Hottest September on record. The librul conspiracy continues.

[Fletch]

And why is East Antarctica experiencing increased snowfall? It has been for the better part of 10,000 years. What has changed recently is the increasing loss of ice from West Antarctica as the ice sheets there calve into the sea. In both instances the reason is warm sea water. In the first case the winds blowing onto the continent contain higher levels of water vapor, and in the second case the warming sea is eating away at the base of the ice shelves at an increasing rate.

How much warmer is the water?

 

[Jack Hays]

The ice shelves are grounded by contact with Earth below sea level. The ice shelve are breaking up, not because of heat from inland volcanoes, but from warm water eating away at the base of the ice, weakening it's mooring with the sea floor. This effect is accelerating the advance of inland ice toward the sea.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10...er-likely-melting-from-geothermal-heat-below/

Via the Hockey Schtick – A paper published today in Earth and Planetary Science Letters finds evidence that one of the largest glaciers in West Antarctica, the Thwaites Glacier, is primarily melting from below due to geothermal heat flux from volcanoes located along the West Antarctic Volcanic Rift System, i.e. not due to man-made CO2.

 

[Garydog]

Rationalization, huh?

Does it change the facts?

Rationalization? WTF? Read the link, dude. Just because you don't understand the facts doesn't mean they're untrue, or "rationalizations".

 

[Lord of Planar]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10...er-likely-melting-from-geothermal-heat-below/

Via the Hockey Schtick – A paper published today in Earth and Planetary Science Letters finds evidence that one of the largest glaciers in West Antarctica, the Thwaites Glacier, is primarily melting from below due to geothermal heat flux from volcanoes located along the West Antarctic Volcanic Rift System, i.e. not due to man-made CO2.

You are silly to think you can break their religious faith, with facts...

 

[Jack Hays]

You are silly to think you can break their religious faith, with facts...

But I will continue nonetheless.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Rationalization? WTF? Read the link, dude. Just because you don't understand the facts doesn't mean they're untrue, or "rationalizations".

LOL...

Did you read it?

It says Antarctica is gaining ice, and you said it was losing ice.

Yes. Rationalizing, especially when they don't mention aerosols on the northern ice. Rationalizing to find anything but the truth. Then at the end:

The fact that researchers are still debating the reasons for Antarctic sea ice expansion shows the need for more data and more studies.

"The climate models do not get it right at this point," Kaleschke said. "The models project a decrease of Antarctic sea ice, which is in contrast with observations."
​

Of course the climate models don't get it right. They turn the model dial up too much for CO2, and too little for soot.

Yes... Rationalizing...

 

[Lord of Planar]

But I will continue nonetheless.

As will I. Just not as much as before.

 

[Garydog]

LOL...

Did you read it?

It says Antarctica is gaining ice, and you said it was losing ice.

Yes. Rationalizing, especially when they don't mention aerosols on the northern ice. Rationalizing to find anything but the truth. Then at the end:

The fact that researchers are still debating the reasons for Antarctic sea ice expansion shows the need for more data and more studies.

"The climate models do not get it right at this point," Kaleschke said. "The models project a decrease of Antarctic sea ice, which is in contrast with observations."
​

Of course the climate models don't get it right. They turn the model dial up too much for CO2, and too little for soot.

Yes... Rationalizing...

Okay, you're still not getting it. Perhaps this will help:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ld-stay-skeptical/?postshare=2541446754571422

GRACE gives us the most direct measurement of mass changes that we have currently. This paper, which uses laser altimetry, claims the discrepancy between our results is due to recent GIA model corrections being incorrect, and that GRACE is more sensitive to the error. If we add back the GIA corrections, and compare our results then, their estimates should agree with ours because we measure mass directly. Instead they are still very far away. Arguing that because their results are different, they must be better, is unsustainable.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Okay, you're still not getting it. Perhaps this will help:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ld-stay-skeptical/?postshare=2541446754571422

GRACE gives us the most direct measurement of mass changes that we have currently. This paper, which uses laser altimetry, claims the discrepancy between our results is due to recent GIA model corrections being incorrect, and that GRACE is more sensitive to the error. If we add back the GIA corrections, and compare our results then, their estimates should agree with ours because we measure mass directly. Instead they are still very far away. Arguing that because their results are different, they must be better, is unsustainable.

Why are you such an amateur about this?

Seriously... A Wa-Po article? I always look through the source material.

Now the first paper is a broken link. I don't know why the dip-shazbot author didn't link what ever NASA link that is available, instead the stupid idiot linked another site. Now about the author at the Wa-compost:

About
Chris Mooney writes about energy and the environment at The Washington Post. He previously worked at Mother Jones, where he wrote about science and the environment and hosted a weekly podcast. Chris spent a decade prior to that as a freelance writer, podcaster and speaker, with his work appearing in Wired, Harper’s, Slate, Legal Affairs, The Los Angeles Times, The Post and The Boston Globe, to name a few. Chris also has published four books about science and climate change.

​

What are his climate credentials to understand and explain this? He is definitely a partisan pundit, you should google the books by him.

Maybe you can find in the source material, the text, that justifies his polarized opinion on the topic.

Now in the second paper:

Satellite geodesy has revolutionized the manner in which ice-sheet mass balance is estimated. Since 1998, there have been at least 29 ice-sheet mass balance estimates, based variously on the satellite techniques of altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry. These estimates, and their respective uncertainties, allow for a combined Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet mass imbalance of between –676 and +69 gigatonnes (Gt) year−1, equivalent to a mean global sea-level contribution in the range of +1.9 to –0.2 mm year−1. However, much of this spread, which is large in comparison to other ice-sheet imbalance assessments and to the estimated rate of global sea-level rise, is due to the brevity of many satellite surveys (4.5 years, on average) relative to the rate at which ice-sheet mass fluctuates.
​

------

Our reconciliation exercise has highlighted several other issues. Assessments of GrIS mass balance require more careful consideration than was possible here, because the surrounding mountain glaciers and ice caps are included in some, but not all, of our geodetic surveys and because the ice-sheet domains varied in area by 2%. One estimate has put their contribution at ~20 Gt year−1 (94), a value that falls between two we have derived ourselves from ICESat data (10 and 40 Gt year−1). For the EAIS, our mass change estimates exhibit an unsatisfactory spread, with results from the IOM and LA techniques falling consistently lower and higher than the mean value we have derived (table S2).
​

link (for those with full access): A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance

Interesting that at one end, they claim the net result of the two might be positive ice. They say there are several issues, and there are unsatisfactory spreads.

The science is far from settled.

 

[Threegoofs]

Why are you such an amateur about this?

Seriously... A Wa-Po article? I always look through the source material.

Now the first paper is a broken link. I don't know why the dip-shazbot author didn't link what ever NASA link that is available, instead the stupid idiot linked another site. Now about the author at the Wa-compost:

About
Chris Mooney writes about energy and the environment at The Washington Post. He previously worked at Mother Jones, where he wrote about science and the environment and hosted a weekly podcast. Chris spent a decade prior to that as a freelance writer, podcaster and speaker, with his work appearing in Wired, Harper’s, Slate, Legal Affairs, The Los Angeles Times, The Post and The Boston Globe, to name a few. Chris also has published four books about science and climate change.

​

What are his climate credentials to understand and explain this? He is definitely a partisan pundit, you should google the books by him.

Maybe you can find in the source material, the text, that justifies his polarized opinion on the topic.

Now in the second paper:

Satellite geodesy has revolutionized the manner in which ice-sheet mass balance is estimated. Since 1998, there have been at least 29 ice-sheet mass balance estimates, based variously on the satellite techniques of altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry. These estimates, and their respective uncertainties, allow for a combined Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet mass imbalance of between –676 and +69 gigatonnes (Gt) year−1, equivalent to a mean global sea-level contribution in the range of +1.9 to –0.2 mm year−1. However, much of this spread, which is large in comparison to other ice-sheet imbalance assessments and to the estimated rate of global sea-level rise, is due to the brevity of many satellite surveys (4.5 years, on average) relative to the rate at which ice-sheet mass fluctuates.
​

------

Our reconciliation exercise has highlighted several other issues. Assessments of GrIS mass balance require more careful consideration than was possible here, because the surrounding mountain glaciers and ice caps are included in some, but not all, of our geodetic surveys and because the ice-sheet domains varied in area by 2%. One estimate has put their contribution at ~20 Gt year−1 (94), a value that falls between two we have derived ourselves from ICESat data (10 and 40 Gt year−1). For the EAIS, our mass change estimates exhibit an unsatisfactory spread, with results from the IOM and LA techniques falling consistently lower and higher than the mean value we have derived (table S2).
​

link (for those with full access): A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance

Interesting that at one end, they claim the net result of the two might be positive ice. They say there are several issues, and there are unsatisfactory spreads.

The science is far from settled.

Attacking the source. A tried and true technique.

As we all know, reality has a strong liberal bias.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Attacking the source. A tried and true technique.

As we all know, reality has a strong liberal bias.

Sometimes, the inadequacies and bias of the source need to be exposed.

Question?

Did you by chance search his book list?

 

[Garydog]

Why are you such an amateur about this?

Seriously... A Wa-Po article? I always look through the source material.

Now the first paper is a broken link. I don't know why the dip-shazbot author didn't link what ever NASA link that is available, instead the stupid idiot linked another site. Now about the author at the Wa-compost:

About
Chris Mooney writes about energy and the environment at The Washington Post. He previously worked at Mother Jones, where he wrote about science and the environment and hosted a weekly podcast. Chris spent a decade prior to that as a freelance writer, podcaster and speaker, with his work appearing in Wired, Harper’s, Slate, Legal Affairs, The Los Angeles Times, The Post and The Boston Globe, to name a few. Chris also has published four books about science and climate change.

​

What are his climate credentials to understand and explain this? He is definitely a partisan pundit, you should google the books by him.

Maybe you can find in the source material, the text, that justifies his polarized opinion on the topic.

Now in the second paper:

Satellite geodesy has revolutionized the manner in which ice-sheet mass balance is estimated. Since 1998, there have been at least 29 ice-sheet mass balance estimates, based variously on the satellite techniques of altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry. These estimates, and their respective uncertainties, allow for a combined Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet mass imbalance of between –676 and +69 gigatonnes (Gt) year−1, equivalent to a mean global sea-level contribution in the range of +1.9 to –0.2 mm year−1. However, much of this spread, which is large in comparison to other ice-sheet imbalance assessments and to the estimated rate of global sea-level rise, is due to the brevity of many satellite surveys (4.5 years, on average) relative to the rate at which ice-sheet mass fluctuates.
​

------

Our reconciliation exercise has highlighted several other issues. Assessments of GrIS mass balance require more careful consideration than was possible here, because the surrounding mountain glaciers and ice caps are included in some, but not all, of our geodetic surveys and because the ice-sheet domains varied in area by 2%. One estimate has put their contribution at ~20 Gt year−1 (94), a value that falls between two we have derived ourselves from ICESat data (10 and 40 Gt year−1). For the EAIS, our mass change estimates exhibit an unsatisfactory spread, with results from the IOM and LA techniques falling consistently lower and higher than the mean value we have derived (table S2).
​

link (for those with full access): A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance

Interesting that at one end, they claim the net result of the two might be positive ice. They say there are several issues, and there are unsatisfactory spreads.

The science is far from settled.

Global warming and rising seas and glacial retreat are not "partisan" issues. They're scientific studies. Why don't you get this?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Global warming and rising seas and glacial retreat are not "partisan" issues. They're scientific studies. Why don't you get this?

My point is that he is a pundit. If you see his book list, it will be clear that he is not unbiased. His degree is in English. No science credentials.

He makes it a partisan issue, which would be clear to you if you looked at his list of books.

 

[Garydog]

My point is that he is a pundit. If you see his book list, it will be clear that he is not unbiased. His degree is in English. No science credentials.

He makes it a partisan issue, which would be clear to you if you looked at his list of books.

I'm really just happy that people like you are in the extreme minority in scientific circles. Otherwise, confirmation bias would rule the day.

 

[Jack Hays]

I'm really just happy that people like you are in the extreme minority in scientific circles. Otherwise, confirmation bias would rule the day.

"Confirmation bias" actually works to uphold the AGW paradigm in modern climate science. It works against skeptics.

 

[Garydog]

"Confirmation bias" actually works to uphold the AGW paradigm in modern climate science. It works against skeptics.

It is possible to have your preconceived notion confirmed by the facts, yes. The Confirmation Bias I'm referring to is when "skeptics" go looking for reasons to declare AGW a myth (And they have to look pretty damned hard. They reside in the cracks between mountains of truth.)

 

[Threegoofs]

I'm really just happy that people like you are in the extreme minority in scientific circles. Otherwise, confirmation bias would rule the day.

I dont think you'd recognize a scientific circle if you were in the middle of it.

Edit: That was actually directed at another poster... one who thinks sitting in an armchair 'doing science' makes him an expert.

 

[Jack Hays]

It is possible to have your preconceived notion confirmed by the facts, yes. The Confirmation Bias I'm referring to is when "skeptics" go looking for reasons to declare AGW a myth (And they have to look pretty damned hard. They reside in the cracks between mountains of truth.)

You may wish to acquaint yourself with the work of Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv.

 

[Jack Hays]

I dont think you'd recognize a scientific circle if you were in the middle of it.

BTW, he's one of yours.

 

[Garydog]

You may wish to acquaint yourself with the work of Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv.

You may wish to acquaint yourself with NASA, IPCC, most American public universities, Oxford, Hadley Centre, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm really just happy that people like you are in the extreme minority in scientific circles. Otherwise, confirmation bias would rule the day.

LOL...

I don't use bias. I use facts.

 

[Garydog]

LOL...

I don't use bias. I use facts.

97% of climate scientists disagree.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is possible to have your preconceived notion confirmed by the facts, yes. The Confirmation Bias I'm referring to is when "skeptics" go looking for reasons to declare AGW a myth (And they have to look pretty damned hard. They reside in the cracks between mountains of truth.)

First of all, please express the facts correctly.

Why do you have such problems?

Yes.... AGW is real! I acknowledge it is real. Others here you incorrectly call "deniers" acknowledge it is real.

It is not a myth!

Thing is, you see it as a binary problem. Yes/no, etc. The facts are in the shades of grey, and until you try to understand what we are saying, you are a denier of facts.

What we "skeptics" agree upon, is the quantities Assigned to the various elements of AGW. Until you understand that... Please just go away. That is where the argument is at.

The moment you claim we don't believe in AGW... you are showing your stupidity!

 

[Garydog]

First of all, please express the facts correctly.

Why do you have such problems?

Yes.... AGW is real! I acknowledge it is real. Others here you incorrectly call "deniers" acknowledge it is real.

It is not a myth!

Thing is, you see it as a binary problem. Yes/no, etc. The facts are in the shades of grey, and until you try to understand what we are saying, you are a denier of facts.

What we "skeptics" agree upon, is the quantities Assigned to the various elements of AGW. Until you understand that... Please just go away. That is where the argument is at.

The moment you claim we don't believe in AGW... you are showing your stupidity!

When you don't even understand what's going on in Antarctica, when you don't understand the difference between sea ice and land ice, you've lost your right to call anyone stupid.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You may wish to acquaint yourself with NASA, IPCC, most American public universities, Oxford, Hadley Centre, etc. etc. etc.

May I suggest you read the actual studies, and learn the English vocabulary better, because "words have meaning!"

You should really stop letting the pundits interpret the facts for you...