NASA and the IPCC sea level predictions

[Old Rocks]

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Getting a Grip on Future Ice Sheet Changes

And this only addresses the melting in Greenland. The Antarctic Ice Cap is also losing mass.

 

[Bern80]

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Getting a Grip on Future Ice Sheet Changes

And this only addresses the melting in Greenland. The Antarctic Ice Cap is also losing mass.

If you want to remain even mildly credible on this you may want to steer clear of those two particular sources.

The consensus that their is no consensus grows by the day.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

 

[Tech_Esq]

For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

19 May 2005 - According to a new study published in the online edition of Science, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet gained about 45 billion tons of ice between 1992 and 2003. The ice sheets are several kilometers thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world's ice.

Using data from the European Space Agency's radar satellites ERS-1 and ERS-2, a research team from the University of Missouri, Columbia, measured changes in altitude over about 70% of Antarctica's interior. East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimeters per year over the time period studied, the researchers discovered.

The region comprises about 75% of Antarctica 's total land area and about 85% of the total ice volume. The area in question covers more than 2.75 million square miles - roughly the same size as the United States.

If you review this article "Large and Rapid Melt-Induced Velocity Changes in the Ablation Zone of the Greenland Ice Sheet" in the July 2008 issue of Science Magazine, I believe you will find that the contentions you report are not supported by the evidence. But, don't let a 17 year study of the Greenland ice sheet get in the way of hyping up a bunch of science fantasy.

 

[Bern80]

If you review this article "Large and Rapid Melt-Induced Velocity Changes in the Ablation Zone of the Greenland Ice Sheet" in the July 2008 issue of Science Magazine, I believe you will find that the contentions you report are not supported by the evidence. But, don't let a 17 year study of the Greenland ice sheet get in the way of hyping up a bunch of science fantasy.

are you referring to me or Old Rocks?

 

[Old Rocks]

If you want to remain even mildly credible on this you may want to steer clear of those two particular sources.

The consensus that their is no consensus grows by the day.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

The Inhofe Blog! LOL. That energy company whore? Come on, people. Show me on scientific society that does not completely endorse the fact the the earths atmosphere is warming, and that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of that warming. Show me one National Academy of Science of any major nation that does not endorse that consensus. Show me on major university that does not have a policy statement on global warming that states this. You cannot, because there are not any. The scientific consensus on global warming and it's cause is as solid as that on evolution.

Now if you are able, accept the challenge and show me a scientific society that states that global warming is not happening, or that the burning of fossil fuels is not the primary cause of the warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

This MODIS Terra image, acquired August 23, 2006, shows the southern portion of Greenland. The Greenlandic ice cap covers about 80% of the island's surface. Credit: NASA
> Click for larger image. A new NASA study confirms that the surface temperature of Greenland's massive ice sheet has been rising, stoked by warming air temperatures, and fueling loss of the island's ice at the surface and throughout the mass beneath.

Greenland's enormous ice sheet is home to enough ice to raise sea level by about 23 feet if the entire ice sheet were to melt into surrounding waters. Though the loss of the whole ice sheet is unlikely, loss from Greenland's ice mass has already contributed in part to 20th century sea level rise of about two millimeters per year, and future melt has the potential to impact people and economies across the globe. So NASA scientists used state-of-the-art NASA satellite technologies to explore the behavior of the ice sheet, revealing a relationship between changes at the surface and below. The new NASA study appears in the January issue of the quarterly Journal of Glaciology.

NASA - Greenland's Rising Air Temperatures Drive Ice Loss at Surface and Beyond

 

[glockmail]

....Show me on[e] scientific society that does not completely endorse the fact the the earths atmosphere is warming, and that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of that warming. ....

Like the AMS position statement that I took you to the cleaners with last week?

 

[Old Rocks]

Antarctica Ice Loss Faster Than Ten Years AgoMason Inman
for National Geographic News

January 14, 2008
The western part of Antarctica is shedding ice much faster today than it was just ten years ago, according to new satellite measurements.

The measurements, which surveyed the coasts of nearly the entire continent, suggest that climate models underestimate how quickly Antarctica responds to ongoing global warming, said study co-author Jonathan Bamber of the University of Bristol in England.









RELATED
Warming Oceans Contributed to Record Arctic Melt (December 14, 2007)
Explore an Interactive Map of Antarctica
Global Warming "Tipping Points" Reached, Scientist Says (December 14, 2007)
Many past studies have tried to estimate how much ice Antarctica is losing.

(Related: "Hundreds of Glaciers Melting Faster in Antarctica" [June 6, 2007].)

But the new study is the first to show that this loss is accelerating, at least in western Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula, the researchers say.

"In all the ice sheet models we have at present for Antarctica, things happen very slowly," Bamber said.

"[But] we're seeing things happen rather quickly."

They found that for Antarctica overall, the ice loss increased about 75 percent over the ten-year period, from 112 gigatons of ice per year in 1996 to 196 gigatons of ice per year in 2006.

As to whether Antarctica will lose or gain ice as global warming proceeds, the measurements disagree with existing climate models that suggest "[the ice sheet] is going to get bigger because of increased snowfall with warming temperatures," Bamber said.

"We don't see that. We see the ice sheet losing mass," he said. "So there's a bit of a paradigm shift in what the ice sheet has done recently and what it could do in the future."

Scientists are concerned the melting ice will contribute to a dangerous sea level rise.

Ice Losses


Continued on Next Page >>


LATEST NEWS VIDEOS
VIDEO: Animal-to-Human Disease Watch

VIDEO: "Obama" Bullfighting Decried

VIDEO: Belief in Elves Strong in Iceland

More Videos in the News SOURCES AND RELATED WEB SITES
Nature Geoscience
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory: Eric Rignot
University of Bristol: Jonathan Bamber
University of Edinburgh: Andrew Shepherd

 

[glockmail]

Repeat the lie often enough and many fools will begin to believe you. I must admit its a great tactic.

 

[Old Rocks]

Like the AMS position statement that I took you to the cleaners with last week?

Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.

Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.
AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

Now Glock, even given your limited comprehension, what part of the first sentence do you not understand?

 

[Old Rocks]

Repeat the lie often enough and many fools will begin to believe you. I must admit its a great tactic.

You are the liar here. The AMS statement was in line with the consensus of all the other scientific societies. Again, do attempt to bring more than a third grade level reading comprehension to these articles.

 

[glockmail]

Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.

Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.
AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

Now Glock, even given your limited comprehension, what part of the first sentence do you not understand?

It doesn't surprise me that you would ignore the fact that the AMS lists natural causes first, followed by human causes, and then, finally discusses CO2 (in your link). But do keep spouting how CO2 is the most important. It makes you look like the fool that you wish the rest of us were.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents [hide]
1 Statements by concurring organizations
1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
1.2 InterAcademy Council
1.3 Joint science academies' statement 2008
1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
1.6 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
1.9 Network of African Science Academies
1.10 National Research Council (US)
1.11 European Science Foundation
1.12 American Association for the Advancement of Science
1.13 Federation of American Scientists
1.14 World Meteorological Organization
1.15 American Meteorological Society
1.16 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
1.17 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.18 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.19 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
1.20 International Union for Quaternary Research
1.21 American Quaternary Association
1.22 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
1.23 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
1.24 International Union of Geological Sciences
1.25 European Geosciences Union
1.26 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
1.27 Geological Society of America
1.28 American Geophysical Union
1.29 American Astronomical Society
1.30 American Institute of Physics
1.31 American Physical Society
1.32 American Chemical Society
1.33 American Society for Microbiology
1.34 Institute of Biology (UK)
1.35 World Federation of Public Health Associations
1.36 American College of Preventive Medicine
1.37 American Public Health Association
1.38 American Medical Association
1.39 American Statistical Association
1.40 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
1.41 Water Environment Federation
1.42 Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
1.43 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
2 Noncommittal statements
2.1 American Association of State Climatologists
2.2 American Association of Petroleum Geologists
3 Statements by dissenting organizations
4 Scientific consensus

 

[glockmail]

Cut-N-Paste the lie often enough and many fools will begin to believe you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Statements by dissenting organizations
With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[57]


Scientific consensus
A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[18]
US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[59]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[60]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[61]
American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[62]
Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.” [15]
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

It doesn't surprise me that you would ignore the fact that the AMS lists natural causes first, followed by human causes, and then, finally discusses CO2 (in your link). But do keep spouting how CO2 is the most important. It makes you look like the fool that you wish the rest of us were.

Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.
AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

Human activities are a major contributor to climate change. So they still have a hard time admitting that GHGs are the major cause, and pussy foot arround it. But here is an even clearer statement from the same organization;

American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[21]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

Repeat the lie often enough and many fools will begin to believe you. I must admit its a great tactic.

Once again, you are the liar here. I cut and paste from scientific sources that support the overwhelming scientific consensus on the subject. There is nothing at all keeping you from using real scientific articles to support your opinion, other than the fact they are very hard to find.

 

[glockmail]

"Major" is a far statement from "Most". For instance, I find you to be a major pain in the ass. But in the perspective of my fulfilling life, you are but a tiny gnat.

 

[glockmail]

Once again, you are the liar here. I cut and paste from scientific sources that support the overwhelming scientific consensus on the subject. There is nothing at all keeping you from using real scientific articles to support your opinion, other than the fact they are very hard to find.

I prefer to use the articles that you post, and prove that they actually say something other than you opine.

 

[Bern80]

The Inhofe Blog! LOL. That energy company whore? Come on, people. Show me on scientific society that does not completely endorse the fact the the earths atmosphere is warming, and that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of that warming. Show me one National Academy of Science of any major nation that does not endorse that consensus. Show me on major university that does not have a policy statement on global warming that states this. You cannot, because there are not any. The scientific consensus on global warming and it's cause is as solid as that on evolution.

Now if you are able, accept the challenge and show me a scientific society that states that global warming is not happening, or that the burning of fossil fuels is not the primary cause of the warming.

That's your defense now? Are you fucking serious?! The skepticism of individual scientists doesn't count? Only 'scientific societies would count as credibile refutation of AGW? What a fucking joke you are. The word of 600 plus actual scientists doesn't count, but wikipedia does?