Antarctica gains ice for first time in decades, reversing trend of mass loss, study finds (3 Viewers)

[snakestretcher]

No, they absolutely have not been taken into account by the man-made climate change quacks.

Maybe do some research? If there's anything you don't understand, dismissing it as 'quackery' is the simplest way out.

 

[snakestretcher]

Yeah, that sounds about right. If anything they're cheering some bump in the loss and claiming it as a gain.

Ice cover fluctuates; some years there's more, some years, less. The trend is downward; less ice.

 

[snakestretcher]

If global warming is occurring, it's natural and will happen no matter what man does. Keep in mind, Iceland at one time was lush farm land. at some point, it will be again.

The List Of 120 Years Of Climate Scares By Scientists | 710 WOR | Mark Simone

Get the Latest Info!

710wor.iheart.com

They will be laughing at today's climate change quackery.

That's more or less what sceptics, like you, said about the Montreal Protocol, the depletion of the ozone layer and the potential for very real catastrophic effects on both our health, crop growth, the marine food chain-and climate. Guess what, because of human intervention, the banning of ozone-depleting substances like CFCs, the hole in the ozone layer is healing. If the will exists, as with Montreal, we can address climate change. Simply saying, well, climate always changes, ignores the basic facts. Calling it 'quackery' is nothing less than an admission of ignorance and unwillingness to learn, because everything is 'ok' today. Right?

 

[longview]

You say:

We do have empirical evidence that all the added greenhouse gases since year 2000, have not caused any warming,
because they di not add to Earth's longwave energy imbalance, no imbalance no warming!

I don’t see where your citation says that.

Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000

You say:

Added greenhouse gases would in theory reduce the OLR and add to Earth's energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum,
but that did not happen.

However, one would also think that as warming occurs OLR would increase. In simplistic terms, a heated object radiates more heat than a cold one.That also seems to be what your citation is saying and that the additional OLR is a result of the greenhouse gas effect being overwhelmed by the increase in radiative response to warming. Your citation describes it this way:

the weaker (meaning weaker than ASR but higher than before) OLR change is associated with compensation between increasing ERF from continued emission of well-mixed greenhouse gases and increased infrared cooling to space relating to the radiative response to warming.

So greenhouse gases are decreasing OLR, but as the planet warms OLR overall is increasing because the warmer planet is radiating more heat which increases OLR more than the greenhouse gases decrease it.

In your citation, the real problem is that ASR is higher than OLR. While this has been our problem for some time now, more recently decreased cloud reflectivity has made the problem worse. This has been a concern since around 2020:

Why Clouds Are the Key to New Troubling Projections on Warming

Recent climate models project that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above pre-industrial levels could cause temperatures to soar far above previous estimates. A warming earth, researchers now say, will lead to a loss of clouds, allowing more solar energy to strike the planet.

e360.yale.edu

While the decrease in clouds may be due to the existing warming itself there are a number of theories and it’s also possible that it is a combination of factors:

Darker, Less Cloudy Earth Contributed to Record Heat - Eos

Decreases to our planet’s albedo caused by fewer low-lying clouds helped push temperatures to historic highs in 2023, according to new research.

eos.org

There is no doubt that if current trends continue we are in trouble. We need to figure out what is causing the decrease in clouds because if it’s something we can mitigate, we sure want to do it.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration is trying to squash the research that would give us the answers.

The citation shows clearly that the OLR increased during a time period that we know the CO2 level increased.
The concept of the greenhouse effect, is based upon the idea that the amount of energy reduced from the OLR,
would exceed the known increase in OLR from Planck radiation.
The IPCC's forcing formula directly implies this, 5.35 X ln(CO2_new/CO2_old), in a condition where the CO2 level is
raising, it cannot produce a negative number, and already includes the increase in Planck radiation.

Why the ASR is increasing is complicated, but the added greenhouse gases cannot increase the amount
of sunlight that reaches the surface, and because there is no positive longwave energy imbalance,
they are not causing any warming to feed a feedback system.

I am not sure we can say with certainty that the current trends will continue, as we do not know the potential
increase in ASR. What we do know is that the Sun's TSI, has been slightly reducing since 1958.
Judith Curry is correct, in that it is complicated, ASR is increasing while TSI is decreasing, one would think
we will quickly run out of potential ASR increase.

I am not sure we need to worry about warming, we are near the top of the range,
But we need to be VERY careful, of attempts at cooling, as a much greater potential for disaster
lies down that path. Our potential for warming may be one or two degrees C, but out potential
for cooling could be 10C or greater.

Actually the Trump administration is cutting funding to a movement, that was not looking at the cause of warming,
as they had already decided the science was settled.

 

[longview]

So if your opinion is correct then why has the temperature not just gone to where is was before we polluted the air instead of skyrocketing to levels not seen in 2,000 years?

View attachment 67568527

I see in you uncited graph, they removed the Noise Marcott recorded.

And then there is Marcott's resolution,

The 73 globally distributed temperature re-
cords used in our analysis are based on a variety
of paleotemperature proxies and have sampling
resolutions ranging from 20 to 500 years, with a
median resolution of 120 years (5).

While it is likely a 45 year increase would show up with a 120 year resolution, it is not certain.

I wonder what the same proxies would tell us about the last 150 years?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Ice cover fluctuates; some years there's more, some years, less. The trend is downward; less ice.
View attachment 67568538

So what us that graph and where did it come from? Is it sea ice, sheet ice, or both? You obviously have no clue what you speak of since you do not specify.

If it is sheet ice, then the sea level rise caused by it would be about 20 mm. 1 mm for every 361 gigaton.

 

[snakestretcher]

So what us that graph and where did it come from? Is it sea ice, sheet ice, or both? You obviously have no clue what you speak of since you do not specify.

If it is sheet ice, then the sea level rise caused by it would be about 20 mm. 1 mm for every 361 gigaton.

I see you're an expert in climatology. Where did you get your degree?

 

[Lord of Planar]

From NASA's website:

What Is the Sun’s Role in Climate Change?​

The Sun powers life on Earth; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. It also influences Earth’s climate: We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the past ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity.
[...]
According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth’s climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity.

For more than 40 years, satellites have observed the Sun's energy output, which has gone up or down by less than 0.1 percent during that period. Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 270 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.2

"According to the IPCC..." OK. Thus is not the NASA scientists saying this. This is a unqualified journalist reciting propaganda. That subsection of NASA is a joke. Lokk at the credentials of the authors.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I see you're an expert in climatology. Where did you get your degree?

That does not matter. What matters is I understand this material and you do not.

Maybe you can tell the class why sea level rise is 1 mm per 361 gigaton...

I didnt think so...

 

[Lord of Planar]

So if your opinion is correct then why has the temperature not just gone to where is was before we polluted the air instead of skyrocketing to levels not seen in 2,000 years?

View attachment 67568527

I do not think that spike is correct for a global temperiture. First problem is when looking at old proxy data, the temporal resulolution is 600 years or more. You would never see such a spike if it wat 150 years up and 150 years down as you wouls only see a 600 year average or more. That is assuming this steep upward trend is correct which I do not beleve. My position is the the urban heat island effect is skewing the observered readings. That it is impossible to correctky remove this bias.

 

[jpn]

"According to the IPCC..." OK. Thus is not the NASA scientists saying this. This is a unqualified journalist reciting propaganda. That subsection of NASA is a joke. Lokk at the credentials of the authors.

Since the IPCC is the science world's primary vehicle for explaining to the world what is going on in climate science, of course it's Target Number One for climate deniers.

Remember, Lord is an unqualified poster who recites propaganda.

 

[jpn]

Meanwhile,

What Happens When NASA Loses Eyes on Earth? We’re About to Find Out.​

When the three orbiters — Terra, Aqua and Aura — are powered down, much of the data they’ve been collecting will end with them, and newer satellites won’t pick up all of the slack. Researchers will either have to rely on alternate sources that might not meet their exact needs or seek workarounds to allow their records to continue.

With some of the data these satellites gather, the situation is even worse: No other instruments will keep collecting it. In a few short years, the fine features they reveal about our world will become much fuzzier.

 

[jpn]

I'm detecting a trend:

Out at the E.P.A.: Independent Scientists. In: Approving New Chemicals.​

The Environmental Protection Agency said on Friday that it would disperse scientists from its independent research office to other divisions where they among other things will be tasked with approving the use of new chemicals.​

​

Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the changes to the E.P.A. in a video, saying the agency was “shifting its scientific expertise” to focus on issues he described as “mission essential.”​

​

An internal document previously reviewed by The New York Times outlined the Trump administration’s recommendation to eliminate that office, with plans to fire as many as 1,155 chemists, biologists, toxicologists and other scientists working on health and environmental research.​

​

So is Europe:

Europe Makes a Pitch to Attract Scientists Shunned by the U.S.​

The continent’s leaders are hoping to benefit as the Trump administration cuts support for research and threatens universities such as Harvard and Columbia with the freezing of federal funds.​

 

[jpn]

I can't believe how many of you don't understand percentages. OF COURSE the wealthy save more dollars than the poor, because our tax system is based on paying A PERCENTAGE of AGI. That's why such a small number of the wealthiest people pay almost all of the personal income tax, but I don't see you bitching about that.

I'm bitching that the wealthiest people don't pay more. The massive shift of taxes off the wealthy and onto the middle class is why we have this massive debt. Reagan, Bush, and Trump tax cuts all exploded the debt burden.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Since the IPCC is the science world's primary vehicle for explaining to the world what is going on in climate science, of course it's Target Number One for climate deniers.

Remember, Lord is an unqualified poster who recites propaganda.

You can believe as you wish. Just know you are wrong. Mark my words. The IPCC will go down in disgrace as more is learned about these sciences.

As for unqualifies? That is total shit. A climatolgist is just a meterologist with one extra class. I have all the chemistry, physics, and math qualifications to be one. In fact, I am over qualified to be one.

But then, you rarely know what you speak of anyway.

I lay odds you cannot follow the science any time I explain any of this stuff.

Note also. I have been studying this topic for over 20 years.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Meanwhile,

What Happens When NASA Loses Eyes on Earth? We’re About to Find Out.​

When the three orbiters — Terra, Aqua and Aura — are powered down, much of the data they’ve been collecting will end with them, and newer satellites won’t pick up all of the slack. Researchers will either have to rely on alternate sources that might not meet their exact needs or seek workarounds to allow their records to continue.

With some of the data these satellites gather, the situation is even worse: No other instruments will keep collecting it. In a few short years, the fine features they reveal about our world will become much fuzzier.

Satellites are not of much use for the resolution of data needed. Changing cloud cover is their only practical use for the climate sciences as their precision is not fine enough.

 

[longview]

Meanwhile,

What Happens When NASA Loses Eyes on Earth? We’re About to Find Out.​

When the three orbiters — Terra, Aqua and Aura — are powered down, much of the data they’ve been collecting will end with them, and newer satellites won’t pick up all of the slack. Researchers will either have to rely on alternate sources that might not meet their exact needs or seek workarounds to allow their records to continue.

With some of the data these satellites gather, the situation is even worse: No other instruments will keep collecting it. In a few short years, the fine features they reveal about our world will become much fuzzier.

Actually Terra, has been degrading for quite some time and has largely been replaced by
isible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS)

 

[devildavid]

Another ridiculous thread based on fake news. Ho hum.

Antarctic Ice Loss Is Significant, Contrary to Claims - FactCheck.org

Antarctica is losing ice mass to the ocean, contributing to global sea level rise. But a popular video misrepresented work focused on Antarctic ice shelves — which float in the sea at the edges of the continent — to incorrectly suggest that “it is unclear if Antarctica is losing any ice on balance.”

www.factcheck.org

 

[jpn]

You can believe as you wish. Just know you are wrong. Mark my words.

Every year we wait for your conspiracy theories to be proven correct.

Waiting...

Waiting...

 

[jpn]

Satellites are not of much use for the resolution of data needed.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

But other than that, great post!

 

[devildavid]

Satellites are not of much use for the resolution of data needed. Changing cloud cover is their only practical use for the climate sciences as their precision is not fine enough.

What is the basis of this opinion?

 

[longview]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

But other than that, great post!

Think about it for a second, the satellites that measure sea level have an absolute resolution of about 1 inch,
but in reality it is much worse than that because they subtract out the astronomical tide.
The difference between the astronomical tide and the observed tide, can easily be more than one foot.
The tide gauges have an accuracy of about 1 mm.

 

[George50]

With all due respect, I don't think parents give a damn what anyone except their doctor or religious leader says about giving injections to their kids. I can almost guarantee that no Republican is going to listen to a Democrat named Kennedy on this subject.

Well, if you think a propaganda machine with a multi million dollar budget has zero impact so be it.

 

[George50]

In the AR6, the IPCC finalized the SMP long before adjusting and finalizing the science to fit it.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

 

[George50]

Completely false. Why do they need to?

Obviously the reason would be to sell more product.

You are obviously a blind follower of the AGW cult.

You are obviously a blind follower of the CD cult.