Arctic vs Antarctic Ice

[mamooth]

Some fine displays of Dunning-Kruger here. That is, most denialists are too dumb to understand how dumb they are.

People of normal intelligence just sit back and marvel at how stupid they are, but the denialists are incapable of understanding it themselves. Thus, you see them here always displaying that belligerent arrogance which is typical of the profoundly stupid.

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD -

You committed to reading the material.

btw. The OP incudes links to at least three peer-reviewed research documents, conducted by three seperate and independent sources.

And not one hint in any of them as to where they went wrong when they first predicted with high confidence that global warming would cause rapid melting in the antarctic.

At this point, you are providing pretty convincing evidence that the peer review system is terribly flawed and corrupt.

First, back up your assertation they they predicted rapid melting in the Antarctic. Second, it is not the peer review system that is flawed, but fools like you that reject reality for polticial nonsense.

Does the expanding Antarctic sea ice disprove global warming? | SciGuy | a Chron.com blog

The bottom line is that scientists generally have predicted that the Antarctic sea ice will not begin substantially melting until the second half of this century

 

[Saigon]

Careful...He has deemed calling the "science" flawed and corrupt to be "spamming".

I said that the peer review system was flawed and corrupt. The "science" is just laughable in its incompetence.

That's just a cheap way of dismissing all evidence you don't like. I'll take the peer review system "warts and all" over people who simply dismiss it on a political basis.

Exactly that.

I knew when I started this thread that SSDD wouldn't look at the material posted, and would simply dismiss it out of hand. So did he, I'm sure.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Why are you still here?

You're done, dude.

Why would anyone bother to read or respond to anything you ever have to say again when you have proven - unequivocally - that you will not read science.

 

[Saigon]

Some fine displays of Dunning-Kruger here. That is, most denialists are too dumb to understand how dumb they are.

People of normal intelligence just sit back and marvel at how stupid they are, but the denialists are incapable of understanding it themselves. Thus, you see them here always displaying that belligerent arrogance which is typical of the profoundly stupid.

That seems to be it.

What SSDD has done here even seems to go a bit futher in that he PROMISED to look at the material posted, even knowing as he did so that he couldn't possibly afford to do so.

Bewilidering....

 

[IanC]

I like this quote because it describes why CO2 should be driving Antarctica temps up.

A report by the University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS) in Norway (“Antarctic temperature changes during the observational period&#8221 [http://www.unis.no/research/geology/Geo_research/Ole/AntarcticTemperatureChanges.htm] states that “all GCMs indicate that the Polar Regions should experience a much larger warming than would occur in lower latitudes due to two basic greenhouse mechanisms. Firstly, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has its greatest absorption of infrared radiation (IR) at sub-zero temperatures, as its absorption bands lie in the 12-16 micron wavelength band, corresponding to the wavelength of strongest IR emission from ice and snow. Secondly, water vapor, sharing overlapping absorption bands with CO2, is only present in limited amounts in the polar atmosphere due to low temperatures, allowing CO2 to exert a much greater influence than would be possible in warmer and moister air masses at lower latitudes. An important enhanced greenhouse signal would thus be strong warming in the polar and sub-polar regions and less warming at lower latitudes.”

sorry that the embedded link no longer works

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

Perhaps if you read the material posted?

Antarctic temperatures ARE up.

 

[IanC]

the peninsula temps are up. presumably because of local conditions where the westerlies are stronger and the current has changed. the continent is not warming, especially not at the predicted and expected rate.

 

[Saigon]

the peninsula temps are up. presumably because of local conditions where the westerlies are stronger and the current has changed. the continent is not warming, especially not at the predicted and expected rate.

You may be right, although the term 'local conditions' is perhaps strained when we are talking about an area involving tens of thousands of square kilometres.

But the material does explain exactly why the Eastern Antarctic is not warming as much as expected, and interestingly enough, it also notes that as the ozone hole reduces in size, the temperatures may rise further.

 

[SSDD]

You post things you think are "flawed and corrupt"? At least the computer models are updated, one would hope the same could be said about your flawed understanding of physics.

Yes konradv, the computer models are constantly updated. To bad you can't see the problem in that. They are just updated with no real inquiry into why they keep needing to be updated. If the underlying physics were correct, then they wouldn't need to be constantly updated and at least they would be able to hind cast and give an accuate picture of the past. The more they are updated, the less able they are to show what the known past climate looked like.

As to my "flawed" understanding of physics....the one model that uses my "flawed" understanding of physics not only accurately predicts the temperature of the earth, it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere while present climate models can't even come close to predicting the temperatures of other planets and must be constantly updated to even get earth temps.

 

[SSDD]

Some fine displays of Dunning-Kruger here. That is, most denialists are too dumb to understand how dumb they are.

People of normal intelligence just sit back and marvel at how stupid they are, but the denialists are incapable of understanding it themselves. Thus, you see them here always displaying that belligerent arrogance which is typical of the profoundly stupid.

So maybe you can provide the claimed unequivocal proof that man is the primary driver of the climate since the 1950's that has been claimed to exist. Or perhaps you might just sit quietly while the adults talk and maybe you might learn something since you are the one person on this board even less able to discuss the topic than rolling thunder.

 

[SSDD]

First, back up your assertation they they predicted rapid melting in the Antarctic. Second, it is not the peer review system that is flawed, but fools like you that reject reality for polticial nonsense.

No problem rocks. It is interesting how quickly you guys forget what you were claiming not so long ago. When the predictions don't work out and new ones are issued, apparently none of you has brains enough to question why the first set of predictions failed...or the second....or the third. More evidence that you guys aren't really paying attention...you are just regurgitating the pap that you are being fed.

Antarctic Glaciers Melting Rapidly | LiveScience

Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Rapidly

Antarctic Ice Sheet May Begin Melting Rapidly By Century's End - Science News - redOrbit

Deep ocean heat is rapidly melting Antarctic ice | ThinkProgress

Ice melting more ?rapidly in Antarctica

Antarctic Ice Shelf Disappears, Arctic Melting Rapidly

 

[SSDD]

I said that the peer review system was flawed and corrupt. The "science" is just laughable in its incompetence.

That's just a cheap way of dismissing all evidence you don't like. I'll take the peer review system "warts and all" over people who simply dismiss it on a political basis.

Exactly that.

I knew when I started this thread that SSDD wouldn't look at the material posted, and would simply dismiss it out of hand. So did he, I'm sure.

I have looked at the material siagon...at this point, you have not effectively rebutted a single critique that I have made of it. You just pout and act like an old lady who has had her feelings hurt. I have looked at your materials and told you what I believe is wrong with them and showed you peer reviewed, articles that have been published in respected journals that contradict what you claim.

Grow up and put together a coherent argument if you believe you are right and stop making claims that you can't back up. It is abundantly clear that your claim of unequivocal proof that man is the primary driver of climate since the 1950's is a lie. Interesting that you don't question the people who told you that such proof exists.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Following on from another thread about the massive loss of Arcti Ice, SSDD asked:

While at the same time antarctic sea ice is far above normal. Square that with the GLOBAL warming hypothesis.

And I promised to explain that in a little detail. This is a little complicated, so bear with me. I have put most of this in my own words, but also deliberately chosen a source which explains the concepts in terms I think everyone can understand without reading 500 pages of text. I have then linked a scientific study at the bottom for those more interested in the details.

1) The Arctic is an area of ocean surrounded by land. Antarctica is a continent surrounded by oceans. The Arctic is flat; the Antarctic mountainous. The Arctic is sea ice, much of the Antarctic is glaciers and land ice. In geographical terms, they are opposites. Hence, comparing what is happening in one with the other is not comparing like-with-like. The Arctic has lost around 40% of its ice - the Antartic gained around 5%, so the idea that the net result is static is clearly false.

2) Antarctica has two distinct climactic and geogrpahical zones - west and east. The west is warming and shedding massive amounts of ice into the sea. The east is gaining ice. Why this is, is the basis of SSDD's question.

3) During the satellite era (1979-present), no significant net reduction in Antarctic sea ice extent has been measured, although there are significant reductions around the Antarctic Peninsula with compensating increases elsewhere.

4) Temperatures in the Antartic are rising. Bt temperatures are not the only influence on icing. Source: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

The Arctic responds much more directly to changes in air and sea-surface temperatures than Antarctica, because it is ocean surrounded by land. The climate of Antarctica is governed much more by wind and ocean currents. Some studies indicate climate change has strengthened westerly winds in the Southern Hemisphere, and because wind has a cooling effect, scientists say this partly accounts for the marginal increase in sea ice levels that have been observed in the Antarctic in recent decades.

"Another reason why the sea-ice extent in the Antarctic is remaining fairly high is, interestingly, the ozone hole," Serreze told LLM. This hole was carved out over time by chlorofluorocarbons, toxic chemicals formerly that were used in air conditioners and solvents before being banned. "The ozone hole affects the circulation of the atmosphere down there. Because of the ozone hole, the stratosphere above Antarctica is quite cold. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs UV light, and less absorption [by] ozone makes the stratosphere really cold. This cold air propagates down to the surface by influencing the atmospheric circulation in the Antarctic, and that keeps the sea ice extensive."

Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don't Disprove Global Warming | Ice Cap Melting | LifesLittleMysteries.com

Conclusions from the British Antarctic Survey:

“Until now these changes in ice drift were only speculated upon, using computer models of Antarctic winds. This study of direct satellite observations shows the complexity of climate change. The total Antarctic sea-ice cover is increasing slowly, but individual regions are actually experiencing much larger gains and losses that are almost offsetting each other overall. We now know that these regional changes are caused by changes in the winds, which in turn affect the ice cover through changes in both ice drift and air temperature. The changes in ice drift also suggest large changes in the ocean surrounding Antarctica, which is very sensitive to the cold and salty water produced by sea-ice growth.

Press Release - Why Antarctic sea ice cover has increased under the effects of climate change - British Antarctic Survey

Antarctic Sea Ice

I am interested in all comments, of course, but I particularly ask SSDD and Westwall to comment on the scientific concepts involved.

AGW is not science so there's no way anyone can comment on it

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Why are you still here?

You're done, dude.

Why would anyone bother to read or respond to anything you ever have to say again when you have proven - unequivocally - that you will not read science.

I read science siagon, which is why I am posting peer reviewed published articles while you are posting articles from left wing newspapers and calling them science. I have even read the drivel you have posted and pointed out what is wrong with it. Sorry that I am not as gullible as you and require more substantial evidnece to be convinced.

If you don't respond...fine...no sweat off my ass. You don't grasp the topic, have very little in the way of science to produce, and are primarily promoting an agenda.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SSDD -

You committed to reading the material.

btw. The OP incudes links to at least three peer-reviewed research documents, conducted by three seperate and independent sources.

And not one hint in any of them as to where they went wrong when they first predicted with high confidence that global warming would cause rapid melting in the antarctic.

At this point, you are providing pretty convincing evidence that the peer review system is terribly flawed and corrupt.

First, back up your assertation they they predicted rapid melting in the Antarctic. Second, it is not the peer review system that is flawed, but fools like you that reject reality for polticial nonsense.

Does the expanding Antarctic sea ice disprove global warming? | SciGuy | a Chron.com blog

The bottom line is that scientists generally have predicted that the Antarctic sea ice will not begin substantially melting until the second half of this century

LOL

We're all paying attention and noticed how once Phil Jones said there was no warming, it morphed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

You won't read the science. We know this. You know this.

btw. The term 'climate change' has been used for 25 years. Interesting that you are only hearing of this now!

 

[Oddball]

And not one hint in any of them as to where they went wrong when they first predicted with high confidence that global warming would cause rapid melting in the antarctic.

At this point, you are providing pretty convincing evidence that the peer review system is terribly flawed and corrupt.

First, back up your assertation they they predicted rapid melting in the Antarctic. Second, it is not the peer review system that is flawed, but fools like you that reject reality for polticial nonsense.

Does the expanding Antarctic sea ice disprove global warming? | SciGuy | a Chron.com blog

The bottom line is that scientists generally have predicted that the Antarctic sea ice will not begin substantially melting until the second half of this century

LOL

We're all paying attention and noticed how once Phil Jones said there was no warming, it morphed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

<pitching softball>

Chris Darden, to OJ Simpson: Did you kill Nichole and Ron Goldman?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

You won't read the science. We know this. You know this.

btw. The term 'climate change' has been used for 25 years. Interesting that you are only hearing of this now!

AGW is still not science, no matter how much you pretend it is

 

[Katzndogz]

The antarctic has had periods of being ice free since 1513.

I guess it was all those campfires way back then.

Piri Reis map of Antarctica- Antarctica ice free!