Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: www.wattsupwiththat.comEven the computer models are now showing less warming from the doubling of CO2.
From NASA Earth Science news: A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback – a cooling effect – in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming.
Will wonders never cease.
Al Gore and Roxanne will be displeased.
As opposed to you convincing only Ostrich viners such as upswing, when you can finally convince a single scientific organization on the face of the planet called Earth that anthropogenic gw is a fraud, then I will finally be displeased, spaceguy.
Statements by dissenting organizations
With the release of the revised statement[94] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming.[2][3]
Roxanne:
As opposed to you convincing only Ostrich viners such as upswing,
You think I need "convincing"?
Boy, you really do have an issue with reality, don't you?
LOL!
Roxanne... mark my words... one day, in the (not to distant?) furute, you will wake up and realize that you have something much more important to worry about than AGW. I do not know exactly when that will happen or what that thing will be, but I promise you it WILL happen... and when it does, you will wonder why you ever spent so much time trying to convince everyone to be as affraid as you currently are.
Leave it to NASA to save the planet from Gore! I feel liberated already.
Global warming is a fact. Scientist who claim it's not are simply of another $chool of thought than those who claim it is fact :) As obvious as global warming. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxidefrom combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21stcentury, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).
Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.
Scientist who worked for the tobacco claimed that certain cigarettes were healthy for you and that adding a filter made of asbestos reduces the tar creating a safe cigarette, until it could simply not be denied anymore to any good degree - but WELL past the time all the evidence was in, and they still fight it to this day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologists
Did you look at the source? An organization dedicated to petroleum exploration!?! hmm, I wonder what vested interest they could possibly have in denying the effects of over-use of petroleum products and it's damaging effects on our environment? hmm... I wonder why in the face of the above facts they might say something like what is in msg. 1.1. Oh yeah that's right, $$$GREED$$$.
Wouldn't we have to reverse the trend of deforestation to the emph degree in order for this kind of earth saving effect to take effect? It ain't going to happen if there are fewer and fewer plants and trees.
We can all post links. Here is a good one too, with admissions from Mr Mann et al.
And one more for good measure...
http://www.helium.com/items/1837151-why-earth-may-be-entering-a-new-ice-age
Skeptics have been preaching about a coming ice age from before I joined the vine, but back in the Real World the only thing that's happening is each successive decade is an even bigger scorcher than the ones before it.
A new NASA model? I thought the global warming scientists understood everything about global warming. You mean there are some things they don't understand? I'm shocked!!
To those who posted before reading the linked article, it clearly says:
Bounoua stressed that while the model’s results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected. In fact, the present work is an example of how, over time, scientists will create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate.
“This feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming,” Bounoua said.
I agree with the premise of this article - that increased plant growth would slow the effects of GW. However, I see no current mechanism to achieve it.
Contrary to a trend of increased plant growth, we see deforestation happening as the world's population continues to climb and demand for food grows. Where will this substantial increase in plant growth take place?
This is (as stated in the article) a refinement to current GW computer models. As our understanding of the complex system GW scientists study increases, we will continue to refine those models.
That's how science works.
As good news as this article appears, there is the fact GW is real, and even this model shows that:
The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included...
Scientists agree that in a world where carbon dioxide has doubled – a standard basis for many global warming modeling simulations – temperature would increase from 2 to 4.5 degrees C (3.5 to 8.0 F).
In other words, plant cooling would reduce GW (or slow it down) by a factor of around 10%.
The question I would ask is this - if the model assumes plant growth in the Arctic tundra, has it accounted for the massive stores of methane currently locked in the permafrost being released when that area thaws?
A new NASA model? I thought the global warming scientists understood everything about global warming. You mean there are some things they don't understand? I'm shocked!!
Exactly.
In other words, plant cooling would reduce GW (or slow it down) by a factor of around 10%.
The point of the seed is that as time goes on we find more and more examples of how the models do not represent reality. Not one model has been able to accurately forecast the past, much less the future.
Why is it then that the AGW crowd want our entire planetary civilization to return to the 19th century due to this level of confidence?
Additionally, why is it that climate scientists, with zero training in systems engineering, engineering development, or macro engineering, claim that they have the solution to the AGW problem?
When pressed, their solution set is identical with 1960's and early 70's Limits to Growth arguments that were fundamentally political documents that themselves showed no understanding of engineering and who's predictions have universally failed the test of time.
In other words, plant cooling would reduce GW (or slow it down) by a factor of around 10%.
Around 10%? More like 16%.
None of these guys have ever accurately modeled clouds either.
space guy,
I used a midpoint from the given data range (3.5 to 8.0 F) and used the qualifier 'around' in that statement.
The midpoint is 5.75 F, and the cooling effect is 0.5 F. My 'around 10%' was actually generous. The real number is 8.69% - but there are uncertainties in all numbers provided. So I rounded up, giving the new model the benefit of the doubt.
There is one tiny situation we need to "adapt" to or take care of before we can all celebrate:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5489964/world_deforestation/
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xc378z_the-deforestation-of-the-world-glob_news
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/05/chaco-paraguay-deforestation
http://www.conservation.org/learn/climate/strategies/field/pages/projects.aspx
Last time I looked, I read a piece that said that the Greens kept talking about how much the world was being deforrestated - but the total acreage covered by trees per year kept going up...
If you want to contribute to maintaining forests, I and my neighbors would be more than happy to take your money to not cut down the forests we don't plan on cutting down anyway and that we currently maintain... ;-D (I own and pay taxes on about 70 acres of mixed deciduous trees... hickory, oak, honey locust, walnuts, etc, etc, etc.) and about 16 acres of wild grasses and plants, with only 26 acres of tillable ground.
I am sorry to digress, but I could not resist: Check out this forest bird I came across in my "research" :), the "lyre" bird! In a way, it is a very good example of deforestation, with the sounds that this one chooses to make - with one specific one in mind (!chainsaw!).. Amazing!
I'd love to see the data that shows forest growth increasing faster than deforestation! Just a guess, I wonder if the data includes man made "forest" such as eucalyptus tree forest for paper, which - as an above video put it - does not replace the natural forest that was once there since the leaves fall to the ground with their toxic eucalyptus oils and prevent anything from growing at their base.. and any harvested crop eventually depletes the soil leading to land erosion, drought, starvation and desertification - it is not the same as an eco system that has taken thousands of years to develop and establish itself.
I'd love to see the data that shows forest growth increasing faster than deforestation!
The amount of forest cover in the United States hit its minimum in 1945 and has been increasing since.
Google it.
The amount of forest cover in the United States hit its minimum in 1945 and has been increasing since.
Oil replaced wood as the primary method for heating houses at about this time vastly reducing the need for lumber. As many of us move more and more towards paperless work and billing the demand for pulp has declined recently as well - at least where I'm from. Long term, however, it's not wood products but rather urban sprawl that will lead towards more deforestation here in the states, while internationally in places like Brazil the need for land for agriculture drives deforestation.
james,
You are right about global deforestation. It is indeed growing:
About one half of the forests that covered the Earth are gone. Each year, another 16 million hectares disappear.
space guy is also right - but as his focus in only on the U.S., it doesn't show the entire picture. The world is larger than the U.S., and global trends of deforestation are moving in the wrong direction:
The USA has already experienced its wave of deforestation, with the exception of small areas in the west and Alaska. Our old growth forests were mostly harvested by 1920, particularly in the East. Pacific Northwest forests and UP Michigan forests were heavily cut after 1920 until quite recently, and harvest of old growth continues today in Southeast Alaska. Interestingly, deforestation rates at their peak in the Midwest were ~2% annually, about the rates now seen in Amazonia. At that rate, how much of existing forest will remain in 70 years? Just one-fourth.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html
The fact that deforestation has slowed, or even stopped, in the U.S. won't have much effect on GW. Our atmosphere is global, and so is the trend in deforestation.
Oil replaced wood as the primary method for heating houses at about this time vastly reducing the need for lumber.
Uh, no. Coal was used en masse as far back as the 1870's due to the demand for coal in the steel and railroad industries and took over for homes by 1900.
The amount of forest cover in the United States hit its minimum in 1945 and has been increasing since.
Google it.
If you want to be a responsible viner you should source your info instead of telling someone to google it. As far as I am concerned you are wrong. You present absolutely NO proof of your opinion.
Yawn
My old source was regionally based. The U.S. forest extent has been essentially the same for over 100 years.
http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/briefings-summaries-overviews/docs/ForestFactsMetric.pdf
Page 4
How's that for spoon feeding you.
To be honest it stinks and it's sloppy spoon feeding. We have stressed our forest greatly to say the least. To say that keeping them at a stressed level is any kind of victory is just silly. And I was right about what they include in their data in terms of including timber plantations:
http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/briefings-summaries-overviews/docs/ForestFactsMetric.pdf
"Renewable resources
in this assessment include outdoor recreation, fish and
It is estimated that—at the beginning of European settlement—
in 1630 the area of forest land that would become
the United States was 423 million hectares or about 46
percent of the total land area. By 1907, the area of forest
land had declined to an estimated 307 million hectares or
34 percent of the total land area. Forest area has been relatively
stable since 1907. In 1997, 302 million hectares—
or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States—
was in forest land. Today's forest land area amounts to
about 70 percent of the area that was forested in 1630."
So according to your brochure, forest land had decreased intensely at first and has leveled of [ALMOST] with a now STEADY but slow decline - with a loss of 30%+ of all original forest.
"After intensive logging in the late 19th century and early
to mid 20th century, 55 percent of the forests on the
Nation' s timber land is less than 50 years old. Six percent
of the Nation's timber land is more than 175 years
old."
&
"Average growing stock volume per hectare on timber land
continues to rise across the United States. The rate of
increase has leveled off, partially due to recent increases
in mortality."
&
"Tree mortality relative to standing inventory has fluctuated
over the years and is currently at the highest level in
50 years."
It does say:
"Over the past 50 years, growth has generally exceeded
removals throughout the United States."
But new growth is not the same as old growth, it is like human babies compared to adults - new growth just does not do the same job as old growth. And there is still a slow decline here and and intense decline in forest world wide.
"One forest does not necessarily replace another" as a saying goes..
For some reason I could not block quote the above, so I used parentheses.
This PDF file is difficult to deal with when cutting and pasting and highlighting for some reason. Here is what your brochure says it includes as forest land.
"Renewable resources
in this assessment include outdoor recreation, fish and
wildlife, wilderness, timber, water, range, and minerals."
I have trees on my place that are over 36 inches in diameter. A couple of months ago, my son and I cut down a dead/diseased Black Locust that measured 42". And I have oaks and at least three varieties of Mulberries, some of which are larger than the oaks and black locusts. We had an old cottonwood up on the hill that the Eagles were nesting in for a few years - until the lightning got it. The ice storm we had a few years back took a heavy toll on the woods. Some of the damaged trees, including some hickory trees, I've cut have been over 50 years old.
Once the tree is weakened by having broken and stressed branches, the brown borers attack it and once they've placed eggs in the tree, it's just a matter of time until it's dead. By selectively cutting down and removing such trees from the woods, we cut down on the number of borers and so slow their attack on other stressed trees - and heat our house at the same time. :-)
Unlike the Ash borer, the Brown borer only attacks stressed and weakened trees, not healthy ones. So this is one of the ways trees get cycled through life as the young trees were not stressed by the ice, and so weren't attacked by the borers.
An awful lot of that timber you mentioned that was cut was due to economic hard times, especially in the Appalachia Mtns where they clear cut because they needed the money.
YOu know james, there is an easy way to replace all the trees cut, kill all the people. Those trees lost are now farm land and cities.
The simple fact is that forest land in the USA has remained almost constant for a 100 years, something that you simply cannot deal with in your world view.
I don't know if you have something against reality, but our forest are not in good shape (what is left of them). If you want to kill everyone, well that may be hard to do and pointless since there will be nobody to reap the rewards left behind!?! But if that is your goal more power to you. I for one see more practical solutions such as building skyscrapers mixed throughout major urban areas that are dedicated to plant growth. A hundred story building with an open structure, filled with plant life - is making SUPER use of a limited amount of space. Plus it can put whole "farmed crops" in the middle of down town areas reducing the need for growing cabbage in Mexico, and putting it on a stinky toxic spewing semi-truck so it can travel hundreds of miles just to reach our tables. Or "paints" that incorporate algae that can be used to cover most structures. Just because I accept reality does not mean I am all doom and gloom. I just accept reality. And I accept that our country has spoiled our natural environments. We find PCB's in eagle egg shells in nest from the deepest of forest. Putting on a smile and hoping for the best is all fine and dandy. But ignoring the facts is stupid.
Colorado Bob:
Only a denier would see this as good news.
And only a Japanese pilot emerging from the jungle after 40 years of not knowing that the war was over, and his side lost-- figuratively speaking, of course -- would see this
NASA climate model shows plants slow Global Warming by creating a new negative feedback in response to increased CO2
as proof that things are getting worse...
#5 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:10 AM ESTboy, this is going to suck when they find the software coding should have had a 0 and not a 1.
#6 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:11 AM ESTAlright people, we are to at least attempt to be respectful of others opinions and name calling is not allowed, by either side.
Please repost without the offending words.
#7 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:06 AM ESTAlright people, we are to at least attempt to be respectful of others opinions and name calling is not allowed, by either side.
???...
"Warmist"???
"Warmist"??? and Denialist are both terms that inflame and are prejorative.
space guy:
"Warmist"??? and Denialist are both terms that inflame and are prejorative.
LOL!
upswing!
For the first time ever, you and I are in Complete Agreement. :)
I'm surprised that anyone still listens to WhatsUpWithThat, it's been so thoroughly exposed as a group of dishonest hacks.
#8 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 5:27 AM ESTAnd here's some They-a Culpas presented by Roxanne's FAVORITE Brit AGW rag... and as a bonus, some more things that they think are correct - but have already been disproven (but the Mail hasn't admitted it yet.)
Alarmist Doomsday warning of rising seas 'was wrong', says Met Office study
Once again, you have to read the entire article:
However, the report says the IPCC was right to warn of a sea level rise of up to 2ft by 2100, and that a 3ft rise could happen.
Read it - but you see... you need to contrast that two feet with what they've been saying... like Al Gore's 21 feet, wasn't it? Little bit of difference there.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths#11
Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City.
Sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years. The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” Unless there is another Little Ice Age, they will continue rising at roughly this rate for centuries to come. As to open water in the Arctic, it happens every year in late summer—following weeks in the 40s and 50s.
Yeah, Gore made those exaggerated statements. Quite the screwup. Still, he stopped making those claims once it was pointed out, didn't he?
And what's with the obsession on Gore in the first place, anyway? I guess I can understand the dislike of Gore, sorta, but it doesn't make any sense that denialists use any excuse to bring him up.
Prove he did.
Not my job to knock down the nutjobs like Gore
Well, let's see, there Spaceguy... You could use this one... (ref brit court ruling in Oct 2007)
http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html
And of course the attempted de-railing of the facts by shifting to the challenger's funding, and ignoring the findings of the court:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3028150
then this one two years later where Gore avoids accepting the reality of his "inaccuracies"
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/10/11/conveniently-incomplete-gore-claims-british-court-vindicated-school-show
Don Surber:
Al Gore to the Society of Environmental Journalists: "We're very close to that political tipping point. Never before in human history has a single generation been asked to make such difficult and consequential decisions."
Yes, one generation survived the Depression, won World War II and grappled with and ultimately resolved America's shame of 100 years of second-class citizenship for blacks after 200 years of slavery.
Al Gore's big question is paper or plastic.
I don't have time for this fool.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/1361
It's pretty clear - Al Gore is not accepting responsibility for or admitting his errors.
Hold on, I was asking a question - did he? And you answered, but now you won't back up your answer. So now you look like someone afraid to back up his statements and I'm left still with the question of did he or didn't he.
And also, he didn't give a timescale in his clearly-stated hypothetical situation for the West Antarctic ice sheet, giving instead the estimate of eventual sea level rise in the most extreme situation.
http://www.admc.hct.ac.ae/hd1/blog/gw/An%20Inconvient%20Truth%20Transcript.pdf
So yeah, I'll grant that's alarmist if that's how it played out - I actually forget as I pay attention to the science but not to Gore (why would I pay attention to a non-scientist about science?) and it's been 6 years since I saw the documentary.
But all this gets me back to my other question? Just what is it that causes denialists to bring up Gore instead of talking about the science? Gore is boring, science is interesting.
Thanks Nofluer for the links, that was MUCH more helpful than Space Guy's response.
(why would I pay attention to a non-scientist about science?)
Because the politics is driving the science and not the other way around. Check my seed on here for the scientist that are still predicting this 6' rise when there is absolutely no data to support it.
Because the politics is driving the science and not the other way around
Well that's an obvious lie, and citing the rare bad-egg doesn't make it true.
West Antarctic Ice sheets? Here ya go...
http://www.iceagenow.com/Oops-West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet_not_losing_ice_as_fast_as_we_thought.htm
and this article brings up an interesting thing - it's called "rebounding" - which is where the ice melts, exerts less pressure on the underlying land mass, (which is "floating" on the core magma) and the land rises, thus mitigating the effect of melting ice on sea levels.
Oh... and another significant item - the ice on the West Antarctic Ice sheet has been melting for about 20,000 years. So much for AGW as a cause...
I'm sorry, how does local rebounding - which takes many thousands of years by the way - counter planet wide sea level rise. Are you suggesting that potential rebounding of the West Antarctic crust will lower the sea level in New York city?! Is New York's bedrock rising as well?!
Let's look at this a little more - As the crust rebounds what is really happening is that the land mass is rising. If this is happening along a coast or under the sea, it will push the ocean water away. This will result in the water going somewhere else, such as New York Harbor. That's sea level rise in my book.
Back in 1978 a geologist named Mercer predicted to a Tee exactly how Antarctica's meltdown would begin and progress: In West Antarctica's Northern Peninsula & working its way down into the continent.
And even spaceguy's heroes O'Donnell & McIntyre concur:
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/image0.png
Mercer 32 years ago ( it's a long article spaceguy, I'm only posting 3 paragraphs, k) :
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_warming_of_antarctica_a_citadel_of_ice_begins_to_melt_/2342/
The Warming of Antarctica:
A Citadel of Ice Begins to MeltIn 1978, when few researchers were paying attention to global warming, a prominent geologist at Ohio State University was already focused on the prospect of fossil fuel emissions trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. His name was John H. Mercer, and when he contemplated what might be in store for the planet, his thoughts naturally gravitated to the biggest chunk of ice on Earth — Antarctica.
“If present trends in fossil fuel consumption continue...” he wrote in Nature, “a critical level of warmth will have been passed in high southern latitudes 50 years from now, and deglaciation of West Antarctica will be imminent or in progress... One of the warning signs that a dangerous warming trend is under way in Antarctica will be the breakup of ice shelves on both coasts of the Antarctic Peninsula, starting with the northernmost and extending gradually southward.”
Mercer’s prediction has come true, and a couple of decades before he anticipated. Since he wrote those words, eight ice shelves have fully or partially collapsed along the Antarctic Peninsula, and the northwestern Antarctic Peninsula has warmed faster than virtually any place on Earth.
Back in 1978 a geologist named Mercer predicted to a Tee exactly how Antarctica's meltdown would begin and progress: In West Antarctica's Northern Peninsula & working its way down into the continent.
In July of 1966 the Antarctic sea ice peaked at over 2 million square kilometers below the 30 year mean since then and has been increasing ever since.
Mercer’s prediction has come true, and a couple of decades before he anticipated. Since he wrote those words, eight ice shelves have fully or partially collapsed along the Antarctic Peninsula,
This has not happened.
Look up the concept and the terminology of "rebounding."
And if the water gets pushed off of land, then the land under the water will not be likely to rise, but sink. So the water gets deeper where there is already water.
And I'm amazed that any AGW person, (you ARE an AGW person, yes?) would presume and state that ANY global process takes thousands of years. Shoot - I thought you all think that global warming takes place over weeks and months!!!
spaceguy,
You also think the Arctic is no longer warming up because its sea ice extent is up over 2007 (you also ignore the ongoing Thinning of the arctic's sea ice)
Therefore until you can finally post Southern Ocean & Arctic ocean temperature data over time in degrees Fahrenheit/Celsius from Research (exactly similar to the multiple research links contained in my link below), then your argument is nothing more than a religious fantasy.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm
Here is the data for the last 52 years from the Danish Meteorlogical Institute for the Arctic.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
No increase in the average temps above 80 degrees in the summer, where your AGW signal should show up.
The past several years has shown a decisive decline in summer average temps.
Laf
Do you ever fully examine your own (legitimate science) links properly?
Hit the Arctic Front Page link within your own link in your #6.21 and go read:
Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable.
Sea ice is an important element in the understanding of the global climate system. The changes in sea ice extent is closely monitored and analysed by various climate centers around the world.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php
So your Danish meteorologist friends are contradicting themselves, because which viner kept repeating that "warming water cannot make more ice", hmm?
Going by your own argument, neither can water that's cooling or not warming consistently make less ice, and at an accelerating pace at that. Laf!
Now let's see what your smart colleagues at NASA have to say re the Arctic temperature trending because after all, NASA has a heckuvalot more resources than the confused Danish meteorologists =
This map shows the 10-year average (2000-2009) temperature anomaly relative to the 1951-1980 mean. The largest temperature increases are in the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula. (Image credit: NASA/GISS)
Click for PDF. View related video (Windows Media)
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml
And from your favorite website for antarctica sea ice photos:
Recent observed surface air temperature changes over the Arctic region are the largest in the world. Winter (DJF) rates of warming exceed 4 degrees C. over portions of the Arctic land areas (shown left). We provide Arctic temperature trends and changes of other primary surface variables (e.g., sea level pressure, precipitation, sea ice cover) archived in this climate summary, portions of which are published each year in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
Oh, and spaceguy, please do remember to click on the animation arrows for the February Arctic sea ice/multi-year ice trending on the Arctic Front Page of your own link in your #6.21, ok
Or access it via my first link in #6.22
Unlike you and wattsupwiththat.com's favorite sea ice 'sexpert' the mysterious "steven goddard" , Danish meteorologists do not cherrypick only ice extent and ignore its volume. The ten year decline in the healthier, thicker multi-year ice can only be described as a catastrophic Death Spiral of Arctic ice.
And from your very own #6.1 link! Laf
Going by your own argument, neither can water that's cooling or not warming consistently make less ice, and at an accelerating pace at that. Laf!
Poor Roxanne, ever getting half the story.
The 2007 ice minimum was caused by high winds pushing the arctic ice out of the Fram strait.
There are some nice animations of this by the way.
Your last blurb that you copied is exactly why I find it hard to rely on temperature sources. I think that if you dig into the blurb above you will find that it is based upon the NASA GISS temperature data set that does not even have any sensors north of the 80th parallel.
The DMI data set has been recorded daily since the 1950's and does not show this temperature rise.
Also, what the site that you link to cleverly leaves out is that summer temperatures north of the 80th parallel have shown a decrease over the last 10 years.
Interesting.
Very interesting indeed.
1. I know the reason for the Arctic minimum of 2007, it's explained on NSIDC's website which I've accessed regularly in the past in our debates.
It's you and the WUWT mysterious non-existent sea-ice sexpert named "steven goddard" (he must be a rocket scientist/physicist because NASA's Goddard space flight center is named in his honor. Laf), its you and "steven" who earlier this year kept insinuating that "ice extent is greater than 2007 so talk of its catastrophic decline is alarmist."
2. I'm not seeing climatologists using arctic summertime temps vs winter temps , as negating the arctic's well-known phenomenal warming trend vis that of the planet. And commonsense tells anyone that the arctic's winter temps are racing ahead to catch up with its summer temps. A rapid return on a geological timescale, to a Arctic that once again has breadfruit trees & crocodiles, as per past fossils from 55 million years ago.
Therefore your & "steven goddard" constant trumpeting of a "healthy arctic" that's not locked in a ghg-pollution-driven catastrophic warming trend, is chicken crap.
And spare me the repeat of your skeptics' lie that "warming is better for life" ; because you and I know the opposite is true: research has determined that biodiversity is highest during our planet's icehouse phases, and lower during its greenhouse phases. Our planet has been in an Ice Age for the past 3 million years. An ice age which thanks to fossil fuel pollution we are now rapidly exiting with consequences that will be catastrophic for most species.
At 5 and 6 degrees Celsius in the following link, you will see what happens to our planet at Paleocene and End-Permian elevated mass extinction temperatures; Heck at just 1 degree above today's global temps, go see what happens to American agriculture:
http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-summary-of-six-degrees-as-published-in-the-guardian
I'm not seeing climatologists using arctic summertime temps vs winter temps
Which is part of the problem.
You asked for actual temperature measurements and when they are provided, daily temps for over 50 years, you whine.
As you are wont to say, climate is not a cup of tea.
I hope you don't mind my butting in and changing the thought for a minute. I have wondered how can we see, as you have said in the past, antarctic sea ice 'increasing' since 1966 with external melting happening simultaneously?
Could it be simply that air temperature is warmer and the Drift is cooler? It seems that at some point a reversal would happen where the cooler water will begin to cool the air, no?
I continue to read you saying warming doesn't mean cooling (paraphrasing), but I don't remember reading you to explain where you think this will lead.
I continue to read you saying warming doesn't mean cooling (paraphrasing), but I don't remember reading you to explain where you think this will lead.
It is too early to tell but there are certain indications that the warming and cooling of the Arctic and Antarctic is cyclical on a multi-decadal scale.
You have to remember that the Arctic and Antarctic are the polar opposites in more ways than one.
The Antarctic is a land mass surrounded by oceans. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land masses. This creates a complex and scientifically interesting contrast. The Arctic can only grow so much ice as the ice is bounded every year on most sides by the Eurasian and North American continents. The Antarctic oceanic ice is mostly held in check by the currents flowing around the southern continents. This is where Roxanne and a lot of AGW researchers get it wrong in that if there is warming of the water, it will most certainly be felt in the extent of the ice.
The salinity thing is a red herring in that with the southern currents, there is little likelyhood that the water is freshened enough to make any difference. If that were the case, then the Arctic ice would tend to be a lot more effected due to the numerous rivers that run into the Arctic from Eurasia and North America. They can't have it both ways as there is almost no fresh water flow from the Antarctic continent into the southern oceans.
There are so many contradictions in these AGW biased researches that I rely on the physical facts involved that can be verified. As soon as I provided verifiable temperature data Roxanne goes off in another direction. Dealing with her is like dealing with whack-a-mole.
Is this what you mean? Have you tried hitting her on the head with a mallet? hahaha (just joking, Roxanne :)
Actually, the physical facts of the science involved [as far as my little knowledge takes me] is what I have always relied on.
I only brought this up because I thought what we are seeing is a cyclical pattern as well as. Yet, the AGWers are saying that man is causing it to happen faster than it would otherwise. Your comments that I have read when I see them, generally, point to the past, but don't specifically address the present and what you think will happen as a result of what we are witnessing. I read you to say, "It is too early to tell..." and that is pretty much what I was looking for as a reply. So, Thank you for your reply.
CL1
The problem with making claims like "the fastest" is that by far most temperature proxies are low frequency, meaning that you can only get data at the century or more scale. Some proxies like tree rings are faster, but they are also suceptible to error in that you can mistake rainfall for temperature.
This is the biggest problem in grafting temperature records from instruments to the proxies. They are not the same and cannot be characterized as such.
That is interesting info pertaining to temperature records and their relative proxies. I understand your point in that it's the 'grander' scale that determines change or movement, so that we don't misinterpret the direction or the cause. Yes, I follow what you mean in determining - just how accurate of a reading are we getting when going from instruments to proxies.
It is too early to tell but there are certain indications that the warming and cooling of the Arctic and Antarctic is cyclical on a multi-decadal scale.
Too early for you to tell because you insist on ignoring the human fingerprint in our accelerating warming trend.
In 2007 there were 20,000 climate scientists in the United States alone, and Dennis Wingo (spaceguy) was not one of them. And he's definately not a published climatologist with a high degree of expertise. Additionally, Earth isn't some distant hard-to-study world off in outer space; the 20,000 climate scientists studying it are right here living on this planet.
As soon as I provided verifiable temperature data Roxanne goes off in another direction. Dealing with her is like dealing with whack-a-mole.
It only seems that way because as Que recently observed, your answers are not logical. You cherrypicked out the summer temps alone; last time I checked there are 3 other seasons, & outside of summer, the Arctic is warming up to 4 times as rapidly as the rest of the planet.
If you average arctic warming for the entire year, you still get 2 to 3 times more heating than what's happening globally outside of parts of West Antarctica. You also ignore the rapid & accelerating thinning of arctic ice from your own Danish meteorologists website; which destroys the premise behind your own argument.
The human fingerprint in climate change:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-intermediate.htm
All of spaceguy's other standard skeptics' flat-earth arguments debunked below:
Too early for you to tell because you insist on ignoring the human fingerprint in our accelerating warming trend.
No, it is because the data is still being analyzed. We will be presenting on this at the AGU in San Francisco tomorrow.
If it were all human related both the Arctic and Antarctic would be decreasing, which is not the case.
Scientific expertise lacking among 'doubters' of climate change, according to analysis by Stanford researchers
An analysis of the scientific prominence and expertise of climate researchers shows that the few who are unconvinced of human-caused climate change rank far below researchers who are convinced. Most news media accounts fail to include that context when reporting claims from the doubters.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/june/climate-change-doubters-062510.html
#2.20 has the link to Antarctic's unique climatological factors from multiple Research that spaceguy, his imaginary hero "steven goddard" and the widely discredited Steven McIntyre who had his one and only paper published by the AGU, afterwards thrown out by the same AGU for being Non-sense.
#2.20 has the link to Antarctic's unique climatological factors from multiple Research that spaceguy, his imaginary hero "steven goddard" and the widely discredited Steven McIntyre who had his one and only paper published by the AGU, afterwards thrown out by the same AGU for being Non-sense.
Poor Roxanne
The AGU was fun today. This is the second year that we have had either a paper or poster session at AGU and this one I was a co author with senior NSIDC scientists.
See Roxanne this is how a pedigree is built. One brick, one finding at a time. When the time is right, my other paper will come out and when it does, it will either be sustained, or not. In the end whether it is or not is not as important as doing the work and doing it well.
This is what you have never, ever understood. Your legal training prohibits you from being able to see the truth, wherever it leads.
Yawn.
Let's see how My Legal Training trumps Your Scientific Training =
there were 20,000 U.S. climatologists in 2007, and only 3% said they "weren't sure" about oil/coal pollution warming. (the stats can be found on: logicalscience.com consensus)
What's 3% of twenty thousand? = 600. Therefore 19,400 climate scientists agree with me, while only 600 say they're not sure(kinda agree with you).
Heck, even your hero Judith Curry acknowledges that ghg pollution is driving our planet's warming trend.
Additionally, let's see if any scientific organizations agree with you & not with me:
Statements by dissenting organizations
With the release of the revised statement[94] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming.[2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations
Laf x 1000
there were 20,000 U.S. climatologists in 2007, and only 3% said they "weren't sure" about oil/coal pollution warming. (the stats can be found on: logicalscience.com consensus)
laf, there are not 20,000 climateologists in the U.S.
Sorry kid, you have been using the same statistics that the cops use when talking about drug busts.
And petroleum geologists know about the physics of CO2 how?
The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide
It's from logicalscience. You know from past debates that I also have a CNN survey where the climatescience position of climatologists is almost unanimous against you.
And petroleum geologists know about the physics of CO2 how?
Just goes to prove my point that there isn't a single science organization on the face of this planet that you can convince that your arguments make any sense.
Not even the ones who work for the Oil Industry! Laf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
It's from logicalscience. You know from past debates that I also have a CNN survey where the climatescience position of climatologists is almost unanimous against you.
Horse@!$%#. Where is their data? I have spent the week at AGU and its membership is far wider than climatologists. I want to see their data.
This is what verification is all about.
Just goes to prove my point that there isn't a single science organization on the face of this planet that you can convince that your arguments make any sense.
I say again, what is their competence to make this judgement?
Increased plant growth in previously unsustainable reasons would only occur after significant global climate change had already ocurred, and as Phys-retired pointed out the negative feedback wouldn't change the overall trend in increasing temperature. It sounds a bit like a small drain in a bathtub opening up after the baby's already drowned and the faucet continues to spew water out faster than the drain can handle.
#10 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 9:19 AM ESTThere are also feedback mechanisms that would increase warming once a certain amount of warming has taken place - such as the release of methane from the seas.
This is a complex situation, and no one single mechanism like this can outweigh all the others, so you can't just jump to an overall conclusion about climate change based on one thing. Yes, this would reduce the warming, but as the scientist who developed this model themselves have said, it wouldn't stop it.
#11 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:16 PM ESTBringing up methane is a pretty important point, since the places that increased vegetation growth is likely to occur is what is now Arctic tundra and that growth will only occur after the tundra has thawed releasing the trapped methane.
Agreed, and that's why I mention it in #1.11. The article doesn't make clear if this was accounted for - but it would have a huge impact.
It's hard to see that even massive forests growing in Siberia could make a dent in the methane-related consequences. And since Putin has already made clear that he wants to turn Siberia into Russia's next breadbasket after it warms up, the forest scenario doesn't look likely.
Don't forget about the methane hydrate deposits in the shallow seas. There is geologic evidence of massive methane eruptions from these expansive deposits in the past. A few degrees warmer and the deposits cannot keep solid.
I agree that it makes sense that the increased methane is a concern, and it will also be part of the chemical synthesis that will take place.
Where in the article did it say AGW is now not going to happen since plants will use some of the CO2? All they said is that they have created a model that attempts to model in the contribution of plants.
I have two observations:
1. Suddenly scientists' models have validity among denialists when the model shows what they want. This demonstrates an obvious bias with regards to what denialists call evidence.
2. The model still shows AGW taking place. It just attempts to fine tune the projections.
Should we now stop conserving because we found one model that gives us a few more years? Should you drive right past that gas station when your tank is on empty, just because your friend said you can go farther than you think with the gas light on?
It's amazing the contortioned twists that denialists will get themselves into to continue their denial. It reminds me of the justifications addicts and alcoholics use to justify their substance abuse.
#12 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:50 PM ESTDude... I maintain and pay taxes on over 70 acres of woodlands. I do this because it's the right thing to do. But I also do it voluntarily. If Algore and Pamela Anderson showed up here tomorrow and told me that I now HAVE to do this, (for the climate and for the animals) as soon as their worthless asses are over the hill and around the curve I'll be out there with my chain saw!
My MAIN beef with AGW is that it detracts from REAL WORLD, MEANINGFUL environmentalism! Like how 'bout that Monsanto and their genetic pollution and their Roundup? You're being POISONED on a DAILY BASIS through the food you eat, and you sit there bitching about a few degrees of weather. AGW people are the insane ones!
Nofluer,
I actually agree with you that local conservation is more meaningful than carbon reductions. But that doesn't make AGW "insane" - arguably mis-prioritized, but that's not the same thing.
Arguing against the science because you don't like the proposed solutions from politicians seems rather misguided.
Nofluer,
(My MAIN beef with AGW is that it detracts from REAL WORLD, MEANINGFUL environmentalism! Like how 'bout that Monsanto and their genetic pollution and their Roundup? You're being POISONED on a DAILY BASIS through the food you eat, and you sit there bitching about a few degrees of weather.)
I have to agree that global warming is only one of the issues that need to be addressed. The whole of existence is connected. Just like any disease, you have to treat the WHOLE being. When a sickness is treated, no healing can be permanent without addressing the complete problem. It is the same with all things living on the earth. When all things are in balance and healthy, the earth and all on it can keep negative influences at bay. At this point, every thing is stressed beyond being able to reverse the negatives.
#13 - Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:16 AM ESTAll we have to do is sit back and watch the Earth heal itself.
It has made it this far. It will still be here long after all these current Vine posters are dead.
Just be patient and enjoy it while YOU are here for God's sake.
#14 - Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:59 AM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
