backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 58 comment(s) - last by Brian H.. on Jul 18 at 6:54 PM

Surface melt from Greenland glaciers. Previous studies have suggested this melt could destabilize the Greenland ice sheet.
Longest-term study yet of the continent says nothing to fear.

For global warming activists, Greenland is the most potent weapon of fear in their arsenal. With Antarctica cooling, and the floating ice at the North Pole incapable of affecting sea levels, Greenland alone can contribute the vast amounts of melted ice capable of flooding cities. Greenland -- which began gradually melting at the end of the last ice age some 20,000 years ago -- continues to slowly shed ice today.

The only problem? It's melting far too slowly. At its current rate, Greenland will take thousands of years to significantly affect sea level.

Fears have still arisen, however, over claims that melting rate is being accelerated by man-made global warming. Some past studies have indicated this may be happening, by measuring the rate at which glaciers have slid towards the sea, sped by melt water beneath lubricating the process.

However, a new study has concluded that Greenland's rate of melting is not accelerating, and in fact may actually be decreasing when viewed over a longer timescale. The study, which used 17 years of satellite measurements to reach its conclusions, determined the overall yearly movement of ice to the sea is not increasing, and is actually decreasing in some places.

The researchers noted the speedup observed by past studies was strictly a short-term transient phenomena, occurring primarily in the summer months.

The study, which is appearing in the Friday edition of the journal Science, was led by Dutch Researcher Roderik S.W. van de Wal, of the Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research of the University of Utrecht.

Claiming losses in coastal property values, a group of Spanish homeowners and investors last month threatened Greenpeace with legal action over exaggerated claims of sea level rise.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
good!
By omnicronx on 7/4/2008 11:23:49 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
and the floating ice at the North Pole incapable of affecting sea levels
I always love pulling this out when my global warning activist friends try spreading their lies! I have even had people tell me that this is untrue, so I gladly took a cup and an icecube with water already in it and told them to wait for it to melt.

As for the article, finally some proof to shut up the non believers. I am not saying increased c02 emissions are not raising the worlds temperatures, but I have always had the position that a run away green house effect of any kind is pretty much impossible at the rate we put toxins into the atmosphere.




RE: good!
By 4play on 7/4/2008 12:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
How is this proof? It's just one study out of thousands. There are studies to suggest the opposite too.


RE: good!
By omnicronx on 7/4/2008 12:17:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
How is this proof? It's just one study out of thousands. There are studies to suggest the opposite too.
You are absolutely right, proof is the wrong word here, but as the article states, all the studies suggesting the opposite were short term, and were probably only taking the summer months into account, whereas this report was based on 17 years of satellite imagery. In other words, this is report seems as though it is more scientifically backed than any other report out there.


RE: good!
By jbartabas on 7/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: good!
By porkpie on 7/4/2008 2:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It certainly does not oppose the IPCC projections
The IPCC prediction is for less than a 1/3 meter rise per century. Nothing scary about that. The author is right, the claims of cities flooding aren't based on IPCC predictions, they're based on silly unproven feedback effects that this study disproves.


RE: good!
By jbartabas on 7/4/2008 2:33:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The author is right, the claims of cities flooding aren't based on IPCC predictions, they're based on silly unproven feedback effects that this study disproves.


Well, you obviously have missed half of the title:
quote:
Greenland Ice Melt Not Increasing


So the author is far from being right.


RE: good!
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2008 3:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
> "So the author is far from being right"

As my prior post indicates, ice loss is defined by much more than simple surface melt effects. This new research refutes the idea that dynamical ice loss is accelerating, and indicates it may actually be on the decline.

I have, however, updated the article headline to better reflect the actual situation.


RE: good!
By jbartabas on 7/4/2008 4:14:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I have, however, updated the article headline to better reflect the actual situation.


Well, as I answered in the other thread, if you look at their Fig. 2 that reports the surface mass balance other 17 years (increasing negative values), I am not sure that you can state "Greenland Ice Loss Not Increasing" (i.e. new title) either.

Also, it may be just a wording issue, but you may want to check this paragraph:
quote:
Fears have still arisen, however, over claims that melting rate is being accelerated by man-made global warming . Some past studies have indicated this may be happening, by measuring the rate at which glaciers have slid towards the sea, sped by melt water beneath lubricating the process.


suggests to me that if one shows (like this study does) that glaciers are not sliding faster towards the sea, then one shows that the claim that man-made global warming accelerates the melting rate is wrong.

GW increases melting rate whatever the dynamical response is. What the other studies have supposedly showed by measuring increased ice velocities is that there is an additional ice loss by indirect effect (i.e. feedback). What this study shows is that there is no additional increase in melting and ice loss due to the feedback from ice dynamic. But they clearly talked about increased ablation likely due to climate warming.


RE: good!
By grenableu on 7/5/2008 12:47:36 PM , Rating: 5
Watch Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" or any documentary or news story on global warming and what do you see? A little melting on top? No, you see huge chunks of ice breaking off into the ocean.

That's exactly why this research is a big slap in the face for those people. When you prove that ice movement is slowing down, it cuts the legs out from the whole argument.


RE: good!
By Flunk on 7/4/2008 12:32:09 PM , Rating: 4
Please present your "thousands" of conflicting reports. I love it when you guys make sweeping claims in your rebuttals to other sweeping claims.


RE: good!
By 4play on 7/4/2008 12:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
I never claimed that the thousands of studies were conflicting with this. Is it unreasonable to suggest that there have been thousands of studies done? Studies are done all the time, especially on things that are linked to climate change. Just look at the past week of J.Mick Vs M.Asher.

PS. wheres the link to this study?


RE: good!
By 4play on 7/4/2008 12:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
I never claimed that the thousands of studies were conflicting with this. Is it unreasonable to suggest that there have been thousands of studies done? Studies are done all the time, especially on things that are linked to climate change. Just look at the past week of J.Mick Vs M.Asher.

PS. wheres the link to this study?


RE: good!
By Andy35W on 7/5/2008 2:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
PS. wheres the link to this study?


Yes, that would be good.

Can we have the link please.

Meanwhile, at the "northpole" webcam

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg

anyone fancy a dip?


RE: good!
By phxfreddy on 7/5/2008 3:44:23 AM , Rating: 1
What this is proof of is that all the MMGW alarmists are lying willfully making up stories out of whole cloth.

...you appear to think WE need to prove MMGW is untrue....WE DO NOT....its up to you to prove MMGW is true before we divert entire course of our industrialized society because of the lunatic idea that the sky is falling or the globe is warming!

By the way evidence rolls in from all quarters that MMGW is a willful hoax aimed at grabbing power and money. Its funny to see the true believers squirm. They had and have no idea how utterly uncool they are ! ..what squares.....these scientific no nothings were so desperate for some sort of community in our highly mechanized society that they bit on this one !!! and bit hard...hook / line / sinker !


RE: good!
By Polynikes on 7/8/2008 12:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, so how the hell can anyone in their right mind believe there is concrete evidence on either side? Who can you trust?

It's either GW is made up, and the people against it have to work extra hard to make people believe the opposite, or it's real and everyone saying it's not is lying. How do you know?


RE: good!
By Akazar on 7/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: good!
By Smilin on 7/8/2008 3:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
What about the South pole? Does it miraculously stay frozen while the North pole melts?

Good thinking there genius.


RE: good!
By porkpie on 7/8/2008 4:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
The South Pole has been getting colder lately genius. There's more ice there now than there was 50 years ago.


How many things Masher can get wrong?
By jbartabas on 7/4/2008 1:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Title: So Much For Flooded Cities: Greenland Ice Melt Not Increasing.
The only problem? [...]It's melting far too slowly.[...]
Fears have still arisen, however, over claims that melting rate is being accelerated by man-made global warming. [...]However, a new study has concluded that Greenland's rate of melting is not accelerating, and in fact may actually be decreasing when viewed over a longer timescale. The study, which used 17 years of satellite measurements to reach its conclusions, determined the overall yearly movement of ice to the sea is not increasing, and is actually decreasing in some places.


The study does not address the ice melt (i.e. melt water), but the ice flux (i.e. ice velocity).

Greenland looses mass by ice flux and water runoff (i.e. melt water), and nothing in the present study suggests that the latter is "slow". The mass balance is actually reported increasingly negative in the literature and this study reports the same thing for the area they studied (they explicitly report increasing ablation).

This study shows that the impact of the increase in meltwater production on the ice flux (i.e. the ice sliding in the ocean) is not supported by their data.

That's the only point addressed here: is the increase in melt water inducing an increase in ice flux (as suspected by some) by increasing lubrication under glaciers. Or as stated by the authors: is there a positive feedback between melt rate and ice velocity?

What this study shows is that this lubricating effect (due to increased melt water) is short term (weeks), hence seasonal and of zero impact on long term trends.

A few excerpts of the paper:
quote:

Over a longer period of 17 years, annual ice velocities have decreased slightly, which suggests that the englacial hydraulic system adjusts constantly to the variable meltwater input , which results in a more or less constant ice flux over the years. [...] Clearly, we have to distinguish between mass loss via outlet glaciers and mass loss via increased ablation in the ice marginal zone. Both are affected by increased meltwater production , but the mechanics are different.
[...] The longest continuous time series of surface mass balance observations is that of the K-transect (Fig. 1), starting in 1991. [...] The ablation rate in the area is significantly [...] increasing over time. [...] ice velocities [...] averaging all stake measurements at all sites for individual years indicates a small but significant decrease of 10% in the annual average velocity over 17 years, which can possibly be attributed to a small decrease in the surface slope or ice thickness. Annually averaged velocities are completely decorrelated to the annual mass balance, whereas a correlation might be expected if there is a strong feedback between velocities and melt rate , leading to enhanced flow, surface lowering, and increased melt rates.


That's all they show: no correlation between meting rate and ice velocity. Hence an increase in melting does not lead to an increase in ice flux, that in turns does not increase melting rate.

Their conclusion is:
quote:
Longer observational records with high temporal resolution in other ablation areas of the ice sheet are necessary to test the importance of the positive-feedback mechanism between melt rates and ice velocities. At present, we cannot conclude that this feedback is important. We do see a significant increase of the ablation rate (Fig. 2), which is likely related to climate warming , but it remains to be seen if this is likely to be amplified by increasing annual ice velocities.




RE: How many things Masher can get wrong?
By 4play on 7/4/2008 1:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
if thats true then that makes this study quite boring :p


By jbartabas on 7/4/2008 1:40:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
if thats true then that makes this study quite boring :p


Well, that's science, what where you expecting ! :P

Actually it's not so boring: if the feedback suggested by other studies had been confirmed, the projections for Greenland melt could largely increase (nobody knows really by how much because modeling accurately the ice sheet dynamic instability is a nightmare).

So until now, the approach was to say XX melting at the horizon of year 2xxx, but it could be worse because some potential positive feedbacks could largely increase that estimate. Well, now it seems one can take one potential feedback off the list ... at least for now (that's my way to keep the field existing by introducing some suspense :P)


RE: How many things Masher can get wrong?
By porkpie on 7/4/2008 2:12:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That's all they show: no correlation between meting rate and ice velocity
There's a LOT more to it than that. "Ice velocity" means glaciers sliding into the sea. Yes it's not meltwater (which is ice melting BEFORE it hits the ocean) but when a glacier slides off Greenland, it raises sea level.

People have been saying for years that Greenland was a big problem even though meltwater measurements were low, because ice velocity would increase, and destablize large pieces of the ice sheet. This study says it isn't happening. It's a big slap in the face for the AGW crowd, no matter how people try to spin it.


RE: How many things Masher can get wrong?
By jbartabas on 7/4/2008 2:43:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
People have been saying for years that Greenland was a big problem even though meltwater measurements were low, because ice velocity would increase, and destablize large pieces of the ice sheet. This study says it isn't happening. It's a big slap in the face for the AGW crowd, no matter how people try to spin it.


Your opinion on what "people" say, and the fact that the "AGW" crowd get slapped, kicked or dismembered is totally irrelevant to my comment.

The fact is that M. Asher's article contains factual errors that have obviously led some readers to erroneous conclusions. Now if you're OK with that because in the end the message still allows you to score the other team that gets "slapped", enjoy.


RE: How many things Masher can get wrong?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/4/2008 3:13:00 PM , Rating: 3
> "The fact is that M. Asher's article contains factual errors..."

I'm sorry, Jbartabas, you've made some excellent posts in the past, but this time you've missed the forest for the trees. The rate at which Greenland is losing ice is defined as ice melt plus dynamical ice loss.

It is the dynamical loss (e.g. ice breaking off and sliding into the sea) that is commonly invoked to justify theories of catastrophic effects. This new research clearly demonstrates that dynamic ice loss is not increasing, and is in fact decreasing at least in some areas.

The article is correct as written. The research indeed does not deal with surface melt measurements, but it most certainly sticks a fork in the belief that Greenland is experiencing accelerating dynamic ice loss effects. And without dynamic ice loss, Greenland isn't going to flood any cities anytime in the next thousand years.


RE: How many things Masher can get wrong?
By jbartabas on 7/4/2008 3:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sorry, Jbartabas, you've made some excellent posts in the past, but this time you've missed the forest for the trees. The rate at which Greenland is losing ice is defined as ice melt plus dynamical ice loss.


Then I would refer you to their Fig. 2 that reports the surface mass balance for the last 17 years. Actually it is the specific surface mass balance as it is for the region they study only. Like the one for the whole Greenland, it is negative and it is increasing.

quote:
It is the dynamical loss (e.g. ice breaking off and sliding into the sea) that is commonly invoked to justify theories of catastrophic effects. This new research clearly demonstrates that dynamic ice loss is not increasing, and is in fact decreasing at least in some areas.


I do agree. That's what this study shows: the catastrophic sudden sea level rise induced by major ice sheet instability is not supported by their data.

However they do confirm that ice is melting at increasing speed.


RE: How many things Masher can get wrong?
By onelittleindian on 7/5/2008 11:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However they do confirm that ice is melting at increasing speed
Wrong. NewScientist has an excellent writeup on this piece:
quote:
Since 1991, the western edge of Greenland's ice sheet has actually slowed its ocean-bound progress by 10%, say the team, who have studied the longest available record of ice and water flow in the region.

Many fear a positive feedback loop, whereby the accelerating flow will bring more ice down out of the mountains and toward warmer temperatures near sea level. Roderik Van De Waal and colleagues at Utrecht University in the Netherlands now say there is no evidence this will happen
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/...


RE: How many things Masher can get wrong?
By jbartabas on 7/6/2008 9:36:08 AM , Rating: 2
Me:
quote:
However they do confirm that ice is melting at increasing speed


You:
quote:
Wrong.


Well, I repeat: the focus of the study is to report the changes in ice flow as well stated by your reference.

The study also shows increasing mass loss (Fig. 2), and explicitly state that the ablation in increasing (in the body and in the conclusion).

If you can provide counter arguments regarding their Fig. 2 and the sentence I already emphasized in their conclusion, please be my guest. Otherwise you really do not need to provide 50 additional references in the news that will just repeat what we all already agreed on regarding the ice flow.


RE: How many things Masher can get wrong?
By onelittleindian on 7/7/2008 9:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you can provide counter arguments regarding their Fig. 2 and the sentence I already emphasized in their conclusion, please be my guest
You are misrepresenting Fig. 2. Ablation isn't the only source of ice loss, it's not even the largest. Ablation increasing does not equal increased melting of Greenland.


RE: How many things Masher can get wrong?
By jbartabas on 7/8/2008 3:06:55 PM , Rating: 2
Fig. 2 reports the local mass balance . It becomes increasingly negative during the 17 years. The authors themselves make the connection with an increasing ablation in the text. It happens that this conclusion is in line with other studies for the whole Greenland mass balance (i.e. the Greenland total mass balance is increasingly negative).


RE: How many things Masher can get wrong?
By porkpie on 7/8/2008 4:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
Since when does an "increasing negative balance" (a decrease) correspond to an acceleration of a trend? I think you have your terms mixed up there.


By jbartabas on 7/10/2008 11:12:30 AM , Rating: 2
If one talks about the cumulative mass balance, you're right. An increasingly negative cumulative balance could well result from a constant (or even decreasing) trend in melting.

On the contrary, the annual mass balance is the difference between annual accumulation and loss (by ablation & calving).

A negative constant mass balance would mean a loss at a constant volume every year. An increasingly negative mass balance means a loss which is larger year after year.

Maybe I misunderstood your point, or I wasn't clear in the first place. Does it make more sense to you now or not?


With out Greenland, what's left?
By DPercy on 7/8/2008 12:26:12 AM , Rating: 2
The green house crowd had the dream that the Antarctic Ice sheet was melting away. With the ever increasing winter sea ice around the continent, and, satellite imagery showing a net increase in glacial content, they had to back away and refocus on Greenland. This past winter ice reached the west coast of Iceland for the first time in 40 or more years. Baffin Bay/Davis Strait ice was way above average and persisted unusually long into the spring. Now that the truth is seeping thru about the glaciers not melting, all, they have left is the North Pole. It would be nice if they could continue their research with alittle more style.
I find the idea that the CO2 increase follows the temperature change pretty interesting. The rate of increase of CO2, as measured at that place in Hawaii, has decreased, possibly due to the colder oceans. The climate models still have a long ways to go. This 10 year cooling is quite interesting too. According to the climate models each year should be warmer than the previous, This proves them to be practically useless. The models predict 2010 should be at least 1 degree warmer than 1998. Lets make a wager on that!

-Dave Percy Meteorologist




RE: With out Greenland, what's left?
By Andy35W on 7/9/2008 1:51:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This past winter ice reached the west coast of Iceland for the first time in 40 or more years. Baffin Bay/Davis Strait ice was way above average and persisted unusually long into the spring


What you have done here is fallen into the trap of qualitative example to paint a picture rather than use quantitative facts. As you can see from this

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im...

total artic ice sheet extent this year is well below the average.

It actually snowed in my garden at Easter this year, but it's not relevant to total ice extent ;)


RE: With out Greenland, what's left?
By DPercy on 7/9/2008 4:36:25 AM , Rating: 2
You don’t need a quantitative observation to see there is an increase from one year to the next. I use to work with a forecaster that tried to always make a Holton kind of quantitative weather forecast. He was wrong so often they finally put him into management. I never said anything about averages. Your reply suggests I should have. Well, I had you to do it for me with your graph, which I‘LL assume is correct. It's below average, not "way below average". The information you provided backs up my point…July 5, 2008 Arctic ice coverage is greater than 2007. I did mention the only area it was less and why (Mackenzie Bay and the Beaufort Sea.) In late February to early March the Bering Sea ice edge reached its greatest southern extent ever analyzed and also hung around in late May and June at latitudes not seen since the early 1970s. Why? The PDO changed back to the cold phase beginning in late 2005. That’s the area I analyze and forecast sea ice for, so I’m as familiar with it as anyone. Back to your average…29 years of data is nothing to get excited about but it’s better than 10 years. The North Atlantic area (Greenland, Barents and Norwegian Seas) are the reason things are still below average. Who knows what next winter will bring, or, this fall. Just don’t lay any linear extrapolations on us. Also, stay away from the climate models, they’re a bust.

I almost forgot...the same processes that lead to more ice in the Arctic were also responsible for snow in your garden. A logical, experienced, qualitative picture.

Dave Percy
Meteorologist
Anchorage, AK


RE: With out Greenland, what's left?
By Andy35W on 7/9/2008 9:00:24 AM , Rating: 2
>You don’t need a quantitative observation to see there is an increase from one year to the next.

But there wasn't an increase from one year to the next, the graph I showed that the sea extent over winter was less than the average for the last few years.

>Well, I had you to do it for me with your graph, which I‘LL assume is correct

I'm surprised you are not familiar with this graph as it comes from the NSIDC site.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

> The information you provided backs up my point…July 5, 2008 Arctic ice coverage is greater than 2007

Nobody has been talking about summer until now, you were talking abouut the winter period which I commented on. As you can see the ice extent was lower than the average, hence why it is important to use quantaties and not some regional specific qualative assessment.

> Back to your average…29 years of data is nothing to get excited about but it’s better than 10 years

How about 100 years?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea...

This year the maximum was about 14.4million ^2 which is a lot less than the average over 100 years.

So your comments on ice concentrations in one or two places painted a picture which does not tally without the overall situation.


RE: With out Greenland, what's left?
By DPercy on 7/9/2008 7:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have the time right now to look but, if that Link you provided has 100 years of sea ice analysis across the Arctic, then a big thank you.

Yes, I sort of got my blog replies mixed up. I noticed that after I made the post.


RE: With out Greenland, what's left?
By DPercy on 7/12/2008 3:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
I would really like to see the data they use for the first 60 years of that 100 year graph. Is it a guess, estimation or are they using the temperature curve as a guide?

-Dave Percy


RE: With out Greenland, what's left?
By jbartabas on 7/10/2008 3:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to the climate models each year should be warmer than the previous, This proves them to be practically useless.


Neither the climate models or the GW theory itself project that each year should be warmer than the previous. You must be confusing the ensemble average with the model projections themselves: the former is obviously smoother than the latter, that definitely account for an inter-annual variability larger than the long term trend (i.e. years colder than the previous are frequent).


RE: With out Greenland, what's left?
By DPercy on 7/12/2008 3:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, you know that and I know that but that’s not the way it’s being conveyed to the world. I have heard interviews on CNN, and other stations, of climate experts or their followers, that say the effect of ever increasing CO2 cannot be over powered by the natural changes of climate. They imply, and some actually out right say, the following year will always be warmer than the previous. The rate of temperature increase is the only value that could be altered. The year to year value will always be positive, never negative or zero, such as been observed for 10 years. Therefore, people in general come away with the notion that each year will be warmer than the last. Otherwise how will they be frightened?
It has not been proven or disproven whether CO2 changes follow or lead temperature changes. If the climate models forecast this recent cooling, it was covered up well. Aren’t the models still in their infancy? And need more work?

Dave Percy, Meteorologist


RE: With out Greenland, what's left?
By jbartabas on 7/13/2008 10:50:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, you know that and I know that but that’s not the way it’s being conveyed to the world. I have heard interviews on CNN, and other stations, of climate experts or their followers, that say the effect of ever increasing CO2 cannot be over powered by the natural changes of climate. They imply, and some actually out right say, the following year will always be warmer than the previous. The rate of temperature increase is the only value that could be altered. The year to year value will always be positive, never negative or zero, such as been observed for 10 years.


Well, I think you underestimate the natural variability yourself. The year to year change being negative or zero does not concern only the last 10 years. For the last 150 years, about every other year has been colder than the previous one. A simple look at the temperature record would show you that, but it is easily quantified from the data.
(For the last 157 years, 77 years were colder than the previous one; For the last ~47 years (1960), 20 years were colder than the previous one).

So having a year colder than the previous one is nothing exceptional, it's actually more of a norm.

As for 'climate expert' suggesting that every year has to be warmer than the previous one, you'd have to show me what you call 'climate expert'. It does not take a climate expert to see that with a GW trend of ~ + 0.015 degC per year, natural variability can easily offset the trend at annual/pluri-annual scales. Now as far as the temperature at the end of the century is concerned, that's another story.


RE: With out Greenland, what's left?
By DPercy on 7/14/2008 4:20:39 AM , Rating: 2
I try to point out the deceptive remarks and statements flooding out of academia, the media, and government (NASA and Al Gores gang) Is Gore still a government employee? Many people think he is. Anyway, I try to make the aforementioned point and you come back with a lot of facts I never made a reference to. I’m not the one stating that each year will be warmer than the next, the above sources are. This go around with you and some of the others is like confronting the guy that just lifted my money clip. He denies it and then tries to convince me that I really wanted it stolen.
…QUOTE…
As for 'climate expert' suggesting that every year has to be warmer than the previous one, you'd have to show me what you call 'climate expert'.

I don’t call them “Climate Experts”. I call them “The Architects of Fear“.
If you or anyone else steal that from me you’ll hear from my network of attorneys.
Here’s my definition, since you asked me..A climate expert is one that tried to be a Meteorologist, but didn’t posses the gifted insight, or talent, to make it in the field. Their egos would not allow them to face the possibility of making a forecast that didn’t verify. Therefore, they went into the simpler climate field. A field where they can write source code, crunch numbers, publish falsified data, get awards for lying and collect government grants.
…QUOTE….
(For the last 157 years, 77 years were colder than the previous one; For the last ~47 years (1960), 20 years were colder than the previous one).

That’s nice. I appreciate you doing the leg work to come up with the exact numbers. I never wrote there wasn’t variability in the 1850-1998 warming trend. There certainly is variability in the 1998-2008 cooling trend.
…QUOTE…
So having a year colder than the previous one is nothing exceptional, it's actually more of a norm.

Where did I write it was exceptional and wasn’t a norm????
I reiterate, many of the GW preachers, most of whom suffer from paranoid and/or sociopathic disorders, are stating the climate models FORECAST each year to be warmer than the previous, at and increasing rate as we get closer to the point of runaway heating until Earth becomes Venus. If you deny this or try to twist what I wrote then you must not read any newspapers, magazines or watch TV news.
…QUOTE…
It does not take a climate expert to see that with a GW trend of ~ + 0.015 degC per year, natural variability can easily offset the trend at annual/pluri-annual scales.

Let me correct you, it is…
+0.015 degC/Year with and error of + or - 3 degC. I’LL go easy as say the error is + or - 2 degC. Until the trend, up or down, exceeds 2 (or 3) degC, the value of 0.015 is meaningless. Therefore, the stupid politicians are basing policy decisions on Black Magic.

...QUOTE...
Now as far as the temperature at the end of the century is concerned, that's another story.

At the end of which century?

Dave Percy
Meteorologist
Anchorage, AK


By jbartabas on 7/14/2008 2:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
blah blah blah ...

You wrote not so long ago :

quote:
The climate models still have a long ways to go. This 10 year cooling is quite interesting too. According to the climate models each year should be warmer than the previous, This proves them to be practically useless.


Now deal with it.


By wordsworm on 7/4/2008 11:57:08 AM , Rating: 1
There are a lot of glaciers around the world that've disappeared. I grew up admiring the Comox Glacier. A lot of it has disappeared over the years. Maybe if Greenland's runoff isn't accelerating, it's a sign that maybe other glaciers are also going to stop receding this year.




By omnicronx on 7/4/2008 12:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are a lot of glaciers around the world that've disappeared. I grew up admiring the Comox Glacier.
Glaciers were melting long before the earth had any man made c02 emissions, I don't see why it would stop now, unless of course we are coming to another ice age.


By OblivionMage on 7/4/2008 12:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
And we just came out of the 'little ice age', so yeah, some will melt.


By phxfreddy on 7/5/2008 3:49:51 AM , Rating: 1
The mmgw crowd is made up of NJF MSG's who are lonely and totally square. How square do you have to be to make a deal out ice melting? Especially when you are hip to how to spot lies ....MMGW is a transparent lie....LIKE PICTURE WINDOW...transparent. And you goofs who believe in it...prepare yourselves for great embarassments. For others will soon look at you for the door knocking Jehovah Witnesses you are. Quaint and backward. Except the JoHo's don't want to coerce me like you do so in reality you are LESS cool than a JoHo.


By wordsworm on 7/7/2008 5:00:45 AM , Rating: 3
Can someone translate this into English, please?


By DPercy on 7/10/2008 3:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, It's quite simple. There is a lag between warming/cooling and glacier advance/retreat. The coastal glaciers are much more unstable. The last warming began in, say 1850. Portage Glacier here in Alaska didn't start its retreat until the late 1870s and halted in 1999. Over the last couple of years some glaciers have advanced, probably due to snow loading at higher elevations, but you really have to dig to find any coverage of that.

-Dave Percy


Global Warming or not
By Hieyeck on 7/7/2008 1:58:51 AM , Rating: 3
I for one don't believe in global warming, but frankly, we should still stop all the pollution just because it smells bad. Every trip I take out to the country, I can't get enough of the fresh air.

On a note more to the point, Man-kind will hardly be able to affect the planet on any significant scale, there's just too much momentum behind everything. Ice has been melting for the past 20,000 years - OF COURSE IT'S GOING TO KEEP MELTING. A single volcanic eruption puts out more harmful toxins and carbon in a day than most nations can put out in a whole year.




RE: Global Warming or not
By 4play on 7/7/2008 1:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
I wish more sceptics had the attitude you do, but unfortunately most are just happy to claim AWG as a fraud and continue to do nothing for the environment. It is just an excuse to them.

as for:
quote:
A single volcanic eruption puts out more harmful toxins and carbon in a day than most nations can put out in a whole year.

You're probably right. When it comes to non-industrialized countries at least.


Global Warming...
By meepstone on 7/5/2008 12:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
To be honest, I dont care. The Earth will run its course. Let it be and lets stop wasting billions of dollars on this stupid crap. If these environmentalists were really worried they would be in China telling them to stop not us.

Lets all go and watch our favorite tv shows and sports.




By JustTom on 7/7/2008 1:35:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Longest-term study yet of the continent says nothing to fear.


First pluto is demoted from being a planet now Greenland is promoted to continent status.




By Tanclearas on 7/7/2008 11:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
It would seem that you are far more interested in posting articles that justify your love of big engines than articles that are of interest to people looking for technology news.

I know that some (and perhaps you) will justify your articles as "Science and Technology", but it truly is nothing more than a thinly disguised method of pushing your own beliefs. I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with affects/existence of global warming. I am not a scientist. I am simply saying that you should pick up your soapbox and move on.




Please stop!
By rsmech on 7/8/2008 1:46:25 AM , Rating: 2
I can't stand this anymore! You really must stop providing articles based off historical data & get with the times. Computer modeling is where it is at. You cannot prove or disprove the future so just believe us. Historical data is so absolute, we don't want absolutes. We want computer models predicting 120 F sprinkled with pixie dust.

I swear the GW crowd is going to win by wearing me out with their nonsense. I can't stand reading those syrupy, slushy, emotional articles, blogs. Please stop, my hair is almost gone. I dread the article that may come or the post as a response to this article. Please make it stop.




Question on timescales
By Andy35W on 7/8/2008 12:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's stated

quote:
However, a new study has concluded that Greenland's rate of melting is not accelerating, and in fact may actually be decreasing when viewed over a longer timescale. The study, which used 17 years of satellite measurements


How long is that timescale when they are using satellite data which only appeared recently? I just don't understand how they can make a judgement on this. Ok ice cores and fossil types etc but satellite data giving evidence of long term decreasing? They only give short term past, never mind future.

Mind you I have not read the article so it's probably my miscomprehension. Feel free to point my nose in the right direction.




See for yourself
By DPercy on 7/10/2008 3:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
Use this link to track daily ice at both poles. You don't need to rely on articles or media for this information any longer. Its easy to use.

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/Analyses.html#nh...

-Dave Percy




Bring It On!
By Brian H on 7/18/2008 6:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
The Medieval Warm Period was a boom time for man. The Little Ice Age, not so much.

There are castles hundreds of yards or miles from the current seashore in Britain, e.g., with ocean docks.

Anyway, we're a few hundred years overdue for the end of the current Interglacial. Too bad CO2 doesn't really cause much warming, because we're going to need some.




hah..
By DASQ on 7/4/08, Rating: 0
"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov













botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki