Ice loss spreads up Antarctic glaciers

[Endus]

It's 3.4 mm according to NASA. If their claim was true that this is already happening then the observed rate would already be 4.0 mm.

Are you seriously this incapable of reading basic English, or are you deliberately lying about the source material? It said the melt from West Antartica was more than 10% of the global increase. Which it is. By your own admission, here.

Every single post you've made has boiled down to ignoring what the source material actually says, so you can invent nonsense it doesn't say.

[PC2]

Are you seriously this incapable of reading basic English, or are you deliberately lying about the source material? It said the melt from West Antartica was more than 10% of the global increase. Which it is. By your own admission, here.

Every single post you've made has boiled down to ignoring what the source material actually says, so you can invent nonsense it doesn't say.

It hasnt pushed the total global change up to 4 mm per year, thus it is just a local contribution. Also, my initial point is that doesn't represent all of Antarctica.

[Endus]

It hasnt pushed the total global change up to 4mm per year, thus it is just a local contribution. It doesn't represent all of Antarctica.

Nothing you have said here makes any sense.

The source did not state that the melt from West Antartica had contributed 4mm of global sea level rise per year. It stated it contributed between 0.34-0.40mm. Which is more than 10% of the global total sea level rise, which is about 3.4mm.

It's a local contribution of meltwater that creates a global increase in sea levels.

Of course it "doesn't represent all of Antarctica". It never claimed to. These researchers were focused on one region specifically. The East Antarctica coastal ice is ALSO melting, and ALSO contributing to sea level rise. That's not being contested, it's just not where they were focused in this particular study. Other researchers are looking at other regions.

Three separate misrepresentations of the source in a single line of text. It's almost impressive how much misinformation you packed in there.

[PC2]

Nothing you have said here makes any sense.

The source did not state that the melt from West Antartica had contributed 4mm of global sea level rise per year. It stated it contributed between 0.34-0.40mm. Which is more than 10% of the global total sea level rise, which is about 3.4mm.

It's a local contribution of meltwater that creates a global increase in sea levels.

Of course it "doesn't represent all of Antarctica". It never claimed to. These researchers were focused on one region specifically. The East Antarctica coastal ice is ALSO melting, and ALSO contributing to sea level rise. That's not being contested, it's just not where they were focused in this particular study. Other researchers are looking at other regions.

Three separate misrepresentations of the source in a single line of text. It's almost impressive how much misinformation you packed in there.

Okay so it was just wasting our time by spitting out the same 3.4 mm that it has been at.

[Endus]

Okay so it was just wasting our time by spitting out the same 3.4 mm that it has been at.

It wasn't re-establishing that global increase, it was quantifying West Antarctica's contribution towards it specifically.

So no. Not "wasting" anyone's time. You misrepresenting the article, that wastes people's time.

[PC2]

It wasn't re-establishing that global increase, it was quantifying West Antarctica's contribution towards it specifically.

So no. Not "wasting" anyone's time. You misrepresenting the article, that wastes people's time.

which is sufficient to push up global waters by between 0.34mm and 0.40mm per annum - more than 10% of the total worldwide trend.

Yes they were trying to re-establish the possibility that global water change per year could be at (.40mm x 10) levels. Which is simply not true. If they had stuck to the actual observed rate of 3.4mm it would have been more honest.

[Endus]

Yes they were trying to re-establish the possibility that global waters could potentially be at (.40mm x 10) levels. Which is simply not true. If they had stuck to the actual observed rate of 3.4mm it would have been more honest.

Seriously, the sentence isn't THAT hard to read. You're completely wrong about what it states, and the conclusion it derives. It does not state what you're claiming. You're either incapable of understanding basic English (which isn't my accusation, but is the only other explanation at this point), or you're deliberately and maliciously lying about this stuff for some misbegotten reason.

Because it literally does not say the things you claim.

[PC2]

Seriously, the sentence isn't THAT hard to read. You're completely wrong about what it states, and the conclusion it derives. It does not state what you're claiming. You're either incapable of understanding basic English (which isn't my accusation, but is the only other explanation at this point), or you're deliberately and maliciously lying about this stuff for some misbegotten reason.

It's either localised(my original point) or the .4mm figure is not accurate in relations to global waters.

[Endus]

It's either localised(my original point) or the .4mm figure is not accurate in relations to global waters.

Both of those statements are false, and demonstrate nothing but your refusal to read the source properly.

The 0.4mm figure is global sea level rise. It's accurate, you're just not reading things properly. Or, more likely, straight-up lying.

[PC2]

Both of those statements are false, and demonstrate nothing but your refusal to read the source properly.

The 0.4mm figure is global sea level rise. It's accurate, you're just not reading things properly. Or, more likely, straight-up lying.

If West Antarctica adds more to the sea level rise then before, but global sea level rise remains at 3.4mm then that means some other place saw a sea level rise contribution reduction. Hence my comment about looking at 'all of Antarctica'.

[Molis]

I read this as "Ice Boss" and was worried about the ice stone melting again.

[Dezerte]

It's either localised(my original point) or the .4mm figure is not accurate in relations to global waters.

That's literally is what it says though, that the dumping of ice in Antarctica is responsible for more than 10% of the total global sea level rise.

[Krille]

Both of those statements are false, and demonstrate nothing but your refusal to read the source properly.

The 0.4mm figure is global sea level rise. It's accurate, you're just not reading things properly. Or, more likely, straight-up lying.

This is a common trope amongst the deniers. Ignore facts and just make up something that fits your narrative.

- - - Updated - - -

That's literally is what it says though, that the dumping of ice in Antarctica is responsible for more than 10% of the total global sea level rise.

I'm shocked people still reply to a guy that has shown time and time again that he would never ever acknowledge fault.

[Endus]

If West Antarctica adds more to the sea level rise then before, but global sea level rise remains at 3.4mm then that means some other place saw a sea level rise contribution reduction. Hence my comment about looking at 'all of Antarctica'.

Is there going to be a time when you stop blatantly misrepresenting what the article actually states? Because EVERY post you've made has been lying about the information it contains. And this new one doesn't change that.

Global sea level rise isn't "remaining" anything. The 0.34mm-0.4mm from West Antarctica is just that particular region's contribution to that total. There was no other reduction or anything of the sort; you're literally making that up because you have some need to lie about this stuff.

[PC2]

I'm shocked people still reply to a guy that has shown time and time again that he would never ever acknowledge fault.

There is no fault, it is just a narrow thread about Antarctic ice loss and sea level contribution.

[buck008]

There is no fault, it is just a narrow thread about Antarctic ice loss and sea level contribution.

How much evidence, exactly, do you need have presented to you to see what is going on? Or are you committed to the bitter end at this point?

[PC2]

How much evidence, exactly, do you need have presented to you to see what is going on? Or are you committed to the bitter end at this point?

I'm looking at the global numbers for sea level rise. I dont know what more you want. Locality doesn't matter that much on this issue.

[Dezerte]

I'm looking at the global numbers for sea level rise. I dont know what more you want. Locality doesn't matter that much on this issue.

Antarctica is connected to the global seas around the world... hence why ice dumping in Antarctica affects global sea levels.

[PC2]

Antarctica is connected to the global seas around the world... hence why ice dumping in Antarctica affects global sea levels.

My point is that we should focus on the net totals. Such as that ice dumping plus the latest Antarctic precipitation.

[zenkai]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-envi...ource=facebook

Well that's good, we have places that need more water.