Bring on Global warming!!!

[Extremeweatherguy]

Here is an interesting article segment on Antarctica's glaciers growing thicker over the last many years:

- 19 May 2005 - According to a new study published in the online edition of Science, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet gained about 45 billion tons of ice between 1992 and 2003. The ice sheets are several kilometers thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world's ice.

Using data from the European Space Agency's radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2, a research team from the University of Missouri , Columbia , measured changes in altitude over about 70% of Antarctica's interior. East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimeters per year over the time period studied, the researchers discovered.

The region comprises about 75% of Antarctica 's total land area and about 85% of the total ice volume. The area in question covers more than 2.75 million square miles - roughly the same size as the United States.

And here is another piece of an article on Greenland's ice cap:

- 20 Oct 2005 - Greenland 's ice-cap has thickened slightly in recent
years despite wide predictions of a thaw, scientists said today. Satellite
measurements show that more snowfall is thickening the ice-cap,
especially at high altitudes, according to the report in the journal Science.
"The overall ice thickness changes are ... approximately plus 5 cms
(1.9 inches) a year or 54 cms (21.26 inches) over 11 years," according
to the experts at Norwegian, Russian and U.S. institutes led by Ola
Johannessen at the Mohn Sverdrup center for Global Ocean Studies
and Operational Oceanography in Norway.

Also...I found this interesting analysis of an article on the website "Not by Fire, but by Ice":

http://www.iceagenow.com/Dishonest_Headline.htm

[x-y-no]

Either way they HAVE increased since then. New Zealand's glaciers ARE currently growing, and the trend may certainly last for more than just three years (and if it does then it might make up for previous losses).

Absolutely no trend in any system as complex as nature will ever be monotonic. I'f that's your criterion, then you'll go to your grave in a perfect state of uncertainty about everything.

Also, I can not understand how record lows are still managing to be broken worldwide if we are in a state of warming. If the earth was warmer now than 50+ years ago...then how come we have cities breaking record lows that are up to 100 years old?

I'll offer this very crude explanation: More energy in the whole system leads to greater amplitude dynamics in the mean. And since there's such a sharp temperature gradient by latitude, a larger mean amplitude leads to more frequent extremes of both low and high temperatures at various locations.

Also, how can you explain some of the coldest weather in Asia in over 20 years?

See above. The pattern which set up this winter had the polar vortex biased towards Eurasia. Coupled with greater amplitude Rossby waves, this resulted in many low records in that region. At the same time, however, North America and other parts of the world were seeing record highs. Preliminary averages indicate that this year fit pretty well within the ongoing warming trend.

I think that Global warming may be *slowly* occurring, but I think that if so it is part of a natural cycle.

We are all free to hold whatever beliefs we wish, however contrafactual.

However, to the extent that I notice false claims being advanced in support of such beliefs, I intend to continue pointing out that those claims are false. What's discouraging to me is how many of the same false claims keep cropping up, despite having been repeatedly debunked. I'd like to believe that we'd all share a desire to advance knowledge and at some point that requires surrendering false notions, however cherished.

I find it hard to believe that the NE will be as warm as a place in Georgia in just 100 years. I also do not trust these long range models they use to predict claims like that one either. If we can not get the GFS to be accurate in the 7-15 day range...then how are we going to have a global model be accurate in the 50 to 100 year range?

Could you point me to where this specific claim originates? I'll agree that such fine-grained predictions of regional effects are beyond our capacity at this time. Perhaps the claim was more along the lines of a range of probabilities?

As for the second part of your question, the answer is very simple. We make no effort whatsoever to predict the weather years down the road. Climate is an entirely different problem.

Perhaps an analogy will help: We can predict with extreme accuracy the total flow of water through a segment of a river for a rather extended period of time. Hydrodynamic engineers do that kind of thing all the time with great reliability. But all the computing power in the world wouldn't be enough to predict the movement of every eddy in that current for even a few minutes, even given perfect knowledge of the start state.

The point is that it's not neccesary to be able to predict every eddy in order to get a very accurate picture of the total flow. Similarly, it's not neccesary to accurately predict all aspects of weather in order to predict climate.

We as humans think we know everything now days...which simply is not the case. Even the most well-respected meteorologist with a PHD will be wrong sometimes. Nature will do what it wants; not what we tell it to do.

If you were to spend a little time talking with some climate scientists, I think you'd find them keenly aware of how much it is we don't know. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to pretend we know less than we do.

[x-y-no]

Here is an interesting article segment on Antarctica's glaciers growing thicker over the last many years:

...

Did you bother to look at the link I provided above regarding gravitometric analysis of the total ice mass in Antarctica?

Yes, there is some thickening of the East Antarctic sheet, and yes that's (by area) the great majority of the ice. But the total appears (as I pointed out it's a fairly short timeline so far) to be exhibiting a loss.

All of this has been quite clearly explained in the published research.

And here is another piece of an article on Greenland's ice cap:

...

All models I'm aware of have indicated increased average precipitation in inland Greenland as an effect of a warmer climate, so thickening of the interior ice dome is an expected effect - not as this piece implies any kind of surprise.

Again, the important issue is the total mass balance. And Greenland is losing ice mass - apparently more rapidly than predicted.

Also...I found this interesting analysis of an article on the website "Not by Fire, but by Ice":

http://www.iceagenow.com/Dishonest_Headline.htm

This raises an interesting metaphysical question: If you announce (as your cited article does) that you are about to be dishonest, are you being honest?

[curtadams]

Also, I can not understand how record lows are still managing to be broken worldwide if we are in a state of warming. If the earth was warmer now than 50+ years ago...then how come we have cities breaking record lows that are up to 100 years old? Also, how can you explain some of the coldest weather in Asia in over 20 years? I think that Global warming may be *slowly* occurring, but I think that if so it is part of a natural cycle. I find it hard to believe that the NE will be as warm as a place in Georgia in just 100 years. I also do not trust these long range models they use to predict claims like that one either. If we can not get the GFS to be accurate in the 7-15 day range...then how are we going to have a global model be accurate in the 50 to 100 year range? We as humans think we know everything now days...which simply is not the case. Even the most well-respected meteorologist with a PHD will be wrong sometimes. Nature will do what it wants; not what we tell it to do.

Well, of course you're going to be setting new records high and low. Climate varies, and not all possible variations will have happened in the last 1-200 years. With a global warming of almost a degree centigrade, new highs ways outnumber new lows, but new lows still happen, as you'd expect. Do you really think that in a century or two you'd have seen every place on earth get within 1 degree of the coldest it ever can get? And coldest in Asia the past 20 years? That's a pretty short period. What on earth does that have to do with long-term warming?

You say it's natural climate cycles. What cycles? We've just experience the fastest warming decade in the past century, which by climate reconstruction is the fastest warming period in the holocene. So what's doing it? We're not talking a subtle or easy-to-miss phenomenom.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

general message to all and the original poster-
subjects involving human suffering cannot be taken in an optimistic light; you cannot wish for something that leads to human suffering; doing so would be inconsiderate and very insensitive

so please do not say "bring on global warming" because it has no optimistic implications in light of the vast human suffering it would cause.

[arcticfire]

general message to all and the original poster-
subjects involving human suffering cannot be taken in an optimistic light; you cannot wish for something that leads to human suffering; doing so would be inconsiderate and very insensitive

so please do not say "bring on global warming" because it has no optimistic implications in light of the vast human suffering it would cause.

While I sometimes wish it were not so , I'm afraid that your request would presume people care about what happens to others. People can and will wish for things that cause others to suffer if it benifits them in some way. In this case we are talkinga bout ignoreing the suffering to come so that we can maintain the current comfortable status quo.

The peoople trying despretly to ignore the problem no matter how much factual information is shown to them are trying to dodge any sense of personal responsibility and need of action. Your certainly not going to get these people to care if someone they don't know in some other country starves to death. These people will ignore the problem untill it directly impacts them , and at such time will turn around and blame for instance some oil company as being evil without ever acknowledging their car was source of the problem.

Humans are inherently selfish creatures , remember we have to be taught how to share as children.

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

general message to all and the original poster-
subjects involving human suffering cannot be taken in an optimistic light; you cannot wish for something that leads to human suffering; doing so would be inconsiderate and very insensitive

so please do not say "bring on global warming" because it has no optimistic implications in light of the vast human suffering it would cause.

While I sometimes wish it were not so , I'm afraid that your request would presume people care about what happens to others. People can and will wish for things that cause others to suffer if it benifits them in some way. In this case we are talkinga bout ignoreing the suffering to come so that we can maintain the current comfortable status quo.

The peoople trying despretly to ignore the problem no matter how much factual information is shown to them are trying to dodge any sense of personal responsibility and need of action. Your certainly not going to get these people to care if someone they don't know in some other country starves to death. These people will ignore the problem untill it directly impacts them , and at such time will turn around and blame for instance some oil company as being evil without ever acknowledging their car was source of the problem.

Humans are inherently selfish creatures , remember we have to be taught how to share as children.

Sadly true.

[SouthFloridawx]

general message to all and the original poster-
subjects involving human suffering cannot be taken in an optimistic light; you cannot wish for something that leads to human suffering; doing so would be inconsiderate and very insensitive

so please do not say "bring on global warming" because it has no optimistic implications in light of the vast human suffering it would cause.

While I sometimes wish it were not so , I'm afraid that your request would presume people care about what happens to others. People can and will wish for things that cause others to suffer if it benifits them in some way. In this case we are talkinga bout ignoreing the suffering to come so that we can maintain the current comfortable status quo.

The peoople trying despretly to ignore the problem no matter how much factual information is shown to them are trying to dodge any sense of personal responsibility and need of action. Your certainly not going to get these people to care if someone they don't know in some other country starves to death. These people will ignore the problem untill it directly impacts them , and at such time will turn around and blame for instance some oil company as being evil without ever acknowledging their car was source of the problem.

Humans are inherently selfish creatures , remember we have to be taught how to share as children.

Sadly true.

I second your thought my friend. Also I still don't know how to share, as I still get a little angry when my girlfriend tries to take some of my food. I know it may seem a little odd but, I grew up in a house with 5 kids and we had just our mom and limited resources.

[greeng13]

general message to all and the original poster-
subjects involving human suffering cannot be taken in an optimistic light; you cannot wish for something that leads to human suffering; doing so would be inconsiderate and very insensitive

so please do not say "bring on global warming" because it has no optimistic implications in light of the vast human suffering it would cause.

While I sometimes wish it were not so , I'm afraid that your request would presume people care about what happens to others. People can and will wish for things that cause others to suffer if it benifits them in some way. In this case we are talkinga bout ignoreing the suffering to come so that we can maintain the current comfortable status quo.

The peoople trying despretly to ignore the problem no matter how much factual information is shown to them are trying to dodge any sense of personal responsibility and need of action. Your certainly not going to get these people to care if someone they don't know in some other country starves to death. These people will ignore the problem untill it directly impacts them , and at such time will turn around and blame for instance some oil company as being evil without ever acknowledging their car was source of the problem.

Humans are inherently selfish creatures , remember we have to be taught how to share as children.

very well put!!!!

[MGC]

Sanibel, I can't belive that you think Dr Gray is a shill for the current administration occupying the White House! That statement alone destroyed any credibility in your post. There were likely just as many tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin in 1933, yet were undetected due to the lack of satellite. How do you explain 1933? Or, better yet, the dust bowl era in particular? CO2 levels were nowhere near the current levels. The Earth has been warming for the past two centuries. Sorry, but I am convinced this is just a natural cycle. Just like the 60's and 70's were cold, a cycle.....MGC

[Sanibel]

I asked anyone to please explain in scientific terms how 3 times any previous uprise in CO2 could NOT have any effect? That went unanswered. As usual those preferring the skeptical view seem to bypass most of the detailed explanations to grab onto something that sounds like a likely excuse. 1933 might as well be on another planet compared to the global changes since then.

X-Y-NO offered a very good explanation of the amplitude fluxes now appearing in conformity with Global Warming trends.


I doubt too many cyclones were missed in 1933 since most of the Atlantic had some form of marine activity going on just about everywhere in the basin.

[sponger]

Always fun so I thought I would chime in.

MGC Thanks for some rational thought.

XY NO Please stop touting realclimate.org ans some sort of reasonable place for unbiased info. Like going to Exxon or FPL for climate info.

Sanibel, increased CO2 will obviously have an effect. It is .1 degree 100? We just don't know.

If you global warming doom and gloomers where so concerned you would be organizing boycotts of China and India and trying to pressure them to reduce lor limit co2 growth. But no, you all just want the nasty imperialist greedy capitalist United States to put on a piar of handcuffs ensuring we can't compete with anybody.

Whew that was fun and stress relieving. I am glad I got that off my chest. See you all at the next impending ice age when we can all argue whether man or natural cycles were the cause.

[bob rulz]

After reading the entire article, I think I will give my opinion of this situation.

You can't dispute that global warming is occurring. But you can dispute that humans are causing it. Yes, I'm sure that Humans have had some effect on global warming. I won't dispute that. But I have seen no conclusive evidence presented to me by anybody that Humans are the main cause of global warming. Just because CO2 is increasing at a much faster rate than previously recorded doesn't mean that they haven't increased faster before. As someone on the first page mentioned, looking at a 100 or even 200 year portion of history looking back millions of years is virtually impossible. We may know the general trend over a few thousand years, but not over just 100 years or less.

I agree with extremeweatherguy and matt that global warming is overhyped, but I believe that their arguments are terribly flawed. Just because Asia had record cold doesn't mean global warming is happening. Just because the Earth is rapidly warming up doesn't mean that we can't have cold snaps that break records, etc, and just because glaciers are growing in some areas doesn't mean they're growing overall, and in the long-term, glaciers have shrunk significantly. Also, just because the ice caps are thickening over Greenland and Antarctica means the opposite; the world IS warming up, because warmer temperatures in such a cold environment means more snowfall and therefore a thickening of the ice cap. But that doesn't really slow the melt of glaciers. Glaciers and ice caps are hardly the same thing.

However, there is no proof that this really is the fastest increase in temperatures in history, because it is virtually impossible to note a 100-200 year period of history millions of years in the past. I think it's largely just a coincidence (coincidences DO happen in natural history) that we're reaching our peak of industrial development and fossil fuel output at the same time Earth is coming out of the Little Ice Age and, on an even smaller scale, the Atlantic Ocean is in a period of increased activity.

I won't deny that Humans have had SOME impact, but I have seen no conclusive evidence to support that Humans are the main cause, or that we've even sped up the process by any significant amount.

[Audrey2Katrina]

I won't deny that Humans have had SOME impact, but I have seen no conclusive evidence to support that Humans are the main cause, or that we've even sped up the process by any significant amount.

Sounds like you and Dr. Gray are on the same page. Essentially, I agree.

A2K

[Aslkahuna]

To me the warming that has been observed is a mixture of natural and anthropogenic causes. To explain, consider this, the Sun is in the highest level of activity since the invention of the telescope and it has been shwon that the total energy output of the Sun is higher (particularly in the non visible portions of the spectrum) when actvity levels are higher and we are just starting to see studies that try to connect such things as the electrical field of the Earth to geomagnetic and Solar activity (and I'm not talking Methane Mike here but these are legitimate questions just now being raised in places like the University of Arizona) and what if any effect intense ionospheric warming due to Geomagnetic activity might have downstairs. Now Solar activity cycles are variable and at times they can stop completely-the last time being during the Maunder and Spörer Minima which corresponded to a very cold period down here (The Little Ice Age) as Solar Energy output was decreased. The other factor is the CO2-the levels are now some 35% above the natural highs noted in the 650000 year ice core record which therefore must represent our contribution to the mix. By increasing CO2 levels, one increases the ability of the atmosphere to retain heat thus increasing the energy levels within it. As X-Y-No points out, increased energy in the atmosphere leads to increased amplitude of the waves in the atmosphere (as anyone who has taken Dynamics is very much aware of) which leads to an increase in departures from average on both sides of the fence and also, as anyone who has taken Physical Meteorology knows very well, if you increase the temperature you increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold moisture and thus in the cold regions you will see more snowfall (important to note-surface temperatures such as -94F in Siberia are not a good indicator of what's happening through the troposphere since such very cold temperatures usually occur with quite shallow inversions). This could go on for a while until we reach a point where we get a different manifestation of the changes going on which we really have no clue as to what it might be. The most dire posibility is that we go into a completely chaotic mode where rapid changes occur over short periods of time. That would be most difficult for our Civilization, accustomed as it is to a relatively stable climate, to handle.

Steve

[Audrey2Katrina]

I understand what you're saying, Steve, and pretty much agree with the vast majority of it; but there are a LOT of professional scientists who do not get the ink the alarmists do, (Dr. Gray among them) who certainly know all the science to which you alluded and simply arrive at a somewhat different conclusion. I understand the kinetics involved as well, and as you alluded to the complexities involved are enormous. I believe that IF man has affected the GW scenario at all, that it is minimal at best. Yes, the CO2 emissions have created an all-time high, and I'm equally sure these scientists know all the particulars you've elaborated upon as well--they just don't see it exactly the same way. Correlation does not equate to causation, and I believe the trend in CO2 emissions has peaked out--could be wrong on that, but it's inevitable that alternative fuels will be developed and that will just go down... but it's nice goin' over all this with ya!

A2K

[Sanibel]

Sanibel, increased CO2 will obviously have an effect. It is .1 degree 100? We just don't know.

You wish it were that simple Sponger. But it isn't. That one-line answer might work for people quickly interested in buying government versions that favor expediency, but the scientific record shows that previous core-locked CO2 increases ALWAYS accompanied significant warming periods. Some of incredible temperature increases like 10-15 degrees. So to say "we don't know" isn't true because WE DO KNOW.


What we do know is ice core samples show previous CO2 rises as being directly related to warming periods. Some of significant temperature increases. So to see a CO2 rise 3 times greater than any previously recorded one and answer "we don't know" is dangerously reckless considering the consequences.



I think we are very close to showing denial for political purposes here. I don't think you are going to have an easy time selling this record rise as coming in on the low side.

I won't deny that Humans have had SOME impact, but I have seen no conclusive evidence to support that Humans are the main cause, or that we've even sped up the process by any significant amount.

What you can see right here is intelligent people capable of forming intelligent arguments ignoring the fact that we have had a massive infusion of industrial (human) CO2 into the atmosphere in the last century.

Sorry, but after reading these posts I don't see any satisfactory explanation for this human-caused CO2. All I see is "I admit humans have some impact" - which to me is a conscious evasion of measureable and determinable SCIENCE. You have to ask yourself where the extra CO2 causing this record rise came from if it is natural? Since the only different variable in the ice core samples is human activity, it is reasonable to assume it is us. This is clearly being pushed on to natural causes where - low and behold - humans won't have to change their behavior.

I read an article that said previous warming periods showed sudden jumps in climate change once certain triggers are set off atmospherically. The atmosphere doesn't gradually change - samples show it more likely lurches in serious jumps. A lurch with a large, stressed global population won't be anything to be complacent over...

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

I think I will wait intill the earth temperature starts warming at 1c every 5 or 10 years before taking this seriously. 3 degrees over 100 years is not going to do much.

[P.K.]

3C over 100 years is a lot. Remember there is a large thermal inertia in the ocean so once it warms up it would take a long time to cool down.

[Aslkahuna]

In looking at the ice core data, we can find what the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere currently is above the natural peak and right now that is about 35% which represents at a minimum our cntribution to the cause. Also as I have said before that does NOT mean that our contribution to warming is 35% (scientists do believe that the Solar activity contirbution is some 30% which leaves 70% to explain). Although the atmosphere in the past has "lurched" as you say that does not mean that it will do so every time for that is the nature of a chaotic system-the study of past effects gives no clue as to future effects. With CO2 level already well beyond the highest known to have occurred in the past 650000 years, we should have already seen a strong response. During the Holocene Period, the climate has been quite stable all things considered especially during the past 10000 years. That would suggest some sort of forcing mechanism that we have not discovered is keeping the climate stable and maybe preventing a drastic response to the high CO2 levels we have at present. It would, however, be foolhardy to depend upon this mechanism keeping things in check indefinitely and once it breaks down it will be Katy Bar the Door and things will move in a direction that may NOT be anticipated by anybody. We could end up swinging from 15 degrees above the mean to 15 degrees below in a matter of decades as the atmosphere goes completely beserk.

Steve