• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another Antarctic Sea Level Rise False Alarm

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,341
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Once again the AGW PR machine is far ahead of the science.

Another Antarctic Sea Level Rise False Alarm

Posted on May 22, 2016 | 51 comments
by Rud Istvan
Aitken et. al. in Nature newly comports to confirm 2015 fears about instability of the Totten Glacier in Eastern Antarctica. This could ‘suddenly’ raise sea level as much as 4 meters! (Or, based on the abstract, maybe only 0.9 meters in ‘modern scale configuration’, but over 2 meters [2.9-4] in unspecified other configurations).
Continue reading →

". . . The alarming estimates from this new Nature paper, particularly as represented by the media, are grievously wrong both with respect to the amount of and the rate of sea level rise that might be associated with melting of the EIAS Totten glacier.

There is unjustified author spin in the press releases and author’s interviews. There are underlying bad assumptions never mentioned except by reference to a previously refuted [here] bad paper by Rignot. A tangled web of deceit, to paraphrase a famous poem."


 
This goes right along with the people who think that the mean average sea water level can be constant in certain areas alone.
 
Jack Hays said:
Once again the AGW PR machine is far ahead of the science.

Another Antarctic Sea Level Rise False Alarm

Posted on May 22, 2016 | 51 comments
by Rud Istvan
Aitken et. al. in Nature newly comports to confirm 2015 fears about instability of the Totten Glacier in Eastern Antarctica. This could ‘suddenly’ raise sea level as much as 4 meters! (Or, based on the abstract, maybe only 0.9 meters in ‘modern scale configuration’, but over 2 meters [2.9-4] in unspecified other configurations).
Continue reading →

". . . The alarming estimates from this new Nature paper, particularly as represented by the media, are grievously wrong both with respect to the amount of and the rate of sea level rise that might be associated with melting of the EIAS Totten glacier.

There is unjustified author spin in the press releases and author’s interviews. There are underlying bad assumptions never mentioned except by reference to a previously refuted [here] bad paper by Rignot. A tangled web of deceit, to paraphrase a famous poem."
Click to expand...

do you honestly expect anything but dishonesty from these people?
this guy will easily get another 100m dollars in grant funding for spewing this
fabrication.
 
ludin said:
do you honestly expect anything but dishonesty from these people?
this guy will easily get another 100m dollars in grant funding for spewing this
fabrication.
Click to expand...

It's always worth pointing out when the emperor has no clothes.
 
Also missing, mention of the several currently active volcanoes, some of which have shown increasing activity, which is also melting the ice from below. Mount Erebus is one of the few in the world that have a permanent lake of molten lava in its crater.
 
Nature – finally “finds” cause of Antarctic pause, will last centuries, tosses “global warming” out


Nature ties itself in knots here, and reveals a lot more than they probably meant too, but mostly about themselves rather than about Antarctica. If it’s correct, the implications from this study are pretty big, not that the study will tell you that. The term “Global warming” is tossed under a bus, along with almost all the Antarctic man-made scares of the last two decades. The political nature of Nature is on full display.
This time Nature claims it has found the cause of the Antarctic pause. Apparently this now finally resolves yet another conundrum (fantastic, what!) that was, as usual, not called a conundrum until it was solved. Another secret problem fixed. Where was the press release telling us there was a problem?
Those who said there was a conundrum were just deniers. It’s right there in the press release, paragraph two:
The study resolves a scientific conundrum, and an inconsistent pattern of warming often seized on by climate deniers.
Which rather begs the question: If there was a conundrum then the skeptics who pointed it out were not deniers, but correct. And if there was no conundrum, and deniers were denying something, then this is not a new finding at all. Alternately perhaps some researchers “knew” the answer they were going to find, and the other researchers, who can’t see the future, are deniers?
Is Nature reporting a discovery, or issuing a political press release?
The use of “denier” in a science paper has a price. How, I wonder, does Nature define homo sapiens climate denier? — Bipedal primates who deny the sky?
Researchers now throw global warming under the bus?

“When we hear the term ‘global warming,’ we think of warming everywhere at the same rate,” Armour said. “We are moving away from this idea of global warming and more toward the idea of regional patterns of warming, which are strongly shaped by ocean currents.”
Look out for the death of the “global warming” term, and the rise of regional warming scares. Reality bites again.
The miracle of deep ocean currents?

Perhaps the paper has some teeth to it, but it’s not obvious in the press release. They appear to be announcing discoveries from text books. It’s been known for years that the deepest oceans take about 1000 years to turn over. So it is entirely expected that the water around Antarctica is old and cold.
The circumpolar current and deep ocean circulation has been known for years (as in this old popular map).


Deep, old water explains why Antarctic Ocean hasn’t warmed

The waters surrounding Antarctica may be one of the last places to experience human-driven climate change. New research from the University of Washington and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology finds that ocean currents explain why the seawater has stayed at roughly the same temperature while most of the rest of the planet has warmed.
Apparently climate modelers didn’t know basic ocean circulation and thought the heat would just mix downward — yes, even I am a bit amazed at this next para:
“The old idea was that heat taken up at the surface would just mix downward, and that’s the reason for the slow warming,” Armour said. “But the observations show that heat is actually being carried away from Antarctica, northward along the surface.”
Really – that was the old idea?
Look out here: It will take centuries for us to run out of cold ocean…
The Southern Ocean’s water comes from such great depths, and from sources that are so distant, that it will take centuries before the water reaching the surface has experienced modern global warming. . . .

Seems the real deniers were the ones who denied the Antarctic Pause, and the failure of the climate models.
All the modelers said CO2 would amplify the warming at both poles. The models were wrong.

REFERENCE / Peer reviewed political flyer

Emily R. Newsom et al. Southern Ocean warming delayed by circumpolar upwelling and equatorward transport. Nature Geoscience, May 2016 DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2731
 
ludin said:
do you honestly expect anything but dishonesty from these people?
this guy will easily get another 100m dollars in grant funding for spewing this
fabrication.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who you mean when you say 'these people'. Do you mean the alarmist reporter who wrote the article? How does an allegedly bad/inaccurate/alarmist reporter in any way mean that the original paper was 'fabricated'?
 
[h=2]Backflip: Antarctic peninsula, posterchild of Polar disaster, has been cooling not warming[/h]
[h=4]The “fastest warming place” on Planet Earth wasn’t warming.[/h]A new Antarctic study wipes out 20 years of panic about the West Antarctic Peninsula. All these years while people were crying about penguins, it turns out that the place was cooling rather than warming. Mankind has emitting a third of all its “CO2-pollution” ever from 1998, and there was “no discernible” effect on Antarctica. Indeed, the study quietly finds that even the bigger longer warming that has happened in the last century was not “unprecedented” in the last 2000 years. . . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Backflip: Antarctic peninsula, posterchild of Polar disaster, has been cooling not warming[/h]
[h=4]The “fastest warming place” on Planet Earth wasn’t warming.[/h]A new Antarctic study wipes out 20 years of panic about the West Antarctic Peninsula. All these years while people were crying about penguins, it turns out that the place was cooling rather than warming. Mankind has emitting a third of all its “CO2-pollution” ever from 1998, and there was “no discernible” effect on Antarctica. Indeed, the study quietly finds that even the bigger longer warming that has happened in the last century was not “unprecedented” in the last 2000 years. . . . .
Click to expand...

It seems that even the actual TITLE of the published paper seems to contradict whatever point you are trying to make here.

Turner et al (2016) Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability, Nature 535, 411–415 (21 July 2016) doi:10.1038/nature18645

(FWIW I agree that science reporting is bad)
 
Befuddled Alien said:
It seems that even the actual TITLE of the published paper seems to contradict whatever point you are trying to make here.

Turner et al (2016) Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability, Nature 535, 411–415 (21 July 2016) doi:10.1038/nature18645

(FWIW I agree that science reporting is bad)
Click to expand...

I don't know why you would not think the title supports my point. Here's the abstract.

Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability





Since the 1950s, research stations on the Antarctic Peninsula have recorded some of the largest increases in near-surface air temperature in the Southern Hemisphere[SUP]1[/SUP]. This warming has contributed to the regional retreat of glaciers[SUP]2[/SUP], disintegration of floating ice shelves[SUP]3[/SUP] and a ‘greening’ through the expansion in range of various flora[SUP]4[/SUP]. Several interlinked processes have been suggested as contributing to the warming, including stratospheric ozone depletion[SUP]5[/SUP], local sea-ice loss[SUP]6[/SUP], an increase in westerly winds[SUP]5, 7[/SUP], and changes in the strength and location of low–high-latitude atmospheric teleconnections[SUP]8, 9[/SUP]. Here we use a stacked temperature record to show an absence of regional warming since the late 1990s. The annual mean temperature has decreased at a statistically significant rate, with the most rapid cooling during the Austral summer. Temperatures have decreased as a consequence of a greater frequency of cold, east-to-southeasterly winds, resulting from more cyclonic conditions in the northern Weddell Sea associated with a strengthening mid-latitude jet. These circulation changes have also increased the advection of sea ice towards the east coast of the peninsula, amplifying their effects. Our findings cover only 1% of the Antarctic continent and emphasize that decadal temperature changes in this region are not primarily associated with the drivers of global temperature change but, rather, reflect the extreme natural internal variability of the regional atmospheric circulation.


 
Jack Hays said:
Climate News
[h=1]Latest excuse: ‘Pinatubo eruption masked sea level acceleration in satellite record’[/h]From the NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH/UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, and the department of “let’s not show a graph of sea level rise in the press release” comes this real PR spin job. Climate change already accelerating sea level rise, study finds Pinatubo eruption masked acceleration in satellite record BOULDER, Colo. — Greenhouse gases are…
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Hooray for volcanic eruptions! :2party: What?........ oops, sorry, my bad! .... :sigh: Who designed this planet anyway - it's making our models look bad by masking acceleration in satellite records! ... &#%!@?*
 
Last edited:
Steve Case said:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

In other words, there isn't any acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.
Click to expand...
I always laugh when I see these things, because the Jason 2 only has a resolution of 30 mm.
Technology
After correction for atmospheric and instrumental effects, the range measurements are accurate to less than 3 centimeters.
Click to expand...
If one looks at what 30 mm would look like on the graph, it becomes clear that they do not have the resolution
to show anything as small as the acceleration claimed.
 
longview said:
I always laugh when I see these things, because the Jason 2 only has a resolution of 30 mm.
Technology

If one looks at what 30 mm would look like on the graph, it becomes clear that they do not have the resolution
to show anything as small as the acceleration claimed.
Click to expand...

Besides, what is the accuracy of the measured doppler shift, and why? The doppler effect is used for measuring speed differentials. Not distance.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Besides, what is the accuracy of the measured doppler shift, and why? The doppler effect is used for measuring speed differentials. Not distance.
Click to expand...
I believe the doppler frequency change could be used to measure the oscillations of the satellite itself.
The frequency would change based on an upward phase vs a downward phase.
The altimeter measurement (with the single dish) is strictly limited to the sampling wavelength used.
 
This looks like a useful new tool for discussions of sea level.


[h=1]New website gives you the real deal on sea level rise and rates[/h]New analysis and graphing tools for sea-level data at SeaLevel.info Guest essay by David Burton http://www.SeaLevel.info now has interactive regression analysis (line/curve fitting) and visualization (graphing) tools available for mean sea level (MSL) measurements from over 1200 tide gauges, plus spreadsheets which combine various subsets of that data. This article is intended as a primer,…

Continue reading →
 
RetiredUSN said:
This goes right along with the people who think that the mean average sea water level can be constant in certain areas alone.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Who says such things?

Now it is possible, but unlikely, that here is a location or two that has land rising at the same rate as the ocean, but I haven't heard of such a coincidence.

Link please.
 
ludin said:
do you honestly expect anything but dishonesty from these people?
this guy will easily get another 100m dollars in grant funding for spewing this
fabrication.
Click to expand...

Here are two Nature links on the original paper:

HTML: Repeated large-scale retreat and advance of Totten Glacier indicated by inland bed erosion

PDF: Repeated large-scale retreat and advance of Totten Glacier indicated by inland bed erosion

The conclusions by Science Daily are not supported in the paper. If I'm wrong, someone please quote the part of the paper that supports the conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom