Three days ago, Anthony posted a very factual summary of the recent EGU paper on the increase in Antarctic snowfall over the past 200 years:
Big increase in Antarctic Snowfall helps to prevent sea level rise
Earther, the folks who reported that Gorebal Warming is deforming the seafloor, have an interesting perspective of the EGU publication (including defamatory remarks about Anthony and WUWT in the first comment)…
SCIENCE
Antarctica Is Getting Snowier
Maddie Stone
Monday 3:50pm Filed to: ICE ON THIN ICE
The world’s largest hunk of ice, the Antarctic ice sheet, holds enough frozen water to put cities like Miami several hundred feet under. How much Antarctica shrinks in the future will depend on the balance between what’s melting away, and what’s being added when it snows.
A new study published in the journal Climate of the Past has some (small) good news as far as snowfall is concerned: it’s going up. Since the 19th century, snowfall across Antarctica has increased by about 10 percent. It isn’t nearly enough to offset sea level rise from ice melting, but the numbers are still impressive. As a press release points out, the continent is packing on about two Dead Sea’s worth of new ice each year.
“Our new results show a significant change in the surface mass balance (from snowfall) during the twentieth century,” lead study author Elizabeth Thomas of the British Antarctic Survey said in a statement.
[…]
So far, not too different than Anthony’s post… And then the wheels came off.
The dataset revealed that Antarctica gained 272 billion tons more ice per year in the first decade of the 21st century compared with the first decade of the 19th. Put another way, the additional snowfall has offset 0.02 mm of sea level rise per decade since 1800.
Since it’s unclear as to whether or not Antarctica is currently losing or gaining ice, largely due to glacial isostatic adjustment uncertainties, two Dead Seas worth of additional ice (on top of the 19th century accumulation rate) is a lot of fracking ice… If two Dead Seas worth of ice per year were disappearing from Greenland, it would be catastrophic according to the alarmists. We know this because Greenland is currently losing an estimated 186-375 billion tons of ice per year and this is described as catastrophic, despite its insignificance to the overall mass and volume of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS). In Greenland, our friends at Skeptical Science describe this as “ominous”…
In Antarctica, it’s described as “some (small) good news.”
One of the things I love about Alarmists Gone Wild is their total lack of perspective.
According to Kjeldsen et al., 2015, the GrIS lost over 9,900 km3 of ice from 1900-2010 and an article in The Economist asserted that the GrIS lost 375 Gt/yr (409 km3/yr) from 2011-2014.
| 1900–1983 | 75.1 ± 29.4 gigatonnes per year | |
| 1983–2003 | 73.8 ± 40.5 gigatonnes per year | |
| 2003–2010 | 186.4 ± 18.9 gigatonnes per year | |
| km³/yr | gigatonnes/yr | |
| 1900–1983 | (82) | (75) |
| 1983–2003 | (81) | (74) |
| 2003–2010 | (203) | (186) |
| 2011-2014 | (409) | (375) |
If the estimates above are correct, the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) lost 11,077 billion tons of ice from 1900-2014… 81 Dead Seas. In the first decade of the 21st century (2001-2010), the GrIS lost 1,639 billion tons of ice… 12 Dead Seas.
If Antarctica was gaining an additional 272 billion tons of ice relative to the 19th century, it gained an additional 2,720 billion tons of ice from 2001-2010, more than offsetting the loss from the GrIS. It’s almost as if the ice melted from Greenland and some mystical force (evapotranspiration) transported it to Antarctica and deposited it as snowfall.
Now back to Earther…
That’s tiny compared with the several millimeters a year of sea level rise coming from Antarctica’s melting ice each year, but it ain’t nothing.
“Several millimeters a year of sea level rise coming from Antarctica’s melting ice each year”… On what planet?
Tide gauge data put sea level rise in the neighborhood of 1.5 mm/yr. Satellite data puts it at 3.2 mm/yr.
adjective [not gradable ] US /ˈsev·rəl, -ər·əl/
(of an amount or number) more than two and fewer than many; some:
I’ve seen “Star Wars” several times.
Kind of difficult for melting ice from Antarctica to contribute “several millimeters a year” to 1.5-3.2 mm/yr of total sea level rise.
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report estimated that losses from glaciers and ice caps contributed 0.58 ± 0.18 mm yr-1 to sea-level rise from 1961 to 2003 and 0.77 ± 0.22 mm yr-1 from 1993 to 2003 (Bindoff et al., 2007), with the most rapid ice losses occurring in Patagonia, Alaska, northwest United States, and southwest Canada (Lemke et al., 2007). Uncertainties in the net loss rate were significant, however, because of sparse point observations and incomplete knowledge of global glacier area and volume distribution for upscaling point observations. On the Greenland Ice Sheet, the IPCC (2007) found that mass was gained at high elevations because of increasing snowfall, and mass was lost near the coast because of increases in melting and in the flow speed of outlet glaciers. The IPCC estimated that the Greenland Ice Sheet contributed 0.05 ± 0.12 mm yr-1 to sea-level rise from 1961 to 2003 and 0.21 ± 0.07 mm yr-1 from 1993 to 2003. Changes in Antarctica were more challenging to interpret because of the relatively small changes in snow accumulation rates (Monaghan et al., 2006) and to different trends in the flow of individual West Antarctic outlet streams. The IPCC estimated that the Antarctic Ice Sheet contribution was between -0.28 and +0.55 mm yr-1 from 1961 to 2003 and between -0.14 and +0.55 mm yr-1 from 1993 to 2003, allowing for the possibility that the Antarctic mass change may have reduced sea-level rise, especially prior to 1993 (Bindoff et al., 2007; Lemke et al., 2007). The rate of ice loss appears to have increased since 1993 because of increasing surface melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet and faster flow of some outlet glaciers in both Greenland and Antarctica.
The best recent estimate is that Antarctica is somewhere between gaining enough ice to lower sea level by as much as 0.14 mm/yr and losing enough ice to raise sea level by 0.55 mm/yr. So… “Several millimeters a year of sea level rise” are *not* “coming from Antarctica’s melting ice each year.”
Most of the extra snow has fallen on the Antarctic Peninsula, while a smaller amount accumulated on the much drier (but vaster) East Antarctic Plateau.
And this is a “good thing” because the Antarctic Peninsula is just about the only part of Antarctica experiencing a significant loss of ice mass.
On to the first comment to this article…
Earther should hire Anthony Watts:
Big increase is Antarctic Snowfall helps to prevent sea level rise
Is there a meeting between environmental and climate journalists each morning on which academic research should be dragged out of the bowels of academia?
Maddie, you saved yourself by calling up actual climate scientists to give the old, “so” quote. I like the one quote above which was something like, “so, higher temps mean more evaporation and precipitation.” Unfortunately, we’ll be hearing about this research as proof there is no climate change problem soon on the TV. Trump will divert science spending to border wall cement.
If anybody reading this doesn’t know already, Watts up with That is a climate change denial blog. Anthony Watts is a tool. He’s sort of changed the tone of the blog a bit to reflect the obvious. But it’s still bullshit. The comments are priceless for the linked post above.
Yes… Earther should hire Anthony Watts. His review of this study was not riddled with errors.
Let’s be honest here, the uncertainties in the measurement of the Antarctic ice cap dwarf the actual changes.
OK, this paper restricts itself to precipitation and so this paper is reasonable and adds to human knowledge.
But to then say how much precipitation affects sea level rise is a step too far.
Only one step too far?
“Since it’s unclear as to whether or not Antarctica is currently losing or gaining ice…”
Biased, out-of-date, cherry-picked, doubt-mongering rubbish.
From earlier this year at:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-study-brings-antarctic-ice-loss-into-sharper-focus
In all, the study found an overall ice discharge for the Antarctic continent of 1,929 gigatons per year in 2015, with an uncertainty of plus or minus 40 gigatons. That represents an increase of 36 gigatons per year, plus or minus 15, since 2008. A gigaton is one billion tons.
From GRACE data:
zazove, do you have a link to the paper? The link that I followed was just to a press release.
It seems to say that photos from the sky of the last three years show greater outflows than nine years ago.
But that can’t be the point.
-It doesn’t talk about the lower density additions from snow (precipitation); they will be less massive per height than ice but still add water.
-It doesn’t talk about the uncertainties in the measurement, as it is a press release rather than a scientific paper.
-It doesn’t talk about why variation within a decade can be considered as climate and not just the weather.
Seriously, do you have a link to the paper? I sincerely want to see it.
Thanks.
No, sorry, just the link above.
For zazove, we can mentally “screen shot” this exchange to consider credibility of all future comments (that is, no credibility). Accusing the author of cherry-picking, zazove produced info from a press release, never looked at the paper and has no idea how to find it. Zazove, we knew you were just tr0lling, but thanks for the confirmation.
Cherry picking a single source regarding a single year in an effort to accuse a broadly sourced assertion of uncertainty over a wide range of years of cherry picking… priceless.
Even more priceless… relying on GIA-adjusted GRACE data… when the major source of uncertainty is GIA.
Guys, That was too harsh.
He/She did provide a reference. It didn’t meet all my requirements but there was something.
Do not ‘pwn the noob’.
zazove was playing the game honestly. And it’s from an opponent that you can find out your own mistakes.
Be more welcoming.
Sometime, you can pretty well know the stock, while flux are such a mess it is hard to measure them. In such case, you estimate flux out of difference of stock.
Sometime, it is just the opposite.
Seems to me that precipitation comes from nowhere but the ocean, and reduce its level accordingly and straightforwardly.
AND, seems to me that current precipitation may have some impact on sea level increase only in quite a number of millennia
It doesn’t matter if we don’t know the current stock of ice over Antarctic.
“OK, this paper restricts itself to precipitation”……
and yet, it rained enough in 2010/11, in one small part of Australia, to lower sea level by 1/4 inch……
….I call BS on all of sea level rise
https://www.npr.org/2013/08/20/213577129/how-extreme-australian-rains-made-global-sea-levels-drop
That is a funny story, especially because all the rain in Australia eventually ends up back in the ocean. Unlike Antarctica and Greenland, where it gets locked up in icecaps.
“all the rain in Australia eventually ends up back in the ocean. ”
Doesn’t some of it get sequestered underground?
Australia has about 1/47th the area of the oceans. If volume of water flooding in Australia were actually equal to a quarter of an inch of sea level fall, that would equate to 12 inches deep uniformly over the entire country…I think we’d have noticed that.
Latitude, I was fortunate enough to fly over a vast tract of inland Australia within days of this flooding and it was quite a remarkable experience. For literally hours (till I got bored) I looked down at thousands of square miles of what is normally arid country, gleaming with surface water and lakes.
Some of that water made it back to the sea, much of it re-entered the atmosphere via evaporation but without doubt giga tonnes was sequestered in the water table.
I have no doubt that the same process (though in the form of ice) has happened recently in Greenland and happens regularly in Antarctica.
It certainly gets noticed and has been noticed for a long time as there is a well known poem written in 1908 about the flooding rain.
Heavy rains occur across Australia in the summer of an El Nino year. The difference in rainfall from year-to-year is significant. The linked table has the recorded data for 2010 for Charleville, located 600km from the east coast in southern Queensland:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=136&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=2010&p_c=-387584703&p_stn_num=044021
In 2010 that location received 650mm over 4 months Jan-Apr. In 2009 there was 68mm over the same period. In the El Nino years vast areas of the country end up with more than 1m of water over it as it settles out across the lower ground:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/262126-3×2-940×627.jpg
This is just what shows up on land. There would be more precipitable water as well that does not make it to the ground.
The satellite ocean level data typically shows a dip following an El Nino period:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
1998 is noticeable as are 2010 and 2016.
The poem even gets used in the Climate Change debate:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/mar/03/climate-change-australia-sunburnt-country-csiro
M Courtney, good of you to mention uncertainty, because the entire issue of sea level is one of uncertainty. The ocean floor, the basin containing the sea water, is undergoing tectonic deformation, a lot of volcanism, and sedimentation (now at a high-rate because the earth is in the inter-glacial phase of an Ice Age). Sea level is only important when it falls due to glacial phase or rises due to inter-glacial initial adjustment. What is normal sea level? Whatever the answer “static” is not it. Anthony is a bullshit tool? Sic your dog on this fool!
“Let’s be honest here, the uncertainties in the measurement of the Antarctic ice cap dwarf the actual changes.”
And that makes it just perfect for Alarmists to make wild exaggerations about what is happening. Alarmists claim certainty where there is no certainty.
That is really the point, isn’t it? when the change is less than the resolution on the measurement techniques, we really don’t know anything, do we?
That is a constant problem in measuring impacts with global warming – I keep seeing stuff in tenths of hundredths of a degree, when we are typically no measuring to that degree of accuracy.
My fellow Courtney: My concern is, how much of that 10% (10.023% if we average it) extra snow is actually falling directly into the ocean, raising sea levels by 1.7 gigadeadseas! Catastrophe! Doomed!!
sarc/off.
If they can estimate the sea level rise due to ice melt, they should also be able to do the reverse. And why shouldn’t that be a fairly straightforward calculation if one knows the surface area of the oceans?
The Earther story was totally wrong about the “several mm sea level.”
From the abstract:
” Our results show that SMB [snow mass balance] for the total Antarctic Ice Sheet (including ice shelves) has increased at a rate of 7 ± 0.13 Gt decade−1 since 1800 AD, representing a net reduction in sea level of ∼ 0.02 mm decade−1 since 1800 and ∼ 0.04 mm decade−1 since 1900 AD.”
David
“Yes… Earther should hire Anthony Watts. His review of this study was not riddled with errors.”
shouldn’t that be ‘fiddled’?
🙂
+1
+ 9409….. 😉
David, you need one of your referee picks with a comment about too many digits of accuracy.
I’d probably have to make that one up myself. Too many significant figures isn’t a logical fallacy, at least not one that I am aware of.
“Too many significant figures isn’t a logical fallacy, at least not one that I am aware of.” Isn’t it some kind of statistical error or math error?
It’s just something professors made up to take points off of otherwise correct answers… /Sarc
Perhaps to trash WUWT and its owner is an attempt to gain favor with her readers much like adding “climate change” to any article gains favor with many publications.
All this attention to ice, polar bears, sea level etc. seems like a lot of arm-waving to distract from the only variable that counts, and that is temperature. If global temperature isn’t rising at a rate faster than what could be expected during a natural climate warming spell, the CAGW hypothesis is falsified. So simple.
more like distract from the lack of tropospheric hot spot. that one single metric falsifies all the claims re global warming. it hardly gets a mention anywhere these days.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta
Keith, Sherwood’s “study” found the hot spot the same way Mann disappeared the MWP and LIA: weird statistical manipulation on dubious data created for the purpose. Nobody has even tried to duplicate wind-derived temperatures!
Two different conversations. Anthony explaining in an objective way about measured changes in snowfall. Others advertising catastrophe and using every propoganda trick they know. The others are like carnival barkers – noisy, hard to ignore, even somewhat entertaining, but their only goal is to empty your pockets. Anthony is trying to help us all understand nature and our part in it so we can maximize the enjoyment of being on this lovely planet.
You forget those two great Socialists, Lenin & Hitler, the first said “if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth!”. The second said “the mass of the people are more likely to believe a really big lie, than asmall one!”.
Hitler admired Marx and endorsed his Socialist tenets. His primary objection to Communism was that Marx was a Jew.
Ouch. That’s gotta hurt.
If nothing else, Earther should hire Mr. Watts to perform the simple arithmetic that the incumbents are apparently incapable of doing.
John, Earther is just a sub-blog for Gizmodo. Not only is Gizmodo a very leftist blog but it’s also an AGW echo chamber. Try posting a rebuttal to some of the AGW scaremongering and watch the abuse roll in. It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.
Funny you don’t see the irony in comments like this, Joz.
[The nods remind all readers and writers that subtle verbal and facial clues that are easy to see in verbal contacts, are not only invisible on the web, but often counter-intuitive to most readers. Make your sarcasm clear, End your sarcasm with the classic /sarcasm tag .mod]
Sea level rise is/was suppose to be almost entirely due to thermal expansion. Then the ice is suppose to slip off Antarctica The thermal rise is suppose to be the ” canary in the coal mine” . Which isn’t measured in mere millimeters. That’s how/why the predictions of ” Canal St. in NYC would be under 20 feet of water” were serious statements. And yes, if you do the IPCC math, it will give those results.
Global warming didn’t happen. And if it has, it hasn’t occurred at nearly the rate it was suppose to, to validate AGW theory. The only way it has been remotely the warmest years ever is by tweaking the data, which for all purposes is within the error bars, or should be.
Antarctica is well below freezing nearly everywhere nearly all of the time.
The word melt in various configurations appears several times in this thread and so far it seems that it is allowed to stand. Does ice actually melt in Antarctica? Or does it calve into the sea several years decades or centuries after it started out as snow?
Considering the length of time between falling as snow and calving into the sea, I doubt that the ice mass balance in Antarctica has much if anything to do with world temperature, except, as someone pointed out above, that a warmer world produces more precipitation.
Most of the ice mass loss is due to calving. A little bit of melting occurs on the Antarctic Peninsula.
And how much does that have to do with warmer global temperatures?
Absolutely nothing.
B I N G O !
Steve,
You are BINGOing a different question than the one initially asked.
initial question “Does ice actually melt in Antarctica?”
answer: yes
the question you then switched to when it was pointed out that, contrary to your initial premise, melting does occur in Antarctica: “And how much does that have to do with warmer global temperatures?”
answer: Absolutely nothing.
Let’s cut to the chase, my point is that I think that global temperatures have little or nothing to do with Antarctica’s contribution to changes in sea level.
If you think otherwise, well then, have a go at it.
I don’t disagree, neither does it appears David Middleton does based on his reply of “Absolutely nothing”. But that is not what you started the conversation with. It’s the shifting of the goal posts when your initial proposition was shot down that is worth “having a go” at. Had you lead with what you just posted, there would have been no issue. Why is that so hard for you to acknowledge and understand?
It’s also believed to melt from below but I’m not sure anyone has a handle on how much ice is lost this way. There are also many more active volcanoes under the ice than we previously suspected. I don’t believe anyone knows how those are affecting the ice from below because the discovery is still rather new.
It definitely melts from below, where the ice is >3.5 km thick…
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/antarctica/east-antarctic-ice-sheet/
Related, at WeatherBell this morning, Joe D had a nice post showing increased northern hemisphere winter snow & ice – both this winter & trend wise over decades. So, we have more snow in the Antarctic, more snow & ice in the northern hemisphere … but of course the warmists will spin it up that it is to be expected, despite them saying in the past that “kids won’t know what snow is” in the future. Yes, the science is quite settled, isn’t it?
Yep, no matter what happens, it’s global warming & it’s your fault [ sarc 🙂 ]
the snowdrops in my garden were 5 weeks later appearing this year compared to last year. they must have been hiding from the intensely high temperature here on the east coast of scotland 😉
I wonder if ‘Dense non aqueous phase liquid’ shed a little aqueous phase tear at the uplifting conclusion to ‘Denial’. The irony no doubt wooshing straight overhead.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4645330/
This would be alarming news if the Dead Sea contained any ice.
I wouldn’t trust Maddie Stone on anything climate related. I bust her chops all the time on Gizmodo because she’s so over the top biased. Of course, Gizmodo is almost a complete echo chamber for AGW. It would be nice to get some more folks posting over there when Maddie and crew are scaremongering, especially with some of the more technically minded folks around here.
if they are anything like the crew at sks these days it would be a waste of time. all the alarmist sites are now populated by utter fruitloops. if you want a laugh go and have a look at sks. most articles have 0 comments,the articles that do have comments they are not worth reading. complete and utter nonsense interspersed with non factual based claims.
“Unfortunately, we’ll be hearing about this research as proof there is no climate change problem soon on the TV.”
How twisted is it to proclaim that it is ‘unfortunate’ to find evidence that we don’t have a catastrophic climate crisis headed our way? Who thinks like this? Imagine a husband coming home from work in tears: “Honey…I am afraid I have awful news. I got a huge raise today and my doctor says I still don’t have a fatal disease!” This must be some sort of mental disorder.
Right “Honey, fortunately the doc says that I have a mental disorder. Thank goodness, I was worried there for a bit”.
A cult of opposition never gives ground to the Enemy, no matter how deranged it makes them sound to those denied the Vision.
Yep big thickening of sea ice underway.
At the same time the albedo if dropping.
Does this drop in albedo mean a drop in the fraction of open water within the pack.
There’s something wrong there. The chart apparently shows minimum albedo in winter.
Zero divided by zero is whatever you want it to be … then you average those hours into the rest … simple.
No sun during winter, Jorge.
Steve, that is interesting that this year is so different. I wonder why.
[??? .mod]
Geez, speaking of precipitation guess what is coming in off of the Pacific? You only get one guess. …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_cloud_water/orthographic=-128.04,36.41,672/loc=-129.443,42.984
Is that the Pineapple Express? There is a high-pressure circulation sitting next to a low-pressure circulation and it looks like moisture is being funneled between the two right to the West Coast.
It is too high for that, I think. This will be a cold rain. Whereas the last several storms were warm, and much further south as they came in. For example, I live approximately 100 miles inland from the coast. Look at the last 14 days of temp swings. I had to put my greenhouse cover back up to protect some of my trees. …http://www.intellicast.com/Local/ObservationsSummary.aspx?location=USCA0307
We are forecast for 60 today, 35 tomorrow in central Wyoming. The temperature swings are huge this winter and “spring” and the cold returns about once a week. It’s not that unusual, but we have not seen swings this large and frequenst for quite a while. (I’m going by memory—don’t have my temperature charts readily available.)
I know every time I go to the beach, I’m like, “DAMN! Look at the vast destruction that 1.2 extra millimeters has caused!”
Then we hop in my brother’s Z71 and do donuts until the police show up.
It is well known that donuts attract police.
I laughed at that one! 🙂
A guilty pleasure.
http://themetapicture.com/pic/images/2014/10/13/funny-police-car-box-donuts.jpg
In the 60+ years I’ve been watching the ocean I’ve yet to see any change in the level that I can spot with my eye.
Rocks that dried at low tide still dry at low tide. Piers that were above water at high tide are still above water at high tide.
Anyone else? If the sea is rising why can’t we see any changes? Why is wind driven storm surge presented as evidence of anything except storm surge?
We don’t “see” it because the waves, tides and other factors are several orders of magnitude larger than 1-3 mm/yr.
Ferd.
tide in Cape Horn )
tide out (North Cape )
Moon
Earthquakes
Weather
Etc
Flying from London (UK)to Auckland (NZ ) is a 24 hour +- flight @ 500 to 700 Km hour, OVER WATER
anything less than several meters would be very hard to detect .
ferdberple
frankly, no one should care even if sea level is rising. Other than,of course, the coastal and estuary dwellers who peeled the plum when it was ripe, and are scared its rotten before they can eat it.
Anyone stupid enough to live near water deserves all they get. One is either adrift, or swamped. In between is fleetingly profitable, but unsustainable.
Thanks Dave. “Earther” is one of those places that’s simply a breeding ground for SJW’s Facts and rationality don’t live there. Just look at the “JUSTICE” section from their website.
It’s unfortunate.
My pleasure Anthony. I love standing up for WUWT and, even more so, I love to ridicule the Alarmists Gone Wild crowd.
This one deserves ridicule.
I’ve been posting on Gizmodo for well over a decade and Earther is one of the recently created sub-blogs created from Gizmodo prime. When Maddie Stone first started there, it was obvious which way she leaned. I’ve asked her in the past if she really believed everything she was posting or if it was simply a position the people above her were wanting pushed. She never stooped to answer questions like this. Gizmodo has a sizable reach in readership, and as I said above, it would be nice if some of the more scientifically grounded here would show up every now and then and counter some of the things Maddie posts. I’ve made one “enemy” from someone who claims to be a friend to Mann. I only find that ludicrous because I have a difficult time believing anyone would ever be an actual friend to someone like him.
Side kick perhaps?
Mini-Mann. His costume is a cross between hockey team cheerleader and lumberjerk.
From the article: “The comments are priceless for the linked post above.”
Yeah, we think your comments are priceless, too. You should bring some of your expertise over to WUWT and educate us.
These people can’t engage in real dialogue. I see it all the time on other sites. They try for while, then devolve to name-calling and insults. Leave them in their “happy place” and not totally destroying any discussion over here.
Not to worry, Sheri. They are not going to come over and disrupt WUWT. They don’t have a valid argument to make, and they know it, so they will just lurk at WUWT, not comment.
TA
Vukevic (sp) makes an occasional foray with his Guardian articles.
What happened to Griff?
Speaking of Griff, I saw a post the other day on Tony Heller’s website by a Griff. I assumed it’s our Griff since he used to post over there a lot, too. So it looks like he is still alive and kicking.
Thanks for including that anonymous warmist comment to Maddie, David.
The last few decades have well demonstrated that the most vicious blood thirty creatures in the world are warmists hitting other warmists that have weakened or left the cause.
The contrast of Anthony’s factual un-editorialized summary vs. Ms. Stone’s error-riddled Op-Ed somehow elevates the irony of the obnoxious and uninformed comment.
Further evidence of “cult behavior”. Those that don’t believe are viewed as lower forms of life, ignorant of the Prophet AlGore’s saving Grace, and are not worth saving.
But those that bought into the “executive summary” headline story, but now are wavering or even leaving the cult, due to the lack of actual evidence, are heretics of the first order. They have to be denounced.
Aye, Russ!
The Spanish Inquisition began with identifying, exposing then punishing heretics. Torturing others and the Jewish came later.
The same with Roman persecution of Christians.
Romans were quite amenable to various religions in the countries the Romans conquered; well, they did expect conquered countries to allow and worship in temples to Roman deities.
What the Romans did not tolerate were heretics. Heretics were punished harshly. The early Christians were all considered heretics and thus fair game for fending off lions, leopards and whatnot at the local arena.
Roman soldiers, however, that witnessed the miracles that Christ performed, couldn’t deny his deity. They formed churches hidden in caves where they wouldn’t be found out.
“Trump will divert science spending to border wall cement.”
BEST idea I have seen to date!!!!
I thought he was going to get Mexico to pay for the wall?
Tax remittances?
NAFTA is being revised. Let’s see how many billions of dollars per year Trump makes the U.S. on that deal. If the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico is $70 billion annually, and Trump cuts it in half, then that’s $35 billion extra dollars for the United States which will generate extra tax revenues to the U.S. Treasury every year thereafter and will be more than enough to pay for the border wall.
TA
The Mexican wave (sorry, wall) just smacks of the cold war Berlin wall. As does Israel’s wall with Palestine.
I admire Trump (I’m one of a few Brits that do) but I’m not sure a world of walls is the answer to anything. I entirely subscribe to us being a tribal race, but wonder where this is going. France walled in from the rest of Europe, Germany demarcated by walls, Argentina……………etc. You get my point.
Meanwhile anyone can still lob the occasional nuke at anyone with a wall.
I’m not disagreeing with you. It just seems the strangest way of running a world considering we abandoned drawbridges and moats hundreds of years ago when the Trebuchet came along.
I do however, suspect, Trump is playing the long game. I don’t think he ever intended building a wall, at America’s, or anyone else’s expense. Just a means of scaring people to the negotiating table. Worked so far with N. Korea.
Unethical perhaps, but entirely effective.
HotScot, the Berlin wall was built to keep people in. The other walls are being built to keep people out.
Very, very, big difference.
Regardless, how do you propose protecting Israel from people who want to kill Jews?
TA every penny of that so called savings is going to be paid out of the pockets of citizens who don’t have enough political power to get special deals from politicians.
That comment about there being enough ice to put Miami under several hundred feet of water is so absurd. There is a very subtle implication that there is an imminent threat. So, let’s do some simple arithmetic…
Assuming the upper limit of 3.2 mm/yr is correct (we’ll throw them a bone), in 100 years, there would be 32 cm (0.32 m) of sea level rise, which equates to 12.60 inches. Little over one foot per century. After 1000 years, there would be 320 cm (3.2 m) of sea level rise, equating to 126 inches. 10.5 feet per millennium.
So even for 200 feet, which is not several, it would take 19 millennia at the current rate. 28.6 millennia for 300 feet. If the rate doubled, 14.3 millennia to rise 300 feet. Quadruple the rate, it will only take 7,150 years!
It is clearly time to panic.
I honestly can’t make it through an entire one of these articles any more. My hat’s off to those who can. For me, it actually become painful. Btw, has anyone alerted them tot he fact that over the past two years Greenland has also been gaining AND that sea levels have dropped in the past two years? Coincidence?
All what JUMPS OFF THE PAGE to me … is that early statement that …(paraphrased) “the world’s largest hunk of ice, the Antarctic ice sheet holds enough frozen water to put cities like Miami under 200 feet of water.” First: I would like to do the math on that, and Second: that kind of inflammatory statement is ALL that the dull witted public will remember. That CATASTROPHIC sea level rise is … possible … horrendous … and imminent!!! Aiieeeeeee!!! We’re ALL gonna DIIIEEEEEE!!!!!!!
Bottom line is “we don’t really know….but we’ll pretend we do.”
“…..The IPCC estimated that the Greenland Ice Sheet contributed 0.05 ± 0.12 mm yr-1….”
Well I am getting out of town before catastrophe strikes!
+0.05mm – 0.12mm = – 0 .07mm
There is a significant probability that the Greenland ice cap is sucking water out of the ocean and we’ll all be left low and dry
Just like the Bulltish they serve up with “record” highs by hundreths of a degree.
No error bars there I note??
Funny about that.
I am tipping the next IPCC report will not make the same blunder!!
What I want to know is: Which spell did Harry Potter use to get all that snow/ice from Greenland to Antarctica? Did he get help from Dumbledore?
Probably the one where the conjured water to give Dumbledore a drink wasn’t really there.
And murders
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3162520
The sea-floor has been deforming under the weight of extra water since the end of the last ice age. It’s sinking at about a millimetre a year, which is why comparisons of sea-level height at specific temperatures with the same thing thousands of years ago, are off by several metres.
If the seafloor is sinking 1 mm/yr since the end of the last Pleistocene glacial stage, it would have done the same during every previous Quaternary interglacial stage. GIA isn’t unique to the Holocene.
While there are some measurements of seafloor deformation, the 1 mm/yr figure is based on the rate of sea level rise not matching up with estimates of glacial ice melting and thermal expansion.
Yes, the sea-floor should indeed deform during every interglacial age. The semi-molten rock of the mantle bows down under the weight of the additional terratonnes of water.
You use of the subjunctive makes me think you believe it didn’t. What evidence lead you to that belief?
The rheology of the oceanic crust is not sufficiently known to assert any value for how much it deforms in response to glacial cycles.
The assertion of a specific value is based on sea level not rising as fast as they think it should be.
The asserted rate of seafloor subsidence is 0.1 mm/yr, not 1 mm.
This is the way the story was reported by the Earther idiot…
https://earther.com/climate-change-is-causing-the-seafloor-to-sink-1821632553
It’s written as if there is something unique about present day climate change.
Furthermore, sea level rise and fall has always been and always will be a combination of eustatic and isostatic processes. Seafloor subsidence can’t “be messing with our measurements of global sea level rise” because it’s integral to the process.