Giant Antarctic glacier beyond point of no return, research says

Jan 12, 2014
Arial shot of the Pine Island Glacier. Credit: Angelika Humbert, Alfred-Wegener-Institut

Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier, one of the biggest single contributors to world sea-level rise, is melting irreversibly and could add as much as a centimetre (0.4 inches) to ocean levels in 20 years, a study said Sunday.

The glacier "has started a phase of self-sustained retreat and will irreversibly continue its decline," said Gael Durand, a glaciologist with France's Grenoble Alps University.

Durand and an international team used three different models to forecast the glacier's future based on the "grounding line," which is the area under water where the ice shelf—a sea-floating extension of the continent-covering ice sheet—meets land.

This line has receded by about 10 kilometres (six miles) in the past decade.

The grounding line "is probably engaged in an unstable 40-km (25-mile) retreat," said the study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

A massive river of ice, the glacier by itself is responsible for 20 percent of total ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet today.

On average, it shed 20 billion tonnes of ice annually from 1992-2011, a loss that is likely to increase up to and above 100 billion tonnes each year, said the study.

This is equivalent to 3.5-10 millimetres (0.14-0.4 inches) of global average sea-level rise over the next 20 years.

The global mean sea level rose by 3.2 mm in 2010—itself a near-doubling from the rate of two decades earlier.

The European Space Agency said last month that the West Antarctic was shedding ice at a much faster rate than before—currently at about 150 cubic kilometres (36 cubic miles) per year.

Climate scientists are keeping a worried eye on the mighty ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, as continued losses could threaten vulnerable coastal cities with dangerously high sea levels.

Last year, the United Nations' climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected sea levels would rise between 26 and 82 centimetres (10.4 and 32.8 inches) by 2100.

Explore further: Ice loss from West Antarctica on the increase

More information: Retreat of Pine Island Glacier controlled by marine ice-sheet instability DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2094

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Sediment wedges not stabilizing West Antarctic Ice Sheet

Sep 03, 2013

The stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is uncertain as climate changes. An ice sheet such as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that is grounded well below sea level on a bed that slopes toward the interior of the sheet ...

West Antarctic ice sheet formed earlier than thought

Oct 09, 2013

About 34 million years ago, Earth transitioned from a warm "greenhouse" climate to a cold "icehouse" climate, marking the transition between the Eocene and Oligocene epochs. This transition has been associated with the formation ...

Antarctic research details ice melt below massive glacier

Sep 12, 2013

An expedition of international scientists to the far reaches of Antarctica's remote Pine Island Glacier has yielded exact measurements of an undersea process glaciologists have long called the "biggest source ...

Earth from space: Ice in motion

Oct 04, 2013

Clouds blur our view of the snow below in parts of this image acquired over the southern tip of Greenland by the Landsat-8 satellite on 30 May.

Recommended for you

New study outlines 'water world' theory of life's origins

1 hour ago

(Phys.org) —Life took root more than four billion years ago on our nascent Earth, a wetter and harsher place than now, bathed in sizzling ultraviolet rays. What started out as simple cells ultimately transformed ...

Agriculture's growing effects on rain

22 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Increased agricultural activity is a rain taker, not a rain maker, according to researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and their collaborators at the University of California Los ...

User comments : 168

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mememine69
1.6 / 5 (27) Jan 12, 2014
Science believes in comet hits but their own comet hit of a CO2 crisis isn't as real as they love to say comet hits are so why are YOU believing in climate change certainty when science isn't?
Believe all you like but don't tell kids that science agrees and believes as YOU do because they don't.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (24) Jan 12, 2014
The usual from this idiot; sticks his head out of his hole, yells some incoherent ranting nonsense, then disappears back into his hole.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (24) Jan 12, 2014
CO2 isn't the culprit. Dinosaurs, birds, insect, etc, including the largest land animals in the planet's history, and the largest insects and arthropods in the planet's history, as well as the largest shellfish in the planet's history, all lived during time periods when CO2 was from 2 to 4 times present levels.

The geologic record shows that large temperature changes are not "common" historically, but they do happen often enough that one could call them "regular" in terms of geologic time, and by regular, I mean 5 to 6C very long, sustained changes have happened both positive and negative, several times during and since the time of the Dinosaurs. I say DURING their time, not just at the asteroid 65ma event. There were 2 or 3 similar temperature changes duing the of the Dinosaurs and they didn't kill them off, which goes even further to suggest that something more complex than mere climate change was involved in finishing off the Dinosaurs.
Returners
1.9 / 5 (22) Jan 12, 2014
Why does any of that matter?

Simple: It happened before for 100% natural reasons. Much like those Methane torches everybody was so worked up about, only to discover it was a natural phenomena not even influenced by GW, least of all AGW.

We had the "year without a winter" two years ago, and even though droughts hurt corn production by 10%, the total U.S. grain production as actually about 10% above normal.

I think we can all be certain that if there were another "Year without a Summer" as after Tambora, it would be far, far worse for the U.S. than was this "Year without a Winter".

We'd lose almost all of our crops. The rivers would freeze solid, shutting down transportion.

Over all, I'd say a couple degrees worth of "padding" is probably worth it, in order to help prevent the next volcanic ice age or meteor ice age.

Historically, low temperatures and the consequential short growing season, have killed far more humans and more life in general than have high temperatures.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (28) Jan 12, 2014
Returners, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Why you come here to babble incoherently about stuff you have no knowledge of like you have a clue is beyond me, but how about you take my advise from the other tread and try reading more and talking less?

You are mixing up a number of geological epochs and then trying to transpose them onto today's happenings - and not doing very good job of that. You're ignorance of geologic processes and time are so profound as to make trying to correct them on this site an exercise in futility.

which goes even further to suggest that something more complex than mere climate change was involved in finishing off the Dinosaurs.
Well no kidding. And Jesus wept!
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (24) Jan 12, 2014

Historically, low temperatures and the consequential short growing season, have killed far more humans and more life in general than have high temperatures.


Way to prove Zephir-fan right. You just pull stuff out of your ass, then post it like there is meaning to the waste you see covering your hand. Ok zephyr-fan, send this idiot to the corner, and he definitely deserves the hat!
Returners
1.9 / 5 (23) Jan 12, 2014
Well no kidding. And Jesus wept!


You miss the point, as is typical of the far left on this issue.

If something as big as a 100 teraton explosion and the resulting nuclear winter is not what actually finished off the dinosaurs, then worrying over a few degrees of modern change is clearly pointless.
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (21) Jan 12, 2014
So I'm far left am I?

And again, your ignorance of science is displayed with a vengeance! Ok dumdum, I'll play your game for a minute. What then, pray tell, "finished off" the dinosaurs if it was not a 6 mile wide asteroid striking the Yucatan peninsula?

Hey genius, read this slowly so it might penetrate the thickening stupid surrounding your brain. Even if global warming is not happening, a change over the globe of "a few degrees" is absolutely worth worrying over. GO READ THE SCIENCE!

What is clearly pointless is trying to impress people on a science site of your endless knowledge of every subject.
goracle
4.1 / 5 (14) Jan 12, 2014
Politicizing science. See Silence Of The Labs http://www.cbc.ca/fifth It shows the war against science for what it is.
micahhennessey1337
3.4 / 5 (16) Jan 12, 2014
All of you are arguing against global warming and raging on the man that has studied in this field extensively. Take a step back and leave your bias aside.

Look at the facts on the table. The glaciers are melting at a rate that has been recorded and documented,they are not going to stop. What happens next?
Returners
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 12, 2014
And again, your ignorance of science is displayed with a vengeance! Ok dumdum, I'll play your game for a minute. What then, pray tell, "finished off" the dinosaurs if it was not a 6 mile wide asteroid striking the Yucatan peninsula?


I did not claim to know exactly what. All I said was it wasn't the asteroid/meteor/whatever.

I'm not the first, I was just pointing out that other events with similar scale climate changes did NOT kill Dinosaurs.

http://www.bbc.co...ry.shtml

Observe:

This article does not entirely support my position, but what it does do is show that I am not being unreasonable in stating that the Chicxulub event probably is not what killed the Dinosaurs.

The claim that another claim is wrong need not involve an alternative hypothesis, though there could be any number of alternatives: Virus, bacteria, prion disease, gamma ray burst, you name it, all plausible, all hard to disprove, yet in principle falsifiable.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 12, 2014
It isn't ONE thing that causes anything in this Universe (except in the very beginning, of course - if there was one). It is a combination of things - some larger, some smaller, that add up to ONE truly effective cause.

And Jeez, Zeph-Skippy.. When do you ever get to sleep, keepin' up with some of the dumber stuff said on here? You must have coffee comin' out your nose and ears... You owe Maggnus a big shout-out for his help...
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (16) Jan 12, 2014
This article does not entirely support my position, but what it does do is show that I am not being unreasonable in stating that the Chicxulub event probably is not what killed the Dinosaurs.
The article doesn't support your position at all. Grapes and apples. Your statement that the Chicxulub meteor strike "probably is not what killed the Dinosaurs" is hogwash.

You read an article you thought was interesting, and have extrapolated that interest to mean there is probability, where there isn't any. There are suggestions by some scientists that the impact is not the whole story. Period.

It is "probably" the case that the impact destroyed the bulk of life on the planet at the time the impact occurred. Its is "possible" that other factors were in play prior to the impact that may have made the survival of species after the impact even less likely. It is nothing like what your plagiarisms of the idea have set out.
Minotaur
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 12, 2014
Science believes in comet hits but their own comet hit of a CO2 crisis isn't as real as they love to say comet hits are so why are YOU believing in climate change certainty when science isn't?
Believe all you like but don't tell kids that science agrees and believes as YOU do because they don't.


Religions are mythical.

Science is empirical.
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2014
Science is empirical.

Except in the hands of opportunists...
SamB
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2014
.4 inches?..
THE SKY IS FALLING... RUN, THE SKY IS FALLING!
OH, wait.. It has not yet happened. Hold that thought and apply it in 20 years or so!
Virem
3.9 / 5 (15) Jan 13, 2014
meme69 and returners - you and your insightless blithering ilk destroy this otherwise enlightening forum, not to mention being almost assuredly inextricably party to the destruction of our world as we know it.
I could not believe adults could be so lacking in sense and rationality and yet be so laughably confident to believe that they knew enough to sensibly critique professor level appreciations, had I not spoken with one of your ilk in person. And since I have spoken with one of you at length - I am only disheartened, a mash of cherry picked half informed and understood nonsense on the back of testosterone, christianity, tribalism and conspiracy.
Your controllers (industrial/corporate oligarchs) must be beside themselves with glee given their success in generating hordes with your blithering nonsense for little more than a few tens of millions, of which, surprise! you get not a penny. Speaking of pennies, one shall never drop for you, and we will be all the worse for it.
ubavontuba
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 13, 2014
The global mean sea level rose by 3.2 mm in 2010—itself a near-doubling from the rate of two decades earlier.
Weird, the official sea level record keeper in the U.S. shows a significant sea level drop in 2010:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

...and so do a bunch of other science sites...

AAAS:
http://news.scien...rop-2010

NASA:
http://www.jpl.na...2011-262

Scientific American:
http://www.scient...vel-drop

even the stoopid "Skeptical Science" admits this:
http://www.skepti...2010.htm

So how did thes guys get it so wrong?

Whydening Gyre
2.6 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2014
Wow.. that Virem guy sounds pretty pissed....
aksdad
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2014
I see ubavontuba noticed the same thing I did: sea level data shows sea level dropping in 2010.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Also, there is a discrepancy between the measurements and trends from tide gauges (1.7 mm/yr, 1950-2009) and the Jason and TOPEX satellites (3.3 mm/yr 1993-2009). Satellites show double the trend of tide gauges. A 2012 study using gravity measurements from the GRACE satellites apparently shows the tide gauges are more accurate, about 1.7 mm/yr.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/continental-mass-change-grace-over-2002%E2%80%932011-and-its-impact-sea-level

That corresponds to a sea level rise of less than 7 inches per century; below the low-end IPCC prediction of 10 inches, and pretty close to the 1.46 mm/yr between 1870 and 2004 measured by tide gauges. In other words, it's still within the range of natural variability.

The odd claims made about sea level rise call into question the claims made about Pine Island Glacier's future melt.
Mimath224
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2014
I have no wish to enter the climate change arena because it is my opinion that much of it is politically motivated but I have a question about the article.
Years ago it was considered that ice breaking from a shelf began somewhere on the upper surface but later it was shown that it is warmer water flowing through the sumarine ridges clouse to the grounding line that was the cause. The article doesn't suggest where the warmer water is coming from. If this water is found to be from some existing known current then it would be a matter of tracing the source current and evaluating the rise in temp. Knowing this one could predict what would be the state in the future. However, suppose it is a new undercurrent with a cause uknown then prediction would depend on the future of the new current. If the new current was caused by something other than climate change it might disappear in the future and change the fate of the glacier
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 13, 2014
People like; mememine69, Returners, SamB, MiMath224 etc DESPERATELY need Basic education in; Gas Laws, Thermal Properties of Gasses, Equilibrium, Causality & especially Heat Flow & Conservation of Energy & of course lets not forget Calculus !

PLEASE get a grip of Basic high school Education in principles of Science (experiment) which is based on demonstrable facts, in respect of climate change (some of) these key issues are:-

1. Indisputable thermal properties of CO2, specifically RE-radiation.
Simple experiments most intelligent young adults can easily perform.

2. Evidence CO2 is rising, Eg as reported on this web site many
climate change deniers use:-
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

Any of the climate deniers care to show how well they know chemistry & maths Eg. moles, heat etc & work how how much CO2 *AND* heat is released by burning ~ 230,000 L of petrol/second ?

Care to add an estimate of increase rates too ?

Local
http://www.niche.ii.net/AGW
Egleton
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2014
Over here in Adelaide the day time temperatures are going up in our heatwaves because the nightly minimim does not go down as far as used to. Therefore the day time temperatures start off higher.
This is one of the phenomena predicted by the climate change scientists.
The CO2 blanket raise night-time minimum temperature.
The scientists have been under reporting the effects of global warming in order to make it more digestable to reactionary conservatives.
Anyway, the next 5 days are going to be scorchers.
Mimath224
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2014
Hmmm, precisely why I don't like this climate change arena...Mike_Massen well if you knew that much about heat flow you wouldn't have needed to mention calculus...PDE's eh? Oh and you forgot BB radiation. I wouldn't deny that CO2 is on the increase...but you are probably just as much to blame as the rest of us.
But to get back to my earlier post, has someone done the experiment to find out where the warm undercurrent affecting the groundline ice, is coming from...Mike_Massen?
EnricM
2.6 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2014
The usual from this idiot; sticks his head out of his hole, yells some incoherent ranting nonsense, then disappears back into his hole.


"Hey, the Titanic isn't sinking, my cabin is 100ft over water!!!" ;)
EnricM
2.6 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2014
Science is empirical.

Except in the hands of opportunists...

Like the Religious ones? In business since 2000 years ago.
jahbless
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 13, 2014
ubavontuba and aksdad are in for some SERIOUS flaming if they persist on pointing to DATA on this here SCIENCE site. The AGW mob don't have any need for EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that casts doubt on the notions WE ALL SWORE TO YEARS AGO.

But seriously guys, thanks for the links.
Cocoa
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2014
Jahbless - "ubavontuba and aksdad are in for some SERIOUS flaming if they persist on pointing to DATA "

Hey Jahbless - did you look at Uba's data? I suspect not. Here let me repost it for you

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Do you notice the first graph on that site? Do you see how the line slopes up? Do you think that maybe you are the one in for some flaming - suggesting that because there was a drop in sea levels for one year - over a 12 year plot - means that the science is wrong? That is called cherry picking. The level of illiteracy on the this comments section is staggering.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2014
It is "probably" the case that the impact destroyed the bulk of life on the planet at the time the impact occurred.


I don't deny that, yet similar previous temperature changes did not kill the dinosaurs, therefore there is something else in particular about the Chicxulub event, and surrounding time, BESIDES the "nuclear winter," which actually did the "straw that broke the camels back" thing.

It is nothing like what your plagiarisms of the idea have set out.


I didn't plagiarize that idea, idiot.

I have always felt that there was more to it than that. In fact, all I did when I posted that was "google" the first article I found, JUST TO MAKE THE POINT that I wasn't the only person who says that.

Plagiarism is when you take someone else's research or literary ideas and present it as your own, without proper reference. I did not do that at all, nor would I.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2014
This is not the graph I had in mind, the scale is different, but LOOK.

http://upload.wik...emps.png

The temperature drop, according to that graph, did not happen at the time of the Chicxulub event, but rather several million years afterward. The "valely" at the 65 million years mark is actually quite insignificant compared to the other changes on the graph. In fact, it's barely noticeable.

On the other hand, several million and tens of millions of years earlier, in the Jurassic and Triassic, rapid temperature fluctuations were happening leading up to the Dinosaurs' time and during their time, and they thrived.

Now one factor I will admit is there are many creatures all lumped together as "Dinosaurs," which are actually as different (or more) from one another as a seal is from a horse orva cat; sauropods vs Tyranosaur vs triceratops, for example.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2014
What supported my position about that article was the mere fact that a guy with a phd had an alternative hypothesis, showing that the notion of "something else" being involved is a valid scientific inquiry.

It doesn't matter whether his alternative hypothesis was the same as mine, it was only to make the valid point that alternative hypothesis can be legitimate scientific view point.

If you thought I was plagiarizing his work or position, then you clearly did not understand what I wrote. You just had a knee-jerk excuse to try to insult me and undermine my integrity, instead of thinking about my position thoroughly, which admittedly is typical behavior for users on this site.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2014
Over here in Adelaide the day time temperatures are going up in our heatwaves because the nightly minimim does not go down as far as used to. Therefore the day time temperatures start off higher.
B.S.. The highest minimum temperature for Adelaide in January is from 1939 and in fact, the latest highest minimum temperature for any month is from 1942!

http:/www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_023000_All.shtml

This is one of the phenomena predicted by the climate change scientists.
The CO2 blanket raise night-time minimum temperature.
The scientists have been under reporting the effects of global warming in order to make it more digestable to reactionary conservatives.
Anyway, the next 5 days are going to be scorchers.
Oh no! The heat is unprecedented! ...oh, wait... it was even worse in 1908...

http:/www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-13/historic-heatwave-set-to-hit-adelaide/5196716

ForFreeMinds
2.9 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2014
I'm glad to see climate science debated, rather than the groupthink that dominated a few years ago.

From my viewpoint, the debate is highly biased towards those claiming human caused climate change that will require government control of our energy use to protect us. Simply because there's so much money and power to be had in government control of our energy use, that an unholy alliance between political hacks pretending to be scientists and government is working to take it over, and using our money to do it.
RealityCheck
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2014
B.S.. The highest minimum temperature for Adelaide in January is from 1939 and in fact, the latest highest minimum temperature for any month is from 1942!

Oh no! The heat is unprecedented! ...oh, wait... it was even worse in 1908...


What IS the matter with you/your intellect, uba? Have you no personal/scientific integrity left at all? Does the fact that these extremes are increasingly LESS RARE than they used to be, have no weight in your BIAS and PROPAGANDA agenda? Why so STUPIDLY and OBVIOUSLY against the evidence of TREND in global frequency/extent/severity of the things that were PREDICTED to happen as a consequence of global warming. Why do silly/mercenary/criminal 'intellects' like yours and others here keep harping on individual instances of regional WEATHER cycles and ignoring overall CLIMATE trends? Have you no sense of responsibility to your own family and future generations at all? Seems like it, if you are so SELFISHLY and ARROGANTLY misconstruing data. Sad :(
antigoracle
3 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2014
The usual from this idiot; sticks his head out of his hole, yells some incoherent ranting nonsense, then disappears back into his hole.

The usual "brilliant" response of Magganus.
aksdad
3.3 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2014
Jahbless - "ubavontuba and aksdad are in for some SERIOUS flaming if they persist on pointing to DATA "

Hey Jahbless - did you look at Uba's data? I suspect not. Here let me repost it for you

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Do you notice the first graph on that site? Do you see how the line slopes up? Do you think that maybe you are the one in for some flaming - suggesting that because there was a drop in sea levels for one year - over a 12 year plot - means that the science is wrong? That is called cherry picking. The level of illiteracy on the this comments section is staggering.


The point ubavontuba and I made wasn't about trend, it was about the incorrect statement in the article about sea level change in 2010. And the point Jahbless made was about our providing links to evidence to support our assertions. Rational people are persuaded more by factual arguments.
Cocoa
4.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2014
aksdad: "The point ubavontuba and I made wasn't about trend, it was about the incorrect statement in the article about sea level change in 2010"

My bad - apologies for the knee jerk - I did not read carefully enough.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2014
Hey Cocoa!
About this
suggesting that because there was a drop in sea levels for one year - over a 12 year plot - means that the science is wrong? That is called cherry picking. The level of illiteracy on the this comments section is staggering.

its FUNNY you mentioned this because I just said almost the same thing about Uba in a post on 2 other articles... CHERRY PICKING data!
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
then Uba goes for the Mantra argument and the argument "change" theory, while continuing to chant the Anti- propaganda
I am not even sure Uba read my links, because I used the same site (s)he did!

And THANKS for the links!

why didnt your (Cocoa's) knee jerk statement show up until i posted?
still doesn't change the other comments i left, though...

but i better re-examine that link and post.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2014
Virem;
I could not believe adults could be so lacking in sense and rationality and yet be so laughably confident to believe that they knew enough to sensibly critique professor level appreciations,

I could not agree more, but if you think that of here, trying looking at the Roy Spencer and WUWT forums.
It will stagger your mind as to the imbecility of what passes for a scientific argument - If there is one. Comments are mostly along the lines of fawning over your "great work" and cheering from the fan-boys.
This all rigidly held, as set in concrete and that not the merest glimmer of recognition of the way the world works or what science says is seen to register. They have invented the world in order to fit their beliefs and if science contradicts - well there's no need to even think, it's the science that's wrong, of course.
I advocate a brief visit to WUWT to see how powerful is the disease with some. I put up the science occasionally but it's like pissing in the wind.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2014
For those interested in why sea-level dropped 2010/11 then ...

"Global mean sea level dropped by 5 mm between the beginning of 2010 and mid 2011. This drop occurred despite the background rate of rise, 3 mm per year, which dominates most of the 18‐year record observed by satellite altimeters. Using a combination of satellite and in situ data, we show that the decline in ocean mass, which explains the sea level drop, coincides with an equivalent increase in terrestrial water storage, primarily over Australia, northern South America, and Southeast Asia. This temporary shift of water from the ocean to land is closely related to the transition from El Niño conditions in 2009/10 to a strong 2010/11 La Niña, which affected precipitation patterns world‐wide.

www.phys.org/news...sea.html
Benni
3.6 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2014
DESPERATELY need Basic education in; Gas Laws, Thermal Properties of Gasses, Equilibrium, Causality & especially Heat Flow & Conservation of Energy & of course lets not forget Calculus !

PLEASE get a grip of Basic high school Education in principles of Science (experiment) which is based on demonstrable facts, in respect of climate change (some of) these key issues are:-

1. Indisputable thermal properties of CO2, specifically RE-radiation.
Simple experiments most intelligent young adults can easily perform.

2. Evidence CO2 is rising, Eg as reported on this web site many


All these things being said, while true, must be cast inside a graphical analyses which forms a bigger picture. Before the Ice Ages came to an end there were Stone Age enclaves up to 300 miles off the coasts of France & England, now under hundreds of feet of water. An ocean level graph can be created to show why this happened, warming commencing from the end of the last Ice to the present.

RichardBlumenthal
3.6 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2014
NASA measurements show ice gains have exceeded losses in Antarctica. If the liquefying of this spot causes sea level rise, why doesn't the freezing in other parts cause sea level decline? One more question. If the basin is shrinking because mid-ocean ridge magma flows continually add layers of new material to the sea bed, wouldn't that cause the sea level to rise? Does anyone know by how much?
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2014
NASA measurements show ice gains have exceeded losses in Antarctica.
No, NASA measurements have shown a gain in ice EXTENT but an overall net loss in ice VOLUME. The result is a net overall increase in sea level.
One more question. If the basin is shrinking because mid-ocean ridge magma flows continually add layers of new material to the sea bed, wouldn't that cause the sea level to rise? Does anyone know by how much?
Its a badly worded question. Short answer is no, because there are a number of different processes going on, including subduction and lithospheric isostatic sinking.
rockwolf1000
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2014
NASA measurements show ice gains have exceeded losses in Antarctica.
No, NASA measurements have shown a gain in ice EXTENT but an overall net loss in ice VOLUME. The result is a net overall increase in sea level. [ Its a badly worded question. Short answer is no, because there are a number of different processes going on, including subduction and lithospheric isostatic sinking.

It's amazing how many people cannot grasp the difference between sea ice extent (area) versus sea ice volume. Any ice fisherman knows that most northern lakes freeze over completely every winter (same extent/area) but some winters have MORE ice than others (thickness/volume). This is dependent on a number of factors, mainly temperature (obviously) and snow cover, which insulates the ice below preventing thickening of the ice.
RichardBlumenthal
3 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2014
Most in 30 years by extent and volume. Anybody else know about the effect of the smaller basin?
adave
4 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2014
Perspectives
32,610,414,000 50 gal barrells oil/yr, 115,993,000,000,000 cuft gas/yr, 8,440,256,000 tons coal/yr volume of atmosphere is 4.2 billion cubic kilometers. The troposphere where 75% of the useable air is located is only 6 miles thick, about the width of a short walk. CO2 is 400 parts per million and rising. The oil, gas, and coal gets burned. 280 million tons plastic production from the oil per year. That is the source of the carbon dioxide per year. The sink that absorbes it is the life on the land and ocean. On land it is the leaves that are above the ground. How thick is that? Grass, weeds, some trees? The ocean has plant life that lives at the surface. How much do you see? All plants in the summer receive 50 watts per square meter of sun to turn CO2 into plant material. 1/3 to 1/2 the day is direct sun. 5 or 6 months out of the year it is too cold in each hemisphere for photosynthesis. http://www.eia.go...mp;aid=1
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2014
Most in 30 years by extent and volume. Anybody else know about the effect of the smaller basin?
If you state it twice, does that mean it's less wrong?

On volume:
http://phys.org/n...ica.html
http://www.scienc...111/1183
http://www.nature...621.html
http://www.nature..._F1.html

On extent:
http://phys.org/n...due.html
http://news.natio...ronment/

RichardBlumenthal
4.4 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2014
Mr. Maggnus, maybe you should read your citations: "We resolve 26 independent drainage basins and find that Antarctic mass loss, and its acceleration, is concentrated in basins along the Amundsen Sea coast. Outside this region, we find that West Antarctica is nearly in balance and that East Antarctica is gaining substantial mass." Also, your off the cuff contention that the growing undersea mountain ranges have no effect on the basin because of sinking and subduction are not serious answers. Has anyone else really looked at this question? If so, I'd love to hear what you've learned. I think it's an under-studied topic.
Cocoa
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2014
RichardBlmethal: "Most in 30 years by extent and volume. Anybody else know about the effect of the smaller basin?"

Do you have a source for this assertion Richard?
Jonseer
2 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2014
I really have a hard time understanding why researchers present their findings in such utterly underwhelming terms.

A rise of 1/2 inch over 20 years.

A rise of 3.2mm in a year.

Only someone well versed on the topic will understand how bad those #s are.

For the vast majority quantifying the problem this way dramatically minimizes how big the problem seems. Rather than make clear how big the problem is, the response from most people will be a "that's it? That's what the panic is all about!"

There has to be a better way to quantify the magnitude of the calamity humanity is facing.

I can't help but wonder if professional condescension towards the lowly skeptic on the street prevents them understanding what a self-defeating mistake it is to keep expressing the magnitude of the pending disaster using such miniscule measurements.

It means, before you can discuss the problem, you have to explain to people how such tiny #s mean anything at all.
RichardBlumenthal
3.5 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2014
Cocoa, please see the University of Illinois cryosphere page. Southern Hemisphere info is toward the bottom of the page http://arctic.atm...osphere/ Also, the recent measurements from Alfred-Wegener-Institut in Bremerhaven. http://www.meerei...tarktis/ Chart: http://www.meerei...aa90.png
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2014
Mr Blumenthal - so saying it three times makes it even less wrong?

Do you understand the difference between area and mass? Both of your citations speak to ice area (extent) not ice volume (mass). And read my citation again. The numbers assigned to the research all show a net loss of ice mass (negative -Gtyr vrs +Gtyr = losing mass)

Maybe this will help:

http://ossfoundat...ice-melt
http://www.wunder...heet.asp

You know, if you already have your mind made up, no answer will make a difference.

AS for seafloor spreading (which is what you are talking about, although you don't seem to understand that) seafloor (magma) rises at divergent plate boundaries and sinks at convergent plate boundaries at roughly the same rate. Generally, when speaking of ocean basins, this is called the Wilson Cycle. Read up on that, you probably find answers to your question there.

Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2014
RichardBlumenthal - I looked carefully at your references - and could find nothing that would support the statement "Most in 30 years by extent and volume"

As Maggnus has pointed out - your references talk about ice extent - but do not address the issue of volume. Could you provide a more specific reference that would support your claim. I am also interested in what you think the significance of your statement is. Are you trying to argue against the notion that the climate is warming? I used google translate on your German articles - I would draw your attention to an interesting quote -

"While the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed significantly in recent decades , the temperature remained stable in other regions."
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2014
Jonseer pops obverse irony
I really have a hard time understanding why researchers present their findings in such utterly underwhelming terms. A rise of 1/2 inch over 20 years. A rise of 3.2mm in a year.
Its easy to understand, it's a discipline in Science, the major part by far IS quantification, hence quantities, ie Facts.

Seems Jonseer is expecting 'spin', wanting Scientists to engage in propagandist speculation.

Great example, thanks Jonseer, confirming all NEED basic Science education, calculus *and* enter into critiques, debates, dialectic, literature reviews etc !

Sure 3.2mm doesnt sound like much but, as I am sure you know it is already affecting island communities equatorially & adding more to storm surges !

What you & it seems many need is communicators who are well versed in interpreting facts & extrapolating scenarios, don't IPCC & others offer that but, is ultimately probabilistic hence attracting ire of deniers beyond their education as they desire determinism !
RichardBlumenthal
2 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2014
Cocoa, the Antarctic Peninsula is the very tip of the northern most part of the continent. Since it's so small, it actually illustrates that very nearly all of Antarctica has remained stable in temperature. The Alfred Wegener Institute is properly cautious, but quotes two of their sea ice physicists about the amount of ice: "Although this maximum in the ice-covered surface can not be equated with a maximum of the total volume or the total mass, suspect the sea ice physicist Marcel Nicolaus and Stefan Hendricks from the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) "This winter there is in Antarctica as much ice as long gone, if it has ever been since the beginning of the regular satellite observations ever so much sea ice." This leads them to want to make more accurate measurements of mass: "In order to make certain such statements in the future, the researchers of the Alfred Wegener Institute is currently also the thickness of sea ice in the Antarctic work together with colleagues from different institutions from being able to ascertain from satellite observations. In the Arctic, it has recently become possible, but there are significant differences between Arctic and Antarctic. The snow is thick, inhomogeneous and does not melt completely in the summer. In addition, sea ice is formed on the upper surface, a phenomenon that is encountered much less frequently in the Arctic. Then there can also be calculated from the thickness and the expansion in the future, the volume of sea ice.
Cocoa
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2014
Richard - " it actually illustrates that very nearly all of Antarctica has remained stable in temperature."

You have still not shown any source that would support your statement - "Most in 30 years by extent and volume"

Your statement that nearly all of Antarctica has remained stable - is also not supported by the current data.

http://en.wikiped...troversy

You also did not answer the question about what you think the significance of your statement is.
RichardBlumenthal
2.3 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2014
Cocoa, the title of the German study is "So much sea ice in Antarctica in 30 years no longer" - forgive the Google translation. The body of the article extrapolates that the extent is so large and the nature of the ice is so strong that it leads their scientists to the conclusion that it must be mass, as well, though they do want to obtain more precise measurements to make sure this is true. It seems quite logical to me. If not to you, so be it. My original reason for posting, though was not really about this. I've been reading a lot lately about the incredible proliferation of hitherto unknown hydrothermal vents spewing vast quantities of iron-rich magma into the sea basin. It build up the undersea mountain ranges and the sea floor as well. One discovery found a plume of magma in the Atlantic that stretched 1000 miles. This is new information, with the distinct possibility of other such vents yet to discover. If the crust is thickening, wouldn't this make the basin smaller?
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2014
Richard - " It seems quite logical to me."

It does not seem logical to me to take one study - and a very poor translation - and to then draw a conclusion that the ice is the most in 30 years, in both extent and volume. There is much research into the Antarctic - and the situation is very complex. There does seem to be a solid body of evidence supporting the understanding that the Antarctic Peninsula is clearly warming. Other areas are a mixed bag of both warming and cooling - but the pretty accepted trend is that overall the continent is showing warming. If you google the Antarctic - you can find volumes of data on the subject. My interest is in seeing cherry pickers like yourself - and Uba etc. - who are willing to pick one piece of data - and then think it is OK to make grand statements - that actually contradict the preponderance of evidence. It seems like a clear case of deliberate obfuscation to me - to support a pre-selected outcome - rather than being interested in data.
rockwolf1000
3.8 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2014
If the crust is thickening, wouldn't this make the basin smaller?


Not if the extra mass caused the oceanic crust to sink further into the mantle. This is but one of many possibilities.
Jonseer
4 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2014
Mike_Massen are you really that stupid or are your reading comprehension skills that bad?

I know what the #s mean, and their significance.

Communicating effectively is not spin.

If you actually read ALL that I wrote, you would have realized I was talking about the 100s of millions in this world who do NOT get it, and one big reason why they may not get it.

Of course a big part of it is in the USA we do not use the Metric system.

Researchers can keep on ignoring the obvious reason why so many do not get it.

3.2mm a year means something to most of the world, but in the nation where the most denialists live it means nothing.

As a result researchers are trying to make their point with NOTHING.

If anything your pigheaded, reply before you read a comment is emblematic of the problems facing science today.

Science doesn't fund itself

Taxpayers do for the most part.

Treating them with contempt is the reason why so many are skeptical of the theory and don't respect science.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2014
Of course a big part of it is in the USA we do not use the Metric system.
Researchers can keep on ignoring the obvious reason why so many do not get it.
3.2mm a year means something to most of the world, but in the nation where the most denialists live it means nothing.


Jonseer:
I take your point with that – and it's ironic as you have inherited the system from us – the Brits – and I'm old enough to have used that system through school (though not College)

Ok - How about if I say – if you live to around the average of 80ish then you would have seen ave sea levels rise by 10 inches. Does that float your boat?
And projections are for an acceleration of the rise.
Your point about contempt – I agree – but it's a natural consequence, I'm afraid, of the polarisation of the "debate" - the extreme on both sides are driving that aspect. The extremes are in the minority.
Look if you know how the laws of physics work – then just pop over to WUWT and have a glimpse into the rabbit hole.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2014
3.2mm a year means something to most of the world, but in the nation where the most denialists live it means nothing.

As a result researchers are trying to make their point with NOTHING.

The reasearchers are trying to make the point to decision makers - who should be smart enough to know what a millimeter is or at the very least be able to ask someone in their employ what it means.

The vast amount of uneducated deniers in the general plebs don't mean a thing (not even at voting time). They may moan and scream, but they don't make the decisions that need to be made.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2014
What IS the matter with you/your intellect, uba?
Nothing. What's the matter with you and yours?

Have you no personal/scientific integrity left at all?
I have tons, where's yours?

Does the fact that these extremes are increasingly LESS RARE than they used to be, have no weight in your BIAS and PROPAGANDA agenda?
Hand-waving B.S.

Why so STUPIDLY and OBVIOUSLY against the evidence of TREND in global frequency/extent/severity of the things that were PREDICTED to happen as a consequence of global warming.
Global warming stopped 12 – 16 years ago.

Why do silly/mercenary/criminal 'intellects' like yours and others here keep harping on individual instances of regional WEATHER cycles and ignoring overall CLIMATE trends?
This is the current global trend: http://www.woodfo....9/trend

Have you no sense of responsibility to your own family and future generations at all?
Certainly.

Seems like it, if you are so SELFISHLY and ARROGANTLY misconstruing data.
What data have I supposedly misconstrued?

Sad :(
Indeed.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2014
Uba's sour tuba hits another flat with
Global warming stopped 12 – 16 years ago.

using YOUR logic, then during the 1940-1950's-global warming stopped/dropped
and during '60-'68 it dropped
and '70-'76 it dropped
and in around '82... well, you get the point, I hope

therefore, according to YOUR logic (based on your posts), the global mean should be at or below the pre-industrial temperature levels
so... why aren't they?
Maybe because there has been a continual upward trend over the long term that shows, even in times of perceived stopping/dropping, there was still an overall rise? the big picture...hmm

Sounds vaguely familiar... Oh, RIGHT!
That is MY argument!
Wow... huh...

you are so much Fun , uba!
RichardBlumenthal
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2014
So, Captain Bully, I mean Stumpy, during the period you describe, the temperature fluctuated up and down and up and down even as the atmospheric carbon rose over 100 ppm. Interesting take. Thanks for pointing it out.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2014
RichardBlumenthal twists his leaderhosen with
So, Captain Bully, I mean Stumpy,

Wow, right to the personal attack... forget logic or links or anything else...
better wring out your knickers, Dick.
during the period you describe, the temperature fluctuated up and down and up and down even as the atmospheric carbon rose over 100 ppm. Interesting take. Thanks for pointing it out

it has also steadily rose... which was my point.

I never said the issue was not complicated, did I?
Nor did I state that I had all the answers.
Mostly I am arguing with Uba, but if you wish to get in...ok

I take it you know my stance
global warming:
it exists
it is real
there are correlations with humans that point to anthropomorphic influences
the SCIENCE is real

can YOU prove the above wrong?
Cocoa
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2014
RichardBlumenthal - what do you think you have demonstrated - by pointing out that the atmospheric temps have not risen in a straight line? The climate is complex - and heat moves around between the earth, the different parts of the atmosphere, and the different parts of the oceans.

However - in line with past predictions of the climate models - the C02 level has trended upwards - http://co2now.org/

And surprise surprise - so have the atmospheric temps - http://www.woodfo...14/trend
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2014
So, Captain Bully, I mean Stumpy, during the period you describe, the temperature fluctuated up and down and up and down even as the atmospheric carbon rose over 100 ppm. Interesting take. Thanks for pointing it out.
Stumpy a bully? Why, because he utterly destroys every attempt the Ubamoron makes to dodge his own words? How is that bullying?

Its like someone saying that ice extent and volume are the highest they've been in 30 years after having been provided with links to papers showing such wasn't correct. One might mistake such activity for denialism.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2014
Would some of you just try to get a grip on when all this global warming started?

The current period of global warming has some real history behind it commencing with the receding of the glacial flow which sparked the ending of the last ice age. At that time the Sahara desert, as we call it today, had vast areas covered in fresh water lakes. What happened? Stone age campfires? You have to believe that to believe AGW caused the glacial cover to retreat. That doesn't mean humankind can't have some impact but don't think for a minute we can buck a 15,000 year long term trend caused by a wobble in the planets rotational axis.

And sure, CO2 levels are rising, more green stuff growing & rotting, this stuff won't grow on ice, and the decomposition results in methane & CO2 production. Just wait another 15,000 years & they'll be wishing for the good old days..........like now.

Cocoa
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2014
Benni - "Would some of you just try to get a grip on when all this global warming started?"

Do you think we don't know that Benni? If you think that - you are wrong. Of course science understands the climate cycles of the past - here have a read - http://www.climat...ing.html

So what is your point? It seems to me that we should be paying attention to the scientists who contrary to you assertion - have spent a lot of time studying the past climate cycles.

sure - past climate has been a lot warmer, and a lot cooler. The big point is that there has never been 7 billion humans on the planet before - and we all need to eat.
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2014
Would some of you just try to get a grip on when all this global warming started?

Would you? In 15,000 years one can expect to see several changes but one that hasn't changed is CO2 levels. For the past 10,000 years they have been 280ppm. If you go back to the ice-age periods, CO2 was in the 190-200ppm range. Man as a species (with 9 billion people in existance currently) has never experienced CO2 levels at 400ppm.

Regardless of what you deniers think or claim, 400ppm of CO2 will have almost certainly have an impact on global warming and we are seeing that live, everyday in dramatic environment changes like storms/droughts/acidic oceans/ etc... etc. The worst news is that it looks like we are on the way to a 600ppm future world, in which case, I think mankind will be on the verge of extinction from a massive global extinction. That's in 2-300 years.

http://en.wikiped...0kyr.png

Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2014
Benni - "Would some of you just try to get a grip on when all this global warming started?"

Do you think we don't know that Benni? If you think that - you are wrong. Of course science understands the climate cycles of the past - here have a read - http://www.climat...ing.html

So what is your point? It seems to me that we should be paying attention to the scientists who contrary to you assertion - have spent a lot of time studying the past climate cycles.

sure past climate has been a lot warmer, and a lot cooler. The big point is that there has never been 7 billion humans on the planet before and we all need to eat.


How is it you think you know anything about the world's past populations? Hell's bells man, half the present day floor bed of the Atlantic Ocean was once land so dry we were burning stuff on it. You want to go back? We're about halfway through the present "wobble", on our way back to what I guess you think are the good old days.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2014
Regardless of what you deniers think or claim, 400ppm of CO2 will have almost certainly have an impact on global warming and we are seeing that live, everyday in dramatic environment changes like storms/droughts/acidic oceans/ etc... etc.


"Deniers"? You're sounding just like you just came from some church after listening of one of those apocalyptic sermon rants out of a book they call Revelation.

The worst news is that it looks like we are on the way to a 600ppm future world, in which case, I think mankind will be on the verge of extinction from a massive global extinction. That's in 2-300 years.


Stay out of that damn church & instead put your faith in the remaining cycle of the "wobble" & you'll find living life a lot easier than being in a constant state of "end of the world paranoia". You can't do a thing about 99.9999999999% of the CO2 & methane that's out there, so stop vainly imagining you are so damned significant in the greater order of things.
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2014
We're about halfway through the present "wobble",
Your an idiot. Do you know how long it takes for the Earth to go through a "wobble"? And second is there any proof that "woobles" cause weather extremes at all? Hell no, because it fiction! It doesn't happen. The only reason for the events we have today is from CO2 induced global warming. Facts are facts man.

Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2014
We're about halfway through the present "wobble",


Your an idiot. Do you know how long it takes for the Earth to go through a "wobble"? And second is there any proof that "woobles" cause weather extremes at all? Hell no, because it fiction! It doesn't happen. The only reason for the events we have today is from CO2 induced global warming. Facts are facts man.


Well then GOOGLE it you end of the world religious nutcase. Here's what to GOOGLE, "Earth's rotational wobble" or any variation thereof & find voluminous discussions about it. What are you? A "wobble denier"?

Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2014
You can't do a thing about 99.9999999999% of the CO2 & methane that's out there, so stop vainly imagining you are so damned significant in the greater order of things.

Yeah, 99.9...% of CO2 and methane people can't do anything about is also false. Man kind created a 100 ppm change in atmospheric CO2 levels in the past 50 years! For the past 15000 years and more, it's been 280ppm (more or less) with volcanoes and all.

Just like republican oppose Obamacare for no logical reason, they deny global warming for no logical reason.




Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2014
What are you? A "wobble denier"?

No, I'm a physicist. Your still a denier.

Cocoa
5 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2014
Benni: "How is it you think you know anything about the world's past populations?"

What do you know that the folks studying history don't Benni? Here is a link for you - http://www.global...pop.html

And what is your point? My point is that with 7 billion of us needing to be fed - we need to pay close attention to what is going on with our climate - because our ability to produce the food that we need to stay alive is heavily dependent on the climate. Sorry - what was that again - what is your point?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2014
Benni
We're about halfway through the present "wobble", on our way back to what I guess you think are the good old days

@Benni
I am not sure where you are going with this "wobble" theory- I looked it up like you asked.
according to your statement, you are implying that the wobble is driving climate change...
but according to
https://en.wikipe...r_wobble
Gross, Richard S. (2000). "The Excitation of the Chandler Wobble". Geophysical Research Letters 27 (15): 2329–2332. Retrieved January 17, 2011.
Gross found that two-thirds of the "wobble" was caused by fluctuating pressure on the seabed, which, in turn, is caused by changes in the circulation of the oceans caused by variations in temperature, salinity, and wind. The remaining third is due to atmospheric fluctuations.[4]

[sic]
so... how does your wanting us to read about wobbles help you establish that the earth climate is being driven them?
especially when the study says it is vice versa
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2014
NASA measurements show ice gains have exceeded losses in Antarctica.
No, NASA measurements have shown a gain in ice EXTENT but an overall net loss in ice VOLUME. The result is a net overall increase in sea level.
This is not true.

"During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gtlyr"

http://ntrs.nasa....3235.pdf

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2014
Global warming stopped 12 – 16 years ago.
using YOUR logic, then during the 1940-1950's-global warming stopped/dropped
and during '60-'68 it dropped
and '70-'76 it dropped
and in around '82... well, you get the point, I hope

therefore, according to YOUR logic (based on your posts), the global mean should be at or below the pre-industrial temperature levels
so... why aren't they?
How is thiis "my logic?" Maybe you think that when you stop your car, it automatically returns to the point of origin?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2014
sure - past climate has been a lot warmer, and a lot cooler. The big point is that there has never been 7 billion humans on the planet before - and we all need to eat.

Then you should be heartened by "global warming" rather than dismayed, for surely, corn cannot grow on ice.

Cocoa
5 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2014
UBA - your link to support your assertion that Antarctic ice volume is increasing does not work (surprise). Your assertion is direct contradiction to everything I have read - and I have googled this topic a great deal. Why even Wattsupwiththat disagrees with you.

"And the vast majority of the Antarctic ice mass is located on the Antarctic continent – and there the ice has decreased in recent years as a whole, particularly in West Antarctica."

http://wattsupwit...-extent/
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2014
UBA - your link to support your assertion that Antarctic ice volume is increasing does not work (surprise).
It works fine for me. Here's a text version to copy and past:

http:/ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf

But if that doesn't work, and since you can obviously access it, here's the WUWT article on it:

http://wattsupwit...-losses/

Your assertion is direct contradiction to everything I have read - and I have googled this topic a great deal. Why even Wattsupwiththat disagrees with you.

"And the vast majority of the Antarctic ice mass is located on the Antarctic continent – and there the ice has decreased in recent years as a whole, particularly in West Antarctica." This is an assertion from the original article, found here:

http://www.spiege...703.html

RichardBlumenthal
1 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2014
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
Re-edit
UBA - your link to support your assertion that Antarctic ice volume is increasing does not work (surprise).
It works fine for me. Here's a text version to copy and past:

http:/ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf

But if that doesn't work, and since you can obviously access it, here's the WUWT article on it:

http://wattsupwit...-losses/

Your assertion is direct contradiction to everything I have read - and I have googled this topic a great deal. Why even Wattsupwiththat disagrees with you.

"And the vast majority of the Antarctic ice mass is located on the Antarctic continent – and there the ice has decreased in recent years as a whole, particularly in West Antarctica."
This is an assertion from the original article, found here:

http://www.spiege...703.html

RealityCheck
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2014
@ubavontuba:
What data have I supposedly misconstrued


You just did it again in another thread...here: http://phys.org/n...ion.html

...where you blatantly try to pretend/convince that there are no such things as ocean currents (upwelling/downwelling and heat sink masses/processes/phase changes etc involved.

Truly sad your intellect has become slave to your ego and subjective stupidity instead of the beacon of objective reason and personal integrity which I know it once was. Indeed. :(
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2014
UBA: "This is an assertion from the original article, found here:"

And so once again - you quote articles that directly contradict the assertion you are trying to make. Here is a quote from google translate of the original article YOU referenced -

"And the vast majority of Antarctic ice mass is located in the country - and there the ice has decreased in recent years as a whole, particularly in West Antarctica "

Why don't you read the articles you quote first? And also it would be good if your truly read up on the topics - instead of trying to cherry pick articles that support your contrarian (and flat wrong) opinion. It would save you a lot of humiliation.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2014
@ubavontuba:
What data have I supposedly misconstrued
You just did it again in another thread...here: http://phys.org/n...ion.html

...where you blatantly try to pretend/convince that there are no such things as ocean currents (upwelling/downwelling and heat sink masses/processes/phase changes etc involved.
Do you even have a clue how long it takes deep seawater to circulate to the surface, and back again? Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Truly sad your intellect has become slave to your ego and subjective stupidity instead of the beacon of objective reason and personal integrity which I know it once was. Indeed. :(
Well there's a back-handed compliment if ever I had one.

So what turned you into such a hateful internet troll?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2014
UBA: "This is an assertion from the original article, found here:"

And so once again - you quote articles that directly contradict the assertion you are trying to make. Here is a quote from google translate of the original article YOU referenced -

"And the vast majority of Antarctic ice mass is located in the country - and there the ice has decreased in recent years as a whole, particularly in West Antarctica "

Why don't you read the articles you quote first? And also it would be good if your truly read up on the topics - instead of trying to cherry pick articles that support your contrarian (and flat wrong) opinion. It would save you a lot of humiliation.
You seem to be having a contextual comprehension issue. I was explaining that your contention that WUWT supported this statement, because you found it there, is incorrect. They were merely reporting on the contents of the original article.

But I'm sure you'll likely misconstrue what I just wrote, as well...

Cocoa
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2014
UBA - "They were merely reporting on the contents of the original article."

Correct - and the original article fully supports the premise that Antarctic ice mass is declining. So go ahead - spin yourself in circles. It is clear that the evidence contradicts your assertion (once again) and you are desperately cherry picking.
RealityCheck
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
Do you even have a clue how long it takes deep seawater to circulate to the surface, and back again? Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

So what turned you into such a hateful internet troll?


Currents speed up and slow, and change, including up/down wellings. These are continuously active and increasingly perturbed due to the additional heat energy being transported. The clathrates etc change phase and absorb heat from the deep water and bubble it up to the surface waters. Its more complex nd dynamic than you seem to think. Think it through based on all the facts, instead of just 'selecting' with bias and basing 'beliefs' on simplistic and partial picture.

You persistently misrepresent data and construct half-truths from same to mislead readers; and I occasionally point out how that betrays your intellect and integrity....and now you have the ego-stupidity to call me a troll? Amazing! :)
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2014
UBA - "They were merely reporting on the contents of the original article."

Correct - and the original article fully supports the premise that Antarctic ice mass is declining. So go ahead - spin yourself in circles. It is clear that the evidence contradicts your assertion (once again) and you are desperately cherry picking.
Hearsay. It was just a blurb in an article. So where's your "evidence?"

Here's mine:

http://www.nsstc...._5.6.txt

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2014
Currents speed up and slow, and change, including up/down wellings. These are continuously active and increasingly perturbed due to the additional heat energy being transported. The clathrates etc change phase and absorb heat from the deep water and bubble it up to the surface waters. Its more complex nd dynamic than you seem to think. Think it through based on all the facts, instead of just 'selecting' with bias and basing 'beliefs' on simplistic and partial picture.
Hand-waving nonsense.

Why don't you actually try doing a little research and give me a genuine answer? If you can't be bothered to do that, why respond at all?

You persistently misrepresent data and construct half-truths from same to mislead readers;
Since when? What data have I presented that wasn't clearly and concisely what I said it was?

Maybe the problem is you simply don't like the data?

and I occasionally point out how that betrays your intellect and integrity....and now you have the ego-stupidity to call me a troll? Amazing! :)
You are what you have become, I suppose. It's sad though. I remember a day when you could still think with a critical mind.

Cocoa
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2014
UBA "Here's mine"

So you post a page full of data - with no reference or explanation of what it is as your evidence.

I am very good at googling information - and I am also comfortable letting the experts who have spent their life specializing in this stuff do the data analysis. Here is my support for asserting that Antarctica is warming.

http://www.meteo....re09.pdf

Let's not forget that you are the dummy who has on at least three recent occasions - posted articles in support of a position - when the articles totally contradict the position. Now you suddenly have the expertise to analyze the data coming off Antarctica - and to conclude that all the scientists who are studying the continent are wrong - talk about Dunning Kruger.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2014
So you post a page full of data - with no reference or explanation of what it is as your evidence.
Should I be surprised that raw temperature data is a mystery to you?

I am very good at googling information
Confirmation bias, much?

Let's not forget that you are the dummy who has on at least three recent occasions - posted articles in support of a position - when the articles totally contradict the position. Now you suddenly have the expertise to analyze the data coming off Antarctica - and to conclude that all the scientists who are studying the continent are wrong - talk about Dunning Kruger.
1. troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

'nuff said.

Cocoa
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2014
Should I be surprised that raw temperature data is a mystery to you?

Well - when it contains no reference to tell us what that data actually is - we have no way of knowing what the data actually references. But sure - you are correct - I do not spend my days analyzing raw data - I don't have the level of expertise - or the time to do that. There are Phd level specialists who spend their lives doing that - it is called science. So if you want to refute the understanding of the situation in Antarctica - go right ahead - and write some papers on the subject - and let the body of science see your work. I'm sorry - what are your credentials and field experience that would enable you to refute the current understanding of science on something as complex as the climate in Antarctica? Please share oh great one.
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2014
UBA: "One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument."

Yes - pointing out that you showed yourself to be a dummy - by claiming that the Alpine glaciers are growing - and then referencing articles that said the exact opposite - and that this is one of at least three recent examples of the same kind of rubbish you have posted - that is called trolling.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2014
Well - when it contains no reference to tell us what that data actually is - we have no way of knowing what the data actually references.
Should I be surprised you can't read the headers? Are you a chatterbot?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2014
Yes - ...by claiming that the Alpine glaciers are growing - and then referencing articles that said the exact opposite -
You're STILL having trouble reading that article? Really?

Or is it you're still feeing the burn for being called out on your "weight" complaint?

Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (7) Jan 26, 2014
Should I be surprised you can't read the headers? Are you a chatterbot?


You provide a spreadsheet of data - and do not tell us where it is from - and what you feel it proves - and once again you demonstrate that you are not interested in an honest exchange - just in pushing an agenda. Despite the fact that I have no idea where your data is from - I can tell you that there are 27 columns of data - and they appear to represent temperature data. They cover 1978 to 2013 - and 26 of the 27 show a positive trend. What exactly is your point in presenting this data - with no explanation - and no discussion.
Cocoa
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 26, 2014
You're STILL having trouble reading that article? Really?


I quoted extensively from that article - and the article clearly stipulates that alpine glaciers continue to decline. You would be incapable of demonstrating that said article supports your premise that the glaciers are growing - because it does not.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2014
You provide a spreadsheet of data - and do not tell us where it is from
You can't tell where it's from? Really? It's right there in the URL. Click here.

- and what you feel it proves
It isn't obvious? ...after all this time?

- and once again you demonstrate that you are not interested in an honest exchange - just in pushing an agenda.
This is your shtick.

Despite the fact that I have no idea where your data is from - I can tell you that there are 27 columns of data - and they appear to represent temperature data. They cover 1978 to 2013 - and 26 of the 27 show a positive trend. What exactly is your point in presenting this data - with no explanation - and no discussion.
Oh! Did you forget what we were discussing? Chatterbots have such a hard time with context. Are you a chatterbot?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2014
I quoted extensively from that article
Funny then you missed the relevant text.

- and the article clearly stipulates that alpine glaciers continue to decline.
You STILL can't understand the headline? ...and how it relates to the context of the article?

You would be incapable of demonstrating that said article supports your premise that the glaciers are growing - because it does not.
Just saying so, doesn't make it so.

Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2014
Here Uba - here is the reference for the article.

http://www.thegwp...growing/

Please presents quotes from this article that support the assertion that 'Alpine glaciers are growing.

cont.
Cocoa
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 26, 2014
Just saying so, doesn't make it so.


No - but providing extensive quotes to support what you are saying does. Here is a repeat of the quotes I already provided you.

"In recent summers, the glaciers in Switzerland lost a meter in thickness on average"

"Particularly disastrous were the years 2011, 2006 and 2003, in which the loss was two to three meters for some glaciers"

"About 30 ascents to huts have been affected by glacier retreat"

"In general the glaciers have lost less mass than in any of the last ten years,"

"There have always been years in which individual glaciers developed positively"

" Over the last hundred years, the annual mean temperature in most areas of the Alps has warmed by about one degree"

" "The reactions of large glaciers are delayed by up to 50 years," says Bauder. And in Switzerland the last 20 years were the warmest since measurements began."

Who has trouble reading? Dunning kruger at it's worst.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2014
Here Uba - here is the reference for the article.

http://www.thegwp...growing/

Please presents quotes from this article that support the assertion that 'Alpine glaciers are growing.

cont.
LOL. So you're actually ADMITTING you can't understand the headline, and how it relates to the context of the article. That figures. LOL

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2014
No - but providing extensive quotes to support what you are saying does. Here is a repeat of the quotes I already provided you.
So you think taking quotes out of context somehow proves something?

Do you even have a clue what the central theme of the article is?

Who has trouble reading?
LOL. It appears you do. LOL

Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2014
Do you even have a clue what the central theme of the article is?


Having provided 7 direct quotes from the article - all supporting the assertion that the alpine glaciers are receding - that would be obvious - yes I do understand the central theme of the article - and you do not.

So you think taking quotes out of context somehow proves something?


I took nothing out of context. The link to the article is right there - and the quotes that I gave you are representative of the article - and support the theme that the alpine glaciers are retreating. A fairly basic reading comprehension would allow anyone to read the article - read the quotes - and understand that you are either extremely stupid - or think it is cute to play this kind of childish game.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2014
Do you even have a clue what the central theme of the article is?
Having provided 7 direct quotes from the article - all supporting the assertion that the alpine glaciers are receding - that would be obvious - yes I do understand the central theme of the article - and you do not.
LOL. Tell me again. What was the title of that article? Do you really think they'd go through all the trouble to write the article, and then give it an irrelevant title?

So you think taking quotes out of context somehow proves something?
I took nothing out of context. The link to the article is right there - and the quotes that I gave you are representative of the article - and support the theme that the alpine glaciers are retreating. A fairly basic reading comprehension would allow anyone to read the article - read the quotes - and understand that you are either extremely stupid - or think it is cute to play this kind of childish game.
LOL. Chatterbot much?

Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2014
Uba you sincerely need to learn word comprehension.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2014
Uba you sincerely need to learn word comprehension.
Abd you, humility.

Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2014
UBA:
LOL. Tell me again. What was the title of that article? Do you really think they'd go through all the trouble to write the article, and then give it an irrelevant title.


If you had read the article you would know the answer to that question. If you had even just read the quotes that I took the time to extract - that were representative of the article - you would know the answer. Point is - the alpine glaciers are receding. You want to argue ad naseum that alpine glaciers are growing - knock yourself out. Main point for me is that your ignorance/stupidity/obtuseness, or whatever your issue is - is clear for anyone watching.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2014
LOL. Tell me again. What was the title of that article? Do you really think they'd go through all the trouble to write the article, and then give it an irrelevant title.
If you had read the article you would know the answer to that question. If you had even just read the quotes that I took the time to extract - that were representative of the article - you would know the answer. Point is - the alpine glaciers are receding. You want to argue ad naseum that alpine glaciers are growing - knock yourself out. Main point for me is that your ignorance/stupidity/obtuseness, or whatever your issue is - is clear for anyone watching.

Why don't you just answer the questions?

Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2014
Here is your answer uba "The First Alpine Glaciers Are Growing Again"

And here is the subtitle -

"For the Swiss Alps 2013 was a good summer. Not since ten years ago have the glaciers lost as little mass as this year. And some seem to be gaining a little weight."

Now - being that you have a reading comprehension problem - I will explain the subtitle for you. In 2013 the alpine glaciers lost ice mass. It was not as much of a loss as had been lost in previous years - but it was still a LOSS. A LOSS means a decrease, a reduction, a diminishing.

So UBA - your contention that the alpine glaciers are growing - is not supported by the subtitle of the article - or the text of the article. So once again - you like to cherrypick one piece of information - to support your personal agenda. Can you say Duning Kruger.

Maggnus
4 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2014
From your cite Uba. You remember - where you said the cite was proof that Alpine glaciers were growing, when, in fact, once you actually took the time to read the article, the summary was that they were still losing ice, but at a slower rate for that one year than they had lost ice on a year by year basis since 2003. What is so hard for you to comprehend about that?

Why don't you just read the cites you think make your point, before you post them?

Do you understand how that makes you look? Need I point it out to you again?
Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2014
And why do we care if you are a childish denier UBA - well this stuff really does have consequences - so why not read this article on the disappearing tropical glaciers in Peru - and maybe try to understand that this stuff is real - http://www.greeno...gmrRMGM8

Or do you have an article with a headline "Tropical glaciers in Peru are growing?"
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2014
Having provided 7 direct quotes from the article - all supporting the assertion that the alpine glaciers are receding - that would be obvious - yes I do understand the central theme of the article - and you do not.
You obviously failed to understand the glaciers lost surprisingly little ice during the melt season, which gives them a thicker base to build on during the next growing season. But as you obviously don't understand glacier dynamics, I don't suppose you understand how this implies positive growth.

And you obviously missed this:

"'There are signs of a positive balance, especially in the north of the canton Ticino and in the southern Valais,'"

and:

"Nevertheless, the latest research shows: Glaciers can still grow back. "We have been doubting whether this is even possible at all. Now we know: It is possible," says the glaciologist Bauder."

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2014
From your cite Uba. You remember - where you said the cite was proof that Alpine glaciers were growing, when, in fact, once you actually took the time to read the article, the summary was that they were still losing ice, but at a slower rate for that one year than they had lost ice on a year by year basis since 2003. What is so hard for you to comprehend about that?

Why don't you just read the cites you think make your point, before you post them?

Do you understand how that makes you look? Need I point it out to you again?
Says the moron who believes "You can't grow food in a desert." LOL

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2014
And why do we care if you are a childish denier UBA - well this stuff really does have consequences - so why not read this article on the disappearing tropical glaciers in Peru - and maybe try to understand that this stuff is real - http://www.greeno...gmrRMGM8

Or do you have an article with a headline "Tropical glaciers in Peru are growing?"
Some glaciers grow, some shrink. It must be this way. Unless, maybe you prefer them all to grow? How would you stop them in this case? Would a Snowball Earth make you happy?

Again, AGWites demonstrate they haven't a clue. You can't grow food in ice.

Cocoa
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2014
UBA
But as you obviously don't understand glacier dynamics, I don't suppose you understand how this implies positive growth.


It is good that we have you to explain glacier dynamics to the silly scientists who have spent their lives studying them.

Again, AGWites demonstrate they haven't a clue.


Ahhh - there you have the problem - a mythical group of beings - with a childish made up name - who are engaged in a grand conspiracy to take over the world.

Good that we have you and Rygg to keep the world straight.

Some glaciers grow, some shrink.


Just one tiny problem with your understanding here - actually - in accord with predictions about our climate - the glaciers are losing mass - it is not a question of some are growing - some are shrinking - hey nothing to see here.

http://en.wikiped...ance.png

If you were rational - you would let the scientists do their job - instead - it is more fun to have your own world.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2014
If you were rational - you would let the scientists do their job
Many do, and quite competently. The problem is we're dealing with humans, and humans aren't very reliably impartial, especially when it comes to "consensus" thinking.

Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2014
Many do, and quite competently. The problem is we're dealing with humans, and humans aren't very reliably impartial, especially when it comes to "consensus" thinking.


You make that point very well for us. You cherry pick data to support your agenda - rather that letting the chips fall where they will. The whole issue with consensus thinking is a big straw man. Of course science develops a consensus on all subjects - that is called reality. Of course when we have less than perfect data - we get reality wrong - and have to rethink it with the new data. It is a constant process of refinement. But to say that reality is a problem for you is interesting. Reality is that the glaciers are shrinking. That is what the data tells us. You of course disagree. What were your credentials again for that disagreement?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2014
Says the moron who believes "You can't grow food in a desert." LOL
Oh do I need to show you, again, how that actually works? Nice try at deflection Uba, but it does not change what I said, nor have you answered the questions.
You obviously failed to understand the glaciers lost surprisingly little ice during the melt season, which gives them a thicker base to build on during the next growing season.
There's that comprehension thing again. Uba - that means they are still losing mass. In that one year they lost less mass than they have been, which means that they are still losing mass. That says nothing about what they may do next year, and you're comment about the base is wholly, utterly baseless.
Misrepresentation Uba. Didn't we have a discussion about what that means? Need it be pointed out to you AGAIN?
Some glaciers grow, some shrink. It must be this way.
More misrepresentation, and simplistic to boot. Not scoring many points there Uba.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2014
Many do, and quite competently. The problem is we're dealing with humans, and humans aren't very reliably impartial, especially when it comes to "consensus" thinking.
You make that point very well for us. You cherry pick data to support your agenda - rather that letting the chips fall where they will.
I don't have an "agenda." I'm just letting the chips fall where they will.

The whole issue with consensus thinking is a big straw man. Of course science develops a consensus on all subjects - that is called reality. Of course when we have less than perfect data - we get reality wrong - and have to rethink it with the new data. It is a constant process of refinement. But to say that reality is a problem for you is interesting. Reality is that the glaciers are shrinking. That is what the data tells us. You of course disagree.
Some are shrinking, some are growing. That is what the data tells us.

What were your credentials again for that disagreement?
Appeal to authority fallacy. What credentials do I need to disagree with you?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2014
Says the moron who believes "You can't grow food in a desert." LOL
Oh do I need to show you, again, how that actually works? Nice try at deflection Uba, but it does not change what I said, nor have you answered the questions.
LOL. You can't backpedal your way out of this one. You clearly made the blanket declaration "You can't grow food in a desert."

You obviously failed to understand the glaciers lost surprisingly little ice during the melt season, which gives them a thicker base to build on during the next growing season.
There's that comprehension thing again. Uba - that means they are still losing mass. In that one year they lost less mass than they have been, which means that they are still losing mass.
You obviously failed to comprehend they were talking about the melt season, and not a full year.

That says nothing about what they may do next year, and you're comment about the base is wholly, utterly baseless.
That you failed to understand it is not my concern.

Misrepresentation Uba. Didn't we have a discussion about what that means? Need it be pointed out to you AGAIN?
I think it's very clear you know what "misrepresentation" means, as you utilize misrepresentation, regularly.

Some glaciers grow, some shrink. It must be this way.
More misrepresentation, and simplistic to boot.
Idiot. If they all only grew, eventually the entire globe would be covered in ice.

Not scoring many points there Uba.
Compared to you, I'm hitting grand slams.

Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2014
UBA -
Some are shrinking, some are growing. That is what the data tells us.


And once again - it is well understood that on balance - the glaciers are receding - in line with predictions about a warming climate. So again - on yet another subject - you are cherry picking your information to support your agenda - absolutely not letting the chips fall where they may - if you were doing that - you would be fine with letting the scientists do their job.

Appeal to authority fallacy. What credentials do I need to disagree with you?


None to disagree with me - I am not a trained climate scientist. But yes - when you want to argue that you know better than the consensus science about a subject - you need some credentials.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2014
UBA -
Some are shrinking, some are growing. That is what the data tells us.
And once again - it is well understood that on balance - the glaciers are receding - in line with predictions about a warming climate.
Supposing this is true, is it unprecedented, or even unusual?

So again - on yet another subject - you are cherry picking your information to support your agenda -
What "agenda?"

absolutely not letting the chips fall where they may -
You're the one denying some glaciers are growing.

if you were doing that - you would be fine with letting the scientists do their job.
Who says I'm not? I only bother to point out the instances where they aren't doing their jobs.

Appeal to authority fallacy. What credentials do I need to disagree with you?
None to disagree with me - I am not a trained climate scientist. But yes - when you want to argue that you know better than the consensus science about a subject - you need some credentials.
But I'm only disagreeing with you! LOL

Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2014
UBA
Supposing this is true, is it unprecedented, or even unusual?


I don't know - but so what if it is not? Look how you change the subject. First cherry picking to support your agenda - and then changing the subject when you are shown up to be a cherry picker.

You're the one denying some glaciers are growing.


I have never denied that some glaciers are growing. I challenge you to go back and find any quote that supports your assertion. I have always said that on balance - the glaciers are receding. It is well understood that some high level glaciers are increasing in mass - this does not refute the notion that our globe is in a warming trend

What "agenda?"


The agenda that comes through time and again in your posts. The agenda that pushes you to constantly cherry pick to support the notion that the earth is not warming. You know -how you claim the ice sheets are growing, Antarctica is warming, the sea levels are not rising, etc. etc.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2014
Supposing this is true, is it unprecedented, or even unusual?
I don't know - but so what if it is not?
You don't suppose knowing this before wrecking economies and destroying lives is important? Are you a sociopath?

Look how you change the subject. First cherry picking to support your agenda - and then changing the subject when you are shown up to be a cherry picker.
How have I changed the subject? What was the old subject, and what is this supposed new subject? How are they different?

You're the one denying some glaciers are growing.
I have never denied that some glaciers are growing. I challenge you to go back and find any quote that supports your assertion. I have always said that on balance - the glaciers are receding. It is well understood that some high level glaciers are increasing in mass
And I've agreed that some glaciers are receding. So what? What's unprecedented about this?

You do know when ice ages pass, glaciers recede, don't you?

- this does not refute the notion that our globe is in a warming trend
But it doesn't prove it is, or that when it was the cause was anthropogenic.

What "agenda?"
The agenda that comes through time and again in your posts. The agenda that pushes you to constantly cherry pick to support the notion that the earth is not warming.
Again, what "agenda?" I'm only reporting the facts. That you don't like them would mean you're the one with an agenda, wouldn't it?

You know -how you claim the ice sheets are growing, Antarctica is warming, the sea levels are not rising, etc. etc.
When have I supposedly made these claims?

Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2014
UBA:
You don't suppose knowing this before wrecking economies and destroying lives is important? Are you a sociopath?


I neither wrecked economies - or advocated for the wrecking of economies - where would you possibly have got that idea from? I advocate for allowing the scientists to study the issue of our climate - and give us good information - so that we can make informed decisions as we progress as a species.

Are you in favor of the kind of pollution currently being witnessed in cities in Asia? Seems to me a good idea to study the whole issue of our climate - and figure out how to live on this planet sustainably.

When have I supposedly made these claims?


Over and over on different threads. Perhaps you forgot. Perhaps you are not aware of the things you post. Perhaps you just like to provoke argument. Who knows?
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2014
UBA
Again, what "agenda?" I'm only reporting the facts. That you don't like them would mean you're the one with an agenda, wouldn't it?


No - you are not just reporting the facts - that is the job of the scientists. When was the last time you did some climate research? What you do is cherry pick - in order to promote an agenda. Who gives a shit what you report anyway? Well perhaps the scientists are wrong - there is no problem - and our great grand children will live in a better world than we do. Perhaps the scientists are right - and we have a serious problem with a warming climate. Good money is on the side of the experts who are studying the climate - and letting us know that the best info we have today tells us there is a problem. Did you read the article about the dolphins, the penguins, the starfish, the monarch butterflies? All three posted this week. I guess all we have to say is that thankfully the scientists are doing their job - despite UBA cherry picker
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2014
You don't suppose knowing this before wrecking economies and destroying lives is important? Are you a sociopath?
I neither wrecked economies - or advocated for the wrecking of economies - where would you possibly have got that idea from? I advocate for allowing the scientists to study the issue of our climate - and give us good information - so that we can make informed decisions as we progress as a species.
When you advocate for AGWite beliefs and policies, you advocate for wrecking economies and destroying lives.

Are you in favor of the kind of pollution currently being witnessed in cities in Asia?
Environmental protection is my profession, so of course not.

Seems to me a good idea to study the whole issue of our climate - and figure out how to live on this planet sustainably.
Agreed in principle, but not in AGWite practices.

When have I supposedly made these claims?
Over and over on different threads.
Hand-waving nonsense.

Perhaps you forgot. Perhaps you are not aware of the things you post. Perhaps you just like to provoke argument. Who knows?
This appears to be your shtick.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2014
UBA
Again, what "agenda?" I'm only reporting the facts. That you don't like them would mean you're the one with an agenda, wouldn't it?
No - you are not just reporting the facts - that is the job of the scientists. When was the last time you did some climate research?
Just moments ago.

What you do is cherry pick - in order to promote an agenda.
And again, what "agenda?"

Who gives a shit what you report anyway?
Apparently you do.

Well perhaps the scientists are wrong - there is no problem - and our great grand children will live in a better world than we do.
Let's hope.

Perhaps the scientists are right - and we have a serious problem with a warming climate. Good money is on the side of the experts who are studying the climate - and letting us know that the best info we have today tells us there is a problem.
Who's money?

Did you read the article about the dolphins, the penguins, the starfish, the monarch butterflies? All three posted this week.
Of course. Species populate, and species die back. There is nothing unnatural about this.

I guess all we have to say is that thankfully the scientists are doing their job
Are they?

Cocoa
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2014
UBA - You ask 'what agenda' - and then you go on to make so many comments like this -

Of course. Species populate, and species die back. There is nothing unnatural about this.


So you have just dismissed 4 articles - written by scientists - that express concern about what is happening in our world - just a sampling of research by scientists today. This response of yours is a pattern. Denying the concerns of the scientific community. Arguing the science that is presented. The earth is not warming - see - I can show a graph from Woodfortrees. The glaciers are growing. The ice sheets are growing (not understanding extent vs mass). The oceans are not rising. Etc. etc. etc.

And then you ask 'what agenda'

Are they?


Yes they are - despite the headwind of asshats like you with an agenda the size of Texas.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2014
uba says
When you advocate for AGWite beliefs and policies, you advocate for wrecking economies and destroying lives

fallacy not supported by facts
what you are saying by the above is the exact same thing as saying:
when you advocate real science and support integrity in science, you are advocating wrecking economies and destroying lives... which is definitely NOT true.
what "agenda?"

one could infer by your posts that you are against global warming science & have an anti-global warming agenda as well as an anti-science agenda given your complete lack of scientific integrity shown by your tunnel vision, your cherry-picking of data, your circular arguments, your inability to comprehend basic English when the mood suits you, your aggressive and dogged determination to undermine real scientists with fallacies and your complete disregard for logic and careful observation. Of course, we can only support this with links and quotes from every climate related thread you posted in
EnricM
3.3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2014
Why does any of that matter?

Simple: It happened before for 100% natural reasons. Much like those Methane torches everybody was so worked up about, only to discover it was a natural phenomena not even influenced by GW, least of all AGW.


So, the climte is NOT heating up... but cooling down. Can you please explain to me, why we aren't celebrating our Eflstedentocht here in Holland since 1997? And why there gaps between them were always longer? And why we were able to skate them every year before that?

Thanks for your insight, we would be very glad to be able to celebrate our national skating race again, but I assume that the evil IPCC has tampered our data and the ice on teh channels is surely being melted way by IPCC saboteurs with blowtorches.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2014
@EnricM
So, the climte is NOT heating up... but cooling down. Can you please explain to me, why we aren't celebrating our Eflstedentocht here in Holland since 1997? And why there gaps between them were always longer? And why we were able to skate them every year before that?

Thanks for your insight, we would be very glad to be able to celebrate our national skating race again, but I assume that the evil IPCC has tampered our data and the ice on teh channels is surely being melted way by IPCC saboteurs with blowtorches.
This is pure B.S., and you know it. Why do AGWites constantly lie?

Elfstedentocht only rarely runs in consecutive years. On average (from its inception in 1909 to the end of the 20th century) it only runs about once every six years, and the current 16 year hiatus isn't even the longest. The longest was 22 years.

http://en.wikiped...#Winners

Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2014
The longest was 22 years.

From 1963 - 1985. Between 1964 and 2014 (50 years) the race has been run 3 times. In the 50 years prior to 1964 the race was run 10 times. The race has been run once since 1986, so in 27 years the race has been run once.

Yea Uba that's some BS all right!
SteveS
1 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2014
...the current 16 year hiatus isn't even the longest.


Uba is right, sixteen years isn't long enough to identify a trend.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2014
SteveS offered Simplistic opinion
Uba is right, sixteen years isn't long enough to identify a trend.
One cannot only focus on part of a trend when its clear there is more heat in the system.

Mature intelligent investigators ask, where is this heat going if temps not rising ?

Its clear from:-
http://en.wikiped...of_water

AND

http://en.wikiped...capacity

That the oceans are vast absorbers of heat and it should be remembered that the "Latent Heat of Fusion" of water is SIGNIFICANT !

Those with a high-school education should recall that ice can absorb HUGE amounts of heat as it turns into water but WITHOUT a temperature rise. Surely intelligent people can see that with increasing perturbation of the climate system melting ice is, at least one of the main causes of a pause.

Add to that burning 230,000 L of petrol each SECOND adds huge amount of greenhouse gasses AND heat !

Simple ubavontuba needs an education & training to handle complexity !
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2014
...the current 16 year hiatus isn't even the longest.


Uba is right, sixteen years isn't long enough to identify a trend.


OMG I find myself defending Uba! Uba did not call it a trend, he noted that is has been 16 years since the ice on the canals was thick enough to run that race, and noted that that wasn't even the longest hiatus. Try to keep up with the conversation!
SteveS
2 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2014
...the current 16 year hiatus isn't even the longest.


http://www.woodfo...o:2013.9
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2014
Global warming stopped 12 – 16 years ago.


http://www.woodfo.../to:2014
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2014
SteveS quoted this because ?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.9/to:2013.9/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1943/to:1965/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/to:2013.9
SteveS has zero understanding of my post re "heat capacity" has not read it or if he has then does not understand, even slightly, the maths or the physics & OBVIOUSLY hasn't read this:-

http://www.woodfo...rg/notes
AND
Considered these undeniable FACTS:-

1. CO2 levels rising
http://www.woodfo...o2/every
AND
2. CO2 has known Thermal Properties - see CRC & other physics guides,
ie. Get an education Please, especially in respect of "re-radiation".

Comment please on the maths & physics of "Heat Capacity" and the properties of water and consider that the vast majority of AGW denialists have NO high school education AND tend to be republicans who don't want the world to change from their view they are expected to do as they wish and exploit others for their wealth without reciprocating.
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2014
OMG I find myself defending Uba! Uba did not call it a trend, he noted that is has been 16 years since the ice on the canals was thick enough to run that race,


So it has been 16 years since that race was run. This means that it has been 16 years since it has been cold enough to run that race - (a race that was run 10 times in the 50 years prior to 1964). If my math is correct (sarcasm) that is an average of once every 5 years.

How is this an indication of some kind of hiatus in warming?
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2014
So it has been 16 years since that race was run. This means that it has been 16 years since it has been cold enough to run that race - (a race that was run 10 times in the 50 years prior to 1964). If my math is correct (sarcasm) that is an average of once every 5 years.

How is this an indication of some kind of hiatus in warming?
That's the thing - it's not! Sarcasm is not much fun when one has to explain it.......

Oh, and, assuming MY math to be correct, the race over the last 30 years has been run an average of once every 30 years!
SteveS
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2014
...the current 16 year hiatus isn't even the longest.


Uba is right, sixteen years isn't long enough to identify a trend.


...Sarcasm is not much fun when one has to explain it.......


Am I the only one that found it amusing that uba doesn't consider a sixteen year hiatus long enough to prove warming in the Netherlands, but still insists that the sixteen year hiatus in global surface temperatures disproves AGW?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2014
@ SteveS yes I caught the sarcasm after the 2nd quote and was trying to play along. Funny doesn't even come close to how I perceive Uba's weaving and dodging!!

I thought his comment that the race only run every 6 years on average was knee-slappingly hilarious given it has run exactly three times since 1964, an average of once every 16 years - I mean, how is that for ironic!!!
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
Am I the only one that found it amusing that uba doesn't consider a sixteen year hiatus long enough to prove warming in the Netherlands, but still insists that the sixteen year hiatus in global surface temperatures disproves AGW?
Red Herring argument.

I have no problem acknowledging the Netherlands have been too warm for Elfstedentocht for the past 16 years ...in fact, I did so. But it doesn't indicate warming in the Netherlands as this is clearly normal.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
...the current 16 year hiatus isn't even the longest.
http://www.woodfo...o:2013.9
And the supposed stretch of anthropogenic global warming isn't either.

http://www.woodfo....9/trend

Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
...the current 16 year hiatus isn't even the longest.
http://www.woodfo...o:2013.9

AAAANNNNDDDDD right back to cherry picking data! Uncle Ira's gonna be handing out more pointy hats!
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
I have no problem acknowledging the Netherlands have been too warm for Elfstedentocht
Only because you own cherry-picked data has been used to show that you cherry picked your data! As usual, you come here with your agenda of denialism and troll for arguments.

More whack-a-mole. You think you are a master at that game, but you don't understand that you lose every time you do it. Of course, you don't understand a lot of things.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
I have no problem acknowledging the Netherlands have been too warm for Elfstedentocht
Only because you own cherry-picked data has been used to show that you cherry picked your data! As usual, you come here with your agenda of denialism and troll for arguments.

More whack-a-mole. You think you are a master at that game, but you don't understand that you lose every time you do it. Of course, you don't understand a lot of things.
And typically Maggnus resorts to baby tantrums and name calling when the science escapes him.

The science is clear. Global warming has not accelerated, nor even continued, as predicted.

Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2014
And typically Maggnus resorts to baby tantrums and name calling when the science escapes him.

The science is clear. Global warming has not accelerated, nor even continued, as predicted.

Well at least you admit that you cherry pick your data.

Simply put, you are wrong, on the whole global warming has continued as exactly as predicted, with only surface warming not reaching beyond the lower-most ranges of the earlier predictions. THAT is the science.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
And typically Maggnus resorts to baby tantrums and name calling when the science escapes him.

The science is clear. Global warming has not accelerated, nor even continued, as predicted.

Well at least you admit that you cherry pick your data.
So now it's bold-faced lies, is it?

Simply put, you are wrong, on the whole global warming has continued as exactly as predicted, with only surface warming not reaching beyond the lower-most ranges of the earlier predictions. THAT is the science.
LOL. The old AGWite nazi, "The missing heat must be somewhere." argument.

Show empirical data to support this claim. Go ahead, don't be afraid, give it a shot. LOL

And besides, the very definition of global warming belies your ridiculous claim.

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
So now it's bold-faced lies, is it?
Inference.
LOL. The old AGWite nazi, "The missing heat must be somewhere." argument.
Comprehension. What parts of "on the whole" and "only surface warming" escaped you?

http://phys.org/n...ean.html
http://www.acecrc...0Reports
http://www.slate....way.html
http://blogs.disc...ack-now/

And besides, the very definition of global warming belies your ridiculous claim.

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo...14/trend
***Yawn*** Just more whack-a-mole.

SteveS
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
...the current 16 year hiatus isn't even the longest.
http://www.woodfo...o:2013.9


Why didn't you show the longest trend?

http://www.woodfo...14/trend
SteveS
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
Sorry...post in hast

...the current 16 year hiatus isn't even the longest.
http://www.woodfo...o:2013.9
And the supposed stretch of anthropogenic global warming isn't either.
http://www.woodfo....9/trend


Why didn't you show the longest trend?

http://www.woodfo...14/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
Sorry...post in hast

...the current 16 year hiatus isn't even the longest.
http://www.woodfo...o:2013.9
And the supposed stretch of anthropogenic global warming isn't either.
http://www.woodfo....9/trend
Why didn't you show the longest trend?

http://www.woodfo...14/trend
According to the IPCC, AGW didn't start until 1950. Are you now suggesting the IPCC is lying?

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
The science is clear. Global warming has not accelerated, nor even continued, as predicted.

@uba
personal conjecture based upon incomplete data
So now it's bold-faced lies, is it?

its not a lie if it has been proven
Maggnus/I can post links so many arguments proving this exact point
therefore any current post/link is suspect until proven otherwise
"global warming n. An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."
Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo...14/trend

proof of cherry picking data
given that a trend is usually 30 years
as provided before by EPA
http://epa.gov/cl...ary.html

see also
http://www.woodfo...60/trend
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
]According to the IPCC, AGW didn't start until 1950. Are you now suggesting the IPCC is lying?
That is a gross misrepresentation. Science on the subject dates to the 1800's. Tyndall suggested that greenhouse gases could affect the Earth's climate as early as 1856 and Arrhenius suggested in 1896 that human's adding of CO2 to the atmosphere could be causing warming. By 1930 evidence was accumulating that warming was occurring and had been since 1865, and by 1950 Callander suggested a rise of 0.09F between 1890 and 1930. By 1960 Keeling was reporting significant CO2 increases, and in 1965 Lorenz suggested the climate could be subject to sudden shifts because of CO2 loading/warming. The IPCC has noted evidence suggesting a rise in temperatures can be seen starting from about the 1850's, certainly no later than the 1890's.
SteveS
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
According to the IPCC, AGW didn't start until 1950. Are you now suggesting the IPCC is lying?


Just to keep you happy here's the trend from 1950

http://www.woodfo...14/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2014
]According to the IPCC, AGW didn't start until 1950. Are you now suggesting the IPCC is lying?
That is a gross misrepresentation. Science on the subject dates to the 1800's. Tyndall suggested that greenhouse gases could affect the Earth's climate as early as 1856 and Arrhenius suggested in 1896 that human's adding of CO2 to the atmosphere could be causing warming. By 1930 evidence was accumulating that warming was occurring and had been since 1865, and by 1950 Callander suggested a rise of 0.09F between 1890 and 1930. By 1960 Keeling was reporting significant CO2 increases, and in 1965 Lorenz suggested the climate could be subject to sudden shifts because of CO2 loading/warming. The IPCC has noted evidence suggesting a rise in temperatures can be seen starting from about the 1850's, certainly no later than the 1890's.
No, this is a gross misrepresentation. Do you just make this up as you go along?

The IPCC:

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

https://www.ipcc....and.html

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2014
According to the IPCC, AGW didn't start until 1950. Are you now suggesting the IPCC is lying?


Just to keep you happy here's the trend from 1950

http://www.woodfo...14/trend
And here's the trend prior to 1950:

http://www.woodfo...50/trend

Hmm, a hundred years of warming. I wonder if that might mean warming occurs naturally?

Or if you'd like, we can go back to the Holocene charts...

Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2014
ubavontuba muttered as usual imprecisely
When Maggnus offered
..Science on the subject dates to the 1800's. Tyndall suggested that greenhouse gases could affect the Earth's climate as early as 1856 and Arrhenius suggested in 1896 that human's adding of CO2 to the atmosphere could be causing warming. By 1930 evidence was accumulating that warming was occurring and had been since 1865, and by 1950 Callander suggested a rise of 0.09F between 1890 and 1930. By 1960 Keeling was reporting significant CO2 increases, and in 1965 Lorenz suggested the climate could be subject to sudden shifts because of CO2 loading/warming. The IPCC has noted evidence suggesting a rise in temperatures can be seen starting from about the 1850's, certainly no later than the 1890's.
No, this is a gross misrepresentation.


It is true ubavontuba the subject has been studied for a long time, the physics is Known...!

Which specific part(s) are "misrepresentations" as you claim ubavontuba ?
SteveS
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
Just to keep you happy here's the trend from 1950

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Uba...And here's the trend prior to 1950:

http://www.woodfo...50/trend


Wow! Have you noticed that if you put both these trends together it look just like a hockey stick

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
First Uba says:
According to the IPCC, AGW didn't start until 1950. Are you now suggesting the IPCC is lying?
Then when I show him the science the IPCC actually uses, he says this:
No, this is a gross misrepresentation. Do you just make this up as you go along?

The IPCC:

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
So because the IPCC states that most of the warming since the mid 20th century is the result of human caused CO2 loading of the atmosphere, that means they can't have considered the science of the past 150 years which lead to the theory of human caused global warming?

Do you take even a moment to consider what you say before posting? A rhetorical question.

More news stories

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Patent talk: Google sharpens contact lens vision

(Phys.org) —A report from Patent Bolt brings us one step closer to what Google may have in mind in developing smart contact lenses. According to the discussion Google is interested in the concept of contact ...

Tech giants look to skies to spread Internet

The shortest path to the Internet for some remote corners of the world may be through the skies. That is the message from US tech giants seeking to spread the online gospel to hard-to-reach regions.

Wireless industry makes anti-theft commitment

A trade group for wireless providers said Tuesday that the biggest mobile device manufacturers and carriers will soon put anti-theft tools on the gadgets to try to deter rampant smartphone theft.