Antarctic Ice Melting from Warm Water Below

The coal industry has been doing that for hundreds of years. But Peabody & company replace canaries with human beings to do the dying.

 

In other news from the Earth is getting flatter by the day.

 

Quoting heartland, which is a paid coal, exxon & energy website, is a tipoff that you are repub & non-scientific (often a hi-skule graduate with no upper level chemistry, science, physics, astronomy, algebra & pre-calc classes).

The Antarctic was predicted by AGW in 2002 to INITIALLY increase in INTERIOR snow & ice AND sea ices. This prediction was reconfirmed in 2005 & your post indicates that it has come true, that the interior Antarctic has increased in snow & ice & Antarctic sea ices have increased.
Warmer Air May Cause Increased Antarctic Sea Ice Cover

Of course, Grace satellite observations indicate that warmer southern oceans have decreased total ice sheet masses, off-setting Antarctic increasing precipitations in the interior.

 

Definitely agree, the last time it took thousands of years, we should not expect it to happen fast this time.

You probably missed the Oy vey from zen, meaning he didn't agree with this statement. Exxon cut off funding to heartland because they put this crap out.
This doesn't look like anything big oil wants to touch, they have commercials for more science education.

Hey, we started to use the term climate change right? Right. AGW is so early two thousands. There is an ebb and flow to this stuff. GHG should increase precipitation in Antarctica, but that doesn't mean there is not a net melt of ice. In 2010 the sea levels fell and we presume there was more ice. The key here according those that study it was ENSO changing percipitation patterns. You can't just look at single years, that would be as wrong as only looking at sea ice. Heartland wants to just look at short term increases, that seem to not change the trend at all of sea levels risisng an average of 3.2 mm/year. Thermal expansion can not explain all of it, some must be comeing from the ice Right now most scientists think its about half. Its pretty easy to confirm when you look at the right stats.

 

As there is a lot of interest here in the WAIS, I offer link to a relatively early (1998) review of its structure and dynamics

http://www.blight.com/~sparkle/z3/global1.pdf

Any other suggestions, please add them, in case you might feel that the topic did not get a fair and balanced review by the director of the environmental defense fund

Without regard to that, I feel that I have a better general understanding of the WAIS from this review.

 

austingreen wrote:
Exxon cut off funding to heartland because they put this crap out.
This doesn't look like anything big oil wants to touch, they have commercials for more science education.
Quote:
The Antarctic was predicted by AGW in 2002 to INITIALLY increase in INTERIOR snow & ice AND sea ices. This prediction was reconfirmed in 2005 & your post indicates that it has come true, that the interior Antarctic has increased in snow & ice & Antarctic sea ices have increased.
Warmer Air May Cause Increased Antarctic Sea Ice Cover
Of course, Grace satellite observations indicate that warmer southern oceans have decreased total ice sheet masses, off-setting Antarctic increasing precipitations in the interior.
--------------------
Hey, we started to use the term climate change right? Right. AGW is so early two thousands.
///////////////////////
litesong wrote:
Its propaganda that exxon stopped funding repub conservative TV, radio & websites on AGW.

It was repub conservative adviser Frank Luntz in 2002 who said repubs, who are short on science, had to start calling AGW by the term Climate Change. Just because science minority repubs try to redefine science, doesn't mean scientists, who have 10-12+ more years of science education have to do what science short repubs do. You're just trying to solidify repub conservative opinion positions on science.

 

But if you're quoting Heartland and making fun of it, that would mean something quite different.

You're new here, but perhaps before you go shooting your mouth off, you should take better aim.

 

I follow sourcewatch. Who are your sources that say exxon is still funding heartland? They don't want anything to do with it now. They also were not on the leaked documents, which should be pretty strong evidence. Exxon doesn't want this crap out there.

Heartland Institute - SourceWatch

Really? Climate Scientists are the ones that are calling it climate change. The term global warming does not account for the changes in precipitation and uneven warming. When we are talking about the ice, both precipitation patterns and melt mechanisms are important. Do you hate republicans so much that you will stick to a poor term. It seems you are the one being unscientific here. Really the science of climate change should not be a republican democratic issue.

 

austingreen wrote:
I follow sourcewatch. Who are your sources that say exxon is still funding heartland?
///////////////
litesong wrote:
Freddy the Singing bandit & head honcho for heartland, personally admitted Exxon was paying him. Besides exxon is powerful enough to cover any tracks they make in the mud....... unless someone raids heartland computer banks...... which they did.

That you are posting to complain about me talking about the heartland-exxon AGW denial connection, says more about you than me.

 

austin green wrote:
Climate Scientists are the ones that are calling it climate change.
/////////////////
litesong wrote:
Climate Scientists call it climate change, sometimes AGW. That you complain about me calling it AGW, shows the repub side you're on.
///////////////
austingreen wrote:
The term global warming does not account for the changes in precipitation and uneven warming. When we are talking about the ice, both precipitation patterns and melt mechanisms are important.
///////////////
litesong wrote:
AGW is behind the complex but non-cyclical mechanisms interacting with GHGs CO2, methane, nitrous & nitric oxides, SF6, etc. causing ultimate warming & extra energy in earth's air, water & land.
//////////////////
austingreen wrote:
Do you hate republicans so much that you will stick to a poor term.
/////////////////
litesong wrote:
As a member of Native Tribes, I don't much care for egotistical euros & transplanted euros(americans). repubs are particularly prone to egotistical braying about science when the majority do not have a background in science or mathematics..... even a 'hi skule deegreee' with upper class chemistry, science, astronomy, algebra or pre-calc.
////////////////////
austingreen wrote:
Really the science of climate change should not be a republican democratic issue.
///////////////////
litesong wrote:
Twenty years ago, dems & repubs were much closer on AGW than they are now. With energy, coal, & exxon money poured into conservative repub TV, radio, & websites, repubs dramatically moved away from democrats on AGW.

repubs took energy, coal, & exxon money & ran with it into the halls of congress.

 

You might sound a little more intelegent if you actually could use quotes and facts. Instead since I corrected your falsehood about exxon funding the current heartland campaign, you decide I'm the enemy. Doesn't the truth mean anything to you?

I am not sure what your trying to prove. My post was that even exxon had distanced itself from heartland. Heartland is way out on the fringe. Heartland went further once exxon stopped funding it, and even the leaks confirm this. So why do you want to continue pressing the point? Do you want every one to be scared of you calling them names? It makes no sense.

 

I really dont think the oil industry cares about global warming legislation.
If their costs go up ,they make even bigger profits.
Coal industry is another matter.But I would guess they have already resigned to obsolescence and exporting to China.
Anyway Heartland isnt funded by oil money.
Just because you hear a lie repeatedly ,then you repeat it repeatedly,doesnt make it true.
Gleick the thief who stole the Heartland memos,uses that lie repeatedly in his spiel.
Then after he steals the memos and realizes he was wrong ,he (or someone who writes like him) forges a fake memo that reinforces his lie.
What a sick idiot.
Gleick also espouses the "consensus" meme which is the lamest argument to be made ,(even if it were true).
But my post is about why Republicans hate AGW legislation.
Im a lifelong Democrat BTW.
They obviously dislike additional taxes.So what else is new?
But they also see the UN IPCC as the crux of a burgeoning world government.
The IPCC wants a few % of annual Gross World Product as a carbon tax.
They want a standing army to defend against "climate change " political upheavals.
This is not a good scenario .
"New World Order " makes me want to puke.

 

Their largest donor is unexposed so far. The jury is out.

The HI is a for hire propaganda agency for AGW denialist kooks (when they are not protecting tobacco,) but I do wonder how much influence they have in the right wing. If I were to go by the nonsense people like Mojo come up with I'd have to say considerable, if HI was the reason.

I noticed in the leaked documents that HI is still planning to again tell its readership that CO2 rise is good for the planet, because plants grow better.

 

It happens to be a fact,but dont let that deter you.

 

Plants respond positively to CO2 and light and water and nutrients and temperature, within ranges that 'they like'.

Plants respond negatively to herbivory, disease and competition.

There is a great deal of research in these areas, and their interconnections. All for free at your local library.

Who knows what subset or spin appears in youtube videos or affinity websites? Surely not I. Yeah, I know its easier to watch videos than to read the science.

But don't let that deter you.

 

As we await responses from the ice-core scientists I am contacting, and those who mojo may be contacting, we might take a look at a related issue.

The topic motivating the emailing above is whether we can know from ice-core paleotemperature proxies if temperatures over the past 10,000 years were higher than current. Or, same, or lower, or if we cannot conclude either way. I happen to think it is a very good question and I thank mojo for sending us in this direction.

Meanwhile, we can look for other evidence eh? A higher earlier temperature would have led to more melting of land ice then. Higher sea level then, or so I would reason. A fine 'smoking gun'.

One sea-level reconstruction is here

Fileost-Glacial Sea Level.png - Global Warming Art

with references to the data sources, which is always nice

So, no smoking gun as above. Perhaps there are other sea-level reconstructions we show also be cond\sidering?

 

So for the past 14,000 years seas have risen 120 meters.
A lot of ice melted to cause that rise.

Since we know Antarctica and Greenland ice core sites are 800,000 years old ,we can surmise that those sites could not have melted during previous interglacials.
The previous interglacials were much warmer than today.
So that tends to imply that even if the Earth warms to the the temp of previous interglacials or even only as high as the temp of the past 10,000 years,Antarctica and Greenland will not melt in the areas of the core drilling.
Add to that the continents rise 2mm each year due to lack of the weight of miles of ice(according to NOAA)
Its a no brainer that there cannot be a sea level catastrophe.

 

AGW related sea level rise does not have to beat pre-history to be catastrophic. The rate of change is dramatically different, and human population/capital present today on the coastlines that will flood is a wee bit different than the past.

No brainer, indeed.