Global Warming is Stuck in the Ice

[Azale]

You know what else is stuck in the ice? MSNBC ratings.

Probably.

They're doing ok.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It's ... criticism hidden behind the shield of a 'joke'.

Yep.

Getting back to the OP, a Chinese icebreaker rescued the passengers with the aid if an Australian icebreaker, then tried to free the Russian ship and got stuck itself. Now, an American icebreaker is trying to rescue both of them.

 

[Dale]

You could continue with some relevant paper, websites are not relevant at all.

Go find 'em yourself. Stop being lazy.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Go find 'em yourself. Stop being lazy.

Your claim, your burden I'm afraid.

But you're right you don't have to back it up. It then simply remains your claim.

 

[Dale]

Your claim, your burden I'm afraid.

But you're right you don't have to back it up. It then simply remains your claim.

But I did back up my claim. With direct information from the Paleontological Research Institute, University of Cornell. Regarded as a world leader in that field of science and publisher of one of the world's oldest Paleontological science journals. They are also a "believer" in catastrophic human caused climate change, as detailed here: http://www.priweb.org/globalchange.html.

If you don't accept that, not my problem.

EDIT:
Since I know you guys are complete sticks in the mud and will glorify the "paper or it's not true" nature of climate science, some papers:
- Highlighting one major issue with dendro-based climate reconstructions: http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/4499/2013/cpd-9-4499-2013.html
- Keith Briffa (CRU, back-pedaling climate alarmist) returns the MWP and slams Mann's work: http://hol.sagepub.com/content/23/3/364
- Biological influences cascade statistical uncertainty into the realms of incalculable: http://www.academia.edu/1906327/Uncertainty_emergence_and_statistics_in_dendrochronology

It might also surprise you to find out Mann has no education in dendroclimatology/dendrochronology and that most scientists in that field actively slam Mann for his poor methodology and statistics. Though I'm sure that would fall on deaf ears, since that only comes out in blogs and dendro email listservs.

 

[useless]

If you don't accept what the consensus of scientists say about climate change being primarily human-influenced than it's not their problem.

It's yours.

 

[ArneHD]

You could start your learning process here: http://www.priweb.org/globalchange/climatechange/studyingcc/scc_01.html

Excerpt:
Dendrochronology is currently still in its scientific infancy – there are many problems in the use of tree rings, particularly because the growth of tree rings can be impacted by many issues - not just rainfall amount, temperature, and cloud cover – but also by wind, soil properties, disease, or even pollution. These issues can certainly impact tree ring growth and cloud the scientific record.

Bottom line: Dendrochronology is not an accurate measure of temperature, no matter what Michael "Hokey Schtick" Mann says.

You neglected to include the last sentence of that paragraph:
"Fortunately, scientists are gaining new insight in the reading and use of tree rings, and hope that they can be used to help understand whether global warming has any precedent in the ring record of the past 1,000 years."

Also, the rest of the article is essentially says that you can reconstruct paleoclimate using tree rings, if not alone, then as a piece of corroborating evidence.

 

[Dale]

You neglected to include the last sentence of that paragraph:
"Fortunately, scientists are gaining new insight in the reading and use of tree rings, and hope that they can be used to help understand whether global warming has any precedent in the ring record of the past 1,000 years."

Also, the rest of the article is essentially says that you can reconstruct paleoclimate using tree rings, if not alone, then as a piece of corroborating evidence.

See EDIT to my post above. Also note the future looking of dendro accuracy in that article, dispelling the myth that Mann's 1998 Hokey Schtick has any accuracy at all.

 

[Dale]

If you don't accept what the consensus of scientists say about climate change being primarily human-influenced than it's not their problem.

It's yours.

You realise that "consensus" is actually only 71 scientists in the whole world don't you? Do you also realise that "primarily human-influenced" is only shown by models, not by observations don't you?

And finally do you also realise I too am a warmist, but follow observations not models and therefore believe the claims of "catastrophic" and "majority human-influenced" are a complete load of BS with no empirical observational or experimentation backing?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yet America is facing one of it's coldest winters.

Resulting from destabilized polar weather. For the first time next year, it is projected that all polar ice may melt during the summer.

Local weather does not equal global climate.

How ironic that this sentence should follow your last one.

So have you checked global temperature records lately?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But I did back up my claim.

So you did. I missed the link because it was on the other page.

How ironic that this sentence should follow your last one.

I think that was merely to counter the post he replied to, not an argument.

 

[Dale]

Resulting from destabilized polar weather. For the first time next year, it is projected that all polar ice may melt during the summer.

ALL polar ice? Link required. As far as I'm aware, there is no science advocating that conclusion. Science points to a possibility the northern polar cap might have total melt in the late 2030's, but not the southern polar cap for hundreds of years.

That is of course assuming the models are right in their projections.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

"All" refers to sea ice, not glaciers.

 

[Dale]

"All" refers to sea ice, not glaciers.

Link please.

 

[Adjuvant]

Silly. Ice melts every summer, not just this one. Who ever heard of polar ice melting in winter. Pff.

 

[Berzerker]

The explanation is warmer sea and air temperatures increase the moisture level in the air just over the sea which would be able to produce more ice. He also claims the models predict this. Now this sounds plausible, without saying he's right. I have no idea. Bit of a bummer the interviewer was more interested in a sensationalist line of questioning than actually acquiring insight. I was also tempted to abandon the video at his first question due to the phrasing.

What I don't understand is why this is hilarious. Counter-intuitive, sure. But lots of stuff that happens is.

Its funny because he went on TV to insult people saying warmer seas and air caused ice to trap these people right after telling us they got trapped because its really cold down there. I'd bet my $$$ these people got trapped in ice because "normal" conditions allow for pack ice to form in that area some years in spite of summer. This reminds me of the "global warming will cause an ice age" nonsense. I'd like to know how this guy's theories = science?

Anyway, I have a some understanding of evaporation and precipitation. I've pointed to the hydro cycle for people in past debates here who think its a good thing to lock away much of the planets fresh water in ice. But I'd sooner believe ocean currents are "corralling" pack ice and/or the relevant part of Antarctica just had a cooler summer. Temperature in the S Hemisphere didn't just abnormally spike but now a heat wave in Australia caused an ice jam in Antarctica?

If you lived in this country and had to cope with climate deniers having a large platform to voice their views and the power to enforce them, you would get a little snarky too. You can't let the other side play politics and pretend "just the facts ma'm" is gonna be enough.

I dont deny global warming, I'm counting on it. Life on this planet does better with less ice, we just need better ways to regulate atmospheric content.

Aren't jokes supposed to be funny?

This is more along the line of: if they can't predict the weather next week ...

It's bs criticism hidden behind the shield of a 'joke'.

Your sense of humor is ideologically driven...or on vacation

The joke as I understand it is that this expedition was to repeat Mawson's voyage in 1912. The funny part is that in 1912 Mawson sailed into Commonwealth Bay with no ice, and this expedition was out to prove there was less sea ice than Mawson saw yet get completely iced in by a 10 mile ice sheet.

Thats too much!

Honestly though, I think it's more irony than joke. It's not really a "hahaha" joke.

Thank you, seems so obvious

 

[ArneHD]

But I did back up my claim. With direct information from the Paleontological Research Institute, University of Cornell. Regarded as a world leader in that field of science and publisher of one of the world's oldest Paleontological science journals. They are also a "believer" in catastrophic human caused climate change, as detailed here: http://www.priweb.org/globalchange.html.

If you don't accept that, not my problem.

EDIT:
Since I know you guys are complete sticks in the mud and will glorify the "paper or it's not true" nature of climate science, some papers:
- Highlighting one major issue with dendro-based climate reconstructions: http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/4499/2013/cpd-9-4499-2013.html
- Keith Briffa (CRU, back-pedaling climate alarmist) returns the MWP and slams Mann's work: http://hol.sagepub.com/content/23/3/364
- Biological influences cascade statistical uncertainty into the realms of incalculable: http://www.academia.edu/1906327/Uncertainty_emergence_and_statistics_in_dendrochronology

It might also surprise you to find out Mann has no education in dendroclimatology/dendrochronology and that most scientists in that field actively slam Mann for his poor methodology and statistics. Though I'm sure that would fall on deaf ears, since that only comes out in blogs and dendro email listservs.

None of the papers you have linked to here say anything different than your original link, that dendrochronology should be used with care and that you need to take special precautions when using them as part of a statistical model. None of them mention Mann by name (at least not in the abstract), and none of them invalidate dendrochronology as valuable evidence when reconstructing paleoclimate.

Edit: To be specific, all of them describe a technique called regional curve standardisation which reduces bias. Nothing however suggests that dendrochronology does not work.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Link please.

A Guardian article, courtesy of a study by the US DOE and USN.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/09/us-navy-arctic-sea-ice-2016-melt

An ongoing US Department of Energy-backed research project led by a US Navy scientist predicts that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice cover as early as 2016 - 84 years ahead of conventional model projections.

The project, based out of the US Naval Postgraduate School's Department of Oceanography, uses complex modelling techniques that make its projections more accurate than others.

A paper by principal investigator Professor Wieslaw Maslowski in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences sets out some of the findings so far of the research project:

"Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover."

The paper is highly critical of global climate models (GCM) and even the majority of regional models, noting that "many Arctic climatic processes that are omitted from, or poorly represented in, most current-generation GCMs" which "do not account for important feedbacks among various system components." There is therefore "a great need for improved understanding and model representation of physical processes and interactions specific to polar regions that currently might not be fully accounted for or are missing in GCMs."

According to the US Department of Energy describing the project's development of the Regional Arctic System Model (RASM):

"Given that the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe, understanding the processes and feedbacks of this polar amplification is a top priority. In addition, Arctic glaciers and the Greenland Ice Sheet are expected to change significantly and contribute to sea level rise in the coming decades."

Such Arctic changes "could have significant ramifications for global sea level, the ocean thermohaline circulation and heat budget, ecosystems, native communities, natural resource exploration, and commercial transportation."

The regional focus of RASM permits "significantly higher spatial resolution" to represent and evaluate the interaction of "important fine-scale Arctic processes and feedbacks", such as:

"... sea ice deformation, ocean eddies, and associated ice-ocean boundary layer mixing, multiphase clouds as well as land-atmosphere-ice-ocean interactions."


The role of the Department of Energy in backing the research is not surprising considering that President Obama's national Arctic strategy launched in May is focused on protecting commercial and corporate opportunities related to control of the region's vast untapped oil, gas and mineral resources.

The model coheres with the predictions of several other Arctic specialists - namely Prof Peter Wadhams, head of polar ocean physics at Cambridge University and Prof Carlos Duarte, director of the Ocean Institute at the University of Western Australia - who see the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice in the summer of 2015 as likely.

Prof Wadhams is co-author of the controversial Nature paper which calculated the potential economic costs of climate change based on a scenario of 50 Gigatonnes (Gt) of methane being released this century from melting permafrost at the East Siberia Arctic Shelf (ESAS), a vast region of shallow-water covered continental crust. The scenario was first postulated by Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

In 2010, Shakhova's team published results showing that 7 teragrammes of methane was bubbling to the surface annually in the ESAS. Last month, she released a new paper in Nature Geoscience updating these findings on the basis of more rigorous measurements using an unmanned underwater vehicle with advanced sonar capability. She found that annual bottom water temperatures have increased over the last 14 years, correlating with a release of about 17 teragrammes of methane a year, accentuated by storms. This conservative estimate is more than double the earlier assessment.

However, the source of these methane emissions remains a matter of dispute, as other scientists investigating the phenomenon point out that while large deposits of methane hydrates could be breaking up, the other possibility is a slow leak of methane that has already gone on for hundreds of years. Christian Berndt, of the GEOMAR/Helmholz Centre for Ocean Research, has speculated that both phenomena could be going on at once, but he admits, "We have no proof."

Despite their latest study uncovering higher levels of methane than previously recognised, Shakhova has also distanced herself from the 'methane bomb' scenario she had once previously posited, noting a lack of direct evidence for the scenario.

Commenting on the study, the US National Snow & Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) observes:

"Ship-based observations show that methane concentrations in the air above the East Siberian Sea Shelf are nearly twice as high as the global average... Layers of sediment below the permafrost slowly emit methane gas, and this gas has been trapped for millennia beneath the permafrost. As sea levels rose at the end of the ice age, the shelf was once again covered by relatively warm ocean water, thawing the permafrost and releasing the trapped methane... In the short-term... methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of carbon dioxide."

Most scientists agree that more research is needed to determine the source and nature of these methane emissions.

But scientists also largely agree that an ice free Arctic in the summer could have serious consequences for the global climate. Some research has pointed out a link between the warming Arctic and changes in the jet stream, contributing to unprecedented weather extremes over the last few years. These extreme events in turn have dramatically impacted crop production in key food basket regions.

A landmark new study in Nature Climate Change finds the melting of the sea ice over the last 30 years at a rate of 8% per decade is directly linked to extreme summer weather in the US and elsewhere in the form of droughts and heatwaves. Lead study author Quihang Tang at the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research in Beijing said:

"As the high latitudes warm faster than the mid-latitudes because of amplifying effects of melting ice, the west-to-east jet-stream wind is weakened. Consequently, the atmospheric circulation change tends to favour more persistent weather systems and a higher likelihood of summer weather extremes."

The new study supplements earlier research published in Geophysical Research Letters demonstrating a link between Arctic sea ice loss and extreme weather particularly in both the summer and winter, including prolongation of "drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves."

Last year Prof Duarte was lead author of a paper in the Royal Swedish Academy of Science's journal AMBIO warning that the Arctic was at risk of passing critical "tipping points" that could lead to a cascading "domino effect once the summer sea ice is lost." Prof Duarte said at the time:

"If set in motion, they can generate profound climate change which places the Arctic not at the periphery but at the core of the Earth system. There is evidence that these forces are starting to be set in motion. This has major consequences for the future of human kind as climate change progresses."

Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books. Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed

 

[Tee Kay]

We need right-wing warmists to speak.

Winner where are you.

 

[Dale]

A Guardian article, courtesy of a study by the US DOE and USN.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski (author of the study that prediction is based on) was the scientist cited by Al Gore to say the Arctic would be ice free by 2013 in his Nobel acceptance speech (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm)

That Prof doesn't have a very good track record.

The prediction is also for 2016, not next year.

The article also says nothing about southern polar sea ice. You did say, "For the first time next year, it is projected that all polar ice may melt during the summer". Can you back up your claim or is this just parroting another alarmist hoax?

The Guardian is also very well known for publishing alarmist propaganda pieces, so I wouldn't rely on it as an accurate source.