Antarctica gaining Ice Mass — and is not extraordinary compared to 800 years of data

For the Rabbitt and MOTR's who want to argue that Antartica is also losing ice mass. It would seem it is gaining ice mass and sea ice extent. Game over for your argument guys



http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/antarctica-gaining-ice-mass-and-is-not-extraord...

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 8:47am:


You don't understand the mechanism involved of how warmer Antarctic waters can melt the deeper ice underneath which can lead to ice growth on the surface.

You should research the matter a little more deeply

I think its called science - how you ever come across this word before?

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 10:41am:


its your responsibility to be up to speed with the facts

If the high school level science that validated the Anthropogenic Global Warming mechanism on earth as far back as 35 years ago, is too complicated for you to understand then perhaps you should involve yourself with another topic that is a little simpler to understand - like geometry or the times table

cheers

(you could start with a brilliant paper by the Nobel prize winning Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius - who performed the first AGW calculations in 1895)

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 11:08am:


You welcome - it really wasn't all that much.

I hope that my advice will lead you to grabbling with some of the simpler scientific concepts such as HEAT and WEIGHT.

Take it easy initially and work your way up to more challenging scientific concepts such as gravity and bows and arrows

good luck with your struggle to allow the truth from contaminating your corporatized Denialist stance

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 8:57pm:


describe the natural mechanism that accounts for the rapid warming rate the earth has experienced over the past 6 or 7 decades

Good luck with that!

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:


Not that I expect you to read these articles, but here goes - miracles do happen!

And they are written in very simple, easily understood language.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/04/130401-global-warming-antarctica...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23339-antarctic-ice-grows-as-climate-warms...

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 11:19pm:


I will get back to you in early September sometime - I haven't discussed science before with someone who has a less than High school level science background.

At least it seems as though you can read more than 5 words consecutively - I will start from there and get back to you

Maybe the Society for the Mentally challenged or the Institute of pseudophilic sociopaths has a kit I can get sent out that may help with your obvious neuro-psychotic deformities

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 11:30pm:


I may be able to return and educate you before September, maybe around mid July.

But you will have to continue taking your medication and be diligent in attending your therapy sessions.

Did the cranial surgery go well?

How is Dr Wilson?

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 10:41am:


.....describe the natural mechanism that accounts for the rapid global thermal retention rates measured over the past 5 decades.

This warming RATE hasn't been seen on earth since the dinosaurs were slammed by a massive asteroid 65 million years ago.

If you cant identify and describe the mechanism - what are you doing posting in this thread?

.....describe the natural mechanism that accounts for the rapid global thermal retention rates measured over the past 5 decades.

This warming RATE hasn't been seen on earth since the dinosaurs were slammed by a massive asteroid 65 million years ago.

If you cant identify and describe the mechanism - what are you doing posting in this thread?


(the last rapid warming rate occurred about 55 million years ago and that was due to clathratic Carbon release - and even that warming was less rapid than what has been measured over the past 5 decades. It looks as though you fanatical corporate denialist priests need a massive asteroid to borrow into your skulls before you open your eyes - let alone begin thinking. I know its difficult for you clown freak liars to answer the above question HONESTLY)

simple question and the AGW deniers panic, hide and fling insults

Surely they can present a natural mechanism to explain the extraordinary thermal retention rates measured over the past 5 decades.

Surely there is something in peer reviewed scientific literature that they can refer to ladies and gentlemen.

Surely these Deniers have something?

Anything at all to support their religious fanaticism?

I will wait until the end of April 2015

muso wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

They havent been trending upward. They have had a lovely story told against them though.

Nothing out of the ordinary thats for sure.

I am not trusting all these manipulations of raw data. The raw data is more in line with the empirical observation and will come out to bear soon enough.

====

How about that water vapour not rising with co2. Dam thats gotta hurt as much as the Antarctic growing continental ice I bet.

muso wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 10:24pm:

I am not trusting all these manipulations of raw data. The raw data is more in line with the empirical observation and will come out to bear soon enough.

muso wrote on Apr 19^th, 2013 at 10:37pm:

Of course there is a premise "as long as they do it correctly and arent full of BS", but sadly they were as full as BS as the hockey stick and the team.

Frankly muso, I dont give a toss who you like(trust), I say that with a little creative license from what you just said coupled with what you have said in the past, and who you dont, but surely you can come up with something better than that.

Watts wasn't the only denialist that Berkely have involved. Richard Muller, previously touted as a "skeptic"  was involved in a Berkely Study, and this is what he said:

Quote:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 8:47am:

Could you post where I have argued that "Antartica is also losing ice mass"?
If anything - I would have said the exact opposite, since warming Antarctica would result in more ice, not less, due to increased precipitation.

Though the amount of summer ice melt in Antarctica is certainly increasing

According to AAP, scientists found the evidence for the fast melting in a 364-meter ice core containing a record of freezing and melting over the previous millennium.
"We found that the coolest conditions on the Antarctic Peninsula and the lowest amount of summer melt occurred around 600 years ago,” said Australian lead researcher Dr. Nerilie Abram, from the Australian National University and British Antarctic Survey. "At that time temperatures were around 1.6C lower than those recorded in the late 20th century and the amount of annual snowfall that melted and refroze was about 0.5%. Today, we see almost 10 times as much (5%) of the annual snowfall melting each year.”

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/14413217-fastest-antarctic-summer-ice-...

Why do you tell lies like this?

Are you pathalogically dishonest - or just really, really stupid?

Please explain Liar.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:


That's based on data - Data that Anthony Watts and Richard Muller checked. Berkely went overboard in engaging self-styled sceptics.

What evidence do you have that there was global warming in the last 250 years caused by Solar Forcing?

By the way,  nobody is talking about short term "decade scale" cyclic changes in Solar Forcing due to Solar cycles. Just so that you understand, the implied meaning is a progressive warming trend due to solar forcing over the last 250 years. There is none. 

Now there are two main research facilities working on Solar Irradiance. There are PMOD at Davos and The Max Planck Institute.

The increased forcings observed over the last 60 years are not reflected in increased solar forcings. There are decadal scale fluctuations due to the 11 year solar cycle and little else.  Data from PMOD.



Historical measurement of Solar irradiance depends on proxies, but the work carried out by the Max Planck institute shows no remarkable increase in Solar Irradiance in the last 250 years.

The graph is a scan from an old paper by Solanki and Fligge.
(GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 26, NO. 16, PAGES 2465-2468) 

I'm not aware of any more recent research that contradicts these findings. Are you?

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:


So - no.

You can't post where I have argued  that "Antartica is also losing ice mass"



Caught again.

Why do you keep doing it?

You get caught ever single time

You are the worst liar I have ever seen.

Seriously - you are far too stupid to be doing this.  You get caught.

EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Grow up Liar.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 11:01pm:

Yes.  Progs is a champion liar.

He gets caught time and time again - then he runs away like a little girl.

He is a big fan of English tabloid journalists.  He fell hook,line and sinker for the thing in the e Daily Mail that said that global warming has stopped!

When he is asked how global warming could have possibly stopped when sea levels continue to rise, when the arctic ice cap continues to melt and when glacial mass balance continues to decrease - he runs away like a little girl.

And this is another classic example of his lying.  As you have realised.  He is not very bright.  So he thinks he can make things up and no one will notice.

Seriously - I think someone should contact the Australian Federal Police about him.  He is obviously deranged.  Surely the AFP are monitoring these boards?!?!  Here he is boys...come and get him.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

No.  He won't.

He has been caught lying so many times.

But he just runs away.

We can ask him here:

Hey Progs - show us where I have argued  that "Antartica is also losing ice mass?

But he will not answer.

He is a liar.

He know he is a liar.

And he runs away.


Or we could ask him - Hey Progs - why did you deliberately lie when you started this thread:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1363723853

But he will just run away.

He is a liar.

A liar caught over and over and over again red-handed telling lies.

Emma wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 2:20am:

Hey, art loving buddy chill out: this is serious business and that means chess.
Polluters have a lot to lose... Year eleven economics taught the relevant Aussie punter that opportunity cost means a liberal voters son will always be a slave.
Chess teaches you that even your own flesh must be used if you perceive the threat to your dreams of dynasty by way of polluting for free, um, threatened. Crack smokers rule this western world: that's why it apparently feels safe behind the wall of impotence that is nuclear softiness!!!!! 

rabbitoh07 wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 12:15pm:


That's a bit unfair. I don't think he's pathologically dishonest.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 5:50pm:

Liberal voters hate their kids!

End of story really!!

Emma wrote on May 3^rd, 2013 at 1:53am:

The hidden truths such as, most games of chess are worked out to a large degree before you play the first move: just like business.

It's war: where the first rule is staying in business.... to be adventurous and look for possibilities leads to a lot of defeat, leading to unadventurous play.

....this is why the top CEOs are payed so much.

BUT KASPAROV WROTE A BOOK ON HOW LIFE IMITATES CHESS AND TALKED ABOUT TRIPPING OUT (ÏT WAS AS IF THE PAWNS WERE HANGING IN SPACE") AND THINKING ABOUT THE LAWS OF ENTROPY.

EVERYTHING BREAKS DOWN OVER TIME. HE SPECIFICALLY SAID(NOT THAT I CAN REMEMBER THE EXACT QUOTE- THE LAST ONE COULD BE FROM ANOTHER BOOK NOW I COME TO THINK OF IT) THAT A LESS ORDERED ARMY WILL LOSE MORE ENERGY IN MANOUVER THAN THE MORE ORDERED ARMY.

After reading that i thought,'Wow, can the second law of thermodynamics really be interpreted that way??'

He's saying nature is the more ordered system I suppose so in this respect I am happy to agree that yes indeed he can interpret the second law of thermodynamics like that: cool ay!   

So, what can I say after all this navel gazing:_

um, ....

...what was the question again dóH!

to put it simply 

life is a day to day proposition.. you never know what's lurking ..around the corner.

a day can certainly be a LONG time... 
or seemingly fleeting


you chastise me  .. seems I'm not concerned with the finer points of existence..

care to expand on your instruction..??

it must feel good to think you are impervious to anything you don't wish to happen...
bliss .. in fact 

these people live in varied states of unreality... 
see what you want to see
hear what you want to hear
do what you want to do

 

Alarmists and the media  will only ever tell us that the arctic is decreasing, glasiers are melting, all weather phenomenon is because of AGW.

They fail to say that the antarctic is increasing, glasiers are melting because the trees at the foot of the mountains have been turned into A4 paper, and cyclones, tsunamis and tornados are all part of the Earth;s weather cycle.

I wonder why????????????????????

muso wrote on Jul 24^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:


And why cant this be the case today???????

Ajax wrote on Jul 24^th, 2013 at 2:39pm:

The arctic ice is decreasing
Global glacial mass balance is decreasing.
The oceans are warming.

None of this is beyond doubt.

Go away troll.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 26^th, 2013 at 12:25am:

Says the widely published empirical evidence that shows that:

The arctic ice is decreasing
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Global glacial mass balance is decreasing.
http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/
The oceans are warming.
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-temperature-rise/

Hasn't Jonesy told you this?

Ajax wrote on Jul 28^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:




All the ice in Greenland melted ? Really?

If all the ice in Greenland had melted, the sea level would have risen by 7.2 metres.

Do you think that the sea rose 7.2 metres during the early 12th century?