Discussion in 'Environment' started by westwall, Jun 29, 2010.
Seems that the reports may have been....wrong?
Sea Ice News #11 | Watts Up With That?
Well, here is a graph of the ice coverage of the Artic since 1979. At the start, almost completely above the zero line, since 2004, almost completely below the zero line.
Not only that, but the present anomoly is already equal to the maximum for 2009, and we have over 2 months of melt left to go.
And here is a graph of the global sea ice area. Note the slope is also down for this graph.
What exactly would be the problem if all the "sea ice" disappeared?
The problem is that it's not only "sea ice" that's melting. Sea ice is just a convenient way to measure melting. When ice that's on land also melts you get a sea level rise which could proceed to a condition where the central US is once again an inland sea.
Here's a little dose of reality for you konrad. By all means check my numbers and correct any mistakes.
And here is a little bit of logic for you the warmers are worried spitless that the ice caps are going to melt and drown the world..right? However, 91% of the worlds glacial ice is in Antarctica. The average temperature in Antarctica is -40 degrees celcius. The melting point of ice is 0 degree's celsius. That means for the ice to melt the temp worldwide has to rise 40 degree's C. Nowhere in the wildest fantasy of the warmers has the rise in temp been greater than 5 or 6 degrees. So where is all the additional melt water going to come from? old frauds rear end?
Not all of Antarctica is -40. The edges would melt first. A few degrees wouldn't melt the whole thing, but it WOULD significantly shrink the ice cap and cause rising sea levels. I feel that reality is something you don't have to offer. Rather you seem to run from it at every opportunity.
Ok so please show us how during the Medieval Warming Period there was a mass melt that inundated the coastal regions of the world. It was at least three degrees warmer then than now. Where is the evidence?
Where is yours?
"... current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries". Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early and mid-20th century. Crowley and Lowery (2000)  note that "there is insufficient documentation as to its existence in the Southern hemisphere."
This PNAS article states essentially the same thing.
Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia ? PNAS
Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.
First off you really need to stop using wiki as your source. No professor I know of will allow their students to use it as it is so filled with bad information.
Now to your point. My point is that if there had been such a catastrophic rise back then we would know about it now wouldn't we? The temperature was much higher (as much as 2.7 degrees C depending on who you look at) and if the current predictions are to have any validity then you can read the historical record and prove that the sea levels rose. The only problem is you can't, which means that the AGW assertion is bogus along with almost everything else they have been saying.
News Release : New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
C3: 2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present
Medieval Warm Period seen in western USA tree ring fire scars | Watts Up With That?
These are just a very few of the studies that have shown that wherever in the world you look, the evidence of the MWP is plentiful and confirms it was much warmer than the current time.
Separate names with a comma.