Like a great American President said, " You can fool all the people some of the time"
Their opinion will not change the irrefutable fact that CO2 levels do not relate to Global Temperature data as they have been recorded the past 3 decades.
When is the debate over? When is the science settled?
When ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Devon, Conoco Phillips, and TWO DOZEN other major American companies "acknowledge the process of ongoing climate change - including extreme and unpredictable weather events - as a key relevant business factor for which they wish to be prepared".
All this rambling against the IPCC projections, temperature records, etc. is ultimately meaningless. On a level far above this insignificant thread the debate is over.
Experts, researchers and scientists overwhelming agree that Climate Change is happening and is in part due to human activity..... as opposed to Arn, Fierobear and a few other members own personal beliefs and cobbled together conclusions? I'll give them this, they certainly speak for "some of the people".
Gee.... who to believe?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-23-2013).]
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The Trenberth letter tells us that "computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean." The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of "missing heat" hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?
and
There have been many times in the past when there were warmer decades. It may have been warmer in medieval times, when the Vikings settled Greenland, and when wine was exported from England. Many proxy indicators show that the Medieval Warming was global in extent. And there were even warmer periods a few thousand years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum. The fact is that there are very powerful influences on the earth's climate that have nothing to do with human-generated CO2. The graph strongly suggests that the IPCC has greatly underestimated the natural sources of warming (and cooling) and has greatly exaggerated the warming from CO2.
and
The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost.
These are just part of the argument made by
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antoninio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
These eminent scientists would call Flyinfieros WRONG
Like has been posted and ignored. The global temperature has risen 0.8 degrees C. since the little ice age of the early 1800's
This has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 emissions
An article from almost two years ago? Come'on Arn, you can do better than that.
quote
...Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.
The dozen or so natural climate cycles could easily account for a 10 year hiatus...as we've pointed out at least a half dozen times, and you've continued to ignore it. A 10 year window is essentially useless.
It's a moot point anyway, since HADCRUT3 is suspected of being biased low and therefore this "hiatus" doesn't even exist.
quote
These eminent scientists would call Flyinfieros WRONG
The other 95% of scientists would call you and fierobear wrong.
Arn, I wish you and fierobear were right and had a basis to stand on. I love cold weather and I love big V8 engines. I have nothing to gain and a lot to lose with warmer temperatures.
Of course after being confronted with stone cold reality, Arn continues to use this thread as his personal megaphone for old debunked nonsense.
Does his post address anything he was confronted with? Nope. Arn would rather try to drown out reality with bright colored nonsense.
Here's a perfect example of him repeating old debunked nonsense:
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
The source for this data is HadCRU data. Earlier this year it was discovered this dataset has a cold bias. Met Office weighs in: "The new paper suggests that the global average warming trend from 1997 to 2012 could be up to 2.5 times greater than the trend using HadCRUT4 alone." Source.
After accounting for the lack of coverage, the rate of warming is "exactly equal to the long-term trend mentioned by the IPCC" Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-23-2013).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: quoting "Real Climate" again? That's like quoting "Real Fieros"
Do they actually have scientists at Real Fieros? That's impressive.
"A physicist and oceanographer by training, Stefan Rahmstorf has moved from early work in general relativity theory to working on climate issues." Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Arn
Hey, what do you think about the HadCRU data you quoted lining up with IPCC projections?
The Global Warming Policy Foundation report of 2013 (ISBN: 978-0-9566875-7-9) says on page 2
Global warming was never expected to be smooth. There were bound to be global and regional variations in the rate of warming. For 20 years the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stuck to its estimate that, on average, the rate of global warming should be 0.2 degree Celsius (°C) per decade. In the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, 0.2°C per decade was the observed trend, but in the late 1990s and all subsequent years the trend has been zero. This report suggests that the IPCC should revise its estimate in light of observations. Calculations based on ensembles of climate models suggest prolonged standstills of about ten years can occur once every eight decades. Standstills of 15 years are much more difficult to explain. This report shows, that if we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change. Seeking an explanation for the standstill has focused many minds on the nature of socalled decadal variability, the study of which is in its infancy. Solar-induced variations, as well as those from oceanic and atmospheric pressure cycles, and natural variations in the stratosphere, are under consideration. This report demonstrates that such variations are eroding the amount of warming that requires an anthropogenic cause.
On page 54 it says
168. The unacknowledged (in AR5) problem of the global temperature standstill of the past 16 years is well shown in its Figure 1.4, which shows the actual global temperature versus projections made by previous IPCC reports. It is obvious that none of the IPCC projections were any good.
and
169. In summary, the global temperature of the past 16 years is a real effect that in any realistic and thorough analysis of the scientific literature should be seen as a significant problem for climate science; indeed, it may currently be the biggest problem in climate science. To have it swept under the carpet with a selective use of data and reference material supported by cherry-picked data and timescales is not going to advance its understanding, and is also a disservice to science.
and on page 56
175. On 24th December 2012, the UK Met Office revised its global temperature predictions as a result of a new version of its climate model and climate simulations using it (see Figure 22). The revision was not picked up until after the Christmas break. It stated that global temperatures up to 2017 will most likely be 0.43°C above the 1971- 2000 average, with an error of ±0.15°C. In reality this is a forecast of no increase in global temperatures above current levels.
So I suppose the Global Warming Policy Foundation is out to lunch just like me?
Their brain trust includes
Professor David Henderson (Chairman) Adrian Berry (Viscount Camrose) Sir Samuel Brittan Sir Ian Byatt Professor Robert Carter Professor Vincent Courtillot Professor Freeman Dyson Christian Gerondeau Dr Indur Goklany Professor William Happer Professor Terence Kealey Professor Anthony Kelly Professor Deepak Lal Baroness Nicholson Lord Turnbull Sir James Spooner Professor Richard Lindzen Professor Ross McKitrick Professor Robert Mendelsohn Professor Sir Alan Peacock Professor Ian Plimer Professor Paul Reiter Dr Matt Ridley (Viscount Ridley) Sir Alan Rudge Professor Philip Stott Professor Richard Tol Dr David Whitehouse
In short we have had a pause in Global Warming for the past 16 years. The IPCC computers notwithstanding. Arn
The Global Warming Policy Foundation ... says ....
"The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge 'extremely damaging and harmful policies' envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. ... "The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its source of funding on at least four different occasions. ... "In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 [~1.6%] of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income, from its founding in November 2009 until the end of July 2010, came from membership contributions. In response to the accounts, Bob Ward commented that 'We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners.'"
so this means what? Lots of scientific organizations have beefs with the Privacy and Access agencies. Not to speak of Greenpeace and let's not forget the Suzuki Foundation.
the net increase of global temperatures since the early 1800's is 0.8 degrees C (that is 4/5 of 1 degree in 200 years folks.)
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 12-23-2013).]
Lots of scientific organizations have beefs with the Privacy and Access agencies.
No! Disclosure of possible sources of conflict of interest, including funding, is one of the ethical foundations of real science. On the other hand, secrecy is one of the hallmarks of special-interest politics.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 12-23-2013).]
Yes, falsified data, manipulated data, and eliminated data.
The climate/temperature observation centers numbered about 6000 in 1970 but today it is only about 1000. The weather station data dropped is from areas that are in higher elevations and other colder places. For instance, the weather sensors in California are only in the low lands, not the mountains.
Bolivia has not been measured for the past 20 years. In fact the numbers from the Amazon area are applied to Bolivia.
The IPCC is not capturing land based Arctic data either.
As you eliminate cooler located observation stations, you affect the data averages.
the current data from 1000 stations is used concurrently with the data from 6000 stations (from years ago) which includes the cold area data in the stations, which is not captured today. This results in new data averaging higher temperatures than old data.
The data is manipulated for political purposes.
Of course there are those on this forum who will not listen to the linked videos or if they do they will simply dismiss them.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 12-24-2013).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Lots of scientific organizations have beefs with the Privacy and Access agencies. Not to speak of Greenpeace and let's not forget the Suzuki Foundation.
You consider Greenpeace a scientific organization?
Wow, no wonder your idea of 'qualified' and 'relevant' is skewed.
Do you consider Al Gore a scientific organization too? What about Hanna Montana?
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The IPCC is not capturing land based Arctic data either.
As you eliminate cooler located observation stations, you affect the data averages.
You're not listening.
Lack of coverage is an issue but it's having the exact opposite effect you claim it is.
I just showed you on this same page clear evidence lack of coverage in the Arctic has a cold bias. After accounting for the cold bias, the rate of warming is exactly equal to the long term trend mentioned by the IPCC. The Arctic is still warming.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Of course there are those on this forum who will not listen...
You don't say.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-24-2013).]
Antarctic ice shelves are melting from the bottom, upwards
The Antarctic ice sheet is losing volume in droves, leading sea levels to rise around the globe. Scientists have long thought that the majority of the loss starts when chunks of ice break off from the sides of glaciers, forming icebergs.
But two studies published this week show that there is another major source of melt: warmer ocean waters are eating away at the underbelly of submerged ice shelves. . . .
While it is early winter in the Arctic, it is early summer in the Antarctic. Continuing patterns seen in recent years, Antarctic sea ice extent remains unusually high, near or above previous daily maximum values for each day in November. Sea ice is anomalously extensive across the Peninsula, the Amundsen Sea, and the Wilkes Land sectors. However, it has retreated in the northern Ross Sea region—where it had been far to the north of the mean ice edge—to more typical extent locations. Sea ice extent averaged 17.16 million square kilometers (6.63 million square miles) for November. The long-term 1981 to 2010 average extent for this month is 16.30 million square kilometers (6.29 million square miles).
Figure 4b. The graph above shows Antarctic sea ice extent as of December 2, 2013, along with daily ice extent data for the previous year. 2013 is shown in blue and 2012 in green. The 1981 to 2010 average is in dark gray. Sea Ice Index data.
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
Beginning in October, wind conditions in the Ross Sea shifted from a direction favoring a northward growth of sea ice to a more westerly direction. This and the coming of sunshine and warmth with spring led to a retreat from record ice extents there. However, November brought cool conditions (1 to 3 degrees Celsius, or 2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, below the 1981 to 2010 average) around the Peninsula and much of the western hemisphere of the Southern Ocean. Winds have also favored a northward drift along the western Peninsula. Overall, cool conditions and extensive ice around the Peninsula strongly contrast with the past few decades’ shift to a more ice free Peninsula and extensive surface melting there. Palmer Station, the U.S. Antarctic research base, was once again briefly surrounded by sea ice this winter, as it was in 2012.
As you can see the summer melt in the Antarctic is at the top of the usual melt, notwithstanding the posted by some news organizations.
I probably shouldn't add anything to this thread (and somehow know I will regret posting anything ) since I haven't read all of the last 80+ pages...
From what I have read, everyone keeps posting stats and trends from the last 50 years. These are really misleading unless you correlate with the bigger picture. 50 years is too short a sample rate for any validity.
There are too many bandwagons going in every imaginable direction...
I've talked to many scientists how are now questioning the original doomsday hypothesis. Peer reviewed journal articles can be found to support anything in this topic.
That was an interesting post from Neils88: the post just before this one.
That data plot, from the Greenland ice core samples, appeared in a journal article from Richard B. Alley, from January of 2000.
Here are some excerpts from a longer statement by the same Richard B. Alley, from February of 2010; I used boldface to emphasize some specific points:
First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world. One of the lessons drawn from comparing Greenland to Antarctica and many other places is that some of the temperature changes (the ice-age cycling) are very widespread and shared among most records, but other of the temperature changes (sometimes called millennial, or abrupt, or Younger-Dryas-type) are antiphased between Greenland and the south, and still other temperature changes may be unrelated between different places (one anomalously cold year in Greenland does not tell you the temperature anomaly in Australia or Peru). After scientists have done the hard work of working out these relations, it is possible to use one ice-core record to represent broader regions IF you restrict consideration to the parts that are widely coherent, so it is O.K. to plot a smoothed version of an Antarctic temperature record against CO2 over long times and discuss the relation as if it is global, but a lot of background is required.
Second, although the central Greenland ice-core records may provide the best paleoclimatic temperature records available, multiple parameters confirm the strong [global warming] temperature signal, and multiple cores confirm the widespread nature of the signal, the data still contain a lot of noise over short times (snowdrifts are real, among other things). An isotopic record from one site is not purely a temperature record at that site, so care is required to interpret the signal and not the noise. An extensive scientific literature exists on this topic, and I believe we are pretty good in the community at properly qualifying our statements to accord with the underlying scientific literature; the blogospheric misuses of the GISP2 isotopic data that I have seen are not doing so, and are making errors of interpretation as a result.
Thirdly, demonstration that there have been large climate changes in the past without humans in no way demonstrates that humans are not now responsible. Many people have died naturally but murder still exists; it is up to the police to learn whether a given mortality was natural or not, and up to climate science to learn what is causing ongoing changes (and we have good confidence that most of what is happening to climatic global average surface temperature is being caused by humanity now).
Similarly, demonstration that life, and humans, survived warmer temperatures in the past in no way shows that warmer temperatures in the future are good for us. If you don’t care about humans and other things with us here, making a big change in climate might be an interesting experiment. Evolution does respond to climate change and produce novel results. I just happen to have a personal bias (shared, I believe, by the majority of the six-plus billion people on the planet) that we should ask what is best for humanity, and pursue that. An opinion, surely, and not purely scientific, but that’s my bias. . . .
The abrupt-climate-change story remains interesting, though. Today, the salty north Atlantic waters sink before they freeze in the winter. The data indicate that at times in the past, the north Atlantic was fresher so the waters froze before they sank. The resulting wintertime cooling in the north Atlantic was rather severe, and the influences far from the north Atlantic included a general southward shift of the tropical circulations and drying of monsoonal and northern-tropical regions where billions now live. The IPCC gives >90% chance that the melting of Greenland’s ice and other changes in the future will not be fast enough to trigger such a discontinuity over the next century, but >90% is not necessarily 100%. The implications, that slowing down or stopping the melting may buy insurance against a rare but catastrophic outcome, are interesting.
So, using GISP2 data [without a larger scientific context] to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: <snip> As you can see the summer melt in the Antarctic is at the top of the usual melt, notwithstanding the posted by some news organizations.
The irony of Arn waving the flag in this discussion is--well--ironic.
Arn has been talking a lot lately about the extent (area) of sea ice at each of the poles (Arctic and Antarctic) and how that data shoots down the general concerns about GW (and by implication, MMGW).
If you back up just a short ways to post #3418 from December 24, I pointed out that these area metric datasets on sea ice extent are only--by definition--two dimensional. What about the third dimension of ice thickness, which is requisite to determining how much ice there really is at any given moment in the polar regions?
In reference to the South Pole, specifically, this came as recently as April of 2012 from Penn State University's Michael Mann, as quoted by LiveScience:
quote
Myth: Ice covering much of Antarctica is expanding, contrary to the belief that the ice cap is melting due to global warming.
Science: The argument that ice is expanding on Antarctica omit the fact that there's a difference between land ice and sea ice, climate scientists say. "If you are talking about the Antarctic ice sheet, we expect some gain in accumulation in the interior due to warmer, more moisture-laden air, but increased calving/ice loss at the periphery, primarily due to warming southern oceans," climate scientist Michael Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, told LiveScience. The net change in ice mass is the difference between this accumulation and peripheral loss. "Models traditionally have projected that this difference doesn't become negative (i.e. net loss of Antarctic ice sheet mass) for several decades," Mann said, adding that detailed gravimetric measurements, which looks at changes in Earth's gravity over spots to estimate, among other things, ice mass. These measurements, Mann said, suggest the Antarctic ice sheet is already losing mass and contributing to sea level rise.
Now for sea ice, this type of ice is influenced by year-to-year changes in wind directions and changes in ocean currents. For sea ice, it's tricky to identify a clear trend, Mann said.
That's a clear statement that there is more to consider at the polar regions than the area metric data on sea ice which Arn has been talking so much about. What are the implications of what Mann said there for the North Pole? Of course, there is no Arctic continent, but an Arctic Ocean, but there is significant land ice adjacent to the Arctic Ocean, especially in Greenland. What are the trends in the volume of Arctic land ice and what are the implications in terms of continued global rises in sea levels and continued global warming? You don't get any of this from Arn, who has been focusing exclusively on area metric observations of sea ice.
Not too long ago, when this discussion turned to the concerns about ocean acidification and its relation to man-made CO2 emissions, Arn was on the case again, telling us that there need be no concern because seawater, which is close to pH 8.0 all around the world, is such a long way from pH 7.0, at the neutral point between acid and base. Notwithstanding the fact that pH is a logarithmic scale. Notwithstanding the fact that if seawater actually went down to pH 7.0, it would be over 10 times more acidic than where it is today. And notwithstanding this, from National Geographic:
quote
Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries.
Shortly after that, Arn was on the case yet again, errantly endorsing an old "urban myth" from "Lost In Space" Toddster--who stopped posting in this forum immediately after Obama was reelected: just a sidebar to this discussion --about CO2 and the severely cold temperature regime on the planet Mars: a climate science non sequitur which I debunked a few days ago, in post #3371, on the previous page of this topic.
If Arn were more reasonable, he could say that he is still very skeptical about MMGW, that he thinks there is still too much controversy about it and not enough consensus among scientists, that he suspects self-interested and unscrupulous exploitation of the interest in this topic by Al Gore and many others, and that he is alarmed that some of the "solutions" to MMGW could well be a recipe for more harm than good for the world's population, and for Canada and the U.S., particularly. Any and all of that would seem to be very reasonable statements, from my perspective. But his efforts at specific scientific discussion are almost always well short of the mark. And that's why his numerous displays of the flag from the vey beginning of this discussion are so deliciously ironic.
So please take notice out there. Santa reads this thread. He knows who's been naughty instead of nice. And if you don't take care, he may be stuffing one of your future Christmas stockings with a big lump of climate-poisoning coal--if he hasn't already.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-26-2013).]
Originally posted by Neils88: I probably shouldn't add anything to this thread since I haven't read all of the last 80+ pages...
That shouldn't keep people from joining the conversation.
quote
Originally posted by Neils88: (and somehow know I will regret posting anything )
lol'd
It really depends on what your motivation is. If your motivation is to announce you know everything about climate science without taking part in the conversation - you'll probably regret it. If your motivation is to learn something - you should never regret that.
quote
Originally posted by Neils88: From what I have read, everyone keeps posting stats and trends from the last 50 years. These are really misleading unless you correlate with the bigger picture. 50 years is too short a sample rate for any validity.
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
You make a valid point about sample size, 50 years is a short period on geological time scales.
As rinselberg has already mentioned, a single location on the globe is also a small sample size and not representative of the big picture. There is a list of large scale global temperature reconstructions though.
Also worth mentioning, the graph states the 'before present' date is 2000. I believe this is false. The study itself references 1950 - which is standard palaeoclimate convention for "before present". The first data point on the graph is 95 years before present - which would be 1855. The warming of the modern era is entirely absent from this graph. If you take the last 150 years into account you need to add a data point at +1.5°C from where this graph ends. Which puts today's temperature in Greenland 0.5°C above Medieval Warm period.
quote
Originally posted by Neils88: I've talked to many scientists how are now questioning the original doomsday hypothesis.
I've heard a lot about this 'doomsday hypothesis' - but no one ever provides recorded examples. The only example provided on a regular basis is Al Gore, a politician, not a scientist.
quote
Originally posted by Neils88: Peer reviewed journal articles can be found to support anything in this topic.
I disagree. Most peer reviewed articles will support the human hand in global warming.
Explorers marooned aboard a ship stuck in Antarctic sea ice said Thursday they were being battered by blizzard conditions and winds of up to 45 mph.
Russian-built vessel MV Akademik Shokalskiy has 74 people aboard and has been frozen in a remote part of the Antarctic some 1,700 miles south of Australia since Tuesday.
The ship sent a distress call that was picked up on Christmas morning.
This is summer in the antarctic. These guys sail there every year. They thought they'd be ok, but, no, look at the weather. Look at that fragile ice.
The only reason for ice shelves breaking off, which they do every year btw, is due to Pacific ocean currents carrying tropically warmed water to their shores.
This happens every year.
The notion that Antarctic ice is melting and causing global ocean levels to rise is just plain
While it is early winter in the Arctic, it is early summer in the Antarctic. Continuing patterns seen in recent years, Antarctic sea ice extent remains unusually high, near or above previous daily maximum values for each day in November. Sea ice is anomalously extensive across the Peninsula, the Amundsen Sea, and the Wilkes Land sectors. However, it has retreated in the northern Ross Sea region—where it had been far to the north of the mean ice edge—to more typical extent locations. Sea ice extent averaged 17.16 million square kilometers (6.63 million square miles) for November. The long-term 1981 to 2010 average extent for this month is 16.30 million square kilometers (6.29 million square miles).
Figure 4b. The graph above shows Antarctic sea ice extent as of December 2, 2013, along with daily ice extent data for the previous year. 2013 is shown in blue and 2012 in green. The 1981 to 2010 average is in dark gray. Sea Ice Index data.
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
Beginning in October, wind conditions in the Ross Sea shifted from a direction favoring a northward growth of sea ice to a more westerly direction. This and the coming of sunshine and warmth with spring led to a retreat from record ice extents there. However, November brought cool conditions (1 to 3 degrees Celsius, or 2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, below the 1981 to 2010 average) around the Peninsula and much of the western hemisphere of the Southern Ocean. Winds have also favored a northward drift along the western Peninsula. Overall, cool conditions and extensive ice around the Peninsula strongly contrast with the past few decades’ shift to a more ice free Peninsula and extensive surface melting there. Palmer Station, the U.S. Antarctic research base, was once again briefly surrounded by sea ice this winter, as it was in 2012.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The notion that Antarctic ice is melting and causing global ocean levels to rise is just plain bs
False.
From the European Space Agency, Antarctica's Ice Loss On The Rise: "Three years of observations by ESA’s CryoSat satellite show that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is losing over 150 cubic kilometres of ice each year – considerably more than when last surveyed.
The imbalance in West Antarctica continues to be dominated by ice losses from glaciers flowing into the Amundsen Sea.
...
An international team of polar scientists had recently concluded that West Antarctica caused global sea levels to rise by 0.28 mm each year between 2005 and 2010, based on observations from 10 different satellite missions. But the latest research from CryoSat suggests that the sea level contribution from this area is now 15% higher."
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: I'll repeat this for the mentally challenged.
Stay classy.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-26-2013).]
You (Arn) are talking about the latest area metric measurements of sea ice--and nothing more.
Scientists try to draw their assessments on all of the relevant data. Including land ice in the polar regions, and volumetric measurements that are sensitive to how thick the ice is. Which is the point that I made just a small ways back (earlier) on this page.
Your Dunning-Kruger syndrome is showing again.
That's the one observation from FlyinFieros that I agree with 1000 percent.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-26-2013).]
Ice extent in the Arctic was below average during November. There was substantially less ice than average in the northern Barents Sea, likely due to an influx of warm ocean waters and the persistence of a strong positive Arctic Oscillation (AO). In contrast, sea ice extent in Antarctica remained unusually high.
Similarly the Antarctic has localized loss as well, even though the vast majority is in a very strong ice growth pattern.
Continuing patterns seen in recent years, Antarctic sea ice extent remains unusually high, near or above previous daily maximum values for each day in November. Sea ice is anomalously extensive across the Peninsula, the Amundsen Sea, and the Wilkes Land sectors. However, it has retreated in the northern Ross Sea region
and
quote
Sea ice extent averaged 17.16 million square kilometers (6.63 million square miles) for November. The long-term 1981 to 2010 average extent for this month is 16.30 million square kilometers (6.29 million square miles).
The idea that the Antarctic ice is diminishing is just plain foolishness and you can find some agency or newspaper willing to print it. But, NASA is doing satellite scans on a regular basis and it is in print.
You can ridicule me all you like, but first, take on NSIDC and NASA. Flyinfieros, if you are casting stones my way expect to get some back.
Between September 11 and September 15, usually a time of unimaginable cold, four daily maximum temperature records were set, in one case by more than 8.5 degrees Celsius (15.3 degrees Fahrenheit). On September 13, the temperature reached –27.7 degrees Celsius (–17.9 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature more typical of early summer conditions.
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 12-26-2013).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You can ridicule me all you like, but first, take on NSIDC and NASA.
NSIDC and NASA disagree with you. You don't understand what you're posting.
Sea ice extent is surface area - two dimensional. If you melt an ice cube on kitchen counter, you don't have more water, just more surface area.
This comes from your long lived misunderstanding of glacier ice vs sea ice. Who could forget you once claimed for 'every glacier shrinking there are hundreds expanding' - despite 90% of glaciers worldwide currently shrinking.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Ice extent in the Arctic…
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Continuing patterns seen in recent years, Antarctic sea ice extent
Let's clear the air of your misunderstanding and set the record straight of the LONG TERM TRENDS taking place: Arctic: Sea ice - shrinking Glacial ice - shrinking
The cause for growing sea ice in Antarctica is puzzling scientists, especially since Antartica is setting record - high - temperatures, but they suspect changes in wind patterns and melt water from glaciers freezing.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Flyinfieros, if you are casting stones my way expect to get some back.
Internet tough guy eh?
If you didn't keep opening your mouth I wouldn't have to continuously inform you your foot was in it.
Hubbard Glacier - 7 ft per day Mount St. Helens, Mt. Rainier Mt. Shuksan Mount Shasta Mt. McKinley
Norway
Ålfotbreen Glacier Briksdalsbreen Glacier Nigardsbreen Glacier Hardangerjøkulen Glacier Hansebreen Glacier Jostefonn Glacier Engabreen glacier (The Engabreen glacier is the second largest glacier in Norway. It is a part (a glacial tongue) of the Svartisen glacier, which has steadily increased in mass since the 1960s when heavier winter precipitation set in.)
And regarding Antarctic icebergs, they break off because the ice fields feeding them grow. It is not because they melt. They BREAK because they can't melt and they extend over salt water.
NASA satellites don't read the area of ice only, they also read the depth. There is no weakened ice there.
The arguement that the ice is melting, diminishing, softening, or otherwise disappearing in the Antarctic is just simply wrong.
There is one local area where it is evident the ocean is winning at the moment. Just like it is winning in the Barents Sea.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: <snip> Greenland Ice Sheet - thickening
Thickening? Really? I singled out the Greenland Ice Sheet because, according to this source, it represents 12% of the world's glacial ice, which is many times more than all of those other glaciers that you listed, put together.
Without any links to your sources, how can anyone accept your findings?
Here's a paragraph from a recent report (July 14, 2013) based on nine years of volumetric ice measurements from sensors aboard the GRACE satellite:
The researchers analyzed nine years' worth of data from the gravity field satellite GRACE. The GRACE measurements showed that both ice sheets [both = Antarctica and Greenland, which added together contain >99 percent of Earth's land ice] are losing significant amounts of ice: about 300 billion tons per year. At the same time, the rate at with which these losses occur is increasing: The contribution of both ice shields to sea level rise in recent years has almost doubled when compared to the first years of the GRACE mission. The causes of this accelerated reduction in ice mass are still a challenge for scientists: In addition to anthropogenic warming, the ice sheets are influenced by a variety of natural processes, such as variations in snowfall and slow changes in ocean currents.
Greenland’s melt season this year will be closer to average than was 2012, with far less melting in the northern ice sheet and at high elevations.
and
quote
Surface melt on the Greenland ice sheet spread to the northern coastal regions and became especially frequent in the far northeastern corner of the island (Kronprins Christians Land). However, while some high-melt-extent years recently have seen elevations above 2,500 meters (8,200 feet) warm to the melting point, this rarely occurred in 2013, nor was there extensive melt in the northern interior portion of the ice sheet.
It is in the same latitudes as the Arctic ocean and has experienced the same low year of 2012 and the same recovery rate in 2013.
But, we will not see what it is going to do until next year. What is clear is that this year it is in recovery and growing.
The Global Surface Temperature is Rising "Global average temperature is one of the most-cited indicators of global climate change, and shows an increase of approximately 1.4°F since the early 20th Century. The global surface temperature is based on air temperature data over land and sea-surface temperatures observed from ships, buoys and satellites. There is a clear long-term global warming trend, while each individual year does not always show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, and some years show greater changes than others. These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Ninos, La Ninas, and the eruption of large volcanoes. Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years." Source.
U.S. Surface Temperature is also Rising "Surface temperatures averaged across the U.S. have also risen. While the U.S. temperature makes up only part of the global temperature, the rise over a large area is not inconsistent with expectations in a warming planet. Because the U.S. is just a fraction of the planet, it is subject to more year-to-year variability than the planet as a whole. This is evident in the U.S. temperature trace." Source.
Sea Level is Rising Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of approximately 1.7 mm/year over the past 100 years (measured from tide gauge observations), which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Since 1993, global sea level has risen at an accelerating rate of around 3.5 mm/year. Much of the sea level rise to date is a result of increasing heat of the ocean causing it to expand. It is expected that melting land ice (e.g. from Greenland and mountain glaciers) will play a more significant role in contributing to future sea level rise. Source.
Global Upper Ocean Heat Content is Rising "While ocean heat content varies significantly from place to place and from year-to-year (as a result of changing ocean currents and natural variability), there is a strong trend during the period of reliable measurements. Increasing heat content in the ocean is also consistent with sea level rise, which is occurring mostly as a result of thermal expansion of the ocean water as it warms." Source.
Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover is Retreating "Northern Hemisphere average annual snow cover has declined in recent decades. This pattern is consistent with warmer global temperatures. Some of the largest declines have been observed in the spring and summer months." Source.
Glacier Volume is Shrinking "Warming temperatures lead to the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. The total volume of glaciers on Earth is declining sharply. Glaciers have been retreating worldwide for at least the last century; the rate of retreat has increased in the past decade. Only a few glaciers are actually advancing (in locations that were well below freezing, and where increased precipitation has outpaced melting). The progressive disappearance of glaciers has implications not only for a rising global sea level, but also for water supplies in certain regions of Asia and South America." Source.
U.S. Climate Extremes are Increasing "One way climate changes can be assessed is by measuring the frequency of events considered "extreme" (among the most rare of temperature, precipitation and storm intensity values). The Climate Extremes Index (CEI) value for the contiguous United States is an objective way to determine whether extreme events are on the rise. The figure to the left shows the the number of extreme climate events (those which place among the most unusual of the historical record) has been rising over the last four decades." Source.
posted by some news organizations. 
) since I haven't read all of the last 80+ pages...
--about CO2 and the severely cold temperature regime on the planet Mars: a climate science non sequitur which I debunked a few days ago, in 
