The big melt: Antarctica's retreating ice may re-shape Earth

a reply to: lostbook

When anything is driven by a political agenda (scientists that are paid by governments are political), if they say go left, go right. Always do and think the opposite. If they say it's global warming and the seas will rise 10 feet, presume it's global cooling and we're going into an ice-age and the seas will drop 10 feet (or more).

All political statements and agenda in recent history (within at least the last 50 to 60 years) have shown consistency in one area only; they're all lies.

As far as actual data, has anyone here been to the Antarctic to see the ice melts these "scientists" are talking about? Believe 10% of what you see (as long as you can prove it) and nothing of what you hear (unless you can prove it as well).

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: amazing

Is it the same group of scientist that are responsible for covering up the real origins of humanity? Same people?

No, this is like every scientist on earth. All of them, except the ones with snowballs perhaps. Because weather trumps climate in the US. But what is the real origin of humanity? Inquiring minds want to know.

a reply to: amazing

Can you show me an accurate predictive model where their understanding of our climate has create simulations that have told us where the climate is going over prolonged periods of time with data to support?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: amazing

Can you show me an accurate predictive model where their understanding of our climate has create simulations that have told us where the climate is going over prolonged periods of time with data to support?

But that's the problem with these threads and ATS specifically.

I'm not an expert nor do I have the capacity to research this issue to that extent. I shouldn't have to...the Scientists who are experts at climate change and global warming are telling me this. And not just one or two but thousands of them. That's why I believe them. Why would I have to give you specifics on this issue in that case? I have to believe science. Just like Scientists tell me gravity is real. I can't give you all the data supporting it, everytime I tell you that gravity is real. Nor can I prove it to you, the majority of scientists in the world tell me it's real so I believe them.

Same with evolution, electricity, magnetic fields, astronomy. They also found methane or traces of methane on Mars. I believe them. I can't give you charts and data on it, nor should I have to. Science tells me that.

You're telling me to not believe science. I can't do that.

a reply to: amazing

It's not science without an predictive model that had a certain degree of accuracy.

What that means is they haven't truly identified enough variables to predict the outcome. That's the scientific method.

lostbook:

The big melt: Antarctica's retreating ice may re-shape Earth.

Depending on how much ice is lost, it will do more than reshape the earth. Many dynamic forces are at play every second of every day which affect each other, and ultimately affect the solid earth, the fluid earth, its inner core and mantle, and the atmosphere. Everything about our planet is in constant and daily flux, but of course, we are dealing with things on a gargantuan scale, yet are so interconnected that it takes only a small and slight deviation to cause an affective ripple to spread out and scale the effect upwards.

It looks as though there is a drift of variation from West to East at the Antarctica. That ice seems to be melting faster in the West than what is growing in the East, shows that the Western side is receiving greater heat than the East. An obvious assumption, I know, but it implies a number of things.

However, to cut to my main point, I think one of the factors for this is due to the cyclical variations in the earth's wobble as it rotates in its orbit around the sun. The sun is currently in a solar minimum, and thus is less bright with a reduced irradiance. What this means is that the current heating of the planet is not being driven just by the sun, alone, it is being driven by more earth-bound causes, one of which is man's activities, such as burning fossil fuels. Man really is helping to drive up temperatures globally. We really are contributing to global warming.

If you take all the greenhouse gases that man has put into the atmosphere for the past 300 years, you can understand just how much of a contribution to the rise in global temperatures he has made. Four hundred years ago none of that amount of greenhouse gas existed, and global temperatures fluctuated within their stable parameters, but in the present day, fluctuations are beyond those observed stable parameters. The last few years have shown a contiguous rise in global temperatures, each one warmer than the last.

Of course, considering that there is more Antarctic sea ice than ever, am I to conclude that that these scientists are telling us that the ice sheets are sliding off the continent? Basically, the oceans are freezing, but they are sliding off and leaving the land behind them exposed? Of course, the photo doesn't show a naked continent.

So are they predicting that all this ice which has had an average trend of increasing for the past few years will suddenly have a drastic decrease?

a reply to: ketsuko

Good question.

Also i can deduce that the start of the ice sheet growing again(excuse my lexicon here) would mean that it is the beginning of a new trend right?

Its not whats exactly happening right now that is the focal point but following the trend is right?

a reply to: onequestion

Well the article I posted posits that the growth in Antarctic ice balances the extreme melt in the Artic and is a sign of Global Warming.

This thread posits that the Antarctic ice is melting. It IS!

I've also read studies that posit that one sign of impending glaciation is a see-s aw between ice growth at one pole while there is melting at the other, and the globe bounces back and forth for a while before plunging into a new cycle of glaciation.

I don't see how this could possibly be a balancing. Ice has been lost overall. Antarctic sea ice surface area has increased, because Antarctic shelves have collapsed into the ocean. Don't confuse the surface area from satellite images with total ice volume.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Antarctic ice thicker than previously thought!

Not only is this interesting just because the whole article basically admits they can't measure this well in the first place and hadn't done any real good measurements until about three or four years ago, but it also basically has a quote that admits that the estimates are biased in favor of thinner ice, too.

“It was a lot of hard work and quite crude, which means we were biased towards thinner ice. It was a bit like a doctor diagnosing a condition by prodding the skin.”

Now would anyone care to hazard a guess as to why a bunch of climate scientists might be biased toward thinner ice estimates and what kind of perception that might create?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: amazing

It's not science without an predictive model that had a certain degree of accuracy.

What that means is they haven't truly identified enough variables to predict the outcome. That's the scientific method.

But the serious question is. Wouldn't the scientists know that? Thousands of them? If they don't know that how did they become scientists and if they did know that and aren't acting like real scientists doesn't this mean that thousands perhaps tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of scientists and their support personnel are in on the biggest conspiracy in the history of the Universe? Occam s Razor would tell me that isn't likely. The simplest answer is the most likely. The majority of scientists on earth are correct and we are in the midst of man made global warming.

Yes?

a reply to: ketsuko

Now would anyone care to hazard a guess as to why a bunch of climate scientists might be biased toward thinner ice estimates and what kind of perception that might create?

The bias would be along the lines of "we know it is at least this thick." Of course, they could have just guessed that it was thicker I suppose.

So tell me, how thick did you think Antarctic sea is was? Do you think that this improved data will change the calculations that the mass of Antarctic ice is declining?

Just to remind everybody....
It is/was Summer time in the Antarctica at the moment.
Where they experience 24 hours per day of Sunlight.....
Of course, that would'nt have anything to do with ice melting would it?

In Winter, it is even colder, with 24 hours per day of darkness.

a reply to: Phage

I think it's better to have a closer idea than to just assume based on bias.

The quote shows they were simply expecting the ice to be thinner without really knowing.

You have no issue with that?

a reply to: gort51

Just to remind everybody....

The loss of Antarctic ice mass has been going on for a while now. For at least as long as we've had the capability to measure it.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

a reply to: ketsuko

The quote shows they were simply expecting the ice to be thinner without really knowing.
You have no issue with that?

You don't know what the term "bias" means when it comes to measurement, do you? Because of the limitations of the instrumentation used, the data contained a bias toward thinner rather than thicker.

As I said, they knew the ice was at least a given thickness. I have no issue with that.

fluidsurveys.com...

a reply to: ketsuko

This is a more complete quote snippet:

“The key thing is that this is a game changer because it was previously very challenging to measure ice depth. We were limited to visual observation from the decks of ships or ice cores and take measures.

“It was a lot of hard work and quite crude, which means we were biased towards thinner ice. It was a bit like a doctor diagnosing a condition by prodding the skin.”

I would think this could be interpreted more than one way. First, actual difficulty working in and measuring the deeper ice. Second, pure conservatism that tends to come with the science. The science selects for conservative predictions/assumptions, mostly out of fear of being proven so incorrect. Nobody wants to lose their career for making what appears to be exaggerations.

That's actually what blows my mind. If the IPCC is biased (it is), it's totally towards conservative assessments and recommendations of policies to be implemented. Politics does get in the way. Not as many seem to think here on ATS.

The highest temperature recorded in the Antarctica, was 14.5 deg C ( 58.2F) at both Hope Bay and Vanda Station,
on 5 January 1974.....1974.
Certainly enough to melt ice I believe.
Antarctic sea ice in January 2015, is 44.6 percent greater, than the period from 1977 to 2001 apparently.
So scientists say.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ketsuko

The quote shows they were simply expecting the ice to be thinner without really knowing.
You have no issue with that?

You don't know what the term "bias" means when it comes to measurement, do you? Because of the limitations of the instrumentation used, the data contained a bias toward thinner rather than thicker.

As I said, they knew the ice was at least a given thickness. I have no issue with that.

fluidsurveys.com...

No, I do.

To be sure, I asked my husband who works in biostatistics. He said they use it a lot, but he also said it still shows they made an assumption. That is exactly what the quote said. You can look at data and see where it is trending, but you can also have a bias that goes too far.

They admitted that. Their bias went too far.