Update:
On second thoughts, perhaps the street name should be changed to Pristine Place.
“Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.”
Melting and climateMore here, pp 22 - 24. A fascinating piece on glaciers, the age of the ice, how ice flows, the temperature where glaciers are, and the warming to hell of earth (OK, I lied about the warming to hell of earth bit).
On July 21, 1983, the lowest reliably measured temperature ever recorded on Earth was at Vostok with -89.2 °C. The highest recorded temperature at Vostok is -19° C, which occurred in January 1992, and during the month of July 1987 the temperature never rose above -72.2° C. At these temperatures ice cannot flow under the pressures that prevail near the surface. Warming has no effect at such low temperatures because ice will not flow faster at -60°C than at -70° C.
In the case of ice sheets it may take many thousands of years for ice to flow from the accumulation area to the melting area. That is why meteorites such as the one from Antarctica that was thought to contain Martian fossils take thousands of years to reach places where they can be collected from the surface. The balance between movement and melting therefore does not relate to today's climate, but to the climate thousands of years ago.
Glaciers and precipitation
We have seen that glaciers and ice sheets are in a state of quasiequilibrium, governed by rates of melting and rates of accumulation. For a glacier to maintain its present size it must have precipitation as snowfall at its source. This leads to a slightly complex relationship with temperature. If the regional climate becomes too dry, there will be no precipitation, so the glacier will diminish. This could happen if the region became cold enough to reduce evaporation from the ocean.
If temperatures rise, evaporation is enhanced and so therefore is snowfall. Paradoxically a regional rise of temperature may lead to increased growth of glaciers and ice sheets. Today, for example, the ice sheets of both Antarctica and Greenland are growing by accumulation of snow.
A UN scientist is declaring that his three fellow UN climate panel colleagues “should be barred from the IPCC process.” In a November 26, 2009 message on his website, UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: “CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.”More here.
Zorita writes that the short answer to that question is: Short answer: “Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”
Zorita indicates that he is aware that he is putting his career in jeopardy by going after the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita candidly admits, a reference to the ClimateGate emails discussing how to suppress data and scientific studies that do not agree with the UN IPCC views.
Of course there is little doubt that advocacy research - research that is driven by an already desired policy goal - plays a key role in framing the discussion of climate change. But whatever one thinks of the morality of climate-change alarmism, it is important to understand that the people involved in this campaign honestly believe in their cause. This is not a movement that seeks to deceive or that conspires to fiddle the figures. It is a lobby driven by powerful convictions, which need to be taken seriously if the issues are to be clarified and understood.
I have my doubts that the second paragraph is entirely correct.
Then the last four paragraphs:In any case, no objective observer should be surprised by what the emails reveal. The emails do remind us, however, of one regrettable development in recent years: the politicisation of peer review. The emails reveal scientists having discussions about whose work should get the peer-review stamp.I have my doubts that the second paragraph is entirely correct.
In an ideal world, the system of peer review - where scholarly work is subjected to the scrutiny of other experts in the field - would ensure disinterested science informed public debate. Through peer review, the authority of science may inject public discussion with some useful ideas and facts. Unfortunately, however, this ideal is rarely realised. Even at the best of times the system of peer review is not entirely free from vested interests. Peer reviewing is often conducted through a mates' club, and all too often the matter of who gets published and who gets rejected is determined by who you know and where you stand in a particular academic debate.
Nevertheless, peer reviewing worked for many years as a more or less adequate system of quality control. In the end, the damage caused by cliquishness tended to be overcome through debate and the triumph of scientific integrity. But the situation has changed. Unfortunately, in some disciplines peer reviewing has become politicised. The way peer review is now used in public debate as a form of divine revelation - where we are told peer-reviewed science shows we must believe and do certain things - indicates how this institution risks being corrupted by advocacy researchers.
The politicisation of peer review in the climate-change debate raises issues that concern all scientists. We must depoliticise the peer review system and encourage scientists to think of themselves as disinterested researchers. That does not mean scientists can't have opinions or must not participate in political campaigns. It means that they do not confuse science with ideology. That way, they would not have to worry every time they send an email.