NASA and the IPCC sea level predictions

[Old Rocks]

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as “world’s best climate scientists”, they stated that climate change is happening as “the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.” [22]


Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude, “Global climate change and global warming are real and observable…It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.”[23]


Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
"CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."[24]


Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating that "We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes."[25]


International Union for Quaternary Research
The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles.

“Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses - including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide - to rise well above pre-industrial levels….Increases in greenhouse gasses are causing temperatures to rise…The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action….Minimizing the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must be a global priority.” [26]


American Quaternary Association
The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated, “Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.” [27]


Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London stated, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling."[28]


International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution entitled “The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change”. In it, the IUGG concurs with the “comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the International Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change.” They state further that the “continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society.” [29]


International Union of Geological Sciences
In their Climate Change prospectus for the International Year of Planet Earth project, the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) stated, “The idea that there is a strong human imprint on recent climate change is now compelling, with forest clearing, building and man-made gas emissions all having a strong influence on Earth’s warming.”[30]

We know that human activity has resulted in changes to atmospheric chemistry and land cover, and caused serious decline in biodiversity.[31]
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shall I go on listing the concurring scientific societies? Scientific societies are made up of scientists. Global warming is a subject of science. You post that 650 scientists are skeptical of global warming. These societies represent hundreds of thousands of scientists from nearly every country in the world.

But back to the subject. The north polar cap is rapidly becoming a winter only phenomonem, the Greenland cap is melting far faster than any one predicted, and the Antarctic cap is also losing mass, in spite of predictions that it should gain mass because of the ability of the relitively warmer air carrying more moisture inland. So, you disagree with these statements? Then find me articles from reliable sources that state otherwise.

 

[Old Rocks]

I prefer to use the articles that you post, and prove that they actually say something other than you opine.

No, you prefer to cut and run when challenged to back your position.

 

[glockmail]

No, you prefer to cut and run when challenged to back your position.

Just because I neglect you doesn't mean that I think you are right. Actually, I happen to have a life other than posting on the internet. This fall, for example, has been a great ski season because of the cold weather. Even better than last years earliest opening on record.

 

[Bern80]

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as “world’s best climate scientists”, they stated that climate change is happening as “the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.” [22]


Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude, “Global climate change and global warming are real and observable…It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.”[23]


Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
"CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."[24]


Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating that "We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes."[25]


International Union for Quaternary Research
The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles.

“Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses - including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide - to rise well above pre-industrial levels….Increases in greenhouse gasses are causing temperatures to rise…The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action….Minimizing the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must be a global priority.” [26]


American Quaternary Association
The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated, “Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.” [27]


Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London stated, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling."[28]


International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution entitled “The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change”. In it, the IUGG concurs with the “comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the International Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change.” They state further that the “continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society.” [29]


International Union of Geological Sciences
In their Climate Change prospectus for the International Year of Planet Earth project, the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) stated, “The idea that there is a strong human imprint on recent climate change is now compelling, with forest clearing, building and man-made gas emissions all having a strong influence on Earth’s warming.”[30]

We know that human activity has resulted in changes to atmospheric chemistry and land cover, and caused serious decline in biodiversity.[31]
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shall I go on listing the concurring scientific societies? Scientific societies are made up of scientists. Global warming is a subject of science. You post that 650 scientists are skeptical of global warming. These societies represent hundreds of thousands of scientists from nearly every country in the world.

But back to the subject. The north polar cap is rapidly becoming a winter only phenomonem, the Greenland cap is melting far faster than any one predicted, and the Antarctic cap is also losing mass, in spite of predictions that it should gain mass because of the ability of the relitively warmer air carrying more moisture inland. So, you disagree with these statements? Then find me articles from reliable sources that state otherwise.

lovely, doesn't really answer the question though. Does or does not the opinion of 600 plus scientists who not only are skeptical but several have which called out the IPCC for haveing and agenda and basically exercising shoddy science, count or not? Follow the money rocks. NASA and the IPCC reports have been debunked quite thorughly. There opinion really isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

[Chris]

lovely, doesn't really answer the question though. Does or does not the opinion of 600 plus scientists who not only are skeptical but several have which called out the IPCC for haveing and agenda and basically exercising shoddy science, count or not? Follow the money rocks. NASA and the IPCC reports have been debunked quite thorughly. There opinion really isn't worth the paper it's written on.

No, their opinion is worth a lot.

 

[del]

No, their opinion is worth a lot.

boy, what a devestating refutation.

 

[Old Rocks]

lovely, doesn't really answer the question though. Does or does not the opinion of 600 plus scientists who not only are skeptical but several have which called out the IPCC for haveing and agenda and basically exercising shoddy science, count or not? Follow the money rocks. NASA and the IPCC reports have been debunked quite thorughly. There opinion really isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Odd, I just gave several tens of thousands of scientists that not only agree with the IPCC report, but, for the most part, feel that it is too conservative. You say 650 scientists, yet the charalatan Lord Monkton is on that list.

Aside from who agrees or disagrees with the IPCC assessment, do you have anything from a peer reviewed scientific journal that states that the primary driver of the warming is not manmade GHGs? For I can post articles from such journals all day long that say it is. So give two or three that say it is not. Can you do that? Seems a reasonable request if your position is from a scientific viewpoint and not a political one.

 

[Bern80]

Odd, I just gave several tens of thousands of scientists that not only agree with the IPCC report, but, for the most part, feel that it is too conservative. You say 650 scientists, yet the charalatan Lord Monkton is on that list.

Aside from who agrees or disagrees with the IPCC assessment, do you have anything from a peer reviewed scientific journal that states that the primary driver of the warming is not manmade GHGs? For I can post articles from such journals all day long that say it is. So give two or three that say it is not. Can you do that? Seems a reasonable request if your position is from a scientific viewpoint and not a political one.

So you are claiming in this debate, that the believers of AGW are the altruistic ones and the skeptics have the political agenda. Open your fucking eyes man. Have you considered the non-scientific factors as to why there is a perceived consenuse on AGW? Like, I don't know, funding sources, political pressure, and because it's just plain popular?

And wouldn't you know it the very website you criticize provides such a source of skeptical PEER REVIEWED studies.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

In the link below you can scroll down to the section about how funding plays a part in the 'evidence' scientists put forward. Yes, admittedly, it does occur on both sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

 

[Tech_Esq]

are you referring to me or Old Rocks?

Old Stones. Sorry, I should have clarified, but since the quotes I posted were on the same side as you, I thought you would get it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

This MODIS Terra image, acquired August 23, 2006, shows the southern portion of Greenland. The Greenlandic ice cap covers about 80% of the island's surface. Credit: NASA
> Click for larger image. A new NASA study confirms that the surface temperature of Greenland's massive ice sheet has been rising, stoked by warming air temperatures, and fueling loss of the island's ice at the surface and throughout the mass beneath.

Greenland's enormous ice sheet is home to enough ice to raise sea level by about 23 feet if the entire ice sheet were to melt into surrounding waters. Though the loss of the whole ice sheet is unlikely, loss from Greenland's ice mass has already contributed in part to 20th century sea level rise of about two millimeters per year, and future melt has the potential to impact people and economies across the globe. So NASA scientists used state-of-the-art NASA satellite technologies to explore the behavior of the ice sheet, revealing a relationship between changes at the surface and below. The new NASA study appears in the January issue of the quarterly Journal of Glaciology.

NASA - Greenland's Rising Air Temperatures Drive Ice Loss at Surface and Beyond

This is completely disputed in the article in July, 2008 of Science that I referenced above. Instead of a few pics taken by a thoroughly discredited group of whackos, chief among them this Hanson character, at NASA. In their 17 year study of the movement of the ice sheet they failed to find evidence of a vast meltdown in the Greenland ice sheet or any of the deleterious effects that so many climate changists claim will occur.

When will you start backing your fantasies with facts instead of conjecture?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Antarctica Ice Loss Faster Than Ten Years AgoMason Inman
for National Geographic News

January 14, 2008
The western part of Antarctica is shedding ice much faster today than it was just ten years ago, according to new satellite measurements.

The measurements, which surveyed the coasts of nearly the entire continent, suggest that climate models underestimate how quickly Antarctica responds to ongoing global warming, said study co-author Jonathan Bamber of the University of Bristol in England.









RELATED
Warming Oceans Contributed to Record Arctic Melt (December 14, 2007)
Explore an Interactive Map of Antarctica
Global Warming "Tipping Points" Reached, Scientist Says (December 14, 2007)
Many past studies have tried to estimate how much ice Antarctica is losing.

(Related: "Hundreds of Glaciers Melting Faster in Antarctica" [June 6, 2007].)

But the new study is the first to show that this loss is accelerating, at least in western Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula, the researchers say.

"In all the ice sheet models we have at present for Antarctica, things happen very slowly," Bamber said.

"[But] we're seeing things happen rather quickly."

They found that for Antarctica overall, the ice loss increased about 75 percent over the ten-year period, from 112 gigatons of ice per year in 1996 to 196 gigatons of ice per year in 2006.

As to whether Antarctica will lose or gain ice as global warming proceeds, the measurements disagree with existing climate models that suggest "[the ice sheet] is going to get bigger because of increased snowfall with warming temperatures," Bamber said.

"We don't see that. We see the ice sheet losing mass," he said. "So there's a bit of a paradigm shift in what the ice sheet has done recently and what it could do in the future."

Scientists are concerned the melting ice will contribute to a dangerous sea level rise.

Ice Losses


Continued on Next Page >>


LATEST NEWS VIDEOS
VIDEO: Animal-to-Human Disease Watch

VIDEO: "Obama" Bullfighting Decried

VIDEO: Belief in Elves Strong in Iceland

More Videos in the News SOURCES AND RELATED WEB SITES
Nature Geoscience
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory: Eric Rignot
University of Bristol: Jonathan Bamber
University of Edinburgh: Andrew Shepherd

I'm beginning to think you can't read.

19 May 2005 - According to a new study published in the online edition of Science, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet gained about 45 billion tons of ice between 1992 and 2003. The ice sheets are several kilometers thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world's ice.

Using data from the European Space Agency's radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2, a research team from the University of Missouri, Columbia, measured changes in altitude over about 70% of Antarctica's interior. East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimeters per year over the time period studied, the researchers discovered.

The region comprises about 75% of Antarctica 's total land area and about 85% of the total ice volume. The area in question covers more than 2.75 million square miles - roughly the same size as the United States.

 

[Andrew2382]

The Antarctic Ice Cap is also losing mass.

O really?

RESEARCHERS FIND ANTARCTIC ICE IS THICKENING

Looking across the ice from an ice-core drilling tower at the Siple Dome field camp in 1999. Scientists drilled into the ice here to study the history of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Scientists concerned about global warming have worried that higher temperatures could melt the massive ice sheet, causing a rise in sea levels worldwide.

But new flow measurements for the Ross ice streams, using special satellite-based radars, indicate that movement of some of the ice streams has slowed or halted, allowing the ice to thicken, according to a paper in the Jan. 18 issue of the journal Science.

If the thickening is not merely part of some short-term fluctuation, it represents a reversal of the long retreat of the ice, say researchers Ian Joughin of the California Institute of Technology and Slawek Tulaczyk of the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Their finding comes less than a week after a separate paper in Nature reported that Antarctica's harsh desert valleys - long considered a bellwether for global climate change - have grown noticeably cooler since the mid-1980s.


Air temperatures recorded continuously over a 14-year period ending in 1999 declined by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the polar deserts and across the White Continent, that paper said. The cooling defies a trend spanning more than 100 years in which average land surface temperatures have increased worldwide by about 1 degree Fahrenheit. The scientists said Antarctica is the only continent that is cooling. They can not say why.



List for all the expanding glaciers out there

Growing Glaciers

 

[Chris]

O really?

RESEARCHERS FIND ANTARCTIC ICE IS THICKENING

Looking across the ice from an ice-core drilling tower at the Siple Dome field camp in 1999. Scientists drilled into the ice here to study the history of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Scientists concerned about global warming have worried that higher temperatures could melt the massive ice sheet, causing a rise in sea levels worldwide.

But new flow measurements for the Ross ice streams, using special satellite-based radars, indicate that movement of some of the ice streams has slowed or halted, allowing the ice to thicken, according to a paper in the Jan. 18 issue of the journal Science.

If the thickening is not merely part of some short-term fluctuation, it represents a reversal of the long retreat of the ice, say researchers Ian Joughin of the California Institute of Technology and Slawek Tulaczyk of the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Their finding comes less than a week after a separate paper in Nature reported that Antarctica's harsh desert valleys - long considered a bellwether for global climate change - have grown noticeably cooler since the mid-1980s.


Air temperatures recorded continuously over a 14-year period ending in 1999 declined by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the polar deserts and across the White Continent, that paper said. The cooling defies a trend spanning more than 100 years in which average land surface temperatures have increased worldwide by about 1 degree Fahrenheit. The scientists said Antarctica is the only continent that is cooling. They can not say why.



List for all the expanding glaciers out there

Growing Glaciers

The article you quoted is from 6 years ago.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The article you quoted is from 6 years ago.

Are you admitting the globe wasn't warming six years ago? Otherwise, what difference does it make. Algore was telling us 15 years ago we only had 20 years to live because the globe was warming so damned fast. Now you have a problem with an article that is only 6 years old? WTF?

 

[Bern80]

The article you quoted is from 6 years ago.

that isn't much of a refutation. If all the AGW people are right and given when we industrialized as a country, one would have to think even 6 years ago, if the theory was accurate that the ice would still be shrinking.

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you fellows have the slightest reading comprehension? This is from NASA, 18Jan08;


To infer the ice sheet's mass, the team measured ice flowing out of Antarctica's drainage basins over 85 percent of its coastline. They used 15 years of satellite radar data from the European Earth Remote Sensing-1 and -2, Canada's Radarsat-1 and Japan's Advanced Land Observing satellites to reveal the pattern of ice sheet motion toward the sea. These results were compared with estimates of snowfall accumulation in Antarctica's interior derived from a regional atmospheric climate model spanning the past quarter century.

The team found that the net loss of ice mass from Antarctica increased from 112 (plus or minus 91) gigatonnes a year in 1996 to 196 (plus or minus 92) gigatonnes a year in 2006. A gigatonne is one billion metric tons, or more than 2.2 trillion pounds. These new results are about 20 percent higher over a comparable time frame than those of a NASA study of Antarctic mass balance last March that used data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment. This is within the margin of error for both techniques, each of which has its strengths and limitations.
NASA - Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds up, Nearly Matches Greenland Loss

 

[Old Rocks]

So you are claiming in this debate, that the believers of AGW are the altruistic ones and the skeptics have the political agenda. Open your fucking eyes man. Have you considered the non-scientific factors as to why there is a perceived consenuse on AGW? Like, I don't know, funding sources, political pressure, and because it's just plain popular?

And wouldn't you know it the very website you criticize provides such a source of skeptical PEER REVIEWED studies.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

In the link below you can scroll down to the section about how funding plays a part in the 'evidence' scientists put forward. Yes, admittedly, it does occur on both sides.

Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Went to just one of the links. Very funny. The link concerned the Milankovic Cycle, and the warming of the Southern Oceans. None of what was in the article in any way stated that CO2 was not causing the present warming. Another of Inhofe's lies. Here is a portion of the article. Note that it specifically states the importance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age
Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science.

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

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

Lowell Stott, professor of earth sciences, University of Southern California

Click here for more information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records.

“There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express.

“You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.”

Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown – but was not its main cause.

The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in climate.


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

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

Lowell Stott, professor of earth sciences at the University of Southern California, examines a sediment core.

Click here for more information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate,” Stott cautioned. “It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change.”

While an increase in atmospheric CO2 and the end of the ice ages occurred at roughly the same time, scientists have debated whether CO2 caused the warming or was released later by an already warming sea.

The best estimate from other studies of when CO2 began to rise is no earlier than 18,000 years ago. Yet this study shows that the deep sea, which reflects oceanic temperature trends, started warming about 19,000 years ago.

“What this means is that a lot of energy went into the ocean long before the rise in atmospheric CO2,” Stott said.

But where did this energy come from" Evidence pointed southward.

Water’s salinity and temperature are properties that can be used to trace its origin – and the warming deep water appeared to come from the Antarctic Ocean, the scientists wrote.

This water then was transported northward over 1,000 years via well-known deep-sea currents, a conclusion supported by carbon-dating evidence.

In addition, the researchers noted that deep-sea temperature increases coincided with the retreat of Antarctic sea ice, both occurring 19,000 years ago, before the northern hemisphere’s ice retreat began.

Finally, Stott and colleagues found a correlation between melting Antarctic sea ice and increased springtime solar radiation over Antarctica, suggesting this might be the energy source.

As the sun pumped in heat, the warming accelerated because of sea-ice albedo feedbacks, in which retreating ice exposes ocean water that reflects less light and absorbs more heat, much like a dark T-shirt on a hot day.

In addition, the authors’ model showed how changed ocean conditions may have been responsible for the release of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere, also accelerating the warming.

The link between the sun and ice age cycles is not new. The theory of Milankovitch cycles states that periodic changes in Earth’s orbit cause increased summertime sun radiation in the northern hemisphere, which controls ice size.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is completely disputed in the article in July, 2008 of Science that I referenced above. Instead of a few pics taken by a thoroughly discredited group of whackos, chief among them this Hanson character, at NASA. In their 17 year study of the movement of the ice sheet they failed to find evidence of a vast meltdown in the Greenland ice sheet or any of the deleterious effects that so many climate changists claim will occur.

When will you start backing your fantasies with facts instead of conjecture?

I see. NASA is a discredited group of whacko. Nice to know. And the European Space Agency is also a bunch of whackos, right?

Ice loss in Greenland is causing global sea levels to rise by half a millimetre a year, according to new research by Dutch and American scientists. While this doesn't sound like much, the researchers warn that the rate of ice loss appears to be increasing sharply, and in 2007 large amounts of ice were lost from high altitudes (above 2 000 metres) for the first time. The findings are published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Greenland's ice cap is shrinking, scientists warn
© Shutterstock


The scientists from Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands and the University of Texas at Austin, US, arrived at their conclusions after analysing satellite gravity data taken between February 2003 and January 2008 by the German-American GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellites.

The data revealed that between 2003 and 2008, Greenland lost an average of 195 cubic kilometres of ice annually, enough to cause global sea levels to rise by half a millimetre per year. At this rate, Greenland would contribute 5 cm to global sea level rise by the end of the century.

However this average figure masks a trend of increasing ice loss over time. In the first two years of the study, annual ice loss amounted to just 131 cubic kilometres. During the last two years, the rate of ice loss has increased to 222 cubic kilometres per year. Much of this ice was lost during the extremely warm summer of 2007, when over 350 cubic metres of ice melted away in just two months.

The data also enabled the scientists to study what was going on at the regional level. Their investigations revealed that the ice loss is greatest in the south-eastern and north-western corners of the country. In addition to this, more and more ice loss is being seen in northern Greenland and also at higher altitudes (over 2 000 metres).
Research - Headlines - Getting to grips with Greenland's ice loss

Or perhaps the whacko here is you, someone that prefers a nice right wing politically correct stance to reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

A NEW approach to measuring glacier behaviour can keep track of the rapidly changing erosion of ice in south-east Greenland.

Earlier studies focused on two large, rapidly thinning glaciers, but these actually contribute relatively little to total ice loss. Satellite measurements of the island's gravitational field imply a much greater loss than the large glaciers alone can account for.

Now a team led by Ted Scambos of the University of Colorado in Boulder has resolved the disparity by looking at a wider range of glaciers. They used laser altimetry to measure the thinning of inland ice, plus satellite images that show changes at the margins of the ice sheet. Overall, they found that the region is losing more than 100 cubic kilometres of ice a year.


From issue 2668 of New Scientist magazine, page 16. Satellites help explain Greenland ice loss mystery - environment - 09 August 2008 - New Scientist

 

[Bern80]

Went to just one of the links. Very funny. The link concerned the Milankovic Cycle, and the warming of the Southern Oceans. None of what was in the article in any way stated that CO2 was not causing the present warming. Another of Inhofe's lies. Here is a portion of the article. Note that it specifically states the importance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age
Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science.

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

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

Lowell Stott, professor of earth sciences, University of Southern California

Click here for more information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records.

“There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express.

“You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.”

Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown – but was not its main cause.

The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in climate.


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

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

Lowell Stott, professor of earth sciences at the University of Southern California, examines a sediment core.

Click here for more information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate,” Stott cautioned. “It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change.”

While an increase in atmospheric CO2 and the end of the ice ages occurred at roughly the same time, scientists have debated whether CO2 caused the warming or was released later by an already warming sea.

The best estimate from other studies of when CO2 began to rise is no earlier than 18,000 years ago. Yet this study shows that the deep sea, which reflects oceanic temperature trends, started warming about 19,000 years ago.

“What this means is that a lot of energy went into the ocean long before the rise in atmospheric CO2,” Stott said.

But where did this energy come from" Evidence pointed southward.

Water’s salinity and temperature are properties that can be used to trace its origin – and the warming deep water appeared to come from the Antarctic Ocean, the scientists wrote.

This water then was transported northward over 1,000 years via well-known deep-sea currents, a conclusion supported by carbon-dating evidence.

In addition, the researchers noted that deep-sea temperature increases coincided with the retreat of Antarctic sea ice, both occurring 19,000 years ago, before the northern hemisphere’s ice retreat began.

Finally, Stott and colleagues found a correlation between melting Antarctic sea ice and increased springtime solar radiation over Antarctica, suggesting this might be the energy source.

As the sun pumped in heat, the warming accelerated because of sea-ice albedo feedbacks, in which retreating ice exposes ocean water that reflects less light and absorbs more heat, much like a dark T-shirt on a hot day.

In addition, the authors’ model showed how changed ocean conditions may have been responsible for the release of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere, also accelerating the warming.

The link between the sun and ice age cycles is not new. The theory of Milankovitch cycles states that periodic changes in Earth’s orbit cause increased summertime sun radiation in the northern hemisphere, which controls ice size.

So your new excuse, as a non-scientist, now that I have provided a link to actual skeptical peer reviewed information is that it is laughable? Why do you attribute this 'laughableness' to Inhoffe? All that is being done is providing links to peer reviewed material on the subject. Don't shoot the messenger dude.

And when did I say CO2 was not a greenhouse gas? Again you assume causations where there is none. Yes there are many skeptics. Are they skeptical of the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? No. We all get CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What they are skeptical of is the idea that man is the predominant cause of the recent warming trend. I say recent because again it is on the record that there has been no real warming in the past 10 years. What they are not claimng, as you are and the AGW nut jobs, is that CO2 is not the primary cause and that there are many, many other variables. It's you folks that need to get with the evidence and advance your perception just as the science of climate change has advanced. Quit being an Al Gore parrott screaming THE CO2, THE CO2, THE CO2.