Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record

[pasotex]

For extra credit, is it possible that both GRACE and ICESat are correct (let's pretend that ICESat shows an increase)?

Can you reconcile the two results scientifically?

This is what I think Zwally was attempting to do at this workshop, but since I do not have his actual report or the entire video, I cannot tell. The mass of ice in Antarctica was predicted by the models to initially grow and then melt with a vengeance.

You think it is some huge gotcha moment if the model is inaccurate or incomplete in some tiny insignificant way. The models are predictive and have been right in so many ways that this does not call into question the basic science. You guys are like creationists claiming that some gap in the fossil record disproves evolution ignoring the entirety of the research that comprises it. The science is robust and tweaking around the edges is understandable unless you have a silly agenda.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

pasotex, sad to say it, but you are SUCH a sucker.

mop plays you like a fiddle.

 

[pasotex]

Except this is science and there is a truth at the end of the day. I get that you guys do not understand the science and so you must grasp at stuff. The feces flinging monkey is entertaining to the other lesser primates.

 

[VYFan]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

So I guess CO2 does not retain heat. Eureka!

 

[mop]

well, i can admit a that this:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

This is science. It isn't a debate over the meaning of words. The ice balance in Antarctica is either trending one way or the other or static. You obviously do not know what ICESat can and cannot prove (or I should say proved since the satellite is no longer functioning). GRACE has indicated that the mass of land ice in Antarctica is trending downward.

This where peer review and real scientists become important. Let's pretend that ICESat shows land ice increasing. You then must reconcile this finding with GRACE. It is possible that ICESat by only measuring the height of the surface is missing volume or actual mass loss beneath the surface. Have you ever watched snow melt? It frequently melts from beneath the surface and runs off until the entire frozen surface just collapses.

It is also possible that GRACE is somehow inaccurate or incorrect. We do know, however, that a number of papers using GRACE data showing the trend of lessening land ice have been peer-reviewed and published. We do not have anything of the sort with Zwally and ICESat.

So where does this leave us?

You have an incomplete video and single page of a paper from a workshop on ice in Antarctica that you think proves something and overturns actual data and complete published and peer-reviewed papers? This is a joke right?

 

[mop]

Let's look at what recent peer reviewed papers have said about that:



Antarctic precipitation serves as a negative feedback to ice loss

from that study:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bronco]

Paso- You are not helping advance the case for AGW. I get that you don't care but you argue and present information in such a way that you come across like an ADD child on meth. You attribute things to MOP that he never says and include facts that are completely irrelevent to the questions at hand.

You never admit anything even when it is as simple as 2+2. I have no idea why you do this but it is comical to the rest of us. The original models on climate changed did NOT predict ice accumulation in Antarticta. Either land or sea ice. This is not really indicative of anything. It neither proves nor disproves AGW theory. It just sheds light that the models that we were told were difinitive, were not actually difinitive. But you will not even admit this. It makes you look foolish and, more importantly, dishonest intellectually to the point that your argument seeems based on emotion more than science.

I wont put words in MOP's mouth but at least he is very consisitent. He may be completely wrong, but he is honest intellectually in his pursuit.

 

[pasotex]

The original models did predict ice accumulation in Antarctica. I have already linked this in this thread. You would know this if you were familiar with the literature. As far as scoreboard or keeping score on these threads, mop "wins" for one thing and one thing only - obfuscation. He is very persistant and uses Watts as a resource. Watts (like mop) is a joke. He is consistent? He is consistently and repeatedly always wrong.

These threads should be about science not inane debate or obfuscation. I get that I am never going to persuade certain people (like you or mop) and I am not trying. I am primarily just demonstrating my superior knowledge and putting the actual science out there for anyone who is interested. You guys hold no interest and are uninteresting other than to mock.

 

[mop]

thanks Bronco, it is humbling to have you recognize that. i don't mind people disagreeing but acting like i am a liar, manipulator or that i am purposefully misleading people gets old.

Paso, I did go back and check the IPCC reports from 1995 and 2001 (sorry but 2007 doesn't impress me if not checked against at least the 2nd and 3rd IPCC assessments) and they did predict that the Antarctic would remain relatively stable. I guess what bothers me is that if the Antarctic grows, you say "that was predicted" but if it is melting (which you keep trying to suggest) you say "look! it's AGW." Seems an unfair position if you have both options covered in a binary discussion like this. (speaking of whether or not the Antarctic is growing or shrinking).