backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 75 comment(s) - last by MadMaster.. on Jan 29 at 10:32 AM

Global warming may not be the culprit after all when it comes to Artic changes

Climate data can be difficult to analyze. Take for instance global temperature changes. Whereas the Northern Hemisphere has been warming, the Southern half of the planet is cooling. While Antarctic Ice is at near-record levels, the Northern Pole is warming at an unprecedented pace-- much faster than global warming models predict.

A new study published in the journal Nature identified a possible cause for this discrepancy. It identifies a natural, cyclical flow of atmospheric energy around the Arctic Circle. A team of researchers, led by Rune Graversen of Stockholm University, conclude this energy flow may be responsible for the majority of recent Arctic warming.

The study specifically rules out global warming or albedo changes from snow and ice loss as the cause, due to the "vertical structure" of the warming ... the observed warming has been much too weak near the ground, and too high in the stratosphere and upper troposphere.

This study follows hot on the heels of research by NASA, which identified "unusual winds" for rapid Arctic ice retreat. The wind patterns, set up by atmospheric conditions from the Arctic Oscillation, began rapidly pushing ice into the Transpolar Drift Stream, a current which quickly sped the ice into warmer waters.

A second NASA team, using data from the the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite, recently concluded that changes in the Arctic Oscillation were "mostly decadal in nature", rather than driven by global warming.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Wrong again Masher
By Rovemelt on 1/3/2008 6:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
There's no doubt that the arctic melt last year was far faster than the IPCC models predicted, but to suggest that the antarctic is cooling is not consistent with what scientists know about the antarctic.

Here is a link to a free publication from Science regarding snow accumulation in the antarctic (which is actually consistent with a warming planet):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/578...

and

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311...

Both are peer reviewed studies published in Science and none of them suggest that the air over the antarctic is cooling.

It's not clear yet if the snow accumulation in the antarctic will add a net positive or negative to sea levels:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/573...

Go read them for yourself. They're all free articles.

From the concluding remarks of the paper in Nature that Masher presents a link for, which clearly supports the notion that increased CO2 levels will gradually warm the planet:

quote:
Our results do not imply that studies based on models forced by anticipated future CO2 levels are misleading when they point to the importance of the snow and ice feedbacks. It is likely that a further substantial reduction of the summer ice-cover would strengthen these feedbacks and they could become the dominant mechanism underlying a future Arctic temperature amplification.


We might get lucky and find that the recent arctic melt was an anomaly, but there's no doubt --as expressed in the science links Masher presents-- that this is part of a larger, long-term warming trend due to rising CO2 levels.




RE: Wrong again Masher
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/3/2008 6:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
I think you have to be fairly daft to think CO2 is an adequate insulator to cause something like "global warming". I think these clowns need to start calling it what it really is "Climate Shift". It's not Global Warming, the whole planet would be warming and this is obviously not the case. But of course even every country cuts CO2 production to minimal levels, these clowns have already covered themselves by saying the damage is down, best we can do is mitigate it. So on that note even if sea levels rise and whatnot they can point out that "it could have been worse but we did good in minimizing impact". Frankly I think irony would be slick if we had 10 straight years of cooling to shut these clowns up. Realistically its nothing more than a standard climate shift. The media, organizations, and politicians are blowing this whole ordeal out of proporation to satisfy their own personal objectives.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By cyclosarin on 1/3/2008 6:39:22 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, 'global warming' is the perfect scam.

If anything bad happens, they blame it on 'global warming.' Or they blame it on not doing exactly what they tell us to do. If things go well they say, 'look see we told you all this bad stuff was going to happen but since we warned you we saved you from certain ruin.'

At this point they could blatantly lie about some aspect of the climate and the ignorant masses will swallow it with delight.

It amazes me still of the arrogance to think we have such a hand in the alteration of the Earth's climate.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Christopher1 on 1/6/2008 7:51:22 PM , Rating: 1
Well, many people are very arrogant when it comes down to it, in all honesty. They want to believe that they can cause everything and end everything, when the facts are that they cannot really change all that much on this world and they are usually fighting against nature.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By SlyNine on 1/8/2008 7:21:18 AM , Rating: 3
Its arrogant to think you can, Its ignorant to think you can't bla bla bla. In the end I think we should find out what the effects of our actions are. Regardless of weather you believe they can or cannot be that big.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By grenableu on 1/5/2008 2:10:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Frankly I think irony would be slick if we had 10 straight years of cooling to shut these clowns up.
Well we've had nine straight years of cooling already. 1998 is the warmest year on record. Every year since then has been cooler.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By MadMaster on 1/29/2008 10:32:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well we've had nine straight years of cooling already. 1998 is the warmest year on record. Every year since then has been cooler.


Wrong.

2005 was the warmest year on record. Followed by 1998, 2002, 2007, and 2003.

Each year is much warmer than it was say before 1950...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_si...


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Alexstarfire on 1/5/2008 6:37:06 PM , Rating: 2
That's what I believe is happening much more than global warming. All they've proved is that they have selective, or local, warming. I read an article not to long ago that was talking about the sea level. They showed that certain methods that were used to show that it raised weren't very accurate. Like the height of the tide and such. They also said that a tree off of Australia that is usually used to look at the sea level was removed, but then placed back in it's original spot. They said the most accurate way was to use a satellite. I don't remember exactly what they measured, but they used a satellite. They said that they could detect a change in sea level height of as small as 1mm, and that they haven't detected any change. I don't really wanna find the article, but I'm sure you could find it if you looked for it. It wasn't that long ago, maybe a month or so.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By masher2 (blog) on 1/3/2008 6:52:45 PM , Rating: 5
Good post Rove. However, the evidence for Southern Hemisphere cooling is more than accumulating snow (which you mention) and increasing sea ice (which you don't, and which isn't explained by AGW theory). The latest NOAA satellite date shows no temperature increase for the SH for the past 25 years, and a net decline in temperature over the past 10.

http://www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/

While 25 years may seem like a short period, its important to remember that, for most of the SH, we lack high-quality data for further back than this.

Several other papers have demonstrated a net cooling in Antarctica going back to at least 1986, such as:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/ab...

Dr. Madhav Khandekhar, an IPCC expert reviewer with whom I correspond with on a regular basis, sums it up well:
quote:
In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. The city of Buenos Aires in Argentina received several centimetres of snowfall in early July, and the last time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918! Most of Australia experienced one of its coldest months of June this year. Several other locations in the Southern Hemisphere have experienced lower temperatures in the last few years. Further, the SSTs (sea surface temperatures) over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent world-wide analysis of ocean surface temperatures
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cover_index.php?di...


RE: Wrong again Masher
By smitty3268 on 1/3/2008 7:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't you post something about this earlier, and although the study said it was actually cooling slightly the margin of error was large enough that it could have actually been warming?


RE: Wrong again Masher
By masher2 (blog) on 1/4/2008 12:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're referring to this study:

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/38315t224...

which found an increasing trend in Antarctic snow/ice mass, though the increase was within the margin of error.

Sea ice is a more accurate proxy for surface temperatures, however, as snow levels can increase or decrease regardless of temperature. And Antarctic sea ice is definitely on an increasing trend.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By AlexWade on 1/4/2008 1:12:39 PM , Rating: 3
To prove the ANTarctic is gaining ice, see these links:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
More specifically, this chart:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur...

The antarctic sea ice is about 2 million square KM above normal for this time of the year. Remember, this is their summer.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Rovemelt on 1/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Wrong again Masher
By masher2 (blog) on 1/5/2008 1:06:30 PM , Rating: 3
> "Masher, that publication you're referencing is over 10 years old."

Eh? It was published July 2006. Also the UAH NOAA data (as well as the cryosphere data posted by AW) is current as of 2007. The *oldest* study I cited was published in 2002, and it examined the cooling trend in Antarctica from 1986-2000.

Furthermore, the study you cite refers to mass balance only, and isn't even a study of Antarctic (much less SH) temperatures at all. As you yourself have pointed out many times, there isn't a direct relationship between the two. Cooling temperatures can (and often do) imply less snowfall.

Sea ice, however, is directly coupled to temperature. And sea ice is unequivocally increasing.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Rovemelt on 1/5/2008 1:27:16 PM , Rating: 3
You're right, I misread it as 1996...it says 2006.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Rovemelt on 1/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Wrong again Masher
By masher2 (blog) on 1/5/2008 12:26:59 PM , Rating: 4
That's because you've misinterpreted the studies. First of all, this study, along with the followon from NASA specifically excludes global warming from being the cause of this heat transport mechanism:
quote:
Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming, " said Morison.
Second of all, global warming does not imply anthropogenic global warming. Most scientists believe in global warming. The debate is over the cause and extent of that warming.

> "Dr. Madhav Khandekhar has already clearly made up his mind with regards to whose agenda he supports. "

We're well aware that you consider each and every one of the hundreds of scientists who consider AGW incorrect to be paid off stooges, but it really doesn't work like that. The fact remains that, for any scientist seeking research funds, the financial incentive to support AGW is a thousand times larger than to deny it. For EU funded research, now, its a hard-and-fast requirement that any funding request be for research that least implicitly acknowledges AGW.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Rovemelt on 1/5/2008 1:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the author does support anthropogenic global warming theory and does so implicitly.

Maybe you should read what the author (Rune G. Graversen) had to say in an interview(s) regarding his publication:

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn1313...

quote:
The researchers found that most of the warming is happening high above ground. At midsummer, the data shows that the air that has warmed the most is 2 kilometres above land.

This, says Graversen, rules out the theory that Arctic warming is being accelerated by melting ice. Although the researchers remain unsure what is accelerating Arctic warming, they suggest it might be related to how fast energy is being transported towards the North Pole by cyclones.

The team calculated the flow of energy into the Arctic Circle using meteorological data, and looked at how this flow has changed since the 1980s.

They found that the amount of energy transported from the tropics into the Arctic has increased and that the increase corresponds to the rise of temperatures in the region.

"We are not saying this is the only explanation," says Graversen, "this could explain maybe 25% of the amplification of warming in the Arctic."


And here, where the lead author states quite clearly:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/08...

quote:
"This assumption is that if this [heat flow] has increased—which we see in the data that it has—then it has contributed to the warming in the Arctic, not only at the surface, but higher in the atmosphere," Graversen said.

Increased moisture in northward-moving air also plays a role, he said, because when the water vapor condenses into clouds and snow, it releases energy, warming the air.

Nobody knows how much of this change is the result of human emissions of planet-warming gases such as carbon dioxide, but it's likely that they play a role.

"Many models suggest an increase in energy transport when more greenhouse gases are introduced into them," he said.

"Changes in the circulation in the atmosphere might have had a much larger effect than previously thought, but these changes may also have been induced by greenhouse gases."


At the very least, the author realizes that greenhouse gases could have induced the energy transport from the equator to the arctic. And that this change isn't the only explanation for the temperature amplification in the arctic. If you're looking for someone in denial about AGW, this author is not the one for you.