An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009

semiautomatix

semiautomatix

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
11,914
Reaction score
220
Location
4051
Now I have been watching Climate Wars and thought I would investigate, as per Devil's Advocate:

An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season. The 30-year record confirms that significant negative correlations exist at regional and continental scales between austral summer melting and both the ENSO and SAM indices for October–January. In particular, the strongest negative melting anomalies (such as those in 2008 and 2009) are related to amplified large-scale atmospheric forcing when both the SAM and ENSO are in positive phases. Our results suggest that enhanced snowmelt is likely to occur if recent positive summer SAM trends subside in conjunction with the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone levels, with subsequent impacts on ice sheet mass balance and sea level trends.
Click to expand...

Now many skeptics have mentioned that NASA has been extremely quite during this period despite having data about the Antarctic Ice Melt:

NASA Researchers Find Snowmelt in Antarctica Creeping Inland

So, after Googling the validity of this statement a bit more if found the following, to my surprise I found the following published on 23 September 2009:

Greenland, Antarctic ice melt worsening

...

British scientists for the first time calculated changes in the height of the vulnerable but massive ice sheets and found them especially worse at their edges. That's where warmer water eats away from below. In some parts of Antarctica, ice sheets have been losing 30 feet a year in thickness since 2003, according to a paper published online Thursday in the journal Nature.
Some of those areas are about a mile thick, so they've still got plenty of ice to burn through. But the drop in thickness is speeding up. In parts of Antarctica, the yearly rate of thinning from 2003 to 2007 is 50 percent higher than it was from 1995 to 2003.

...
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090923/ap_on_sc/us_sci_big_melt

Which means NASA has released no data for the past two years regarding the Antarctic Ice Melt and has, indeed, been very quite lately.

Even an article released on www.nasa.gov in January 2009 makes reference to 2006.

Furthermore, released on 6 October 2009, an interesting article from NASA regarding the Arctic Ice Extent:

Arctic Sea Ice Extent is Third Lowest on Record

U.S. satellite measurements show Arctic sea ice extent in 2009 – the area of the Arctic Ocean covered by floating ice – was the third lowest since satellite measurements were first made in 1979. The ice area at minimum was an increase from the past two years, but still well below the average for the past 30 years.
Click to expand...

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaicemin09.html

Which is not something to be terribly proud of, but it means that there is more ice at the Arctic than in 2007-2008.

Coupled with:

2008 Was Earth's Coolest Year Since 2000

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. The GISS analysis also showed that 2008 is the ninth warmest year since continuous instrumental records were started in 1880.
Click to expand...

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=37253

So, once again a warm year but still a cooling period after 2007-2008. If nothing else, this at least is a good indication of further influences on the earth's average temperature meaning that humans alone can not influence global warming.

Thoughts?
 
This is one of the areas where there is more emotional content to most ideas than factual. In the end, the way you interpret the data depends on your pre-existing bias.

One extreme is that we'll all be:
a.) Dying of heat-stroke
b.) Drowned by the rising seas

The other is:
? What problem ?

I personally hold no opinion, seeing as there isn't enough data to draw any serious conclusions.

Regardless, it would be great if mankind could treat our only home with more respect.
 
timgaul said:
Now I have been watching Climate Wars and thought I would investigate, as per Devil's Advocate:



Now many skeptics have mentioned that NASA has been extremely quite during this period despite having data about the Antarctic Ice Melt:

NASA Researchers Find Snowmelt in Antarctica Creeping Inland

So, after Googling the validity of this statement a bit more if found the following, to my surprise I found the following published on 23 September 2009:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090923/ap_on_sc/us_sci_big_melt

Which means NASA has released no data for the past two years regarding the Antarctic Ice Melt and has, indeed, been very quite lately.

Even an article released on www.nasa.gov in January 2009 makes reference to 2006.

Furthermore, released on 6 October 2009, an interesting article from NASA regarding the Arctic Ice Extent:



http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaicemin09.html

Which is not something to be terribly proud of, but it means that there is more ice at the Arctic than in 2007-2008.

Coupled with:



http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=37253

So, once again a warm year but still a cooling period after 2007-2008. If nothing else, this at least is a good indication of further influences on the earth's average temperature meaning that humans alone can not influence global warming.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Interesting, thanks. Also, maybe I should welcome you to the climate debate that's been going on at MyBB for the last couple of years - it's nice to see some new people round here :D

WRT what I bolded above: I think that the general consensus is that human beings alone can and are influencing the climate through GHG emissions, but that there are also many "normal" natural phenomena like El Nino events etc that play a role in normal climactic variability over shorter periods. It is this natural variability that accounts for the relative coolness of 2007-2008. Still, the overall trend is one of warming (although Phrony's interesting links about cherry picking do make one wonder about which dataset presents the most accurate picture, as well as what the best statistical methodology for analysising this data is).
 
BCO said:
Interesting, thanks. Also, maybe I should welcome you to the climate debate that's been going on at MyBB for the last couple of years - it's nice to see some new people round here :D

WRT what I bolded above: I think that the general consensus is that human beings alone can and are influencing the climate through GHG emissions, but that there are also many "normal" natural phenomena like El Nino events etc that play a role in normal climactic variability over shorter periods. It is this natural variability that accounts for the relative coolness of 2007-2008. Still, the overall trend is one of warming (although Phrony's interesting links about cherry picking do make one wonder about which dataset presents the most accurate picture, as well as what the best statistical methodology for analysising this data is).
Click to expand...

Apparently there has been decreasing sun spot activity over the last three years which could account for the decline in temperature. This points to an average increase of only 0.07 degrees per decade, which means that global warming (as per the "hockey stick") is not as severe as believed.
 
With regards to sunspot activity and its relationship with climate, read up on the Dalton and Mander minimum.
Check this out:
NASA now saying that a Dalton Minimum repeat is possible

CERN is also investigating the effects of galactic cosmic rays and its effects on cloud formation and how it affects the climate. If you look at the IPCC statement about how sure they are about the effects of cloud formation on climate is, you will see they (and anybody else) know very little.

0108_radiative_forcing.jpg


Then read up on galactic cosmic rays, sunspot activity and their links to climate change. Check out the other thread, from pg 28 onwards if you like.
 
Panic Guide

Palimino said:
The never-fail solution.

#1 Place head between legs.
#2 Kiss you a$$ goodbye.
Click to expand...

Then I have just the thing you need:
have a look at this panic inducing
basic survival guide :p

________________
panic guide is 800kb's local :erm:
Capies will especially appreciate it :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X