Quoting NASA: Correct me if I am wrong, because I never saw the movie, but I was told that in An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore states that Antarctic sea ice would be gone by 2013. What gives? I guess there is more to climate science than just political science.
Meanwhile http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=arctic-warming-unprecedented-in-last-44000-years Arctic Warming Unprecedented in Last 44,000 Years Moss and other indicators suggest the current Arctic meltdown is unique in recent geologic history Scientists have long known that the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe, even as they had less of a grasp of how recent trends compare to thousands of years ago. Now, a new study aims to fill the knowledge gap by concluding that recent summer warming in the eastern Canadian Arctic is unprecedented in more than 44,000 years. Prior research documented melt and temperature dynamics going back about 2,000 to 4,000 years in comparison, said study lead author Gifford Miller, associate director of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The findings, published online in Geophysical Research Letters this week, counter the conclusions of some prior studies suggesting that natural forces -- along with greenhouse gases -- may be contributing to some of the extensive Arctic warming. The study also suggests that climate models are underestimating Arctic changes, as their past predictions were off by more than 2 degrees Celsius. "Our study pushes the clock way back," said Scott Lehman, a research professor at the institute and co-author of the paper. The scientists concluded that the level of warming now matches or goes beyond what occurred during a natural warm period about 5,000 to 10,000 years ago, known as the Holocene Thermal Maximum. The study provides the first "direct" evidence that Canadian Arctic temperatures in the last century exceeded the peak warmth of that earlier thermal maximum, the scientists said. Discovery linked to ancient vegetation The fact that certain ice caps did not melt during the Holocene Thermal Maximum, despite the extreme warmth at the time, suggests that today's unusual warming period can only be caused by greenhouse gases, Miller said. "Nothing else out there can explain it," Miller said. Based on the Earth's current position in relation to the sun, the region should be cooling in the summer, not warming, he said. The scientists benefited from a discovery of vegetation on Baffin Island in the Canadian territory of Nunavut. When ice caps receded on the island in recent decades, they revealed mosses long entombed in the ice. The mosses became exposed recently, in the past year or so. A longer period would have eroded or blown them away, according to the study. Therefore, the scientists determined that the last time the vegetation appeared was during melting of the ice caps. Via radiocarbon dating of 365 vegetation samples, they determined that some of the newly exposed mosses from four of the ice caps were at least 40,000 years old. "We never expected to find plants that old," Miller said. Their old age means that the ice caps entombing them had not melted for at least that long, staying colder than the present day through the peak warmth of the Holocene thermal maximum. During that time, about 5,000 to 10,000 years ago, the eastern Canadian Arctic was closer to the sun in the summer than now, because of natural variabilities in Earth's orbit. The amount of solar radiation hitting the area was about 9 percent higher than now. Some of the tested vegetation samples were younger, indicating that their ice cap resting places on Baffin Island melted during the peak Holocene warmth 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. However, the melted caps were very close to the ones that remained intact for at least 44,000 years, Miller said. Are models underestimating warming? "Those ice caps that didn't melt, you can throw a stone at a slightly lower ice cap that did melt. They are all mixed in together," Miller said. That means that average summer temperatures now are unprecedented in the region in comparison to the past 44,000 years, the study said. The scientists studied 110 ice caps on Baffin Island in total.
Meanwhile somewhat related we are still understanding the dynamics of the ocean http://phys.org/news/2013-10-coral-chemicals-oceans.html Coral chemicals protect against warming oceans Australian marine scientists have found the first evidence that coral itself may play an important role in regulating local climate. They have discovered that the coral animal—not just its algal symbiont—makes an important sulphur-based molecule with properties to assist it in many ways, ranging from cellular protection in times of heat stress to local climate cooling by encouraging clouds to form. These findings have been published in the prestigious weekly science journal Nature. The researchers have shown that the coral animal makes dimethylsulphoniopropionate (DMSP). "The characteristic 'smell of the ocean' is actually derived from this compound, indicating how abundant the molecule is in the marine environment. In fact we could smell it in a single baby coral," says AIMS chemist Cherie Motti, and co-author on the paper. "This is the first time that an animal has been identified as a DMSP producer. Previously it was assumed that the large concentrations of DMSP emitted from coral reefs came solely from their symbiotic algae," says lead author Jean-Baptiste Raina, of AIMS@JCU and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University (CoECRS). Production of DMSP was found to increase when corals are subjected to water temperatures that put them under heat stress. DMSP and its breakdown products act as antioxidants (chemical defence compounds) protecting coral tissues from environmental stress, including that caused by high solar radiation. The sulphur-based molecules also serve as nuclei for the formation of water droplets in the atmosphere – and hence help to create clouds. If coral numbers decline, the scientists warn, there could be a major decrease in the production of DMSP and this, in turn, will impede cloud formation. "Cloud production, especially in the tropics, is an important regulator of climate – because clouds shade the Earth and reflect much of the sun's heat back into space. If fewer clouds are produced, less heat will be reflected – which ultimately will lead to warmer sea surface temperatures," Dr Raina explains. Australia's Great Barrier Reef is a major hotspot for the emission of sulphur aerosol particles, according to the scientists. "The GBR is the largest biological structure on the planet and the release of these particles along its 2600 km length could constitute a major source of cloud condensation nuclei," the authors write in their paper. "Considering declining trends in coral cover and predicted increases in coral mortality worldwide caused by anthropogenic stressors, the associated decline in sulphur aerosol production from coral reefs may further destabilise local climate regulation and accelerate degradation of this globally important and diverse ecosystem."
Global warming is the biggest fraud going today. I can't believe people still think it's legitimate. None of the IPCC models have been accurate, Al Gore's movie has been thoroughly discredited, East Anglia has proven to be a politically driven group of manipulators, and oh by the way temperatures have not risen in 15 years. And the world spends $1 billion per DAY to 'fight' the junk science that is global warming.
I did a quick google search but couldn't find anything definitive....is there a good site that shows an estimate of total volume of water held in ice caps/sheets by year or decade? The only thing I found that was interesting was a study that just concluded that showed the Antarctic ice cap has 4.5% more ice than previously estimated.
I am not going to watch the movie if that is what you are suggesting. However, I was also told that in the movie Al Gore tells everyone we should switch over to ethanol based fuels. The net energy production from ethanol is negative -- that is to say it takes more energy to make ethanol than you get from it. As far as sea ice goes, there was more sea ice in the Arctic this year than the previous 3-years, which I was also told (again) that in his movie Al Gore said would disappear by 2006.
I don't give a crap about Global Warming, but I do care about my personal health, and air pollution has made me sick more times than I can remember. Human beings have every right to want the air they breath to be as clean as the water they drink, and tougher air pollution laws are the only way to get there.
Can I suggest moving? Because you just can't believe the air outside the city. Or are you suggesting fresh air should follow you where ever you live?
For those interested in data, you have to ask what's happening underneath sea ice as well. The following story is as interesting for the scientific dedication and difficulty in the measurement as it is for the (kind of disturbing) numerical results: http://www.npr.org/2013/09/15/222638783/remote-antarctic-glacier-is-disappearing-from-below It's about an anomalously warm undersea current cutting an enormous glacier from below, kind of like a slow band saw. Overall, I would love to see the south pole's cap expand, because it would increase our planet's albedo and help slow the effects of warming.
OMG one person who said global warming exists was wrong, OH no. Yeah it's climate change buddy. No one truly understands it fully, but it's undoubtedly happening.
"no one understands it fully, but it's undoubtedly happening?" So in other words: We can't prove it, but trust us. signed, Self-motivated and self-interested scientists who need to remain relevant
Climate has forever been changing. There used to be alligators in Antarctica. I'm concerned that humans have done crap to cause climate change...and that it might be happening more rapidly than previously. But world climate was never going to stay the same. It was never going to remain just like this forever.
You might debate the extent of the man made actions but wouldn't it be prudent (conservative) to err on the side of caution and plan for the worst? Do you not do that for your home budget?
Why would you pick one data point and use that as your full supply of evidence? Does that seem like a legitimate use of science to you? Why is maximum extent the key, especially when part of the idea of global warming is that it creates more extreme temperatures in *both* directions? Why not look at minimum extent? Or total volume of ice?
