Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

    Just go about your business, this has nothing to do with increased atmospheric CO2 or any other human activity...

    Average winter temperatures on the Antarctica peninsula - changing more than the rest of the continent - have risen 11 degrees since 1950.
    From Wiki:
    The Antarctic Peninsula is important because research has revealed that the forces of climate change are having a great effect on the region.

    In 1950, the Wilkins Ice Shelf was bonded to Antarctica with a 62-mile wide block of ice. Now it clings by an hourglass-shaped link that narrows to just a third of a mile.
    Sweet, now we don't have to visit Antarctica, it's coming to us!

    In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won a Nobel Prize for its scientific consensus on the reality of global warming from human activity. Fresh research suggests the vaunted report lowballed the pace of the problem.
    A recent column by conservative George Will, in which he argued that concerns about global warming were overwrought and unfounded, was condemned by mainstream climate scientists both for his conclusion and his specifics.

    For instance, he said that "global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979." But the very authority he cited, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, said the amount of sea ice in the world was down about 8 percent over the last three decades, or the equivalent of "Texas, California and Oklahoma combined."
    The average time per year the ocean around the peninsula is covered by sea ice has fallen by 90 days since 1978. Whaling records suggest the ice begun to withdraw as early as the 1930s.
    http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tih/story/502230.html

  • #2
    Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

    If all this ice is melting into the sea, then why isn't the sea level of the world rising??????????????

    Why is French Frigate Shoals doing just fine? Why is Palmayra Atol still above sea level? Why are the runways of SF Airport still above the sea? Why isn't downtown SF flooded? Why are the runways of Honolulu Airport or Vancouver Int'l Airport still high and dry? (All these runways were built on fill, decades ago, just a few feet above sea level, and they remain to this day high and dry, just a few feet above sea level.)

    If the world is warming, as you say, why did Europe and North America have the coldest winter in recent memory? There was tobagganing in Britain once again. The East Coast of the U.S. had a frigid winter with weeks of snow-cover.

    Just looking at SF Airport once again, the mean February temperature was 52.0F with the thirty year normal being 52.4F. Go check the other side of North America, the East Coast, and you will see temps much below normal.

    My ferns have frozen here on Vancouver Island, but this is a La Nina year, so this is normal. Cold and dry is the hallmark of La Nina, every 11 years or so. Hawaii is recording record cold, quite normal for La Nina. (Kahului station recorded a low of 51F on February 24th. )

    Sea levels really tell the story, and if sea levels are not rising, the ice is not melting. Any ice that is melting from Antarctica is being replaced in another part of the continent. And break-off and melting from the edge of Antarctica is normal and has gone on for ten thousand years since the Pleistocene. The process of glacial break-off and melting into the sea is called calving.
    Last edited by Starving Steve; 03-09-09, 01:38 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

      Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
      If all this ice is melting into the sea, then why isn't the sea level of the world rising??????????????

      Much of the ice is not on land.

      Put some ice in a glass of water. See the level as the ice melts.

      Actually, sea levels rising is a prediction of the global warming hypothesis, but the mechanism is thermal expansion of the water.
      It's Economics vs Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics wins.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

        Consensus (if there truly is any) is not Science. "Man made" global warming...I'm sorry, "Dramatic Climate Change" is actually man made myth to further "unite" (control) global population under elite leadership (bondage).

        I don't buy it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

          Originally posted by chris49 View Post
          I'm sorry, "Dramatic Climate Change" is actually man made myth to further "unite" (control) global population under elite leadership (bondage).
          I agree. I haven't read Alinsky, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that one his Rules For Radicals is something like: if there's no crisis to exploit, create a crisis to exploit. Create a hysteria-inducing myth to provide cover for massively growing government.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

            If were talking about the wilkins ice shelf, i have seen an interesting story in the A.P. about it collapsing quickly. However the article also says it is hundreds to 1500 years old. This raises the question of was it "warm" 1500 years ago? this is an eye blink in geologic time. I know there are models out there that correlate CO2 with global tempeture, but I have a lot of questions.

            First a lot of recording sites have been compromised because of the miles of asphalt that now surround them. Second, if you compare the monetary system measure M2 with temperature I'm sure you will a correlation there too. That's it too much money!

            In my not too educated opinion, I believe that the tempeture change may be more driven by solar output than our doing. I also believe that this warming scare may be a plan by the socialists/nanny state etc. to gain hold of our energy infrastructure. Dont these people understand that if you greatly increase the price of energy either through taxatation, or supply restrictriction you are going to crush the poor? It is the poor who have a hard time heating there homes, they have to live in exurbia because housing and other costs of living there is all they can afford with their low wage service job. And in agri business oil = food. Without cheap oil, there will be no cheap food.

            I read an article and I am still trying to confirm it that the scattering of fine particulates in the earth's atmosphere by high flying aircraft could reflect enough solar radiation to lower the earth's temperature. The plan could be implemented in the 10s of billions of dollars per year, and be self reversing because the particles eventually settle. Thus we could adust the system as needed. If the this is true, and the emergency is really global warming not grabbing hold of our energy, then why dont we do this?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

              Originally posted by *T* View Post
              Much of the ice is not on land.

              Put some ice in a glass of water. See the level as the ice melts.

              Actually, sea levels rising is a prediction of the global warming hypothesis, but the mechanism is thermal expansion of the water.
              water is actually one of those things that expands when it gets colder... that's how you get your pipes exploding in the winter...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

                Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
                If all this ice is melting into the sea, then why isn't the sea level of the world rising??????????????
                http://www.seed.slb.com/qa2/FAQView.cfm?ID=1166

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

                  I am a scientist, but not in the area of climate change. I have no buy-in to the hypothesis except that I care what happens to our world because of my kids' future.

                  Answers like whether anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is "real" are not easy to derive. It is far easier to "falsify" hypotheses rather than "prove" them. The case of the black swan is a good analogy. One can hypothesize that all swans are white, and accumulate mountains of evidence for that hypothesis (such as observing 1000's of white swans). A consensus may emerge: yes, all swans must be white, because we've never seen one contradicting our hypothesis. That is, until someone discovers a black swan. Suddenly, the hypothesis and consensus go out the window. That's how science works. Many theories withstand the test of time, like Einstein's relativity (and many, many others). That doesn't mean that these hypotheses won't be debunked, or at least refined. Yet despite this difficult nature of science, it remains powerful - Einstein's relativity led to atomic weapons. And other theories led to transistors, radio waves, and so on.

                  So now we are in a situation where the hypothesis is that CO2 released by humans leads to global warming/climate change is supported by the vast majority of experts in the field. Does it mean they are right? Of course not. Many times scientific majorities adherent to one paradigm have been proven wrong. That may happen here.

                  But for me, the question is, what if they are not wrong? Nobody can know whether they are right or wrong. All we can do is assess the impacts of each outcomes whether they are right or wrong. If they are right, it would be a tremendous dislocation for humanity. One that would dwarf the current economic dislocations. If they are wrong (and we do something about it anyway), it means a (perhaps) stunted economy. However, on that point, it is not even clear that the economy has to suffer - "green jobs" might be a better way to stimulate the economy than throwing money at banks. There's a great series of videos on these choices and their outcomes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_an...x=0&playnext=1

                  So, when I assess the situation, I prefer at least some preparedness to just stumbling blindly forward, assuming that all the experts are wrong. (BTW - I have personally witnessed the retreat of glaciers in Canada and Alaska over the past 30 years by revisiting the same spots several times). The risk/benefit seems to strongly weigh on the "do something" side to the "do nothing and hope that they are wrong."

                  As to all those who impugn other motives to the scientists, (such as world domination and control), let's explore where the funding is coming from and to whom.

                  You (referring only to the impugners) are relatively anonymous people on the internet, claiming that all these famous scientists are in some kind of conspiracy for global control and domination of the economy. Have you asked yourselves who is behind this plot? Some secret order? Some very rich folks? Hey, please, get me on that gravy train, I want some of that money to support my own research.

                  Seriously, there is a huge amount of money vested in disproving AGW, because there are many large economic interests that would be harmed by doing anything about it. Car companies, oil companies, and coal companies, to name a few. So, who are the global billionaires supporting the plot to use the AGW scare to overthrow us? I just don't see it. Sure, there are one or two rich men who might believe in AGW, but that does not a conspiracy make. And any such rich men are far outnumbered by those who want AGW debunked. Just look at who funds Rush Limbaugh and Fox news for a clue.

                  By "following the money," one can pretty easily gain insight into why people's allegiances fall where they do. And, being a climate scientist in favor of the AGW hypothesis does not appear to be a money making venture. I have met such scientists, and they are far poorer than most of the business people I know. If they are making money hand and fist as part of some global conspiracy, they are hiding it away quite well (maybe in BullionVault?) In contrast, ask yourselves how much money Rush makes by ranting and raving against AGW? Ask yourselves how much money the oil companies make by supporting people like Rush to rant and rave against AGW. Rush is a rich man. And the many others like him.

                  It is doing this kind of rational analysis that leads me to personally believe that it is worth at least considering what the AGW proponents have to say. They appear to have far less vested interest in the outcome than do the many rich folks whose economic well being depends on debunking it. That does not mean they have zero self-interest. They do have the interest of not appearing foolish, of preserving self-image, and etc. But compared to money and power, those are weak motives.

                  Now, Charlie Brown took a different tack:
                  I also believe that this warming scare may be a plan by the socialists/nanny state etc. to gain hold of our energy infrastructure. Dont these people understand that if you greatly increase the price of energy either through taxatation, or supply restrictriction you are going to crush the poor? It is the poor who have a hard time heating there homes, they have to live in exurbia because housing and other costs of living there is all they can afford with their low wage service job. And in agri business oil = food. Without cheap oil, there will be no cheap food.
                  It is very simple. The price of oil and energy will be going up (unless population crashes or just decides to stop using it). We are past peak. So the question is, how will the change in price be modulated?

                  Presently, we are on pace for an oscillatory path, with ever greater swings to the positive and then negative. In layman terms, that means each year or two, the price is likely to go super high, then crash. That is because we are past the peak of oil production world wide. Production is now diminishing at around 6% per year. Even Saudi Arabia is past peak. Consumption is down, temporarily, and hence we've had a price reprieve. However, this has caused lack of investment in exploration and new oil sources, accelerating declines. Soon (next 0-3 years), the declining production will catch up, and price will skyrocket. Suddenly, there will be very strong motivation to conserve, develop new sources, etc. Oil consumption will again decline, and production may blip up. That will cause prices to plummet again. Rinse and repeat. That scenario is not good for anybody - especially not the poor folks. They will be run through the wringer and back in such a situation.

                  However, if the gov't were to tax oil/energy to keep the price at a moderately-high level, e.g. $60/barrel, and then invest the money in clean energy, it would solve two problems. One, it would stabilize oil prices, motivating people to permanently conserve. Second, it would help us get away from being dependent on cheap oil coming from overseas by developing other ways to do our business.

                  The threat of high energy prices to the poor is essentially a straw man. Energy has been extraordinarily cheap for the past century because we hit an unprecedented bonanza (oil). That resource is now becoming more limited. Its price will rise. It is only a matter of how it will rise that is at issue. So we can have uncontrolled, rapid oscillation, or something perhaps less severe, if the "libertarians" among us can handle the bitter pill of government intervention.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

                    As far as unemployment rising, it's just not true. I don't know a single person who doesn't have a job.

                    Are we in a recession? NO! Just because there is a consensus of economists who say we are, I know several economists who say we aren't, and a whole bunch of other people who aren't economists who say we aren't.

                    Are housing prices falling? Absolutely not! I've seen house prices rising around me, and I don't care how much data you have that says housing prices are falling, It's fake and I'm just not buying it.

                    What a crock these theories of rising unemployment, recession, and falling house prices are. I can show you cases where it simply isn't true (a black swan), and I can show you people who will say it's not true.

                    We need to study this more, and nobody should be doing a damn thing about this economic theory stuff until we have real evidence!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

                      Originally posted by we_are_toast
                      As far as unemployment rising, it's just not true. I don't know a single person who doesn't have a job.
                      Well, it is good to be in your circle of friends. Maybe you can expand to cover the entire Earth.

                      I, on the other hand, know dozens and dozens of people who don't have jobs.

                      There are literally dozens of companies in the Bay Area whom have laid off 10%, 15%, even 25% (twice successively!) of their work force.

                      And given that unemployment numbers for California continue to rise, I think you might need to broaden your data points a bit.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

                        Originally posted by mikedev10 View Post
                        water is actually one of those things that expands when it gets colder... that's how you get your pipes exploding in the winter...
                        You need to differentiate between liquid water and ice.

                        Over most of the temperature range above freezing (any temperature above 4 C), liquid water does indeed expand as it gets hotter. The hotter the water, the lower its density, and the more volume a given mass will occupy.

                        However, water undergoes a phase change from liquid to solid when it freezes, and ice has lower density (larger volume) than cold liquid water. Liquid water expands when it is cooled below 4 C. The expansion associated with that phase change is what makes pipes break.

                        The climatologists who predict that hot oceans will take up more volume than cold oceans are perfectly correct as to what happens when you heat liquid water... unless we're talking about temperatures below 4 C.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If the environmentalists were really serious about reducing the CO2 emissions from mankind, why do they oppose the construction of more atomic power plants? Why do they oppose the construction of more hydro-electric dams? ( Both dams and nukes have no CO2 footprint, and they provide large amounts of electrical energy. )

                          Not all environmentalists oppose dams and nukes, but most do. Witness the head of Greenpeace speaking-out a week or two ago against Ontario's plan to construct two new nuclear power plants at Darlington, Ontario.

                          Meanwhile, snowed-in once again on Vancouver Island (in spite of so-called global warming) I am burning log after log of wood to keep warm. So my carbon footprint is horrendous, yet I have the blessing of the environmentalists around me. No protests or overt concerns here from Greenpeace activists.

                          I even emit cyanide gas from burning tree sap in cut logs of wood. Yet, no overt concern from the environmental nuts here--- because they do the same thing.

                          And since the soils of Vancouver Island are made from granite rocks (by moss), it is a safe bet to assume uranium is in the local soil and in the logs that I am burning. Think of the uranium that is going up my chimney! But this is no issue with the eco-nuts because they emit the uranium too.

                          Shall I mention the pot farms and the eco-frauds who grow pot around me on Vancouver Island? How about discussing the diesel fuel they dump into the soil from their generators? How about discussing the solvents, pesticides, and herbicides they dump into the soil?

                          Let's tell it like it really is!
                          Last edited by Starving Steve; 03-09-09, 04:42 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

                            Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                            Well, it is good to be in your circle of friends. Maybe you can expand to cover the entire Earth.

                            I, on the other hand, know dozens and dozens of people who don't have jobs.

                            There are literally dozens of companies in the Bay Area whom have laid off 10%, 15%, even 25% (twice successively!) of their work force.

                            And given that unemployment numbers for California continue to rise, I think you might need to broaden your data points a bit.
                            Pay the hell attention, dude! (Or are you making your own subtle point about anecdotal evidence, that I'm failing to grasp?)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

                              We_are_toast was just hamming it up a little, C1ue. Getting a little bit irreverent. ;) I think he was commenting on the acuity of McGurme's post.

                              Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                              Well, it is good to be in your circle of friends. Maybe you can expand to cover the entire Earth.

                              I, on the other hand, know dozens and dozens of people who don't have jobs.

                              There are literally dozens of companies in the Bay Area whom have laid off 10%, 15%, even 25% (twice successively!) of their work force.

                              And given that unemployment numbers for California continue to rise, I think you might need to broaden your data points a bit.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X