Climate change lies highlighted again

Quote:

---

A new NASA study says that an increase in
Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently
adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from
its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report,
which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice
sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to
2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between
2003 and 2008.
“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that
show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the
Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a
glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt,
Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30
in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for
East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an
ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that
his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the
large changes observed over smaller areas.”
Scientists calculate how much the ice sheet is growing or shrinking
from the changes in surface height that are measured by the satellite
altimeters. In locations where the amount of new snowfall accumulating
on an ice sheet is not equal to the ice flow downward and outward to the
ocean, the surface height changes and the ice-sheet mass grows or
shrinks.
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally.


“If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of
West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been
increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the
long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think
there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
The study analyzed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice
sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency
European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001,
and by the laser altimeter on NASA’s Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation
Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008.
Zwally said that while other scientists have assumed that the gains
in elevation seen in East Antarctica are due to recent increases in snow
accumulation, his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to
show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11
billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods. They also
used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years,
derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East
Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time.
“At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer
and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of
snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said.
The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly
accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over
millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of
West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year.
This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over
the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very
large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing
glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level
rise.
Zwally’s team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of
East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons
per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West
Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per
year.
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently
contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year
away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters
per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report
is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other
contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
“The new study highlights the difficulties of measuring
the small changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica,” said Ben
Smith, a glaciologist with the University of Washington in Seattle who
was not involved in Zwally’s study.
“Doing altimetry accurately for very large areas is extraordinarily
difficult, and there are measurements of snow accumulation that need to
be done independently to understand what’s happening in these places,”
Smith said.
To help accurately measure changes in Antarctica, NASA is developing
the successor to the ICESat mission, ICESat-2, which is scheduled to
launch in 2018. “ICESat-2 will measure changes in the ice sheet within
the thickness of a No. 2 pencil,” said Tom Neumann, a glaciologist at
Goddard and deputy project scientist for ICESat-2. “It will contribute
to solving the problem of Antarctica’s mass balance by providing a
long-term record of elevation changes.”

---

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b1_1446406314

So we're in fact gaining ice, not losing it.

You need to learn what lying entails.

Also this study refers to Antarctica, it doesn't include what's happening in the Arctic, where NASA have recorded huge losses of ice

Looks like you have not been introduced to Harold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pepe

Looks like you have not been introduced to Harold.

---

Let it run. Could be interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McAvennie

You need to learn what lying entails.

Also this study refers to Antarctica, it doesn't include what's happening in the Arctic, where NASA have recorded huge losses of ice

---

Cover-up might be a better phrase, since the whole email scandal of a few years ago highlighted exactly that.

Also:

Quote:

---

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report,
which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

---

They claimed this was the case in Antarctica. So it's either a rather large mistake or a lie.

I don't know why 'conservatives' spend so much time arguing against the science. Surely their efforts would be better utilised arguing for non-governmental responses, like The Market solving all of our renewable energy needs, whilst highlighting the colossal shitness of seemingly all government-backed 'Green Jobs' programmes. The situation most of them seem to find themselves in means that they deny themselves the credibility to do that by spending all of their time posting shonky graphs and calling conspiracies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewis

I don't know why 'conservatives' spend so much time arguing against the science. Surely their efforts would be better utilised arguing for non-governmental responses, like The Market solving all of our renewable energy needs, whilst highlighting the colossal shitness of seemingly all government-backed 'Green Jobs' programmes. The situation most of them seem to find themselves in means that they deny themselves the credibility to do that by spending all of their time posting shonky graphs and calling conspiracies.

---

I agree with that. Plenty of legitimate reasons to be against the whole green/wind/solar! movement. Choosing to deny climate change just makes you look stupid.

I'm arguing with the science. I also don't deny climate change, as it's clear the climate changes variously throughout history. I deny the extent to to which humans are responsible and I am against propaganda and lies.

There is a certain element of SENSATIONALISM to the climate change debate, which I find difficult to engage with.

Ultimately most of the "initiatives" that are proposed are fucking worthless.

Muslims are responsible.

They'll see to it that this will never matter, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewis

I don't know why 'conservatives'

---

Most people who call themselves conservatives aren't that. Especially not Harold.

His willingness to throw in his lot with the most backwards, pseudoscientific elements of our culture when it suits him is amusing though.

And his description of this as being about "lies" or "cover-up" or even as something that contradicts the major premises of climate change just shows that he hasn't properly read the brief quote that he included within his OP.

Idiotic.

I think people take Harold too seriously. I think he's a troll. An unusually committed, persistent and dull troll, but at the end of the day, still a troll.

To present a scientific counter-point, this phenomenon has been known since the 2000's. And it's not a good thing, because it's all fresh sea-ice, which is a consequence of the changing composition of the ocean; specifically that the water in the Southern Ocean is becoming fresher and less salty (due to increased glacial runoff, new precipitation patterns, etc.), and hence lowering its freezing point. The amount of old land-ice is largely a function of temperature, and that stuff's disappearing.

For more details (aimed at non-scientists, but plenty of scientific articles to click through on if you're interested):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/anta...aining-ice.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/anta...termediate.htm

I'm not going to get in an argument over this, but it's worth having the scientific side presented as well.

As Ital says, and you can find this shit out on Wikipedia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItalAussie

To present a scientific counter-point, this phenomenon has been known since the 2000's. And it's not a good thing, because it's all fresh sea-ice, which is a consequence of the changing composition of the ocean; specifically that the water in the Southern Ocean is becoming fresher and less salty (due to increased glacial runoff, new precipitation patterns, etc.), and hence lowering its freezing point. The amount of old land-ice is largely a function of temperature, and that stuff's disappearing.

For more details (aimed at non-scientists, but plenty of scientific articles to click through on if you're interested):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/anta...aining-ice.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/anta...termediate.htm

I'm not going to get in an argument over this, but it's worth having the scientific side presented as well.

---

So if this was known since then, then why did the official climate change propagandists claim in 2013 the opposite, as is quoted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair

So if this was known since then, then why did the official climate change propagandists claim in 2013 the opposite, as is quoted?

---

They didn't? And if someone did, then they clearly were not reading the IPCC's report correctly or the people interpreting the words of the news source are idiots. As Ital said - big difference between Land Ice and Sea Ice.

"Significant challenges remain in the process-based projections of the dynamical response of marine-terminating glaciers and marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet. Alternative means of projection of the Antarctic ice-sheet contribution (extrapolation within a statistical framework and informed judgement) provide medium confidence in a likely range. There is currently low confidence in projecting the onset of large-scale grounding line instability in the marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet."

Or...

"Because the ice loss from Antarctica due to surface melt and runoff is about 1% of the total mass gain from snowfall, most ice loss occurs through solid ice discharge into the ocean. In the 21st century, ablation is projected to remain small on the Antarctic ice sheet because low surface temperatures inhibit surface melting, except near the coast and on the Antarctic Peninsula, and meltwater and rain continue to freeze in the snowpack (Ligtenberg et al., 2013). Projections of Antarctic SMB changes over the 21st century thus indicate a negative contribution to sea level because of the projected widespread increase in snowfall associated with warming air temperatures (Krinner et al., 2007; Uotila et al., 2007; Bracegirdle et al., 2008). Several studies (Krinner et al., 2007; Uotila et al., 2007; Bengtsson et al., 2011) have shown that the precipitation increase is directly linked to atmospheric warming via the increased moisture holding capacity of warmer air, and is therefore
larger for scenarios of greater warming."

Scary thought, you could always read the IPCC report yourself?

Well this report (and the story) came from Nasa, who probably aren't that well known for misinterpreting scientific data.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/

You'll notice that in your article, they also agree with the well-known results that the sea level is rising globally.

Quote:

---

“But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

---

They're looking closely at a particular symptom, but they're not arguing with the underlying disease.

Yes, and they say they don't know why. So that shows nothing. Still, if you're quoting what is said there then there's no reason to debunk the rest of the article, which I think you wanted to.

Will you join me, then, in saying that the IPCC findings on this particular issue appear, at best, to be wrong?

I do so love Harold's periodic reassurance that he has absolutely no idea how science works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair

Yes, and they say they don't know why. So that shows nothing. Still, if you're quoting what is said there then there's no reason to debunk the rest of the article, which I think you wanted to.

Will you join me, then, in saying that the IPCC findings on this particular issue appear, at best, to be wrong?

---

I'd say that this study doesn't support speculation as to the origin of existing effects which have been measured and noted. But the authors of the study have gone to lengths to point out that this doesn't invalidate the effects - it simply notes that one of the possible sources for the acknowledged sea level rises might not be as strong as previously thought (and even then, still warrants further study due to the inherent difficulties of altimetry). They still note that the increasing sea level is definitely happening, so it's still coming from somewhere, and they also point out that the study outcomes are very much a result of changing Antarctic climate.

This is the best thing about science. We've seen and measured the effect, so the more we study its origins, and the better we understand it, the more likely it is that science will find ways to deal with it. Step one: find where the water is coming from.

It works by correcting itself. You should be overjoyed at these results which, as Nasa says, contradict what was claimed before.

I'm not concerned whether they still think the overall effect is the same - as I said, climate change does happen. What I am concerned about is the clear mistake/lies that went before.

They aren't, but people are adept at putting two different measuring sticks next to each other and making a clusterfuck of an argument. The Nasa summary is poorly written, and no doubt it will be picked up for the wrong reasons. There's numerous studies about the Ice gain in the west. If the new data supports that its gains are greater than its losses (or the losses of the entire continent) then that's very interesting - but tallies up with what was already said. It just means that more fresh water is trapped in the Antarctic.

Nasa's satellites (Grace project) and the EU Ipsat were the ones providing the original data, and it continues to provide the data today. 2008 studies showed a decrease, newer 2012 studies showed a localised increase. IPCC general confidence on the matter was "the glaciers are shrinking" (which they are) and "the Land Ice mass is also shrinking" (which it is) and "we don't think that the accrual of snow in the west is offsetting that" or particularly relevant and run-off was increasing.

The overall opinion was one of the Antarctic is actually a negative sink when it comes to sea level rise as it is accruing sea ice, but it's actual gross volume was lower than previously recorded, that the warming in the West was offset by the East, but that the calving of the ice flows in the west was severe enough to indicate permanent loss of ice (rather than transitional / annual growth and loss) meaning that an estimated volume of the sea rise was allocated to Antarctic melt.

What the IPCC didn't have in their paper was this calculation to do with ice gain. Zwally's report does not actually challenge any of the 2013 data from what I can see. He is saying that <=10,000 year old snow is compacting at a rate of 0.7 inches per year, and that they can see no obvious slowing of this process. By calculating the 0.7 across the surface area they now are estimating the gross increase of ice. However his own paper states that this is a gain that only delays the inevitable where the accelerating melt of the west overtakes it within the next 20 years, and the fact that the mass and gravitational measurements of the region continue to indicate a downward trend we can be certain that there is a specific loss.

His reference to the 0.27 is interesting in that it questions how much of its can be attributed to Antarctica, but his summation is a bit off. If sea levels have increased and the coastal ice of Antarctica is melting then there is a clear correlation. If we can point at increasing aridity across the equator and northern reaches then we know that moisture is going somewhere. The assumption has been that some of it is going into the ocean, and some of it to Antarctica as sea ice and snowfall. The fact that the interior mass of Antarctica is accruing ice does not mean that the 0.27 isn't still attributable to Antarctica. Stacking ice in the middle of a frozen continent does not offset the losses around the periphery.

I've made no other argument than to show that what the IPCC said on this particular issue is wrong and has been proven false. Let's not forget 'climategate' - an obvious cover-up by those with a vested interest in promoting global warming. And as anti-scientific as you get. Excuse my cynicism, therefor.

Except it isn't wrong...Zwally's study confirms everything the IPCC said, but introduces a new variable of long-term ice gain which needs to be accounted for over the next decade. His study as presented is the equivalent of pissing in the same place day after day, then denying the room smells because you're pissing only in one place. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense out of context.

For someone who questions only the anthropogenic elements of global warming, you're doing a terrible of arguing against the science that has nothing to do with humans.

So the report on the Nasa site is wrong, then? What credentials do you have, again?

Most people call it 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' these days, since that has been another massive exaggeration.

What DC is saying is consistent with NASA. :cab:

Also, global warming means warming taken as a global entirety. Climate change includes regional scale variation. Both are fine, but scientists like to be specific about the scale of the effects under consideration within a discussion, so they use language in a technically-apt sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair

So the report on the Nasa site is wrong, then? What credentials do you have, again?

Most people call it 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' these days, since that has been another massive exaggeration.

---

My credentials are that I can apparently read and write reasonably good English, and have actually read some of the reports in question.

It's not "wrong", but it is just a bunch of sound-bites very poorly explained, and lacking in context, and so very easy to come to the incorrect conclusion about.

By saying "The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice" it is grossly reducing the level of complexity involved in the IPCC report which specifically says on numerous occasions about the decrease / increase patterns and level of confidence - and points at the East and says "we can expect it to probably get deeper as it snows more".

In short - there is good ice and bad ice. The Antarctic is losing good ice in regions where (barring a dramatic change in temperatures) it's unlikely to re-develop under its own steam. In contrast it's accruing bad ice all over the shop. Zwilly is coming along and saying "wait, some of that good ice we thought had been here for thousands of years? Well guess what - it's actually being laid as we speak...so it's not all bad I guess? Oh shit, I wonder where the 0.27 comes from then...?".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItalAussie

What DC is saying is consistent with NASA. :cab:

Also, global warming means warming taken as a global entirety. Climate change includes regional scale variation. Both are fine, but scientists like to be specific about the scale of the effects under consideration within a discussion, so they use language in a technically-apt sense.

---

No, it's in direct contradiction of this:

Quote:

---

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report,
which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

---

DC - 'In short - there is good ice and bad ice.' - lol. 'I wonder where that 0.27 comes from, then...?' - it seems obvious to you, with the credentials that you can read. But not to NASA researchers, unfortunately. Maybe you should email them about how obvious it all is.

I predict that Harold will continue to get thoroughly shown up on this issue for the next 3 pages, and then when everybody else is bored of him, declare victory on the basis of getting the last word.

Typical lefties stopping us righties enjoying the climate change and instead demonising it like the crypto fascists they are.

I would have thought a conspiracy theory like this would be right up your considerably demented street.

As usual, the thread 'derailers' are here in force. I at least stick to the topic.

Konspiracy Kiko was a great phase, ultimately superseded by the more accessible and user-friendly ITKiko.

Who's up for pizza?

I'll be there in five.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair

DC - 'In short - there is good ice and bad ice.' - lol. 'I wonder where that 0.27 comes from, then...?' - it seems obvious to you, with the credentials that you can read. But not to NASA researchers, unfortunately. Maybe you should email them about how obvious it all is.

---

It's obvious that the writer of the NASA article hasn't given any consideration to how morons like you would interpret the information - despite the disclaimers - and poorly explained the premise for sole purpose of bagging a catchy tabloid title.

The writer of the article is a hack and shouldn't be allowed to write synopsis for science papers if that is the level of stupidity they are going to resort to.

it's the equivalent of the Daily Mail "X causes Cancer!" and "X cures Cancer" and you'd expect better from NASA.

There is no interpretation of that snippet I posted other than the very obvious words it spells out. You're bending over backwards to make it say something it doesn't.

Jay Zwally also confirms it in his own words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DC

It's obvious that the writer of the NASA article hasn't given any consideration to how morons like you would interpret the information - despite the disclaimers - and poorly explained the premise for sole purpose of bagging a catchy tabloid title.

The writer of the article is a hack and shouldn't be allowed to write synopsis for science papers if that is the level of stupidity they are going to resort to.

it's the equivalent of the Daily Mail "X causes Cancer!" and "X cures Cancer" and you'd expect better from NASA.

---

Burn.

Today I am doing the first half of a two-part “Carbon Literacy” training course thingy.

Prepare for me to be all up in your grill for not switching lights off, or checking your tyre pressures on a regular basis.