“FOR a glacier to maintain its present size it must have precipitation as snowfall at its source. This leads to a slightly complex relationship with temperature. If the regional climate becomes too dry, there will be no precipitation, so the glacier will diminish. This could happen if the region became cold enough to reduce evaporation from the ocean. If temperatures rise, evaporation is enhanced and so therefore is snowfall. Paradoxically a regional rise of temperature may lead to increased growth of glaciers and ice sheets. Today, for example, the ice sheets of both Antarctica and Greenland are growing by accumulation of snow…
“In the Greenland ice sheet several cores have more than 3 km of undisturbed ice which go back in time for over 105,000 years, much less than the Antarctic equivalent. The Vostok cores in Antarctica provide data for the past 414,000 years before the ice starts to be deformed. Dome F core reached 3035 m and Dome C core 3309 m, and both date back to 720,000 years. The Epica core in Antarctica goes back to 760,000 years, as does the Guliya core in Tibet. But what is more important than the age is that vast thicknesses of ice are preserved, and they retain complete records of deposition, in spite of the fact that temperatures at times during that period have been warmer than now. They do not fit the model of surface melting, either now or then. After three quarters of a million years of documented continuous accumulation, how can we believe that right now the world’s ice sheets are collapsing!”
From ‘Why the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets are Not Collapsing’, by Cliff Ollier, The University of Western Australia and Colin Pain, Canberra. http://aig.org.au/assets/244/AIGnews_Aug09.pdf (large file: 3MB download)
Abstract/Summary: Global warming alarmists have suggested that the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica may collapse, causing disastrous sea level rise. This idea is based on the concept of an ice sheet sliding down an inclined plane on a base lubricated by meltwater, whichis itself increasing because of global warming. In reality the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets occupy deep basins, and cannot slide down a plane. Furthermore glacial flow depends on stress (including the important yield stress) as well as temperature, and much of the ice sheets are well below melting point. The accumulation of kilometres of undisturbed ice in cores in Greenland and Antarctica (the same ones that are sometimes used to fuel ideas of global warming) show hundreds of thousands of years of accumulation with no melting or flow. Except around the edges, ice sheets flow at the base, and depend on geothermal heat, not the climate at the surface. It is impossible for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to ‘collapse’.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
” [h]ow can we believe that right now the world’s ice sheets are collapsing?”
We don’t and they aren’t.
P.S. Luke’s a worthless dried up old sow’s uterus – just thought I’d start this thread off at his vulgar level rather than wait for it to deteriorate.
It would be useful to add, adjacent to the link in your post, a note that the article starts on page 20 of the pdf.
” The outlook for arctic sea ice in September 2009, based on July data, indicates a continuation of low pan-arctic sea ice extent and no indication that a return to historical levels will occur.
Sea ice extent Greenland and Barents sea (mean), the red line is data from July 2009.
The September outlook lies between 4.2 to 5.0 million square kilometers of sea ice in the pan-Arctic reagion. This represents a near-record minimum. All estimates for September are well below the 1979–2007 September climatological mean value of 6.7 million square kilometers.
Warm, clear conditions led to significant sea ice melt during the month of July, with some areas of unusually low ice extent and an atmospheric pattern that promotes summer sea ice loss in the Pacific sector of the Arctic. At this point in the sea ice season, the minimum extent will largely be driven by atmospheric conditions, including winds and temperatures.
Ice extent in the Greenland and Barents seas for July ranges from below to well below average values. In the eastern Barents, July ice extent is at a record low for this month, surpassing July 2007.
Sebastian Gerland and Harvey Goodwin at the Norwegian Polar Institute have contributed to the report with sea ice data on the Greenland Sea and Barents Sea, and comparisons of current, previous and mean ice distributions in this area, along with sea ice thikcness and landfast ice distributions around Svalbard.
The SEARCH Sea Ice Outlook is an international effort to provide a community-wide summary of the expected September arctic sea ice minimum. Monthly reports released throughout the summer synthesize community estimates of the current state and expected minimum of sea ice—at both a pan-arctic and regional scale.
To view the report, please go to: http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/report_august.php
Website for Sea Ice Outlook: http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/
Text: Partly taken from the Sea Ice Outlook Report
Photo: S. Gerland/Norwegian Polar Institute ”
http://npweb.npolar.no/english/subjects/1250776798.55
Birdie,
What’s that got to do with ice sheets and glaciers?
So you accept that there is warming?
“Paradoxically a regional rise of temperature may lead to increased growth of glaciers and ice sheets. Today, for example, the ice sheets of both Antarctica and Greenland are growing by accumulation of snow”
Sjt the climate is always warming or cooling, get used to it, only FOOLS believe they can inadvertantly ( your case pre ets) or deliberately ( your case post ets) change it.
SJT,
“So you accept that there is warming?”
No.
Define what you mean by “warming” and I may change my mind.
“Paradoxically a regional rise of temperature…”
Notice that the term is REGIONAL!!!!!!!
Birdie,
that was a lot of effort to say this year will probably the the 3rd lowest arctic ice extent during the satellite period. Maybe you have a lot of time on your hands?? Try studying some real physics and environmental science rather than paraphrasing for religious types!!
The crazed nutters with the tipping point theories all base their argument on an assumption of more ice sheet surface melting and runoff than annual deposition. And they then assume that this will continue long enough to lower the altitude of the ice sheet surface by a sufficient number of 100 metre intervals to produce a runaway melting.
But the only problem is that when mean temps are minus 30C, and temperature only increases by 1C for every 100 metre drop in altitude, the entire 1500m thick Greenland sheet would need to melt away before this critical point was met.
Yes folks, the much touted tipping point could only occur after about 15C of temperature increase, on top of the complete removal of the sheet itself. It is a bit like Major Major, in Catch 22, the only times you can get an appointment to see him is when he isn’t there. The only time altitude decline will influence ice sheet melt rates is when the ice sheet is gone.
And at the current raw melt rates, with assumed zero deposition rates, that will be some time beyond the next 16,000 years.
birdie,
Some one has been whispering bs in your ear.
Ice levels were high in the high north, and areas that have been used for water transport int he summers int he Hudson Bay region were not open this year.
Not one prediction of AGW promoters has come true, nor will they come true.
Temps in the Arctic region are dropping fast, and have been cool all summer.
As many of us predicted, ice will continue to recover in 2009 and into 2010.
So you AGW kooks lost out on storms, droughts, global heating, and now ice.
What is next?I predict it will be Antarctica; its been awhile, and some people have forgotten the embarrassment that Mann & pals tried to foist earlier this year.
“Not one prediction of AGW promoters has come true, nor will they come true.”
Cooling in the stratosphere.
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
““Not one prediction of AGW promoters has come true, nor will they come true.””
This whole topic works on the assumption that it is warming.
“Sjt the climate is always warming or cooling, get used to it, only FOOLS believe they can inadvertantly ( your case pre ets) or deliberately ( your case post ets) change it.”
AGW is a case of an unitended consequence. The response is must an attemp to unwind that consequence.
There is always warming or cooling, but there is always a reason for it. This is the age of reason, not blind ignorance.
Sjt I agree, there is a scientific reason for cooling or warming and if you come to the end of a minor ice age it must warm up again , perhaps the planet may yet recover the full +1c that was lost over the previous centuries of cooling.
The point is it is entirely natural your blind ignorance is one of faith not science. But seriously can you really be that stupid?
“Sjt I agree, there is a scientific reason for cooling or warming and if you come to the end of a minor ice age it must warm up again , perhaps the planet may yet recover the full +1c that was lost over the previous centuries of cooling.
The point is it is entirely natural your blind ignorance is one of faith not science. But seriously can you really be that stupid?”
The point is it has been found that AGW is the reason for most of the current warming. Natural forcings don’t account for the observed changes.
Also, if it is warming, then what are all these denialist stories about the temperature record being wrong? Which is it?
“This is the age of reason, not blind ignorance.”- so why SJT are we proposing an ETS that will not change temperature?…Moral action is ignorance if it causes hardship and simply makes us “feel good!”
Agree or disagree with the science, our actions based on the science are “blind ignorance”.
Believing that we can play god is “blind ignorance”.
Personally I m not so sure this can be considered an age of reason.
The Stratosphere is not cooling in an AGW consistent way;
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
SJT According to the Espere web page, stratospheric cooling due to greenhouse effect in troposphere occurs in the highest part of the stratosphere, ie 40-50km altitude.
I cannot find any discussion of this type of cooling in the IPCC AR4 Attributions chapter 9. Instead it appears to only discuss lower stratosphere cooling due to CO2 related ozone depletion. For example the report states ” The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the influence of anthropogenic forcing, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion.” (Executive Summary)
I think that like the tropical hot spot, the stratosphere cooling question is quite interesting, but it is impossible to gain any sense of the scientific certainty surrounding the issue. After all the IPCC spends a lot of its time desperately attempting to prove that sulphate aerosols were responsible for cooling periods during the 20th century in order to make its models work. Therefore any attempt to suggest that stratospheric cooling, if it exists as claimed, proves anything at this stage might be premature.
“I cannot find any discussion of this type of cooling in the IPCC AR4 Attributions chapter 9. Instead it appears to only discuss lower stratosphere cooling due to CO2 related ozone depletion. For example the report states ” The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the influence of anthropogenic forcing, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion.” (Executive Summary)”
There is a lot the report doesn’t say, and it is already a huge document. Usually there is a reference to a paper if you want the detail.
As Editor of AIG News cited here, the comments are more than interesting.
Gee, don’t any here read things?
SJT,
AGW is not about warming. AGW is about catastrophe.
Trying to redefine the terms of hte issue, which you are apparently engaged in, only confirms that you know you are wrong.
If you deny that there are significant errors in the temperature record, you are the one in denial.
Not only is there not much warming, the record being used to claim there is full of error, noise and prejudicial fiddling.
As to the stratosphere, since the AGW promotion industry is wrong about sea temps, storms, ice, droughts, world temps, and the troposphere, why should I think that a claim about the stratosphere has anything to do with confirming AGW?
Hunter wrote:
Gee, don’t you know anything? It’s the same as “increased sea level rise” and other such “hockey sticks” – there may indeed be something happening, but it’s blown out of all proportion by people who are manipulating dodgy numbers and questionable science to their own advantage. They then take the attitude that they have proven their case, and in order to overthrow it, you need to come up with a better explaination. It also doesn’t matter that you can show each individual piece of “evidence” is suspect, because “it all paints a picture” – of course, such “big picture” arguements from the “denialist” side can be refuted by knocking down individual bits of evidence; no “big picture” arguements allowed on that side!
SJT:
“There is a lot the report doesn’t say, and it is already a huge document. Usually there is a reference to a paper if you want the detail.”
Which suggests you have not read it, but why bother when it’s all about consensus.
From Raupach ‘the CSIRO alarmist’ et al in the SMH on August 1,2009:
“Temperature rises of two to three degrees (or higher) carry a high risk of irreversible decay of the Greenland ice sheet from surface warming alone, leading to a sea level rise of up to about seven metres. Destabilisation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would cause a further few metres of sea-level rise.”
What they are saying is that with the temperature rise predicted by IPCC models over the 21st century, catastrophic flooding is ‘high risk’, ie read ‘inevitable’.
It seems to me that the explanation put forward by Ollier and Pain is straightforward. The ice sheets lie in a depression and cannot easily ‘decay’ or collapse, as shown by their long term stability. I know that peer-reviewed alarmist science can be dreadfully bad, but surely this sort of simple explanation has been discussed previously? After all, we are talking about catastrophic flooding here.
dribble wrote:
“I know that peer-reviewed alarmist science can be dreadfully bad, but surely this sort of simple explanation has been discussed previously? After all, we are talking about catastrophic flooding here.”
What’s really catastrophic is the damage that the scientific prostitutes in the multi-billion-dollar Climate Alarmist biz are doing to the reputation of real science. After a few more years of our global cooling trend–notwithstanding the current El Niño episode–there will be massive defections from the ranks of the Alarmist faithful. This time, the scientific fraud is so egregious that historians will have a difficult time sweeping it under the rug, as they did in the 1950s. What the hell am I talking about?
LOBOTOMIZED SCIENCE
In the early part of the 20th Century, there was not a whole lot that physicians could do to treat schizophrenia. It is estimated that about 1% of the world’s population suffers from this debilitating psychiatric illness.
Warehousing–often under horrific ‘snake pit’ conditions–was often the only option for some schizophrenics, who could not function in society. And this was a big drain on scarce health care resources, which could be used with greater cost-effectiveness in prenatal and pediatric care, for example.
Enter Dr. Moniz, a physician from Portugal. He performed the first lobotomy in 1936. The medical profession was impressed with the increased manageability of lobotomized psychiatric patients. In 1949, Dr. Moniz shared the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his pioneering work on lobotomies, which greatly popularized the procedure. Here is a link to some biographical info about Dr. Moniz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egas_Moniz
The 1950’s saw the introductions of new, somewhat effective psychiatric medications, like Thorazine. Then people began to question the morality of lobotomies.
Hey, isn’t bodily integrity a fundamental human right? If so, aren’t lobotomies major human rights violations? This is a good question, especially considering the difficulty of getting genuine informed consent from schizophrenics, who are often not living in the same reality that we know. For obvious reasons, lobotomies are less fashionable now than they were in the early 1950s.
Sometimes art can help us get a better perspective on complex ethical issues. In addition to having outstanding performances by Jack Nicholson and Louise Fletcher, the movie, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, came to grips the lobotomy issue in a very poignant way.
In light of what we know today, did the Nobel Committee get it right in 1949? Did these warm-and-fuzzy Swedes conveniently forgot about the vicious ‘medical’ experiments carried out by the Nazis and by the Japanese during WW2, less than a decade earlier?
Did the lobotomy research even qualify as legitimate science? Oh silly me, it must have, because within the medical community, the Nobel Prize reflected an overwhelming consensus.
“Which suggests you have not read it, but why bother when it’s all about consensus.”
Which suggests that I have read it. Several times I have come to a point, and wanted more detail. They provide a link to one or more research papers.
I don’t want to defend Sweden re mental health issues, as Swden was one of the very few countries in the world that under force sterilized mentally ill until the 70’s .
I consider myself a cosmopolitan without any specific nationality, and we all know that Sweden have been a liitle bit pro-nazicistic. They were all nazis until the battle of Stalingrad , then they turned socialistsic.
Our Queeen’s father was an active member of the German Nazi Party.
Anyway , Larry , even if the Swedes have made a few errors re nominations, one example is the scientist who was a laureate that did experiments on animals switching animal heads etc, etc , the Nobel Committee has also nominated persons as Fleming for the discovery of penicillin.
I visited Exit Glacier near Seward, Alaska, last week.
There is a prominent National Park Service display of how the glacier’s extent has changed over time (I wish there is a way to post the picture).
I was amazed to see how much the glacier had retreated since 1950 — around a mile. Clearly, AGW must be to blame.
However, I was just as amazed to see how much it had retreated between 1815 (the earliest date for which the investigators could establish a terminal moraine) and 1915 — around a mile and a half. In fact, the rate of retreat for Exit, and all other glaciers in Alaska, has been essentially continuous for over 200 years — as long as anyone has been around to measure the things.
So I guess AGW is to blame, except when it isn’t.
BTW, there was another display discussing how the glacier had effected the landscape, referring at one point to how thick the glacier was during the Little Ice Age, which (according to the display) started around 1200 AD and ended around 1900.
One more bit of news from Alaska. In 2008, ice fields in Alaska got thicker by 20 feet. For the first time since anyone has been around to measure the things.
“As to the stratosphere, since the AGW promotion industry is wrong about sea temps, storms, ice, droughts, world temps, and the troposphere, why should I think that a claim about the stratosphere has anything to do with confirming AGW?” – only a true denialist arsehole could pen shit like that. Let’s see – let’s make up a sentence with everything I dislike then pronounce it as true. A loyal Heartland employee doing his daily sprout.
What’s the difference between a denialist and a computer – you only have to punch data into a computer once.
As for sea level rise from ice sheets – the IPCC and the literature is quite explicit. Only denialist scum will try to rip themselves a new arsehole turning themselves inside out.
Anne
It might be more accurate to label the NAZI party as the National Socialist Workers Party – so the Swedish after Stalingrad was simply rhetorical.
And in the 30’s the Swedish children had to parade naked ( perhaps not all) before a judge so they could judge who had the most arian and blonde look.
And the indigenious sami people were looked at with contempt, they are still rated as a second hand people , very racistic!
FYI, Ingvar Kamprad , the owner of IKEA and Ingmar Bergman were also members of the Nazi Party ( all hushed down together that the Royal House had nazi associations).
Luke: I had no idea you made a contribution to the Macquarie Dictionary concerning the various meanings of the word “SHIT”.
I.E. SHIT=””As to the stratosphere, since the AGW promotion industry is wrong about sea temps, storms, ice, droughts, world temps, and the troposphere, why should I think that a claim about the stratosphere has anything to do with confirming AGW?” – only a true denialist arsehole could pen shit like that. Let’s see – let’s make up a sentence with everything I dislike then pronounce it as true. A loyal Heartland employee doing his daily sprout.
What’s the difference between a denialist and a computer – you only have to punch data into a computer once.
As for sea level rise from ice sheets – the IPCC and the literature is quite explicit. Only denialist scum will try to rip themselves a new arsehole turning themselves inside out.”.
But even more stupidly, you berate us with insults etc – showing the blogosphere that by attacking us personally, or collectively as “denialists” that you lost the debate.
An intelligent AGW advocate would avoid that scenario, though the phrase “intelligent AGW advocate” has to be an oxymoron.
My error.
SJT “Which suggests that I have read it. Several times I have come to a point, and wanted more detail. They provide a link to one or more research papers.”
Thats wonderful SJT. When you have actually read something more detailed, please enlighten us further with your knowledge.
“As to the stratosphere, since the AGW promotion industry is wrong about sea temps, storms, ice, droughts, world temps, and the troposphere, why should I think that a claim about the stratosphere has anything to do with confirming AGW?”
What was that grinding sound I just heard? Why it was the sound of goalposts being moved.
“why should I think that a claim about the stratosphere has anything to do with confirming AGW?””
If you bothered to actually know what the case for AGW was, then you would understand.
SJT : “If you bothered to actually know what the case for AGW was, then you would understand.”
Assume a Gregorian Chant mode:
“AMEN”.
Is there an alternative reason why ozone is decreasing in the stratosphere? It seems to me that I read somewhere ozone was created when UV encountered O2, which then floated down to the lower stratosphere. making it warmer. If the sun is producing less UV that might be another reason why it is cooler.
SJT,
The American folk saying that applies to you is, ‘he could miss the broad side of a barn with a scatter gun.’
Try thinking a bit:
AGW made a sseries of predictions. None of them came true.
Now they are claiming that a metric regarding the stratosphere is accurate.
In real science, having any claim be wrong means going back and adjusting the thesis.
In AGW land, finding one claim that may be right is accepted by the believers as proof.
So again, since none of the claims or predictions have come true, why should the assertion that one has have any credibility?
“AGW made a sseries of predictions. None of them came true.
Now they are claiming that a metric regarding the stratosphere is accurate.
In real science, having any claim be wrong means going back and adjusting the thesis.
In AGW land, finding one claim that may be right is accepted by the believers as proof.”
You changed your argument midstream. Stated not one prediction for AGW came true. I gave you one, to invalidate your statement. One prediction that came true was all that was needed, was it not? The claim for the stratosphere was made and verified years ago, not “now”. You then create your own fiction that the AGW claim is that it only takes only claim to have proof for AGW. Utter nonsense. Can you just look at your own logic, make some sense of it first, then come back to us.
SJT
You don’t understand science – one only needs one contradictory observation to falsify an hypothesis. You can never prove a scientific hypothesis but you can falsify them. Perhaps Green Davey could help you to understand this. As far as AGW is concerned, the actual temperature record since 1998 has falsified it.
Louis, I have one word to say to you…..
Velikovsky.
SJT,
Velikovsky?
In 1963, Harry Hess wrote to Velikovsky:
“We are philosophically miles apart because basically we do not accept each other’s form of reasoning — logic. I am of course quite convinced of your sincerity and I also admire the vast fund of information which you have painstakingly acquired over the years.
“I am not about to be converted to your form of reasoning though it certainly has had successes. You have after all predicted that Jupiter would be a source of radio noise, that Venus would have a high surface temperature, that the sun and bodies of the solar system would have large electrical charges and several other such predictions. Some of these predictions were said to be impossible when you made them. All of them were predicted long before proof that they were correct came to hand. Conversely I do not know of any specific prediction you made that has since been proven to be false. I suspect the merit lies in that you have a good basic background in the natural sciences and you are quite uninhibited by the prejudices and probability taboos which confine the thinking of most of us.
“Whether you are right or wrong I believe you deserve a fair hearing.”[2]
http://www.velikovsky.info/Harry_Hess
I think Hess’ comment “prejudices and taboos” has to be extended to you SJT. And if ytou want to continue slandering people here, it might help to get your basic facts right.
That would be the same Harry Hess who developed Plate Tectonics. rofl Who you going to believe now, Louis.