Scientist battle Arctic winter to measure melting ice cap

[sitarro]

Why is it so hard to believe that we're fucking up the earth? Is it really that unfathomable? I mean, after 200 years, with 6 billion of us around drilling, extracting, processing, consuming, trashing, and burning the planet. Is it just unlimited? Can it really go on forever with absolutely NO repercussions?

Hmmm.

How about the earth fucking itself up? Can you deny the abuse to the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions? How about forest fires that burn for weeks and are only stopped by the help of man?

I'm curious, if you found out that these "great" unflappable scientific discoveries were being done by "scientist" employed by a subsidiary of Halliburton, what would you think then. These people are in the business of "science", they get paid to do what they do, they can be manipulated.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

The research utilized in that article in Nature was already discounted - as is so often the case with such examples - of course the discounted story was hardly printed, and the incorrect data continues to be circulated.

Can't find it. Show me.

 

[Sinatra]

The research utilized in that article in Nature was already discounted - as is so often the case with such examples - of course the discounted story was hardly printed, and the incorrect data continues to be circulated.

Can't find it. Show me.

-SIGH-

If you cannot "find it" this is proof that you either choose not to pay attention, or you are incapable of forming and educated opinion on this important topic.

The lead author of the Nature article you cite, was Eric Stieg - a professor of minimal note at the University of Washington. To give his paper more global warming street cred, he had Michael Mann assist in the publishing of said paper. Now hopefully you recognize the name of Michael Mann - he is the Penn State gentleman who created the long since discounted "hockey stick" global warming graph repeated in Al Gore's bogus Inconvenient Truth global warming opus. NASA's Goddard Institute also lent an assist to Stieg as well - that is how the process works in the publish or perish world of academics.

Well then Mr. Stieg, full of optimistic future prosperity and scientific community standing, held a quickly arranged news conference announcing his findings and the soon-to-be published article in Nature. The report was picked up by various media outlets such as CNN and NPR, as well as various print publications, and repeated multiple times prior to a full review of said findings. (There was a rush within the global warming community to discount the now long-standing data findings indicating cooling in the Antarctic regions.) This scientific "rush to judgement" was ultimately called onto the carpet by noted independent analyst Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, who discovered a rather substantial error in Steig's data, and reported said error...it was hardly mentioned in the media though. And what had been omitted from the many news reports regarding the Steig article - is that much of his data was based on guestimated projections! (Another funny sidenote to the Steig article - he even made the assumption that since the ozone hole over Antarctica was decreasing, this would then increase global warming! I guess it's damned if you do - damned if you don't!) 20 years ago there was the cry to fix the supposed "hole" in the ozone or humankind will perish - and now that the hole has apparently fixed itself - humankind will perish. Such is the folly of the motive-driven scientific community.

Here is one of just a few news stories that carried the basic error information - though unlike the pro warming stories, this one found a place in the columnist section. Please read it in its entirety:

Despite the hot air, the Antarctic is not warming up - Telegraph

And another corrected findings report from the Herald Sun...

Going cold on Antarctic warming | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


What McIntyre did was completely blow Steig out of the water - and many in the scientific climate community agreed - and were embarrassed for Steig - and by default, themselves. (His standing even on the decidedly liberal UW campus has been greatly diminished - I know this first hand) Not only did McIntyre prove no warming in the Antarctic, but when Steig's data was properly dissected - we saw the very cooling that had been reported for a number of years now. While a little data-heavy, here is a link to one of a number of McIntyre findings related to the now-discounted Steig article:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054

And this example is legion within the Global Warming junta. Incompetent studies with pre-determined conclusions are spread out by an inept and brain-dead media to form unsound public opinion - and it is being done by big business $$$ that is so heavily invested in the climate change industry to lose this momentum would cost them billions in future revenues.

The Antarctic has been cooling - its ice shelf is increasing to levels not seen in decades.

That is scientific fact - you would do well to better aquaint yourself with it.

Normally I have been paid for my lectures - but consider this one an example of my long-standing charitable nature.

And good luck with your future studies...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why is it so hard to believe that we're fucking up the earth? Is it really that unfathomable? I mean, after 200 years, with 6 billion of us around drilling, extracting, processing, consuming, trashing, and burning the planet. Is it just unlimited? Can it really go on forever with absolutely NO repercussions?

Hmmm.

It's not that it is so hard to believe that man is responsible, it's simply that there are so many more important factors to include in the calculation. Consider volcanoes, swamp gas, methane from cows, all of which outweigh human effects. And of course, the single greatest factor, natural sun cycles: consider melting ice on Mars.

The analogy to remember is this: the anthropogenic theory of global warming is comparable to the fear that the numbers of Americans retiring to Florida will cause the continent to flip over.

Let's remember that governments benefit by controlling industry, and scientists stay in business by getting government grants for research.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you are scientifically illeliterate and quite proud of it. What else is new?

So you are a gullible goof who can't spell "illiterate"?

Here's an old saying that you should pay special attention to: Better to let people think you’re a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

You are the one that is telling virually the whole of the scientific community that you know more than they do. Once again, every scientific society, every National Academy of Science, and every major university on earth states that AGW is correct.

But we are to take the word of right wing nuts over the evidence presented by scientists world wide. Right.......

Calm down, Old...Rock.

Thousands of scientists believe that that anthropogenic global warming is a fraud.

And right wing isn't necessarily linked to "nuts." Just look at the current administration.

 

[Chris]

So you are a gullible goof who can't spell "illiterate"?

Here's an old saying that you should pay special attention to: Better to let people think you’re a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

You are the one that is telling virually the whole of the scientific community that you know more than they do. Once again, every scientific society, every National Academy of Science, and every major university on earth states that AGW is correct.

But we are to take the word of right wing nuts over the evidence presented by scientists world wide. Right.......

Calm down, Old...Rock.

Thousands of scientists believe that that anthropogenic global warming is a fraud.

And right wing isn't necessarily linked to "nuts." Just look at the current administration.

Why do you lie?

Thousands of "scientists?"

Bullshit.

 

[del]

You are the one that is telling virually the whole of the scientific community that you know more than they do. Once again, every scientific society, every National Academy of Science, and every major university on earth states that AGW is correct.

But we are to take the word of right wing nuts over the evidence presented by scientists world wide. Right.......

Calm down, Old...Rock.

Thousands of scientists believe that that anthropogenic global warming is a fraud.

And right wing isn't necessarily linked to "nuts." Just look at the current administration.

Why do you lie?

Thousands of "scientists?"

Bullshit.

well that settles it. the *realtor* disagrees.

 

[Sinatra]

Calm down, Old...Rock.

Thousands of scientists believe that that anthropogenic global warming is a fraud.

And right wing isn't necessarily linked to "nuts." Just look at the current administration.

Why do you lie?

Thousands of "scientists?"

Bullshit.

well that settles it. the *realtor* disagrees.

Realtor!

Oh geez - that explains so much...

 

[Old Rocks]

Sinatra;

The lead author of the Nature article you cite, was Eric Stieg - a professor of minimal note at the University of Washington.

........................................................................

Minimal note? Sinatra, this is Eric Stieg. And his position and professional bona fides are not at all minimal. More than likely far better than yours in whatever your field of endevour is.

Research Groups:
Analytical Geochemistry, Glaciology , Climate and Paleoclimate


Other UW Academic Affiliations:
Quaternary Research Center, Program on Climate Change

Background & Current Research:
Professor Eric Steig completed his PhD in Geological Sciences at UW in 1995, was research assistant professor at the University of Colorado from 1996-1998 and Assistant Professor at at the University of Pennsylvania before returning to UW in 2001. Along with Roger Buick in ESS, Becky Alexander in Atmospheric Sciences, and Peter Ward in Biology/ESS, he directs the ISOLAB, a state-of-the art isotope geochemistry facility involving research ranging from climate and atmospheric chemistry to geobiology.

Steig teaches environmental earth science, isotope geochemistry and paleoclimatology at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. With his graduate students, postdocs, and lab staff, he uses various methods to develop time series of past environmental changes as a context for understanding contemporary and possible future change. Current focus areas include temperature and snow accumulation variability in Antarctica, through ice core measurements, satellite remote-sensing; development and application of methods to measure the nitrogen and oxygen isotope concentrations in atmospheric "odd-N" species (HNO3, NO2, NO); and acquisition of ice cores from alpine regions. Research support is from the National Science Foundation's Polar and Atmospheric Sciences Programs, and from the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS).

He has been a contributor to science planning for glaciological and solid-earth geosciences in the polar regions, to international efforts to track pollution in the Arctic, and to archive and sample allocation at the National Ice Core Laboratory. He is a current member of the NSF-funded Ice Core Working Group and the steering committee for the International Partnerships in Ice Coring Sciences (IPICS) initiative. Steig served as Associate Editor (2001-2004) and Senior Editor (2005-2008) of the journal Quaternary Research, and continues as Special Editor for occasional solicted papers of interest. Steig is active in public education, and has given lectures to organizations such as the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve on the Washington State coast, and the Nature Conservancy. He is a founding member and contributor to the influential climate science web site, "RealClimate.org"

More information on Steig's research is available at the lab web pages and the research group web pages listed above. Check the "Dissertations" page to find out about our former students, and what they are doing now at NCAR, NASA, and unversities around the world.

Selected Recent Publications:
Complete publication list available upon request.

Steig EJ, Schneider DP, Rutherford SD, Mann ME, Comiso JC, Shindell DT. Warming of the Antarctic ice sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year. Nature 457 459-462 (January 22, 2009).

Kunasek SA, Alexander B, Steig EJ, Hastings MG, Gleason DJ, Jarvis JC. Measurements and modeling of Δ17O of nitrate in a snowpit from Summit, Greenland. Journal of Geophysical Research 113: D24302, doi:10.1029/2008JD010103 (2008).

Jarvis JC, Steig EJ, Hastings MG, Kunasek SA. The influence of local photochemistry on isotopes of nitrate in Greenland snow. Geophysical Research Letters 35: L21804, doi:10.1029/2008GL035551 (2008).

Schneider EJ, Steig, DP. Ice cores record significant 1940s Antarctic warmth related to tropical climate variability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105: 12154-12158 (2008).

Steig EJ, Wolfe AP. Sprucing up Greenland. Science, 320: 1595-1596 (2008).

Koenig LS, Steig EJ, Winebrenner DP, Shuman CA, A link between microwave extinction length, firn thermal diffusivity and accumulation rate in West Antarctica, Journal of Geophysical Research 2007.

Schneider DP, Steig EJ, van Ommen TD, Dixon DA, Mayewski PA, Jones JM, Bitz CM. Antarctic temperatures over the past two centuries from ice cores. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L16707, doi:10.1029/2006GL02705 (2006).

Steig EJ, Mayewski PA, Dixon DA, Frey MM, Kaspari SD, Schneider DP, Arcone SA, Hamilton GS, Spikes VB, Albert M, Meese D, Gow AJ, Shuman CA, White JWC, Sneed S, Flaherty J, Wumkes M. High-resolution ice cores from US ITASE (West Antarctica); development and validation of chronologies and estimatation of precision and accuracy. Annals of Glaciology 41: 77-84 (2005).

Roe GH & Steig EJ. Characterization of millennial-scale climate variability. Journal of Climate 17: 1929-1944 (2004).

UW-ESS All Faculty Directory

 

[Old Rocks]

Sinatra;

Michael Mann - he is the Penn State gentleman who created the long since discounted "hockey stick" global warming graph

......................................................................

No, the Mann graph has not been discounted. Many independent studies have confirmed it.

..................................

The fall-out culminated in one US politician demanding to see financial and research records from the three scientists who had put the data together: Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes (sometimes referred to simply as MBH).

'Plausible' assessment

The new report, carried out by a panel of the US-based National Research Council (NRC), largely vindicates the researchers' work, first published in 1998.

The review looked at large-scale surface temperature reconstructions from different research groups, together with instrumental records, to try to establish the Earth's surface temperature over the last 2,000 years.

Because thermometer records extend no further back than 150 years ago, scientists have to rely on "proxy data" to glean information about Earth's climate prior to that time.

Tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, ice cores, bore holes, and glaciers are all used to infer the climate of the distant past.

The NRC report concludes: "Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th Century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium."

The report says it has very high confidence that the last few decades of the 20th Century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Backing for 'hockey stick' graph

 

[Old Rocks]

Why is it so hard to believe that we're fucking up the earth? Is it really that unfathomable? I mean, after 200 years, with 6 billion of us around drilling, extracting, processing, consuming, trashing, and burning the planet. Is it just unlimited? Can it really go on forever with absolutely NO repercussions?

Hmmm.

It's not that it is so hard to believe that man is responsible, it's simply that there are so many more important factors to include in the calculation. Consider volcanoes, swamp gas, methane from cows, all of which outweigh human effects. And of course, the single greatest factor, natural sun cycles: consider melting ice on Mars.

The analogy to remember is this: the anthropogenic theory of global warming is comparable to the fear that the numbers of Americans retiring to Florida will cause the continent to flip over.

Let's remember that governments benefit by controlling industry, and scientists stay in business by getting government grants for research.

Yes, let us consider the melting of the southern ice cap on Mars. Scientists claim that it is part of the normal cycle, but the denialists claim it is because of the increasing output of the sun. And in the next sentence, claim that we are in danger of another ice age because of the present spotless sun. Bit of a contradiction here.

Vocanoes cause cooling in the normal course of things. The only type of eruption that causes warming is the Trapp Volcanics, and none of that is going on at present. Think Tambora, Krakatoa, and Pinitubo.

The analogy that you present is ridiculous. AGW is based on the physics of the absorbtion and emission spectra of CO2. Physics well established over one hundred years ago.

Your last sentence is also stupidly ridiculous. So you say that scientists from every nation in the world are all lying on the behest of their respective government for the control of business. Talk about a convoluted conspiracy theory.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why is it so hard to believe that we're fucking up the earth? Is it really that unfathomable? I mean, after 200 years, with 6 billion of us around drilling, extracting, processing, consuming, trashing, and burning the planet. Is it just unlimited? Can it really go on forever with absolutely NO repercussions?

Hmmm.

How about the earth fucking itself up? Can you deny the abuse to the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions? How about forest fires that burn for weeks and are only stopped by the help of man?

I'm curious, if you found out that these "great" unflappable scientific discoveries were being done by "scientist" employed by a subsidiary of Halliburton, what would you think then. These people are in the business of "science", they get paid to do what they do, they can be manipulated.

Yes, the planet is entirely capable of messing the inhabitants over in a major way. It happened at the P-T boundry, when Trapp volcanics caused the release of massive amounts of CH4 and created an atmosphere that was low in oxygen, and an anoxic ocean. 95% of the species of that time went extinct. In the PETM, a similiar volcanic eruption did the same thing, on a much more minor scale, only 20% of existing species went extinct. In both cases, the GHGs were exactly the same ones that we have put into the atmosphere, at a faster rate than happened in the past. So why should the result be differant just because we are the causitive agent?

Were it only the scientists of one nation or one organization that were stating AGW, your critique of their work and financing might have some credibility. However, the scientists are from every nation on earth, and every discipline.

Off subject, your picture of the Norwedgian Forest Cat brings back memories. For fourteen years, I was fortunate enough to have one of these as a companion on many prospecting and adventuring trips.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Antarctic is warming. Period. End of story. The lies of men like Booker cannot change that fact.

Warming Impacts Antarctic Food Chain | LiveScience

CLIMATE CHANGE: New Findings Show Antarctic Warming

Much Of Antarctica Is Warming More Than Previously Thought

Antarctic Warming Trends : Image of the Day

I find NASA a far more trustworthy source than the Bookers and Monktons of this world.

 

[FactFinder]

Judging from this picture no Viking is going to plant crops in Greenland this year.

 

[Old Rocks]

February 2009 compared to past Februaries

Monthly average ice extent for February 2009 was the fourth lowest in the satellite record. February 2005 had the lowest ice extent for the month; February 2006 was the second lowest; and February 2007 is in third place. Including 2009, the downward linear trend in February ice extent over the satellite record stands at –2.8% per decade.
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

 

[FactFinder]

February 2009 compared to past Februaries

Monthly average ice extent for February 2009 was the fourth lowest in the satellite record. February 2005 had the lowest ice extent for the month; February 2006 was the second lowest; and February 2007 is in third place. Including 2009, the downward linear trend in February ice extent over the satellite record stands at –2.8% per decade.
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Of Course! It is still recovering from 2007 but recovering it is. Rather rapidly too. Could have something to do with the sun lacking spots for about a year and a half now, heh?

 

[Old Rocks]

February 2009 compared to past Februaries

Monthly average ice extent for February 2009 was the fourth lowest in the satellite record. February 2005 had the lowest ice extent for the month; February 2006 was the second lowest; and February 2007 is in third place. Including 2009, the downward linear trend in February ice extent over the satellite record stands at –2.8% per decade.
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Of Course! It is still recovering from 2007 but recovering it is. Rather rapidly too. Could have something to do with the sun lacking spots for about a year and a half now, heh?

OK, the total solar irradiance has been down for a year and a half. We have had a strong La Nina of unussual persistance. Yet 2008 ties 2001 for the eighth warmest year on record. And the Artic Sea Ice is at it's fourth lowest recorded extant in February since we have been measuring that ice. And you think this is an arguement that counters AGW?

If the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere were having no effect, this should have been a winter like 1884, or even a year like 1816. Instead, it was the eighth warmest on record.

 

[Old Rocks]

By the way, there was less total ice in 2008 than in 2007. While the ice in 2008 covered more surface area, it was thinner. There was less total volume in 2008 than in 2007.

NSIDC Press Room: Sea Ice Minimum 2008

 

[FactFinder]

February 2009 compared to past Februaries

Monthly average ice extent for February 2009 was the fourth lowest in the satellite record. February 2005 had the lowest ice extent for the month; February 2006 was the second lowest; and February 2007 is in third place. Including 2009, the downward linear trend in February ice extent over the satellite record stands at –2.8% per decade.
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Of Course! It is still recovering from 2007 but recovering it is. Rather rapidly too. Could have something to do with the sun lacking spots for about a year and a half now, heh?

OK, the total solar irradiance has been down for a year and a half. We have had a strong La Nina of unussual persistance. Yet 2008 ties 2001 for the eighth warmest year on record. And the Artic Sea Ice is at it's fourth lowest recorded extant in February since we have been measuring that ice. And you think this is an arguement that counters AGW?

If the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere were having no effect, this should have been a winter like 1884, or even a year like 1816. Instead, it was the eighth warmest on record.

We are just coming off an extended solar maximum. I don't know how many times one has to say this but if I am just starting the decline from a mountain peak, I am still at some of the highest elevations. That doesn't mean I am not descending.

 

[FactFinder]

By the way, there was less total ice in 2008 than in 2007. While the ice in 2008 covered more surface area, it was thinner. There was less total volume in 2008 than in 2007.

NSIDC Press Room: Sea Ice Minimum 2008

Yes it takes several cold winters for the ice to thicken after a period of melting. If the sun keeps this minimum up for very long it will have no problem thickening by next year.