Study: Coral atolls hold on despite sea-level rise

Jun 03, 2010 By RAY LILLEY , Associated Press Writer
This artist's drawing, based on an undated satellite photo, provided by Auckland University, shows islands of the Funafuti Atoll of Tuvalu in the South Pacific. The dotted lines indicate the coast lines in 1984 while the solid line represents where the coast line of the islands were as of 2004. Some South Pacific coral atolls have held their own or even grown in size over the past 60 years despite rising sea levels, newly published research showed Thursday, June 3, 2010. Some scientists have worried for years that many of the tiny, low-lying islands throughout the South Pacific will eventually disappear under rising sea levels. (AP Photo/Auckland University)

(AP) -- Some South Pacific coral atolls have held their own or even grown in size over the past 60 years despite rising sea levels, research showed Thursday.

Some scientists worry that many of the tiny, low-lying islands throughout the South Pacific will eventually disappear under .

But two researchers who measured 27 islands where local sea levels have risen 4.8 inches (120 millimeters) - an average of 0.08 inch (2 millimeters) a year - over the past 60 years, found just four had diminished in size.

The reason: Coral islands respond to changes in and climate, with coral debris eroded from encircling reefs pushed up onto the islands' coasts by winds and waves.

Professor Paul Kench of Auckland University's environment school and coastal process expert Arthur Webb of the Fiji-based South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, used historical and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land area of the islands.

While four had gotten smaller, the other 23 had either stayed the same or grown bigger, according to the research published in the scientific journal Global and Planetary Change.

The shape-shifting islands changed their size through what the pair describe as ocean shoreline displacement toward their lagoons, lagoon shoreline growth or extensions to the ends of elongated islands.

Kench said it had been assumed that islands would "sit there and drown" as sea levels rise. But as the sea rises, the islands respond.

"They're not all growing, they're changing. They've always changed ... but the consistency (with which) some of them have grown is a little surprising," he told The Associated Press on Thursday.

Tuvalu, a coral island group that campaigners have repeatedly predicted will be drowned by rising seas, has its highest point just 14 feet (4.5 meters) above sea level. The researchers found seven of its nine islands had grown by more than 3 percent on average over the past 60 years.

In 1972, Cyclone Bebe dumped 346 acres (140 hectares) of sediment on the eastern reef of Tuvalu, increasing the area of Funafuti, the main island, by 10 percent. Another island, Funamanu, gained 1.1 acres (0.44 hectares) or nearly 30 percent of its previous area.

A similar trend was found in Kiribati, where three main islands also "grew." Betio expanded by 30 percent (89 acres or 36 hectares), Bairiki by 16.3 percent (14 acres or 5.8 hectares), and Nanikai by 12.5 percent (2 acres, or 0.8 hectares).

On World Environment Day in 2008, Kiribati President Anote Tong warned parts of his island nation were already being submerged, forcing some of Kiribati's 94,000 people living in shoreline village communities to be relocated from century-old sites.

Worst case scenarios showed Kiribati would disappear into the sea within a century, he said at the time.

But Kench said the study shows the islands are coping with sea-level change, with higher waves and water depth supplying sand and gravel from coral reefs.

"In other words, they (the islands) are slowly moving ... migrating across their reef platforms," he said. "As the sea-level conditions and wave conditions are changing, the islands are adjusting to that."

But he warned an accelerated rate of sea-level rise could be "the critical environmental threat to the small island nations," with "a very rapid rate of island destruction" possible from a water depth beyond a certain threshold. That threshold is unknown.

Australian sea level oceanographer John Hunter said the findings "are good news and not a surprise."

"Coral islands can keep up with some sea-level rise, but (there's also) ocean warming ... and ocean acidification ... that are certainly problematic for the corals. Sea-level rise can actually make the islands grow - as it apparently is doing," said Hunter, who did not participate in the study.

While coral might adjust to ocean warming, ocean acidification "will probably be the death knell of the coral reefs," leaving coastal management by humans as the only way of retaining and rebuilding atolls, said Hunter, a researcher at the University of Tasmania's Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center.

Explore further: New discovery helps solve mystery source of African lava

4.3 /5 (8 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Disputed isle in Bay of Bengal disappears into sea

Mar 24, 2010

(AP) -- For nearly 30 years, India and Bangladesh have argued over control of a tiny rock island in the Bay of Bengal. Now rising sea levels have resolved the dispute for them: the island's gone.

Transplanted coral growing fast in lagoon off Okinawa coast

Feb 07, 2009

Baby coral transplanted in the Sekisei coral-reef lagoon in Japan's Okinawa Prefecture under a coral-reef regeneration program are growing steadily, according to the Environment Ministry and the Tokyo University of Marine ...

Recommended for you

NASA sees last vestiges of Tropical Depression Jack

2 hours ago

Tropical Cyclone Jack had weakened to a tropical depression when NASA and JAXA's Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite passed above on April 22, 2014 at 1120 UTC/7:20 a.m. EDT.

New discovery helps solve mystery source of African lava

5 hours ago

Floods of molten lava may sound like the stuff of apocalyptic theorists, but history is littered with evidence of such past events where vast lava outpourings originating deep in the Earth accompany the breakup ...

Climate change likely to make Everest even riskier

6 hours ago

Climbing to the roof of the world is becoming less predictable and possibly more dangerous, scientists say, as climate change brings warmer temperatures that may eat through the ice and snow on Mount Everest.

User comments : 164

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Quantum_Conundrum
3.5 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2010
I saw a documentary about a week or so ago, in which one of the apollo astranauts and some oceanographers proved that much of the coral deaths in the atlantic are caused not by man, but by a FUNGUS which grows in Africa and rides on dust particles which then fall into the atlantic. These particles then carry the fungus down in the water collum where they are ingested by corals and infect them.
gunslingor1
4.7 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2010
"They're not all growing, they're changing"
-Exactly, it's just like sand dunes.

Don't think the danger is gone. besides, this is just 1 out of a million reasons to stop using fossil fuels.
gunslingor1
3.6 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2010
I saw a documentary about a week or so ago, in which one of the apollo astranauts and some oceanographers proved that much of the coral deaths in the atlantic are caused not by man, but by a FUNGUS which grows in Africa and rides on dust particles which then fall into the atlantic. These particles then carry the fungus down in the water collum where they are ingested by corals and infect them.


I could beleive that, but why are they dieing now more than ever? Why are trees on land more susceptable to diseases and fires now? We are effectly lowering the immunity of these life forms (and the water contents of trees) by putting them under extremely stressful conditions. Same reason people tend to get colds in the winter, cold forces the body to focus on other things at the expense of immunity.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2010
"For years, people have warned that the smallest nations on the planet - island states that barely rise out of the ocean - face being wiped off the map by rising sea levels. Now the first analysis of the data broadly suggests the opposite: most have remained stable over the last 60 years, while some have even grown."
http://www.newsci...ise.html
Caliban
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2010
"Webb and Kench warn that while the islands are coping for now, any acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise could overtake the sediment build up. Calculating how fast sea levels will rise over the coming decades is uncertain science, and no one knows how fast the islands can grow."

From the very same article, moron.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.8 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2010
From the very same article, moron.
Marjon don't read good.
RJB26
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2010
the good news is the islands arent going anywhere anytime soon. the bad news is caliban and his little girlfriend will have to figure out why global warming isnt causing sea levels to rise more than two millimeters a year.
Caliban
2.9 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2010
the good news is the islands arent going anywhere anytime soon. the bad news is caliban and his little girlfriend will have to figure out why global warming isnt causing sea levels to rise more than two millimeters a year.


No, the good news is that the atolls are still largely intact, and that average sea level rise is
ONLY 2mm per year, and that other contributing factors appear to be in abeyance. For now.

marjon
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2010
From the very same article, moron.
Marjon don't read good.

I read just fine.
Like all good AGWites, AP and Physorg had to spin it as if disaster is just around the corner instead of reconsidering their AGW religion.
Caliban
2.5 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2010

I read just fine.
Like all good AGWites, AP and Physorg had to spin it as if disaster is just around the corner instead of reconsidering their AGW religion.


Apparently not. The two researches were quoted
expressing these thoughts. AP/Physorg spin is absent.

In this case, a purposeful misrepresentation of the facts is equal to yet another mangy lie.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2010
Spin lesson:
"...hold on ..."
"...the islands are coping ..."
"But he warned....possible from a water depth beyond a certain threshold. That threshold is unknown."
"While coral might adjust to ocean warming, ocean acidification "will probably...."
Such 'scientific' reporting: 'might', 'probably','unknown'.
Data proved AGW warnings wrong. AGWites were wrong, but they can't stop spinning a tale of doom.
marjon
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2010
"Climate science needs professional help to rebuild its reputation. "
"climate scientists also need to be careful what they say. They must realise that they face doubts not just about published results but also about their conduct and honesty. It simply won't work for scientists to continue to appeal to the weight of the evidence while refusing to discuss the integrity of their profession. The harm has been increased by a perceived reluctance to admit even the possibility of mistakes or wrongdoing."
"also acknowledging the validity of some of their criticisms. It is clear, for instance, that climate scientists need better standards of transparency that allow for scrutiny not just by their peers but also by critics from outside the world of research."
http://www.newsci...ion.html
RJB26
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2010
"the good news is that the atolls are still largely intact"

-uh maybe caliban dont read so good

"While four had gotten smaller, the other 23 had either stayed the same or grown bigger"

they arent "largely intact" they are for the most part increasing in size. i know the new paradigm is to never let a crisis go to waste, but what are you propagandists suppose to do with all this good news? very inconvenient.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2010
"the good news is that the atolls are still largely intact"

-uh maybe caliban dont read so good

"While four had gotten smaller, the other 23 had either stayed the same or grown bigger"

they arent "largely intact" they are for the most part increasing in size. i know the new paradigm is to never let a crisis go to waste, but what are you propagandists suppose to do with all this good news? very inconvenient.


Uh, FOUR ATOLLS LOST.

But in your "denier world" this is good news, and it is slant to point out that the situation could just as well decay as improve.

nevdka
4 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2010
It's a shame we don't have particularly good data from when sea levels weren't rising. How much do coral atolls change when left on their own? The lack of a control sample means we can't really know how significant these changes are.

I'm also worried that reported sea level changes are about the same size as plate tectonics. Has anyone done research that can show these changes are actually because the water is getting higher, not the island getting lower?

FYI: I've been convinced that AGW is real, but I haven't seen anything in the media that would convince me. Most of the publicized AGW stuff is full of cow dung, the good stuff is just harder to find.
RJB26
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2010

"Uh, FOUR ATOLLS LOST"

they're not a set of car keys and they arent lost. its hilarious watching you agw cultists flail about and deliberately mislead. and i quote:

"While four had gotten smaller, the other 23 had either stayed the same or grown bigger, according to the research published in the scientific journal Global and Planetary Change."
RJB26
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2010
in your "alarmist world" its bad news that 23 atolls stayed the same size or grew larger. only those tidbits of information that you think support your narrative are highlighted while you downplay the big picture.
Caliban
3 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2010
I'm also worried that reported sea level changes are about the same size as plate tectonics. Has anyone done research that can show these changes are actually because the water is getting higher, not the island getting lower?


Plate tectonics, uplift/subsidence occur isostatically- in the case of uplift, material is moving in under. In the case of subsidence, material moves out from under. The volume of the earth is more or less fixed, if you ignore the small contributions of meteoric material, so as the mantle shifts about under the crust, uplift in one area is canceled out by subsidence in another:

http://en.wikiped...Isostasy

It is the adding back of water(stored as ice, and melted), that is responsible for sea level rise.

Atolls are constantly changing, just like any other land mass. And like any other land mass, it's alarming- and significant- when part goes missing.

As far as the quality of research out there- we're all in the same boat.
RJB26
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2010
"Atolls are constantly changing, just like any other land mass. And just like any other land mass, it's alarming- and significant- when they go missing."

none are missing genius. im really worried about your reading comprehension skills caliban. they werent misplaced or lost. 4 lost a bit of mass while the others stayed the same size or grew.
Caliban
2.5 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2010
Look again. Post has been edited. But I see what you're saying: Loss is more. That IS genius.

But I do apologize for the bad editing.
ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2010
I doubt you can really pin down episodic droughts to global warming. Heck, there's plenty of argument for the opposite in fact. Rising ocean temperatures increases atmospheric humidity... which creates more and wetter clouds... which release more rain...

Global warming should intensify the water cycle, not diminish it.

Think about it.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2010
So we have 2 creationists, neither of which has ever written a scientific paper trying to corner Caliban for working off of what the article said directly.

It appears neither of you two read more than the headline, how typical. Just like all good creationists, focus on the intro, forget the substance.

marjon
2.4 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2010
I doubt you can really pin down episodic droughts to global warming. Heck, there's plenty of argument for the opposite in fact. Rising ocean temperatures increases atmospheric humidity... which creates more and wetter clouds... which release more rain...

Global warming should intensify the water cycle, not diminish it.

Think about it.

That is the conclusion I have reached. More rain, more snow. More snow, more snow cover, more glaciers, ....ice age.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2010
That is the conclusion I have reached. More rain, more snow. More snow, more snow cover, more glaciers, ....ice age.
And that conclusion is completely incorrect, thanks for playing "So you want to be a scientist..."
RJB26
2 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2010
you mean this headline:

Study: Coral atolls hold on despite sea-level rise

skeptic heretic you arent very bright are you. none of the atolls are missing.0. while im sure you have authored a vast body of scientific papers, you clearly havent read this study or even this article.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2010
skeptic heretic you arent very bright are you. none of the atolls are missing.0. while im sure you have authored a vast body of scientific papers, you clearly havent read this study or even this article.
Sorry, "friend", I'm fairly well read on the subject. Since you're so slick, how about you tell us the nature of the mechanics that are maintaining the Atoll. Simply naming all 10 would greatly serve to further your statement.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2010
That is the conclusion I have reached. More rain, more snow. More snow, more snow cover, more glaciers, ....ice age.
And that conclusion is completely incorrect, thanks for playing "So you want to be a scientist..."
Why don't you try doing a little research before spouting off, for a change?

"To preserve energy balance, latent heating
must increase to balance this cooling. Therefore,
precipitation increases with global warming."

Credit: http://www.atmos....2008.pdf
Skeptic_Heretic
2.8 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2010
Why don't you try doing a little research before spouting off, for a change?

"To preserve energy balance, latent heating
must increase to balance this cooling. Therefore,
precipitation increases with global warming."

Credit: http://www.atmos....2008.pdf
And that assists his statement of an Ice Age how?
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2010
Why don't you try doing a little research before spouting off, for a change?

"To preserve energy balance, latent heating
must increase to balance this cooling. Therefore,
precipitation increases with global warming."

Credit: http://www.atmos....2008.pdf
And that assists his statement of an Ice Age how?

Not all precipitation comes in the form of rain. It's certainly conceivable that the poles might substantially "benefit" from this increased precipitation (in the form of snow) which could eventually cascade into more reflectivity, less energy absorption, and a subsequent ice age.

Of course, it's a highly speculative conjecture, but it's certainly not as ridiculous as you would portray.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2010
Not all precipitation comes in the form of rain. It's certainly conceivable that the poles might substantially "benefit" from this increased precipitation (in the form of snow) which could eventually cascade into more reflectivity, less energy absorption, and a subsequent ice age.

Of course, it's a highly speculative conjecture, but it's certainly not as ridiculous as you would portray.
Someone who is well read within the current understanding of AGW and thermal heat transfer would state this to be ridiculous.

One need simply look at multiyear ice coverage at the poles for an example of why this is utterly foolish.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2010
Someone who is well read within the current understanding of AGW and thermal heat transfer would state this to be ridiculous.

One need simply look at multiyear ice coverage at the poles for an example of why this is utterly foolish.
Sure. The aforementioned conjectured increase in the snow caps hasn't been seen, but this doesn't mean it absolutely can't happen.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2010
@ubavontuba,

Have you lost track of where that line of thought started: /oceans/ GETTING WARMER?

How would that be conducive to formation of additional ice near the poles? You must be aware that the polar landmasses are already covered with snow and ice year-round. Making such glaciers thicker, even if it couldn't be ruled out, doesn't increase the overall albedo of the planet. With respect to albedo, it's area of snow/ice cover that counts, not volume. And the primary way to increase area, is to increase the amount of floating ice. You know, ice that floats on WARMING oceans? (uhhh...huh?)
marjon
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2010
Pinkie: As the air warms, its capacity to hold water increases. The upper atm is still cold and rising moist air condenses into clouds, especially as the air is pushed over mountains. This is how the desert SW gets its rain during the monsoons.
At high elevations, instead of rain, it snows. Mountains all over the world accumulate more snow increasing albedo until it snows at lower and lower elevations and stays longer and longer....
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2010
At high elevations, instead of rain, it snows. Mountains all over the world accumulate more snow increasing albedo until it snows at lower and lower elevations and stays longer and longer....
If only that were true, then California wouldn't be facing a future of diminishing snow packs in the Sierra mountains, and ever-diminishing freshwater supplies, as currently predicted by climate models.

Most mountains aren't tall enough to turn precipitation into snow, particularly when that precipitation comes in the form of WARM air masses (and hence warm rain), particularly in the summer.

Increased rains in the warmer seasons melt off any snow accumulation during winter, and then some. You get net loss, over time.

Just look up what's been happening with spring season onset times all over the globe, and in related news, what's been happening with vegetation vs. height. The mountains are getting warmer, not cooler.
marjon
2.2 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2010
"From 1976 to 2007, when global temperatures were increasing, snowpack actually increased 19 percent, they concluded. That figure is not statistically significant because of the short time frame, but it illustrates that there aren’t “obvious, huge declines related to global warming,” "
http://algorelied.com/?p=3750
Their seems to be some uncertainty in your theory.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2010
"“Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s (Kilimanjaro) foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests’ humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.”"
http://globalclim...lvement/
Caliban
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2010
Allright, mangy-

Good job flippin' us a couple of make-believe pancakes.
Your pull from the Oregonian is entirely speculative, and in the end, they still had to admit that the snowpack is declining, albeit at a slower rate than predicted.

Only speculation regarding Kilimanjaro, as well.

So where is this warming-induced increase in rain/snowfall- why isn't it piling/pouring up on Kilimanjaro? The Alps? The Himalayas? The Andes?
The Cascades? The Rockies? The Sierras?
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2010
@ubavontuba,

Have you lost track of where that line of thought started: /oceans/ GETTING WARMER?

How would that be conducive to formation of additional ice near the poles? You must be aware that the polar landmasses are already covered with snow and ice year-round. Making such glaciers thicker, even if it couldn't be ruled out, doesn't increase the overall albedo of the planet. With respect to albedo, it's area of snow/ice cover that counts, not volume. And the primary way to increase area, is to increase the amount of floating ice. You know, ice that floats on WARMING oceans? (uhhh...huh?)
The northern ice/snow cap (in particular) extends quite far south in the winter (primarily on land). If more snow is accumulated, it stays longer into the spring... increasing reflectivity... decreasing total energy absorption... making glaciers grow.

For this to work at all, it's actually rather critical that the oceans retain their warmth well into the cooling cycle.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2010
If only that were true, then California wouldn't be facing a future of diminishing snow packs in the Sierra mountains, and ever-diminishing freshwater supplies, as currently predicted by climate models.

Most mountains aren't tall enough to turn precipitation into snow, particularly when that precipitation comes in the form of WARM air masses (and hence warm rain), particularly in the summer.

Increased rains in the warmer seasons melt off any snow accumulation during winter, and then some. You get net loss, over time.

Just look up what's been happening with spring season onset times all over the globe, and in related news, what's been happening with vegetation vs. height. The mountains are getting warmer, not cooler.
That was true, until this year. I just visited Yosemite. There's still snow in the high passes! In fact, it just snowed again the other day, throughout the Sierra!

And, California has had an unusually cool and wet spring, overall.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2010
Sure. The aforementioned conjectured increase in the snow caps hasn't been seen, but this doesn't mean it absolutely can't happen.

Hence why I said "familiar with thermal heat transfer". With a warmer ocean and greater precipitation in the form of snow you'll find a wide disparity between hot hemispheres and cold hemispheres. This will drive wind and storms up in intensity, which will lead to higher ablation of existing and forming ice packs.

You'll see an even greater reduction in ice cover with a greater hot/cold disparity between hemispheres due to enhanced Co2 content.

And, California has had an unusually cool and wet spring, overall.
Western Pacific El Ninos will do that.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2010
Hence why I said "familiar with thermal heat transfer". With a warmer ocean and greater precipitation in the form of snow you'll find a wide disparity between hot hemispheres and cold hemispheres. This will drive wind and storms up in intensity, which will lead to higher ablation of existing and forming ice packs.

You'll see an even greater reduction in ice cover with a greater hot/cold disparity between hemispheres due to enhanced Co2 content.
Only on water. On land, the ice could expand. Both the northern and southern snow caps have sufficient landmass to enable the aforementiioned cascade (particularly the northern snow cap).

Western Pacific El Ninos will do that.
Right. So why don't you see it?

When all of the oceans heat up from GW, worldwide weather may be similarly affected.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2010
Here's an article that describes some of the worldwide effects of El Nino:

http://www.associ...010.html

Imagine if this seemingly small increase in ocean temperature occurred everywhere!
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2010
@thermodynamics:

Beyond playing tag with the ratings, why don't you explain what it is you don't like about my logic?

Keep in mind that I specifically stated this was highly conjectural (I'm NOT claiming it will happen).
thermodynamics
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2010
ubavontuba: I thought you were doing fine on the article on the increase in precipitation with GW. You lost me (and got my ratings of 1) when you defended the conjecture:

"That is the conclusion I have reached. More rain, more snow. More snow, more snow cover, more glaciers, ....ice age."

You then continued to argue that point in spite of Skeptic trying to point out that the global heat engine moves latent heat from the equator to the poles reducing snow and ice. The old conjecture of another ice age being started this way was interesting but thoroughly disproved by showing that the latent heat moving to the poles will, most likely, reduce snow and ice accumulation. I notice in the message calling me out you state this is "highly conjectural." If it is such you should say that from the beginning. There are people on this site who will take what you say and run with it. I reserve the right to rate conjecture supporting people who deny warming with an appropriate rating.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2010
Only on water. On land, the ice could expand. Both the northern and southern snow caps have sufficient landmass to enable the aforementiioned cascade (particularly the northern snow cap).
Uh, no. Again thermal mechanics show you're wrong. Water will transfer heat very readily to land. This will serve to insulate and increase heating at the botom of ice structures creating meltwater current and channels underneath the ice. This water will more readily accept heat from the land and expediate the process as has been shown by current glacial mechanics and further evidenced through the thermal interaction studies performed at both poles.
Right. So why don't you see it?
Probably because this is the first recorded far western el nino that our current climatological record has seen with modern equipment. The position is a direct result of tennets of AGW being correct.
So, why don't you see it?
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2010
@thermodynamics:
I notice in the message calling me out you state this is "highly conjectural." If it is such you should say that from the beginning.
I did! I did it in the first reply I wrote after SH asked me why I defended marjon's notion.

As you noted (only once) I continued stating it was conjecture, subsequently.

The reason I defended marjon's notion to begin with was because of the rude manner in which SH was shutting him down

I isn't bad science to have an independent and contrary point of view, so long as there's some reasonable logic behind it.

Although marjon's concept isn't generally accepted, it isn't an unreasonable notion to consider (it's certainly not deserving of SH's hard ridicule).
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2010
@SH:
Uh, no. Again thermal mechanics show you're wrong. Water will transfer heat very readily to land. This will serve to insulate and increase heating at the botom of ice structures creating meltwater current and channels underneath the ice. This water will more readily accept heat from the land and expediate the process as has been shown by current glacial mechanics and further evidenced through the thermal interaction studies performed at both poles.
It seems you're not understanding this point:

If an average winter storm temperature is initially 0 degrees farenheit, it snows in the winter.

If GW raises this region's average storm temperature an astounding (and unrealistic) 20 degress, it still snows in the winter!

If this snow is exceptionally heavy and dense due to increased precipitation, it stays longer...

So, if none of this is even remotely possible, please explain the snow currently resting in Yosemite's high passes (in June!).
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2010
It seems you're not understanding this point:

If an average winter storm temperature is initially 0 degrees farenheit, it snows in the winter.
Of course.

If GW raises this region's average storm temperature an astounding (and unrealistic) 20 degress, it still snows in the winter!
Of course however that doesn't take into account the temperature of the ground, water, or the origin of all blackbody radiation of the planet.

If this snow is exceptionally heavy and dense due to increased precipitation, it stays longer...
Not true. Ambient temperature, thermal properties of dissolved particulates, ground consistency and conduction properties, as well as thousands of other factors affect this.

So, if none of this is even remotely possible,
And here comes the straw man...
please explain the snow currently resting in Yosemite's high passes (in June!).
http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/conditions.htm

Sorry, that doesn't fly. Source?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2010
@SH (continued):
Probably because this is the first recorded far western el nino that our current climatological record has seen with modern equipment. The position is a direct result of tennets of AGW being correct.
So, why don't you see it?
According to your assertions, snow in lower lattitudes should occur less frequently and stay for a shorter duration. In essence, considering all the GW we've accumulated, May/June snow in Yosemite should be impossible (in light of your assertions). And yet, there it is. I actually had a snowball fight with my son in it, just two weekends ago!

It seems the warm El Nino water DIDN'T heat the land the way you would predict. Please explain.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2010
According to your assertions, snow in lower lattitudes should occur less frequently and stay for a shorter duration.
Dependent on the prevailing terrain and average climate over long time scales.
In essence, considering all the GW we've accumulated, May/June snow in Yosemite should be impossible (in light of your assertions).
Sorry I never made a specific statement about Yosemite itself. Considering how large an area it is you'll need to clarify where you're talking about.
And yet, there it is. I actually had a snowball fight with my son in it, just two weekends ago!
I've had snowball fights in June in Massachusetts within my lifetime. It was an abnormally large amount of snowfall, well over the record and the area I was in stayed cool. I was also located in a valley so that microclimate enabled long term snow cover, it's called an outlier and it's subjective. So give me the exact conditions and I'll be happy to explain.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2010
@SH:
Sorry, that doesn't fly. Source?

Try this page (note, it's cached, so the link might not work, or last long. It's dated, 6-2-10):
http://cc.bingj.c...d4ea5e63

"May 1, 2010, Snow Survey: Water content of snowpack in Tuolumne drainage is 141% of average while the Merced drainage is 134% of the May average. Depths range from 5 feet at Beehive Meadow (6,500-foot elevation) to over 9 feet at Grace Meadow (8,900-foot elevation)."

Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2010
You know, the graph on there is very telling. Do you see the running averages over the 100 year record at the bottom? Do you see how the ambient snow values fluxuate on a cycle that is suspiciously close to the El Nino-La Nina 11 year Cycle? So what affect do you think we will inflict upon the snow figures going forward if the el nino-la nina cycle continues to ocillate more and more wildly due to increased oceanic temperature fluxuation?

Yes, less snow on average punctuated by periods of overwhelming snow.

When you feed more energy into a system the oscillations of that system around the equilibrium point will increase in intensity. Similar to reciving a massive amount of snow across the entire midwest as late as April, then having an imprompteau flood as all the increased snowfall rapidly melts and floods major cities and towns.

It wouldn't be so laughable if you were incorporating more of your knowledge into your understanding of the system at large.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2010
@SH:
Dependent on the prevailing terrain and average climate over long time scales.
According to your assertions, increased snow with a warmer ocean is impossible! And yet, we have a warm ocean (El Nino current) and INCREASED snow! How does that work?
Sorry I never made a specific statement about Yosemite itself. Considering how large an area it is you'll need to clarify where you're talking about.
Actually, it's similarly affected nearly the entire Sierra snowpack!
've had snowball fights in June in Massachusetts within my lifetime. It was an abnormally large amount of snowfall, well over the record and the area I was in stayed cool. I was also located in a valley so that microclimate enabled long term snow cover, it's called an outlier and it's subjective. So give me the exact conditions and I'll be happy to explain.
Warm ocean (El Nino), and 140% of normal snowpack. Explain.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2010
know, the graph on there is very telling. Do you see the running averages over the 100 year record at the bottom? Do you see how the ambient snow values fluxuate on a cycle that is suspiciously close to the El Nino-La Nina 11 year Cycle? So what affect do you think we will inflict upon the snow figures going forward if the el nino-la nina cycle continues to ocillate more and more wildly due to increased oceanic temperature fluxuation?
Uh, obviously, the warm current INCREASES the snowpack. Also, please note the snow is measured in April, which means a lot of the late El Nino snow is not included.

Yes, less snow on average punctuated by periods of overwhelming snow.
Wrong. Generally, there's less snow with a cooler ocean, more snow with a warmer ocean. It's opposite to your assertions!
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2010
When you feed more energy into a system the oscillations of that system around the equilibrium point will increase in intensity. Similar to reciving a massive amount of snow across the entire midwest as late as April, then having an imprompteau flood as all the increased snowfall rapidly melts and floods major cities and towns.

It wouldn't be so laughable if you were incorporating more of your knowledge into your understanding of the system at large.
Oh brother. You mean it wouldn't be so laughable if you'd done even some basic research to see if your assertions hold up in real-world conditions!
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
Oh brother. You mean it wouldn't be so laughable if you'd done even some basic research to see if your assertions hold up in real-world conditions!

http://www.mymoth...ing.html

Looks like it does.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
You seem to have extreme difficulty in understanding what I'm saying.

A la nina will allow cooler atmospheric currents to allow the snow to remain around longer. A cooler ocean produces cooler currents producing less precipitation and less oscillating melt.

A warm ocean, especially an abnormally warm one will cause greater disparity between cold polar air currents and warm tropical air currents resulting in MORE precipitation adn having the sideeffect of it sticking around for LESS time.

This is directly evidenced by current events as you've depicted them, the news, and the sources and data that you have provided. Make sense now?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2010
Looks like it does.
What, that snow melts? And MORE snow melts into more water?

Your assertion was that the snow shouldn't be there at all. Your assertion was that it would essentially not snow at all, or that it wouldn't survive on the ground.

Has it occured to you just how unusually full these streams are so late in the season, and that there's still snow yet to be melted?

If it doesn't all melt, and the cycle repeats similalry for a few seasons, can we say glaciation has increased?

Besides, when you feed more energy into a system, not only might the oscillations increase, but the equilibrium point (mean) may change also.

In this case, we have more snow for a longer duration ...which may eventually cascade into more reflectivity, less energy absorption...

Looky at these current webcam images. See the snow?

http://www.nps.go...cams.htm
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
Your assertion was that the snow shouldn't be there at all. Your assertion was that it would essentially not snow at all, or that it wouldn't survive on the ground.
Strawman, no it wasn't.
Has it occured to you just how unusually full these streams are so late in the season, and that there's still snow yet to be melted?
Has it occured to you that a greater amount of snow melt creates the flood situation?
If it doesn't all melt, and the cycle repeats similalry for a few seasons, can we say glaciation has increased?
Only if it doesn't all melt. Why don't you tell me how much snow is on the ground in your backyard right now.

The picture you attached is snow free in the areas that are typically snow free this time of year and you show snow at the USGS station, which is also quite normal.

What does your backyard look like right now, I'm sure you have a digital camera.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2010
You seem to have extreme difficulty in understanding what I'm saying.
I don't think so.
A la nina will allow cooler atmospheric currents to allow the snow to remain around longer.
But that's not what's happening.
A cooler ocean produces cooler currents producing less precipitation and less oscillating melt.
But you have to have something there for it not to melt.
A warm ocean, especially an abnormally warm one will cause greater disparity between cold polar air currents and warm tropical air currents resulting in MORE precipitation adn having the sideeffect of it sticking around for LESS time.
Then why is it still sticking around?
This is directly evidenced by current events as you've depicted them, the news, and the sources and data that you have provided. Make sense now?
To me, yes. To you, obviously no. Again, as evidenced in the Sierra, the conditions can be opposite to your assertions. The warm ocean snow is denser and it's staying longer.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2010
Your assertion was that the snow shouldn't be there at all. Your assertion was that it would essentially not snow at all, or that it wouldn't survive on the ground.
Strawman, no it wasn't.
Uh, yeah it was. Here you said it again:
A la nina will allow cooler atmospheric currents to allow the snow to remain around longer. A cooler ocean produces cooler currents producing less precipitation and less oscillating melt.

A warm ocean, especially an abnormally warm one will cause greater disparity between cold polar air currents and warm tropical air currents resulting in MORE precipitation adn having the sideeffect of it sticking around for LESS time.
Moving on...
Has it occured to you that a greater amount of snow melt creates the flood situation?
Other than being messy, what's that got to do with the subject at hand?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2010
If it doesn't all melt, and the cycle repeats similalry for a few seasons, can we say glaciation has increased?
Only if it doesn't all melt. Why don't you tell me how much snow is on the ground in your backyard right now.

The picture you attached is snow free in the areas that are typically snow free this time of year and you show snow at the USGS station, which is also quite normal.
Sorry, that doesn't fly. Source?
What does your backyard look like right now, I'm sure you have a digital camera.
We're not talking about my backyard. But it is unusually green and lush for this time of year.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
But that's not what's happening.
Correct, we're in an El-Nino cycle.
But you have to have something there for it not to melt.
I said less precipitation, not no precipitation.
Then why is it still sticking around?
You still have not evidenced that there is a greater amount of snow on the ground now than in the recent record of 100 years. As such I can't address this point because you refuse to show your evidence.
To me, yes. To you, obviously no. Again, as evidenced in the Sierra, the conditions can be opposite to your assertions. The warm ocean snow is denser and it's staying longer.
Longer than what? Longer than you remember it being around or are you keeping a log book that we can reference? The datasets collected by all accredited scientific institutions agree with me, you even linked one.

Your second post is simply a repeat of your straw man using my commentary that specifically rejects what you insinuate I'm saying. Looks like you're done arguing.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
Sorry, that doesn't fly. Source?

Actually it appears you're correct, but in being correct you've also shown your intepretation of the evidence to be incorrect.

Check out the snow or lack thereof in this shot of that same USGS station, taken 5 minutes prior to this posting from the website YOU linked.
http://ca.water.u...pyisles/

No snow present, sir. So let's ask you again, what's your source for persistent snow in otherwise unsnowy areas in Yosemite? We've just proven that you're wrong in your asserion, or at least that your evidence doesn't hold up.
We're not talking about my backyard. But it is unusually green and lush for this time of year.
But you were, remember?
And yet, there it is. I actually had a snowball fight with my son in it, just two weekends ago!
Two weekends ago would also be may/june, as you said. Here's the USGS station at that time a weekend ago. http://maps.ca.wa...1500.jpg
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2010
But that's not what's happening.
Correct, we're in an El-Nino cycle.
I meant it doesn't stick around during El Nina and it does stick around during El Nino.
But you have to have something there for it not to melt.
I said less precipitation, not no precipitation.
During El Nina, typically, there's no late season snow.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2010
Then why is it still sticking around?
You still have not evidenced that there is a greater amount of snow on the ground now than in the recent record of 100 years. As such I can't address this point because you refuse to show your evidence.
Liar. I showed you that as of May 1 2010 it was 140% of normal.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
I meant it doesn't stick around during El Nina and it does stick around during El Nino.
No it doesn't, and just as I said above, the presistency of Snow has many thousands of factors, none of which we've addressed other than warming and cooling currents. If you'd cease engaging in silly acts of sophistry and straw man arguments perhaps we could discuss them.
During El Nina, typically, there's no late season snow.
Relevence?
Liar. I showed you that as of May 1 2010 it was 140% of normal.

No, you said it was, you showed nothing. The 140% figure you're touting is a runoff figure. That means there is 40% more melt than anticipated. More melt, typically implies there's more water, not snow, not ice, WATER.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
Longer than what? Longer than you remember it being around or are you keeping a log book that we can reference? The datasets collected by all accredited scientific institutions agree with me, you even linked one.

Your second post is simply a repeat of your straw man using my commentary that specifically rejects what you insinuate I'm saying. Looks like you're done arguing
Why is it that those using strawman arguments are always the first to accuse others of doing so? ...Oh, right, that's because doing so is a strawman argument!

Anyway, I never said the Sierra climate has changed overall. I merely used the El Nina/El Nino cycle as a climate model ...a model which handily, and in real-world circumstance, belies your assertions.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2010
a model which handily, and in real-world circumstance, belies your assertions.
You mean agrees with them? As so far you haven't been able to prove any of your assertions and are basing your statements on your subjective experiences with your son. You haven't provided any evidence or supporting statements aside from trying to detract from mine, which you've inadvertantly supported in several of your links.

If you have a statement of what is going on that more congruently fits the observations, bring it. Until then you've got nothing.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
Sorry, that doesn't fly. Source?

Actually it appears you're correct, but in being correct you've also shown your intepretation of the evidence to be incorrect.

Check out the snow or lack thereof in this shot of that same USGS station, taken 5 minutes prior to this posting from the website YOU linked.
http://ca.water.u...pyisles/

So you missed the Tioga Pass webcam image entirely?

I didn't interpret the picture of the USGS station to have snow. Don't you remember how I was talking about snow accumulation in the high passes?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2010
So you missed the Tioga Pass webcam image entirely?
There isn't one, that is unless you'd like to point out what its titled as on that page.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
So you missed the Tioga Pass webcam image entirely?
There isn't one, that is unless you'd like to point out what its titled as on that page.
You must have hit the link before i edited it. Here's an even better one though:
http://tenaya.ucs...enta.jpg
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2010
So you missed the Tioga Pass webcam image entirely?
There isn't one, that is unless you'd like to point out what its titled as on that page.
You must have hit the link before i edited it. Here's an even better one though:
http://tenaya.ucs...enta.jpg

The date on that image is December 5th 2009 and that is not remotely close to the link you currently have listed within any of your posts.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2010
The date on that image is December 5th 2009 and that is not remotely close to the link you currently have listed within any of your posts.
Oops, my bad. I hadn't noticed that the webcam was out of service (usually the image is dark when that happens). No matter, there's plenty of webcams depicting unsual spring snow in the Sierra. Here's Kirkwood from 6-4-10:
http://www.kirkwo...hoto.asp

Here's some current images of Sierra Tahoe (lots of snow still!):
http://www.sierra...-cam.asp
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2010
No, you said it was, you showed nothing. The 140% figure you're touting is a runoff figure. That means there is 40% more melt than anticipated. More melt, typically implies there's more water, not snow, not ice, WATER.
Oh, so you're going to insist that unusually high and late runoff is the result of a less than normal spring snowpack? Really? You see no correlation?

Does the excess water just come from nowhere then?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
We're not talking about my backyard. But it is unusually green and lush for this time of year.
But you were, remember?
Nope,I read it all again, and it's you that brought up my backyard.
During El Nina, typically, there's no late season snow.
Relevence?
Uh, the ocean is cooler during La Nina, right? Shouldn't late season snow (in accordance with your assertions) be more prevalent then?
Liar. I showed you that as of May 1 2010 it was 140% of normal.
No, you said it was, you showed nothing. The 140% figure you're touting is a runoff figure. That means there is 40% more melt than anticipated. More melt, typically implies there's more water, not snow, not ice, WATER.
Actually, the statement the article made was, "Water content of SNOWPACK in Tuolumne drainage is 141%..." They're directly referencing the snow itself, not the melt. The "drainage" just indicates where it goes when it melts.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
a model which handily, and in real-world circumstance, belies your assertions.
You mean agrees with them? As so far you haven't been able to prove any of your assertions and are basing your statements on your subjective experiences with your son. You haven't provided any evidence or supporting statements aside from trying to detract from mine, which you've inadvertantly supported in several of your links.
Liar, I clearly provided an official Yosemite snow condition report for May 2009 which states the snowpack is 134% to 141% of normal. Maybe you're having trouble reading?

If you have a statement of what is going on that more congruently fits the observations, bring it. Until then you've got nothing.

I already provided a quote from the report, above. Here's some of it, again:

"May 1, 2010, Snow Survey: Water content of snowpack in Tuolumne drainage is 141% of average while the Merced drainage is 134% of the May average."
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
Anyway, I think I've provided sufficient documentation to validate my point. How about you providing similar evidence to back up your assertions?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2010
Uh, the ocean is cooler during La Nina, right? Shouldn't late season snow (in accordance with your assertions) be more prevalent then?
No, less evaporation means less precipitation, try to follow along.
Rainy spring at Kirkwood... The clouds should move out of the area next week with forecasts calling for temperatures in the 70s at Kirkwood. The snow should start to meltaway quickly next week, giving us some time to get ready for summer opening weekend on July 3!

Doesn't look like Kirkwood is out of the norm.
And all the Tahoe cams are currently down.

It's odd how your visual evidence seems to just fall apart on inspection.

FYI: when someone states the conditions of the snowpack for a drainage, it's refering to everything that feeds the particular river spoken of. You're referring to a particular pass, as so far your evidence of said pass is absent.

You don't get it. Warm seas, more precipitation faster melt. Cool seas, less precip, less melt. Got it?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
No, less evaporation means less precipitation, try to follow along.
Oh, so you admit your stated assertion that, "A la nina will allow cooler atmospheric currents to allow the snow to remain around longer." is wrong?

And, "A warm ocean, ...will (result) in MORE precipitation and having the sideeffect of it sticking around for LESS time." is also wrong?
marjon
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
Warm seas, more precipitation faster melt.

At altitudes, such precipitation is snow even at 4000' in Santa Barbara, CA.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
Doesn't look like Kirkwood is out of the norm.
It's not, for an El Nino year. It is, for a La Nina year. Obviously, a warmer ocean leads to more and longer lasting snow.
And all the Tahoe cams are currently down.

It's odd how your visual evidence seems to just fall apart on inspection.
You have to view them when it's daylight in Tahoe (they're live).

FYI: when someone states the conditions of the snowpack for a drainage, it's refering to everything that feeds the particular river spoken of. You're referring to a particular pass, as so far your evidence of said pass is absent.
What, the OFFICIAL snow report is insufficient? You want a picture of the pass from May too? Are you like in kindergarten? You need picture books?

You don't get it. Warm seas, more precipitation faster melt. Cool seas, less precip, less melt. Got it?
You don't get it. Warm seas, more precipitation more snowpack. Cool seas, less precip, less snowpack. Got it?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
@SH,

I saved some of the Sierra Tahoe images to my computer from today (6-7-10) just in case you need me to e-mail them to you.

As a semi-regular visitor to Tahoe, I can tell you that it is indeed very unusual to see so much snow, so late in the season. The weather is finally warming up though, so it won't last long.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
Warm seas, more precipitation faster melt.

At altitudes, such precipitation is snow even at 4000' in Santa Barbara, CA.

Yup. Many people don't know it sometimes snows in Southern California!
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2010
I'm a frequent visitor to Tahoe, as well. And last year, I distinctly remember closing out the skiing season, at Squaw Valley, in late May. It is not at all unusual for snow to remain into July, both on Tahoe mountains and in Yosemite (where do you think Yosemite's waterfalls and the Tuolumne river get their water?)

This year, in Northern California we've had an unusually wet and cold winter and spring, due to El Nino. Note that it was not wet and warm -- as would generally be the trend with warming oceans. Rather, it was wet and cold, which boosted our snowpacks this year and temporarily eased us out of a multi-year drought. While nice (and I enjoyed the long skiing season and reveled in oodles of "Tahoe cement"), this year doesn't exemplify the overall trends.

Climate models indicate that Northern CA will trend toward worsening droughts, and the Sierras toward decreasing snowpacks (becoming more like Southern CA.) I'm pointedly enjoying fine Tahoe skiing while it lasts.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2010
@PE:

I said, "...it is ...very unusual to see SO MUCH snow, so late in the season." I didn't say it's unusual to see ANY snow.

As I've shown with the MAY 2010 snow report, Yosemite did indeed have an unusually heavy snowpack, late in the season.

How long have you lived in California? This year PERFECTLY exemplifies El Nino years. El Nino years are normally cooler because the prevailing winds come off the ocean more (storm direction), rather than from the north (drying direction). The late spring and summer days are also often unusually humid too (bleah).

Those climate models are crap. Every La Nina cycle everyone starts crying, "Drought! Severe drought - probably caused by GW!" and in El Nino years, "Floods! Severe flooding - probably casued by GW!"

It's boom and bust around here. It's been like that for millenia.

The redwoods remain healthy, the central valley is still the most productive farmland in the world, life goes on.

PinkElephant
3 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2010
@ubavontuba,

Have you seen the 2008 biennial assessment report? (Another one is due later this year.) If not, take a look:

http://www.climat...dex.html

(You'd probably want to view the "brochure" version that presents a 12-page summary with illustrations, rather than wading through all 114 pages of the full report.)
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2010
@PE (continued)

As for the claim we're heading into an unprecedented period of GW is concerned, that's crap.

Anyone who knows anything about climate history knows we've been in a mini-iceage for about a thousand years. the current trends are actually a good thing. Trees are beginning to grow in places they haven't grown for centuries, arid and frozen regions of the world are becoming farmable...

Did you know the Vikings actually farmed in Greenland (about a thousand years ago)? They died from famine when the mini-iceage hit!

If you read the report I provided on El Nino, you'd find that it even brings rain to the arid deserts of Peru!

So, don't panic. GW will give you plenty of opportunity to ski the slopes.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2010
@ubavontuba,

Have you seen the 2008 biennial assessment report? (Another one is due later this year.) If not, take a look:

http://www.climat...dex.html

(You'd probably want to view the "brochure" version that presents a 12-page summary with illustrations, rather than wading through all 114 pages of the full report.)

You're apparently under the misguided impression that I don't believe in GW. I do. I think it's real. I just don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2010
I think it's real. I just don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.
Then I reiterate the recommendation that you read the 2008 biennial report (or at least its summary.) It will likely disabuse you of that impression, and a number of misconceptions evident in your other post.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
I think it's real. I just don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.
Then I reiterate the recommendation that you read the 2008 biennial report (or at least its summary.) It will likely disabuse you of that impression, and a number of misconceptions evident in your other post.

Oh brother. I'm well aware of the claims. Most telling of all, it's written during a typical La Nina (drought) cycle. And, it's arguable that this report is more politically motivated than environmentally motivated (it's part of the governator's "environmental legacy").

Like I said, the redwoods and the farmland are doing just fine. In fact, better this year (thanks to El Nino). That being the case, it looks like GW is probably a good thing for the state (when/if it brings more frequent EL Nino style ocean temps).
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
... and here it is. Every time you're cornered, "Oh brother" comes right out. That's quite a tell; stay away from poker, is my advice.

Here are your major issues:

First, current climate events are unprecedented at least in the last 650,000 years (that's in the preamble of that booklet I keep mentioning; comes out of Antarctic ice cores in case you were wondering.)

Second, El Nino is a specific configuration where at the surface, equatorial Pacific becomes markedly warmer than normal, whereas other areas of the ocean remain at their normal temperature. With global warming, every part of every ocean is going to warm up; so global warming is NOT the equivalent of a permanent El Nino.

Third, the report you denigrated deals with long-term trends, and not with short-term events connected with the last La Nina (you'd know if you actually looked...)

You do have one thing right: global warming will be disruptive to local climates, in the same way El Nino/La Nina are disruptive.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
AGWites believe they can stop AGW with socialism, but they have no clue how to 'fix' El Nino/La Nina.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
Oh, so you admit your stated assertion that, "A la nina will allow cooler atmospheric currents to allow the snow to remain around longer." is wrong?

And, "A warm ocean, ...will (result) in MORE precipitation and having the sideeffect of it sticking around for LESS time." is also wrong?

Statements of persistency and statements of volume are not the same. I've written this plain as day 3 times now so it's rather obvious that you are trolling.

One last time just for you.

El Nino, Warmer oceans, More evaporation of ocean water, leading to more precipitation, matched with warmer atmospheric currents creating MORE melt shorter persistency of the snow pack.
La Nina, cooler ocean temperatures, resulting in less ocean evap, resulting in less precipitation and cooler air currents creating longer term persistency of snow pack. Get it?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
@PE,
... and here it is. Every time you're cornered, "Oh brother" comes right out. That's quite a tell; stay away from poker, is my advice.
Apparently, you've never read the Sunday funnies. "Oh brother!" is an expression of exasperation, often used by the Peanuts characters (like Charlie Brown).

First, current climate events are unprecedented at least in the last 650,000 years (that's in the preamble of that booklet I keep mentioning; comes out of Antarctic ice cores in case you were wondering.)
And of course, since it's in the preamble, it must absolutely be true (sarcasm).

Our climate has obviously been both much cooler and much warmer than it is now. Also, the projected dire temperature escalations predicted at the time that was written (alla, AL GORE) have not been seen. That paper's own map (thanks to "the activities of man") shows that the Central Valley is actually cooler!

continued...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
@PE (continued),
Second, El Nino is a specific configuration where at the surface, equatorial Pacific becomes markedly warmer than normal, whereas other areas of the ocean remain at their normal temperature. With global warming, every part of every ocean is going to warm up; so global warming is NOT the equivalent of a permanent El Nino.
Right. I was only using it as a real world model of possible, future global conditions. As already brought into evidence, warmer oceans should increase the water cycle. A worldwide increase could be a good thing (generally).

Third, the report you denigrated deals with long-term trends, and not with short-term events connected with the last La Nina (you'd know if you actually looked...)
What, you mean like increased forest fires? That's more the result of long-term fire suppression than GW! You can tell by looking at historical pictures of the Sierra (less trees than today).

continued...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
@PE (3rd of 3),
You do have one thing right: global warming will be disruptive to local climates, in the same way El Nino/La Nina are disruptive.
Right. Lots more precipitation, Lots more snow - lasting longer on the ground, and a possible cascade into an ice age (should the oceans heat up enough and retain the heat long enough to support significantly increased glaciation).

Obviously, the aforementioned cascade event seems unlikely, but it's not impossible.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2010
AGWites believe they can stop AGW with socialism, but they have no clue how to 'fix' El Nino/La Nina.
Actually, it's long been fixed (more or less). We've built lots of dams and modified waterways to hold and route water for the lean years. The problem is, the population in California is outgrowing the existing infrastructure.

Clever solutions are being developed though. I particularly like the concept of personal cisterns, attached to roof gutters (roofs are very efficient watersheds). This water generally wouldn't be potable, but it could water lawns, and such.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2010
And of course, since it's in the preamble, it must absolutely be true (sarcasm).
You'd know it's true, if you were well-versed in the issues of global climate. But don't take my word for it:

http://en.wikiped...Ice_core
Also, the projected dire temperature escalations predicted at the time that was written (alla, AL GORE) have not been seen.
That's because they aren't supposed to be seen yet. They project 50-100 years into the future, genius.
That paper's own map (thanks to "the activities of man") shows that the Central Valley is actually cooler!
Due to irrigation, which it also mentions is becoming less effective at masking warming.
As already brought into evidence, warmer oceans should increase the water cycle.
Only in some places; other places will get drier (e.g. CA.)
A worldwide increase could be a good thing (generally).
More floods, erosion, and landslides is a good thing (generally)?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
Statements of persistency and statements of volume are not the same.
In this case, they are.
I've written this plain as day 3 times now so it's rather obvious that you are trolling.

One last time just for you.

El Nino, Warmer oceans, More evaporation of ocean water, leading to more precipitation, matched with warmer atmospheric currents creating MORE melt shorter persistency of the snow pack.
But this is wrong. In El Nino years, the snow generally remains longer. It also snows in unusual places (coincidently, like my backyard).
La Nina, cooler ocean temperatures, resulting in less ocean evap, resulting in less precipitation and cooler air currents creating longer term persistency of snow pack. Get it?
This is wrong too. During La Nina years, there's insufficient snowfall for it to be retained (you can't retain what you don't have). Also, La Nina years generally have warmer and dryer Springs and Summers (leading to an earlier snowmelt, over El Nino years).
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2010
What, you mean like increased forest fires?
No, I mean precipitation, temperature, growing season, vegetation belt, animal migration, and groundwater trends (it's all in that brochure, which your jaded eye refuses to take in.)
Lots more precipitation, Lots more snow - lasting longer on the ground
No, it won't last longer on the ground, because warm air and warm rains will melt it faster. The air and rains were cold this year in CA, because El Nino alters circulation patterns in such a way as to draw more air in from the COLD ocean. If that ocean got warmer, it wouldn't be so cold any more, would it? Or is that not obvious enough?
Obviously, the aforementioned cascade event seems unlikely, but it's not impossible.
It IS impossible. You can't make something colder, by heating it. Ice age cycles are mediated by orbital perturbations (Milankovich cycles) leading to a change of insolation, which is then amplified by climate feedbacks.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
"Temperature is often seen as the dominant control on inter-decadal glacier volume changes. However, despite regional warming over the past half-century, the glaciers of Mount Shasta have continued to expand following a contraction during a prolonged drought in the early twentieth century, indicating a greater sensitivity to precipitation than temperature. "
"The reconstructed balance and volume histories show a much greater correlation to precipitation than temperature and significant correlation to oscillatory modes of Pacific Ocean climate. "
http://www.spring...41m4126/
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
Why didn't you quote the rest of that abstract, clown:
An approximately 20% increase in precipitation is needed for every 1°C increase in temperature to maintain stability. Under continued historical trends, oscillations in climate modes and random variability will dominate inter-decadal variability in ice volume. Under the strong warming trend predicted by a regional climate model, the temperature trend will be the dominant forcing resulting in near total loss of Mount Shasta’s glaciers by the end of the twenty-first century.
Never mind, it's obvious why you didn't...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
You'd know it's true, if you were well-versed in the issues of global climate. But don't take my word for it:

http://en.wikiped...Ice_core
I know what an ice core is.
That's because they aren't supposed to be seen yet. They project 50-100 years into the future, genius.
What, you didn't see the graphs?
Due to irrigation, which it also mentions is becoming less effective at masking warming.
Hmm. Those maps look pretty convincingly cooler to me. Maybe GW will bring the region back to normal?
Only in some places; other places will get drier (e.g. CA.)
As observed during EL Nino years, this seems unlikely.
More floods, erosion, and landslides is a good thing (generally)?
Less desert and more livable and farmable land, certainly is a good thing. Heck, GW has already been a boon to Greenland farmers!

Source: http://www.spiege...,00.html
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
No, I mean precipitation, temperature, growing season, vegetation belt, animal migration, and groundwater trends (it's all in that brochure, which your jaded eye refuses to take in.)
What, you mean like we've NOT had this (El Nino) year?
No, it won't last longer on the ground, because warm air and warm rains will melt it faster. The air and rains were cold this year in CA, because El Nino alters circulation patterns in such a way as to draw more air in from the COLD ocean. If that ocean got warmer, it wouldn't be so cold any more, would it? Or is that not obvious enough?
The ocean IS warmer during El Nino, genius. And, the air is cooler!
It IS impossible. You can't make something colder, by heating it. Ice age cycles are mediated by orbital perturbations (Milankovich cycles) leading to a change of insolation, which is then amplified by climate feedbacks.
Or, if the oceans heat up, it might snow a lot more worldwide, leading to a cascade of more reflectivity...
marjon
2 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
AGWites believe they can stop AGW with socialism, but they have no clue how to 'fix' El Nino/La Nina.
Actually, it's long been fixed (more or less). We've built lots of dams and modified waterways to hold and route water for the lean years. The problem is, the population in California is outgrowing the existing infrastructure.

Clever solutions are being developed though. I particularly like the concept of personal cisterns, attached to roof gutters (roofs are very efficient watersheds). This water generally wouldn't be potable, but it could water lawns, and such.

An even more effective method is to charge what it costs to deliver water to all customers.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
@ubavontuba,
I know what an ice core is.
But do you know that it conveys information about past climate? In that particular case, stretching back 800,000 years, at annual resolution? Do you realize current climate events are unprecedented, according to these cores? If not, here's your chance to stop ridiculing, and start learning.
Those maps look pretty convincingly cooler to me.
Evaporative cooling will do that. Unfortunately, we can't irrigate the whole planet, and our reserves of freshwater are dwindling (groundwater aquifers are depleting; Sierra runoff due to diminish.) Meanwhile, GW will require even MORE irrigation in the Central Valley, to counteract increased evaporation due to heat.
As observed during EL Nino years, this seems unlikely.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5964108/New-El-Nino-increases-drought-threat.html
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
[q}Why didn't you quote the rest of that abstract, clown:

An approximately 20% increase in precipitation is needed for every 1°C increase in temperature to maintain stability. Under continued historical trends, oscillations in climate modes and random variability will dominate inter-decadal variability in ice volume. Under the strong warming trend predicted by a regional climate model, the temperature trend will be the dominant forcing resulting in near total loss of Mount Shasta’s glaciers by the end of the twenty-first century.


Never mind, it's obvious why you didn't...
It is not science. It is speculation.
ubavontuba
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2010
@PE:
Why didn't you quote the rest of that abstract, clown:

Never mind, it's obvious why you didn't...


This just serves to show how ridiculous these assertions are. In spite of increased glaciation, they belligerently insist it will decrease - someday in the future - but we're not sure when!

Give me a break! That's not science!
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
Why didn't you quote the rest of that abstract, clown:

An approximately 20% increase in precipitation is needed for every 1°C increase in temperature to maintain stability. Under continued historical trends, oscillations in climate modes and random variability will dominate inter-decadal variability in ice volume. Under the strong warming trend predicted by a regional climate model, the temperature trend will be the dominant forcing resulting in near total loss of Mount Shasta’s glaciers by the end of the twenty-first century.


Never mind, it's obvious why you didn't...

It is not science. It is speculation.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
(continued)
Less desert and more livable and farmable land, certainly is a good thing.
Most farmable land happens to be at mid-latitudes, and much of it is coming under threat of desertification due to GW. Yes, lots of arctic bogs and tundra will melt and start belching clouds of methane and mosquitoes, but unfortunately peat bogs don't make for very good farmland.
GW has already been a boon to Greenland farmers!
Here's hoping Greenland can feed the rest of the world.
What, you mean like we've NOT had this (El Nino) year?
No, I mean multi-decadal trends. TRENDS, you know? Not outliers: TRENDS.
The ocean IS warmer during El Nino, genius. And, the air is cooler!
No, only a part of the ocean is warmer, and the air over it is warmer as well. That warm part just happens to be far south of CA shores, so the warm air from it doesn't tend to reach us. Instead, we get the icy blasts from the southward-bound arctic currents.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
This just serves to show how ridiculous these assertions are. In spite of increased glaciation, they belligerently insist it will decrease - someday in the future - but we're not sure when!

Give me a break! That's not science!

This is direct measurement:
An approximately 20% increase in precipitation is needed for every 1°C increase in temperature to maintain stability.
And yes, it's science. Even if your politics would prefer it wasn't.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
@PE,
But do you know that it conveys information about past climate? In that particular case, stretching back 800,000 years, at annual resolution? Do you realize current climate events are unprecedented, according to these cores? If not, here's your chance to stop ridiculing, and start learning.
Are you suggesting the world has NEVER been warmer than it is now?
Evaporative cooling will do that. Unfortunately, we can't irrigate the whole planet, and our reserves of freshwater are dwindling (groundwater aquifers are depleting; Sierra runoff due to diminish.) Meanwhile, GW will require even MORE irrigation in the Central Valley, to counteract increased evaporation due to heat.
Or, it could be more like this past El Nino season. We might need LESS irrigation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5964108/New-El-Nino-increases-drought-threat.html
On average, it seems to bring more rain to the world, than not.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
Are you suggesting the world has NEVER been warmer than it is now?
The data is not "suggesting", but TELLING us all that the world has not been as warm at least in the last ~800,000 years as it's about to be 100 years from now. In the last ~800,000 years CO2 never rose above 280 ppm; it's now at 385 and will be somewhere north of 600 ppm by 2100 if we continue on our present track. The RATE at which global temperature is going up now, is also unprecedented over the past 800,000 years.
Or, it could be more like this past El Nino season.
But it won't be. Climate models say so, and until you build a model based on all known physics that shows otherwise, you're just grasping at straws.
On average, it seems to bring more rain to the world, than not.
Says who?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
Most farmable land happens to be at mid-latitudes, and much of it is coming under threat of desertification due to GW. Yes, lots of arctic bogs and tundra will melt and start belching clouds of methane and mosquitoes, but unfortunately peat bogs don't make for very good farmland.
Tell that to the Greenland farmer in the article. He's making a bundle!
Here's hoping Greenland can feed the rest of the world.
Like that's the only place GW will make farmable (sarcasm). Is your glass always so empty?
No, I mean multi-decadal trends. TRENDS, you know? Not outliers: TRENDS.
The trend is that a warm ocean (EL Nino) brings more precipitation and cooler temperatures. You can deny it all you want, but it won't make it untrue.

continued...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
@PE (2 of 2),
No, only a part of the ocean is warmer, and the air over it is warmer as well. That warm part just happens to be far south of CA shores, so the warm air from it doesn't tend to reach us. Instead, we get the icy blasts from the southward-bound arctic currents.
That's only partially true. Often, during El Nino, the storms come right off the current and into California. It's commonly called, "The Pineapple Express."

But even so, the spring/summer El Nino (ocean) air is generally humid and cooler than our typical La Nina dry and hot air (although the dry heat is preferable to the humid heat).

In La Nina years, the hot spring/summer wind generally comes from the north.

Side note: Did you know Redding is normally much hotter than Sacramento in the summertime, even though it's much farther north?
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
The trend is that a warm ocean (EL Nino) brings more precipitation and cooler temperatures.
No, it brings warmer temperatures. El Nino steals heat from SE Asia, and brings it toward Central and South Americas. They get warmer as a result. CA is too far removed from the equator, and so is not affected directly by this heat transfer: the ocean off CA shores remains cold. Really, why don't you first learn what you're talking about? Here, I'll make it easy for you:

http://en.wikiped...illation
Like that's the only place GW will make farmable (sarcasm).
I know for a fact that it's making CA /less/ farmable. And CA currently produces an awful lot of food...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
The data is not "suggesting", but TELLING us all that the world has not been as warm at least in the last ~800,000 years as it's about to be 100 years from now.
First, that's not what I asked, and second, this data is about as real and reliable as your Mt. Shasta de-glaciation.
In the last ~800,000 years CO2 never rose above 280 ppm; it's now at 385 and will be somewhere north of 600 ppm by 2100 if we continue on our present track. The RATE at which global temperature is going up now, is also unprecedented over the past 800,000 years.
As it turned out, the rate of increase is much less than expected.
Citation: http://www.scienc...2050.htm

But it won't be. Climate models say so, and until you build a model based on all known physics that shows otherwise, you're just grasping at straws.
Sure, and we all know models are more accurate than real-world events (NOT!).

continued...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
@PE (2 of 2),
Says who?
Funny thing, your article is from August 2009. In December of 2009 things looked a bit different:

"Rainfall for Australia during December 2009 was 22 per cent above the long-term average (thirty-fifth highest of 110 years)."

Source: http://www.daff.g...ary_2010

It seems you're digging for information that only supports your contentions (regardless of how outdated it may be).
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
First, that's not what I asked, and second, this data is about as real and reliable as your Mt. Shasta de-glaciation.
I originally mentioned the last 600,000+ years, in response to your claims about the recent ~1000 years. You blurted something about "EVER". I repeated, expanding to ~800,000 years. Now what's your point?

This data is real: it comes from Antarctic ice cores.

That Mt. Shasta data was the resident clown's initiative, not "mine". Though as usual, he managed to blow his own foot off while aiming at me. Not that it wasn't hilarious... :D
As it turned out, the rate of increase is much less than expected.
No, I wasn't talking about expected rate of increase. I was talking, again, about MEASURED rate of increase. Which is unprecedented (even if less than expected.)
It seems you're digging for information that only supports your contentions
You claimed El Nino brings more rainfall globally, on average. "Says who?", said I.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
(continued)

Incidentally, that article was to address your "doubts" that El Nino could possibly lead to droughts anywhere.

Glad to have helped you refresh your memory, particularly after such a long and difficult span of time...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
No, it brings warmer temperatures. El Nino steals heat from SE Asia, and brings it toward Central and South Americas. They get warmer as a result. CA is too far removed from the equator, and so is not affected directly by this heat transfer: the ocean off CA shores remains cold. Really, why don't you first learn what you're talking about? Here, I'll make it easy for you:
What article are you reading? It clearly states some places get warmer and some cooler, but most importantly, precipitation increases substantially throughout the Eastern Pacific.

I know for a fact that it's making CA /less/ farmable. And CA currently produces an awful lot of food...
The current El Nino weather belies your assertion. Did you know they're having to restructure the water distribution due to all the rain we've had this year? The farmers are positively ecstatic!
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
What article are you reading?
*Sigh*

This one:

http://en.wikiped...illation
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
@PE,
I originally mentioned the last 600,000+ years, in response to your claims about the recent ~1000 years. You blurted something about "EVER". I repeated, expanding to ~800,000 years. Now what's your point?
Read my question again, genius.
This data is real: it comes from Antarctic ice cores.
It's not the ice cores themselves that are a problem here. It's the unsupportable prognostication.
That Mt. Shasta data was the resident clown's initiative, not "mine". Though as usual, he managed to blow his own foot off while aiming at me. Not that it wasn't hilarious... :D
Actually, I think he did a fair job of exposing the poor science used to support GW doomsayers.
No, I wasn't talking about expected rate of increase. I was talking, again, about MEASURED rate of increase. Which is unprecedented (even if less than expected.)
So now you have a time machine and you actually measured the temperature 80 years from now? Who wins the World Series in 2090?

continued...
PinkElephant
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
So now you have a time machine and you actually measured the temperature 80 years from now?
You can't possibly be /that/ dense, can you? When I say "MEASURED", I mean /measured/ -- as in the recent past and up to today. Only trolls are /this/ moronic. Hey, wait a minute...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
@PE (2 of 2),
You claimed El Nino brings more rainfall globally, on average. "Says who?", said I.
Your own Wikipedia aticle, for one.
Incidentally, that article was to address your "doubts" that El Nino could possibly lead to droughts anywhere.
When did I say periodic droughts aren't normal? I said that overall, El Nino brings more precipitation. I never said it was universal.
Glad to have helped you refresh your memory, particularly after such a long and difficult span of time...
...said like a man trying to cover his tracks.
*Sigh*

This one:
Provide the quotation.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2010
So now you have a time machine and you actually measured the temperature 80 years from now?
You can't possibly be /that/ dense, can you? When I say "MEASURED", I mean /measured/ -- as in the recent past and up to today. Only trolls are /this/ moronic. Hey, wait a minute...
So I'll ask my question again:

Are you suggesting the world has NEVER been warmer than it is now?
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2010
Provide the quotation.
Would you like me to reprint the article here, because you're too lazy to go over to Wikipedia and read it? Here's my approach to life: first learn the subject at hand, then go around discussing it. Not the other way around.

Oh, the URL was bad due to some unicode mishap. Here's a workable URL:

http://en.wikiped...illation

Are you suggesting the world has NEVER been warmer than it is now?
No.

But the (now extinct) dinosaurs and the flora/fauna of the period were far better adapted to that much warmer world, than are we and our present biosphere.

Hey, what's another mass extinction, right?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2010
Provide the quotation.
Would you like me to reprint the article here, because you're too lazy to go over to Wikipedia and read it? Here's my approach to life: first learn the subject at hand, then go around discussing it. Not the other way around.
I read it, but apparently you didn't.
Oh, the URL was bad due to some unicode mishap. Here's a workable URL:

http://en.wikiped...illation
Here's a quote:
"...it creates increased rainfall across the east-central and eastern Pacific Ocean."

Are you suggesting the world has NEVER been warmer than it is now?
No.

But the (now extinct) dinosaurs and the flora/fauna of the period were far better adapted to that much warmer world, than are we and our present biosphere.

Hey, what's another mass extinction, right?

Rephrased then:
Are you suggesting the world hasn't been warmer than it is now in the last 800,000 years?
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
Here's a quote:
"...it creates increased rainfall across the east-central and eastern Pacific Ocean."
Here's a couple more quotes:
"In North America, El Niño creates warmer-than-average winters in the upper Midwest states and the Northwest, thus reduced snowfall than average during winter."

"In Africa, East Africa, including Kenya, Tanzania and the White Nile basin experiences, in the long rains from March to May, wetter than normal conditions. There also are drier than normal conditions from December to February in south-central Africa, mainly in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Botswana."

And once again, the relevance of El Nino to GW is...? Having now read at least parts of the article, you surely by now understand the localized nature of ENSO's ocean warming?

http://en.wikiped...illation

Try to pay attention to the three illustration on the right side, at the above link.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
Are you suggesting the world hasn't been warmer than it is now in the last 800,000 years?
Exhibit 1:

http://en.wikiped...plot.png

Exhibit 2:

http://commons.wi...ions.png

Exhibit 3:

http://en.wikiped...ison.png

Any questions?
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
Oh, I suppose this should've been exhibit 1.5:

http://commons.wi...tion.jpg
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
And oh by the way, you MAY be interested in this one:

http://commons.wi...ture.png

(Note that the global ice volume curve is vertically /mirrored/ -- with low values on top and high values on the bottom.)

So what's the nature of correlation between Antarctic temperature and global ice volume?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2010
Here's a couple more quotes:
"In North America, El Nino creates warmer-than-average winters in the upper Midwest states and the Northwest, thus reduced snowfall than average during winter."
Even in light years, these areas are often covered in snow. This year, much of America had record snowstorms (more on this later).
"In Africa, East Africa, including Kenya, Tanzania and the White Nile basin experiences, in the long rains from March to May, wetter than normal conditions. There also are drier than normal conditions from December to February in south-central Africa, mainly in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Botswana."
It doesn't snow in this region anyway!
And once again, the relevance of El Nino to GW is...? Having now read at least parts of the article, you surely by now understand the localized nature of ENSO's ocean warming?
I never said it wasn't a localized event. I merely suggested it's a real-world model upon which we might extrapolate.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2010
Try to pay attention to the three illustration on the right side, at the above link.
What are you trying to convey here?
Exhibit 1:
Yeah, so? Ice core depths. What about them?
Exhibit 2:
Right. Notice how the highest temperatures just precede the iceage? Isn't that an amazing coinincidence?
Exhibit 3:
Yeah, so? Most of it is conjectured. Even so, I haven't denied that warming has occured. But is it a spike? Lately, the temperatures have fallen off. Cite: http://en.wikiped...ures.png
Oh, I suppose this should've been exhibit 1.5:
So? Regular fluctuations. The current period doen't look unusual.
And oh by the way, you MAY be interested in this one:
And again, notice how the temperature spikes preceed the iceages.

So what's the nature of correlation between Antarctic temperature and global ice volume?
It's not the antartic ice that matters. It's lower lattitude snow cover (more below).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2010
Looky. Snow in all fifty U.S. states this past winter:

http://www.trutho...rue56871

Looky, more snow in warm years, just like I've been saying:

http://climatepro...m-years/

Looky at all these major snowstorms from the past year:

http://en.wikiped...009-2010

Looky, snow and precipitation in every region of the continental U.S., simultaneously:

http://www.fema.g...510.shtm

Looky, tons more snow on the first day of Spring:

http://www.fema.g...110.shtm

What's up with all that snow?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2010
For all the British readers, you just gotta love this image from last winter:

http://en.wikiped...nowy.jpg
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2010
I think I've been talking with an idiot. I'm done...
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
I think I've been talking with an idiot. I'm done...

"It seems that when their argument fails to convince, atheists (or 'liberals' or 'progressives')turn to personal abuse and hyperbole." http://www.smh.co...9i3.html
"why do the arguments of Liberals appear to be so illogical, and, why do Liberals hurl so many insults? " "The reason Libs are using insults and illogic is to shut down public debate. "
http://www.bigpic...e_final_
Looks like such insults occur across the web.
PinkElephant
3 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2010
I'll explain in a bit more detail, for the benefit of all clowns everywhere.

See, I do wish I found this:

http://commons.wi...ture.png

much earlier in the discussion. Then I wouldn't have had to spend so much time and effort and space on this page, battling inanities.

The above data set clearly demonstrates the relationship between global temperatures and global snow/ice cover: snow/ice volume globally decreases with rising temperature. The data is clear, it's empirical, it's unequivocal, and it obliterates the need for any further 'theoretical' debates.

Now, when a person is presented with such data yet mulishly persists in contravention of it, then they are:

1) displaying a lack of basic comprehension

and/or

2) willfully disregarding data because it causes cognitive dissonance with their preconceived notions

The first scenario matches modern definition of "idiot", while the second matches the etymological origin of "idiot".
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2010
I think I've been talking with an idiot. I'm done...

Said like a true demagogue.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2010
I think I've been talking with an idiot. I'm done...

"It seems that when their argument fails to convince, atheists (or 'liberals' or 'progressives')turn to personal abuse and hyperbole." http://www.smh.co...9i3.html
Looks like such insults occur across the web.
When a person believes his personal beliefs, ideas and/or opinions, are absolutely true, it becomes dogma. Sadly, dogma comes from every social affiliation.

Better to be open to new ideas and differences of opinion. You never know what might turn up, and/or be particularly interesting.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2010
PE,

Stop wasting your time, they're both shared workstations over at some shithole like CATO. We're competing with quote generators and retarded wannabe contrarian "libertarians" who don't know their ass from their elbow. Simply report the posts and email your discontent to Physorg until we can finish erecting our own competing site.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
@SH,

I'm not here to wage politics, or some sort of ideological warfare. I don't consider this as "our" site. This site is just a science news aggregator. I started talking to ubavontuba because I thought he/she was genuinely engaging in discussion with a goal of figuring something out. However, it has now become clear that they're just as biased and set in stone, as marjon.

So, with respect to wasting time, I can assure you I am indeed done here, and I'll think twice before engaging ubavontuba on any other topic in the future. But I won't go so far as to report him/her. He/she didn't exactly violate the code of conduct for the site, as ideological warfare is not explicitly forbidden unless it is altogether off-topic.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2010
@PE,
The above data set clearly demonstrates the relationship between global temperatures and global snow/ice cover: snow/ice volume globally decreases with rising temperature. The data is clear, it's empirical, it's unequivocal, and it obliterates the need for any further 'theoretical' debates.
That data is extremely limited (to say the least). It's from Antarctic ice cores (a relatively isolated continent) and simply by having preserved the ice doesn't prove any corollary with winter weather throughout the world. Quite strictly, it's only a measurement of the snowfall in that area, during those times. Particularly noteworthy, Antarctica is a desert. Annual snowfall there ranges from only 2 to 8 inches annually. It's actually completely dry in some places.

Would you perhaps think I might extrapolate worldwide data by collecting the snow that fell in one spot on the Great Basin Desert (Nevada) for hundreds of thousands of years? Desert weather is too unreliable.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2010
@ ubavontuba: They just can't generate a rational response.
The theory the 'liberals' can't engage in a rational debate without insults and personal attacks continues to hold.
"why do the arguments of Liberals appear to be so illogical, and, why do Liberals hurl so many insults? "
"The reason Libs are using insults and illogic is to shut down public debate."
http://www.bigpic..._final_/
Should I too then be insulted?

Frankly, I consider myself to be fairly liberal.

The problem isn't liberalism. It's closed-mindedness (in general).
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2010
Depends upon your definition of 'liberal'.
Classical liberal or modern 'liberal' who likes to now be called 'progressive'?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2010
Looky, here's a brand new story from this very site wherein researchers are literally mirroring my speculation. They're applying the concepts to La Nina (with subsequent claims of much less than normal snow and precipitation): http://www.physor...866.html
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2010
@PE,
I'm not here to wage politics, or some sort of ideological warfare. I don't consider this as "our" site. This site is just a science news aggregator. I started talking to ubavontuba because I thought he/she was genuinely engaging in discussion with a goal of figuring something out. However, it has now become clear that they're just as biased and set in stone, as marjon.

So, with respect to wasting time, I can assure you I am indeed done here, and I'll think twice before engaging ubavontuba on any other topic in the future. But I won't go so far as to report him/her. He/she didn't exactly violate the code of conduct for the site, as ideological warfare is not explicitly forbidden unless it is altogether off-topic.

Likewise, I too am disappointed in you. Earlier indications were that you were fairly intelligent and open to hypothetical discussion. To my great sorrow, it appears my first analysis was wrong.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2010
@ubavontuba,

Ok, I'll give it one more post, and then that's it.
That data is extremely limited (to say the least). It's from Antarctic ice cores (a relatively isolated continent) and simply by having preserved the ice doesn't prove any corollary with winter weather throughout the world. Quite strictly, it's only a measurement of the snowfall in that area, during those times.
I will now kindly ask you to READ THE "SUMMARY" PARAGRAPH BELOW THE GRAPH:

http://commons.wi...ture.png

Happy trails.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2010
@ubavontuba,

I will now kindly ask you to READ THE "SUMMARY" PARAGRAPH BELOW THE GRAPH:

Happy trails.
I read it, and I'm well aware of the extrapolations (largely based on deep sea protozoa sediments). As I said earlier, warmer and cooler water temperature signals might not correlate with snow accumulation - just as more snow in California does not correlate with a cooler ocean. And, I'm obviously not the only one who's recognized this. See: http://www.physor...866.html

Therefore, this highly extrapolated data is suspect.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2010
He/she didn't exactly violate the code of conduct for the site, as ideological warfare is not explicitly forbidden unless it is altogether off-topic.

No, but pseudoscience is, which both he and Marjon preach often.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2010
He/she didn't exactly violate the code of conduct for the site, as ideological warfare is not explicitly forbidden unless it is altogether off-topic.

No, but pseudoscience is, which both he and Marjon preach often.

Like the socialism promoted by many here?
I find it amusing that many who claim to support the scientific method of falsification use it to attack people's religious faith. One of Popper's inspiration for developing the idea was the way socialists attempted to use science to justify their ideology. Popper was a classical liberal and supported individual liberty.
The pseudo science used here is much practiced by those attempting to use science to support socialism and atheism.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2010
You can't "prove" atheism. As there's no way to prove non-existence.

Scientists use the scientific method to falsify claims of knowledge that are not demonstrable and not verifiable. Effectively since you claim knowledge and cannot prove that knowledge, you are a liar.

Most scientists that do believe in a god or higher power take a deist stance as there's no methodology that is contrary to such a stance.

Now you're a YEC. That is well disproved as a valid origin hypothesis yet you claim it must be the truth. It is simply your opinion, and an incorrect one at that.

Perhaps if you'd stop claiming knowledge that you have admitted you cannot possibly have we'd stop calling you a liar.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2010
You can't "prove" atheism. As there's no way to prove non-existence.

Scientists use the scientific method to falsify claims of knowledge that are not demonstrable and not verifiable. Effectively since you claim knowledge and cannot prove that knowledge, you are a liar.

Most scientists that do believe in a god or higher power take a deist stance as there's no methodology that is contrary to such a stance.

Now you're a YEC. That is well disproved as a valid origin hypothesis yet you claim it must be the truth. It is simply your opinion, and an incorrect one at that.

Perhaps if you'd stop claiming knowledge that you have admitted you cannot possibly have we'd stop calling you a liar.

Popper developed falsification in part because socialists attempted to use science to support their ideology. Do you still attempt to use science to support your socialist ideology?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2010
Popper developed falsification in part because socialists attempted to use science to support their ideology. Do you still attempt to use science to support your socialist ideology?

Resource distribution mechanisms are systemic. Your definition of socialism is entirely wrong.
This conversation was finished a while ago.
Feel free to keep asking yourself rhetorical questions.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2010
Socialism is all about ownership. Does the state own all property or do individuals and the role of the state is to protect the individual's property?
This is definition von Mises used in his book Socialism.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2010
Why would you subscribe to von Mises while espousing Christian doctrine?

Are you telling us you're a liberal?

You keep confusing these terms Marjon, seriously, read a book rather than using google to quote mine it. Perhaps you'll recognize that you're arguing against yourself. If you'd like to describe my stances in accurate terms I'd be considered a Manchester Capitalist.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2010
He/she didn't exactly violate the code of conduct for the site, as ideological warfare is not explicitly forbidden unless it is altogether off-topic.

No, but pseudoscience is, which both he and Marjon preach often.
Let's see... You made a claim that you couldn't backup with any relevant evidence (which you apparently think makes you a scientist). I made a counter and self described speculative suggestion, which I was able to support with overwhelming evidence - and you accuse me of espousing pseudoscience?? (incredulity).

Give me a break. Not only do you obviously not know what scientific discourse is, you're also not substantively different than the people you're always complaining about!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2010
I'd like to acknowledge PE for his genuine effort at scientific discourse. Although he eventually blew a fuse, his effort is appreciated (at least his argument came with several references to supporting evidence). Now if he could only think more critically about the material he is reviewing, he might actually have a future in science...
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2010
(at least his argument came with several references to supporting evidence
You mean broken and cached webcam pictures from the wrong times of year, plus an inability to read your own material?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2010
You mean broken and cached webcam pictures from the wrong times of year, plus an inability to read your own material?
Sure, I made a couple of errors in trying to access some active webcams. I admitted it and made corrections.

So, are you still trying to view Sierra Tahoe at night, or is it that you can't read? ...perhaps both?

Try going over the material again.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2010
Try going over the material again.

I would suggest you do the same.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2010
Try going over the material again.

I would suggest you do the same.
I have, but I notice you haven't agreed to do so.

Seriously, have you an argument with my evidence? Perhaps FEMA weather reports, Dr. Joseph Romm's "Climate Progress," Wikipedia (including a great picture of a snow covered Great Britain), Physorg, and live webcams aren't good enough or mainstream enough for you?

More news stories