Researchers at the University of Illinois are reporting a sharp increase in the total amount of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere. Recent observations show the total ice area now at 16.26 million square kilometers -- the highest amount seen since record-keeping began, and up more than 8% over the past five years.
This corresponds with research conducted last year by the Cambridge Centre for Polar Observations, which found Antarctica ice sheets to be thickening and gaining mass. Global temperature data shows mainland Antarctica (all but the small Antarctic Peninsula) has cooled by up to 1F during the last fifty years, countering a warming trend that began at least as early as 1850. David Bromwich, professor of atmospheric sciences at Ohio State University, says, "It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now".
As Antarctica sets historic highs, the Northern ice cap, however, has been on a steady decline, and this year reached a record low. According to the report, "The [Northern Hemisphere] sea ice area is currently at its historic minimum (2.92 million
sq. km) representing a 27% drop in sea ice coverage compared to the
previous (2005) record NH ice minimum."
Luckily, Arctic ice does not rest upon bedrock, and thus its melting does not affect world sea levels. However, the discrepancy is a difficult to explain by anthropogenic global warming models, which predict both polar regions to warm substantially.
The warming Arctic is expected to eventually open up gas and oil resources in the region, as well as a new sea trade route, saving up to 8,000 miles on cargo shipping between Asia and the rest of the world.
quote: Everyone knows the sun has nothing to do with global warming. It's over 90 million miles away... how on earth could it possibly affect the Earth's temperatures?
quote: There is a lag between the response and the forcing. Typically, one expects lags which depend on the time scale of the variations. The 11-year solar cycle gives rise to a 2-year lag in the 0.1°C observed temperature variations. Similarly, the response to the 20th century warming should be delayed by typically a decade. Climatologists know this very well (the IPCC report, for example, includes simulation results for the many decades long response to a "step function" in the forcing, and climatologists talk about "global warming commitment" that even if the CO2 would stabilize, or even decrease, we should expect to see the "committed warming", e.g., Science 307), but [Lockwood and Fröhlich] are not climatologists ...This is not unlike a very well-known effect from everyday life. Even though the maximum radiation from the Sun is received near noon time, the maximum daily temperatures are obtained a few hours later in the afternoon. If we were to correlate the falling radiation between say noon and 3 pm (or between June 21 and July-August), to the increasing temperature over the same period, we would conclude that solar radiation causes cooling! This is exactly what [Lockwood and Fröhlich] are doing.
quote: “I am one of the authors of the Royal Society global warming paper that you say is simple and fundamentally flawed (Comment, July 15). Simple? The idea was to present a straightforward demonstration, without recourse to complex climate models. Flawed? None of the three academic referees the paper was subjected to found any flaws.
quote: The direct response to L&F has not been in any journal
quote: So to claim there's been no peer-reviewed refutation of Lockwood's position is wholly inaccurate.
quote: But now you're trying to obfuscate the issue by using semantics, which is something I'd expect from someone who ... well, just isn't you [cough]TomZ[cough].
quote: Oh sorry, forgot something: [cough]asshole[/cough].
quote: Fourth, L&F only examined only a twenty year period. Researchers Scafetta and West recently examined a much longer 400-year period of data
quote: Cycle 22 is not a good comparison due to the unusually short time it took to reach its maximum.http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cyclcomp.html
quote: The fact remains that a rather large body of work supports the solar flux-driven ion cloud interaction model, whereas only a single paper has attempted to refute it.
quote: Some scientists find strong correlation coefficients between cloud measurements and cosmic ray flux, while others find no relationship whatsoever; virtually all scientists working on this issue are hampered by the relatively short time period with accurate cloud and cosmic ray flux records . In an attempt to extend the period of record, we assembled surface and radiosonde data for the United States over the period 1957–1996 along with sunspot records which are known to be strongly, but inversely, related to cosmic ray flux. We also assembled cloud cover data and cosmic ray measurements over a reduced time period. We found that periods with low sunspot number (times with high cosmic ray flux) are associated with significantly higher dew point depressions, a higher diurnal temperature range, and less cloud cover. Our results do not support suggestions of increased cloud cover during periods of high cosmic ray flux. http://www.springerlink.com/content/f4ktvdk5jfp03j...
quote: Seriously, why not pull up a few of these and judge for yourself?
quote: However, if we do nothing and you're wrong, the outcome is quite dire. Are you willing to accept those consequences?
quote: Data is obtained via a proxy of some sort, an alternate reading that shows a high correlation to the event you're interested in.
quote: And, before you attack the proxy method as flawed, remember it applies doubly to the research you cite.
quote: According the British Met office, the warmest year on record is 1998, and global temperates have been flat, or even descending slightly since then.
quote: It's 'Balling', and I'm familiar with their work.
quote: Of course. Because the "consequence" -- even if the alarmists are correct -- are not nearly as high as the costs of crippling the global economy to block CO2 emissions. Kyoto alone is estimated to cost over a trillion dollars, and its total impact is in the neighborhood of 0.07 degrees. That's assuming AGW is correct, of course, otherwise its net effect is zero. How many lives can we save worldwide with a trillion dollars, if we spent it on something useful?
quote: "When huge sections of land go from green to brown, the planet loses its ability to regulate temperature leading to greater climate extremes. Hotter summer cooler winters, etc. Caused by man."
quote: When huge sections of land go from green to brown, the planet loses its ability to regulate temperature leading to greater climate extremes. Hotter summer cooler winters, etc. Caused by man.
quote: Still, mankind's behavior will have consequences (and most of them are bad).
quote: Define bad. I believe the rat and cockroach population finds most of our behavior to be fantastic.
quote: btw: where can I find out how the rating system works?
quote: The warming Arctic is expected to eventually open up gas and oil resources in the region, as well as a new sea trade route, saving up to 8,000 miles on cargo shipping between Asia and the rest of the world.
quote: Mr. Asher seems to focus almost solely on the alleged benefits of rising water/surface temperatures while largely neglecting any negative consequences of global warming.
quote: you mean survival of the most brutal...
quote: Ignoring these notions will have profound effects on this planet, as well as humans and other species alike.
quote: I would argue that 30 years is too short of a sample size to conclude anything relating to human impact
quote: The only truth I can draw from any of this is: Any study can conclude just about anything given the right sample size and the right organization funding the study.
quote: Very true, but the same can be said for all the people filling the media with the global warming propaganda. That sword you are swinging is razor sharp on both sides, do be careful.
quote: I do believe that the media has created a frenzy around Global Warming. I respect your efforts to counteract the alarmist, attention grabbing headlines that blanket the media.
quote: I would argue that 30 years is too short of a sample size to conclude anything relating to human impact.
quote: As others have stated, you will recognize that 30 years of data on the antartic ice is too little, but because we have a little over a humans life time worth of data we can characterize a constantly changing world.
quote: The warming Arctic is expected to eventually open up gas and oil resources in the region