Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

[saveliberty]

When you consider ALL ice caps, there is a net gain this last year.
------------------------------

Sure, there's been more snow this year. More snow doesn't disprove AGW. If temps increase from 20F to 25F, that's 5 degrees of warming, but it will still snow!

Thanks for admitting the ice caps grew. Please link to source for a 5 degree anomaly in temps for the poles.

 

[Old Rocks]

If you mean that the Arctic Ice Cap is larger than it was in 2007 at this time of year, you are correct. If you mean that there is more ice, you are wrong. The present ice is very thin, compared to even 2007.

And the present Antarctic Sea Ice is lower than it was at this time last year.

Both of the land based ice caps, Greenland, and Antarctica, have less ice than they did at this time in the past years.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

 

[Old Rocks]

Eyjafjallajökull

Ah I see. I thought you were making a general statement about glaciers melting world wide. Of course glaciers that are directly exposed to molten rock will melt. Sort of like saying that an ice cube will melt quickly when thrown into a furnace. Concepts like Jökulhlaup (I would have posted a URL but apparently I can't yet) are fascinating to me, but of course these things have nothing to do with climate change.

Yes, fascinating geological process, indeed. And you are correct, it has nothing to do with climate change.

However, the glacial melt worldwide is due to heating from GHGs.



Jökulhlaups - Glacial Outburst Floods

Late in 1996, the media showed us a special kind of catastrophe: a battle between ice and fire. In Iceland, the volcano Grimsvötn awoke beneath the ice cap Vatnajökull, melting a huge quantity of ice. On 5 November that meltwater burst out from under Vatnajökull's edge and rushed to the sea, carrying away bridges, an optical data cable, and other pieces of infrastructure. The Icelanders calmly rebuilt—it was just another jökulhlaup.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

When you consider ALL ice caps, there is a net gain this last year.
------------------------------

Sure, there's been more snow this year. More snow doesn't disprove AGW. If temps increase from 20F to 25F, that's 5 degrees of warming, but it will still snow!

I don't think they can grasp that fact.


The antarctic has been warming like the rest of the planet.

 

[Old Rocks]

When you consider ALL ice caps, there is a net gain this last year.
------------------------------

Sure, there's been more snow this year. More snow doesn't disprove AGW. If temps increase from 20F to 25F, that's 5 degrees of warming, but it will still snow!

Thanks for admitting the ice caps grew. Please link to source for a 5 degree anomaly in temps for the poles.

Please link to something that says the poles have been cooling.

Access : Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year : Nature

Assessments of Antarctic temperature change have emphasized the contrast between strong warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and slight cooling of the Antarctic continental interior in recent decades1. This pattern of temperature change has been attributed to the increased strength of the circumpolar westerlies, largely in response to changes in stratospheric ozone2. This picture, however, is substantially incomplete owing to the sparseness and short duration of the observations. Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 °C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive. Simulations using a general circulation model reproduce the essential features of the spatial pattern and the long-term trend, and we suggest that neither can be attributed directly to increases in the strength of the westerlies. Instead, regional changes in atmospheric circulation and associated changes in sea surface temperature and sea ice are required to explain the enhanced warming in West Antarctica.

 

[saveliberty]

Looks like I interupted Global Warmer Communion. Say, is that wine room temperature or chilled?

Parts of the globe are apparently warmer and some COOLER at present.
The ice caps are just fine, well within what the planet has had since forever.
I noticed none of you stepped up with a link to the 5 degree polar warming bit.
There still is that little matter of no proof man is causing the supposed problem.

Oh, and no thanks, here's the wafer back too.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The ice caps are just fine, well within what the planet has had since forever.

I don't think you understand the problem

There still is that little matter of no proof man is causing the supposed problem.

You're confusing science with law and math. There's no such thing as a "proof" in science.

 

[saveliberty]

The ice caps are just fine, well within what the planet has had since forever.

I don't think you understand the problem

There still is that little matter of no proof man is causing the supposed problem.

You're confusing science with law and math. There's no such thing as a "proof" in science.

Amen brother Tuba, particualrly when applied to Climatology, specifically global warming.

Chemistry Glossary Definition of Proof
By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D., About.com Guide
Definition: Twice the volume percentage of ethyl alcohol (ethanol) in an alcoholic beverage.

Example: An alcoholic beverage that is 40% ethyl alcohol by volume is referred to as being '80 proof'.

Pay particular attention to synonyms.

proof

1. Any effort, process, or operation designed to establish or discover a fact or truth; an act of testing; a test; a trial. For whatsoever mother wit or art Could work, he put in proof. (Spenser) You shall have many proofs to show your skill. (Ford) Formerly, a very rude mode of ascertaining the strength of spirits was practiced, called the proof. (ure)

2. That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief; a test by facts or arguments that induce, or tend to induce, certainty of the judgment; conclusive evidence; demonstration. I'll have some proof. (Shak) It is no proof of a man's understanding to be able to confirm whatever he pleases. (Emerson)

Properly speaking, proof is the effect or result of evidence, evidence is the medium of proof. Cf. Demonstration.

3. The quality or state of having been proved or tried; firmness or hardness that resists impression, or does not yield to force; impenetrability of physical bodies.

4. Firmness of mind; stability not to be shaken.

5. A trial impression, as from type, taken for correction or examination; called also proof sheet.

6. (Science: mathematics) A process for testing the accuracy of an operation performed. Cf. Prove.

7. Armor of excellent or tried qualit 6f1 y, and deemed impenetrable; properly, armor of proof. Artist's proof, a very early proof impression of an engraving, or the like; often distinguished by the artist's signature. Proof reader, one who reads, and marks correction in, proofs. See def. 5, above.

Synonym: Testimony, evidence, reason, argument, trial, demonstration.

Math is a science, surprise!!!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

6. (Science: mathematics) A process for testing the accuracy of an operation performed. Cf. Prove.

Exactly. Mathematics is the only "science" to which "proof" is applicable, though some would argue math is not a science.

In physics one can have mathematical proof of a theory but that does not translate to proof in the real world because its based on the assumption the math applies to the real world.

 

[saveliberty]

6. (Science: mathematics) A process for testing the accuracy of an operation performed. Cf. Prove.

Exactly. Mathematics is the only "science" to which "proof" is applicable, though some would argue math is not a science.

In physics one can have mathematical proof of a theory but that does not translate to proof in the real world because its based on the assumption the math applies to the real world.

I give you opportunity to read my prior post and you STILL screw it up. You stated, science doesn't use the term. Okay, I show you mathematics is a science. First time your wrong.

I also included proof as a chemistry term. You turn around and claim math is the only science that uses the term. Wrong again. Care to say chemistry is not a science?

 

[mdn2000]

When you consider ALL ice caps, there is a net gain this last year.
------------------------------

Sure, there's been more snow this year. More snow doesn't disprove AGW. If temps increase from 20F to 25F, that's 5 degrees of warming, but it will still snow!

I don't think they can grasp that fact.


The antarctic has been warming like the rest of the planet.

If the ice caps get small enough I am going to put them in my Bacardi and Coke.

 

[saveliberty]

When you consider ALL ice caps, there is a net gain this last year.
------------------------------

Sure, there's been more snow this year. More snow doesn't disprove AGW. If temps increase from 20F to 25F, that's 5 degrees of warming, but it will still snow!

I don't think they can grasp that fact.


The antarctic has been warming like the rest of the planet.

If the ice caps get small enough I am going to put them in my Bacardi and Coke.

We'll have to put them on the endangered list. The imported ice cube poachers will have a hay day.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Okay, I show you mathematics is a science.

Its not really.

I also included proof as a chemistry term.

Its a mathematical and logic term used in chemistry that can be used to prove that a theory is mathematically and logically sound - but it has nothing to do with verification through observation and experiment.

You turn around and claim math is the only science that uses the term. Wrong again. Care to say chemistry is not a science?

I'm just trying to correct your gaping ignorance on the subject. You can't prove a scientific theory.

 

[saveliberty]

Okay, I show you mathematics is a science.

Its not really.

I also included proof as a chemistry term.

Its a mathematical and logic term used in chemistry that can be used to prove that a theory is mathematically and logically sound - but it has nothing to do with verification through observation and experiment. Where did your alter ego go?

You turn around and claim math is the only science that uses the term. Wrong again. Care to say chemistry is not a science?

I'm just trying to correct your gaping ignorance on the subject. You can't prove a scientific theory.

Gee, almost twenty-four hours for that lame of a comeback? My sources were listed and quite definitive about math as a science and that proof also has a chemistry meaning. Your insecurities over your intellectual abilities seem to make you split hairs over terms. Get over it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Okay, I show you mathematics is a science.

Its not really.



Its a mathematical and logic term used in chemistry that can be used to prove that a theory is mathematically and logically sound - but it has nothing to do with verification through observation and experiment. Where did your alter ego go?

You turn around and claim math is the only science that uses the term. Wrong again. Care to say chemistry is not a science?

I'm just trying to correct your gaping ignorance on the subject. You can't prove a scientific theory.

Gee, almost twenty-four hours for that lame of a comeback? My sources were listed and quite definitive about math as a science and that proof also has a chemistry meaning. Your insecurities over your intellectual abilities seem to make you split hairs over terms. Get over it.

Sorry buddy, just trying to help.

 

[Gremlin]

Yet folks like Old Rocks have no problem adding it to the total of glaciers melting on the planet.
-------------------------------------

Seems you have no problem in saying none of the melting is due to GW. Before you say you didn't, you have to realize that by presenting it as evidence against AGW, you have. That's the deniers' problem. They can't show proof without attempting to mislead what the "proof" means.

When you consider ALL ice caps, there is a net gain this last year. Sorry to bring a fact into your faith-based rant.

Can you reference? I am not sure that is correct.

 

[saveliberty]

Yet folks like Old Rocks have no problem adding it to the total of glaciers melting on the planet.
-------------------------------------

Seems you have no problem in saying none of the melting is due to GW. Before you say you didn't, you have to realize that by presenting it as evidence against AGW, you have. That's the deniers' problem. They can't show proof without attempting to mislead what the "proof" means.

When you consider ALL ice caps, there is a net gain this last year. Sorry to bring a fact into your faith-based rant.

Can you reference? I am not sure that is correct.

Yes, I can and yes, it is correct. Why can't you figure it out?

 

[Gremlin]

I have read things that say otherwise such as a paper at agu dot org (/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml) and would like more data

In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.

(ps, I am very much looking forward to being able to post links/imgs)

Of course there is a paper out from OSU/UTA that say GRACE overestimates the amount of loss due to other geological changes based on GPS measurements, I haven't seen something that says that the loss has turned to gain per se, just that it was less.

 

[saveliberty]

I have read things that say otherwise such as a paper at agu dot org (/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml) and would like more data

In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.

(ps, I am very much looking forward to being able to post links/imgs)

Yes when looking into ice caps, it is best to consider only the 10% in the northern hemisphere. Try the other 90% with something like Antarctia ice caps 2010 with google. You should find several articles showing 80% of those ice caps are growing. (its a net 72% global growth). Forgot about the early days of posting here. It will pass soon.

 

[Gremlin]

Yes when looking into ice caps, it is best to consider only the 10% in the northern hemisphere. Try the other 90% with something like Antarctia ice caps 2010 with google. You should find several articles showing 80% of those ice caps are growing. (its a net 72% global growth). Forgot about the early days of posting here. It will pass soon.

I will isolate the Antarctica statistic, since the reference to Greenland first is mostly irrelevant.

In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.

Like I tacked onto my other post, the GRACE data is thought to be too ambitious due to fluctuations in the bedrock that were outside of the models used for the gravity mission. Even the OSU/UTA paper however refer to it being less loss rather than net gain in ice in the Antarctic:

"Our work suggests that while West Antarctica is still losing significant amounts of ice, the loss appears to be slightly slower than some recent estimates," said Ian Dalziel, lead principal investigator for WAGN. "So the take home message is that Antarctica is contributing to rising sea levels. It is the rate that is unclear."

I have read about sea ice expanse in the Antarctic, but I am unconvinced as to the meaning of it. The mechanism of sea ice formation seems relatively straight forward, and to be honest it seems somewhat unrelated to temperature except in the obvious way: it has to be below freezing for water to freeze. Once we can get past the obvious, you will note that sea ice spread is an outward process, driven by cyclonic wind. As a side note, the strengthening of winds in the Antarctic is attributed to the hole in the ozone layer, which was put there by human activity. To sum up, the media seems to get confused a lot between ice expanse and ice mass. I have seen a few articles where the terms are used interchangeably. The abuse of the scientific concepts, either unknowingly or maliciously, makes me vaguely nauseous (though that could be my poor lunch choice as well).