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

[Uncle Gizmo]

You have never shown the slightest sign of seriously considering Climate Change as real.

You know, you say a lot of stuff that sounds good. But with that comment you shoot yourself in the foot.

Richard has said that he acknowledges climate change!

What he finds difficult to believe is that it is Caused by CO2..

I'm with him on that, the amount of CO2 increase is minuscule.

Anyway, I can see there's no discussing it with you, you are closed off, and just following an ideology, and worse, you are deliberately misrepresenting what others have said to enhance your argument.




Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Galaxiom]

Richard has said that he acknowledges climate change!

Really? Then why does he post the crap from Tony Heller making the ridiculous claim that global temperatures are decreasing?

What he finds difficult to believe is that it is Caused by CO2..

I'm with him on that, the amount of CO2 increase is minuscule.

It is enough to heat the planet. The effect was determined decades ago and the planet continues to heat as projected. There are no other mechanisms to explain what is going on. None.

I am sick and tired of people like Richard who continue to spout dangerous rubbish and lies.

 

[isladogs]

Tony/Richard/Greg

Back in post #48 I gave 3 links giving historical data that:
a) contradicted the Doc's endlessly repeated viewpoint
b) gave reasons for the well documented increase in Antarctic sea ice which is where this thread started

All were factual articles with links to source material

The first link is a BBC article with data covering 1880 through to 2018.
It covers global temperatures, maximum temperatures, greenhouse emissions by country, impact on urban areas, minimum extent of Arctic sea ice, impact of various types of farming on greenhouse gases

The other two articles gave an explanation for the increase in Antarctic sea ice which does not in any way refute the arguments for global warming
In short, the Antarctic climate is VERY different due to the effects of it being a large and mountainous continent (unlike the Arctic).
In any case the Antarctic sea ice increase is minor compared to the loss in Arctic sea ice

My contribution was completely ignored by the Doc as has been the case with all evidence presented by others that contradicts his very blinkered view of the changes in world climate.

Whilst I regret the fact that some of this thread has become personal, I regret far more the endless repetition of false or flimsy scientific evidence used to support a point of view.

Of course there have been flaws in some of the scientific studies and of the models used to estimate future trends. Nevertheless the overall consensus remains that global warming is not only happening, it is also accelerating.

And, of course, other factors than CO2 play an important part in climate change.
But the fact that solar radiation is actually close to a minimum and yet the world is still warming cannot just be dismissed

I did watch a few of the links provided by the Doc.
I was exasperated by the selective presentation of evidence by people with no qualifications in this area and/or who work for organisations funded by coal & oil industry.

Tony
Back in post #67, you asked if there were any studies on a wide range of topics.
The answer is of course yes to all of the topics listed.
All have some impact on the overall picture or in the case of 'politics' the evidence that is presented.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Greg, it is obvious that you have ignored the factual presentations that we've been through all of this gloom and doom stuff before. By truncating data to exclude all climate-related events before the 1970s, you IGNORE the HARD COLD DOCUMENTED FACT that we've seen total Arctic meltdowns before in the 1920s. We've seen higher runaway heat waves before in the 1930s. The planet has had higher CO2 content before. But things didn't spiral out of control then. They just cycled their way back to normal, whatever that means.

Do we see changes in our climate? Hell, yes, we do. Climate ALWAYS changes. I have never denied that climate changes. My stance has always been WHY -and I have rejected the CO2 mantra in favor of the cyclic nature of weather.

I deeply respect your skills with Access and will not disparage your skills therein. But I believe you have your own form of confirmation bias and thus see anyone who disagrees with you as either a doddering old man or a self-deluded person. I have a thick hide, so perhaps I can live with your insults. But your behavior is rapidly approaching that of the bullies in school.

It almost makes me want to question my earlier dismissal of those religious people who say that atheists need something to worship as well. Because it now appears you have found the altar to which you will bow down. Your refusals take on the tone of fundamentalist theists. Can you step back and LOOK at yourself? And of course, the accusation that I have a bad case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome cuts both ways.

In the end, you have the right to follow your religion. I am deeply sorry that I disturbed your faith. While I remain a CO2 skeptic and do not intend to change that skepticism, I will be enough of a gentleman to apologize that I have upset you because I didn't realize I was trampling your religion in the dirt. Now that I realize you are desperately clinging to your beliefs, I will not direct any other comments your way.

G'Day, Greg.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Colin (isla) regarding your posts from #48

The BBC post -

Item 1 - Of COURSE the planet is warming from that period. We came out of a mini-ice age. That fact is widely acknowledged but NOT MENTIONED in the article. So the statement is true - but ignores the obvious cause.

Item 2 - The USA went through a high-temperature cycle just like this in the early 1930s. Hundreds of people died in the heat wave where temperatures, even in the northern USA, exceeded 100 degrees F. History repeats itself. But the climate didn't spiral out of control at that time.

Item 3 - A moot point UNLESS you buy into the argument of cause and effect. If you don't buy into CO2 as the villain, those charts are merely statistics of no particular consequence. Putting the cart before the horse.

Item 4 - see item 3, same argument.

Item 5 - see item 3, same argument. They might be vulnerable but if you don't buy into CO2 as the cause, then you are actually wasting time following the wrong (scape) goat.

Item 6 - Arctic Sea ice is cyclic and nearly disappeared in 1926 - but it came back on its own. This was LONG before the 1950s when industry and automobiles became bigger emitters of CO2. The effect was there - but where was the CAUSE? Kind of destroys the linkage, doesn't it?

Item 7 - is a strategy to address CO2 as the villain - but again it puts the cart before the horse. You don't follow a strategy that you don't know is going to be useful; it is the ultimate "wild goose chase."

The "Inside Climate" article presents observations but closes with an important statement:

The fact that researchers are still debating the reasons for Antarctic sea ice expansion shows the need for more data and more studies.

"The climate models do not get it right at this point," Kaleschke said. "The models project a decrease of Antarctic sea ice, which is in contrast with observations."

This means the model is wrong. When math and observation differ, the math is in error.

The Phys Org article discusses various factors but does not address the underlying cause of those factors. So while I can certainly agree that ice caps are changing... they did so in the 1920s and yet the massive industrialization and vehicular boom of the 1950s was still 30 years away. So again, what does this have to do with CO2?

I read the articles but didn't at the time feel the need to comment. Since you brought it up, I am commenting now.

Colin, I am not trying to be a hard-nose. I simply need to see a stronger link than you or any other person has shown me, and I am still waiting. I have the ability to read an article and for most of them can see right away whether there was a bias in the article. For instance, there was no obvious bias in the Phys Org article. But it also didn't go into overarching cause and effect situations.

As I have said in other posts, you can find mechanistic pathways for ways in which industrial emissions cause disease starting from some relatively simple molecule and ending up with cancer, emphysema, COPD, and other diseases. You can find where the toxins, once they are in the body, poison vital organs leading to cancer and cirrhosis and various other types of organ failure. Which is why I want to clean up the industrial emissions around us. But the specific pathway for CO2 as a villain is just not there.

CO2 CAN be our friend because photosynthesis relies on it as a raw material. It has been shown that it enhances plant growth. (Why do botanists cause their greenhouses to have elevated CO2 levels? Rhetorical question.) Our hominid ancestors lived and evolved in an environment with THREE TIMES the amount of CO2 that is currently in our atmosphere. But we are still here.

 

[isladogs]

Doc
Thanks for responding this time.

Like you I am a scientist though in my case Physics with Maths rather than Chemistry.
Like you I have no formal qualifications in climatology but I also follow the science with interest & try to listen to both sides of the argument.

You stated in a previous post that this isn't a technical scientific forum.
I agree that providing first hand source material here would not be appropriate.
It was for that reason that I gave 3 links which were intended to be understandable to everyone including those with little or no scientific knowledge.

The BBC article is presenting scientific data allowing readers to draw their own conclusions:
1. You criticised Greg for focusing on the 1970s onwards (though I don't agree that he did so). The BBC article covers the period from 1880 onwards.
It is true that there were little ice ages before that with the most recent being from around 1460 -1550 and again from 1645–1715. Both of those were at same time as other solar minimums . See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age.
By contrast, we are close to another solar minimum at the moment but the earth is still warming

There was another cold interval in the 19th century but less severe and it was well and truly over by the time the BBC data started in 1880. Yes, the data could have started earlier in time but inevitably the amount and accuracy of that data diminishes as you go further back in time.

Nevertheless, if you want a longer time period, the global temperature chart attached goes back to 0 AD

2/3/4/5 Your argument here seems to be that you can't deny the statistics but they are in your view irrelevant.
To summarise, because you don't believe that greenhouse gases including CO2 and CH4 are the cause, you suggest the data is of no consequence!

6. Agreed that Arctic ice is cyclic.
There was indeed a period of Arctic warming and consequent decline in ice from around 1920-1940 though I think that it is untrue to say the ice almost disappeared around 1926. I also believe the data from that period was incomplete with little from Russia.
See https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

Arctic ice has definitely been in almost continuous decline since 1980 both in terms of minimum ice spread & ice volume.
Attached are two charts covering the period from 1980 - minimum ice spread & ice volume. I haven't found charts for say 1880 onwards. Perhaps someone else can do so

7. You are making the same dismissive point as for 2/3/4/5. It doesn't mean you are correct.

The other two articles (from 2016 & 2013 respectively) make it clear that scientific understanding of Antarctic sea ice volumes is still evolving. Both articles are in my view fairly objective - they don't just present evidence to support one side of the argument

Here are some of your other quotes from recent posts:

CO2 CAN be our friend because photosynthesis relies on it as a raw material. It has been shown that it enhances plant growth. (Why do botanists cause their greenhouses to have elevated CO2 levels? Rhetorical question.) Our hominid ancestors lived and evolved in an environment with THREE TIMES the amount of CO2 that is currently in our atmosphere. But we are still here.

Nobody is denying that CO2 is vital for plant life and therefore consequently for animal life.
Nor is anyone saying that humans couldn't survive if the CO2 levels were higher (within reasonable limits) if that increase didn't have any other side effects.
That is a non-argument

I have the ability to read an article and for most of them can see right away whether there was a bias in the article

Then why can't you do the same with all of the biased YouTube videos that you keep posting links for?

I remain a CO2 skeptic and do not intend to change that skepticism

I think that is clear. No amount of rigorous scientific evidence will sway your narrow and blinkered viewpoint on this matter

I realize you are desperately clinging to your beliefs

That was written with reference to Greg.
To my mind that applies to yourself. Others may say it applies to me as well

Finally (for now), I recommend you go to https://www.skepticalscience.com
This has a clear remit as indicated in its strapline: Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.

It includes articles about just many of the arguments used by those who deny global warming exists or, like you, deny that it is significantly the result of CO2 emissions.

I am under no illusions that it will change your mind.
Indeed I'm sure you will be able to refute aspects of the evidence given.
However perhaps that will allow you to hone your own arguments more convincingly than you do now ... which in my opinion is not at all successfully.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You criticised Greg for focusing on the 1970s onwards (though I don't agree that he did so)

I did not intend to criticize Greg. I intended to criticize the articles he cited. If that sounded like I was personally criticizing him, that was NOT my intention at any time. Greg, if you got the impression that I was personally criticizing you, that was not what I was saying. It was a "generic" YOU, not a "personal" YOU, in any discussions of data omission.

I realize you are desperately clinging to your beliefs

Your criticism of that quote is not without at least some merit, though I might suggest I am NOT clinging to a belief. I am clinging to a condition of skepticism - of always asking if the conclusions make sense before jumping on a bandwagon. To me, they do not. That's all I can say to that criticism.

Then why can't you do the same with all of the biased YouTube videos that you keep posting links for?

If they are biased, they are very good at hiding it from me. Perhaps because of my tendency towards skepticism, their skeptic tone strikes a chord within me. If so, it is a subtle effect. But when I look at the long term data being presented, I would have come to the same conclusions - that in this case skepticism is a good thing because the long-term data I've seen don't support the global warming crowd.

I have known for DECADES that the cyclic nature of the Earth's climate is very real. However, the difference between this iteration of the cycle and previous ones is that in this one, people can get government grants for publishing a correlation-based paper that isolates on a particular time period and comes to the conclusions that the "powers that be" wanted to hear. That was absent during the last series of climate "crisis" events from the 1920s and 1930s. That was absent during the latter quarter of the 19th century. That was absent from all situations before that time. I'm sorry, but all I see is a feeding frenzy of sharks and a few liberal politicians "chumming the waters" with all that grant money.

You may wish to take exception to that. It seems that folks take exception to almost any part of my stance on this topic. But understand this: I could not possibly care less that there is a consensus that I have an unpopular stance if I think I have taken the correct stance. Opinions work on consensus. Science, on the other hand, does not. It works on data. Science FAILS on omission of data.

For your 2nd chart - Arctic Ice spread - you omit data before 1955 - but in 1926, there was another time when the Arctic Ice cap nearly disappeared. THIS is a prime example of what I mean when I talk about "truncating datasets." Your 3rd chart (Arctic Ice Mass) also truncates data prior to 1980. Same criticism. The first chart does not match data I have seen from other sources and seems extreme.

I looked at the skepticalscience site. My position was not affected strongly by it. I understand why some people are upset. If I thought we could make a difference I would be in favor of it. Where many skeptics differ from the AGW group is the magnitude of the effect of CO2. I am in the category that suggests that ANYTHING you do to the atmosphere will have some minor effect - but the runaway catastrophe being predicted makes no sense.

The biggest sources of greenhouse gases supply us with CO2, H2O, and methane. We are discussing CO2 here though we have yet to discuss much about outgassing of CO2 from the oceans. We can't do much about H2O because that is part of the oceanic evaporation cycle. I guess if we wanted to reduce methane, we would have to tell teen-age termites in tropical jungles that they can light their emissions. Or maybe we can start seeding tropical forests with Beano? (Sorry, can't resist fart jokes.) But seriously, why are we not addressing ways to somehow neutralize methane eimissions? Probably because we can't. Why are we not working on water vapor in the air? Probably because we can't. So CO2 is villified even though the only reason is because some folks think we can do something about it.

Didja ever think that the POLITICAL reason that this is being done is that the third world countries and more than a few other countries know that the way to kill the juggernaut of the USA and Chinese economies is to energy-starve them? And killing CO2 emissions is a perfect way to do that. Follow the money.

 

[isladogs]

Doc:
You wrote:

For your 2nd chart - Arctic Ice spread - you omit data before 1955 - but in 1926, there was another time when the Arctic Ice cap nearly disappeared. THIS is a prime example of what I mean when I talk about "truncating datasets." Your 3rd chart (Arctic Ice Mass) also truncates data prior to 1980. Same criticism. The first chart does not match data I have seen from other sources and seems extreme.

I addressed that point in my previous post:
Attached are two charts covering the period from 1980 - minimum ice spread & ice volume. I haven't found charts for say 1880 onwards. Perhaps someone else can do so

Perhaps you would be so kind to do that and please provide the source of the data if you do so

I also wrote in my last post:
There was indeed a period of Arctic warming and consequent decline in ice from around 1920-1940 though I think that it is untrue to say the ice almost disappeared around 1926. I also believe the data from that period was incomplete with little from Russia.

You've twice said it almost disappeared in 1926 - please provide source material to back that up

You wrote:

I looked at the skepticalscience site. My position was not affected strongly by it.

I anticipated exactly that in my last post: I am under no illusions that it will change your mind

You wrote:

The biggest sources of greenhouse gases supply us with CO2, H2O, and methane.

Methane is a bigger contributor to the greenhouse effect but of course there is less of it in the atmosphere
You dismissed point 7 in the BBC article about different types of farming
Perhaps you need to review your dismissal

That's at least the 2nd time you've mentioned H2O in this context. Why?
Of course the amount of water in the atmosphere can't be managed in any meaningful way.
The effects of water vapour as a greenhouse gas are much more short lived as it changes state on a regular basis.
However, due to greater evaporation when the temperature rises it also amplifies the temperature changes caused by CO2
Perhaps you didn't read the page on that very point at Skeptical Science: https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

You wrote:

Didja ever think that the POLITICAL reason that this is being done is that the third world countries and more than a few other countries know that the way to kill the juggernaut of the USA and Chinese economies is to energy-starve them? And killing CO2 emissions is a perfect way to do that. Follow the money.

I've repeatedly stressed that the outcomes of scientific studies may be influenced by the organisation that funded them. Also sometimes the outcomes get suppressed by e.g. governments when they don't like the findings

A proportion of the studies into climate changes have been funded by the UN or other global bodies that represent nations across the world - both developing and developed. That could perhaps lead to 'political' conclusions.

Lets reverse that. Many scientific papers have also been funded by organisations connected with the energy industry e.g. coal and oil.
That could also perhaps lead to 'political' conclusions with the opposite outcomes.

Plenty of other studies do not fit into either category

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You've twice said it almost disappeared in 1926 - please provide source material to back that up

I may have been slightly in error. In fact, the article I found was from 1922, not 1926.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03...-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

They have images of the article and a transcript thereof.

 

[isladogs]

I've already agreed there was a period of warming in the Arctic between about 1920 and 1940.
It would be good to get independent verification of that newspaper article.
Even if its accurate, experiencing ice-free seas up to 81 degrees 29 minutes was a significant reduction.
However that does NOT mean Arctic ice almost disappeared which is the point I made previously

I can't find any data for the current most northerly latitude of ice-free seas but plenty of evidence states that the spread and volume of Arctic sea ice are both the lowest ever recorded.

Another link for you to read and no doubt refute: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The article was written on 7 Jan of this year and includes this quote:

Unfortunately, as a result of the partial government shutdown, we are unable to access the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) pages to retrieve information on atmospheric air temperatures and sea level pressure patterns. ....

Have you managed to find charts going back to say 1880 of Arctic sea ice spread and volume? Perhaps you will have greater success than me.
It would provide useful data I'm sure.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Isladogs, Galaxiom, you're jousting at windmills.

Doc and the rest will continue to believe precisely what their masters in the Republican Party tell them to believe regardless of such inconsequentials as facts. The GOP politicians and their corporate paymasters find ignoring climate change to be beneficial to their pocketbooks, so they will continue claiming it doesn't exist and telling their followers that, and the followers will continue believing whatever the Party tells them to.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

You're seeing that approach to society in action.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Who profits from climate regulations? Sorry to say it’s not the republican bogeyman hiding under your bed.

 

[Galaxiom]

Who profits from climate regulations? Sorry to say it’s not the republican bogeyman hiding under your bed.

Who profits from preventing and repealing climate regulations? Sorry to say it is the same companies that have profited by governments repealing pollution regulations.

Fossil fuel companies have many billions of dollars worth of reserves on their books and every reason to spend millions to stop them becoming stranded assets. They buy governments to stop it happening.

Pointing the finger at people making money from innovation opportunities springing from environmental regulation is the greatest misdirected accusation ever.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Pointing the finger at people making money from innovation opportunities springing from environmental regulation is the greatest misdirected accusation ever.

I freely admit I take liberties and paint with a broad brush, but if anyone points a finger its definitely the left. There is no room for disagreement only arrogance and distain. The left has become the modern day fascist.

Most people I know did not cast a vote for Trump, they cast their vote against Hillary. Plain and simple. If you want to know why we are in the mess were in try looking inward, this was a backlash.

And no I am not a registered Republican never have been, but I was once a Democrat.....

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

[Frothingslosh]

The fact that you think caring about other people and the planet is fascism says everything everyone will ever need to know about you.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Interesting, that Arctic warming blip. It's not caused by CO2 so it hints at another mechanism.

However, was it local or global?

The increase is sea temperature suggests the possibility of a change in Ocean currents.

If not that, what other mechanism could it be?



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Galaxiom]

The current Arctic melting is far, far beyond anything previously recorded.

The 1922 event is not well documented but appeared to involve the Gulf Stream carrying more heat than usual resulting in melting further north in the Atlantic. However the effect on the total area of Arctic ice was minimal.

More importantly we are now seeing a dramatic thinning of the Arctic cap, a vastly lower volume of ice and hardly any of the ancient persistent ice remaining.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rctic-sea-ice-is-disappearing-at-record-speed

 

[isladogs]

That's the chart I was looking for ...ice spread going back to 1850 rather than 1980
From everything I've read, the reduction is ice volume is at least as significant as the reduction in spread over that entire period

 

[Galaxiom]

The USA went through a high-temperature cycle just like this in the early 1930s. Hundreds of people died in the heat wave where temperatures, even in the northern USA, exceeded 100 degrees F. History repeats itself. But the climate didn't spiral out of control at that time.

That is because it was weather, not climate and it wasn't global.

Our hominid ancestors lived and evolved in an environment with THREE TIMES the amount of CO2 that is currently in our atmosphere.

FALSE. Hominids first appeared about seven million years ago. CO2 levels have not exceeded the current level in more than 15 million years. The great apes had barely emerged at that time.

CO2 levels three times today are from 200 million years ago. We are talking the Jurassic. Mammals hadn't evolved yet. Primates only appeared 65 million years ago.

Honestly Doc, you should start critically analysing stuff before you repeat it, if you don't want to be taken for a fool.

https://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/Capture8trimmed.jpg

 

[The_Doc_Man]

In reviewing this thread, I see that both sides are entrenched. The believers and the skeptics each assign credence to their sources. Both sides seem unshakeable. I see I am not alone, and I see that it is becoming factional. At least I am not alone in my beliefs, which is comforting in a narrow sense. It means others see what I see.

I noted something else. I became very unkind, and responded to Greg in a type of argumentum ad hominem which I deeply regret. I apologize for allowing personalities to creep into this, Greg, and hope you can forgive me for that transgression. It is flat-out unconscionable and I am angry with myself for letting it get to such a point.

I doubt that either of us will change each other's viewpoints, but I don't need to get so mean-spirited as I did. I am going to step away from this thread for while and review some alternate sources. If I can't be dispassionate about it, I will not participate. I was rarely this mean-spirited even in the "Are you an atheist" thread when cracking down on such persons as Aziz Razul and Alter2Ego.

Colin, you asked about where I got some of the information I've been referencing. Tony Heller's posts that I have linked in some of my threads shows the longer term data. I will have to try to find where he got it.