• 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!

Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2

Another denier cult lie.

There is a net ice mass loss at both poles, as a number of studies have confirmed. The yearly growth and shrinkage of the relatively tiny fringe of sea ice around Antarctica has no bearing on the measured yearly increasing loss of ice mass from the ice sheets and shelves resting on the continent of Antarctica.

Ice Sheet Loss at Both Poles Increasing, Major Study Finds
NASA

Nov. 29, 2012
(government publication - free to reproduce - not under copyright)

WASHINGTON -- An international team of experts supported by NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) has combined data from multiple satellites and aircraft to produce the most comprehensive and accurate assessment to date of ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica and their contributions to sea level rise.




I make a comment about the Antartic and you reply with a combination of information about many sites. Slippery.

Anyway, review this for a better understanding:

<snip>
Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses

Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David

Abstract:

During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.

Imbalances in individual drainage systems (DS) are large (-68% to +103% of input), as are temporal changes (-39% to +44%). The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.
<snip>

And this:

The results of ICEsat measurements are in for Antarctica, and it seems those claims of ice mass loss in Antarctica have melted now that a continent wide tally has been made. This was presented in the SCAR ISMASS Workshop in Portland, OR, July 14, 2012 and was added to NASA’s Technical Reports server on September 7th, 2012. H/T to WUWT reader “Brad”. What’s interesting (besides the result) is that the report was prepared by Jay Zwally, whose “ice free Arctic by the end of summer 2012″ prediction is about to be tested in 12 days. It also puts the kibosh on GRACE studies that suggested a net loss in Antarctica. Note there’s the mention of the “climate warming, consistent with model predictions” at the end of the report. They’d say the same thing if ICEsat had measured loss instead of gain, because as we’ve seen before, almost everything is consistent with warming and models no matter which direction it goes.

Here’s the video presentation. The report abstract follows.

(the video can be found at this link):

ICESAT Data Shows Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses | Watts Up With That?
 
I make a comment about the Antartic(sic) and you reply with a combination of information about many sites. Slippery.
No, you parroted a denier cult myth that denies global warming due to increased CO2 by claiming that both poles should be melting at an equal rate. Silly anti-science drivel.

I presented the latest research on the subject that used a combination of methods to determine that Antarctica is losing ice mass. You pointed to an article on a denier cult blog that quoted some other recent research but, surprise, surprise, Watts' idiotic blog selectively quoted the article to suit his denier cult agenda.






Anyway, review this for a better understanding:

<snip>
Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses

Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David

Abstract:

During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.

Imbalances in individual drainage systems (DS) are large (-68% to +103% of input), as are temporal changes (-39% to +44%). The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.
<snip>

Watts Up With That

"SNIP" indeed. Here's the full quote. Kind of significant just what ol' Watts chose to leave off, eh?

Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses
NASA
Author: Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David
Abstract: During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry. Imbalances in individual drainage systems (DS) are large (-68% to +103% of input), as are temporal changes (-39% to +44%). The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses. Alternate interpretations of the mass changes driven by accumulation variations are given using results from atmospheric-model re-analysis and a parameterization based on 5% change in accumulation per degree of observed surface temperature change. A slow increase in snowfall with climate warming, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses.
 
They are constantly challenged on how much they know about future warming however. We just know "it'll be warmer, but we can't tell you how much."

Let's see the challenge since 2007 from any one of the worlds science academies? I'll wait!
 
Let's see the challenge since 2007 from any one of the worlds science academies? I'll wait!

Here is what they are not challenging.
1. The earth is getting warmer
2. Humans are contributing

Models vary extremely on how much it will warm in the next 100 years. Its not a consensus that it will be catastrophic.
 
Here is what they are not challenging.
1. The earth is getting warmer
2. Humans are contributing

Exactly, its called anthropogenic global warming.


Models vary extremely on how much it will warm in the next 100 years. Its not a consensus that it will be catastrophic.

Yes, the models do vary as far as outcome, but none I've seen say its going to be a good thing.
 
If you think you have discovered something the world scientists haven't considered, why don't you conduct a scientific study, and have it peer reviewed?

Where did I say that? These are KNOWN large CO2 sources. That the cultists routinely ignore them to make their case for AGW is on them. Just rebutting the silly claim that volcanic CO2 emissions do not stand alone in the arena of natural emitters.
 
Where did I say that? These are KNOWN large CO2 sources. That the cultists routinely ignore them to make their case for AGW is on them. Just rebutting the silly claim that volcanic CO2 emissions do not stand alone in the arena of natural emitters.

Scientists have already studied those sources and ruled them out as a driver in this warming period. Please try to keep up.
 
Scientists have already studied those sources and ruled them out as a driver in this warming period. Please try to keep up.

Yeah, show us where they've "ruled them out". If man's CO2 emissions have contributed to global warming, then these have too. The CO2 emissions from China's burning fields alone is equal to all the cars and light trucks used in the US.

And again, we are in an ice age right now. Warming periods like this temporary one have happened all throughout the earth's ice period. This one now is why we have been able to spread around the globe as we have. It'll be over before you know it and whatever parts of our species that survives will be wishing for the days of 'global warming'.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, its called anthropogenic global warming.




Yes, the models do vary as far as outcome, but none I've seen say its going to be a good thing.

There is a difference between drinking a glass of wine and a whole bottle of vodka, is there not?
 
Yeah, show us where they've "ruled them out". If man's CO2 emissions have contributed to global warming, then these have too. The CO2 emissions from China's burning fields alone is equal to all the cars and light trucks used in the US.

"Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes."

"The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than scientists estimate is present in the atmosphere or oceans. As an important part of the global carbon cycle, some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Moerner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere."

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?



And again, we are in an ice age right now. Warming periods like this temporary one have happened all throughout the earth's ice period. This one now is why we have been able to spread around the globe as we have. It'll be over before you know it and whatever parts of our species that survives will be wishing for the days of 'global warming'.

"A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases."

"A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to "cancel out" a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmospheric greenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.

For this reason, "it's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. "

"The "1500-year cycle" that S. Fred Singer attributes warming to is, in fact, a change in distribution of thermal energy between the poles, not a net increase in global temperature, which is what we observe now.

The Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period ended due to a slight increase in solar output (changes in both thermohaline circulation and volcanic activity also contributed), but that increase has since reversed, and global temperature and solar activity are now going in opposite directions. This also explains why the 11-year solar cycle could not be causing global warming.

ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) and PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) help to explain short-term variations, but have no long-term trend, warming or otherwise. Additionally, these cycles simply move thermal energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, and do not change the energy balance of the Earth.

As we can see, "it's just a natural cycle" isn't just a cop-out argument - it's something that scientists have considered, studied, and ruled out long before you and I even knew what global warming was."

It's a natural cycle
 
I am with you on that goal.

However, until I see a airliner take off using solar panels for the energy source, we are nowhere near the termination of the use of Fossil Fuels.
Creating our own using sunlight (or other renewable power source) and CO2 & water from the environment would be just as good. Easy enough to make methane like that and I'm sure other more compact hydrocarbons can also be made that way. I have no problem with "fossil fuels" if the hydrocarbon cycle involved takes only a year or so as opposed to millions of years.
 
Scientists have already studied those sources and ruled them out as a driver in this warming period. Please try to keep up.



So you are saying that if the entire natural world suddenly ceased producing any CO2 at and the small percent contributed by Mankind, about 3% of the total, the warming would continue?

We really need some circus music for this.
 
Back
Top Bottom