Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Unexpected warming in Antarctica

Winter air temperatures over Antarctica have risen by more than 2C in the last 30 years, a new study shows.

Research published in the US journal Science says the warming is seen across the whole of the continent and much of the Southern Ocean.

The study questions the reliability of current climate models that fail to simulate the temperature rise.

In addition, the scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) say the cause of the warming is not clear.

It could be linked to increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or natural variations in Antarctica's climate system.

Scientists are keen to understand the change in temperatures over the continent as the region holds enough water in its ice to raise sea levels by 60 metres.

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4857832.stm

Commentary:
While political purists argue about whether it is natural variation or greenhouse gases ... smart people should be buying beach-front properties 50 metres in elevation above the current beach.

From NASA: there IS arctic warming,it has been going on a bit over 30 years, before that there was Arctic Cooling, for a bit over 30 years, before that there was Arctic Warming for a bit over 30 years.

Notice a PATTERN? a 30 year pattern..

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) study made headlines all over the world and was covered heavily by the New York Times, Washington Post, London Guardian etc.
Dr. Robert Corell, the lead author of the study was just a barrage of quotes and sound bites: "Very rapid and severe climate change in the Arctic, .." rising sea levels from the projected melting of Greenland's ice shelf ?, changes in animal habitats and possible shifts in ocean currents ? "present serious challenges to human health and food security, and possibly even the survival of some cultures,"

The key data that was used to substantiate these doom and gloom projections was a temperature graph that showed a 33-year warming trend, during which temperatures rose nearly 1.5 degrees Celsius. This was then projected as a linear increase to come up with the potentially devastating temperature rise of 4.5 C over the next century. To make sure those south of the Arctic circle paid attention, the report had graphs that showed how the rising seas would inundate New York City, Bangladesh and the Florida keys.

The trouble is these predictions depended ENTIRELY on the study?s use of a carefully selected time period, 1971 to 2003.

Now SOME of you are old enough to remember the period around 1975 when scientists were predicting an impending ice age. You see, by 1975 the world had experienced roughly 3 decades of FALLING temperatures (of course CO2 was still going up) So, by starting the time line at the low point and very near the end of this 30 year long cooling trend and by only including the subsequent 30 year warming trend, Dr Corell clearly insured his outcome.

It really took no more then looking back at the temperature record and picking the point where the temperature records last started heading upward. Since its actually pretty well known to CLIMATOLOGISTS that Alaska?s climate has a well known cycle of just about 30 years Dr Corell?s study picked just about the perfect time to generate a report showing unprecedented warming.

Of course they couldn?t actually claim that any real quantifiable damage had occurred so they had to resort to taking the artificial trend line derived from this tiny slice of climate history and project it to continue for 100 years. At this point the study entered the realm of the absurd.

Why did not a single major reporter covering climate issues ask why a short 30 year data series was used as the basis for this study? It is certainly well known that we have reliable records dating MUCH further back and it is also well known that when you are dealing with climate and attempting to analyze climate trends the LONGER the period of reliable data you work with the more accurate any conclusions are likely to be. The reason is simple and damn obvious. If he HAD included the previous 30 years of data, there would have been a declining trend to arctic temperatures.

If I wanted to be as unscientific as Dr Corell, I could simply move the analysis to a 30 year period that will yield results of my choosing. Take for example the data just previous to the study period, say 1938 to 1968. During those 30 years my data will show that the Arctic temperatures FELL 3.5 C.

That?s more then twice as great a trend as the ACIA study. But, let?s not stop there, like Dr Corell, let?s project the trend out for 100 years to show a glacier-maker drop of over 12 degrees C.

Ah heck, we?re on a roll, so if we continue with his same methodology we could show that in 5 centuries the Arctic would be so cold that CO2 would precipitate out of the atmosphere. They wouldn?t have ice in Alaska, they would have DRY ICE.

Actually what this shows is the absurdity of using a short data series when longer series are available and then the result you get when you compound the absurdity by using linear projection of an inherently chaotic system.

I guess Dr Corell took Steven Schneider?s view on a scientist?s ethical responsibility to heart:

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Interestingly at the same time that Dr Corell was working on his study other Alaskan scientists were using maximum latewood density and C13 discrimination measurements of Alaska white spruce to reconstruct summer temperature for the period 1800 to 1996. The reconstructed temperature history was characterized by seven decadal-scale periods, with abrupt shifts occurring at 1816, 1834, 1879, 1916, 1937 and 1974. In another study, Barber et al found that while summer temperatures of the latter part of the 20th century were "characterized by some of the warmest summers in the 200-year interval." They also noted that mid-19th century summer temperatures also "reconstruct as some of the warmest over the 200-year period." Further their research showed that summer temperatures during two decadal periods in the mid-1800s are as warm as present.
This clearly shows that the recent warmth in Alaska is in not unprecedented in either intensity or rate of onset and that in fact similar warming occurred in the 19th century before the presumed onset of any anthropological CO2 induced climate forcing.


As to Antarctica, actually as a continent it has been on an overall 20+ year COOLING trend, and it is INCREASING in the quantity of ice stored on the continent, not decreasing.

As far as Global Warming, its been going on for 15,000 years, so NO its not disputed. NEVER HAS BEEN.

Its the CAUSE which is the issue.

Is MAN part of the cause, most certainly, we are part of the biosphere so there is no way we can have NO impact.

The question is HOW MUCH impact? No one can offer HARD evidence as to how much, but we do know it GLOBAL WARMING AND COOLING has been going on as far back as we can date, to jump to the ideal that man is the cause, to say that one would first have to PROVE why prior global warming and cooling took place.

And for that there is SERIOUS disagreement.

Among SERIOUS scientists.

I think the main issue at hand is the overall warming of the planet, the continuing increase in unusual weather (i.e. last year's hurricane season), the rapid destruction of habitat (which is all us), the increase in pollutants (which is us), and it is a simple issue of logic that the speed that we have polluted, destroyed and changed the planet will have us careening into uncharted territory as far as climate is concerned.

You spoke of cycles, those cycles were the natural balancing factors of which there are none anymore. The natural biosphere can only handle so much extra stress and I think we are reaching those limits.

Of course, the other way of looking at it is that those animals that can adapt to lead, mercury, chemical, lack of rain where it has rained for centuries in a regular pattern are the only ones that deserve to survive, but think of the creatures that we will lose.

The arctic warming is EXPECTED.. core samples from the ARCTIC prove that there is a 30 year warming and cooling cycle in the arctic.. why is it people just gloss over that.. the 30 year temp. cycle is, and has been very constant.. during the mid 70s your same "scientists" were warning everyone of the soon to happen GLOBAL ICE AGE, once again this was the cause of MANKIND... because the arctic was EXPANDING.. now the same people are saying global warming.. see a pattern?

This has nothing to do with any normal cycle. Get over it.

30 years ago Greenland wasn't melting at this rate.

30 years ago no one was looking at the lack of arctic ice in another 60 years.

This is different. Pay attention.

Archer, look at Photos of places like Mt. Kilmanajaro, look up new news articles on the Intuits standing around in shorts in 40 degree (that is above zero) weather. Find satellite maps of the last 50 years and I am sure you will see this is not normal, look up the stories of Greenland thawing, Siberia's permafrost melting etc. This is abnormal as any scientists who has studied the core samples will tell you the ice has not melted like this in a long time.

And we skip right by the ice core samples as PROOF.. and we skip right past the fact that 32 years ago the ice packs were GROWING, hate to bust your bubbles, but core samples go back a whole lot more than a few THOUSAND years. We all have seen PLENTY OF STORIES about global warming, We also seen the same stories about the PENDING ICE AGE 32 years ago from the SAME people now claiming global warming, I do hope you dont believe everything people write, I need to pay attention? lol nice try

Ok, as I am only 31 I do not remember a global cooling fear, pretty much all I have ever seen in the news is global warmning. I believe what I see, ie Kilmanjaro, Inuits in shorts, waterfalls running down glaciers that were frozen solid only a few years ago. Would you like links?

I am also aware of the fact that ice cores go back more then a few 1000 years. I am also aware of the fact that more and more scientists are ever more concerned. By the way, my parents never discussed a global cooling trend fear in all the talks we had about the environment.

from 2005
When 87% of the glaciers had retreated.

Nasa

For a few links.

Before you start, yes I am aware that there was a similar heating/cooling cycle in the early 1900s but I doubt Kilamanjaro looked like this in the 1900s when it happened the last time:


no snow

I know this is a blog shot, but I already used up my quota of news site time allowed at work.

Let me quote something here.. Scientists are keen to understand the change in temperatures over the continent as the region holds enough water in its ice to raise sea levels by 60 metres.

WHAT A LOAD OF #()$^(@#.. 60 meters? IMPOSSIBLE! this is proof a JUNK SCIENCE.. let me show you why.. were are ice packs located, ON THE OCEANS.. they are ALREADY DISPLACING 92% of their volume, what does that mean? when you add ice cubes to a glass of water what happens.. it rises, what happens when the ice melts? the level in the glass is raised apx. 8%, if you take that 8% and do the math, that comes out a LESS than 4 inches globally.

Global warming ALWAYS leads to global cooling, warmer ocean currents will build more clouds at a very high, almost extreme rate.

This causes a redistribution of snow and ice globally, the primary holders of the redistributed snow and ice will be mountain ranges, then it will move to lower elevations from that point.

Most people believe CO2 is the main cause of global warming, not so. CO2 is not pollution,
It's the starting point for all the food you consume. CO2 is the basis of LIFE on this planet, Plant's will and DO use more if given more and grow faster. Acidification of the oceans, not a chance, the oceans store IN SOLUTION more than 6,000 times as much CO2 as we produce per year. This is the basis for Blue Green alge, the more CO2 the more prolific the BG alge, that means more ocean life as BG alge is the first in the oceanic food chain.

in fact the annual increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 1/2 of what we produce each year, and while the CO2 increase has to proceed the adaption of the biosphere to the increase, its also clear that the biosphere has been increasing its Net Primary Production in response to these higher levesl of CO2. Which is why the NPP went up 6% over the last decade. That's an AWESOME increase in the primary measure of biologica l productivity of our planet, and it makes it pretty clear that if we simply level out the growth of CO2 that the planet will quickly catch up.

If people were to take the longer view they would realize that our REAL longterm problem on this planet is we are running out of CO2. While burning fossil fuels is helping to keep it artificially high, that can't go on forever, and a planet with 250 PPM of CO2 is a colder planet with a much lower level of NPP.

Thanks for your post.
The conclusion is:
The pseudoscience it trumping the science.

e s

Tell me where I am wrong, and where WE can find the proof? please prove some names, dates studies, showing up, calling names then leaving, I punish my kids for doing stupid things like that.. PROVE ME WRONG.. enlighen me.. pseudoscience, show me where.. give us some dates, times, studies, PROVE I am wrong.. if I am as stupid as you imply, it should be really easy for you to disprove the facts I have listed in this thread.. tell us where Dr. Corell was wrong, tell us how C13 is not accurate, show us PROOF of cause of global warming. Show us proof that the seas will rise 60 meters? (still laughing at that one).. I have put the facts on the table.. it should be really easy for you to provide proof I am wrong.

Archer wrote:
"were are ice packs located, ON THE OCEANS.. they are ALREADY DISPLACING 92% of their volume, what does that mean? when you add ice cubes to a glass of water what happens.. it rises, what happens when the ice melts? the level in the glass is raised apx. 8%, if you take that 8% and do the math, that comes out a LESS than 4 inches globally.

Assuming your first word was supposed to include an "H" and be Where ... you must be one of the planet's most willfully ignorant people. Are you expecting to receive an award or do you just like running around saying "I don't get it?"

Your assumption is ridiculous. The vast majority of the ice is NOT located on, in or even near oceans.

Once again we get the name callers.. but NO FACTS.. and if you dont think Ice Packs are floating on the ocean you might want to open up a book before speaking, polar ice packs float out to sea dont they? its not the penguins and polar bears packing them out to the ocean and tossing them in.. show me were I can read about this..

If correcting a typo is the best you can offer up in the way of proof for the basis of your attack then I know why you think the way you do, there are lots of people who talk a lot, spend lots of time cutting and pasting articles, but dont have anything of value to really say even when they are talking.. come on tell me some names of people in the science field who offer up what you claim to be PROOF! lol.. why is that so hard? you make claims back them up.. I DID.. now its your turn, so throw down.. lets see the names and studies.. here I will HELP YOU.. the ONLY real study done (yep there is ONE) by a REAL scientist was from 1971 thru 2003.. yes a 32 year study that claims man is the cause of global warming.. LMAO.. come on.. let see some SCIENCE lol or cant you do it?

Archer wrote:
"if you dont think Ice Packs are floating on the ocean you might want to open up a book before speaking, polar ice packs float"

That is not what I said. Not once in anything I wrote did I every say anything about "ice packs" and "ice packs" have nothing to do with where the vast majority of ice on this planet is located.

Want to try again or just make another futile attempt to divert from the topic?

Tell you what I'll make it easier for you. Where are the two largest concentrations of ice on the planet? And the answer is not "ice packs."

You might want to re-read what you have wrote lol..

I reread it and stand behind it.

Since you prefer to joust rather than learn I'll ignore you and spell it out for others:

1. Antarctica has some seven million cubic miles of ice, representing some 90 percent of the world's total.

Source:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/almanac.html

2. Speaking of Greenland, its ice sheet has seen dramatic melting in the last decade. Greenland contains about 9 percent of all ice on Earth?also enough water to raise sea level by 5 meters.

Source:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/TimeShelf

Now lets see if everyone else other than Archer can figure this out.

Antarctica is a continent. The vast majority it its ice stored on top of land not floating in the ocean. Greenland is an island. The overwhelming majority of its ice stored on dry land not floating in the water. That is 99% of the world's ice.

Archer's talk about ice packs (see his comment posted posted April 02, 2006 05:38 PM is drivel and diversion. He is referencing 1-2% of the ice on earth. ice packs are irrelevant as are Archer's comments. Especially when viewed through the fact that the opening sentence of the post that started this thread reads: "Winter air temperatures over Antarctica have risen by more than 2C in the last 30 years." Which has absolutely nothing to do with ice packs.

The rapidly ablating ice SHELVES are floating on the ocean. The ice CAPS are not. None of this is about pack ice.

A few links for anyone interested:

http://www.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.p...p;setcookie=yes

"...Over the last few decades, and particularly within the last 10 years, several ice shelves in the northern Antarctic Peninsula have rapidly retreated. essentially disappearing. As discussed below, morphological evidence, coupled with ice-flow speeds of the shelves, indicates that they have existed for centuries prior to this period. The only plausible cause for this sudden turn of events is the strong regional climate warming observed in the area over the same period. Weather-station records from several stations in the Antarctic Peninsula indicate a 2.5 degree C warming trend in mean annual air temperature over the last 50 years..."

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Contains an interesting table indicating the amount of ice in the various ice sheets, and the amount of sea level rise that would occur if one melted completely.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/IceSheet_SeaLevel/index.html

Exerpt: "Sea level is rising at around 2 mm a year, which is at a faster rate than over the last 5000 years (less than 1 mm a year), but still slower than the average rate (5 mm a year) predicted for the next 80 years."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=276

This one includes information that my ol' geomorph prof didn't have: "However, data from coral reefs exposed above sea level today, and other evidence, point to an LIG sea level at least 4 m and possibly as much as 6 m greater than today."

It also contains many links to the original abstracts (and sometimes full papers).

Thanks for the links Soilguy.

Is it just me or does SAGG seem to be a crank-magnet? The original posting specifically stated "Antarctica" and talked about air temperatures. Anyone that has taken K-6 geography knows Antarctica is a continent. And yet we get someone coming out of the 17th dimension talking about ice packs?

Are they that hard of reading or is it that they just have an agenda and don't want to let the facts get in their way?