As many know, Mr. Obama made some wild claims about climate at the recent U.S. Coast Guard Academy commencement.
For example:
The world’s glaciers are melting, pouring new water into the ocean. Over the past century, the world sea level rose by about eight inches. That was in the last century; by the end of this century, it’s projected to rise another one to four feet.
Rick McKee shares this epic cartoon on the WUWT Facebook page:
Further reading:
Does the ‘leader’ of the free world really know so little about climate?
Some pushback against Obama’s ridiculous climate remarks at the Coast Guard commencement
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Southern ice mass change is indefinite enough that you can support your vision and others, other views, but again, you stumble over attribution.
=================
You would seem a lot more sensible if you talked about glaciers calving at the South Pole instead of melting. Yeah, yeah, I knew you meant ‘Antarctica’ not the ‘South Pole’.
Martin van Etten; please be more accurate.
=================
Kim, ventures into the deep waters.
You’ll learn to avoid the sharks jaws.
@ur momisugly kim
you should start to read:
in May 25, 2015 at 3:35 am it said ‘Dynamic thinning of glaciers on the Southern Antarctic Peninsula’
thinning is melting not calving;
see also image with 2nd and 3rd item (May 21 st) on http://www.zeeburgnieuws/nieuws/kv_antarctica_bedreigd.html
maybe this helps you to understand the matter;
@ur momisugly kim
“Is that your proposed mechanism for the recent increased”
no kim, it is to show you that you can have less tasteless cartoons concerning this matter;
Taste is individual, accuracy universal. I’m glad you didn’t try to defend your cartoon’s truth.
=============
sorry kim, this is better: http://www.zeeburgnieuws.nl/nieuws/kv_antarctica_bedreigd.html
Sure, vulcanism on the Palmer Peninsula. Is there more glacier loss in Antarctica from thinning(melting) or from calving?
===================
@Kim
you are right! this vulcanism also worries me very much; this is extra melting next to the effect of warm seawater we were talking about;
@ur momisugly kim
you did not confirm that you did read this:
“Growing evidence has demonstrated the importance of ice shelf buttressing on the inland grounded ice, especially if it is resting on bedrock below sea level. Much of the Southern Antarctic Peninsula satisfies this condition and also possesses a bed slope that deepens inland. Such ice sheet geometry is potentially unstable. We use satellite altimetry and gravity observations to show that a major portion of the region has, since 2009, destabilized. Ice mass loss of the marine-terminating glaciers has rapidly accelerated from close to balance in the 2000s to a sustained rate of –56 ± 8 gigatons per year, constituting a major fraction of Antarctica’s contribution to rising sea level. The widespread, simultaneous nature of the acceleration, in the absence of a persistent atmospheric forcing, points to an oceanic driving mechanism. ”
from close to balance (with the vulcano) to minus 58 gigatons per year because of an oceanic driving mechanism….
here is the rest, also very interesting:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6237/899.full
So a half a decade of study of a local oceanic effect, notably unspecified. It’s funny, if you take ‘ice’ out of ‘noticeably’, you get ‘notably’. I hope you like that.
How much southern loss from melting by whatever name, and how much from calving? Sounds to me like the danger specified there is from the deepening slope inland, and wild card volcanoes. I swim happily through your oceanic effect, knowing it has and will vary.
================
Here’s the sad thing; he could be providing perspective. What do we get instead? A tasteless cartoon of expertise.
Really oughta clean up your act. You could, you know.
===========
@Kim
I realy have to apologize that I am not a native english speaker; so I find it difficult to decide whether your thoughts on noticeably and notably have some deeper meaning;
I would like you to stick to the more scientific language and conclusions of the science article, that is easier for me to understand;
that you will “swim happily through your oceanic effect, knowing it has and will vary,” is up to you, what intrests me is the cause of this variation, not that it varies, that is obvious since the time of Louis Agassiz;
Yes, and what might suggest to you that the cause is anthropogenic, or am I extending your thoughts further than do you?
Your English is fine. Mine is variant.
===================
@ur momisugly kim May 27, 2015 at 10:57 am
“that the cause is anthropogenic”
sometimes, yes (anthropogenetic global warming), sometimes it is natural variation (Agassiz);
OK, now that we’ve belaboured the obvious, let’s get back to how much from calving and how much from melting, and uh, oh how similar the both do look.
==============
And since sea level rise rate remains the same, why make such a big deal of this local, short term effect, the cause of which we’ve most likely nothing to do with?
Perspective, man. We could use a little of it from an expert.
========================
@ur momisugly kim
I was not realy discussing the matter of ice melting; that subject was brought up by dbstealey who now left the discussion;
my aim was to to ask for an apology for the publication of a tasteless cartoon that was offending me and others; see my entry of May 24, 2015 at 9:23 am;
instead I got some kind of a one sighted discussion, and not an apology;
this last point realy disturbs me because I don’t see why you sceptics, deniers or wahtever you are called or are calling yourselfs feel free to offend people that have different thoughts on subjects in the natural environment;
that is the problem, not the balance between calving or melting;
so please answer the question whether is is normal to compare so called sea level alarmists to ISIS fundamentalism or not;
why they are portrayed as ‘christians’ with crosses and why Obama is helped by this man in black ready to cut throats;
and why this Watts is calling this cartoon an ‘epic’ cartoon;
thes are my REAL questions as I explained before;
Let me give you some useful advice: Give us some useful advice.
====================
Martin van Etten
You ask
I am a Christian and a climate realist; i.e. I am a Christian who accepts the climate data from the real world.
I can only answer for myself and – like you – I cannot speak for others.
My answers to your questions are:
I do not know if it is “normal” to compare so called sea level alarmists to ISIS fundamentalism, but it is appropriate. And the alarmists fare badly from such a comparison.
It is a fact that Christians are among those being killed by ISIS (although ISIS is killing more Muslims than Christians).
The cartoon does NOT show “Obama is helped by this man in black ready to cut throats”. It shows President Obama being concerned at putative and trivial sea level rise while ignoring the “man in black” who represents ISIS. Indeed, that is clearly the point of the cartoon.
The cartoon is correct and your strange interpretation of it is mistaken, especially in light of the history of ISIS which was created by the Western World, the NATO alliance and the US. President Obama is the main leader of the Western World, the NATO alliance and the US.
Please try to ask sensible questions in future.
Richard
Advice for the little chirrun: Dawn is a trigger warning.
Hey, if you take ‘ice’ out of ‘advice’ you get ‘adv’ which is an English abbreviation of ‘advertisement’. I hope you like that.
============
kim
I cannot “like” or dislike something I don’t understand.
Richard
If you take ‘ice’ out of ‘entice’ you get ‘ent’, and if it’s moving, beware.
====================
Martin says:
…dbstealey who now left the discussion
You sound hopeful about that, Martin. But I’m still here.
First, about the cartoon: I like it. It makes a good point. As they say, your mileage may vary (YMMV). To each his own, etc. But there is certainly no need for Anthony to apologize for publishing it. YMMV.
Next, skeptics are not “deniers”. That is deserving of an apology from you, because equating those you disagree with as being Holocaust deniers is unacceptable.
Finally, you ask…
…whether is is normal to compare so called sea level alarmists to ISIS fundamentalism or not… and why this Watts is calling this cartoon an ‘epic’ cartoon…
Martin,
IMHO, it is normal to compare them. The only difference is in the matter of degree. It is a fact that ISIS is slaughtering Christians because of their faith, and it is a fact that many climate alarmists are calling for the imprisonment (or worse) of those they disagree with.
Unless you have no problem with that, don’t you think it is you who owes an apology? Not that I expect an apology from you; I don’t. But your thin-skinned concern over a cartoon puts you on the same level as perenially ‘concerned Muslims’.
@ur momisugly stelely May 29, 2015 at 9:38 am:
“You sound hopeful”
not at all, I thought it was quite impolite to leave the discussion not answering my critic remarks (you are still not doing, stealey)
second to that: you like the cartoon? that’s up to you, there seem to be ‘christians’ here that also like the cartoon;
well, I think its inapropriate, I think it illustrates some kind of fundamentalism attitude you can feel everywhere in this website;
“it is you (me) who owes an apology?”
this is turning the world upside down! its not me who started the insulting;
not being able to apologize for smearing climate’alarmists’ says something about you;
stealey: I critisized you for introducing the wrong images into the discussion (sea ice AREA while talking about VOLUME), well where is your ‘defense’ for doing so, you are avoiding an answer!, are you still going to explain why you are trying to mislead me and other readers here?;
holocaust…! you compare yourself to holocaust victims??? you are giving yourself to much credit..!
you are just a last pocket of resistance against the science of climatechange…
go on, walk freely around, shout it from the rooftoops, we are not going to put you in jail, we are only commenting and putting your remarks in perspective;
go ahead if you don’t see your are loosing ground…
you call this a ‘wild claim’:
“The world’s glaciers are melting, pouring new water into the ocean. Over the past century, the world sea level rose by about eight inches. That was in the last century; by the end of this century, it’s projected to rise another one to four feet.” (beginning of the article)
please do calculate that 3.4 mm sea level a year now, is MORE than one feet a century;
please do know that that Dutch sea level specialists (- 50 % of our country is below sea level -) for years allready count with at least 0.85 – 1.50 * in 2100 if nothing is done to the man mad global warming;
you can deny all these facts about but sea level rise but I rather trust our professors and specialists than some anonymi as stealey, kim or courtney, not to mention the initiators of this discussion here, some Rick McKee and mr. Anthony Watts;
* see my article http://www.zeeburgnieuws.nl/nieuws/kv_nederland_onder_water_001.html
unfortunately for you only in Dutch- but based onthe AR 4 section on sea level rise, Stern review and Pik calculations by Rahmstorf in the respected realclimate.org blog;
the basic calculation here is this:
59 + 20 + 20 = 99 centimeter
59 AR4
20 because of expected temp rise until 2100
20 because of the melting of Greenland (not in the 59 cm from the AR4
PS: in redoing the calculation, I see now that I made a mistake in 2007:
59 + 20 + 20 = 99 centimeter
should be read as
59 + 20 + 29 =108 centimeter
that is 29 cm for the melting of ice on Greenland + Antarctica
it’s not the full four feet (122 cm), on that I can agree with you;
MY conclusion those days was: “one meter or even more sea level can be extected until 2100” seems still to be correct as is the Obama claim;
Someone clue him in that it’s freezing back up.
==========
@ur momisugly kim
the 59 cm is a result of the melting of glacier ice and other processes, not related to the southpole; this is of course mentioned in the AR4 sea level rise section;
start reading;
in the desert, where the cartoon (and the sea level rise) are situated, it is not freezing: see the picture on top of this page;
Maybe not, Martin, but you’ve failed to show that the decline in Southern Ice, whether by dehiscence, thinning, melting, or calving has changed from its natural variability, nor have you shown locales where accumulation is occurring.
Even were there definitive proof of man-caused dangerous melting, what could you do about it short of a crash nuclear regimen to replace fossil fuel power generation? One perhaps overhasty from exaggerated fears of melting.
Without attribution you have an extremely weak case for action. Even with attribution to man, you must show the effect to be dangerous, and a cost effect method to avert the danger.
So please, less with the cartoonish outlook; it’s tasteless.
===========
@Kim
“Even with attribution to man, you must show the effect to be dangerous, and a cost effect method to avert the danger.”
all too easy people forget that we live below sea level and that the Dutch are paying allready billions to keep the water out;
any sea level rise will cost us much more extra;
Imagine had your Dutch ancestors appealed to modern methods to moderate sea level rise.
==========
Heh, like appealing to the guilty consciences of their cousins ‘crost the North Sea.
That would have helped at a particularly high tide.
But, carry on.
=======================
@Kim
“you’ve failed to show that the decline in Southern Ice has changed from its natural variability”
please study
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter04_FINAL.pdf (page 352)
one of the graphs shown there you can also sea on my website:
http://www.zeeburgnieuws.nl/index.html#kengetallen
@ur momisugly kim [sea=see]
although in Dutch, this article gives a lot of answers and references on the decline in Southern Ice:
https://klimaatverandering.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/whats-up-met-de-ijskap-van-antarctica/
regards;
over and out;
@Kim: “nor have you shown locales where accumulation is occurring”
see:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50559/abstract
Sorry, no change from natural variability, no acceleration of sea level rise, no danger except to those distracted and distracting from the encroaching problem.
==============
Sorry, Marten, you’re an alarmist grasping the wrong end of the stick with which to beat the problem. Sure, you and I have different understandings of the meanings and the tastefulness of this cartoon.
======================
Sorry, ‘Martin’. All the e’s in ‘Etten’ distracted me.
==========
@ur momisugly kim,
sorry kim, stop writing! I concluded that it is useless to communicate with you, so I wrote:
regards;
over and out;
in radio language this means: finito la comedia!
agree?
over and out!
I appreciate that the Dutch are aiding the Bengalis with some of the problems of estuary and delta change as land and sea settle and rise.
In some situations, yours may be one, it is inevitable that sea barriers must gradually be built higher, thicker, and wider, and that has been so for a long time.
Were I in your situation, and faced with what you fear, I’d consider moving. It is poignant to consider giving up one’s home sweet home, though, and you do have my sympathy.
In fact, I believe you can relax, and adapt; we’ve time.
================