• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Research Finds Antarctica’s Ice Shelves Are Melting Rapidly

Quaestio said:
Figure 1: Dark blue line represents 2016 sea ice extent. Light blue area represents maximum/minimum recorded extent between 1979-2015. Black line represents average extent between 1979-2015

#Whoosh!
Click to expand...

I can understand that you like the pictures, but, “Within the space of just two years, we have gone from a record high winter sea-ice extent to record daily lows for this point in the season.”
 
humbolt said:
I can understand that you like the pictures, but, “Within the space of just two years, we have gone from a record high winter sea-ice extent to record daily lows for this point in the season.”
Click to expand...
Yes, that's one of the quotes I posted from the article.

But I can understand why you prefer pseudoscience blog nonsense from WUWT.
 
Quaestio said:
Yes, that's one of the quotes I posted from the article.

I can understand why you get confused by pseudoscience blog nonsense from WUWT.
Click to expand...

But you can't understand a retreat from a recorded high. Impressive.
 
Quaestio said:
"In our warming world, the implications of a rapid, metre-scale sea-level jump late during the last interglacial are clear for both future ice-sheet stability and reef development. Given the dramatic disintegration of ice shelves and discovery of rapid ice loss from both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, the potential for sustained rapid ice loss and catastrophic sea-level rise in the near future is confirmed by our discovery of sea-level instability at the close of the last interglacial. Furthermore, the inhibition of reef development that this instability caused has negative implications for the future viability of modern reefs, which are already being impacted by anthropogenic activity on a global scale."
Click to expand...

Of course it was happening before, and there was no dominant species burning fossil fuels.

Don't you see the intent of my post?

Just what are we suppose to do. I will contend, until someone convinces me with proper science, that CO2 is not what we should be worried about.

My contentions:

1) Land use changes and the proximity of monitoring stations is skewing the actual global changes.

2) Solar is a natural variable that changes the earth heat more than CO2 does.

3) Aerosols are the major factor in the northern ice melt because of the way they decrease albedo. There is also geothermal melting.

4) There are still natural cyclical variables we don't understand well.

If the alarmists want me to listen to them, they need to do a better job of opening their science to all. They need to step up and tell the world when the pundits are misrepresenting their science. We need to take political spending out of science.

So many more things. That's just off the top of my head, but consider one key thing. The alarmists have cried wolf far too many times to have any credibility.
 
Quaestio said:
Perhaps learn the difference between ice-shelves (OP article) and sea ice (WUWT blog)?

But speaking of Antarctic sea-ice:

“Within the space of just two years, we have gone from a record high winter sea-ice extent to record daily lows for this point in the season.”

Source:
Low winter sea ice coverage around Antarctica

View attachment 67210383

Figure 1: Dark blue line represents 2016 sea ice extent. Light blue area represents maximum/minimum recorded extent between 1979-2015. Black line represents average extent between 1979-2015
Click to expand...
Who cares?

We all know the ice is melting in the north, and relatively stable in the south.

We all know the ocean heat content is rising.

We all know atmospheric temperatures are rising.

This does not mean it is CO2 causing the extent of these problems. Correlation does not automatically mean causation.

The science is very complex, and it irritates the hell out of me the way the pundits misrepresent what papers actually say. It irritated me more, when a scientist prepares a paper, with intentionally large weasel words, equivocation, and conclusions based of the start "if we assume" just to make a paper that will secure grant money.

Follow the money people!
 
mbig said:
And uh, WHO is likely to be "Cherry Picking"?
A New article in the [Conservative] WSJ, and Nasa/JPL... or a 2 year Old posting on WUWT: an Infamous climate skeptic Blog?

I see the old politico.com Mafia is out in force again. Full posting and 'like' support.. Never facts.
These guys just go around the board with team play and 50% of each others 'likes'.
Click to expand...
Jack Hays said:
Yeah. You can't trust those NASA Goddard guys.:roll::lamo:mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Yes, we must go with Blogger WattsUp(my ass)WithThat (+ One-line science bashers) instead of NASA, Goddard, NOAA, etc.
The usual.

(what nonsense/juvenile/last-wording One-liner will follow this time? No matter, it makes the string 'bumpable' again. Always works)
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Yes, we must go with Blogger WattsUp(my ass)WithThat (+ One-line science bashers like you) instead of NASA, Goddard, NOAA, etc.
The usual.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one responding to NASA data with personal attacks.
 
mbig said:
And uh, WHO is likely to be "Cherry Picking"?
A New article in the [Conservative] WSJ, and Nasa/JPL... or a 2 year Old posting on WUWT: an Infamous climate skeptic Blog?

I see the old politico.com Mafia is out in force again. Full posting and 'like' support.. Never facts.
These guys just go around the board with team play and 50% of each others 'likes'.
Click to expand...
Jack Hays said:
Yeah. You can't trust those NASA Goddard guys.:roll::lamo:mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Jack Hays said:
I'm not the one responding to NASA data with personal attacks.
Click to expand...
Yes you are/did. See above.
As always, you're Not responding at all.
Just last wording with one liners.
Your first quoted response, with 3 emoticons, was just plain Trolling. You had no answer.
But it sill serves a purpose that everyone else can see... and of course this string bump. thx
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Yes you are/did. See above.
As always, you're Not responding at all.
Just last wording with one liners.
Your first quoted response, with 3 emoticons, was just plain Trolling. You had no answer.
But it sill serves a purpose that everyone else can see... and of course this string bump. thx
Click to expand...

Not trolling, ridiculing. It's what happens when you dodge the data and go ad hominem. No one respects that.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not trolling, ridiculing. It's what happens when you dodge the data and go ad hominem. No one respects that.
Click to expand...
"Ridiculing" Nasa/JPL (via WSJ) DATA (YOU dodged), as well as Childishly Baiting with 3 emoticons, IS Trolling.
thx for the bump. See you tomorrow after 4PM (-11PM, and all-day weekends) since it's nighty night time.
Thx for the 17 hour bump.
 
mbig said:
"Ridiculing" Nasa/JPL (via WSJ) DATA (YOU dodged), as well as Childishly Baiting with 3 emoticons, IS Trolling.
thx for the bump. See you tomorrow after 4PM (-11PM, and all-day weekends) since it's nighty night time.
Thx for the 17 hour bump.
Click to expand...

Good luck in all your endeavors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom