NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

[isladogs]

If that were true you wouldn't post contrary views designed to make liberals head explode.

LOL

Interesting how nobody has chosen to respond to my last post stating the Antarctic sea ice has in fact been declining markedly for the past 5 years!

 

[AccessBlaster]

LOL

Interesting how nobody has chosen to respond to my last post stating the Antarctic sea ice has in fact been declining markedly for the past 5 years!

The left enjoys their manufactured support from their allies in the media. Where as the right struggles to find a few brave souls to poke their heads out of the FOXHOLE, pardon the pun.

 

[Steve R.]

As always, I'm interested in respectful discussion.

If that were true you wouldn't post contrary views designed to make liberals head explode.

The left enjoys their manufactured support from their allies in the media. Where as the right struggles to find a few brave souls to poke their heads out of the FOXHOLE, pardon the pun.

A clear example of the liberals disingenuous attitude towards respectful discussion.

Megan Rapinoe says she will talk to anyone who ‘believes the same things we believe in’

From the Washington Examiner.

U.S. soccer star Megan Rapinoe said she would only accept invitations to visit Washington or have conversations with people who believe the same things she does.

“Yes to AOC, yes to Nancy Pelosi,” Rapinoe said Tuesday about which people she would accept invitations to visit Washington from. “Yes to the bipartisan Congress, yes to Chuck Schumer, yes to anyone else that wants to invite us and have a real, substantive conversation, and that believes in the same things we believe in.”

Then there is Hillary Clinton's infamous remark: "you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for." until the Democrats are back in power. Ms. Clinton claim that Republicans want to "destroy" Republicans is an over-the-top hyperbolic accusative offensive opinion and a projection of what the liberals are doing to Republicans by refusing to participate in a respectful discussion.

Hillary Clinton Says Democrats Can't Be Civil Until They're Back in Power
Pastor formerly imprisoned in Turkey 'astounded' by mounting hostility to Christian faith in U.S.
From the Washington Times:

Andrew Brunson: Christians pressured to 'celebrate things they actually disagree with'

“For example, you don’t get an LGBTQ activist going to a Muslim bakery in Dearborn, Michigan, demanding that this Muslim create a cake celebrating a wedding that he disagrees with, according to his belief in the Koran,” said Mr. Brunson. “I don’t think that Muslim should be pressured. I want them to have freedom of religion here, but the Christian is being pressured.”

Getting back to the US soccer team and LGBTQ activism: U.S. women's team snub of Christian player roils soccer

In 2017, Hinkle turned down a call-up from the national team for a pair of international friendlies after learning that the players would wear rainbow-themed jerseys in honor of Gay Pride Month. She said later that the uniform conflicted with her Christian faith.

The implication is that the LGBTQ can "force" honoring gay pride on the non-believers. Tolerance, including respectful discussion, must allow for those on the other side of any issue to have their rights respected and upheld.

I haven't yet come-up with a segue to the Antarctic ice theme. Working on it.

 

[Mark_]

Re: Antarctic sea ice is now DECLINING dramatically

When this thread was started back in 2015, Antarctic sea ice had indeed been rising for reasons explained earlier in the thread. The maximum amount was in 2014

However new research has confirmed a dramatic fall since 2014 and levels are now at the lowest for around 40 years A brief upturn in 2017 has since been reversed. Overall as much sea ice has been lost from the Antarctic in 4 years as the Arctic lost in 34 years. Reasons for this dramatic drop are not yet understood

There are many online articles about this new research. For example:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208180-antarctic-sea-ice-is-declining-dramatically-and-we-dont-know-why/

Interesting read. I'm really wishing we had a much better grasp of how much ice is "Normal", something that will take a fairly long time to determine. It does beg the question how much ice is expected to melt each year and how much gained through storms? Is this a rebound due to unusually heavy snows or is this just a normal adjustment that occurs?

Unfortunately I've a feeling we'd need centuries of data to accurately forecast what is going to happen in a few years.

 

[isladogs]

Re: Antarctic sea ice is now DECLINING dramatically

Interesting read. I'm really wishing we had a much better grasp of how much ice is "Normal", something that will take a fairly long time to determine. It does beg the question how much ice is expected to melt each year and how much gained through storms? Is this a rebound due to unusually heavy snows or is this just a normal adjustment that occurs?

Unfortunately I've a feeling we'd need centuries of data to accurately forecast what is going to happen in a few years.

Thanks for responding to the research and for doing so without bringing in irrelevant political viewpoints.

I believe that detailed measurements only started in 1979 when satellite coverage made the task feasible. Since then there has been a steady increase each decade (with seasonal variations). The recent dramatic decline may be an aberration or an indication of something else. At this stage, nobody knows for sure. However the geography of the Antarctic (a large continent with high mountains) makes its climate very different from the Arctic and the reasons for changes in sea ice at each pole may be totally unrelated.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Found this as a response to the question about whether scientists will yield to political pressures. Colin, the problem about bringing in "irrelevant political viewpoints" is that if political viewpoints are the motive behind the discussion, they aren't irrelevant.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...-alarmists-debunk-their-science/#2a28654668a3

Read the quotes from some of the scientists who acknowledge that the whole global warming thing was about finding ways to scare people into redistributing wealth. Some of the quotes will literally admit to using scare tactics. In particular, I invite you to read the quotes from IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer; Stephen Schneider, author of The Genesis Strategy; Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters; Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and there are several others.

I want to be clear: I do not deny that some kind of climate change is under way. I question the cause, not the effect. I question whether anything CAN be done about the changes we see. AND I am disgusted by the outright lies that have been published in the name of science.

I am sorry that some people here believe I am a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. However, when you look up that effect, the articles on the subject make it clear that it applies even to people who are experienced in a given field. Am I wrong? Is someone else wrong? Only time will tell. I have no illusions on that point.

I see results published based on methods that are highly suspicious. The article I posted contains many quotes from other folks, experts in this field, who also find reason to question what is being claimed. One of the quotes expressly called out Michael Man''s "Hockey Stick" graph as a fabrication. I will repeat that I could be wrong about this, but my doubts are founded in an understanding of scientific publications and years of work in basic research before I shifted over to corporate America.

The unkind attitude of some people (here AND elsewhere) is akin to religious fervor, which in my mind is indicative of a cognitive dissonance. If the Dunning-Kruger effect has a more likely target, it is someone whose is so deeply invested in something that the dissonance clouds their judgment. I have no investment in a given result. I merely have strong doubt about the methods. I leave it to others to decide individually.

 

[isladogs]

Found this as a response to the question about whether scientists will yield to political pressures. Colin, the problem about bringing in "irrelevant political viewpoints" is that if political viewpoints are the motive behind the discussion, they aren't irrelevant.

This was mainly a response to posts such as #382 & #383.

The research into changes in Antarctic sea ice over time was pure data and made no conclusions about cause or effect.
Just as the previous increase over several decades in Antarctic ice should never have been considered an indication that climate change was a fallacy, the current significant decline should not at this stage be considered as a direct result of global warming.

The link was interesting but the points made by the author about selective use of data apply equally to those who deny that climate change is real as well as those who accept it is happening but deny the links to greenhouse gas emissions

 

[Mark_]

Re: Antarctic sea ice is now DECLINING dramatically

Thanks for responding to the research and for doing so without bringing in irrelevant political viewpoints.

I believe that detailed measurements only started in 1979 when satellite coverage made the task feasible. Since then there has been a steady increase each decade (with seasonal variations). The recent dramatic decline may be an aberration or an indication of something else. At this stage, nobody knows for sure. However the geography of the Antarctic (a large continent with high mountains) makes its climate very different from the Arctic and the reasons for changes in sea ice at each pole may be totally unrelated.

Issue that few want to talk about though is that the way ice thickness is measured has changed since reading started. They have gotten better and better at getting a good read, but they are still using past data that has a fair margin of error compared to current reads. Since they do have a margin of error you find people deciding to "Adjust" based on this margin, up or down, to support a position. I do wonder what future generations will think of us through their own lens of understanding. Will they look back an ask "Why would they make a fuss over something so obvious?"

 

[AccessBlaster]

Re: Antarctic sea ice is now DECLINING dramatically

Thanks for responding to the research and for doing so without bringing in irrelevant political viewpoints.

Huh, this whole scam is pollical are you kidding. One of the architects of the "New Green deal" pretty much admitted it. It's about moving Benjamin's around.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/aocs-chief-of-staff-admits-the-green-new-deal-is-not-about-climate-change/

 

[isladogs]

Re: Antarctic sea ice is now DECLINING dramatically

Huh, this whole scam is pollical are you kidding. One of the architects of the "New Green deal" pretty much admitted it. It's about moving Benjamin's around.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/aocs-chief-of-staff-admits-the-green-new-deal-is-not-about-climate-change/

Did you actually bother to read either of the articles I quoted before responding?
If so, please explain where there is bias in either article

Or are you implying that raw satellite data is political?
Or that all science is political so you never bother to check anything?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Shouldn't we be fixing the hole in the ozone? Oh yeah, scientist have a better understanding of it. Not before scaring the crap out of everyone. Acid rain was another, and the coming cooling was another misstep. They will probably have a better understanding about climate change also. But not before moving lots of money around, not to mention the geo pollical power structure.

 

[Galaxiom]

Shouldn't we be fixing the hole in the ozone? Oh yeah, scientist have a better understanding of it. Not before scaring the crap out of everyone.

You have provided a perfect example how science identified the problem and got the world to take action. Not examples of over reaction by any means.

There was every reason to be worried about what flurocarbons were doing to our environment. We were saved from catastrophic Ozone depletion by the world coming to an agreement to stop producing the pollution.

Acid rain was another,

Acid rain was killing forests and literally burning people in the street. It was caused by Sulphur Dioxide pollution. This is why your car has a catalytic converter to turn the Sulphur Dioxide from the combustion to Hydrogen Sulphide. Coal fired equipment was required to have sulphur scrubbing equipment.

and the coming cooling was another misstep.

The science continues to be right on this. We know Earth has undergone countless regular glaciation cycles. After ten thousand years of inter-glacial, we were due for the temperature to start falling over the next few centuries becoming 100,000 years of glaciation. This normal expected temperature decline has been thoroughly overwhelmed by the effects of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Not a change in the science at all but a change in the circumstances.

They will probably have a better understanding about climate change also.

No other global phenomenon has ever been studied at the depth applied to Climate. It continuously becomes more detailed as vast teams of scientists study it.

But not before moving lots of money around, not to mention the geo pollical power structure.

Now we get to the denialists' real motive. Vast wealth is embodied in fossil fuels and their owners pay handsomely to those who would pervert science in order to maintain their wealth, regardless of the effect on the planet. It is the nature of greed. Sadly, many otherwise intelligent people have been duped into being mouthpieces for their propaganda.

Fossil fuels are being rapidly supplanted by cheaper renewable alternatives. Those with interests in the obsolete technology are doing everything they can to squeeze the last drop of wealth from their stranded assets.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I think this is the same story I posted earlier but from a different publication:-

http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland...activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

[Galaxiom]

I think this is the same story I posted earlier but from a different publication:-

http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland...activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html

This paragraph from the page pretty much sums it up:

"Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to- or sited to enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points."

 

[AccessBlaster]

You have provided a perfect example how science identified the problem and got the world to take action. Not examples of over reaction by any means.

There was every reason to be worried about what flurocarbons were doing to our environment. We were saved from catastrophic Ozone depletion by the world coming to an agreement to stop producing the pollution.

Except you left out the fact the hole already existed prior to fluorocarbons, and the ozone's ability to heal its self every winter cycle.

Acid rain was killing forests and literally burning people in the street. It was caused by Sulphur Dioxide pollution. This is why your car has a catalytic converter to turn the Sulphur Dioxide from the combustion to Hydrogen Sulphide. Coal fired equipment was required to have sulphur scrubbing equipment.

The fact that catalytic converters are not required in every country would be a disaster for the planet, yet here we are plugging along. Most likely catalytic converters are a California phenom

The science continues to be right on this. We know Earth has undergone countless regular glaciation cycles. After ten thousand years of inter-glacial, we were due for the temperature to start falling over the next few centuries becoming 100,000 years of glaciation. This normal expected temperature decline has been thoroughly overwhelmed by the effects of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Not a change in the science at all but a change in the circumstances.

They were flat out wrong in the 70's that much is settled, or they have a better understanding.

No other global phenomenon has ever been studied at the depth applied to Climate. It continuously becomes more detailed as vast teams of scientists study it.

Yes there are many reasons for this, power grabs not to mention monetary.

Now we get to the denialists' real motive. Vast wealth is embodied in fossil fuels and their owners pay handsomely to those who would pervert science in order to maintain their wealth, regardless of the effect on the planet. It is the nature of greed. Sadly, many otherwise intelligent people have been duped into being mouthpieces for their propaganda.

The reverse argument can be made here. The uninformed masses who take it on faith what they are being spoon fed is accurate. Science isn't static it evolves with better understandings. What price do we pay when the few make critical mistakes that effect the masses.

Fossil fuels are being rapidly supplanted by cheaper renewable alternatives. Those with interests in the obsolete technology are doing everything they can to squeeze the last drop of wealth from their stranded assets.

The renewable alternatives would consume most of the food / housing producing land. You simply do not have enough land mass for solar and wind. The batteries you consume with your electric cars are not sustainable, again robbing Peter to pay Paul. Scam

 

[Mark_]

Re: Antarctic sea ice is now DECLINING dramatically

Thanks for responding to the research and for doing so without bringing in irrelevant political viewpoints.

I believe that detailed measurements only started in 1979 when satellite coverage made the task feasible. Since then there has been a steady increase each decade (with seasonal variations). The recent dramatic decline may be an aberration or an indication of something else. At this stage, nobody knows for sure. However the geography of the Antarctic (a large continent with high mountains) makes its climate very different from the Arctic and the reasons for changes in sea ice at each pole may be totally unrelated.

I had been thinking about how much ice should be down there and how long it would take to get a good baseline. That's when I was reminded of the Nilometer and how long of a history we had for tracking the flooding of the Nile. Compared to ice levels across a continent, it was a fairly simple and straight forward system but gave equally important data, if only for the peoples of Egypt.

It is had to tell how long it took before they found the "Best range", but the concept is similar. Hopefully we'll get people use to the concept of "Should be between" rather than screaming "OMG! Were all going to die! The level fell below the calculated average, were all gonna drown" or "OMG, too much ICE, were gonna die!".

 

[AccessBlaster]

20 years ago we had 12 years to live, we must of got a reprieve. Because we now have a new 12 year plan. Science bought us more time!

 

[isladogs]

20 years ago we had 12 years to live, we must of got a reprieve. Because we now have a new 12 year plan. Science bought us more time!

AB
Has there been any worthwhile Science in your opinion since the laws of gravity or has it all been downhill from then on?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Colin science is awesome, you just need better spokesholes. I don't see the guys in the white coats going before international audiences and refuting false claims. Your issue has always been with the knuckles heads who hijacked your belief system, I'm just pointing it out.

 

[isladogs]

I asked because you are 100% negative every time you comment on science related issues. It is the science you slate, not the scientists. Moreover, you do so with little or no evidence to back up a contrary view.

As for 'your issue' and 'your belief system', I don't have any issue with scientific research in itself and I certainly have no belief system. However I do try to check all the evidence both for and against a particular set of events (in this case climate models) and judge it on its merits or otherwise.