Man Based Global Warming....

Have been seriously thinking of moving to where you are at.

Wouldn't be so bad if the price of land and properties weren't so high. We were there to visit a couple years ago and a dump was going for about 170K

I think the population is starting to get out of hand too?

 

I still don't understand, the raw data shows a cooling ocean but after some "corrections" by scientists who have much to lose by a cooling ocean, it is found to be warming? Is Dr Hansen somehow involved?

 

If you're curious, read the article. The link is right there in my post.

 

I don't have access to the original article, but apparently this is a bit inaccurate (as I suspected since the BBC article did not provide any trending charts).

Pielke has commented here: "However, even a cursory view of Figure 2 shows that since the late 1990s, the region has been cooling in their analysis in this region. The paper would be more balanced if they presented this result, even if they cannot explain why."

As he notes, much of the warming took place prior to the 1980s. So to suggest that the Antarctic is presently "warming" is a bit much, don't you think?

He also asks " How do the authors reconcile the conclusions in their paper with the cooler than average long term sea surface temperature anomalies off of the coast of Antarctica? [see
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.1.15.2009.gif].
These cool anomalies have been there for at least several years. This cool region is also undoubtedly related to the above average Antarctic sea ice areal coverage that has been monitored over recent years; see
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg].

 

I am no scientist, but to me it looks like they are doing whatever is necessary to explain away the raw data.

 

Actually from the graph the correction shows less warming.

What they are saying there is a 30 year trend of warming and only 3 years of cooling. This is consistent with variation in the past and 3 years of cooling doesn't change the 30 year trend much.

 

Please tell me how anyone could look at this graph and decide that Obama has 4 years to save the world from catyclysmic global warming?

 

They would say that that is only a 10 year plateau in a 100 year warming trend and that you should base policy on the 100 year trend.

They would also tell you to ignore the 2000 year trend that shows cooling because that is "natural cooling" and the past 100 years is "man-made" warming.

 

How is it that all the cooling is "natural" and all the "warming" man-made? Is there no "natural" warming?

 

​

10 Warmest years on record on the US(48 states)
1-1934/1998
3-1921
4-1931/2006
6-1999
7-1953
8-1990
9-1938
10-1939

Where od you think the best temperature records have been kept the last 125 years? Based on the last column in the table is there reason for panic? Or would there have been more reason for panic in say 1940? Can you imagine Dr Hansen in 1939 going to FDR and making the case that the greatest threat to the United States and man was global warming? Wouldn't that have been the case if Hansen had been working for NASA using this data?

 

Sure there is "natural" warming. I was giving the AGW argument for the recent plateau and current decrease in temperatures in spit of increasing CO2 concentrations.

 

How can a constant climate be used in all of these models when figuring mans impact on climate? Before man-made carbon has the planet's climate ever been constant?

 

Got it.

 

You realize there is no plateau. No cooling. Just because you guys repeat it doesn't make it so. I thought I had already corrected Tim on that point:



This contrarian idea came from a misinterpretation of the hadcrut3 data.

Remember now?

 

Also just wanted to point out the following NPR article based on a new study:

Study Busts Antarctica's Chill On Global Warming

Study Busts Antarctica's Chill On Global Warming : NPR

Antarctica was seemingly the only continent on Earth that had not been warming up, as far as scientists could tell. But now a new study finds that large parts of the southern continent have in fact been getting warmer.

So what about antarctica now?

 

Alric - as I already point out to Scott, this NPR soundbite ignores the fact that - as seen in the original journal article:

• Most of the Antarctic warming occurred prior to 1980
• Since the late 1990s, the region has been cooling

So what about Antarctica now? Well, it appears not to have responded dramatically to CO2 and in the past 10 years temperatures there have declined, in contradiction with increases in CO2 and global warming predictions.

 

Alric - the emperor has no clothes.

How is it you can't see the lack of warming that everybody else can?

See the yellow highlights -- from 2001 - 2007 there is no upward temperature trend in any of the charts. And if you add 2008, you won't see it either.

 

That's precisely the notion the newer study contradicts. The parts of antarctica that are being measured have warmed along with the world average.

"Steig and his colleagues have done just that for Antarctica, taking the sparse temperature records of the past 50 years and combining them with satellite records that cover a much greater area, but don't go back so far in time. Combining those records, they now report that a big chunk of Antarctica — the western part of the continent — has in fact been warming up, like the rest of the world.

Temperatures have risen by about 1 degree near the equator to more than 5 degrees near the North Pole."

Which is exactly what the author of the original antarctic warming said could happen.

Regarding your graph. Would you also have said the same for the three previous and longer plateaus? There is no cooling. The trend overall continues upward.

 

The cooling in east Antarctica is likely due to ozone erosion, and likely to reverse. The NY Times has a good write up of the study today, and mentions a forthcoming paper in AGU which independently confirms these results.

As with earlier studies, the scientists found that more recently, since the late 1970s, temperatures had actually cooled in East Antarctica, a phenomenon that many atmospheric scientists attribute to emissions of chlorofluorocarbons, a family of chemicals used as coolants that destroyed high-altitude ozone. Because those chemicals have since been phased out, the ozone hole is expected to heal, and the cooling trend may reverse.

“Obviously the situation is complex, resulting from a combination of man-made factors and natural variability,†said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences at Princeton, who was not involved in the research. “But the idea of a long-term cooling is pretty clearly debunked.â€

Dr. Monaghan, who had not detected the rapid warming of West Antarctica in an earlier study, said the new study had “spurred me to take another look at ours — I’ve since gone back and included additional records.â€

That reanalysis, which used somewhat different techniques and assumptions, has not yet been published, but he presented his revised findings last month at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

“The results I get are very similar to his,†Dr. Monaghan said.


​

 

You trumpeted the study as showing the east Antarctic was warming, but when challenged now say it is cooling. Which is it?

If you have access to the original journal article, please provide an image of "Figure 2" so we can all look at the data and judge for ourselves.

I also find it mildly amusing that you (RealClimate) have to reach back 50 years (instead of 30) in order to produce a rising temperature trend:

"Our results do not contradict earlier studies suggesting that some regions of Antarctica have cooled. Why? Because those studies were based on shorter records (20-30 years, not 50 years) ..."

This suggests that any increases in temperature in east Antarctic are not recent.