Research shows rapid warming on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet

Dec 23, 2012 by Pam Frost Gorder
Researchers at Ohio State University and their colleagues have discovered that the central region of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is experiencing twice as much warming as previously thought. Their analysis of the temperature record from Byrd Station (indicated by a star) sheds some light on temperature changes over a broad portion of the WAIS. This site provides the only long-term temperature observations in the region, far away from the permanent research stations with long-term temperature records (indicated by black circles) that are scattered around the continent -- making a case, the researchers say, for a more robust network of meteorological observations on the WAIS. On this map, the color intensity indicates areas around Antarctica that are likely experiencing comparable warming to Byrd Station. Credit: Image by Julien Nicolas, courtesy of Ohio State University.

In a discovery that raises further concerns about the future contribution of Antarctica to sea level rise, a new study finds that the western part of the ice sheet is experiencing nearly twice as much warming as previously thought.

The from Byrd Station, a scientific outpost in the center of the West (WAIS), demonstrates a marked increase of 4.3 (2.4 degrees Celsius) in average since 1958—that is, three times faster than the average temperature rise around the globe.

This temperature increase is nearly double what previous research has suggested, and reveals—for the first time—warming trends during the summer months of the (December through February), said David Bromwich, professor of geography at Ohio State University and senior research scientist at the Byrd Polar Research Center.

The findings were published online this week in the journal Nature Geoscience.

"Our record suggests that continued summer warming in could upset the surface mass balance of the , so that the region could make an even bigger contribution to sea level rise than it already does," said Bromwich.

"Even without generating significant directly, surface melting on the WAIS could contribute to sea level indirectly, by weakening the West that restrain the region's natural ice flow into the ocean."

Study shows rapid warming on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
Henry Brecher, Ohio State University, research associate (now retired) at Byrd Polar Research Center, took this picture in winter 1959-1960. The sign reads: "Astronomical Position Observed Here." Credit: Photo by Henry Brecher, courtesy of Ohio State University.

Andrew Monaghan, study co-author and scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), said that these findings place West Antarctica among the fastest-warming regions on Earth.

"We've already seen enhanced surface melting contribute to the breakup of the Antarctic's Larsen B Ice Shelf, where glaciers at the edge discharged massive sections of ice into the ocean that contributed to sea level rise," Monaghan said. "The stakes would be much higher if a similar event occurred to an ice shelf restraining one of the enormous WAIS glaciers."

Researchers consider the WAIS especially sensitive to climate change, explained Ohio State University doctoral student Julien Nicolas. Since the base of the ice sheet rests below sea level, it is vulnerable to direct contact with warm ocean water. Its melting currently contributes 0.3 mm to rise each year—second to Greenland, whose contribution to has been estimated as high as 0.7 mm per year.

Due to its location some 700 miles from the South Pole and near the center of the WAIS, Byrd Station is an important indicator of climate change throughout the region.

In the past, researchers haven't been able to make much use of the Byrd Station measurements because the data was incomplete; nearly one third of the temperature observations were missing for the time period of the study. Since its establishment in 1957, the station hasn't always been occupied. A year-round automated station was installed in 1980, but it has experienced frequent power outages, especially during the long polar night, when its solar panels can't recharge.

Bromwich and two of his graduate students, along with colleagues from NCAR and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, corrected the past Byrd temperature measurements and used corrected data from a computer atmospheric model and a numerical analysis method to fill in the missing observations.

Aside from offering a more complete picture of warming in West Antarctica, the study suggests that if this warming trend continues, melting will become more extensive in the region in the future, Bromwich said.

While the researchers work to fully understand the cause of the summer warming at Byrd Station, the next step is clear, he added.

"West Antarctica is one of the most rapidly changing regions on Earth, but it is also one of the least known," he said. "Our study underscores the need for a reliable network of meteorological observations throughout West Antarctica, so that we can know what is happening—and why—with more certainty."

Explore further: Citizen scientists saving lives around deadly 'Throat of Fire' volcano

More information: DOI: 10.1038/ngeo1671

Related Stories

More ice loss through snowfall on Antarctica

Dec 12, 2012

Stronger snowfall increases future ice discharge from Antarctica. Global warming leads to more precipitation as warmer air holds more moisture – hence earlier research suggested the Antarctic ice sheet ...

Warm sea water is melting Antarctic glaciers

Dec 06, 2012

The ice sheet in West Antarctica is melting faster than expected. New observations published by oceanographers from the University of Gothenburg and the US may improve our ability to predict future changes in ice sheet mass. ...

Warming oceans threaten Antarctic glaciers

Mar 15, 2007

Scientists have identified four Antarctic glaciers that pose a threat to future sea levels using satellite observations, according to a study published in the journal Science.

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melting, rate unknown

Feb 16, 2009

The Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets are melting, but the amounts that will melt and the time it will take are still unknown, according to Richard Alley, Evan Pugh professor of geosciences, Penn State.

Warming ocean could start big shift of Antarctic ice

Sep 19, 2012

(Phys.org)—Fast-flowing and narrow glaciers have the potential to trigger massive changes in the Antarctic ice sheet and contribute to rapid ice-sheet decay and sea-level rise, a new study has found.

Recommended for you

NASA sees Tropical Storm Karina get a boost

21 hours ago

NASA's TRMM satellite saw Tropical Storm Karina get a boost on August 22 in the form of some moderate rainfall and towering thunderstorms in the center of the storm.

User comments : 84

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VendicarD
Dec 23, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
seenitb4
2.8 / 5 (22) Dec 23, 2012
So he altered the past data " corrected the past Byrd temperature measurements" to fit in with his model " used corrected data from a computer atmospheric model" and got the answer he sought. This does not fill me with confidence given its vast variation from the pattern of the uncorrected readings at every permanent station on the continent. It would be interesting to see what his model shows for them.
Howhot
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2012
Typical of AGW warming. Man-made global warming heating up the place. No models needed, it is just AGW.

NotParker
2.3 / 5 (28) Dec 23, 2012
"Much of the warming discovered in the new paper happened in the 1980s"

30 years ago

"average annual temperatures in the center of the ice sheet that are nearly 50 degrees Fahrenheit below freezing."

Not much melting going on.

http://www.nytime...cv0&
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (27) Dec 23, 2012
So he altered the past data " corrected the past Byrd temperature measurements" to fit in with his model " used corrected data from a computer atmospheric model" and got the answer he sought. This does not fill me with confidence given its vast variation from the pattern of the uncorrected readings at every permanent station on the continent. It would be interesting to see what his model shows for them.
Well said.

Anda
2.5 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2012
Yeah, the results are simulated by a computer but even if they aren't right, you'd better learn to swim if you live on the coast.
gregor1
2 / 5 (21) Dec 23, 2012
Strange the Satellite data missed this.
http://earthobser...?id=6502
james_h_hoffman
2 / 5 (20) Dec 23, 2012
new flash source u.s.a air force. all planets in are solar system are getting hotter due to a rise in solar output(a.k.a sun getting hotter).
XQZME
1.9 / 5 (22) Dec 24, 2012
This sounds similar to the previous reports that were proven to be intentional fraud.
On Sep. 12 2012 Antarctic sea ice set another record for the largest amount ever recorded according to satellite measurements.
http://www.forbes...-record/
Yarking_Dawg
3.4 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2012
Stretch Deniers Stretch
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2012
The peer reviewed scientific paper can be found here.

http://www.nature...671.html

The Republican response can be found here...

http://www.youtub...mp;gl=CA

Pity for the Republicans that Daffy lost the election.
VendicarD
3.6 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2012
Poor TardBoy. He just can't figure out that warmer arctic weather means more sea ice as 1: ice flows off the continent, and 2: snow falling on the ocean creates a layer of fresh water that is more prone to freezing.

"On Sep. 12 2012 Antarctic sea ice set another record" - XQZMETard

Tardie boy has been told this before, and yet he persists in his lie.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (17) Dec 24, 2012
Now how can that be possible when Denialist tards have been claiming for years that the earth has been cooling since 1998?

"new flash source u.s.a air force. all planets in are solar system are getting hotter " - James-H-Tard

Are you accusing these denialists of being Liars?

By the way, provide a reference to your source.

We all know you are lying.

NotParker
2 / 5 (25) Dec 24, 2012
The peer reviewed scientific paper can be found here.


The supplemental data has graphs. Page 19.

No warming since 1988.

http://www.nature...1-s1.pdf
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2012
This sounds similar to the previous reports that were proven to be intentional fraud.

It does seem to be too pronounced to be true. I take it they mean surface temperatures-it must mean weather fronts are not able to cool down like they did before. Interesting.
A key element is the huge glacial ice cubes, I mean glacial ice bergs, breaking off. They don't grow on trees you know.
VendicarD
Dec 24, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
VendicarD
Dec 24, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
VendicarD
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 24, 2012
Poor Tardie. No model was used.

The result is based on statistical interpolation and additional data from automatic weather stations in the region who's data has been statistically "filled in" to produce a viable, complete, time series.

"So he altered the past data " corrected the past Byrd temperature measurements" to fit in with his model" - B4Tard

How sad for you that ice borehole temperature measurements support the view of rapid temperature rise in that region.

I guess you believe that a borehole fairy has been flittering about in the boreholes with a lighter to provide false temperature measurements.

Ahahahahaha... You Poor Tard.
VendicarD
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 24, 2012
Here is an interesting speech before congress.

http://www.youtub...cCmTvt_o

These Democrats are clearly quite honest and intelligent.

dav_daddy
2 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2012
And also there is poor satellite coverage over the poles.

You did know these facts, didn't you?



I find this incredibly hard to believe seeing as how the vast majority of Earth observing satellites are launched into a polar orbit.

These Democrats are clearly quite honest and intelligent.


Your wisdom is exceeded only by your naivety and ignorance.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 24, 2012
Steve Goddard is on the case, properly:

http://stevengodd...ing-hot/

plaasjaapie
2.1 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2012
It's worth noting that the summer average temperature at Byrd Station is 14 F. There's got to be a LOT of melting going on at that elevated temperature. A lot of misleading warmist propaganda like the screed above is more likely.
NotParker
2 / 5 (22) Dec 24, 2012
The peer reviewed scientific paper can be found here.


The supplemental data has graphs. Page 19.

No warming since 1988.

http://www.nature...1-s1.pdf


The Annual graph shows no warming since 1988.

So much for the AGW cult.

All of the warming occurred when Byrd had human occupants all year round. Once the bases was abandoned for most the of the year it stopped warming.

All that heat leaking from human habitation and vehicles made it appear to warm.

NeutronicallyRepulsive
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2012
NotParker: It was ALW. Anthropogenic Local Warming. :D
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (22) Dec 24, 2012


All of the warming occurred when Byrd had human occupants all year round. Once the bases was abandoned for most the of the year it stopped warming.

All that heat leaking from human habitation and vehicles made it appear to warm.



"Differential settling of the sled-mounted berthing module, caused by heat radiating from the galley (and probably the proximity of the camp's wastewater outfall to the sleds), had caused minor structural damage to the galley and bathroom unit.

By the 1988-89 season, however, differential settling was causing a host of problems — doors didn't fit correctly in frames and floors buckled between the units."

Highest recorded temperature: -0.8C (31F) in January 1961

http://antarctics...?id=1794
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (21) Dec 24, 2012
Sane People: "Read the Supplemental Evidence and do a little research"

AGW Cult: "Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie"
khunter1
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2012
anybody notice Erebus is right across the bay? anybody check the geothermals?
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (19) Dec 24, 2012
According to the supplemental graph, in 1980 Annual Temperatures averaged -24C.

Over the last 10 years the temperature averaged -26C.

Thats 2C COLDER than the 1980 peak which has never been surpassed.

In 2007 it was 4.5C COLDER than 1980.
FrankHerbert
3.1 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2012
You don't understand statistics, do you?

You are comparing one year's average to an average of 10 years.

Compare the average of 1970-1980 to the last 10 years and see what you come up with.

Also, climate change refers to GLOBAL temperatures, not polar temperatures like your example.

I did find your elusive supplemental graph, and it's quite obvious from a quick glance that the average between the last 10 years of the graph is significantly higher than the average between 1970-1980.

[faulty logic]Also, we haven't had temperatures as low as 1960! Obviously we are warming![/fault logic]
djr
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 24, 2012
Evil scientists - seeing the data record was incomplete - they want to set up a more reliable and complete set of monitoring stations. How stupid do they think we are? We understand their games......
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (19) Dec 24, 2012
You don't understand statistics, do you?

You are comparing one years average to an average of 10 years.

Compare the average of 1970-1980 to the last 10 years and see what you come up with.


The trend is flat from 1988 on in the same way global temperatures are flat from 1997 on .... except 24 years is longer than 16 years.

Yet CO2 continued to rise.
FrankHerbert
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 24, 2012
No you clearly said you compared the last 10 years to 1980. Not a 10-year-period including 1980 to the last 10 years.

Do that and let me know what you come up with.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (19) Dec 24, 2012
No you clearly said you compared the last 10 years to 1980.


Well, 1980 according to the "data" is still the warmest year.

Not 1990. or 2000 or 2010.

One reporting station with one sensor, later discovered to have become defective, whose record is intermittent over the period of the study.

And still no warming for 24 years.
FrankHerbert
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 24, 2012
So there is insufficient data to make an adequate comparison, but not for you to pull facts out of your ass?

I'm getting the feeling you never actually checked the main source and just got some talking points from a conservative/fascist blog.

Well, 1980 according to the "data" is still the warmest year.


You clearly don't understand the concept of average. I found this http://www.kidsma...ode.html
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (22) Dec 24, 2012
No you clearly said you compared the last 10 years to 1980.


Well, 1980 according to the "data" is still the warmest year.

Not 1990. or 2000 or 2010.

One reporting station with one sensor, later discovered to have become defective, whose record is intermittent over the period of the study.

And still no warming for 24 years.
You/your denialist mates 'science-game' and lie about the data/graphs/models, but there's one 'dataset' and 'model' of the TREND globally even you/your denialist Lobby/Shill mates cannot skew/lie...ie, REAL TIME and REAL LIVE data and models manifest as the planet's Flora and Fauna!

While you deny reality (just like hypocritical/lying Republicans-Conservatives have been doing so much of for some time now in order to sway the same gullible sheep you are trying to fleece), these are migrating North/South and Up Mountains and into previously 'too cold' ocean waters, you silly shill, stop your by now transparent agenda of lying/lobbying.
NoEvidenceForAGW_YouBas
1.4 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2012
NotParker: The GW is reality. However AGW is another story, not proven in my opinion. That said, we don't even know about the future effects of GW on this planet. We can only see the examples of extremes, like Venus's harsh weather. GW is not even manifesting as expected (first cooling, then warming, now just extremes). Nothing can be predicted, but the humans will just have to adapt to whatever comes. No need to spend money to prevent CO2, because it is a fear tactics to gain money anyway, and money are spent indeed. So we got no change in CO2, pointless market with CO2 allowances, and the billions being spent. Thanks AGW believers, you puppets.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (24) Dec 24, 2012
NotParker: The GW is reality. However AGW is another story, not proven in my opinion. That said, we don't even know about the future effects of GW on this planet. We can only see the examples of extremes, like Venus's harsh weather. GW is not even manifesting as expected (first cooling, then warming, now just extremes). Nothing can be predicted, but the humans will just have to adapt to whatever comes. No need to spend money to prevent CO2, because it is a fear tactics to gain money anyway, and money are spent indeed. So we got no change in CO2, pointless market with CO2 allowances, and the billions being spent. Thanks AGW believers, you puppets.


Moneys from such will support efficient/clean alternative fuels/economies which are needed anyway when fossil fuels become too expensive and needed for chemical/plastic etc feedstock. It makes sense no matter how we look at it. Man-released CO2 (and more Methane as clathrate stores warm) affects global climate. Silly to deny it.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2012

All of the warming occurred when Byrd had human occupants all year round. Once the bases was abandoned for most the of the year it stopped warming.

All that heat leaking from human habitation and vehicles made it appear to warm.

"Differential settling of the sled-mounted berthing module, caused by heat radiating from the galley (and probably the proximity of the camp's wastewater outfall to the sleds), had caused minor structural damage to the galley and bathroom unit.

By the 1988-89 season, however, differential settling was causing a host of problems — doors didn't fit correctly in frames and floors buckled between the units."


Would you like to demonstrate that the temperature sensors were close enough to the habitation modules to cause this contamination ?
NoEvidenceForAGW_YouBas
1.4 / 5 (20) Dec 24, 2012
RealityCheck: It is a leftist idea of market deformation to cut the bad oil companies, and help good alternative fuels even though they cannot yet stand on their own legs. Europe should be a warning. The bio-fuels turned disaster, a solar power was used to suck money out of EU tit, and now even the governments are scared. This is madness. It should be left to market. When it is time for the oil to go, it will. But trying to speed it up, or artificially "help" market by AGW proponents and other green fools is ruining economies. Man-released CO2 affects global climate, sure, but ever so slightly it is not the reason for GW. We don't know the exact cause!
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (23) Dec 24, 2012
It's the crooks, not the solutions, which are the problem. Let's concentrate on getting rid of the crooks instead of badmouthing the sensible efforts/solutions. Besides, this is a transitional period only. The longterm efforts/solutions are yet to come to the fore because of all the crooks and denialists sabotaging the serious conversation we need to have based on the reality. If we wait until the fossil fuels "run out" or 'become prohibitively expensive" before we prepare for the crisis, then it will cost much more and we will suffer terrible costs/catastrophes in the lead-up to that crisis-point action trigger as you suggest. Better to prepare for the (either way) inevitable asap, than to act too late. Like you say, this is unusual and unpredictable. Who knows when it will be too late for anything at all? If govt hadn't intervened to prevent chemical/exhaust etc pollution/poisoning environment, we would all be mutants/dead by now! Cheers and have a safe and enjoyable holidays, mate!
NoEvidenceForAGW_YouBas
1.4 / 5 (18) Dec 24, 2012
It's the crooks in the system, not the solutions, which are the problem. Let's concentrate on getting rid of the crooks instead of badmouthing the sensible efforts/solutions. Besides, this is a transitional period only.


That's exactly how communist regime got started. It wasn't just a transitional period, they were getting rid of the "crooks", for the rest of the regime lifetime. It was a totality. No kidding. But I know you didn't mean it (no sarcasm). It is not just crooks, it's the bending of market, that does this.

And if we wait until the fossil fuels "run out" or 'become prohibitively expensive" before we prepare for the crisis, then it will cost..


Yes, we should wait, and don't panic. I agree we should get prepared, instead of nonsensical CO2 allowance market, made up by the green crazies. And instead of throwing money on the renewable resources, we should get ready for the GW effects, as they'll start to become more clear what they are.

Enjoy the holidays too.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (23) Dec 24, 2012
Hey, steady on, mate. We are talking of DEMOCRACIES here, not old communist/fascist scenarios. People power and people interests and open scientific and economic information/processes will dictate what happens, not some king/tyrant or cabal from the nasty past you may have experienced. It's NOW not THEN. The internet and the overwhelming information/science exchange thereby will not allow the 'old orders' to keep people forever in the dark and fed bullsh!t as before in fascist/communist systems which had no alternative sources of information or any power AS people. Don't let old sores prevent you moving with the times/necessities and reasonable processes/solutions which must be considered NOW in light of what is the reality NOW, economically, politically and scientifically in the age of the internet and instant global communication/sharing of info. Cheers....and don't be so negative about humanity's ability to outgrow old habits and systems which cannot return as long as we take care!
NoEvidenceForAGW_YouBas
1.2 / 5 (17) Dec 24, 2012
Cont.: I know it is obvious now, that the financial support for renewable resource ahead its time was a bad solution in EU. But I was telling that even before that. In the US they're just buying all the CO2 bonds they can lay hands on. I was telling this ahead of time also. The only disappointment is, that so many people believe AGW. It is so easy to scare population including quite few scientists (not many of those actually studying the in a field luckily). It really got me depressed. It's the oldest trick in the bag, goddamned: "You'll burn in hell, so you better repent, you sinners!" or rather its updated version: "The humans will perish due to GW, so you better repent, you CO2 sinner!" There's a evidence for GW, but the AGW twist was hijacked by green movements to gain power. Well, you can't force nature to pay you money on itself. You need a guilt, and only humans can be scared in to a corner to pay, animals, plants, or rocks don't care.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (19) Dec 24, 2012

Would you like to demonstrate that the temperature sensors were close enough to the habitation modules to cause this contamination ?


Sure.

http://www.tandfo....9925097

"Then, as now, scientists working and living away from a research station had to melt snow to have water for drinking, cooking, and personal hygiene. The average temperature in Antarctica is usually below the freezing/melting point. On the traverse, the team used a lightweight stove, called a plumber's stove, to melt snow quickly. Because Antarctic snow is often quite dry and filled with air, the team often kept some liquid water to use as a starter and make the melting faster.

At Byrd Station, a snow melter was powered by heat from the diesel generator. Everyone took a turn shoveling snow into the opening, depending on how much water he had used. It was just part of daily life at the station. When you used some water, you went out and shoveled awhile."
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (24) Dec 24, 2012
NoEvidenceForAGW: PS: Who's panicking? Only the shrill/lying denialists say that. To buy us more time, all sensible efforts/solutions must be explored as we gear up for the longterm efforts/solutions. If we do nothing then surely the tipping point will come sooner and whatever we do will be too little too late THEN. Don't panic. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater when we try to clean out the crooks and the denialists from the conversations/solutions/efforts. Ok? And cheer up, it's never as bad as one thinks....UNLESS we do nothing and wait for circumstances to roll over us! Hey? Cheers and best wishes to you and yours, and everyone, for a safe and 'more positive mindset' New Year, mate!
NoEvidenceForAGW_YouBas
1.2 / 5 (17) Dec 24, 2012
RealityCheck: You wouldn't believe how quickly can a country be turned into a communist country. There's no expiration date for an ideology. By saying that there is no problem with system (for example communist utopia), it's just bad people (those who don't share the communistic idea), and we just get rid of those, and the system will be working perfectly is a fallacy. It won't. If the system is such, that it allows for natural human behavior (to use whatever means for their gain), the misuse will never end. Well, unless the system changes, or it will be getting rid of those people until it is overthrown. Same goes for this unnatural system of preference of renewable resources, it failed, and it will fail everywhere. Unless one, and one condition only is satisfied: the market demand.

Otherwise I literally think that NOTHING will happen, the climate will shift a bit, people will learn to deal with it, no big deal. By panic I mean throwing money at CO2 control and renewable sources.
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (24) Dec 24, 2012
@NoEvidenceForAGW: Yes, I know what you mean. But it's not as easy as you make it sound. No 'extreme' govt can last long in this day of people power and free/immediate communication/information over the internet. Also the world has been 'globalised' by necessity and common goals of democracy/people power and market pressures (good and bad). Even CHINA and RUSSIA can never return to stalinist dictatorship because its peoples expect more from their govt today than ever in the past. And as for 'leave it to the market', it's ok where there is a 'market' free of crooks, but there isn't. So govts have to step in to initiate/direct long-term and immediate efforts for the greater good rather than for the benefit of the 'marketeers' immediate profits at the expense of everyone else and the future. It's not the last century, it's this century. The Arab Spring shows people are no longer content to suffer ANY sort of tyrannical system (be it communist, fascist or religionist) for long! Bye!
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (23) Dec 24, 2012
PS: "Learn to deal with it"? That's ok if you live somewhere where there is a safe option, or any option at all. But if the tipping point is reached, it may become a 'bigger deal' than you think. Also the spread of disease/vectors to ever larger range as the warming continues will make for some pretty drastic 'adjustments' by those affected. Then there is all the costs of unceasing storms affecting crops, transportation, land erosion/flooding/desertification etc etc. And acidification of oceans affecting food chains and fishstocks will come home to roost soon enough for everyone. It's not as 'mild' and as 'black and white' as you make it all sound. It's going to be messy and horrible for more than "just a few low-lying areas and that's all". And it will be messier and more catastrophic if we act like bunnies caught in the glare of the headlights while circumstances roll over us. It's prudent to try every reasonable effort/solution, for more than just GW amelioration. Cheers!
NoEvidenceForAGW_YouBas
1.4 / 5 (19) Dec 24, 2012
RealityCheck: Remember, I still don't buy that humans are responsible. So they would've to change anyway. That's the same (for example) as when the Greenland frozen again. People just have to deal with that. That's just life. Nothing lasts forever. The fish stocks are being depleted due to overfishing - no need to even invoke GW. I think it won't be that messy as painted by you. So we can agree to disagree on this point.

It's prudent to try every reasonable effort..


I don't think it is a good idea to try all the solutions. Some are pointless, and invoked only for the purpose of sucking money out of it. My opinion is that AGW people are like suckers scared by a fake threat to buy an useless insurance policy. I consider it a long con. In 70's people were afraid that by the year 2000, there won't be any trees. Didn't happen either.

FrankHerbert: What's your beef, boy? Look at what the local rating system did to you. Rate like your life depends on it! Fight, boy, fight!
Jeddy_Mctedder
1 / 5 (15) Dec 24, 2012
A few tsar bombas and we can melt the entire shelf or catck up the pieces into the ocean...... 10, 50 megaton bombs placed under the ice at the weakest fault line will do the trick. And help destroy this fice
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
At Byrd Station, a snow melter was powered by heat from the diesel generator. Everyone took a turn shoveling snow into the opening, depending on how much water he had used. It was just part of daily life at the station. When you used some water, you went out and shoveled awhile."

Yes obviously they used heat to melt snow etc. But implying that that caused excess heating within the stevenson screen is not credible looking at the photo of the installation. The Screen is plainly many yards from the habitation huts. We are not talking heat from concrete runways and jet engine wash here - that produced by stoves and even a diesel engine would be infinitesimal at that distance given that the heat would go straight up virtually anyway in such a frigid climate at, say 40C, maybe 60C differential. Again basic meteorology never seems to figure in your arguments.
VendicarD
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
According to ParkerTard a single year's tempreature can be used as a valid start to a statistically significant trend line.

"According to the supplemental graph, in 1980 Annual Temperatures averaged -24C." - ParkerTard

This of course is 1/2 of the same failure as picking two data points, drawing a line between them and claiming that this is a valid trend line.

Poor ParkerTard. He has been gone 3 months and returns with the same cherry picking idiocy he was spouting when he left.

He is mentally diseased.

VendicarD
4 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
Poor ParkerTard. Because if his mental disease, he doesn't exist in the reality based community.

Here are the global temperatures since 1997. I note an upward trend of 0.1'C per over the period.

ParkerTard claims zero.

"The trend is flat from 1988 on in the same way global temperatures are flat from 1997" - ParkerTard

ParkerTard was a well known congenital liar when he left 3 months ago.

He returns as the same Congenital Liar today.

He is mentally diseased.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2012
Poor ParkerTard. When asked to provide evidence that the base station altered temperatures around the base, he responds with the following quote...

"Then, as now, scientists working and living away from a research station had to melt snow to have water for drinking, cooking, and personal hygiene."

He appears oblivious to the words "working and living away from the research station", that appear in his quote and show that they are referring to conditions where researchers work and live away from the research station."

ParkerTard isn't a particularly effective Liar.

But he is clearly suffering from a mental disease.

VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2012
You only find it hard to believe because you don't know what a polar orbit is.

Hint: It doesn't mean that the satellite orbits directly over the north and south poles.

"I find this incredibly hard to believe seeing as how the vast majority of Earth observing satellites are launched into a polar orbit." - gay_daddy

If it did, then there would be no effective torque on the satellite and it's orbit could not be made to precess.

Note the cos(i) in the formula found here.

http://en.wikiped...ecession
VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (11) Dec 25, 2012
Here is a new Kotch Brother funded production from the Heritage Foundation just broadcast on Faux News.

https://www.youtu...cxF26ev0
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (19) Dec 25, 2012
Hi NoEvidenceForAGW.
RealityCheck: Remember, I still don't buy that humans are responsible. So they would've to change anyway.

The fish stocks are being depleted due to overfishing - no need to even invoke GW.

I don't think it is a good idea to try all the solutions.


Changes were never as sudden (100yrs). Face it, man has affected many natural cycles/balances, not just present ones.

I myself have posted long since about overfishing, especially of pelagic (open ocean) species which would otherwise fertilize open ocean waters with their feces and maintain increased algae/zooplankton to feed increased pelagic fishstocks. AGW is one more man-created detrimental effect on foodchain/fishstocks.

I said "every reasonable effort", not "all".

Don't despair or get distracted. Just look at what the 'living model' is telling us as flora and fauna move North/South, up mountains and into 'previously too cold' waters.

Cheer up. We can do it! Have a safe and happy holidays, mate!

VendicarD
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2012
This is interesting....

https://sites.goo...rnd4.png

Arctic sea ice volume continues to be a million cubic kilometers less than last year.

Where is the "dramatic recovery" that the Denialists were lying about?

Shinobiwan Kenobi
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2012
A few tsar bombas and we can melt the entire shelf or catck up the pieces into the ocean...... 10, 50 megaton bombs placed under the ice at the weakest fault line will do the trick. And help destroy this fice


Another Gold-Star comment from Jeddy_McDerper <3 <3 =^-^=

When your pick-up overheats do you place a hand-grenade in the radiator?
VendicarD
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2012
Anybody notice that "right across the bay" = 924 miles (1,500 km) away?

"anybody notice Erebus is right across the bay? " - Khunter1

Do you intend to remain a moron for the rest of your life Khunter?
VendicarD
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2012
Some people just can't think long, or hard enough to realize that continued emissions of CO2 = continued warming.

There is no real practical limit to the amount of warming that can be produced, up to and including converting the Earth to a Venus like state where the surface of the earth is the temperature of molten lead.

"Otherwise I literally think that NOTHING will happen," - NoEvidenceTard

Existing emission scenario's put the amount of heating at the end of this century at somewhere around 3'C. Given the thermal enertia of the oceans, if CO2 emissions were halted at that point - reduced to zero - then the earth would continue to warm by another 3'C due to the rise in ocean temperatures.

6'C is the temperature difference roughly between the minimum of the last ice age and present temperatures.

Imagine a world where every summer day is 6'C on average hotter than now.

It is a mass extinction environment, that we are 1/4 the way to realizing.
NoEvidenceForAGW_YouBas
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2012
VendicarD: Nothing will happen (by nothing I mean only natural changes due to GW, we should, and we will adapt to those). China and US is ignoring the green movements (and CO2 emissions) anyway. So we probably will go through this scenario. You remind me of those anti-islamic propaganda guys, that in 2050 we'll be all muslims in EU, or something like that. Because the reality is linear, the nature is a linear behavior system, suuure. That's probably the only thing your brain is capable of understanding: "Me scared of GW, me think linear!" I still think the major GG is water vapor, and GW is caused by complex mix of causes. GG and some inherit instabilities in the nature which always shifts to a new point. Oxygen in the atmosphere was created by bacteria, not humans for example. Oh, how dare they! They've ruined the planet. Oh well, they actually allowed us to exist. So the same to you: No evidence, tard!

P.S.: Oh, and my nick name is NoEvidenceForAGW_YouBas not NoEvidence. You tard!
tadchem
1 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2012
I would rather have seen a wide-area photograph of the measurement site, given that 70% of USHCN stations (United States Historical Climate Network) sited within the US have been rated as "Poor" or worse according to NOAA criteria
www1.ncdc.noaa.go...ntD0.pdf
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (18) Dec 26, 2012
Hi NoEvidenceForAGW.
Nothing will happen (by nothing I mean only natural changes due to GW, we should, and we will adapt to those). China and US is ignoring the green movements (and CO2 emissions) anyway. So we probably will go through this scenario.

...
That is defeatist talk. Benefits of finding solutions will remove our (and China/India et al also) reliance on burning increasingly expensive and non-renewable dirty fossil fuels. This will bring on a new and more sustainable global economy, and more/better jobs/choices for humanity in future. Buying more time by whatever reasonable means we have at our immediate/intermediate term disposal while we get to those solutions (for more reasons than the AGW costs/damage) will be what we humans have to do in any case. Better to start sooner than too late, hey? Better for humanity to forge our own destiny than to let denial of reality doom us to a fate which may not be as 'mild' as you hope. Be positive. Be part of the solution, ok!
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2012
Haha, "NoEvidenceForAGW" even the name is a contradiction in terms. An Oxymoron. No Evidence... Haha stupid igmo is all I can think of.

Oh sorry, I should be more serious, but really China and USA don't care about global warming, are you a fool or what? It's super serious problem and you a fool if you think it is not right up there the top 10 major concerns. How will industry function in 10 year if AGW induced droughts reduce food supplies to ration levels.

Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2012
People like me in Jamaica understand the global warming trends. Physics can be used to predict many things, and computer models are good project out into the future. I'm going to change my name to SomeEvidenceForAGW.
NoEvidenceForAGW_YouBas
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 27, 2012
RealityCheck: I repeat again, I can't support leftist deformations of the energy market just because they've created a virtual threat: "You better deform the market.. otherwise.. you're doomed! How? We don't know! Prepare!" As I said, EU has shown perfectly, that alternative fuels are not ready, and are being pushed too early. This is not a REASONABLE solution you are calling for. In EU we already did what in US are still people fighting for, but we even failed already. Biofuels = fail, solar panels = fail, wind = pending.

You still see GW as a imminent danger. Can you please describe what you think will happen, we won't be able to adapt to?

Howhot: Sorry, I don't have time to react properly to your bullshit. The US and China probably have GW as a top ten problem, but that's it. They do little about it. And I am glad they prepare only for the realistic threats, not some vague general threats of AGW. You don't even understand what oxymoron is, find and learn the definition, moron!
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 27, 2012
Watts Up With That finally debunked it:

http://wattsupwit...-fix-it/
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 27, 2012
All of the warming occurred when Byrd had human occupants all year round. Once the bases was abandoned for most the of the year it stopped warming.

All that heat leaking from human habitation and vehicles made it appear to warm.


So a little bit of heat in as cold and big a place as the Antarctic skewed results, yet huge emissions of heat in the rest of the world have no effect? (Cordially) Which side are you arguing?
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (11) Dec 27, 2012
You still see GW as a imminent danger. Can you please describe what you think will happen, we won't be able to adapt to?
-NoAGW
In some sense you're right, GW has been occurring since we started releasing massive amounts of heat, and the result? It is all around you, all the time. No big deal, more AC in the Summer, right?
The problem is this: When the ice caps are all gone/ unable to sink the heat we are generating, we'll run into the runaway greenhouse effect, Earth (as opposed to Venus) style. And dinosaurs (this time meaning humans) will again rule the Earth.
PS Could we please stop calling each other morons? I imagine those most interested in the subject have no interest in being belittled over it, especially, when, the belittler is usually the one overcompensating. Polite enough? Thx.
NoEvidenceForAGW_YouBas
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 27, 2012
The Alchemist: Few points:

1) Melt ice caps => runaway greenhouse effect. The implication is dreamed up. No evidence.

2) I'm saying that we are not able to stop it, because we're tiny part of the cause (no AGW's the nickname). Therefore describing the effects (moreover ill supported) is pointless. I know the GW is at work. Even though still nobody was able to tell me:

Can you please describe what you think will happen, we won't be able to adapt to?


Note: Imagine 'tards' instead of 'morons' if you consider it more polite. I don't care about being insulted by village idiots like VendicarD, but I'll continue to insult the other side as long as it will be insulting me and others. So be fair, and talk to such of VendicarD about overcompensation. I tend to behave to people as they behave towards me. So suck it and see, morons.
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 27, 2012
Can you please describe what you think will happen, we won't be able to adapt to?


If you mean humans surviving "somewhere" on the planet, then the answer is humans can adapt.

If you mean without heavy loss of life and infrastructure, the answer is no, humans can't adapt.

If the temperatures rise by the upper end of the IPCC predictions, droughts will cut severely into U.S. crop production by 2100, and those 3 to 11 feet of permanent mean sea level rise will severely damage all world coastal infrastructure and totally inundate many, many cities and coastal farming and fishing communities.

New Orleans, Tampa Bay, Miami, Galveston, Parts of New York City and many other Gulf coast and east coast areas will be annihilated...and the U.S. may actually get it easy compared to parts of Europe and Asia.

The cost of permanently evacuating, then re-making or "moving" a megalopolis and it's infrastructure is several trillions of dollars.
NoEvidenceForAGW_YouBas
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 27, 2012
Lurker2358: Thank you for answering.

1) We'll have almost hundred years to slowly prepare for it. Where needed. So for example US should strip money away from the overblown military budget, and start to analyze the situation, and start to plan. Because GW is coming.

2) If it is our planet the green movements are concerned with, they should ignore their distaste for nuclear energy, and we should embrace it. To replace fossil fuels. But what we see is the true face of those movements. They only want to do it via renewable energy, and they're irrationally against the nuclear energy. Even though the market spits the renewables out undigested.

3) We should spend more money on fusion energy research, and science in general.

But we should stop pushing the renewable energy, just because people are scared of GW, and think it's cool. You can't force the market to accept it before it's time. The green movements are missing any economic sense. We're losing money doing "green solutions".
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2012
I'm saying that we are not able to stop it, because we're tiny part of the cause (no AGW's the nickname). Therefore describing the effects (moreover ill supported) is pointless. I know the GW is at work.

Interesting denier position, there is GW but it's not caused by mankind, it's not AGW. If you *believe* that AGW is not the cause of GW, then it is your burden to prove an alternative, otherwise your *belief* is nothing more than self-delusion. Self-delusion is a common problem with the deniers, Unfortunately the self-delusional deniers try to push their attempts to explain as facts to the unsuspected. That is they are lying to make a false statement that supports their own self-delusion. Typical of the tea-party class, so wrapped in there own BS, that they have to lie anything that opposes that point of view.

CO2 is 398ppm, and in the last 50 years, has increased 2ppm/yr. This is atmospheric CO2 levels. That is 31.6 Gigatons of CO2 from burning fossil fuels!
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (9) Dec 27, 2012
Evidence, sure, but like ancient Roman lawyers used to say, "what would you like me to prove?" There is so much "evidence" on both sides, well, you need to start with facts and build to reality.
My conjecture is from a predictive model that is based on the poles melting. The model has worked flawlessly since it was created, 1986. But you do have a point, the model stops working, or at least needs an overhaul when the poles are melted. Even so, the argument may be a definitional one: When the poles are so warm that their isn't alot of impetus for the equator-to-pole flux that is our weather, that may be what I call the "Earth's version of runaway greenhouse."
NEFAGW: Peace on the insults thing, call the tards, tards, the morons, morons, if you will-but I think its better to disregard them.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2012
Your first delusion is that Global Warming is not Anthropogenic Global Warming (ie; man made). As I earlier said, CO2 is 398ppm, and in the last 50 years, has increased 2ppm/yr. This is atmospheric CO2 levels. That is 31.6 Gigatons of CO2 from burning fossil fuels! Burning fossil fuels is releasing vast amounts of sequestered CO2.

Nuclear is great if it never blows up; you can take out a state the size of Illinois for 100s of years with just one core meltdown. Murphy's law eventually catches up and one of these day we may have a Fukashima scale disaster here in the states. Nuclear just doesn't have a future with current technology.

Wind can work for a while. It works great in the Appalachians as an alternative to mountain-top removal.

The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (11) Dec 27, 2012
NEFAGW-A slight criticism on the "green movement economic impetus." Building small windmills on every house would require 1920's technology, be very cheap, certainly pay itself off rapidly. I mean it'd just be a generator 40 feet high, so it was always windy. Why this isn't done?
Sadly, I think it is because big oil isn't imaginative enough to realize they're just digging nastiness out of the ground, and because our politicians haven't realized they can tax us on wind just as legally as they can tax our gas.
Though I am open to other suggestions. :)
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2012
Noevidence: "RealityCheck: I repeat again, I can't support leftist deformations of the energy market"

Are you an outspoken critic of the deformation of the energy markets caused by subsidies, tax credits, tax breaks, research dollars, and other government spending on the fossil fuel industry and also the nuclear industry? We are currently spending billions on developing fusion.
NoEvidenceForAGW_YouBas
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 27, 2012
Howhot: AGW is not the default position, it is a claim. So the burden of proof is on AGW side. Just to clear that up. As you seems to be confused about it.

Nuclear is the top energy producer if you combine all the factors: safety, cleanliness, price, energy production. Most AGW believers I've met (if they call me a denier instead of skeptic, I'll call them believers instead of proponents) are against nuclear energy, thus betraying the real intentions about the AGW (or at least the source they were turned by to believe).

The main AGW body of evidence is that mankind produces GGs. Main concern is a CO2 (tiny part of overall CO2), which in itself is a fraction of GGs. The idea is that there is a balance, that was shifted by exactly this accumulated amount. The models and simulations are predicting the temperatures will rise due to this dis-balance. These models are not supported by observed reality (it's not year 2100). But it doesn't stop them from scaring us to push the green agenda.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2012
AGW is not the default position, it is a claim.
No, saying there is global warming but miss-attributing the warming to external events like for example; solar flux, that is a claim. And it's a claim based on a very flimsy scientific observation. AGW is on the other hand a complete theory that describes well current observations and explains observed climate changes. Bottom line is the AGW theory matches observation. AGW theory comes from very logical arguments. With market conditions and oil refining data, we know how much fossil fuel is extracted from sequestration. From the Carbon Cycle, we know generally how much will be absorbed in the oceans, how much will be absorbed by the forests and plant life, and we know how much will be bound up in the atmosphere.

These models are not supported by observed reality (it's not year 2100).
Mann simulated climate change back in 1980, and predicted 2010 pretty well with old data. Not bad for 1980 physics.

djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2012
NoEvidence: - "So the burden of proof is on AGW side. "

Do you not feel this is sufficient evidence to warrant a very high level of concern? If not - please provide evidence (not personal opinion) that contradicts the thousands of scientists who are studying this problem - and have concluded that it is a problem. -

http://climate.na...vidence/

It would seem that disagreeing with the scientists at NASA who have dedicated their lives to this subject would ask a pretty high level of evidence on your part.
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2012
Good call dir. I suspect there may be some skepticism in correlating weather events with AGW. For example, Hurricane Sandy's late season arrival, it could be argued that there is no relation to AGW. However, in totality all of the extreme weather events across have one common variable linking the event's severity, temperature. The rise of Delta-T makes an ordinary storm into a tornado bearing super-cell.

That big AGW delta-T is causing havoc everywhere; not just across the USA or North America. But the ocean temp, the Arctic poles, the size of the Gulf Dead-zone, Russia, China, Europe, Africa, Australia ... all are seeing AGW delta-T base climate change.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2012
Hi NoEvidenceForAGW. Best wishes for safe and happy new year for you and yours, mate!

To be clear...
1) Huge subsidies (hidden/overt) and opportunity costs exist in fossil/nuclear economy/industry.
2) I am in favor of Thorium nuclear power process; but subsidies/costs and dangers of waste storage and nuclear proliferation/terrorism/accidents still considerable.
3) The LIVING MODEL shows flora/fauna and diseases/vectors spreading north/south, up mountains and in previously cold lakes, seas/oceans. Disease for crops and humans not a nice 'adaptation' scenario for those affected.
4) Transitional chaos (until 'cold stores of past climate melt/warm) due to increasing heat/energy in atmosphere/oceans will cause season 'disrupting' storms, frosts, floods, droughts, disease etc etc with severe impact/cost on food production, transportation, communication, housing and land degradation/erosion etc etc.
5) Fusion is 'not in time' status still.
6) Reasonable measures in any case needed.

Cheers!
obama_socks
1 / 5 (11) Dec 29, 2012
IMO...there may be some volcanic action below all that ice. There are at least two volcanos in that immediate area It might be creating some jökulhlaups which could further melt more ice.

"Q: Is there a volcano under the ice sheet in Antarctica. If it erupted could it melt the ice cap and flood the earth?
A: Philip Kyle of the New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology, who has been studying volcanoes in Antarctica for 28 years, says studies of magnetism under the ice cap from an airplane flying over it gives strong indications that there is a volcano under the ice and that it could be erupting. "Nothing has been proved, but the indications look strong," he said. "The significance of this has been blown out of proportion," he added. Even if there is an erupting volcano under the ice, it's not going to melt the ice sheet. (contd)
obama_socks
1 / 5 (11) Dec 29, 2012
(contd)
Essentially it comes down to the fact that there is a lot of ice and even a large volcano is not going to melt much of it. "A couple of years ago there was an eruption through the ice in Iceland," he said. "We looked at that. There was a huge accumulation of water under one of the ice camps in Iceland, but it really didn't destabilize the thing."
http://usatoday30...efaq.htm
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (10) Dec 30, 2012
Complete debunking is now compete, now that the scary headline effect has been achieved by Phys.org, to the utter delight of the snarks:

http://notrickszo...cooling/
runrig
5 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2012
Complete debunking is now compete, now that the scary headline effect has been achieved by Phys.org, to the utter delight of the snarks:

http://notrickszo...cooling/


Only in your and the eyes of deniers. Look at the two graphs - they show different things. Clue- the temp scale. I'll let you figure out where the spin went wrong in this blog.