|
Post by marchesarosa on May 17, 2011 19:43:10 GMT 1
the ice core data only extends to 1905. To estimate the temperature change from 1905 to 2010, 'C3' used a really useful graphing service provided by Global Warming Science. Using this invaluable service, we found 4 arctic area weather stations (above 65N) that had fairly complete temperature records from 1905. The chart below is the end result, including a linear trend for the 4 stations: 0.55 degrees per 100 years.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 17, 2011 19:49:04 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 17, 2011 20:07:15 GMT 1
Greenpeace leader effectively tackled on Arctic Ice melt.
They are not ashamed of "emotionalising" issues. You betcha!
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 17, 2011 23:35:38 GMT 1
That video above does not work, however it is also a bit old, here's a newer one from Hardtalk with the new director Kumi Naidoo www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjuNEM2Kgvo"They are not ashamed of "emotionalising" issues." is the very least of worries about Greenpeace [IMO] they espouse open policies on various aspects of life. It is expected that government organisations [regardless of country] to have various opinions and act upon them. Who are these self appointed organisations and what are their real aims and visions [if any], 5th column power? they are extra-territorial, so who/what do they serve. So what are Greenpeace real aims? Any ideas? StuartG Well be that as it may, on the way round looking, reference was found to another organisation, their home page starts a video, NOW this has something in it for everyone! larouchepac.com/node/10018LaRouche Political Action Committee en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumi_Naidooen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 2, 2011 9:06:16 GMT 1
Someone has cheekily tagged on the "global mean temp" change as revealed by the instrumental record to the end of these ice-core estimates of temperatures in Greenland. So what's new? Looks as if every trough is followed by a rise. Surprise, surprise! "Unprecedented" in neither degreesC nor rate. But, of course, no-one would dream of suggesting that Greenland was some sort of "proxy" for the planet, would they? Listener, Louise?
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jul 2, 2011 22:29:28 GMT 1
But I thought you didn't 'believe' the records of past temperatures?
Or is it just that you choose to believe what fits your own beliefs?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 29, 2011 12:37:27 GMT 1
"you choose to believe what fits your own beliefs?" Looks like humanity has something in common, after all - including you, Louise. Try to up your game a bit, dear lambchop, instead of always descending to the lowest level of personal comment. After all, what I or you "believe" is irrelevant to anything except YOUR personal preoccupations. Have another look at this graph. Even a block of ice reveals more that is worthy of comment than your perennial silly psychologising. Consider that!
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Aug 29, 2011 14:03:43 GMT 1
Of course it has - that's the whole point! In the past changes have not been due to humans - now a significant part of the change almost certainly is due to humans.
Why do you have such difficulty grasping this? Why do you keep regaling us with examples of how the climate has changed in the past without human intervention. We all know that it has and it tells us nothing about whether humans are currently causing changes to the climate.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 29, 2011 16:04:24 GMT 1
People who claim to know the workings of the climate system are plain stupid, just like you, nick.
There is no evidence whatsoever that "a significant part" of global temperature change, even if it were possible to accurately measure it, is due to humans.
This is mere assertion that it suits your personal psychology to accept.
How do YOU like being psychologised?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 20, 2011 12:04:42 GMT 1
Question from James Sexton on WUWT here wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/19/atlasgate-deepens-nsidc-rebuts-being-a-specific-source-of-the-times-atlas-15-greenland-ice-loss-claim/#more-47715Have you guys (at NCIDC) figured out how much water would stay in both (Greenland and Antarctic) land masses if the ice were to ever melt? Most of Greenland’s ice sits on top of land 300 meters below sea level. And the lowest point in Antarctica is within the Bentley Subglacial Trench, which reaches ~ 2,555 meters below sea level. So, even if it all melts, obviously a substantial volume of water will remain on both. Given ice occupies more space……… Reply from Julienne Stoeve of NCIDC Hi James, I’m not sure. It’s not something I’ve personally looked into, nor have I read anything that calculated how much water would remain on land if all the ice were to melt. Of course one would expect lakes to form if all the ice were to melt because so much of the land is below sea level. I can imagine how bad the mosquitoes would be in summer …they are quite bad as it is along the margins of the ice sheet in summer!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 20, 2011 12:08:06 GMT 1
Is Michael Mann researching the increasing incidence of Greenland Malaria, I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 23, 2011 13:43:07 GMT 1
Greenland ice not responding as predictedwattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/22/greenland-ice-not-responding-as-predicted/#more-47907JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, B07406, 11 PP., 2011 Interannual variability of Greenland ice losses from satellite gravimetryby J. L. Chen, C. R. Wilson, B. D. Tapley Key Points: This study shows dramatic slow down of ice loss in southeast Greenland Glaciers in northwest Greenland dominate the ice loss since 2007 Greenland ice mass shows significant interannual variability Using extended satellite gravity measurements from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), here we show that ice losses in southeast Greenland appear to have slowed down dramatically since late 2007, while those in the west, especially northwest Greenland show continued accelerations in recent years. Over the period April 2002 to November 2009, averaged ice loss rates in eastern Greenland (120 ± 31 Gt/yr) are still significantly larger than those in the west (86.3 ± 22 Gt/yr). However, the estimated ice loss rate from glaciers in northwest Greenland has increased from 30.9 ± 8 Gt/yr over the first few years (2002–2005) to 128.2 ± 33 Gt/yr for the more recent period (2007–2009), while the loss rate in southeast Greenland for the more recent period has become almost negligible, down from 109 ± 28 Gt/yr of just a few years ago. The rapid change in the nature of the regional ice mass in southeast and northwest Greenland, in the course of only several years, further reinforces the idea that the Greenland ice sheet mass balance is very vulnerable to regional climate conditions. The dramatic slow down of ice loss in southeast Greenland observed by GRACE provides an independent verification of similar reports from other remote sensing data. The observed significant interannual variability of Greenland ice mass change suggests that it is very challenging to quantify Greenland’s long-term ice mass change rates, and some observed apparent accelerations might simply be a reflection of the interannual variability. [i.e weather!]
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 10, 2011 14:34:03 GMT 1
New study shows temperature in Greenland significantly warmer than present several times in the last 4000 yearsPosted on November 10, 2011 by Anthony Watts wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/new-study-shows-temperature-in-greenland-significantly-warmer-than-present-several-times-in-the-last-4000-years/Kobashi et al 2011 was just published in GRL, and it looks like it will be upsetting the paleoclimate apple cart. Abstract: Greenland recently incurred record high temperatures and ice loss by melting, adding to concerns that anthropogenic warming is impacting the Greenland ice sheet and in turn accelerating global sea level rise. Yet, it remains imprecisely known for Greenland how much warming is caused by increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases versus natural variability. To address this need, we reconstruct Greenland surface snow temperature variability over the past 4000 years at the GISP2 site (near the Summit of the Greenland ice sheet; hereafter referred to as Greenland temperature) with a new method that utilises argon and nitrogen isotopic ratios from occluded air bubbles. The estimated average Greenland snow temperature over the past 4000 years was -30.7°C with a standard deviation of 1.0°C and exhibited a long-term decrease of roughly 1.5°C, which is consistent with earlier studies. The current decadal average surface temperature (2001–2010) at the GISP2 site is -29.9°C. The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001– 2010). Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum. Notwithstanding this conclusion, climate models project (uh-oh, the conventional nod to the IPCC "consensus"!) that if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100. Citation: Kobashi, T., K. Kawamura, J. P. Severinghaus, J.&M.Barnola, T. Nakaegawa, B. M. Vinther, S. J. Johnsen, and J. E. Box (2011), High variability of Greenland surface temperature over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L21501, doi:10.1029/2011GL049444. Full paper (PDF) is here www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 12, 2011 9:06:15 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Nov 12, 2011 11:02:16 GMT 1
. The current decadal average surface temperature (2001–2010) at the GISP2 site is 29.9°C. No wonder the ice is melting so fast!
|
|