It is not.
It is not.
fisky wrote:
NYTimes wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/climate/antarctica-ice-melting-faster.htmlThis is biased journalism.
First, it only quotes sources that agree with the premise. Good journalism would present the opposing position about East Antarctica gaining ice mass by interviewing the author of the opposing position. It would be easy enough to do and make for better journalism. Instead, it quotes a third party saying, "A lot of the argument has been made from stakeholders that are not quite as interested in dealing with climate change that the East Antarctic ice sheet is actually gaining mass."
2. Note the derogatory language shown in bold to denigrate the messenger, a common tactic.
3. Alarmist statements are made. Take the first paragraph, "If all that ice melted, it would be enough to raise the world’s sea levels by roughly 200 feet."
3. It shows inconsistent logic. For example, it belittles the premise that East Antarctica is warming by pointing out that it's a big area with very few sensors so ice mass data for East Antarctica must be extrapolated for large areas, which results in a large margin of error. (Yet they have no problem with extrapolating temperature in similar large areas in Antarctica, Siberia, and oceans to support their AGW premise.)
It also presents the acceleration of melting since 2007 as a major problem, yet the pause from 1998 to 2017 is considered "noise." This is another example of inconsistent logic. This lack of consistent logic is a major reason why I switched from believer to skeptic about a decade ago. Specifically, climate models cannot predict temperature backwards (pre-CO2 rise) or forwards (pause from 1998 to 2017). Therefore, researchers should look for variables other than CO2 levels that might be causing climate change... but they stubbornly refuse to do so.
Here is a more balanced assessment of the Antarctic situation.
a. West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula have tripled the rate of ice loss since 2007.
b. East Antarctica, twice as large as West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula, is gaining ice, but we don't know how much. Some scientists believe it could be enough to offset the loss in West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula. Other scientists disagree. As this point, data is too scarce to say.
c. Massive undersea volcanic activity has been recently discovered in West Antarctica, the Antarctic Peninsula, and parts of Greenland. This undersea heating could be contributing to ice loss in these areas. Or maybe not. Scientists disagree.
Very well said. You are a smart individual who knows how to think and write.
Under Water Trump wrote:
derp wrote:
if people are still in denial about global warming at this point, i don't think something as trivial as facts or ideas conveyed in a human language is going to be enough to convince them.
It would take all of Trump's properties being under a rising sea for Trumpers to realize there is a YUGE problem. Their solution should be pay 200% of the cost to relocate Trump properties out of harms way. Entirely at taxpayer expense. Greater than 100% payback is required because Trumpers must prove they loyalty to Trump to the proper way--$$$$.
That's an interesting scenario you posit. It seems perfectly reasonable to deal with the problem when it's a problem. Sounds like a plan to me.
Now please stop calling us "climate deniers." We are "climate-indifferent-ers," and nothing you say will make us care. Doesn't that just gall you that we don't worship mother earth the way you do?
Either a trace gas 10 kilometers up is causing some spots of Antarctica to warm and other parts to cool, or hot magma at 1,200C is. What’s more likely?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151208134632.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-06/uota-rfm060514.php
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica
fisky wrote:
This is biased journalism.
All journalism has a point of view. I don't think it's humanly possible to be unbiased so it seems a rather meaningless accusation. Inaccurate would be a problem, but I don't think that's the case here.
First, it only quotes sources that agree with the premise. Good journalism would present the opposing position about East Antarctica gaining ice mass by interviewing the author of the opposing position. It would be easy enough to do and make for better journalism. Instead, it quotes a third party saying, "A lot of the argument has been made from stakeholders that are not quite as interested in dealing with climate change that the East Antarctic ice sheet is actually gaining mass."
The article is based on recent Shepherd paper which is a composite fusion of measurements made by a number of researchers including Zwally 2015. The estimate is where it is because there is also a negative outlier and 8 or so studies in the middle.
Also if Zwally 2015 turns out to be the better estimate, that suggest the sea level rise includes some unknown source component that is compensating for the presumed accumulation in Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula is still apparently unstable so the sea level rise consequences aren't obviously different.
3. It shows inconsistent logic. For example, it belittles the premise that East Antarctica is warming by pointing out that it's a big area with very few sensors so ice mass data for East Antarctica must be extrapolated for large areas, which results in a large margin of error. (Yet they have no problem with extrapolating temperature in similar large areas in Antarctica, Siberia, and oceans to support their AGW premise.)
"belittles" probably isn't the right word.
There are challenges to measuring mass accumulation by looking at the few centimeters of snow per year that is added on top of a sheet of ice that is miles thick with no stationary ground reference. That's one reason to prefer an estimate that combines other measurement techniques as noted in the article.
Interpolating temperature measurements has been validated by sensitivity analysis wherein random subsets of station records are used to estimate global surface temperature. It turns out that fewer than 100 stations worldwide is sufficient to get consistent monthly measurements. I've posted references in the past.
It also presents the acceleration of melting since 2007 as a major problem, yet the pause from 1998 to 2017 is considered "noise." This is another example of inconsistent logic.
The "pause" is believed to be attributable to unpredictable zero mean natural variation on a warming trend while ice cap melt is almost certainly a one way street for a very long time. In the context of climate change long term trends are the concern.
Also, the so called pause didn't extend to 2017
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1970/to:2017/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2017/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2017/trendThis lack of consistent logic is a major reason why I switched from believer to skeptic about a decade ago. Specifically, climate models cannot predict temperature backwards (pre-CO2 rise) or forwards (pause from 1998 to 2017). Therefore, researchers should look for variables other than CO2 levels that might be causing climate change... but they stubbornly refuse to do so.
There are plenty of attribution studies that look at non greenhouse gas forcings and natural variation. I could provide links if I thought you were interested.
NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally says his new study will show, once again, the eastern Antarctic ice sheet is gaining enough ice to offset losses in the west.
A recent paper claims Antarctica’s net ice loss has dramatically increased in recent years, but forthcoming research will challenge that claim.
NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally first challenged the “consensus” on Antarctica in 2015 when he published a paper showing ice sheet growth in eastern Antarctica outweighed the losses in the western ice sheet.
Zwally will again challenge the prevailing narrative of how global warming is affecting the South Pole. Zwally said his new study will show, once again, the eastern Antarctic ice sheet is gaining enough ice to offset losses in the west.
Much like in 2015, Zwally’s upcoming study will run up against the so-called “consensus,” including a paper published by a team of 80 scientists in the journal Nature on Wednesday. The paper estimates that Antarctic is losing, on net, more than 200 gigatons of ice a year, adding 0.02 inches to annual sea level rise.
Of course, there are no "fast-tracked peer review" for anti-GW advocates, so it's still forthcoming.
Here's the difference of opinion:
Shepherd’s paper cites Zwally’s 2015 study several times, but only estimates eastern Antarctic mass gains to be 5 gigatons a year — yet this estimate comes with a margin of error of 46 gigatons.
Zwally, on the other hand, claims ice sheet growth is anywhere from 50 gigatons to 200 gigatons a year.
How is it compared to two decades ago?
RE: "Antarctica Is Melting THREE TIMES AS FAST as a Decade Ago"
NYT AgitProp wrote:
Between 60 and 90 percent of the world's fresh water is frozen in the ice sheets of Antarctica, a continent roughly the size of the United States and Mexico combined. If all that ice melted, it would be enough to raise the world's sea levels by roughly 200 feet.
This is hilarious. In fact, the current "tripled" rate is a world-sea level rise of like 0.02 inches per year (they attribute 2/5 of the 25-year 7.6mm total over the last 5 years). Of course, the NYT readership probably enjoys being misled. What, you mean like 99.99% of Antarctica didn't melt in the last 25 years????
Yeah,,, down 0.01% in like 25 years...
Long term, the Antarctica seems greatly stable, really.
DiscoGary wrote:
ke7i wrote:
Please give any link to credible info suggesting that in the "late 60s/early 70s" there was a scientific consensus for a coming ice age. [NOTE: Blogs and unsourced stories in popular magazines do not count as "credible info."]
Here ya go!
In 1975 Newsweek:
"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as it's overall specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. "
I could be wrong, but I suspect that that is precisely the kind of unsourced story in a popular magazine that "ke71" was talking about.
celery wrote:
Under Water Trump wrote:
It would take all of Trump's properties being under a rising sea for Trumpers to realize there is a YUGE problem. Their solution should be pay 200% of the cost to relocate Trump properties out of harms way. Entirely at taxpayer expense. Greater than 100% payback is required because Trumpers must prove they loyalty to Trump to the proper way--$$$$.
That's an interesting scenario you posit. It seems perfectly reasonable to deal with the problem when it's a problem. Sounds like a plan to me.
Now please stop calling us "climate deniers." We are "climate-indifferent-ers," and nothing you say will make us care. Doesn't that just gall you that we don't worship mother earth the way you do?
no, it galls us that you are an idiot.
It's funny, I would bet $20 that back in the 90's you were on of the idiots claiming at the top of their lungs that global warming wasn't happening. You were wrong. Now you are claiming it's not worth doing anything about it. What's going to be your argument in 30 years? "No one ever told us!"
I agree that some climate articles are alarmist BS. Like pretty much any other topic. But to use that to justify this attitude. "We are "climate-indifferent-ers," and nothing you say will make us care." That's the attitude of a child. "Look at how stubborn I aM! NO amount of evidence can change my mind. Neener-Neener, Neener!"
It's hilarious because the very fact that the term "climate-indifferenters" even exits is because your original stance was wrong so you had to adopt a new one.
I agree though. Nothing ever will change your mind. You don't have the intellectual capacity for it.
Public Release: 26-Jun-2018
Researchers discover volcanic heat source under glacier
Plays critical role in movement, melting
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-06/uori-rdv062618.php
I think we can build a few seawalls and adjust where we plant crops until cold fusion is perfected and shuts this problem down. Until then, try stopping bitcoin form creating more pollution than I ever will.
Until then, try making millennials learn how to fix things rather than just throw out thing like appliances.
Until then, please stop pretending that solar power is green and mandating that all new buildings in CA have a giant piece of ewaste (solar panel) installed.
In equally trustworthy news ...
"Oceana is at war with Eastasia." - The Party
Citizen Runner wrote:
Also, the so called pause didn't extend to 2017
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1970/to:2017/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2017/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2017/trend
Actually if you ignore the nonsense trend line in 1970 it was at 0.2 and is currently 0.8 or an increase of 0.6.
Flyover State wrote:
If it means a tidal wave wipes out NYC and LA/San Fran, I’m all for it.
Winters are still a pain in the ass for US citizens living above 40 N Latitude. That's why we get the head in the sand crowd making jokes about crops in Antarctica. Beware! Before Minneapolis gets New Orleans, LA weather, a huge price will be paid. As of now, water north of Laurentian Divide flows north toward Hudson Bay. Quick melting of polar caps will change the direction of water flow. [Look on a map. Laurentian Divide.] This is a Midwest issue.