This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Global Un-Warming? Antarctic Sea-Ice Reaches Record High Levels
In what appears to be an awkward moment of uncomfortable fact, ABC reports satellite imagery reveals an area of about 20 million square kilometres covered by sea ice around the Antarctic continent - the highest level of coverage since records began. This is the 3rd year in a row that the sea ice coverage has reached a record level - increasing at 1.5% each decade since 1979. However, there is another side to this, as the area covered in sea ice expands scientists have said the ice on the continent of Antarctica which is not over the ocean continues to deplete. The climate is changing, one way or the other.
Scientists say the extent of Antarctic sea ice cover is at its highest level since records began.
Satellite imagery reveals an area of about 20 million square kilometres covered by sea ice around the Antarctic continent.
Jan Lieser from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) said the discovery was made two days ago.
"This is an area covered by sea ice which we've never seen from space before," he said.
"Thirty-five years ago the first satellites went up which were reliably telling us what area, two dimensional area, of sea ice was covered and we've never seen that before, that much area.
"That is roughly double the size of the Antarctic continent and about three times the size of Australia."
...
As the area covered in sea ice expands scientists have said the ice on the continent of Antarctica which is not over the ocean continues to deplete.
CEO of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Tony Worby, said the warming atmosphere is leading to greater sea ice coverage by changing wind patterns.
"The extent of sea ice is driven by the winds around Antarctica, and we believe that they're increasing in strength and part of that is around the depletion of ozone," he said.
He said changes to sea ice levels could have implications for the entire Antarctic ecosystem.
* * *
So global warming is creating more ice which is a bad thing...
»
- 17940 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Yes, interesting. And August was the warmest globally on record. But we all cherry pick, don't we?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/15/3567464/nasa-hottest-august/
there are sweet and tart cherries and they
are good for you. chow down
And there is some multi-year ice building up on Ben Nevis in Scotland. Could become the first UK glacier in hundreds if not thousands of years...
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-28885119 < That's BBC by the way...
And don't forget record cold and snow on the northern plains...
http://iceagenow.info/2014/09/record-early-snowfall-blankets-parts-wyomi...
Also August was only the warmist month on record globally due to more "tweaked" data adjustments... (and there is still no warming for 18 years)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/15/nasa-giss-tweaks-the-short-term-gl...
Come on now, global temperature records are as good as inflation statistics. Government workers don't lie. Ever.
This is even unjust to inflation statistics!
Only 29% of the earth's surface is not covered by seas, 71% is covered by water. How useful is it measuring the temperature on land only and then to conclude a global temperature from that?
How do they even calculate a global temperature?
And why are they talking about the greenhouse effect, although the greenhouse effect does not and cannot exist in the atmosphere?
More fresh water run off from Antarctica land ice melting. Easier to freeze than pure sea water with the increased winds swirling about. Might be the reasons for more sea ice down there. Plus calving.
Increased heat absorption by the oceans reduces the perceived land surface temperature possibly, depending on how seawater moves down/up from the depths.
Why do some like to cherry pick stats?
Just because your tiny house is colder doesn't mean the giant house next door is.
Get the physics and methodology right first.
In my little midwest location, I probably don’t have more than a few dozen hours on the air conditioner this summer. This is unprecedented.
In my version of heaven, I get to watch ugly old crones pound Algore’s chakra into pulp and administer massive icicle suppositories.
I love how experts will propound stuff like carbon tax and carbon trading and geo-engineering the weather, but planting more trees... No... Reducing industrial waste and pollution... No...
So much for Algore's doom and gloom scissor lift.
When ever there is new information about cold stuff in the news... new record ice, snow, whatever.... well it is just so interesting that it's always caused by Global Warming. I tell you what, this Global Warming thing is one of the most powerful forces to ever hit the planet.
Not sure why they can't admit they were wrong and move on....but I guess they just can't.
Far too much distribution of stolen money (taxes) involved.
...Everybody wants some... I want some too...
What an Inconvenient Truth....
"So much for Algore's doom and gloom scissor lift."
I really liked my Advanced Statistics professor....he always emphasized "perspective" is the wildcard variable to use as a "tool" when presenting your outcomes...and creating your confidence intervals....
I think Al had him too.....
Very little land bound ice melts in the Antarctic.
Here's a complete list of the continents rivers streams and creeks... there's 9 of them and one is unnamed. They are all tiny and extremely short.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_of_Antarctica
Shit is gonna get frigid when the peak-oil thing starts to kick in.
Don't fuck with Global warming. It's a big business
And much of the ice that does melt is doing so due to volcanoes under the ice.
I doubt there is much melt water coming off Antartica (too cold). More likely a higher atmospheric temperature over the Great Southern Ocean increases the evapoaration rate and the amout of moisture in the atmosphere. That moisture laden air will precipitate greater amounts of rain/snow causing the build up of sea ice.
Or it could just be a cycle of increases and decreases (possibly relatedto the 11 year sunspot cycle).
Land ice doesnt melt directly. Warmer oceans surrounding the continent melt along the bottom of glacier tongues which stick out into the ocean which allows them to move more freely. This increases the rate of ice flowing to the ocean due to gravity.
Glacier growth is usually driven by increased precipitation. Similarly glacier contraction is due to reduced precipitation. Neither indicates the air is warmer or cooler. Here is NZ we have reducing glaciers on the east of our alps and growing on the west, because predominant wind has changed shifting precipitation patterns.
With the world warming by 2C over 50 years, the year-to-year warming (0.04C) is not noticeable, but the change in weather patterns is.
I was under the impression that the gulf stream that keeps the UK warm was shutting down(or at least slowing rapidly). Europe is at a pretty high latitude, and if that shuts down it would get a lot colder, even if the world is getting a bit warmer. Can't imagine a Chicago style winter would do much for real estate values in London or Spain.
I've been saying for a couple of years now, after doing a "simple" analysis of the physical chemistry of CO2 that it simply isn't a GHG relative to the rest of the atmosphere (when you include the average humidity). Any observed warming is likely due to a human induced shift in the water<-->water vapor equilibrium, caused by irrigation, paving, combustion, use of cooling towers, etc. It is thus in a tight correlation with the world economy, which has been stalled for some years, thus explaining the "pause" in global warming.
Marxists (who have disguised themselves as environmentalists--you can tell them apart by asking if they are in favor of safe nuclear technologies) LOVE CO2 based AGW because CO2 sticks around so long, so they can use AGW as a bludgeon to destroy capitalism (or what is left of it). Water vapor, however, falls back out of the atmosphere within three days or so, so AGW induced economic slowdown halts AGW by itself.
That said, ocean acidification is still very, very real, and it could fuck us all over by collapsing our already strained fisheries. Water vapor induced warming could also still destabilize methane calthrate deposits in the ocean and in the permafrost (as seen in Russia recently), which could cause runaway warming. But these are wholly different problems from CO2 based warming, and have different solutions. We need to recognize reality for what it is, and not allow ourselves to get locked into highly destructive false dichotomies like we have with the AGW debate.
The physics suggest a doubling of CO2 could raise temps by around .5 to 1 degree C.
Considering the planet has been cooling down over the past several thousand years that's not a bad thing to happen. We are still two degrees below the holocene optimum.
Plus the additional CO2 has improved crop yeilds by 30% already which has saved us on both fertilizer and energy costs or having to convert more pristine natural lands into agricultural production.
Geez... You would think the Global Warmist Doomsdayers would be FUCKING HAPPY to see record ice in the Antarctic but nooooooo...
(It's about the grant money)
Plus the additional CO2 has improved crop yeilds by 30% already which has saved us on both fertilizer and energy costs or having to convert more pristine natural lands into agricultural production.
More crops, less nutrients. And the idea that high levels of co2 will continue to benefit crop yields has also been shown in repeated study not ot be the case.
Geez... You would think the Global Warmist Doomsdayers would be FUCKING HAPPY to see record ice in the Antarctic but nooooooo...
Only stupid people. Educate yoself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet
The general trend shows that a warming climate in the southern hemisphere would transport more moisture to Antarctica, causing the interior ice sheets to grow, while calving events along the coast will increase, causing these areas to shrink. A 2006 paper derived from satellite data, measures changes in the gravity of the ice mass, suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years.[16] Another recent study compared the ice leaving the ice sheet, by measuring the ice velocity and thickness along the coast, to the amount of snow accumulation over the continent. This found that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet was in balance but the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was losing mass. This was largely due to acceleration of ice streams such as Pine Island Glacier. These results agree closely with the gravity changes.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/glaciers-northern-antarctic...
You know next to nothing about agriculture or science... just admit it... it's OK we'll still love you...
Commercial greenhouse growers supplement CO2 levels up to and over 1,000 PPM
www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
Nov 13, 2013 - Flower and vegetable growers may take somewhat different approaches. In general, carbon dioxide supplementation of 1,000 ppm during the .
www.sog.co.nz/articles_co2basicequipment.htmCO2 enrichment has been used in commercial greenhouses for more than 50 ... By increasing the level of CO2 to 0.12 – 0.15 percent (1200 to 1500 PPM), the ...
Yep. Many interior GH systems have provisions for CO2 connections. Wonder why that is? 'Cause it is what plants crave!!
And the EPA classifies it as a pollutant... go figure...
When I lived in Wisconsin, we were running a propane fueled generator to keep the greenhouse warmer and to add CO2 to the chamber. Our yields in winter were better than our yields in the summer :-) Tomatos would bloom out almost a full week earlier and be twice the size. Larger plants means more tomatoes.
You know next to nothing about agriculture or science... just admit it... it's OK we'll still love you...
Commercial greenhouse growers supplement CO2 levels up to and over 1,000 PPM
Traditional knowledge of agriculture obv needs to be reconsidered if the environment changes & commercial greenhouse is A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT. Earth is not a similarly controlled environment.
Just because A = true in a certain environment doesn't mean A = true under a similar but different environment.
Reality is more complex than one's assumptions:
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-lev...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmos...
Okay I'll bite... let's use the first one...
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html
But an unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about that long-held assumption. Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change -- namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil.
Let's see... it I were a global warming scientist who wanted to prove that increasing levels of CO2 were bad for plants I would:
1) Use plants that perform well in cold environments and then cook the fuckers by turning up the heat (no increase in temps for over 18 years now BTW...)
2) Flood the fuckers with so much water they will wilt and drown. (CO2 decreases the need for water BTW... good for California right?)
3) Saturate the soil with nitric acid and burn the fuckers roots. (We used to innoculate our soybeans to increase nitrogen levels... saved us from having to use anhydrous ammonia or urea)
How did I do? Can I join the Million dollar Micheal Mann Hockeystick team now?
Way to understand the entire study by the 2nd paragraph of a tiny synop. Of course if you had read a little further..
Each of the remaining 32 circles is divided into four equal quadrants separated by underground partitions to prevent roots in one section from invading neighboring tracts. In these smaller quadrants, researchers study all 16 possible combinations of elevated and normal CO2, heat, water and nitrogen.
But results from the third year of the experiment revealed a more complex scenario. While treatments involving increased temperature, nitrogen deposition or precipitation -- alone or in combination -- promoted plant growth, the addition of elevated CO2 consistently dampened those increases.
"The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding CO2 reduced this to 40 percent," Shaw and her colleagues wrote.
The biggest surprise from the study was the discovery that elevated carbon dioxide only stimulated plant growth when nitrogen, water and temperature were kept at normal levels.
That's only the first link, you may proceed with the rest as they look at other aspects of why increased CO2 may be a negative to crop yields..
But if CO2 rises without much of an increase in temperature and other features of climate change, because the climate's sensitivity to it is low, then its rise will boost agricultural productivity. The Stanford paper simply assumes that the alarmist high-sensitivity hypothesis is correct.
Refuting an article's results is often as simple as looking at who funded the study. For example, look at who funded this one at Stanford:
The study was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Morgan Family Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Switzer Foundation and the A. W. Mellon Foundation.
Think there might not be just a weeeee bit of bias amongst some of the contributors there?
First thing one should ALWAYS do before even reading a paper: who the FUCK funded it.
Science is very rarely actually performed just for the accumulation of knowledge. Usually, studies are insanely biased towards proving a prior belief, and the results are used to give a tidy justification for railroading BULLSHIT up people's asses. I should know...I have a Master's degree - in science!
Science is very rarely actually performed just for the accumulation of knowledge. Usually, studies are insanely biased towards proving a prior belief, and the results are used to give a tidy justification for railroading BULLSHIT up people's asses. I should know...I have a Master's degree - in science!
Yeah, multi-decade stanford agri study, boy we gun fool dem folkz so bad 30 yrs from now!! dey won't know wat hit dem!!!
Stanford study suggests high levels of c02 may reduce crop yields. OMGGGGG chaos in the streets!!! ANARCHY!!! AMERICA COLLAPSES!!!
But please, explain this berkeley study (another institution famous for horribly biased and easily discredited research):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/a-skeptical-physicist-...
So does that whole teenage angst mocking thing work on your friends? In my circle we usually ignore the passive aggressive people, so was wondering if it was the same in blue-collar Merica.
In my circle we usually ignore the passive aggressive people, so was wondering if it was the same in blue-collar Merica.
Yeah nid, we all know yu iz so sofisticated n shit.
"Inspired Violens" did say "usually," which means that Muller's unusual study doesn't refute his general claim.
Further, although Muller claims to have been a skeptic, that claim has been contested and somewhat whittled down by his critics on WUWT and elsewhere.
@IV
Thank you !
"Reality is more complex than one's assumptions"
Yes but for you, those assumptions always have a useful way of overcoming complexity and hijacking reality in an effort to remake both into the perception you're selling. It's the reason you progs are never short of one-size fits all, command and control solutions to deal with that complexity, e.g.: "Your climate warming? Well, we don't quite yet...No problem, we've got the force of government and a tax for that! Warming solved." Progs respecting complexity? Me gonna ralph.
Truth must hurt! I up-voted you.
"Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on March 21 at 14.91 million square kilometers (5.76 million square miles), making it the fifth lowest maximum in the satellite record." here
Mountain glaciation has had steady decline for most of the last 23 years. here
And, post glacial rebound is the cause for the very active volcano season we are having.
There is climate change, not sure/doubt it's entirely anthropogenic, but change nonetheless. Notice also other planets warming/storms & low sunspot solar cycle.
Looks like some people need to... chill. Clearly we are seeing "Climate Socialism" -- The REDISTRIBUTION of cool stuff: Less ice on land, more at sea. Mother Nature is a.... Socialist?
I thought she was Ruthless. Perhaps... Mother Nature is she going through Menopause: Hot Flashes and chilly Ice Treatment. Dry here, wet there. Crazy Woman! ;-)
"Looks like some people need to... chill."
LOL! Classic! +1
You forgot to throw in "witch's tit".... :)
That would only make sense to a Canadian.
"(It's about the grant money)"
Ugh...no...its all about Agenda 21 to "monetize" the planet's "assets" for the banksters to "trade"....
By using HAARP technology and StratFor, they can "target" eco...nomic advantage like never before....
"We" (the 99.5%) ...are merely "in the way"....
So now there's Monsanto...Bill & Melinda Gates...BioPharma...Pharma (Chemtrails and Fluoride) and the FDA-USDA-DofA-CIA-DHS-FBI-FergusonPD-NYPD-LAPD-AndyGriffithPD to "help" us ease our "pain"...
It could also be the ugly truth - not that it's being used for asinine political purposes. Thinner sea ice is not going to keep the planet as air-conditioned longer than thicker snow/ice pack.
I read the increased sea ice is likely due to an increase of fresh water runoff from antarctica. The fresh water is less dense and sits on the ocean surface and freezes at a higher temperature.
Think progress..... Lol... There's an unbiased source of disinformation.
oops
yes, there is no way this was yet another nefarious scheme to take more money from the productive people of the world. There are several otherwise intelligent, and plenty of stupid, posters on this sight who question (with good reason) every single number and 'fact' publishd by the US/EU/UN, but believe every singel thing they say about global warming for some reason. what a hoax.
It cannot be overstated: all of this bullshit is just a backdoor way to implement a global tax on 'carbon', which pretty much means everything. It is a global tax on all commerce and trade, and it is the type of thing done by desperate, bankrupt govts to get even more control over their populations
The scam was blown by Climategate in 2009, and I knew the jig was up in 2010 when Goldman bailed on the Chicago Climate Exchange.
The True Believers will keep whining for the rest of their lives but it means nothing, the climate movement is a pathetic remnant of what it was 20 years ago. The big boys have moved on and the Global Warming scam is through.
"but believe every singel thing they say about global warming for some reason. what a hoax."
Worse than that are the linear no-threshold model of radiation true believers. I mean come on now, life on earth has been bathed in radiation for 3.5 billion years and people believe that life hasn't developed a hormetic mechanism to compensate for variations in radiation doses in THREE+ BILLION YEARS.
Of course, government never lies.
Pure wishful thinking that. Ever know them not to double down on a really dumb idea?
"Think progress..... Lol...There's an unbiased source of disinformation. "
As opposed to the Pedophile-promoters at BBC and ABC/NBC/CBS affiliates quoted above???
Doctor...I'm disappointed...
The word "progress" does not have a "value" other than "forward"....
Remember your ideological number line...."zero" is in the middle....
To the "right"....is "forward"...or "progress"....
To the "left" is "backward"...or "regression"....
Nothing matters unless you know at what point, in historical perspective, is "zero"....
Like Micro Econ 101...every measurement is just a "snapshot in time"....
That concludes our Judgement lesson...times up, pencils down.
The part no one catches is temperature anomaly. In other words they are taking non satellite temps averaged from 1950-1980 and applying them to present day sat temps. Big science nono. And the biggest question...who the fuck deemed 1950-1980 as what is supposed to be average? Talk about rigging the data.
"Shit's broke..."
August here, is the dead of winter down there.
Think and progress a little...lol.
"August here, is the dead of winter down there."
Except its September here....more towards October....
Please...help us moar....
You having a problem with paying attention?
I was responding to: "And August was the warmest globally on record."
I am not as kind & generous with nubes/trolls as knuk's and Doc are, something you should keep in mind for the future...if its possible for you.
You are citing Think Progress as truth? AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Stop it! you're gonna make me shit my britches!
So you believe in the global warming thesis.
Fine, then I have a simple thought experiment for you:
Since CO2 is so dangerous, and we are using more and more resources and fuels, it must be reduced. Agree?
Ok, now ask yourself one question:
Among those that claim we must reduce CO2 (or make it tradeable...), why is not ONE talking about the reason behind the force of exponential growth in our economic and financial system?
Why is not ONE of them discussing the fact, that debt based money with compound interest is creating an economy that must grow exponentially? On a limited planet!
Why is not one of them talking about unsustainability of exponential growth on our limited planet, if they are caring for it?
Remember 2008? Cash for clunkers?
Ask yourself: why did not a single person from the global warming prophets critizice that good cars were destroyed only to increase growth? Wasting of resources for the growth fetishism and they are silent? Come on, you can't be that stupid that you don't recognize, that this doesn't fit together.
One doesn't need to understand the physics behind the greenhouse effect. One doesn't need to look how the global temperature is statistically fabricated.
One only needs to look what the propagandists of global warming say and how silent they are about the MATHEMATICALLY easily PROOVEN unsustainability of a financial system, that needs exponential growth of debt and therefore exponential economic growth otherwise it collapses.
"why did not a single person from the global warming prophets critizice that good cars were destroyed only to increase growth?"
"Money for Nuthin'", Againstthelie....money for nuthin'...
Just like all of our friends here ...
...that work for Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dymnamics, KBR, DynCorp, Booz-Allen Hamilton, SAIC, L-3, CSC, BAE Systems, HP, Harris, UTC, URS, Dell, Rockwell...
Money for Nuthin', and your "hicks" for free.....
Actually my favorite question to ask the CO2 is rising due to humans crowd is, what percentage of the total CO2 is anthropological? ( hint <4%). Then ask which of the greenhouse gases is the most prevalent? (Hint H2O(g)). Water vapor comprises over 96% of total greenhouse gasses and is a far superior holder of heat than CO2 ( which is the worst holder of heat of all greenhouse gases).
It's called single issue politics. One of the main ideologies of capitalist democracy is to function along the lines of pragmatism and the isolation of social contracts. Nothing should be connected, this is a technique of those in power to prevent anyone knowing a centre of power which can be blamed and attacked. This results in a schizophrenic society even though many speak of science and clarity. But what happens when discussions become impossible, are placed off limits? Science and capitalism have their own sacreligious means of communication, things you must not say, and primarily that is connecting different elements of society, history, powers etc. in a single critique. Any problems of capitalism are isolated and must be solved by capitalism. Any problems of science are isolated and must be solved by science. This perhaps is due to the foundation of capitalism and science in extrem forms of Christian thought. But in any case, the result is people who cannot think beyond simple mechanisms and miming of diffuse powers. That is what opinions are after all, flattened ideas, and if they are flattened someone must take a hammer to them.
As for why environmentalists never question runaway accumulation and exponential growth, I think you've developed a straw man. Of course environmentalists consider this, but for the sake of clarity that is at the heart of democratic organisations everything becomes a single issue politic. This feeds into the capitalist dynamic which seeks profit by any means necessary. If someone can profit from environmentally sustainable or Green (tm) profits, they will. It does not even have to be true.
Of course we all recycle and promote electric cars, but no one talks about how this is a religious ritual of capitalism. It is a denial that we are living in the end times. In reality these rituals cause more pollution, the shipping and recycling involve intensive processes, mining, chemical reactions etc. But again, this comes down to the single-issue nature of individualism, capitalism, science and democracy. Pragmatics suggests that if a problem arises we will deal with that when it comes, we will fix it then. But we will not connect the problem to its foundations. We will never question the machine in regards to entropy. We believe that with the machine we will triumph over entropy. And those in power will manipulate any truths that arise and attempt to manipulate people away from connecting problems to the core.
What you are saying suggests the fallacy of denialists. That a truth is manipulated for a group's benefit does not suggest that the truth is really untrue. All it suggests is that people manipulate to the extent they have and are attempting to extend their power. The world is in trouble, if not from greenhouse gases and CO2 then from chemicals, fracking, nuclear warfare etc. The weather has become more extreme, temperatures are certainly rising, and if you ask people who have lived in forested regions all their life can tell you how bad it has gotten.
Anyone who lives near chemical production sites, oil sludgelands, or nuclear war plants can tell you that cancer tends toward exponential growth due to all the shit the powers that be dump into nature. If we are so susceptible to minor changes in the body why would the earth not be? That is a common argument from deniers here and elsewhere, the earth is so large we cannot affect it. But really that is not true, extremely minor changes in the universe (the smallest fractional change in a single number, for example, would have meant no life on earth) and the earth can have drastic implications for life. But really human's destruction of nature is noticeable to anyone who pays attention to the landscape and information: there are now plastic islands, forests have been depleted to the point of no return, and the world now is covered in massive dead areas called the anthropocene.
This last bit says it all, the anthropocene suggests we have become a sliding landmass of geology taking over all life. We are the death star. How could this not have an effect? If you lose a lung will there be no practical loss to your body? If you eat nothing but stones will you survive? Then why would it be any different for the earth?
There is global warming and climate change, no matter how the information may be manipulated by the powers that be for their own benefit. What we should do is connect those problems with other exponential problems and oppose the manipulators rather than the truths they try to manipulate.
A person has to be a complete dup to believe that Antarctic ice and snow is disappearing. Why would it at 50 below zero? And sometimes colder! Like 133 below, measured by a satililite a couple years ago. We have big problems people, but climate change isn't one of them
"But we all cherry pick, don't we?"
Especially when there are carbon credits and huge government grants for the progressives.
my roomate's sister-in-law makes $72 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her payment was $18482 just working on the laptop for a few hours. use this link... www.payvalt.com
Here is how you are faked out. Notice it says temperature ANOMALY? In other words 'they' decided that taking the average temps from 1950-1980 creates what is normal average temps. The problem is multifold. First and foremost, why are the temps from 1950-1980 considered normal? We have been cycling from iceage to warm periods for the last 750,000 yrs. to claim that a 30 yr period is normal is like looking a lion for less than 2 seconds and claiming you know what its average life should look like. Pure ignorance. The second and giant scientific nono is the data itself. They are comparing present satellite data to non satellite data ( first earth surface temp sat was 1979). Sat surface readings extrapolate out over 1000 sq km. In other words it takes an area and averages the temp over a massive area where as weather station data is obviously only for that one point, but again it is assumed that the surrounding 1000 sq km is all uniform. Thus asphalt is the same temp as grass is the same as forest. See the problem?
Yes. And that's why all claims about measurable changes in specific local conditions are "proof" of nothing at all.
But that kind of evidence (when it feeds their confirmation bias) doesn't inhibit alarmist "scientists" from loudly worrying everyone else about likely coming cataclysmic disaster. It also pays well to keep the alarmism at a fever pitch because most "research" in climate science is generously paid out from public funds (other people's money) by politicians on the make.
Critics, on the other hand, will be rewarded only by contempt, abuse, and threats to their careers. This now passes muster as "scientific debate", both inside and outside academia.
The good news is that eventually all frauds fail.
Good thing that the ozone layer is no longer depleted.... or is it a bad thing?
Meh. Who needs an atmosphere? I still think the Dinosours (Sinosours?) perished when a meteor strike hit the Earth and earths rotation slowed to a crawl causing a combination of a "burn notice" (basically charcoal grilling of the massive amount of plant life back then and why we have so much coal unlike literally any other Planet in the galaxy) and a loss of gravity...which is a very weak force unlike what Newton argued. In short "the dinosaurs floated away after being barbecued."
A few got lucky and fell into boiling pits of tar and "muckiness." There's no way something as big as Brontosaurus was living on dry land. Earth was a huge friggin swamp back in those days.
Not that I'm a trained geologist...more of a comedian gone bad really.
I also think humans have drained all the swamps to produce arable "new" land. That says to me a lot more fresh water is roaring into the Oceans than ever before reducing salinity and making Ocean water much "lighter" and thus prone to greater cycles of both warming and freezing. In short "this ain't Sea Ice" but much lighter and "superficial" (prone to creating more dynamic clouds and "storminess") than anything the earth has ever seen before.
Should be great for fish since this creates a more dynamic thermocline where warm superficial "clean" water has a sudden break with more dense and cold "Ocean water." Be interesting to hear from an expert on this actually. "Beyond just google" which is what I use.
"loss of gravity"?? You can't lose gravity unless you lose mass. Are you implying that the meteor strike caused the Earth to lose mass? Actually, none of what you wrote made much sense. Sounds like Popular Science gobbedly gook.
Earth has gained gravity as it has gained mass - mass from that big plasma ball bathing us daily for millennia. That is, if E=mc2.
Dinosaurs lived at a time with slightly lower gravity, and a somewhat smaller earth.
https://www.youtube.com/user/nealadamsdotcom
he got it straight from the top white house scientific advisors.
Hey Fucknuts,
You ought to stick to driving big rigs and smoking meth.
You aint no geologist and your understanding of science learned from Google is embarassing.
The switch off of ozone depeleting chemical led people to use ones that happen to contribute to global warming.
Also, I think the whole "global warming debate" is stupid. Scientists, if you're worried about global warming, then team up with some fucking engineers and solve the problem! Build the next great carbon capture machine and retire a trillionaire. Stop whining and trying to re-work global markets via a guilt campaign.
It's Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change you dig?
Ice Ice Baby!
Molson Ice is the answer. 5.6% Alc by Volume. 18 pack 18 bucks.
Shhhhh.... Don't tell Zero. He is preparing to roll out a new global warming initiative. Maybe he can fly around the globe with Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio on their private jets showing propaganda movies to kids in our public indoctrination system.
Obama couldn't get it done in Copenhagen. (Remember that failure? One of two big failures in Copenhagen. The fail runs deep with him.)
Naturally, new attempts will be met with success. Why? Because Obama!
"Foward to the Climate Barricades, comrades! I will stay here in the rear between these Greek columns and practice my golf swing."
Mini ice age. Call Al Gore.
You mean the globalist plutocratic rescuer of the world with a private electrical bill of 24000 kWh per month?
Below is a list of the worlds ten most crucial problems counted down from "least to most crucial" The world must begin to address these many problems with long term solutions. Most of these are issues that center on our sustainability.
Sadly, politicians do a damn poor job of dealing with such things leaving us without direction. As we look at the human condition we can let fate take us where it may choose or we can take control of our future by proper planning and by guiding it as best we can. I must admit it is hard to be optimisic!
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-worlds-10-worst-problems.html
So, you lump pollution with climate change? Nice sleight-of-hand.
Also, why the concern about aging demographics and overpopulation. It would seem that, in time, these two problems are self-correcting. No?
WHO has been back-pedaling on their population guesses for a while now.
Throw in nanotech and demographics and overpopulation don't amount to a hill of beans.
Now government, that's the real problem.
"Now government, that's the real problem."
Everywhere on the planet. Perhaps Scotland will be able to catch a break...
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the Scot's biggest beef with London is that they are not rushing fast enough towards the EU cliff?
I'm hearing it's Neoliberalism with a bullet. You don't hear talk of them wanting to use the Euro but the Pound.
They lost their industrial base along with their highly paid and unionized workforce. Now consecutive 'New" Labour and Conservative governments have been attempting to strip the citizens of everything else. They unlike the English have simply had enough.
They absolutely despised Thatcher...
Just as global warming is now called climate change, "beef" has been changed to horse meat.
It doesn't really matter what problem we may talk about solving. The one thing you can be sure of is this - politicians won't/can't/never will solve it.
See: Carbon Tax
The climate changes. Fuck, how can we stop the climate from changing? We need to stop this shit and now. Tell your elected leaders to end climate change. Save the planet for fuck sake.
Don't forget the children. If you believe in climate change CPS will show up and take your children. Climate change is tantamount to child abuse.
Collecting rain in a barrel beside your house is makes you a climate terrorist.
Letting sunlight fall on your skin and producing vitamin D will soon be in violation of the controlled substances act. You will be arrested for manufacturing drugs.
Breathing in is allowed, however breathing out will subject you to a carbon tax.
Anyone caught leaving the US is heavily fined, passport revoked, possibly jailed, and depending on your destination may be considered a terrorist. However we now have free, unfettered boarder crossings for anyone wishing to enter the US illegally, bombers and terrorists are welcomed. We will give you free transportation, food, housing, healthcare, and phone service as long as you are here illegally. We are especially hoping for the undiscovered arrival of a few dozen Ebola carriers.
They refuse to acknowledge the movement of the magnetic poles in any model.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/earths-magnetic-poles-are-shif...
Are you proposing a tax or ban on magnets?
I think a tax on people who use magnetism is a smart idea.
#bepartofthesolution
Where are the Poles moving to - Russia? I had one fit my kitchen the other day, I should have asked him.
Ban the Poles if they're part of magnetism and climate change. No one needs that shit during climate change.
Poland is an ally, not that it's much of a comfort to them lately, but maybe the next administration will stand by them.
It's always good to have a pole on your side :)
You have a brilliant future awaiting you in Washington...
I have so many great ideas! So glad you feel me :)
- A tax on the time you are exposed to sunlight is next. Skin cancer is an epidemic and we need to solve it. It's a weight on our healthcare system and if we can absolve ourselves of it than it's a huge plus for taxpayers.
Think of how awesome it would be....no more sun no more skin cancer WE CAN SAVE LIVES!!!!
Let's see... tax on sunlight...
Yup that's a form of energy and if we continue to give it away free that would be something like communism right? Perhaps we can do that after the rain tax...
...I like the way you think.
and vitamin d pill rationing
he must surely have a magnetic personality.
Hangings too good for those magnet people!
The global warmers can hop on preserve the magnetic pole campaign.
The progressive/libtards can fund grant money for man-made magnets at the poles.
Who could believe a headline on the Onion might come true.
What a minute, the climate is not static? I want off.
if 6 was not 9
This guy changed my mind on the whole damn climate thing. It's a Long long explaination, the summary is simply regular Earth orbital changes over long time periods. ( i have no affiliation with this site)
Earth’s Orbit and Contemporary Climate Change
In a past lifetime, I did research in Antarctica regarding climate change. One thing I can tell you from my background research (though the information is now close to ten years old, haven't been keeping up to date with this to be honest), Antarctica behaves differently than the rest of the global system. Being cut off from the latitudes to the north by the southern ocean and the currents that act there means Antarctica genuinely has its own unique reactions to everything. Ten years ago, when the rest of the globe showed good evidence of warming, Antarctica didn't. It seemed to stay stable, and possibly even to be cooling. Dancing to its own drummer. Also, the processes that act down there on the ice shelves, where we see huge chunks break loose periodically (makes for very dramatic news footage like "piece the size of Rhode Island released from Antarctica!!"); those processes have causes which act over hundreds and thousands of years. Not necessarily caused by any contemporary changes. In other words, those chunks were predestined to break off for the past several hundred years. As such, interpreting antarctic climate and tying that to global climate is very complex, moreso in fact than the arctic climate. The arctic climate is connected to that of the populated parts of the globe in more intuitive ways than is the antarctic.
So when I see articles like this one, the answer for me personally with my background is "we aren't really sure what this means." Maybe in the past ten years, that answer has changed, but if so, I haven't seen them announce it.
The changing atmospheric circulation patterns and Rosby wave blocking events we have been witnessing for the past few years are fascinating though...
Polar vortices plunging deep south bringing cold and snow... tropical Atlantic storm systems moving north up the East Coast north to Greenland bringing with them massive amounts of moisture and heat. The far north is basically a desert so if it falls as snow given time it could build another 10,000 foot high continental glacier...
"The far north is basically a desert so if it falls as snow given time it could build another 10,000 foot high continental glacier..."
Sounds awesome. Can't wait to see that!
If you don't wish to wait simply go to Greenland.
It's the end of civilization as we know it when (not if) it happens again.
climate control can work in an automobile but at the global level
i think it is beyond man's influence. it might be one of those
things that is beyond the flea that rides on the ass of the dog?
burn me at the stake.
@ "sea ice cover largest" ....
you know what that means, remember from an earlier link?
more deep sea high salination, (dense brine) currents running north to the
deep sea vents, resulting in more nutrients to spawn more
plankton. remember? what results? more oxygen in the
oceans and more microscopic and complex sea life. oh no?
more free food if we(they) don't poison, kill or steal it/us.
.
Earth From Space HD 1080p / Nova
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38peWm76l-U
minute 37 ......dense brine mystery no more.
and then later ...
(diatomite and phosphorus) love that
.
Chuck Berry - Riding Along In My Automobile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1nJC4CXsok
It's not about climate control.
It's about
a) establishing a world consciousness - which is a prerequisite for the sheeple to accept a World Government, that "saves the planet" because nations cannot.
b) making more money
i thought attempts at establishing world consciousness
were analogically equivalent to the technology of climate control, silly me.
no....?
anyway
Yep, they want people to think: "If only there was a GLOBAL authority that could FORCE bad people to STOP what they are doing!"
And then they juice up the UN, or invent some subcommittees, etc. And then, they can shut down any one and anything for any reason whatsoever, and you will see, even the legal system won't be able to help you (if they get their way).
it's about
a. making more money
b. world government cram down.
"climate control can work in an automobile"
Theres a fix right there!
the only problem is there is limited
space and variability/s to grow food
and both eliminate large quantities of unavoidable,
as of this writing, wastes, some solid, liquid
or gas. that and you always need oils, fuel and
maintenance due to leaks. minute imperfections
can result in catastrophe, but who has the money
for that?
also, you need a road to travel and
some place to go, that is asking a hell-ofva-lot.
Antarctic sea ice has varied more in the 1960s that in the 2010s, so it does not tell us much about immediate climate, but keep you hopeium drip going maybe there will be good news later on... If you want the real scoop on climate, read the Artctic News http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/
Antarctic sea ice surface area has shown wide variance with now-known maximal and minimal coverage occurring in the 1960s.
NIMBUS: Recovering the Past
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvGIE1y3cXA#t=3m
http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2014/nimbus.html
If only we could redo the Jurassic without turning the ocean to lemonade...that's the real problem right there. Acidification.
CO2 levels 400 to 500 million years ago were 4,000 to 5,000 PPM.
http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/old_root/%231%20CO...
And shelled molluscs (clams etc.) evolved 500 million year ago corals 400 millions yers and both did not dissolve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollusc_shell
That's over 10 times current level of CO2. I think we'll be OK...
I blame the damn dinosaurs, have you seen the size of those fuckers!
That explains the 1,000 PPM levels 60-200 MM years ago... also the high methane levels and generally disgusting smells..
Humans have only been round 200 thousand years. We have to preserve an environment that can support us - not an environment that supported the emergency of molluscs 500 million years ago.
At 5,000 PPM you got dragonflies with 3 foot wingspans... now that's cool...
That's cool but how big were the damn 'skeeters? Getting bit by one of them would suck.
The more things change the more they stay the same. When you get bit today, it's so skeeters can suck. The only difference today is the 3 ft wingspan skeeters developed camouflage by evolving into politicians; but they still suck.
So youre saying that we have to effect climate change to keep this place comfortable. Makes sense.
Baking Soda can fix that.
So there is no global warming and the govt doesn't need any more of our money?
See, to the solution of any problem we have two choices: Spend money, or make money.
Why spend money when we can just introduce a tax and make money?
Another two choices: Use our own brains, or use someone else's brains.
Why use your own brains? People might then figure out how dumb you really are. By introducing a tax, other people are forced to use their brains to try and solve the problem that is costing them.
You can't just take people's money. First you have to make them feel guilty for something, then they'll begrudgingly give their money because they have to. Hell, do a good job and some folks will volunteer to take up your cause! Volunteer! It won't cost you a cent!
Anything can be used as an excuse to take money. Don't bother fighting the crowd. Just find out what they already believe and then use it as a reason to take money.
The world's too hot? Then you have to give us money.
Can't breathe? Then you have to give use money.
Not enough water? Then you have to give us money.
But you mustn't use the money to solve problems. Once the problems are solved, you need to find a new excuse to take their money. You should stretch each disaster for as long as possible, before finding a new reason to ask for more money.
The population is growing and so pretty soon our dams will not be big enough. Build more dams? Build a pipeline? Start a new city close to a water source? All those things take lots of brains and cost lots of money. Way too hard. Way too risky. Just increase the price of water. Introduce rations. Introduce a new tax. But you mustn't solve the water problem. Way too costly. There's millions of people out there. One of them is sure to figure it out...
I follow a guy who calls himself Suspicious 0bserver (the O is a zero) on YouTube and he has produced claims of limited land ice loss in one part of the continent due to under ice volcanic activity. Overall ice is at record highs.
One thing that is certain is that there is a lot of politics and not all that much review of data.
We have people like Gore and Apple CEO Tim Cook who declare that further science is not needed as it is 'settled'. Any real scientist would agree that science is never settled.
Cook has stated that 'deniers' should not buy his products. After 30 years of buying nothing but Apple, I plan to oblige him.
Suspicious0bserver also spends a great deal each day evaluating the sun-spot frequency and solar output variability. According to him, over the next 70 years the earth will cool not unlike the maunder minimum.
I too listen to him everyday.
Stronger winds should break up the ice. What an idiot.
I can't wait for a Yale study blaming fracking for too much ice.
How do you think Manhattan sized chunks break off and float around? Those large break offs are due to wind shear and ocean current.
Owl Gore promised we would have global warming years ago. I still cannot grow coconuts here in NC. Lying sack of shit.
Lies or not, think of the trillions of funds that insiders have troughed.
Climate Change (once global warming) is a huge european invention that was created to stall US productivity (mask european lack of productivity) and with Barry and his band of communists in the WH, it was a great plan.
In fact, there is so much momentum behind this bullshit, the only real problem is that CC doesn`t exist.
Never stopped them before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PDC5s3VD7I&list=PLHSoxioQtwZcqdt3LK6d66...
Humans blamed for climate change ... my conclusions after attempting to figure out this issue is that nobody knows! I believe that the greenhouse gas mechanisms are real. IF they were the only factors, then we would be very seriously screwed, as outlined here:
http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/
However, changes in the Sun and Earth's magnetic fields, which are NOT well understood by anybody, despite those who pretend that they somewhat do, appear to be overcoming the greenhouse gas mechanisms driving global warming, at the present time. We appear to be getting a cosmic break, which has mitigated the runaway greenhouse gas mechanisms driving runaway global warming, at least for a while ... perhaps for as long as several decades, although that could eventually return with a vengeance later.
ONE THING I AM SURE OF IS THAT HUMAN CIVILIZATION IS CONTROLLED BY LIES BACKED BY VIOLENCE. That makes understanding events under human control extremely difficult to figure out, but still possible. However, when it comes to things which NOBODY FULLY UNDERSTANDS, the ways that almost everyone has an axe to grind in the climate change debates makes figuring out what is going on way more difficult than attempting to understand most other issues. There is no doubt that the changing of the climate would be extremely important! However, I am pretty sure that NOBODY fully understand what is going on, while those who are pretending that they do tend to have evil ulterior purposes behind that pretense.
@"ONE THING I AM SURE OF IS THAT HUMAN CIVILIZATION IS CONTROLLED BY LIES BACKED BY VIOLENCE."
.
consider the much more powerful voluntary compliance that
moves the entire system. not lies but truths
backed by accepted agreement and simple recognition.
.
psyche of fear, threat
and theater
how
who/what is the volitor?
lies by who told to whom?
from them to me
for who the bell
tolls, itself, and who the hell is that?
anyway p...
I don't know the science but I DO know the POLITICS:
"You are guilty. We need a new tax."
I just spent the whole day at a conference with a bunch of bureaucrats ,engineers and one federal meteorologist. The topic was hazard mitigation and climate change. The meteorologist was a true believer in anthropomorphic climate change, and even showed the Hadley CRU "hockey stick graph" in his PowerPoint presentation. I lost all respect for him as soon as he showed that. I said to my colleagues sitting around me, how can "global warming" have any credibility when the data was goal seeked?
Jethro, Have you been drinking? I am not a regular commenter, but when I do, I prefer Makers mark. Stay thirsty, my friend.
In the future we could have smog initiative to encourage production of CO2 to help melt the polar ice before it freezes our ass off and melt some polar ice instead of green initiative. And there will be a new tax called O2 Tax credit.
In the 70's some in the world scientific community believed absolutely that we were heading into another ice age, all that cold weather gear stocked up on for nothing...sigh.