http://green.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090121 ... rming.html
Quote from the article...
"Skeptics about man-made global warming have in the past used reports of a cooling of Antarctica as evidence to back their view that warming is a myth."
Yes, I'm looking to stir the pot here.
BS
Global Warming Concensus Broken
BSPhysics wrote:http://green.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090121 ... rming.html
Quote from the article...
"Skeptics about man-made global warming have in the past used reports of a cooling of Antarctica as evidence to back their view that warming is a myth."
Yes, I'm looking to stir the pot here.
BS
So the warming is dependent on assuming something not in evidence - temperature measurements from the interior. Something that could be measured with ice cores.The Nature study compared temperatures measured by satellites in the past 25 years with 50-year records from 42 Antarctic weather stations, mostly on the coast. Scientists then deduced temperatures back 50 years.
In other words another computer model dependence.
The cooling however is an actual measurement. So who ya gonna trust? Measurement or computer models?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Tom,tomclarke wrote:Simon -
I don't think so. They are using satellite data to calibrate antarctic station data. Not a model.
Tom
They are using satellite data to get correlations to coastal stations and then using that correlation to estimate interior temperatures from the pre-satellite era.
That does in fact assume a model: that the correlations can work backwards in time. That wind speeds and directions didn't change. That 25 stations is enough to cover the coasts of a continent and that from those 25 stations we can infer what was going on in the interior. That the ice mountains didn't change much over time.
So tell me - what 25 coastal stations would you use to monitor the interior of Australia?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Antartica Warming
The following article has been floating on the net for the past couple of days
The original articleNature. was first published 22 January 2008 The problems with this article but not limited to:
Regards
Polygirl
- 1) The picture illustration from Physorg is miss leading. 50 years give 5/10ths of a degree but a bright red.
2) The ground based weather stations are mainly along the East coast
3) "The scientists estimate the level of uncertainty in the measurements is between 2-3 degrees Celsius." This needs to be verified
4) A rebuttal of the article can be found hereEPW titled "Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year"
5) Warming occuring before 1980 and cooling after, yet with an overall warming trend for the whole time period.
6) A critical analysis was done titled "Scientist adjusts data -- presto, Antarctic cooling disappears", 21 December 2008 the analysis concluded: “Looks like Steig "got rid of" Antarctic cooling the same way Michael Mann got rid of medieval warming. Why not just look at the station data instead of "adjusting" it. It shows a 50-year cooling trend,” the analysis concluded.
Regards
Polygirl
The more I know, the less I know.
How many stations
The coasts of Australia are basically "Green Belts" and the interior of Australia is basically a desert. To have a basic idea of what Australia looks like from a satellite go here Australian Landsat 7 Mosaic poster.
So in other words this picture answers Msimon's question.
Polygirl
So in other words this picture answers Msimon's question.
Regards"So tell me - what 25 coastal stations would you use to monitor the interior of Australia?"
Polygirl
The more I know, the less I know.
Re: How many stations
I think you make my point. The interior of the Antarctic is desert. The coasts are moderated by water.PolyGirl wrote:The coasts of Australia are basically "Green Belts" and the interior of Australia is basically a desert. To have a basic idea of what Australia looks like from a satellite go here Australian Landsat 7 Mosaic poster.
So in other words this picture answers Msimon's question.Regards"So tell me - what 25 coastal stations would you use to monitor the interior of Australia?"
Polygirl
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: How many stations
It's more complex... For example, Namib Desert is right on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean.MSimon wrote: I think you make my point. The interior of the Antarctic is desert. The coasts are moderated by water.
You also need to account for geography and prevailing winds.
BTW, http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/20 ... _shelf.php - Antarctic really is heating.
You also need to account for geography and prevailing winds.
And ocean currents.
None of which were included in the Antarctic is warming model.
But I'm going with the head of the IPCC. He says cooling until 2015 or 2020. Which is good enough for me.
BTW as far as I know the warming from the PDO and other currents has yet to be subtracted from the warming attributed to CO2. Why do you suppose that is?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Well no. A big chunk of ice is breaking off an ice shelf. That is not proof of anything. Just as icebergs are not proof of anything.BTW, http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/20 ... _shelf.php - Antarctic really is heating.
In fact if the ice shelf is getting bigger due to cooling the break off of a large chunk could be caused by the interplay of ice and water. It could be a warm volcanic current in a cold sea along with more ice that is causing the break off.
I'm going with the head of the IPCC who says cooling until 2015 or 2020. Good enough for him. Good enough for me - for now.
Besides satellite data says cooling. Measurement works for me.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Ice shelves are NOT getting bigger in general. They steadily retreat, with varying speed.MSimon wrote: Well no. A big chunk of ice is breaking off an ice shelf. That is not proof of anything. Just as icebergs are not proof of anything.
Also, yearly swings are getting bigger, as we see less and less buffering effects. Exactly as predicted. Last year we've seen ice-free Northwest Passage, first time in written history. This year it's frozen again.
We have retreating glaciers in Greenland, thawing permafrost in Siberia and so on. It's all real and can be seen even without any measurements and satellites. It also can be confirmed with measurements (using ice cores,carbon dating, dendrochronology) that the current warming is unprecedented in the recent times.
Anyone who's saying that the world is cooling is simply a denialist.
If he said that then he's lying or/and incompetent.I'm going with the head of the IPCC who says cooling until 2015 or 2020. Good enough for him. Good enough for me - for now.
Yeah, sure.Besides satellite data says cooling.
PS: I'm a programmer and I've worked on climate models simulations with climatologists.
Well not likely. It is a statement against interest. And the latest models incorporating the latest knowledge of ocean circulation confirm his prediction. You got something against the latest climate models?If he said that then he's lying or/and incompetent.
Now I don't trust them much myself. But I didn't trust the previous models either.
But you trust them. So what is your beef?
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/col ... eb8fa9081a
You have to wonder why the models hadn't included ocean circulation before. It is not like they never heard of the Gulf Stream. Or the PDO which has been known since 1997. Probably just a little oversight.You may have heard earlier this month that global warming is now likely to take break for a decade or more. There will be no more warming until 2015, perhaps later.
Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U. N.'s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.
Of course, Mr. Keenlyside-- long a defender of the man-made global warming theory -- was quick to add that after 2015 (or perhaps 2020), warming would resume with a vengeance.
Climate alarmists the world over were quick to add that they had known all along there would be periods when the Earth's climate would cool even as the overall trend was toward dangerous climate change.
Sorry, but that is just so much backfill.
There may have been the odd global-warming scientist in the past decade who allowed that warming would pause periodically in its otherwise relentless upward march, but he or she was a rarity.
If anything, the opposite is true: Almost no climate scientist who backed the alarmism ever expected warming would take anything like a 10 or 15-year hiatus.
CO2 going up. No warming. I think there is something wrong with the climate. The models are perfect.According to the U. S. National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th-Century mean for the first time since 1982.
Also in January, Southern Hemisphere sea ice coverage was at its greatest summer level (January is summer in the Southern Hemisphere) in the past 30 years.
Neither the 3,000 temperature buoys that float throughout the world's oceans nor the eight NASA satellites that float above our atmosphere have recorded appreciable warming in the past six to eight years.
Even Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, reluctantly admitted to Reuters in January that there has been no warming so far in the 21st Century.
You can read more of my thoughts with links here:
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives ... nform.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
This letter below, reprinted with permission, is from Ross Hays. Ross was a CNN meteorologist for many years. He works for NASA at the Columbia Balloon Facility.
In that capacity he has spent much time in Antarctica. He obviously can’t speak for his agency but can have an opinion which he shared with several people.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/a ... ntarctica/Let me first say that this is my own opinion and does not represent the agency I work for. I feel your study is absolutely wrong.
There are very few stations in Antarctica to begin with and only a hand full with 50 years of data. Satellite data is just approaching thirty years of available information. In my experience as a day to day forecaster that has to travel and do field work in Antarctica the summer seasons have been getting colder. In the late 1980s helicopters were used to take our personnel to Williams Field from McMurdo Station due to the annual receding of the Ross Ice Shelf, but in the past few years the thaw has been limited and vehicles can continue to make the transition and drive on the ice. One climate note to pass along is December 2006 was the coldest December ever for McMurdo Station. In a synoptic perspective the cooler sea surface temperatures have kept the maritime storms farther offshore in the summer season and the colder more dense air has rolled from the South Pole to the ice shelf.
There was a paper presented at the AMS Conference in New Orleans last year noting over 70% of the continent was cooling due to the ozone hole. We launch balloons into the stratosphere and the anticyclone that develops over the South Pole has been displaced and slow to establish itself over the past five seasons. The pattern in the troposphere has reflected this trend with more maritime (warmer) air around the Antarctic Peninsula which is also where most of the automated weather stations are located for West Antarctica which will give you the average warmer readings and skew the data for all of West Antarctica.
With statistics you can make numbers go to almost any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage.
Sincerely,
Ross Hays
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
It's not very convincing They mostly just invented data to fit their conclusions.The following article has been floating on the net for the past couple of days
1) Antarctica is warming more
2) Antarctica is warming, not cooling: study
The public is wising up; global warming came in dead last in a poll of voter concerns.
http://people-press.org/report/485/econ ... y-priority
Meanwhile, some news from people not just making up data...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/c ... atosphere/
This appears to mean that next time they record a muon level jump they can predict a SSW will follow.Working in collaboration with a major U.S.-led particle physics experiment called MINOS (managed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory), the scientists analysed a four-year record of cosmic-ray data detected in a disused iron-mine in the U.S. state of Minnesota. What they observed was a strikingly close relationship between the cosmic-rays and stratospheric temperature - this they could understand: the cosmic-rays, known as muons are produced following the decay of other cosmic rays, known as mesons. Increasing the temperature of the atmosphere expands the atmosphere so that fewer mesons are destroyed on impact with air, leaving more to decay naturally to muons. Consequently, if temperature increases so does the number of muons detected.
What did surprise the scientists, however, were the intermittent and sudden increases observed in the levels of muons during the winter months. These jumps in the data occurred over just a few days. On investigation, they found these changes coincided with very sudden increases in the temperature of the stratosphere (by up to 40 oC in places!). Looking more closely at supporting meteorological data, they realised they were observing a major weather event, known as a Sudden Stratospheric Warming. On average, these occur every other year and are notoriously unpredictable. This study has shown, for the first time, that cosmic-ray data can be used effectively to identify these events.
Yes.MSimon wrote: Well not likely. It is a statement against interest. And the latest models incorporating the latest knowledge of ocean circulation confirm his prediction. You got something against the latest climate models?
The basic problem is: we pump a lot of CO2 into atmosphere. It can be readily verified by studying its isotope balance. This CO2 has to go _somewhere_ to stop affecting the climate.
So far, CO2 concentration is not rising up very fast because of buffering effects of oceans. But it's not going to continue forever, we already have coral reefs dissolving because of rising seawater acidity.
Ocean currents and winds won't affect this. They can delay some effects for several years, but in the long run they are not significant by _themselves_.
And I absolutely don't trust models which predict the short-term effects. Climate is way too complex. It's like conservation of energy/momentum - we can use it to trivially calculate the speed of ball bouncing from a wall, even though we can't calculate exact trajectory of each atom in a ball during the bounce.
PS: oh, and the world is still heating, global warming has not stopped in 1998.
PPS: nearly 100% of climate scientists (and not TV meteorologists) agree on global warming. Usually it makes sense to trust experts.
PPPS: I worked in this field several years ago.