Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses, NASA study reports

NASA study: Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses
A new NASA study says that Antarctica is overall accumulating ice. Still, areas of the continent, like the Antarctic Peninsula photographed above, have increased their mass loss in the last decades. Credit: NASA's Operation IceBridge

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

"We're essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica," said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. "Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica - there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas." Zwally added that his team "measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas."

Scientists calculate how much the ice sheet is growing or shrinking from the changes in surface height that are measured by the satellite altimeters. In locations where the amount of new snowfall accumulating on an ice sheet is not equal to the ice flow downward and outward to the ocean, the surface height changes and the ice-sheet mass grows or shrinks.

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica's growth to reverse, according to Zwally. "If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they've been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years—I don't think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses."

NASA study: Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses
Map showing the rates of mass changes from ICESat 2003-2008 over Antarctica. Sums are for all of Antarctica: East Antarctica (EA, 2-17); interior West Antarctica (WA2, 1, 18, 19, and 23); coastal West Antarctica (WA1, 20-21); and the Antarctic Peninsula (24-27). A gigaton (Gt) corresponds to a billion metric tons, or 1.1 billion U.S. tons. Credit: Jay Zwally/ Journal of Glaciology

The study analyzed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA's Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008.

Zwally said that while other scientists have assumed that the gains in elevation seen in East Antarctica are due to recent increases in snow accumulation, his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods. They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years, derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time.

"At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet," Zwally said.

The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice - enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global .

Zwally's team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.

"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," Zwally said. "But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."

"The new study highlights the difficulties of measuring the small changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica," said Ben Smith, a glaciologist with the University of Washington in Seattle who was not involved in Zwally's study.

"Doing altimetry accurately for very large areas is extraordinarily difficult, and there are measurements of that need to be done independently to understand what's happening in these places," Smith said.

To help accurately measure changes in Antarctica, NASA is developing the successor to the ICESat mission, ICESat-2, which is scheduled to launch in 2018. "ICESat-2 will measure changes in the within the thickness of a No. 2 pencil," said Tom Neumann, a glaciologist at Goddard and deputy project scientist for ICESat-2. "It will contribute to solving the problem of Antarctica's mass balance by providing a long-term record of elevation changes."


Explore further

Image: Glaciers and mountains in West Antarctica

Journal information: Journal of Glaciology

Citation: Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses, NASA study reports (2015, October 31) retrieved 17 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
17763 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 31, 2015
If you worry about sea level rise from melting ice, this report should be good news. But it seems that good news about climate change has to be down played. There has to be a caveat to any published work to negate the positive.

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica's growth to reverse, according to Zwally.


"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," Zwally said. "But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."

Oct 31, 2015
Everything is not a conspiracy - despite your need to make it so.


I did not say there was a conspiracy involved. I said that it seems that good news about climate change has to be down played. The fact that people studying climate change see everything in the worst light is not a conspiracy. It is sad that people generally find what they want to find and when they don't find what they want to find, they rationalize the results toward what they want to find.

Human nature can be a bitch.

Oct 31, 2015
.. that rise was coming from Antarctica - but now we know it is not - then we have to look elsewhere for the source.


We?

Actually, YOU need to suggest other sources.

You can't win with a losing hand.

Oct 31, 2015
greenonions

"but now we know it is not - then we have to look elsewhere for the source."

Could you suggest a different source of water to make sea levels rise, as I am at a loss to think of one.

Perhaps the only explanation is the simple one, that sea levels aren't rising.

Oct 31, 2015
http://iceagenow....in-1910/

It seems that even NASA has a limit to their lies. Eventually the data wins and all the fudging in the world cannot hide the truth.

Oct 31, 2015
Cognitive Dissonance overwhelming you greenonions?

Any excuse?

Oct 31, 2015
greenonions,
I did not say there was a conspiracy involved


I certainly see that implication in this statement " it seems that good news about climate change has to be down played. There has to be a caveat to any published work to negate the positive."


I can't help it that you see conspiracy everywhere. Just don't try to blame me for your insecurities.

Oct 31, 2015
OK, so long story short is that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is gaining and not losing. Therefore, the question is where is the 'dramatically rising sea levels' getting all those trillions and trillions of tons of water from? or is the earth bulging under the seas therefor raising the sea levels?

Oct 31, 2015
OK, so long story short is that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is gaining and not losing. Therefore, the question is where is the 'dramatically rising sea levels' getting all those trillions and trillions of tons of water from? or is the earth bulging under the seas therefor raising the sea levels?


It seems to me much of the supposed "rise" that we've been experiencing has been based more on calculations than actual measurements. They calculate the volume of ice/water lost based on satellite observations and spread it over the surface area of the ocean. There's another study posted today about how the measured Greenland Ice sheet albedo decrease (and an assumed increase in melting) was likely caused by degrading satellite sensors. These two studies highlight the importance of paying attention to political paradigms and how they influence people and thus science.

Oct 31, 2015
Also note - this article does not say that Antarctica is "gaining" - just that the loss from the melting ice sheets - is being offset by snow accumulation.


It says it's gaining mass... meaning more water is landing on Antarctica as frozen precipitation than is melting into the ocean.


Oct 31, 2015
You can double the temps at the poles and have increasing ice if precipitation increases nominally.

Its not like they aren't cold dessert climates

Oct 31, 2015
jeffensley

It says it's gaining mass


I was wrong - I was going off this statement "an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers." But the overall message is that Antarctica is currently gaining ice. Apologies.


No apology necessary though I appreciate your post. It's important to note this is one study. My take from this (and the attitude I try to maintain in general) is that we have a long ways to go. We're trying very hard to understand things that are bigger than the capacity of our brains to process. I just hate us politicizing and overreacting to things we don't have a good grasp on yet.

Oct 31, 2015
"dogbert - these researchers are simply explaining the complexity of the climate system."

Oh wait, I thought that the "science was settled", that the models were correct when predicting that the poles were melting and the floods were imminent!

Oct 31, 2015
http://iceagenow.info/2015/10/co2-levels-today-the-same-as-in-1910/

It seems that even NASA has a limit to their lies. Eventually the data wins and all the fudging in the world cannot hide the truth.

NASA lies? Isn't this a report FROM NASA?

Oct 31, 2015
Oh, the poor AGW Cult, the only place in Antarctica they can find their beloved GloBULL warming is where there is extensive geothermal activity.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

One more nail, in the AGW Cult's CO2 filled coffin of LIES.

Oct 31, 2015
greenonions,
Here is what you said "good news about climate change has to be down played".


I did say that. I did not claim that there was a conspiracy among scientists.

Yes - your comment is conspiratorial.


So, you are very good at lying by misinterpreting.

Misinterpreting is not a good trait. Lying is worse.

It is unfortunate that you spend your time denigrating others instead of commenting on the article.

Oct 31, 2015
Oh, the poor AGW Cult, the only place in Antarctica they can find their beloved GloBULL warming is where there is extensive geothermal activity.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

One more nail, in the AGW Cult's CO2 filled coffin of LIES.


IPCC is a Political movement and as such bend the truth by definition.
I liked it the most when a satellite launch to (possibly) confirm their political ideology nearly hit them when it crashed down near the Antarctic.
How cynical can it get.

Oct 31, 2015
What seems most likely is that these findings will be --if not refuted outright-- at least re-focused, in terms of implication.

PAST accumulation of snow in bygone millennia has exactly zero to to with the current mass balance of the AIS. What we are presently concerned with is the current, ongoing and accelerating loss of ice/shedding of water vs annual snowfall accumulation over the interior. And, --as we all know-- if the net of annual snowfall vs melt is positive, then there is no AIS contribution to sea level increase --but if it is negative, then, of course, there is a contribution to that increase.

Zwally is directly contradicting previous findings --many of which are based upon the same data. How, then, the totally different conclusion? And what of the discovery of the increase in interior ablation of the ice sheet due to increased wind scouring?

One suspects that Zwally will soon face the unenviable task of supporting his conclusions.

Oct 31, 2015
PAST accumulation of snow in bygone millennia....

Whatcha talkin bout Willis!!

Zwally's team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.

Oct 31, 2015
UH OH - shadow corpos now appear to be bankrolling NASA research!

Oct 31, 2015
Hi dogbert. :)

When one thinks it through calmly, without 'politics etc', one will see there's NO 'good' news to 'downplay'. The main factor which increases atmospheric moisture./precipitation on Antarctica is increased anthropogenic global/regional warming. That warming is NOT 'good news'. Also the only reason TRANSIENT increased snow deposition inland is made possible at present is increased instability in polar vortex which usually limits amount of moisture laden atmosphere from lower latitudes that makes it across polar vortex 'walls'. Once the 'new' climate/circulation' patterns caused by 'new' global/regional temperature profiles establish/stabilize once more, moisture laden wind ingress will slow again.

Ie, global/regional warming is the PERSISTENT problem; all transient factors/hiatuses are overwhelmed longterm; as more warming, then more coastal/peninsula melt; less 'braking' for transiently increased inland glaciers will again increase discharge rate/ sea level.

Oct 31, 2015
warming is NOT 'good news'


"At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet," Zwally said.

Yep, the end of the Ice Age is bad news.

Oct 31, 2015
Here's a short video of Jay Zwally talking about the Arctic ice (in case anyone was interested).

He did say, "But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."

http://www.thetip...y-zally/

Oct 31, 2015
Yep, and the truly bad news is that the IPCC chose to fabricate their "science" just to propagate their dogma, instead of seeking the truth. This is just the tip of the iceberg of IPCC lies.

Oct 31, 2015
This is just the tip of the iceberg of IPCC lies.


You may be an insult to the entire Hindu faith, and people in general, but that was actually quite funny.

Oct 31, 2015
PAST accumulation of snow in bygone millennia....

Whatcha talkin bout Willis!!


Why, this right here, Auntie Griselda:

"At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet," Zwally said.


Which has exactly zero to do with the here and now, as I pointed out. So why is it even mentioned in the context of present conditions?

That would be like saying that your having soiled 10,000 diapers in the past has anything to do with the load residing in the one you are wearing right now...

Maybe if you offer to share your meds with him, Professor Zwally will consent to changing your diaper and give Nursie a well-deserved rest.


Nov 01, 2015
That would be like saying that your having soiled 10,000 diapers in the past has anything to do with the load residing in the one you are wearing right now.

Especially since that load has more intelligence than you...ie. the one yuh momma crapped out and forgot to flush and is too dumb to realize he was explaining the process by which the ice has been increasing.

Nov 01, 2015
Listen to Dyson, boys: Anthropomorphic climate change is a fraud perpetuated by left wing politicians, their lackey court mages (scientists) and young researchers desperate to publish.


Nov 01, 2015
Hi Shootist. :)
Listen to Dyson, boys: Anthropomorphic climate change is a fraud ...
Regarding Freeman Dyson's ACTUAL stance on climate:

https://en.wikipe..._warming

Excerpt from wiki:
Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."[55] However, he believes that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends:
Pity your usual misleading spamming of 'Dyson quotes' does not include the above excerpt/quote. See? Dyson's quibble is with climate 'modeling' reliability only, and NOT with anthropogenic climate change fact/causes per se. So, Shootist; you misrepresent and disrespect Dyson badly. :)

Nov 01, 2015
Hey gang,
let's drop the whole charade of science. Close down NASA. Imagine the money we could save for the Pentagon to buy shit with to blow up wedding parties! That would be ever so much fun, wouldn't it you clever psychopaths?

Did you think that the MIC was just going to leave the money just lying there?
Or did you think, perhaps deepdown, that it was going to end up in your wallet so that you could buy more beer?
Not on your life. It is a rich club and you are not in it.

Nov 01, 2015
No apology necessary though I appreciate your post. It's important to note this is one study. My take from this (and the attitude I try to maintain in general) is that we have a long ways to go. We're trying very hard to understand things that are bigger than the capacity of our brains to process. I just hate us politicizing and overreacting to things we don't have a good grasp on yet.


Its pretty clear cut:

You can double the temps at the poles and have increasing ice if precipitation increases nominally.

Its not like they aren't cold dessert climates. The Ice you see there is usually not from "annual" precipitation to a large extent.

Its from decades and centuries.


Nov 01, 2015
Just a few short months ago 97% of climate scientists agreed that the poles were melting just as all the models predicted. As for as worrying about the 2.7 MM/year sea level rise goes, that is all part of a natural cycle and the seas have risen about 120 meters since the last ice age. All of this is much ado about nothing.

Nov 01, 2015
Do these measurements take into account - (a) that the loss of ice is compacted, but the gain is loose snowfall, and (b) variations in the height of the land (due to continental rise or fall)?

Nov 01, 2015
greenonions,
piss off with your childishness - calling others liars.


When you lie about me, I will point out to others that you are a liar.

Your childishness is that you expect to lie and get away with it.

Nov 01, 2015
greenonions,
Here is what you said "good news about climate change has to be down played".


I did say that. I did not claim that there was a conspiracy among scientists.

Yes - your comment is conspiratorial.


So, you are very good at lying by misinterpreting.

Misinterpreting is not a good trait. Lying is worse.

It is unfortunate that you spend your time denigrating others instead of commenting on the article.

Your comment does suggest a conspiracy.
It may be unintended or perhaps some dark secret is lurking behind your alias.
I'm not suggesting a conspiracy though.

Nov 01, 2015
So, here's news that the sky ain't falling and what's the reaction from the AGW Cult's flock of ignoramuses, disbelief and anger; true to the Chicken Littles they are.

Nov 01, 2015
greenonions,
If I were discussing a conspiracy, I would use the word conspiracy. When I say I was not talking about a conspiracy, you choose to continue to say I am talking about a conspiracy.

People who have spent their life promoting a concept are often unable to stop even in the face of new evidence. When I say that they have to add a caveat to their published work when the published work is opposed to their position, I am not proposing a conspiracy. I am commenting on human nature.

Why do you continue to say I said something which I plainly did not say? What do you gain by denigrating me?

Nov 01, 2015
Instead of Paris, could we please hold the climate talks in Antarctica?

Nov 01, 2015
Dogbert
So, you are very good at lying by misinterpreting.


Piss off with your childishness - I have not lied anywhere. I interpret your comment "good news about climate change has to be down played" as conspiratorial. I can defend that interpretation.


You need to apologize to dogbert for assigning claims to him that he did not make.

Nov 01, 2015
No mention of volcanic in West Antarctica contributing to ice decreases.
Maybe sea level rises are caused by a number of geological processes. Sediment runoff from human activity may increase coastal effects, but I don't know if any research is funded to measure such a thing.

Nov 01, 2015
greenonions,
piss off with your childishness - calling others liars.


When you lie about me, I will point out to others that you are a liar.

Your childishness is that you expect to lie and get away with it.

Onions is a liar and a fraud with that same rabid response, every time he's caught.
I'm still waiting for him to explain, how a warming ocean absorbs more CO2.

Nov 01, 2015
So, here's news that the sky ain't falling and what's the reaction from the AGW Cult's flock of ignoramuses, disbelief and anger; true to the Chicken Littles they are.


This article is exactly the reason why more study is needed instead of implementing draconian energy policies on the basis of incomplete science.

Nov 01, 2015
"Children in Antarctica just aren't going to know what snow is."

Nov 01, 2015
Re: "It seems to me that scientists study what is - and try to report on their findings - letting the chips fall where they may. Then there is always the conspiracy mongers (read - anti science crowd) - ready to attack the information that is being studied."

For the record, the act of questioning science is not the same as claiming that scientists conspire to deceive the public. These are two -- OBVIOUSLY -- very different things. And anybody who does not understand this should take some time to learn about North American physics' largest freedom-of-expression case ...

https://plus.goog...rj2f3zKs

Nov 01, 2015
Re: "Just a few short months ago 97% of climate scientists agreed that the poles were melting just as all the models predicted."

This is well stated.

Nov 01, 2015
Hi dogbert. :)

Methinks thou protests too much re greenonions perfectly defendable interpretation of your comment...
But it seems that good news about climate change has to be down played. There has to be a caveat to any published work to negate the positive.


...which unambiguously implied some sort of campaign/conspiracy covering "any published work" on climate change scientific observations/reports.

Perhaps, to clear the air, you, instead of attacking greenonions' perfectly plausible interpretation of what you said, might want to exp-lain exactly what you meant/implied by such a general accusation against "any" scientific climate change publications. It would forestall further misunderstanding-based exchanges between you, and would be appreciated by all readers here, including especially myself, who is more interested in the science than the 'personal' argy-bargy.

Thanks dogbert, greenonions, everyone, for your polite and thoughtful discourse contributions. :)

Nov 01, 2015
greenonions,
When I say I was not talking about a conspiracy, you choose to continue to say I am talking about a conspiracy.


(S)He has a history of doing that. It's not the facts that matter, it's the severity of the accusation, that matters to greenonions. S(he) feels entitled to decide what you mean.

Nov 01, 2015
It is quiet reasonable to interpret dogbert's comments the way I have.

It may be reasonable to misapprehend his post,.. but once he corrects that misapprehension,... it is no longer reasonable to continue your false narrative.

Nov 01, 2015
Anti said:
I'm still waiting for him to explain, how a warming ocean absorbs more CO2.


This shows how disingenuous Anti is. I have, personally, explained this at length twice. I know others have also. It has to do with the partial pressure of CO2 increasing faster than temperature. He has no comprehension of the gas laws which means he will never be able to understand the answer. Don't waste your time with him. When I explained it, at length, last time, he just headed to another thread and never replied.

Anti, please explain why you think that the rate of rise of partial pressure is less important than the rate of rise of temperature? I predict you will just scream: "lies, lies, lies, conspiracy!" instead of actually trying to address the technical details.

Nov 01, 2015
RealityCheck,
Perhaps, to clear the air, you, instead of attacking greenonions' perfectly plausible interpretation of what you said, might want to exp-lain exactly what you meant/implied by such a general accusation against "any" scientific climate change publications.


1) I did not attack greenonions. I pointed out that he was a liar when he continued to state that I was talking about a conspiracy when I repeatedly told him I was not.

2) I did tell provide him with an explanation, though he did not deserve one and ignored it. I will quote what I told him:

People who have spent their life promoting a concept are often unable to stop even in the face of new evidence. When I say that they have to add a caveat to their published work when the published work is opposed to their position, I am not proposing a conspiracy. I am commenting on human nature.



Nov 01, 2015
greenonions,
your explanation came after you had called me a liar. I am not a liar - and I think appropriately respond to said insult - by telling you to piss off.


No. I repeatedly told you I was not talking about a conspiracy. After you continued to to say I was talking about a conspiracy, despite my protestations that I was not, I did point out that you were lying about what I said.

You are still doing it. So if you don't want to be called a liar, stop doing it.

Nov 01, 2015
That would be like saying that your having soiled 10,000 diapers in the past has anything to do with the load residing in the one you are wearing right now.

Especially since that load has more intelligence than you...ie. the one yuh momma crapped out and forgot to flush and is too dumb to realize he was explaining the process by which the ice has been increasing.


Hmm....apparently it is no longer possible to change your diaper frequently enough to prevent the stuff being excreted from your slack-lipped mouth.

Much like the claimed accumulation of snow in E Antarctica outstripping the ice loss elsewhere.

Only difference being that this supposed gain in Antarctic ice mass is yet to be definitively proved.


Nov 01, 2015
Liberal's across the country are slashing their wrists. In 2014 the polar ice caps gained 155,000 square miles. In 2015 they continued gains. Japan even changed where it was measuring it s "global" temperature because it showed a decrease. Asian glaciers were growing for 5 years in a row. The left is in a panic. Call AL Gore immediately and find out what to say.

Nov 02, 2015
greenonions,
So I again say - if you don't want to piss people off - don't insult them. If you choose to insult them - don't be surprised when they come back at you.


You insulted me repeatedly when you persisted in saying I was presenting a conspiracy when I was not and when I repeatedly informed you I was not doing that. Your persistence in continuing that presentation was a lie.

You did not "come back at me" for insulting you. You lied about what I was saying and took offense when I pointed out your lie.

It is obvious you will not stop. It is not appropriate to use this site for attacks on personalities, but go ahead. You will anyway.


Nov 02, 2015
The United Nations is setting up an 'international court' to prosecute for 'climate justice', as a component of a proposed climate treaty. Their lack of political inclusiveness and emotional over-reaching is what prevents international agreement for action.

Are they going to prosecute and arrest Nature? Putin says 'climate change' is a fraud. Will they start with him?

They can't stop ISIS from slaughtering hundreds of people and causing the greatest human migration in modern times,..... but these same incompetent morons think they can control the global climate?! A fraud at its premise.

But it's even worse than this. Bill Gates recently stated that socialism is the only way to defeat climate change, (despite that his billions invested into climate change came from capitalism). So not only do 'we' have to control the climate, but change the form of governments that operates counter to human nature?

.....

Nov 02, 2015
..... The true underlying agenda is no more than a leftest-political hi-jacking of seeking global economic justice,.... all built upon a foundation of anti-capitalism, emotional immaturity and stupidity wrt reality.

"Are they going to prosecute and arrest Nature" - stated because sometimes Nature acts counter to the AGW narrative,.... but yet 'they' actively "fix" data, rather than change their narrative,... i.e. the recent "studies" defuncting the 18 year pause (despite that the IPCC had acknowledged it previously).

[for greenonions and troll-raters generally - this does not mean that I'm saying AGW is invented for the above purpose, as I don't believe that,.... rather only that the above referenced mentality is effectively ensuring opposition, as opposed to finding Rational solutions within Existing economic realities]

Nov 02, 2015
It is effectively way too much to accept,... that AGW is an imminent threat to humanity; alarmist claims of knowledge of future that border on fraud,..... that one could trust an international governing entity; that has never proven itself capable even in relatively simple cases,.... that capitalism should be replaced or regulated via socialistic principals; despite the economic reality of capitalism being purely a natural consequence of human instinct AND despite that capitalism has proven itself as the greatest force for economic progress and the human condition, in recorded history.

The Solution will be, despite the fraud, resonable measures within present economic system, natural migration and adaptation.

EDIT: "...but change the form of governments [to] that [which] operates counter to human nature".


Nov 02, 2015
@greenonions,.... it's not the first time that you have doubled the length of a thread by your accusation-style argument of INSISTING that a poster meant what you had originally misapprehended. When that insistence extends beyond that posters efforts to correct that misapprehension, you enter into dishonesty.

Indeed, you seem to be precisely the type of neophyte that is naïvely ripe for accepting and working to promote the AGW-Alarmism narrative, even to the extent of allowing the government to come into your home to rape your dog.

Nov 02, 2015
The political far left can't sell their idealology on its own intrinsic merit,... primarily because it operates counter to human nature and the evidence for the positive effect on humanity of their anti-thesis, capitalism in an areana of libert, is orders of magnitude greater than what the deniers of AGW have to deny , ....so they hide it as a trogon-horse within a what otherwise is a legitimate issue.


Nov 02, 2015
@greenonions

You can't win with a losing hand.

Maybe bluff but you've been called out.

Fold.


Nov 02, 2015
This is as entertaining as reading the STAR magazine in line at the grocery store, so many funny opinions and pseudo experts, I'm waiting for the next Headline, Elvis and Aliens debunk Darwin, apes evolved from lower primate homo sapiens.

Nov 02, 2015
Indeed, you seem to be precisely the type of neophyte that is naïvely ripe for accepting and working to promote the AGW-Alarmism narrative, even to the extent of allowing the government to come into your home to rape your dog.


I will happily ignore your nonsense from this point on ...


Does this mean the troll rating will stop? They were the only means of me knowing you were voluntarily enjoying such gems.


Nov 02, 2015
But it seems that good news about climate change has to be down played.


This is actually very bad news for climate change, while it does mean that Antarctica isn't melting as we thought it did, but rather keep our water out of oceans, this is only temporary and can only buy us some time, 20 to 30 years if they are right. Hence, as soon as that cap is passed, and Antarctica starts to contribute to sea level rise, there come the problems. Sea level is rising as of right now, and while we thought this was due to Antarctica, if it actually ISN'T, we underestimated sea level rises on 50-100 years scale. If their numbers are right, instead of 0,27mm/year, when Antarctica nets a 0 gain, this will jump up to 0,50mm/year and keep increasing. And we didn't talk about Groenland's huge interior ice mass that could very well slip into the Atlantic. Guess it's time to change our lifestyles and energy sources.

Nov 02, 2015
This is actually very bad news for climate change, while it does mean that Antarctica isn't melting as we thought it did, but rather keep our water out of oceans, this is only temporary and can only buy us some time, 20 to 30 years if they are right.


I'm shocked someone would take that stance ;) Also, assigning brief observations a linear trend borders on the ludicrous. It will be what it will be and it will likely have nothing to do with our projections.

Nov 02, 2015
"if", "we thought", "could very well", "underestimated", two examples of circular reasoning.
Typical GW defense mechanisms at play here.


I used those terms because I didn't read thru the actual paper and didn't check their data for myself. Also because it is somewhat contreversial to, out of the bloom, say Antarctica is currently stocking water.

But since you seem to be a "climato-skeptic" from what I read in your other comments, I guess you never actually read a climate peer-reviewed paper and therefore, debating with you is pointless. GW is not a "theory" at this point, the Earth IS warming, data does not lie. The questions that remain are what will be its side-effects (specifically), what did we not foresee, can we stop it, etc.

Now, I guess one of your arguments is that the Earth has already been warmer and that is absolutely true. The difference is, when those warm periods happened, the warming was very, very slow, gradual. -- continued below --

Nov 02, 2015
-- continued -- Right now, it is a phenomenal warming rate. 2 to 5 degrees, depending on the study and if the changes we may bring to our energy dependencies, in under 100/150 years is unprecedented.
The point here isn't about life on Earth, it is a very, very anthropocentric problem. Life doesn't care. We could nuke the whole Earth, eradicate 99% of the species, and in a million years, Earth would look like it did today but with new species. The concern here is about our survival. Sustaining ourselves in a heated-up and debalanced Earth would be a harsh challenge, and I am not (tho I am now) mentioning side-effects like sea level rise (which will flood most of big cities), increased climatic disasters (hurricanes per se), unpredictable climate (hence possibly terrible crops, which is currently happening), etc.

Nov 02, 2015
-- continued -- Right now, it is a phenomenal warming rate. 2 to 5 degrees, depending on the study and if the changes we may bring to our energy dependencies, in under 100/150 years is unprecedented.
The point here isn't about life on Earth, it is a very, very anthropocentric problem. Life doesn't care. We could nuke the whole Earth, eradicate 99% of the species, and in a million years, Earth would look like it did today but with new species. The concern here is about our survival. Sustaining ourselves in a heated-up and debalanced Earth would be a harsh challenge, and I am not (tho I am now) mentioning side-effects like sea level rise (which will flood most of big cities), increased climatic disasters (hurricanes per se), unpredictable climate (hence possibly terrible crops, which is currently happening), etc.

Good post Bulbuzor

Nov 02, 2015
Rising sea level bad, not rising sea level good


This depends on the point of view you take.

From a planetary/geological point of view, Earth and even flora/fauna doesn't care, it's neither good, neither bad.

From an anthropic point of view, it is very, very bad. Do you care about human lives and health? If you do, you should care about sea level rise. We often talk about USA's coasts, yeah, people will have to move inland, it will cause quite an economic crisis, but it the end, the US has a lot of space far from the coast where people can go. Now, think about the Maldives, the Philippines, the islands of Thailand and many, many other Asian islands. Most of those islands are extremely low in altitudes and sea level rises, even one that seems negligible, will make those islands disappear. Where will these guys go? How will they move out? Who will move them out? Because after all, moving out houndreds of thousands of people is a very expensive and -- continued below --

Nov 02, 2015
-- continued --
difficult task, while many of these countries are limited in material and money.

If you think the current refugee crisis is problematic, just wait for sea level rise, you won't be disappointed.

Nov 02, 2015
This is actually very bad news for climate change, while it does mean that Antarctica isn't melting as we thought it did, but rather keep our water out of oceans, this is only temporary and can only buy us some time, 20 to 30 years if they are right.


I'm shocked someone would take that stance ;) Also, assigning brief observations a linear trend borders on the ludicrous. It will be what it will be and it will likely have nothing to do with our projections.


If you really believe that this article is based on a plain linear model, I invite you to read the 4th section of this article, freely available at: http://dx.doi.org...oG15J071

And while our predictions are not perfect and they have error margins, we are getting pretty darn good at it.

Nov 02, 2015
I note that this paper is for data up to 2008. So the last 6 years not included.
Also, I'd suggest that the GRACE data is more likely to be correct as it accounts for (any) ground movement and compaction of snow, due it measuring gravitic changes.
See this paper...

http://www.prince...015a.pdf

Nov 02, 2015
I note that this paper is for data up to 2008. So the last 6 years not included.
Also, I'd suggest that the GRACE data is more likely to be correct as it accounts for (any) ground movement and compaction of snow, due it measuring gravitic changes.
See this paper...

http://www.prince...015a.pdf


You are making a good point there, I wonder if their model (based on elevation) takes compaction into account.

Nov 02, 2015
I note that this paper is for data up to 2008. So the last 6 years not included.
Also, I'd suggest that the GRACE data is more likely to be correct as it accounts for (any) ground movement and compaction of snow, due it measuring gravitic changes.
See this paper...

http://www.prince...015a.pdf


You are making a good point there, I wonder if their model (based on elevation) takes compaction into account.


I glanced at the article (Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses), it seems like they considered compaction in their model if you search the paper for "compaction", tho I do not understand much of the math going on in the paper, if you are more knowledgeable then I in glaciology, you could perhaps enlight us on this regard.

Nov 02, 2015
I note that this paper is for data up to 2008. So the last 6 years not included.
Also, I'd suggest that the GRACE data is more likely to be correct as it accounts for (any) ground movement and compaction of snow, due it measuring gravitic changes.
See this paper...

http://www.prince...015a.pdf

Oh, runrig the "optimist" forever holding out for the grey lining.
Tell me runrig, in that GRACE study, how did they account for the variation in the gravity of the land mass under all the ice?

Nov 02, 2015
I note that this paper is for data up to 2008. So the last 6 years not included.
Also, I'd suggest that the GRACE data is more likely to be correct as it accounts for (any) ground movement and compaction of snow, due it measuring gravitic changes.
See this paper...

http://www.prince...015a.pdf

Oh, runrig the "optimist" forever holding out for the grey lining.
Tell me runrig, in that GRACE study, how did they account for the variation in the gravity of the land mass under all the ice?


Read the methodology he gave the paper's link. For the record tho, the paper of this phys's post seems more complete and sustained to my amateur's eyes

Nov 02, 2015
I note that this paper is for data up to 2008. So the last 6 years not included.
Also, I'd suggest that the GRACE data is more likely to be correct as it accounts for (any) ground movement and compaction of snow, due it measuring gravitic changes.
See this paper...

http://www.prince...015a.pdf

Oh, runrig the "optimist" forever holding out for the grey lining.


Yeah I'm not sure if some of these folks are even aware that they are pulling for the worst-case scenario.... so much so that when information comes along that doesn't support the notion that climate change = imminent catastrophe, they are actually disappointed and become skeptical of the data. Questioning science? What's that? It's truly bizarre.

Nov 02, 2015
Supported*

Nov 02, 2015
.. that rise was coming from Antarctica - but now we know it is not - then we have to look elsewhere for the source.


We?

Actually, YOU need to suggest other sources.

You can't win with a losing hand.

Antarctica is gaining ice but the Arctic is losing ice at a faster pace than Antarctica is gaining it. I don't know why that person said we have to look for another source since we are already very well aware of that source.

Nov 02, 2015
@jeffensley

Yeah I'm not sure if some of these folks are even aware that they are pulling for the worst-case scenario.... so much so that when information comes along that doesn't support the notion that climate change = imminent catastrophe, they are actually disappointed and become skeptical of the data. Questioning science? What's that? It's truly bizarre.


Funny thing is, this article does support climate change and you indirectly approved it by saying what you just did; even tho you personally refuse to "believe" in CC. If you read carefully, you will see that these authors claim that snow gain rate is decreasing in Antarctica and soon, the losses will catch up with the gain. Nothing in here is inconsistent with global warming.

Now let's see if you will be consistent in your belief and keep cherishing this paper once you realize it supports global warming.

Nov 02, 2015
NASA has already stated that the Arctic is losing ice faster then Antarctica is gaining it.

"There's been an overall increase in the sea ice cover in the Antarctic, which is the opposite of what is happening in the Arctic," said lead author Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "However, this growth rate is not nearly as large as the decrease in the Arctic."

Nov 02, 2015
.. that rise was coming from Antarctica - but now we know it is not - then we have to look elsewhere for the source.


We?

Actually, YOU need to suggest other sources.

You can't win with a losing hand.

Antarctica is gaining ice but the Arctic is losing ice at a faster pace than Antarctica is gaining it. I don't know why that person said we have to look for another source since we are already very well aware of that source.


Just out of curiosity, where is there a melting rate estimate for the land-locked arctic ice?

Nov 02, 2015
Now let's see if you will be consistent in your belief and keep cherishing this paper once you realize it supports global warming.


So a study suggests the entire time we've been in a panic about the sea level rise due to Antarctic ice melting, it's actually been gaining ice and your take from it is "Well yeah but it's slowing down" and based on nothing besides a statement by the researchers, assume that this trend will continue? You see what you want to see. I don't refuse to believe in climate change... I simply believe in staying in touch with reality.

Nov 02, 2015
We've known for years that Antarctica has been gaining ice.

We've also known for years that on the opposite side of the earth the Arctic is losing ice far faster than Antarctica is gaining it.

A lot of commenters on here seem to think that Antarctica include both poles.

The climate is changing and as a result one side of the earth is gaining ice and the other side is quickly losing it.

A quick search and you can find articles by NASA from 2012 that talk about Antarctica gaining ice and the Arctic losing ice.

Nov 02, 2015
We've known for years that Antarctica has been gaining ice.


Well apparently the IPCC missed the boat on this really old news too since their 2013 report stated Antarctica was losing land ice faster than it was gaining it according to the above article.

Nov 02, 2015
Then explain this without referring to global warming or increase in atmospheric CO2: http://climate.na...rces/28/

The current article questions the source of the on-going sea level rise (0,27mm/year), not GW. It states clearly that snow fall in Antarctica is a result of the last Ice Age ending, causing the air to carry more moisture, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet. It states clearly that this snow gain in Antarctica is slowing down. It states clearly that current snow loss in coastal Antarctica is estimated at 65 Gt/year and will outgrow gain in 20 to 30 years. Find a single, specific sentence in this paper that refutes global warming.

Your argument is biased by how selective you are in the articles you "agree" or "disagree" with and your opinion, which is irrelevant when talking data. If you believe data supports the no-global warming belief, link in here a selection of credible, peer-reviewed papers with a lot of data.

Nov 02, 2015
Furthermore, debating global warming is useless. If you believe that the scientific method is erroneous and somehow related to a conspiracy theory, there is no point for you to debate on a science website, especially if the article doesn't even talk about global warming directly.

Nov 02, 2015
Tell me runrig, in that GRACE study, how did they account for the variation in the gravity of the land mass under all the ice?


Oh, and just a stab in the dark here ... perhaps by comparing it with previous gravitic maps??


Nov 02, 2015
I note that this paper is for data up to 2008. So the last 6 years not included.
Also, I'd suggest that the GRACE data is more likely to be correct as it accounts for (any) ground movement and compaction of snow, due it measuring gravitic changes.
See this paper...

http://www.prince...015a.pdf

Oh, runrig the "optimist" forever holding out for the grey lining.


Yeah I'm not sure if some of these folks are even aware that they are pulling for the worst-case scenario.... so much so that when information comes along that doesn't support the notion that climate change = imminent catastrophe, they are actually disappointed and become skeptical of the data. Questioning science? What's that? It's truly bizarre.

No just comparing two incompatible studies and also with the fact that measured SL behaviour does not match up. Science doesn't just throw studies away - it needs to find which one is correct.

Nov 02, 2015
.. that rise was coming from Antarctica - but now we know it is not - then we have to look elsewhere for the source.


We?

Actually, YOU need to suggest other sources.

You can't win with a losing hand.

Antarctica is gaining ice but the Arctic is losing ice at a faster pace than Antarctica is gaining it. I don't know why that person said we have to look for another source since we are already very well aware of that source.

The Arctic is sea-ice my friend. It's floating.
Unless you mean Greenland's ice.

Nov 02, 2015
A quick search and you can find articles by NASA from 2012 that talk about Antarctica gaining ice and the Arctic losing ice.


Can you refer some of those, concerning Antarctica's ice gain? Thanks :)

Nov 02, 2015
NASA has already stated that the Arctic is losing ice faster then Antarctica is gaining it.

"There's been an overall increase in the sea ice cover in the Antarctic, which is the opposite of what is happening in the Arctic," said lead author Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "However, this growth rate is not nearly as large as the decrease in the Arctic."

As I said - this article/paper is about the AIS and not sea ice.

Nov 02, 2015
.. that rise was coming from Antarctica - but now we know it is not - then we have to look elsewhere for the source.


We?

Actually, YOU need to suggest other sources.

You can't win with a losing hand.

Antarctica is gaining ice but the Arctic is losing ice at a faster pace than Antarctica is gaining it. I don't know why that person said we have to look for another source since we are already very well aware of that source.


Just out of curiosity, where is there a melting rate estimate for the land-locked arctic ice?

https://www.aber....ce.shtml
http://www.arctic...eet.html

Nov 02, 2015
... I simply believe in staying in touch with reality.


I would suggest you simply stay in touch with those studies that support your world-view - I say this because you seem to be ignoring the obvious inconsistencies with other studies and the fact that it lacks the last 6 years of data.
BTW: Antarctica is massive and at an average height of ~8000ft it's my guess that it will be gaining ice for decades/centuries to come ... it will be a tussle between ablation of grounded sheets along the coast to build up over the interior.... because AGW will increase snowfall. Saturated air at 0C holds more that twice the water than at -10C.
Greenland is the one we need to worry about.

Nov 02, 2015
A quick search and you can find articles by NASA from 2012 that talk about Antarctica gaining ice and the Arctic losing ice.


Can you refer some of those, concerning Antarctica's ice gain? Thanks :)

Article titled "Opposite Behaviors? Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks, Antarctic Grows" Search for it should be first result.

Nov 02, 2015
Then explain this without referring to global warming or increase in atmospheric CO2: http://climate.na...rces/28/


Where did that come from? We were just discussing Antarctic Ice gains and ocean levels. Just because you've been operating from what appears to be a fallacy regarding Antarctic Ice doesn't mean I'm suggesting climate change doesn't exist. I continue to question our methods however (for good reason obviously) as well as how seriously some seem to take projections.


Nov 02, 2015
https://www.aber.ac.uk/greenland/Massbalance.shtml


Does the white GRACE graph show Greenland gaining ice through 2006?

Nov 02, 2015
Antarctica is massive and at an average height of ~8000ft it's my guess that it will be gaining ice for decades/centuries to come ...


1992-2001 : AIS's net gain: 112 Bt/year
2003-2008: AIS's net gain: 82 Bt/year
At this rate I doubt it's a question of centuries. If it stays linear (atm. CO2 won't go from 400ppm to saturation in a few decades), the 20-30 years they stated seem even conservative given there's almost been another decade since their most recent data.

"Opposite Behaviors? Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks, Antarctic Grows"

I can't seem to find a peer-reviewed paper about this, only the post on NASA's website. Tho, that one concerns AIS superficial (square meters) gain, while the current one is about mass gain. I'd say they rather complement each other, and that the current one is indeed "new news" for it's quantifying aspect.

Nov 02, 2015
"The Arctic is sea-ice my friend. It's floating.
Unless you mean Greenland's ice."

Greenland's ice sheet are certainly a source but melting Arctic sea ice causes rising ocean levels because the ice pushes the salt out when it forms. When fresh water ice floating in salt water melts it causes water levels to rise because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater thus floating ice displaces less volume than it contributed once it melted. You can see this for yourself by comparing melting fresh water ice in salt water versus freshwater ice in freshwater.

Combine this with thermal expansion (water expands as it heats up)which has caused almost half of all sea level rise in the past century and tada! sea level rise accounted for.

Nov 02, 2015
Where did that come from?


Here:

So a study suggests the entire time we've been in a panic about the sea level rise due to Antarctic ice melting, it's actually been gaining ice and your take from it is "Well yeah but it's slowing down" and based on nothing besides a statement by the researchers, assume that this trend will continue? You see what you want to see. I don't refuse to believe in climate change... I simply believe in staying in touch with reality.


That sounded quite like it to me, but I may have simply misunderstood your statement. If so, I am sorry about it.

As for questioning methods, while I can only agree that it is important, I do not think it is a valid argument to reject articles that are counter-intuitive, unless, of course, you are an actual glaciologist who understands these maths. If not, I believe that using the method's argument, especially for this kind of complex issue, is subjective and based solely on what one wants to believe.

Nov 02, 2015

The Arctic is sea-ice my friend. It's floating.
Unless you mean Greenland's ice.

Greenland's ice sheet are certainly a source but melting Arctic sea ice causes rising ocean levels because the ice pushes the salt out when it forms. When fresh water ice floating in salt water melts it causes water levels to rise because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater thus floating ice displaces less volume than it contributed once it melted. You can see this for yourself by comparing melting fresh water ice in salt water versus freshwater ice in freshwater.

Combine this with thermal expansion (water expands as it heats up)which has caused almost half of all sea level rise in the past century and tada! sea level rise accounted for.

Nov 02, 2015
"The Arctic is sea-ice my friend. It's floating.
Unless you mean Greenland's ice."

Greenland's ice sheet are certainly a source but melting Arctic sea ice causes rising ocean levels because the ice pushes the salt out when it forms. When fresh water ice floating in salt water melts it causes water levels to rise because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater thus floating ice displaces less volume than it contributed

My apologies - I did not know of this effect.
However I see that it is tiny (~1.6%).
http://www.skepti...ice.html
http://onlinelibr...496/full


Nov 02, 2015

My apologies - I did not know of this effect.
However I see that it is tiny (~1.6%).
http://www.skepti...ice.html


My apologies also; I didn't realize its contribution was so tiny.

It seems however that the Arctic contains quite a lot of land ice; from what I can gather the land ice from the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and Greenland combined with thermal expansion accounts for most of known sea level rise.

"[N]early half of the ice volume currently being lost to the ocean is actually coming from other mountain glaciers and ice caps. Ice loss from a group of islands in northern Canada accounts for much of that volume."

http://earthobser...id=50726

Nov 02, 2015
Hi all. Still very busy so mostly just reading-through PO again today. However, this is very interesting, as it shows how simplistic modeling does not always explain what is happening in the dynamical hydrologic cycling through ice sheets as well as other surface/underground/atmospheric old/new, persistent/transient ' intermediate reservoirs' of the water. Consider some of the factors I have long been pointing out which may affect sea level:

- West Antarctic Ice Sheets are 'grounded' in inland 'basins'; hence there was always melted water 'lakes' beneath ice sheets; these 'lakes may be 'growing/rising' as warmed ice melts more due to pressure at bottom; and it may be this under-ice lake rise which gives the 'higher ice surface readings; so it may be that the 'ice sheet increase is not there, only underwater molten lakes pushing the ice sheets up; such lakes will eventually 'overflow' their 'basin brims' as erosion/meltwater increases and flood into antarctic ocean.

[cont...]

Nov 02, 2015
[...cont]

Re current sea level rise:

- accelerated cycling/draining rates into ocean due to shortened 'dwell time' of water cycling via atmosphere, land, underground and mountain masses which current warming causes...

- melting land-permafrosts round arctic rim, tips of africa, south america etc, plus islands in previously stable cold climates now destabilized by warming;

- mountain ranges previously holding more ice as glaciers, seasonal ice-caps and interior-mass permafrost, now holding less water-ice for less time (eg, some mountain road/rail tunnels in Alps are being already compromised as the ice previously locked up in the rock/fissures now melting and causing landslides/rockfalls inside tunnels and on slopes);

- drought-ridden lands due to warming means less water 'dwell time' on land surfaces/acquifers as it quickly evaporates into atmosphere, drain into rivers/oceans;

- more extreme rain events, more quickly atmos water returned to ocean.

Complicated. :)

Nov 02, 2015
Or, NASA has caught the IPCC lying and exaggerating. Hmmm. $700-trillion potential carbon-tax dollars at stake...why would they lie and exaggerate? LOL.

If you worry about sea level rise from melting ice, this report should be good news. But it seems that good news about climate change has to be down played. There has to be a caveat to any published work to negate the positive.

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica's growth to reverse, according to Zwally.


"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," Zwally said. "But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."


Nov 02, 2015
Would someone please do this math again for me? It's so simple that it's almost scary to me that I must be seeing something odd about these numbers:

Ice Volume in Antarctica: 27 million cubic kilometers
Ice Volume in the Arctic: 12- 28,000 cubic kilometers (seasonal variation)

28000/27000000= 0.00104

What am I seeing here?

When I do the math on a comparative basis of ice loss in the Arctic occurring faster than is being gained in the Antarctic based on the comparative volumes of the two, I almost have say to myself, "So what?"

Nov 02, 2015
Would someone please do this math again for me? It's so simple that it's almost scary to me that I must be seeing something odd about these numbers:

Ice Volume in Antarctica: 27 million cubic kilometers
Ice Volume in the Arctic: 12- 28,000 cubic kilometers (seasonal variation)

28000/27000000= 0.00104

What am I seeing here?

When I do the math on a comparative basis of ice loss in the Arctic occurring faster than is being gained in the Antarctic based on the comparative volumes of the two, I almost have say to myself, "So what?"

That's just the sea ice volume; Greenland alone has 2.85 million cubic kilometers of ice volume. The Alaskan glaciers are shedding 65 billion tons of water every year and Greenland is losing around 140 billion tons of ice per year. The article says that the Antarctic ice sheets showed a net gain of 112 billion which has slowed to 82 billion a year; just Alaska and Greenland alone are shedding far more than Antarctica is gaining.

Nov 03, 2015
debating global warming is useless. If you believe that the scientific method is erroneous ....

The scientific method requires constant debate and skepticism. AGW is actually unique in that it people lose their careers for questioning the speculative parts.

And while our predictions are not perfect and they have error margins, we are getting pretty darn good at it.

Error bars in predictive models are not indicative of that models accuracy, only retrodictively. Furthermore, if the model is constantly dynamic wrt its development, it can never be validated in terms of predictive power,.... only retrodictively. IOW, if one has a data set, it is in principle possible to match that data set to a model, without a full understanding of all the variables or actual scenarios involved. It's way you stated above "depending on the model"


Nov 03, 2015
If you think the current refugee crisis is problematic, just wait for sea level rise, you won't be disappointed.


Sea level rise is not going to happen abruptly at 2:45pm next tuesday, but the refugee crisis did occur abruptly on account of the ISIS savages, .... and the UN failed to even handle that relatively simple threat. So how to control the global climate through global agreement? The sea level rise will cause migration gradually, .... people may not even notice it,... property values will depreciate etc,..

GW is not a "theory" at this point, the Earth IS warming,

All AGW models are theories,... it's better to say they're not a "hypothesis" any longer, but a legitimate theory. Keep in mind that correlation does not imply causation.

...data does not lie.

That would be true had raw data been used,..but much of the data on which AGW is based has been "adjusted" and this indeed introduces potentially arbitrary bias.


Nov 03, 2015
.... I referenced a clear example of this above, where climatologists motivation was to deny that the data (which according to you, "does not lie"), showed a pause in global warming for the prior 18 years,... despite that the IPCC had already acknowledged that fact and despite that AGW does not even make short term predictions. The way the climatologists made their argument was based on 'reinterpreting' (adjusting) buoy raw data based on ship data. It is even common for NOAA to "adjust" data. The land data is not raw but is manipulated in practice.


Nov 03, 2015
And while our predictions are not perfect and they have error margins, we are getting pretty darn good at it.


The AGW industry likes to encourage misapprehension wrt error margins. Even raw data has expected errors. In a model like in AGW, the errors bars are not about that models accuracy with actual reality, but is rather intrinsic to the mechanics of the models itself,..i.e. it's capacity to make predictions is effected by the data uncertainty, the assumptions made, the scenario being modeled, the statistical nature of long term trends, etc. At present its a valid model retrodictively speaking and assuming the data manipulation has not adversely effected long term expectations,.... Again, ask yourself why your-error-margins don't span all the models.

Nov 03, 2015
Ice Volume in Antarctica: 27 million cubic kilometers
Ice Volume in the Arctic: 12- 28,000 cubic kilometers (seasonal variation)

28000/27000000= 0.00104

What am I seeing here?

When I do the math on a comparative basis of ice loss in the Arctic occurring faster than is being gained in the Antarctic based on the comparative volumes of the two, I almost have say to myself, "So what?"

That's just the sea ice volume; Greenland alone has 2.85 million cubic kilometers of ice volume. The Alaskan glaciers are shedding 65 billion tons of water every year and Greenland is losing around 140 billion tons of ice per year. The article says that the Antarctic ice sheets showed a net gain of 112 billion which has slowed to 82 billion a year; just Alaska and Greenland alone are shedding far more than Antarctica is gaining.


60 +140= 200 bt loss + 82 bt gain is net recent loss of 118 bt. Now calculate the new ocean rise which could be measured within 1300 hours of melt.

Nov 03, 2015
@Noumenon

The scientific method requires constant debate and skepticism. AGW is actually unique in that it people lose their careers for questioning the speculative parts.


In Canada, while Harper was reigning for 10 years, lots of scientists lost their jobs for studying GW and CC, how dare they question our bituminous industry so I'd say it's the other way around.
And yes, science requires re-verifications, skepticism, criticism, but to claim that GW is a mere theory is being delusional. CO2 – GW has been proven to be a cause-effect relation, not a mere correlation. CO2 has been proven to be increasing, dramatically, since the industrial revolution. Actually, Earth has already slightly heated since the late 1800's, by a factual 0,8°C. The most optimistic global temperature studies are indicating 2°C by the end of the century, the most pessimistic, 5°C. We have a fairly good understanding already of our climate system on a global scale. --cont.--

Nov 03, 2015
Sea level rise is not going to happen abruptly at 2:45pm

Indeed, it will not be overnight luckily. But the amount of people who will be concerned by this will be astronomical. Plus you add the fact that countries will have to take care of their own coastal "refugees", I doubt it will be a calm and peaceful period, especially looking how today people in Europe and Canada respond to the migrant wave (read: like racist c*nts). But we are in the realm of opinions here and not facts, so what I'm saying is inherently subjective.

much of the data on which AGW is based has been "adjusted"

Indeed, you can make your data "say" one thing or another depending of how you model it, but to me, it sounds rather conspiracist to say that all climatologist are currently tweeking their data to predict GW. If you have something specific in mind on this regard, could you please tell us about it? Until then it is blind skepticism. --cont.--

Nov 03, 2015
showed a pause in global warming for the prior 18 years

If my memory serves me right, this has been disputed my most climatologists.
The AGW industry

Please enlighten me, what exactly is the AGW industry? A few hundreds climatologists conspiring about GW to keep their labs running? I know of a good AGW-related industry, it's called the oil industry. Actually, many papers denying AGW are financed by oil companies and for an obvious reason, this industry is the, or at least top 2 as coal is still a big player in some countries, causing AGW. All of the gasoline we are burning up has been CO2 that was underground for M of years only to be thrown back into the system, massively, in slightly over a century. Which brings me back to an earlier point of the conversation, what do you make of atm. CO2? If AGW is a lie, how do you explain CO2 and temperature being systematically correlated, and how do you reconcile our current atm. CO2 with "no warming ahead?"
Cheers :)

Nov 03, 2015
Sea level rise is not going to happen abruptly at 2:45pm


Indeed, it will not be overnight luckily


The slowest wave action in the worlds oceans is 10 mph. Within 1300 hours of new water, the ocean level will change for half the world. From pole to pole it will be about double that.

If there is all this ice melt going on to the tune of 118 bt/yr loss, and it has been going on for over 20 years, would someone please do the calculation of additional ocean rise we get from water from this loss of ice. Include your equations with the calculation.


Nov 03, 2015
but to claim that GW is a mere theory is being delusional


Well, I said "AGW models" are theories (which they are, as say general relativity is).... and did not mean to imply it in the derogatory. However, I reread your post and see you stated "GW" and not "AGW", so this may mean only that the global climate temp is increasingly without reference to why,... which I would then agree, as in principal that is just a measurement independent of theory.

countries will have to take care of their own coastal "refugees", I doubt it will be a calm and peaceful period, especially looking how today people in Europe and Canada respond to the migrant wave (read: like racist c*nts).

Wow, that was an unfair statement. It is not racist to desire to maintain your own cultural identity. I can god-damn guarantee you that those islamic refugees will protect their culture,.... their koran even inciting them to kill to do so. That is a threat to western culture.

Nov 03, 2015
The slowest wave action in the worlds oceans is 10 mph. Within 1300 hours of new water, the ocean level will change for half the world. From pole to pole it will be about double that.


I'm not sure what that 1300 hours and 10 mph are for...? Double what? The wave speed? How?

If there is all this ice melt going on to the tune of 118 bt/yr loss, and it has been going on for over 20 years, would someone please do the calculation of additional ocean rise we get from water from this loss of ice. Include your equations with the calculation.


I have no idea how to calculate this, but in this article it is stated that IPCC attributed 0,27mm/y to Antarctica, if someone finds their estimation for Antarctica's yearly ice loss for that period, we'd have an easy way to math it out.

Nov 03, 2015
how dare they question our bituminous industry

Yep, so here is a question for you.
What was the date you stopped using the products of our bituminous industry?

Nov 03, 2015
much of the data on which AGW is based has been "adjusted"


Indeed, you can make your data "say" one thing or another depending of how you model it, but to me, it sounds rather conspiracist to say that all climatologist are currently tweeking their data to predict GW.


"All climatologists" wouldn't have to do so,.... only the ones finding reasons to manipulate and supply the data. But, I don't mean the above in a conspiratorial sense. I just wanted to point out in response to your "data does not lie" that that would only be true if raw data was obtained from calibrated sensors,.... not data that has been filtered through possibly unconsciously bias decisions regarding their results.

Nov 03, 2015
showed a pause in global warming for the prior 18 years

If my memory serves me right, this has been disputed my most climatologists.

You missed the point,... the 18 year pause was the data at one time acknowledged by even the IPCC. Only when skeptics made of it a point did climatologists work to reinterpret the temperature pause so that it never happened. If "data does not lie" than who is lying now?
The AGW industry

Please enlighten me, what exactly is the AGW industry?

Every entity that works to advance, promote, or make use of, that scientific finding.

If AGW is a lie, how do you explain CO2 and temperature being systematically correlated,

Since I never said AGW is a lie, I feel no reason to respond to this. Because I'm skeptical of alarmist claims of imminent doom and the political hi-jacking of the issue,.... does not mean that I think the basic physics is wrong.


Nov 03, 2015
Apologies if someone has addressed this already. I must be missing something simple. Why does excess snow compacting to ice thicken the sheet? Compaction generally leads to decrease in volume, and snow --> ice is no different.

Nov 03, 2015
how dare they question our bituminous industry

Yep, so here is a question for you.
What was the date you stopped using the products of our bituminous industry?


I didn't, and while I do recognize the oil industry will never stop as long as we keep using it's products, I believe it is vital that we continue to study it's repercussions.
And for the sake of the question, I only use a car to get out of town otherwise I do my things on bike (and I live around 10kms from uni, work and downtown). But I do not believe it's little things like this that change anything, it would need everyone to do so and we know this is no where near to happen. The oil industry will fall down either when we run out of oil, or when we find a more cost-effective energy source.

Nov 03, 2015
"All climatologists" wouldn't have to do so,.... only the ones finding reasons to manipulate and supply the data. But, I don't mean the above in a conspiratorial sense. I just wanted to point out in response to your "data does not lie" that that would only be true if raw data was obtained from calibrated sensors,.... not data that has been filtered through possibly unconsciously bias decisions regarding their results.


Atmospheric CO2 is pretty much raw data, global temperature is almost so (except you have to ponderate and globalize it)

Every entity that works to advance, promote, or make use of, that scientific finding.


That is very vague and doesn't say what is the AGW industry.

However, I reread your post and see you stated "GW" and not "AGW"


I figured AGW is atmospheric global warming, by GW I meant the same thing sorry for the confusion.

Nov 03, 2015
Wow, that was an unfair statement. It is not racist to desire to maintain your own cultural identity. I can god-damn guarantee you that those islamic refugees will protect their culture,.... their koran even inciting them to kill to do so. That is a threat to western culture.


Would you say the say if they were Hindus, Buddhists or something else? What if ISIS was coming from Thailand, would we blame all Buddhist as we are doing Islam right now?

It is hard to not realize western culture has racism anchored deep down, especially with Middle East culture.

Nov 03, 2015
emale
Perhaps the only explanation is the simple one, that sea levels aren't rising.
But they are rising - so your comment is nonsense. https://en.wikipe...vel_rise


Then water is being created "ex nihilo" and earth may be growing or preparing for a growth phase.

Nov 03, 2015
in terms of -23mm -a sea level, did they take into consideration the increased water vapor in the atmosphere? i.e., couldn't you have increased precipitation on antarctica without it taking water out of the oceans?

Nov 03, 2015
The scientific method requires constant debate and skepticism.
True
AGW is actually unique in that it people lose their careers for questioning the speculative parts.
Nonsense. Utterly preposterous claptrap from the conservaloon handbook.

Error bars in predictive models are not indicative of that models accuracy, only retrodictively. Furthermore, if the model is constantly dynamic wrt its development, it can never be validated in terms of predictive power,.... only retrodictively. IOW, if one has a data set, it is in principle possible to match that data set to a model, without a full understanding of all the variables or actual scenarios involved. It's way you stated above "depending on the model"
This is also true. Which leads me to ask; given your understanding of the limitations of modelling, why do you not also acknowledge the benefits?

Nov 03, 2015
However, I reread your post and see you stated "GW" and not "AGW"


I figured AGW is atmospheric global warming, by GW I meant the same thing sorry for the confusion.

Oh, sorry, anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

It is not racist to desire to maintain your own cultural identity. I can god-damn guarantee you that those islamic refugees will protect their culture,.... their koran even inciting them to kill to do so. That is a threat to western culture.


Would you say the say if they were Hindus, Buddhists or something else?

If there was an extremist element in those culture, yes. Culture is not race.


Nov 03, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :)
What was the date you stopped using the products of our bituminous industry?
It's not about completely 'stopping' use, but 'minimizing' use. The point is to reduce Anthropogenic CO2 emissions to levels which would maintain pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 so climate would settle down again to predictable/manageable 'prevailing patterns' to which our agriculture, health, communications, transportation etc systems were adapted. It's the increasing AGW caused destabilising/extremes in previously settled patterns which is the problem. Not only sea level 'swings', but unseasonal/extreme storms, floods, droughts, disease-vector severity/infestation spreading north/south etc.

As for AGW per se, just ask Shootist &dogbert (and their much-quoted 'hero' Freeman Dyson; my latest exchanges with Shootist/dogbert demonstrated Freeman Dyson actually ACKNOWLEDGES AGW as fact but is unsure about modeling/action needed).

Time to help solve/act, not hinder. :)

Nov 03, 2015
Hi Noumenon. :)

Everything you have raised re religions is the perfect example why we should sooner-than-later transition away from ALL such prehistoric culture/superstition/ignorance/hatred based systems of social/ruling which only complicate the problems we modern humanity are facing as we transition away from superstition-laden chaos and ignorance towards reality-informed sanity and reason as a GLOBAL species (which we now in effect have become due to internet communications and high-speed transportation etc).

Thanks for bringing up all those nasty side-effects of religious/cultist/ignorance-caused problems which we now have to quickly eliminate if we want to tackle the global problems which we ALL face; and which we no longer have the luxury of accommodating all those old stupidities which accompany all those old religious/cultural/tribal hatreds/feuds.

The sooner we tackle those things, the sooner we can start co-operating against AGW. Good luck to us all. :)

Nov 03, 2015
AGW is actually unique in that it people lose their careers for questioning the speculative parts.

Nonsense. Utterly preposterous claptrap from the conservaloon handbook.

Recently a french meteorologist was fired very publicly for being skeptical about climate change.

Al Gore, the climate change poster-boy, has recently called for climate change deniers to be punished, and that politicians should be made to pay a price for rejecting "accepted science".

The UN is planning an international tribunal of climate justice.

Recently a letter was drafted by a dozen or so climatologists and sent to POTUS Obama, to call for the prosecution of those responsible for anti-AGW propaganda.

...given your understanding of the limitations of modelling, why do you not also acknowledge the benefits?

I was only correcting a misapprehension of error-bars that is made frequently here,.... a correction that for some reason isn't made by more knowledgeable posters?


Nov 03, 2015
Hi again, Noumenon. :)
Recently a french meteorologist was fired very publicly for being skeptical about climate change
It appears he broke company rules against politicizing his position/climate as a company-paid meteorologist whose job was to deliver the weather forecasts and not political/personal commentary. It could also be viewed as him writing a book and causing such a conflict-of-interest situation designed to garner publicity for the book he was pushing. In doing all these things he did exactly what some here have accused some climate scientists of doing! Rather hypocritical, don't you think? The proof of the pudding is whether his 'book/actions' have merit based in fact rather than just in his own personal/political (and mercenary...re his 'book' sales/publicity) motives.

Noumenon, let's stop all these political/personal/religious 'tactics' and distractionjs. The time/luxury for such things is past. We all need to unite against our 'common enemy' AGW. :)

Nov 03, 2015
It's not about completely 'stopping' use, but 'minimizing' use. The point is to reduce Anthropogenic CO2 emissions to levels which would maintain pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 so climate would settle down again to predictable/manageable 'prevailing patterns' to which our agriculture, health, communications, transportation etc systems were adapted. It's the increasing AGW caused destabilising/extremes in previously settled patterns which is the problem. Not only sea level 'swings', but unseasonal/extreme storms, floods, droughts, disease-vector severity/infestation spreading north/south etc.

Where do I begin with this often regurgitated AGW Cult hogwash.
Ok, let's start with pre-industrial climate.
Perhaps, you can tell us what it was like and how great it was for agriculture and health?

Nov 03, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :) Am running out of time today, so have to be brief and leave you to do your own further detailed research.
Where do I begin with this often regurgitated AGW Cult hogwash.
Ok, let's start with pre-industrial climate.
Perhaps, you can tell us what it was like and how great it was for agriculture and health?
Freeman Dyson doesn't think AGW is 'hogwash'; he only questions modeling reliability etc. As for pre-industrial climate patterns, just read the global histories of epidemiology and agriculture. You'll find that diseases/vectors have increased their range north/south due to AGW providing now-survivable conditions for vectors/diseases of humans and crops/animals we depend on. Read also the old climate observations around the world during the 'ages/voyages of exploration/expansion' before and since the industrial revolution. It will give you the trending sense of changes which were occurring during that increased industrial activity and since. Try it. :)

Nov 03, 2015
Recently a french meteorologist was fired very publicly for being skeptical about climate change.
Verdier was fired for violating a private company's rules regarding self promotion. He was promoting his book while on air, and that is why he was fired.

Al Gore, the climate change poster-boy, has recently called for climate change deniers to be punished, and that politicians should be made to pay a price for rejecting "accepted science".
So? He's a private citizen, he can say whatever the hell he wants.

The UN is planning an international tribunal of climate justice.
Ooo that sounds scary. Do you know what their mandate is?

Recently a letter was drafted by a dozen or so climatologists and sent to POTUS Obama, to call for the prosecution of those responsible for anti-AGW propaganda.
For UNTRUTHFUL propaganda. Using falsehoods to promote their views. You know - socialism.

Nov 03, 2015
Yes realitycheck, I've read the literature. But, what I'm interested in understanding is, you want to return to pre-industrial climate. So, again, what is it that YOU know about pre-industrial climate that made it so great for weather and health?
If that question is too difficult, let me know.

Nov 03, 2015
Al Gore, the climate change poster-boy, has recently called for climate change deniers to be punished, and that politicians should be made to pay a price for rejecting "accepted science".


And rightfully so. Here is an example, and please, note that Lutz is the vice chairman of a car (almost synonymous to petroleum) company worth 39B$ (that also destroyed the electric car), GM.
https://www.youtu...p_qDiRhQ

Public speakers have a moral duty to not lie deliberately, especially if it's a lie they would benefit from, usually money-speaking nowadays. There are laws on this, you cannot do false advertisement. You can't sell a sugar pill and claim in cures diabetes. You will be punished by the court if you do so, there are laws around it. To me, claiming on a public tribune, where scientifically-illiterate people will listen and perhaps believe you that AGW or GW is not true, is reprehensible and irresponsible.

Nov 03, 2015
Hi, antigoracle. Came in again to post to dogbert in another thread, but am still busy, so I'll just answer yours briefly and leave again...
Yes realitycheck, I've read the literature. But, what I'm interested in understanding is, you want to return to pre-industrial climate. So, again, what is it that YOU know about pre-industrial climate that made it so great for weather and health?
You say you've already read the literature I pointed you to? Well, if you have, then you will be able to answer your own question. You will have the before-and-after picture which such reading will provide. The 'before' picture involves stable, predictable/prevailing weather/climate system/patterns which we and our agriculture were comfortable with. The 'after' picture was evident even during the industrial revolution days, and became especially noticeable of late. The unpredictability/extremes are costly/deadly to our agricultural/health etc requirements etc as I pointed out. Bye. :)

Nov 03, 2015
Congratulations reality, you have a talent for spewing unsubstantiated hogwash, and when asked to clarify, you can pile even more on. So, in future don't respond to my posts, since I have a talent for ignoring hogwash.

Nov 03, 2015
@anti

Your ONLY talent is spewing hogwash.

Nov 04, 2015
Everything you have raised re religions is the perfect example why we should sooner-than-later transition away from ALL such prehistoric culture/superstition/ignorance/hatred....


That will and is happening naturally. Religion is collectivistic-thought, not freedom of thought. You used the phrase "we should",... implying that collectivistic-thought should take precedence over freedom of thought. It's one thing to educate voluntarily, disseminate information , but quite another that "we" should "fix" thought that "we" don't agree with.

Recently a french meteorologist was fired very publicly for being skeptical about climate change.

Verdier was fired for violating a private company's rules regarding self promotion. He was promoting his book while on air, and that is why he was fired.

OK, if that is true, then I stand corrected on that point.

Nov 04, 2015
Al Gore, the climate change poster-boy, has recently called for climate change deniers to be punished, and that politicians should be made to pay a price for rejecting "accepted science".


And rightfully so. [....] There are laws on this, you cannot do false advertisement. [...]. You will be punished by the court if you do so, there are laws around it.

Science makes progress by calling into question accepted theory. Should scientists who do so be arrested? Should those who are not even scientists have the right to be wrong?

The courts require specific quantification,... the AGW models only allow long term trends and sweeping speculation of ill effects in general terms upon layers of possible scenarios ,... nothing quantifiable that can be associated with a particular company lost in a sea of like companies.

The climatology industry (defined above) is unique in the history of science in that there are calls for prosecution for skepticism, (whether valid or not)


Nov 04, 2015
.... Galileo was prosecuted and Bruno was burned at the stake for questioning the then scientific consensus. The point is not whether we know in retrospect that they were right, but that do we want a coercive government that would seek to prosecute or oppress thought at all?

We don't have first amendment protection for speech that is easily agreeable, but specifically for that which is not. And our court system requires quantification,... and as long as "weather is not climate" ... you can't quantify AGW effects for prosecution of individual companies.

given your understanding of the limitations of modelling, why do you not also acknowledge the benefits?

Yes, they give the general trend,.... but they also lead to implied claims of accuracy that is encouraged and very useful for the AGW-Alarmists. I've corrected CS, MM, howhot, bulbozer, etc,... why haven't you more knowledgeable AGW posters done so.... runrig, thermodynamics, maggnus?

Nov 04, 2015
and while I do recognize the oil industry will never stop as long as we keep using it's products, I believe it is vital that we continue to study it's repercussions. [...] it would need everyone to do so and we know this is no where near to happen. The oil industry will fall down either when we run out of oil, or when we find a more cost-effective energy source.


I agree 100% here. And this is what we want, ...that alternatives compete with and defeat oil/coal,... because then they will be desired intrinsically, not artificially and develop value, ensuring their economic robustness.

The solution imo is not a regulation nor leftist political ideological one, but a technological one. I think that the far-left hi-jacking of the issue to promote government socialistic solutions is a fundamental error. Economies must be strong enough to transition off of oil/coal, plus it has to occur within existing economic reality, not fantasy-land idealistic global socialism.


Nov 04, 2015
Yes, they give the general trend,.... but they also lead to implied claims of accuracy that is encouraged and very useful for the AGW-Alarmists. I've corrected CS, MM, howhot, bulbozer, etc,... why haven't you more knowledgeable AGW posters done so.... runrig, thermodynamics, maggnus?


The "accuracy" comes in showing that (chiefly) it is the PDO/ENSO cycle that is the cause of their "inaccuracy".
GCM's that have been run with it in the correct phase have shown remarkable accuracy.
They are projections that cannot hope to mimic such overlying climate cycles. The science is to show that when these cycles are accounted for the projections are accurate. You also need to hindcast such that the projected variables are correct.

http://phys.org/n...sed.html

Nov 04, 2015
I have no idea how to calculate this, but in this article it is stated that IPCC attributed 0,27mm/y to Antarctica, if someone finds their estimation for Antarctica's yearly ice loss for that period, we'd have an easy way to math it out.


Ok, so I did some math based on 350 square km of ocean surface. 1 Gigaton of land ice melt spread over the ocean surface would result in 3 micron rise. There are 1000 microns in 1 millimeter. If there was 118 Gt of land ice melt last year as was stated by someone above then 3 x 118= 354 micron rise in ocean level from land melt, that is 0.354 mm/yr.

Nov 04, 2015
So now we can worry about the world's oceans disappearing, or they're getting too salty.

Nov 04, 2015
the far-left hi-jacking of the issue to promote government socialistic solutions


Progressism =/= Socialism

.... Galileo was prosecuted and Bruno was burned at the stake for questioning the then scientific consensus. The point is not whether we know in retrospect that they were right, but that do we want a coercive government that would seek to prosecute or oppress thought at all?


Give me one recent (past 50 years) example a scientist who was killed in developped countries for questionning scientific agreements.

Science makes progress by calling into question accepted theory. Should scientists who do so be arrested? Should those who are not even scientists have the right to be wrong?


I doubt it concerns legitimate scientists questionning theories, but rather public speakers who make these claims with no foundation (like Lutz above, claiming GW is a lie because he didn't see a gigantic hurricane and one of his 54 houses in Miami still stands)

Nov 04, 2015
the far-left hi-jacking of the issue to promote government socialistic solutions


Progressism =/= Socialism

Liberal progressivism effectively grants autonomous authority to 'scientific studies' in politically justifying elements of socialism to "fix" what otherwise are natural consequences of free society,.... redistribution of wealth, economic justice, climate justice, income inequality, ....

The greatest threat to personal liberty is the liberal-progressive and their army of statisticians.

Give me one recent (past 50 years) example a scientist who was killed in developped countries

Isn't it enough that a prominent AGW advocate and former vice president, and that the UN who heads international action on AGW, proposed international tribunal for 'climate justice', ....enough to draw the connection between like dangerous mentality.

Nov 04, 2015
And always with you Noumenon, always, you try to conflate anything you wish to not be true with your view that there is a socialist under every bed or hiding behind every tree. Your twisted view of reality prevents you from understanding concepts that are really not that difficult and are supported by the majority of those who make study of it their career. You ask this:
Science makes progress by calling into question accepted theory. Should scientists who do so be arrested? Should those who are not even scientists have the right to be wrong?
which is rhetoric and purposefully nebulous, when the real question should be: Should scientists who question the science not have to support their views with science of equal wieght and substance? Why do you, Noumenon, support the unscientific and politically motivated denialism perpetrated by the likes of Soon or Tol? As an avowed anti-socialist, why are you not standing upon your pulpit of indignation and shouting against these types?

Nov 04, 2015
the far-left hi-jacking of the issue to promote government socialistic solutions


Progressism =/= Socialism

Liberal progressivism effectively grants autonomous authority to 'scientific studies' in politically justifying elements of socialism to "fix" what otherwise are natural consequences of free society,.... redistribution of wealth, economic justice, climate justice, income inequality, ....

The greatest threat to personal liberty is the liberal-progressive and their army of statisticians.


Then help yourself and vote for Trump and let's see how much good will AGW deniable and freedom at all cost will bring.

Nov 04, 2015
The "accuracy" comes in showing that (chiefly) it is the PDO/ENSO cycle that is the cause of their "inaccuracy".
GCM's that have been run with it in the correct phase have shown remarkable accuracy.
They are projections that cannot hope to mimic such overlying climate cycles. The science is to show that when these cycles are accounted for the projections are accurate. You also need to hindcast such that the projected variables are correct.

http://phys.org/n...sed.html

First it was a travesty that they could not explain the pause. Then after over 60, peer reviewed studies...er...lies, they finally declared, no pause. So, the models are vindicated because they can now explain the pause which, according to AGW Cult lore, never existed. Why runrig, why did you have to resurrect that which haunts the Cult.

Nov 04, 2015
Then help yourself and vote for Trump and let's see how much good will AGW deniable and freedom at all cost will bring.

I wouldn't vote for someone who denied the core science. Trump doesn't represent my ideology. In fact, as I have been stating for years here, I would massively fund a Manhattan'esque Project for basic energy research, fusion, safe fission, etc.

But even the one you likely would have or did vote for is obliged to act to preserve the economy..... "....if the message is somehow that we're going to ignore jobs and [economic] growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody's going to go for that. I won't go for that," - B.H. Obama

Nov 04, 2015
@maggus, try to understand that quote in context,... wrt AlGore, and the climatologists who sent Obama a plea for the prosecution of skeptics disseminating skeptical stance on AGW, and the UN setting up a court for "climate justice".

Again, it does not matter whether you think the skeptics have a point or not (nor even ascertaining what specifically they're skeptical about).... to see the dangerous path and uniqueness amongest the present sciences, that a call for skeptics to be punished or prosecuted, is.


Nov 04, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :(

It is with sadness rather than anger that I note your continuing trollish/denialist "hogwash" tactic in lieu of honest discourse on such an important matter as AGW.

Despite misgivings (which I shared) re 'modeling/predicting' reliability, even dogbert, Shootist and Freeman Dyson acknowledge that AGW is an objectively observable fact which is increasingly destabilizing previously stable weather/climate patterns/cycles with which we were comfortable but now are so extreme/unpredictable that the globe is virtually becoming 'wall to wall' with unrelenting natural catastrophes because of unseasonable/extreme/extensive storms/droughts/floods/ice-storms/wind-storms etc.

Antigoracle, you make a serious miscalculation about me. I am probably the most honest, independent, objective skeptic and multi-discipline researcher/scientist you ever encountered. Your posts so far betray that you haven't read widely/fully the epidemiology/agriculture studies/literature. Sad.

Nov 04, 2015
Hi Noumenon. :)

The process' involves enlightenment of individuals/society via objective info/education in secular context that automatically excludes 'influence' of past/present religious fantasies, unreasoning hatreds/prejudices based on 'cults and isms' of ALL sorts based in ignorance and malice rather than objective reality-consulting enlightenment and humanity.

It would help if you saw the important differences between religious and secular contexts/collectives/mindsets; which clearly makes the two systems of 'individual/social thought/action' qualitatively/effectively 'apples and oranges'.

See? Your 'equating' the two is invalid on many levels: Religious 'socialism' is misinformed thought/action 'mindset' stemming from self-delusional ignorance, blind faith in imaginary entities in denial of objective reality/human condition; while Secular is informed cognizance of reality/human condition stemming from objective/scientific secular investlgation/comprehension.

Bye. :)

Nov 04, 2015
@Noumenon
Excuse me I have the bad habit of going off-topic in this kind of debate.

Back on topic, the truth is, while you claim that AGW is scientifically debatable, you fail to mention a single PR-paper that refutes AGW despite my specific request. If you want your claim to have any substance, source it. If you can't find any, it isn't about scientists being blindsighted and only accepting one truth, it is about AGW being indeed a prevalent and, dare I say it, accepted theory. I have nothing about questioning scientific claims, but I have something about questioning it if there is no credible experiment supporting it.

"....if the message is somehow that we're going to ignore jobs and [economic] growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody's going to go for that. I won't go for that,"


Durable developement, alternative energy and lessening the oil industry are not mutually exclusive to economy. [/off-topic]

Nov 04, 2015
.. enlightenment of individuals/society via objective info/education in secular context that automatically excludes 'influence' of past/present religious fantasies, unreasoning hatreds/prejudices based on 'cults and isms' of ALL sorts based in ignorance and malice rather than objective reality-consulting enlightenment and humanity.

It would help if you saw the important differences between religious and secular contexts/collectives/mindsets; which clearly makes the two systems of 'individual/social thought/action' qualitatively/effectively 'apples and oranges'.

See? Your 'equating' the two is invalid on many levels: Religious 'socialism' is misinformed thought/action 'mindset' stemming from self-delusional ignorance, blind faith in imaginary entities in denial of objective reality/human condition; while Secular is informed cognizance of reality/human condition stemming from objective/scientific secular investlgation/comprehension.

Ahem! Hogwash. Bye. :)

Nov 04, 2015
while you claim that AGW is scientifically debatable, you fail to mention a single PR-paper that refutes AGW despite my specific request

As already pointed out, I don't call into question the core science,... only 1) the subsequent wild speculation wrt existential threat to humanity and 2) the political exclusivity of proposed solutions, in particular the hi-jacking of the issue for the justification of far-leftist ideology, 3) the movement to prosecute or "punish" those disseminating opposing views wrt the speculative predictions of catastrophe.

@RC, Yes, while I agree with your distinction between secular and religious thought,.... the point made by me extends to thought generally, even within secularism. IOW, no matter how ignorant that thought appears to you or me. That's the point; there should be no governmental entity that casts judgement on free thought. A society with thought-police is not a free-society, nor is that an environment conducive to scientific progress.

Nov 05, 2015
@bulbozer,... don't make the mistake that many neophytes do here,... don't let your '5-ratings' and my '1-ratings' encourage you to think that that is actually representative of the relative quality of our posts,.... they're representative only of the quality of the raters.

It's not hard to earn 5's,... just stick to a liberal leaning anti-capitalist narrative, insult and call names to cranks (easy 5's), make obvious statements in support of the AGW-Alarmist narrative,.... but, as demonstrated above, don't factually correct well known frequent posters on a fundamental misapprehension of their own purported AGW talking point, as you will be troll-rated by the pseudo-gaia-mythology cabal.

The Phys.Org moderators are not smart enough to disable the corrupt and abused ratings system.

Nov 05, 2015
Unbeknownst to greenonions, I had previously openly stated and made known the purpose for countering the abuse of the rating system. I have requested about a dozen times for phys.org to disable the ratings system which is obviously abused.

How insecure does one have to be to troll-rate someone, then hide under their desk?

Nov 05, 2015
@greenonions and Noumenon

To be honest with, I don't give a damn about those ratings, this system doesn't have it's place in a scientific website and should be removed, hence why I never rate any post. They are only representative of the number of people in one "clan" or another who read the comments. And no, I'm not "encouraged" by my ratings I'm just writing what's on my mind.

As for AGW being wild speculations, do you also doubt about the CO2 emissions not being anthropogenic? If you don't, I invite you to read PR papers on atmospheric's CO2 in relation to temperature. If you do, I wonder why you bother commenting on science website.

Yet again, your point number 1) is pure speculation, no source whatsoever. Your points 2) and 3) are distractions from the question.

Nov 05, 2015
As for AGW being wild speculations, ....


I never stated that AGW is wild speculation, nor have I stated that AGW is itself "scientifically debatable".

I stated "subsequent",.... that is, interpretational speculation, and I even qualified that with ' with respect to existential threat to humanity'. I also stated that "I don't question the core science", immediately prior to that. Is your confusion contrived?

do you also doubt about the CO2 emissions not being anthropogenic?

Yes, I doubt and refute that CO2 emissions are not in part of anthropogenic origin.

If you don't, I invite you to read PR papers on atmospheric's CO2 in relation to temperature.

I've posted here about how statistically it traps heat radiation.

I wonder why you bother commenting on science website.

Have you read all my posts since 2007? I post mostly on quantum mechanics, general relativity, philosophy of physics.

Nov 05, 2015
I have requested about a dozen times for phys.org to disable the ratings system which is obviously abused.

Creating a sock puppet to uprate yourself (which you have clearly done with Erscheinung) would constitute an abuse - yes?

Counter-abuse. None of my above posts above deserve a 2 or a 3 at least? It is not facebook's like/dislike. You don't get to choose a different system, when its implied to be predicted on the valuation between 1 and 5. Why rate at all, how childish is that?


Nov 05, 2015
Is English your first language?


English is my third language.

I've posted here about how statistically it traps heat radiation.


Mind giving me a good read on this? Peer-reviewed of course

Have you read all my posts since 2007?


Of course not.

I never stated that AGW is wild speculation, nor have I stated that AGW is itself "scientifically debatable". I stated "subsequent",.... that is, interpretational speculation, and I even qualified that with ' with respect to existential threat to humanity'.


Ok I see now. While I must agree that the repercussions of AGW are speculative to some extend as they are based on predictive models, parts of it are noticeable as of today. Ice masses are melting, and that water won't obliterate into oblivion, sea level will rise and I doubt this is debatable. What is debatable is the rate and the intensity of the rise.

--- continued ---

Nov 05, 2015
- cont.
Other changes affecting humanity are currently occurring, to name a few; insect outbreaks (for example the spruce bark beetle in Alaska with summers being warmer) and wildfires are becoming more frequent, climate disasters like hurricanes are becoming more frequent and are intensifying (tho this is debatable I gotta admit, it is also supported on the other hand, guess we gotta give and take here), oceans are becoming more acid (tho this is more CO2 then AGW related), climate unpredictability is making our crops worst then they were and sometimes miserable.

Some other changes are occurring, tho they do not necessarily relate to humanity but stand as a token of changes, like the phenology of birds which is changing, fauna and flora is migrating North, populations northern (high up in arctic or down in Antarctica) species are falling drastically, warm-loving species are starting to dominate some ecosystems to the expense of other species who are part of it.

cont.-

Nov 05, 2015
- ending -

Will it be cataclysmic for humanity? I don't have a clue, but if I had to make a wild guess, I'd see we better not take a chance as we are still tightly tied up to our environment, especially for countries outside of occidental cultures.

Nov 05, 2015
Hi Bullbouzor - thanks for your information rich comments. .


Oh I'm just using this platform for an egocentric reason TBH, it annoys me to be a bystander of a debate and most of all, it's a practice to put words on my thoughts. These are topics I like to think about and writing my thoughts down helps me to put some order in my mind. These are complex issues that are neither all black nor all white; they fall very much in the grey zone. While sometimes I take something for granted, writing it down makes me see my own thoughts from another perspective and sometimes realize it doesn't make sense. Oh, and it is generally more civilized in here then in most website's comment sections, except for a few annoying users (especially in evolution related topics).

Nov 05, 2015
If you don't, I invite you to read PR papers on atmospheric's CO2 in relation to temperature.

I've posted here about how statistically it traps heat radiation.

Mind giving me a good read on this? Peer-reviewed of course

Why peer-reviewed? This is a comment section. I'm responded to your utterly baseless accusation, by stating that I have confirmed [the effects of CO2] in my own posts here.

Nov 05, 2015
Have you read all my posts since 2007?

Of course not.

Then why wonder why I post here, without research?
parts of it are noticeable as of today. Ice masses are melting, and that water won't obliterate into oblivion, sea level will rise and I doubt this is debatable. What is debatable is the rate and the intensity of the rise.

Yes, I agree here wrt large ice masses, ok,... however I don't agree further into local minutiae effects, like on insects, wildfires, hurricanes, and the like, only because it's not possible to quantify proportionally, the effects that an average global increase of temp of 0.70c as compared to 135years ago, would have at a particular locality, as the effect of global average temp on local events are easily washed-out by local weather and climate.

Indeed, it is a fraud imo, to claim to be able to 'look out the window' and see global warming occuring,.... but this has not stopped the alarmist charlatans from making such claims.



Nov 05, 2015
It isn't always about agreeing, the northern migration is occuring and there are plenty of cases reported on this issue, whether in Canada or north Eurasia. Other claims I wrote above have been studied as well.


Then why wonder why I post here, without research?


I do not have to read 8 years of archives in order to answer to your comments on this specific article.

Indeed, it is a fraud imo, to claim to be able to 'look out the window' and see global warming occuring,.... but this has not stopped the alarmist charlatans from making such claims.


It isn't about looking out the window but looking at a variety of specific phenomena. As I said, I don't know and even doubt those are cataclismic, but they are happening.

Why peer-reviewed?


Because it's a science site not a philosophical one. If you doubt some of my claims feel free to ask and I will give you source material.

Anyways I'm out this is getting annoying, cheers.

Nov 05, 2015
It seems that the length of phys.org threads are inversely proportionate to the effort placed in maintaining continuity in lines of discussion, and the willingness to misapprehend and misrepresent ones comments. Annoying.

Nov 05, 2015
Says someone who mindfully accuses me of "star-whoring" to make a point...

Nov 05, 2015
Says someone who mindfully accuses me of "star-whoring" to make a point...

No, sorry, ....that comment was in response to the comment raters, not you,.... IOW don't take the ratings seriously. I've made this observation before,... and you made a similar point yourself above.

Nov 05, 2015
@bulbozer,... don't make the mistake that many neophytes do here,... don't let your '5-ratings' and my '1-ratings' encourage you to think that that is actually representative of the relative quality of our posts,.... they're representative only of the quality of the raters.

It's not hard to earn 5's,... just stick to a liberal leaning anti-capitalist narrative, insult and call names to cranks (easy 5's), make obvious statements in support of the AGW-Alarmist narrative,.... but, as demonstrated above, don't factually correct well known frequent posters on a fundamental misapprehension of their own purported AGW talking point, as you will be troll-rated by the pseudo-gaia-mythology cabal.

The Phys.Org moderators are not smart enough to disable the corrupt and abused ratings system.


Nov 05, 2015
I haven't noticed you doing any of that. I was referring to the 1-rating cabal, who routinely up-rates each other and down votes anyone who is skeptical aspects of AGW or a "right-winger".

No, sorry, ....that comment was in response to the comment raters, not you,.... IOW don't take the ratings seriously. I've made this observation before,... and you made a similar point yourself above.


Nov 05, 2015
that comment was in response to the comment raters


Then I must have misinterpreted it, we both agree on this case anyways.

What I have an issue with is not about being sceptical about scientific claims (and tho it doesn't look like it in this post, I often take the job of the "devil's advocate" by being sceptical about grand claims), but I believe that to prove a point which refutes a theory that is more accepted then refused in the science community (not phys.org members but actual researchers involved in the field), one has to double his effort with sources and well-informed arguments. Those you call charlatans who dare say AGW have effects on our planet are (at least the original sources of the information) climatologists, geologists, biologists and others who did their homeworks and research in order to publish it. One needs a better argument then "I think"s to refute those. -continued-

Nov 05, 2015
-ending-
You say they are easily washed out by local effects, prove it, and prove that those local effects are not originating from a more global climate. I know this is just a comment section and that we are not to do a complete litterature research for it, but still… I'm not saying you are such a person, at all, but it reminds me of arguments I had with creationists. You bring arguments like fossil chronology, extinctions, the iridium layer, DNA, and their answer is (other then citing a fictional book): "But, did we look EVERYWHERE? What if there is this one spot in the middle of nowhere we didn't look at that fossils aren't stratified? What if we just didn't find the arch yet?" If you want to debunk a theory, especially if there is a general support for it, you need to have source material, a base to sit on, or otherwise, it is purely subjective… (I'm talking about AGW's effect not AGW itself, I understood you agree with that one)

Nov 05, 2015
It seems that the length of phys.org threads are inversely proportionate to the effort placed in maintaining continuity in lines of discussion, and the willingness to misapprehend and misrepresent ones comments. Annoying.


Is it fundamentally wrong? In science, questions bring more questions, and answers bring even more questions. And there still is a common thread to the topics brought in this section: AGW. From the original article up in this page to wildfire occurenceis and northern insect populations, AGW is a common root and if it is not the answer at 100%, it is at least a hypothesis worth asking to explain those.

Nov 05, 2015
You say they are easily washed out by local effects, prove it, and prove that those local effects are not originating from a more global climate

You have it quite backwards. It is the burden of those making such claims, to quantifiably demonstrate how such minutiae local events are supposedly effected by the result of 4% anthropogenic CO2 over the natural CO2 cycle effect on the average global temperature, without being wash-out by local climate such that the "anthropogenic portion" can be disentangled to be quantified.

The AGW models can at best give long term trends,... which only allows for generalized statements,... not specific occurances outside your window.

I would say this is true today,.... in another hundred years as compared to today may be another story.


Nov 05, 2015
it is a fraud imo, to claim to be able to 'look out the window' and see global warming occuring,.... but this has not stopped the alarmist charlatans from making such claims
[sic]@nou
Who is making this claim?
Yes, I doubt and refute that CO2 emissions are not in part of anthropogenic origin
wait what? this sounds like you mean CO2 isn't anthropogenic and it's effects are limited/not applicable to AGW
that doesn't make sense WRT
"I don't question the core science"
the core science tells us what is anthropogenic and what is natural
this is how we know what is natural vs anthropogenic
http://www.bgc.mp...IJMS.pdf

https://journals..../627/632

there are plenty more (this has even been included in some of the historical Oceanographic studies i've posted)

or were you just being unclear?


Nov 05, 2015
@nou cont'd
...countering the abuse of the rating system
and you wield it indiscriminately more often than not
i don't even typically vote on your posts, and i sure don't advocate "redistribution of wealth, economic justice, climate justice, income inequality" or socialism, etc

i do think certain fraudulent claims (esp for the purpose of financial gain) should be punished, be it from science or otherwise (because it is already illegal)

i'll ask you like i did zeph: why should you be so concerned unless you are guilty of said accusations against you?

ratings are subjective, just like philosophy, therefore you should SUPPORT them

but you still created a sock, just like zeph
the WHY is: it bothers you more than you admit
OR
you are guilty of said accusations

up-rating your post with your sock doesn't make it more true, tho
it only makes you look bad

Nov 05, 2015
You have it quite backwards. It is the burden of those making such claims, to quantifiably demonstrate how such minutiae local events are supposedly effected by the result of 4% anthropogenic CO2 over the natural CO2 cycle effect on the average global temperature, without being wash-out by local climate such that the "anthropogenic portion" can be disentangled to be quantified.


Pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was sitting around 260-270 ppm, nowadays it is around 390-400 ppm. How is that 4%? If you mean that only 4% of that 140 ppm is anthropogenic, what explains the other 134.4 ppm rise so well timed with the industrial revolution?


Nov 05, 2015
my third language
@Bulbuzor
what are the other two? (OT- but i'm curious)
if I had to make a wild guess, I'd see we better not take a chance
although some will say differently, this is my argument exactly: better safe than sorry
Because it's a science site not a philosophical one
good luck with this argument when posting to Nou...
What I have an issue with is not about being sceptical about scientific claims
a lot of people misunderstand this, too!

skepticism is the lifeblood of science: it is what drives validation and authentication vs refutation. this is how the scientific method works

what far too many people here on PO do (esp the trolls and pseudoscience posters) is post arbitrary claims with links to pseudoscience and then claim it's validity is equivalent to peer rvd journals or validated studies

those who are scientifically illiterate most often can't comprehend the difference between what constitutes good vs bad evidence

Nov 05, 2015

Pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was sitting around 260-270 ppm, nowadays it is around 390-400 ppm. How is that 4%? If you mean that only 4% of that 140 ppm is anthropogenic, what explains the other 134.4 ppm rise so well timed with the industrial revolution?

Wow. I don't know what's worse, the fact that you must ask, or that the rest of the Chicken Little flock would give you 5s. It, however, does sum up the stupidity of the cult. When you do find the answer, I would suggest you don't share it with the rest of the Chicken Littles, it would destroy their blind faith.

Nov 05, 2015
Hi Noumenon. :)

Free Thought right, like Free Speech right, comes with social responsibilities attached; involving greater good of society within which such rights supported/made possible due to secular values which make infringements of said rights illegal/punishable in law.

Hence individual/collective responsibilities inseparable from individual/collective rights in secular social democracy....and in science.

Govts have duties/responsibilities individual/groups may shirk in pursuit of their individual/group's politics/religion/mercenary agendas (via lies/propaganda etc; eg, Tobbaco/Religious/Coal/Nuclear Lobbies). Govts must act for societal good; hence must decide/act via 'best available evidence' at crisis point (awaiting 'perfectly detailed' models takes practically forever, so informed judgements must be made based on SYNTHESIS of 'modeling' AND common sense/intuitive appraisal of up-to-date events/news showing AGW trends/effects).

Rights with Responsibilities! :)

Nov 05, 2015
my third language
@Bulbuzor
what are the other two? (OT- but i'm curious)


Serbo-croatian and French :) I'm born in Yugoslavia and grew up in the French part of Canada. I have bases in Spanish thru my travels also.

Wow. I don't know what's worse, the fact that you must ask, or that blablablabla.


I'm not sure how to interpret this... What cult? To me the answer to the question I asked is easy and obvious, it was aimed toward Noumenon because I am curious to know what 4% he is talking about and to highlight the obvious lie that "only 4% of CO2 is anthropogenic" actually is.

It was also because I prefer making my point thru questions and arguments rather then calling others "Chicken Littles" or "scientifically illiterate idiots" (where are you JVK?)

And by the way if you wonder what I think of the star system, feel free to read above.

Nov 05, 2015
Free Thought right, like Free Speech right, comes with social responsibilities attached; .. greater good of society .. such rights supported/made possible due to secular values which make infringements of said rights illegal/punishable in law.

Hence individual/collective responsibilities inseparable from individual/collective rights in secular social democracy....and in science.

Govts have duties/responsibilities individual/groups may shirk in pursuit of their individual/group's politics/religion/mercenary agendas (via lies/propaganda etc; eg, Tobbaco/Religious/Coal/Nuclear Lobbies). Govts must act for societal good; hence must decide/act via 'best available evidence' at crisis point (awaiting 'perfectly detailed' models takes practically forever, so informed judgements must be made based on SYNTHESIS of 'modeling' AND common sense/intuitive appraisal of up-to-date events/news showing AGW trends/effects).

Rights with Responsibilities! :)

More hogwash :)

Nov 05, 2015
Hi again Noumenon. :)

I'm frankly shocked that you (someone whom I had thought was reasonably sophisticated in their thought/analysis/mathematical processes/abilities) could fall into such a trivial statisticians' trap, mate. Do you not realize that global-to-local-scales variability-and-feedback-loops-and-cycling are inseparable from the natural Earth weather-climate system dynamics as a whole. The consequences and local marginal difference 'fractal' effects/tipping points create their own dynamics/patterns which INCREASED energy makes more violent/unpredictable/faster processes. It is the increased unpredictability extremes etc are causing increasingly incessant cost/damage which we cannot afford. It is disheartening to see that you also don't understand that Average Global Temp involves 'averaging of' representative/measured LOCAL EXTREMES data points. So any 'small increase' in 'average global temp' means those Local Extremes are trending WORSE overall. See now? :)

Nov 05, 2015
Yes, I doubt and refute that CO2 emissions are not in part of anthropogenic origin

wait what? this sounds like you mean CO2 isn't anthropogenic and it's effects are limited/not applicable to AGW
that doesn't make sense WRT

"I don't question the core science"

Then shouldn't that prompt you to reread more carefully? I'm saying CO2 emissions have in part an human origin. It's stated backwards and flip-floppy because that is how bulbozer presented his question.

Now, you received 5 ratings of 5's for that Obvious failure at reading comprehension,.... again demonstrating the corrupt nature and abuse of the rating system.

Nov 05, 2015
my blabla to antigoracle


I just read some of your other posts, don't bother answering actually. I invite you to spare us and go post on this forum rather then a science-based one :

http://www.global...cs.info/

Yes, I doubt and refute that CO2 emissions are not in part of anthropogenic origin

wait what? this sounds like you mean CO2 isn't anthropogenic and it's effects are limited/not applicable to AGW
that doesn't make sense WRT

"I don't question the core science"

Then shouldn't that prompt you to reread more carefully? I'm saying CO2 emissions have in part an human origin. It's stated backwards and flip-floppy because that is how bulbozer presented his question.


Well you didn't bother explaining what that 4% means and where it comes from, did you? You also failed to add a single source on any of your claims despite I politely asked you to, repeatedly...

Nov 05, 2015
Well you didn't bother explaining what that 4% means and where it comes from, did you? You also failed to add a single source on any of your claims despite I politely asked you to, repeatedly..


I have not read up to that post yet.....

Nov 05, 2015
10/11 posts above, I saw you posted in between so I figured you had read it. :)

Nov 05, 2015
....4%?.... I thought it was common knowledge of AGW. The earth has a natural cycle of absorbing and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere,... some ~800 gigatons total ocean and land per year,... of which 4% is anthropogenic,.... and 40% of that 4% is absorbed in the ocean.

Nov 05, 2015
... Of course over time that small % anthropogenically sourced CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere on account of it being external to what is considered as part of the natural cycle. It is unknown how long it would take to become a part of the natural cycle,... as the increase in CO2 is unprecedented or at least without an historical example which could be studied. More knowledgeable posters could explain better.... but that is what I was referring to with the at present 4% (x 40%).

Nov 05, 2015
You have it quite backwards. It is the burden of those making such claims, to quantifiably demonstrate how such minutiae local events are supposedly effected by the result of 4% anthropogenic CO2 over the natural CO2 cycle effect on the average global temperature, without being wash-out by local climate such that the "anthropogenic portion" can be disentangled to be quantified.


Pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was sitting around 260-270 ppm, nowadays it is around 390-400 ppm. How is that 4%? If you mean that only 4% of that 140 ppm is anthropogenic, what explains the other 134.4 ppm rise so well timed with the industrial revolution?


Ok, I answered this above.

The four people who 5-rated you for this misapprehension ,... yyz, Maggnus, Captain Stumpy, Vietvet, (thermodynamics must be busy), ... are well aware that it was a misapprehension and know what "4% anthropogenic CO2 over the natural CO2 cycle" means. Are they even reading these posts?

Nov 05, 2015
Then shouldn't that prompt you to reread more carefully?
@nou
it is why i asked, so quit being defensive
Now, you received 5 ratings of 5's for that Obvious failure at reading comprehension
failure?
i asked a question and produced my evidence for the anti- argument
there is nothing there not true

you clarified it: thank you. that's it. done.

so what about how people vote?
you said you didn't care

you started much of the anti-nou 1star movement with your own tactics (like sock-&-downrate), but when it is used back on you, it is wrong?

why?

notice i don't usually vote on you, right?
and that i've also uprated you, right?
i have no socks

but you still attack... perhaps the problem is not the voters, but you?
or is that something you can't consider?

https://www.psych...ttle-ego

why is that, nou?
do you perceive yourself to be infallible?

Nov 05, 2015
it was aimed toward Noumenon because I am curious to know what 4% he is talking about and to highlight the obvious lie that "only 4% of CO2 is anthropogenic" actually is.

It was also because I prefer making my point thru questions and arguments rather then calling others "Chicken Littles" or "scientifically illiterate idiots"


Wow, Really? Well bulbozer, I study mostly philosophy of physics and the mathematical and conceptual foundation of general relativity and quantum mechanics,..... but honestly don't know too much about AGW technically,...

....however it appears I know more than you do about AGW if you were blinking twice over my reference of "4% anthropogenic CO2 over the natural cycle", and was arrogant enough to surmise it to have been a lie by a scientifically illiterate idiot! So what then does this say about you?

Nov 05, 2015
@nou cont'd
Are they even reading these posts?
still so defensive?

perhaps i up-rated it because it made me think?
i often do that
why is that important to you?
is it related to your need for self aggrandizement like JVK? or is it more of an egotistical narcissistic Dunning-Kruger?

feel free to expound: any and all feedback as to your motivations is welcome as it goes to your intent and exposes your personality.
thanks

.

Serbo-croatian and French :) I'm born in Yugoslavia and grew up in the French part of Canada. I have bases in Spanish thru my travels also
@Bulbuzor
interesting!
if you ever go to SciForums, say HI (my profile is: Truck Captain Stumpy)

i have some OT questions that are related to Canada and more

PEACE

Nov 05, 2015
... thought/analysis/mathematical processes/abilities) could fall into such a trivial statisticians' trap, mate. ...global-to-local-scales variability-and-feedback-loops-and-cycling are inseparable from the natural Earth weather-climate system dynamics as a whole. The consequences and local marginal difference 'fractal' effects/tipping points create their own dynamics/patterns which INCREASED energy makes more violent/unpredictable/faster processes. It is the increased unpredictability extremes etc are causing increasingly incessant cost/damage which we cannot afford. It is disheartening to see that you also don't understand that Average Global Temp involves 'averaging of' representative/measured LOCAL EXTREMES data points. So any 'small increase' in 'average global temp' means those Local Extremes are trending WORSE overall. See now? :)

More/unsubstantiated/extreme/hogwash/even/the/hogs/are/choking. :)

Nov 05, 2015
perhaps i up-rated it because it made me think?
......
feel free to expound: any and all feedback as to your motivations is welcome as it goes to your intent and exposes your personality.
thanks

If you were speaking for someone else, then perhaps the use of "perhaps" could be justified, unless you are too stupid to know the actual reason why you up-rated.
So, your words not only confirm that you are a liar, but also that you are incapable of what you claim i.e. thinking [far less intelligent one at that]
But, it sure "goes to your intent and exposes your personality"

You're welcome.

Nov 06, 2015
Then shouldn't that prompt you to reread more carefully?

@nou
it is why i asked, so quit being defensive

Clearly you were more interested in levelling accusations in the guise of a question, than in understanding the content of my post, for otherwise it would have been hard to miss the word "not" to misapprehend it, and you would have at least been prompted to reread it on discovering two diametrically opposed statements.

But you received 5's for that deliberate misapprehension and bulbozer received 5's for being factually wrong on several occasions whilst I received 1's for factually correcting him. Why are you so sensitive to me exposing the abjectly corrupt circle-jerk rating cabal?

If Noumenon cared about ratings he wouldn't request that the abused system be disabled,... and if the troll-rating cabal didn't care about ratings, they wouldn't up-rate each other and down rate others irrespective of actual content of posts. This fact was exposed above.

Nov 06, 2015
you started much of the anti-nou 1star movement with your own tactics (like sock-&-downrate), but when it is used back on you, it is wrong?

Factually incorrect, I don't downrate anyone now except with Noumenon, and only in response to arbitrary, bias, or unfair ratings.

The corruption and abuse of the rating system by the circle-jerk Gaia cabal has been exposed and you will never admit that,... so this exposes your intent and personality.

Nov 06, 2015
Do you not realize that global-to-local-scales variability-and-feedback-loops-and-cycling are inseparable from the natural Earth weather-climate system dynamics as a whole. [...]. It is the increased unpredictability extremes etc are causing increasingly incessant cost/damage which we cannot afford. It is disheartening to see that you also don't understand that Average Global Temp involves 'averaging of' representative/measured LOCAL EXTREMES data points.


As pointed out above such generalizations are certainly valid to make,...but they're generalizations that may or may not be true in a given local circumstance. To point to a Particular local event, including behaviour of insects and shrubbery, and say such and such is because of global warming ignores that those effects are quantifiably obscured by local climate and weather variations. You would object to AGW-Skeptics making the inverse argument, yes? I understand unpredictability and global averaging.

Nov 06, 2015
so this exposes your intent and personality.

Stated by someone who created a sock puppet (Erscheinung) to upvote themselves 4 years ago.

Of course, why should I let some clown hiding under their desk troll rate me irrespective of content by the literally hundreds of 1's (open, lite, toot, NOM, frankherbert, the liberal-wed-wetting-circle-jerk-gaia-cabal, etc). It is a deliberately corrupt and ad hominem, way of obscuring the value of ones posts, and as demonstrated by you, bulbozer, CP, and many others,.... falsely grants them confidence not warranted.

I think that the majority of folks on this board could not give a rip about the rating system.

Not according to the circle-jerk club who up-rates themselves incessantly without regard to actual content, as proven above.

Nov 06, 2015
Hi Noumenon. :)

Free Thought right, like Free Speech right, comes with social responsibilities attached; involving greater good of society ....


I wouldn't entrust a government that can't even fulfill its most basic responsibility of balancing their budget at least within projected economic growth, to take on the role of thought-police.

Of course, as pointed out, we have court systems in place for those who can quantify damages as the result of deliberately false speech in particular cases. The political left will abuse this system and attempt to take oil producers and car companies to court, as in this case, and the UN will attempt to set up a "climate justice" court,.... but there are too many unknowns wrt future effects of AGW to quantifiably substantiate damages, IMO. Gas pumps and cars with "warning labels" //rolleyes