will someone please tell me whats going on here? lol. every month one story say one thing and then a month later another story says the opposite. are we purposely being confused or is this evidence that climatology is mostly guesswork?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html
ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.
The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.
Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.
However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.
East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".
-
-
Its possible the Northern ice caps could be melting while the antarctic ice caps are expanding. Actually it would make perfect sense since the poles are technically opposites and it wouldn't be unprecedented.
unluckyluciano likes this. -
There's a reason that they changed it from global warming to climate change. The reason is that they don't want to admit they were wrong.
gafinfan likes this. -
-
Climate change is a natural occurrence on Earth. Really not surprised.
-
The reason that the Artic is melting and the Antartic is growing is due to the angle of the earth's axis. The northern hemisphere has been slowly tilting more towards the sun due to the angle on this axis and the completion of the wobble of the earth on that axis.
Global warming has always been a farse... We are however experiencing climate changes due to the above sequence of events... -
Coral Reefer, Boik14, unluckyluciano and 2 others like this.
-
gafinfan likes this.
-
If 90% of you house was on fire, would it be a fair assessment that your house was on fire?Coral Reefer, unifiedtheory, unluckyluciano and 3 others like this. -
Hmmm... according to this study, it appears that global mean temperature has been falling since 2001.
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm -
There are really only two players and Antarctica IS the big dog but Greenland is capable of raising world sea levels 6 meters.. and Greenland is losing ice at rates that are increasing every year, AND with the arctic on the whole getter warmer as it loses reflective ice this isn't good.
On some of your questions.. what needs to remembered in this arena is that the sampling size is so small given the complexity of the issues that almost anything can be shown with numbers to be true. There are some pretty good indicators that give us "limited" direction in how to interprete all these numbers but it is still so ambiguous that IMO, the smart person needs to evaluate the source, and what agenda that source may have to embrace their "own" version of whats going on.
You younger guys and dolls will see an improvement in weather and climate forecasting that will IMO, be able to suss out the truths, but a lot of money driven agenda's, soap box preachin' and finger pointing will be going on in between.
I personally fall in the "we are warming" camp. It isn't all that important to me how much humanity is responsible at the moment, we will figure that out. I'm not sure how much we should lay at our own feet yet so I don't want to get all wrapped up in the blame game that is being used to obscure the rising water issue, but it doesn't look good.
It may be that the "arctic" ice loss that we are seeing may have a major player in the ash and soot being dropped on the surface, but the jury is still out. who would have thunk it.
Winter solstice is December 28. Every day after that the sunlight is longer by nearly a minute, AND the angle of incidence with the energy improves too.. not just longer energy, but stronger energy...yet it keeps getting colder for another month or more anyway. It doesn't just get all warm when it does happen either, it happens sporadically with cold fronts, and then warm fronts, record hot over here, record wet over there ad infinitum.
So, I think the big picture is a lot like the little one. Cause and effect can be separated by enough time and confusion with the "anomalies" that it's difficult to say hardly anything with "certainty". That means all camps and agenda's have a chance to be right.
And our comparative sample needs time to grow, but time takes time.
All that matters to me is I am convinced that global warming is currently going on, and I'm not looking for blame sake, I'm looking for cause sake, I wish to learn.
On Antarctica being cooler, with growing ice;
Antarctic cooling, global warming?
Filed under: Arctic and Antarctic Climate modelling Greenhouse gases Climate Science— gavin @ 9:17 PM - ()
by Eric Steig and Gavin Schmidt
Antarctic surface temperatures as observed via AHVRR satellite measurements between 1982 and 2004. Much of Antarctica cooled during this period. Image credit: IPCC The Physical Science Basis, Figure 3.32.
here is the current map adding the last five years;
Antarctic surface temperatures as observed via AHVRR satellite measurements between 1981 and 2007. Note that the cooling trend observed from 1982-2004 reversed, thanks to warming from 2004-2007. Image credit: NASA
Averaging together antarctic and arctic sea ice hides an important truth
Posted by: JeffMasters, 9:37 AM EST on January 15, 2009 Please credit the above photos to Dr. Masters blog.
Here is how it starts, and I recommend that you read the article but I want to cherry pick some relevant explanations for Maynard's questions after the opening statement.
Dr Masters said:The majority of Antarctica has shown no statistically significant warming over the past 50 years (Turner et al., 2005), and cooling has just been dominant between 1982-2004. In the period 2004-2007, much of the Antarctic warmed , but it is too early to say if this is the beginning of a warming trendClick to expand...
Eric Steig and Gavin Schmidt said:Thompson and Solomon (2002) showed that the Southern Annular Mode (a pattern of variability that affects the westerly winds around Antarctica) had been in a more positive phase (stronger winds) in recent years, and that this acts as a barrier, preventing warmer air from reaching the continent. There are also some indications from models that this may have been caused by a combination of stratospheric ozone depletion and stratospheric cooling due to CO2 (Gillett and Thompson, 2002 ; Shindell and Schmidt, 2004). It is important to note, though, that there is evidence from tree-ring based climate reconstructions that the phase of the Southern Annular Mode has changed similarly in the past (Jones and Widman, 2004). We cannot, therefore, ascribe observed recent temperature changes to any one particular cause.
So what does this all of this imply? First, short term observations should be interpreted with caution: we need more data from the Antarctic, over longer time periods, to say with certainly what the long term trend is. Second, regional change is not the same as global mean change. Third, there are very reasonable explanations for the recent observed cooling, that have been recognized for some time from model simulations. However, the models also suggest that, as we go forward in time, the relative importance of increasing radiative effects, compared with atmosphere and ocean dynamic effects, is likely to increase. In short, we fully expect Antarctica to warm up in the future.Click to expand...maynard, Boik14, unluckyluciano and 4 others like this. -
All four major world temperature tracking outlets, Hadley, GISS, UAH, and RSS, all reckognize the current cooling trend.
I challenge anyone to show me a GCM that predicted any cooling BEFORE the cooling started. The only ones who did predict it were the few prominent solar physicists that are the only guys who have successfully predicted long range climate change by studying solar cycles. These guys are now predicting the cooling thru at least 2030, with possible Dalton or even Maunder type minimum temps. If this is the case, then you can kiss the sensitive crops of the higher latitudes goodbye. Including Canadian grain production, the second largest exporters of wheat next to the US.
So who should you believe? The guys who get it right nearly all the time, or the guys who have lied to you for the last 20 years and have stretched the little truth they actually had.
This chart is actually kind to the IPCC, as it just shows their predictions from 2002. If we go back to 1990 (the ones that politicians, the media, and some here still use), their predictions go way off the top of the chart.
I can't wait for Copenhagen this December. The back tracking and excuses will be staggering to say the least.Agua likes this. -
Hmmm... according to this study, it appears that global mean temperature has been falling since 2001.
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfmClick to expand...cnc66 said:[mod]no more political garbage in this forum[/mod]Click to expand...
:lol: -
All four major world temperature tracking outlets, Hadley, GISS, UAH, and RSS, all reckognize the current cooling trend.
I challenge anyone to show me a GCM that predicted any cooling BEFORE the cooling started. The only ones who did predict it were the few prominent solar physicists that are the only guys who have successfully predicted long range climate change by studying solar cycles. These guys are now predicting the cooling thru at least 2030, with possible Dalton or even Maunder type minimum temps. If this is the case, then you can kiss the sensitive crops of the higher latitudes goodbye. Including Canadian grain production, the second largest exporters of wheat next to the US.
So who should you believe? The guys who get it right nearly all the time, or the guys who have lied to you for the last 20 years and have stretched the little truth they actually had.
This chart is actually kind to the IPCC, as it just shows their predictions from 2002. If we go back to 1990 (the ones that politicians, the media, and some here still use), their predictions go way off the top of the chart.
I can't wait for Copenhagen this December. The back tracking and excuses will be staggering to say the least.Click to expand...
I think maybe your post, and this one one I am writing are drifting off topic, which is Antarctic ice. I do involve polar ice, but at the wrong end of the planet. We might want to make a new thread.. input from the gallery would be welcome here.
Like I said earlier, everyone can be made to look right by the proper selection of numbers. "If" I understand you, you are contending the globe is NOT warming, and used graphics to make to support that contention.
Are we on the same page Jason.. is that your position? Of it is not, please forgive the assumption.
On the site link Aqua provided;
I found this opening statement for the "site" to be interesting;
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."Click to expand...
If I understand Christopher Monckton correctly he is attacking the reliability of "one" of the models used to reach a conclusion on "what the hell is going on out there" by the IPCC
Christopher Monckton said:Abstract
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:Click to expand...
He is contending that those numbers need to be re-evaluated, and makes a good case for "that". I have no argument with him, or his paper.
It does not, IMO, support your contention of global cooling well at all.
Jason, I like very much your mention of solar energy levels and would love to discuss that and what it might mean sometime, even if this might not be the right thread for it. It is frightening to me to think the planet has been receiving less solar energy and is still getting warm.. later on that.
I have some questions for you relating to your post and contention, then I shall offer some rebuttals to it.
...explain the melting arctic ice.. it cannot be ignored, and it is unprecedented in historic times.. I have offered an explanation for the temperature and ice anomalies in the Antarctic, how about you offer me an explanation as to why the arctic ice cap is melting.. if we are cooling why are losing the ice?
Here are some thoughts from my favorite weather source Dr. Jeff Masters about studies, the bold is mine;
Weather Underground
Dr. Jeff Masters said:Is the globe cooling?
Posted by: JeffMasters, 9:48 AM EST on February 04, 2009
Recently, one has been hearing statements in the media like, the "twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming" and the Earth has been cooling since 1998. Let's take a look at the validity of these statements. The warmest year on record, according to both NASA and NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), was 2005. However, 1998 was virtually tied with 2005 for warmth, and the United Kingdom Hadley Center and Climatic Research Unit data set (HadCRU) rates 1998 as the warmest year on record. The three data sets use different methods, such as how they interpolate over missing data regions over the Arctic Ocean, and so they arrive at slightly different numbers for the the global average temperature. All three data sets are considered equally valid, so ignoring two of the three major data sets to claim that the globe has been cooling since 1998 is "cherry picking" the data to show the result you want.
Furthermore, 1997-1998 El Niño event was the second strongest of the past century. El Niño events directly warm a large part of the Pacific, and indirectly warm (via a large increase in water vapor), an even larger region. This extra warming--estimated to have boosted the global temperature an extra 0.1-0.2°C--made 1998's warmth spike sharply upwards from the globe's usual temperature. The climate is best measured by a multi-year average of global temperatures, in order to remove shorter-term oscillations in weather patterns like El Niño. It is not scientifically valid to base a cooling argument on a year that spiked sharply upwards from the norm because of one the largest El Niño events in recorded history. A valid way to measure whether the globe is warming or cooling is to use the average global temperature for the past ten years or longer. The 1999-2008 period was significantly warmer (by 0.18°C, according to NOAA) than the previous ten year period, despite the fact the record (or near-record) warmest year 1998 was part of this previous period. Thus, it is scientifically correct to say the globe has been warming since 1998, not cooling. This warming rate has been about 0.16°C per decade over the past thirty years. Note that even over time periods as long as eight years, the average global temperature is not always a good measure of the long-term global warming trend--particularly if a large volcanic eruption in the tropics occurs.Click to expand...
Jason, I look forward to our exchanges on this. Every time I nose around I learn something new. On a personal level, I would rather have cooling than warming ten out of ten times. Florida, which I deeply love, does not fare well when the water comes up. I mention this because I hope you will believe me when I say to you that although I am personally convinced we are warming, I reconsider that with every new item I learn. With a convincing enough argument, I could be swayed into the other camp. It would take some serious convincing, I think their is a preponderance of evidence but my mind IS open to new thoughts and ideas. I have no agenda I am aware of so I "think" I am examining what is before me fairly.Coral Reefer, Celtkin, jason8er and 1 other person like this. -
That site was just reprinting a response by Monckton. Here is the official response to the Energy Committee
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/Lord_Monckton_Testimony.pdf
The right response to the non-problem of “global warming” is to have the courage to do nothing. There has been global cooling for seven years –
...
The UN’s climate panel has exaggerated carbon dioxide’s effect on temperature sevenfold, verified by satellite observation that the diminution over time in outgoing long-wave radiation is one-seventh of that which the UN’s computer games were told to predict –Click to expand...
Stuff like this doesn't get reported often:
Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.
"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.Click to expand...
I'm a skeptic/cynic by trade. Its my job at work to identify and minimize conflicts of interests. There is a lot of money to be made with global warming. Is there a similar motive on the non-global warming side for scientists?
I'm not declaring them wrong, its still in dispute, but thats what I see.
EDITED to take out stupid comment. -
-
It in interesting for amusement purposes, but that site was just reprinting a response by Monckton. Here is the official response to the Energy CommitteeClick to expand...
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/Lord_Monckton_Testimony.pdf
Couldn't be more clear than that. That's his position. Goes on to say we will only warm about .5 F this century, and we should just adjust because the mitigating procedures we are undertaking are causing food prices to double, and is causing hunger and riots which are not being reported in the west.
Stuff like this doesn't get reported often:
We hear about the losses, the fractures, etc. but never about the positive side, the offsets.Click to expand...
I'm a skeptic/cynic by trade. Its my job at work to identify and minimize conflicts of interests. There is a lot of money to be made with global warming. Is there a similar motive on the non-global warming side for scientists?
I'm not declaring them wrong, its still in dispute, but thats what I see.Click to expand... -
Me too. :cry:
The only thing keeping that sinking ship afloat is politics of the worst sort. It won’t surprise me at all to see politics prevail again.
Like I said earlier, everyone can be made to look right by the proper selection of numbers. "If" I understand you, you are contending the globe is NOT warming, and used that article and graphics to make to support that contention.Click to expand...
Do I think it has cooled over the last 7 years? Yes, because that’s what the official record says. Do I think that by itself (7 years) is anything of significance? No I don't. I don't think the last 30 years is sufficient enough to draw conclusions, nor the last 100. I was a geophysics student way back in the day, and we don't relax until we have seen at least 1000 years of data. Millions of years, and we’re in our element. :wink2:
What I do think is significant are the prominent solar physicists who have an amazing track record of nailing future climate trends. They have been calling for a cooling period thru at least 2030, and possibly thru 2050 when we will have an estimated 3 billion more mouths to feed. Unfortunately, their temperature predictions will cause many crop failures world wide and that will have a far more devestating effect on humanity than a slight increase in temperatures and or ACO2. Especially when there are a ton of studies showing the benefits of those increases. Some of which we have already reaped during the warming of the last century.
So, we can follow the modelers who get it wrong a frightening % of the time (if not all the time), or we can follow the guys who yet again nailed the current cooling trend years ago, and who say there is more to come.
I have maintained all along that we may be exhausting our efforts in the wrong place.
Are we on the same page Jason.. is that your position? Of it is not, please forgive the assumption.Click to expand...
It pains me because your a friend, and I don't like the fact that someone I love (calm down boys) and respect, is having something like this eating away at them unnecessarily. That senario, if it ever even comes to pass, is many many milenia away. Please forgive me if I'm overreacting in interpreting your thoughts on this, but one of my goals (beside turning Mal into a skeptic :lol:) is to ease your worry about it.
If I understand Christopher Monckton correctly he is attacking the reliability of "one" of the models used to reach a conclusion on "what the hell is going on out there" by the IPCCClick to expand...
The IPCC has recently been in trouble for cooked numbers and political agenda, I don't think you will find many, and certainly not me defending them very much. "They" had nothing to do with "my" personal conclusions, and I don't recall them being used in any discourse here.Click to expand...
Jason, I like very much your mention of solar energy levels and would love to discuss that and what it might mean sometime, even if this might not be the right thread for it. It is frightening to me to think the planet has been receiving less solar energy and is still getting warm.. later on that.Click to expand...cnc66 likes this. -
Dude, Marty, I didn't mean to talk down to you or anything like that whatsoever. I was taken aback by your response, then I re-read my response and yes, it came off as insulting, and I did not intend that whatsoever, I apologize (and edit).
Bad bad choice of words on my part. Again, Did not mean how it came off at all. -
Dude, Marty, I didn't mean to talk down to you or anything. I re-read my response and yes, it came off as insulting, and I did not intend that whatsoever, I apologize (and edit).
Bad bad choice of words on my part. Did not mean how it came off at all.Click to expand...
Humbly accepted, it was seriously out of character and literally had me shaking my head.jdang307 likes this. -
Yeah definitely not my style unless we're talking Obama :lol:
I usually spot language like that before it goes out and I edit because in the head sounds different than reading it on the internet. I usually re-read my posts to catch those things, but didn't this time.
Ok back to the topic! -
Guys, NOAA and the equivalent agencies in European countries show a steady upward climb in observed temperatures. Marty, I and others have posted the graphs and raw data many times so I won't do it again since we are still the same bunch debating this.
-
I am sure that you have seen this and I wouldn't normally post it but it is fairly strong evidence that past warming is outpacing isolated cooling and while I realize that it takes longer for the oceans to catch up with air temperatures, it is fairly strong evidence that isolated addition of Antarctic ice is an anomaly and not yet the norm.:
Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse
The Wilkins Ice Shelf had been stable for most of the last century, but began retreating in the 1990s. Researchers believe it was held in place by an ice bridge linking Charcot Island to the Antarctic mainland.
But the 127-square-mile (330-square-kilometer) bridge lost two large chunks last year and then shattered completely on April 5.
"As a consequence of the collapse, the rifts, which had already featured along the northern ice front, widened and new cracks formed as the ice adjusted," the European Space Agency said in a statement Wednesday on its Web site.
The first icebergs started to break away on Friday, and since then some 270 square miles (700 square kilometers) of ice have dropped into the sea, according to the satellite data.
"There is little doubt that these changes are the result of atmospheric warming," said David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey.Click to expand...
The ice bridge was the last link between the 14,000 square kilometre Wilkins Shelf and the Antarctic mainland. Scientists now anticipate that the ice shelf—a vast expanse of ice—will be rapidly eroded or completely melted, especially if it drifts north into warmer ocean currents. The erosion of the Wilkins Shelf, first identified by scientists through satellite images taken in March 2008, proceeded much faster than anticipated. In 1993 the British Antarctic Survey identified the area as vulnerable, but predicted that significant deterioration would take 30 years.
Average world temperatures are 0.8 degrees Celsius higher than in the pre-industrial era, but the Antarctic Peninsula (the part of the continent that juts toward South America) has proven much more sensitive to global warming. Temperatures there have risen by 2.5°C in the past six decades alone.
Wilkins is one of ten massive ice shelves to have collapsed or substantially shrunk. Such shelves form over hundreds of years; ice cores indicate that some have been in place for at least 10,000 years. Geographers are now redrawing the map of Antarctica. A recent study by the US Geological Survey and British Antarctic Survey found that 142 of the 172 ice coastlines were in retreat.Click to expand...
This picture was taken yesterday
-
will someone please tell me whats going on here? lol. every month one story say one thing and then a month later another story says the opposite. are we purposely being confused or is this evidence that climatology is mostly guesswork?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html
ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.
The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.
Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.
However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.
East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".Click to expand...