myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 372, 373, 374 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's see where the deniers place their heads to ignore this. Perhaps rent new fantasies from Netflix?

Quote:
By LUIS ANDRES HENAO and SETH BORENSTEIN
Associated Press
CAPE LEGOUPIL, Antarctica (AP) - From the ground of this extreme northern part of Antarctica, a spectacular white and blinding ice seemingly extends forever. What can't be seen is the battle raging below to reshape Earth.

Water is eating away at the Antarctic ice, melting it where it hits the oceans. As the ice sheets slowly thaw, water pours into the sea, 130 billion tons of ice (118 billion metric tons) per year for the past decade, according to NASA satellite calculations. That's enough ice melt to fill more than 1.3 million Olympic swimming pools. And the melting is accelerating.

In the worst case scenario, Antarctica's melt could push sea levels up 10 feet (3.3 meters) worldwide in a century or two, recurving heavily populated coastlines.

At its current rate, the rise from Antarctica would only lift the world's oceans a barely noticeable one-third of a millimeter a year.

But if all the West Antarctic ice sheet that's connected to water melts unstoppably, as several experts predict, there won't be time to prepare. Scientists estimate it will take from 200 to 1,000 years to melt enough ice to raise seas by 10 feet, maybe only 100 years in a worst-case scenario.

For a dozen days in January, in the middle of the chilly Antarctic summer, The Associated Press followed scientists from different fields searching for alien-like creatures, hints of pollution trapped in ancient ice, leftovers from the Big Bang, biological quirks that potentially could lead to better medical treatments, and perhaps most of all, signs of unstoppable melting.

A zodiac boat carried a team of international scientists to Chile's station Bernardo O'Higgins, and a group of penguins stood on a rock near the mission. Scientists collected samples on Deception Island, and elsewhere in Antarctica during the visit.

Here's a look at some of the images from the trip:

AP photographers and photo editors on Twitter: http://apne.ws/150o6jo

Associated Press writer Luis Andres Henao reported this story from various locations in Antarctica and Seth Borenstein reported from Washington.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180

PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fact........

At its current rate, the rise from Antarctica would only lift the world's oceans a barely noticeable one-third of a millimeter a year.

Fiction.......

But if all the West Antarctic ice sheet that's connected to water melts unstoppably, as several experts predict

Classic alarmism.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac asked where deniers would hide their heads. The clear answer is some dark place where neither science nor critical thinking shines any light. The archbishop smugly concludes:

Quote:
At its current rate, the rise from Antarctica would only lift the world's oceans a barely noticeable one-third of a millimeter a year.


Textual context? Absent. Not too long ago the deniers were arguing that the antarctic was increasing in ice cover so global warming is a myth. Now that there is melting they look only at the melting from the antarctic. The old arguments are apparently no longer convenient when proved wrong.

Let me explain it to those whose science education seems to have stopped in the Middle Ages, about the time of the inquisition. First, no one has ever argued that all of the ice on land would melt, particularly not in the antarctic. The antarctic is much colder than the arctic--the average summer temperature in the arctic is 32 degrees F, while in the antarctic it is -18 degrees F. It is obvious to any one with any understanding of climate that the melting of the ice in the antarctic will be negligible, and seasonal--and probably unusual. But since land and ocean masses absorb heat and thus smooth out the daily and seasonal variations, the fact that there is any melting in the antarctic is big news. Lost on those who get their news from Murdoch.

Here is the discrediting of the denier argument that the antarctic is gaining ice and we need not worry. Myth indeed. source is skeptical science.
Antarctica is gaining ice

Quote:
"[Ice] is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap." (Greg Roberts, The Australian)
Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.

In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months. When land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably.

In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer (Figure 1). That is where the important difference between Antarctic and Arctic sea ice exists as much of the Arctic's sea ice lasts all the year round. During the winter months it increases and before decreasing during the summer months, but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years (Figure 1). Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it increasingly melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged.

Figure 1: Coverage of sea ice in both the Arctic (Top) and Antarctica (Bottom) for both summer minimums and winter maximums
Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center

One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing overall and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite. Antarctic sea ice is gaining because of many different reasons but the most accepted recent explanations are listed below:

i) Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009).

and

ii) The Southern Ocean is freshening because of increased rain and snowfall as well as an increase in meltwater coming from the edges of Antarctica's land ice (Zhang 2007, Bintanga et al. 2013). Together, these change the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea and coastal land ice.

All the sea ice talk aside, it is quite clear that really when it comes to Antarctic ice and sea levels, sea ice is not the most important thing to measure. In Antarctica, the largest and most important ice mass is the land ice of the West Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180

PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quite astonishing. He posts an article which he confidently predicts will floor "deniers". I take quotes directly from that same article, and he says those quotes are nonsense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quite astonishing. Unable to keep his denier stories straight.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps the deniers also have a way to cherry-pick this:

Quote:
Scientists training their instruments on the skies have caught the world’s major greenhouse gas right in the act of warming the planet, researchers reported Wednesday, providing the first direct evidence that human activity is dangerously altering the environment.
The instruments captured more than a decade of rising surface temperatures, changes that were directly triggered by the atmosphere’s increasing burden of carbon dioxide, a team of scientists from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and UC Berkeley reported.
That gas, whose main source is emissions from burning fossil fuels, has long been the principal culprit in global warming investigations by the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists. Its rising levels in the atmosphere have been the basis for increasingly strong warnings about global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, known as the IPCC.

'A technological coup’

“We have known for decades that there must be an effect, but getting a direct measurement and isolating the carbon dioxide component are a technological coup,” Christopher B. Field, a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University who has led two major IPCC reports, said in an e-mail.

The Berkeley scientists’ study, he said, provides concrete evidence for the first time of carbon dioxide’s effect on global warming.
In November, the U.N. panel issued its fifth and most alarming report on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. It warned that global ice caps are melting, Arctic sea ice is diminishing, droughts, heat waves and storms are intensifying, coral reefs are dying, and many creatures on land and in the sea are migrating toward the poles.

Documenting warming

Daniel R. Feldman, a senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, along with other physicists and engineers at the lab and at UC Berkeley, reported Wednesday in the journal Nature on their findings about “radiative forcing” — the process through which carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can block the Earth from reflecting the sun’s radiant energy and actually warm the atmosphere.

The scientists used an array of extremely precise instruments that the U.S. Department of Energy has installed at its climate research facilities near Barrow, Alaska, and Lamont, Okla., to document how the warming works.
Berkeley study directly IDs climate change culprit

By David Perlman Updated 9:43 pm, Wednesday, February 25, 2015


Scientists training their instruments on the skies have caught the world’s major greenhouse gas right in the act of warming the planet, researchers reported Wednesday, providing the first direct evidence that human activity is dangerously altering the environment.

The instruments captured more than a decade of rising surface temperatures, changes that were directly triggered by the atmosphere’s increasing burden of carbon dioxide, a team of scientists from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and UC Berkeley reported.

That gas, whose main source is emissions from burning fossil fuels, has long been the principal culprit in global warming investigations by the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists. Its rising levels in the atmosphere have been the basis for increasingly strong warnings about global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, known as the IPCC.
'A technological coup’

“We have known for decades that there must be an effect, but getting a direct measurement and isolating the carbon dioxide component are a technological coup,” Christopher B. Field, a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University who has led two major IPCC reports, said in an e-mail.
The Berkeley scientists’ study, he said, provides concrete evidence for the first time of carbon dioxide’s effect on global warming.
In November, the U.N. panel issued its fifth and most alarming report on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. It warned that global ice caps are melting, Arctic sea ice is diminishing, droughts, heat waves and storms are intensifying, coral reefs are dying, and many creatures on land and in the sea are migrating toward the poles.
Documenting warming
Daniel R. Feldman, a senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, along with other physicists and engineers at the lab and at UC Berkeley, reported Wednesday in the journal Nature on their findings about “radiative forcing” — the process through which carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can block the Earth from reflecting the sun’s radiant energy and actually warm the atmosphere.
The scientists used an array of extremely precise instruments that the U.S. Department of Energy has installed at its climate research facilities near Barrow, Alaska, and Lamont, Okla., to document how the warming works.
In effect, their instruments measured the amount of infrared heat radiation coming down to the Earth’s surface from the sun, and the amount of heat radiation the Earth emits back up. And when the Berkeley scientists examined their data from 2000 to 2010, they found that some of the heat from Earth was being blocked by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and were able to calculate how much of that blocked heat was warming the planet.
Tough to visualize
The result of the warming, expressed in mathematical and engineering terms, appears tiny and difficult to visualize: It amounted to two-tenths of a watt per square meter of surface per decade. But the Earth’s surface covers a lot of square meters — 510 million square kilometers, in fact, and two-tenths of a watt over 10 years can mean a lot of heat for global warming.
The IPCC’s November report calculates that the Earth’s entire surface has already warmed by 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit since 1882.
The Berkeley scientists measured the direct effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and after excluding all the other greenhouse gases and water vapor as sources, they reported that levels of the gas had increased in the atmosphere by 22 parts per million between 2000 and 2010.
The effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s heat balance have long been understood by climate scientists, who have calculated them in their theories of climate change. But this is the first time the balance has been confirmed by laboratory instruments, according to Feldman and his colleagues.
“Our findings provide direct confirmation of the IPCC’s findings,” Feldman said in an interview. Although he did not discuss the political controversy generated by climate-change deniers, he added, “We can hope now that people everywhere will be convinced that the IPCC’s reports have been correct.”
Ken Caldeira, a physicist, climate change expert and also a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford who was not connected to the Feldman group’s research, said of their calculations that “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” He said the effect of carbon dioxide on global temperatures that the group measured so thoroughly “was not questioned by climate scientists.”
David Perlman is The San Francisco Chronicle’s science editor. E-mail: dperlman@sfchronicle.com


I know, the work was done in Berkeley, not Northern Alabama so the wing nuts won't pay attention.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
Quite astonishing. He posts an article which he confidently predicts will floor "deniers". I take quotes directly from that same article, and he says those quotes are nonsense.

And you're surprised? Smile

Nailing diarrhea to a Teflon wall ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Invective without substance. Perhaps he passed through Alabama schools and developed such habits?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm, let's see what the self-righteous have to say about this:
Quote:

Reuters/IPSOS poll has found.

The poll of 2,827 Americans was conducted in February to measure the impact of moral language, including interventions by Pope Francis, on the climate change debate. In recent months, the pope has warned about the moral consequences of failing to act on rising global temperatures, which are expected to disproportionately affect the lives of the world’s poor.

The result of the poll suggests that appeals based on ethics could be key to shifting the debate over climate change in the United States, where those demanding action to reduce carbon emissions and those who resist it are often at loggerheads.

Two-thirds of respondents (66 percent) said that world leaders are morally obligated to take action to reduce CO2 emissions. And 72 percent said they were “personally morally obligated” to do what they can in their daily lives to reduce emissions.

“When climate change is viewed through a moral lens it has broader appeal,” said Eric Sapp, executive director of the American Values Network, a grassroots organization that mobilizes faith-based communities on politics and policy issues.

“The climate debate can be very intellectual at times, all about economic systems and science we don’t understand. This makes it about us, our neighbors and about doing the right thing.”

Some observers believe the pope’s message can resonate beyond his own church.

“The moral imperative is the way to reach out to conservatives,” said Rev. Mitch Hescox, president of the Evangelic Environmental Network, a large evangelical organization that advocates for action on climate change.

Talking in terms of values is “the only way forward if we are to bring our fellow Republicans along,” he added.

Some Republican politicians have begun to search for a new message on climate change, in an attempt to distance the party from those who oppose most efforts to limit greenhouse gases and have questioned the science explaining human-caused climate change.

POPE TAKES LEAD

Whether shifting moral beliefs can translate widely into a willingness to modify carbon-intensive lifestyles and assume the costs of weaning the U.S. economy off fossil fuels remains to be seen. U.S. sales of trucks and SUVs have been rising in recent months, for example, spurred by lower gasoline prices.

But moral questions are increasingly invoked in the climate debate – and not just among anti-carbon activists.

In a Feb. 12 speech to oil industry leaders in London, Royal Dutch Shell CEO Ben van Beurden noted that “the issue is how to balance one moral obligation, energy access for all, against the other: fighting climate change.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has also wrapped some of its anti-pollution initiatives in the language of “climate justice,” likening the battle against climate change to the mid-20th century fight for civil rights.

Pope Francis also vowed to make fighting climate change a centerpiece of his papacy, using his authority as head of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics to push political leaders toward a deal at a United Nations-sponsored conference in Paris this December that is aimed at cutting carbon emissions.

The pope has confronted critics of climate change science that finds human activities responsible for increases in global temperatures, saying in January that it is mostly "man who has slapped nature in the face.”

Sixty-four percent of those polled agreed with the pope that human activities are largely responsible for the rising CO2 levels that scientists say drive climate change.

The pope also criticized the negotiators at a global climate conference in Peru last December for “a lack of courage” and has promised to issue an encyclical – a letter setting out papal doctrine – on climate issues that he hopes will add momentum to getting a deal in Paris.

In turn, he has been attacked by those who deny the scientific findings on global warming for aligning himself with environmentalists.

But only one in 10 saw him as a voice of authority on the issue, on a par with Democrats and Republicans in Congress and less than the percentage citing President Barack Obama (18 percent). The poll respondents also said that United Nations scientists and a popular U.S. television host, Bill Nye "The Science Guy", carry more authority on climate change than U.S. politicians.

The Reuters poll was conducted from Feb. 13 to 25 and the results were weighted to current U.S. population data by gender, age, education and ethnicity. It has a credibility interval - which measures the survey's precision - of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

(Editing by Stuart Grudgings)

F
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9293

PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/#.VPY7gea3PEA.facebook

It's freezing everywhere
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 372, 373, 374 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
Page 373 of 573

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group