We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Yes,and we all remember how environmentally conscious the Soviet Union was, they did not pollute at all...
Same with the Chinese they don't pollute either.
These climate idiots understand economics as much as they understand science... not at all.
I disagree. They are useful idiots. They are correct about damage done to their economies and their soils and cultures; but, mistaken about the economic source: Marxist governments in bed with global corporations = Fascism, not Capitalism.
They are being played by the Global Marxists due to their economic illiteracy.
The reason why 130 environment groups protest capitalism ONLY, even though communist countries produce WAY more pollutants, is because in a capitalist society people are free to criticize the government, and people are allowed to know certain facts; while in communists countries, people are not free to critcize the government, nor are they allowed to know too much.
if we eliminate free markets and let the government become all powerful, then pollution will skyrocket for sure, since then these environment groups will all be disbanded, so government can have free reign to pollute. Its simply exchange big business for big government, and so then there will be no one left to regulate big government that pollutes even worse.
In Cuba the average vehicle emits over 20 times the pollutants than the average vehicle in any capitalist country. The environment is not their concern. A healthy supply of dependent people under their control is the goal. Today's "liberals" are not liberals at all. They are sociopathic fascist that claim to be liberal.
Don't believe me?
Google "sociopathic traits" and be amazed how it looks like the biography of every liberal you've known in your life. Modern "Liberalism" is really a mental illness epidemic today.
Unfortunately Democracy plays into the sociopaths best skills. Their strong intelligence in the social skills makes them more popular to the uneducated voters than the candidates with superior executive skills.
Unless the US creates a experience, education and skill requirement for its political candidates the US will continue to deteriorate.
"Neo-Fascism is in bed with the global elite neo-Marxists"
Maybe! ...but let's talk about the subject of the article for a second and see if that pans out.
Polar ice caps have never before in Earth's history been able to withstand CO₂ as high as we've raised it.
The complete collapse of the polar ice caps would raise sea levels 75 meters and drown the homes of billions of people.
If Climate Deniers weren't actually trying to make this happen, why hasn't a single one been able to make a prediction of what's in store, given the Earth's climate history?
Actually you said they did;
CB • 15 days ago Tues, 3-27-14 3:56 PM
"Yes, during the Eocene-Oligocene transition roughly 34 million years ago, polar ice caps formed with levels of CO₂ at roughly twice today's levels, or around 800PPM."
Can you decide on one position or the other? Can't be both now...or can it, i.e., for CAGW fanatics.Oh...and just cite one peer reviewed work that actually predicts what you wildly claim about 75 meters of SLR and the drowning of the homes of billions. Oh year...you just made that up.
There is no peer-reviewed citation in your post. Without a peer-reviewed citation, you give people no reason to believe you.
Here is peer-reviewed evidence polar ice caps persisted for 800,000 years with CO₂ under 400PPM:
If you think polar ice caps persisted with CO₂ over 400PPM, please provide the following 3 things:
1. A point in time before 1750CE polar ice caps were able to withstand levels of CO₂ over 400PPM.2. The length of time these ice caps persisted.3. The peer-reviewed paper from which you get this information.
Because you have a habit of spamming threads about climate science with non sequitur and unsupported claims, if you cannot provide all three of these things or admit my characterisation of the history is accurate, you will be ignored. I note in advance your failure to do so.
Pathetic, CB. I cited YOU for both cases. But you make my point. You make contradictory claims w/o and citations and then ask me to prove your case. Now that's funny...in a pitiful sort of way.
Seems to me the Antarctic ice cap is at record highs; recently reviewed, thought it was some computer algorithm flaw, checked it out, found it REALLY IS at record highs... So, one of two polar ice caps have, in the present time, withstood CO2 has high as we've raised it... let alone the other facts about the past that refute your claim.
"Seems to me the Antarctic ice cap is at record highs"
Sure! If you read dishonest Climate Denier propaganda like the Daily Caller, it would seem that way to you, wouldn't it?
NASA says ice on both poles is rapidly declining:
"The new estimates, which are more than twice as accurate because of the inclusion of more satellite data, confirm both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice."
Which space agency informs you otherwise?
Why would you think "since this morning" is an example of persistence in geological terms?
If you had even one scintilla of brains you'd know climate change is a never ending reality of existence. We as humans exist around climate change and have done so since the beginning of time. The pathetic vanity of thinking of stopping it, slowing it, speeding it up, changing it in any way, is beyond the pale of ultimate ignorance. Grow up!
The issue Mr. Campbell is that we have sped it up. We have influenced it. The pale of ultimate ignorance is not doing your research before trying to tell others to "Grow up!"...the facts - and this is science, and the science - actual studies, you know where you look for objective evidence, says that anthropogenic carbon emissions - that is human-made emissions - over the past 100 years, are skyrocketing the carbon levels in the atmosphere (given the sensitivity) and that is (again per studies) resulting in what we are seeing. They are also increasing the level of acidity in oceans (a 30% increase) which is destroying coral, driving up the rate of extinction for many species of plants and animals. So being a "grown up" would mean actually taking this seriously and doing something about it - whereas it seems all you want to do is call other people vain for actually trying to take responsibility. Hmmn, hypocrite much?
Tell me, how much carbon emission is there in the eruption of just one volcano in one day?
And thanks for asking that question. Now, if you would please go out and share that information with others, the world would greatly appreciate your help. Will you, John?
I'm glad you took the time to respond. Actually I was looking a little more in-depth. You see, CO2 is the chemical that you and all living creatures exhale when they breath. It stands to reason that the population of the planet in all living creatures would produce far and away more CO2 than a volcano. In typical leftist fashion you immediately went to condemning man for his very existence instead. Such plays well into the minds that would argue that man has over populated the earth and therefore must be controlled for their numbers by whatever means some self appointed wannabe dictator body could possibly concoct.
In examination, the simplicity of the Websters dictionary should help. (see below)
n.1.the chemical formula for carbon dioxide, a heavy odorless gas (CO2) formed during respiration and by the combustion or decomposition of organic substances; it is absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis
Note that CO2 is produced by both respiration and decomposition of organic substances thus a continuous cycle of both life and death, death as in decay or "decomposition". On that basis there is no more CO2 than there is in the totality of existence. In other words, the decay of anything once living produces the very carbon that was gathered to create and sustain it throughout. Same carbon out as carbon in. Same carbon to be mixed with oxygen that sustains photosynthesis. An interesting note for this is that in what's known as the United States today it has been reported that there are over 200 times the amount of trees than there was when the nation was first founded. It would seem that photosynthesis is alive and well.
In short, your argument would suggest that somehow human existence has created a CO2 greater than the sum of it's parts. Of course this would tend to give some other scientists a bit of a headache mathematically as well as it having been established that during the age of the dinosaurs there was more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today, ten times more, and yet the world didn't come to an end and I'm fairly sure I've never seen a report suggesting that dinosaurs had any sort of industrial revolution.
As for spreading your word, no. You see, I'm a "hypocrite" and as such I'm well aware of many, first hand, decades of socialist/communist political agenda (read wannabe world dictators) and have spent a life time countering it whenever it rears it's ugly head. I shall continue to do so. :o)
John, you've obviously come to some conclusion based on emotion without truly understanding the issue. Are people actually swayed by this notion of yours? Yes, there is carbon underground and in solid and liquid form (formed by billions of years of various natural processes) - the point is that when that that carbon is dug up and emitted in gas form (CO2 as you rightly noted) by burning the composition (coal, natural gas or oil), it then floats into the atmosphere and is trapped there - acting like a blanket that traps solar radiation in the form of infrared radiation. I didn't say humans created - I said that they are responsible for far more carbon EMISSIONS than volcanoes in a year - which was your question. Some CO2 is completely necessary to us having warmth enough to allow for life to take form as it has here...but just the same, significantly more CO2 at such a rapid change (in just 100 years) is creating temperature, weather and acidification scenarios that the environment and its living inhabitants cannot adapt to quickly enough - it's destabilising the ecosystem that operates in millions of years, not hundreds. Please do some thinking before spouting off.
I see, so you are not a carbon based existence? If not, what planet are you from? Also, how is it that you determined "trapped"? As though the natural cycle somehow stopped at that point?
Might I suggest another possibility? The possibility that God set things up purposefully so that as man became "fruitful" the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere creates more photosynthesis for food production, a naturally warmer climate for hospitable living, even more ice melt for a greater water supply? Possibly even the reverse affect to promote mankind becoming fruitful such a less man equals less atmospheric carbon and therefore less warmth so man huddles together with woman for shared bodily warmth and the process begins again?
After all, you did claim, "cannot adapt to quickly enough", and yet without basis for such a claim. I've not seen the news accounts of someone just having a normal day at the beach or wherever and suddenly dropping dead from CO2 poisoning.
By the way, the "trapped" argument seems to have lost it's flavor with the realization that we're experiencing global cooling at present including, some in record cold across the U.S., and have been for many years now. You'll just have to wait until things warm up to try floating this one again and likely to yet another new generation of kids that don't have first hand knowledge of this latest attempt so you can find someone gullible enough to buy into it. :o)
You seem to be confused about the method by which CO₂ threatens the global ecology.
CO₂ is the primary driver of planetary temperature. It traps the sun's energy at the surface of the planet and keeps it from going out into space, thereby increasing the temperature.
The threat is not that it will poison people locally (though in much higher concentrations, of course it can).
Do you understand now?
CB, believe it or not, whether you like it or not, I'm really not interested in a bunch of socialist sales pitch for dictatorship. On top of that, I'm just not as gullible as you'd like me to be. I've been on this planet for over 5 decades and working on number 6. Did you really think that you could come up with something I haven't already heard before that turned out to be just more leftist Barbra Streisand(BS)?
Get a life, preferably your own, and knock off trying to run everyone elses. People are just sick of your lies and have no wish to hear it. Move on.
"I'm really not interested in a bunch of socialist sales pitch for dictatorship"
...and why aren't you interested in evaluating the threat climate change poses to your well-being?
I realise reality might seem dictatorial, but I'd suggest if you simply accepted it instead of pretending it didn't exist, life would seem a whole lot less oppressive to you.
If it's so likely that polar ice caps will be able to withstand CO₂ as high as we've pushed it, why isn't there a single previous example in Earth's history of them doing so?
The scientists you so love to adore have already stated that CO2 levels were ten times what they are today back in the age of the dinosaurs. I can't account for the dinosaurs industrial revolution, but I'm pretty sure that man had nothing to do with it and the world didn't come to an end. :o)
PS. Get a life. :o)
Really? Well, that's good to know, but how does that fly with those scientists that claim the Dinosaurs ended with a meteorite strike? They good with that?
In other words your answer went from yes to no by the time you finished. "That asteroid strike in the Gulf of Mexico itself could not have eradicated the dinosaurs all around the globe..."
You know just as well as I do that there are scientists that agree with what you just posted and disagree with what you just posted. That being the case, why is it that people who buy into global warming/climate change would seem to be willing to sell their souls for it when other scientists disagree?
That being said, why should I buy into this and allow my money to be taken from me by any government or my rights be violated by any government in the name of saving a world from a boogeyman that scientists cannot agree on?
"You may now babble on to your heart's content and not have to wonder if I will reply."
The typical closing comment of a loser who cannot stand for their own argument, especially when asked,
"That being said, why should I buy into this and allow my money to be taken from me by any government or my rights be violated by any government in the name of saving a world from a boogeyman that scientists cannot agree on?"
In other words, no sale, and you can't stand for your own argument in the face of actual scientists who don't agree with you. Boy, must be some life you lead. I wish you well with it. Just do the rest of us a favor. Keep it to yourself.
"scientists... have already stated that CO2 levels were ten times what they are today"
That's true! CO₂ was much higher for the majority of Earth's history!
...were there polar ice caps at the time?
Yes...sometimes. You've said so yourself;
Your argument doesn't fly because Antarctica is steeped in ice growth and during it's summer. Winter should really give you a headache. :o)
"Antarctica is steeped in ice growth"
Really? NASA says Antarctica is rapidly losing ice:
I've been wondering why the NASA url you post was SO FAR OFF of what more recent estimates of Antarctic melting were... I've cited, maybe a dozen, journal-published, peer reviewed work, for you elsewhere, showing that you are right about melting, but wrong about how much, wrong about acceleration in the melt, and wrong about the major implications of the melt. I have discovered the error.Your citation of the NASA PR report,http://www.nasa.gov/mission...is really a reference to the Shepherd et al paper, Science Magazine, 30 November 2012:
"A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance"http://www.sciencemag.org/c...The authors said, "We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods [Ice, Cloud and land
Elevation Satellite (ICESAT) and Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites]—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty.”
The reason that the Shepherd et al paper was so flawed, is that errors, common to all the satellite methods, skewed their results. These were errors in the Terrestrial Reference Frame (TRF). The Shepherd et al paper relies heavily upon ICESAT and GRACE data, which are most affected by the lack of a stable TRF. There is no mention of a stable benchmark, TRF or “Terrestrial Reference Frame” anywhere in Shepherd et al. The 47 authors of the paper chose not to mention, or were unaware of the influence of the Terrestrial Reference Frame upon their work. Shepherd et al Section 3 mentions their quantifications of uncertainty, but makes no mention of what Terrestrial Reference Frame that was used in their analysis.
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) has proposed a new space mission, called "Geodetic Reference Antenna in Space (GRASP)” that portends to provide a stable reference point in space, to fix the errors that plague other Terrestrial Reference Frames; a solution "to a heretofore intractable problem: establishing precise and stable ties between the key geodetic techniques used to define and disseminate the TRF.”
"Precise orbit determination (POD) is a critical component of an increasing number of Earth science missions. Examples of past and extant missions include TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, and GRACE, to name just a few. ... For many of these missions, the quality of the science product is directly dependent on the accuracy of the orbit determination. For missions providing long-term climatological data records, such as OSTM (Jason-2), ICESAT-II, and SWOT, it is essential that the orbit determination be carried out in a consistent reference frame across many years and different spacecraft.”
"GRASP is designed to compensate for the various shortcomings of the GRACE spacecraft, which were never designed or intended to serve as a reference antenna.”
"GRACE flies too low to sample the full GNSS APV angles that are observe with the ocean altimetry platforms flying at 1300 km and, consequently, it cannot provide full calibration for these missions."
"GRASP is intended to overcome the limitations of GRACE by ensuring that the GPS antenna and the spacecraft are carefully calibrated as a single instrument.”
"The deficiencies are due in part to the lack of a rigorous calibration of the GRACE antennas on the ground prior to launch. In particular, the antennas were not calibrated on the spacecraft. While GRACE offers a relatively clean geometry, simulation analysis show significant levels of both phase and pseudorange multipath. These effects could bias the effective antenna phase center by an unknown amount. Equally important, GRACE’s orbit is strongly impacted by the unpredictable, and difficult to model atmospheric drag. As a result the orbit determination of GRACE depends too much of the GPS antenna offset with and without the new GRACE-based GPS its known (pre-launch) measured value, with the s/c center of measurements, and is susceptible to biases in the phase-center of the antennas, which represent the calibration target."
"ICESAT-II - like all altimetry missions, vertical positioning errors directly translate to error in ice sheet elevation measurements""GRACE II – requires primarily precise timing, which is a by-product of GPS positioning. Will also benefit from improvement in the measurements of the geocenter of the TRF promised by GRASPThe last three missions above, plus OSTM, aim to provide long-term climatological records of Earth change. Any bias due to TRF inconsistencies, including to the scale and geocenter, will translate into spurious trends. This has been demonstrated on Jason, where the potential for uncalibrated antennas on the GPS satellites to cause spurious trends in sea surface height was shown [Haines et al. 2006]. GRASP will ensure that the ever-changing GNSS constellations are continuously and consistently calibrated, so as to avoid aliasing antenna biases and TRF biases into spurious climatological signals."
"GEODETIC REFERENCE ANTENNA IN SPACE (GRASP) – A MISSION TO ENHANCE SPACE-BASED GEODESY”
Yoaz Bar-Sever, Bruce Haines, Willy Bertiger, Shailen Desai, Sien Wu
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
The lack of a stable Terrestrial Reference Frame affects all of the satellites' geodetic data, which includes sea-level calculations and surface-mass balance estimates. Shepherd et al conclusions are worthless. If there were hopes of recovering the data, using some form of post-mission processing, the GRASP team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory wouldn’t be calling for a new satellite platform and mission to solve the problem.
Ramillien et al. (2006) have noted, "the GRACE data time series is still very short," and results obtained from it "must be considered as preliminary since we cannot exclude that apparent trends [derived from it] only reflect inter-annual fluctuations."
******************************2013 May 21 "An additional test, from inversion analysis of GRACE-derived geoid rates, confirms possible signal loss in the GRACE-derived gravity rates, which could be due to noise reduction methods used in data processing stages.” GRACE-based satellite determinations, like Shepherd et al paper, are worthless.
Zhao et al
"Lithosphere thickness and mantle viscosity estimated from joint inversion of GPS and GRACE-derived radial deformation and gravity rates in North America”
"Monthly observations from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) can provide estimates ... but full use of the data requires a detailed understanding of its errors and biases. We have examined trends … calculated from 6 yr of GRACE data and found differences ... between estimates derived from different GRACE processing centre solutions. In addition, variations in post-processing masking and filtering procedures required to convert the GRACE data ... Disagreement in the regional trends between the GRACE processing centres is most noticeably in areas south of Greenland, and in the southeast and northwest Pacific Ocean. Non-ocean signals, such as in the Indian Ocean due to the 2004 Sumatran–Andean earthquake, and near Greenland and West Antarctica due to land signal leakage, can also corrupt … estimates. Based on our analyses, formal errors may not capture the true uncertainty in either regional or global ocean mass trends derived from GRACE.”
"Uncertainty in ocean mass trends from GRACE”
Katherine J. Quinn and Rui M. Ponte 10Mar2010
“...Geodetic Reference Antenna in Space (GRASP) is a micro satellite mission concept dedicated to the enhancement of all the space geodetic techniques, and promising revolutionary improvements to the definition of the Terrestrial Reference Frame (TRF), its densification, and accessibility. GRASP collocates GPS, SLR, VLBI, and DORIS sensors on a supremely calibrated and modelable spacecraft, offering an innovative space-based approach to a heretofore intractable problem: establishing precise and stable ties between the key geodetic techniques used to define and disseminate the TRF. GRASP also offers a solution to another difficult problem, namely, the consistent calibration of the myriad antennas used to transmit and receive the ubiquitous signals of the present and future Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). The space-based GNSS reference antenna concept has already been prototyped with the GRACE mission, and GRASP is designed to compensate for the various shortcomings of the GRACE spacecraft, which were never designed or intended to serve as a reference antenna.”
"• Enable improved science accuracy from missions that depend on GNSS for precise positioning, such as OSTM, and the Decadal Survey recommended missions of DesDynI, ICESAT-II, SWOT, GRACE- II,...
• Enable the consistent measurement of climatological data records of sea surface height, ice elevations, gravity field variations,…”
"At present the TRF is defined through the loosely coordinated networks of four independent space geodetic techniques: Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR), in which ground-based lasers range to Earth satellites carrying suitable reflectors; V ery Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), in which ground-based radio telescopes make precise angle (or differential range) measurements to distant radio sources; and Global Positioning System (GPS) geodesy, in which ground- based (and some low orbiting) GPS receivers make precise one-way range and range rate measurements from orbiting GPS sources, and DORIS, in which ground-based beacons broadcast to receivers on Earth orbiting satellites.”
"Stability of the frame is critical for many global change measurements. For example, Morel and Willis  looked at the errors in mean sea level arising from errors in the geocenter or scale determinations of the ITRF. They found that a 10 mm error in the Z component of the reference frame can lead to an error of –1.2 mm in the determination of mean sea level, with a strong regional systematic error signal at the high latitudes. Beckley et al.  reprocessed all the TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 SLR & DORIS data within the ITRF2005 reference frame, and found that the differences in the older CSR95 and ITRF2000 realizations and ITRF2005 caused differences of up to 1.5 mm/yr in regional rates of mean sea level rise. The overall differences reach ± 0.44 mm/yr between 1993 and 2007 - larger than the Greenland contribution to sea-level change as measured by GRACE [Luthcke et al., 2006]. Comparisons of ITRF2005 with ITRF2000 indicate drift rates of 0.2 mm/yr, 0.1 mm/yr, and 1.8 mm/yr for the xyz geocenter coordinates, and 0.08 ppb/yr for the scale. Comparisons of ITRF2005 with independent GPS measurements indicate drift rates of - 0.6 mm/yr X, -0.6 mm/yr Y, and 1.1 mm/yr Z for the geocenter and -0.05 parts per billion per year for the scale [Heflin et al., private communications].”
"Precise orbit determination (POD) is a critical component of an increasing number of Earth science missions. Examples of past and extant missions include TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, and GRACE, to name just a few. Many future missions, such as OSTM (Ocean Surface Topography Mission) and several advocated by the Decadal Survey (DESDynI, ICESAT-II, SWOT, and GRACE-II) will also rely significantly on POD. For many of these missions, the quality of the science product is directly dependent on the accuracy of the orbit determination. For missions providing long-term climatological data records, such as OSTM (Jason-2), ICESAT-II, and SWOT, it is essential that the orbit determination be carried out in a consistent reference frame across many years and different spacecraft.”
"However, pushing GPS to the limit on missions such as Jason and GRACE, as well as for geodesy and TRF determination, has uncovered certain challenges.”
"An apparent vertical offset of ~4–5 cm in the daily solved- for positions of the Jason-1 antenna is reduced to –2 cm by applying the GRACE-based GPS APV maps (The remaining signal in the Jason-1 antenna offset estimates is likely due to local multipath on the spacecraft.).”
"The apparent 5–6 cm bias in the T/P antenna offset estimates has eluded explanation for over a decade.”
“...these scale and scale-rate errors would have been fully expressed in the estimates of global sea-level change derived from T/P and Jason-1 altimeter and GPS ephemeris data.”
"Despite the important advances enabled by the GRACE- based approach, this tandem mission has proved inadequate in removing potential biases at the mm level. The deficiencies are due in part to the lack of a rigorous calibration of the GRACE antennas on the ground prior to launch. In particular, the antennas were not calibrated on the spacecraft. While GRACE offers a relatively clean geometry, simulation analysis show significant levels of both phase and pseudorange multipath. These effects could bias the effective antenna phase center by an unknown amount. Equally important, GRACE’s orbit is strongly impacted by the unpredictable, and difficult to model atmospheric drag. As a result the orbit determination of GRACE depends too much of the GPS
antenna offset with and without the new GRACE-based GPS its known (pre-launch) measured value, with the s/c center of measurements, and is susceptible to biases in the phase-center of the antennas, which represent the calibration target. Finally, GRACE flies too low to sample the full GNSS APV angles that are observe with the ocean altimetry platforms flying at 1300 km and, consequently, it cannot provide full calibration for these missions."
"GRASP is intended to overcome the limitations of GRACE by ensuring that the GPS antenna and the spacecraft are carefully calibrated as a single instrument."
SWOT – like all altimetry missions, vertical positioning errors directly translate to error in sea surface height measurementsICESAT-II - like all altimetry missions, vertical positioning errors directly translate to error in ice sheet elevation measurementsGRACE II – requires primarily precise timing, which is a by-product of GPS positioning. Will also benefit from improvement in the measurements of the geocenter of the TRF promised by GRASPThe last three missions above, plus OSTM, aim to provide long-term climatological records of Earth change. Any bias due to TRF inconsistencies, including to the scale and geocenter, will translate into spurious trends. This has been demonstrated on Jason, where the potential for uncalibrated antennas on the GPS satellites to cause spurious trends in sea surface height was shown [Haines et al. 2006]. GRASP will ensure that the ever-changing GNSS constellations are continuously and consistently calibrated, so as to avoid aliasing antenna biases and TRF biases into spurious climatological signals.""GEODETIC REFERENCE ANTENNA IN SPACE (GRASP) – A MISSION TO ENHANCE SPACE-BASED GEODESY”
What does "rapidly losing ice" actually mean. No...your citation doesn't say "rapidly".
Here you go.
Yes, Vangel, Antarctic sea ice is increasing because the continent is melting down. Ice is moving from the land to the sea.
Those are excellent links. Good job.
Do you have any citations that state that the massive increase in Antarctic SEA ice is, in fact, land-locked glacial ice that melted and re-froze in the sea? Something that disproves that ordinary seawater isn't freezing of its own accord?
"Do you have any citations that state that the massive increase in Antarctic SEA ice is, in fact, land-locked glacial ice that melted and re-froze in the sea?"
"Salinity declined along the Antarctic continental margin during the late 20th century"
Water freezes at higher temperatures when there is less salt in it.
Drat. Just posted another reply to CB but actually posted it as a reply to myself. Here it is, CB:
"The Cryosphere, 8, 1519-1538, 2014"
It melted 1992-1993 and has been DECREASING in melt ever since...
"The high values of melting in summer 2001–2002 presented in previous studies on the basis of simple calculations were not supported by our study. Instead, our calculations based on ERA-Interim yielded strongest melting in summer 1992–1993 on both ice shelves."
"Surface energy budget on Larsen and Wilkins ice shelves in the Antarctic Peninsula: results based on reanalyses in 1989–2010"I. Välisuo1,2, T. Vihma1, and J. C. King31Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki,Finland2Departement of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland3British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UKhttp://www.the-cryosphere.n...
The above is the journal-published, peer-reviewed science you asked for. The writeup, done by "The Hocky Schtick" can't be beat, so I reproduce most of it here:
"The paper examines the surface energy budget on the two major Larsen & Wilkins ice shelves in the Antarctic Peninsula over the past 21 years from 1989-2010. According to the authors, "the automated weather station observations on the Larsen Ice Shelf did not show any significant temperature trend, and the reanalyses [of temperature data] showed warming trends only over the Wilkins Ice Shelf." However, the authors find a large upward biases in the reanalyzed data, stating, "Focusing on biases of seasonal means, our validation results include three interesting issues: (1) all three reanalyses had warm temperature biases in all seasons..." Thus, it isn't clear how much, if any, of the warming of the Wilkins Ice Shelf is real vs. due to biases in the reanalyses, and meanwhile direct weather station observations of the Larsen Ice Shelf show no warming over the past 21 years.
Contrary to Romm's claim 4 months ago that the supposed Antarctic Peninsula meltdown is "non-linear, fastest in 1000 years," the authors instead find the fastest melt rates of the past 21 years were in 1992-1993 and have decreased since then:
The paper attributes the possible warming of the Wilkins Ice Shelf to natural changes in atmospheric pressure, wind, and cloud fraction, but not longwave radiation from the steady increase in greenhouse gases. Why? Because the authors paradoxically find that net longwave radiation from greenhouse gases has decreased over the past 21 years, rather than increased from the steady rise of greenhouse gases as predicted by AGW theory.
This is shown in the following tables where LW = net longwave radiation from greenhouse gases at the surface of the Antarctic Peninsula, SW = net shortwave radiation from the Sun, Ann = Annual. There are statistically significant negative trends in net longwave radiation on both ice shelves, not positive as would be expected from the steady rise of well-mixed greenhouse gases. Another paper has also found a paradoxical decrease of longwave radiation from greenhouse gases over the past 14 years in the US Great Plains."http://journals.ametsoc.org...
...and your point?
The point is that there are multiple lines of converging evidence that our emission of greenhouse gasses is going to cause us serious problems, and you should already know this because you linked to some of those lines of evidence!
Please gather your thoughts. This therapy session is rapidly drawing to a close.
I wasn't asking you.
A jolly mix of reliable, unreliable, contradictory and irrelevant links you've posted!
Is reliable, from the European Geosciences Union and says the following:
"Ice shelves in the Antarctic Peninsula have significantly disintegrated during recent decades"
The hockeyschtick blog is dishonest Climate Denier propaganda. It's not reliable.
... and this link:
... appears to be reliable, but is about the US Great Plains... not about polar ice at all.
So let me ask again: If you think ice is not in decline at both poles, which reliable scientific source informs you so?