The Taboo Of Not Subscribing To Anthropological Global Warming

[knocker]

Another major problem I have is why Antactic sea ice isn't melting - in fact it's on an upward trend. If we are to believe that sea ice loss in the Arctic is due to AGW, why is this not also true of Antarctica.

One possible reason. Can't access the paper itself.

Increased growth in Antarctic sea ice during the past 30 years is a result of changing weather patterns caused by the ozone hole according to new research published this week (Thurs 23 April 2009).

Reporting in the journal Geophysical Research Letters scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and NASA say that while there has been a dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice, Antarctic sea ice has increased by a small amount as a result of the ozone hole delaying the impact of greenhouse gas increases on the climate of the continent.

Sea ice plays a key role in the global environment — reflecting heat from the sun and providing a habitat for marine life. At both poles sea ice cover is at its minimum during summer. However, during the winter freeze in Antarctica this ice cover expands to an area roughly twice the size of Europe. Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above. Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade.

The new research helps explain why observed changes in the amount of sea-ice cover are so different in both polar regions.

Lead author Professor John Turner of BAS says:

“Our results show the complexity of climate change across the Earth. While there is increasing evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic has occurred due to human activity, in the Antarctic human influence through the ozone hole has had the reverse effect and resulted in more ice. Although the ozone hole is in many ways holding back the effects of greenhouse gas increases on the Antarctic, this will not last, as we expect ozone levels to recover by the end of the 21st Century. By then there is likely to be around one third less Antarctic sea ice.â€

Using satellite images of sea ice and computer models the scientists discovered that the ozone hole has strengthened surface winds around Antarctica and deepened the storms in the South Pacific area of the Southern Ocean that surrounds the continent. This resulted in greater flow of cold air over the Ross Sea (West Antarctica) leading to more ice production in this region.

The satellite data reveal the variation in sea ice cover around the entire Antarctic continent. Whilst there has been a small increase of sea ice during the autumn around the coast of East Antarctica, the largest changes are observed in West Antarctica. Sea ice has been lost to the west of the Antarctic Peninsula – a region that has warmed by almost 3°C in the past 50 years. Further west sea ice cover over the Ross Sea has increased.

Turner continues:

“Understanding how polar sea ice responds to global change — whether human induced or as part of a natural process — is really important if we are to make accurate predictions about the Earth’s future climate. This new research helps us solve some of the puzzle of why sea-ice is shrinking is some areas and growing in others.â€

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=838

[laserguy]

It would have been far better if the money generated by the carbon taxes were to be directed at ordinary citizens and communities in order to encourage them to install alternative energy systems and insulation in the form of grants thereby achieving a situation whereby cheaper heating would be availalble to all.

If the government would care to populate my roof with solar panels free of charge instead of talking crap and building useless windmills,I'd be happy to humour this climate-change malarkey.

[summersnow]

One possible reason. Can't access the paper itself.

http://www.antarctic...ease.php?id=838

Thanks for this - I think I have scanned the paper before as I do remember this as a possible explanation. While I do accept this is one "possible" explanation, there are several others that to my mind, are much more straight forward and don't point at all costs, to "it has to be a human induced effect"!

As I've maintaied before, I do believe we are definately having an impact on our ecosystem but I'm very suspicious when there seems to be a desperate attempt to point everything at AGW.

[Methuselah]

If the government would care to populate my roof with solar panels free of charge instead of talking crap and building useless windmills,I'd be happy to humour this climate-change malarkey.

It my sound loke a silly question, Barrie...But when, not if, fossil and nuclear fuels run out - where are we going to get our energy from??

[knocker]

Thanks for this - I think I have scanned the paper before as I do remember this as a possible explanation. While I do accept this is one "possible" explanation, there are several others that to my mind, are much more straight forward and don't point at all costs, to "it has to be a human induced effect"!

As I've maintaied before, I do believe we are definately having an impact on our ecosystem but I'm very suspicious when there seems to be a desperate attempt to point everything at AGW.

Regarding the ozone hole I think "it has to be a human induced effect"! fits the bill perfectly.

[summersnow]

Regarding the ozone hole I think "it has to be a human induced effect"! fits the bill perfectly.

Agreed!

[BornFromTheVoid]

The full Antarctic ozone paper is here guys

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Turner.pdf

[laserguy]

It my sound loke a silly question, Barrie...But when, not if, fossil and nuclear fuels run out - where are we going to get our energy from??

Not a silly question at all,Pete. But the running-out of FF's and finding replacements ain't got squat to do with climate change. And when the sun "runs out" even the most hardened AGW nuts will have long stopped worrying. In the meantime, stop making toy windmills,get the unemployed working to make solar panels and give 'em away free. That's a good way to spend taxes and to see if they're serious. Don't hold your breath,you'd be better off using it to turn those windmills.

[pottyprof]

If the government would care to populate my roof with solar panels free of charge instead of talking crap and building useless windmills,I'd be happy to humour this climate-change malarkey.

http://ashadegreener.co.uk/

Free panels if you meet the positioning and roof size criteria. You even get to use the electricity for free too.......

*other solar panel installers are available....

[Kained]

It my sound loke a silly question, Barrie...But when, not if, fossil and nuclear fuels run out - where are we going to get our energy from??

I'd be really concerned if deuterium ran out.

[loafer]

It my sound loke a silly question, Barrie...But when, not if, fossil and nuclear fuels run out - where are we going to get our energy from??

Geothermally cracked hydrogen. Bacterial hydrocarbons. Amongst many other things.

[Guest]

I dare say that when the Jellystone caldera blows, as it undoubtably will one day, it will put all talk of global warming into a cocked hat, and it is just about due given a variance of a few millenia.

[Devonian]

I dare say that when the Jellystone caldera blows, as it undoubtably will one day, it will put all talk of global warming into a cocked hat, and it is just about due given a variance of a few millenia.

Probably will blow at some point in the next X thousand years, it's not certain is it? I would agree it's likely, just like 2-4C of AGW - imo.

[Devonian]

Geothermally cracked hydrogen. Bacterial hydrocarbons. Amongst many other things.

I'm not sure what the former is? The latter less so but still not sure what you mean.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I'd like to think there would be little or no talk of AGW in 100 years or so. Surely by then we'll either have the technology to sequester most of our CO2 emissions, have fusion reactors so we don't need much oil or have some other mechanism to nullify our greenhouse gas output.

If it's still an issue by the time Yellowstone blows, the volcanic winter will probably be a welcome relief!

[Methuselah]

I'm not sure what the former is? The latter less so but still not sure what you mean.

Me neither!

[Gray-Wolf]

Back to the thread title;

Does anyone else feel that actually 'adhering' to the general AGW premise brings more 'trouble' than skepticism on any level?

Why folk cannot remain 'objective' about the science instead of launching assaults/insults when we read papers/reports about the growing evidence in support of human driven rapid climate shift I do not know but it appears that this is rapidly becoming the norm on many sites hosting 'climate and Environment ' sections. I can only muse that it is fear that such change brings with it that fires the need to push away/put down anyone foisting thoughts that may 'feel' unpleasant and scary?

Most of the objections as to why folk 'should' adhere to the science and current understanding/observations are always supported by the science (and not personal insult/aggravation),

Edited April 16, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[pottyprof]

Most of the objections as to why folk 'should' adhere to the science and current understanding/observations are always supported by the science (and not personal insult/aggravation),

Well when scientists and politicians act like kids and fora are full of drivel, what do you expect? I don't spend my time looking for arguments, I spend my time looking for information. The subject is getting to be a complete turn off because of nit picking idiots who can't be courteous or polite or people that think they know it all. It's a shame really because it could be a really interesting and important subject.