The biggest potential problem with global warming would come if large amounts of water bound up in ice in Greenland and Antarctica melted and raised the seas. A pair of satellites show that the total amount of water locked up in Antarctica is shrinking.
University of Colorado at Boulder researchers have used data from a pair of NASA satellites orbiting Earth in tandem to determine that the Antarctic ice sheet, which harbors 90 percent of Earth's ice, has lost significant mass in recent years.
The team used measurements taken with the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE, to conclude the Antarctic ice sheet is losing up to 36 cubic miles of ice, or 152 cubic kilometers, annually. By comparison, the city of Los Angeles uses about 1 cubic mile of fresh water annually.
"This is the first study to indicate the total mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet is in significant decline," said Isabella Velicogna of CU-Boulder's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, chief author of the new study that appears in the March 2 online issue of Science Express. The study was co-authored by CU-Boulder physics Professor John Wahr of CIRES, a joint campus institute of CU-Boulder and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
At the measured rate of melting it would take about 6 years for the oceans to rise an inch or 72 years to rise a foot.
The estimated ice mass in Antarctica is equivalent to 0.4 millimeters of global sea rise annually, with a margin of error of 0.2 millimeters, according to the study. There are about 25 millimeters in an inch.
The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment, completed in 2001, predicted the Antarctic ice sheet would gain mass in the 21st century due to increased precipitation in a warming climate. But the new study signals a reduction in the continent's total ice mass, with the bulk of loss occurring in the West Antarctic ice sheet, said Velicogna.
Researchers used GRACE data to calculate the total ice mass in Antarctica between April 2002 and August 2005 for the study, said Velicogna, who also is affiliated with the NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena.
"The overall balance of the Antarctic ice is dependent on regional changes in the interior and those in the coastal areas," said Velicogna. "The changes we are seeing are probably a good indicator of the changing climatic conditions there."
Launched in 2002 by NASA and Germany, the two GRACE satellites whip around Earth 16 times a day at an altitude of 310 miles, sensing subtle variations in Earth's mass and gravitational pull. Separated by 137 miles at all times, the satellites measure changes in Earth's gravity field caused by regional changes in the planet's mass, including such things as ice sheets, oceans and water stored in the soil and in underground aquifers.
A change in gravity due to a pass over a portion of the Antarctic ice sheet, for example, imperceptibly tugs the lead satellite away from the trailing satellite, said Velicogna. A sensitive ranging system allows researchers to measure the distance of the two satellites down to as small as 1 micron -- about 1/50 the width of a human hair -- and to then calculate the ice mass in particular regions of the continent.
The satellites enabled collection of data across the entire Antarctic.
"The strength of GRACE is that we were able to assess the entire Antarctic region in one fell swoop to determine whether it was gaining or losing mass," said Wahr. While the CU researchers were able to differentiate between the East Antarctic ice sheet and West Antarctic ice sheet with GRACE, smaller, subtler changes occurring in coastal areas and even on individual glaciers are better measured with instruments like radar and altimeters, he said.
A study spearheaded by CIRES researchers at CU-Boulder and published in September 2004 concluded that glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula - which juts north from the West Antarctic ice sheet toward South America -- sped up dramatically following the collapse of Larsen B ice shelf in 2002. Ice shelves on the peninsula -- which has warmed by an average of 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 60 years -- have decreased by more than 5,200 square miles in the past three decades.
The thickness of the Antarctic ice averages well over a mile for the entire Antarctic. That's massive.
As Earth's fifth largest continent, Antarctica is twice as large as Australia and contains 70 percent of Earth's fresh water resources. The ice sheet, which covers about 98 percent of the continent, has an average thickness of about 6,500 feet. Floating ice shelves constitute about 11 percent of the continent.
The melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet alone - which is about eight times smaller in volume than the East Antarctic ice sheet -- would raise global sea levels by more than 20 feet, according to researchers from the British Antarctic Survey.
You can look at pretty pictures on the web.
Animation of the GRACE mission is available on the Web at http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gallery/animations/. Images of Antarctic ice shelves are available from CU-Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center at: http://nsidc.org/data/iceshelves_images/.
What is most important about this study is that it used satellites to build a much more comprehensive picture of what is happening with the ice. The problem is that the satellites were launched only in 2002.
Richard Alley points out the biggest problem with this study: it covers only 3 years.
Richard Alley, a Pennsylvania State University glaciologist who has studied the Antarctic ice sheet but was not involved in the new research, said more research is needed to determine if the shrinkage is a long-term trend, because the new report is based on just three years of data. "One person's trend is another person's fluctuation," he said.
But Alley called the study significant and "a bit surprising" because a major international scientific panel predicted five years ago that the Antarctic ice sheet would gain mass this century as higher temperatures led to increased snowfall.
Scientists can't prove that human activities are causing global warming. However, humans are changing the atmosphere on a large enough scale that the possibility exists that we are changing the climate. In much of the world I do not see warming as a problem. In fact, for people living in such places as northern Russia, Finland, Alaska, Alberta, North Dakota, or Minnesota winter warming strikes me as pretty beneficial. But melting of the Antarctic ice would produce huge costs all over the world. Coastal lands are valuable. Large low lying areas would be lost. We'd simply have a lot less land and the fishies would have a lot more water to swim in if a substantial portion of Antarctica's ice melted.
The biggest problem we have with the climate debate is that the big mathematical models can't predict what'll really happen since the models contain simplifications that are probably wrong in important ways. We end up having to guess what will happen. Nature continually makes the climate change even without humans getting involved. So even once a change has happened it is still impossible to figure out how much of the change was caused by humans.
It seems to me we ought to approach this problem by first realizing we need greater capabilities. and that we need greater capabilities in several areas:
This study conflicts with a 2002 NASA study.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/042505C.html
"Furthermore, studies have been made investigating the overall status of sea ice around Antarctica. NASA announced the results of their study in 2002 with a press release headlined "Satellites Show Overall Increases in Antarctic Sea Ice Cover." While there are regional variations from this trend, including a decline in sea ice around the Antarctic Peninsula, the area of sea ice around much of the remainder of the continental margin has been increasing, at least over the past 25 years. Obviously, a story proclaiming "Antarctic Sea Ice Rapidly Diminishing" and focusing on the Peninsula region would paint an incomplete and unfair picture of the actual circumstances there".
bearings' post is pretty odd, no? Pointless, until you check out the linked website - a ball bearings manufacturer in China. So it's just someone looking for a very cheap, yet almost certainly worthless free ad. How many people who are looking for a ball bearings manufacturer would click bearings' name? Likely none. Presumably it's some bot that just spams blogs. Weird.
I'm reminded of comments -- regarding human decisionmaking -- by odograph to an earlier post.
It's been shown neurologically that humans start making decisions about risk very early on during card games, at a point when they've seen too few cards for a mathematical formula to establish risk magnitude. Obviously that can lead to humans jumping the gun, but it must mean that evolution has rewarded early decision making (in the form of hunches). Meaning that in balance, early risk mitigation has been a successful strategy for our ancestors.
So the upshot is that it's OK to be proactive now, to reduce a risk we're only starting to get indications of.
i think the melting of greenland ice is considerably more worrisome for its potential to disrupt global ocean currents by adding fresh water to the north atlantic, thereby short-circuiting the salinity driven currents.
maybe we need a plan like brewster's millions movie - his plan to push huge icebergs to equatorial countries to sell as drinking water, while preventing the melting in the north atlantic.
Jim: Nothing to worry about.
"In 2000, William Krabill estimated the contribution of Greenland to sea level rise of 0.13 mm per year, or a half an inch per century. That's not very much different than zero. Just last month, using satellite altimetry, O.M. Johannessen published a remarkable finding in Science that the trend in Greenland ice is a gain of 5.4 cm (two inches) per year.
Almost all of the gain in Greenland is for areas greater than 5000 feet in elevation (which is most of the place). Below that, there is glacial recession. It shouldn't be lost on anyone that because no one ventures into the hostile interior of Greenland, all we see are pictures of the receding glaciers near the coast!
The temperature situation in Greenland is more mixed than in Antarctica. Over the last 75 years, there's been cooling in the southern portion (where the recession is greatest) and some warming in the North".
Tom,
I delete dozens of spam posts every day (and deleted the one you refer to before seeing your message) and have thousands of filter patterns for preventing spam. Usually you can ignore them since I'll get to them. If one hangs around a couple of days let me know. Otherwise the chances are I'll see it and delete it.
Jim,
Carl Wunsch at MIT thinks the idea of Greenland stopping the Atlantic Conveyor is basically ridiculous. (sorry, no URL)
Carl Wunsch, Nature Vol. 428, No 6983, p. 601, April 8, 2004Wunsch, Carl, 2004. Gulf Stream safe if wind blows and Earth turns.
Correspondence in Nature Vol. 428, No 6983, p. 601, April 8, 2004RE: "Gulf Stream safe if wind blows and Earth turns
Sir - Your News story "Gulf Stream probed for early warnings of system failure" (Nature 427, 769 (2004)) discusses what the climate in the south of England would be like "without the Gulf Stream". Sadly, this phrase has been seen far too often, usually in newspapers concerned with the unlikely possibility of a new ice age in
Britain triggered by the loss of the Gulf Stream.European readers should be reassured that the Gulf Stream's existence is a consequence of the large-scale wind system over the North Atlantic Ocean, and of the nature of fluid motion on a rotating planet. The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop
the Earth's rotation, or both.Real questions exist about conceivable changes in the ocean circulation and its climate consequences. However, such discussions are not helped by hyperbole and alarmism. The occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream any time soon - within tens of millions of years - has a probability of little more than zero.
Carl Wunsch
Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
Momochan, I'm all in favor of early mitigation... Once we know what constitutes mitigation, and what would actually make things worse. I really hate being told I need to take a leap in the dark, before I know which way I should be leaping.
an interesting article here:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030306H
So far, the new generation of nuclear reactors that burn the long term waste, are not ready, and they won't be ready for another 2 decades. If all the nations start building hundreds or even thousands of light water or pebble bed reactors, the resulting wasted will NOT fit Yucca Mountain, and also there will be a shortage of uranium in the world, similar to the shortage of oil. In addition to the war for oil, there will also be figths for uranium...
Jake: "This study conflicts with a 2002 NASA study."
Technology marches on, Jake. Radar altimetry measures the altitude of the surface of the ice. If there has been a recent increase in the snowfall, Most of that additional elevation will be low density material because it has not been compressed by recrystalization, so that recent snow doesn't add as much mass as would otherwise be expected. Recent increases in snowfall would be expected in a warming environment. The very sensitive gravity measuring satellites see changes in total mass, so it is immune to these effects. These studies can be criticized because the satellites have only been in orbit for three years, but the results are still very definitive and will become more so.
Also, you should source original articles rather than ideologically driven propaganda sites like Tech Central Station, associated with the right-wing American Enterprise Institued, both heavily funded by Exxon - Mobil. You aren't likely to get a reasonable or honest understanding when the infomation is funded by companies with billions of dollars at risk in the GW debate.
Parker: “Carl Wunsch at MIT thinks the idea of Greenland stopping the Atlantic Conveyor is basically ridiculous.”
It is odd to see Wunsch arguing for the extreme stability of the Gulf Stream for “tens of millions of years”. Just a couple of years earlier he seemed to be saying the opposite:
“The distorted view of oceanic behavior based upon the various historical pictures (of ocean circulation) has led to some ultimately crippling misunderstandings about how the ocean operates. For example, it is still common to hear it said that oceanic timescales are so long that it cannot change for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. This statement is commonly coupled with the assertion that one can ignore the ocean abyss for understanding climate change in time periods shorter than hundreds to thousands of years. Yet the fallacy of this view has been in evidence for at least 25 years.”
(http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/rmsbookpaper.pdf)
So, which is it; stable oceanic currents for “tens of millions of years” or changeable “in time periods shorter than hundreds to thousands of years”? Maybe I missed something here, but the two positions seem contradictory.
This is just more fear mongering and bad science. Check out www.junkscience.com for the facts.
Pat: "Check out www.junkscience.com for the facts."
The all too tedious truth is that this is yet another right-wing propaganda outlet bought and paid for by - U guessed it - EXXON-MOBIL!!! What a shock. People who think that they can get the truth from Monster Global Corporations (or their idealogically driven lapdogs) with hundreds of billions at stake in the global warming debate are dupes.
STEVEN MILLOY: A columnist for FoxNews.com and publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. Milloy also runs the Advancement of Sound Science Center and the Free Enterprise Action Institute. Those two groups—apparently run out of Milloy’s home—received $90,000 from ExxonMobil. Key quote: The date of Kyoto’s implementation will “live in scientific and economic infamy.” Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least five. (http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html)
Jake (quoting information sourced from Exxon-Mobil financed techcentral.com): "The temperature situation in Greenland is more mixed than in Antarctica. Over the last 75 years, there's been cooling in the southern portion (where the recession is greatest) and some warming in the North."
See, this is exactly what happens when you let Exxon-Mobil fill you in on the "truth" about global warming.
Here is a source about Greenland's temperature record from original research:
Coastal station temperature records around Greenland indicate warming trends
since the early 1980s that are large in context of longer term records (1873-2004) (Figure
1). This recent warming has brought once anomalously cold Greenland regional
temperatures into sync with the global warming pattern. Considering the last 55-year
period (1950-2004) when data are available from a collection of stations around the
circumference of the ice sheet, the years 2004 and 2003 were among if not the warmest
on record (Table 1). The 1930s and 1940s also represent a warm period. At Tasiilaq since
1895, however, 2003 ranks 1st and 2004 ranks 9th warmest on this 110-year record. For
the same 110-year period at Nuuk, 2003 ranks 14th and 2004 ranks 20th. Therefore,
regional variability in warming is apparently high. Nonetheless, these recent increases in
temperature are coherent among the whole 15+ collection of Greenland stations. Thus,
warming has certainly contributed to increased rates of melting and framed the Greenland
ice sheet as a significant contributor to global sea level rise (Box et al. 2004).
(http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/jbox/pubs/Box_2005_Greenland_in_State_of_the_climate_2004_BAMS.pdf)
What the sparse data from Greenland shows is cooling between about 1940 to about 1980, widely believed to be the effect of anthropogenic aerosols from unrestricted pollution during massive industrial growth, and warming after 1980 when cleanup of sulfate aerosols was enforced and the overlaying trend of GHG forcing overtook the cooling forces. The cooling impact of the two major volcanic eruptions, El Chichon and Pinatubo are clearly seen but the warming trend since 1980 is overwhelming and obvious. More recent warming and rapidly accelerating ice flow at the low altitude edges of the Greenland ice sheet is causing many scientists to question predictions of Greenland's contribution to sea level rise based on linear melting and ice flow models that do not adequately include warming of the internal parts of the ice sheet due to penetration of summer melt waters and regenerative feedback due to viscous heating. As the edges of the ice sheet accelerate into the sea, the slope of the edge increases which in turn increases the rate of flow, which increases viscous heating which increases internal melting, which increases flow... The situation is primed for a runaway feedback situation that has the potential to eliminate the Greenland ice sheet entirely orders of magnitude faster than recent estimates. What is the likelihood that this will happen? We'll know a lot better when more sophisticated ice sheet modeling is done, but if the current rates of increase continue, it will be pretty obvious in five years or so.
And I suppose the people predicting all these horrible calamities are completely free of any bias? Thirty years ago they were predicting a disastrous cooling. Five years from now, when they're current set of dire predictions fail, they will make up a new crisis to exploit. Yes, there's nothing more Exxon Mobil would like than to see the earth destroyed. I'm not buying it.
Now that you've got your character assasination off your chest, tdean, can we hear your logical and fact based comments on the intrigueing science in Professor Patrick Michaels commentary in the URL that was posted by Ivan Kirgin March 3 7:42 pm?
I just couldn't help but to pass this on to the folks here about the money and radical ideology driven Steven Milloy, publisher of junkscience.com:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy&curid=3000diff=0oldid=0&printable=yes
This guy is a former lobbyist for Phillip-Morris (What cancer?) and has been attack dog questioning science for a raft of polluters and poisoners, as long as they were big corporations and coughed up enough money. An eco-prostitute if there ever was one. Get your heads out of your butts, people. KNOW YOUR SOURCES!
Pat: "Yes, there's nothing more Exxon Mobil would like than to see the earth destroyed. I'm not buying it."
Of course Exxon-Mobil doesn't want the earth destroyed. That would cut into their profits. They just want to increase their profits now and convince people to worry about climate change later. It's exactly what one would expect a corporation to do. Climate scientists may have their biases, but since they publish in peer reviewed journals, if those biases get into their research, it will be effectively revealed. Climate scientists will get paid, GW or no GW. In fact, the more controversy the better. They aren't paid to hold to their bias like the corporate propaganda outlets that the GW ostriches have cited in this thread.
D
Sure, but what URL? Do you need help in copy and paste? But I reserve my right to decide not to waste my time for an Exxon-Mobil funded idealogue (and scientist) who is funded by the big corporations since he is one of very few real climate scientists who question global warming. Exactly what I mean by being paid for your biases. Does anybody see a pattern here?
PATRICK MICHAELS: University of Virginia climatologist and Cato Institute fellow. One of the most widely cited skeptics, Michaels has received substantial funding from energy companies. Author of The Satanic Gases and Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least seven. (http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html)
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030306H
I didn't need help with my cutting and pasting but it seems you need help finding evidence. BTW are you going to reject any scaremongering from all organisations that raise public money by promoting scares, or does your rejection of evidence restrict itself only to evidence that contradicts your existing premises?
D asks: “Now that you've got your character assasination off your chest, tdean, can we hear your logical and fact based comments on the intrigueing science in Professor Patrick Michaels commentary in the URL that was posted by Ivan Kirgin March 3 7:42 pm?
This is a very good example of a scientist with clear ideological biases, which he is rewarded for maintaining by generous funding from Exxon-Mobil and other big companies. Be warned that the following is a bit tedious, but understanding these issues is just that way and doesn’t make headlines.
Michaels glosses over huge caveats contained in the supposedly conflicting study by Davis, published in Science:
“The coarse spatial coverage of satellite radar altimetry compromises its utility as a tool to map elevation changes in steeply sloped coastal regions, so these results only address the average elevation change of the Antarctic ice-sheet interior within the ROC (region of coverage).”
“Moreover, these results have only sparse coverage of the coastal areas where recent dynamic changes may be occurring. Thus, the overall contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet to global sea-level change will depend on the balance between mass changes on the interior and those in coastal areas.” Abstract at: (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5730/1898)
Thus, as I had pointed out earlier, the radar altimetry measurements don’t deal effectively with the loss contributions of the low elevation coastal areas where it is known from direct measurements that ice flow is generally accelerating. So by concentrating on the interior areas, where almost everyone agrees that global warming will increase precipitation, the study is, as the authors admit, biased in the direction of mass increase. Additionally, I didn’t see any evidence in the paper that corrections were made for the fact that recent elevation changes were due to increases in precipitation which means that contribution was low density firn and not compact ice, which is what the glacial ice being lost on the margins of the ice sheet are.
To be fair, Michaels mentions, vaguely, these problems in his “analysis”: “The differences between these two results likely lie somewhere in the collection of factors that include different time periods, different spatial coverages, and in analysis uncertainties.” But his bias is clear when you consider how he rather tediously and questionably details the factors affecting the gravity data: “But, their analysis is complicated because variations in gravity can be caused by many things. These include variations in atmospheric pressure (the atmosphere has a certain mass); gravity signals arising from outside of Antarctica; and mass changes from a process known as post-glacial rebound -- slow, ongoing changes to the earth's crust as it adjusts to the removal of its huge ice load from the last ice age.” But all of these factors are either insignificant of fully compensated for in the gravity paper, which is clearly not the case in the earlier paper based on radar measurements.
A bright scientist with a strong bias, discussing recent research can slant his coverage in ways like this to exaggerate the uncertainty of information he wants to minimize and minimize the uncertainty of the information he likes. This is exactly the propaganda trick this Exxon-Mobil purchased scientist is pulling on the public. This guy deserves to be and has been ostracized by his peers for this unprofessional behavior.
A link supporting my contention about Patrick Michaels' peers attitude about him as a scientist:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels
One general warning for those depending on the astroturf sites: these are what are known as 'secondary sources'. That is, sources that report what other people said, not sources that report their own results.
In science, you really want to go back to primary sources. This means pulling out the journals and reading the articles. To save time, you can read review articles, but you really should also read the papers referenced by the review articles.
A secondary source that also has clear ideological biases requires extreme caution. Do not depend on it.
Thanks tdean for your "analysis". I'm not sure that I see evidence that he has "slanted" his coverage, and I hope that "secondary source" sourcewatch isn't ideologically biased too.
Paul: “A secondary source that also has clear ideological biases requires extreme caution. Do not depend on it.”
Oh, you can depend on it being incredibly misleading.
But we need to understand why the global warming debate is so ideologically driven. I think it has everything to do with the basic difference between the liberal and conservative mindsets and values. Conservatives value individualism; individual responsibility and freedom and view government restriction or interference of any kind as a terrible intrusion. The smaller government and the less government the better. Liberals view society more as a family, where individuals have to sacrifice sometimes for the general welfare, but view participation in society as a privilege. You can simplify the endpoints of the differences between conservative and liberal even further by characterizing the differences as individualism versus communalism (not communism). In the context of American history, you can easily see that “rugged individualism” was a very key value in the conquering of the American West and those values are maintained, or conserved, in our modern society. But as modern society creates more and more powerful connections between individuals, the values of the frontier become less appropriate. Global warming pushes these value systems to their extremes by its global nature. Nothing is more frightening and abhorrent to conservatives than the concept of a global government. Conservatives’ general disgust with the UN is an obvious example. A global agreement to limit pollution that is actually enforceable like Kyoto is viewed by conservatives as the first step to global government. And the easiest way to avoid that confrontation is to simply deny the problem exists. That is why GW skeptics are almost without exception conservatives. But, practically speaking, if it is necessary to limit greenhouse gas emissions to prevent climate chaos, a global agreement will be necessary, so long as it is less expensive to burn fossil fuels without sequestration to produce power – and that will be true for the foreseeable future. Any country not abiding by the agreement gets a massive economic advantage over those incurring the costs of cutting emissions. And, of course, that is one strong and valid criticism of the Kyoto agreement, since it doesn’t require emissions controls for “developing” countries. Without a doubt, Kyoto needs to be replaced, since rapidly developing countries like India and China are recognizing the need to reduce emissions on their own. But practically speaking, if global climate change is really a global problem, it requires a global solution. Just as Ronald Reagan pointed out that it might take an alien invasion to bring the world together, global climate change is just such a global threat. The question is, how do we fairly distribute the pain and cost in dealing with it?
D, my pleasure. Certainly the Sourcewatch site can be identified as a liberal leaning site and I wouldn't refer to it for information about global warming. My reference was about opinions and bias, not science.
I want continuous improvement towards zero emissions in all industrial and commercial production in the same way that W. Edwards Deming advised zero defect as the goal for statistical quality control. That's what I'd call mitigation and a sound business strategy whether Antarctic ice is building up and breaking down.
Admin Note: A heavy spam attack somehow wiped out today's comment postings. I can forward some of them (not sure if I have them all) to the posters if you contact me in private email at future pundit at sign future pundit dotcom. I suspect my hosting service wiped out the postings for a time range today in order to get rid of over a thousand spams. Sorry about that.
Admin Note: A heavy spam attack somehow wiped out today's comment postings. I can forward some of them (not sure if I have them all) to the posters if you contact me in private email at future pundit at sign future pundit dotcom. I suspect my hosting service wiped out the postings for a time range today in order to get rid of over a thousand spams. Sorry about that.
gmoke,
But why? That sounds more like a personal social goal than anything related to climate change, anthropogenic or not. Someone recently asked why "right wingers" simply refuse to get the "climate change problem". Here's a good example of why:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4762720.stm
With a very very few exceptions, anytime any scientist discusses climate change it is presented in such a way that the only solution is a left leaning program of social engineering. The term "watermelon" applies more often than not. If you want those of us who are not convinced of this global warming stuff to take your claims seriously then you should come at it from the point of view of a problem to solve, not a cover for the left to install its favorite anti-capitalist, tax everyone to death, lets-all-dance-in-fields-with-flowers-in-our-hair pastoral hippy utopia.
Or, I could also put it another way but William Gillis said it better:
http://williamgillis.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_williamgillis_archive.html#114132462123046110
Michael, for all their anti-government rhetoric, those on the right often seem to be just fine with overbearing government when it comes to public safety and/or military situations. If we should crack down hard on street crime, then why not crack down to prevent infrastructure damage brought on by climate change? If we should crack down on terrorists, then why not crack down to prevent our petrodollars from funding despotic regimes in unstable places?
This is a test after a severe spam attack and database repair.
Randall,
Some years back I did a little search on the Gulf Stream
and came up with an essay by a norwegian scientist. I can't
find it today and wish I'd simply made a copy of it. But here's
what I have left of it.
I did a google search on "Younger Dryas Gulf Stream."
The first item up, it's a little complicated to get
to this, but go to
www.destinasjontromso.no/eng_default.htm
then go to "Gulf Stream"
then go to the fourth page
Where a diagram is to be found covering the last 130,000 years.
(All the data is from proxies.) Notice there are thirteen spans
where the Gulf Stream has been active and likewise thirteen time
periods where it hasn't. Notice that crudely it looks like half
the time the Gulf Stream has been on and half the time not. Notice
that the current period of active Gulf Stream is, by a good
margin, the longest such in that record.
Beside it is shown a proxy record of ice cap formations (five
episodes) in Scandinavia, but the first thing that stands out
is that two don't clearly correspond. On the other hand, it does
seriously look like periods of extreme icemelt do approximately match
up with times when the Gulf Stream shuts off (and then stays off
for much longer than the icemelt).
Except, how extreme is extreme? Does our current meltwater
really compare to an ice age melt?
(Also on the first page of the gulf stream paper above there's a pair
of photographs demonstrating what the presence and absence of the Gulf
Stream might mean at 70 degree N latitude.)
None of this detracts from what William Calvin is saying -- far from
it -- but I think it does make the point that regardless of whether
or not increasing carbon dioxide levels might shut off the Gulf Stream,
this is something we are going to have to deal with sooner or later.
People are thinking that if we stop emissions of carbon dioxide
we can keep things they way they are now. Nothing could be further
from the truth.
A detailed account of what is known about the transition
from the Allerød to the Younger Dryas.
See http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/teac...Broecker99.html
The Allerod was a relatively brief warm period coming
after the most recent ice age and just before the Younger
Dryas. Since it was almost as warm as today it may have
something to say about how the Gulf Stream would shut
down.
Note that there is a good bit of evidence that the
Younger Dryas was a global worldwide cooling, not just
limited to europe. [With the exception of Antartica:
Antartica cooled down during the Allerod and warmed up
during the Younger Dryas, in other words the opposite
of what the rest of the world did.]
QUOTE
One interpretation for this seeming dichotomy is that
while its impacts were global, the Younger Dryas was
not simply a return to glacial state. Rather, it lacks
an analog and represents yet another mode of operation
of the Earth system.
QUOTE
Electrical conductivity measurements on the GISP2 ice
core (Taylor et al., 1993a, 1993b) show that the onset
of the Younger Dryas was marked by a period of increased
dust fall onto the Greenland ice cap which lasted for
about 5 years. This brief dust episode was followed by
a several-year-long respite. Then came a second and a
third episode each followed by respites. Finally, about
45 years after the onset of the first dust episode,
Younger Dryas conditions locked in.
QUOTE
The trigger for the precipitous Younger Dryas cooling
as first proposed by Rooth (1982) was likely the large
pulse of fresh water released into the northern Atlantic
as a result of the sudden switch in the outlet of
proglacial Lake Agassiz from the Mississippi to the
St. Lawrence drainage. This switch was triggered by
the retreat of the Laurentian ice cap, which formed
the northern shoreline of the lake.
QUOTE
During the course of the 50,000-yr-duration glacial
period, 20 climate shifts similar to that marking the
beginning of the Younger Dryas occurred. It is highly
unlikely that each was driven by a sudden influx of
ponded meltwater. Rather, there must have been another
cause. One possibility is that these shifts were driven
by a salt oscillator (Broecker et al., 1990). During
times when the conveyor was off, the northern Atlantic
region was extremely cold, and fresh water accumulated
in the ice caps of Canada and Scandinavia rather than
running off to the sea. This allowed the salinity of
surface waters in the Atlantic Ocean to rise. When
the density of waters in the northern Atlantic became
large enough, conveyor circulation was reinitiated.
Once in action, the heat released from the conveyor's
upper limb caused the ice caps to recede, releasing
fresh water to the Atlantic. Surface water salinities
were then driven back down to that level where deep
water could no longer form, causing the conveyor to
shut down.
QUOTE
What the paleoclimatic record tells us is that Earth's
climate system is capable of jumping from one mode
of operation to another. These modes are self-sustaining
and involve major differences in mean global temperature,
in rainfall pattern, and in atmospheric dustiness. In
my estimation, we lack even a first-order explanation
as to how the various elements of the Earth system
interact to generate these alternate modes. One
intriguing proposal implies that excess atmospheric
dust lowers the mean residence time of water molecules
in the atmosphere (Yung et al., 1996). As water vapor is
the most important greenhouse gas, the resulting reduction
in its inventory cools the planet.
M. Mealling: “With a very very few exceptions, anytime any scientist discusses climate change it is presented in such a way that the only solution is a left leaning program of social engineering.”
How absurd. Given that it is human behavior that put us in the position of massive increases of GHGs, why isn’t the most logical and direct approach to control that behavior? Since we were cavemen, societies have been encouraging behavior perceived of as being beneficial to society and discouraging behavior considered detrimental. My favorite analogy: bank robbery. Sure there are some engineering approaches like beefy vaults and security cameras, but for the most part we use heavy handed social engineering; cops and prisons. From an ethical or any other perspective, why is GW any different? If society as a whole decides that GW is too great a risk, why wouldn’t we encourage behavior that reduces the risk? Sorry, but the age of rootin’ tootin’ cowboys gunning down injuns and every critter that moves is over. So is the “right” of Americans to use ten times the fossil fuels as the rest of the world.
And, by the way, you could stand to be more clear. What is it about the BBC article that sticks in the craw of right-wingers? Is it that they suggest that fixing the climate might be a bit more difficult than working on your pickup? If you have a point to make, you should make it. And beyond the bad language, the point of Gillis’ ranting is what? We are all minor gods? Fill us in. URLs are no substitute for doing your own thinking.
How absurd. Given that it is advanced technology that put us in the position of massive increases of GHGs, why isn't the most logical and direct approach to apply advanced technology? Since we were cavemen, societies have been advancing to the point where we protect individual rights from the violent and oppressive demands of various collectives. My favourite analogy: robbery. Sure a caveman would bash in the brains of someone who stole from him or from a close friend, but we now have new technologies, ie. laws and institutions, making primitive head bashing unecessary. e.g. judges and prisons. From an ethical or any other perspective, why is GW any different? If society as a whole decides that GW is too great a risk, why wouldn’t we invent new technologies to reduce the risk? Sorry, but the age of rootin’ tootin’ cowboys gunning down injuns and every critter that pollutes is over. So is the “right” of Americans to prevent the rest of the world from using increasing amounts of fossil fuels.
And, by the way, you could stand to be more clear. What is it about presenting facts and valid logical arguments that sticks in the craw of GW crusaders? Is it that they suggest that fixing the climate might be a bit more difficult than working on your pickup? If you have a point to make, you should make it. And beyond the a priori reasoning, the point of tdean's ranting is what? We are all minor demons? Fill us in. Unsupported rants are no substitute for finding actual facts and doing your own thinking.
This got wiped out during the spam attack:
Actually it is remarkable that so few scientists take a contrarian
stance on global warming, in light of the apparent fact that a check
from Exxon-Mobil could be expected to just show up in the mail
following an anti-GW denouncement. Contrarian think tankers who make
6 figures or more accuse university scientists who make 5 figures of
hyping GW for the money?
What with the current administration assigning college dropouts to
monitor the statements of climatologists, and perhaps even
underfunding agencies that don't toe the line, one would think the
scientists would be unwilling to talk up GW. The fact that
scientists are in fact sounding the call is an indication that they
are taking a principled stand.
momochan,
Do you have a reference or any evidence to support your assertions?
OK, here's a post by someone who works with James Hansen:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=243
His babysitter was named George C. Deutsch, which you can just google for more information.
Recent article on funding cutbacks for satellites:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/06/AR2006030600917.html
Thank you for providing links to Hansen's accusations and to Deutsch. Do you have a reference for the automatic checks from Exxon for anti-GW denouncements?
Regarding the funding cutbacks, are you sure that's not a fine piece of politicking by a civil servant?
If I wanted to pressure the administration on funding, I would allocate assets away from things people will immediately miss like the Weather Channel's long term forecasts while preserving stuff nobody cares about like a mars mission.
B Badour: "Unsupported rants are no substitute for finding actual facts and doing your own thinking."
Yes, Bob is a clever boy. Accusing others of his crimes. Have a look and see if you can find a single reference or fact posted by him in this thread. Then look at my posts. Who's ranting. Who's an ideologically driven pinhead.
Well, I think it is legitimate to ask for evidence and support. That's what separates science from religion, where you just have to believe Moses when he comes down from a solitary stay on the mountain with what he says is God's own word under his arm.
And most of the climate scientists who are warning about GW are indeed publishing their work. Maybe they could do better educating the layman, granted.
The evidence presented indicates that a significantly higher percentage of contrarian climate scientists are on the payrolls of ExxonMobil and its various thinktanks than climate scientists who are worried about GW.
And, although the fact that the contrarians like Patrick Michaels and TechCentralStation are funded by petrodollars has been mentioned on several different forums that I have visited over time, I have never -- not once -- seen anyone present evidence and support that such funding is nonexistent or that it would have no impact. I'd be quite interested to see any.
Momochan: “And most of the climate scientists who are warning about GW are indeed publishing their work. Maybe they could do better educating the layman, granted.
I have on several occasions challenged this hotbed of GW skeptics to show me a single competent, active climate scientist not supported by Exxon-Mobil or other large energy company, who denies that human GHGs are the primary cause of global warming. They can’t do it. When a company with $300 billion in revenues decides to start a high profile public relations campaign they can be everywhere and easily pay every fringe, mad scientist on the planet. It is no surprise that they have a higher profile than the actual scientists doing the real work, especially when the Bush administration, wholly owned by Exxon-Mobil, pays full-time shadows to interfere with the few effective spokesman/scientists like James Hansen. The sad thing is that the media has been completely sucked in, giving these Big Energy lapdogs greater than equal time with real scientists.
tdean: "Unsupported rants are no substitute for doing your own thinking."
Yes, tdean is a clever boy. Accusing others of his crimes. Have a look and see if you can find a thoughtful contribution of his that tries to account for all the facts. Then look at all the other posts. Who's ranting. Who's an ideologically driven pinhead.
The evidence presented indicates that a significantly higher percentage of contrarian climate scientists are on the payrolls of ExxonMobil and its various thinktanks than climate scientists who are worried about GW.
Somehow I missed the alleged evidence you allude to. I checked out the pieces you linked to, and I failed to find any such evidence. Could you clarify that particular point?
Momochan: “And most of the climate scientists who are warning about GW are indeed publishing their work. Maybe they could do better educating the layman, granted.
The regulars here in Randall's blog's comments have on several occasions challenged this hothead of GW mysticism, tdean, to show them a single reasoned and logical argument supported by actual facts. He can’t do it. When a scientific fraudster does some very bad science that produces a pretty picture that appears to support an ideological position, regardless whether it has any validity, the ideologues will gladly propel the fraudster into a position where he can silence any effective criticism of his fraud. It is no surprise that the fraudster has a higher profile than the actual scientists doing the real work, especially when the fraud strikes a chord with other destructive ideologies popular among non-scientists and particularly the mainstream media. The sad thing is that the media has been completely sucked in, giving this chicken little lapdog greater than equal time with real scientists doing good science.
B Badour: "The regulars here in Randall's blog's comments have on several occasions challenged this hothead of GW mysticism, tdean, to show them a single reasoned and logical argument supported by actual facts. He can’t do it."
How pathetic. Without a real argument, Bob sinks to the level of irrational parrot. As one of the very few people on this blog who knows how to cite original source science and make a logical argument, I needn't respond to the desperate blatherings of an ideologue hitting the wall as study after study make the accelerating effects of climate change clear to all. Actually, I just wanted the last word...
tdean: "As one of the very few people on this blog who knows how to cite original source science and make a logical argument."
How pathetic. Without a real argument, tdean sinks to the level of a gesticulating monkey. As one of the very few people on this blog who knows how to cite original source science and make a logical argument, I needn't respond to the desperate blatherings of an ideologue hitting the wall as study after study make the accelerating effects of climate change questionable at best. Actually, I just wanted the last word...
Bob,
Your cleverness never ceases to underwhelm me. Tag. Your turn.
That one isn't even worth mocking.
Finally.