Satellite imagery shows something entirely different. So maybe that particular shelf is not melting or melting much slower, the surface area of Antarctic ice has been diminishing.
Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time - and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all. "Previous ocean models ... have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a …
Satellite imagery shows something entirely different. So maybe that particular shelf is not melting or melting much slower, the surface area of Antarctic ice has been diminishing.
I think Lewis omitted the word "Some" from the beginning of his title.
Lewis omitted the word "Some" from the beginning of his title.
Satellite imagery shows Antarctic ice increasing.
The trend is consistent:
Keep lying, though. Eventually you'll find somebody gullible enough to believe you.
Holy selective evidence use, Batman!
You might want to read the WHOLE story. From you own source: http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/01/11/sea-ice-down-under-antarctic-ice-and-climate/
Yes the EXTENT of sea ice in the Antarctic has increased. However! The ice shelf has lost a lot of stability and IS changing in where it grows, how thick it gets and when it falls apart again.
Ignoring the current changes in global climate is not a good thing. Being ignorant is a bad excuse, wilfully using data out of context to support your own goal is downright stupid.
Not sure that he is being selective. The comment was simply that the extent of Antarctic ice has increased. He hasn't denied that there are still changes in where etc. It's only selective when you quote part of a report to support your comment and neglect to mention another part that does not support you. This is not the case here. The fact the report says other things as well, was not relevant to the point being discussed.
"Satellite imagery shows Antarctic ice increasing."
That's sea ice (ice that floats on the sea), not land ice (ie ice sheets, shelves)
here's Antarctic ice loss measured from satellites:
Better to read the complete press release. Fimbul is one of many ice shelves;
Other ice shelves:
Lewis knows this and now hopefully some other people do.
Maybe The Register could give us a Ignore Troll option for his posts?
Tricky, as he's the editor. At least he also allows stories that contradict him.
Or, if he bothers you so much, you could just, I don't know, NOT READ HIS ARTICLES. Let alone take the time to post comments too.
I didn't read the article, just the comments as they are usually far more accurate.
Something the UEA's CRU is famous for
So if the planet is warming why would "some" melt and not others? Still doesn't support the hypothesis that we need to exterminate 80% of the human race in order to get CO2 levels just right.
That isn't a hypothesis, it's a straw man.
That's like the one about the NHS…
Which would fuction perfectly, if there were no damned patients (customers).
The **AVERAGE** temperature of the planet is rising. Some areas will rise more than this, some the same, some less and some may even fall. If the average temperature in Little Widdlington in Essex and Cowfart Nebraska go up, this will not disprove what the vast majority of scientists are currently agreed on.
Despite idiots saying mockingly "the science is in", it isn't. The final results are never in. Scientific opinion changes with time. These changes are based on information. Huge amounts of money from rich people and large polluting companies they own does not provide any information that will make any difference. This money does, however, show what lengths sompe people are prepared to go to to shaft future generations so they can maintain their current profits.
"Despite idiots saying mockingly "the science is in", it isn't. The final results are never in. Scientific opinion changes with time. These changes are based on information. Huge amounts of money from rich people and large polluting companies they own does not provide any information that will make any difference. This money does, however, show what lengths sompe people are prepared to go to to shaft future generations so they can maintain their current profits."
Agreed. And this works both ways, with, as you say, 'large polluting companies' on one side, while there are also interested parties milking lots of (usually) state/charitable funding on biased mis-quoting reports for the sake of opposing vested interests trying to peddle the latest (expensive) snake-oil solution to global warming.
The Global Warming argument has been so muddied by loud voices on BOTH sides that nothing moves forward either way, only those exploiting the argument for financial (or personal reputation) gain actually win. Rome burns (in a carbon neutral fashion), while Nero fiddles (with his publicist).
The 'truth' is usually written by the one with the loudest voice, regardless of how accurate the 'truth' actually is. To terribly misquote an evil dictator of German origin - 'Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it'.
Warming, in the context of a body with ice, liquid and gaseous forms of water around, means the increase in energy. It does not directly mean increasing temperature.
Start with a pot of ice + water on a stove. You are adding heat, but the temperature change is marginal. Stop adding heat and it soon returns to melting point of water. What is happening is that the melting of ice soaks up heat. Temperature changes only happen on the fringes.
Average temperatures mean nothing. particularly when only very few measurements are being taken around ice and many are being taken around heat bubbles like cities.
That is one reason why the CRU models just don't stack up. Their code directly attempts to model temperature changes. If they modelled heat instead then they would be a lot more scientific.
Straw men are carbon neutral.
Do you mean the German dictator of Austrian origin? Though I think it was actually, Goebbels, one of his ministers who said that.
> Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic
Now if they'd used proper scientists instead of people who wander around on catwalks, maybe they'd have got some better data.
And to say that an Elephant Seal is better at doing climate surveys makes you wonder why we're spending so much money on obviously under-qualified scientists, too.
But what if the seal data is skewed by the nice clubbing man ?
Have you ever seen an Elephant seal?
It's more likely to be nice clubbing man who gets skewed.....
 Not sure that blowing a whistle and shouting: "ACIIIIIIIIIIIIIID" while dancing like a loon is an effective seal-hunting method.
Is this more proof we do not understand our climate enough to actually make predictions?
I personally do not believe a word out of the mouths of climate experts, on either side of the argument!
And while I personally think we must be affecting the climate, I suspect the sun has more to do with it than we do....
Anyway if its too hot, lets launch a sun shade, if its too cold, lets launch a sun reflector, its not like its beyond our technological know how, its just funding (which will be 10x the real cost if NASA do it of course!)
I believe all kinds of things, but they don't matter because as a scientist I have to cope with reality of things.
1. Antarctica is warming, but warming from -60 °C to -57°C (for instance) doesn't have much visible effect.
2. You are right to be sceptical, but the data is available for you to examine yourself.
3. Solar out has not changed significantly in the roughly 40 years for which we have half decent records. However we are putting 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This is around 5% of the amount which is already there. The observed effect on the climate is broadly in line with what we would expect.
4. Sunshades and and reflectors are fantasy. Dead crops, and dead people are the frightening possibility.
5. The world has many problems. Life is hard. Climate change is one of those problems and we should address it.
So can we please have a list of things that we must do? Not to include taxing people. If you do X (like build a million windmills) what is the effect on the CO2 in the atmosphere. Producing them makes CO2 and the power they produce generates CO2 in the consumption phase. What will the overall effect be? It will slow down the production of CO2 but it wont reduce the amount of atmospheric CO2 by one 0.00000000000001 of a %. As long as we are here on earth it will continue to rise as our population continues to rise and the third world want the same life as we have.
How about you start to look for the things that will improve life and plan for 'change' as I have never seen a plan for change from 'greens' that is positive, ie lets make plans to farm y where we used to farm b. The plan for change only ever involves taxing and foisting windmills on us.
here's something to think about - let everyone generate their own electricity via solar power, as soon as we do the government will invent a tax for that, as they will lose revenue, they encourage it first then tax it when the take up is critical. Nothing is done for the environment, its all about tax.
So if we get real, can we have a proper balanced 'manifesto' that says how we can manage change, not just shouting that we're all gonna die.
"I believe..." Leave the Bible at home. Show me.
1) Antarctica is warming. Perhaps, but show me. And one or two sensors is not enough.
2) "the data is available". No it is not. Here in NZ I tried to get raw data, but it was not available. All public data had been "normalised" or "corrected" by the same people that employed Jim Salinger, an IPCC author. Other data sets available world wide have also been filtered.
2') The available data span is too short to be usable.
3) While we put 5% CO2 into the atmophere, nature puts even more in. Our CO2 output is only a fraction of the carbon cycle.
4) Even if warming is happening, this does not necessarily mean dead crops. Many areas of the world would benefit from a few extra degrees.
5. "Life is hard". Not as hard as it was 100, 50, or even 10 years ago. Perhaps that is the real problem. As life gets easier we start to stir up problems where they don't exist.
When scientists in a national organisation (National Academy of Sciences in the US) says that the sea level on the western cost of the US will rise by a foot in 20 years when over the last 160 years it's risen by 8" then you know that there is some seriously dodgy science going on. You want a hockey stick, go look at the graphic that shows what the 1' rise would look like over at WattsUpWithThat. The NAS say that the sea level could rise by 1m when you take into account a drop in ground level due to a major earthquake. A quake that hasn't done that mcuh change to ground levels in any history.
Another post by a bright bulb who'd rather only read what he already beeves instead of the original report, which predicted rises in the range of 4 to 30 cm, not 30 cm as the most probably value. Does the most probable value represent an acceleration? Yes. That much of an acceleration? No.
'A quake that hasn't done that mcuh change to ground levels in any history.'
You're quite right - apart from (OTTOMH) the Chile 'quake of 1961 (2m), the Cascadia 'quake of 1700 (1.5m), Owens Valley in 1872 (4.5m), Hebgen Lake, Montana in 1956 (6.7m) - an intraplate earthquake at that....
When their mortages are reliant on grants for saying the world's ending.
Cool. I'll start writing another one right now, shall I "The worlds ending", " The world's not ending", it's all the same, and requires absolutely minimal qualifications and/or skill.
I'm a bit worried though. Won't all those other academics in the pay of the Fossil Industry give my "world's end propaganda" proposal bad reviews? And all the rest on the same Doooooom! bandwagon as me will want also to reject it because they want theirs funded instead.
Hmm. Maybe I should try to get the funding council to fund me on the basis of a sound scientific proposal instead? That probably won't annoy either camp of extremists, and, well, after all I _am_ a scientist, and not some sort of webforum troll.
Wait! Wait! What's the payscale for a webtroll?
All those pesky scientists bigging it up in their Ferraris are obviously getting up your nose
You are at it >again<!
1. You are correct, the Antaractic Ice Sheet looks pretty stable. And that is really good news., thank you for passing it on. That is because the Antarctic - by virtue of being surrounded by sea and circumpolar atmospheric and oceanic currents - is massively isolated from the weather and climate systems that transport heat from the equator to the poles.
2. But even there there are signs of warming on the Antarctic peninsula - the bit that reaches northward towards South America. There two gigantic ice shelves disintegrated in a matter of >hours<. Curiously they were also the size of New Jersey. You didn't mention that.
3. But you are looking in the wrong place. The ARCTIC has seen astonishing ice loss and depending on what one believes we can expect the North Pole to be ice free in summer either by the end of the century - worrying - or the end of the decade - terrifying - but hopefully not true.
4. Your contrarian articles about this stuff are as barmy as the articles you mock about 'saving the planet by slimming'. You are like a man standing with your back to your own burning home and commenting 'Well the houses across the street look excellent in this eerie yellow glow.
Get rational: We really do have something to be concerned about.
You want rational? CO2 is a harmless trace gas in our atmosphere currently at a level of around 0.04% by volume. You think it's rational that the earth's radiated heat absorbed by this minute amount of gas would lead to 'something to be concerned about'? The only thing to be concerned about here is your sanity, sir. You can spew all the massaged and abused 'data' you want, but facts are facts. Just look at satellite based measurements of sea level rise, which is about the only thing that says anything meaningful in this entire farce: 3mm per year. So yeah, seems the earth is warming a bit. No idea why. Perhaps CO2 has a little to do with it. Perhaps it's just the earth coming out of the little ice age. Who cares? You think that 3mm per year is a problem? Get rid of your car(s) then, abandon your heated home, stop shopping at Tesco's, sell your computer(s), and go live off the grid. Ciao. Nice to have met you, you lunatic.
Water vapour is only a trace gas (~1%) but it warms the Earth by 31 °C!
CO2 is indeed a trace gas in the atmosphere and its effect is less strong than water. But its effect on radiative transfer is very clear. It warms the Earth. It is responsible for around 2 °C of greenhouse warming. This was well understood a century ago, and in fact was the subject of classroom songs for primary children in the 1050s.
Regarding indicators of Climate Change, you are right to be sceptical of sea level data. It is very very difficult to detect. Similarly with the air temperature above the land surface of the Earth, but there the signal is much clearer. If you would like signs of dramatic changes - look at the arctic - at the places where a small warming causes a phase change from ice/water.
Where the hell has this "there's negligible effect form CO2 because there isn't very much of it by %age" meme come from? The greenhouse effect has been understood for something like 75 years, probably longer and people claiming to know more about science than people who do it for a job deny that it's there. What do you think that does to your credibility?
Also, I've got a few grammes of cyanide, want to eat it? There isn't very much in terms of how much you weigh, what could possibly go wrong?
Water vapour content of the atmosphere can be as much as 4%. That's 100 times the amount of CO2 dear Michael.
And neither water vapour nor CO2 warm the earth at all. The earth is warmed by the sun, which in turn warms the atmosphere, so your triumphant statement '...it warms the Earth by 31 °C!' is blatant nonsense.
And no one disputes that CO2 contributes to the temperature of the lower parts of the atmosphere. It's the size of the increase in temperature caused by additional CO2 that we disagree on. We both know that it's not a linear relationship, but a logarithmic one. Perhaps it causes a degree centigrade of warming for each doubling, but probably less due to negative feedbacks if you ask me. You will disagree, and that's fine. The proof will be in the pudding!
I wasn't around in 1050, so I can't comment on your classroom songs. Surprised you can remember that far back.
Perhaps you have a slab of concrete in front of your Neanderthal-shaped head, but how you could think I was sceptical of sea level data is beyond me. And regarding your dramatical changing arctic, perhaps you should go live there? Should be nice and warm there soon if your 'signals' are correct.
Keep using those divining rods Michael. There must be water here!!
vandenbudenmayer: "You want IRrational? ...<mindless diatribe follows>"
Fixed That For You
Where the hell does the I'm-calling-everything-I-see-more-than-once-a-meme meme come from? Of course the greenhouse effect has been 'understood' for a long time as you say. This is not in dispute. Did I deny there is a greenhouse effect?
Are you claiming the effect of cyanide on the human body is similar to adding a bit of CO2 to the atmosphere? Great analogy. Did you have to think really hard to come up with that one? Poor diddums.
It was ever thus:
The earth has been, ironically, in an unusually constant and beneficent stretch of climate. If global temperatures rise a degree or two:
1) It will not be unusual even a tiny bit.
2) It will be net positive.
The earth has been veddy, veddy good to us and this recent stretch of warming, naturally to be expected as we come out of the LIA (which the warmistas have been trying to erase from history), is particularly salutary.
There is a mountain of money in the 'climate change' industry. That is why all their nonsense reports keep coming our way. I expect that we will see the *same* weasels promoting 'climate change' hysteria rush in to grab the dollars to prove that we need to spend money dismantling our cooling agenda and, on an expensive and emergency basis, prepare to fight the coming ice age.
Ironically, though it is doubtful we can invent more energy into the planet to heat things up, we *may* actually be able to precipitate *cooling* by all this nonsense. Cooling == bad.
You would think that the entire scientific establishment would rise up and crush the moronic and badly schooled 'global warming hysterics', but you would be wrong.
Hopefully, when ordinary people can see how much this hysteria has cost them and how many lives have been destroyed by eco-terrorists and how entirely pointless it is, they will finally put an end to it. Meantime, I cannot always bite my tongue, since I make my living with logic, have a background in science, and have taken a very long hard look at 'Climate Change'. The 'Climate Change' orthodoxy is egregiously stupid. They can't even *read* a graph, let alone produce one that makes any sense. Here is what the last 100 years looks like when graphed with error bars against the actual scale (Kelvin) that measures *quantity* of heat starting at zero == zero (Y axis is temperature, X axis is time):
[To get error bars narrow enough, X axis has to be too far away to graph here]
What, you say it hasn't changed and is not accelerating? Yes. For their purposes, it has not left the range of the error. It is all entirely nonsense. We deal in 'temperature', when we want to see where it is and where it is going. They deal in 'anamolies', because any graph of actual temperature, especially when the Y-axis starts at zero, shows nothing interesting is happening.
Q:What about CO2?
A:It is *very* good for plants and may account for our unusual abundance of crops in recent years. It has a negligible effect on its own and by itself, a doubling or trebling of CO2 concentration is almost certainly net-positive (Garden of Eden-ically speaking), even in the unlikely event it even has a measurable effect on temperature.
Q: But the [QuasiCriminalGlobalWarmingClimateChangeCharlatans] have 'proven' [whatever]'. A:No, no they have not. Sadly, they don't know enough math, chemistry, physics, statistics, etc to know that they are in the bottom quartile. They can't even understand a proof, let alone construct one. They are a hilarious study in illiteracy-driven logical fallacy. Sometimes, their arguments are so stupid, they are hard to disprove because they are 'not even wrong'. Idiots. If we could even just get them to understand the concept of 'burden of proof', they would at least shut up while they went about finally gathering some proof. If you are a 'climate scientist' (an oxymoron these days), for heavens sake study up on stuff like 'null hypothesis' and undergrad statistics. My high-school turned out better scientists.
There is one consolation for the irritation of the IPCC. Not all of them will be caught, but that house of cards will fall and at least a few will have to face the music. It is not consolation for all the grief they have caused, and as usual the real culprits will escape justice, but it will be entertaining. Everybody will say 'who knew?'. A few of us will say: 'me'.
In this story you have a history of this entire movement. First we ignored them. Then we laughed at them ... the end.
Okay lets analyze your trainwreck of an argument.
First you appealed to the small concentration = small effect fallacy. Others set you straight by pointing out a case where small concentration can have a big effect, but rather than admit you are wrong you try to pretend they've done something wrong by picking the wrong analogy. Therefore showing you don't understand falsifiability. It only takes one contradiction to your argument to falsify it. ANYTHING in small concentrations that has a big effect (and a LOT of things do) proves your argument that small concentration = small effect is wrong.
Even better though you even contradicted your own fallacy without knowing it when later you claimed: "no one disputes that CO2 contributes to the temperature of the lower parts of the atmosphere....Perhaps it causes a degree centigrade of warming for each doubling..."
Perhaps you just don't realize how much energy it takes to raise global average temperature by 1 degree C. It flies in the face of your "small effect" argument. If you really believed small concentration = small effect then 1C shouldn't be possible from a mere 0.04% CO2. Even 0.1C would be far too much according to the fallacy.
Now you go and throw in another load of nonsense with your: "neither water vapour nor CO2 warm the earth at all. The earth is warmed by the sun, which in turn warms the atmosphere, so your triumphant statement '...it warms the Earth by 31 °C!' is blatant nonsense."
But but you contradict yourself AGAIN. When you claimed "Perhaps it [CO2] causes a degree centigrade of warming for each doubling" that contradicts your new claim that CO2 cannot be said to warm the Earth.
Besides by your reasoning a coat can't be said to warm a person. So anyone who claims "this coat is warming me" is guilty of talking "blatant nonsense" are they? Pedantic isn't the word is it? It's like you are trying to put up obstacles and create confusion. Almost troll-like, but no I've seen this pattern from creationists. It's what happens when someone is trying too hard to contest (deny?) some science they oppose.
Re:Water vapour is only a trace gas (~1%) but it warms the Earth by 31 °C!
Your fervent belief in this will not cause it to become true. This is just another climate howler that makes anyone with an undergrad math/science degree wonder how those guys ever got a degree.
I disagree with the people who told you that, but more importantly, so does the physical universe, which we can inspect using ... 'science'. Either I am wrong or they are wrong. If you *really* care to know, you will have to do more digging than to accept the word of someone whose living depends upon 'Climate Change' being important.
Try this: Look up the provenance of the argument. Then, look up the facts that have actually been demonstrated. Then, do the math. Uh, ... Never mind.
Here's the punchline from the text below:
"The modelers then ‘correct’ their error by botching a “33 degrees Centigrade whatchamacallit” they term the greenhouse gas effect.""
"No Peer-reviewed Science to Prove Greenhouse ‘Blanket Effect’
But it gets worse - just scratch that surface a little more and you’ll find that there is also not a single peer-reviewed paper substantiating the existence of so-called GHE 'back radiation' heating (a term absent from textbooks on thermodynamics).
One of the endless disagreements is about the incoming solar radiation and whether it can be 'trapped' by carbon dioxide (CO2) to form a gaseous atmospheric 'blanket effect.’
But as Mexico’s Professor Nasif Nahle has experimentally demonstrated, “the warming effect in a real greenhouse is not due to longwave infrared radiation trapped inside the greenhouse, but to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings…”
Postma and Nahle rigorously applied the science from the book, Slaying the Sky Dragon. They were then able to further expose the critical flaw whereby reliance is placed on a plane-parallel model in which the ground and atmosphere are treated as “planes” that are “parallel” to each other.
Postma shows that the incoming solar flux is wrongly divided by a factor of “4” so as to average the Solar energy over the entire planet as a chilly twilight. In effect, climate science turns our watery revolving globe into a flat, ice covered disk by utterly discarding the warming and cooling process of day and night. So which side in this debate are now the real “flat earthers?”
In other words, climatologists model Earth as a desolate flat disk planet where Sunshine is perpetually freezing cold and liquid water and vapor are impossible. The modelers then ‘correct’ their error by botching a “33 degrees Centigrade whatchamacallit” they term the greenhouse gas effect."
btrower, another climate "skeptic" is full of contradictions too.
First he (wrongly) accuses the scientific community of trying to erase the little ice age (LIA) from history.
But then he proposes we graph temperature on a kelvin scale starting from 0K. The result of doing that would be that the last 1000 years of temperature would appear flat. No wiggles, nothing. No LIA, no medieval warm period (MWP).
So he is guilty *himself* of trying to erase the little ice age. Of course not intentionally. He didn't realize the implications of what he advocated. He just wanted to hide the 20th century warming because that's a convenient way of denying man-made climate change. He didn't realize that the same method he used to do that would also hide the LIA he promotes so much.
Another contradiction born of climate "skepticism".
He's also wrong on a number of points, I'll point out one particularly important mistakes: He's wrong to claim that 2C global warming isn't unusual.
A coat does not warm a person dear NomNuts. If you don't even realise that, what are you doing discussing climatology with grown ups?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017