Nature And Man Blamed For Thawing Arctic

Study Finds Natural Causes As Well As Global Warming For Recent Dramatic Arctic Warming

(AP)  There's more to the recent dramatic and alarming thawing of the Arctic region than can be explained by man-made global warming alone, a new study found. Nature is pushing the Arctic to the edge, too.

There's a natural cause that may account for much of the Arctic warming, which has melted sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Nature. New research points a finger at a natural and cyclical increase in the amount of energy in the atmosphere that moves from south to north around the Arctic Circle.

But that energy transfer, which comes with storms that head north because of ocean currents, is not acting alone either, scientists say. Another upcoming study concludes that the combination of both that natural energy transfer increase and man-made global warming serve as a one-two punch that is pushing the Arctic over the edge.

Scientists are trying to figure out why the Arctic is warming and melting faster than computer models predict.

The summer of 2007, like the summer of 2005, smashed all records for loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean and ice sheet in Greenland. In September, the Arctic Ocean had 23 percent less sea ice than the previous record low. Greenland's ice sheet melted 19 billion tons more than its previous record.

The Nature study suggests there's more behind it than global warming because the air a couple miles above the ground is warming more than calculated by the climate models.

Climate change theory concentrates on warming of surface temperatures and explains an Arctic that is warming faster than the rest of the world as mostly because reduced sea ice and ice sheets means less reflecting solar rays.

Rune Graversen, the Nature study co-author and a meteorology researcher at Stockholm University in Sweden, said a shift in energy transfer explains the thawing more, including what's happening in the atmosphere, but does not contradict consensus global warming science.

Oceanographer James Overland, who reviewed Graversen's study for Nature, said the research dovetails with an upcoming article of his which concludes that the Arctic thawing is a combination of the two.

"If we didn't have the little extra kick from global warming then we wouldn't have gone past the threshold for the change in sea ice," said Overland, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's lab in Seattle.

Other researchers said Graversen's study underestimates the effect of global warming because it relied on older data that stopped at 2001 and wasn't the most accurate.

Overland and scientist Mark Serreze disagree over which effect - man-made or natural - was the big shove that pushed the Arctic over the edge, but they agreed that overall it's a combined effort.

"Think of it as a boxer that's almost going down for the count ... and that one blow to the noggin comes and he's down for the count," said Serreze, a senior scientist at the government's snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colo.

[co2max]

Hx53 - I have provided sources and even told you a simple Google search to reveal more detail about what I have said. As is so often the case in trying to deal with the likes of you cynical climate zealots, you just cannot accept truthful science, even when it''s thrown in your face. Between NASA, the science agencies of several European nations, plus Canada and Russia, the facts are well established that the Arctic is losing ice more rapidly than Antarctica is, but the many-times-bigger area of Antarctica, along with its documented cooling, strongly suggest that the polar ice, overall, is likely increasing.
I am a geologist of 25 years standing. I too have concerns about this planet and wonder what effects have upon it. Influence upon climate change is not among my worries; but the efforts by many to distort the truth of science in order to leverage political interests concerns me most.
So, to boil down what all has been said and to adhere to the original topic, I think we mostly agree that there is a warming of the planet, but see things in vastly different ways when it comes to what is causing it. My geology background and continued study of that discipline make is obvious that nature overpowers humanity many times over. Sure, humans may cause a slight difference from the natural, ambient trend, but to say that all global warming happening now is attributable to human activity is not only absurd, it is stupid, crazy and irresponsible.

CO2Max: I''ve provided links to data that is more recent than your 30 year study. You''ve provided nothing credible to support your position, so it as far as I''m concerned, you''ve expressed nothing but opinion. I''m sorry, but I have to question the credibility of a geologist that uses popular media to support his position. I''ve never claimed to be an expert in climatology; I''m a 54 year old anthropology major who has had an interest in the environment for over 30 years. With your source debunked, you wrench up the old reference to "panic," implying that anyone recognizing the reality of global warming is a chicken little. You question the credibility of the sources of others, yet feel free to present none of your own. You hold yourself out to be a scientist. Quite frankly, I find that questionable. But you go right ahead and amuse yourself by posting misinformation. There''s always someone like Singinrick that will believe you.

[co2max]

Hx53 - Anybody can find sources. Gosnell is not a climatologist, and neither are the many (the majority) of those who come out and proclaim panic about climate change. Truth is, there are really very few credentialled climatologists in the world. It is not a common degree program. The experts on this topic are those who study the problem, drawing from expertise in related field, such as GEOLOGY where I have concentrated for 25 years.
Please be sure about this: I have no expectations about changing anyone''s mind about climate change, or even of convincing anyone they are wrong or I am right. I come here for entertainment for the most part--it''s better than any computer game to come here and post my views and watch people react to them. Above all, I hold true to my training, experience and vocation to uphold truth in science. It''s a nice break to write openly about topics that matter to me without feeling compelled to adhere to strict clinically objective rules concerning presentation of facts, analysis and opinion. That''s what these threads are all about. It is an open forum, allowing even unqualified public individuals to speak their mind, even you (don''t take offense, please).

[bptdude]

Somebody out there want to disagree that it is not just bad, but appears to be getting much worse for the remainder of our lifetimes, before it will get better, no matter what we do?

Almost the entire thread has argued about ice level up here, down there, what happnened 40 thousand years ago over thousands of years, a few inches of sealevel rise, etc.

Please understand, the problem is not how many inches of ice are at the south pole. Nobody really cares, except that this is a means to study climate. The problem is that the earth atmosphere/water system globaly is a single massive heat engine, that even a few degrees of temperature means vast vast amounts of added heat, and this creates higher dynamic levels.

The "millions will suffer" you chose to turn a deaf ear to, will be because the earth''s environment will be more wildly dynamic, more dangerous, and most people who live on this planet will not be able to properly adapt to a more hostile biosphere.

Nothing is more important than the cycles of where water will be and how will we grow food worldwide. Nobody cares that some places might actually get wetter or colder. Saying global warming will actually help people is insane.

To be honest. Once people grasp reality, and begin the solution, which is a major global rebuild of the energy model, this will lead to massive economic growth, as energy, clean and renewable become abundant and inexpensive.

Max, I%u2019ve cited my sources, and you have not. The author of ICE is not a climatologist; she%u2019s a writer who majored in Fine Arts. I%u2019ll refer you to ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE , Kauffman-Cleveland, ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY, Montgomery, and EARTH, Tarbuck-Lutgens, as well as the IPCC reports, the Arctic Impact Assessment report, and countless others written by reputable authorities on climatology. If you can%u2019t cite a legitimate source, say so, and we%u2019ll mark your posts as unsupported opinion.

[co2max]

Hx-53 - Strict reliance on links is okay for shoot-from-the-hip evidentiary support, but this method doesn''t hold up to general scientific reporting standards. Instead, for the sake of referring you to the NASA-corroborated study of polar ice with the 30-year SHEBA study, I have relied upon the book I mentioned to jimfinster last night: "Ice" by Mariana Gosnell, published in 2005.
But in observance of your adherance to web links, let me just say that if you Google: "SHEBA polar ice study" you will get a boat load of articles in the result set which will detail the study, how it was done, preliminary analysis and some end results. I have only glanced at them and cannot predict what they will tell you, but now that I have suggested it, be sure that I will certainly do so at my convenience and compare what is said there with what Gosnell''s end report on SHEBA has assessed.

CO2Max : Yet the study that was conducted more recently than yours disclosed that the Antarctic ice mass is indeed, decreasing. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/ice_sheets.html

These are the links to the NASA data. How about providing us with links to your sources?

[co2max]

ralan40 - Your point is well taken, but I''d like to point out that the natural warming which initiated the retreat of the Wisconsinian ice period 15ka is still at work. The forces behind that warming have not "stepped aside" now that man has arrived to stoke the fires.

Absolutely, we must keep the politics (and the religion) out of science. It makes for such a waste of time and effort, but I''ll keep fighting the battle so long as public misunderstanding continues to get fair play in the press.

[co2max]

NASA agrees with me. I''ll state the facts yet again and with a revision, now that I have my sources at hand:
Study of ice extent using satellites to monitor both poles 1973 - 2003, on a decadal scale--
Arctic: 3 percent demise = 3 percent
Antarctic: 1.3 percent advance.

The air mass at both poles remains below freezing year-round, but the Antarctic keeps itself cold over a wider area because, as Hx-53 mentioned, there is less exposed landmass at the south pole than in the north. The melting that takes place is mostly at the margins of the ice sheets which is far small in the Arctic than in the Antarctic.
In fact with the Antarctic vastly larger than the Arctic in extent, the 1.3 percent increase surpasses the retreat in the Arctic, despite its higher relative rate of demise.
I hope this isn''t too complicated for you. It shouldn''t be, but well . . .

[jimfinster]

CO2Max:

The main question is whether ice mass globally is increasing or decreasing. Answer - decreasing!!

Move on to something else, no one is convinced or impressed by your convoluted reasoning.

[ralan40]

so many assumptions...so little proof.....
Fact: thousands of years ago Native Americans crossed over to North America via land bridge when the oceans were lower. The Mayans abandonded their cities hundreds of years ago due to climate change.
Climate change has always been with us. We know the oceans have risen once the 1/2 mile thick glacier covering North America receded at the end of the last ice age. Nature still releases far more greenhouse gasses than mankind. No scientist has been able to explain or prove when the warming from the end of the last ice age "ended" and when the warming caused by mankind "began". We already know Religion and Politics should not mix. Hopefully someday, people will realize that Politics and Science shouldn''t mix either...for the same reasons.

Hx-53 - Well, you stated in the early post today that the two polar regions are melting right along with one another, which suggests a synchrony--that you deny claiming in your most recent submission. It doesn''''t jibe.
The Antarctic ice volume is not decreasing. The ice extent--the surface area it covers--is decreasing. However, the increase in ice thickness across several portions of the continent is sufficient to offset the ice-mass loss at the margins, which results in a net-gain of ice at the southern pole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CO2Max: Both polar caps are melting, and both are losing mass. The ice in my coke is melting today because the temperature is 43. The ice in my coke tomorrow will melt because the temperature is going to 74. Both are melting, however there is no synchrony because circumstances are vastly different. As is the difference between the northern and southern hemispheres. Land warms faster than water. There is much more land in the northern hemisphere than in the southern. The Arctic is warming faster than the Antarctic, but BOTH are melting. "NASA Mission Detects Significant Antarctic Ice Mass Loss" NASA disagrees with you.

[co2max]

Hx-53 - Well, you stated in the early post today that the two polar regions are melting right along with one another, which suggests a synchrony--that you deny claiming in your most recent submission. It doesn''t jibe.
The Antarctic ice volume is not decreasing. The ice extent--the surface area it covers--is decreasing. However, the increase in ice thickness across several portions of the continent is sufficient to offset the ice-mass loss at the margins, which results in a net-gain of ice at the southern pole.

In contradition to the SHEBA study (1973-2003), supported by NASA surveys, which show that Antarctic ice mass increases 1.3 percent annually. Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice, as found by through the same investigation, was revealed to decrease 3.0 percent annually. So the two poles are not performing in synchrony.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CO2Max: well gee, max, why would they have to? the two hemispheres are quite different. And an increase in global preciptitation is naturally going to result in more snow in Antarctica. The study I quoted was from 2006. The Antarctic ice mass is SHRINKING, despite increased snow resulting from increased global precipitation.

[co2max]

rephrase: In contradiction to what Hx-53 cited, the SHEBA study...

[co2max]

In contradition to the SHEBA study (1973-2003), supported by NASA surveys, which show that Antarctic ice mass increases 1.3 percent annually. Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice, as found by through the same investigation, was revealed to decrease 3.0 percent annually. So the two poles are not performing in synchrony.

"RELEASE : 06-085 NASA Mission Detects Significant Antarctic Ice Mass Loss Scientists were able to conduct the first-ever gravity survey of the entire Antarctic ice sheet using data from the joint NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). This comprehensive study found the ice sheet''s mass has decreased significantly from 2002 to 2005.

Isabella Velicogna and John Wahr, both from the University of Colorado, Boulder, conducted the study. They demonstrated for the first time that Antarctica''s ice sheet lost a significant amount of mass since the launch of GRACE in 2002. The estimated mass loss was enough to raise global sea level about 1.2 millimeters (0.05 inches) during the survey period; about 13 percent of the overall observed sea level rise for the same period. The researchers found Antarctica''s ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005."
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html

This is a year old, but it appears that the Antarctic is melting, right along with the Arctic.

[co2max]

Like your climate-fantatical brethren, your attempts to instill guilt about the poor in the world suffering for our supposed bad ways, falls on deaf ears and is meaningless in this context. The best hope for the poor in the world is to allow economic and industrial development to continue. China knows this to be true, but that country is of course really stinking the place up as they push full-steam-ahead (literally).
You can allow yourself to be impressed by the amounts of carbon dioxide that humans produce, but in the global setting, it is still practically unnoticable in terms of influence on climate. It''s the collateral dirty pollution that really matters, but that aspect of the problem is getting shoved to the back burner due to the relentless focus on perceived human influence on global warming.

[juwboy]

bptdude just said:

(paraphrasing) "Millions around the world will suffer because of global warming"

However, AT PRESENT, of the order of 1000 times as many people die globally from cold weather as those who die from hot weather.

Global warming will BENEFIT mankind by bringing the number of cold weather deaths down.

[bptdude]

1) The industrial age of humans has poured an unnatural and significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

2) The Quantity can be calculated.

3) The effect of CO2 to trap heat is known and can be measured against the quantity released.

4) The global heat engine will be energized by this heat and respond in way we can not understand that has global effects for long term.

5) That we don''t understand why things are not worse then they are is not reason to ingore 1 to 4 above.

6) People who pull wierd trivia to throw at each other to ignore basic facts, are like two evil dictators waging war over interpretations of pacifict holy men.

This discussion is interesting, in that its very plunge into pop-science one-liners based on major political camps that would do the MidEast shame is why millions of poor suffering people around the world will pay the price for the number of generations it takes to stabllize the climate or adjust to it.