You're mixing sea ice and ice-shelves together even though they are two very different things. Ice-shelves are floating glaciers and sea ice is frozen seawater. After the Larsen B ice-shelf collapsed in 2002 the ice-streams feeding it accelerated up to fourfold when the buttressing effect of the shelf was gone, and this increase contributes directly to sea-level rise. The recent acceleration of glaciers in the Antarctic Peninsula and Greenland is quite worrying and it is currently not accounted for in the IPCC prediction of sea-level rise.Here is a VERY interesting quote from the article Biknut linked to:
For those who follow the AGW debate, you will remember that just a couple years ago, the media and AGW proponents were in an extreme tizzy about the ice shelves around Antarctica "disintegrating". Ocean levels were going to rise and drown coastal cities because of the rapid melt of all the ice on and around Antarctica. If we didn't take action soon we were heading for oblivion because of all the melting going on around Antarctica. Now there is a RECORD amount of sea ice around Antarctica.
Now, the same cadre of AGW proponents is raising alarm about Arctic sea ice. I am not saying the research, monitoring, and data collection is invalid or invaluable, however, this type of thing will certainly make me more critical in the future. Perhaps it is summed up best by another quote from the article:
Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.

Global Cooling
#181
Posted 22 October 2007 - 04:57 PM
#182
Posted 22 October 2007 - 05:01 PM
That's not very credible at all unless you can say what caused it. Like I've asked before, where are the global models that support that view? Are there any? Probably not.The truth that GW is not caused by man.
The theory that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere increases the so-called greenhouse-effect.What GW theory were you talking about?
#183
Posted 22 October 2007 - 06:14 PM
That's not very credible at all unless you can say what caused it. Like I've asked before, where are the global models that support that view? Are there any? Probably not.The truth that GW is not caused by man.
The theory that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere increases the so-called greenhouse-effect.What GW theory were you talking about?
I see. Your view is if the climate changes it has to be caused by man, because it won't ever change on it's own. Before man came along the climate never changed I guess.
Oh, looks like it did many times, even though we don't always know why.
sponsored ad
#184
Posted 22 October 2007 - 06:39 PM
That's not very credible at all unless you can say what caused it. Like I've asked before, where are the global models that support that view? Are there any? Probably not.The truth that GW is not caused by man.
The theory that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere increases the so-called greenhouse-effect.What GW theory were you talking about?
This is how I think they're trying to mislead us. First the claim is made that CO2 rises then the temperature rises. This seems to be false. Then they show that CO2 is rising X amount each year so therefore the CO2 rise is causing the temperature to rise and it has to be caused by man. This is not proven, but it's repeated millions of times in the media.
The problem with this reasoning is that 99% of the CO2 rise is natural and mans contribution is a negligible amount to the total. This part is seldom mentioned.
#185
Posted 22 October 2007 - 07:06 PM
That's not very credible at all unless you can say what caused it. Like I've asked before, where are the global models that support that view? Are there any? Probably not.The truth that GW is not caused by man.
The theory that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere increases the so-called greenhouse-effect.What GW theory were you talking about?
I see. Your view is if the climate changes it has to be caused by man, because it won't ever change on it's own. Before man came along the climate never changed I guess.
Oh, looks like it did many times, even though we don't always know why.
Since it's generally accepted that greenhouse gases increase the greenhouse-effect, putting more of the gases in the atmosphere will warm up the planet. Sure climate can also change without human influence but so what, it's not like that's great news to climatologists. We starting to understanding a lot about climate and the best models all predict significant warming of the planet.
#186
Posted 22 October 2007 - 07:09 PM
Got any citations supporting that rather outlandish claim? We're still burning one cubic mile of oil each year last time I checked...The problem with this reasoning is that 99% of the CO2 rise is natural and mans contribution is a negligible amount to the total. This part is seldom mentioned.
#187
Posted 22 October 2007 - 07:34 PM
Here is a VERY interesting quote from the article Biknut linked to:
This year, the sea ice around Antarctica grew to its largest extent since satellite observation began in 1979—whereas the Arctic arrived at record minimum
The first two graphs show recent year; the last two graphs show 30 years. Too bad that they ( http://arctic.atmos....edu/cryosphere/ ) don't have a graph combining both hemispheres but one should be able to add the graphs very easily. For example if you want to get the global sea ice anomaly for today you just roughly do this math:
-2.5 + 0.5 = -2,000,000 km^2 (globally).
From the last two graphs one could see that the global sea ice is declining. I think that the reason that antarctica is not showing any decline is that the ice-shelves and ice-glaciers running down from the continent are rapidly feeding the sourrounding waters/ocean with good amount of 'ice-cubes' and cooler water 'healing' this way the melted sea ice. Well, Antarctica does not have infinite amount of ice therefore one should not count much and longer on the feeding ice.




Edited by struct, 22 October 2007 - 07:54 PM.
#188
Posted 22 October 2007 - 08:01 PM
(platypus)
We're still burning one cubic mile of oil each year last time I checked...
That is just oil. It doesn't count the fact that in this country 60% of all electricity is from coal, or that many still burn their fields each year in areas too poor to afford tractors and the now to be included as a source, biofuels.
Those are not even all the human sourced CO2 and there are non-combustion related chemical and industrial sources as well.
Also with respect to the confusion of glacial and sea ice in Antarctica, this has been the winter there and *their* last summer when the glacial shelf began to break away and the glacial melt actually began accelerating toward the sea, the rate of glacial sourced sea ice increased and thus offset some of the melt.
#189
Posted 22 October 2007 - 08:18 PM
IOW's we aren't talking about a significant percentage of total atmospheric volume to effect a considerable change in the proportion of total CO2 with respect to the entire atmosphere.
#190
Posted 22 October 2007 - 09:28 PM
You're mixing sea ice and ice-shelves together even though they are two very different things. Ice-shelves are floating glaciers and sea ice is frozen seawater. After the Larsen B ice-shelf collapsed in 2002 the ice-streams feeding it accelerated up to fourfold when the buttressing effect of the shelf was gone, and this increase contributes directly to sea-level rise. The recent acceleration of glaciers in the Antarctic Peninsula and Greenland is quite worrying and it is currently not accounted for in the IPCC prediction of sea-level rise.
Well, Stott says it is the most sea ice since 1979. I'll have to check, but last I saw, this was not forecast by any GCMs...not by a long shot.
Just as is it argued that melting ice in the northern hemisphere is a positive feedback scenario, it could be argued that expanding ice cover in the southern hemisphere could create colder conditions (more reflection of the suns rays, colder water temps, more ice, more reflection, etc....). More glacial ice heading into the oceans could be the trigger for a climate change in the opposite direction. Perhaps this is the way it happened during the last 4 ice ages. Something triggered those ice ages and we are overdue for another.
#191
Posted 22 October 2007 - 10:16 PM
#192
Posted 22 October 2007 - 10:40 PM
Hell, I'm worried about both [thumb]i think we should worry less about global warming, and more about how to keep us supplied with increasing quantities of energy.
#193
Posted 22 October 2007 - 11:16 PM
Got any citations supporting that rather outlandish claim? We're still burning one cubic mile of oil each year last time I checked...The problem with this reasoning is that 99% of the CO2 rise is natural and mans contribution is a negligible amount to the total. This part is seldom mentioned.
The reason this sounds so outlandish to you is probably because it's usually expressed as millions of tons per year. That has a lot more impact than saying 1%.
Estimates range from about .05 to 3.6%. Try to find otherwise. Like Lazarus Long pointed out, the entire atmosphere is less than 1% CO2. More like .3% actually.
#194
Posted 22 October 2007 - 11:20 PM
Global Warming:
A closer look at the numbers
http://mysite.verizo...house_data.html
#195
Posted 22 October 2007 - 11:20 PM
So do you have any citations supporting the claim that only 1% of the CO2 rise is caused by man?Got any citations supporting that rather outlandish claim? We're still burning one cubic mile of oil each year last time I checked...The problem with this reasoning is that 99% of the CO2 rise is natural and mans contribution is a negligible amount to the total. This part is seldom mentioned.
The reason this sounds so outlandish to you is probably because it's usually expressed as millions of tons per year. That has a lot more impact than saying 1%.
Estimates range from about .05 to 3.6%. Try to find otherwise. Like Lazarus Long pointed out, the entire atmosphere is less than 1% CO2. More like .3% actually.
#196
Posted 22 October 2007 - 11:43 PM
Actually it's less than 0.1%, about 350 ppm I believe. However talking about "cubic miles" of oil is just as unproductive as talking about cubic miles of atmosphere. It's hyperbole. The actual numbers have got to be worked. The numbers include not just CO2 in the atmosphere, but known CO2 sinks, such as plants and oceans. The models are non-trivial. As I recall, climate scientists believe the net result of human activities is to increase atmospheric CO2 content by about 3 ppm per year. How that number translates to a given degree of climate change is an even more complex calculation involving computer models.BTW Biknut you do realize that less than 1% of total volume of the atmosphere is CO2 normally?
I'm not saying climate scientists aren't right, just that the process by which they reach their conclusions is very complicated and specialized. It's not a "no brainer", and shouldn't be depicted as such. I could replicate a celestial mechanics calculation that predicted an asteroid impact, but the climate science models that predict quantitative anthropogenic global warming are over my head.
#197
Posted 22 October 2007 - 11:56 PM
Over at The Oil Drum they claim 1 cubic mile is based on the actual numbers. I think it gives a nice tangible picture of the level of our energy use - to me 1 cubic mile gone up in smoke sounds like a lot.Actually it's less than 0.1%, about 350 ppm I believe. However talking about "cubic miles" of oil is just as unproductive as talking about cubic miles of atmosphere. It's hyperbole. The actual numbers have got to be worked.BTW Biknut you do realize that less than 1% of total volume of the atmosphere is CO2 normally?
#198
Posted 23 October 2007 - 12:20 AM
We are roughly a month out of whack. This is the weather that we get in late September not late October. Also this hasn't been a one day aberration, it has been the last two months. While I can't complain locally I do see on the news that drought is beginning to hurt the Southeast and Southwest.
I am still harvesting peppers and tomatoes in the garden and it is barely cold enough for the brussel sprouts to do their thing and have not even had to turn the heat on once. I haven't even had to rake leaves yet. Normally by now we have had our first killing frost and then we would have Indian Summer. At this rate we will get Indian Summer for Christmas.
We are all enjoying it but we all know it is weird and there is an uneasy feeling among many of us that there will be a price to pay for this.
#199
Posted 23 October 2007 - 12:35 AM
http://news.yahoo.co...niPm.hsoTkiANEA
Carbon dioxide in atmosphere increasing
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer
44 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Just days after the Nobel prize was awarded for global warming work, an alarming new study finds that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing faster than expected.
Carbon dioxide emissions were 35 percent higher in 2006 than in 1990, a much faster growth rate than anticipated, researchers led by Josep G. Canadell, of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, report in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Increased industrial use of fossil fuels coupled with a decline in the gas absorbed by the oceans and land were listed as causes of the increase.
"In addition to the growth of global population and wealth, we now know that significant contributions to the growth of atmospheric CO2 arise from the slowdown" of nature's ability to take the chemical out of the air, said Canadell, director of the Global Carbon Project at the research organization.
The changes "characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected climate forcing," the researchers report.
Kevin Trenberth of the climate analysis section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. said the "paper raises some very important issues that the public should be aware of: Namely that concentrations of CO2 are increasing at much higher rates than previously expected and this is in spite of the Kyoto Protocol that is designed to hold them down in western countries,"
Alan Robock, associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers University, added: "What is really shocking is the reduction of the oceanic CO2 sink," meaning the ability of the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide, removing it from the atmosphere.
The researchers blamed that reduction on changes in wind circulation, but Robock said he also thinks rising ocean temperatures reduce the ability to take in the gas.
"Think that a warm Coke has less fizz than a cold Coke," he said.
Neither Robock nor Trenberth was part of Canadell's research team.
Carbon dioxide is the leading "greenhouse gas," so named because their accumulation in the atmosphere can help trap heat from the sun, causing potentially dangerous warming of the planet.
While most atmospheric scientists accept the idea, finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been a political problem because of potential effects on the economy. Earlier this month, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and former Vice President Al Gore for their work in calling attention to global warming.
"It turns out that global warming critics were right when they said that global climate models did not do a good job at predicting climate change," Robock commented. "But what has been wrong recently is that the climate is changing even faster than the models said. In fact, Arctic sea ice is melting much faster than any models predicted, and sea level is rising much faster than IPCC previously predicted."
According to the new study, carbon released from burning fossil fuel and making cement rose from 7.0 billion metric tons per year in 2000 to 8.4 billion metric tons in 2006. A metric tons is 2,205 pounds.
The growth rate increased from 1.3 percent per year in 1990-1999 to 3.3 percent per year in 2000-2006, the researchers added.
Trenberth noted that carbon dioxide is not the whole story — methane emissions have declined, so total greenhouse gases are not increasing as much as carbon dioxide alone. Also, he added, other pollution plays a role by cooling.
There are changes from year to year in the fraction of the atmosphere made up of carbon dioxide and the question is whether this increase is transient or will be sustained, he said.
"The theory suggests increases in (the atmospheric fraction), as is claimed here, but the evidence is not strong," Trenberth said.
The paper looks at a rather short time to measure a trend, Robock added, "but the results they get certainly look reasonable, and much of the paper is looking at much longer trends."
The research was supported by Australian, European and other international agencies.
#200
Posted 23 October 2007 - 04:01 PM
http://www.space.com...connection.html
Near-Earth Space Bubbles Mapped
Dave Mosher, Staff Writer
SPACE.com 50 minutes ago
Enormous bubbles of plasma trapped within Earth's magnetic fields have been fully mapped for the first time.
Scientists now think the bubbles of ionized gas, called convection cells, are strongly affected by pummeling from the sun's solar wind. Future observations of the cells could be used to monitor violent solar outbursts, such as solar flares and coronal mass ejections, which can harm satellites or astronauts in space.
"The results are a great achievement," said Philippe Escoubet, the European Space Agency (ESA) project scientist for the experiments aboard the Cluster satellites.
Stein Haaland, a scientist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, and his team used six years of data gathered by the four spacecraft to create the maps. "They show data collected over years is helping deepen our understanding of the Sun-Earth connection," Escoubet said.
Convection cells exist high above Earth's polar caps and are made of plasma, which is electron-stripped gas that is highly erratic. Earth's magnetosphere and atmosphere shelter the planet from high-energy solar particles, but the protective shells form an incomplete cocoon—so some of the radiation leaks in, is trapped and forms convection cells.
Scientists think understanding how such particles are trapped is crucial to safeguarding astronauts and satellites, such as GPS and telecommunications platforms.
Prior to the Cluster satellites, only poor observations of convection cells could be made. The new statistical maps show that numbers of convection cells fluctuate between two and four, and that their shapes change as solar wind output fluctuates.
Haaland said the maps will inform future monitoring of convection cells. "It will be possible to map the region at any altitude, under any conditions with satellites, making our task easier," he said.
Haaland and his colleagues' work is detailed in recent issues of the journal Annales Geophysicae.
#201
Posted 23 October 2007 - 04:07 PM
I am still harvesting peppers and tomatoes in the garden and it is barely cold enough for the brussel sprouts
We had an abnormally early frost here in Wisconsin (middle of September) then it turned warmer than normal for about a month. My peppers and broccoli survived the first frost and I ended up eating the last floret of broccoli just 2 days ago. Brocolli is one of my favorite veggies to plant because if you prune it right, it will keep producing all summer long and into the Fall. The amount of edible produce slowly declines, but as long as the frost stays away it keeps on going.
#202
Posted 23 October 2007 - 07:15 PM
I have a hypothesis about this unusual fall weather and I think it is related to the opening of the NW Passage. I think the larger than ever region of open water is dramatically shifting seasonal weather patterns and extending summer and fall while it is refreezing for winter; by acting as a large thermal mass that contributes warmth and humidity to the air, while also reduces the effect of Arctic air masses that would normally be moving further south and influencing the Jet stream. I have noticed that the normal seasonal shift of the Jet Stream has not yet occurred.
#203
Posted 23 October 2007 - 09:04 PM
#204
Posted 23 October 2007 - 09:54 PM
Not convincing at all but actually misleading, doesn't contain very good references at all etc. I don't think they even remembered to mention that warming up the planet with CO2 raises the temperature which then raises the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, which raises the temperature. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has grown markedly (35%+) during the industrial age.Here's an interesting site with information about mans CO2 impact on global warming.
Global Warming:
A closer look at the numbers
http://mysite.verizo...house_data.html
#205
Posted 24 October 2007 - 09:18 AM
Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen 35% faster than expected since 2000, says a study.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7058074.stm
#206
Posted 27 October 2007 - 05:00 AM
'Unexpected growth' in CO2 found
Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen 35% faster than expected since 2000, says a study.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7058074.stm
Kind of interesting that CO2 has gone up so much but the temperature hasn't.
#207
Posted 27 October 2007 - 05:48 AM
What do you mean it hasn't? I seem to recall many of the warmest years on record happened during the last 10 years.'Unexpected growth' in CO2 found
Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen 35% faster than expected since 2000, says a study.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7058074.stm
Kind of interesting that CO2 has gone up so much but the temperature hasn't.
#208
Posted 28 October 2007 - 12:53 AM
What do you mean it hasn't? I seem to recall many of the warmest years on record happened during the last 10 years.'Unexpected growth' in CO2 found
Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen 35% faster than expected since 2000, says a study.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7058074.stm
Kind of interesting that CO2 has gone up so much but the temperature hasn't.
Well yeah, but the article says CO2 levels have risen 35% faster since 2000, but the temperature hasn't gone up in this time.
The theory says if CO2 levels keep rising the temperature will keep rising. CO2 levels are rising, the temperature's not.
#209
Posted 28 October 2007 - 03:57 AM
#210
Posted 28 October 2007 - 09:56 AM
It's a complex climate system with weather on top and nobody expects every single year to be warmer than the previous one. Are you trying to play dumb?What do you mean it hasn't? I seem to recall many of the warmest years on record happened during the last 10 years.'Unexpected growth' in CO2 found
Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen 35% faster than expected since 2000, says a study.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7058074.stm
Kind of interesting that CO2 has gone up so much but the temperature hasn't.
Well yeah, but the article says CO2 levels have risen 35% faster since 2000, but the temperature hasn't gone up in this time.
The theory says if CO2 levels keep rising the temperature will keep rising. CO2 levels are rising, the temperature's not.
5 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users