97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming

[jreeves]

Funny thing about that antarctic warming it only shows up in the satellite data the ground based weather ovservation station show a cooling trend has been under way since the mid 80's.

It is very difficult to obtain a correct ice cover using satelittes, due to cloud cover....

 

[Old Rocks]

The Melting (Freezing) of Antarctica; Deciphering Contradictory Climate Patterns Is Largely a Matter of Ice
E-MAIL
Print
Single-Page
Reprints
Save
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
By KENNETH CHANG
Published: April 2, 2002
Antarctica is experiencing some of the fastest warming in the world. Antarctica is cooling.

Some of its glaciers are thinning. Some are thickening. Ice shelves are disappearing. More sea ice is forming.

Scientists have reported all this in recent months. It may all be true, even the contradictory parts.

''Confusing, isn't it?'' asked Dr. Eric Rignot, a glacier expert at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.

Dr. Peter T. Doran, a professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, agreed. ''It's a mixed bag of signals.''

The reason is that Antarctica is not a single, simple place. At 5.4 million square miles, it is one-third larger than the United States, and just as the Midwest may experience a heat wave while the Northeast is unusually cool, climate does not move in lock step across Antarctica. Those warning of dire consequences from global warming and those playing down the dangers of heat-trapping greenhouse gases can both find pieces of data to support their views.

''People forget that it's a continent,'' said Dr. David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey. ''We don't expect everything to be the same across Asia when climate changes. It's the same thing there.''

Antarctica's role in climate and the oceans is largely a story of ice. Ninety percent of the world's ice lies either on the continent, in ice sheets that are on average 1.3 miles thick, or in sheets that have flowed offshore to form floating platforms of ice along the coast, hundreds to thousands of feet thick. The largest of these, the Ross Ice Shelf, covers 200,000 square miles, an area about the size of France.

The third component of Antarctic ice is a thin layer of frozen ocean, or sea ice, that grows and shrinks with the seasons. A few feet thick, sea ice covers one million square miles of ocean in summer and grows to six million square miles in winter, doubling the size of the continent.

News like the disintegration of an ice shelf the size of Rhode Island a month ago conjures a vision that a warming world will lead to doom by drowning -- not from melting ice shelves, which like melting ice in a glass do not change water levels, but from melting ice sheets sending their fresh water flowing toward the sea. If all of Antarctica's ice sheets turned to water, the world's oceans would deepen by more than 200 feet.


The Melting (Freezing) of Antarctica; Deciphering Contradictory Climate Patterns Is Largely a Matter of Ice - New York Times

This is the newest information, and the article and links cover the contradictions in data. This link from 2002 sums up the problems dealing with that continent. However, the Grace satellite has meaured the amount of ice that Antarctica is losing on a yearly basis, and there is a net loss.

 

[Old Rocks]

Funny thing about that antarctic warming it only shows up in the satellite data the ground based weather ovservation station show a cooling trend has been under way since the mid 80's.

It is very difficult to obtain a correct ice cover using satelittes, due to cloud cover....

Not affected by weather;
Title:
Antarctic Ice Sheet Mass Variation Using GRACE Satellite Gravity Data- Removal of Atmospheric Correction Error and Recalculation of the Interannual Mass Trend-
Authors:
Yamamoto, K.; Fukuda, Y.; Doi, K.
Affiliation:
AA(Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, 457-4 Motoyama, Kamigamo, Kita-ku, Kyoto, 603-8047, Japan ; yamamoto@chikyu.ac.jp), AB(Department of Geophysics, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa Oiwake-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8502, Japan ; fukuda@kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp), AC(National Institute of Polar Research, 1-9-10, Kaga, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, 173-8515, Japan ; doi@nipr.ac.jp)
Publication:
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #G31A-0643
Publication Date:
12/2008
Origin:
AGU
AGU Keywords:
0726 Ice sheets, 1218 Mass balance (0762, 1223, 1631, 1836, 1843, 3010, 3322, 4532), 1240 Satellite geodesy: results (6929, 7215, 7230, 7240)
Abstract Copyright:
(c) 2008: American Geophysical Union
Bibliographic Code:
2008AGUFM.G31A0643Y

Abstract
An accurate knowledge of Antarctic ice sheet mass trend is one of the important issues for the study of global scale sea level change. GRACE has provided information on the temporal mass variations on the Earth in the form of monthly gravity field solutions, and has enabled us to monitor the ice sheet mass changes directly. However, GRACE cannot distinguish between the various sources of the mass variations. It is well known that Post Glacial Rebound (PGR) also causes large mass trends in Antarctica. To estimate Antarctic ice sheet mass change, PGR mass trend should be estimated and subtracted from the GRACE"fs mass trend. One of the methods to estimate PGR mass trend is to compare elevation change data from ICESat satellite altimetry with mass variation data from GRACE satellite gravimetry. Using GRACE and ICESat data, we previously estimated PGR mass trend in Antarctica and obtained agreeable value for some large mass trend areas. However, because of large errors and limited time span of both GRACE and ICESat data sets, it is difficult to obtain reliable value for small mass trend areas. One of the errors which give serious effect on the small mass trend area in Antarctica is modeling error of short time period atmospheric variation. In the GRACE monthly data processing, ECMWF operational objective analysis data is routinely used to remove atmospheric pressure effect for the purpose of the de- aliasing of the monthly solutions. However, the atmospheric model error is relatively large in Antarctica compared to other areas mainly because of small number of the reliable ground and satellite data. In this study, to improve the ice sheet mass estimation of small mass trend area in Antarctica and to obtain more reliable continental scale Antarctic ice sheet mass variation, we estimated and corrected the atmospheric modeling error in the GRACE monthly solutions. We firstly investigated correlation between GRACE monthly gravity field solutions in Antarctica and monthly average of atmospheric pressure, and removed the error of the atmospheric monthly components from the GRACE monthly solutions. We assumed that the obtained GRACE"fs residual data can be mainly explained by the 3 following components: i.e. ice sheet mass variation, PGR mass trend and aliasing error from insufficient removal of short period atmospheric components. Spatial and Temporal correlation between the residual GRACE data and these 3 components are investigated and estimated atmospheric aliasing error by the least squares method. We used ICESat ice sheet elevation data obtained for the calculation. Using the corrected monthly solutions, we calculated Antarctic ice sheet mass trend and PGR mass trend, and assessed how much the uncertainty of the Antarctic ice sheet mass trend is improved by the correction.
Antarctic Ice Sheet Mass Variation Using GRACE Satellite Gravity Data- Removal o

 

[Old Rocks]

Erica Hupp/Dwayne Brown
Headquarters, Washington
(202) 358-1237/1726

Alan Buis
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
(818) 354-0474

March 2, 2006 RELEASE : 06-085 NASA Mission Detects Significant Antarctic Ice Mass Loss Scientists were able to conduct the first-ever gravity survey of the entire Antarctic ice sheet using data from the joint NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). This comprehensive study found the ice sheet's mass has decreased significantly from 2002 to 2005.

Isabella Velicogna and John Wahr, both from the University of Colorado, Boulder, conducted the study. They demonstrated for the first time that Antarctica's ice sheet lost a significant amount of mass since the launch of GRACE in 2002. The estimated mass loss was enough to raise global sea level about 1.2 millimeters (0.05 inches) during the survey period; about 13 percent of the overall observed sea level rise for the same period. The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005.

That is about how much water the United States consumes in three months (a cubic kilometer is one trillion liters; approximately 264 billion gallons of water). This represents a change of about 0.4 millimeters (.016 inches) per year to global sea level rise. Most of the mass loss came from the West Antarctic ice sheet.

"Antarctica is Earth's largest reservoir of fresh water," Velicogna said. "The GRACE mission is unique in its ability to measure mass changes directly for entire ice sheets and can determine how Earth's mass distribution changes over time. Because ice sheets are a large source of uncertainties in projections of sea level change, this represents a very important step toward more accurate prediction, and has important societal and economic impacts. As more GRACE data become available, it will become feasible to search for longer-term changes in the rate of Antarctic mass loss," she said.

Measuring variations in Antarctica's ice sheet mass is difficult because of its size and complexity. GRACE is able to overcome these issues, surveying the entire ice sheet, and tracking the balance between mass changes in the interior and coastal areas.
NASA - NASA Mission Detects Significant Antarctic Ice Mass Loss

 

[garyd]

Do we by the gravity survey or the earlier Radar survey that said it was getting thicker?

 

[Old Rocks]

Do we by the gravity survey or the earlier Radar survey that said it was getting thicker?

Which means what? We are trying to determines whether the continent is gaining or losing ice at present. For the past we use proxy data from ice cores. However, what matters is the present state, for that is what will affect our ports and low lying farmland.

 

[Chris]

The Antarctic ice in the water is melting because the ocean is warming.

The land ice is staying cool because of the hole in the ozone created by our CFCs.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Let's do nothing and see what happens. = )

 

[Chris]

Let's do nothing and see what happens. = )

I'm sure that's what we will do.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Let's do nothing and see what happens. = )

I'm sure that's what we will do.

Don't you love it when everybody loses?

 

[Chris]

Let's do nothing and see what happens. = )

I'm sure that's what we will do.

Don't you love it when everybody loses?

Well, at least it will be warmer.

 

[Red Dawn]

That's odd.

Four days into this thread and Chris, Old Rocks, and other scientifically literate people are backing up their arguments with NASA, AGU, USGS and other bonifide worldwide recognized scientific bodies.

And the denialists are still posting some crap from a far rightwing senator's website, and from some crack pot "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon.


What a catastrophic performance by the flat earthers. Four days later and they still haven't been able to hook us up with one major recognized international scientific body that supports their position.

 

[JohnStOnge]

That's odd.

Four days into this thread and Chris, Old Rocks, and other scientifically literate people are backing up their arguments with NASA, AGU, USGS and other bonifide worldwide recognized scientific bodies.

And the denialists are still posting some crap from a far rightwing senator's website, and from some crack pot "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon.


What a catastrophic performance by the flat earthers. Four days later and they still haven't been able to hook us up with one major recognized international scientific body that supports their position.

Well, I'll admit that I think the IPCC as well as the environmental sciences in general are dominated by people with what I call a "Gaian" bias. But I would've thought people on your side of the debate would consider it a credible source.

Besides, "scientifically literate" people shouldn't need reference to others to see concerns about what's going on with the climate change thing. These people are not only implying that they've shown cause and effect. They're claiming that they understand the cause and effect relationship enough to say that if we do or don't do X, Y or Z will happen. They're also, in a separate effort, claiming to know that raising the Earth's temperature to a level that will still be below what it's believed to have been for most of the history of life on this planet will threaten our species.

 

[Chris]

That's odd.

Four days into this thread and Chris, Old Rocks, and other scientifically literate people are backing up their arguments with NASA, AGU, USGS and other bonifide worldwide recognized scientific bodies.

And the denialists are still posting some crap from a far rightwing senator's website, and from some crack pot "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon.


What a catastrophic performance by the flat earthers. Four days later and they still haven't been able to hook us up with one major recognized international scientific body that supports their position.

That's because there aren't any.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% is causing the earth to retain more heat.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

That's odd.

Four days into this thread and Chris, Old Rocks, and other scientifically literate people are backing up their arguments with NASA, AGU, USGS and other bonifide worldwide recognized scientific bodies.

And the denialists are still posting some crap from a far rightwing senator's website, and from some crack pot "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon.


What a catastrophic performance by the flat earthers. Four days later and they still haven't been able to hook us up with one major recognized international scientific body that supports their position.

It isn't valid just because it is from the government.

And who are these flat earthers you are talking about? I think you are just throwing that in to deride them.

 

[Old Rocks]

That's odd.

Four days into this thread and Chris, Old Rocks, and other scientifically literate people are backing up their arguments with NASA, AGU, USGS and other bonifide worldwide recognized scientific bodies.

And the denialists are still posting some crap from a far rightwing senator's website, and from some crack pot "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon.


What a catastrophic performance by the flat earthers. Four days later and they still haven't been able to hook us up with one major recognized international scientific body that supports their position.

Well, I'll admit that I think the IPCC as well as the environmental sciences in general are dominated by people with what I call a "Gaian" bias. But I would've thought people on your side of the debate would consider it a credible source.

Besides, "scientifically literate" people shouldn't need reference to others to see concerns about what's going on with the climate change thing. These people are not only implying that they've shown cause and effect. They're claiming that they understand the cause and effect relationship enough to say that if we do or don't do X, Y or Z will happen. They're also, in a separate effort, claiming to know that raising the Earth's temperature to a level that will still be below what it's believed to have been for most of the history of life on this planet will threaten our species.

You did not show anything other than a play on semantics.

Scientifically literate people base their arguements on real scientists and the work that they have done. No one person can be expert in all realms of science. Therefore, we site the work of others.

We know from geological evidence what happens when there is an adrupt climate change. And, no, it would not threaton the survival of our species. A few would survive. But it would be the end of civilization as we know it.

 

[Old Rocks]

That's odd.

Four days into this thread and Chris, Old Rocks, and other scientifically literate people are backing up their arguments with NASA, AGU, USGS and other bonifide worldwide recognized scientific bodies.

And the denialists are still posting some crap from a far rightwing senator's website, and from some crack pot "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon.


What a catastrophic performance by the flat earthers. Four days later and they still haven't been able to hook us up with one major recognized international scientific body that supports their position.

It isn't valid just because it is from the government.

And who are these flat earthers you are talking about? I think you are just throwing that in to deride them.

From the government scientists. From the scientists worldwide. From the scientists that work for other governments and private institutions.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

That's odd.

Four days into this thread and Chris, Old Rocks, and other scientifically literate people are backing up their arguments with NASA, AGU, USGS and other bonifide worldwide recognized scientific bodies.

And the denialists are still posting some crap from a far rightwing senator's website, and from some crack pot "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon.


What a catastrophic performance by the flat earthers. Four days later and they still haven't been able to hook us up with one major recognized international scientific body that supports their position.

Well, I'll admit that I think the IPCC as well as the environmental sciences in general are dominated by people with what I call a "Gaian" bias. But I would've thought people on your side of the debate would consider it a credible source.

Besides, "scientifically literate" people shouldn't need reference to others to see concerns about what's going on with the climate change thing. These people are not only implying that they've shown cause and effect. They're claiming that they understand the cause and effect relationship enough to say that if we do or don't do X, Y or Z will happen. They're also, in a separate effort, claiming to know that raising the Earth's temperature to a level that will still be below what it's believed to have been for most of the history of life on this planet will threaten our species.

You did not show anything other than a play on semantics.

Scientifically literate people base their arguements on real scientists and the work that they have done. No one person can be expert in all realms of science. Therefore, we site the work of others.

We know from geological evidence what happens when there is an adrupt climate change. And, no, it would not threaton the survival of our species. A few would survive. But it would be the end of civilization as we know it.

Quickly "scientifically literate" is equaling "going along with the program."

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientifically literate as in backing positions with evidence and reputable scientific sources.

 

[Red Dawn]

That's odd.

Four days into this thread and Chris, Old Rocks, and other scientifically literate people are backing up their arguments with NASA, AGU, USGS and other bonifide worldwide recognized scientific bodies.

And the denialists are still posting some crap from a far rightwing senator's website, and from some crack pot "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon.


What a catastrophic performance by the flat earthers. Four days later and they still haven't been able to hook us up with one major recognized international scientific body that supports their position.

It isn't valid just because it is from the government.

And who are these flat earthers you are talking about? I think you are just throwing that in to deride them.

The National Academy of Science isn't "the government."

It's america's, and probably the world's, premeir body of distinguished scientists who are either privately employed or who work in universities, and they work pro bono as an advisory panel on issues of national importance.

The national academy of sciences says human impacts on climate are a near certainty.

Fisty the Badger and some "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon is about a good a source as you flat earthers have been able to contribute to the thread. Pathetic.