Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record

[MojoMan]

In my experience, AGW alarmists evaluate information like that in the article below as being either 1) supportive of their anthropogenic global warming theories or 2) an anomaly. Nothing ever diminishes their claims. At least never that I have seen.
Let's just watch and see if this follows the typical pattern.

In reply to:

---

---

---

 

[Bronco]

It is an unconvenient truth.

Cue Paso to do the following:

1) This was predicted by the models (no proof and MOP or someone else where show where it was not predicted)
2) What part of CO2 being a heat trapping gas don't you understand?
3) What is the overall ice picture?
4) Are you a christian?
5) I could explain this to you but you wouldn't understand it anyway.

 

[pasotex]

What is the net ice balance on the planet?

What is the net ice balance in Antarctica (there is sea and land ice)?

Is the ocean in Antarctica warming or cooling?

What does this mean in the context of global warming?

These are just four (of probably twenty or so) interesting questions that a well informed person would want to know before opining. This tremendously reduces the number of folks who should post on this matter though.

 

[pasotex]

Here is the Antarctic land ice trend:

I will even make it easier for you guys. How about we compare 1979 sea ice extent in the Arctic with today and do the same for Antarctica? What is the net? (The loss is about four times more in the Arctic, but feel free to research it.)

We can leave out the trends in land ice in glaciers, Greenland, and Antarctica land ice just to make it easier for you.

Is this supposed to mean that the earth is cooling?

 

[mop]

Paso, now that we have new data, you should stop posting a graph that is know seen as false. We now know that the Antarctic has grown, even the land ice. This is bogus and I suspect you know it:

From NASA's recent report (abstract)

 

[pasotex]

You are wrong as usual.

 

[mop]

ever heard of the Argumentum ad Assertum fallacy? Regardless, you just committed it.

Antarctic ice is growing contrary to models and expectations. I know this is frustrating for you, but let's face it, lots and lots has been predicted and it can't all be right (from either side). This doesn't mean that AGW is wrong, just that they have so far been wrong about this.

 

[mop]

here is a 10 minute presentation by NASA scientist Jay Zwally (the same guy who predicted an ice free Arctic this summer, so this was done by a firm believer in AGW).

NASA reports on Antarctic's growing ice levels (land and sea)

 

[pasotex]

So is Jay Zwally's unpublished and yet to be peer-reviewed preliminary paper "better" than the 2009 work of Velicogna that was both published and peer reviewed?

Here is Velicogna's peer-reviewed and published paper:

The Link

Is Zwally someone who suddenly is reliable?

You guys are like pathetic clowns.

 

[pasotex]

Your video link doesn't work btw.

 

[mop]

let me try again:

Zwally report


yes, he makes a compelling case (unlike you who can hardly go a post without using some logical fallacy ; ) ) for the fact that the Antarctic ice is growing. He even humbly admits they have been wrong in the past and corrects old data.

 

[mop]

let me know if that worked

 

[pasotex]

I watched it. What do you think he says? How about you tell me (exact time in the video) where he indicates that Antarctic land ice is increasing?

 

[mop]

how about we start with the title?

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

you can also try rereading Zwally's abstract as it makes the same claim:

Zwally et al on the Antarctic Ice sheet's net gain

 

[pasotex]

Where in the video does he say anything of the sort?

 

[mop]

Well, for the from about 40 seconds in to around the 2 minute mark he has the title up: "Mass Balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet 1992-2008 from ERS and ICESat: Gains exceed losses."

Hopefully you agree that this means something and it isn't what you want it to mean is it?

Secondly he says at around the 2:00 minute mark that back in 2005 they had a small negative number as their estimate for ice loss but that they have had to "revise" that. Given the title, it is fairly clear that the revision has surprised them as it has been positive not negative.

at around the 4 minute mark he talks about "dynamic thickening" as opposed to thinning. It is not clear what his net statement is in terms of overall thickening or thinning, but it seems to be a term that he has been forced to introduce to the discussion.

around 6:30 he talks again about how various places have various responses and that there "needs to be an acceptance in the community about what the term 'dynamic thickening' means."

This appears to be only part of his talk, but the name of the talk says quite a bit don't you think?

 

[pasotex]

No.

He does not talk about the net for the entirety of the ice mass of Antarctica. This is never even remotely clear. You cannot tell what ice sheet he is discussing or what location. This is the problem with nonsense from deniers like Watts (and you). There is absolutely no context and the "paper" is a single page pdf of an abstract that has not been published.

It is well known and established that an increase in humidity has led to more snowfall. This is why GRACE measures the net gravity impact of the entire ice sheet and has shown a decline in the net volume of ice. Zwally (in the short excerpt) appears to be talking about a surface radar measurements that might show gains. These would be surface gains which may or may not translate into volume gains depending on where and how the melt was occurring.

And yet this turns years of science and peer-reviewed published papers on their head because you guys make stuff up with no context?

 

[mop]

yeah, you are probably right, after all "the Antarctic sheet" probably means almost anything you want it to eh?

Antarctic Sheet

 

[pasotex]

Can't you just admit that you links do not state that the net ice mass balance in Antartica is positive?

Is this so tough a point to concede?

It would also be nice if you admitted that it is completely unclear even what Zwally is discussing, but this I am sure is too much to ask. You guys are so full of half truths and obfuscations it is silly. And you place this inane game of gotcha like it actually means something in science.

For example, you now appear to be claiming that maybe the earth isn't warming because Antarctica's ice mass is growing. Is this your claim?

You know this is false.

 

[mop]

except that the title and the abstract clearly do.

as for your last straw man, are you serious? where have i said the earth isn't warming because Antarctica's ice mass is growing? you keep trying to put words in my mouth. are you not capable of winning an argument on its own merits? your constant use of logical fallacies is as tiresome as it is pathetic. the earth has warmed approximately 0.7-0.8 Degreees Celsius in the past 150 years. in the past 15 years it has been at a virtual standstill. soon it may begin warming again as we are coming out of an ice age. then again it may start cooling too as it does every few decades for a few decades. still, the net is warming over the past few centuries. do i need to make this my signature to help keep you on track?

 

[pasotex]

The title of what? There is no context whatsoever. This was a workshop. What was discussed? You and your ilk are clowns.

You stand for nothing but idiocy.

 

[mop]

mr. logical fallacy (can i call you that?), you must be getting desperate because the ad hominems are coming closer together.

 

[Monahorns]

mop, it could be just willful ignorance.

 

[pasotex]

"your constant use of logical fallacies is as tiresome as it is pathetic."

You accuse me of an attack? What do you call this garbage?

The cool thing is that this is science and I will turn out to be right just as I have been right all along in the arctic thread. There is a truth and I know it. You either don't or are willfully ignorant.

 

[Monahorns]

Paso, you should probably say that with science the data will show the truth not that you will be true. That is not a scientific attitude.

 

[pasotex]

mop:
I am completely tired of your schtick. You get nonsense from Watts (who is a complete joke) and then claim it means something that it doesn’t or at best something that you do not understand. I am done treating you with anything but the contempt that you deserve.

Let’s review this thread. It started with a claim about a new maximum sea ice extent in Antarctica. The new “record” is approximately 1 million square kilometers over the amount in 1979 (when satellite records began). By contrast, the Arctic is down over 4 million square kilometers since 1979. You also did admit that the water in Antarctica is warming (congratulations on a rare truthful moment).

I would think the difference between the Antarctic and Arctic matters. I have constantly for the past two or three years on this BBS posted that the statistically significant trend is all that matters. The trend in the Arctic is likely to see a complete disappearance of the ice cap in the next 20-30 years. This is significantly faster than the models predicted.

I then posted GRACE data from peer-reviewed and published papers concerning the trend in land ice in Antarctica. This trend is downward. You, in response, post some garbage you got from Watts. It is an incomplete video and a single page of what purports to be a paper from a NASA scientist on ICESat data. You, parroting Watts, claim this refutes the GRACE data.

This is utter nonsense and it is why I hold you in such contempt.

It is completely unclear what exactly Zwally is even talking or writing about. The portion of the video is from a workshop this summer that appears to have been focused on a better understanding of the Antarctic ice mass.

GRACE and ICESat function in different ways and Zwally would know that different results need to be reconciled or understood. GRACE measures the gravity impact of the ice sheet and theoretically gives you a correct measure of the actual volume of ice. ICESat measures the top layer of snow which gives you one dimension of the volume.

It can easily be inferred that ICESat is less accurate than GRACE (although this may or may not be true). It can also be inferred that Zwally was using this draft paper as an example of something that needs to be reconciled with GRACE.

This is how science actually works. It is a search for the truth not some frantic game of gotcha played by clowns only interested in obfuscation. It is even possible that ICESat shows growth and this is right (although I damn sure would like to see an actual paper rather than a single sheet from a workshop put up by Watts in yet another one of his endless inane gotcha events).

You may recall that I posted a month or so back that the climate models predicted that Antarctica would initially grow (because the increase in snow would offset the initial melting) and that the loss of land ice mass found by GRACE came as a surprise. You ridiculed this. You might want to review AR4 because I was, of course, right.

In reply to:

---

---

---

 

[mop]

you can't even keep up with the basics of the discussion, how can i trust you to keep up with the rest? i didn't ridicule you for saying that models predicted it, i said that older models did not and recent ones did. i even granted that this was reasonable as models should adjust themselves to real world data, but pointed out that the older models predicted the Antarctic ice was going to decline. But I hope you recognize something silly about your entire argument.

On the one hand you are arguing fervently that based on peer-reviewed papers (and ignoring Zwally's recent findings) that the Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking. On the other hand you are arguing that the models predict that it will grow. So using the scientific method here, in what scenario are you wrong? Is your hypotheses falsifiable according to Popper's points on faslifiability? You have conveniently covered both options with equal vehemence and don't even seem for recognize the intrinsic hypocrisy of your position. If indeed Zwally's recent presentation becomes peer-reviewed, you will just say "Duh!! The models predicted this all along." But if it turns out that the Antarctic sheet is declining you will say "Oh my goodness! It's worse than we thought!"

See the problem?

 

[mop]

as for your point about the Antarctic growth versus the Arctic decline, you conveniently fail to differentiate between volume and area. Has the Arctic declined significantly over the past 30 years? Absolutely! but the Arctic contains something significantly LESS than 10% of the ice on planet earth whereas the Antarctic contains 90% all by itself. If the volume of ice grows in the Antarctic it is quite significant indeed regardless of area growth or reduction. We would need to compare apples to oranges to see what has really happened volume wise. I am not aware of a good side by side comparison but I am guessing it is out there. Certainly we have the ability with these satellites that are using altimetry or gravity measurements.

 

[pasotex]

Now you are just all over the map and completely incoherent. You act this way because you actually do not understand the models, the science or scientific method. Why are you wasting my time?

Your only contribution to this thread was to post some incomplete video and single page pdf that comes from Watts and may or may not question GRACE results showing land ice mass in Antarctica is decreasing. What does the entire paper or video say? Have we heard from the author? Is this science where Watts grabs an eight minute video and just makes **** up? (I know this actually is your version of "science" so it is a rhetorical question).

You are then spouting some some virtually incoherent nonsense about the amount of ice in the Arctic versus Antarctica like this ratio disproves the science of AGW. The melting of the Arctic and the rise in temperatures particularly the disproportionate rise in the far north were predicted as one of the first signs of man's impact on this planet. You would know this if you were at all familiar with the science or at all interested in the truth of what is occurring, why, and what is probable to take place in the future. You aren't.

You spend these threads like a feces flinging monkey attempting to make a mess. How about you answer a very simple set of questions?

Does GRACE show land ice in Antartica increasing or decreasing?

How does GRACE measure land ice volume?

What does ICESat show in Antarctica and have any complete reports come from it?

Feel free to link the actual ICESat reports.

How does or even can ICESat measure volume (keeping in mind that volume is a three not one or two dimensional measure)?