
Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses - julienchastang
http://www.nature.com/news/gains-in-antarctic-ice-might-offset-losses-1.18486?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
======
sageabilly
The important takeaway from this is that we don't have to worry as much about
melting in Antartica. Melting everywhere else in the world, however, is
proceeding at a fast pace and is more immediately concerning. Unfortunately, I
imagine this report is going to get jumped on by global warming deniers as
solid evidence that climate change is not real and there's nothing to worry
about.

~~~
vixen99
The word 'denial' does not permit of much nuance, does it? Smacks of faith and
a religion, really. I wonder if & why you disagree with Judith Curry.

"The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized
catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the
21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to
human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate
change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’
solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN
to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree
centigrade in warming by 2100..."

Evidence to the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and
Technology

~~~
rgbrenner
Judith Curry who wrote less than a year ago[0]:

 _Moreover, the estimates in these empirical studies are being borne out by
the much-discussed “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming—the period since 1998
during which global average surface temperatures have not significantly
increased._

Even though the actual data shows warming of ~0.18 deg C:
[http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-
temperature/](http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/)

0\. [http://www.wsj.com/articles/judith-curry-the-global-
warming-...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/judith-curry-the-global-warming-
statistical-meltdown-1412901060)

~~~
midwest1
Judith Curry had something to say about the NASA data as well. I find her
analysis quite level-headed.

[http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/16/warmest-year-pause-and-
all...](http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/16/warmest-year-pause-and-all-that/)

------
mamon
Dumb question: if all the ice melts, especially in Arctics shouldn't the see
level fall down as volume of water is smaller than volume of ice? And with
increased temperature there is also increased vaporization and world's average
humidity - another reason for sea levels to fall down.

~~~
brrt
There are no dumb questions :-), but no, this is not what will happen. For one
thing, the ice that floats around in sea displaces exactly as much water as
ice (uses the same 'water volume') as it will as water. (Almost, because the
water volume per mass will actually increase with increasing temperatures,
which is quite a significant effect). However, a large amount of ice is on
land, where it doesn't contribute to ocean volume. If it were to melt that
would be a major contributor to sea level rise.

Also, the average humidity is quite stable on earth, and any excess water that
evaporates into the atmosphere quickly rains out again. Furthermore, the
amount of water in the atmosphere is very small in comparison to the amount of
water in the oceans. (See e.g. here:
[http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html](http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html)).
So it is very difficult to imagine that an increased humidity would have a
significant effect on the sea level.

------
Pinatubo
Hooray, the polar bears are saved!

~~~
todd8
Well, not really. Polar bears live in the Northern Hemisphere. (Here's a
riddle: why won't a polar bear eat a penguin even if the bear is starving?
Answer: they live in different hemispheres.)

~~~
julienchastang
Except penguins lived in the Northern Hemisphere:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_auk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_auk).
Great Auks are the original "penguin". What we call penguins today are not
actually in the genus Pinguinus.

------
brianbreslin
Could this be related to a shifting in the tilt/orientation of the planet? Or
perhaps in an upcoming polarity flip?

~~~
civilian
Ahhh, the earth's tilt/orientation changes very slowly.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt)
__Earth 's obliquity oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year
cycle. It is currently 23.44 degrees and decreasing. __

Magnetic pole changes take 1,000 to 10,000 years to happen. So again,
unlikely.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal)
And also, what do magnets have to do with ice melting?

I'd recommend that you unfollow Spirit Science on facebook.

~~~
brianbreslin
I have no idea what spirit science is. My question I felt was a legitimate
science question for someone not familiar with geo-physics of the planet. not
sure why i got downvoted.

~~~
civilian
Hey, I didn't downvote you, but your questions were just... very off. I
imagine that the typical HN user was just downvoting because the questions
aren't even relevant.

(And sorry for he spirit science comment, it was an unfair dig. They're a
pseudo-science page on facebook that often tries to connect disparate
phenomena.)

------
themgt
If true, it's unlikely to persist for long. We know from paleoclimate data
that both Greenland and Antarctica will significantly melt out w/ CO2 as high
as it already is, much less any realistic peak level we could achieve.

~~~
hugh4
Or if CO2 had never risen at all, right? End of ice age and all that?

~~~
themgt
Yeah, there's actually a reasonable case that our initial historical fossil
fuel burning (say, up to 1950, 1980?) saved us from a new ice age that was
about to dawn.

We unfortunately since then have pushed the dial way, way further, likely now
past a tipping point towards a mostly ice-free hothouse planet.

