backtop


Print 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.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By masher2 (blog) on 1/5/2008 1:58:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but you're grasping at straws here. Let's summarize what the author says here:

- the direct cause of the rapid melting is definitely not due to global warming alone.
- the indirect cause (the underlying change causing the energy flow) is unknown. It might be global warming, or something else entirely.

If this is your idea of a resounding endosement of AGW, then there's no arguing with you. The author doesn't even refer to anthropogenic GW at all.

Finally, the second NASA study referenced above identifies those changes as a natural cycle, not linked to GW.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Rovemelt on 1/7/2008 12:03:33 AM , Rating: 1
What part of this sentence from Graversen don't you understand?

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


RE: Wrong again Masher
By modelmania on 1/7/2008 11:25:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
by Rovemelt on January 7, 2008 at 12:03 AM

What part of this sentence from Graversen don't you understand?

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


I think Masher understands it fine.

1. There is no mention of "anthropogenic" in that sentence, and the VAST majority of the greenhouse gases on earth do not come from man. So your assumption that the sentence is referring to man-made greenhouse gases, seems a bit far fetched.

2. Models are NEVER evidence of ANYTHING. A model is just a representation of a belief system. When a belief system becomes evidence of something, you have crossed out of science into something else.

3. The models referred to are known to be highly inaccurate.

4. How does a model "suggest"?? What about the other models (not included in the "many") that don't "suggest an increase in energy transport"?

AGW zealots continually fail to recognize that models and theories are NOT evidence. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is not evidence. It is a theory. And, I might point out, a very good theory, because (a) nobody has ever found a counterexample and (b) it predicted several phenomena before they were seen that were subsequently measured and verified to extreme precision. These are the general scientific criteria for good theories.

The GCM models that AGW zealots revere as the gospel have NEVER accurately predicted anything and there are numerous examples where observations run counter to the models.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Rovemelt on 1/7/2008 6:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
First paragraph of the paper Masher cites (after the abstract):

quote:
The recent warming of the Earth’s surface is most probably due to an increase of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations. (8) Although most greenhouse gases are fairly uniformly distributed around the globe, the temperature response to greenhouse-gas forcing is thought to be larger in polar than equatorial regions.


Hey, look up reference 8 and what do we find? This:

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change...

Golly!!! He references the IPCC 2007 report. Not that Masher wants you to understand that THIS PUBLICATION IS BUILT ON THE CONSENSUS VIEW AMONG CLIMATE SCIENTISTS THAT HUMANS ARE ADDING CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE WHICH IS TRIGGERING AN INCREASE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.

last paragraph from the Nature paper:

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. Much of the present warming, however, appears to be linked to other processes, such as atmospheric energy transports.


Ok, fine. They suggest that energy transport is responsible for the amplification of the arctic warming. AMPLIFICATION over existing forcing from rising CO2 levels as described in the 2007 IPCC report.

Follow closely now. This is from the interview with the lead author:

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

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. (the change they are referring to is change in energy transport)

" 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. "

Ok...not that the author actually ran that model and tested it (which he should have IMHO), but he acknowledges that greenhouse gases may have induced the energy transport change. That means it's actually not natural, as greenhouse gases are increasing due to human activity (note, this is where Masher's spin--the title of this blog post--comes in again). He even gives us an idea of the amplification on the warming of the arctic from this process:

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

The idea is that some of the rapid melt is from a change in heat transport, but the AGW forcings are still there and heating up the arctic. The author is not debating AGW at all. The whole point of the paper is to help explain why the melt is happening faster than the AGW models predict. It looks like a combination of AGW along with changes in heat transport (which also, according to the author, can happen when greenhouse gas concentrations increase.)

And finally, where is the CO2 increase coming from?

Human activity. Since the industrial revolution, the concentration globally has increased by over 30%. Volcanoes contribute far, far less compared to humans.

I fully understand what the goal of models are. Models are simply ways to quantify understanding of climate. They will never be perfect and they will never be able to forecast the future exactly. But the models we have right now are our best tools to explain what is happening and what will happen in the future. Global temperatures have followed CO2 levels closely for the last century and nobody challenges the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. The entirety of the climate models are far too complex to simply form a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature as there are other forcings. But the forcings (water vapor, methane, cloud cover, etc.) are acting together in a way to warm the planet further.

But it doesn't matter, I'm sure, to many of the readers here. Even if the author said AGW was real right to your face, it wouldn't matter. Even if Steven Hawking said this:

quote:
As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth,” said BAS member Stephen Hawking, the renowned cosmologist and mathematician.

“As citizens of the world, we have a duty to alert the public to the unnecessary risks that we live with every day, and to the perils we foresee if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change.


(which he has http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16670686/), it doesn't matter to people in denial. That's the nature of denial. You ignore facts and just accept what Masher has to say without question.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By modelmania on 1/8/2008 12:00:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the models we have right now are our best tools to explain what is happening and what will happen in the future.


This is circular nonsense to put it kindly. How can models be our "best tools to explain what is happening and what will happen"???????????????

Especially, when we:

a. Know for sure (100% certainty) that the models are wrong.
b. Know that the models have never predicted anything accurately.
c. Know that the models do not even match the past accurately.

Models and theories are only useful for predicting the future when they are proven to be extremely accurate over large domains of testing (as for example the General Theory of Relativity has proven to be a good theory).

The models to which you refer have repeatedly been shown to fail in major ways.

Most recently, for example, Douglass, Christy, Pearson and Singer point out in their paper "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions" published in Oct 2007 International Journal of Climatology:

quote:
The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations and more realistic modeling efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution.


To read the whole paper and see the massive failure of the models (all of them): http://static.scribd.com/docs/1q509sc82p1lh.swf


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Rovemelt on 1/5/2008 12:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
Ice core records in the antarctic do suggest that the antarctic has been warming along with the rest of the planet and that it will continue to warm with AGW:

http://www.agu.org/journals/scripts/highlight.php?...

Sorry, it's not a free article.

Hotter air holds more moisture, which is expected to increase snowfall in some areas of the antarctic. It doesn't seem entirely clear, based on what I've read, what process is responsible for the increase in ice mass in the core of the antarctic. Or the loss in mass in other parts.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By masher2 (blog) on 1/5/2008 12:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
1/5 of a degree temperature rise over the last 2 centuries, yes. But again, you've missed the point here. Most of that temperature increase occurred during the very rapid global warming seen from 1900-1940, a period in which industrialization had not yet substantially altered CO2 levels.

Over a centuries long scale, the entire planet has warmed...we did, after all, just recently exit an ice age. But warming in the 19th century warming, coupled with cooling today, 200 years later, does not fit with human-induced global warming.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Rovemelt on 1/5/2008 1:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
No, I haven't missed the point at all. YOU are clearly missing the point...the paper does not debunk at all the idea that humans are causing the planet to warm from increased CO2 emissions. The scientists who wrote that paper acknowledge that and implicitly support AGW through their research. You're just stubborn. The lead author clearly stated in an interview that the warming amplification in the arctic is from a combination of AGW and a change in energy transport which may also be caused by AGW. Nobody is arguing about where the increase in greenhouse gases are coming from, and the author clearly suggests that greenhouse gases are contributing to the warming there.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By grenableu on 1/5/2008 2:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
Please explain how the south pole warming in 1906 then cooling in 2006 proves humans are causing global warming.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By werepossum on 1/3/2008 7:18:41 PM , Rating: 5
So to recap, a warmer arctic with less snow and ice means global warming, and a cooler antarctic with more snow and ice means global warming.

Gee, I'm starting to see why there's a consensus. I guess hurricanes and earthquakes mean global warming is angry and must be appeased with solar panels, huh?


By Andy35W on 1/5/2008 4:21:13 AM , Rating: 2
I can only read the abstract but they quote

"The underlying causes of this temperature amplification remain uncertain"

If you have read the full article can you point to what the underlying cause is? Or is this your interpretation of what they are saying?

Met office prediction for this year.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/...

Will be interesting to see how close they are.




By grenableu on 1/5/2008 12:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2008 is set to be cooler globally than recent years say Met Office
You're right, it will be interesting to see how close they are.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/6/2008 12:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that the Met Office is the same organization that, in 2006, predicted 2007 would be the warmest year on record. In reality, it was cooler, with much of the Southern Hemisphere seeing some of the coldest weather ever recorded. Buenos Aires saw its first snow in 89 years, Johannesburg its first in 25 years, and Peru had to declare a state of emergency after hundreds of people died from the cold. New Zealand and Chile lost hundreds of millions from frozen crops, and Australia had its coldest ever month of June.


By Andy35W on 1/7/2008 2:19:51 AM , Rating: 2
Looking at their preliminary figures, which does not include December, they give the difference from the average global temperature as:-

2006 +0.42C
2007 (Jan-Nov) +0.41C

So it was not hotter than 2006, but only just. Your examples try to give an impression that the earth swung to "cold", however your examples are all local and if you take the global picture then 2007 seems like it will be the 7th warmest on record.

As for the suggestion that "much" of the southern hemisphere saw some of the coldest weather ever recorded this does not tally with it being the 9th warmest year for the southern hemisphere. This was behind the northern hemisphere where it was the 2nd warmest I admit.

As it is predicting the future though and with the complexity of weather it will be interesting to see how their "cooler" forecast for 2008 stands up.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/2008 10:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
> "So it was not hotter than 2006"

2007 was 0.01 cooler than 2006 yes. But it was 0.065 cooler than 2005 and a full 0.1 degrees cooler than 1998.

The trend is even more pronounced for the SH:

2003 0.280
2004 0.277
2005 0.266
2006 0.250
2007 0.234

The past five years have wiped out 20% of all warming seen since 1940.


By modelmania on 1/7/2008 11:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
Saying "7th warmest on record" makes it sound, to the uninitiated, very dramatic.

Given that:

1. The record is very short.
2. The record started right at the coldest point in the past 600 years or so.
3. It has been cooling since 1998.

The "7th warmest on record" therefore just means we have reached a local maximum (not a particularly remarkable one on any time scale) and the temperature is headed down again.

No biggie...


By Andy35W on 1/7/2008 5:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
>Saying "7th warmest on record" makes it sound, to the uninitiated, very dramatic.

How does "the top 11 warmest years all occur in the last 13 years" sound then to the initiated like yourself?

It's interesting to note that when I simply state it's the 7th warmest on record I am accused of dramatisation but when the point I am stating against contains such sentences as

"Buenos Aires saw its first snow in 89 years"
"Peru had to declare a state of emergency after hundreds of people died from the cold"
"New Zealand and Chile lost hundreds of millions from frozen crops"

I think I can get away with it to be honest.


By rninneman on 1/7/2008 9:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
Irony is, most ecochondriacs are still trumpeting 1998 as the warmest year on record, when 1934 actually is the warmest year on record.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383

Your "top 11 warmest years all in the last 13 years" is false. Only 3 of the warmest years on record were in the last 13. 5 of the top ten were before WWII!

Why would they not want to acknowledge this though? Probably because it only further diminishes the possibility of AGW.


By Andy35W on 1/8/2008 11:56:20 AM , Rating: 2
Warmest year globally? Do you have a figure for that? I am taking details from the Internet so mine could be wrong, but as this is about Met Office in general and their predictions I can really only use one source.

Looking at

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/...

I can't see 1934 at all on that graph.

One thing I do not like about that graph is the colours it picks, for the 1990's onwards it picks a hot colour, for earlier years it picks a cold colour .. talk about subjective impressionism ! tut tut. They should all be in black and the only thing that matters is the distance up the Y axis.


By rninneman on 1/10/2008 3:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_l...

That is the NASA study I was referring to which happens to be the darling of the IPCC. The original data from NASA also confirmed 1998 was the warmest on record, but someone analyzing the data realized the data had been analyzed by code that was not Y2k compliant. How pathetic is that?

Good point about the colors chosen on your link.


By modelmania on 1/8/2008 10:14:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How does "the top 11 warmest years all occur in the last 13 years" sound then to the initiated like yourself?


The statement is a relatively meaning-free, dramatization. Since everyone agrees that there has been a period of global warming since the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s (with ups and downs), it follows obviously (and is a virtually equivalent statement, in fact) to say that the most recent years have been the warmest!

But, of course, whether or not there has been some warming in the past 100+ years is NOT at issue. The real issue is whether man has had any impact on that trend.

Another VALID issue is whether that warming trend has actually stopped, which, based on the data for the last 10 years, appears to be the case with the numbers flat or trending down slightly.

Continually, repeating that the most recent years are the "warmest" without qualifying the statement by adding "in the last couple of hundred years" is disingenuous. We all know that a couple of hundred years is an irrelevantly small time period in climate history, and we all know that there have been warmer periods in the earth's recent history (within 600 years), and we all know that the rate of change of the temperature is within the range of temperature change rates throughout known and studied global climate history (before any potential man-made influences).

On the contrary, to site anecdotal examples like Buenos Aires, Peru etc to illustrate the larger point that the temperature in the Southern Hemisphere is cooling at the moment was stated completely in context and doesn't exaggerate or fail to mention any crucial facts. Those are simply factual illustrative anecdotes. They don't prove the fact that the Southern Hemisphere is cooling, the temperature measurements themselves prove that. The examples help to illustrate. They are used totally in context, and that discussion was not framed in a disingenuous way leaving out critical details.

Your statements such as "7th warmest on record" and "11 warmest years all occur in the last 13" are context-free alarmism that when put into context are shown to be nothing of significance.


By Andy35W on 1/8/2008 12:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
As per my last graph

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/...

I don't see many downs since the last Little Ice age in the late 1800's. In fact none at all, but again it may be wrong, so please provide contrary evidence.

You make some good points about whether it is man made or not for the last 100 or so years but you cannot say " we all know ..." repeatedly as if it is obvious, you have to show it by some facts and figures or a graph. We don't all know.We are willing to be educated though or see more data to chew over.

And when did localised anecdotal evidence ever illustrate anything about a global statistical process over a long period of time? That's like me claiming global warming because of hurricane Katrina. That sort of thing IS nothing of significance. Trends will always be more relevant.

Finally, Peru was a very bad example to choose. It is just south of the equator but it's highest mountain is at 21000 feet as it lies along the Andes mountain chain. So is that snapshot illustrative of the "cooling" of whole of the southern hemisphere for 2007? No. It shows nothing at all.


By modelmania on 1/8/2008 2:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't see many downs since the last Little Ice age in the late 1800's. In fact none at all, but again it may be wrong, so please provide contrary evidence.


Here is a recent graph from the National Climatic Data Center:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005...

It shows in broad strokes:

1. Temperature dropping from 1880 to 1893 (.1deg)
2. Going up from 1893 to 1897 (.1deg)
3. Going down from 1897 to 1908 (.2deg)
4. Going up from 1908 to 1942 (.4deg)
5. Going down from 1942 to 1950 (.1deg)
6. Staying the same from 1950 to 1975
7. Going up from 1975 to 1998 (.6deg)
8. Staying the same since 1998

Many ups and downs in the past 130 years.

quote:
You make some good points about whether it is man made or not for the last 100 or so years but you cannot say " we all know ..." repeatedly as if it is obvious


Sorry for assuming that we all know. But I assumed that everyone in this discussion is aware of the Medieval Warm Period. There is an excellent graph I found in a presentation by Robert Carter graphing oxygen isotope data for the last 5000 years. The data is from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. Look at Page 9 of this 14 page PDF file.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/200705-03AusIMMcor...

The caption reads:
quote:
FIG 10 - Oxygen isotope time series for the last 5000 years, GISP2 Greenland ice core (light line; same dataset as Figure 7), fitted with a
moving average (dark line; after a slide by Andre Illarianov, 2004). The Late 20th Century Warm Period represents the latest of a regular
millennial cycle of similar warm periods (grey stripes). The Late 20th Century Warm Period may have equalled the magnitude of the
Mediaeval Warm Period, but it has not yet attained the warmth of either of the preceding Roman or Minoan Warm Periods.


On that same page, Fig 11 shows the rate of temperature changes (per 100-year interval) over the last 48000 years based on oxygen isotope ratios from the same GISP2 data. It clearly shows much greater rates of change than the most recent 100 years in many (if not most) of the centuries in the last 48000 years. Here is the caption of that graph:
quote:
FIG 11 - Rate of temperature change for the last 48 000 years, in °C/century, based on the analysis of oxygen isotope ratios from the
GISP2 ice core (same dataset as Figure 7; after a slide by Andre Illarianov, 2004). Note that during the last 9000 years of the Holocene,
temperature change occurred regularly at rates between +2.5° and -2.5°C/century. Earlier, during the last glaciation, rates of change
as high as 15°C/century are indicated.


You said:
quote:
And when did localised anecdotal evidence ever illustrate anything about a global statistical process over a long period of time?


I chose the word "illustrate" as opposed to "support" or "corroborate" or "demonstrate". Illustrate does not mean that it supports the conclusion. As I stated the conclusion of cooling temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere is supported by temperature measurement data.

The examples used were illustrative not supportive.


Sunshine State
By Ringold on 1/3/2008 5:07:56 PM , Rating: 3
We had the first freeze in Central Florida in 5 years last night, the first really hard freeze in a bit longer. It snowed in Daytona -- and if I heard the news right this morning, 40 or so other Florida counties. Not just the occasional thing we see at the coast, where if we look real close higher up in the air we can kinda see what sorta looks like snow, but actual snow laying on top of vehicles in the morning.

That, on top of several years with nary a heat-driven hurricane in sight.

I for one am eagerly awaiting this supposed global warming. If anyone locates this global warming entity, please direct it to Florida. We don't have shoes here, only sandles and the like, and our toes are getting frost bite. The human suffering is incredible. Thanks in advance.

;)




RE: Sunshine State
By TomZ on 1/3/2008 5:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
Good post. Here in Michigan, we've had a couple of snowfalls this year each of which dumped about a foot of snow, and the current temperature is quite a bit below freezing.

Although I don't really enjoy clearing the snow off the driveway and/or freezing my @ss when I'm outside, I do enjoy that I don't have to hear from people here on a nearly daily basis that the current weather is a result of "global warming" and more. Last and this year's winters here have shut them up pretty much, which is nice.


RE: Sunshine State
By smitty3268 on 1/3/2008 7:24:30 PM , Rating: 3
I'm really sick of people saying, "but it's cold here" as a rebuttal of global warming. You clearly have no more idea about what it means than those crazies that think global warming is going to kill them.

Global warming consists of temperature changes of only a few degrees - natural weather patterns are going to far outweigh them as far as people's perceptions are concerned. In fact, many of the global warming predictions say there will be increased extremes, with colder winters and warmer summers. Certain parts of the planet will likely get wetter, others drier. Some may even become colder for all we know.


RE: Sunshine State
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/3/2008 7:27:42 PM , Rating: 4
It's called "Climate Shift". Stop using the term Global Warming, its irrelevent.


RE: Sunshine State
By TomZ on 1/3/2008 9:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You clearly have no more idea about what it means than those crazies that think global warming is going to kill them.

You missed the point entirely. My point is that, if we have a winter where there's less snow than normal, I get to hear from all sorts of idiots about how it's because of global warming. Having a more normal winter shuts them up, that's my point.

I'm fullly aware that global warming is occurring on a scale of a fraction of a degree per century.


RE: Sunshine State
By Ringold on 1/4/2008 8:02:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm really sick of people saying, "but it's cold here" as a rebuttal of global warming.


I put the ";)" winking-smile-thingy at the end of my post just for folks like you that might miss the tongue-in-cheek aspect -- though I did note the interesting lack of many hurricanes for several years running, during a period where they should've been more intense even without global warming. Even still, thats a (mostly) irrelevant observation and I know it; a little help from upper-level winds and all the global warming in a century can't save a hurricane from getting sheared apart. The freeze was also at least somewhat interesting, you'd hear more about it if not for the strong winds as it was cold enough for long enough that it'd of really devastated the citrus crops, but of course just a one day deal. It'll be in the mid 70s again here shortly. Teens and 20-somethings can safely put away their closed-toe shoes once again.

Besides, lefty's still can't help but connect global warming and Katrina in their minds, a connection as stubborn and defiant as any Evangelical's belief in intelligent design ever has been. I tried to be clear I was just being light-hearted about it.

But then again, it sure did warm up quick around here. . . . . .


RE: Sunshine State
By porkpie on 1/4/2008 11:06:05 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm really sick of people saying, "but it's cold here" as a rebuttal of global warming
Those people are seriously outnumbered by the idiots that say "but its warm here" to prove global warming.

I can't count the number of times I've read a media story that tried to connect a hot snap, a flood, or even a forest fire to global warming.


RE: Sunshine State
By beepandbop on 1/4/2008 11:40:18 AM , Rating: 2
yes, there is a difference between climate change, and global change, but when different climates are reacting differently, it's hardly "global" warming, is it?


RE: Sunshine State
By pauldovi on 1/4/2008 11:21:45 AM , Rating: 2
I am from Daytona. I haven't ventured outside since I heard how cold it is!


It's in the Bible
By hiscross on 1/4/2008 7:56:24 AM , Rating: 2
Global Warming/Climate shift, no matter what you call it, the Bible clearly tells us the earth will get warmer. The Bible also tells us that before the flood, the earth was always warm, plus because of an addition expanse, it never rained until the flood. Reading the Bible is free, and many churches will provide you a free Bible by just asking.




RE: It's in the Bible
By AlexWade on 1/4/2008 9:40:29 AM , Rating: 2
Um, sorry. I do read the Bible. And it says nothing about the earth getting warmer. When referring to Armageddon, it is prophetic not literal. While it does say it never rained before the Flood, I don't see how that has anything to do with this issue.


RE: It's in the Bible
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/4/2008 12:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
He is either being very sarcastic, or he is grossly misreading an old book. I'm going to say hes the former, I sure hope it's not the latter.


RE: It's in the Bible
By BansheeX on 1/4/2008 12:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
The bible also tells us that crustaceans are an abomination unto us and that the earth is 6000 years old.


RE: It's in the Bible
By AlexWade on 1/4/2008 1:07:25 PM , Rating: 3
Um, no sorry. The Bible doesn't say the earth is 6000 years old. All it says is that God created the universe in 6 days. The Bible uses terms we are familiar with, so a day is not a literal 24 hours. In fact, the Bible says that we are in the 7th day still. So how long a day is in this context is not known. The Bible doesn't tell how old the earth or the universe is. It just breaks down the order which God created things into something we can relate to.


RE: It's in the Bible
By Shwanzig on 1/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: It's in the Bible
By frobizzle on 1/5/2008 12:42:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The bible also tells us that crustaceans are an abomination unto us

Noooooooo!!! Say it ain't so! How can abominations be so tasty?


RE: It's in the Bible
By eye smite on 1/4/2008 1:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't we call the kettle black for a change seeing as it's black. Scientists have never had enough historical data to map any weather trends over a 30 to 40 yr period. They take measurements of this or that and hype it up as the only conclusion you can draw when they don't have a clue. They do this to get continued funding and donations, not for our benefit. In the 1970s when the winters were cold enough to constantly snow and ice over roads in Texas, they said it's a global cooling trend. How much BS will people listen to before they finally call it BS. I haven't believed the global warming idiots that gave the nobel peace prize to Al Gore for a global warming study since the whole global warming talk started in the early 90s. Take the time to read, research, go to different sources and so on, and quit listening to the absolute BS the media touts. It's not that hard.


RE: It's in the Bible
By cochy on 1/4/2008 5:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed the Earth will get much hotter until it's eventually consumed by the Sun when it becomes a red giant. So the bible is right, if in fact it says that, which I wouldn't know.


RE: It's in the Bible
By hiscross on 1/5/2008 1:19:48 PM , Rating: 1
Interesting replies. Read Isaiah 51 and then this: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo0....

The earth is getting onto balance, the way it was before the flood.


Explanation?
By Murst on 1/4/2008 11:58:41 AM , Rating: 4
Michael,

Sorry to ask this question, but now I'm completely confused by your articles.

Prior to this article, you seemed to have taken a position that there isn't really any warming in the arctic. I seem to remember how you had an article about how the ice is growing, not shrinking.

Now, you have an article about how the warming is natural, which would seem to indicate that you do in fact believe that warming exists. If this was your stance all along, your previous articles would have been misleading (and that's w/ a generous interpretation).

Or pehaps I'm missing something. Are you trying to imply that we're seeing a buildup in ice at the same time as the arctic warms?




RE: Explanation?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/4/2008 12:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
> "Prior to this article, you seemed to have taken a position that there isn't really any warming in the arctic"

No warming in the ANTarctic. I believe you're referring to this article, which identified strong sea ice growth in Antarctica:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8871

The North Pole, however, is a different matter entirely. There isn't any discrepancy in the stories.


RE: Explanation?
By Murst on 1/4/2008 12:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm... ok, I'll buy that.

So it may be more accurate to say that global warming doesn't exist.

However, we have northern hemisphere warming and southern hemisphere cooling, with their average slightly leaning to the warming side? Or is that not really accurate either?


RE: Explanation?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/4/2008 12:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
The global trend obviously depends on the time period examined, as well as any adjustments, if any, made for urbanization effects on land surface readings, instrumentation changes over the period in question, and a huge number of factors.

Taken since 1998, the average for the planet as a whole has been flat (no increase nor decrease), according to data from the British Met Office:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=...

According to data from James Hansen's GISS center, which does far more "massaging" of the raw temperature data, there is still a slight increase in the trend.


RE: Explanation?
By eye smite on 1/4/2008 1:09:36 PM , Rating: 2
But what we're really saying here is there isn't enough historical data recorded to make any kind of prediction on global warming or cooling. The weather in this case is following it's unpredicable nature because hey, science and technology still can't predict weather trends. Science is still in it's infancy, no scientist, professor or techy knows near as much as they think they do. Hey did you know they still say bigfoot doesn't exist yet since 2000 they have discovered 26 new breeds of primates. People still think they know everything, posh. OMG there's a toad now in Loch Ness that has gills and has been observed and even captured and it exists some 300 ft below the surface of the lake. Every day mankind proves how little it knows.


interesting as always
By TheDoc9 on 1/3/2008 4:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
Where's the Academy award winning movie about these studies from a well deserving Nobel Peace prize winner?




RE: interesting as always
By porkpie on 1/3/2008 6:12:45 PM , Rating: 3
Al Gore's too busy right now building the latest addition onto his 95,000 sf house. Maybe next year.


RE: interesting as always
By Misty Dingos on 1/4/2008 9:56:49 AM , Rating: 2
It was in the works but when the penguins from Antarctica froze to death and the polar bears all drowned it was cancelled.

A replacement event was in the works for a while. It was going to be called Global Warming Death Match. It would feature Al Gore versus a anti-global warming climatologist in a steel cage wrestling match. The winner would be allowed to present their side to the UN. The project had to be abandoned when it became impossible to find a Ultra-Super Heavyweight climatologist to fight Al.

If Al starts talking like Orson Wells I am going to get creeped out big time, because he starting to look like him.


RE: interesting as always
By marvdmartian on 1/7/2008 3:21:37 PM , Rating: 2
ROFLMAO @ your last line! :)

I'm of the opinion that any global warming that might be happening is caused solely by all the hot air (rhetoric) that Al Gore is spewing about global warming. It's really a catch-22.....the more he talks about it, the more he causes it, the more concerned he is about, which leads to his talking about it more!!


Antarctic Temperatures
By Bob B on 1/3/2008 10:22:10 PM , Rating: 3
Rovemelt , I've seen the temperatures from NASA's website (real data) and the vast majority Antarctic has cooled since human measurements began in the 1950s. Only a western peninsula has showed any sign of warming and satellite data shows the ice thickening throughout the continent. Tell us about the Rhode Island size piece of ice, from Al's movie, broke off from the Antarctic. That may be true, but what he does not tell you is that it broke off from area that has cooled since we began measuring temperatures. Peer Review studies don't mean sh*t if the assumptions are incorrect. Since your studies are contrary to the facts, your studies have been adjusted to meet the hypothesis, that is not science.




RE: Antarctic Temperatures
By Andy35W on 1/5/2008 4:15:46 AM , Rating: 2
I seem to recall difference between the Artic and Antartic is that the Antartic is more cut off from the possible effects of manmade climate change due to the circulatory weather patterns that sweep round the lattitudes to the north of it.

Without those it is possible that the Antartic also will be warming up in a similar fashion to the Artic.


Isn't the real issue here
By Akazar on 1/4/2008 12:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
to our environment, not the warming of the globe or climate change.

But the increase in sea levels across the world. Rising C02 levels has increased the water levels. And that's really the problem isn't it.




RE: Isn't the real issue here
By masher2 (blog) on 1/4/2008 12:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
Sea levels have been steadily rising for at least the past 7,000 years, since the planet exited the last ice age. The IPCC predicts a rise of 23 cm over the next 100 years, a rate of change which is neither unusual nor alarming.


The models are wrong!
By svenkesd on 1/4/2008 2:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
Scientists used computer models to predict behavior of arctic sea ice and it turns out the ice is melting much faster than predicted.

What amazes me is that this is used as support for drastic global warming due to CO2 theories.

What it actually means is the models are wrong and they can't predict what will happen.

Faster melting of the ice doesn't mean the models underestimate CO2's effects, it means the models incorrectly incorporate all the nuances of the climate to form a prediction.




RE: The models are wrong!
By modelmania on 1/6/2008 11:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
The models are known to be wrong in general (at the poles, at the equator, in the atmosphere, at the ground). The models are also known to be built around a very limited understanding of an extremely complex situation. And furthermore, they are known to contain numerous fudge factors, and to ignore major climate influences that are not understood well.

It is beyond silly that people actually use models, which are nothing more than extensions of our belief systems written in mathematical equations, as the sole justification for the entire AGW religious movement. Few people, especially few of the AGW zealots, realize that the central statement of the IPCC report was backed up by not a single piece of science. It was based purely on the consensus of some computer models, that are known to be grossly inaccurate. (here's a recent citation http://static.scribd.com/docs/1q509sc82p1lh.swf?IN...

To make an analogy with another extremely complex system (although certainly much simpler than the climate of the earth), you don't see any doctors or governments making predictions and drug certifications based on computer models. They do real trials and OBSERVE the actual results on real people before they decide what the effect on the body is.

How is it that this set of 20-something flawed, and highly inaccurate computer models has obtained the status of Scientist Supreme?


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki