Antartic ice not melting at amazing speed

[doodab]

That's fine just making it clear that you have a prejudiced view. No problem with that.

Quoting half a sentence and then suggesting I have a prejudiced view?

What is my prejudiced view exactly? That the collapse of the ice sheet was unprecedented in the last several thousand years and not "business as usual".

TBH the only bias I have is that if you say it it's probably bollocks because you simply aren't a credible source of information.

[BlasterBates]

You are aware that the Larsen A ice shelf did collapse 4000 years ago.

What caused that?

[doodab]

You are aware that the Larsen A ice shelf did collapse 4000 years ago.

What caused that?

I don't know, I wasn't there. No doubt you'll enlighten us.

[BlasterBates]

There we go

New study by NASA explodes myth of disappearing ice in Antarctica

Looks increasingly like normal climatic variations, lose some on one ice shelf gain some elsewhere.

So much for the doom laden predictions from what Professor Judith Curry would call the "apocoholics".

[cojak]

Cool - we'll send the polar bears there.

Antarctic

That'll worry the penguins...

[IR35FanClub]

I don't know anything about Antarctica. Never been there.

It doesn't really matter what is happening there as all the data could be made up, and might not have an effect on the earths climate. And the scientists are only modelling what might happen.

However, what I do is when someone posts a message saying the ice is thinning [or not thinning], I go and read several articles and find out what is happening by reading a balance of opini0on from "anti-GW blogs, and semi-scientific blogs and sometime the source papers".

Apparently the Antarctic ice mass is increasing - because there's a lot on land. I.e the snow fall in winter makes the ice heavier.

The sea ice is thinning. Which is bad because it means the sea catches more heat from the sun.

I haven't read it anywhere yet, but I'm assuming, [and by this - I mean If I were going to study climate science - this would be my dissertation as it's not fact - but my own theory...] this may be another of the earth's tipping points - literally. If the earth gets hotter, then there will more water vapour around and therefore more rain (like we've been getting in the UK) and more snow (like Antarctica has been getting). It may be this that leads to Antarctica destabilising the earth spin, literally tipping the earth of it's axis and triggering a new ice age or melt, depending on which way it tips.

There are theories around that the lost city of Atlantis is actual under the ice on Antarctica as it would have been accessible - and useful to the ancients - they could have easily sailed there if it wasn't frozen over.

So yet again we have the question being asked - is the CO2 we are emitting doing anything *because we are emitting CO2 - enough to increase the atmospheric concentration by about 0.5% per year]. The answer is yes. But time and time again, people pick a little bit of data to try and challenge the overwhelming evidence that CO2 is warming the earth as a whole, not in a certain country in north America or a certain country in the Europe, or a frosty part of the south, but overall the earth is warming. As measured by thermometers, whilst CO2 is increasing year on year. And both of these numbers are well outside of their natural variations. What does it take to convince some people that there is a link? The CO2 isn't being caused by the warming. Even though that is what happens normally (as warming release CO2 trapper in ice and the biosphere). This time the CO2 is the forcing factor.

It's time to start ignoring bloggers who just want to sell advertising space - or indeed are fully funded by energy companies. That's what I'm waiting for. Energygate. Evidence and leaks from Oil/Gas & Coal companies that show they have been consistently sponsoring projects to put doubt in the publics mind.

Tobacco is good for you. CO2 is good for plants and increase crop yields. (But so does bulls**t.).

[EternalOptimist]

Good point IR35Fanclub
we should measure the temperature with thermomoters.
But then how to we know what the temps were a few hundred/thousand years ago ?

and how do we know what the temps are in antartica where there is one thermometer in millions of sq km ?


I mean, you wouldnt look at your thermometer and say, 'hmmm 19 c
therefore its 19c in London, Manchester, Edinburgh and Moscow. that would be lunacy

only a loony would do that. A total loopy loop fruit

[IR35FanClub]

Good point IR35Fanclub
we should measure the temperature with thermomoters.
But then how to we know what the temps were a few hundred/thousand years ago ?

and how do we know what the temps are in antartica where there is one thermometer in millions of sq km ?


I mean, you wouldnt look at your thermometer and say, 'hmmm 19 c
therefore its 19c in London, Manchester, Edinburgh and Moscow. that would be lunacy

only a loony would do that. A total loopy loop fruit

doh, you keep making what sound like argument winning points only to fail again. You could probably predict the weather in manchester based on Londons temo. but... They dont just use one thermometer. and the temperature rises that have been measured are the ones all over the world with actual recorded temperature since the 1800s. These are why they noticed the increase and started pondering what might be causing it. Thats why they intially called it global warming, but i think changed it to climate change when they realised not everywhere gets hotter. just different.

my own propsal is that the uk will get cloudier and wetter, and the summer will be carp, not a fish. Winters will be milder but also wetter. With the odd drought. Hmmn, sound familiar. Im basing my prediction on personal observations of "changing climate" since I was a kid.

Apparently the met office do somethg similar to see if their weather forecasting is any good. I.e it has been proven you can say 70% of the time the weather today will be the same as tomorrow. So for tomorrow, I predict sunny spells with the odd light rain shower. To ge it more accurate that that means you got a prediction right.

[EternalOptimist]

doh, you keep making what sound like argument winning points only to fail again. You could probably predict the weather in manchester based on Londons temo. but... They dont just use one thermometer. and the temperature rises that have been measured are the ones all over the world with actual recorded temperature since the 1800s. These are why they noticed the increase and started pondering what might be causing it. Thats why they intially called it global warming, but i think changed it to climate change when they realised not everywhere gets hotter. just different.

my own propsal is that the uk will get cloudier and wetter, and the summer will be carp, not a fish. Winters will be milder but also wetter. With the odd drought. Hmmn, sound familiar. Im basing my prediction on personal observations of "changing climate" since I was a kid.

Apparently the met office do somethg similar to see if their weather forecasting is any good. I.e it has been proven you can say 70% of the time the weather today will be the same as tomorrow. So for tomorrow, I predict sunny spells with the odd light rain shower. To ge it more accurate that that means you got a prediction right.

there are about 60 thermometers in Antartica you fool

60, and all on the coast

there are more than 60 stations in the north of england, last time I checked.

and thats not enough


sheesh