Antarctic Climate Alarm Silenced: Ice Mass Stable, Recently Published Studies Show

The Good News: East Antarctic Ice Is And Remains Stable

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated, edited by P Gosselin)

In March, 2015 there was a climate alarm at German online news weekly Focus:

Climate warming
Gigantic Antarctic glacier is melting – Holland in an emergency: sea level rise threatens to rise 3 meters

Off the East Antarctic coast, researchers found two underwater valleys. They enable the inflow of warm sea water. beneath the largest glacier of the East Antarctic. That could explain the unusually rapid ice loss. Should the glacier collapse, sea level would rise dramatically.”

Could, would: Subjunctive speech is king. Are things really that bad with the Antarctic Totten glacier? We’ve looked at this at our site before. In May 2016 also Rud Istvan commented on this at Climate Etc. on an alarming paper publsihed at Nature by Aitken et al. 2016. He concluded:

The alarming estimates from this new Nature paper, particularly as represented by the media, are grievously wrong both with respect to the amount of and the rate of sea level rise that might be associated with melting of the EIAS Totten glacier. There is unjustified author spin in the press releases and author’s interviews. There are underlying bad assumptions never mentioned except by reference to a previously refuted [here] bad paper by Rignot. A tangled web of deceit, to paraphrase a famous poem.”

Perhaps it’s not a bad idea not to try to explain the whole globe by using a single glacier, as tempting as it may be. Just last month on May 5, 2017 the University of Bristol reminded us that East Antarctic ice has gown over the past decade, and has not shrunk.  Of course the university stated it in the more politically correct “not as strong as previously thought”. The press release follows:

New research shows growth of East Antarctic Ice Sheet was less than previously suggested
Scientists have known for over a decade that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been losing mass and contributing to sea level rise. Its eastern neighbour is, however, ten times larger and has the potential to raise global sea level by some 50 metres. Despite its huge size and importance, conflicting results have been published on the recent behaviour of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. A study led by a group of NASA scientists, that was published in 2015, suggested that this part of Antarctica was gaining so much mass that it compensated for the losses in the west. Determining what the largest ice sheet on the planet is doing is vital for our understanding of the factors that are influencing present day, and future, sea level rise.

To address this question, a team of scientists led by the University of Bristol and including the University of Wollongong, Australia have studied the problem by combining different satellite observations within a statistical model that is able to separate the processes related to ice mass changes over the continent. Professor Jonathan Bamber from the Bristol Glaciology Centre which is part of the School of Geographical Sciences, said: “We used similar data sets to the NASA team but added other satellite data from a mission called the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) to help solve for mass gains and losses. “We then conducted different experiments, using similar assumptions made in the NASA study but found that in every experiment, mass loss from the west always exceeded gains in the east.” The researchers concluded that over the study period, 2003-2013, Antarctica, as a whole, has been contributing to sea level rise and that the gains in East Antarctica were around three times smaller than suggested in the 2015 study.

Paper: Constraining the mass balance of East Antarctica’ by A. Martin-Espanol, J. Bamber and A. Zammit-Mangion in Geophysical Research Letters. Plain language summary available at:

New studies on the East Antarctic further supports the trend of more ice. A team led by Morgane Philippe published a paper in 2016 in The Cryosphere which examined the coastal strip of the Dronning Maud Land. The result is already given in the title: The abstract:

Ice core evidence for a 20th century increase in surface mass balance in coastal Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica
Ice cores provide temporal records of surface mass balance (SMB). Coastal areas of Antarctica have relatively high and variable SMB, but are under-represented in records spanning more than 100 years. Here we present SMB reconstruction from a 120 m-long ice core drilled in 2012 on the Derwael Ice Rise, coastal Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica. Water stable isotope (δ18O and δD) stratigraphy is supplemented by discontinuous major ion profiles and continuous electrical conductivity measurements. The base of the ice core is dated to AD 1759 ± 16, providing a climate proxy for the past  ∼ 250 years. The core’s annual layer thickness history is combined with its gravimetric density profile to reconstruct the site’s SMB history, corrected for the influence of ice deformation. The mean SMB for the core’s entire history is 0.47 ± 0.02 m water equivalent (w.e.) a−1. The time series of reconstructed annual SMB shows high variability, but a general increase beginning in the 20th century. This increase is particularly marked during the last 50 years (1962–2011), which yields mean SMB of 0.61 ± 0.01 m w.e. a−1. This trend is compared with other reported SMB data in Antarctica, generally showing a high spatial variability. Output of the fully coupled Community Earth System Model (CESM) suggests that, although atmospheric circulation is the main factor influencing SMB, variability in sea surface temperatures and sea ice cover in the precipitation source region also explain part of the variability in SMB. Local snow redistribution can also influence interannual variability but is unlikely to influence long-term trends significantly. This is the first record from a coastal ice core in East Antarctica to show an increase in SMB beginning in the early 20th century and particularly marked during the last 50 years.

A paper by Vikram Goel et al further underpins the stability of the Dronning Maud Land ice. The paper discussed at the end of May 2017 in The Cryosphere:

Glaciological settings and recent mass balance of the Blåskimen Island in Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica
The Dronning Maud Land coast in East Antarctica has numerous ice rises that very likely control the dynamics and mass balance of this region. However, only a few of these ice rises have been investigated in detail. Here, we report field measurements of Blåskimen Island, an isle-type ice rise adjacent to the Fimbul Ice Shelf. Blåskimen Island is largely dome shaped, with a pronounced ridge extending to the southwest from its summit (410 m a.s.l.). Its bed is mostly flat and about 100 m below the current sea level. Shallow radar-detected isochrones dated with a firn core reveal that the surface mass balance is higher on the southeastern slope than the northwestern slope by ~ 37 %, and this pattern has persisted for at least the past decade. Radar stratigraphy shows upward arches underneath the summit, indicating that the summit position has been stable over at least one characteristic time of this ice rise (~ 600 years). Ensemble estimates of the mass balance using the input-output method show that this ice rise has thickened by 0.07–0.35 m ice equivalent per year over the past decade.”

Then on 16 June 2017 yet another paper by Pittard et al. appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters. It went along the same lines. The authors projected that the Lambert-Amery glacial system in the East Antarctic will remain stable also for the next 500 years, and possibly even grow in mass.

Future sea level change from Antarctica’s Lambert-Amery glacial system
Future global mean sea level (GMSL) change is dependent on the complex response of the Antarctic Ice Sheet to ongoing changes and feedbacks in the climate system. The Lambert-Amery glacial system has been observed to be stable over the recent period yet is potentially at risk of rapid grounding line retreat and ice discharge given a significant volume of its ice is grounded below sea level, making its future contribution to GMSL uncertain. Using a regional ice sheet model of the Lambert-Amery system, we find that under a range of future warming and extreme scenarios, the simulated grounding line remains stable and does not trigger rapid mass loss from grounding line retreat. This allows for increased future accumulation to exceed the mass loss from ice dynamical changes. We suggest the Lambert-Amery glacial system will remain stable, or gain ice mass and mitigate a portion of potential future sea level rise over the next 500 years, with a range of +3.6 to -117.5 mm GMSL-equivalent.”

53 responses to “Antarctic Climate Alarm Silenced: Ice Mass Stable, Recently Published Studies Show”

  1. tom0mason

    Thank-you Pierre for yet more nails in the coffin of AGW and man-made CO2 control.

    That imaginative (and mythical) Global Warming idea has huge, as in continent sized, problem with the Antarctic — darned CO2 just doesn’t heat the place up. But then again atmospheric CO2 has not been observed to heat up anywhere else on the planet either.
    So far the record is —
    No unnatural temperature rise.
    No unnatural sea-level rise.
    No unnatural rise in storm events or storm intensities.
    No unnatural increase deserts or floods.
    Ice at both poles just vary naturally as they always have done.

    However the minute increase in atmospheric CO2 levels appears to have caused an increase in plant growth, greened the planet better. Thus so far there’s only an observed positive effect from CO2 levels increasing.

    This planet’s climate is still ruled (in the main)by the sun and the ocean cycles.
    This planet’s weather is still ruled (in the main) by transient effects of the sun, volcanic activity, the seas, and the turbulent motion of the atmosphere.

    Oh dear the AGW crowd have no evidence to counter these well studied observations of natural changes, but still they believe. They believe despite their hokum being exposed by those email leaks, and by the tortured sophistry of antiscience nonsense spouted by Cook, Lewandowsky, and Gore (and so many others).
    Their belief is all they have because they have no science, no logical reasoning — all they have is —
    an unreasonable idea that a consensus means something scientific; that unaccounted for adjustments to temperature records are meaningful or an accurate reflection of reality; that non-validated and unverified climate models can provide anything meaningful; that catastrophic prognostications for the future based on wild extrapolations are somehow logical. But mostly they have a rigid, religious-like belief in the unbelievable power of CO2 gas.

    1. John Chism

      I’ve got nothing… You seemed to cover it all pretty well.

    2. yonason (from my cell phone)

      But Tom, if you don’t BELIEVE, how will you be SAVED?!😏

      1. tom0mason

        @yonason (from my cell phone) 26. June 2017 at 2:33 AM

        “…if you don’t BELIEVE, how will you be SAVED?” by the same means as the bankers? Or maybe not, after I’m not yet too big to fail! 🙂

        Given Gore and his family’s history in coal and oil trading, why should anyone believe he has any deity’s ear? As Gore has(or had?) interests in tobacco trading he knows how to misrepresent any evidence with slick presentations, and maybe small brown envelopes ;).

        1. yonason (from my cell phone)

          Quite obviously, he’s a fraud.

          As to your comments, I concur with John Chism. Keep up the excellent work!

    3. SebastianH

      You are one of those skeptics that are too far gone. There is nothing that you convince you, since you believe it is all a big conspiracy. I just hope you are young enough to witness the next 10 to 20 years. You’ll hopefully see if your imagination was spot on by then or if everything you have written in that comment is a false statement. Or are you one of those conspiracy guys who are able to adjust their theories when the data changes? Like those hardcore christians do when claiming that dinosaurs roamed the Earth together with mankind/Jesus and the fossil records can only be 6000 years old and everything science says is a lie 😉

      1. Kenneth Richard

        “you believe it is all a big conspiracy.”

        This is an example of a straw man. It is very likely that tom0mason does not believe that all of AGW alarmism is just one big conspiracy. There are many honest people who have been heavily influenced by the argument from authority and who really do believe that humans are the primary cause of climate changes. It’s not a conspiracy as much as it is “group think” and aligning with the “accepted” political zeitgeist (“We need to reduce our carbon emissions“). Your attempts to marginalize us as conspiracy theorists is just another example of why you aren’t getting anywhere here.

        “I just hope you are young enough to witness the next 10 to 20 years.”

        And what do you believe will happen in the next 10 to 20 years? Will the North Atlantic continue cooling? Will Antarctica finally start warming? Will trends in hemispheric sea ice extent begin declining again (since they haven’t since 2005)? Will polar bear numbers decline? How many species will become extinct? What do you believe?

        1. SebastianH

          He doesn’t exactly call it a conspiracy, you are right. He calls it a religious belief, as do you sometimes, and tries to establish that only he knows the truth. That’s very similar to being a conspiracy theorist.

          And what do you believe will happen in the next 10 to 20 years?

          Continued warming, no warming (continued increase in CO2 forcing and its feedbacks, but with a solar influence decrease, both cancelling each other out) or cooling (by natural causes, Sun, etc and no detectable slowing caused by CO2 forcing).

          Also longer timespans of accurate measurements, so outliers don’t tempt skeptics to manufactur a stable flat trend when it clearly isn’t the case (is the sequence 10 4 8 7 6 showing a stable flat trend in your world?)

          1. AndyG55

            “so outliers don’t tempt skeptics to manufacture a stable flat trend when it clearly isn’t the case ”


            Your lying and deceit hits new levels .

            It is the AGW scammers that use the El Nino events to create a trend.

            Away from those events, there is no trend.

            You KNOW that, but STILL you attempt your lies and deceit.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “He calls it a religious belief, as do you sometimes, and tries to establish that only he knows the truth. That’s very similar to being a conspiracy theorist.”

            No, that’s not a conspiracy theorist. Apparently you don’t even know what that is either…in addition to not knowing what a straw man argument is (until you were told what it meant yesterday).

            He calls it belief because there is no observational evidence, physical measurements, or real-world controlled scientific experiment that shows that CO2 concentration variations of + or – 0.000001 are the primary control on ocean heat content fluctuations. You believe something is true that has never been observed or measured. It’s only been modeled. You believe, without evidence, that humans are acidifying the oceans. You believe, without evidence, that humans are causing the Antarctic Peninsula to warm “ten times faster” than the rest of the planet. That’s what faith is.

          3. SebastianH

            I see … so large parts of physics are faith in your opinion? Because there is zero evidence for a lot of special cases where no experiment took place to confirm that the laws of physics work in that special case. We generally assume they do work until someone finds an example where they don’t work … then the formulas get adjusted and we learned something new.

            Have you tried to confirm yet that the known laws of physics, what we know about CO2 molecule and its effects, doesn’t apply to ocean water?

          4. Kenneth Richard

            “Because there is zero evidence for a lot of special cases where no experiment took place to confirm that the laws of physics work in that special case.”

            You mean like gravity? We have physical measurements involving gravity. Replication. Empirical observation. We have none of that with CO2 variations determining water temperatures.

            “We generally assume they do work until someone finds an example where they don’t work”

            We have found many examples when the CO2-variations-determine-planetary-temperatures conceptualization doesn’t work. For example…

            1. The IPCC acknowledged that 111 of 114 climate models failed to simulate temperatures in AR5.

            2. Nearly all climate models had Antarctic sea ice declining. It has been growing since 1979, defying the modeling.

            3. They used to call the conceptualization of the poles warming faster than the rest of the Earth (due to the greenhouse effect) “polar amplification”. Since Antarctica and the Southern Ocean haven’t warmed since the 1970s, now they call it “Arctic amplification”.

            4. The models said that hurricane frequencies and intensities would increase with warming. Hurricanes have become less frequent and there have been no intensification trends — as admitted by the IPCC.

            5. The IPCC acknowledged in AR5 that despite models that say otherwise, there have been no trends in increased storm intensities, droughts, or floods.

            6. Despite decades of attempting to locate it, no tropospheric “hot spot” has been observed.

            7. The models predicted that the atmosphere would warm faster than the surface. The surface has warmed faster than the atmosphere (mostly because it’s easier to tamper with surface data, and UHI effects).

            8. During the first 8 years of using ARGO, the ocean was cooling. Since this didn’t fit the models, they “corrected” ocean cooling. In other words, since the observations didn’t fit the models, they changed the observations. Same way with sea level rise. In the early 2000s, it was noticed that sea level rise was not accelerating when considering tide gauge data (and it had decelerated relative to the first half of the 20th century). So they devised a new way to “measure” sea level rise (altimetry), and suddenly 1.5 mm/yr was transformed into 3.4 mm/yr. Again, when the observations don’t fit the models, they change the observations.

            9. The models can’t explain why the Arctic was just as warm during the 1920s to 1940s as it is today. Or why the Arctic cooled for 50 years afterwards.

            10. The models can’t explain why NH temperatures plunged by -0.5 or -0.6 C during 1940-1970. Since they couldn’t, the cooling was made to disappear…and changed into a pause.

            11. The models say global warming will cause more than a million animals to go extinct by 2050. Since 2000, only one animal has gone extinct.

            12. The IPCC claimed that the Himalayan glaciers would “disappear” by 2035. A recent study indicated they are predominantly stable with very little melting.

            13. Large regions of the Earth, including much of the Southern Hemisphere, has not warmed in decades. This shouldn’t happen with well-mixed greenhouse gases.

            14. With Mann’s hockey stick shown to be fraudulent, and 100s of reconstructions showing modern temperatures are only slightly warmer than the coldest centuries of the Holocene (the Little Ice Age) and still cooler than most of the Holocene, climate models cannot explain how or why an anthropogenic signal can be distinguished from natural variability.

            This is just off the top of my head. We could go on and on and on. The idea that “we generally assume that they do work until someone finds an example where they don’t work” is laughable. We have found many examples of the models and conceptualizations not working. But instead of “adjusting the formulas”, your side just pivots to changing the observations, claiming the models were still right after all, and/or denying that the models haven’t been working (i.e., claiming there was no pause). Either that, or they just ignore data that contravene their positions. They smear and marginalize those who disagree with them. And they claim that their beliefs are “basic physics” and therefore anyone who disagrees is a “science denier”.

            “Have you tried to confirm yet that the known laws of physics, what we know about CO2 molecule and its effects, doesn’t apply to ocean water?”

            For the 248th time, there is no observational evidence, there are no physical measurements, and there are no real-world controlled scientific experiments that show that varying CO2 over a body of water is the determinant of water temperature changes (warming or cooling). It’s not “the laws of physics”. You can keep claiming and believing that it is, but that doesn’t make it true. No matter how many times you call us “science deniers” for not agreeing with you and your beliefs, it’s not going to persuade us that your beliefs are truth. So why are you here?

          5. AndyG55

            “Because there is zero evidence ”

            So true that you have produced ZERO EVIDENCE, seb

            Finally, you are beginning to realise your untenable, farcical situation.

          6. AndyG55

            ““Have you tried to confirm yet that the known laws of physics, what we know about CO2 molecule and its effects, doesn’t apply to ocean water?””

            The Laws of Physics DICTATE that there is no CO2 warming over oceans or in a convective atmosphere.

            Its just you don’t comprehend the laws of physics, seb.

            That is your major problem.

            Everything you think you know about physics is minimal at best, or just basically WRONG.

            A sort of ANTI-KNOWLEDGE, to go along with your ANTI-CO2 and ANTI-human persona.

          7. SebastianH


            yes like gravity or like collision physics. Not every possible combination was tested to conclude that there is a formula describing every possible combination. Yet we have derived one and it seems to work. Until someone finds a combination/situation where it doesn’t. They did, and we now have relativistics physics. This is how it works.

            CO2s effects have been measured. The effects of backradiation changes have been measured. It behaves like expected. If there would have been a suprise hidden in water interacting with radiation it would have already been found, don’t you think? That would be Nobel prize worthy.

            To your point:
            1) They got the general direction right. Some models estimating a higher temperature increase doesn’t mean that the temperature didn’t increase. Also that’s not connected to CO2 increase resulting in a forcing and forcing resulting in temperature/heat content changes. The latter one is physics and not disputed (except here on this blog), the models describing future climate have to simulate where this surplus heat ends up and how it changes temperature globally.

            2) Again, a problem of not properly predicting distribution of that surplus heat. It’s very likely that most of it ends up in the ocean and never reaches the Southpole or large parts of the atmosphere. Simulating complicated currents isn’t perfect yet, but they show a general direction.

            3) So you aren’t allowed to change your opinion when you find out new things? Not all of Antartica is warming and the little warming has increased snow causing more ice mass. Scientists noticed it and I bet you current models include that mechanism.

            4) I was under the impression that intensity increased in the recent decades.

            5) You mean the first paragraph in Chapter 2.6.3 (Tropical Storms)? You should read the whole chapter.

            Regional trends in tropical cyclone frequency and the frequency of very intense tropical cyclones have been identified in the North Atlantic and these appear robust since the 1970s (Kossin et al. 2007) (very high confidence).


            Intensity measures in historical records are especially sensitive to changing technology and improving methodology. However, over the satellite era, increases in the intensity of the strongest storms in the Atlantic appear robust
            (Kossin et al., 2007; Elsner et al., 2008) but there is limited evidence for other regions and the globe.

            The limited evidence is because of problems with the observing capabilities (before the satellite era). You probably also read only the first part of this sentence:

            More recent assessments indicate that it is
            unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Evidence, however, is for a virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in that region.

            6) It has:;

            7) What models did predict that the atmosphere would warm faster than the surface? As in percentage change of the heat content of the surface layer vs. the upper layers or in absolute values? Isn’t it obvious that increased surface temperatures would show a slightly larger absolute increase in 2m above ground temperatures than in hundreds of meters above ground temperatures? I don’t know what this means for the percentage change. Satellite data isn’t that far off from ground data though:

            8) So improving measurement methods is a bad thing? I see. Like when looking at a coast line it becomes longer when you zoom in and measure more details? Is that a fraud too?

            9) They can’t? People can: (yeah, you probably don’t click on links to sites like these, but they have a pretty good database of skeptics myths).

            10) The cooling didn’t disappear and 9) explains it. Before you counter with some solar influence that certainly is there, look at the magnitudes of the W/m² forcing caused by cloud cover changes, etc (figure 7 in that paper you like to quote on this topic).

            11) Do they say that? I thought they only predict temperatures, sea level, etc … That’s more of a conclusion drawn from what models predict. Extinction events could happen, they happened before when climate changed rapidly in Earths history. (I personally don’t think that a million species could go extinct by 2050. That seems too near term)

            12) Your link only has graphs of the temperature (reconstructions). A quick google search reveals that loss of Himalayan glacier mass has been accelerating from 9(+-4) Gt/year in the 1975-1985 period to 20(+-4) Gt/year in the 2000-2010 period.
            Cumulative loss has been estimated to be 443 (+- 136 Gt) of mass out of total 3600-4400 Gt of mass in the last 4 decades.

            13) Well mixed greenhouse gases? There are differences in the distribution, CO2 emitted in Europe doesn’t magically teleport to the Southpole: (from a model) or (from actual satellite measurements). “Well mixed” means a lot of different things …

            14) I don’t know about when the “hockey stick” was deemed fraudulent. When searching for temperature reconstructions the same pattern is always visible, a rapid increase in temperatures in the last century. In most graphs this increase is bigger and steaper than the previous temperature levels.

            cannot explain how or why an anthropogenic signal can be distinguished from natural variability.

            It’s a bit old, but just one example of the anthropogenic signal being detected:


            You might think that what I have written in this response is all false and I am blinded by AGW “religion”, since you are a convinced skeptic. That doesn’t change that you are imaging some of your conclusions being “proof” that AGW isn’t happening, espcially when numbers are involved that cause consistent confusion in your argumentation. A recent example would be the first graph in the latest article and the use of a trendline as reason to state that there has been a slight increase in a specific time span, just move the timespan around a few months – both start and endpoint – and you’ll get a very different trendline. Even AndyG55 pointed out that problem and no correction happened yet …

        2. Russell

          I believe I am visiting one of the world’s great epicenters of self-inflicted innumeracy , conspicuous rubber graph paper consumption and the performing art of stand up climate comedy.

          If you all persevere, you may end working in D.C.

          1. tom0mason

            Nice of you to drop in but please see real scientific and mathematical ignorance on a much larger scale visit any of the many sites spewing out the gospel according to Gore, GISS and genuflect at the altar of CO2 warming.

            Do drop by again and learn real something or visit —

   (could become YOUR favorite!)
            or many of the other sites that don’t swallow the bilge dressed up as science called ‘climate change’.


          2. AndyG55

            Poor Russell, a LOSER who’s only claim is to a web site full of IGNORANCE and PETULANCE, trying to get attention by naming itself close to the PREMIER SCIENTIFIC web site, WUWT.

            So sad.. and so, so PATHETIC.

          3. AndyG55

            SO HILARIOUS.

            Russell’s name links to a DEFUNCT blog. (anyone want to buy a domain name ? roflmao… !

            What happened, Russell… no traffic or something ! 😉

      2. tom0mason


        You only have your religious belief hence the “big conspiracy” distraction.
        I’m glad to see your thought processes proceed as normal with not a gram of real data to maintain them!
        Tell me by what means do you discern a “big conspiracy” from what I’ve written, or are you one of those that would wish to be part of a great conspiracy? 🙂 And yes I deliberately wrote that to confuse your “big conspiracy” issue because as always it is just your usual ineffectual effort, and nothing to do with the main subject my previous comment.

      3. Robert Folkerts

        what is your explanation for the fossilized footprints of humans and dinosaurs side by side?

        The soft tissue in TRex bones?

        I guess you know most dating methods are based on assumptions which can not be tested.
        What is your take on nearly every culture having a flood story combined with a boat carrying people and animals?

        Do you have a rational explanation for most cultures having drawings or carvings etc. of dragons. The legends surrounding these creatures are unlikey made out of nothing.
        These dragons clearly are dinosaurs
        , you know!

      4. yonason (from my cell phone)

        It is NOT “belief,” but evidence that convinces us, chatbot-SebH! If you had any, we would acknowledge it.

        Like ALL Leftists, you accuse us of what you are guilty of. Only fools like yourselves believe the fact free climate nonsense you spew.

        As to your “big conspiracy” b.s., your little mind isn’t capable of even a tiny one.

        And what motivates you to go SO off-road on evolution? Can’t you lose an argument gracefully, without swinging wildly at totally unrelated material? Stay focused, chatbot! As if you haven’t beclowned yourself enough already.

      5. GoFigure

        What about that missing “hot spot” ? The computer models all assign most of the projected increase to water vapor feedback. However, that greenhouse effect comes with a NECESSARY condition, namely, there must be a warmer region about 10k above the tropics. Despite radiosondes over the past decades, it has never been found. No sign of it.

        There have been (debunked) claims by alarmists that it had been found, and claims that if all the temperatures recorded in that prospective region are “homogenized” it would show up. (That last is really laughable ! Start with NOTHING, homogenize it, and wah-la.)

        There have been claims that the “hot spot” is so luke warm that weather balloons (not to mention satellites) cannot find it. However, keep in mind that it is water vapor which is supposedly causing that warmer region. If the warmth is insignificant, so is the water vapor feedback.

        NOTHING, but NOTHING is helping the alarmist position.

        1. AndyG55

          “NOTHING is helping the alarmist position’

          seb is great in that way.

          Everything is SO DUMB and so ANTI-SCIENCE, that he makes a totally mockery of the AGW religion.

          That is why we keep him yapping mindlessly. 😉

          And he doesn’t even realise it… 🙂 🙂

          So funny.

  2. SebastianH

    Hasn’t the Eastern Antarctica been stable all the time? Why is this news? Temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula increased 10 times faster than in the rest of the world and temperatures in Western Antarctica increased similarly.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      “Temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula increased 10 times faster than in the rest of the world”

      Uh, no. Temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have been cooling at a rate of almost -0.5 C per decade since 1999, SebastianH. Since 1979, the AP has cooled by a net -0.13 C. Your claims of temperature increasing “10 times faster than the rest of the world” on the Antarctic Peninsula is just the latest example of you making up your own numbers to fit your narrative. AP temperatures increased at a rate of 0.32 C per decade between 1979 and 1997 before it began cooling by -0.47 C per decade between 1999-present. Put together, we have no net warming (and a slight cooling). Even if we were to take your made-up claim at face value and only include the 1979-1997 warming period, that would mean that you are claiming that the rest of the world warmed at a rate of +0.032 C per decade between 1979 and 1997. Do you believe we had less than 0.1 C of warming between 1979 and 1997? If not, where did you get your numbers from?

      Oliva et al., 2017
      “However, a recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014. … This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP [Antarctic Peninsula], including slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.”

      ” temperatures in Western Antarctica increased similarly [ten times faster than the rest of the world].”

      So we’ve had dramatic increases in temperature in West Antarctica, then, right? So what happened to it?

      So it’s cooled in East Antarctica, the Antarctic Peninsula, and West Antarctica is no warmer now than it was 100 years ago. And the sea ice extent has increased since the late 1970s. And the Southern Ocean has been cooling too since 1979. So where, exactly, is the anthropogenic signal? Have you found it, or are planning to just make that up too?

      1. SebastianH

        Your claims of temperature increasing “10 times faster than the rest of the world” on the Antarctic Peninsula is just the latest example of you making up your own numbers to fit your narrative

        Not my claim. Straw man alarm? Follow the link in the comment you replied to.

        Another good link that explains warming and cooling in Antartica:

        So where, exactly, is the anthropogenic signal?

        Warming in West Antartica depends on ocean currents from elsewhere (see second link, the nice pictures if you don’t want to read). Obviously those currents aren’t exactly stable and have changed in the late 90s.

        1. David Johnson

          Seb, please stop lying. You keep digging a bigger hole for yourself and I hate to see people making fools of themselves.

        2. Kenneth Richard

          “Not my claim”

          So you wrote: “Temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula increased 10 times faster than in the rest of the world and temperatures in Western Antarctica increased similarly.”

          When you were shown to be (wildly) wrong (again), you pivoted to linking to a web page that has a graph that shows cooling for the Antarctic Peninsula:

          And then you claimed that you were right all along.

          This is exactly why you have the untrustworthy reputation that you do, SebastianH. When caught making false statements, you deny it, and then proclaim you were right anyway.

          Why are you even here? It makes your side look even worse when you have a “spokesperson” who overtly fabricates and then tries to cover it up.

          1. SebastianH

            Sorry Kenneth, but I now have to do what you do when being cornered …

            The 10 times faster temperature increase was not my claim, that is what the website I linked to said. Don’t put words in my mouth I didn’t say, I just present to you different view from other sources.

            Recognize yourself?

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Uh, no. When you make a statement and provide a link to support that statement, it is commonly understood that you are affirming that you think that what you are writing is true. You can’t write that West Antarctica has warmed 10 times faster than the rest of the globe, provide a link (an alarmist blog) that says that very thing you just claimed, and then, after being caught writing something that is ridiculously untrue, you say that well, I didn’t write that—the authors of the blog did.

            “The 10 times faster temperature increase was not my claim”

            So when you wrote that West Antarctica’s temperatures are increasing 10 times faster than the rest of the globe and provided the blog link that affirmed that what you said was true, you actually meant to say that you don’t actually believe that WA’s temperatures are increasing 10 times faster than the rest of the globe yourself, but the authors of blog believe that. You only intended to relay to all of us what the bloggers said — but you don’t believe it yourself. Do you have a habit of writing things that you don’t believe are true and then providing a citation that supports the statement that you don’t believe to be true…or is this the first time?

            SebastianH, why don’t you just admit that you were wrong about Antarctic warming? That would have been better than doubling down on your fabrications with more fabrications. Do you not realize how sophomoric this all is? You’re 35 years old, SebastianH. This is the behavior of…someone much younger.

          3. SebastianH

            Also I’d like to point out that you should have at least read the post I linked to on the carbon brief site instead of just using the included graph here in an attempt “to rub it under my nose”. You’d then understand that this graph shows the temperatur of six stations on the Antarctic peninsula.

            That’s the average warming per decade from 1957 to 2008:

            I couldn’t find a more current version of this NASA graphic, maybe you use you skills to find one?

          4. Kenneth Richard

            This is so amusing. Having been caught fabricating again, this time about the AP and WA temperatures increasing by 10 times the global average, SebastianH links to a webpage to support his claim of 10X warming…that shows the AP cooling (!) since 1979. And then, to top it off, he links to the Mann-ishly infamous data-tampered Antarctica graph from NASA. Read and learn, SebastianH….


            I can’t wait until the next installment.

        3. AndyG55

          “natural forces overpowering Antarctic warming..”

          roflmao !

          Says it ALL doesn’t it.

          seb, takes one foot out of his mouth, only to insert the other.

          There is NO Antarctic warming. End of story.

        4. Kenneth Richard

          “Warming in West Antartica depends on ocean currents from elsewhere”

          West Antarctica sits over a hotbed of active geothermal heat. A significant portion of the melting comes from below. Do you deny this too in your frenetic efforts to locate an anthropogenic signal.?

          And speaking of ocean currents, the Southern Ocean has been cooling too. Since 1979. That’s why the Southern Hemisphere’s sea ice has been growing. So there goes that fabricated explanation linking human activity to West Antarctica.

          Cooling is evident over most of the Southern Ocean in all seasons and the annual mean, with magnitudes approximately 0.2–0.4°C per decade or 0.7–1.3°C over the 33 year period [1979-2011].”

          Any other fabrications you can think of, SebastianH?

          1. SebastianH

            So you think warm (or cold) ocean currents don’t change the temperature in Antarctica?

            Are you saying the warming in the last decades came fomr geothermal heat? And the cooling in the last two decades? Did geothermal heat just vanish?

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “So you think warm (or cold) ocean currents don’t change the temperature in Antarctica?”

            No, they do too. The oceans are heated by the Sun and then that heat is circulated throughout this water planet (ENSO, AMOC, AMO, NAO, PDO…). Geothermal heat flux is also a heavy contributor to warming at specific locations with high activity (the high geothermal flux areas).

            Viterito, 2017
            The Correlation of Seismic Activity and Recent Global Warming (CSARGW) demonstrated that increasing seismic activity in the globe’s high geothermal flux areas (HGFA) is strongly correlated with global temperatures (r=0.785) from 1979-2015.

            The mechanism driving this correlation is amply documented and well understood by oceanographers and seismologists. Namely, increased seismic activity in the HGFA (i.e., the mid-ocean’s spreading zones) serves as a proxy indicator of higher geothermal flux in these regions. The HGFA include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the East Pacific Rise, the West Chile Rise, the Ridges of the Indian Ocean, and the Ridges of the Antarctic/Southern Ocean. This additional mid-ocean heating causes an acceleration of oceanic overturning and thermobaric convection, resulting in higher ocean temperatures and greater heat transport into the Arctic.

            “Are you saying the warming in the last decades came fomr geothermal heat?”

            Substantial portions of it (especially in the HGFA). Obviously you’re attempting to create another straw man here (a habit of yours) by portraying me as saying that the ONLY factor that affects temperatures is geothermal heat. I didn’t write that.

            “Did geothermal heat just vanish?”

            No. You have a lot to learn about heat and the Earth system, SebastianH.

        5. Colorado Wellington

          “Not my claim.”

          Sebastian, you are a weasel.

          1. AndyG55

            He is also a deceitful LIAR.

            And please, don’t insult weasels. !!

            They have FAR more integrity and honest than seb will ever have.

    2. AndyG55

      “Temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula increased 10 times faster than in the rest of the world and temperatures in ”

      roflmao. Antarctic temperature have not changed since a reliable measurement was available (satellites)

      Here is a free basic maths lesson for you .. pre-school level… maybe you will cope…. or not

      … 10 times nothing is still nothing.

      Very strange that you think a mostly fabricated warming over one small patch of the Antarctic (which just happens to be over a strong volcanic region) is “global”

      But then, most things you say are totally devoid of any sort of reality or science.

      1. AndyG55
  3. NicainHouston

    I was reading this thread, and having a scotch on the rocks. I had to stop, because I received a phone call about a technical issue that took more than an hour to resolve.

    It is summer here, and the temperature outside is ~32C. The ice in my drink completely melted, and the level of the liquid in the glass did not change one iota.

    The ice shelves are gigantic ice cubes floating on the water, and if they melt, won’t they behave like my drink? Id est, no change in water (sea) level?

    Please, someone of you geniuses explain to me why this wrong?

    1. AndyG55

      Correct, melting sea ice has essentially no effect on sea level.

    2. SebastianH

      Correct. Only land ice melt increases sea level. Ice that is already floating won’t.

      1. RAH


        Will a significant amount of sea ice melting relatively quickly more or less insitu result in a temporary local reduction in the salinity of the seawater? That is of course assuming that the water at depth is above 0 C.

        I have seen video from Antarctic dives of beautiful streamers of melt water flowing into sea the sea water and then refreezing having frozen before there was enough mixing to increase salinity enough to prevent it from refreezing. In some places in shallow sea water they reach the bottom and freeze there in frazil clumps or lines.

        1. SebastianH

          You mean something like this?

          Polar sea water freezes at -1.8 °C due to the salinity levels. Fresh water freezes at 0 °C. Here is a paper about salinity levels in sea ice:

    3. RAH


      What they are trying to claim is that the ice shelf inhibits calving of the glaciers. OR IOW a large sheet of sea ice helps hold back the ice on the land being drive to the shore by gravity and it’s own mass at higher elevations. I think it’s total BS, but that is what I have read to be their explanation as to why the loss of a large shelf of ice will lead to sea level rise.

  4. A C Osborn
  5. Salvatore Del Prete

    AGW has ended and the temperature trend from here and for the foreseeable future is down.

    1. tom0mason

      @Salvatore Del Prete 26. June 2017
      Thanks for the info, very interesting.

    2. garyh845

      Ah . . I see a new concerted wave of ‘adjusting’ in our near future.

  6. Allarme climatico antartico messo a tacere: la massa di ghiaccio è stabile, questo dicono gli studi pubblicati di recente : Attività Solare ( Solar Activity )

    […] Fonte: notrickszone […]

  7. scogind

    A very elementary physics problem demonstrates the short comings physics has with reality.

    The problem is there are two trains on the same track 60 miles apart headed towards each other at 30 mph. A bird flying 60 mph goes from one train to the other repeatedly over and over. How may trips can the bird make before the trains collide?

    The correct physic answer is an infinite number of trips but reality is the bird will be squashed way before that.