Omg Rita

[theChuz]

To say that because the ice sheet is expanding means that global warming is a flawed theory is logically inept... 

There are theories to say that, as a result of increased mean temperature, there will be an increase of precipitation, and therefore an increase in ice-sheet. This is a temporary effect that will eventually be over-taken by the increased melt due to higher temperatures.

If its too cold, it won't snow... the air's capacity to contain moisture drops as the temperature drops...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

like btl?

[clv101]

Here's some interesting data:

Weaver looks at a number of things including the number of storm days (no real trend) and the number of storms (no real trend). But he does what I wanted to do which is ask: "Are there more category four and five hurricanes now?" Yes, by a mile. The proportion of hurricanes which are category four or above has increased from about 16% in 1970-74, to around 36% in 2000-2004. It's doubled! The trend is really clear in his Figure 4 which I reproduce above the fold. Also, the absolute number of Cat 4/5 storms has doubled over the same period.

Not only that, but the trend is there in every one of six hurricane basins.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/9/22/3266/72605#more

[Free Thinker]

To say that because the ice sheet is expanding means that global warming is a flawed theory is logically inept... 

There are theories to say that, as a result of increased mean temperature, there will be an increase of precipitation, and therefore an increase in ice-sheet. This is a temporary effect that will eventually be over-taken by the increased melt due to higher temperatures.

If its too cold, it won't snow... the air's capacity to contain moisture drops as the temperature drops...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes that is another (unproven) theory.

Remember theory isn't fact.

The case for global warming, climate change, and rising sea levels are all linked. Each issue is extremely complicated and difficult to accurately measure. I would suggest that everyone do their own research and don't blindly believe what you hear/read in the media.

Personally, I am completely unable to decided if they are actually happening or not. There is just too much conflicting and biased (from both sides) evidence.

[karhu]

Here's some interesting data:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amazing statistics clv101. This type of change is outside two standard deviations.

If you take the analogy of a yeast collony: it grows exponentially until it has used up all its resources (sugar) and polutes its environment with ethanol (good if you want to make wine!). However, this eventually results in the collony's death.

Someone once said to me that humans are different because we're intelligent and we'll find a way out. However, now I'm not too sure. I think humans COULD save themselves, but even in the face of indisputable evidence they dont want to reduce their consumption and have silly measures like inflation to esnure that consumption continue to increase, until.....

Edited September 22, 2005 by karhu

[curious1]

Yes that is another (unproven) theory.

Remember theory isn't fact.

The case for global warming, climate change, and rising sea levels are all linked. Each issue is extremely complicated and difficult to accurately measure. I would suggest that everyone do their own research and don't blindly believe what you hear/read in the media.

Personally, I am completely unable to decided if they are actually happening or not. There is just too much conflicting and biased (from both sides) evidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well thanks for repeating the fact that it is a theory...and the stupifyingly obvious fact that thoery isn't fact...something I wasn't claiming . what I was saying was that there may be evidence of some sort... but the theory that explains the reason for that evidence can work for both sides of the argument. The point is that although global warming is unproven, it is factual to say that increased carbon will cause warming... the question is, to what extent this warming will be in the grand scheme of things, whether it will be offset by some other mechanism unkown, whether there are more potent forms of climate change caused by natural causes, etc...

I have an open mind about things, but we cannot escape the fact that as a parasite on planet earth, we are drastically altaring its makup and processes.

Has anyone read Gaia ? Interesting in that it describes the earth as an organism in terms of its chemical/biological/environmental processes.

[karhu]

Has anyone read Gaia ?  Interesting in that it describes the earth as an organism in terms of its chemical/biological/environmental processes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, IMHO it is a very good obervation/analogy. I could go into more detail...

[Portent]

Rita now at 175mph and is the third worst hurricane in recorded history

[Guest Guy_Montag]

A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year.

A later study, also published in Journal of Climate (Watkins, A.B. and Simmonds, I., "Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology," Volume 13: 4441-4451 (2000)) reached a similar conclusion. The study reported significant increases in Antarctic sea ice between 1987 and 1996. The study further indicated the 1990s exhibited increases in the length of the sea-ice season.

Arctic ice thickening, expanding

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"The first comprehensive study of glaciers around the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula reveals the real impact of recent climate change.

Results from the study by researchers at British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published this week in the journal Science, show that over the last 50 years 87% of 244 glaciers studied have retreated, and that average retreat rates have accelerated."

http://www.physorg.com/news3830.html

I worked at BAS A few years ago, the phrase "global warming" was no longer used by scientists, they used "global climate change".

Edited September 22, 2005 by Guy_Montag

[MarkG]

Results from the study by researchers at British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published this week in the journal Science, show that over the last 50 years 87% of 244 glaciers studied have retreated, and that average retreat rates have accelerated.

Meanwhile, the rest of Antarctica has been cooling for years (though I haven't been watching temperature changes since the early 2000s, so conceivably that's changed).

Also it's pretty well established that temperature changes up to about 1980 were solar driven, so anything happening more than 25 years back is largely irrelevant.

Edited September 22, 2005 by MarkG

[Guest Guy_Montag]

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, "mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997." Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little variability and a "slight increasing trend" in the 1990s.

Just off the Arctic polar ice cap, ice coverage in Greenland was also shown to be steady and likely increasing. A study in Journal of Geophysical Research (Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P., Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A., Volume 106: 9093-9116 (2001)) concluded that, annual variances notwithstanding, the Odden ice tongue in Greenland exhibited no statistically significant change from 1979 to 1998. Moreover, proxy reconstruction of the ice tongue utilizing air temperature data indicated the ice covers a greater area today than it did several decades ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Further measurements suggest sea ice has reduced from an average thickness of four meters to just under three meters in the past 30 years. Satellite measurements suggest that the area covered by sea-ice has diminished by about 4 per cent per decade, an apparently smaller rate of decline because sea-ice has to get thinner before it begins to retreat in surface area. Peter Wadhams, a specialist in Arctic sea-ice at the Dunstaffnage marine laboratory in Oban, made many of the measurements of sea-ice thickness while he was a civilian scientist on board the Royal Navy submarines during their secret voyages under the North Pole. Some things have changed for ever since, he said. One change, for instance, is the disappearance of the Odden ice tongue, a huge spit of ice that formed off eastern Greenland each winter.

-snip-

The Odden ice tongue was last seen in 1997, and its disappearance suggests that this important engine of ocean circulation could be slowing, Professor Wadhams said.

[Guest Guy_Montag]

Meanwhile, the rest of Antarctica has been cooling for years (though I haven't been watching temperature changes since the early 2000s, so conceivably that's changed).

Also it's pretty well established that temperature changes up to about 1980 were solar driven, so anything happening more than 25 years back is largely irrelevant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Source please?

As I remember the peninsula has been warming steadily & fairly dramaticly for 50+ years, the rest of it has been either warming slowly, steady or cooling extremely slightly (& possibly statistically insignificantly). This is just what I remember from a lecture.

BAS Statement on Climate Change

Edited September 22, 2005 by Guy_Montag

[Rapid Descent]

Hurricane activity runs on a well established 60-year cycle. There may be other longer term cycles that we have insufficient data to determine at this time.

The 1890s and 1950s were also high hurricane activity decades. The record for the most simultaneous hurricanes on a single day remains 22nd August 1893, with four simultaneous hurricanes, one of which killed around 1,000 people in South Carolina.

It is impossible to determine whether global warming (whether it be natural or anthropogenic) is influencing the current hurricane season.

Also note: there is a clear inverse correlation between one type of (natural) global warming and hurricanes. Hurricane activity is significantly subdued during El Nino years, which correspond to unusual high global temperatures. So the relationship may not be as clear cut as many people here think.

The reason is the energy in a hurricane is extracted from the DIFFERENCE between the sea and air temperature. Hot sea, and hot air, means low hurricane activity. It is only the unusual situation of hot sea and cool air that makes hurricanes more severe, as the hurricane "heat engine" then becomes more efficient.

[MarkG]

Source please?

The, like, surface temperature records for Antarctica? And, more recently, the satellite records for the last twenty-five years? The warming of the peninsula is an anomaly.

I'm always amazed at how many people act like they're climate experts but have never actually bothered to look at the data. Ah, but I guess that if they had looked at the data, they'd know that 'global warming' was nonsense.

Here's the south pole, for example:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/...num_neighbors=1

Looks like it spiked up since 2000, but temperatures today are still comparable to the 1950s and lower than 1980.

Edited September 22, 2005 by MarkG

[Rapid Descent]

Source please?

As I remember the peninsula has been warming steadily & fairly dramaticly for 50+ years, the rest of it has been either warming slowly, steady or cooling extremely slightly (& possibly statistically insignificantly).  This is just what I remember from a lecture.

BAS Statement on Climate Change

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The peninsula is a tiny proportion (something like 2-3%?) of antarctica, and actually lies outside the antarctic circle! It doesn't behave like the rest of antarctica.

Most recent studies suggest antarctica has been significantly cooling and increasing ice mass, but they are based on limited observations. ESAs CryoSat will give us the first (reasonably complete) picture of the ice mass, expert Professor Duncan Wingham discusses this in this press release. Note in the article: "Wingham added that while current data indicates that Antarctica has a positive mass balance"

If you want a more scientific reference, try Science Vol. 295 18 Jan 2002 pp 476-479, (Positive Mass Balance of West Antarctica), unfortunately only available online by subscription

[karhu]

The peninsula is a tiny proportion (something like 2-3%?) of antarctica, and actually lies outside the antarctic circle!  It doesn't behave like the rest of antarctica.

Most recent studies suggest antarctica has been significantly cooling and increasing ice mass, but they are based on limited observations.  ESAs CryoSat will give us the first (reasonably complete) picture of the ice mass, expert Professor Duncan Wingham discusses this in this press release.  Note in the article: "Wingham added that while current data indicates that Antarctica has a positive mass balance"

If you want a more scientific reference, try Science Vol. 295 18 Jan 2002 pp 476-479, (Positive Mass Balance of West Antarctica), unfortunately only available online by subscription

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why not just agree on climate change, rather than the exact mechanism? The reaction need is the same irrespective of whether Antartica is heating or cooling. Argument intensifies the politcal struggle to get it generally accepted by the population & do something about it before it's too late - literally, this is SERIOUS.

[Free Thinker]

Why not just agree on climate change, rather than the exact mechanism? The reaction need is the same irrespective of whether Antartica is heating or cooling. Argument intensifies the politcal struggle to get it generally accepted by the population & do something about it before it's too late - literally, this is SERIOUS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do what? How do you know what the reaction should be?

If climate change is occuring then understanding the exact mechanism is vitally important. If you don't know the cause, how can you possibly know the solution?

Edited September 22, 2005 by Free Thinker

[Perfectionist]

Just saw on the attached link ...... Hurricane season ends 30th November !!!

Over 2 more months of this to come

[Golden Shower]

Surfers ride waves in excess of 60-70 feet every winter in Hawaii

http://surfingthemag.com/news/surfing-pulse/041904_xxl/

but this type of hurricane surf is crap, you have to wait for the wind to die down or turn offshore otherwise you just get pounded by mountains of whitewater. total death wish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True. I reckon just before the hurricane hits, the surf is gonna be pumping. Seen it loads when I lived in the WI. Big, glassy, perfect surf and then the wind hits it.

There will be a few brave souls out there until they really have to bail!

[Tempest]

Please don't let this site become a depositary for supposed conclusive scientific evidence or "experts" on any topic - particularly climate (unless we have any very wise Climatologists awaiting a HPC on here). The hallmark of this site is (generally!) informed debate and no automatic assumption that the information we the public are fed is always true.

The liberal western meeja (Independent/Guardian/BBC etc etc) all spout out that the world is doomed to boil in some global warming melting point due to evil rich western (eg US/UK) countries emmissions. This is all politics not science. You see what people want you to see.

There may be some warming of certain elements of the climate but equally there seems to be more than enough evidence that we are actually cooling down overall and have been for some considerable time. See this particular historical climatologist for example. Many more sources out there.

http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=864

Also, ask yourself, we were under hundreds of feet of ice only a few thousand years ago - how did the earth warm up on such a scale to melt trillions of tons of ice covering a large part of the northern hemisphere without 20th century pollution to help it? Even 1000 years ago in the "medieval warm period" of 800-1300 in the UK and Europe things were apparently much warmer (seas perhaps up to 3 degrees warmer) before the "little ice age" of 1400-1850. No CFCs or CO2 from cars/planes/factories in sight then. Some say we are still recovering from the cold climate of the 17th-19th centuries.

For what its worth I probably tend to disagree with the wilder arguments re causes of global warming (a lot of hot air...) but I my point is that none of us really know how our climate operates long term and what (if any) effect a few years of industry could have had. Nothing wrong with believing it to be true, but just lets avoid representing any mantra we hear as fact without examining the wider data. None of you automatically believe what the papers and news say about house prices do you? Why is science any different?

[clv101]

Please don't let this site become a depositary for supposed conclusive scientific evidence or "experts" on any topic - particularly climate (unless we have any very wise Climatologists awaiting a HPC on here).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I quite agree, lay person analysis of climate change theory is hopeless. It's far to complex with seemingly contrasting evidence giving every opportunity for amateur misinterpretation.

For the lay person the proof should be that statements like these:

• However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.

• It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.

• Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years).

• The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.

• Even if greenhouse gas emissions were stabilised instantly at today’s levels, the climate would still continue to change as it adapts to the increased emission of recent decades. Further changes in climate are therefore unavoidable. Nations must prepare for them.

Are being collectively made by these institutions:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil

Royal Society of Canada, Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

Académie des Sciences, France

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany

Indian National Science Academy,India

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy

Science Council of Japan, Japan

Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia

Royal Society, United Kingdom

National Academy of Sciences, United States of America

This unprecedented level of scientific agreement is summed up by this joint release from the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India:

Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change

Environmentalists don't prompt such statements to be published.

The scientific case based on the body of evidence is made, as much as anything in science is ever proved. The only reason this is still being debated is due to strong and vocal vested interests.

[oracle]

I know some yanks don't believe the CO2 is responsible for global warming.

....here is an alternative option that might be responsible.

Solar energy penetrates the atmosphere and will permeate the earth in various guises(IR,UV and probably some gamma radiation along with visible light)

it is entirely possible for this energy to be absorbed into the crust+core of the earth....which is liquid iron....hapens to be very good at absorbing electromagnetic radiation.The liquid iron will convert EM into heat energy and transfer it around by convection,and there are a good number of undersea faultlines and volcanoes around to dispose of this energy,giving rise to more tectonic activity than usual....and give rise to warmer sea water(el nino) in the process.

Boxing day tsunami+earthquakes a coincidence....well maybe not.

and as hurricanes feed off warm water....coincidence too?

[El_Pirata]

Looks like it's weakening, should only be a category 3 by the time it makes landfall.

[The Masked Tulip]

I know some yanks don't believe the CO2 is responsible for global warming.

Apparently Houston is the 'fattest' city in the World with more clinically obese people per head of population than anywhere else.

[Guest Guy_Montag]

-snip-

The liberal western meeja (Independent/Guardian/BBC etc etc) all spout out that the world is doomed to boil in some global warming melting point due to evil rich western (eg US/UK) countries emmissions. This is all politics not science. You see what people want you to see.

-snip-

No CFCs or CO2 from cars/planes/factories in sight then.

-snip-

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Firstly you say that this is politics & not science. I beg to differ - I have worked with, atmospheric phsysists (specialising from the troposphere to the ionosphere), atmospheric chemists (troposphere only), meteorologists, weather modellers & forecasters (inc. those working at the Met Office) and all of them agree that there is on-going global climate change & it is being influenced by our actions. Specifically the emissions of greenhouse gasses.

Interestingly I now work with geophysists, geochemists, geologists, paleontologists, who tend to receive a lot of their funding from the oil industry, & guess what all but one of them agree, that there is on going global climate change & it is being influenced by our actions Specifically the emissions of greenhouse gasses.

You can find people on the internet who will tell you anything, even those with eminent academic carreers.

On edit: & as we all know CFCs have nothing to do with global warming, but they do thin out the ozone layer something chronic.

Edited September 22, 2005 by Guy_Montag

[clv101]

Looks like it's weakening, should only be a category 3 by the time it makes landfall.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's likely to reintensify after this cycle of eye wall replacement. Cat 3 is possible but unlikely.