Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Humans are more likely to destroy/hurt the planet by putting in drastic measures to attempt to prevent or reverse "man-made" climate change rather than just letting the planet go on its natural course.

Doctors are more likely to destroy/hurt the patient by putting in drastic measures to attempt to prevent or reverse "man-made" stabbing rather than just letting the patient go on its natural course.

About the same statement really.

a reply to: SaturnFX

Good point, but I'm trying to present my case and starting off antagonistic or assuming the people I'm talking to's mental state and willingness to learn will only put them further on the defensive and less likely to listen to me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
So, CO2 levels are high, and *gasp!* the planet is responding by producing more flora which, coincidentally enough, consumes CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Neat how the earth works like that, huh?

But you're right, we can easily argue the severity of these claims, or the alarmism surrounding the implications of the changes; we can also easily argue the amount of understanding surrounding actual drivers of climate change cycles, and whether or not the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is really having a dramatic affect on climate at all. There is a lot that we could argue or debate.

Consider this, though: If Antarctica becomes overwhelmingly green and changes to a point where human habitation could be viable on that continent in a few hundred years, and instead of our exploratory and migratory capabilities as humans didn't occur until then instead of about 1,000 years ago, and humans lived on that continent until the point that the cycle returned to it freezing, I'd be willing to bet that, as a human race, we would assume that our actions had something to do with freezing the continent of Antarctica and certain sects of society would be screaming about that at the top of their lungs. And they would do so, even with historical evidence that this exact cycle has occurred numerous times in the past.

With some sects of society, it is always a lose-lose situation--there's always something this is mostly the fault of humans, and there's always something that we need to be "fixing."

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: stosh64
Right now I'm trying to convince the doubters.

At least you said "doubters" and not "deniers," so I'll give credit where credit is due.

ETA: And I don't know if it's worth noting, but only 0.3% of Antarctica has flora on it. This isn't exactly devastating...the planet is always evolving. I'm willing to bet that, by the time of the middle or end of the Maunder Minimum, flora on Antarctica was even less than that coverage. I bet that when the Bering Land Bridge existed, it was probably at absolutely zero percent. The world changes, and that's okay. Sometimes the changes are in short, quick, dramatic bursts, and other times it takes millions of years to happen. Just because we see a dramatic burst of flora on Antarctica (or its more northerly islands) doesn't mean that mean ol' humanity is the primary cause of it--I mean, the data concerning plants on the continent only exist back through 1979, so we're not exactly playing with a full deck of scientific measurements, here.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SaturnFX

Good point, but I'm trying to present my case and starting off antagonistic or assuming the people I'm talking to's mental state and willingness to learn will only put them further on the defensive and less likely to listen to me.

Don't be so pessimistic--most of us are willing to listen if the stuff is worth listening to, but when it's just a regurgitation of the same old claims, but with different pictures (that are three years old) attached to them, it's hard to get excited about listening to the claims...again...about big bad humanity messing up the planet.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Consider this, though: If Antarctica becomes overwhelmingly green and changes to a point where human habitation could be viable on that continent in a few hundred years, and instead of our exploratory and migratory capabilities as humans didn't occur until then instead of about 1,000 years ago, and humans lived on that continent until the point that the cycle returned to it freezing, I'd be willing to bet that, as a human race, we would assume that our actions had something to do with freezing the continent of Antarctica and certain sects of society would be screaming about that at the top of their lungs. And they would do so, even with historical evidence that this exact cycle has occurred numerous times in the past.

With some sects of society, it is always a lose-lose situation--there's always something this is mostly the fault of humans, and there's always something that we need to be "fixing."

The problem with that narrative is that there is ACTUAL data that has been collected and refine over the last 100 or so years on this subject. And the more data we gather the more it shows that we are having an effect on the global climate. It remains to be seen what those effects are going to be. If Antarctica becomes green and habitable, that would be a positive development (more room for humans to live). So that shows that not all the effects are necessarily negative, but with all that ice removed that comes with higher ocean levels. Most of human civilization lives along the costs. There are already countries sinking into the oceans.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
At least you said "doubters" and not "deniers," so I'll give credit where credit is due.

I don't know if you know this or have realized this, I've tried to turn over a new leaf in my debate approach. I try not to insult others or assume their half of the conversation for them and I avoid the political mud pit when I want to talk about a topic seriously. Unfortunately this is still often met with hostility, derision, and insults.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
While land does sometimes "sink" into the ocean, I think you mean countries are starting to experience coastal flooding. I know that it's a nitpicky point, but since you're discussing rising oceans (which have always had relatively short and dramatic rises and falls, which in turn are parts of larger cycels, etc.), it's worth noting.

Here are the cycles that I'm talking about:

Wiki wiki wild, wiki wiki wild, wiki wiki wild wild graphs

I agree and appreciate your assertion that not all climate change is negative, and I agree that more temperate climates worldwide would be great for all life on earth (and higher CO2 levels help that, too), but I don't necessarily think that it's a great idea to start inhabiting Antarctica if it becomes habitable. There's plenty of room on the other six continents, and I don't want to see bombs dropped on a seventh continent, too.

It's always good to turn over a new leaf. I generally try to debate in a civilized manner, although that's not always done, but it's a great goal to have. I know that people always take my very direct approach to debating in a negative way quite often, and it's not always meant that way. I've always felt that you are similar in that regard.

Good luck with your new leaf--knowing that this is your goal, I'll help aid in that ability by not always jumping to conclusions when I disagree with you (which is an inevitability often enough )

Has anyone ever looked at the NASA pictures comparing Arctic and Antarctica ice pack receding? I noticed that pictures of the Arctic were taken in August showing clearly a lack of ice. The next picture was of the Antarctica in December which also clearly showed the ice pack receding. The statement was made how critical MMGW was.

Would someone explain this to me. What am I supposed to see in these pictures?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So, CO2 levels are high, and *gasp!* the planet is responding by producing more flora which, coincidentally enough, consumes CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Neat how the earth works like that, huh?

Not when our CO2 output massively exceeds the flora growth.

And to make it more fun, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increasing temperatures, means the ratio of CO2 absorbed in the oceans drops too.

Neat how the earth works like that, huh?

originally posted by: Caver78
The OP's premise is flawed from the start. There is NO overarching agreement by Climate Scientists. It was the "opinion" of 77 self identified Climate Scientists who responded to a masters study done by a student at the University of Illinois.

Yeah buddy...include epic face palm HERE.

The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.” A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...

So right out of the gate this is a perpetuated MYTH based on the opinions of at first 77 scientists backed up by another study based on a sampling size of 200. Both sample sizes are ludicrously much too small to in effect be any more than an indication that MAYBE more studies should be undertaken.

However the press ran with it as it was a headline and funding grabber. The OP has been whinging the counter arguments are lacking science, so science it is. Wegman Paper clearly states that flawed data is shared between those scientists and agencies which is driving the Myth of human based Climate Change.

Meanwhile, the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce had independently commissioned a study from Edward Wegman who is chairman of the NAS Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics and a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society. The Wegman Report states "Overall, our committee believes that Manns assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. It also states "In general, we find the criticisms by [the McKitrick and McIntyre papers] to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that their observations were correct. The study also studied the social network of the group of scientists who publish temperature reconstructions. The study found that they collaborate with each other and share proxy data and methodologies, so that the "independent" studies are not independent at all. See the Wegman Report here.

Both of these reports were public six months before the IPCC began the release of the Fourth Assessment Report; however, the 4AR makes no mention of the Wegman Report, gives only one citation of the NRC Report, and ignores the findings and recommendations of the reports.

David Holland wrote a comprehensive history and discussion of the hockey stick affair. See Holland's paper - "Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The 'Hockey Stick' Affair and its Implications" published by "Energy & Environment", October 2007 here.

www.friendsofscience.org...

Meanwhile, the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce had independently commissioned a study from Edward Wegman who is chairman of the NAS Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics and a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society. The Wegman Report states "Overall, our committee believes that Manns assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis. It also states "In general, we find the criticisms by [the McKitrick and McIntyre papers] to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that their observations were correct. The study also studied the social network of the group of scientists who publish temperature reconstructions. The study found that they collaborate with each other and share proxy data and methodologies, so that the "independent" studies are not independent at all. See the Wegman Report here.

Both of these reports were public six months before the IPCC began the release of the Fourth Assessment Report; however, the 4AR makes no mention of the Wegman Report, gives only one citation of the NRC Report, and ignores the findings and recommendations of the reports.

David Holland wrote a comprehensive history and discussion of the hockey stick affair. See Holland's paper - "Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The 'Hockey Stick' Affair and its Implications" published by "Energy & Environment", October 2007 here.
www.friendsofscience.org...

The whole doom-porn drama of Climate Change has been pushed on us by politicians and Media. Until Clear and Unbiased data is used we don't know the drivers for Climate Change.

Excellent post, thank you for taking the time to do this post.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It seems from all the charts that global temperature increases preceded co2 increases. Since glacial ages and others events appear to be cyclic and span hundreds of thousands of years, this seems the result of a natural cycle that has more to do with our changing location in the galaxy and our largest heat source, the sun. It seems possible that we contribute to this situation, but it is also improbable that we have any overwhelming effect on outcomes or the creation of the situation. We just aren't that important or powerful and to think otherwise is IMHO both narcissistic and egocentric. Since science states we weren't around to drive climate change, the dozen or more times it has happened in the past, kind of devalues any opinion that we are the cause. What is around now that wasn't around in the past? Let's see, politics, greed, avarice, social engineering and of course the blame game that is used to produce unwittingly, low intelligence indentured slaves. Hmmm, I guess politics and the money power make climate change :-)

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

What charts? You didn't post any.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So, CO2 levels are high, and *gasp!* the planet is responding by producing more flora which, coincidentally enough, consumes CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Green where there should be white

white reflects the suns radiation, green absorbs

You know how AGW works, right?
less ice = less reflection
more green = more suns energy trapped

when you have more ener...you figure it out. it..science, yes, but its not hard.
The moss isn't a issue, the issue is why its there to begin with. also what the overall effect is. where once there was a mirror, now there is a storage container

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: badw0lf

So to cut a long story short, we're f#cked anyway?

Why prolong the inevitable?

I'm gonna start selling rope then.

Instead of telling people how to live a better life, lets all just jump ship.

Sounds like a plan!

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: badw0lf

Sorry, your posts are a little cryptic. I'm too dumb to decrypt them.

Maybe, I don't think you are, I just think the wine has made me a little inohotringtable..

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: manuelram16

Antarctica has been ice free before just look up: Viking Antarctica Map, the ancients mapped the continent with no radar.

So? I've been wet before because I took a shower but does that mean that every time I get wet its because I'm taking a shower?

I used to make my ex wet, just by saying things to her...


Like, "Hey babe, ice bucket challenge time!!"

Bam, shes wet... and left me.

Talk about the ice age :/

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eXia7
Lol, I live in Florida dude, close to the beach. We haven't had a major hurricane in the last 11 years or so.. ever since this climate change/global warming/whatever BS has been running. I haven't seen the coast change at all. We haven't had "mega super ultra deadly storms" We always experience a drought every 5 yrs or so, and we currently aren't under drought.

So because YOUR small part of the world appears to be unchanged to you then that means that Climate change is fake? That isn't scientific either, but at least it's a better response than the Al Gore BS.

Hurricanes happen. Tornadoes happen. Rain happens. Cold happens. Heat happens etc etc.. Just because you blindly follow science doesn't mean you are superior to people who question it. There are scientists on both sides of the argument, and you are getting mad at people who choose to side with the scientists who question it.

Lol you can't make a claim about questioning science and then immediately make the claim that there are scientists on your side of the argument. That is hypocritical.

In any case, scientist WELCOME skepticism. You are more than welcome to prove them wrong. You just have to do it using the scientific method, not some conservative news outlet or quoting some conservative talking head, or bring up Al Gore, or talk about climategate, or any of the other ridiculous non-scientific arguments deniers use to deflect from ACTUALLY seriously trying to disprove the theory.

Science can be bought and paid for, information can be controlled. Don't act all high and mighty because you choose to champion a theory that some people might not wish to blindly believe.

Lol. This is a nonsense statement without proof. More examples of unscientific thinking.

We were told all of Florida would be underwater by now along with other coastal cities. Its nowhere near close to that. You are near a body of water, go out there and see for yourself.

Also, I'm not questioning science, I'm questioning the source.

a reply to: eXia7

So a prediction was wrong, that doesn't mean the overall theory is wrong.

Also, I'm not questioning science, I'm questioning the source.

No you have been questioning science since your first post in the thread. Don't pretend otherwise.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eXia7

So a prediction was wrong, that doesn't mean the overall theory is wrong.

Also, I'm not questioning science, I'm questioning the source.

No you have been questioning science since your first post in the thread. Don't pretend otherwise.

All I did was make a statement that its hype, most likely a fabricated scenario to run a scam. I also cited a couple of instances of how things are completely opposite of your chicken little claims.

I wrote a thread back in 2013 detailing how there were more polar bears now than there were 40 years ago.. It disproved the theory that polar bears were stuck in the ocean floating around on small sheets of ice.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eXia7

So a prediction was wrong, that doesn't mean the overall theory is wrong.

Also, I'm not questioning science, I'm questioning the source.

No you have been questioning science since your first post in the thread. Don't pretend otherwise.

All I did was make a statement that its hype, most likely a fabricated scenario to run a scam. I also cited a couple of instances of how things are completely opposite of your chicken little claims.

Exactly. This is what I'm talking about. You are questioning science. Not performing it.

originally posted by: SaturnFXGreen where there should be white

And there's your problem: There is no "should be," just a "what is" or "what was" based on the start of record keeping.

Again, science shows the massive fluctuations of ice coverage and melt offs that have happened (cyclically, mind you) since forever ago, for all intents and purposes. "Should be" is relative to the point that you view something on this earth.

The storage container has existed there multiple times before, as has the mirror, and each will exists multiple times in the future.

It's not hard.

And yes, I understand the AGW model, along with all of its flaws contained within its assumptions. I'm a reformed AGW believer who has only been following and studying climate change since it was force-fed to me when I lived in a desert climate in California until I was 19. I get it...both sides of it. And to be honest, there are holes in every side of the argument, so all someone who embraces critical thinking and abhors cognitive dissonance can do is take a look at how climate has acted in the past and realize that, if we are having an effect on it (and we are, to a relatively tiny extent), it certainly isn't creating a new pattern, just maybe slightly affecting the intensity of it over the miniscule timeframe of the last millennia or so.

Anything else you want to "teach" me?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

What charts? You didn't post any.

Here's one that I always have at the ready. It's from the Volstok Ice Core samples.

The determination, if I recall correctly, is that temperature trends of rises and falls generally precede CO2 activity of the same trends by about 300-400 years.

It's also fun to include this one, which shows that dramatic and quick increases in temperature are cyclical and have happened numerous times before. Of course, I must note that there is a level of uncertainty in the non-blue portions, but this is an educated best guess using myriad point of data to make the conclusions.