Climate Change & Global Warming

[Evil Inky]

I dont have a clue how they get these figures (theories) and it might happen or it might not , but I believe the first part to be true ,cold water is denser (more compact) than warm water. A ship will float higher in arctic waters than in tropical waters for the same gross tonnage .

I don't think there's any great mystery involved in estimating sea level rises due to themal expansion of sea water. The amount by which sea water expands due to a particular rise in temperature can be found using simple ( as in school science lab ) equipment, and the amount of water in the oceans is known. With these two values, calculating the amount the oceans will expand by can be calculated, and hence the sea level rise is obtained.

[ArabiaTerra]

More on Antarctica ice loss.

Meanwhile, measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass. Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate. "The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time," she says. And she points out that it isn’t just the Grace data that show accelerating loss; the radar data do, too. "It isn't just one type of measurement. It's a series of independent measurements that are giving the same results, which makes it more robust."

 

Oh, and 2009 was the 2nd hottest year on record.

[Pleepsie]

More on Antarctica ice loss.

Meanwhile, measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass. Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate. "The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time," she says. And she points out that it isn’t just the Grace data that show accelerating loss; the radar data do, too. "It isn't just one type of measurement. It's a series of independent measurements that are giving the same results, which makes it more robust."

 

Oh, and 2009 was the 2nd hottest year on record.

 

Hmmm... this seems to question the Grace gravity data.

 

New ground measurements made by the West Antarctic GPS Network (WAGN) project, composed of researchers from The University of Texas at Austin, The Ohio State University, and The University of Memphis, suggest the rate of ice loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet has been slightly overestimated.

"Our work suggests that while West Antarctica is still losing significant amounts of ice, the loss appears to be slightly slower than some recent estimates," said Ian Dalziel, lead principal investigator for WAGN. "So the take home message is that Antarctica is contributing to rising sea levels. It is the rate that is unclear."

 

In 2006, another team of researchers used data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites to infer a significant loss of ice mass over West Antarctica from 2002 to 2005. The GRACE satellites do not measure changes in ice loss directly but measure changes in gravity, which can be caused both by ice loss and vertical uplift of the bedrock underlying the ice.

 

Now, for the first time, researchers have directly measured the vertical motion of the bedrock at sites across West Antarctica using the Global Positioning System (GPS). The results should lead to more accurate estimates of ice mass loss.

 

 

Postglacial rebound causes an increase in the gravitational attraction measured by the GRACE satellites and could explain their inferred measurements of recent, rapid ice loss in West Antarctica. The new GPS measurements show West Antarctica is rebounding more slowly than once thought. This means that the correction to the gravity signal from the rock contribution has been overestimated and the rate of ice loss is slower than previously interpreted.

 

 

WAGN researchers do not yet know how large the overestimation was. A more definitive correction will be conducted by other researchers who specialize in interpreting GRACE data. Previous estimates of postglacial rebound were made with theoretical models. Assimilation of the direct GPS results into new models will therefore produce significant improvements in estimations of ice mass loss.

 

The network consists of 18 GPS stations installed on bedrock outcrops across West Antarctica. Precise, millimeter level, three-dimensional locations of the stations, which are bolted into the bedrock, were determined during measurements made from 2001 to 2003 and from 2004 to 2006, the two measurements being at least three years apart. The difference in the positions during the two time periods indicates the motion of the bedrock.

 

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/10/19/west_antarctic_ice_sheet/

 

I see you are quoting from John Cook regarding 2009 being the 2nd hottest year on record. I did a quick google to see if anyone else agreed with his comparison between sun and temperature, and came up with this.

 

“2009 ends Australia's warmest decade on record, with a decadal mean temperature anomaly of +0.48C (above the 1961-90 average),†the Bureau of Meterology said.

In a statement, the bureau also noted that the World Meteorological Organisation stated that 2009 is expected to be the globe's fifth warmest year on record (about 0.44C above the 1961-90 average)

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/labor-seizes-on-temperature-figures-as-evidence-of-global-warming/story-e6frg6xf-1225816209762

 

Why only use the 29 years from 1961 to 1990?

 

Why are they not using the figures up to 2009?

 

That leaves nearly 20 years worth of data being ignored.

[ArabiaTerra]

Why only use the 29 years from 1961 to 1990?

 

Why are they not using the figures up to 2009?

 

That leaves nearly 20 years worth of data being ignored.

I'm not sure why they start at 1961, but the ending at 1990 is because that is when the IPCC published their first report. What they are looking at here is the change in temperature. To do that you need a baseline which you can then use to calculate the change. The reason they don't use the figures all the way up to 2009 is because this would mean changing the baseline every year. The 1961-1990 seems to be a standard baseline used by everyone (probably on the advice of the IPCC) which makes comparison of data easier both between different studies and different years.

 

Does that answer your question?

[Pleepsie]

^^^

Sadly, no - it does not answer my question.

 

The 4th IPCC report was published in 2007. I feel it would better serve everyone if they perhaps updated their 'baseline' once every 17 years or so.

 

Hey, here's an idea... why don't they use the latest figures available and just change it the once. I can't think that the IPCC would find that too hard to do, then they can use the new 'baseline' for all their calculations... or are they just going to keep on using the old outdated stuff forever?

[ArabiaTerra]

An excellent essay on the difference between weather and climate.

 

If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Damned Cold? (pdf file)

 

And a good blog post discussing the essay (I recommend reading the comments below the post).

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^

Sadly, no - it does not answer my question.

 

The 4th IPCC report was published in 2007. I feel it would better serve everyone if they perhaps updated their 'baseline' once every 17 years or so.

 

Hey, here's an idea... why don't they use the latest figures available and just change it the once. I can't think that the IPCC would find that too hard to do, then they can use the new 'baseline' for all their calculations... or are they just going to keep on using the old outdated stuff forever?

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of a baseline. The point is so they can say that "Things have changed by this much since the first report was published".

 

It allows them to show that global average temperatures are higher now than they were when the baseline was set, that the temperature rise is accelerating and that it is occurring in line with forecasts made by the models.

 

Also, by maintaining the same baseline, you can look at the first IPCC report and say "Ok, that's the starting point", look at the second report and see how things have changed, then the third and fourth reports and compare them with each other and see the developing trend. If the baseline was reset with every new report then such comparisons would be much more difficult if not impossible.

 

Maybe I'm not explaining things properly here but I'm a little bit confused about what your understanding of a baseline actually is. If you could go into a bit more detail as to what you think then maybe I can do a better job of explaining things.

[Pleepsie]

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

 

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

 

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

 

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

 

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

 

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

 

When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

 

Another 'climate disaster' based on a phone call. It is starting to look like climate change is man made after all - man made-up that is!

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^ Rubbish, the glaciers will melt, that is guaranteed (unless we tackle the causes of climate change soon). The only debate left is how quickly.

 

In this particular case, the IPCC made a mistake about the timing. So what? Mistakes happen. It doesn't invalidate the science.

[ArabiaTerra]

More on the Himalayan glacier story (and other melting ice effects) here.

[justlookin]

How can you even mildly trust the IPCC after all the muck-ups, the secrecy and now this about

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, described as “the world’s top climate scientistâ€, is a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics and no formal climate science qualifications.

. It’s ridiculous. You put trust in a corporation which its main task is to prove Global Warming IS happening. Not, whether or not it’s happening. The money and control that World Government is gaining from it all, not to mention Dr Pachauri the Chairman of the IPCC with his businesses which are reaping the benefits of millions of our hard earned fiat £'s.

 

I'm not saying Global Warming isn't happening (well I am but...). Just look at it through your eyes and not those UV Polarised Sunglasses you most likely 'panic' bought when you were first terrified by the news that polar bears didn't have chance. If you’re not on some payroll tasked with dis-informing Shetlink, I can only assume you are delusional or haven't had the 'equipment' to let it go and admit you are wrong. I admitted to myself a while ago when I found that all the evidence pointed to no-one having clue about tomorrows weather, let alone 10 years away. Computer models are great, but who makes them, where did the funding come from, is it in their interests to lie and tinker till the results they want come out. Who on the Committee has most to gain? ... What can I say; I’m a scientist at heart. Which is about the same credentials I would need to get on that panel you get your data from AT.

[Greenfingers]

^^^ Rubbish, the glaciers will melt, that is guaranteed (unless we tackle the causes of climate change soon). The only debate left is how quickly.

 

In this particular case, the IPCC made a mistake about the timing. So what? Mistakes happen. It doesn't invalidate the science.

 

Oh dear !!

 

It looks like this " science" just got a whole lot worse.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022694/syed-hasnain-rk-pachauri-and-the-mystery-of-the-non-disappearing-glaciers/

 

This story begins to look as though it is all about " feathering your own nest" which, with the sums of money being made available to any researcher who claims to support the propaganda of AGW, does not surprise me.

[Skunnered]

^^^So what happened to the peer-review process?

[Evil Inky]

This story begins to look as though it is all about " feathering your own nest" which, with the sums of money being made available to any researcher who claims to support the propaganda of AGW, does not surprise me.

If you think climate scientists are only in it for the money, you've obviously never worked as a research scientist

[ArabiaTerra]

Dr Rajendra Pachauri is the manager who was in charge of the IPCC. He never claimed to be a climate scientist, and the IPCC never claimed he was a climate scientist. The only people who made this claim were the liars who wanted to set up a strawman in order to knock it down.

It’s ridiculous. You put trust in a corporation which its main task is to prove Global Warming IS happening. Not, whether or not it’s happening. The money and control that World Government is gaining from it all, not to mention Dr Pachauri the Chairman of the IPCC with his businesses which are reaping the benefits of millions of our hard earned fiat £'s.

More conspiracy theory bullshit. You really have bought the denier lies, hook, line and sinker, haven't you? Which part of this has anything to do with the science?

I admitted to myself a while ago when I found that all the evidence pointed to no-one having clue about tomorrows weather, let alone 10 years away.

WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE! How many times do I have to say this.

Computer models are great, but who makes them, where did the funding come from, is it in their interests to lie and tinker till the results they want come out. Who on the Committee has most to gain? ...

The computer models are great, and they work. Read this to see.

This story begins to look as though it is all about " feathering your own nest" which, with the sums of money being made available to any researcher who claims to support the propaganda of AGW, does not surprise me.

If you think climate scientists are only in it for the money, you've obviously never worked as a research scientist

Quite right, Inky. If the scientists were in it for the money, they would have become lawyers, bankers or accountants. Of all the "professions", scientists are far and away the most poorly paid and have the least job security. Anyone suggesting that scientists are only in it for the money is living in a fantasy land.

 

Here is a picture of the Himalayan glaciers which are supposedly "not" melting:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/images/rongbuk.jpg

 

From here.

 

And on the Himalayan glacier controversy:

The statement, in a chapter on climate impacts in Asia, was that the likelihood of the Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035″ was “very high†if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate (WG 2, Ch. 10, p436), and was referenced to a World Wildlife Fund 2005 report. Examining the drafts and comments (available here), indicates that the statement was barely commented in the reviews, and that the WWF (2005) reference seems to have been a last minute addition (it does not appear in the First- or Second- Order Drafts). This claim did not make it into the summary for policy makers, nor the overall synthesis report, and so cannot be described as a ‘central claim’ of the IPCC.

So, it was not a central claim. Now do you see how the liars are spinning this? Talk about a mountain from a molehill.