# I'm sick of this Global Warming! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 16, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440 "2013-08-16T18:57:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 35
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/681 "2013-09-22T14:54:28Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Can’t you relay said testable predictions _regardless_ of whether our common ground about the rest is total or nonexistent? I’d figure the claims about WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN YEARS TO COME could be typed out – or copy-and-pasted – no matter who you’re addressing and what they believe. Yes, it does seem there is a lot of evasion in regards to facts. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Actually, there’s a lot of vague, garbled rambling in that paragraph. You don’t seem to have any clear idea of what point you’re trying to make with regard to boreal winter cooling, except “this is a complicated subject that I’m going to pretend I know more about than you do in order to intimidate you into shutting up”. Once again, it’s obvious you haven’t been following the topic. 08-16-2013, 02:25 PM > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Well, there is little doubt the predictions of the IPCC and the consensus and the models were right. > > [Global warming set to bring colder, snowier winters](http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/48293) > > [Cold Winters Driven By Global Warming](http://news.discovery.com/earth/cold-winter-snow-weather-global-warming-101222.htm) > > Damn you global warming. Damn you all to hell. The last thing I want is for you to shut up. I want you to actually discuss. This goes for everyone. If you follow the links, you get right to the science. [http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/48293](http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/48293) is a summary, with a link to the study. [Radware Bot Manager Captcha](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014007/article) Tamino has covered it. > **[Winter Cooling?](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/winter-cooling/)** > > It was mentioned in recent discussion that Cohen et al. (2012) found recent winter cooling in much of the boreal (northern but not necessarily Arctic) northern hemisphere. In fact, here’s the… While he dodges and weaved, even Tamino couldn’t just ignore it. This isn’t the only peer reviewed science of course, and it’s certainly not more than a hypothetical mechanism, but it makes sense and is based on observation and data, not an untested theory. I’m not surprised that the warmists have avoided the issue, as it skewers one of their sacred cows pretty bad. On the positive, the paper mentioned includes one of the key things used to distinguish CO2 forced warming from natural changes. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/682 "2013-09-22T15:25:05Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The only meaning apparent amidst this prattle is that Mr. Mastermind pretends not to know what “anthropogenic” means. In this context, the meaning is ambiguous. If we interpret “anthropogenic” simply to mean “created by mankind,” then anthropogenic global warming would include warming caused by changes in land use, for example changes from forest to farmland; paving of previously undeveloped areas; and so on. I doubt anyone disputes that these sorts of land use changes can cause measurable increases in surface temperatures. And yet the warmists seem to have something else in mind when they talk about “AGW” Similarly, even “deniers” like Richard Lindzen agree that mankind’s CO2 emissions are likely to cause warming. I myself agree that mankind’s CO2 emissions are likely to cause warming. So why is Richard Lindzen referred to as a “denier”? So it’s critical for warmists to lay out their position in detail (which I doubt they will ever do). And it’s disingenuous to assert that **FXMastermind** should simply use the dictionary definition of “anthropogenic” in interpreting peoples’ statements. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/683 "2013-09-22T15:27:48Z")
Just came across this and thought of the topic. It’s about models and seems to be informative. > [@](#): > > Mathematical models all have their limitations. We have to understand what the model can tell us and what it can’t tell us. We have to understand what presuppositions are built into the model and what can change in real life that is not being modeled in the maths. It’s all about context. > > (Well-designed) models are not correct and are not incorrect. They are informative if we understand their limitations and capabilities. > > In contrast to mathematical models built around the physics of climate mechanisms, **many people commenting in the blog world (or even writing blogs) have a vague mental model of how climate works**. This of course is way way ahead of a climate model built on physics. It has the advantage of not being written down in equations so that **no one can challenge it** and seemingly plausible hand-waving argument 1 can be traded against hand-waving argument 2. > **[Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation – Part Eleven – Stratospheric Cooling](https://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/27/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-eleven-stratospheric-cooling/)** > > Understanding atmospheric radiation is not so simple. But now we have a line by line model of absorption and emission of radiation in the atmosphere we can do some “experiments”. See Pa… Priceless ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/684 "2013-09-22T15:39:01Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Just came across this and thought of the topic. It’s about models and seems to be informative. > [Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation – Part Eleven – Stratospheric Cooling | The Science of Doom](http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/27/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-eleven-stratospheric-cooling/) > Priceless I clicked on your link, and read the quoted excerpt _in context_. I’d like you, Mr. Mastermind, to paraphrase the point that the blog-writer is making, and what your reaction to it is. This will be a test of your reading comprehension, so Dopers can guess whether to take you seriously. AFAICT, you have no clue at all. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/685 "2013-09-22T20:14:16Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Why I look at (and cite at length) actual published research and public-science explanations by actual climate scientists on the AGW hypothesis Now you are calling “it” a hypothesis. It’s so fucked up, the nebulous and mysterious “it” that keeps being discussed. > [@brazil84](#): > > And yet the warmists seem to have something else in mind when they talk about “AGW” It very well may be that most people don’t actually understand much, and just parrot what they have heard or read. > [@septimus](#): > > I’d like you, Mr. Mastermind, to paraphrase the point that the blog-writer is making, and what your reaction to it is. No. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/686 "2013-09-23T12:33:17Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It very well may be that most people don’t actually understand much, and just parrot what they have heard or read. I agree that’s probably part of it. I doubt that **septimus** thought it through very carefully before making his ridiculous comment about “anthropogenic.” ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/687 "2013-09-23T16:00:55Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > So GW is wrong because you can find instances of people dying in the cold. Does this mean GW was right in [2003](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave) and [2006](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_European_heat_wave) when many more people died in sudden heatwaves? That is a fallacy. Like thinking heat waves are directly due to GW, or that a heat wave proves global warming is happening. Whatever GW actually means of course. If you can “blame” specific weather patterns on AGW, then certainly you can “blame” AGW for cold events as well. (the links I provided show exactly that is already happening). In essence, the current state of “blame” for AGW is actually at the point where heat and cold are blamed on AGW. Once can see why a skeptic would ask for some specific predictions, since blaming everything on AGW starts to look real sketchy at some point. > [@brazil84](#): > > What EXACTLY is the theory that according to you, 95% of the scientific community supports? > > And what does that theory say about water vapor feedback? Obviously the water vapor feedback issue is avoided, because anyone who knows even a little about the controversy knows good and damn well it’s the biggest controversy. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > I mean, if there was something called “The theory of AGW”, or “the theory of global warming”, he would simply link to the [skepticalscience.com](http://skepticalscience.com) page that explains it. The whole idea that there is some theory is just a denier trick. To try and get somebody to say something concrete so you can attack it. > > It’s just a fact so you can’t deny it. That is how science works. Facts. Only a science denier would want to talk about some theory. While that seems like sarcasm, or taking it too far, it actually IS the belief of some people. They actually believe all the science is settled, AGW is happening, it already will be very bad, and nothing can be done at this point to stop it. In short, humanity is doomed. And they blame their fellow man, while they still consume fossil fuels daily. You can see this attempted hypocritical guilt trip in this very topic. If you want to counter ignorance, you have to actually know what you are talking about. Gigogalloper left the topic, nobody knows why. I suspect it was because he ran into things there was no canned response for. This is because the pseudo-scientific blogs never actually take on the real controversies, and waste time on straw men arguments they create. Honestly, climate forecasting is actually a real unknown still. Hell, if you read the topic aso far, you know that even defining the terms is a real bitch. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/688 "2013-09-23T17:05:52Z")
Hopefully the [IPCC report](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-22/global-warming-slowdown-hinders-climate-treaty-effort.html) due out soon will be enough to spur some politicians to action, and ignore the stupid ones who are literally drowning in their own ignorance and water. I wonder how much it costs to buy a person like FX? He’s stupid, so maybe a California Quarter and a half bag of M&Ms? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/689 "2013-09-23T17:11:53Z")
There you go again. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/690 "2013-09-23T18:24:08Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I clicked on your link, and read the quoted excerpt _in context_. > > I’d like you, Mr. Mastermind, to paraphrase the point that the blog-writer is making, and what your reaction to it is. This will be a test of your reading comprehension, so Dopers can guess whether to take you seriously. AFAICT, you have no clue at all. I read the link and **FXMastermind’s** post and it all seems consistent. **FX** has consistently been pro-facts and anti-“vagueness”. The quote, context and intent of the linked article are in line with **FX’s** previous posts. Do you see an inconsistency? And if so what is it, I’m curious if my analysis is incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/691 "2013-09-23T18:38:43Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I read the link and **FXMastermind’s** post and it all seems consistent. > > **FX** has consistently been pro-facts and anti-“vagueness”. > > The quote, context and intent of the linked article are in line with **FX’s** previous posts. You have raised the level of intercourse. It very well may be time to discuss further the science and controversy. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/692 "2013-09-23T18:42:30Z")
Why anyone promoting fear and concern over AGW/GW/Climate Change/Disruptive climate change/whatever-you-use would be incapable of simply explaining what they mean, it’s a prime example of pseudo-science. Trying to say, “asking for the theory is a denier tactic” is the opposite of science. > [@](#): > > Evidence that CO2 drives climate change in journal ‘Nature’. > **[350 News | Get Carbon Pollution down to 350ppm](https://www.350resources.org.uk/350-news.html)** > > www.350Resources.org.uk supports the 350 Campaign. People all over the world use this website - I do not have the full list but so far I have recorded the > [@](#): > > Nor does it go against the grain of basic **global warming theory**. [http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coldweather-2009.html](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coldweather-2009.html) > [@](#): > > The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies **the theory of global warming** , explained the authors. > **[NASA Earth Observatory - Newsroom](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/newsroom)** > > climate change, global climate change, global warming, natural hazards, Earth, environment, remote sensing, atmosphere, land processes, oceans, volcanoes, land cover, Earth science data, NASA, environmental processes, Blue Marble, global maps > [@](#): > > “Since 1896, when Svante Arrhenius first postulated **the theory of global warming due to carbon dioxide** , control of carbon dioxide has been considered the most effective method of slowing warming,” Jacobson says in an interview. “ **Whereas carbon dioxide clearly causes most global warming** , control of shorter-lived warming constituents, such as black carbon, should have a faster effect on slowing warming, which is the conclusion I have drawn from this study. " > **[NASA Earth Observatory - Newsroom](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/newsroom)** > > climate change, global climate change, global warming, natural hazards, Earth, environment, remote sensing, atmosphere, land processes, oceans, volcanoes, land cover, Earth science data, NASA, environmental processes, Blue Marble, global maps > [@](#): > > This module investigates climatic variability. It focuses on the evidence for global climate change. It includes investigations of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the geography and politics of stratospheric ozone, and **the theory of global warming** > **[ER Home: Software, Robotics, and Simulation Division - NASA](https://www.nasa.gov/software-robotics-and-simulation-division/)** > > The mission of the Software, Robotics, and Simulation Division is to enable the human exploration of space, and contribute to the achievement of national > [@](#): > > Is global warming the figment of some scientists’ imaginations? How can we reconcile **the global warming theory** with the reality of what we find when we step outdoors? > **[Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: News, Updates, and Features](https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/news/)** > [@](#): > > How Dry is the Tropical Free Troposphere? > Implications for **Global Warming Theory** [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd14jul97\_1/](http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd14jul97_1/) > [@](#): > > Sometimes people ask “what would it take to falsify **the man-made global warming theory**?”. Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that’s what **the theory** is based on. > **[The Big Picture](https://skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html)** > > As part of our Rebuttal Update Project, this version of The Big Picture article has been updated with more current data in February 2024. You can access the previous version here.Note: clicking on the images will open a larger version in a separate... > [@](#): > > One of the predictions that arise from **the theory of Global Warming** is that as the climate system warms, as more energy accumulates in various parts of the system, weather in various ways will become more intense and also more erratic. > **[A Sunburnt Country](https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1296)** “Global warming is a theory.” > **[Are Climate Change and Global Warming the Same Thing?](https://www.thoughtco.com/are-climate-change-and-global-warming-the-same-thing-3443706)** > > Learn why climate change and global warming are not the same thing. Discover the differences and definitions here. Those statements are quite enough to justify an inquiry into what is being stated. In fact, it’s a crucial point. And, it’s actually quite interesting to learn about the physics behind the theoretical, and why many scientist arre sure warming will happen, will continue, and why there are serious concerns about future changes to our planet. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/693 "2013-09-23T21:18:08Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > **FX** has consistently been pro-facts and anti-“vagueness”. Someone who denies global warming cannot be pro-facts. That’s a fact! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/694 "2013-09-23T21:26:11Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Someone who denies global warming cannot be pro-facts. That’s a fact! 😉 What do you mean “denies global warming”? I’ve seen **FX** post about satellite data showing global warming during a time period (don’t remember which years), which doesn’t sound like “denies global warming”. How about this, let’s ask **FX** for his stance on “global warming” - just provide a clear definition of “global warming” and I suspect you will get a clear answer in response. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/695 "2013-09-23T21:58:10Z")
Let’s cut to the chase. Here is a science based web site that is chock full of data and science. [http://www.climate4you.com](http://www.climate4you.com) Here is a sub section that explains (in a scientific manner) two of the important effects from CO2 forced warming. [climate4you Polar temperatures](http://www.climate4you.com/Polar%20temperatures.htm#Polar) then click **Polar regions as key regions for global climate change** Just reading that section will enable somebody of average intelligence to grasp why the polar regions are so important in climate change, as well as why a cooling trend for boreal winters is a big deal. And it also contains more information about CO2 and the mechansim of warming than this entire thread so far, as well as the entire pseudo-scientific blog skepticalscience. (yeah, I gave up on any of the alarmist ever simply linking to anything that would explain this) ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/696 "2013-09-23T22:01:39Z")
I don’t consider my “views” as that important. The science is complex, ongoing and certainly there is no settled much of anything, except that mankind will probably keep polluting the planet. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/697 "2013-09-23T23:33:40Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > - just provide a clear definition of “global warming” Lol, good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/698 "2013-09-24T00:37:22Z")
The common definition is simple and avoids theory and complicated feedbacks and the like. > [@](#): > > **Global Warming** The observed increase in average temperature near the Earth’s surface and in the lowest layer of the atmosphere. In common usage, “global warming” often refers to **the warming that has occurred as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities**. Global warming is a type of climate change; it can also lead to other changes in climate conditions, such as changes in precipitation patterns. [http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/151183/](http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/151183/) It really should include changes in land use (mostly deforestation) as well as particulates, ozone destruction, and urban heat island effects, agriculture and water sequestering, irrigation and aircraft pollution. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/699 "2013-09-24T07:59:26Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > The common definition is simple and avoids theory and complicated feedbacks and the like. So defined, I believe in “global warming.” ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/700 "2013-09-24T13:04:45Z")
Now I know you are trying to kill the thread. 🙂 ``` Oh well. Still, it just makes me sick sometimes. There are a lot of claims made about the current "global climate", and controversies over past climates, changes and what not and so forth. I used to simply believe most of them. Becoming a skeptic and looking at evidence, actually educating myself about the many facets, I could no longer just buy into the official story, the warmists doom, the alarmists nonsense. One of the worst lies is about the past climate conditions, in comparison with the "now", where we are told it's warmer now than it has ever been in the Holocene. I call it a lie because of the evidence uncovered by melting glaciers. Evidence that means the "NH reconstructions" are simply bullshit. ``` **Retreat of the Mendenhall Glacier reveals the remains of trees which grew more than 2,000 years ago** Posted: September 13, 2013 - 12:02am > [@](#): > > The Mendenhall Glacier’s recession is unveiling the remains of ancient forests that have remained frozen beneath the ice for up to 2,350 years. > > UAS Professor of Geology and Environmental Science Program Coordinator Cathy Connor said she and others have been tracking the emergence of the forests’ remains. Some stumps and logs can be found in the moraines around the west side of the glacier. Some remain vertical, frozen to the ground in ice caves. Some are scoured smooth; some still have their bark. All are packed with silt in the outer layers. > > As the glacier advanced, it snapped off the tops of the trees in its path, Connor said. The stumps were buried — and protected — in gravel. > > Now, as the glacier melts, the melt water carves out paths in that gravel, revealing the remains of the trees. [http://juneauempire.com/outdoors/2013-09-13/ancient-trees-emerge-frozen-forest-tomb#.UkGJCtKsiSq](http://juneauempire.com/outdoors/2013-09-13/ancient-trees-emerge-frozen-forest-tomb#.UkGJCtKsiSq) ``` This story is repeated over and over. The small tidewater glaciers that retreat the fastest respond to changes quickly, compared to the large glaciers. So the warming now shows up there "fast". It's why they reveal the past climate. ``` > [@](#): > > The most recent stumps she’s dated emerging from the Mendenhall are between 1,400 and 1,200 years old. The oldest she’s tested are around 2,350 years old. She’s also dated some at around 1,870 to 2,000 years old. > > “We’re seeing the Mendenhall wax and wane through time a little bit,” Connor said. ``` No kidding. And the evidence is clear, despite how much the alarmists hates it. It was much warmer in the "recent" past. Not this insane hocky stick nonsense, and certainly the present isn't worth going into a panic over. ``` > [@](#): > > “The tricky part is, as the ice advances in earlier time, it tends to scour away whatever was there before,” she said. “So often you just get the latest chapter of the story, rather than come in at the introduction … It’s the luck of the Irish how you get a little bit of the story still remaining that hasn’t gotten ravaged and sent down the Mendenhall (River) and out to Gastineau Channel. Most of the story is now in the sea sediments and a little hard to decipher.” > > **In other areas of Southeast, tree remains tell stories about other glaciers.** > > “It’s an ongoing process,” said Professor Emeritus of Geophysics Roman Motyka. The recession of Eagle and Herbert glaciers is revealing trees of a similar age, he said. ``` If it was just one glacier, it could be handwaved away. It should be interesting as more time goes by, to see how the staunch warmists denies the evidence. Most likely it will just be ignored. Like all other evidence that doesn't support the "official" story. ``` [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=36)