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,

On 30/04/08 8:35, in article
48181329$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "0BZN0"
0BZN0@ddo.com> 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.

On 30/04/08 8:35, in article 4818132...@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "0BZN0"

0B...@ddo.com> 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.

On Apr 30, 3:43 am, Earl Evleth
evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
On 30/04/08 8:35, in article
4818132...@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "0BZN0"

0B...@ddo.com> 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
evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
On 30/04/08 8:35, in article
4818132...@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "0BZN0"

0B...@ddo.com> 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

Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus

On 30/04/08 19:46, in article
ba9bfe41-54c6-4e2f-9024-0c9165f7df3b@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com,
"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote:
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus
Emeritus means he is out of the research loop.

"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.

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

On 30/04/08 21:46, in article fvaiar$5m6$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu,
"Ouroboros_Rex" <its@casual.com> 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 30/04/08 21:46, in article fvaiar$5m6$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu,
"Ouroboros_Rex"
its@casual.com> 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

Precisely, due to man's dumping large amounts of CO2 into the air

Earl Evleth wrote:
On 30/04/08 21:46, in article fvaiar$5m6$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu,
"Ouroboros_Rex" <its@casual.com> 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

"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!

On 1/05/08 16:41, in article 67u32rF2qq919U1@mid.individual.net,
"Graham P
Davis" <newsboy@scarlet-jade.com> wrote:


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

What is not currently cyclic is the constant increase in the
GHG (or soot), i.e. man's contribution, which now have total
forcing which should have an effect on climate.