Antarctic ice shelf thinning accelerates

[SSDD]

I have no problem with increases in outgoing LW. It's the obvious result of increasing global temperatures.

The models claim that a reduction of outgoing LW at the TOA is to be expected....precisely the opposite of what is happening because the physics upon which they are based are wrong.

 

[SSDD]

These are empirical data, wheezebulb.

These are empirical data

These are empirical data

These are empirical data

You are such a stupid dipshit.

You do know that correlation isn't the same as causation don't you? You didn't? To bad.

How about some actual evidence that proves causation?

I know that causation always includes correlation - something you can't seem to grasp. You seem to think that correlation is evidence of no relation. And, pardon me if I follow you no further. The claim here - by several of your buddies - was that mainstream science had no empirical data supporting AGW. These are empirical data and they support AGW.

And how are those intelligent photons coming along? Did you think your claims would be forgotten?

They also support natural variation as the present is in no way unprecedented, extreme, or even moderately unusual. It is a leap of faith to claim that evidence for natural variation is evidence of man made climate change.

 

[Crick]

Natural variation does not mean idiopathic. You still need a cause. CO2 works to satisfy observations. Nothing else - natural or synthetic - does. You're the one making leaps of unevidenced faith.

 

[theHawk]

Antarctic Ice Shelf Thinning Speeds Up
BBCNews

Scientists have their best view yet of the status of Antarctica's floating ice shelves and they find them to be thinning at an accelerating rate.
Fernando Paolo and colleagues used 18 years of data from European radar satellites to compile their assessment.
In the first half of that period, the total losses from these tongues of ice that jut out from the continent amounted to 25 cubic km per year.
But by the second half, this had jumped to 310 cubic km per annum.
"For the decade before 2003, ice-shelf volume for all Antarctica did not change much," said Mr Paolo from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, US.
"Since then, volume loss has been significant. The western ice shelves have been persistently thinning for two decades, and earlier gains in the eastern ice shelves ceased in the most recent decade," he told BBC News.
The satellite research is published in Science Magazine. It is a step up from previous studies, which provided only short snapshots of behaviour. Here, the team has combined the data from three successive orbiting altimeter missions operated by the European Space Agency (Esa).
Faster flow
The findings demonstrate the value of continuous, long-term, cross-calibrated time series of information.
Many of Antarctica's ice shelves are huge. The one protruding into the Ross Sea is the size of France.
They form where glacier ice running off the continent protrudes across water. At a certain point, the ice lifts off the seabed and floats.
Eventually, as these shelves continue to push outwards, their fronts will calve, forming icebergs.
If the losses to the ocean balance the gains on land though precipitation of snows, this entirely natural process contributes nothing to sea level rise. But if thinning weakens the shelves so that land ice can flow faster towards the sea, this will kick the system out of kilter. Repeat observations now show this to be the case across much of West Antarctica.
"If this thinning continues at the rates we report, some of the ice shelves in West Antarctica that we've observed will disappear by the end of this century," said Scripps co-author Helen Amanda Fricker.
"A number of these ice shelves are holding back 1m to 3m of sea level rise in the grounded ice. And that means that ultimately this ice will be delivered into the oceans and we will see global sea-level rise on that order."
Prof Fricker was speaking on this week's Science In Action programme for the BBC World Service.
Modelling capability
Various studies have now confirmed that the land, or grounded, ice in Antarctica is losing mass.
Esa's current polar observing spacecraft, known as Cryosat, recently reported that the continent's ice sheet was diminishing at a rate of 160 billion tonnes a year. Cryosat found the average elevation of the full ice sheet to be falling annually by almost 2cm.
It is thought that all this thinning is predominantly the consequence of warm water getting under the floating ice at the continent's margins to melt it from below.
This warmer water appears to be being drawn towards Antarctica by stronger westerly winds in the Southern Ocean.
But the precise drivers at work and their scale are poorly understood. And until scientists get a better grasp of some of these issues, their ability to project future change will be limited.
Prof David Vaughan is the director of science at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), and was not involved in the Paolo paper.
He commented: "We need three components: we need to understand the changes in the grounded ice; how the floating ice is behaving; and finally how the oceanographic conditions under the floating ice have changed. With those three things, we have the basis for building really good models. Ten years ago, we didn't have any one of those elements. Today, we've made good progress on two, but on the oceanographic side we're only just beginning."
BAS recently placed moorings in the Amundsen Sea in West Antarctica to gather data on ocean conditions. In the same sector, BAS also sent a sub under the floating shelf ahead of Pine Island Glacier to better understand how water moves under the ice.
*********************************************************************
I think we're going to find that, like the rest of the world, Antarctica has been responding to ongoing global warming just about precisely as it was expected to do so.

The Earth continues to warm. The primary cause of that warming is human GHG emissions and deforestation. Claims that it is not, that there is no greenhouse effect, that CO2 does not behave as scientists have understood it to behave for the last hundred years, are going to make some bitter crow on which some will be forced to dine.

The Earth has been warming for the last 12,000 years naturally. Your article fails to mention that.

There was a time when the planet had no ice at all in the polar regions, yet the planet didn't die.


So tell us again why we should be alarmed?

 

[theHawk]

Moreover, there's an 800,000 year data set demonstrating that CO2 lags temperature and never leads it, not once.

I don't really get your point.

Are you suggesting that raising temperatures are causing humans to add more CO2 to the air?

No. Raising temperature cause an increase in CO2

Here's a 400,000 year data set and not once did CO2 act as the AGWCult proposed

400,000 years

The fear-mongerers don't care about the full scientific facts, especially when it doesn't help the Agenda.

 

[Crick]

Frank, there are no indications in the geological record of humans starting forest fires. Does that mean that humans cannot start forest fires?

Where in the Vostok cores does one find any instance of massive CO2 releases not associated with warming? They are not there - you have said so yourself. So where do you get the idea that the Vostok cores can tell us how the Earth will respond to such a thing?

 

[skookerasbil]

so I guess this is the new fangled vague term employed by AGW k00ks........."thinning"

These phonies are expert at finding these vague terms to scare the people..........like the maps with all the colors but no temperatures!!!

Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, there are no indications in the geological record of humans starting forest fires. Does that mean that humans cannot start forest fires?

Where in the Vostok cores does one find any instance of massive CO2 releases not associated with warming? They are not there - you have said so yourself. So where do you get the idea that the Vostok cores can tell us how the Earth will respond to such a thing?

Did you know the American Indians would burn half a state worth of forest to lead animals into a kill zone thereby providing meats and clothing for the tribe for the winter?

Ask Liz Warren about it

 

[SSDD]

Natural variation does not mean idiopathic. You still need a cause. CO2 works to satisfy observations. Nothing else - natural or synthetic - does. You're the one making leaps of unevidenced faith.

No it doesn't because CO2 has been between 1000 and 7000ppm in the past without producing the runaway greenhouse effect that the AGW hypothesis demands. The fact that the present is in no way unprecedented, unusual, or even slightly strange when compared to earth history is evidence enough that we are experiencing natural variations. You must completely ignore all of earth history to believe in AGW.

 

[SSDD]

Frank, there are no indications in the geological record of humans starting forest fires. Does that mean that humans cannot start forest fires?

Where in the Vostok cores does one find any instance of massive CO2 releases not associated with warming? They are not there - you have said so yourself. So where do you get the idea that the Vostok cores can tell us how the Earth will respond to such a thing?

Idiot...warming results in warmer oceans which then release CO2.

 

[SSDD]

Frank, there are no indications in the geological record of humans starting forest fires. Does that mean that humans cannot start forest fires?

Where in the Vostok cores does one find any instance of massive CO2 releases not associated with warming? They are not there - you have said so yourself. So where do you get the idea that the Vostok cores can tell us how the Earth will respond to such a thing?

Did you know the American Indians would burn half a state worth of forest to lead animals into a kill zone thereby providing meats and clothing for the tribe for the winter?

Ask Liz Warren about it

Not the native americans...say it ain't so. They lived in harmony with gaia and were blessed by her.

 

[mamooth]

No it doesn't because CO2 has been between 1000 and 7000ppm in the past without producing the runaway greenhouse effect that the AGW hypothesis demands.

When CO2 was at 7000 ppm, the sun was 4% cooler than it is now. Without CO2, it would have been snowball earth. Heck, without the CO2, it _was_ snowball earth for a long time.

Deniers can't explain why earth didn't stay frozen when the sun was cooler. As always, their stupid theory fails completely. Only CO2 explains why the earth came out of the snowball earth phase.

 

[mamooth]

You are unfamiliar with KNMI?

I'm familiar with deniers using it to lie big.

So, exactly where did you get your fudged graph? That is, tell everyone the exact steps necessary to reproduce it on KNMI Climate Explorer, so we can figure out exactly how you lied.

 

[mamooth]

The Earth has been warming for the last 12,000 years naturally. Your article fails to mention that.

No, the earth has been slowly cooling for the past 5000 years. That is, until it recently began warming very quickly. You fail to mention that.

 

[SSDD]

When CO2 was at 7000 ppm, the sun was 4% cooler than it is now. Without CO2, it would have been snowball earth. Heck, without the CO2, it _was_ snowball earth for a long time.

What about when CO2 was in the 4500 range, or the 1000+ range when the earth entered the ice age it is currently climbing out of? Fact is that CO2 isn't your culprit.

Deniers can't explain why earth didn't stay frozen when the sun was cooler. As always, their stupid theory fails completely. Only CO2 explains why the earth came out of the snowball earth phase.

Water vapor, and the atmospheric thermal effect...nothing more is needed to explain the temperature on earth and every other planet in the solar system while the AGW hypothesis can't even explain the temperature on earth without constant adjustment.

And tell me you f'ing idiot...how did the CO2 escape from frozen oceans when the earth was in the snowball phase....did cold water suddenly decide that it wasn't going to hold CO2? The recent ice age is the explanation for the currently low atmospheric CO2....given time, the oceans will outgas to the normal 1000+ppm range for earth.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Thanks mamooth. Excellent presentation. Exactly what I have been saying for years. It would be better if it also showed how far IR penetrated but that is a minor quibble.

Solar heats the ocean, IR energy is used up at the boundary, equilibrium is changed .

Cool things indeed can make a warm thing warmer. Lexicon is what confuses people.

"Cool things indeed can make a warm thing warmer."

What?????????

This is only at the boundary layer where convection occurs and the difference is in hundredths of a degree. The area of thermal induction (where the excited molecules are rubbing together) which is roughly 1 micron thick.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The direct measurements of outgoing longwave radiation decreasing, backradiation increasing and stratospheric cooling are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming. If no computer models existed, AGW theory would still be proven. The success of the models is just icing on the cake.

Sorry hairball, outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing....precisely the opposite of the claims of the AGW models.

You have seen the evidence before but just can't resist telling the lie, can you. How is that piss fetish working out for you these days? Understand that you have some strange attraction to sissies as well. In addition to being just plain stupid, it seems that you are pretty weird as well.

What is rather funny, is the alarmists ignore that water vapor has been rendering any potential warming by CO2 to zero. 1.3W/M^2 is almost exactly the same amount of potential warming that would be expected with a CO2 increase of 200ppm or 1/2 of one doubling. (ie: the 120ppm addition to 280ppm since 1850)

This is rather damning evidence that CO2 is not coupled with water vapor positively. Rather water vapor and the convection cycle are negatively correlated. Also noting that La Nina's correlate to the dips in LWIR output with 100% certainty.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No it doesn't because CO2 has been between 1000 and 7000ppm in the past without producing the runaway greenhouse effect that the AGW hypothesis demands.

When CO2 was at 7000 ppm, the sun was 4% cooler than it is now. Without CO2, it would have been snowball earth. Heck, without the CO2, it _was_ snowball earth for a long time.

Deniers can't explain why earth didn't stay frozen when the sun was cooler. As always, their stupid theory fails completely. Only CO2 explains why the earth came out of the snowball earth phase.

Momooth lies again..

DO the math hairball.. what you posted is a lie.

The earth was closer in orbit at that time thus the energy received was greater. It has been a near zero sum game for millions of years. The convection cycle however, was operating quite well rendering the CO2 monster irrelevant just as it does today.

 

[mamooth]

No, the earth was not closer

The sun, however, was dimmer. Stars gradually burn hotter over their lifetimes. Our sun heats up by about 1% every 100 million years.

 

[mamooth]

Water vapor, and the atmospheric thermal effect...nothing more is needed to explain the temperature on earth and every other planet in the solar system while the AGW hypothesis can't even explain the temperature on earth without constant adjustment.

That's based on your cult's utterly insane claim that a gas under pressure constantly generates heat. That is, it's delusional on your part.

And tell me you f'ing idiot...how did the CO2 escape from frozen oceans when the earth was in the snowball phase....did cold water suddenly decide that it wasn't going to hold CO2?

Volcanoes, combined with the fact that there were no significant CO2 sinks, with the oceans and most the life being frozen.

Since your group claims volcanoes control the current climate, it's hilarious that you forget volcanoes the instant it becomes convenient to do so.

The recent ice age is the explanation for the currently low atmospheric CO2....given time, the oceans will outgas to the normal 1000+ppm range for earth.

Henry's Law says you're completely full of shit there. But then, that's just two-century old science. It's obviously all wrong, because you say so.