| Author | Message | ||
     Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 970 Registered: 9-2004 |
Edited to suit my mood- after reading too many SLK posts. ------------------- Has the Meltdown Begun? The discovery that Greenland's glaciers are melting faster than anyone expected has experts worried anew about how high the seas will rise By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK The usual argument put forth by global-warming skeptics for why we shouldn't rush to do anything yet is that the science behind climate change is uncertain--and in fact it is. While there's little doubt that humans are helping heat up the planet, the questions of how much, how quickly and leading to what consequences are fiendishly difficult to pin down. That's because the actual climate is still far more complicated than any existing computer model can accurately reflect, making predictions iffy at best. Some natural processes nobody has yet thought of could end up blunting the severest impact of global warming. Or, conversely, they could make the impact even worse than expected. And according to a study that sent tremors through the scientific community last week, that is exactly what seems to be happening in Greenland. Glaciers that flow toward the ocean in the southern half of that enormous frozen island are among the world's fastest moving, and their massive outpouring of ice now contributes fully a sixth of the annual rise in sea level. According to a study in the current issue of Science, they have nearly doubled their rate of flow over the past five years, to about 8 miles a year, dumping icebergs and meltwater into the already rising ocean faster than anyone expected. "In 1996 Greenland was losing about 100 cu km of ice per year," says Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, lead author of the study, which he presented at last week's meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in St. Louis, Mo. "This year it will lose more than twice as much." By comparison, he says, in 1996 Greenland dumped 90 times as much water into the sea as Los Angeles consumed; last year it was up to 225 times. "In the next 10 years," says Rignot, "it wouldn't surprise me if the rate doubled again." No computer climate model anticipated that increase,....... which means that all current predictions about how much sea level could rise--...... -are too low.... and will have to be revised upward. Greenland's ice cap covers more than 650,000 sq. mi. and in places stands nearly 2 miles thick. "If it all melted or otherwise slid into the ocean, sea level would rise by 20 ft. or so," In places like the Eastern seaboard of the U.S., a 1-ft. vertical rise in sea level means a 100-ft. retreat of shoreline." What jump-started the glaciers' outflow isn't precisely clear, but scientists point to two likely triggers. The first, says Julian Dowdeswell of the Scott Polar Research Institute at the University of Cambridge, is the breakup of ice "tongues" that reach out into the sea at the glaciers' leading edges. It's likely, he says, that removing that barrier allowed the glaciers to flow more freely. The second is that ice on the glaciers' surfaces has melted at a record rate in two of the past four years. "Some of that water," says Dowdeswell, "presumably percolates down through crevasses," lubricating the soft sediments at the base of the glaciers and allowing the huge ice floes to slip more quickly to the sea. What's even more ominous than the speedup is the fact that it's spreading northward. Between 1996 and 2000, says Rignot, glaciers started accelerating, but only up to the 66th parallel. Over the next five years, the speedup moved north to the 70th. "If it spreads even further north," says Dowdeswell, "the implications are that much greater." more http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1161231,00.html | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 973 Registered: 9-2004 |
SLK are you reading this shitt? HOw about the rest of the Naysayers? Ian Sample, science correspondent Thursday August 11, 2005 The Guardian A vast expanse of western Sibera is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today. Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. 1546824%2C00.html,http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1546824,00.ht ml | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4384 Registered: 5-2001 |
Meanwhile, Lake Erie, the shallowest of the great lakes, has no ice for the first time in memory. (in case that doesn't strike locals as at all unusual, unlike the Hudson and East Rivers, the great lakes are freshwater lakes, and in a typical winter ice extends all the way to Canada.) | ||
| Paris Hiltonberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 6811 Registered: 10-2001  |
Mild winter.. Nothing more. The bigger concern is bird flu. This is our most pressing issue at this time. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8708 Registered: 4-1997  |
Auto accidents and murder are still way ahead of avian flu and global warming combined. I think electrocution from putting a fork into toaster is even in front of avian flu at the moment, yet no big stories on it. | ||
| Scully Citizen Username: Scully Post Number: 168 Registered: 8-2005 |
Except if we trash the environment totally then down the road we aren't going to have to worry about auto accidents, murders, flu or anything... Just planning ahead; our kids and grandkids are going to be paying for the problems we ignore today. Maybe I'm wrong. I'd LOVE to be wrong on this one!!! | ||
| MBJ Citizen Username: Mbj Post Number: 140 Registered: 10-2005 |
Let's keep posting stuff about this. That will be sure to solve the problem. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 781 Registered: 10-2005 |
Foj- So what do we, or at least those in the "correct" income brackets, do? I am with MBJ, stop bitching and start choppin'!!! That hiatus sure flew by... -SLK | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4385 Registered: 5-2001 |
Warmest January ever ... nothing more. Most hurricanes ever ... nothing more. Here's my choppin' -- support candidates who take this seriously and are willing to put the nation to work on the problem. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 786 Registered: 10-2005 |
tom- according to some we will be underwater by then...grassroot efforts are needed...well...? | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 482 Registered: 1-2004 |
We could use a Pres who takes the environment seriously and would uphold strict clean air laws. Melting ice caps makes me very sad. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 787 Registered: 10-2005 |
The Coloing World Newsweek 28 April 1975 There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production--with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas--parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia--where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree--a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century." A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras--and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900--years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions." Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases--all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. | ||
| Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 450 Registered: 2-2003 |
Want to start someting at the grass roots level? Help start a bio-diesel co-op in MW/SO or seriously consider buying a Prius or don't use throw away plastic bottled water or Lobby the TC for micro-hydro generators in the creek across the street from the Fire and police stations to provide the stations with electricity or Lobby the TC to provide recycling for waste vegtable oil | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3061 Registered: 5-2001  |
The "cooling" theory posited in the 70's never had a significant fraction of the research and consensus that anthropogenic global warming has. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4076 Registered: 12-2001  |
Thanks Notehead. I was actually curious about that. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 801 Registered: 10-2005 |
notehead- But the hysteria back then sounds surprisingly familiar doesn't it? It just goes to show we don't know as much about climate as we think we do. Just admit your are engaging a Pascalian Wager on GW and lets move on.... -SLK | ||
| slipknot (slippy) Citizen Username: Zotts Post Number: 259 Registered: 7-2004  |
So what it is better to pretend the problem doesn't exist and go on whistling past the cemetary, or that it is better to acknowledge to problem and do something about it? Sounds like the usual republican crap of no consensus between scientists. Lets all go hunt farm raised quall, give money to our friends while scewing everyone else and drive our Hummers for a quart of milk around the corner. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4390 Registered: 5-2001 |
the whole point is there WAS NO hysteria in the '70s. It was a minor thing that only a few took seriously. Unlike now. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 809 Registered: 10-2005 |
slipknot- Great response, really...not... I am not saying that nothing should be done. I just want those GW proponents who are so deadset in their belief that it is humans causing this mayhem that they are engaging in a Pascalian Wager, thats all. A PW is not a bad thing..... -SLK | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3062 Registered: 5-2001 |
Yeah, and I just want the country to take some responsibility for reducing its production of greenhouse gases. But please do elaborate on your assertion that some of us are engaging in a Pascalian wager. I have no idea what that is, and you seem to be most eager to explain it to us. While you're at it, try explaining how a mistake by a small number of scientists thirty years ago means that many, many thousands of scientists using an absolutely immense amount of data are wrong now. By the way, the Office of Proofreading is building a massive case against you. Prepare for a major take-down. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 815 Registered: 10-2005 |
notehead- I already did tell everyone what A PW wager was. Hey, I have a novel idea! Turn on your computer... Go to your Internet Browser... Go to Google. or Wikipedia... Type in "Pascal's Wager".... Read results.... Take basic principle of PW and apply it to GW.... wow, magic... -SLK By the way, those who attack others on "proofreading" issues only do because they have no other leg to stand on.  | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3064 Registered: 5-2001 |
Wrong. It's because we like to keep the quality high here on MOL, and don't need you degrading it with your illogic or carelessness. If you don't care enough about what you're posting to write it carefully, why should we care about it either? So, Pascal felt that, in the absence of absolute proof, it was better to choose the more advantageous side. Somehow, he thought that this would convince people to select believing in God. Not only does this not apply to the question of anthropogenic global warming whatsoever (there is no advantage to believing in it), it's a dumb idea to begin with. Wow, no magic there. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 816 Registered: 10-2005 |
notehead- Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Anyone can play this childish game, care to continue? Oh come on, a couple of more times? Wrong. Wrong. And who made you the rule maker anyways, notey? If you like to keep the "quality high here" on MOL then please open your mind a bit to let alternate viewpoints exist? You can certainly apply PW to GW (and many other things as well), esecpailly (oops mispelled word call the grammar cops) since we have limited information/proof on human induced GW. To accept that GW exists reagrdless of proof and implementing procedures to counter it is a fine example of PW. You are in a win-win sitaution no matter what. -SLK | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3066 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'm happy to engage alternate views. The problem is, you're not willing to give any credence to the well-considered responses to your worn-out arguments against GW and the need for changes to deal with it. You seem to equate obstinacy with righteousness. The "limited information" card is a perfect example. One might as well suggest that, although barometer readings are falling, we shouldn't bother carrying a raincoat because our knowledge of the future is imperfect. Hey, maybe at some time in the planet's history, something made barometers go UP before it rained! What do you actually know about the scope of knowledge acquired by experts on this subject, anyway? It takes real gall to think that some vapid generalization like "we don't know everything" is a valid argument against decades of work by thousands of scientists. If that's the best you have, you've LOST. Admit it. Or, as you've often suggested to others, move on! Taking action to fend off anthropogenic global warming will require some real efforts from virtually all sectors, and there will be economic, political, technological, and cultural hurdles to get past. If we do nothing, we can expect increasing severe weather incidents, continued expansions of disease pathogens, loss of biodiversity, widespread shore erosion, etc. You want to explain how that is a win-win? | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 826 Registered: 10-2005 |
notehead- Why certainly notey- It is a win-win on a personal level. If humans are the main cause of GW then you are doing your part and apparently much more then the average person. If the opposite scenario occurs-that GW is a product of NATURAL climital changes-then at least you tried and still did your part. But you are still acting on faith, similar to Pascal because the truth is NOT all the facts are in on human induced GW. So, should I write this scientist off as an idiot simply because you tell me so: Scientist predicts 'mini Ice Age' ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity. Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St. Petersburg said Monday that temperatures will begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reaches its peak, RIA Novosti reported. The coldest period will occur 15 to 20 years after a major solar output decline between 2035 and 2045, Abdusamatov said. Dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures are an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation. The Northern Hemisphere's most recent cool-down period occurred between 1645 and 1705. The resulting period, known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in the Netherlands frozen solid and forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist said. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved Or should I ignore the fact the US emission levels have falling despite not joining the Kyoto circus (while the forefront nations engaged in it have higher emission levels)? I can understand the desire and need to protect Mother Earth but this GW thing has turned into a creepy cult-like phenomenon. You cannot dare question anything about it or even offer an alternate view without being condescendingly pounced on. -SLK | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3069 Registered: 5-2001 |
You're just not paying attention. Shall I dismiss decades of research by thousands of scientists worldwide because you have found one theory by ONE scientist? You shouldn't dismiss that one Russian astronomer because of anything to do with me. You should give him the portion of credit due one guy in the face of thousands of his colleagues who disagree. Why do you show such obstinacy in the face of so much evidence? You shouldn't ignore a drop in US emission levels. You should consider them in the context of what most experts believe is actually necessary to stave off the worst anticipated effects of global warming, and you should realize that most of the greenhouse gas reductions we have achieved have actually been accomplished by multinational companies who have either voluntarily or mandatorily changed their industrial practices in other countries and then brought their techniques to the U.S, or by domestic companies, such as energy producers, who have been forced by the government to conform to the law. There's nothing creepy or cult-like about the need for changes in response to anthropogenic global warming. You're just being defensive because you chose the wrong side of this argument and you're unwilling to face it. You can question whatever you like, but if the evidence is very much against you, you ought to be able to admit it. | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 740 Registered: 8-2001 |
Notehead, well stated, thank you. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4393 Registered: 5-2001 |
Well I'll play Pascal's Wager. Scenario 1: Believe anthropogenic global warming is real and act on a large scale. If true: Avert catastrophic warming. Develop more efficient technologies for energy production and lightweight materials that make tasks that are currently expensive much less so. Reduce dependence on oil provided by highly erratic governments, thereby increasing national security. Generally clean up the environment from other, non-warming related substances such as refining byproducts, sulfur, carbon monoxide. If false: all of the above except averting catastrophic climate change. Scenario two: Don't believe in AGW, don't act. If it's true: global climactic catastrophe as outlined by all the "cassandras" of today. Total economic collapse when oil reserves inevitably run out anyway. If it's false: No climactic catastrophe, but fall behind on R&D necessary to prepare for "the end of oil." Mad scramble as oil prices inevitably rise, putting a damper on a very vulnerable global economy. That's my take: we have everything to gain and really nothing to lose, because these are technologies that have to be brought on-line in the next 50 years anyway. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5084 Registered: 10-1999  |
Tom - As you point out, it's a simple cost-benefit analysis. Whether one accepts the evidence regarding global warming, it clearly makes sense to pursue energy efficiency and reduced emissions. And it's not simply a matter of faith, since there are serious and legitimate scientific presentations supporting the thinking about GW. Now, with regard to Pascal's Wager - You have to keep in mind that Pascal was a mathematician, as well as a philosopher. The "wager" was a way to relate the two disciplines. In matters of faith, he reasoned that the "up side" of belief, far outweighed anything gained from un-belief. That's how Pascal's Wager played out. PW is a "cost benefit analysis" where the "benefit" of one choice is or approaches ¥ (infinity). The discussion of global warming, while important, is more practical than philosophical. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4395 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'm no mathematician, but it reminds me of game theory. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 828 Registered: 10-2005 |
Tom-Great post, thank you for keeping an open mind on the matter, unlike some. Oh, speak of the devil, here's notey- I see we are still playing the "you are wrong game." Do me a favor and grow up. You are right, we are doomed, everyone jump ship. How dare I keep an open mind on the subject. I should just keep on walking,recycling, sweating and just keep my mouth shut. Thank you for illustrating my point notey, it is much appreciated. -SLK You play the bass right notey? Well you have to plug your amp in, right notey? I am sorry to say I guess you are going to have to give that up to curb GW. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 829 Registered: 10-2005 |
notey-I will just overlook this article too while I am at it. Have to be a good little GW proponent now... Ice Storm: By Dr. Patrick Michaels : BIO | 17 Feb 2006 The latest issue of Science contains a paper by Eric Rignot and Pannir Kanagaratnam claiming that glaciers along the periphery of Greenland are melting at a rapidly increasing rate. Another paper on this subject was published by Science just last year. Ola Johannessen did not consider direct ice lost by glaciers into the ocean but instead only focused on elevations changes. Johannssen showed that increasing snowfall in Greenland was leading to greater ice accumulations than had previously been measured and this was acting to slow Greenland's contribution to sea level rise. It was conspicuously ignored in this new report. The new paper uses radar measurements from satellites and concludes that there has been a widespread acceleration in the calving and loss of Greenland's glaciers during the past 10 years. The authors calculate that Greenland's glaciers were calving about 56 cubic kilometers of ice (km3) (give or take 30 km3) per year back in 1996, and that during the past 10 years, the volume of ice loss had risen to 167 km3 per year (give or take 40 km3). And this was just from glaciers dumping ice directly into the ocean (as opposed to melting ice). Additionally, they speculated that snow and ice over other parts of Greenland are melting and the water is flowing into the ocean. Citing other work by Hanna et al. (2004), Rignot and Kanagaratnam figure another 35km3 in 1996 and 57 km3 in 2005 of ice loss occurred from surface melting bringing the total annual loss volume to 91 km3 in 1996 and 224 km3 in 2005. This water and ice input leads to a sea level rise of 0.23 ± 0.08 mm/year in 1996 growing to 0.57±0.1mm/year by 2005. Not surprisingly, the reason that is given -- or at least presumed -- for the melting ice and the rising seas is that temperatures are going up because of global warming. Why would Science publish this paper with no reference to Johannessen's earlier paper showing that Greenland is accumulating ice at a rate of about 5.4±0.2cm/year? Johannessen even used data from some of the same satellites. What's more, Johannessen used real data and Hanna et al., cited by Rignot, used a model of surface melt. Consider what would have happened had the latest study included the ice and snow gains observed by Johannessen (and ignored the losses modeled by Hanna et. al.). Johannnessen's increase of 5.4cm/year averaged over Greenland converts to about 75km3/year. Rignot and Kanagaratnam could have subtracted Johannessen's gains. If they had done so, the total volume of ice loss from Greenland would only have become positive during the last 5 years, totaling 17km3 in 2000 and 92km3 in 2005. This translates to a sea level rise contribution of 0.04mm in 2000 and 0.23mm in 2005 -- values much less dramatic than those they published. And what does all of this have to do with global warming? A look again at real data is instructive. Temperatures fluctuations around Greenland are part of a phenomenon -- known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) -- that connects with temperature changes further south, in the hurricane formation regions of the tropical Atlantic. The AMO goes through, as its name suggests, multidecadal swings from being cooler than normal both in the ocean around Greenland and in the tropical Atlantic, to being warmer than normal in both places. And modelers have suggested that the AMO has been part of the natural system for at least the past 10-15 centuries (see here). When the AMO is in its positive (warm) phase, the Atlantic hurricane seasons become active with more and stronger storms; and, apparently, Greenland's glaciers flow faster and dump more ice into the ocean. When the AMO is in its negative (cool) phase, hurricane activity in the Atlantic is suppressed and Greenland's glaciers flow slowly. The AMO changed from negative to positive in 1995 -- and since then hurricanes have become very active and glacier output has been accelerating. There is no need to invoke global warming for any of this. Many of the world's foremost experts on hurricanes argue emphatically that it is the natural oscillations of the AMO -- not anthropogenic climate change -- that is primarily responsible for the enhanced Atlantic hurricane activity during the past decade or so (see here). And since the AMO ties together the sea surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic with those around Greenland, the same argument applies to Greenland's glaciers. Figure 1a shows the regions in the Atlantic Ocean that are most related to the AMO, and Figure 1b shows the AMO index for the past century. Figure 1a. The relationship (correlation) between Atlantic sea surface temperatures and the AMO index; Figure 1b. The history of the AMO index since 1870 (source: Goldenberg, et al., 2001). Figure 2 is the 20th century temperature history from the southern end of Greenland, from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Notice how similar it looks to the AMO history in Figure 1b. Also notice that both the AMO and Greenland temperatures were generally higher in 1930s and 1940s as they are today. We know that Atlantic hurricane activity has high back then, we can only assume that glacial flow rates were up there as well. Figure 2. Temperature history from the southern portion of Greenland (source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/gcag.html#HERE) So what we have here are two stories making a lot of headlines -- Greenland is melting and hurricanes are strengthening. Both things are true. And, again, looking at real data it is apparent that at this time they are both part of a natural cycle that has been going on for thousands of years. References Goldenberg, S., et al., 2001. The recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity: Causes and implications. Science, 293, 474-479. Hanna, E., et al., 2005. Runoff and mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet, 1958-2003. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, doi:10.1029/2004JD005641. Johannessen, O.M., et al., 2005. Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland. Science, 310, 1013-1016. Knight, J.R., et al., 2005. A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation cycles in observed climate. Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1029/2005GL024233. Rignot, E., Kanagaratnam, P., 2006. Changes in the velocity structure of the Greenland ice sheet. Science, 311, 986-990. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3072 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hey, you found another article! Excellent effort. Find me about a thousand more that suggest AGW is not a significant factor causing major problems, and you'll be on your way to starting to change my mind. Actually, I'm a keyboard player, and a lot of the time I just plug into the house system that is already in use by the vocalists. Sort of like carpooling.  | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 839 Registered: 10-2005 |
notehead- That is exactly my point. I can find just as many articles countering your arguments as you can countering mine which illustrates no one is exactly certain how much AGW is negatively affecting us. But can you please explain why my articles are less valid than yours, I am curious....and spare me the "thousands of scientists" line again.... -SLK | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4400 Registered: 5-2001 |
Since I was nice enough to play a round of Pascal with you, why don't you do me the kindness of either refuting my analysis or coming up with a counter-analysis of your own? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8759 Registered: 4-1997 |
Dr. Patrick Michaels is possibly the most prolific and widely-quoted climate change skeptic scientist. He has admitted receiving funding from various fossil fuel industry sources. His latest book, published in September 2004 by the Cato Institute, is titled: Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. Michaels publishes the "World Climate Review," a newsletter on global warming funded by the Western Fuels Association. Dr. Michaels has acknowledged that 20% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources: (http://www.mtn.org/~nescncl/complaints/determinations/det_118.html) Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, an early supporter of People for the West, a "wise use" group. He recieved $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association, above and beyond the undisclosed amount he is paid for the World Climate Report/Review. According to Harper's magazine, Michaels has recieved over $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests. Michaels wrote "Sound and Fury" and "The Satanic Gases" which were published by Cato Institute. Dr. Michaels signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4 | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 841 Registered: 10-2005 |
Dave-So because of this we should disregard his legimitate questions above? Tom-are you askinge me or someone else? -SLK | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3073 Registered: 5-2001 |
I can find just as many articles countering your arguments as you can countering mine ... No, you can't. Not even close. That's why the "thousands of scientists" line has merit. It's strange that you would make such an assertion, considering that you have never claimed to be particularly interested in this subject, as I am. I'd guess that you have never heard of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is one of the largest organizations concerned with the subject in the world. You might want to check out some of their info, and perhaps a good place to start is here. And I'm glad Dave beat me to scooping Michaels. If you follow the money, you find that most of the loudest critics against the consensus on AGW are funded by fossil fuel companies, have false or irrelevant backgrounds, and do not have any publications that have survived the robust peer review process that (generally) makes the leading scientific journals so trustworthy. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4403 Registered: 5-2001 |
you | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 846 Registered: 10-2005 |
Fine notey- you won. AGW is alive and well and we are all doomed. I still have a pair of waders for sale if you need them. But I will check out the website. Than kyou for the link. Tom-I have nothing to argue against your shot at PW and actually praised you in an earlier post. I also think it was great you brought on a much higher scale since I was thinking more on a personal level. I apologize for disapointing you. |
