The glaciologist criticises the way research grants are given out. Monitoring – the constant observation of a phenomenon – is not regarded as innovative, which is why there is no money for glacier research. International data sharing and networking has been done on a voluntary basis. It means there is always some uncertainty about the availability and quality of the data.

source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/01/the-shrinking-glaciers-of-austria

-> THAT CAN'T BE GOOD  :o

'Die Welte, Nov. 14, 2005 German

Stone Age trade routes yield spectacular finds on alpine pass – clothes, weapons and devices also from Roman time and the Middle Ages

Holger Kroker scientist of the archaeological service Berne found among other things a Roman booklet (garb latch):
In the hot summer of 2003 two wanderers from the Swiss Thun did not trust their eyes. They stood at the edge of an icefield at the Schnidejoch above Lenk, when they discovered a birchbark arrow-quiver. A dating with the archaeological service of the canton Berne showed that the birchbark is nearly 5000 years old. Meanwhile the Bernese archaeologist searched the area thoroughly and found some evidence for a much-used connection between that Bernese upper country and north Italy. The glacier between the today’s ski place Lenk in the north and Sitten, the principal place in the canton Wallis, had released pieces of find from four different epochs. For the archaeologists, the discovery is of comparable importance to Oetzi, the South Tirol glacier corpse.'

Yes, we know climate doesn't change, so glacial advance cannot be true. Therefore glacial retreat is unique.

How's the rationale at the end of that piece?

::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2015 at 7:58pm:

The glaciologist criticises the way research grants are given out. Monitoring – the constant observation of a phenomenon – is not regarded as innovative, which is why there is no money for glacier research. International data sharing and networking has been done on a voluntary basis. It means there is always some uncertainty about the availability and quality of the data. source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/01/the-shrinking-glaciers-of-austria -> THAT CAN'T BE GOOD  :o

clearly untrue...especially when the phenomenon involved occurs over very long time periods.

Whilst the monitoring technique itself can be routine and non-radical, the results themselves over long periods can be profound and enhance the understanding of how systems behave over long time periods.

Perhaps the politicians and bureaucrats who are making funding decisions should come look at their decisions more carefully.

In any case, it's common today for research funding to focus on industrial problems, motivated by short term profits and commercial outcomes. Fundamental research has taken a back seat and scientific progress has suffered as a result.

You only need to look at the Nobel Prize winners from the last 40 or 50 years and compare them to the previous Nobel prize winners. How does one compare a Physics Nobel prize given to Dirac over 80 years ago to one given recently for the invention of the Blue LED?

The bulk of Scientific research funding these days is directed by accountants, bankers, industrialists and clown puppet maggots.

The stench of regression is in the air

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2015 at 9:42pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 2nd, 2015 at 7:58pm: The glaciologist criticises the way research grants are given out. Monitoring – the constant observation of a phenomenon – is not regarded as innovative, which is why there is no money for glacier research. International data sharing and networking has been done on a voluntary basis. It means there is always some uncertainty about the availability and quality of the data. source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/01/the-shrinking-glaciers-of-austria -> THAT CAN'T BE GOOD  :o clearly untrue...especially when the phenomenon involved occurs over very long time periods. Whilst the monitoring technique itself can be routine and non-radical, the results themselves over long periods can be profound and enhance the understanding of how systems behave over long time periods. Perhaps the politicians and bureaucrats who are making funding decisions should come look at their decisions more carefully. In any case, it's common today for research funding to focus on industrial problems, motivated by short term profits and commercial outcomes. Fundamental research has taken a back seat and scientific progress has suffered as a result. You only need to look at the Nobel Prize winners from the last 40 or 50 years and compare them to the previous Nobel prize winners. How does one compare a Physics Nobel prize given to Dirac over 80 years ago to one given recently for the invention of the Blue LED? The bulk of Scientific research funding these days is directed by accountants, bankers, industrialists and clown puppet maggots. The stench of regression is in the air

Where the rubber meets the road: science is always going to be political to some degree.

The point I'm trying to make is: the numbers regarding glaciers aren't there (although some trends would seem apparent) and the IPCC reports are already known to be conservative due to all governments having to agree what goes in them.

I just find it a bit scary that what is known to be one of the best indicators of climate change isn't being looked at more closely...

lee wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2015 at 2:15pm:

Yes, we know climate doesn't change, so glacial advance cannot be true. Therefore glacial retreat is unique.

In that case:
http://i60.tinypic.com/303k7jc.jpg

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 4^th, 2015 at 10:06am:

Where the rubber meets the road: science is always going to be political to some degree. The point I'm trying to make is: the numbers regarding glaciers aren't there (although some trends would seem apparent) and the IPCC reports are already known to be conservative due to all governments having to agree what goes in them. I just find it a bit scary that what is known to be one of the best indicators of climate change isn't being looked at more closely...

There is extensive data and research with regards to glacial flows around the globe. Some of the data is collated indirectly from satellite monitoring - satellites that were deployed to examine other phenomena but nevertheless gathered important long term trend data.

I agree with you, on the point of targeted glacial research and how it pertains to global warming drivers and climate change.

I don't expect the Abbott maggot regime to fund research in these areas. We, as a country dont even have a science minister.

I know first hand from overseas feedback, that Australia's policies on AGW and science in general are on the nose with many scientists and researchers I have had contact with. It's embarrassing having to continually explain how toxic and corrupt the political environment is in Australian at the moment.

Bombing people in Syria as an election looms, is far more important to the clowns that fraudulently represent the citizenry in Canberra.

http://images.travelpod.com/tw_slides/ta00/9d8/570/angry-monkey-guadiaro.jpg

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 5^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 4th, 2015 at 10:06am: Where the rubber meets the road: science is always going to be political to some degree. The point I'm trying to make is: the numbers regarding glaciers aren't there (although some trends would seem apparent) and the IPCC reports are already known to be conservative due to all governments having to agree what goes in them. I just find it a bit scary that what is known to be one of the best indicators of climate change isn't being looked at more closely... There is extensive data and research with regards to glacial flows around the globe. Some of the data is collated indirectly from satellite monitoring - satellites that were deployed to examine other phenomena but nevertheless gathered important long term trend data. I agree with you, on the point of targeted glacial research and how it pertains to global warming drivers and climate change. I don't expect the Abbott maggot regime to fund research in these areas. We, as a country dont even have a science minister. I know first hand from overseas feedback, that Australia's policies on AGW and science in general are on the nose with many scientists and researchers I have had contact with. It's embarrassing having to continually explain how toxic and corrupt the political environment is in Australian at the moment. Bombing people in Syria as an election looms, is far more important to the clowns that fraudulently represent the citizenry in Canberra. http://images.travelpod.com/tw_slides/ta00/9d8/570/angry-monkey-guadiaro.jpg

How could I forget that one , lol  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

The point is I don't think our country is the only one being disingenuous about the whole thing.

Sure trends are there but given the rates of change of different indicators at the moment you would perhaps think it money well spent to get a better handle on the glaciers which are famed for being the best indicator.

:o