oops. the Antarctic is gaining mass
- Thread starter mop
- Start date
Incidentally, a new study out of Oslo, Norway suggests that the warming we have seen since 1850 (in Greenland and Svalbard) is "mainly the result of natural climatic variations." I know this puts a damper on your Apocalypse party, but consider the possibility. Journal of Global and Planetary Change (and yes, I know that this study is looking at Svalbard and Central Greenland.).
and PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE try to remember that I don't question whether or not we have warmed. I question the causation and future warming. I really have repeated that position many times going back to at least 2009.
and PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE try to remember that I don't question whether or not we have warmed. I question the causation and future warming. I really have repeated that position many times going back to at least 2009.
Paso, the Antarctica IS gaining mass. At least it is according to the link I posted to, which may of course turn out to be mistaken. Are you only able to think in extremely simple categories that are binary? Can the earth not be in a 200 year warming trend, but still have a 30 year trend of the Antarctica gaining ice mass? Can we not be in a 200 year warming trend yet simultaneously experience an apparent plateau of the warming for 10-15 years as we have since 1997?
By the way, here is quote from ME on August 13, 2008 (that's 4 years and 1 month ago or roughly 1,500 days):
By the way, here is quote from ME on August 13, 2008 (that's 4 years and 1 month ago or roughly 1,500 days):
PasoTex:
I was waiting on your highly intellectual response to my laughing my head off at your NAIEVETE at saying such a RIDICULOUS thing as that scientists have ruled out all other causes of weather change except manmade CO2. Do you really believe that, or were you just checking to see whether we were awake?
Go ahead, 'cause I'm still laughing at that one.
I was waiting on your highly intellectual response to my laughing my head off at your NAIEVETE at saying such a RIDICULOUS thing as that scientists have ruled out all other causes of weather change except manmade CO2. Do you really believe that, or were you just checking to see whether we were awake?
Go ahead, 'cause I'm still laughing at that one.
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
You did not understand what I posted. I am not surprised.
I suspect that you know next to nothing about the scientific method. You rule out all other potential causes of warming and what is left is the cause. This has been done.
Might there be some mysterious "cause" yet to be discovered?
Perhaps.
This is why the IPCC and science speak in terms of confidence. They have a high degree of confidence that man is the cause of recent warming. This is based on many different things including the models, hard science on physical characteristics of GHG, and ruling out all other known potential causes. This has been done. You might know this if you were familiar with the IPCC or the peer-reviewed literature.
I suspect that you know next to nothing about the scientific method. You rule out all other potential causes of warming and what is left is the cause. This has been done.
Might there be some mysterious "cause" yet to be discovered?
Perhaps.
This is why the IPCC and science speak in terms of confidence. They have a high degree of confidence that man is the cause of recent warming. This is based on many different things including the models, hard science on physical characteristics of GHG, and ruling out all other known potential causes. This has been done. You might know this if you were familiar with the IPCC or the peer-reviewed literature.
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
This just demonstrates how ill informed you are by Watts. The science behind global warming is very solid. The only issue is whether the increase will be around 2 degrees Celsius or 4 or more degrees Celsius from a doubling of CO2 (and we are on target to way more than double CO2). This is it. The rest is just obfuscation. It is what you and your ilk do all the time.
You can read the IPCC or the NAS and see the confidence levels on various hypothesis. You can also see how it has increased over time particularly on attribution. It is a high confidence level now because alternative causes have been explored and eliminated.
On pure science (as in the earth is a giant terrarium in a lab), a doubling of CO2 will result in more than a one degree Celsius rise alone. This is as hard a science as gravity. The additional rise comes primarily from increased water vapor and especially at night. This is all happening. It is getting more humid (as predicted) and nighttime record high lows are massively increasing (as predicted).
You can read the IPCC or the NAS and see the confidence levels on various hypothesis. You can also see how it has increased over time particularly on attribution. It is a high confidence level now because alternative causes have been explored and eliminated.
On pure science (as in the earth is a giant terrarium in a lab), a doubling of CO2 will result in more than a one degree Celsius rise alone. This is as hard a science as gravity. The additional rise comes primarily from increased water vapor and especially at night. This is all happening. It is getting more humid (as predicted) and nighttime record high lows are massively increasing (as predicted).
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
This is also why the arctic is such a bellwether. It was predicted by the models that the arctic temperatures and ice cap would be among the first signs of a changing planet. This is coming true and is coming true far faster than the models have predicted. They are still having trouble modifying the models to account for the rapidity of the melt off. You love to point out areas where the signs are not progressing as rapidly as the models project, but the arctic ice cap is actually on track to disappear in the summer far faster than projected.
What if the rise is more than 4.5 degrees Celsius?
What if the rise is more than 4.5 degrees Celsius?
hornpharmd
5,000+ Posts
Didn't a large ice sheet break off the antarctic recently? I think the graph that Paso posted very clearly shows that the antarctic is losing ice mass. Mop you do a good job of scanning hte internet that remotely backs up stance that ice is not melting all over the world, but unfortunately this just isn't the case.
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
In mop's slight defense, I believe his claim is that the net ice balance is positive in Antarctica. My chart concerned the land ice, but not sea ice. The land ice is decreasing and the sea ice growing. It is my understanding the the net in Antarctica is slightly negative, but I would need to research it further. I do know that the planetary balance is strongly negative (which is really all that matters).
omnipresent
1,000+ Posts
Paso, how do you know these changes aren't cyclical (naturally occurring).and the ice mass situation won't change to the opposite what you're showing to be happening in this lifetime
here are some links that challenge the view that the Antarctica is shrinking:
Discovery news. The Antarctic is growing from the bottom up 2011
New Scientist: Why Antarctic Ice Is Growing Despite Global Warming 2009
National Geographic: Why the Antarctic is growing
Those are pro-global warming sites yet they admit readily that the fact that the Antarctic has been growing has been a mystery. Contrary to claims that the "models have long predicted" Arctic melting and Antarctic growth, this has been a quandary in the scientific community. Do some models predict this? Sure. My guess is that this is because the earlier models were being proven wrong so the new information was put in that "predicted" what was already happening. Once again, I understand why this is a valuable method for improving a model, but it seems dishonest to then claim that the "models predicted this" when what actually happened is that the real world data adjusted the models which subsequently accurately reflected what was in fact already happening.
As evidence of what I am saying. Notice the wording of the above National Geographic article:
Discovery news. The Antarctic is growing from the bottom up 2011
New Scientist: Why Antarctic Ice Is Growing Despite Global Warming 2009
National Geographic: Why the Antarctic is growing
Those are pro-global warming sites yet they admit readily that the fact that the Antarctic has been growing has been a mystery. Contrary to claims that the "models have long predicted" Arctic melting and Antarctic growth, this has been a quandary in the scientific community. Do some models predict this? Sure. My guess is that this is because the earlier models were being proven wrong so the new information was put in that "predicted" what was already happening. Once again, I understand why this is a valuable method for improving a model, but it seems dishonest to then claim that the "models predicted this" when what actually happened is that the real world data adjusted the models which subsequently accurately reflected what was in fact already happening.
As evidence of what I am saying. Notice the wording of the above National Geographic article:
Paso, I think I have been very consistent and very honest. I am fairly quick on these boards to admit when I am mistaken about something. I respond to your points clearly and with evidence. To accuse me of half truths and distortions is fairly crappy of you.
The worldwide trend in ice (in other words the other 10% of the world's ice that hasn't grown like the Antarctica?) appears to be down. There is no question about the Arctic (which holds a tiny percentage of the world's ice compared to the 90% held by the South Pole), but there is a question about the rest of the glaciers on earth because we have such a little amount of information. But I admit that of the information we do have the net seems to be down. But this is not surprising is it? We are coming out of the Little Ice Age. Why shouldn't the trend be down? Furthermore, if we have a choice, why shouldn't we choose warming over cooling? Presumably it is always doing one or the other throughout Billions of years of geological history. Do we really want to head back into an ice age? Flat would be nice (easier to adapt to I am sure) but that is not realistic.
The worldwide trend in ice (in other words the other 10% of the world's ice that hasn't grown like the Antarctica?) appears to be down. There is no question about the Arctic (which holds a tiny percentage of the world's ice compared to the 90% held by the South Pole), but there is a question about the rest of the glaciers on earth because we have such a little amount of information. But I admit that of the information we do have the net seems to be down. But this is not surprising is it? We are coming out of the Little Ice Age. Why shouldn't the trend be down? Furthermore, if we have a choice, why shouldn't we choose warming over cooling? Presumably it is always doing one or the other throughout Billions of years of geological history. Do we really want to head back into an ice age? Flat would be nice (easier to adapt to I am sure) but that is not realistic.
Wow, so all other known potential causes for climate change have been ruled out. Mop, I'm sorry to say your arguments are useless here. Cows farting and gasses released from the ocean floor have no impact at all.
I sure hope that was sarcasm. If it was, it was funny, if it wasn't, it was tragic in its lack of perspective. This conversation reminds me of the story (apocryphal or true I don't know) of the US patent office wanting to close down because everything that could be invented had already been invented. There are about 5 or 6 major discoveries per year that call into question our current perspectives on Climate Change. Unfortunately we are "invested" in the current view by many many billions of dollars and entire careers have been made on it, so this is hard to let go of.
But my buses is that you were being funny Vol Horn 4 Life. And if so, I applaud your point. I agree with it (as you can tell from above.).
But my buses is that you were being funny Vol Horn 4 Life. And if so, I applaud your point. I agree with it (as you can tell from above.).
And as if to add an exclamation point to my own analysis, the growth of the Antarctica actually flies in the face of IPCC models (contrary to claims by others on this thread). From The Journal of Climate August, 2012: The IPCC predicted a reduction in the Antarctic Ice when it has instead grown. From the abstract:
Forbes reporting on the Antarctic GAIN in ice mass. Pretty funny editorial:
Forbes on the Antarctica
Forbes on the Antarctica
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Happy Thanksgiving to all
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 5
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
