loafer

@weather ship - your statement "This has been explained before and is due to mankinds intervention much the same as pumping carbon into the atmosphere changes the chemistry and heat of the oceans." maybe a little misleading on that basis.

This is interesting, in that it gives detailed local data for sea level changes. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

One is a progression over a long period of time, the other is a single event. Is the assertion of long term sea level rises incorrect or is no data, other than that put forward already, available?

This is all about marginal pricing theory. If the price of oil is above a certain level, then oil companies will invest to gain access to supplies where the unit cost of production is greater and where, because of the price, they can still turn a profit. If prices fall, those areas become unviable and are not explored. Given the rapid urbanisation and industrialisation of the BRIC economies, demand for oil is rising rapidly, pushing up pricing and making oil reserves which were unprofitable to extract before, attractive for exploitation. For the avoidance of doubt, I am firmly behind increasing efficiency in energy usage and the use of viable alternative energy sources. I have always wondered, for example, why Iceland, with it's huge geothermal power reserves, doesn't crack and ship Hydrogen around the world as an alternative to oil.

Simply that there are many ways of comparing and including the longest and most up to date data would seem to be the most sensible. Do you disagree? Selective application of data ranges is certainly an area of substantial contention in climate science. For example, the flat temperatures for the last 10 years have been dismissed because the data range "isn't long enough".

I wonder what the anomaly would be if they updated the mean to include years 2009-2011?

To be fair to Village, the report BFTV posted confirms that sea levels have only been rising at +/-3mm per annum and that the acceleration which is the basis of the report is [yet another] forecast from unproven models. I think Village's point is that tomorrow never comes.

That article is a year old. Anyway, everyone knows that if you are Climate Sceptic then all warm spells are natural variations and cold spells are evidence of the next Ice Age, whereas if you are a Climate Disasterist, all warm spells are definitive evidence of a tipping point in global warming whilst cold spells are weather.

Thanks both - very interesting.

I understand what you are trying to say, but it's premise is biased from two perspectives; Firstly, I presume they didn't study other areas where ice wasn't breaking off. Secondly, they didn't provide any context for their weight measurement within the study area so we don't know whether it is a little or alot? You and GW seem to have got excited by the word Gigaton without context. I do agree that the weight over a subset study area, so dividing by the whole volume is equally misleading, but in the absence of any other objective context, we have no choice and at least it shows how minor the ice loss is in the context of the wider Antarctic. What is certain is that it is pointless basing additional doom-laden questions speculating about the tipping point of the Antarctic shelf based on incomplete data - perhaps you can find the contextual info so we can work out whether we need to panic, or whether it is a PR release bolstering a fund raising, or somewhere between?

If you want to make it sound like a big figure, make it a %age of part of the peninsula... Why don't you tell me what percentage of the peninsula ice it is...or don't they release that data because it doesn't sound so impressive...? Science. Data matters.

What, other than a Gigaton sounds like alot, and 0.00003% doesn't?! No wonder there are climate sceptics. Science needs objectivity.

All very interesting, worthy and valid points, if speculative. From an objective perspective, are you both able to concede that the original article was misleading by using weight as a measure instead of area or percentage of total?

To put the 10.4 gigatons of ice loss from the Antarctic ice sheet per year into context; 10.4 billion tons of ice is equivalent to 9.43 cubic km. It is estimated that the ice sheet is 25.4 million cubic km. The loss is therefore .000037161% of the ice sheet per annum since 2006. Funny how a gigaton doesn't seem quite so scary suddenly... Full calculation is here; 10.4 gigatons 1,000,000,000.00 tons 10,400,000,000.00 ton loss per annum since 2006 2,000.00 lbs in a ton 20,800,000,000,000.00 lbs loss per annum since 2006 62.40 lbs in a cubic foot of ice 333,333,333,333.33 cubic feet of ice loss per annum since 2006 0.0283168466 cubic metres per cubic foot 9438948866.66667 cubic metres loss per annum since 2006 0.000000001 cubic km to m conversion 9.4389488667 cubic km loss per annum since 2006 25400000 total ice sheet 0.000037161% percentage of ice sheet lost per annum since 2006

The current SH anomoly is about 320,000 sqkm*. I can believe that the events you refer to could be a material percentage of 650 sqkm (sic) that you quote, but not of 320,000 sq km. *source : http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

I find it hard to believe it could possibly be a material percentage of the 650,000 sqkm mentioned. To be honest, GW, you need to relax and enjoy Christmas. At this rate if you won the lottery, you'd probably see it as a bad thing!

[star Wars Voice] I find your faith in the models disturbing... [/star Wars Voice]

In other news, the Pope has been outed as a Catholic and Luxembourg has been determined to be a small country by the European Court of Human Rights. Next thing they'll work out that the big ball of flame and fluffy clouds have something to do with it...

G-W You might find this interesting... http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/methane-update/ Increasing, but not expotentially.

Devonian, I will take a look, but there will be a delay as I am travelling on business for a couple of days. In the meantime, briefly I would say that my comment on the impact of models is simply that the models have been repeatedly shown to be wrong in hindsight. Even the recent IPCC update summary, which I commented on positively elsewhere on here as a step forward in objectivity, makes it clear that the models which predicted continued temperature growth as a result of AGW will not be borne out in the short/medium term and that and AGW factors will be lost in the noise of other factors. In terms of science, I would respectfully suggest that the better the scientist, the less able they are at PR and spin and therefore the smaller the chance of being heard... Loafer

Doesn't look like it... http://www.isleofwightweather.co.uk/live_storm_data.htm

Thanks, Leicesternosnowzone - a good and reasonable question, but not a simple one, so bear with me! Basically, I come from a cynical perspective. A lot of the fluff on climate science smells like a con-job to someone like me who is professionally proficient at sniffing them out. That is not to say there is no validity to climate science – there is – it is just that it is being promoted by most from a biased, not balanced perspective. I certainly agree that CO2, Methane and so on are “greenhouse†gases, but I do not believe that their effect is anything like that in the models. Many models ignore the big ball of flame in the sky or the fact that space is cold – how is that credible? My view is that our limited understanding of climate science is repeatedly shown to be overestimating outcomes simply because we take the variables and compound them when in fact there are many more balancing factors in climate science we fail to take into account. Take the last 10 years I referred to above. Were they predicted as not having increasing temperatures due to low solar activity in advance? Not as far as I am aware, as you rightly imply in your post. It was an excuse when the models didn't work out. Possibly a valid excuse, but after the fact nevertheless. Another problem I have is the lack of balance – whilst I understand commentators might say “look at the sea ice in the xxx sea, its's 20% down on last year", the fact they never say “look at the sea ice in the yyy sea, it's 20% up on last year" discredits their observations – they are simply biased. More pathetically, how about Polar bears? They aren't under threat, they are thriving yet climate activists use pictures of them marooned on melting ice to illustrate their views, which makes people like me doubt everything they say. We are in the post-spin world. Thirdly, I detest the simplicity and duplicity of climate activists. CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, but even if you believe the models (see above) the biggest problem the human race faces is not how much CO2 is produced per person, it is the number of people. Despite this indisputable fact, you will never find a climate scientist advocating a moderation of population growth which is it's underlying cause. What about green energy? Wind farms? Don't make me laugh. The density of air means they are completely pointless. At least tidal makes sense - shame it isn't fashionable because of the poor ickle fishes. I could go on, but essentially my problem with climate science (which has morphed into climate activism) is that it isn't open and honest. Why does the data on which massive political and fiscal decisions are made have to be adjusted and filtered before being released. Why does it take data theft to show the contempt with which science is held by so-called scientists. All I want is honesty and openness. Some of the pieces of the jigsaw are clear, and it is certain that we should conserve energy and do the right thing whether the models are right or wrong, but science and objectivity has been subsumed by lobbyists until no one is listening anymore, and if they are, they are like me and now disbelieve what they hear. Reform, or be damned.

Interesting. Why, then does the data not show warming for the last 10 years? Unless, of course, you adjust it again, as in GW's reference paper http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

Did you read the previous post? If the data analysis is a factual as you say, why the adjustments which account for virtually all of the quoted warming? I would be very happy to see unadjusted data on temperatures, ice, CO2 and so on, but no-one seems to release it. Not an unreasonable request is it?

But can you rely upon the data...see below for the "adjustments" made to USHCN data over the years. It's remarkably similar to the published warming, isn't it?