Clearest indication yet that polar ice sheets are melting fast

[Koios]

Even your own link says that Antarctica isn't melting.

Presicely. It cannot be global warming if Antarctica is still cold.

Good thinking.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... all dat polar ice gonna melt on Dec.21st...

... an' den it gonna cause a big ol' polar shift...

... from the shiftin' of the weight o' all dat polar ice dat ain't there no more...

... an' dat gonna cause a release of alla pent up CO2...

... dat's been trapped inna polar ice dat ain't there no more...

... an' den we ain't gonna be able to breathe `cause o' alla CO2 inna air...

... an' den we all gonna die just like dem dinosaurs did last time dis happened."

 

[RollingThunder]

Even your own link says that Antarctica isn't melting.

I think you may be misinterpreting what was said. Let's look at everything they said instead of trying to cherry-pick one quote that you imagine supports your denial of AGW.

"melting Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets have added 11.1mm (0.43") to global sea levels since 1992"

"The use of data from NASA and ESA satellites have confirmed that both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice"

"The combined melting of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets accounted for one-fifth of all sea level rises over the 20-year survey period"

"The rate at which the ice sheets are melting was also seen to rise over the study period, with both Antarctica and Greenland shedding more than three times as much ice each year as they were in the 1990s"

""The rate of ice loss from Greenland has increased almost five-fold since the mid-1990s" said NASA's Erik Ivins, co-author on the study. "In contrast, ...in Antarctic ice..., the overall balance has remained fairly constant""

It seems to me that she's comparing the rate of ice loss from Greenland to the rate of ice loss in the Antarctic and saying, rather incompletely, that the balance between rate of gains in ice mass in the interior of Antarctica due to the increased snowfall resulting from global warming is staying in about the same ratio to the larger loss of ice mass around the coast of Antarctica and isn't yet showing quite the same acceleration of ice loss as the Greenland ice sheet. The scientists are quite clear that Antarctica is, in fact, losing ice mass.

Source: NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?

Interesting how there is a supposedly 11mm loss over the decade when the ice extent shows ABOVE the 1979-2000 average for the past year and a half.

They couldn't possibly be lying now could they....

No, but you sure could be and probably are. Or, alternatively, you could just really be that retarded. We've been talking about ice mass losses from the Antarctic ice sheets and ice shelves and you are so out of it and clueless that you first mutter something idiotic about: "a supposedly 11mm loss over the decade" when the actual info I posted talked about "melting Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets have added 11.1mm (0.43") to global sea levels since 1992", and then you post a thumbnail chart of 'Antarctic sea ice extent'. LOL. Are you still totally in the dark about the difference between the fairly small fringe of about six foot thick sea ice that forms and melts away yearly around parts of the Antarctic coastlines and whose total volume is not very significant, and the miles thick sheets of solid ice that cover this five and a half million square mile continent and that hold about 70% of all the world's fresh water. LOL. You are such a clueless retard. Pretty funny to watch your mind 'work' at times though.

 

[IanC]

the interesting part about Antarctic ice cap loss estimates is that they started off very large but with an equally large margin of error. as measurement methods and data points increased, the precision the estimates have come down dramatically. add to that, NASA says that there is a very real problem with lack of stable benchmarks to compare altimetry data, and you have an unknown accuracy component.


every parameter that IPCC uses to buttress the CAGW theory has been shown to be exaggerated by dodgy methodologies and assumptions. science does indeed make self corrections over time, and weeds out poor papers and articles. it has been pretty obvious over the last few years that most or all of the catastrophic papers have been crushed with open review of data and methods. MBH98&99 would be laughed at now rather than become the poster child of the IPCC. this week the IPCC second draft was released to the public because certain scientists were upset that much information was being ignored or distorted. climategate was all about a whistleblower being pissed off at the overbearing and underhanded dealings of IPCC's AR4. once published, it is impossible to take back. the public deserves better and is getting better this time around.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[Mr. H.]

Do I detect a pattern in that graph?

 

[IanC]

the interesting part about Antarctic ice cap loss estimates is that they started off very large but with an equally large margin of error. as measurement methods and data points increased, the precision the estimates have come down dramatically. add to that, NASA says that there is a very real problem with lack of stable benchmarks to compare altimetry data, and you have an unknown accuracy component.


every parameter that IPCC uses to buttress the CAGW theory has been shown to be exaggerated by dodgy methodologies and assumptions. science does indeed make self corrections over time, and weeds out poor papers and articles. it has been pretty obvious over the last few years that most or all of the catastrophic papers have been crushed with open review of data and methods. MBH98&99 would be laughed at now rather than become the poster child of the IPCC. this week the IPCC second draft was released to the public because certain scientists were upset that much information was being ignored or distorted. climategate was all about a whistleblower being pissed off at the overbearing and underhanded dealings of IPCC's AR4. once published, it is impossible to take back. the public deserves better and is getting better this time around.

the latest IPCC reviewer has this to say-

The obvious concern to this reviewer, who has measured total column water vapor for 22.5 years, is the absence of any mention of the 2012 NVAP-M paper. This paper concludes,

“Therefore, at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data.”

Non-specialist readers must be made aware of this finding and that it is at odds with some earlier papers. Many cited papers in AR5 have yet to be published, but the first NVAP-M paper was published earlier this year (after the FOD reviews) and is definitely worthy of citation: Thomas H. Vonder Haar, Janice L. Bytheway and John M. Forsythe. Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L15802, 6 PP., 2012. doi:10.1029/2012GL052094.

This study shows no up or down trend in global water vapor, a finding of major significance that differs with studies cited in AR5. Climate modelers assume that water vapor, the principle greenhouse gas, will increase with carbon dioxide, but the NVAP-M study shows this has not occurred. Carbon dioxide has continued to increase, but global water vapor has not. Today (December 14, 2012) I asked a prominent climate scientist if I should release my review early in view of the release of the entire second draft report.

He suggested that I do so, and links to the official IPCC spreadsheet version and a Word version of my review are now posted near the top of my homepage at Forrest M. Mims III.

notice that this reviewer is accusing the IPCC of the same thing they were guilty of last time around? they ignore published papers that dont support their position, and they cite papers that are not published yet ( or in the case of Gergis et al, withdrawn in shame papers).


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speakshttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/

 

[Oddball]

So??????? What relevance does that have, in your imagination, to the increased melting of the polar ice sheets? Or are you just trying to demonstrate how clueless you are, again.

So, CO2 is decreasing but we still have the big melt.

Seems like you got some splainin' to do.

"CO2 is decreasing"?????? LOLOLOLOL. Not on this planet, you poor retarded crackpot. Try learning to read. Ooops, that's right, you're retarded so you are incapable of comprehending what you read. Too bad for you. Here's a clue - CO2 emissions in one country decreasing slightly over previous years does not equal decreasing worldwide atmospheric CO2 levels.

Source: Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Mauna Loa?...You mean that great big CO2 spewing volcano?

Now anthropogenically generated CO2 is causing volcanoes to emit more CO2?

Serially?

 

[RollingThunder]

the interesting part about Antarctic ice cap loss estimates is that they started off very large but with an equally large margin of error. as measurement methods and data points increased, the precision the estimates have come down dramatically. add to that, NASA says that there is a very real problem with lack of stable benchmarks to compare altimetry data, and you have an unknown accuracy component.


every parameter that IPCC uses to buttress the CAGW theory has been shown to be exaggerated by dodgy methodologies and assumptions. science does indeed make self corrections over time, and weeds out poor papers and articles. it has been pretty obvious over the last few years that most or all of the catastrophic papers have been crushed with open review of data and methods. MBH98&99 would be laughed at now rather than become the poster child of the IPCC. this week the IPCC second draft was released to the public because certain scientists were upset that much information was being ignored or distorted. climategate was all about a whistleblower being pissed off at the overbearing and underhanded dealings of IPCC's AR4. once published, it is impossible to take back. the public deserves better and is getting better this time around.

the latest IPCC reviewer has this to say-

The obvious concern to this reviewer, who has measured total column water vapor for 22.5 years, is the absence of any mention of the 2012 NVAP-M paper. This paper concludes,

“Therefore, at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data.”

Non-specialist readers must be made aware of this finding and that it is at odds with some earlier papers. Many cited papers in AR5 have yet to be published, but the first NVAP-M paper was published earlier this year (after the FOD reviews) and is definitely worthy of citation: Thomas H. Vonder Haar, Janice L. Bytheway and John M. Forsythe. Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L15802, 6 PP., 2012. doi:10.1029/2012GL052094.

This study shows no up or down trend in global water vapor, a finding of major significance that differs with studies cited in AR5. Climate modelers assume that water vapor, the principle greenhouse gas, will increase with carbon dioxide, but the NVAP-M study shows this has not occurred. Carbon dioxide has continued to increase, but global water vapor has not. Today (December 14, 2012) I asked a prominent climate scientist if I should release my review early in view of the release of the entire second draft report.

He suggested that I do so, and links to the official IPCC spreadsheet version and a Word version of my review are now posted near the top of my homepage at Forrest M. Mims III.

notice that this reviewer is accusing the IPCC of the same thing they were guilty of last time around? they ignore published papers that dont support their position, and they cite papers that are not published yet ( or in the case of Gergis et al, withdrawn in shame papers).


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speakshttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/

Well, let's see....on the one hand we have the professional climate scientists saying one thing - "Observations indicate an increase in globally averaged water vapor in the atmosphere in recent decades" - & - “The atmosphere’s water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per square meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural variability in climate just can’t explain this moisture change. The most plausible explanation is that it’s due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases.”.....

....and then, on the other hand we have an 'amateur scientist' who does his studies "at a field in South Central Texas" using instruments of his own design. Which doesn't mean he has to be wrong but let's look at this Forrest M. Mims III and check to see if he may have some biases that could be influencing his conclusions and creating this disagreement with the measurements and instrumentation of the real scientists.

Forrest Mims
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forrest M. Mims III is an amateur scientist,[2] magazine columnist, and author of the popular Getting Started in Electronics and Engineer's Mini-Notebook series of instructional books that was originally sold in Radio Shack electronics stores. Mims graduated from Texas A&M University in 1966 with a major in government and minors in English and history. He became a commissioned officer in the United States Air Force.

Although he has no formal academic training in science,[2] Mims has had a successful career as a science author, researcher, lecturer and syndicated columnist. ...He also teaches electronics and atmospheric science at the University of the Nations, an unaccredited Christian university in Hawaii.[5] Mims is an advocate for Intelligent design and serves as a Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design* and the Discovery Institute**.[6][7] He is also a skeptic of global warming.[8][9]

Controversy

Scientific American

In May 1988 Mims wrote to Scientific American proposing that he take over The Amateur Scientist column, which needed a new editor. Despite concern about his views, he was asked to write some sample columns, which he did in 1990.[41][42][43] Mims was not offered the position, due, Mims alleges, to his Christian and creationist views.[44][45] The ACLU of Texas offered to take his case, but he declined.[46]

Eric Pianka

In 2006 Mims expressed concern with a March 3, 2006 lecture by scientist Eric Pianka. In this lectures at the 109th Annual Meeting of the Texas Academy of Science held at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas, Mims alleges that Pianka advocated genocide with a genetically enhanced Ebola virus with the goal of exterminating up to 90% of the human population. Pianka has stated that Mims took his statements out of context and that Pianka was explaining what would happen from biological principles alone if present human population trends continue, and that he was not in any way advocating that it happen.[47]

* - International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) was a non-profit professional society that promoted intelligent design and rejected evolution.[1] It sought to alter the scientific method to eliminate what it saw as its materialistic, naturalistic, reductionistic and atheistic underpinnings. The goal of the intelligent design movement the Society supports is to "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[2] and to "affirm the reality of God."[3] ISCID's views on evolution and the scientific method ran counter to the scientific consensus. Evolution is overwhelmingly endorsed within the scientific community[4] while intelligent design has been rejected as unscientific.[5]

** - Discovery Institute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Discovery Institute is an American non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Founded in 1990, the institute describes its purpose as promoting "ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty."[2] Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.[3][4][5][6][7]

A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis",[8] through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[9][10][11] In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[8][10][12] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy,[13] describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[14][15] It was the Federal Court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a redressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.


Between the real climate scientists who pretty much all agree that atmospheric water vapor has gone up about 4% and this Mr. Mins who claims it hasn't, I am very clear on who I would give more credence to, but I expect that all of you creationists and scientific illiterates in the cult of reality denial will prefer the amateur who seems to confirm your mistrust of real climate scientists and their conclusions regarding AGW.

 

[IanC]

while I am impressed with your ability to do a hatchet job, I am confused as to why that has anything to do with why the IPCC is not citing Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations. I dont see Mims name listed on the paper. why do you have a problem with a NASA dataset?


one description of the project-

NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP)

The NASA MEaSUREs program began in 2008 and has the goal of creating stable, community accepted Earth System Data Records (ESDRs) for a variety of geophysical time series. A reanalysis and extension of the NASA Water Vapor Project (NVAP), called NVAP-M is being performed as part of this program.

HistoryData characteristicsSample resultsReferences and CitationsUpcoming PresentationsFAQLinksContact us
History

NVAP began in the early 1990s as a NASA Pathfinder project to create a record of the distribution of Earth's water vapor on a daily basis. Since its inception, there have been several extensions of NVAP, growing the dataset to include 14 years (1988-2001) of gridded total column and layered water vapor over both ocean and land. When processing is complete, NVAP-M will span 1987-2010.

The NVAP dataset is designed to be model-independent and relies mainly on satellite measurements; however historically, rawinsonde data has also been included. Early versions of NVAP included layered and total column water vapor on a 1 x 1 degree grid combining water vapor measurements from radiosondes, the TIROS Operational Vertical Sounder (TOVS) and Special Sensor Microwave / Imager (SSM/I), while the "next generation" dataset, NVAP-NG (2000-2001), added data from the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) and Special Sensor Microwave / Temperature-2 (SSM/T2) on a 0.5 x 0.5 degree grid. Retrieved atmospheric water vapor values from each instrument were merged using a simplistic weighting scheme based on the perceived accuracy of each measurement. Gaps due to non-existent or bad data were filled using spatial and temporal averaging techniques.

Many time dependent biases exist in the heritage NVAP dataset due to algorithm changes and the addition/subtraction of instruments (shown above). Use of consistent algorithms through time should remove these. Many new sources of data have been added since the last phase of NVAP. Many existing data sources have been reanalyzed themselves, producing more stable, climate quality sources of TPW.

Project Status

August, 2012:

The NVAP-M team released a preliminary Beta Test Version of the dataset to selected users with significant experience using water vapor data in late 2011. A six-month no-cost extension to implement test-user suggestions and finalize the dataset was approved in early 2012. NVAP-M will be transferred to the NASA Langley Atmospheric Science Data Center (ASDC) in fall 2012. The NVAP-M team continues to publicize the dataset at professional meetings and conferences and hopes to participate in the Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union as well as the 93rd Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society. First results of the dataset were also recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

Last updated on Aug 7, 2012

are you just complaining that the IPCC found Mim's credentials were sufficient to become a reviewer? or do you think that the revised NASA dataset shouldnt be used?

 

[flacaltenn]

SCAR ISMASS Workshop, July 14, 2012
Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed LossesH. Jay Zwally'. Jun Li', John Robbins2, Jack 1. Saba2, Donghui Yi', Anita Brenner', and David
Bromwich4
Abstract
During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded
the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gtlyr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser
measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gtlyr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and
East Antarctic ice sheets (W A and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to
2001 from ERS radar altimetry. Imbalances in individual drainage systems (DS) are large
(-68% to +103% of input), as are temporal changes (-39% to +44%). The recent 90 Gtlyr loss
from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier
61 Gtlyr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly,
the recent 24 Gtlyr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier
accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases
in the five other DS ofWA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the
increased losses. Alternate interpretations of the mass changes driven by accumulation variations
are given using results from atmospheric-model re-analysis and a parameterization based on 5%
change in accumulation per degree of observed surface temperature change. A slow increase in
snowfall with climate wanning, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased
dynamic losses.

for years I have been saying that the data for Antarctica have been 'pushed' in the 'right' direction and that sooner or later the findings were going to be in for a big correction. that time is now. when a rabid warmer that presented many of the alarmist papers showing large ice loss from Antarctica now reverses his direction and says that Antarctica is actually gaining mass then I tend to believe something big is going on. perhaps I am wrong and you are right RT but I think ice loss derived by altimetry has been seriously exaggerated and we shall be seeing more and more defections like the one by Zwally.


it is interesting that Zwally's 2011 and 2012 presentations have received no publicity at all.

Lots of studies but only the one that somewhat agrees with your ignorant opinions is valid, eh? LOL. Here's another study, different from the one cited in the OP.

Polar Ice Loss Is Accelerating, Scientists Say
The New York Times
By JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF
March 11, 2011
(excerpts)
On Wednesday, a research team led by a NASA scientist unveiled a new study that is sure to stir debate on the topic. The paper concludes that ice loss from both Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating, and that the ice sheets’ impact on the rise in sea levels in the first half of the 21st century will be substantially higher than previous studies had projected. The increasing ice loss means that, for the first time, Greenland and Antarctica appear to be adding more to sea-level rise than the world’s other reserves of ice — primarily mountain glaciers, which are also melting because of rising temperatures. In 2006 alone, the study estimated that the two ice sheets lost roughly 475 billion metric tons of ice. “The big deal is that we did not expect ice sheets to catch up with mountain glaciers so soon,” said Eric Rignot, a climate researcher with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the lead author of the study. If the rates of melting observed in the study were to continue, the ice sheets could add nearly six inches to the rise in global sea levels in the next forty years — a far larger contribution than the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international scientific body, has projected.

The study’s findings that ice loss in Greenland has accelerated strikingly over the last two decades are largely in line with the conclusions of other researchers. But the estimate that Antarctica is also rapidly shedding ice was challenged by other scientists, who believe the continent’s ice sheet remains largely in balance. “We think that their estimate of the loss from Antarctica is much too large,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Dr. Zwally agreed that rapid warming on the Antarctic peninsula has quickened the flow of that region’s glaciers into the sea, but said that other research showed increased snowfall in other areas had probably kept the ice sheet’s overall mass stable. Dr. Rignot said he stood by his conclusions about Antarctica, which were derived from data from two independent measurement techniques dating back 20 years.


***

THis whole thread is pretty funny.. All these scientists looking at the same issue, but coming up with DRASTICALLY different prognosis... (on the ACCELERATION)..

If the rates of melting observed in the study were to continue, the ice sheets could add nearly six inches to the rise in global sea levels in the next forty years — a far larger contribution than the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international scientific body, has projected.

First the IPCC comes in with a skeptical number, then TinkerBelle gives us 6.6FEET by 2100 in the OP ---- NOW --- we got 6 INCHES by 2050?????? Wow -- that next 50 years is gonna be rough..

Keep the office guessing pool at NASA.. There's no need to be whipping numbers out of your asses...

 

[flacaltenn]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... all dat polar ice gonna melt on Dec.21st...

... an' den it gonna cause a big ol' polar shift...

... from the shiftin' of the weight o' all dat polar ice dat ain't there no more...

... an' dat gonna cause a release of alla pent up CO2...

... dat's been trapped inna polar ice dat ain't there no more...

... an' den we ain't gonna be able to breathe `cause o' alla CO2 inna air...

... an' den we all gonna die just like dem dinosaurs did last time dis happened."

Granny she been watching ol' Waxman on MSLSD too much.. They starting to sound like twins..

“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”

 

[RollingThunder]

If the rates of melting observed in the study were to continue, the ice sheets could add nearly six inches to the rise in global sea levels in the next forty years — a far larger contribution than the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international scientific body, has projected.

First the IPCC comes in with a skeptical number, then TinkerBelle gives us 6.6FEET by 2100 in the OP ---- NOW --- we got 6 INCHES by 2050?????? Wow -- that next 50 years is gonna be rough..

Keep the office guessing pool at NASA.. There's no need to be whipping numbers out of your asses...

Demonstrating your rather meager comprehension abilities again, eh fecalhead?

"If the rate of melting observed in the study were to continue..."....but then again, what if the rate increases as most climate scientists predict?

"the ice sheets could add nearly six inches to the rise in global sea levels in the next forty years" and the mountain glaciers and sea level glaciers and thermal expansion and groundwater mining will all add more inches. The process is accelerating as temperatures keep rising so the rate of sea level rise will keep accelerating as the century progresses.

"a far larger contribution than the (IPCC) has projected" and the significance of this completely escapes you. The melting ice and the rising sea levels (and many other climate change indicators) are all happening much faster than was predicted from the data they were using just a decade or two ago.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the rates of melting observed in the study were to continue, the ice sheets could add nearly six inches to the rise in global sea levels in the next forty years — a far larger contribution than the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international scientific body, has projected.

First the IPCC comes in with a skeptical number, then TinkerBelle gives us 6.6FEET by 2100 in the OP ---- NOW --- we got 6 INCHES by 2050?????? Wow -- that next 50 years is gonna be rough..

Keep the office guessing pool at NASA.. There's no need to be whipping numbers out of your asses...

Demonstrating your rather meager comprehension abilities again, eh fecalhead?

"If the rate of melting observed in the study were to continue..."....but then again, what if the rate increases as most climate scientists predict?

"the ice sheets could add nearly six inches to the rise in global sea levels in the next forty years" and the mountain glaciers and sea level glaciers and thermal expansion and groundwater mining will all add more inches. The process is accelerating as temperatures keep rising so the rate of sea level rise will keep accelerating as the century progresses.

"a far larger contribution than the (IPCC) has projected" and the significance of this completely escapes you. The melting ice and the rising sea levels (and many other climate change indicators) are all happening much faster than was predicted from the data they were using just a decade or two ago.

IPCC: we redistribute wealth through climate policy

 

[RollingThunder]

First the IPCC comes in with a skeptical number, then TinkerBelle gives us 6.6FEET by 2100 in the OP ---- NOW --- we got 6 INCHES by 2050?????? Wow -- that next 50 years is gonna be rough..

Keep the office guessing pool at NASA.. There's no need to be whipping numbers out of your asses...

Demonstrating your rather meager comprehension abilities again, eh fecalhead?

"If the rate of melting observed in the study were to continue..."....but then again, what if the rate increases as most climate scientists predict?

"the ice sheets could add nearly six inches to the rise in global sea levels in the next forty years" and the mountain glaciers and sea level glaciers and thermal expansion and groundwater mining will all add more inches. The process is accelerating as temperatures keep rising so the rate of sea level rise will keep accelerating as the century progresses.

"a far larger contribution than the (IPCC) has projected" and the significance of this completely escapes you. The melting ice and the rising sea levels (and many other climate change indicators) are all happening much faster than was predicted from the data they were using just a decade or two ago.

IPCC: we redistribute wealth through climate policy

CrazyFruitcake: demonstrating severe retardation every day

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh Look the ice sheet is melting off of Ohio

Oh Look the ice sheet is melting off of Michigan

Oh Look the ice sheet is melting off of Ontario

Oh Look the ice sheet is melting off of Hudson Bay

Oh Look the ice sheet is melting off of Nunavut

 

[westwall]

Demonstrating your rather meager comprehension abilities again, eh fecalhead?

"If the rate of melting observed in the study were to continue..."....but then again, what if the rate increases as most climate scientists predict?

"the ice sheets could add nearly six inches to the rise in global sea levels in the next forty years" and the mountain glaciers and sea level glaciers and thermal expansion and groundwater mining will all add more inches. The process is accelerating as temperatures keep rising so the rate of sea level rise will keep accelerating as the century progresses.

"a far larger contribution than the (IPCC) has projected" and the significance of this completely escapes you. The melting ice and the rising sea levels (and many other climate change indicators) are all happening much faster than was predicted from the data they were using just a decade or two ago.

IPCC: we redistribute wealth through climate policy

CrazyFruitcake: demonstrating severe retardation every day

Incessant insults = EPIC FAIL But you allready knew that didn't you.

 

[Oddball]

So, CO2 is decreasing but we still have the big melt.

Seems like you got some splainin' to do.

"CO2 is decreasing"?????? LOLOLOLOL. Not on this planet, you poor retarded crackpot. Try learning to read. Ooops, that's right, you're retarded so you are incapable of comprehending what you read. Too bad for you. Here's a clue - CO2 emissions in one country decreasing slightly over previous years does not equal decreasing worldwide atmospheric CO2 levels.

Source: Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Mauna Loa?...You mean that great big CO2 spewing volcano?

Now anthropogenically generated CO2 is causing volcanoes to emit more CO2?

Serially?

kofkofff...ahemahem....

 

[RollingThunder]

CrazyFruitcake: demonstrating severe retardation every day

Oh Look the ice sheet is melting off of Ohio

Oh Look the ice sheet is melting off of Michigan

Oh Look the ice sheet is melting off of Ontario

Oh Look the ice sheet is melting off of Hudson Bay

Oh Look the ice sheet is melting off of Nunavut

CrazyFruitcake: proving my point once again about his severe retardation.....and, of course, he's much too retarded to even have the mental ability to recognize just how severely retarded and incompetent he actually is or how laughably meaningless his posts are.

 

[RollingThunder]

So, CO2 is decreasing but we still have the big melt.

Seems like you got some splainin' to do.

"CO2 is decreasing"?????? LOLOLOLOL. Not on this planet, you poor retarded crackpot. Try learning to read. Ooops, that's right, you're retarded so you are incapable of comprehending what you read. Too bad for you. Here's a clue - CO2 emissions in one country decreasing slightly over previous years does not equal decreasing worldwide atmospheric CO2 levels.

Source: Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Mauna Loa?...You mean that great big CO2 spewing volcano?

Now anthropogenically generated CO2 is causing volcanoes to emit more CO2?

Serially?

"Serially?"????? Geeez but you're soooo 'seriously' retarded. LOLOL.

As for the ignorant denier cult myths you're 'spewing'/parroting.....LOLOLOLOL....such a clueless, bamboozled retard...

How reliable are CO2 measurements?
(excerpts)

The denier argument..."CO2 measurements are suspect" -
"The Keeling curve, which is widely used to show the increase in CO2 emissions, is based on data from the top of Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii. Mauna Loa is a volcano and it doesn’t seem to me that a volcano is the best place to be taking CO2 measurements"

What the science says...CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations scattered across 66 countries which all report the same rising trend.

The following graph shows atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 10,000 years. It includes ice core data for CO2 levels before 1950. For values after 1950, direct measurements from Mauna Loa, Hawaii were used.

Figure 1: CO2 levels (parts per million) over the past 10,000 years. Blue line from Taylor Dome ice cores (NOAA). Green line from Law Dome ice core (CDIAC). Red line from direct measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (NOAA).

Mauna Loa is often used as an example of rising carbon dioxide levels because its the longest, continuous series of directly measured atmospheric CO2. The reason why it's acceptable to use Mauna Loa as a proxy for global CO2 levels is because CO2 mixes well throughout the atmosphere. Consequently, the trend in Mauna Loa CO2 (1.64 ppm per year) is statistically indistinguishable from the trend in global CO2 levels (1.66 ppm per year). If global CO2 was used in Figure 1 above, the result "hockey stick" shape would be identical. Satellite data is consistent with surface measurements and present a fuller picture of global CO2 concentration.

Figure 2: Global atmospheric CO2 (NOAA) versus Mauna Loa CO2 (NOAA).