This study was based on satellite data that measures the heat the earth is radiating back into space. That level has been dropping as the earth traps more of the sun’s heat. This new study confirms what climate scientists have suspected, that a very large driver of Global Warming, water vapor in Upper-Troposphere in indeed increasing just as predicted.

more

I was wondering about Ice melting at the poles

yet there is no noticeable rise in ocean levels

so is the extra water vapor staying up in the atmosphere?

and contributing to cyclones and storms being worse?

CrazyNeutrino said:

I was wondering about Ice melting at the poles

yet there is no noticeable rise in ocean levels

so is the extra water vapor staying up in the atmosphere?

and contributing to cyclones and storms being worse?

The artic ice could melt away and there would be no rise in sea levels.

AFAIK there is no meting in Antarctica.

sibeen said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I was wondering about Ice melting at the poles

yet there is no noticeable rise in ocean levels

so is the extra water vapor staying up in the atmosphere?

and contributing to cyclones and storms being worse?

The artic ice could melt away and there would be no rise in sea levels.

AFAIK there is no meting in Antarctica.

So how has the western antarctic ice sheet broken off if melting isn’t involved?

antarctic is melting.

Postpocelipse said:

sibeen said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I was wondering about Ice melting at the poles

yet there is no noticeable rise in ocean levels

so is the extra water vapor staying up in the atmosphere?

and contributing to cyclones and storms being worse?

The artic ice could melt away and there would be no rise in sea levels.

AFAIK there is no meting in Antarctica.

So how has the western antarctic ice sheet broken off if melting isn’t involved?

90% of the ice in Antarctica in on the land in a massive 2km deep layer. The ice sheets are shifting around, some parts growing others shrinking.

Postpocelipse said:

sibeen said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I was wondering about Ice melting at the poles

yet there is no noticeable rise in ocean levels

so is the extra water vapor staying up in the atmosphere?

and contributing to cyclones and storms being worse?

The artic ice could melt away and there would be no rise in sea levels.

AFAIK there is no meting in Antarctica.

So how has the western antarctic ice sheet broken off if melting isn’t involved?

Well, as it’s not sitting on land I’d imagine calving may be involved.

Now I may be completely incorrect here, but I thought that in Antarctica there was quite an asymmetric ice formation. Parts of the continent are losing ice, other parts gaining. Lets face it, it is bigger then Australia , so I wouldn’t expect it all to act the same.

But who am I to comment? I will pass you on to my friend Rusty D’Orsquique for a more detailed analysis or our imminent demise.

ChrispenEvan said:

antarctic is melting.

Western.

We’ll be frenurked in about two centuries (at the current rate).

ChrispenEvan said:

antarctic is melting.

The antarctic is melting and the Arctic isn’t

Is this due to the antarctic having a landmass?

thankfully we have great management so everything will be fine

looks like slight decline

looks like a very slight increase.

that’s sea ice from http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

CrazyNeutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

antarctic is melting.

The antarctic is melting and the Arctic isn’t

Is this due to the antarctic having a landmass?

With the sea ice (which is what people measure, because it’s easier to measure), it’s the other way round.

The reason for the slight increase in sea-ice at the Antarctic is not known for sure (as far as I know), but if there was an increase in the rate of ice movement from the glaciers, an increase in sea ice would seem consistent with warming.

The increase in sea level is measurable and is in line with expectations.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

antarctic is melting.

The antarctic is melting and the Arctic isn’t

Is this due to the antarctic having a landmass?

With the sea ice (which is what people measure, because it’s easier to measure), it’s the other way round.

The reason for the slight increase in sea-ice at the Antarctic is not known for sure (as far as I know), but if there was an increase in the rate of ice movement from the glaciers, an increase in sea ice would seem consistent with warming.

The increase in sea level is measurable and is in line with expectations.

The sea-ice in the Arctic is melting at an alarming rate and is expected to be ice free during summer in the next 2-3 decades, but as has been expressed, this will not add to sea-level increases.

The Antarctic sea-ice that will increase sea-levels is also melting, especially in the western portion, which is experiencing the greatest temperature increase than anywhere else. The glaciers in this area are also melting at an accelerating pace, resulting in extensive calving due largely to ice-melt under the glaciers that is reducing friction. The same is happening in Eastern Antarctica, but at a slower pace, although the ice-melt below the glaciers is accelerating. In Greenland the same thing is happening.

PermeateFree said:

The Antarctic sea-ice that will increase sea-levels is also melting, especially in the western portion, which is experiencing the greatest temperature increase than anywhere else.

Since a pseudo-sceptic is likely to pick up on that, I might add that Antarctic melting sea-ice that was originally sea water will not increase sea levels, but sea ice that was originally land ice will.

I’m sure that’s what you meant.

I hadn’t heard that W Antarctica is experiencing the greatest temperature increase. Do you have a ref for that?

PermeateFree said:

The glaciers in this area are also melting at an accelerating pace, resulting in extensive calving due largely to ice-melt under the glaciers that is reducing friction. The same is happening in Eastern Antarctica, but at a slower pace, although the ice-melt below the glaciers is accelerating. In Greenland the same thing is happening.

Yes, the unquestioning acceptance by the pseudo-skeptics that expanding summer sea-ice limits in Antarctica are evidence against climate change is a clear indication that they are not true skeptics at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

Rev post – I hadn’t heard that W Antarctica is experiencing the greatest temperature increase. Do you have a ref for that?

The article (link below) is an interesting read and reveals much about Antarctica, especially West Antarctica.

>>The global significance of the Antarctic Peninsula warming is difficult to assess, the main concern is for the loss of a unique landscape and biota. The rate of warming on the Antarctic Peninsula is, however, among of the highest seen anywhere on Earth in recent times, and is a dramatic reminder of the regionality of climate change we should expect in the future. The existence of a melt season on the Antarctic Peninsula, which with warming has lengthened, has substantially increased the ecological and cryospheric impacts, and makes the vulnerability of these systems to future warming high.<<

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science/climate/antarctic_peninsula.php

Postpocelipse said:

This study was based on satellite data that measures the heat the earth is radiating back into space. That level has been dropping as the earth traps more of the sun’s heat. This new study confirms what climate scientists have suspected, that a very large driver of Global Warming, water vapor in Upper-Troposphere in indeed increasing just as predicted.

more

Point 1.

Abstract
Here, we use coupled ocean–atmosphere model simulations under different climate-forcing scenarios to investigate satellite-observed changes in global-mean upper-tropospheric water vapor. Our analysis demonstrates that the upper-tropospheric moistening observed over the period 1979–2005 cannot be explained by natural causes and results principally from an anthropogenic warming of the climate.
=========================================================================================

The integrated Global Radiosonde Archive contains more than 28 million soundings, from roughly 1250 stations & close to 50,000 per month since 1958.
The radiosonde results are uncertain, but they suggest specific humidity is falling (and the error bars all fall in the negative range). So how do you dismiss that wall of data going back for half a century?
Professor Judith Curry.

Which is correct?

Point 2.

Radiosonde vs satellite data.

What the IPCC says –
8.6.2.3 What Explains the Current Spread in Models’ Climate Sensitivity Estimates?

In climate models, (positive) water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest feedback followed by the (negative) lapse rate feedback
Because the water vapour and temperature responses are tightly coupled in the troposphere, models with a larger (negative) lapse rate feedback also have a larger (positive) water vapour feedback. As a result, it is more reasonable to consider the sum of water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks as a single quantity when analysing the causes of inter-model variability in climate sensitivity.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
Simply put; if upper tropospheric water vapour increases, (positive water vapour feedback) the direct result will be a faster rate of warming in the upper troposphere than at all levels below to the surface (negative lapse rate feedback)! ‘The Hot Spot’.

Point 3.

Observations show lapse rate feedback is not negative. Observations show it is POSITIVE!

RSS satellite temperature data – MSU & AMSU Time Series Trend
Temperature trends 1979 to present. Tropics 25.0 S to 25.0 N

Temperature TST (stratosphere – troposphere) Trend = 0.010 K/decade
Temperature TMT (mid troposphere) Trend = 0.086 K/decade
Temperature TLT (lower troposphere) Trend = 0.104 K/decade

Point 4.

There are still many problems associated with satellite retrieval of the humidity information pertaining to a particular level of the atmosphere—particularly in the upper troposphere. Basically, this is because an individual radiometric measurement is a complicated function not only of temperature and humidity (and perhaps of cloud cover because “cloud clearing” algorithms are not perfect), but is also a function of the vertical distribution of those variables over considerable depths of atmosphere. It is difficult to assign a trend in such measurements to an individual cause.
Since balloon data is the only alternative source of information on the past behavior of the middle and upper tropospheric humidity and since that behavior is the dominant control on water vapor feedback, it is important that as much information as possible be retrieved from within the “noise” of the potential errors.”

and lastly, but not least, a model is a model, not reality.
You can’t do an experiment on a model and declare it to be a truth. It remains an hypothesis.
I grow tired of the endless stream of papers that declare experiments on models to represent reality.

I am just finishing a project where I am being paid a considerable amount of money by people who have a great deal of money at stake to check the results of some else’s computer model. I conclude that their model is wrong. But I am not so foolish as to claim that my model is an absolute truth. It remains a model and the results are not reality, just one representation of it.

morrie said:

and lastly, but not least, a model is a model, not reality.
You can’t do an experiment on a model and declare it to be a truth. It remains an hypothesis.
I grow tired of the endless stream of papers that declare experiments on models to represent reality.

It’s their way of avoiding reality when reality says “no”!

morrie said:

But I am not so foolish as to claim that my model is an absolute truth. It remains a model and the results are not reality, just one representation of it.

I imagine that all the evidence will be reviewed, including a review of the possible consequences if the results are wrong, and measures will be taken to reduce possible adverse consequences where it is practical to do so.

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

But I am not so foolish as to claim that my model is an absolute truth. It remains a model and the results are not reality, just one representation of it.

I imagine that all the evidence will be reviewed, including a review of the possible consequences if the results are wrong, and measures will be taken to reduce possible adverse consequences where it is practical to do so.

:)

morrie said:

and lastly, but not least, a model is a model, not reality.
You can’t do an experiment on a model and declare it to be a truth. It remains an hypothesis.
I grow tired of the endless stream of papers that declare experiments on models to represent reality.

I am just finishing a project where I am being paid a considerable amount of money by people who have a great deal of money at stake to check the results of some else’s computer model. I conclude that their model is wrong. But I am not so foolish as to claim that my model is an absolute truth. It remains a model and the results are not reality, just one representation of it.

Model vs model. Yes there is often variations depending on what factors are being considered. However in regards Global Warming they all point upwards, which I think indicates a trend. Is it really surprising with a warming planet that there is more moisture in the Earth’s atmosphere, which then adds to the problem?

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

and lastly, but not least, a model is a model, not reality.
You can’t do an experiment on a model and declare it to be a truth. It remains an hypothesis.
I grow tired of the endless stream of papers that declare experiments on models to represent reality.

I am just finishing a project where I am being paid a considerable amount of money by people who have a great deal of money at stake to check the results of some else’s computer model. I conclude that their model is wrong. But I am not so foolish as to claim that my model is an absolute truth. It remains a model and the results are not reality, just one representation of it.

Model vs model. Yes there is often variations depending on what factors are being considered. However in regards Global Warming they all point upwards, which I think indicates a trend. Is it really surprising with a warming planet that there is more moisture in the Earth’s atmosphere, which then adds to the problem?

nothing is a surprise once it can be seen how it comes about.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

and lastly, but not least, a model is a model, not reality.
You can’t do an experiment on a model and declare it to be a truth. It remains an hypothesis.
I grow tired of the endless stream of papers that declare experiments on models to represent reality.

I am just finishing a project where I am being paid a considerable amount of money by people who have a great deal of money at stake to check the results of some else’s computer model. I conclude that their model is wrong. But I am not so foolish as to claim that my model is an absolute truth. It remains a model and the results are not reality, just one representation of it.

Model vs model. Yes there is often variations depending on what factors are being considered. However in regards Global Warming they all point upwards, which I think indicates a trend. Is it really surprising with a warming planet that there is more moisture in the Earth’s atmosphere, which then adds to the problem?

No, not at all.
And lets get it clear once and for all that the argument is not about whether the planet has warmed, but how much of that is due to carbon dioxide and how much is part of the natural variations in climate that the planet has always experienced. The thing that would be truly remarkable is if the climate was static, as some people seem to think it should be.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

and lastly, but not least, a model is a model, not reality.
You can’t do an experiment on a model and declare it to be a truth. It remains an hypothesis.
I grow tired of the endless stream of papers that declare experiments on models to represent reality.

I am just finishing a project where I am being paid a considerable amount of money by people who have a great deal of money at stake to check the results of some else’s computer model. I conclude that their model is wrong. But I am not so foolish as to claim that my model is an absolute truth. It remains a model and the results are not reality, just one representation of it.

Model vs model. Yes there is often variations depending on what factors are being considered. However in regards Global Warming they all point upwards, which I think indicates a trend. Is it really surprising with a warming planet that there is more moisture in the Earth’s atmosphere, which then adds to the problem?

No, not at all.
And lets get it clear once and for all that the argument is not about whether the planet has warmed, but how much of that is due to carbon dioxide and how much is part of the natural variations in climate that the planet has always experienced. The thing that would be truly remarkable is if the climate was static, as some people seem to think it should be.

I don’t think anyone believes the world’s climate should be static. However there is a very big difference between the speed of change, driven by our co2 emissions. For the biota to adapt to such change, it need many hundreds if not thousands of years to be anywhere near successful regarding species survival. The current rate of change does not permit this gradual transition and a successful outcome is therefore far less likely. We should all realise we are not separate from the biota, but part of it and so what affects it will also affect us.

morrie said:

The thing that would be truly remarkable is if the climate was static, as some people seem to think it should be.

Do they?

Who are these people?

PermeateFree said:

Model vs model. Yes there is often variations depending on what factors are being considered. However in regards Global Warming they all point upwards, which I think indicates a trend.

So, you believe a bunch of models that all show too much warming, indicates a trend.

Yes, a trend in herd mentality

PermeateFree said:

Is it really surprising with a warming planet that there is more moisture in the Earth’s atmosphere, which then adds to the problem?

precipitation systems control tropospheric water vapour content, not planet average temperature.

what’s not surprising is you prefer the satellite data to the radiosonde data for tropospheric water vapour content,
even though lapse rate data confirms the radiosonde data to be correct.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

precipitation systems control tropospheric water vapour content, not planet average temperature.

Now you are stretching belief. Temperature is not a regulator of precipitation systems?

> Global Warming is increasing moisture in Earth’s atmosphere driving Mother of all Feedback Loops

Yeah. Negative feedback. It cancels itself out.

To elucidate in more detail. Higher ground temperature gives more evaporation gives more atmospheric moisture gives more cloud and more rain which cancels out the increase in evaporation. In addition, the extra cloud increases Earth’s albedo reflecting out more of the solar radiation which cools the atmosphere in general and reduces near-ground temperatures in particular.

ie. Higher near-ground temperatures drive a negative feedback loop that results in reduced near-ground temperatures.

‘Incredible’ rate of polar ice loss alarms scientists

The planet’s two largest ice sheets – in Greenland and Antarctica – are now being depleted at an astonishing rate of 120 cubic miles each year. That is the discovery made by scientists using data from CryoSat-2, the European probe that has been measuring the thickness of Earth’s ice sheets and glaciers since it was launched by the European Space Agency in 2010.

Even more alarming, the rate of loss of ice from the two regions has more than doubled since 2009, revealing the dramatic impact that climate change is beginning to have on our world.

Postpocelipse said:

‘Incredible’ rate of polar ice loss alarms scientists

The planet’s two largest ice sheets – in Greenland and Antarctica – are now being depleted at an astonishing rate of 120 cubic miles each year. That is the discovery made by scientists using data from CryoSat-2, the European probe that has been measuring the thickness of Earth’s ice sheets and glaciers since it was launched by the European Space Agency in 2010.

Even more alarming, the rate of loss of ice from the two regions has more than doubled since 2009, revealing the dramatic impact that climate change is beginning to have on our world.

That’s about 1.4 mm/year when spread over the oceans. The Internet says the rate of sea level rise is 3 – 3.5 mm/year, so presumably the other 2mm is due to thermal expansion.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

‘Incredible’ rate of polar ice loss alarms scientists

The planet’s two largest ice sheets – in Greenland and Antarctica – are now being depleted at an astonishing rate of 120 cubic miles each year. That is the discovery made by scientists using data from CryoSat-2, the European probe that has been measuring the thickness of Earth’s ice sheets and glaciers since it was launched by the European Space Agency in 2010.

Even more alarming, the rate of loss of ice from the two regions has more than doubled since 2009, revealing the dramatic impact that climate change is beginning to have on our world.

That’s about 1.4 mm/year when spread over the oceans. The Internet says the rate of sea level rise is 3 – 3.5 mm/year, so presumably the other 2mm is due to thermal expansion.

Have you calculated that for 120 cubic miles of floating ice sheet?