Sea ice has no effect on sea elevation, melting land ice does

I'm simply stating the obvious but the obvious seems to allude denialists who keep making a big whoop-di-doo over the temporary anomaly of increased Antarctica sea ice. As far as land ice, it is melting on balance on both Greenland and Antarctica. That's what global warming does.

http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_rel...c_and/?cHash=64ac737e3447ae4ca984e3bbd97480fe

 

What denial?

As you say, it's an obvious fact.

Did you know however that most of the West Antarctic ice is actually ice that extends to the sea bed? Most of it is actually islands. Did you know that if all of Western Antarctica melted, it would only increase the sea level by 5 meters?

To trust consensus in sciences is to be a denier of real science. Consensus is for politics, and it pains me to see people treat the climate sciences as political science.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. If all the snow-ice in the Sierras melted it probably wouldn't raise the ocean by even a foot. For ocean rise purposes one measures ice melt as a total earth phenomenon - at least that's what scientists do.

When you are dealing with scientists vetting each other's work consensus is critical and nothing like politics where votes not evidence is the driver.

 

LOLOLOLOLOL.......ROTFLMAO........

Somewhat wrong. The West Antarctic ice shelves that extend out over the ocean waters are mostly floating over the "sea bed", not "extending to the sea bed" and ocean water flows under them, but SO WHAT??? And yeah, everybody who's familiar with this topic already knew that those ice shelves extent over the ocean, but again SO WHAT? What significance do you imagine that factoid has to this debate?

Can you comprehend the fact that a sea level rise of "only" FIVE METERS (16.5 feet) would completely destroy trillions of dollars of coastal infrastructure, wipe out entire cities where humans have lived for millennia, poison aquifers and water tables with salt water crippling agriculture in many regions, create billions of climate refugees and possibly start wars over resources, food supplies and potable water?

No, you can't comprehend that? I didn't think so.

Ignorant nonsense! Scientific consensus is real and exists in many areas of science. Deniers attack the validity of scientific consensus because the consensus of scientists all around the world is that AGW/CC is very real and that it poses a grave danger to the stability and safety of our civilization, our agricultural systems & food supply, our biosphere & ecology, and possibly our very survival as a species. Deniers must reject the consensus to preserve their ideological/political/economic imperatives and obsessions, not because of any supposed scientific reasons.

Scientific Consensus
Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.

There are many philosophical and historical theories as to how scientific consensus changes over time. Because the history of scientific change is extremely complicated, and because there is a tendency to project "winners" and "losers" onto the past in relation to our current scientific consensus, it is very difficult to come up with accurate and rigorous models for scientific change. This is made exceedingly difficult also in part because each of the various branches of science functions in somewhat different ways with different forms of evidence and experimental approaches.

Most models of scientific change rely on new data produced by scientific experiment. Karl Popper proposed that since no amount of experiments could ever prove a scientific theory, but a single experiment could disprove one, science should be based on falsification. Whilst this forms a logical theory for science, it is in a sense "timeless" and does not necessarily reflect a view on how science should progress over time.

Among the most influential challengers of this approach was Thomas Kuhn, who argued instead that experimental data always provide some data which cannot fit completely into a theory, and that falsification alone did not result in scientific change or an undermining of scientific consensus. He proposed that scientific consensus worked in the form of "paradigms", which were interconnected theories and underlying assumptions about the nature of the theory itself which connected various researchers in a given field. Kuhn argued that only after the accumulation of many "significant" anomalies would scientific consensus enter a period of "crisis". At this point, new theories would be sought out, and eventually one paradigm would triumph over the old one — a cycle of paradigm shifts rather than a linear progression towards truth. Kuhn's model also emphasized more clearly the social and personal aspects of theory change, demonstrating through historical examples that scientific consensus was never truly a matter of pure logic or pure facts. However, these periods of 'normal' and 'crisis' science are not mutually exclusive. Research shows that these are different modes of practice, more than different historical periods.

Politicization of science

In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action by those who stand to gain from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

For example, the scientific consensus on the causes of global warming is that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming. In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus. Oreskes's findings were replicated by other methods that require no interpretation.

The theory of evolution through natural selection is also supported by a overwhelming scientific consensus; it is one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science. Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community. The wedge strategy, a plan to promote intelligent design, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". The tricky part is discerning what is close enough to "final truth". For example, social action against smoking probably came too long after science was 'pretty consensual'.

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. However, insofar as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data and well-accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.

No part of policy formation on the basis of the ostensible scientific consensus precludes persistent review either of the relevant scientific consensus or the tangible results of policy. Indeed, the same reasons that drove reliance upon the consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time—and adjusting policy as needed.

 

Only 5 meters.

When scientists talk of the Antarctic melting, they rarely supply any information except for West Antarctica, then tell us there will be what? A 60 meter rise if Antarctica melts?

As long as the uses alarmist tactics, I will laugh at them.

To melt Western Antarctica would be a task to begin with. Now I'm not claiming it never could, but I don't see how in any realistic way. All these things are cyclical anyway.

 

More of your clueless drivel.

There is nothing at all "cyclical" about the current abrupt warming. That's a demented denier cult myth. The natural cycle of orbital variation and wobble has had the Earth in a long slow cooling trend for the last five or six thousand years, until mankind pumped a few billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and reversed the trend.

Global temperatures hung a U-turn in 1900, reversing a 5,000-year chill-down
Until recently, orbital changes were driving us toward the next ice age.
ARS Technica
by John Timmer
Mar 7 2013
(excerpts)
To provide a broader perspective on our climate, a team of researchers has reconstructed its history for the entire Holocene, the period that started with the end of the last ice age. The record shows that the Holocene temperatures largely followed the orbital forcings, peaking over 6,000 years ago and then gradually falling until roughly 1900. That's when the temperatures experienced a sudden reverse, going from among the coldest of the entire period to the warmest in less than a century. The Earth's orbit and axis undergo cyclical changes, called Milankovitch cycles after the astronomer who first recognized them. These cycles cause changes to the amount and distribution of sunlight that strikes the Earth, changes that can raise or lower the average temperature of the planet. The result is what's called an "orbital forcing," which can drive long-term climate changes. Another very obvious thing in the record is that our planet has (up until recently) been in a 5,000-year-old cooling trend. You will sometimes see people arguing that we've been warming since the end of the last ice age, but this simply isn't an accurate depiction of the data. Orbital forcings and temperatures did rise sharply at the end of the ice age, but they then remained relatively stable for about 5,000 years at about 0.6°C above the temperature of the last 1,500 years. Orbital forcings would have peaked about 9,000 years ago, and temperatures seem to have had a small peak about seven thousand years ago. But a steady decline started about 5,000 years ago, and it accelerated within the last thousand years, with a sharper drop associated with the period we call the Little Ice age. As a whole, this decline took the Earth down by about 0.7°C, dropping it below the average temperature of the last 1,500 years.

The picture up to 1900 is consistent with the estimates that the best of the Holocene was behind us and we were cooling towards an inevitable re-glaciation. The authors calculate that the decade from 1900-1910 was cooler than more than 95 percent of all the other decades in the Holocene. But things pretty much ended there. As in the hockey stick reconstructions of the recent climate, this one shows a dramatic upswing in the century just past. Although the most recent decade (2000-2009) isn't the warmest of the Holocene, it's not too far off. The authors estimate that it was warmer than 82 percent of the decades of the last 12,000 years. "Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend," the authors conclude. And based on records of things like solar output, ocean currents, and volcanic eruptions, there's little indication of anything other than greenhouse gasses that could have caused this sort of reversal.

 

Believe as you wish.

Thing is majority rule doesn't work in science. The article you linked is based on a paper that has widespread criticism.

The way science consensus works, is that all scientists reviewing the facts agree. Not just a majority.

I wonder when the climate sciences will become a real part of the geosciences, instead of part of political science.

 

Or maybe you're just not reading. Scroll down and check the two graphs. They show the loss-gain from various sections of the Antarctic and the comparative loss of ice mass between Greenland and Antarctica. Yes it is greater in Greenland.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

If you want to play typical denialist strawman games that's on you. Don't blame it on the scientists.

 

Nobody EVER said that it did. That's a straw-man argument. Scientific consensus does NOT equal "majority rule" and your mistaken belief that it does just demonstrates how very little you know about science or the actual meaning of 'scientific consensus'.

Only in your little community of hard core AGW deniers and rightwingnut ideologues. In the real world, in the world scientific community, Marcott and Shakun's paper is a much cited, published in Science, peer-reviewed piece of accepted sound science. No deniers have managed to refute that paper in the scientific literature, only on crackpot rightwingnut blogs.

LOLOL....once again, you are just further demonstrating that you know nothing about science.

Scientific Consensus

Definition: The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field.​

​

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Everybody else wonders when you'll stop confusing your ideological obsessions with actual science.

 

I'm talking about the melting data. They seldom use any sheet ice data except Antarctica then correlate it to the whole continent melting. However, the two respond much differently.

 

Every fallacious, scientifically ignorant 'point' that LOP has tried to make has been thoroughly debunked by the facts.

Which is not surprising when you're watching someone who knows nothing about science desperately trying to deny reality.

 

Yawn...

 

Ah...finally waking up, we hope....but, more likely, just going back to sleep, like always when actual science is mentioned...

 

No, you lack of ability to debate is putting me to sleep. Most the stuff you post, I have read. I am tired of your relentless posting of material that you believe without understanding, like a follower of spiritual dogma.

Maybe if you could actually debate the dynamics, instead of regurgitating other materiel, you could be interesting.

As it stands, my number of posts responding to you will diminish. I am getting tired of your dogma. You remind me of a Jehovah's Witness.

 

I'm fine with you going away. Your inability to back up any of the (fallacious) claims you make with any actual evidence and your total ignorance about science bores me. I might as well argue with a fourth grader.

 

You're just boring and warrant little response accept to tell you you are boring and warrant little response. I think the yawn was spot on!!!!!

 

Oops, the second graders have arrived.

 

Yeah so stay in your kindergarten room and keep to yourself. You have nothing of value that is required.

 

LOLOLOL......I'm the one posting actual science while you just spew unsupported BS and denier cult drivel.

 

posting articles and studies that have nothing to do with the question on the table. And since your kindergarten brain can't process the question correctly we're left with having to deal with someone LoSiNg the debate hugely!!!!!!!!! burp!

 

Silly nonsense from someone who can never seem to produce any supporting evidence for his fallacious claims.

 

Exactly what do you think is my claim?

 

The most ridiculous one is that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas and has no effect on temperatures on Earth. You have a host of other very fallacious, anti-science, bat-crap crazy claims as well.

 

First I never stated I didn't think CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas. I stated that increase of the gas by 120 PPM does not cause an increase in temperature like you claim. Hence my request for your experiment that shows that adding 120 PPM to the 280 PPM causes an increase in temperature. I use the cooling period between 1940 to 1970 as my evidence your claim is false. So Prove me wrong and present your experiment.

I also use the current 18 year haitus, and the fact that the poles are still producing Ice as they were 100 years ago.

 

LOLOL....."causing an increase in temperature" is a big part of the definition of a greenhouse gas.....so...self-contradictory drivel is what you're posting...

That evidence has been shown to you many times but you remain in brainwashed denial of reality. Here it is again.

Evidence

CO2 absorption of infrared (IR), theory:
*Kouzov, A. P., & Chrysos, M. (2009). Collision-induced absorption by CO 2 in the far infrared: Analysis of leading-order moments and interpretation of the experiment. Physical Review A, 80(4), 042703.
*Chrysos, M., Kouzov, A. P., Egorova, N. I., & Rachet, F. (2008 ). Exact Low-Order Classical Moments in Collision-Induced Bands by Linear Rotors: CO 2-CO 2. Physical review letters, 100(13), 133007.
*Buldyreva, J., & Chrysos, M. (2001). Semiclassical modeling of infrared pressure-broadened linewidths: A comparative analysis in CO2–Ar at various temperatures. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 115(16), 7436-7441.
*Kratz, D. P., Gao, B. C., & Kiehl, J. T. (1991). A study of the radiative effects of the 9.4‐and 10.4‐micron bands of carbon dioxide. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 96(D5), 9021-9026.
*Stull, V. R., Wyatt, P. J., & Plass, G. N. (1964). The infrared transmittance of carbon dioxide. Applied Optics, 3(2), 243-254.

CO2 absorption of IR, laboratory measurements:
*R.A. Toth, et al., Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 109:6, April 2008, 906-921.
*Predoi-Cross, A., Unni, A. V., Liu, W., Schofield, I., Holladay, C., McKellar, A. R. W., & Hurtmans, D. (2007). Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012← 00001 and 30013← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence. Journal of molecular spectroscopy, 245(1), 34-51.
*Miller, C. E., & Brown, L. R. (2004). Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I.[sup] 16[/sup] O[sup] 12[/sup] C[sup] 16[/sup] O line positions. Journal of molecular spectroscopy, 228(2), 329-354.
*Niro, F., Boulet, C., & Hartmann, J. M. (2004). Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO[sub] 2[/sub] IR bands between 10 and 20μm. I: model and laboratory measurements. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 88(4), 483-498.
*Benec'h, S., Rachet, F., Chrysos, M., Buldyreva, J., & Bonamy, L. (2002). On far‐wing Raman profiles by CO2. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy, 33(11‐12), 934-940.

Earth's upward emission of IR:
*Murphy, D. M., Solomon, S., Portmann, R. W., Rosenlof, K. H., Forster, P. M., & Wong, T. (2009). An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 114(D17).
*Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., & Kiehl, J. (2009). Earth's global energy budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(3).
*Wong, T., Wielicki, B. A., Lee III, R. B., Smith, G. L., Bush, K. A., & Willis, J. K. (2006). Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner WFOV data. Journal of Climate, 19(16).
*Harries, J. E. (2000). Physics of the Earth's radiative energy balance. Contemporary Physics, 41(5), 309-322.
*Kyle, H. L., Arking, A., Hickey, J. R., Ardanuy, P. E., Jacobowitz, H., Stowe, L. L., ... & Smith, G. L. (1993). The Nimbus Earth radiation budget (ERB) experiment: 1975 to 1992. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 74(5), 815-830.
*Barkstrom, B. R. (1984). The earth radiation budget experiment (ERBE). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 65(11), 1170-1185.

Changes in Earth's upward IR emission as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere:
*Gastineau, G., Soden, B. J., Jackson, D. L., & O'Dell, C. W. (2014). Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models. Journal of Climate, 27(2).
*Chapman, D., Nguyen, P., & Halem, M. (2013, May). A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS. In SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing (pp. 874313-874313). International Society for Optics and Photonics.
*Chen, C., Harries, J., Brindley, H., & Ringer, M. (2007). Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Retrieved October, 13, 2009.
*Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E. (2007). Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS. Journal of climate, 20(15).
*Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E. (2004, November). Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present. In Optical Science and Technology, the SPIE 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 164-174). International Society for Optics and Photonics.


Changes in downwelling infrared from the atmosphere as a result of increased CO2:
*Wang, K., & Liang, S. (2009). Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 114(D19).
*Wild, M., Grieser, J., & Schär, C. (2008 ). Combined surface solar brightening and increasing greenhouse effect support recent intensification of the global land‐based hydrological cycle. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(17).
*Prata, F. (2008 ). The climatological record of clear‐sky longwave radiation at the Earth's surface: evidence for water vapour feedback?. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29(17-18 ), 5247-5263.
*Allan, R. P. (2006). Variability in clear‐sky longwave radiative cooling of the atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 111(D22).
*Philipona, R., Dürr, B., Marty, C., Ohmura, A., & Wild, M. (2004). Radiative forcing‐measured at Earth's surface‐corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(3).

Formal determination of CO2-temperature causality:
* Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2013). Granger Causality Analyses for Climatic Attribution. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 3, 515.
* Attanasio, A. (2012). Testing for linear Granger causality from natural/anthropogenic forcings to global temperature anomalies. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 110(1-2), 281-289.
* Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2012). A contribution to attribution of recent global warming by out‐of‐sample Granger causality analysis. Atmospheric Science Letters, 13(1), 67-72.
* Kodra, E., Chatterjee, S., & Ganguly, A. R. (2011). Exploring Granger causality between global average observed time series of carbon dioxide and temperature. Theoretical and applied climatology, 104(3-4), 325-335.
* Verdes, P. F. (2005). Assessing causality from multivariate time series. PHYSICAL REVIEW-SERIES E-, 72(2), 026222.

Everybody else takes your fraudulent claims about that to be clear evidence that you have no idea what you're babbling about.

There has been no "18 year hiatus". The Earth's atmosphere, oceans, land surfaces and ice have all continued to warm up at increasing rates. Both poles are losing ice mass and the Arctic ice cap of floating sea ice only occupies a small fraction of the extent and volume it once did only six decades ago.

You seem to be completely lost in the mass of delusional and deceptive drivel that the fossil fuel industry propagandists have created to confuse people about the scientifically affirmed reality of AGW.