1. "Average temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula have risen by 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years — higher than the average global rise, according to studies." 2. "GISS, January, 2009 -The new analysis shows that Antarctic surface temperatures increased an average of 0.22°F (0.12°C) per decade between 1957 and 2006. That's a rise of more than 1°F (0.5°C) in the last half century. West Antarctica warmed at a higher rate, rising 0.31°F (0.17°C) per decade. The results, published Jan. 22 in Nature, confirm earlier findings based on limited weather station data and ice cores." Why does this article show that the temperature change over the last 50 years In the Antarctic Peninsula is nearly 2 1/2 times what GISS reported in January? What accounts for the difference in the statistics?
Love is the battery of life....
Hi, ------ There are 2 possible reasons for that difference: 1). The number of years: The first research measured over 50 years and received an average, the 2nd research measured the difference over 10 years and extrapulated to 50..... If there was a constant rate there would be no difference. 2) But, I guess, that in recent years the rate was much higher than say 49 years ago..... and thus cause differences. ----- Best regards,
I guess the obvious has escaped us. No matter what the temperature increase, ice will not melt unless subjected to temperatures in excess of 32 degrees. How many days does the entire continent of Antarctica have temperatures in excess of 32 degrees?
Hi OronD,
So you are saying that Goddard took the average of one of the decades between 1957 and 2006 and multiplied it by 5 to get to their 1.55 F rise in 50 years while the un-named studies found a 3.8 F rise between 1958 and 2008? I don't know, Oron. That seems so unlike GISS and the assumed two year shift in spread seems unlikely to produce such a difference.
As a third possibility, did it ever occur to you that one or both statistics are incorrect? How about a fourth possibility that the author of the "Antarctic Ice Shelf Falling Apart" article either got the 3.8 F wrong or made it up? I tend to belief NASA's data over the un-named studies.
I may not be Mr. Know It All, but I knew him well and he taught me much.
Perhaps those "statistics" are simply made up. It doesn't take much to change a couple numbers when you want yo get YOUR agenda across to other people. If I want the people in my town to believe the students at the high scholl are getting igher grades than ever in the history of my town, all I have to do is piost a string of meaningless numbers that support my agenda. I would guess that there would be very few people who would bother to take the time to check those "statistics" out, and my agenda would be generally accepted by the public. If, on the other hand I made up some "statistics" that were frightening, I could set off a panic in the community. Maybe my next step would be to ask the community to pay 2% more taxes to "fix" the problem. All of this mess would have been created by simply cooking up those phoney "statistics". See how easy it is to get people to believe total nonsense? Even if someone was to come along and scream that my "statistics" were fake, it would be too late. By then there would be enough screaming advocates in a panic that they would shut that guy up and probably call him a few juicy names for not believing that we are in total danger and that we are all going to die any day now because of the terrible problem. Man you guys are easily fooled.
The search for people who can answer your question continues for as long as needed - until you find the answer you were looking for.
When an answer is posted by someone who was invited (byYedda or by yourself) to answer your question, their answer is marked with a yellow "invited by Yedda".
To be invited to answer other people's questions in your areas of knowledge and interest, be sure to list your favorite topics:
» My Settings › My Topics.
Of course, the more helpful your answers are, the more likely you are to be invited to future questions...
Hi, ------ Yes, it is possible too..... You can doubt results but without hard evidence I wouldn't like to say they are incorect. It's well known in statistics that the bigger the number of readings the better your results are so I believe a measurement over 50 years is more accurate than a measurement over 10 years and from here they extrapulated to 50 years.... Yes, it is a normal procedure. However extrapulation is not correct when one can't assume a steady rate change (and that's the case here). ------- Best regards,
But now you talk of Goddard having extrapolated the 50 year number as if it were fact. They have all the numbers so I don't think this is what happened. One or both of these numbers is incorrect but they can't both be right.
Got an answer for lolopuffin? Would you like to comment on the posted answers, or vote for the one which you think is the best?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:
Other people asked questions on various topics, and are still waiting for answer. Would be great if you can take a sec and answer them
