Often when the discussion of global warming comes up, the "skeptics" claim that the ice areas around Antarctica are increasing. A correct claim, but it turns out that this fact does not contradict global warming - on the contrary.
Often when the discussion of global warming comes up, the "skeptics" claim that the ice areas around Antarctica are increasing. A correct claim, but it turns out that this fact does not contradict global warming - on the contrary.
In the coming decades, global warming will cause shrubs and trees to thrive in the Northern Circle. Land that was "stripped" of the ice and thawed from "freezing" will form the basis for forests that are now "moving" north at a speed of tens of kilometers every year. At the same time, ice-covered areas around Antarctica are growing.
The forest areas in the Northern Circle will increase by more than 2050% by 50, according to Nature Climate Change. The redistribution of vegetation in the Northern Circle will have a resounding effect in all systems of the world. The Arctic Circle has become one of the "hotspots" when it comes to global warming as warming in the Arctic region is increasing twice as fast as the rest of the world, which will affect far beyond the narrow confines of the Arctic Circle.
For example, bird species that nest on the ground migrate from "low" areas and need open areas for building nests - they will have difficulty finding a suitable area in areas that are increasingly covered by bushes and trees. Marine mammals hang on the ice as resting surfaces, and perhaps the most famous of all is the polar bear that hangs on the ice surfaces that are "hunting grounds" for it.
There is no dispute about the melting of the glaciers in the Northern Circle. So what is happening in the south? In a study whose results are published in Nature Geoscience, a Dutch researcher reports that: the ice shelves in Antarctica are growing year by year and the peak was in 2010. It turns out that the growing ice shelves are also part of the climate equation, the growing ice shelves are also another result of Global warming.
Ice shelves are a "blanket" that floats on the surface of the sea water and extends from the coast into the Southern Ocean. The ice shelves are "fed" by water melted by the continental glaciers. The shelves are growing because of global warming, water that melts (because of the warming) on land provides a cold "cap" of fresh water (dense than seawater) that protects the ice shelves and allows their expansion.
The fresh and cold water "hugs" the ice shelves and protects them from the warm sea water. This is an explanation for the "strange" phenomenon in which the ice shelves around Antarctica are growing and expanding. Other scientists who respond to the findings say that this is one of the cases among a series of unexpected phenomena that occur because of global warming, since the warming causes a series of reciprocal actions that show how complex the contexts between the phenomena in the sea and on land are.
One of the phenomena is sea level rise. This increase is directly caused by the warming of the water as well as the addition of water from continental glaciers. Either way, it turns out that the expansion of the ice sheets around Antarctica is also directly caused by global warming.
38 תגובות
Fix,
It is not an *Atlantic Peninsula* of Antarctica but the Antarctic Peninsula.
Roughly speaking, this peninsula points west towards the Pacific Ocean and not towards the Atlantic Ocean.
Dan
The only certain fact in the whole story is that the specific gravity of sea water is greater than that of fresh water (in the temperature range of water adjacent to glaciers, which is between -2 and +4 degrees Celsius). Even in this, the theory managed to get confused here.
The theory here seems to me a kind of hand waving and not proof of anything. The researcher should be asked why, according to his theory, there is no growth in the sea shelves of the Arctic, since there is a larger mass of continental glaciers, which according to him should immediately after the melting become an ever-growing sea shelf. As we know, there is no growth of sea ice shelves in the Arctic.
Furthermore, if the same researcher says that there is a difference between what is happening in the Arctic and what is happening in Antarctica, then his attention should be directed to the western ice shelves adjacent to the Atlantic Peninsula of Antarctica. It turns out that in that part of Antarctica there are opposite processes to what you mentioned: that is, in that place on the one hand there is warming and on the other hand there is a reduction of the sea ice shelves. An accepted theory for the disappearance of the ice sheets of the Atlantic peninsula is that the warming melts the glaciers in the vicinity of the peninsula and the melted water disappears without leaving a trace, meaning here there is no phenomenon of melting glaciers that refreeze as a growing sea shelf.
The explanations for all these phenomena are probably too complicated for us to understand them, in other words the researchers are not really able to explain them in a reasonable way. Excuses are not explanations.
Ok, I realized my mistake, the water from the glaciers is of course dense because it is cold not because of sweet, there is probably an area where the effect of salt is higher than the effect of temperature and they "float" even though they are very cold. I am comforted by the fact that there is a mistake in the article - if the fresh water was denser it would not stay at the top but of course sink.
Well, the effect is also null at 60, which is about one and a half percent to the right side...
But I still haven't understood why the sweeter water doesn't sink to the bottom, I'm not clear what consistency I need to check
Dan, we are talking about a relatively small area in Antarctica and the radiation it returns is XNUMX% less compared to the radiation that is not returned from all the glaciers that have melted in the north.
Miracles.
The article says that sweet water is denser than sea water.
This is me….
Dan
We would expect to check our assertions before we would write them here….
Fresh water is less dense than salt water
Your second point is partly correct. I guess it does have a moderating effect, but not enough to solve the problem
1. Wouldn't we expect the sweeter, denser water to sink down and not stay close to the front of the glaciers and protect them?
2. Doesn't the growth of the ice shelves have a moderating effect on global warming? The ice mountains are white and reflect light swallowed by the ocean.
6 courses in statistics? In the Faculty of Mathematics?
Which? And how are they relevant to what is happening here?
What is a time average? Average over a year? two years? 5 years?- You can see on the graph that the business is stabilizing.
You can see that the models did not expect this and almost all of them predicted a much more aggressive warming.
And without going into the explanations of why this is happening - it is a fact that the warming has slowed down its pace.
At least according to the graphs you gave.
"The fresh and cold water "hugs" the ice shelves and protects them from the warm sea water."
The explanation that the ice shelves are expanding as a result of warming sounds like an untested and not particularly serious explanation for such an important issue
You can easily check if the new ice shelves are significantly lower than the shelves known from the past. Easy check for an important topic. I will not go into the theoretical background behind the approach.
Another one, you probably don't understand what I wrote. The fact that there happens to be a warm year from the previous decade that is roughly equal to a cold year from the current decade - this does not indicate a stabilization (certainly not because in the middle were the hottest years in history) but rather a warming of the average. You expect warming to be a continuous variable. It is not necessary that each year be hotter than the previous one, but when the average graph rises, it is enough.
And as mentioned, as soon as a cold year today is equal to a warm year a decade or two ago, the conclusion is that the average line rose and did not stabilize. But it's probably only me who studied 6 courses in statistics at the Technion that understands what I'm talking about, it's probably difficult for you.
Miracles also in the graph where you can see that the rate of warming is slowing down.
another one
you are welcome - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/
And the site you refer to reinforces my point. But I'll leave you with facts 🙂
Nissim, please give me a link where there is unequivocally data that indicates that rate The warming in the nineties and eighties was slower than the rate in the last decade. I doubt it.
Because I have the opposite data from this site:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/global-warming-stop-wishful-thinking-161012/
looks familiar?
another one
True, everyone agrees.
Except for NASA, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, and UK Met Office Hadley Center and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit
But these are just negligible research bodies……
Benjamin
The skeptical movement is not against research - it is mainly against hasty and destructive moves.
A very large part of the "solutions" that came to deal with the problem and remove the FDA - do not really reduce the amount of FDA - but do a lot of damage in any case.
You have to understand that this discussion has long since drifted out of the scientific world-
And in the economic world, such an assessment should be made:
The economic damage that a certain level of warming will do will be X.
called for the cost of the moves needed to prevent this particular level of warming as Y
If at the end of the day Y>X then we are probably not in the right direction.
Now a very large part of the actions that were supported by various environmental organizations did not prevent PAD at all and in some cases caused an increase in PAD emissions.
As a result X becomes very small while Y is quite large - in other words - regardless of what we know about AWG -
The way is not the way.
Miracles - almost everyone agrees that the rate of increase in temperature in the 90's is greater than the rate of increase in the last decade - including data provided on this site - I really don't have the strength for this debate again. The derivative is smaller - not the size itself.
Avi- If the physics of greenhouse gases and temperature are so well understood, then how come there are so many models that differ drastically from each other and from the measured reality?
And even if it's too late - then why bother? Let's clear the low islands and the coast and prepare for a hot century.
We have treatment technology, we will develop agriculture that loves heat, and we will invest in efficient air conditioners.
If it's too late - anything done about it is just a waste of money and resources, isn't it?
colleague. The answer is negative because the physics of greenhouse gases is simple and understandable. There is no point in changing the name because of chaotic events in the short term (and mainly local) on average and by and large there is warming and it lasts for a long time and it makes physical sense. All the deniers want is for us to do nothing until it's too late and then maybe (not sure) say oops we were wrong, but then it will be too late. By the way, in my opinion today is also too late.
Maybe it's time to stop calling climate change "global warming"?
The name is just misleading: as a result of "this warming" there have been quite a few cold waves lately, so what happens in the end is that the scientists and Assaf Rosenthal among them are forced to defend the "warming" again and again.
We are in the midst (or maybe just the beginning?) of global climate change that is largely man-made. Since the system is fundamentally chaotic, since we have no idea what its future consequences will be, there are too many variables and feedback systems.
What can be said for sure is that we are playing an uncontrolled game with the climate and the results are extremism in the weather phenomena, all of this is related to the destruction of the ecological life systems.
Will the earth recover from this? Unequivocal, probably yes. The question is what is the price that humanity and the other inhabitants of the sphere pay and will pay for this. That is the question we need to ask.
to another one
I agree with you about the money. It is important to both sides.
I agree with you that it is likely that not all the warming was caused
Man's fault (there is evidence that global warming
began about 12000 years ago).
Obviously there is global warming and obviously fire
Delakim, which creates soot and PADH contributes to it.
Even if it is not absolutely clear what the share of the human contribution is
In global warming, it is very useful for all of us to reduce this "contribution".
That is why I oppose those who deny global warming
which may prevent studies and taking measures that are supposed to reduce
At least the human contribution to this warming.
Benjamin May
First of all, the main debate is about the source of warming and its nature and future, not whether warming exists.
Second thing - it is not necessary for the whole world to warm - only the water in the polar region - for the ice to melt at an increased rate. - He also doesn't need to heat up - but only stay at a certain temperature so that he continues to lose mass -
If this year's temperature is constant for 100 years, I imagine that a lot of ice could melt in this situation - this is not an indication of warming - but an indication of heat - and only in the relevant areas.
I'm not claiming that none of the doubters point out the economic problems of some of the "solutions" they find -
I also do not claim that none of them come from a political background or personal economic reasons - it certainly exists.
But this is also true on the other side of the debate - there is a lot of money in the "solutions" industry - whether it is trading in carbon credits (catastrophe), biodiesel and biomass (catastrophe), solar and spiritual electricity and electric cars.
All these things that barely save carbon, cost countries and citizens a lot of money and bring in a lot of money for the minority that pushes the problem - this is a real interest. In addition to the fact that just as the economic right-wing world view does not like the onerous regulation that AWG supposedly demands - the economic left actually likes it precisely for this reason and because it hurts industries that identify with the right in the world - in addition to this there are entire environmental movements whose ideology level most human progress is a sin against the planet And AWG fits their worldview (see Maltosans).
In addition to this, there is also the matter of prestige and earthly status and the fact that not every researcher can stand up and admit that he was wrong, and that he actually disagrees with his superiors (including those on whom his professional progress depends) - even on an unconscious level.
to another one.
As in a verdict on a crime, the question in this case too is not whether
There is no doubt at all but whether the doubt is reasonable.
Already as a child I learned that ice turns into water when it heats up.
I, like many others, attribute the diminishing ice
the Arctic and the rise of sea water (and the considerable reduction of the surface
terminating islands) to global warming beyond reasonable doubt.
In my opinion, whoever claims otherwise is in denial, the disturbing fact
You are the problem (which I do not deny) regarding the global economy
She is an example of my claim that deniers are committed to interests
which are irrelevant.
Assaf - I was mainly referring to the pro-AWG side that talks in terms like "deniers" and uses all rhetoric and publishes anything that supports global warming no matter how delusional and disconnected from science it is.
Although many people who define themselves as "green" have already woken up from the nightmare of bio-fuel - bio-fuel still receives the support of many politicians - and is a good example of the damage that a green agenda that is disconnected from science can cause.
I have not heard or read anyone arguing with the level of the FDF - it may exist but I do not know -
Regarding the rest - there is no such thing as science "facts" - you have measurements - and back-estimating temperature is not such a simple thing.
And there is enough debate and doubt to call this information factual or undisputed.
For that matter, even measurements in areas at measuring stations are not a perfect thing - especially when their location is problematic is that their accuracy is bad.
So to summarize - you don't have facts - you have measurements and a model built on them, that's how it is in science.
another one
1. Where did you get that warming has slowed down??
2. The problem is what is the effect of energy absorption on the climate. It's really complicated. But - the effect is there
to another one
Which AWG do you mean? There are dozens, and when you write "your" or "you"
Who is meant? To the bad dwarfs?
Regarding the use of fuel from biological sources... You should have read what was written about the subject on the science website, otherwise you burst into an open door,
With the exception of the fact that until the industrial revolution the concentrations of PAD were about 280 parts per million
whereas in the latest measurements (published in Nature) they have already exceeded 400,
higher concentration than it has been in the past millions of years,
Except for the fact that according to the natural course of the Milankiewicz cycle, our ball entered the period
Cold, while according to the measurements the temperatures are gradually increasing and reaching levels that are not
been millions of years ago,
With the exception of the facts (facts not assumptions or theories) above...
You're right.
Benjamin-
One can question the reliability of a measurement - for example talk about the quality of the measuring device.
A skeptic is someone who simply doubts something - which in science is very important.
In science, everything is always in doubt - this is the basis of scientific philosophy since Descartes' 'cogito ergo su', (which he himself came out of) - - the question is not whether there is doubt in AWG (even though there are enough supporters without an understanding of science who will tell you that there is not - there is Doubt at all) - but is there enough doubt for us to wait for more time for more evidence before we start limiting the human economy to prevent the same warming. - I believe that we should wait at least another 10 years and see if the warming returns to the rate it had - and if the science of the supporters gets stronger and the solutions Theirs will become real - before we start anything - because that's really the problem here - there are no real solutions here - there are mostly as if - and all this around a science that is far from being established.
As far as I understand there is a big difference between skeptics and deniers. Skeptics, by definition, do not believe
Possibly the connection between a natural phenomenon (stars, magnetism, cloud shapes, etc.) and human nature
And in other phenomena that cannot be scientifically explained such as "intelligent planning".
Deniers question the validity of traditional and accepted scientific measurements of the matters under consideration
Politically or otherwise they are not comfortable.
You know what is one of the main reasons that led me to take the more skeptical approach?
The way of speaking of all the AWG supporters that I see - even professors speak in a way that is completely unsuitable for a scientific discussion. People with a great reputation deny the existence of a discussion at all - then I realized how crooked the issue is.
I'm not a climatologist and neither are you - and my ability to distinguish between a solid scientific argument and a solid one is limited (and so are yours) and even I see many holes that are much more obvious than your side's arguments - and my side is much more consistent. Until a few years ago I thought it was a scientific fact that AWG exists - then suddenly someone claimed the opposite - and I became interested - then suddenly I saw your arguments and how full of holes they are.
Understand - we are not vaccine refusers, we are not AIDS skeptics - we are not creationists - our arguments are anchored in the relevant scientific approach. And every time you use a term like "deniers" - you lose the public's trust.
This means that if you are right in everything, you are sinning in your goal of saving the world from the FAD because you take such an arrogant approach - get down from your tower - the truth is not signed to your name in the taboo.
collect-
Do you have information that these floods are more today than 10 years ago? 20 years, a hundred years?
To my father
Those in favor also have political, personal and economic motives.
I don't understand why you think their motives are purer.
And as if your worldview is not on the same side that supports AWG the most (the economic left).
Miracles-
Do you know how much (approximately) the FDH contributes to heating - the ink is on many effects that arise from the positive balance - which is much less known about - if science was so simple - there wouldn't be dozens of different models, most of which miss the temperature from above - right?
There is indeed warming (although it has slowed down very much in the last ten to fifteen years. - but we don't have a control planet without PADF emissions to see if it was the only cause or even the only cause.
This is regardless of the fact that many green politicians of all kinds are exaggerating the danger and its urgency to greater proportions than most serious scientists say and are proposing solutions that don't even really save on the FDF - but line the pockets of the right businessmen.
Do you know the term 'biomass'? Someone decided that it's greener to burn trees than to burn coal - because trees are renewable and coal is not - the fact that in terms of the ratio of pollution to energy - including FDF - this is madness - is less important.
Most types of biodiesel are also madness in a similar style that do not save anything and raise food prices in the third world.
and can lead to the clearing of rainforests to grow corn-
Make laws that are too strict against emissions and the factories will move to countries where there is no supervision at all, etc...
But if someone mentions such things - according to you, is he in denial? If someone thinks that it is necessary to perhaps wait a few more years to find better solutions and also a better idea of the problem - is this excessive?
And anthropogenic warming is really not an established science.
Moses
The phrase "warming deniers" is definitely in its place. You can be skeptical about the obvious. The evidence shows that the climate is warming. The theory explains the observations well.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is denying the evidence or denying the knowledge behind the explanation.
Do you know how much PAD the person emits? Do you know how much energy the FDH absorbs? that's it.
and skeptic = skeptic
A very healthy trait in the people of science, I see no reason to turn skeptics into deniers or "deniers". A word with a negative connotation.
I'm also not a fan of washed-up language, I pretty much think it's an Israeli characterization.
But the discussion about global warming long ago left the field of science (unfortunately) and using this druggist language does not help to keep it in the field of scientific discussion productive.
For the same weight, I will appreciate it if they refer me to sources that the opponents of the ether theory, for example, are called the deniers of the ether. Or the Huygens boson deniers, the static universe deniers, etc., etc.
to one another,
I apologize if you were offended by the quotation marks I put because I think it is not the translation
The correct and good for the foreign phrase "skeptic",
As for sea level rise... You are probably right in your examination (?),
Because otherwise it is difficult to explain the fear of the inhabitants of the low islands
that their agricultural fields and water wells are salted,
Their houses are flooded and therefore they are looking for places of refuge
in high islands and neighboring countries
As long as there is a debate within science, there is no problem with people saying the opposite, when it is clear that the science is unequivocal, as in the cases of evolution and global warming, and those who say the opposite have political or religious motives, and not scientific ones, they can be called deniers. I don't like washed-up language, politically correct, etc.
Deniers about the weight of unbelievers. Since in science, as we know, skepticism and counter-research are undesirable and unacceptable, blind acceptance of the words of the religious priests is required and any opinion that is not compatible will be received with the appropriate disdain.
another one
The rise in sea level is really not unusual. Provided, of course, that you take the warming into account.
- To explain what happened is easy - to predict what will happen is the wisdom in science.
-If there are more trees in the north- doesn't that mean that they in turn will absorb the FDF and maintain a negative feedback on the FDF?
- The last time I checked, there is no deviation from the sea level.
- It's nice that you don't use the term "deniers" but come on - no double quotes please
You don't want to be called "scientist" or maybe "doctor" do you?