Arctic sea ice is 3m thick even at the pole. Ice caps are easily 1000m thick and more, meaning the greenland ice cap and those ice flows in canada are substantially far greater in volume, if not in area. Antarcticas ice cap holds something like 60% of water that is not in the sea. And if 9 trillion tons of ice has come off greenland in 100 years, about 900 billion a decade, you have to think 3 times as much has come off antarctica. Most glaciers have recieded in the last 200 years like the one that bear took obama too. There is no doubt about I temperatures are rising and ice is melting along with sea level rise.
I was not happy with this article
- Thread starter Tengu
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Arctic sea ice is 3m thick even at the pole. Ice caps are easily 1000m thick and more, meaning the greenland ice cap and those ice flows in canada are substantially far greater in volume, if not in area. Antarcticas ice cap holds something like 60% of water that is not in the sea. And if 9 trillion tons of ice has come off greenland in 100 years, about 900 billion a decade, you have to think 3 times as much has come off antarctica. Most glaciers have recieded in the last 200 years like the one that bear took obama too. There is no doubt about I temperatures are rising and ice is melting along with sea level rise.
The NASA press release that is indirectly referred to via the whatsupwiththat... link does not refute global warming or really particularly offer good news. Increased snowfall in Antarctica (Which is largely classified as a dessert) is completely consistent with a warmer more humid climate.
"We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA...for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” "But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally...
If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.” (emphasis added)
"We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA...for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” "But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally...
If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.” (emphasis added)
Last edited:
Hang on though, if 90% of an iceberg is underwater and 10% out of the water, and water ice contracts by 10% of volume when it melts surely it will all balance out? Isn't nature weirdly wonderful.
The thing is that an iceberg starts out as a glacier that runs into the sea - so it is 100% added to ocean water volume as soon as it calves off of the glacier. Sorry 'bout that.
Hang on though, if 90% of an iceberg is underwater and 10% out of the water, and water ice contracts by 10% of volume when it melts surely it will all balance out? Isn't nature weirdly wonderful.
I suppose thats true, displacement is something i had not thought good point. But the ice also acts as a mirror reflecting sunlight, but light striking the poleis at a very narrow angle so ?
The nasa fella also says
Now that is a fairly long scale time period and we're on about 400 years or so, and even though its enough to offset glaciers, does it offset all of the ice shelves that flowed out over the sea and then dissapeared? I have known that the climate became alot wetter as the sea level rose at the end of the last ice age for a while, so maybe increased precipitation is an indicator of global warming, point being is man causing it or not?
Blimey, you two are keen.
Great, so you're disputing ice growth/receding and all the rest of it. Thats good, it means there is at least some debate rather than a one sided argument.
Now, how did it all come about then?
Temperatures have not increased over the last 18-19 years... so why is the ice melting as you've described? What is the driving force for the retreat of the ice, and why was there a report saying the levels had returned to the levels of the 1980s? If its receding every year and losing so much ice, how did it return to the levels of 35 years ago?
Its all very confusing... I mean one minute the arctic ice is disappearing... then its not. Back then the temperature is rising, now its not.
Whether or not your particular quote or link says that global warming is still happening, the satellite data says otherwise. The IPCC agrees with the satellite data, so we're going round in circles. Global warming... whether man made or not, hasn't happened for the best part of 20 years. Why the pause?
Once you've established a good argument for the pause, why did John Cook feel the need to falsify data? Why are the IPCC deliberately misinterpreting data? If the science is so indisputable, so unequivocal, why misinterpret or falsify data?
As usual... answers on a postcard.....
Norman Loeb, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center
Between 1998 and 2012, climate scientists observed a slowdown in the rate at which the Earth's surface air temperature was rising. "Heating is still going on," he said. "It's just not in terms of the surface air temperature." there are a handful of short-term factors that drive changes in surface air temperature, like the El Niño and La Niña phenomena that cause temperature fluctuations in the tropical eastern Pacific approximately every two years, he thinks there is a longer term factor that is a significant and overlooked contributor.
"The Pacific Decadal Oscillation affects surface temperature," "You can't just look at short periods of time," Loeb said. "You have to look at the record over a long period of time to see the pattern. There will be natural fluctuations at shorter time scales, but we really shouldn't conclude that that's a change and global warming is going away."
Even as surface air temperatures are currently holding relatively steady, Loeb believes there's still another issue to take into consideration.
"Observations are showing us the planet is still taking up heat, but it is just showing up in a different place," he said.
That different place is the ocean."If you add extra heat to the Earth system, approximately 93 percent of that extra heat ends up stored in the ocean, and the ocean is very deep," Loeb said. "When we look at air temperature, we are just looking at the surface. There's a whole deep ocean where heat can be stored."
Just the high points - follow the link for the full propaganda experience.
In all fairness though this guy might have also been on the team at NASA that faked the Apollo moon shots.
Between 1998 and 2012, climate scientists observed a slowdown in the rate at which the Earth's surface air temperature was rising. "Heating is still going on," he said. "It's just not in terms of the surface air temperature." there are a handful of short-term factors that drive changes in surface air temperature, like the El Niño and La Niña phenomena that cause temperature fluctuations in the tropical eastern Pacific approximately every two years, he thinks there is a longer term factor that is a significant and overlooked contributor.
"The Pacific Decadal Oscillation affects surface temperature," "You can't just look at short periods of time," Loeb said. "You have to look at the record over a long period of time to see the pattern. There will be natural fluctuations at shorter time scales, but we really shouldn't conclude that that's a change and global warming is going away."
Even as surface air temperatures are currently holding relatively steady, Loeb believes there's still another issue to take into consideration.
"Observations are showing us the planet is still taking up heat, but it is just showing up in a different place," he said.
That different place is the ocean."If you add extra heat to the Earth system, approximately 93 percent of that extra heat ends up stored in the ocean, and the ocean is very deep," Loeb said. "When we look at air temperature, we are just looking at the surface. There's a whole deep ocean where heat can be stored."
Just the high points - follow the link for the full propaganda experience.
In all fairness though this guy might have also been on the team at NASA that faked the Apollo moon shots.
Last edited:
So after two decades of showing the world recent temperature increases, after a brief look at the temperature record ie over the last 135 years that we're told proves global warming, Mr Loeb is now saying that we have to look at the temperature record over a greater period of time? How long do we need to look at to be accurate then? Back to the mini ice age of the middle ages? Back to the warmer climes of the Roman occupation? Back further to the ice walls before the flooding of the North Sea? What time period does Mr Loeb recommend?
Loeb readily admits that surface temperatures are steady, then goes onto claim temperature is coming from a 'different place' and he suggests we look to the ocean for answers, but offers no definitive opinion one way or another.
So what is your point posting Loeb's opinion? It doesn't refute anything already said, nor add anything new to the debate. It is the ramblings of someone who is having to admit that despite their position and education, their best answer is "We don't know for sure".
With the greatest respect, you've just added another 'expert' to the list of people saying the temperature is holding steady whilst at the same time offering no solid proof of 'continuing' global warming.
Sorry I was attempting to be funny by bringing in a bit of science that though true will have no effect on what we're talking about (Well it means that melting sea ice has no real effect anyway). I'll pop a bigger smiley at the end next time.
Humour?!? In a thread about global warming!?!? What were you thinking GB? What were you thinking!?!?
Well until the ice all melts, its unlikely a significant temerature incerease will occour, as with melting and evaporation for precipitation will take more enegy like when melting snow and keeping a lid on a pot (venerable ray mears of the learned alumni of bushcraft). Its also unlikely that the ice has returned to what I was, only the surface ice on the northern pole, and I think it is undenieriableist, that the planet has warmed in the last 200 years since dickens and that it is continuing to warm, glaciers have shrunk, ice shelfs have dissapeared. What me and George W Bush wish to know is is it man made, because we could be rejecting coal fired power for no reason, I a lot cleaner than nuclear!
Humour?!? In a thread about global warming!?!? What were you thinking GB? What were you thinking!?!?
That's just it though, thinking is dangerous... it allows us to lead folk astray.
My good lady banned me from poking in with science and reasoned discussion with some of her colleges as she considered it bad manners for me to do so. I had an ally in another of her friends who had an equally obscure and droll sense of humour, so we'd just find ways to zing them that they wouldn't realise. Excellent sport.
Dewi - that isn't even close to what he said or meant. My selective quoting apparently failed to accurately represent the gist of it. Sorry.
If you actually did read the article behind the link, and that really is how you understood it I'm afraid the problem is that one of us is able to interpret things so as to support our firmly held positions even when they really don't.
If you actually did read the article behind the link, and that really is how you understood it I'm afraid the problem is that one of us is able to interpret things so as to support our firmly held positions even when they really don't.
Last edited:
It's cool, it was a pretty poor attempt at humour. I am enjoying the discussion that's going on though. I used to be very much on one side of the argument but like anyone with an open mind or even a slightly science background I'm open to new evidence. I do find though that trying to obtain unbiased and untainted evidence isn't that easy these days and there are also crackpot agenda seeking self serving defectives like Monibot who further muddy the polluted waters with their polluted pap. (It's quite sad as I'd managed to go most of my life (well 'till earlier this year) before coming across this chap and he's gathered a lot of my ire since I have).
Keep having fun and who knows between us we may set the world to rights.
Humour?!? In a thread about global warming!?!? What were you thinking GB? What were you thinking!?!?
Actually the thread is about survivalists, but somehow got derailed onto global warming. Imagine that.
Now all we need to do is get some schmuck to bring up Hitler and we'll have won the trifecta.... DOH!
Well we DO need a situation to trigger survival mode! I think zombists have run (walked) their course.
Now all we need to do is get some schmuck to bring up Hitler and we'll have won the trifecta.... DOH!
Hitler actually escaped from his bunker and his clone descendants have been running global thermal experiments from a laboratory deep underground in Antarctica.
