1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years

LOLOLOL.....well, you're certainly entitled to your feelings, but objectively, that's just nonsense. I just critiqued your previous post and found it wanting in clarity, logic and substance. I discussed the situation regarding the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign that seems to have you duped and the probable consequences to the planet and the human race if we allow their greed driven disinformation campaign to succeed in preventing the necessary and rational limits on carbon emissions. I pointed out that your actions and tactics in this debate don't really seem to be those of an actual 'skeptic', but those of what might more properly be termed a 'denier' and I referenced a discussion of the difference between the two. That you would attempt to equate a concern for the Earth, our civilization, our people, the biosphere and future generations plus acceptance of the conclusions of the world's expert climate scientists with my "religion" is very telling and one of main symptoms and 'giveaways' of a rabid anti-environmentalist.

My feeling is that you've elevated your rejection of the scientific consensus to to a cult like belief that is immune to reason, logic or evidence.

Pretty much all you've done on this thread, besides whining about having your fantasies attacked and confusing that with personal attacks, is to deny "the very existence of the overwhelming scientific evidence" and of the very real and very strong consensus based on that evidence among the world scientific community on the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming and its consequent climate changes, and that is just another tack that the deniers try to take to confuse the issue and ultimately deny the actual reality of the dangers our world is facing and thus argue for not acting now, thus secretly stooging for the continued profits of the fossil fuel industry.

Note that I have now challenged you TWICE in recent pages "to name any major national or international scientific organization that denies or tries to refute those conclusions" of the climate scientists and you've dodged and ignored the question both times.

 

Hysterics will get you nowhere.

 

Denial of reality will get you nowhere.

 

I must be a "cultist", right?

 

I don't know. Are you? Do you blindly reject scientific evidence, research and conclusions like members of the 'Flat Earth' cult? Do you allow your emotions, your political beliefs, or your economic theories to determine what parts of modern science you accept or reject?

 

Now you don't know? Before you labelled me as a cultist, a denier; accused me of being brainwashed, believing in myths, etc...and now you don't know??!

It's almost as if you're relying on your emotions and empty rhetoric to shout down anyone who dares question any of your claims...which is very similar to a Bible thumper's reaction to any questions concerning his religion...hence, my previous accusation of your near religious defensiveness.

 

I'm pretty clear on just what you are. I just wanted to see if you were capable of admitting that you're blindly rejecting the scientific facts for political reasons.

Once again you confuse defending science from reality deniers like you with religious beliefs. Perhaps that is because you're so lost in this crackpot cult of denial that the fossil fuel industry cooked up.

 

Again, show me where I denied the existence of AGW. stop the personal attacks

 

LOLOLOLOL......so are you going to turn around now and say that you affirm the reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes?

How about the question you've been dodging for so many posts now, after you tried so hard to deny that there is a strong consensus in the world scientific community on the reality and dangers of AGW?

This makes four times now that you've run away from the demand "to name any major national or international scientific organization that denies or tries to refute those conclusions of the climate scientists".

 

I've maintained my position consistently which is "I don't know". You've then turned that around to label me as a cultist. That, my friend, is irrational behavior. If you can find a post where I state that AGW is not happening then post that. To do anything else is to act like a petulant child who lost his binky.

As to your "demand", there are scientists that do deny AGW and there are scientific organizations who don't take a stance one way or the other. To deny that is to bury your head in the sand.

 

Now to get this thread back on something like the actual topic - the AGW induced melting of the world's ice. Here's some new research on the Antarctic ice mass loss.

Antarctic ice melting at record rate, study shows
The Guardian
15 April 2013
(excerpts)
Summer ice is melting at a faster rate in the Antarctic peninsula than at any time in the last 1,000 years, new research has shown. The evidence comes from a 364-metre ice core containing a record of freezing and melting over the previous millennium. Layers of ice in the core, drilled from James Ross Island near the northern tip of the peninsula, indicate periods when summer snow on the ice cap thawed and then refroze. By measuring the thickness of these layers, scientists were able to match the history of melting with changes in temperature.

Lead researcher Dr Nerilie Abram, from the Australian National University and British Antarctic Survey (BAS), said: "Summer melting at the ice core site today is now at a level that is higher than at any other time over the last 1,000 years. And while temperatures at this site increased gradually in phases over many hundreds of years, most of the intensification of melting has happened since the mid-20th century." Levels of ice melt on the Antarctic peninsula were especially sensitive to rising temperature during the last century, he said. "What that means is that the Antarctic peninsula has warmed to a level where even small increases in temperature can now lead to a big increase in summer melt," Abram added.

 

Here's some more recent research on the accelerating loss of ice at the Earth's poles due to anthropogenic global warming.

Ice Sheet Loss at Both Poles Increasing, Major Study Finds
NASA
Nov. 29, 2012
(GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION - not under copyright - free to reproduce)
(excerpts)

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. In a landmark study published Thursday in the journal Science, 47 researchers from 26 laboratories report the combined rate of melting for the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica has increased during the last 20 years. Together, these ice sheets are losing more than three times as much ice each year (equivalent to sea level rise of 0.04 inches or 0.95 millimeters) as they were in the 1990s (equivalent to 0.01 inches or 0.27 millimeters). About two-thirds of the loss is coming from Greenland, with the rest from Antarctica. This rate of ice sheet losses falls within the range reported in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The spread of estimates in the 2007 IPCC report was so broad, however, it was not clear whether Antarctica was growing or shrinking. The new estimates, which are more than twice as accurate because of the inclusion of more satellite data, confirm both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice.

The study was produced by an international collaboration -- the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) -- that combined observations from 10 satellite missions to develop the first consistent measurement of polar ice sheet changes. The researchers reconciled differences among dozens of earlier ice sheet studies by carefully matching observation periods and survey areas. They also combined measurements collected by different types of satellite sensors, such as ESA's radar missions, NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) and the NASA/German Aerospace Center's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). "What is unique about this effort is that it brought together the key scientists and all of the different methods to estimate ice loss," said Tom Wagner, NASA's cryosphere program manager in Washington. "It's a major challenge they undertook, involving cutting-edge, difficult research to produce the most rigorous and detailed estimates of ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica to date. The results of this study will be invaluable in informing the IPCC as it completes the writing of its Fifth Assessment Report over the next year." The study found variations in the pace of ice sheet change in Antarctica and Greenland. "Both ice sheets appear to be losing more ice now than 20 years ago, but the pace of ice loss from Greenland is extraordinary, with nearly a five-fold increase since the mid-1990s," Ivins said. "In contrast, the overall loss of ice in Antarctica has remained fairly constant with the data suggesting a 50-percent increase in Antarctic ice loss during the last decade."

 

Isn't there already another thread on this exact same story?