On 30/04/08 8:35, in article , "0BZN0"
wrote:

There's a big noise that Gore and Hansen made about melting in
Greenland. There is melting along the edges, but the ice is growing in
the middle,

The net changes is a LOSS of ice mass on Greenland. Recent satellite
measures are the most accurate, the 2003-2005 loss is at
101 cubic km per year, with an error estimate of 16 (Luthcke in 2006).
The less precise data from 1993-1998 4-50 and 1999-2004 (57-105) also
indicate an increase in ice loss.

Any comment like "melting along the edges, but the ice is growing in
the middle" is imprecise. In fact, it is intellectually dishonest
in the extreme.

Next the summer melt areas ON the cap have increased 450,000 sq km
to 600,000 from 1979 to now. These melt areas decrease the albedo
and increase the surface melting. The melt areas provide the water
when in penetrates downwards to lubricate and increase the ice
discharge into the ocean. Which is also occurring.

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 30/04/08 8:35, in article
, "0BZN0"
wrote:

There's a big noise that Gore and Hansen made
about melting in Greenland. There is melting
along the edges, but the ice is growing in the
middle,

The net changes is a LOSS of ice mass on
Greenland. Recent satellite measures are the
most accurate, the 2003-2005 loss is at 101
cubic km per year, with an error estimate of 16
(Luthcke in 2006). The less precise data from
1993-1998 4-50 and 1999-2004 (57-105) also
indicate an increase in ice loss.

Any comment like "melting along the edges, but
the ice is growing in
the middle" is imprecise. In fact, it is
intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

Next the summer melt areas ON the cap have
increased 450,000 sq km
to 600,000 from 1979 to now. These melt areas
decrease the albedo
and increase the surface melting. The melt
areas provide the water when in penetrates
downwards to lubricate and increase the ice
discharge into the ocean. Which is also
occurring.

Earl, you seem to be making an invalid assumption.

Moulins result from crevasses, especially
intersecting crevasses. These crevasses can and
often do extend to the base of ice. True that
melt water will flow down the natural crevasses
BUT the water does not necessarily CAUSE the
penetration down to the base of the ice. You
also seem to imply that water providing the
"grease" for ice movement is new and because of
AGW. When you leave your field of expertise and
venture into Geology, be careful.

On Apr 30, 3:43*am, Earl Evleth wrote:
On 30/04/08 8:35, in article , "0BZN0"

wrote:
There's a big noise that Gore and Hansen made about melting in
Greenland. There is melting along the edges, but the ice is growing in
the middle,

The net changes is a LOSS of ice mass on *Greenland. Recent satellite
measures are the most accurate, the 2003-2005 loss is at
101 cubic km per year, with an error estimate of 16 (Luthcke in 2006).
The less precise data from 1993-1998 4-50 and 1999-2004 (57-105) also
indicate an increase in ice loss.

Any comment like "melting along the edges, but the ice is growing in
the middle" is imprecise. *In fact, it is intellectually dishonest
in the extreme.

Next the summer melt areas ON the cap have increased 450,000 sq km
to 600,000 from 1979 to now. *These melt areas decrease the albedo
and increase the surface melting. *The melt areas provide the water
when in penetrates downwards to lubricate and increase the ice
discharge into the ocean. *Which is also occurring.

"Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western
Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology;
environmental
and engineering geology."

Hmmm.... should I believe Don or Earl? I think I'll go with Don.

Tunderbar wrote:

On Apr 30, 3:43*am, Earl Evleth
wrote:
On 30/04/08 8:35, in article
, "0BZN0"

wrote:
There's a big noise that Gore and Hansen made
about melting in Greenland. There is melting
along the edges, but the ice is growing in
the middle,

The net changes is a LOSS of ice mass on
Greenland. Recent satellite measures are the
most accurate, the 2003-2005 loss is at 101
cubic km per year, with an error estimate of 16
(Luthcke in 2006). The less precise data from
1993-1998 4-50 and 1999-2004 (57-105) also
indicate an increase in ice loss.

Any comment like "melting along the edges, but
the ice is growing in the middle" is imprecise.
*In fact, it is intellectually dishonest in the
extreme.

Next the summer melt areas ON the cap have
increased 450,000 sq km to 600,000 from 1979 to
now. *These melt areas decrease the albedo and
increase the surface melting. *The melt areas
provide the water when in penetrates downwards
to lubricate and increase the ice discharge
into the ocean. *Which is also occurring.

"Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus
Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal
publications with focus on geomorphology;
glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology;
environmental and engineering geology."

Hmmm.... should I believe Don or Earl? I think
I'll go with Don.

Excellent choice

Paul E. Lehmann wrote:
Tunderbar wrote:

On Apr 30, 3:43 am, Earl Evleth
wrote:
On 30/04/08 8:35, in article
, "0BZN0"

wrote:
There's a big noise that Gore and Hansen made
about melting in Greenland. There is melting
along the edges, but the ice is growing in
the middle,

The net changes is a LOSS of ice mass on
Greenland. Recent satellite measures are the
most accurate, the 2003-2005 loss is at 101
cubic km per year, with an error estimate of 16
(Luthcke in 2006). The less precise data from
1993-1998 4-50 and 1999-2004 (57-105) also
indicate an increase in ice loss.

Any comment like "melting along the edges, but
the ice is growing in the middle" is imprecise.
In fact, it is intellectually dishonest in the
extreme.

Next the summer melt areas ON the cap have
increased 450,000 sq km to 600,000 from 1979 to
now. These melt areas decrease the albedo and
increase the surface melting. The melt areas
provide the water when in penetrates downwards
to lubricate and increase the ice discharge
into the ocean. Which is also occurring.

"Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus
Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal
publications with focus on geomorphology;
glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology;
environmental and engineering geology."

Hmmm.... should I believe Don or Earl? I think
I'll go with Don.

Excellent choice

Of course. After all, 'Don' is way out of his field of expertise and
lies repeatedly - but that's fine for denialists.

On 30/04/08 19:46, in article
,
"Tunderbar" wrote:

Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus


Emeritus means he is out of the research loop.

On 30/04/08 21:46, in article , "Ouroboros_Rex"
wrote:

"Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus
Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal
publications with focus on geomorphology;
glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology;
environmental and engineering geology."

Hmmm.... should I believe Don or Earl? I think
I'll go with Don.

Excellent choice

Of course. After all, 'Don' is way out of his field of expertise and
lies repeatedly - but that's fine for denialists.


I don't see Easterbrook is carrying any weight in this area, any more
than individuals on this group.

One quote about him is

Easterbrook gave a speech at the 2006 Geological Society of America annual
meeting, in which he stated:`

"If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end
soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then
warm about 0.5° C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100. The
total increase in global warming for the century should be ~0.3 ° C, rather
than the catastrophic warming of 3-6° C (4-11° F) predicted by the IPCC."[3]


***

Precisely, due to man's dumping large amounts of CO2 into the air we are NOT
in a period where we can anticipate that "cycles (will) continue as in the
past". Over the long term, if the CO2 had not increased we could indeed be
in a long descent.

But I am unfamiliar with cycles as Easterbrook claims, like
"global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about
0.5° C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100."

It sounds wacky to me, is there any clarification on this claim?

On 1/05/08 8:44, in article , "0BZN0"
wrote:

"Every year they recalibrate their computer model and put in the
observed temperature. So, as they go along, the curve that trails behind
is perfect. It's like predicting the morning's weather at six-o'clock in
the evening.." Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology,
Western Washington University

I don't find on Easterbrook's publication list
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/pubs.htm

any mention of computer modeling on his part.

So the question is whether he is in a professional position to
criticize modeling in this area. If he is, he will have published
his criticism in a peer review journal.

I will not that his last paper on this list

Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, Causes and effects of abrupt, global, climate
changes and global warming: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with
Program,

This is the only "paper" mentioned on his list which has to do with global
warming.

This was published in the abstracts of a meeting. Normally such abstracts
are not critically reviewed so the mere fact of it being listed in the
program does not give it the same "stamp of approval" as a published
article.

Some societies allow almost anything in the program's abstracts. The
American Physical Society (I was a member in my pre-retirement days) was
historically quite permissive in this regard to the point that nuts
got their stuff into the program (although not invited to give a talk!)
..
These days, papers are in three categories.

1) Those invited to give a long talk as special symposiums at a general
meeting

2) Those allowed to give short talks (15 minutes)

3) Those presenting only posters.

Promotion committees at Universities rate a person's overall reputation on
the basis not only of papers published but how many they present invited
papers or invited to other Universities to give a long talk.

I don't find sufficient information to judge Easterbrook's standing
on the global warming issue. But the evidence is not there that he
has a particular impact.

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 30/04/08 21:46, in article ,
"Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:

"Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus
Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal
publications with focus on geomorphology;
glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology;
environmental and engineering geology."

Hmmm.... should I believe Don or Earl? I think
I'll go with Don.

Excellent choice

Of course. After all, 'Don' is way out of his field of expertise and
lies repeatedly - but that's fine for denialists.


I don't see Easterbrook is carrying any weight in this area, any more
than individuals on this group.

One quote about him is

Easterbrook gave a speech at the 2006 Geological Society of America annual
meeting, in which he stated:`

"If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end
soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then
warm about 0.5° C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100. The
total increase in global warming for the century should be ~0.3 ° C,
rather than the catastrophic warming of 3-6° C (4-11° F) predicted by the
IPCC."[3]


***

Precisely, due to man's dumping large amounts of CO2 into the air we are
NOT
in a period where we can anticipate that "cycles (will) continue as in
the
past". Over the long term, if the CO2 had not increased we could indeed
be in a long descent.

But I am unfamiliar with cycles as Easterbrook claims, like
"global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm
about 0.5° C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100."

It sounds wacky to me, is there any clarification on this claim?

Some time ago, I came across an investigation published in 1975 into the
past 700,000 years climate. According to that, the cooling trend since the
forties would persist until the early 1990s. Thereafter, warming would
continue until about 2050 when global temperatures would be about 0.1C
above the 40s peak. That expected value was passed 25 years ago and we're
now 0.6C beyond that peak.

From the quote you give, Easterbrook is talking about a 60-yr cycle but in
Bozo's it's a 30-yr cycle. Confusing. I can't see any sign of either in the
temperature data for the past 150 years.

"From 1870 to 1900, we had global cooling" according to Easterbrook.
According to the temperature data, the cooling didn't start until about
1880. All I can see is an approximate 20-yr cycle around that period with
temperature troughs in about 1870, 1890, and 1910. Temperatures were higher
at the end of his cooling period than at the start!

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman, not newsboy.
"What use is happiness? It can't buy you money." [Chic Murray, 1919-85]

Earl Evleth wrote:


I don't find sufficient information to judge Easterbrook's standing
on the global warming issue. But the evidence is not there that he
has a particular impact.

Easterbrook's career spans 45 years (from 1963 to present). In that time,
his h-index (measure of scientific productivity) is 12. Scientists of
average productivity should see their h-index rise one unit for each year
in their career (therefore, his should be around 45!). Easterbrook's
average increase in h-index is 0.27, or about 1/4 what it should be. (The
average increase in h-index for the scientists at realclimate.org (IPCC
supporters) is 1.5, the average h-index increase for Worldclimatereport
(Skeptics) is 0.56) (All numbers taken from ISI Web of Science.) The cold
hard numbers do not lie.

Bottom line: Easterbrook, like nearly all professional climate skeptics,
is a scientist of marginal impact and relatively minor standing. The only
reason he gets "airtime" is because he is a climate skeptic.

Discussion of the h-index:

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

--
Bill Asher