Arctic ice melt dramatically higher in 2007

[speedy 0]

From billvon:

Quote

Quite true. The question we have to ask is - do we want to accelerate that change?

Quantify by how much we are are accelerating that change please.

By this statement you are admitting that at least some of any warming we are seeing has nothing to do with human activities. We are only accelerating the change.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[livendive 8]

If I'm reading that correctly, the current warming trend doesn't appear to be quite as rapid as the last such warming period, approximately 130,000 years ago, and it does appear to be in line with the historical cycle.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,120]

>Quantify by how much we are are accelerating that change please.

See above.

Without anthropogenic emissions, we would have seen a .2C increase from 1900 to 1950, dropping to a .1C increase by 2000. *

With anthropogenic emissions, we have increased temperatures by .74C in the past 100 years. **

* - Solar influence on climate during the past millennium. Caspar M. Ammann, Fortunat Joos, David S. Schimel. June 2006.

** - IPCC 2007 report.

[billvon 3,120]

>the current warming trend doesn't appear to be quite as rapid as the
>last such warming period, approximately 130,000 years ago

Current warming trend .7C over 100 years, or .007C per year.

Last warming trend approx 132,000 to 140,000 years ago, 10C total (-7C to +3C.) Average .001C per year.

We are warming 7x faster (approximately.)

[livendive 8]

Quote

>the current warming trend doesn't appear to be quite as rapid as the
>last such warming period, approximately 130,000 years ago

Current warming trend .7C over 100 years, or .007C per year.

Last warming trend approx 132,000 to 140,000 years ago, 10C total (-7C to +3C.) Average .001C per year.

We are warming 7x faster (approximately.)

Am I reading this correctly? Age increases from left to right and the second line from the top is temperature?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,120]

Yes. Note the increase takes about 8000 years (latest one) and the increase is around 10C.

[mikkey 0]

You only give credit to the snippets of information that suits you.

There is no doubt that the Arctic has been warming, but guess what - it has happened before - or why do you think the Vikings called Greenland green and New Foundland "Wine-land"? There is also new reserach that shows that gleciers in the Arctic have been receeding before in history like they are now.

What you forget to mention is a) that ice is INCREASING in Antartica - which has far more influence on sea levels then the Artic ever had and b) that global average temperatures have NOT increased in later years and are different from what was predicted by the IPCC.

The University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research says sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is way above what it was at the same time last year - see attached graph.


Alexandre Aguiar of MetSul Weather Center notes:

Quote

Southern Hemisphere’s ice cover now is at the same level as last June, i.e., a level seen during the last winter in the Southern Hemisphere. Besides, there are two more millions square kilometers of ice now compared to December 2006. And the large positive anomaly has persisted since September.

Not that the media is interested in the above-normal ice down there, when it can panic about the below-normal ice around the North Pole.

Er, make that “can” a “could”. As in past tense. Aguiar continues:

Quote

In the Northern Hemisphere, the ice and snow cover have recovered to within 1% (one snowstorm) of normal with the official start of winter still more than 12 days away.

On another note, Christopher Monckton ( critic of the AGW and the IPCC) says the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has quietly admitted to exaggerating the possible rise in sea levels. But it’s still hiding an even worse distortion:

Quote

The (IPCC’s 2007) report’s first table of figures - inserted by the IPCC’s bureaucrats after the scientists had finalized the draft, and without their consent - listed four contributions to sea-level rise. The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10…

Until I wrote to point out the error, no one had noticed. The IPCC, on receiving my letter, quietly corrected, moved and relabeled the erroneous table… The IPCC now says the combined contribution of the two great ice-sheets to sea-level rise will be less than seven centimeters after 100 years, not seven meters imminently, and that the Greenland ice sheet (which thickened by 50 cm between 1995 and 2005) might only melt after several millennia, probably by natural causes, just as it last did 850,000 years ago. (Al) Gore, mendaciously assisted by the IPCC bureaucracy, had exaggerated a hundredfold…

At the very heart of the IPCC’s calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: “The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005).” Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.

I also hope you have a nice warm winter over there in the US - oops no - it's quite cold - isn't it....

I have a good friend who is senior scientist at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. He is a specialst in temperature measurements (instruments) and says that a lot of the temperatures taken at "ground" level are BS because of the increased urbanisation and that Satellite measurements are far better.

He also confirmed to me that he knows his collegues are on the GW bandwagon because it ensures funding and jobs.

He is responsible for the international cooperation and told me that 2007 will not show warming globally and that they currently are predicted a cooling going forward....

Which fits nicely with the following:


What Britain’s Met Office predicted in January:

Quote

2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office.

But Dr David Whitehouse, astronomer and author of The Sun: A Biography, discovers in December:

Quote

With just a few weeks to go it’s looking like 2007 will be the coolest year this century and possibly the coolest since 1995. If so then one more year like this and we will begin to have enough statistical information to speculate about a downward trend, though a few more years will be better.

Whitehouse adds:

Quote

The past decade has been warmer than previous ones. It is the result of a rapid increase in global temperature between 1978 and 1998. Since then average temperatures have held at a high, though steady, level. Many computer climate projections suggest that the global temperatures will start to rise again in a few years. But those projections do not take into account the change in the Sun’s behaviour. The tardiness of cycle 24 indicates that we might be entering a period of low solar activity that may counteract man-made greenhouse temperature increases. Some members of the Russian Academy of Sciences say we may be at the start of a period like that seen between 1790 and 1820, a minor decline in solar activity called the Dalton Minimum. They estimate that the Sun’s reduced activity may cause a global temperature drop of 1.5C by 2020.

And finally a word of warning from the Pope and he is well connected...

The Pope now realises that many are preaching an apocalyptic faith that isn’t Catholicism:

Quote

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering…

“It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances...”

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[billvon 3,120]

>or why do you think the Vikings called Greenland green . . .

Because the guy who was exiled there wanted to get enough people there to start a community. Didn't work; their animals froze and they ended up burning their own sod to try to keep warm. From a SUNY website:

-----------------------
In 960, Thorvald Asvaldsson of Jaederen in Norway killed a man. He was forced to leave the country so he moved to northern Iceland. He had a ten year old son named Eric, later to be called Eric Röde, or Eric the Red. Eric too had a violent streak and in 982 he killed two men. Eric the Red was banished from Iceland for three years so he sailed west to find a land that Icelanders had discovered years before but knew little about. Eric searched the coast of this land and found the most hospitable area, a deep fiord on the southwestern coast. Warmer Atlantic currents met the island there and conditions were not much different than those in Iceland (trees and grasses.) He called this new land "Greenland" because he "believed more people would go thither if the country had a beautiful name," according to one of the Icelandic chronicles (Hermann, 1954) although Greenland, as a whole, could not be considered "green." Additionally, the land was not very good for farming. Nevertheless, Eric was able to draw thousands to the three areas shown in Fig. 15.
---------------------------

>What you forget to mention is a) that ice is INCREASING in Antartica . . .

What you forgot to mention is that warmer seas cause more precipitation! In Antarctica this means more snow in the central areas, where the snow never melts. The edges keep melting as temperatures rise. Not surprisingly, the same thing happens in Greenland. In Greenland, as temperatures increase, the melting side of the equation wins, primarily because of the Gulf Stream. In Antarctica, the precipitation side of the equation is winning.

This may continue, or it may not. Time will tell.

But in any case - congratulations! You're finally starting to accept that the planet is warming and that secondary effects happen.

>I also hope you have a nice warm winter over there in the US - oops
>no - it's quite cold - isn't it....

I've corresponded with you long enough to know you're not stupid enough to think that a cold wave has much to do with global temps.

>He is a specialst in temperature measurements (instruments) and says
>that a lot of the temperatures taken at "ground" level are BS because
>of the increased urbanisation and that Satellite measurements are far
>better.

Funny how all the measurements that disagree with someone's political beliefs are "BS."

I recall one site that claimed a similar thing. They went around taking pictures of various weather stations. One picture showed a sensor in the back lot of a building, perhaps 20 feet from a rusted charcoal barbeque. PROOF THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS EXAGGERATED! Unless, of course, you do the math and figure out the effect one Friday barbeque a week would have on the temperature record - or you check and note that there were no 'spikes' in the record, as you'd see from a three-hour-long local heat source.

A second picture showed a thermometer in a station in the center of an irrigated grass field in the middle of the desert, with temperature records going back to the 1900's. Temperatures rose steadily, mirroring all other sites, except for one massive drop in the 1950's. PROOF that global warming is FALSE! Except, of course, that irrigated fields are regularly 5 to 10F cooler than surrounding areas - and mechanical irrigation didn't become popular until the 1950's.

But that doesn't fit the denier bias, so best quietly ignore that.

>With just a few weeks to go it’s looking like 2007 will be the coolest
>year this century . . .

I LOVE it! Coolest this century! So coolest out of 7 years.

Here's a few less biased ways to say it:

=========
ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2007) — The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F.. . . The provisional global figure for 2007 using data from January to November, currently places the year as the seventh warmest on records dating back to 1850.
=========

Wow, from coolest to seventh warmest! I imagine, though, that if people just read "coolest this century" they'd think that global warming is all a bunch of hooey. Ignorance can work to your advantage.

>And finally a word of warning from the Pope and he is well connected...

This from the same organization who had Giordano Bruno executed for (among other things) claiming the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system. You're in good company.