NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing - (1 Viewer)

[Rx_]

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...gaining-more-ice-than-losing-climate/53533246

A new study released by NASA reveals that Antarctica is currently gaining more ice than it's losing, disputing other studies that say the continent is overall losing land ice.
The gain in ice is attributed to an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation, which began 10,000 years ago. Satellite data showed that the Antarctic ice had a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice per year from 1992 to 2001, but then slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year during 2003 to 2008, according to the report, which was published in the Journal of Glaciology.

Other Maritime studies are indicating the short term shrinkage of the Northern Pole have been reversing as well.

Of course, Al Gore has personally made Millions of USD from the efforts related to his version of scientific predictions about Global Warming.

Are humans causing global warming? Is the cycles of the Sun a factor? What role does volcano activity above ground and underwater play?

Is Global Warming really the number one threat to the US National Security?

 

[Alc]

“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.”

“If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

It didn't sound to me like they were arguing against the fact that the amount of ice was decreasing. Rather, the amount is dropping, as was previously reported, and while we've found somewhere where it's growing, this doesn't mean the overall amount isn't going down.

 

[Alc]

Of course, Al Gore has personally made Billions of USD from the efforts related to his version of scientific predictions about Global Warming.

Is this http://www.davemanuel.com/net-worth/al-gore/ WAY off, or are you exaggerating just a tad?

Al Gore currently has a net worth of an estimated $172 million.
This went up from around $120 million a few days back.
$70 million from Current TV
$45 million from Apple
$30 - $40 from Google
A big chunk in hedge funds

The $150k to $200k he gets per speech may be based largely on climate change. Let's be generous and say it's 100% from that. He'd have to be making a hell of a lot of speeches to get from $172 million to the billions you say he's made.

 

[Galaxiom]

Other Maritime studies are indicating the short term shrinkage of the Northern Pole have been reversing as well.

Please provide a link because that claim conflicts with everything I have seen. Thick Arctic sea ice melts seasonally and when it comes back during the following winter it is much thinner.

Are humans causing global warming? Is the cycles of the Sun a factor? What role does volcano activity above ground and underwater play?

Humans causing an increase in global temperature by the vast increase in CO2 emissions is well beyond doubt.

Cycles of the Sun are already accounted for in the climate models.

Total CO2 emissions from volcanos are about one percent of human emissions.

 

[Rx_]

I don't think Humans are causing that much CO2. Here is an example:
Thought a Cambridge University from UK quoted in a government site might be neutral.
But, there are many other sources regarding man made vs Nature emissions.
The natural emissions vs human make nature the larger contributor.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf
If you have some other source, I would be open to see it.

Now Methane is a significant number that would seem concerning.
I heard a presentation about largest percent of Methane attributed to Rice-Paddy farming methods. And, that it was also a fairly recent invention for mankind.

The total COD Emission is not to be confused with the EPA Chart of just Human caused emissions.
If nature is excluded, then this is the human share broken down.
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
Of just the human caused: Outside the US, EU, japan, India, and Russia, The overwhelming majority of the total from the other countries.

I would agree the ice comes back thinner over a larger cycle with other cub cycles.
The Great Lakes were frozen just a very few thousand years ago.
During the American Revolution, New York rivers were frozen solid even through summer. In general, the Ice Age is still generally warming.

I attended a very interesting presentation from the USAF (air force). The studies by the PhD in Heliophysics (study of the Sun's atmosphere). The number of new satellites to just monitor the sun is amazing. There seems to be new things discovered ever few months. At the time of the seminar, they didn't feel there was any absolutes regarding the Sun's model on our global environment. My guess is that Russia science is actually more advanced in this regard. Russia is building atomic icebreakers to prepare for the ice.
Seems every few months, we are still learning something new in that regard.

 

[CJ_London]

Humans causing an increase in global temperature by the vast increase in CO2 emissions is well beyond doubt.

Can you provide a link that proves this beyond doubt

 

[Galaxiom]

The natural emissions vs human make nature the larger contributor.

Of course natural systems are the largest contributor but these emissions had been in balance with the reuptake by the environment for millions of years resulting in a relatively stable atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Since the beginning of industrialisation, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen from about 270 ppm to over 400 ppm because of that extra contribution. About half of this rise has been in the past three decades and it continues at an accelerating rate.

 

[Galaxiom]

Can you provide a link that proves this beyond doubt

Just look at any credible scientific publication on climate.

 

[Galaxiom]

Of just the human caused: Outside the US, EU, japan, India, and Russia, The overwhelming majority of the total from the other countries. .

So except for the countries you listed that emit 70 percent of the pollution, "other countries" are the biggest emitters.

Perhaps you could rephrase what you are trying to say because, on the face of it, that is a ridiculous statement to make.

 

[Galaxiom]

In general, the Ice Age is still generally warming.

Average global temperatures were slowly falling during the first half of the Twentieth Century. This was consistent with the well established natural glaciation cycle of 10,000 years interglacial periods and 100,000 years of glaciation.

Over the next several centuries we would have been moving back towards glaciation.

 

[Rx_]

Thanks for your comments! It is actually good to meet people who, like myself are passionate about the environment.

"Just look at any credible scientific publication on climate."
OK, here are just a few to see if this statement actually means the statements must totally agree with one truth in order to be credible.

My concern is that our precious resources are directed efficiently to achieve the goal. There are suggestions that when the Earth had much higher CO2, there was more bio-life to feed a larger diversity (tonnage) of plant-eaters. In other words, higher CO2 - less world hunger. I don't know the answer. But if that did turn out to be the solution to world hunger, can humanity afford not to consider the theory?

Excerpts Published this week during the UN conference in France
AUSTIN, Texas - A team of prominent scientists gathered in Texas today at a climate summit to declare that fears of man-made global warming were “irrational” and “based on nonsense” that “had nothing to do with science.” They warned that “we are being led down a false path” by the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris.

The scientists appeared at a climate summit sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The summit in Austin was titled: “At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit.”

Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.” “Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,” Lindzen said.

Lindzen noted that National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Ralph Cicerone has even admitted that there is no evidence for a catastrophic claims of man-made global warming. (goes on to cite the statements)

“The discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device,” Hulme wrote to the BBC in 2006. “The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science,” Hulme wrote. “Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?” Hulme continued.

Lindzen singled out Secretary of State John Kerry for his ‘ignorance’ on science. “John Kerry stands alone,” Lindzen said. “Kerry expresses his ignorance of what science is,” he added. Lindzen also criticized EPA Chief Gina McCarthy’s education: “I don’t want to be snobbish, but U Mass Boston is not a very good school,” he said to laughter.

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.”

Happer also rebutted the alleged 97% consensus. “97% of scientists have often been wrong on many things,” he said.

Ecologist and Greenpeace founding member Dr. Patrick Moore discussed the benefits of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “Let’s celebrate CO2!” Moore declared.

Rather than be defending one side, my choice is consider both sides.
I have a problem with any Evangelist that requires my blind faith based on religious or political agendas. The Scientific Method is a worthy process. We saw all kinds of political funding of scientific "truth" during the 1930's through now.

Regarding: "Humans causing an increase in global temperature by the vast increase in CO2 emissions is well beyond doubt." Nothing is beyond doubt for some of us.

 

[CJ_London]

Just look at any credible scientific publication on climate.

I have (what I consider to be credible) - and as indicated by Rx there are arguments for and against.

Even the two links provided by Rx are not in agreement - one quotes methane as being less than 0.01% of greenhouse gases produced by human activity - the other 16%.

 

[Libre]

I can appreciate the attitude that the "jury is still out" on the question of climate change, and pretty much any other question. What, after all, is CERTAIN? Almost nothing. If I stated that butterflies were a contributing cause of hurricanes, could you PROVE it untrue beyond any doubt?

We exist in the universe - that much we can state.
After that, it's a matter of informing one's self the best one can, and then forming beliefs and opinions based on our reason, logic, and - perhaps unfortunately, our biases. It's extremely rare that ALL the evidence points straight to an inescapable conclusion. Most of the world's climate scientists are in agreement - that climate change is real and it's caused or at least augmented by human activity. Those that oppose this view most vigorously seem to be those who would most be inconvenienced (for lack of a better word) by the efforts to mitigate it - for example, those who have an investment in heavy industry.

None of us here - and perhaps anywhere, have definite knowledge what's causing average global temperatures to be on the rise - if in fact they are. You can say they're NOT on the rise and produce some links to support your claim. Others will counter with their own evidence. Donald Trump can say he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating the collapse of the WTC with his own eyes and no matter how much this has been disputed, he can and will continue to say he saw them and it's near impossible to absolutely prove he's a liar. Some people will believe him, and others will not. We - alone on this planet, posses the ability to reason, think, and imagine - and to put together disparate pieces of knowledge and evidence and arrive at a likely (but not certain) grasp of what is actually going on.

Invariably, people embrace the beliefs that are in their individual best interests - and they reject the beliefs that are contrary to them. They prefer the evidence that supports what they've already decided, rather than accepting contrary evidence and having to reevaluate their entire belief systems.

You look around you and you hear stuff and see stuff, and read stuff and discuss stuff and you form your beliefs - but don't expect to see THE ANSWERS written in the sky in God's hand.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The jury may still be out on global warming or global climate change but the question is whether they ever should have been in, with regard to it being man-made.

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/e-calvin-beisner/climate-alarmist-consensus-about-be-shattered

This abbreviated quote seems to downplay the gloom-and-doom stormcrows:

“The IPCC estimates climate sensitivity at 1.5C to 4.5C, but that estimate is based on computer climate models that failed to predict the absence of warming since 1995 and predicted, on average, four times as much warming as actually occurred from 1979 to the present. It is therefore not credible. Newer, observationally based estimates have ranges like 0.3C to 1.0C (NIPCC 2013a, p. 7) or 1.25C to 3.0C – with a best estimate of 1.75C (Lewis and Crok 2013, p. 9). Further, “No empirical evidence exists to support the assertion that a planetary warming of 2°C would be net ecologically or economically damaging” (NIPCC 2013a, p. 10).”

The full article describes the findings in summary but has some reference links. I will repeat my stance on the subject. I have absolutely no doubt that the climate is changing. It has ALWAYS been changing. It will continue to change. However, it is not at all clear that Man has had much to do with it. The articles that have been predicting doom and gloom since Al Gore's alarmist statements have been guilty of questionable math practices, of drawing results from poor (or no) correlations. They have been using questionable models that have been shown to be HIGHLY inaccurate.

I am a firm believer in science. I am absolutely opposed to "consensus science" if the consensus is based on poor science. The ONLY person (thing) with whom (which) you need consensus is nature itself.

 

[Rx_]

There is a government center in Boulder, Colorado. They get literally tons of cash to conduct research. They put out government contracts to build and take data from thousands of data gathering centers.
Here is the problem:
The government contract require weather data gathering to be built to a very tight specification
The contracts go out to the typical good-old-boys, political favorites
There is no quality control for the construction
The scientist job is to take data, process data, and state results. Government workers don't care about the data quality. The photos will explain.

This article is for people that understand that taking measurements requires some, even a tiny level of controlled environments and requires maintaining a controlled system.

Over the years, volunteers photographed and documented every weather measurement station. It is in a database for public view.
Note: about 1/3 were not built to requirements. Example: never put on or 400 feet away from pavement, or near an air-conditioner exchange vent, or … the list goes on.

Nobody but volunteers Quality Assured these. So, big surprise, government contractors didn't follow the specification.

Look at the photos, these are fair representations of good installations and bad installations. About 1/3 are bad if you care enough to go through the entire database of photos and understand the methodology.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03...h-for-a-new-global-climate-reference-network/

If you don't believe in the Scientific Method, then this highly documented research won't matter anyway. This lead to a statement:
U.S. Office of the Inspector General who wrote:
Lack of oversight, non-compliance and a lax review process for the State Department’s global climate change programs have led the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to conclude that program data “cannot be consistently relied upon by decision-makers” and it cannot be ensured “that Federal funds were being spent in an appropriate manner.”

 

[The_Doc_Man]

While I often have been known to down-play government pronouncements, every time I have looked into OIG statements, they have had considerable substance to them. Rx_, your last sentence tells a sad but probably true tale. That 97% consensus was actually "97% of consultant companies desperately want government money and don't care what they have to do to get it." Which says that maybe 3% of those companies actually have some level of ethical behavior other than zero.

 

[MarkK]

As I understand it, sea ice is increasing in the antarctic because increased global temperatures are causing higher volumes of fresh-water run-off, which reduces the salinity of the water, and raises its freezing point. This fresh-water melt is lightly less dense than the higher salinity sea-water, and so it 'floats,' freezes more readily, and makes it appear the ice-pack volume is increasing. The cause of this effect, however, is higher global temperature, leading to ice loss on the continent, and an increase in sea-ice.
I have been to Antarctica. This is how the experts on that trip explained the increase in sea-ice.
Mark

 

[Mark_]

MarkK,
Just to make sure, your talking Antarctica, i.e. SOUTH POLE. An area surrounded by large oceans with little natural run off of its own?

The "Floats" theory sounds very counter to my chem classes and how salt likes to migrate rather quickly in water. If this was the arctic where there is less access to other bodies of water I'd be less skeptical. The arctic does have major sources of fresh water that would be affected by changes in weather in North America (greater rain in northern Canada would lead to more fresh water discharged into the Arctic ocean) but Antarctica lacks flowing rivers to drive this kind of behavior and lacks a physical barrier between its surrounding water and both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

 

[MarkK]

MarkK,
Just to make sure, your talking Antarctica, i.e. SOUTH POLE. An area surrounded by large oceans with little natural run off of its own?

Ahh, no, I am talking about Antarctica, i.e. SOUTH POLE, a continent larger than Australia with the single largest supply of fresh-water on earth, which melts in Summer (our Winter). That melt, and yes, the run-off that results from that melt, is so great is changes the salinity of the surrounding sea, increasing the volume of sea ice by changing--raising--the temperature at which that water freezes.

 

[Rx_]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
This covers both Poles sea-ice
It is "complicated" as one might expect.
The Russian studies related to Maritime Traffic have typically been better indicators of good research. They are graded on trade and military reality. The influence of our Sun as a Variable Star (more stable than most stars) is very interesting.

Al Gore predicted the polar caps would be melted in 5 years back in 2009.
Last April - a discussion of the South Pole ice was posted.
It is a presentation that might be worth reviewing.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/16/can-humans-melt-the-antarctic-icecap/
Over the years, it has around 350 Million views.
​