• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Arctic Ice Melt = Accelerating GW

The way they are referred to is snide and tart. You don't need me to tell you
What are you talking about?
If he left out the word "self-described" one would have to assume that he was the author of the description of the Arctic Council. Since they are describing themselves, he was only giving attribution. Quite nice of him I think. Should he have instead said, "They describe themselves as..."? Rather verbose, don't you think? No ad hominem there.
You must have a very thin skin if you think self-described is some sort of dirty word or something? That's not good. Let's try to keep a grip. Ok?
The only explanation for why the rise is so rapid is the anthorogenic contribution, nothing else in the models accounts for it.
Gee, I didn't know the models are now so accurate that we can rely on them with utter confidence. They all successfully model reality and agree perfectly now?
At least they can stop rewriting the models now that they have one we can put our full confidence in. When is the Nobel Prize going to be awarded?

Oh, yeah. If 1937 was the warmest in the Arctic in the last 130 years(see my 1st post) I don't see any reason to worry too much. Sounds more like natural variability to me.
They are not demonstrating AGW, that is another area of the science. They are demonstrating the warming. What part of it do you have a problem with?
From their report.
There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
Sure sounds to me like they're talking about AGW. Why else would they say that?

You haven't cited any factual errors or irrational statements in article I linked, so I guess it was a pretty good link.
 
BobK said:
What are you talking about?
If he left out the word "self-described" one would have to assume that he was the author of the description of the Arctic Council. Since they are describing themselves, he was only giving attribution. Quite nice of him I think. Should he have instead said, "They describe themselves as..."? Rather verbose, don't you think? No ad hominem there.
You must have a very thin skin if you think self-described is some sort of dirty word or something? That's not good. Let's try to keep a grip. Ok?


It's a put down. Not one of the 'in your face' type we use here, but a put down nonetheless.



Gee, I didn't know the models are now so accurate that we can rely on them with utter confidence. They all successfully model reality and agree perfectly now?
At least they can stop rewriting the models now that they have one we can put our full confidence in. When is the Nobel Prize going to be awarded?


The models are getting more and more accurate all the time. The mechanisms of the atmosphere are well understood, and they do validate them, and use accepted methods of validating them, eg, running them over periods of time with known data.

As I quoted near the start of this thread, a model form 20 years ago accurately predicted where Australia would wind up now. Droughts in all the major population centres. More rain in uninhabited areas, but Melbourne, where I live, is implementing permanent water restictions.



Oh, yeah. If 1937 was the warmest in the Arctic in the last 130 years(see my 1st post) I don't see any reason to worry too much. Sounds more like natural variability to me.


Maybe it does, you are entitled to your opinion. The scientists are following standard scientific methods to reach other conclusions.



From their report.
Sure sounds to me like they're talking about AGW. Why else would they say that?


Yes, they refer to it, but they aren't proving it.



You haven't cited any factual errors or irrational statements in article I linked, so I guess it was a pretty good link.

Like the other article, it quibbles on a few points, and ignores others. Pretty well globally, glaciers are in retreat, for example. The snow line of Mt Everest is retreating. Permafrost, that has not been thawed in many thousands of years, is melting.
 
a_unique_person said:
It's a put down. Not one of the 'in your face' type we use here, but a put down nonetheless.

So it's acceptable for you to sling blatant ad-homs in this thread, but something you allege to be a "put down" (which I simply do not see) in Taylor's rebuttal to the ACIA arbitrarily dismisses the data examined therein?

If you take issue with his conclusions, please examine the data and referenced works, then offer legitimate criticisms. Point out methodological errors or inconsistencies which you feel should be addressed. Offer something of substance instead of tapdancing.

It would behoove you to abide by the same criteria you demand from others.
 
Wolverine said:
So it's acceptable for you to sling blatant ad-homs in this thread, but something you allege to be a "put down" (which I simply do not see) in Taylor's rebuttal to the ACIA arbitrarily dismisses the data examined therein?

If you take issue with his conclusions, please examine the data and referenced works, then offer legitimate criticisms. Point out methodological errors or inconsistencies which you feel should be addressed. Offer something of substance instead of tapdancing.

It would behoove you to abide by the same criteria you demand from others.

It seems to be the JREF way, I'm just along for the ride. I was referring to this scientist using ad-homs in his rebuttal. hardly the sign of an objective thinker, from a site that has an upfront agenda against GW.
 
From the Oregon fantasy-file cited by BobK:
Chylek, et al (2004) analyzed Greenland air temperatures over the last 100 years. At coastal stations, "summer temperatures, which are most relevant to Greenland ice sheet melting rates, do not show any persistent increase during the last fifty years."
Summer temperatures are relevant. Where melting is concerned the most relevant summer temperatures are not those of the coast, but of the interior, where most of the ice is. But we are given the results at "coastal stations".

Coastal temperatures are strongly influenced by sea temperatures. Off Greenland, sea temperatures are mostly determined by the Gulf Stream, not air temperatures near Greenland. Another influence is Greenland meltwater, from the interior and from ice-flow into the ocean. As we all know, ice at 0C melts to water at 0C (taking up latent heat at the sime time), so this is very cold, fresh water which meets the warm but salty water of the ocean. The result is a layer of cold fresher water over the warmer saltier water from the south, and thus colder air temperatures over coastal Greenland. So the cooling at coastal stations is an indicator of increased melting in Greenland, indicating warmer conditions in Greenland as a whole. And it's a very big whole (even on a Peter's Projection).

In the article it's left to the reader to draw this conclusion. To the casual observer it appears that these figures actually indicate a cooling trend in Greenland, not a warming one. And no direct lie is told. This is what you get from faith-based propaganda sites.
 
In the highest elevations of Greenland's ice sheet, "the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2°C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987."

I don't claim to be an expert on this stuff. Here's a portion you skipped from the Chylek info that might be relevant.

That sounds to me like interior temperature. What do you think?
 
BobK said:
I don't claim to be an expert on this stuff. Here's a portion you skipped from the Chylek info that might be relevant.

That sounds to me like interior temperature. What do you think?

Exactly. The cherry picking going on here is outrageous. GW says that some areas will get cooler, even as the rest grow hotter. Just picking on area out of a larger one isn't an argument. And using this data isn't necessarily science.

The report covers the whole arctic area, and you are presenting one persons figures for one area.

Every time I ask my friend about all this, he just laughs, and wonders who the idiots are who go on about this. If you do a google search, there is a whole internet of conservatives who feed of this stuff, because it tells them what they want to hear.

I don't want to hear that AGW is happening, I just hear it from the authorities that seem to represent the current state of science. A scientist who chooses to write for a site that puts its economic agenda ahead of science makes me highly suscpicious. That is not who science works.
 
from this site, which seems to typify the deniers

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.htm

Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming
Where We Stand on the Issue

C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.

A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history.

The science has advanced since this was written, in 1998. Including the anthropogenic input is the only way to explain what is happening, and it is a significant input.

Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are a boon to the biosphere. In lieu of global warming, a little of which would in all probability be good for the planet, where do the above considerations leave us? Simply with the biospheric benefits that come from the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment: enhanced plant growth, increased plant water use efficiency, greater food production for both people and animals, plus a host of other biological benefits too numerous to describe in this short statement.

And these benefits are not mere predictions. They are real. Already, in fact, they are evident in long-term tree-ring records, which reveal a history of increasing forest growth rates that have closely paralleled the progression of the Industrial Revolution. They can also be seen in the slow but inexorable spreading of woody plants into areas where only grasses grew before. In fact, the atmosphere itself bears witness to the increasing prowess of the entire biosphere in the yearly expanding amplitude of the its seasonal CO2 cycle. This oscillatory "breath of the biosphere" - its inhalation of CO2, produced by spring and summer terrestrial plant growth, and its exhalation of CO2, produced by fall and winter biomass decomposition - has been documented to be growing greater and greater each year in response to the ever-increasing growth stimulation provided by the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.

Atmospheric CO2 enrichment brings growth and prosperity to man and nature alike. This, then, is what we truly believe will be the result of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content: a reinvigorated biosphere characteristic of those prior periods of earth's history when the air's CO2 concentration was much higher than it is today, coupled with a climate not much different from that of the present. Are we right? Only time will tell. But one thing is certain now: there is much more real-world evidence for the encouraging scenario we paint here than for the doom-and-gloom predictions of apocalypse that are preached by those who blindly follow the manifestly less-than-adequate prognostications of imperfect climate models.

Our policy prescription relative to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is thus to leave well enough alone and let nature and humanity take their inextricably intertwined course. All indications are that both will be well served by the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2.

Supporting references. This brief was written in 1998. References to the voluminous scientific literature that supports the many factual statements of this position paper may be found on our website - www.co2science.org - which we update weekly.

The only problem is that the amount of CO2 is rising at a rate that is not natural. It will be partly taken up by increased plant growth, but, and I have checked on this, the rate at which it can be taken up is being factored into the models already. The planet cannot take it up as quickly as it is being released, and the rising levels demonstrate this, especially as land is still being cleared at a phenomenal rate.
 
a_unique_person said:
The only problem is that the amount of CO2 is rising at a rate that is not natural. It will be partly taken up by increased plant growth, but, and I have checked on this, the rate at which it can be taken up is being factored into the models already. The planet cannot take it up as quickly as it is being released, and the rising levels demonstrate this, especially as land is still being cleared at a phenomenal rate.

If you have "checked on this" do you have any references for the rest of us?
 
a_unique_person said:
The only problem is that the amount of CO2 is rising at a rate that is not natural. It will be partly taken up by increased plant growth ...
Which can only (even in the best case) reach a new equilibrium at a higher CO2 level and a warmer planet, of course. The CO2 uptake response to higher CO2 concentrations in existing vegetation is very small; the real difference comes in the expansion of the growth-line towards the poles. In practical terms, this is limited by the Arctic Ocean not being tree-friendly and Antarctica much the same. Unless the plankton do heroic work we can leave biology out of the equation, for all practical purposes.
 
BobK said:
I don't claim to be an expert on this stuff. Here's a portion you skipped from the Chylek info that might be relevant.

That sounds to me like interior temperature. What do you think?

In the highest elevations of Greenland's ice sheet, "the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2°C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987
A fall of 3.75C in 17 years is quite something, and seems at odds with the increased melting. But of course these figures are for summer temperatures, and as we all know greenhouse warming has its main effect during winter. Why are summer rather than annual temperatures presented?

As the ACIA report mentions:

A few places, such as parts of Canada and Greenland surrounding the Labrador Sea, have not yet experienced the widespread warming of the rest of the region, and have actually cooled. Regional variations in future climate change are also projected.

And:
The area of the Greenland Ice Sheet that experiences some melting has increased about 16% from 1979 to 2002. the area of melting in 2002 broke all records.
 
From the self-described state climatologist of Oregon:
Oddly, the ACIA does a very poor job of documenting its sources of information. For such an ambitious document (it is hundreds of pages long, with stunning graphics and a very professional appearance) its science consists primarily of blanket statements without any sort of reference or citation.
From the ACIA report:
The ACIA is a comprehensively researched, fully referenced and internationally reviewed evaluation of Arctic climate change and its impacts for the region and for the world. It has involved an international effort by hundreds of scientists over four years, and also includes the special knowledge of indigenous peoples.
Perhaps he just didn't notice.
 
He manages the Oregon Climate Service, the state repository of weather and climate information, and supervises a staff of ten.

Mr. Taylor is past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. He is a member of the American Meteorological Society and has received certification as a Certified Consulting Meteorologist by the Society. He also has a California Lifetime Community College Credential. He has published over 200 reports, symposium articles, and journal articles.

His expertise is in the weather, meteorology, etc. He is not involved in the research of the GW. I would doubt his expertise.
 
CapelDodger said:
Unless the plankton do heroic work we can leave biology out of the equation, for all practical purposes.

Not quite.

Plankton are microscopic free-floating marine organisms. Globally they are of vital importance.
>snip>
Phyto-plankton (tiny plants) are behind 50% of the Earth's photosynthesis. And, along with zoo-plankton (tiny animals), they form the base of the whole ocean food web.
>snip<

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3879841.stm
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
Not quite.

Plankton are microscopic free-floating marine organisms. Globally they are of vital importance.
>snip>
Phyto-plankton (tiny plants) are behind 50% of the Earth's photosynthesis. And, along with zoo-plankton (tiny animals), they form the base of the whole ocean food web.
>snip<

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3879841.stm
My bad. Plankton are of heroic proportions, and each in its little way does its bit just by getting through the day and casting its seed on the waters every night. What I meant was that the complex planktonic ecology is going to see many minuses as well as pluses from new conditions. There are more limitations than temperature.
 
I find it interesting that the two possibly MOST sailent points don't seem to have been raised. ( I skimmed the thread..)

The first being that the fact is global warming is a natural climatological trend that has occurred on a cyclical basis for the known lifetime of modern earth. ( a few 100s of thousands of years).
The concern stems from the ACCELERATED change in a few short years.

The second point is that there is a provable direct link between man made pollution and climate change. It has nothing to do with " Greenhouse gasses" But is carbon black....soot laid down since the early 1800's from burning coal that circulated and wound up on both the Antarctic and the northern ice cap. The soot absorbed has changed the "albedo" of the earth. That is the reflective index of the earth's ability to reflect sunlight. The higher the reflectivity the lower the global temperature. Absorption means higher temperature. It is a well understood and documented phenom.

The climate on a global scale has such enormous inertia that it is hard to attribute the changes we see to events post 1945 (freon, CO2 , ect.). There is an accelerated change none the less, arguments about causality seem to pale in the light of factual data. We must find the mechanism and if we need to correct behavior, acomplish it.
 

Back
Top Bottom