Ice Options

[jstcrsn]

I thought ice was melting , thats not what NASA says https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-s...ter-than-losses


chip , chip , chip

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Jun 17 2017, 10:39 PM

[klasaine]

Well, there is this paragraph in your own link ...

“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

And this one ...

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

The disagreement is the location of the melt and the time line and though that particular paper was 'posted' on line in 2015 with an update in 2016 - the data is from the period of 1992 to 2008.
That main increase recorded is from 1992 to 2001 with the net gain slowing from '03 to '08.

But ice melt and sea level rise is not only about Antarctica.
Here are some more current NASA sea data sheets.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/2...ther-record-low
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-s...antarctic-gains
As of March 22nd, 2017: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/s...s-at-both-poles
The Arctic ice is at it's lowest in the 38 years since they've been doing satellite mapping.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/03/...-at-record-low/

And then there's Greenland ... https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/09/gree...ou-should-care/
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/gre...enland-meltdown

Nothing contradictory here. The papers detail different areas of the globe over varying time periods. There are discrepancies and disagreements about how much, exactly where and how long but not about the fact that it is happening and that it's getting worse and hence becoming potentially more difficult to abate.

Good science is about constantly tweaking the effects and outcome with the acquisition of new data.
It's like playing guitar. You learn a new technique or concept and you apply it to the other things you already know ... and you get better. Theoretically.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by klasaine: Jun 18 2017, 07:33 AM

[jstcrsn]

[i]But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and

but it "might " is not science , not enough to keep third world nations poor because of our need to police the world , IMO

Good science is about constantly tweaking the effects and outcome with the acquisition of new data.
It's like playing guitar. You learn a new technique or concept and you apply it to the other things you already know ... and you get better. Theoretically.

I agree , it just seems everyone says the debate is over , and with every bit of new data , saying its over would lead me to believe a person would bias the new data to reach their conclusion .

But ice melt and sea level rise is not only about Antarctica.
Here are some more current NASA sea data sheets.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/2...ther-record-low
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-s...antarctic-gains
As of March 22nd, 2017: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/s...s-at-both-poles
The Arctic ice is at it's lowest in the 38 years since they've been doing satellite mapping.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/03/...-at-record-low/

question . What is the optimal ice sheet level for planet earth ?

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Kristofer Dahl]

Jstcrsn - even if you don't agree with science about climate change (which you're entitled to) - what's your incentive to argue?

It's not like greenhouse gas emission makes anybody happier anyway?

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[jstcrsn]

Jstcrsn - even if you don't agree with science about climate change (which you're entitled to) - what's your incentive to argue?

It's not like greenhouse gas emission makes anybody happier anyway?

Todd has pm ed me twice as to why I think the way I think . I said I answer in a thread . I will keep videos off if you feel it necessary but thought the only way is to list the science I have . Is it not fair to be skeptical when some one says seas will rise and flood coastal cities if the caps melt and then I read NASA l saying the antarctic is compensating along with in the other thread the swedish institute say they reclassified the melting and gave us extra decades. Now just between those 2 stories (to me ) warrant not going overboard .

Now when you say " climate change " and that I deny it , Thats wrong , I don't . I am very skeptical of ' act now or we die science ' because governments only give monies to problems and scientists can be as unethical of the rest of us. A scientist in the 80's was warning policy makers of climate freezing , fast forward a few decades , same person in obamas admin claiming global warming , that didn't work so now it comes to us in the package of climate change . I guess fool me once shame on you , fool me twice shame on me . I guess that's why it seems the older generations are more of my mindsets , but I tell you this , once you been burned , you will be skeptical .

can I ask you a question . When I bring a video of Dr. Roy spencer ( head of Alabama U climatology )giving his science , Why do you just throw it out the window , He is the one that NASA gets many of there maps from and he was just saying they are reading the data wrong ?

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Todd Simpson]

It looks like CRSN sort of answered the why. He basically said that the minority scientific view moved him. Hmm. Really? I guess the follow up is, what about the minority scientific view moved you to agree? Reading back through the threads, the very things you referenced seemed quite thin in terms of their support for your side of the argument. Indeed, I remember pointing out one of them actually completely discounted your argument and I quoted from the article you provided. You do seem simply attached to this idea on a very personal level for some reason, and that's what is the most baffling. That's what I'm really curious about. What it is about agreeing with the scientific consensus that concerns you?

You mention, poverty. How does agreeing that climate change is real and wrecking the planet equate to putting people in poverty?

Is it the fear of govt money going toward this and not toward something else? What lies at the very root of your attraction to the minority view on this? Can we at least all accept that you hold the minority view in scientific terms? If we can't agree on terms, it's tough to agree on anything.

Todd

I thought ice was melting , thats not what NASA says https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-s...ter-than-losses


chip , chip , chip

. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of at least this question

Todd

Jstcrsn - even if you don't agree with science about climate change (which you're entitled to) - what's your incentive to argue?

It's not like greenhouse gas emission makes anybody happier anyway?

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 19 2017, 01:57 AM

[jstcrsn]

. What it is about agreeing with the scientific consensus that concerns you?





Todd

consensus never put a man on the moon , so yes , when I hear science talking of a consensus I am skeptical ( what put a man on the moon was newtons scientific calculations that were so precise, fact , not consensus


why do you disregard the ICCC over 300 scientists all gathering to discuss some , little or no effect of co2 , Ocean acidification or warmer weather patterns.

And no one has told what the perfect average temperature of the earth needs to be , because before you can tell me whats to warm , I need scientific prove what nominal

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[fkalich]

You obviously did not read the entire article.

"But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away, Zwally said. But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

I will add that there is a major misconception that temperature increases in this century will be fairly uniform. Antarctica is not projected to be a region as dramatically hit by increases as others. If the ocean currents cease to flow due to the melting artic ice the English and Scandinavians are going to experience much colder weather. Below is a map with projections. These of course assume the ocean currents will continue to flow. That is a matter of dispute, but certainly there have been times in Earth's history when they ceased to flow. Note that continental temperatures will increase much more than in the Oceans. So what ever the global increase is, the effect will be much more drastic than one might assume, as most of us do not live in the oceans.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by fkalich: Jun 19 2017, 07:20 AM

[jstcrsn]

You obviously did not read the entire article.

"But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse,

]

I have already answered the " but it might argument " to me it sounds like someone not wanting to loose their funding , but that withstanding , it goes to show this debate is far from over because it proves at anytime new data can be received that shows positions need to be reviewed.

I actually reside in the middle of this argument . I have trouble understanding how are waste could not affect this world , but it seems all I have time to do is try to talk down the disaster preachers

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Jun 19 2017, 10:49 AM

[Todd Simpson]

So then is it really just an article of faith with you? A simple belief that the folks who think the way you think on this issue must be right because they all roughly agree on many things you happen to agree with that sorta line up with a roughly "Right" leaning thought process and agenda? It's not really about facts, or consensus. For you its' just a suspect proposition that somehow smacks of folks wanting to raise taxes, soak up federal funding, and kill jobs basically?

I have already answered the " but it might argument " to me it sounds like someone not wanting to loose their funding , but that withstanding , it goes to show this debate is far from over because it proves at anytime new data can be received that shows positions need to be reviewed.

I actually reside in the middle of this argument . I have trouble understanding how are waste could not affect this world , but it seems all I have time to do is try to talk down the disaster preachers

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[jstcrsn]

So then is it really just an article of faith with you? A simple belief that the folks who think the way you think on this issue must be right because they all roughly agree on many things you happen to agree with that sorta line up with a roughly "Right" leaning thought process and agenda? It's not really about facts, or consensus. For you its' just a suspect proposition that somehow smacks of folks wanting to raise taxes, soak up federal funding, and kill jobs basically?

no, it's science as well . you did not think I could find 3 peer reviewed papers arguing against climate alarmist , I found 500 peer reviewed which you dismissed . o here is a new article stating there have been over 1000 peer reviewed papers in the last three years that alarmists are just that , http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/04/100...astrophysicist/

Here is list on Wikipedia signed scientist ( with their credential and some accomplishments ) that disagree with your assessment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming

and a forbes article stating more than half of scientists skeptical of global warming crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming

chip , chip , chip

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Jun 20 2017, 11:56 AM

[Kristofer Dahl]

Todd has pm ed me twice as to why I think the way I think . I said I answer in a thread . I will keep videos off if you feel it necessary but thought the only way is to list the science I have . Is it not fair to be skeptical when some one says seas will rise and flood coastal cities if the caps melt and then I read NASA l saying the antarctic is compensating along with in the other thread the swedish institute say they reclassified the melting and gave us extra decades. Now just between those 2 stories (to me ) warrant not going overboard .

Now when you say " climate change " and that I deny it , Thats wrong , I don't . I am very skeptical of ' act now or we die science ' because governments only give monies to problems and scientists can be as unethical of the rest of us. A scientist in the 80's was warning policy makers of climate freezing , fast forward a few decades , same person in obamas admin claiming global warming , that didn't work so now it comes to us in the package of climate change . I guess fool me once shame on you , fool me twice shame on me . I guess that's why it seems the older generations are more of my mindsets , but I tell you this , once you been burned , you will be skeptical .

can I ask you a question . When I bring a video of Dr. Roy spencer ( head of Alabama U climatology )giving his science , Why do you just throw it out the window , He is the one that NASA gets many of there maps from and he was just saying they are reading the data wrong ?

Not sure what you are talking about - we have to act now or we will die. There is nowadays almost complete consensus among respected scientists - and the only reason we allow you to post your disconnected opinion here is because we value freedom of speech.

The reason I do not view any of your suggested links/videos anymore is because you have proven time after time you do not exercise source criticism - and when you do stumble over a valid article, you seem to miss the point anyway.

Now forgive me for sounding harsh - but the opinion you are pushing here is a direct threat to the survival of yours and my children. So unless you can actually answer my question through your own analysis without pasting links - there is a major risk I will close this thread.

And just to clarify - everytime we post a link here we do give it a push in search engines - and as you can understand I do value the life of my kids higher than your right to vent extreme opinions about climate change here. Hence my threat of closing this thread.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[jstcrsn]

Now forgive me for sounding harsh - but the opinion you are pushing here is a direct threat to the survival of yours and my children. So unless you can actually answer my question through your own analysis without pasting links - there is a major risk I will close this thread.

I think your question was " It's not like greenhouse gas emission makes anybody happier anyway?", to answer that I need to know what the optimal level ( parts per million ) of green house gases , that the earth needs to be for the best Plant . animal , human experiences , since my science is so disconnected, is it not fair to ask for yours ?

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Kristofer Dahl]

I think your question was " It's not like greenhouse gas emission makes anybody happier anyway?", to answer that I need to know what the optimal level ( parts per million ) of green house gases , that the earth needs to be for the best Plant . animal , human experiences , since my science is so disconnected, is it not fair to ask for yours ?

No you don't need to know that, you just need to explain what advantages you see in continued high greenhouse gas emissions (if any) - since that is what you are advocating.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[AK Rich]

The fact is, stretching back decades, virtually every alarmist prediction that was testable has been proven embarrassingly wrong. In many cases the opposite of those predictions has come to pass. And all the fascist fear mongering that can be mustered doesn't change that, even when historical data has been "altered" and current data "adjusted" to make the failed models work. Corrupting the peer review process to eliminate views that are critical to the CAGW theory has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. And things like threatening to criminalize climate change denial down to threatening to close this thread for the reasons and non-factual claims that have been stated here most recently is more of the same fascist bs.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Kristofer Dahl]

The fact is, stretching back decades, virtually every alarmist prediction that was testable has been proven embarrassingly wrong. In many cases the opposite of those predictions has come to pass. And all the fascist fear mongering that can be mustered doesn't change that, even when historical data has been "altered" and current data "adjusted" to make the failed models work. Corrupting the peer review process to eliminate views that are critical to the CAGW theory has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. And things like threatening to criminalize climate change denial down to threatening to close this thread for the reasons and non-factual claims that have been stated here most recently is more of the same fascist bs.

So because other warnings have turned out to be false we should just ignore the overwhelming evidence this time?

And no one has answered my initial question: even if all credible scientists are wrong and you're right, why would you not want to find sustainable alternatives anyway?

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[klasaine]

With all due respect, none of the rhetoric here or in the linked to studies is remotely fascist, regardless of how far right or left it may come from. Fascist and communist is WAY over used vernacular these days. Especially by folks who know absolutely nothing about fascism or communism. Any of the older Europeans here can tell you a little bit about it, especially the Poles, Romanians, Czechs, Serbs, etc. Ask Mertay what it's like currently in Turkey.
Americans throwing those terms around ... we sound like morons.

Also, this particular thread is a 'troll' thread and I'm both a fucking idiot and yet complicit for even engaging in it.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by klasaine: Jun 20 2017, 11:27 PM

[jstcrsn]

So because other warnings have turned out to be false we should just ignore the overwhelming evidence this time?

And no one has answered my initial question: even if all credible scientists are wrong and you're right, why would you not want to find sustainable alternatives anyway?

in the " other thread " I did agree with Ken about going green , I do think green is good , it's just from my point of view it is not there yet , yes I think we should advance it , just not at a destructive pace of the here and now

In the past , all of us have put up questionable sourcing ( Todd used Buzfeed ) , but even you have to admit I have toned it down and tried hard to give reputable sources so I think it is only fair to give a few of my links a fair shot before you criticize them , that's why I have been listing many of the credentials of the people in my links

I have more daughters than you have sticks so don't think for a second I don't want the best possible earth for them to be a part of

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Jun 20 2017, 10:38 PM

[AK Rich]

So because other warnings have turned out to be false we should just ignore the overwhelming evidence this time?

And no one has answered my initial question: even if all credible scientists are wrong and you're right, why would you not want to find sustainable alternatives anyway?

The vast majority of the warnings have been false and others are well on their way to being false as well, so yeah, I think we are getting ahead of ourselves on the whole issue. Even when the warnings come to pass, I see no clear evidence that humankind is the primary driver of climate change, warming or cooling.
I never said I was against alternative energy that is clean and sustainable. But I have a problem with wind and solar farms that take up vast amounts of real estate and produce only a fraction of the energy produced by coal fired plants that are a fraction of the size of said wind and solar farms. I also have issues with the effects these wind and solar farms have on birds.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Jun 21 2017, 05:59 PM

[Rammikin]

Also, this particular thread is a 'troll' thread and I'm both a fucking idiot and yet complicit for even engaging in it.

Replying to a troll is like wrestling a pig. The pig gets enjoyment from it, but all you get is dirty. The worst part is: your reply encourages more threads like this.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!