Sea Level Rise Will Double Due To Melting Of Antarctica

[johnholmes]

What is it about climate that seems to bring out the worst in some on this forum-those who are pro AGW and anti AGW or simply plain not sure?

Why oh why can we not have a discussion/scientific argument without resorting to the yah boo type of post almost every time differences show up between posters on any topic to do with climate.

How many times has one of the threads associated with climate had to be temporarily closed while people calm down-think about it!

None of us know the answer-all of us are entitled to our view AND RESPECT to posting our view..

[jethro]

I've reached the conclusion it's what people enjoy the most John. It doesn't seem to matter that it upsets others, nor detracts from conversation or indeed that nothing is ever proven or agreed upon.

I've come to view a lot of the climate area as not a lot more than an on-line version of Speakers Corner.

[Cycles]

Here is a copy of the approximate 200 year Lunar Cycle and the ice core temperatures during the past 100 years.

Please note when the low term mean position of strong lunar declinations fall to their lowest point, the first spike in global warming temperatures occur, then the second spike as the lunar cycle begins shifting northward.

[VillagePlank]

What is it about climate that seems to bring out the worst in some on this forum-those who are pro AGW and anti AGW or simply plain not sure?

Why oh why can we not have a discussion/scientific argument without resorting to the yah boo type of post almost every time differences show up between posters on any topic to do with climate.

How many times has one of the threads associated with climate had to be temporarily closed while people calm down-think about it!

None of us know the answer-all of us are entitled to our view AND RESPECT to posting our view..

The problem is, John, as , I suspect you are well aware, that the this sort of analysis has yielded nothing before So, what's new?

Fourier analysis, even with trend removal yields nothing. Whilst sporadic and sparse regression yields something, it has no predictive value. DWO has not demonstrated extra mathematics, and, it appears to me (like it must appear to most people wrt the LI) that this is just an exercise in curve fitting. Whilst, I think that there is something, I think it is tantamount to suggesting that I make my first cup of tea at the moment the sun comes up therefore the sun comes up.

I'm all for giving respect; but where would you stop, say, on more extreme points of view. At what point does everyone recognise an extreme point of view? At what point do you stop, and accept that it's all cr@p? And I talk about both sides of the equation, here, too.

Is everyone's point of view valid - mine is almost certainly never valid since I change my take on things day by day as and when I learn more. Indeed, that's a good point - a reference to a book some years ago in the light of new knowledge since then - has it been reviewed? Have changes been made? Has the theory made stronger strides?

All unknowns. And that's without the technical statistical stuff.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

You should not give up.

No I shouldn't, but when one has genuinely tried to be reasonable (as I have recently in a post to TWS) in terms of being receptive to other ideas, but then tries to state my view (as I should be able to) that does not, btw, mention extremsists, or tries to force anything on anyone else, but that simply in plain summary states that I need time (personally) to see what happens regarding mainstream scientific opinion and all I get is a repeat of the same twisted stuff about what my supposed underlying motives are plus a version of what I am (apparently) thinking then it really is time to give up.

It is my own fault, I concede, for coming back and keep trying. I keep saying this, but I should know better by now and keep to my own promises!

[VillagePlank]

I've reached the conclusion it's what people enjoy the most John. It doesn't seem to matter that it upsets others, nor detracts from conversation or indeed that nothing is ever proven or agreed upon.

I've come to view a lot of the climate area as not a lot more than an on-line version of Speakers Corner.

You need to recognise, right now, that science is an aggressive, abrasive, nasty pursuit that pits the greatest minds of all against each other. Any history of science will show you that, at any level, in any discipline. That is the core of the scientific method - assured argument whether right nor wrong. try getting a PhD without the 'oral' examination.

The meter of the moment, is when people still talk to each other at the end of it.

That's just got me a ban hasn't it?

No I shouldn't, but when one has genuinely tried to be reasonable (as I have recently in a post to TWS) in terms of being receptive to other ideas, but then tries to state my view (as I should be able to) that does not, btw, mention extremsists, or tries to force anything on anyone else, but that simply in plain summary states that I need time (personally) to see what happens regarding mainstream scientific opinion and all I get is a repeat of the same twisted stuff about what my supposed underlying motives are plus a version of what I am (apparently) thinking then it really is time to give up.

It is my own fault, I concede, for coming back and keep trying. I keep saying this, but I should know better by now and keep to my own promises!

Well, in my world (which is weird and peculiar) I think everyone has a say - whether right nor wrong.

It think about in these terms. I want people to say wrong things so that I can think harder about what is right, and I want people to say right things so that I can learn something new.

Of course, discerning right and wrong is the trick - and I can't tell whether you are right nor wrong.

But, I think, I gain something either way - which, I think is kind of the point. Next time I'm in Hastings, I'll drop you a line and wine's on me.

Edited March 3, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

You need to recognise, right now, that science is an aggressive, abrasive, nasty pursuit that pits the greatest minds of all against each other. Any history of science will show you that, at any level, in any discipline. That is the core of the scientific method - assured argument whether right nor wrong. try getting a PhD without the 'oral' examination.

The meter of the moment, is when people still talk to each other at the end of it.

That's just got me a ban hasn't it?

Well, in my world (which is weird and peculiar) I think everyone has a say - whether right nor wrong.

It think about in these terms. I want people to say wrong things so that I can think harder about what is right, and I want people to say right things so that I can learn something new.

Of course, discerning right and wrong is the trick - and I can't tell whether you are right nor wrong.

But, I think, I gain something either way - which, I think is kind of the point. Next time I'm in Hastings, I'll drop you a line and wine's on me.

I will clink your glass in return anyway for what you say here It is the way people go about saying things that inhibits the processes of which you speak in terms of learning. But you are very correct in what you say

[Cycles]

Getting back to the purpose of this forum "Sea Level Rise Will Double Due to Melting of Antarctica"

I noticed the very first post indicated the study was up to the year 2008.

Queston...has the melting slowed or even began ice restoration in the Antarctic since 2008? And the same for the Arctic?

Regards

David

[johnholmes]

Very true David-most of the last two pages has nothing directly to do with the title of the thread.

[Thundery wintry showers]

We need respect for each others' views, but just as importantly, we need it to apply evenly across the board- the "rules" should be the same for everyone, irrespective of what views they are holding. By this I mean that a given way of posting/arguing should either be acceptable, or unacceptable, regardless of whether it is arguing from a pro or anti-AGW standpoint or somewhere in between. Instead, what I see far too much of in these debates is ways of posting/arguing being deemed acceptable by many of the "sceptics" if arguing against AGW, and unacceptable otherwise.

But we have to remember that entitlement to a view doesn't make it right- to provide a compelling case for its correctness needs some substantiative evidence. If one doesn't want to have one's views challenged in that way, then that's a personal choice, but then don't be surprised if most people find said views unconvincing as a result. In addition, "respect" is self-limiting- does this include the need to respect the disrespectful, and if so how far? For example I don't think mis-representing other people's views, or claiming that people haven't addressed particular points when they have, is particularly respectful.

Some insightful points by VillagePlank above btw, and plenty of truth in them.

Getting back to the purpose of this forum "Sea Level Rise Will Double Due to Melting of Antarctica"

I noticed the very first post indicated the study was up to the year 2008.

Queston...has the melting slowed or even began ice restoration in the Antarctic since 2008? And the same for the Arctic?

Regards

David

The Antarctic ice sheet appears to be slowly expanding with time, while the Arctic ice is shrinking rapidly overall but has shown a slight recovery since the very exceptional low of 2007. Overall I have my doubts about claims that the Antarctic ice sheet will melt significantly over the coming decade, mainly because the Antarctic is so much colder than the Arctic that it would take a phenomenal amount of global warming to have much of an impact on that ice sheet. The original article uses terms like "will" a lot when perhaps "is indicated if current trends continue" and "will happen if the survey's findings approximate truth" would be more appropriate.

The melting in the West Antarctica area is a concern but if the overall ice sheet is expanding then surely it won't be having that big an impact?

[Gray-Wolf]

We appear to still be loosing ice in the arctic and ,if Dr Barbers expedition is to be believed, we have underestimated the damage done to the 'old perennial' over the past 2 years (no modest recovery just a continued, though masked, collapse).

We are told that Antarctica has had a cold summer so I imagine things are pretty much unchanged there (apart from the Mertz glacier snout which B9b took off in a collision in early Feb).

The work on the air temps at height above Antarctica would seem to suggest that 'change' there is occuring faster than anywhere (including the Arctic) on the planet. Let's hope it stays aloft eh?

[sunny starry skies]

We appear to still be loosing ice in the arctic and ,if Dr Barbers expedition is to be believed, we have underestimated the damage done to the 'old perennial' over the past 2 years (no modest recovery just a continued, though masked, collapse).

We are told that Antarctica has had a cold summer so I imagine things are pretty much unchanged there (apart from the Mertz glacier snout which B9b took off in a collision in early Feb).

The work on the air temps at height above Antarctica would seem to suggest that 'change' there is occuring faster than anywhere (including the Arctic) on the planet. Let's hope it stays aloft eh?

I think B9b just lost it's no-claims bonus....

Well said VP - science is a hard, abrasive place, but the way to succeed with your argument is to use sound logic and come up with evidence. I don't always agree with VP, but at least he's clear and logical about what he says and why. GWO (Dilley) have provided none of this, and shown no knowledge of palaeoclimate. I'm not surprised he's not managed to get it published in anywhere scientific, if his book contains the level of understanding shown here and elsewhere, as I've posted.

Here's the latest example of poor science from Dilley:

"Numerical data fitting climate cycle curves...my, sure sounds and looks like proof [1]. AGW people cannot fit CO2 data to show CO2 is the cause of warming [2]. Actually it is the reverse, temperatures rise first and then CO2 through natural processes [3]. It is well documented that Milankovich Cycles have a great influence on climate cycles [4]. The lunar cycles are a part of these cycles, so are you ignoring known science?[5]"

1: As VP said, curve fitting does not equal causality. I've seen someone connect global temperature with US presidents...

2: Actually they can, but clearly you have not read the relevant parts of AR4. Oddly enough, it's not a simple linear regression excersie.

3: One of the oldest, and longest-refuted, skeptic claims. If you still hold to this you are truly deluded. Orbitally-forced temperature drove the release of CO2 by warming oceans up until recently, since the industrial period we've released CO2 all by ourselves. CO2, the greenhouse gas, does the rest. Regardless of the particular science here, do you not believe that there is more than one way to skin a cat (or drive a temperature change, or a CO2 release)?

4: The only bit you have right so far.

5: Milankovitch cycles (tilt, precession and eccentricity) do not include the Moon, with the one exception that precession is partially caused by the Moon. So VP was not ignoring the 'known science'.

So in the space of three lines, you managed to get four things fundamentally wrong. I suppose you deserve a credit for that. Otherwise it's an 'F' from me. I'm not in the business of handing out 'abuse' as some would call it, but I will call you out when you make incorrect or unsubstantiated assertions.

Back to something sensible...

While the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is very stable, the serious issue is on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is grounded below sea level, and has steadily retreating grounding lines. High air temperatures may not be required to melt it, as warm ocean water can do the job very effectively from beneath. Additionally, there are observations of accelerations of glaciers draining the WAIS and Greenland. The crucial point is that during the last interglacial, when air temperatures were ~2C higher than at present, sea level was ~6m higher. Where did all that water come from? A reasonable guess is the WAIS, Greenland or both.

sss

[Paul]

Not got time to go through this thread right now, so will lock it fora bit and come back later to sort it out...

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks to Paul for re-opening this thread in time for the Cryosat2 data to be included.

GRACE did not have a small enough resolution to cover many areas of interest on both East and West Antarctica but Cryosat2 will cover it all.

As SSS said, before we had our halt, the last time we had temps 2c above the recent average temps we had sea levels 6m above present and I believe most of that will come from W.A.I.S.

The new data will go some way to showing even the most severe sceptic that this is entirely possible and over a very short span of time.

Let's try and be polite even if we find ourselves 180 degrees opposed eh?

EDIT: I'd also like to remind folk that this is a discussion about the Southern continent and as such it would probably be useful if we were all conversant with the old 'CFC problem' we have had ,the creation of an ozone hole over the South pole each spring and the impacts this has upon the climate there.

(If we don't think this is an issue worth 'noting' maybe we'd better syphon this off into another thread? ).

In short ,though we may rely upon past occurrences of 'warming', and Antarctic responses, to shape our view on 'what next' we might then want to place that into a modern scenario with the addition of the ozones impacts on the southern stratosphere/troposphere?

In some ways it's a strange happenstance that whilst we 'all' agree (another thread if you don't) it was a Homo Sapien, Sapien's blunder that has allowed the Ozone issue over the Poles to some any other greater release of 'gas of influence', into the atmosphere ,over a longer period, is dismissed almost out of hand.

Ozone has placed the area of Antarctica, within the circumpolar winds/current, in a position of 'splendid isolation' where , apart from the peninsula, the heat hasn't yet reached. Recent studies have shown that the upper trop. above Antarctica is warming faster than anywhere on the planet. Seals in bathing caps are showing warm water ingress is now beyond the circumpolar current (Wilkin's Shelf Collapse???). How long before the defence is overwhelmed by the planets warmth? (well before the healing of the Ozone hole I believe) And then what?

What is the difference between a slow warm up (like the north pole has had over the past 80yrs) and an instant warm up??? Sudden warm waters lapping a shelf as opposed to slowly warming waters lapping a shelf?

Wilkins gave me my answer and a very different one to the collaspe of the shelfs 'oop North' on Ellesemere island this past 2 years.

I'd say if you suddenly introduce the heat you get catostrophic collapse, slow warmth you get a 'drip, drip ,drip ' kind of a collapse (though it seems some of you still missed it????).

Data we will now share from Cryosat2 will show us how fast we are loosing mass in Antarctica, this should tell us if we need worry or not.

Edited April 11, 2010 by Gray-Wolf