Sleeping giant' glacier may lift seas two metres: study

[Uncensored2008]

[

Oh look. I've made another denier cultist run. It must be a day ending in "y".

And by "run", you mean point and laugh at your ignorant ass, right cult boi?

If you ever manage to locate your gonads, answer the question about what data could falsify your theory. Since you're unwilling to do so, it's clear that nothing could falsify your theory, which puts your theory squarely in the category of "religious pseudoscience."

What theory is that, oh Scientology guru?

Tell you what, your fuckwad of a religion claims that carbon dioxide angers Gaia and she retaliates by warming the planet.

So if true, we can set up a linear regression to show that R level of CO2 tracks to slope Y of warming. I can run a predictive ANOVA to show that at any given level of CO2 we will have a certain temperature within 3 standard deviations.

What is R? What is the slope of Y?

Current correlation between CO2 and temperature is necessary to prove global warming theory,

If so, your absurd cult is done, since no such correlation exists.

but it's certainly not sufficient. And since nobody ever said otherwise, you now look even more stupid and dishonest.

Again, you voodoo spewing morons claim causation when you can't even provide correlation.

You are absurd, clowns.

Of course there is. CO2 and temperature have both risen steadily, hence there is obviously a positive correlation. And I do hope you're not about to attempt a "but CO2 lags temperature!" logical faceplant now.

CO2 has risen steadily, temperature has not. There is no correlation at all. Temperature rises show utterly no connection to CO2. We have temperature increases over the last 400 years, which is fact. We have CO2 increases over the last 150 years, fact.

As CO2 level increased more rapidly, temperature increases declined.

The LIA had 3 main causes.

1. Cooler sun. Well, the sun cooled recently. And it got warmer.

2. Higher volcanic activity. Also seen now. And it got warmer.

3. Lower CO2 levels. Well, we certainly fixed that.

I thought it was SUV's?

Cycles have causes. The same natural factors that made it cool in the LIA are happening now. And instead of getting cooler, it's getting warmer, because of that third factor, the CO2.

Again with causation when there isn't even correlation.

You cultists are clowns. There is nothing even remotely scientific about the idiocy you promote. Astrologers have a more legitimate claim to science than you fools do.

You deniers are the only ones openly embracing a Gaian "The earth does what it will, and cycles in and out of the Age of Aquarius, and we can't change that!" religion. We rational modern humans reject such touchy-feely crap, and instead we follow the hard data.

Now, some of you denier hippies are even demanding that everyone move into caves and give up electricity. If that's what you want, by all means, do it, but don't expect anyone else to come join your unshaven smelly commune.

You morons make me laugh. L. Ron Hubbard is more legitimate of a "scientist" than Micheal Mann is.

You're is a primitive religion that has nothing to do with science.

 

[jc456]

A Scientologist

Oh look. I've made another denier cultist run. It must be a day ending in "y".

If you ever manage to locate your gonads, answer the question about what data could falsify your theory. Since you're unwilling to do so, it's clear that nothing could falsify your theory, which puts your theory squarely in the category of "religious pseudoscience."

such as yourself has no grasp of the principles of legitimate science, but here is a clue cult boi, correlation != causation.

Current correlation between CO2 and temperature is necessary to prove global warming theory, but it's certainly not sufficient. And since nobody ever said otherwise, you now look even more stupid and dishonest.

Not that there is even correlation between CO2 levels and temperature increases.

Of course there is. CO2 and temperature have both risen steadily, hence there is obviously a positive correlation. And I do hope you're not about to attempt a "but CO2 lags temperature!" logical faceplant now.

We have been warming since the end of the little ice age.

The LIA had 3 main causes.

1. Cooler sun. Well, the sun cooled recently. And it got warmer.

2. Higher volcanic activity. Also seen now. And it got warmer.

3. Lower CO2 levels. Well, we certainly fixed that.

Cycles have causes. The same natural factors that made it cool in the LIA are happening now. And instead of getting cooler, it's getting warmer, because of that third factor, the CO2.

Welcome to planet Earth, where the climate changes incessantly. Your voodoo gods have nothing to do with it. The anger of Gaea is just a fantasy you primitive fucks have.

You deniers are the only ones openly embracing a Gaian "The earth does what it will, and cycles in and out of the Age of Aquarius, and we can't change that!" religion. We rational modern humans reject such touchy-feely crap, and instead we follow the hard data.

Now, some of you denier hippies are even demanding that everyone move into caves and give up electricity. If that's what you want, by all means, do it, but don't expect anyone else to come join your unshaven smelly commune.

We rational modern humans reject such touchy-feely crap, and instead we follow the hard data.

what hard data do you have?

 

[jc456]

A Scientologist

Oh look. I've made another denier cultist run. It must be a day ending in "y".

If you ever manage to locate your gonads, answer the question about what data could falsify your theory. Since you're unwilling to do so, it's clear that nothing could falsify your theory, which puts your theory squarely in the category of "religious pseudoscience."

such as yourself has no grasp of the principles of legitimate science, but here is a clue cult boi, correlation != causation.

Current correlation between CO2 and temperature is necessary to prove global warming theory, but it's certainly not sufficient. And since nobody ever said otherwise, you now look even more stupid and dishonest.

Not that there is even correlation between CO2 levels and temperature increases.

Of course there is. CO2 and temperature have both risen steadily, hence there is obviously a positive correlation. And I do hope you're not about to attempt a "but CO2 lags temperature!" logical faceplant now.

We have been warming since the end of the little ice age.

The LIA had 3 main causes.

1. Cooler sun. Well, the sun cooled recently. And it got warmer.

2. Higher volcanic activity. Also seen now. And it got warmer.

3. Lower CO2 levels. Well, we certainly fixed that.

Cycles have causes. The same natural factors that made it cool in the LIA are happening now. And instead of getting cooler, it's getting warmer, because of that third factor, the CO2.

Welcome to planet Earth, where the climate changes incessantly. Your voodoo gods have nothing to do with it. The anger of Gaea is just a fantasy you primitive fucks have.

You deniers are the only ones openly embracing a Gaian "The earth does what it will, and cycles in and out of the Age of Aquarius, and we can't change that!" religion. We rational modern humans reject such touchy-feely crap, and instead we follow the hard data.

Now, some of you denier hippies are even demanding that everyone move into caves and give up electricity. If that's what you want, by all means, do it, but don't expect anyone else to come join your unshaven smelly commune.

1. Cooler sun. Well, the sun cooled recently. And it got warmer.

where?

 

[bodecea]

Sleeping giant' glacier may lift seas two metres: study

Source: yahoo new

Paris (AFP) - A rapidly melting glacier atop East Antarctica is on track to lift oceans at least two metres, and could soon pass a "tipping point" of no return, researchers said Wednesday.

To date, scientists have mostly worried about the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets as dangerous drivers of sea level rise.

But the new study, following up on earlier work by the same team, has identified a third major threat to hundreds of millions of people living in coastal areas around the world.

"I predict that before the end of the century the great global cities of our planet near the sea will have two- or three-metre (6.5 - 10 feet) high sea defences all around them," said Martin Siegert, co-director of the Grantham Institute and Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London, and the study's senior author.

From the air, the contours of Totten Glacier -- roughly the size of France -- are invisible because the entire Antarctic continent is covered by a seamless, kilometres-thick blanket of snow and ice.

Geologically, however, it is a distinct -- and volatile -- beast.

- Disintegration accelerating -

Read more: 'Sleeping giant' glacier may lift seas two metres: study

Say good bye to southern Florida, LA and Boston. This is quite concerning.

Not really caring what happens to the Gulf Coast.

 

[jc456]

Sleeping giant' glacier may lift seas two metres: study

Source: yahoo new

Paris (AFP) - A rapidly melting glacier atop East Antarctica is on track to lift oceans at least two metres, and could soon pass a "tipping point" of no return, researchers said Wednesday.

To date, scientists have mostly worried about the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets as dangerous drivers of sea level rise.

But the new study, following up on earlier work by the same team, has identified a third major threat to hundreds of millions of people living in coastal areas around the world.

"I predict that before the end of the century the great global cities of our planet near the sea will have two- or three-metre (6.5 - 10 feet) high sea defences all around them," said Martin Siegert, co-director of the Grantham Institute and Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London, and the study's senior author.

From the air, the contours of Totten Glacier -- roughly the size of France -- are invisible because the entire Antarctic continent is covered by a seamless, kilometres-thick blanket of snow and ice.

Geologically, however, it is a distinct -- and volatile -- beast.

- Disintegration accelerating -

Read more: 'Sleeping giant' glacier may lift seas two metres: study

Say good bye to southern Florida, LA and Boston. This is quite concerning.

Not really caring what happens to the Gulf Coast.

funny one can make any title to a story they want in the US. doesn't mean it is accurate or going to happen. It's merely someone yelling ....Booo.. to see who reacts.

 

[mamooth]

Tell you what, your fuckwad of a religion claims that carbon dioxide angers Gaia and she retaliates by warming the planet.

You're the only person here or anywhere who is babbling about Gaia. This may shock your religious sensibilities, but there is no Gaia. The earth isn't sentient. Contrary to your sacred cult beliefs, Gaia can't save us from warming because there is no Gaia.

And I understand it's like I've just told you there's no Santa Claus, so you'll probably need some time to recover from the shock.

So if true, we can set up a linear regression to show that R level of CO2 tracks to slope Y of warming. I can run a predictive ANOVA to show that at any given level of CO2 we will have a certain temperature within 3 standard deviations

What is R? What is the slope of Y?

It's roughly Final Temp Change = 4.1* ln([CO2]/[CO2_orig]). About 3C for a doubling of CO2.

Understand that's the final change, not the immediate change. It will take over a century for the full effect. That's why the earth has 0.5C more warming already locked in, even if we stopped increasing CO2 now. So it's not a simple linear line. I don't know why you thought "correlation" meant "linear function".

CO2 has risen steadily, temperature has not. There is no correlation at all. Temperature rises show utterly no connection to CO2.

Utterly delusional.

We have temperature increases over the last 400 years, which is fact.

You mean except when the times when temperature was going down, like from 1940 to 1970. Why does your "recovery from the little ice age" take so many pauses?

I thought it was SUV's?

Nice deflection. You're good at 'em. You have to be, since all the science contradicts you.

Again with causation when there isn't even correlation.

You're the one who was using a "correlation equals causation" argument with your "but it's a recovery from the LIA, therefore it has to be a natural cycle!" nonsense. I just showed how the real world debunked your claims. Debunking your C=C claim does not mean I made one.

It's no surprise you fail at logic, as all cultists fail at logic. They wouldn't be cultists if they were rational. It's a standard part of the cult dogma to teach the faithful some buzzwords that they don't understand but can parrot from memory, and to tell them that they're special unique little snowflakes who are the only ones on the planet possessing the wisdom to grasp the RealTruth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is the whole of Antarctica warming?
No.
The Antarctic Peninsula, particularly the West coast of the Peninsula is warming at a rate about 10 times faster than the global average. This has received a great deal of publicity in recent years and is where the Larsen B ice shelf (see above) is situated. The average annual temperature of this region has increased by nearly 3°C in the last 50 years.

Data on temperatures in Antarctica only really go back about 50 years, anything beyond that is surmised from ice cores or other sources and so we don't accurately know how the temperatures vary over even the medium term in Antarctica. The reason that the Peninsula region appears to be so dramatically warming is that it has a large amount of snow and ice, glaciers, ice shelves and other features, It also has an annual average temperature not far off the freezing point of water. A small increase in the average annual temperature can mean that a few more weeks or even just a few more days per year when melting can occur can result in very visible results of ice features reducing or disappearing.

The vast majority of Antarctica is so cold that even if the temperature was to rise by the same amount as the Peninsula, there still wouldn't be any melting going on at all. The average surface temperature of continental Antarctica is about -37°C as opposed to -5°C for the warmest places on the peninsula.

• 
  Scenario 1 - A warmer day in most of Antarctica still gives a temperature well below freezing, say -30°C to -20°C
  = Nothing much to see.
  
  Scenario 2 - A warmer day in the Peninsula takes temperatures from say -5C to +5C
  = Lots of melting and potential ice break up, lots to see.

This is no reason to become complacent however as part of the reason that the Antarctic ice sheet is so cold is that it's so high, due to the thickness of the ice. The melting and flow of the glaciers removing ice from the continent is also slowed by the ice shelves around the continent edge.

Small rises in temperature that start to nibble away a little faster at the edges could eventually speed up the loss of ice from the interior and cause greater temperature rises to take place further inland. Ice shelves seem to act as "corks" in Antarctic "ice-bottles", remove the ice shelf and a huge amount of ice from the interior could start to flow towards the sea where it will melt even though the temperature in the interior may be stable. The "corks" are currently keeping the ice at the coldest places.

The problem with trying to predict the future in these matters is that firstly there is not enough data available to base predictions on and secondly, the way things work is not fully understood. Most models from different researchers and teams tend to agree however that there will be some small changes in temperature over the next 50 years. It is also expected that the rise in global temperature will put more moisture into the atmosphere and more of this will reach Antarctica so giving a greater snowfall to offset the melting ice. Despite all the snow and ice there Antarctica is actually classed as a desert as there is so little snow-fall, it's just that what does fall stays there so it builds up over a long time period.


................"Thus, the present loss of ice shelves cannot be assumed to be a consequence of Man-made climate change,
unless and until a cause can be identified"
British Antarctic Survey......................

There is no unusual significant loss of ice of any kind from the larger 96% of Antarctica that is not the Peninsula.
.........................

Antarctica, the Effects of Global Warming

People like mamooth are not interested in science, he is an absolutist, and if you don't agree with him you are just ignorant. I guess he slept through the class about the scientific method, let me help you out.

What is the ``scientific method''?

The beginning of the thread included a quote that this scientist predicted that sea levels would rise two meters in a hundred years. This cannot be proven, period. This is not science but a guy in his cubby hole who is not getting enough attention and has been shooting up man made global warming for so long he is an addict. I could just as easily say all the evidence points to mamooth being a flaming moron and I predict he will be admitted to the looney bin in the next 30 years. Mamooth can't hold his own in a debate so he descends to insults and ad hominems. He will just be another lib booking passage on the boat leaving our shores in search of a socialist utopia on the day Donald trump is sworn in as president. Stuff it.

what is the temperature there today?

Vostok station is -71 F and Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station is -58 F.

Last May Vostok was -72F, making this the warmest May on record!! Praise be to agw

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Tell you what, your fuckwad of a religion claims that carbon dioxide angers Gaia and she retaliates by warming the planet.

You're the only person here or anywhere who is babbling about Gaia. This may shock your religious sensibilities, but there is no Gaia. The earth isn't sentient. Contrary to your sacred cult beliefs, Gaia can't save us from warming because there is no Gaia.

And I understand it's like I've just told you there's no Santa Claus, so you'll probably need some time to recover from the shock.

So if true, we can set up a linear regression to show that R level of CO2 tracks to slope Y of warming. I can run a predictive ANOVA to show that at any given level of CO2 we will have a certain temperature within 3 standard deviations

What is R? What is the slope of Y?

It's roughly Final Temp Change = 4.1* ln([CO2]/[CO2_orig]). About 3C for a doubling of CO2.

Understand that's the final change, not the immediate change. It will take over a century for the full effect. That's why the earth has 0.5C more warming already locked in, even if we stopped increasing CO2 now. So it's not a simple linear line. I don't know why you thought "correlation" meant "linear function".

CO2 has risen steadily, temperature has not. There is no correlation at all. Temperature rises show utterly no connection to CO2.

Utterly delusional.

We have temperature increases over the last 400 years, which is fact.

You mean except when the times when temperature was going down, like from 1940 to 1970. Why does your "recovery from the little ice age" take so many pauses?

I thought it was SUV's?

Nice deflection. You're good at 'em. You have to be, since all the science contradicts you.

Again with causation when there isn't even correlation.

You're the one who was using a "correlation equals causation" argument with your "but it's a recovery from the LIA, therefore it has to be a natural cycle!" nonsense. I just showed how the real world debunked your claims. Debunking your C=C claim does not mean I made one.

It's no surprise you fail at logic, as all cultists fail at logic. They wouldn't be cultists if they were rational. It's a standard part of the cult dogma to teach the faithful some buzzwords that they don't understand but can parrot from memory, and to tell them that they're special unique little snowflakes who are the only ones on the planet possessing the wisdom to grasp the RealTruth.

3 degrees for doubling CO2?? Why then dont you have one single repeatable lab experiment to back this up?

 

[Crick]

Perhaps because the Earth is the lab. Why don't you have one single repeatable lab experiment to refute it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Perhaps because the Earth is the lab. Why don't you have one single repeatable lab experiment to refute it?

It's your stupid theory, douchebag, EnviroMarxist Whackjob

 

[Crick]

HA HA HA Ha ha... then thank goodness it's as well supported by evidence as it is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

HA HA HA Ha ha... then thank goodness it's as well supported by evidence as it is.

Tuning on the Weather Channel and shrieking, "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!! DEATH TO THE DENIERS!!" isn't evidence and neither is posting a stupid fucking chart with no temperature axis, Komrade

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Perhaps because the Earth is the lab. Why don't you have one single repeatable lab experiment to refute it?

^ Real science experiment replicating condition a nanosecond after the Big Bang

^ Ass hat Clown EnviroMarxists damaging the credibility of MIT with their fake, phony "Science"

 

[Markle]

You morons make me laugh. L. Ron Hubbard is more legitimate of a "scientist" than Micheal Mann is.

You're is a primitive religion that has nothing to do with science.

Obviously too is that L. Ron Hubbard ignores the English language.

 

[Old Rocks]

You morons make me laugh. L. Ron Hubbard is more legitimate of a "scientist" than Micheal Mann is.

You're is a primitive religion that has nothing to do with science.

Obviously too is that L. Ron Hubbard ignores the English language.

LOL

Doctoral and postgraduate studies[edit]
Mann then attended Yale University, intending to obtain a PhD in physics, and received both an MS and an MPhil in physics in 1991. His interest was in theoretical condensed matter physics but he found himself being pushed towards detailed semiconductor work. He looked at course options with a wider topic area, and was enthused by PhD adviser Barry Saltzmanabout climate modelling and research. To try this out he spent the summer of 1991 assisting a postdoctoral researcher in simulating the period of peak Cretaceous warmth when carbon dioxide levels were high, but fossils indicated most warming at the poles, with little warming in the tropics. Mann then joined the Yale Department of Geology and Geophysics, obtaining an MPhil in geology and geophysics in 1993. His research focused on natural variability and climate oscillations. He worked with the seismologist Jeffrey Park, and their joint research adapted a statistical method developed for identifying seismological oscillations to find various periodicities in the instrumental temperature record, the longest being about 60 to 80 years. The paper Mann and Park published in December 1994 came to similar conclusions to a study developed in parallel using different methodology and published in January of that year, which found what was later called the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation.[6]

In 1994, Mann participated as a graduate student in the inaugural workshop of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Geophysical Statistics Project aimed at encouraging active collaboration between statisticians, climatologists and atmospheric scientists. Leading statisticians participated, including Grace Wahba and Arthur P. Dempster.[7]

While still finishing his PhD research, Mann met UMass climate science professor Raymond S. Bradley and began research in collaboration with him and Park. Their research used paleoclimate proxy data from Bradley's previous work and methods Mann had developed with Park, to find oscillations in the longer proxy records. "Global Interdecadal and Century-Scale Climate Oscillations During the Past Five Centuries" was published by Nature in November 1995.[8]

Another study by Mann and Park raised a minor technical issue with a climate model about human influence on climate change: this was published in 1996. In the context of controversy over the IPCC Second Assessment Report the paper was praised by those opposed to action on climate change, and the conservative organisation Accuracy in Media claimed that it had not been publicised due to media bias. Mann defended his PhD thesis on A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system in the spring of 1996,[9][10] and was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences in the following year. He was granted his PhD in geology and geophysics in 1998.[1]

Michael E. Mann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now you two may have a third grade certificate. Between you. Dr. Mann certainly appears to have a rather impressive academic record, one far more impressive than his detractors.

 

[elektra]

Perhaps because the Earth is the lab. Why don't you have one single repeatable lab experiment to refute it?

^ Real science experiment replicating condition a nanosecond after the Big Bang

^ Ass hat Clown EnviroMarxists damaging the credibility of MIT with their fake, phony "Science"

Didn't the Democrats kill Science when they refused to build the World's Largest Particle Accelerator.

 

[elektra]

Doctoral and postgraduate studies[edit]
Mann then attended Yale University, intending to obtain a PhD in physics, and received both an MS and an MPhil in physics in 1991. His interest was in theoretical condensed matter physics but he found himself being pushed towards detailed semiconductor work. He looked at course options with a wider topic area, and was enthused by PhD adviser Barry Saltzmanabout climate modelling and research. To try this out he spent the summer of 1991 assisting a postdoctoral researcher in simulating the period of peak Cretaceous warmth when carbon dioxide levels were high, but fossils indicated most warming at the poles, with little warming in the tropics. Mann then joined the Yale Department of Geology and Geophysics, obtaining an MPhil in geology and geophysics in 1993. His research focused on natural variability and climate oscillations. He worked with the seismologist Jeffrey Park, and their joint research adapted a statistical method developed for identifying seismological oscillations to find various periodicities in the instrumental temperature record, the longest being about 60 to 80 years. The paper Mann and Park published in December 1994 came to similar conclusions to a study developed in parallel using different methodology and published in January of that year, which found what was later called the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation.[6]

In 1994, Mann participated as a graduate student in the inaugural workshop of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Geophysical Statistics Project aimed at encouraging active collaboration between statisticians, climatologists and atmospheric scientists. Leading statisticians participated, including Grace Wahba and Arthur P. Dempster.[7]

While still finishing his PhD research, Mann met UMass climate science professor Raymond S. Bradley and began research in collaboration with him and Park. Their research used paleoclimate proxy data from Bradley's previous work and methods Mann had developed with Park, to find oscillations in the longer proxy records. "Global Interdecadal and Century-Scale Climate Oscillations During the Past Five Centuries" was published by Nature in November 1995.[8]

Another study by Mann and Park raised a minor technical issue with a climate model about human influence on climate change: this was published in 1996. In the context of controversy over the IPCC Second Assessment Report the paper was praised by those opposed to action on climate change, and the conservative organisation Accuracy in Media claimed that it had not been publicised due to media bias. Mann defended his PhD thesis on A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system in the spring of 1996,[9][10] and was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences in the following year. He was granted his PhD in geology and geophysics in 1998.[1]

Michael E. Mann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now you two may have a third grade certificate. Between you. Dr. Mann certainly appears to have a rather impressive academic record, one far more impressive than his detractors.

Now Dr. Mann is known for falsifying Science.

 

[Old Rocks]

And you are known for lying. That puts your statement in context.

 

[elektra]

And you are known for lying. That puts your statement in context.

You are known for calling everybody liars, calling people, "dumb fucks" if you disagree. Me, I am known for starting a lot of threads showing Wind Turbines and Solar do not work and pollute the world. Hence, you attack me personally, and try to ignore my threads and context.

A man must know his limitations.

It is easy as pie, old crock

 

[Old Rocks]

Good. Then you have a lot to know.