Antarctic Ice Discussion

[Gray-Wolf]

Due to the majority of WAIS projecting beyond the influence of the ozone issues it is no surprise to find it acting like Greenland on steroids! We are told that this area is warming faster than anywhere on the planet and the fact that it has nothing but ocean around it should tell us all something about what to expect there?

The loss of shelf and sea ice in that area will not help keep things cool either! (only some areas are gaining winter ice, the important areas appear to be suffering the fate of Barrentsz/Kara whilst one or two sectors are doing a 'Bering'?)

Edited December 25, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[4wd]

The site they have used has hardly recorded any data for the last decade.

There may have been a little warming centred on a strange peak in 1980.

All the sudden whooping at having found 'warming' is based on filling in data at a single site previously considered far too unreliable.

Data from a single unreliable station has been used to colour red an area the size of Western Europe.

Adjacent sites with more complete records show cooling or no change, not warming.

A reasonable assessment might be that the invented data is probably a bit on the high side.

Yet from this we have articles predicting huge sea level rises as Antarctica falls into the sea.

Sorry but it's BS science and farmers can't spot BS better than most it seems.

[Gray-Wolf]

How much does the volume of lost ice shelves (in situ for thousands of years) add up to since 1980? What do the satellites tell us about mass loss over that period? How does this compare to the better monitored Greenland ice sheet?

Recent papers have shown a marked uptick in the ice loss from both ice sheets but one is better witnessed than the other. Can you say you do not accept the mass loss witnessed, and measured from Greenland merely because a similar ,less visible loss is measured across West Antarctica?

And what when East Antarctica begins to pick up it's losses?

[The PIT]

I would suspect faulty data anybody actually gone there and checked things out?

[keithlucky]

How much does the volume of lost ice shelves (in situ for thousands of years) add up to since 1980? What do the satellites tell us about mass loss over that period? How does this compare to the better monitored Greenland ice sheet?

Recent papers have shown a marked uptick in the ice loss from both ice sheets but one is better witnessed than the other. Can you say you do not accept the mass loss witnessed, and measured from Greenland merely because a similar ,less visible loss is measured across West Antarctica?

And what when East Antarctica begins to pick up it's losses?

A apology from the BBC concerning ice loss in west Antarctica

Here’s the retraction and apology from the BBC:

“Our most sincere apologies to all those we may have misled by the article on historical temperatures from the Byrd station in western Antarctica.

Our headlines may have suggested unusual warming in western Antarctica which may have alarmed some readers, when in fact there was little or no warming. It is not the BBC’s task to investigate obvious data manipulation, as occurred here, but to always accept the results of peer reviewed publications at face value.

It is BBC policy to always publish corrections, especially on the sensitive subject of climate change, where we often make mistakes simply because we never read, or understood, the original source material. The BBC is here to inform and not alarm, to educate and not mislead, and as such we have internal directives forbidding the publication and distribution of any and all unfounded news stories designed to alarm the uninformed general public.â€

[knocker]

Ice flowers are formed on new layers of sea ice, from saturated water vapors that come up from under the ice through cracks. In contact with the cold air, the vapors start to freeze and the salt on the surface of the ice begins to crystallize and serves as a nucleus for the frozen vaporized water. Thus, molecule by molecule the ice flowers begin to take shape. They have recently been recognized as the dominant source of sea salt aerosol in Antarctica and scientist suspect they may be the main cause of tropospheric ozone depletion during the polar sunrise. One of the most beautiful frozen wonders on Earth, ice flowers are still a mystery to many people.

http://www.sciencedump.com/sites/www.sciencedump.com/files/frost-1.jpg

[Devonian]

A apology from the BBC concerning ice loss in west Antarctica

Here’s the retraction and apology from the BBC:

“Our most sincere apologies to all those we may have misled by the article on historical temperatures from the Byrd station in western Antarctica.

Our headlines may have suggested unusual warming in western Antarctica which may have alarmed some readers, when in fact there was little or no warming. It is not the BBC’s task to investigate obvious data manipulation, as occurred here, but to always accept the results of peer reviewed publications at face value.

It is BBC policy to always publish corrections, especially on the sensitive subject of climate change, where we often make mistakes simply because we never read, or understood, the original source material. The BBC is here to inform and not alarm, to educate and not mislead, and as such we have internal directives forbidding the publication and distribution of any and all unfounded news stories designed to alarm the uninformed general public.â€

I'm sorry Keith but that is both a useless 'quote' and I'm afraid a misleading one. I do not think your 'quote' is from the BBC - it's not the kind of language they use. But, I cannot check your quote because (for the umpteenth time) you don't provide a link... Edited December 27, 2012 by Devonian

[BornFromTheVoid]

A apology from the BBC concerning ice loss in west Antarctica

Here’s the retraction and apology from the BBC:

“Our most sincere apologies to all those we may have misled by the article on historical temperatures from the Byrd station in western Antarctica.

Our headlines may have suggested unusual warming in western Antarctica which may have alarmed some readers, when in fact there was little or no warming. It is not the BBC’s task to investigate obvious data manipulation, as occurred here, but to always accept the results of peer reviewed publications at face value.

It is BBC policy to always publish corrections, especially on the sensitive subject of climate change, where we often make mistakes simply because we never read, or understood, the original source material. The BBC is here to inform and not alarm, to educate and not mislead, and as such we have internal directives forbidding the publication and distribution of any and all unfounded news stories designed to alarm the uninformed general public.â€

Can I get the source for that please?

EDIT: Should have guessed. It's a sarcastic comment from the highest source, a WUWT guest post...

http://wattsupwithth...comment-1183661

Edited December 27, 2012 by BornFromTheVoid

[Devonian]

Can I get the source for that please?

EDIT: Should have guessed. It's a sarcastic comment from the highest source, a WUWT guess post...

http://wattsupwithth...comment-1183661

Ahh, it's BS. And I know BS when I see it having been a farmer for 35 years and now involved in educating the next generation.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

Can I get the source for that please?

EDIT: Should have guessed. It's a sarcastic comment from the highest source, a WUWT guest post...

http://wattsupwithth...comment-1183661

It's failed the BS Test, at the very first hurdle...What's up with that? Everything's up with that!

[knocker]

It rather amuses me that some of these wags rubbish journals such Nature Geoscience when it's odds on they don't read the articles within. Of course all articles are there to be carefully looked at and come under scientific scrutiny, it's the way science moves forward and the lead author of this paper Dr. Bromwich said as much.

It is by far the longest weather record in that region, but it had intermittent gaps and other problems that had made many researchers wary of it. The Bromwich group decided to try to salvage the Byrd record.

They retrieved one of the sensors and recalibrated it at the University of Wisconsin. They discovered a software error that had introduced mistakes into the record and then used computerized analyses of the atmosphere to fill the gaps.

The reconstruction will most likely undergo intensive scientific scrutiny, which Dr. Bromwich said he would welcome. “We’ve tested everything we could think of,†he said.

Assuming the research holds up, it suggests that the 2009 paper, far from overestimating warming in West Antarctica, had probably underestimated it, especially in summer.

Eric J. Steig, a University of Washington researcher who led the 2009 work, said in an interview that he considered his paper to have been supplanted by the new research. “I think their results are better than ours, and should be adopted as the best estimate,†he said. He noted that the new Byrd record matches a recent temperature reconstruction from a nearby borehole in the ice sheet, adding confidence in the findings.

Of course what he welcomes is intelligent scientific comment not rubbish from a blog with an obvious bias.

http://www.nytimes.c...d=tw-share&_r=0

Edited December 27, 2012 by knocker

[4wd]

That is only a reader's comment intended as a tongue in cheek parody of what the BBC might say.

Why not read the actual article, you might learn something.

For example:

But, almost all of that warming took place before 1988. And Byrd Station has seen no warming (actually a slight cooling) since 1991.

Furthermore, the corrected temperature record of Bromwich et al., 2012 appears to actually depict more cooling since 1991 than the uncorrected data…

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/27/antarctic-warming-courtesy-of-mr-fix-it/

[knocker]

Oh by David Middleton you mean.

Dave Middleton’s Debunk House

My name is Dave Middleton. I have been a geoscientist in the evil oil industry for a bit over 30 years. I have a BS in Earth Science (Geology concentration) from Southern Connecticut State University and I minored in Mathematics.

This Blog is dedicated to my favorite hobby…Debunking the junk science of radical environmentalists…Particularly the junk science of anthropogenic global warming.

http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/about/

I'll stick with Eric J. Steig, his C.V. is more impressive.

[4wd]

What's that got to do with it, he only put their own data in excel or something.

[BornFromTheVoid]

That is only a reader's comment intended as a tongue in cheek parody of what the BBC might say.

Why not read the actual article, you might learn something.

For example:

But, almost all of that warming took place before 1988. And Byrd Station has seen no warming (actually a slight cooling) since 1991.

Furthermore, the corrected temperature record of Bromwich et al., 2012 appears to actually depict more cooling since 1991 than the uncorrected data…

http://wattsupwithth...y-of-mr-fix-it/

You might learn something you say...

When Mr Middleton starts off his post by admitting he hasn't read the paper, his opinion can only be based on his dislike of the results and his political leanings.

"I haven’t purchased access to the paper (nor do I intend to)"

The only thing you can learn from that is ignorance.

[Methuselah]

Ignorance is bliss!

[4wd]

It's perfectly valid to comment on the summaries and media coverage.

Instead of trying to discredit the author - what did you think of the analysis, in particular cooling since 1990 which media spin turns into "scary new warming found"?

[knocker]

So why not read the paper and comment as professor Eric Steig did. I suspect he knows a bit more about it than egotistical bloggers. How on earth can he make an analysis without reading the paper apart from the fact he isn't qualified. It's a blatant political position which many idiots believe.

[pottyprof]

Hahahaha. Just look at this last couple of pages. The battle between good and evil.

It's a blatant political position which many idiots believe.

That goes for both sides knocker. It is politics that has ruined science and the understanding that science brings has become twisted. All idiots believe what they are told. Only the ones who think for themselves question science and find the answers.

[knocker]

Only the ones who think for themselves question science and find the answers.

And you think this goes on in this thread PP?

[pottyprof]

And you think this goes on in this thread PP?

And do you think this..

It's a blatant political position which many idiots believe.

belongs on here?

[The PIT]

and if one remembers the climategate emails one knows how journals can be influenced.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Hahahaha. Just look at this last couple of pages. The battle between good and evil.

That goes for both sides knocker. It is politics that has ruined science and the understanding that science brings has become twisted. All idiots believe what they are told. Only the ones who think for themselves question science and find the answers.

It's more a battle between

• (i) those dismissing a study based on nothing more than the results, simply because it doesn't fit a political ideal.
• (ii) those saying you should read the whole study first and point out where the problems lie

I'm certainly not saying the study is perfect, but surely someone should read it before they dismiss it? But at the very least, if people here are going to use a third person review of the study to base their dismissal, at least get it from a person who actually read the study!

It is politics that too many of the "sceptics" have used to base their scientific views on. It is "sceptics" that attempt to cast doubt on anything that doesn't suit their agenda and claim the science is too politicised.

I must say though, the oil funded, "sceptical", political machine of climate science doubt and dismissal is operating amazingly well! They're so efficient now that they don't even bother to read the studies before they hand out dismissals to their eagerly awaiting followers.

[pottyprof]

It's more a battle between

• (i) those dismissing a study based on nothing more than the results, simply because it doesn't fit a political ideal.
• (ii) those saying you should read the whole study first and point out where the problems lie

I'm certainly not saying the study is perfect, but surely someone should read it before they dismiss it? But at the very least, if people here are going to use a third person review of the study to base their dismissal, at least get it from a person who actually read the study!

I agree, hence "question the science to find answers". We should all do it to a point we get the general idea as to what is being said before commenting I suppose. Just because someone isn't qualified and decorated with Ph D's and the like doesn't make their points less valid though. I should imagine most scientists arrived at their current position through a trial and error process as to what to do with a qualification before committing their lives to what they do. It doesn't always make them right either.

It is politics that too many of the "sceptics" have used to base their scientific views on. It is "sceptics" that attempt to cast doubt on anything that doesn't suit their agenda and claim the science is too politicised.

It's also politics that drives the climate change discussion. It is not just sceptics that use it as a smoke screen. Environmentalist groups use politics all the time and are excellent at providing entertainment for said sceptics with the outrageous claims they make. Let's be clear on this one... Politics are used by all sides.

I must say though, the oil funded, "sceptical", political machine of climate science doubt and dismissal is operating amazingly well! They're so efficient now that they don't even bother to read the studies before they hand out dismissals to their eagerly awaiting followers.

Ask yourself this. Why is it that government funding is provided for research into climate change as well as research into where our gas and oil is going to come from? Some of these groups get funding for both. Can you tell me where the line is drawn? It's looking very hazy from this direction. Right now on Antarctica, a hot water bore has failed. Of course, it is a scientific study to reach an under ice lake but just think of the use for the technology if it eventually works. This is the kind of thing that needs to be stopped. They have damaged a fairly wide area of ice in doing this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-20850360

Edited December 28, 2012 by pottyprof

[Gray-Wolf]

Change is now occurring too fast for the Faux sceptics to deal with. This tactic of 'squirrel watching' begins to appear pretty silly when such changes are occurring all around.

The high seasonal ice this past southern winter has merely let those unaware of the ozone impacts, and how the Antarctic continent works, to come up to speed. I'd guess that the Faux's recognise that Antarctica should be a safe place to look as AGW has been 'locked out' from there for 30yrs but I do not think they could have recognised that this 'splendid isolation' is now over and 'change' has won out.

The deep ocean canyons have allowed the warm southern oceans to undercut the circumpolar current and impact the coast from the peninsula all the way down to the Ross sea. The atmosphere from Weddell to SW Australia has altered allowing from more moisture/warmth into the Antarctic continent and drought into the SW of Australia. Soundings from the centre of Antarctica show us that the upper atmosphere, nearly down to the highest peaks, has now warmed.

We will have our questions, over the speed of warming in west Antarctica, answered over the coming months and we will see more signs of the rapid changes there (PIG and Thwaites) before we reach our melt season up north.

I've always said 'time will reveal all' and I now begin to believe that 'the time' has arrived.