Global Warming---Oops!!

[Edial]

Is this a quote from anyone on this ship or is this the townhall.com author's spin?

also here ...
'http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Global-warming-researcher-gets-stuck-in-ice-5102720.php

 

[USincognito]

You truly believe they falsified the quote?

Since that's not the issue I'm raising, that question is not germane.

This is what I copied from that article ...

Awesome. And the part in red is the bit I quoted - for a very specific reason.

Chris Turney, who holds the title of “professor of climate change” at New South Wales University in New Zealand set out on a sea voyage with the aim of proving that the polar ice is melting due to global warming. Then his ship got stuck in the ice. “We’re stuck in our own experiment,” said the leader of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition. He and 73 crew members aboard the the Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy became stranded when their ship became trapped in the very ice they had set out to prove was melting.

That reads to me like editorializing combined with schadenfruede because the AAE didn't set out to "prove" that sea ice was melting. It set out to show that glacial ice was melting. And since they are caught in sea ice, not glacial ice, it's impossible for them to be caught in "the very ice they had set out to prove was melting".
The Spirit of Mawson - The Science Case

The scale of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is staggering. Over 98% of the continent is submerged by three large ice sheets that drown the underlying topography. The Australasian sector is dominated by the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, the largest of three ice sheets that contains enough freshwater to raise the world’s sea level by some 52 metres. Until recently it was thought this ice sheet was stable, sitting on the continental crust above today’s sea level. However there is an increasing body of evidence, including by the AAE members, that have identified parts of the East Antarctic which are highly susceptible to melting and collapse from ocean warming.​

 

[USincognito]

Global warming research expedition cancelled due to too much ice.

You just can't make this stuff up

Plagiarism, sourced, false dilemma, irony, straw man, blacklisting, global...

 

[USincognito]

Global warming doesn't seem to be having the effect on climate that we're being told by the global warming religionists

An assertion one can make if one doesn't understand the meaning of "global" and "climate". The "religionists" insult is just silliness and desperation.

Turney also explains the ice situation in this blog posting:
The Spirit of Mawson - One week on

The wind is not unusual but what is unexpected is the major reconfiguration of thick multi-year sea ice to the east of the Mertz Glacier. In 2010, a large iceberg known as B09B, calved from the continent and collided spectacularly with the extended tongue of the Mertz Glacier. The knock-on effect has been that Commonwealth Bay has filled with sea ice (termed ‘fast ice&#8217, preventing direct access from the sea to Mawson’s main hut at Cape Denison. Unfortunately for the AAE, it appears the region has just undergone a massive reconfiguration of sea ice, years after the loss of the Mertz Glacier tongue. This has been revealed by new satellite imagery which arrived today from the AAD/ACE CRC Sea Ice Group in Hobart, Tasmania. The satellite maps show the comparison before and after the event, with deep purple signifying 100% sea ice cover and dark blue, open water. (Note: the outline of the Mertz Glacier tongue is shown on the maps but disappeared following the collision with B09B). Crucially, these images show the extensive, thick multi-year sea ice along the eastern and southern edge of what was the Mertz Glacier Tongue (outlined by a red box) has been blown out in the last week and driven against our position by the persistent southeasterly winds.​

And global warming is having a global effect on the climate.
State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

•November marked the 37th consecutive November and 345th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average temperature for November was November 1976 and the last below-average temperature for any month was February 1985.​

Global Analysis - November 2013 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

•The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the year-to-date (January–November) was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.2°F), tying with 2002 as the fourth warmest such period on record.​

and

The globally-averaged temperature across land and ocean surfaces for the first eleven months of 2013 (January–November) was 0.62°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average, tying with 2002 as the fourth warmest January–November on record. The average global land temperature for this period also tied with 2002 as the fourth highest on record, at 0.98°C (1.82°F) above the long-term average, while the average global ocean temperature tied with 2006 as the eighth warmest in the 134-year period of record, at 0.48°C (0.86°F) above average.​

bold mine

 

[USincognito]

The ship is caught in the ic becuse they got caught in a blizzard while trying to substantiate global warming

You're confused. We're talking about a ship on the ocean, not a car on a highway. A blizzard doesn't form the type of sea ice the ship is experiencing.

 

[USincognito]

The global climate is cooling, not warming.

You're being lied to.

But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period.

Lawyer and Heartland Institute activist Peter Ferrera is welcome to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The Met Office weighed in after this claim started to spread amongst denialits.
The recent pause in warming - Met Office

The first paper shows that a wide range of observed climate indicators continue to show changes that are consistent with a globally warming world, and our understanding of how the climate system works.​

Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography at California State University

Who?

Global warming is a lie. Period. It's not happening.

The data says otherwise.

 

[USincognito]

Since it's summer in the southern hemisphere (as has been noted several times) that means it's winter in the northern hemisphere. Do you have proof of the glaciers coming back anytime soon?

Yes

The word glacier appears no where in that story. You want to try again?

 

[USincognito]

Did you read the part about the cooling phase we're entering?

Yes, but we probably read it for content and the context of the glaciers you were asked about.

The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted.

A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.

However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say.​

There will not be a cooling phase as far as temperatures go. They will remain the same.
The natural cooling will counteract what otherwise would have been warming due to greenhouse gasses
That maintained temperature level will end in 2020 and temps will begin rising again quickly as the natural counteraction to AGW ends.

So. Temperatures are going to stay about where they are. Current temps are causing glacial retreat. The temperature will begin to rise again in 2020.

How exactly was that article supposed to be proof of the glaciers coming back any time soon? Do you even know how glaciers form?

 

[USincognito]

And a rock is "a hard place."
Negative temperature trends are the opposite of positive temperature trends, which means that the temperature is cooling, not warming. That's what I said. We could make ourselves sound even more special by talking about a reduction of thermal units or a reduction in the aggregate amount of thermal radiation relative to previous measurements, but it's only saying the same thing. Coolin' ain't warmin.'

I don't know what this screed was supposed to accomplish because Sam's point what that we are not cooling. And we're not.

Every single "climate change" model has failed because the amount of human contribution to the environment is minimal. We no longer have raging forest fires burning millions of acres every year. We've made great inroads into fighting forest fires, and if we could log the old growth forests we'd do even more.

Forest fires aren't the problem. It's CO[sub]2[/sub] that's been sequestered in oil and coal that is being released into the atmosphere. And unlike water vapor, the carbon dioxide sticks around. This year we passed 400ppm in atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] and it's hovering around 390ppm.

 

[USincognito]

But don't you think a better question should be what happened during the last 7 ice ages when there was no man-made CO2?

There was no causal relationship between climate change and anthropogenetically produced CO[sub]2[/sub] back then. Today we do observe a connection between the two. And more importantly, we observe a number of other factors that should have us in a cooling trend like a lack of solar activity.

We also observe things like coral bleaching and oyster die-offs due to the buildup of carbonic acid in the oceans.

 

[USincognito]

I looked it up and temperatures did decrease last year.

Globally 2012 was actually warmer than 2011.

 

[USincognito]

Source?

Did you miss post #70 or just ignore it?

 

[Vylo]

The global climate is cooling, not warming. Did you even graduate high school?

The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.
Forbes

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
source

“Global warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the Club of Rome back in the 60′s and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and radically reduce the human population.”
Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography at California State University

Global warming is a lie. Period. It's not happening.

Read your own sources people. Temperatures flattening when they would normally be going down, then progressing back to a rise. That's not falling global temperatures.

 

[USincognito]

Yep...

Experts see more freakish hot weather

Australia's hottest-ever year, and Canberra's second-hottest year on record, could have been even worse were it not for neutral El Nino conditions and early monsoons, according to weather experts, one of whom described 2013's extremes as "freakish".
----------------
Dr Perkins said the multitude of records broken in 2013 (hottest year, hottest month, hottest day) was made extraordinary by the fact that the El Nino Southern Oscillation index was neutral, with no tendency for the hotter, drier weather typically associated with El Nino summers.

"The last two summers have both fallen as neutral summers, and we've seen quite record-breaking conditions. So if we were to have an El Nino year in one of these two summers it certainly would have seen more amplified extremes," she said. "If it weren't for human-induced climate change, occasionally a record would be broken here or there, but you certainly wouldn't get nearly as many in one year. That's a very freakish thing to have."

While a single hot year did not amount to strong evidence of climate change, she said it would likely be pointed to by climate scientists as "another link in the chain".​

bold mine

... because it's an ENSO neutral cycle, what was a nightmare of a year would have been even hotter if it weren't.

 

[1Sam15]

But don't you see the humongous irony of this?
Even the leader of this experiment says "We're stuck in our own experiment?"

Scientists Who Set Out to Prove Global Warming Trapped in Ice - Townhall.com Staff 12/31/2013 11:13 AM

Nathan Harden | Dec 31, 2013
Chris Turney, who holds the title of “professor of climate change” at New South Wales University in New Zealand set out on a sea voyage with the aim of proving that the polar ice is melting due to global warming. Then his ship got stuck in the ice. “We’re stuck in our own experiment,” said the leader of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition. He and 73 crew members aboard the the Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy became stranded when their ship became trapped in the very ice they had set out to prove was melting.

No irony at all, really.

Scientists have seen some increase in sea ice in the Southern Ocean and there's a couple of pretty solid hypotheses for this:

1. The ozone depletion over Antarctica has caused stratospheric cooling which changes wind patterns. In fact this lines up well with the current situation since the winds drove the ice out around the ship. The scientists were seeing this a while back.

2. Massive ice loss from the LAND of Antarctica which dumps a lot of fresh water into the Southern Ocean and changes mixing dynamics in the water there.

So, indeed, there is no irony at all. In fact this actually SUPPORTS some of the science that's been out there about this for 6 or 7 years.

 

[1Sam15]

Source?

Already answered for you in Post #70 (here)

 

[NightHawkeye]

HERE

This is where your 97% reference came from. The same journal published this scathing critique of the article you cited: Regarding Anderegg et al. and climate change credibility; Lawrence Bodenstein | Proceedings of the National Academy of Science

The study by Anderegg et al. (1) employed suspect methodology that treated publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise. Credentialed scientists, having devoted much of their careers to a certain area, with multiple relevant peer-reviewed publications, should be deemed core experts, notwithstanding that others are more or less prolific in print or that their views stand in the minority. In the climate change (CC) controversy, a priori, one expects that the much larger and more “politically correct” side would excel in certain publication metrics. They continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation. The authors' treatment of these deficiencies in Materials and Methods was unconvincing in the skewed and politically charged environment of the CC hubbub and where one group is in the vast majority (1). The data hoarding and publication blockade imbroglio was not addressed at all.
...
Publication of this article as an objective scientific study does a true disservice to scientific discourse.
​

These are not minor criticisms.

Your second reference may be more accurate ... but it claims nowhere near the 97% figure you cited.

And

HERE

TWO UNRELATED studies, using COMPLETELY DIFFERENT methodologies.

This paper mentions a different study with only 75% consensus agreement. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

However, attempts to quantify the scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming have met with criticism. For instance, Oreskes [2004] reviewed 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed research papers and found that more than 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities.
​

Only after narrowing the statistical selection window considerably did the authors achieve a higher consensus figure ... just like your first reference. The same criticism cited by Brodenstein earlier applies equally here:

Publication of this article as an objective scientific study does a true disservice to scientific discourse.
​

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Isn't the real evidence/proof of global warming found in ocean temperatures? Salt water holds a lot heat. A small rise in ocean temps means an enormous increase in heat retained by the earth, therefore: global warming. Focusing on weather or climate can be misleading as both can be erratic and misleading, but the steady rise in temperature of the massive amount of global ocean water is the undeniable proof, and simply cannot be ignored or argued away.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Isn't the real evidence/proof of global warming found in ocean temperatures? Salt water holds a lot heat. A small rise in ocean temps means an enormous increase in heat retained by the earth, therefore: global warming. Focusing on weather or climate can be misleading as both can be erratic and misleading, but the steady rise in temperature of the massive amount of global ocean water is the undeniable proof, and simply cannot be ignored or argued away.

The problem with ocean temperature is that ocean temperature is not uniform. There is a lot of ocean and very few temperature sensors. One metric commonly seen is sea surface temperatures, but even that is inconsistent because ocean turn-over can skew the surface temperatures for many years.

 

[[serious]]

Global warming research expedition cancelled due to too much ice.

You just can't make this stuff up

There is ice at the poles, hence, global warming is teh lye!