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

[Garnier Fructis]

Nope, but human generated CO2 production is around 15% of the total.

I'm not sure where you got that number, but let's assume that the number is correct. If you're using this as an argument that our influence is 'small', then you're argument is wrong.

Here's why. However much CO2 was in the atmosphere before we started emitting, is irrelevant. It's irrelevant, because that CO2 was part of the natural cycle. What matters is not the total CO2, *but how much extra there is.* And the extra is either directly coming from us, or indirectly caused by us. Our 'tiny' contribution is what's throwing the climate off of the natural cycles.

[s_bushido]

You can tell by the sea level increase of around 4mm per year that the net on-land melting rate hasn't sped up during the last couple decades. If you draw a line through the chart it is almost exactly linear.

It's always cute when anti-vaxxers use the relatively few cases of disease during the last couple decades to support their assertion that vaccines are an unnecessary money-making scheme for big pharma while ignoring the reason there are so few cases in the first place.

Wait...what were we talking about?

Is "the last couple decades" really the hill you want to die on? Everyone else who looks at those graphs sees numbers that are steadily increasing.

[PC2]

Is "the last couple decades" really the hill you want to die on? Everyone else who looks at those graphs sees numbers that are steadily increasing.

The post before mine quoted "Antarctica is losing ice, and losing it fast". The data shows that the change is pretty steady, 4mm per year isn't rapid. It can easily be adapted to. In a warmer climate higher melting and higher precipitation is the new norm, not anything to be alarmed by.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

We've had several threads on this, everyone pointed out that overall ice is being lost on the globe, we don't need to rehash this again.

This might be another opportunity to say that global dimming, the concept of sunlight being blocked and reflected by clouds of rising humidity, will counteract the notion of global warming, and we really need to understand we actually can't impact our own ecosystem at all, we were so egotistical to continue imagining that.

[Endus]

The post before mine quoted "Antarctica is losing ice, and losing it fast". The data shows that the change is pretty steady, 4mm per year isn't rapid. It can easily be adapted to. In a warmer climate higher melting and higher precipitation is the new norm, not anything to be alarmed by.

4mm/year is "fast". And no; it can't be "easily adapted to".

Particularly as the immediate issue isn't where mean sea level sits, it's that as mean sea level rises, so do high tides, and so do storm surges, which all swing from that baseline. We're already seeing storms that are causing massive flooding over the top of measures that were sufficient just a few decades ago.

[Garnier Fructis]

This might be another opportunity to say that global dimming, the concept of sunlight being blocked and reflected by clouds of rising humidity, will counteract the notion of global warming, and we really need to understand we actually can't impact our own ecosystem at all, we were so egotistical to continue imagining that.

This is pretty stupid.

[Gorgodeus]

Climate change is not a myth but human influence on it is grossly overestimated.

It is far from being grossly overestimated. CO2 emissions are not the only thing humans are producing. Methane emissions from livestock and poultry production causes even more global warming then C02 emissions. Guess who the cause of the huge spread of this livestock and poultry production is. Humans.

- - - Updated - - -

to be fair you can pin a great deal of that CO2 output to things like cattle and other livestock, unfortunately that's only a problem because... take a wild guess.

Cattle and livestock do not produce C02 emissions. They produce methane emissions which are causing more global warming then C02 emissions do. So, we humans are adding tremendous amounts of both greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

[PC2]

4mm/year is "fast". And no; it can't be "easily adapted to".

Particularly as the immediate issue isn't where mean sea level sits, it's that as mean sea level rises, so do high tides, and so do storm surges, which all swing from that baseline. We're already seeing storms that are causing massive flooding over the top of measures that were sufficient just a few decades ago.

How is that hard to adapt to? Don't invest money in a flood zone or right near sea level if you're looking for long-term appreciation. If you lose value then you failed to planned ahead.

[Khaza-R]

Climate change is not a myth but human influence on it is grossly overestimated.

Please...

When we've deforested over 80% of the worlds forests, you're insane to think we've had a small effect on climate or air quality

[Taso]

"Mass gains" aren't going to help much when huge chunks of ice shelves break off in Antarctica and raise the sea levels. Also, "mass gains" in the poles aren't going to help those areas of the planet at all, where glaciers are completely disappearing, leaving millions upon millions of people without drinking water.

But I mean, whatever you can grasp at. That's what drowning people do.

But we can recycle urine. They all ready do that in space. So it's not like we can't recreate water. It's just some of it might be initially gross and thus needs to be "purified" in order for it to be drinkable.

[Endus]

How is that hard to adapt to? Don't invest money in a flood zone or right near sea level if you're looking for long-term appreciation. If you lose value then you failed to planned ahead.

What is a "flood zone" is based on exactly those kinds of measurements. Plus, 4mm approximates the sea level rise we've already seen, and it's projected to increase from here.

We're looking at, conservatively, 0.8m of sea level rise by 2100. That's huge. Especially since we've already had significant sea level rise over the last century.

Sure, it doesn't sound like a lot when you're standing knee-deep in the water, but shorelines usually slope, so a meter of sea level increase is generally quite a bit more in terms of horizontal flooding. I've done assessments for coastal cities, and it's a question of how much of their waterfront property is going to be flooded and how regularly, not if it's going to be flooded.

[Moadar]

Global warming is real but it gets a bad rap. Global warming has done nothing but good for winter in the NE US. I barely have to clean snow anymore.

[La]

Global warming is real but it gets a bad rap. Global warming has done nothing but good for winter in the NE US. I barely have to clean snow anymore.

Pretty sure climate change makes summers hotter and winters colder.

[Orbitus]

Global warming is real but it gets a bad rap. Global warming has done nothing but good for winter in the NE US. I barely have to clean snow anymore.

That isn't necessarily a good thing. It might be good for you, but less snow for places like the mountains in California leads to droughts and whatnot. Which then in turn leads to higher agriculture prices because they use most of the water run off from melting snow to irrigate the crops in California.

[Moadar]

Pretty sure climate change makes summers hotter and winters colder.

Our winters have been much much milder and shorter and our summers hotter for awhile now. Whatever is doing it is awesome.

- - - Updated - - -

That isn't necessarily a good thing. It might be good for you, but less snow for places like the mountains in California leads to droughts and whatnot. Which then in turn leads to higher agriculture prices because they use most of the water run off from melting snow to irrigate the crops in California.

I know and those are all terrible but the silver lining is that some people can enjoy it, right?

[Garnier Fructis]

Global warming is real but it gets a bad rap. Global warming has done nothing but good for winter in the NE US. I barely have to clean snow anymore.

In the grand scheme of things, I think whether or not you need to shovel snow is a little less important than whether or not people have a stable supply of drinking water and crops, and whether or not we pay more to fix greater damage from storm surges.

[Auxora]

Would seem to me that it's a whole lot more accurate gauge of warming to measure rising sea levels (which are rising), rather than trying to do this sort of complex estimate of annual ice gains based on altitude in some areas vs. declines in others. Not to mention so much of the ice is subsurface on shelves over ocean water where it's even more difficult to measure ice thickness. We know the end result of the equation and that's all that matters. If you have a bucket with 10 inches of water, and you measure it later and 11 inches are in it, obviously water is being added. Arguing otherwise by using overly convoluted and likely inaccurate measurements to get there doesn't really change the result. There is always snow and ice accumulation in various parts of the world, but all that matters is that the global warming and sea level rise is exceeding any localized snow and ice accumulation. It would be incredibly difficult to measure snow and ice in 1 kilometer of rocky terrain with various thickness, much less a whole continent.

[Deleted]

But we can recycle urine. They all ready do that in space. So it's not like we can't recreate water. It's just some of it might be initially gross and thus needs to be "purified" in order for it to be drinkable.

You do realize people don't even have proper plumbing in places like Nepal, right? You're thinking they'll be "recycling urine" any time soon?

[Celista]

This might be another opportunity to say that global dimming, the concept of sunlight being blocked and reflected by clouds of rising humidity, will counteract the notion of global warming, and we really need to understand we actually can't impact our own ecosystem at all, we were so egotistical to continue imagining that.

There are several billion people on this planet, of course we are impacting our ecosystem. Will the earth survive long after we have made it uninhabitable for humans to survive? Yes, probably.

[Milchshake]

What is a "flood zone" is based on exactly those kinds of measurements. Plus, 4mm approximates the sea level rise we've already seen, and it's projected to increase from here.

We're looking at, conservatively, 0.8m of sea level rise by 2100. That's huge. Especially since we've already had significant sea level rise over the last century.

Sure, it doesn't sound like a lot when you're standing knee-deep in the water, but shorelines usually slope, so a meter of sea level increase is generally quite a bit more in terms of horizontal flooding. I've done assessments for coastal cities, and it's a question of how much of their waterfront property is going to be flooded and how regularly, not if it's going to be flooded.

Just a heads up, the OP is quoting an article from a year ago. Probably why they didnt link the really old article in the first place.

MMOC already beat this dead horse with this post:
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...er-than-Losses

And dont feel bad about not remembering posting on that post.

None of that is true. It's all nonsense that was made up by deniers, as slander. Not understanding projections does not mean those making them are creating "hysteria".

Taxing companies to offset the environmental damage their products cause is not "wealth redistribution", however much you think they should get a pass.

What would GEN-OT be without the endless circle jerking.

Stop the thread-denialism!