Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 Next
Comments 122701 to 122750:
-
CBDunkerson at 05:00 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Steve Goddard, first it doesn't matter how many times you quote that passage... the Turner paper which the NSIDC is there referring to DOES NOT include data showing that Antarctica is cooling. It doesn't exist. Because that isn't what the NSIDC web page was saying. You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting them, but in any case... there is no data whatsoever supporting what you are claiming. As to the other NASA map you cite... who is ignoring it? Looks like it shows the warming of the southern oceans just fine to me. See all that red? -
Doug Bostrom at 04:59 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Steven, as you're here and we're talking about solid state water, do you have any remarks about Tamino's destruction of your hypothesis about NH snow cover? Here it is: Cherry Snow There's a recent thread here on snow cover, Does record snowfall disprove global warming where you might want to get your thoughts on Tamino's writeup on the record, so to speak. -
Albatross at 04:56 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Someone needs to contact NSIDC to tell them that their summary of Turner et al. (2009) is not quite correct. -
Ned at 04:55 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
This thread is getting very contentious very fast. Let's try to keep in mind John Cook's Comments Policy. In particular, it's usually better to say "Ned is mistaken when he claims ..." or "Ned's claims of ... are not borne out by the facts" and leave out the speculation about Ned's motives and personal moral failings. As much as possible, it's also best to avoid snide remarks and stay on topic. I know that when I think somebody is wrong about X it's often tempting to drag in issues Y and Z as a way of demonstrating that she/he is a complete idiot rather than simply mistaken about the issue currently under discussion. That tends to lead to threads full of the same emotional charges and counter-charges seen on pretty much all the other climate science blogs. Sorry for the editorializing. I've had my own comments deleted here (as have many others) for failing to follow the comments policy, and I'm just trying to spare others the embarrassment. :-) -
Doug Bostrom at 04:52 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Berényi Péter at 04:22 AM on 10 March, 2010 Easier units on Greenland loss, w/error range: "Using time-variable gravity measurements from the Gravity Recovery and ClimateExperiment (GRACE) satellite mission, we estimate ice mass changes over Greenland during the period April 2002 to November 2005. After correcting for effects of spatial filtering and limited resolution of GRACE data, estimated total ice melting rate over Greenland is – 239 ± 23 km3/year, mostly from East Greenland. This estimate agrees remarkably well with a recent assessment of – 224 ± 41 km3/year, based on satellite radar interferometry data." Satellite Gravity Measurements Confirm Accelerated Melting ofGreenland Ice Sheet Doubtless we can get lost in a myriad of details about GRACE, how it works, what are the system limitations, but of course those will have to account not just for this particular GRACE result but also all other GRACE applications and results of which there are many with plenty of external consistency. -
Albatross at 04:41 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
@7 "Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing (for whatever reason) and the trend is significant." Can you elaborate and quantify this generalized statement? Are the trends stat. sig.? If so, at which level of confidence? Also, for which months are you talking about? OK, I have downloaded the sea ice area data from NSIDC for Antarctica for Feb (minimum) and September (maximum) between 1979 and 2009/2010. For Feb: positive trend is not significant at 99%, 95% or 90% level of confidence, p-value is 0.132 (N=32). So trend stat. sig. at only 86.8% level of confidence. For Sep: positive trend is not significant at 99% or 95% level of confidence, p-value is 0.065 (N=31). So trend is sta. sig at 92.5% level of confidence. In my line of work at least, one typically only accepts a trend as being 'significant' if the p-value is <0.05 (95% level of confidence). -
Steve Goddard at 04:40 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
CB, NSIDC's complete discussion of Antarctica is below. There is no ambiguity in the discussion - sea ice is increasing and temperatures are cooling. They are very intelligent and thoughtful people, and don't partake in the same intellectual sloppiness as people over here. Why are you ignoring this NASA map? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/6000/6502/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg "While our analysis focuses on Arctic sea ice, we note that Antarctic sea ice has reached its summer minimum extent for the year, at 2.87 million square kilometers (1.11 million square miles). This was 88,500 square kilometers above the 1979 to 2000 average minimum. Through the austral summer, the total extent of sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent has remained within two standard deviations of the 1979 to 2000 average. Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been unusually high in recent years, both in summer and winter. Overall, the Antarctic is showing small positive trends in total extent. For example, the trend in February extent is now +3.1% per decade. However, the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas show a strong negative trend in extent. These overall positive trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Arctic. Our Frequently Asked Questions section briefly explains the general differences between the two polar environments. A recent report (Turner, et. al., 2009) suggests that the ozone hole has resulted in changes in atmospheric circulation leading to cooling and increasing sea ice extents over much of the Antarctic region." -
CBDunkerson at 04:31 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Steve, the NASA temp map is at the top of your article... where you dismiss it as incorrect based on the NSIDC's supposed statement that Antarctica is cooling... which you made up. So 'ignored' may not be the most precisely accurate word, but it is in the ballpark. Again, the NSIDC did not say that Antarctica is cooling. They did not even say that 'Turner 2009' says Antarctica is cooling. Indeed, that paper, which is linked in John's article above, doesn't even deal with temperature changes and thus certainly does not support the claims you are making of it. In short, you've dismissed NASA's data showing Antarctic cooling based on no data whatsoever to the contrary... just your misunderstanding or misapplication of a passing phrase on a NSIDC web page. -
Berényi Péter at 04:22 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#9 CBDunkerson at 00:29 AM on 10 March, 2010 "The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are both melting" And how do you know that? Volume of Greenland ice sheet is 2.85 × 106 km3. Annual loss is esimated to be less than 2.5 × 102 km3. If you take it seriously, measurement precision should be better than 10-4. As for Antarctica, annual loss (from peninsula) is estimated to be less than 2 × 102 km3, while ice sheet volume is 3 × 107 km3. Precision of any kind of measurement for ice volume is insufficient to detect a less than 10-5:1 change. Therefore we simply do not know if large ice sheets are gaining or losing mass. They are supposed to lose, but just that. "It is absurdly illogical to take the trend observed in less than 1% of the planet's ice over the opposite trend seen in the other 99+%" No, it is not. You are talking about ice volume ratios. The area covered by southern sea ice is quite large compared to the rest. NH snow (summer) - 8 × 1011 m2 NH snow (winter) - 4.5 × 1013 m2 Arctic ice sheet (Greenland) - 1.7 × 1012 m2 Arctic sea ice (summer) - 7 × 1012 m2 Arctic sea ice (winter) - 1.5 × 1013 m2 Antarctic ice sheet - 1.4 × 1013 m2 Antarctic sea ice (summer) - 3 × 1012 m2 Antarctic sea ice (winter) - 1.8 × 1013 m2 In southern winter it is 43% of all snow/ice covered area on Earth, hardly negligible. Also, melt season down there is only four months and sea ice extends to pretty low latitudes (60S). Therefore it gets a lot of insolation. Having a much higher albedo than open sea water, it has a strong cooling effect. -
Steve Goddard at 04:21 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Albatross, You obviously didn't read my article. The NASA image you say I "ignored" http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239 is right at the top of the my article! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/nsidc-reports-that-antarctica-is-cooling-and-sea-ice-is-increasing/ Do you often comment on articles you haven't read or even glanced at? -
Albatross at 04:11 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
This is simply more distortion and obfuscation from WUWT. Steve Goddard has also chosen to ignore this image: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239 John maybe you could help an ignoramus like I am to insert the image for all to see? While one could argue that the SAT trends over the Antarctic are unreliable b/c the satellite has trouble distinguishing between clouds and ice in this region, the same is not true for the surrounding oceans. Note, these are only "skin" temperatures, but there has been clear and marked warming of the southern oceans between 1981 and 2007. The increase in "skin" temperatures are corroborated the fact that 0-700 m OHC in the southern oceans is also increasing steadily: http://i34.tinypic.com/4hpklk.png As for this claim by Goddard, "BTW - UAH data shows South Pole oceans cooling, not warming." Actually, the UAH data estimate tropospheric air temperatures, not ocean temperatures. Anyhow, Goddrad should be looking at the more reliable TLT data (lower troposphere) from RSS: http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tlt Look at the line graph on the RHS. Nope, no cooling. Analysis of the TLT data between 60 and 72.5 S show a negligible positive slope over the past 30-yrs, certainly not even close to being stat. sig. So one could accurately state that the TLT data show that the lower troposphere above the southern oceans (south of ~60 S) has not cooled or warmed significantly in the last 30 years John has provided some excellent references here which describe this intriguing and counterintuitive increase in seasonal Antarctic sea ice. What one also should keep in mind is that the Arctic ocean is losing ice faster than any gains being made in seasonal Antarctic sea ice, with the following net loss of global sea ice: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg And let us not forget the recent findings from analysis of GRACE data which show the WAIS and even the EAIS losing ice mass at an accelerated rate, and the fact that the PIG exceeded its tipping point in the late 90s (BAS). Perhaps this "surge" of fresh water is adding to the stratification of the southern oceans mentioned by John. IMHO, I think that this increase in Antarctic sea ice is an interim phase. In coming decades the southern oceans will have warmed enough that the northern limit of the seasonal ice extent will start to recede. One also wonders what will happen if and when the ozone hole begins to repair (circa 2050). It could be the perfect storm... PS: A caution to readers. Goddard has a history when it comes to being selective with his data: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/snow/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/cherry-snow/ Apparently defeated in trying to distort/misrepresent the N. Hemisphere cryosphere data he has now set his target on the southern cryosphere. -
CBDunkerson at 04:09 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Steve Goddard, I'm sorry but you either KNOW that you are playing fast and loose with the facts or SHOULD. The NSIDC source you cite does NOT say that Antarctica is cooling. It says, in passing, that another source entirely (Turner 2009) suggests that the ozone hole might be causing circulation changes which in turn might cause cooling. That statement about a potential cooling influence is VERY different from a statement that the continent as a whole HAS cooled. Next you cite UAH satellite records as proof that oceans around Antarctica are cooling... unfortunately those readings are taken of conditions about 4.5 KILOMETERS (i.e. higher than the Rocky Mountains) above the ocean and thus tell us precisely nothing about ocean temperatures. -
JMurphy at 04:06 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Sordnay wrote : "Are those state-of-the-art models the same as GCM used for IPCC AR4 proyections?" I doubt it : are you using the same computer/computing power/programs that you were using about 5 years ago (considering the length of time to gather the data used for the reports released in 2007) ? -
Steve Goddard at 03:57 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Tenney, Look closer at the graph above. It is labeled "Southern Ocean Surface Air Temperature." Do you really think then surface air temperature is measured "below the ocean's surface?" The author of this piece is lumping a large area of Southern Ocean together. Look at the ocean near Antarctica - it is cooling. http://climate.uah.edu/25yearbig.jpg My piece on WUWT is titled "NSIDC Reports That Antarctica is Cooling and Sea Ice is Increasing" http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/nsidc-reports-that-antarctica-is-cooling-and-sea-ice-is-increasing/ -
Tenney Naumer at 03:44 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
re: #22 How can satellite measurements show the temperatures below the ocean's surface? Duh! -
citizenschallenge at 03:35 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Unfortunately, In this debate considering the sock'em clown "arguments" that contrarians are endlessly circulating - you have every right (& cause) in the world for a little rehashing. PS. Fantastic blog and thank you so much for the bulletins your emailing. Very Helpful. -
Steve Goddard at 03:27 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
What an amazing article! You selectively edited my sentences, and forgot to attribute the claims of cooling and expanding ice to NSIDC and UAH. BTW - UAH data shows South Pole oceans cooling, not warming. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html "Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been unusually high in recent years, both in summer and winter. Overall, the Antarctic is showing small positive trends in total extent. For example, the trend in February extent is now +3.1% per decade. However, the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas show a strong negative trend in extent. These overall positive trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Arctic. Our Frequently Asked Questions section briefly explains the general differences between the two polar environments. A recent report (Turner, et. al., 2009) suggests that the ozone hole has resulted in changes in atmospheric circulation leading to cooling and increasing sea ice extents over much of the Antarctic region." -
Jeff Freymueller at 03:20 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
The first thing I would point out is that some people here need to look at the y-axis on the temperature graph. The average temperature has changed from -12.7C to -12C. Both of those temperatures are well into the range where sea ice is going to be forming. The roughly 5% change in temperature would mean less sea ice, if all other things were constant, but it would not be hard for some other factor to compensate for it. And as far as that goes, I've got more confidence in the peer-reviewed work than the blog comments.... #8 Berényi Péter, you assert that Comiso (2003) is not peer reviewed because it is a book chapter. However, many such books are peer reviewed (most, I would say). Do you make this assertion based on knowledge of the situation or an an assumption. -
Jeff Freymueller at 03:04 AM on 10 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
#72 Berényi Péter, I don't dispute that sublimation can be locally important. It's just that in the majority of the area that gets covered by snow in the winter, melting is the dominant effect, not sublimation at T < 0C. -
Berényi Péter at 02:58 AM on 10 March 2010Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise
Jeff, I have found the answer to the clock synchronization question. Amazing. Relativity in the Global Positioning System by Neil Ashby However, I am still interested in how it works in practice. Looks like precision of position measurement is several centimeters. How do you measure velocity signals on the order of 10-10 m s-1 and frequency below nHz range immersed in a high frequency noise of much bigger amplitude? -
CBDunkerson at 02:51 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Tenney, the graph shows the average annual extent. As you said, each year most of the sea ice around Antarctica melts away. Even that remaining ice coverage at the Summer minimum point has increased slightly (though it is down this year), but the primary change has been increased ocean area covered by ice at the Winter maximum. -
Tenney Naumer at 02:38 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Well, looking at your graph, I seem to be mistaken. -
Tenney Naumer at 02:36 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
You might want to mention that the sea ice forming does not accumulate into ever more sea ice over time -- most people don't know that it melts away every year. -
Stuart at 02:20 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Wouldn't fresher water also have a higher freezing point, or is this effect just not as significant as the stratification and cyclonic wind effects? -
Berényi Péter at 02:20 AM on 10 March 2010Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise
#55 Jeff Freymueller at 02:49 AM on 6 March, 2010 "I do satellite positioning for a living" Wow. In that case I have only questions. How rigid the satellite based coordinate system is? Accuracy? Precision? How recalibration is done? How clocks are synchronized in a rotating frame? Assuming accuracy of coordinates is better than 1 mm (relative error is on the order of 10-10), "solid" Earth is still extremely mercurial on this scale. When we are talking about "sea level rise" it is not meant to be relative to some external reference frame but to "average coastal elevation". How this latter quantity is measured? I would have a lot to say on the IPR thing as well, but don't want to be off-topic that much. -
dhogaza at 02:14 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Well, don't forget it's Goddard who insisted that there's dry ice in the Antarctic ... -
DavidCOG at 02:11 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
P.S. What stbloomfield said: > You should consider using rel=nofollow in your links to climate denier sites. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow By linking to Watts without 'nofollow', you're giving him 'authority' so that Google will rank him higher. -
4 billion at 02:09 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Goddard also states Shakhova gets current Global Methane levels wrong by quoting inaccurate NYT article. lol -
Berényi Péter at 02:02 AM on 10 March 2010Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise
Thanks Martin. I have already figured this out. If 20th century melt was not polar, but mid latitude soot blackened glaciers, it would not have any measurable effect on Length of Day. -
ProfMandia at 01:53 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Goddard has been wrong several times on WUWT. Before this, he misrepresented increased snowfall as an indicator that climate may be cooling: See: Cherry Snow and Snow. -
Berényi Péter at 01:47 AM on 10 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
#65 Jeff Freymueller at 12:17 PM on 9 March, 2010 "Bringing up insolation is a red herring, because temperature is not directly related to insolation" And snow melt is not directly related to temperature. On Mount Kilimanjaro icecap is disappearing, although temperature there never gets above freezing. It is less moisture, more dirt on snow and the sun. It's just sublimating. There are regions where snow cover is clearly temperature limited and still other regions where the limiting factor is moisture. This winter we had more than usual snow cover in regions that are temperature limited (Western Europe, China, US East Coast) and less where it is moisture-limited (Middle East). Great Britain can be doomed for any number of reasons, but not for lack of precipitation during winter. If it is not cold enough for snow, it is raining. I would like to check regional trends for snow cover. Unfortunately the Rutgers snow lab does not provide data for such an analysis, although they must have it, otherwise could not construct the maps. #66 Peter Hogarth at 12:17 PM on 9 March, 2010 "Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon" Ramanathan 2008 Here it is. However, it has no quanitative data on soot snow albedo effect. Some backgound info can be handy. Anyway, we have learnt that global soot production is most indeterminate (up to a factor of five!). On the other hand, it is "responsible" for 30% of warming. Now, five timest thirty makes... -
stbloomfield at 01:31 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
You should consider using rel=nofollow in your links to climate denier sites. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow -
CBDunkerson at 01:15 AM on 10 March 2010iPhone app version 1.1 - now with search, image viewer and Twitter!
"I suspect all the nagging from Android users was a factor in Shine Tech starting on an Android app." Nagging? What nagging? Do we nag? I don't think so. So... um, any word on an Android release date yet? :] -
Sordnay at 01:11 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
JMurphy #5 I would like to read it, but I only have access to the abstract. Are those state-of-the-art models the same as GCM used for IPCC AR4 proyections? -
stbloomfield at 00:49 AM on 10 March 2010iPhone app version 1.1 - now with search, image viewer and Twitter!
Great to hear about an Android app! -
WAG at 00:36 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Is anyone surprised at Watts? Just last week he claimed that an article from 1989 proved global warming was a hoax. I'm not sure what was dumber - that claim, or Andrew Bolt saying that the Skeptical Science iPhone app was a secret conspiracy by Al Gore. You can give your thoughts here: http://akwag.blogspot.com/2010/03/watts-vs-bolt-whos-dumbest-denier.html -
Ken Lambert at 00:30 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
The explanation of how we have more sea ice floating on warmer water (with interleaving warmer and cooler layers) is very confusing indeed. When a kG of ice freezes it gives up latent heat energy equal to 80 times that of raising the temperature of a kG of seawater by 1 degC. Conversely melting a kG of ice will absorb about 80 times the heat energy of cooling seawater by 1 degC - or you need to cool 80kG of seawater by 1 degC to melt 1kG of ice. That transport of heat energy must go somewhere - whether by complex Antarctic circulations or movement farther afield. Doing an energy balance for Antarctica and its unique circulation alone would suppose it is a closed system - and if this is assumed in large part, then an increasing mass of sea ice would give up its heat to the surrounding water and air - and would raise their temperatures. Therefore increasing mass of sea ice would be consistent with warming air and seawater and transport of heat by complex circulations - not necessarily anything to do with external AGW forcing at all. -
CBDunkerson at 00:29 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
When you look at the total ice coverage of the planet it comes out as roughly; 90% Antarctic ice sheet 9% Greenland ice sheet 1% Arctic & Antarctic sea ice, all other land ice The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are both melting. The Arctic sea ice and the world's glacier mass are both decreasing. But there is that fraction of 1% in the Antarctic sea ice which has grown, so 'skeptics' insist that shows cooling. It is absurdly illogical to take the trend observed in less than 1% of the planet's ice over the opposite trend seen in the other 99+%, but that isn't stopping far too many from going there anyway. -
Berényi Péter at 00:09 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
As far as I can see the fuss is not about consistence but existence (of gorwth in Antarctic sea ice extent). IPCC AR4 WG1 4.4.2.2 Figure 4.8 caption says "Antarctic results show a small positive trend of 5.6 ± 9.2 × 103 km2 yr–1 [...] the small positive trend in the SH is not significant" which is not true. Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing (for whatever reason) and the trend is significant. Comiso 2003 referenced in IPCC AR4 is a book chapter (not peer reviewed), there is no updated version and the 5.6 km2 figure is nowhere to be found in it. The statement in the book that comes closest to the IPCC claim is "In the Southern Hemisphere, the trends for extent in each season are basically insignificant except for autumn". IPCC has omitted any reference to fall conditions. However, not even Comiso is right. According to Zhang Hadley Centre finds a 27 × 103 km2 yr–1 (significant) inrease rate, almost five times more than the IPCC figure. I don't care much for explanations until facts are not established firmly. -
gallopingcamel at 00:04 AM on 10 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
The Steven Goddard piece was posted on WUWT only yesterday but in 24 hours almost one hundred comments were made. That suggests a surprising interest in ice caps. -
Martin Vermeer at 23:48 PM on 9 March 2010Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise
Péter Berényi, I think you should read this: Mitrovica et al. (2006). It revisits your Walter Munk "enigma" reference. -
JMurphy at 23:45 PM on 9 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Sordnay, read the 'Gillet 2003' link in the article itself : "Recent observations indicate that climate change over the high latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere is dominated by a strengthening of the circumpolar westerly flow that extends from the surface to the stratosphere. Here we demonstrate that the seasonality, structure, and amplitude of the observed climate trends are simulated in a state-of-the-art atmospheric model run with high vertical resolution that is forced solely by prescribed stratospheric ozone depletion. The results provide evidence that anthropogenic emissions of ozonedepleting gases have had a distinct impact on climate not only at stratospheric levels but at Earth's surface as well." -
Sordnay at 23:05 PM on 9 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Could you please show how this stratosphere cooling and troposphere warming is consistent with GCM projections for antarctic region? Also those models project the observed increase in sea ice extent? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:50 PM on 9 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
1. "Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation." And by us (many) of skeptics is the main reason. Interesting for me here is the example of this graph: http://i34.tinypic.com/dcora.jpg http://i34.tinypic.com/dcora.jpg; and Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) ... 2. I also repeat his earlier comment: "... most of Antarctica, over the past 35 years, is cooled (http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/05/080507132855-large.jpg), which is typical for the Millennium cycles, although the reasons may be Miscellaneous (e.g.: "A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850." E.R. Thomas et. al., 2008)." ... and the trend in the southern ocean temperature increase is significantly lower than the north ... -
omnologos at 22:12 PM on 9 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Slightly OT...have you already published a blog explaining what kind of observed phenomena might be "not explained by" / "incompatible with" / "inconsistent with" anthropogenic global warming? -
HumanityRules at 22:09 PM on 9 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
68.NewYorkJ at 13:14 PM on 9 March, 2010 There seems to be an inconsistency here. Models predict that a signal for heavier or more precipitation will be detectable later in the 21st century yet some groups have published that such a signal is already present in the historical 20th C data. This earlier Groisman paper seems to express that contradiction for extreme precipitation events. This seems to mimic that hurricane situation were models also predict that an increase in stronger hurricanes would only be detectable late 21st C (if at all). A debate raged over whether such a signal could be detected in the historical data, the IPCC aknowledged the possibility of such a signal, although now the consensus has changed to no detectable signal. Also I had high hopes that rainfall measurement would be more straighforward than temp. Unfortunately this paper scuppered that. Hanssen-Bauer and Førland - Journal of Climate, 1994 -
Catprog at 21:47 PM on 9 March 2010Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Is there more ice forming around Antarctica or is less ice being spread over a bigger area? -
Doug Bostrom at 19:03 PM on 9 March 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel at 14:59 PM on 9 March, 2010 Roger on the "US" versus "them" correction, but I still disagree. I've read this account: Lindzen and Choi unraveled and find it to be quite tractable as well as convincing thanks to the author's skill with translating the technicalities of the case into terms most of us can understand. As to "first do no harm", I think we may have a fundamentally different perspective on this. My view is that the current mode of operation we're following with regard to energy sources and expenditures is astoundingly anachronistic, habitual and thoughtless in the bad sense and worst of all will not scale successfully and in fact is headed inexorably toward collapse. Even if the C02 efflux from our fossil fuel consumption were entirely innocuous, we still need to move as swiftly as possible to a more progressive suite of energy sources. Particularly with regard to liquid and condensate fossil fuels we appear to have squandered our limited endowment of these irreplaceable temporary scaffolds without focusing on how they could have been exploited to lift us to a more permanent arrangement for improving the human condition. We're fecklessly burning a limited resource that cannot satisfy our needs in perpetuity but instead should have been used as a temporary tool while seeking a better and more reliable means of powering our civilization. When we've mindlessly consumed our petroleum gift, we've got another problem. We'll then not only be faced with replacing petroleum as an energy source for uniquely demand applications such as aviation, but we'll have created the necessity to jam hydrogen and carbon together to create polymers using money and "alternative" energy supplies when we could have used petroleum for this application for centuries, if we'd not burned it all. Burning petroleum is the most rottenly crude way to use it and we'll realize this to our deep regret a short while from now. I'm deeply unhappy with the choices we're making with regard to our stewardship of petroleum. We're doing a lot of harm right now, that's my opinion. -
Charlie A at 17:07 PM on 9 March 2010Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise
#62 Ian Love addresses some of my questions from #39 where I note that the sea level rise and acceleration in rate of rise dates back to 1700-1800. He says "( Kaufman et al. Science 2009): the temperatures are found to rise from about 1800, as does the sea-level. The temperature rise is, of course, attributed to AGW." Unfortunately, I do not have access to the paper since it is behind a paywall. Could you summarize briefly the anthropogenic effect that caused warming back in 1700-18000 period. Was it due to CO2 emissions ? -
gallopingcamel at 16:22 PM on 9 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
Michael Trogdon (#36), for most people in the USA this has been a very cold winter with plenty of snowfall records being set. In Florida record cold temperatures going back to 1960 have been broken. My (very amateur) take on all this is that high sea surface temperatures may have something to do with high winter precipitation (snowfall records). The same high SSTs can lead to a hot and humid summer. Therefore I predict a hot summer but making predictions is a dangerous game so if 2010 turns out to be cooler than average in the USA you will be entitled to gloat and I will send you an excellent bottle of scotch of your choosing! If am right, how about sending me 750 ml of Glenfiddich? The supercomputers with their sophisticated models that include el Ninos, la Ninas, Pacific Decadal Oscillations etc. sound wonderful but will they outperform my wet finger? The British "Met Office" is notorious for its inability to forecast what kind of summer to expect. It is only fair to remind you that professional "experts" armed with all kinds of wonderful tools did a woeful job predicting US hurricane activity over the past two years.
Prev 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 Next
