Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Robert Prey]

Antarctic Ice and the Global Warming Chicken Littles

Antarctic Ice Melting in West Antarctica? Or just more Lefty Junk Science?

From: Forbes:

"Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data."

"Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012."

"...The new data also add context to sensationalist media stories about declining ice in small portions of Antarctica, such as portions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula (see here, for example). The mainstream media frequently publish stories focusing on ice loss in these two areas, yet the media stories rarely if ever mention that ice is accumulating over the larger area of East Antarctica and that the continent as a whole is gaining snow and ice mass."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

 

[jimbob]

Antarctic Ice Melting in West Antarctica? Or just more Lefty Junk Science?

From: Forbes:

"Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data."

"Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012."

"...The new data also add context to sensationalist media stories about declining ice in small portions of Antarctica, such as portions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula (see here, for example). The mainstream media frequently publish stories focusing on ice loss in these two areas, yet the media stories rarely if ever mention that ice is accumulating over the larger area of East Antarctica and that the continent as a whole is gaining snow and ice mass."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

This has been discussed before, and is in line with the scientific modeling.

A small selection of posts from this thread on this subject:

so much for ice increase in Antarctica....nother denier nattering point shot down in flames.....



more
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...f-increasing-ice-melt-rising-sea-levels-.html

Reality intruding again on the shrinking contigent of deniers.....nother of their myths hits the skids.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20804192

Nope both are shrinking. Perhaps you mean sea ice, in which case Arctic sea ice is shrinking dramatically while Antarctic sea ice is showing a small increase right around the edge of statistical significance.

Interesting the the small increase in Antarctic sea ice is despite warmer air and water temperatures. Reduced salinity of surface water, possibly due to fresh water melting from Antarctic glaciers is the primary suspect.

 

[Warmer1]

From the Forbes article above http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

"Update: To provide more perspective on global warming and Antarctica, I would like to update this column with some additional information:

As meteorologist Anthony Watts explains"

Anthony Watts, well what a surprise!

 

[DC]

Antarctic Ice Melting in West Antarctica? Or just more Lefty Junk Science?

From: Forbes:

"Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data."

"Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012."

"...The new data also add context to sensationalist media stories about declining ice in small portions of Antarctica, such as portions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula (see here, for example). The mainstream media frequently publish stories focusing on ice loss in these two areas, yet the media stories rarely if ever mention that ice is accumulating over the larger area of East Antarctica and that the continent as a whole is gaining snow and ice mass."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

warmer globe, leads to more water evporating, which means more moisture in the atmosphere. which leads to more rain, when the rain falls in a region that is cold, and the antarctic is a cold place, this rain comes down as snow. increased snow leads to more pressure on the ice and increases the flow rate of ice.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v492/n7428/full/nature11616.html

are you sure it is a good idea and that you know enough about the involved science to try to influence others of your conspiracy nonsense?
maybe you should spend more time researching the science behind it and try to understand it.

 

[macdoc]

ice is accumulating over the larger area of East Antarctica and that the continent as a whole is gaining snow and ice mass."

That is a flat out lie. Typical of the right wing dink heads. They conflate total mass with sea ice and confuse snowfall gains in the east Antarctic ( which is a consequence of AGW increasing moisture content ) with the overall mass loss when the Western Antarctic is included.

This is the relevant all continent mass chart

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/change_Antarctic_mass.jpg

from this article

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Weighing-change-in-Antarctica.html

which expanded on this article.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/weighing-change-in-antarctica/

 

[lomiller]

Antarctic Ice Melting in West Antarctica?

You are too gullible, and have been taken in by misleading op-eds. First of all your quotes are about sea ice, which is NOT west Antarctica ice sheets. Antarctic sea ice isn’t doing anything special.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

While it’s not apparent in just by looking at the data there is an interesting phenomenon relating to Antarctic sea ice, that is that even though the sea surface is warming there is a very slight increase in ice. Compared to the Arctic though it’s insignificant and common sense should tell you that warmer surface temperatures will eventually win out.

 

[lomiller]

From the Forbes article above http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

"Update: To provide more perspective on global warming and Antarctica, I would like to update this column with some additional information:

As meteorologist Anthony Watts explains"

Anthony Watts, well what a surprise!

LOL. Also worth pointing out that meteorologist isn’t the same thing as climatologist and that even Watt’s meteorology accreditation is deprecated, today you need substantially more than Watt’s 2 year diploma to call yourself a meteorologist. What Watt’s was, in fact, isn’t a meteorologist he was a TV weatherman.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Antarctic Ice Melting in West Antarctica? Or just more Lefty Junk Science?

From: Forbes:

Really, Robert? I suppose this was dumped here from another thread by a moderator as even I do think you have a brain cell to spare in realizing how ridiculous are the pretensions in the text you quoted, in sight of the level of this thread.

Are you doing this because some minimal-scale hubris originated in what happens to you in other threads orbiting around this whole subject?

"Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data."

Oh! Ever recorded in day 256! Other days were boycotted like Moscow '80 so the golden medal is for year 2012.

Speaking of misrepresentations of scientific data and assorted trickery:

"Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012."

No. It has had a growing trend, what isn't the same. And sea ice area has grown some 3% in three decades. No so lucky numbers for sea ice extent and sea ice volume what is the important thing.

The reasons for this have been known for years and I have no problems in saying that I expect Antarctic sea ice area to continue with its growing trend for at least 15 or 20 years within the same AGW as always.

Additionally, this year's values were below the average during part of June.

"...The new data also add context to sensationalist media stories about declining ice in small portions of Antarctica, such as portions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula (see here, for example). The mainstream media frequently publish stories focusing on ice loss in these two areas, yet the media stories rarely if ever mention that ice is accumulating over the larger area of East Antarctica and that the continent as a whole is gaining snow and ice mass."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

Your quotes of such a stupid article exploit the confusion that the typical patrons in sport bars, laundrymats and garage sales have about sea ice and ice sheet and shelves so the claim for a proper context is like saying that the drought in Georgia is not so dry when you take a look to all the water lying east of Savannah, because water is water the same way ice is ice, aren't they?

Finally -just because replying to you is sooo boring- all the play with words trying to imply quantities and terms without making them explicit: The marginal, not published -except via Internet- and not editorially backed post you had the crazy idea to link (did you think the domain name "Forbes" would suffice to impress us? You were thinking in the laundrymat patrons again, pal!) not only label areas the size of Texas or California -to say the least- as small, it also needs tailored periods to be consider truth. You always can safely say the Antarctica "is gaining snow and ice" a toute vitesse in May or August, but that is blatantly obvious, so the ambiguous assertions about areas gaining or losing unspecified volumes of ice during unspecified periods is true for tailored periods, but it's not current nor representative, so, the whole thing is different from a plain bunch of lies just because they had an attorney present .

Robert, stop doing us waste our time with so low anti-scientific posts.

 

[bit_pattern]

So basically Robert Prey thinks global warming is a scam because he doesn't know the difference between sea ice and ice in Western Antarctica. Cool story, bro.

 

[Robert Prey]

You are too gullible, and have been taken in by misleading op-eds. First of all your quotes are about sea ice, which is NOT west Antarctica ice sheets. Antarctic sea ice isn’t doing anything special.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

While it’s not apparent in just by looking at the data there is an interesting phenomenon relating to Antarctic sea ice, that is that even though the sea surface is warming there is a very slight increase in ice. Compared to the Arctic though it’s insignificant and common sense should tell you that warmer surface temperatures will eventually win out.

Common sense tells me climate change is normal and natural and that no one can prove that Man has anything to do with it, nor can Man do anything about it. Common sense tells me that there are and will always be Chicken Littles warning us about some impending calamity that requires more taxation, more wealth extracted from the Have nations to the Have Not nations. Today it's "Climate Change", yesterday it was Global Warming, and 35 years ago it was the impending Ice Age. So what else is new?

 

[jimbob]

Common sense tells me climate change is normal and natural and that no one can prove that Man has anything to do with it, nor can Man do anything about it. Common sense tells me that there are and will always be Chicken Littles warning us about some impending calamity that requires more taxation, more wealth extracted from the Have nations to the Have Not nations. Today it's "Climate Change", yesterday it was Global Warming, and 35 years ago it was the impending Ice Age. So what else is new?

OK, as I'm stuck at home in my own personal ice age waiting for the delivery of a PCB for our central heating boiler I might as well answer this...

"Common sense tells me climate change is normal and natural and that no one can prove that Man has anything to do with it"

"Common sense" in this case is mistaken. Man is now the dominant geological force in Continental North America (i.e. responsible for the largest amount of rock movement). Currently the level of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing by about 0.3% per year*. Earlier on in the thread I did the sums to show that this is entirely consistent with the amount of human emissions of Carbon dioxide. The basic physics behind greenhouse gases has been known for well over a century. The Earth's stratosphere is cooling whilst the surface is warming, which is indicative of an increasing greenhouse effect - or do you have a more plausible explanation?

This webpage has quite a bit of the history and science behind the greenhouse effect.

Man is no longer an insignificant actor on in the climate.

Indeed the effects of acid rain show another easily provable consequence of human activity.

"Common sense tells me that there are and will always be Chicken Littles warning us about some impending calamity that requires more taxation, more wealth extracted from the Have nations to the Have Not nations. "


What, like from Africa and Asia to the West? Historically that is what has been happening. Looking at the current time, the various free trade agreements do not look like this but possibly the converse. You might have noticed that the WTO and World Bank/IMF are not popular amongst left wing political groups.


If we are playing "follow the money" the funding would have been has been to deny global warming. This is well documented. A scientist who could produce a smackdown of the current paradigm would have their career made, not only would there be government and industry funding, they would also get massive recognition within their field - in fact I'd imagine it would be worthy of an eventual Nobel prize.



Similarly, I don't know what you think US civil servants are like, but in the UK, they are not renowned for their socialistic principles (the aim is for civil servants to be apolitical and they tend to be "small c" conservative). Why would governments suddenly decide to hamstring themselves?


"Today it's "Climate Change", yesterday it was Global Warming, and 35 years ago it was the impending Ice Age. So what else is new?"

Time is a reputable journalistic organisation, however that picture is a photoshopped fake:

Some scientists were mentioning global cooling as a possibility (part of the reason ETA: we know now was due to sulphate particles from coal burning that act to cool the Earth).

There was nothing like the state of knowledge, or research or consensus that indicates global warming.






*i.e. about 0.3% of the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere so about 1ppm per year

 

[DC]

Common sense tells me climate change is normal and natural and that no one can prove that Man has anything to do with it, nor can Man do anything about it. Common sense tells me that there are and will always be Chicken Littles warning us about some impending calamity that requires more taxation, more wealth extracted from the Have nations to the Have Not nations. Today it's "Climate Change", yesterday it was Global Warming, and 35 years ago it was the impending Ice Age. So what else is new?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=7166[/qimg]

Would AGW be some media hype like the ice age hype, you had a point. But that is not the case here.
its a real problem. even back then when the media was selling an ice age hype, science was already talking about warming. most scientific publications in that time spoke already of warming.

and the science is clear now, CO2 levels have a huge influence on temperatures. and pumping out CO2 into the atmosphere in the quantities we do, is without a doubt a big factor.
in 1938 the first scientific publication spoke of this very problem. and since, the amount of evidence confirming this theory has grown and grown and grown.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706427503/pdf

every single alternative hypothesis that attempted to explain the observed warming failed. all of them turned out to be wrong, the only theory that is able to explain it is AGW.

in science the debate is not about it being real or not, they debate about how much sea level rise does that mean, 3mm/year or 6mm/year. will temps rise by 2°C or 4°C. they debate what the concequences will be in detail, not wil it be or not.

several differend fields of science are now already studying the changes that came from AGW. Everywhere we look we can observe the changes already. everything confrims indeed, we are warming.

while you might think they are overestimating it, they could actually also be underestimate it.
there are still many unknowns, and many things we don't have a deep understanding yet, but nothing that has the potential to completely turn the picture.

and instead of wasting your time and trying to convince others that it all just is one huge conspiracy. you should maybe take your time and learn about the science involved. and atleast try to understand it.
its is now only a matter of time untill also you are convinced by the climate.

 

[jimbob]

This webpage has quite a bit of the history and science behind the greenhouse effect.

From that link:

In the late 1950s a few American scientists, starting with Plass, tentatively began to inform the public that greenhouse gases might become a problem within the next few centuries. Revelle in particular warned journalists and government officials that greenhouse warming might come within the foreseeable future, and deserved serious attention. The stakes were revealed when Bolin and Eriksson pursued the consequences of their calculation to the end. They assumed industrial production would climb exponentially, and figured that atmospheric CO2 would rise some 25% by the end of the century. That was a far swifter rise than anyone before had suggested. In 1962, a still stronger (although not widely heeded) warning was sounded by the Russian climate expert Mikhail Budyko. His calculations of the exponential growth of industrial civilization suggested a drastic global warming within the next century or so.

Leading scientists continued to doubt that anyone needed to worry at all about the greenhouse effect. The veteran climate expert Helmut Landsberg stressed in a 1970 review that little was known about how humans might change the climate. At worst, he thought, the rise of CO2 at the current rate might bring a 2°C temperature rise over the next 400 years, which "can hardly be called cataclysmic."(43) Meanwhile Hubert H. Lamb, the outstanding compiler of old climate data, wrote that the effects of CO2 were "doubtful... there are many uncertainties." The CO2 theory, he pointed out, failed to account for the numerous large shifts that he had uncovered in records of climate from medieval times to the present. Many agreed with Lamb that a "rather sharp decline" of global temperature since the 1940s put the whole matter in question.(44)

During 1970s the scientific consensus began to form around global warming.

 

[Megalodon]

Common sense tells me climate change is normal and natural and that no one can prove that Man has anything to do with it, nor can Man do anything about it. Common sense tells me that there are and will always be Chicken Littles warning us about some impending calamity that requires more taxation, more wealth extracted from the Have nations to the Have Not nations. Today it's "Climate Change", yesterday it was Global Warming, and 35 years ago it was the impending Ice Age. So what else is new?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=7166[/qimg]

That cover is a lie. There was no "April 8, 1977" Time edition.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19770408,00.html

Were you fooled, or were you lying yourself?

 

[DC]

That cover is a lie. There was no "April 8, 1977" Time edition.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19770408,00.html

Were you fooled, or were you lying yourself?

wow thanks for pointing that out.
their dishonesty seems to know no limit.

 

[jimbob]

wow thanks for pointing that out.
their dishonesty seems to know no limit.

Me too...

Time is a reputable journalistic organisation, however that picture is a photoshopped fake:

ETA: I appreciated the irony of linking to an ID proponent website. (although their mea culpa does support the theory of crank magnetism)

 

[aleCcowaN]

Common sense tells me climate change is normal and natural and that no one can prove that Man has anything to do with it, nor can Man do anything about it. Common sense tells me that there are and will always be Chicken Littles warning us about some impending calamity that requires more taxation, more wealth extracted from the Have nations to the Have Not nations. Today it's "Climate Change", yesterday it was Global Warming, and 35 years ago it was the impending Ice Age. So what else is new?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=7166

You should keep track of the fora where you use your deceitful propaganda. You've already used that counterfeit cover here once and you've got busted for doing so. To repeat what is known even by you, this is the original cover:

And this is how a Time magazine cover of that date looked like:

Your denialist friend, the counterfeiter, took a 2007 cover about global warming and photo-doctor-shopped it by replacing the image of lamented Elizabeth Anania Edwards by one of Margaret Thatcher, the "Beyond Baghdad..." part but one about la Détente and involving the "Soviets", and smashing up the obviously contemporary Tony Soprano to stick on it something about a popular series of the period.

Of course even you could erase the title written over the ice and snow and replace it by the wished "ice age" one which would do the trick of deceiving the birds.

Of course, "subtleties" like what has to do a popular magazine cover with "science" calling for a supposed "ice age", is something that won't bother a cheater, so you all went on.

The fact that this counterfeit cover -you are one of its main promoters- doesn't look like the ones many people remember from that period doesn't bother your kind as you point to a very low public that either didn't read magazines or has very bad memory, the typical acquiescent keen denialists come from and point to.

Finally, this only proves that your morality shares the same levels of your intellect. If you were the person you are not, you'd apologize publicly and deeply for promoting falsehood and manipulation. We know you won't so we'll remind everybody what you did here -what is a sample of what you are- on a TIMEly basis.

 

[jimbob]

You should keep track of the fora where you use your deceitful propaganda. You've already used that counterfeit cover here once and you've got busted for doing so. To repeat what is known even by you, this is the original cover:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=976&pictureid=7167[/qimg]

And this is how a Time magazine cover of that date looked like:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=976&pictureid=7168[/qimg]

linky please

 

[Pixel42]

linky please

I recognised it too and found it whilst Alec was posting.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8849809#post8849809

 

[jimbob]

I recognised it too and found it whilst Alec was posting.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8849809#post8849809

Cheers, it looks as though Robert's picture in that threade has been removed