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.

CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington

March 30, 2008



http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf



QUOTE: "The time of maximum CO2 emissions started in 1945 and
temperatures should have shot up, but we cooled off. That's an
anti-correlation."



But, the things he [Gore] does, the things he says, are so outrageous, I
don't forgive him anymore. For example, when he says things like 'people
like me are right in there with the flat earth theory'. He says the
debate is over. The debate is not over-it's just getting started.
There's a huge uproar in the scientific world because in the last ten
years, the climate has cooled slightly, but the media won't tell you
that. This year is a big downturn, you can't miss it. Global warming
simply ended in 1998, but the public doesn't know it.



KLC: I could draw it myself, you have a peak in '98 and it's been flat
or declining since then. The trend depends on where you start. They love
starting in 1850.



DJE: That doesn't work because there are 30-year cycles. The chairman of
the IPCC admits we've had global cooling for at least eight years, and
there are sources on the Internet, you've probably seen them, that show
the IPCC folks are panicking.



KLC: Talk about an inconvenient fact.



DJE: On the temperature curve, 1998 was the high point, and this year,
we've cooled dramatically. It's been kind of flat for ten years, sort of
a plateau, but if you take 1998 as your starting point, it's down
slightly, not soaring as predicted by IPCC.



KLC: Playing the devil's advocate, if you start in the early 90's, you
would still have a positive trend.



DJE: If you want to be really honest about this, the curve should rise
from 1977 and end after 1998. It depends on what you want to show and
how you want to filter it. You can filter it with a two-year average, a
five-year average, or over whatever period you want and you'll get a
differently-shaped curve. The point is, it has not gotten warmer since
1998; it has not continued to warm in the last ten years.



KLC: How can that be if CO2 is increasing?



DJE: You can take ground data or satellite data; they are not exactly
the same, but close. I took all the data, satellite and ground, averaged
it, and plotted a single curve from the average to show the trend and
the temperature stopped rising in 1998.

Look at history, where we are in 2008, and where we've been. If you go
back to the beginning of the century, there was a really deep cold
period from about 1880 to 1910, and then it warmed until about 1945.
Most of the global temperature records are set in the middle of the
1930's when it was warmer than now. And the same is true in
Greenland--the temperatures in the 1930's were warmer than they are now.
In ~1945, we did a flip to thirty years of global cooling. The time of
maximum CO2 emissions started in 1945 and temperatures should have shot
up, but we cooled off. That's an anti-correlation. In 1977, we got
warmer and warmer. If we look back 500 years, the trend of 1977 to 1998
is not unique to this century. For about 500 years we have 30-year
periods where it gets warm/cold, warm/cold.

We've been warming up about a degree per century since the Little Ice
Age in about 1600. We've been warming for 400 years, long before
human-generated CO2 could have anything to do with the climate. If we
project the previous century into the coming one, my projection is that
we will have about a half-a-degree of cooling from 2007 (plus or minus
three to five years) to about 2040. Then it will start getting warmer as
we enter the next warm cycle, followed by cooling again. By the end of
the century, we'll have less than a half a degree temperature increase,
instead of the ten degrees or so predicted by IPCC. A huge differenc.
The IPCC projection says that by 2011 we should be one-degree warmer
than where we were in 2005. But, we're getting colder. We declined about
0.7 degrees in one year. We're going in the opposite direction. With
IPCC data and their graph, by 2011, the difference between my projection
and theirs is about one-degree and that's huge. Now, they have to
increase a degree in three years. If that doesn't happen, their
projection is wrong and mine is right. By 2038, the difference between
their prediction and mine is two degrees.



KLC: Around 2001 you predicted global cooling. That must have been a
tough thing to come out in public and say in those times.



DJE: I was a lone wolf howling in the wind in 1998. I gave a paper in
2001 in Boston at the national GSA [Geological Society of America]
meeting and you should have seen the

stunned look on people's faces. We'd just had the 1998 warm peak and
people were astonished. I said, look at the data and forget CO2. You
know how much change there's been in atmospheric CO2 since the advent of
big man-made emissions?



KLC: Maybe 100 PPM [Parts Per Million].



DJE: Normally it's been about 280 PPM. It crept up to about 300 by 1945,
which is not much-it had been naturally that high before, but in 1945 it
took off. Emissions went straight up. However, the total change was not
much compared to the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere. Water
vapor is the main greenhouse gas and one of the things you won't hear
anywhere is that in order to get the global warming projected, the CO2
people can't get there with only CO2 because the effect isn't big
enough, so they say it will change the water vapor. They rely on water
vapor to get their climate change, not CO2-CO2 is just enough to nudge
it and water vapor does the rest.



KLC: At Real Climate [www.realclimate.org], I've said that the idea of
CO2 being a 'forcing' and water vapor being a 'feedback' is great
marketing, but bad science. You can imagine what response you get from
something like that.



DJE: Look at the difference. Man contributed eight one-thousandths of
one percent to the total CO2 that was present before the big upshoot. It
is instructive to think about emissions added to atmospheric content.
From 1870 to 1900, we had global cooling, then we had significant
global warming from about 1910 to 1945. That global warming is not
accompanied by any significant rise in CO2, so you can't blame CO2. Then
CO2 increased while we had global cooling. You can't blame that on CO2.
It's only been the last 30 years there's been correlation between CO2
and global warming. Everything before was uncorrelated. There's no doubt
there's been warming as we came out of the cold period from 1880 and
1910. The 1930's were warm, then we cooled from 1945. 1977 was a
turnaround year when temperatures started up and now we're headed down
again. We're right where we ought to be.


Where in the past has both polar icecaps melted? If the mean global

0BZN0 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.

CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington

March 30, 2008



http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf



QUOTE: "The time of maximum CO2 emissions started in 1945 and
temperatures should have shot up, but we cooled off. That's an
anti-correlation."



But, the things he [Gore] does, the things he says, are so
outrageous, I don't forgive him anymore. For example, when he says
things like 'people like me are right in there with the flat earth
theory'. He says the debate is over. The debate is not over-it's just
getting started. There's a huge uproar in the scientific world
because in the last ten years, the climate has cooled slightly, but
the media won't tell you that. This year is a big downturn, you can't
miss it. Global warming simply ended in 1998, but the public doesn't
know it.



KLC: I could draw it myself, you have a peak in '98 and it's been
flat or declining since then. The trend depends on where you start.
They love starting in 1850.



DJE: That doesn't work because there are 30-year cycles. The chairman
of the IPCC admits we've had global cooling for at least eight years,
and there are sources on the Internet, you've probably seen them,
that show the IPCC folks are panicking.



KLC: Talk about an inconvenient fact.



DJE: On the temperature curve, 1998 was the high point, and this
year, we've cooled dramatically. It's been kind of flat for ten
years, sort of a plateau, but if you take 1998 as your starting
point, it's down slightly, not soaring as predicted by IPCC.



KLC: Playing the devil's advocate, if you start in the early 90's,
you would still have a positive trend.



DJE: If you want to be really honest about this, the curve should
rise from 1977 and end after 1998. It depends on what you want to
show and how you want to filter it. You can filter it with a two-year
average, a five-year average, or over whatever period you want and
you'll get a differently-shaped curve. The point is, it has not
gotten warmer since 1998; it has not continued to warm in the last
ten years.



KLC: How can that be if CO2 is increasing?



DJE: You can take ground data or satellite data; they are not exactly
the same, but close. I took all the data, satellite and ground,
averaged it, and plotted a single curve from the average to show the
trend and the temperature stopped rising in 1998.

Look at history, where we are in 2008, and where we've been. If you
go back to the beginning of the century, there was a really deep cold
period from about 1880 to 1910, and then it warmed until about 1945.
Most of the global temperature records are set in the middle of the
1930's when it was warmer than now. And the same is true in
Greenland--the temperatures in the 1930's were warmer than they are
now. In ~1945, we did a flip to thirty years of global cooling. The
time of maximum CO2 emissions started in 1945 and temperatures should
have shot up, but we cooled off. That's an anti-correlation. In 1977,
we got warmer and warmer. If we look back 500 years, the trend of
1977 to 1998 is not unique to this century. For about 500 years we
have 30-year periods where it gets warm/cold, warm/cold.

We've been warming up about a degree per century since the Little Ice
Age in about 1600. We've been warming for 400 years, long before
human-generated CO2 could have anything to do with the climate. If we
project the previous century into the coming one, my projection is
that we will have about a half-a-degree of cooling from 2007 (plus or
minus three to five years) to about 2040. Then it will start getting
warmer as we enter the next warm cycle, followed by cooling again. By
the end of the century, we'll have less than a half a degree
temperature increase, instead of the ten degrees or so predicted by
IPCC. A huge differenc. The IPCC projection says that by 2011 we
should be one-degree warmer than where we were in 2005. But, we're
getting colder. We declined about 0.7 degrees in one year. We're
going in the opposite direction. With IPCC data and their graph, by
2011, the difference between my projection and theirs is about
one-degree and that's huge. Now, they have to increase a degree in
three years. If that doesn't happen, their projection is wrong and
mine is right. By 2038, the difference between their prediction and
mine is two degrees.



KLC: Around 2001 you predicted global cooling. That must have been a
tough thing to come out in public and say in those times.



DJE: I was a lone wolf howling in the wind in 1998. I gave a paper in
2001 in Boston at the national GSA [Geological Society of America]
meeting and you should have seen the

stunned look on people's faces. We'd just had the 1998 warm peak and
people were astonished. I said, look at the data and forget CO2. You
know how much change there's been in atmospheric CO2 since the advent
of big man-made emissions?



KLC: Maybe 100 PPM [Parts Per Million].



DJE: Normally it's been about 280 PPM. It crept up to about 300 by
1945, which is not much-it had been naturally that high before, but
in 1945 it took off. Emissions went straight up. However, the total
change was not much compared to the volume of CO2 already in the
atmosphere. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas and one of the
things you won't hear anywhere is that in order to get the global
warming projected, the CO2 people can't get there with only CO2
because the effect isn't big enough, so they say it will change the
water vapor. They rely on water vapor to get their climate change,
not CO2-CO2 is just enough to nudge it and water vapor does the rest.



KLC: At Real Climate [www.realclimate.org], I've said that the idea
of CO2 being a 'forcing' and water vapor being a 'feedback' is great
marketing, but bad science. You can imagine what response you get
from something like that.



DJE: Look at the difference. Man contributed eight one-thousandths of
one percent to the total CO2 that was present before the big upshoot.
It is instructive to think about emissions added to atmospheric
content. From 1870 to 1900, we had global cooling, then we had
significant global warming from about 1910 to 1945. That global
warming is not accompanied by any significant rise in CO2, so you
can't blame CO2. Then CO2 increased while we had global cooling. You
can't blame that on CO2. It's only been the last 30 years there's
been correlation between CO2 and global warming. Everything before
was uncorrelated. There's no doubt there's been warming as we came
out of the cold period from 1880 and 1910. The 1930's were warm, then
we cooled from 1945. 1977 was a turnaround year when temperatures
started up and now we're headed down again. We're right where we
ought to be.
Where in the past has both polar icecaps melted? If the mean global
temperature is lower why are species dying?

What oil companies funded this study?

I don't have answers, but neither does this "perfesser"

0BZN0 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.

CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington

March 30, 2008

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf

QUOTE: "The time of maximum CO2 emissions started in 1945 and
temperatures should have shot up, but we cooled off. That's an
anti-correlation."

But, the things he [Gore] does, the things he says, are so
outrageous, I don't forgive him anymore. For example, when he says
things like 'people like me are right in there with the flat earth
theory'. He says the debate is over. The debate is not over-it's just
getting started. There's a huge uproar in the scientific world
because in the last ten years, the climate has cooled slightly, but
the media won't tell you that. This year is a big downturn, you can't miss
it. Global warming simply ended
in 1998, but the public doesn't know it.

  A ridiculous lie from an obvious liar.  lol- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"FM - No static at all" <dontwrite@anything2.me> wrote in message
news:StCdnQP6wIASgoXVnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...




I don't have answers, but neither does this "perfesser"



He seems to know a lot more than you and I.
He also sounds calm and rational, unlike many AGW zealots.

"0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> wrote innews:48182166@dnews.tpgi.com.au:



"FM - No static at all" <dontwr...@anything2.me> wrote in message
news:StCdnQP6wIASgoXVnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...

I don't have answers, but neither does this "perfesser"

He seems to know a lot more than you and I.
He also sounds calm and rational, unlike many AGW zealots.

Glacier National Park was named for the 150 glaciers found
there in 1850. There are just 27 left today, and none will
be left by 2030.www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glaciers.htm

http://www.nps.gov/archive/glac/pphtml/subnaturalfeatures13.html

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.

CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington

March 30, 2008

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf

QUOTE: "The time of maximum CO2 emissions started in 1945 and
temperatures should have shot up, but we cooled off. That's an
anti-correlation."

But, the things he [Gore] does, the things he says, are so outrageous, I
don't forgive him anymore. For example, when he says things like 'people
like me are right in there with the flat earth theory'. He says the
debate is over. The debate is not over-it's just getting started. There's
a huge uproar in the scientific world because in the last ten years, the
climate has cooled slightly, but the media won't tell you that. This
year is a big downturn, you can't miss it. Global warming simply ended
in 1998, but the public doesn't know it.

KLC: I could draw it myself, you have a peak in '98 and it's been flat
or declining since then. The trend depends on where you start. They love
starting in 1850.

DJE: That doesn't work because there are 30-year cycles. The chairman of
the IPCC admits we've had global cooling for at least eight years, and
there are sources on the Internet, you've probably seen them, that show
the IPCC folks are panicking.

KLC: Talk about an inconvenient fact.

DJE: On the temperature curve, 1998 was the high point, and this year,
we've cooled dramatically. It's been kind of flat for ten years, sort of
a plateau, but if you take 1998 as your starting point, it's down
slightly, not soaring as predicted by IPCC.

KLC: Playing the devil's advocate, if you start in the early 90's, you
would still have a positive trend.

DJE: If you want to be really honest about this, the curve should rise
from 1977 and end after 1998. It depends on what you want to show and
how you want to filter it. You can filter it with a two-year average, a
five-year average, or over whatever period you want and you'll get a
differently-shaped curve. The point is, it has not gotten warmer since
1998; it has not continued to warm in the last ten years.

KLC: How can that be if CO2 is increasing?

DJE: You can take ground data or satellite data; they are not exactly
the same, but close. I took all the data, satellite and ground, averaged
it, and plotted a single curve from the average to show the trend and
the temperature stopped rising in 1998.

Look at history, where we are in 2008, and where we've been. If you go
back to the beginning of the century, there was a really deep cold
period from about 1880 to 1910, and then it warmed until about 1945.
Most of the global temperature records are set in the middle of the 1930's
when it was warmer than now. And the same is true in Greenland--the
temperatures in the 1930's were warmer than they are now. In ~1945, we
did a flip to thirty years of global cooling. The time of maximum CO2
emissions started in 1945 and temperatures should have shot up, but we
cooled off. That's an anti-correlation. In 1977, we got warmer and
warmer. If we look back 500 years, the trend of 1977 to 1998 is not
unique to this century. For about 500 years we have 30-year periods
where it gets warm/cold, warm/cold.

We've been warming up about a degree per century since the Little Ice
Age in about 1600. We've been warming for 400 years, long before
human-generated CO2 could have anything to do with the climate. If we
project the previous century into the coming one, my projection is that
we will have about a half-a-degree of cooling from 2007 (plus or minus
three to five years) to about 2040. Then it will start getting warmer as
we enter the next warm cycle, followed by cooling again. By the end of
the century, we'll have less than a half a degree temperature increase,
instead of the ten degrees or so predicted by IPCC. A huge differenc.
The IPCC projection says that by 2011 we should be one-degree warmer
than where we were in 2005. But, we're getting colder. We declined about
0.7 degrees in one year. We're going in the opposite direction. With
IPCC data and their graph, by 2011, the difference between my projection
and theirs is about one-degree and that's huge. Now, they have to
increase a degree in three years. If that doesn't happen, their
projection is wrong and mine is right. By 2038, the difference between
their prediction and mine is two degrees.

KLC: Around 2001 you predicted global cooling. That must have been a
tough thing to come out in public and say in those times.

DJE: I was a lone wolf howling in the wind in 1998. I gave a paper in
2001 in Boston at the national GSA [Geological Society of America]
meeting and you should have seen the

stunned look on people's faces. We'd just had the 1998 warm peak and
people were astonished. I said, look at the data and forget CO2. You
know how much change there's been in atmospheric CO2 since the advent of
big man-made emissions?

KLC: Maybe 100 PPM [Parts Per Million].

DJE: Normally it's been about 280 PPM. It crept up to about 300 by 1945,
which is not much-it had been naturally that high before, but in 1945 it
took off. Emissions went straight up. However, the total change was not
much compared to the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere. Water
vapor is the main greenhouse gas and one of the things you won't hear
anywhere is that in order to get the global warming projected, the CO2
people can't get there with only CO2 because the effect isn't big
enough, so they say it will change the water vapor. They rely on water
vapor to get their climate change, not CO2-CO2 is just enough to nudge
it and water vapor does the rest.

KLC: At Real Climate [www.realclimate.org], I've said that the idea of
CO2 being a 'forcing' and water vapor being a 'feedback' is great
marketing, but bad science. You can imagine what response you get from
something like that.

DJE: Look at the difference. Man contributed eight one-thousandths of
one percent to the total CO2 that was present before the big upshoot. It
is instructive to think about emissions added to atmospheric content.
From 1870 to 1900, we had global cooling, then we had significant global
warming from about 1910 to 1945. That global warming is not accompanied
by any significant rise in CO2, so you can't blame CO2. Then CO2
increased while we had global cooling. You can't blame that on CO2. It's
only been the last 30 years there's been correlation between CO2 and
global warming. Everything before was uncorrelated. There's no doubt
there's been warming as we came out of the cold period from 1880 and
1910. The 1930's were warm, then we cooled from 1945. 1977 was a
turnaround year when temperatures started up and now we're headed down
again. We're right where we ought to be.

--

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.

CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington

March 30, 2008



http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf



QUOTE: "The time of maximum CO2 emissions started in 1945 and
temperatures should have shot up, but we cooled off. That's an
anti-correlation."



But, the things he [Gore] does, the things he says, are so
outrageous, I don't forgive him anymore. For example, when he says
things like 'people like me are right in there with the flat earth
theory'. He says the debate is over. The debate is not over-it's just
getting started. There's a huge uproar in the scientific world
because in the last ten years, the climate has cooled slightly, but
the media won't tell you that. This year is a big downturn, you can't miss
it. Global warming simply ended
in 1998, but the public doesn't know it.

On Apr 30, 12:45 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
0BZN0 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.

CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington

March 30, 2008

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf

QUOTE: "The time of maximum CO2 emissions started in 1945 and
temperatures should have shot up, but we cooled off. That's an
anti-correlation."

But, the things he [Gore] does, the things he says, are so
outrageous, I don't forgive him anymore. For example, when he says
things like 'people like me are right in there with the flat earth
theory'. He says the debate is over. The debate is not over-it's
just getting started. There's a huge uproar in the scientific world
because in the last ten years, the climate has cooled slightly, but
the media won't tell you that. This year is a big downturn, you
can't miss it. Global warming simply ended
in 1998, but the public doesn't know it.

A ridiculous lie from an obvious liar. lol- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"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."

"Mitchell Holman" <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9A9054B70599ta2eene@216.196.97.131...

"0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> wrote innews:48182166@dnews.tpgi.com.au:
"FM - No static at all" <dontwr...@anything2.me> wrote in message
news:StCdnQP6wIASgoXVnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
I don't have answers, but neither does this "perfesser"
He seems to know a lot more than you and I.
He also sounds calm and rational, unlike many AGW zealots.
Glacier National Park was named for the 150 glaciers found
there in 1850. There are just 27 left today, and none will
be left by 2030.www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glaciers.htm
http://www.nps.gov/archive/glac/pphtml/subnaturalfeatures13.html

Partial List Of Growing Glaciers

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

NORWAY

      Ålfotbreen Glacier

      Briksdalsbreen Glacier

      Nigardsbreen Glacier

      Hardangerjøkulen Glacier

      Hansebreen Glacier

      Jostefonn Glacier

      Engabreen glacier (The Engabreen glacier

        is the second largest glacier in Norway. It is a

        part (a glacial tongue) of the Svartisen glacier,

        which has steadily increased in mass since the

        1960s when heavier winter precipitation set in.)

Norway's glaciers growing at record pace.  The face of the Briksdal
glacier, an off-shoot of the largest glacier in Norway and mainland
Europe, is growing by an average 7.2 inches (18 centimeters) per day.
(From the Norwegian daily Bergens Tidende.) Seehttp://www.sepp.org/controv/afp.html

Click here to see mass balance of Norwegian glaciers:

http://www.nve.no/

      Choose "English" (at top of the page), choose "Water,"

      then "Hydrology," then "Glaciers and Snow" from the menu.

      You'll see a list of all significant glaciers in Norway.

                          (Thanks to Leif-K. Hansen for this info.)

CANADA

      Helm Glacier

      Place Glacier

ECUADOR

      Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier

SWITZERLAND

      Silvretta Glacier

KIRGHIZTAN

     Abramov

RUSSIA

     Maali Glacier (This glacier is surging. See below)

GREENLAND See Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker

Greenland glacier advancing 7.2 miles per year! The BBC recently ran a
documentary, The Big Chill, saying that we could be on the verge of an
ice age. Britain could be heading towards an Alaskan-type climate within
a decade, say scientists, because the Gulf Stream is being gradually cut
off. The Gulf Stream keeps temperatures unusually high for such a
northerly latitude.

One of Greenland's largest glaciers has already doubled its rate of
advance, moving forward at the rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per
year. To see a transcript of the documentary, go tohttp://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml

NEW ZEALAND

All 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year.

The growth is at the head of the glaciers, high in the mountains, where
they

gained more ice than they lost. Noticeable growth should be seen at the

foot of the Fox and Franz Josef glaciers within two to three years.(27
May 2003)

       Fox, Franz Josef glaciers defy trend - New Zealand's two
best-known

       glaciers are still on the march - 31 Jan 07 - See Franz Josef
Glacier

SOUTH AMERICA

     - Argentina's Perito Moreno Glacier (the largest glacier in
Patagonia)

        is advancing at the rate of 7 feet per day. The 250 km² ice
formation,

        30 km long, is one of 48 glaciers fed by the Southern Patagonian
Ice

        Field. This ice field, located in the Andes system shared with
Chile,

        is the world's third largest reserve of fresh water.

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

     - Chile's Pio XI Glacier (the largest glacier in the southern
hemisphere)

        is also growing.

UNITED STATES

      - Colorado (scroll down to see AP article)

      - Washington (Mount St. Helens, Mt. Rainier* and Mt. Shuckson)

                  (scroll down to see photo of Mt. Baker)

      - California (Mount Shasta - scroll down for info)

      - Montana (scroll down for info)

      - Alaska (Mt. McKinley and Hubbard).

                (scroll down to see article on Hubbard Glacier)

Mount St. Helens' Crater Glacier Advancing Three Feet Per Day

25 Jun 07 - See Crater Glacier

.

Mount St. Helens glacier (Crater Glacier) growing 50 feet per year
September 20, 2004 - See Mount St. Helens

Glaciers growing on California's Mount Shasta!

12 Oct 03 - See Mount Shasta Glaciers Growing

Geologists Unexpectedly Find 100 Glaciers in Colorado

7 Oct 01 See Colorado Glaciers Growing

Washington's Nisqually Glacier is Growing

See Nisqually Glacier

Glaciers in Montana's Glacier Park on the verge of growing

5 Oct 2002. See Glacier Park

--

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

"Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it
is very important in politics." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of the
Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor Of
Climatology, University of Winnipeg

"0BZN0" <0BZN0@ddo.com> wrote in news:48182166@dnews.tpgi.com.au:
"FM - No static at all" <dontwrite@anything2.me> wrote in message
news:StCdnQP6wIASgoXVnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
I don't have answers, but neither does this "perfesser"
He seems to know a lot more than you and I.
He also sounds calm and rational, unlike many AGW zealots.
Glacier National Park was named for the 150 glaciers found
there in 1850. There are just 27 left today, and none will
be left by 2030. www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glaciers.htm
http://www.nps.gov/archive/glac/pphtml/subnaturalfeatures13.html

On Apr 30, 12:45?pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
0BZN0 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.

CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington

March 30, 2008

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf

QUOTE: "The time of maximum CO2 emissions started in 1945 and
temperatures should have shot up, but we cooled off. That's an
anti-correlation."

But, the things he [Gore] does, the things he says, are so
outrageous, I don't forgive him anymore. For example, when he says
things like 'people like me are right in there with the flat earth
theory'. He says the debate is over. The debate is not over-it's just
getting started. There's a huge uproar in the scientific world
because in the last ten years, the climate has cooled slightly, but
the media won't tell you that. This year is a big downturn, you can't miss
it. Global warming simply ended
in 1998, but the public doesn't know it.

? A ridiculous lie from an obvious liar. ?lol- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"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."

Who to believe, Don or Mr No-evidence himself, Arsehole_sex and his
IPCC activist crap science? I think I'll go with Don.

There is reason to even reject the premise that there was
remarkable warming before 1999