I visit the NASA website and review the data. CO2: Up. Ocean and land temperature: Up. Sea level: Up. Polar ice: Down.
-Ed Begley Jr.
http://climate.nasa.gov/blogs/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowBlog&NewsID=438
Interesting article. My first question is – why is JPL employing a “climate change communicator?” Funding, perhaps?
But beyond that, Begley is dealing with information which he doesn’t understand. Ocean temperatures are below normal, sea level has been increasing for 15,000 years, and polar ice is about normal.
If JPL is going to employ a “climate change communicator” they should probably communicate accurate, unbiased information.
polar ice is about normal.
Hmm. Here are two other graphs that tell the story a little more clearly than the one you picked.
The earth has two poles. Most of the planet’s ice is at the other pole. Did you bother to look at the graph I linked to before posting?
The point is that just saying “polar ice is about normal” doesn’t really tell the whole story, does it?
Yes it does
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_daily_extent.png
Oh, I see. Thank you for the clarification. I thought it was much more complex than this. I thought that Arctic sea ice was losing mass, Antarctic land ice was losing mass, and Antarctic sea ice was, for various reasons, temporarily gaining mass despite warming.
I didn’t realize that all of this could be so easily summarized by “polar ice is about normal.”
IF the POLAR ice is about normal, there is nothing else to say. You should contact JPL or Bagley and have them restate it to your preference.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
“and Antarctic sea ice was, for various reasons, temporarily gaining mass despite warming.” (ChrisD)
Okay that is just beyond stupid, first the Antartic IS above average, not WAS, and if it is gaining, how can you say “temporarily”? You have no way of knowing how long the Antarctic will continue to stay above “average”, or if it will ever drop below the “average” line again… Thank you for once again showing your idea is based not in science, but fortune telling.
Temperatures have been declining in Antarctica for 30 years, so it can only be described as a meltdown.
Antartic IS above average, not WAS,
Seems like you missed, or were confused by, the syntax of the sentence. The past tenses referred to my previous understanding of ice losses before my enlightenment by the heroic and all-knowing Mr. Goddard.
if it is gaining, how can you say “temporarily”?
Because the Antarctic appears to be warming, and the ozone hole that is one apparent contributor to the ice gain has stopped growing. There’s no reason to think that the gains will continue indefinitely in the face of this.
Satellites show Antarctica cooling
“Because the Antarctic appears to be warming, and the ozone hole that is one apparent contributor to the ice gain has stopped growing. There’s no reason to think that the gains will continue indefinitely in the face of this.”
Umm “appears” and “apparent”? Boy you sure know how to sound so certain.
Certainty is rare in science, in case you haven’t noticed. The only certainty I see is among those who are absolutely certain that dumping gigatons of GHGs into our atmosphere year after year after year won’t matter.
What is the weight of the atmosphere? What is the weight of the Earth? How many gigatons of CO2 do soils and the oceans “dump into the atmosphere” every year?
I can hardly see, for all the red herrings.
What is the weight of the atmosphere?
The total weight of the atmosphere isn’t relevant, since 99.96% of it is non-GHGs and has essentially nothing to do with keeping the Earth warm enough for us to live on. It’s the remaining 0.04% that does that.
How many gigatons of CO2 do soils and the oceans “dump into the atmosphere” every year?
Before we got into the act, CO2 sources and sinks were balanced. Now they’re not. Hence the ~40% increase in CO2 over preindustrial levels.
If Hansen hadn’t of mentioned it, you never would have even thought about. There are at least a billion things you can worry about if you become aware.
OMG any one of a million drivers could go across the line and kill you on the road. A virus or bacteria could put you down in hours. Neurotoxin in the water supply, BSE, better start worrying about every thing that could happen to you Chris. They are all more real than CO2.
If Hansen hadn’t of mentioned it, you never would have even thought about.
That might just be the dumbest thing ever written about climate change.
If Hansen had not of mentioned it, you never would have thought about it.
Which, of course, means that it would never happen, right?
LOL,
you forgot the…………other polar region.
LOL,
No, I didn’t.
CPI up, GOLD up, Wheat up. The answer is clear. Inflation drives the climate.
They’re wise in using a climate change communicator, so that when things go wrong they’ll blame the communicator and claim the scientists as untouched by scandal as ever.
“Antarctic sea ice was, for various reasons, temporarily gaining mass despite warming.”
Chris D Antarctic has been cooling for 30 years http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html
Adam,
You must of course realize that Steig et al. 2009 concluded that Antarctica was warming. Going back to a 2002 paper isn’t justified when there are newer, more accurate analysis’ available.
Steven Goddard,
“Polar Ice is about normal”
Have you quantified the total volume loss from the two ice sheets and concluded that this amount, in addition to volume lost by arctic sea ice is balanced by the thin antarctic sea ice cover increase?
I think making such hasty statements as “Polar Ice is about normal” requires considering ALL forms of polar ice, not just sea-ice. Just a thought. You will ignore it either way.
A good way to measure ice sheet loss is by changes in sea level. Given that the rate of sea level increase hasn’t changed for over a century, you can sleep better tonight.
“A good way to measure ice sheet loss is by changes in sea level.”
A better way is to measure how much ice there is!
Except that no one knows how to do that. The land underneath the ice moves up and down.
Yes, its a right roller coaster at them poles.
No, It is cold there pretty much all the time.
LAZ:
You could weigh the ice at each pole to see how much there is by cutting it into blocks and placing it on a scale. Then you would only need to go back each year and do it all over. Any thing less is guess work. Altimeter satellite readings do not account for drift and natural surface fluctuations completely so can be off by the amount they are claiming has disappeared or more. Due to compaction of ice the region the region could have gained twice the amount as reported being lost. Sea level rise is about the only way.
All of the above becomes questionable due to changes in gravitational forces and shifting magnetic fields along with changes in LOD! All of which affect relative position of features on the earths surface by the amount measured by satellites. That leaves out sea level as being a source unless the change is drastic as in meters over long periods. The changes observed since satellite altimetry began can be partly explained by this phenomena.
Nice of you to bring the discredited Steig paper up as evidence. This supports the theory that you do not have a clue. Just like Steig and his co-authors. It was the result of Funny Math and WAGs known as extrapolations.
Discredited by whom? Hopefully you have some reference other than to unreviewed bloggers, so please provide a link to a published, peer-reviewed paper showing that the fundamental conclusions of Steig et al were wrong. Pointing to minor errors that were covered in the August, 2009, corrigendum won’t count.
I keep looking for a Nixon Whitehouse investigation proving their own guilt, but for some reason I can’t find it.
Yes, that’s right, the scientific literature never contains papers that dispute earlier ones, and blog posts are quite sufficient to “discredit” peer-reviewed papers.
Sure.
I did not think that creative data acquisition from non existent sites is a minor issue. But as you believe in the fairy tales coming from the team I am sure you would see it as SOP!
ChrisD painfully shoots himself in the foot …… again:
“LOL,
No, I didn’t.”
Your two charts are for ONE pole.Steve’s chart was for BOTH poles.
To make it really simple for you to comprehend.
ChrisD two charts:
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly.
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent.
Steve’s ONE chart:
GLOBAL Sea Ice Area.
That is why I wrote:
“LOL,
you forgot the…………other polar region.”
This means YOU were cherrypicking to magnify the decline and deliberately ignore the other pole’s significant increase.
Steve was basing his opinion on the sum total of both polar regions.
Neither pole shows much deviation from normal. Give it up.
Not even a standard deviation?
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101102_Figure2.png
Your two charts are for ONE pole.Steve’s chart was for BOTH poles.
Apparently you can’t read. What I said was that the simple statement “polar ice is about normal” doesn’t begin to cover the complexity of the issue because different things are happening at the two poles. Linking to the Arctic graphs was a demonstration of this extremely difficult concept.
Maybe I should write a doctoral dissertation for each post, repeating everything I said in all previous ones.
According to climate models used for the IPCC reports the poles will be where warming is most dramatic. The fact the poles are reacting differently falsifies the models because they did not take all factors into account.
Polar ice is within bounds of natural conditions observed throughout historical records
Not terribly bright are you?
Ah, another incisive, cogent, deftly enunciated argument.