Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

I read somewhere that the melt-water produced from Pine Island Glacier in 2012 was about half that of 2010.

However, conditions in the months leading up to the 2012 observations were unusual (see also supplementary materials). Most of 2011 was marked by strong easterly wind anomalies over the Amundsen Sea (Fig. 4, A and B), weakening the typically cyclonic wind stress curl over the continental shelf (Fig. 4B) and curtailing the westerlies north of the shelf edge that are thought to enhance onshore CDW transport (21). Integrated over the preceding year, the zonal wind north of the continental shelf even reversed to easterly in 2011 (red line in Fig. 4B), an occurrence that is unique in the reanalysis wind record dating back to 1979

Barely two weeks after a report in Science suggested that La Nina had slowed the melt rate of the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica, new research by French scientists published in Nature Climate Change suggests that the glacier may be in irreversible decline and could, on its own, contribute to a sea level rise of up to 1cm in the next 20 years.
...
Pine Island Glacier is the Antarctic glacier which contributes most to the rise in sea level. An international team of researchers led by the Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l’Environnement (Laboratory of Glaciology and Environmental Geophysics LGGE) in France has shown that this contribution could grow by between three and five times in the next twenty years increasing sea levels by up to 10mm. Scientists have also shown that the glacier is receding irreversibly and that it would, in all likelihood, not return to its initial state. Their work was published on 12 January 2014 on the website of the journal Nature Climate Change.

For twenty years now, the West Antarctic has contributed significantly to the rise in sea level. Pine Island Glacier, located in the western part of Antarctica is the largest contributor to this increase: it alone represents nearly 25% of the contribution of West Antarctic melt water. The edge receded ten kilometers from the 2000s and the glacier is tending to thin more. The eastern part of Antarctica remains in equilibrium for now (that is, the amount of ice that accumulates is equal to that lost snow glaciers feeding).
...
Scientists have relied on three of the latest generation of computer models of flow of the ice in the polar caps. All three models shows that the glacier is likely to be unstable and will continue to recede for at least forty kilometers over the next fifty years. The mass loss associated with this irreversible decline is expected to increase significantly from the average value of 20 gigatonnes per year observed during the period 1992 to 2011, up to 120 gigatonnes per year over fifty years modeled. Thus, its annual contribution to rising sea levels could rise by three to five times. This loss would result in an increase in sea level ranging between 3.5 and 10 mm in the next twenty years.

I hoped you guys all enjoyed my replication of the CAGW crowds patterns of reality denial i demonstrated over Ed's graphs depicting multiple measurements of decadal trends in tropospheric and stratospheric temp changes. Here is the pattern- 1. Deny the reality of what is shown. 2. When forced to acknowledge change the parameters ( in this case pick an atmospheric level sympathetic to your interpretation) then claim statistical insignificance of contrary evidence while highlighting evidence supporting your position. 3. The final step in the process is to completely discount all the information as being from as biased from an unreliable source.

Did you hear?
Did you hear?

the cheapness of Natural Gas is only relative, as the current processes for extracting it are certainly more expensive than drilling a hole straight down into the reserve. The increased expenses of all fossil fuel sources has created a market for those less available resources (such as sand tars). Which gives yet another incentive for finding alternative energy sources, that is, the eventual depletion of fossil fuels.

Awe come on Chloe.
Don't be like that.
Just because another climate scientist/expert further demonstrated his smarts.... that's no reason to get pissy.

I'm sure you prefer that over discussing how another climate expert (your people) is getting his just desserts for being a self-important dumbf*ck.