backtop


Print 83 comment(s) - last by jbartabas.. on Feb 18 at 12:44 PM


A recent map of North Atlantic currents shows warm, subtropical water being ferried far into the northern latitudes. The increased water temperature has enabled fast sea ice and glacier melt in recent years.  (Source: Jack Cook, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)
Warmer ocean currents are driving Greenland's glacial melt.

It remains to be seen exactly how much mankind understands the science of climatology. While global climate models continue to be produced, disproved, corrected, and debated in the administration, there is still some solid research being done. And that research keeps showing that there's a possibility that climate science is missing large tracts of data it needs.

Recently 
DailyTech reported on research concerning the Bering Strait and how this comparatively small geological formation might be responsible or at the least involved in the regulation of the North American temperature via ocean currents. Oceans have been understood to partially control temperatures and overall climate for years, but marine science has only recently been getting any media time with all the political hubbub over the global climate change debates.

A multi-institutional research team, led by Fiamma Straneo, a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution physical oceanographer, has been studying ice loss in Greenland, particularly in the Sermilik Fjord, which connects the Irminger Sea to the Helheim glacier. The last decade has seen accelerated ice loss in Greenland -- the Helheim glacier has already retreated by several kilometers.

Unfortunately, the area has not been monitored regularly for long enough to perfectly reconstruct the ice melts before the recent accelerated melt, but a combination of ship and moored survey data, combined with temperature and depth data taken from the radio collars of hooded seals in the area have allowed them to piece together just how quickly things can change.

They found that changes in the North Atlantic ocean currents have been bringing much warmer, subtropical water further and further north. Water as warm as four degrees celsius was found during the time data. That warm water combined with swift current propagation has enabled the massive uptake in Greenland's glacial ice. The warmer water quickly moves through the fjords, taking away with it the melted ice and keeping the temperatures relatively warm.

Straneo explains, "This is the first extensive survey of one of these fjords that shows us how these warm waters circulate and how vigorous the circulation is. Changes in the large-scale ocean circulation of the North Atlantic are propagating to the glaciers very quickly — not in a matter of years, but a matter of months. It's a very rapid communication."

She goes on to stress how little is known about ocean-glacier interactions and that continuous observation will be extremely important in coming to a full picture of how they affect each other and sea-level regulation. It is also likely that understanding how these entities cooperate will help understand how the ocean currents and sea ice as a whole may affect regional and global climates. A rapid influx of cool, fresh water could serve to disrupt the global ocean current system, known as the Ocean Conveyor even as the area appears to be warming.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/2010 3:16:55 PM , Rating: 1
Because all these chapters have nothing to do with the study of climate.

1 Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
2 Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
3 Chapter 3: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
4 Chapter 4: Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
5 Chpater 5: Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level
6 Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate
7 Chapter 7: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
8 Chapter 8: Climate Models and their Evaluation
9 Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
10 Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections
11 Chapter 11: Regional Climate Projections

<sarcasm>tag

*facepalm


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 3:38:09 PM , Rating: 2
" *facepalm "

You might want to slap yourself a few more times. Those chapters may deal with climate, but they don't deal with AGW -- whether or not man is causing climate change. That's what the debate is all about, remember?


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 4:36:16 PM , Rating: 3
"I'll restate it for you: THE CONCLUSION IS IN FAVOR OF AGW!"

A conclusion reached by 42 authors who actually worked on the section attributing change. By the way, you're still ignoring the many scandals relating to these "unbiased" authors. Let me refresh your memory as to how they "reached their conclusions":

quote:
IPCC Scientist Admits He Knowingly Used Unverified Data:
The IPCC Lead Author behind the bogus claim last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders...

The claim rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.
It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Gl...

That's just ONE claim. Others were found to be pulled from student term papers, articles in popular magazines, and some without any source whatsover.

Why should we put ANY faith in these conclusions?


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 4:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
"Not a single claim that you have listed discredits AGW theory"

It shows the scientists involved are willing to discard the scientific method in favor of advancing their political beliefs. Why should we believe their conclusions, when they admit they'll falsify data to convince us?

If you want something that discredits AGW alarmism, try this:
quote:
The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...

One of the scientists interviewed is a former IPCC Lead Author. Another was an IPCC Expert Reviewer.

And now that even people like Phil Jones, previously one of the loudest prophets of AGW doom in the world, are admitting that the world stopped warming 15 years ago, and that it was warmer in Medieval times than it is today -- how much longer are you going to push this myth of "scientific consensus" ?


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 5:06:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It shows the scientists involved are willing to discard the scientific method in favor of advancing their political beliefs. Why should we believe their conclusions, when they admit they'll falsify data to convince us?


It shows that one scientists may have done that (assuming you trust anything the daily mail publishes). It does not show anything about the hundreds of other authors who are independent and disconnected human beings, each with their own moral principles. The fact that you suggest the contrary tells a lot about your moral principles.

quote:
And now that even people like Phil Jones, previously one of the loudest prophets of AGW doom in the world, are admitting that the world stopped warming 15 years ago


He never admitted anything like that. Again you should stop paraphrasing a secondary paraphrasing source like the daily mail or the national review.


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 5:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
"He never admitted anything like that"

Oh really?
quote:
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Cl...


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 5:58:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"He never admitted anything like that" Oh really? quote: Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Cl...


Yes, oh really. Do yourself a favor and go read the original interview instead of second hand reporting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670....

And if you are too ignorant of very basic statistics and notions of the warming trend signal, go read this simple explanation:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/growthgate/

If after all that you still think that:

quote:
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming? Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

is the same as "admitting that the world stopped warming 15 years ago", well you're obviously not equipped to discuss these issues.


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 8:33:38 PM , Rating: 3
" Do yourself a favor and go read the original interview "

I'm glad you linked it. Let's see exactly what the poor Professor -- once the loudest harbinger of doom and gloom on the planet -- now has to say, shall we?

quote:
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
This is Jones agreeing that the warming from 1975-1998 was no faster than the warming we saw from 1910-1940, or an earlier warming trend from 1860-1880. Entirely at odds with what he said 5 years ago, and a statement incredibly damaging to those who still believe in the "hockey stick" graph of unprecedented warming from AGW.

Now, lets proceed.

quote:
Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just.

Clearly an admission the world has stopped warming. He follows with some weaseling about it being "barely statistically significant", but the fact remains it IS significant, and he admits as much. I'm sorry, but there is no room for debate on this. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

Now, let's continue:

quote:
Q: Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant
Here, Jones admit the surface record shows cooling, but says its not significant due to the period being too short. Fair enough...we'll check back in a couple years when it hits the magic 10 year mark.

To continue:

quote:
Q: When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties
This speaks for itself. Yet another scientist refutes the myth of "consensus". With 32,000+ now disputing AGW entirely, how many more need to speak up?

Continuing:

quote:
Q: Where do you draw the line on the handling of data? What is at odds with acceptable scientific practice? Do you accept that you crossed the line?

This is a matter for the independent review.
Translation: I take the Fifth.


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/18/2010 7:41:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
quote: Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming Yes, but only just.

Porkpie: Clearly an admission the world has stopped warming . He follows with some weaseling about it being "barely statistically significant", but the fact remains it IS significant, and he admits as much. I'm sorry, but there is no room for debate on this. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero.


Correct, there's no room for debate ... you obviously have no clue of what you are talking about!

To say the "world stopped warming", he would have to say that he calculated a trend that is flat (or negative) and that it is statistically significant . He says nothing of the sort. He calculated a trend, it is positive but it is not statistically significant, at the 95% confidence level, yet.

You could say, at best, that he does not know with a high degree of confidence if the world has warmed in the last 15 years, which you would surely translate into "he has no clue if the world warmed" considering the poor understanding you have already demonstrated. The fact is that there also nothing magical with a 95% degree confidence and being close to reach that level of confidence for a positive trend has nothing to do with the trend being flat or negative. What you call "weaseling" actually contain information you obviously had no capacity to process.


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 11:07:36 AM , Rating: 2
"He says nothing of the sort. He calculated a trend, it is positive but it is not statistically significant"

The trend from 2001 is NEGATIVE, not positive. From 1995, the trend is so weakly positive as to be statistically meaningless. The phrase "there has been no statistically significant warming of the planet in 15 years" is accurate. Period.

You also conveniently ignore the fact that GW modelers predicted strong and rapid warming from 2000-2010. Instead, the only data we have shows a negative trendline. Care to explain that one away?


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/18/2010 12:27:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The trend from 2001 is NEGATIVE, not positive.


What does the "trend" from 2001 has to do with your statement that "the world stopped warming 15 years ago"? If it demonstrates one thing it is that you have serious ADD going on ... are you capable of following a discussion for more than 2 sentences, seriously?? That's not even mentioning that while the 15 years positive trend is not quite statistically significant yet, your 9 year pseudo trend is a statistical joke. I guess you missed that point too ...

quote:
From 1995, the trend is so weakly positive as to be statistically meaningless.


The trend from 1995 is 0.12 C/decade, to be compared to a longer term value of 0.16 C/decade or a model-projected value of the order of 0.15 C/decade (give and take depending on scenario and model). That isn't weak, by any stretch of imagination. The not "statistically significant" does not refer to the fact that the trend is so weak that it does not count (it is not), it refers to its calculation not being in the 95% confidence interval. It appears now that you totally misunderstood what it means for a calculated trend to be statistically "significant at the 95% significance level". Seriously, you should read stuff like that before engaging in conversion on topic you know nothing about:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/

or check this figure in particular that shows you why the trends from around 1995 are not statistically significant:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/gissrat2...

quote:
The phrase "there has been no statistically significant warming of the planet in 15 years" is accurate. Period.


Correct, this phrase is accurate ... but your phrase "people like Phil Jones [...] are admitting that the world stopped warming 15 years ago" is a just bull from someone who does not begin to understand what statistically significance means ... period.

quote:
You also conveniently ignore the fact that GW modelers predicted strong and rapid warming from 2000-2010. Instead, the only data we have shows a negative trendline. Care to explain that one away?


I don't ignore anything, it's just it has not been discussed yet. I could indeed care to explain you what individual model runs and ensemble averages tell you about underlying long term trends and short term natural variability, but considering your obvious intellectual shortcoming on basic notions such as the ones previous discussed, I won't even bother.


RE: AGW simplification.
By VitalyTheUnknown on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 5:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
"Did you even read your own link?"

Did you? Let me quote the parts you conveniently left out.

quote:
. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change ,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.
Or this, by another scientist:
quote:
We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.
Or this, by a third scientist:
quote:
Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.


To the Daily Mail's credit, they report BOTH sides of the debate, unlike our American papers, which push the fraudulent idea of "consensus" by refusing to interview any of the thousands of scientists who dissent.

As for Trenberth's idiotic remarks, a rise in sea level doesn't prove the earth is getting warmer. He apparently hasn't heard of the concept of thermal inertia...which explains why snow is melting right now in front yard, even though the temperature is declining as night approaches.

When Trenberth can explain that, he'll understand why his remarks are all wet.


RE: AGW simplification.
By JediJeb on 2/18/2010 11:46:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
for any climatologist it's just a legitimate basis to correct SOME of their data,


Maybe climatology is held to different rules for scientific data, but when I have data that becomes suspect I am required to discard it and start over from scratch so as to eleminate the possibility of bias. Sounds like climatology is more politics than science if you are allowed to pick and chose what data is used to render your final conclusions.


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/18/2010 12:44:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Maybe climatology is held to different rules for scientific data , but when I have data that becomes suspect I am required to discard it and start over from scratch so as to eleminate the possibility of bias. Sounds like climatology is more politics than science if you are allowed to pick and chose what data is used to render your final conclusions.


Not more than in astrophysics, oceanography, geophysics ... There is not ONE instrument on board satellites, on oceanographic buoy, or probes, on atmospheric profilers ... whose data have not be extensively corrected for bias, random noise, temporal drifts etc ... This happens not during the first few month of any Earth or space observing satellite (that's the commissioning phase), but there is a constant revision and tuning of algorithms during the whole life of an instrument (because already existing problems are discovered, and new ones happen with the aging of the hardware). At worse, data are "flagged" until it can be decided whether or not there is a sensible correction to make. So maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "data becoming suspect", but I have never seen anybody "discard [...] and start over from scratch" before seeing for themselves what the problems are and see if they are correctable.


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 4:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's just ONE claim. Others were found to be pulled from student term papers, articles in popular magazines, and some without any source whatsover.


Exactly, that's just ONE claim. Why don't you show us all the many others that plagued the attribution chapter? BTW, your ONE example has nothing to do with the attribution chapter, not even with the physical basis report.


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 5:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
So your position is, until each and every one of authors admits they falsified data, that we should continue to take the report at face value? Wow...just wow.

And yes, this is a different chapter. It's the effects, or the "this is why we have to act now" chapter, rather than the "blame it all on humans" chapter. So? Exaggerating the effects of climate change is just as heinous as misrepresenting its causes.


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 5:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow...just wow.


I am now totally impressed by the quality of your reflection and argumentative power.
I dare to suggest that hundreds of scientists, many of them from the most prestigious scientific institutions in the world, should not be assimilated as one unique moral entity ... i.e. they should be considered innocent until proven guilty and your definitive argument is "wow just wow".

I am still waiting for the so many other incriminating examples that have plagued these reports of hundred and hundred of pages authored by hundreds of people. You must certainly have so many of them considering the amount of claims present in these reports, at least you claimed so.

quote:
And yes, this is a different chapter. It's the effects, or the "this is why we have to act now" chapter, rather than the "blame it all on humans" chapter. So? Exaggerating the effects of climate change is just as heinous as misrepresenting its causes.


I do agree it is as heinous to misrepresents its causes ... but the point is not that it's not heinous, it's that it's irrelevant to the discussion here (and the one with Grabo). Both discussions were explicitly focusing on the attribution of GW, the Anthropogenic A in AGW. You yourself re-focused the debate on the sole chapter regarding the attribution, and its "mere" 42 authors. Then you give ONE example of misconduct to discredit these very 42 authors, except that your example not only is not part of the chapter, but is not even in the same working group as the few other hundreds of scientists. It's irrelevant.


RE: AGW simplification.
By jbartabas on 2/17/2010 5:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
"I do agree it is as heinous to misrepresents its causes" should read "I do agree it is as heinous to exaggerate the effects as it is to misrepresents its causes"


RE: AGW simplification.
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 8:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
" dare to suggest that hundreds of scientists, many of them from the most prestigious scientific institutions in the world, should not be assimilated as one unique moral entity "

Tell you what. Let's have a soup made by 620 scientists. We know a few of them peed in the pot, but we think the rest kept their pants zipped. Will you still eat the soup?

The IPCC report is undeniably tainted. The IPCC is led by an economist found to be making millions off AGW hysteria, several of the report's claims have been found to be fraudulent, some authors have confessed to inventing claims to scare the public, others are embroiled in investigations for falsifying their research data, and still more have been forced to resign because of emails showing them to be subverting the scientific process.

Are there SOME ethical scientists still in the mix? Probably so...but far too many people have already peed in that soup.


RE: AGW simplification.
By theendofallsongs on 2/17/2010 9:51:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tell you what. Let's have a soup made by 620 scientists. We know a few of them peed in the pot, but we think the rest kept their pants zipped. Will you still eat the soup?
Haha, I think I'll skip to the main course.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













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