Hmmm - "OT: Antarctic ices sheets are loosing mass"

Loading thread data ...

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news:2db6e57a-8889-408c-8f5e-a8fa991c76e5 @googlegroups.com:

Breathe too hard... eat to many salads with beans, and you too could be a looser.

I the farts are too loud, you could have a secondary effect based on your fart tremors. That looses 'em too.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Have there been mushroom clouds seen over Antarctica?

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Sure.

formatting link

Loosing massive icebergs.

Reply to
krw

Sure, why not? Icebergs are loosened from the main sheet.

Wouldn't be a conventional phrasing, but doesn't strike me as grammatically inconsistent.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC 
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Design 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Williams

"Tim Williams" wrote in news:q28nio$4ks$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Hey, loosing, you got some 'splainin' to do!

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

It was a typo, but Tim is right - the mass lost from the ice sheet comes lose as icebergs, which float off into the Southern Ocean and eventually melt.

They raise the sea level as soon as they are floating.

The interesting question is how fast the ice sheet slides off into the ocean.

We know - from what happened at the end of the last ice age - that the ice sheet slides off progressively faster as the climate gets warmer.

formatting link

The rate of rise got up to 2.5 metres per century. That was 120 metres of rise spread over 13,000 years, and we aren't looking forward to more than 10 metres, but the ice sheets that we are looking at are rather closer to the coast.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

The mass of the ice in antarctia is about 27e6 gigatons.

The purported loss is about 10 PPM of that.

Is some combination of measurement and simulation going to measure all that ice to 10 PPM accuracy?

It's cold down there so they should wear good gloves while waving their hands that much.

Of course ice sheets "loose" mass. As the snow adds it uphill.

--
John Larkin   Highland Technology, Inc   trk 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Not relevant; the loss is accelerating. Nonconstancy is evidence of climate change, but the observed effect size isn't the next decade's expectation, after all.

"Purported" mass of the ice in antarctica is 27e6 gigatons, didn't you mean?

And, doesn't that mean the acceleration isn't up against a limit?

Reply to
whit3rd

It is an observed loss.There is an eleven page document of supplementary information spelling out how it was computed.

formatting link

There's about 58 metres of sea level in the whole Antarctic ice sheet, it it all slid off and melted, which it won't. The bits that are likely to slide off fairly soon are good for about 3.3 metres of sea level rise.

formatting link

If you'd bothered to read the paper, rather than relying out your ignorant prejudices, you wouldn't have made quite such as ass of yourself.

As is discussed in the paper. The Antarctic ice sheets are experiencing a net loss of mass and have been since 1979 - more ice is sliding off than the snow that is getting added.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

I said "about" 27e6 gigatons. Maybe the simulated loss is actually 9 PPM of that, or it could be 11 PPM.

I'm sure glad I don't manufacture hockey sticks, when they are so easy to simulate.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

The loss has been calculated from observations, not simulated, as John Larkin would know if he had read the paper, as opposed to recycling standard denialist evasions.

Mann's hockey stick wasn't simulated, and has been replicated in about a dozen independent studies, using different proxies for past temperature.

Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick were able to simulate the result using the same statistical technique on random data - but their random noise wasn't white, but pink, so there was a real trend to be detected .

A drunkards walk (which is what pink nose represents) can be expected to move away from its starting point to an extent given by the square root of the number of possible changes of direction.

It was a cheat, but a subtle one. Not easy.

formatting link

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

If we are "loosing" it at the fringes, then the term for putting it back in the center would be 'fixing' it.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

This is measurement. Simulation is different. Look it up.

Do you enjoy skiing on simulated skis? Hockey stick manufacture isn't hurt by simulation, for obvious reasons. Real sticks whack. Visual effects in gameware are good nowadays, but maybe sound is still at the frontier; I'm ready with headphones if a good echoes-in-the-dungeon game comes along.

So, how would a Spice sonic output of frying-bacon-on-overheat grab ya? You sometimes get popping fuses and epoxy sizzles with the real thing, after all. And by doing it in simulation, the bill for fuses would drop

Reply to
whit3rd

The paper in question included "a regional atmospheric model" to, I suppose, estimate snowfall or something. That just makes a 10 PPM mass measurement more absurd.

formatting link

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Close; brown. More precisely, the moves are white, while the integrated motion is brown. Pink is between both; I don't know what the corresponding statistics are for it offhand.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC 
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Design 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Williams

Published in 2015, based on measurements of the top of the ice sheet - which is to say before the snow fall has consolidated. The paper itself refers to new measuring gear that was to start working in 2018.

The paper on which John Larkin is pretending to comment on has an eleven page supplement spelling out how their estimates were constructed

formatting link

And the whole point of the Antarctic ice sheet is that it is a lot of ice - the fact that the mass loss is 10ppm per year of the total mass is irrelevant.

The ice cap has been there for about 45.5 million years now. When the continental plate under the ice cap moves away from the pole again, it will presumably go away.

formatting link

it's moving north-west at the moment, at about 12 to 14mm per year, into Patagonia.

If John Larkin concentrated on the mass of the earth's oceans, 1.4X10^18 metric tons as opposed to the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet 26.5x10^6 gigatons or 26.5x10^15 metric tons, he'd be talking about a part per billion component.

252+/-26 gigaton per year mass loss from 2009 to 2017 is a lot of ice, no matter what the mass you want to call it a component of, and it is lot higher than it was from 1979 to 1990, when it was only 40+/-9 gigaton per year.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Published in 2015, based on measurements of the top of the ice sheet - which is to say before the snow fall has consolidated. The paper itself refers to new measuring gear that was to start working in 2018.

The paper on which John Larkin is pretending to comment on has an eleven page supplement spelling out how their estimates were constructed

formatting link

And the whole point of the Antarctic ice sheet is that it is a lot of ice - the fact that the mass loss is 10ppm per year of the total mass is irrelevant.

The ice cap has been there for about 45.5 million years now. When the continental plate under the ice cap moves away from the pole again, it will presumably go away.

formatting link

it's moving north-west at the moment, at about 12 to 14mm per year, into Patagonia.

If John Larkin concentrated on the mass of the earth's oceans, 1.4X10^18 metric tons as opposed to the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet 26.5x10^6 gigatons or 26.5x10^15 metric tons, he'd be talking about a part per billion component.

252+/-26 gigaton per year mass loss from 2009 to 2017 is a lot of ice, no matter what the mass you want to call it a component of, and it is lot higher than it was from 1979 to 1990, when it was only 40+/-9 gigaton per year.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Still a cheat though. McIntyre said random, and buried the colour of the randomness in the small print. Commentators tended to gloss over that point - it's just as technical as McIntyre's objections but rather more fundamental.

Mann was working from real temperature data, and the rise he saw was real, and has been confirmed by about a dozen independent studies since he published.

McIntyre was working in the fossil carbon extraction industry's interest, though he never actually admitted it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

I've posted this a few times, so once more can't hurt (much).

Rainfall prediction for San Lorenzo Valley CA (where I live: Spreadsheet used to create the graph: Real temperature data from various local sources:

What it demonstrates is that if I extrapolate the data into the future using an odd order polynomial, I get a predicted rise in future values. If I use an even order polynomial, the curve drops. I'm not suggested that Mann used this method to produce a hockey stick, but I am suggesting that it is fairly easy to do so if necessary.

I did the original graphs in 2007, so the above are 12 years out of date. I have later data available but will not be applying the same extrapolations to it (because I'm suppose to be recovering from kidney stone surgery for a few days). I've also been tempted to try the odd order polynomial expansion trick on some proxy temperature data and see if it produces a suitable hockey stick.

Topic shift: I also posted this previously. C02 versus temperature graphs are also a problem for me. This famous graph of the relationship between temperature (blue), CO2 (green), and dust (red) seems rather odd. I always look for oddities and missing items when looking at politically sensitive data representations. Oddly, the vertical grid lines are missing. Now, why would anyone do that? Perhaps to make it difficult to see cause and effect? The graph is also going the wrong way in time for proving forcing issues. So, I fixed it. Here's the same graph flipped horizontally and with vertical grid lines inserted: Notice the corresponding data points in the circles. Kinda looks like the CO2 peak changes occurred before the temperature peak change. So, does CO2 rise cause global warming, or does global warming cause a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration? The graph suggests the latter.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.