Study: Antarctica Joins Rest of Globe in Warming

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

Study: Antarctica joins rest of globe in warming
By SETH BORENSTEIN (AP Science Writer)
From Associated Press
January 21, 2009 2:44 PM EST

WASHINGTON - Antarctica, the only place that had oddly seemed immune from climate change, is warming after all, according to a new study. For years, Antarctica was an enigma to scientists who track the effects of global warming. Temperatures on much of the continent at the bottom of the world were staying the same or slightly cooling, previous research indicated.

The new study went back further than earlier work and filled in a massive gap in data with satellite information to find that Antarctica too is getting warmer, like the Earth's other six continents. The findings were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

"Contrarians have sometime grabbed on to this idea that the entire continent of Antarctica is cooling, so how could we be talking about global warming," said study co-author Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. "Now we can say: no, it's not true ... It is not bucking the trend."

The study does not point to man-made climate change as the cause of the Antarctic warming - doing so is a highly intricate scientific process - but a different and smaller study out late last year did make that connection.


Read more: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20090121/4976b9e0_3ca6_15526200901211731347424

[marshall]

1. Can they send some of that warmth to the northeast US?

Brrrr.

[Baby Snooks]

3. The weather changes...

The Republicans of course are waving their little flags and building their Al Gore ice sculptures in Alaska and proclaiming that global warming is just indeed another liberal conspiracy to deprive them of their right to profit. Why, a fool can go outside and realize there is no such thing as global warming. It's colder than anyone can remember.

What they don't realize is the amount of fresh water from the ice cap and glacial melting is mixing with the salt water currents and that is impacting the air currents and the weather.

There is also the increased evaporation in the polar regions which makes the air more humid and that humid air is picked up by the air currents.

Summers will get hotter. Winters will get colder. Storms will get more severe. Some species will become extinct because of the changes in mean temperature. We may see bacteria and viruses we've never seen before. Awakened in equatorial regions by the changes in mean temperature.

And according to some we may be hastening an Ice Age as a result of global warming. After everything has melted and caused complete havoc of course. And the closer to the equator you are, the hotter it will get. And the closer you are to the polar regions, the colder it will get.

But the Republicans don't understand anything except their light bill goes up now in both the summer and the winter.

It probably is too late to stop it. That is a reality no one talks about.

[dysfunctional press]

4. if it's not too late to stop it already, it soon will be.

long before society will ever be willing to do anything about it, that's for sure.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Gee, what was their first clue?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020319075014.htm

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/ice_shelf_020320.html

Why does it seem that scientists are always playing catch-up with reality? Because when something happens they take five years to study it, then issue a conclusion based on five year old data.

[xocet]

5. Lethal Ignorance or Sarcasm...at the reader's discretion.

Did you forget your sarcasm icon? I hope so.

If not, do you have any idea how large Antarctica is and what is done there to gather data? Do you have any appreciation for what a data set is and how hard they are to come by sometimes? Do you know anything about error propagation, etc.? Please take some time to learn something about science and how it has to try to back claims up with solid evidence - evidence whose analyzed results have an error measurement attached.

What is the error bar on an ice shelf's collapse? Please do tell!

Global Climate Change is a very serious issue and must be dealt with, so please either learn some science (abandon that 6000-year-old-earth theory to start) and get on board or remember that posted sarcasm is difficult to detect being that it is usually largely context-free.

Bonne Chance, mon ami!

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the climatologists have been WRONG

about every single prediction they've made. Events have overtaken their predictions in a fraction of the time they predict.

There are two reasons - as I stated above, they publish based on data that is outdated long before they publish; and they don't want to be accused of fear mongering so they use only the very most conservative data, which usually fails to include multiple feedback loops. They talk about open water absorbing heat instead of reflecting it, but don't factor in the release of undersea methane. They talk about sea level rising in centimeters by the end of the century when it has already risen half a meter in the past century.

We will see what they are predicting for the end of the century by 2050. The north pole will be summer-ice free by 2015. As ice shelves collapse, the release of pressure on the glaciers that feed them will speed those glaciers to the sea and we will see sea levels rise by 10 meters by 2050.

Do I have evidence for this? No. But it is easy to come to: take the worst case scenario published, and double it.

The world as we know it is going to be all but gone in 20 years. Me, I'll be retired to some nice beachfront property in Oklahoma.

[xocet]

7. Ok, maybe I have not noticed....

That scientists have actually indicated that there is a problem is well known; for example, the IPCC published its report,

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm.

When it is stated that "events have overtaken their predictions", one must ask what "overtaking a prediction" really means; for example, one could ask if what is seen in nature is within the error of the study.

When it is stated that "the climatologists have been WRONG....", one must ask what "WRONG" really means; for example, one could ask how what is seen in nature relates to a study's results and to the error estimates of said results.

How should one address the statement - "They talk about sea level rising in centimeters by the end of the century when it has already risen half a meter in the past century."?????

"Googling" with the search terms (sea level rise in the twentieth century) yielded the following result - second link from the top of the list:

"A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise

John A. Church
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Neil J. White
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Multi-century sea-level records and climate models indicate an acceleration of sea-level rise, but no 20th century acceleration has previously been detected. A reconstruction of global sea level using tide-gauge data from 1950 to 2000 indicates a larger rate of rise after 1993 and other periods of rapid sea-level rise but no significant acceleration over this period. Here, we extend the reconstruction of global mean sea level back to 1870 and find a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm yr−1 and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm yr−2. This acceleration is an important confirmation of climate change simulations which show an acceleration not previously observed. If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR."

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL024826.shtml

So, according to this study, the expected sea-level rise from 1990 to 2100 is between 280 mm to 340 mm which is 0.28 m to 0.34 m. To some extent, this addresses your point regarding a 10 m sea-level increase by 2050. But, maybe, they are wrong.... I wish that the world had access to the data sets and models to which you have access, or, failing that circumstance, I wish I had links to them.

The method of estimation/method of gathering evidence(?) that is suggested is hardly logically sound. Let's apply it to the "the worst case scenario published" which at the moment (as far as I know) is the claim that "we will see sea levels rise by 10 meters by 2050."

------------------------------------------------------
Twice 10 m by 2050 is 20 m by 2050.
Therefore, the sea level is going to rise 10 m by 2050.
------------------------------------------------------

The argument you present is approximately:
------------------------------------------------------
Premise I: Statement A (10 m by 2050)
Premise II: Arbitrary operation on Statement A (k times 10m by 2050)
-------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Statement A (10 m by 2050)
------------------------------------------------------

It is argument by tautology. Even if it were a valid way to argue, why is k = 2? Why not take 1000-fold the worst case scenario? That could be fun. The evidence you suggest would then be a 10,000 m sea-level increase by 2050. I definitely want to see that!

Moreover, what exactly is "outdated" data? One can argue that data were gathered with large systematic errors and is thus inaccurate. One can also argue that data were so imprecise as to mask any effect. In either case, one needs new data - hence a new experiment. What you likely mean to say by the statement "they publish based on data that is outdated long before they publish" is that the scientists are using models that are too simple to encompass known reality. So, as can be seen, it is not the data that is necessarily the problem, but the model.

Finally, please go out and learn some science and logic so that you can argue effectively against what you oppose - all persons' views are needed, but these views need to be rationally based on empirical results and logically argued. Otherwise, people who have taken the time to learn these subjects will discount your arguments as invalid almost immediately upon hearing them or reading them.

Seriously, though, the post to which I initially replied is akin to running in circles with one's hair on fire and shouting "Those damned tardy scientists!" repeatedly. Global Climate Change is too serious a problem for such behavior.

[Baby Snooks]

8. Subsidence, erosion, or sea level rise?

People who live along the Gulf of Mexico have been told it's erosion and subsidence. Who's to say it's not sea level rise? I have heard there are also similar "explanations" with regard to changes in coastline land on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts as well. Most usually the result of "erosion." Most people think suddenly the sea will just rise. It will be gradual. Minimal at first. Until there is no beach on the coastline. Which is happening in some places.

There are also geophysical factors involved. Such as when one oceanic fault slides under another. The earth is suddenly just a little smaller when it happens. The body of water isn't suddenly just a little smaller. The water for lack of a better word is displaced. As we saw in Indonesia in what was an enormous displacement. When it receded, it may not have been measurable as we think of things being measurable but the sea level had risen. Just a little. But risen just the same.

It's all fascinating. The natural processes of a living earth. But what we are seeing is not a natural process. And is worsening the natural processes.

[xocet]

9. Questions, questions....

It is good that you start with a question - "Subsidence, erosion, or sea level rise?" Is that a testable question? Can you think of a way to distinguish these things experimentally? If so, see if you can do the experiment. Maybe you have something to add here - you could attempt the science and find out.

------------------------------------------------------------

The next several parts of your statement are much weaker, unfortunately:

"I have heard" is the hallmark of anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence alone is not acceptable as a means of supporting a scientific theory.

Repetitive wording for effect has no value whatsoever - i.e., "It will be gradual. Minimal at first." This is great if you are writing a suspense novel.

"The earth is suddenly just a little smaller when it happens." Can you elaborate on this?

The next statement is absolutely priceless comedy: "When it receded, it may not have been measurable as we think of things being measurable but the sea level had risen." Why care about measurement anyway!

Yes, it is, indeed, all "fascinating", but this statement says nothing relevant to any argument.

What unnatural processes does the earth undergo? Do you mean supernatural? I hope not.

What exactly is a "living earth"? How do you define life for a geological entity?

------------------------------------------------------------

It is too bad that Global Climate Change is such a serious topic: at the rate this thread is going so far, humanity is likely doomed.