ICE Satellite Maps Profound Polar Thinning

xp65 writes "Researchers have used NASA's Ice, Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite to compose the most comprehensive picture of changing glaciers along the coast of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The new elevation maps show that all latitudes of the Greenland ice sheet are affected by dynamic thinning — the loss of ice due to accelerated ice flow to the ocean. The maps also show surprising, extensive thinning in Antarctica, affecting the ice sheet far inland. The study, led by Hamish Pritchard of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, England, was published September 24 in Nature."

Comments

Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[operator_error]

...as the unknown future falls.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[icebike]

Where is the massive coastal flooding that was promised to be caused by this?

I have beachfront property. Or I will have as soon as the much promised flooding arrives.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[EsbenMoseHansen]

That would be sensationalism. So far, it is measured in cm; by the turn of the century (90 years from now) it is projected to be a few meters,

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Greenland ice sheet is kilometers thick. Just because the thinning is measurable doesn't mean it's anywhere near the potential of a complete melting of the Greenland ice.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[stms]

Margaritas as we know them will never be the same.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[Anonymous Coward]

I say fuck the polar bears. Why? Because we need polar-bear human hybrids in order to survive the coming pseudo-ice-age warming period. Also when the magnetic field flips from north to south, our polar-human descendants can track the pole as it migrates over the period of M_PI years. I mean if anything can track that, it'd be a polar human.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[PiSkyHi]

Tell it to the judge..

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[MrKaos]

...as the unknown future sinks beneath the waves.

FTFY.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[BikeHelmet]

That would be sensationalism. So far, it is measured in cm; by the turn of the century (90 years from now) it is projected to be a few meters,

I would think both of those outcomes would be awful for a few dozen cities on our planet that are only a foot above sea level.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[peragrin]

yea but the stench will finally be out of NY city. I think that's worth it.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[Restil]

We have cities that are below sea level, right at it, or barely above it. They all cope (except perhaps during the occasional hurricane.

Think of how many well populated cities in 1900 are gone or all but gone today. For many reasons, economical, environmental, etc, cities will grow or decline. Think of every town that had to be uprooted and moved because we built a lake. Moving a bit inland over a 100 year period isn't going to be a big problem.

-Restil

-Restil

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[selven]

That's vertical meters, not horizontal ones. I would expect a few dozen to a thousand horizontally for a few meters, depending on what kind of conditions there are.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

We actually have entire countries that are below sea level. Holland. Signapore barely makes it above sea level (and has huge parts below sea level).

Large parts of other countries are also below sea level. The better part of Belgium, Venice, parts of southern France, the dead sea (boy is that deep below sea level) ...

Holland is on average 2 meters below sea level. There are places that are -12 meters. Parts of Israel are -800 meters (though that particular arrangement seems hard to duplicate in Holland).

We won't lose cities because of flooding. On the contrary, we will gain massive tracts of land that will support cities due to the water and temperature rise. Parts of the middle east might actually become liveable (obviously I mean for plants, which will presumably be followed by people)

Historically our civilization had to cope with 2 warming periods and 2 cooling periods. You can go and read for yourself but the gist is this : warming : massive prosperity, increased crop yields, large expansion of nature (forests, ...) and large gains against deserts, or desert-like places.

Cooling periods : massive economic misery, millions of dead people. Entire countries (even an entire continent) starved. Loss of large cities to advancing ice ...

If the choice is between rising water/temperature and dropping water/temperature it's very, very easy to pick.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[arpad1]

But "profound" thinning isn't sensationalism? Is there a scale of hyperbolic adjectives that maps to physical volumes or thicknesses? If there isn't then "profound" is an invitation to make an assumption unsupported by the facts.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[dr2chase]

It would be a bit more comforting to see some numbers to accompany your estimate. I say this, because, on the one hand I know that in the space of 100 years Florida when from barely populated to what it is today (my great-grandfather moved there there in the early 1920s, now it is 6% of the US population), but on the other hand, in the town I live in today (some miles inland, but in the Charles and Mystic river watersheds), there's a thousand or so houses too close to sea level. One town, a thousand homes, $.5M/home, pretty soon we are talking about real money.

How we plan to cope is what I find interesting. If you figure that there is a range of human expectations (optimist to pessimist), you can well imagine that optimists will push for drainage infrastructure and personally invest in better sump pumps ("swamps can be drained" and lots of Houston, including Rice U., used to be a marsh). Pessimists already own property quite a few meters above sea level (would you believe I checked this in 1994? I did.)

The problem for some coastal places, in particular Florida, is that the rising sea will not only make land uninhabitable, it will also reduce groundwater resupply. Simply reducing the surface area of the state, will reduce the amount of rain that falls on it, and reduce its natural water supply. There's workarounds for that, too -- Tampa already has a desalinization plant, and last I heard, there was much discussion of whether they should take the money saving step of recycling sewage instead of seawater (it's cheaper, less dissolved salts).

So, interesting times (probably) ahead.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[EsbenMoseHansen]

But "profound" thinning isn't sensationalism? Is there a scale of hyperbolic adjectives that maps to physical volumes or thicknesses? If there isn't then "profound" is an invitation to make an assumption unsupported by the facts.

Perhaps, I am not a native speaker. Profound means "deep" doesn't it? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/profound writes

Descending far below the surface; opening or reaching to a great depth; deep.

but also notes a number of other meanings. Anyway, I just thought they meant that the ice was thinning far inland.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

If the ice pack is indeed thinning "Profoundly" there should be other noticeable effects. I chalk this one up to sensationalist summary, not sensationalist comments.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[JLF65]

Most people would define "profound" as meaning "of significant impact". That seems to be the definition used here - we're supposed to think that this ice thinning will impact us (the environment) significantly.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[im_thatoneguy]

There's also the question of islands.

Even if you purchase a home sufficiently above sea level you may not necessarily have access to said home if you're neighbors are all under water and you're the only home left standing.

I'm reminded of this before/after photo here (#2):
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/09/one_year_after_hurricane_ike.html

How much are we willing to spend on bridges and elevated roadways to access suddenly isolated townships?

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[dr2chase]

Well, think about Venice. Think about the Netherlands. We might spend quite a lot. One of the big problems with the uncertainty of just what the future holds, is that we don't know whether money spent on flood mitigation is sensible or futile. For anyone who takes a reasonably long view (50 years or more) and is about to spend money on buildings and/or infrastructure, I think this matters (our town's high school is not too high above sea level, and it is due for a major renovation or rebuild in the next decade. So, should we spend extra money to elevate the foundation a few feet? How much money? How many feet? Or should we simply move it, just in case?)

Note, also, that we already spend a lot on bridges. Have a look at Pinellas County, Florida (I grew up there). There are 7-8 roads connecting the county to the rest of the state -- US 19, SR 582, SR580/584, Courtney-Campbell Causeway, Gandy Bridge, Howard-Franklin Bridge, Sunshine Skyway. So on the one hand, they stand to lose a lot if sea level goes up a meter (the non-bridge roads are also pretty close to sea level), on the other hand, they built those bridges once, they can build them again. They've already rebuilt the Sunshine Skyway once, after a ship hit the old one, and they've renovated the Courtney-Campbell since I was a kid -- oy, just now remembered something else from my younger days -- when the water table rises under your road, the roadbed goes all to heck, and just a few trucks turn it into crumbly asphalt soup. File that one under stupid developer tricks, but it was fun to watch.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[camg188]

Well, for most of the Cenezoic era (the age of mammals, from 65 million years ago to now) there have been no polar ice caps. We are currently below the average temperature for the Cenezoic era and the average temperature for the Cenezoic era is below the average temperature of all prior eras since life has existed on Earth. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/
Another interesting fact, the most dramatic global warming period in the geologic record, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), was accompanied by a dramatic diversification of terrestrial life.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[Anonymous Coward]

> my great-grandfather moved there there in the early 1920s, now it is
> 6% of the US population

Wow, he made out like Genghis-Khan.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[dr2chase]

Nope, he wasn't a big-time developer. Thought he was going to retire and die before 60, just like his father, uncles, grandfathers, etc, but instead he lived into his 90s (so did his brothers, one cousin lived to 100+, another made it to 110) and took up citrus growing.

He wrote his memoirs in his 80s, it is very interesting to contrast How Things Were to How Things Are.

Re:Good-bye ice, it was nice knowing you.

[Anonymous Coward]

That polar bear would bite yooooouuuuu.

What is the net effect?

[msevior]

I'm no climate change skeptic, but from just looking at the images it's not clear that the reduction in some places is not balanced by the increase in others. What is the net effect? Can these data be compared to model predictions?

Re:What is the net effect?

[operator_error]

What is the net effect? Can these data be compared to model predictions?

Let's start by an extremely rapid decline in habitat for a great many and varied species, that we cannot possibly begin to fully appreciate scientifically, let alone model with any accuracy.

Re:What is the net effect?

[blind biker]

Yes for Antarctica - there does, indeed, seem to be a balancing between areas with thinning and those with thickening ice. But not for Greenland, which appears to be pretty much on a dramatic thinning regimen.

Re:What is the net effect?

[should_be_linear]

if net effect was positive, that would be great surprising news. It seems, instead, situation is getting worse so quickly that we are heading towards geoengineering (desperate) solutions.

Re:What is the net effect?

[Loomismeister]

Why would more ice mean great surprising news? Is it so firmly engrained in your mind that moreice=better earth? This picture is confusing if you ask me.

Re:What is the net effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hem, Hem. We're talking about effects of global warming. Which includes faster melting of glaciers, which leads to increase in sea levels, disruption of oceanic currents, etc etc.

Re:What is the net effect?

[psyph3r]

Irrespective of humanity's perceived impact, does this not happen throughout history in a cyclical fashion? I would look at this type of activity as the main source of evolutionary change. The species that are equipped to survive the conditions will prevail.

Re:What is the net effect?

[msevior]

Sorry, I didn't mean the net effect of climate change, I meant the net amount of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. From the data provided it's not obvious that Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice. For example there are very large blue/green regions (gaining ice) that by eye could be bigger than the red regions (losing ice).

The other question is regards climate model predictions. One of the catastrophic outcomes of climate change are large sea level rises due to ice melt in the polar regions. Presumably there are models that predict how this could occur with global warming. So the question is, do these data agree with these models?

Re:What is the net effect?

[khayman80]

One of the catastrophic outcomes of climate change are large sea level rises due to ice melt in the polar regions. Presumably there are models that predict how this could occur with global warming. So the question is, do these data agree with these models?

The last article I read in Science compared model prediction of sea level rise, and found that observations showed the sea levels rising even faster than the models predicted. Perhaps this was just short-term weather, though: more recent measurements may indicate agreement with the models.

Re:What is the net effect?

[siddesu]

It is really simple. It all depends on how much kick are you getting out of the environment as we know it.

It is true that so far whenever cataclysms occured and species died out there was a subsequent re-population with new flora and fauna. It is also true that whenever such events have occurred, nearly all of the prevalent species have disappeared, and the subsequent re-population has taken millions of years to happen.

So, if you really, really don't care about your species disappearing in famine and diseases and other niceties those bring then yeah, life will eventually adapt to the new equilibrium that will prevail, and there is little to worry about in the long run.

If you are one of the neo-conservatives who want to keep living as we like it (a.k.a. tree-huggers), without disruptions and without need to die out and re-adapt, then you understand there are things that better be done sooner than later.

Re:What is the net effect?

[jamesh]

I'm with you. I'm going to wait until the sharks are swimming around my ankles here in central Victoria, Australia, before I stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

It has to be sharks too. Angry sea bass aren't going to convince me. There are plenty of non-global warming explanations for why sea bass could be swimming around my ankles, and so that alone should not be taken as hard evidence of climate change.

And once I'm finally convinced that the climate is in fact changing, the presence of sharks swimming around my ankles isn't going to convince me that my CO2 has anything to do with it. It could in fact be the anklesharks causing climate change for their own reasons.

Re:What is the net effect?

[khayman80]

It's a better idea to get your science from scientists rather than politicians. The CO2 emissions by living organisms are part of a closed cycle, and those isotopes don't match the composition of the atmospheric CO2 that's currently ~26% higher than it's been in the last 650,000 years. Other sources such as volcanoes emit 100x less than humans do. Also, water vapor isn't relevant because it has a short lifetime in the atmosphere and isn't well-mixed to the top of the atmosphere. I've discussed all these issues at length.

Re:What is the net effect?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

They have never been able to accurately predict what the weather will be tomorrow. It is arrogant for Al Gore (who incidentally also invented the Internet) to claim he knows what the effect will be decades from now. The largest cause of CO2 emissions is natural activity. The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_effects_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere

3 myths in one go? Not bad. First link on google for climate myths gives 3 rebuttals: Chaotic systems are not predictable, CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas and finally CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

Re:What is the net effect?

[siddesu]

1. Actually, where I live (in Japan), the weather predictions are very accurate. My wife says it is so because when a wrong prediction is given, the people phone the weather bureau and bitch about it. Since I see correct local predictions most of the time, I tend to believe the global ones as well, especially when the same nice folks make them.

2. I don't really give a fuck about Al Gore's opinion (or about yours), but I own homes in three different continents, and over my lifetime the temperatures in all three places have risen (in 2 places dramatically), with the highest temperatures being detected in the past decade. That correlates well with the theory of the trustworthy Japanese meteorologists, not the random slashdotter ramblings.

3. The most abundant green house is, indeed, water vapor. That is part of the problem, as temperatures rise not only because of the small effect of the other gases, which you produce when you drive, cook or fart, but also because higher temperatures create even more water vapor, further screwing up the situation.

Re:What is the net effect?

[orzetto]

Also, water vapor isn't relevant because it has a short lifetime in the atmosphere and isn't well-mixed to the top of the atmosphere.

That may be true, but I think the main issue about dihydrogen monoxide is that there are oceans of it that release by evaporation amounts much larger than anything the human race could produce—therefore it is well-nigh impossible to disrupt its equilibrium the way we can disrupt carbon dioxide's.

Re:What is the net effect?

[khayman80]

... i.e. it has a short lifetime in the atmosphere.

Re:What is the net effect?

[gregraven]

I, too, am curious that this story appeared the day after a story entitled, "Antarctic Ice Is Growing, Not Melting Away." http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html

Re:What is the net effect?

[Tontoman]

But many scientist are sceptical of global warming. See List of Scientists Opposing the Mainstream Scientific Assessment of Global Warming it www.ipcc.ch reports are not without criticism. They do not claim to conduct original research. There is certainly room for discussion.

Re:What is the net effect?

[dr2chase]

Whereas we can totally trust profit-seeking industry to give us the straight talk? Nuh-uh. Game/economic theory says that if spewing disinformation results in a net profit, it will happen, otherwise they are not treating their shareholders right. They're not supposed to be moral or ethical; they are supposed to turn a profit, on whatever timescale their investors think is appropriate.

Neither "side" is necessarily trustworthy, but one side has clear motives to be untrustworthy.

Note, also, that the power-seeking politicians generally tend to be motivated by more tangible graft, and not abstractions like "carbon tax" or "cap-and-trade". The stuff I am familiar with, is bribes for regulatory favors, sweetheart government contracts for friends and family, and (ahem) hikes on the Appalachian trail, high-priced call girls, and plain old nepotism.

Re:What is the net effect?

[Tontoman]

. . . Other sources such as volcanoes emit 100x less than humans do.

You need to reread the article you cite. It states "Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year," and earlier states "The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. " so non-human processes contribute many more times more CO2 emission than modern humans.

Re:What is the net effect?

[dr2chase]

Agreed, really poor choice of colors. I'm not sure what Tufte says about this particular problem -- the snap answer is to say that "zero" and a region around it should be some distinct, neutral color (white? but what about my monitor's color balance?) with clearly different colors for + and -. But you'd like to mix some sort of an area measure in, too -- if the whole continent had declined uniformly at a rate of .1 meters/annum, that would be alarming, even though .1 is well within the "cannot tell WTF color that is" range.

By-the-way, speaking of presentation critiques, notice how the legend under the colors is "ma-1", even though there was plenty of room to write "meters/annum" or even "meters per year"? Human factors, they matter. It costs you nothing to communicate to a wider audience, slightly more quickly and clearly.

Re:What is the net effect?

[khayman80]

According to a recent survey, about 10% of scientists believe that the current warming is natural, 4% believe there is no warming, and 84% believe the current warming is caused by humans. So, yeah, some scientists are skeptical of global warming.

But stop trying to count heads on each side of the debate. As I've repeatedly stressed in that last link, science isn't democratic. It's about evidence. When I see some convincing evidence against the existence of abrupt climate change, then I'll be interested.

And of course the IPCC doesn't conduct original research. They compile previously peer-reviewed research into reports that summarize the best scientific evidence available.

Re:What is the net effect?

[khayman80]

Or maybe you could re-read my point that the natural carbon cycle is a closed cycle. That means any CO2 emitted by respiration and decomposition was very recently absorbed from the air as the plant grew. So it doesn't change the overall concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Another independent line of evidence is that the isotopes in vegetative CO2 don't match the current isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2 in fossil fuels, on the other hand, has been locked underground for millions of years and has the same isotope ratios as the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Make no mistake; the current skyrocketing CO2 concentration is due to human emissions.

Re:What is the net effect?

[khayman80]

You quoted from newscientist.com. But this is a "pop" science source. Not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

You're absolutely right that peer-reviewed journal articles are far superior to pop science sources. But the New Scientist articles he quoted accurately reflect the science in those peer-reviewed journals, which I've linked extensively so you can compare.

But perhaps this all is a cycle, because there is peer-reviewed scientific basis for the prediction of catastrophic "Global Cooling."

Huh? What in the full paper led you to that bizarre conclusion?

Re:What is the net effect?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Oh, the global cooling myth, how quaint! Haven't heard that one for a while. I see you have gotten the one where decades and 100 of decades are mixed up. The trick is to count the zeros! ;)

Seriously, how can anyone be surprised that the outlook 10000 years ahead is different from 100?

There is also a different global cool myth, which claims that the scientist agreed that such was in store for us around 1970. Hope I didn't steal your thunder ;)

Re:What is the net effect?

[ThePhilips]

Anyway, whether it is human activity or not, weather is messed up big time.

Re:What is the net effect?

[matlhDam]

Your Steve Fielding impression is disturbingly good.

Re:What is the net effect?

[Troed]

Why would it surprise you? Ice extent has been growing in Antarctica for quite some time, and the same goes for the Arctic since 2007.

This is not disputed, it's simple fact.

http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Watch out for the hyperbole in popular media that's simply not based on actual observations but "models".

Re:What is the net effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW! 650,000 years, out of 5,000,000,000... Now that IS science.

Re:What is the net effect?

[mdsolar]

Both are contributing to sea level rise so the net effect is loss of ice. See page 3 here: http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/PDF/Ch3_compendium2009.pdf

The whole report can be found here: http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/

Re:What is the net effect?

[catchblue22]

It seems likely to me that ice loss at an ocean boundary will cause a reduction in floating ice sheets. Those floating ice sheets act as a barrier to glacial ice flowing into the ocean. Their reduction could cause an acceleration of ice flow into the sea.

In addition, it also seems likely to me that increases in ice in certain areas are associated with the increased moisture carrying capacity of warmer air. To snow, all you need is for the temperature to be below 32F/0C. If the warming continues, the ice thickness increases could be reversed, as those areas warm above the melting point of water during part of the year.

Re:What is the net effect?

[KevinIsOwn]

Oh, wow! Thanks for this insightful analysis. I'll go tell the climate scientists that they should just all go home, then. "Tontoman" figured it out! We just are too tiny a factor to have any effect! Hooray!

Re:What is the net effect?

[catchblue22]

Irrespective of humanity's perceived impact, does this not happen throughout history in a cyclical fashion? I would look at this type of activity as the main source of evolutionary change. The species that are equipped to survive the conditions will prevail.

A significant amount of evolution is driven by mass die offs. That is, the population of a species reduced by 99% or more. We could evolve to be a species with average height of 7.5 feet very quickly...just kill off everyone except for a few hundred people who are taller than 7.5 feet. Let them have babies, and kill off any progeny who is shorter than 7.5 feet for a generation or two, and we would be a very tall species. Would you care to draw straws?

Do you really think that civilization can survive a significant reduction in the food supply? Do you have any idea what it is like to die of starvation? Your comment seems to show an implicit assumption that this would be somehow good for humanity, that having some competition would cause us to evolve, to become better, stronger, faster. It is easy to develop this detachment when staring at the fossil record. Wow, at the K/T boundary, the dinosaurs disappear, and the valiant rodents survived the asteroid/comet impact to evolve into us. Excellent, we wouldn't be here without that happening. Evolution is good. It resulted in us. Let the dying begin. Care to pony up your own grand-children first? After all, it's all in the name of evolution and progress.

Re:What is the net effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

All these cooling and warming myths are cyclical,

There isn't any "nature warming cycle" which predicts the modern warming period, let alone agrees with the recent behavior of any actual natural sources of warming.

and just not worth wasting money to try to "fix."

If you're wrong about the problem, you're going to be wrong about the solution too.

Humans are just too tiny a factor in the eons the earth has been around, and the many tons of gasses in the atmosphere.

Appeal to personal incredulity unsupported by any calculation.

Do you know that CO2 comprises 0.0383% of the earth's atmosphere?

Yes. (Closer to 0.0388% now.) Climate scientists know that too. The difference between them and you is that they have calculated what effect that CO2 has on the Earth's radiative balance, and you haven't. Instead, you prefer to assume that it is negligible.

If modern society is producting a few "extra" tons of CO2, then doubtless some vegetation will quickly evolve to make use of it.

The entire terrestrial biosphere is only taking up about 1/4 of our current emissions, let alone the entirety of what our future emissions will increase to, unabated.

I'm more worried about the "cap-and-trade" tax.

Of course you're more worried about that, if you don't believe that there is anything to worry about from climate change. Cap-and-trade only makes sense if you understand that climate change has costs to society.

Re:What is the net effect?

[radtea]

So the question is, do these data agree with these models?

Probably not. Think about the meaning of the statement in the summary: "The maps also show surprising, extensive thinning in Antarctica, affecting the ice sheet far inland. "

This is something of a requirement in the rigidly formulaic coverage of any story touching on GCC: that scientists are SHOCKED, SHOCKED, I TELL YOU, that the world looks nothing like their models. The stories are always spun such that the message is "things are getting worse even faster than we thought!" rather than the equally reasonable, "We have no clue what's going on!"

The climate is not a one-dimensional system that can be characterized by a single number. The interpretation of these data to mean "things are getting worse" relies on the assumption that we understand pretty well what is going on, but only the rate is completely and utterly wrong. This interpretation is either disingenuous or stupid (or, most likely, both) on the part of its promoters.

Given clear and repeated evidence of our lack of understanding of the climate system (no surprise given how rudimentary and frequently unphysical our models are) the various claims to certainty that people make are increasingly implausible.

On the other hand, given how little we know about our climate, dumping gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere is probably not such a hot idea either, particularly when the resources required to do that are in relatively short supply and result in huge amounts of money flowing to people who don't like us very much (Dick Cheney, for instance.)

Re:What is the net effect?

[Artifakt]

They have never been able to accurately predict what the weather will be tomorrow.

First, that's incorrect. We can usually be accurate to three or four days out, if you're willing to settle for just 95% accuracy. Now if you demand flat out 100%, you're right, but humans can't do anything with absolutely no mistakes, so your argument boils down to "Nobody should do anything about anything, because we can't know anything".

Second, this is about climate, not weather. People predict climate all the time. Every time a farmer plants the same crop as in prior years, he is predicting the climate won't change so much that crop won't grow. Hell, every time a tree drops seeds it's a sort of prediction that the climate won't change for the lifetime of that offspring. Climate prediction is why we talk about hurricane season starting on a certain date, or call certain parts of the U.S. tornado alley, and we get it right pretty damned often.

Finally, what Al Gore actually said about his role in creating the Internet is 100% truthful. You are putting words he never said into his mouth. That's not giving anyone who knows the facts much reason to think you have any.

Re:What is the net effect?

[radtea]

Here's a question that's irrelevant to your comment but relevant to the article, asked because you seem to know something about this stuff: do you have any idea what the units mean? They are given on the maps in the article as "ma^-1". a is the metric symbol for ares, the unit of area (usually encountered as the root of hectare) but meters per are doesn't make a lot of sense as a unit of thickness.

I'm presuming they are some subject-matter-specific unit (a practice I am strongly against, as they tend to insulate certain areas of science from others, making it harder for outsiders to gain a coherent view of things.)

Re:What is the net effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not. Think about the meaning of the statement in the summary: "The maps also show surprising, extensive thinning in Antarctica, affecting the ice sheet far inland." This is something of a requirement in the rigidly formulaic coverage of any story touching on GCC: that scientists are SHOCKED, SHOCKED, I TELL YOU, that the world looks nothing like their models.

This thinning is not modeled in the IPCC GCMs, but exists in the latest generation of uncoupled ice sheet models which include the dynamics of fast outlet glacier ice streams. The individual ice streams which have been modeled do look like their model counterparts. Ice models with such dynamics may be coupled into GCMs for the next IPCC round, but perhaps not. The end result is that this thinning is expected to exist and has been modeled at particular sites, but no continental-scale projections have been made as to its total extent. The observed thinning is not "surprising" because it exceeds model projections. There really aren't any full-scale model projections yet which include these dynamics. It's surprising because it merely exceeds some people's expectations. Once the ice models are coupled, we'll find out whether it's also surprising with respect to the models.

Re:What is the net effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

"ma^-1" is "(vertical) meters per annum", i.e., "meters per year".

Re:What is the net effect?

[khayman80]

The AC is correct. What a dumb way to say "meters per year." Heck, m/yr is actually shorter in addition to making much more sense. I'm firmly against this kind of overly complex language too.

Re:What is the net effect?

[Tontoman]

Here is a speech given by the late Michael Crichton, (who wrote Jurassic Park and other novels and screenplays, and who also graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University.) Here he criticises the papers done by IPCC and debunks other global warning myths.

Michael's detailed explanation of why he criticizes global warming scenarios. Using published UN data, he reviews why claims for catastrophic warming arouse doubt; why reducing CO2 is vastly more difficult than we are being told; and why we are morally unjustified to spend vast sums on this speculative issue when around the world people are dying of starvation and disease.

Re:What is the net effect?

[khayman80]

Wow, I feel dumb for congratulating you about recognizing the need for reading peer-reviewed journal articles. You do realize that you're listening to a science fiction author with a lot of irrelevant experience rather than reading the peer-reviewed journals, right? And, no, reading a novel with footnotes doesn't count as reading a scientific journal.

Re:What is the net effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I like to get all my climate science from medical doctors and science fiction authors, too. Crichton never was very good at getting climate science right.

Re:What is the net effect?

[compro01]

The ice is covering a larger area, but the ice is much thinner, and the overall volume of ice (the main concern) is shrinking.

Re:What is the net effect?

[JLF65]

Looking at the last page:

QUOTE

About the General Public Survey

Results for the general public survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International among a nationwide sample of 2,001 adults, 18 years of age or older, from April 28 to May 12, 2009 (1,500 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 501 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 198 who had no landline telephone).

About the Scientist Survey

Results for the scientist survey are based on 2,533 online interviews conducted from May 1 to June 14, 2009 with members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A sample of 9,998 members was drawn from the AAAS membership list excluding those who were not based in the United States or whose membership type identified them as primary or secondary-level educators.

END QUOTE

So what we see is 2,001 regular people were polled, while almost 10,000 "scientists" were polled. "Scientist" meaning someone who belongs to the AAAS who is not a grade school through high school teacher. That smaller public poll could easily be influenced to say anything the pollsters wanted. We also don't know anything about the "scientists" polled other than they aren't grade school through high school teachers. Maybe they're janitors... we don't have that information. I especially noticed this comment: "Membership in AAAS is open to all." So ANYONE (including functionally illiterate people) could be part of the AAAS sample of "scientists" polled... as long as they didn't mark teaching grade school through high school as their job.

Re:What is the net effect?

[JLF65]

I see you and the AC below will ignore scientists/doctors who write SciFi when their opinion goes against your own. That's no reason to disclaim them as mere "science fiction authors", as if their degrees and teaching positions are somehow negated by their writing of fiction. Do you also decry Benford and Sagan? They too are/were also mere "science fiction authors" as you like to put it. Obviously that makes them quacks who should be discounted. :P

Re:What is the net effect?

[Tontoman]

Well Crichton he is a Scientist and also a Medical Doctor and Science Fiction writer who happened to write a fiction book called "State of Fear".
However, he also a scientist who gave a factual speech to National Press Club that I linked in the other message as well.
If you think we should discount Crichton, then perhaps we should debunk the "global warming" movement because one of its leaders, Al Gore, also is a politician whose highest degree is Bachelor of Arts in Government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore

Re:What is the net effect?

[khayman80]

The point is that his experience isn't as a climatologist. He's a medical doctor who hasn't published a single solitary peer-reviewed article on climate science. You've just seen two links detailing the sloppy scholarship in his novel. I'm completely uninterested in the scientific opinions of medical doctors and politicians like Al Gore. Just like I'm uninterested in receiving medical advice from a climatologist. All I'm interested in is evidence, presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Re:What is the net effect?

[khayman80]

This word you're using: "factual." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Also, I've been emphatically trying to convince you to focus on evidence in peer-reviewed journal articles. I've even specifically asked people to ignore nonscientists like Al Gore.

Re:What is the net effect?

[HiThere]

But *I* **DO** expect a global cooling episode. I expect it to happen soon after the Arctic finishes melting. However "soon" in this case probably means multiple thousands of years. I doubt that the Antarctic will melt completely. I doubt the sea level will rise more than a few meters.

However, as long as a continent sits on the south pole, and the Arctic ocean is narrowly constrained in access to open ocean, I expect episodic glaciations.

The way this one works is that the ocean is a thermal ballast. It warms up. When it gets warm it evaporates more moisture. This slows it's rate of warming, but it keeps warming towards the temperature of the atmosphere. Eventually the air becomes humid enough to start precipitating, as snow in the places where it's cold enough. Eventually a large volcano will erupt. This will cause a drastic cooling for a few years. This will cause LOTS of snow to precipitate without melting. But the oceans are still hot, so they keep evaporating water. So now more snow is precipitating than is melting. This reflects the heat away from the snow covered areas, so the air around them cools. This continues, with the snow coverage growing every year, until the oceans cool down again.

I can't put numbers on it, and I'm not a climate modeler, but that's the way my mental model puts it. When the oceans are cool, then the time is right for a warming cycle. When the oceans warm up, then the time is right for a glaciation.

Re:What is the net effect?

[HiThere]

Cap-and-trade doesn't make any sense. It's a scheme to pretend to put a band-aid on an arterial wound, without actually doing anything but paying someone off.

Carbon tax makes sense. It's probably the best approach. Cap-and-trade is an approach that has proven to be full of opportunities for graft and hasn't shown itself to have any significant effect on net carbon emissions.

Check up on the history of how it was implemented in Europe. Then look at what is proposed for the US. A few of the loopholes got closed, but most are still wide open. It's "Environmentalism Theater".

Re:What is the net effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you and the ac below will ignore scientists/doctors who write scifi when their opinion goes against your own.

no, i ignore them when they have no professional expertise in the field they are speaking about.

that's no reason to disclaim them as mere 'science fiction authors', as if their degrees and teaching positions are somehow negated by their writing of fiction.

Crichton doesn't have any relevant degrees or research experience.

Do you also decry Benford and Sagan.

I would if they were saying something stupid about a field they're not trained in.

Re:What is the net effect?

[KeensMustard]

But perhaps this all is a cycle, because there is peer-reviewed scientific basis for the prediction of catastrophic "Global Cooling." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6665/abs/391351a0.html [nature.com]

A quick look at the synopsis indicates to me that this is an article about the effects of atlantic currents on glacial cooling in the context of the ice age cycle. To quote:

A global coupled oceanâ"atmosphere model of intermediate complexity is used to simulate the equilibrium climate of both today and the Last Glacial Maximum, around 21,000 years ago. The model successfully predicts the atmospheric and oceanic circulations, temperature distribution, hydrological cycle and sea-ice cover of both periods without using 'flux adjustments'. Changes in oceanic circulation, particularly in the Atlantic Ocean, play an important role in glacial cooling.

How exactly, do such conclusions support your assertion of a natural short term cycle of global warming/cooling? Please be precise in your answer.

Re:What is the net effect?

[jamesh]

Unfortunately I don't think Steve Fielding was drunk when he wrote his material :)

Re:What is the net effect?

[radtea]

Thanks! (likewise to the AC)

Re:What is the net effect?

[sumdumass]

No it doesn't. It's lifetime in the atmosphere is coordinated only with the saturation levels of the atmosphere. It's erroneous to think otherwise. The IPCC had to change some climate models because of this back in 2004 or so. It was pointed out to them that there was an increase of the dewpoint meaning more H2O was in the atmosphere.

Re:What is the net effect?

[sumdumass]

Make no mistake; the current skyrocketing CO2 concentration is due to human emissions.

Actually, I think you are drinking too much of the cool aid.

There are many processes contributing to the Co2 increases that aren't attributed to Humans. Volcanic activity under the sea is responsible for a part of it. The sun is responsible for a part also. You see, the oceans are giant carbon sinks and they hold more Co2 when they are colder. The undersea volcanic activity as well as the increased surface temperatures trigger a release of Co2. There are other natural processes involved that caused the increases of Co2 too. While most of the Co2 is caused by human activity, not all of it is nor will it ever be.

Re:What is the net effect?

[feepness]

There is also a different global cool myth, which claims that the scientist agreed that such was in store for us around 1970. Hope I didn't steal your thunder ;)

There was actually. I remember reading an article about it in magazine in a Doctor's office circa 1980. I recall this quite vividly because I was around 10 at the time and it scared the heck out of me.

Re:What is the net effect?

[Esteanil]

So when the sea wrarms up and starts releasing massive amounts of Co2 and Methane, then even more of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere won't have been released (directly) by humans! Won't we all feel *so much* better then?

Re:What is the net effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

from the book Without Hot Air by David MacKay (a Cambridge University Physicist):

Yes, natural ïows of CO2 are larger than the additional ïow we switched on 200 years ago when we started burning fossil fuels in earnest. But it is terribly misleading to quantify only the large natural ïows into the atmosphere, failing to mention the almost exactly equal ïows out of the atmosphere back into the biosphere and the oceans. The point is that these natural ïows in and out of the atmosphere have been almost exactly in
balance for millenia. So it is not relevant at all that these natural ïows are larger than human emissions. The natural ïows cancelled themselves out. So the natural ïows, large though they were, left the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean constant, over the last few thousand years. Burning fossil fuels, in contrast, creates a new ïow of carbon that, though
small, is not cancelled. Here is a simple analogy, set in the passport-control arrivals area of an airport. One thousand passengers arrive per hour, and there are exactly enough clockwork ofïcials to process one thousand passengers per hour. There is a modest queue, but because of the match of arrival rate to service rate, the queue is not getting any longer. Now imagine that owing to fog an extra stream of ïights is diverted here from a smaller airport. This stream adds an extra 50 passengers per hour to the arrivals lobby -â" a small addition compared to the original arrival rate of one thousand per hour. Initially at least, the authorities do not increase the number of ofïcials, and the ofïcials carry on processing just one thousand
passengers per hour. So what happens? Slowly but surely, the queue grows. Burning fossil fuels is undeniably increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and in the surface oceans. No climate scientist disputes this fact. When it comes to CO2 concentrations, man is signiïcant.

Re:What is the net effect?

[riverat1]

Well, the lifetime of any particular water molecule in the atmosphere is probably pretty short. But the point is that the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is self limiting. Air at a certain temperature and pressure can only hold so much water vapor before it precipitates out. Nothing humans do can change that.

Re:What is the net effect?

[riverat1]

But without the addition of CO2 from human activity the releases from the natural sources would be absorbed by the environment keeping CO2 levels relatively stable like they've been for the last 600,000 years. As it is over half of the CO2 released by human activities gets absorbed but enough doesn't to raise the level in the atmosphere.

Re:What is the net effect?

[sumdumass]

And that would be relevant if the air was at a constant saturation level. Unfortunately, or fortunately if your subjected to it, the air isn't at a maximum concentration level. There are many factors controlling this such as temperature and temperature differences between sources of water/moisture and the air.

The problem with measuring this is that humidity is relative. However, a way of distinguishing the amount of water vapor in the air is by the dew point. The dew point is the temp at which the saturation levels cause the moisture to condense (precipitation). In 2000, in my area, for September 28th, the humidity was 89% and the dew point was 45 degree F. In contrast, tonight(the same day but this year), the dew point is at 58 degrees F and the humidity is currently at 80%. However because the dew point is higher, we know that the amount of water vapor is greater because we know it is relative to the temperature.

Re:What is the net effect?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

There is also a different global cool myth, which claims that the scientist agreed that such was in store for us around 1970. Hope I didn't steal your thunder ;)

There was actually. I remember reading an article about it in magazine in a Doctor's office circa 1980. I recall this quite vividly because I was around 10 at the time and it scared the heck out of me.

I was just a toddler then, but according to new scientists, it was a few scientific articles that was blown way out of proportion by the media. Supposedly, back then, there were about 44 articles predicting warming and 7 predicting cooling.

Re:What is the net effect?

[orzetto]

You fail reading skills. There is a lot more water in the atmosphere than CO2. CO2 and water are produced by hydrocarbon combustion in the same order of magnitude. Anthropogenic CO2 has an effect on the natural equilibrium, anthropogenic water from HC combustion has not. That's because it can rain to the oceans (your point) and because even if it didn't it would be too little to matter anyway, since the oceans produce much larger quantities by evaporation alone (my point).

Re:What is the net effect?

[sumdumass]

But without the addition of CO2 from human activity the releases from the natural sources would be absorbed by the environment keeping CO2 levels relatively stable like they've been for the last 600,000 years. As it is over half of the CO2 released by human activities gets absorbed but enough doesn't to raise the level in the atmosphere.

No it wouldn't. And I do not understand what mislead you into thinking this. There have been natural Co2 variations through out history and at times that humans weren't even present. The Co2 cycles seem to indicate that for 12Co2, it has a life span of about 5-6 years and for 14Co2, it's about 15 years. This means that an abrupt release of Co2 will take about 15 years maximum to be absorbed into the natural process. The anthropogenic Co2 follows this curve too.

Historically, and to some degree with the current Co2 levels, they trail warmth periods suggesting that warming oceans and thawing glaciers dump a lot of the excess Co2 into the atmosphere. However, I'm not denying that Human released Co2 isn't happening nor that it isn't contributing to the so called problem. I'm denying that it's the sole problem and you should too.

Re:What is the net effect?

[sumdumass]

Actually, for the last 3-5 or so years, the seas have been cooling and capturing carbon. In 2005-6 there was a study by someone at the university of Colorado (who monitors a network of Ocean bathythermographs deployed by the Argo program and jason-1 satellite which monitor sea surface temps and ocean level rises). I can't find the study in a non-pay site and I'm not going to link to but anyways, the study showed that all of the claimed warming to date thought to of been caused by the Anthropogenic global warming can be explained by differences in ocean surface temperatures. It said that it didn't rule out Anthropogenic causes but questions the statement of importance.

Your getting the cart before the horse with your assumption that the ocean is warmed by the air. In fact, the ocean has more of an impact on the temps of the air then the air does on the ocean. Just ask the coastal dwellers who get cool breezes coming off the ocean that keep the temps a comfortable level in an otherwise hostile environment. California comes to mind where LA can be 90 degree F and just a few miles away (less then 100) it can be a cool and mild 75 degrees F because of the winds coming off the ocean. Another source for this is the El Nino and la nina effect in the southern pacific oscillations. Of course there are decadal oscillation anomalies in every large body of water. And these vary to such a degree that the IPCC has admitted that their models have problems processing them.

Furthermore, Christopher Monckton has released a study surrounding issues with the IPCC claims which you should read. Some of the key points as outlined elsewhere,

• The IPCC's 2007 climate summary overstated CO2's impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
• CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 F (0.6 C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
• Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
• The IPCC's values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
• The IPCC's values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
• "Global warming" halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
• Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
• The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists' draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
• It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
• Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
• In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

Now keep in mind, this report does not dispute Anthropogenic climate change, it's pointing to verifiable mathematical flaws causing it's over statement by the IPCC. This is also something of a concern when one of the IPCC lead author has recently went on record claiming the science of global warming is too uncertain at this point in time. There is also a Dr. Essenhigh that claims the IPCC models are incorrect too. His Paper is unavailable for non-paying people (or I couldn't find it) but here is an abstract of it and some comment from a notorious denier.

In short, the issue is a lot more complex then you were led to believe and your comment reflects that profusely.

Do they know if this is unusual?

[n2rjt]

I see on the maps that some areas are thinning, near the coasts, and other areas are thickening.
I wonder if that is the usual pattern, or if they are seeing something unusual.
The article didn't mention that, as far as I could tell.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Qualitatively, what you'd expect from climate change is more precipitation (because there's more evaporation) and therefore thickening at high elevations where the snow stays cold, while lower warmer regions flow faster or even melt.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[Hadlock]

FTFA:

The maps confirm that the profound ice sheet thinning of recent years stems from fast-flowing glaciers that empty into the sea.

Which... is sort of what healthy glaciers do. Thick, healthy glaciers flow quickly due to the pressure they exert on the deeper portions, giving the lower ice under pressure more plasticity. This could be construed as abnormally healthy glacial activity, but IANAAG (i am not an artic geologist).
 
I should note my liberal bias, democratic registration, and belief in global warming, else I get modded as a troll or flamebait (it happens a lot if I don't specify my political leanings, sadly, note my posting history...).

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[khayman80]

Exactly. I've described my research into Greenland's ice sheets. My most recent estimates show that Greenland as a whole is losing ~100 Gtons of ice every year, but my advisor believes my estimate is too low by a factor of 2. As you say, northern Greenland is gaining mass, but southestern Greenland is losing much more mass. Climate change is a very serious problem, and I'm really annoyed that health care is currently distracting the Senate from an issue that affects the future of the entire human race.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[Anonymous Coward]

Qualitatively, what you'd expect from climate change is more precipitation (because there's more evaporation)

While I'm not a climatologist (I tend towards quantum physics), I'm not sure you can make that assertion. The formula for evaporation has myriad factors, including but not limited to heat. (The actual formula is W = [A + (B)(V)](Pw - Pa)/Hv). It was stated in a BBC Horizon documentary entitled Global Dimming that the more important factor was the amount of sunlight that hits the water, rather than temperature. In addition, the Horizon episode explains that there is both an observed decrease in evaporation and rainfall based on fine particulate matter in the atmosphere.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[khayman80]

You're right. Glaciers melt all the time for reasons unconnected to emissions of fossil fuels. However, the current warming is atypical in many respects (which I've linked in another comment in this article.) Glacier melt isn't- by itself- proof of the anthropogenic origin of abrupt climate change.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[khayman80]

Higher average global temperatures imply higher upper ocean temperatures, which imply a higher water vapor pressure. Thus more water vapor will evaporate into the atmosphere. Yes, Roderick 2007 showed that wind speed had a stronger affect on the evaporation rate than changes in temperature, but I doubt that affects the expected theoretical equilibrium vapor pressure from basic thermodynamics. When that more humid air is carried across a tall mountain range, its temperature decreases and the water precipitates.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[BrokenHalo]

and I'm really annoyed that health care is currently distracting the Senate from an issue that affects the future of the entire human race.

Well, this doesn't help, but I can see why health care is the focus of attention: it is one thing the government can do something about. Climate change is a serious problem, but it is now too big to fix, since no-one has the will to adopt a policy amounting to more than "business as usual" and "let's have another toke on that big ole' oil-pipe".

A lot of political mileage is being made of proposed emissions trading schemes, but it's too late for that. They are just accounting exercises - like pushing food around on the plate to make it look like you're eating less.

I'm sorry if that sounds defeatist, but I'd be happy to hear an alternative. People will not change until they're forced to.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[khayman80]

I've repeatedly argued that we need to start building as many modern nuclear fission plants as possible. Preferably pebble bed reactors, using breeder reactors and reprocessing techniques to turn the waste into useful fuel.

And as I've explained on my homepage, I think that cap-and-trade will make coal less profitable, and nuclear power more profitable. It's a very capitalistic approach to the problem of climate change.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[Anonymous Coward]

Higher average global temperatures imply higher upper ocean temperatures, which imply a higher water vapor pressure. Thus more water vapor will evaporate into the atmosphere. Yes, Roderick 2007 showed that wind speed had a stronger affect on the evaporation rate than changes in temperature, but I doubt that affects the expected theoretical equilibrium vapor pressure from basic thermodynamics. When that more humid air is carried across a tall mountain range, its temperature decreases and the water precipitates.

(I'm the AC you responded to).

While searching for an elevation map of Greenland I came across a map showing rates of surface-elevation change. It's tangental to my specific point, but I found it interesting nonetheless. I don't have access to recent climate data indicating evaporation rates, rainfall, or quantity of particulate matter in the atmosphere, but in the Horizon episode they asserted that there was a decrease in rainfall because extra particulate matter in the atmosphere created more water droplets that -- in aggregate -- were too small to form rain. Even if warmer temperatures were to increase evaporation, there are other factors involved in the amount of rainfall that would result from increased evaporation. The evidence presented thus far is a decrease in rainfall, not an increase. But, as I said, I don't have access to the raw data required to prove that definitively either way.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[khayman80]

I saw the same Horizon documentary. Although sensationalist, it did explain Global Dimming pretty well. But at the same time, regulations of CFCs and similar chemicals have been fairly effective, and their lifetimes in the atmosphere are generally measured in months. So that particular problem has waned, I think. But I agree, whatever effect it would've had on rainfall would've opposed the greater precipitation expected from global warming.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[Hadlock]

Double check your terminology there. The article specifically states glacier flow, not glacier melt in Antarctica. Glacier flow only occurs when you have lots of extra ice pushing more ice down the slope. Flow != Melt! It's way, way too cold in Antarctica for glaciers to melt anywhere on the actual landmass. Thinning ice shelf in this case is specifically due to improved glacial flow, pushing more ice out to where it can melt - in the sea.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[Anonymous Coward]

It really is that simple.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[MrKaos]

Qualitatively, what you'd expect from climate change is more precipitation (because there's more evaporation)

What you are not taking into account is Global Dimming. This phenomenon (do,do, do.do.do) blocks photons from hitting bodies of water which is what is *required* for evaporation to occur. Records of rainfalls taken in Israel has shown a decline in the amounts of rainfall as the amount of particulate matter (from pollution) increases in the atmosphere and blocks light from reaching the earth.

This promotes drought. Less evaporated water in the atmosphere means less rainfall for landmasses and, critically, less snowfall for the polar regions. If the snow hasn't fallen on the polar regions, it still means ice mass is not regenerated at the same rate.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[khayman80]

Okay, that sounds reasonable. Thanks for the correction. I've heard of research showing positive feedback effects from melting glaciers lubricating the slide of the glacier into the ocean, though. Does this only happen in glaciers in more temperate regions than Greenland?

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you get big results you get big results?

And you get to pretend you're 'saving the human race' rather than getting grants.

Win win!

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw the same Horizon documentary. Although sensationalist, it did explain Global Dimming pretty well. But at the same time, regulations of CFCs and similar chemicals have been fairly effective

(Same AC)

I admit that I haven't watched the Horizon episode in over a year, even though I have it in my Documentaries directory. At the time, though, I did describe it to a friend as "alarming", so I would probably agree with the sensationalist tag. I don't recall, though, whether they were blaming the particulates on CFCs, or just generic pollution. I do recall that they showed the massive pollution cloud coming out of China.

I read in another of your posts that you are an advocate of nuclear power. I wholeheartedly support that position and wish you luck in banging that drum. I vacillate on whether climate change is real (and if it is real, that the effects are a net negative to humanity), but I think regardless it is a net positive to have more and cheaper sources of energy.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[khayman80]

Assuming that large scale warming is already well under way (And that's a big assumption given the major cooling trend we have been in for the last 10 years.)

I've discussed this claim before. Short version: there hasn't been a cooling trend over the last ten years, major or minor.

It is likely, in fact nearly guaranteed that not only can't we do anything about it now, we probably NEVER were able to do anything about it.

The climate varies naturally on long timescales but Meehl 2004 shows the current warming can't be accounted for by natural forcings. Greenhouse gas emissions are the only way we can explain the temperatures over the last ~40 years.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

(And that's a big assumption given the major cooling trend we have been in for the last 10 years.)

Oh please. Take a look at the graph and tell me what cooling trend you see? I know that 1998 was exceptionally warm, but one years does not make a trend.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[ThePhilips]

... I'm really annoyed that health care is currently distracting the Senate ...

Look at bigger picture. Do not be narrow minded as rest of the scientists.

Climate change first and foremost affects humans. Having better health care would help to absorb some of the climate change effects.

One step at a time. There is always time for the panic and apocalypse. At the moment we try to make sure that humanity as it is now would survive. And that we would be able to live on *after* surviving.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[offrdbandit]

"I'm really annoyed that health care is currently distracting the Senate from an issue that affects the future of the entire human race." That wouldn't have anything to do with your desire to see your career funded, would it? Research fellowship get denied?

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[jbengt]

The article specifically states glacier flow, not glacier melt in Antarctica. Glacier flow only occurs when you have lots of extra ice pushing more ice down the slope.

The article is about measurements of glacial thinning which have been explained as due to increasing flow of the glaciers. I don't see how accumulations of ice pushing more ice down the slopes could cause the thinning. Faster flowing ice would have less time to thin from melting by sea water, and, contradictory to other observations, would imply more area of ice on the water. Also, the thinning was observed over land.

Even without extra ice accumulating, glaciers can speed up due to changes in friction between the ice and the ground, such as would be caused by the presence of meltwater. It can get warm enough, especially Greenland, for melting to occur, at least at low elevations in the summer or at the base of the glacier under the insulating layer of snow and ice. And to the extent warming sea temperatures breaks up the sea ice, there is less holding back the glaciers, so they can accelerate.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[Troed]

You should try verifying that graph scientifically. Some have, with interesting results.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/23/taking-a-bite-out-of-climate-data/

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

You should try verifying that graph scientifically. Some have, with interesting results.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/23/taking-a-bite-out-of-climate-data/

Yeah, yeah, I'm sure all the data is a big conspiracy made by the windmill makers ;)

My rebuttal was to the claim of "cooling the last 10 years". I freely admit I rely on the data our dear scientists gather for me, but so did the poster of that claim.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[DavidTC]

It's a bit absurd to complain that the Democrats can't solve every single problem at once.

And it's actually questionable if cap and trade will pass the Senate at all anyway.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[HiThere]

I think you are entirely too charitable towards cap-and trade. Or maybe just overly optimistic. It's a guaranteed regulatory nightmare, where those who care to can game the system with near impunity.

Carbon tax, though, would indeed help nuclear power, and it relatively simple to regulate in an honest manner. This is probably why it's not being seriously considered.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[HiThere]

Part of the increase in the rate of flow is due to the calving of ice-sheets off from around the edge of the glacier. This removes some resistance to the flow at the downhill end of the stream.

I don't know how generally significant this is, but it's been measured recently when large ice-sheets have broken away from Antarctica.

Re:Do they know if this is unusual?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you get an accurate temperature for 1850?

Does it?

[jarek]

The increased temperatures of west Antarctica are more than compensated by decreased temperatures elsewhere in Antartctica. It is especially interesting that there is so much growth inland of Greenland.

Re:Does it?

[khayman80]

As far as I understand it, Antarctica as a whole is warming more quickly than climatologists expected. Antarctica should be warming more slowly mainly because currently most of the land mass is in the northern hemisphere. The fact that Antarctica is warming at all is a little troubling.

Re:Does it?

[Troed]

Antarctica as a whole isn't warming unless you deal in dubious statistical models. The west Antarctica peninsula has been warming though, and that's where the hyperbole comes from.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/20/steig-et-al-antarctica-warming-paper-process-is-finally-replicated-and-dealt-a-blow-to-robustness/

That has likely more to do with natural shifting of the polar current around Antarctica than anything else. Changes in current location affects weather at the peninsula without affecting the rest of the continent.

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/fahan_mi_shipwrecks/infohut/acc.htm

Re:Does it?

[khayman80]

I see very little reason to suspect that the Steig et al 2009 study was wrong to say: "... significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive."

Re:Does it?

[Troed]

I responded to a post about "Antarctica as a whole".

Don't matter...

[The Master Control P]

Those who demand "proof" of climate change before we do anything to fight it will find some way to ignore this. They'll keep pretending there's "no evidence" and that it's a "librul conspiracy" until it becomes undeniable (I'm betting til the dams surrounding a port city fail) because they don't believe in doing anything proactive.

Then when the engineers say it's too late to do anything except build a 300 foot tall dam around every coastline in the world, it'll be their fault for not fixing it.

Re:Don't matter...

[BlackusDiamondus]

Then when the engineers say it's too late to do anything except build a 300 foot tall dam around every coastline in the world, it'll be their fault for not fixing it.

Wow, exaggerate much?

Re:Don't matter...

[Arker]

It takes so little to get people trolling for skeptics, just a subject line and a text-form eh?

And already modded up.

But logically speaking taking action before you know the consequence of the action can be very bad. Many of the demands made to mitigate postulated anthropogenic global warming involve considerable expense, so all the things that we know for sure need doing (like feeding people) that might otherwise be done with the money constitutes the minimum opportunity cost. The maximum would be far greater - we might well cause one climate catastrophe as we seek to avert the other.

Simply rushing off to 'do something' seems to be a universal human instinct somehow, and certainly politicians feel justifiably that they are pressured to do that, but it just isnt smart.

Re:Don't matter...

[flyingfsck]

Why do we need to fight it? The increase in arable land due to warming more than offset the loosses around the coast lines. It will be great if we can settle and develop Antarctica.

Re:Don't matter...

[icebike]

We have been warned for years on end that coastal inundation would be the direct effect of polar melting.

But inundation should not be a delayed effect. It should appear immediately, and in direct proportion to the melting.

So where is it?

Re:Don't matter...

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Because the costs of adjustments to the new climate exceeds the costs of avoiding it by a huge margin.

Re:Don't matter...

[MartinSchou]

Well, with what is usually being proposed, like reducing carbon emissions by driving more fuel efficient cars, no leaving lights on everywhere, how is that POSSIBLY a bad thing?

If we're talking about some of the more harebrained ideas like having hundred of thousands of ships sucking up cold water from the the ocean and spraying it as high into the atmosphere as possible, yes I agree - that could easily do serious long term damage that we don't realise.

But conserving energy cannot do that, as we are simply choosing to reduce the energy input into a system that had previously had a moderately stable equilibrium before we started burning all those fossil fuels.

Re:Don't matter...

[Whatanut]

And that's proved by.... ?

Re:Don't matter...

[Beelzebud]

Stick around. We're getting close to the point where the ice over land starts melting. That's when the show begins.

Re:Don't matter...

[turing_m]

Why do we need to fight it?

When it comes to unintended consequences, Murphy's Law predicts outcomes pretty well in my experience. Especially when whatever is changed is irreversible.

Re:Don't matter...

[khayman80]

... the fact that the current increase in the CO2 level is 35x faster than at any other time in the last half-million years? That the last time the climate changed this abruptly wasn't very pleasant? Biospheres can adapt to gradual changes, but abrupt changes can be catastrophic.

Re:Don't matter...

[Yokaze]

Where do you get the idea, that the arable land increases due to global climate change?

I hope, you don't think, it just gets warmer (as the oversimplifying name "global warming" might suggest), and one can start farming in the tundra.
There are more factors involved in arability than temperature

Re:Don't matter...

[Arker]

Well, with what is usually being proposed, like reducing carbon emissions by driving more fuel efficient cars, no leaving lights on everywhere, how is that POSSIBLY a bad thing?

Sure, more efficient cars (as long as they arent less safe or something) is a great idea regardless. But if we are spending time and money (and energy) on one thing that is still less to spend on other things.

But conserving energy cannot do that, as we are simply choosing to reduce the energy input into a system that had previously had a moderately stable equilibrium before we started burning all those fossil fuels.

"Moderately stable equilibrium" might be optimistic. Long term earth's climate swings between hot house and ice age. We would like for it to hold right in the warmer part of the ice age cycle forever, but that's not an option. It's easy to say human activity affects environment - but it's hard to predict exactly how. We cant just run the earth back and forwards through time running different scenarios, outside of computer models, which are only as good as their underlying assumptions. The agricultural age probably had affects too. About 10k years ago the last glaciation reversed. We are due soon for either another glacial (cold) period or else a return to a hothouse, naturally. Which is it? There are several logical possibilities:

1. A glaciation should be starting, but anthropogenic effects have delayed it. Mitigation could result in a resumption of glaciation. Not generally good for mankind.
2. A glaciation should be starting, but anthropogenic effects have resulted in a swing to hothouse instead. Might or might not be possible to reverse. If not possible then todays mitigation efforts are a waste of resources that will soon be even more precious.
3. A hothouse should be starting anyway, human emissions or not. In this case it's very likely that all mitigation efforts will be entirely futile as well.

Re:Don't matter...

[Whatanut]

That doesn't prove that adapting is more costly than avoiding. I'm not saying one or the other is better. I'm just saying that making the claim that one is more costly than the other isn't a fact.

Re:Don't matter...

[Da Fokka]

Wrong debate. He was asking why adaptation would me more expensive than avoiding climate change altogether, which the GP suggested.

Re:Don't matter...

[khayman80]

Okay, yes. Technically I agree. The political/economic ramifications of our response to climate change aren't completely within the domain of physical science, so they're not facts in the way that the anthropogenic origin of abrupt climate change is a fact. For example, our technology could suddenly jump forward very quickly, rendering adaptation very simple and cheap.

But we're talking about the future of the human race here. Let's choose the safest option, and try to avoid the worst effects by moving from coal power to modern nuclear power. As technology advances, solar, wind, tidal and geothermal power can play an increasing role. We've stagnated and become complacent in a world powered by cheap oil; another industrial revolution is long overdue.

Re:Don't matter...

[coaxial]

But logically speaking taking action before you know the consequence of the action can be very bad. Many of the demands made to mitigate postulated anthropogenic global warming involve considerable expense, so all the things that we know for sure need doing (like feeding people) that might otherwise be done with the money constitutes the minimum opportunity cost.

Of course the irony is that the people benefiting from the status quo have always whined about the cost, even when at the time it was trivial. The sad fact is, that since AGW is a positive feedback loop, the longer we have delayed taking steps to slow/reverse the process, the harder and more expensive it becomes.

The maximum would be far greater - we might well cause one climate catastrophe as we seek to avert the other.

Yeah. It would be really a shame if more people took mass transit.

Re:Don't matter...

[smoker2]

The NASA Earth Observation site has measurements of the ice coverage at the north pole. While their text speaks of massive ice loss and continuing doom, the actual graph they provide of the data shows that while the minimum ice cover is less than the average of a decade ago, there is actually more minimum ice cover than last year, and last year had more cover than the year before. Why do they not mention this at all ? Maybe the point is to mislead ? Sure they say "Though sea ice didn't melt as much in 2009 as it did in the previous two years ..." - that is wilfully seeing the pot as half empty. If they were to publish the proper figures for 1979 to 2000 instead of just a vague average, we could maybe see whether there is a regular fluctuation, instead of guessing that the decline has been constant. It's disingenuous and wrong.

For all we know, the year 2000 figures could be at the top of their average band. Alternatively, if it's at the bottom of that band, then it would appear that we are only at most a year away from having minimum levels back at 2000 levels. Surely that would be good ? But the crappy presentation and weasel wording make it impossible to judge. They even order the data labels the wrong way so that 2009 appears lower than 2007.

Yes I know this ice isn't that which is responsible for inundation, but I thought it was worth the rant anyway.

Re:Don't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

We have been warned for years on end that coastal inundation would be the direct effect of polar melting.

But inundation should not be a delayed effect. It should appear immediately, and in direct proportion to the melting.

So where is it?

Actually there has been a lot of unseasonable flooding but so far just in very low lying areas and in poorer countries that lack the dikes to moderate it. The problem is so far it's inches but eventually it'll be feet. Exactly high high up on your neck would you like it before it makes an impression? Massive changes in the Arctic should be enough to wake up most people but it hasn't made much impression. The native peoples have an oral history going back thousands of years related to climate and they have never seen anything like this so no it's not just a normal variation. Also projections have CO2 levels rising at the end of the century to the same level they were 60 million years ago when the poles were temperate. The current levels are the highest they have been since before the human race was born. Exactly how much science do people need to be convinced? I'm sure loosing coastal Florida will convince you but that will happen many years after we hit the tipping point. We can't aford to wait until the average layman can see coastal sea rise. That's akin to waiting until an asteroid is visible to the naked eye to try to divert it. If you heard there was an asteroid that was going to probably hit the Earth in ten years and it was a global killer would you want to wait until it was visible to do something or would you want some one to get off their ass and do something? That's effectively what we are talking about.

Re:Don't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand. Water molecules are evolving and will soon begin to reproduce at an exponential rate.

Re:Don't matter...

[MartinSchou]

When I said "moderately stable equilibrium" I was talking about the amount of energy that entered out atmosphere. This was not very clear in my post, and I apologize for that.

Yes, over very large periods of time, the amount of energy that has then been radiated away from our atmosphere has varied as glaciation will increase the bleed off by reflecting this.

But, when we then start to burn off fuels that are the accumulation of energy over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years inside a span that is a few hundred years, that will have an effect. What that effect will be in the long is very difficult to determine.

Maybe the increase in energy will merely result in a slightly higher average temperature resulting in slightly higher water levels and then that becomes the basis for a new equilibrium.
Maybe the increase in temperature will result in more clouds which in turn will reflect more sunshine away and dropping the temperature resulting in larger temperature fluctuations over a span of multiple years like a sinusoid with an average temperature of what we have now just with a larger amplitude.
Maybe it'll run amok from a human perspective, raising average global temperatures 10 C, raise the sea levels 3 meters (10 feet) and make Scandinavia a lush tropical jungle. Hell, I live in mid-Sweden, 120 meters above sea level - what the fuck do I care if Los Angeles, New York, London, Paris, Hamburg, Tokyo and probably a billion people end up drowning or having to move somewhere else? And since it won't happen in my lifetime and I don't have kids, I really don't have a reason to care.

Maybe it'll go the other way. Ten thousand years ago the sea levels were 40 meters (120 feet) below what they are today. That kind of change would also result in some very serious geo-political tensions, as nations that were previously separated by hundreds of miles of sea would now have a land-bridge between them. Not to mention the consequences for fishing. To give you an idea what that might look like, I encourage you to read about The Aral Sea. Or look at Venice. That wasn't a city that was built in the middle of a lagoon. Nor was it something that happened at the pace we're facing here.

Granted, those are the extremes, but increasing or decreasing the sea levels by a meter is going to have some serious consequences we aren't prepared for. They will happen on their own over time, but then we're talking about geological time periods of thousands of years, not the span of a few decades or a single century.

I honestly believe that from where we're sitting, we're on the cab of a run away freight train. We don't have a chance of stopping it before something "bad" happens (compared to the status quo), but we can at the very least lift the foot of the accelerator. Getting there sooner is not always a good thing.

Re:Don't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we need to fight it? The increase in arable land due to warming more than offset the loosses around the coast lines. It will be great if we can settle and develop Antarctica.

We wouldn't lose arable land only along the coastline - what's marginal land today will likely turn into too hot/dry land.

We also have a disproportionately large part of the worlds population and infrastructure along the coasts...

Re:Don't matter...

[Idiomatick]

Fixing CO2 emissions is a few trillion dollar problem. Having water raise a foot and having temperatures change globally will be many many trillions. As lang changes there will be massive wars. You can already see parts in the Arctic. With the US claiming up to half of it (Including islands to the south Canadian's have claimed for almost 100years.). Dealing with food shortages, massive natural disasters. This will be many trillions of dollars over a long period of time.

And I'm sure the number of possible problems is significantly greater with the surface of the planet changing compared to retiring old coal power plants and converting to more electric cars.

Re:Don't matter...

[khayman80]

The NASA Earth Observation site has measurements of the ice coverage at the north pole. While their text speaks of massive ice loss and continuing doom, the actual graph they provide of the data shows that while the minimum ice cover is less than the average of a decade ago, there is actually more minimum ice cover than last year, and last year had more cover than the year before. Why do they not mention this at all ? Maybe the point is to mislead?

Yes, 2008 and 2009 had smaller ice extent minima than 2007. But the point is that climate models had previously predicted larger ice extent minima than were observed in 2007. So the last several years tend to confirm that the previous measurements were due to short-term weather variability rather than a flaw in the climate models.

If they were to publish the proper figures for 1979 to 2000 instead of just a vague average, we could maybe see whether there is a regular fluctuation, instead of guessing that the decline has been constant.

Ask, and you shall receive. No serious scientist is actually "guessing" that the decline has been constant, and no climate model that I'm aware of makes that prediction. Short term variability is expected, but the data shows a clear downward trend over the last 30 years.

Re:Don't matter...

[Idiomatick]

With regular fluctuations we could be nearing a peak for ice cover. And this would be the lowest local max we've had in 1000years for all I know... I do know however that, using yearly data in such a manner 'hey there is more ice this month therefore global warming is a sham' is also dangerous. I have seen these types of arguements pop up in this subject fairly often. I think scientists are internally careful about these sorts of things but have lost any shred of trust they had for the public.

Re:Don't matter...

[EsbenMoseHansen]

And that's proved by.... ?

Go check the numbers yourself, it's not like it's a secret. In these parts (DK), it's mostly more damms or relocation of some towns, new sewers (that's an amazing expensive part), irrigation for the farmers and such items. On the plus side, the heating bill might get slightly smaller (but probably not as much as the cooling bill will get higher) and we might be able to grow a bit more crops, provided enough irrigation. You don't have to be that bright to see that the expenses outweigh the benefits. Perhaps a few places will really net benefit.. Siberia, Greenland, Canada? But for most of the population it will mean a lot of extra taxes.

Re:Don't matter...

[upuv]

Please read the article.

Because that is exactly what it says.

Re:Don't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

um, I suggest you go buy a greyhound ticket (to keep it real) and pay a visit to the once grand city of New Orleans. Or, if you had plans to visit where the Wright Brothers first flew, you better get on that bus now.

Not to dismiss subsidence as a factor in those cases, but to emphasize that coastal erosion typically happens in punctuated events: slightly weakened, slightly weakened, slightly weakened, hurricane, gone.

East coast of Texas is another place if you want to get to you better hurry up about it.

Re:Don't matter...

[Culture20]

it's a "librul conspiracy"

This quote is bound to decrease intelligent discourse. Painting your opposition as backwoodsy by misspelling a word to match a much-maligned accent's pronunciation seems trollish behavior. Are you a troll, good sir?

Re:Don't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

> until it becomes undeniable (I'm betting til the dams
> surrounding a port city fail) because they don't believe
> in doing anything proactive.

umm, new orleans? biggest port on the mississipi, one of the world's top 5 rivers and N.Am's largest?

has anything much changed?

what more drastic event has to happen before people get their heads out of their sandboxes? mutha' nature simple doesn't give a shit if folks buy into the observations or not. She'll be comin is she wants to, regardless of what you believe.

sadly, people can and do actively rationalize themselves out of any obvious thing if it suits what they want to believe.

Re:Don't matter...

[blind biker]

We have been warned for years on end that coastal inundation would be the direct effect of polar melting.

But inundation should not be a delayed effect. It should appear immediately, and in direct proportion to the melting.

So where is it?

Two South Pacific islands have disappeared beneath the waves, as climate change raises sea levels to new heights.

Tuvalu, soon to be no more.

World's deltas subsiding, says study.

Re:Don't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, did you miss that whole destruction of New Orleans thing? it wasn't actually a tv movie, it sort of happened, ya know?

Re:Don't matter...

[KeensMustard]

Just in case you were serious - there are 3 reasons why this would never, ever work

• Geology - crops require soil to grow. Under the ice, Antarctica is rock. Siberia is not much better.
• Latitude - cereal crops are adapted to the amount of sunlight received at temperate latitudes. At the polar latitudes, it is dark for the whole winter, and then quickly progresses to long periods of day. Cereal crops will not grow in those light conditions
• Geo-political - the polar regions aren't exactly divided up in a way that suits the current geopolitical structures. In the North, it's mostly Russia and Canada. In the South, its a complex arrangement set by the Antarctic treaty which China has already signified it doesn't intend to abide by. How will the land be divvied up - will we fight for it?

Re:Don't matter...

[khayman80]

Ack, I meant 2008 and 2009 had slightly LARGER ice extent minima than 2007.

Re:Don't matter...

[Whatanut]

What numbers would I be investigating, exactly? Apparently it's considered trolling to question anything around here. All I'm saying is that we can't just make a blanket statement that avoiding the problem is less costly than adapting to the problem. There are no numbers that can support either case. I completely agree that avoiding the problem is probably the least disruptive solution. However, there are costs associated with keeping things the way they are. That can't be ignored when making arguments that one solution is better than another.

Re:Don't matter...

[EsbenMoseHansen]

What numbers would I be investigating, exactly? Apparently it's considered trolling to question anything around here. All I'm saying is that we can't just make a blanket statement that avoiding the problem is less costly than adapting to the problem. There are no numbers that can support either case. I completely agree that avoiding the problem is probably the least disruptive solution. However, there are costs associated with keeping things the way they are. That can't be ignored when making arguments that one solution is better than another.

If you are talking specifically about the global warming, then yes, we can come up with some numbers --- like "what will it cost to build the damns and move the towns if the water rises 2 meters" and then add them up.

If you meant in general, then I completely agree that you cannot say that avoiding is better than adapting.

Re:Don't matter...

[Whatanut]

Why is it different if we are talking exclusivly about "global warming"? The fact is there are costs no matter what we do. If we choose to adapt there are costs associated with dams, relocation, new farm land development, etc. If we choose to avoid then we have costs that include building new energy alternatives (nuclear, wind, solar, whatever else), disposing of existing technologies, etc. Are we just going to dig a big hole and shove all the existing gas powered vehicles into it? Not likely. There's a cost there.

Now, keep in mind I'm not saying that this cost isn't mitigated by other factors. But we can say that on both sides. Avoidance = lots of job oppertunities. Adaptation = lots of job oppertunites. I want to be clear that I was simply questioning the origional poster that asserted that adaptation was more costly than avoidance.

Re:Don't matter...

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Why is it different if we are talking exclusivly about "global warming"?

Because we have run the numbers and come to that conclusion. I am mostly familiar with the local numbers ( for DK ) which I presume do not interest you, but I'd think the picture is similar everywhere.

I cannot refrain to comment on your vehicle hole. Do you really believe that we are going to do that, rather than simply replace them with electric or whatever cars as they are replaced anyway? It's not as if we even have an alternative today; and if we did I would argue for replacing them anyway, just to get rid of the dependence on the middle east and the oil cartels. No, the real question is: Will we replace coal? Except for environment reason, I cannot find a good reason for doing so. Coal is plentyful, cheap, and available from lots of countries that I wouldn't mind being dependent on.

Re:Don't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are Atolls, not Islands. Erosion is the main cause of them disappearing, not a rise of see level. Even that link alludes to that. This can also be applied to many other areas often quoted as cause by climate change, where in fact it is ether a natural life cycle, or where low flat atolls are destabilized by man cutting down or otherwise trampling the natural vegetation. So erosion takes over and the atolls disappear below the surface.

Many delta's fall victim to the similar sort of processes where the river is diverted to such a degree the delta is not replenished with the down wash and due to the fact they sit on unstable substrate they to fall victim to subsiding landmass. Those problems above are generally man caused, but are very localized in the scheme of things considering a planet's size. Definitely not due to a rise in the ocean. Even then moderate changes in sea level are in a constant state of change. Just look at the ice records that chart the mini ice age of 1200 and the records of the period what few there are. Sorry but I'm much to lazy to put in a bunch of links, as if that justifies my opinion of the matter. Google is your friend, if you believe everything you read on the net.

Neither have one whoot to do with rising sea levels. So why is it that this sort of thing is touted as being caused by global warming or the new buzz word, climate change. That is another thing that bothers me. Why the switch from global warming to climate change. In fact why are they used interchangeably by many? Most scientists are very careful to focus on climate change, whereas most common folk call it global warming? Climatologists are painfully careful to call it climate change, simply because it seems to be the safe phrase to use. The climate of earth is always changing as everyone here is always careful to point out. Is it because they simply can't be proven wrong in the future, as history records what they've said. Ya I would also hate to go down in history looking like a fool because I wasn't careful with my wording. According to all accounts claimed by Gore and the rest of that circus. Will all the coastal areas under water in 2 more years give or take a few months. Or was that just some selected tourist destinations like Venice and the southern Indian delta. Did something globally change while I was napping, or is that prediction still on track?

Something I'm always confused about, as if I'm not confused about most things. Are we talking about just the Atlantic or is it the Pacific? South American's in Chile and Argentina should be warned that the tip of Wan de fuckya or the Horny blowing of South Africa is going to be a pretty rough place for drift fishing with all this ice melt going on.. (That's me just being an ass). Pacific Ocean maps Doesn't seem to be all plate tectonics. Whole lotta crap going on (I'm just funnin with ya).

Re:Don't matter...

[Whatanut]

I think you've entirely missed my point. Replacement does not consist of magically turning a gas powered vehicle into an electrical vehical. The old vehicle must go somewhere. It must be broken down and turned into something else. Or... pushed into a "vehicle hole". Again... I'm not advocating a best solution. I'm simply saying that there are costs associated with any option. The origional post that started this thread made the claim that avoidance was more costly than adaptation. There are costs on both sides. The original statement was this:

"Because the costs of adjustments to the new climate exceeds the costs of avoiding it by a huge margin."

There is no evidence presented to make this an accurate statement. There are costs, yes. Can we say the cost of adjusting is greater than the cost of avoidance? No.

Re:Don't matter...

[khayman80]

So why is it that this sort of thing is touted as being caused by global warming or the new buzz word, climate change. That is another thing that bothers me. Why the switch from global warming to climate change. In fact why are they used interchangeably by many? Most scientists are very careful to focus on climate change, whereas most common folk call it global warming?

I've previously answered that same question. Short version: it's more accurate.

Re:Don't matter...

[DavidTC]

Of course the irony is that the people benefiting from the status quo have always whined about the cost, even when at the time it was trivial. The sad fact is, that since AGW is a positive feedback loop, the longer we have delayed taking steps to slow/reverse the process, the harder and more expensive it becomes.

That, really, is the issue. There are people out there who are saying things like 'We have to balance what we should do to stop this with how much effect the changes themselves would do.'

That POV would carry a lot more weight if every damn suggestion that could conceivable cost the slightest bit of time or effort, for the last two decades, hadn't been shot down. The right hasn't been saying 'Okay, we can do this, but we're going to hold off on this for now', they're saying 'NO!!!!!!!'.

For example, raising car MPGs. We didn't bother to do that for two damn decades.

Despite every other country in the world doing it (Hence it wouldn't make us less competitive.), despite slowly raising the MPGs fuel standard had not had any measurable effect on the economy, despite the fact is was wildly successful in one decade by almost doubling fuel efficiency, we just decided to stop. We got a conservative congress, and a conservative Democratic president, and we stopped.

Well, stopping did have an economic effect. A fairly large one. Namely, it killed our car companies, because people wanted high MPGs and started buying Hondas and Toyotas.

I'm not saying we should have psychically figured out people would want this, and force our car companies to do it for that reason, but I am saying that just because a car company says 'Being forced to do X will hurt us' doesn't mean they have the slightest damn idea if that's true or not, and what they actually mean is 'This will hurt our profits in the short term, aka, hurt the stock price, aka, hurt my bonuses'.

Meanwhile, in China, they're already ten MPGs higher than us in average MPGs. Doesn't appear to have hurt their economy any.

Every single suggestion, every tiny change to slightly help thing, even in cases where the change has already been proven to work and not had any discernible effect on the economy, had been fought by the right. They don't get to talk about 'compromise' and 'going slowly', they have forfeited that right due to their total lack of trustworthiness in that issue.(1)

Anyone who wants to seriously discuss that is going to have to come to the other side, and be okay with, for example, 75% of the changes, but then argue that perhaps we need to work slow on the 25%, because actual logical discussion can show how they might be a bad idea.

1) This is, in fact, the right's modus operandi, and once people understand it people opposing them will get a lot more done. They constantly scream no to any tiny change, and then, when the dam finally bursts, they suddenly want to compromise to a point that they, until recently, had violently objected to. They want to 'go slow', somehow forgetting that the left had proposed that solution a decade ago, and now we're not really at the point we can 'go slow'. The same thing is happening right now in health care.

Re:Don't matter...

[DavidTC]

We're going to have to build new energy alternatives anyway, because, completely independent of climate change, we're running out of oil.

In fact, starting the change now away is probably less expensive than waiting till the last minute, especially since we don't know when the 'last minute' is. (Could be five years, could be thirty-five.)

Please note by 'running out of oil', I actually mean 'until oil is so expensive normal people can't afford to operate vehicles on it or purchase power made from it'. At some point, it will be cheaper to produce a new electric car for less than it would cost to drive 100 miles in a gasoline car, or a new nuclear plant for how much it would cost to operate an existing oil based on for a year, and well before that point, we'll all have switched over.

I make that clarification because some people think I'm talking about the hypothetical point in time we've squeezed every drop out of the earth, which will probably be never....in 2500, long after we've all switch from oil, some billionaire is going to be driving his gasoline-power motorcycle at $400 a gallon, produced from the sole operating oil well on the planet, but that is not actually relevant to anything.

Re:Don't matter...

[DavidTC]

Latitude - cereal crops are adapted to the amount of sunlight received at temperate latitudes. At the polar latitudes, it is dark for the whole winter, and then quickly progresses to long periods of day. Cereal crops will not grow in those light conditions

A lot people totally forget about this, assuming that plant growth is entirely due to temperature, and we can just move all crops 500 miles north.

Not only, as you pointed out, do they need the correct amount and timing of light and the correct soil, but they also need the correct amount of water.

I mean, heck, I live in north Georgia. North Georgia and south Georgia have basically the same average temperature, with it being just slightly colder in the north. Usually about five degrees or so.

They do not, however, have anywhere near the same weather patterns, because south Georgia is flat, and north Georgia is the southern-most part of the Smokey mountains. They also do not have the same soil, south Georgia used to be under the ocean.

South Georgia is vast farms, north Georgia is not. Same temperature, different situation. Raise north Georgia's temperature five degrees, it's not magically turning into south Georgia.

Granted, under climate change, the amount of precipitation is going to change...but not in any predictable way.

Re:Don't matter...

[DavidTC]

Yup, several places are already going away. See the post below yours.

But everyone able to dismiss them by saying 'Oh, that land didn't go totally under the ocean. The only only rose a few inches, and then the beach, for some strange reason, eroded away in a storm. If the beach was still there, it would still be above the ocean.'

Which is totally ignoring the fact that this is how things disappear under the waves, and will be unless we're willing to pave things right up the water.

Things do not disappear under the ocean, as in, they stay in one place and the ocean slowly inches up. No, they start getting hit with waves that go higher and higher on average, that causes more wear and tear and eventually takes away the land. That's why we have beaches or rocks at every single ocean...because other stuff disappears until the ocean hits beaches or rocks. If it starts going over the existing beaches or rocks, it will start 'eating' things again. It will start eating beaches anyway, as the weird equilibrium of sand arriving and leaving that is 'a beach' gets misaligned. (OTHOH, some beaches might get bigger. Who knows?)

So something can be a foot above see level, the ocean can go up three inches, and, suddenly, that thing is gone, baffling all.

How this is going to work with, say, Manhattan, is unknown. People are delusionally imagining the ocean slowly rising, creeping up streets unless we build tiny tiny dikes...but in the real world, I suspect that, at some point, the damn ocean is going to break into the underground areas via erosion of some point that no one ever suspected, and the whole island will quickly fall apart.

Re:Don't matter...

[EsbenMoseHansen]

I think you've entirely missed my point. Replacement does not consist of magically turning a gas powered vehicle into an electrical vehical.

What, how old is your current car? Most cars get discarded after about 10 years. So, next time we buy a new car, we buy this (theoretical) wonderful electric car, or we buy a new diesel/gasoline car --- that is the 2 choices. The cost is that the electric car likely will be more expensive, though I wouldn't know. Is that really so hard to grasp?

The original statement was this:

"Because the costs of adjustments to the new climate exceeds the costs of avoiding it by a huge margin."

There is no evidence presented to make this an accurate statement. There are costs, yes. Can we say the cost of adjusting is greater than the cost of avoidance? No.

I do know the original statement, after all I wrote it. And yes, we can say this, as could you if you did a minimum of research. Do I really have to point to google? It's not as it is some unknowable question, it's just basic calculations with a few scenarios making some reasonable assumptions

Re:Don't matter...

[R3d M3rcury]

Why the switch from global warming to climate change. In fact why are they used interchangeably by many? Most scientists are very careful to focus on climate change, whereas most common folk call it global warming?

Well, part of it has to do with the ignorance of the "common folk" of anything beyond their own area.

This year, where I live, has been colder than "normal." Therefore, global warming is obviously a myth because it's certainly not warmer this year.

I've heard this argument more than a few times from the "common folk." One good cold snap and everyone is talking about how the whole "global warming" thing is bupkis. One good heat wave and everyone is back concerned about "global warming."

Re:Don't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out the fact that in the U.S., the Republicans pushed the use of the term "climate change" because it sounded less scary than "global warming" (see here). As the climate scientists were behind it (for reasons of accuracy) and so were their political opponents (for rhetorical reasons), it became used more widely. But it's important to note that scientists used the term "climate change" long before "global warming" came around. The latter term was popularized by James Hansen and Al Gore when speaking to Congress and the public, starting in 1988. In the same year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was founded — note that it's not called the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming. The term "climate change" was always preferred in scientific contexts. Later, I think scientists stepped back from using "global warming" in public contexts for the reasons you state, but the second Bush administration also did so for other reasons.

Re:Don't matter...

[Whatanut]

It's simply mind numbing that you refuse to admit that there are costs associated with a solution which works towards avoiding climate change rather than adapting to it. That's all I've said since the first post.

I understand there are ways to mitigate some of those costs. Yes, I agree that most vehicles are recycled in some way on a regualar basis and this can be calculated into the numbers. However, blindly claiming that avoidance is less costly than adaptaption without regard for the facts that both sides have their consequences is just foolish.

What, how old is your current car?

For the record, I have two vehicles. One is 16 years old and gets 32MPG on the open highway. The other is two years old and gets about 19MPG... That's a problem we can work on fixing. There are costs associated with ditching the old and moving on to the new.

Re:Don't matter...

[BlackusDiamondus]

Wow, you are misinformed a great deal. Firstly, the water wasn't 100m (300ft) high even in New Orleans. Secondly, New Orleans sits below the water level, which is why they have levees in the first place. They built New Orleans knowing full well that this is a likely scenario, and all it took was a big enough storm to cause this.

Re:Don't matter...

[camg188]

what's marginal land today will likely turn into too hot/dry land.

How do you figure that? If water that was previously locked up in ice becomes liquid and it is warmer, increasing evaporation, wouldn't that add more water into the water cycle? So it would be warmer, but also wetter.

Re:Don't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oceanic "crops".
More water, warmer water, more plankton... you see where I'm going.

Re:Don't matter...

[EsbenMoseHansen]

It's simply mind numbing that you refuse to admit that there are costs associated with a solution which works towards avoiding climate change rather than adapting to it. That's all I've said since the first post.

Not quite. You claimed that we cannot or do not know which cost is higher. That's what the disagreement is about; of course there are costs either way.

Re:Don't matter...

[riverat1]

But logically speaking taking action before you know the consequence of the action can be very bad.

What about the action we've taken over the last 200 years of burning massive amounts of fossil fuels without knowing the consequences?

Re:Don't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

They built New Orleans knowing full well that this is a likely scenario, and all it took was a big enough storm to cause this.

"They" did? Well guess it depends on which "they" you are refering to... As this elevation map shows the oldest parts of New Orleans (e.g. The Business District, The French Quarter, and the Warehouse/Arts District) are built upon land 7 to 20+ feet above the current Mean Sea Level (MSL). So if the "they" refers to the original city founders, then you are clearly wrong. On the otherhand, if the "they" you were talking about were the people that later allowed areas like the 9th Ward and Metairie to be developed, then you do actually have a good point.

Oh by the way, I'm not the AC you were responding to. I just get annoyed about people implying that the entire city of New Orleans is below sea level, or that the entire city was flooded during Katrina. Neither idea is true, the older (and thus higher) parts of the city had miminal flooding (if any) which receded relatively quickly.

Re:Don't matter...

[Arker]

Maybe the increase in energy will merely result in a slightly higher average temperature resulting in slightly higher water levels and then that becomes the basis for a new equilibrium. Maybe the increase in temperature will result in more clouds which in turn will reflect more sunshine away and dropping the temperature resulting in larger temperature fluctuations over a span of multiple years like a sinusoid with an average temperature of what we have now just with a larger amplitude. Maybe it'll run amok from a human perspective, raising average global temperatures 10 C, raise the sea levels 3 meters (10 feet) and make Scandinavia a lush tropical jungle.

This is very much what I am saying, except one thing. You are still looking at this assuming it's the result of human action. But we dont know for sure just how much effect human action has, we dont know how much of what we are seeing now is the result of human action and how much is normal periodicity. The current climate is quite rare in earth's history, and the most 'normal' profile is that hothouse roughly 10c hotter than historical times, so even if we could be sure that current changes are actually leading to that, that would not rule out the possibility that it would be happening anyway, regardless of any human action.

Also as you allude to climate change like any change tends to be a two-edged sword. Yes, some consequences could be truly catastrophic, especially if people just sit and wait for them to happen! But there is no need to focus exclusively and obsessively on the down-sides. Coastal cities may have to be abandoned to rising sea levels - it wont be the first time. When the glaciers last advanced, the sahara expanded even further than we see today as well, which one way or another made large areas under human habitation uninhabitable, but the lower sea level also exposed land bridges and productive coastal areas that would otherwise not have been available. As the big ice sheets melted off europe, increased rain turned the sahara green again, while the thawing of europe allowed for humans to move there again as well - but at the same time all those wonderfully productive coastal areas were flooded and lost.

Then desertification began again in the northern part, while the southern maintained a wet tropical environment thanks to the monsoon. A few thousand years later the input dropped a bit, the monsoon shifted further south, and the desert followed. This is a pattern that has been repeated over and over and over again, long before the industrial revolution or even the agricultural revolution.

One very common human weakness is simply our tendency to believe everything is about us. It isnt. The planet was here for billions of years before us and very likely will be around a very long time after we are gone.

Re:Don't matter...

[BlackusDiamondus]

I wasn't meaning to imply that all of New Orleans was flooded or built below sea level. I just get annoyed at people who make ridiculous claims like the AC I was originally responding. Thank you for the correction BTW.

Personally...

[MrKaos]

I'd like to welcome our water breathing overlords.

Hide in the mountains!

[tengeta]

Our coastal cities are sinking with all this ice loss! Oh... wait. Ever put an ice cube in water and watch it melt? Or do you people seriously just listen to CNN all day while complaining about conservatives listening to Fox all day?

Re:Hide in the mountains!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all of the ice water on the Earth is floating. Climatologists are concerned about the Greenland ice sheet, which is mostly above the water.

Re:Hide in the mountains!

[Beelzebud]

A lot of us listen to the actual science, and aren't simply Rush Limbaugh parroting shills. The problem isn't from water-bound ice melting, it's from ice that is melting that is currently over land. Using your analogy, imagine your cup of water with a ledge full of ice around it. The ice starts melting, and the water runs into your glass. Do you think the water level will stay the same, or rise? Do you think?

Re:Hide in the mountains!

[PinkyGigglebrain]

Congratulations!! You just explained by analogy how melting ice pack (ice cube), that is ALREADY floating in the water, will have no meaningful effect on sea level.

Now try this, take that same full cup and put two chop sticks side by side across the top of the glass. Now place a few ice cubes on the chop sticks and watch them melt, what happens to the water level in this case?

What is worrying is ice that is currently NOT floating is showing signs of melting, which will have an impact on sea levels.

The climate is changing, it doesn't mater if its caused by humans or some natural cycle, we have to start thinking about how we are going to adapt now if we are going to survive long term.

Remember that what happens elsewhere in the world DOES have an effect on you, it may be slight but it does. Ever notice how milk costs more when petrol prices go up because of political unrest in the middle East?

Re:Hide in the mountains!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ice has less density than water, true, so floating ice that melts will lower the water level, not raise it. But that only applies to sea level reductions if the ice that is melting is already floating on the ocean, as it is in much of the Arctic.

However, Greenland and Antarctica have vast amounts of ice ON LAND. And together they have much more ice on land than the Arctic ocean has floating on water. When that land ice melts (and it appears that it is from TFA and others) the added water will cause the sea levels to rise, as it has been doing for some years now.

Hopefully my house, 14m above sea level and 20km from the coast, will be coastal and worth lots when I sell it to move into a retirement home in a few decades! :)

Re:Hide in the mountains!

[Fred_A]

Our coastal cities are sinking with all this ice loss! Oh... wait.

Ever put an ice cube in water and watch it melt? Or do you people seriously just listen to CNN all day while complaining about conservatives listening to Fox all day?

Your mastery of geography has me awed.

Re:Hide in the mountains!

[mtempsch]

Ice has less density than water, true, so floating ice that melts will lower the water level, not raise it.

Bzzzzzzt... Mr. Archimedes begs to differ - the water level will remain unchanged

The difference in densities is what causes part of the icecube/berg to stick up above the surface. As the ice melts it will increase it density and lower its volume to perfectly fill the volume that was beneath the surface

Re:Hide in the mountains!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a small density effect of melting sea ice on sea level, due to the density contrast between freshwater ice and salty seawater. (Sea ice contains less salt than sea water does, due to brine exclusion.)

Not to blame

[Msdose]

One thing we can be certain of, never will any blame be laid at the door of overpopulation. There is just no solution they can come up with for that that involves the hiring of immense armies of bureaucrats and trillions of slave taxes.

carbon credits to the rescue

[Anonymous Coward]

Make yourself think youve made a difference and keep a good scam going, that's what theyre for.

Carbon Credits?

[retech]

I thought carbon credits would have someone parked on the poles with a couple of ice making machines (perhaps like they use in a hotel but not as loud) and they'd be scooping fresh ice out to keep it topped off... why is this not happening? Have we been lied to? Where did all that carbon credit money go to? Just when I thought for sure I could sit in my apt and do something really fucking meaningful from a distance to help save all those future generations by buying offset credit every time I got on WOW and played for two days... this just has destroyed my entire weekend and trust in humanity.

National Post rebuttal

[sl149q]

Another POV... http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/09/25/lawrence-solomon-hot-and-cold.aspx

He points to a National Geographic report saying the opposite.

Re:National Post rebuttal

[hotdiggity]

Your link is talking about sea ice. Sea ice changes year over year according to local weather trends, and is just frozen sea water. Hamish's research is regarding ice sheets. The amount of ice we're talking about is a few scales of magnitude bigger, indicating more profound trends, and can affect sea level. Sea ice doesn't.

Re:National Post rebuttal

[smoker2]

So we can ignore data if it suits your argument ? Sea ice is formed from and floats in the sea (duh). Global warming causes the oceans to warm - true or false ? So more sea ice can not mean a warmer ocean can it ?

Conflicting evidence must be resolved before you discard data as worthless. This is a closed system. You may not ignore evidence that contradicts your point of view. While I know The Day After Tomorrow was horse shit, the underlying theory is not. Warming oceans cause changes in currents that circulate heat. If it appears that the ocean is not warming, or the warming is actually localised, then it has to be taken into account. Otherwise you end up thinking the sun goes around the earth, because you've ignored other contradictory evidence. FWIW, the Antarctic is seeing increased build up of ice. It is only the ice shelves that have seen increased break up and melting. You know, the parts that FLOAT !

Re:National Post rebuttal

[khayman80]

So we can ignore data if it suits your argument ? Sea ice is formed from and floats in the sea (duh). Global warming causes the oceans to warm - true or false ? So more sea ice can not mean a warmer ocean can it ?

I read that article, and wondered why the authors missed the crucial part of the story. Yes, 2008 and 2009 had smaller ice extent minima than 2007. But the point is that climate models had previously predicted larger ice extent minima than were observed in 2007. So the last several years tend to confirm that the previous measurements were due to short-term weather variability rather than a flaw in the climate models.

Re:National Post rebuttal

[Idiomatick]

The amount of ice globally is quickly reducing (including sea ice). There will be variations abound, but the fact is that the global total is shrinking rapidly is quite disconcerting. I think that was GP's point.

Re:National Post rebuttal

[junglee_iitk]

But I want NPOV!

Re:National Post rebuttal

[DavidTC]

Hey, dumbass. Ice melting on land and flowing into the ocean will, in addition to raising sea levels, cause lower ocean temperatures, which, will result in more ocean ice on average. (Yes, all that water is slightly above freezing, and hence won't freeze by itself, but it will allow ocean ice floating in it to stay frozen longer.)

In fact, the amount that the oceans are cooling compared to the amount that the air is warning is a pretty good indicator of the amount of ice on land that is melting into the ocean.

I swear to god, some people are totally unable to figure out how this whole 'temperature' thing works, or how different parts of the system work.

Tell me, does your refrigerator make your house hotter, or colder? Your stove? Ice you cart in from outside? What if you set that ice on the stove, or in the refrigerator?

Stay the fuck away from making any statements about thermodynamics until you actually understand basic concepts in it.

Re:National Post rebuttal

[R3d M3rcury]

I'll bow to people smarter than me, but I have to be curious.

So the last several years tend to confirm that the previous measurements were due to short-term weather variability rather than a flaw in the climate models.

So how many years does it have to not conform to the models before we question the climate models? Five? Ten? 30?

Re:National Post rebuttal

[bdeclerc]

Ah, there the answer is pretty simple: Climate is the running average over 30 years. Questioning climate models is probably only reasonable if an inverse trend continues for several decades. In fact, Climate Models *predict* that we should quite regularly expect a 10-year decline in temperature to happen, only it will happen less often than the 10-year temperature increases, and over 30 years and more, the trend is predicted to be upwards.

Which is one of the reasons why the people screaming "negative trends" after the past 10 years of relative stability (note: there has *not* even been a negative trend, average temperatures have plateaud a bit, but at a level that is quite a lot above the long term average for the preceding 30 years).

That "stability" could go on for years more without it actually meaning the predictions are wrong (and before anyone says "how convenient" - I'm sorry you don't like the way science, modelling and statistics work, but that's *your* problem, not reality's)...

Re:National Post rebuttal

[n8r0n]

If ice moving from land to sea were the only factor, then your description would be accurate. However, it's not the only factor, so your description is garbage.

The reason that ice is melting is an increase in air temperatures, which acts not only on the ice, but also on the oceans. So, while ice melting into the water cools the water, it doesn't do so more than the warmer airs warms the water. The net effect is still ocean warming, not cooling.

If simply transforming land ice into cold water, and moving it into the sea could produce more sea ice than the land ice you lost, you would truly have a significant thermodynamic result. But, that's not what's been observed over a period of decades.

The earth is not a closed system. It continuously receives external energy inputs from the sun, and leaks out energy via infrared radiation. Changing the insulation in the atmosphere can affect the total energy balance of the planet. Please take time to learn some thermo yourself before lecturing others, and labeling them dumbasses ... Dumbass.

Why the hell would I care about floods?

[Anonymous Coward]

Environment changes with or without us, wtf do I care which way it goes? We're sentient beings, we develop technologies and my goal as a Scientist is it keep the speed of technological development as high as possible, I couldn't care less what a bunch of tree hippies around me do or want. If, when some change in the environment does occur, we'll tackle it with the technology we've advanced by then. But by keeping the rate of our technological advancement as high as possible, we'll also be able to achieve numerous other benefits (Singularity amongst them).

Why does it matter if a bunch of species dies? I don't care, I eat beef/chicken... All animals and plants I consume are domesticated, no matter the impact we make on the environment, we can feed our own, civilised states through the use of hydroponics, genetically modified crops (which are just as good or better than any other crop, protein is protein is protein, it's all the same atoms and molecules, compounds...it's all just starch, glucose... and it doesn't matter what DNA it came from), and genetically modified meat.

I've never seen a penguin or a tiger or a giraffe, and I don't give a shit about them, if they were to be wiped out tomorrow, wouldn't affect me the slightest. And if somehow it would, I'd look towards technology to help me get over the problem... stop whining hippies, it's people like that makes me want to join the marines and go shoot and mow down with tanks some hippie college kids... I now understand why those guys enjoyed doing it during the 80s, you hippies are annoying and unproductive as shit. Just spreading useless FUD, because of your kind other nations who can't support their own populations did not take the genetically modified crops we offered that would have saved billions of people, why? because a bunch of dumb hippies kept saying that those crops would kill them...

I'm not going to conserve any energy, in fact I'll use more, why? because I can, and I want to, and it does no good for me to save it...

We will find ourself on very thin ice

[Anonymous Coward]

It has already been in the news:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBb4cjjj1gI#t=1m21s

It's in part because people have become very jaded

[Sycraft-fu]

Eco types have been screaming doom and gloom forever. It has been all sorts of different things that are supposed to kill us, different things that are going to run out and so on. Well guess what? None of that has come to pass. They've been batting zero on the doom predictions and the widespread scarcity predictions. The effect is the whole "Boy who cried wolf," thing. People get tired of hearing it. They hear all this dire screaming and nothing comes to pass so they stop listening. As such if this is the real deal, well then shouldn't have done so much crying earlier. If it isn't, then it is just more of the same.

Sorry, but that is just how it works. People get tired of hearing it and you lose credibility.

You also forget that there are people who believe the climate is changing but believe one or both of the following:

1) The climate change is a natural process. We are fairly certain that the climate has been much warmer and colder in the past than it is now. As such this may be nothing more than another natural cycle. If that is the case, there is probably fuck-all we can do about it. No sense in worrying over what is causing it, we need to spend our energy figuring out how to best survive it. It is inevitable that the climate will change so we should just face the reality of it.

2) The climate change, whatever its source, will have a net positive benefit for humans. More arable land, nicer weather, etc, etc. No matter what the cause is, the result is a good thing so we should welcome it, and as such not change what we are doing now.

Now I realize you don't believe either of those, that's fine, I'm saying there are people that do. While there isn't a debate that the world has had a slight warming trend over the last 100 years, there is still debate as to why. Since we don't have model Earths to run empirical tests on, there will probalby always be debate. Hard to prove, to the standard of strong inference, what is going on. Climate is extremely complex and, as I said, we can't run tests. We can only observe what happens. Computers models aren't really any help since even a perfect model doesn't prove anything (you use models to design experiments, not to make them unnecessary) and as a practical matter all the models are lousy and have failed to do a good job with predictions.

So sorry, but this is just how it is going to be. You scream wolf too much, everyone stops listening to you.

Re:It's in part because people have become very ja

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf happened to my mod points....

What about becoming Fearless?

[herojig]

I guess I am just tired of the debate. When I was a kid we were all petrified by the thought of a Nuclear Winter. Now everyone is trembling over a climate change that would look like a Perpetual Summer. How much of "climate change" has to do with our apparent need to have something global to fear? I understand that we fixed the Nuclear Fear, but that was just replaced by a half dozen others. Now I just wonder what would happen if everyone overnight just became Fearless.

Re:What about becoming Fearless?

[n8r0n]

Lemmings are fearless. Does that make running off of cliffs any better?

I hear lemmings also rarely get bogged down with debate. Maybe you have something here ...

Re:What about becoming Fearless?

[herojig]

Let me answer that as soon as lemmings organize and create a UN, and then establish carbon taxes. Cheers!

Re:It's in part because people have become very ja

[Idiomatick]

Ahahahahaa.... This is similar logic to saying that drinking and driving isn't dangerous since you've never died doing it yet. Total falsehood. Just because we haven't all died yet doesn't mean we haven't been in danger. And to assert that is a complete logical fallacy.

BTW look up aerosols. They may have doomed us all, but luckily we stopped it in time, aerosols are used a very very tiny fraction now compared to what they were at their peak. Since we averted the crisis does it not count?

1) No, no scientists think this. It is changing more rapidly than it ever has in past. Except possibly for extinction level events which wiped out almost all life on the planet.

2) Dear god no, it will likely cause harm measured in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. Perhaps the hundreds of millions of lives.

Do tell me the last time the entire scientific community united to 'cry wolf' over anything in past? Aside from aerosols which I mentioned. Give an example, impress me.

lost ice

[Odinlake]

This guy shows time-lapse fotage of ice disappearing but there is also a nice graph of CO2 in there somewhere.

This is bull... Antarctica is actually gaining ice

[Anonymous Coward]

Media likes to report mostly about the west Antarctica melting/warming, but fail to mention that eastern parts have gained ice.
Here are some nice ice level graphs:
Antarctica: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

Arctic has however melted quite a bit over the last few decades: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
More interesting data here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Piri Reis Map of 1513

[CHRONOSS2008]

before there was ground radar to see under antarctica a map was discovered that showed antarctica free of ice.

THIS IS A FACT
AND while hte person that made the map was quoted as saying he made it form other ancient sources, your nasa buddies claim that antarctica was never free of ice for millions of years.

OK slashdotters this poses a question. Is the people that are telling us about weather and climate being truthful and i'll add was there some ancient civilization that mapped the world with radar precision thousands of years before 1958 the day we had radar that mapped antarctica

http://turkeyinmaps.com/piri.html

Re:Piri Reis Map of 1513

[Anonymous Coward]

There really needs to be a +1 Crackhead moderation.

HEHEHEHE

[Anonymous Coward]

You are either a total idiot, a neo-cons, or you are just trying to make a joke out of this (a lame one though).
The first 2 graphs show southern SEA ICE, which is the break-up of the ice and it is growing.
The last 2 show northern ice shrinking.

Re:HEHEHEHE

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. Those graphs show the total sea ice area and anomalies.
Thin and broken up ice is not included in those graphs.
The general thickness and sea ice extent has slightly increased in Antarctica while the opposite has been happening in the Arctic.

Here is another graph for you: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg

"man made"

[p51d007]

Anyone who buys into the whole "man made" global warming is a NUT, pure and simple. The OUTPUT from the sun increased (with the sunspot CYCLE) and caused the earth to warm. We are now in a solar minimum, which explains the (northern hemisphere) lack of summer we had this year. Not to mention the retreating ice sheet has uncovered things like lost villages, mining camps etc. Now, if hundreds of thousands of years ago, there were places humans existed, then it wouldn't take a genius to figure out it was WARMER then. You tree hugging hand wringing anti anything humans do should just go sit in a cave somewhere and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

Re:"man made"

[ThePhilips]

What planet you are from again?

Re:"man made"

[khayman80]

Wrong.

Re:"man made"

[pcb]

Your certainty actually demonstrates your lack of intelligence, especially since you've clearly developed your opinion from very limited data - or more accurately - from other peoples opinion.

Re:"man made"

[Profane MuthaFucka]

A year ago, you would have been modded insightful and a horde of conservative/libertarian Hummer drivers would have chimed in with their agreeements. Now, you're a fucking troll.

Progress on Slashdot? It could happen.

We are literally being served half truths

[jarek]

Or is less than half truths. Most of Antarctica gets colder, some of it gets warmer. By reporting on the parts that get warmer, media tries to sell disasters just because it sells better than the whole truth and nothing but the truth. West Antarctica has according to climatologists always behaved differently from the rest of Antarctica.

Climatology news is starting too resemble a boxing match where only the strikes delivered by one of the boxers are being reported.

Re:We are literally being served half truths

[Anonymous Coward]

It is perfectly legitimate to report mostly on the parts of Antarctica that get warmer. That's because the fast-warming part of Antarctica is the part which is holding back the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a major potential contributor to sea level rise. By contrast, the parts that are getting cooler are mostly the interior of the continent, which can have no effect on sea level. As you say, climatologists understand that the two parts of Antarctica behave differently, so it's not news that they do so. What is news is how that's going to effect us, which mostly has to do with impacts on sea level.

Re:It's in part because people have become very ja

[cdrguru]

I'm sure glad we have you to reassure us that "no scientist" believes anything but the human-caused and human-fixable line.

You do realize that this is as fervent a believe with as many dedicated followers as any other religion? Which is exactly how folks like you and your dedicated cadre of self-identified scientists are viewed.

Over what time period, is the question

[Budenny]

The question is, over what time period are we seeing rises and falls in coverage? We have no proper data before the satellite age. So all we know is that there has been recent shrinkage. We have however no idea what the standard deviation is of gains and shrinkages over a period of centuries or millenia, so we have no idea whether we are looking at an event close to the mean or one that is several standard deviations away from it.

At this point people usually ridicule one for not being prepared to take action until there is proof, which is usually projected as being some natural disaster like New Orleans.

The argument is mistaken. It is quite reasonable to wait for proof, because 'doing things' in the absence of proof is a risky and expensive business. It could have quite dramatic and unexpected side effects depending on what the situation really is.

It would enormously help us figure this thing out if all the climate scientists would just publish their raw data and algorithms. That way we could at least verify their work so far. The ones that need to publish? Well, just about all of them. They supposedly have evidence that the present warming is a very rare event, but they decline to publish it. They just publish studies based on it, summaries of it, processed forms of it. We need this data, and we need the code that was applied to it.

Without that, its not science, its arm waving. There is probably nothing more important than to establish the climatic history of the last 2,000 years, and if we could establish ice coverage and density in some way, that too. Without the scientists publishing, I do not see how we take this debate any further. It is, to say the least, curious that the main workers in the field, the ones who find the present trend most alarming, are the ones who refuse to reveal the data that would prove them right.

Where, for instance, is Mann's algorithm, the one he refused to supply to the Wegman Committee? Where is the data underlying the HADCRU series? Where is Thompson's ice core data?

If we cannot see it, how do we even know it exists?

Re:Over what time period, is the question

[n8r0n]

Where is this lack of publishing data that you refer to? Thousands of detailed studies, and the data they are based on, have been published. Much of the data is government property, and publicly available. Climate science is no different than any other branch of science in this respect. Does absolutely every scrap of paper used to define every algorithm get published with every peer-reviewed paper? No. Again, does this cause you to doubt the results of all other scientific works?

What you don't seem to understand is that this issue is not merely one of academic science. It's a strategic issue. If you were presented with the scenario that upon the roll of a die, you would be unaffected should the die land on 1, and for all other results (2 through 6), your house would burn down, wouldn't you go out and purchase fire insurance BEFORE the die was rolled? Or would you wait until after the roll, to have PROOF that it landed on 2-6, before you'd be willing to purchase the insurance?

But...but...but...

[L. J. Beauregard]

Aaaaaaaallllllll Gooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrre!!!1!1!!ELEVEN!

/Bloody filter

Re:But...but...but...

[LanMan04]

Don't forget ACORN!!!ONEONEELEVEN /stupid filter

Global warming may be better than alternatives

[fadethepolice]

If you look at this graph of a long-term data from ice cores: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png I am sure a lot of people have seen this graph. It seems that the normal state of affairs for our planet is an ice age. The increase in our greenhouse gases has REVERSED a centuries long cooling trend that over the centuries forced the vikings to abandon greenland, which 1000 years ago was warmer than it is today. Has anyone considered the idea that the greenhouse effect may help us avoid the next ice age? The vostok data above points to the fact that our position in the climate cycle is at the end of a short warm period. Global warming will open up vast areas of canada, siberia, and perhaps antarctica for human settlement. This larger temperate area would greatly offset the loss of land area due to rising sea waters. Technology and advances in water purification may allow areas affected by desertification to be reclaimed. Climate change is coming, our earth has never had and never will have a stable climate. The quest is what type of climate change do we want?

Re:Global warming may be better than alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that the normal state of affairs for our planet is an ice age.

Normal over the last few million years (modulo some brief interglacials like we're in now). It has had greenhouse periods in the past, too (e.g. here).

The increase in our greenhouse gases has REVERSED a centuries long cooling trend that over the centuries forced the vikings to abandon greenland, which 1000 years ago was warmer than it is today.

Greenhouse gases didn't end the Little Ice Age. That was mostly due to other natural effects, such as multi-century changes in solar output and volcanic activity, although greenhouse gases could have contributed a bit to the tail end of that. Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing since about 1850 or so, but didn't really become a major climate driver until around the mid-20th century.

Has anyone considered the idea that the greenhouse effect may help us avoid the next ice age?

Yes, but it takes many thousands of years to descend into a glacial period. If you're really concerned about preventing that, you'd want us to save our fossil fuels for later, when we need them, instead of using them all up now, when we don't. We're emitting them at a far greater rate than is necessary to stave off the next glacial period, even if one were due now, which it may well not be.

Global warming will open up vast areas of canada, siberia, and perhaps antarctica for human settlement.

It will also make a lot of areas less habitable. And just because more areas become habitable doesn't mean it's feasible to settle them. The people who are going to need to move the most will probably be in tropical developing countries. Is Russia going to allow them to resettle into new barely-habitable frozen Siberia, will they want to go, will they be able to afford to go, and can the land support them? Former permafrost doesn't make great agricultural soil.

This larger temperate area would greatly offset the loss of land area due to rising sea waters.

Many of the world's great cities are on the coast. I don't know that rebuilding New York City in Siberia would be an even trade. (Ok, slightly hyperbolic here, but you get the point.)

Technology and advances in water purification may allow areas affected by desertification to be reclaimed.

I think it would be quite expensive to expect "water purification" to compensate for global changes in precipitation patterns.

Climate change is coming, our earth has never had and never will have a stable climate. The quest is what type of climate change do we want?

Not too much, and not too fast.

Re:Global warming may be better than alternatives

[fadethepolice]

Increases in population of both animals and humans before 1850 would have contributed to greenhouse gases, and I was making a point, I never stated that the rise in greenhouse gases due to industrialization were the sole cause of the reversal of the cooling. The salient point in the statement was that the earth WAS cooling. My concern with opening up vast areas of the north were for the human species, not individuals, in the long run coastal cities are unimportant. The sea has destroyed many of them in the past. Inexpensive water purification is well within our reach technologically right now. All we have to do is boil saltwater directly from the ocean into a condenser using focused solar energy from several parobolic mirrors applied through a conductive medium. Are you so sure of your knowledge of the climate that you can say that a large increase in greenhouse gases is not needed to stop an upcoming ice age?

Ice caps melting!

[Anonymous Coward]

You've quoted a common myth. The melting of the ice-caps makes NO difference to sea levels (unless that ice is on land). What it does do is dilute the amount of salt in the sea, which will eventually stop the 'Atlantic Conveyor' (Google), which in turn will put Europe into an iceage and will eventually put the whole world into an iceage!!

Now, the melting of ice on Greenland is a completely different scenario. This ice is on land. It WILL add to sea-levels and it WILL cause large amounts of land be become submersed.

DIY ice experiment:- Half fill a large glass with water. Add ice. Use a marker pen and mark the level of the water. Wait for the ice to melt. Mark the level of the water again. It's THE SAME!! Ice displaces the same amount of water as it contains.

It's not your fault. Just bad reporting by most of the press.

-A-

USGS Estimate 80m rise

[lonecrow]

I was rather surprised to find this document at the USGS website. It calculates total sea level rise of 80m if we lose both Antartica and Greenland ice. 80m is a rather large number in this context don't you think? http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Re:USGS Estimate 80m rise

[riverat1]

Even if it continues to get warmer it would take thousands of years for Antarctica to completely melt. It averages a 5,000 feet thick and is over 13,000 feet in places. That's a big ice cube.

New ?!?

[Mr Europe]

The article clearly says the pics are based on old data: "thinning between 2003 and 2007".

WHY ? Where's the NEW data from 2008 and 2009 ?

Re: Polar Ice Melt Likely Does NOT Raise Sea Level

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, basic science dudes...

North pole ice melt does not raise sea levels at all as there is no land mass. Its the old ice cubes melting in a glass experiment that many of us did in grade school science classes. Note that every summer significant ice melts at the North Pole with no rise in sea levels. Been happening for a long time.

South Pole ice melt from shelf-ice extending into the sea already will also not raise sea levels, for the same reason.

Only significant ice melt from land surfaces, Antarctica and Greenland proper could posibbly raise sea levels.

Communist Manifesto??

[CrutchFather]

If Marx's theories hold true, can we expect an overthrowing of our Capitalist, greenhouse gas producing societies by the penguins and caribou???