"NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses"

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

82 posts / 0 new

'According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

“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:

'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.”'

Emphasis mine. The "I don't think" is, of course, the preface which all those doomsday predictions of alarmists of 2 decades ago, should have used.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Comments

Another new study from the AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION and the BRITISH ANTARCTIC SURVEY:

"4 November, 2015

West Antarctic coastal snow accumulation rose 30 percent during 20th century

Annual snow accumulation on West Antarctica’s coastal ice sheet increased dramatically during the 20th century, according to a new study published today (Wednesday 4 November) in the American Geophysical Union journalGeophysical Research Letters. The last three decades saw more snow build up on the ice sheet than at any other time in the last 300 years."

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Yawn... I'm sure you posted that with the same sort of glee the climate change deniers cheer if the Arctic ice sheet is a bit larger than expected. Ah HA!! Proof there's no global warming.

From the actual research paper @

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065750/full

...the dominant feature governing precipitation variability at the Ellsworth Land and the Gomez sites is the climatological low pressure system that extends across the Amundsen and Ross Seas. This is a region of high synoptic activity and the largest contributor of the total Antarctic meridional moisture flux [Tsukernik and Lynch, 2013], with the highest interannual and seasonal variability. This persistent deep low-pressure system, the result of the frequency and intensity of individual cyclones, is referred to as the Amundsen Sea Low... [ASL] the location and central pressure of which affects the climatic conditions on the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica.

=======

It is expected that the observed recent atmospheric warming in this region [Bromwich et al., 2013] will result in increased snow accumulation, although the stable water isotopes from Ellsworth Land ice cores have shown that the recent rise in temperature here is not unusual in the past 300 years [Thomas et al., 2013]. Therefore, it is unclear whether these recent glaciological changes are part of a longer term natural trend or associated with anthropogenic climate forcing.

======

The close relationship between SLP and snow accumulation at these sites make this a unique proxy for past ASL (and onshore wind) conditions. The recent deepening trend of the ASL is predicted to continue through the 21st century in response to greenhouse gas concentration increases [Raphael et al., 2015. The dramatic increase in snow accumulation in Ellsworth Land provides evidence that this recent deepening in the ASL region is part of a longer trend, observed as early as the 1920s, with acceleration since the 1990s when the coupling between ENSO and SAM is strongest.

While the exact cause is not yet known, increase intensity of the ASL and accompanying precipitation is consistent with predictions for global warming. At which point you play your typical games and pretend you meant nothing by posting as you did. After all, and you'll deny this as well... you probably only went as far as the link you posted which said

The recent heavy snow accrual appears to be part of a gradual, long-term rise in annual snow accumulation that started in the early 1900s and accelerated in the 1980s, the study found.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The OP.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-i...
Post #2
https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/press-release-west-antarctica-snow-accu...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065750/abstract
Are you color blind and don't see the color of a link or just proving, once again, that you're unable to read for comprehension? Do you not know that there are TWO studies referenced here? The first "link" is to a NASA press release about this paper with a link to the study at the bottom of the page:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_...

"Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses
Authors: Zwally, H. Jay1, 2; Li, Jun3; Robbins, John W.4; Saba, Jack L.5; Yi, Donghui3; Brenner, Anita C.6
Source: Journal of Glaciology
Publisher: International Glaciological Society"

The very first paragragh of the "press release", if you'd had the integrity to read it, linked in the OP says this: "A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers."

The head of this study also addressed the moisture increase, IN the press release: '“At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said.

[The above appears to be the basic premise of the 2nd study I linked at post #2 and you reposted like an eager puppy dog at post #3. Warmer climate yields more moisture - yields more snow - yields more acculated ice.]

The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.'

From Zwally'study's conclusion:
"While continued increases in dynamic thinning are expected in response to thinning of adjacent ice shelves in WA1 and the AP (Cook and others, 2005; Pritchard and Vaughan, 2007; Rott and others, 2011; Shuman and others, 2011; Pritchard and others, 2012), the long-term dynamic thickening in EA and WA2 should provide a significant buffer against such continued increases in mass loss. If dynamic thinning continues to increase at the same rate of 4 Gt a–2 with no offset from further increases in snowfall, the positive balance of the AIS will decrease from the recent 82 Gt a–1 to zero in �20 years. However, compensating increases in snowfall with climate warming may also be expected (Gregory and Huybrechts, 2006; Winkelmann and others, 2012)."

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

"Ah HA!! Proof there's no global warming.", I thought you clowns no longer used that term. Better watch out you're liable to lose your Lib/Prog bona fides.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

to mjoiner

Just looking at antarctic is rather myopic. you need to look at TOTAL WORLD WIDE!!

Well you should move to places like Miami, New Orleans, Houston. And please buy yourself an ocean front property. And let me know how are things in twenty years. It's a good investment for you.

smilingcat
Joined:
Sep. 23, 2010 8:14 am
Quote smilingcat:

to mjoiner

Just looking at antarctic is rather myopic. you need to look at TOTAL WORLD WIDE!!

Well you should move to places like Miami, New Orleans, Houston. And please buy yourself an ocean front property. And let me know how are things in twenty years. It's a good investment for you.

No, what's "myopic" is setting U.S. energy policy to the tune of 'science' that is no where near settled. NASA and the IPCC has been telling us for years that the Antarctic was losing ice mass and all of a sudden their studies start to show something different. It must have hurt them dearly to have to admit this.

Clearly they or no one else knows exactly what's going on. I'm not saying that we ignore other science but just that we should use caution before we subjugate our National interests to those of other countries by treaty.

The Arctic is setting record lows for ice extent and Greenland had a record high number of "melting days" while on the other hand the Antarctic had huge numbers for "sea ice extent" and, according to the first study referenced in the OP has been adding ice mass for 10,000 years.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am
Quote mjolnir:

Are you color blind and don't see the color of a link or just proving, once again, that you're unable to read for comprehension?

It has nothing to do with the fact that I got

404 The cosmic object you are looking for has disappeared beyond the event horizon.

when I clicked on your first link. It's glitch caused by NoScript.

But, yes there are differences between east and west Antarctica and the bulk of the warming has been in the west. http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=36736

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mjolnir:No, what's "myopic" is setting U.S. energy policy to the tune of 'science' that is no where near settled. NASA and the IPCC has been telling us for years that the Antarctic was losing ice mass and all of a sudden their studies start to show something different. It must have hurt them dearly to have to admit this.

Science is what it is... and the earth has a complex climate system. So, if true... then the extra snow being impounded is good since if melted THAT snow won't contribute to any rise in sea level. But your entire argument is now... what? Based on a fragment of the total global warming picture? As I said, I'm sure you posted that with glee as do the climate deniers who cheer if the arctic ice expanded a bit.

I'll read the report when I get more time.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mjolnir:No, what's "myopic" is setting U.S. energy policy to the tune of 'science' that is no where near settled. NASA and the IPCC has been telling us for years that the Antarctic was losing ice mass and all of a sudden their studies start to show something different. It must have hurt them dearly to have to admit this.

...But your entire argument is now... what? Based on a fragment of the total global warming picture? ....I'll read the report when I get more time.

A fragment? "Alarmists" have a cow about Arctic "sea ice lows" and Greenland melting days but when it turns out that the Antarctic which is about 3 times the area and has approx. 9 times the volume may have actually added ice for the last 10,000 years against previous NASA and IPCC prognostications all you hear is chirps.

My 'position' is the one that I posted to smilingcat, we shouldn't be negotiating treatys on science that is far from "settled."

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Some quick math

Zwally’s team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.

So in the Antarctic there's net gain of about 135 billion tons of snow a year. Sounds like a lot.

But that stat for western antarctic is NOT the total loss. It's the INCREASED loss.

The new paper provides an improvement to the resolution of GRACE. They find that the western part of Antarctica is losing mass at 121 billion tons (gigatons) a year. This rate has increased recently.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/201...

So it seems the net gain in the antarctic is roughly 79 gigatons a year over the overlap of the two sample periods... which sounds like a lot.

But Greenland has been losing about 200 billion tons of ice a year

http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mas...

So the net amount of extra melt water between the Antarctica and Greenland is roughly 121 billion tons a year...

Aside from sea level the bigger problem with Greenland melt is the possibility it could slow or shut down the AMOC which moderates the climate in Europe... http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/150290/

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mjolnir:

Are you color blind and don't see the color of a link or just proving, once again, that you're unable to read for comprehension?

It has nothing to do with the fact that I got

404 The cosmic object you are looking for has disappeared beyond the event horizon.

when I clicked on your first link. It's glitch caused by NoScript.

But, yes there are differences between east and west Antarctica and the bulk of the warming has been in the west. http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=36736

Yep, probably has nothing at all to do with the suspected seismic activity there: "Here we use a recently deployed seismic network to show that in 2010 and 2011, two swarms of seismic activity occurred at 25–40 km depth beneath subglacial topographic and magnetic highs, located 55 km south of the youngest subaerial volcano in the Executive Committee Range. We interpret the swarm events as deep long-period earthquakes based on their unusual frequency content. Such earthquakes occur beneath active volcanoes, are caused by deep magmatic activity and, in some cases, precede eruptions8, 9, 10, 11. We also use radar profiles to identify a prominent ash layer in the ice overlying the seismic swarm. Located at 1,400 m depth, the ash layer is about 8,000 years old and was probably sourced from the nearby Mount Waesche volcano. Together, these observations provide strong evidence for ongoing magmatic activity and demonstrate that volcanism continues to migrate southwards along the Executive Committee Range. Eruptions at this site are unlikely to penetrate the 1.2 to 2-km-thick overlying ice, but would generate large volumes of melt water that could significantly affect ice stream flow."

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

...and:

"Right place, right time

Two earthquake swarms struck beneath the researchers' feet in January 2010 and March 2011, near the Executive Committee Range in the Marie Byrd Land region of the continent. As the researchers later discovered, the tremors — called deep, long-period earthquakes (DLPs) — were nearly identical to DLPs detected under active volcanoes in Alaska and Washington. The swarms were 15 to 25 miles (25 to 40 kilometers) below the surface.

"It's an exciting story," said Amanda Lough, the study's lead author and a graduate student in seismology at Washington University in St. Louis. Though there were no signs of a blast, a 3,200-foot-tall (1,000 meters) bulge under the ice suggests the volcano had blasted out lava in the past, forming a budding peak."

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am
Quote mjolnir:A fragment? "Alarmists" have a cow about Arctic "sea ice lows" and Greenland melting days but when it turns out that the Antarctic which is about 3 times the area and has approx. 9 times the volume may have actually added ice for the last 10,000 years against previous NASA and IPCC prognostications all you hear is chirps.
How can anyone predict 10000 years into the past?

See post above. The net gain in Antarctic ice does NOT offset the melt water losses in Greenland.

There are 239.65 gallons of water in a ton

121,000,000,000 tons
239.69 ×
--------------------------
29,002,490,000,000 = estimated net gain of extra melt water (in gallons) gain per year.

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_gallons_of_water_would_equal_a_ton

You want to play the numbers game... so eat them apples.

Lake Erie has about 127.6 trillion gallons.

http://www.clevelandwater.com/your-water/lake-erie

So every 4.4 years Greenland meltwater losses ABOVE Antarctic gains amount to a Lake Erie added to the Atlantic.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

"How can anyone predict 10000 years into the past?", I don't know, ask NASA. Oh that's right you don't read the links but whine about NOSCRIPT.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

The net gain in Antarctic ice does NOT offset the melt water losses in Greenland. - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/11/nasa-study-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-losses#comment-342185

Never said that it did just that the story was complex and illustrated that if the data is correct NASA and IPCC predictions should be taken with a grain of salt.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am
Quote mjolnir:Yep, probably has nothing at all to do with the suspected seismic activity there:
Then why did the pace of melting just start in the 1990s?

http://earthsky.org/earth/glacier-melt-rate-in-west-antarctica-tripled-i...

The melt rate of glaciers in the fastest-melting region of Antarctica has tripled during the last decade, according to a comprehensive, 21-year analysis that reconciles four different techniques previously used to measure Antarctic ice melting. The American Geophysical Union (AGU), which made the announcement on December 2, 2014, said the study is the first to evaluate and reconcile observations in this way. The new analysis shows that glaciers in the Amundsen Sea Embayment in West Antarctica (see map below) are melting faster than any other part of Antarctica.

Leaving aside your myopic fixation on a small aspect of a global problem... say ALL the extra melting all over the world is due to volcanic activity... let me guess... we're magically out of the woods?

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mjolnir:Yep, probably has nothing at all to do with the suspected seismic activity there:
Then why did the pace of melting just start in the 1990s?

http://earthsky.org/earth/glacier-melt-rate-in-west-antarctica-tripled-i...

The melt rate of glaciers in the fastest-melting region of Antarctica has tripled during the last decade, according to a comprehensive, 21-year analysis that reconciles four different techniques previously used to measure Antarctic ice melting. The American Geophysical Union (AGU), which made the announcement on December 2, 2014, said the study is the first to evaluate and reconcile observations in this way. The new analysis shows that glaciers in the Amundsen Sea Embayment in West Antarctica (see map below) are melting faster than any other part of Antarctica.

Leaving aside your myopic fixation on a small aspect of a global problem... say ALL the extra melting all over the world is due to volcanic activity... let me guess... we're magically out of the woods?

I don't know why the pace picked up but the people I linked at post #13 weren't there specifically looking for volcanic activity they just happened to be there when the characteristic DLP's showed up on some relatively new seismic monitoring equip.

My understanding is that volcanos frequently pulse magma to the dome without necessarily erupting. I would think that would generate a lot of heat. Of course it doesn't mean something as childish as we're out of the woods now, just that it's one more facet of a complex problem.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

ulTRAX: The net gain in Antarctic ice does NOT offset the melt water losses in Greenland. -

mjolnir: Never said that it did just that the story was complex and illustrated that if the data is correct NASA and IPCC predictions should be taken with a grain of salt.

More of your typical games. That was your implication... HEY LOOK... there's more snow in part of the antarctic... so we should dismiss all worries about rising sea levels. Global warming is bunk.

And your data might not be correct.

Your study in post 1 said

The study analyzed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA’s Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008.

But the older ICEsat (2003-2010) may not have the capabilities of the new CryoSat2 launched in 2010 and that satellite finds...

Antarctica is losing land ice much faster than previously measured. Overall, Antarctica is losing 159 billion (“yes, billion, with a b”) tons of ice every year.

http://earthsky.org/earth/antarctica-is-losing-159-billion-tons-of-land-...

Original study here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/pdf

So perhaps we need to add this estimated 159 gigatons of meltwater to the 200 gigatons in Greenland.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

More of your typical games. That was your implication... HEY LOOK... there's more snow in part of the antarctic... so we should dismiss all worries about rising sea levels. Global warming is bunk. - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/11/nasa-study-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-losses#comment-342200

If that were my intention I doubt I would have said this at post #8: The Arctic is setting record lows for ice extent and Greenland had a record high number of "melting days".... - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/11/nasa-study-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-losses#comment-342200

Try reading all of the posts it might stop you from indulging in your tendency for conflation.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

From the study you last linked:

"However, in East Antarctica and at the Antarctic Peninsula, the average change in ice sheet mass remains small in comparison to expected fluctuations in snow accumulation (Table 1), which present an observational challenge to all geodetic techniques. Although the CryoSat-2 measurements allow an improved understanding of the drivers and timescales of ice sheet imbalance in these sectors, longer-period data sets are required to separate the effects of meteorological and ice dynamical imbalance." I would expect the new sat to be more accurate. However, this three year study, published in 2014, admits to having "observational challenges" in the very area that the 14 year Zwally study concentrated upon - very small, large area, long time frame accumulations of snow.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am
Quote mjolnir:

"However, in East Antarctica and at the Antarctic Peninsula, the average change in ice sheet mass remains small in comparison to expected fluctuations in snow accumulation (Table 1), which present an observational challenge to all geodetic techniques. Although the CryoSat-2 measurements allow an improved understanding of the drivers and timescales of ice sheet imbalance in these sectors, longer-period data sets are required to separate the effects of meteorological and ice dynamical imbalance." I would expect the new sat to be more accurate. However, this three year study, published in 2014, admits to having "observational challenges" in the very area that the 14 year Zwally study concentrated upon - very small, large area, long time frame accumulations of snow.

The study did give some +- error estimates. Subtracting ALL the possible errors on the minus side it was still a net loss of 111 gigatons for ALL of Antarctica.

So what are you saying? We should instead go with studies done with the obsolete satellites used in your studies? Or we should ignore Antarctica entirely and focus on Greenland and all the other aspects of global warming?

Are you going to blame the melting ice in Greenland on volcanoes?

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

ulTRAX: More of your typical games. That was your implication... HEY LOOK... there's more snow in part of the antarctic... so we should dismiss all worries about rising sea levels. Global warming is bunk. - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/11/nasa-study-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-losses#comment-342200

mjolnir: If that were my intention I doubt I would have said this at post #8: The Arctic is setting record lows for ice extent and Greenland had a record high number of "melting days".... - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/11/nasa-study-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-losses#comment-342200

Try reading all of the posts it might stop you from indulging in your tendency for conflation.

[/quote] Gee... first post 8 was NOT addressed to me and second, it was written on Nov 23ed. Your original two posts were on Nov 4th and 5th. Please don't pretend you can hide your focus on Antarctica in your first two posts... by posting on something else 18 days latter. But then such games are your MO.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Contrary to mjolnir's ignorant insinuations:

But Dr Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, says increasing Antarctic ice does not contradict the general warming trend. Overall the Earth is losing sea ice at a rate of 35,000 sq km per year (13,514 sq miles).

“Not every location on the Earth is having the same responses to climate changes. The fact that ice in one part of the world is doing one thing and in another part ice is doing another is not surprising. The Earth is large and as the climate changes it is normal to see different things going on,” says Parkinson.

In a video made by Eco Audit reader and journalist Fraser Johnston, Dr Guy Williams, a sea ice scientist at the Tasmanian Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (Imas), says that even though it had fooled climate models the increasing sea ice was well understood by scientists.

“In some ways it’s a bit counterintuitive for people trying to understand how global warming is affecting our polar regions, but in fact it’s actually completely in line with how climate scientists expect Antarctica and the Southern Ocean to respond. Particularly in respect to increased winds and increased melt water,” said Williams.

To explain why Antarctic sea ice fails to fit comfortably with a simple ‘warmer world, less ice’ narrative, it is necessary to understand that the climate system has many layers of competing effects. Often only the largest of these will be obvious or detectable.

Currently, the effect of greenhouse gases is being overshadowed by other local climate phenomena, says Turner. “By far the biggest impact has been the ozone hole. The signal of increasing greenhouse gases is buried beneath all the other signals.”

The depletion of the ozone layer above Antarctica during last century by emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) has caused an overall cooling trend on the continent.

Sea ice in Antarctica is very different to its northern counterpart. In the south, ice melts away almost completely every year. The new ice produced each year is thinner and more volatile than the older more stable ice in the Arctic. These large fluctuations, said Turner, meant the “input” of greenhouse gases was not yet the dominant force in the region’s climate.

Parkinson says that it is likely that global warming will eventually overtake these other factors.

“A few decades from now it might turn out that Antarctic ice decreases. I don’t think that would be a surprise at all. If warming reaches the level people think it might in the next few decades then its going to eventually reach the Antarctic and the sea ice will start to decrease.”

Why is Antarctic Sea Ice at Record Levels Despite Global Warming?

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 8:20 am

Where's that other denier, the one who recently argued that warming before humans proves humans can't cause warming? At least his version of idiocy was entertaining. mjolnir's version is pretty boring.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 8:20 am
Quote rrtrax:

"How can anyone predict 10000 years into the past?"

I can predict the past.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:

ulTRAX: More of your typical games. That was your implication... HEY LOOK... there's more snow in part of the antarctic... so we should dismiss all worries about rising sea levels. Global warming is bunk. - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/11/nasa-study-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-losses#comment-342200

mjolnir: If that were my intention I doubt I would have said this at post #8: The Arctic is setting record lows for ice extent and Greenland had a record high number of "melting days".... - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/11/nasa-study-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-losses#comment-342200

Try reading all of the posts it might stop you from indulging in your tendency for conflation.

Gee... first post 8 was NOT addressed to me and second, it was written on Nov 23ed. Your original two posts were on Nov 4th and 5th. Please don't pretend you can hide your focus on Antarctica in your first two posts... by posting on something else 18 days latter. But then such games are your MO.

[/quote]No games. First you whine that your computer won't open a link and then you post without reading relevant parts of the thread. Typical of your bullsh*t.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

You do realize the great majority of this thread, including the three linked studies, concerns ice accumulation on the Antarctic continent and shelf, not sea ice?

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am
Quote mjolnir:Gee... first post 8 was NOT addressed to me and second, it was written on Nov 23ed. Your original two posts were on Nov 4th and 5th. Please don't pretend you can hide your focus on Antarctica in your first two posts... by posting on something else 18 days latter. But then such games are your MO.

No games. First you whine that your computer won't open a link and then you post without reading relevant parts of the thread. Typical of your bullsh*t.

[/quote]TRANSLATION: I was correct when I wrote "I'm sure you posted that with the same sort of glee the climate change deniers cheer if the Arctic ice sheet is a bit larger than expected. Ah HA!! Proof there's no global warming." ... that your original intent WAS to just select a small part of research into global warming and find something, ANYTHING, that could be used to give a false impression that global warming wasn't a problem or wasn't real. And if you're forced to post something 18 days later to acknowledge your arbitrarily narrow focus... that somehow magically negates your original intent.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mjolnir:Gee... first post 8 was NOT addressed to me and second, it was written on Nov 23ed. Your original two posts were on Nov 4th and 5th. Please don't pretend you can hide your focus on Antarctica in your first two posts... by posting on something else 18 days latter. But then such games are your MO.

No games. First you whine that your computer won't open a link and then you post without reading relevant parts of the thread. Typical of your bullsh*t.

TRANSLATION: I was correct when I wrote "I'm sure you posted that with the same sort of glee the climate change deniers cheer if the Arctic ice sheet is a bit larger than expected. Ah HA!! Proof there's no global warming." ... that your original intent WAS to just select a small part of research into global warming and find something, ANYTHING, that could be used to give a false impression that global warming wasn't a problem or wasn't real. And if you're forced to post something 18 days later to acknowledge your arbitrarily narrow focus... that somehow magically negates your original intent.

[/quote]What a joke you are. I posted on the 4 - 5. The OP was a link to a long term study that disputes half a decade of previous NASA and IPCC claims and involves an area and mass of ice that far exceeds Greenland - nothing "small" about that except your cognition. The second post substantiated the first by pointing out 300 years of heavier than standard snowfall on the continent.

No one seemed to care, so I let it go until more research is done. CRYOsat-3 and ICEsat-2 are scheduled to launch soon, maybe they'll give better data.

You post your drivel on 11/22, I respond. On the 23 both smilingcat and myself trade viewpoints, you come in on the same day and then later in the thread claim that you didn't read the 2 or 3 posts between your last entry and the one you made on the same day. Specious is not the term I'd like to use but being the resident conservative on this site who would like to make it to 5 years, that's all I'll say.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am
Quote mjolnir:The OP was a link to a long term study that disputes half a decade of previous NASA and IPCC claims and involves an area and mass of ice that far exceeds Greenland - nothing "small" about that except your cognition. The second post substantiated the first by pointing out 300 years of heavier than standard snowfall on the continent.
So you don't yet comprehend the absurdity of claiming that snow already impounded for 300 or 10000 years is irrelevant to the question of today's sea level? By definition it's already taken into account in the current sea level... and there's NO evidence that sea level is dropping because of any additional snowfall anywhere... if that's even true.

The ONLY issue is whether Antarctica and Greenland have recently lost more ice mass than they're gaining in recent years... and even if it's gaining in Antarctica... DISPUTED by the more accurate and more comprehensive CryoSat study, whether it's sufficient to offset ice melt elsewhere. All that matters when it comes to any potential GW effect on sea level is the melt rate. And even that is a side issue to the effects of GW on the environment on land or what excess heat already absorbed by the oceans is doing to that environment. As for Greenland... there seem to be more effects in the Arctic than down south. Maybe that has to do with the extra landmass and industrialization. It is what it is. Deal with it.

Look, I'm willing to admit that none of these studies are perfect and therefore may contradict each other. That's science. It will self-correct and get more accurate over time. But it's also science to realize CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we continue to add it to the atmosphere at rates much faster that it can be reabsorbed... and to bet against CO2 is to bet against physics.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mjolnir:The OP was a link to a long term study that disputes half a decade of previous NASA and IPCC claims and involves an area and mass of ice that far exceeds Greenland - nothing "small" about that except your cognition.
Leaving aside the fact that you posted no IPCC numbers, you do realize that IPCC doesn't selectively cherrypick a study or two that fits a bias then extrapolates their conclusions as you did. They use multiple studies and models and routinely describe their confidence levels for their varied conclusions and often note the differences between the different Assessment Reports. Here's the relevant chapter from Report 5... not that you're interested. You'd rather shoot spitballs and pretend they're nuclear weapons.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mjolnir:

"Ah HA!! Proof there's no global warming.", I thought you clowns no longer used that term. Better watch out you're liable to lose your Lib/Prog bona fides.

I believe the term fell into disfavor because idiot deniers deliberately started to conflate weather and climate. Just because the globe is warming as a whole doesn't negate cold or winter... and how many times have we hear idiots deniers claim... gee... record cold out today... proof there's no global warming!

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mjolnir:

"Ah HA!! Proof there's no global warming.", I thought you clowns no longer used that term. Better watch out you're liable to lose your Lib/Prog bona fides.

I believe the term fell into disfavor because idiot deniers deliberately started to conflate weather and climate. Just because the globe is warming as a whole doesn't negate cold or winter... and how many times have we hear idiots deniers claim... gee... record cold out today... proof there's no global warming!

Laypeople, such as the "alarmists" on this forum and many others began switching terms when it became obvious that at least some of the furor engendered by claims from an idiot like Gore and Hansen's much ballyhoowed "hockey stick" gragh were hyperbole.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/28/al-gores-seawater-swindle/
'“Because of the rising sea level, due to global warming, in the next few decades … up to 60 percent of the present population of Florida may have to be relocated,” Mr. Gore wrote in his book, “Earth in the Balance.” A peer-reviewed study published last month by the Journal of Coastal Research suggests the Sunshine State might last a while.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), co-recipient with Mr. Gore of the Nobel Peace Prize, quantified the sea-level rise as being between 7 and 23 inches by the year 2100. ...'

http://scienceline.org/2008/12/ask-rettner-sea-level-rise-al-gore-an-inc...
'Some of the most memorable images from Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, are the graphics that show how rising ocean levels will dramatically alter our planet’s coastlines. As Greenland’s ice sheets collapse, Gore predicts that our shores will be flooded and sea-bordering cities will sink beneath the water leaving millions of people homeless. His narration tells the audience that, due to global warming, melting ice could release enough water to cause at 20-foot rise in sea level “in the near future.”'

This coming in the '80's while only a decade earlier NOAA, NSF, CIA, NAS, and too many university "experts" to name were warning of a "Little Ice Age." https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/

Then of course there is "the pause" that "alarmists" are now attacking: http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/07/was-the-global-warming-pause-a-...
"Last month, the academic journal Science, the prestigious monthly organ published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, published the first of two recent contributions to this discussion. The work of a team led by Thomas Karl from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), it claimed, in the words of the headline on NOAA’s press release: ‘Data show no recent slowdown in global warming.’"

Then a few months later you've got the same jounal publishing a study that used the same data, widely disputed by several reputable scientists, but concluded that the "pause" did happen but just re-distributed the heat to other parts of the ocean: "A new paper by Dr Veronica Nieves of the California Institute of Technology finds that the pause is real after all. Crucially, Nieves used NOAA’s own data – but drew very different conclusions."

It's evident, or at least should be, that, yeah, the climate is changing and PART of it is probably anthropomorphic but we don't have a clue why or how much, yet we have a President negotiating our energy security in Paris with countries that almost certainly will not live up to the agreement.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am
Quote mjolnir:

Laypeople, such as the "alarmists" on this forum and many others began switching terms when it became obvious that at least some of the furor engendered by claims from an idiot like Gore and Hansen's much ballyhoowed "hockey stick" graph were hyperbole.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/28/al-gores-seawater-swindle/
'“Because of the rising sea level, due to global warming, in the next few decades … up to 60 percent of the present population of Florida may have to be relocated,” Mr. Gore wrote in his book, “Earth in the Balance.” A peer-reviewed study published last month by the Journal of Coastal Research suggests the Sunshine State might last a while.

There are alarmists and deniers on every issue... and then there are those who protect their self interests by manipulating the public. It's all so easy to justify denial by using something Gore wrote TWENTY THREE YEARS AGO when the science was just beginning to focus on the issue. Ya, there's been NO science done since then, right? I don't have Gore's book but I don't doubt there was a "peer reviewed" study. Being peer reviewed doesn't convey infallibility... only that the methods used to justify a conclusion were reviewed. I don't know how many studies on the topic were available back in 1992 and one's choice to pick one study over others may reveal bias... as was quite evident in YOUR cherry picking.

As for the hockey stick... it was from SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO... and just because the hysterical deniers misrepresented it... doesn't change the fact that it was an early attempt at reconstructing past climate through proxies and it stated its range of uncertainty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf 

The original title was Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations

and yet most of what made it to right wing outlets was something like this

http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.Me982e06579ffff9c0363c794b6ff6665o0&w... That piece of work apparently from Heartland... a right wing propaganda group http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute

As with all your similar threads, everything in you've written in this thread says more about YOU and your right wing bias than what you claim to be commenting on. I have no problem of taking on what I see are liberal blind spots, idiocy, or hypocrisy, but can't recall a time where I've never seen you do the same with any issue or person the right.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mjolnir:It's evident, or at least should be, that, yeah, the climate is changing and PART of it is probably anthropomorphic but we don't have a clue why or how much, yet we have a President negotiating our energy security in Paris with countries that almost certainly will not live up to the agreement.

It really doesn't make any difference is NONE of global warming is anthropomorphic. To borrow from another post

What was the world's population 10000 years ago? 5-10-15 million? If the climate changed... as happened with the desertification of the Sahara and Mideast...(which BTW has never recovered) they could move into the river valleys or just move.

WE NO LONGER HAVE THAT LUXURY.

So it makes no difference if global warming is anthropogenic, or due to changes in the earth's rotation or axis, or the sun's output. We have hundreds of trillions invested in TODAY'S seaside cities and TODAY'S agricultural zones based on the CURRENT CLIMATE... and the CURRENT SEA LEVEL. If only to protect investment and prevent a massive refugee crisis, we can't risk delusions of certitude there's no problem. We may be forced into massive geoengineering investments to modify the climate to prevent it from changing.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I'm not against using measures that might abate rising CO2 levels. My question is do we as a Country institute measures that weaken us (+/-800,000) coal miners out of work just on the promise that China and others might follow suit?

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

If the climate changed... as happened with the desertification of the Sahara and Mideast...(which BTW has never recovered) they could move into the river valleys or just move.

- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/11/nasa-study-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-losses#new

You do know that the Sahara was desert before it became savanna for a few thousand years and then returned to being desert don't you?

"

A timeline of Sahara occupation [See Map]:

  • 22,000 to 10,500 years ago: The Sahara was devoid of any human occupation outside the Nile Valley and extended 250 miles further south than it does today.
  • 10,500 to 9,000 years ago: Monsoon rains begin sweeping into the Sahara, transforming the region into a habitable area swiftly settled by Nile Valley dwellers.
  • 9,000 to 7,300 years ago: Continued rains, vegetation growth, and animal migrations lead to well established human settlements, including the introduction of domesticated livestock such as sheep and goats.
  • 7,300 to 5,500 years ago: Retreating monsoonal rains initiate desiccation in the Egyptian Sahara, prompting humans to move to remaining habitable niches in Sudanese Sahara. The end of the rains and return of desert conditions throughout the Sahara after 5,500 coincides with population return to the Nile Valley and the beginning of pharaonic society."

Analagous on a much smaller scale to the Cali propensity for prolonged droughts that I pointed out here: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/04/where-will-california-environm...

...and that illustates the point that climate is continually changing - and has for a long time. How big a part Man plays in that is the question.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

We may be forced into massive geoengineering investments to modify the climate to prevent it from changing. - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/11/nasa-study-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-losses#comment-342391

Maybe you and ABCee can go into business together loading powdered Al into tanks in airplanes, Lol.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am
Quote mjolnir:

If the climate changed... as happened with the desertification of the Sahara and Mideast...(which BTW has never recovered) they could move into the river valleys or just move.

- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/11/nasa-study-mass-gains-antarcti...

You do know that the Sahara was desert before it became savanna for a few thousand years and then returned to being desert don't you?

Ya ya, and synthetic aperture radar pierced the sand and showed old river channels. There you go, grasping a side example to illustrate a point while evading the point... which is not

...and that illustrates the point that climate is continually changing - and has for a long time.

How big a part Man plays in that is the question.

That seems to be the deniers trump card... to say climate change is natural... as if that means we're out of the woods.

How much humans are responsible may be IRRELEVANT. Even if global warming is ENTIRELY natural... we may be forced to take drastic measures simply because the costs of losing our massive historical investments in the current climate and the human disruptions may be too great not to act.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mjolnir:

I'm not against using measures that might abate rising CO2 levels. My question is do we as a Country institute measures that weaken us (+/-800,000) coal miners out of work just on the promise that China and others might follow suit?

We've been here before. Sometimes the market is disconnected from the real world and there comes a time when certain industries have to face their twilight as happened to the hydro-fluorocarbon industry... and the lead paint industry. We may have created these corporations but we have no moral obligation to insure these companies profit if they are harming us. We DO owe worker retraining for new jobs... and I believe we should create them if need be.

But for comparison sake how many US jobs were lost because right wing ideas destroyed the economy in 2008? Shall I dig up the 08 and 09 BLS numbers? How many US jobs were lost because of free trade? At least Dex has the sense to be against exporting away our jobs. How about you?

Conversely how many jobs are created because of the money we piss away on needless wars and outspending on the military almost all other nations combined? We can create jobs if we want. They could be in conservation and alternative energy if we wanted. But the source of resistance always seems to be those corporations who are determined to protect their profits and don't want to go the way of lead paint. Better to protect profits by treading water, launching massive public disinformation campaigns and buying GOP and corporate Dem whores in Washington. I don't want our future determined by such self-serving people.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote mjolnir:

I'm not against using measures that might abate rising CO2 levels. My question is do we as a Country institute measures that weaken us (+/-800,000) coal miners out of work just on the promise that China and others might follow suit?

We need to first be responsible for what WE have done... and what WE do. Where's our moral authority if it was the WEST'S industrialization and wanton waste of fossil fuels that created the problem... and people like you are saying we don't have to take any responsibility. Let those other forestall development and deny their people of a better life? And where is our moral authority when China IS spending more on alternative energy than the US?

http://fs-unep-centre.org/publications/global-trends-renewable-energy-in...

http://climatenewsnetwork.net/chinas-investment-in-renewables-soars-by-a...

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33143176

I think the bottom line is the US is largely full of spoiled brats especially on the right who have brought with the belief if we have the money to piss away the world's resources... we have that right to piss them away. If there are problems the market deal will magically adjust to any and every eventuality. We got our 8mpg Hummers and McMansions... and screw everyone else.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

"...We DO owe worker retraining for new jobs... and I believe we should create them if need be. ..." Just exactly what kinds of new industies or jobs are going to magically spring up in the mountains of W. Virginia or the foothills of Eastern Kentucky?

"...How much humans are responsible may be IRRELEVANT. Even if global warming is ENTIRELY natural... we may be forced to take drastic measures simply because the costs of losing our massive historical investments in the current climate and the human disruptions may be too great not to act. ..." I keep seeing you say that and I like science fiction that turns to science in fact as well as anyone else. The fact is though that all of the "massive geo-engineering" projects that I've seen mentioned (solar shades, ocean seeding, etc.) are both unproven and incredibly costly in and of themselves. Do we cripple our economy with such projects, in the short run, on the CHANCE that something might work or play the millenia long odds that most science seems to indicate that it will take for a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet to inundate the coasts and focus on more goal oriented science.

From your IPCC link and others:
"Paleo sea level records from warm periods during the last 3 million years indicate that global mean sea level has exceeded 5 m above present (very high confidence) 1 when global mean temperature was up to 2°C warmer than pre-industrial (medium confidence).

This change in sea level occurred in the context of different orbital forcing and with high latitude surface temperature, averaged over several thousand years, at least 2°C warmer than present (high confidence).

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/3628/earth-s-hot-past-could-be-prol...
"Kiehl applied mathematical formulas to calculate that Earth’s average annual temperature 30 to 40 million years ago was about 88 degrees F (31 degrees C)—substantially higher than the pre-industrial average temperature of about 59 degrees F (15 degrees C)."

...It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century... Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1;...[3.2 mm on average equals just over 1/8 inch per year]

There is high confidence in projections of thermal expansion and Greenland surface mass balance, and medium confidence in projections of glacier mass loss and Antarctic surface mass balance.[If the Zwally studies are confirmed the 'medium' projection of confidence may slip to low]"

If the Antarctic shelf ice breaks off then we're screwed, but again, if the melting IS seismic there's not a damn thing we can do about it.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

ulTRAX: "...We DO owe worker retraining for new jobs... and I believe we should create them if need be. ..."

mjolnir: Just exactly what kinds of new industries or jobs are going to magically spring up in the mountains of W. Virginia or the foothills of Eastern Kentucky?

So unlike lead paint and lead in gasoline, we should just permit an industry that's doing us in to continue? I seem to recall that the government made massive investments back in the 30's in rural areas that needed help or development. Surely you've heard of the Tennessee Valley Authority, rural electrification, conservation efforts to end the Dust Bowl including a 220 million tree, 18000 mile long shelter belt http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/fdr-and-new-deal-response-environmental-catastrophe In the 50's and 60's we built the interstate highway system in states that could never afford to pay for such roads. But we can't have such wealth redistribution today? Of course... the government had much more flexibility before the GOP decided to create debt as a political tool to sabotage government... at least for things they don't approve of.

The idea that coal production will stop tomorrow is laughable. Big Tobacco exported its cancerous product to places like China... and US exports of coal are up. But even if that dries up we can always find a way to help those workers. Or do you consider those jobs sacred while those with manufacturing jobs that moved overseas are expendable? We can move a half million men half way across the world to fight Desert Storm... and we can spend trillions to bail out the economy when it imploded because of right ideas... but we can't help redevelop the coal belt here in the states? I suppose that's improbable as long as right wingers cling to their religion that government, by definition, is an evil to be tolerated.

But we stray. If you want to talk coal... perhaps you should start a new thread.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

"...but we can't help redevelop the coal belt here in the states?" With what? See that's the trouble with you, you always talk in grandiose terms but you never want to give specifics. People need decades long employment and that is probably not going to be provided by "public works." When Blacks left the Southern States to escape racism and poverty there were burgeoning industries in urgent need of workers already on the scene. There are no such jobs now and likely will never be.

"But we stray. If you want to talk coal... perhaps you should start a new thread." No one seems to be interested except you and I. Smilingcat made a "driveby" and then left with his/her tail between their legs. Coal is a vital part of OUR overall energy security and if you think China is going to abandon coal to chase alternate energy sources you're more foolish than I thought:

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-gr...
"China has been praised recently for its investments in renewable energy. And the credit is well deserved as China's commitment to renewables dwarfs that of the U.S. and other industrialized countries. From 2010 to 2012 alone, China’s renewable electricity growth was double that of the U.S., and it is continuing to grow.

But all the accolades are distracting us from the reality that fossil fuels dominate China’s energy landscape, as they do in virtually every other country. Today, fossil fuels account for 87 percent of all energy used in China. And the focus on renewables also hides the fact that China’s reliance upon coal is predicted to keep growing.

Coal, the most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels, accounts for 70 percent of energy used in China today and is responsible for about three quarters of electricity generation.

In just 5 years, from 2005 through 2009, China added the equivalent of the entire U.S. fleet of coal-fired power plants, or 510 new 600-megawatt coal plants.

From 2010 through 2013, it added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. again.

At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week, for 7 straight years.

And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years."

China, and other countries (Chile, S. Africa) have a vested interest in supplying the "rare earths", platinum and lithium that any global turn to renewables will entail:
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/a_scarcity_of_rare_metals_is_hindering_gree...
"The move toward new and better technologies — from smart phones to electric cars — means an ever-increasing demand for exotic metals that are scarce thanks to both geology and politics. Thin, cheap solar panels need tellurium, which makes up a scant 0.0000001 percent of the earth’s crust, making it three times rarer than gold. High-performance batteries need lithium, which is only easily extracted from briny pools in the Andes. In 2011, the average price of 'rare earth' metals shot up by as much as 750 percent. Platinum, needed as a catalyst in fuel cells that turn hydrogen into energy, comes almost exclusively from South Africa."

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

China, India and most of the developing world are rapidly expanding coal consumption. They have no choice. Contrary to the bull you hear incessantly on the MSM, oil & gas aren't even nearly capable of replacing coal. And even if the very expensive shale gas & tight oil was sufficiently available (they aren't), they would be far to expensive for developing nations to afford.

All this hype about renewables, China ain't going renewables. They expanded rapidly with conventional hydro, by building dams on every river they can find, but that will quickly saturate and all that is left is wind & solar and that is a scam and a joke.

Of China's primary energy supply, 87% fossil, 67% coal, 7% dirty biomass & waste (including fossil waste), 2.6% hydro with a whopping 1.2% Geothermal, solar & wind. That ain't going nowhere. Wind & solar have major siting problems, use vast land area, intermittency issues are unsolvable, are way too expensive and the EROI (energy return on invested) is well below the physically required limits.

China will be going nuclear for its clean energy. As will India, they are the only feasible alternatives to fossil:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2015-10/16/content_22202382.htm

They paused their nuclear build for a couple years after Fukushima, so they could guarantee safety is not compromised, but now they are planning a rapid build-out, and exports as well, two for Argentina just announced. And Iran & Pakistan. So latest plan is 58 GW or 460 TWh per year by 2020, which will dwarf gas, solar & wind, and rapidly overcome hydro.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am
Quote mjolnir:

"...but we can't help redevelop the coal belt here in the states?" With what? See that's the trouble with you, you always talk in grandiose terms but you never want to give specifics.

Being highly selective again? Here's that entire paragraph. How much did you evade?

The idea that coal production will stop tomorrow is laughable. Big Tobacco exported its cancerous product to places like China... and US exports of coal are up. But even if that dries up we can always find a way to help those workers. Or do you consider those jobs sacred while those with manufacturing jobs that moved overseas are expendable? We can move a half million men half way across the world to fight Desert Storm... and we can spend trillions to bail out the economy when it imploded because of right ideas... but we can't help redevelop the coal belt here in the states? I suppose that's improbable as long as right wingers cling to their religion that government, by definition, is an evil to be tolerated.

I don't need to give specifics. With the exception of Bush2 we've already been losing coal jobs since Reagan... https://img.nationaljournal.com/media/media/2013/11/01/110413-coalLoss-s... and since this chart starts in 1983, the job losses may go back further due to mechanization.

You continue to whine about 800k jobs we have not yet lost yet say nothing about having ALREADY lost over twice that in manufacturing jobs alone... 1.9 million according to http://www.epi.org/publication/growing-trade-deficit-china-cost-2-8-mill... 2.8 million total... just to China. Where's your concern for them?

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

You continue to miss the point entirely, whether by design or inability, I don't know. The coal miner jobs are just a facet of my objections not the thrust of them. Potus is going to Paris with the intention of commiting us to a treaty with China and others that WE will honor and which, IMO, China will give lip service to the alternative energy parts BECAUSE they have a vested interest in supplying the "rare earth" materials such a switch would entail. They will ignore any provisions concerning fossil fuels and wait for any opposition to fade into history. That's a tactic that has worked pretty well for them for 4K years why abandon it now. So do we trade the dependency for Middle East oil that we're just beginning to slough off with natural gas for being dependent on China, Chile and S. Africa for tellerium, lithium and platinum?

"I don't need to give specifics.", of course you don't. That's your MO whether it be the Amendment thread, this thread in reference to "massive geoengineering" or alternatives for displaced coal jobs. Spout a bunch of grandiose crap and do the "two step shimmy" for the duration.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am
Quote mjolnir:"I don't need to give specifics.", of course you don't. That's your MO whether it be the Amendment thread, this thread in reference to "massive geoengineering" or alternatives for displaced coal jobs. Spout a bunch of grandiose crap and do the "two step shimmy" for the duration.

In these cases I don't have to offer ANY specifics... measures to combat global warming, dealing with the loss of coal jobs, and the Ninth Amendment are not the topic of this thread. My only point about combating global warming is if it threatens our historical investments in the current infrastructure and agricultural zone... AND creates massive population disruptions... then we may be forced to take drastic measures if only because it might cost less than doing nothing. YOU are the one who can't even face that possibility and you're lecturing me? WTF is your grand plan to avoid those costs? Oh... that's right. Your plan is to stick your head in the sand.

And I'm sure we can find ways to deal with the loss of 800k coal jobs over time. To present these jobs as somehow special when we've already lost 2.8 million jobs to China... and we're losing 7-800k jobs a month when Bush imploded the economy is laughable.

As for the specific 9th amendment thread which you haven't identified... and there have been several... to ask a question about 9th amendment case law where there's virtually none... is you being disingenuous as usual. Our Constitution was poorly written in that it lacked a statement of it's basic underlying assumptions... such as the role of natural rights vs government powers. If YOU choose to reject any discussion about what little documentation there is... all from the 1780-90s,... it's clear you were never interested in the topic and were back to playing your typical games. Why someone would want to dismiss as unimportant a key Rosetta Stone to deciphering the Constitution is beyond me... unless it's because I offered it as the source for a right to own a firearm and you prefer to bastardize the Second by negating the militia clause.

So I take it you no longer care to discuss the topic you started. I don't blame you.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The coal miner jobs are just a facet of my objections not the thrust of them. - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/11/nasa-study-mass-gains-antarcti...

Since you apparently don't know the meaning of the word I'll provide one for you: "fac·et - a particular aspect or feature of something"
Not the whole thing, a part of something.

"thrust noun (IDEA) › [S] the ​main ​idea, ​subject, or ​opinion that is ​discussed or written about:"

There does your feeble brain comprehend that? Being off topic has never stopped you from babbling along before.

"We may be forced into massive geoengineering investments to modify the climate to prevent it from changing." - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/11/nasa-study-mass-gains-antarcti...

ABCee must be tingling with anticipation, Lol.

That quote is YOURs , not mine. How is asking for specifics on YOUR assertion in a thread challenging whether climate science is "settled" or not, not cogent?

Reply to post #100

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am
Quote mjolnir:"We may be forced into massive geoengineering investments to modify the climate to prevent it from changing." - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/11/nasa-study-mass-gains-antarcti...

ABCee must be tingling with anticipation, Lol.

That quote is YOURs , not mine. How is asking for specifics on YOUR assertion in a thread challenging whether climate science is "settled" or not, not cogent?

Reply to post #100

It's clear SCIENCE has shown the generalized warming. So I have no idea what your question means... whether the "warming" been settled.... or the role humans play in it. As I've said... it doesn't matter... if it's happening then we may be forced into making massive investments to reverse or control it if only to avoid higher costs of doing nothing. Of course... if the crackpots on the US right have their way, we may do nothing. Am I expected to know precisely what new technologies might be invented or how sane or stupid humans will be in the future? Such as question is as disingenuous as asking for case law on the Ninth when you know there's virtually none.

But since YOU are so certain climate change is no big deal... what do YOU want done... especially if warming may have some tipping points that cause irreversible effects.

Pg 14 https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Increasing magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts. Some risks of climate change are considerable at 1 or 2°C above preindustrial levels (as shown in Assessment Box SPM.1). Global climate change risks are high to very high with global mean temperature increase of 4°C or more above preindustrial levels in all reasons for concern (Assessment Box SPM.1), and include severe and widespread impacts on unique and threatened systems, substantial species extinction, large risks to global and regional food security, and the combination of high temperature and humidity compromising normal human activities, including growing food or working outdoors in some areas for parts of the year (high confidence). The precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger tipping points (thresholds for abrupt and irreversible change) remain uncertain, but the risk associated with crossing multiple tipping points in the earth system or in interlinked human and natural systems increases with rising temperature (medium confidence).

So far you seem to be concerned about 800k coal jobs more than the planet's future.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The Thom Hartmann Program Newsletter Tuesday 21 January 2020

  • Democracy Itself Is On Trial... Alexander Hamilton's Thoughts on Abuse of Power as Cause For Impeachment...
  • Democracy on Trial... Thom's Take & Your Calls Along w/LIVE coverage of the Senate Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump...
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system