Arctic ice set to match all-time record low

Having a bad time? Need to Rant? Then this is the place for you. This also doubles as the debates section, for serious (and perhaps not so serious) discussion on a wide variety of topics.

Please be aware of the strict policies of this section (see rules before posting).
Rand0M
Spectre
Spectre
Posts: 161
Joined: August 25th 2012 - 7:51 pm

Re: Arctic ice set to match all-time record low

Post by Rand0M » September 26th 2012 - 9:43 pm

hrmwrm wrote:
(well randOM, your sig is 50% correct)
:cheers5:
Wins, -MaDMAn- and Truebluerover: Thank you for the ip filters.

Global warming is a lie.

Scientology is a cult.

Rand0M
Spectre
Spectre
Posts: 161
Joined: August 25th 2012 - 7:51 pm

Re: Arctic ice set to match all-time record low

Post by Rand0M » October 15th 2012 - 6:20 pm

:whistle:
Antarctic Sea Ice Hits Record ... High

source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... al-warming

Despite frequent headlines about a warming planet, melting sea ice, and rising oceans, climate analysts pointed to a seeming bright spot this week: During Southern Hemisphere winters, sea ice in the Antarctic, the floating chunks of frozen ocean water, is actually increasing.

In fact, in late September, satellite data indicated that Antarctica was surrounded by the greatest area of sea ice ever recorded in the region: 7.51 million square miles (19.44 million square kilometers), the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center announced Thursday. Even so, it's a slow rate of growth—about one percent over last year—not nearly enough to offset melting in the Arctic, which broke records just weeks ago.

National Geographic asked Eric Rignot, a NASA researcher and earth systems professor at UC Irvine, whether the data is good news, and what it means for the rise of global sea levels, which are fueled by melting ice.

This Antarctic record seems counter to what we often hear about sea ice shrinking. How can we explain growing sea ice?

If the world was warming up uniformly, you would expect the sea ice cover to decrease in the Antarctic, but it's not. The reason for that is because the Antarctic is cooler than the rest of the world. It's warming up as well but not as fast as other places.

So you have the warming world and a cold Antarctica, and the difference between the two is increasing. That makes the winds around Antarctica move a little bit faster. There's also a difference that comes from the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere in the Antarctic, which makes the stratosphere colder.

That's the leading explanation for what we're seeing in the Antarctic, but you have to acknowledge that the effect is very small.

How does this news relate to other studies showing that the melting of Antarctic continental ice is contributing to a rise in sea level?

[Growing sea ice] has no effect whatsoever on sea level, because sea ice is already floating on the ocean. It does not displace sea level. It's frozen seawater, so whether it's frozen or liquid, it doesn't change the sea level.

While Arctic sea ice is decreasing, the Antarctic is now slightly increasing. Why is there so much variation between Arctic and Antarctic ice?

Well we have a continent on the South Pole. On the North Pole we have nothing but ocean. In the Arctic you see full-fledged warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, plus increased ice transport [out of the region, which removes cold air and water]. So all of these effects contribute to reduce the sea ice cover in the Arctic.

In the Antarctic, you have to think of it as its own climate system. It's a big continent isolated from the rest of the world. It has ocean all around it. It has wind regimes that blow clockwise around it and isolate it. It acts differently from the Arctic, which is completely connected to the rest of the North Hemisphere.

Considering we regularly hear about the planet's stressed climate system, is this good news?

Really, it's consistent with our understanding of a warming world. Some of the regional details are not something we can easily predict. But the general trends of decay of the sea ice cover and decay of the Greenland ice sheets and ice caps is in line with what we expect.

The Antarctic has not been warming up as fast as the models thought. It's warming up, but slower. So it's all consistent with a warming planet.

Note: Interview has been condensed and edited.
Wins, -MaDMAn- and Truebluerover: Thank you for the ip filters.

Global warming is a lie.

Scientology is a cult.

Rand0M
Spectre
Spectre
Posts: 161
Joined: August 25th 2012 - 7:51 pm

Re: Arctic ice set to match all-time record low

Post by Rand0M » October 15th 2012 - 6:23 pm

:whistle: :whistle:
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ve-it.html

The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996.

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.

Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.

Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.

At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.

Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?

You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.

The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.

They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.

Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.

And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.

It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.

This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.

But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.

‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’

Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’

Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.

Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’

He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote.

Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economy’s output and models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by private businesses.

Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.

Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century – and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.

The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.

So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.
Wins, -MaDMAn- and Truebluerover: Thank you for the ip filters.

Global warming is a lie.

Scientology is a cult.

User avatar
Tiinuli
Panty Thrower
Panty Thrower
Posts: 6355
Joined: December 14th 2006 - 3:14 pm
P2P Clients: eMule (v0.49c)
Location: Between a rock and hard place...

Re: Arctic ice set to match all-time record low

Post by Tiinuli » October 15th 2012 - 7:29 pm

This thread has taken a life of its own. TL;DR :laugh:
Image

User avatar
Ingolf
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 3790
Joined: January 29th 2007 - 12:13 am
P2P Clients: eMule Morph
Location: Building 7
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Arctic ice set to match all-time record low

Post by Ingolf » October 18th 2012 - 1:54 am

So you have a 6 month period that does not match the computed data, and you jump to the conclusion that globa.. i mean climate change, is just a myth? :hmm:

Good luck :k:

Why was this moved to the bone-yard? This is not a rant, but a serious discussion about what we all observe.

But since it's the bone-yard... to get back on topic:

It's obviously the heat from Nibiru that is the cause... :laugh:

hrmwrm

Re: Arctic ice set to match all-time record low

Post by hrmwrm » October 18th 2012 - 7:24 am

What has global warming done since 1998?

The skeptic argument...
It hasn't warmed since 1998
For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. This period coincides with society's continued pumping of more CO2 into the atmosphere.
To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.

This analysis is performed in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth's total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (the energy required to melt ice) were also included.

A look at the Earth's total heat content clearly shows global warming has continued past 1998. The planet is still accumulating heat. So why do surface temperature records show 1998 as the hottest year on record? We see in Figure 1 that the heat capacity of the land and atmosphere is small compared to the ocean. Hence, relatively small exchanges of heat between the atmosphere and ocean can cause significant changes in surface temperature.

In 1998, an abnormally strong El Nino caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced above average surface temperatures. Conversely, the last few years have seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global temperatures. And the last few months have swung back to warmer El Nino conditions. This has coincided with the warmest June-August sea surface temperatures on record. This internal variation where heat is shuffled around our climate is the reason why surface temperature is such a noisy signal.

Using moving averages to discern the long-term trend
With so much internal variability, scientists employ statistical methods to discern long-term trends in surface temperature. The easiest way to remove short-term variations, revealing any underlying trend, is to plot a moving average, performed in Waiting for Cooling (Fawcett & Jones 2008) . Figure 2 displays the 11-year moving average - an average calculated over the year itself and five years either side. They've used three different data-sets - NCDC, NASA GISS and the British HadCRUT3. In all three data-sets, the moving average shows no sign that the warming trend has reversed.

Next, Fawcett and Jones look for a cooling trend in the 10 years since 1998. They find the linear trend over 1998 to 2007 is a warming trend in all three data-sets. Note that HadCRUT3 displays less warming than NASA GISS and NCDC. This is most likely due to the fact that HadCRUT data doesn't cover parts of the Arctic where there has been strong warming in recent years.

Removing the El Niño signal from the temperature record
The reason that 1998 was such an anomalously warm year was due to a strong El Niño that year. Fawcett and Jones remove the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) signal by calculating a linear regression of global temperatures against the Southern Oscillation Index. A detailed description of the process is found in Fawcett 2007. The result is shown in Figure 4.
Image
When removing these short-term effects, the warming trend has barely even slowed since 1998 (0.163°C per decade from 1979 through 2010, vs. 0.155°C per decade from 1998 through 2010, and 0.187°C per decade for 2000 through 2010).

Is 1998 actually the hottest year on record?
Of the three surface temperature records (HadCRUT3, NASA GISS, and NCDC), only HadCRUT3 actually shows 1998 as the hottest year on record. For NASA GISS and NCDC, the hottest year on record is 2005. A new independent analysis of the HadCRUT record sheds light on this discrepancy. The analysis is by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) who calculated global temperature, utilizing a range of sources including surface temperature measurements, satellites, radiosondes, ships and buoys. They found warming has been higher than that shown by HadCRUT. This is because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change, on average, than the entire globe.

Figure 6 shows the regions that HadCRUT have sampled compared to the regions ECMWF included in their dataset. The ECMWF analysis shows that in data-sparse regions such as Russia, Africa and Canada, there is strong warming over land that is not included in the HadCRUT's sampling data. This leads the ECMWF to infer with high confidence that the HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming.

This result is not unexpected. NASA GISS find a major contributor to the record hot 2005 is the extreme warming in the Arctic (Hansen 2006). As there are few meteorological stations in the Arctic, NASA extrapolated temperature anomalies from the nearest measurement stations. They found the estimated strong Arctic warmth was consistent with infrared satellite measurements and record low sea ice concentrations.

images here.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... ediate.htm

User avatar
dukster64
Phantom VIP
Phantom VIP
Posts: 18521
Joined: February 12th 2007 - 8:03 pm
Location: South West France
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Arctic ice set to match all-time record low

Post by dukster64 » October 18th 2012 - 11:49 am

Ingolf wrote:[...]Why was this moved to the bone-yard? This is not a rant, but a serious discussion about what we all observe.
It's in the boneyard because that's where it belongs :

Boneyard description
This also doubles as the debates section, for serious (and perhaps not so serious) discussion on a wide variety of topics.

Rand0M
Spectre
Spectre
Posts: 161
Joined: August 25th 2012 - 7:51 pm

Re: Arctic ice set to match all-time record low

Post by Rand0M » October 27th 2012 - 2:56 am

dukster64 wrote:
Ingolf wrote:[...]Why was this moved to the bone-yard? This is not a rant, but a serious discussion about what we all observe.
It's in the boneyard because that's where it belongs :

Boneyard description
This also doubles as the debates section, for serious (and perhaps not so serious) discussion on a wide variety of topics.
:gi:
Wins, -MaDMAn- and Truebluerover: Thank you for the ip filters.

Global warming is a lie.

Scientology is a cult.

User avatar
Ingolf
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 3790
Joined: January 29th 2007 - 12:13 am
P2P Clients: eMule Morph
Location: Building 7
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Arctic ice set to match all-time record low

Post by Ingolf » October 30th 2012 - 6:08 am

everything is cool

Image
New York subway


Image
New Jersey

Nothing to see here, move along !
Last edited by Ingolf on October 30th 2012 - 6:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ingolf
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 3790
Joined: January 29th 2007 - 12:13 am
P2P Clients: eMule Morph
Location: Building 7
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Arctic ice set to match all-time record low

Post by Ingolf » October 30th 2012 - 6:11 am

Rand0M wrote:
dukster64 wrote:
Ingolf wrote:[...]Why was this moved to the bone-yard? This is not a rant, but a serious discussion about what we all observe.
It's in the boneyard because that's where it belongs :

Boneyard description
This also doubles as the debates section, for serious (and perhaps not so serious) discussion on a wide variety of topics.
:gi:
Glad we got that cleared :wink2:

User avatar
Ingolf
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 3790
Joined: January 29th 2007 - 12:13 am
P2P Clients: eMule Morph
Location: Building 7
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Arctic ice set to match all-time record low

Post by Ingolf » October 30th 2012 - 4:47 pm

Image

User avatar
dukster64
Phantom VIP
Phantom VIP
Posts: 18521
Joined: February 12th 2007 - 8:03 pm
Location: South West France
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Arctic ice set to match all-time record low

Post by dukster64 » October 30th 2012 - 6:28 pm

:lol1: :lol1: :lol1: :lol1: :lol1:

Post Reply

Return to “The Bone Yard”