oops. the Antarctic is gaining mass

M

mop

2,500+ Posts
according to new ICESAT data, the Antarctic, contrary to IPCC claims, is gaining mass:

don't worry though, they have already figured out a way to blame it on Global Warming (whew! right?).

; )

Watts reporting
 
Global warming and climate change is real. NASA knows so. Anyone and everyone with even an ounce of reason, sense and proper education knows so.
The Link

Put down the effing bible and get yourself an education.
 
Mop, I'm interested to know why it seems all your posts are about one subject, and one subject only? Climate science.

Where else do you post? I know there are some knowledgeable people here, but wouldn't it be better to have a discussion for example here:The Link

or here:The Link


Just a few examples I found. I think that you're probably unlikely to sway peoples minds and vice versa. I feel you also have your mind made up, so no matter what someone posted, it is unlikely that you are not going to be a skeptic.
 
Texoz, at times you say things that make it abundantly clear that you are an intelligent guy/girl. Then you turn around and say things that are so absurd I am left wondering if you have basic reasoning skills. My guess is that you are so committed to your ideological position regarding AGW that you can't think straight.

The point made by Coelacanth was that we currently can't bring about a natural climate for a host of reasons. One is that we don't really know what a natural climate looks like, or rather we know that it is an incredibly dynamic thing which can be just about anything. In geological history there have been times when it was MUCH warmer and there have been times when it was MUCH colder. Obviously, there have been everything in between as well. We all know of some of the ideas being thrown about to consider geo-engineering, but an idea is altogether different than proof that we can succeed in what we would be trying to do, let alone the fact that we don't know what "natural" is specifically.

Measuring the effects of this year's drought is all good and well but how much of that drought can be attributed to AGW is an altogether different question that can't be answered, particularly in light of the fact that there have been far more significant droughts. the drought of the 30's dwarfed the drought we have had in the past few years from my understanding. I mean "dust bowl" means something right? We are not at that level and yet somehow we are convinced that this drought is our fault? How does that work?

Finally, to wink at the rise in the Antarctic in favor of the loss of the Arctic is funny. You do know that 90% of the ice on earth (including snow cover, glaciers etc) is in the Antarctic right? That means that if it is growing, it is far more significant in terms of ice than the loss of the entire Arctic (which hasn't happened and probably wont' for quite a while if at all). The albedo affect is of course important although strangely enough it isn't clear that it is having much effect. the increased ice loss may allow more heat to escape out of the Northern oceans during the summer than heat that would be reflected were the ice present.
 
impressive "gains" on land

rolleyes.gif


Antarctica_Ice_Mass.gif
 
Mop ... I don't have the exact study in front of me at the moment but a couple of years ago I read that the worldwide observable glacial mass (all glaciers total) had declined significantly since 1970 and is particularly severe in the HImalayas, Montana and the Northern Rockies, Alaska etc...
 
And to ask an actual scientific question mop (which I know that you will not know the answer to), what is the net of the Arctic and Antarctic?

What is the ice balance on the planet and in which direction is it going?

Is the ocean temperature in Antarctica rising or falling?

You also are wrong about the IPCC and Antarctica, but what else is new. The climate models have alway indicated that warming will be strongest in the Arctic with little to no impact on the Antarctic (some show gains and others relatively little initial impact).
 
I must have missed your first relevant contribution omnipresent.

mop, you did a pretty good job responding except the net is negative in both instances. Haven't I always said that the net is what is important? The earth is retaining more heat and oceans are warming and ice is melting. This is hardly some deep mystery.
 
did someone say it was a deep mystery? the question is causation. we have been warming for 200 years. the rate is not even different. warming from 1908-1943 was virtually identical in slope and amplitude to warming from 1971-2006. yet one is because of CO2 and the other is natural? how do we know this?

Wood For Trees
 
Paso - riddle me this.. what if the earth is retaining more heat, if the surface temps are heating up? Whether man is responsible for an increase or not, what's your point in mentioning this?

Your haha funny attempt at suggesting I bring no relevance to this post make me no.difference.

There is no way anyone can or will ever alter what God has planned for mother earth. There is no way to gauge what modern man has done to effectively raise or lower temps - especially not compared to what mother nature does and has done long before we walked on earth
 
Does CO2 retain heat and is man adding gigatons to the atmosphere each year?

You already have two strikes for a relevant contribution and I am betting that you strike out.
 
You're both missing the point... If man is adding to the overall surface and/or air temperatures - how much moreso than would naturally (without man) occur?

Without a doubt, I do believe there will be days of famine, plauges, monumental devastation from nature. It's been written for quite some time in the Bible
 
I am not missing the point at all, but rather you have no relevant point to add to the discussion. Strike three and you are out!
 
the question remains of attribution. show me why the warming we had from 1971-2006 was definitely mankind's fault, but the warming from 1908-1943 wasn't. How much warming would have happened if man weren't here? What is left? Of that, how much can we affect it by reducing carbon? How much does this cost us in both dollars and opportunity cost? What are the moral implications to the developing world?

I think man's influence is something less than 20%, possibly far less. I do not think that the answer is restriction, particularly when it is the world's poor that suffer the most from our decisions (see DDT ban, ethanol and now the demonizatin of carbon). What are your answers to these points Paso?
 
My answer is that you should read the scientific literature and attribution studies.

Is this your "real" position now? The earth is warming, but we don't know the exact allocation of the cause?

You do realize that this represents a significant change from your prior positions (on this very thread and others) challenging warming, right?

It is amazing that the warming was predicted by Hansen in the 80's and it all came true. I wonder how he was able to do this?

The scientific proof for attribution is partly from this prediction, partly from modeling, partly from basic science (CO2 and other GHG retain heat), and partly from ruling out all other causes. Do you really need peer-reviewed literature on all this? It is out there, but I would have thought you had already read it.

This is a good start:


The Link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top