When people say that cold winter weather has nothing to do with the global climate, they aren't just blowing smoke up your ass. It is true. Regardless of the cause of global warming (natural or manmade), temperatures during winter months in a localized area have nothing to do with global climate. For example, a little bit ago this winter, a lot of the eastern US received extremely cold weather (ie, Florida reaching sub-freezing temperatures). Cold temperatures like this are simply due to shifts in the jet stream which has little to do with the global climate.

You could have Earth be 5 degrees celsius warmer than it is today and still have jet stream dips like we did earlier that will send temperate climate regions into cold temperatures. It happens all the time. But, jet stream changes that happen on a daily/weekly basis has little to do with global climate. Because generally when the jet stream dips toward the equator in one region at the same time it is extending toward the poles in another region which blows warm air into colder regions and in turn, they are receiving warmer weather. So on a global scale, the temperatures don't shift at all because of jet stream movement. All jet stream movement does is shift for a short period where the warm and cold air is going. That is simply natural variability in the Earth's weather system and has nothing to do with global warming.

So if you are having an extremely cold winter this year, you can be sure that somewhere else someone is having a very warm winter. It happens.

Both graphs are labeled correctly, but the one I posted is a better representation of antarctic ice. One shows ice loss in regards to mass while the other is measured in volume. There has been a lot of new snow fall in the recent years in Antarctica which is why the volume went up in the graph (the one in your article) during 2005. But, that is new snow fall and is not as dense as the compact ice deep below. This is why volume can flucuate much more quickly, but over the same time frame can show the same trend as mass. But, on a short time frame (the kind of time frame that the GRACE study has been around for) mass is a better indicator overall. There will always be fluctuations in snowfall, but if the ice continues to melt, then the snow fall won't really amount to much more new ice each year.

Coincidentally, both the volume and mass measurements have very close numbers associated with them which could amount to the confusion you had between the two graphs. The change rate between mass and volume is about the same. It is losing volume at around 80-150 cubic km per year. At the same time, the rate at which it is losing mass is around 50-115 Gt/yr. That is why the graphs look fairly identical in their axis numbering and the deviation used is the same, but the plot points are slightly different.

Hope that helps.

Volume isn't mass (which I know you know, I'm just stating). But, you're right, the GRACE project measures mass indirectly. They use other calculations when coming up with the volume measurements, but the mass data comes straight from their satellite gravity measurement data.

But, the spike in volume in 2005 is more related to precipitation than it is to the temperature. While the temperatures were cold in 2005 (in the antarctic), there was also a lot of precipitation in Antarctica that year. That is why the mass didn't spike, but volume did. New snowfall isn't as dense so volume goes up, but mass stayed relatively the same. The antarctic summer that year was also very warm in contrast to its winter that same year. New snowfall melts quicker too, so the next summer all that new snowfall melts off. So the new snow from that year never amounted to any new ice gained and thus it never gained much mass overall that year. Volume was another story. That's why the GRACE study is so unique and important, because it can measure mass fairly accurately and not just volume.

And ya, I noticed that about the graph image in that article. It looks like the top right image is only a snippet of the whole graph (there is no axes shown in the snippet).

There is a large difference between the data. The difference being that one's unit of measurement is km3 (volume) and the other is Gt (mass). They're measuring two completely different things. I know it isn't measuring snowfall. I never said it did measure snowfall. Eitherway, both graphs are correct. Just be careful how large spikes in volume are interpreted. It is best just to look at ice changes in mass, not volume.

Nevermind all the ecogeeks and environerds that object to nuke plants because of the radioactive waste produced.  Here's a list on Wiki of anti nuke groups, found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-nuclear_groups_in_the_United_States .  Don't see your favorite bogeymen on that list, but I haven't researched every single one of them, perhaps they secretly back one or more?

Try this one on for size:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

He admits that cap and trade will cause energy prices to skyrocket.  As you know not only will this effect the cost of energy, but the cost of everything produced in this country. 

Some possibly interesting data here:

http://photos.mongabay.com/09/forecast_co2_line.jpg

and here:

If correct, and I will try to find out more about this site(veracity) it would seem the that the greatest threat to the global climate is developing countries.  And according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol China accounts for more than a fifth of global GHG emissions. 

It would seem to me then that the US would not be able to underproduce GHG enough to offset China's develoement.  While this doesn't mean we shouldn't clean up our act, I can't see how it would impact GHG lvls without something being done about China.  I especially like this bit "Studies of carbon leakage also suggest that nearly a quarter of China's emissions result from production of goods exported to developed countries". "We wouldn't polute so much if you didn't buy so much of our stuff!"  Way to dodge responsibility.  Must be taking lessons from the US govt.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits:

There has been no global warming since 1995 

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

LOL, always assuming the data is correct of course.  But of course, MMGW isn't about saving the planet, it' s about control.  Control of the people, and the way we live.

And what do you guys think of that video of Barack?  Great stuff, love the way he throws us under the bus for his agenda

Oh yeah! Especially when the reason for chopping them down is to gain more ground for growing plants which produce the basic ingredient for so called "bio diesel"!

We don't understand our own climate, but this guy thinks he knows Venus's.

Global warming is a misnomer that most climatologists will not use anymore.

Climate change is real though, and human cause climate change has more facts behind it than not.

Even if we suppose climate change isn't being caused mostly by our actions, it does not mean we should continue to pollute our environment. Cutting CO2 emissions, and creating cleaner energy, will have many more ecological impacts besides just climate change. It's just that climate change is the most dangerous outcome that can (possibly) happen if we continue on the same path.

To think we were getting bashed for pointing out the abject stupidity of comments like this earlier on, and it gets spewed forth again...

Since it's already been done, in this thread, WRONG will have to suffice.  Do something brilliant, like look up the atmospheric properties of Venus.  It shows the opposite, that the minuscule CO2 levels here can't possibly have any noticeable effect on the climate.

Step 1: Identify an undeniable fact of existence (i.e. the climate changes)

Step 2: Link this fact with human behavior (i.e. humans cause the climate to change)

Step 3: Grab all the power and money you can in order to control human behavior (i.e. Cap & Trade)

The facts supporting the link in step 2 are irrelevant as long as a consensus is reached that the science is settled. Oh, and never document suppression of the data and peer reviews where hackers may find this evidence and make it public.

Amen, ST.