Measuring the reality of climate change: BBC report

[Ivan Seeking]

...Endeavours like this were what led these scientists to a major discovery.

The ice sheet was always assumed to be so cold that to shift it you would need warmer conditions for hundreds or thousands of years.

But research here has revealed a startling reality: that the ice sheet, which is always creeping downhill towards the coast, actually doubles in speed during the few weeks of summer.

The implications are huge. [continued]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4566123.stm

 

[Bystander]

"Major discovery:" ice has a non-zero coefficient of thermal expansion. Quick, someone wire Stockholm!

 

[matthyaouw]

I must say I don't like that article...
"the implications are huge" They are? go on... oh, you're finished.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah i was wondering why the article didnt go on to describe any huge implications.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is a little more information posted last December.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=55206

 

[Andre]

i was wondering why the article didnt go on to describe any huge implications

But what does the increase of flow really signify?

On the other hand no attention of course to articles about the large excess accumulation of ice in the mainland of Antarctica: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1110662v2

Davis et al, Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise, Science 19 May 2005

Satellite radar altimetry measurements suggest that the East Antarctic ice sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Comparisons with contemporaneous meteorological model snowfall estimates suggest that the gain in mass was associated with increased precipitation. A gain of this magnitude is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 ± 0.02 millimeters per year.

 

[Andre]

Speaking of Atlantic gulfstreams, there is a positive correlation between general Sea Surface Temperatures and storms. Due to the confirmation bias mechanism everybody "knows" that global warming "causes" more and more hurricanes.

This put things in erspective:

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2005/april2005/

...Many individuals have queried whether the unprecedented landfall of four destructive hurricanes in a seven-week period during August-September 2004 is related in any way to human-induced climate changes. There is no evidence that this is the case. If global warming were the cause of the increase in United States hurricane landfalls in 2004 and the overall increase in Atlantic basin major hurricane activity of the past ten years (1995-2004), one would expect to see an increase in tropical cyclone activity in the other storm basins as well (ie., West Pacific, East Pacific, Indian Ocean, etc.). This has not occurred.

Anyway the former speculation has lead to the resignation of the IPCC specialist on Hurricanes:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/p...olicy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

...Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy...