About that melting ice...not so much...

[billc]

Here is a look at the melting ice hysteria and how it might not be the most "accurate," of scientific endeavors...

(I was asked on another thread why I doubted "man made," global warming and asked to give reasons...here is another reason...shoddy science by the global warmers...)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/another_global_warming_drive-by.html

Well, it turns out to be more complicated than that. See, satellites pass over the same places at the same time every day. Also, how do you tell how much ice is over a spot? How do you tell how dense it is? Satellite coverage is far from complete for the whole Arctic or Antarctic, and so models have to be employed and extrapolations made. If ice is seen as disappearing in one spot it is assumed to be disappearing in spots that the satellites aren't getting a good look at. So models have to be used to make that extrapolation. It's part of why the National Snow and Ice Data Center accidentally "lost" Arctic ice -- about 193,000 square miles of it -- when they changed methods a few years back. This was a result of "sensory drift" and algorithmic problems.
And let us not forget that Antarctica is largely covered with ice; these sensors have to determine the mass of the ice based on other factors such as measurements of gravitational anomalies and other tricky things. It's difficult when you are trying to get a side-shot of your target, and trying to take into account factors that are not readily apparent such as land rise (when ice weight is reduced). Dr. Shepherd and the other researchers at IMBIE claim to have taken all this into account, but how accurate is their data?
There is a better way to determine this.
If I may quote from myself in a piece I had at Pajamas Media back in 2008:
"This is interesting because it logically ties in with sea level rise. Sea levels have been rising for the last 10,000 years - since the end of the last ice age - and an increase in [COLOR=#11B000 !important]ice melt[/COLOR] should coincide with an increase in the rate that the sea level is rising.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report from 2001:
"No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."
And in 2007 the IPCC reported:
"Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear."
(Hat tip: World Climate Report)
According to the University of Colorado, the short-term rate of sea level rise has been leveling off.

But the researchers stubbornly persist in claiming an increase in sea level rise from ice melt.
Interesting. So how do they arrive at the conclusions that they do?
Dr.S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus at U. of Virginia and current head of the Science and Environment Policy Project, gives us the answer:
55.5 mm or 2.2 inches per century. The international research group of polar scientists, IMBIE, announced that melting glacial ice on Greenland and Antarctica has increased sea levels by 11.1 mm over 20 years, from 1992 to 2011, which can be extrapolated to the numbers above. However, one must not rely on long run extrapolations from short run data.
Yet, IMBIE did so. It stated that sea level rise increased in the second decade over the first decade. What is particularly interesting is the early data shows a decline in sea levels from an accumulation of ice, which indicates a cooling. Yet the 1980s and 1990s were decades of warming.
It is also interesting that news reports, such as in the Washington Post, excitedly reported the polar melt and sea level rise, but failed to provide information on how tiny the rise is. See here (for a graph).
This despite clear evidence that the RATE of sea level rise has not significantly increased.
Three years ago a claim was made that West Antarctica was warming -- and it turned out that the author of the paper (Steig et. al) "smeared" temperatures across the region, mixing warming in the Antarctic Peninsula with the rest of West Antarctica. By redefining regions, and he used the warming during the 1950's to "prove" West Antarctica was warming as a whole. He created a warming trend where none existed. Antarctica underwent considerable warming in the '50's -- well before the acceleration of carbon dioxide rise in the Earth's atmosphere, and the Antarctic Peninsula was and is considerably warmer than the main body of the continent.

Say that again...

He created a warming trend where none existed.

And more from the article...

The IMBIE report admits that ice is growing in East Antarctica and blames that on Global Warming; warmer air causing increased precipitation. But if that is so why is it not happening in West Antarctica as well? The entire Antarctic continent is surrounded by seas and the circumpolar current keeps the cold water swirling around it. By their own logic their argument falls; a warmer Antarctic would mean more snowfall everywhere, and that would mean we should see MORE ice in West Antarctica.
And if heat is shriveling the ice cap, is it reducing the sea ice packs? It just so happens that Antarctic sea ice extent is at an all time high.
Here is a table of sea ice extent in the Antarctic from NASA's Earth Observatory:
September/February (maximum/minimum) in million square kilometers

Sept. Feb.1979-2000 mean 18.7 2.9
1999/2000 19.0 2.8
2000/2001 19.1 3.7
2001/2002 18.4 2.9
2002/2003 18.2 3.9
2003/2004 18.6 3.6
2004/2005 19.1 2.9
2005/2006 19.1 2.7
2006/2007 19.4 2.9
2007/2008 19.3 3.9
2008/2009 18.5 2.9
2009/2010 19.2 3.2
2010/2011 19.2 2.5
2011/2012 18.9 3.5
Please note that sea ice extent is up through the 2000-2012 period. Only the 2001-04 period saw any reduction in the spring thaw and 2004 and 2010 saw a reduction in the fall freeze-up numbers.​

Interesting; if Global Warming is real we should have seen less sea ice on an ever declining scale.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/another_global_warming_drive-by.html#ixzz2EUbEedwf

 

[blindsage]

I'm glad you take one article over 90+ percent of ALL scientists. Confirmation bias Part 341.

 

[elder999]

View attachment $th.jpg

 

[elder999]

Say that again...

 

[shesulsa]

Women's breasts keep them from playing golf well, too. Also, their vaginas interfere with proper thinking.

If we all lie to ourselves, then the lie become the truth and we won't have to deal with rising tides, reduced fresh water stores, less oxygen to breathe and toxic chemicals to ingest. Because that's shoddy science, right there, boy.

*barf*

 

[elder999]

Women's breasts keep them from playing golf well, too. Also, their vaginas interfere with proper thinking.

Not so much their vaginas as the uterus-it 's kind of a second brain that shuts everything down in the case of that "legitimate rape," dontcha know? :lfao:

 

[shesulsa]

Not so much their vaginas as the uterus-it 's kind of a second brain that shuts everything down in the case of that "legitimate rape," dontcha know? :lfao:

I'm sure there are a lot of women whose "bodies" just shut that whole thing down. Lots of "miscarriages" out there coming to the veiled relief of women all over the US.

So is illegitimate rape what you get when overpowered by a bastard son of a GOP senator?

 

[elder999]

So is illegitimate rape what you get when overpowered by a bastard son of a GOP senator?

Maybe-on the other hand, when one is overpowered by the legitimate son of a Kennedy, it's a seduction......

 

[granfire]

LOL, melting ice caps to intelligent uteri.....

What a short and strange trip this thread has been....

 

[shesulsa]

LOL, melting ice caps to intelligent uteri.....

What a short and strange trip this thread has been....

Crazy train....

 

[billc]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/the_american_geophysical_union_and_climate_hysteria.html

The "imminent catastrophe" school of global warming is in a lot of trouble. If you go back to the year 2000, things didn't look nearly as bad as they do now. The atmosphere had been warming for 30 years, as had the oceans. At least that's what the well-massaged official data said. Then everything started to fall apart. Global warming seemed to stop after 1998 and hasn't reappeared up to now. More seriously, the oceans, in the upper 700 meters stopped warming around 2003 and are still not warming. The atmosphere not warming is serious, but typically a lack of warming in the atmosphere is explained by saying that the heat is being absorbed by the ocean. But if the ocean isn't warming either, then what you have is a big headache for the promoters of global warming. (Some scientists are trying to find missing heat below 700 meters, a dubious proposition.) The imminent catastrophe school finessed the bad news. They not so subtly cooled talk of global warming and started to blame every bad weather event on climate change. This works well because our memories fade with time, so the most recent bad weather is most vivid and it is easy to make people think that the weather is getting worse. It isn't. The scientific backing for turning global warming theory into extreme weather is nil.

The AGU climate statement committee is about evenly divided between aggressive promoters of climate catastrophe and more prudent scientists who would probably rather be someplace else if it weren't for the honor of being selected for the committee. There is one token dissenter, actually described as a dissenter in the announcement of the committee formation: Roger Pielke, Sr., not to be confused with his son, who has the same name and is also involved in climate controversies. Pielke is a very distinguished climate scientist who has waged a lonely war against climate extremism while still maintaining a congenial persona, at least compared to some of the angrier dissenting scientists.

The most aggressive of the fundamentalist global warmers is probably Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt works in the aforementioned James Hansen's laboratory and has been described as "Hansen's attack dog." Schmidt runs the blog realclimate.org, known for its snide and superior attitude toward anyone who questions the climate catastrophe. Another fundamentalist is Ben Santer, a scientist at the Energy Department's Livermore, California lab. Santer is famous for saying in an email that he wanted to beat the crap out of the skeptical scientist Patrick Michaels. Santer has carried on a long debate with skeptical scientists concerning the technical subject of warming amplification. Santer adopted the tactic of outvoting the skeptics by writing papers with as many as 24 co-authors. Recently some scientists topped Santer by recruiting 47 co-authors for a paper that claims Greenland is melting even faster than previously thought. Now Greenland might melt in only 13,000 years if the recent 5-year trend continues. Recruiting a mob of co-authors is not scientific evidence, but evidence of groupthink.

​

​

 

[WC_lun]

LOL, melting ice caps to intelligent uteri.....

What a short and strange trip this thread has been....

Eh, there is a common link of the denial of science.

 

[pgsmith]

Interactive Artic Sea Ice Graph

Right as always Bill, not so much ...

 

[billc]

If ice is seen as disappearing in one spot it is assumed to be disappearing in spots that the satellites aren't getting a good look at. So models have to be used to make that extrapolation. It's part of why the National Snow and Ice Data Center accidentally "lost" Arctic ice -- about 193,000 square miles of it -- when they changed methods a few years back.

..........

But if that is so why is it not happening in West Antarctica as well? The entire Antarctic continent is surrounded by seas and the circumpolar current keeps the cold water swirling around it. By their own logic their argument falls; a warmer Antarctic would mean more snowfall everywhere, and that would mean we should see MORE ice in West Antarctica.
And if heat is shriveling the ice cap, is it reducing the sea ice packs? It just so happens that Antarctic sea ice extent is at an all time high.

Also...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/...4-antarctic-sea-ice-near-record-high-of-2007/

 

[arnisador]

Interactive Artic Sea Ice Graph

Right as always Bill, not so much ...

"She blinded me with science..."

 

[blindsage]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/the_american_geophysical_union_and_climate_hysteria.html



[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Oooo, oooo, oooo, a PERFECT example of confirmation bias, thanks so much bill. Looking for the one scientist to support the conclusion that you've already come to is the very defintion of confirmation bias. Well done!

 

[blindsage]

..........



Also...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/...4-antarctic-sea-ice-near-record-high-of-2007/

And now for some actual explanation of real science.
http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2918-antarctic-sea-ice-global-warming.html

... if anyone had asked an actual scientist, they would have learned that a good year for sea ice in the Antarctic in no way nullifies the precipitous drop in Arctic sea-ice levels year after year — or the mounds of other evidence indicating global warming is really happening.

Projections made from climate models all predict that global warming should impact Arctic sea ice first and most intensely, Serreze said. "We have known for many years that as the Earth started to warm up, the effects would be seen first in the Arctic and not the Antarctic. The physical geography of the two hemispheres is very different. Largely as a result of that, they behave very differently."

The extent of Arctic sea ice at its summertime low point has dropped 40 percent in the past three decades. The idea that a tiny Antarctic ice expansion makes up for this — that heat is merely shifting from the the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and therefore global warming must not be happening — is "just nonsense," Serreze said.

It's really weird what happens when you actually look at the data, and don't just cherry pick it to support your argument.

 

[elder999]

..........



Also...

:lfao: