The latest research from scientists in Antarctica reveals the deep ocean around the frozen continent is becoming less salty and that this could play a major role in changing ocean currents and the climate. New details about changes to salinity are coming from deep beneath the sea ice, courtesy of satellite tagged seals. This unique tracking program involving Australian scientists is part of a major international research program shedding new light on how the world’s oceans are changing.
ABC 7.30 Report Transcript: Satellite tagged seals shed light on climate change
On-line video report also available.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Less salty than what? Previous measurements? What were they, how taken? Or less salty than surface water? (New discovery?) Does anyone know the missing, implied previously established, base in this report?
Very good question, Helen. What we also need to know is the total volume of water that is exhibiting this change in salinity so we can compare the volume changes with known changes in Antarctic sheet ice volumes.
The ABC, true to form, allowed the implication that this was sourced from melting ice sheet. But we know that precipitation near the Antarctic coast is at least 4 times more (200mm vs 50mm) than precipitation further inland. And it is fundamental to the nature of circular shaped blobs on the surface of a sphere that the area within a comparatively narrow ring around that circular blob of ice will equal the area within the blob.
And this means that a partial (say 25%) change in precipitation in the perimeter ring would produce the same volume of precipitation as a 100% change on the continental ice mass.
More importantly, most precipitation (in the order of 99%) that falls on the continental ice sheet will remain there while all of the precipitation that falls on the perimeter ring will mix with the ocean waters.
All over the planet, it is not unusual for precipitation levels to vary by more than 50% of the long term annual mean. So a 25% variation in this context is hardly anomalous.
In this case, the land mass and summer pack ice occupies a circle (the Antarctic circle) of approx. 2500km radius and a total area of 19.6 million km2. A circle of twice this area will have a radius of approx. 3500km. So the outer ring that is only 1000km wide will have the same area as that within the Antarctic circle. Interestingly, this wider radius corresponds with Lat. 60S which also happens to approximate the northern (winter) limit of pack ice. And of course, all precipitation that lands on winter pack ice that melts in summer will mix fresh water with the ocean beneath.
So once again we have a bit of straight forward science being interpreted as resulting from the least probable cause. The actual science seems to be quite good but the clowns just can’t help themselves. They have this overriding need to extrapolate to absurdity in homage to their ideological goals.
O’Brien presents another effort as an AGW propagandist with Nettlefold trying to drum up concern about climate change around Antarctica. This is the crux of the debate on climate where by definition, a change is bad, always bad and even worse always human caused ….. where there is this premise that nature has been designed as if it were some fixed-in-place system. It is a ridiculous, disconnected, maladaptive notion. for there is no implied understanding here that this is normal and natural or that nature simply self-regulates in this fashion.
Predictable – a very interesting story with zero spin. What touchy denialists. Reality is some western coastal glaciers are accelerating so you’d expect some freshening.
Presumably you’d be happier not to have the story reported or a flashing subliminal message – THIS IS NOT AGW – DO NOT BE TAKEN IN !! Perhaps the ABC needs to warn viewers before they broadcast any science commentary as surely someone will be offended. Perhaps it should only be shown after midnight? You could watch Big Brother instead.
I suspect it is deeply rooted in the AGW pyschological makeup where unpredictable change is a source of serious angst. It’s a little like a drug addict suddenly faced with a shortage of the stimulant.
But it’s more than this because climate science, unlike astronomy and geology which deal with the far, far away and the long, long time ago, deals with the more immediate processes. As a purely deductive science reliant on initial assumptions based on consensus, (Platonic method), from which a complex theoretical architecture has been erected, deductionists don’t have the mind-set to accept contradictory fact, and rather than jettison their consensus position, adapt it by making it a little like silly putty – a theory that can explain everything that comes into its way.
The problem is that climate science is more a belief system than a science based on empiricism, and once a belief sets hold in the minds of many, it is difficult to change, (if at all).
But this debate between the Platonists and Aristotellians has been going for millennia.
It’s part and parcel of the collectivist mind-set – our theories have to be right, so any contradictions are not our fault but of others.
But whether they actually believe that emission of CO2 will drive temperatures up (hopefully a more sophisticated model than simply observing that filling up an auditorium with people will raise the internal termperature of the auditorium) or it’s another game, is hard to work out. The devout seem sincere in their beliefs despite being quite wrong.
Touchy indeed Luke, but maybe I missed the shot where they pulled a previously used possum out of an ABC iceberg! It was a very interesting story in so far as innovative research which could lead to a whole lot of data on the environment, interactions within an ecosystem, and of course the big cuddly Weddells themselves, not to mention spin offs into other applications.
I agree, Libby, (she falls off chair) the use of the Weddells is good science with lots of potential.
Luke’s failure to address the issue of the scale of change within the normal range of variation is his standard MO. He has a deep distrust of the simple truths that can be uncovered with a common calculator but compensates with blind faith in climate muddles with multiple loaded assumptions.
There is also the little issue of the complete absence of any warming since 1998 and, as far as SH summer temps are concerned, since 1988. See for yourself how the summer peak of 1988 has only been exceeded by 1998, the rest is downhill. http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/jonescru/sh.dat
And for a neat graphic that actually shows the anomalies in proper Antarctic scale see
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/demos/temrec/sh.htm
Funny how it only goes from 1910 to 2001 and conveniently omits the recent absence of warming.
Note also from the map my point above about the comparative areas of the continental mass and the peripheral ring.
Louis indeed, the problem here is one of the deductive mindset where it tries to impatiently solve but makes things worse because it doesn’t comprehend that it’s creating problems, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates. Certainly, seek and ye shall find nothing, represents a pathway to disenchantment. e.g. Why is it so disconnected and startling to find that the deep ocean around Antarctica is changing and in particular here, becoming less salty and dense? Why is there no implied understanding in this report that this is normal and natural or simply a case of nature self-regulating in this fashion as it has always done and to be expected?
Isn’t it much better to build up from facts using induction …. where it is find and ye shall seek. Isn’t this where true understanding and imagination is found as you comprehend everything coherently and harmoniously in an overall whole, that is undivided, unbroken and without border. AND isn’t this the way to discover what is NOT expected to be seen?
What is honest science then? If I can put it another way, good scientific knowledge is learned, by studying those things that do not fit what you expected. e.g. We want the observed details, and want to know WHY this particular data set is not conforming to the conventional theories. That is what honest science is all about ….. discovery. e.g. Rather than mind over matter it needs to be mind out of matter. i.e. We adapt.
Says a bloke who can’t even type the correct speed of the PIG into line one.
Lordy me – I’m not failing to address the scale of the change. Who cares – it’s merely some interesting research. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Louis has found a buddy – finally.
Anyway a bit of ice is just what you expect – the blog gimps have forgotten what cool is like given it’s been so warm.
Our resident expert climate modeller, Bazza, has already broken the news below but it’s probably a bit subtle for blokes with only calculators.
In today’s Australian (denialist rag that it is – but Alarmists don’t whinge like Denialists – oooo oooo the ABC is biased – oooo oooo – sook sook – mock indignation – big grizzle – of course they’re biased – they’re intelligent and you’re not) , our lil’ mate Karoly says, “Even when we consider only the global average temperature during La Nina episodes, such as the present cool period, we find that we are experiencing the warmest global temperature of any strong La Nina episode in the past 100 years, again showing clear long-term global warming.”
So it’s the warmest cool period for a while – dig it – of course you don’t – so back to Big Brother – who do reckon will be turfed out first?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23612876-11949,00.html
Sigh ….
“Our resident expert climate modeller, Bazza, has already broken the news below ..”
Funny how anything that comes out of the mouth of one of the High Priests of the Church of Global Warming is immediately siezed on as “news”, irrespective of whether it is factual or not.
Funny also that you feel the need to modify your tag so that people would know who your are. I assume this is for the benefit of your confused Alarmist sect – being completely incapable of independent thought, I guess you realised they would be too dumb to figure it our for themselves.
Goodness me, no. That wasn’t a sidestep, was it Luke? Two equal areas, one with 200+mm annual precipitation (with more than 50% natural range of variation) that does mix with oceans and the other with 50mm that only mixes at the edges. Gosh, which one do you think might have the major impact on ocean salinity? Duh!
So what is the correct speed of the PIG, Luke? And name your source.
Gee wiz, Karoly tells us this is the warmest “cool period” in a hundred years. Well, only through the grace of Mt Pinatubo. Its cooling influence not only reduced the height of the El Nino but lingered into the following La Nina. Take another look at Mark’s graphs.
http://www.geocities.com/mcmgk/TempAdjust2.html?1199762345031
But nice try-on for a departmental plodder.
This is Tuesday, D Sc, and it is Luke’s turn to “ambiguous”, the boys like him that way.
Just can’t wait for the next eruption to coincide with a La Nina. That should really rattle Karoly’s dags.
And note, boy wonder, your Guru only mentioned long term warming, which is not in dispute. The issue, for those with limited attention span, is whether it is all, or even in most part, caused by anthropogenic CO2. So pay attention, doofus.
Thanks for the clarification, Ian.
I sometimes wonder whether this whole blog is an audition for the “Lord of the Flies” or an episode of the Simpsons – no prizes for picking the Nelson Muntz and Jimbo Jones characters.
“Less salty than what? Previous measurements? What were they, how taken? Or less salty than surface water?”
Another conspiracy cleverly unmasked!
Thanks Luke, Karoly was replying to someone else, but he also neatly dices and shreds Jennifers moment of glory.
The salinity change mentioned sounds a bit like detecting some variation in Sydney Harbour and announcing that the waters around Australia are changing.
A refresh on ocean salinity monitoring.
Some years ago (1970’s), an acquaintance living out in the bush was experimenting with electronics for deep sea monitoring. Building data loggers in a kit garage “factory” was his new biz I recall salinity was best measured then by conductivity instruments, but sending a lab meter to the ocean bottom was rather hazardous.
I reckon Harry was a true pioneer.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/17/2219659.htm
http://www.csiro.au/news/Ocean-ClimateLinks.html
data.aad.gov.au/aadc/metadata/program_metadata.cfm?program=OC
http://www.brightsurf.com/search/r-a/Ocean_Salinity/1/Ocean_Salinity_news.html
You denialists need to seriously chill out. The program made suggestions, and it was very clear to anyone who has an open mind that this is preliminary work with a lot more analysis and follow-ups to be done.
Enjoy the fact that our scientists are thinking outside the square and asking serious questions. A cigar can be a cigar, even in the shape of an Antarctic seal!
What do you mean “the boys like him that way” – don’t you mean girls? It was either Alarmist Creep or Lucy. And if you had to pick between being denialist scum and an Alarmist the choice is obvious.
Anyway this has turned into a rout – Motty trots out some wishful hand drawn volcano diagram again. You can even see the rubber marks where they had the second go. No proper calculations of the aerosol forcings – a desperate attempt for those with only calculators.
And with the PIG racing along like it is – of course you’d expect some SST freshening.
Anyway all too easy – Karoly now our pinup boy. Flannery and Williams are out – Karoly is in. What a guru. Gott’em with the old warmest cold La Nina trick.
So having dispensed with the denialists yet again we can relax and enjoy http://www.bigbrother.com.au/day001-news-dontunpack.htm
Alarmist Creep (Lucy) – “So having dispensed with the denialists yet again we can relax and enjoy http://www.bigbrother.com.au/day001-news-dontunpack.htm“
So who is your pick for the winner?
This has so much more scientific content than denier arguments doesn’t it?
boys and girls; come out to play
this stuff is much more fun
http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/forecasts/idyoc21.shtml?region=21&forecast=1
http://www.marine.csiro.au/ofam1/om/oma_SEF_ha1/20080423.html
Oh no not Karoly again; wasn’t he Tony Jones’s Jack in the Box?
Meanwhile a further raft of all time max and min temps for April, have been set across the state today..
Gonna be hard for David to come up with a positive spin for this month. (Opps, off topic!!)
Sometimes you read things that just make you shake your head and wonder.
Ender — the man with no content, the man who seems incapable of reading or understanding anything beyond the first few words, and who runs and hides under the bed whenever the difficult questions are asked or whenever he is asked to put his ‘science’ to the test — and Lucy (need I say more?) jumping up and down together like a couple of sock puppets, engaged in a orgy of self-congratulation over who has come up with the most inane, senseless comment for the day.
What an image.
How could anyone possibly pick a winner?
Kerian,
Good science means what you describe it as, collection of data, compiling it, and framing ideas about it which, if enough data are present to make it significant, to then experiment.
Climate science cannot do experiments as many of the physical sciences can, (electronics, mineral exploration), so all of their ideas are speculative, and remain speculative because they cannot be tested scientifically.
I can just hear the Greens jumping to alarmist conclusions like the glaciers are melting thus diluting the salty water.The polar bears are dying in some areas but forget to mention their numbers are growing in other areas.Get enraged at the Japanese for killing Minky Whales but neglect to mention they breed to almost plague proportions.
They have not been studying our entire climate long or hard enough to really know what is happening.Take it all with a grain of salt,even if it is from the brine waters of Antartica.
By now most of you will have come to know how much in awe I am of the Alarmists’ “Climate Science” – how mesmerised I am by the clarity of thought, the precision of the data, and the logic of the research that binds it all together.
So I figured I’d do a little field research to reconfirm my belief and committment to this wonderful “Science” – and the subject I chose was one that seems to be near and dear to the heart of most of you scaremongers. Namely, when will be at the ‘tipping point’ – or are we there already?
Now – I have to say, I am more confused now than when I started. They are some very knowledgable people out there – nay, geniuses, even, with the odd messiah thrown in. So you think there would be general agreement over this very significant point, wouldn’t you?
But – read on.
According to Hansen back in March 2006, we were “Close to Tipping Point”:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176828,00.html
RealClimate got in on the act a couple of months later and declared that “we are at the tipping point in the use of the phrase ‘tipping point'”:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/
(Who says they don’t have a sense of humour?)
In September of that year, the Guardian opined that we were about 20 years away from the tipping point – I guess someone had some space that needed to be filled:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/04/greenpolitics.science
In May 2007, NASA decided to halve this figure to 10 years. No particular reason, as far as I can tell – they just liked the sound of of ’10 years’.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=3223473&page=1
Then a mere two days later they upped the ante and decided that we were “approaching the tipping point”. You think the one organisation would have it’s act together!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070531073748.htm
Then in November 2007, Ban Ki Moon must have been feeling a bit left out and declared that we were “At the tipping point”.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/16/opinion/edmoon.php
Hansen was obviously not going to be outdone, and less than a month later delcared that ‘the climate tipping points have been PASSED’!
http://www.carbonequity.info/docs/hansen.html
Then in February this year, a group of very eminent ‘climate scientists’ got together and declared that “Tipping Elements In Earth’s Climate System were 1-50 years away”:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080204172224.htm
The yo-yo principle immediately came into effect two days later with the Green Left & FoE declaring that, No – “The Tipping Point had already passed”:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/739/38269
Guys – can someone please get their story together on this one.
I am very busy – I need to know whether to worry now, in 1 years time, in 50 years time, or whether it is all too late and I should just lie back and think of England.
Once you’ve done that, could someone then please brief all these frothing-at-the-mouth ranting maniacs out there so that they can at least all be shrieking the same alarm – if you keep this up, people will stop listening.
With all the precision of your “Science” this should not be too much to ask, should it?
“The study of thresholds and pattern dynamics may be a key to unlocking our understanding of catastrophic climate change and other types of complex systems”.
http://www.science.org.au/nova/092/092print.htm
“Abrupt Climate Change: Facts and Fiction”
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/hottopics/pubs/abruptclimatechange.pdf
Denialist Scum.I think they got the terminology wrong.It was the tipsey point.It just depends at what point they interpret the data;ie after the first or last vodka.
It is interesting the Greens Blog vets it’s comments.I just had a light hearted jibe at them likening them to religious zealots whom they often ridicule.You will be able to tell how vunerable they feel by the amount of censorship they employ.I don’t think my comment will stay.
D Sc, the ‘tipping point’ is not a geophysical construct. It is the point, in what passes for the cognitive functions of a climate cretin, beyond which any extreme extrapolation or imaginary disaster, is treated with the same value, and same degree of certainty, as a fully verified fact. It is often the product of substance abuse but has a purely associative relationship to self abuse, be it onanism or flagellation. Its victims do not go blind, they simply seek refuge from daylight in the rectal cavities of the IPCC.
By the way, boy wonder, how come Karoly is drawing conclusions about the current La Nina when it is not even over yet?
Well PIG ninny – just the same way Gary Gulrud is and Arnost has about La Nina.
Anyway D-scummy bear – you’ve listed a bunch of erudite papers or IPCC reports have you – no just blog flotsam and jetsam – perhaps we Alarmist Creeps should dust off the denialist gimp file of really stupid comments. But not enough blog space to file it.
Funny that some of you are predicting an ice age – wouldn’t that be a “tipping point”? “Cripes didn’t think of that” says DS and disappears up his own orifice in a negative reality inversion and hypocrisy black hole.
But why bother – Big Brother is back in season and we’ve nominated DS and Mottsa 2 points each for being tedious frothing ranters. We need to get Bruce Knob back – he normally lists something about frothing pablum and diapers. Bit fixated I suspect.
Arjay wrote:
>Get enraged at the Japanese for killing Minky Whales but neglect to mention they breed to almost plague proportions.
Minke (note spelling) are in almost plague proportions where? Can you back this up with facts and figures? You know, like science?
Denialists Scum wrote:
>So I figured I’d do a little field research to reconfirm my belief and committment to this wonderful “Science”
Where is the ‘feild research’? This is a literature review. Do you know anything about research?
>With all the precision of your “Science” this should not be too much to ask, should it?
Nuff said…
As an environmentalist all my life I don’t see myself as “a climate change cynic”. Far from it in fact and that is where we see the alarmist’s problem. The periods of global warming in the 20th century are hardly unique. It seems they have arrived pretty much on schedule, coming from a cooler period in earth’s history. To assume now is the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that our largest plasma discharge formation the sun is somehow perfect, constant and regular, is all part of the AGWer’s problem and an absurdity.
Stopping climate change and making it somehow perfect, constant and regular simply serves to illustrate quite well the anthropocentric mindset where we are expected to understand that all humans exhale CO2 with original sin as we see with the fruitloops like Karoly. Boyoh is he off his face. It is such a ridiculous notion when you consider that carbon creates a greening and healthy environment and where high carbon dioxide has never prevented subsequent cooling. CO2 doesn’t drive climate change on earth.
I’ve never regarded myself as a “denialist” and feel I need to make this point quite clearly. The true denialists are the alarmist AGWers who, just for starters, DENY ….
(1) the solar/cosmic connection that drives earth’s climate
(2) CO2 as essential to life describing it as a dangerous pollutant and likening it with the Ebola virus.
(3) just about everything outside the earth’s troposphere
(4) convection as the dominant way heat is exchanged
(5) all manner of experienced historic knowledge and our place in the universe.
(1) of course solar drives our climate – who’s ever said otherwise?
(2) Of course CO2 is essential to plant life. But like all things needed in the right amounts – we might find living in an atmosphere of pure oxygen unpleasant and you can drown in too much water. All elements essential for life too.
(3) we do?
(4) convection – so?
(5) you mean crackpot non-science
“CO2 has never prevented cooling” – think about that for 5 seconds. How the heck could it? Does it work by itself?
As for creating a greening and healthy environment you’d better check the FACE experiments. Obviously CO2 is magic pixie dist and works alone.
What’s the bet, seals and satellites can’t win this argument?
I’m really disappointed at you girls – I figured at least one of you would have a better shot than that.
After all, when you think you are arguing from a position where you have discovered a factoid, you certainly aren’t lost for words. But — ask a simple question that requires someone to put their balls (sorry girls) on the block and actually provide a definitive answer, and what happens?
All we get is this sooky, petulant nonsense: name-calling and a lot of childish correcting of spelling mistakes. “Oh look – let’s call everyone naughty names. That will show them how brave and smart we are!”
What a bunch of gutless wonders. You and Ender will be able to jump up and down after play lunch, and cheer and shout: “We sure showed them!”
“(1) of course solar drives our climate – who’s ever said otherwise?”
Well .. the IPCC for one. Read your own garbage.
See IPCC AR4 Synthesis report, pg. 36:
“The radiative forcing of the climate system is dominated by the long-lived GHGs,”
If you don’t understand the word “dominated”, put the colouring book down for a few minutes and look it up in the dictionary. (That’s the big thick book with a hard cover and no pictures or dots – probably covered with dust).
Are you using the term “girls” in a derogatory manner Denialist Scum? It appears to be the case. You talk about “name-calling” and “naughty names” and yet you feel free to be a sexist pig? Nice.
Jen,
No — not at all.
One of the bloggers in question sometimes uses a tag of “Alarmist Creep (Lucy)”.
Accordingly, I don’t think it is my place to question anyone’s sexuality.
Good to see that we’re all focused on the really important issues, though.
Travis, it’s a good idea, if you’re going to mention someone else’s spelling mistake, not to make one yourself three line later.
You can see why I never mention other people’s spelling!
Good to see that you don’t think being corrected on prejudices is important Scum. If you were focused and wanted to be taken at all seriously you’d stick to the facts and leave out the ad homs, regardless of what others may write.
Yes Paul, you left out an ‘s’, and I was aware of my ‘field’ 🙂 However, when commenting on a subject as if on authority (minky), it helps if you can spell the subject correctly (minke) – it tends to be more convincing that way. But don’t let spelling get in the way of good science, and don’t let sexism get in the way of, um, what point was he making…?
Oh … I see.
And calling someone a “sexist pig” isn’t an ad hom, at least in your philosophy?
Still no word on the actual speed of the PIG, eh alarmist creep/luke?
No word on where the fresh water might come from? Why are we not surprised?
It’s in the literature. Easily found.
When I say AGWers deny “(3) just about everything outside the earth’s troposphere” then a good example is provided by Karoly and others. They explain recent cooling as a confined La Niña event where they opportunistically assume winds mysteriously increase in speed in the eastern to central Pacific producing more cold water from below being forced up, cooling the ocean surface. i.e Any cooling is but some localised, selective weather event coming from beneath the Pacific ocean’s surface to AGWers.
However if we go to
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.4.28.2008.gif
we see that this is far from the truth. Just seems the sun is implicated as the driver of this change and that it is global. e.g. Why is the surface cooling across the tropics and mainly on the equator like the Indian and Pacific cooling forming a particularly noticeable band? Why does it appear clearly that the warmer surface is being pushed to the higher latitudes with its leading edge showing as the warmest?
Particularly check the Indian ocean surface cooling and see that it is in the tropics and mainly on the equator like the pacific cooling. This is hardly some localised La Niña.
We need to consider the bigger picture at all times if we are to understand the solar/cosmic influence. Since the IPCC selectively only looks at solar irradiance on selectively short timelines/data and ignores other essential solar “pulses”, represents one very good reason to study the aa index of geomagnetic activity which has doubled and been in an uptrend for over 100 years. Only a halfwit would ignore this fact. The last thirty years of this index seems to indicate signs of instability or what one may call the shakes. This could mean a turning point after a rather long very active period. The present extended solar minimum could be confirmation …. we can only speculate but it is not going unnoticed by many leading scientists.
– back to school on ENSO and anti-ENSO 101 I think. If it is solar there ought to a great story in historical correlations with El Nino and La Nina – there is? I wonder why the seasonal forecasters are not using it then?
And why do all these ENSO and anti-ENSO events often suddenly terminate …. hmmmm …
“It’s in the literature. Easily found.”
Ian – this is alarmist-speak for “I haven’t got a clue”.
Well worth comparing this event with an average of some past events
http://www.earthscape.org/r1/ucar04/harrison.html – Figure 2 March & May …
Look familiar?
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.4.28.2008.gif
“..If it is solar there ought to a great story in historical correlations with El Nino and La Nina …
And why do all these ENSO and anti-ENSO events often suddenly terminate …. hmmmm …”
So .. let me see if I can make sense out of this latest dose of faulty logic.
These events “suddenly terminate”. Now let’s see – what is more likely to be the cause of this?:
a) the big round ball in the sky that behaves in a highly variable, cyclical and unpredictable fashion; or –
b) CO2, which goes up in a regular, predictable, incremental fashion – year after year.
Let’s go with CO2 – that’s a really quick and simple concept for us to get our simple minds around. If we considered another alternative, we might have to use our brains and think – and that would leave less time for watching Big Brother.
No DS – Motty has been offered before but he didn’t ask politely. As I said “It’s in the literature. Easily found.”
I don’t bluff. But anyway – I give up. Against my better judgement for aiding and abetting the “enemy” as he likes to think of it.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/pdf/ngeo102.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/extref/ngeo102-s1.pdf
enough to keep calculators busy for years
Also of hot (err cold) interest coming up soon on ice sheet mass balance
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo186.html
>this is alarmist-speak for “I haven’t got a clue”.
No, by your accounts literature involves going out in the field – perhaps with the fairies at the bottom of the garden?
>What’s the bet, seals and satellites can’t win this argument?
Too right Gavin!
Today must be “AGW Faulty Logic Day”:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo186.html
“In the coming decades, significant changes in the polar regions will increase the contribution of ice sheets to global sea-level rise.”
Let’s start with an assumption, and then — what was Ian’s elegant explanation:
“beyond which any extreme extrapolation or imaginary disaster, is treated with the same value, and same degree of certainty, as a fully verified fact”
Amen.
Nope not saying anything to do with CO2 – different issue. You bet wrong. (although AGW eventually may change the frequency …)
A delayed oscillator ? http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/theory/index.html
http://portal.iri.columbia.edu/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=491&mode=2&cached=true
“Nope not saying anything to do with CO2 – different issue. You bet wrong. (although AGW eventually may change the frequency …)”
That’s it? That’s the strength of the argument? AGW may cause a natural phenomenon (La Nina / El Nino) to occur more often? And presumably therefore be of less duration / less extreme? And the “problem” therefore is what, exactly ?
Faulty Logic Statement #4 for the day.
Keep it up – you’re going for the World Record here.
Point (1) ENSO and anti-ENSO are essentially about delayed oscillator mechanisms. (not solar, CO2 or volcanoes IMO) READ THE LINKS I PROVIDED !
Point (2) There is various science that says that ENSO events may be more frequent or even more extreme under future AGW conditions, or the Pacific mean temperature mean state may be more El Nino-like or a semi-permanent warm event. The IPCC in their review say the the impact of AGW on ENSO is uncertain from available science. Not clear. Google it if you want to know.
Point(3) If AGW did effect ENSO it would a major concern for Australia, southern Africa, Indonesia and India because of drought. And anti-ENSO is also of interest as this the big recharge that replenishes water supplies, aquifers, gives bumper crop years, and regenerates rangelands. Hence the interest and ongoing research.
I read you link – the first one neatly skirts around the issue of where the warming comes from.
But — let’s see if we can net out your key statements:
– “..events MAY be more frequent..”
– “..temperature mean state MAY be more El Nino-like..”
– “..impact of AGW on ENSO is UNCERTAIN ..”
– “IF AGW did effect ENSO..”
If I can sum all this up in one word, that word would be: “guesswork”. So why do you insist on calling it “Science”?
Why should I – you’ll just shit on it without thinking. Why would you pre-suppose science will deliver total certainty? Are you silly or something?
Yes the origin of ENSOs is somewhat unknown but we know what doesn’t fit !! But the science isn’t guesswork – you’re confusing science with your own mental processes (all three neurons) …
But you can read up on ENSO and AGW in the 4AR report if are able to read past primary school level
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf
And interestingly already we have new work showing changes in the Southern Oscillation
Weakening of the Walker Circulation and apparent dominance of El
Nino both reach record levels, but has ENSO really changed?
Scott B. Power 1 and Ian N. Smith 2
Received 21 May 2007; revised 30 July 2007; accepted 10 August 2007; published 20 September 2007.
[1] Changes in El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and
the Walker Circulation can be routinely monitored using the
Southern Oscillation Index (SOI). Here we show that the
lowest 30-year average value of the June–December SOI
just occurred (i.e. in 1977–2006), and that this coincided
with the highest recorded value in mean sea-level pressure
at Darwin, the weakest equatorial surface wind-stresses and
the highest tropical sea-surface temperatures on record. We
also document what appears to be a concurrent period of
unprecedented El Nino dominance. However, our results,
together with results from climate models forced with
increasing greenhouse gas levels, suggest that the recent
apparent dominance might instead reflect a shift to a lower
mean SOI value. It seems that global warming now needs to
be taken into account in both the formulation of ENSO
indices and in the evaluation and exploitation of statistical
links between ENSO and climate variability over the globe.
This could very well lead to the development of more accurate
seasonal-to-interannual climate forecasts. Citation: Power,
S. B., and I. N. Smith (2007), Weakening of the Walker Circulation
and apparent dominance of El Nino both reach record levels, but
has ENSO really changed?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L18702,
doi:10.1029/2007GL030854
You’ve already come a gutser on PIG and ENSO – your ability (and rudimentary sign of any intelligence) to learn by experience is fairly slow.
And as for “dominant forcing” – yep 100% correct in terms on the science understanding of delta change. Figure 2.4 Try to understand the word forcing.
Meanwhile NASA just announced that the PDO has shifted to a cooling phase.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
Oceans cooling,
Long solar cycle 23,
tropics cooling,
Southern Hemisphere cooling,
AO shifted to cooling and now a cooling PDO phase.
Gosh all there is left is the Atlantic Multi-decadal oscillation.Still in a warming phase.That is due to shift in around 10 years or so.
This AGW crap is being shown as the nonsense it was long revealed to be.
Give it up and get back to reality.
My my – touchy aren’t we.
You don’t mind serving shit up to other people, but can’t take it when they point out all the primary school drivel you spray all over everyone else.
Simply shouting louder at everyone doesn’t make your garbage any more valid.
Grow up.
You know what sunset LOLOLOLOLOLOL – all just hand picked unscientific crap and wishful thinking. Predictability of the PDO ? and of solar cycles – all utter non-science rubbish. Might as well divine chook entrails.
And in any case – what have decadal cycles got to do with invalidating long term AGW.
So scumbags aka DS – after all that all you did is drop crap – as I said. No response. No discussion. Just a typical dickhead denialist. You’re a science moron.
There there.
Take your medication and then have a little lie down.
Then when you wake up, maybe you can have your crayons back and finish colouring in your Global Warming Book of All World Science.
Reading through this drivel I have come to the conclusion that the only one needing to grow up is some turd called “Denialist Scum”. You certainly don’t do your cause any good, and come across as a complete hypocritical fool. As someone who is yet to be swayed by either side of the climate debate, I would stay well clear of anything put forth by you and think it better you educate yourself and get some maturity. At least you could do us that favour.
Greg posing as an unbiased observer? Yeah, right, stop it, you’ll go blind.
Not so fast boy wonder, your first link on the PIG will not open and the rest provides nothing at all. From your above posts you obviously don’t mind cutting and pasting so kindly do us all the courtesy of providing the exact text or cease this blatant obfuscation.
You have been weaseling on this for a few months now so time is up. Deliver, you slimeball.
“As someone who is yet to be swayed by either side of the climate debate”. Very amusing – who do you think this is fooling?
Get some maturity? What do you suggest? Broaden my vocabulary (like yours) to incude words like: – turds, crap, scum, ninny, gimp, and so on?
Educate myself? Resort to an endless tirade of ad hominem attacks:
– “typical dickhead denialist”
– “You’re a science moron”
– “your ability (and rudimentary sign of any intelligence) to learn by experience is fairly slow”
– “if are able to read past primary school level”
– “your own mental processes (all three neurons) …”
… and that’s just this afternoon.
Didn’t realise your content-free world was this shallow and insecure.
Correction – reading through this drivel I have come to the conclusion that the only one needing to grow up is some turd called “Denialist Scum” and a waste of space called Ian Mott. You deserve each other. I trust all denialists aren’t so childish and stupid. Can’t wait until Denialist Scum and Ian Mott reply with their usual venom and fluff.
OK – I’m sorry scumsy – pls don’t take it personally – I’m sorry – I learnt it from hanging around with Motty and in bad public bars. Motty truly understands the Alarmist greenie commie urban-swill Marxist child-eating economy destroying tree-hugging mind you see – he knows we need tough love – and given he’s nice to me so I look after him, pointing out his very many incorrect ideas and occasional idiotic policy outcomes. And so we have evolved a very clear way of communication so as to not create any misunderstanding. An example of commensalism or phoresy perhaps. Although I’d like to investigate some inquilinism down at Byron.
“Deliver, you slimeball” from Ian, is code for Dear esteemed blog colleague (aka turd, climate scum, neo-Leninist Marxist, boofhead, numb nuts, plodder, govt plant etc) – I am dismayed that you have not taken to to providing me with the requested technical information. Please forward it to me at your convenience (i.e. NOW), so I may use it against you at my next fit of pique. Regards and hope you are well, regards to Phil, best wishes Ian.”
I mean we work for him all day and half the night anyway so a bit more on this hobby issue here won’t hurt.
And that Ian’s technique works – the information will be in his Inbox very soon. I like Motty very much and value his input – so I apologise for being remiss in not attending to the task sooner.
“pls don’t take it personally”
I don’t. I’ve worked with enough loud-mouthed bullies over the years to not be overly concerned with their outbursts of personal abuse and insults.
However – please spare me the empty apology – I don’t have my bucket handy. I think you and I both know that there is little or no chance that your outbursts of personal abuse and insult will not occur again (and again, and again…). So let’s not get too wrapped up in all of this false sincerity – people will think you’re getting soft and losing your edge.
Now – are we done? Can we get back on with it?
Only if you keep it up. But yes continue – I’m waiting for an intelligent comment.
The interesting thing about denialists is that they think they’re the only ones that can go around heaping on insults.
Here’s one for you.
The IBD published a story last September about a report from the Washington Post of July 9, 1971.
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275267681833290&kw=nasa
The IBD story is headlined:
“The ‘Old’ Consensus?”
It leads with:
“On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming.” It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man’s use of fossil fuels.”
It then goes on to say:
“Aiding Rasool’s research, the Post reported, was a “computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen,” who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.”
What’s this??
The AGW Alarmist-in-Chief was actively pushing Global Cooling all those years ago? Is this a blatant case of “model-for-hire”, or didn’t he get a big enough grant from the fossil fuel industry?
Wonder why this one was kept quiet?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/to_rasool.php
But scumsy of more contemporary interest is:
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts – about the Heartland Institute?
29 Apr 08
UPDATE: we have received notes now from 45 outraged scientists whose names appear on the list of 500. We’ve published more quotes here.
Dozens of scientists are demanding that their names be removed from a widely distributed Heartland Institute article entitled 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.
I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.”
Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh
I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.”
Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University
I don’t believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article.”
Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford
Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!”
Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University
I’m outraged that they’ve included me as an “author” of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary.”
How low low low have the denialists sunk now …. tsk tsk tsk … but about what you’d expect.
http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute
I see that this thread is dripping with venomous words.Where is the moderation?
I simply posted an observation that shows the many different cooling trends are ongoing.CO2 is not stopping them at all.
This begs the questions:
Where is all the heat? Why so much cooling so quickly?
Where did all the heat go?
The largest ONE year cooling drop in over 120 years.Why is this significance not considered?
Just another climate realist comment.
Sunset – well if you want to prosecute the argument – give us a solar link that’s not La Nina or PDO related. What’s solar forcing doing?
And read the lead post here on La Nina and PDO – you need to make an adjustment for these events ? How much ?
CO2 is not going to hold up a La Nina event, and you would expect if there is any decreasing solar input that it would feed back into less greenhouse effect also.
Anyway good question – where did all the heat go?
You shouldn’t think that climate science isn’t interested. But analysis doesn’t move that quickly.
Also of interest is Gary Gulrud’s earthshine link on possible albedo changes
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/
Thanks for the links, boy wonder. But there is a dearth of specifics there. Nothing to compare with “Inland thinning of Pine Island Glacier, West Antarctica” A.Shepherd, D.J. Wingham, J.A.D. Mansley, H.F.J. Corr, Science, February 2nd, 2001
at http://www.spri.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/pineislandglacier/figures.html#figure4
“The trunk is bounded laterally by the 200 m yr-1 velocity contour, and streamwise by the grounding line (lower black line) located by Rignot (13) and the intersection of the easternmost tributaries, which coincides roughly with a deep bedrock trough (see Fig. 4A). The greatest elevation change is adjacent to the grounding line, and the thinning is concentrated over fast-flowing ice. Changes beyond the region of fast flow were much smaller.
Note from the third graphic (Fig 3) that the rate of thinning is greatest at the point of highest speed of flow. Note that this highest speed and greatest thinning is at a particular point near the grounding line. It is not, in any way, representative of the flow rate in the rest of the glacier. It is not even representative of the rate of flow over the cross section of the glacial mouth.
Note also, the graphic of the sub-glacial bedrock (Fig 4) which makes it clear that for most of the trunk (the lower 200km) the ice thickness is 2km, of which 1.5km is below sea level. So it would take a total loss of 500m in thickness before this lower section at the glacial mouth will float.
Also note that the current rate of elevation change along the trunk transect, which is consistent with the normal glacial form, involves less than 0.3m each year for most of its length.
If we applied all of that change in elevation as climate related, and assumed that this will continue for more than a millenia, then it will still take in the order of at least 1660 years for the trunk to thin by the 500m needed before it begins to float. And that will only apply to the 1000km2 portion at the glacial mouth. The rest will take a lot longer.
Table S1 is a dearth of specifics ??? Wow ! PIG from Table S1 is going at 2.5 km/yr. I thought you have grooved on the latest (not dated) research using interferometry and such a summary.
And the very simple point is that it’s all most interesting work. The science community is getting bootstrapped in understanding these systems. And still early days. Ripping out a critique based on newspaper articles and not undertaking a review of what is known is unscholarly.
Luke, Luke, Luke. Table S1 may well show the PIG as moving at 2.5km/year but the more detailed mapping reveals this to be only the case over a small part of the cross section. To imply, as both yourself and the research community has done, that this is anywhere near the mean speed at the calving line, is either incompetent or very dishonest.
That Table S1 is highly misleading, if not fraudulent.
It is this very same, very stupid, stunt that the BBC is guilty of when they multiplied this maximum speed at a particular point, by the entire width of the cross section, and by the thickness of the ice mass a hundred Km up glacier, to get a claimed rate of ice discharge that bore no relationship to the truth.
You clearly have a very poorly developed capacity to “read into” a file and the reason for your reluctance to enter into specifics is now quite plain for all to see.
Desperate. About what I expected.
What’s fraudulent is yourself. What sheer arrogance !
Oh look a contour map !
http://nsidc.org/data/velmap/pine_getz/pine86_88/pine_vel.html
How fast was that across the terminus again?
http://earth.esa.int/workshops/ers97/papers/lucchitta/
Gee maybe these guys have some science
http://www-radar.jpl.nasa.gov/glacier/Papers/34A037.pdf
You’re never gonna live this down ! Toodle pip !
Nothing to live down. This stuff merely confirms what I have been saying. The rates at particular points are much faster than for most of the glacier which flows at less than 200m a year. Your aerial photo only covers about 50km of a 400km glacier.
More interesting is a final mention of likely cause that has little to do with either loss of ice mass or global warming.
“Another likely cause is the high precipitation rate, around 300 to 400 mm/yr along the coastal areas of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet [Refs. 19 and 20].”
Yes, the glaciers in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet might just be flowing faster than those in the rest of the continent because the annual precipitation is twice as high. Now why didn’t the purple press ever mention this highly relevant piece of information? Because it would interfere with a good scarenario, thats why.
And this is highly relevant to the issue of reduced ocean salinity. Nothing like double the rainfall to dillute saline water, eh, boy wonder?
Suddenly the rhetoric cools quickly, a few random questions are introduced to cover the retreat. Motty glances nervously over his shoulder. Quietly selects reverse gear and slowly backs up hoping nobody will notice.
The lesson, dear readers, is unscholarly analysis by an unscholar. Motty educational experience #1,267 completed. Mission accomplished. Return to base.
Wonder if an addendum or correction will be applied to his own blog post (aka rant). mmmmmm
And it might be worth checking out the mass balance aspects in the papers with the full two eyes open. Extra precip eh?
Mass balance seems to be something about inputs and outputs. Well isn’t that a surprise eh? Funnily enough perhaps our glaciologists may have even thought of this already ! sheeessh !!
The glacier is losing mass overall says the science. Reason is erosion of the frontal buttress allowing faster flow.
You will also notice some papers show that water can seem to exist under the ice sheet – even though you say it cannot.
Luke, spare us the boorish posturing. You links are entirely consistent with the links I provided. They only differ in the much greater detail provided by mine. People who publish tables that give a single speed for a glacier are clearly trying to mislead. This is especially the case when that published speed is the maximum recorded for a narrow part of the cross section and a short part of a long transect.
Yes, the data on declining mass balance is useful but the missing data on the actual thickness of the ice mass is more relevant. And the facts remain that it is likely to require about 1600 years before the front portion of the glacier begins to float. The remainder will take very much longer still and even then will take longer still to break down due to the topography of the rock base and variation within the up stream cross section.
There may be a few minor changes needed to my own blog post, the most important being the fact that precipitation is so much higher than the Antarctic norm and subject to variation that is fully capable of rendering calculations of mass balance completely redundant.
And I have never said that water could not exist under the ice sheet. What I have said is that the notion that it might perform the function of lubricant is subject to a lot of variables that render the ‘mass collapse’ theories highly improbable.
You’ve been done like a dinner mate.
Gosh, all it takes is for the boy wonder to say something is the case and it becomes true? Dream on little broom stick cowboy.
Mate you have been comprehensively found out talking twaddle yet again.
And you fell for it ! It was 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 and you were wrong. Did you see that contour map on the satellite image. ROTFL – Haven’t had so much fun in years. Oh my sides hurt. A simple apology on your blog will suffice and we shall never talk of it again.
Yes, I did see the contour map on the satellite image of a small portion of the glacier. And the facts remain that the 2.5km/year is the speed of a very small portion of the glacier.
And in light of the likely above average precipitation produced by the PDO over the 1980s and 90’s, it is entirely logical that the subsequent cooling, manifest in recent data, would produce a reduced level of precipitation and a deficit mass balance over the following decade.
No sign of Gore’s “manbearpig” here, boy wonder, just natural cycles at work, as usual.
Nope – they’ve been looking at the precip and mass balance – you might as well give the mock defence away. Table S1 is a completely relevant relative comparison of glacier statistics. And most comprehensive too.
All I have been saying is that the study is very professionally conducted. And a few of these systems are accelerating. Any global extrapolation of impacts is another matter.