[Leps-l] Potential loss of monarch overwintering habitat in Mexico

[Foley, Patrick]

Count me (and the great majority of atmospheric scientists) among the climate change alarmists.

This is however not my area of expertise. Paul should go argue this out with NOAA scientists. Or any atmospheric scientists.

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

Skepticism in science is a very useful tool. But one should be skeptical of ones own views also. Nietzsche said once " The courage of one's convictions -- a common error; real courage is questioning one's own convictions." Scientists (including climate change "alarmists") do this all the time. That is the essence of science. As far as I can see, most climate change deniers do not question their own belief systems or what motivates them.

Patrick Foley
bees, fleas, flowers, disease
patfoley at csus.edu
________________________________________
From: leps-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu [leps-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] on behalf of Paul Cherubini [monarch at saber.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 4:31 PM
To: Leps List
Subject: Re: [Leps-l] Potential loss of monarch overwintering habitat in        Mexico

On Feb 16, 2013, at 3:35 PM, BPatter789 at aol.com wrote:

> Why shouldn't that graph be interpreted as showing
> an upward trend since 1860 with three peaks, the
> highest of which is today?

You're right Bill, the overall temperature trend has been
clearly upward since the the Little Ice Age ended
around 1860. But the climate change alarmists routinely
fail to tell the public there have been alternating
20-30 year long cycles of warming and temperature
stability since 1860.  So when the public hears someone
claiming temperatures in the monarch overwintering region of
Mexico are projected to rise a whopping 3-4 degrees
between now and 2030, they are likely to blindly believe
him/her since they they are unlikely to be aware the
world today is actually 13 years into a cycle of
temperature stability that should last another 7-17
years based on past cycles dating back to 1860.

Also, climate alarmists routinely fail to explain that
the overall trend line of warming since 1860 has
been relatively linear instead of very sharply
steeper in the last 60 years vs the previous 60.
This suggests the anthropogenic contribution
to warming is only minor or moderate.

> The caption under that graph suggests waxing and waning
> of glaciers during the period.  Everything I have read and
> comparison photos and drawings that I have seen show
> only glacial retreat to the point of near extinction of many
> glaciers and mountain snow cover.
> Have I been missing something during the last 60 years?

On an annual global glacier thickness change basis the
caption is correct; i.e. glacier thickness is stable during
periods of global temperature stability like 1945-1977
(see red line in this graph)
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg311/johnnyrook1/glacier_thicknessgraphNSIDC.gif

But on a cumulative global glacier thickness change basis
the trend is clearly in the retreat direction (blue line).

But once again notice the cumulative trend line in the
1960-2006 graph above relatively linear which suggests
the anthropogenic contribution to the warming is only minor
or moderate.

Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.



_______________________________________________
Leps-l mailing list
Leps-l at mailman.yale.edu
http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l