NASA Mission Calculates Global Ice Melt and Rising Sea Levels

Arooooooooogah! Mass is not measured in single-dimension distance units. Arooooooooogah!

And I just saw some article where the amount of melt over the last 10 years was discovered to be much, much less than expected and none in Eurasia.

This is the whole problem with this science - conflicting data.

No wonder why people just cherry pick the data that supports their beliefs. Don't like this report? Wait! Another one is coming with different results. Something for everyone.

This planet will get rid of humankind all on its own when it has had enough of it.

Want to bet $1 that this starts a whole new climate debate. ;-)

What debate? It's become clear that climate change is a new world religion. One that can bring everyone together for the greater good. Once centralized control is established, all will be well.

They can't even report good news without turning it around and making it a dire event.

"This study finds that the world's small glaciers and ice caps in places like Alaska, South America, and the Himalayas contribute about .02 inches per year to sea level rise," said NASA scientist Tom Wagner. "While this is lower than previous estimates, it confirms that ice is being lost from around the globe, with just a few areas in precarious balance.

Time to tweak the computer models...............these numbers look way to low. We've got a lot of work to do, and very little time.

I agree with AH. It reminds me of the magician's trick where you are asked to guess a number from 1 to 9, and write it down -- then Lo and Behold, he pulls a piece of paper out of his shirt pocket with the same number. Of course, if you'd have picked a different number, he would have pulled a different piece of paper from one of his other 9 pockets.

The amazing (to me) bit of news recently was that even the scientists at the Hadley Climate Research Unit have admitted that global warming peaked in 1997 and the global average temperature has trended flat or slightly downward since.

What's going on guys?

The vast bulk of the world's climate scientists have reached a consensus based on decades of research, the results from a number of different fields and decades of peer reviewed argument. They reckon there's a link between rising CO2 levels and climate.

This is offset by small but vocal group of deniers, often supported by entities supporting the status quo, who are running a disinformation campaign to "muddy the waters" They're not publishing research papers but go direct to an ignorant public.

So, what side are you on?

Do you really think most of the world's climate scientists are in some giant conspiracy? Do you really think none will break rank, despite the obvious fame and fortune they could make from FOX news?

Me? I think carbon taxes are pointless, humankind can't make a significant reduction in time, we'd be better off starting to work on reducing the effects, but I'm not arrogant enough to think that all the experts are wrong just because I don't understand the physics.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

This was posted 2 days ago:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/ipcc-reviewer-resigns-from-agu-saying-i-will-not-renew-my-agu-membership/

The scientists that have reached consensus are quietly dropping like flies.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-from-fallout-over-our-paper/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/21/shocker-ken-caldeira-resigns-as-ipcc-ar5-lead-author/

I don't want to have a climate change argument though...........................I also firmly believe that we need to ween ourselves from fossil fuel, and work on ways to make make using it, cleaner and more efficient.

I suppose my next step should be to check if the 1000 "scientists" are actually working in the area and aren't just retired engineers, dentists or falsely claiming relevant expertise.

Then each opinion would have to be checked to ensure there is an actual disagreement with the central idea not just on some technical points.

Then I'd have to compare the numbers of dissidents against the actual number of real scientists working in the area and see if "1000" is significant.

I don't have the expertise to argue climate change.

Back here, I took some time to research the debate itself, rather than the science.

It's a pretty interesting subject. The first time, (that I could find), that global warming/climate change was used as a tool, was by Margaret Thatcher, and it was used to try convince the people that new nuclear plants were a good idea.

I'm better at studying humans and their motivations than I am at hard science.

I don't think that the scientists that are disassociating themselves from the pro climate change debate are doing so because all of the data is incorrect. I think they are walking away because the data is being skewed to serve a political agenda, they realize that they have been used as pawns, and their professional reputations are in jeopardy. I don't blame them.

It's unfortunate that the science has been hijacked by people outside the scientific community. We may never know what the truth is.

Add to the melting ice the water being pumped from a depth of more than a mile in the not so far East and other factors and we have a real problem at hand.

But not to stress, it only takes a relative short time (1000 year +) to recharge the void.

"Want to bet $1 that this starts a whole new climate debate. ;-)"

I win! I win! I win!

You should have bet more than a dollar. Around here you can say, "It's warm out today", and start a climate debate.

You are all denying the facts!! Man Caused Global Warming HAS affected the temperature of the earth. Sometimes Global Warming causes warming, sometimes cooling. But you can't deny that the temperature is changing, sometimes from day to day. Also, during that warming trend that peaked in 1997 (all caused by manmade hair-spray cans) the temperature on Mars rose as well!! And the Moon got brighter!! And, some reports say, the Sun had a warming trend too!! THAT IS HOW FAR REACHING THIS THING IS!! Man Made Global Warming caused the SUN to get hotter! Now the Sun is cooling off it may never stop. The Sun could freeze into a giant block of ice because of all this global warming!! Soon only the polar bears will be happy, even though they'll all be dead, FROM GLOBAL WARMING!!!

-A-

That's the most powerful and moving argument I've heard yet.

No sense in debating now....................you've made a believer out of me.

The problem with the linking of evidence like this is that we cannot re-run the solar system without the input we have made - so we don't know that the earth, and mars, and, maybe the sun, wouldn't coincidentally all have got warmer anyway from, perhaps, separate causes all, as yet, undetected by us.

So we can have our suspitions, and run models and so on, but we don't actual KNOW FOR SURE there was a cause and effect conection of the kind we think we have seen.

You can apply that logic to anything you can think of. For example, let's say that cell phones might possibly cause cancer. There isn't any real evidence, but because it is such a scary thought, let's panic and assume it does.

Oh, wait. That's already been done. Silly humans.

The hype.

The reality.

It's all coming apart.

The facts aren't going to stop them from extorting money from industry though:

http://arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm

Spot on!

How succinct !

You are right of course.

More tornadoes, less tornadoes, more hurricanes, less hurricanes, warmer weather, colder weather, hopping frogs in Madagascar dying off, new turtle species in Asia...all global warming.

I bet the folks in Europe would like some global warming what with 5 feet of it piled up in their streets. Oh that's right, all that snow was caused by global warming.

I think I'll go piss in the Atlantic Ocean today and try to warm it up too.

Again, perplexed....neither the article (referenced herein), nor this POST, makes any mention-or-reference to THIS older CR4 thread, or the article that prompted it.

[ perhaps that's because as of 2-10-2012, only *2* persons had responded to it?]

I, myself, am humored by the disjointedness of "climate-change-debates" ("yes", Anonymous wins!)

The same 'scientists' who will stand before an audience and state unequivocally that: If you take 2 identical systems and add xyz BTUs to one of them, its temperature will rise by a factor in strict accordance with a specific formula ... some of those SAME scientists will argue fervently, feverishly, and adamantly over whether or not mankind is capable of producing any measurable effect on the "system" in which we live.

Some (simplified) will argue that the heat that mankind adds to the earth's system is simply radiated off into space. The earth continuously undergoes its own, natural/rhythmic cycles of climate change. Period.

The others adamantly argue that the greenhouse gases we spew into the atmosphere trap heat, thus shifting or modifying this otherwise 'natural trend'.

Certainly, it is not a cut-and-dried issue. But clearly, the 'almighty dollar' DOES, in fact, affect some people's judgement, or perception of the truth.

"Subscribing", here ... simply for the humor yet-to-come...

Where is Roger Pink when you "need" him? Just like when you need a cop, there's none around, but if you run a red light...