North pole to melt this year?
- Thread starter hornpharmd
- Start date
Antarctica has steadily grown for the past 30 years as the Arctic has steadily decreased. The only portion of the Antarctica that has shrunk has been one small peninsula. The over all volume has probably grown but it is difficult to say as we don't have great ways of estimating the volume.
To imply the volume has shrunk is fairly silly in light of the evidence. If it has shrunk, then why have the ocean levels not risen much? We can' absorb all of the "hidden heat", Greenland ice melt, Arctic ice melt and Antarctica Ice melt and still have a pedestrian rate of rise of global oceans. it defies explanation.
The simple facts are that while the Arctic has rapidly shrunk, the Antarctica has steadily risen. The best estimate to date of Antarctica's ice was made this past March and it found that there was 4.5% more ice than had been estimated:
Antarctica Ice is bigger than thought.
To imply the volume has shrunk is fairly silly in light of the evidence. If it has shrunk, then why have the ocean levels not risen much? We can' absorb all of the "hidden heat", Greenland ice melt, Arctic ice melt and Antarctica Ice melt and still have a pedestrian rate of rise of global oceans. it defies explanation.
The simple facts are that while the Arctic has rapidly shrunk, the Antarctica has steadily risen. The best estimate to date of Antarctica's ice was made this past March and it found that there was 4.5% more ice than had been estimated:
Antarctica Ice is bigger than thought.
Paso,
you have maturity issues. I am not lying. I am posting directly to the data that confirms my position. If you have data that contradicts it, then post directly to that data. I make mine quite easy to explore on your own. You posted a graph. Where did it come from? I have not been able to find a peer review paper that suggests the volume in the Antarctica is decreasing apart from the Western Peninsula (roughly 10% of the entirety of the continent.)
I posted to an update from the BBC that was from this year and shows that the Antarctica has 5% MORE ice than was thought beforehand. What makes your claim appear, prima facie, even more false is that it defies explanation. If Greenland, the Arctic and the Antarctica are all melting, why is sea level rise more or less constant?
In fact, the ice on the Antarctica and Greenland would actually raise sea level while the ice in the Arctic is floating ice and wouldn't raise sea levels at all.
you have maturity issues. I am not lying. I am posting directly to the data that confirms my position. If you have data that contradicts it, then post directly to that data. I make mine quite easy to explore on your own. You posted a graph. Where did it come from? I have not been able to find a peer review paper that suggests the volume in the Antarctica is decreasing apart from the Western Peninsula (roughly 10% of the entirety of the continent.)
I posted to an update from the BBC that was from this year and shows that the Antarctica has 5% MORE ice than was thought beforehand. What makes your claim appear, prima facie, even more false is that it defies explanation. If Greenland, the Arctic and the Antarctica are all melting, why is sea level rise more or less constant?
In fact, the ice on the Antarctica and Greenland would actually raise sea level while the ice in the Arctic is floating ice and wouldn't raise sea levels at all.
ok, so i did a bit of digging and found that you grabbed that from Nasa's website. It is almost 3 years old and only covers a time period of 10 years. Out of curiosity, does that mean that I can look at the last 10 years of global temperature? I ask of course because the earth has cooled over the past 10 years. I stick to 15 years or greater because that is generally considered the minimum for statistical significance. I guess you only become a stickler for significance issues when it fits your argument?
Regardless, that chart was published before the recent discovery in March that the Antarctic Ice Sheet was actually almost 5% larger than previously believed. Clearly, we have learned something.
Aside from that, let's look at the claim of the graph to which you posted. It claims, that in the 10 years from 2002-2012, the Antarctic Ice Sheet was losing 24 cubic miles per year. Let's assume that estimate was correct (a dubious assumption in light of recent discoveries, but for the sake of argument we will proceed). So how big is the Antarctic? According to the NSIDC, the total cubic size of the Antarctic Ice Sheet is 7.2 million cubic miles:
NSIDC "quick facts on the Antarctica"
So now we see, that according to a 3 years old graph which had 10 years of data, the Antarctic was losing 0.000342857143% per year. At that rate, it would take roughly 29,166,666 years for the Antarctic to completely melt. Obviously, we don't need it to completely melt to have problems, but it would still take a million years (roughly) for it to melt by 3%. Once again, that much more water would be a fairly significant problem, so let's imagine that it were to continue melting for 100,000 years at the rate of the graph you posted. That would still only melt the entire thing by 0.3%.
So how much would 0.3% raise the oceans? Well, the Antarctic contains enough water to raise the entire oceans by 200 feet. Thus all we must do is to multiply the 200 foot figure by 0.3% to find an approximation of how much a melt of 0.3% would raise the oceans. The figure is approximately 7 inches over the next 100,000 years. Very scary eh?
Obviously, I was using linear figures to keep the math simple, but considering we are working with fairly bad data scientifically speaking (10 years of data that is now possibly suspect based upon the new studies which were referenced in the BBC article to which I posted.) I think we can see that we are not in any immediate danger of the Antarctica causing many problems.
(disclaimer…feel free to check my math, i was doing this rather quickly).
Regardless, that chart was published before the recent discovery in March that the Antarctic Ice Sheet was actually almost 5% larger than previously believed. Clearly, we have learned something.
Aside from that, let's look at the claim of the graph to which you posted. It claims, that in the 10 years from 2002-2012, the Antarctic Ice Sheet was losing 24 cubic miles per year. Let's assume that estimate was correct (a dubious assumption in light of recent discoveries, but for the sake of argument we will proceed). So how big is the Antarctic? According to the NSIDC, the total cubic size of the Antarctic Ice Sheet is 7.2 million cubic miles:
NSIDC "quick facts on the Antarctica"
So now we see, that according to a 3 years old graph which had 10 years of data, the Antarctic was losing 0.000342857143% per year. At that rate, it would take roughly 29,166,666 years for the Antarctic to completely melt. Obviously, we don't need it to completely melt to have problems, but it would still take a million years (roughly) for it to melt by 3%. Once again, that much more water would be a fairly significant problem, so let's imagine that it were to continue melting for 100,000 years at the rate of the graph you posted. That would still only melt the entire thing by 0.3%.
So how much would 0.3% raise the oceans? Well, the Antarctic contains enough water to raise the entire oceans by 200 feet. Thus all we must do is to multiply the 200 foot figure by 0.3% to find an approximation of how much a melt of 0.3% would raise the oceans. The figure is approximately 7 inches over the next 100,000 years. Very scary eh?
Obviously, I was using linear figures to keep the math simple, but considering we are working with fairly bad data scientifically speaking (10 years of data that is now possibly suspect based upon the new studies which were referenced in the BBC article to which I posted.) I think we can see that we are not in any immediate danger of the Antarctica causing many problems.
(disclaimer…feel free to check my math, i was doing this rather quickly).
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
You have been discredited at least 100 times on this thread alone and yet you just keep up with the mendacities. It never ends with you and the truth or reality are utterly irrelevant.
The trend in temperature is not flat. The earth is comprised of air, land, and most significantly water.
You are cherry picking (for God only knows how many times) and ignoring water which, as the largest repository of heat on the planet should never be ignored.
What is the total trend? (Hint: we have a temperature imbalance and the heat must go somewhere and if not completely in the air then look at the water). I am also way too bored to go into how to calculate trend with you again.
You know next to nothing about this subject and spend countless hours just spewing false information like a pathetic version of Baghdad Bob. Why?
You act like a paid lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry. Are you a paid lobbyist for anyone?
The trend in temperature is up and the trend in ice is down (on a global and large scale everywhere except for a very small and meaningless amount of surface ice extent in Antarctica that is probably being more than offset by below the surface melt and degradation). These global trends are all that matter and they cannot be scientifically refuted or even disputed (because they are actually true).
I will try to take another month or two off from this thread because it is about as much fun as chasing my tail (actually way less so). Reality cannot be altered by lies. You people are going to be looked at in 20 to 30 years as being far worse than the ******* who claimed that smoking did not cause cancer.
You have no shame. You also have no credibility.
The trend in temperature is not flat. The earth is comprised of air, land, and most significantly water.
You are cherry picking (for God only knows how many times) and ignoring water which, as the largest repository of heat on the planet should never be ignored.
What is the total trend? (Hint: we have a temperature imbalance and the heat must go somewhere and if not completely in the air then look at the water). I am also way too bored to go into how to calculate trend with you again.
You know next to nothing about this subject and spend countless hours just spewing false information like a pathetic version of Baghdad Bob. Why?
You act like a paid lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry. Are you a paid lobbyist for anyone?
The trend in temperature is up and the trend in ice is down (on a global and large scale everywhere except for a very small and meaningless amount of surface ice extent in Antarctica that is probably being more than offset by below the surface melt and degradation). These global trends are all that matter and they cannot be scientifically refuted or even disputed (because they are actually true).
I will try to take another month or two off from this thread because it is about as much fun as chasing my tail (actually way less so). Reality cannot be altered by lies. You people are going to be looked at in 20 to 30 years as being far worse than the ******* who claimed that smoking did not cause cancer.
You have no shame. You also have no credibility.
you are all bluster, but you have the talking points down.
Out of curiosity, when did you first mention water being the main repository of global heat? yeah, that's what I thought. I have watched the Alarmist's argument evolve a bunch over the past 6 years and I am very aware of the new claim that all the heat is hiding in the "deep oceans." Of course, the claim has to include the adjective "deep" because we know that for the first 6,000 feet, where we actually have a bit of data, no significant heat has built up. That's really just embarrassing. You are letting the models lead the evidence instead of the evidence lead the models. You ought to be embarrassed by that fact, but of course you are not. Your philosophy is to try and bully rather than present a good argument. That is not science, no matter how loudly you proclaim your scientific prowess.
Your last paragraph richly applies to you. You read just enough Skeptical Science to be fooled, but not to really learn anything. You even repeat arguments that have already been discredited. Arguments like "the earth has continued to warm" when everyone is admitting that it has not. The scientific literature is even admitting that it has not warmed and MANY are puzzled by that fact. Why? Because it does not fit the models. The data doesn't fit the models. New studies are coming out almost monthly trying to explain the lack of warming but you are about 3 years behind on the rhetoric.
Oh, I have never received one penny of oil money to make my points. I wish I could though! Do you have any suggestions on how I could score some oil money for telling the truth about AGW? Any useful suggestions would be greatly appreciated. See you in 2 months, I hope you learn something in the meanwhile.
Out of curiosity, when did you first mention water being the main repository of global heat? yeah, that's what I thought. I have watched the Alarmist's argument evolve a bunch over the past 6 years and I am very aware of the new claim that all the heat is hiding in the "deep oceans." Of course, the claim has to include the adjective "deep" because we know that for the first 6,000 feet, where we actually have a bit of data, no significant heat has built up. That's really just embarrassing. You are letting the models lead the evidence instead of the evidence lead the models. You ought to be embarrassed by that fact, but of course you are not. Your philosophy is to try and bully rather than present a good argument. That is not science, no matter how loudly you proclaim your scientific prowess.
Your last paragraph richly applies to you. You read just enough Skeptical Science to be fooled, but not to really learn anything. You even repeat arguments that have already been discredited. Arguments like "the earth has continued to warm" when everyone is admitting that it has not. The scientific literature is even admitting that it has not warmed and MANY are puzzled by that fact. Why? Because it does not fit the models. The data doesn't fit the models. New studies are coming out almost monthly trying to explain the lack of warming but you are about 3 years behind on the rhetoric.
Oh, I have never received one penny of oil money to make my points. I wish I could though! Do you have any suggestions on how I could score some oil money for telling the truth about AGW? Any useful suggestions would be greatly appreciated. See you in 2 months, I hope you learn something in the meanwhile.
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
What an obnoxious uneducated clown you are.
This is a thread about arctic sea ice and it does not involve water temperature?
What is the trend in ocean water temperature and how much heat is stored there?
Do we really need to go back 100 pages (or visit some of the other threads) to see how many times I have mentioned the ocean? I remember a long discussion concerning ENSO which most assuredly did involve ocean temperature. I have also repeatedly posted the graphic showing the heat storage and trend because the ocean dwarfs the atmosphere and regulates long term temperature. I also posted that the biggest concerns should be the overall trend along with the amount of heat in the ocean.
Are you a paid lobbyist for anyone? I did not ask solely about oil. I asked about anyone. Your parsed answer tells me all I need to know. You will now probably lie about it.
You know zero about science and spend hours upon hours spouting lies. Why?
This is a thread about arctic sea ice and it does not involve water temperature?
What is the trend in ocean water temperature and how much heat is stored there?
Do we really need to go back 100 pages (or visit some of the other threads) to see how many times I have mentioned the ocean? I remember a long discussion concerning ENSO which most assuredly did involve ocean temperature. I have also repeatedly posted the graphic showing the heat storage and trend because the ocean dwarfs the atmosphere and regulates long term temperature. I also posted that the biggest concerns should be the overall trend along with the amount of heat in the ocean.
Are you a paid lobbyist for anyone? I did not ask solely about oil. I asked about anyone. Your parsed answer tells me all I need to know. You will now probably lie about it.
You know zero about science and spend hours upon hours spouting lies. Why?
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
You are double cherry picking.
What is the trend the last 17 years (and why would you artificially select a time frame) in global heat content?
The graph on ocean heat content covers the last 17 years and includes three different scientific measurements. There is plenty more to it if you were capable or interested in reality (I have linked it before on either this thread or one of the others). You aren't.
So you are a paid lobbyist. Why is this not surprising?
What is the trend the last 17 years (and why would you artificially select a time frame) in global heat content?
The graph on ocean heat content covers the last 17 years and includes three different scientific measurements. There is plenty more to it if you were capable or interested in reality (I have linked it before on either this thread or one of the others). You aren't.
So you are a paid lobbyist. Why is this not surprising?
incidentally, what will it take for you to question AGW theory paso? if we make it to 20 years (quite possible with the sun currently at a peak for solar cycle 24 and with the AMO set to switch to cool in the next 24 months) would that be long enough? You do realize that not one of the global climate models had a 15 year warming hiatus right? In fact, we are currently in what was considered a less than 2% chance of happening according to the almighty climate models. So where does that leave us? I guess you are fairly safe for a while as long as you can invoke the deep oceans, about which we have precious little data, but when do you start to question? 25 years? 30 years? Also, how much do we consider natural and how much is anthropogenic in your understanding of things?
In the past 130 years we have warmed about .8 degrees Celsius. How much of that was natural? How much was manmade? Obviously, for the first half of that, you can hardly blame mankind for much of it at all. So even if you blame us for half of the 2nd half of that time, we are only responsible for 0.2 degrees Celsius of the warming, while mother nature is responsible for .6 degrees or 75% of that. But what numbers do you use? I don't expect you to answer this because it is a very uncomfortable question I am putting in front of you and not at all fun to answer if you want to carry on in your current belief system, but give it a shot.
In the past 130 years we have warmed about .8 degrees Celsius. How much of that was natural? How much was manmade? Obviously, for the first half of that, you can hardly blame mankind for much of it at all. So even if you blame us for half of the 2nd half of that time, we are only responsible for 0.2 degrees Celsius of the warming, while mother nature is responsible for .6 degrees or 75% of that. But what numbers do you use? I don't expect you to answer this because it is a very uncomfortable question I am putting in front of you and not at all fun to answer if you want to carry on in your current belief system, but give it a shot.
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
Your facts, as usual, are wrong. This gets so old and tedious.
The atmosphere (ie air measurements not water) has warmed approximately 1 C since 1910 with somewhat more than .6 C of that warming occurring since 1960. .6 C is a lot of warming and man is primarily responsible. Since many other climate trends would point to a cooling or constant temperature, humans are primarily and almost solely responsible for this. I believe the draft of the latest IPCC report places this at 95% confidence. The amount of heat retained by the ocean over that same time frame dwarfs the atmospheric impact.
This is as atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have gone from about 280 ppm to 400 ppm.
This creates an imbalance. I do not expect you to understand this, but an imbalance causes heat to be retained until you reach equilibrium. This takes decades. We have more and more retained heat in the pipeline.
Meanwhile, we continue to increase the amount of CO2 by about 2 ppm a year (and more sometimes).
The IPCC is all about projections and trend and what may happen in the future.
The biggest concern is what equilibrium will be reached when we double CO2 to 540 ppm or go even higher.
The concern is over a temperature increase of 3 C although the projections are for a range of something like 2.6-5 C (I know this got refined in the latest IPCC report but I am not going to waste my time looking it up).
This is a huge increase in temperature.
Anything over 3 C is likely to cause huge issues and problems. It will alter regional climate. It will make droughts and floods more likely. It will make things far more difficult for my grandchildren and great grandchildren.
The worst part of it though is it leaves us with no room for error. I think we (meaning the US) will be able to adapt, but we will have a planet and climate significantly altered by us.
I do not think this is the right thing to do.
The atmosphere (ie air measurements not water) has warmed approximately 1 C since 1910 with somewhat more than .6 C of that warming occurring since 1960. .6 C is a lot of warming and man is primarily responsible. Since many other climate trends would point to a cooling or constant temperature, humans are primarily and almost solely responsible for this. I believe the draft of the latest IPCC report places this at 95% confidence. The amount of heat retained by the ocean over that same time frame dwarfs the atmospheric impact.
This is as atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have gone from about 280 ppm to 400 ppm.
This creates an imbalance. I do not expect you to understand this, but an imbalance causes heat to be retained until you reach equilibrium. This takes decades. We have more and more retained heat in the pipeline.
Meanwhile, we continue to increase the amount of CO2 by about 2 ppm a year (and more sometimes).
The IPCC is all about projections and trend and what may happen in the future.
The biggest concern is what equilibrium will be reached when we double CO2 to 540 ppm or go even higher.
The concern is over a temperature increase of 3 C although the projections are for a range of something like 2.6-5 C (I know this got refined in the latest IPCC report but I am not going to waste my time looking it up).
This is a huge increase in temperature.
Anything over 3 C is likely to cause huge issues and problems. It will alter regional climate. It will make droughts and floods more likely. It will make things far more difficult for my grandchildren and great grandchildren.
The worst part of it though is it leaves us with no room for error. I think we (meaning the US) will be able to adapt, but we will have a planet and climate significantly altered by us.
I do not think this is the right thing to do.
funny how the alarmists keep claiming that the warming has continued unabated, but here is another peer reviewed article that was just published exploring the model failure:
Nature Climate Journal
Nature Climate Journal
of course this follows on the one from last month. The title was telling:
Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming
Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming
It doesn't matter what we do in the US as long as China and 3rd world countries are on the same page. I can use funny looking light bulbs, and go green...but have you seen what is belching out of China on a daily basis? The yearly massive burnings in Mexico?
We are just a drop in the bucket so to speak. It is disheartening but true.
We are just a drop in the bucket so to speak. It is disheartening but true.
bedhead, that is besides the point. if CO2 isn't doing much to heat the world or to harm it, why are we working hard to hold back developing countries? Even if it IS doing harm to the world (a now dubious claim in my perspective) the best way to move past it is to innovate and to help the world's poorest develop...
Of course when the Arctic ice cap recedes even the tiniest amount beyond the trend, the knee-jerk promoters of anthropogenic global warming theory insist that is evidence that their theories are correct. And likewise, when the Arctic expands beyond the trend, these same people are of such scientific integrity that they readily concede that this is evidence that contradicts their theories (even if it does not "disprove" them).
That is right, isn't it? Well, we are going to find out about that directly, for reasons that the following article indicates.
That is right, isn't it? Well, we are going to find out about that directly, for reasons that the following article indicates.
D
dillohorn
Guest
I'd love to see all of the dems have to walk to work ( I forgot, there won't be any jobs).
ok, so to confirm, this year was indeed about 1.6 millions square kilometers above last year's low point. So it was a surprising "recovery" but still in the very low levels of ice compared to other years. we have basically recovered to the point we were at in around 2006/2007. This next year will be quite interesting. Needless to say, "area" is not equivalent to "volume" and the volume is the much more important figure. It is also the far more evasive data to gather. no doubt, it is much lower than it was when the satellite era began, but then we have been in a positive (warm) phase of the PDO since 1979 and only switched to negative (cool) in the past 5 years. was this year a precursor to a true recovery? perhaps. only time will tell.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
