Glaciers disappearing from Kilimanjaro

[Damon Poole]

What about these hacked e-mails?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ikaqlFpp9jCRHWN0zNuamKXfyeMgD9C441LG0
Could it be we have a smoking gun here? Sure seems like it. Truth has a way of coming out.

 

[Jason Harris]

Not sure how emails taken out of context somehow disprove the glaciology study on Mt. K or have relevance to the totality of the data on these issues. Meanwhile, both West and now East South Pole sheets are melting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/22/east-antarctic-ice-sheet-nasa

Satellite data from the whole of Antarctica show the region is now losing around 190bn tonnes of ice a year. Uncertainties in the measurements mean the true ice loss could be between 113bn and 267bn tonnes.

http://Satellite data from the whole of Antarctica show the region is now losing around 190bn tonnes of ice a year. Uncertainties in the measurements mean the true ice loss could be between 113bn and 267bn tonnes. "If the current trend continues or gets worse, Antarctica could become the largest contributor to sea level rises in the world. It could start to lose more ice than Greenland within a few years," said Jianli Chen, of the University of Texas at Austin. Chen's team used data from the Nasa mission to see how Earth's gravitational pull varied month to month between April 2002 and January 2009. Measurements taken over the south pole reflect changes in the mass of the Antarctic ice sheets. The survey confirmed the West Antarctic ice sheet is melting rapidly with the loss of around 132bn tonnes of ice a year, but revealed unexpected melting in the larger East Antarctic ice sheet.

"If the current trend continues or gets worse, Antarctica could become the largest contributor to sea level rises in the world. It could start to lose more ice than Greenland within a few years," said Jianli Chen, of the University of Texas at Austin.

Chen's team used data from the Nasa mission to see how Earth's gravitational pull varied month to month between April 2002 and January 2009. Measurements taken over the south pole reflect changes in the mass of the Antarctic ice sheets.

The survey confirmed the West Antarctic ice sheet is melting rapidly with the loss of around 132bn tonnes of ice a year, but revealed unexpected melting in the larger East Antarctic ice sheet.

 

[Damon Poole]

What about these hacked e-mails?

The hacked e-mails cast doubt as to the motives of the scientists who overhype the whole AGW theory. These e-mails show scientists deliberately trying to hide data that didn't support AGW to mislead the media and public. As far as the melting glaciers, they've done that and recovered cyclically through geologic time and will continue to do so. All I see in the guardian article is more hype without much data. The tropics have almost direct incoming solar radiation and insolation which is more responsible for glacial melt than AGW.

Not sure how emails taken out of context somehow disprove the glaciology study on Mt. K or have relevance to the totality of the data on these issues. Meanwhile, both West and now East South Pole sheets are melting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/22/east-antarctic-ice-sheet-nasa

 

[Jason Harris]

How can you reasonably continue to make the spurious solar argument when
we're at a solar minimum?
--
have almost direct incoming solar radiation and insolation which is more responsible for glacial melt than AGW.
---
Maybe you missed this earlier from NASA, or maybe that's covered in the emails too?

"This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

 

[Robert Dewey]

We once had a glacier here in MI about 14,000 years ago. It melted and formed the Great Lakes. I suspect GW was also at play. Those damn Flintstones and their non-conservationist ways!

</half-hearted post>

 

[Damon Poole]

Spurious? Who said spurious radiation?

Jason,

I'm not making any argument that it's spurious radiation. It's also known that a Maunder (Solar) Minimum doesn't preclude all incoming solar radiation and insolation from occurring. It reduces their intensity by degree, but it would be delusional to say that a minimum completely stops either from being a factor. Tropical sunlight is still almost directly overhead, even during a minimum. If incoming solar radiation and insolation were stopped completely, Earth would be a lot colder than we are, and we wouldn't be so worried about alleged AGW since the Earth would be frozen. BTW, since you seem to be so fond of quoting NASA, check out my earlier post from Dr. Roy Spencer. You might find it interesting....http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/.

How can you reasonably continue to make the spurious solar argument when
we're at a solar minimum?
--
have almost direct incoming solar radiation and insolation which is more responsible for glacial melt than AGW.
---
Maybe you missed this earlier from NASA, or maybe that's covered in the emails too?


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

 

[Sam Barricklow]

More suspect "data"

The prime minister of New Zealand recently demanded that raw data and associated procedures be released on temperature readings and calculated trends that appear to support AGW. Only seven observing sites across New Zealand were used for the Global Warming study, and either most or all of the temperature sensors were relocated at some point. Interestingly, ALL of the warming occurred after the relocations. "Adjustments" were made to the data to compensate for changes in location, many of which also included a significant change in elevation. See:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/26/fiddling-in-the-antipodes.html

Follow the money:

http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/story.htm?id=24505

 

[Damon Poole]

More suspect "data"

Maybe the New Zealanders need something like this - http://www.surfacestations.org/. Who knows how many errors are actually out there in the records worldwide that wouldn't be caught without surveys like this one?

 

[Jason Harris]

Also with any data, it's important to know all the qualities involved, such as the replacement (for example) of "rotten" sea ice that might show up on satellite as expansive, yet ultimately less net-ice value and less substantial than the more permanent thicker ice. Check this recent news item out about the Arctic:

--

Experts around the world believed the ice was recovering because satellite images showed it expanding. But David Barber says the thick, multi-year frozen sheets crucial to the northern ecosystem have been replaced by thin "rotten" ice that can't support weight of the bears. "It caught us all by surprise because we were expecting there to be multi-year sea ice. The whole world thought it was multi-year sea ice," said Barber, who just returned from an expedition to the Beaufort Sea.

"Unfortunately, what we found was that the multi-year (ice) has all but disappeared. What's left is this remnant, rotten ice."

Permanent ice, which is normally up to 10 metres thick, was easily pierced by the research ship, said Barber, who holds the Canada research chair in Arctic science at the University of Manitoba.

The team finally reached what it thought was stable ice, only to watch a crack appear just as researchers were preparing to descend onto the floe.

"As I watched, over the course of five minutes, the entire multi-year ice floe broke up into pieces," Barber said. "This floe was 16 km across. Something that's twice the size of Winnipeg, it just broke up right in front of our eyes."

The ice is unable to withstand battering waves and storms because global warming is rapidly melting it at a rate of 70,000 square kilometres each year, he said.

Multi-year sea ice used to cover 90 per cent of the Arctic basin, Barber said. It now covers 19 per cent. Where it used to be up to 10 metres thick, it's now 2 metres at most.

The findings, soon to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, come as a shock to experts worldwide.

Although northern sea ice hit a record low in 2007, researchers believed it was recovering because of what they were seeing on satellite images.

But the images the experts relied on were misleading because the rotten ice looks sturdy on the surface and has a similar superficial temperature, Barber explained.

"The satellites give us only part of the story. The multi-year ice is disappearing and it's almost all gone now from the northern hemisphere."

http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/article/732009---permanent-arctic-ice-vanishing

 

[Damon Poole]

Canadian Tabloid

As my geology professor once said; "That doesn't tell me anything!" It talks about how the ice has melted to 2 meters thick, but it does nothing to prove that the ice melt isn't cyclical, or that CO2 is directly or indirectly involved.

Also with any data, it's important to know all the qualities involved, such as the replacement (for example) of "rotten" sea ice that might show up on satellite as expansive, yet ultimately less net-ice value and less substantial than the more permanent thicker ice. Check this recent news item out about the Arctic:

--


http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/article/732009---permanent-arctic-ice-vanishing

 

[Jason Harris]

Well c'mon, I contacted the last researcher, so jump on board and ask him Barber your questions:

http://www.umanitoba.ca/research/set/research_set_globalwarming.html

David Barber
Chair in Arctic System Science
Environment and Geography
(204) 474-6981
[email protected]

*I went ahead and emailed him, but I'm sure you'll have some additional pertinent questions.

 

[Sam Barricklow]

Arctic Ice Melt - What's the truth?

Here's an article that shows the amount of Arctic sea ice has always fluctuated.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/

You can check the level of sea ice, both currently and historically, at the following URL:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=30&fy=2007&sm=06&sd=30&sy=2008

Here's a good comparison - December 30, 1979 and December 30, 2008, selected at random.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=30&fy=2008&sm=12&sd=30&sy=1979

Much of the current alarmist rhetoric is in support of the Copenhagen meeting. You can read the text of the proposed treaty at the following URL:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf

Read closely. The treaty would cede considerable sovereignty to the COP (you can find a definition of the acronym in the treaty). The treaty also provides for a direct link to your wallet, to transfer funds to countries who are judged to be suffering because of your carbon output.

Again, follow the money.

NNNN

 

[David Wolfson]

Sam, I don't think a comparison at low-sun has much value, since by then the annual sea ice has formed up again. In the URL you gave replace "December" with "September" in both panels and I think the difference is quite apparent!

 

[Mike Smith]

Here is another perspective: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574562123968802420.html

 

[Darren Addy]

Interesting perspective. "Climate activists"... I guess the other side must be "Climate Couch Potatoes".

Getting "Climate Change" news from a business-centric source (like WSJ) is like getting the straight health poop on tobacco from the Winston-Salem Journal. They are likely to be much more interested in preaching to the choir.

For science, I recommend science-centric sources. Like National Geographic:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/05/carbon-bath