Earth's climate future may be etched in Greenland bedrock

Jul 28, 2010
An aerial view of the ice glacier of Ilulissat, Greenland in 2009. Scientists hit Greenland bedrock this week after five years of drilling through 2.5 kilometres (1.6-mile) of solid ice, a 14-nation consortium announced Wednesday.

Scientists hit Greenland bedrock this week after five years of drilling through 2.5 kilometres (1.6-mile) of solid ice, a 14-nation consortium announced Wednesday.

Ice core samples from Eemian period 130,000 to 115,000 years ago -- the last time Earth's climate was a few degrees warmer than today -- could help forecast the impacts of current global warming, the researchers said.

"Our findings will increase our knowledge on the climate system and increase our ability to predict the speed and final height of sea level rise," said Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, an ice expert at the University of Copenhagen and head of the project.

"If the Eemian was unstable, then the models of future change due to increased greenhouse effect are wrong as they cannot handle sudden changes," she told AFP by email from the site.

Greenland's temperatures were 3.0 to 5.0 degrees Celsius (5.4 to 9.0 degrees Fahrenheit) higher during this last interglacial period.

Today, without steep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, the global thermometer could rise 6.0 C compared to pre-industrial times, making large swathes of the planet unlivable, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned.

Voluntary national pledges made after the Copenhagen climate summit in December would likely cap that increase at 3.5 C to 4.0 C (6.3 F to 7.2 F), still fall far short of the 2.0 C (3.6 C) limit that most scientists agree is the threshold for dangerous warming.

Over the last century, temperatures have risen by about 0.8 C.

Bedrock was struck on Tuesday at a depth of 2537.36 metres, Dahl-Jensen said.

Scientists can now gather the data they need to answer the project's core questions: How reduced was the Greenland ice sheet 120,000 years ago when global temperatures were 2.0 to 3.0 C warmer than today?

How much -- and how fast -- did it contribute to sea levels at the time?

The current status of the continent-sized ice block is sharply debated, with some scientists predicting it will remain largely stable, and other saying it could shed enough water over the coming century to raise the global water mark by a metre (39 inches) or more.

That would be enough to flood major coastal cities and send hundreds of millions of people in search of higher ground.

All told, the ice sheet stores enough liquid to lift sea levels a total of seven metres.

"When our analyses are complete, we will be able to determine to what extent the Greenland ice sheet contributed to the global sea level rise of five metres during the Eemian," Dahl-Jensen said.

She added that the first results should be published before the end of this year.

Previous deep ice cores from Greenland have yielded only partial data from this critical period analogous to our own, either because some layers have melted or been disturbed by ice flow close to the bedrock.

Techniques used to study ancient climate change include examining variations in oxygen atoms, called isotopes, that correspond to different atmospheric temperatures, and analysing greenhouse gas bubbles trapped in the ice.

The crystal structure of ice, the temperature of the bore hole, and the content of biological material found also provide data about past climate conditions.

The 14 countries participating in the project are Belgium, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States.

Explore further: Volcano in south Japan erupts, disrupting flights

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

As Greenland melts

Oct 19, 2009

Not that long ago - the blink of a geologic eye - global temperatures were so warm that ice on Greenland could have been hard to come by. Today, the largest island in the world is covered with ice 1.6 miles ...

Sea level rise of 1 meter within 100 years

Jan 08, 2009

New research indicates that the ocean could rise in the next 100 years to a meter higher than the current sea level - which is three times higher than predictions from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ...

Ice cores map dynamics of sudden climate changes

Jun 19, 2008

New, extremely detailed data from investigations of ice cores from Greenland show that the climate shifted very suddenly and changed fundamentally during quite few years when the ice age ended. Researchers ...

Searching for an interglacial on Greenland

Aug 24, 2009

The first season of the international drilling project NEEM (North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling) in north-western Greenland was completed at August 20th.

Melting of the Greenland ice sheet mapped

Sep 16, 2009

Will all of the ice on Greenland melt and flow out into the sea, bringing about a colossal rise in ocean levels on Earth, as the global temperature rises? The key concern is how stable the ice cap actually ...

Recommended for you

Bridgmanite: World's most abundant mineral finally named

12 hours ago

A team of geologists in the U.S. has finally found an analyzable sample of the most abundant mineral in the world allowing them to give it a name: bridgmanite. In their paper published in the journal Science, the te ...

Volcano in south Japan erupts, disrupting flights

19 hours ago

A volcano in southern Japan is blasting out chunks of magma in the first such eruption in 22 years, causing flight cancellations and prompting warnings to stay away from its crater.

User comments : 50

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

zevkirsh
3 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2010
it took 5 years to drill ?!?!? seems insane to me when it takes under 3 months for BP to drill a significant well through the earth , with the well starting at over a mile below water.
Bob_B
2 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2010
Same thought I had! Then the thought of drilling in winter cold might take longer, or even stop for months at a time!?! I guess there were stops to place the cores in safe storage and with as few cracks as possible.

marjon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 28, 2010
If the future in in the bedrock melt that damn ice so we can more easily find it.
Who_Wants_to_Know
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 28, 2010
If its never been warmer in Greenland until one goes back to the previous interglacial, how do they account for the Vikings buried in the permafrost? The ground wasn't frozen when they were buried obviously. How do they account for the Viking farms?

This article appears to be nothing but an AGW advocacy sensationalist scare piece. If this is the quality of information on physorg, how can I trust ANY article they post?
alq131
5 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2010
My guess is that it's the difference between the end goals. BP only goal is to get to the oil. Drilling ice cores is the goal of the Greenland scientists. So rather than disregarding what they're drilling through and discarding it as waste as in oil drilling, the scientists must pull up each core, and be careful not to melt it with the drill which could change the characteristics of the ice they're trying to measure.
I think the article is misleading that they were just trying to get to the bedrock. They were probably trying to get good samples of the ICE all of the way to the bedrock.
Nik_2213
3.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2010
http://en.wikiped...m_Period

There was a milder period, which suited the Norse Vikings. Then the climate closed them down. No AGW implied...
Who_Wants_to_Know
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 28, 2010
http://wattsupwit...-period/

Unfortunately that wiki is using outdated/debunked information. Michael Mann is the prime culprit for trying to 'disappear' the well established world-wide Medieval Warm Period such that he could create the bogus 'Hockey Stick' graph of Al Gore's movie fame.

As best we can tell with science, there was a world wide Medieval Warm period that was WARMER than present day temperatures. This makes claiming our present day temperature increases somehow unprecedented and therefore man-caused pretty clearly flawed logic.
Skultch
3.1 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2010
Expecting climatologists to get it perfectly right is even more ridiculous than expecting your local meteorologist to get it right 100% of the time. Positing that partial understanding is proof of a conspiracy is flawed logic.
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

There was a milder period, which suited the Norse Vikings. Then the climate closed them down. No AGW implied...


Nothing implied but the world was warmer then, and survived. No hand wringing red greens.
scidog
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2010
well the world did survive but it would make a good study to find out what the effects of that warming were.lack of rain drives cattle herders to move in on someone else..result,low grade local war?increase in tropical disease holds back rice cultivation by several hundred years in parts of Asia.maybe people were driven off islands and we have no history of that?..it's not a survival issue,it's a quality of life for the bulk of the population that can't move or buy whatever it takes to stay healthy and well fed no matter what the outcome.
Who_Wants_to_Know
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2010
Throughout history the warmer periods were periods where man flourished - the golden eras. Less wars, less disease, larger crop yields and therefore less famine and death. There is also no evidence of increases in tropical diseases or greater spread of tropical diseases with warmer temperatures. Malaria is a prime example. Commonly thought of as a tropical disease, malaria has been found even in the arctic circle and Siberia. It was endemic in the United States even in the Midwest and around Washington D.C. as well as further south.

Meanwhile the colder periods are all associated with far greater hardship, less expansion, lower life expectancies, greater wars as failed crops and famine caused migration and war over land, etc. They didn't call them the dark ages for nothing.
Birger
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2010
Reality check: There is a difference between *regional* and *global* effects. Due to changes in sea currents and jet streams, part of the Northern hemisphere, including Western Europe was indeed warmer...during the same period that the rest of the world was COLDER on average, during the part of the medieval period I assume you are talking about (the vikings living in Greenland).
[During the same period, there was actually sand dunes in the American midwest, and the Anazasi indian society collapsed -not a fun consequence of regional warming].
That is why it is so important to compare ice cores from Greenland with ice cores from the Antarctic (plus other climate proxies spread across the world, such as stalactites/stalagmites, tree ring sequences etc.)
Sampling just one site is like trying to view a photograph by just looking at one pixel.
Bog_Mire
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2010
right on Birger. Somehow those who believe in real science are being accused of wanting global warming to happen
Sazzle
4 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2010
"the global thermometer could rise 6.0 C compared to pre-industrial times, making large swathes of the planet unlivable"

BUT ALSO making large swathes of the planet become re-habitable - huge areas of tundra and permafrost in Canada and Russia for example would become prime virgin teritory... "Catastrophies" often create cvonditions that allow the suvivors to thrive. Look at the Black Death.. Up to half the population of the 'known' world were whiped out in 3 years; but in the decades following, new opportunities arose for mr average because the "Elite" of the day were decimated. Change isnt always bad although it can seem like it while its happening. Usually its better to embrace change and plan for it, than it is to wast your resources trying to fight inevitability.
croghan27
5 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2010
it took 5 years to drill ?!?!? seems insane to me when it takes under 3 months for BP to drill a significant well through the earth , with the well starting at over a mile below water.


Wonder if it has anything to do with the glacier being more dynamic than the sold earth that BP is drilling in ..... with a moving body must be difficult to keep the drill bit directed with an consistancy
GSwift7
1.9 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2010
"Today, without steep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, the global thermometer could rise "

speculation.

"could rise 6.0 C compared to pre-industrial times"

again speculation, based on models that are poor and inconsistent. Also, compared to pre-industrial times? How about compared to historical mean temps over the past xxx,xxx years of some significant length?

"making large swathes of the planet unlivable"

Wild speculative fearmongering. The last interglacial period is documented as being incredibly biodiverse. Huge numbers of megafauna and flora went extinct on land and sea, due to falling temperatures at the end of that period. Warmer was better.

"that most scientists agree is the threshold for dangerous warming"

Science is not a democracy and opinion polls are not a factor here. A significant number of scientists disagree, therefore the ones who make this claim have not really passed peer review. If you only show your homework to your mommy, she'll say good job
Who_Wants_to_Know
1 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2010
re: post by Birger
Reality check: There is a difference between *regional* and *global* effects. Due to changes in sea currents and jet streams, part of the Northern hemisphere, including Western Europe was indeed warmer...during the same period that the rest of the world was COLDER on average,...


Reality check: Please look at the link I provided earlier - http://wattsupwit...-period/ Data published by 752 individual scientists, from 442 separate institutions around the world in 41 different countries - research studied virtually ALL parts of the world, Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and found that the Midieval Warm period existed WORLDWIDE, and was on average warmer than present day temperatures.
Skultch
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2010
Warmer was better.
...

"that most scientists agree is the threshold for dangerous warming"

A significant number of scientists disagree, therefore the ones who make this claim have not really passed peer review.


It's not the temperature that is feared, it's the change in temperature, hence "climate change" being a better descriptor than "global warming." The fact is, the climate is changing, we need to predict it or millions of people will be deplaced with little time to plan.

So, what EXACTLY do you mean by "significant" here? I want a %. Even if 40% disagree (not even close to reality) your conclusion is still fallacious because 60% could still pass an agreeable review.
po6ert
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2010
who or what is the author of manure? AFP?
po6ert
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2010
AFP is a news operation with no scientific expertize. the whole thing isn just a pr hype
treemikey
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2010
Sigh.... Once a discussion starts using Watt's as a source you know the anti-science trolls are at work again......Funny how Watts doesn't mention that New Zealands coldest period in the last 10,000 years happened during...the so-called MWP!
Who_Wants_to_Know
1 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2010
Oh, gee, I see now. If I had referenced the research directly or thru some other source, it would have been fine. But because I happened to find it again quickest in a Watts Up With That article, its oh so bad! Makes sense now.
Who_Wants_to_Know
1 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2010
I see the light now. Clearly all 752 individual scientists, from 442 separate institutions around the world in 41 different countries who found a MWP around the world that was as warm or warmer than present day are really in league with Anthony Watts, and faking their data and results!!
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2010
Let's just take one of Watt's projections as an example of how he misses the mark:

http://wattsupwit...orecast/

Watts-Up-With that one?

Do I need to pick out a lot more to show that he just picks things off short trends and runs with them?
Who_Wants_to_Know
1 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2010
Let's just take one of Watt's projections as an example of how he misses the mark:

http://wattsupwit...orecast/

Watts-Up-With that one?

Do I need to pick out a lot more to show that he just picks things off short trends and runs with them?


ROFL! Yes, you would - or you are claiming that the National Snow Ice and Data Center (NSIDC) is just as 'flawed' as Watts? Not to mention that article is about a prediction - loads of articles on his site are about factual scientific information, and many articles there aren't even written by Watts. I suppose they're all incorrect too, just like the hundreds of scientists who studied the MWP around the world were obviously wrong too, just because they were discussed on Watts site. Brilliant.
Who_Wants_to_Know
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2010
For those who don't check out 'thermodynamic's' link, note that the NSIDC AGREED with Watt's prediction. I should also have pointed out that the prediction was for 2010 - hate to break it to you, 'thermodynamic,' but there are 6 months left to go yet on that one.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2010
Who Wants to Know: So you are taking Watt's absolutely wrong prediction that the arctic ice would continue to recover and his OUT OF CONTEXT quote from the NSIDC as being something that is not wrong? Let me explain. Yes, there are 6 months left in the year. However, the minimum extent of sea ice is usually in September. Hmmmm... What month is this? Watt's specific prediction was: "Arctic Ice Will Continue to Recover This Summer." I hate to tell you this, but summer is almost over and the Arctic ice is close to the record minimum and well below the mean. If you read the article, Watt bases is guess on the Arctic Oscillation (AO) but then says: "In their January 5, 2010 article NSIDC states that we are in an “Extreme negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation” which can be seen in this NOAA graph below. Oddly (but not surprisingly) the article failed to mention how this affects drift." pointing out that NOAA did not draw his conclusion from it. (continued)
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2010
Continued from above (I hate the 1000 character limit)
All by himself then, Watt says: "If a positive Arctic Oscillation flushes out the Arctic into the Atlantic, the implication is that a negative phase would tend to retain ice." In fact this has turned out to be wrong. He jumped to this conclusion on his own. It was not NSDIC predicting thicker ice with a greater extent, it was Watt. You can't go back and rewrite history as easily on the web as you can for other things. Predictions leave footprints behind. Watt's prediction was completely wrong. He was confusing weather with climate (as he often does). Please see if you can figure out some way to turn his bad prediction into a good one.
Who_Wants_to_Know
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2010
You know, you are right, YOU can't go back and rewrite history as easily on the web. The WUWT Goddard & Watts article was written March 4, 2010.

NSIDC report on March 3, 2010, said: "Second, the AO has a strong effect on Arctic sea ice motion. The pattern of winds associated with a strongly negative AO tends to reduce export of ice out of the Arctic through the Fram Strait. This helps keep more of the older, thicker ice within the Arctic. While little old ice remains, sequestering what is left may help keep the September extent from dropping as low as it did in the last few years." (quote taken directly from NSIDC page)

Sure looks like they came to the identical conclusion that Watts & Goddard had, and made the same prediction if those weather conditions held, exactly as noted in the WUWT article.

So, you want to tell me now how they were taking anything out of context, and how stupid the NSIDC was also?
Who_Wants_to_Know
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2010
And I'll say it again, it is a PREDICTION, not a promise. If you insist that simply because someone or an organization is always wrong if they happen to get one prediction wrong, then you have to include the likes of the Met Office, Jim Hansen, and virtually everyone you can think of.

Its even more absurd to claim someone's prediction is wrong when a third of the period included in the prediction isn't even over yet. Right now, sea ice is right in pretty much the same range it was for 2008, 2009, and 2005. Its entirely possible, depending on conditions for the next couple of months that it could wind up with more ice than the past three years. Clearly it could go the other way too, but you have no way of knowing without waiting to see - AND seeing if the strong negative AO continues. If it doesn't, his prediction STILL IS NOT WRONG, because his prediction was based on what would result IF that weather condition continued.
To claim otherwise is taking his statement out of contex
Who_Wants_to_Know
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2010
And of course the IPCC AR4 had to RETRACT predictions because skeptics discovered they had based those predictions on utterly bogus unsupported sources.

Do you lump the IPCC in with Anthony Watts in terms of 'missing the mark?' By your stated criteria, they are no better, and ought not ever be used as a source for information either.
Who_Wants_to_Know
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2010
Sigh.... Once a discussion starts using Watt's as a source you know the anti-science trolls are at work again......Funny how Watts doesn't mention that New Zealands coldest period in the last 10,000 years happened during...the so-called MWP!


Really? What is your source? Several peer reviewed papers found evidence of the MWP in New Zealand. There were temperature fluctuations during the MWP, but overall it was clearly warmer than either shortly before or after it, and on average, worldwide, it appears that the MWP was warmer than present day temperatures, based on many different proxies from around the world.
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
Wow! It seems like I hit a nerve with DARING to case aspersions at good old Anthony Watt. Let me clear this up for those watching. Let's look at the NSIDC said March 3 (just before Watt's prediction): "This helps keep more of the older, thicker ice within the Arctic. While little old ice remains, sequestering what is left may help keep the September extent from dropping as low as it did in the last few years. Much will depend on the weather patterns that set up this spring and summer." Can you read the last sentence? They are explaining that it depends on the spring and summer weather. What did Watt say? "Steven Goddard writes below that he agrees with the prediction I made in late 2009 that we’d see another 500,000 km2 of Arctic sea ice recovery in 2010. The Arctic Oscillation seems to be negative again, and according to NSIDC, this figures greatly in making thicker ice thus lowering summer losses." Where did the key qualifying sentence go?
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
Wow! It seems like I hit a nerve with DARING to case aspersions at good old Anthony Watt. Let me clear this up for those watching. Let's look at the NSIDC said March 3 (just before Watt's prediction): "This helps keep more of the older, thicker ice within the Arctic. While little old ice remains, sequestering what is left may help keep the September extent from dropping as low as it did in the last few years. Much will depend on the weather patterns that set up this spring and summer."

Can you read the last sentence? They are explaining that it depends on the spring and summer weather.

What did Watt say? "Steven Goddard writes below that he agrees with the prediction I made in late 2009 that we’d see another 500,000 km2 of Arctic sea ice recovery in 2010. The Arctic Oscillation seems to be negative again, and according to NSIDC, this figures greatly in making thicker ice thus lowering summer losses."

Where did the key qualifying sentence go
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
Wow! It seems like I hit a nerve with DARING to case aspersions at good old Anthony Watt. Let me clear this up for those watching. Let's look at the NSIDC said March 3 (just before Watt's prediction): "This helps keep more of the older,thicker ice within the Arctic. While little old ice remains, sequestering what is left may help keep the September extent from dropping as low as it did in the last few years. Much will depend on the weather patterns that set up this spring and summer."

Can you read the last sentence? They are explaining that it depends on the spring and summer weather.

What did Watt say? "Steven Goddard writes below that he agrees with the prediction I made in late 2009 that we’d see another 500,000 km2 of Arctic sea ice recovery in 2010. The Arctic Oscillation seems to be negative again, and according to NSIDC, this figures greatly in making thicker ice thus lowering summer losses."

Where did the key qualifying sentence g
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
Wow! It seems like I hit a nerve with DARING to case aspersions at good old Anthony Watt. Let me clear this up for those watching. Let's look at the NSIDC said March 3 (just before Watt's prediction): "This helps keep more of the older,thicker ice within the Arctic. While little old ice remains, sequestering what is left may help keep the September extent from dropping as low as it did in the last few years. Much will depend on the weather patterns that set up this spring and summer."

In the last sentence they are explaining that it depends on the spring and summer weather.

What did Watt say? "Steven Goddard writes below that he agrees with the prediction I made in late 2009 that we'd see another 500,000 km2 of Arctic sea ice recovery in 2010. The Arctic Oscillation seems to be negative again, and according to NSIDC, this figures greatly in making thicker ice thus lowering summer losses."

Where did the key qualifying sentence go?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2010
Sorry for the multiple posts. The system kept sending me an error message. I assume it agrees with Who Wants To Know and wanted to punish me. :-)
Who_Wants_to_Know
1 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
...Let's look at the NSIDC said March 3 (just before Watt's prediction): "..Much will depend on the weather patterns that set up this spring and summer."...

What did Watt say? "...The Arctic Oscillation seems to be negative again, and according to NSIDC, this figures greatly in making thicker ice thus lowering summer losses."


The qualifier is right there, he mentions the Neg. AO as a large factor, citing the NSIDC as stating the same.

I don't like seeing ANYONE unfairly smeared, and that's what you are doing. Watts prediction was made in 2009, NOT the day before the NSIDC statement as you state. Watts also said Goddard provides the explanation, which was: "The Arctic ice minimum extent increased by about 25% between 2007 and 2009, and many indications (negative AO, light drift, high concentration) point to the idea that it will continue to increase in 2010."

Both note the negative AO as important to any increase.
Who_Wants_to_Know
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2010
Here, why don't you castigate the experts right along with Watts? Here's their results predicting the 2009 Sept. minimum using July data. The final extent was about 5.1 million sq. km.

You may want to note how off base most of the top experts were, going from July data - just as you are now in trashing Watts prediction before we've even reached the Sept. min.

http://wattsupwit...so-good/
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2010
Who Wants To Know: You said: "I don't like seeing ANYONE unfairly smeared, and that's what you are doing. Watts prediction was made in 2009, NOT the day before the NSIDC statement as you state." He said his prediction was from 2009. However, this was published March 2010

http://wattsupwit...orecast/

And he quoted the NSIDC without the last sentence. I don't know how much clearer that can be.
Who_Wants_to_Know
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2010
Yes, THAT article was pub. Mar 4, but you can search his site and find the article where he made the prediction, & that was fall 2009 exactly as he said. Plus, Goddard's explanation, which also states the neg. AO as a main factor, was written Feb. 9th - also before the NSIDC article.

Meanwhile, sorry, but I don't get your point. You said "It was not NSDIC predicting thicker ice with a greater extent, it was Watt." When the simple fact is that BOTH predicted greater ice extent if the negative AO continued.

You fail to note how you view the IPCC, Hansen, EU Met Office, and the 13 arctic ice experts, etc., etc., who have had failed predictions - ones that were proven wrong, not ones that still had a third of the time period left to go yet.

Are they all also "anti-science trolls" as treemikey smeared me without so much as bothering to check the research I linked to, just because the pass thru was Watts site? Or do they magically get a pass, they're gods, because they're pro AGW?
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2010
Who Wants to Know: Let me try to be more clear (if that is what you are asking for). No one gets a pass. However, most (and I am not saying all) of the actual climate scientists make it clear that they are estimating complex events with uncertainties attached to them. I have given you one example where Watt removed the qualifying statement from the full NSIDC article. Please explain why he would go to the trouble of extracting the text and leaving off the qualifier.

Another example,you say: "There were temperature fluctuations during the MWP, but overall it was clearly warmer than either shortly before or after it, and on average, worldwide, it appears that the MWP was warmer than present day temperatures, based on many different proxies from around the world." With scant data for the MWP and some indications it was regional rather than global, you seem convinced it "appears" it was warmer than today and you state it was global. Pure speculation with no error bars.
Who_Wants_to_Know
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2010
re: thermod's post. Watts also made it clear he was discussing a complex event w/ uncertainties attached. Watts left off the qualifier because that final sentence was moot. Why? Because Watts said he made an analysis, Goddard's article explained the basis (including Neg. AO). Then NSIDC came to the same conclusion. Furthermore, the 1st sentence of the NSIDC quote was "The pattern of winds associated with a strongly negative AO tends to reduce export of ice out of the Arctic through the Fram Strait."

That's a condition - e.g. a qualifier. Remove the condition, and clearly the results will be different. The final sentence was moot at that point, because the primary condition of the prediction & the explanation was stated. In the NSIDC's statement it was right there in the first sentence. There's no 'trouble to extract text to leave off the qualifier' - its a simple cut & past either way. Clearly, the last sentence didn't add anything that a reader with any sense didn't already get.
Who_Wants_to_Know
1 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2010
theromod says: "With scant data for the MWP and some indications it was regional rather than global, you seem convinced it "appears" it was warmer than today and you state it was global. Pure speculation with no error bars."

One more time since you don't bother to read apparently: 752 individual scientists, from 442 separate institutions around the world in 41 different countries - research studied virtually ALL parts of the world, Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and found that the Midieval Warm period existed WORLDWIDE, and was on average warmer than present day temperatures.

That's hardly speculation on my part, and I provided a link where you could easily check those myriad sources for yourself. Which you clearly never bothered to do.

You, however, have yet to provide even ONE source for your claim that the coldest temps in 10K yrs in NZ occurred during the MWP.
Bitflux
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2010
It allways ends up with a fight about who is right and who isnt. How about a joint venture to find some hard evidence?
In my humble opinion there is a much overlooked consequence of rising seawater, which is pollution of the drinking water. I live in denmark which is mainly agricultural lands and it would have a serious impact if the waters rised just 0.5 meters above current level.
Better safe than sorry.
Bog_Mire
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2010
Bitflux, spot on my Danish friend! Better safe than sorry. How is that such a hard concept to come to grips with?
Who_Wants_to_Know
not rated yet Aug 15, 2010
Well, gee, thermod, would you look at that? Anthony Watts prediction is looking reasonable now after all, isn't it?

Today he says:
"My forecast (dashed line below) minimum of 5.5 million (JAXA) continues to look conservative. It all comes down to what the winds do over the next few weeks. If the winds keep compressing the ice, the minimum may go a little below 5.5. If the winds quiesce, the minimum may come in a little above 5.5 – which is looking like a pretty good number right now. Some people at NSIDC started out with a 5.5 forecast this year, but seem to have backed away from it since."

and you can compare current ice levels to his prediction - right now there is more ice than his prediction would show - here:

http://climateins...2010.jpg
thermodynamics
1 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2010
Who Wants to Know: Thanks for reminding me that you are still out there and still jumping to conclusions. The actual forecast,by Watt, would be for 5.6 Mkm^2 (500,000 more than 2009). However, as we both know that should be in early to mid September. His comment was that it would increase by about 500,000 km^2 over 2009. I am not at all sure where you got the idea that the melting is over. Let's see what the actual minimum extent is in the September summary. The idea that you or Watt can see the minimum before it gets here is actually, pretty amusing. I suggest you may want to adjust your meds if you are getting too anxious. Please let me know if you need to start betting on each day's extent.

The more important number (instead of the daily extent) is the slope of the running monthly averages that they post on the NSIDC web site.

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

It is looking pretty good for continued decline.
Who_Wants_to_Know
not rated yet Aug 19, 2010
thermodd, you are really perverse, and either not reading, or just being deceptive to boot. Contrary to your statement, I never said or implied that seasonal melting was over. Furthermore, we ALL make predictions about all sorts of things. Including NSIDC personnel. What's even more ironic is you jumping all over Watts for making a prediction, me for supposedly jumping to conclusions, and predicting minimums without apparently recognizing that those things are exactly what you are doing yourself, every bit as much. Perhaps it's your own meds you need to be looking to - seems you've got a fair amount of projection going on, psychologically speaking, and a lot of pent up misplaced anger to boot. By the way, I don't know what was there the day you posted, but if you are such an expert and 'the more important number' is the running average, then perhaps you should so inform the NSIDC, who commonly show only the daily extent and not the running avgs. Its clear they lack your genius.
thermodynamics
not rated yet Sep 08, 2010
Who_Wants_to_Know: It is now September 8th. On September 3rd the arctic ice extent dropped below the seasonal low for 2009:

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

That means that the estimate by Watts was absolutely wrong, considering he made the estimate that the extent would be about 500,000 km^2 larger than 2009. The reason this is important is that he was using it as an example of why the earth was not really warming and that arctic ice was not contracting. He was not only wrong numerically, he was wrong in principle. In fact, there are still 2 weeks or so more of melting to go. That means that the ice extent will be either the second or third least since records began. Not only that, but all of those record lows have been in this decade. I brought this up originally because it was clear he was using his own stilted logic (as he does in other instances). Please note I have not forgotten this and I hope others have not either. Let's see what he has to say about this.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.