Newly Discovered Meltwater Streams Flow Beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheet

The Telegraph reports that previously undetected streams of meltwater have been observed beneath the Antarctic ice sheet. "The streams of water, some of which are 250m in height and stretch for hundreds of kilometres, could be destabilising parts of the Antarctic ice shelf immediately around them and speeding up melting, researchers said. However, they added that it remains unclear how the localised effects of the channels will impact on the future of the floating ice sheet as a whole. The British researchers used satellite images and radar data to measure variations in the height of the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf in West Antarctica, which reveal how thick the ice is." The paper itself is paywalled, but the abstract is available online.

Comments

There always has been water flow under the ice

[SpaceLifeForm]

It is when it is visible because of the lack of ice that some of the global warming deniers will wake up. Maybe.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[binarylarry]

Scientists have discovered that Antarctica's ice shelf is made of water!

News at 11.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[symbolset]

The mean annual surface air temperature of the Antarctic interior is -57C. Surface melt refreezes rather promptly. But ice is great insulation, and geothermal energy comes up from the Earth to melt the bottom of the ice sheet. This meltwater flows in streams and rivers across the world's largest continent until it becomes the world's largest rivers, inevitably finding the sea. This should be obvious.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, yes. Because the last time the entire earth has all the water as ice (snowball earth) and the last time the earth had NO ice on it at all it was those pesky humans and AGW. Wait. they didnt even exist then.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... The Antarctic is GROWING. And the Global Warming hypothesis is collapsing. You have your propaganda hat on the wrong way... :)

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[Anonymous Coward]

the world's largest continent

Antarctica is the fifth-largest continent.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[ElBeano]

The extent of sea ice during the winter seems to be growing, but the total MASS of ice, sea and land, continues to shrink. You're the propagandist.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[ultranova]

It is when it is visible because of the lack of ice that some of the global warming deniers will wake up. Maybe.

Not a chance. The nature of self-delusion is such that it becomes harder to admit the truth the more evidence you've ignored, especially when you've been vocal about it. People who have made fools of themselves by publicly speaking of international climate science conspiracies have a lot of incentive to keep believing in them. And of course there's still whatever reason - usually economic - that led them to start such games in the first place.

The more evidence is found, the more ridiculous assumptions are required to explain it away, and the more desperate the defence will be. It's the same with all communities of true believers. Unfortunately, this issue happens to have some actual impact on the world, so they can't be simply left alone in their fantasies.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[bdeclerc]

uhm - Antarctic *sea ice* is growing (and that only in winter, it mostly melts away in summer), in part because Antarctic land ice is shrinking - some of it is melting, some of it is floating to sea faster than before...

So, no imminent collapse of AGW...

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, yes. Because forest fires ravaged the earth when the dinosaurs ruled and there were no humans then, so forest fires can't be caused by humans.

Wait, humans totally can cause fires.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, Antarctica is the world's first fifth largest continent.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a big drill and I can fix that. We'll just let the hydraulic forces bring the water up to the top of the glaciers, freeze there, and poof, glaciers stop moving *and* more ice mass. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for this immature statement, Totally? Any more mature i would have called "BS" but are you at yALE?

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[rossdee]

Is "Antarctica is the fifth-largest continent."

Is that counting europe and Asia separately or as one big one? (And what about Afric since its also joined to Asia.
So if you count EurasiAfrica as 1, North America, and South America as 2 and 3, then Antarctica is the 4th largest
(Actually doesn't that make it the smallest continent?
(Australia is the worlds largest Island, not a continent.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[tmosley]

15 years of no warming despite CO2 emissions continuing, greatly increased Arctic Ice coverage, increasing Antarctic ice thickness. increasing Antarctic sea ice coverage, and no observed retreat in Himalayan glaciers.

Sounds kind of collapsey to me. But what do I know? I'm just the guy who has been making physical chemistry arguments that show that CO2 has no net effect on the heat capacity of the atmosphere for the last few years, arguing instead that what warming we saw was from increased water vapor emissions, which maintain a tight equilibria with their rate of emissions (thus the lost decade global growth lead to a lost decade of warming), and bringing AGW idiots to take because they are ignoring the real threat from CO2--ocean acidification and the collapse of already overstressed fisheries.

But hey, let's all ignore physics and pretend like Al Gore is is a priest of the AGW god, who we must appease by throwing money at him.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[P-niiice]

It's not warming, that much is clear. Ice doesn't always melt due to warming. Penguin urine could be adding salt to the ice and causing it to melt. Scientists are so BS.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[Anonymous Coward]

The nature of self-delusion is such that it becomes harder to admit the truth the more evidence you've ignored, especially when you've been vocal about it

So considering the Antarctic is cooling, is not losing mass, is gaining ice extent - who's self delusional and has a hard time admitting it?

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[rufty_tufty]

This is an old thought experiment of mine. They say that the mass of ice is decreasing and that surface water freezes immediately, (what with it being -50 degrees and all that) .
Would it be possible therefore to do some engineering and pump relatively warm water onto the surface ice sheets and therefore act as a heat radiator. Surely you could radiate colossal amounts of extra heat this way?
The only problem I can see with this is the quantity of water you'd have to pump. The question is for me would it help radiate more heat than it would cost to do?

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[NeutronCowboy]

15 years of no warming despite CO2 emissions continuing

Convenient use of a record high as your starting point. Care to redo your calculations with any other window? Maybe, say, a 20 year window? Or even a 10 year window? What about a 12 year window?

greatly increased Arctic Ice coverage,

[Citation needed] and [Confusing a rebound from a historic low to slightly less historic lows with an increase over average].

increasing Antarctic ice thickness

[Confusing weather with climate] and [Lack of understanding of ice formation]

increasing Antarctic sea ice coverage

[Cherry-picking specific regional ice data points] and [Mistaking surface for volume].

no observed retreat in Himalayan glaciers

[More reading needed]. See also http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n3/abs/ngeo1068.html

I'm just the guy who has been making physical chemistry arguments that show that CO2 has no net effect on the heat capacity of the atmosphere for the last few years

... which has nothing to do with the problem of CO2 trapping IR, or with why the atmosphere is heating up.

arguing instead that what warming we saw was from increased water vapor emissions, which maintain a tight equilibria with their rate of emissions

Water vapor cannot drive long-term heating. A single cold-spell will remove water vapor from the air, which will reduce temperatures, which will remove more water from the air.... Water vapor is the result of warming, not a forcing.

thus the lost decade global growth lead to a lost decade of warming

The global economy was working in overdrive until 2000-2001, and again from 2005 to 2008. Your own data calls you a liar.

bringing AGW idiots to take because they are ignoring the real threat from CO2--ocean acidification and the collapse of already overstressed fisheries.

I'm glad you'll find that all kinds of scientists, but especially marine biologists and oceanographers would love your help in spreading message. Care to sign up maybe with an organization like NOAA or the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute?

But hey, let's all ignore physics

Says the guy who mistakes anecdotes for data, cherry-picks his time frames, misunderstands the overall and problem and thinks that he has a better understanding of physics than Physicists.

Tell you what, write a paper about your insights, and if you're right, the Nobel prize in a few areas is yours. How is that for an incentive to go show up all the AGW believers? You'll be right up there with Galileo, Kopernicus, Pasteur, and a few other up-enders of the consensus.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking that you cuoldn't extract that much heat from the ice, as it's a fairly efficient insulator. However, we mgiht be able to move a lot of water and keep the glaciers from moving downhill.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[FirephoxRising]

Er, Australia is a continent. It's the smallest continent and the largest island.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[lissnup]

I thought Australia was the world's largest island, and the largest country in the continent of Australasia, which includes New Zealand and Tasmania as well as sundry smaller islands.

Re:There always has been water flow under the ice

[RockDoctor]

Because the last time the entire earth has all the water as ice (snowball earth)

I've never heard a serious scientist proposing that the "Snowball Earth" events froze all the water on the planet. Typical scenarios under discussion propose a kilometre or so of ice floating on top of the liquid ocean. That would leave about 2.6km of water in the average part of the ocean (assuming the same volume of water as today, and the same volume of continental crust floating on mantle of the same density ; the latter assumptions are a little bit unsure, as temperature regimes have probably changed slightly , and continental crust is probably accumulative)

What makes the climate qualitatively different in a Snowball Earth situation is that the ice covers essentially the entire surface of the ocean, from pole to equator. If such a situation persists for any significant period of time (a few hundreds of thousands of years), then the severely reduced evaporation from the (ice-covered) ocean would reduce the amount of water transport onto land, so land ice would decline substantially.

Is the end nigh again?

[tftp]

"newly discovered" != "new". Those streams may have been there for millions of years. They certainly were there when the continent was free of ice.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[DavidClarkeHR]

"newly discovered" != "new". Those streams may have been there for millions of years. They certainly were there when the continent was free of ice.

It's new knowledge, even if it isn't a new phenomenon (which it might be - who knows?). Kinda like ... math. Relativity (as it is). Microbes.

Even if it isn't a new development, or a new phenomenon (we don't know), we do need a baseline measurement.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Anonymous Coward]

ANTI-SCIENCE TROLL NOTED. Humanity didn't exist when that continent was free of ice, and if it's free of ice again we're likely dead. Nice try, Rush.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[fyngyrz]

we do need a baseline measurement.

Certainly. Then, and only then, will measurement of volume and rate acquire meaning. In the interim, statements like:

Even if it isn't a new development,

...and...

could be destabilising parts of the Antarctic ice shelf immediately around them and speeding up melting

...are no more than alarmist bullshit.

Now, next year (and years), when they measure those streams, if the aggregate volume is up, I'll nod in agreement when someone says "this could be a result of warming." Even more meaningful, if the trend continues upwards, we have an actual indicator. But right now we have the equivalent of "hey, here's a traffic signal" with absolutely no indication of if it's red, green, or broken.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, next year (and years), when they measure those streams, if the aggregate volume is up, I'll nod in agreement when someone says "this could be a result of warming." Even more meaningful, if the trend continues upwards, we have an actual indicator. But right now we have the equivalent of "hey, here's a traffic signal" with absolutely no indication of if it's red, green, or broken.

No you wont, not if you're republican. The data for global warming is absolutely conclusive, and half the 'Merikins don't believe it.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows the earth is 5000 years old so naturally these streams can only be the result of anthropogenic global warming. To the goremobile!

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm sure the scientists never once thought of that possibility or looked at this before. They should be looking to random slashdot posters for their information instead!

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[tftp]

Don't we have enough of confirmation bias already?

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Anonymous Coward]

, I'll nod in agreement when someone says "this could be a result of warming...

Your nod, along with the rest of your life, is meaningless and irrelevant
with respect to anything of importance which is happening in the world today.

All your pedantic bullshit proves is that you are engaged in a pathetic search
for validation from someone else on this website. But even if you get that validation
your life is still utterly meaningless and worthless.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[rve]

Why does any mention of ice or antarctica have to turn into an ideological battle over the climate?

This melt water is forming at the bottom, beneat an ice sheet that's more than two and a half miles thick in places. It's completely shielded from the climate, which acts on the surface and on the ocean.

There are places in northern Europe, siberia, alaska, canada, where a few hundred feet below the surface you still find permafrost left over from the last ice age. It's so far from the surface that it apparently takes more than 10,000 years to melt.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[KeensMustard]

Don't we have enough of confirmation bias already?

In slashdot? oh yes.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[KeensMustard]

Your methodology is flawed - the flaw is to assume (a) that scientists ought to customise proofs to satisfy your concerns, (b) that your dispute of a scientific finding automatically means that said finding is under a cloud.

Unless you have a plausible alternative explanation or can explain, with working, why global warming would not cause the ice sheets to be undercut by streams and destabilise, you simply don't have a voice. You only get a seat at the table if you have actual science to bargain with. Otherwise I'm afraid you are simply yelling into the wind.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[jovius]

In a way it's connected with the climate change. The cold meltwater streams allow warmer seawater under the ice sheet when they meet the sea. Because the seas are warming up the calving underneath is pronounced.

Greenland has similar kind of meltwater streams, and at least some of them actually begin on the surface of the ice. Extreme Ice Survey has great material. That ice age permafrost is in danger of pronounced melting too.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Pino Grigio]

The seas aren't warming up. Antarctic sea ice is growing. The BBC are warmist shills.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[ElBeano]

Sea ice that is miles wide and inches thick doesn't comprise the main part of ice in the Antarctic. Total mass of ice, sea and land, is declining. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Anonymous Coward]

The seas are warming up and the reason why sea ice is growing is because it's melting and running off the land.

You're a republitard shill.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Joce640k]

"newly discovered" != "new". Those streams may have been there for millions of years. They certainly were there when the continent was free of ice.

Right, but now we can see them and know if they're growing or not.

It's one more item to track on the ever-growing list of proofs.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Pino Grigio]

No it isn't. Please don't use the hilariously named "skeptical science" as your source. It's a bit like using Pravda as a reference for global events during the cold war. It shows you up to be a crude propagandist, not interested in actual reality.

A paper published today in The Cryosphere finds Antarctica has been gaining surface ice and snow accumulation over the past 150+ years, and finds acceleration in some areas noting, “a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10% has occurred in high Surface Mass Balance coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[bdeclerc]

Antarctic *sea ice* is "growing" (most of it actually melts away each summer) - Antarctic land ice is shrinking, in part because it's melting away and in part because it's more quickly flowing to the sea, where it contributes to the sea ice growth.

Sea ice growth around Antarctica is a *consequence* of global warming, not proof against it...

And the situation is profoundly different for the Antarctic then for the Arctic, due precisely to the completely different land/sea configurations at both poles...

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is.

Please don't use the paranoid hack playing to the crowd Jo Nova as your source. It's like using Cat In The Hat to determine the solution to world hunger: eat green cheese.

"A paper published today in The Cryosphere finds Antarctica has been gaining surface ice and snow accumulation over the past 150+ years"

1) More papers than one have shown AGW to be true and accelerating. How come one that accords to your wishes (apparently, see later) is all that's needed to prove something but thousands aren't enough when you don't like it?

2) Yes, snow falls. Then it melts. If it melts faster than it falls, and it melts much faster than the snow is heavier, then you can have incrased snowfall and decreased ice mass.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[rve]

That ice age permafrost is in danger of pronounced melting too.

I think you're confusing (near) surface permafrost in the arctic, due to the average annual temperature being below freezing, and ice age permafrost 300 ft below the surface that's there because the average conditions there over the Quaternary period has been 'covered with an ice sheet' - even if that hasn't been the case in 10,000 years. In most places, I imagine (no data available that I'm aware of), what's buried that deep will probably stay there whether it's frozen or not.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Pino Grigio]

You missed the bit below that about overall mass. Not that I give a crap of course, because it tells you NOTHING except that "things" vary. It's useful to say it's shrinking to fit your world view and political narrative of course, which secures a lot of government funding particularly for the scientists who enjoy junkets to far flung places, Nobel Prizes for doing absolutely fuck all and research grants so they can pay their mortgages.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[KeensMustard]

Joanne Nova played a mean trick on you!

You'll note that the phrase "Antarctica gaining Ice Mass (balance*) — and is not extraordinary compared to 800 years of data" implies an increase in overall volume of ice which is the take away - you are supposed to assume she is talking about volume. But she isn't:

DumbScientist below helpfully points out that Zwally is using Total Mass Balance, which is different to Surface Mass Balance. The SMB figure involves "precipitation, evaporation and snowdrift physics" but not glacier run-off. Thanks to both readers.

Neatly tucked away there is the truth, the article in question is not referring to glacial ice volumes but to snow build up due to increased precipitation, and ignores the overall loss of volume due to glacial run off. But you can see how she has structured that, so carefully, to suggest something completely different in the headline but at the detail level, to admit that the paper in question has nothing to do with ice volume ("total mass").

What a spectacular lie! Almost as good as the lie she told a few weeks ago, you remember the one, about how she had seen a draft of the IPCC report containing a halving of CO2 sensitivity and then later she said they must have taken it out in the final version? There was no such draft, and she never saw a draft, why would she? She lied.

Please don't use the hilariously named "skeptical science" as your source.

We can, and will, use whatever source we choose. It's up to you to prove that Skeptical Science is factually incorrect. Start with Tyndall, then Arrhenius and work forward.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the papers referenced by Joanne Nova (the Zwally) was actually just a workshop presentation of some preliminary results. Zwally went on to co-author a paper "A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance" which indicated that Antarctica is most likely losing mass.

In my experience, Skeptical Science has some experts on there who are willing to discuss the science in detail with sceptics as long as they avoid politics and sloganeering. I am not familiar with Joanne Nova but she appears to have no relevant experience in climatology. I am not sure why your link is supposed to be better than the Skeptical Science one.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[CadentOrange]

I found the GP perfectly reasonable. We've discovered a new phenomenon, we need a baseline measurement before jumping to any conclusions. Claiming it is proof of warming is premature and smacks of alarmist bullshit. The sort of bullshit that is really ideologically driven.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Pino Grigio]

What a load of utter tripe. Antarctic ice sheet gains exceed losses. I would link to NASA but due to budget difficulties, their website appears to be down.

Listen, here's the deal: You lost. Your narrative of catastrophic climate change due to man emitting Co2 into the atmosphere is a busted flush. Get over it.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably have been there off and on for a long time, and may be a general feature of large, continent-scale ice sheets as they get thick enough. For example, meltwater channels like these could be what forms tunnel valleys. Meltwater channels aren't necessarily a sign of any more melting than normal, although if melting is accelerating you would expect them to expand and become more numerous.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[tbannist]

What a load of utter tripe. Antarctic ice sheet gains exceed losses

That was a workshop based on preliminary results, here's the final research paper from the same scientist:

We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.

Note the total is -213 ± 142.

Listen, here's the deal: You lost. Your narrative of catastrophic climate change due to man emitting Co2 into the atmosphere is a busted flush.

I wish it were that easy.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[tbannist]

Nobel Prizes for doing absolutely fuck all and research grants so they can pay their mortgages.

If you were a scientist, you couldn't use any grant money to pay your mortgage. If you did, it would be theft. Grant money must be spent on doing the actual research.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Pino Grigio]

You need to attract grants to hold a job in the first place. The system is corrupt.

Re:Is the end nigh again?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why they feel cooler? More cloud cover, less absorption of the sun heat output, means warmer don't it. I thought I read out of some journal the output was 3% lower last year, but not to worry. The mammoths haven't come back yet.

Re: Is the end nigh again?

[Anonymous Coward]

And John Cook, who runs Skeptical Science used to be a cartoonist, so what qualifications does he have?

Re: Is the end nigh again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actual research? You mean like going out and collecting data as opposed to sitting in an office running a computer model?

Ummmm

[Anonymous Coward]

...since when has Antarctica be losing ice? It's common knowledge that, unlike the arctic, Antarctic ice has been increasing.

Re:Ummmm

[JWSmythe]

Well, if it's increasing in surface area, but decreasing in mass, that would be a problem.

I think the concern they're trying to address is the same as one of the arctic ice concerns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outburst_flood

About 8,300 to 7,700 years ago, the melting ice dam over Hudson Bay's southernmost extension narrowed to the point where pressure and its buoyancy lifted it free, and the ice-dam failed catastrophically. Lake Ojibway's beach terraces show that it was 250 metres (820 ft) above sea level. The volume of Lake Ojibway is commonly estimated to have been about 163,000 cubic kilometres, more than enough water to cover a flattened-out Antarctica with a sheet of water 10 metres (33 ft) deep. That volume was added to the world's oceans in a matter of months.

I'm not saying that it's possible, or even probable. It's just an example of what destabilized polar ice can do. There's a whole lot of mass there.

Remember, the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami was caused by a 1,000 mile long rift shifting by 50 feet over a few minutes. If a sufficiently sized chunk (or chunks) of ice moved enough, there could be catastrophic effects for boating and coastal areas.

The long-term sea-level rise will be slow, and civilization will change around it. The short term effects of such events can be fast and catastrophic.

Re:Ummmm

[Gadget_Guy]

It's common knowledge that, unlike the arctic, Antarctic ice has been increasing.

As is often the case this common knowledge is actually a common misconception. While the sea ice is increasing, the land ice is shedding mass at an accelerating rate. Since the sea ice is already in the sea, it does not affect sea levels at all. Thawing land ice does increase sea levels, since it introduces water to the sea that used to sit on land.

Re:Ummmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the sea ice is already in the sea, it does not affect sea levels at all.

How does that follow?

Re:Ummmm

[Anonymous Coward]

How doesn't it?
How do you propose sea ice would influence sea levels?

Re:Ummmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you really just compare arctic ice falling into the ocean with 1000 miles of the ocean floor permanently shifting?

Re:Ummmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Ice shelves don't abruptly move that rapidly except in relatively small pieces (say, hundreds of metres long). Other than waves that might be hazards to ships in the immediate vicinity (within km), glaciers do not produce significant tsunami. Certainly not ocean-crossing ones. None have ever been recorded, as far as I know. The effects of increased melting in Antarctica will not be "catastrophic" on the same sort of timescale and abruptness as a major tsunami like the 2004 Indian Ocean one. They will be steady and long-term sea level rise over the next few centuries. That's catastrophic enough for coastal areas without exaggerating the risks. There is no sign of any subglacial lakes on the scale of glacial Lake Ojibway and Lake Agassiz, which were special cases because the glacial ice in Hudson's Bay dammed much of the central part of northern Canada. Those were HUGE lakes formed by the ice blocking the regional drainages. The 250-300 known Antarctic glacial lakes (and, yes, Antarctica has been well-surveyed) are individually smaller and aren't expected to drain at once.

Re:Ummmm

[Gadget_Guy]

Since the sea ice is already in the sea, it does not affect sea levels at all.

How does that follow?

If you put some ice in water and let it melt, the water level will remain the same. Even if you see ice sticking up out of the water when it floats along, the weight of it still displaces the same amount of water that the ice is made from.

This means that melting sea ice will not make the oceans rise.

Re:Ummmm

[mdielmann]

It's common knowledge that, unlike the arctic, Antarctic ice has been increasing.

As is often the case this common knowledge is actually a common misconception. While the sea ice is increasing, the land ice is shedding mass at an accelerating rate. Since the sea ice is already in the sea, it does not affect sea levels at all. Thawing land ice does increase sea levels, since it introduces water to the sea that used to sit on land.

Sea ice clearly affects sea level. Take a glass of water, put in two cubes, Mark the line. Add two more ice cubes. The water will rise.

If all the ice slid off Antarctica, the sea level would rise. Calving a greater total volume of ice bergs over a given time period will cause a rise in sea levels. But the easiest way to determine the overall effect of global warming on sea levels is to measure the mass of ice that isn't floating in the ocean. It's also worth noting that the total volume of water on earth doesn't vary greatly over time (yes, we lose some water vapor to space, and gain some from comets).

Of course, total ice volumes are a determining factor in the salinity of the ocean, which is also significant.

We've already lost ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, next year (and years), when they measure those streams, if the aggregate volume is up, I'll nod in agreement when someone says "this could be a result of warming." Even more meaningful, if the trend continues upwards, we have an actual indicator. But right now we have the equivalent of "hey, here's a traffic signal" with absolutely no indication of if it's red, green, or broken.

No you wont, not if you're republican. The data for global warming is absolutely conclusive, and half the 'Merikins don't believe it.

Jeepers. If this is how the correct side presents a counter argument, it's no wonder the retards are taking over our great country.

Re:We've already lost ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This. God, please, someone mod that up.

You can't just assert that all Republicans are automatically wrong by virtue of being Republican, nor can you belittle those with whom you disagree by asserting some sort of rusticity implying a failure to grasp reality, if you want to effect any change in America. You have to present arguments that support your points and provide others that refute your opponents' points, and most importantly, you have to do so in a way that your audience understands and finds credible.

One of the principal points of good rhetorical training is to understand that, if you fail to convince your audience, it's not your audience's fault: it's yours. If they aren't listening, you aren't presenting your arguments in a credible fashion. If your audience is poisoned against you by those who call your data into question, you need to find a better way of demonstrating your position; try describing the methods more comprehensibly and illustrating them in vivid detail and ways that make sense to them. Use rhetoric: your opponents are, and they've apparently kicked your ass enough that half the country doesn't believe you despite the evidence you have (and that you didn't explain well enough).

The biggest mistake the left makes is assuming that the right is uneducated. They are not uneducated: don't think that the Republicans don't go to college. They are educated differently, and they often are well-educated in rhetoric, law, and business. The left gets a different education, and the scientific left dwells in clouds of numbers and graphs while the right kicks their ass on the ground amidst the plebs. They argue cases and sell products. They preach. Boy, do they preach. They know how to convince, which is why you see so many demagogues on the right (talk radio, op-eds, and TV talk shows being great examples). If anything, they're better at speaking than the left (probably why they mock Obama for his teleprompter use, or OWS members for their total failure to say anything comprehensible). Really, the right is just better at explaining, in terms that everyone can understand, what they think.

The people who automatically assume that anyone who doesn't buy a story because he is irrevocably lost or stupid -- those people are not going to win a fight no matter how much data they have. It's not enough to do research: research is a tool that an orator can use, but only one among many. Curling up into the fetal position and blaming your audience is not one of those tools.

Re:We've already lost ...

[MightyMartian]

When your sole definition of reality is that which can be argued well, I'd say you've stepped so far from a sane way of measuring and understanding the universe that you might as well believe you live in a Road Runner and Coyote cartoon.

let me ask you, do you think the universe cares if you can debate well?

Re:We've already lost ...

[dbIII]

You can't just assert that all Republicans are automatically wrong by virtue of being Republican

Ever hear the quote "we can define our own reality"? Unfortunately such people are infesting the party mentioned and have just about taken it over, but have a bit of a way to go yet to take over the other one (not that they are not trying). Also it was never about being stupid or uneducated. It was always about being liars.
Nearly all of the science denier bullshit comes from somebody lying to gain an advantage over others. It used to be about geology, then about biology, now this time it's about climate - but really it's about having an enemy to point at.

Re:We've already lost ...

[Chas]

No. But you're not trying to convince "the universe" to start spending out enormous quantities of money to "solve" a "problem".

You're trying to convince other people, some of whom may disagree with your position. And overtly acting or implying that they're morons tends to make it quite difficult to open their purse strings. Even in the face of potential disaster.

Remember, this is science, not math. Climate change is not as simple and straightforward a proof as "1+1=2".
As such, a modicum of eloquence is required.

Re:We've already lost ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. But you're not trying to convince "the universe" to start spending out enormous quantities of money to "solve" a "problem".

You're trying to convince other people, some of whom may disagree with your position. And overtly acting or implying that they're morons tends to make it quite difficult to open their purse strings. Even in the face of potential disaster.

Remember, this is science, not math. Climate change is not as simple and straightforward a proof as "1+1=2".
As such, a modicum of eloquence is required.

No. Either you believe in science and the outcome of science or you don't. Regardless of "eloquence" most people, even intelligent ones, would "debate" the scientific merit of these theories at kindergarten level. "But, climate has always varied" (yeah, the stupid scientists didn't think of that did they). you can see exactly the same discussion when it comes to the "debate" on evolution vs intelligent design.

This is why the Koch brothers founded think tanks are putting so much effort into trying discredit scientists in this field in the public debate, it is the only way to win this "debate" in the public eye, because they have very little to add to the actual scientific discussion.

Re:We've already lost ...

[Muad'Dave]

...and the scientific left dwells in clouds of numbers and graphs...

I agree 100% with that; note that the truth is not among the things the 'scientific left' deals in. Lots of FUD, lots of NIMBY, lots of "save the owls". No real answers, just obstructionism. Want to know why we're still burning coal and emitting vast amounts of CO2 for power generation? NIMBY and FUD. We could stop burning coal and start using modern fast flux reactors for power in no time if we could just get the scaremongers out of the scientific and political discourse and debate FACTS. We need to break the ties between the ancient nuclear weapons program reactors and power reactors - they have very different goals and should have different designs. Modern reactors are vastly safer then the already pretty safe Gen 1 designs, but the 'scientific left' clings to their 'China Syndrome' intro to nuclear physics.

Re:We've already lost ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Use rhetoric: your opponents are, and they've apparently kicked your ass enough that half the country doesn't believe you despite the evidence you have (and that you didn't explain well enough)."

That "half the country doesn't believe you despite the evidence" seems to be a common phenomena in the US on science topics.
According to a 2012 Gallup poll ~46% of Americans believe "God created humans in their present form". http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

I heard an expression once that might explain this phenomena "a lie can get half-way around the world while the truth is still pulling on its boots".

Re:We've already lost ...

[Chas]

No. Because science is a composite of a number of theories.
And as much as you'd like to believe that it's a monolithic whole, it isn't.
Look at physics. Lots of different theories about what all the data means. Some general (but not universal) consensus, and a big chunk of the field wide open to interpretation and better models.
Climate science is just the same.

If you want to harangue people that they're in danger you can:

Stand on a street corner screaming "THE END IS NIGH!", as people have since time immemorial (like a clock, someone will eventually be right on this).

Or you can take a rational, social approach. You HAVE to convince people. Because there's lots of data out there. And lots of opinions on what it means.

You have to convince people YOU are "right" and that others clamoring for their attention (and money) are wrong. Regardless of your humanitarian interest, you HAVE to "sell" it to people.

Again, treating your target audience as a rabid mob of idiots is a poor way to go about this.

And you have to accept that, even if you have a silver tongue, and an iron-clad case, some people are still not going to buy in. No matter what you say and how persuasive you are.
It doesn't make them "stupid" or obstinate or any such thing. Such trust issues come up in every venue.

Promising people Heaven is one thing. But if you're an asshole about it, a certain amount of the population would turn around and walk straight into Hell, smiling spitefully the entire time.
Your "message" gets lost due to other factors.

Re:We've already lost ...

[NeutronCowboy]

I think you two are missing each other's point. Yes, the universe doesn't care what some particular think tanks puts out. However, a certain subgroup of the Great Apes family cares a great deal.

You can't just put out propaganda - at some point, the universe is just going to shit stomp everything. You can't just put out our best understanding of the universe - at some point, a certain subset of great apes with a lot of reptilian brain matter left over are going to have to be moved to action.

Unfortunately, to actually advance - and in this case, save - civilization, you need to be both right and a great orator. I know few people who are (and don't count myself among them).

Re:We've already lost ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Because science is a composite of a number of theories.
And as much as you'd like to believe that it's a monolithic whole, it isn't.
Look at physics. Lots of different theories about what all the data means. Some general (but not universal) consensus, and a big chunk of the field wide open to interpretation and better models.
Climate science is just the same.

Couldn't agree more. Wish more people who question climate science understood what you just said about science. But "eloquent" public debate is not adding value to the science. And people who approach the debate not with science at all, but with clever speaking points ("common sense") is getting an awful lot of traction. I disagree then that the right choice is to "teach the controversy" when so much of science agree what current theory fits the data set best. The opposition to this isn't coming from science. Why do you think it is right to teach theory of evolution (if you do)? Because you have independently verified it yourself? Are the opinions of someone who doesn't know anything about computers as valid as a computer technician in a debate how to fix it?

If you want to harangue people that they're in danger you can:

Stand on a street corner screaming "THE END IS NIGH!", as people have since time immemorial (like a clock, someone will eventually be right on this).

Or you can take a rational, social approach. You HAVE to convince people. Because there's lots of data out there. And lots of opinions on what it means.

You have to convince people YOU are "right" and that others clamoring for their attention (and money) are wrong. Regardless of your humanitarian interest, you HAVE to "sell" it to people.

Again, treating your target audience as a rabid mob of idiots is a poor way to go about this.

And you have to accept that, even if you have a silver tongue, and an iron-clad case, some people are still not going to buy in. No matter what you say and how persuasive you are.
It doesn't make them "stupid" or obstinate or any such thing. Such trust issues come up in every venue.

Promising people Heaven is one thing. But if you're an asshole about it, a certain amount of the population would turn around and walk straight into Hell, smiling spitefully the entire time.
Your "message" gets lost due to other factors.

I would like to agree, but the reality on the public climate change debate is that the silver-tongues that have clever speaking points but no actual science support is very broadly accepted and repeated, including on this site. In other forums you can see the same on evolution vs intelligent design.

Re:We've already lost ...

[LienRag]

Really, the right is just better at explaining, in terms that everyone can understand, what they think.

You're making an interesting point, but you got this wrong: it is very rare, and when it occurs a fascinating thing to observe, that they explain what they really think.
I guess you can't be believing that they actually buy the gibberish nonsense that they sell to their audiences?
They explain what they want you to think, certainly not what they actually think - I mean, maybe some people very low on the Tea Party food chain do believe in the Tea Party ideology, but you can't accuse these people of thinking.

That makes the problem very hard for scientific minds or any honest thinker, not only the left: they have to explain why they think what they think, not make things up to maximize the propaganda effect.


And making this so that anyone can understand is really not easy - yes,whatever is well conceived is clearly said... and the words to say it flow with ease indeed, but things are to be explained in the simplest possible way, and not any simpler - that's a challenging task to see the difference.

The (actual) Surf

[MrKaos]

I know, the correlation/causation comment will come up, but you would never know the water temperature unless you got in the water and feel it for yourself over 2-3 decades of actually being in the water and knowing when to get in. I wouldn't call 250metres a stream, but other noticable thing is the way the weather has changed from a smooth transition to summer where it gradually got hotter to bursts of weather change where you will suddenly get days of really warm weather in winter and then back to cold and visa versa in summer.

I regularly goes for a swim or a surf on the east coast of Australia and for the last decade years the water has been really cold during seasons where I used to notice it was pretty warm. It has altered my whole habit of surfing. I used to go into the water around September and now it's late October. I love the waves but the goolie shock is just to severe. My mates would say the same thing and often the comment 'at least we know where the ice caps are melting to' would come up.

Re:The (actual) Surf

[MrKaos]

I also wanted to mention that it would be cool to get some little robots into these streams and map them under the ice to find out where they start and finish.

Re:The (actual) Surf

[zmooc]

I cannot find any data on the Pacific ocean near Australia, but in many places oceans are getting slightly cooler. This has nothing to do with melt water, though; there's much too little of that to have a measurable influence, especially at your latitude. Instead, it is most probably due to changing currents.

However, a very likely alternative cause for you guys feeling colder would be that you're getting older; as people get older, they feel colder quicker.

Re:The (actual) Surf

[MrKaos]

However, a very likely alternative cause for you guys feeling colder would be that you're getting older; as people get older, they feel colder quicker.

Oh no doubt about that, I have to leave my walking stick at the beach so I can find my towel!!!

I cannot find any data on the Pacific ocean near Australia, but in many places oceans are getting slightly cooler. This has nothing to do with melt water, though; there's much too little of that to have a measurable influence, especially at your latitude. Instead, it is most probably due to changing currents.

I'm generally lean but have a bit of fat after winter so the icey water just strips it from you (apart from having a wettie on - which slows me down) so it seems to balance out and I want to catch as many waves as I can.

The thing is I have to swim really hard to get the waves so I'm working a lot to get them. The waves I'm after are about the same as the ones for a board as I am a pretty big guy and I get moving pretty fast. Catching them close to shore is dangerous as the waves tend to dump you on sand and I have been badly concussed from that before. Because of that I generally swim a good 100-300 meters from shore where the waves are bigger from sand banks - which you can see underwater.

When I'm out there I can feel the difference between the first metre and, when diving down, the next four or five (I'm a shark chicken - I don't want to be lunch so I keep an eye out). The water temperature is generally more stable the deeper you go but what gets me is that it is more often consistently cold all the way to the surface than not. You can feel the difference in certain patches of water as the temperature changes when you swim through them. This is the biggest change that I note (apart from seeing less penguins, seals and turtles).

Current change seems like a good point however I would then expect it to cycle between behaviours. So it could be because I'm an old bastard however there is a distinct change in the patterns of water temperature that entails the frequency and duration of warm patches of water. Whatever is happening, something is going on.

All the observed data is perfectly normal

[SplashMyBandit]

Antarctica is melting at the moment because it is spring in the Southern Hemisphere (I live not far away from Antarctica, the weather is getting good, yay!).

Overall, Antarctica continues accumulating ice year upon year. Antarctica melts and freezes with the seasons, but the overall trend is that the ice is growing:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/no-warming-in-antarctica-since-the-start-of-satellite-records/
James Hansen has been fraudulently claiming ice loss in Antarctica, and unfortunately his job allows him to tamper with data (although he can't tamper with the satellite records, so his fraud has been exposed):
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/hansen-forecast-peak-ice-loss-in-antarctica-2/

What is also interesting is that the *Arctic* is also putting on ice too. It had 67% more ice in 2013 compared to 2012, and a huge amount looks to be added this winter. This is neatly summarized in the following map and graph:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/67-increase-in-arctic-ice-over-last-year-2/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/2013-death-spiral-vaults-into-first-place/
This graph shows not only that Arctic freezing and melting are normal, but it perfectly summarizes the evidence that there is *no* Global Warming (otherwise the sinusoidal shape would decrease in height with time). In fact, the biased/alarmist British Meteorological office finally had to concede that the computer models from the 90s are wrong and accept the satellite observations that after a little rise in the 1990s there has been *no* global warming for 17 years. Naturally, the British Met still cling to their warming cult, so they just say warming is "paused" (as if they could see the future given their abyssal anti-scientific position so far, and their support of witch hunts for "deniers" that were actually telling the truth). Of course, alarmists are still trying to peddle junk science and get taxpayer funded Carbon Credits and other scams.

The good news for all of us is we don't have to revert to a pre-industrial life style. In fact, it seems there is a sight cooling of the Earth, so not only can be use lots of energy to improve the lives of everyone, but it'll also help the planet too (although, apart from pollution, human emissions are fairly negligible compared to the other effects going on - such as the emissions from volcanic sea vents etc).

There is a great deal more to learn about the climate and the exposes the deliberate Global Warming fraud and how it operated (of course, the shysters have switched to a new meme, "Climate Change" in which case they can win no matter what happens - since the climate has always changed through *natural* processes):
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

Be free people. Don't let your Government tax you or regulate you to death with junk science about "Global Warming" and "Climate Change". Don't pollute though, please - it hurts animals (especially if you are a boatie and chuck stuff out at sea - the plastic ring that joins multiple beer cans together is especially bad).

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[MightyMartian]

and doubtless this Blogster has published his incredible finds that unseat what almost every climatologist in the fucking world says, right? I mean, you woujldnt just be buying into something that confirms your preexisting prejudices

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[SplashMyBandit]

I understand your point of view. Do you have any observational data to counter those that I posted in links? The Scientific Method requires me to look at any counter-facts you can produce. So I'd be grateful if you have any additional data - especially data that could invalidate my current point-of-view.

that unseat what almost every climatologist in the fucking world says

Science is not performed by "consensus". There was a consensus against Galileo, but guess who was right? What matters are observations and explanations of the observations that account for all the known facts. "Almost every climatologist" simply believes the data they are given by people like James Hansen and Michael Mann - both of which have been tampering with the data (they remove "outliers" that don't fit their preconceived hypothesis - which is hideously anti-scientific). Fortunately the satellite data is harder to tamper with, and agrees with the raw terrestrial data that has not been tampered with. The site I linked to explains what it going on and demonstrates with the data. You can evaluate the validity for yourself. I'm not asking that you believe me. I'm asking you evaluate unbiased data from multiple sources for yourself.

I mean, you woujldnt just be buying into something that confirms your preexisting prejudices

If the observations are proof of Global Warming then I'm cool with that. However, the data I see (eg. that magnificent sinusoidal graph, or the satellite visual imagery of the massive Arctic ice cover) does not support this hypothesis. I would hope that you also take an objective look at the data I have linked to. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong - but I have not seen any recent data that supports the computer models of the 1990s. Hence, I *must* conclude what the observations are saying. After the mid-1990s there has been no substantial global warming. In fact, it looks like a slight cooling if the Southern Hemisphere data is combined with Northern data.

Sorry if that bursts your bubble. All I ask is that you look with fresh eyes and an open mind at the data I have presented. Or present counter-data if you have it. I simply hope to share with Slashdotters my discovering of *recent* observations and the impact this has on the older and possibly out-of-date Global Warming meme. I hope you check out the links I posted so you can make your own mind up. Thanks.

Slashdotters are smart people. All I'm doing is pointing them at some data they may not have seen before. They can make up their own minds as to whether that data is good or not - and whether the null hypothesis should be chosen over the Global Warming theory.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[Anonymous Coward]

(although, apart from pollution, human emissions are fairly negligible compared to the other effects going on - such as the emissions from volcanic sea vents etc).

Interesting, how about this? Apart from claws and teeth, tiger related injuries are fairly negligible compared with other effects going on.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?
What the science says...
Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.

SplashMyBandit is obviously an AGW troll, even if he does recycle those old gems.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[Sique]

If someone predicts something, and it doesn't happen, then the prediction was offbase, but to conclude fraud ist quite far fetched. If my navigation system predicts an arrival time of 1:55 pm, but I arrive at 2:05 pm or at 1:45 pm, would you conclude that TomTom deliberately gave a fraudulent estimate? I mistrust everyone, who can only conclude fraud if some prediction doesn't fit the real development. People can be honestly at fault. People always have incomplete information. And every future development is partly determined by unforeseeable events. If someone calls this a fraud, he's either clueless, or he just wants to blame someone.

And the area of the ice shelf at the Arctis is indeed larger (my numbers say 50%, 5.1 million square kilometers in 2013 instead of 3.4 square kilometers in 2012) than the year before, but it's still less than the long term average. This is at 13.9 million square kilometers for the years 1979-2000. So while 2012 might have been an extreme minimum, we are in 2013 still far away of any normalization.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[ElBeano]

Total mass of ice in the Antarctic continues to decline: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm Temperature trends since the 90s indicate more gradual warming, not cooling. http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20121705-23396.html In the past, ice at the poles has never coexisted with atmospheric CO2 above 400ppm, a threshold that we just crossed. Time will prove you drastically wrong, but some of us are running low on patience for the trolling.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[bdeclerc]

What Steve Goddard "forgets" to mention is that it's actually only the Antarctic sea ice that is growing, while the land-ice there is melting away ever faster...

And the 67% more ice in 2013 compared to 2012 still puts 2013 in 6th lowest position for arctic ice-extent in the observational record, curiously together with 2007-2008-2009-2010-2011-2012) - so it is lower than *any* observed ice-extent prior to 2007... Doing better than the single worst year on record is not proof that nothing's wrong, it's just proof of the fact that there are significant annual fluctuations in ice-extent, primarily due to short-term weather.

Average thickness and ice-volume in the Arctic are actually far more relevant measurements (as unlike "extent", they measure the *amount* of ice, not how thinly it's spread out) and those have been dropping almost without fail year after year after year...

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you get that information from, remember the earth is not the same as a year ago, things shift around a bit. What was happening a thousand years ago, why was it warm then? What was happening before that? Remember yours is the first generation to extrapolate what was going on, we have direct records. We have no direct records of what was really going on before then, and what if your wrong? Have you just made someone else poorer, or let them die? Just on a science jag.
I agree with education, from there we can alter paths from the brutish leading the world to enlightenment of all. I don't see that from warmists, and I don't see that from the Koch's or Adelmans. They all seem brutish.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[hey!]

Once again, a denialist conflates seasonal *sea* ice with permanent *land* ice.

Be free people.

Freedom of conscience doesn't mean freedom from consequences, as much as we'd wish it so.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[SplashMyBandit]

What land is there in the Arctic?

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[SplashMyBandit]

Actually the significant part for me is the winter ice is not declining (as it must if Global Warming is true). I would expect a great deal of variability in summer ice - which is what we see. Small number statistics also increase the proportion of variability in the summer ice level from year to year. That's why it is the constant winter ice level that is actually the significant measurement, AFAIK.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[SplashMyBandit]

You are correct about a mere missed prediction as not being evidence of fraud. I agree with you here. However, if you check the references I gave you will see articles covering the fraud (showing the raw data and the tampered measurements). I'm not telling you what to believe, I'm just pointing you in the direction so you can evaluate for yourself :) Is this not a better system? Thanks for presenting your numbers. Surely after 17 years we'd expect more of a downward trend by now, yes? Look not at the summer numbers (that always have big variability) but the winter ice cover. If Global Warming were true then the *winter* season cover would be declining, but there is *zero* evidence for this (AFAICS).

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[SplashMyBandit]

Oops, sorry, my point about 'winter ice' was for the Arctic. Thanks for your comments on the Antarctic - I'll look at the data. Meanwhile, would you agree that the assertion that the 'science is settled' does not appear to be true? and that more investigation is required before instigating energy policies that will hurt modern economies and cause all sorts of problems (from food price increases to deaths of old people from lack of heating)?

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[eriqk]

What land is there in the Arctic?

This bit, for instance.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[david_thornley]

Science definitely is performed by consensus. If there's a consensus on something, that's good reason to believe it, and scientists will build on that in further work. Naturally the consensus is always subject to revision, but it's very likely to be correct. If it's incorrect, it's likely to be in interpretation rather than measurement.

What do you think the scientific consensus that opposed Galileo was? He didn't get into trouble for heliocentrism, which Copernicus had already given good arguments for. Any educated astronomer would know of Copernicus and his theories. Moreover, the disagreements were about interpretations, not data.

Scientists have been wrong on theories (phlogiston, anybody?), but I'm not aware of any case where a consensus has been thoroughly wrong on the data. Nobody knew how black-body radiation worked before Planck, but the observations were detailed enough for him to propose his famous constant.

I find the idea of scientists deliberately using unscientific data incredible. Scientists, as a rule, are aiming at the truth. They dislike being proven wrong. They don't, in general, knowingly risk their reputations by deliberately using bad data. (Scientists are not particularly well-paid, and value their reputations.) If the data were as you represent it, there would be large numbers of scientists pointing that out. Since I have not observed that, the odds that my personal examination of the data would show something climate scientists as a whole miss seem sufficiently low that I'm not going to bother.

If you can come up with a credible reason why all those scientists would be blindly using bad data, that would alter my opinion on whether to do my own examination. (The claim that they're faking things to keep the grants coming is not credible.)

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[SplashMyBandit]

Fair enough :) I meant at the North Pole, but you rightfully pointed out what I had written was stooopid. Apologies.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[SplashMyBandit]

Thank you for your comment. Please note that in a former career I was an astrophysicist publishing papers. When I was an Honours students I knew some of the best students faked their data for research reports (sure, the stakes were low, but it showed me that even some very good people do not possess the same ethics that you and I share - where it is unthinkable to be anything other than brutally honest).

Medical science is no stranger to fraud:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
I might add that much of political "science" and social "science" are naught but obfuscation and fraud (I jest - kind of).

The claim that they're faking things to keep the grants coming is not credible

Really? I find your dismissal not credible. Working on acquiring and renewing grants takes up a significant part of any working researchers time. Missing out on too many grants means yourself and associates can miss many opportunities to continue your research (which is the thing you actually care about). Therefore, if you have to place emphasis some interpretation that sounds good to a grant committee then you'll do it.

Most scientists are more ethical than the average Joe. However, science has its fair share of charlatans, and a great deal more who don't intend to mislead but simply have an incorrect interpretation they they will defend *despite* the presence of contrary facts.

The site I referenced points out some of those scientists that selectively remove some data points. Without the data points you get Global Warming. Leave the data points in and you get normal variability. I'm not asking you to take my word for it (basing arguments solely on presumed authority should be avoided) - I suggest you review the evidence presented at that linked site, specifically the articles that show the data sets before and after James Hansen and Michael Mann adjusted them. Then you can make up your own mind as to whether the editing was 'creative' to reinforce a theory, or legitimate to remove outliers (always a dodgy thing to do without evidence of instrument or system malfunction; most of the time outliers should be left in an a robust fitting method used instead, such as 'least sum of squares' rather than the usual 'least squares' that has no robustness [is always skewed by outliers]).

I stand by my statement as a former research scientist. Science is not about consensus, it is about finding theories that match the observed facts (*all* the observations, not just the 'convenient' ones).

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[david_thornley]

A fair number of individual scientists could be running a scam. I find it incredible that virtually all the scientists in the field would run a scam, and that there wouldn't be numerous peer-reviewed articles pointing that out. Yet, we find that 98% of climate scientist agree on it. If this were to be fraudulent, I think it would be unprecedented in the history of science. If 98% of scientists in a field were seriously wrong about the data, I think that would be unprecedented in the history of science.

Science is about observations and coming up with neat theories to explain it. However, to move on to new topics, we need to have some way of establishing what set of observations we can rely on and which theories are accepted (so scientists can either build on it or come up with more precise ways to break the theories). That would be consensus.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[SplashMyBandit]

Hi David. A few scientists are indeed running a scam. They skew data (as the site I originally linked to analyses). Other scientists then take that skewed data (not realising it has been falsified) and run legitimate analyses on *bad data*.

Science is about observations and coming up with neat theories to explain it. However, to move on to new topics, we need to have some way of establishing what set of observations we can rely on and which theories are accepted (so scientists can either build on it or come up with more precise ways to break the theories).

The Scientific Method already counts for this. It demands reproducibility. Any scientist that does not reproduce results is relying on potentially bad data. It is a risk you have to take (I was an astrophysicist in a former career). It's ok to take that risk, you can't bootstrap everything from First Principles, but you must accept that the data and assumptions you are using may be incorrect.

The problem with the climate scientists is not that they are now wrong. The problem is that they dismiss dissenting views and data. That's when it turns from climate science into the "Climate Change Cult". *That* is the problem. In politics the same thing happens. The political Left may have many great ideas, but their fatal flaw is that they encourage every diversity except the one that actually matters, diversity of *opinion*. The Left are very ideological and dogmatic in their point of view, and this political outlook is what has tainted climate research to the point it is no longer conducted using the Scientific Method.

With regard to your 98% figure. Remember that the great Eddington dismissed Chandrasekhar on the theory of electron degeneracy in stars, which form "white dwarfs". Many scientists agree with Eddington, based on his track record and persuasive arguments. But it doesn't matter how many people were against Chandrasekhar, because science does not require consensus, it requires theories to account for *all* observations. Similarly, everyone was against Galileo, but it was the latter who was proved right (after being threatened by reputable researchers and the Roman Catholic Church). So yes, there have been historical cases were even more than 98% of scientists have been wrong. I believe the data are showing that the consensus on Global Warming is also wrong - based on recent observations. Please also note I can understand the basis for the Global Warming theory based on the data from the 1990s and rising temperatures there. The flaw is that scientists have been discounting the more recent data of the last decade and a half that shatter the models of the 1990s. As I said, it is ok to be incorrect a scientist - but it is always wrong to ignore increasing evidence that goes against your pet theory. That is the mistake James Hansen and Michael Mann did (and those turkeys manipulated data and fed that bad data to other scientists).

I hope that clears up your confusion about why it is entirely possible for a large number of scientists to get results based on bad data from fraudsters who contain the gates to the data (eg. those that collate and disseminate the terrestrial observations; the satellite data is harder to tamper with, and this has revealed the tampering in the published ground-based data).

Thanks also for being reasonable with your questions. Most who hear about the data that is shattering the false orthodoxy respond by slanders and assertions of craziness or stupidity or dishonesty. Once you become aware of this tactic of the political Left and their more extreme environmentalist allies then you start to see how labels and slander are used to shut down free debate that might present facts uncomfortable for their positions. Everyone cares about the planet, but the solution is to create and *revise* theories based on *new* observations, not cling dogmatically to a two decade theory that doesn't match observed reality.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[david_thornley]

I still don't get it. You say that (a) a few fraudulent scientists are acting as a gateway to bad data, and (b) I can look at the data and see for myself. It seems to me that, if I can look at data, numerous other scientists can too. Most of these are going to be honest (since most scientists are honest), and many are going to see the opportunity to write a paper that gets them some attention.

Grants aren't really a concern here; many scientists have their salaries (many are tenured professors, for example), and if I can find discrepancies in my spare time they can too, and write about it better than I can. Their papers will get out, somehow or other, regardless of any orthodoxy in established journals. Established journals, after all, like publishing exciting papers, and there's no way to stop papers from being published.

I'm doing sort of a meta-scientific analysis here to see if it's worth my time to look at your data. I'm making observations of the scientific community, which has some known properties, and figuring what my observations of the scientific community would be under certain hypotheses.

It's easy to find cases where the scientific consensus was wrong on interpretation (Chandrasekhar as you mention, Wegener and continental drift, etc.), but I'm not aware of any consensus being that wrong on the observations. (They have been wrong on details; Milliken's oil-drop experiment is the obvious example, but that wasn't that wrong.)

So, unless you can explain my observations of the scientific community, I'm going to continue to accept its consensus.

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[SplashMyBandit]

I still don't get it. You say that (a) a few fraudulent scientists are acting as a gateway to bad data, and (b) I can look at the data and see for myself. It seems to me that, if I can look at data, numerous other scientists can too. Most of these are going to be honest (since most scientists are honest), and many are going to see the opportunity to write a paper that gets them some attention.

Scientists are writing papers that point out that the Global Warming consensus is wrong. They get labelled as "deniers". This is a classic tactic of the political Left and their allies (of which the environmental movement is an undeniable part), the tactic is: "Do not address the facts, but slander the message bringer".

For example, Richard Lindzen of *MIT* finds the IPCC report "hilarious":
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/mit_scientist_says_new_climate_report_is_hilarious_incoherence.html

"You have politicians who are being told if they question this, they are anti-science. We are trying to tell them, no, questioning is never anti-science."

What matters is not whether there is or is not global warming. What matters is that a particular political view (which in this case, happens to come from the Left; but would be just as wrong as if it had come from the Right) is trumping science. The [Cultural Marxist] Politically Correct view is that there is Global Warming. Now that the evidence is against Global Warming there is no big pronouncement that the models were wrong. Instead, the Politically Correct terms is changed to the scientifically meaningless "Climate Change" (nb: the climate is *always* changing - being alarmist about this natural and normal process is anti-scientific, and well, political).

So, unless you can explain my observations of the scientific community, I'm going to continue to accept its consensus.

As you wish, but understand this is a *political* decision, and not based on the observed data. Like I said, look at that lovely sinusoid - alone it is enough to *destroy* the Global Warming hoax): http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/nasa-spokesman-reacts-to-the-spectacular-growth-in-arctic-ice/
And there are plenty more predictions of the Global Warming Theory that have not met observation (eg. *zero* hurricanes in the US in the last season; global warming theory predicted larger and more frequent hurricanes; then there was a record number of states in the US that had below average winter temperatures; then we have both the Arctic and Antarctica putting on more ice; sure, we have variability like my own New Zealand having a very warm winter this year - but one year is natural variation. When it is 15 years without global warming that is a trend.

A scientist must change their position based on *all* the observations. If the observations were for global warming I'd be more than happy to promote this theory. I have nothing ideological nor political against global warming theory. All I can say is that there are significant sets of observations that are against global warming - that means the theory cannot be accepted as is. Then I couple that with the fact that it is now known that scientists have been manipulating data (indicating that their case is very weak). That leads me to conclude Global Warming is, at best, an unproven and weak theory - and there is a higher statistical probability that the null hypothesis (no warming) is correct than the probability that warming is happening (when evaluating the untampere

Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal

[david_thornley]

I just looked at the sinusoidal graph you cited. It shows that ice coverage varies rather predictably by time of year. That's its main message. That doesn't disprove global warming.

It has lines in various pastel shades for the years 2005-2012. It's hard to pick anything out, since there hasn't been that much variance since 2005.

The 2013 line is near the top of the grouping, but not at the top. We've had more ice in this period.

In short, it tells us nothing about global warming. The effects are not expected to be monotonic, and none of the observations are. The graph covers nine years when the increase in world temperature has slowed. We've seen anomalous years, like 1998, when the global temperature spiked high, and for all I can tell we're looking at another anomaly.

The graph would have been much more indicative if it had extended back more than nine years. Global temperatures now are significantly higher than they were in the 1990s, for example. Showing polar ice for 2000, 1990, and 1980 would have at least added a little context.

Looking at this, it looks like the numbers of hurricanes have been on the rise in recent years. The number hitting the US is of no importance, since climate scientists haven't (as far as I've heard) been saying that hurricanes will necessarily hit the US. Most hurricanes never hit the US, and so it's better to look at total hurricanes.

The problem with your political accusations, aside from the fact that it's potential libel, is that they constitute a rather far-fetched theory to account for climate science publications and statements. Another hypothesis would be that the planet is warming up. This would account for the fact that publications say so, and if the deniers are simply bad or biased scientists that would account for their treatment.

You're saying that there is a cabal of politically motivated climate scientists that controls pretty much all funding and publication. That, as far as I've been able to tell, would be a unique phenomenon in the scientific community. I think it's much simpler to conclude that the planet is, indeed, warming up. Since your sixty-second study has proved to be basically meaningless, I'm going with that.

FAT CAT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AT IT AGAIN!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought we furloughed all those assholes!

Re:FAT CAT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AT IT AGAIN!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fat cat scientists? Are you a fucking idiot? Check out the fat cats around the world - multilmillionaires, billionaires.

Bill Gates - computer scientist or businessman?

Businessman.

John Key, prime minister of New Zealand - scientist, or businessman?

Businessman.

Obama - scientist?

In fact, if you could list the scientists who are "fat cat" millioniares, I'd quite appreciate it. I'm waiting....

Re:FAT CAT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AT IT AGAIN!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought we furloughed all those assholes!

Wrong country.

Affiliations Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK Anne M. Le Brocq
School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK Neil Ross
Bristol Glaciology Centre, School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1SS, UK Jennifer A. Griggs, Antony J. Payne & Martin J. Siegert
School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9XP, UK Robert G. Bingham
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK Hugh F. J. Corr, Fausto Ferraccioli, Adrian Jenkins & Tom A. Jordan
Environment Department, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK David M. Rippin

Slashdot demands recognition!

[Ellie K]

Altmetrics is a new-ish bibliometic service for scholarly journal articles, including Nature, which is where this was published. Altmetrics includes mainstream media coverage as as well as social media appearance counts e.g. SciBlogs, Twitter as valid data. Physorg is mentioned but I do not see Slashdot. We, the Slashdot collective, demand recognition!

* Unless we are deemed insufficiently social? Anti-social? Of course not.
** Altmetrics is beta-ish, possibly open source, so my indignation is mostly insincere.

Why it matters

[quantaman]

Antarctica is one of the major feedbacks:

The protective covering of floating ice that has shielded the Arctic Ocean from solar heating for so long is now going fast, and we will probably see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in the August-September period as early as the 2020s. Mercifully, this is the smallest of the three major feedbacks in terms of its impact – but it triggers a bigger one.

The warmer air and water in the Arctic then starts to melt the permanently frozen ground and coastal seabed (permafrost) that extends over more than ten million square km. (3 million sq. mi.) of territory, a considerably larger area than Australia. This melting releases a huge amount of methane that has been locked into the ground for millions of years. Methane is a far more effective warming agent than carbon dioxide, and so we spin closer to runaway.

[...]

Those are the killer feedbacks. Earth has lurched suddenly into a climate 5-6 degrees C higher than now a number of times in the past. The original warming usually came from massive, long-lasting volcanic eruptions that put a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere – but in every case it was feedbacks like these that carried the planet up into a temperature regime where there was a massive dieback of animals and plants.

Considering we're already experiencing major extinctions I'm not sure I want to stack ecological disasters.

Re:Why it matters

[Anonymous Coward]

The nature article is about the Antarctic while your link is about the Arctic don't mix them.

Re:Why it matters

[tmosley]

Yeah, especially since the rebound in Arctic ice that started even before the end of summer has already been so extreme that it destroys the "ice free Arctic" "thesis".

Well it does seem news to you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you'd been claiming that melting ice can't raise sea levels by saying "put an ice cube in your drink and when it melts, the water level stays the same" but if the ice is made of water, your "proof" becomes "put water in your drink and the water level changes".

Re:Well it does seem news to you.

[taiwanjohn]

The distinction is between ice caps on land vs. on the ocean. The arctic ice is already in the ocean, so melting it won't raise sea levels. But the majority of antarctic is is on land (same as Greenland), so melting that ice would raise global sea levels.

sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one would like to live in a time where the antarctic is ice free.
Just imagine all the things we could find under there.
Animals, trees and all kinds of stuff just sitting there frozen.

Um, no it isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

The continent has no faults in the surface so it can't grow.

And the deniers make shit up and get it completely wrong. Their faith is collapsing. You have your propoganda hat mixed up with your mickey mouse costume. :-)

We are emerging from an ice age

[Anonymous Coward]

Just 12,000 years ago the Earth was in an ice age, and it has been emerging from it since, without the help of humans. It will continue to emerge from the ice age despite humanity's insane and obsessive desire to stop it.

Re:We are emerging from an ice age

[bdeclerc]

Before AGW, we'de been in a slow cooling phase for 5,000 years- yeah, we emerged from an ice age 12,000 years ago, but we haven't been "emerging from it since".

But let's not let *facts* get in the way of our preconceptions..

Re:We are emerging from an ice age

[tmosley]

lol, that's the first time I heard that one. How about a source there, Chicken Little?

Re: We are emerging from an ice age

[bdeclerc]

Markott et al 2013 - temperature reconstruction of the Holocene.
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png ...

Yes, because car exhaust warms the earth's center.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only two people in this entire comment section have successfully dodged the global warming spin hucksters to note the following:

The mean annual surface air temperature of the Antarctic interior is -57C. Surface melt refreezes rather promptly. But ice is great insulation, and geothermal energy comes up from the Earth to melt the bottom of the ice sheet. This meltwater flows in streams and rivers across the world's largest continent until it becomes the world's largest rivers, inevitably finding the sea. This should be obvious.

This has nothing to do with industrial exhaust.

So chill out. (In fact, you don't have any other choice. We're entering another ice age. Wise up. Be prepared for a really shitty snow-heavy winter.)

And the ice is mostly NOT sea ice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Moreover, the OP was opining that "ice is made of water" which has nothing to do with caps or ocean.

It's a piece of idiocy the OP opined and I just went forward with it to indicate by logical progression how fucking clueless it was as a statement.

CLIMATE CHANGE DENIALISTS ARE MORONS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Period. End of discussion and thread.

Re:Yes, because car exhaust warms the earth's cent

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea what you're babbling about. You assert things that have no scientific value.

You are a pro-pollution shill of no consequence. You fool nobody. You are the fool.

Tangled Streams

[Anonymous Coward]

If these streams manage to tangle, there be hurricanes over the British soil!

Re:Yes, because car exhaust warms the earth's cent

[Anonymous Coward]

For contrast, people who do know something about that which they speak.

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-newly-climate-action.html#nRlv

Fix your brain. Use a hammer.

How high are other rivers?

[G3ckoG33k]

"The streams of water, some of which are 250m in height and stretch for hundreds of kilometres"

WTF?

Since when did we start measuring rivers' height?

Re:How high are other rivers?

[iggymanz]

these are above ground level; the ice cap is nearly three miles thick (4700 meters) in places!

Re:Yes, because car exhaust warms the earth's cent

[iggymanz]

you do realize the IPCC is backpedalling furiously on their dire predictions; their latest report essentially admits the billions of euros, yen and dollars spent on climate modeling have been wasted and the prediction are rubbish.

"I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence," said Dr. Richard Lindzen a top climate scientist at MIT. "They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

Re:Yes, because car exhaust warms the earth's cent

[bdeclerc]

Keep drinking the cool-aid, their latest report doesn't "admit" what you claim here, not by a long shot - it actually states that they're even more certain now that most of the recent warming is caused by Anthropogenic CO2. What has happened is that the right wing climate denialosphere are spinning like they've never spun before, trying to deform and cherry-pick statements from the report into what they want it to say... And you're clearly lapping it up uncritically, probably because it reinforces what you *want* to hear...

And Dr. Richard Lindzen may be a "climate scientist" (I would certainly dispute the "top" prefix....), but he doesn't walk the walk like he talks the talk - he's always up for yapping away in the media about not trusting models & stuff, but when he actually goes about publishing articles, those recognise the reality of AGW... At this point, he's little more than a paid shill for the Oil industry...

Re:Yes, because car exhaust warms the earth's cent

[iggymanz]

no, having read the report it is clear they is huge increasing discrepancy between the dire predictions of models and reality, ,they are indeed retreating from the fantastic and sensationist agenda-driven predictions they were paid to make

A liberal must think they are a Scientist.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... freshwater rivers have always flowed under the ice sheet. WOW..these stinking liberals.