Global warming

[mhaze]

Except where the ice is advancing ..

And yes, I would expect the glaciers to show an overall trend of retreating after an ice age has ended ..

Maybe we can devise a test for that ...We can each take an ice cream cone out of the freezer and hold it and watch it.

It won't melt.

Will it?

 

[a_unique_person]

What year about is that, AUP, where you see the accelerating trend start?

We are either mis communicating on this, or it actually is a case of different people looking at an inkblot and one seeing an inkblot, and the other a rabbit.

There is a clear downward trend to about 1900, then it accellerates after that.

 

[a_unique_person]

Maybe we can devise a test for that ...We can each take an ice cream cone out of the freezer and hold it and watch it.

It won't melt.

Will it?

Then just to spice it up, raise the temperature in the room after they have started to melt, and see if that causes a change in the rate they melt at.

 

[mhaze]

There is a clear downward trend to about 1900, then it accellerates after that.

I get maybe 5 accelerating past 1900, of those 12 which have a history of at least 200 years.

 

[varwoche]

You would have to show that man made CO2 is the main culprit, if that is your claim.

No comment on the "main culprit" part. However, the notion that AGW is a significant cause of Arctic ice retreat is a claim being made by... Dr. Ted Lambos, Glaciologist / US National Snow and Ice Data Center...

He discounts the notion that the sharp warming trend in the Arctic might be due to natural climate cycles ... caused in large part by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which he says is the only thing capable of changing Earth on such a large scale over so many latitudes

... and a team of NASA scientists...

NASA scientists have found that a major form of global air pollution involved in summertime "smog" has also played a significant role in warming the Arctic ... According to this new research, ozone was responsible for one-third to half of the observed warming trend in the Arctic

... and by a team of scientists from Scripps, Brookhaven, US Dept of Energy...

The Arctic is showing the first unmistakable signs of climate warming caused by human activities, in the form of rapidly retreating and thinning sea ice

... and by a team of scientists from NCAR, UW, and McGill...

The recent retreat of Arctic sea ice is likely to accelerate so rapidly that the Arctic Ocean could become nearly devoid of ice during summertime as early as 2040 ... rates of greenhouse gas emissions can affect the probability of abrupt ice loss

... amongst others.

 

[a_unique_person]

I get maybe 5 accelerating past 1900, of those 12 which have a history of at least 200 years.

I get 8 with a long history, 6 of which show accelerated change.

 

[bobdroege7]

Sure. Here are just two references, one is from an interview in the Scotsman of the arctic climatologist Dr. Chad Dick. The fisherman's guide IMHO much more interested but you be the judge. There are lots of more (technical, peer reviewed) references and this is well known - the newspapers shouting "Alarm" simply are not telling the public about it.

The short story is that the low arctic ice is a good sign because it means the end of the cycle is near and ice will start going up, with climate getting cooler in some areas - those affected by these issues. Note that Dr. Dick does not say his work shows no AGW, he simply says that if the sea ice goes down and does not come back, that would be due to AGW.

In other words, the next few years and the sea ice would tell you pretty conclusively if there was any AGW at all.... Smart guy, that scientist. Discusses all sides of the issue quite intelligently.

But first the fish story.

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e00.pdf
Climate Change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches: The ppossibility of forecasting. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper #410 (UN Document, seems mostly Russian scientists).

From Chapter 3.

Commercial fish catches shows R=0.84 correlation between Californian sardine and the ACI (Atmospheric Circulation Index), and R=0.68 for the Japanese sardine. Pacific salmon R=0.82, Peruvian sardine 0.90, R=0.85 Chilien Jack Mackeral and others are similar.

The ACI index exhibits regular, roughly 30 year, alternation of the "circulation epochs" characterized by predominance of either zonal or meridional components. These epochs correspond to the periods of either global warming or global cooling...maximum production of seven of the twelve major commercial species fall on the "warm" period, whereas the production of the remaining 5 species is in good agreement with the "cool" period.

Regular alternation of the epochs for the last 110 years suggests that the present epoch of "zonal" circulation is coming into its final phase and the new "meridional" epoch is due....recent data confirm this viewpoint. The population of Atlantic (and Pacific) herring has already started to rise.


Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be a natural cycle

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-04-21/polar.htm


[qimg]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Mike/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/EverNoteTempDir/0000@232_image002.jpg[/qimg]
Wed 9 Mar 2005
IAN JOHNSTON
THE melting of sea ice at the North Pole may be the result of a centuries-old natural cycle and not an indicator of man-made global warming, Scottish scientists have found.
After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature. The finding opens the possibility that the recent worrying changes in Arctic sea ice are simply the result of standard cyclical movements, and not a harbinger of major climate change.

The amount of sea ice is currently near its lowest point in the cycle and should begin to increase within about five years. As a result, Dr Chad Dick, a Scottish scientist working at the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromso, believes the next five to ten years will be a critical period in our understanding of sea ice and the impact, if any, of long-term global warming. Concern has been expressed recently that animals such as polar bears could become extinct because sea ice is disappearing. The new research by Dr Dick and a colleague, Dr Dimitry Divine, gives rise to hopes the melting will stop soon.

However, Dr Dick warned that if the ice carried on melting, it would mean that man-made global warming had disrupted the natural process - with potentially disastrous results. He said: "Cycles of 60 to 80 years have been identified before in atmospheric temperature records in the Arctic. The old records that we recovered from ships’ logs and other sources may show that similar cycles are present in sea ice.

"I’ve this gut feeling that within ten years from now we’ll know for certain whether we’re losing sea ice long term or whether it’s coming back.
"If it doesn’t come back it shows we are in serious trouble. Sea ice has a whole lot of effects on climate and it is pretty important."

Check out CNN your trusty news source

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/11/arctic.ice.cover/

The arctic ice pack is at is lowest level ever recorded now and it is still shrinking. I think it is way lower than 60-80 years ago, else Peary and Scotts stories of arctic exploration would have had stories of swim calls.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...in_article_id=468256&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

No swim calls up there in 1960,

Alright, the last picture is in February, but is the first I found of a sub at the north pole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sargo_(SSN-583)

http://www.athropolis.com/news/submarines.htm

Though, there were some naturally occurring ice free areas in 2004

1962 in August, little free water

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857805.jpg


Just some nice pictures, doesn't prove anything

 

[a_unique_person]

It would be worth asking Dr Dick what he thinks in view of the current state of the Arctic, just two years after he asked question.

 

[a_unique_person]

EG.

Using satellite data and imagery, NSIDC now estimates the Arctic ice pack covers 4.24 million square kilometers (1.63 million square miles) -- equal to just less than half the size of the United States. This figure is about 20 percent less than the previous all-time low record of 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles) set in September 2005

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/11/arctic.ice.cover/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

 

[mhaze]

Check out CNN your trusty news source

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/11/arctic.ice.cover/

The arctic ice pack is at is lowest level ever recorded now and it is still shrinking. I think it is way lower than 60-80 years ago, else Peary and Scotts stories of arctic exploration would have had stories of swim calls.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...in_article_id=468256&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

No swim calls up there in 1960,

Alright, the last picture is in February, but is the first I found of a sub at the north pole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sargo_(SSN-583)

http://www.athropolis.com/news/submarines.htm

Though, there were some naturally occurring ice free areas in 2004

1962 in August, little free water

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857805.jpg


Just some nice pictures, doesn't prove anything

I think you pay yer $20,000 and get a ride to who North Pole where you are guarenteed a swim. Its a nuclear powered vessel either a sub or icebreaker. 60-80 years ago maybe no one was sufficiently nuts to want to...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=621039530005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Atlantic ocean temperatures.

Sure looks like a cycle. Note that we could discuss what small AGW trend could possibly be overlaid on a cycle-but you can't just ignore the cycle in order to create the biggest boldest AGW number.

Going down that road, AGW does not look alarming .

 

[Geckko]

How does this fit into the equation? Apparently increased sea ice coverage in the Southern Hemisphere:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

 

[a_unique_person]

I think you pay yer $20,000 and get a ride to who North Pole where you are guarenteed a swim. Its a nuclear powered vessel either a sub or icebreaker. 60-80 years ago maybe no one was sufficiently nuts to want to...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=621039530005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Atlantic ocean temperatures.

Sure looks like a cycle. Note that we could discuss what small AGW trend could possibly be overlaid on a cycle-but you can't just ignore the cycle in order to create the biggest boldest AGW number.

Going down that road, AGW does not look alarming .

Global warming acts to jack the whole chaotic equation up a notch. You can still have your cycles, but they'll be occurring at a higher temperature.

 

[mhaze]

I get 8 with a long history, 6 of which show accelerated change.

Inkblots, then. Actual data is better.

I won't argue that more than 50% of glaciers are shrinking and that that is probably due to a warmer climate. But how do you attribute a given part of that to man made causes excluding obvious stuff like changes in land use in the vicinity. The connection to co2 is most tenuous.

 

[a_unique_person]

How does this fit into the equation? Apparently increased sea ice coverage in the Southern Hemisphere:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Good question. The Antarctic has a different climate system compared to the Arctic.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/antarctic-cooling-global-warming/

 

[mhaze]

Global warming acts to jack the whole chaotic equation up a notch. You can still have your cycles, but they'll be occurring at a higher temperature.

Thanks. That's the point I've been trying to make.

That's NOT what Mann, Hansen and the IPCC say.

 

[a_unique_person]

Inkblots, then. Actual data is better.

I won't argue that more than 50% of glaciers are shrinking and that that is probably due to a warmer climate. But how do you attribute a given part of that to man made causes excluding obvious stuff like changes in land use in the vicinity. The connection to co2 is most tenuous.

Kilimanjaro is one example of intense research.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=157

 

[a_unique_person]

Thanks. That's the point I've been trying to make.

That's NOT what Mann, Hansen and the IPCC say.

Not at all. Till now, the climate models, IIRC, could not include natural cycles into their programs due to complexity and resources. The Hadley Centre in GB now claims to be the first model to try to do just that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6939347.stm

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Then just to spice it up, raise the temperature in the room after they have started to melt, and see if that causes a change in the rate they melt at.

A million bucks says they won't get bigger after you raise the temperature..

( I just remembered, I don't have a million bucks. Would you settle for a case of
Fosters Special Bitter ? )

 

[CapelDodger]

No swim calls up there in 1960,

Alright, the last picture is in February, but is the first I found of a sub at the north pole.

They were keeping a low profile up there in those days. Cold War, MAD, all that stuff.

As an aside, the strategic importance of the Arctic Ocean is why there's such good data available for ice-thickness and extent since the 60's. There's nothing like being defence-related to get funding for your research, and those subs might as well be doing something while they're skulking down there.

The Southern Ocean and Antarctica are far less well-known than the Northern Atlantic and Arctic, despite the best efforts of Australians and New Zealanders. No strategic significance, doncha know. Not to the big money and populations, anyway.

 

[CapelDodger]

It would be worth asking Dr Dick what he thinks in view of the current state of the Arctic, just two years after he asked question.

It certainly would. I'm sure he'll have taken note of the accelerated loss and realised the implication. Which is that either the 60-80 year cycle is very oddly-shaped, or it's being overriden by a dominant forcing. That being AGW, to the rational and educated mind.