<div>We know from GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellites using microwave interferometry that both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice mass in total, though there is increasing sea ice (not on the Antarctic continent) around Antarctica, for complex reasons.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Greenland and Antarctica GRACE ice mass measurements reported at websites below:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003600/a003663/">http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003600/a003663/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml">http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html">http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html</a></div>
<div>-------------------------------</div>
<div>Ted Moffett continues:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course the natural contributions to warming Earth's climate (in total, not the increased warming added during the past century) are larger than the current human contribution. Consider that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 280 ppm immediately before industrial era, and are now approaching 400 ppm due to human emissions. Most of the CO2 in our atmosphere is currently not due to human emissions. And there are natural sources of methane, and water vapor as global warming variables. I suppose it is silly to point out that our sun is the primary cause of the warmth in our climate... Which is not to say the sun is forcing the current warming trend in climate.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The climate feedback effects from human impacts are what are particularly alarming. Both water vapor and methane, from natural sources, may increase in our atmosphere due to climate forcing from human impacts, methane from methane hydrate breakdown, especially, and water vapor from evaporation from higher temperatures. And albedo may decrease significantly as a climate feedback from human impacts as ice sheets and sea ice are reduced.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The scientific uncertainty regarding the physics of atmospheric CO2 from human emissions increasing global average temperature is very small. The primary scientific problems regarding this issue have been studied for over a century (read AIP essay on this subject at the website below); and this is why in part the IPCC gave a 90 percent or higher degree of certainty that human impacts are the current primary driver of our warming climate. Consider that current solar climate forcing, one of the main variables that many skeptics have been repeating for years is causing current global warming increases, is now at a "deep solar minimum," the lowest in nearly a century, according to NASA. So for now this natural explanation for the continuing warm climate is highly suspect:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>NASA website discusses "deep solar minimum:"<br></div>
<div><a href="http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm">http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm</a></div>
<div>--------------</div>
<div>American Institute of Physics website addresses CO2 and global warming:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm">http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>--------------</div>
<div>At website below read a large sample of the scientific studies regarding "climate sensitivity," the change in global average temperature (the increase, given none of the studies predict a decrease) from doubling atmospheric CO2. These studies in total reveal a high degree of probability that climate sensitivity is significant enough for a doubling of atmosphere CO2, entirely possible due to human fossil fuel emissions by 2100 (280 ppm to 560 ppm), with a business as usual scenario, that this will alter climate to a radically different planet, with an approximate 3 degree Celsius increase in global average temperature (this is of course not an exact prediction, but the mean of the probable increases):</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html">http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Art Deco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font size="2">If over a period of years the change in glacial ice mass would be markedly positive, then the probability of long term global warming would need to be re-evaluated.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">I'm am not nearly as up on this as Ted, but what I read weekly in <em>New Scientist</em> is there are not many scientists publishing in refereed journals that believe that human activity is the sole cause of global warming. What is contested is how much human activity contributes, and what might be done to reduce this component. There is evidence of past volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa</a> and other natural activities having a very short term effect on world climates because of the amount of ash, etc released into the atmosphere.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">The old theory when I took physical geography and geology (which really dates me) was that increased moisture would lead to lower temperatures, snow, and snow accumulation (bigger, better glaciers). That was part of the explanation given for the four most recent ice ages. The state of the ozone layer is currently used by some to explain that while there appears to be more moisture in the atmosphere, more solar radiation is reaching the earth's surface.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">I do not have global experience of the reported great loss of glacial ice mass, but I have witnessed over the last 50 years, and especially over the last 30 years the huge loss of glacial ice in the Canadian Rockies. Alaskans tell me the same story about many Alaskan locales.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">As far as I'm concerned, the earth has plenty of resources but there are just too many people using them and using them unwisely which contributes in part to global warming. I see no solution to this whole over-population, over-consumption problem in the near future, but only that it will get worse and with it, barring some unforeseen natural events, some very life changing changes.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">But all this is speculation based on currently asserted probabilities by a very large portion of the relevant scientific community. Our knowledge and understanding in this area is far from comprehensive at this point, and as with any knowledge claims, subject to correction based on further observations.</font></div>
<div><font size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2">W.</font></div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4"><b>From:</b> <a title="godshatter@yahoo.com" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">Paul Rumelhart</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="Vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision 2020</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 11, 2010 12:33 PM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> [Vision2020] Snow storms and global warming</div>
<div><br></div>I've seen lots of articles on the web that describe how the current record-breaking weather on the East Coast does not disprove global warming. Here is a sampling:<br><br><a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201002090032" target="_blank">http://mediamatters.org/research/201002090032</a><br>
<a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/no_the_snow_does_not_disprove.html" target="_blank">http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/no_the_snow_does_not_disprove.html</a><br><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/12/cold-snap-global-warming/" target="_blank">http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/12/cold-snap-global-warming/</a><br>
<br>I don't dispute this. I'm pretty sure that global warming is happening on larger timescales; I am just skeptical of the anthropogenic component being as powerful a forcing as climate scientists and political leaders would like us to believe. <br>
<br>It does lead me to wonder about one thing, though. What kind of a winter would it take to disprove global warming?<br><br>A mild winter would likely be blamed on the overall temperature increase, where a stormy winter would likely be blamed on there being more moisture in the air and more energy in the system. Would a winter that was average in all ways be enough? Since winters vary so much over the years, what would a completely average winter look like? Would it take a winter that lasted all year? If it's likely that no winter that could reasonably be expected to occur would disprove it, then is it meaningful to say that the current weather was predicted by the AGW hypothesis?<br>
<br>I've also been pondering the role of moisture in global temperature. If the moisture content of the air is indeed increasing, wouldn't that mean more snowfall and more clouds? Both of which change the albedo of the Earth a significant amount which would cause more sunlight to be reflected back into space. Would this serve as a negative feedback process? From what I've read, the affect on clouds on global warming is one of the biggest open-ended questions out there right now.<br>
<br>Just curious what other people thought.<br><br>Paul<br><br>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a> <br> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================</blockquote>
</div></div></div><br>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br>