Reply to: Antartic ice not melting at amazing speed

[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

[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]

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]

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.).

[cojak]

Cool - we'll send the polar bears there.

Antarctic

That'll worry the penguins...

[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".

[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]

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

What caused that?

[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]

If you had bothered to read what you'd quoted you'd have noticed that it's only half a sentence. Why don't we look at the whole thing:



If you are going to quote things to support your point of view, try quoting things that do actually support it.

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

A balanced scientific view would be that it's unclear as the ice sheet has been thinning for thousands for years, so it was going to collapse at some point wasn't it. Krakatoa was stable for thousands of years but then blew up suddenly at the end of the 19th century.

The Larsen B ice sheet is tiny. Most of the Larsen ice shelf is prefectly stable.

Climate changes are natural, there was a stable ice sheet over Europe for thousands of years as well.

Yes of course you maybe right. Just nice to get the facts straight, i.e. that most of that ice shelf is prefectly stable and that particular part of the ice shelf has been thinning for thousands of years and hence would have collapsed "naturally".

[doodab]

What was causing the loss of ice over the last few centuries? (not 30 years).

If you'd have bothered to read the paper on the stability of the Larsen Glacier then you would have come accross this sentence:

If you had bothered to read what you'd quoted you'd have noticed that it's only half a sentence. Why don't we look at the whole thing:

They discovered that while there has been considerable long-term thinning in the ice over the past several thousands of years, it has been the recent warming over the Antarctic peninsula that triggered the collapse. They note that the event is unprecedented in the past 11,500 years – during which entire period the ice shelf has been quite stable.

If you are going to quote things to support your point of view, try quoting things that do actually support it.

[DodgyAgent]

That name invokes the Godwin's law of climate change threads.

Excellent poaching dodgy, you've sneaked in and lost an argument you weren't even involved in!

I dont mind losing an argument

[Doggy Styles]

I am beginning to think that you are as obsessive as PJ Clarke

That name invokes the Godwin's law of climate change threads.

Excellent poaching dodgy, you've sneaked in and lost an argument you weren't even involved in!

[DodgyAgent]

What was causing the loss of ice over the last few centuries? (not 30 years).

If you'd have bothered to read the paper on the stability of the Larsen Glacier then you would have come accross this sentence:

I am beginning to think that you are as obsessive as PJ Clarke

[BlasterBates]

You mean it's the way you don't actually read it properly then accuse them of spin?

The calving wasn't unusual (it says this is how they normally lose ice). The rapid and total collapse was. They know it was there for 10000 years before hand because of the sediment cores taken from underneath it.

What was causing the loss of ice over the last few centuries? (not 30 years).

If you'd have bothered to read the paper on the stability of the Larsen Glacier then you would have come accross this sentence:

They discovered that while there has been considerable long-term thinning in the ice over the past several thousands of years