International Antarctica is melting faster than we thought

[TheComebackKid]

Antarctica is an ice wall...it will never melt.

 

[no fat chicks]

A sure-fire way to keep skepticism alive is to refuse to support your assertions.

Do you know any skeptics who you do not consider to be trolls?

Skeptic magazine looked into climate change. They concluded it wasn't a hoax.

 

[gatchaman]

Skeptic magazine looked into climate change. They concluded it wasn't a hoax.

How would you describe your referral to the opinion of Skeptic magazine?:
A) A political argument
B) A scientific argument

 

[no fat chicks]

How would you describe your referral to the opinion of Skeptic magazine?:
A) A political argument
B) A scientific argument

They investigated the issue and came to that conclusion based on the evidence.

Also you dodged my earlier post about your location and employment if you want to play political games

 

[gatchaman]

They investigated the issue and came to that conclusion based on the evidence.

Also you dodged my earlier post about your location and employment if you want to play political games

I don't want to play political games, but clearly you do.

I remind you of your words in which you bemoan "science denial" ( https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/man-made-climate-change.3800085/ ):
"It now seems the same line of thinking is overtaking the party with man made climate change. Pure science denial leading to disagreements on an issue that shouldn't cross party lines."

I await a discussion of the science from you.

 

[no fat chicks]

I don't want to play political games, but clearly you do.

I remind you of your words in which you bemoan "science denial" ( https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/man-made-climate-change.3800085/ ):
"It now seems the same line of thinking is overtaking the party with man made climate change. Pure science denial leading to disagreements on an issue that shouldn't cross party lines."

I await a discussion of the science from you.

I guess when we have different outlooks. I trust the findings and conclusions drawn from leading climate scientists in the field. You on the other hand place your faith in cherry picked studies from fringe anti-AWG blogs.

From the nasa website.
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

 

[ocean size]

I guess when we have different outlooks. I trust the findings and conclusions drawn from leading climate scientists in the field. You on the other hand place your faith in cherry picked studies from fringe anti-AWG blogs.

From the nasa website.
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Mate you know better. Remember the thread 'man made climate change'?

 

[no fat chicks]

Mate you know better. Remember the thread 'man made climate change'?

Fair enough. It is kind of fun seeing the mental gymnastics on display though. The dudes the tck of climate change

 

[gatchaman]

I guess when we have different outlooks. I trust the findings and conclusions drawn from leading climate scientists in the field. You on the other hand place your faith in cherry picked studies from fringe anti-AWG blogs.

From the nasa website.
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

You have quoted from the NASA website, and you think that because you agree with NASA (you have consensus with NASA), this makes you some kind of junior scientist. And you think that because I disagree with NASA, this makes me a science denier. But your argument is a political argument.

Scientific arguments come from examination of the scientific method. A scientist observes the world, makes a hypothesis about the cause of something, makes a test of the hypothesis, and embraces or rejects the hypothesis based on the results. He documents the process so that other scientists can replicate his findings and agree with him or else find flaws/disagree/propose a better application of the scientific method. Notice, no where in this description is it mentioned that agreeing with NASA constitutes science.

So when you make a statement:
This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

merely agreeing with the statement constitutes a political argument and not a scientific argument. If you would like to make a scientific argument then you will present the data by which you conclude that current warming is ten times faster than the rate of ice-age-recovery warming. The "offical" story is about a 1C increase in global temperature in 100 years of the Industrial Age being abnormal. By your "ten times" faster assertion, that would make for a maximum 0.1C global temperature change for 100 years periods outside of the Industrial Age. This is where you fail at science. I don't think that you can present an apples-to-apples comparison, using the same measure of global temperature, to compare the Industrial Age to another age in order to show the "ten times" difference that you have just asserted.

And this will mark another instance in which you retreat from the science and go back to political arguments, which you find to be easier.

 

[no fat chicks]

You have quoted from the NASA website, and you think that because you agree with NASA (you have consensus with NASA), this makes you some kind of junior scientist. And you think that because I disagree with NASA, this makes me a science denier. But your argument is a political argument.

Scientific arguments come from examination of the scientific method. A scientist observes the world, makes a hypothesis about the cause of something, makes a test of the hypothesis, and embraces or rejects the hypothesis based on the results. He documents the process so that other scientists can replicate his findings and agree with him or else find flaws/disagree/propose a better application of the scientific method. Notice, no where in this description is it mentioned that agreeing with NASA constitutes science.

So when you make a statement:
This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

merely agreeing with the statement constitutes a political argument and not a scientific argument. If you would like to make a scientific argument then you will present the data by which you conclude that current warming is ten times faster than the rate of ice-age-recovery warming. The "offical" story is about a 1C increase in global temperature in 100 years of the Industrial Age being abnormal. By your "ten times" faster assertion, that would make for a maximum 0.1C global temperature change for 100 years periods outside of the Industrial Age. This is where you fail at science. I don't think that you can present an apples-to-apples comparison, using the same measure of global temperature, to compare the Industrial Age to another age in order to show the "ten times" difference that you have just asserted.

And this will mark another instance in which you retreat from the science and go back to political arguments, which you find to be easier.

I am going by the fact that nasa has provided citations backing up all their claims. You may disagree with some of the extrapolations they make, and don't agree with ice core data as well. It isn't political when I take an what an expert in the field says with regards to data over some guy on a karate forum.

 

[gatchaman]

I am going by the fact that nasa has provided citations backing up all their claims. You may disagree with some of the extrapolations they make, and don't agree with ice core data as well. It isn't political when I take an what an expert in the field says with regards to data over some guy on a karate forum.

If you want to talk science then post your data, and let's have a look at it.

Again, this is the statement that you are asked to support with data:
This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

 

[Losfer Words]

An ice wall huh?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Antarctica is an ice wall...it will never melt.

Why can't walls of ice ever melt?

 

[IDL]

I never believe anything when it says something like this; "In this century, a 10-foot rise is possible." Either your model is actually predictive of what is going to happen, or it isn't. Of course their only solution is to stop burning fossil fuels....good luck with that.

We could be seeing a rise anywhere from negative one hundred to over a hundred feet

 

[ocean size]

I never believe anything when it says something like this; "In this century, a 10-foot rise is possible." Either your model is actually predictive of what is going to happen, or it isn't. Of course their only solution is to stop burning fossil fuels....good luck with that.

It's the complete converse. Anyone that tells you they can predict complex phenomenon and doesn't give a probability range is full of shit.

 

[usmctanker242]

It's the complete converse. Anyone that tells you they can predict complex phenomenon and doesn't give a probability range is full of shit.

Agreed, but it doesn't suggest a probability range, all it said was "a 10 foot rise is possible." So is a 0 foot rise possible? What about a reduction? Science journalism is complete garbage and reasons such as this are exactly why... they love the "doom and gloom" because it brings clicks, but unfortunately it's not completely representative of the material being discussed. Even the study only suggests that unabated climate change could result in multimeter sea-level-rise.

"Our mass balance assessment, combined with prior surveys, suggests that the sector between Cook/Ninnis and West ice shelves may be exposed to CDW and could contribute multimeter SLR with unabated climate warming."

As always with climate science you need to take these studies with a few grains of salt because it's all about modeling and predictions. I'm not a climate science denier by any means, but I do find myself being more and more skeptical when all we hear about is the "doom and gloom" scenarios. In this particular instance I'm glad the actual study was linked (and free to read) so we could all peruse it. From what I understand nothing they did here was controversial in terms of their methods, so that's always a good thing.

 

[no fat chicks]

If you want to talk science then post your data, and let's have a look at it.

Again, this is the statement that you are asked to support with data:
This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

If you want to talk science then post your data, and let's have a look at it.

Again, this is the statement that you are asked to support with data:
This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

It isn't 'my data'. It is data that has been collected and analyzed by various groups of independent researchers and interpreted by experts in the field. You asking me to post what they found and explain why the conclusions they are reaching are sound compared to your erroneous claims just seems silly. You also ducked my question about your vested interest in climate science being bunk.

I can guarantee that if this issue wasn't political you would be fine with the conclusions of the researchers. All the claims that you have made run contrary to accepted theories, while providing shaky reasoning at best.

 

[gatchaman]

It's not my data, it is data that

It isn't 'my data'. It is data that has been collected and analyzed by a various groups of independent researchers and interpreted by experts in the field. You asking me to post what they found and explain why the conclusions they are reaching are sound compared to your erroneous claims just seems silly. You also ducked my question about your vested interest in climate science as why know it being bunk.

I can guarantee that if this issue wasn't political you would be fine with the conclusions of the researchers. All the claims that you have made run contrary to accepted theories, while providing shaky reasoning at best.

Excuse my brevity. I understand that the data is not yours.

You have posted this statement:
This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Please post the data that supports this statement (Surely, there is a graph, no?) so that we may have a look.

Would discussing my vested interests constitute a discussion of science? Would you like to discuss the science or would you prefer to do what is easier for you and discuss the politics?

 

[7437]

How would you describe your referral to the opinion of Skeptic magazine?:
A) A political argument
B) A scientific argument

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-we-know-global-warming-is-real/

looks pretty evidence based.

ill bet you wont care.

 

[gatchaman]

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-we-know-global-warming-is-real/

looks pretty evidence based.

ill bet you wont care.

I will critique the skeptic.com article now that you have linked it.

Figure 1 from the article:

Figure 1. Carbon dioxide concentrations in Antarctica over 400,000 years. “The graph combines ice core data with recent samples of Antarctic air. The 100,000-year ice age cycle is clearly recognizable.” (Data sources: Petit et al. 1999; Keeling and Whorf 2004; GLOBALVIEW-CO2 2007)

My critique: I don't really have a problem with stating that the CO2 is high today, and I don't mind attributing this to Industrial Age emission, but this is not a good figure to show it. I have a problem with apples-to-oranges comparisons, and this figure clearly is one. In this apples-to-oranges comparison, ice core CO2 data from the Volstok core (apples from Petit et al. 1999) is compared to atmospheric CO2 data (oranges from Whorf 2004 and GLOBALVIEW-CO2 2007). The wikipedia entry is better because it color codes the various fruits in the comparison. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

When you compare two different types of measurements, you have to remember that it may be that the difference is caused by the different types of measurements rather than a difference in the underlying thing being measured. The article would better make the point using ice core data alone from the Law Dome ice core. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Law_dome_co2_levels_1000_AD_-_2000_AD.JPG

Figure 2 from the article:

My critique: Figure 1 clearly sources the CO2 data as coming from the Volstok ice core, etc. Figure 2 is not clearly sourced. I'm not going to speculate about what data was combined and simplified.



Figure 3 from the article:

My critique: This figure is meant to show that the global temperature is increasing during the Industrial Age by many corroborating lines of evidence. I am all for corroborating evidence, but notice that by the time you get to the top right corner, there is only one line of evidence. There are several solid lines, so it is difficult to see where one solid line begins and one solid line ends.

The similar figure that McMann posted in #135 is easier to read because it is color-coded. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

From this figure, it is clear that the dark line, which purports to show a higher temperature than the Medieval Warm Period, does not extend all the way back to the Medieval Warm Period. Also it is clear that the dark line is not corroborated by other sources in the present because there is only one line extending all the way to the present, despite the fact that there continue to be multiple ways of measuring temperature (ground thermometers, satellites, tree rings). So in addition to the apples-to-oranges problem, we also have a cherry-picking problem.

The cherry-picking problem is illustrated by the Divergence Problem. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem

My challenge to McMann is to show that it is warmer today than during the Medieval Warm Period (when there was no Industrial Age burning of fossil fuels) using a single measure of temperature, so that there can be no question of apples-to-oranges comparison or cherry-picking.

no fat chicks agreed with this statement from the NASA site:
This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
The "official" story is about a 1C increase in global temperature in 100 years of the Industrial Age being abnormal. By the "ten times" faster assertion, that would make for a maximum 0.1C global temperature change for 100 years periods outside of the Industrial Age. My challenge to him is to show me this rate change using a single measure of temperature that encompasses the Industrial Age and 100 year periods preceding the Industrial Age.

My position is the null hypothesis. It is not maximally warm even for the past 10,000 years of interglacial period. And the temperature is not changing at an unusual rate compared to other (outside of the Industrial Age) 100-year periods in the present interglacial period.

You bet that I wouldn't care. Did I win your bet? Now, show me that you care. Take up the challenges that McMann and no fat chicks are not taking up. Show me that it is warmer today than during the Medieval Warm Period using a single measure for temperature (so that there can be no apples-to-oranges comparisons or cherry-picking). And show me that the rate of increase of Industrial Age temperature is 10x compared to the rate of increase for 100-year intervals outside of the Industrial Age. I have showed you how to do this with the Law Dome ice core CO2 data. Now you show me with temperature data.