Is the global ice melting?

[Vergent]

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/130

Are opinions facts?

[WeatherRusty]

https://www.e-educat...teo469/node/130

Are opinions facts?

The facts are observed and measured (with error bars).

Opinion varies all over the place.

Fact: Land based ice mass is on the decline (Greenland/Antarctica) (alpine glaciers).

Fact: Arctic sea ice is on the decline.

Fact: Antarctic sea ice is increasing.

Opinion: It's an indication of human caused global warming.

Opinion: It's part of the natural cycle of things.

[Alpha5]

Fact: Land based ice mass is on the decline (Greenland/Antarctica) (alpine glaciers).

Fact: Arctic sea ice is on the decline.

Fact: Antarctic sea ice is increasing.

Opinion: It's an indication of human caused global warming.

Opinion: It's part of the natural cycle of things.

End it here.

Dumb idea for a thread.

[PhillipS]

The facts are observed and measured (with error bars).

Opinion varies all over the place.

Fact: Land based ice mass is on the decline (Greenland/Antarctica) (alpine glaciers).

Fact: Arctic sea ice is on the decline.

Fact: Antarctic sea ice is increasing.

Opinion: It's an indication of human caused global warming.

Opinion: It's part of the natural cycle of things.

I agree completely with your summation of the facts (data) - but all of these facts (including Antarctic sea ice increasing) corroborate the predictions of mainstream AGW theories (which are more than than just opinions).

If anyone has a theory that the observed melting is part of the natural cycle of things they need to explain why the observed global temperature increase is not responsible for the melting.

[WeatherRusty]

I agree completely with your summation of the facts (data) - but all of these facts (including Antarctic sea ice increasing) corroborate the predictions of mainstream AGW theories (which are more than than just opinions).

If anyone has a theory that the observed melting is part of the natural cycle of things they need to explain why the observed global temperature increase is not responsible for the melting.

Absolutely.

Some opinions should be valued more than others. Opinions based upon scientific research and the evidence gleaned therein lends greater credence to only one of the listed opinions.

Just as you felt the need to expound on my limited explanation, so to do we need to look at the broader base of evidence. Various aspects of AGW theory are supported by multible, independent lines of evidence. The warming of the planet, the melting of the cyrosphere and the rising of sea levels all go hand in hand. The current warming trend has been determined by science to be a direct consequence of mankind's burning of fossil fuels, the production of cement, deforestation, urbanization, agricultural practices, release of halocarbons, black carbon pollution and others.

The melting of the cryosphere is a direct evidence of global warming. Warming conditions melt ice.

The physical basis for AGW demonstrates that mankind's activities are causing the warming. It's a scientific opinion folks, backed by a huge body of evidence which has accumulated along with our general growth in overall scienctific understanding.

[Northern Foothills Snowman]

I agree completely with your summation of the facts (data) - but all of these facts (including Antarctic sea ice increasing) corroborate the predictions of mainstream AGW theories (which are more than than just opinions).

If anyone has a theory that the observed melting is part of the natural cycle of things they need to explain why the observed global temperature increase is not responsible for the melting.

NASA Satellite Shows That Global Temperatures Continue Their Plunge Into Record Cold

Posted on January 24, 2012 by Steven Goddard

Strange that NASA’s Hansen isn’t talking about this remarkable event. It would be easy to get the impression that he has an agenda which has nothing to do with science.

Would you explain where your theory on tempurature going up comes from?Even your own boy Hansen isn't talking about it either.

[superjames1992]

I don't think many people, outside of hard ideologues and denialists, are going to deny that the polar ice has been melting to some degree...

[WeatherRusty]

NASA Satellite Shows That Global Temperatures Continue Their Plunge Into Record Cold

Posted on January 24, 2012 by Steven Goddard

Strange that NASA’s Hansen isn’t talking about this remarkable event. It would be easy to get the impression that he has an agenda which has nothing to do with science.

Would you explain where your theory on tempurature going up comes from?Even your own boy Hansen isn't talking about it either.

Events are not climate. That dip becomes a data point which over time averaged with all others becomes the climate for some extended period of time. At least 10 years and better 30 years.

A dip like that is obviously possible because it is happening, even in the warmer climate of this era.

[LakeEffectKing]

Events are not climate. That dip becomes a data point which over time averaged with all others becomes the climate for some extended period of at least 10 years and better 30 years.

A dip like that is obviously possible because it is happening, even in the warmer climate of this era.

Yeah, but trying to explain where all the extra heat from the last 1.3 centuries went in just a few short months is quite the arduous task!

[WeatherRusty]

Yeah, but trying to explain where all the extra heat from the last 1.3 centuries went in just a few short months is quite the arduous task!

Actually that question is very easily answered. The solid surface and the atmosphere contain very little of Earth's stored warmth. Something like 1/1,000 at any given moment. The oceans retain most of the energy absorbed by the Sun and it would take years (about 50) to deplete that energy to the point where the oceans would freeze over all the way to the equator if you could remove all of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The solid surface and atmosphere absent a greenhouse effect would cool below freezing over one night.

The oceans radiate and conduct heat away only from the surface of the water. The heat build up over the past 1.3 centuries resides in the oceans, but right now surface waters are cooler, so they are radiating away less heat....which is concurrently warming the atmosphere less.

[Northern Foothills Snowman]

Actually that question is very easily answered. The solid surface and the atmosphere contain very little of Earth's stored warmth. Something like 1/1,000 at any given moment. The oceans retain most of the energy absorbed by the Sun and it would take years (about 50) to deplete that energy to the point where the oceans would freeze over all the way to the equator if you could remove all of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The solid surface and atmosphere absent a greenhouse effect would cool below freezing over one night.

The oceans radiate and conduct heat away only from the surface of the water. The heat build up over the past 1.3 centuries resides in the oceans, but right now surface waters are cooler, so they are radiating away less heat....which is concurrently warming the atmosphere less.

Instead of saying less warming why don't call it what it is ?COOLING .

[LakeEffectKing]

Actually that question is very easily answered. The solid surface and the atmosphere contain very little of Earth's stored warmth. Something like 1/1,000 at any given moment. The oceans retain most of the energy absorbed by the Sun and it would take years (about 50) to deplete that energy to the point where the oceans would freeze over all the way to the equator if you could remove all of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The solid surface and atmosphere absent a greenhouse effect would cool below freezing over one night.

The oceans radiate and conduct heat away only from the surface of the water. The heat build up over the past 1.3 centuries resides in the oceans, but right now surface waters are cooler, so they are radiating away less heat....which is concurrently warming the atmosphere less.

Yes, but once again, we have a case where it is difficult to "find" that heat, conclusively....deep water monitoring of temp. across the entire globe is indeed quite arduous!

[LakeEffectKing]

Instead of saying less warming why don't call it what it is ?COOLING .

It's one of the taboo words! j/k

[WeatherRusty]

Instead of saying less warming why don't call it what it is ?COOLING .

Because the oceans are always warming the atmosphere on a global scale. The atmosphere is mostly warmed by the surface it resides over. So, if the surface water is cooler it will transfer less energy to the atmosphere. Net heat flow is always from the warmer object to the cooler, the atmosphere is cooler than the global ocean.

[PhillipS]

NASA Satellite Shows That Global Temperatures Continue Their Plunge Into Record Cold

Posted on January 24, 2012 by Steven Goddard

Strange that NASA’s Hansen isn’t talking about this remarkable event. It would be easy to get the impression that he has an agenda which has nothing to do with science.

Would you explain where your theory on tempurature going up comes from?Even your own boy Hansen isn't talking about it either.

Wow, this is an amazing post. Did you notice that there is an annual cycle in the plot you posted, with the coldest months being DJF? That this three month period is the coldest quarter of every year plotted? The technical term for that period is WINTER. Yes,I know it's only winter in the Northern Hemisphere, but the NH is dominated by landmasses and the albedo change due to deciduous vegetation and snowfall affect the whole globe.

And did you by any chance notice that your plot is for DAILY temperature values - so it shows only weather and by no tortured interpretation does it relate to climate? Or that it only shows a few years and not the entire instrumental record? No? I didn't think so.

You asked where my theory of global warming come from and I am delighted to oblige a fellow scholar. It comes from real world data. Here is the entire measure global temperature record, from NASA GISS:

Are you able to see the see the rise in global temperatures? It's subtle, but it's there.

And my assertion that global ice is melting is also based on data. Here is the global sea ice area and anomaly plot from Cryosphere Today:

Hopefully you can see the long-term trend here, too. So, in summation, the Earth is warming and global ice is melting. Any questions?

[PottercountyWXobserver]

lol, how could someone vote no?? Also lol at the ostriches burrying their heads in the sand.

[WeatherRusty]

lol, how could someone vote no?? Also lol at the ostriches burrying their heads in the sand.

Don't laugh, because the ostriches have actually been winning the PR battle a few of them designed and initiated. The losers are all the rest of us, including the biosphere and our desendents.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yeah, but trying to explain where all the extra heat from the last 1.3 centuries went in just a few short months is quite the arduous task!

Is this just another trolling post?

When did global temps make there way back to the level they were in the 1880s?

[skierinvermont]

Yeah, but trying to explain where all the extra heat from the last 1.3 centuries went in just a few short months is quite the arduous task!

We didn't just lose 1.3 centuries of heat. The atmosphere according to Amsu is still warmer than 50 yrs ago. And the oceans are record warm. The oceans are where 90% of the heAt is stored anyways. And you can bet that the atmosphere will be back near record warmth shortly.

It's pretty sad watching deniers jizz their pants every time Amsu dips for a week or two.

[WeatherRusty]

We didn't just lose 1.3 centuries of heat. The atmosphere according to Amsu is still warmer than 50 yrs ago. And the oceans are record warm. The oceans are where 90% of the heAt is stored anyways. And you can bet that the atmosphere will be back near record warmth shortly.

It's pretty sad watching deniers jizz their pants every time Amsu dips for a week or two.

They have to score their points while they can as if the little blips destroy the overall larger picture.

The goal isn't to ultimately win, it is to force delay in recognition of reality for as long as possible.

[Mello]

Yes, but it has had no negative impact on humanity.

[Northern Foothills Snowman]

Wow, this is an amazing post. Did you notice that there is an annual cycle in the plot you posted, with the coldest months being DJF? That this three month period is the coldest quarter of every year plotted? The technical term for that period is WINTER. Yes,I know it's only winter in the Northern Hemisphere, but the NH is dominated by landmasses and the albedo change due to deciduous vegetation and snowfall affect the whole globe.

And did you by any chance notice that your plot is for DAILY temperature values - so it shows only weather and by no tortured interpretation does it relate to climate? Or that it only shows a few years and not the entire instrumental record? No? I didn't think so.

You asked where my theory of global warming come from and I am delighted to oblige a fellow scholar. It comes from real world data. Here is the entire measure global temperature record, from NASA GISS:

Are you able to see the see the rise in global temperatures? It's subtle, but it's there.

And my assertion that global ice is melting is also based on data. Here is the global sea ice area and anomaly plot from Cryosphere Today:

Hopefully you can see the long-term trend here, too. So, in summation, the Earth is warming and global ice is melting. Any questions?

How GISS Has Totally Corrupted Reykjavik’s Temperatures

January 25, 2012

tags: GHCN, GISS, Iceland

By Paul Homewood

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Now that GHCN have created a false warming trend in Iceland and Greenland , and GISS have amended every single temperature record on their database for Reykjavik going back to 1901 (except for 2010 and 2011), we should have a look at the overall effect.

The red line reflects the actual temperature records provided by the Iceland Met Office and shows quite clearly a period around 1940, followed by another 20 years later, which were much warmer than the 1970’s. GISS, as the blue line shows, have magically made this warm period disappear, by reducing the real temperatures by up to nearly 2 degrees.

Meanwhile the Iceland Met Office say that “The GHCN "corrections" are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”.

N.B. GISS figures, as shown on their graph are per Meteorological Year , i.e. Dec-Nov. I have recalibrated to Calendar Year to get a true comparison with the Met Office figures.

Advertisement

Advertisement

[PhillipS]

Yes, but it has had no negative impact on humanity.

Please share your sources that support your bold assertion that the melting of global ice has had no negative impact on humanity.

I'll just point out one of many negative impacts - sea level rise. There is more than enough ice in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to raise sea level by 6 - 10 meters (19 - 33 feet). It won't happen this century (barring some unforeseen change) but will definitely happen given a continuing rise in global temperatures.

Now, start to add up the costs of adapting UP coastal cities for, say, a 30 foot sea level rise. The EPA did a study of what it will cost the US to adapt to just a 1 meter sea level rise and here is an excerpt from their summary:

We estimate that shoreline retreat from a one-meter rise in sea level would cost the United States $270 to $475 billion dollars. Like all cost estimates involving unprecedented activities, our estimates ignore the impacts we could not readily quantify and those we can not foresee, and hence, are almost certainly too low. But policymakers are accustomed to "soft" estimates, and we see no reason to believe that our underestimates are any worse than the norm.

The greater long-term rise due to continuing melting is certain to cost a lot more, probably measured in trillions of dollars.

But we are not paying for that today, or even setting aside the money it will take to deal with AGW. We are just running up a tab we'll hand to our children, and their children, to pay. Still think that global ice melting has no negative impact?

[donsutherland1]

For those who are interested, a background paper on GHCN dataset can be found at: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa....alsubmitted.pdf

More than likely, many GHCN adjustments that took place resulted from issues arising from quality assurance (see pp.11-16).

[PhillipS]

How GISS Has Totally Corrupted Reykjavik’s Temperatures

January 25, 2012

tags: GHCN, GISS, Iceland

By Paul Homewood

Now that GHCN have created a false warming trend in Iceland and Greenland , and GISS have amended every single temperature record on their database for Reykjavik going back to 1901 (except for 2010 and 2011), we should have a look at the overall effect.

The red line reflects the actual temperature records provided by the Iceland Met Office and shows quite clearly a period around 1940, followed by another 20 years later, which were much warmer than the 1970’s. GISS, as the blue line shows, have magically made this warm period disappear, by reducing the real temperatures by up to nearly 2 degrees.

Meanwhile the Iceland Met Office say that “The GHCN "corrections" are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”.

N.B. GISS figures, as shown on their graph are per Meteorological Year , i.e. Dec-Nov. I have recalibrated to Calendar Year to get a true comparison with the Met Office figures.

Is a denialist blog entry the best support you could come up with? Couldn't you find any peer-reviewed research to support your assertions? What a surprise. You know, don't you, that Paul Homewood is not a climate scientist?

The Berkely Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project reviewed the instrumental surface temperature records (including GISS) and recently posted their draft reports on-line for open review, and have submitted them for formal review and publication. The BEST project was funded in part by arch-skeptic Koch and was a model of independent research. The research team included top level scientists, including a Nobel laureate. BEST found that the surface temperature records are robust and accurate.

So given opposing findings on the accuracy of the global temperature record, one by an independent team of scientists and one by a non-scientific blogger, why should anybody give credibility to the blogger?

[Mello]

Please share your sources that support your bold assertion that the melting of global ice has had no negative impact on humanity.

I'll just point out one of many negative impacts - sea level rise. There is more than enough ice in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to raise sea level by 6 - 10 meters (19 - 33 feet). It won't happen this century (barring some unforeseen change) but will definitely happen given a continuing rise in global temperatures.

Now, start to add up the costs of adapting UP coastal cities for, say, a 30 foot sea level rise. The EPA did a study of what it will cost the US to adapt to just a 1 meter sea level rise and here is an excerpt from their summary:

We estimate that shoreline retreat from a one-meter rise in sea level would cost the United States $270 to $475 billion dollars. Like all cost estimates involving unprecedented activities, our estimates ignore the impacts we could not readily quantify and those we can not foresee, and hence, are almost certainly too low. But policymakers are accustomed to "soft" estimates, and we see no reason to believe that our underestimates are any worse than the norm.

The greater long-term rise due to continuing melting is certain to cost a lot more, probably measured in trillions of dollars.

But we are not paying for that today, or even setting aside the money it will take to deal with AGW. We are just running up a tab we'll hand to our children, and their children, to pay. Still think that global ice melting has no negative impact?

I'm not going to play your little find me an acceptable source game. If you don't agree, fine, deal with it. Sea level has risen at a very slow, slightly accelerating rate over the 20th century. The numbers these studies come up with are fantasy which judge costs as if the water level were to rise a meter tomorrow when the reality is that this is going to take well over a century to happen. In that time must structures will have to be rebuilt, probably multiple times, just due to normal wear. They'll just have to be built slightly more inland. That's just a fact of choosing to own property on the coast. Past that, fossil fuels would have long since become so scarce as to not be cost effective and this will no longer be an issue. There is simply no sea level rise justification for implementing policies now to force people to release less CO2. The harm to people now would greatly outweigh any benefits for people decades or centuries from now.

[PhillipS]

I'm not going to play your little find me an acceptable source game. If you don't agree, fine, deal with it. Sea level has risen at a very slow, slightly accelerating rate over the 20th century. The numbers these studies come up with are fantasy which judge costs as if the water level were to rise a meter tomorrow when the reality is that this is going to take well over a century to happen. In that time must structures will have to be rebuilt, probably multiple times, just due to normal wear. They'll just have to be built slightly more inland. That's just a fact of choosing to own property on the coast. Past that, fossil fuels would have long since become so scarce as to not be cost effective and this will no longer be an issue. There is simply no sea level rise justification for implementing policies now to force people to release less CO2. The harm to people now would greatly outweigh any benefits for people decades or centuries from now.

Your opinion is noted. I found your statement about coastal cities "They'll just have to be built slightly more inland." particularly interesting. Most of the major US metropolitan areas are near our coasts. So you're saying that moving the cities of Seattle, Tacoma, Portland (OR), San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Corpus Christi, Galveston, New Orleans, Mobile, Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville, Savannah, Charleston, Norfolk, Washington DC, Baltimore, Newark, New York City, Boston, Portland (ME) and others "slightly more inland" would be cheaper than switching from fossil fuels to sustainable energy? Even though you then acknowledge that fossil fuels are finite - so we will have to switch to sustainable energy anyway?

Wow. You've given us an interesting glimpse into your belief system. Thank you for sharing.

.

[WeatherRusty]

timestamp='[/color]1327682677' post='1321691']

I'm not going to play your little find me an acceptable source game. If you don't agree, fine, deal with it. Sea level has risen at a very slow, slightly accelerating rate over the 20th century. The numbers these studies come up with are fantasy which judge costs as if the water level were to rise a meter tomorrow when the reality is that this is going to take well over a century to happen. In that time must structures will have to be rebuilt, probably multiple times, just due to normal wear. They'll just have to be built slightly more inland. That's just a fact of choosing to own property on the coast. Past that, fossil fuels would have long since become so scarce as to not be cost effective and this will no longer be an issue. There is simply no sea level rise justification for implementing policies now to force people to release less CO2. The harm to people now would greatly outweigh any benefits for people decades or centuries from now.

Who is going to foot the bill for the moving of entire municipalities? The tax payer, that's who.

We won't just wake up some day an realize the cost of fossil fuels has risen through the roof as resources become more difficult to access and process. The days of cheap, inexpensive conventional energy are rapidly coming to an end. The sooner we add renewables to the mix and enter an era of sustainability the better off we will all be. What are we waiting for?

We won't just wake up some day and find 1 foot of sea level rise. Some coastal areas will experience sea level rise faster than others. The east coast of the U.S. being particularly susceptible as Greenland loses gravitational ice mass. The gradual rise will progressively infiltrate the vulnerable areas, and then the next in line and so on. This is going on as we speak, but it's so slow nobody cares....except for those currently in immediate peril.

The will be no harm to anyone as we gradually mix clean, sustainable and renewable sources of energy with the declining use of fossil fuels. We need to gradually replace, not do without.

The world wars could have devastated the global economies by your line of thinking. Instead economies were invigorated and in the aftermath of war the greatest of prosperity was attained. The space race and the war machines where endeavors of vast expenditure which have brought about enhanced innovation and productivity. We can do the same while we change the way we power the world's economies.

The only losers stand to be the fossil fuel companies.....and they know it. thus........

[LithiaWx]

Who is going to foot the bill for the moving of entire municipalities? The tax payer, that's who.

We won't just wake up some day an realize the cost of fossil fuels has risen through the roof as resources become more difficult to access and process. The days of cheap, inexpensive conventional energy are rapidly coming to an end. The sooner we add renewables to the mix and enter an era of sustainability the better off we will all be. What are we waiting for?

We won't just wake up some day and find 1 foot of sea level rise. Some coastal areas will experience sea level rise faster than others. The east coast of the U.S. being particularly susceptible as Greenland loses gravitational ice mass. The gradual rise will progressively infiltrate the vulnerable areas, and then the next in line and so on. This is going on as we speak, but it's so slow nobody cares....except for those currently in immediate peril.

The will be no harm to anyone as we gradually mix clean, sustainable and renewable sources of energy with the declining use of fossil fuels. We need to gradually replace, not do without.

The world wars could have devastated the global economies by your line of thinking. Instead economies were invigorated and in the aftermath of war the greatest of prosperity was attained. The space race and the war machines where endeavors of vast expenditure which have brought about enhanced innovation and productivity. We can do the same while we change the way we power the world's economies.

The only losers stand to be the fossil fuel companies.....and they know it. thus........

You use the word we quite a few times in your response, we (the US?) are not responsible for the majority of GHG emissions. So it needs to be a worldwide effort and we need to find solutions to get everyone worldwide to reduce them in a way that doesn't destroy economies and stunt growth. A real threat that could be realized now is to put such severe restrictions on carbon that it hurts the global economy spiraling us into a worldwide depression. That is a bigger fear in the short-med term than CO2 emissions in my eyes.

Good luck getting China and India to not use fossil fuels. We had our boom using them and now its their turn. The debate should focus on how to fix the problem, and right now there are not many realistic solutions on how to go about reducing GHG emissions worldwide without damaging economic growth severely.

[PhillipS]

You use the word we quite a few times in your response, we (the US?) are not responsible for the majority of GHG emissions. So it needs to be a worldwide effort and we need to find solutions to get everyone worldwide to reduce them in a way that doesn't destroy economies and stunt growth. A real threat that could be realized now is to put such severe restrictions on carbon that it hurts the global economy spiraling us into a worldwide depression. That is a bigger fear in the short-med term than CO2 emissions in my eyes.

Good luck getting China and India to not use fossil fuels. We had our boom using them and now its their turn. The debate should focus on how to fix the problem, and right now there are not many realistic solutions on how to go about reducing GHG emissions worldwide without damaging economic growth severely.

I agree with you that it will take world-wide effort to address AGW - but there is a great deal that the US can and should do on its own. You may want to google the term "lead by example" if it is unfamiliar to you. Certainly the US lead by example in the wasteful use of fossil fuels. That's how we got into this mess. If the US were to lead by example in the transition to sustainable energy sources there are a number of ways we could benefit:

• We would improve our national security by freeing our country from dependence on foreign (and often hostile) energy suppliers.
  
• We would be developing the technologies and associated industries for large scale renewable energy generation and transmission.
  
• The technologies we develop for domestic use would be a rich source of foreign trade revenue.
  
• By taking the initiative to be a leader in transitioning to a sustainable economy we would be taking the moral high ground in persuading other countries to do their share. Today we're simply a big hog in the trough telling others they are dirty.
  

Your 2nd paragraph is simply a strawman argument. India and China are well ahead of the US on national level renewable energy initiatives. Nationally the US can't seem to give renewable energy companies a level, or stable, playing field.