Melting glaciers feed Antarctic food chain

Melting glaciers feed Antarctic food chain
Scientists and ASC Marine Technicians head out on the zodiac to collect ice samples near the West Antarctic Peninsula. Pictured from left to right: Kevin Arrigo (Stanford), John Betz (ASC Marine Lab), Tom Sigmond (ASC Marine Lab), Yussi Delgado (Monash Univeristy), John Butterfield (Stanford). Credit: Hannah Joy-Warren

Nutrient-rich water from melting Antarctic glaciers nourishes the ocean food chain, creating feeding "hot spots" in large gaps in the sea ice, according to a new study.

New research finds that iron stored in the region's glaciers is being shuttled by melting water to open areas of the ocean, called polynyas, where it stimulates growth of phytoplankton, ocean algae that form the base of the marine . Krill and fish thrive on phytoplankton, and these smaller animals support penguins, seals and whales that feed and breed in the polynyas that ring the Antarctic coast, according to new research.

Increased melting of Antarctic glaciers in the coming decades, which scientists say could occur as a result of climate change, could cause a spike in the amount of iron in the polynyas, according to the new study. The increased iron could boost phytoplankton in these open areas, potentially providing more food for the entire food chain, suggests the new study accepted for publication in Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, an American Geophysical Union journal.

"These coastal polynyas are sensitive to inputs from adjacent glaciers, and these glaciers are probably going to accelerate their melting in the future, which is certainly going to have implications for these polynyas," said Kevin Arrigo, a biological oceanographer with the Department of Earth System Science at Stanford University in California, and lead author of the new study.

"Coastal Antarctica is likely to become a more productive place in the future," Arrigo said.

Polynyas are created during the summer when winds whip off the Antarctic Ice Sheet, pushing floating sea ice away from the shore. These open areas of water, which range from the size of San Diego to an area equal to the Great Lakes, are hot spots for phytoplankton and, in turn, the entire ocean food chain, according to Arrigo.

"When you look at satellite images of ocean color, these areas just light up [green] compared to the [blue] waters around them," he said.

Watch Kevin Arrigo describe his research on Antarctica’s hot-spots, the icy world of polynyas. Credit: Stanford University

The new research by Arrigo and his team suggests that the amount of water leaving melting Antarctic glaciers is the largest driver behind the abundance of phytoplankton in the polynyas, not sunlight or temperature as scientists had previously thought. Larger amounts of water coming off the glaciers carry more iron into the polynyas, which should simulate more phytoplankton growth, according to the new study.

This new information about phytoplankton growth in polynyas, based on satellite data, gives scientists greater insight into how the Antarctic marine food web works and how it could be affected by climate change, according to the study's authors. Arrigo noted that although climate change could increase the amount of iron in the polynyas, any positive effects of the additional iron may be offset by other climate change-driven environmental shifts. He added that most marine organisms will be negatively affected by global increases in ocean temperatures and acidification that are expected to happen as a result of climate change.

The new research could also shed light on how carbon is stored in the ocean, Arrigo said. The new study suggests that phytoplankton in the polynyas could be responsible for pulling in large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. The polynyas could be acting as storage sites for carbon released into the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning, according to the new study.

"These polynyas appear to be disproportionately important, for their size, as sinks of carbon. And the reality is that they really are not included in anyone's carbon budget," said Arrigo.

Measuring polynyas, phytoplankton

The researchers used satellite images from 1997 to 2014 to calculate the amount of phytoplankton growing in 46 polynyas that ring the coast of Antarctica. They compared these numbers with data describing the size of the polynyas, the melt rate of nearby glaciers, and the width of the local seafloor in order to identify which environmental characteristics could be linked to phytoplankton growth.

Melting glaciers feed Antarctic food chain
Adélie penguin (Pygoscelis adeliae) preparing to dive into the water in the Ross Sea, Antarctica. Credit: Hannah Joy-Warren

The study found that phytoplankton were most abundant in polynyas near glaciers pumping out large amounts of water. The authors believe water from the glaciers acts as a food delivery system for the algae, bringing iron right to the phytoplankton's doorstep.

Phytoplankton need iron to grow, but the nutrient is scarce in many Antarctic coastal waters. Glaciers, however, accumulate iron from sediments they pick up as they grind across the land and from dust blown onto the ice. Water coming off the melting glaciers transports the iron into the ocean water, where it makes it way to the polynyas, according to the new research. Large amounts of glacial meltwater and iron mix into polynyas that have formed near glaciers. Polynyas far from glaciers receive less of the glacial meltwater and less iron, according to the new study.

While iron-rich water from melting glaciers controls the majority of the phytoplankton growth in polynyas, the study also shows phytoplankton numbers increased in polynyas located over wide, shallow seafloors. Seafloor sediments contain iron from both sunken, dead organisms and dirt from the land. Local currents moving into shallow waters can stir up iron-rich sediments and carry iron from the shallow seafloors up to the surface, but it is harder for currents to resurrect sediments on deep seafloors, the study suggests.

Higher temperatures also enhanced phytoplankton growth but not nearly as much as Arrigo originally believed. The algae evolved to thrive at low temperatures, and the small differences in temperature between polynyas - from 1 degree to 2 degrees Celsius (34 to 36 degrees Fahrenheit) - does not make a large difference in the amount of phytoplankton, said Arrigo.

The new study helps scientists understand productivity in polynyas, said Peter Sedwick, a chemical oceanographer with Ocean, Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, who was not associated with the study.

Field measurements are needed to prove the connection between phytoplankton growth in polynyas and coming from melting , he said. This could help shed further light on how productivity - and food for fish, penguins and seals - could change as a result of , Sedwick added.


Explore further

Protein identified in certain microalgae changes conversation about climate change

More information: Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10 … ytk-41855.5282060185
Citation: Melting glaciers feed Antarctic food chain (2015, August 11) retrieved 20 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-08-glaciers-antarctic-food-chain.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
385 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 11, 2015
Interesting article, and well written. Thanks for sharing.

Aug 11, 2015
Direct observations with possible future implications as to how the Earth handles warmer conditions and possibly even how WE decide to offset emissions. Good stuff.

Aug 11, 2015
"He added that most marine organisms will be negatively affected by global increases in ocean temperatures and acidification that are expected to happen as a result of climate change."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

@denglish
@jeffensley

Glad to see you gave a "5" to this article.

Aug 11, 2015
"He added that most marine organisms will be negatively affected by global increases in ocean temperatures and acidification that are expected to happen as a result of climate change."

Glad to see you gave a "5" to this article.


I'm at least equally glad to see you cherry-picked that sentenced out just so you could focus on the doom-oriented guesswork and ignore what should be good news to those who actually care about the planet. Truth is, you don't seem to WANT the planet to adapt and survive... you CHOOSE not to see any positives in change.

"These polynyas appear to be disproportionately important, for their size, as sinks of carbon. And the reality is that they really are not included in anyone's carbon budget," said Arrigo.



Aug 11, 2015
"He added that most marine organisms will be negatively affected by global increases in ocean temperatures and acidification that are expected to happen as a result of climate change."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

@denglish
@jeffensley

Glad to see you gave a "5" to this article.


Yeah they think it's great because they've deliberately misread it as supporting phase three of their goalpost shifting and illogical argument that actually goes like this:

Climate change isn't happening but what is definitely happening isn't manmade and this man-made change doesn't matter.

Aug 11, 2015
Whether it's due to 200 years of pumping CO2 into the air or not, doesn't matter. We don't have control of it either way. To be terrified of climate change you first have to have no faith in the capacity of mankind and Nature as a whole to adapt to change. That's the real difference here. Those who choose to ignore (or judge as "bad") where Nature is adapting to change seem to want governing bodies to play the role of an ever-powerful God. You want to put your full faith in Science and the ability of man to control his circumstances and unfortunately you're all grasping at an illusion.

Aug 11, 2015
Whether it's due to human influence has no relationship as to whether it's due to human influence?

Mate, think before you type. Please.

Aug 12, 2015
Climate change isn't happening but what is definitely happening isn't manmade and this man-made change doesn't matter.

Wrong.

Climate change is clearly happening. Climate has always changed, and always will, as long as the Earth lives.

There is not enough evidence of Anthropologically Caused Climate Change (ACCC), nor has it been proven that humanity has a good enough understanding of ACCC to justify policies that create economic and moral ruin.

An example of economic ruin is California Senate Bill 350.

The article is good because it shows that we are building a greater understanding of our climate, and what happens as a result of the climate change. it is also well written.

The readiness of both sides of the issue to engage in hate-speak is disgusting.


Aug 12, 2015
Whether it's due to human influence has no relationship as to whether it's due to human influence?

Mate, think before you type. Please.


Those are your words, not mine. I meant exactly what I said. You think a carbon tax is somehow going to correct for 200 years of fossil fuel burning, natural warming, and CO2 feedback from that warming? If you want to be taken seriously, you need to come up with a realistic game plan with realistic goals and that goal can't be centered around controlling global temperature. That ship sailed long ago.

Aug 12, 2015
jeffensley claims
Whether it's due to 200 years of pumping CO2 into the air or not, doesn't matter
Foolish CRAP !

As claimed environmental scientist (ES) @ Virginia Tech SHOULD know:-

https://en.wikipe...transfer
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

How it can be, if you did qualify, that you show major ignorance re Heat Physics !

jeffensley claims
We don't have control of it either way
More CRAP
Humans ADD huge CO2, why can't you offer a rationale congruent with a trained scientist - why is that please ?

Did you do ANY Physics @ Virgina Tech at all ?

Why ignore & illustrate ignorance of radiative transfer ?

Do you imagine its a noble point to sidestep/ignore Physics re "radiative transfer" showing your immense ignorance ?

Why didn't you cover Statistical Mechanics as fundamental core of heat, its transfer & the Science ?

jeffensley appears to be under illusion your comment makes any sense :-(

Learn Physics !

Aug 12, 2015
Mike, the problem is that it hasn't been conclusively proven that CO2 is a significant climate change gas, and there are so many variables in climate science that we may never be able to convincingly point to one single factor.

When we do point to one single factor, and then attack fellow humans, the wealth of our great societies, and the moral compass of our scientific endeavors, one can't help but to think that something stinks.

I know you will respond violently to my post. Its OK. Your feelings are strong.

Aug 12, 2015
Foolish CRAP !


Oh Great Master of CAPS and Personal Insults, teach us your ways.

The same reason I don't believe in the predictive power of computer models is the same reason I don't believe cutting CO2 emissions is going to effect the changes we seek. Our logic is far too simplistic... we assume that if we cut CO2 emissions, the Earth's temperature will drop by some directly correlated amount. You're pretending we are operating in a laboratory where all variables are known and controlled... a serious flaw that the most vehement AGW die-hards continue to ignore. There's no real science/evidence to back that up... only models that presume CO2 is the main climate driver.

Aug 12, 2015
...... I don't believe cutting CO2 emissions is going to effect the changes we seek. Our logic is far too simplistic... we assume that if we cut CO2 emissions, the Earth's temperature will drop by some directly correlated amount.


No, cutting CO2 emissions will merely stop things getting quite so bad in the future. The Earth's ave temp has risen ~0.8C due AGW and we have another ~0.8C in the pipeline due thermal inertia. If we stopped all emissions now temps will continue rising for decades. (bar internal cycles).
You're pretending we are operating in a laboratory where all variables are known and controlled... only models that presume CO2 is the main climate driver.

Still hooked on models eh. Radiative physics is the science my friend.
Solar SW in MUST = LW out (for stable temp).
Doesn't.
Sun - the same or weaker.
Albedo - similar.
GHG's ... Oops Up 40% since pre-industrial.
No go and investigate what that does.
All empirical science and not up for argument.

Aug 12, 2015
What you can say with certainty is that an increase in GHG concentrations increases the insulative properties of the atmosphere, thus the POTENTIAL for heating. Energy in isn't stable, energy out isn't stable, an anthropogenic CO2 emission increase doesn't necessarily equal an increase in atmospheric concentration just like a decrease in emissions doesn't necessarily equal a decrease in concentration. You have to make a lot of assumptions to say the above are true.

Aug 12, 2015
All empirical science and not up for argument.

Excellent!

No global warming for the last 81 years 7 months.

https://wattsupwi...0023.jpg

Aug 12, 2015
denglish replied
Mike, the problem is that it hasn't been conclusively proven that CO2 is a significant climate change gas, and there are so many variables in climate science that we may never be able to convincingly point to one single factor
Wrong, only not proven to those that haven't or just Cannot understand Physics of radiative heat transfer in based upon statistical mechanics & re relative specific heats of atmosphere vs oceans - which along with latent heat of fusion (of ice) is the immense buffer temporarily retarding us suffering badly.

denglish show something, ANYTHING comparable to the 1.5W/m^2 which CO2 adds ?

denglish states
... one can't help but to think that something stinks
Yes, it STINKS that dicks like jeffensley who claims to be an ES lies & cheats out of his incompetence REFUSING to appreciate Physics of radiative heat transfer - FFS !

denglish says
Your feelings are strong
Not feelings - Evidence with Education etc

Learn Physics !

Aug 12, 2015
No, cutting CO2 emissions will merely stop things getting quite so bad in the future.


Define "bad". Bad for what or whom specifically?

Aug 12, 2015
denglish caught out naively with graph with NIL provenance
No global warming for the last 81 years 7 months.
https://wattsupwi...0023.jpg
LIAR !
What is the origin of the graph please ?

Agency claimed in that link offers this proving you are misled
http://images.rem...ies.html

denglish you, just like the obviously uneducated LIAR jeffensely re ES pick propaganda of NIL provenance showing immense ignorance & NIL cognition of integrity by refusing to go to the source or even examine it !

denglish/jeffensley especially come across as arbitrary uneducated propagandists searching for graphs without Provenance. Eg See credits of the site used by dumb idiot redneck deniers who don't know Physics
http://woodfortre.../credits

Which one; denglish or jeffensley is going to apologise first for serious intellectual dishonesty ?

Learn Physics - then be immune to idiot dick propagandists who mislead !

Aug 12, 2015
Wow, Mike. Welcome to my ignore list. Your rants have made me realize intelligent conversation with you isn't possible. You somehow believe middle-school insults make your point valid when all they do is detract from your credibility.

Aug 12, 2015
Learn Physics - then be immune to idiot dick propagandists who mislead !

You are quite emotional. I hope everything works out OK for you.

The source of the graph is the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset.

radiative heat transfer in based upon statistical mechanics & re relative specific heats of atmosphere vs oceans - which along with latent heat of fusion (of ice) is the immense buffer temporarily retarding us suffering badly.

This is nonsensical word salad.


Aug 12, 2015
jeffensley claims,FAILS to answer questions
Wow, Mike. Welcome to my ignore list. Your rants have made me realize intelligent conversation with you isn't possible. You somehow believe middle-school insults make your point valid when all they do is detract from your credibility
You really are a complete liar, cheat & idiot FAILING to address how a claimed environmental scientist (ES) missed all the physics of radiative heat transfer which is essential to understand heat flow in the environment - doh !

By all means ignore me - great news, you won't see my posts :-)

I however, will NOT put you on ignore & will see ALL your posts & can show you up as the complete fool you are illustrating very bad thinking !

Note:
To all on the fence re climate change, heat & its distribution, I an tired of liars & cheats like jeffensley & uneducated propagandists !

Why hasnt jeffensley explained why he cannot understand radiative heat transfer @ Virginia Tech ?

Learn Physics !

Aug 12, 2015
denglish states
You are quite emotional. I hope everything works out OK for you
Because I am getting more angry with idiot uneducated people who have the opportunity to get an education but, refuse then claim no global warming ie dicks !

denglish claims
The source of the graph is the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset
You should know better, show the analysis peer reviewed paper not a singular graph with your claim, ie Be intellectually genuine !

denglish claims
... is the immense buffer temporarily retarding us suffering badly.
This is nonsensical word salad
Only to the uneducated who don't understand these key issue re the essential Physics which is settled

https://en.wikipe...transfer
https://en.wikipe...fic_Heat
https://en.wikipe...f_fusion
https://en.wikipe...echanics

Learn Physics !

Aug 12, 2015
Because I am getting more angry with idiot uneducated people who have the opportunity to get an education but, refuse then claim no global warming ie dicks !

You are quite emotional. I hope everything works out OK for you.

Off topic, you should know that those who resort to insult are generally regarded as being bereft of intellectual input.


Aug 12, 2015
denglish states
You are quite emotional. I hope everything works out OK for you
You desperately need education in Physics then you wouldn't make a fool of yourself on a Science site, what makes you so very sad is you have been here long enough to get the basics of heat transfer & KNOW how to quote links to a study but, you cannot do that, so you are either immensely thick, a dick, a liar or a cheat or have another agenda Eg To obfuscate the Science & cast doubt on essential proven settled Physics !

Note: You failed to show link to article to support your claim, why is that ?

Show the supporting reference linked from the home page with shows the graph - can you ?

denglish states
..those who resort to insult are generally regarded as being bereft of intellectual input
By the uneducated yes, because they are driven by propaganda to start with blunting their intellect as YOU have shown.

Forget me & insults, you've been misled

Learn Physics - Please !

Aug 12, 2015
so you are either immensely thick, a dick, a liar or a cheat or have another agenda Eg To obfuscate the Science & cast doubt on essential proven settled Physics !

You are quite emotional. I hope everything works out ok.

You failed to show link to article to support your claim, why is that ?

Debating with Daft Fury is pointless.

By the uneducated yes, because they are driven by propaganda to start with blunting their intellect as YOU have shown.

So you are saying that educated people regard insult as a persuasive argumentative tactic. Fascinating.


Aug 12, 2015
Would you like to know how much they're spending here? http://www.thegua...per-pacs

jeffensley1 /5 (1) 57 minutes ago
Wow, Mike. Welcome to my ignore list


Liar! Again.

Aug 12, 2015
Would you like to know how much they're spending here? http://www.thegua...per-pacs

jeffensley1 /5 (1) 57 minutes ago
Wow, Mike. Welcome to my ignore list


Liar! Again.

Referencing The Guardian doesn't earn many credibility points.

That said, you should also post how liberal politicians are in the pockets of special interests too.

What you've demonstrated is not...was not unknown. Supplying the news to only one side reveals your leanings. Not that it is unusual, most of us do lean one way or another.

For me, the most important thing to bear in mind when deciding how to behave is that beliefs lead to politics, not vice/versa.

Aug 12, 2015
denglish states
You are quite emotional. I hope everything works out ok
Robotic response, not able to infer changes in context or deduce you failed to communicate in the beginning

denglish claims
Debating with Daft Fury is pointless
Wrong & uneducated, as I said ignore me, focus INSTEAD on Physics ie radiative heat transfer & the study which shows how ADDING heat to a system can't change temps despite loss of albedo - huh, this is Science FFS

Do you not understand Science discipline is NOT subject to vanity ?

denglish claimed
So you are saying that educated people regard insult as a persuasive argumentative tactic. Fascinating
No. Never said that, your naive redneck failure to respond

People like you, here long enough to learn but, refuse to or juts CANNOT, come across as dicks with a bad agenda, they refuse to address essential Physics, why ?

Doh, some with Science education get angry at those that betray politics on a Science site !

Learn Physics !

Aug 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 12, 2015
AGreatWhopper's good point
Would you like to know how much they're spending here? http://www.thegua...per-pacs
May have misunderstood you earlier AGreatWhopper :/

Journalists might find interesting tidbits like this, I guess to be as even handed as possible, to avoid needless jibes from those already in the republican camp we would need to find an independent comparison of democrats/republicans but, don't see how that is possible in the USA with current rhetoric & how much is definitive :-(

Suffice to say though, on the balance of probabilities & anecdotally the notion of "conservatives" ie GOP are those that resist change - we know the oil/coal industry has immense momentum of $ flow, such as:-
https://en.wikipe...d_losses

Which raises the question re those that deal with the core Physics, is there comparable $ flow ?

But, I focus on Physics

Aug 12, 2015
Says the moron that averages 1+ on every comment.

Approval from those that express themselves with insult is of no value.

The Guardian is one of a handful of decent journalistic sources on the planet. Your reaction proves that. What a goddamned messiah complex. You talk and talk and talk and get rated below two on everything but are either too stupid or too full of yourself to respect how many dozen people daily yell for you to "SHUT THE FUCK UP!".

Fascinating.

People like you, here long enough to learn but, refuse to or juts CANNOT, come across as dicks with a bad agenda, they refuse to address essential Physics, why ?

Debating with Daft Fury is pointless.

Aug 12, 2015
Re jeffensley & his claims & anti-science stance that should be immune to propaganda.

I have often asked him to show just why his claims & writing is NOT at all consistent with those who have some phsyics education a& just why he needs to "appeal to authority"

Sure we all have feet of clay, this seems to be one good reason as to why claims are out the window & why Science evolved post renaissance to counter claims which are central to all religions but only Science has actually offered means to advance via Evidence...

re jeffensley's idle claim
http://phys.org/n...ers.html

as to denglish, well at least he isn'tt claiming degrees but, appears to be to have been misled very badly because he may well be impatient with the seeming Physics complexity, to address that to a degree, here are 2 main fundamental postulates

1.Everything moves all the time
2.Everything radiates/absorbs light all the time (eg CO2)

ie Learn Physics

Aug 12, 2015
as to denglish, well at least he isn'tt claiming degrees but, appears to be to have been misled very badly because he may well be impatient with the seeming Physics complexity, to address that to a degree, here are 2 main fundamental postulates

1.Everything moves all the time
2.Everything radiates/absorbs light all the time (eg CO2)

ie Learn Physics

Debating with Daft Fury is pointless.

Aug 12, 2015
denglish claims
Debating with Daft Fury is pointless.
Yes but, only for uneducated who are unable to craft dialectic founded on proven Physics

https://en.wikipe...transfer
https://en.wikipe..._forcing
https://en.wikipe...echanics
https://en.wikipe...f_fusion

denglish, just because I'm fortunate to have education in above & use that in a sentence does not neccessitate insult from you that its "word salad" - speak to uni graduated physicist or a proper environmental scientist who has done Physics & you will see I speak the truth

jeffensley FAILS & confuses chaos theory with heat flow integration, Eg re climate, look at the chaos motion in a petrol engine re power to push a piston for car to move.

ie The atoms combust chaotically but, the power (heat) is integrated reliably & smoothly, this is the same paradigm with climate, integration of Watts/m^2 are ESSENTIAL !

Learn Physics !

Aug 12, 2015
I believe Denglish has a link giving the lie of a flat RSS temp trend for the lower trop.
This this the actuality.....

http://woodfortre...ss/trend

Aug 12, 2015
No, cutting CO2 emissions will merely stop things getting quite so bad in the future.


Define "bad". Bad for what or whom specifically?


Define it how you want. Most people would do it the rational way.
That is use the consensus mid-way consequences.
So, look up IPCC rcp's
https://en.wikipe...Pathways

Aug 12, 2015
I believe Denglish has a link giving the lie of a flat RSS temp trend for the lower trop.
This this the actuality.....

http://woodfortre...ss/trend

Does full_disclosure have a problem with that graph?
OK - how about this one from RSS themselves?
http://images.rem...ies.html

OH, of course, forgot - it's all a scam perpetrated by the UN to take over the world. Or else the world's experts must be wrong, coz, well it doesn't fit first grade (whatever that is) physics.
FFS

Aug 12, 2015
I believe Denglish has a link giving the lie of a flat RSS temp trend for the lower trop.

Wrong. it is the mean of the collective that is presented. When the mean of all measurements is calculated, it is revealed that there has been no movement for 18 years 7 months, in either direction.

This is also know as "The Hiatus", which required an alteration of past data points by AGW scientists in order to disprove. Thus, there should be no controversy over what the data indicates; only whether or not it is proper to accept the data as is, or to manipulate it to meet a narrative.

Daft Fury is re-muted after the "chaos engine" nonsense.


Aug 12, 2015
What it's known as is cherry picking your start and end points and then using Excel to draw a linear line through the middle.

Hey, how about you do a decadal analysis and show us how the last three decades have compared to each other?

I anticipate *crickets* since each of the last three decades has been the hottest on record and each of the top 10 hottest years have been since 1998.

Aug 13, 2015
denglish easily led by redneck propaganda claims
Wrong. it is the mean of the collective that is presented
What does this mean, show the peer reviewed paper, show the calculation, why does your feeble claim not match RSS own data, why do you miss details & ONLY push claim - thats religion not Science
http://images.rem...ies.html

denglish claims
When the mean of all measurements is calculated, it is revealed that there has been no movement for 18 years 7 months, in either direction
Ah really ?
When you claim 'all', then you *must* include ocean data & as any student of Physics knows even a 0.01 C rise in oceans is a tremendous amount of heat.

denglish get a grip on specific heat you still FAIL to learn basic Physics of heat, why is that ?

WHy denglish do you continue to be attached to ignorance ?

Start with the very simple stuff, Eg that Oceans > 4000x times atmosphere
https://en.wikipe...capacity

Learn Physics !

Aug 13, 2015
denglish states
You are quite emotional. I hope everything works out OK for you
Because I am getting more angry with idiot uneducated people who have the opportunity to get an education but, refuse then claim no global warming ie dicks !

Far be it from me to agree with denglish, but he's kind of right here. Denglish has admitted that he has absolutely no understanding of any kind of science and, furthermore, has indicated that he has an inability to think logically or rationally. Additionally, he has demonstrated an unbelievable amount of hubris in refusing to try learn anything, instead just making claims that he has no understanding of. And, when he's proven wrong again, he'll say something idiotic like, "See you in the next thread."

Waiting for him to say something reasonable is like staring at a pile of lead, waiting for it to turn to gold - it just ain't going to happen. ;)

Aug 13, 2015
Denglish also has said that he's happy to be lied to (or to lie) as long as the lie supports his politics. Case in point is his graph of RSS temperatures since 1997. The graph claims that the trend displayed (0C/decade) shows that there has been no warming since 1997. But does this really show that? Looking at the most recent RSS data, the trend since 1997 is -0.01C/decade +/- 0.18. That means that in the graph denglish showed, it is equally correct to say that the trend is 0.17C/decade (i.e., the claim of no warming is a lie). Of course, none of this includes the facts that RSS doesn't measure surface temperature or that over the period of the graph, satellite data adds a fairly large cooling bias, or the cherry pick of the start date.

Now, was denglish lying in including the graph or was he being lied to? Given his track record, probably the latter, but who knows?

Aug 13, 2015
What it's known as is cherry picking your start and end points and then using Excel to draw a linear line through the middle.

Wrong. 18 Years 7 months is the farthest one can go back in the RSS records and show a sub-zero trend. Going back farther shows a slow warming trend. So, the start date is not cherry picked; it is calculated.

Looking at the most recent RSS data, the trend since 1997 is -0.01C/decade +/- 0.18.

Link please.

Given his track record, probably the latter, but who knows?

It'll be whatever you say. Thanks for contributing.


Aug 13, 2015
Link please.

Nevermind.

Looking at the most recent RSS data, the trend since 1997 is -0.01C/decade +/- 0.18. That means that in the graph denglish showed, it is equally correct to say that the trend is 0.17C/decade (i.e., the claim of no warming is a lie).

Using this logic, it is also equally correct to say that the trend is -.19C/decade (i.e. a claim of high rates of cooling is valid).

I suppose we should thank the author of the graph that they chose the fair median instead of an extreme.


Aug 13, 2015
Wrong. 18 Years 7 months is the farthest one can go back in the RSS records and show a sub-zero trend. Going back farther shows a slow warming trend. So, the start date is not cherry picked; it is calculated.


Err, excuse me.
Did you not look at the 2 graphs of RSS data I linked.
Both start in 1978.
From:http://www.remss....ons/amsu

"Microwave Sounding Data Products from RSS

We currently provide a number of data products constructed by merging the MSU and AMSU Data from different satellites together. These include

3 single-channel MSU/AMSU datasets (TMT, TTS, and TLS) that extend back to late 1978"

Also: You think that the temp spike of ~0.8C in 1997/8 is reasonable?
And that it's reasonable to start a trend line from there?
Especially, as you have again been found either lying, or at the very least passing on lies in ignorance, when it's ssssso easy to check whethjer your confirmation bias is out of control.
But, then again that's what Deniers do.

Aug 13, 2015
Did you not look at the 2 graphs of RSS data I linked.
Both start in 1978.

Please pay attention to detail. That has already been addressed:
"18 Years 7 months is the farthest one can go back in the RSS records and show a sub-zero trend. Going back farther shows a slow warming trend. So, the start date is not cherry picked; it is calculated."

Also: You think that the temp spike of ~0.8C in 1997/8 is reasonable?

That's called an El Nino event.

And that it's reasonable to start a trend line from there?

Take another look at the start time. If anything, the El Nino event hurts the intent of the graph, demonstrating an amount of intellectual honesty that should be respected.

Especially, as you have again been found either lying

I see.

But, then again that's what Deniers do.

Yes, of course.


Aug 13, 2015
denglish FAILS with immense ignorance claims
I suppose we should thank the author of the graph that they chose the fair median instead of an extreme
You sure know what you are saying denglish ?

tut tut

Are you going to imagine how a denier site chooses a "far median" or did they use proper robust stat methods to analyse & offer means, walking or otherwise - climate period ?

Why show us you don't understand delineation of "median" vs "mean" & its import ?

Care to get an education to understand high school taught statistics ?

Do you have any idea how to progress the idea of robust statistics ?

Where did you go to school denglish ?

Can you confirm you might be able to understand the clear distinctions & comparative value of:-

https://en.wikipe...i/Median
https://en.wikipe...i/Medoid
https://en.wikipe...iki/Mean
https://en.wikipe...atistics

denglish STILL hasnt answered key questions ?

See what I did above ;-)

Aug 14, 2015
That's called an El Nino event.

Correct ... however it was exaggerated by RSS to be ~0.3C further above it's underlying trend-line than was GISS..............

http://woodfortre...99/trend

It's an artifact of the sat sensing. And La Ninas give a cooling bias.
Which is why that trend is as it is (since that Nino). Artificially too high for a start point and suppressed thereafter. So, both for that reason, for it's short duration and for the fact the Sat TLT temps aren't reliable indicators of surface temp (for many reasons) it is indeed unreasonable to start a trend from there. Perhaps you would prefer the UAH record? But would it be version 5.5 or earlier ones? We can't trust surface temps can we (denier meme), as they're "tampered with" ..... that'll be like Sat temps then. But of course they show less warming - so it's OK (?)

Aug 14, 2015
it is indeed unreasonable to start a trend from there

Please pay attention to detail. the trend didn't start there.

Which is why that trend is as it is (since that Nino). Artificially too high for a start point and suppressed thereafter.

So, the temp was artificially too high, yet used anyway, and still resulted in a cooling trend? Well, well, well.

Aug 15, 2015
To illustrate the effect of cherry-picking the height of the Nino to start a trend-line on the RRS record:

http://woodfortre...14/trend

Vs:

http://woodfortre...14/trend

A trend of ~(-0.1C) goes to ~(+0.1C)
That is a difference of ~0.2C by just choosing to start the trend one year later.

Aug 15, 2015
That is a difference of ~0.2C by just choosing to start the trend one year later.

Please, pay attention to detail. The trend does not start at the height of the El Nino.

Thus, the rest of you post is nonsense.

The trend begins before the El Nino (January 1997), allowing ample opportunity for an upwardly mobile trendline, which does not materialize.

All empirical science. No warming over the last 18 years 7 months.


Aug 15, 2015
Temps have risen approx. 1 degree. Each of the last three decades has been the hottest on record. Each of the Top 10 hottest years have occurred since 1998. Which is why I keep asking you to print a decadal analysis because it smooths out the short term variation you're using to cherry pick a "hiatus" that never existed.

Here's NASA
http://climate.na...erature/

Here's NOAA and NASA
http://www.giss.n...0150116/

Here's the British Met
http://www.metoff...son.html

You'll notice, amongst other things (aside from the very clear warming trend) that our confidence around these measures has significantly increased as well.

The "no warming in 18 years" is a mathematical artefact derived by careful cherry picking and creative graph design.

To put it bluntly it is, and always was, utter bullshit.

And I'm out because facts are facts and I don't argue those determined to be ignorant

Aug 15, 2015
Which is why I keep asking you to print a decadal analysis because it smooths out the short term variation you're using to cherry pick a "hiatus" that never existed.

Its your point, you print it.

The "no warming in 18 years" is a mathematical artefact derived by careful cherry picking and creative graph design.

Wrong. It is a calculation, not a cherry pick

Anyway, I appreciate you posting something worth looking at.

Have you ever wondered why the different sources have different values? I have.

Aug 16, 2015

Please, pay attention to detail. The trend does not start at the height of the El Nino.

It is you that need to pay attention.
Whether just before, or at the height of it makes no difference as the (false) spike is included. To exclude it's distorting effect you either need to trend after it or before it.
The point is ONE year later makes that difference (~ +0.2C ) in such a (climatically) short period.

In your own words you simply "posted nonsense", in the statistically/scientific sense.
The point about a cherry-pick and indeed any trend-line worth it's salt is that the choice of a time period should not materially affect its value over a meaningful period.
I assume you know of the effect that climate cycles play on global temp, as the Nino proves.
Ninos are not part of AGW.
Plotting RSS from just 3 yrs earlier also gives a positive trend.

http://woodfortre...15/trend

Your cherry-pick is a classic.

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