+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 39
Latest: robbrogers
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 7840
Total Topics: 220
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 2
Total: 2

Author Topic: Global Warming is WITH US  (Read 16562 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7670
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Global average temperature SEPTEMBER 2013

Global Highlights

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2013 tied with 2003 as the fourth highest for September on record, at 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F).

•The global land surface temperature was 0.89°C (1.60°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F), marking the sixth warmest September on record. For the ocean, the September global sea surface temperature was 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the 20th century average of 16.2°C (61.1°F), tying with 2006 as the fourth highest for September on record.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–September period (year-to-date) was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F), tying with 2003 as the sixth warmest such period on record.


Temperatures

In the atmosphere, 500-millibar height pressure anomalies correlate well with temperatures at the Earth's surface. The average position of the upper-level ridges of high pressure and troughs of low pressure—depicted by positive and negative 500-millibar height anomalies on the September 2013 height and anomaly map September 2013 map—is generally reflected by areas of positive and negative temperature anomalies at the surface, respectively.



The above is planet earth, September 2013. As you know, when it's summer in the Northern Hemisphere, it's WINTER in the Southern Hemisphere. So, uh, don't you think there SHOULDN'T BE so many high temperature anomalies in the Southern Hemisphere in September ??? That is the end of WINTER THERE! But just look at the few and far between cold temperature anomalies versus the MASSIVE areas of high temperature anomalies.

Of course the Koch brothers may see, hear and speak about all the above with a rather crude oily bit of monkey behavior.

More info at the NOAA web site. Pick a year and a month! They give you the full no spin scoop using the only perspective that MATTERS when a GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE is in progress; I.E. GLOBAL average temperatures and anomalies above or below average.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

What about September 2012?



As you can see, a lot of heat records were set (don't get fooled by the bright red - look at the 2013 legend for a different record heat temperature  ;)). BUT, 2013 was right up there with high anomalous temperatures. It did NOT have to match all the 2012 heat RECORDS to have a higher average temperature.

HERE'S THE MONEY QUOTE: (please compare with the same money quote for September 2013 above  8) )•The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January–September 2012 was the eighth warmest such period on record, at 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average.

It's getting hotter every year. Don't let the Mendacious Snow Men for the Koch brothers tell you any different.

I'll report on October as soon as the data is in.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2013, 02:16:44 am by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7670
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2013, 03:02:22 pm »

Weather Screenshot at 2:34 pm November 11, 2013

Look at the upper left corner. Such a well defined low pressure area (not quite as severe as a hurricane but a major bad weather maker just the same  :o) in NOVEMBER  is an example of what we are going to GET from Global Climate Change born of Global Warming.

WHY? Because earth's climate is a function of free energy in the atmosphere. The planetary internal heat provides some, the rotation provides more and the sun provides most. The more free energy in the atmosphere, the more severe weather, PERIOD. Burning fossil fuels is THE reason for Global Warming, period.

Only logic challenged morons or conscience free psychopaths in the pay of the fossil fuel industry continue to advocate for the fossil fuel burning, severe weather fueling, positive feedback free energy build up. Have a nice day. >:(

Quote
SHORT TERM...A DEEP AND VERTICALLY STACKED LOW CENTERED NEAR 45N 140W IS HELPING TO PUMP UP AN UPPER RIDGE OVER WASHINGTON TODAY.
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/view/prodsByState.php?state=WA&prodtype=discussion

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7670
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2013, 02:55:39 pm »
This is a preliminary post that I will modify with more details from the following report ASAP:


A Brief Overview of Long-Term Snow Climatology for Burlington, VT
By John Goff
NOAA/NWS Burlington, VT


Snowfall records in Burlington run from 1906 to present.

No attempt is made to correlate the trends with Global Warming. However, the correlation, which die hard deniers will insist is not causation, IS THERE.

Quote
First Measurable Snow
Discussion: Using simple linear regression the data shows wide variability though the first snowfall appears to occur approximately 6 days earlier than 100 years ago (from November 12th to the 6th).

November 12, 2013 we had our first "snow" in Colchester, which is just north of Burlington. It's 30F outside which is pretty normal for November. The roads are clear (no plows came out) and the leaves are mostly visible (so it's more of a light dusting) but "measurable" snow is 0.1 inch or more so it qualifies. ;D

The GW deniers will jump on the above to say, "SEE? it's snowing EARLIER so that PROVES there is NO Global Warming!".

But read on and get the FULL PICTURE (i.e. Days with measurable snow on the ground, amount of snow and last snow in Spring).




Quote
Last Measurable Snow
Discussion: Again the data shows considerable variability though a discrete trend of earlier last snowfalls from approximately April 18th to April 10th is noted.

This study was prior to the winters of 2010, 2011, and 2012 where the snow disappeared nearly a month early. However the long term trend was already present. Global Warming Science predicted a positive feedback would occur in earlier last snow (acceleration of the trend) well over a decade ago.




Quote
Frequency of Measureable Snow by Winter
(Number of days with snowfall greater than a trace)
Discussion: Wide variability, though with a steady upward trend in the period of record (44 to 58 days).

Global Warming Science predicted an increase in frequency of precipitation throughout the year in the New England area well over a decade ago.




Quote
Seasonal Snowfall by Winter
Discussion: Wide variability from year to year, though with a steady upward trend showing a 27 inch
increase in the period of record (from 60 to 87 inches).

Global Warming Science predicted an increase in amount of precipitation throughout the year in the New England area well over a decade ago.




Quote
Days with Measureable Snow on the Ground by Winter
Discussion: Significant variation, though data shows a slight decrease of approximately 5 days through the period of record (from 95 to 90 days).

Global Warming Science predicted an increase in average temperatures globally throughout the year well over a decade ago. Less snow remaining is a unction of MUCH higher temperatures when you take the increased frequency and amount of snow accumulation into consideration.

Also consider that this study was prior to the winters of 2010, 2011, and 2012 where all trends accelerated due to the slowing of the jet stream as the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator lessened. This is the giant oxbow loops that give us wild weather extremes.

Global Warming Science predicted the slowing of the jet stream well over a decade ago.
the.

The data is CLEAR. Global Warming, caused by the burning of fossil fuels is HERE. We stop burnig fossil fuels or we are history, PERIOD.


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7670
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2013, 07:26:43 pm »
Big Oil gets the PROFITS  and we-the-people get to PAY THE TRUE COST    of burning fossil fuels.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH9jGI1mzSI&feature=player_embedded
Other than the meteor impacts, all the above is being caused by burning fossil fuels.


Sep 7, 2013 - Scientists say atmospheric pollution contributed to half of the extreme weather-related events of last year.


Climate Change, Extreme Weather Link Becoming More Apparent

And the lying, doubletalking mouthpieces for Big Oil are quick to respond with MORE lies to keep the fossil fuel pigs from having to pay the damages... 


Don’t blame climate change for extreme weather   


 



Climate change alarmists running out of ways to scare people



 

Renewable Revolution
« Last Edit: November 12, 2013, 08:54:03 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7670
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Vast Majority of Americans Want Action on Climate Change, Whitehouse Gives Weekly Speech
SustainableBusiness.com News
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has come out in favor of a carbon tax once again.

Out of the 103 ways it identifies to reduce the US deficit, the carbon tax comes out on top.

The US would raise slightly over $1 trillion over 10 years if it implements a carbon tax that starts at $25 per ton and increases 2% a year.

This is very close to climate legislation introduced in the Senate earlier this year - $20 per ton, rising 5.6% a year - which would generate even more revenue, says CBO.

It would raise prices at the gas pump by about 21 cents to a gallon if costs are passed to consumers, says Resources for the Future, and would not negatively impact total US employment.

While there's no chance it will pass in the near future given the current dynamics playing out in Congress, Democrats are laying the groundwork.

Weekly Push for Action on Climate
Once a week for the past 50 weeks, Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) takes the Senate floor to talk about climate change.

Week in and week out, he urges Congress to move on climate change.
"I am here for the 50th time, to urge my colleagues to wake up to what carbon pollution is doing to our atmosphere and our oceans," he says, but no one listens.

He runs through the data over and over again that demonstrates global temperature rise, concomitant increases in atmospheric carbon levels and the impact on our oceans.
"We are a great country, but not when we're lying and denying what's real," he says "The atmosphere is warming; ice is melting; seas are warming, rising, and acidifying. It is time for the misleading fantasies to end."

He calls for the carbon tax supported by CBO. Perhaps polluters will take a second look at this option, he says, when EPA's rules on carbon emissions from existing power plants go into effect.

Other senators have joined him from time to time - Senator Schumer (D-NY) spoke on climate change on the anniversary of Superstorm Sandy. Senators Schatz (D-HI) and Blumenthal (D-CT) connected the dots between climate change and ocean health, and Senator King (I-ME) talked about the impact of climate change on the fishing industry.

While hammering away at these facts has so far not changed the political discourse, at least this political leader is giving it air time. The fossil fuel industry and its paid-off politicians would prefer silence on the issue.

"It is time to wake up. It is time to turn back from the misleading propaganda of the polluters, the misguided extremism of the Tea Party, and the mistaken belief that we can ignore without consequence the harm our carbon pollution is causing. It is time to face facts, be adults, and meet our responsibilities."

Whitehouse remains optimistic, especially because there are signs that people are ready to fight climate deniers and boot them out of Congress.

When asked why he's doing this, Whitehouse says, "I very much want my grandchildren to know that I fought the good fight. But much more than that, I want to turn this around," he told columnist Ezra Klein.

Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, you are our voice.
Watch Whitehouse give his 50th speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ4FACY2MA8&feature=player_embedded

Americans Agree
In 46 states surveyed, at least 75% of resident acknowledge the existence of climate change.

Surprisingly, percentages are the same in "blue" and "red" states: Massachusetts (88%); Rhode Island (87%); New York (84%); California (82%); Oklahoma (87%); Texas (84%); and South Dakota (83%).

At least 67% of people in those states want government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Again, percentages are the same regardless of the state: New Jersey (80%); Connecticut (80%); California (80%); Georgia (85%); Arkansas (85%); and Kentucky (79%).

After analyzing this public opinion data, Jon Krosnick, a professor at Stanford University, told the Guardian, "To me, the most striking finding is that we can't find a single state where climate scepticism is in the majority."

This disputes the widely-held belief that Republicans deny the existence of climate change. It is not US citizens that are calling climate change a "hoax" or preventing action on it, it is their so-called representatives on state levels and in Congress.  >:(

Unfortunately for their residents, the reddest states are those that are most unprepared for climate-related disasters because their elected officials lag blue states on acknowledging the problem and are therefore not taking action.  >:(

"Americans recognize we have a moral obligation to protect the environment and an economic opportunity to develop the clean energy technologies of the future. Americans are way ahead of Congress in listening to the scientists," says Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who chairs the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change with Senator Whitehouse.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25355?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SBGeneralNews+%28SustainableBusiness.com+General+News%29
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7670
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
How Global Warming Deniers inerpret REALITY
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2013, 03:12:22 pm »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7670
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2013, 05:08:54 pm »
Reposted from the Doomstead Diner where I am having a "debate" with Global Warming denier.

I think these scientists from a document written in 1984 don't have an agenda. How about you, Snowleapard? Can you trust what these fellows say?

Solar Disinfection of Drinking Water and Oral Rehydration Solutions
 
Guidelines for Household Application in Developing Countries


Aftim Acra - Zeina Raffoul - Yester Karahagopian

Department of Environmental Health
 Faculty of Health Science - American University of Beirut
 Beirut, 1984

1.Foreword


2.Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) ◾The Revolution for Children
◾The Four Simple Technologies
◾Global Diarrhoeal Diseases Control Programs
◾Causes, Transmission, and Control of Childhood Diarrhoea



3.Oral Rehydration Solutions (ORS) ◾The Practical Issues
◾Domestic Formulations
◾Disinfection by Boiling



4.Solar Energy ◾Fundamental Considerations
From Sun to Earth
◾World Distribution
◾A Competitor
◾Some Practical Hints



5.Solar Disinfection Studies ◾Drinking Water
◾Oral Rehydration Solutions



6.Appendix



Originally published by UNICEF
 Regional Office for the Middle East and North Africa
 P.O.Box 811721 - Amman, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
 1984


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Created by the Documentation Center at AUB in collaboration with Al Mashriq of Høgskolen i Østfold, Norway.
 
970730/wa-bl/980215/bl - Email: almashriq@hiof.no




Solar Energy

From Sun to Earth

Outer Space

The enormous amount of energy continuously emitted by the sun is dispersed into outer space in all directions. Only a small fraction of this energy is intercepted by the earth and other solar planets.

The solar energy reaching the periphery of the earth's atmosphere is considered to be constant for all practical purposes, and is known as the solar constant. Because of the difficulty in achieving accurate measurements, the exact value of the solar constant is not known with certainty but is believed to be between 1,353 and 1,395 W/m2 (approximately 1.4 kW/m2, or 2.0 cal/cm2/min). The solar constant value is estimated on the basis of the solar radiation received on a unit area exposed perpendicularly to the rays of the sun at an average distance between the sun and the earth.

In passing through outer space, which is characterized by vacuum, the different types of solar energy remain intact and are not modified until the radiation reaches the top of the earth's atmosphere. In outer space, therefore, one would expect to encounter the types of radiation listed in Table 1, which are: gamma ray, X-ray, ultraviolet, and infrared radiations.


Atmospheric Effects

Not all of the solar radiation received at the periphery of the atmosphere reaches the surfaces of the earth. This is because the earth's atmosphere plays an important role in selectively controlling the passage towards the earth's surface of the various components of solar radiation.

A considerable portion of solar radiation is reflected back into outer space upon striking the uppermost layers of the atmosphere, and also from the tops of clouds. In the course of penetration through the atmosphere, some of the incoming radiation is either absorbed or scattered in all directions by atmospheric gases, vapours, and dust particles. In fact, there are two processes known to be involved in atmospheric scattering of solar radiation. These are termed selective scattering and non-selective scattering. These two processes are determined by the different sizes of particles in the atmosphere.

Selective scattering is so named because radiations with shorter wavelengths are selectively scattered much more extensively than those with longer wavelengths. It is caused by atmospheric gases or particles that are smaller in dimension than the wavelength of a particular radiation. Such scattering could be caused by gas molecules, smoke, fumes, and haze. Under clear atmospheric conditions, therefore, selective scattering would be much less severe than when the atmosphere is extensively polluted from anthropogenic sources.

Selective atmospheric scattering is, broadly speaking, inversely proportional to the wavelength of radiation and, therefore, decreases in the following order of magnitude: far UV > near UV > violet > blue > green > yellow > orange > red > infrared. Accordingly, the most severely scattered radiation is that which falls in the ultraviolet, violet, and blue bands of the spectrum. The scattering effect on radiation in these three bands is roughly ten times as great as on the red rays of sunlight.   8)

It is interesting to note that the selective scattering of violet and blue light by the atmosphere causes the blue colour of the sky. When the sun is directly overhead at around noon time, little selective scattering occurs and the sun appears white. This is because sunlight at this time passes through the minimum thickness of atmosphere. At sunrise and sunset, however, sunlight passes obliquely through a much thicker layer of atmosphere. This results in maximum atmospheric scattering of violet and blue light, with only a little effect on the red rays of sunlight. Hence, the sun appears to be red in colour at sunrise and sunset.   

Non-selective scattering occurring in the lower atmosphere is caused by dust, fog, and clouds with particle sizes more than ten times the wavelength of the components of solar radiation. Since the amount of scattering is equal for all wavelengths, clouds and fog appear white although their water particles are colourless.

Atmospheric gases also absorb solar energy at certain wavelength intervals called absorption bands, in contrast to the wavelength regions characterized by high transmittance of solar radiation called atmospheric transmission bands, or atmospheric windows.

The degree of absorption
of solar radiation passing through the outer atmosphere depends upon the component rays of sunlight and their wavelengths. The gamma rays, X-rays, and ultraviolet radiation less than 200 nm in wavelength are absorbed by oxygen and nitrogen. Most of the radiation with a range of wavelengths from 200 to 300 nm is absorbed by the ozone (O3) layer in the upper atmosphere. These absorption phenomena are essential for living things because prolonged exposure to radiation of wavelengths shorter than 300 nm destroys living tissue.

Solar radiation in the red and infrared regions of the spectrum at wavelengths greater than 700 nm is absorbed to some extent by carbon dioxide, ozone, and water present in the atmosphere in the form of vapour and condensed droplets (Table 1). In fact, the water droplets present in clouds not only absorb rays of long wavelengths, but also scatter some of the solar radiation of short wavelengths.


Ground Level

As a result of the atmospheric phenomena involving reflection, scattering, and absorption of radiation, the quantity of solar energy that ultimately reaches the earth's surface is much reduced in intensity as it traverses the atmosphere. The amount of reduction varies with the radiation wavelength, and depends on the length of the atmospheric path through which the solar radiation traverses. The intensity of the direct beams of sunlight thus depends on the altitude of the sun, and also varies with such factors as latitude, season, cloud coverage, and atmospheric pollutants.

The total solar radiation received at ground level includes both direct radiation and indirect (or diffuse) radiation. Diffuse radiation is the component of total radiation caused by atmospheric scattering and reflection of the incident radiation on the ground. Reflection from the ground is primarily visible light with a maximum radiation peak at a wavelength of 555 nm (green light). The relatively small amount of energy radiated from the earth at an average ambient temperature of 17°C at its surface consists of infrared radiation with a peak concentration at 970 nm. This invisible radiation is dominant at night.

During daylight hours, the amount of diffuse radiation may be as much as 10% of the total solar radiation at noon time even when the sky is clear. This value may rise to about 20% in the early morning and late afternoon.

In conclusion, therefore, it is evident that in cloudy weather the total radiation received at ground level is greatly reduced, the amount of reduction being dependent on cloud coverage and cloud thickness. Under extreme cloud conditions a significant proportion of the incident radiation would be in the form of scattered or diffuse light. In addition, lesser solar radiation is expected during the early and late hours of the day. These facts are of practical value for the proper utilization of solar radiation for such purposes as destruction of microorganisms.


http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/600/610/614/solar-water/unesco/21-23.html

Agelbert NOTE: The conclusion " it is evident that in cloudy weather the total radiation received at ground level is greatly reduced..." DOES NOT mean, as the Global Warming deniers have tried to make us believe, that the ATMOSPHERE heats up less. It means that to disinfect water (kill the microrganisms) the radiation arriving on the SURFACE needs to have less cloud cover.

But as you read further up, inside the atmosphere (at cloud level well below the ozone layer) the absorption frequencies of gases can scatter the radiation throughout the atmosphere. The reflected light (visible spectrum) from clouds and surface DOES exit the planet. HOWEVER, the Earth CONSTATLY radiates in the IR band which CO2, water and methane trap quite handily because of their ABSORPTION FREQUENCIES. So all that increased albedo business that Global Warming deniers want to push on us, while it will increase VISIBLE light reflection, won't do BEANS to stop the ONLY HEAT that is radiated by this planet (IR).


BOTTOM LINE: Absorption frequencies are the KEY to understanding how the atmosphere heats or cools. The particulate scattering plays a role but the absorption frequencies are the 800 pound gorilla.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

Now lets get back to sun spots for a bit of humor. Question: What percentage of the suns TOTAL OUTPUT IN ENERGY reaches top levels of the atmosphere BEFORE it is further selectively reduced by the atmosphere?  

I'll save you the math: 
Quote
The Earth intercepts only about one-half of one-billionth of the Sun's total energy output. :o

http://cybele.bu.edu/courses/gg312fall02/documents/lab01.pdf

Do you now understand why all that BS about sunspot lessened activity and a "weakening" sun doesn't mean JACK **** to us on this planet. The "weakening" of the sun has to be hundreds of thousands of time greater than the piddling amount observed to amount to a hill of temperature BEANs on Earth.

That's why I have told Snowleapard that what he is pushing is baseless, but CLEVER, pro-fossil fuel, context free, IRRELEVANT propaganda.  

Snowleapard. I CHALLENGE YOU to doubt the three sources I just gave as to accuracy and TRUTH. If you do, you are bought or  .

Renewable Revolution
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7670
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2013, 05:43:43 pm »
Hey Snowleopard, how about these folks from Oklahoma? Are they trustworthy? I think so! Does that mean YOU DON'T? (full explanation for this type of behavior, when it isn't a conscious decision, here)

Oklahoma Climatological Survey  

Earth's Energy Budget

Part 2
 
Principle
 
Absorption and re-emission of radiation at the earth's surface is only one part of an intricate web of heat transfer in the earth's planetary domain. Equally important are selective absorption and emission of radiation from molecules in the atmosphere. If the earth did not have an atmosphere, surface temperatures would be too cold to sustain life.

If too many gases which absorb and emit infrared radiation were present in the atmosphere, surface temperatures would be too hot to sustain life.
 


http://okfirst.mesonet.org/train/meteorology/EnergyBudget2.html



Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7670
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half
« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2013, 04:13:51 pm »
Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half

Filed under: Climate Science
 Instrumental Record
 — stefan @ 13 November 2013


A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared.

Obtaining the globally averaged temperature from weather station data has a well-known problem: there are some gaps in the data, especially in the polar regions and in parts of Africa. As long as the regions not covered warm up like the rest of the world, that does not change the global temperature curve.

But errors in global temperature trends arise if these areas evolve differently from the global mean. That’s been the case over the last 15 years in the Arctic, which has warmed exceptionally fast, as shown by satellite and reanalysis data and by the massive sea ice loss there. This problem was analysed for the first time by Rasmus in 2008 at RealClimate, and it was later confirmed by other authors in the scientific literature.

The “Arctic hole” is the main reason for the difference between the NASA GISS data and the other two data sets of near-surface temperature, HadCRUT and NOAA. I have always preferred the GISS data because NASA fills the data gaps by interpolation from the edges, which is certainly better than not filling them at all.

A new gap filler

Now Kevin Cowtan (University of York) and Robert Way (University of Ottawa) have developed a new method to fill the data gaps using satellite data.

It sounds obvious and simple, but it’s not. Firstly, the satellites cannot measure the near-surface temperatures but only those overhead at a certain altitude range in the troposphere. And secondly, there are a few question marks about the long-term stability of these measurements (temporal drift).

Cowtan and Way circumvent both problems by using an established geostatistical interpolation method called kriging – but they do not apply it to the temperature data itself (which would be similar to what GISS does), but to the difference between satellite and ground data. So they produce a hybrid temperature field. This consists of the surface data where they exist. But in the data gaps, it consists of satellite data that have been converted to near-surface temperatures, where the difference between the two is determined by a kriging interpolation from the edges. As this is redone for each new month, a possible drift of the satellite data is no longer an issue.

Prerequisite for success is, of course, that this difference is sufficiently smooth, i.e. has no strong small-scale structure. This can be tested on artificially generated data gaps, in places where one knows the actual surface temperature values but holds them back ​​in the calculation. Cowtan and Way perform extensive validation tests, which demonstrate that their hybrid method provides significantly better results than a normal interpolation on the surface data as done by GISS.

The surprising result

Cowtan and Way apply their method to the HadCRUT4 data, which are state-of-the-art except for their treatment of data gaps. For 1997-2012 these data show a relatively small warming trend of only 0.05 °C per decade – which has often been misleadingly called a “warming pause”. The new IPCC report writes:


Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

But after filling the data gaps this trend is 0.12 °C per decade and thus exactly equal to the long-term trend mentioned by the IPCC.



Cowtan

The corrected data (bold lines) are shown in the graph compared to the uncorrected ones (thin lines). The temperatures of the last three years have become a little warmer, the year 1998 a little cooler.

The trend of 0.12 °C is at first surprising, because one would have perhaps expected that the trend after gap filling has a value close to the GISS data, i.e. 0.08 °C per decade. Cowtan and Way also investigated that difference. It is due to the fact that NASA has not yet implemented an improvement of sea surface temperature data which was introduced last year in the HadCRUT data (that was the transition from the HadSST2 the HadSST3 data – the details can be found e.g. here and here). The authors explain this in more detail in their extensive background material. Applying the correction of ocean temperatures to the NASA data, their trend becomes 0.10 °C per decade, very close to the new optimal reconstruction.

Conclusion

The authors write in their introduction:


While short term trends are generally treated with a suitable level of caution by specialists in the field, they feature significantly in the public discourse on climate change.

This is all too true. A media analysis has shown that at least in the U.S., about half of all reports about the new IPCC report mention the issue of a “warming pause”, even though it plays a very minor role in the conclusions of the IPCC. Often the tenor was that the alleged “pause” raises some doubts about global warming and the warnings of the IPCC. We knew about the study of Cowtan & Way for a long time, and in the face of such media reporting it is sometimes not easy for researchers to keep such information to themselves. But I respect the attitude of the authors to only go public with their results once they’ve been published in the scientific literature. This is a good principle that I have followed with my own work as well.

The public debate about the alleged “warming pause” was misguided from the outset, because far too much was read into a cherry-picked short-term trend. Now this debate has become completely baseless, because the trend of the last 15 or 16 years is nothing unusual – even despite the record El Niño year at the beginning of the period. It is still a quarter less than the warming trend since 1980, which is 0.16 °C per decade. But that’s not surprising when one starts with an extreme El Niño and ends with persistent La Niña conditions, and is also running through a particularly deep and prolonged solar minimum in the second half. As we often said, all this is within the usual variability around the long-term global warming trend and no cause for excited over-interpretation.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/#more-16173


A couple CHOICE comments from the bought-and-paid-for-Denier-Squad  and the informed, erudite and clear smack down   of the Real Climate Blog Scientists    :

Quote

Blair Dowden says:   

13 Nov 2013 at 4:40 PM

Dr. Kevin Cowtan (http://www.york.ac.uk/chemistry/staff/academic/a-c/kcowtan/) is a chemist at the University of York specializing in X-ray crystallography. I do not see any hint of a connection with his work to climate change. Robert Way (http://uottawa.academia.edu/RobertWay) is a graduate student in geography at the University of Ottawa, but at least one of his few papers is somewhat relevant. These are not the qualifications I would expect for the authors of such a ground breaking paper. (This comment seemed to get lost, so I am posting it again.)


[Response: With the amount of open data available for anyone to analyse, this is not such a stretch. There are many good papers from 'outsiders' in the literature and in general this kind of constructive input should be welcomed (as with work done by Zeke Hausfather, Troy Masters etc.). - gavin]
[Response: p.s. It is well worth looking at his impressive citation record. I think it is excellent if top scientists from other fields make methodological contributions to climate science. -stefan]




12
Peter Lilley says:   

13 Nov 2013 at 4:47 PM

Why do nearly all data reanalyses on this site show the warming is greater than the raw data?


[Response: Not true. 
 The raw SST data show much larger trends that turned out to be spurious due to changes in measuring techniques. The GISTEMP analyses correct for an urban heating effect that would otherwise lead to a (slightly) stronger trend globally. Homogeneity corrections at GHCN go both ways. The analysis in this instance is correcting for an obvious hole in the HadCRUT4 data (mainly the Arctic) which even you know has been warming faster. Your question therefore smacks of a desire to have lower trends for reasons that are not clear. 
I prefer to take the info as it comes rather than wishing it were otherwise. - gavin]  


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7670
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
October 2013 Antarctic ice largest extent since records began in 1979! Is Snowleopard vindicated? Does Agelbert have to eat a snowball with his crow? :P           



October was a RECORD HOT MONTH GLOBALLY!



Nevertheless, expect the Global Warming Deniers to do some world class mendacious "Antarctic ice is growing at a record pace! Global Warming is a hoax!" cherry picking.
Read the EVIDENCE that Global WARMING hasn't "paused" but is, in fact, worsening!


During October 2013, most of the world land areas experienced warmer-than-average temperatures, with the most notable departures from the 1981–2010 average across Alaska, northwestern Canada, northwestern Africa, and parts of north central and southern Asia.

The departure from the 1981–2010 average in these locations varied between +2°C to +5°C or greater. When comparing the October 2013 departure from average with the location's period of record (minimum of 80 years), parts of Alaska, northwestern Canada, northwestern Africa, and southern Australia experienced their warmest October temperature on record.



As shown in the anomalies map, some areas that had departures that were above the 1981–2010 average, but lower in magnitude—such as Australia, Mexico, most of Africa, western and central Europe, northern and southern Argentina, and parts of the Caribbean—fell in the much-warmer-than-average category, as shown in the percentiles map, with some locations in the Caribbean having their warmest October on record.

Some locations across the globe experienced departures that were below the 1981–2010 average. These areas include most of the western half of the United States, northern parts of the Middle East, and parts of central South America, western Russia and the Russian Far East. When comparing each location's October 2013 temperature with their respective period of record, the northern Middle East experienced much-cooler-than-average temperatures, while the rest had near-average to cooler-than-average temperatures. There were no land areas that experienced record coldest temperatures.

Averaged as a whole, the temperature across the land surfaces was 0.98°C (1.76°F) higher than the 20th century average of 9.3°C (48.7°F)—tying with 2012  as the eighth warmest October since records began in 1880.

This was also the 21st consecutive October with a warmer-than-average temperature. The last October with below-average temperatures occurred in 1992, when the global land temperature was 0.04°C (0.07°F) below the 20th century average.

The last below-average global land temperature for any month was February 1994. When averaging the temperature across the land surfaces across each hemisphere, the Northern Hemisphere experienced its seventh warmest October on record, with a departure from the 20th century average of +1.01°C (+1.82°F), while the Southern Hemisphere's October 2013 land surface temperature was +0.90°C (+1.62°F) higher than the 20th century average—the eighth warmest October on record.

Select national information is highlighted below. (Please note that different countries report anomalies with respect to different base periods. The information provided here is based directly upon these data):

•For the 15th consecutive month (since August 2012), Australia experienced above-average temperatures. The nationally averaged October maximum temperature was the third warmest on record with a departure from the 1961–1990 average of +2.1°C. Minimum temperatures were also above average, but did not rank among the top ten warmest on record. The mean national temperature was 1.43°C above average—the seventh warmest since national temperature records began in 1910, according to Australia's Bureau of Meteorology. Also, the 12-month (November 2012 to October 2013) mean temperature for the nation was 1.3°C above the 1961–1990 average—the highest 12-month period average for the nation. This value surpasses the previous record set the two previous months, +1.25°C (October 2012 to September 2013) and +1.11°C (September 2012 to August 2013). This is also 0.22°C higher than any 12-month period prior to 2013.

•Spain experienced warm temperatures during October, with an average monthly temperature of 17.5°C or 2.1°C above the 1971–2000 average. This resulted in the sixth warmest October since national records began in 1961.

•In Austria, the October 2013 temperature was 1.1°C warmer than the 1981–2010 average—the warmest October since 2006 and the 25th warmest October since national records began in 1767.

•The national temperature in Germany was 10.6°C or 1.4°C warmer than the 1981–2010 average, resulting in the 11th warmest October since national records began in 1881.

Across the oceans, temperature departures from 1981–2010 tend to be smaller than across the land surfaces. According to the percentiles map, much-warmer-than-average conditions were present across the tropical Atlantic Ocean, and along the European and the northeastern United States coasts, the tropical Western Pacific Ocean, the south-central Pacific Ocean, and across parts of the Indian Ocean. Some ocean areas in the Caribbean, western and south-central Pacific Ocean, and Indian Ocean experienced their warmest October temperature on record. ENSO-neutral (neither El Niño nor La Niña) conditions persisted across much of the tropical Pacific Ocean during October. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, neutral conditions are favored through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2014. Averaged globally, the global ocean temperature was 0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 20th century average, ranking as the eighth warmest October on record.



Averaging the globe as a whole, the temperature across land and ocean surfaces combined during October 2013 was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 1901–2000 average of 14.0°C (57.1°F)—the seventh warmest October since records began in 1880. It also marked the 37th consecutive October and 344th consecutive month (more than 28 years) with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average October global temperature was October 1976 and the last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985. The warmest October on record occurred in 2003 when global land and ocean surface temperatures were 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average, while the coldest October occurred in 1912 [-0.57°C (-1.03°F)].


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7670
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Simple physics and climate

Filed under: Climate modelling
Climate Science
Greenhouse gases
Sun-earth connections
— rasmus @ 12 November 2013


No doubt, our climate system is complex and messy. Still, we can sometimes make some inferences about it based on well-known physical principles. Indeed, the beauty of physics is that a complex systems can be reduced into simple terms that can be quantified, and the essential aspects understood.

A recent paper by Sloan and Wolfendale (2013) provides an example where they derive a simple conceptual model of how the greenhouse effect works from first principles. They show the story behind the expression saying that a doubling in CO2 should increase the forcing by a factor of 1+log|2|/log|CO2|. I have a fondness for such simple conceptual models (e.g. I’ve made my own attempt posted at arXiv) because they provide a general picture of the essence – of course their precision is limited by their simplicity.


However, the main issue discussed in the paper by Sloan and Wolfendale was not the greenhouse effect, but rather the question about galactic cosmic rays and climate. The discussion of the greenhouse effect was provided as a reference to the cosmic rays.

Even though we have discussed this question several times here at RC, Sloan and Wolfendale introduce some new information in connection with radiation, ionization, and cloud formation. Even after having dug into all these other aspects, they do not find much evidence for the cosmic rays playing an important role. Their conclusions fit nicely with my own findings that also recently were published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The cosmic ray hypothesis is weakened further by observational evidence from satellites, as shown in another recent paper by Krissansen-Totton and Davies (2013) in Geophysical Research Letters, which also concludes that the there is no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height. Neither did they find any evidence for any regional or lagged correlations.

It’s nice to see that the Guardian has picked up these findings. Agelbert NOTE: IT will ALSO be nice as well as EDUCATIONAL and significant    to observe who DIDN'T pick up on these findings (e.g. Globalresearch.org - Et tu Brute?    ).   

Earlier in October, Almeida et al., 2013 had a paper published in Nature on results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. They found that galactic cosmic rays exert only a small influence on the formation of sulphuric acid–dimethylamine clusters (the embryonic stage before aerosols may act as cloud condensation nuclei). The authors also reported that the experimental results were reproduced by a dynamical model, based on quantum chemical calculations.

Some may ask why we keep revisiting the question about cosmic rays and climate, after presenting all the evidence to the contrary.  ???

One reason is that science is never settled, and there are still some lingering academic communities nourishing the idea that changes in the sun or cosmic rays play a role.  ;) For this reason, a European project was estaqblished in 2011, COST-action TOSCA (Towards a more complete assessment of the impact of solar variability on the Earth’s climate), whose objective is to provide a better understanding of the hotly debated role of the Sun in climate change” (not really in the scientific fora,   but more in the general public discourse ).

ps 
Oldenborgh et al. (2013) also questioned the hypothesised link between extremely cold winter conditions in Europe and weak solar activity, but their analysis did not reproduce such claims.


References
1. T. Sloan, and A.W. Wolfendale, "Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate", Environmental Research Letters, vol. 8, pp. 045022, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045022

2. J. Krissansen-Totton, and R. Davies, "Investigation of cosmic ray-cloud connections using MISR", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 40, pp. 5240-5245, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/grl.50996

3. J. Almeida, S. Schobesberger, A. Kürten, I.K. Ortega, O. Kupiainen-Määttä, A.P. Praplan, A. Adamov, A. Amorim, F. Bianchi, M. Breitenlechner, A. David, J. Dommen, N.M. Donahue, A. Downard, E. Dunne, J. Duplissy, S. Ehrhart, R.C. Flagan, A. Franchin, R. Guida, J. Hakala, A. Hansel, M. Heinritzi, H. Henschel, T. Jokinen, H. Junninen, M. Kajos, J. Kangasluoma, H. Keskinen, A. Kupc, T. Kurtén, A.N. Kvashin, A. Laaksonen, K. Lehtipalo, M. Leiminger, J. Leppä, V. Loukonen, V. Makhmutov, S. Mathot, M.J. McGrath, T. Nieminen, T. Olenius, A. Onnela, T. Petäjä, F. Riccobono, I. Riipinen, M. Rissanen, L. Rondo, T. Ruuskanen, F.D. Santos, N. Sarnela, S. Schallhart, R. Schnitzhofer, J.H. Seinfeld, M. Simon, M. Sipilä, Y. Stozhkov, F. Stratmann, A. Tomé, J. Tröstl, G. Tsagkogeorgas, P. Vaattovaara, Y. Viisanen, A. Virtanen, A. Vrtala, P.E. Wagner, E. Weingartner, H. Wex, C. Williamson, D. Wimmer, P. Ye, T. Yli-Juuti, K.S. Carslaw, M. Kulmala, J. Curtius, U. Baltensperger, D.R. Worsnop, H. Vehkamäki, and J. Kirkby, "Molecular understanding of sulphuric acid–amine particle nucleation in the atmosphere", Nature, vol. 502, pp. 359-363, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12663

4. G.J. van Oldenborgh, A.T.J. de Laat, J. Luterbacher, W.J. Ingram, and T.J. Osborn, "Claim of solar influence is on thin ice: are 11-year cycle solar minima associated with severe winters in Europe?", Environmental Research Letters, vol. 8, pp. 024014, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024014


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/simple-physics-and-climate/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7670
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #26 on: November 25, 2013, 02:58:55 pm »


Arctic releasing twice as much methane as previously thought
Twice as Much Methane Escaping Arctic Seafloor
LiveScience.com, Nov. 24, 2013

The Arctic methane time bomb is bigger than scientists once thought and primed to blow, according to a study published today (Nov. 24) in the journal Nature Geoscience.

About 17 teragrams of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, escapes each year from a broad, shallow underwater platform called the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, said Natalia Shakova, lead study author and a biogeochemist at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. A teragram is equal to about 1.1 million tons; the world emits about 500 million tons of methane every year from manmade and natural sources. The new measurement more than doubles the team's earlier estimate of Siberian methane release, published in 2010 in the journal Science.

"We believe that release of methane from the Arctic, in particular, from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, could impact the entire globe, not just the Arctic alone," Shakova told LiveScience. "The picture that we are trying to understand is what is the actual contribution of the [shelf] to the global methane budget and how it will change over time."

Waiting to escape
Arctic permafrost is an area of intense research focus because of its climate threat. The frozen ground holds enormous stores of methane because the ice traps methane rising from inside the Earth, as well as gas made by microbes living in the soil. Scientists worry that the warming Arctic could lead to rapidly melting permafrost, releasing all that stored methane and creating a global warming feedback loop as the methane in the atmosphere traps heat and melts even more permafrost.

Researchers are trying to gauge this risk by accurately measuring stores of methane in permafrost on land and in the ocean, and predicting how fast it will thaw as the planet warms. Though methane gas quickly decays once it escapes into the atmosphere, lasting only about 10 years, it is 30 times more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping heat (the greenhouse effect).

Shakova and colleague Igor Semiletov of the Russian Academy of Sciences first discovered methane bubbling up from the shallow seafloor a decade ago in Russia's Laptev Sea. Methane is trapped there in ground frozen during past ice ages, when sea level was much lower.

Shallow waters
In their latest study, Shakova and her colleagues reported thousands of measurements of methane bubbles taken in summer and winter, between 2003 and 2012.

But the team also sampled seawater temperature and drilled into the ocean bottom, to see if the sediments are still frozen. Most of the survey was in water less than 100 feet (30 meters deep).
The shallow water is one reason so much methane escapes the Siberian shelf — in the deeper ocean, as methane-eating microbes digest the gas before it reaches the surface, Shakova said. But in the Laptev Sea, "it takes the bubbles only seconds, or at least a couple of minutes, to escape from the water column," Shakova said.

Arctic storms that churn the sea also speed up the release of methane from ocean water, like stirring a soft-drink releases gas bubbles, Shakova said. During the surveys, the amount of methane in the ocean and atmosphere dropped after two big Arctic storms passed through in 2009 and 2010, the researchers reported.

The temperature measurements revealed the water just above the ocean bottom warms by more than 12 degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees Celsius) in some spots during the summer, the researchers found. And the drill core revealed that the surface sediment layers were unfrozen at the drill site, near the Lena River delta.

"We have now proved that the current state of subsea permafrost is incomparably closer to the thaw point than that of terrestrial permafrost," Shakova said.

Shakova and her colleagues attribute the warming of the permafrost to long-term changes initiated when sea levels rose starting at the end of the last glacial period. The seawater is several degrees warmer than the frozen ground, and is slowly melting the ice over thousands of years, they think.

Massive burst

But other researchers think the permafrost warming started only recently. "This is the first time in 12,000 years the Arctic Ocean has warmed up 7 degrees in the summer, and that's entirely new because the sea ice hasn't been there to hold the temperatures down," said Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the University of Cambridge in the U.K., who was not involved in the study. The summer ice melt season has lasted longer since 2005, giving the sun more time to warm the ocean.

"If we do have a methane burst it's going to be catastrophic," Wadhams said. Earlier this year, Wadhams and colleagues in Britain calculated that a mega-methane release from the Siberian shelf could push global temperatures up by 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius). The suggestion, published in the journal Nature, was widely debated by climate researchers. Climate change experts and international negotiators have said that keeping the rise in Earth's average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Shakova said much more research is needed to understand the factors that control how much methane is released from the entire East Siberian Arctic Shelf, which covers 772,000 square miles (2 million square kilometers), or nearly one-fifth the size of the United States.

"Ten years ago we started from zero knowledge in this area," Shakova said. "This is the largest shelf in the world's oceans. That's why it's very challenging to understand the natural processes behind the methane emissions in this area."

http://news.yahoo.com/twice-much-methane-escaping-arctic-seafloor-041738506.html
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7670
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2013, 11:40:39 pm »

Snowleopard said about the following image:

Quote
Do YOU see a significant trend here, hot or cold?  I don't.  IF there is a GLOBAL trend currently, the Antarctic ice seems immune. 


Agelbert Responds:

                                    Globe BELOW:
Antarctic region HERE---->


NOTE: When discussing GLOBAL TRENDS, it is customary to include the ENTIRE GLOBAL surface area.  That means, like, adding up the hotter than baseline normal areas and subtracting, in appropriate percentile segments  ;), the cooler than baseline normal areas.

IOW Antarctica is not the globe, as in "Global Trend", get it?  ;)

But since you fine fellows are all fired up about all that ice in the OCEAN around Antarctica, let's talk about ALL of Antarctica. 


Quote
All the sea ice talk aside, it is quite clear that really when it comes to Antarctic ice and sea levels, sea ice is not the most important thing to measure. In Antarctica, the largest and most important ice mass is the land ice of the West Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheets.

Therefore, how is Antarctic land ice doing?

Shepherd et al. 2012
Figure 2: Estimates of total Antarctic land ice changes and approximate sea level contributions using a combination of different measurement techniques (Shepherd, 2012). Shaded areas represent the estimate uncertainty (1-sigma).

Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (Figure 2, bottom panel) show an increasing contribution to sea level with time, although not as fast a rate or acceleration as Greenland.
Between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr.

There is variation between regions within Antarctica (Figure 2, top panel), with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet losing ice mass, and with an increasing rate. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing slightly over this period but not enough to offset the other losses.  There are of course uncertainties in the estimation methods but independent data from multiple measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.


Last updated on 10 July 2013 by mattking. View Archives

See images referenced in the quote at the link below along with the full and well referenced article. :emthup:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

The image below shows dovetails with images in the article quantifying the rapidly depleting Antarctic LAND ICE. As the article above claims, the CAUSE of the rapidly expanding Antarctic SEA ICE is the rapidly depleting LAND ICE.


Are you going to tell me these scientific facts and observations are "not considered 'CFS' to the lay person"? It doesn't pass the sniff test? Do you smell a global warming agenda rat here?

I don't. Check the reference!




 
Gentlemen Snowleopard and MKing, the specialty of the house, Hot Antarctic Crow, is served. Bon appetit! 



Note: if you don't like crow, the meal may be substituted for standing at the door of the Doomstead Diner and repeating the word, "UNCLE" for several days.          


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7670
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Global Warming is WITH US
« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2013, 06:52:00 pm »


Snowleopard changes the subject of GLOBAL WARMING TRENDS with a question:
Quote
How many more of these volcanoes remain undiscovered????

You don't like crow? You refuse to say, "UNCLE"?

Such a proud, persistent prevaricator.

For the viewing audience, Snowleopard's "question" CARRIES AN UNDERLYING STATEMENT.

AND THAT "STATEMENT" is a, nauseatingly consistent, propaganda point that Global Warming Deniers in the service of DIRTY ENERGY cling tenaciously and mendaciously to:

Snowleopard continues to claim day and night, 24/7 that "WE JUST DON'T KNOW".


How convenient. 


I guess it's true that A LEOPARD WILL NEVER CHANGE ITS SPOTS!   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usDzh7l5HZw&feature=player_embedded
 Video on Antarctic Land Ice measuring science

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/06/de-ice-antarctica/

Snowleopard, please look up "order of magnitude". It will help you establish a proper perspective on total planetary volcanic heat versus Anthropogenic CO2 emissions caused HEAT.

Quote
Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceed annual volcanic CO2 by two orders of magnitude, and probably exceed the CO2 output of one or more super-eruptions***. Thus there is no scientific basis for using volcanic CO2 emissions as an excuse for failing to manage humanity’s carbon footprint.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/volcanic-vs-anthropogenic-co2/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7670
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Two Subglacial Lakes Discovered in Greenland
« Reply #29 on: November 29, 2013, 11:22:12 pm »
Two Subglacial Lakes Discovered in Greenland
Nov 28, 2013 by Sci-News.com 

A team of researchers from the University of Cambridge’s Scott Polar Research Institute has discovered two lakes about 800 m below the ice sheet near the town of Qaanaaq in northwestern Greenland.


This map shows the location of two subglacial lakes near the town of Qaanaaq in northwestern Greenland.

Subglacial lakes are likely to influence the flow of the ice sheet, impacting global sea level change. The discovery of the lakes in Greenland will help researchers to understand how the ice will respond to changing environmental conditions.

The Cambridge scientists used airborne radar measurements to reveal the lakes underneath the ice sheet.

The two lakes are roughly 8-10 km2, and at one point may have been up to 3 times larger than their current size.

They are found in the northwest sector of the Greenland Ice Sheet, about 40 km from the ice margin, and below 757 and 809 m of ice, respectively.

“Our results show that subglacial lakes exist in Greenland, and that they form an important part of the ice sheet’s plumbing system. Because the way in which water moves beneath ice sheets strongly affects ice flow speeds, improved understanding of these lakes will allow us to predict more accurately how the ice sheet will respond to anticipated future warming,” said Dr Steven Palmer, the lead author of the study published online in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

The lakes are unusual compared with those detected beneath Antarctic ice sheets, suggesting that they formed in a different manner.


This radar map shows subglacial bed elevations near the town of Qaanaaq; lines show contours of the newly discovered subglacial lakes; dashed lines show possible previous larger contours. Image credit: Palmer SJ et al.

The scientists propose that, unlike in Antarctica where surface temperatures remain below freezing all year round, the newly discovered lakes are most likely fed by melting surface water draining through cracks in the ice. A surface lake situated nearby may also replenish the subglacial lakes during warm summers. This means that the lakes are part of an open system and are connected to the surface, which is different from Antarctic lakes that are most often isolated ecosystems.

While nearly 400 lakes have been detected beneath the Antarctic ice sheets, the two newly discovered lakes are the first to be identified in Greenland.
______
Bibliographic information: Palmer SJ et al. 2013. Greenland subglacial lakes detected by radar. Geophysical Research Letters, published online; doi: 10.1002/2013GL058383

http://www.phenomenica.com/pin/e97ee2054defb209c35fe4dc94599061
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
497 Views
Last post March 07, 2016, 08:06:00 am
by trianglejohn
1 Replies
204 Views
Last post July 21, 2014, 10:29:36 pm
by AGelbert

+-Recent Topics

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
Today at 09:37:40 pm

Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity by AGelbert
Today at 09:26:33 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
Today at 08:59:44 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
September 24, 2017, 08:25:37 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
September 24, 2017, 05:22:13 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
September 23, 2017, 06:37:02 pm

Fossil Fuel Profits Getting Eaten Alive by Renewable Energy! by AGelbert
September 23, 2017, 04:45:57 pm

Non-routine News by AGelbert
September 23, 2017, 03:50:07 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
September 23, 2017, 03:34:08 pm

Money by AGelbert
September 22, 2017, 06:05:21 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial