Antarctic Ice Sheet growing

[pjclarke]

I have not read it at all. Nor have I commented on it. I simply published it to show how dissent to your religion is treated.

What a surprise

[EternalOptimist]

Now that we all agree that the ice is up

lets look at something that is down. like the electricity blackouts in South Australia.

unfortunatly for the green eco-loons, the sun wasnt shining and the wind wasn't blowing. A perfect example of green lunacy.
now I'm just waiting for some nut-job to come along and tell me it could all be solved with a bit more subsidy

[pjclarke]

Now that we all agree that the ice is up

lets look at something that is down. like the electricity blackouts in South Australia.

unfortunatly for the green eco-loons, the sun wasnt shining and the wind wasn't blowing. A perfect example of green lunacy.
now I'm just waiting for some nut-job to come along and tell me it could all be solved with a bit more subsidy

A perfect example of failure to invest in interconnector capacity. Market failure: not sure how you can pin that on the environmental movement, even with your pretzel logic. (Hint: not everything at Bishop Hill is reliable)

And the Antarctic sea ice, having achieved record highs earlier this year, is now tanking ...down on last year ....

[original PM]

It is interesting, the ice sheet has been accumulating slowly over millions of years, previous satellite missions indicated this process had been reversed in recent decades, giving a net loss, due to increased glacier flow, although the IPCC estimate had an uncertainty range from a 200 Gt loss to a 50 Gt gain per year. This more accurate estimate seems to show that the rate of increase has slowed but is still net positive, and may not turn negative for another 20 years.

There goes the 'scientists always suppress results that don't support the narrative' meme. And why is this NASA data considered trustworthy while their temperature results are always described as 'fiddled'?

In other news

Rare tropical cyclone: Yemen, Oman expect eight years of rain in two days as Chapala forms in Arabian Sea

So the first weather satellite went up about what 40 years ago?

And in that 40 years we now understand the millennial shift of the ice sheets??

I think not

[EternalOptimist]

So the first weather satellite went up about what 40 years ago?

And in that 40 years we now understand the millennial shift of the ice sheets??

I think not

it's a perfect example of the 'we don't have any evidence, but we are certain it will happen anyway'

mentality

[WTFH]

EO, where does all the pollution go?

[EternalOptimist]

EO, where does all the pollution go?

what pollution ?

when I was a yonker, the rivers were filthy and the air was dirty.
that's been mostly sorted.
is that the type of pollution you are asking about ?

[pjclarke]

So the first weather satellite went up about what 40 years ago?

And in that 40 years we now understand the millennial shift of the ice sheets??

I think not

Before that, ice cores. But I should have written millennia,

The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.

[pjclarke]

Has anyone actually presented any science that proves, or even suggest, significant man-made global warming yet?

All i've ever seen presented is models - and models aren't scientific evidence.

There is abundant evidence for AGW, without reliance on models, and in the scientific community, not much controversy. Nobody disputes the greenhouse effect, or that human activity has increased the abundance of persistent greenhouse gases by about 40% above a range in which it oscillated for at least 600,000 years, and that this has resulted in a net imbalance or forcing in the amount of incoming and outgoing radiation, resulting in an extra 1.6 Watts per every sq metre of planetary surface. Objects in a radiative imbalance have to increase in temperature, according to the laws of thermodynamics. The amount by which the planet will respond to the imbalance, known as climate sensitivity and usually defined as the rise in planetary temperature at equilibrium after a doubling of CO2, is the key area of uncertainty, a low sensitivity, say <1C may mean we don't have much to worry about, >4C and we're in real trouble. The IPCC's estimate is that the value is 'likely to lie in the range 2 to*4.5 °C*(4 to 8.1 °F), with a most likely value of about 3 °C (5 °F).' The evidence for this value does come from a combination of modelling studies, but also paleoclimate work, investigating how the planet has responded to well-constrained forcings in the past.

Of course it is not enough to say 'the planet should warm and it is doing so: AGW QED'; there is a wealth of detection and attribution studies which look at the fingerprint - spatial and temporal distribution of the changes that a greenhouse warming would produce as opposed to natural factors, for example if an increase in solar radiation was responsible, then the stratosphere should warm faster, if the root cause is an enhanced greenhouse effect, which mainly occurs in the mid-low atmosphere, then the stratosphere should cool, which is exactly what has been observed - in line with model predictions.

Chapter 10 of the most recent IPCC report, AR5, summarises the detection and attribution work. And, yes, I have read it.

Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013

And regarding your premise see: RealClimate: Is Climate Modelling Science?

[DodgyAgent]

There is abundant evidence for AGW, without reliance on models, and in the scientific community, not much controversy. Nobody disputes the greenhouse effect, or that human activity has increased the abundance of persistent greenhouse gases by about 40% above a range in which it oscillated for at least 600,000 years, and that this has resulted in a net imbalance or forcing in the amount of incoming and outgoing radiation, resulting in an extra 1.6 Watts per every sq metre of planetary surface. Objects in a radiative imbalance have to increase in temperature, according to the laws of thermodynamics. The amount by which the planet will respond to the imbalance, known as climate sensitivity and usually defined as the rise in planetary temperature at equilibrium after a doubling of CO2, is the key area of uncertainty, a low sensitivity, say <1C may mean we don't have much to worry about, >4C and we're in real trouble. The IPCC's estimate is that the value is 'likely to lie in the range 2 to*4.5 °C*(4 to 8.1 °F), with a most likely value of about 3 °C (5 °F).' The evidence for this value does come from a combination of modelling studies, but also paleoclimate work, investigating how the planet has responded to well-constrained forcings in the past.

Of course it is not enough to say 'the planet should warm and it is doing so: AGW QED'; there is a wealth of detection and attribution studies which look at the fingerprint - spatial and temporal distribution of the changes that a greenhouse warming would produce as opposed to natural factors, for example if an increase in solar radiation was responsible, then the stratosphere should warm faster, if the root cause is an enhanced greenhouse effect, which mainly occurs in the mid-low atmosphere, then the stratosphere should cool, which is exactly what has been observed - in line with model predictions.

Chapter 10 of the most recent IPCC report, AR5, summarises the det4ection and attribution work. And, yes, I have read it.

Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013

And regarding your premise see: RealClimate: Is Climate Modelling Science?

The Taliban has spoken. We must now pay all our taxes and pay homage to those who are going to take care of this problem for us. Than god for people like pj clarke

By the way I have never read the bible yet I have come to the conclusion that I do not believe in god