To melt away the Arctic ice, it will take a lot more than 274 deg. K!
See the 2019 summertime temperatures north of 80 deg. North latitude? Same as the 1958-2002 mean!
Well, the time now is 26 AUG 2019 2311Z. You silly socialists blew it. Time expired. I gave you an opportunity to beat me in a climate bet. I even tipped some info to you that I was more than likely going to lose. Oh, well. Too bad.
This is a really good 30 minute watch about ice melting.
I watched the video andy. It was basically full of "what if" scenarios, followed by assuming the what ifs are real. There was no discussion by Dr. Hansen and others about how much heat energy it would take to melt the Antarctic sheets. And the reason why is because that amount of energy is way beyond anything human CO2 contribution could ever produce.
Here is the Antarctic sea ice extent from 1972 according to the University of Bremen.
You can see some year to year fluctuations, but overall, the ice has been quite stable. The what ifs are a product of a highly overactive imagination.
"And the reason why is because that amount of energy is way beyond anything human CO2 contribution could ever produce."
After claiming the video is only a bunch of "what ifs", you shutdown everything with a non-scientific statement like that. nice.
I'm not shutting down anything andy. I am simply pointing out some fundamentals. Just take a look at a snap shot of Antarctic weather:
Average annual temperature is around -50 deg. C.
Making catastrophic predictions of Antarctic ice sheet melt and collapse will require a drastic increase of southern hemispheric temperatures. There is no scientific evidence that such a short-term temperature increase will actually occur.
you're dismissing scientific concepts for graphs. this is where you fall off the discussion. you dont posses the capacity to have any conceptual level thinking. not sure why you do this, no one is listening to you.
A good video about how the arctic is melting.
The graphs are based on actual scientific measurements andy. Why are you so dismissive of those? I'll watch the arctic video later. By the way, thank you for keeping your discussions civil.
"I'll watch the arctic video later."
You said last night that you watched it. I figured you didnt watch it yet.
Oh, that's the same video. That was more about the Antarctic than it was about the Arctic. I did watch that.
yes, its very informational about whats happening. The point of the video is not to say we have X years left before its all gone. My take from it, bringing to light things we didnt consider that is essentially the explanation for why the melting is happening faster than we initially thought.
andy, the East Antarctic ice sheet is stable.
still feel the need to disprove eh? Thats unfortunate for your development.
andy, I just take each bit data that comes in, and let the data speak for itself. I don't try to alter data to fit my imagination.
Check out the Arctic ice. Guess what just happened?
The Arctic ice melt has come to a screeching halt!
26 AUG 2019 - 4,656,000 km^2
27 AUG 2019 - 4,667,000 km^2
The Arctic ice extent INCREASED 11,000 km^2 in one day. THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST SINCE THE SATELLITE ERA BEGAN!!!
Ya know somethin? All of you global warming flaggie boy zealots were probably wise not to challenge me over the 4,500,000 km^2 Arctic sea ice extent line. I thought for sure I would lose that bet. But now, I'm not so certain.
We still have 3 more weeks of melting to go, so I think this is a just a little blip. But the fact this little blip occurred in August is what makes it so abnormal.
MASIE data shows it is still melting.
2019238, 4526304.96, 485194.69, 162988.58, 163717.83, 129379.38, 8219.82, 37061.91, 209727.07
2019239, 4439688.25, 442221.33, 140418.68, 128290.51, 123477.50, 7489.10, 43940.79, 205478.04
26 AUG 2019 - 4,526,304.96 km^2
27 AUG 2019 - 4,439,688.25 km^2
MASIE shows a decrease of 86,616.71 km^2 in one day. MASIE has a higher resolution method of measuring the Arctic sea ice extent, and there is much more day to day fluctuation. NSIDC measures ice extent based on a 15%+ ice area coverage of a defined grid. And they use a 5-day running average.
I think it will bottom out somewhere around 4,200,000 to 4,300,000 km^2 in September. But I really don't know. That 11,000 km^2 increase was kinda freaky. We will see.
Comments on the data flaggie boys?
My comments on that data, is that the square kilometer ice coverage does not represent melting that is happening beneath the surface of the ice. Part of the significance i saw in that video i posted, is that the surface ice coverage does not change while there is ice present from above sea level to the bottom of the ocean floor that can melt, and it is melting. The below sea level melting phenomenon that is explained in the video is not taken into consideration when you are relaying surface ice coverage.
Also, the figure missing from that data is the thickness of the ice coverage. While the surface ice coverage square kilometer figure changes, how is the thickness of that ice changing? (earth is 3-dimensional)
andy, the multi-decadal decline of the Arctic sea ice extent has been the primary example used by global warming alarmists to prove "human-caused global warming."
Now that the Arctic sea ice extent is now showing signs of stabilizing, you global warming alarmists don't want to talk about that anymore!
@andy. He has sucked you in. He is giving you daily ice extents and assumes that an increase over one day suggests climate change is over. It's like saying that the temperature in California is 94 today and was 96 yesterday. Gee California is cooling.Look at everything posted by others and you will see how the ice is melting away. Yes you get seasonal fluctuation and the among of ice varies between summer and winter but sadly the sea and land ice trend is down, down down down
Ask, and ye shall receive andy. Ice thickness data:
Here is a PNAS paper on Antarctic ice sheet melt.
The abstract states that Antarctica contributed 14mm +/- 2mm of sea level rise since 1979. About 1/2 inch!
Are all of you global warming zealots going "danger Will Robinson, danger Will Robinson" with your arms flailing about?
Science is all about numbers SCCRENDOD. I look at the numbers and share them here. You obviously don't like that!
By the way SCCRENDODO, did you skip over the MASIE part of my post? MASIE shows the ice is still melting. When it comes to data, I AM FAIR AND BALANCED, AND UNAFRAID!
And by the way andy, here is a NASA study shows that the mass gains are GREATER than the mass losses in Antarctica!
Follow up to that study using more accurate measurements concluded the opposite:
Conflicting results RedShift. The certainty is unsettled! But even with the ice loss solution, the sea level rise contribution is determined to be 1/2 inch since 1979. "Danger Will Robinson, danger Will Robinson" RedShift?
No, the second study uses more accurate methods to double check everything than the first. Read the link properly. Not merely ‘unsettled’ as you are trying to whitewash.
Regarding your other stupid comment, I will not respond anymore. You are just rehashing previously rebuffed arguments hoping it will wear me down.
RedShift, I'm not going to pay attention to what graphic designer Kevin Anderton happens to say about Antarctic ice. I will pay attention to Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD.
Here is the Geophysical Research Letters study Anderton was yakin' about.
Two different studies with two different results. How in the hell do you know the Geophysical Research Letters study is any more accurate than the NASA study RedShift? You don't! You just like their conclusion better, and that is all you are basing your "more accurate" claim on.
So, let's assume the one you like is valid. Did you read the abstract RedShift? They came up with a total mass imbalance of 57 +/- 20 Gt / yr. It takes 362 Gt of melting ice over land to raise the sea level 1mm. At that rate, Antarctica will contribute 3/5 inch to sea level rise over a century!
And all of you global warming zealots are goin', "danger Will Robinson, danger Will Robinson" with your arms flailing everywhere about that??!!!
Dr. John Christy said it best during Congressional testimony. "Science is all about numbers."
No. I based it on the fact that they used more accurate methods than just the first study. If you had read the link, it states what the methods were, in both studies.
Also, it is not just Antarctica, there is the arctic melting too. You conveniently ignore that in your false conclusion about the rise in sea levels.
We are done here. Continue your verbal diarrhea.
John Christy again? He was shown to be in the pay of fossil fuel interests. You keep bringing him back, and we keep exposing him. Ok?
Blatant lie RedShift! Christy never received fossil fuel funding for his research!
Also, what do you base your "more accurate" assessment on? You just surmised it?
RedShift is actually correct. Heres a couple examples i found in like 2 minutes of research.
Check out NSIDC data. Two days in a row the Arctic ice extent is showing an increase. And it is still August!
28 AUG 2019 - 4,669,000 km^2
MASIE data is still showing a decline.
Whatever it is, it certainly looks like the 2019 Arctic ice melt season is very near the end.
Oh, there ya go andy. Buzzfeed. That's a reputable source! Let's see what else. Christy was on the Glenn Beck show! That's it! Christy is bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry!
That was weak andy. And RedShift, that was a blatant lie!
NASA is what funds Christy's research. After all, Christy and Spencer were the scientists who developed measuring the earth's temperature from satellites while they were working for NASA! They still indirectly work for NASA.
I know that irritates the crap out of you global warming zealots!
all hail Christy
Blatant lie, eh?
Here you go:
Read up. Carefully. Then as usual dismiss it as a ‘socialist’ link. That’s your go-to strategy when trying to shoot the messenger bringing you bad news!
Im sure you didnt click on the source links within the two links i provided. Its easier to dismiss it from the book cover than to open it.
“NASA is what funds Christy's research. After all, Christy and Spencer were the scientists who developed measuring the earth's temperature from satellites while they were working for NASA! They still indirectly work for NASA.”
1. Roy Spencer’s fossil fuel funding is no secret at all. Christy and Spencer have been associated with many fossil fuel funded think tanks, from my link above. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what that means.
2. NASA scientists have at numerous times corrected the errors made by both of these gentlemen. Christy was forced to admit to the errors they made. He agreed that due to the errors they made their studies showed a cooling effect, while in reality, there was a warming trend. There is no dispute by Christy here. He agrees to this.
This is in the link Andy provided.
Mitch continues to bring these two names in, and they continue to be discredited.
Its useless. I've been patient and optimistic for a long time now, and i'd be definitively insane to think that continuing to try is going to yield a different result. @Mitch is not worthy of discussion.
Nowhere in the Guardian article does it show where Christy took fossil fuel money for their research! You struck out RedShift!
Oh, he spoke at a think tank? Is that what concerns you? Hey RedShift, got a question for ya. If somebody who works for the fossil fuel industry wants to use your services, are you going to turn the business away?
Another thing RedShift, you are just surmising that Christy takes fossil fuel money for his research. That is slander!
A dumbass democrat congressman accused Christy of the same thing you are, and it blew up in his face!
Good Reason Magazine write-up about Congressman Grijalva's witch hunt.
I'm sure all of you global warming zealots loved what Grijalva did!
More on John Christy's response to Grijalva -
"In my case, they won't find anything." And they didn't find anything!
RedShift, what you just did was already tried by a democrat in Congress. Like you, he came up empty!
Serious question, how can humans impact how the ice melts underneath a glacier? There’s no way we’re warming the bedrock of Antarctica. What am I missing? Thank you.
Neomax, these global warming zealots believe that adding one molecule of CO2 to 10,000 molecules (from 3 parts to 4 parts in 10,000) of air will melt the polar ice to oblivion!
That is how effed up they are.
Here is Rep. Raul Grijalva's letter to the University of Alabama Huntsville.
He got nothin' on Christy, and neither will you RedShift!
I'm laughing at you global warming worshippers!
Show me a document that says nothing was found on Christy by this guy you mentioned. In the links you gave, there is nothing resembling what I am asking.
Also, show me a document that says nothing was found on his pal, Roy Spencer.
If there was something found RedShift, CLINTON NEWS NETWORK AND MSDNC WOULD BE ALL OVER IT!
So, o document. Stop screaming, that won’t produce any documents for you.
@Neo. I know this is meant to be a denier site. But you asked a serious question. So here is a serious answer. Greenhouse gases like CO2 trap heat and warms up the planet. that causes ice to melt. Here is a nice explanationhttps://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
Thanks SCCRENDO, but the question I was asking had to do with melting the bottoms of glaciers, not the tops. Yes, the top of the glacier will melt on a hotter day or during a hotter year. What about the bottom melt that is mentioned?
The water melting above will find its way to the bottom through crevices in the ice, go to the bottom sometimes, and act as a slippery surface for the ice to glide on.
@Neo. That is even a better question and I sort of have an answer. It’s complicatedhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-glaciers-melting-from...