• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
PARIS (AFP) - – Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming debate, should be halved, according to Dutch and US scientists.

In the last two years, several teams have estimated Greenland is shedding roughly 230 gigatonnes of ice, or 230 billion tonnes, per year and West Antarctica around 132 gigatonnes annually.

Together, that would account for more than half of the annual three-millimetre (0.2 inch) yearly rise in sea levels, a pace that compares dramatically with 1.8mm (0.07 inches) annually in the early 1960s.

But, according to the new study, published in the September issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the ice estimates fail to correct for a phenomenon known as glacial isostatic adjustment.

This is the term for the rebounding of Earth's crust following the last Ice Age.

Glaciers that were kilometers (miles) thick smothered Antarctica and most of the northern hemisphere for tens of thousands of years, compressing the elastic crust beneath it with their titanic weight.

When the glaciers started to retreat around 20,000 years ago, the crust started to rebound, and is still doing so.
Climate: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss - Yahoo! Singapore News

This is good to see.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Last edited:

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, the ice sheet loss isn't as bad as previously calculated. This is good.
Just waiting for the GW crowd to start bashing this and calling it "junk science"
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just waiting for the GW crowd to start bashing this and calling it "junk science"
I predicted less than five posts before somebody said this. So, thanks! This is a peer-reviewed scientific study. This is how science works. I wish skeptics could figure this out. This study is being published by the "GW crowd."

I can't wait until you skeptics argue that the moon is made of cheese. Hahaha, skeptics are so dumb! Really? This is your commentary? "Hey I'm going to assign an argument to my opposition that they haven't actually made so I can call them stupid!" Why, there must be some cabal of scientists trying to suppress this, right? It probably wont show up on those "warmer" websites!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100906085152.htm
Oh.

Hell, how do they figure out the crust has flexed in the first place? I'm still trying to find the paper itself online. Unfortunately it seems to be only in the Nature journal so far, not surprising as it's just been published, but Nature requires a subscription. The university might have a subscription, I'll check that later.
 
Last edited:

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Notice what it does NOT say? It does not say that global warming is not happening - simply that we overestimated the ice loss because of the flexing of the crust.

As deuce says THIS is how science works - now THIS datum will be included in future IPCC reports
as with a lot of the other "evidence" supporting MMGW. if you overestimate enough, you can prove anything.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yahoo Singapore News = 1 notch above pulling stories out of one's ass
This, from the guy that relies on Mediamatters? ROFL.

Do you have any science to counter the article, some peer reviewed papers? Didn't think so. Shoo fly.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
as with a lot of the other "evidence" supporting MMGW. if you overestimate enough, you can prove anything.
People with no understanding of the scientific process commenting on a scientific issue are fun :)

This, from the guy that relies on Mediamatters? ROFL.

Do you have any science to counter the article, some peer reviewed papers? Didn't think so. Shoo fly.
Are you dense? Nobody was attempting to counter the article. Nature is a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal so we have no reason to be immediately suspicious of their conclusions. Upon further reading, it looks like this flexing issue has been known about for years, but only recently have we developed the technology necessary to measure it properly and make the correction. Other scientists have previously attempted to make this correction, but lacking the fancy gravimetric sensors on some new satellites, their corrections did not meet an acceptable level of accuracy.

This is the problem that occurs when you don't follow the actual science: you read some journalists opinion and fill in the gaps yourself. We've got Oscar here acting like this was something scientists were deliberately exaggerating the ice sheet loss and hiding this crust flexing issue. If that were the case, why would they publish this fact in their papers? A conspiracy that announces itself in a public place isn't a very good one.

Or do you have some more arguments you'd like to assign to your opposition? It must be so convenient to have both sides of the argument inside your own head.
 
Last edited:

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
People with no understanding of the scientific process commenting on a scientific issue are fun :)
yes, they are. almost as much fun as people who don't have a clue about what others do or do not know making half-assed attempts at insults.


I love how all the AGWers foam at the mouth any time any piece of data shows up that doesn't support the "concensus" that global warming is man-made or is not as severe as theywould have everyone believe. It is almost as funny as how they try to spin evidence contrary to GW to make it look like it actually supports GW.

We've got Oscar here acting like this was something scientists were deliberately exaggerating the ice sheet loss and hiding this crust flexing issue.
really? is that what you got from my post??? and you talk about people not understanding an issue.
 
Last edited:

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oscar, my rate was AG, I did it for 10 years. I have training and real life experience with the SCIENCE of Meteorology and Climatology, yet that doesn't seem to matter to the AGW'ers. Their internet PhD's in Climate Science Trump real world. IF I were an AGW'er though I'd be THE FORUM Guru and they'd all bow to me because of my Experience.

Funny how that works eh?
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oscar, my rate was AG, I did it for 10 years. I have training and real life experience with the SCIENCE of Meteorology and Climatology, yet that doesn't seem to matter to the AGW'ers. Their internet PhD's in Climate Science Trump real world. IF I were an AGW'er though I'd be THE FORUM Guru and they'd all bow to me because of my Experience.

Funny how that works eh?
yeah. I happened to have a MS in chemical engineering and I took several courses in environmental and atmospheric chemistry. but apparently I still don't know how scientific issues work. gotta love it.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
yeah. I happened to have a MS in chemical engineering and I took several courses in environmental and atmospheric chemistry. but apparently I still don't know how scientific issues work. gotta love it.
You and I are heretics to the Church of Gaia, and it's Holiness algore has commanded his followers to not listen to our Blaspheme!


Look, I read their case, I agree Man can do better about the crap we do, but reality check is 99% of what man effects is local not global. That 1% is minuscule in the grand scheme of things. I'm all for more efficient and less polluting ways of doing business, but not at the cost of our Standard of Living. That sort of common sense is antithesis to their fear mongering ways.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
you and i are heretics to the church of gaia, and it's holiness algore has commanded his followers to not listen to our blaspheme!


Look, i read their case, i agree man can do better about the crap we do, but reality check is 99% of what man effects is local not global. That 1% is minuscule in the grand scheme of things. I'm all for more efficient and less polluting ways of doing business, but not at the cost of our standard of living. That sort of common sense is antithesis to their fear mongering ways.

!!!bingo!!!
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oscar, my rate was AG, I did it for 10 years. I have training and real life experience with the SCIENCE of Meteorology and Climatology, yet that doesn't seem to matter to the AGW'ers. Their internet PhD's in Climate Science Trump real world. IF I were an AGW'er though I'd be THE FORUM Guru and they'd all bow to me because of my Experience.

Funny how that works eh?
Honestly MrV I had no idea you had any scientific background in meteorology, and I would never have guessed you had any knowledge of the subject. You know why?

Every post you make is just bringing up cults/religion/Al Gore. I don't think I've ever seen you link a scientific paper. You make all these grand claims and then do nothing to even attempt to back them up.

You and I are heretics to the Church of Gaia, and it's Holiness algore has commanded his followers to not listen to our Blaspheme!


Look, I read their case, I agree Man can do better about the crap we do, but reality check is 99% of what man effects is local not global. That 1% is minuscule in the grand scheme of things. I'm all for more efficient and less polluting ways of doing business, but not at the cost of our Standard of Living. That sort of common sense is antithesis to their fear mongering ways.
Q E mothereffin D
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
yeah. I happened to have a MS in chemical engineering and I took several courses in environmental and atmospheric chemistry. but apparently I still don't know how scientific issues work. gotta love it.
So, show me some science instead of conspiracy theories. You know that stuff they call evidence?
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So, show me some science instead of conspiracy theories. You know that stuff they call evidence?
to what point? I have learned over the past few years that you guys are totally closed minded against anything that doesn't agree with your POV and to try to logically, scientifically argue with you is an extreme exercise in futility. you simply don't want to hear it. all it does is get my BP up. Therefore, I have resigned myself to pointless and much more entertaining button pushing and rabblerousing.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
to what point? I have learned over the past few years that you guys are totally closed minded against anything that doesn't agree with your POV and to try to logically, scientifically argue with you is an extreme exercise in futility. you simply don't want to hear it. all it does is get my BP up. Therefore, I have resigned myself to pointless and much more entertaining button pushing and rabblerousing.
"I have nothing to back up what I'm saying so I'll just make up an argument that you haven't actually put forth and attack it without vague conspiracy theories." Uh huh. Well, good job putting all that expert scientific knowledge to use.

Did anyone happen to notice how nobody is actually disputing the conclusions of this study?

I suppose that thread in my signature is just me being close minded and unscientific.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
So, show me some science instead of conspiracy theories. You know that stuff they call evidence?
Why SHOULD we waste our time anymore with you Deuce? Why?

We bring up facts, and you run to some IPCC study and claim our "science" is wrong, or you'll pull the big oil card, or it's not "proper peer review" or deflect or ignore.

Your arrogance that anything we present is wrong, flawed or propaganda makes it not worth our TIME of posting counters to you anymore.

You claim I never post science or legit counters to the AGW stuff, do a search buddy, I've been here a LOT longer then you and have spent quite a bit of time debunking the likes of you. Why is it every new AGW'er demands we rehash all ready settled arguments? Why don't YOU do a little digging before making false claims.

YOU aren't serious about the issue, you push the "science" because it pushes the political agenda you support. YOU only care about what helps the Liberal Agenda. Period. No matter what evidence, science, paper, chart, picture or source brought if it doesn't match your political needs you refuse to even acknowledge the information as having validity.

WE however admit man does screw things up, but we don't believe MAN is causing "Global Warming". We're all for curtailing local pollution, stopping unnecessary pollution. But we also realize that such things as Cap and Trade, EPA Regulation of CO2 and the UN joke known as "Kyoto" do not help solve anything but rather are vehicles for political power and personal gain for those LIKE algore who stand to make bookhu bucks off AGW legislation.

So stop with the false demands for "science" and the arrogant claims of "conspiracy theories", or asking for evidence. You don't want science, you don't want evidence you want only that which pushes YOUR AGENDA.

And most of us are just bored with playing your game. Good day to you sir.
 
Last edited:

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"I have nothing to back up what I'm saying so I'll just make up an argument that you haven't actually put forth and attack it without vague conspiracy theories." Uh huh. Well, good job putting all that expert scientific knowledge to use.

Did anyone happen to notice how nobody is actually disputing the conclusions of this study?

I suppose that thread in my signature is just me being close minded and unscientific.
yeah dude, no one is disputing the conclusion of this study. less ice has melted than was previously estimated. that would point to warming not being as severe as presented, since one of the big "oooh lookee lookee" proofs of AGW is melting icecaps.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
to what point? I have learned over the past few years that you guys are totally closed minded against anything that doesn't agree with your POV and to try to logically, scientifically argue with you is an extreme exercise in futility. you simply don't want to hear it. all it does is get my BP up. Therefore, I have resigned myself to pointless and much more entertaining button pushing and rabblerousing.
Moderator's Warning:
In bold. That can be considered trolling. Do not do this.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Oscar, my rate was AG, I did it for 10 years. I have training and real life experience with the SCIENCE of Meteorology and Climatology, yet that doesn't seem to matter to the AGW'ers. Their internet PhD's in Climate Science Trump real world. IF I were an AGW'er though I'd be THE FORUM Guru and they'd all bow to me because of my Experience.

Funny how that works eh?
Whereas I have none of those things but DO know about science and the academic process.

So, this being the internet anyone can claim to be the illegitimate heir to Frankenstein's castle. The point is proving it.

And unless the person making the claim is willing to back their qualifications with links to a real name (not recommended by the way) then the only way of proving knowledge level is by demonstration.

You want us to acknowledge your "experience" (which could range from reading a barometer to designing and running research projects) and knowledge then show us. Demonstrate you know the difference between a peer reviewed paper and an opinion blog - show us you understand about scientific validity. Tell us how you give weighting to research. Describe what is meant by a meta-analysis.

THESE are the essential tools to navigate through any science. with them you can learn to differentiate truth from crap (which does exist in any field)

But most of all READ what the other side is presenting. I do and I know most deniers do not. I know they do not because I have deliberately linked to something different and they have not picked me up on it - preferring instead to sit back and go nyah nyah!
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
yeah. I happened to have a MS in chemical engineering and I took several courses in environmental and atmospheric chemistry. but apparently I still don't know how scientific issues work. gotta love it.
Once again - show me you can differentiate between a peer reviewed research article and an opinion blog and I might listen.

Better yet when posting your opinion that "Geesh Dat's cwap" please post links to support your opinion.

In other words post using an academic style and you will be treated as if you DO know something. If post only one line opinions that are unsupported by research, or even basic chemistry and physics then please do not be surprised if you get treated like a retarded Neanderthal.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Whereas I have none of those things but DO know about science and the academic process.

So, this being the internet anyone can claim to be the illegitimate heir to Frankenstein's castle. The point is proving it.

And unless the person making the claim is willing to back their qualifications with links to a real name (not recommended by the way) then the only way of proving knowledge level is by demonstration.

You want us to acknowledge your "experience" (which could range from reading a barometer to designing and running research projects) and knowledge then show us. Demonstrate you know the difference between a peer reviewed paper and an opinion blog - show us you understand about scientific validity. Tell us how you give weighting to research. Describe what is meant by a meta-analysis.

THESE are the essential tools to navigate through any science. with them you can learn to differentiate truth from crap (which does exist in any field)

But most of all READ what the other side is presenting. I do and I know most deniers do not. I know they do not because I have deliberately linked to something different and they have not picked me up on it - preferring instead to sit back and go nyah nyah!
I have several times proven I am exactly whom I claim and my credentials are legit.

I state quite clearly that I have read the arguments from your side, and I agree man needs to always strive to find the most clean and efficient means of living as possible. However I do not find the science of AGW to be compelling nor do I find the presented solutions to have merit. I base this on personal experience and knowledge, peer reviewed science, logic and common sense.

For example, we know that the Earth's climate is always in flux. This is not up for debate, it ALWAYS changes. Not too long ago Man experienced a mini-Ice Age, and before that was a warming period, and before that cooling and so on and so forth.

This reality tells us that the Climate is going to alter no matter what we are doing. Man's small input into the Climatic System through chemicals and gases is very slight. So small in fact it is foolhardy to claim the Planetary Ecosystem is so fragile that man is altering it.

What proof is there man's activities are damaging anything? We know that there is a slight warming, that's normal. The 1940-1970 period was a bit on the cool side, now it's warm. Guess what, it's gonna go back to being cool again. That's how the cycle works. At some point it's gonna get REALLY HOT for a while, then it'll get really cold again.

Welcome to the Earth.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I have several times proven I am exactly whom I claim and my credentials are legit.

I state quite clearly that I have read the arguments from your side, and I agree man needs to always strive to find the most clean and efficient means of living as possible. However I do not find the science of AGW to be compelling nor do I find the presented solutions to have merit. I base this on personal experience and knowledge, peer reviewed science, logic and common sense.

For example, we know that the Earth's climate is always in flux. This is not up for debate, it ALWAYS changes. Not too long ago Man experienced a mini-Ice Age, and before that was a warming period, and before that cooling and so on and so forth.

This reality tells us that the Climate is going to alter no matter what we are doing. Man's small input into the Climatic System through chemicals and gases is very slight. So small in fact it is foolhardy to claim the Planetary Ecosystem is so fragile that man is altering it.

What proof is there man's activities are damaging anything? We know that there is a slight warming, that's normal. The 1940-1970 period was a bit on the cool side, now it's warm. Guess what, it's gonna go back to being cool again. That's how the cycle works. At some point it's gonna get REALLY HOT for a while, then it'll get really cold again.

Welcome to the Earth.

And you want me to treat you as more than a barometer reader with an unsupported opinion post like that? One that not only ignores vast swathes of climate science but shows no cognisance of basic physics underpinning that science?
 
Top Bottom