[allaorta]

Originally Posted by njp

Ah. Someone else's then. I look forward to the link.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=oce...w=1024&bih=588

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ancurrent.html

Now you have to decide whether windymills and glass roofs is going to stop anything, let alone cope with population and manufacturing increases.

[kmx1974]

Originally Posted by allaorta

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87S0X920120829

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...23/3573626.htm

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo1129.html

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth...polar_melting/

I'm sorry, can you make some comment on these, I'm not sure how they're relevant to any of my earlier posts.

[njp]

Originally Posted by allaorta

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87S0X920120829

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...23/3573626.htm

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo1129.html

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth...polar_melting/

Originally Posted by allaorta

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=oce...w=1024&bih=588

Originally Posted by allaorta

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=oce...w=1024&bih=588

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ancurrent.html

You have just given a load of links that offer no support for any of your novel "theories".

Why did you do that?

[allaorta]

Originally Posted by njp

You have just given a load of links that offer no support for any of your novel "theories".

Why did you do that?

Just to show you I can use Google.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by kmx1974

Poppycock! whether or not Antarctica is gaining ice is a matter of fact, not ideology and the fact is, as ever you can't provide any data to support your conclusions.

See what I mean? I gave you a link showing how Antarctica is gaining ice. It only uses a couple of years data, but you think 'since records began' is meaningful or significant. To an alzheimers sufferer it may be. To people looking to make billions or in the case of James Hansen, just millions it's alarming and we must give them money in accordance with Nick Stern's playbook. You must act now and give genorously because they've scared you.

[njp]

Originally Posted by allaorta

Just to show you I can use Google.

Oh. It looked as though you were trying to show that you couldn't. A set of completely random links would have supported your case just as well.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

See what I mean? I gave you a link showing how Antarctica is gaining ice. It only uses a couple of years data, but you think 'since records began' is meaningful or significant.

You really can't tell the difference, can you?

That's why you've never understood the difference between weather and climate, or trends versus outliers, or... well, anything at all, really.

And did you in fact post a link showing a short term gain in Antarctic ice mass? I followed the dismal trail left by your posts back until my eyes glazed over, but couldn't find one. So I suspect you are just lying again.

[kmx1974]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

See what I mean? I gave you a link showing how Antarctica is gaining ice. It only uses a couple of years data, but you think 'since records began' is meaningful or significant. To an alzheimers sufferer it may be. To people looking to make billions or in the case of James Hansen, just millions it's alarming and we must give them money in accordance with Nick Stern's playbook. You must act now and give genorously because they've scared you.

No you linked to this, which doesn't show that Antarctica is gaining ice, then lied about it.

[allaorta]

Originally Posted by kmx1974

No you linked to this, which doesn't show that Antarctica is gaining ice, then lied about it.

Received: 8 November 2010 / Accepted: 31 March 2011 / Published online: 13 May 2011
 The Author(s) 2011. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com


Could it be that it took almost 5 months to gain acceptance so they could tinker with it to get the preferred result?

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by njp

You really can't tell the difference, can you?

That's why you've never understood the difference between weather and climate, or trends versus outliers, or... well, anything at all, really.

Sure I do.. But you only seem to think there's a difference when it suits your cause. Splice and adjust satellite data and you get patchy Arctic coverage since the '70s. Barely one 'climate' interval. So with a couple of years worth of CryoSat2 data, why do you think you can produce anything statistically meaningful, or you're not just looking at a storm-biased outlier?

And did you in fact post a link showing a short term gain in Antarctic ice mass?

Yup. kmx remembered it for you-

+16 Gt/year for East Antarctica

So there you go. Gaining mass.

[kmx1974]

The Eel world:

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

+16 Gt/year for East Antarctica

The real world:

Our preferred estimate for 1992–2001 is -47 Gt/year for West Antarctica, +16 Gt/year for East Antarctica, and -31 Gt/year overall

Who do you think you're fooling with these transparent cherry picks, or is it your hope that people will be so impressed with your relentless dishonesty that they'll flock to your side?

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by kmx1974

Who do you think you're fooling with these transparent cherry picks, or is it your hope that people will be so impressed with your relentless dishonesty that they'll flock to your side?

Well, transparent cherry picks have obviously fooled you and no doubt you still believe in the sacred Hockey Stick. And possibly tooth fairies.

Meanwhile, back in the real world..Why would East Antarctica be gaining mass whilst West is losing it? Surely with global warming and well-mixed CO2, both should be being melted by the evil 'back radiation'? How accurate do you think the data are, especially given the uncertainties shown for the GRACE data?

How relevant is your fear when there's less than 10yrs of data anyway?

[njp]

Originally Posted by allaorta

Received: 8 November 2010 / Accepted: 31 March 2011 / Published online: 13 May 2011
 The Author(s) 2011. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Could it be that it took almost 5 months to gain acceptance so they could tinker with it to get the preferred result?

Yes, that's obviously right. The conspiracy requires that all scientific papers be submitted to the central global warming cabal, where Michael Mann and the other members of the scientific Illuminati make the necessary adjustments to the truth, prior to publication.

Much the same happens with papers propping up other areas of mainstream "science", as a brief perusal of the dates on them will confirm. Although why they don't just hide the dates is a mystery. Sometimes, it's almost as though there isn't a conspiracy at all! Maybe it's an elaborate double-bluff. I wouldn't put anything past those bastards.

[Orri]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Meanwhile, back in the real world..Why would East Antarctica be gaining mass whilst West is losing it? Surely with global warming and well-mixed CO2, both should be being melted by the evil 'back radiation'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AntarcticBedrock.jpg

Feel free to speculate over why heat transfer by ocean current is more efficient than conduction through land. Back radiation isn't the only factor involved.

[allaorta]

[quote=njp;60953119]

Yes, that's obviously right. The conspiracy requires that all scientific papers be submitted to the central global warming cabal, where Michael Mann and the other members of the scientific Illuminati make the necessary adjustments to the truth, prior to publication.

Close

Much the same happens with papers propping up other areas of mainstream "science", as a brief perusal of the dates on them will confirm. Although why they don't just hide the dates is a mystery. Sometimes, it's almost as though there isn't a conspiracy at all! Maybe it's an elaborate double-bluff. I wouldn't put anything past those bastards.

Don't get so paranoid about science, the very same things happens with other topics like reports commissioned by Parliament have to go through a vetting procedure to eliminate any areas which may cause embarassment to the government.

[njp]

Originally Posted by allaorta_who_cannot_quote

Don't get so paranoid about science, the very same things happens with other topics like reports commissioned by Parliament have to go through a vetting procedure to eliminate any areas which may cause embarassment to the government.

To a small boy with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[allaorta]

Originally Posted by njp

To a small boy with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

And I rarely miss.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by Orri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AntarcticBedrock.jpg

Feel free to speculate over why heat transfer by ocean current is more efficient than conduction through land. Back radiation isn't the only factor involved.

Stop spoiling my fun by thinking

But yes, this is why I've been baiting the dynamic duo with East vs West. See also fig2 of the Zwally paper. And for bonus points, although Zwally doesn't go into attribution (too heavily), see if you can find anything that post-dates that paper (and source data) that could affect his estimates and assumptions.

But you're right, it's likely to be about the ocean. So much as the Artic. Warm water cooling. SST trends are doing.. what at the moment?