Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 Next
Comments 115351 to 115400:
-
robert way at 23:42 PM on 15 July 2010Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
I will include a similar graph in part 3 -
pkm at 23:33 PM on 15 July 2010Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
In science, the only thing better than empirical evidence is multiple lines of empirical evidence all pointing to the same result. In the case of the Antarctic mass budget, the three methods outlined above slowly start to agree on the fact that also the Antarctic ice sheet is currently losing mass. Figure 4.18(b) from the latest IPCC report is a nice visual depiction of different estimates of the Antarctic mass budget using elevation changes (box Z), gravimetry (boxes RL and V) and the flux component method (boxes RT and RT2).
The downside of this picture is that it becomes apparent that the observed trends are rather short (less than 15 years), that the uncertainty of the amount of mass loss is rather large (it's somewhere between 0 and -200 Gigatonnes per year) and that the error estimates of the different studies (depicted as the vertical extent of the boxes) sometimes do not even overlap. Cleary, more observations and improved data analysis are required for a clearer picture to emerge.
The obvious pitfall of tracking elevation changes is that height needs to be converted to mass. The exchange rate for this conversion is density. Densification of snow via firn to ice is strongly dependent on the accumulation rate and on snow temperature. So if your satellite detects a change in height, it may not mean you lost mass: it could be that the vertical column of snow and ice you're measuring has become a bit denser. It has recently been shown that the effect of decadal accumulation variability has a signature that is as large as the observed trend in elevation itself (Helsen et al. 2009). It means that long records of elevation change and accumulation rates are required to squeeze out a reliable mass change signal, no matter how accurate your laser or radar is.
The flux component method requires model calculations on the surface mass balance (roughly, snowfall minus melt minus sublimation). Direct observations are almost impossible due to the sheer size of the continent. Modeling surface mass balance is an ongoing field of research, and a simple thing like sublimation due to drifting snow or melt water production is surprisingly difficult to model, especially since validation is thin on the ground. Nevertheless, I believe that this method can yield good results. My personal feeling is that gravimetry will in the end be the method that can give the most accurate results, but future developments will show if I'm right on this.
The multiple lines of evidence are slowly converging to a picture in which Antarctica is losing mass, but we will unfortunately be quite a few years away from nailing down the Antarctic mass loss precisely and consistently among the different methods. On the upside, much progress has been booked in estimating the mass budget of the Greenland ice sheet, serving as an example of where constructive skeptical science can be in a few years time.
-
Ken Lambert at 23:15 PM on 15 July 2010Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
MS #49 & Chris Michael, BP can probably defend himself, but I think you are right on this point, along with Chris. The temperature drop from surface to bottom of roughly 20 degC is not taken account in BP's argument. And Chris, just remember that each of BP's arguments stands on its merits. We all get it wrong on occasion, don't we Chris? That does not mean BP's Von Schukmann analysis is wrong. -
sime at 23:15 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Signed! Lord Monckton appears to be an undercover supporter of AWG, I believe this individual has single-handedly done more damage to his "cause" in the last few months than any proponent of AWG. You couldn't make it up... wait a minute his lordship does make it all up, and his lordship is still making it up. Well you just keep it up your lordship, as every time you behave like a two year old and throw your toys out of your pram, attacking respectable qualified individuals such as Professor John Abraham, in vain attempts to censor and suppress a legitimate scientific rebuttal the more members of the public will see through you and your FUD allowing them to understanding what you really are... Sigh! -
Ken Lambert at 23:06 PM on 15 July 2010Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
Chris #40 BP#47 Er....not really Chris. Just describe the mechanism for getting heat from the surface to the deep oceans in a couple or three yearly timeframe. As I have suggested elsewhere, measurement of OHC changes needs a baseline viz. a snapshot of the 'tiled' oceans. The 'ideal' system would be a global array of tethered buoys measuring the same 'tile' at the same time. A tile might be 500m deep by 1 degree square to have enough resolution. The gold standard would be a snapshot of temperatures of each tile at time T1 and another snapshot at T2. A summation of each would give accurate changes in OHC. The Argo buoys are at present about 3500 in number covering on average a square of ocean 330km x 330km (about 3.3 degrees square) down to 2000m. The average ocean depth is 3700m. Not all the Argo buoys are measuring down to 2000m. How close the drifting Argo come to the 'ideal' is hard to determine. For sure, strong currents will tend to coagulate drifting buoys so that the same 'tile' of ocean might might not be measured at time T2 as was measured at T1. Two or more buoys might enter a tile of ocean and leave none where a prior measurement was taken. Now this might even itself out with some sort of statistical correction, but currents moving at 3-4 knots would move buoys and water out of a tile in a matter of hours, so it would seem a difficult problem to correct back to the 'ideal' measurement system of tethered buoys. Those more expert that I might explain how this is done. I suspect that the noisy and inconsistent nature of OHC reconstructions is due to this problem. -
robert way at 22:10 PM on 15 July 2010Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
Fixed -
shdwsnlite at 22:04 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
done... and a couple of people have mentioned facebook...let us know when that happens too. -
DarkSkywise at 21:49 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Signed! -
skywatcher at 21:39 PM on 15 July 2010Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
Excellent once again Robert, nice descriptions of different methods. I look forward to your detailed deconstruction of goddard's arguments, though I guess that might even be the easiest to write! One very minor quibble/note - when discussing resolution of the radar it might be worth noting that the resolution quoted is the horizontal resolution. It's obvious if you already understand the subject, but maybe clarify just in case a goddard drone comes and claims the satellites couldn't possibly measure elevation change! -
skywatcher at 21:30 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Petion signed - it's telling the way that Monckton, Watts, MacIntyre and their cronies are reacting to reasoned scientific argument. They react by attempting to bully people into silence using mob 'justice', which is the absolute opposite of of all sorts of freedoms, scientific included. We need to ensure that University of St Thomas and other institutions under such attacks get as much support as possible. -
Peter Hogarth at 21:19 PM on 15 July 2010Part One: How do ice sheets lose ice?
Robert Way at 10:01 AM on 15 July, 2010 Yes, there is similar from previous missions. I should explain that I am part of the extended AUV instrumentation team though I did not design the specific Autosub sonars (or process the data). Part of my work is looking at instrumentation packages for smaller AUVs, as funding is a major hurdle to getting information like this about paleo changes in ice extent, and smaller is cheaper. I’m guessing you’ve seen this but for the benefit of others the sort of data I’m discussing is nicely shown in the Scott Polar Research Institute information on Autosub. -
mspelto at 20:54 PM on 15 July 2010Part One: How do ice sheets lose ice?
HR it is not reasonable to assume that velocities have been mainly increasing since the Little Ice Age. We have velocity data from a number of outlet glaciers in Greenland from the 1950's and 1960's the data is of limited duration and near the terminus. However, as I note in comment 9 on Jakobshavns and Rinks Glacier for that matter, the velocity was not increasing during the 1950-1990's period. Why do we keep coming back to AGW to explain mass loss. In some cases we are measuring ablation and accumulation. Where I monitor glacier mass balance winter precipitation has risen, and glacier balance has fallen, these glaciers do not calve, thus increased melting is the mechanism. Given our ability today to measure melt extent, not quite yet ablation rate from satellite imagery, we are developing a good ability to quantify relative annual ablation in Greenland. For Greenland the key to acceleration of outlet glaciers and hence mass loss is not melt or meltwater lubrication, it is ,a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/10/what-links-the-retreat-of-jakobshavn-isbrae-wilkins-ice-shelf-and-the-petermann-glacier/">outlet glacier acceleration, given the simultaneous nature of the acceleration of at least 34 Greenland outlet glaciers, the cause is not local or random. We understand the mechanics, thinning reduces back force, which increases velocity, calving and retreat. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 20:46 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Monckton’s document makes for interesting reading. Most of it is a gish gallop of questions aimed at Abraham rather than a rebuttal of any particular point. The claim is made that Abraham’s attack “was malicious and relentlessly ad hominem, when a more measured consideration would have been expected from one who was representing himself as an academic with relevant knowledge correcting an allegedly untutored layman”. Hmm. Does this mean that Monckton considers he should be treated an “untutored layman” so that he can get away with treating Abraham with contempt? On the issue of ad hominem – Monckton’s attack is filled with it. I can’t see how anyone could consider that Abraham had been anything but reasonable. I recommend checking Monckton’s response for yourselves. It is a classic. -
John Brookes at 20:38 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Oh, the fool I am, I just visited wuwt and tried to read the condensed version of his Lordships rebuttal of Abraham. What a load of old cobblers. Hilariously funny are the adoring comments of his litter-bearers. Much as I try and make light of it, it is very depressing that Monckton so strenuously and viciously attacks reasonable objections to his talk. Far worse that he tries to pressure Abraham's employer. His behaviour is contemptible. It would be nice to just ignore him, but then he'd say that no one could address his arguments. But if you do address his arguments, he tries to assassinate you. What do we do? -
kdkd at 20:25 PM on 15 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP #183 Well that's a start. It appears to suggest that people with pre existing clinical conditions may be sensitive to infrasound. It's not in a clinical journal though - I'd be interested in medical research on the issue. What does the ICD10 have to say on the issue of infrasound related conditions? Besides, you're still selectively using the precautionary principle in such a way as means of confirmation bias. And as that was the most important part of my last post, it's interesting that you failed to address it in any way :). -
Berényi Péter at 20:18 PM on 15 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
#181 kdkd at 18:28 PM on 15 July, 2010 there is very little actual evidence for wind turbine syndrome Here is some peer reviewed research on the topic. It is only about cochlear response, but low frequency infrasound at sufficiently high levels effects all cavities of the human body filled with air. You may also check this out: The inaudible noise of wind turbine Lars CERANNA, Gernot HARTMANN and Manfred HENGER Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources Hannover - GERMANY "Results from similar measurements have already been published, however, they are based on microphone data which do not properly reflect the noise conditions in the frequency range below a few Hz. Consequently, the microbarometer measurements can be considered as an extension of the microphone based results to low frequencies" Due to low energy density of wind, the more widely used the technology is, the larger areal impact gets. As under certain circumstances microbaroms can travel large distances unimpeded, it can even get global, outperforming the inaudible sound of ocean waves by orders of magnitude. For a general discussion of possible health hazards of infrasound above 1 Hz see: (It does not discuss specific windmill issues) ISSN 1392-2114 ULTRAGARSAS (ULTRASOUND), Vol. 64, No. 3, 2009. Infrasound hazards for the environment and the ways of protection D. Guzas, R. Virsilas Siauliai University Vilnius str. 141, Siauliai, Lithuania -
JMurphy at 20:05 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Wow - some of those posters on WUWT are just amazingly...uninformed. Not only do they still seem to believe that 'An Inconvenient Truth' has been condemned by a British court as 'fiction' (or that there could have been a lot more 'errors' shown up but the court 'didn't have the time to go through them all properly'), but they seem to think that it can't be shown unless 'counter claims' are also given. They are also still relying on the 'emails' for their opinion, especially of peer-review. All those enquiries might just as well have not happened in denial world. They even still seem to think that Monckton IS actually in the House of Lords. Finally, for some of them to constantly write about AGW as a 'religion' which is only accepted by 'true believers' who follow blindly, and then, in the next sentence, fawn and tug their forelocks before the wisdom and greatness that they see in Monckton...well, you have to see their comments to believe them. It seems that some Americans are still bowled over by an English title, especially when the person connected to it actually talks to them and is on their side. Incredible how the propaganda, deceptions and half-truths of denial are so successful among a certain percentage of the population. We all have to make sure that ordinary people don't get sucked in and deluded too. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 19:54 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Is there a case to be made in the courts? -
sebastian.tyrrell at 19:45 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
@Riccardo: if it weren't so expensive the phrase "sue and be damned" would come to mind. Monckton's rantings on this are so absurd, and John Abraham's responses so measured, that even a judge would be able to see it. @John Cook: please can I suggest use of the "nofollow" tag for WattsUpWithThat and other similar sites? In a small way it avoids giving them extra google rank and denies them the oxygen of publicity.Response: Re nofollow, I do that when I can be bothered and remember - getting both to happen at the same time is a rare occurance, unfortunately :-( -
Stuart at 19:27 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
And now Anthony Watts is in full-on stalker mode by tracing the IP address of critical comments in the above thread and publicly revealing information such as their place of employment. You see it time and time again with assorted crackpots - the less convincing their arguments are, the dirtier their tactics become. -
Riccardo at 18:44 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
I'm confident that St. Thomas University will behave as any other Academic institution would do in cases like this, the unacceptable threat will be ignored. Then, the problem is not this particular incident but if the habit of legal threatening will prevail in some quarters. It would be an attack to the very foundations of science as a whole, an attack to which the scientific community as a whole should respond promptly and strongly. -
Riccardo at 18:35 PM on 15 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Adding to what kdkd already said, the concern over the risks of low frequency acustic waves from someone who dismiss radioactive waste risks so easily (scaddenp: "nuclear has waste issue"; BP: "not really") sounds a bit unbalanced. -
kdkd at 18:28 PM on 15 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Well BP #108 According to my cursory research via google scholar there is very little actual evidence for wind turbine syndrome. However if we apply the precautionary principle in a field where we have far far more evidence for action, and plenty of good quality scientific research, we'd be taking urgent action to curtail anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. So I'm calling hypocrisy due to selective use of the precautionary principle here I'm afraid. -
Berényi Péter at 18:09 PM on 15 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
This may be the main problem with wind turbines.
They produce a lot of inaudible low frequency noise. In cases like this you can hear nothing, but you can still feel it, mainly in your chest. With some practice you can be aware of the phenomenon, even counting beats is possible.
I have spent ten years of my life in an acoustics research lab, so I do know what I am talking about.
The slope of the curve above is really alarming. It is about 30 dB/decade below 10 Hz with no sign of flattening out. Although these particular measurements do not extend below 1 Hz, on the base of standard rotation speeds of wind turbines I expect the peak of the curve to be a little bit above 0.1 Hz. It means at 0.2 Hz noise level can be as high as 120 dB SPL (Sound Pressure Level), which is very high. If it would be in the audible range, it could cause severe pain.
The dB scale is a logarithmic one, sound energy is doubling for every 3 dB increase in SPL. Sixty decibels mean a millionfold increase.
It is also a problem you neither can measure these low frequency sounds with standard acoustic equipment nor are there proper regulations for that frequency range.
It does not mean however that it's unmeasurable. Just have to know what you are looking for and choose your equipment and measurement procedure accordingly.
A further problem may be that such low frequencies are hardly attenuated in air. What is more, due to the extremely long wavelength (a mile at 0.2 Hz) they tend to propagate in only 2D (horizontally), which means doubling the distance only lowers sound level by 3 dB.
As industrial wind turbines are getting bigger (there are already 6 MW models on the market), they get ever more efficient on radiating such low frequencies. It is so because the closer the dimensions of the source are to the wavelength, the more effective radiator it is.
Based on this I would say even the 2 km safety distance from human habitation or workplace is insufficient.
Wind Turbine Syndrome
Testimony before the New York State Legislature Energy Committee
March 7, 2006
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD
-
Bern at 18:06 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
It's pretty typical denier behaviour, actually - in any field, not just climate change. Throw out spurious or fallacious arguments, and when someone points out you got it wrong, do everything you can to get them shut down. The curious part of this? Well, I'm sure you've noticed how the climate deniers (including Monckton in his 'rebuttal' of John Abraham's presentation) keep likening AGW proponents to 'communists' and 'socialists. The first time I saw these "shut them down" tactics expounded clearly, was in some material a friend at university got from the International Socialists when he went along to a meeting. The IS doctrine was along the lines of "if you let your opponents speak, you might as well agree with them, so don't let them speak". I find that immensely amusing, that 20 years later the only people I see using that tactic are the more right-wing folks who are always jumping at "reds under the bed"... Anyway, heading to the page to add my message of support. -
Paul D at 17:45 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
I actually emailed John in support when his presentation first appeared, before you chaps discovered him, so there! I think if Monckton was really interested in science, he would just get on with the debate, the one he keeps saying that the scientists don't want. He is of course displaying double standards by trying to use law to close down a debate. -
tobyjoyce at 17:04 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
So much for the people who were whining about "blacklists" only a short time ago. A scientist give them the straight story, and they can't take it. -
Philippe Chantreau at 17:04 PM on 15 July 2010Part One: How do ice sheets lose ice?
HR, about your point #1 above. Arkadiusz recently attracted our attention to the SHALDRIL project and the sediment core obtained. Milliken has done extensive work on that core: http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/121/11-12/1711.abstract Excerpt from the abstract: "There is no compelling evidence for a Little Ice Age readvance in Maxwell Bay." -
adelady at 16:59 PM on 15 July 2010Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
Did anyone argue? Yes, about how to fix it - but the *nature* of the problem had been recognised for hundreds of years earlier. It took from 1848 to 1865, with 6 commissions of enquiry involved, before a proper sewage system was implemented. But it wasn't enough, took nearly a hundred years and WW2 bombing damage before they fixed it properly. Unfortunately we're back to the problems of invisible, odourless gas again. And the speed of light problem. People generally do not comprehend large numbers. If your undergraduate physics students had problems, how do you think someone who starts out thinking that 400 is the largest possible number will get on? (No! no laughing, we actually had a student who believed this.) -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:51 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
This is so typical. Monckton'antics, however, are becoming so extreme that they have a good chance of backfiring. This might actually be quite useful in attracting to Abraham's pieces the attention of that part of WUWT's readership that is not really acquired to any "cause." In any case, it brings to perfection the ridicule already established by the rest of Monckton's "work." -
adelady at 16:41 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Lucky Dan. -
Dan Moutal at 16:18 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Has someone started a facebook group? I can do so if no one else hasResponse: Sounds like you the man, Dan. -
Stuart at 16:17 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
With "Climategate" now little more than an embarrassing failed misinformation campaign, the denialosphere has begun a co-ordinated attempt to chill academic freedom. We know from "Climategate" that they have no shame, but it's increasingly clear that they should be ashamed. -
Steve L at 16:05 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
It just occurred to me that a university should investigate things themselves and adjudicate based on more than angry denier emails. Hopefully they do and come to realize that, to stir up such a hornet's nest, Prof Abraham has done an excellent job. -
John Brookes at 16:04 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
I supported Abraham. His presentation was great, I hadn't seen it before. Thanks for letting us know just how desperate Monkton is. -
Albatross at 16:03 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Monckton disgusts me. Please show your support for Dr. Abraham and St. Thomas University. -
Gareth at 15:50 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Over to you, Tenney! -
Tenney Naumer at 15:27 PM on 15 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Someone should also start a facebook community. -
scaddenp at 13:09 PM on 15 July 2010Part One: How do ice sheets lose ice?
HR - surely the really simple way to look at this is that IN GENERAL glaciers respond to temperature, especially in the ablation zone, and obviously irrespective of the cause of the temperature change. (Though surely you are not trying to resuscitate the "recovering from the LIA" saw). In particular, glaciers also respond to changes in precipitation in the neve area and to changes things like grounding line and seaice buttressing but generally these changes are ultimately due to temperature change anyway. The take-home message to me was that no matter how cold the neve area in greenland or antartica, you are going to lose ice if warming margins and rising sealevels affect the ablation zone. But yes, nothing to do with CAUSE of warming - just further evidence that it is happening. -
Jeff Freymueller at 13:01 PM on 15 July 2010Part One: How do ice sheets lose ice?
Great post. I'm looking forward to the next two parts. #29 HumanityRules (1) Yes, of course these processes operate all the time, but what can change over time are the rates. For example, if temperature is held constant over a few years, but the ice shelf buttressing a glacier breaks up, the glacier will speed up, moving toward a negative mass balance. Or, increased precipitation could result in a positive mass balance even if flow increases. (4) As pointed out in the main post, surface melt is only one of the components, and not the most important one for Antarctica. To complete the circle and address Goddard's argument: that fact means that Goddard's argument that significant ice loss is impossible because the average surface temp remains sub-zero (C) is totally wrong. -
gallopingcamel at 13:01 PM on 15 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Good to see scaddenp and BP getting along. They realise that today's nuclear waste is fuel for future generations. Forget glassification; just burn it! When BP talks about U233 or U232 he is making a subtle pitch for Thorium cycle reactors (e.g LFTR). Uranium reactors are dominant because they produce fissile Plutonium that is great for making weapons. Thorium reactors produce fissile materials but only tiny amounts of Plutonium. The fissile materials they do produce (e.g. U233) are useless for weapons productions but excellent for power generation. Don't forget Rubbia's ADRs (Accelerator Driven Reactors) that can process waste even when k<1. "Sub-critical" reactors have many potential uses in dry reprocessing of nuclear waste. Take a look at GEM*STAR at Virginia Tech: http://csis.org/files/attachments/091007_chang_virginia_tech.pdf -
John Brookes at 12:36 PM on 15 July 2010Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
Chemware @6: "Einstein himself said in 1920: This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation." I tutored 1st year uni physics students about 25 years ago. Special Relativity used to really bother them. Many of them were convinced it was wrong. There seemed to be two reasons for this: 1) It didn't fit with their common sense (which is hardly surprising because it only matters at speeds thousands of times faster than those of everyday life). 2) They hated the idea that they couldn't travel faster than the speed of light. They wanted to believe that they could quickly pop over to Alpha Centauri for lunch, and be back for dinner, and here was this silly theory telling them that it was simply not possible (or even if it was, everyone back on earth would have aged 8 years in a day). Both these reasons apply to the desire to ignore global warming. Firstly, CO2 is a colourless, odourless gas, present in the atmosphere in minute quantities - how can that do anything? Secondly, the cure is to stop pumping CO2 into the air - limiting our personal freedom and our right to do whatever we like. So battles over issues like this have been fought in the past, relativity, smoking etc. I wonder if there were people in London at the time of cholera who fought for the Thames not to be cleaned up, and who argued that water wasn't the cause? Did anyone rail against the huge expense and change in lifestyle involved in fixing the drinking water problem? It would be interesting to know.Response: LOL re the rejection of special relativity. Re point 2, you could always tell them that the sequel to special relativity, general relativity, may still give them a loophole (or should that be wormhole) to get them to Alpha Centauri quickly by warping the space-time continuum. Of course you run again into point 1. -
HumanityRules at 11:53 AM on 15 July 2010Part One: How do ice sheets lose ice?
That was great Robert, I suspect the measurement part won't be boring I'm on the edge of my seat already :) I have few questions and observations. 1) I thought this was nice largely because it doesn't actually mention AGW. I suspect that all these processes you describe are true at all times irrespective of whether humans are pumping CO2 into the sky or not. For example since the end of the Little Ice Age one could argue that velocities have been constantly changing, mainly increasing to give us an interrupted 200 or 300 years of mass loss to global land ice, at least the first half of that time period had absolutely nothing to do with AGW. 2) I read the Bell review. There's a lot of "ifs" and "maybes" and "possiblies" and "mights". I might (probably will) get blasted along the lines of the previous post about partial science but I just wondered to what extent we actually know what's going on at the base of a glacier? These are hypothesizes or proven theories? 3) Again I get from the Bell review that glacier velocity can be affected by a multitude of things some of which have absolutely nothing to do with whats going on on the surface or AGW. And it is not necessarily possible to tease out the impact from all these different processes. I wonder why we always seem to return to AGW for the explanation of mass loss? He also suggests there isn't necessarily a direct relationship between incresed 4) Although you mention the flawed arguments of WUWT and Goddard at the start you don't seem to actually address them. Surely if we are looking at the impact of AGW on glaciers then that still requires increased surface melt to affect velocities. Melt is dependant on air temperature which at least suggests on Goddard is looking in the right area? maybe this is all in part 3 in which case save it for then. -
Joe Blog at 11:15 AM on 15 July 2010Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
muoncounter at 10:45 That quote on the T's is a bit disconcerting.... 4C a decade? In the tropics?(i think i dislocated an eye brow) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohachara_Island This wiki on Lohachara i think is relevant. But this is getting a bit away from the topic at hand. There is unquestionably a trend in rising sea levels. -
muoncounter at 10:45 AM on 15 July 2010Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
#30: I note Wikipedia mentions that the island was a "sandbar"; I have no firsthand knowledge of the geology of the area. Google Earth shows a circular patch, part of a more extensive submerged shoal. Maybe the delta is sinking due to subsidence, as in Louisiana. Don't know if there are any COE levees on the Hariabhanga River. Here are additional quotes from the Sunday Times Online. He noted that temperatures in the region had been rising at an annual rate of 0.4C (0.8F). Until 2000, the sea level rose about 3mm (0.12 inches) a year, but over the last decade it had been rising about 5mm annually, he said. He warned that another ten islands could be at risk. A nearby island, Lohachara, was submerged in 1996, forcing its inhabitants to move to the mainland, while almost half of another island, called Ghoramara, was now under water. “We will have ever larger numbers of people displaced… as more island areas come under water,” Professor Hazra said. One island, two islands, three islands ... pretty soon you've got a trend. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 10:41 AM on 15 July 2010Part One: How do ice sheets lose ice?
Great post Robert. I have been reading some of the posts over at WUWT with a kind of fascinated horror. Slightly off topic but still interesting wrt to what is happening in the Antarctic is an absolute howler by Steve Goddard at the end of "AGW Mathematics", the second post you link to. After showing how the main body of Antarctica hasn't really warmed, he says 'Must be the Ozone? I’m curious how one gets to be a “climate expert.”'. Presumably sarcastically. Obviously Steve doesn't keep up with the science enough (or if he does he chooses not to mention it). Because recent research suggests it is the Ozone. Or rather the lack of it. Antarctica is surrounded by a westerly air flow called the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM). And the SAM has reportedly been stronger during summer for the last 30-40 years, tending to isolate Antarctica from outside weather systems. And research released last year suggests that this is being caused by the Ozone Hole. With less UV being absorbed in the stratosphere, more reaches the lower atmosphere, more energy. And this has had the effect of strengthening the SAM during Summer. Hence the warming such as it is in Antarctica has tended to be more in Winter & Spring. So the Ozone hole really does cause it Steve! Here is a link to a discussion about this over at RC. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/putting-the-recent-antarctic-snowmelt-minimum-into-context/ -
muoncounter at 10:27 AM on 15 July 2010What's in a trend?
Here's a comparison of UAH and RSS for what would be considered the global LT temperature anomaly.
Despite UAH appearing to be noisier, there doesn't seem to be lots of difference. The slope of the straight line shown equates to 0.16 deg/decade, as Marcus states above (#15). Linear trend of RSS' North polar data (actually N60-N82.5 lat) gives a slope of 0.34 deg/decade.
Like it or not, in the data the deniers often cite, the North pole is getting hotter faster. To state otherwise is to ignore the evidence. Not an interpretation of the evidence, but the actual evidence. No hype, no hysteria. "Just the facts, ma'am."
-
robert way at 10:01 AM on 15 July 2010Part One: How do ice sheets lose ice?
Peter Hogarth, it would be nice then to at some point see if the authors had came across any of that or if they were working on it at all. -
michael sweet at 09:43 AM on 15 July 2010Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
BP: If you read the density/temperature graph in the link you supplied, you will see that the expansion of sea water is temperature dependent. This means that the expansion of surface water at 20C when it absorbs 1E22 joules of energy is greater than the expansion of bottom water at 1C when it absorbs the same amount of energy. This is the basic physics that Chris is referring to. Since deep water is colder then surface water, the graph you copied with constant temperature is not relevant to the discussion. -
Sense Seeker at 08:46 AM on 15 July 2010Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
Thanks for the explanations of Fig. 2. It makes perfect sense to me now.
Prev 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 Next
