Follow this blog:
RSS

Global warming? Antarctic ice growing thicker

By | November 30, 2012, 3:33 AM PST

On edge. Antarctica is slightly thickening overall, but it's losing western coastal areas. That's feeding the global bathtub level, which is inching up at an accelerating rate.

Here’s some fodder for the crowd that scoffs at global warming: Antarctic ice has grown more solid over the last 20 years.

So says a video report by BBC science editor David Shukman, who notes that in Antarctica, “The bulk of the ice sheet is largely unchanged, or even getting slightly thicker.”

But before the jeering gets too loud: The overall condition of all polar ice, is, you guessed it, melting. That takes into account considerable thawing in the Arctic, as well as in coastal areas of western Antarctica that buck the continent’s hardening trend.

Shukman’s report notes that scientists now definitely know the extent to which the polar ice melt has contributed to sea level rises - 11 millimeters (0.43 inches) over the last 20 years. And they can also say for certain that the melting is accelerating.

Why are they all of a sudden so sure? Because the latest numbers pool the findings of 10 satellites from different countries. They also draw on 20 different polar research teams who collaboratively reported in Science.

GREENLAND’S CRASHING

“People have been a little bit confused in the past because there have been different messages over different time periods,” says lead author Professor Andrew Shepherd of Leeds University in the video report, which includes spectacular footage of Greenland glaciers crashing to the ocean (the BBC won’t let me embed, but click on the link above to view).

“What we find is sometimes the ice sheets grow, and sometimes they shrink,” he says. “You need to measure them over 20 years to be able to see the true story.  And the true story is that the ice losses have increased.”

Dr. Hamish Pritchard of the British Antarctic Survey adds, “The next big challenge is to predict what will happen over, say, the next century. And that is going to be a tough challenge. There are lots of difficult processes to understand going on in there.”

The 0.43-inch rise might not sound like a lot. But as Shukman notes, “It could be very serious if the trend continues.”

Anyone who lost their home to Hurricane Sandy last month or to the recent floods in a country that I now call Lake England should know what he means.

Photo: Vincent van Zeijst via Wikimedia.

More ice slides on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Mark Halper

About Mark Halper

Mark Halper is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Contributing Editor

Mark Halper has written for TIME, Fortune, Financial Times, the UK's Independent on Sunday, Forbes, New York Times, Wired, Variety and The Guardian. He is based in Bristol, U.K.

Follow him on Twitter.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Mark has no financial holdings in the companies he writes about. He occasionally travels at the expense of companies or their press relations agencies in order to report on a company or industry event related to it; Mark will prominently disclose this information when appropriate. This relationship will have no influence on his coverage. Companies he covers do not get to review columns in advance, or select or reject topics.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
75
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Western Anarctic?
Which way is west for the anarctic?
Posted by jblowe
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Good point.
N/T
Posted by harrim47
30th Nov
+3 Votes
+ -
Same as everywhere else.
Western Antarctica is the part of Antarctica that lies in the Western Hemisphere. More generally from the Antarctic Peninsula around to 180W longitude.
Posted by riverat1
30th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Sea level rise uneven.
You can always tell how biased a writer is from the personal comments they make about their subject. These comments form a marker of how well informed they are on the subject. "Anyone who lost their home to Hurricane Sandy last month, or to the recent floods in a country that I now call Lake England should know what he means." Yes, to the weak minded and uninformed the power of suggestion is extremely effective. However, sea level rise measurements around the world have not been equal, some levels rising and others declining. The New England area has experienced little if any sea level change according to this article and associated map. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/tech/satellites-sea-level-rise/index.html). Unfortunately, SP editors don't require their writers to be either informed, or to any background research on their articles. It frequently shows.

The curious thing I note about this sea level rise map - is that the regions with the most sea level rise in the above referenced article are the regions with the least historical tidal gauge data and the ones that rely most on satellite altimetry and computer modeling data. When you consider that satellite altimetry measurements are accurate only to about 20/mm (and that a recent achievement), but they are used to inform computer models that producing estimates for sea level an order of magnitude below the level of this accuracy - you might under stand why some scientist are not convinced of the accuracy of current and often contradictory climate forecasting computer models. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#Satellite_sea_level_measurement).
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
30th Nov
+4 Votes
+ -
Bee in your bonnet?
Not to burst your self-righteous bubble, but he was probably referring to the floods in England, rather than New England. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19741990 Not everything is about the US, you know. As to the relevance of this and the hurricane reference, I believe this alludes to the supposed link between sea ice dynamics and extreme weather patterns.

Referring to the adequacy of the information used by your response, you do note that there was still a far greater trend towards rising instead of dropping sea levels, right? When one takes into account rising mean temperatures (see the classic "hockey stick" diagram), and the consequent sea ice melt and thermal expansion of the world's oceans, maintaining that sea level rise is not happening is akin to stating that the earth isn't revolving.
Posted by Soluxis
Updated - 30th Nov
+4 Votes
+ -
Soluxis is right
Mark Halper is indeed based in England. Y'know, the country just off the coast of continental Europe. Where there were floods.

(They see me trollin'/they hatin')
Posted by andrew.nusca
30th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
(see the classic "hockey stick" diagram)
You *do* know that the hockey stick diagram has been debunked, right? Seems there was some "biased fudging ot the data" referenced in the leaked emails.
Posted by What the ...!
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
But 9 other graphs showing the same thing have not been debunked.
Here is a plot of 10 different reconstructions of temperatures over the last 1000 years including the original "hockey stick graph". See if you can figure out which one it is without referring to the legend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Posted by riverat1
30th Nov
+3 Votes
+ -
Votes
Regarding the votes for the grandparent post (see the classic "hockey stick" diagram) and my post all I can say is I guess some people can't handle the truth. (Update: votes were +3 for the GP and -3 for my post when I wrote this.)

The truth is that as one of the earliest attempts at this sort of reconstruction from the paleo record the original hockey stick graph has some flaws but it has never been debunked in the way the GP means. The presence of so many other reconstructions that get similar results with data and methods that are independent of the original just strengthens the case for it.
Posted by riverat1
Updated - 4th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
Absolutely true
As far as I know, the hockey-stick diagram has not been proved wrong. If it has, someone should probably tell UNEP, and peer-reviewed science in general that their recent data sets are wrong.
Posted by Soluxis
4th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Interesting disclaimers on that page.
"This information is accurate, however if you are looking for a time before 1000 A.D. it does not depict a length of time before 1000 years when the earth used to be all tropical. It fails to convey the whole story."
Posted by Hates Idiots
5th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Hmm...
Hmm... I missed that but I don't think it's accurate. AFAIK the last time the Earth used to be all tropical was in the 10's of millions of years ago.
Posted by riverat1
6th Dec
+4 Votes
+ -
Post-glacial rebound
"The New England area has experienced little if any sea level change..."

Having recently (in geologic time) been covered by thick ice sheets the land of the New England region is still rebounding from the depression the weight of that ice caused. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostatic_rebound

The same is true for Northern Europe. Coincidentally that is where many of the earliest tidal gauges are found too.
Posted by riverat1
30th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Simple question no one can answer.
And just what stable rock have they used as a benchmark to make this measurement against?

I can point to a thousand parts of the world where just subsidence, tectonic activity and erosion have lowered the relative position of the coastline to the ocean.

I can also name a thousand places which crust rebound, volcanic forces and a host of other factors are at play raising a coastline relative to sea level.

The same vertical movement up or down can be found across the globe under the sea, so depth is an unreliable point of measure.

I would like to know what these satellites and computers did to possibly compensate for the variables involved to get an 11 millimeter increase.

Or was the data "massaged" like we have seen in so many earlier global warming reports?
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Don't you think the scientists are aware of those issues too?
It's not likely someone untrained in a field will think of something the scientists in the field have already considered. It happens occasionally but it is rare.

Here's an article from a couple of years ago that looks at some of the complexities of sea level. You and others might be interested.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_secret_of_sea_level_rise_it_will_vary_greatly_by_region/2255/
Posted by riverat1
30th Nov
-1 Votes
+ -
Actually, it's very likely.
Throughout history, must of the massive leaps in science and technology have taken place exactly because of the insights of "untrained" people outside of of the field. The very problem with being "trained in a field" is that it encourages myopia that disregards all views outside the field.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
30th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Not as likely at you think.
It's true that people outside of a field have occasionally had insights that those within a field missed. But if you dug down I suspect you would find that to be rare. The exceptions like that do get a lot of publicity because they are so rare. For example two things that revolutionized science in the 20th century were Einstein's relativity and Wegner's plate tectonics but both discoveries were by people working in the field.
Posted by riverat1
Updated - 30th Nov
-1 Votes
+ -
Contrary: The vast majority of key human advancement is due to "outsiders".
I really don't know where to start. Henry Ford was outside the industrial/engineering establishment. The Wright Brothers were certainly not the "experts" who were expected to fly the first viable airplane. Einstein started his career as an outsider.

I can only imagine what life today would be like if we had to live under the "tyranny of the experts". We'd still be in the dark ages.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
1st Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
I wouldn't call those people outsiders.
Einstein was a physics graduate student working in the patent office when he couldn't get a teaching position. I wouldn't say he was an outsider, just a neophyte. I'm not sure you can say there were any real experts in aviation prior to the Wright Brothers. Ford did not invent the automobile or even the first production line for them but he did introduce a bunch of production line innovations that greatly increased efficiency.
Posted by riverat1
2nd Dec
-2 Votes
+ -
They were all outsiders...
...from the perspective of the "establishment" which at the time represented their areas of expertise.

As governments take a great role in deciding what kind of research gets funded or otherwise supported, we run the risk of living under a "tyranny of the experts"; comparatively mediocre minds that rise to power through consensus and politics as opposed to new ideas.

"Climate science" is a perfect example of the phenomenon.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 2nd Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
What a joke
So... what you're saying is that all scientific innovation and breakthroughs should be carried out by people with no background or expertise in their respective fields? The Wright brothers would have to be fairly "expert" to be able to even attempt what they achieved. As to why they didn't have long-standing aviation careers, well - theirs was the first successful fixed-wing aircraft so "experts" were in short supply. To be honest, I'd be far more inclined to trust the opinion of climatology experts with long careers of study and observation over the views of politicians, conspiracy theorists and frankly idiotic sceptics.
Posted by Soluxis
4th Dec
-2 Votes
+ -
Yeah, that's right.
" all scientific innovation and breakthroughs should be carried out by people with no background or expertise in their respective fields.

Yeah, that's what I said, not.

Just another fine example of what happens when you dare question the religion of "climate science". The truly faithful abandon reason, get fully emotional and unhinged, and then create strawmen like the above with absolutely no connect with reality.

What I said is that most of the revolutionary advances in science and technology throughout history have been either by outsiders or interdiciplinarians. What my argument is that a society that relies exclusively on "experts" will, at best, stagnate, and at worst, be doomed. I never said we didn't need "experts". But like with any other aspect of society, experts need outsiders to challenge them and keep them honest, lest they drift into a worthless path of consensus paralysis.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 4th Dec
+4 Votes
+ -
Reply to John
John,

I'm thinking that you might perceive revolutionary advances are made by outsiders because they tend to get more publicity because of their unusualness. But take a look at all of the revolutionary advances embodied in the Nobel Prizes, particularly for physics, chemistry and medicine. I daresay those were almost all insiders.

As they say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An outsider needs to provide some good evidence to back their claims up.
Posted by riverat1
4th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Reply To John
"Just another fine example of what happens when you dare question the religion of "climate science""

There's a difference between climate science and religion, being that one is peer reviewed and based on hard empirical evidence, the other is based on (usually) century-old dogma. I'd say that your belief without evidence is more indicative of the latter.

As for your views on experts. Yes, it's okay for the experts to have their knowledge challenged by laymen, just like it's okay for them to dismiss such claims as blind nonsense if said layman can't back them up with solid evidence.
Posted by Soluxis
5th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
@Soluxis, is there?
We've seen how the "peer review" process of "climate science" works in the "climategate" scandal. Basically, those challenging the precepts were "excommunicated" from the process.

Much of the "hard empirical evidence" is anything but. It's "massaged" data run through computer modeling. The life of Christ was better documented that much of the data that went into the "hockey stick" graph.

In the late 1700, a severe hurricane washes over Long Island and floods the better part of lower Manhattan. Religious leaders say that this is the "wrath of God" and that we should expect more punishment should we not change our evil ways.

In 2012, a severe hurricane washes over Staten Island and floods the better part of lower Manhattan. Climate "experts" say that this is the "climate change" and that we should expect more punishment should we not change our evil ways.

Frankly, I really don't see much difference.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
6th Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
Wow, JohnMcGrew...
Thank you for your last reply, as now I am definitely investing in Kool-Aid stock, as it appears that there is an incredible amount that is being consumed at the present time, based on the comments in this entire thread.

What it boils down to is this...the climate is changing and humans are partly to blame. Opinions, dogma, talking loudly and frequently in opposition, religious and political views (basically the same thing) do nothing to change this fact. Even if the magnitude of our involvement in this change is small (unlikely), then doesn't it benefit everyone and their descendants (including everyone posting info related to what they believe in on either side of the argument) to do what we can right now to stem the increase in atmospheric emissions of the known materials that are causing this change?

Just some food for thought, although I am a realist and know that this or any other post will probably not change anyone's opinion on the matter. Facts are facts, however, and they should not be dismissed as readily as many have done.
Posted by SafetyShep
6th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
@SafetyShep, I've never said the climate wasn't changing.
I've never even said humans may not be at least partly responsible.

What I challenge is this entirely political notion that there is any scientific "consensus" on the issue, and that many of those who boldly speak in the name of "science" are behaving little different that religious zealots of a previous age have.

I even agree with you that we should take prudent steps to reduce our impact upon the environment.

But where people like me part company with others is with grandiose schemes with questionable efficacy that transparently transfers wealth and power to those who have otherwise been unable to achieve it via legitimate means using questionable science as the foundation for their agenda.

Your "Kool-Aid" analogy is apt, except that I really don't think that I'm the one who's been drinking it, judging from the behavior we've witnessed in the "climate" community and their followers who endlessly recite the litany chapter and verse.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 6th Dec
-3 Votes
+ -
Interesting.
So they use those reasons as excuses for being inaccurate in their big picture claim.

While they still stand by their claim sea level is rising with no real proof in hand.
Posted by Hates Idiots
30th Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
There is no doubt that sea level is rising
While sea level measurements are subject to uncertainties (as all scientific measurements are) there is no doubt that sea level is rising.
Posted by riverat1
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Read ALL the data
Actually, though the western portion of Antarctica may be losing ice, the eastern portion is GAINING ice. Just as some portions of our country get more rain in some time periods, other portions get less. It's called changing wind/front patterns. It has been happening since the beginning of time. It's not time to panic, folks.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/
Posted by ohiomom85
30th Nov
+3 Votes
+ -
Reading the data is not enough ...
... if you don't understand how to interpret it.

First of all you need to understand the difference between sea ice and an ice sheet. The first is floating on water the second is sitting on land. The Forbes article is about sea ice. One interesting fact about Antarctic sea ice is that it melts essentially completely every year before reforming in the following winter so there is no buildup over the years.

Regarding Eastern Antarctica gaining ice, some areas are and some are not. A counter intuitive result of global warming is that it can increase snow fall because warmer air is able to hold more water vapor. So it if stays cold enough to snow but gets warming than in the past you're likely to get more snowfall until it warms enough to change to rain.
Posted by riverat1
Updated - 30th Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
Know your facts....
The gain in Antarctic sea ice has little to do with global warming. What's been causing it has been wind patterns which are blowing north from the center of the continent. This super cold air greatly increases the formation of surface sea ice.

The Arctic and Antarctic sea ices are very different phenomena. Arctic sea ices form in water at the north pole surrounded by land, while Antarctic sea ices form at lower latitudes around a continent. See the National Snow and Ice Data center web page on this subject at http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html .

As for the ice sheet on the Antarctic continent, in a 2008 NPR Science Friday segment Robin Bell, director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, said that the Antarctic ice sheet is so thick that "it doesn't even know the last Ice Age ended" and that global warming will not cause the same effects it is having on the Greenland ice sheet of water melting from the top and seeping underneath the ice. That said, there is still water forming in large lakes under the Antarctic ice sheet from the sheer pressure of all the ice, and scientists are studying how this affects the ice sheet's flow. See http://sciencefriday.com/segment/12/05/2008/climate-update.html about 14 minutes in.
Posted by zackers
Updated - 30th Nov
+3 Votes
+ -
You're sorta right
Antarctic sea ice is expanded by the winds blowing existing ice around opening up polynyas that subsequently refreeze but I never heard anyone say it was blowing from off the continent or that it was any colder than normal. It is thought to be caused by the Antarctic ozone hole strengthening the circumpolar winds. Another factor in the growth of Antarctic sea ice is warmer temperatures lead to more precipitation over the ocean which makes the surface fresher and less dense. This reduces mixing from deeper colder water and makes the surface water easier to freeze. That is an effect of global warming.

Yes Arctic and Antarctic sea ice are very different phenomena. That's why trying to compare what's happening in the Arctic to what's happening in the Antarctic isn't particularly useful.

Robin Bell's comment was probably a bit hyperbolic. Since sea level has risen 300 feet or so from the depth of the last glacial period Antarctica certainly felt the changes around the edges, but perhaps not in the center of the continent.
Posted by riverat1
30th Nov
-2 Votes
+ -
Good point on the bottom line math.
The net change between the west melting and the east expanding has been an overall net increase in ice at the south pole.
Posted by Hates Idiots
30th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
The overall net for Antarctica is negative
Measurements with the GRACE satellites show that from 2006 to 2009 that Antarctica was losing 246 gigatonnes of ice per year.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
Posted by riverat1
30th Nov
-1 Votes
+ -
Have you looked at since 2009?
Since bottoming out in 2009 Antarctica ice has rebounded.

If you look at the overall trend since 1979 (the 'global warming period' ) the trend has been one of increasing ice.

The worst year was actually 1986. Far worse than 2009.

They call it an anomaly because the increase does not match the global warming prediction models.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 6th Dec
+1 Vote
+ -
Different kind of ice
HI, we're talking about two different things. You failed to make the distinction between the ice sheet/glacial ice on Antarctica that my link referred to and the Antarctic sea ice that your link referred to. There really is no relation between the two. Sea ice, because it's floating, has essentially no effect on sea level as it forms and melts. The glacial ice does affect sea level. The Antarctic sea ice melts (nearly) completely every year and reforms the following winter so there is no "memory" from one year to the next. There are explanations for the increase in Antarctic sea ice that partly have to do with global warming and partly have to do with stronger circumpolar wind probably as a result of the ozone hole over Antarctica.
Posted by riverat1
6th Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
The Bright Side
I, for one, am looking forward to a warmer climate. I don't like winter much and the warmer weather will open up more real estate in areas that are covered in ice or snow.
Posted by NewKreation
30th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Bright Side??
Ignorant statements like this are fodder for the clueless masses that still think that our climate is not changing due to human influence, due to their political affiliation.

You and I are probably not going to see radical changes in our climate or ocean levels in our lifetime, although the data in this article may reveal otherwise.

Your great-great-grandchildren are going to look back at this time and ask why we did not do more to curb this devastating trend when we had the chance (if we even have the chance, anymore). But I guess if they invest now and are rich with the newly created real estate that you mentioned, then that will probably ease any anxiety they may have as the 14th category 5 hurricane of the year pummels what is left of Florida.
Posted by SafetyShep
4th Dec
-3 Votes
+ -
A very stupid article, with a very stupid conclusion,
namely that one sentence, which states: "You need to measure them over 20 years to be able to see the true story. And the true story is that the ice losses have increased.

20 YEARS IS NOT ENOUGH to draw any conclusions, especially with something that needs thousands of years of data before any kind of "reasonable" conclusion can be derived.

The article is nothing more than a defensive move by the author and others who have noticed that, recent research has been showing no considerable ice melt, and in fact, the glaciers and polar regions have actually been gaining ice.

The article is nothing but more garbage in the so-called "global warming science", which is nothing more than junk science.

I swear that, if the sun suddenly started sending huge solar flares our way, that it would be blamed on "global warming" by the junk scientists. GIGO is what it's all about.
Posted by adornoe
30th Nov
+3 Votes
+ -
20 years is enough for a short term trend.
20 years is long enough to mostly even out the effects of natural variability. Climatologists use 30 year trends. Besides we do have thousands of years worth of data, it's just that most of it is by proxy. You can't just ignore the data collected on past sea levels and climate.

" ... recent research has been showing no considerable ice melt, and in fact, the glaciers and polar regions have actually been gaining ice."



I'd be fascinated if you could provide me links to peer reviewed literature that supports that conclusion. If you want to win over people like me you'll have to provide actual scientific results, not bald faced assertions without support.
Posted by riverat1
Updated - 2nd Dec
-1 Votes
+ -
20 years is like a second in a day, when it comes to climate change
and, predicting the weather for the rest of the day based on a second of weather in a day, is just pure garbage, which is equivalent to a 20 year period for eons of climate change.

The reports are out there, and many of them have been very recent, and I'm not here to be your Google or your newspapers or your manuals. You can do your own research if you really care to be informed. Going with the garbage you hear from the global warming junk science is not the same as being informed. Junk science leads to junk knowledge.
Posted by adornoe
2nd Dec
+5 Votes
+ -
So you don't have links
I have been unable to find any research that indicates that glaciers and polar ice are gaining ice overall and I have looked. Antarctic sea ice has increased somewhat. A few glaciers are gaining like the glacier in the crater of Mt. Saint Helens that didn't even exist after the 1981 eruption. But the overall net is a loss of ice.

If 30 years is enough to define the current climate then 20 years is enough to get an idea of the trend.
Posted by riverat1
Updated - 3rd Dec
-4 Votes
+ -
Like I said, I'm not here to be your research department,
and I believe that you might actually be capable of doing some research on your own, even if it's just through Google.

But, seriously, you should take it upon yourself to get informed on all sides of a particular piece of research (notice I didn't call is science, because, I can't honor it what's going on as real science), and the sides do include the parts coming from the "global warming" junk stuff, as well as the other side, or the side your side likes to call the "deniers.

So, go ahead and look around and you'll notice that, there are many sides to an issue.

Meanwhile, I'll leave you with this one bit of "research":

"More Settled Science: Wrong about Ice Melt in Greenland, Sea-Rise"

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2012/11/28/more_settled_science_wrong_about_ice_melt_in_greenland_searise/page/full/
Posted by adornoe
3rd Dec
+2 Votes
+ -
Finance is not a credible reference for a science subject.
I can and have done my own research and I can't find any credible reports that say there is any net gain in ice around the world. I took a look at the PNAS paper that Mr. Ransom cited. I think he's reading more into that study than it warrants.

There is a more recent and comprehensive study that came out last month. (subs. req.):

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183.full

Here is a JPL press release about the paper:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-376&cid=release_2012-376

The paper finds that together the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing 3 times more ice now than during the 1990's.
Posted by riverat1
4th Dec
-3 Votes
+ -
My links are better than your links, and so,
round and around we go, where it stops, nobody knows.

But, what you have to take note of, is that, for every point your side makes, there is a counterpoint made by the other side, which then makes it quite clear that, the "science is not settled", and it's only settled in the minds of those who can't stand any opposing research or opposing opinion.

Nevertheless. any science which claims that, its research is indisputable, is by definition, junk science.
Posted by adornoe
4th Dec
+3 Votes
+ -
That link is junk
@adornoe
That link to finance.townhall is just junk. 3rd hand. The columnist refers to the Register which refers to the Princeton research. The columnist inserts several personal derogatory remarks about the President. He even get at least one fact wrong from the Princeton research. The correct fact is that the acceleration of ice loss IS continuing. Each year the rate loss is 8 billion tons per year higher than the year before.

"The Princeton researchers found that Greenland lost roughly 200 billion tons of ice each year during the seven-year period studied, which falls within the range reported by other studies."

Instead of reading that link with its 2nd and 3rd hand data go to and read the report summary directly from Princeton at
http://www.sciencenewsline.com/articles/2012112805580021.html
Posted by Cmd_Line_Dino
5th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Cmd_Line_Dino: Deflecting from the facts, does not make you right,
and being in denial is not going to make you correct either.

Like I said, you dispute the assertions from the opposing side, and I will debunk the assertions from your side of the argument.

But, the underlying facts remain that, your side support "junk" research, disguised as "science". The science being practiced by the global warming shysters is not any more accurate than the "science" than the "science" of astrology. There might be more people who believe in the predictions of astrology than that for global warming, but, it doesn't make astrology any more a "science".

Science should be like the science practiced by astronomers, who, when a cosmologist makes a discovery, immediately submits it to the rest of the field for verification. Same goes with the science being practiced at the physics experiments being conducted with high-speed collisions of sub-atomic particles. Whatever is discovered is submitted to peer review. When the peers disagree with the observations and/or the conclusions, the original researcher won't immediately come out and call his colleagues "deniers". No, he'll listen and study the opposing conclusions and go back to work, and might even drop the research if it proves to be fruitless or wasteful. That's not the way the global warming "scientists" do things, and they've recruited media and government people in order to try to ram their "science" down the throats of the people. That's the worst kind of "science" that could ever be practiced, and it ends up being junk science. If the science cannot stand up to scrutiny from all sides, then it's not science.
Posted by adornoe
6th Dec
-2 Votes
+ -
Oh, btw, here's another bit of "research" that debunks the "junk" science.
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2E2r83nrJ
Posted by adornoe
3rd Dec
-3 Votes
+ -
Good link. Funny how things change.
"Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions."

It is interesting that 15 years was a long enough period of time when he used manipulated data to proclaim the FACT of global warming, but the same period of time is suddenly too short to determine that warming has stopped.

The alleged scientist at East Anglia have no credibility since climate gate. They need to go away.

There are even scientists in the global warming community, like Kim Cobb, pushing for new standards for climate meta data integrity management to ensure another fiasco like East Anglia does not happen.

http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/othertalks/PASI_cobb.ppt

Funny how pointing out dissention within the global warming scientists ranks gets negative votes.

Once again scientists who question man made global warming are being burned at the proverbial stake for their insolence in challenging the global warming gods.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 4th Dec
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!