Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

I give you an article explaining your conclusions based on grace studies were not reliable.

No, you referred to an article about a single ice sheet and how it's decreasing.

You don't seem to get that.

You and I both know that the ice mass in antartica has been shrinking for thousands of years because we have been in a warming trend.

No, in fact I don't know that. The GRACE satellite was only launched a few years ago.

I am not trying to prove anything. I am just looking for some real science.

No, you're looking for excuses to believe whatever you wish.

Now neither of us know if the ice mass has been shrinking at faster than normal rate. Why? because the data has to be recalculated.

??? I'm intrigued with how you know the antarctic ice sheet was shrinking before GRACE, then I'm intrigued with how you know a single ice sheet represents all of the antarctic. Then I'm intrigued with how the single ice sheet in Antarctica tells you about the globe in global warming.

So far we know from you article some scientists said the ice mass in eastern antartica increased. So I have no idea why you are acting like you know anything about what is going on down there.

Cite the paragraph to which you're referring.

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Natural CO2 does, but we already know that this CO2 is not natural.

Can you please define un-natural CO2? This is quite a bizarre claim.

 

[jem]

Quote from bigdavediode:

No, you referred to an article about a single ice sheet and how it's decreasing.

You don't seem to get that.



No, in fact I don't know that. The GRACE satellite was only launched a few years ago.



No, you're looking for excuses to believe whatever you wish.



??? I'm intrigued with how you know the antarctic ice sheet was shrinking before GRACE, then I'm intrigued with how you know a single ice sheet represents all of the antarctic. Then I'm intrigued with how the single ice sheet in Antarctica tells you about the globe in global warming.



Cite the paragraph to which you're referring.

And I am intrigued by the fact you have not responded to my point with answers but with questions. (a rhetorical device with which any law student is familiar.)

You are the global warming advocate.
You are the one who said the ice mass in antartica is shrinking according to grace.

I showed you the grace studies need to be recalculated because they made some guesses about the movement of the underlying land mass.

If you want to explain why the University of Texas website is wrong and you are right go ahead.

 

[jem]

1.

re: eastern antartic ice mass increase.

On page 3 of your article last few paragraphs --

your article says that Eastern Ice mass stayed the same during the study but a few sentences later in refers to a positive mass balance in the later year of the study.


2.

re: arming trend and thinning ice for thousands of years.

from the ut article

"Antarctica was once buried under a deeper and more extensive layer of ice during a period known as the Last Glacial Maximum. Starting about 20,000 years ago, the ice began slowly thinning and retreating. As the ice mass decreases, the bedrock immediately below the ice rises, an uplift known as postglacial rebound.

Postglacial rebound causes an increase in the gravitational attraction measured by the GRACE satellites and could explain their inferred measurements of recent, rapid ice loss in West Antarctica. The new GPS measurements show West Antarctica is rebounding more slowly than once thought. This means that the correction to the gravity signal from the rock contribution has been overestimated and the rate of ice loss is slower than previously interpreted."


http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/10/...ctic_ice_sheet/

So in short the eastern mass is the same or larger.

the ice mass loss in the western mass has to be recalculated. To see if the mass is losing ice faster than typical during the 20,000 year warming trend.

That took about 20 minutes.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from drjekyllus:

Can you please define un-natural CO2? This is quite a bizarre claim.

I'm trying to simplify my language, but okay, anthropogenic CO2 (as opposed to those emissions occurring in biophysical environments.)

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

And I am intrigued by the fact you have not responded to my point with answers but with questions. (a rhetorical device with which any law student is familiar.)

You're very confused. Questions would be indicated by question marks. You haven't supported your statements that your reference to a single ice sheet in Antarctic is definitive evidence of global climate change (or lack thereof.)

You are the global warming advocate.
You are the one who said the ice mass in antartica is shrinking according to grace.

I showed you the grace studies need to be recalculated because they made some guesses about the movement of the underlying land mass.

Yes, they've estimated the rate of losses of that ice sheet. There is no question that there's loss, just the rate may be revised.

If you want to explain why the University of Texas website is wrong and you are right go ahead.

No, I'd suggest that you misunderstood. You don't understand that rate of loss doesn't mean that you'll be able to find a gain and that a single ice sheet doesn't generalize worldwide.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

1. your article says that Eastern Ice mass stayed the same during the study but a few sentences later in refers to a positive mass balance in the later year of the study.

Again, I suspect you've misunderstood. Which page and paragraph?

"Antarctica was once buried under a deeper and more extensive layer of ice during a period known as the Last Glacial Maximum. Starting about 20,000 years ago, the ice began slowly thinning and retreating. As the ice mass decreases, the bedrock immediately below the ice rises, an uplift known as postglacial rebound.

Yes. 20,000 years ago the ice was thinning and retreating. I haven't seen any evidence that immediately previous to the industrial revolution that the ice was retreating.

If you have any evidence that this was happening, I'd be interested to read it.

Postglacial rebound causes an increase in the gravitational attraction measured by the GRACE satellites and could explain their inferred measurements of recent, rapid ice loss in West Antarctica. The new GPS measurements show West Antarctica is rebounding more slowly than once thought. This means that the correction to the gravity signal from the rock contribution has been overestimated and the rate of ice loss is slower than previously interpreted."


http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/10/...ctic_ice_sheet/

So in short the eastern mass is the same or larger.

the ice mass loss in the western mass has to be recalculated. To see if the mass is losing ice faster than typical during the 20,000 year warming trend.

That took about 20 minutes.

Yes, think about what you've just quoted. That the <b>melting ice</b> may have allowed land to rise.

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Yes. 20,000 years ago the ice was thinning and retreating. I haven't seen any evidence that immediately previous to the industrial revolution that the ice was retreating.

If you have any evidence that this was happening, I'd be interested to read it.



Yes, think about what you've just quoted. That the <b>melting ice</b> may have allowed land to rise.

A lot more recently than 20,000 years pal.

 

[jem]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Yes. 20,000 years ago the ice was thinning and retreating. I haven't seen any evidence that immediately previous to the industrial revolution that the ice was retreating.

If you have any evidence that this was happening, I'd be interested to read it.



Yes, think about what you've just quoted. That the <b>melting ice</b> may have allowed land to rise.

yes think about what you are speculating.

You are guessing it rose more quickly than normal.

I am waiting for the data.

---

Instead of presuming anything read your article - If I remember correctly it was page 3.

-

I am representing nothing but the fact you have not made your case.

I am concerned about the environment. I just like to point out the difference between science and faith.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

yes think about what you are speculating.

You are guessing it rose more quickly than normal.

I am waiting for the data.

If it did, then there would be more ice loss, not less.

---

Instead of presuming anything read your article - If I remember correctly it was page 3.

-

I am representing nothing but the fact you have not made your case.

I am concerned about the environment. I just like to point out the difference between science and faith.

Fair enough. I'd go further and claim that there is nothing that would "make the case." This is shown by your religious adherence to whether or not one ice sheet in Antarctica lost at a faster or slower rate than a rate you don't have, and then you've taken that and generalized to the globe.