"Antarctica Is Melting THREE TIMES AS FAST as a Decade Ago"

falconrunner22 wrote:

The problem is that the leftist agenda driven scientists have been caught lying, and cherry picking so many times, that if we ever do get a real crisis, many will not believe them.

+1

Just like the story of the boy who cried wolf.

NYC, NYC, baby wrote:

Lemon Lime 5000 metre runner wrote:

Serious question for the climate alarmist. Wouldn't climate change be self correcting? If it actually does kill off half the population. Than there is only half the population to produce green house gasses. Therefore; emissions would be cut in half. Than it would be revered over time.

I don't think the OP, or the linked article, mentioned anything about climate change killing off half the population. Are you maybe thinking of another thread?

He’s thinking of Avengers: Infinity War.

ke7i wrote:

Sand Dunes wrote:

Back in the late 60s/early 70s they claimed we were on a edge of another ice age.

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."}

Go ahead. I'll wait. I'll even wait 24 hours. If there's nothing by then, then you don't have any such link and your post was bullshit.

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. "

They suggesting dumping ash on the poles to warm the Earth!

The Ice Age wasn't science back in 1975 and Global Warming isn't science today.

DiscoGary wrote:

The Ice Age wasn't science back in 1975 and Global Warming isn't science today.

Here's Broecker's seminal 1975 paper in which he:

1) Coins the term "global warming".

2) Uses the term "climatic change" in the same title decades before political actors accused "them" of changing from "global warming" to "climate change".

3) Does a simple projection of warming which has matched observations reasonably well over subsequent decades, largely based on Manabe's pioneering climate model work from that era.

Oh wow, the worst continent is melting and we get more water (a vital resource), such a tragedy. Who cares? Nobody lives there except some idiot penguins.

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--$$$$.

Funny how nobody mentions that the study period where the tripling occurred happened during OBAMA's administration. That is because in spite of all of the "progressive" action Obama took on climate change domestically, all his policies did was to displace jobs and industry from the US and ship them to places where the regulations are lesser. The explosive growth of coal power in the past 20 years has been fueled by economic growth in ASIA, not the US. In all honesty, the US president has very little influence on climate change, which is a GLOBAL problem, not a US problem.

There's a pretty good blog post explaining the current paper in more detail at the link below for those who might be interested in the science. The main objective of this group of researchers is the comparison of ice mass balance measurements obtained by three independent methods.

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/2018/06/mass-balance-antarctic-ice-sheet-1992-2017/

Lemon Lime 5000 metre runner wrote:

Serious question for the climate alarmist. Wouldn't climate change be self correcting? If it actually does kill off half the population. Than there is only half the population to produce green house gasses. Therefore; emissions would be cut in half. Than it would be revered over time.

ESL, bro?

No dog in this fight. wrote:

I don't care either way whether Antarctica is melting. There must be sea level measurement stations around the world which tell us whether sea levels are rising. What do they say? Why argue the point when we can just look at these devices for the answer? The sea is either rising or it isn't.

Here's the crux of the problem...........it DOESN'T matter if there are facts that show the sea level is rising.....95% of the Trumpkins on this board would then still find a reason to deny. Truth isn't the currency they trade in.

20 yearsa go they were the group saying the earth wasn't getting warmer, no they are the group saying 'well it doesn't matter'...........(or actually just flat out denying that the Earth IS getting warmer......just cant admit when they were wrong)

Also, I absolutely guarantee you 50% of them are ready to type "But, But..Trump wasn't even into politics in the 90's! So there were no Trumpkins in the 90's!!"

No.....but there were idiots.

Sand Dunes wrote:

Lmao, more fake news from scientist who get more funding if they make it look like we are on the edge of Armageddon. Back in the late 60s/early 70s they claimed we were on a edge of another ice age. Now they claim it is global warming.

The price of waterfront property is falling vs inland property. So now is your chance to buy in Miami!

Global warming is for democrats/fairies.

Citizen Runner wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

The Ice Age wasn't science back in 1975 and Global Warming isn't science today.

Here's Broecker's seminal 1975 paper in which he:

1) Coins the term "global warming".

2) Uses the term "climatic change" in the same title decades before political actors accused "them" of changing from "global warming" to "climate change".

3) Does a simple projection of warming which has matched observations reasonably well over subsequent decades, largely based on Manabe's pioneering climate model work from that era.

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf

Their models are no good. They can't predict climate trends. From the Climate Gate scandal we know they can't explain what is happening. They cook the books to reach predetermined conclusions. We know they undermine skeptics, try to ruin their careers, and have corrupted the peer review process to keep non-conforming data out of the journals.

The only way we'll ever be able to know if there's any real climate science going on anywhere, is if someone manages to create a model that can predict climate trends for 20 to 50 years with modfication. I'm willing to wait. Until then, it's all superstition and propaganda and no government policy should be based on any of it.

"without modification"

The real question is what is UNDER the ice? What ancient knowledge will be revealed under the ice? Origins of man? Ancient civilization and technology long lost?

NYTimes wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/climate/antarctica-ice-melting-faster.html

This 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.

LDOPA wrote:

Oh wow, the worst continent is melting and we get more water (a vital resource), such a tragedy. Who cares? Nobody lives there except some idiot penguins.

It's the Australians fault. I went to a bar in Sydney where you could get ice from Antarctica in your drink.

falconrunner22 wrote:

The problem is that the leftist agenda driven scientists have been caught lying, and cherry picking so many times, that if we ever do get a real crisis, many will not believe them.

The problem is people who go on message boards and act like they’ve bothered to learn about science but haven’t. Like you.

Anyone who has learned about the science is well aware that you don’t know what you’re talking about. But relax, there are plenty of people who’ll happily argue climate science with an actual scientist even though they rotate tires (or whatever) for a living. So you have company. The world is full of people who just don’t know what they don’t know.

The Republican Party has made willful stupidity on this issue a litmus test. Facts used to matter in American policy, especially policy related to science, but we’ve been overwhelmed by people like you who won’t do the work to learn about an issue, but think that they can get away with acting like they understand. I want my country back from opportunistic carpetbaggers like Trump, opportunistic cronies like Pruitt, and weak-minded enablers like the ones that fill this thread.

Anyone who really wants to make America great again is going to have to be willing to return to respect for facts and truth.

joedirt wrote:

In all honesty, the US president has very little influence on climate change, which is a GLOBAL problem, not a US problem.

Listen to you. I doubt even you actually agree with what you just said. No single person on earth has more influence on this issue, except possibly the leaders of China and India. It is indeed a global problem, which is why the fact that Trump pulled us from the Paris accord is one of the leading examples of the US falling away from real leadership in the world.

Obama indeed made little progress on the issue. The Republican Congress saw to that. Again, these are facts, as is the fact that Obama’s administration got China and India to the table on this, and as is the fact that Trump is pushing coal even when the CEOs of energy companies are planning to transition. You just can’t act like the positions of the two parties for the last 20 years are not known. They are.

Silent majority wrote:

Global warming is for democrats/fairies.

More deep thought. You must be pretty %#} proud of yourself, well done!!!!