• 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

Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/23/agu-extraordinary-storms-caused-massive-antarctic-sea-ice-loss-in-2016/"]
antarctic-sea-ice-storm-loss.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]AGU: Extraordinary storms caused massive Antarctic sea ice loss in 2016[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]From the “well, if hadn’t been that it would have been global warming for sure” department: By Lauren Lipuma, AGU A series of unprecedented storms over the Southern Ocean likely caused the most dramatic decline in Antarctic sea ice seen to date, a new study finds. Antarctic sea ice – frozen ocean water that rings…[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/23/agu-extraordinary-storms-caused-massive-antarctic-sea-ice-loss-in-2016/"]June 23, 2017[/URL] in Climate News.
Click to expand...


And sea ice doesn't matter one bit. There is probably a natural cycle where it grows out until it cannot maintain integrity from the tides and wind, then shatters. Then starts all over again.

It's continental ice that matters.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Once again, they play with models instead of hard reality measurements.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

In nine minutes, you went from requesting a study because you apparently haven’t seen it to dismissing it outright because you say it’s based on models, despite the FIRST SENTENCE of the abstract telling you the scope of data they collected.

That’s why we call you a denier.

Get it now, denier?
 
Lord of Planar said:
That's from 2015, they cite a study that says Antarctic sheet ice is growing, but don't cite a link or the study name.
Click to expand...
:roll:

Vyawahare talked directly to a number of climate scientists about Zwally's paper. She didn't discuss a specific alternate paper because, wait for it... the consensus is that the Antarctic is losing, not gaining, ice. The article posted by the OP is not the first to make these kinds of claims. That's why she refers to IPCC assessments, solid body of evidence... Even Zwally says that his numbers agree with the prevailing view, and only differ when it comes to East Antarctica, and the interior of West Antarctica.

By the way, I find it truly fascinating that you accept Zwally's claims at face value. Why not give it your usual treatment? When NASA resources indicate that Greenland is losing ice mass, you burn down every article author, scientist, scientific organization, principle, and method of gathering evidence. Why does Zwally get a pass?
 
Threegoofs said:
Interesting.

In nine minutes, you went from requesting a study because you apparently haven’t seen it to dismissing it outright because you say it’s based on models, despite the FIRST SENTENCE of the abstract telling you the scope of data they collected.

That’s why we call you a denier.

Get it now, denier?
Click to expand...

Believe as you wish. There are a variety of results from different studies. Just proves the science isn't settled. I'm not the denioer, you are. A denier of science.

Models will produce what they were programmed to produce, intended or not. A simple fact.
 
Visbek said:
:roll:

Vyawahare talked directly to a number of climate scientists about Zwally's paper. She didn't discuss a specific alternate paper because, wait for it... the consensus is that the Antarctic is losing, not gaining, ice. The article posted by the OP is not the first to make these kinds of claims. That's why she refers to IPCC assessments, solid body of evidence... Even Zwally says that his numbers agree with the prevailing view, and only differ when it comes to East Antarctica, and the interior of West Antarctica.

By the way, I find it truly fascinating that you accept Zwally's claims at face value. Why not give it your usual treatment? When NASA resources indicate that Greenland is losing ice mass, you burn down every article author, scientist, scientific organization, principle, and method of gathering evidence. Why does Zwally get a pass?
Click to expand...

Consensus is not science.
 
Nasa has a decent write up on this topic, which appears to somewhat contradict the point of the article.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
last updates in Aug of 2017.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001.
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently
adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
Click to expand...
That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
Click to expand...
If we compare the above to the statement in the article that says,
Since 2009, Antarctica has lost almost 278 billion tons (252 billion metric tons) of ice per year,
the new study found. In the 1980s, it was losing 44 billion tons (40 billion metric tons) a year.
Click to expand...
Now if Antarctica had a net gain up until 2008, then saying it was loosing 44 billion tons a year in the 1980's is just a bit misleading.
It sound like since both pieces cite the work of Zwally, but the AP article is only discussing losses, and not gains.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Believe as you wish. There are a variety of results from different studies. Just proves the science isn't settled. I'm not the denioer, you are. A denier of science.

Models will produce what they were programmed to produce, intended or not. A simple fact.
Click to expand...

Nine minutes from ‘I need a link to the study’ to ‘The study is no good because it used the word ‘model’ in the abstract’.

Denier kneejerk response.
 
Visbek said:
:roll:

Vyawahare talked directly to a number of climate scientists about Zwally's paper. She didn't discuss a specific alternate paper because, wait for it... the consensus is that the Antarctic is losing, not gaining, ice. The article posted by the OP is not the first to make these kinds of claims. That's why she refers to IPCC assessments, solid body of evidence... Even Zwally says that his numbers agree with the prevailing view, and only differ when it comes to East Antarctica, and the interior of West Antarctica.

By the way, I find it truly fascinating that you accept Zwally's claims at face value. Why not give it your usual treatment? When NASA resources indicate that Greenland is losing ice mass, you burn down every article author, scientist, scientific organization, principle, and method of gathering evidence. Why does Zwally get a pass?
Click to expand...

Well, (cough) denier (cough)
 
Lord of Planar said:
Consensus is not science.
Click to expand...
1) Consensus doesn't mean that X is true; but yes, a consensus is actually pretty important in science. Scientists need a common framework of knowledge and ideas, otherwise it's kind of impossible to get anything done. Unless, of course, you're trying to invent a perpetual motion machine.

2) You get a consensus by doing sufficient research to disseminate a view. So, like I said, it's not like Zwally was the first person to publish on this topic.

3) You still haven't explained why Zwally -- who is using the same models, similar measurement methods, and agrees that human activity is causing global warming, that sea levels are rising etc -- gets a pass.

By the way, Zwally knew that deniers would distort his claims:

The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear.
https://www.nature.com/news/gains-in-antarctic-ice-might-offset-losses-1.18486
 
Threegoofs said:
Nine minutes from ‘I need a link to the study’ to ‘The study is no good because it used the word ‘model’ in the abstract’.

Denier kneejerk response.
Click to expand...

I'm only saying only a fool sees model outputs as fact.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm only saying only a fool sees model outputs as fact.
Click to expand...

A fool sees a study and passes judgement on it (with no expertise in the field and no significant knowledge of the related literature) in a few minutes.

And a specific subset of those fools are deniers, Mr. two minute man.
 
Visbek said:
1) Consensus doesn't mean that X is true; but yes, a consensus is actually pretty important in science. Scientists need a common framework of knowledge and ideas, otherwise it's kind of impossible to get anything done. Unless, of course, you're trying to invent a perpetual motion machine.

2) You get a consensus by doing sufficient research to disseminate a view. So, like I said, it's not like Zwally was the first person to publish on this topic.

3) You still haven't explained why Zwally -- who is using the same models, similar measurement methods, and agrees that human activity is causing global warming, that sea levels are rising etc -- gets a pass.

By the way, Zwally knew that deniers would distort his claims:

The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear.
https://www.nature.com/news/gains-in-antarctic-ice-might-offset-losses-1.18486
Click to expand...
I am not sure the two different papers used the all same data, One looks like it was just looking at the losses and not the gains.
Just a few inches of increased ice over the vast size of the land area could add quite a bit to the mass.
Antarctica itself has seen minimal warming, and while it could have melting from the edges, the interior could as gain as fast or faster.
When we have one paper saying there is a net gain and another only discussing losses, I am not sure that makes a consensus.
It is worth keeping in mind that most of Antarctica stays well below freezing all year round, with only a few areas like pine island
getting above freezing.
The south pole is currently in what would be equal to northern July,
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/south-pole/historic?month=1&year=2018
and Highs are running about -28 C, a 1.5 C increase would do almost nothing.
While the concept of AGW would have the polar areas warm greater than the tropics, this appears to mostly be happening in the Arctic,
which implies that what is causing the warming is something other than CO2, which is the same in both areas.
 
longview said:
I am not sure the two different papers used the all same data, One looks like it was just looking at the losses and not the gains.
Just a few inches of increased ice over the vast size of the land area could add quite a bit to the mass.
Antarctica itself has seen minimal warming, and while it could have melting from the edges, the interior could as gain as fast or faster.
When we have one paper saying there is a net gain and another only discussing losses, I am not sure that makes a consensus.
It is worth keeping in mind that most of Antarctica stays well below freezing all year round, with only a few areas like pine island
getting above freezing.
The south pole is currently in what would be equal to northern July,
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/south-pole/historic?month=1&year=2018
and Highs are running about -28 C, a 1.5 C increase would do almost nothing.
While the concept of AGW would have the polar areas warm greater than the tropics, this appears to mostly be happening in the Arctic,
which implies that what is causing the warming is something other than CO2, which is the same in both areas.
Click to expand...

Why bother to read it?

Just be like two minute man and declare that it’s not supportive of any warming.

That’s what people who ‘read all the science’ do.

Edit: kudos on the hilarious concept that since CO2 is the same at the Antarctic and the Arctic, it’s obvious it can’t be responsible for warming. Hilarious. I wonder why no actual scientist has ever thought of that.

You really blew the theory wide open with that one! LOL
 
Threegoofs said:
Why bother to read it?

Just be like two minute man and declare that it’s not supportive of any warming.

That’s what people who ‘read all the science’ do.

Edit: kudos on the hilarious concept that since CO2 is the same at the Antarctic and the Arctic, it’s obvious it can’t be responsible for warming. Hilarious. I wonder why no actual scientist has ever thought of that.

You really blew the theory wide open with that one! LOL
Click to expand...
Still no contribution!
Why do you think the response of CO2 would be different in the Arctic vs the Antarctic?
All of the scientific papers going back over a century say it should be almost the same, but it is not.
 
longview said:
I am not sure the two different papers used the all same data....
Click to expand...
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.

We should also note that Zwally wasn't tossed out on his ear; he's still a senior researcher at NASA (Goddard). His colleagues just disagreed with his results. Who'da thunk it? Shouldn't he be drawn and quartered by now?!?


Just a few inches of increased ice over the vast size of the land area could add quite a bit to the mass.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does... and all the researches know this.


When we have one paper saying there is a net gain and another only discussing losses, I am not sure that makes a consensus.
Click to expand...
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.


It is worth keeping in mind that most of Antarctica stays well below freezing all year round, with only a few areas like pine island
getting above freezing.
Click to expand...
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.

Even Zwally knows and states that many regions of Antarctica constantly lose ice; he just claims, again, that there is a lot of gain in two regions, and that yes, ocean levels are rising. (Maybe you ought to actually read what he's saying before defending him.) We also know that the existing ice shelves are holding back lots of land-based ice; and if those shelves break up, and ice starts flowing off of land and into the ocean, that's going to accelerate sea level rise.

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.


While the concept of AGW would have the polar areas warm greater than the tropics, this appears to mostly be happening in the Arctic,
which implies that what is causing the warming is something other than CO2, which is the same in both areas.
Click to expand...
Errrrr.... No. AGW does not claim that the South Pole will be warmer than the Sahara. Please spare us the 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.
 
longview said:
Still no contribution!
Why do you think the response of CO2 would be different in the Arctic vs the Antarctic?
All of the scientific papers going back over a century say it should be almost the same, but it is not.
Click to expand...

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.
 
longview said:
I am not sure the two different papers used the all same data, One looks like it was just looking at the losses and not the gains.
Just a few inches of increased ice over the vast size of the land area could add quite a bit to the mass.
Antarctica itself has seen minimal warming, and while it could have melting from the edges, the interior could as gain as fast or faster.
When we have one paper saying there is a net gain and another only discussing losses, I am not sure that makes a consensus.
It is worth keeping in mind that most of Antarctica stays well below freezing all year round, with only a few areas like pine island
getting above freezing.
The south pole is currently in what would be equal to northern July,
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/south-pole/historic?month=1&year=2018
and Highs are running about -28 C, a 1.5 C increase would do almost nothing.
While the concept of AGW would have the polar areas warm greater than the tropics, this appears to mostly be happening in the Arctic,
which implies that what is causing the warming is something other than CO2, which is the same in both areas.
Click to expand...

That's a of words to say nothing.
 
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...

Please cite the paragraph. It is correct that CO2 plays a larger role in colder regions than warmer ones.

My remembrance is that CO2 contributes near equal by latitude. The norther 70 to 90 degrees is nearly identical to the southern 70 to 90 degrees.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Please cite the paragraph. It is correct that CO2 plays a larger role in colder regions than warmer ones.

My remembrance is that CO2 contributes near equal by latitude. The norther 70 to 90 degrees is nearly identical to the southern 70 to 90 degrees.
Click to expand...

Really?

You don’t know that disproportionate warning in the Arctic has been predicted consistently?

And this isn’t true of the Antarctic because... well... I’ll let you learn about that.

Good lord! This is like climate science for elementary school... yet you never actually encountered it. (But you ‘know’ the models that predicted it and subsequently proved it are wrong!)

I’m sure you can find the ‘paragraph’. I mean... you read all the papers!

[emoji849][emoji849][emoji849][emoji849]
 
Threegoofs said:
Really?

You don’t know that disproportionate warning in the Arctic has been predicted consistently?

And this isn’t true of the Antarctic because... well... I’ll let you learn about that.

Good lord! This is like climate science for elementary school... yet you never actually encountered it. (But you ‘know’ the models that predicted it and subsequently proved it are wrong!)

I’m sure you can find the ‘paragraph’. I mean... you read all the papers!

[emoji849][emoji849][emoji849][emoji849]
Click to expand...

Essentially an admission of fraud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom