ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

[Punx0r]

You lack understanding on how written discussion work. It is often less important to answer questions to prove the questioner wrong/right, but to show other readers your answer or reason. By your logic, you decide who is worthy of an answer or not. I have my reasons why I don't buy the argument and that should not exclude me from the discussion(but everybody is free not to answer me if they so want).

Why is the burden of proof on everyone else to provide evidence to dispel your theories? Especially considering you are the contrarian?

This isn't a discussion about whether human CO2 emissions cause climate change - that is already well established as scientific fact.

 

[TheBeastie]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/12/world/larsen-c-antarctica/index.html

Yeah, what could global warming have to do with ice melting

Yeah, that's hit the mainstream media nicely, should create some great clickbait etc and in bring in some revenue.
Has anyone forgotten the other half of this topic? "and Antarctica reach new highs"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-sea-ice-officially-hits-new-record-maximum/

What I love about this NASA video is watching this climate change scientist trying to explain the massive record breaking ICE land growth increase in Antarctica is and I quote "a little bit of a mystery".
The sad reality is despite this video being on youtube since 2014 only got 500k views. No one is remotely interested in what's really going on out there.
---> https://youtu.be/J_WWXGGWZBE?t=45s
While this complete baloney hypothetical sea level rise video put out by Business-Insider in 2015 has over 11million views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbiRNT_gWUQ
What it proves is just like Facebook Memes, nothing has a more powerful effect on the human mind than simple graphics and a simple message that can be easily absorbed. Its the same reason why kids love cartoons, its the power of easily absorbable media for them, adults just like with slightly more relevant themes.

All the most amazing advanced sea level measuring instruments show nothing in real sea level changes, or you can look at near 200year old sea level markers in rocks that are still in the exact same place after all these years. https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=62745&start=800#p1274298 ( post includes/compares with these detailed highly interactive sea-level map https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html that really just averages out to nothing)

There were some reports suggesting that the massive ice buildup in the Antarctic could create a bridge of ice reaching Chile/Argentina, I was actually nervous about that because if it can reach Chile then it's not much harder to reach the bottom of Australia.

So for me its healthy to finally see some ice come off Antarctica as it was just getting quite huge in ice growth down there.
Another youtube video from the co-founder of Greenpeace https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc

Save yourselves the keyboard time guys..
Just go back to page 31 and re-read the same CO 2 debate all over again !

I misread your statement and thought you said try reading the first 5 pages from the start of this thread, which I did, also because the initial OP was about Antarctica gaining ice and now after these years we get mainstream media articles about it losing a chunk of ice its nice to see what people were thinking a few years ago.

The clear thing to me was the only person in those first 5 pages who showed they were thinking for themselves was neptronix.
Neptronix was far more carefully analyzing the information put in front of him.
Almost everyone else was just sucking down sensationalized climate change media like it was Cocacola.
And when folks saw he was merely thinking for himself some then turned on him, URLs that were respectable or not stopped being posted and it was more about just undermining the person.

For me I been thinking about an issue I have observed for around last decade, that some people worship one political party/tribe or the other to a point that I realized was completely insane, there was just no rational behind it.
I think that if I could show some item to them and say it was created by their favorite political party they virtually choose to compulsively masturbate and ejaculate over it in some kind of extreme worship form, if at least if they were in private room and no one was watching...

Climate science has become completely politicized and some are so hopelessly stuck in political worship that they can't see rational information even if it was drilled into their heads.
That's why this video below has been a huge hit and go viral on FB with millions of views, even if the examples used were against the right vs left which tends to be the inverse for co2 climate change arguments, but again to me that's starting to think in black n white methodology about which "tribal side" your on.

Also when looking at the first 5 pages you see some are just the sensationalized charts by mainstream click-bait media that could have been created by kids and they swallow it down. Its not about the truth anymore it's about pushing tribal instincts belief for survival and not logic.
This video is just so important to me because it helps explain IMO why some people are just to put it bluntly, truly demented, and they can't see it even if their lives depended on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S74C-XF9kYY
[youtube]S74C-XF9kYY[/youtube]

Interestingly this movie called "Climate Hustle" says the same thing in that the Climate has become the new religion and those who disagree will be treated as heretics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXBzjBE9l5Q
[youtube]nXBzjBE9l5Q[/youtube]

 

[billvon]

While this complete baloney hypothetical sea level rise video put out by Business-Insider in 2015 has over 11million views.

So let's look at real sea level changes instead.

 

[LockH]

While this complete baloney hypothetical sea level rise video put out by Business-Insider in 2015 has over 11million views.

So let's look at real sea level changes instead.

Oooops... :wink:

Maybe can add ES Bible "Search found 16 matches: +global +dimming".

... Watt some might say brought about the History of the bike and Power-Assist:
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1125

:wink:

 

[Hillhater]

.....So let's look at real sea level changes instead.

Do you actually believe the sea level has risen 2+ inches since 2000 ?

 

[billvon]

.....So let's look at real sea level changes instead.

Do you actually believe the sea level has risen 2+ inches since 2000 ?

On average - yes. Here in Socal, we saw about .75 inches since 2000 (since Socal is, in general, rising due to plate tectonics.) Long Island saw 2.1 inches. Northern CA saw 3. There are even places in Alaska where it is dropping due to tectonic activity. But on average, yes.

 

[LockH]

The Uninhabitable Earth
("Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us: What climate change could wreak — sooner than you think."):
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

 

[Warren]

Michael Mann used to be at UVA. We went to his talks years ago. He has gotten much more concerned, as the years go by, and new data comes in. But he is still pretty cautious. He figures we still can save ourselves, if we really try.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/doomsday-scenarios-are-as-harmful-as-climate-change-denial/2017/07/12/880ed002-6714-11e7-a1d7-9a32c91c6f40_story.html

I am not as optimistic as him. But then, he seems to really like people.

 

[Dauntless]

So what does Anthony Bourdain think of all this?

https://explorepartsunknown.com/destination/antarctica/

 

[LockH]

Hehe... Might be "careful" re Anthony Bourdain? Per Wiki:

Anthony Michael Bourdain (born June 25, 1956) is an American chef, author, and television personality. He is a 1978 graduate of the Culinary Institute of America and a veteran of numerous professional kitchens, including many years as executive chef at Brasserie Les Halles. He has been noted as one of the most influential chefs in the world.

NOT sure any "chef" is relevant re "ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica"... :wink:

 

[billvon]

NOT sure any "chef" is relevant re "ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica"... :wink:

Depends. If he denies climate change, he will suddenly be seen by the right as a leading climate scientist.

 

[Dauntless]

NOT sure any "chef" is relevant re "ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica"... :wink:

Depends. If he denies climate change, he will suddenly be seen by the right as a leading climate scientist.

And if he supports it, the left will call him a visionary and proof that substance abuse is a good thing, what with his admitted dalliances. All he has to do is take a stand, and SOMEONE will hail him.

But just let him say "I'd have to know more. . . ." and listen to the left call him a coward.

 

[Punx0r]

Perhaps the continued scepticism towards AGW in the U.S. is understandable considering the U.S. government is clearly not in consensus about it, like is the case in many other developed nations. It's easy to forget political and social climates vary around the world. I mean when the U.S. energy secretary publically announces that he doesn't "believe" that CO2 is the main driver of climate change, then what hope is there for the average lay person?

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/us-energy-secretary-rick-perry-climate-change-american-meteorological-society-a7804041.html

It's amazing that in a job where knowing basic things like the environmental impacts of energy policies is Day 1 fundamentals, this man would be willing so uninformed. He has no excuse - he has any number of expert scientific advisors at his disposal.

 

[jimw1960]

RE, bvillion's post above: Antarctica is NOT gaining ice. The article he linked was about the extent of sea ice on the ocean around Antarctica, which reached highest maximum extent since satellite measurements started in the 1981--not a really long record--in 2014. The areal extent of sea ice tells you nothing about the mass of ice, just the area it covers. On both the north and south poles, sea ice has been getting thinner, with multi-year ice (ice that does not melt from one year to the next) getting more and more scarce, especially in the north pole region.

The continent of Antarctica is currently losing land ice mass. The loss of freshwater ice from the continent can reduce the salinity of sea water, allowing it to freeze at a higher temperature. This could partially be a reason for greater area being covered with sea ice, but really it has mostly to do with wind and weather patterns.

Another point to make about that article is that it was from 2014. Now, in 2017, sea ice around Antarctica and the Arctic ocean on the north side were BOTH at record lows just this past March and April. In June, Antarctica was still at record low for this time of year and Arctic ocean was very close to the record low seen in 2012.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

[TheBeastie]

.....So let's look at real sea level changes instead.

Do you actually believe the sea level has risen 2+ inches since 2000 ?

Yeah, and yet Port Authors sea level markers almost 200 years ago which is in a well respected sound geological area for carving into the rock the sea level hasn't moved or has barely.

So much of the core of Australian history in explaining its animals and indigenous people directly undermines the argument of increases of man made co2 causing sea level increases, its core Australian history thats taught in schools etc. Australia's history exposes the climate change co2/sea level claim for being a nothing but a climate hustle money grubbing pile of baloney.
This is because 20,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age, sea levels were 130 metres lower than they are now. Since then the sea has risen that 130m, thus cutting off Tasmania from the mainland and marooning the Aborigines who were already there (among many other things). And all this happened BEFORE the Industrial Revolution and flys into the face of historical co2 charts.

The climate has always been cyclical with or without co2, and it is facile to believe anything else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Tasmanians#Before_European_settlement


It's amazing how folks can even dispute such evidence which includes animals that were locked into these lands as the sea level rose just like the endemic King Island Emu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Island_emu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Island_emu#/media/Fileromaius_distribution.png

Quote from Wikipedia The King Island emu .. is an extinct subspecies of emu that was endemic to King Island, which is situated in the Bass Strait between mainland Australia and Tasmania. Its closest relative may be the extinct Tasmanian emu .., as they belonged to a single population until less than 14,000 years ago, when Tasmania and King Island were still connected.

The crazy situation is if you believe in co2 causing sea levels to rise etc then you're forcing your self to believe the indigenous people of Australia flew on top of emu's down to Tasmania and were too tired to ever fly back (or their offspring), because there was no other way for them to get there.
Thus denying the well-respected science behind Australia's history in the explanation as it says on Wikipedia as linked above.

Over the last 14,000 years co2 has only been dropping as NASAs chart shows.

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2761677.stm
Quote The records, when carefully compared with current sea levels and movement of the cliff face itself, indicate an overall rise in the ocean level of 1mm a year - totalling between 16cm and 17cm.
16cm is 6.2inches for 176 years.


I have the original full image as my desktop background, its just a lovely picture.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/04/19/science/19TASMANIA3/19TASMANIA3-superJumbo.jpg

 

[billvon]

Perhaps the continued scepticism towards AGW in the U.S. is understandable considering the U.S. government is clearly not in consensus about it, like is the case in many other developed nations. It's easy to forget political and social climates vary around the world.

In addition, a large number of people in the US are employed by fossil fuel interests, or have much of their savings in fossil fuel stocks or the industries that depend on them. They have an understandable reluctance to put their own income in jeopardy.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair

 

[jimw1960]

Wow, the mental and logical gymnastics that some people are willing to go through in order to convince themselves that scientific evidence counter to their political beliefs must not be real is astounding.


"Hey look! some guy carved a line in a rock somewhere in Australia 200 years ago, therefore all of the satellite and survey evidence of sea level rise over the last 150 years must be some kind of conspiracy."

 

[Hillhater]

Wow, the mental and logical gymnastics that some people are willing to go through in order to convince themselves that scientific evidence counter to their political beliefs must not be real is astounding....."

Odd ! ..i was thinking a similar thing...but from a very different viewpoint :wink:
I have decided that "Climate Change ". Is very similar to Politics and Religeon, all have their share of "False Gods" , leaders, doom merchants, etc etc, ...and followers that have different views and beliefs and are prepared to interpret the "facts" to suit their own preference.
Nothing is certain in this world, conventional science has been turned on its head several times as time advances our knowlege, so i treat ALL science data with a heathy dose of common sence.

 

[TheBeastie]

"Hey look! some guy carved a line in a rock somewhere in Australia 200 years ago, therefore all of the satellite and survey evidence of sea level rise over the last 150 years must be some kind of conspiracy."

And this seems to be the line we get from today's typical climate scientists, what you said above, at least when there from the money grubbing fear monering camp.
This "guys" full time job from 170 years ago was to record the sea level as best he could as a full time job.
He wrote book on the sea level and your just too lazy and dismissive to even bother looking at a mere web page article about how truly valuable it is to have such detailed records of sea level that are verifiable today.

I understand why because there's no money in the boring truth.
Your more like these guys https://youtu.be/hTkBg7JJBo0

[youtube]hTkBg7JJBo0[/youtube]

I get it, it's great bs but it's just not the truth.

 

[Dauntless]

"Hey look! some guy carved a line in a rock somewhere in Australia 200 years ago, therefore all of the satellite and survey evidence of sea level rise over the last 150 years must be some kind of conspiracy."

First I would need to see this 150 year old satellite info. I think it's a conspiracy to keep us from knowing we HAD satellites 150 years ago. I want to see the satellite shots of some of those Civil War battles. Monitor vs. Virginia, etc.

So I guess you must have been frightened at birth by a paleontologist, what with your obsession with dismissing the way they work. So let's see what you have to say in writing off the significance in the rings in trees. (Dendrochronology)

http://www.priweb.org/globalchange/climatechange/studyingcc/scc_01.html

 

[Punx0r]

This is the reason the human race is likely doomed.

Thebeastie in particular, it's like watching an indignant God-botherer trying to arguing the scientific "evidence" for Creationism.

Then we have Hillhater who is anti-science and believes the consensus of thousands of intelligent, educated, experienced people is trumped by his own intuition. There's that clichéd line of "science has been wrong before, you know!" as though that somehow automatically invalidates any future argument.

 

[jimw1960]

First I would need to see this 150 year old satellite info. I think it's a conspiracy to keep us from knowing we HAD satellites 150 years ago. I want to see the satellite shots of some of those Civil War battles. Monitor vs. Virginia, etc.

So I guess you must have been frightened at birth by a paleontologist, what with your obsession with dismissing the way they work. So let's see what you have to say in writing off the significance in the rings in trees. (Dendrochronology)

http://www.priweb.org/globalchange/climatechange/studyingcc/scc_01.html

Satellite data is since 1981 but confirms the trend of measurements over the last 150 years. I went to one of the best universities in the country for tree-ring studies. That link you provided has no useful information other than a short summary of what dendrochronology is. So what is your point? In fact the website that YOU linked to has the following statement:

Global Warming refers to the gradual increase in global temperature since roughly 1900, the midst of the Industrial Revolution. There have been periods of natural warming throughout Earth's history, but science indicates that current warming is an acceleration of natural cycles due to human activity.

 

[jimw1960]

This "guys" full time job from 170 years ago was to record the sea level as best he could as a full time job.
He wrote book on the sea level and your just too lazy and dismissive to even bother looking at a mere web page article about how truly valuable it is to have such detailed records of sea level that are verifiable today.

Dude, you are talking about a line on a rock at a single location with measurements recorded by a single person for a short period of time in the 1800s and trying to use that to invalidate much more rigorous measurements using much more sophisticated methods from all over the world. But I'm just a fear monger. So tell me, what are your scientific credentials that make you such an expert in climate science? Maybe you could explain the physics of how a warming ocean does not exhibit any thermal expansion and how measured ice losses from continents all over the world do not add any water to the ocean? I'll await your explanation.

 

[jimw1960]

I've posted this link before. Take a look at this interactive map that shows the sea level trends at different places all over the world. Click on any arrow and it will give information on the data used to make the estimate as well as the 95% confidence interval and links to show a plot of the data. The rates of rise indicated are relative to continental reference points. There are some places on Earth where land is still rising, such as Sweden and Northern Canada, which are still undergoing isostatic rebound since the removal of 10,000 feet of ice from the last glaciation. The result is an apparent drop in sea level with reference to the land mass. Those areas are the exception, however, as sea levels are rising all over the rest of the world. In some areas where the land may be sinking, such as near New Orleans, the rate of sea level rise is much greater. All data sets must have at least 30 years of observation to be included in this map, many stations have more than 100 years of data. The data can be downloaded and examined by anyone.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

Now someone explain how that line in the rock and some hand survey measurements from 150 years ago are somehow disproving all of these other measurments? How did that guy account for continental uplift or subsidence? Was he on the job for over 30 years to get enough data to compute a meaningful trend? Did he also measure sea floor pressures to corroborate his survey measurements?

 

[TheBeastie]

I've posted this link before. Take a look at this interactive map that shows the sea level trends at different places all over the world. Click on any arrow and it will give information on the data used to make the estimate as well as the 95% confidence interval. The rates of rise indicated are relative to continental reference points. There are some places on Earth where land is still rising, such as Sweden and Northern Canada, which are still undergoing isostatic rebound since the removal of 10,000 feet of ice from the last glaciation. The result is an apparent drop in sea level with reference to the land mass. Those areas are the exception, however, as sea levels are rising all over the rest of the world. In some areas where the land may be sinking, such as near New Orleans, the rate of sea level rise is much greater. Now someone explain how that line in the rock and some hand survey measurements from 150 years ago are somehow disproving all of these other measurments? How did that guy account for continental uplift or subsidence?

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

Yeah I love that map, almost all the up arrows are light green, so 0-3mm a year and most of the others are some gigantic arrows pointing down.
The reason why the green arrow is 0-3mm despite being super advanced measurement technology is that its so tiny they aren't even sure there is any movement at all, if it was 1-3mm it would help your argument but clearly its so tiny can't cant even give you guys 1mm, 1mm is friggin tiny. I my self can't believe they can't give it 1-3mm and I am sure they would of loved to have 1-3mm but they obviously don't want to by liars so its 0-3mm and I respect them for that.
Zero-3mm in other words.

To me its tiny, and consistent with the movements in the last 15,000 years and there is no way cutting co2 is going to stop that movement.
It amounts to a big nothing.
We can pump and will pump for 100's of years yet and not have a problem other than say too much vegetation and thus wildlife growth and activity.