Global warming (the third degree)

[quote=“fred smith”]
So as usual, we have “experts” and “scientists” who “believe” x y and z but in this article only one is actually named. Second, notice how every comparison goes back to the period when temperatures were coldest and when many “scientists and experts” believed that the next Ice Age was around the corner. Always, therefore, treat with caution anything that gives a 1974-1983 comparison. Finally, why not mention that ships used to be able to sail across the region (remember the search for the Northwest Passage to Asia during the initial explorations begun by Western seamen?)[/quote]

Oh, really? Maybe, in the interests of naming names, you can give us the name of one of those pre-20th century ships that made the Northwest Passage.

bl.uk/onlinegallery/features … nklin.html

This site contains much information on the search for the Northwest Passage. In the interests of perhaps heading off a fight over this, let me clarify that I am not saying that these ships made the passage hence my use of sailing in the region in search of the Northwest Passage. That was to wait until the early 1900s but that ships were actively sailing throughout this region during this entire period of time. My point is that there have been major fluctuations in the ice levels of the Arctic. I am not going to even cite information from the Viking period as it has not been adequately authenticated but we could certainly use such accounts to discuss ice buildup on Greenland, no?

Global warming may open Northwest Passage to shipping

For centuries, explorers have dreamed of sailing through Arctic passages as a shortcut between Europe and Asia.

Lorna Knaus says the dream of navigating the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage has never been closer to reality. . . .

Lawson Brigham, deputy executive director of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission in Alexandria, Va., has never met Knaus but said she’s “on the mark.”

“It sounds like she’s a visionary and taking a holistic view of our changing planet,” said Brigham, who holds a doctorate in oceanography from Cambridge University in England and is considered an expert in Arctic navigation and sea ice. He is a former U.S. Coast Guard captain who commanded some of the service’s ice-breaking cutters.

Brigham said that while scientist argue over what is causing global warming, they do agree that the rising world temperatures have caused the permanent ice cap over the North Pole to shrink in thickness by about 43 percent.

That, he said, may allow the more popular Northwest Passage route to become navigable in the summer months in a few years, or even longer by midcentury, or earlier.

“We might see something within 20 years; the climate isn’t going to reverse itself anytime soon,” Brigham said.

“A few years ago, no one would have dreamed of seeing a ship n the middle of the Arctic,” Brigham said. “Since 1987 there have been 48 ships through or deep into the Arctic, most of them in the summer months.”

since when? 1979? 1982?

Also, the reason no ships made it through the Northwest Passage earlier is because they did not know the route. That was just as much a factor as the presence of ice. Please check out the routes that the Vikings used to use to get to their settlements in Greenland and the hypothetical routes that they used to traverse the area around Baffin Island. Eventually, however, their settlements in Greenland had to be abandoned because of ever-increasing ice. I merely wish to point that out. Also, I wish to acknowledge a mistake on my part. Greenland was not named because it was green but to lure settlers to a place with a better sounding name. That said, settlements were active until they were forced because of bad weather to relocate and/or leave.

So my final two questions: 1. What is the basis of the comparison, 1979? 1982? 1980? If it is, then I have a problem with it. Second, the ice in this region has fluctuated greatly over millenia. Are we sure that the most recent episodes are more severe or are we merely more aware of the extent not?

Also, Spook, the global warming hysteria does not really seem in character with you. Are you just challenging these facts and figures because I am the one doing the posting or because you really care. Really?

My dear Fred,

It appears that evidence of global warming is inconclusive either way currently and anyone who claims otherwise is “all wet.” More data is needed but, unfortunately, climate changes are epochal events so the truth won’t be known definitively until well after the event has become a climatological fact – or fiction.

That’s the problem. If we wait to moderate our behaviour until the scientific evidence is in, it will be too late, so it’s far better to be safe than sorry and moderate our behaviour within reason now while the facts are being amassed.

That’s why I pick on you then and not the Chicken Little faction as your unwarranted conclusion carries far greater risks than theirs does.

More junk science, brought to you by Fox News and Exxon…

Fred Barnes Repeats Junk Science Talking Point
Issued by Big Oil

Reported by Janie - May 24, 2006

Fred Barnes, who is known to repeat every right wing
talking point he hears without discrimination, did so
again last night (5/23) during the “All Star Panel” on
Special Report with Brit Hume; this time on behalf of
Big Oil.

During the segment, which was used to bash Al
Gore’s new documentary An Inconvenient Truth (you
can find the release date closest to you here), Fred
Barnes claimed, “They’re [glaciers] melting in some
places, it’s getting colder in Greenland.”

The claim that Greenland is getting colder is quite
misleading, and comes from an advertisement
released to directly counter Gore’s film, which was
issued by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a
group funded by none other than ExxonMobile.

Read the rest of the article:
newshounds.us/2006/05/24/fre … ig_oil.php

=========================

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

voanews.com/english/2006-05-24-voa25.cfm

excerpt:

NASA scientists, working with 10 years of satellite
data, find a dramatic thinning of ice around the edges
of Greenland, and Antarctica too.

Using satellite technology and various measurements,
NASA scientists confirm the earth is melting at both
poles. In the north, at the Arctic, the melting of
Greenland’s three-kilometer thick ice sheet had been
expected, though not as dramatically as it is now
happening. But in the south, many believed the far
more massive ice sheets covering Antarctica would
increase in the 21st century. That’s not so, according
to the NASA observations and data. Despite
increasing snowfall, Antarctica’s ice sheets are
shrinking.

Research Scientist, Dr. Isabella Velicogna is with the
University Of Colorado explains the evidence of
melting. “What is unique about what we found is that
for the first time, we are able to say, we are sure that
the Antarctic ice sheet is losing mass, and at a
significant rate.”

Speaking of algore…
algore carbon footprint video

[url=http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm]New Video Exposes Behind-the-Scenes Story of Gore

Then again… Maybe not…

[quote]Glaciers: Coming to a sticky end?
Predictions vary from the catastrophic to the cataclysmic.

Glaciers are melting, the ice caps disappearing into the oceans. Sea levels may rise by many metres as a consequence.

Indigenous Arctic peoples will find their food stocks gone, while fresh water supplies in Asia and south America will disappear as the glaciers which provide them melt away; penguins, polar bears and seals will find their habitats gone, their traditional lives unliveable.

But how realistic is this picture? Is the world’s ice really disappearing, or is it unscientific hot air?

A European satellite named Cryosat was designed to provide definitive answers to some of these questions.

A launcher fault destroyed the mission in October 2005, but the European Space Agency has approved a replacement. In the meantime, here is our global snapshot.

Huge, pristine, dramatic, unforgiving; the Antarctic is where the biggest of all global changes could begin.

There is so much ice here that if it all melted, sea levels globally would rise hugely - perhaps as much as 80m. Say goodbye to London, New York, Sydney, Bangkok, Rio… in fact, the majority of the world’s major cities.

But will it happen? Scientists divide the Antarctic into three zones: the east and west Antarctic ice sheets; and the Peninsula, the tongue of land which points up towards the southern tip of South America.

“Everybody thinks that the Antarctic is shrinking due to climate change, but the reality is much more complex,” says David Vaughan, a principal investigator at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK.

"Parts of it appear to be thickening as a result of snowfall increases. But the peninsula is thinning at an alarming rate due to warming.

“The West Antarctic sheet is also thinning, and we’re not sure of the reason why.”

On the up

Temperatures in the Peninsula appear to be increasing at around twice the global average - about 2C over the last 50 years. Those figures are based on measurements made by instruments at scientific stations.

Earlier this year, David Vaughan’s group published research showing that the vast majority of glaciers along the Peninsula - 87% of the 244 studied - are in retreat.

The ice dumped into the ocean as the glaciers retreat should not make much difference to global sea levels - perhaps a few cm.

More worrying, potentially, are the vast ice sheets covering the rest of Antarctica.

Making temperature measurements for the continent as a whole is difficult; it is a vast place - more than 2,000km across - there are few research stations, and temperatures vary naturally by 2-3C from year to year.

But measurements indicate that in the west, melting is underway.

“About one-third of the West Antarctic ice sheet is thinning,” says Dr Vaughan, “on average by about 10cm per year, but in the worst places by 3-4m per year.”

The rock on which the West Antarctic ice rests is below sea level - and British Antarctic Survey researchers believe the thinning could be due to the ice sheet melting on its underside.

“It may be that the ocean is warming and that’s causing the ice to melt, but there may be other reasons as well; for example, there’s lots of volcanism in that area and so that could change how much heat is delivered to the underside of the ice sheet.”

Cryosat should help to pin down what is happening at the West Antarctic fringe. The radar altimeters on board its predecessors ERS1 and ERS2 have been unable to map the steep slopes at the coast, whereas Cryosat’s instrument should be able to cope.

If the entire West Antarctic ice sheet did melt, sea levels globally would rise, by around 5m. But at the moment, there is no sign of that happening.

One recent scientific paper attempted to calculate probabilities for how much West Antarctic melting would contribute to global sea-level rises during this century.

The conclusions: a 30% probability of a 20cm rise, and a 5% chance of a 1m rise.

Eastern mass

And what of the big monster, the much larger east Antarctic sheet?

A recent study using altimeter data suggested it is getting thicker, by about 1.8cm/yr; another, using the gravity satellite mission Grace indicates its mass remains stable.

But could rising temperatures in time drain the ice away?

"It is not going to happen on any realistic human timescale," says David Vaughan.

"It’s so cold that you could raise temperatures by 5-10C without having much of an impact; it’s on rock above sea level, so warming in the ocean can’t affect it."

Largely insulated from global trends and so big as to generate its own climatic systems, most of Antarctica appears to be immune to the big melt for now, though answers to what is happening in the west are eagerly awaited. [/quote]

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4315968.stm

Back to you…

Well… theres one main point no one has mentioned… so lets really worry about it, after all, 10,000 years when all these disasters is predicted to happen is just around the corner. And I intend to look down upon you naysayers against global warming in 12,000 AD.

For anyone with a real interest in global warming, a good website to read is:

realclimate.org/

It’s written by scientists who are trying to refute the junk science they see spewing from Exxon. Some of the articles are a bit too technical, but there are plenty of stories that are readable by the laymen (scroll down).

cheers,
DB

Here’s a “fun” site that combines Googlemaps with various sea-level rises- time to start on that Ark?

flood.firetree.net/
Flood Maps

So quick question… Is the scientist quoted in my previous post on the payroll of Exxon? Were his results not arrived at scientifically? Again, if we are told that one of the major problems is global warming at the poles, why is most of Antarctica cooling? All of the major warming has occured on the peninsula (2 percent) of Antarctica. The next problem becomes one of rising seas due to melting ice caps, but this is not happening in Antarctica. In fact the ice cap is getting thicker. Why? Because of more snow? Why because of warmer sea temperatures surrounding Antarctica? So then this becomes proof of global warming but if it is proof of global warming then we may find that sea levels drop? because of increased snow fall? due to global warming? Which is it? Again, all of the North Sea cap could melt and it would not raise ocean levels on millimeter because the ice cap is already suspended in water. Okay, cannot have our argument that way so we will discuss all the fresh water that will rush in and disrupt the Gulf Stream. Okay, but this is to be feared because it will do what? lower temperatures in Europe right? So then if this lowers temperatures in the area, then the ice cap would build back up again right? So I am left struggling to figure out just what we are supposed to be doing about this.

Come on fred, surely you’ve read enough about ‘global warming’ to know that the phenomena are better described as consquences of more energy (heat) in the system, rather than simple, across the board, higher temperatures. Some places will be hotter, on average, some cooler. Save for solar input, we’re living in a delicately balanaced closed system; screwing around with than balance too much, if only by making more adjustments within the system necessary, could have very serious consquences. Even if–to assume a ridiculous scenario-- there were a three degree, across the board, rise in temperatures, and we could start growing oranges in north Ontario, the costs associated with chasing shifting agricultural sweet spots would eat up several generations worth of available resources; resources that might be invested in raising the general condition of man, rather than merely running in place.

You’ve previously posted that bit about melting sea ice not raising ocean levels, and should have seen someone’s reply that melting sea ice will raise ocean levels, if only because a dark body of water absorbs more energy than white, reflective, ice, leading to warmer waters, which are less dense than cold water. I forget by precisely how much, but the resulting increase in sea volume is significant.

And you will no doubt recall that we are actually seeing increased snowfall in both Greenland and Antarctica. We have added 45 billion tons of ice per year to Antarctica and smaller amounts of buildup are seen in Greenland so… er, if the snowpacks and icecaps are getting thicker, er… do you see my dilemma? But I am sure that Al Gore has the answer. Exxon must be to blame? right?

Sea ice. Land ice. Al Gore.
Shifting target?
“We have add 45 billion tons of ice per year…” We have? How? From where? Is this being shipped down south from winter road scraping?
Not a chance of seriously thinking through the issue, or the politics of the issue, rather than the politics of the parties? :s

Do you discount the fact that 45 billion tons of ice is being added every year to Antarctica? What about the smaller amounts to Greenland? So if the land ice is the problem, then, er, since it is getting thicker then the argument for rising seas? What are we to think?

Also this new Al Gore thing… Turns out Hurricane Katrina was NOT a category 5 but a category 3 so… again, this increasingly devastating hurricanes argument… where does it go?

[quote=“fred smith”]Do you discount the fact that 45 billion tons of ice is being added every year to Antarctica? What about the smaller amounts to Greenland? So if the land ice is the problem, then, er, since it is getting thicker then the argument for rising seas? What are we to think?

Also this new Al Gore thing… Turns out Hurricane Katrina was NOT a category 5 but a category 3 so… again, this increasingly devastating hurricanes argument… where does it go?[/quote]

Not sure where you’re getting this “45 billion tons of ice” being added to Antarctica, smaller amounts to Greenland." You really ought to read the realclimate.org website I suggested. Lots of good articles in there if you bother to look. Here’s one addressing the Greenland ice issue:

realclimate.org/index.php/ar … -glaciers/

An important quote from that article:

The largest contributions to sea level rise so far are estimated to have come from thermal expansion, with the melting of mountain glaciers and icecaps being of second order. Looking forward, the current (small) imbalance (whether positive or negative) of the Greenland ice sheet is not terribly important. What matters is if the melting were to increase significantly.

As for Hurricane Katrina, it WAS category 5 while it was in the Gulf, but weakened to category 3 after hitting land:

Hurricane Katrina hits Category 5
cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/08/28/tropical.weather/

It’s lucky for New Orleans residents that the hurricane weakened, but while it was in the Gulf, Katrina in all its category 5 glory caused a storm surge that flooded the Gulf coast, so even places above sea level like Biloxi, Mississippi were inundated. And in the Gulf, category 5 Katrina ripped up plenty of oil rigs, sending oil prices to an all-time high. It could well happen again this summer - we are just starting hurricane season now.

cheers,
DB

PAUL KRUGMAN: Swift Boating the Planet

A brief segment in “An Inconvenient Truth” shows Senator Al Gore questioning
James Hansen, a climatologist at NASA, during a 1989 hearing. But the movie
doesn’t give you much context, or tell you what happened to Dr. Hansen later.

And that’s a story worth telling, for two reasons. It’s a good illustration of the
way interest groups can create the appearance of doubt even when the facts
are clear and cloud the reputations of people who should be regarded as
heroes. And it’s a warning for Mr. Gore and others who hope to turn global
warming into a real political issue: you’re going to have to get tougher, because
the other side doesn’t play by any known rules.

Read the rest of the article:
jurassicpork.blogspot.com/2006/0 … lanet.html

[quote]you’re going to have to get tougher, because
the other side doesn’t play by any known rules. [/quote]

Chuckle chuckle. Must mean that we are finally influencing people to the true realities and so this is pissing people off.

You cannot have it both ways. The warming seas near Greenland and Antarctica are causing more snowfall on both land masses which is seeing the ice caps thicken. So if rising temperatures are going to cause more melting and thus raise sea levels what about the inconvenient truth that the opposite appears to be true? That the caps are in fact thickening? Please explain.