Global Warming Mapped!

[Michael Hardner]

The debate is only beginning.

Actually, it seems to be winding down.

Notable skeptic Friis-Christensen acknowledged a year ago that warming can't be explained by solar activity alone.

The Independent

[waldo]

I was expecting better from Waldo. The only cite he could find is from George Monbiot's BLOG? That explains why the MSM never reported it. So Phil Jones' official statement still stands - no significant warming (although there WAS a little bit) since 1995. In itself, Waldo's faux-pas is not a big deal.....but it's an indication of the cumulative desperation that has affected the Alarmist community as their maniacal shouts of "Deniers" start to fall on deaf ears. The debate is only beginning.

poor sad, pathetic Simple ton. Of course that's "the" George Monbiot, science & technology writer for the mainstream Guardian newspaper, one of the most vocal critics of Phil Jones in those early days of Hackergate... and, of course, as events played out over the many since months, Monbiot has turned around to write that formal apology to Jones. You can choose to dismiss Monbiot, the Guardian - whatever... it's simply your denier desperation playing out.

what you can't dismiss are your actions - are your words. Again, you choose to dismiss all the other global temperature records (from NASA, from NOAA, from JMA, etc.) that all showed and continue to show statistically significant warming at the 95% level (even at the purposely cherry-picked short-term trending timeframe, 1995-2009). You choose to ignore all that in favour of denying or downplaying warming by singling out the CRU dataset:

- the CRU dataset that showed statistical significant warming at the 93% level over that purposely cherry-picked short-term 1995-2009 trending interval period

- the CRU dataset that showed statistical significant warming at the 95% level if just a single years worth of data (1994) were added to the purposely cherry-picked interval (1995-2009)

- the CRU dataset that historically is the dataset, of all global temperature records, that presents the least warming given it doesn't include data from the Arctic regions (the area of the globe experiencing the most dramatic warming).

really Simple - why are you choosing to cherry-pick the CRU data (from all the other global records available)?... and why are you choosing to rely upon the short-term cherry-picked time period trending interval (1995-2009)? We have no shortage of MLW thread posts that have gone into in-depth discussion about proper trending practices, particularly in relation to climatic events, appropriate intervals for climate trending, noise considerations within climatic event trending, etc., etc., etc. You know all of this, yet... you choose to do, what you choose to do. This all started up again on MLW because, just a few days ago, you chose to reference the same initial Phil Jones quote and use it as an unconditional testament that there has been no statistically significant warming. As I said, Simple ton... your denier desperation shines through, brighter and brighter, day by day! Seriously, one wonders how you rationalize your admission of a "little bit of warming" having occurred... in the face of such formal pronouncements that project this closing decade to be the warmest decade on record!

[Keepitsimple]

Actually, it seems to be winding down.

Notable skeptic Friis-Christensen acknowledged a year ago that warming can't be explained by solar activity alone.

The Independent

All of the studies and critiques of peripheral GW science are not worth a hill of beans if the global temperature cannot be correctly measured, historically and currently - because everything flows from that.....and that is where I have my biggest problem. The troposphere SHOULD be 1.2 times the temperature of the earth's surface - and in the tropics, it should be 1.5 times greater. In fact, sattelite observations don't come anywhere close - at best, they are equal.....and that to me, says there is an extremely warm bias in the measurement of ground stations.....most likely due to the Urban Heat Island or some of the other siting and inconsistencies that have been documented.......but regardless, this is a huge hole in the AGW theory. Waldo et al will cut and paste until the cows come home but the truth is - the troposphere is not as hot as the AGW theory predicts it SHOULD be.

A potentially serious inconsistency has been identified in the tropics, the area in which tropospheric amplification should be seen. Section 1.1 of the CCSP report says:

"In the tropics, the agreement between models and observations depends on the time scale considered. For month-to-month and year-to-year variations, models and observations both show amplification (i.e., the month-to-month and year-to-year variations are larger aloft than at the surface). This is a consequence of relatively simple physics, the effects of the release of latent heat as air rises and condenses in clouds. The magnitude of this amplification is very similar in models and observations. On decadal and longer time scales, however, while almost all model simulations show greater warming aloft (reflecting the same physical processes that operate on the monthly and annual time scales), most observations show greater warming at the surface."These results could arise either because “real world” amplification effects on short and long time scales are controlled by different physical mechanisms, and models fail to capture such behavior; or because non-climatic influences remaining in some or all of the observed tropospheric data sets lead to biased long-term trends; or a combination of these factors. The new evidence in this Report favors the second explanation."

The lower troposphere trend derived from UAH satellites (+0.128 °C/decade) is currently lower than both the GISS and Hadley Centre surface station network trends (+0.161 and +0.160 °C/decade respectively), while the RSS trend (+0.158 °C/decade) is similar. However, the expected trend in the lower troposphere, given the surface data, would be around 0.194 °C/decade, making the UAH and RSS trends 66% and 81% of the expected value respectively.

Link: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Satellite%20temperature%20measurements

[Michael Hardner]

All of the studies and critiques of peripheral GW science are not worth a hill of beans if the global temperature cannot be correctly measured, historically and currently - because everything flows from that.....and that is where I have my biggest problem. The troposphere SHOULD be 1.2 times the temperature of the earth's surface - and in the tropics, it should be 1.5 times greater. In fact, sattelite observations don't come anywhere close - at best, they are equal.....and that to me, says there is an extremely warm bias in the measurement of ground stations.....most likely due to the Urban Heat Island or some of the other siting and inconsistencies that have been documented.......but regardless, this is a huge hole in the AGW theory. Waldo et al will cut and paste until the cows come home but the truth is - the troposphere is not as hot as the AGW theory predicts it SHOULD be.

Temperatures have been measured in a number of different ways, though. Also if there was such an obvious error as that, wouldn't the scientists have caught it in peer review ?

What temperature sets do legitimate climate skeptics use ?

[dre]

And for months I was correct. The fact that Phil Jones has now "updated" things to assert that the data does show a statistically significant warming only proves my point that that wasn't the case a year ago. So once again, I'm proven correct.

Geez, I'm sorry I didn't provide equal time to something I didn't know had happened.

P.S. Rumour has it that I'm highly favoured to win the Most Outstanding Poster award for this year as well.

P.S. Rumour has it that I'm highly favoured to win the Most Outstanding Poster award for this year as well.

Theres no QUESTION you deserve it. You really DO stand out. Sort of like a circus clown with a huge blue afro, riding a bright orange tricyle backwards over a cliff, stands out!

Youll definately get MY vote again this year!

[Guest TrueMetis]

All of the studies and critiques of peripheral GW science are not worth a hill of beans if the global temperature cannot be correctly measured, historically and currently - because everything flows from that.....and that is where I have my biggest problem. The troposphere SHOULD be 1.2 times the temperature of the earth's surface - and in the tropics, it should be 1.5 times greater. In fact, sattelite observations don't come anywhere close - at best, they are equal.....and that to me, says there is an extremely warm bias in the measurement of ground stations.....most likely due to the Urban Heat Island or some of the other siting and inconsistencies that have been documented.......but regardless, this is a huge hole in the AGW theory. Waldo et al will cut and paste until the cows come home but the truth is - the troposphere is not as hot as the AGW theory predicts it SHOULD be.

Link: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Satellite%20temperature%20measurements

In the future look up all your "holes" at this website it will save me the trouble.

ETA and here's a video to.

Edited December 19, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Keepitsimple]

Temperatures have been measured in a number of different ways, though. Also if there was such an obvious error as that, wouldn't the scientists have caught it in peer review ?

What temperature sets do legitimate climate skeptics use ?

It's not really the measurement that's at question so much as the theory. The theory states that it should be 1.2 times warmer than surface temperature in the troposphere and 1.5 times when measured at the tropics. It is not......so either the surface temperatures are incorrect or the sattelite measurements are incorrect....or the theory is incorrect. Either way, there's a big hole to fill because as I say - everything stems from the fact that temperatures are really out of sync with natural climate variation. All of the other stuff is just noise and speculation.

[xul]

If we had to use extreme measures orbital mirrors or lenses would be preferable to mass detonations of nuclear warheads.

Exactly the global warming thing is not what I concern about. Once oil runs out in one or two hundred years later we will face the global cooling down and it will cure the global warming disease.

But if by then our dear "brilliant scientists" can not invent some replacemenst better than the old one to power our cars, Walmart-galobal-factories, and military tanks of course--and above all to synthesize chemical fertilizers to grow enough crops feeding 7 or 8 billion people on the planet, you will see which one, I mean genes created by God or the school textbooks created by the global-liberal-think-tank-union, have the most influence on human(include freedom and human rights loved humans like American and Canadian) behavior.

Edited December 19, 2010 by xul

[Michael Hardner]

It's not really the measurement that's at question so much as the theory. The theory states that it should be 1.2 times warmer than surface temperature in the troposphere and 1.5 times when measured at the tropics. It is not......so either the surface temperatures are incorrect or the sattelite measurements are incorrect....or the theory is incorrect. Either way, there's a big hole to fill because as I say - everything stems from the fact that temperatures are really out of sync with natural climate variation. All of the other stuff is just noise and speculation.

What theory ? Is the data correct or not ? What about the ground stations ? Which temperature sets do skeptical scientists use ?

[waldo]

All of the studies and critiques of peripheral GW science are not worth a hill of beans if the global temperature cannot be correctly measured, historically and currently - because everything flows from that.....and that is where I have my biggest problem. The troposphere SHOULD be 1.2 times the temperature of the earth's surface - and in the tropics, it should be 1.5 times greater. In fact, satellite observations don't come anywhere close - at best, they are equal.....and that to me, says there is an extremely warm bias in the measurement of ground stations.....most likely due to the Urban Heat Island or some of the other siting and inconsistencies that have been documented.......but regardless, this is a huge hole in the AGW theory. Waldo et al will cut and paste until the cows come home but the truth is - the troposphere is not as hot as the AGW theory predicts it SHOULD be.

A potentially serious inconsistency has been identified in the tropics, the area in which tropospheric amplification should be seen. Section 1.1 of the CCSP report says:

"In the tropics, the agreement between models and observations depends on the time scale considered. For month-to-month and year-to-year variations, models and observations both show amplification (i.e., the month-to-month and year-to-year variations are larger aloft than at the surface). This is a consequence of relatively simple physics, the effects of the release of latent heat as air rises and condenses in clouds. The magnitude of this amplification is very similar in models and observations. On decadal and longer time scales, however, while almost all model simulations show greater warming aloft (reflecting the same physical processes that operate on the monthly and annual time scales), most observations show greater warming at the surface."These results could arise either because “real world” amplification effects on short and long time scales are controlled by different physical mechanisms, and models fail to capture such behavior; or because non-climatic influences remaining in some or all of the observed tropospheric data sets lead to biased long-term trends; or a combination of these factors. The new evidence in this Report favors the second explanation."

The lower troposphere trend derived from UAH satellites (+0.128 °C/decade) is currently lower than both the GISS and Hadley Centre surface station network trends (+0.161 and +0.160 °C/decade respectively), while the RSS trend (+0.158 °C/decade) is similar. However, the expected trend in the lower troposphere, given the surface data, would be around 0.194 °C/decade, making the UAH and RSS trends 66% and 81% of the expected value respectively.

Link: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Satellite%20temperature%20measurements

It's not really the measurement that's at question so much as the theory. The theory states that it should be 1.2 times warmer than surface temperature in the troposphere and 1.5 times when measured at the tropics. It is not......so either the surface temperatures are incorrect or the satellite measurements are incorrect....or the theory is incorrect. Either way, there's a big hole to fill because as I say - everything stems from the fact that temperatures are really out of sync with natural climate variation. All of the other stuff is just noise and speculation.

Simple... too easy - notwithstanding the fine smackdown TrueMetis just delivered to you... let's examine what you've brought to the table:

- Simple presents, as he states, "a big hole"... of course, one can ask Simple if he would change his tune... if only that "big hole"... could be plugged.

... and ya, Simple... is that you complaining about cut&paste... as you cut&paste - whaaa!

- Simple keeps harping on his favourite TV weatherman's smoking-gun... UHI. Of course, we've addressed that many times over in previous MLW climate change related threads when Simple's parroted his TV weather guy. Aside from the repeated NOAA refutations that directly address the TV weatherman wizard... Simple still keeps trotting it out.

- Simple's key linked (indirect) reference is actually to prominent, very legitimate scientists... several of the same names he's trashed in the past, particularly given their involvements as lead authors or contributors to IPCC reports. Somehow... Simple likes these guys - now... when he thinks he can use something for his purposes!

- Simple's main reference is to a copy of a wiki page... hmmmm... careful Simple, watch out - danger ahead!

- Simple's wiki article references a CCSP report; specifically CCSP 1.1. Now... certainly CCSP is a most legitimate entity/program... I've referenced CCSP reports many times, along with reports from it's covering umbrella, the USGCRP. If I recall correctly, I held up CCSP & USGCRP reports as examples of separate bodies working to review, analyze and report on climate... separate and independent of the IPCC. One can only assume Simple is reading some dated denier blog reference and can't be bothered to actually check out the basis of his, as he calls it, "big hole". Apparently... Simple doesn't realize CCSP reports are now up to CCSP 5.3 - Simple's reference is to the very first initial CCSP report, CCSP 1.1 (initiated in 2004 with final release in Feb 2006 - a full year prior to the release of the Feb 2007 IPCC AR4 report).

perhaps Simple just needs to get a bit current... or actually try to check out his dated denier blog references... or just throw a MLW search out there, hey Simple? So, in the following quote string, another of the MLW usual suspects, previously trotted out a more direct reference to the same 2000 Santer et al paper that Simple's linked wiki article references.

...you must have really scrambled to find that Heartland Institute/Michaels gem. Without offering any comment you dropped a blind link to a dated “article” that references an early 2000 Santer et al study that speaks to what was, at that time, an apparent lack of tropospheric warming from 1979… that is to say, a perceived difference between surface and tropospheric warming rates. The study concludes by acknowledging:

a significant difference between models and data in terms of their relative temperature changes at the surface and in the lower troposphere. This discrepancy is probably related to a combination of four factors: forcing uncertainties, model errors, residual uncertainties in the surface and MSU 2LT data, and signal estimation problems.

The study conclusion continues to elaborate on each of the four factors and finishes with the statements,

These results highlight the difficulty of reliably estimating the climate responses to different forcing mechanisms without multiple realizations for each forcing experiment. All of these factors make it difficult to determine the precise cause or causes of recent observed surface-troposphere temperature trend differences. To better understand these causes, we urgently require additional simulations of the climate of the past two decades. Such simulations should be performed with a variety of models and should explore current uncertainties in key natural and anthropogenic forcings, using multiple realizations of each experiment

Imagine… scientists acknowledging discrepancies, uncertainties, errors and estimation problems… and yet… somehow the Heartland Institute/Michaels clap-trap interprets an author’s (Santer et al) self-serving misrepresentation while at the same time throwing innuendo around – beauty!

In any case, you can choose to while away in the Heartland Institute fallacious past… or you can recognize that science progresses – go figure! Santer… one of the most distinguished and recognized atmospheric scientists… has been most busy this past decade since that early 2000 paper – busy in bringing forward a most prolific body of work with multiple papers per year. With this, your latest temperature-GHG-temperature spin-cycle, perhaps you’ll give passing acknowledgment to this 2008 Santer et al paper: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere

A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified a potentially serious inconsistency between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006).

Early versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs).

We revisit such comparisons here using new observational estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes.

We find that there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates.

This emerging reconciliation of models and observations has two primary explanations. First, because of changes in the treatment of buoy and satellite information, new surface temperature datasets yield slightly reduced tropical warming relative to earlier versions. Second, recently developed satellite and radiosonde datasets show larger warming of the tropical lower troposphere. In the case of a new satellite dataset from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), enhanced warming is due to an improved procedure of adjusting for inter-satellite biases. When the RSS-derived tropospheric temperature trend is compared with four different observed estimates of surface temperature change, the surface warming is invariably amplified in the tropical troposphere, consistent with model results. Even if we use data from a second satellite dataset with smaller tropospheric warming than in RSS, observed tropical lapse rate trends are not significantly different from those in all other model simulations.

Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical consistency test

. Copyright © 2008 Royal Meteorological Society

... or perhaps you have a more current Heartland Institute response!

[WIP]

All of the studies and critiques of peripheral GW science are not worth a hill of beans if the global temperature cannot be correctly measured, historically and currently - because everything flows from that.....and that is where I have my biggest problem. The troposphere SHOULD be 1.2 times the temperature of the earth's surface - and in the tropics, it should be 1.5 times greater. In fact, sattelite observations don't come anywhere close - at best, they are equal.....and that to me, says there is an extremely warm bias in the measurement of ground stations.....most likely due to the Urban Heat Island or some of the other siting and inconsistencies that have been documented.......but regardless, this is a huge hole in the AGW theory. Waldo et al will cut and paste until the cows come home but the truth is - the troposphere is not as hot as the AGW theory predicts it SHOULD be.

Link: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Satellite%20temperature%20measurements

Have you considered that your global warming-denying sources concentrate on the ups and downs and volatility of the world's atmosphere, while avoiding attention on what's going on in the oceans? There's a good reason why they do this -- 90% of the energy that's been absorbed has been in the planet's oceans, not the atmosphere. The most dramatic effects of climate change have been melting glaciers, both on land, in Greenland and the Antarctica, and in the Arctic Ocean, which has lost nearly half of the amount of ice it had 50 years ago.

If you do a simple grade school experiment by placing a thermometer in water, and then freezing it; you'll notice that after taking it out of the freezer, the thermometer won't rise until the ice surrounding it has melted. On a planetary scale, this shows us how most of the heat trapped by rising greenhouse gas levels, has been dissipated by melting ice, rather than raising air temperatures. But now that the glaciers have significantly melted, and could be gone in a matter of decades, guess where the energy increase from the increased greenhouse effect is going to be felt?

[Bonam]

On a planetary scale, this shows us how most of the heat trapped by rising greenhouse gas levels, has been dissipated by melting ice, rather than raising air temperatures. But now that the glaciers have significantly melted, and could be gone in a matter of decades, guess where the energy increase from the increased greenhouse effect is going to be felt?

Technically, the amount of ice melted so far is almost negligible compared to the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet. It contains about 2x10¹⁶ m³ of ice. In fact, more than 90% of the world's ice is part of that ice sheet. By far the larger segment, the east Antarctic ice sheet, is still thought to be slowly accumulating mass, rather than melting.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Technically, the amount of ice melted so far is almost negligible compared to the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet. It contains about 2x10¹⁶ m³ of ice. In fact, more than 90% of the world's ice is part of that ice sheet. By far the larger segment, the east Antarctic ice sheet, is still thought to be slowly accumulating mass, rather than melting.

To preempt any people from saying anything stupid on that last bit I should point out that an increase in ice volume somewhere could be due to warming as there is more water in the air to feed a glacier.

[Bonam]

To preempt any people from saying anything stupid on that last bit I should point out that an increase in ice volume somewhere could be due to warming as there is more water in the air to feed a glacier.

Yup, true. It's actually also believed that ozone depletion has had a significant impact on antarctic climate:

Some scientific studies suggest that ozone depletion may have a dominant role in the recent climate changes in Antarctica (and a wider area of the Southern Hemisphere).[96] Ozone absorbs large amounts of ultraviolet radiation in the stratosphere. Ozone depletion over Antarctica can cause a cooling of around 6 °C in the local stratosphere. This cooling has the effect of intensifying the westerly winds which flow around the continent (the polar vortex) and thus prevents outflow of the cold air near the South Pole. As a result, the continental mass of the East Antarctic ice sheet is held at lower temperatures, and the peripheral areas of Antarctica, especially the Antarctic Peninsula, are subject to higher temperatures, which promote accelerated melting.[96] Recent models also suggest that the ozone depletion/enhanced polar vortex effect also accounts for the recent increase in sea-ice just offshore of the continent.[98]

[WIP]

Technically, the amount of ice melted so far is almost negligible compared to the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet.

Which is totally beside the point, since the Antarctic has always contained more ice than the Arctic Ocean! The core issue is that ice is disappearing at a more rapid rate than at any previous time in earth history. The effects of reduced ice are: imminent extinction of animals that have become specifically adapted to that environment and will not have time to adjust to the new environment; further increase in global warming due to reduced albedo because of disappearing ice; and if you're concerned about the increase in extreme weather of late -- expect more of the same and much worse -- since ice moderates temperature extremes, plus enables the ocean conveyor system that keeps the oceans circulating, and adding oxygen to ocean water.

It contains about 2x10¹⁶ m³ of ice. In fact, more than 90% of the world's ice is part of that ice sheet. By far the larger segment, the east Antarctic ice sheet, is still thought to be slowly accumulating mass, rather than melting.

The only thing that's increasing overall is Antarctic sea ice, not the land-based glaciers. As a whole, the land ice is decreasing; regional increases like in the East Antarctic, are due to being part of a different weather system than the western half of the continent. In fact, the likely reason for the increase in the East Antarctic Glacier is from the precipitation coming from the areas of the Antarctic that are melting.

Another point to keep in mind is that the Antarctic Ocean temperature is rising faster than the Arctic; so although it may take longer to disappear, the Antarctic is going to lose all of its ice also!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

[WIP]

Yup, true. It's actually also believed that ozone depletion has had a significant impact on antarctic climate:

Some scientific studies suggest that ozone depletion may have a dominant role in the recent climate changes in Antarctica (and a wider area of the Southern Hemisphere).[96] Ozone absorbs large amounts of ultraviolet radiation in the stratosphere. Ozone depletion over Antarctica can cause a cooling of around 6 °C in the local stratosphere. This cooling has the effect of intensifying the westerly winds which flow around the continent (the polar vortex) and thus prevents outflow of the cold air near the South Pole. As a result, the continental mass of the East Antarctic ice sheet is held at lower temperatures, and the peripheral areas of Antarctica, especially the Antarctic Peninsula, are subject to higher temperatures, which promote accelerated melting.[96] Recent models also suggest that the ozone depletion/enhanced polar vortex effect also accounts for the recent increase in sea-ice just offshore of the continent.[98]

From the previous link:

If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). This strengthens the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas lead to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

What they're saying is that a cooling of the stratosphere caused by ozone depletion, is not going to rebuild the Antarctic if it increases the number and power of storms. The waters surrounding the Antarctic are warming rapidly, as mentioned above, and an increase in storm activity is going to work against whatever cooling effects a drop in ozone production would cause.

[Bonam]

Which is totally beside the point, since the Antarctic has always contained more ice than the Arctic Ocean! The core issue is that ice is disappearing at a more rapid rate than at any previous time in earth history. The effects of reduced ice are: imminent extinction of animals that have become specifically adapted to that environment and will not have time to adjust to the new environment; further increase in global warming due to reduced albedo because of disappearing ice; and if you're concerned about the increase in extreme weather of late -- expect more of the same and much worse -- since ice moderates temperature extremes, plus enables the ocean conveyor system that keeps the oceans circulating, and adding oxygen to ocean water.

It's not beside your original point which I responded to. Your point was that as long as ice is melting, the excess energy that the Earth is absorbing is going into melting that ice, and once we run out of ice, all that energy will start going into actually heating the ocean and the atmosphere rather than just melting ice, resulting in much quicker warming. That's all true of course, simple physics, as any physics freshmen who has done an experiment with an ice bath knows. But, you made this sound like it was an imminent effect based on the fact that arctic sea ice is rapidly diminishing. However, that is not true, because there is plenty more ice on the Earth to melt. Earth's "ice bath" will not run out of ice until the majority of Antarctica melts, and that won't happen any time soon.

Of course, reductions in ice will reduce albedo and will destroy habitat of animals that depend on it, but those are other specific points, separate to the specific point above.

[WIP]

It's not beside your original point which I responded to. Your point was that as long as ice is melting, the excess energy that the Earth is absorbing is going into melting that ice, and once we run out of ice, all that energy will start going into actually heating the ocean and the atmosphere rather than just melting ice, resulting in much quicker warming. That's all true of course, simple physics, as any physics freshmen who has done an experiment with an ice bath knows. But, you made this sound like it was an imminent effect based on the fact that arctic sea ice is rapidly diminishing. However, that is not true, because there is plenty more ice on the Earth to melt. Earth's "ice bath" will not run out of ice until the majority of Antarctica melts, and that won't happen any time soon.

Our weather is directly affected by what's going on in the Arctic, not the Antarctic. The volume of ice on the Antarctic Continent isn't going to help us much if the Arctic Ocean becomes ice-free in a few decades: Ice-Free Arctic Ocean Possible In 30 Years, Not 90 As Previously Estimated and

Arctic sea ice extent for December 2010 was the lowest in the satellite record for that month. These low ice conditions are linked to a strong negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, similar to the situation that dominated the winter of 2009-2010.

It will mean catastrophe for the Arctic Ocean ecosystem; a weakening of the ocean conveyor system in the Northern Hemisphere....think about the effect a severely weakened Gulf Stream Current will have on Europe; and let's try to imagine how much worse the recent extremes in weather will be when there is no permanent Arctic Ice Cap to moderate temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere.

[GostHacked]

Our weather is directly affected by what's going on in the Arctic, not the Antarctic.

Why is the Antarctic not a factor in the warming/cooling? If we are talking about a Global Warming, why are parts of the globe left out of the equation? What would be the reasoning for it?

The volume of ice on the Antarctic Continent isn't going to help us much if the Arctic Ocean becomes ice-free in a few decades: Ice-Free Arctic Ocean Possible In 30 Years, Not 90 As Previously Estimated and

Arctic sea ice extent for December 2010 was the lowest in the satellite record for that month. These low ice conditions are linked to a strong negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, similar to the situation that dominated the winter of 2009-2010.

Why is the Antarctic not a factor in the warming/cooling? I don't know how much of a closed loop system the earths weather is, but if the ice grows in the south but decreases in the north, does that not mean that the amount of ice total is about the same? I don't think it will make much of a difference in the water levels rising, because a good deal of the ice in the Arctic is already in the water, if it melts, it won't raise the ocean levels enough to be a concern.

It will mean catastrophe for the Arctic Ocean ecosystem; a weakening of the ocean conveyor system in the Northern Hemisphere....think about the effect a severely weakened Gulf Stream Current will have on Europe; and let's try to imagine how much worse the recent extremes in weather will be when there is no permanent Arctic Ice Cap to moderate temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere.

Apparently the slowing down of the Gulf Loop is the reason for the cold weather in Europe. The Gulf Loop brings warm water to the north then to Europe which makes it quite habitable. Even with the melting of the Artic ice, if the Gulf is not bringing enough warm water to the north, then I would suspect the ice to start growing again, maybe next year it will make a difference.

Edited January 6, 2011 by GostHacked

[wyly]

Why is the Antarctic not a factor in the warming/cooling? If we are talking about a Global Warming, why are parts of the globe left out of the equation? What would be the reasoning for it?

it's not left out it's just slower and the antartic is normally colder than the arctic...and there may be a see-saw effect when one cools the other warms...

Why is the Antarctic not a factor in the warming/cooling? I don't know how much of a closed loop system the earths weather is, but if the ice grows in the south but decreases in the north, does that not mean that the amount of ice total is about the same? I don't think it will make much of a difference in the water levels rising, because a good deal of the ice in the Arctic is already in the water, if it melts, it won't raise the ocean levels enough to be a concern.

Greenland is in the arctic it's melting ice sheet will make a difference in sea levels...

Apparently the slowing down of the Gulf Loop is the reason for the cold weather in Europe. The Gulf Loop brings warm water to the north then to Europe which makes it quite habitable. Even with the melting of the Artic ice, if the Gulf is not bringing enough warm water to the north, then I would suspect the ice to start growing again, maybe next year it will make a difference.

that's your assumption...the Jet Stream plays a considerable role in european winter weather just as it does on the canadian prairies pushing arctic air masses south, cold air that turns more common N/W european winter rains into blizzards...

[WIP]

Why is the Antarctic not a factor in the warming/cooling? If we are talking about a Global Warming, why are parts of the globe left out of the equation? What would be the reasoning for it?

Why is the Antarctic not a factor in the warming/cooling? I don't know how much of a closed loop system the earths weather is, but if the ice grows in the south but decreases in the north, does that not mean that the amount of ice total is about the same? I don't think it will make much of a difference in the water levels rising, because a good deal of the ice in the Arctic is already in the water, if it melts, it won't raise the ocean levels enough to be a concern.

Who said the Antarctic wasn't a factor in global warming? Bonam tossed it in because he believes there's too much ice in the Antarctic Glaciers to allow a near-future runaway greenhouse effect, as described in articles like here: Royal Society special issue details ‘hellish vision’ of 7°F (4°C) world — which we may face in the 2060s!....and I don't see the quantity of ice in the Antarctic giving us more time.

Also, rising sea levels is a problem for people living in coastal areas, but it's not the greatest danger presented by planetary warming. Studies of past eras when the Earth was ice-free show that these were times of great extinction because no ice means a weak or possibly non-existent ocean conveyor system. My point is that in the short term, the ocean conveyor system of the Northern Hemisphere is not going to be helped by ice in the Antarctic -- since it works by circulating waters from the Equator to the Arctic. The volume of ice in the Antarctic would only provide more time for the ocean conveyor system in the southern oceans. And, even that point is debatable, since the article I cited on page 6 shows that the Antarctic oceans are warming at a more rapid rate than the Arctic:

However, rarely is the question raised: why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? The implicit assumption is it must be cooling around Antarctica. This is decidedly not the case. In fact, the Southern Ocean has been warming faster than the rest of the world's oceans. Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade. In contrast, the Southern Ocean has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it is warming faster than the global trend.

Apparently the slowing down of the Gulf Loop is the reason for the cold weather in Europe. The Gulf Loop brings warm water to the north then to Europe which makes it quite habitable. Even with the melting of the Artic ice, if the Gulf is not bringing enough warm water to the north, then I would suspect the ice to start growing again, maybe next year it will make a difference.

That would only be true if we were at an equilibrium. But all indications are that rising greenhouse gas levels will keep driving a warming climate in the Arctic.