, in combination with the reduced demand figures caused the prices drop.

But then again his subsequent griping suggests that I may be wrong in my assumption

Hi Steve Bloom,

So as his defense, you are saying that Hansen only predicted two or three meters sea level rise this century? That would be about an inch of sea level rise per year, or a foot per decade - i.e. an exaggeration of 2000%.

Hopefully you aren't a lawyer, because your clients would all be in jail.

BTW - sea level has increased at least 36 meters since this city drowned 9,000 years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm

No doubt due to their Hummers.

Josh Brenneman:

Last 400,000 years, ice core data (plenty of references at the bottom of the graph):
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Last 50,000 years:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_50k_yrs.html

Again, I would just like to know who has decided what the "normal" global temperature should be.

Hi Patrick,
I'm not saying tomorrow the ice sheets will be covering the northern hemisphere. :) Interglacial periods lengths have varied some, but they always end. I'm far from a doomsayer of global cooling.

Roger:

Thank you for your all your "fringe" :) scientific work helping to advance the field of Climatology (which needs a LOT of advancing)

Steve, that "WVFossils" site is authored by the state of West Virginia's chief mining engineer (of all people) and contains much information that is wrong and/or out-of-date. Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 WG1 report is much better. FYI the configuration of the Milankovitch cycles for the present interglacial is very similar to the long one of ~400,000 years ago (which the WV fossils site doesn't show), the upshot being that under natural conditions we could have expected a long interglacial (~30,000 more years) a bit cooler than the more recent short ones. Obviously we are now on a different path.