If climate change is so imaginary, then how come there is a shelf of ice the size of Connecticut on the coast of Antarctica that is now hanging by a thread? Professor Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder alerted the British Antarctic Survey after he noticed part of the Wilkins ice shelf disintegrating on February 28, when he was looking at NASA satellite images. Late February marks the end of summer at the South Pole and the most likely time for such events, said Scambos. "The amazing thing was, we saw it within hours of it beginning, in between the morning and the afternoon pictures of that day," Scambos said of the large chunk that broke away on February 28.
Several ice shelves -- Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller and Jones -- have collapsed in the past three decades, the British Antarctic Survey said. Larsen B, a 1,254-square-mile ice shelf, comparable in size to the U.S. state of Rhode Island, collapsed in 2002, the group said. Scientists say the western Antarctic peninsula -- the piece of the continent that stretches toward South America -- has warmed more than any other place on Earth over the past 50 years, rising by 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit each decade.
It is noteworthy that the ice shelves extend out over the polar ocean. Since they are floating ice,when they collapse and float out to sea and melt, it does NOT result in an increase in sea level. In a broader sense, however, the reduction in size of several of the Antarctic ice shelves is a disturbing indicator of the overall polar warming. Since the entire extent of the Greenland ice sheet, (located up in the Arctic rather than the Antarctic), is in fact on land, when it melts (when, not if) it is going to cause the world ocean to rise by several feet. Don't build on the beach, is my suggestion.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 173
And while the rest of us are home changing light bulbs, developing composte piles, limiting our water usage, and recycling everything from gum wrappers to mattress crates, damned few have parked their cars.
It is notable that events of climate change tend to move faster than the predictions of scientists (for example British scientist David Vaughan had predicted this event- but he had predicted that it would happen around 15 years from now!) On the opposite side of the continuum, the climate change denial squad tends to say that the scientists are alarmists. Does not look that way to me.
Again, ice shelf collapses in themselves do nothing to endanger human existence. But it is the fact that they indicate another shoe about to drop that gives us pause. There are some indications that changing climate in Antarctica endanger wildlife there such as the great whales and some penguin species, just as the changing climate of the Arctic at the opposite pole endangers polar bears, seals, and walrus. Time will tell us more on that.
Here in Denmark, some ducks have not flown south and are having young in the winter now.
The rat population in Copenhagen's sewers is skyrocketing because they all have one extra breeding season, and old diseases once thought out of sight are re-emerging.
Tip of the iceberg.
Many in Greenland are actually happy about all this, as they now can begin growing crops they were previously dependent on Denmark for import, and except for the polar bear, many previously threatened species have begun to flourish.
The seas around southern Scandinavia, including the North Sea between Denmark and England, is about the most polluted oceans in the world, due to centuries of pollution.
Deep beneath the oceans are very slow-moving cold currents (since they are denser than the warmer currents that are like rivers in the ocean at the surface). I just googled to get the facts straight but found no reference. But in an oceanography course I took long ago, I learned that these cold currents can sometimes take centuries to go from one pole to the next, north to south, before they well up in the Antarctic. Many of the byproducts to Europe's and then America's Industrial Revolution of 150 years ago - the smog of London, for example - that fell then as precipitation into the arctic regions should now just be reaching the Antarctic, according to what I studied back then.
An exact balance of nutrients, temperature and other factors are important in producing the oxygen rich ecosystem of the oceans around Antarctica. This is crucial to much of life in the oceans, including whales and birds who go there to eat, between the tip of Argentina and Antarctica.
I wonder if anyone knows what that impact will be?
It will be far more catastrophic for humanity than most other species, whose egos are not so invested in some territorial/economic dispute., though there likely will be a lot of natural selection die-off, which will further impact those nearly 7 billions humans, most of whom tend to live along coastlines, and most who are not economically in any position to move elsewhere. And even if they could, many of the great rivers for agriculture and industry have their sources in some ancient mountain glaciers now threatened. Like Duane said, we've had natural periods like this before - its even in some ancient holy texts in the America's, Egypt, etc - but never with a evolutionary watershed like now for humanity.
But we can begin making choices here and now to better prepare for all that, with our imagination and intellect. We just don't seem to be doing it at the level that's necessary to avoid a whole lot of extremely dangerous hurt.
If you can point to a scientific paper that explains precisely how a miniscule change in temperature has caused this event, I would be more than happy to read it.
I will be waiting for the link.
Or walk into any greenhouse in the winter...
By the way, the Northwest passage can now be breached rather easily for the first time in recorded history
From NASA:
Global Warming
Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.
Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.
Causes of global warming
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.
The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.
A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.
The impact of global warming
Thousands of icebergs float off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula after 1,250 square miles (3,240 square kilometers) of the Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated in 2002.
Thousands of icebergs float off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula after 1,250 square miles (3,240 square kilometers) of the Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated in 2002. The area of the ice was larger than the state of Rhode Island or the nation of Luxembourg. Antarctic ice shelves have been shrinking since the early 1970's because of climate warming in the region. Image credit: NASA/Earth Observatory
Continued global warming could have many damaging effects. It might harm plants and animals that live in the sea. It could also force animals and plants on land to move to new habitats. Weather patterns could change, causing flooding, drought, and an increase in damaging storms. Global warming could melt enough polar ice to raise the sea level. In certain parts of the world, human disease could spread, and crop yields could decline.
Harm to ocean life
Through global warming, the surface waters of the oceans could become warmer, increasing the stress on ocean ecosystems, such as coral reefs. High water temperatures can cause a damaging process called coral bleaching. When corals bleach, they expel the algae that give them their color and nourishment. The corals turn white and, unless the water temperature cools, they die. Added warmth also helps spread diseases that affect sea creatures.
Changes of habitat
Widespread shifts might occur in the natural habitats of animals and plants. Many species would have difficulty surviving in the regions they now inhabit. For example, many flowering plants will not bloom without a sufficient period of winter cold. And human occupation has altered the landscape in ways that would make new habitats hard to reach or unavailable altogether.
Weather damage
Extreme weather conditions might become more frequent and therefore more damaging. Changes in rainfall patterns could increase both flooding and drought in some areas. More hurricanes and other tropical storms might occur, and they could become more powerful.
Rising sea level
Continued global warming might, over centuries, melt large amounts of ice from a vast sheet that covers most of West Antarctica. As a result, the sea level would rise throughout the world. Many coastal areas would experience flooding, erosion, a loss of wetlands, and an entry of seawater into freshwater areas. High sea levels would submerge some coastal cities, small island nations, and other inhabited regions.
Threats to human health
Tropical diseases, such as malaria and dengue, might spread to larger regions. Longer-lasting and more intense heat waves could cause more deaths and illnesses. Floods and droughts could increase hunger and malnutrition.
Changes in crop yields
Canada and parts of Russia might benefit from an increase in crop yields. But any increases in yields could be more than offset by decreases caused by drought and higher temperatures -- particularly if the amount of warming were more than a few degrees Celsius. Yields in the tropics might fall disastrously because temperatures there are already almost as high as many crop plants can tolerate.
Limited global warming
Climatologists are studying ways to limit global warming. Two key methods would be (1) limiting CO2 emissions and (2) carbon sequestration -- either preventing carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere or removing CO2 already there.
Limiting CO2 emissions
Two effective techniques for limiting CO2 emissions would be (1) to replace fossil fuels with energy sources that do not emit CO2, and (2) to use fossil fuels more efficiently.
Alternative energy sources that do not emit CO2 include the wind, sunlight, nuclear energy, and underground steam. Devices known as wind turbines can convert wind energy to electric energy. Solar cells can convert sunlight to electric energy, and various devices can convert solar energy to useful heat. Geothermal power plants convert energy in underground steam to electric energy.
Alternative sources of energy are more expensive to use than fossil fuels. However, increased research into their use would almost certainly reduce their cost.
Carbon sequestration could take two forms: (1) underground or underwater storage and (2) storage in living plants.
Underground or underwater storage would involve injecting industrial emissions of CO2 into underground geologic formations or the ocean. Suitable underground formations include natural reservoirs of oil and gas from which most of the oil or gas has been removed. Pumping CO2 into a reservoir would have the added benefit of making it easier to remove the remaining oil or gas. The value of that product could offset the cost of sequestration. Deep deposits of salt or coal could also be suitable.
The oceans could store much CO2. However, scientists have not yet determined the environmental impacts of using the ocean for carbon sequestration.
Storage in living plants
Green plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere as they grow. They combine carbon from CO2 with hydrogen to make simple sugars, which they store in their tissues. After plants die, their bodies decay and release CO2. Ecosystems with abundant plant life, such as forests and even cropland, could tie up much carbon. However, future generations of people would have to keep the ecosystems intact. Otherwise, the sequestered carbon would re-enter the atmosphere as CO2.
Agreement on global warming
Delegates from more than 160 countries met in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 to draft the agreement that became known as the Kyoto Protocol. That agreement calls for decreases in the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Emissions targets
Thirty-eight industrialized nations would have to restrict their emissions of CO2 and five other greenhouse gases. The restrictions would occur from 2008 through 2012. Different countries would have different emissions targets. As a whole, the 38 countries would restrict their emissions to a yearly average of about 95 percent of their 1990 emissions. The agreement does not place restrictions on developing countries. But it encourages the industrialized nations to cooperate in helping developing countries limit emissions voluntarily.
Industrialized nations could also buy or sell emission reduction units. Suppose an industrialized nation cut its emissions more than was required by the agreement. That country could sell other industrialized nations emission reduction units allowing those nations to emit the amount equal to the excess it had cut.
Several other programs could also help an industrialized nation earn credit toward its target. For example, the nation might help a developing country reduce emissions by replacing fossil fuels in some applications.
Approving the agreement
The protocol would take effect as a treaty if (1) at least 55 countries ratified (formally approved) it, and (2) the industrialized countries ratifying the protocol had CO2 emissions in 1990 that equaled at least 55 percent of the emissions of all 38 industrialized countries in 1990.
In 2001, the United States rejected the Kyoto Protocol. President George W. Bush said that the agreement could harm the U.S. economy. But he declared that the United States would work with other countries to limit global warming. Other countries, most notably the members of the European Union, agreed to continue with the agreement without United States participation.
By 2004, more than 100 countries, including nearly all the countries classified as industrialized under the protocol, had ratified the agreement. However, the agreement required ratification by Russia or the United States to go into effect. Russia ratified the protocol in November 2004. The treaty was to come into force in February 2005.
Analyzing global warming
Scientists use information from several sources to analyze global warming that occurred before people began to use thermometers. Those sources include tree rings, cores (cylindrical samples) of ice drilled from Antarctica and Greenland, and cores drilled out of sediments in oceans. Information from these sources indicates that the temperature increase of the 1900's was probably the largest in the last 1,000 years.
Computers help climatologists analyze past climate changes and predict future changes. First, a scientist programs a computer with a set of mathematical equations known as a climate model. The equations describe how various factors, such as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, affect the temperature of Earth's surface. Next, the scientist enters data representing the values of those factors at a certain time. He or she then runs the program, and the computer describes how the temperature would vary. A computer's representation of changing climatic conditions is known as a climate simulation.
In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group sponsored by the United Nations (UN), published results of climate simulations in a report on global warming. Climatologists used three simulations to determine whether natural variations in climate produced the warming of the past 100 years. The first simulation took into account both natural processes and human activities that affect the climate. The second simulation took into account only the natural processes, and the third only the human activities.
The climatologists then compared the temperatures predicted by the three simulations with the actual temperatures recorded by thermometers. Only the first simulation, which took into account both natural processes and human activities, produced results that corresponded closely to the recorded temperatures.
The IPCC also published results of simulations that predicted temperatures until 2100. The different simulations took into account the same natural processes but different patterns of human activity. For example, scenarios differed in the amounts of CO2 that would enter the atmosphere due to human activities.
The simulations showed that there can be no "quick fix" to the problem of global warming. Even if all emissions of greenhouse gases were to cease immediately, the temperature would continue to increase after 2100 because of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.
Contributors: Michael D. Mastrandrea, B.S., Graduate Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University. Stephen H. Schneider, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Sciences, Stanford University.
How to cite this article: To cite this article, World Book recommends the following format: Mastrandrea, Michael D., and Stephen H. Schneider. "Global warming." World Book Online Reference Center. 2005. World Book, Inc. http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Article?id=ar226310.
Konrad Steffen arrived on the Greenland Ice Sheet for the 2002 summer fieldwork season and immediately observed that something significant was happening in the Arctic. Pools of water already spotted the ice surface, and melting was occurring where it never had before. "That year the melt was so early and so intense — it really jumped out at me. I'd never seen the seasonal melt occur that high on the ice sheet before, and it had never started so early in the spring," said Steffen, principal scientist and interim director at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado.
07 May 2003
Greenland melt
By the end of the 2002 season, the total area of surface melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet had broken all known records. That same summer, Mark Serreze and his colleagues at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, began noticing unusually low levels of sea ice in the Arctic, based on remote sensing data. "I was really surprised by the change," Serreze said. "By the end of the summer, sea ice levels in the Arctic were the lowest in decades and possibly the lowest in several centuries."
Seasonal melt areas on the Greenland Ice Sheet are generally located along the edges of the ice sheet at its lowest points. In 2002, however, the melt started unusually early and progressed higher up the ice sheet than at any time in the past 24 years. Surface melting extended up to 6,560 feet (2,000 meters) in elevation in the northeast portion of the island, where temperatures normally are too cold for melting to occur. In addition, the total melt area covered 265,000 square miles (686,350 square kilometers), representing a 16 percent increase above the maximum melt area measured in the past 24 years.
Serreze's team coincidentally discovered that in September 2002, Arctic sea ice extent was approximately 400,000 square miles (1.04 million square kilometers) less than the long-term average of 2.4 million square miles (6.2 million square kilometers), and that much of the remaining sea ice was unusually thin and spread out.
To determine whether their independent findings were related, the research teams measured the sea ice extent and ice sheet melt using passive microwave data from satellites, including data from the NIMBUS-7 Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) (1978-1987) and its successor, the DMSP Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) (1987-present).
In this computer graphic, Greenland's 2002 melt extent appears in pink. (Image courtesy of Konrad Steffen and Russell Huff, CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder)
Greenland Ice Sheet
A researcher observes the edge of the Greenland Ice Sheet in 2001. (Image courtesy of Ted Scambos, National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado at Boulder)
Passive microwave sensors provide data that are processed into brightness temperatures. Brightness temperatures are both a measure of the physical temperature within the snow and a gauge of emissivity, or the ability of water or ice/snow to emit radiation at the microwave frequencies (frequencies in the centimeter wavelength range). Dry snow emits much less radiation than wet snow, which behaves almost like a perfect emitter (blackbody), giving off a wide range of frequencies of radiation. Therefore, dry snow and ice have lower brightness temperatures than wet snow surfaces.
The brightness temperature of seawater (ice-free ocean) is much lower than that of ice/snow or melting ice/snow. By calculating daily brightness temperatures (from the daily pass of the satellite over the Arctic), scientists can determine the extent of sea ice in the Arctic and the extent of melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet. Because the microwave instrument can "see through" clouds and darkness, ice extent can be monitored year-round, even during storms and winter darkness.
To validate, or confirm, their calculations of ice extent, the sea ice team used images from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS). The Greenland team validated its findings with climatological data from 20 automatic weather stations distributed over the entire ice sheet. The passive microwave data and the MODIS images are archived at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, one of NASA's Distributed Active Archive Centers.
The Greenland team has access to year-round passive microwave data from the last 24 years for their study area, a significant observation period. During that period, Steffen documented an overall trend of increasing melt area in Greenland, taking into account years with a great deal of melt, like 2002, and years with less-than-average melt, like 1992 when the Mt. Pinatubo eruption sent aerosols into the atmosphere, which reflected solar radiation and resulted in cooler temperatures and less melt.
Steffen and Serreze believe the accelerated melt in 2002 may be linked to shifts in Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation patterns. Air circulation is driven by pressure differences, and in 2002 unusual stationary low-pressure areas occurred in the Arctic. A relatively stationary low-pressure cyclone over the Atlantic Ocean northeast of Greenland moved air from the North Atlantic onto the ice sheet, which is rare. While it is normal for cyclones to form over the North Atlantic, they usually are quite dynamic and are not "locked" in one place, as occurred during the summer of 2002.
Emissivity and Brightness Temperatures
by Jason Wolfe
Remote-sensing satellites measure the amount of radiance reflected or emitted by the Earth's surface. Scientists who study the temperature of objects at the Earth's surface need an additional factor called emissivity to accurately calculate temperature. Emissivity represents the effectiveness of different objects to radiate thermal energy and is a ratio of an object's radiant energy to that of a blackbody at the same temperature. A blackbody is an ideal object that absorbs all incoming energy without reflecting back any energy.
Given the emissivity of an object, microwave radiances are converted to brightness temperatures, which are a measure of the intensity of thermal radiation emitted by an object.
The low sea ice levels in 2002 seem to be part of a general downward trend in Arctic sea ice over the past 24 years, which appears to be driven by a combination of higher temperatures and altered wind fields that tend to break up the ice cover. A key feature of 2002 was the persistent stormy conditions in summer, with low sea level pressure over the central Arctic Ocean from June through August. Temperatures were also unusually high from January through August. "I've never seen this situation occur before," said Serreze.
The unusual late winter warmth and the increased ice melt seen in the Arctic in recent years appear to be signs of a positive trend in the Arctic Oscillation (AO). The AO, which is very similar the North Atlantic Oscillation, is a large-scale atmospheric circulation phenomenon — a cyclic shifting of atmospheric mass between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes. When the AO is in a positive state, as has generally been the case for the last two decades, atmospheric pressures are low over the Arctic Ocean, winds are usually stronger than normal, and the wind transports warm air into the Arctic. Serreze explained, "Researchers at the University of Washington have shown that variations in atmospheric circulation seem to play a strong role in creating regional differences in sea ice thickness that precondition the ice for extensive summer melt and breakup. However, the stormy conditions we saw in summer 2002 don't really fit the AO framework, so we're still not sure why the summer was so stormy."
Steffen added, "It's not by chance that we had the minimum sea ice distribution and the maximum melt that year; having so little sea ice affected the local climate around Greenland quite substantially. Because the sun wasn't reflecting off the sea ice, the air close to the ocean surface was warmed, and certainly the ocean water was much warmer. This has a very strong effect on cyclones."
But were the 2002 ice minimums an indication of continual warming in the Arctic, or was 2002 just another peak in a long-term Arctic climate cycle?
Warming trends have been observed over Greenland in the past, but the warming has progressed at a much slower rate. In the early 1930s, average temperatures over Greenland were as warm as those observed recently, but it took about 30 years of gradual warming to reach those levels. That warming trend could have been part of a natural, long-term cycle in the Arctic. But today, the Arctic is warming much faster, reaching current warm temperatures in less than a decade. And the warming is starting earlier in the year, with the greatest warming generally occurring in the spring and late winter.
If the warming is part of a continuing trend, higher Arctic temperatures and less ice may have long-term effects on both sea level and navigable waters in the Arctic. Steffen, Serreze, and colleagues estimate that a warmer climate over Greenland might lead to an increase in the rate of sea-level rise. Increased melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet sends more meltwater into the surrounding ocean. It also increases the rate of ice flow off Greenland, because the meltwater penetrates the ice sheet and forms a thin film between the ice and bedrock, which causes the glaciers to slide off the continent faster.
Arctic sea ice melt
Key
In September 2002, satellite data showed that sea ice extent was 4 percent lower than any previous September since satellite monitoring began in 1978. For the period between 1987 and 2001, lower-than-average concentrations of ice floes appear in blue, and higher-than-average concentrations appear in yellow. The lavender line indicates the median ice extent for 1987 through 2001. (Image courtesy of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.)
Melt graph and comparison maps
A trend in lower concentrations of Arctic sea ice may mean that historically unnavigable areas of the Arctic may open, such as the famed Northwest Passage. If current warming continues and results in lower ice concentrations, the Northwest Passage could become accessible to ice-strengthened ships, opening the area not just as a trade route, but also as a means to economically exploit the far north. This could have profound economic implications in addition to sociological implications for Arctic peoples such as the Inuit, who depend on the ice cover for travel and hunting.
Some researchers, however, believe that recent Arctic warming is only a recurring peak in a long-term Arctic climate cycle. A group of Alaskan researchers recently published their assessment of Russian long-term observations of air temperature from coastal stations, and sea-ice extent and fast-ice thickness from Arctic seas. They found a great deal of variability in Arctic temperatures, with cyclic fluctuations on a timescale of 60 to 80 years. A climate cycle of this length might mean that the Arctic will cool again soon, rather than continue warming.
Given these findings and the world's interest in global climate change, long-term observations are essential to understanding Arctic climate change. "Climatologists generally need a 30-year mean (or average) to be able to talk about trends in climate variability. With the availability of data from satellites that have been in orbit for 24 years, scientists now have close to that 30-year standard, which is unique," said Steffen.
"The real question is, is this recent trend unusual?" said Serreze. Both teams will rely on the orbiting "eyes" of satellites to observe Arctic ice conditions over the next few years as they attempt to determine whether these changes are part of a long-term climate cycle or whether the Arctic is experiencing an ongoing warming trend.
Abdalati, W. and K. Steffen. 2001. Greenland Ice Sheet melt extent: 1979-1999, Journal of Geophysical Research. 106:33,983 - 33,989.
Polyakov, I.V., G.V. Alekseev, R.V. Bekryaev, U. Bhatt, R.L. Colony, M.A. Johnson, V.P. Karklin, A.P. Makshtas, D. Walsh, and A.V. Yulin. 2002. Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming. Geophysical Research Letters. 29(10):1029.
Serreze, M.C., J.A. Maslanik, T.A. Scambos, F. Fetterer, J. Stroeve, K. Knowles, C. Fowler, S. Drobot, R.G. Barry, and T.M. Haran. 2002. A record minimum Arctic sea ice extent and area in 2002. Geophysical Research Letters. 30(3):1110.
This article contributed from Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) Alliance: Supporting Earth Observing Science 2003
For a copy, e-mail nasadaacs@nsidc.org.
The question I asked of Chris was simple and easily understood. I will repeat it again.
Let me explain how science, logic and reason work. If someone puts forth a hypothesis like Chris did in associating the calving of this ice sheet with Global Warming -- they are usually, and politely asked to buttress such statements with supporting evidence.
Let me explain how religion works. If someone puts forth a religious hypothesis, all they need is enough like-minded people to go along with them.
I prefer science, logic and reason to religion.
I remember reading an abstract about some ice core samples, where we could measure through the bubbles trapped in the samples, the CO2 levels back a half million years. Our current CO2 saturation in the atmosphere appears to be the highest in over 6000,000 years.
In searching, I found this. But I don't want to take the thunder from your excellent article, just to answer Greg.
Greg, the correlation between temperature and ice meltoff and rising seas is documented via ice core samples, as Chris' article states.
Please go to EPICA
and to get the actual hard data, you'll have to peruse through a bunch of numbers, if you are up to it.
at NOAA , which leads to this: Eurpean Science Foundation
Jan 1.0C
Feb 0.1C
Mar -1.6C
Apr -3.7C
May -6.8C
Jun -8.8C
Jul -12.6C
Aug -11.8C
Sep -9.4C
Oct -7.2C
Nov -3.3C
Dec 0.2C
I am curious how you explain the catastrophic calving of a glacier because of a change in surface temperature from 18.0F to 22.46F
Perhaps you feel that simple faith in "Everything is caused by Global Warming" precludes you from having to be scientifically responsible -- but then again, what else is new.
Religious fundamentalism is as old as humanity.
I can understand your impulse to convert the heathens but perhaps you have not considered the fact that though I am a heathen, given my rational bent, I may not disagree with data regarding CO2 artifacts in ice core samples.
My question was and remains the process by which a glacier calves in Antarctica.
My 1st 4 years in college was to get a BS in environmental science / biology.
Chris' article is right on, and is actually perhaps understated.
Of course, you do know that rises in CO2 levels follow increases in sea temperatures rather than proceed such events? Sort of like letting a can of soda pop warm up then watching the fizz. Much of the CO2 attributed to man is simply reading the indicators backassward.
In this instance, not even close.
Before I applied my analytic abilities to criminal justice systems, I studied periglacial geomorphology at the University of Minnesota. I did field work near Inuvik in the Mackenzie Delta in the Northwest Territories of Canada on thermokarst..
Look to the left....see the sign-post I am standing next to. It is the Arctic Circle marker on one of my many trips up the Dalton Highway into the high arctic and across into Canada.
If manmade CO2 were actually the cause of global warming, why then have we not seen any warming in the past decade, even though we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere at record levels?
The Arctic Ice Pack is back to normal levels. This is the difference between weather and climate. Will it stay back? That is another question.
When speaking of climate I alway like the answer that Mao Zedong gave in response to a query by a French Journalist.
Journalist: "What would you say has been the impact of the French Revolution?"
Mao: "It is too early to tell."
As to what precedes or proceeds what, we are all going to argue about that one until one's parents or children are caught up in any of a series of social pandemics resulting from global warming, including economic chaos equaling or worse than before the Dark Ages. Last year, I learned that there is now a new theory about lightning's cause that contradicts what I learned decades ago. That lighting might be caused by occasional streaming cosmic charged particles stripped of their electrons ripping through clouds, and that the ionizing result of lightning might have contributed to that outer layer in Earth's atmosphere's that then eventually protected the planet from being an irradiated desert, bringing about life. And the theory postulates that each time NASA sends a rocket into space, we are stripping more and more of this protective shield. Whatever?
It really doesn't matter why or what or who... stuff is happening and all this arguing about if the chicken or egg came first is not resolving how to work out a solution so as to better prepare ourselves. The planet seems utterly engaged in stupid old disputes, and the valuable resources of our imagination to resolve the real dangers we are facing are wasted.
Reducing the input of CO2 will reduce the melt off and rising seas.
As ice melts, the melting ice contributes to the rate at which it melts. That's been studied in mountain glacial dynamics, and is only beginning to be applied in studying arctic ice, especially in our understanding of how fast Greenland's ice is now melting.
Ceres risk management
Skafte
pdf
You seem to have studied even some glacial dynamics, probably more than I have, so it surprises me the way you are criticizing so much the good science about this subject.
The world's leading climatologists now are 90% certain that human beings are responsible for the current ice meltoff and global warming, based on hard empirically derived data.
climate
I don't know why I am even arguing with you. I had a free day, and suddenly, here I am, in the thick of nonsense. Not directing that as a personal attack on you, though. We all want to be right, eh? As David Lindley said, even within the empirical world of science, exists priesthoods And meanwhile, people are suffering and dying...
Now I want to write an article about a video someone just sent to me from National Geographic, about a leopard that slept with a baboon.
That's more my taste...
Interesting about the lightning. I will follow up on that. Not quite my field but well in line with my impulse toward curiousity.......and I guess that is what this is all about curiousity.
Here is a great site that I visit periodically Climate Debate Daily. It is a off-shoot of Denis Dutton's Art & Letters Daily.
What I find interesting is how little actual science there is in the debate. Perhaps that is why my first reflex to anyone advocating for a pro or con position on Climate Change is to say "Show me the science."
I find myself wanting to argue the statement that melting floating ice will not effect sea levels, but I don't have the scientific knowledge to do so.
I can see that the amount of water which melting floating ice would add to the oceans might just be equal to the amount of water which the floating ice already displaces, but I am not sure of that. It would seem to me that the result would be dependent on the ratio of trapped gases per water molecules.
Which is to say, that the amount of gas trapped in the floating ice would have to be equal to the amount of ice that is held above the water line.
"..ice shelf collapses in themselves do nothing to endanger human existence." - Chris W., Mar 26, 2008, 7:57am EDT
As the ice melts, wouldn't the increased influx of colder water contribute to the cooling of the ocean and its currents? Don't the side-effects of that constitute a danger to humans and our ways of living?
Greg Schiller - Not that you don't have a right to be skeptical, but I'd like to remind that people were killed by lightening strikes long before any scientific paper was written about it. The majority of scientists agree, global climate change is happening and humans have good reason to be concerned, watchful and nervous.
worriers: "both polar regions are clearly experiencing temperature rises and a resulting distress to natural systems. It is like a canary in a coal mine who is showing signs of having trouble breathing"
deniers: "show me the dead canary"
my question is, when we show you the dead canary, will you be happy?
At the extremes, in general loose classifications, as conservatives and liberals (note, no capitalization) ...
The conservatives having the strongest egos with the most fear of change to their more narrow minded box of personal reality (more selfish it seems) cannot handle the open minded all-inclusive concepts of the liberal counterparts ... thus they reinforce the fortress like protection of their ego, stick by stick (singular fact by fact) ... forever picking each piece of such minutiae, to build a huge case around, as IF nothing else could ever matter ...
Greg, see yourself here yet ... as you insist, typical conservative, far right style, on "evidence" of a very "specific" and focused nature ... only accepting that which "supports" your own preconceived notion which you will defend to the end ... !?!
Greg, you seem to be about as fundamentally "religious" about "your" science as those religious that you condemn for their "faith" ... maybe two opposites of "your" polarity ? Duality, (+/-) ... the epitome of what we were all "scientifically" taught as youngsters, that (+=+) and (-=-) [reduces to (+/-)], sort of like the saying that East and West "never" meet ...
What this means philosophically, is that with Duality, we have become the tools of our controllers, who sit in a secret, invisible (hopefully for them) position, as the unseen "third party" maneuvering the polarities (Divided for Controlling) "below," them to "their" benefit ... remember the old saying, Divided we Fall, United we Stand ?
I suspect that those most liberal here will "get" what I am attempting to point out metaphorically here ... but those more rigidly "rational" (and so "proud" of it) may not ... and even IF they do, they will strongly disagree ... right (Right) Greg ?
So we have this concept of rational "science" (purely "objective") demanding "proof" ... and "religion" claiming to be "spiritual" but still primarily demanding blind "faith" ... each being one or the other of "opposites" across a divide (/) or gap (/) or void (/) from each other ... (+/-) ... both actually extremely "conservative" and building their "preferred" fortresses around themselves, often throwing invectives at each other ... polarization.
But there is another way to see things, a more "liberal" way, a way of "balance" where ALL of the extremes of both "sides" are factored in with everything in between, valuing a composite central consideration, not so much a "compromise" (though that can help) but a "higher" truth involving the "totality" (Synergistic cooperation resulting in Win/Win), rather than ONLY one, or, the other (win/lose) ...
The latter is actually the result of, and hopefully the "realization" of, the Trinitarian way of our actual spiritual "commonality." You have all at least heard of, "Body, Mind, and Soul." (a "form" of (+=-) where our common Spirit is the agent of God (NOT religion here) as the "potential" unifier and balance, as the (=) in BETWEEN (and throughout) of ALL (and especially the differences (+)(-) ... (+=-) !!!
Now "that" (+=-) is a "paradox" for the logical and rational "type" who has been raised around dualistic "facts" of right (+) VERSUS wrong [left ? in many minds] (-) ... (+/-).
I am interjecting this philosophical "concept" here because IT IS the essential basis of all of our "divisive" thinking, especially that of the egotistical that always insist on being right/correct in everything ... at the "expense" of "others" ... ( you are either with us or against us, types) ...
Bottom line ... on this earth ... in this world ... there IS also a COSMIC connection (cosmic "seasons" involved) ... both objectively physical ... as well as subjectively spiritual ... and it is high time that we begin to realize THAT and come together around it ... because:
UNITED (in cooperation and appreciative of natural diversity) we can STAND ... otherwise (in bickering about everything) ... THE END !!!
Science is not about consensus. It is about facts, analysis, process and review. All too often, we get it dead-wrong, especially when there is rampant cultural bias afoot.
In my field of criminal justice, we rely on the consensus of the police, prosecurors and 12 jurors to send people to jail - that only gets us close to justice. Every once in a while we get something like DNA coming along that scientifically proves consensus is a crock by showing that we convicted a couple hundred innocent people.
I always demand proof. You can count me out of any attempt to sway opinion by peer pressure. That is a guaranteed way, to get it wrong.
Not really Jerry, all too often the purpose of a judge is to make sure the innocent are convicted and the guilty are set free ---- according to law.
For them, they probably suspect it's all a conspiracy and a bunch of loopy libs with icepicks have been working their butts off for years just to whittle away that piece of Antarctica so they could claim it was caused by global warming.
Congratulations on your Gather homepage feature, here's a 10 rating & have a nice day.
Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008
CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"
Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."
Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"
Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."
Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"
Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."
Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."
Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.
The Australian's Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald's version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that "we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics".
What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"
The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age's version of the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian McEwan 2008" and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.
Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at "absorbing inconvenient fact"?
Of course, mainstream science and mainstream media are alarmist, right?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."
In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.
That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.
Willis says some of this water is apparently coming from a recent increase in the melting rate of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.
"But in fact there's a little bit of a mystery. We can't account for all of the sea level increase we've seen over the last three or four years," he says.
One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded — and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys.
WHAT! MISINTERPRETING? I THOUGHT THE DEBATE WAS OVER.
But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?
Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.
That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.
"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.
SO HOW DO THEY ACCOUNT FOR CLOUDS? MAYBE THEY GUESS.
It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about. It's an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate.
"I suspect that we'll able to put this together with a little bit more perspective and further analysis," Trenberth says. "But what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board."
Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat
Or maybe it's not happening. After all "THE DEBATE IS OVER"? Right? Conclusion? Maybe we don't know as much as we thought.
Yes I think some are.
The operant word is "believe". Most of what we hear and see about Global Warming is just that: belief. It often has nothing to do with science.
When we are told that the snow on MT Kilimanjaro has melted because of Global Warming, and the ice pack in the Arctic has vanished because of Global Warming, and the winters in Minnesota are warm because of Global Warming - then people "believe" in Global Warming.
But when the snow on Mt Kilimangaro returns, the arctic ice pack returns, thicker than before and the winter in Minnesota set new all time cold and snow fall records - people lose that belief.
If we had just stuck to the facts to begin with - the faithful would not wander.
Well, because that's the natural cycle on earth---
warm periods followed by cold, on and on and on.
the reduction in size of several of the Antarctic ice shelves is a disturbing indicator of the overall polar warming
Perhaps, but that in no way proves mankind is to blame for this "warming" ---
much less that we could DO ANYTHING about it, even if we proved the cause to be man made.
Then there is this: Lakes Beneath Antarctic Ice Sheets Found To Initiate And Sustain Flow Of Ice To Ocean
And what about this: Scientists Detect Thickening Of West Antarctic Ice Sheet
I think we can all agree the climate is "changing." But that's where the agreement ends.
Some would like to blame mankind for current events, even though such events have been around far longer than mankind.
I can't imagine why such faith based beliefs are called "science."
This is an excellent article that you wrote, Chris, and has elicited the watershed here for the same stupid science of the White House, where for years NASA and other national science organizations had been forced to wear those similar muzzles that the Kremlin places on journalists.
Yes it is, however it is NOT "pretty much accepted scientific fact" that mankind is to blame for the global warming we see happening.
Chris W-- by the way, it isn't the Antarctic shelves that are melting so much, as it is the Antarctic SHEETS that are melting.
Scientists in the United States have every right to express their opinions. What they do not have a right to do is express their opinions in the name of their institutions. It is the job of the White House to set policy. That is what they are elected to do. If a scientist does not like the institutional policy, they are still free to speak as a citizen.
The biggest problem the proponents of "man has caused catastrophic global warming" have is a lack of credibility because their overblown rhetoric constantly undercuts their message.
This is a group that needs to have their facts available, and not be afraid to discuss them
That is what brought me to this article. Chris posted an opinion stated as fact then refused to buttress it with supporting documentation.
A good scientist is a skeptic. A proponent of a call to action should always respect and embrace skepticism.
NASA
The Bush Administration was elected to administer the governance of this country. It is their job to set policy. It is not the role of government employees to speak out on government policy.
On the first day as a civil servant, all government employees get a packet. The instructions in the packet are very precise and strict regarding public statements.
Mr. Hansen was fully aware that he was violating the conditions of his employment in speaking out.
From the article you linked:
Mr. Hansen is a citizen of a free country. He has the constitutionally protected right to speak out on any issue he so chooses, however, Mr. Hansen is an employee of NASA in that regard he is not free to speak out on political and policy matters within the context of his employment.
The same is true in almost ALL employment situations.
If Mr. Hansen wishes to exercise his constitutionally protected right to speak out on political and policy matters he is free to leave NASA.
The Bush administration's "science advisory staff" suffers from a similar fate most relativists suffer from. The inability to listen to all intelligent viewpoints. It's why we got into the mess in Iraq. What the Bush administration did with NASA was eliminate "science" from a core facet of its work, until they got caught with their pants down, when most of the science community cried foul. Now suddenly even Bush is willing to consider measures to reduce CO2 emissions, in some of his attempts to articulate some sort of speech on the issue.
The bulk of this discussion is just quite silly...
First, I have found that Greg often hasn't a clue as to what he is talking about...
(Did you ever apologize to Sam Carana?)
But First First, Realize that this is a Lay Discussion about the Science of Human Induced Climate Change and is far more Imperfect than the Science itself inherently Acknowledges itself to be...
Second, if the Science IS going to be looked at Objectively... One must accept that even if the Opposing view were to be taken seriously with any great weight, that that View or Position would not be 100% Perfect or Absolute in its Certainty...
That is: if one were to think that Global Warming or Human Induced Climate Change were NOT occurring... It would HAVE to be accepted to some degree that there IS a possibility that it IS occurring... Yes?
So... What percentage of Possibility would those folks who Obstruct or Oppose the view that these things ARE happening assign to THEIR alternate???
Are they 100% sure???
IF they place the % of their "Certainty" Further toward NOT believing the Scientific Results and Scientific Findings then What is the support for their Certainty % and How was it arrived at???
Third (and closely related to Second), The Science does NOT say it Knows Everything...
It might be helpful for one to Make a Conscious distinction between Media or Lay Coverage vs. the Science itself... The Science specifically designed not to say that it 'Knows Everything" ... Though it is understandable that it may seem like it comes off that way sometimes... And the Media either Drops that bit or Plays it UP at times here or there... Nor does the Science say that it is 100% Certain about what it Does Know...
The Science IS Rigorous and so has and so has an associated sense of Confidence in knowledge learned and established... (not even the center most foundations of Science can be considered to be made of Un-breakable Stone... but it would certainly shake things up).
Science adapts... It's what makes Science Work.. And More Importantly... It's what makes Science USEFUL to us humans... Such as being able to confidently construct Sky Scrapers over 100 stories tall or massive Jet Liners that carry Hundreds of people and thousands of pounds of cargo tens of thousands of feet up in the air....
It's What people DO with Sky Scrapers and Airplanes that Impacts our Real world and the Future...
It is Precisely BECAUSE we do not Know everything that we must take the warnings of Human Induced Climate Change seriously... !!! Yes! And Because of What is at stake if we do NOT take it seriously...
One must Agree that with a Problem on the Scale of Human Induced Climate Change it is Difficult NOT to come off as "Sounding" Alarmist... (it IS an entire world and its future we are talking about after all)...
Fourth, That ice and snow are INCREASING in the Antarctic is NOT a sign that Global Warming is NOT occuring... ON the contrary, we all know it's cold down there. It doesn't take 'cooling' to increase the snow fall...
What it DOES indicate is that there is more MOISTURE in the air and the air is WARM enough to hold the moisture for long enough periods to accumulate and then FALL as snow... The Antarctic is very much a Desert of sorts in the amount of precipitation it experiences 'normally'...
Fifth, Ice breaking off a glacier, if it is going to be looked that way for this Antarctic Ice Shelf, happens at the edges over time under 'normal' conditions... A glacier's growth is matched by its erosion at its outer edges when in 'equilibrium' ...
A glacier breaking off at its base indicates rising sea levels and weakening of the ice holding it to its continental mass... These events have been increasing in recent decades...
The implications, rather than involving sea level rise from its melting ice, is that the "Dam" that holds back the Continental Ice from flowing more quickly into the see has given way... So: the Ice that IS continental and that does affect Sea Levels when it enters the ocean has a more direct route to getting there...
Any hooo... just a few thoughts.. or three or four or five...
Best,
DJE
I couldn't care less about the politics of the Bush Administration. They are doing what they feel they are elected to do.
The bedrock of civil service is protection from politics. That protection is one side of the coin, the other side is protection of politics from civil servants. There are only two things a civil servant can be fired for: sexual harrassment and delving into politics.
David,
I have no reason to apologize to Sam Carana. The only person who should apologise is you, for your abusive behavior.
People can disagree, but apparently not with you.
Also see my related article An 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, describing how the US can make this necessary cut.
Yeah, science does not deal in absolutes, butit has done a much better job explaining the observed temperature rise than pseudo science has done.
When Charles mentioned the fact that scientists are puzzled as to why the world ocean has not measurably increased in temperature over the past few years, well, yes that is an interesting puzzle. Does it mean that global warming as a phenomemon is bogus and without merit? Far from it. it only means that there is more work to do.
First we had faulty satellite observations that allowed denial squad members to say your data sucks, so the whole idea is crap. Then the flaw in the data gathering was fixed, and the data became more compelling. Then we had the controversy about the numbers not adding up for global warming- until the role of "global dimming" was figured out, as a counter phenomenon that temporarily slows the progress of temperature rise due to the reflectivity of coal particles in the upper atmosphere until they wash or settle out. Okay, each time this happens, you get a few more scientists giving up on counter theories and buying into mainstream climate theory. but do the denial squad tru believers ever say whoops looks like I was wrong? No, they cherry pick the next data glitch or sunspot idea until it turns out to be wrong.
It's not that I think you are wrong guys. Well, i do think that actually- but the main thing I think is that you do not wish to entertain the notion that prevailing science could be right on this one. You of course think that I am wrong to go with prevailing science- but hey, look, it IS the prevailing science, do I have to say more?
I find this argument chillingly similar to the argument to invade Iraq as well as the arguments supporting an aggressive approach in the War On Terror. In other words,"it is better that Bush is wrong, than his opponents".
The logic is simple, the consequences of anti-Administration forces being wrong would have been a catastrophic WMD attack on the US. The consequences of Bush being wrong were to overthrow a despot and suffer through a painful mop-up operation.
The use of this logic ALWAYS dictates that the most hysterical viewpoint MUST be acted upon because it only compares potential risks without properly evaluating how viable those risks are.
How about simply applying reason to matters of climate and war?
Why cast the debate in religious terms: "giving up on", "buying into", "denial", "believers"?
What happened to the notion of science?
This sounds more like JR High School Cliques.......
But I am not going to change your mind on that, so never mind.
The difference is that the levels of certainty of what the Administration Knew and what they were saying were VERY different...
What you are trying to do is COMPARE the scientific Process to what was going on within the Bush administration...
And that is something that truly deserves no further comment... other than Oy!!! (or some similar to it)...
If you missed it, It's worth Catching "Frontline: Bush's War" on PBS... It might still be available at their web site.
I'd say that Greg comments continue to make the point you just stated above...
And I agree, that in comparison to Climate Change, Saddam Hussein's WMD threat is small (as well as non-existent).
Anyone that has NO DOUBTS about the theories of global warming being caused by mankind is willfully BLIND.
There simply isn't any evidence to PROVE global warming is a product of mankind's largess.
I never said I have zero doubts, just that I have no major ones. I fancy that I am able to see the forest for the trees.
We know that now, we did not know that then. A couple of pounds of Sarin released in New York City would kills millions, not just a measily 3,000 as in the case of the World Trade Towers.
There is plenty of science regarding climate, much that is supportive of climate change, but there is zero science regarding catastrophic effects of predicted climate change.
Even reading the IPCC (AR4), one is left with little more than the prediction that Minneapolis will have the climate of Des Moines in 100 years.
The scare mongers clamor about unspeakable horrors of a Des Moines climate, but I have been to Des Moines and other than a boring nightlife, I find nothing unusual there. I found no unusual diseases, parasites or Zonbies prowling the back streets hunting for a diner of human brains.
I would hope that we all could agree that the age of combustion is coming to an end. It will not end abruptly, and many of us will still rely on internal combustion engines and coal fired power-plants for the rest of our lives --- yet we do have to move on and find other ways to produce and consume energy - for a lot of reasons.
We should be focusing evolving new technologies rather than hyping religious beliefs regarding the environment.
Hardly-- and when you're talking to fools, the only logical response is name calling.
I wonder if anyone can tell me WHY it "completely obscures" the message ????
How are you so endangered by a community of people who - according to you and others here - operate merely on faith, that you need to attack them, instead of calmly (with scientific objectivity) questioning positions and debating points of fact?
I might ask liberals the same thing-- the don't mind calling Clarence Thomas "uncle tom" simply because he doesn't subscribe to the plantation mentality of the democrats.
Right wingers are called all kinds of names by the liberal glitterati, facists, bible thumping morons, and Bush himself, they call him a liar, a war criminal etc....
tell me, do you think the liberals are "diminshed" when they call bush and other republicans such names ???
Your selective outrage is enlightening, your hypocrasy illuminating.
We are all interested in science.
BULLSHIT --- greenie meanies aren't interested in SCIENCE at all, but rather, theories that are "consensus truth" ONLY.
If you were actually INTERESTED IN SCIENCE you'd be able to review alternate ideas instead of insisting you have all the answers.
"the debate is over" is a phrase you hear unanimously from the greenie meanie crowd, as if the idea mankind is to blame for global warming is is beyond questioning.
I'll bet you nickles to your dollars, most of America over the age of 30 doesn't worry about, or put much credence into silly theories no one can proof are valid.
And by the way, anyone not able to endure the rough and tumble world of blogs and name calling, shouldn't be reading blogs.
Sensitive geniuses need to be pampered from the real world *chuckle*
or maybe a flying pig of a different color, whatever.
The odd thing here is that the denial squad tends to accuse climate activists of believing exactly what they want to believe. That seems to be their definition of religion- some religious people would doubtless have a problem with that definition, but never mind. Actually Stephen, I would really really love to NOT think that climate change is a problem for our descendants, because I have two daughters and they are the most important thing in the world to me. I would actually also love to not feel guilty when I fill the tank of my old Saturn. For that matter, I would love to take half hour hot showers, and put in a hot tub. I do not believe this climate change stuff because it makes me happy. Au contraire, it makes me rather miserable. But I am not going to ignore reality on that basis.
Yes I am, my color is the color of your inability to refute the facts I've presented.
Name calling is so much more fun, isn't it Chrissie boy ????
I haven't left because the tone is abhorrent, I'm just skipping the diatribe and looking for the calm and reasonable comments.
"I wonder if anyone can tell me WHY it "completely obscures" the message ????"
Because if the message is supposed to be science, which is calm and objective, but the delivery is raw and hostile, then any natural person with skin to protect is going to miss the science and hear the hostility. Of course, if hostility is the message, then we get it. If this answer adds to your anger jJack, I can't help you.
"tell me, do you think the liberals are "diminshed" when they call bush and other republicans such names ???"
Yes, I do, and I am not proud to associate myself, as a liberal, with "liberals" who use name calling and derogation to make their points. However, I wonder how you chose your examples. As a matter of scientific method, I wouldn't put any credence in your charge of hypocrisy as a trait of liberals, since I don't know how you selected your sample. Certainly, of course, hypocrites are found everywhere. So? Are you holding all "liberals" to account for the behavior of all other "liberals"? The point question is: Who has hurt you so much you need to be so venomous? Moreover, how do you explain this putative hypocrisy and meanness? What scam is effected, what profit can be gained, by hypocritically promoting Climate change where there is none?
Do you want to tell us who the "greenie meanies" are, and what they have done to so offend you? I have lots of "green" friend who are sensitive caring generous people, but I guess I don't know the people you are referring to.
"If you were actually INTERESTED IN SCIENCE you'd be able to review alternate ideas instead of insisting you have all the answers."
I actually was interested in what Greg had to say, but I had difficulty reading his science since he was so emotional and wanted to over generalize - using the net accumulation of ice in the ice shelf to question Global Climate Chaos per-se, and not extending his scientific imagination to realize that an average change of one degree can represent dramatic changes at the extremes. I also went to the links that Charles provided, and was struck by the difference in tone. Whereas the Australian newspaper was highly polemic, the NPR story was equivocal, allowing that the data reflecting very little temperature change in deep ocean layers raises questions about the climate models, but not demanding a wholesale abandonment of the claim of climate change. So I do not accept your charge that I - we - are unwilling to review the alternate hypotheses, or that we insist that we have all the answers. But it does seem you are unwilling to consider alternate hypotheses, and also you seem to feel that only you know the truth. And I wonder when you are actually presenting "alternate ideas". It seems to me you spend your ink time steaming off, not sharing science.
Addressed to Chris et al: I have enjoyed learning a little about the other side of the argument, at least to realize that there are people who get very agitated by the idea that some how Global Climate Chaos is real and has started already to disrupt our lives, but I wonder if I haven't already spent too much energy addressing persons whose purpose it is to distract us from the conversation we want to be having - or is this actually the conversation we need to be having?
Like most high level intellectuals, I can easily do BOTH, and do. I have provide the links to alternate reasons why the Antarctic is melting (it if actually is.)
I bring links to nearly all of my opinions, I had just begun, with my first post, and then had to start talking about MOI, because these losers didn't ant to talk about the issue at hand, they merely wanted to play a name calling game, so I obliged them.
Of course, if hostility is the message, then we get it. If this answer adds to your anger jJack, I can't help you.
The "message" is to poke holes in the so called "experts" opinions, and show them up for the ignorant slobs they are.
The idea I am "angry" is silly, and I would suggest could even be projection of your own inability to control your own emotions.
I don't get "angry" by having idiots in chat rooms call me names, I don't ge "angry when idiots present idiot ideas as if they were the latest epiphany of mankind.
I'm nearly ALWAYS laughing my ass off at you losers, and I certainly don't get angry. I understand really--- so many people believe they aren't name callers, LIKE YOU, when they actually ARE CALLING PEOPLE NAMES, themselves.
Yes, it is "name calling to suggest I am "angry" simply because I disagree with you in a manner that doesn't fit YOUR idea of decorum. Just take a look at the other names people on this thread and elsewhere call me. You'll begin to understand why I cannot take their feigned superiority if you actually WATCH ALL THE ASSHOLES CALLING ME NAMES TOO ! ! ! !
Are you holding all "liberals" to account for the behavior of all other "liberals"?
No, of course not. Only those liberals I enounter on a daily basis, and even then they have to be liberals AND disagree with me.
The fact is, democrats are the biggest name callers around, and have mastered the art of politics of personal destruction. The tell lies about Bush knowingly, with malice, they try to do the same to me.
Who has hurt you so much you need to be so venomous?
It is only your opinion I have been "hurt" by someone and as a result I have become "venemous." *chuckle* I haven't been "hurt" by anyone in a silly fuckin' glorified message board.
Are you projecting again ???
What scam is effected, what profit can be gained, by hypocritically promoting Climate change where there is none?
Can I call you stupid ??? Can I call you lazy ??? I answered this question already--- I don't suggest "climate change" (what a new fancy word, since you can't support the "global warming bullshit" I don't suggest these changes "aren't happening," only that mankind has not been proven to be the reason.
What I do say is, we have NO IDEA WHY it is happening, only conflicting theories. In addition, the promotion of global warming IS IN FACT, beneficial to those claiming it is "real" and we are in imminent danger. How??? RESEARCH GRANTS ! ! ! ! follow the money dude.
Do you want to tell us who the "greenie meanies" are, and what they have done to so offend you
Any moron, male or female, promoting ideas like global warming, and once again, I am not offended by their ignorce. What they are doing is promoting their faith based religion of global warming while pretending such theories suggesting "the debate is over."
These zealot acolytes, like Sam, truly believe we are going to kill our planet. Such ideas are LUDICROUS ! ! ! !
I had difficulty reading his science since he was so emotional and wanted to over generalize
That's your spin. I find Greg one of the smartest posters on gather, when it comes to politics, and I and can tell you I found Greg's posts reasoned, thoughtful, and completely devoid of "emotional" baggage.
So I do not accept your charge that I - we - are unwilling to review the alternate hypotheses
Of course YOU would, so would most other liberals. Big deal.
But it does seem you are unwilling to consider alternate hypotheses
Mainly because I am able to shoot holes in their wild eyed rhetoric, and you just get confused I suppose. I listen, and return point by point rebuttals. If you think you have a rejoinder in return, by all means lob it my way, and I'll do the same to the next stupid thing that is said.
you seem to feel that only you know the truth
That's FUNNY considering all I am doing is presenting the alternate viewpoint of scientists around the world. I haven't offered ONE single thought of my own, and have merely repeated the words of experts that don't buy into the global warming scam.
I don't know shit about this stuff, other than what I have read, FROM BOTH SIDES. Reading the opinions of others, allows you to formulate your own conclusions.
It seems to me you spend your ink time steaming off, not sharing science.
Once again-- look at the thread ONCE MORE. I entered with science and no name calling whatsoever, infact the same can be said of my second comment on this thread as well. I offered up links that offer reasonable doubt about what might be the cause, other than mankind, for the global warming we all agree is occurring.
But after my first two posts, receiving NOTHING BUT NAME CALLING IN RETURN, I felt no qualms about injecting name calling whatsoever. If the demo libs can do it, so can I.
I have enjoyed learning a little about the other side of the argument, at least to realize that there are people who get very agitated by the idea that some how Global Climate Chaos is real and has started already to disrupt our lives,
You had to slip in another instance of naming calling, suggesting we are mindlessly "agitated" without reason. Nothing coule be further from the truth.
I certainly am NEVER agitated by idiots on a message board. And no one is suggesting global warming isn't happening. We simply reject the idea mankind is to blame, since the same warming/cooling cycles have occured on earth long before mankind arrived on the scene.
I'm not trying to "disrupt" anything except perhaps the closed minds of those zealots believing in the faith based science of global warming.
And no, it is a waste of time talking about such things, as most fantasies are.
Follow my posts in this thread. I have done precisely what you asked that I do. I calmly asked for a link to a scientific peer-reviewed study that shows causality between the calving of this ice sheet and global warming.
Chris began this article with the statement:
Is it being hostile to ask for him to substantiate the connection between the first half of his sentence and the last with a link to a peer-reviewed study? Asking that is not hostile - it is just good science.
What I have done here is illustrate the difference between science and religion, facts and belief. That is not name-calling, it is an accurate characterization.
You are putting the cart before the horse.
If the technologies are viable and economical, politics will follow. What I fear is that the global warming debate is little more than a shill for the environmental puritan movement that has been knocking around our culture for 40 years. They have finally found an issue that they believe has traction.
Personally, I have no problem with puritanism. People can do what they want - but that is never the way it is. Be it Prohibition for Anti-Gay Marriage Amendments, religious minoritiies will always use politics to impose their values on the majority.
But that is the way that society has always worked.
The problem I have with the environmental puritans is that they are over-reaching, and getting into fundamental areas of economic interest. They are trying to dictate which technologies we should use without a clue as to what is viable and what is not.
I would prefer these decisions be made rationally rather than by a puritan mob.
From my perspective, here in the Midwest, politics in general and especially the Bush Administration has bent over backwards to push alternative energy. Out here on the plains wind-energy and ethanol have grown dramatically over the last eight years.
Our problem, especially with energy is the Democrats.
Ted Kennedy shut down all wind-energy production for almost a year because of a hissy fit he had over a project near his estate. He did not want to look at turbines.
Then ---- the environmentalists stopped the building of a transmission line from Buffalo Ridge (where all the wind is) to the eastern grid that feeds the Twin Cities and Chicago.
See what I mean by environmental Puritanism?