Do 1901 Expedition Logbooks Confirm There Is No Global Warming?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,

OOPS! Antarctic sea ice has not changed for more than 100 years.

This further demonstrates that the global warming created by man is just a fraud to get more taxes. Scientists have looked over the logbooks of polar explorers Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton from their expeditions during 1901-1904 and 1907-1909. The theory that sea ice has declined post-1950 because of man cannot be supported.

The Telegraph has reported that:

“new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming.

 

"We know that sea ice in the Antarctic has increased slightly over the past 30 years, since satellite observations began. Scientists have been grappling to understand this trend in the context of global warming, but these new findings suggest it may not be anything new.

 

"If ice levels were as low a century ago as estimated in this research, then a similar increase may have occurred between then and the middle of the century, when previous studies suggest ice levels were far higher."

I had a conversation in a hotel with someone who was very much a believer in man created global warming. I began to notice a pattern to their thinking. When you test anything, you must see how it is connected to other reasoning. What emerged was a fundamental belief that government is good and there to take care of you until you die. This notion appears to be linked to those who just want to be taken care of, but not to the point that they are on welfare. They will pretend to be independent thinking individuals, but there is a core surrender of independence because they do not want to think no one is in charge. They voted for Hillary as well, and this all seems linked to this desire not to be responsible for the future in a subtle way. Perhaps it is linked to childhood when you did not have to work or cook. They just took care of you. It seems that those who believe in global warming are more likely to trust government. What happens when they wake up and discover nothing is as they thought it would be?

Meanwhile, the energy output of the sun is dropping faster than anyone expected. Snow has actually begun falling in Tokyo and other parts of eastern Japan. Tokyo recorded its first November snowfall since 1875 when the government started collecting records. But hey. Now they want to call this climate change and somehow still attribute this to mankind.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ParkAveFlasher's picture

Russian hackers did this!

froze25's picture

Global Laming is just a scam to get more money out of your pocket for simply existing. I am not advocating simply dumping poison into rivers or garbage on the streets but Global Laming is used to strangle some countries while giving competitive advantage to others that use slave labor. Screw the EPA. Let the states decide what is right for themselves.
Cool video on the continent https://youtu.be/5CyX7nC72fM

AllTimeWhys's picture

Progresshits will never acknowledge it because it doesnt fit their 'narrative'

spastic_colon's picture

"Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable"

 

-Carl

Kotzbomber747's picture

"Global warming" (and especially mankind's supposed influence on the climate) is a European leftwing invention in order to push through socialist ideals and create an egalitarean society. It's a fantastic tool for creating fear (and thus collecting taxes), just like in the Dark Ages people were easily scared with "you'll burn in hell." 

Here's a link worth watching, a Channel4 documentary called The Great Global Climate Swindle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

Fukushima Sam's picture

People need to focus on the Arctic, that is where the most obvious changes are occurring so far.

The cold snap we get next week that you all will say is proof of no warming is caused by warm air in the arctic pushing cold air south. The global climate system is extremely large and complex and as such it will maintain relative stability until something pushes if far enough and then it will gyrate wildly with sudden changes. (Think of a large spinning top about to hit a pebble.)

This is what we are at the cusp of.

Also, I've gotten to love these downvotes from you idiots.

nightshiftsucks's picture

Idiots ? And then you open your mouth but that's what you do at the glory hole.

SafelyGraze's picture

the ice in antarctica is warmer than it was back then.

everybody knows this.

how come tylerz keep shoving all this disinformation down everybody's throats.

we urgently need to work together to bring the temperature of ice back down to what is used to be.

before it's too late.

hugs,
planet earth 

roddcarlson's picture

Ice isn't warmer pal, global satellites have shown average temperatures have dropped 2 degrees on average in the southern hemisphere. And yes the sunspots peaked lowest in history, last time that happened was the Dalton minimum. And the news is that we are now in a la nina moment. They say a light one but still a nina, my guess is that it will end up a protracted and long nina, as the sun's furnace cooling has much more to do with global warming/cooling than anything else. Overall the Northern hemisphere has been warming by about the same but lesser than the southern hemisphere has been cooling in the last decades. Why for this difference can only be explained by say ocean and atmospheric distribution of heat.

The point is that satellites show clearly that the earth has cooled slightly from the 90's. Also CO2 and H20 both share the same common greenhouse characteristics of infrared spectra absorbtion, that alone means that with H20 magnitudes more greater in the atmosphere and the earth not ending up in global meltdown, that C02 is a hoax. Further, the world nearly went extinct due to too little CO2 in the atmosphere at sustaining plant life, it getting within a 20ppm windows of atmpsheric conditions of extinction of plant life (off the top of my head I think life needs 180ppm and we had it nearly get to 200 ppm). It's fortunate that humans came along when we did to raise the ppm of C02, the plants are thanking us for us as saviors in releasing all the sequestered carbon. It appears earth probably only had a million years of life left without us two legged beasts coming along.

The great news is that as we released nearly double the ppm of C02, only half has remained in the atmosphere meaning the difference has most likely been an increase in earths biomass. And finally earth had 1000's of ppm of CO2 in its past atmospheres and the earth never became a fireball of positive feedback, that's because earth systems behave as Le Chatliers principle not uncontrolled positive feedback loops. The earth is not getting warmer and as the article correctly points out is on the cusp of global cooling and none of the science is anything but man made hubris. But even if it were warmer in recent decades, that too would be normal as we just came out of colder than average temperatures.

Like CFC and the holes in the atmosphere coming and disappearing as in being totally normal, people like these are chicken littles that try to get global governance, government regulation, and taxation on us productive using false science along with the same FAKE NEWS sources. All originating from their zionist headquarters in New York, London, Tel Aviv, and DC.

roddcarlson's picture

And the oceans haven't increased in feets of water level...laughs. And in north america glaciers used to extend all the way to Nebraska, so as I said this all happened way before we came along (global warming/coming from a overly cold period in earth history). People have too much observational local bias, they see a back yard glacier decrease in size as a kid and they think the whole thing is global. Yes N.hemisphere has seen warmer decades, but the souther shows the opposite effect, not living in S. America kind of deludes our perspective.

The idea that floating icebergs melting in open seawater increasing the volume of oceans goes to show how stupid global warming people are. The only source of global ocean levels rising can be from ice melting on land and ending up in the ocean, not from bricks of ice floating in the ocean. That's because floating ice has the same mass as its melted formation. The difference in densities of ice causes the excess volume difference to appear as a tip above the water. The volume of iceberg displacing water is exactly equal to the water displaced when the ice melts. Tell that to Al Gore and his fake jocks in nerd science smocks, that the ocean is fairly immutable in volume. In fact with land ice increasing in Antartica, I'd expect that the levels of the oceans are probably going to fall off but very very insignificantly BTW.

roddcarlson's picture

Who you going to believe MSM or your own eyes? Just like Clinton and the FAKE NEWS suppressing all her wrongs. We've climategate and all their emails exposing all their FAKE SCIENCE along with their fudged numbers. It's called doctoring the results to get the desired political outcome. It was true on CFC causing ozone depletion in the poles, these guys are masters of false perceptions. They wait for the warmest day of the year and say, this is the hottest summer than ever on the MSM. If a warm place gets snow, they simply say that the warmer temperatures result in higher atmospheric humidity, thus more precipitation as snow but the snow is warmer. Fact is that N. America has seen slight warming in the last three decades, and that growth stalled in the 90's and most likely will recede with solar cooling. That's why they need to get their tax and regulation remedies passed just like CFC's so that everyone can forget about the end times prediction of global nuclear chain reaction exponential warming models. Like the Ozone which healed itself and periodically reopens up in the poles, they can't allow several natural cycles to refute their dogmatic lies. Hey when the temperatures decrease they can even say it's because we intervened.

Like I said they are experts at distorting local bias observation and making global impacts. MSM is the FAKE NEWS. It has got the same people that control Hollywood, DC, the Fed Reserve. Mostly all fake Jews that are money and power hungry and want to be worshipped like King Jesus himself. I'll give them that there are probably still like 5% of them that still believe in the Torah and God's commandments (true Jews), but they aren't sitting at the top of the US/UK/Israeli government and banking power structures. No those positions are for the fake blue eyed Jew that converted to Judaism out of convenience and desire to be worshipped and used as an antisemite get out of jail card. These guys really are atheists and of the synagogue of satan. Everything they touch is built off lies and distortions. Same people as Marx, atheist satanist Jews can you believe it? Can those things intermix and have any meaning?

cbxer55's picture

I guess a lot of folks have never done this simple little experiment. Fill a glass with ice, then water almost to the brim. What happens when the ice melts? Does the water overflow the glass? NOPE. Water level stays mostly the same. When the water gets warmer, it may expand a little. But not enough to overflow the glass.

Happens to me all the time. Set a glass of ice water on the night stand, never wake up to drink it, glass does not overflow when the ice melts.

TheGardener's picture

 

"Why for this difference can only be explained by say ocean and atmospheric distribution of heat."

You may be onto something there. Water, that other living organism seems to have rules of her own. Just think of her refusing to get much colder than 4 degrees centigrate./sarc

The surface atmosphere is subject to violent changes of temperature. A friends farm in Aussie was 50 miles from mine but 30 miles inland and too far from a sea breaze or much of an ocean influence. He `d get sub zero (centigrade, freezing level) in the morning and 50 celsius  (122 F !!) in the afternoon in late summer /early autum . My place by the way always oszillating between 50 and 115 just off the beach.

Where I live now, I have cameras all over my hunting grounds that happen to record temperatures too. Mounted near water bodies trying to capture the ducks available has early morning drops of some 10 degrees below other readings of the area when dry cold air gets to work in adiabatic cooling.

To make a long story short : temperature is no absolute physical measurement, you can condense some substance for reference and try to make those experiments to make a scale. Hence many a measurment of temperature, no science based person could quote any such felt like observations as absolute truth . Thats why felt temperature, taking into account winds taking all that energy away with them got us a sub measurement : windchill -adjusted. Many more adjustments to come.

Thermodynamics as a sub-science has a good theological approach to that subject but tries to self-satisfy itself in mindless formulae . Funny how „addicted-to math“ gets one accepted as a true scientist. Broken formulae are all but forgiven in this church of saint scientists.

Fahrenheit is just about the best scheme we came up with based on an absolute zero trying to make science nor sense.

Science is based on some myths based assumptions upon early 19th century.

Temperature is a feeling science yet has to embrace and explain with some meaningful measurement.

Or the other way round : Ain`t no science yet discovered me feeling cold or warm.

 

 

 

 

 

roddcarlson's picture

You're absolutely right that temperature isn't a measure of heat loss from or to the body. As you properly stated windchill being just one case example. Also there are 3 kinds of heat transfer as someone of your articulate technical knowledge probably already knows. The 3 are conductive, convective, and radiative. Generally we measure heat loss to our ambient conditions using conductive and convective. Convective heat transfer is very correlated to the wind speed, hence wind chill effective temperatures. But the one often forgotten is radiative heat transfer. That is if you ever lived in a subzero place, and you measure bulb temperature just before dawn and after the sun rises, the temperature oftentimes will be equal. But you will feel much colder before the sun rises, because the sun literally warms your jacket with radiative heat. That means that total heat transfer (how warm you feel or how fast you'll freeze) is only slightly correlated with bulb temperature.

Remember years ago I told my parents years ago that this particular college town I lived in was colder than my parents. They of course recorded the bulb temperatures, and found the temperatures nearly the same. The problem is that as you so wisely stated is that it sat an additional 1000 feet above sea level. Which meant the atmospheric insulation to outer space was limited, which means as a black body radiation absorber you are going to radiate much more body heat out to space. Not to mention wind speed difference. My mom visited in the mid summer and was also aware how chilly it felt so it wasn't just my perception. Also anyone that ever lived in a cold trailer with no insulation in the walls, knows that you can have 70F bulb temperature and still be cold because the wall are not radiating warmth and instead taking up our radiative energy. Oh and then we also have to take into account humidity which also changes heat transfer. So bulb temperature has little to nothing to do with how fast you freeze or overheat.

Great points and another reason why all this climate science based on bulb temperatures really means absolutely nothing!

LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD (not verified) Fukushima Sam Dec 2, 2016 12:09 PM

Name calling always has been the most powerful "argument" of the globalwarmists.  Odd how people don't suddently fall in line as soon as they are called an idiot, isn't it? 

Fukushima Sam's picture

It's all fun and games until the carbon sinks become sources. The more the Arctic warms the more the permafrost melts and the more methane is released, causing a feedback loop, of which there are many similar.

Get ready for a PT-style extinction event, it has already begun and will accelerate.

The refugee problems we see today are signs it has started.

LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD (not verified) Fukushima Sam Dec 2, 2016 3:56 PM

Then eliminate your Mother Earth DESTROYING CO2 footprint and terminate yourself. Or, do you not believe your blather? You are perfectly happy killing others with your emissions?

skeelos's picture

So what you're saying is global warming isn't global and we should ignore the man behind the curtain.

VladLenin's picture

Make sure to cup my balls Sam... dipshit.

Fukushima Sam's picture

The comments in this place used to have pretty good discourse.

Now 95% of you are retards.

cougar_w's picture

I used to try and explain things (like, the changes in the jet stream and the Arctic ring-fence) but I had to gave up. The topic is too technical, and people here become frustrated. It's then human nature to kill the messenger.

Fine. It's all good. Whatever is coming, it will be here soon enough, and then everyone will understand.  

goldsaver's picture

 

..."caused by warm in the artic pushing cold air south"...

 

Uhmmm, yeaah, no. Warm air rises. As it rises higher in the atmosphere it pulls cold air in. Warmer air in the artic (yeah, the air in the artic, by geography, wouldnt be warmer than in Chicago or Peoria but, we'll stick to your version) would pull colder air in to replace the rising warmer air.

Time to go back to 7th grade physics skippy.

kellys_eye's picture

When ONE scientist steps forward with irrefutable empirical evidence to prove that man-made CO2 will result in the demise of the planet or immediate harm to anyone, anywhere, then you'll have a point to make.

None ever have.  None ever will.

Theophilus Carter's picture

It's December, Sam...it's supposed to be cold.  The 'snap' they're talking about is for the TV talking heads to babble about...the news cycle is minute to minute anymore and that's a lot of time to fill with useless scheiße.

mrtoad's picture

It happens North and south due to the jet streams that move around causing 4 seasons in one day. The suns solar flares and magnatism have a lot to do with weather too, and the fact the poles are changing.

Inevitability's picture

Have another downvote then :)

The sky is falling, Brexit, The Donald.

I'm in the arctic right now. It's unseasonably warm here this year. The end of the world according to you I suppose.

Oh my poor dear...What if the seals go extinct?

 

Just wait until Italy escapes the EURO. France is next.

 

I was going to buy a salt shaker but hey, no need. What should I gift to Marine Le Pen when she crushes the encumbents?? You know it will happen.

 

I know. I will gift a salt shaker to Frau Merkel.

 

Bye Bye (I mean sell, sell) EURO.

 

 

poeg's picture

And we here in Canada have the NWP open 100+ years ago. Fidget away...

Amicus Curiae's picture

Arctic is STILL at MINUS 15

dont reckon much is going to melt really.

wind patterns will change back

you hope..as you get snowed in ;-)

biggooeybag's picture

Facts schmacks be a free thinker. Climate change is a cunt lickin liberal hoax. F yeah those Chinese just want our money. Build the wall keep Chinese out!

http://tinyurl.com/jqpxpeu

HenryKissingerChurchill's picture

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself." <<Aurelio Peccei,Club of Rome:  The First Global Revolution>>

City_Of_Champyinz's picture

A little history on Global Warming in Alaska....

In 1794, Captain George Vancouver cruised by what is now the entrance to Glacier Bay and found it to be filled with tidewater glaciers and no bay. In 1879 almost a hundred year later John Muir visited the same area and noticed that the glacier had retreated 48 miles north into the bay. Today, those same glaciers have retreated a total of 60 miles in a little over 200 years.

80% of the melting occurred between 1794 and 1879. 85 years prior to the industrial revolution.

20% of the melting has occurred from 1879 to 2015. 136 years after the industrial revolution.

xythras's picture

I blame cow farts !

fbazzrea's picture

without a full comprehensive understanding of the dynamics involved with the glacial retreat, it is premature to equate lateral distance with melt rate. 

but one thing upon which we can easily agree... they are still melting.

meanwhile... methane is the real threat.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/06/arctic-methane-emissions-gre...

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3703458/The-Arctic-leakin...

just a few...

but what the hey? keep the pedal to the metal all the way off the cliff. but don't start screaming once gravity accelerates the obviousness of our folly. we all gotta go sometime... maybe sooner is better than later. then Mama Nature can rebuild her beautiful world without the cancerous blight of humanity.

downvote here.

fbazzrea's picture

it's been coming for quite some time as the permafrost continues to melt. it's only more exaggerated now that melting is accelerating.

do you deny that?

poeg's picture

Data on the response of permafrost to regional warming during the last interglaciation and previous interglaciations? Conjecture free please.

fbazzrea's picture

why is the burden of proof upon me? show me otherwise.

conjecture free, please.

fbazzrea's picture

here's what i'd consider an unbiased objective article by Kevin Schaefer, a permafrost scientist at National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC):

He studies the carbon cycle, or the processes by which the Earth's carbon moves around: from the air into plants, from plants into the ground, and then back into the air (Figure 2). Dr. Schaefer studies the carbon that is frozen deep in Arctic permafrost. 

...The other major source of methane in the Arctic is the organic matter frozen in permafrost. This is the source of methane that I study. The organic matter in permafrost contains a lot of carbon. It is made of dead plants and animals that have been frozen deep in permafrost for thousands of years. As long as this organic matter remains frozen, it will stay in the permafrost. However, if it thaws, it will decay, releasing carbon dioxide or methane into the atmosphere. This is why permafrost carbon is important to climate study...

...The big questions are: How much carbon is currently frozen in permafrost? How much will thaw out in the future and when will it be released into the atmosphere? We also want to know how much carbon could be released as methane, and how much could be released as carbon dioxide. That's related to how much of the land is wetlands, since ponds and lakes and swamps are the main places that will produce methane.

If governments around the world knew how much methane could be released from permafrost, it could help them decide what to do about it. For example, they would know how much we need to reduce fossil fuel emissions from human activities. They would also need to know how much carbon the Earth is emitting on its own.

The good news is that we haven't reached the tipping point yet. People in some areas have reported that some permafrost carbon has already started to decay. But measurements of carbon dioxide in the air show the Arctic is still a carbon sink. So we are studying permafrost to understand more about how it acts. We are also trying to measure how much carbon there is and where is it located. Then scientists can use that information in computer programs that help us better plan for the future.

Right now, the Earth's atmosphere contains about 850 gigatons of carbon. (A gigaton is one billion tons—about the weight of one hundred thousand school buses). We estimate that there are about 1,400 gigatons of carbon frozen in permafrost. So the carbon frozen in permafrost is greater than the amount of carbon that is already in the atmosphere today.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/methane.html

the point i'm trying to make is that there are undeniable truths on both sides of this issue. we need to continue studying the consequences of unhindered growth in fossil fuel consumption. if there is anything humans can do to avoid or slow this rate of global climate change, we should be sufficiently informed of our options.

btw, using those big words like "interglaciation" and "conjecture" really stumped me. 

here's your words for the day, grasshopper: supercilious and magniloquent.

Inevitability's picture

But those beautiful two foot wingspan dragonflies in the Permian era (Meganeura) would disagree with you.

No "cancerous blight of humanity." anywhere in the vicinity. Yet they managed to go extinct.

 

Just cram all the 'mama nature' crap please. We are a product of this planet and so are our cities, countries and societies. We will have our 'era' as they did.

Yes indeed keep the "pedal to the metal" all the way! They did.

Did the crazy trees of the Carboniferous era stop producing oxygen? Nope. They apparently destroyed their environment in a giant firestorm.

The way of life seems to be "Breed until you die". I see that in my own garden. Am I going to argue with that.

Nay.

 

Keep on Truckin.

fbazzrea's picture

i think we agree... "breed until you die" seems to be the way of the world.

no biggie. we're all components of eternity having earthly experiences.

next...

waterwitch's picture

Then president HW Bush asked the USGS for evidence that global warming was real.  Here was part of the evidence produced:

 

https://www2.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/glaciers/repeat_photography.asp

sniffybigtoe's picture

The alternative to a retreating glacier is an advancing glacier and that is a far worse alternative than any of the nonsence the "goreballs warming" loonies have come up with.

poeg's picture

All this bruhaha avoids the myriad interglacial periods our planet has gone through.

True Blue's picture
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. -John Keats Ode on a Grecian Urn
Simply put, the proglodytes consider a prettied-up lie to be more beautiful than the harsh truth; sign and symptom that theirs truly is a mental illness.
The Saint's picture
The Saint (not verified) AllTimeWhys Dec 2, 2016 11:01 AM

Only Lame Brained Liberals can look at the facts and come to the conclusion that MAN is making the planet warmer.

The rest of us know that it is just a liberal scam to tax the people in 1st world countries in order to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH.

 

Ignatius's picture

The AGW myth goes much higher than "Lame Brained Liberals," but if it feels good to say that (because most "liberals" have adopted that religion) then I say go for it.  My thought is:  expand your critique, there's far more going on than most will ever imagine.

spastic_colon's picture

the libs only focus on one side of every equation; which explains their inability to reason; the natural offsets to man's impact are consciously ignored by the sky is falling crowd.

Vatican_cameo's picture

 

"97% of the people who have made this their life's work, and know what they're talking about, strenuously disagree with you. What do you know that they don't? What are your scientific credentials?"

97% who claim that Global Warming is real are employed by Universities or Research Facilities that are funded and operate through Government Grants.  When the US Government provides your paycheck every week, what theory do you suppose you'd cling to?

Ignatius's picture

Same with the press.  I like to use the analogy of a carpenter:  if a guy asks a carpenter to build a house, the first thing out of the carpenter's mouth is, "what kind of house?"  Same with a journalist when he's hired, "what kind of stories you want?"