Antarctic and Arctic gaining ICE.. Not Melting...

[SwimExpert]

But none of that "eagle-eyed" spotting has found anything of significance.

Of course not. Identifying flaws in fundamental methodology is of no significance to the AGW loons.

 

[Crick]

While you're looking for some evidence that Stephen McIntyre ever identified a fundamental flaw in any climate scientist's methodology (you know, one that would alter their conclusions), you can tell us whether or not you believe the Arctic's and Antarctic's ice mass are increasing.

 

[SwimExpert]

While you're looking for some evidence that Stephen McIntyre ever identified a fundamental flaw in any climate scientist's methodology (you know, one that would alter their conclusions)

Climate science is all about altering conclusions. They do it every day of the week.

you can tell us whether or not you believe the Arctic's and Antarctic's ice mass are increasing.

I could tell you, but tomorrow I'd have to go back and edit the data for "corrections."

 

[Crick]

New rules: " Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject"

You don't seem to be following. You seem to be actively resisting the idea.

 

[SwimExpert]

New rules: " Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject"

You don't seem to be following. You seem to be actively resisting the idea.

Stop trolling.

 

[Zander]

Oh no!!! Climate reality is not jiving with the climate alarmists doomsday predictions!!
The earth is a DENIER!!!!

OMFG!!!

 

[Crick]

New rules: " Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject"

You don't seem to be following. You seem to be actively resisting the idea.

Stop trolling.

Do you have anything on topic to say? Do you understand the contention that this thread's OP makes? In your time on the net, lurking about global warming forums, have you learned anything about global warming, climate change, the greenhouse effect, human GHG emissions, thermodynamics, atmospheric physics, organic chemistry, meteorological oceanography or anything else pertinent to the subject of this forum, Mr Exceptional?

 

[SwimExpert]

New rules: " Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject"

You don't seem to be following. You seem to be actively resisting the idea.

Stop trolling.

Do you have anything on topic to say? Do you understand the contention that this thread's OP makes? In your time on the net, lurking about global warming forums, have you learned anything about global warming, climate change, the greenhouse effect, human GHG emissions, thermodynamics, atmospheric physics, organic chemistry, meteorological oceanography or anything else pertinent to the subject of this forum, Mr Exceptional?

You are under the misguided notion that the purpose of the topic is for people to agree with you. Just because I reject your position does not make my statements off topic.

 

[Crick]

We're not that stupid; none of us. You haven't made any comments about the topic one way or another.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh no!!! Climate reality is not jiving with the climate alarmists doomsday predictions!!
The earth is a DENIER!!!!

OMFG!!!

OK, dumb fuck, is the ice increasing in the Arctic and Antarctic? Or is really stupid comments and pictures all that you are capable of?

 

[jc456]

In an attempt to get back on thread topic: does anyone here believe the Arctic is gaining ice mass? Does anyone here believe the Antarctic is gaining ice mass? Swimexpert?

Yep I do

 

[jc456]

Oh no!!! Climate reality is not jiving with the climate alarmists doomsday predictions!!
The earth is a DENIER!!!!

OMFG!!!

OK, dumb fuck, is the ice increasing in the Arctic and Antarctic? Or is really stupid comments and pictures all that you are capable of?

Yes it is

 

[Zander]

Oh no!!! Climate reality is not jiving with the climate alarmists doomsday predictions!!
The earth is a DENIER!!!!

OMFG!!!

OK, dumb fuck, is the ice increasing in the Arctic and Antarctic? Or is really stupid comments and pictures all that you are capable of?

The ice is doing what it always does. There is nothing new.

Climate change is real, it's just not caused by humans.

Sorry that your religious dogma allows no room for reality.

Feel free to have a panic attack over it.

 

[Crick]

None of that is supported by any of the evidence. Current temperatures at the poles are higher than any shown in the ice core data. CO2 levels are dramatically higher than anything seen anywhere in the cores or in other proxy data going back millions of years. And the RATES at which those levels are rising - rates that will not allow ready accomodation - has likely not been seen since the Chicxulub Impact, 65 million years ago. Within human history - dating back to the pre-hominids, it has NOT happened before.

Throwing on your blinders and saying "no need to worry, it's all happened before" is simply the pinnacle of ignorance.

 

[skookerasbil]

GaInINg s0ns

All you need to know about these AGW frauds is..........since about 2001, look how many BS predictions have fallen flat on their face with the polar ice ( many predicted NO ice by 2013, including that fruit loop Gore ). If these climate meatheads with their models were in business, their asses would have been fired a decade ago!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

None of that is supported by any of the evidence. Current temperatures at the poles are higher than any shown in the ice core data. CO2 levels are dramatically higher than anything seen anywhere in the cores or in other proxy data going back millions of years. And the RATES at which those levels are rising has likely not been seen in 65 million years. Within human history - dating back to the pre-hominids, it has NOT happened before.

Throwing on your blinders and saying "no need to worry, it's all happened before" is simply the pinnacle of ignorance.

Very few are worrying s0n...........only alarmists who are in a perpetual state of hysterical. Who out there wasn't scared of the clown popping out of the closet in the middle of the night.........when you are 5 years old!!!. People with real responsibilities in life have little time to worry about predictions based upon computer models that are frequently wrong. THAT is exactly why in 2015......and after 20+ years......nobody is worrying. s0n......time to jettison the clown!!! Its time!!


[URL=http://s1074.photobucket.com/user/Anthony_Kasinger/media/scary_evil_clown_animated.gif.html][/URL]

 

[SwimExpert]

The ice is doing what it always does. There is nothing new.

Ding, ding, ding!

There's more, then there's less. Then there's more, then there's less. Thank goodness for data "adjustments" otherwise we might never know that global warming exists!

 

[Old Rocks]

Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise - Rignot - 2011 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise
Authors

• First published: 4 March 2011Full publication history
• DOI: 10.1029/2011GL046583View/save citation
• Cited by: 176 articlesRefreshcitation countCiting literature
• 
  Picked up by 3 news outlets
  
  Blogged by 10
  Referenced in 1 policy sources
  Tweeted by 17
  Referenced in 2 Wikipedia pages
  Mentioned in 1 Google+ posts
  Reddited by 1
  7 readers on CiteULike
  See more details | Close this
  × " data-badge-popover="bottom" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; cursor: pointer; color: rgb(47, 123, 174); display: inline-block; background-position: 0px 0px;">
  

Abstract

[1] Ice sheet mass balance estimates have improved substantially in recent years using a variety of techniques, over different time periods, and at various levels of spatial detail. Considerable disparity remains between these estimates due to the inherent uncertainties of each method, the lack of detailed comparison between independent estimates, and the effect of temporal modulations in ice sheet surface mass balance. Here, we present a consistent record of mass balance for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets over the past two decades, validated by the comparison of two independent techniques over the last 8 years: one differencing perimeter loss from net accumulation, and one using a dense time series of time-variable gravity. We find excellent agreement between the two techniques for absolute mass loss and acceleration of mass loss. In 2006, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets experienced a combined mass loss of 475 ± 158 Gt/yr, equivalent to 1.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr sea level rise. Notably, the acceleration in ice sheet loss over the last 18 years was 21.9 ± 1 Gt/yr2 for Greenland and 14.5 ± 2 Gt/yr2 for Antarctica, for a combined total of 36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr2. This acceleration is 3 times larger than for mountain glaciers and ice caps (12 ± 6 Gt/yr2). If this trend continues, ice sheets will be the dominant contributor to sea level rise in the 21st century.

Just those dang pesky scientists again, and what do they know about anything?

 

[Old Rocks]

A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance

• 
  
• RESEARCH ARTICLE

A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance

1. Andrew Shepherd1,*,
2. Erik R. Ivins2,*,
3. Geruo A3,
4. Valentina R. Barletta4,
5. Mike J. Bentley5,
6. Srinivas Bettadpur6,
7. Kate H. Briggs1,
8. David H. Bromwich7,
9. René Forsberg4,
10. Natalia Galin8,
11. Martin Horwath9,
12. Stan Jacobs10,
13. Ian Joughin11,
14. Matt A. King12,27,
15. Jan T. M. Lenaerts13,
16. Jilu Li14,
17. Stefan R. M. Ligtenberg13,
18. Adrian Luckman15,
19. Scott B. Luthcke16,
20. Malcolm McMillan1,
21. Rakia Meister8,
22. Glenn Milne17,
23. Jeremie Mouginot18,
24. Alan Muir8,
25. Julien P. Nicolas7,
26. John Paden14,
27. Antony J. Payne19,
28. Hamish Pritchard20,
29. Eric Rignot18,2,
30. Helmut Rott21,
31. Louise Sandberg Sørensen4,
32. Ted A. Scambos22,
33. Bernd Scheuchl18,
34. Ernst J. O. Schrama23,
35. Ben Smith11,
36. Aud V. Sundal1,
37. Jan H. van Angelen13,
38. Willem J. van de Berg13,
39. Michiel R. van den Broeke13,
40. David G. Vaughan20,
41. Isabella Velicogna18,2,
42. John Wahr3,
43. Pippa L. Whitehouse5,
44. Duncan J. Wingham8,
45. Donghui Yi24,
46. Duncan Young25,
47. H. Jay Zwally26

+Author Affiliations

1. ↵*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected] (A.S.); [email protected](E.R.I.)

• ABSTRACT

We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.

More of the same.

 

[Old Rocks]

Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise

Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise

1. Jonathan T. Overpeck1,*,
2. Bette L. Otto-Bliesner2,
3. Gifford H. Miller3,
4. Daniel R. Muhs4,
5. Richard B. Alley5,
6. Jeffrey T. Kiehl2

+Author Affiliations

1. ↵* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

• ABSTRACT

Sea-level rise from melting of polar ice sheets is one of the largest potential threats of future climate change. Polar warming by the year 2100 may reach levels similar to those of 130,000 to 127,000 years ago that were associated with sea levels several meters above modern levels; both the Greenland Ice Sheet and portions of the Antarctic Ice Sheet may be vulnerable. The record of past ice-sheet melting indicates that the rate of future melting and related sea-level rise could be faster than widely thought.

Goddamned scientists, who do they think they are, bring up evidence from the past?