Chapman glacier – click here for larger view
In the past 125 years, scientists have coordinated three international expeditions to study the poles: in 1882, 1932 and 1957. The 1882-83 polar year led to the establishment of a series of Arctic weather stations. The 1932-33 International Polar Year expanded studies of the Arctic’s meteorology and upper atmosphere, and included the second Antarctic expedition by Admiral Richard E. Byrd, conducted using both aircraft and surface observations. In 1957-58, the International Geophysical Year included major aircraft and surface research efforts in Antarctica, and saw the launch of the first artificial satellites.
The advent of the Space Age and recent technological advancements have given today’s scientists new tools these earlier explorers could only have dreamed of. The time had come to put those tools to work in a new study of the polar regions. This was the genesis of the latest International Polar Year (IPY). It began on March 1 of this year and will continue through March 1, 2009, allowing researchers to conduct two annual observing cycles in each polar region.
So why study the poles so intently? Scientists want to understand the large-scale environmental changes that are occurring in Earth’s polar regions because they have major societal and economic impacts. In addition, studying them helps advance new scientific frontiers, such as understanding the role of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets in sea level rise.
Projects like this break new ground in every direction. I worked with one of the first “ice geologists” just after he returned from the Antarctic in 1958. When I told him I’d never heard of an “ice geologist” – he replied, “Neither had I – till we started the project and invented the term”
Great post. By the time the data from this expedition is presented, enough of the global warming myths should (finally) be filtered out of the mainstream for real work to be started on determining what the human impact really is.
By the time the data from this expedition is presented, enough of the global warming myths should (finally) be filtered out of the mainstream for real work to be started on determining what the human impact really is.
By the time the data is presented you will be able to sail across the Arctic Ocean.
Just to add to the fray, from a colleague at the University of Michigan.
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=3176
3 – BubbaRay – That’s an interesting link. It says among other things that deglaciation and rising CO2 levels “contributed about equally” to climate and vegetation changes. But they also say their model predicts more CO2 than the evidence led them to expect so maybe the evidence was wrong. Huh? Given the number of weather and climate models now in use, and the weather service’s use of “models are converging on…” to indicate confidence – well, your colleague just seems maybe a bit too confident in his model. And with all that vegetation “fried” and presumably decomposing there could be a chicken-and-egg question about causality here too. But it’s still interesting research.
2 – Improbus – So you’re saying we shouldn’t invest in the Panama Canal expansion project?
4, From one geezer to another, you wouldn’t believe the emails I’ve been sorting through the past 6 weeks on ‘global warming’. Master’s theses. PhD dissertations. Lord, it’s the astronomers vs. the geologists. One thing’s right though — the earth receives 99.99% of its energy from the sun, the rest from the core. I won’t even go into the cosmic ray effect on water vapor in the atmosphere. Another colleague pointed out (correctly) that if the Earth and Venus traded places, it would take less than 200K years for their climates to swap. Makes you wonder…
If they conduct these studies scientifically Algore will have a lot of egg on his face.
CO2 is a result of climate change, not a cause.
Warming climate allows the ridiculous population growth was have going. IF could actually cool the planet and did, we will have a huge die-off on our hands. Bettter get the Soylent Green factories going so we can handle the corpses
#6 – of course – should consider reading science from peer reviewed journals and academic sources instead of the copout comic books he apparently prefers.
If Al Gore upsets you so much, don’t watch and refute his flick. Oh, that’s right. You don’t need to do that. Exxon already did it for you.
The IPCC report will be out in print in 2 weeks. According to the scientists I’ve spoken to, corresponded with – if anything, it was watered down because of pressures from the usual suspects.
Any way you slice it, there is little attention paid to the sleazy and suspect who are generating political froth in an attempt to counter any activity which might place social and scientific reason above short-term profit.
Willing participants in that process are as guilty – as far as I’m concerned – as the ethically corrupt who denied Hitler’s Final Solution or claimed States Rights as a serious Federalist imperative against Civil Rights legislation. In the classic meaning of the term, Quislings all.
I for one, welcome the day we all die and fry.