This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Another Inconvenient Truth? New NASA Study Finds Antarctica Is Gaining Ice
Well this is awkward. Just a month after former Aussie PM Tony Abbott openly questioned global warming data (and was 'replaced'), a new NASA study finds another inconvenient truth - Antarctica has been adding more ice than it's been losing, challenging other research, including that of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that concludes that Earth’s southern continent is losing land ice overall.
As Christian Science Monitor reports,
In a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology on Friday, researchers from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of Maryland in College Park, and the engineering firm Sigma Space Corporation offer a new analysis of satellite data that show a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 in the Antarctic ice sheet.
That gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
Climate scientists caution that these findings don’t mean it’s time to start celebrating the end of global warming.
More than anything, the paper shows how difficult it is to measure ice height in Antarctica and that better tools are needed.
For now, the study authors say, these findings challenge current explanations for sea level rise, much of which is attributed to melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.
"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," said Dr. Zwally.
"But this is also bad news,” he added. “If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."
* * *
Perhaps it is time to burn just a little more fossil fuel? And maybe VW was doing a global good with its defeat device?
Paging Al Gore.
- 859 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -



That's cool and all, but how thick is this ice? I'm jsut saying, no one ever talks about that.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/26/extreme-heatwaves-cou...
Seems like there's a profit to be had. Who owns that ice? Take it to the Persian Gulf and make shaved ice products.
Climate change is causing (more/less) ice, so we must do something.
So simple.
More taxes should solve it, yet people seem to struggle with this.
Crap, my carbon credits just got short squeezed, moar taxes!
NASA budget cut in
T minus 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
The Ice Age cometh.
http://iceagenow.info/
Abbott was removed because he is a retard, as anyone who saw him at the G20 in Brisbane will understand.
Nice conspiracy theory tho, good for lots of clicks.
And if it's not bad (good?) enough news that ANTARCTICA is gaining 100 cubic kilometers of ice each year... and that Antarctic sea ice is so thick and expansive that they may be forced to relocate their iced-in research stations...
http://news.discovery.com/adventure/antarctic-sea-ice-may-force-research...
The Danish Meterological Institute (remember Greenland is governed by Denmark for the bankers) now says that GREENLAND just gained 200 billion metric tonnes (200 cubic kilometers) of ice in the last 12 months alone...
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/greenland-blowing-away-al...
So... ice gains in the Arctic... ice gains in the Antarctic... frost in Belgium, Germany in JULY... record cold temperatures and snowfall in Australia... record Great lakes Ice Coverage in the last two consecutive years...
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/ice/imgs/IceCoverAvg1973_2015.jpg < (That's NOAA)
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/22/australia-snow-record-cold/
http://www.sott.net/article/298967-Mid-July-frost-recorded-in-central-Eu...
And yet somehow the BEST GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS MONEY CAN BUY refuse to celebrate the fact that their much feared (or hoped for?) thermageddon has been cancelled... and even go on to the COP21 Klimate Konference in Paris to insist that the planet has never been *WARMER.
*After the necessary temperature adjustments of course.
BTW, the stevengoddard site provides the answer as to the source of much of the (relatively tiny) rise in sea levels - pumping groundwater for agriculture. How fucking funny it is that the explanation for the rise in sea levels, one of the major scary consequences cited by alarmists, is due to pumping the stuff out of the fucking ground hahahahahaha. You don't need complicated circle jerk computer models to explain it. It is literally an elementary school science concept.
My Pacific dolphin friends tell me that they are not worried about global warming. Instead they are worried about becoming a two fucking headed monstrosity courtesy of Japanese enginuity and forsight.
When I bring this up in comments, i.e. that Fukushima completely destroying life in the Pacific seems to be a more pressing problem than CO2 emissions, I get a response that usually brings up one or both of these two points: 1) nuclear disasters cause "regional" effects, not global effects like climate change; 2) that scientists have concluded that the risks associated with climate change are much more grave and more likely to cause widespread catastrophe than nuclear power plant, or storage, failures.
I will admit that I have been totally skeptical about global warming for the last 8 years when I actually decided to start reading opinions and information that doesn't come from Al Gore's fat stinky asshole. However, even if everyone had the same beliefs as an alarmist, does the level of concern and funding by scientists and governments over global warming vs. the almost complete lack of concern or funding to mitigate current and future potential nuclear disasters make any sense at all??????
Oh well.
why would anyone listen to anything nasa says?
Did he fuck up your belief system ? What say, mother fucker?
Abbott was removed because he is a retard, as anyone who saw him at the G20 in Brisbane will understand.
Nice conspiracy theory tho, good for lots of clicks.
Abbott is a moron. But what makes you think that ZH readers are psychic? Abbott's name is mentioned in the body of the article not in the headline and yet you seem to think that folks are clicking because they sense that Abbott must be in there somewhere. That's as crazy a theory as global warming.
So these large blocks of ice everyone see's falling into the ocean is not being caused by the ice pack melting at all, its being caused by it's immense weight growing so far away from the epicenter of "coldum" (that would be the axis) and so yuuuge (lol) that it's own weight simply can't be supported anymore, it just collapses in one final convulsive death spasm?
Well...whocouldaknowed, kinda like ObamaCare...eventually.
Not only does atmospheric CO2 not correlate with global temperatures — http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/old_root/%231%20CO... — it's at its lowest concentration level going back 550 million years. And were it not for our fossil fuel burning, atmospheric CO2 could well be approaching 150ppm, at which point plants suffocate the same as we would without enough oxygen.
That's right, global warmers want to reverse course on a process that former Greenpeace head, Dr. Patrick Moore, is saving life on earth, not destroying it:
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c
Transcript: http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide
Right. But the collective has decided to call CO2 a "pollutant" and so we must think of it as some dirty poison killing the planet. To bad the ignorant herd out there don't realize what the true number 1 green house gas is here on Earth...water vapor.
Right you are. Scroll down here: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global...
If carbon is a pollutant and all life on Earth is carbon based then all life is pollution based and therefore pollution must be a good thing.
Oh what a tangled web...
Now you see where original sin comes from.
Here is where the whole Global Warming crowd lost me: How do we truly know the temperature on this planet is warming? Taking an average temperature is a joke. Those people who do not support this warming claim blew it in the beginning. Average temperature readings for this planet are nearly impossible. They should have challenged this from the very 1st assumption. The temperature on this planet varies to such a spectacular degree that “Averages” can only be obtained statistically. It involves gathering of data points and applying methods that call for smoothing techniques and margins of error in their answers.
I’d like to know exactly where the “Data” come from. Are they collected in the exact same fashion? Are the data audited for accuracy? Are the instruments all the same? Are they calibrated in exactly the same manner? I truly doubt it.
Want to help the blasphemous non-believers, then argue about the validity and accuracy of the underlying data. That is where this whole scam starts.
How'd plants live prior to the industrial revolution?
The Sun. The Sun has its own cycles. What happens here is just a secondary effect, a response to the Sun.
Photosynthesis, yes. But what kept them from smothering to death, due to lack of CO2?
That video was fucking awesome. I try to know about these things, but Patrick Moore covered stuff I didn't know and hadn't thought about.
Some highlights for those who don't want to spend 40+ minutes watching it:
~23:31 Statement from IPCC in 2007: "We should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
~24:49 - Picture of different trees grown at different levels of CO2. (I already knew about CO2 affecting growth, but didn't realize, or at least visualize, how much.)
~25:40 - There's apparently evidence that deserts are "greening" due to increased CO2. (Fuck you CAWGers who argue out of ignorance that CO2 is going to create deserts.)
~29:21 - Points out that both fossil fuels and nuclear are in essence stored solar energy. (Fossil fuels being sequestered life that got its energy from the sun, heavy/radioactive elements having been created directly by supernova. This of course isn't an argument for anything, but just something I found to be an interesting observation.)
~30:00 - Those stupid calcium-carbonate making creatures that many CAGW morons are so concerned about are responsible for a massive "theft" of CO2. (He says it's one quadrillion tons of carbon that's now just calcium-carbonate "stone" - limestone, chalk, marble. They're also sequestering the very calcium that they depend on - thus they would seem to be at least in part responsible for long term ocean acidification and their own fate.)
~31:46 - Nature has been removing 37,000 tons of carbon a year from the atmosphere for 150 mm years. (I should have realized this, but hadn't thought of it and had not seen anyone point it out before. It's like a bunch of flies let loose in a closed room full of meat - the population will explode until it's consumed everything and just starts to die. Only the Earth is huge and the timescales are much longer, so evolution can often pull a rabbit out of the hat. [Humans are apparently one of those rabbits, as is the fungus that "figured out" how to digest wood.] In this case what has been consumed and effectively "lost" to nature is CO2 [and calcium].)
~32:50 - CO2 bottomed out during last glaciation (18,000 years ago) at ~180 ppm; plants require ~150 ppm just to live. (I.e., that was possibly a bit too close for comfort to a total extinction event.)
~34:10 - If not for humans, CO2 would have fallen below the 150 ppm mark in about 2 mm years from now. (I.e., by releasing CO2 that nature has oh-so-stupidly sequestered, we are saving the fucking planet.* Warning though: That was just based on a simple extrapolation - which he points out himself as he jokes about not having a computer model for it. As life started to slow/die, the sequestration would also slow. I would also expect plants to eventually evolve to be able to live with less CO2, but it would be a much more meager life as less CO2 means less energy for the plants.)
~37:45 - "If the Earth were 24 hours old, we were at 38 seconds to midnight when we reversed the trend towards end times." (One could say we saved it* just in "the nick of time".)
~39:30 - LOL (@ the CAGW dopes trying to deny us our CO2) - he suggests we can purposely make CO2 from calcium-carbonate (using solar energy - the irony) in order to ensure we have enough CO2 in the atmosphere to save the planet.*
~40:00 - "We are not the enemy of nature, but its salvation."*
*: As Carlin pointed out, the planet doesn't need saving - we do. The CAGW movement is about crippling the human race. I think saving it is a preferrable course of action, even if most of it doesn't deserve it.
https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA
Yes, when you can't dispute any of the facts, go for the ad hom. Very convincing. /s
noooo, this means they need even moar money. Obviously climate change made the ice grow. this has to be human caused. With more money, Im sure NASA and the IPCC can tell us all about it, so we just need to cough up the cash.
Whatever the problem is, rest assured, it will be fixed as soon as we pass the global tax on everything, and set up that carbon credit exchange run by the ever-altruistic goldman sacs. Don't worry, guys, whatever is happening here, the government will figure it out and fix it. All they need is a little bit moar of our money. Quit being selfish and hand it over.
These findings are shocking and pose a catastrophic threat to us all.
I propose an "ice tax" which must be put in place immediately to help save the world from this imminent ice age.
Christian science monitor? really? they are a source
No, CSM is not the source; it's the vector. The Journal of Glaciology is the source, and I believe its articles are peer-reviewed
sorry, but "peer-reviewed" means literally nothing to me anymore. Remember, all those articles proclaiming florida will be underwater in X amount of years were "peer-reviewed" too. Not saying this particular article is wrong, just saying that something being "peer-reviewed" is a meaningless statement.
GreenskeeperC,
great comment...science sure has put itself in quite a pickle. immediately after declaring God's demise and substituting their own totem in His stead, 'scientists' set to dispensations of morals and dogmas. the first being eugenics; and now they've taken to trafficking in this AGW balderdash. 'scientists' are nothing but high-priests of other's conception of 'progress'. 'scientists' know that if ever they actually endeavor legitimate science (without prior approval and without the prerogative of 'progress' serving as lodestar for their pursuits), they'd be terminated post-haste.
i mean, can you imagine what would happen to some poor 'scientist' if ever he/she were to publicly declare there were a genetic difference betwixt the sexes?
janus
All you need to know about 'peer-reviewed science' is that it is THE method the politicians use to control the purse-strings for what research gets done, and what doesn't. Want to put forth as scientific 'fact' some half-cocked idea that supports your insane agenda? Just find some 'doctor' who has done work in that field that supports your ideas and put him in charge of giving out grant money. Such dudes are almost always a lock to only back people who believe as they do, even if the opposing viewpoint is more demonstrably true. More good science gets upended by the grant funding process than any other, all in the interest of 'peer review.'
Yup... a classic example of when the "scientific method" meets the "monetary method" the monetary method wins every time.
I disagree however that the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming idea is "half-cocked"... I find it fully cocked.
I agree with your views that the peer review process is stifling science.
Cold Fusion has been replicated many times now. Rossi has his patent.
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2178-Kazakhstan-held-a-...
But only the US refuses to take it seriously. This reminds me of of the obdurate stance the US took against solid state electronics in order to protect their vacuum tube technology.
One the issue of ice, I wouldn't crow too soon. If the temperature is always below zero (as it is in the Antarctic) then the rate of deposit of ice is not dependent on the temperature, but on the amount of moisture in the air.
I've seen models that show increased evaporation of water in the oceans due to warming can actually drive the deposition of snow and ice at the poles, resulting in an ice age at the northern and southern extremes but warm temperatures everywhere else.
Given that we are currently seeing a 'blob' of much warmer water in the Pacific; a persistent high off the coast of Alaska (FOUR YEARS!! Geoengineering much?!); and the melting of Artic ice resulting in an ever-increasing pool of cold, low salinity water that is staying in one place due to a lack of weather systems entering the Arctic due to the blocking high (there is a gyre that moves water *within* the Arctic)...if that high off the coast of Alaska ever dissipated - regardless of its origin - the resulting push of that cold, low-density Arctic water towards Greenland could potentially set up a 'Day After Tomorrow' scenario, as the gulf stream would be stopped and all that water in the Pacific would finally find a release.
Something to keep an eye on, regardless of whether global warming is the culprit or not...and if it were to happen, what with the sun entering a Maunder Minimum, the consequences could be dire, indeed.
Jet streams are changing from normal "zonal" west to east flow to"meridional" north <> south flow and encountering long lived stationary blocking highs and lows in the process.
The Mt. Logan ice cores record these changes though sodium deposition from the occurance of warm Pacific air masses that are common during el nino events.
After all the 10,000 feet of ice that was sitting on top of North America during the ice ages had to come from the Pacific.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015...
"The Blob" may stick around for decades...
If the tropics become hotter and the poles become colder, anticipate strong winds. Thermodynamics.
i have peer-reviewed your comment.
I upvoted you for your peer review of my comment. You're of course correct, given the demise of peer credibility in academia.
In Fact, where honesty is concerned they put the New York Times and Washington post to absolute shame.
Yeah, all we have to do is pay more taxes for being somehow involved in nature's carbon chain of reactions and bingo! ..... proper weather all around. Storms of the proper size and frequency, rain-fall in the right amount and correct location, properly formatted sunshine from a clean square sun, all in moderation, all the time, everywhere.
Climatically speaking, a chicken in every pot.
pods
Make that a Chicken Little.
Humans have fucked up the land, the rivers and the seas.
It would be strange if the atmosphere was somehow immune to human fuckery, I think.
Warming? Cooling?
We don't need to do anything, though.
The laws of nature will sort it all out at some point.
Going to be a rough ride.
Dinosaurs lasted about 175 million years.
Anyone think humans will last that long?
Just a little bit less thick than catastrophic anthropogenic global warming believers are.
Actually, if you look at the source material that is exactly what this study addresses. Everyone knows the 2D acerage of the continent. The issue has always been estimating various thicknesses of the ice. That's why this report is getting attention.
The ice sheet is 4km at its thickest; the average is more than 2km.
Measuring average gain/loss of snow in mm is incredibly small, relatively speaking, so it is easy to have margins of error, depending on what methods are used.
Seems like measuring the sea level height would be even harder.
And what is the time of referenced used to determine the "average?"
Net gain is in tonnage, so thickness would be irrelevant. So would area. That'd be my interpretation.
Thickness is always relevant.
My only hope is volume.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ew05sRDAcU
Why do people continue to keep voting for tyranny and their own enslavement?
It's just lie after lie after lie......
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/10/time-travel-is-no-l...
That's cool and all, but how thick is this ice? I'm jsut saying, no one ever talks about that.
And they don't talk about the land that is sinking, would spoil their bullshit for carbon credits scam
Actually some land is rising. Off the top of my head, Finland gains about seven square kilometers of ground each year because the land continues to rise since the end of the ice age and the retreat of the glaciers. Pretty cool. It's like the Netherlands without the need for dykes.
I remember the 70's and the ice age scare (an equivalent of the global warming movement). Their logic was also based on increasing amount of CO, only is stated that instead of the greenhouse effect the warming up of the planet was going to cause thermal expansion of the oceans and increased cloud cover, both of which deflect light back into space instead of letting it get absorbed into the soil. The result - increased formation of ice that is even more reflective that water and vapor, leading to even faster cooling.
When it comes to it, what's better for this planet, heat or cold? Historically ice ages had been associated with decreased industrial and organic activity, while heat was always beneficial for planet's metabolism. If there was a way to warm the planet up artificially, I'd be all for it, but I don't think anything we do can compete with the cosmic forces already in play. Anything we do can be outdone by the sun and the planet itself, so there's no point trying to change the climate. The best we can do is predict and adapt. If it gets cold - fine. Let's see what the benefits are. Maybe we can start growing food in Africa again. It gets warm? Fine! Let's build more shacks up North. The planet will do whatever it wants to. The best thing we can do is react to changes intelligently.
And no carbon tax. The biggest pile of bureaucratic shit of the 21st century.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60VUtxmN1IE&t=9m14s
I remember the 70s. It's the 80s that are a bit fuzzy.
Everyone has an off decade. Or two.
I remember the 80s. The 70's are VERY fuzzy!
How could it possibly matter to anyone how thick the ice is? That's the reason "no one ever talks about it". I know you're "just saying" but why on earth are you "just saying"?
The third dimension yields information on volume.
I must have missed the mainstream media coverage of this /sarcasm
Particularly because it is further proof that AGW is real.
/s
Climate change is perfectly natural. That's all you need to know.
Global warming is GOOD. Less mortality and all that. If in fact the world is getting cooler....
That would be BAAAAD!!!! PANIC!!!! PANIC!!!!!
Yeah, except when it's driven by carbon being pulled from its million years underground storage and puffed into the atmosphere in a geological nanosecond.
Greenpeace Founder: Let’s Celebrate CO2To conclude, carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the stuff of life, the staff of life, the currency of life, indeed the backbone of life on Earth.
I am honoured to have been chosen to deliver your annual lecture.
Thank you for listening to me this evening.
I hope you have seen CO2 from a new perspective and will join with me to Celebrate CO2!
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-lets-celeb...
"The dose makes the poison" - Paracelsus.
What part of
didn't you understand?
Hm, probably the part that says that if you breathe too much of it you die? Or the part that when it's too concentrated in the atmosphere it creates weather situations where humans can't lose their heat and die? Or the part where in certain atmospheric amounts it acidifies the oceans? Paracelsus said it more succinctly than that in the aforementioned quote.
+1
If you are nice and comfortable sitting somewhere, lighting a fire is only going to make you too warm.
Burning fossil fuels is just digging up what the earth did long ago as a response to lots of excess carbon and then adding it into the present energy 'balance?'
Not to worry, the earth will be fine. It's likely humans are fucked, however.
Paging Flakmeister....
Stay out of Climate Change ZH - your skill set is finance and you look like every hack other with an opinion when you wade into the denialist cold waters.
Denialist...lol. Just go post on huffpo or salon or something you orwellian bugger.
Might as well just call ZH racist and get to the point.
Q.E.D - how can you follow the logic of science when your logic on calling ZH racist is absurd. Not on here to read the hacks (although you are certainly entertaining today) - I'm on here because I see the financial system in the same light as the general meme of the site.
so, essentially you think that every thing you are told by this government about the financial system and the real state of the economy is bullshit, but you still believe everything these same known liars tell you about "global warming"? Im sure the same people who lie about everything else are being honest on this, with no ulterior motives at all, right? thanks for clearing that up.
I do understand your distrust of TPTB, believe me.
Anything that will make a banker a buck to spend on a handy politician will be used to maximum advantage by the aforementioned.
Just because someone is trying to use a situation to rip off Joe Public doesn't mean that it isn't happening.
The main thing about a good scam is that it is rooted in reality or else nobody would be taken in.
Are you a climate scientist, Dan? And please note I'm asking seriously.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." - Voltaire
Why are you so 'certain'?
Climate scientist? Today official science is all fucking fake, science got a whore, gives what it's told to for moar money and funds, science as fake as hell even Chineseese can't fake it anymore.
Science has been financialised.
Like everything else that has been financialized, it is now fucked.
There's an easily discernable pattern with this stuff.
Scientist is just a word for "your highness" to these people. Tell em your a scientist, friar tuck was a monk.
One should REALLY avoid this site then.......
http://iceagenow.info/
But, do not let facts get in the way of one's religion.
"But, do not let facts get in the way of one's religion."
Facts are facts if you believe them to be, by that logic there is no Global warming for those who don't believe it! You are the problem, you are trying to believe climate change into reality, religious people understand these things and that is why we have no problem burning Heritics at the stake, I'm sure, being full of the love of Christ, they didn't 'really' enjoy it, but it was something they had to do for the public good.
Pllease get back on your meds as soon as possible.
OH! God help me, I am a denialist, am I a denialist? Not really I have no opinion on wether the World is warming or cooling, I do think we are going to have to adjust to whatever the future brings, I do deny the idea that giving someone money is going to change anything, except, of course, I will be poorer and he will be richer! Me poorer, he richer that is what this is all about, don't be a sucker resist this madness!
Perhaps you're not familiar with the huge Wall Street databases and financial modeling in search of a risk/carbon-neutral utopia... All the guys who previously wrote peer reviewed papers about the Antarctic ice sheet are like "last year's" quants whose algorithms face planted into the current less than risk free/perfectly rigged market reality a couple months ago. Seriously, the green economy and the financialized economy are simply two (eerily) similar faces of the great bankster scam, and they both employ legions of amoral and immoral PhDs, along with a larger army of equally credentialed useful idiots, who aren't as quite as bright as they think they are, and carbon credits are an even smaller part of the bankster green economy scam than CO2 is a part of earth's climate change.
just because the green economy may be another arbitrary abstraction to alleviate the human condition does not negate the high likelihood that climate change, on a long enough timeline, will displace and cull a significant % of homo sapiens.
certain peopls of certain nation-states seem to fear immigrants "invading" at a rate of less than 2% of overall population per year.
i wonder how the looks on their faces will shift when the rate will reach multiples of that over the next century.
The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.
In the Bahamas, for example, according to the 2010 census, there was a major increase in population, going from around 300,000 in 2000 to more than 350,000 by 2010. The population of St. Lucia, meanwhile, grew by five percent during the same period. The Seychelles grew by about 10 percent. The Solomon Islands also witnessed a major population boom during that time frame, gaining another 100,000 people, or an increase of about 25 percent.
In China, meanwhile, the top six fastest growing cities were all within the areas highlighted by the UN as likely sources of “climate refugees.” Many of the fastest-growing U.S. cities were also within or close to “climate refugee” danger zones touted by the UN
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-p...
If the Earth's climate only changes from the actions of man, how do they explain how we had an Ice Age, and then how did we also "leave" the Ice Age and warm back up? Clearly, the Earth has tempertaure swings that have noting to do with mankind's carbon dioxide emissions.
Man made global warming is a lie, plain and simple. It's a scam to try and get all economic activity to be under the control of bureaucrats to "save the planet."
It was clearly all those hearth fires back in the day that warmed things up. Who knew man-made global warming was at work way back then.
The alternate explanation: It was those God damn racist Republicans and Tea Party deniers. (The fact that neither organization would come into existence for another several hundred years is not relevant)
No, you have it all wrong. The planet has had the exact same climate pattern for billions of years (what you stated didn't happen about the ice age and then the planet warming up as well as the mini ice age a few centuries ago) until poof, 30-40 years ago and human temperature records that go back a whole 125-130 years prove this.
Don't question things, sir!
Blows my mind people believe in this shit.
The name global warming. If you read the +12000 research papers that is available for FREE, on the internet?
It creates EXTREME CONDITION between WARM & COLD that is beyon the comfort zones that earth enjoyed currently.
So GAINING ICE AT THE POLAR REGIONS? actually SUPPORT THE THEORY of global warming.
Or are you really that clueless??
I'm sure you've read them all...or did you just get the synopsis from Al Gore and Bill Nye the Science guy.
Maybe he watched the documentary.
the ice caps melting or gaining ice is not relevant to these people. Everything will be spun to fit the agenda. a few years ago all these hacks were saying that large amounts of snowfall in the north east would soon be a thing of the past, then when we get severe winter storms dumping a fuckton of snow up there, you hear that this is what they were predicting all along, more extreme cold weather. Its a religion, not a science. think of it like a cult. Most cults get you to give all your money to the leader(check) and eventually they ask you to do things that will end up harming you both pysically and economically(check). Trying to convince them they have been duped is like trying to do the same thing to the mormans who ride their bikes to your front door to talk to you about god. Its a waste of time.
So GAINING ICE AT THE POLAR REGIONS? actually SUPPORT THE THEORY of global warming.
global --of or relating to the whole world; worldwide.If the Antarctic is gaining ice then it is not warming. As Antarctica is not warming and it is on the globe then by definition there is no global warming.
And don't forget the newest member, fomer Governator Arnold schwarzenegger http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/now-its-bill-nye-with-clima...
Bill Nye, the man who has no expertise in clinate science but is somehow a credible voice...that'll be the day when I listen to a person as arrogant as Bill Nye.
An early prediction for the Northern hemisphere was that the North would get colder, which might, in the longer term, be a kind of buffer against truly insane changes.
Who the fuck knows.
I doubt, however, you have sufficient science knowledge to criticise others in that regard.
What's your take on the unprecedented and absolute free fall of WTC7 for 2.25+ seconds due to normal office fires, Mr. Science Guy? You get this one wrong then you are in no position to comment on AGW.
Building what? Oh, just w/e man like quit being conspiracy nut, occams razor, racist.
Wait for it.... waiiiiit forrr iiiiiiit. Anymore tough arguments and we'll have Godwin's Law from BC in 3.... 2.... 1....
BC is just a bullshit artist troll with nothing of value to say.
Best to just ignore - or maybe just fuck with.
YMMV
For over 100 million years the earth was warmer than now, we had an excess of CO2 and no ice caps.If that's not global warming then what is? Because honest scientists (the ones who can't publish papers questioning the warming thesis ) call the current period of the earth's climate 'ice house'. Ice house conditions are not as common as hot house conditions.In conclusion it's obvious that global warming or climate change cannot explain over 100m years of earth's climate. Where were those CO2 emissions from? Because if you don't know that you can't say anything about our present climate other than its ice house and cooler than usual for planet earth.
"For over 100 million years the earth was warmer than now, we had an excess of CO2 and no ice caps."
Define "we".
So Ice melting is Global Warming,,, Gaining Ice is Global Warming,,, Ice staying constant is Global Warming,,, More rain is Global Warming, Less Rain is Global Warming,,, Warm days is Global Warming, Cold Days is Global warming
Okay,,, I get it! If it's raining in Paducah and blistering hot in Death Valley it's GLOBAL WARMING.......... gotcha!
So, let me make sure I understand you. The term GLOBAL WARMING, in your lexicon, refers to any extreme condition, hot or cold, that is beyond the currently enjoyed comfort zones. If so, either cold or hot weather is caused by the accumulation of CO2 which causes a green house effect, either warming or cooling the planet and as a result the polar ice caps will melt, or grow, ocean levels will rise, or shrink, coastal cities will disappear, or not and it will result in stronger hurricanes, or lack of hurricanes, loss of crop lands due to desertification, or swamping which can only be stopped by trading carbon credits thru a government agency.
oh, and if we disagree with those predictions we are clueless...
ALRIGHTY THEN.....
I've seen this data from other, independent sources, but coming from NASA?? Are they no longer on board with the NWO 'global warming' campaign? I smell a rat...
Putin and the Russian Climate Science Community are calling BULLSHIT on the Global warming meme as well...
The "RAT" you and I both smell is due to the simple fact that BOTH SIDES OF EVERY ARGUMENT are owned by the Globalists.
BTW... I wouldn't be putting too much trust into the RSS and UAH (NASA) satellite temps as well. Once they averaged in a 470 degree (yup) temperature anomally from a region in Lake Michigan into their dats sets without picking up on it...
Yes...good cop/bad cop. Putin destroys the West, makes GMO's illegal, stomps out the FED, cancels the TTP, halts vaccines, admits global warming is a ruse to raise taxes etc. and he becomes the 'conquering hero.'
...but the BRICS system will then be put into place; the SDR will become a reality; digital currency becomes the nrom; and the NWO wins, anyway.
Yeah, I've seen this movie before. At the end of every reserve currency reset. It never ends well...
"Ladies and gentlemen, one more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change. It is in our interest to ensure that the coming UN Climate Change Conference that will take place in Paris in December this year should deliver some feasible results. As part of our national contribution, we plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 70–75 percent of the 1990 levels by the year 2030.
However, I suggest that we take a broader look at the issue. Admittedly, we may be able to defuse it for a while by introducing emission quotas and using other tactical measures, but we certainly will not solve it for good that way. What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve introducing new, groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony with it, enabling us to restore the balance between the biosphere and technology upset by human activities.
It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities, and have made significant advances in fundamental research. We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia is willing to co-sponsor such a forum."
---------------
President Putin 28SEP15 @UNGA
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50385
Thank you for that. It just brings home the point I made above: ALL of this is global Kabuki Theatre. Putin is a willing participant towards imposing the globalist plan, and his saying he'd involve the UN is a big warning sign that he is all in on the deception and a part of the globalist collective.
What is driving climate change is CHANGES IN THE SUN (and galactic environment). Very little of what is going on is due to human processes; I've seen good papers that claim humans only contribute 4%.
It's ALL theatre, folks - except for those who will end up DEAD because the dialogue has been about global warming instead of GLOBAL ICE AGE.
Oh, well...NOT.
Who needs Science when you've got DiCrapio and Sad Polar Bear Pics(tm)?
The planet is 4.5 billion years old, the human race has been around for about 200 000 years. What we do on this rock won't even be noticable in a 1 000 000 years.
The earth is 6,000 years old.
...according to whom? other than current MSM GOP lock and guarantor of a Hillary victory Ben Carson?
The earth was commissioned by a race of multidimensional beings, which look like mice, and was designed, in part by Slatty Bartfast. That is until the Vorlon fleet blew it up to make room for an intergalactic bypass....
Slartybartfast.
Vogons.
Hyper-space bypass.
Earth was created last Tuesday by the Noodly Appendages of the FSM.
All those old newspapers and archived ZH stories were created at the same time, just to screw with your mind.
Who the fuck could argue with that?
Because nothing that resembles the human race today will be around to notice it.
But it will be noticeable for you, your kids and their kids. And their kids also, if they manage to have any...
It's disturbing how the "it's for the children" meme has been distorted. Adults, especially ones with children of their own, are hard-wired to concern themselves with the future. Must be a pre-frontal cortex thing? Seems to me it's been so across cultures, across time. Yet today it's been so corrupted that basic instinct is often derided and hurled accusingly in comment after comment after comment. I'm surprised no one has hurled it at you AchtungAffen.
It's paradoxical: we have "our" "OWN" children.
On grandchildren, John Perkin's ideal was beautiful. The reality is that the planet has more than enough children today. They are our pride and joy, and, the measure of our hypocracy. A zero-child policy is not politically possible yet it is the only truly democratic solution.
I have 2 kids (daugter 22 son 21) and we often have some fairly in-depth discussions regarding existence and how you, as a person, come into existence through no fault of your own. Life is imposed on you.
Would it be better never to exist? We'll never know, because we do!
I've never felt like I own my kids, but I've always felt responsible for their well-being, given I was 50% responsible for the fact that they exist at all.
Better yet burn all of Obama's executive orders and bring the British back and let them burn down the white, I mean black house.
Sorry to be so politically insensitive.
It was painted white to hide the blackening from being burned by the Brits.
It's still black on the inside from the evil it contains.
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
+1'000'000. Note that this political, cultural and academic clash in NOWHERE as accented as in the English-speaking countries with it's center in the US, where a Church Of Scientist Consensus is battling Big Oil and assorted allies
Besides, we Europeans don't really need such a nexus in order to try to consume less oil, that's a chronic effort of us going back to the 60's, with various taxes on petrol/gasoline (not to mention: coal)
Amazed, we wonder about the sheer intensity of this foodfight-like conflict
I like Russell. The problem here is that his observation doesn't apply. There is actually no controversy on the subject of climate change. It's happening. It can be measured, and it can be seen. The reasons are complex, the variability of effects great, but doubt it at your peril.
What's controversial is that so few people still think it's all made up.
Of course climate change is real. It's AGW that is the argument. As it should be. Not one scientist on this planet can say with a absolute answer, exactly how much postitive forcing does CO2 contribute. Not one. That equation is still just a theory. And this is why just about ALL of the models from the IPCC have failed to date.
Not one scientist on earth ever claims to be able to give an absolute answer.
You just proved, in your own words, that you are talking out of your arse.
The computer you are typing on would seem to be operating. All based on Quantum THEORY.
Make up your mind. Elsewhere you claim there is controversy, allegedly due to those educationally deficient. Now you claim there is no controversy.
Unless you are God, or perhaps Obama, the fact you personally believe something is true does not extinguish controversy.
Don't know about the "native" bit but the "lazy" part of your moniker is looking apposite.
Of course, the climate changes all the time and always will. Everyone can believe in that. It's not about climate change though, it's about the weather.
If there's inclement weather we need to self-flagilate according the instructions of the high preists of AGW. Floods, hurricaines, or pehaps an idylic sandbar in middle of The Pacific that some brown people inhabit; we need to worry if that gets washed away. No controversy at all, not controversy really but a new religion. A religion whose adherants claim to be able to predict future trends, and yet, paradoxically, are consistently unable to do so. When faced with their failures, almost always offer new an more apocalyptic scenarios than previously, along with an admonition: this is the consensus, resistance is futile.
In other news...CDC says flu vaccine is not effective...but you should get it anyway.
http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20150115/flu-vaccine-effectiveness
"Experts say it’s still a good idea to get the flu shot, even though protection from the current vaccine is spotty."
Interesting stuff here though, if you google the following: "cdc flu vaccine effectiveness 2015 webmd"
You will see the headline
CDC: Flu Vaccine Not Very Effective This Season - WebMDBut when you actually click on the article you see this headline:
Flu Cases Down SlightlyStrange stuff, did they change the article headline after the fact? Did google just keep it cached?
That's from last January
Maybe the additional sea level rise over the last year is coming from all the crude being stored on ships?
And the Chinese building islands?
94% of the ice is non-participating in the global warming economy, DOL said so.
Ice that's floating will have no effect.
It's the stuff sitting on rock that will make the difference.
One thing about polar ice is that it reflects heat back into space.
This couldn't, of course, be imprtant in any way.
Soros invested in coal earlier this year:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/19/climate-philanthropis...
On the cheap, having pushed the global warming bs and government action to devalue fossil fuels.
Scientists Considered Pouring Soot Over the Arctic in the 1970s to Help Melt the Ice – In Order to Prevent Another Ice Age
Hence all the Diesel engines and Gas Turbine jets burning Jet A1 and creating chemtrails.
Chemtrail is now a season, btw.
Why not spend our money chasing the devil. Bible says he exists and Bad stuff does happen ALOT(Devil made me do it). If we could find him all the bad stuff would stop. Support "Global Exorcism, we can make the "bad stuff" go away. Sanctioned by the POPE.
I can see it now...
US sets up a new alphabet soup group.....
DDD - Deparment of Devil Detection.
There will be a huge need for Catholic priests weilding crucifixes at the airport.
You'll have to was your hands in holy water (I'd like to get the contract for that one!) before you fly.
You'll be able to avoid the long lines by putting a suitable sum in the pre-flight collection box.
OH, and yes, you will still have to take your shoes off. Cloven hooves are a huge giveaway.
Fucking idiot climate change fool's! it's all bull shit, The sun has cycles and it gets hotter and colder. When it peaks the ice melts and the media go off on one and bang stupid people over the head with the idea of climate change so they will accept new taxes and laws. When the sun cools they shut the fuck up and beat you over the head with other agenda's until the Sun peaks again and they repeat it all. The Earth has had several ice ages and they were before man burned fossil fuels and several were before man! wake up you dumb fucks!
WELL SAID
That's what I tell those fuckers, the earth has been warming since the Wisonsin Glacial Maximum, perhaps approximately 20,000 years now. Yet they insist on navel gazing into the past 100 years or so to extrapolate changes that occur on a time scale of several millenia. Why not, I guess if it feeds the agenda.
Scientists got caught faking data to meet the agenda, how they can still get away with this crap is a sad reflection on the intelect of the public.