So are you implying that the release of carbon to atmosphere saved us of a global cooling? Perchance the best option would be putting aside the global warming and starting controlling the climate.
Some increase in CO2 from 280 ppm was probably a good thing to slow down the long term cooling trend but the "good" part of it probably stopped somewhere before 350 ppm. We are now over 400 ppm.
Data from the GRACE satellites disagrees with this paper and I tend to believe them more than this study. What GRACE measures is changes in gravity (and therefore mass) and they have been showing much loss of ice in Western Antarctica and close to mass balance in Eastern Antarctica but the overall net is negative.
This is the critical point, because arctic ice is an order of magnitude greater than antarctic ice.
Did you get that backwards? Or were you maybe meaning that the effect of Arctic ice is greater (as it is floating ice)?
When talking about ice on the Earth it's always good to be specific about what kind of ice you're talking about.
The land based ice in the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica is one thing. The GRACE satellites show both of those are losing ice mass although it's faster on Greenland.
Sea ice is a separate thing from the land based ice and there is a substantial difference between the Arctic sea ice and the Antarctic sea ice. In the Arctic the sea ice extent is constrained by the fact that the surrounding land prevents the sea ice from expanding as much as it could and only in some limited areas like the Bering Sea and the Fram Strait does it have enough room to freely expand southward. A good example of this is you get sea ice in the Baltic sea but of course all of the Scandinavian land between it and the Arctic Ocean is not covered by sea ice.
The Antarctic on the other hand is a continent surrounded by sea so there is virtually no constraint on the sea ice extent expanding as much as it can limited only by temperatures as it expands northward and then during the southern summer nearly all of the Antarctic sea ice melts out so it has to start all over again the next year.
So the usefulness of comparing maximum extents or minimum extents between the opposite polar regions is limited. What gets people all excited is the annual Arctic sea ice minimum in September and the annual Antarctic sea ice maximum (also usually in September). But the trend since 1979 is -500,000 km^2 in the Arctic and +100,000 km^2 in the Antarctic. Link
When Harper's government shut down scientific libraries and threw them in the dumpster there were some irreplaceable things lost. To bad he'll never get charged with that crime.
But I would much rather have less constraints put on me by a SMALL government instead of a huge one that will double our debt in a four year period, that doesn't bring back jobs to this country...
The rate of debt accumulation goes up during Republican administrations and down during Democratic ones ever since Carter. David Brin has an article about the second derivative of the debt: So Do Outcomes Matter More than Rhetoric?
The Republicans cut taxes but they're too chicken to cut spending significantly.
Also, Obama has presided over the longest uninterrupted period of job growth ever.
Blowing a mod point where I gave you a "Funny" on the "ripping off the customer patent" but...
The problem I have with charging by the byte is a lot of bytes I get are not something I asked for. All the ads and most of the autoplay videos are superfluous to me and I would object to having to pay for something forced on me like that. If they started charging by the byte they'd need to charge the other end for the superfluous bytes they force on us.
Hmm... Storm surges reaching places that have never been reached before is falsifiable. Over 3mm/year is falsifiable. That the rate will increase in the future is falsifiable. That several feet of sea level rise on decadal time scales has happened in the past is falsifiable.
Everyone know there is no such thing as election fraud, that is why we don't need voter ID laws. I've been told that countless times. That is unless the DNC looses the election, then it is obviously fraud even if no evidence can be found.
Voter fraud is practically nonexistent, especially in person fraud at the polls which is the only thing Voter ID laws would prevent. (Voter fraud is fraud done by an individual voter). Election fraud which is what the story is about is fraud perpetrated by people running the elections. What would Voter ID laws do to prevent that?
There really are no "Federal" elections in the US. In the elections for President/Vice President the individual states hold elections for electors to the Electoral College and those electors actually vote for the person who will be President. The number of electors each state has is equal the the number of Congressional seats they have (based on population) plus two for the two Senators. In all but two states it's winner take all and the electors will be those who stood for the state's winner. In Maine and Nebraska the winner in each congressional district will get an elector for them and the two electors for the Senators will go to the state's overall winner.
So the Federal Government makes some general rules for elections (such as no discrimination based on race, religion, etc.) but the states are the ones who make the detailed rules for their state. The actual elections are mostly run at the county (or parish) level. Here in Oregon it's the County Clerks who are responsible. So in general it's the county's Clerk or Director of Elections, taking into account the Federal and State rules, who determines exactly how the ballots are produced and processed leading to some variety even within a state.
Second they (satellite temperature records) are the least adjusted.
What a laughable statement. It takes far more adjustments and manipulations to derive temperatures from satellites than it does for surface temperature measurements. Even Dr. Mears says he trusts the surface temperature measurements more than his satellite measurements.
Yes, well Opportunist's comment was a bit hyperbolic but chances are with sea level rise continuing that storm surges may catch some people by surprise by reaching places that have never been reached before. The rate of sea level rise has been over 3 mm/year since the early 1990's and chances are that rate will increase in the future. Also it's impossible to rule out several feet of sea level rise over a decade or two. It's something we know has happened in the past.
You are right, SkepticalScience lists "Antarctica is gaining Ice" as number ten on their list of top Climate Myths. Either the crew at NASA are now foul mouthed deniers, or the blogger activists at SkepticalScience aren't as fair handed and open minded as they boast...
I think the "crew at NASA" were honestly reporting the results they found from some satellites with radar altimeters and laser altimeters. But evidence from the GRACE satellites conflicts with what they report and shows a loss of ice mass from Antarctica. The GRACE satellites measure changes in gravity so they have less issues than a satellite trying to measure the height of the ice surface. Time will undoubtedly resolve the discrepancy.
The Earth is still coming out of its last ice age.
No, actually the coming out of the last ice age phase peaked around 8,000 years ago during the Holocene Climatic Optimum and ever since then the climate has been slowly cooling toward the next glaciation. That is until recently with anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases, especially CO2.
If you had looked into it at all you would know that Al Gore's Montecito villa is on East Mountain Drive and while it may have an ocean view it is quite a distance from the ocean and at least 200 feet above sea level. It is definitely not on the beach.
What's going to cause the problem (at least in the short term) isn't the sea level rise per se' but the storm surge the next time they get a big storm that reaches places that have never been reached before. Storm surge comes in fast.
Data is missing because there was a gap between when one satellite failed and the next one came online. As far as missing data from the inner part of Antarctic they rarely orbit satellites directly over the poles and if the laser altimeters they use can only look straight down then they miss the stuff near the South Pole. The microwave sounding unit satellites they use for measuring atmospheric temperatures have the same problem.
I'm sure the science they did to produce this paper was good but to me it's interesting that the results seem to conflict with measurement from the GRACE satellites which show a pretty steady decreasing ice mass on Antarctica. I'm waiting to see how that discrepancy is resolved.
Measurements by satellites show a sea level rise of over 3 mm/year since the early 1990's. Satellite measurements are largely independent of tides, regional gravity, subsiding land, etc.
The issue isn't what temperatures on the Earth are supposed to be. The issue is how fast the temperature is changing. Take the temperature increases that have happened over the last 100 years and are expected over the next 100 years (with BAU) and spread them out over several thousand years and they aren't that big a deal. The problem is that the temperature change is happening at a rate that outpaces the ability of natural systems to adapt.
Change your "Comment Post Mode" to post as "Plain Old Text" or use HTML tags to preserve the spacing. To make the change hover over your username in the upper right, select Account then select Posting. (This is on a PC, I'm not sure what it looks like if you're on a mobile device).
Slashdot Mirror
So are you implying that the release of carbon to atmosphere saved us of a global cooling? Perchance the best option would be putting aside the global warming and starting controlling the climate.
Some increase in CO2 from 280 ppm was probably a good thing to slow down the long term cooling trend but the "good" part of it probably stopped somewhere before 350 ppm. We are now over 400 ppm.
Data from the GRACE satellites disagrees with this paper and I tend to believe them more than this study. What GRACE measures is changes in gravity (and therefore mass) and they have been showing much loss of ice in Western Antarctica and close to mass balance in Eastern Antarctica but the overall net is negative.
This is the critical point, because arctic ice is an order of magnitude greater than antarctic ice.
Did you get that backwards? Or were you maybe meaning that the effect of Arctic ice is greater (as it is floating ice)?
When talking about ice on the Earth it's always good to be specific about what kind of ice you're talking about.
The land based ice in the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica is one thing. The GRACE satellites show both of those are losing ice mass although it's faster on Greenland.
Sea ice is a separate thing from the land based ice and there is a substantial difference between the Arctic sea ice and the Antarctic sea ice. In the Arctic the sea ice extent is constrained by the fact that the surrounding land prevents the sea ice from expanding as much as it could and only in some limited areas like the Bering Sea and the Fram Strait does it have enough room to freely expand southward. A good example of this is you get sea ice in the Baltic sea but of course all of the Scandinavian land between it and the Arctic Ocean is not covered by sea ice.
The Antarctic on the other hand is a continent surrounded by sea so there is virtually no constraint on the sea ice extent expanding as much as it can limited only by temperatures as it expands northward and then during the southern summer nearly all of the Antarctic sea ice melts out so it has to start all over again the next year.
So the usefulness of comparing maximum extents or minimum extents between the opposite polar regions is limited. What gets people all excited is the annual Arctic sea ice minimum in September and the annual Antarctic sea ice maximum (also usually in September). But the trend since 1979 is -500,000 km^2 in the Arctic and +100,000 km^2 in the Antarctic. Link
Yes, the labor participation rate is low and it's not the strongest job growth ever, just the longest uninterrupted period of job growth.
Employment Situation in September
When Harper's government shut down scientific libraries and threw them in the dumpster there were some irreplaceable things lost. To bad he'll never get charged with that crime.
But I would much rather have less constraints put on me by a SMALL government instead of a huge one that will double our debt in a four year period, that doesn't bring back jobs to this country ...
The rate of debt accumulation goes up during Republican administrations and down during Democratic ones ever since Carter. David Brin has an article about the second derivative of the debt: So Do Outcomes Matter More than Rhetoric?
The Republicans cut taxes but they're too chicken to cut spending significantly.
Also, Obama has presided over the longest uninterrupted period of job growth ever.
Blowing a mod point where I gave you a "Funny" on the "ripping off the customer patent" but ...
The problem I have with charging by the byte is a lot of bytes I get are not something I asked for. All the ads and most of the autoplay videos are superfluous to me and I would object to having to pay for something forced on me like that. If they started charging by the byte they'd need to charge the other end for the superfluous bytes they force on us.
Like I said before you argue like a lawyer, not a scientist.
Hmm... Storm surges reaching places that have never been reached before is falsifiable. Over 3mm/year is falsifiable. That the rate will increase in the future is falsifiable. That several feet of sea level rise on decadal time scales has happened in the past is falsifiable.
Why don't you give it a try and see how successful you can be?
Everyone know there is no such thing as election fraud, that is why we don't need voter ID laws. I've been told that countless times. That is unless the DNC looses the election, then it is obviously fraud even if no evidence can be found.
Voter fraud is practically nonexistent, especially in person fraud at the polls which is the only thing Voter ID laws would prevent. (Voter fraud is fraud done by an individual voter). Election fraud which is what the story is about is fraud perpetrated by people running the elections. What would Voter ID laws do to prevent that?
There really are no "Federal" elections in the US. In the elections for President/Vice President the individual states hold elections for electors to the Electoral College and those electors actually vote for the person who will be President. The number of electors each state has is equal the the number of Congressional seats they have (based on population) plus two for the two Senators. In all but two states it's winner take all and the electors will be those who stood for the state's winner. In Maine and Nebraska the winner in each congressional district will get an elector for them and the two electors for the Senators will go to the state's overall winner.
So the Federal Government makes some general rules for elections (such as no discrimination based on race, religion, etc.) but the states are the ones who make the detailed rules for their state. The actual elections are mostly run at the county (or parish) level. Here in Oregon it's the County Clerks who are responsible. So in general it's the county's Clerk or Director of Elections, taking into account the Federal and State rules, who determines exactly how the ballots are produced and processed leading to some variety even within a state.
Second they (satellite temperature records) are the least adjusted.
What a laughable statement. It takes far more adjustments and manipulations to derive temperatures from satellites than it does for surface temperature measurements. Even Dr. Mears says he trusts the surface temperature measurements more than his satellite measurements.
Yes, well Opportunist's comment was a bit hyperbolic but chances are with sea level rise continuing that storm surges may catch some people by surprise by reaching places that have never been reached before. The rate of sea level rise has been over 3 mm/year since the early 1990's and chances are that rate will increase in the future. Also it's impossible to rule out several feet of sea level rise over a decade or two. It's something we know has happened in the past.
You are right, SkepticalScience lists "Antarctica is gaining Ice" as number ten on their list of top Climate Myths. Either the crew at NASA are now foul mouthed deniers, or the blogger activists at SkepticalScience aren't as fair handed and open minded as they boast...
I think the "crew at NASA" were honestly reporting the results they found from some satellites with radar altimeters and laser altimeters. But evidence from the GRACE satellites conflicts with what they report and shows a loss of ice mass from Antarctica. The GRACE satellites measure changes in gravity so they have less issues than a satellite trying to measure the height of the ice surface. Time will undoubtedly resolve the discrepancy.
But haven't they heard???? Climate Change is PROVEN!
So says the simpleton who is unable to cope with the nuances of science.
The Earth is still coming out of its last ice age.
No, actually the coming out of the last ice age phase peaked around 8,000 years ago during the Holocene Climatic Optimum and ever since then the climate has been slowly cooling toward the next glaciation. That is until recently with anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases, especially CO2.
If you had looked into it at all you would know that Al Gore's Montecito villa is on East Mountain Drive and while it may have an ocean view it is quite a distance from the ocean and at least 200 feet above sea level. It is definitely not on the beach.
Al Gore's house.
What's going to cause the problem (at least in the short term) isn't the sea level rise per se' but the storm surge the next time they get a big storm that reaches places that have never been reached before. Storm surge comes in fast.
Data is missing because there was a gap between when one satellite failed and the next one came online. As far as missing data from the inner part of Antarctic they rarely orbit satellites directly over the poles and if the laser altimeters they use can only look straight down then they miss the stuff near the South Pole. The microwave sounding unit satellites they use for measuring atmospheric temperatures have the same problem.
I'm sure the science they did to produce this paper was good but to me it's interesting that the results seem to conflict with measurement from the GRACE satellites which show a pretty steady decreasing ice mass on Antarctica. I'm waiting to see how that discrepancy is resolved.
Measurements by satellites show a sea level rise of over 3 mm/year since the early 1990's. Satellite measurements are largely independent of tides, regional gravity, subsiding land, etc.
The issue isn't what temperatures on the Earth are supposed to be. The issue is how fast the temperature is changing. Take the temperature increases that have happened over the last 100 years and are expected over the next 100 years (with BAU) and spread them out over several thousand years and they aren't that big a deal. The problem is that the temperature change is happening at a rate that outpaces the ability of natural systems to adapt.
Change your "Comment Post Mode" to post as "Plain Old Text" or use HTML tags to preserve the spacing. To make the change hover over your username in the upper right, select Account then select Posting. (This is on a PC, I'm not sure what it looks like if you're on a mobile device).
How about a slingshot?