Antarctic Ice Discussion

[knocker]

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

Which journals are you referring too? I assume scientific.

[jethro]

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.

Is it not enough that we have endless names and tags flying back and forth in this debate as a means of muddying the water already? Do you really have to make up another silly insult to throw around? Faux sceptic????????? The point to this stupid moniker would be????

[4wd]

http://drtimball.com/2012/calling-people-global-warming-skeptics-or-climate-change-deniers-merely-reveals-the-attackers-ignorance/

[Devonian]

Is it not enough that we have endless names and tags flying back and forth in this debate as a means of muddying the water already? Do you really have to make up another silly insult to throw around? Faux sceptic????????? The point to this stupid moniker would be????

I notice the repeated calling of climate science as 'cobblers' by a certain poster here.

I think both that and 'faux sceptics' unhelpful.

[BornFromTheVoid]

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.

I disagree. When it comes to climate change, or in this case a particular single study, the opinion of a biased, unqualified, politically motivated oil industry representative is nothing compared to a trained and educated climate scientist. Especially when oil frontman has demonstrated bias before even beginning their argument.

But you don't need to have a PhD to argue with someone that does, or to point out faults in their work, just at the very minimum a modicum of honest scepticism and a willingness to actually read the stuff before judging!

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.

When does this happen here? And when are these sources used for primary scientific data? The sceptics here use, almost entirely, sources from paid up and horrendously biased oil industry groups for everything.

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

Why does a line need to be drawn here? Where is the problem? The oil industry buys off a lot of legislators, works with well funded lobbying groups and politicians mostly think as far ahead as the next election and only react to immediate dangers, we see it all the time. As for research, it's a part of geology. Specialisation in hydrocarbon exploration usually doesn't appear until masters level, which is generally for courses aimed at specific careers and are designed by the lecturers themselves. Then the actual peer reviewed work is very often funded by the oil companies.

Funding for climate change studies comes from different funding groups, which are given money for different kinds of scientific studies. They are generally made up of more scientifically literate folk and so fund what is deemed important.

You really think a borehole is damaging a wide area of ice? You think that's the kind of thing that needs to stop and not the oil industry paying to deliberately cast doubt on climate change science, manipulate the public and attack scientists?

[BornFromTheVoid]

http://drtimball.com...kers-ignorance/

Wow, another source from a right wing, heartland affiliate, oil industry representative who even denied that CFCs did damage!

All the whining about faux sceptics (which Grey Wolf has used numerous times before, it's nothing new!) is really pointless. It's simply separating the genuine sceptics from those who pretend to be.

[Polar Maritime]

Excellent post's as per usual BFTV, the wealth of knowledge that keeps this part of the forum going.

[4wd]

the opinion of a biased, unqualified, politically motivated oil industry representative is nothing compared to a trained and educated climate scientist.

I suppose labeling any adverse comments as somehow unworthy - because they are from a source you don't approve of - does neatly sidestep the problem of defending the indefensible.

The fact remains that recent study is remarkably weak and the average person looking at how they put it together with invented data would reasonably think that any bias seems to be in the research.

To shout about how anyone pointing this out must be a faux sceptic/denier/whatever seems like 'look a squirrel' tactics.

Notice where all the silly name calling comes from.

1) The data from that site is so fragmented and possibly contaminated that Steig himself previously saw no trend or thought it best disregarded.

2) The site has hardly recorded any data for the last decade.

3) Using the study's own invented data actually shows cooling rather than warming since 1990 - more than 20 years.

4) Other site in Antarctica almost universally show little change or slight coolin

5) Using invented data from a single site with technical problems to extrapolate across an area the size of Western Europe - is that reasonable?

6) BBC, NYT and others portray this as major new evidence of warming and run stories about huge sea level rises.

Imaging if WUWT or whoever had jumped on some study reconstructing data and it showed cooling.

Oh and if this continues for 2 centuries there will be a new ice age.

There would be howls of derision if it were mentioned here - and rightly so.

[BornFromTheVoid]

the opinion of a biased, unqualified, politically motivated oil industry representative is nothing compared to a trained and educated climate scientist.

I suppose labeling any adverse comments as somehow unworthy - because they are from a source you don't approve of - does neatly sidestep the problem of defending the indefensible.

Adverse comments are fine. But when they haven't even read the paper, their opinion is pointless at best, but more likely just political spin.

The fact remains that recent study is remarkably weak and the average person looking at how they put it together with invented data would reasonably think that any bias seems to be in the research.

To shout about how anyone pointing this out must be a faux sceptic/denier/whatever seems like 'look a squirrel' tactics.

Notice where all the silly name calling comes from.

1) The data from that site is so fragmented and possibly contaminated that Steig himself previously saw no trend or thought it best disregarded.

2) The site has hardly recorded any data for the last decade.

3) Using the study's own invented data actually shows cooling rather than warming since 1990 - more than 20 years.

4) Other site in Antarctica almost universally show little change or slight coolin

5) Using invented data from a single site with technical problems to extrapolate across an area the size of Western Europe - is that reasonable?

6) BBC, NYT and others portray this as major new evidence of warming and run stories about huge sea level rises.

Imaging if WUWT or whoever had jumped on some study reconstructing data and it showed cooling.

Oh and if this continues for 2 centuries there will be a new ice age.

There would be howls of derision if it were mentioned here - and rightly so.

The problem here is that the opinions of the paper being weak are coming from folk who haven't bothered to read, who aren't providing any kind of constructive criticism and doing little more than attacking the results. It's the same for any paper that doesn't fit the right wing pro industry narrative. The fact that they are part of the usual oil funded climate denial groups (climate depot, WUWT, other Heartland affiliates, etc.) is to be expected though.

By all means, pick apart the study, point out the errors in the methodology, the limitations of their models, and more. But read the study first and if you've found some genuine problems, make your own paper, submit it for peer review and get your recognition. That's the way science works.

Of course if your only interest is creating emotive blog posts to manipulate your followers, then of course the usual groups will keep doing what they're doing.

[BornFromTheVoid]

It's interesting to note the seemingly deepening cold anomalies around Antarctica.

Last 180 Days

90 Days

30 Days

7 Days

The SAM or AAO has gone strongly negative in recent months, which may explain some of the cold?

[knocker]

Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice-shelf history

Rapid warming over the past 50 years on the Antarctic Peninsula is associated with the collapse of a number of ice shelves and accelerating glacier mass loss^{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}. In contrast, warming has been comparatively modest over West Antarctica and significant changes have not been observed over most of East Antarctica^{8, 9}, suggesting that the ice-core palaeoclimate records available from these areas may not be representative of the climate history of the Antarctic Peninsula. Here we show that the Antarctic Peninsula experienced an early-Holocene warm period followed by stable temperatures, from about 9,200 to 2,500 years ago, that were similar to modern-day levels. Our temperature estimates are based on an ice-core record of deuterium variations from James Ross Island, off the northeastern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. We find that the late-Holocene development of ice shelves near James Ross Island was coincident with pronounced cooling from 2,500 to 600 years ago. This cooling was part of a millennial-scale climate excursion with opposing anomalies on the eastern and western sides of the Antarctic Peninsula. Although warming of the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula began around 600 years ago, the high rate of warming over the past century is unusual (but not unprecedented) in the context of natural climate variability over the past two millennia. The connection shown here between past temperature and ice-shelf stability suggests that warming for several centuries rendered ice shelves on the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula vulnerable to collapse. Continued warming to temperatures that now exceed the stable conditions of most of the Holocene epoch is likely to cause ice-shelf instability to encroach farther southward along the Antarctic Peninsula.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11391.html

ftp://ftp.nerc-bas.ac.uk/pub/photo/PR-2012-09-Mulvaney/documents/nature11391_proof1.pdf

[pottyprof]

I disagree. When it comes to climate change, or in this case a particular single study, the opinion of a biased, unqualified, politically motivated oil industry representative is nothing compared to a trained and educated climate scientist. Especially when oil frontman has demonstrated bias before even beginning their argument.

But you don't need to have a PhD to argue with someone that does, or to point out faults in their work, just at the very minimum a modicum of honest scepticism and a willingness to actually read the stuff before judging!

As I said, we all need to read what is said before commenting. That applies to all sides of the debate. The same applies to judging. I can't understand why people judge before reading and trying to understand the context and information contained within these comments. It really does apply to all sides of this whole debate.

When does this happen here? And when are these sources used for primary scientific data? The sceptics here use, almost entirely, sources from paid up and horrendously biased oil industry groups for everything.

Just by including environmentalist groups in the debate politics become involved. There are scientists involved with some of these groups as there are scientists involved with the nasty 'orrible old oil industry. There has to be truth from all of these scientists otherwise they wouldn't be involved where they are. All are involved with a theory that may or may not be correct. The sceptics here provide evidence as they deem fit for purpose, as do the opposite side of the coin. Just because you don't like what is being said doesn't mean it isn't valid as an argument.

If you don't like it, you don't have to read it or comment on it.

Why does a line need to be drawn here? Where is the problem? The oil industry buys off a lot of legislators, works with well funded lobbying groups and politicians mostly think as far ahead as the next election and only react to immediate dangers, we see it all the time. As for research, it's a part of geology. Specialisation in hydrocarbon exploration usually doesn't appear until masters level, which is generally for courses aimed at specific careers and are designed by the lecturers themselves. Then the actual peer reviewed work is very often funded by the oil companies.

Funding for climate change studies comes from different funding groups, which are given money for different kinds of scientific studies. They are generally made up of more scientifically literate folk and so fund what is deemed important.

I agree with you on this bit. The line is hazy. You said it in more words than I did but it'll do. First funded one way then the other. I'm not criticising any scientists here, I'd go where the money is too. It pays bills. I just can't get my head around someone wanting to join the oil industry if the position the oil companies hold is wrong. The lure of money isn't that strong if your principles are what matter.

You really think a borehole is damaging a wide area of ice? You think that's the kind of thing that needs to stop and not the oil industry paying to deliberately cast doubt on climate change science, manipulate the public and attack scientists?

Cracks in the ice. The water pushed sideways instead of down but they are going to have another go. It won't be long before it's up and running elsewhere and they bore for minerals in the guise of scientific research. Article 7 of the Antarctic Treaty System states that "Any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific research, shall be prohibited." So yes I am saying that this bore hole is going to damage a wide area of ice. Article 25(5) states that the Article 7 ban on mining may not be repealed unless a future treaty establishes a binding regulatory framework for such activity. If something is found then I'm sure they'll sit down and talk.

Edited December 29, 2012 by pottyprof

[laserguy]

Just by including environmentalist groups in the debate politics become involved. There are scientists involved with some of these groups as there are scientists involved with the nasty 'orrible old oil industry. There has to be truth from all of these scientists otherwise they wouldn't be involved where they are. All are involved with a theory that may or may not be correct. The sceptics here provide evidence as they deem fit for purpose, as do the opposite side of the coin. Just because you don't like what is being said doesn't mean it isn't valid as an argument.

AGW is nothing more than an industry and all the horror stories and daft predictions are its advertising vehicle. 'Course the hydrocarbon industry is in decline and they are out to protect their interests while they can - that's understandable and applies as much to any industry in decline for whatever reason. Using climate change as the hammer to batter it into submission and hasten its demise in order to benefit the move to sustainability is laughable and and so transparent. Me,as a 'denier' can see which way the wind is blowing for the oil industry and y'know what, I couldn't care less. But I do find all this CO2-inspired climate change cobblers to unnecessarily further the 'other side's' cause derogatory, offensive and an insult to the commonsense I was born with.

[knocker]

Are we born with common sense? According to Einstein "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen". Now that's more like it.

[pottyprof]

'Course the hydrocarbon industry is in decline and they are out to protect their interests while they can - that's understandable and applies as much to any industry in decline for whatever reason. Using climate change as the hammer to batter it into submission and hasten its demise in order to benefit the move to sustainability is laughable and and so transparent.

I agree LG. There seems to be a bit of backing off though from various governments, including ours, now we've got more time with the shale gas reserves. I wonder how much is below Antarctica?

[keithlucky]

NASA-GLISS shows cooling since 1991

Edited December 29, 2012 by keithlucky

[pottyprof]

You have to admit that it still shows warming on the average though Keith. We need to keep our eyes on the average. Cherry picking a period through something when data is missing isn't the best approach.

[knocker]

Regarding the Antarctic borehole.

In the early hours of Christmas Day (Tuesday 25 December 2012) Professor Martin Siegert, Principal Investigator of the Subglacial Lake Ellsworth experiment, confirmed that the mission to drill into the lake has been called off for this Antarctic season. Drilling was proceeding well during the weekend after a replacement part was fitted to the boiler used to heat water for drilling.

Drilling stopped after the team was unable to form properly the water-filled cavity 300 metres beneath the ice. This cavity was to link the main borehole with a secondary borehole used to recirculate drilling water back to the surface.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=2014

[pottyprof]

Funny how the story changes slightly with the passage of time.

During this process, hot water seeped into the porous surface layers of ice and was lost.

How deep do surface layers go? They'll ruin the lake if they ever get there then it will be OoooPs. Then they'll have the cheek to tell us how we're ruining the environment.

[knocker]

Well BAS did have the cheek to tell us we were destroying the ozone layer. The swines. At least I assume when you say they you mean the BAS.

[Gray-Wolf]

As a point of order. What are we to call the folk who masquerade as true 'scepticss' to try and gain some credence when deliberately filibustering, falsifying and twisting data to try and bring about confusion?

These folk are aware of what they do and no doubt have an agenda and policy on how best to complete their task.

We are all 'sceptic' in that we do not trough out on every paper we come across but use our own knowledge and questioning to see if we find papers acceptable and the data interpreted in a clear way.

Faux Sceptics is not 'name calling' but the name of a body of people bent on disinformation for self aggrandizement or pay....in time this body of disinformation will be fully revealed for what it truly is and might even have apportioned the costs (in both lives and money) that such dalliance brought us?

Edited December 29, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

As a point of order. What are we to call the folk who masquerade as true 'scepticss' to try and gain some credence when deliberately filibustering, falsifying and twisting data to try and bring about confusion?

These folk are aware of what they do and no doubt have an agenda and policy on how best to complete their task.

We are all 'sceptic' in that we do not trough out on every paper we come across but use our own knowledge and questioning to see if we find papers acceptable and the data interpreted in a clear way.

Faux Sceptics is not 'name calling' but the name of a body of people bent on disinformation for self aggrandizement or pay....in time this body of disinformation will be fully revealed for what it truly is and might even have apportioned the costs (in both lives and money) that such dalliance brought us?

How about this for an idea.....

Remove all need to label anyone. Consider what everyone says with an open mind. Accept that everyone has a right to make up their own mind, regardless of whether or not you agree with them. Consider that ordinary folk with an interest in this topic have absolutely no agenda to push. Read and digest what other people think without interpreting it as a dirty plot, out to destroy the planet. Above all, approach posts from others with humility. We all share this planet, no good has ever come from alienating people or placing people in groups to wage war against each other.

Divide and rule is an overrated idea usually employed by those who doubt their own authority; if all that is said about the theory of AGW proves to be correct, what does it matter that some didn't support the idea? The science will stand on it's own merit, it won't need support from any individual.

[knocker]

. Read and digest what other people think without interpreting it as a dirty plot, out to destroy the planet. Above all, approach posts from others with humility. We all share this planet, no good has ever come from alienating people or placing people in groups to wage war against each other.

I'm not sure why you are picking on GW for this comment. I can think of a few better examples. And most of them don;t supply many cogent arguments.

[jethro]

I'm not sure why you are picking on GW for this comment. I can think of a few better examples. And most of them don;t supply many cogent arguments.

If I may say so, this is a clear example of what I mean.....It is possible to have a conversation with someone without it being picking on them. GW used the term faux sceptic, I questioned the use, he responded, I responded to him - that's a conversation. Ian and I have been conversing on this topic for over 6 years now, we rarely agree on the subject matter but we're both able to disagree in an adult way without taking it personally. We've never fallen out, we've never taken umbrage and I'm pretty sure that state will continue with neither of us needing anyone else to take umbrage on our behalf.

[pottyprof]

Well BAS did have the cheek to tell us we were destroying the ozone layer. The swines. At least I assume when you say they you mean the BAS.

Which we have since found out has a natural cycle thrown into the mix but we all did the right thing and supported corporates making a killing out of replacement equipment.

What I am against is a scientific cock-up waiting to happen. Leave the lake be. Why do we need to interfere with it? Isn't this why there are discussions about man's interference with climate, environment and the like? The world will warm enough so we can sit on it's shores apparently.......