Remember me
▼ Content

Antarctic Ice mass changes


Antarctic Ice mass changes02-11-2015 22:14
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

It's gaining ice.

Faster than anywhere else is losing ice.

Can you really measure the sea level to the tenths of mm??? I can't.
02-11-2015 23:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
Tim the plumber wrote:Can you really measure the sea level to the tenths of mm??? I can't. [/color]

You are correct. No one can.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-11-2015 23:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10174)
Tim the plumber wrote:
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

It's gaining ice.

Faster than anywhere else is losing ice.

Can you really measure the sea level to the tenths of mm??? I can't.


No satellite can't even measure it's own position that accurately. I don't see how NASA can claim this either.
03-11-2015 03:23
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Well, I suppose that counts as a legit source haha.
03-11-2015 03:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
Totototo wrote: Well, I suppose that counts as a legit source haha.

The US Federal Agency that studies the ocean is the US Navy, not NASA. I know people need to believe that NASA is the world's science hub and that the CIA is an assassin's guild, but those are just common misconceptions.

Regarding the oceans, if there is a "second place" for oceanic data within the US Federal government, that would be NGA, to whom much of the world looks for "safety of navigation" data.

Remember, if you hear whispers that the CIA is responsible for something, you know that it was probably just George W. Bush who was at fault, right?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-11-2015 10:42
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
If anyone wants an example of an intelligent discussion of the Zwally paper backed up by references to research papers and knowledge of the research being done, read the blog article and the comments here:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/11/antarctic-ice-growing-or-shrinking-nasa.html

Or see what a bunch of scientifically illiterate squawking parrots have to say at crank magnet blogs like Watts Up With That

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/31/ooops-new-nasa-study-antarctica-isnt-losing-ice-mass-after-all/



Edited on 03-11-2015 10:48
03-11-2015 13:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
Ceist wrote:
If anyone wants an example of an intelligent discussion of the Zwally paper backed up by references to research papers and knowledge of the research being done, read the blog article and the comments here:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/11/antarctic-ice-growing-or-shrinking-nasa.html


@ Everyone,

... only read the above article if you enjoy wasting your time getting roped into a religious sermon. I'll give you a synopsis right here:

"Ignore all the data showing the Antarctica ice increase. I claim there are people who estimate there actually was an ice decrease. You've got to believe me!"

You have been warned.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-11-2015 14:32
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBAwesome's favorite 'authoritative science' sources (I think they are 2 of only 3 or 4 sources he has ever posted on this forum):


http://www.longrangeweather.com/about-us.htm

Cliff Harris: No qualifications in any field of science and no published research. He apparently calls himself "one of the top climatologists in the world" because he has kept scrap-books of temperatures since he was a child. He is a devout Christian who believes only God can change the climate and that he can predict the climate using the Bible.


http://iceagenow.info/

Robert Felix
A former architect with no qualifications in any relevant field of science and no published research. He believes there is an Ice Age Coming..... any day now. He wrote a self-published book about his crank pseudoscience beliefs and you can buy it from his website

You have been warned




Edited on 03-11-2015 14:50
03-11-2015 14:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
Ceist wrote: Cliff Harris: No qualifications in any field of science

No qualifications are necessary. No one owns science.

Tell me, what qualifications do you insist are necessary for one to make an observation?

Ceist wrote: He is a devout Christian who believes only God can change the climate and that he can predict the climate using the Bible.

Yes, many scientists are religious. Many are fanatical Global Warming worshipers who believe they are prophets of "climate" who receive divine messages by reading "forcings" and "feedback loops."

Those religious guys can be pretty WACKY, right?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-11-2015 18:28
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - in your signature, you currently have posted Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

Well, I've seen you have found yet another way to try and insult and humiliate people, by adding their quotes in your signature in a way that manipulates the quote to say the exact opposite of what the author intended.

You never cease at coming up with new ways of showing that you are not just a troll, but an asshole as well.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
03-11-2015 18:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
trafn wrote: Well, I've seen you have found yet another way to try and insult and humiliate people, by adding their quotes in your signature in a way that manipulates the quote to say the exact opposite of what the author intended.

I am honoring you by citing your words exactly as they were written, completely within context. I'm just quoting you. Consider it as having earned five noteworthy points. You should feel proud.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-11-2015 11:52
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - You continue, in your signature, to post Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

Well, I've seen you have found yet another way to try and insult and humiliate people, by adding their quotes in your signature in a way that manipulates the quote to say the exact opposite of what the author intended.

You never cease at coming up with new ways of showing that you are not just a troll, but an asshole as well.


Well IB certainly quotes your post out of context in a deceitful way in his signature. You were replying to my post:

Ceist wrote:The internet is full of crackpot cranks making all sorts of bizarre evidence-free claims. Does anyone take them seriously? (except other crackpot cranks or people so desperate to find anything at all to 'confirm' their religious/ideological beliefs, that they'll use anything they find on the internet, no matter how ridiculous)

That's why when making claims about science, I think it's preferable to use evidence-based authoritative sources like the major science institutions, current science textbooks, science Journals etc.


I was referring to the fact that IBdaMann stampedes around the internet ranting that climate science is a religion and that climate scientists and anyone else who doesn't accept his crank beliefs are morons and Marxist warmazombies following a religious cult ... blah blah blah. He claims he is only saying what the 'body of science' says, despite never being able to provide any authoritative science sources when challenged (because there aren't any that support his ridiculous pseudoscience nonsense
).

Then, when he finally provides a link, he used Cliff Harris's website as an 'authoritative' source.
And it turned out that Cliff Harris is a devout Christian who believes that only God can change the earth's climate and believes he can predict the climate using the Bible. Harris claims he is one of the "top 10 climatologists in the last few decades" because he has kept some temperature 'scrapbooks' since he was a child.
Like IB, he also has no qualifications or background in any field of science, or any published research, but they both hold the delusional belief they are 'experts'.

IBdaMann: Hoisted with his own 'religious' petard*.


Incredibly funny.

*To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another; to be "blown up by one's own bomb".



Edited on 04-11-2015 12:36
05-11-2015 21:57
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Ceist wrote:
If anyone wants an example of an intelligent discussion of the Zwally paper backed up by references to research papers and knowledge of the research being done, read the blog article and the comments here:


What do you have to say about it?
15-11-2015 05:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
This is from another site but it is appropriate in this thread.

[QUOTE who="Patriot AKA Bozo"]Recently there has been a frenzy in the anti-global warming arena that Antarctica is gaining ice. (Note I didn't day the d----r word) But how solid is this evidence?
[/QUOTE]

It's not "evidence" so much as it is an observation, in both Antarctica and Greenland. Objects that are just left out on the ice invariably get buried under ice, lots of it. If Antarctica and Greenland were losing ice, what happens there would not happen.


http://p38assn.org/glaciergirl/index.htm
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/digging-out-of-the-ice-in-greenland/

http://www.iceagenow.com/Construction_Crane_Buried_in_Ice.htm
http://www.livescience.com/27655-yeti-rover-antarctica.html
15-11-2015 12:34
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
This is from another site but it is appropriate in this thread.

[QUOTE who="Patriot AKA Bozo"]Recently there has been a frenzy in the anti-global warming arena that Antarctica is gaining ice. (Note I didn't day the d----r word) But how solid is this evidence?


It's not "evidence" so much as it is an observation, in both Antarctica and Greenland. Objects that are just left out on the ice invariably get buried under ice, lots of it. If Antarctica and Greenland were losing ice, what happens there would not happen.


This is very much evidence. It might not have a fancy graph attached to it but it is very definately evidence.
Edited on 15-11-2015 12:35
15-11-2015 14:06
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:


This is very much evidence. It might not have a fancy graph attached to it but it is very definately evidence.

Evidence of what? That it snows in Greenland and Antarctica? Has anyone said it doesn't? *puzzled*


So back on topic, here are some useful links to recent studies, including Zwally et al 2015. The time periods, satellite datasets and methods used in these studies are all different:

Zwally, H. Jay, ; Li, Jun; Robbins, John W.; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita C. "Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses". Journal of Glaciology, 2015 DOI: 10.3189/2015JoG15J071 (open access)

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071

*(Zwally et al 2015 discussed the periods 1992 to 2001, based on ERS radar altimetry, and from 2003 to 2008 using ICESat data.) -note that the most recent data was 7 years ago.


Harig, Christopher, and Frederik J. Simons. "Accelerated West Antarctic ice mass loss continues to outpace East Antarctic gains." Earth and Planetary Science Letters 415 (2015): 134-141. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2015.01.029

http://www.princeton.edu/geosciences/people/simons/pdf/EPSL-2015a.pdf

*(Harig et al discuss the period 2003-2014)


McMillan, Malcolm, Andrew Shepherd, Aud Sundal, Kate Briggs, Alan Muir, Andrew Ridout, Anna Hogg, and Duncan Wingham. "Increased ice losses from Antarctica detected by CryoSat‐2." Geophysical Research Letters 41, no. 11 (2014): 3899-3905. DOI: 10.1002/2014GL060111 (open access)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract

*(McMillan et al discuss the period 2010 to 2013)


Shepherd, Andrew, Erik R. Ivins, A. Geruo, Valentina R. Barletta, Mike J. Bentley, Srinivas Bettadpur, Kate H. Briggs et al. "A reconciled estimate of ice-sheet mass balance." Science 338, no. 6111 (2012): 1183-1189. DOI: 10.1126/science.1228102

http://www.ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/erignot/files/science-2012-shepherd-1183-9.pdf

*(Shepherd et al combined data sets of different types: satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry for 1992 to 2011)

Links to the satellite websites:

GRACE
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/

ICESat
http://nsidc.org/data/icesat

CRYOSat http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/Ice_sheet_highs_lows_and_loss

European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, ERS-1 and –2
https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/missions/esa-operational-eo-missions/ers



Or you could go to IBdaMann's 'authoritative' sources like:

Conspiracy blogger 'Steve Goddard' (aka Tony Heller - the guy who faked being a climate scientist on his crank blog for several years before being exposed).

Or iceagenow - a website by an out of work architect with no relevant science background who has some wacky ideas about the history of the earth and thinks an Ice Age is coming.... any day now. You can buy his self-published pseudoscience book from his website.




Edited on 15-11-2015 14:53
15-11-2015 15:20
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Ceist,

You have posted a lot of data sets and stuff.

What do they each say? Why is each important? If you wish to make an argument then do so but just posting such links does nothing.

Edited on 15-11-2015 15:20
15-11-2015 15:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
Ceist wrote:
So back on topic, here are some useful links to recent studies, including Zwally et al 2015. The time periods, satellite datasets and methods used in these studies are all different:


None of what you have posted supports any assertion you have ever made.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-11-2015 15:41
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist,

You have posted a lot of data sets and stuff.

What do they each say? Why is each important? If you wish to make an argument then do so but just posting such links does nothing.


Read them. Or not. I'm not making any argument. Note I mentioned the different time periods and different satellites used in those 4 recent studies.

This is directly relevant recent research re Antarctic ice mass and information re the satellites used (from valid sources) for people who want to be more informed, rather than just making stuff up or repeating crap from conspiracy blogs or tabloid press.

Or do you think science is all about the uninformed evidence-free opinions of laypeople?

For example: Some people are blathering on about Zwally et al 2015 having not even read it, and not even realising the data was over 2 periods of time ending in 2008, (not 2015) or what the study was even measuring, or what other recent research has shown, or what the current data shows from the various satellites using different types of measurements in different areas.

If you want to stay uninformed and give your useless uneducated evidence-free layperson's opinions gleaned from conspiracy blogs or the tabloid press, go right ahead. Other people might like to learn about the science involved.



Edited on 15-11-2015 16:21
15-11-2015 17:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5192)
Ceist wrote: Read them. Or not.

They must be pretty unimportant then.


Ceist wrote: I'm not making any argument.

True. Really all you've posted are ad hominems and bogus links. You are too much of an intellectual coward to engage in any sort of science discussion, which precludes you from making any sort of "argument".


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-11-2015 17:06
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Ceist wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist,

You have posted a lot of data sets and stuff.

What do they each say? Why is each important? If you wish to make an argument then do so but just posting such links does nothing.


Read them. Or not. I'm not making any argument. Note I mentioned the different time periods and different satellites used in those 4 recent studies.

This is directly relevant recent research re Antarctic ice mass and information re the satellites used (from valid sources) for people who want to be more informed, rather than just making stuff up or repeating crap from conspiracy blogs or tabloid press.

Or do you think science is all about the uninformed evidence-free opinions of laypeople?

For example: Some people are blathering on about Zwally et al 2015 having not even read it, and not even realising the data was over 2 periods of time ending in 2008, (not 2015) or what the study was even measuring, or what other recent research has shown, or what the current data shows from the various satellites using different types of measurements in different areas.

If you want to stay uninformed and give your useless uneducated evidence-free layperson's opinions gleaned from conspiracy blogs or the tabloid press, go right ahead. Other people might like to learn about the science involved.


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

This NASA study says that the ice mass of Antarctica is increasing.

Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion of that? Do any of the many links you have posted have anything to contribute? If which and what point do you wish to make?




Join the debate Antarctic Ice mass changes:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
"GREENLANDS melting ice may affect everyone"922-10-2019 23:17
Mass Transit506-10-2019 09:45
Plant Growth and Ice Cores617-09-2019 22:45
Recent Mass Shootings (since 2016)7116-08-2019 16:50
ice melting223-06-2019 19:52
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact