Global Warming Scientists Trapped in Antarctic Ice

[ralfy]

From the same site.

Poor Antarctic Ocean must feel discriminated.
Whenever people talk about global warming they use the north pole but not the south pole. Is it Global warming or is it North Pole Warming?

Doesn't seem that slight increase now, does it?

In fact the only way for the Global Sea Ice to have increased is for the Antarctic gains surpass the Arctic losses.

Now this is both oceans combined.




Why words when the numbers talk without any bias?

See the summary at the bottom of

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

 

[GaiaHunter]

Sorry, it's

http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/

Loads of alarmist talk that ignore the simple fact that global warming actually stopped increasing in the last 16 years, as some scientists are finally recognizing and was recently admitted in the journal Nature.

 

[GaiaHunter]

See the summary at the bottom of

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

The data in that link is from 2007.

The data I linked is from 2013.

As you can see the Antarctic gained quite a bit since 2007, enough to change it from 0.9% uptrend to 2.1% uptrend.

 

[Paul98]

The data in that link is from 2007.

The data I linked is from 2013.

As you can see the Antarctic gained quite a bit since 2007, enough to change it from 0.9% uptrend to 2.1% uptrend.

antarctic and arctic are very different, in the arctic it's all over the sea. In the antarctic the vast majority of the ice is land ice. The land ice has been decreasing, since 2002 it has lost more than 24 cubic miles per year.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

antarctic and arctic are very different, in the arctic it's all over the sea. In the antarctic the vast majority of the ice is land ice. The land ice has been decreasing, since 2002 it has lost more than 24 cubic miles per year.

Where in Antarctica is ice being lost and why is it happening?

 

[GaiaHunter]

antarctic and arctic are very different, in the arctic it's all over the sea. In the antarctic the vast majority of the ice is land ice. The land ice has been decreasing, since 2002 it has lost more than 24 cubic miles per year.

First the Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice are about the same size.
Second the Antarctic continent has been increasing its ice mass as I've posted earlier in this thread.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf

"Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses

Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David

Abstract:

During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.

Imbalances in individual drainage systems (DS) are large (-68% to +103% of input), as are temporal changes (-39% to +44%). The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.

Alternate interpretations of the mass changes driven by accumulation variations are given using results from atmospheric-model re-analysis and a parameterization based on 5% change in accumulation per degree of observed surface temperature change. A slow increase in snowfall with climate warming, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses."

Video presentation. http://vimeo.com/46429608

 

[Paul98]

First the Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice are about the same size.
Second the Antarctic continent has been increasing its ice mass as I've posted earlier in this thread.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf

"Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses

Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David

Abstract:

During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.

Imbalances in individual drainage systems (DS) are large (-68% to +103% of input), as are temporal changes (-39% to +44%). The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.

Alternate interpretations of the mass changes driven by accumulation variations are given using results from atmospheric-model re-analysis and a parameterization based on 5% change in accumulation per degree of observed surface temperature change. A slow increase in snowfall with climate warming, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses."

Video presentation. http://vimeo.com/46429608

Yet the differences between them and how they change is very different. One being a small portion of the overall ice, the other being most of the ice with the land ice decreasing.

 

[werepossum]

Sorry, it's

http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/

You intentionally posted that drivel even when unintentionally given a second chance? Have you perhaps suffered a severe head trauma that should earn our pity? Deal with the devil maybe? Lost a fraternity bet? Cancer grotesquely enlarged your dumbass gland? Surely such a gem as this post must stem from either an underlying pathology or some form of coercion.

This is in no way climate science, it's merely an especially foamy idiot screaming "Nobody will listen to me and I'm super serial!"

 

[monovillage]

Actually I think he sounds like quite the self absorbed prick, and I don't believe for a second he is devoid of any fault, but thanks for giving us all another glimpse into your processing abilities by paraphrasing a source to me that I just told you I question. I knew you'd avoid the question I spelled out, but the circular reasoning there is a real bonus.

A new story.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/anta...-sea-ice-on-christmas-eve-20140121-316xp.html

............About 2.30pm the weather deteriorated. At the same time Captain Kiselev saw slabs of sea ice moving into the open water channel from which the ship had entered the area. He called for everyone to return.

A passenger standing near Professor Turney overheard the voyage leader, Greg Mortimer, telling him over the radio to bring passengers back to the ship so it can leave.

But minutes later, Professor Turney drove six more passengers into the field.

The overloaded vehicle had no space to collect returning passengers.

Professor Turney, Dr Fogwill and Mr Mortimer all declined to answer questions about the events of December 23.

But keep on trying to blame the captain for this fiasco and letting the person responsible for the fuck-up off the hook.

 

[Jaskalas]

In his defense it was all thin and rotten ice anyway. If the Captain had not panicked they would have been free in a few weeks.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You just can't help yourself from attempting to define other people's argument for them, can you? Kindly fuck off with that shit.

I am not defending or condemning the crew, I am not defending or condemning the scientific background of those aboard, nor am I delving into climate debate. I am addressing the OP's sentiment of "If they couldn't save themselves how can they save the world?!"
(one echoed by every parrot in this thread, you included) in lieu of a maritime concept that applies everywhere else on the globe wrt to the safety and wellbeing of a vessel and those on it. Responsibility for ship and passenger safety falls to the skipper. Period. End of sentence. Case closed. This has been explained previously, yet Turney's role as exploration organizer/leader keeps being spewed up like that changes something.

Either the sentiment I mentioned is completely ignorant and the stuff of trolls, or Turney is a Captain and really did jeopardize everyone by failing in his responsibility. So let's see this license! I shouldn't have to go into how that is not the same thing as supporting his views on climate change, or rather, I won't.

I never said or implied that my sentiment was "If they couldn't save themselves how can they save the world?!" I just found it ironic that a bunch of climate scientists were trapped in antarctic ice....nothing more, nothing less. In response I'll echo your rather ironic words...."You just can't help yourself from attempting to define other people's argument for them, can you? Kindly fuck off with that shit."

 

[ralfy]

Loads of alarmist talk that ignore the simple fact that global warming actually stopped increasing in the last 16 years, as some scientists are finally recognizing and was recently admitted in the journal Nature.

The links are given in the article.

Global warming did not stop:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/

 

[ralfy]

The data in that link is from 2007.

The data I linked is from 2013.

As you can see the Antarctic gained quite a bit since 2007, enough to change it from 0.9% uptrend to 2.1% uptrend.

Don't forget +/- 2.0

Also, 3.5 downward slope for the Arctic, +/- 0.5

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

 

[ralfy]

You intentionally posted that drivel even when unintentionally given a second chance? Have you perhaps suffered a severe head trauma that should earn our pity? Deal with the devil maybe? Lost a fraternity bet? Cancer grotesquely enlarged your dumbass gland? Surely such a gem as this post must stem from either an underlying pathology or some form of coercion.

This is in no way climate science, it's merely an especially foamy idiot screaming "Nobody will listen to me and I'm super serial!"

Second chance? I didn't enter the link correctly in my previous message. That's obvious when I mistakenly entered the same link twice.

Drivel? Many of the sources are from scientific journals.

 

[ralfy]

In his defense it was all thin and rotten ice anyway. If the Captain had not panicked they would have been free in a few weeks.

Also, I'd look at Iceberg B509:

"The inside story of how expedition went so wrong"

In relation to that,

"Research ship trapped in Antarctic ice because of weather, not climate change"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ce-trapped-academik-shokalskiy-climate-change

 

[ralfy]

First the Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice are about the same size.
Second the Antarctic continent has been increasing its ice mass as I've posted earlier in this thread.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf

"Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses

Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David

Abstract:

During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.

Imbalances in individual drainage systems (DS) are large (-68% to +103% of input), as are temporal changes (-39% to +44%). The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.

Alternate interpretations of the mass changes driven by accumulation variations are given using results from atmospheric-model re-analysis and a parameterization based on 5% change in accumulation per degree of observed surface temperature change. A slow increase in snowfall with climate warming, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses."

Video presentation. http://vimeo.com/46429608

That study is mentioned here:

"Grim picture of polar ice-sheet loss"

http://www.nature.com/news/grim-picture-of-polar-ice-sheet-loss-1.11921

with the latest study from Shepherd. More details on that study here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

and the abstract:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183

 

[GaiaHunter]

The links are given in the article.

Global warming did not stop:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/

Data man, data.

Even the datasets using the more than dubious and scant ocean temperatures show no statistical significant warming.



See the error is bigger than the increase.

And of course Gistemp is know to do stuff like this.

 

[richaron]

I'm always amazed how many Americans get confused about man made global warming. You reallly think this is a political issue? Like abortion and gun control and border protection, you're only allowed to agree if your political party also does?

This is a case of people with a vested interest pretending there is still a debate; confusing the gutter trash who follow their heros like a line of ducklings. There is no longer a debate. Just have to convice the downies & choke the dudes making money.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And of course Gistemp is know to do stuff like this.

Yep. Hansen and his adjusting the adjustments bullshit illustrated below. He's taken climate science a step backward in my opinion...I'm so glad he retired.

 

[GaiaHunter]

http://www.news.com.au/national/fed...xpedition-rescue/story-fncynjr2-1226809033585

"Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt yesterday said costs, estimated at about $2.4 million, would be sought from the insurer of the operators of the vessel.

Battle begins over Antarctic rescue bill

The MV Akademik Shokalskiy, chartered by the University of NSW-associated Australasian Antarctic Expedition to retrace the steps of explorer Sir Douglas Mawson, became stuck in thick sea ice on Christmas Eve.
The 52 passengers were rescued by the Aurora Australis on January 2.
Mr Hunt said the Commonwealth would seek compensation for the recovery effort.
"We will be seeking full cost recovery through insurers for the up to $2.4 million costs incurred by the Australian government," he said.
"We have a duty to protect life at sea and we do that willingly.
"However, what we see here is that there are some questions as to whether or not the ship was detained by the action of those on board within an area the captain had identified as potentially being subject to being frozen in.
"I think we have a duty on behalf of taxpayers to seek full cost recovery."

 

[monovillage]

http://www.news.com.au/national/fed...xpedition-rescue/story-fncynjr2-1226809033585

"Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt yesterday said costs, estimated at about $2.4 million, would be sought from the insurer of the operators of the vessel.

Battle begins over Antarctic rescue bill

The MV Akademik Shokalskiy, chartered by the University of NSW-associated Australasian Antarctic Expedition to retrace the steps of explorer Sir Douglas Mawson, became stuck in thick sea ice on Christmas Eve.
The 52 passengers were rescued by the Aurora Australis on January 2.
Mr Hunt said the Commonwealth would seek compensation for the recovery effort.
"We will be seeking full cost recovery through insurers for the up to $2.4 million costs incurred by the Australian government," he said.
"We have a duty to protect life at sea and we do that willingly.
"However, what we see here is that there are some questions as to whether or not the ship was detained by the action of those on board within an area the captain had identified as potentially being subject to being frozen in.
"I think we have a duty on behalf of taxpayers to seek full cost recovery."

I saw this, hopefully professor Turney gets nailed for being such an idiot.

 

[ralfy]

Data man, data.

Even the datasets using the more than dubious and scant ocean temperatures show no statistical significant warming.



See the error is bigger than the increase.

And of course Gistemp is know to do stuff like this.

Actually, data, internal variability, the trend line, etc. Hence, the upward slope.

 

[ralfy]

Yep. Hansen and his adjusting the adjustments bullshit illustrated below. He's taken climate science a step backward in my opinion...I'm so glad he retired.

What you want to do is look at major science organizations, such as NAS. Skeptics also funded BEST. More details in previous messages.