- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Your prejudice is the foundation of your ignorance.
-
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!
Antarctic thaw quickens, trillions of tonnes of ice raise sea levels
- Thread starter JacksinPA
- Start date
Your prejudice is the foundation of your ignorance.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 160,900
- Reaction score
- 57,844
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I admit it. I am prejudiced against conspiracy sites which promote pseudoscience. You caught me.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I admit, I am prejudiced against conspiracy sites which promote pseudoscience. You caught me.
You have it wrong.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 160,900
- Reaction score
- 57,844
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I doubt that.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2018
- Messages
- 8,009
- Reaction score
- 1,428
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
There is no such thing as 'analytic' philosophy. There is just philosophy. Wikipedia does not define philosophy. False authority fallacy.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2011
- Messages
- 74,299
- Reaction score
- 32,538
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
[h=1]Evidence of Recent Volcanic Eruptions Under the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet[/h]Guest post by David Middleton The discovery of volcanoes under the Antarctic ice sheet may be old news, but now we have evidence that at least some of them have recently (geologically speaking) erupted… The First Solid Evidence of Eruptions Under Antarctic Ice By Ross Pomeroy September 14, 2017 In August, researchers at Edinburgh University announced that…
September 14, 2017 in Antarctic, Vulcanism.
Yes volcanism is ADDING to the melt rates but AGW is the main driver.
https://today.uri.edu/news/researchers-discover-volcanic-heat-source-under-major-antarctic-glacier/
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Covering his rear end.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 11,375
- Reaction score
- 2,650
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Some of you may want to watch this video. It does a good job of providing an educational overview of Sea Level Rise, and all the causes and effects.
[video]https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/sea-level-rise/sea-level-rise-intro-outro-captioned.webm[/video]
[video]https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/sea-level-rise/sea-level-rise-intro-outro-captioned.webm[/video]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
[h=2]Far Southern Ocean cools. Kiss Goodbye to polar amplication around Antarctica[/h]
A map of the sea surface zone that has cooled since 1979 — from 56S – 72S . It’s a pretty big area. Click to enlarge.
For years the IPCC have said that warming would be amplified at the poles. They warned us things would heat up twice as fast, which would melt sea ice. The oceans surface in turn would switch from being reflective white to a dark absorbing deep blue. Enormous amounts of energy would then flow into the ocean instead of being reflected back out to space. The more it warmed, the more it would warm — unleashing a devastating feedback loop.
As the Arctic warmed, the merchants of doom were keen to tell us how how right they were and this was evidence of man-made warming. But in the Antarctic exactly the opposite trend was taking place.
Mike Jonas has done what the IPCC should have been doing — investigating the trends in the Sea Surface Temperature in the polar latitudes with satellite records. In the latitude band from 56 to 72 degrees south the oceans have cooled, not warmed. The models don’t even have the sign of the trend correct. At the latitudes where the models expected the most warming, the ocean surface cooled as fast as a tenth of a degree per decade. For the sea surface, that’s surprisingly quick.
It’s more evidence that things are seriously wrong in the global models. The modelers don’t understand the climate, they can’t predict the major processes of ocean currents, cloud changes and albedo. How can they even say they “know” what drives changes in the Arctic if their same models fail so badly on the Antarctic? They claim random luck as “success” and throw a veil of silence over the non-random failures.
As McKitrick and Christy point out:
But here, I’m happy to publish his work in the exact form he submitted for peer review (so we can discuss the peer review process itself. Though I would have suggested some edits). Thanks to Mike Jonas for all his work!
Jo
[h=3]_______________________________________________________________
Southern Oceans Sea Surface Temperatures contradict a key element of the IPCC Report[/h]Author: M Jonas (Cover note of submission)
Author’s affiliations: None
[h=3]Abstract[/h]The hypothesis – Surface warming is amplified by sea ice- and snow-related feedbacks near the poles – is supported by climate models and was an important factor in the fifth IPCC report. The sea ice part of this hypothesis was tested, using Sea Surface Temperatures of the Southern Oceans. The test showed clearly that the sea ice part of the hypothesis is contradicted by the data, because there was quite strong overall cooling in the latitudes where amplified warming was expected. There must therefore be one or more important large-scale climate processes that are not reasonably represented in the models. From this, it necessarily follows that the climate models are invalid and their Antarctic projections in particular are now untenable. It also necessarily follows that the climate models’ global projections are unreliable.
Keep reading →
A map of the sea surface zone that has cooled since 1979 — from 56S – 72S . It’s a pretty big area. Click to enlarge.
As the Arctic warmed, the merchants of doom were keen to tell us how how right they were and this was evidence of man-made warming. But in the Antarctic exactly the opposite trend was taking place.
Mike Jonas has done what the IPCC should have been doing — investigating the trends in the Sea Surface Temperature in the polar latitudes with satellite records. In the latitude band from 56 to 72 degrees south the oceans have cooled, not warmed. The models don’t even have the sign of the trend correct. At the latitudes where the models expected the most warming, the ocean surface cooled as fast as a tenth of a degree per decade. For the sea surface, that’s surprisingly quick.
It’s more evidence that things are seriously wrong in the global models. The modelers don’t understand the climate, they can’t predict the major processes of ocean currents, cloud changes and albedo. How can they even say they “know” what drives changes in the Arctic if their same models fail so badly on the Antarctic? They claim random luck as “success” and throw a veil of silence over the non-random failures.
As McKitrick and Christy point out:
Swanson (2013) noted that the changes in model output between CMIP3 and CMIP5 improved the fit to Arctic warming but worsened it everywhere else, raising the possibility that the models were getting the Arctic right for the wrong reasons. …
When Jonas tried to get this significant finding published in the peer review, the usual gatekeeping process meant these simple but cutting graphs were rejected — without a right of reply (that’s another story for another day).
But here, I’m happy to publish his work in the exact form he submitted for peer review (so we can discuss the peer review process itself. Though I would have suggested some edits). Thanks to Mike Jonas for all his work!
Jo
[h=3]_______________________________________________________________
Southern Oceans Sea Surface Temperatures contradict a key element of the IPCC Report[/h]Author: M Jonas (Cover note of submission)
Author’s affiliations: None
[h=3]Abstract[/h]The hypothesis – Surface warming is amplified by sea ice- and snow-related feedbacks near the poles – is supported by climate models and was an important factor in the fifth IPCC report. The sea ice part of this hypothesis was tested, using Sea Surface Temperatures of the Southern Oceans. The test showed clearly that the sea ice part of the hypothesis is contradicted by the data, because there was quite strong overall cooling in the latitudes where amplified warming was expected. There must therefore be one or more important large-scale climate processes that are not reasonably represented in the models. From this, it necessarily follows that the climate models are invalid and their Antarctic projections in particular are now untenable. It also necessarily follows that the climate models’ global projections are unreliable.
Keep reading →
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 11,375
- Reaction score
- 2,650
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
A common theme - AGW is the main driver of warming. Whether it be the oceans, the atmosphere or the land. If something else, such as volcanoes is affecting warming (maybe 5% of the warming), the denier bloggers immediately post crap implying primary causation. It's not science and it's not journalism. I'm not sure what it is.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2011
- Messages
- 74,299
- Reaction score
- 32,538
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I think a good part of it is because they have succeeded in making it a partisan political issue where data and facts have no meaning. It's a coalition of wealthy fossil fuel producers and the alt right. Which is the same as the Right now that so many of them are Trumpers.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 11,375
- Reaction score
- 2,650
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I think a good part of it is because they have succeeded in making it a partisan political issue where data and facts have no meaning. It's a coalition of wealthy fossil fuel producers and the alt right. Which is the same as the Right now that so many of them are Trumpers.
Yes sir!