Is the global ice melting?

[WeatherRusty]

You use the word we quite a few times in your response, we (the US?) are not responsible for the majority of GHG emissions. So it needs to be a worldwide effort and we need to find solutions to get everyone worldwide to reduce them in a way that doesn't destroy economies and stunt growth. A real threat that could be realized now is to put such severe restrictions on carbon that it hurts the global economy spiraling us into a worldwide depression. That is a bigger fear in the short-med term than CO2 emissions in my eyes.

Good luck getting China and India to not use fossil fuels. We had our boom using them and now its their turn. The debate should focus on how to fix the problem, and right now there are not many realistic solutions on how to go about reducing GHG emissions worldwide without damaging economic growth severely.

It is not a question of not using fossil fuels. We can't perform magic here. The U.S., China, India, Brazil etc. are going to be utilizing fossil fuels for quit a long time to come. They are indispensable as a highly energy dense fuel source. Energy usage world wide is rapidly increasing and that trend will continue as populations grow and become economically advantaged. We simply must augment coal, oil and gas use with renewables. It is not a question of if we need to do this, it is a question of when.

China is well ahead of the U.S. in it's vision of what needs to be done. Yes, they are putting a new coal fired electric generating plant on line every week. They have little choice, but they are also investing in renewables far more than the U.S. in recognition of the growing need for every source of energy imaginable. They, we, all of us are headed for a major energy crisis in the future unless we all can create an economy which can sustain everyone indefinitely.

Our supplies of energy simply must at some point be capable of being maintained at a level equal to the demand. Fossil fuels being a non-renewable resource can not be that source.

Nothing can grow indefinitely. We turn a blind eye to that fact in the expectation of our populations and economic models to go on smoothly into the future while maintaining never ending growth. It can not happen. Everything grows at the expense of something else...that's the lesson to be learned from the second law of thermodynamics....entropy. Learn to live sustainably or failure is ensured when the "food" source declines.

Global warming is just one of the consequences of entropy nipping at our butts.

[Nic]

I don't know what to think about the climate change, it seems like data is being "adjusted". I would like to see the raw data. I have not seen a scientific study on the beneficial aspects of a changing climate, cooler or warmer. There are always positive and negatives to a change, the question is do they cancel out? We have the tools to measure what is happening, but we do not understand it.

I really don't know if I even know enough information to make a valid argument at this point. Maybe after my planned college education in atmospheric science, I will know enough to make my own decision. I really don't like listening to the experts, rather I would like to be the expert. lol

[salbers]

It is not a question of not using fossil fuels. We can't perform magic here. The U.S., China, India, Brazil etc. are going to be utilizing fossil fuels for quit a long time to come. They are indispensable as a highly energy dense fuel source. Energy usage world wide is rapidly increasing and that trend will continue as populations grow and become economically advantaged. We simply must augment coal, oil and gas use with renewables. It is not a question of if we need to do this, it is a question of when.

China is well ahead of the U.S. in it's vision of what needs to be done. Yes, they are putting a new coal fired electric generating plant on line every week. They have little choice, but they are also investing in renewables far more than the U.S. in recognition of the growing need for every source of energy imaginable. They, we, all of us are headed for a major energy crisis in the future unless we all can create an economy which can sustain everyone indefinitely.

Our supplies of energy simply must at some point be capable of being maintained at a level equal to the demand. Fossil fuels being a non-renewable resource can not be that source.

Nothing can grow indefinitely. We turn a blind eye to that fact in the expectation of our populations and economic models to go on smoothly into the future while maintaining never ending growth. It can not happen. Everything grows at the expense of something else...that's the lesson to be learned from the second law of thermodynamics....entropy. Learn to live sustainably or failure is ensured when the "food" source declines.

Global warming is just one of the consequences of entropy nipping at our butts.

Yes, in the big picture population and technology are increasing all sorts of environmental pressures: energy, water, land use, etc.

In energy there is some hope in that there are other types of dense energy storage potentially. Improved batteries, hydrogen, LNG, even biofuels and synfuels. So energy storage can be separated from energy generation as issues. There are also some wildcards with energy production such as the potential of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). This is loosely related to the much maligned cold fusion saga, and is now having a second resurgence.

[TerryM]

I don't know what to think about the climate change, it seems like data is being "adjusted". I would like to see the raw data. I have not seen a scientific study on the beneficial aspects of a changing climate, cooler or warmer. There are always positive and negatives to a change, the question is do they cancel out? We have the tools to measure what is happening, but we do not understand it.

I really don't know if I even know enough information to make a valid argument at this point. Maybe after my planned college education in atmospheric science, I will know enough to make my own decision. I really don't like listening to the experts, rather I would like to be the expert. lol

Nic - not being argumentative but would you be capable of interpreting the raw data if it were available?

ie Some temperature readings are actually, in raw format, nothing but readings on a milli or micro volt scale.

How would this data be of any use to you?

I agree that we have the tools to measure what is happening, but if we are unwilling to listen to those that do understand we'll never become experts ourselves.

BTW - Think University, not College if you do really want to understand climate.

[Jonger]

Wow, this is an amazing post. Did you notice that there is an annual cycle in the plot you posted, with the coldest months being DJF? That this three month period is the coldest quarter of every year plotted? The technical term for that period is WINTER. Yes,I know it's only winter in the Northern Hemisphere, but the NH is dominated by landmasses and the albedo change due to deciduous vegetation and snowfall affect the whole globe.

And did you by any chance notice that your plot is for DAILY temperature values - so it shows only weather and by no tortured interpretation does it relate to climate? Or that it only shows a few years and not the entire instrumental record? No? I didn't think so.

You asked where my theory of global warming come from and I am delighted to oblige a fellow scholar. It comes from real world data. Here is the entire measure global temperature record, from NASA GISS:

Are you able to see the see the rise in global temperatures? It's subtle, but it's there.

And my assertion that global ice is melting is also based on data. Here is the global sea ice area and anomaly plot from Cryosphere Today:

Hopefully you can see the long-term trend here, too. So, in summation, the Earth is warming and global ice is melting. Any questions?

Very nice post. I'm glad to see someone post this with a higher scale then just the mean variation surrounded by a extremely small incremental rise and fall. It appears if anything that measuring just recently got accurate and we are seeing more variation from year to year. I bet if we had good equipment going back to the year 1500 it would show a spike from the 1600s to the late 1700s and then a gradual fall from then until today. Exactly what we are seeing today.

[Vergent]

Yeah, but trying to explain where all the extra heat from the last 1.3 centuries went in just a few short months is quite the arduous task!

Actually, it is a simple task. We have heated the water and melted ice.

[TerryM]

New report by State of Louisiana predicts 3 foot Sea Rise - ignores Global Warming as Cause

http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20120207/WIRE/120209732/-1/APSTATE?p=2&tc=pg

[Vergent]

New report by State of Louisiana predicts 3 foot Sea Rise - ignores Global Warming as Cause

http://www.dailycome...STATE?p=2&tc=pg

With New Orleans, they had better get their whole head out of the sand, not just one eye.

[LithiaWx]

With New Orleans, they had better get their whole head out of the sand, not just one eye.

Why would it matter? They are warning of three feet rise by 2100. The reason doesn't matter from a preparation standpoint.

[TerryM]

Why would it matter? They are warning of three feet rise by 2100. The reason doesn't matter from a preparation standpoint.

Unless it implies that you will need 4 feet by 2125

[LithiaWx]

Unless it implies that you will need 4 feet by 2125

New Orleans is not in danger from any sea level rise like that. They have levies that protect the city which are much higher. As for the Coastal areas they will be submerged under much less than three feet and nothing is going to be able to help that.

[Vergent]

Why would it matter? They are warning of three feet rise by 2100. The reason doesn't matter from a preparation standpoint.

The proper word is cause, not reason. The climate does not think. From the preparation standpoint, if you can mitigate the cause, you can effect the outcome, rather than solving New Orleans problem by spending billions of dollars to raise the city, you can solve all the similar problems by switching to sustainable processes.

[LithiaWx]

The proper word is cause, not reason. The climate does not think. From the preparation standpoint, if you can mitigate the cause, you can effect the outcome, rather than solving New Orleans problem by spending billions of dollars to raise the city, you can solve all the similar problems by switching to sustainable processes.

There is no need to "raise the city". It's already five feet below sea level and does just fine. (Katrina being the exception) You and TerryM obviously don't know much about the city.

[TerryM]

There is no need to "raise the city". It's already five feet below sea level and does just fine. (Katrina being the exception) You and TerryM obviously don't know much about the city.

Sorry - I've never mentioned the city.

[LithiaWx]

With New Orleans, they had better get their whole head out of the sand, not just one eye.

Why would it matter? They are warning of three feet rise by 2100. The reason doesn't matter from a preparation standpoint.

Unless it implies that you will need 4 feet by 2125

Sorry - I've never mentioned the city.

Vergent did and that was my first response which you in turn responded to.

[TerryM]

Not sure it's terribly relevant. I suppose you've driven the gulf coast. A meter rise in sea level will go back miles, and if you somehow don't take into account that it's going to continue, you're going to waste huge amounts of money on projects that will soon end up under water.

Somehow I don't think they are actually that short sighted and assume they only left off the cause of the sea level rise to make it more acceptable to the unwashed masses.

[PhillipS]

NASA JPL put out a timely press release on the results from the GRACE program. The Earth lost about 1,000 cubic miles of land ice during the study period 2003 - 2010. A relevant exerpt:

The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That's enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep.

"Earth is losing a huge amount of ice to the ocean annually, and these new results will help us answer important questions in terms of both sea rise and how the planet's cold regions are responding to global change," said University of Colorado Boulder physics professor John Wahr, who helped lead the study. "The strength of GRACE is it sees all the mass in the system, even though its resolution is not high enough to allow us to determine separate contributions from each individual glacier."

The full research paper will be published in Nature.

[Jonger]

Sure its melting in the arctic and mountain glaciers... its been so for 10,000 years.

I vote yes to this.

[Jonger]

Not sure it's terribly relevant. I suppose you've driven the gulf coast. A meter rise in sea level will go back miles, and if you somehow don't take into account that it's going to continue, you're going to waste huge amounts of money on projects that will soon end up under water.

Somehow I don't think they are actually that short sighted and assume they only left off the cause of the sea level rise to make it more acceptable to the unwashed masses.

Water levels have risen for thousands of years, why would they stop now?

[TerryM]

Water levels have risen for thousands of years, why would they stop now?

I suppose it depends where one measures. At L'anse aux Meadows water level has decreased about 5 ft since Viking times. In general though ocean levels dropped during the Younger Dryas, rebounded as that phase ended and had been fairly stable since.

[Vergent]

Water levels have risen for thousands of years, why would they stop now?

What planet do you live on?

[downeastnc]

What planet do you live on?

It should and will continue to rise,just as it has since the last glaciation and it will continue to do until we start into another glaciation period. There is no "normal" or correct level for it to be and over the next 50-100 thousand years it will prolly go up and down hundreds of feet. Its a good thing man didnt evolve to the level we are now 14k years ago huh, can you imagine all the OMG THE SEA LEVEL IS RISING post you could have made if we had been around back then.......

[TerryM]

It should and will continue to rise,just as it has since the last glaciation and it will continue to do until we start into another glaciation period. There is no "normal" or correct level for it to be and over the next 50-100 thousand years it will prolly go up and down hundreds of feet. Its a good thing man didnt evolve to the level we are now 14k years ago huh, can you imagine all the OMG THE SEA LEVEL IS RISING post you could have made if we had been around back then.......

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that the human race will die out - just civilization.

[PhillipS]

It should and will continue to rise,just as it has since the last glaciation and it will continue to do until we start into another glaciation period. There is no "normal" or correct level for it to be and over the next 50-100 thousand years it will prolly go up and down hundreds of feet. Its a good thing man didnt evolve to the level we are now 14k years ago huh, can you imagine all the OMG THE SEA LEVEL IS RISING post you could have made if we had been around back then.......

How can you look at that chart and not see that sea levels have been very stable for the past 7,000 or so years? The 6 - 10 meter rise that we are initiating with our GHG emissions will be a major departure from that stability.

And the melting of the global ice, unlike some predicted AGW consequences, isn't just hypothetical, or an increase in probabilities, it is happening today. The likelihood is 100%. Granted, it will be a slow motion disaster when compared to a tsunami, but it will inundate every coastline on Earth.

How will that benefit any country with a coastline? That's not a rhetorical question - I'd really like to hear how skeptics and pseudo-skeptics rationalize this issue. We are creating a problem, as real and serious as our National Debt, that we are going to leave to our kids to deal with.

[downeastnc]

How can you look at that chart and not see that sea levels have been very stable for the past 7,000 or so years? The 6 - 10 meter rise that we are initiating with our GHG emissions will be a major departure from that stability.

And the melting of the global ice, unlike some predicted AGW consequences, isn't just hypothetical, or an increase in probabilities, it is happening today. The likelihood is 100%. Granted, it will be a slow motion disaster when compared to a tsunami, but it will inundate every coastline on Earth.

How will that benefit any country with a coastline? That's not a rhetorical question - I'd really like to hear how skeptics and pseudo-skeptics rationalize this issue. We are creating a problem, as real and serious as our National Debt, that we are going to leave to our kids to deal with.

You understand that 7000 years in geologic time is nothing right? There is no way to say exactly what the total sea level rise is going to be before we start into another glaciation period, but I agree it will rise another 3-20 ft and be about as high as it was during the last major interglacial period...... You do realize that at some point in the future ( not to long from now in geologic time say 50-100k years) sea levels are going to be 10's to 100's of feet lower than they are right now during the next glaciation period. What do you reckon we are going to do then to all those poor port cities that lose their ports or the ones in the north that are going to be inundated under a mile of ice......

As for what we should do about well I do not think its going to be that big of deal due to the time frame over which it will occur but feel free to wring your hands over it. What do you think we should do to stop something we arent capable of stopping, keep in mind the sea level has been DRAMATICALLY changing on its own for millions of years, did ya really think the climate and sea levels where gonna stop changing and stay at the same level just cause man decided to come along?

Its like you guys dont understand that the climate has always been and will always continue to change, you say stuff like "normal temps" but there is no "normal" with the climate unless by normal you mean always changing.

[Vergent]

The immediate issue is the feedbacks to melting the ice, methane and albedo change.