The melting of Antarctica

For example, relating specifically to the article, I could simply point out that the REGIONAL Western Antarctic melting is most certainly due to volcanic activity and that Antarctic ice levels were at all time record highs for much of last year. The article doesn't even mention the recent record-breaking ice levels?! Doesn't that seem strange? It seems any information that doesn't confirm the prevailing view is neatly filtered out. It's bizarre to watch, but strangely fascinating.

I could show you that the lynch-pin of the CAGW argument is simply assumed in the climate models. It is highly uncertain, unproven, and is not born out by observation. It's easy to do and relies entirely on mainstream climate science.

And for all this I get called a "climate denier", a term that is meant to associate me with "holocaust deniers". From your article: "DH0. Name-calling. - This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common."

Yes, it is the most common response I get from CAGW advocates. Ironic, isn't it?

I don't deny that humans can influence earth's climate. But the tone of climate change media is beyond hysterics.

For instance, the headline from this article is, in full, "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse."

I posted below links to scientific studies showing that Antarctica has 12.5 million cubic km of ice. 125 cubic km of ice is "melting" each year. On top of that, surveyors noticed reductions in Antarctic ice at least as far back as 1932, far far before "climate change."

My naturally skeptical alarms go off when I realize that headlines like the OP are pure hysterics. At the current rate, Antarctica will melt in 1 million years. Of course, climate changes dramatically on that geologic time scale, so the headline completely destroys the credibility, in my mind, of the central argument -- that Antarctica is "melting."

One look a tide gauges shows that the sea level rise we've been seeing has been going on for about 150 years with no change in the rate of rise.

So, naturally, I'm going to be skeptical of hysterical claims.

As to your point about HN being hostile to climate change, I see it the complete opposite way. Any skeptical arguments, even links to objective scientific facts, are immediately flagkilled and downvoted into hell.

There are still a lot of different ways this could play out. We could have another moderately difficult Summer followed by one of the wettest and coldest Winters in recent history, and everything will keep limping along. Or, we could have a season of dry thunderstorms that cause one of the worst wildfire seasons in recent history, complete with thick smoke and the health effects that causes. Or, conflicts over water rights could add fuel to the State of Jefferson movement and turn that into years of political wrangling that drains the energy from a state government no longer being led by Brown. Or, California agriculture could suddenly take huge steps towards better water management, either due to rising water costs or public outcry as municipal water rates skyrocket and rationing is imposed. Or, agriculture might fail to adapt and there will be economic ripple effects felt in food costs and a hit to the state GDP.

Usually, things like this sort of muddle along for years and nobody really notices an acute impact. Sometimes the conditions are right for a disaster and you get something like 2008. The conditions are right now for things to get pretty awful over the next couple of years, but there are still a lot of people involved that can have some impact over how it all turns out. I hope those people get started soon.

If things do take a turn towards the worst, there really is less and less reason for most people to stay in this state. It's a nice state, but there are lots of other really nice places too, and there's been a tech diaspora over the last decade that's bearing fruit in a lot of different places around the country.

Take the fraction of the volume that's anticipated to melt and spread that over the ocean, and you get that 11 foot number.

The Wikipedia page, for what it's worth, estimates that the sea level would rise 70 meters if the whole thing melted. Plus, if Antarctica melted, then all ice would've melted, including Greenland, so we'd be even more screwed.

You're right that there's not enough data here, though. I'm sure the calculation is far from simple since the ice-sheet varies dramatically in terms of topology both on the surface and underwater.

"We estimate that at least 3.5 m of eustatic sea level potential drains through Totten Glacier, so coastal processes in this area could have global consequences."

With calculations done here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo...

Because conflating the ozone hole with global warming (two different and unrelated phenomenon) can be a legitimate product of confusion, but it's more commonly a denialist tactic on a par with "if evolution is real, why are there still monkeys?" See enough of it, you get uncharitable.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci...

Because the mechanism behind the melting is already explained in The Fine Article.

Because all science operates on the principle that theories are subject to reinterpretation upon new evidence, all science except climate change, whose dogma is not to be questioned.

As to the relation of the subjects, I have seem many of the AGW defenders to claim that CFC, HFC and all the other gazes they claim is harmful to the "ozone" also are "greenhouse gases", which as I said before is a complete stupidity.

It's the actual story title. Since Bezos bought them, my impression is that the Washington Post has published much more click-bait and strident writing. It's sad to see that from what used to be one of the best news sources in the world.

Ten years ago there were three top-notch serious news sources in the U.S. IMHO, the Post, the NY Times, and the Wall St Journal. The Journal was purchased by News Corporation (who also own Fox News, the former News of the World, and other beacons of credibility), the Post seems to be slipping; if the NY Times doesn't survive we could have a very serious problem. Without quality, credible, independent information, how can the public have any power?

Antarctic melting is a particularly nasty consequence of anthopogenic climate change. It's a fairly robust first-order prediction of almost any analysis that gets anthropogenic heat balances correct--so unlike almost all other detailed predictions, there is a good chance of it happening--and the consequences, apart from maybe submerging Florida, are unequivocally bad for humans.

But in a debate as emotionally charged as the one over climate change and what to do about it, the last thing we need is the Washington Post ranting on in purely speculative terms.

If a friend told you, "Ten years from now, you may remember 2014 as the year that you first learned that I may have gotten a new job. Meanwhile, 2015 could be the year of the double whammy — when you learned the same about our buddy Joe, which could set in motion a road trip," you would probably look at them funny and say, "Hey, why are you telling me all this stuff that may or may nor or could or could not or might or might not happen as if it's the most important thing in the world? It sounds kind of pretentious and stupid."

Additionally, there has been no acceleration in sea level increases:

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.s...

Browse stations here: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mslUSTrendsTable.h...