The reason human caused global warming isn't occuring.

[Ishmael]

You guessed it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Humans

That's right folks, the reason human activity isn't causing global warming is because of human activity.

So what's the plan now sports fans? Force the developing world to clean up their act so the rest of us can get on with repressive economic and individual freedom laws?

I am tempted one day to write out a Monty Python type black comedy script based on these clowns that manage to find an excuse to support any view they hold. In the end I'd have them marched into an Auschwitz type shower room and when one of these plunderers of freedom finally snaps to what is going on and yells, "This is MURDER!" A big booming voice would come over a PA system and say, "Just think of it as assisted suicide."

Ishmael

 

[koalabear]

More coal burners for the USA, problem solved.

 

[cebalrai]

You guessed it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Humans

That's right folks, the reason human activity isn't causing global warming is because of human activity.

So what's the plan now sports fans? Force the developing world to clean up their act so the rest of us can get on with repressive economic and individual freedom laws?

I am tempted one day to write out a Monty Python type black comedy script based on these clowns that manage to find an excuse to support any view they hold. In the end I'd have them marched into an Auschwitz type shower room and when one of these plunderers of freedom finally snaps to what is going on and yells, "This is MURDER!" A big booming voice would come over a PA system and say, "Just think of it as assisted suicide."

Ishmael

That's one paper. Please review the consensus of scientific research and get back to us on their conclusion.

By the way, you realize that your source here says that global warming is man-made, right? Just that it's being masked by something else at the moment...

 

[mercury14]

That's right folks, the reason human activity isn't causing global warming is because of human activity.

That's not what it says at all. Just that increasing coal consumption belched out enough sulphur to reflect enough sunlight to cancel out global warming. At least in the past few years.

 

[Ishmael]

That's one paper. Please review the consensus of scientific research and get back to us on their conclusion.

By the way, you realize that your source here says that global warming is man-made, right? Just that it's being masked by something else at the moment...

There is NO consensus. Repeating that there is doesn't change the fact that there isn't.

The models have fallen apart, the data behind the models has fallen apart, the statistics used to massage the data to produce the models has fallen apart. The only thing left is for the true disciples to keep yelling, "Consensus, consensus." in an effort to drown out those that have picked the whole hypothesis apart data point by data point.

It's long past the time that you, and others that believe as you do, start looking at the issue with a high degree of skepticism. Not so much with regard to the scientists that support the AGW view, they are entitled to pursue any theory they want. But why are the politicians jumping all over this? That's where the danger lies. If you don't see how all of this plays into the hands of the political class then you're blind.

Let the scientists fight it out.

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]

 

[Peregrinator]

Subsequent years have still included nine of the top 10 hottest years on record, while the U.N. World Meteorological Organization said 2010 was tied for the record.

Other climate scientists broadly supported Monday's study, stressing that over longer time periods rising greenhouse gas emissions would over-ride cooling factors.

"Long term warming will continue unless emissions are reduced," said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at Britain's Met Office.

*yawn*


Think all that sulfur in the air is going to help with ocean acidification, too?

 

[Peregrinator]

There is NO consensus. Repeating that there is doesn't change the fact that there isn't.

The models have fallen apart, the data behind the models has fallen apart, the statistics used to massage the data to produce the models has fallen apart. The only thing left is for the true disciples to keep yelling, "Consensus, consensus." in an effort to drown out those that have picked the whole hypothesis apart data point by data point.

It's long past the time that you, and others that believe as you do, start looking at the issue with a high degree of skepticism. Not so much with regard to the scientists that support the AGW view, they are entitled to pursue any theory they want. But why are the politicians jumping all over this? That's where the danger lies. If you don't see how all of this plays into the hands of the political class then you're blind.

Let the scientists fight it out.

Ishmael

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?


The skeptic argument...

There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". (Petition Project)


What the science says...

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/poll_scientists.gif
Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Consensus_publications.gif
Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

 

[miles]

These boys are a bit slow, they remind me of those who continue to insist that Big Foot exists even after it's original creator confessed the fraud on his deathbed. They called him a liar.

They're just like religious zealots...so brainwashed and emotionally invested in their own beliefs that NOTHING will ever make them question what they think.

Very progressive.

 

[mercury14]

There is NO consensus. Repeating that there is doesn't change the fact that there isn't.

The models have fallen apart, the data behind the models has fallen apart, the statistics used to massage the data to produce the models has fallen apart. The only thing left is for the true disciples to keep yelling, "Consensus, consensus." in an effort to drown out those that have picked the whole hypothesis apart data point by data point.

It's long past the time that you, and others that believe as you do, start looking at the issue with a high degree of skepticism. Not so much with regard to the scientists that support the AGW view, they are entitled to pursue any theory they want. But why are the politicians jumping all over this? That's where the danger lies. If you don't see how all of this plays into the hands of the political class then you're blind.

Let the scientists fight it out.

Ishmael

Two things.

One, you have never known me to be a global warming fanatic. So stop lumping me in as one.

Secondly, your link in the OP says that man-made global warming is being canceled out by man-made particulates and chemicals in the atmosphere that reflect the sun and cancel it out. Nowhere does it suggest that global warming isn't man-made.

Thirdly, looking at the consensus issue, what major scientific bodies are currently holding the position that global warming isn't related to man's actions? Because I can come up with a list of dozens that support the theory if you wish.

 

[Peregrinator]

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?


The skeptic argument...

There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". (Petition Project)


What the science says...

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/poll_scientists.gif
Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Consensus_publications.gif
Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

They're just like religious zealots...so brainwashed and emotionally invested in their own beliefs that NOTHING will ever make them question what they think.

Very progressive.

Ahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

More coal burners for the USA, problem solved.

Odd you mentioned that. In r/l 2 of my crew are restoring 2 duelsided coal fireplaces in an old house. But of course, those coal burning fireplaces will work better when that dumbass roof someone else put up 30 yrs ago is replaced with one that makes sense!

 

[RobDownSouth]

We're just like religious zealots...so brainwashed and emotionally invested in our own beliefs that NOTHING will ever make us question what we think.

Very conservative.

FIFY.

 

[Ishmael]

Subsequent years have still included nine of the top 10 hottest years on record, while the U.N. World Meteorological Organization said 2010 was tied for the record.


Other climate scientists broadly supported Monday's study, stressing that over longer time periods rising greenhouse gas emissions would over-ride cooling factors.

"Long term warming will continue unless emissions are reduced," said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at Britain's Met Office.


*yawn*


Think all that sulfur in the air is going to help with ocean acidification, too?

Which flies in the face of recorded data. At least unadulterated recorded data.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/Detroit_lakes_GISSplot.jpg

One hell of an unconnected jump in the temps there Perg. As recent as 2007 that particular graph didn't exist. I think it's time to start looking at the data, and statistics, that produced that profound jump in temperatures, don't you?

Glad you brought up the sulfur there Perg. It begs the question, "Did the Industrial age forestall natural global warming until we cleaned up our act, or did it actually cause the Little Ice Age?" As that is all historical data one would think that that particular question could be answered to every ones satisfaction. And the answer to that would have some weight as to what is happening now.

I realize that that question, and others like it that I've posited, will make no difference to the true believer because the true believer, like any follower of doctrinal religion, take the findings as a matter of faith. Nor will it make any difference to the politicians who see this as an opportunity to further control the population and plunder their wallets for 'the common good.' And least of all to the UN, a body that has been searching for decades to find a means to impose a world tax and see this as a golden opportunity. The UN knows that they are essentially a toothless entity and they hate it, having access to the worlds wallet goes a long way to relieve their angst.

Ishmael

 

[Peregrinator]

That particular graph is one data point of millions, Ish. Are you going to ask questions about all of them?

 

[koalabear]

That's not what it says at all. Just that increasing coal consumption belched out enough sulphur to reflect enough sunlight to cancel out global warming. At least in the past few years.

Who burnt the coal? Insects? Moron.

 

[mercury14]

Which flies in the face of recorded data. At least unadulterated recorded data.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/Detroit_lakes_GISSplot.jpg

One hell of an unconnected jump in the temps there Perg. As recent as 2007 that particular graph didn't exist. I think it's time to start looking at the data, and statistics, that produced that profound jump in temperatures, don't you?

Glad you brought up the sulfur there Perg. It begs the question, "Did the Industrial age forestall natural global warming until we cleaned up our act, or did it actually cause the Little Ice Age?" As that is all historical data one would think that that particular question could be answered to every ones satisfaction. And the answer to that would have some weight as to what is happening now.

I realize that that question, and others like it that I've posited, will make no difference to the true believer because the true believer, like any follower of doctrinal religion, take the findings as a matter of faith. Nor will it make any difference to the politicians who see this as an opportunity to further control the population and plunder their wallets for 'the common good.' And least of all to the UN, a body that has been searching for decades to find a means to impose a world tax and see this as a golden opportunity. The UN knows that they are essentially a toothless entity and they hate it, having access to the worlds wallet goes a long way to relieve their angst.

Ishmael

I don't understand. You're claiming other people are the "religious" non-thinkers... But they're referring to an overwhelming body of scientific evidence and you're standing here pointing to blog site run by some guy named Anthony Watts (http://wattsupwiththat.com/). He has nothing at all to do with science.

Therefore please explain how your approach of dismissing science in favor of blogs is more reasonable than just using science itself.

 

[Ishmael]

That particular graph is one data point of millions, Ish. Are you going to ask questions about all of them?

Perg, there are no "millions" of data points. As a matter of fact there are significantly fewer data points today than there were 20 years ago. For example, Russia shut down most of their Siberian data stations back in the 90's. There seems to be a collective assumption that the inclusion of those stations would make no difference.

Ice growing in Antarctica.

How could that be possible if the temperatures jumped so dramatically?

The Arctic ice is thickening. Glaciers are growing in mass from Mt. Shasta, to India, to Italy to New Zealand. Antarctica had the highest snowfall on record last year. South America is 'enjoying' the longest cold streak in 17 years. (South America I particularly love the comment) All recent news and all quite contrarily to the assertion of "highest temperatures on record." All the more suspicious given the apparent leap in baseline as demonstrated in the graph I posted.

All in all we are faced with a situation where observed phenomena and actual measurements are in conflict with a graph contrived by means that are so obscure that they might as well be magical to us skeptics. Which of the two do you put most faith in Perg?

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

I don't understand. You're claiming other people are the "religious" non-thinkers... But they're referring to an overwhelming body of scientific evidence and you're standing here pointing to blog site run by some guy named Anthony Watts (http://wattsupwiththat.com/). He has nothing at all to do with science.

Therefore please explain how your approach of dismissing science in favor of blogs is more reasonable than just using science itself.

That says it all.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

Oh, and Perg. Read the article carefully. It states that no warming has occurred since 1998 and then goes on to state that all of those intervening years were the warmest on record. Seems to be a contradiction.

Ishmael

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

They're just like religious zealots...so brainwashed and emotionally invested in their own beliefs that NOTHING will ever make them question what they think.

Very progressive.

Did you mean for this to go in one of the Michelle Bachman threads?

 

[Joeybagadonuts]

I don’t really care what dueling scientists believe and I know I don’t have to be one to comprehend that polluting the water and air at the rate we’ve been doing since the industrial revolution is going to cause an imbalance. I remember when we didn’t have to drink bottled water, be concerned about eating fish with too much mercury or swimming in the ocean without having to worry about getting a mouthful of medical waste.

But hey, if it’s bad for someone’s stock portfolio; fuck the regulations.

 

[phrodeau]

There is NO consensus. Repeating that there is doesn't change the fact that there isn't.

The models have fallen apart, the data behind the models has fallen apart, the statistics used to massage the data to produce the models has fallen apart. The only thing left is for the true disciples to keep yelling, "Consensus, consensus." in an effort to drown out those that have picked the whole hypothesis apart data point by data point.

It's long past the time that you, and others that believe as you do, start looking at the issue with a high degree of skepticism. Not so much with regard to the scientists that support the AGW view, they are entitled to pursue any theory they want. But why are the politicians jumping all over this? That's where the danger lies. If you don't see how all of this plays into the hands of the political class then you're blind.

Let the scientists fight it out.

Ishmael

Hmph. You started this thread's title with a definite article. Flip-flopping?

 

[Peregrinator]

Perg, there are no "millions" of data points. As a matter of fact there are significantly fewer data points today than there were 20 years ago. For example, Russia shut down most of their Siberian data stations back in the 90's. There seems to be a collective assumption that the inclusion of those stations would make no difference.

Ice growing in Antarctica.

How could that be possible if the temperatures jumped so dramatically?

The Arctic ice is thickening. Glaciers are growing in mass from Mt. Shasta, to India, to Italy to New Zealand. Antarctica had the highest snowfall on record last year. South America is 'enjoying' the longest cold streak in 17 years. (South America I particularly love the comment) All recent news and all quite contrarily to the assertion of "highest temperatures on record." All the more suspicious given the apparent leap in baseline as demonstrated in the graph I posted.

All in all we are faced with a situation where observed phenomena and actual measurements are in conflict with a graph contrived by means that are so obscure that they might as well be magical to us skeptics. Which of the two do you put most faith in Perg?

Ishmael

The skeptic argument...
Antarctica is gaining ice
"The amount of ice surrounding Antarctica is now at the highest level since satellites began to monitor it almost 30 years ago. It’s simply too cold for rain in Antarctica and it'll stay that way for a very long time. The bottom line is there is more ice than ever surrounding Antarctica." (Patrick Michaels).
What the science says...


While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.
It's important to distinguish between Antarctic land ice and sea ice which are two separate phenomena. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the difference between sea ice and land ice. To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:

Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean
Antarctic Land Ice is decreasing

Measuring changes in Antarctic land ice mass has been a difficult process due to the ice sheet's massive size and complexity. However, since 2002 the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites have been able to comprehensively survey the entire ice sheet. The satellites measure changes in gravity to determine mass variations of the entire Antarctic ice sheet. Initial observations found that that most of Antarctic mass loss comes from Western Antarctica (Velicogna 2007). Meanwhile, from 2002 to 2005, East Antarctica was in approximate mass balance. The ice gained in the interior is roughly balanced by the ice loss at the edges. This is illustrated in Figure 1 which contrasts the ice mass changes in West Antarctica (red) compared to East Antarctica (green):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/antarctic_mass2.gif


Figure 1: Ice mass changes (solid lines with circles) and their best-fitting linear trends (dashed line) for the West Antarctica Ice Sheet (red) and East Antarctica Ice Sheet (green) for April 2002 to August 2005 (Velicogna 2007).

As more GRACE data came in, a clearer understanding of the Antarctic ice sheet emerges. Figure 2 shows the ice mass changes in Antarctica for the period April 2002 to February 2009 (Velicogna 2009) . The blue line/crosses show the unfiltered, monthly values. The red crosses have seasonal variability removed. The green line is the best fitting trend.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarctica_Ice_Mass.gif

Figure 2: Ice mass changes for the Antarctic ice sheet from April 2002 to February 2009. Unfiltered data are blue crosses. Data filtered for the seasonal dependence are red crosses. The best-fitting quadratic trend is shown as the green line (Velicogna 2009).

With the longer time series, a statistically significant trend now emerges. Not only is Antarctica losing land ice, the ice loss is accelerating at a rate of 26 Gigatonnes/yr2 (in other words, every year, the rate of ice loss is increasing by 26 Gigatonnes per year) It turns out that since 2006, East Antarctica has no longer been in mass balance but is in fact, losing ice mass (Chen 2009). This is a surprising result as East Antarctica has been considered stable because the region is so cold. This indicates the East Antarctic ice sheet is more dynamic than previously thought.

This is significant because East Antarctica contains much more ice than West Antarctica. East Antarctica contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 50 to 60 metres while West Antarctica would contribute around 6 to 7 metres. The Antarctic ice sheet plays an important role in the total contribution to sea level. That contribution is continuously and rapidly growing.

Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing

Antarctic sea ice has shown long term growth since satellites began measurements in 1979. This is an observation that has been often cited as proof against global warming. However, rarely is the question raised: why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? The implicit assumption is it must be cooling around Antarctica. This is decidedly not the case. In fact, the Southern Ocean has been warming faster than the rest of the world's oceans. Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade. In contrast, the Southern Ocean has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it is warming faster than the global trend.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarctica_Sea_Ice.gif


Figure 3: Surface air temperature over the ice-covered areas of the Southern Ocean (top). Sea ice extent, observed by satellite (bottom). (Zhang 2007)

If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). This strengthens the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas lead to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007).

In summary, Antarctic sea ice is a complex and unique phenomenon. The simplistic interpretation that it must be cooling around Antarctica is decidedly not the case. Warming is happening - how it affects specific regions is complicated.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm





The skeptic argument...
Glaciers are growing
"Reports are coming in from all over the world: for the first time in over 250 years, glaciers in Alaska, Canada, New Zealand, Greenland, and now Norway are growing." (JamulBlog)


What the science says...


Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water.
Although Glaciologists measure year-to-year changes in glacier activity, it is the long term changes which provide the basis for statements such as "Global Glacier Recession Continues". Some Skeptics confuse these issues by cherry picking individual glaciers or by ignoring long term trends. Diversions such as these do not address the most important question of what is the real state of glaciers globally?

The answer is not only clear but it is definitive and based on the scientific literature. Globally glaciers are losing ice at an extensive rate (Figure 1). There are still situations in which glaciers gain or lose ice more than typical for one region or another but the long term trends are all the same.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalGlacierVolumeChange.jpg


Figure 1: Long term changes in glacier volume adapted from Cogley 2009.

It is also very important to understand that glacier changes are not only dictated by air temperature changes but also by precipitation. Therefore, there are scenarios in which warming can lead to increases in precipitation (and thus glacier ice accumulation) such as displayed in part of southwestern Norway during the 1990s (Nesje et al 2008).

The bottom line is that glacier variations can be dependent on localized conditions but that these variations are superimposed on a clear and evident long term global reduction in glacier volume which has accelerated rapidly since the 1970s.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

 

[Peregrinator]

Oh, and Perg. Read the article carefully. It states that no warming has occurred since 1998 and then goes on to state that all of those intervening years were the warmest on record. Seems to be a contradiction.

Ishmael

The skeptic argument...

It hasn't warmed since 1998
For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. This period coincides with society's continued pumping of more CO2 into the atmosphere. (Bob Carter)
What the science says...


The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.
To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.

This analysis is performed in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth's total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (the energy required to melt ice) were also included.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif
Figure 1: Total Earth Heat Content anomaly from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008. Land + Atmosphere includes the heat absorbed to melt ice.

A look at the Earth's total heat content clearly shows global warming has continued past 1998. The planet is still accumulating heat. So why do surface temperature records show 1998 as the hottest year on record? We see in Figure 1 that the heat capacity of the land and atmosphere is small compared to the ocean. Hence, relatively small exchanges of heat between the atmosphere and ocean can cause significant changes in surface temperature.

In 1998, an abnormally strong El Nino caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced above average surface temperatures. Conversely, the last few years have seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global temperatures. And the last few months have swung back to warmer El Nino conditions. This has coincided with the warmest June-August sea surface temperatures on record. This internal variation where heat is shuffled around our climate is the reason why surface temperature is such a noisy signal.

Using moving averages to discern the long-term trend
With so much internal variability, scientists employ statistical methods to discern long-term trends in surface temperature. The easiest way to remove short-term variations, revealing any underlying trend, is to plot a moving average, performed in Waiting for Cooling (Fawcett & Jones 2008) . Figure 2 displays the 11-year moving average - an average calculated over the year itself and five years either side. They've used three different data-sets - NCDC, NASA GISS and the British HadCRUT3. In all three data-sets, the moving average shows no sign that the warming trend has reversed.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/fawcett_11yr_avg.gif


Figure 2: Globally-averaged annual mean temperature anomalies in degrees Celsius, together with 11-year unweighted moving averages (solid lines). Blue circles from the Hadley Centre (British). Red diamonds from NASA GISS. Green squares from NOAA NCDC. NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC are offset in vertical direction by increments of 0.5°C for visual clarity.

The linear trend from 1998 to 2007
Next, Fawcett and Jones look for a cooling trend in the 10 years since 1998. They find the linear trend over 1998 to 2007 is a warming trend in all three data-sets. Note that HadCRUT3 displays less warming than NASA GISS and NCDC. This is most likely due to the fact that HadCRUT data doesn't cover parts of the Arctic where there has been strong warming in recent years.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/fawcett_linear.gif
Figure 3: Linear trends (solid lines) in the three global annual mean temperature anomaly time series over the decade 1998-2007.

Removing the El Niño signal from the temperature record
The reason that 1998 was such an anomalously warm year was due to a strong El Niño that year. Fawcett and Jones remove the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) signal by calculating a linear regression of global temperatures against the Southern Oscillation Index. A detailed description of the process is found in Fawcett 2007. The result is shown in Figure 4.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/fawcett_no_enso.gif
Figure 4: Three time series of globally-averaged annual mean temperature anomalies (circles) in degrees Celsius, together with ENSO-adjusted versions (lines), for the period 1910-2007.

All 3 data sets demonstrate that the anomalously hot 1998 was due to the strong El Niño of 1997/98. When ENSO-adjusted, 1998 looks much less remarkable than it does in the original data. In all 3 ENSO-adjusted data-sets, 2006 is the hottest year on record and the trend from 1998 to 2007 is that of warming.

Is 1998 actually the hottest year on record?
Of the 3 temperature records HadCRUT3, NASA GISS and NCDC, only HadCRUT3 actually shows 1998 as the hottest year on record. For NASA GISS and NCDC, the hottest year on record is 2005. A new independent analysis of the HadCRUT record sheds light on this discrepancy. The analysis is by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) who calculated global temperature, utilizing a range of sources including surface temperature measurements, satellites, radiosondes, ships and buoys. They found warming has been higher than that shown by HadCRUT. This is because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change, on average, than the entire globe.

Figure 5 shows the regions that HadCRUT have sampled compared to the regions ECMWF included in their dataset. The ECMWF analysis shows that in data-sparse regions such as Russia, Africa and Canada, there is strong warming over land that is not included in the HadCRUT's sampling data. This leads the ECMWF to infer with high confidence that the HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/HadCRUT-vs-ECMWF.gif
Figure 5: Increase in mean near-surface temperature (°C) from (1989-98) to (1999-2008). Top figure shows HadCRUT sampling regions, lower figure shows ECMWF analysis (ECMWF 2009).

This result is not unexpected. NASA GISS find a major contributor to the record hot 2005 is the extreme warming in the Arctic (Hansen 2006). As there are few meteorological stations in the Arctic, NASA extrapolated temperature anomalies from the nearest measurement stations. They found the estimated strong Arctic warmth was consistent with infrared satellite measurements and record low sea ice concentrations.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/NASA_2000_2005.gif
Figure 6: Surface temperature anomaly for the first half-decade of the 21st century (Hansen 2006).


http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm