If you were talking politics I'd agree.
WB takes a bow. I coined the term "Global Warming Hoax" 5 years ago right here on ET.
- Thread starter wilburbear
- Start date
The ice that is increasing is sea ice. And it's not growing by much.
The Antarctic sea ice is a small component of the total ice. The land ice is far more important and much more massive. This land ice since it is not floating is what will lead to sea level rise as it melts.
This is what's happening to the land ice.
Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (Figure 2) range from losing 100 Gt/year to over 300 Gt/year. Because 360 Gt/year represents an annual sea level rise of 1 mm/year, recent estimates indicate a contribution of between 0.27 mm/year and 0.83 mm/year coming from Antarctica. There is of course uncertainty in the estimations methods but multiple different types of measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.
The Antarctic sea ice is a small component of the total ice. The land ice is far more important and much more massive. This land ice since it is not floating is what will lead to sea level rise as it melts.
This is what's happening to the land ice.
Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (Figure 2) range from losing 100 Gt/year to over 300 Gt/year. Because 360 Gt/year represents an annual sea level rise of 1 mm/year, recent estimates indicate a contribution of between 0.27 mm/year and 0.83 mm/year coming from Antarctica. There is of course uncertainty in the estimations methods but multiple different types of measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.
FC's and other global warming alarmists love posting a chart of the Arctic sea ice. Why is that? Could it be that we only have about 30 years of actual measurement? We have no idea what has happened to Arctic sea ice in other inter-glacial periods or even during other warmer periods during the current inter-glacial.
So, showing a 30 year chart of Arctic sea ice changes is useless when we are talking about cycles that take hundreds, thousands and in some cases tens of thousands of years.
What we know is that we are in an inter-glacial warming period and are in the bounce out of the little ice age. We also know that the earth has been warmer than it is now even in the current inter-glacial. And, we also know that temperature precedes atmospheric CO2 increases. We also know that the 20th century had an abnormally stable climate.
The only conclusion an unbiased researcher can reach is that,
1) We may be seeing greater fluctuations in climate this century due to normal forces on climate.
2) That there is NOTHING mankind can do to change the climate.
3) And, that a warmer climate would be better for mankind than a colder climate.
Wow, I'm impressed, pspr actually says something that might be called a reasonable argument.
As to your points
Yes we only have accurate ice measurements for forty years (not thirty) but we have good temperature records of the NH for around 150 and other good temp proxies for a thousand. It is only during the last 100 years or so that NH temps have rapidly gone up. It is not logical to think the Arctic ice would go down without a temp increase in the NH.
Is to the larger cycles of interglacial periods, yes they are there, but the recent rise is so fast as to make those those other trends look flat by comparison and irrelevant to the more immediate concerns.
We certainly can change the climate and we are.
If it were simply some gentle warming it would be no big deal. But it is historically unprecedented in speed and temperature is only a small factor in the potential damage from AGW.