Antarctic thaw quickens, trillions of tonnes of ice raise sea levels

[RPCVguy]

19 hours ago, gregk0543 said:

The antarctic component is adding .6mm per year which is an increasing rate....Overall I get 3.2mm per year from Nasa's website which has some nice graphs. 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

 

We agree on the current total range of sea level rise, but I'm not seeing where your estimate for the Antarctic portion is taken from.

Earlier I wrote: 

... and provided this graphic break-out


Not detailed in the discussion above is the large range of NON-LINEAR rate of sea level rise that is possible. The IPCC has consistently (due to its rules for publishing the consensus report - itself a political document) been reporting less disastrous consequences than have been unfolding. The odds are that sea levels will rise a meter this century, BUT up to 3 meters is possible. How? Why? Because there is no good way to predict when the calving of the ice sheets off Antarctica will begin the fracturing off of massive portions from the glaciers behind them.
We only know the rate of melting is accelerating...

[canuckamuck]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

another poster who expects us to watch a long video rather than refer to something in writing.

Another poster who will use any excuse to avoid a link with information that challenges his own preconceptions.

[RickBradford]

Those seriously interested in the politics of climate change (that is to say, virtually all of climate change) may be interested in this Wall Street Journal article, which underlines the point I made earlier -- that the all the air has gone out of the climate change movement, and that it has just become another SJW "cause".

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-has-run-its-course-1528152876

 

The article notes: "The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm—a blaring noise people are tuning out."

 

Nicely put.

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

another poster who expects us to watch a long video rather than refer to something in writing.

 

It's just a video full of newspaper snippets and cherry-picked data sets.  The "data tampering" mentioned is a lie about scientists making corrections when human-induced measuring mistakes are found (such as changing the measurement-taking method from ship-based ocean temp readings to buoys, or the orbital decay of climate satellites), and anyone who doesn't understand when and why data needs to be adjusted or corrected needs to go away and learn how to science.

 

 

News flash: newspapers are not scientific journals, and even today when we know so much more, newspapers continue to misunderstand & misrepresent the research.

[attrayant]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Those seriously interested in the politics of climate change[...]

 

I have little interest in the politics of climate change, and that you have found an opinion piece that matches your own is hardly surprising.  When you want to discuss the science of climate change, we'll be here waiting.

[Jdiddy]

Church of Climate Change at it again 

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

I have little interest in the politics of climate change, and that you have found an opinion piece that matches your own is hardly surprising.  When you want to discuss the science of climate change, we'll be here waiting.

Oh, dear me.

 

The politics of climate change is the important bit, since without political support, nothing is going to get done about it, no matter what the science says.

 

To ignore the politics of climate change is to stick your head in the sand in the worst possible way.

[thaibeachlovers]

36 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Those seriously interested in the politics of climate change (that is to say, virtually all of climate change) may be interested in this Wall Street Journal article, which underlines the point I made earlier -- that the all the air has gone out of the climate change movement, and that it has just become another SJW "cause".

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-has-run-its-course-1528152876

 

The article notes: "The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm—a blaring noise people are tuning out."

 

Nicely put.

Pity that you link to a subscription required paper. I'd like to read it but I'm not going to pay to do so.

[attrayant]

The politics of climate change is the important bit, since without political support, nothing is going to get done about it, no matter what the science says.
 
To ignore the politics of climate change is to stick your head in the sand in the worst possible way.

No. I am not a politician and I don’t want scientists making their research, discoveries and findings subservient to the political consequences. Science should be evidence based, regardless of what politicians end up doing with its findings.

Continue to harangue about politics all you like. I’m interested in the science.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Pity that you link to a subscription required paper. I'd like to read it but I'm not going to pay to do so.

Just close the subscription message and you can read the article. (That's how I did it).

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

No. I am not a politician and I don’t want scientists making their research, discoveries and findings subservient to the political consequences. Science should be evidence based, regardless of what politicians end up doing with its findings.

Continue to harangue about politics all you like. I’m interested in the science.

 

As the article points out:

 

"Scientists who are genuinely worried about the potential for catastrophic climate change ought to be the most outraged at how the left politicized the issue and how the international policy community narrowed the range of acceptable responses.

 

"Treating climate change as a planet-scale problem that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme transformed the issue into a political creed for committed believers. Causes that live by politics, die by politics.

 

The science is helpless in the face of the politics.

[canuckamuck]

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

It's just a video full of newspaper snippets and cherry-picked data sets.  The "data tampering" mentioned is a lie about scientists making corrections when human-induced measuring mistakes are found (such as changing the measurement-taking method from ship-based ocean temp readings to buoys, or the orbital decay of climate satellites), and anyone who doesn't understand when and why data needs to be adjusted or corrected needs to go away and learn how to science.

 

Then why do they change the data back again after they were called out on it? As it describes in the video?

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Another poster who will use any excuse to avoid a link with information that challenges his own preconceptions.

You talk about avoiding information. Did you even bother to any independent chekcing of what this guy claims? Sure doesn't seem so.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/

And of course, you clearly don't know about the Richard Muller story. Richard Muller is a prominent physicist who, like Tony Heller, questioned the accuracy of weather station reporting even though climate scientists said that they had taken his objections into account. Anyway, ACC deniers were thrilled about this and the Heartland Institute gave him funding to field a team of first rate researchers to independently   evaluate the raw data. And you know what they found? That climate scientists had gotten it exactly right. And of course, Tony Heller, being an honest guy, has openly acknowledged this. Not really. Instead he started calling Muller a fake climate skeptic. That's a reliable source you got there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

 

[canuckamuck]

30 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You talk about avoiding information. Did you even bother to any independent chekcing of what this guy claims? Sure doesn't seem so.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/

And of course, you clearly don't know about the Richard Muller story. Richard Muller is a prominent physicist who, like Tony Heller, questioned the accuracy of weather station reporting even though climate scientists said that they had taken his objections into account. Anyway, ACC deniers were thrilled about this and the Heartland Institute gave him funding to field a team of first rate researchers to independently   evaluate the raw data. And you know what they found? That climate scientists had gotten it exactly right. And of course, Tony Heller, being an honest guy, has openly acknowledged this. Not really. Instead he started calling Muller a fake climate skeptic. That's a reliable source you got there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

 

That first link is speaking about fudging the numbers of US temperature records. The video I linked was speaking of the Reykjavik temperature records being altered and then later restored after a complaint by a congressman.

 

Your second link is just a tale of a climate scientist who had a moment of doubt, then conducted a lengthy study (likely got some tasty funding for it too) to shore up his beliefs in Anthropogenic climate change. He is not entirely on side with the warmies though. He did say this.

Quote

It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.

Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous

 

Edited June 16, 2018 by canuckamuck

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

That first link is speaking about fudging the numbers of US temperature records. The video I linked was speaking of the Reykjavik temperature records being altered and then later restored after a complaint by a congressman.

 

Your second link is just a tale of a climate scientist who had a moment of doubt, then conducted a lengthy study (likely got some tasty funding for it too) to shore up his beliefs in Anthropogenic climate change. He is not entirely on side with the warmies though. He did say this.

 

So his getting it massively and ludicrously wrong in the instance I cited has no bearing at all on his competence?

And I did a search online for Heller's claims about Iceland and it's based on the exact same nonsense as the case I cited above. No one sneaked in and falsified temperature data. You can read more about the methodology here and the reasons for it:

https://skepticalscience.com/understanding-adjustments-to-temp-data.html

And the best you can do about Muller is to claim that he was basically a ACC supporter who wavered. Do you have any evidence for this? I guess if you're a true believer in the falseness of ACC, then you have to make up stories to comfort yourself..

[canuckamuck]

As useful as it is to put people in boxes, life isn't as simple as that. I accept that there may be a portion of warming that could be attributed to human activity.  But I also know that if we weren't here, the likelihood that the temperature averages would be significantly different then they are today, is very debatable. Also warming has always been good for humans, so I am not going to lose any sleep about the potential improvement we are making to the climate.

Skeptical science if for the true believers, they're the ones comforting themselves as they tilt at windmills.

[Jerry Cornelius]

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 12:10 PM, bristolboy said:

 

 

 

And do you really believe you've caught the scientists out?

As you may recall, I asked someone who made an obvious point if he thought that had escaped the notice of scientists. 

You replied:

"Seems Archimedes did just that in 270 B.C."

Maybe you should have cited the example of Pythagoras and Pi. That goes back even further. And is no more or less relevant to the case at hand.

 

 

Sea ice displaces its own mass in water [Archimedes Principle] [the sea]. A proven scientific fact from over 2,000 years ago. Ergo, the sea level can't rise from melting sea ice. Period.

 

Very relevant.

 

Pythagoras would probably have applied a better math to the mass and subsequent sea level displacement by using his abacus, to determine the case at hand. If he had been born after Archimedes, of course.

 

Jerry

[bristolboy]

30 minutes ago, Jerry Cornelius said:

Sea ice displaces its own mass in water [Archimedes Principle] [the sea]. A proven scientific fact from over 2,000 years ago. Ergo, the sea level can't rise from melting sea ice. Period.

 

Very relevant.

 

Pythagoras would probably have applied a better math to the mass and subsequent sea level displacement by using his abacus, to determine the case at hand. If he had been born after Archimedes, of course.

 

Jerry

It's only relevant if

a)you believe that the melting ice scientists are referring to is only floating sea ice or sea ice resting on the ocean floor with 1/10 or less of its mass above water

b) that sea ice is not slowing the progressive movement of glaciers into the sea

c)and that glacial ice is not included in the ice they are referring to.

 

It's just bizarre that someone would think that they have caught scientists out in a error as elementary as this.

 

[RickBradford]

Quote

 

You can read more about the methodology here and the reasons for it:

https://skepticalscience.com/understanding-adjustments-to-temp-data.html

 

 

I'm afraid that quoting from the absurd SkS site, the RuPaul of climate websites, is going to convince people of nothing except that you don't like real facts getting in the way of ideology.

[bristolboy]

Just now, RickBradford said:

 

I'm afraid that quoting from the absurd SkS site, the RuPaul of climate websites, is going to convince people of nothing except that you don't like real facts getting in the way of ideology.

Just more of your name calling. Well, at least you're not wasting our time with more of your fake facts.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Just more of your name calling. Well, at least you're not wasting our time with more of your fake facts.

I leave the 'fake facts' to the SkS Kidz. 

 

It's not a serious site in any sense -- next time, try quoting real science.

[bristolboy]

 

Just now, RickBradford said:

I leave the 'fake facts' to the SkS Kidz. 

 

It's not a serious site in any sense -- next time, try quoting real science.

More name calling. So you're saying that the majority of climate scientists would dispute the information in that article?

[RickBradford]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 

More name calling. So you're saying that the majority of climate scientists would dispute the information in that article?

I'm not going to speak on behalf of the "majority of climate scientists".

 

I'm pointing out that the SkS Kids site is well known as not being serious science by any stretch of the imagination, and that you do yourself no favours by quoting it in support of your "argument".

Edited June 16, 2018 by RickBradford

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Also warming has always been good for humans, so I am not going to lose any sleep about the potential improvement we are making to the climate.

 

Really?

Climate Change Has Made Heat Waves Much More Deadly, Mainly for the Poor

Research on extreme heat in India shows that economic inequality is already proving lethal as the world warms.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608089/climate-change-has-made-heat-waves-much-more-deadly-mainly-for-the-poor/

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I'm not going to speak on behalf of the "majority of climate scientists".

 

I'm pointing out that the SkS Kids site is well known as not being serious science by any stretch of the imagination, and that you do yourself no favours by quoting it in support of your "argument".

When someone sahs something like "it is well known" and provides no information as to who these knowers are, we can be very confident that the sources for such characterization are extremely dubious.

Here are some other sources. Is it also "well known" that these sites are not to be trusted? Because nothing I've seen there contradicts what Zeke Hausfather, the author of the article on skeptical science says

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q203

And there's a lot more where this came from.

 

Can you find me some serious scientific site that contradicts what Zeke Hausfather wrote?

[RickBradford]

42 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Can you find me some serious scientific site that contradicts what Zeke Hausfather wrote?

A pointless exercise.

 

Because if a site contradicts what Zeke Hausfather wrote, you won't accept it as a "serious scientific site". It's a circular argument.

 

You are prepared to uncritically believe what Zeke Hausfather wrote, even though it is published in one of the furthest from a "a serious scientific site" around, in my estimation.

 

If you think you have credible evidence that the temperature adjustment scandal is without foundation, fine, but quoting SkS Kidz as the source for that belief merely invites the horse laugh.

Edited June 16, 2018 by RickBradford

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

A pointless exercise.

 

Because if a site contradicts what Zeke Hausfather wrote, you won't accept it as a "serious scientific site". It's a circular argument.

 

You are prepared to uncritically believe what Zeke Hausfather wrote, even though it is published in one of the furthest from a "a serious scientific site" around, in my estimation.

 

If you think you have credible evidence that the temperature adjustment scandal is without foundation, fine, but quoting SkS Kidz as the source for that belief merely invites the horse laugh.

I gave you 3 other links which you choose to ignore. I haven't been reluctant to show you more sites to link to. But you're afraid to show me any ones you think support you. I did notice that you didn't seem to have any problem with the obviously dishonest Heller.

[RickBradford]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I gave you 3 other links which you choose to ignore. I haven't been reluctant to show you more sites to link to. But you're afraid to show me any ones you think support you. I did notice that you didn't seem to have any problem with the obviously dishonest Heller.

Who's Heller?

 

As for the temperature adjustment scandal, you can find plenty of sites which believe it to be at the level of scientific fraud, and plenty of sites which think it is a storm in a teacup. I'm not doing that research for you.

 

Just avoid quoting SkS Kidz if you want to be taken seriously.

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Who's Heller?

 

As for the temperature adjustment scandal, you can find plenty of sites which believe it to be at the level of scientific fraud, and plenty of sites which think it is a storm in a teacup. I'm not doing that research for you.

 

Just avoid quoting SkS Kidz if you want to be taken seriously.

I am certainly not taking advice about being taken seriously from someone who refused to back up his assertions with actual links. If anything is ludicrous it's someone who questions the evidence of others without providing counter evidence to support his case.  

[kwilco]

What is so disconcerting is that those who deny man mare climate change seem unaware of their profound ignorance on the matter and their total inability to sort the wheat from the chaff and yet still have the arrogance to think they have the intellect to counter the arguments.

They simply have no idea how wide of the mark they are.