02/19/2019 16:30 - Posted by Tom van Leeuwen
Last month, the New York Times website published a page titled "Glaciers Are Retreating. Millions Rely on Their Water."
It shows a dramatic image, zooming out of a person walking down a dry glacier bed with the following text:
"In Central Asia, a warming climate is shrinking the Tuyuksu glacier. It’s losing ice every year.
Around the world, vanishing glaciers will mean less water for people and crops in the future."
This time, we won't dive into the question whether glaciers are shrinking or growing. It's clear that glaciers are dynamic systems and that the climate that surrounds them always changes. Some will shrink while others might grow
What the NYT is trying to make us believe is one of the most persistent myths about climate and Global Warming.
"Shrinking glaciers mean future generations will have less water available."
Analyzing the myth
Water that's been frozen into a glacier can't be used by people. It first has to melt and flow down the mountain in order to be used. So, the very process that makes glacier water available will make the glacier disappear!
This myth makes you fear
something that at the same time is what you desire
to happen. You fear that the glacier disappears and at the same time you desire the glacier to disappear because you want the water to be available for people and crops. This is a perfect example of the classic saying: "you can't have your cake and eat it."
The only valid relation between glacier size and water availability is: the larger the glacier, the fewer water available
, because the water that's frozen into the glacier is not
available. So, that turns the myth around!
Water availability depends on the amount of precipitation. Not on the glacier size! Glaciers only form a buffer that retains or releases water into the valleys according to the glacier temperature.
Tom van Leeuwen, February 2019.
The political reports of the IPCC are based on the hypothesis that CO2
is the most important control knob of the Earth's temperature. The problem is that this hypothesis does not correspond at all with the empirical data available to science. Forecasts are made using models that are not capable of 'predicting' the past
When discussing “Climate Change” it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference in order to decide of the current changes are normal or not.
Global temperatures have varied a lot over the last 500 million years. Depending on the timescale used, the current temperature is either cold or hot, so when you want to know the “normal temperature” you’ll have to indicate what timescale you’re using.
This must be the environmental myth with the deepest roots of them all (pun intended). It's compulsory subject matter in public schools around the globe, it's passed from generation to generation and if you dare to question it in public, disbelieve, rejection, jeering and even exclusion from the conversation will be your treat. That's the typical way people react when their beliefs and primary "knowledge" are challenged.
Woods, forests and jungles are Earth's "Green Lungs" that generate and produce the oxygen we need to breath and live.
Computer models are something magical. As powerful computers, located at famous universities and authoritative government agencies are involved, model output is often considered to be a substitute for reality
But it's not.
Since the start of the Global Warming scare numerous predictions have been made about all kind of things related to the climate. As this scam is going on for over 30 years now some of those predictions have reached their due date and the time has come to check the results.
You can't make this up
Firewood is considered "biomass", and politicians seem to believe that the CO2
produced by burning biomass is different from CO2
produced by burning fossil fuels. They also believe CO2
is a dangerous contaminant.
So, according to the UN, the IPCC and your national government (depending on where you live), firewood cooking is considered "sustainable", while cooking with natural gas is "contamination".