Antarctic Ice Melt Poses Worldwide Threat
Chive Mynde
Antarctic Ice Melt Poses Worldwide Threat
By Michael Byrnes
HOBART (Reuters) - The Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves are cracking up
and, on the face of things, it is the most serious thaw since the end
of the last ice age 12,000 years ago.
The break-up of the ice shelves in itself is a natural process of
renewal, but the size and rate of production of icebergs -- some the
size of major cities -- is alarming scientists, who blame global
warming (news - web sites).
The break-off last month of a 500 billion ton chunk of the Larsen Ice
Shelf -- 650 feet thick and with a surface area of 1,250 sq. miles --
is the second big break since a giant iceberg broke away in 1995 and
is well beyond normal activity, scientists say.
The production of vast amounts of icebergs is a threat to the world's
climate and the way the ocean's function, they say. And the process,
once started, cannot be reversed.
The fear is that a snowball effect will lead to disintegration of the
vast West Antarctic ice shelf, kilometers thick in parts.
"The (first) break-off said 'this is not theory, it's real -- a rapid
and dramatic collapse of an ice shelf can happen'," says Neal Young,
glaciologist with the Antarctic Cooperative Research Center (CRC) in
Hobart.
"This is saying 'that wasn't a one-off thing."'
Significant warming in parts of the pristine Antarctic wilderness is
expected to continue to send huge icebergs into the Southern Ocean,
and lead to the disintegration of other sections of ice shelves that
fringe Antarctica's continental ice cover.
A longer-term effect would be if the disintegration led to a meltdown
of the grounded West Antarctic ice sheet, which would cause the
world's oceans to rise by up to five meters (17 feet).
As they delve deeper into the mysteries of the southern continent,
scientists are finding a jigsaw on a gigantic scale.
The Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into the Southern Ocean, has
warmed by 2.5 degrees Celsius over the past 50 years, while some other
areas have cooled. Some parts of West Antarctica have been losing ice,
while, like shifting grains of sand on a beach, ice has built up
elsewhere.
LONG-TERM FEARS
But the main message from the world's biggest concentration of
Antarctic scientists in Hobart, in Australia's southernmost city, is
of retreating West Antarctic ice and massive break-offs.
Scientists are not too worried for the moment about rising sea levels.
This is because floating ice shelves displace large amounts of sea
water, and sea levels would effectively remain unchanged if the ice
shelfs disappeared.
The real problems arise if the ice built up over millions of years on
parts of Antarctica's land mass melts.
"We aren't too worried about the first 100 years or so when the ice
shelves go, because there's no real effect on sea level and feedback
on global climate is really rather small," said Bill Budd, Professor
of Meteorology at the CRC.
The CRC is a co-operative body between Australia's Antarctic Division,
the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
(CSIRO), the University of Tasmania and other bodies.
But scientists believe that the expected loss of half the Antarctic's
sea ice by the end of the century will have important consequences for
Earth's entire natural system.
They are finding that the world's deep ocean circulation system will
slow as the Antarctic produces smaller amounts of dense oxygen-rich
seawater, possibly within 30 years, threatening marine life.
"We can't reverse it. Because the greenhouse gas levels are already
up, we can't bring them down, they just get higher, and the (ocean)
cutoff will be stronger at higher levels," Budd said.
The Antarctic is normally the source for a large part of the "bottom
water" which feeds oxygen to global ocean depths. And computer
modeling results indicate production of this dense, rich water has
fallen by 20 percent from pre-industrial times.
ROBOTIC FLOATS CHECK ANTARCTIC
Two technology-crammed research ships, the 1,594 ton former Arctic
trawler "The Southern Surveyor" and its bigger cousin, the bright
orange "Auora Australis," ride at anchor next to CSIRO Marine Research
headquarters at Hobart harbor .
Both vessels are allowing scientists to probe the southern seas as
never before, as they deploy thousands of robotic floats and tons of
sensitive equipment in parts of the Antarctic.
Senior physical oceanographer Nathan Bindoff is conducting the first
study of ocean circulation under East Antarctica's Amery Ice Shelf.
"(Results show) the ice shelves are vulnerable to climate change,"
Bindoff said. "An increase in temperature over the continental shelf
(leads to) slightly warmer water at the back of the ice shelves...the
melt rate goes up."
A small increase in ocean temperature from climate warming could
produce a doubling of the melt, which would cause the ice shelf to
shrink dramatically, recede and break off, he said.
Two years of physical research is proving model results, that the
entire coastal shape of the 550 km long, 200 km wide Amery Ice Shelf
could soon change as it melts back, he said.
A 1999 expedition to the Antarctic south of Tasmania, near
Commonwealth Bay, yielded even more alarming results.
An open coastal area near Dumont d'Urville in French territory has
been found to produce the most important source in East Antarctica of
bottom water -- "the lungs of the ocean."
In the depths of winter, strong freezing winds cascade down the Arctic
continent to race across the ocean surface, pushing ice floes away,
forming new sea in open water near the coastline.
The oxygen-rich highly-saline seawater which remains sinks to the
ocean floor to form 20-25 percent of Antarctica's total bottom water
production, which then circulates the globe, promoting ocean
circulation and life.
Bottom water is also sensitive to climate change, with no production
near Dumont d'Urville in some years, Bindoff said.
"These patterns are beyond natural variability," he said.
CHANGING SEAS
One question occupying Tom Trull, leader of Biogeochemical Cycles
Program at the CRC, is whether disappearance of half the Antarctic's
sea ice by the end of the century would also halve the Southern
Ocean's krill, the tiny planktonic crustaceans which are most abundant
animal organism on earth.
Krill, the keystone of the Antarctic ecosystem and bread and butter
for seals, penguins and whales, need ice for sanctuary and for food
from algae.
Trull says CRC scientists predict a 15 percent drop in total global
marine phytoplankton production by the end of the century because of
slowing ocean circulation.
By then, melting of the grounded Antarctic ice sheet could be adding
to predicted sea level rises of 30- 50 centimeters this century. And
fears remain about the long-term stability of the West Antarctic ice
sheet because of rises in ocean temperature.
"It is unlikely to collapse over the next 100 years, but projections
on a longer term are uncertain," said John Church, Polar Waters
Program leader in the CRC.
-
Science is not belief, but the will to find out
Pelerin Galimatias
archiv...@yahoo.com says...
>
>Tue May 14,12:10 AM ET
>
>Antarctic Ice Melt Poses Worldwide Threat
>
>By Michael Byrnes
>
>HOBART (Reuters) - The Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves are cracking up
>and, on the face of things, it is the most serious thaw since the end
>of the last ice age 12,000 years ago.
>
--
0000001000000100000110001000011010001111110010111011101000010000
Nicolas Martin
galim...@Wahoo.org (Pelerin Galimatias) wrote:
> In article <15b47182.02051...@posting.google.com>,
> archiv...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >Tue May 14,12:10 AM ET
> >
> >Antarctic Ice Melt Poses Worldwide Threat
> >
> >By Michael Byrnes
> >
> >HOBART (Reuters) - The Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves are cracking up
> >and, on the face of things, it is the most serious thaw since the end
> >of the last ice age 12,000 years ago.
> >
> Overall, is the Antarctic continent warming or cooling?
Environment & Climate News (March 2002)
"New studies throw cold water on warming theory."
Nature study shows dramatic Antarctic cooling
On January 14, Nature magazine published the results of a comprehensive
study, involving all regions of the Antarctic continent, revealing that
Antarctica has been cooling, dramatically, for the past 20 years.
Prior reports of an Antarctic meltdown had been largely based on
temperature readings on a small peninsula where most Antarctic science
stations are located. However, the new study's authors began to suspect
warming on the peninsula was a localized phenomenon, caused by a recent
change in regional wind and sea patterns, when visits to other parts of
the continent showed no sign of warming.
"A lot of people [co-authors] in the paper have been working in the
valleys since the mid-'80s, and at first it seemed that lake levels were
going up," reported Peter Doran, a University of Chicago at Illinois
scientist and lead author of the study.
"But two or three years ago, when we were waiting for the big summers,
we noticed that they didn't come. We were thinking that warm summers
were the norm, and we were saying, 'It's going to get back to normal,'
but it never did."
The authors then began analyzing long-standing temperature data recorded
throughout the continent, weighing all areas equally, rather than giving
undue weight to the temperatures on the isolated peninsula, as had been
done in the past. The results showed that as a whole, Antarctica is
cooling rapidly.
Just how much, and just how rapidly, has Antarctica been cooling? The
study found that temperatures across the continent have dropped an
average of 0.125 degrees Fahrenheit per year, or 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit
per decade, since 1978.
The data are particularly stunning in that the rate of cooling dwarfs
the rate of global warming predicted by even the most alarmist advocacy
groups. Moreover, all computer models loaded with global warming
assumptions agree the polar regions should warm much more rapidly than
the rest of the globe.
"A drop in Antarctic temperatures is a puzzle because most climate
models suggest that polar regions should respond first and most rapidly
to worldwide temperature changes," explained science correspondent David
Derbyshire of the London Telegraph.
The study noted a cascade of ecological problems triggered by the
pronounced cooling. The number of small organic soil organisms is
falling by 10 percent every year. Biological productivity in ice-covered
freshwater lakes is declining at 9 percent per year.
"The decline is alarming," said study coauthor Diana Wall of Colorado
State University. "These cooling repercussions may have a long-term
effect. There is very little diversity here and the life cycles of these
invertebrates is very slow."
Science reports Antarctic ice sheet growing
Just three days after the Nature study was released, Science magazine
published results of a study concluding that the West Antarctic Ice
Sheet has not only stopped melting, but is growing again.
Using precise satellite measurements, a team of California Institute of
Technology scientists working at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
found "strong evidence of ice-sheet growth."
The Ice Sheet has been steadily melting since the end of the last ice
age roughly 10,000 years ago. Although very little of the overall
melting has occurred since the dawn of the industrial age, a flurry of
news reports in recent years has speculated that human-induced global
warming will cause the thinning Ice Sheet to break off from the
Antarctic continent and inundate the world's shorelines with a drastic
rise in sea levels.
The thickening represents a reversal of the Ice Sheet's longstanding
retreat, say researchers Ian Joughin and Slawek Tulaczyk, who authored
the study. The thickening also throws cold water on the findings of
British researchers, widely reported last December in the mainstream
media, that the Ice Sheet has a 5 percent chance of breaking off in the
next 200 years.
"Perhaps, after 10,000 years of retreat from the ice-age maximum,
researchers turned on their instruments just in time to catch the
stabilization or re-advance of the ice sheet," observed Pennsylvania
State University's Richard Alley, who wrote an accompanying commentary
to the Science article.
Once again, the Joughin/Tulaczyk findings are particularly noteworthy
because global warming alarmists agree the polar regions will be the
first to see pronounced heating in a global warming environment. The
thickening of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet confirms the findings of the
Nature study, reported above, that Antarctica is not only failing to
warm, but is in fact cooling at a significant rate.
Global satellite readings report a very average year
Even as the Nature and Science studies were being released, data from
precise satellite readings of the Earth's lower atmosphere showed the
year 2001 was a very average year for global temperatures.
In mid-December, the United Nations weather agency reported 2001 was the
second-warmest year since global records began being kept 140 years ago.
The news was trumpeted by the mainstream media as still further evidence
of global warming.
However, the temperature readings were collected from ground stations,
located in or near growing cities. The more cities grow around
temperature reading stations, the more the stations produce false
warming data.
The precise satellite data, collected from the entirety of the Earth's
lower atmosphere, showed 2001 was only the 9th warmest (and also the
15th coolest) year since satellite measurements began in the 1970s.
Moreover, the 2001 readings confirmed prior satellite data indicating no
appreciable warming has occurred since the 1970s.
With all the new data directly contradicting global warming theory,
Nature study author Peter Doran summarized the global warming alarmists'
state of mind. "We've sort of hit a point where we're a little confused."
---------------
The Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR):
ANTARCTIC CLIMATE COOLING AND TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM RESPONSE. A team led
by Peter Doran (Univ of Illinois at Chicago) - including INSTAAR
scientist Diane McKnight and INSTAAR affiliates Andrew Fountain and Gary
Clow - discovered that continental Antarctica has generally cooled
during the last 35 years. This cooling is unique among the Earth's
continental landmasses, according to a paper published in the online
version of Nature. Continental Antarctic cooling, especially the
seasonality of cooling, poses challenges to models of climate and
ecosystem change
--
Nicolas Martin
Executive Director
American Iatrogenic Association
www.iatrogenic.org
Ray L
Nicolas Martin <a...@iatrogenic.org> wrote in message
news:aia-6D34D7.2...@netnews.attbi.com...
> Nature study shows dramatic Antarctic cooling
CO2 radiates heat into space better than ice.
Ian St. John
"Pelerin Galimatias" <galim...@Wahoo.org> wrote in message
news:6_CE8.572$W83.7...@newshog.newsread.com...
> In article <15b47182.02051...@posting.google.com>,
> archiv...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >Tue May 14,12:10 AM ET
> >
> >Antarctic Ice Melt Poses Worldwide Threat
> >
> >By Michael Byrnes
> >
> >HOBART (Reuters) - The Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves are cracking up
> >and, on the face of things, it is the most serious thaw since the end
> >of the last ice age 12,000 years ago.
> >
> Overall, is the Antarctic continent warming or cooling?
Yes, as far as we know.
O.K.?
"Overall it is warming or cooling" is about as much as is known for certain.
All right, to be more specific..
The best science suggests a very slight warming driven mostly by the large
increase in Antarctic Peninsula temperatures and a rather stable continental
climate with some changes in heat distribution.
But don't ask why...
Ian St. John
> galim...@Wahoo.org (Pelerin Galimatias) wrote:
>
> > In article <15b47182.02051...@posting.google.com>,
> > archiv...@yahoo.com says...
> > >
> > >Tue May 14,12:10 AM ET
> > >
> > >Antarctic Ice Melt Poses Worldwide Threat
Still posting one isolated and contentious 'study' that tries to exaggerate
a cooling in one tiny area of the continent into a continental trend?
How pathetic.
Nicolas Martin
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Still posting one isolated and contentious 'study' that tries to exaggerate
> a cooling in one tiny area of the continent into a continental trend?
You don't react well to things with which you disagree. I'm merely
quoting the study, which appeared in a prominent journal and has
received serious attention even from researchers who are not sure.
"Contentious" is one of those great journalistic code words, like
"controversial," that means nothing except that you don't agree. They
didn't take "contentious" measurements or write a "contentious" report.
But you contend they are wrong, and I bet you haven't even read the
study.
Please quote any part of the report that "tries to exaggerate a cooling
in one tiny area of the continent into a continental trend." If you have
the report you can do that easily. If you haven't read the report you
can at least quote one of the researcher who is making such an
exaggeration.
Otherwise you are just being contentious.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>Overall, is the Antarctic continent warming or cooling?
Look at the maps on http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/gjma/
thats probably the best data you'll get.
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Dr. Dickie
Yes.
--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
------------------------------------------------------
"The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
A. Einstein
Lloyd Parker
Nicolas Martin <a...@iatrogenic.org> wrote:
>In article <6_CE8.572$W83.7...@newshog.newsread.com>,
> galim...@Wahoo.org (Pelerin Galimatias) wrote:
>
>> In article <15b47182.02051...@posting.google.com>,
>> archiv...@yahoo.com says...
>> >
>> >Tue May 14,12:10 AM ET
>> >
>> >Antarctic Ice Melt Poses Worldwide Threat
>> >
>> >By Michael Byrnes
>> >
>> >HOBART (Reuters) - The Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves are cracking
up
>> >and, on the face of things, it is the most serious thaw since the
end
>> >of the last ice age 12,000 years ago.
>> >
>> Overall, is the Antarctic continent warming or cooling?
>
>Environment & Climate News (March 2002)
And this is published by whom?
>
>"New studies throw cold water on warming theory."
If they're claiming this, they must be a front for some business group.
>
>Nature study shows dramatic Antarctic cooling
>
>On January 14, Nature magazine published the results of a comprehensive
>study, involving all regions of the Antarctic continent, revealing that
>Antarctica has been cooling, dramatically, for the past 20 years.
No it didn't.
That's both false and misleading.
>
>In mid-December, the United Nations weather agency reported 2001 was
the
>second-warmest year since global records began being kept 140 years
ago.
>The news was trumpeted by the mainstream media as still further
evidence
>of global warming.
And yet you continue lying.
>
>However, the temperature readings were collected from ground stations,
>located in or near growing cities. The more cities grow around
>temperature reading stations, the more the stations produce false
>warming data.
That's a lie.
>
>The precise satellite data, collected from the entirety of the Earth's
>lower atmosphere, showed 2001 was only the 9th warmest (and also the
>15th coolest) year since satellite measurements began in the 1970s.
>Moreover, the 2001 readings confirmed prior satellite data indicating
no
>appreciable warming has occurred since the 1970s.
>
>With all the new data directly contradicting global warming theory,
>Nature study author Peter Doran summarized the global warming
alarmists'
>state of mind. "We've sort of hit a point where we're a little
confused."
>---------------
>
>The Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR):
Another sham?
>
>ANTARCTIC CLIMATE COOLING AND TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM RESPONSE. A team
led
>by Peter Doran (Univ of Illinois at Chicago) - including INSTAAR
>scientist Diane McKnight and INSTAAR affiliates Andrew Fountain and
Gary
>Clow - discovered that continental Antarctica has generally cooled
>during the last 35 years. This cooling is unique among the Earth's
>continental landmasses, according to a paper published in the online
>version of Nature. Continental Antarctic cooling, especially the
>seasonality of cooling, poses challenges to models of climate and
>ecosystem change
>
Learn some real science, fool.
Lloyd Parker
Nicolas Martin <a...@iatrogenic.org> wrote:
>In article <3ce32125$1...@audacity.velocet.net>,
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> Still posting one isolated and contentious 'study' that tries to
exaggerate
>> a cooling in one tiny area of the continent into a continental trend?
>
>You don't react well to things with which you disagree. I'm merely
>quoting the study, which appeared in a prominent journal and has
>received serious attention even from researchers who are not sure.
No, you misrepresented the study, because you got your info from a
biased organization and not the journal itself.
>
>"Contentious" is one of those great journalistic code words, like
>"controversial," that means nothing except that you don't agree. They
>didn't take "contentious" measurements or write a "contentious" report.
>But you contend they are wrong, and I bet you haven't even read the
>study.
>
>Please quote any part of the report that "tries to exaggerate a cooling
>in one tiny area of the continent into a continental trend." If you
have
>the report you can do that easily. If you haven't read the report you
>can at least quote one of the researcher who is making such an
>exaggeration.
>
>Otherwise you are just being contentious.
>
Read some scientific journals instead of right-wing web sites.
Bob Casanova
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Ian St. John"
<ist...@spamcop.net>:
Ummm...The following quote from the study seems to disagree
with your characterization of the data:
"The authors then began analyzing long-standing temperature
data recorded throughout the continent, weighing all areas
equally, rather than giving undue weight to the temperatures
on the isolated peninsula, as had been done in the past. The
results showed that as a whole, Antarctica is cooling
rapidly."
Seems to me that they were attempting to generate data from
the entire continent, rather than from the "one tiny area"
used in assertions of continental warming.
>How pathetic.
I agree. But probably not in the sense you meant.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by lpa...@NOSPAM.emory.edu (Lloyd
Parker):
>In article <aia-BB5940.0...@netnews.attbi.com>,
> Nicolas Martin <a...@iatrogenic.org> wrote:
>>In article <3ce32125$1...@audacity.velocet.net>,
>> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Still posting one isolated and contentious 'study' that tries to
>exaggerate
>>> a cooling in one tiny area of the continent into a continental trend?
>>
>>You don't react well to things with which you disagree. I'm merely
>>quoting the study, which appeared in a prominent journal and has
>>received serious attention even from researchers who are not sure.
>
>
>No, you misrepresented the study, because you got your info from a
>biased organization and not the journal itself.
What did the Nature article have to say about the rate of
cooling/warming described in the study? And what did the
Science article have to say about the change in
size/thickness of the ice sheet? The post pretty clearly
attributed both Nature and Science WRT the study; was this
incorrect?
<snip>
Ian St. John
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:nj78euobfejimq7hm...@4ax.com...
Their *study* was of the Dry Valleys representing not much more area than
that of the now defunct Larsen B ice shelf. On the data that they *studied*
they can be quoted and the data accepted. They then went to the meteorology
records of the rest of the continent and 'revamped' them to show that the
entire continent was cooling in conflict with the prior analysis done on
those same records.
From a previous post:
[Ian St. John]
The paper you are referring to ( which keeps getting trotted out by the
idiots reading political junk-science websites. ) is under criticism for
their data processing and use of inappropriate data sets.
[William M Connolley, Climatologist, British Antarctic Survey]
"These people have AWS's in the dry valleys (a small area) which has
been running for ?14? years. They have done some biology in this
region: all that is fine, as far as I can see. But then they try to
derive T trends for Antarctica as a whole from 1966-2000
(and herein lies an oddity: they have taken
trends from Jones dataset for 1966-2000: why? it doesn't match the period
of their aws. It doesn't match any specially obvious epoch in Antarctic
history) and the problem is that they have extrapolated a limited
dataset far too far. "
>
> >How pathetic.
>
> I agree. But probably not in the sense you meant.
No. You don't seem to have any sense..
Marcus S. Turner
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@NOSPAM.emory.edu> wrote in message
news:ac0im4$lcp$2...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <aia-6D34D7.2...@netnews.attbi.com>,
> Nicolas Martin <a...@iatrogenic.org> wrote:
> >In article <6_CE8.572$W83.7...@newshog.newsread.com>,
> > galim...@Wahoo.org (Pelerin Galimatias) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <15b47182.02051...@posting.google.com>,
> >> archiv...@yahoo.com says...
> >> >
> >> >Tue May 14,12:10 AM ET
> >> >
> >> >Antarctic Ice Melt Poses Worldwide Threat
> >> >
> >> >By Michael Byrnes
> >> >
> >> >HOBART (Reuters) - The Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves are cracking
> up
> >> >and, on the face of things, it is the most serious thaw since the
> end
> >> >of the last ice age 12,000 years ago.
> >> >
> >> Overall, is the Antarctic continent warming or cooling?
> >
> >Environment & Climate News (March 2002)
>
> And this is published by whom?
>
> >
> >"New studies throw cold water on warming theory."
>
> If they're claiming this, they must be a front for some business group.
>
> >
> >Nature study shows dramatic Antarctic cooling
> >
> >On January 14, Nature magazine published the results of a comprehensive
> >study, involving all regions of the Antarctic continent, revealing that
> >Antarctica has been cooling, dramatically, for the past 20 years.
>
> No it didn't.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v415/n6871/a
bs/nature710_fs.html
Nature AOP, Published online: 13 January 2002; DOI: 10.1038/nature710
Nature 415, 517 - 520 (2002)
Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response
PETER T. DORAN*, JOHN C. PRISCUÜ, W. BERRY LYONSá, JOHN E. WALSHß, ANDREW G.
FOUNTAIN, DIANE M. MCKNIGHT∂, DARYL L. MOORHEAD#, ROSS A. VIRGINIA, DIANA H.
WALL**, GARY D. CLOWÜÜ, CHRISTIAN H. FRITSENáá, CHRISTOPHER P. MCKAYßß &
ANDREW N. PARSONS**
* Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at
Chicago, 845 West Taylor Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607, USA
Ü Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, 334 Leon Johnson Hall, Montana
State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA
á Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University, 1090 Carmack Road,
Scott Hall, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
ß Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, 105 South
Gregory Street, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA
Department of Geology, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon 97207,
USA
∂ Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, 1560 30th Street, Campus Box 450,
Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
# Department of Earth, Ecological and Environmental Sciences, 2801 W.
Bancroft Street, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606, USA
Environmental Studies Program, Dartmouth College, 6182 Steele Hall,
Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, USA
** Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado 80523, USA
ÜÜ USGSóClimate Program, Box 25046, MS 980, Denver Federal Center, Denver,
Colorado 80225, USA
áá Division of Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, Desert Research Institute, 2215
Raggio Parkway, Reno, Nevada 89512, USA
ßß Space Science Division, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffet Field,
California 94035, USA
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.T.D.
(e-mail: pdo...@uic.edu).
The average air temperature at the Earth's surface has increased by 0.06 ∞C
per decade during the 20th century, and by 0.19 ∞C per decade from 1979 to
1998. Climate models generally predict amplified warming in polar regions,
as observed in Antarctica's peninsula region over the second half of the
20th century. Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental
warming, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates
a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly
during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 ∞C per
decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends.
Summer cooling is particularly important to Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems
that are poised at the interface of ice and water. Here we present data from
the dry valleys representing evidence of rapid terrestrial ecosystem
response to climate cooling in Antarctica, including decreased primary
productivity of lakes (6ñ9% per year) and declining numbers of soil
invertebrates (more than 10% per year). Continental Antarctic cooling,
especially the seasonality of cooling, poses challenges to models of climate
and ecosystem change.
> Learn some real science, fool.
Do some research Lloyd.
Thomas Palm
>
> "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
> news:nj78euobfejimq7hm...@4ax.com...
Hey, how about starting a campaign to have Nature retract that paper?
Part of the analysis is misleading and is being used for political
purpuses and there now is a precedent that this is enough casue for
retraction.
Tumbleweed
news:3CE49B7C...@chello.se...
<snip>
>
> Hey, how about starting a campaign to have Nature retract that paper?
> Part of the analysis is misleading and is being used for political
> purpuses and there now is a precedent that this is enough casue for
> retraction.
The downside to that (for you) is that every report mentioning GW would have
to be retracted as well. Seems a fair swap to me.
--
Tumbleweed
Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)
Lloyd Parker
Now read the above again and don't be so utterly clueless as to keep
posting that the earth is not warming.
>Climate models generally predict amplified warming in polar regions,
>as observed in Antarctica's peninsula region over the second half of
the
>20th century. Although previous reports suggest slight recent
continental
>warming, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data
demonstrates
>a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000,
particularly
>during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 ∞C
per
>decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends.
So some valleys have cooled.
>Summer cooling is particularly important to Antarctic terrestrial
ecosystems
>that are poised at the interface of ice and water. Here we present data
from
>the dry valleys representing evidence of rapid terrestrial ecosystem
Again, some valleys.
>response to climate cooling in Antarctica, including decreased primary
>productivity of lakes (6ñ9% per year) and declining numbers of soil
>invertebrates (more than 10% per year). Continental Antarctic cooling,
>especially the seasonality of cooling, poses challenges to models of
climate
>and ecosystem change.
>
>> Learn some real science, fool.
>
>Do some research Lloyd.
>
>
>
>begin 666 spacer.gif
>K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! $4````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
>`
>end
>
>begin 666 glyph.gif
>M1TE&.#EA!P`2`(#_`,# P ```"'Y! $`````+ `````'`!(`0 (1A&]QBLCP
>-FDQK6OM8IGS??Q4`.P``
>`
>end
>
>begin 666 glyph.gif
>M1TE&.#EA"P`2`(#_`,# P ```"'Y! $`````+ `````+`!(`0 (7A(\8M^D:
>35FRO`NJFW;QCQ632UY6F60``.P``
>`
>end
>
>
Ian St. John
> Part of the analysis is misleading and is being used for political
> purpuses and there now is a precedent that this is enough casue for
> retraction.
I thought that the retraction was based on errors in the methodology which
were not satisfied? I do understand that the pressure for careful
examination was brought by ag-biotech ( not political so much as economic )
but it only succeeded ( unless I am mistaken in my reading ) because there
was room for criticism?
It is a fact that the bulk of this report ( the dry valleys) was quite good
science, and so the relatively small part which 'reanalyzes' the continental
data is not sufficient to call for retraction of the entire paper.
The scientific process has mechanisms in place now. I am waiting for the
paper assessing the flaws in their analysis. This will be based on
criticisms of the methodology and data sets, and so will be more suited to a
science discussion.
I have the impression that the relatvely sparse and short weather records
( for such a large continent ) make any analysis rather dependent on
assumptions, such as the relatively stable climate caused by the mass of the
ice ( katabatic winds ) and that any analysis of continental trends may be
biased by the chaotic and regional changes as discussed by the
Thompson/Solomon paper.
i.e. The number of point that adequately resolve the altitude profile of a
flat plain is not sufficient to resolve the profile of a mountain chain....
I think that the question of overall trends in Antarctica is far from
resolved, with even the earlier 'slight warming' analysis needing a
'rethink' in light of the new data. I am hoping that the earlier analysis
will also be reviewed and perhaps a paper produced which discusses both this
study and the prior ones in regards to adequacy of sampling in the light of
the new understanding.
If you are offended by my suggestion that they took their research too far,
I apologize. I based this on the comments of WMC which seem fairly valid,
and my own feeling that they extended their research too far with too little
justification. It must be understood by this public forum that the eventual
results are irrelevant to GW which is established beyond question, and which
is not affected by the question of temperature trends in the Antarctic.
Thomas Palm
>
> "Thomas Palm" <thoma...@chello.se> wrote in message
> news:3CE49B7C...@chello.se...
> <snip>
> > Hey, how about starting a campaign to have Nature retract that paper?
> > Part of the analysis is misleading and is being used for political
> > purpuses and there now is a precedent that this is enough casue for
> > retraction.
>
> I thought that the retraction was based on errors in the methodology which
> were not satisfied? I do understand that the pressure for careful
> examination was brought by ag-biotech ( not political so much as economic )
> but it only succeeded ( unless I am mistaken in my reading ) because there
> was room for criticism?
My post was intended as irony. I think a normal comment should be quite
sufficient, but I couldn't resist a barb at Nature for their caving
in to pressure when commercial interests are threatened in the biotech
industry.
Bob Casanova
Thanks for the clarification; I never saw the previous
exchange, which may not have been xposted to sci.skeptic
(which is where I'm following this).
>>
>> >How pathetic.
>>
>> I agree. But probably not in the sense you meant.
>
>No. You don't seem to have any sense..
Really? Well, I seem to be willing to listen to you...
My comment was in response to what *seemed*, in isolation,
to be a somewhat irrational attack on someone merely because
his post disagreed with preconceived ideas. Since, based on
the history you provided, this seems to not be the case, I
apologize.
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se>:
<snip>
>Hey, how about starting a campaign to have Nature retract that paper?
>Part of the analysis is misleading and is being used for political
>purpuses and there now is a precedent that this is enough casue for
>retraction.
Why? If the methodology of the study was good enough to get
the paper published, but the conclusions aren't really
warranted by the data, there should (and will, I'm sure) be
a fair number of scientists ready, willing and able to point
out the flaws. That's how science is supposed to work.
I recently read (sorry, don't remember where) an idea that
seemed to make a good bit of sense to me; the idea that the
results of experiments which *falsified* (or at least failed
to support) particular hypotheses should be disseminated as
widely as, or more widely than, the "successes". The
reasoning, of course, is that blind alleys don't need to be
explored multiple times, and researchers' time is too
valuable to keep reinventing the wheel, so to speak. The
main argument *against* such an idea, as I see it, is also
time-related; how can anyone keep track of such a mass of
data?
For all I know, researchers *do* try to learn of prior
similar research, but the idea was to actually *publish* the
results of such failed tests where the data is available to
anyone who might need it. Idealistic, certainly, but it
seems to me this would be very useful. Just my 20 mills...
Ian St. John
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
Accepted. You should have been more skeptical of claims such as "weighing
all areas equally, rather than giving undue weight to the temperatures on
the isolated peninsula, as had been done in the past. "
When scientists start claiming that previous studies were done by idiots,
you should be fairly skeptical of the persons making the claim. More than
anything else, this persuaded me that the extension of the small area study
to the continent was not based on good science. Hey! Does this make me a
'skeptic'??
I'm posting from sci.environment and this study gets trotted out over and
over even through it is in no way significant in the determination of GW nor
is their any link to ACC. The continent of Antarctica has a climate that is
heavily influenced by 6600 feet of ice ( on average ), an average land
height of 8,000 feet ( higher than any other continent and leading to
adiabatic changes as winds spiral outward) and a huge 'heat sink' formed by
the encircling deep ocean. The main wind pattern is katabatic winds
spiralling out from the center.
Bob Casanova
>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:59saeuosj9el35e3i...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>> My comment was in response to what *seemed*, in isolation,
>> to be a somewhat irrational attack on someone merely because
>> his post disagreed with preconceived ideas. Since, based on
>> the history you provided, this seems to not be the case, I
>> apologize.
>
>Accepted. You should have been more skeptical of claims such as "weighing
>all areas equally, rather than giving undue weight to the temperatures on
>the isolated peninsula, as had been done in the past. "
Agreed, although the references to the publication of the
study in two widely-recognized "real science" journals
tended to (in my mind, at least) lend a bit more credence to
the claims than they would otherwise have seemed to have.
>When scientists start claiming that previous studies were done by idiots,
>you should be fairly skeptical of the persons making the claim.
Well, yes, but that wasn't how I read it. Studies involving
widespread phenomena are frequently done on restricted
datasets if the area of study can reasonably be assumed to
be typical of the greater area; this occasionally turns out
to be a false assumption (not due to idiocy on the part of
the original investigators, but simply due to unanticipated
effects), and I assumed that the newest study had determined
that such was the case in this instance.
> More than
>anything else, this persuaded me that the extension of the small area study
>to the continent was not based on good science.
Hmmm...This was also the basis of the claim in the study in
question ("My small study area is better than your small
study area!"). Sorry; couldn't resist... ;-)
>Hey! Does this make me a
>'skeptic'??
I would hope so, since I assume you actually work in a
scientific field. I'm no scientist (EE), but I appreciate
the requirement for skepticism in science.
>I'm posting from sci.environment and this study gets trotted out over and
>over even through it is in no way significant in the determination of GW nor
>is their any link to ACC. The continent of Antarctica has a climate that is
>heavily influenced by 6600 feet of ice ( on average ), an average land
>height of 8,000 feet ( higher than any other continent and leading to
>adiabatic changes as winds spiral outward) and a huge 'heat sink' formed by
>the encircling deep ocean. The main wind pattern is katabatic winds
>spiralling out from the center.
OK; thanks for the additional info.
Nicolas Martin
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> I would hope so, since I assume you actually work in a
> scientific field. I'm no scientist (EE), but I appreciate
> the requirement for skepticism in science.
As a rule, people (and that includes most scientists) are skeptical
about what contradicts what they already believe, and credulous about
what confirms what they already believe.
That is why those of us on the outside have reason to be skeptical of
the whole enterprise, until the facts are overwhelming and agreement
almost universal.
That is true about the Earth being a sphere, but not about global
warming.
Bob
Nicolas Martin wrote:
Does anyone else remember twenty years ago when "the coming ice age" was
the "scientific" ecological fear monger's cry? Now we have "global
warming" and "melting ice." See-Saw, See-Saw. They lack credibility.
Nobody really knows enough about what causes an ice age or a warm
interglacial period to be credible about either. We are historically
overdue for an ice age, but we haven't a clue what caused them. Could
it be variations in the sun's heat? Sure it can, but scientists don't
understand how the sun varies or why. Can it be that the ice ages were
caused by a billion years of plants, protozoa, and animals converting
CO2 into coal and oil deposits? Sure it can, but nobody knows enough to
figure out what the earth was like when all that carbon was floating
around free -- except that people wouldn't have survived there. Could
it be that the previous life forms caused the ice ages, and modern
"global warming" is preventing the next ice age and thus ensuring our
survival? Sure it could, but scientists don't know enough to make any
valid assessment of the situation.
What we really have is a lot of political fear mongering for political
and economic reasons with little if any scientific knowledge. Just fear
mongering sensationalism.
Bob
Lush
--
Lush
- This message brought to you by Jani - she's better than FOT in every way!
Pelerin Galimatias <galim...@Wahoo.org> wrote in message
news:6_CE8.572$W83.7...@newshog.newsread.com...
Ian St. John
"Nicolas Martin" <nic...@martinworld.com> wrote in message
news:nicolas-03D0B4...@netnews.attbi.com...
You are out of date. The results are in confirming GW too. See www.ipcc.ch
Ian St. John
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:49kdeukob4m3l5ek6...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 May 2002 20:52:03 -0400, the following appeared
<snip>
> Hmmm...This was also the basis of the claim in the study in
> question ("My small study area is better than your small
> study area!"). Sorry; couldn't resist... ;-)
For data on the locations and installation dates of weather stations, see
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/stations/
There is absolutely no substantiation of the claim that the continental
analysis overemphasised the Penninsula area. This is similar to claims that
GW is just an error in processing the 'urban heat islands'. It is bollocks.
It is a claim based on the preponderance of weather stations on the
Penninsula and ignores the data reduction techniques used to compensate for
distribution effects. The ignorant are easily fooled by such 'logic'.
Lloyd Parker
wrote:
>
>
>Nicolas Martin wrote:
>
>> In article <49kdeukob4m3l5ek6...@4ax.com>,
>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I would hope so, since I assume you actually work in a
>>>scientific field. I'm no scientist (EE), but I appreciate
>>>the requirement for skepticism in science.
>>>
>>
>> As a rule, people (and that includes most scientists) are skeptical
>> about what contradicts what they already believe, and credulous about
>> what confirms what they already believe.
>>
>> That is why those of us on the outside have reason to be skeptical of
>> the whole enterprise, until the facts are overwhelming and agreement
>> almost universal.
>>
>> That is true about the Earth being a sphere, but not about global
>> warming.
>
>
>Does anyone else remember twenty years ago when "the coming ice age"
was
>the "scientific" ecological fear monger's cry?
No, because it wasn't. None of you nay-sayers has ever been able to
cite scientific publications that warned of this.
> Now we have "global
>warming" and "melting ice." See-Saw, See-Saw. They lack credibility.
Not among scientists.
>
>Nobody really knows enough about what causes an ice age or a warm
>interglacial period to be credible about either. We are historically
>overdue for an ice age, but we haven't a clue what caused them. Could
>it be variations in the sun's heat? Sure it can, but scientists don't
>understand how the sun varies or why.
But scientists DO know solar variation cannot explain all the warming
we've seen in the past 100 years.