• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

New Anti-global warming debate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pixelsmith
  • Start date Start date

Free episodes:

You do know that Jonah's gonna say "Industrial Revolution", right?

That would make absolutely no sense at all. Even AGW Alarmists scientists don't say CO2 is, in and of itself, the cause of disaster. They say that CO2 causes a heat buildup, and THAT causes the disaster. The fact remains that it was warmer during those other times and no disaster happened. Heat is the real culprit here. The Industrial Revolution resulted in more CO2, but the Roman Period was still hotter than today. Look at this graph.

slide_0001.jpg


Here you see the AGW predictions. First notice that with NO feedback you get less than 2 degrees warming. It's only when you count predicted feedback that you get larger increases, but when you extrapolate backwards your faced with observed warming in the past that mirrors nicely with a simple increase. If feedback were happening, you'd expect to see the same curve going backwards, but you do not. Once again, the Alarmists' predictions that all hell is going to break loose aren't supported. The models they have suggested are NOT predictive.

Here's another example showing how AGW models are not predictive. This is Hansen's (NASA guy) show before Congress "proving" we were all gonna die. He claimed his model was predictive and his extrapolation showed a massive temperature increase. just look!

habseb1_0001.jpg


Sure looks like his model was accurate, but look what actually happened:

hansen2_0001.jpg


Hansen's predictions were way off. Further, there was MORE CO2 in the atmosphere than he had predicted, yet the Earth behaved on a negative feedback model, not a positive one. Yet members of Congress were convinced that 'we have to do something!" by Hansen's insistence that the 'science is settled.'

P.S. I'm not able to control the sizes here, so apologies. These graphs are from Warren Meyer's 'Don't Panic' presentation at climate-skeptic.com
 
Read it and weep...LOL

Penn State Panel Clears ‘Climategate’ Prof of Three Claims

February 04, 2010 01:48 PM ET | Jeff Greer | Permanent Link | Print

While the entire Penn State community was consumed with college football's National Signing Day, another big campus story took a new twist. And we aren't talking about Joe Pa's up-for-auction glasses. A Penn State inquiry panel investigating "Climategate" professor Michael Mann dismissed three of the four claims against him, the Daily Collegian reports. After reviewing more than 1,000 E-mails, the panel said in a 10-page report that there was no substance to claims that the meteorology prof falsified or supressed data, intended to delete or conceal information, or misused privileged or confidential information. The panel could not, however, make a definitive finding on the fourth allegation, which said that Mann undermined public trust in science. Further investigation into that claim will come.

"I am very pleased that, after a thorough review, the independent Penn State committee found no evidence to support any of the allegations against me," Mann wrote in a statement on Wednesday. "This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong."

The announcement of the investigation in November prompted a wild response from both sides of the climate change debate. At this point, it's hard to tell if Penn State's findings will change anyone's opinion of Mann or the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England.

Five Penn State faculty members from a variety of departments will investigate the fourth claim against Mann, and the investigation is expected to take about four months.

"We have full faith in their ability to undertake this task, knowing the enormous importance that scholarly activity and research play in their own lives—at Penn State and in the world," Penn State spokeswoman Lisa Powers said. "They understand the responsibilities of scientists, have impeccable credentials, have no conflict in this issue, and are well respected."

http://www.usnews.com/education/blo...-clears-climategate-prof-of-three-claims.html

smile_often.jpg
 
Even AGW Alarmists scientists don't say CO2 is, in and of itself, the cause of disaster. They say that CO2 causes a heat buildup, and THAT causes the disaster. The fact remains that it was warmer during those other times and no disaster happened. Heat is the real culprit here. The Industrial Revolution resulted in more CO2, but the Roman Period was still hotter than today.

Really? I've never heard them put it that way.

They tend to say that more CO2 in the atmosphere traps more heat which in turn warms up the oceans, releasing more CO2 (or reducing it's ability to absorb CO2 - I don't care to remember which way round) and so the cycle continues until the whole planet is baked to crisp. They also often say that the Industrial Revolution pumped far more CO2 into the atmosphere than there's ever been and therefore the current upward trend is likely to be much worse the previous warming periods.

No need for a point-by-point rebuttal, I'm just generalising on my experience of discussions with the AGW zealots.

---------- Post added at 10:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 PM ----------

Penn State Panel Clears ‘Climategate’ Prof of Three Claims

Well, I have eyes and I can read and the leaked emails tell me a different story. This just confirms to me how corrupt the whole thing is.
 
This just in. Literally hot off the presses a few minutes ago: Africagate, yet another IPCC fumble. I know the 'gate' thing is overused, but that's what they're calling these things, so to use other terminology in avoidance would only serve to confuse the issue. But first, a recap.

As you no doubt know, even if you a fervent believer in runaway global warming ala Al Gore, AGW has ben having a hard time lately. It all started when an anonymous commenter posted a single sentence on Steven MacIntyre's 'Climate Skeptic' blog: "A miracle just happened!" with a reference to a location where one could find the now infamous multi-megabyte file called FOIA2009.ZIP. (I have a copy. Want it? Let me know). In it we have a couple thousand emails from the CRU East Anglia. Though widely deemed irrelevant, thy show a concerted effort on the part of climate scientists to freeze out skeptics, influence the peer review process, hide and/or delete data, and many examples of fear, uncertainity, and doubt surrounding their studies. I've posted an extensive analysis of thee above. No need to repeat.

But this single zipped file ALSO has the computer programs in use to analyze the data, and a huge file from a programmer assigned to fix the mess these files represent, often saying he 'has no idea' what he is doing, revealing buggy code, irretrievable data losses and a genuinely embarrassing state of affairs. This entire bunch of files in total has come to be known as 'Climategate.' However, even the most delighted skeptics would have to admit that the files, in and of themselves, don't disprove AGW. They show a mess, certainly. They show some outright cheating and even indictable offenses, but they don;t actually disprove anything.

But as it turns out, Climategate is just the tip of the iceberg. In subsequent weeks we have had:

Glacierate: where the head of the IPCC was told the claim that Himalayan glaciers were going to be gone by 2035 was completely senseless balderdash (and which he received over a million dollars to 'research' the issue known to be false) wll, Pachauri withheld this information on the eve of Copenhagen, called those pointing it out 'voodoo science,' then claimed he didn't know about it until later, and we have...

Amazongate: where the prestigious IPCC cited a couple of greenie independent journalists to claim the Amazon rain Forest was going to disappear by 40% and turn into an arid savannah. Note: These journalists didn't even claim that; they were talking about logging activity, but he "we only use peer reviewed data" IPCC used them, along with a lot of other questionable sources (See: The IPCC ClimateQuotes.com for a list) This includes an article on how to clean your boots properly when walking on Antarctica, and we have...

Seagate: (I would have used Floodgate, but oh, well,) where the IPCC claimed over half of the Netherlands is below sea level and would be threatened if seal levels rose. It's more like 20%, and enough to send the Dutch Prime Minister into hysterics over the claim....and now (drum roll, please)......

Africagate: where the IPCC claimed rain-fed agriculture in Africa would decline 50% because of AGW, a claim that was fabricated from whole cloth and totally without foundation. See the whole sad mess and a complete explanation here: EU Referendum THIS is the issue I alluded to a couple of posts above when I said something was afoot. A shorter article is here: Top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility - Times Online

Bear in mind that here is a mountain of evidence against AGW, much of it posted here, but the revelations of these 'gates' attack the IPCC directly and show the hysterical claims of runaway AGW are based NOT on 'peer reviewed' work, but on sometimes deliberate fabrications by a body that has itself heretofore managed to avoid direct controversy. In other words, the enemy is at the gates of the IPCC, and the walls are cracking down one after another.
 
Arctic sea ice vanishing faster than 'our most pessimistic models': researcher

By Bruce Owen, Winnipeg Free PressFebruary 6, 2010

WINNIPEG — Sea ice in Canada’s fragile Arctic is melting faster than anyone expected, the lead investigator in Canada’s largest climate-change study yet said Friday — raising the possibility that the Arctic could, in a worst-case scenario, be ice-free in about three years. University of Manitoba Prof. David Barber, the lead investigator of the Circumpolar Flaw Lead System Study, said the rapid decay of thick Arctic Sea ice highlights the rapid pace of climate change in the North and foreshadows what will come in the South.

“We’re seeing it happen more quickly than what our models thought would happen,” Barber said at a student symposium on climate change in Winnipeg. “It’s happening much faster than our most pessimistic models suggested.”

Barber and more than 300 scientists from around the globe spent last winter on the Canadian Coast Guard research ship Amundsen in the Arctic, studying the impact of climate change. It was the first time a research vessel remained mobile in open water during the winter season. The Canadian government provided $156 million in funding for the study. Barber said the melting sea ice can be compared to disappearing rain forests.

“If you go into the rain forest and you cut down all the trees, the ecosystem in that rain forest will collapse,” he said. “If you go to the Arctic and you remove all the sea ice or if you remove the timing of the sea ice, the system will change.”

That change will include more invasive species moving up from the South and species that live in the Far North having to adapt to a different environment. The occurrence of Arctic cyclones is also on the rise, which contributes to ice breakup. Barber said before the expedition that climate scientists were working under the theory that climate change would happen much more slowly. It was assumed the Arctic would be ice-free in the winter by 2100.

“We expect it will happen much faster than that, much earlier than that, somewhere between 2013 and 2030 are our estimates right now. So it’s much faster than what we would expect to happen. That can be said for southern climates as well.”

The impact means more variability in the Earth’s climate — warm trends are warmer and cold trends are colder. Dr. John Hanesiak, an associate professor at the University of Manitoba’s Centre For Earth Observation Science, said that due to human actions and the release of greenhouse gases, those extremes may include more frequent summer droughts and more spring floods in southern climates.

“We know that we’re part of the problem,” he said. “There’s no question about that. The models are telling us that now.”

Scot Nickels, senior science adviser with Canada’s national Inuit organization Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, said the impact of climate change has been significant on people who live in the Far North. It’s changing their way of life as wildlife adapt and traditional hunting patterns change. “There’s also the need for economic development,” Nickels said, adding mineral and oil exploration has also increased with changing weather. “It’s a real balancing act that has to be done. As we know in the South, that’s not an easy thing. It’s the same up north.”

Dr. Steve Ferguson, a research scientist with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, said the thinning ice and warming of the water brings species from the south and the potential for the spread of disease. “There’s phocine distemper that in Europe has wiped out a huge number of harbour seals,” he said.“There’s now evidence some of that disease is in some of the Arctic seals, so there’s concern that as things warm move further north we can see some epidemics. “Even killer whales, for example . . . we now know they move into the Arctic, but they come from quite far south, so again, they’re in contact with other kinds of whale species in southern areas and they’re bringing something potentially up north to the Arctic.”

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Arctic+vanishing+fast+researcher/2532081/story.html
 
Here's an interesting 'follow the money' article on AGW. These sums are ironic in view of AGW proponents pointing out climate skeptics' 'ties to big oil' based on $2000 honorariums and such. Anywhere else Pachauri's blatant conflicts of interest regarding AGW would be shouted from the rooftops, but, as he claims, the IPCC has 'no rules' governing such behavior, so Parachuri can keep his hand in the cookie jar.

Climate makes money move in mysterious ways - Telegraph

 
Is Antarctica melting?

newsPage-242.jpg

01.12.10 By Erik Conway
Historian, NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory
<!-- <sup>1</sup>
<sup>ii</sup>
-->

The Antarctic ice sheet. East Antarctica is much higher in elevation than West Antarctica.
There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent’s giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper<sup>1</sup>, which states there has been less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as “proof” that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly<sup>2-4</sup> is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveals that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting. Two-thirds of Antarctica is a high, cold desert. Known as East Antarctica, this section has an average altitude of about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles), higher than the American Colorado Plateau. There is a continent about the size of Australia underneath all this ice; the ice sheet sitting on top averages at a little over 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) thick. If all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meters (197 feet). But little, if any, surface warming is occurring over East Antarctica. Radar- and laser-based satellite data show a little mass loss at the edges of East Antarctica, which is being partly offset by accumulation of snow in the interior, although a very recent result from the NASA/German Aerospace Center’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) suggests that since 2006 there has been more ice loss from East Antarctica than previously thought<sup>5</sup>. Overall, not much is going on in East Antarctica — yet.

A frozen Hawaii


West Antarctica is a series of islands covered by ice. Think of it as a frozen Hawaii, with penguins.
West Antarctica is very different. Instead of a single continent, it is a series of islands covered by ice — think of it as a frozen Hawaii, with penguins. Because it’s a group of islands, much of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS, in jargon) is actually sitting on the floor of the Southern Ocean, not on dry land. Parts of it are more than 1.7 kilometers (1 mile) below sea level. Pine Island is the largest of these islands and the largest ice stream in West Antarctica is called Pine Island Glacier. The WAIS, if it melted completely, would raise sea level by 5 to 7 meters (16 to 23 feet). And the Pine Island Glacier would contribute about 10 percent of that. Since the early 1990s, European and Canadian satellites have been collecting radar data from West Antarctica. These radar data can reveal ice motion and, by the late 1990s, there was enough data for scientists to measure the annual motion of the Pine Island Glacier. Using radar information collected between 1992 and 1996, oceanographer Eric Rignot, based at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, found that the Pine Island Glacier’s “grounding line” — the line between the glacier’s floating section and the part of the glacier that rests on the sea floor — had retreated rapidly towards the land. That meant that the glacier was losing mass. He attributed the retreat to the warming waters around West Antarctica<sup>6</sup>. But with only a few years of data, he couldn’t say whether the retreat was a temporary, natural anomaly or a longer-term trend from global warming.

Rignot’s paper surprised many people. JPL scientist Ron Kwok saw it as demonstrating that “the old idea that glaciers move really slowly isn’t true any more.” One result was that a lot more people started to use the radar data to examine much more of Antarctica. A major review published in 2009 found that Rignot’s Pine Island Glacier finding hadn’t been a fluke<sup>7</sup>: a large majority of the marine glaciers of the Antarctic Peninsula were retreating, and their retreat was speeding up. Last summer, a British group revisited the Pine Island Glacier finding and found that its rate of retreat had quadrupled between 1995 and 2006<sup>8</sup>.

How the ice shelf crumbles
The retreat of West Antarctica’s glaciers is being accelerated by ice shelf collapse. Ice shelves are the part of a glacier that extends past the grounding line towards the ocean; they are the most vulnerable to warming seas. A longstanding theory in glaciology is that these ice shelves tend to buttress (support the end wall of) glaciers, with their mass slowing the ice movement towards the sea. This was confirmed by the spectacular collapse of the Rhode Island-sized Larsen B shelf along the eastern edge of the Antarctic Peninsula in 2002. The disintegration, which was caught on camera by NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) imaging instruments on board its Terra and Aqua satellites, was dramatic: it took just three weeks to crumble a 12,000-year old ice shelf. Over the next few years, satellite radar data showed that some of the ice streams flowing behind Larsen B had accelerated significantly, while others, still supported by smaller ice shelves, had not<sup>9</sup>. This dynamic process of ice flowing downhill to the sea is what enables Antarctica to continue losing mass even as surface melting declines.

Michael Schodlok, a JPL scientist who models the way ice shelves and the ocean interact, says melting of the underside of the shelf is a pre-requisite to these collapses. Thinning of the ice shelf reduces its buttressing effect on the glacier behind it, allowing glacier flow to speed up. The thinner shelf is also more likely to crack. In the summer, meltwater ponds on the surface can drain into the cracks. Since liquid water is denser than solid ice, enough meltwater on the surface can open the cracks up deeper down into the ice, leading to disintegration of the shelf. The oceans surrounding Antarctica have been warming<sup>10</sup>, so Schodlok doesn’t doubt that the ice shelves are being undermined by warmer water being brought up from the depths. But he admits that it hasn’t been proven rigorously, because satellites can’t measure underneath the ice.

Glaciologist Robert Bindschadler of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center intends to show just that. He’s leading an expedition scheduled to start in 2011 to drill through the Pine Island Glacier and place an automated buoy into the water below it. According to Bindschadler, Pine Island Glacier “is the place to go because that is where the changes are the largest. If we want to understand how the ocean is impacting the ice sheet, go to where it’s hitting the ice sheet with a sledgehammer, not with a little tack hammer.”

Meanwhile, measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass (Figure 1)<sup>11</sup>. Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate. “The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time,” she says. And she points out that it isn’t just the Grace data that show accelerating loss; the radar data does, too. “It isn’t just one type of measurement. It’s a series of independent measurements that are giving the same results, which makes it more robust.”

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=242&rn=news.xml&rst=2444
 
Is Antarctica melting?

Cabansag.jpg

01.12.10 By Erik Conway
Historian, NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory
<!-- <sup>1</sup>
<sup>ii</sup>
-->

The Antarctic ice sheet. East Antarctica is much higher in elevation than West Antarctica.
There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent’s giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper<sup>1</sup>, which states there has been less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as “proof” that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly<sup>2-4</sup> is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveals that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting. Two-thirds of Antarctica is a high, cold desert. Known as East Antarctica, this section has an average altitude of about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles), higher than the American Colorado Plateau. There is a continent about the size of Australia underneath all this ice; the ice sheet sitting on top averages at a little over 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) thick. If all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meters (197 feet). But little, if any, surface warming is occurring over East Antarctica. Radar- and laser-based satellite data show a little mass loss at the edges of East Antarctica, which is being partly offset by accumulation of snow in the interior, although a very recent result from the NASA/German Aerospace Center’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) suggests that since 2006 there has been more ice loss from East Antarctica than previously thought<sup>5</sup>. Overall, not much is going on in East Antarctica — yet.

A frozen Hawaii


West Antarctica is a series of islands covered by ice. Think of it as a frozen Hawaii, with penguins.
West Antarctica is very different. Instead of a single continent, it is a series of islands covered by ice — think of it as a frozen Hawaii, with penguins. Because it’s a group of islands, much of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS, in jargon) is actually sitting on the floor of the Southern Ocean, not on dry land. Parts of it are more than 1.7 kilometers (1 mile) below sea level. Pine Island is the largest of these islands and the largest ice stream in West Antarctica is called Pine Island Glacier. The WAIS, if it melted completely, would raise sea level by 5 to 7 meters (16 to 23 feet). And the Pine Island Glacier would contribute about 10 percent of that. Since the early 1990s, European and Canadian satellites have been collecting radar data from West Antarctica. These radar data can reveal ice motion and, by the late 1990s, there was enough data for scientists to measure the annual motion of the Pine Island Glacier. Using radar information collected between 1992 and 1996, oceanographer Eric Rignot, based at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, found that the Pine Island Glacier’s “grounding line” — the line between the glacier’s floating section and the part of the glacier that rests on the sea floor — had retreated rapidly towards the land. That meant that the glacier was losing mass. He attributed the retreat to the warming waters around West Antarctica<sup>6</sup>. But with only a few years of data, he couldn’t say whether the retreat was a temporary, natural anomaly or a longer-term trend from global warming.

Rignot’s paper surprised many people. JPL scientist Ron Kwok saw it as demonstrating that “the old idea that glaciers move really slowly isn’t true any more.” One result was that a lot more people started to use the radar data to examine much more of Antarctica. A major review published in 2009 found that Rignot’s Pine Island Glacier finding hadn’t been a fluke<sup>7</sup>: a large majority of the marine glaciers of the Antarctic Peninsula were retreating, and their retreat was speeding up. Last summer, a British group revisited the Pine Island Glacier finding and found that its rate of retreat had quadrupled between 1995 and 2006<sup>8</sup>.

How the ice shelf crumbles
The retreat of West Antarctica’s glaciers is being accelerated by ice shelf collapse. Ice shelves are the part of a glacier that extends past the grounding line towards the ocean; they are the most vulnerable to warming seas. A longstanding theory in glaciology is that these ice shelves tend to buttress (support the end wall of) glaciers, with their mass slowing the ice movement towards the sea. This was confirmed by the spectacular collapse of the Rhode Island-sized Larsen B shelf along the eastern edge of the Antarctic Peninsula in 2002. The disintegration, which was caught on camera by NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) imaging instruments on board its Terra and Aqua satellites, was dramatic: it took just three weeks to crumble a 12,000-year old ice shelf. Over the next few years, satellite radar data showed that some of the ice streams flowing behind Larsen B had accelerated significantly, while others, still supported by smaller ice shelves, had not<sup>9</sup>. This dynamic process of ice flowing downhill to the sea is what enables Antarctica to continue losing mass even as surface melting declines.

Michael Schodlok, a JPL scientist who models the way ice shelves and the ocean interact, says melting of the underside of the shelf is a pre-requisite to these collapses. Thinning of the ice shelf reduces its buttressing effect on the glacier behind it, allowing glacier flow to speed up. The thinner shelf is also more likely to crack. In the summer, meltwater ponds on the surface can drain into the cracks. Since liquid water is denser than solid ice, enough meltwater on the surface can open the cracks up deeper down into the ice, leading to disintegration of the shelf. The oceans surrounding Antarctica have been warming<sup>10</sup>, so Schodlok doesn’t doubt that the ice shelves are being undermined by warmer water being brought up from the depths. But he admits that it hasn’t been proven rigorously, because satellites can’t measure underneath the ice.

Glaciologist Robert Bindschadler of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center intends to show just that. He’s leading an expedition scheduled to start in 2011 to drill through the Pine Island Glacier and place an automated buoy into the water below it. According to Bindschadler, Pine Island Glacier “is the place to go because that is where the changes are the largest. If we want to understand how the ocean is impacting the ice sheet, go to where it’s hitting the ice sheet with a sledgehammer, not with a little tack hammer.”

Meanwhile, measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass (Figure 1)<sup>11</sup>. Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate. “The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time,” she says. And she points out that it isn’t just the Grace data that show accelerating loss; the radar data does, too. “It isn’t just one type of measurement. It’s a series of independent measurements that are giving the same results, which makes it more robust.”

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=242&rn=news.xml&rst=2444

Jonah was there a point to this post? Do you really think the poles are never supposed to fluctuate in ice content? They grow and shrink all the time.
btw - NASA has been implicated in utilizing manipulated data recently... can we still trust them?
 
Tibet temperature 'highest since records began' say Chinese climatologists

Average Tibet temperatures in 2009 increased 1.5C, with rises noted in both winter and summer at 29 monitoring sites

Jonathan Watts, Asia environment correspondent, and agencies
Guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 February 2010 13.31 GMT
tibet-boy-new-001.jpg

Temperatures in Tibet soared last year to the highest level since records began. Photograph: Dan Chung

The roof of the world is heating up, according to a report today that said temperatures in Tibet soared last year to the highest level since records began. Adding to the fierce international debate about the impact of climate change on the Himalayas, the state-run China Daily noted that the average temperature in Tibet in 2009 was 5.9C, 1.5 degrees higher than "normal". It did not define "normal", but Chinese climatologists have previously drawn comparisons with an average over several decades.

"Average temperatures recorded at 29 observatories reached record highs," Zhang Hezhen, a Lhasa resident and specialist at the regional weather bureau told the newspaper. "It's high time for all of us to take global warming seriously and think about what we can do to save the earth." The average rose in both summer and winter, which is unusual as most of mountain warming has previously been observed in the winter. A monitoring station at the foot of Mt Everest also recorded a new record high temperature of 25.8 degrees, which was 0.7C warmer than the previous peak. Amid the worst drought in decades, Lhasa experienced its first temperature above 30C since records began in 1961, the report said. Rainfall in Tibet fell to its lowest level in 39 years, affecting nearly 30,000 hectares of cropland - an eighth of Tibet's arable land.

Xiao Ziniu, director general of the National Climate Centre told The Guardian last year that the Tibetan Plateau was particularly sensitive to climate change due to the impact on fragile grasslands, permafrost and glaciers. Tibet's annual climate report was released at a time of growing international controversy about signs of global warming in the mountain region, where the average altitude is over 4,000m. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was forced to retract a forecast that glaciers in the Himalayas could disappear by 2035. A study by Indian scientists last year found that the rate of glacial retreat was considerably slower than previously estimated. Chinese experts are debating the subject and have proposed cross-border studies, but most published research in the country suggests glaciers are shrinking, raising the risk of flash floods in the short-term and drought in the more distant future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/05/tibet-warming-china
 
Tibet temperature 'highest since records began' say Chinese climatologists

Average Tibet temperatures in 2009 increased 1.5C, with rises noted in both winter and summer at 29 monitoring sites

Jonathan Watts, Asia environment correspondent, and agencies
Guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 February 2010 13.31 GMT
tibet-boy-new-001.jpg

Temperatures in Tibet soared last year to the highest level since records began. Photograph: Dan Chung

The roof of the world is heating up, according to a report today that said temperatures in Tibet soared last year to the highest level since records began. Adding to the fierce international debate about the impact of climate change on the Himalayas, the state-run China Daily noted that the average temperature in Tibet in 2009 was 5.9C, 1.5 degrees higher than "normal". It did not define "normal", but Chinese climatologists have previously drawn comparisons with an average over several decades.

"Average temperatures recorded at 29 observatories reached record highs," Zhang Hezhen, a Lhasa resident and specialist at the regional weather bureau told the newspaper. "It's high time for all of us to take global warming seriously and think about what we can do to save the earth." The average rose in both summer and winter, which is unusual as most of mountain warming has previously been observed in the winter. A monitoring station at the foot of Mt Everest also recorded a new record high temperature of 25.8 degrees, which was 0.7C warmer than the previous peak. Amid the worst drought in decades, Lhasa experienced its first temperature above 30C since records began in 1961, the report said. Rainfall in Tibet fell to its lowest level in 39 years, affecting nearly 30,000 hectares of cropland - an eighth of Tibet's arable land.

Xiao Ziniu, director general of the National Climate Centre told The Guardian last year that the Tibetan Plateau was particularly sensitive to climate change due to the impact on fragile grasslands, permafrost and glaciers. Tibet's annual climate report was released at a time of growing international controversy about signs of global warming in the mountain region, where the average altitude is over 4,000m. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was forced to retract a forecast that glaciers in the Himalayas could disappear by 2035. A study by Indian scientists last year found that the rate of glacial retreat was considerably slower than previously estimated. Chinese experts are debating the subject and have proposed cross-border studies, but most published research in the country suggests glaciers are shrinking, raising the risk of flash floods in the short-term and drought in the more distant future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/05/tibet-warming-china

Again... is there a point to this post?
Are temps supposed to stay the same on an ever changing planet?
What do you plan to do about that continental drift problem?
 
Arctic permafrost leaking methane at record levels, figures show

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame

David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 January 2010 19.00 GMT
Article history

Arctic-tundra-in-Siberia-001.jpg


Permafrost in Siberia. Methane emissions from the Arctic permafrost increased by 31% from 2003-07, figures show. Photograph: Francis Latreille/Corbis

Scientists have recorded a massive spike in the amount of a powerful greenhouse gas seeping from Arctic permafrost, in a discovery that highlights the risks of a dangerous climate tipping point. Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.

The discovery follows a string of reports from the region in recent years that previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leading some scientists to describe melting permafrost as a ticking time bomb that could overwhelm efforts to tackle climate change.

They fear the warming caused by increased methane emissions will itself release yet more methane and lock the region into a destructive cycle that forces temperatures to rise faster than predicted. Paul Palmer, a scientist at Edinburgh University who worked on the new study, said: "High latitude wetlands are currently only a small source of methane but for these emissions to increase by a third in just five years is very significant. It shows that even a relatively small amount of warming can cause a large increase in the amount of methane emissions."

Global warming is occuring twice as fast in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth. Some regions have already warmed by 2.5C, and temperatures there are projected to increase by more than 10C by 2100 if carbon emissions continue to rise at current rates. Palmer said: "This study does not show the Arctic has passed a tipping point, but it should open people's eyes. It shows there is a positive feedback and that higher temperatures bring higher emissions and faster warming." The change in the Arctic is enough to explain a recent increase in global methane levels in the atmosphere, he said. Global levels have risen steadily since 2007, after a decade or so holding steady.

The new study, published in the journal Science, shows that methane emissions from the Arctic increased by 31% from 2003-07. The increase represents about 1m extra tonnes of methane each year. Palmer cautioned that the five-year increase was too short to call a definitive trend. The findings are part of a wider study of methane emissions from global wetlands, such as paddy fields, marshes and bogs. To identify where methane was released, the researchers combined methane levels in the atmosphere with surface temperature changes. They did not measure methane emissions directly, but used satellite measurements of variations in groundwater depth, which alter the way bacteria break down organic matter to release or consume methane. They found that just over half of all methane emissions came from the tropics, with some 20m tonnes released from the Amazon river basin each year, and 26m tonnes from the Congo basin. Rice paddy fields across China and south and south-east Asia produced just under one-third of global methane, some 33m tonnes. Just 2% of global methane comes from Arctic latitudes, the study found, though the region showed the largest increases. The 31% rise in methane emissions there from 2003-07 was enough to help lift the global average increase to 7%. Palmer said: "Our study reinforces the idea that satellites can pinpoint changes in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from a particular place on earth. This opens the door to quantifying greenhouse gas emissions made from a variety of natural and man-made sources." Palmer said it was a "disgrace" that so few satellites were launched to monitor levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. He said it was unclear whether the team would be able to continue the methane monitoring in future. The pair of satellites used to analyse water, known as Grace, are already over their expected mission life time, while a European version launched last year, called Goce, is scheduled to fly for less than two years.

The new study follows repeated warnings that even modest levels of global warming could trigger huge increases in methane release from permafrost. Phillipe Ciais, a researcher with the Laboratory for Climate Sciences and the Environment in Gif-sur-Yvette, France, told a scientific meeting in Copenhagen last March that billions of tonnes could be released by just a 2C average global rise.
More on methane

While carbon dioxide gets most of the attention in the global warming debate, methane is pound-for-pound a more potent greenhouse gas, capable of trapping some 20 times more heat than CO2. Although methane is present in much lower quantities in the atmosphere, its potency makes it responsible for about one-fifth of man-made warming. The gas is found in natural gas deposits and is generated naturally by bacteria that break down organic matter, such as in the guts of farm animal. About two-thirds of global methane comes from man-made sources, and levels have more than doubled since the industrial revolution. Unlike carbon dioxide, methane lasts only a decade or so in the atmosphere, which has led some experts to call for greater attention to curbs on its production. Reductions in methane emissions could bring faster results in the fight against climate change, they say.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane
 
Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen...

So what? How much are you getting paid to post this crap? $0.50 per post?

Why can't you just post the link instead of the whole article?

I've seen this type of behaviour before on forums. This 'discussion' ended quite a while ago and yet you continue to post articles supporting your 'argument'. It's really perplexing - what are trying to achieve with this behaviour? Is it just trolling to provoke a response?

Whatever it is, it's not very productive and ultimately polluting the forum, using bandwidth and database resource. Where are the moderators?
 
Hi folks,

G .W. is a natural occurrence which has a little aid from the Humans and Cows!
Tax Grab for the PTB!


Peace & Best wishes to all the servicemen & women oversees please come home safe,
blowfish
 
It's settled: Global warming science is sloppy | Washington Examiner

---------- Post added at 07:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 AM ----------

Dear pixelsmith,


You do not have to re-post the entire text of Jonah's prating to respond.

Just "Reply To Thread" or use "Quote Selected Text" and quote sparingly if any, please.

Seeing Jonah's drivel even once is more than enough for all of us, I'm sure.


Sincerely,

Bent Faith

---------- Post added at 07:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 AM ----------

For some reason, this video made me think of Jonah.

 
For some reason, this video made me think of Jonah.

What, you mean repeating stuff parrot-fashion with no real understanding of the content? Yeah.

I watched a BBC doc yesterday about how the internet is undermining Government-defined 'reality' and what they are doing to combat it. For example, China employ about 300,000 people to police discussion forums and respond to 'damaging' opinions with a Government-approved response - they each get paid 50 Chinese cents (the equivalent of about $0.07) for every successful post, hence the nickname '50 Cent Army'. (BBC Article / Wikipedia Article)

It's also a fairly well known fact that the major political parties over here in the UK have departments of people writing to newspapers and phoning radio shows, pretending to be the general public in support of Government policy.

I know it's obvious to say 'Orwellian' (apologies if your eyes are rolling), but that is the world we now live in.
 
It's settled: Global warming science is sloppy | Washington Examiner

---------- Post added at 07:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 AM ----------

Dear pixelsmith,


You do not have to re-post the entire text of Jonah's prating to respond.

Just "Reply To Thread" or use "Quote Selected Text" and quote sparingly if any, please.

Seeing Jonah's drivel even once is more than enough for all of us, I'm sure.


Sincerely,

Bent Faith

---------- Post added at 07:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 AM ----------

For some reason, this video made me think of Jonah.


Dear Bent,
I was not aware of that forum rule. Thanks for the heads up.
BTW- you do not have to re read the drivel every time time it is re posted. ;-)
 
Back
Top