MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Thursday, November 27, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 19.0° F  Partly Cloudy
Collapse Photo Bar

Disappearing glaciers

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Re: Disappearing glaciers

Postby Marvell » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:36 pm

Renee Gabel wrote:
Marvell wrote:
Renee Gabel wrote:What's going to happen if we don't listen to all this hype?

Seriously.


A whole lot of people are going to die in ways that are less than pleasant, and humanity as a whole will experience a level of social dislocation that will make the Dark Ages look like a trip to Knott's Berry Farm.

Seriously.


Is that your theory or is this just one of floundies indisputable facts again.


You asked what we thought; that's what I think.

Given the data on increasing desertification of cropland, loss of rain forest, collapse of aquaculture and rising sea levels, it seems more like a reasonable conclusion than 'hype.' Of course, one person's 'reasonable conclusion' is another person's 'hype' - which is another way of saying that some people are fatuous morons, and it's typically an analysis of how they came to their conclusions that allows other people to accurately gauge whether or not the person in question is a fatuous moron.

If the cap fits, etc.

Renee Gabel wrote:I heard tripping at Knott's Berry Farm was pretty cool back in the day.


I also heard that REO Speedwagon was pretty cool back in the day. I remain unconvinced.

Renee Gabel wrote:What was so bad about the Dark Ages?


Did someone just say 'fatuous moron?'

Renee Gabel wrote:Are we to blame for that too?


Different empire. Same dynamic.

Renee Gabel wrote:What if we just burn up all the fossil fuels right now as a favor to the future generations so they don't have to worry about it?


Well, given all the million things you can make with plastic, I think future generations will be thinking (among other things) 'I can't believe those shitheads just burnt this.'

Renee Gabel wrote:I guess if this thread wasn't started with a link to a hollywood production, I'd be more inclined to not totally dismiss it.


I guess if you didn't call global climate change 'hype' and invoke a bunch of sophistic arguments against the accompanying scientific literature and methodology I'd be more inclined to accept this statement as something other than disingenuous twaddle from a blatantly obvious contrarian who has no intention of adding anything of substance to the conversation.

If being Ned Flanders with a slightly more effective prose style is your idea of an accomplishment - well, as Flava Flav would say, "I can't do nothing for you, man."
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6989
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Re: Disappearing glaciers

Postby jonnygothispen » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:10 pm

Melting ice-caps from NASA pics: 1979 - 2003

http://www.surveygalaxy.com/upload/2748_image_1-p.jpg

Greenland's melting ice-caps: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0811-06.htm

The vast ice cap that covers Greenland nearly three miles thick is melting faster than ever before on record, and the pace is speeding year by year, according to global climate watchers gathering data from twin satellites that probe the effects of warming on the huge northern island.

The consequence is already evident in a small but ominous rise in sea levels around the world, a pace that is also accelerating, the scientists say.

According to the scientists' data, Greenland's ice is melting at a rate three times faster than it was only five years ago... surface melting of Greenland's ice cap reached 57 cubic miles a year between April of 2002 and November of 2005, compared to about 19 cubic miles a year between 1997 and 2003.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: Disappearing glaciers

Postby Renee Gabel » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:43 am

Marvell wrote:............
If being Ned Flanders with a slightly more effective prose style is your idea of an accomplishment - well, as Flava Flav would say, "I can't do nothing for you, man."


I can't do nothing for climate change neither.

Can you?
Renee Gabel
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:25 am
Location: Dane County

Re: Disappearing glaciers

Postby narcoleptish » Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:36 am

Civilization exists by geologic consent, subject to change without notice.

-Will Durant


I just love that quote.
narcoleptish
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3633
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:35 am

Re: Disappearing glaciers

Postby Ned Flanders » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:14 pm

Now this is interesting.

Our mother has been cooling since 1998...
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

...while at the same time solar activity has reached a 100 year low:

GREENBELT, Md., April 1 (UPI) -- U.S. solar physicists say the sun is experiencing the least sunspot activity since 1913 and activity is becoming less frequent.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration solar physicist Dean Pesnell at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., said during 2008 there were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days -- 73 percent of the year. To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go to 1913, which had 311 spotless days.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/04 ... 238615475/
Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 13515
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm

Re: Disappearing glaciers

Postby ilikebeans » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:46 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:Our mother has been cooling since 1998...
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

Looking at the graph, average temperatures have cooled slightly since 2004 or so-- not 1998. Now if you look again at the entire timeline from 1850 through today, you'll see that there are constant periods of slight warming and slight cooling over a five-to-ten year span.

Here's another view of it from the same site, color-coded to be easy on the eyes:

Image

The important issue, and stick with me here Neddles, is that biiiiig mountain of red from about 1980 through today. That's called a warming trend. Sound out each syllable if you need to.

What is it you keep saying about public schooling being deficient? Or were you sick the day they went over how to read graphs?

Ok, now that's out of the way... what is your point about sunspot activity?
ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: Disappearing glaciers

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:57 pm

Not that you didn't already skewer him, ilikebeans, but here's an article wherein the guy that actually made that graph explains why Flanders is a fool.

These cyclical influences can mask underlying warming trends with Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, saying: "The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000."
(emphasis added)


Oh, and Ned -- why do you think sunspot cycles are relevant to this discussion? Sheer ignorance, or have you joined the tinfoil hat crowd now?
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 9020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Disappearing glaciers

Postby Ned Flanders » Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:06 pm

So Beenie's superior evidence spans 20 years instead of 10. Impressive.

Funny these two won't consider the possibility that by far the largest influence on our climate and weather (ahem,the s-u-n) may be the main factor in global warming and cooling cycles.

Who are the intellectual luddites again?
Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 13515
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm

Re: Disappearing glaciers

Postby Ned Flanders » Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:19 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000."
(emphasis added)

Really? Then consider this:

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mo ... e10866.htm
Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 13515
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm

Re: Disappearing glaciers

Postby ilikebeans » Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:54 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:So Beenie's superior evidence spans 20 years instead of 10. Impressive.

Funny. I'm using the link you provided; the difference is that I'm reading the chart correctly.

Oh, and by the way, since we're talking from 1980 until now, it's more like 28 years.

Ned Flanders wrote:Funny these two won't consider the possibility that by far the largest influence on our climate and weather (ahem,the s-u-n) may be the main factor in global warming and cooling cycles.

Those theories have been presented and analyzed many times, but most climate scientists agree that sunspot activity doesn't explain the dramatic upward swing the past 28 years. Some sourced quotes:

This suggests that general circulation model (GCM) simulations of twentieth century warming may overestimate the role of solar irradiance variability -IPCC, 2002

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%. -IPCC, 2007 (emphasis added)

More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in September 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, with little likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time.

Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007, find that there "is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century," but that "over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."

Initially, they used sunspot and temperature measurements from 1861 to 1989, but later found that climate records dating back four centuries supported their findings. This relationship appeared to account for nearly 80 per cent of the measured temperature changes over this period. Damon and Laut, however, show that when the graphs are corrected for filtering errors, the sensational agreement with the recent global warming, which drew worldwide attention, has totally disappeared. Nevertheless, the authors and other researchers keep presenting the old misleading graph.

On May 6, 2000, however, New Scientist magazine reported that Lassen and astrophysicist Peter Thejll had updated Lassen's 1991 research and found that while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 °C since 1980. "The curves diverge after 1980," Thejll said, "and it's a startlingly large deviation. Something else is acting on the climate.... It has the fingerprints of the greenhouse effect."

Peter Stott and other researchers at the Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom published a paper in which they reported...In the latter half of the century, we find that anthropogenic increases in greenhouses gases are largely responsible for the observed warming, balanced by some cooling due to anthropogenic sulphate aerosols, with no evidence for significant solar effects.

Stott's 2003 work mentioned in the model section above largely revised his assessment, and found a significant solar contribution to recent warming, although still smaller (between 16 and 36%) than that of the greenhouse gases.

And, finally, a telling graph for those that can read it:

Image
Sources
Last edited by ilikebeans on Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: Disappearing glaciers

Postby ilikebeans » Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:08 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Emphasis added. This is a single year-- a single data point. Interesting, but doesn't prove anything.

Again, if you go back to the charts, there are plenty of years where a marked spike in warming or cooling occurs. 2008 may be one of those.

When global cooling lasts 20 years, get back to us.
ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: Disappearing glaciers

Postby Bland » Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:37 pm

ilikebeans wrote:if you go back to the charts

NEd does seem fond of those.
Wait- did he just post a graph to rebut the graph he originally linked to?
Bland
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Disappearing glaciers

Postby ilikebeans » Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:27 pm

Bland wrote:Wait- did he just post a graph to rebut the graph he originally linked to?

Well now, there's an interesting point.

I originally didn't think that Ned's first link, from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the UK (HadCRUT), had data for 2007. Checking again, it seems they do-- they claim we're at 0.325 deg. C above the 1961-1990 average, only slightly lower than 2006, and 10th warmest on record.

However, Ned's second link, from DailyTech.com, directly contradicts this, claiming that HadCRUT and others are showing a decrease of 0.595 deg. C from Jan. 07 - Jan. 08.

But wait! DailyTech.com is referencing the author of wattsupwiththat.com, one Anthony Watts, for their data.

Hmm... I think I'm going to go with the actual data on the HadCRUT site, showing no major drop.

2000 0.277
2001 0.406
2002 0.455
2003 0.465
2004 0.444
2005 0.475
2006 0.421
2007 0.399
2008 0.325
2009 0.352

But again, we're debating the data for ONE YEAR. It's completely trivial in the grand scheme of things.

[edit]
Found a possible explanation for the discrepancy:
We have recently changed the way that the smoothed time series of data were calculated. Data for 2008 were being used in the smoothing process as if they represented an accurate esimate of the year as a whole. This is not the case and owing to the unusually cool global average temperature in January 2008, it looked as though smoothed global average temperatures had dropped markedly in recent years, which is misleading.
ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: Disappearing glaciers

Postby DCB » Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:16 am

ilikebeans wrote:
Ned Flanders wrote:The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Emphasis added. This is a single year-- a single data point. Interesting, but doesn't prove anything.


Based on my detailed observations ( 2 temperature readings between 7am and 9am, April 2, 2009) we are now in period of uncontrolled warming of over 1 deg. per hour!

Try to refute that!
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2768
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Disappearing glaciers

Postby makmadison » Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:33 pm

Publish all the data you want, but it is all rather inaccurate. Just think about it, how accurate were weather measurements 20, 50, 100 years ago? Rather inaccurate. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

50 years ago, Stan and Stosh took "measurement" manually, visually, etc. How accurate is this data?

Weather satellites and other sensors were deployed when? How crude was the technology when it was deployed? In the millions of years prior to "technology" being used in gathering climate date, how accurate were their/those instruments?

I do not deny man made global weather change is/not happening. What I am saying is all of you relying on "data" are way off. What I do argue is that this climate change is not detrimental to humans and the environment we live within.

MK
makmadison
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 12:07 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar