Is Antarctica gaining or losing ice?

[Muhammed]

Chicken little sky is falling people are pathetic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/2...e-global-warming-tipping-point/#ixzz3rOsKzGcI

It's eerie, how their predictions have come to fruition

 

[Crick]

IPCC on climate is like quoting Madoff on accounting, it cements AGW as fraud

No it doesn't, but this statement of yours cements you as an ignorant fool.

The author of AR4 and 5 flat out admitted Climate changes is a wealth distribution scheme

Clue: Get one today

You think Ottmar Edenhofer was "the author of AR4 and 5" ? ? ?

Reinforcing that "ignorant fool" ID, I see.

He's listed as "lead author"

Remember when you tried to tell us he was a low level nobody expressing his personal opinion.

Good times

He's an economist, not a climate scientist. He was lead author of WG-III, Mitigation of Climate Change for AR4. His much-quoted comment WAS his personal opinion. The IPCC has NO regulatory powers and cannot force anyone to do anything.

You are so fucking stupid it is really difficult to predict what mistakes you will make. It is, however, always safe to assume you will make them.

 

[Crick]

Chicken little sky is falling people are pathetic.

People as willfully ignorant as you are pathetic.

 

[Crick]

Got any proof you chicken little fucking nutjob little frightened mentally retarded wimp?

Unlike you, you ignorant asshole, I understand that the natural sciences rely on EVIDENCE. My EVIDENCE may be found neatly compiled at www.ipcc.ch under the title "AR5, WG-I, the Physical Science Basis".

WHERE IS YOURS ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ?

IPCC is not evidence dumbass. It is not, has never been, and has never claimed to be a scientific organization.

Climategate, bitch! Wikileaks rocks!

Up your ass! Fraudman.

The IPCC's assessment reports contain material from hundreds of peer reviewed scientific studies. If you believe that fails as evidence, you are simply rejecting all mainstream science - an incredibly ignorant position to assume.

So, again, where is YOUR evidence? Or, in your weltsicht, where is your PROOF?

 

[Crick]

When you consider that NASA has been adding 2mm per year to their 'rise' estimates it pretty much shows that the ice is not melting and the rise is pure artifact of data manipulations.

Dam that was simple!

When you believe you have no need to remain factual or provide supporting evidence in any form, argument becomes as simple as stating whatever it is you'd like to believe. And, of course, that is precisely what you've been doing all along.

PS: how are those el Nino predictions coming along?

 

[Muhammed]

Got any proof you chicken little fucking nutjob little frightened mentally retarded wimp?

Unlike you, you ignorant asshole, I understand that the natural sciences rely on EVIDENCE. My EVIDENCE may be found neatly compiled at www.ipcc.ch under the title "AR5, WG-I, the Physical Science Basis".

WHERE IS YOURS ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ?

IPCC is not evidence dumbass. It is not, has never been, and has never claimed to be a scientific organization.

Climategate, bitch! Wikileaks rocks!

Up your ass! Fraudman.

The IPCC's assessment reports contain material from hundreds of peer reviewed scientific studies.

Bullshit. The IPCC has been proven to be a fraud.

Only idiots cannot admit to that. Even the IPCC admitted it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC on climate is like quoting Madoff on accounting, it cements AGW as fraud

No it doesn't, but this statement of yours cements you as an ignorant fool.

The author of AR4 and 5 flat out admitted Climate changes is a wealth distribution scheme

Clue: Get one today

You think Ottmar Edenhofer was "the author of AR4 and 5" ? ? ?

Reinforcing that "ignorant fool" ID, I see.

He's listed as "lead author"

Remember when you tried to tell us he was a low level nobody expressing his personal opinion.

Good times

He's an economist, not a climate scientist. He was lead author of WG-III, Mitigation of Climate Change for AR4. His much-quoted comment WAS his personal opinion. The IPCC has NO regulatory powers and cannot force anyone to do anything.

You are so fucking stupid it is really difficult to predict what mistakes you will make. It is, however, always safe to assume you will make them.

Yes, the IPCC is telling us that Climate Scam is a Wealth Redistribution Scheme

Homepage of Professor Ottmar Edenhofer — PIK Research Portal

He wasn't expressing his personal opinion, he was being interviewed as the lead author of AR4, but please, keep lying

 

[flacaltenn]

IPCC on climate is like quoting Madoff on accounting, it cements AGW as fraud

No it doesn't, but this statement of yours cements you as an ignorant fool.

The author of AR4 and 5 flat out admitted Climate changes is a wealth distribution scheme

Clue: Get one today

You think Ottmar Edenhofer was "the author of AR4 and 5" ? ? ?

Reinforcing that "ignorant fool" ID, I see.

He's listed as "lead author"

Remember when you tried to tell us he was a low level nobody expressing his personal opinion.

Good times

He's an economist, not a climate scientist. He was lead author of WG-III, Mitigation of Climate Change for AR4. His much-quoted comment WAS his personal opinion. The IPCC has NO regulatory powers and cannot force anyone to do anything.

You are so fucking stupid it is really difficult to predict what mistakes you will make. It is, however, always safe to assume you will make them.

You are totally clueless as to the functioning of the IPCC. The "science" reports are only 1/3 of the reports that the IPCC issues. The OTHER working groups are LARGELY socio-economic and political. AND -- the other 2 groups have "right of review" over even the conclusions of the "science" working group..

Who's the head and who's the donkey's ass? Did the science guys SUMMON the other 2 working groups? Or more likely -- did the other 2 working groups RENT some scientists to give them cover??

 

[Crick]

Don't be an idiot. Woops! Too late.

The IPCC has no regulatory power over ANYONE. Bugger off with this stupid, STUPID fucking conspiracy bullshit.

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't be an idiot. Woops! Too late.

The IPCC has no regulatory power over ANYONE. Bugger off with this stupid, STUPID fucking conspiracy bullshit.

Oh really? So Kyotto wasn't a construct of the UN climate meetings? All those general Climate meetings are NOT trying to bilk $$Trills from the industrialized world. Dimwit..


OK -- so they don't have any power. But then again -- they have NO CREDIBILITY. Because of the 3 working group structure -- it's not about science.. It's about global redistribution. YOU have the tail wagging the dog.

Go read a bit about the organization of the working groups and WHO is editing who..
The P in IPCC controls the content of every Report..

 

[Billy_Bob]

IPCC on climate is like quoting Madoff on accounting, it cements AGW as fraud

No it doesn't, but this statement of yours cements you as an ignorant fool.

The author of AR4 and 5 flat out admitted Climate changes is a wealth distribution scheme

Clue: Get one today

You think Ottmar Edenhofer was "the author of AR4 and 5" ? ? ?

Reinforcing that "ignorant fool" ID, I see.

Reinforcing that you are an ignorant fool who can not read... Lead Author...

 

[Billy_Bob]

When you consider that NASA has been adding 2mm per year to their 'rise' estimates it pretty much shows that the ice is not melting and the rise is pure artifact of data manipulations.

Dam that was simple!

When you believe you have no need to remain factual or provide supporting evidence in any form, argument becomes as simple as stating whatever it is you'd like to believe. And, of course, that is precisely what you've been doing all along.

PS: how are those el Nino predictions coming along?

Ignorant ass...

I am sorry that you failed basic graph reading and researching.....

Source

 

[Crick]

If you had ANY, REAL familiarity with those topics, your graph would have a fucking source, asshole.

Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level. These measurements are continuously monitored against a network of tide gauges. When seasonal variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and corrections become available, we continuously revise these estimates (about every two months) to improve their quality.

3.3 +0.4 mm/year

 

[flacaltenn]

If you had ANY, REAL familiarity with those topics, your graph would have a fucking source, asshole.

Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level. These measurements are continuously monitored against a network of tide gauges. When seasonal variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and corrections become available, we continuously revise these estimates (about every two months) to improve their quality.

3.3 +0.4 mm/year

So you think there's any "tide gauge data" in that graph BullWinky??

 

[Crick]

I believe the included caption - infinitely more than we got with Billy Boy's cartoon, is true. If you're having trouble understanding, it take it up with your grade school teachers.

 

[Crick]

But, because I can't hold you responsible for the failings of your grade school teachers - and I'm being nice and not assuming that your membership in AGW Deniers-R-Us is de facto evidence that you're mentally deficient...

From the CU Sea Level Research Group's FAQ

What is the definition of global mean sea level (GMSL) and its rate?
The term "sea level" has many meanings depending upon the context. In satellite altimetry, the measurements are made in a geocentric reference frame (relative to the center of the Earth). Tide gauges, on the other hand, measure sea level relative to the local land surface (see the tide gauge discussion and FAQ). The satellite altimeter estimate of interest is the distance between the sea surface illuminated by the radar altimeter and the center of the Earth (geocentric sea surface height or SSH). This distance is estimated by subtracting the measured distance between the satellite and sea surface (after correcting for many effects on the radar signal) from the very precise orbit of the satellite. At any location, the SSH changes over time due to many well understood factors (ocean tides, atmospheric pressure, glacial isostatic adjustment, etc.). By subtracting from the measured SSH an a priori mean sea surface (MSS), such as the CLS01 mean sea surface, and these known time-varying effects, we compute the sea surface height anomalies (SSHA). Each point in the global mean sea level (GMSL) time series plots is the area-weighted mean of all of the sea surface height anomalies measured by the altimeter in a single, 10-day satellite track repeat cycle (time for the satellite to begin repeating the same ground track). Our goal is to observe the changes of the GMSL due to less understood factors, such as ocean mass changes from melting land ice and groundwater depletion, thermal expansion and contraction of the oceans, and the interannual variability caused by phenomena such as the ENSO. Gaining more understanding of these different factors using other sources of information such as GRACE gravity measurements allows us to try to close the sea level budget and estimate the causes of GMSL changes (e.g., Leuliette & Miller, 2009 and Willis et al., 2008).

The term "global mean sea level" in the context of our research is defined as the area-weighted mean of all of the sea surface height anomalies measured by the altimeter in a single, 10-day satellite track repeat cycle. It can also be thought of as the "eustatic sea level." The eustatic sea level is not a physical sea level (since the sea levels relative to local land surfaces vary depending on land motion and other factors), but it represents the level if all of the water in the oceans were contained in a single basin. Changes to this eustatic level are caused by changes in total ocean water mass (e.g., ice sheet runoff), changes in the size of the ocean basin (e.g., GIA), or density changes of the water (e.g., thermal expansion). The time series of the GMSL estimates over the TOPEX and Jason missions beginning in 1992 to the present indicates a mostly linear trend after correction for inter-mission biases between instruments. The GMSL rate corrected for GIA represents changes in water mass and density in the oceans. These changes are thought to be predominantly driven by thermal expansion of the oceans and land ice melt (Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and glaciers).

For further discussion, see also:

• GIA and GMSL X-Intercept FAQS
• Cazenave, A., D. Chambers, P. Cipollini, L. Fu, J. W. Hurrell, M. A. Merrifield, R. S. Nerem, H. P. Plag, C. K. Shum, and J. K. Willis. "The Challenge for Measuring Sea Level Rise and Regional and Global Trends." In OCEANOBS2009. Venice: ESA, 2010.
• Cazenave, A., and W. Llovel. "Contemporary Sea Level Rise." Annual Review of Marine Science 2 (2010): 145-173.
• Milne, G. A., W. R. Gehrels, C. W. Hughes, and M. Tamisiea. "Identifying the causes of sea-level change." Nature Geoscience 2 (2009): 471-478.
• CLS Radar Altimetry Tutorial

 

[Crick]

AND

Why is the GMSL different than local tide gauge measurements?
The global mean sea level (GMSL) we estimate is an average over the oceans (limited by the satellite inclination to ± 66 degrees latitude), and it cannot be used to predict relative sea level changes along the coasts. As an average, it indicates the general state of the sea level across the oceans and not any specific location. Local tide gauges measure the sea level at a single location relative to the local land surface, a measurement referred to as "relative sea level" (RSL). Because the land surfaces are dynamic, with some locations rising (e.g., Hudson Bay due to GIA) or sinking (e.g., New Orleans due to subsidence), relative sea level changes are different across world coasts. To understand the relative sea level effects of global oceanic volume changes (as estimated by the GMSL) at a specific location, issues such as GIA, tectonic uplift, and self attraction and loading (SAL, e.g., Tamisiea et al., 2010), must also be considered.

We do compare the altimeter sea level measurements against a network tide gauges to discover and monitor drift in the satellite (and sometimes tide gauge) measurements. This is discussed further in the tide gauge discussion.

GMSL is a good indicator of changes in the volume of water in the oceans due to mass influx (e.g., land ice melt) and density changes (e.g., thermal expansion), and is therefore of interest in detecting climate change.

For further discussion, see also:

• Nicholls, R. J., and A. Cazenave. "Sea-Level Rise and Its Impact on Coastal Zones."Science 328, no. 5985 (2010): 1517-1520.
• Cazenave, A., D. Chambers, P. Cipollini, L. Fu, J. W. Hurrell, M. A. Merrifield, R. S. Nerem, H. P. Plag, C. K. Shum, and J. K. Willis. "The Challenge for Measuring Sea Level Rise and Regional and Global Trends." In OCEANOBS2009. Venice: ESA, 2010.

 

[Crick]

And finally

Tide Gauge Sea Level

Edited: 2011-05-17

• Share

Historical Tide Gauge Measurements
Traditionally, global sea level change has been estimated from tide gauge measurements collected over the last century. Tide gauges, usually placed on piers, measure the sea level relative to a nearby geodetic benchmark. The figure below is the most commonly used tide gauge measurement system, a float operating in a stilling well. Surveys of the tide gauge site are performed regularly to account for any settling of the site. Tide gauges may also move vertically with the region as a result of post-glacial rebound, tectonic uplift or crustal subsidence. This greatly complicates the problem of determining global sea level change from tide gauge data. Differences in global sea level estimates from tide gauge data usually reflect the investigator's approach in considering these vertical crustal movements. Tide gauges also monitor meteorological factors that affect sea levels, such as barometric pressure and wind speed, so that these variable factors can be eliminated from long-term assessments of sea level change. Although the global network of tide gauges comprises of a poorly distributed sea level measurement system, it offers the only source of historical, precise, long-term sea level data. Major conclusions from tide gauge data have been that global sea level has risen approximately 10-25 cm during the past century.

Tide Gauge Estimates of Mean Sea Level Rise
Estimates of global sea level rise which were derived from tide gauge records are found in the table below. Most of the investigators reported that the estimated values were sensitive to the choice of record length and the tide gauges selected. This sensitivity coupled with different computational techniques and modeling would certainly explain some of the differences shown below.



SL Rise & Err (mm/yr) - - - Data Used (years) - - - # of Tide Gauges - - - References
2.8 ±0.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1993-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . ~200 . . . . . Church & White (2011)
1.7 ±0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1900-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . .>38 . . . . . Church & White (2011)
1.9 ±0.4 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1961-2009 . . .. . . . . . . . . .>190 . . . . . Church & White (2011)
1.43 ±0.14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1881-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . .152 . . . . . .Barnett (1984)
2.27 ±0.23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1930-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 . . . . . Barnett (1984)
1.2 ±0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1880-1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 . . . . . Gornitz and Lebedeff (1987)
2.4 ±0.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1920-1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 . . . . .. Peltier and Tushingham (1989)
1.75 ±0.13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1900-1979. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 . . . . .Trupin and Wahr (1990)
1.7 ±0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N/A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N/A . . . . Nakiboglu and Lambeck (1991)
1.8 ±0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1880-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 . . . . . . .Douglas (1991)
1.62 ±0.38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1807-1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213. . . . . . Unal and Ghil (1995)

 

[Crick]

There is no unknown 84 billion ton annual ice melt running from land into the world's oceans. Zwally is incorrect. Antarctica is losing mass. GMSL is rising at a rate of 3.3 +0.4 mm.yr. The world is getting warmer and the primary cause is human GHG emissions and deforestation.