Just News and Muses

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:08 AM GMT on March 01, 2010

Share this Blog
1
+

Just News and Muses :

It’s been very busy, and I have had some issues of keeping up, not to mention upkeep. In the climate world there has been a lot going on.

It was two weeks ago, Valentines, when there was a curious BBC interview of Phil Jones. The interview advertised that it featured questions gathered from “climate skeptics.” Of course, the interview is part of the continuing waterfall from the published emails from the Climate Research Unit. The questions in the interview read like a setup, and even in the best of cases, an interview with Dr. Jones on climate change and the credibility of the science of climate change is a no-win situation. In the situation where there is a persistent effort to discredit climate science, the scientists at the center of the email discussion are fundamentally powerless to advance their case. They are more than able to fuel the enemy. In the world of blog, Jones' interview was immediately all over the blogs (for example), with some of the headlines screaming that he had admitted that all climate science was flawed. (Untrue, of course). This is a prime example of the ability to use uncertainties as expressed and nuanced by a scientist to support any position, including disruption.

Jones' interview was all over the blogosphere. I asked my class on the Tuesday after the interview if they had paid attention to the interview and the response, and the answer was “no.” By the standards of the world this is a group of climate-interested people and this whole flash in the blogosphere went unnoted.

A little before Jones' interview I was a guest lecturer in a journalism class on environmental journalism. I shared the podium with Nolan Finley who is the Editorial Page Editor of the Detroit News. The Detroit News is the conservative leaning newspaper in Detroit. The discussion with Mr. Finley and the students focused around the decline of the outlets for rigorous journalism, and the rise of “point of view” journalism. One of the interesting facts of point of view journalism is that people read or listen only to the point of view they are predisposed to agree with. Hence, it contributes more and more to polarization and tribalism. Hence, it seems that all of the blogs about Jones' interview only fuel the rant, but does not reach out beyond their particular group of believers. (Yes, I am smart enough to know the same is true for this blog.)

This all raises big questions not only about the evolution of climate policy and the like, but the future of journalism and the free press - one of the corner stones of a functional democracy. But keeping it focused, there is an interesting discussion on Science Friday on where to get information about science. This is a take not only on the decline of rigorous journalism, but in particular the disappearance of the coverage of science in the general press. (And now the blog becomes important.)

And the real world goes on. NOAA announced its intention to develop a National Climate Service, in the spirit of the National Weather Service. This is envisioned to be an organization that provides climate information, and potentially its existence will be a step in de-politicization of climate science. More on the National Climate Service: Climate Service on Science Friday and from NOAA.

In the absence of comprehensive policy to address change in the U.S. the 2007 Supreme Court Decision that allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon dioxide becomes more important. As the EPA moves forward with the foundation to address climate change, some legislators are moving to block the EPA. ( see also) The prospect of regulation is an intense motivator for policy; companies and states don’t like the uncertain environment of regulation and litigation.

So the world moves on, some things that make a difference are happening. President Obama has announced a program to guarantee loans for building new nuclear power plants. (more details). And a group of Senators are looking to propose something different from a cap and trade market (more). These seem like good things to me.



r

And here is

Faceted Search of Blogs at climateknowledge.org






Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 200 - 150

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

200. idontknowforsure
8:44 PM GMT on March 07, 2010
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Sceptical and idontknowforsure you both need to come on over from the Darkside!


I know what I'd do if I learned that AGW was real. I'd acknowledge it and begin doing what I could to assist in the process of changing our way of living.

But, Mr. Buster, what would you and your cohorts do if you learned you were wrong, that there was no significant AGW, that the warming we had experienced was all attributed to a natural process and that CO2 forcing was not a significant danger to mankind?

I don't believe you would acknowledge it. I don't believe that you or your cohorts would stop trying to change our lifestyle. i believe for you, AGW and any other other negative effects on the environment that might be attributed to humans is fanatic belief that has taken over your being.

Arctic ice extent is now greater than the last three annual maximums and appears to be approaching less than 1 standard deviation from the mean. Snow cover recently hit a 3 or 4 decade high in the northern hemisphere. How could this trend change be happening in the world you believe is heating up so fast?

Nothing you guys post anymore is up to par. You must use trends that go back decades because short term trends fail your arguments.


Think about the probability that so many short term trends don't mean what one might think they mean.

What's actually funny about this debate are the consequences of being right. If I am right, springtime will come later. Daffodils won't bloom early. Commerce will be more impacted by harsh weather. More people will die from weather related disease, accidents and crop failures.

If you are right, life expectancy will increase. Demand for fuels will decrease. Crops will be more abundant. Yes, over the next century or two, many will have to pack up and leave lowland areas near the oceans.

I almost hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

Member Since: January 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
199. cyclonebuster
12:46 PM GMT on March 07, 2010
Sceptical and idontknowforsure you both need to come on over from the Darkside!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20792
198. cyclonebuster
2:33 AM GMT on March 07, 2010
Quoting Skepticall:


We can't control underground methane releases so this has nothing to do with global warming caused by man which you believe in. This actually proves the point its cyclical.


LOL! Look up "Calthrate Gun"! LOL!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20792
197. cyclonebuster
2:30 AM GMT on March 07, 2010
Quoting idontknowforsure:
Mr. Buster, get your head out of your ...and take a look at what's happening in the Arctic. Ice as far as you can see and getting farther. The peak ice this year will be higher and farther than any time in the last nine years. It's coming at you. How will you explain it?
You still have a hope it won't happen, but the trend seems to be working against you.



http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png


LOL! Don't walk on that ice you may fall through it!LOL!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20792
193. cyclonebuster
1:19 AM GMT on March 07, 2010
Quoting Skepticall:


WHICH WE CAN'T CONTROL!!! or tax


LOL! We can't control it because we can't control GHGs!LOL!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20792
191. cyclonebuster
8:07 PM GMT on March 06, 2010
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
ScienceDaily (Mar. 5, 2010) A section of the Arctic Ocean seafloor that holds vast stores of frozen methane is showing signs of instability and widespread venting of the powerful greenhouse gas, according to the findings of an international research team led by University of Alaska Fairbanks scientists Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov.
The research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is leaking large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.

"The amount of methane currently coming out of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is comparable to the amount coming out of the entire world's oceans," said Shakhova, a researcher at UAF's International Arctic Research Center. "Subsea permafrost is losing its ability to be an impermeable cap."

Methane is a greenhouse gas more than 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide. It is released from previously frozen soils in two ways. When the organic material -- which contains carbon -- stored in permafrost thaws, it begins to decompose and, under oxygen-free conditions, gradually release methane. Methane can also be stored in the seabed as methane gas or methane hydrates and then released as subsea permafrost thaws. These releases can be larger and more abrupt than those that result from decomposition.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20792
190. cyclonebuster
2:57 AM GMT on March 06, 2010
Quoting crucilandia:
I do not see any POWER relationship between tropical storms and SST


.



.



Kerry Emanuel can show you some good charts on this!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20792
189. crucilandia
8:32 PM GMT on March 05, 2010
I do not see any POWER relationship between tropical storms and SST


.



.

Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212
188. crucilandia
8:17 PM GMT on March 05, 2010
#180

have never seen anything so primitive.

so if we graph artic sea ice extent as function of global solar radiation (short wave imput) we cad find a nice little fiting just like that one. Then we will conclude just like him that solar radiation increases = ice cover decreases. Then you say oh, the solar input must be increasing since they say that sea ice extent is decreasing.



Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212
186. idontknowforsure
7:33 PM GMT on March 05, 2010
This joke was posted either on this blog or another of these Wunder Blogs:
Indian Winter
It was October and the Indians on a remote reservation asked their new Chief if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild. Since he was a Chief in a modern society he had never been taught the old secrets. When he looked at the sky he couldn't tell what the winter was going to be like.

Nevertheless, to be on the safe side he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the village should collect firewood to be prepared. But being a practical leader, after several days he got an idea. He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked, "Is the coming winter going to be cold?"

"It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold," the meteorologist at the weather service responded.

So the Chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more firewood in order to be prepared. A week later he called the National Weather Service again. "Does it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?"

"Yes," the man at National Weather Service again replied, "it's going to be a very cold winter."

The Chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find. Two weeks later the Chief called the National Weather Service again. "Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?"

"Absolutely," the man replied. "It's looking more and more like it is going to be one of the coldest winters ever."

"How can you be so sure?" the Chief asked.

The weatherman replied, "The Indians are collecting firewood like crazy."


OK. So here's why I posted this joke. As you can see, it turns out the weather prediction is a function of firewood collection or was it the other way around? So much for functions and climate prediction.

Member Since: January 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
184. Patrap
7:01 PM GMT on March 05, 2010
Your in the same category too sport..so take a Break.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 437 Comments: 134792
182. Patrap
6:42 PM GMT on March 05, 2010
LOL..you arent even in the Game Blogger.

And your personal attack on me is noted and reported to the admin as well.

This isnt FOX News friend.

And we know why you come to a Phd's entry...,

To blow smoke..

One has to be a realist in these matter's.

And your personal slight to me isnt one that carries any weight.

Been round these parts long nuff to have a respected opinion, and I come with the Factual evidence.



I have a Life, and my own Blog.

Patrap's Wunderblog


And 223 behind the current one.

And a few posts too as well.

Patrap has posted 71681 comments in all blogs

And now,,your dismissed as per the IGNORE Feature..

LOL







Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 437 Comments: 134792
180. Patrap
4:41 PM GMT on March 05, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
A Frightening New Law of Hurricane Formation



A new mathematical model of hurricane formation finally solves one of the outstanding puzzles of climate change but also predicts dramatic increases in the number of storms as the world warms.




What factors determine how hurricanes form? Meteorologists have long known that two factors play crucial roles. First, the temperature of the sea determines the updraft of air that leads to a storm. Second, the latitude governs the strength of the Coriolis Force which triggers the initial vorticity of the storm (which is why hurricanes do not form at the equator and rotate in opposite senses in each hemisphere).

Today, Robert Ehrlich, a physicist at George Mason University in Washington DC, shows how these two variables alone can account for the probability density of a hurricane or tropical storm forming. No other factors need be taken into account.

Ehrlich's approach is a to create an elegant mathematical model of the system that relies on only two variables: the temperature of the sea above a threshold of 25.5 degrees C and the latitude of the ocean at that point.

He then fits the function to the data from real hurricanes ie sea surface temperatures and latitude data from satellite images from 1960 until 2007. This determines that the power law has an exponent of 3.5 for most parts of the globe.

Fitting the data to a curve by no means proves that a model is correct but Ehrlich is able to make some interesting observations using it. One problem that climatologists have puzzled over in recent years is that the number of hurricanes have increased in the north Atlantic but not in the Pacific, despite similar temperature increases. Many say that this is proof that other factors must influence hurricane formation.

However, there's an important difference between these regions: in the Atlantic, the water tends to be cooler to start with and the hurricanes tend to form at a slightly higher latitude.

When you take this into account, the difference in the number of hurricanes is exactly what Ehrlich's model predicts. He says the specific form of his mathematical model "yields larger percentage increases when a fixed increase in sea surface temperature occurs at higher latitudes and lower temperatures".

That could help to solve an important climate change puzzle but before greater reliance can be placed on Ehrlich's, it needs to show its colours by accurately forecasting the numbers of hurricanes in the next few years. Its predictions do not make for pleasant reading.

The exponent of 3.5 in Ehrlich's power law means that numbers of hurricanes should increase sharply as the world warms and much more dramatically than climatologists have been expecting. His prediction is that a 2 degree C increase in average temperature will lead to an 11-fold increase in the number of hurricanes.

And the increase in numbers of hurricanes is only part of the story, he says. "An eleven-fold increase in hurricanes at a particular location would just be one part of the story, which would include (1) a potentially larger increase in the total number of hurricanes given the increase in the size of the basin as temperatures rise, (2) an increase in the destructive potential of each hurricane, and (3) an increase in the height of the storm surge due to rising sea levels that would invariably occur in a warmer world."

Frightening stuff.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1002.3291: A Universal Hurricane Frequency Function



It turns out that the fucnt exactly matches the distribution his model predicts.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 437 Comments: 134792
179. idontknowforsure
4:37 PM GMT on March 05, 2010
Quoting misanthrope:
"This goes to show how little you know about what you say. You probably don't know what the mathematical definition is of a function.
If sea ice extent is a function of sea surface temperatures, you should be able to draw a graph that shows some type of relationship between the two and preferably, we would like to see a continuous function, albeit, that is not a requirement.
For example, a graph might show that as sea surface temperatures increase, global ice extent diminishes. That seems logical. Yet, as of late, sea surface temperatures, according to you, are higher than they have ever been and yet global ice extent seems to be just below the average and seems to be growing even as you show us that SSTs are increasing.
If you were to track the relationship back over decades, you would not see a direct relationship between the two. Therefore, it is unlikely that ice extent is a function of sea surface temperatures.
It seems more likely that you could draw a function between ice extent and those oscillations. Why don't you think about that?"



You seem to be making the assumption that Arctic ice extent is the result of a univariate function, which is certainly untrue. You would need a complex multivariate function to describe the behavior of ice in the Arctic and SST temp is just one of many variables. The prospect of seeing some monotonic change in ice extent in response to a change in SST is very unlikely.





Postscript reply:
I was thinking about just how complex that multivariate function might be, maybe so complex that we just couldn't get much accuracy out of it. Whadya think?
Do you think it might even be as complex as a multivariate function that describes how global warming might work?
Ah, yes, maybe even they might depend on each other which probably gets us into all kinds of differential equations and stuff even most math guys would laugh at.
But me, I only had through advanced calculus and would only be guessing about that stuff. Hell, the computers we used to use filled up office buildings and couldn't do what my Timex watch does.
I wish I was as smart as you and Mr. Buster and had been lucky enough to get a real education. You make it sound so simple.
Member Since: January 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
178. idontknowforsure
3:57 PM GMT on March 05, 2010
Quoting misanthrope:
"This goes to show how little you know about what you say. You probably don't know what the mathematical definition is of a function.
If sea ice extent is a function of sea surface temperatures, you should be able to draw a graph that shows some type of relationship between the two and preferably, we would like to see a continuous function, albeit, that is not a requirement.
For example, a graph might show that as sea surface temperatures increase, global ice extent diminishes. That seems logical. Yet, as of late, sea surface temperatures, according to you, are higher than they have ever been and yet global ice extent seems to be just below the average and seems to be growing even as you show us that SSTs are increasing.
If you were to track the relationship back over decades, you would not see a direct relationship between the two. Therefore, it is unlikely that ice extent is a function of sea surface temperatures.
It seems more likely that you could draw a function between ice extent and those oscillations. Why don't you think about that?"



You seem to be making the assumption that Arctic ice extent is the result of a univariate function, which is certainly untrue. You would need a complex multivariate function to describe the behavior of ice in the Arctic and SST temp is just one of many variables. The prospect of seeing some monotonic change in ice extent in response to a change in SST is very unlikely.





No, I made no such assumption. I believe you are speaking about Mr. Buster.
Member Since: January 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
177. idontknowforsure
3:55 PM GMT on March 05, 2010
Quoting cyclonebuster:


The relationship between sea ice extent and global SSTs is clear. Do you think we would still have Arctic ice if global SSTs were 120 degrees F! Common sense should lead you to the correct answer! Your pufferies are laughable!


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Even you can look at the above graph and see that global ice extent is higher today than in 1995-1996. Were SSTs higher then? No, they were not. So, what is the function, the relationship between SSTs and ice extent?
Member Since: January 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
176. biff4ugo
3:14 PM GMT on March 05, 2010
Siberian water, supersaturate with methane sounds like a great fuel source but in addition, tapping it could reduce emissions by 8 million tons a year.
OK, most folks see it as a huge GHG source to be monitored but if it is kicking the gas out anyway, why not use it as fuel? Sounds a lot less damaging than Tar Sands and tapping it actually reduces powerful methane to weaker CO2.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6233ZU20100304?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&utm_sour ce=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A reuters%2Fenvironment %28News %2F US %2F Environment%29
Member Since: December 28, 2006 Posts: 119 Comments: 1636
174. cyclonebuster
2:50 PM GMT on March 05, 2010
Quoting biff4ugo:
idkfs,
What is the source of your arctic ice area numbers? Are you talking about Sea Ice in the Arctic or Northern Hemisphere snow cover? Are you saying at the height of winter we are approaching the mid year average?
#165 misanthrope, shows the latest sea ice area numbers from the NCDC compared to this time of year in previous years.
You obviously don't mean "we are approaching normal" compared to the first 20 years of this data, you must be looking at a different dataset.


He is looking at data made up in his own mind not NSIDC data!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20792
173. cyclonebuster
2:46 PM GMT on March 05, 2010
Quoting idontknowforsure:


This goes to show how little you know about what you say. You probably don't know what the mathematical definition is of a function.
If sea ice extent is a function of sea surface temperatures, you should be able to draw a graph that shows some type of relationship between the two and preferably, we would like to see a continuous function, albeit, that is not a requirement.
For example, a graph might show that as sea surface temperatures increase, global ice extent diminishes. That seems logical. Yet, as of late, sea surface temperatures, according to you, are higher than they have ever been and yet global ice extent seems to be just below the average and seems to be growing even as you show us that SSTs are increasing.
If you were to track the relationship back over decades, you would not see a direct relationship between the two. Therefore, it is unlikely that ice extent is a function of sea surface temperatures.
It seems more likely that you could draw a function between ice extent and those oscillations. Why don't you think about that?


The relationship between sea ice extent and global SSTs is clear. Do you think we would still have Arctic ice if global SSTs were 120 degrees F! Common sense should lead you to the correct answer! Your pufferies are laughable!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20792
172. biff4ugo
2:43 PM GMT on March 05, 2010
idkfs,
What is the source of your arctic ice area numbers? Are you talking about Sea Ice in the Arctic or Northern Hemisphere snow cover? Are you saying at the height of winter we are approaching the mid year average?
#165 misanthrope, shows the latest sea ice area numbers from the NCDC compared to this time of year in previous years.
You obviously don't mean "we are approaching normal" compared to the first 20 years of this data, you must be looking at a different dataset.
Member Since: December 28, 2006 Posts: 119 Comments: 1636
171. biff4ugo
2:18 PM GMT on March 05, 2010
If by natural, you mean wholly without human influence, then no. There are over 6 billion people with all their activities, 900 million pigs, 1 billion sheep, 1.3 billion cows, 24 billion chickens, farms, deforested lands, and dumps changing the global environment. Humans populate over 37% of the land area in 2003 and our soot and irradiated dust are detectable on every continent.
If you mean the temperature got warmer and "naturally" the ice retreated, then yes.
.
Member Since: December 28, 2006 Posts: 119 Comments: 1636
169. idontknowforsure
2:01 PM GMT on March 05, 2010
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Sea ice extent is a function of global SST!


This goes to show how little you know about what you say. You probably don't know what the mathematical definition is of a function.
If sea ice extent is a function of sea surface temperatures, you should be able to draw a graph that shows some type of relationship between the two and preferably, we would like to see a continuous function, albeit, that is not a requirement.
For example, a graph might show that as sea surface temperatures increase, global ice extent diminishes. That seems logical. Yet, as of late, sea surface temperatures, according to you, are higher than they have ever been and yet global ice extent seems to be just below the average and seems to be growing even as you show us that SSTs are increasing.
If you were to track the relationship back over decades, you would not see a direct relationship between the two. Therefore, it is unlikely that ice extent is a function of sea surface temperatures.
It seems more likely that you could draw a function between ice extent and those oscillations. Why don't you think about that?
Member Since: January 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
168. cyclonebuster
1:46 PM GMT on March 05, 2010
Sea ice extent is a function of global SST!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20792
167. Seastep
4:49 AM GMT on March 05, 2010
Sea ice extent can be completely natural. Has always changed.

Or, is that not a possibility?
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3420
166. Seastep
4:47 AM GMT on March 05, 2010
Temperature Record
Member Since: September 9, 2008 Posts: 6 Comments: 3420
164. SWFLgazer
3:41 AM GMT on March 05, 2010
It's amazingly warm in al those places where they do not use actual thermometer readings.
Member Since: August 14, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 448
163. Patrap
3:31 AM GMT on March 05, 2010
I dont know for sure,but..

NASA: After Warmest Year on Record, Southern Hemisphere Starts 2010 With Record-Shattering January


Submitted by Nick Sundt on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 18:50

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) released data today (17 February 2010) showing that surface temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere in January 2010 were 0.62 degrees Centigrade above the 1951-1980 mean, far exceeding the 0.47oC anomaly recorded in January 2007 -- which until now was the warmest January on record. The data covers land-surface air temperatures and sea-surface water temperatures combined.

Similarly, NASA data shows that Southern Hemisphere land-surface air temperatures alone (excluding sea-surface temperatures) were at a record high in January 2010: 0.77oC above the mean. The previous January record, set in 2005, was 0.63oC above the mean.

The record temperatures come after 2009 broke the annual record for the hemisphere (see Southern Hemisphere in 2009 Saw Warmest Year on Record, WWF Climate Blog, 15 January 2010).

In addition, the NASA data shows:

* Global land-surface air temperatures and sea-surface water temperatures combined (0.71oC above the mean) were tied in second place (with January 2002), as January 2007 remained the warmest (0.87oC above the mean)
* Global land-surface air temperatures alone in January 2010 (0.92oC above the mean) were the second warmest on record, behind January 2007 (1.08oC above the mean)
* Northern Hemisphere land-surface air temperatures and sea-surface water temperatures combined (0.80oC above the mean), were the 5th warmest on record in January 2010.
* Northern Hemisphere land-surface air temperatures alone (1.08oC above the mean), were the 5th warmest on record in January 2010.

The January data is broadly consistent with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) surface temperature data released last week, and both datasets show clear long term trends of increasing January temperatures in the southern hemisphere, the northern hemisphere and globally.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 437 Comments: 134792
162. Patrap
3:23 AM GMT on March 05, 2010
USGS reports dramatic retreat of ice shelves in southern Antarctic Peninsula
February 23, 2010





Every month brings more evidence the world’s greatest ice sheet is disintegrating much faster than the “consensus” forecast (see Satellite data stunner: “Our data suggest that EAST Antarctica is losing mass…. Antarctica may soon be contributing significantly more to global sea-level rise”). Guest blogger Nick Sundt has the latest news in a piece first published here.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reported Monday that “every ice front in the southern part of the Antarctic Peninsula has been retreating overall from 1947 to 2009, with the most dramatic changes occurring since 1990. “ The finding comes on the heels of the warmest January on record for the Southern Hemisphere.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 437 Comments: 134792
161. idontknowforsure
2:46 AM GMT on March 05, 2010
#146
"As for looking at Northern and Southern ice combined, well you already know my feelings on that - see post #125. To borrow a metaphor from Dr. Masters, if you find that your bedroom is on fire, are you going to run to the basement and then conclude that all is well when you find no fire there."
Yeah, I suppose that would be another one of those facts to be avoided because it just doesn't seem to confirm your argument.
People like you take the rest of us for fools, don't you? The level of arrogance is what amazes me.
Here's the truth. Arctic ice extent is now increasing and leaving the low levels of a three years ago behind. Even with the Atlantic side way off because of currents, you know it's true.
We now have the Antarctic well above average and the Pacific side of the Arctic above average and the Atlantic side moving toward normal at a rapid pace.
Total global ice extent as of yesterday is about 387,000 square kilometers below average, or roughly 2.35% below average and is most likely not statistically significant.
Yet, you persist, pulling out whatever graph you think will win your argument.
But, it's over. You lose as Senator Inhofe said to Pelosi. Confirmation of my argument was at Copenhagen. Confirmation of my argument is in DC. Even Phil Jones confirms my argument.
There will be no legislation, no global treaties and Al Gore, if he had any honor, would be returning his Oscar and Nobel Joke Prize.

Member Since: January 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
159. crucilandia
12:17 AM GMT on March 05, 2010
is the global sea ice disappearing?



is the arctic off the natural variability?



Antarctica pretty stable.

Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212
156. Patrap
11:02 PM GMT on March 04, 2010
Tyvm misanthrope ..I was gonna link it ..but folks need to learn how to find the Data.

If you can think it today,you can find it most Likely,..if not,then they shouldnt be here.


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 437 Comments: 134792
155. Patrap
11:00 PM GMT on March 04, 2010
Quoting Skepticall:


Lets see these maps of the ice from hundreds of years ago.




Google Historical English Shipping Archives..Antarctica,Artic...,Have fun.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 437 Comments: 134792
152. Patrap
10:37 PM GMT on March 04, 2010
Quoting Skepticall:


Cause the 30 years we've been monitoring the ice is a long enough time to actually come up with an average and we know its at its lowest its EVER been. Seems nonsense to me.


30 years?

LOL..you must do some research...Seafarer's and Mariners have been Mapping the Polar Regions Ice for Hundreds of years.

Not 30..and also,,,no one on the undecided or Non-factoid side of things never tell us where the CO2 and Toxins that pour into our Biosphere go.

But they deny the evidence easily.

That..is delusional at best.

See,..it works Both ways,and the Warming and Co2 Burning continues unabated without the Planet caring what any individual thinks,as that matters ZERO.




Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 437 Comments: 134792
150. Patrap
10:31 PM GMT on March 04, 2010
The visual Evidence from Landsat Imagery and other alone shows the Loss.

Try some Imaging sites that are readily available.

One can find the Data easily.



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 437 Comments: 134792

Viewing: 200 - 150

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.