New findings from NASA:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that Antarctica is overall accumulating ice. Still, areas of the continent, like the Antarctic Peninsula photographed above, have increased their mass loss in the last decades.

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed   to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.“

New findings from NASA:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that Antarctica is overall accumulating ice. Still, areas of the continent, like the Antarctic Peninsula photographed above, have increased their mass loss in the last decades.

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed   to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.“

If you were around in the 70s, wasnt there a panic being generated about global cooling and the unending winter approaching? I've watched documentaries and discussions  on it, but wasnt around to personally experience the panic.

If you were around in the 70s, wasnt there a panic being generated about global cooling and the unending winter approaching? I've watched documentaries and discussions  on it, but wasnt around to personally experience the panic.

While climate change is a real thing, it also works both ways, and for numerous reasons listed previously. For instance,  a mini-ice age occurred during the dark ages that contributed to the norse abandoning their colonies in Greenland because it became too cold to live there, along with constant alterations with the native peoples similar to the inuits. If you visit Greenland, the remains of those norse settlements still remains.  I believe this occurred to a lesser extent in the 70s, and scientists also predicted cooler earth temperatures in coming years, due to a reduction in solar energy, which occurs naturally.

It is true that humans are contributing to global warming via greenhouse excesd gas production,  but again,  it is due to the destruction of flora that can convert CO2 into oxygen,  and reducing/destroying the carbon sinks that restrict CO2 from escaping into the atmosphere, and the reason for that is the destruction of ecosystems to support population growth. Furthermore,  it is gases like methane that are significantly more dangerous than CO2, and methane is generated when carbon is allowed to decompose without sequestering or utilizing the methane gas generated from the process

So the Answer is simple: plant more forests, don't cut them down and reduce the human population to balance out the demand for resources and shelter.

I was around -- born in 1961.  In elementary school, we got those little classroom Scholastic Magazine issues. They had lots of topics nationally and globally intended to "round out" local news.

There wasn't an issue I don't think that didn't have some dire prediction if "we" didn't stop some behavior that was causing the problem. First one I remember was how aerosol deodorant was responsible for depleted ozone, which was going to completely fry the surface of the Earth. Then there was overpopulation exceeding resources (mainly food), which was going to cause massive societal upheaval and a return to the dark ages.

Of course there were also predictions of the coming ice age that our factories, cars, trucks, railroads, etc. were ushering in.

I also remember one magazine said eggs were evil, and the cholesterol they contained were going to cause heart attacks in every single person who eats more than 3 per week.  A year later, eggs were being called "the perfect food" based on new studies.  Other protein sources compared to eggs were too high in saturated and poly-unsaturated fats.

Hurricanes, tornadoes, famine, gas shortages, pollution, holes in the ozone, cholesterol, saccharine, killer bees, species extinctions, .... there's no end to the number of apocalyptic predictions I've managed to survive!   

I learned at a young age not to believe everything I read.  First step to determine credibility: find out who paid for the study, and whether they benefit/profit from the findings presented.

"The Science Is Settled!!"

Of course, the new argument is, that "new" ice isn't as "good" as the "old" ice that melted.

Somehow, ice that's over 1,000 years old is preferable to ice that's newly formed -- even if the overall amount of ice is larger.

 

Follow the climate change money:

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/stephen-moore/stephen-moore-follow-climate-change-money#utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cns&utm_campaign=c-SMoore-FollowTheClimateChangeMoney

Awwwww did my comment wishing you good luck with your beliefs get you butt hurt?

So you truly think that predicting the future with a computer makes it more valid than if someone says it? Do you believe crystal balls, magic 8 balls, palm readers? You truly are naive. You obviously don’t understand how computer programming works. The computer programmer writes the code to produce the results they want. They cannot program something random. And you believe that all these people who are being paid by those with an agenda who want certain results for the programmer to write code that gives opposite results? You truly don’t understand programming nor human nature. And you truly trust that the people who are paiid by those with an agenda and want these exact results to enter truthful information to begin with? And you believe in order for the computer to predict the future they had to hire a Swami wearing a turban who can see into the future to program the computers? Don’t answer any of these questions. They were asked to make you think.

If you truly wanted to know the truth you would research this beyond the first 40-50 pages of Google. Unfortunately, Google is also pushing the agenda by mostly putting forth this agenda in the first large amount of pages so people who really want to research both sides need to really dig deep. BTW, most of the results given by Google in the first whatever number of pages are all in on the agenda as well. Especially the MSM and the scientific community that has been bought and paid for. Considering you admit to not wanting to really do your due diligence on this or any subject I expect nothing less from you. Obviously you don’t want to believe the truth. That is your perogative. Just realize this is not your opinion and mine. There is the truth and then there is your truth. I have said nothing here that isn’t factual.

I’m not going to do your research for you. I have told you this in the past. I think it is time that you stop trying to have conversations with me. Please stop quoting me for everything I have posted here and everywhere. And I will stop doing the same with you. I believe you have this agreement with others so let’s do the same.

You ignore all the facts I presented to you because you cannot disprove any of them. By acknowledging them you you will have to admit that your beliefs are a lie. Which is why you just ignore them. Again, there is the truth and then there is your truth. You can believe all the lies you want. That is your perogative. Without doing sufficient research you will continuing believing a lie.

You are being intellectually dishonest. Case in point I asked you nicely to quit quoting me and you ignored that as well because it doesn’t suit you. Don’t ignore my request. Honor it.

You didn't present any facts, you just said I was wrong and climate models are not trustable. I said their reliability has improved and are more trustworthy than you thing, and I provided links to support my statements.

You try to twist this into something about my pride, being unwilling to admit I am wrong but that argument fails by the very fact that I stated in my first post how my stance had come full circle. I had already admitted I was on the wrong side of the evidence.

What research have you done? You suggest I need to do so much more but have not put forth anything verifying what you say are facts.

What do you mean don't quote you? If I reply to your post it automatically puts in the quote part. Do you mean you don't want me to put my replies individually to each paragraph? Please be more specific and I will be happy to oblige, but my quoting that you don't like is hardly comparable to the way you react to my disagreement.

So Inspector cannot stand someone challenging his believe about climate change that he requests I not quote him.

If you don't want to debate the issue then that's fine, I can respect it if you don't want to get in a long detailed debate. Just say so.

But you don't have to be some snowflake about it and insulting at the same time. The fact I disagree with you (and so does science) does not make me dishonest. Remember, you are the one that started an argument, I posted a source for my argument and now you are the one running away from it so your insults are unwarranted.

So Inspector cannot stand someone challenging his believe about climate change that he requests I not quote him.

If you don't want to debate the issue then that's fine, I can respect it if you don't want to get in a long detailed debate. Just say so.

But you don't have to be some snowflake about it and insulting at the same time. The fact I disagree with you (and so does science) does not make me dishonest. Remember, you are the one that started an argument, I posted a source for my argument and now you are the one running away from it so your insults are unwarranted.

science disagrees with you