• 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!

Antarctica is losing ice 6 times faster today than in 1980s

Or maybe not as problematic as some would have us believe?
Perhaps an honest debate on the topic would be / should be in order?

It's Climate Alarmists Who Remain in Denial
It's hard to believe that we're just shy of ten years since contents of the so-called "Climategate" folder revealed the fraudulence of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) scare. Yet, somehow, Climate Alarmists continue to behave as though it was all an innocent misunderstanding; that all evidence of lying, cheating, and exaggeration aside, anyone who doubts the self-serving drivel alarmists have been pushing is a "denier."

And yet it is they, the climate hucksters, who continue to refuse any honest debate on the subject, resorting instead to the same worn out tactics of the pre-Climategate era: false claims of a "consensus" and demonization of dissenting opinions and facts. Those of you who have been paying attention know that you can fertilize your lawn with claims of "consensus."

At a time when the realists' science is the sounder by far; when alarmists' dire warnings of imminent disaster have been exposed as the exaggerated globaloney they are; when energy experts have analyzed and cast serious doubt on alarmists' renewable energy proposals, how can those taking a rational position possibly be called the "deniers"?
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/25/old-explorer-logbooks-reveal-antarctic-sea-ice-unchanged-from-over-a-century-ago/"]
the-gauss-antarctica.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Old explorer logbooks reveal Antarctic sea ice unchanged from over a century ago[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]From the EUROPEAN GEOSCIENCES UNION Antarctic explorers help make discovery — 100 years after their epic adventures Heroes of Antarctic exploration have played a crucial role in research that suggests the area of sea ice around Antarctica has barely changed in size in 100 years. Ice observations recorded in the ships’ logbooks of explorers such as…[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/25/old-explorer-logbooks-reveal-antarctic-sea-ice-unchanged-from-over-a-century-ago/"]November 25, 2016[/URL] in Climate News.
Click to expand...


Wow, yeah, one tiny little spot, location undisclosed, out of millions of square miles. Proof, for sure. This warming is all a hoax. </sarcasm>
 
Idiometer said:
Wow, yeah, one tiny little spot, location undisclosed, out of millions of square miles. Proof, for sure. This warming is all a hoax. </sarcasm>
Click to expand...

Your comment is entirely uninformed. You would do well to read the posts before popping off.

From the link:

[FONT=&quot]In addition to using ship logbooks from three expeditions led by Scott and two by Shackleton, the researchers used sea-ice records from Belgian, German and French missions, among others. But the team was unable to analyse some logbooks from the Heroic Age period, which have not yet been imaged and digitised. These include the records from the Norwegian Antarctic expedition of 1910-12 lead by Roald Amundsen, the first person to reach both the south and north poles.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Here is the link to the paper[/FONT]
 
Idiometer said:
Dude, there is WAY too much math in that report for the average science denier. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention math.

From the link at #11:

Now for the math.
So, if the Antarctic ice sheet weighs 26,500,000 gigatonnes or 26500000000000000 tonnes
252 billion tonnes is 252 gigatonnes
Really simple math says: 252gt/26,500,000gt x 100 = 9.509433962264151e-4 or 0.00095% change per year
But this is such a tiny loss in comparison to the total mass of the ice sheet, it’s microscopic…statistically insignificant.
In the email thread that preceded this story (h/t to Marc Morano) I asked people to check my work. Willis Eschenbach responded, corrected an extra zero, and pointed this out:Thanks, Anthony. One small issue. You’ve got an extra zero in your percentage, should be 0.00095% per year loss.
Which means that the last ice will melt in the year 3079 …
I would also note that 250 billion tonnes of ice is 250 billion cubic meters. Spread out over the ocean, that adds about 0.7 mm/year to the sea level … that’s about 3 inches (7 cm) per century.
As you said … microscopic.
w.
Paul Homewood noted in the email thread:Ice losses from Antarctica have tripled since 2012, increasing global sea levels by 0.12 inch (3 millimeters) in that timeframe alone, according to a major new international climate assessment funded by NASA and ESA (European Space Agency).
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2749/r...ea-level-rise/
0.5mm per year.
Not a lot to worry about.
“They attribute the threefold increase in ice loss from the continent since 2012 to a combination of increased rates of ice melt in West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula, and reduced growth of the East Antarctic ice sheet.”
Translation: The volcano riddled West/Peninsula is melting bit more and the Eastern Sheet is growing a little less than usual.
 
Jack Hays said:
Bingo.
Click to expand...

And even in the few posts between the quoted one and this one, we can see that those convinced the 'science in settled' are not interested in an honest discussion or debate on the matter.

It is clear that their opinion is 'All deniers and doubters are imbeciles and need to be punished'.

This is not a promising start or foundation for any sort of reasoned debate or discussion with people such as this.
 
eohrnberger said:
And even in the few posts between the quoted one and this one, we can see that those convinced the 'science in settled' are not interested in an honest discussion or debate on the matter.

It is clear that their opinion is 'All deniers and doubters are imbeciles and need to be punished'.

This is not a promising start or foundation for any sort of reasoned debate or discussion with people such as this.
Click to expand...

Double bingo.
 
eohrnberger said:
And even in the few posts between the quoted one and this one, we can see that those convinced the 'science in settled' are not interested in an honest discussion or debate on the matter.
Click to expand...
lol

News flash! Yep, most of the science is settled. E.g. We know that humans are flooding the atmosphere with GHGs like CO2 and CH4, and this is causing rapid and dramatic warming. That ship has sailed.

There are some uncertainties, and some specific topics where confidence is medium or low -- and organizations like the IPCC and NASA have no problems identifying and discussing those situations. The IPCC even has set standards for uncertainty, confidence and likelihood.

As far as Antarctica is concerned, something like AR5 Physical Science makes statements like....

By the end of the 21st century, the global glacier volume, excluding glaciers on the periphery of Antarctica, is projected to decrease by 15 to 55% for RCP2.6, and by 35 to 85% for RCP8.5 (medium confidence). {13.4, 13.5}....

There is high confidence that the Antarctic ice sheet has been losing ice during the last two decades (Figure TS.3). There is very high confidence that these losses are mainly from the northern Antarctic Peninsula and the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica and high confidence that they result from the acceleration of outlet glaciers. The average rate of ice loss from Antarctica likely increased from 30 [–37 to 97] Gt yr–1 (sea level equivalent, 0.08 [–0.10 to 0.27] mm yr–1) over the period 1992–2001, to 147 [72 to 221] Gt yr–1 over the period 2002–2011 (0.40 [0.20 to 0.61] mm yr–1). {4.4.2, 4.4.3}

There is high confidence that in parts of Antarctica floating ice shelves are undergoing substantial changes. There is medium confidence that ice shelves are thinning in the Amundsen Sea region of West Antarctica, and low confidence that this is due to high ocean heat flux. There is high confidence that ice shelves around the Antarctic Peninsula continue a long-term trend of retreat and partial collapse that began decades ago. {4.4.2, 4.4.5}

Sorry dude, but one single paper which uses a potentially problematic methodology is simply not enough to overrule al the other evidence. If his results were backed up by more accurate systems like GRACE, he'd have a good case. But, it didn't, so he doesn't, thus until or unless more evidence is found which backs his views? The consensus is fairly solid.


It is clear that their opinion is 'All deniers and doubters are imbeciles and need to be punished'.

This is not a promising start or foundation for any sort of reasoned debate or discussion with people such as this.
Click to expand...
Yeah, here's the thing: Denying climate change, at this point, is on par with denying that cigarettes cause cancer. Yep, climate science really is that solid..

While debating specific topics based on actual evidence is sensible (and respected -- no one blasts Zwally as a denier) -- those who deny basic concepts like "CO2 is a greenhouse gas" and "human activity is causing almost all of the warming since 1800" on the basis of no real research or science whatsoever are not being rational, and do not deserve to be treated as though they are rational.
 
Visbek said:
lol

News flash! Yep, most of the science is settled. E.g. We know that humans are flooding the atmosphere with GHGs like CO2 and CH4, and this is causing rapid and dramatic warming. That ship has sailed.
. . . .
Click to expand...

No one is disputing that GHGs are not GHGs.

However, the claimed consensus is still very much disputed.

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change
The claim that there is a 97% consensus among scientists that humans are the cause of global warming is widely made in climate change literature and by political figures. It has been heavily publicized, often in the form of pie charts, as illustrated by this figure from the Consensus Project.

The 97% figure has been disputed and vigorously defended, with emotional arguments and counterarguments published in a number of papers. Although the degree of consensus is only one of several arguments for anthropogenic climate change – the statements of professional societies and evidence presented in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are others – there is data to suggest that support is lower. In this post, I attempt to determine whether the 97% consensus is fact or fiction.
. . . .
In the strict sense, the 97% consensus is false, even when limited to climate scientists. The 2016 Cook review found the consensus to be “shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists.” One survey found it to be 84%. Continuing to claim 97% support is deceptive. I find the 97% consensus of climate scientists to be overstated.
Click to expand...

If overstated claims are made on just the level of consensus, what other overstated claims might there be? Why might they be made?

Follow the (Climate Change) Money
The first iron rule of American politics is: Follow the money. This explains, oh, about 80 percent of what goes on in Washington.

Shortly after the latest "Chicken Little" climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded that the sky is falling is that they are paid handsomely to do so.

I said, "In America and around the globe governments have created a multibillion dollar climate change industrial complex." And then I added: "A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry." According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009."

This doesn't mean that the planet isn't warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather. Why doesn't anyone in the media ever mention this?
Click to expand...

Given the above, I think it reasonable to be rather dubious about the proposed solutions, and would think it reasonable to expect, and perhaps even to demand, solutions other than a massive, world economy destroying, wealth transfer from the Western Industrial nations to all the other nations, an economy destroying reckless abandonment of affordable energy sources.

Try for better, practical, efficient and effective solutions, that don't involve destroying the world's economies, shall we?
 
Visbek said:
Read the SciAm article.

Zwally did not use GRACE data, which agrees with the consensus of ice loss. However, he used ICESat (which was widely used) with different adjustments than most of his colleagues.
Click to expand...
So you agree with me that both papers did not use the same data.






Erm... Yeah, thing is? That's not what is happening. We have lots of papers showing accelerating losses, and basically one paper showing gains in specific regions -- written by someone, by the way, who accepts AGW and knew that deniers would try to twist his work to their own agenda.
Click to expand...
A net gain or loss considers both the real gains and real losses, It looks like the second paper is mostly looking at how much ice is lost.


It is worth keeping in mind that ice flows off the continent and into the ice sheets and ocean constantly. In addition, the sheet is so heavy that the pressure creates water, and water flows, within and underneath the ice sheets.
Click to expand...
The ice sheets would flow regardless of temperature, which is mostly below freezing.



I.e. just saying "it's cold, therefore Antarctic ice loss is implausible!" is... well... kinda ignorant. Granted, not everyone thinks about how Antarctica can lose ice, but you should probably look into it a tiny bit before claiming it can't happen.
Click to expand...
I did not claim that Antarctic is not loosing ice at the edges, What I am saying is that minimal loss is from malting in the interior.


Errrrr.... No. AGW does not claim that the South Pole will be warmer than the Sahara. Please spare us the hyperbole.
Click to expand...
Did I say the South Pole will be warmer than the Sahara, please who is using hyperbole?

And no, different parts of the world warming at different rates does not in any way, shape or form, refute AGW or the claim that most of the warming is caused by CO2. Wind patterns, currents, ozone layers, albedo, lots of things can cause small variations in the rates of temperature rise. And oh yeah, Antarctica is warming. Don't forget that part.
Click to expand...
The forcing warming from added CO2 is what is supposed to be greater at the poles,
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1997/1997_Hansen_ha01900k.pdf
Hansen, Figure 4d.
Hansen_4d.jpg
It even show greater warming between -60 and -90, that is not evident in the records.
Click to expand...
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL. The response to CO2 has been predicted to be much greater in the Arctic by many models for 40 years, and its clearly described in the first IPCC report in the early 90s. It’s incredibly basic information!

It’s also been dramatically demonstrated to be true over the last few decades.

You really should read some of the science on this global warming thing. You might be really amazed by it.
Click to expand...

Wow 40 years, yet Hansen's wonderland model in 1997 show near equal warming in the -60 to -90 and in the 60 to 90 zone.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1997/1997_Hansen_ha01900k.pdf
The specter of ghost forcing, oh my!
 
longview said:
Wow 40 years, yet Hansen's wonderland model in 1997 show near equal warming in the -60 to -90 and in the 60 to 90 zone.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1997/1997_Hansen_ha01900k.pdf
The specter of ghost forcing, oh my!
Click to expand...

All I can tell you iswhat he IPCC said. Don’t really care about some random model you found .

The abject stupidity of your statement that CO2 is the same level in the Arctic and Antarctic, with different warming ‘proves’ that CO2 isn’t a cause is enough to dismiss every future post of yours as ludicrously wrong.
 
Threegoofs said:
All I can tell you iswhat he IPCC said. Don’t really care about some random model you found .

The abject stupidity of your statement that CO2 is the same level in the Arctic and Antarctic, with different warming ‘proves’ that CO2 isn’t a cause is enough to dismiss every future post of yours as ludicrously wrong.
Click to expand...

Do you find it strange that you are calling James Hansen's wonderland model "some random model",
since the paper is referenced in the history of the CIMP models.
https://cmip.llnl.gov/history.html
 
Threegoofs said:
This is all peripheral to your abjectly stupid assertion.
Click to expand...
Then please produce a graph from one of the other models, showing an unequal results for 2XCO2 between Arctic and Antarctic zones.
Don't be shy, Prove my assertion stupid!
 
longview said:
Then please produce a graph from one of the other models, showing an unequal results for 2XCO2 between Arctic and Antarctic zones.
Don't be shy, Prove my assertion stupid!
Click to expand...

That post is like sunrise to a vampire.
 
longview said:
Then please produce a graph from one of the other models, showing an unequal results for 2XCO2 between Arctic and Antarctic zones.
Don't be shy, Prove my assertion stupid!
Click to expand...

At this point, it’s like arguing with an anti-vaxxer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom