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

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

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 want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki