As it turns out the ice in Antarctica has been growing – not shrinking as the climate alarmists have been saying according to NASA. I have been saying all along that only about 1/3 of what the climate alarmists have been saying is true. We still have an overpopulation problem and a number of environmental problems to deal with. This planet is still our space ship and until we evolve into machines we still need to keep the planet habitable.
However – since the ice cap has been growing for the last 25 years I think we can scratch the whole sea level rise threat off the table. The real damage has been to science itself. When people exaggerate threats it makes scientists into liars. It shows how money on both sides corrupts and that science is corruptible. But the thing about science is that you can only lie so long because Reality will come back to bite you.
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. 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.”
I’m guessing that if you pump enough shit into the oceans sooner or later they must rise.
Most of the shit comes from AGW alarmists and politicians but the single biggest contributor is Algore.
I’m thinking that they don’t really have millimeter resolution and that any change in that range is insignificant. I think it also means that if we do have a global warming problem it’s a lot slower than they are predicting. If temps were actually rising that fast then Antarctica would not be growing.
I thought the ice growth was a loop back phenomenon of melting ice creating more fresh water on top of the saltier ocean thereby freezing and growing at higher temperatures.
This sets up the possibility of a HUGE tipping point where the deeper ocean water mixes with the top layers and we get a very rapid melting of ice and perhaps 100 years from now huge ice sheets sliding off of Antarctica for overnight ocean rises of 10’s of feet(s)(smile).
I don’t care enough to confirm if this earlier notion has been superceded or not.
Fantasy reliance on magic or ignorance to simply deny AGW. Perkel==you really should be ashamed. Speaking out of both sides of your mouth doesn’t save you: without basis, you say the measurements can be made and then that the warming exists but is slower? So–you are an alarmist just with a different time scale.
Silly.
“But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse”
“I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
Well it’s undeniable now, I “suppose” we need a carbon tax to fix this.
A carbon tax represents setting incentives and letting the market place figure out how to maximize profits.
So, yes, a carbon tax as opposed to credits or fees is a most excellent way to proceed along with Heavy Handed Intrusive Federal One Size Fits All Slavery Imposing Regulations where the tax alone will not do it.
No you are just a gullible moron, who believes anything the unicorn and money tree party will tell you.
“You have to melt the ice in order to get more ice.”
Bobbo climate science
NFS–good one…..for a midget. Its not the ice but the snow fall and the seasons.
I know…… too many variables.
“I thought the ice growth was a loop back phenomenon of melting ice creating more fresh water on top of the saltier ocean thereby freezing and growing at higher temperatures.”
In general when you are typing ‘I thought’ or ‘I think’, just assume you are wrong(even if that’s the whole sentence).
Har.
Why do so many people get their science (global warming and such) from politicians?
Why are reports concerning raising global temperatures and shrinking ice caps so visible? Yet, reports and data indicating stable or lower temperatures and growing ice caps so “buried” in the background of news clutter? (Thanks Marc for publicizing the new NSAS data.)
I would have thought the 21st century citizens would be science savvy. . .boy! was I wrong.
Please, please listen to those honestly following the scientific method taught in 8th grade, not those with political agendas and not scientific credibility.
Correction. . .the last sentence should read “…and no scientific credibility.”
The error of typing the word “not” rather than the word “no” changes the meaning.
Dumb error on may part.
“Dumb error on may part.”
Welcome, fellow human bean. You made an era!
Quibble, you win the prize for the most phallic avatar.
😈
Unchosen and random I assure you!
No, Hillary wins that prize.
Just bookmark the drudgereport.com to see the breaking stories.
Yep. I live on a tropical island, we’ve had to raise all of our ferry docks consistently to keep up with the sea level rise. It’s insane. In fact the government has finally agreed to switch to floating docks because of the massive expense of rebuilding the docks every few years.
Just kidding, actually, there has been no change in 25 years. None, nada, zip, zero. The beach that I swim at daily is exactly the same.
I think you have it wrong Marc. First of all, if they don’t have millimeter resolution that’s a problem since the increase every year is 2-3 mm.
Antarctica is gaining in ice, but that part of sea level rise was always more of a scare story for the likes of bobbo than actual science.
It is too cold in Antarctica for ice to melt, no matter how much global warming you get. There is the possibility of sea ice at Antarctica collapsing due to warm water from underneath weakening it, taking land ice with it.
Sea level rise comes from water expanding as it gets warmer.
You are right that current sea level rise is in line with the rise seen for hundreds of years. So expect about a foot of sea level rise over the next century, not skyscrapers underwater.
From what I read in the past, sea ice has expanded around Antarctica but the problem is it’s thinning.
The NASA study was total ice volume – mot the perimeter area.
The report I saw was studying the west ice by using military air craft with special radar to measure the thickness of the ice and it’s thinning. I wouldn’t believe anything released by NASA now that Cruz is overseeing things now.
I’m stunned that you have chosen to cherry pick evidence that fits your “hunch” so conveniently. Global Warming involves the whole globe. You can’t just point to Antarctica and say, “See! I told ya! The whole thing is a fraud!”
Or maybe you can. Who needs principles when the universe tosses you a bone?
Most of the globe doesn’t have ice.
Note that the article isn’t about global warming but sea level rise. My cherry picking is NASA.
Just believe whatever you want to folks. I’m sure that sooner or later somebody will publish a tidbit of “scientific data” that will support your beliefs, and then, as now, it’ll be, “SO WHAT?”
Current “Climate Change” bullshit is nothing more than the oligarchs attempting to exchange one fiat currency (petro dollar) for another (carbon credits), so as to maintain their current wealth with a desirable fiat currency.
By the looks of the comments surrounding “Climate Change” on this forum and throughout the internet, they will succeed.
Antarctic is gaining mass from snowfall, but it is offset by losimg mass from melting ice, and the rate of ice mass being lost is outpacing the mass gained from snowfall. Result: Net loss of mass.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/03/antarctic_ice_still_losing_mass.html
Marc Perkel just posted the opposite. Watch the video.
I’m going with NASA on this one.
Well…..thats interesting. Thom Hartman on his Science Report just said that co2 levels negatively affect human comprehension at 1500 ppm and that several schools have tested at 3000 ppm. We will be long dead before an average of above 1000 ppm is ever reached.
Yes, I suggest you have your house tested.
“Climate change” is a frustrating topic because the same people that push “climate change” also push over-population.
You could reduce the climate change by curbing population growth.
But no, the people that push “climate change” aren’t actually willing to fix overpopulation …
And also promote defacto “invasion” of Western countries by third worlders, jacking up our population when it should be nicely levelling off.
The most people there are, the more we impact the environment.
Foreign aid and domestic handouts should come with population control measures — we don’t need 16 billion people on the planet.
Yes – the real problem is overpopulation.
Especially those cows, and burrito eaters.
There are not 16 billion people on the planet and never will be, according to UN projections. Even ten billion might not happen.
Africa’s population growth rate is sky rocketing.
UN projections expected to Africa’s growth rate to decline. Instead it has increased sharply.
Africa’s population will double by 2035.
So you think Nigeria will have 1 billion people in 50 years?
I’m not interested in population guessing speculation.
My point is that the same people who promote “climate change” being a problem (it is) …
… are not interested in a key component of the most direct solution —> population control.
Technology can reduce effects of humans per person, but poor people breeding like rabbits create overcrowded cities like Mexico City or Mumbai.
You are way off. The same people are the ones pushing population control, particularly of other races.
Overpopulation causes poverty and poor living conditions.
So does global warming policy.
Agree – population is the main problem and the rest are symptoms.
Wrong. Sad example of “either/or” thinking rather than accepting the truths of both propositions. They do address slightly different issues with HUGE differing effects.
Over Population: usually leads to a population collapse and in nature, a failure to return to pre-collapse numbers. This easily may not apply to hoomans.
AGW: its looking more and more like we will cause the next great mass extinction of all animal life on land, most in the ocean.
Ain’t lag time and hooman stupidity a bitch?
Not true. Read your science papers fully, don’t just skim the headlines. It’s still losing mass….
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/03/antarctic_ice_still_losing_mass.html
Basically Slate serving as a stenographer for Michael Mann and the gang at Skeptical Science, headed by Dana Nuccitelli and a cartoonist John Cook. Cherry picking as many contrary points they can find to make a definitive statement of falsity. Note how the article finishes with declaring that Antarctica is losing 100s of billions of tons per year, when that is directly contradicted by what they just wrote. 130 billion tons lost in one part, offset by gains elsewhere.
Headline, analysis on p.1 contradicted by the report. Clickbait rulez.
Care to elaborate?
Its quoted above.
Read.
If you wrote it, I generally skip it.
Good idea. I used to do that when he was even more verbose.
Capture the dopes with the Headlines, and maintain journalistic credibility by reporting the exact opposite in the body of the article.
Then, just outright LIE.
………….meanwhile, sea level keeps steadily, in on/off cycles, RISING:
[imgfit]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level%2C_1880-2013.png/500px-Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level%2C_1880-2013.png[/imgfit]
Oh well….trying to class the place up just ain’t gonna work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
It concerns me that McCullough also reports his Carribean Isle paradise and Solar Station also has had no ocean rise in his observation.
I’ll google this issue out of sincerely curiosity. Red Tide…the most expected cause?
They adjust the data with measurements of the ocean floor. See ‘isostatic rebound.’ So the tide gauges are not seeing the same sea level rise as the reported numbers.
That of course would explain it and I looked for that explanation a year or so back when it first came up.
I tend to doubt it though.
Even the article of this OP says the ocean is net rising.
I know it takes 90 seconds of concentration to read for that long past the Headline.
I assume isostatic rebound is measured as well? IE–its an explanation only to a general question and not to the Caribbean basin?
Got a link by chance?===because I haven’t found it.
Nope….still going up in the Caribbean: http://jamaicaobserver.com/news/Warning-for-Caribbean-countries-as-sea-level-continues-to-rise-_17145077
Swimming is easy: you don’t go if the water is too high or too low and you call it the tide. The average going up is simply not noticed…being hooman as I assume you are.
…….just how would you observe it…… anyway?
Can it be that this thread (Marc’s troll of bobbo) may mercifully be near its end?
P/M==it would be GREAT if Marc was trolling. but I don’t believe he is. For some reason, he accepts part of the SCIENCE, and then for unsupported reasons other than his own private choice, he chooses to disbelieve other parts.
Like saying NASA figures on sea level rise are not to be trusted because he doubts their precision. Quite laughable when its noted that Marc doubts precisions of millimeters when the measurements are in multiple millimeters. Thats actually a BASIC fundamental error of Math and Science.
It wouldn’t matter if our Grand Kiddies weren’t going to die from this as a DIRECT RESULT….while remedies to avoid this outcome exist today BUT we are just too mindless and SCIENCE DENYING to accept what our own brains tell us.
Silly Hoomans. The Democratic Ignorance playing out to be the death of us all.
Hmmmm…..I wonder what Elon Musk has said on this issue….or what he would say if given a million dollars to go away and think about it for a month?
Ha, ha…..VERY silly hoomans. Sad.
No he’s trolling. It’s part of the formula the JCD developed to get hits.
It’s not science, it’s religion.
Why should I believe this report? http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
Sea levels have been rising for several centuries, at least since the 1500s.
So there is no doubt sea levels are rising.
The questions are more about whether they are rising more and the extent (or not) that human activity is a factor.
HMyers: what is the unanswered question in your mind? could it be: “Why are ALL the qualified scientists who study this question lying?”
Is that your question?
……………cause I wonder just exactly that too.
Dr. James Lovelock will certainly be embarrassed when he hears about this, Marc.
Marc, while you’re on the subject, check out the latest temperature adjustment courtesy of the Karl et al paper. NASA has adopted this NOAA adjustment, where they made the last decade warmer based on measurements taken from ship intakes in the 50s. They used this to adjust the ocean temperatures to show more warming even though the buoys and floats deployed do not show this warming.
The end result is they can now declare there is no pause in global warming.
Note the article is about sea level rise – not global warming.
Lived by the sea all my life… after 50 years I can safely say sea levels are about the same as when I was a child…. amazingly enough
Heretics should be shunned.
Well….”about” is quite correct. Whats your point???
Average sea rise = 1/10th inch per year.
X 50 years = 5 inches. Thats “about” no change at all depending on what you mean by about???
So….whats your point? That you are a blind mf’er? or in 50 years, you have lost your childhood memories????
Ha. ha. From denial………..right into fantasy.
> Quite laughable when its noted that Marc doubts precisions of millimeters when the measurements are in multiple millimeters.
Quite laughable when you write something so foolish.
Whats laughable about understanding the reliability of measurement validity?
Is it the understanding of a subject?
Bobbo, you are a hopeless optimist.
This is why you are wrong so often.
You believe that undisciplined humans are
* often correct
* unbiased
* use sound logic
* do their research
* pursue truth with no expectations
* rigorously scrutinize their own reasoning or data collection for faults or bias.
On the other hand, I believe
* undisciplined humans are capable of none of these things.
* Most people are lazy, especially mentally, although many could be otherwise.
Therefore, I assume virtually any information provided by an undisciplined human is wrong, even if the sources are in order.
Why? An undisciplined human will lazily interpret information and relay it wrong or intercommunicated almost 100% of the time.
My My, HM: you are feeling quite the poet these days. Thankfully, I can parry the thrust of your thoughts by saying: “Thats why we have Scientists.” People who spend their lives studying an issue. People who know things at a glance that we can’t tell with study (thinking of fossil hunters right there). People that cross check and test things like satelite measurements: if they aren’t reliable and accurate….they keep refining until they are or seek other means.
Here I am with my hair on fire over AGW posting we are all going to die, and you call me the optimist. What do YOU ever think???? I say we all die in 100 years. You must take a quicker horizon??
But we end int he same place.
Hi..hi..diddly Ho!
Yea, verily.
Vote for Hillary!
Truth is what you make it!
Classic line by those who have “drunk the cool-aide”
“It’s Real Don’t You Know !!!” to stop all attempts of discussion with non-adherents ( not “normal people” or “Climate deniers” is “You would Dispute Global Warming ?”
Weather has always been changing
Reminds one of the classic story of King Canute trying to stop the tides of the sea by placing his throne in the sea and commanding the sea to stop
Only in this case people actually believe the story
The Obamacare website ( after a billion dollars) can not work, the flow of illegal migrants at the border cannot be stopped , slowed or curtailed
Yet “We” are going to control the weather
Well Sea Crest….nice review of boiler plate generalities you don’t connect to the subject at all.
There is solid science on a lot of issues…..and a lot of people who deny the solid science. Solid science like the age of the Earth and the Universe, and those who deny this.
Like Climate Change. Its not “weather” at all. You fail to even utilize, and therefore probably even understand, the relevant difference.
Solid Science: co2 is a green house gas that heats the atmosphere. Do you deny that too?
…………….and what do you magically deny happens after a certain amount of heating up? Picture an ice cube on a frying pan.
Deny the burn.
Silly Hoomans.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but no, it doesn’t heat anything.
Bobbo,
its a diatribe against the current crop of “political correctness” we live with every day
To hear Mr Gore make classic statements like “The science is settled” is not to have any type of comprehension that science is about asking questions and that its never really settled
Climate change or whatever they want to rebrand it is a religion of faith and even delusion not any case of being open minded
Alternatively put it “If the facts disprove the theory then the facts are wrong” rather than asking why its not as we said it was
Keep an open mind
Lets hope snowbirds are able to keep enjoying themselves and their properties in Florida and not flooded out by the effects of global warming / climate change / next phrase to explain what cannot be explained as the science is “settled”
all the best
No the science is settles. More than 30 years ago they declared that global warming from doubling CO2 would cause the planet to warm by 1.5- 4.5C.
In its latest report, the IPCC said that global warming from doubling CO2 levels would cause the planet to warm by 1.5-4.5C.
I listened this morning on NPR radio where an “expert” went on to dismiss any science claims to Global Warming/ Climate Change concerns as “silly” since “everyone knows” and its “been decided / determined” that since the 1950’s mankind has influenced climate
This is a “silly” discussion since the role of science is to “educate”
Isn’t science about exploration and basic curiosity
No one is necessarily right or wrong – its about proof – which may indeed change or evolve over time as new ideas / techniques emerge You never know as they say one should keep an open mind
as opposed to say decisively “its decided”
From Wikipedia the definition of “Science “: Science[nb 1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[nb 2][2]:58 In an older and closely related meaning, “science” also refers to this body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied.
Education is education
It reminds me of a sort of discussion on Democracy Now where the speaker explained with glee – that just like Franklin Roosevelt called in the car companies and when they balked at creating military goods ( WW2) they were informed “this is the law” The interviewee and Amy were almost in an orgasm over this totalitarian power of their dreams as their approach to problems and issues of the country . Sort of like Obamacare “This is the law” or….
I really wonder to some point now if Americans really appreciate and deserve their freedoms their society offers them and others
After all America is a most prejudiced and evil place -yet i don’t see it Perhaps we all should be glad we don’t wake up in Syria
Bobo,
apparently you miss distinction between science and what is called “religion” where articles are held in faith “sacred cows” and discussion , exploration differing views are not “allowed”
What ever happened to simple respect of others and their views if they did not agree with you
It can be said that “you never know”- who knows what the crackpot said last week might be gospel in 10 years and your current views are wrong in light of new evidence
In these days of ISIS etc etc etc , 50 million Americans on food stamps have we not got more poignant priorities
I know the rejoin – none of this matters if we are all dead / under water in 50 years and Albert Einstein without the bees we all would be dead in a year
You might enjoy : blog.heartland.org/2015/09/heartland-daily-podcast-mark-steyn-breaking-michael-manns-hockey-stick
judithcurry.com/2015/08/13/mark-steyns-new-book-on-michael-mann/
youtube.com/watch?v=Owm25OHGglk
amazon.com/The-Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740
Seacrest: you appear to be giving this an honest appeal? Quite unusual for this forum.
Yes, of course, UNLIKE religion, science keeps an open mind to new ideas/theories/proofs/alternate explanations…..but it also accepts certain “facts” and theories as settled.
Evolution is a settled issue. No open minded curiosity that maybe “God did it.” or the Great Turtle or the Black Raven. There is a naturalistic explanation that is supported not just as an isolated idea on its own but the impact of that settled area of science can be seen across many subjects and many disciplines.
Same with AGW. It is settled in the same way that evolution, or germ theory, or general relativity is settled. Settled until some better explanation comes along. And what comes along usually does not really negate settled science but rather identifies the special or limited circumstances in which those notions work. Hence the work on Unified Field Theory continues.
Merely denying the science and offering up ignorance as a counter theory doesn’t cut it. The Hockey stick is real. Bumps and errors along the way doesn’t negate what you can see for yourself. Its “like” cancer cures. Lots of fraud and bunko going on around it, but cancer does exist and Science has found cures for a few types and is working on the rest. When you get cancer, you can follow the best science known at the time, or die like Steve Jobs swallowing monkey juice.
Should you chose to respond, I’ll check this thread again.
please note :
In the 2009 “climategate scandal”, e-mails and documents from IPCC-affiliated scientists were leaked that indicated they had manipulated data and reports to jibe with the AGW theory. References were made to “hiding the decline” through the use of “tricks”. Then in 2012 Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and self-described whistle-blower, caught the NOAA changing temperature data from the 1930s to make the decade appear colder than it had been. Another whistle-blower, blogger Tony Heller, although clearly aligned with conservative groups like the Heartland Institute, has amassed impressive data. He claims that, since 1997, the world has actually been getting colder and Goddard and the NOAA are committing “climate fraud”. The NOAA has declined to respond.
Global cooling?
By the way although it can be said that most people accept evolution actually its a religion as well – its not really proven and there are lots of support that its just an assumption as well and not proven – horrors
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html