Huge Ice Shelf Breaks Loose in Canada

I have decided to give this one more crack. This time I shall attempt to come at this from a different angle. To be honest I do not know why I am bothering because I see hostility in atlasastro's posts, particularly the latter ones, and usually I will not give someone the time of day once they become like that for no good reason. But for the sake it, here we go....

I shall show evidence which I believe will refute the argument of anthropogenic CO2 warming. I shall be quoting and interpreting lines from THIS site. I would encourage you to read it in full, as I would like to put all the information in this study here but there simply is not enough space. I have picked 2 examples which I believe give good coverage to my claim.

My first example comes from the HadCRUT3 instrumental temperature record:

This shows a clear increase in temperature from 1850 to 2005. While this doesn't look like much on it's own, a closer inspection reveals natural, rather than anthropogenic causes.


1895 to 1946 - the"natural" period

1957 to present - covering the supposedly anthropogenic period

Anthropogenic CO2 proponents say they see a "fingerprint" in recent temperature increases that they claim is distinctive and makes current temperature increases different from past "natural" temperature increases.
Yet when two sequential timeframes are lined up they look surprisingly similar. There is no evidence of a specific catalyst or "fingerprint" that would indicate a non-natural cause. If anything it shows a clear cyclical pattern.

My second example I will quote directly from the webpage as it is easier to read this way.

The Splice

To some extent, 1000-year temperature histories are moderately irrelevent to modern global warming discussions. In fact, it is fairly amazing that the evidence of tree rings and such over 1000 years is discussed more than the instrumental record of the last 100, which tends to undercut most catastrophic warming forecasts. However, catastrophists have attempted to use these past temperature reconstructions to make the argument that temperatures were incredibly stable and low right up to the point that man has made them higher and less stable in the last 100 years. For this reason it is worth discussing them, if only to refute this conclusion.

Below is the 1000-year temperature reconstruction (from proxies like tree rings and ice cores) in the Fourth IPCC Assessment. It shows the results of twelve different studies, one of which is the Mann study famously named "the hockey stick."

Among many issues, I pointed out the fact that this chart appends or splices the black line, actual measured temperatures, onto the colored lines, which are the historical temperature reconstructions from proxies.

I made the point that this offended by scientific training: When one gets an inflection point right at the place where two data sources are spliced, as is the case here, one should be suspicious that maybe the inflection is an artifact of mismatches in the data sources, and not representative of a natural phenomenon. And, in fact, when one removes the black line from measured temperatures and looks at only proxies, the hockey stick shape goes away:

The other day I discovered that this inflection point is a fairly old criticism (no surprise, I never claim to be original). Old enough, in fact, that Michael Mann and the folks at realclimate.org have fired back:


No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, "grafted the thermometer record onto" any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

The guys at realclimate are just so cute with the "industry-funded climate disinformation" attack -- they remind me of the Soviets and how they used to blame everything on CIA plots. I can say that 1) I recognized this problem on my very own after about 20 seconds of looking at the graph and 2) I have yet to recieve my check from the industry cabal.

It turns out, however, that this is wildly disingenuous. What they mean is that none of the colored lines include gauge measures grafted onto older proxy data. But I never really accused them of that. Interestingly, Steve McIntyre argues that even this claim is wrong, and some of the colored lines do include spliced-on gauge measures.

But my point, which Mann has never refuted or addressed, is that whether the proxy lines themselves include grafted data or not, the proxy lines are NEVER shown to the public or to policy makers without the gauge temperature line added to the chart. Have you ever seen the proxy lines as they are in my third chart above without the 20th century gauge temperature line? If in policy discussions and media reports, this gauge temperature line is always included on the graphs in a way that it looks like an extention of the proxy series, then effectively they are grafting the data sets together in every discussion that really matters.

By the way, it is fairly easy to demonstrate that the proxy studies and the gauge temperature measurements do not represent consistent and therefore mergeable data sets. Over hundreds of years, we have developped a lot of confidence that the linear thermal expansion of mercury in a glass tube is a good proxy for temperatures. We have not, however, developped similar confidence in bristle cone pine tree rings, whose thickness can be influenced by everything from soil and atmospheric composition to precipitation.

Continued Next post...


[edit on 6/9/2008 by Kryties]

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by Outlawstar

 

The reply to your video is on this page. Reply number 13 and 14. I am not going to answer you post unless they address these replies. The evidence and the facts. Keep posting your link to the same video. It makes no difference to me.
Adios.

BTW, I have found that thread Trolls are great for re-inforcing ones beliefs. Keep up the good work.

Actaully sorry, I didint realise you replied to it.
Give me some time to sift through the info you posted.

Continued from last post

Lets look at a closeup of the graph above:

You can see that almost all of the proxy data we have in the 20th century is actually undershooting gauge temperature measurements. Scientists call this problem divergence, but even this is self-serving. It implies that the proxies have accurately tracked temperatures but are suddenly diverting for some reason this century. What is in fact happening are two effects:

1. Gauge temperature measurements are probably reading a bit high, due to a number of effects including urban biases
2. Temperature proxies, even considering point 1, are very likely under-reporting historic variation. This means that the picture they are painting of past temperature stability is probably a false one.

All of this just confirms that we cannot trust any conclusions we draw from grafting these two data sets together.

Now here is the part that I find to be most intriguing and definitely a blow to the supporters of the IPCC findings.....

By the way, here is a little lesson about the integrity of climate science. See that light blue line? Here, let's highlight it:

For some reason, the study's author cut the data off around 1950. Is that where his proxy ended? No, in fact he had decades of proxy data left. However, his proxy data turned sharply downwards in 1950. Since this did not tell the story he wanted to tell, he hid the offending data by cutting off the line, choosing to conceal the problem rather than have an open scientific discussion about it.
The study's author? Keith Briffa, who the IPCC named to lead this section of their Fourth Assessment.

That's some pretty damning evidence of not only natural warming, as opposed to anthropogenic warming, but also of a cover-up within the IPCC to hide findings that detracted from their claims.

To finish I would like to go back and cover the topic of this thread by quoting this little tid-bit I found whilst studying the topic. It is from THIS site and I believe presents a very relevant perspective on how and why the ice sheet broke away...

CNN posted an AP story tonight on their website regarding the separation in early August of a 19-square-mile ice shelf from Elsmere Island. It starts:

TORONTO, Ontario (AP) A chunk of ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan has broken away from Ellesmere Island in Canada's northern Arctic, another dramatic indication of how warmer temperatures are changing the polar frontier, scientists said Wednesday. Derek Mueller, an Arctic ice shelf specialist at Trent University in Ontario, told The Associated Press that the 4,500-year-old Markham Ice Shelf separated in early August and the 19-square-mile shelf is now adrift in the Arctic Ocean.

It sure sounds impressive and scary, but then most people probably think of New York City when they hear “Manhattan”. They might even think of the greater NYC Metro Area. But in reality, Manhattan is but one of the five Boroughs in NYC. And 19 square miles is roughly 4.4 x 4.4 miles. Is it really that impressive or alarming? It is actually smaller than the town limits of the little community I live in. Furthermore, the ice did not actually melt. The article states that it is adrift in the arctic. Read more of John's comments here.

Icecap Note: This has nothing NADA to do with greenhouse gases. This is a natural cyclical change due to decadal shifts in both the Atlantic and Pacific. See story here and here. The warm water was off the Siberia coast last year originated in the North Atlantic when the AMO peaked in 2005 and this year has rotated to off the north Alaska coast. To the south it was one of coldest summer in decades in places like Anchorage as the Pacific has returned to its cold mode. The melt season is coming to an end soon.

You can bet the alarmists and media are rooting for a new record. They lost the global warming story. The latest UAH MSU global temperature for August is -0.01C, in other words ever so slightly colder than the normal August since 1979. Temperature trend down continues even as the CO2 continues to rise.

And with that, I bid you goodnight

Kryties

[edit on 6/9/2008 by Kryties]

reply to post by atlasastro

I understand what you are saying. But what puzzles me is that if these volcanic ridges are producing enough heat both in the water and then into the Air. This still does not explain how glaciers and Ice melt everywhere else.

I was not attempting to explain the totality of global warming, only the melting of the glaciers in the Arctic, as referenced by the OP. If you want to increase the range of the discussion, simply say so.

As this heat would surely be lost as it moves and is dispersed away from it original source. A source which is not being observed as being constant. Yet Melts and Global Glacial melts have been Constant for 50-60 years.

Heat can only be lost at the edges of the atmosphere, and there only in the sense that it is no longer in the earth's general vicinity. It does not simply 'disappear'; it disperses into the average temperature of the planet.

I already posted this excerpt from your source, www.charlotteobserver.com... . But it seems to need repeating:

This is no 50-60 year event. It is a sudden and unexpected disappearance of an area of ice. As such, I look toward sudden and more unexpected heat sources.

While Air and Water are not insulated from this heat transference, Georaphically, the locations are. What kind of Volcanic output and activity would be needed to Heat water( which as you have informed me, is harder to do than Air) to such an extent that the subsequent heat produced could then be accepted as the source for GW trends observed? It would have to be massiv would it not, and the currents would be indictive of the warming being distributed globally from these sources. I'll be looking into this more to see what i can find.

Here again, you seem to be moving the discussion away from the Arctic melting and into the realm of planetary warming. We can do this if you wish, but this would not mean my arguments toward a localized event would necessarily be applicable toward a generalized one.

Yes but the oceans still absorb and store heats, and surface temperatures have risen, indicating that there is a transfer of heat from the Atmosphere to the Ocean. I agree though that this is hard to swallow as the only cause of oceanic water temperature rises. But to suggest that it is not a contributing factor is also hard to swallow.

Again, I refer to www.ncdc.noaa.gov... . If you look closely, you will see that the oceanic anomalies around the Arctic exceed 3°C, while Global Warming informs us that the temperature increase of the atmosphere is on the order of less than 1°C over the last century.

Source: lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov...

If you will examine the maps at the bottom of that page, you will notice that the atmosphere warming trends, while slightly higher in the Northern Hemisphere, are almost exclusively along the equatorial regions. The map also shows a maximum anomaly reading of 2°C, as opposed to 3°C for the oceanic map, and smaller areas which show the maximum anomalies.

Summarized: The oceans are warming in the Arctic more than the air. This cannot be attributable to an atmospheric heat source, as heat transfer serves to equalize temperature, not concentrate it.

I think from this a gather that the people at the National Oceaographic Data centre are not to sure how all this works.

Agreed. And considering that the NOAA is one of the oldest of the climate research centers, and backed by US Government funds, I would think they would be on the cutting edge.

The sad fact is that no one, yes, that includes myself, knows exactly how the planetary ecological systems work. We know some of the contributing factors. NOAA is one of the most advanced climate research organizations going, and their lack of thorough understanding only reinforces the need for more research. Especially before propagandizing the present observed planetary warming trend as some sort of major disaster.

But this arguement is the same for the amount of enegy needed from volcanic events creating the same rapid changes. The Ridges you from your earlier post are not this active, and only became significant for the way they exploded, not the amount of activity. The more i read into this though, the more i am inclined to accept it as a contributing factor.

The volcanic activity is much more of a heat source than the atmosphere. We do not yet have the final word on how long or how massively these events are occurring. As I have mentioned before, the seabed is the last frontier for science. Just because these events were discovered earlier this year, it does not mean they have not been erupting for 100 years, or that they didn't just start. We simply don't know.

As to intensity, volcanoes are notably difficult to quantify as to the amount of energy released. But they can release quite a bit of energy. From volcano.oregonstate.edu...

That is one notable volcano, and admittedly a record. But volcanoes regularly spew lava:

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

So we have two competitors: rising air temperatures on the order of a maximum of 2°C over the last century, or volcanic eruptions on the order of up to 1200°C. Now, which is hotter and therefore better able to melt ice in a rapid fashion? The atmospheric temperature contains little energy (specific heat again), while the lava contains quite a bit, up to the amount of 13,000 atomic bombs. The atmosphere provides heat from above, while the volcanic activity provides a heat source from below. Tell me, does heat not rise?

Yes I see that correlation to, but only in relation to the Ocean and the Local regions that are effected by this seismic activity. To say that it is responsible for GW is a big leap, considering how incomplete the current knowledge is on these activities. I am thankfull for your input, as this need more serious investigation.

I am glad to see you are interested in learning alternatives to the 'consensus' of Global Warming being caused almost exclusively by an inert trace gas. But again, my responses have thus far been directed at the Arctic melting, not the observed planetary temperatures. We can discuss that if you like, but since this is your thread, I will allow you to make that transition. I will gladly follow should you do so.

TheRedneck

Sorry mate, but the arguements you made against the documentary are just not substantial at all, obviously scientists who "think" otherwise are gong to refute the theory, its what they are paid to do.
And pointing out flaws of the particular poster of the video also has no bearing on the eviidence presented.
Why do you want to belive so much that human CO2 is the cause of global warming?
And do you believe the catastrophic prediction laid out by this model?

Originally posted by atlasastro
286 scientist complained about the Info in this documentary in the UK alone.

Just thought I would mention that it was viewed by 2.7 million people in the UK and out of that large number only 286 complained. That doesn't strike me as a very large number when viewed in those terms.

Howdy, y'all.

I realize that this is, for some reason, a contentious topic. Opinions can get heated, lets remember everyone's opinion has a place here, regardless of how we may feel about said opinion.

Let's also watch the size of our quotes, if you want to read the whole of someones post, go see it in the original...trim 'em precisely to what you need...

reply to post by seagull


Hehe roger that seagull. I usually do not get as enthused as I have been in some of my posts in this thread. I shall endeavour to do my part in keeping it a happy thread to post in

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by seagull

 

Hehe roger that seagull. I usually do not get as enthused as I have been in some of my posts in this thread. I shall endeavour to do my part in keeping it a happy thread to post in

Oh you already have done, and Ive tried myself, unlike some others

Quite a battle in this thread. As always, I admire Redneck's commitment to setting the GW record straight.

I would just like to add that most scientist these days are paid money to produce results to the liking of the payer. This goes for both sides of the GW debate. With that in mind, the saying "follow the money" should apply here.

Also, broader perspectives must be taken into consideration when dealing with this subject because there is much more at stake than one is lead to believe (Global Carbon Tax, Eco-religion, Enviro-cops etc...)

Originally posted by vegno
Quite a battle in this thread. As always, I admire Redneck's commitment to setting the GW record straight.

I would just like to add that most scientist these days are paid money to produce results to the liking of the payer. This goes for both sides of the GW debate. With that in mind, the saying "follow the money" should apply here.

Also, broader perspectives must be taken into consideration when dealing with this subject because there is much more at stake than one is lead to believe (Global Carbon Tax, Eco-religion, Enviro-cops etc...)

Youre right there, although the broader perspectives and implication are very interesting and important, theyre probably for another tread(hint hint^_^)

Lets take a step back and look at the debate here.

Global Warming.
Is it caused by human release of Co2
or is it naturally occouring.?

Seriously, the problem here in this thread is that atlas really doesint have a vast knowledge of the people that run the world, their agendas and the kind of strategies they use, and just how that relates directly.

Undoubtadly, knowing him, he will ask me to show just this, however is it really worth my time?, when he will then undoubtadly go out of his way to seperatly address each issue I bring up and disprove them due to unwillingness to believe.

Believe me atlas I am not insulting you, its been a fun debate, even if you have a tendancy to aggresivly put your point across shall we say.

But I now see that your are very attached to yor belief adn nothing I say will change that.

reply to post by vegno

Quite a battle in this thread. As always, I admire Redneck's commitment to setting the GW record straight.

Thank you vegno. I must admit that my tendency of late has been to aggressively deny the ignorance these environmental threads often have in excess. I am no climatologist, yet I can see easily what the agendas are which you mention. And I can understand both the science being used and the science being ignored.

My bias (as we all have one, whether we wish to advertise it or not) is my children. My homeland is passing to me now from my father, who had his passed from his father, who had his passed from his father, ad infinitum. It is my fervent intention to continue the tradition when I become too old and decrepit to care for it. That cannot happen if it is being abused by some politician with delusions of science in the name of conservation.

As such, I will continue to debate this topic above all others. Tenaciously, aggressively, but with due reverence to the facts... all of the facts.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by atlasastro

 

I am a little annoyed right now, I have spent the last hour putting together a post only to have it lost in the server twice now (I would hit PREVIEW POST and it gave me an error page then returned me to a blank reply box). I am too angry at this to write it all a third time but when I calm down I will go for try number 3.

I feel your pain. That has happened to me so many times; I put together a brilliant post loaded with research and so much evidence that I assume all the readers will have to agree with my conclusions, only to have my post mysteriously disappear into some unknown dimension. So now I open a blank email message and compose my entire post there first. Then I copy it into the ATS reply window. This way I never lose a post.

Regarding the issue of Global warming; It has unfortunately, become a political issue. Many chose their stand on this issue based, not on actual research, but rather on the political agenda they favor.

As long as real scientists cannot even agree on the cause & consequences of Global Warming what use is there for non-scientists, who can only cut & paste the research of others into their ego laden posts, to be dogmatic about the issue?

Why not wait until there is real consensus among scientists and researchers.

Until that happens GW will continue to nothing more than a political football.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by vegno

Quite a battle in this thread. As always, I admire Redneck's commitment to setting the GW record straight.

Thank you vegno. I must admit that my tendency of late has been to aggressively deny the ignorance these environmental threads often have in excess. I am no climatologist, yet I can see easily what the agendas are which you mention. And I can understand both the science being used and the science being ignored.

My bias (as we all have one, whether we wish to advertise it or not) is my children. My homeland is passing to me now from my father, who had his passed from his father, who had his passed from his father, ad infinitum. It is my fervent intention to continue the tradition when I become too old and decrepit to care for it. That cannot happen if it is being abused by some politician with delusions of science in the name of conservation.

As such, I will continue to debate this topic above all others. Tenaciously, aggressively, but with due reverence to the facts... all of the facts.

TheRedneck

All I can say is.......I like the cut of your jib

Nobody believes it can be preserved anyway - www.votetheday.com...

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by atlasastro

So this is yet another huge break, and there is another huge amount of ice expected to follow this break. Add this the New Artic all time low for ice coverage, Wilkins and Ward Ice Shelfs that also broke up this year too. But hey, its not Global Warming. That phrase about burying your head in the sand is becoming more significant now, pull 'em out all you Climate Change Global Warming deniers.

This is what annoys me about people like you. Us deniers aren't denying that Global Warming is occuring, we are denying it is MAN-MADE. The GW we are seeing is nothing more than Earth's natural 1500 year cycle as proven by various drill-cores taken from all the oceans.

Stop making this out to be like we deny GW is happening. It detracts from our argument and quite frankly makes you look stupid.

WRONG WRONG WRONG. Please go and read the goddam research into the ice cores. Oh OK I'm wrong so please provide a link to the original document that describes the analysis that proves what you are saying . Please note NOT a cherry picked re-iteration or a deniers interpretation but the original study by those scientaist who actually handled the ice cores!!!

reply to post by malcr


Thats an old post mate, we've already discussed that at length if you had have actually read the whole thread. I would suggest you read the two posts I authored at the top of this page and comment on those instead.

As an aside, I was also referring to the sedimentary cores as well as the ice cores, but you mustn't have read that either

[edit on 9/9/2008 by Kryties]

reply to post by atlasastro


I have a bridge for you to invest in , it's in Brooklyn.....

The fact is.... The Arctic has 13% more ice this year than last....

The fact is.... The polar ice caps on MARS also melted and are regaining their mass again
now.

The fact is ... Europa was defrosting...

The fact is... The Vikings were farming on Greenland over 1000 years ago.
They left during a mini Ice Age that didn't subside until the "Age of
Enlightenment".

The FACT is we are going thru another SOLAR CYCLE.


The Fact is .... There are MANY scientists who vehemently disagree with the "Global Warming THEORY.

BTW... The OZONE layer was damaged by HAARP in a test run. look up Dr Bernard Eastlund.

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo


BTW... The OZONE layer was damaged by HAARP in a test run. look up Dr Bernard Eastlund.

You had me agreeing with every point up until the last one about Harp.

I still gave you a star for presenting some real facts.

The facts are that earth does indeed go through warming & cooling cycles and there is no true consensus among scientists that man is causing the current warming cycle.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Sparky63]

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
reply to post by atlasastro

 

I have a bridge for you to invest in , it's in Brooklyn.....

The fact is.... The Arctic has 13% more ice this year than last....

The fact is.... The polar ice caps on MARS also melted and are regaining their mass again
now.

The fact is ... Europa was defrosting...

The fact is... The Vikings were farming on Greenland over 1000 years ago.
They left during a mini Ice Age that didn't subside until the "Age of
Enlightenment".

The FACT is we are going thru another SOLAR CYCLE.


The Fact is .... There are MANY scientists who vehemently disagree with the "Global Warming THEORY.

BTW... The OZONE layer was damaged by HAARP in a test run. look up Dr Bernard Eastlund.

Thanks for that nice straightforward sum up dude^___^