You need to go back and read your study. Gravity is effected by the size of the icemass but also the movement of the underlying landmass. In order to arrive at the mass of the ice they had to subtract out the change in the gravity caused by the movement of the underlying landmass. Your study guessed at the movement of the landmass. the information I provided you showed your study was useless until the data about landmass is updated with true measurements instead of guessed. I can see why you and I did not reach and agreement. You did not understand why I was question your "science" of global warming. so far we have CO2 calculated from the side of a volcano. no proof that CO2 causes warming (information that warming does lead and increase in CO2. we have emails and the russians and now scientists in new zeeland saying that globalwarming scientists have been presenting fraudulent data. And we have grace studies which guess at crtical components of gravity measurements. And I am to believe in man made Global warming because al gore makes a billion dollar promoting it? I would like to see some fact based data showing man is causing global warming -- do you have any?
I think you've misunderstood. Here's a most recent paper on antarctic mass loss -- the only time adjustments like that are made are when trying to estimate the specific ice sheet loss alone or ocean gain alone. When the entire mass decreases, and there's no reason to assume that land is missing year-to-year in Antarctica, then it's quite obvious that ice is melting. The only question is at what rate -- when factoring in GIA -- "In terms of ice mass loss, this corresponds to ∼360+/−36 gigatons/yr." No, then you'll have more accurate numbers for the rate of loss of the land based ice sheet. Not whether or not there's a loss. There is no chance that you'll be able to hope for an antarctic gain in ice mass, simply none. Here's the most recent paper -- review the raw data graphs firsthand: http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/Docs/SeaLevelRise2008.pdf
first I have not made any predictions about what the study will say after the corrections were made. And apparently neither have the researchers who conducted the study on the movement of the landmass. Your paper seems to have come out in 2008. So unless you tell me it somehow used the data - that had not yet been released as of October 2009... we can rest assured your paper was based on the faulty estimates. "WAGN researchers do not yet know how large the overestimation was. A more definitive correction will be conducted by other researchers who specialize in interpreting GRACE data. Previous estimates of postglacial rebound were made with theoretical models. Assimilation of the direct GPS results into new models will therefore produce significant improvements in estimations of ice mass loss. The results will appear in "Geodetic Measurements of Vertical Crustal Velocity in West Antarctica and the Implications for Ice Mass Balance" (M. Bevis et al., 2009), published in the electronic journal Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems of the American Geophysical Union and the American Geochemical Society. [View the paper online.]" http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/10/19/west_antarctic_ice_sheet/
You then cite a document about a particular antarctic ice sheet, not the antarctic in general, and not how it's gaining mass, but that the rate of loss might be somewhat slower! Do you understand how badly you've gone off the rails? There is no ice mass increase in the antarctic. None. You have zero chance or ability to find any evidence showing a mass increase because there isn't any. Any data you say needs to be "corrected" is archived for distribution at JPLâs Physical Ocean Earth Science Reference Handbook and at GFZâs Information System and Data Center (ISDC). Send them a letter, ask for the data and "correct" it.
Certain Carbon isotope ratios are found in nature. Certain ones are produced by man. Knowing this, you can measure how much CO2 man has been responsible for. By using a laser absorption spectrometer, you can measure how much energy any molecule will absorb, and at what frequencies. CO2 molecules absorb, capture and re-emit infra-red energy in two ways, unlike most molecules. By knowing how many molecules are from man, and what energy they absorb you can calculate how much energy will be trapped in the atmosphere. Then you can go outside with a thermometer, day after day, year after year, and notice that the temperature is also rising correspondingly.
Then you throw in the fact that CO2 increases lag Temp increases and it appears Dave has proved nothing.
The thing about CO2 is that it hangs about in the atmosphere for a long time - decades, centuries and perhaps not completely scrubbed in millenia. As the developed countries are mostly responsible for the 100 ppm or so increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times, natural justice would seem to dictate that they should meet a lot of the costs of cleaning up their mess. The other thing is that developed emit far more per capita than developing countries. Again developing countries would seem to have natural justice on their side. It is perfectly clear that real international cooperation is absolutely essential. To get cooperation from the developing world requires an assurance that their economic development is still possible both in a low carbon economy and importantly during the transition to a low carbon economy. Like it or not that is a pre-requisite for global cooperation. And all that takes money.
I'll let others debate what the remedy should be, but it's reassuring that you now agree that global warming is happening and is real.
I give you an article explaining your conclusions based on grace studies were not reliable. I say lets wait for them to apply the new data with the corrections. You bring up some obvious b.s line. Look I can read - I have put in a good two hours now in debunking your global waming claims. You and I both know that the ice mass in antartica has been shrinking for thousands of years because we have been in a warming trend. What is the point of argument? That I can't prove there is a coming ice age? I am not trying to prove anything. I am just looking for some real science. Now neither of us know if the ice mass has been shrinking at faster than normal rate. Why? because the data has to be recalculated. by the way I am not even sure you even read your own article. So far we know from you article some scientists said the ice mass in eastern antartica increased. So I have no idea why you are acting like you know anything about what is going on down there.