Claimed Antarctic Ice Loss An Artefact of Statistical Waterboarding…Fraught With Huge Uncertainty…

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

On June 13 Chris Mooney of the Washington Post wrote how Antarctica’s ice sheet was “melting at a rapidly increasing rate” and “pouring more than 200 billion tons of ice into the ocean annually” — all this according to “a team of 80 scientists”. The doomsday media response was immediate.

Mooney of course blamed CO2 for the speculated ice melt change, and renewed the calls for a cut in greenhouse gas emissions in order to save ourselves.

Adventurous conclusion

Firstly the CO2 ice-melt logic here is extremely flimsy and even preposterous: An already hugely uncertain 200 billion ton figure gets adventurously blamed on Co2 through a long, uncertain and highly complex chain of physical processes — one that ignores an array of natural factors.

“Rate increase” meaningless

Secondly, Mooney’s language sounds dramatic, but the reality isn’t dramatic at all. A worker with an annual salary of $100,000 who gets a raise of $100 this year compared to $50 a year earlier also sees “a rapidly increasing” pay raise “rate” (100%). In reality the raise was meaningless.

Mooney and the media here are using trick language to purvey fake images of significant activity.

Only 0.001% of the total mass

Though the (hugely uncertain) 200 billion ton ice melt figure may sound impressive, it is in fact very tiny compared to the entire Antarctic total ice volume, which according to Dr. Don Easterbrook’s book “Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming Evidence-Based Climate Science” is estimated at 26.5 million cubic kilometers.

Artefact of statistical torture

200 cubic kilometers of 26.5 million cubic kilometers is in reality only about an estimated paltry 0.001% of the total Antarctic ice mass. And (if it were true) would have only a minor effect on overall sea level rise.

The scientists themselves admit there’s much uncertainty involved and that the calculated 200 billion ton ice loss depends in part on model assumptions. Read more here.

The 200 billion ton figure is indeed more an artefact of statistical torture and modelling. When it comes to complex Antarctic ice mass, you can make the paltry data that’s available say whatever you want.

In this case 80 scientists participated in the waterboarding of the data.

One decade is not climate, but rather weather variability

What is more, the authors compared the last decade to the one before. Well, changes seen in one decade and compared to the one earlier is what we call weather changes, not climate change. Just because one decade is wetter than the one before it, it doesn’t mean the next will be wetter as well. Junk science.

Reality: Antarctic ice area growing rapidly

The satellite imagery and data concerning Antarctic ice area, which go back almost 40 years, in fact show an increasing long-term trend, according to one recently published peer-reviewed study.

Antarctic cooling

And in order for Antarctica to lose ice through melting, the temperature there would necessarily need to rise. Yet the best satellite data we have on this show this is not the case at all.

Satellite data spanning four decades show no temperature increase. The RSS data in fact indicate slight cooling over the past decade where accelerated melting is being claimed. How can cooling cause more melting? Source: here.

Antarctic coastal surface stations show no warming

At Twitter, Japanese skeptic Kirye has been looking at NASA surface stations scattered over Antarctica, most of them near the coast, and found that many do not show any warming, e.g. Casey, Davis, Mawson, Syowa

Other studies show ice growth!

Moreover NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally published a paper in 2015 showing ice sheet growth in eastern Antarctica had outweighed the losses in the western ice sheet, and so ice mass was growing and not shrinking.

And today Zwally is set to release a new study that will show that the eastern Antarctic ice sheet continues to gain enough ice to offset the losses in the west. “Basically, we agree about West Antarctica,” Zwally told The Daily Caller. “East Antarctica is still gaining mass. That’s where we disagree.”

Zwally believes ice sheet growth is anywhere from 50 gigatons to 200 gigatons a year, the Daily Caller reports here.

Ocean cycles responsible for west Antarctic ice melt

Ice loss in the western Antarctic ice sheet is suspected of being driven by “warm ocean water”, i.e. natural oceanic cycles, and not warming that still has yet to occur over the Antarctic.

Prof. Don Easterbrook concluded in 2016 concerning the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which everyone loves to worry about:

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is NOT collapsing, the retreat of these small glaciers is NOT caused by global warming, and sea level is NOT going to rise 10 ft.”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

128 responses to “Claimed Antarctic Ice Loss An Artefact of Statistical Waterboarding…Fraught With Huge Uncertainty…”

  1. Yonason

    We could go a long way toward “clearing the air “ if we could only get the activists to just stop their hysterical hyperventilating.

    The fact is, glacial melting is unrelated to human a tivity, as this graph clearly shows.
    http://blog.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/graph2.jpg

    The graph shows the glaciers have been receding since 1750, with the trend accelerating after about 1820. This is long before global industrialization, which didn’t get underway until tihe middle of the 20th Century. The electric light bulb and the telephone hadn’t been invented yet. (Thomas Edison wasn’t even born.) The first commercial electric power plant was not built until 1881-82. Henry Ford began assembly line production of automobiles in 1913, but by then half of the glacier loss from 1800 to 2000 had already occurred. And 70 percent of the glacier shortening occurred before 1940. Obviously the global retreat of the glaciers was not caused by increased CO2 from factories and automobiles. So it is perhaps surprising that new studies keep springing up trying to blame the melting of glaciers on increases in carbon dioxide emissions. But it should not be surprising in light of the fact the IPCC was founded for the purpose of gathering evidence for “human-induced climate change.”
    From here.
    http://blog.heartland.org/2014/05/glaciers-and-global-warming/

    Lots more there.

    1. Don from OZ

      Yonason – Somewhat as an aside I would like to point out that Thomas Edison wasn’t the inventor of the electric light bulb (not that you said he did but tied his name to it). Joseph Swan a chemist from Newcastle on Tyne in England was the first to pull a vacuum on the bulb, thus excluding most of the oxygen which caused premature oxidation of the hot filament. Unfortunately Swan didn’t patent the process but Edison when he found out about did. Thus gained notoriety as ‘the inventor’.

      1. tom0mason

        @ Bill Butler and Yonason

        I also thought it was Hiram Maxim, Lewis Latimer and Willis R. Whitney who perfected Edison’s carbon filament electric light bulb idea to a working version. But it’s history starts well before Edison…
        British inventor Humphry Davy invented an incandescent light bulb in 1801 and created the “arc lamp” in 1809 and others…
        In 1835, Scottish inventor James Bowman Lindsay demonstrated an electric light in Dundee.
        In 1840, British scientist Warren de la Rue also demonstrated a light bulb.
        In 1841, British inventor Frederick DeMoleyns patented a light bulb.
        In 1844 American John Wellington Starr filed a U. S. patent caveat for an incandescent lamp.

        Many others would follow suit but none of the bulbs were effective for everyday use.

        In 1872, Russian engineer Alexander Lodygin invented an incandescent light bulb for which was awarded a Russian patent in 1874.
        In 1877, William E. Sawyer developed a incandescent light in partnership with Albon Man.
        In the late 1870s, Hiram Stevens Maxim
        British inventor Joseph Wilson Swan started experimenting with light bulb designs in 1850. On December, 18 1878, he demonstrated a light bulb at a lecture in Newcastle upon Tyne that soon had the attention of the world, including Edison.

        Later in 1910 William David Coolidge made the first tungsten filament bulb of the modern era.
        Edison’s Bulbs

        In 1880, after moving to Bridgeport, Connecticut, Latimer was hired as the assistant manager and draftsman for U.S. Electric Lighting Company owned by Hiram Maxim. Maxim was the chief rival to Thomas Edison, the man who invented the electric light bulb. The light was composed of a glass bulb which surrounded a carbon wire filament, generally made of bamboo, paper or thread. When the filament was burned inside of the bulb (which contained almost no air), it became so hot that it actually glowed.

        Thus by passing electricity into the bulb, Edison had been able to cause the glowing bright light to emanate within a room. Before this time most lighting was delivered either through candles or through gas lamps or kerosene lanterns. Maxim greatly desired to improve on Edison’s light bulb and focused on the main weakness of Edison’s bulb – their short life span (generally only a few days.) Latimer set out to make a longer lasting bulb.

        In 1890, Latimer, having been hired by Thomas Edison, began working in the legal department of Edison Electric Light Company, serving as the chief draftsman and patent expert.
        from http://blackinventor.com/lewis-latimer/
        and

        In 1882, Lewis Howard Latimer, one of Edison’s researchers, patented a more efficient way of manufacturing carbon filaments. And in 1903, Willis R. Whitney invented a treatment for these filaments that allowed them to burn bright without darkening the insides of their glass bulbs.

        Tungsten filaments

        William David Coolidge, an American physicist with General Electric, improved the company’s method of manufacturing tungsten filaments in 1910. Tungsten, which has the highest melting point of any chemical element, was known by Edison to be an excellent material for light bulb filaments, but the machinery needed to produce super-fine tungsten wire was not available in the late 19th century. Tungsten is still the primary material used in incandescent bulb filaments today.

        From https://www.livescience.com/43424-who-invented-the-light-bulb.html

        Like many inventions the perfecting of new technology takes many diverse minds to work at it.

        1. tom0mason

          Ooops, misaddressed —

          Should be for Don from OZ and Yonason 🙂

        2. Yonason

          @tomOmason

          Very nice historical overview!

      2. Yonason

        Thanks, Don. Just quoting the article. Apparently Edison also stole the telephone, as well, with the help of a mole in the patent office.
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=enMEFurvS2A

        But the point is the timing. Humans were not yet generating the emissions that greenies would later blame for all bad weather.

  2. Bill Butler

    It’s called “Global Warming” – not “Antarctic Warming”. If you are “Cherry Picking”, you try to find an obscure location or time period that fits your agenda.

    P. S. In the real world, Antarctic sea ice extent hit an all time low for ANY month in March 2017. Antarctic sea ice extent has continued below normal since then.
    National Snow & Ice Data Center
    https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    1. AndyG55

      Many parts of the world ARE NOT warming. (K had a huge list with data a few month ago.)

      If anything it should be called regional partial periodic/cyclic warming. Nothing “global” about it.

      And the only warming in the satellite data has come from El Nino events, so , as CO2 cannot put energy into the ocean or stop it leaving, it is NOTHING to do with CO2

      Antarctic sea ice hit an all time high a couple of years before the El Nino, and the trend over time is towards increasing Antarctic sea ice.

    2. Penelope

      Bill, Antarctic is 2X the size of continental US, so can’t be “obscure”. Antarctic sea ice is seasonal, as you know. It’s in contact w the sea, which has currents. If warmer sea currents move into that area, what does that tell you about other sea areas? Surely they must be receiving the cooler, and possibly upwelling sea currents. That is, unless you think the sea as a whole is getting warmer.

      But if you think the entire sea is getting warmer, surely there are more direct ways of measuring this than looking at the longevity of SEASONAL sea ice.

      1. Yonason

        Nice.

    3. RickWill

      Loss of sea ice is Earth’s thermostat at work. The so-called iris effect is the way the sea-ice extent opens or closes the amount of ocean surface to release heat to space. The ice insulates the oceans and reduces the heat loss consistent with the sea ice surface being considerably colder than the water below. It is an extremely precise means of controlling temperature as the formation of the ice and melting occur at precise temperature for a given atmospheric pressure, which is very stable on Earth.

      The antarctic iris opening in early 2017 followed the strong El Nino of 2016 with the transport of a huge amount of ocean heat from the tropics into the Southern Ocean where it was released. Hence the surface of the globe is now cooler than in 2017.

  3. CO2isLife

    This similar article linked below highlights just how corrupt climate data as climate science truly is.

    The Winning Strategy to Defeating Climate Sophist Michael Mann
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/

    1. SebastianH

      No, it just shows how desperate you are in wanting this conspiracy of yours to be true …

      1. AndyG55

        This conspiracy meme seems very deep within you, seb.

        Why would that be! 😉

      2. Josh

        CO2isLife is spot on. The likes of SebH will not consider for a moment that they are in fact mistaken. CAGW is a busted flush.

        1. SebastianH

          Sorry, I’ve shown plenty of times how wrong that blog/author is. It’s pretty obvious. I could be mistaken about a lot of things, Josh. But certainly not about the quality of CO2isLife. In a ranking of pseudoskeptic blogs that one would be far far below Notrickszone 😉

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Sorry, I’ve shown plenty of times how wrong that blog/author is.

            Provide examples of these instances then.

            And in addition to tossing around the “conspiracy theorist” name-calling, you seem to have a habit of calling those who are skeptical about the power of CO2 to alarmingly melt glaciers and raise sea levels by many meters and catastrophically make 30,000 species go extinct every year…”pseudoskeptics”. Please clearly define what this particular brand of name-calling is all about. Why is simply calling us skeptics problematic…since we are indeed skeptical about your beliefs in catastrophism and the power of 0.000001 changes in atmospheric CO2 to elicit it.

          2. SebastianH

            Provide examples of these instances then.

            Unlike you, I don’t keep a record of handy quotes that I can bring up to any occasion. The search function doesn’t work, but I regularly replied to CO2isLife’s (self-advertising) postings in the past.

            Why is simply calling us skeptics problematic

            Because your skepticism is rooted in profound misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the actual science. It is “pseudo” by the very meaning of that word.

          3. AndyG55

            Seb, Your replies have only every been mindless opinion rants backed by zero-science.

            ie… IRRELEVANT.

            Your “beliefs” are rooted in a profound lack of any rational thought and on a very limited understanding of basic physics and science.

            As such, they are based PURELY on brain-hose, scientifically-unsupportable nonsense and fantasy.

          4. SebastianH

            Seb, Your replies have only every been mindless opinion rants backed by zero-science.

            My replies against pseudoskepticism are not science, correct. It’s my opinion. Same as it is your opinion that it would be helpful to insult your opponents and write words in all caps.

            Your “beliefs” are rooted in a profound lack of any rational thought and on a very limited understanding of basic physics and science.

            That’s cute and all, but by “beliefs” are what they are because I “read a lot”. Maybe you should try that too. And while you are at it, take an IQ test and tell us which percentile you belong to. Let’s see if you are Mensa material 😉

          5. AndyG55

            What a seriously mindless irrational rant , seb

            And a puerile, vain attempt to self-aggrandise.

            HILARIOUS.

            You have NOTHING to offer except your baseless ego, seb.

            I repeat..

            “Your “beliefs” are rooted in a profound lack of any rational thought and on a very limited understanding of basic physics and science.”

            You have yet to prove me wrong.

            Maybe if you stop reading fairy-tales, and attempt to kick-start your remaining few brain cells, you will learn something other than mindless dribble.

    2. John Brown

      Nice and comprehensive expose.
      Thanks!

  4. The Winning Strategy to Defeating Climate Sophist Michael Mann – CO2 is Life

    […] Be sure to click on all links to get the full understanding of just how corrupt and fraudulent Michael Mann and is research truly is. Its simply can’t be fully explained in a single posting. With the FBI scandal in the headlines, now is the perfect time to expose corruption in another institution critical to our society, the institution of Science. As a reminder, Eisenhower warned America about people like Michael Mann. (Click Here) (Click Here) […]

  5. Bitter&twisted

    But, but I thought the science was “settled”?

    P.S. DNFTT

  6. Claimed Antarctic Ice Loss In Doubt | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

    […] Full post […]

  7. Claimed Antarctic Ice Loss In Doubt

    […] Full post […]

  8. Robin Pittwood

    Hi Pierre, the pay analogy would be more accurately scaled, and demonstrative of the exaggeration, if the increases were 50 cents and $1.00 per year. 0.001% of 100,000 is $1.00.

  9. Steve

    It is 4.45 in the morning and I am sitting here with the Radiator on.
    I do not mind if a ‘that’ is a ‘this’ or if a ‘this’ is a ‘that’

  10. AndyG55

    OT, this one is for EV and battery lovers.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/06/17/cobalt-lithium-prices-rising-fast/

    darn, that lithium price looks close to being exponential over the last couple of years. 😉

    1. tom0mason

      AndyG55,
      Looks like a hokey-stick graph to me. 😉

    2. SebastianH

      darn, that lithium price looks close to being exponential over the last couple of years. 😉

      Surprise, the production volume of Lithium batteries increases exponentially.

      To put that into perspective, your graphs say Lithium cost $12000 per tonne in 2017. The battery capacity that can be manufactured from one tonne of Lithium (at 7g Lithium per kWh) is roughly 143 MWh. Or put another way, the amount of Lithium per kWh of battery capacity costs little over 8 cents.

      Regarding cobalt: several manufacturers have announced that they will not need cobald in future battery versions and currently use very little.

      1. AndyG55

        Surprise !!! batteries will get more and more expensive!

        The amount need to “power” even a tiny gap in “unreliables” supply is enormous.

        Poor little seb’s fantasy dream world.

        1. SebastianH

          Surprise !!! batteries will get more and more expensive!

          Surprise, you didn’t get what I was writing. A kWh of batteries currently costs around $200. $0.08 of that is the cost for Lithium. At worst the price for Lithium can climb to $35 for the amount needed for a kWh battery. That’s the cost of extracting it out of sea water.

          So no, Lithium is not the problem and it won’t make batteries expensive!

          The amount need to “power” even a tiny gap in “unreliables” supply is enormous.

          Poor little seb’s fantasy dream world.

          Oh really? Let’s see. If Germany fully adopts electric vehicles the cars alone will have a multi-TWh capacity. What makes you think that it would be difficult to provide enough storage to enable a higher percentage of renewables on the grid than would otherwise be possible?

          Long term storage is another story and batteries will not be able to solve that one. Will be more likely based on hydrogen/methane storage facilities.

          1. AndyG55

            No Surprise.

            seb is have hallucinogenic fairy tales dreams… yet again

          2. Josh

            The trouble with these batteries is that they are being coupled to a poor energy source. This makes an already inefficient process even more inefficient. Such a system is actually more resource hungry per unit of energy generated relative to conventional sources of power.

          3. SebastianH

            The trouble with these batteries is that they are being coupled to a poor energy source. This makes an already inefficient process even more inefficient. Such a system is actually more resource hungry per unit of energy generated relative to conventional sources of power.

            Oh that EROI stuff again. Care to give a source of what you think those numbers are? Currently and in a possible future (say in 20 to 40 years) with the current developments continued? You’d be surprised.

            No Surprise.

            seb is have hallucinogenic fairy tales dreams… yet again

            Nothing more creative AndyG55? That was a poor reply. Give it one more try! Be the clown you want to be.

          4. tom0mason

            Further to Cobalt

            The really funny is that Germany, a country that imports Cobalt, could not find this element in their own country or nearby. An Australian company found some on the German-Czech border though, now they wish to see if it is in useful, exploitable quantities…

            http://www.mining.com/web/cobalt-hunt-takes-aussie-explorer-forest-bmws-doorstep/

            As Geosteff says in the comments on that link, maybe it’s not so new —

            This really is nothing new. Wismut AG, the East German state company extracted cobalt along with uranium after WW2 in the Erz Gebirge as it occurs locally abundantly with Ag, As, Bi and Ni as arsenides. Environmental issues. low commodity prices and challenges of narrow vein mining have suppressed interest in this area which is more renown now for it’s tourism ….

            So as commodity prices are set to rise will the Australian get a license to dig out a tourist area? Or will the Greens insist on having more ‘stranded resources’? I wonder if they have windfarms there?

        2. tom0mason

          On cobalt —

          Panasonic is the exclusive battery cell supplier for all new Tesla vehicles, including the mass-market Model 3 electric car. Sources say cobalt-free batteries are many years away.
          The scramble to secure supplies of cobalt, which stabilises and extends the life of lithium-ion rechargeable batteries used to power electric vehicles, has seen prices rise to around $40 a lb from below $10 a lb in December 2015.

          From http://www.mining.com/web/cobalt-free-pledge-panasonic-triple-consumption-auto-batteries-sources/

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          On Lithium

          There would not be any market manipulation going on, eh?

          https://www.youtube.com/embed/WgP0ur0d46s?

          1. SebastianH

            How many grams of cobalt is needed for a 1 kWh battery?

            On Lithium

            There would not be any market manipulation going on, eh?

            Yeah, not surprising that you like videos like this one 😉

          2. tom0mason

            On Lithium

            There would not be any market manipulation going on, eh?

            Yeah, not surprising that you like videos like this one 😉

            I never said I like this video.
            Again you seem to have this belief (fantasy) that you know what others think. You don’t, so don’t try.

          3. SebastianH

            I never said I like this video.
            Again you seem to have this belief (fantasy) that you know what others think. You don’t, so don’t try.

            I’ll remind you of this reply next time someone writes that I would think/believe something they made up.

            You posted the videoclip hinting at its content. So you must have watched it and found it relevant to be posted as a reply. I define that as “liking the video”.

  11. dennisambler

    They even forget what they said before:

    BAS Press Release no. 03/2005 02 Feb 2005

    “The contribution that rapid thinning of the Antarctic ice sheet is making to global sea-level rise is a cause for concern according to Director of British Antarctic Survey (BAS), Professor Chris Rapley. speaking at a conference* in Exeter”

    3 weeks later:
    BAS Press Release no.4/2005 23 Feb 2005

    “The retreat of Antarctic ice shelves is not new according to research published in the journal Geology by scientists from Universities of Durham, Edinburgh and British Antarctic Survey (BAS). (24 Feb, 2005)

    A study of George VI Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula is the first to show that this currently ‘healthy’ ice shelf experienced an extensive retreat about 9500 years ago, more than anything seen in recent years.”

    Mar. 23, 2005 Science and Technology
    “Rising sea levels 20,000 years ago, as the last ice age was beginning to wane, often are attributed in part to melting in West Antarctica. But in a study led by University of Washington researchers, an ice core of 1,000 meters was used as a sort of dipstick to show that a key section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet probably never contained as much ice as scientists originally thought it did.

    That means it couldn’t have contributed as much to the higher sea level. In an area called Siple Dome, the ice sheet currently rises 1,000 meters—more than half a mile—above a bedrock plateau. Some computer reconstructions indicate it was perhaps twice as thick at the end of the last ice age, also called the Last Glacial Maximum.

    But evidence from an ice core extracted near Siple Dome from 1997-99, along with other calculations, indicates ice in that area has lost only 200 to 400 meters of its thickness in the last 20,000 years, said Edwin Waddington, a UW professor of Earth and space sciences.

    Professor Eric Rignot and a certain Professor Richard Alley were co-authors. Rignot is one of the 80 names to this report.

    1. Bitter&twisted

      I was Woking down in Antarctica, with BAS, in the mid 1990s when “Professor” Rapley was appointed head of BAS.
      Within a year he had shut down/changed the focus of most of the science programs to focus on “global warming”.
      You were either “on message” or out of a job.
      I got out.
      Rapley clearly was a political appointee.

    2. Penelope

      dennisambler, thank you for researching that. But I can’t help feeling that there is something seriously wrong with our attempting to devise present policy based on incomplete data about the amount of ice in Siple dome area 20,000 years ago!

      Is it possible that we are being distracted to fruitless areas of controversy?

      I am REALLY a skeptic. I am skeptical that science is what we are resolving.

  12. David Reich

    Chris Moroney is typical of the leftist ideological alarmist media hacks who have no interet in truth, cause and affect or facts. I have been reading his columns for years and challenging his claim that “science says only alarmism”, and he simply refuses to acknowledge any bona fide science that contradicts th presupposition of CO2 drives everything that is bad propaganda.

  13. SebastianH

    Secondly, Mooney’s language sounds dramatic, but the reality isn’t dramatic at all. A worker with an annual salary of $100,000 who gets a raise of $100 this year compared to $50 a year earlier also sees “a rapidly increasing” pay raise “rate” (100%). In reality the raise was meaningless.

    *sigh*

    200 cubic kilometers of 26.5 million cubic kilometers is in reality only about an estimated paltry 0.001% of the total Antarctic ice mass. And (if it were true) would have only a minor effect on overall sea level rise.

    *double sigh*

    Perhaps you would like your doctor to put things into perspective next time you visit with a fever? Maybe he can graph your temperature on a Kelvin scale so you can see, that you don’t have to worry about it when your temperature is just a few degrees higher than normal … https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Df54L6SVAAA00NX.jpg:large

    The scientists themselves admit there’s much uncertainty involved and that the calculated 200 billion ton ice loss depends in part on model assumptions. Read more here.

    The Daily caller as a source? Come on! That’s almost as bad as yonason’s Heartland links in the first comment. You can do better! How about using the actual uncertainties given in the paper?

    What is more, the authors compared the last decade to the one before. Well, changes seen in one decade and compared to the one earlier is what we call weather changes, not climate change. Just because one decade is wetter than the one before it, it doesn’t mean the next will be wetter as well. Junk science.

    I’ll remind you of this next time anyone of you guys call the Arctic ice extent stable or – worse – a cold spell the end of global warming.

    But seriously, they have a graph over the entire period that clearly shows the acceleration in this timeframe. They are not really comparing just one decade to another. It’s also not news as Bill showed with his 2012 link: http://imbie.org/imbie-2012/results/

    Reality: Antarctic ice area growing rapidly

    The satellite imagery and data concerning Antarctic ice area, which go back almost 40 years, in fact show an increasing long-term trend, according to one recently published peer-reviewed study.

    No, reality is that Antartica sea ice extent rapidly decreased in the last few years, more than compensating for the slow increase of the decades before:
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/compress:12

    And in order for Antarctica to lose ice through melting, the temperature there would necessarily need to rise. Yet the best satellite data we have on this show this is not the case at all.

    You can find lots of graphs/maps of the temperature trend of Antarctica that show that this is the case, West Antarctica is warming and that’s where the majority of ice mass loss is coming from.

    Moreover NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally published a paper in 2015 showing ice sheet growth in eastern Antarctica had outweighed the losses in the western ice sheet, and so ice mass was growing and not shrinking.

    *sigh* that Daily caller crap again …

    Ice loss in the western Antarctic ice sheet is suspected of being driven by “warm ocean water”, i.e. natural oceanic cycles, and not warming that still has yet to occur over the Antarctic.

    What fuels those natural oceanic cycles? Does it maybe have something to do with the increasing OHC? What causes an increase like that? An imbalance, an imbalance created by the increase in the CO2 concentration.

    Queue in the reply from AndyG55 that I presented no evidence of that … but hey, have you presented any evidence that supports your claim or are you just repeating what somewhat weird “scientists” say because it fits your personal views of how the world should work? 😉

    1. AndyG55

      “West Antarctica is warming and that’s where the majority of ice mass loss is coming from.”

      Insidious stuff this CO2, targeting JUST the Western Antarctic where all the volcanoes are !

      So, absolutely NOTHING to do with CO2.

      Can’t be atmospheric warming from CO2 , because CO2 has a negative GHE down there, also the rest of Antarctic isn’t warming.

      Might be ocean warming from the recent El Nino, or the strong solar series over the latter part of last century.

      Again., if its the ocean.. its NOT CO2.

      Maybe its some sort of new insidious, evil CO2, targeting JUST the Western Antarctic where all the volcanoes are !

      —- spooky !!

      There is in fact NO RATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT that CO2 or human activity has anything to do with it.

      Come on seb, what rational, scientifically supportable cause have you got for us??

      Let the FANTASY begin !! 😉

      But I’m guessing we will just get another load of mindless zero-evidence rhetoric.

      1. SebastianH

        Insidious stuff this CO2, targeting JUST the Western Antarctic where all the volcanoes are !

        So, absolutely NOTHING to do with CO2.

        AndyG55, you’ve already let down your pants by telling us that you think it can’t be CO2 because warming is not happening as uniformly as the CO2 concentration increase. No need to further elaborate on that … you have established now that you don’t understand the mechanisms at all.

        Can’t be atmospheric warming from CO2 , because CO2 has a negative GHE down there, also the rest of Antarctic isn’t warming.

        See, that’s what I mean. You aren’t even making an effort to understand what the side you are arguing against is saying.

        But I’m guessing we will just get another load of mindless zero-evidence rhetoric.

        That my friend is your speciality. Care to give us evidence for all your claims? 😉

        1. AndyG55

          Poor seb, so sad, so EMPTY of any science.

          Still waiting for EVIDENCE

          You have NONE.

          and you KNOW YOU HAVE NONE

          Off you trot and find some tricksy little CO2 molecules to keep you warm , seb.

          My only claims are that:-

          “There is in fact NO RATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT that CO2 or human activity has anything to do with Antarctic melt rates.”

          And that

          “There is NO empirical scientific evidence for enhanced atmospheric CO2 causing ANYTHING except enhanced plant growth”

          We are STILL waiting for you to present any.

          But you KNOW there isn’t any,..

          YOU keep PROVING ME CORRECT on both points by your abject inability to produce any.

          Thanks for PROVING ME CORRECT, seb, like the good little minion you are..

          .. time and time and time and time again. 🙂

        2. AndyG55

          “you don’t understand the mechanisms at all”

          ROFLMAO.

          What mythical fantasy mechanisms are these , seb

          You were asked only the other day to explain, WITH SCIENTIFIC PROOF, what these mechanisms you fantasise about are.

          It is sorta cute that you have these imaginary little “mechanisms” though …

          … even if you do HAVE TO keep them secret.

          “side you are arguing against is saying”

          ROFLMAO.. you are getting more hilarious by the day, seb 🙂

          Well here is your big chance, YET AGAIN.

          Tell what they are saying, and PROVIDE EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

          So far..

          NADA..

          NIL..

          EMPTY !!

          So BIZARRE that you just don’t “get it”

          The more you yap and carry on like a headless chook when asked for evidence..

          The more you PROVE ME CORRECT.

          Please keep going. 🙂

          1. tom0mason

            “you don’t understand the mechanisms at all”

            What mechanism? None has been shown, none has been measured, none is in evidence.
            CO2 goes up and down, so what? It’s a lagging indicator, currently following the effects of a natural reduction in cooling since the last LIA.

        3. John Brown

          Now this is interesting.

          SebH wants to explain the mechanism thats causing CO2 to destabilize the West Arctic ice shield, but not the rest of Antarctica.

          How does this work?

          1. SebastianH

            Josh Brown,

            do you think the explanation contains something that describes CO2 directly melting ice or radiation from CO2 melting ice? Because it sure sounds like that.

            If this is the case, then you haven’t understood what causes global warming according to science and are arguing against a straw man.

            How does this work?

            1) increased CO2 concentration causes an enhanced GHE
            2) this causes an imbalance in the radiation budget
            3) which causes an increase in heat content (which can be observed) and generally/on average higher surface temperatures

            That’s the global picture. On a regional scale the distribution of that additional heat comes into play. We have wind and ocean currents, we have many other variables that influence local/regional climates. And yes, some regions can even become colder due to changing distribution of the heat (imagine the gulf stream changing its direction/strength for example).

          2. Kenneth Richard

            How does this work?

            1) increased CO2 concentration causes an enhanced GHE
            2) this causes an imbalance in the radiation budget
            3) which causes an increase in heat content

            Cloud cover changes in the tropics are largely responsible for changes in the radiation budget because they allow more or less surface incident solar radiation to be absorbed by the tropical oceans, which in turns is distributed to the global ocean on multi-decadal timescales. Did you decide to ignore this again?

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5556/841
            “It is widely assumed that variations in Earth’s radiative energy budget at large time and space scales are small. We present new evidence from a compilation of over two decades of accurate satellite data that the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) tropical radiative energy budget is much more dynamic and variable than previously thought. Results indicate that the radiation budget changes are caused by changes in tropical mean cloudiness.”

          3. John Brown

            SebH,

            can you find what you are saying in the scientific literature?

            Even the guys that were doing the actual science like Peter Neff do say that the reason is not “climate change”.

            I do not think that science supports your opinion here.

            And its John! Thanks!

          4. SebastianH

            SebH,

            can you find what you are saying in the scientific literature?

            John, what exactly? That there is an imbalance caused by the CO2 GHE? That heat content is increasing? It’s what you guys are arguing against, the consensus. Scientific literature exists otherwise we wouldn’t be having the wonderful experience of pseudoskeptics arguing against it.

            I do not think that science supports your opinion here.

            What opinion exactly? That regional climate is not uniformly behaving like global average climate variables? That I think you have the influence of CO2 wrong (a direct effect)?

            Cloud cover changes in the tropics are largely responsible for changes in the radiation budget because they allow more or less surface incident solar radiation to be absorbed by the tropical oceans, which in turns is distributed to the global ocean on multi-decadal timescales. Did you decide to ignore this again?

            Nobody is ignoring clouds, Kenneth.

          5. Kenneth Richard

            Nobody is ignoring clouds, Kenneth.

            At what point did you include cloud radiative forcing in your analysis, then? I asked because you failed to mention clouds (again). Please provide the observed values of cloud radiative forcing contributing to climate change for the 1750-present period. Do you have the data for 1750-1978?

          6. AndyG55

            1) increased CO2 concentration causes an enhanced GHE

            WRONG, you have ZERO PROOF of that

            DWLWR has actually been decreasing

            Learn about basic facts like thermalisation, and and stop being so brain-numbingly stupid.

            2) this causes an imbalance in the radiation budget

            Total and utter rubbish.

            OLR has increased in line with natural solar forced temperature rises.

            3) which causes an increase in heat content

            Unprovable anti-science nonsense. There is ZERO empirical evidence, and you know it.

          7. AndyG55

            There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate.

            There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but no real evidence that that additional CO2 caused warming.

            Most of the computer models that have been generated have CO2 based warming hard coded in and they thus beg the question and hence are of no real value.

            Based on the paleoclimate record and the modelling work that has been done one can say that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control.

            The AGW conjecture has some gaping holes in it, the biggest of which is that the radiant greenhouse effect has yet to be observed or measured anywhere in the solar system.

            The radiant greenhouse effect is fiction as is the AGW conjecture.

            There is plenty of scientific rational behind the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

            If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened.

            In the troposphere conduction and convection dominate over energy transport via LWIR absorption band radiation.

            A good absorber is also a good radiator so whatever LWIR energy a CO2 molecule absorbs and does not share with all the molecules it encounters, the CO2 molecule radiates away and hence does not trap heat.

            After more than two decades of effort the IPCC has failed to measure the climate sensitivity of CO2. They have been unable to narrow their range of initial guesses, one iota.

            They have been unable to produce any empirical evidence for CO2 warming.

            Apparently, there is ZERO climate sensitivity of CO2 to measure.

          8. tom0mason

            @Kenneth Richard 19. June 2018 at 12:11 PM
            Thanks for the reminder —
            “Cloud cover changes in the tropics are largely responsible for changes in the radiation budget because they allow more or less surface incident solar radiation to be absorbed by the tropical oceans, which in turns is distributed to the global ocean on multi-decadal timescales.”

            But it turns out there is no ‘settled science’ about clouds. Models are poor at modeling them, prognosticators of dire CAGW either get their effects wrong, or ignore them.
            Sure we have categorized cloud types, we’ve got many instruments that monitor clouds but we do not know (for all locations) how and why clouds form where they do, or of the dynamic energy constraints within and around all types of clouds, etc. When weather/climate forecasters know more, then they’ll predict just a little better.

            All the blather about CO2 is bound-up in the mysteries of the water cycle especially the clouds, and until these are unraveled the evidence of rising atmospheric CO2 appears only to be ensuring plants thrive.

          9. AndyG55

            “That I think you have the influence of CO2 wrong (a direct effect)?”

            No, we have it CORRECT

            ZERO-EFFECT

            The ONLY places experiencing warming have been those directly affected by ocean events and currents.

            Since CO2 CAN NOT and DOES NOT heat ocean water, you have NOTHING but emptymess again, seb.

            Please list those places that have been affected by CO2 warming, seb.

            Cherry-pick away !!

            ————-

            “Scientific literature exists “

            WELL WHERE IS IT !!

            Where is this scientific empirical proof you rant about..

            … WAITING… WAITING….. sigh !!!

          10. SebastianH

            tomOmason:

            […] the evidence of rising atmospheric CO2 appears only to be ensuring plants thrive.

            It doesn’t appear like that at all.

            Since CO2 CAN NOT and DOES NOT heat ocean water, you have NOTHING but emptymess again, seb.

            Incorrect.

            Please list those places that have been affected by CO2 warming, seb.

            The whole globe warms. Heat content is increasing according to the imbalance. The distribution of that heat is not uniform, so some places warm, some places cool, others don’t change.

            WELL WHERE IS IT !!

            Where is this scientific empirical proof you rant about..

            I will not be taking your hand and do the research for you. Read a lot, find out. Don’t let your bias confuse you.

          11. Yonason
          12. AndyG55

            ” do the research for you.”

            You are the one with the fairy-tail, up to you to at least try to supply something, anything to back it up.

          13. John Brown

            SebH fails to address the actual problem at hand.
            The question is how a localised warming is triggered by an effect that is deemed to be global.

            The actual question is how the West Antarctic ice shield is destabilized while East stay the same or has growing ice content.

            The scientists that are working on this observation are saying it is not climate change.

            The most likely explanation is that vulcanic activity is the culprit of the destabilization.

            SebH is asked to provide scientific literature that support his claim that the ice loss in the west Antarctic is related to climate change.

          14. Kenneth Richard

            SebH is asked to provide scientific literature that support his claim that the ice loss in the west Antarctic is related to climate change.

            He doesn’t have scientific data to support his claim.

            He also has been unable to refute the conclusions that the regions of West Antarctica where warming/melting has occurred are largely due to high geothermal heat flux from beneath the ice sheet, not surface air warming.

            He knows he has nothing. That’s why he just pivots to name-calling and insults.

          15. AndyG55

            “The whole globe warms. Heat content is increasing according to the imbalance”

            Oh dear, more of your scientifically unsupportable balderdash.

            The whole globe has NOT warmed, only those parts directly affected by NON-CO2 forced ocean events.

            Those place NOT affected by the SOLAR warmed ocean currents and events, HAVE NOT WARMED

            There is absolutely ZERO-EVIDENCE of CO2 warming anywhere on the planet.

            If there was, you would surly have produced it by now.

            Either there isn’t any..

            .. and/or..

            .. you are the dumbest, MOST INEPT, MOST INCAPABLE, AGW cultist on the planet.

          16. SebastianH

            John Brown,

            SebH fails to address the actual problem at hand.
            The question is how a localised warming is triggered by an effect that is deemed to be global.

            Do you agree or disagree that this planet is warmer near the equator than near the poles? Do you agree or disagree that this planet has ocean and wind currents distributing that heat polewards?

            That should answer your question. Maybe an analogy helps? When you put a refrigerator in a room, the room will warm on average (the global part). But you will also have a cool zone now (inside the refrigerator) and a hot zone (the backside of the refrigerator). Localized warming/cooling with a global increase in heat content.

            The actual question is how the West Antarctic ice shield is destabilized while East stay the same or has growing ice content.

            Net retreat of Antarctic glacier grounding lines for example? Other than that, Google Scholar is your friend: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=west+antarctica+melting

            The scientists that are working on this observation are saying it is not climate change.

            Really? What is it then? The local climate changed according to scientists, see for example one of those papers in the Google Scholar search: Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth. You seem to be arguing that it is natural, that this change doesn’t happen because the heat content increased and more heat/energy is available now. Fine. Unfortunately we can not repeat this experiment without human emissions to check whether this would have happened anyway. So how do you plan to prove that it is natural?

            The most likely explanation is that vulcanic activity is the culprit of the destabilization.

            Not really. Do you have evidence that the geothermal flux increased accordingly to cause this kind of melt and also causes what those linked papers in this reply say is happening? I mean, we are talking about mW/m² level fluxes … http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9070.short

            Or is this paper more like what you are suggesting is happening?
            https://www.nature.com/articles/361526a0 (geothermal warmth causing a layer of lubrication that increased the flow towards the warmer ocean and therefore could cause a collapse of the inland ice reservoir?

            SebH is asked to provide scientific literature that support his claim that the ice loss in the west Antarctic is related to climate change.

            See above. You can also modify the Google Scholar search and get even more results:
            https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=west+antarctica+climate+change

            He knows he has nothing. That’s why he just pivots to name-calling and insults.

            Kenneth, he knows that everything you base your pseudoskepticism on is likely an illusion. You are trying to make everything conform to your conviction that mankind has no or little influence on climate. You ignore mechanisms, math, context, everything to make this work.

          17. Kenneth Richard

            The scientists that are working on this observation are saying it is not climate change.

            Really? What is it then?

            Even an overseer of the Mann/Schmidt/Gore/Connolley-founded website RealClimate.org (the notorious Eric Steig) acknowledges that fellow scientists agree that Antarctic ice sheet melt is not likely anthropogenic.

            See comment #26

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/11/so-what-is-really-happening-in-antarctica/
            If the primary cause of instability is AGW, then why aren’t all the Antarctic glaciers similarly affected, not just the Thwaites? If global warming is truly global we should be seeing its effects over the entirety of Antarctica, not just this one relatively small region, no? The localization of the problem, coupled with its ancient origins, strikes me as far more likely to have some sort of underlying geothermal activity as its source, not AGW.

            Response [Dr. Eric Steig]: I think the evidence that the current retreat of Antarctic glaciers is owing to anthropogenic global warming is weak. The literature is mixed on this, about 50% of experts agree with me on this. So you’ll get no argument from me there.

      2. tom0mason

        And sigh! the Antarctic Continent is where any enhanced greenhouse effect due to CO2 should be most apparent. But it’s not evident —
        As Kenneth and others have explained many times before —
        “Unlike the tropics, where water vapor concentrations reach 40,000 ppm, there’s little to no competition with water vapor concentrations at the poles…which is why “polar amplification” commentaries appeared in the literature in the 1990s. Now they’ve changed it to “Arctic amplification” instead (due to Antarctica not cooperating)…even though the Arctic cooled down by a degree or two between the 1940s and 1980s.”

        1. SebastianH

          And sigh! the Antarctic Continent is where any enhanced greenhouse effect due to CO2 should be most apparent.

          Simply not true.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            And sigh! the Antarctic Continent is where any enhanced greenhouse effect due to CO2 should be most apparent.

            Simply not true.

            Unlike the tropics, where the H2O gas (GHG) concentration reaches 40,000 ppm, CO2 doesn’t have to compete with water vapor — the most potent GHG — over Antarctica. That’s why it’s long been claimed that “polar amplification” is controlled by CO2 (IPCC AR5). But since Antarctica has been cooling in recent decades, it’s been changed from “polar amplification” to “Arctic amplification”. Funny how that works.

          2. SebastianH

            Does the term “poleward heat transport” mean anything to you? I have a feeling that you don’t exactly know what “polar amplification” is supposed to mean in the context of CO2 caused global warming.

          3. AndyG55

            “poleward heat transfer”

            You mean from the Tropics where most SOLAR radiation is absorbed by the oceans?

            So you are ADMITTING that CO2 has NOTHING to do with it.

            Is that a tiny spark of reality I see from seb?

            And then you ruin it with a zero-science statement like…..

            “in the context of CO2 caused global warming.

            There is NO PROOF of CO2 caused global warming, seb.. therefore absolutely NO context.

            It is a FANTASY, a MYTH.

            “supposed to mean”

            Nobody knows what YOU think anything is “supposed” to mean.

            All you have is a jumbled load of incoherent hogwash.

            I repeat, in the hope you will actually attempt an answer, and provide much hilarity….

            There is in fact NO RATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT that CO2 or human activity has anything to do with Antarctic or Arctic melt rates.

            And

            “There is NO empirical scientific evidence for enhanced atmospheric CO2 causing ANYTHING except enhanced plant growth”

            Keep proving me correct, seb. 🙂

          4. AndyG55

            Its NOT WARMING in the Antarctic.. therefor seb HAS to say there is no GH, even though plenty of CO2 and very little H2O in the atmosphere.

            Poor thing is suffering from a manic case cognitive faceplanting.

          5. SebastianH

            Thank you AndyG55 for once again demonstrating your level of understanding.

            So you are ADMITTING that CO2 has NOTHING to do with it.

            Is that a tiny spark of reality I see from seb?

            Pure imagination or trolling.

            There is NO PROOF of CO2 caused global warming, seb.. therefore absolutely NO context.

            Of course there is. The question is just about the exact value of climate sensitivity which as of yet is given as a rather large range.

            Nobody knows what YOU think anything is “supposed” to mean.

            *sigh* you do know that when a term is coined it usually gets associated with a meaning or a definition, right? It’s not about what I think anything supposedly means.

            All you have is a jumbled load of incoherent hogwash.

            The mark of a true master debater, garnish everything with creative insults.

            Keep proving me correct, seb. 🙂

            No need, you do everything that is necessary to undermine your cause yourself. It’s fun to watch and at the same time sad, because I could bet that your fellow pseudoskeptics actually find that what you do improves your side’s image and credibility 😉

            Its NOT WARMING in the Antarctic.. therefor seb HAS to say there is no GH, even though plenty of CO2 and very little H2O in the atmosphere.

            You have no clue how the greenhouse effect works, have you?

          6. AndyG55

            ROFLMAO..

            another load of EVASION, mindless attention-seeking and ZERO science from seb.

            “There is NO PROOF of CO2 caused global warming.”

            Thanks for proving me correct, seb.

            “Nobody knows what YOU think anything is “supposed” to mean.

            Seb avoid explaining and providing evidence, yet again.

            “You have no clue how the greenhouse effect works, have you?”

            WELL TELL US, seb.. with empirical scientific evidence

            You CAN’T and you WON’T even try..

            I expect to see NOTHING, just more mindless evasion.

            I know how it is “supposed” to work.

            Its all just an unproven anti-science conjecture, back by.. basically NOTHING.

            Prove me wrong.. you have UTTERLY FAILED so far.

            PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE.

      3. Yonason

        This is from an article I linked to above, Andy. It shows the position of volcanoes in relation to the area that the CO2 has decided to melt.
        https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55315cdae4b03d5a7f6f23e1/t/58d2e8fbe4fcb52fdd6cee03/1490217231272/?format=750w

        What a coincidence! The West Antarctic lies right on top of the “West Antarctic Rift” along which there are a few active volcanoes.
        http://www.plateclimatology.com/geologic-forces-fueling-west-antarcticas-larsen-ice-shelf-cracks/

        Move along – nothing to see there. LOL

    2. AndyG55

      “that I presented no evidence of that “

      You never have.

      You never will.

      YOU DON’T HAVE ANY !

      And you KNOW that YOU DON’T HAVE ANY

  14. AndyG55

    “No, reality is that Antartica sea ice extent rapidly decreased in the last few years”

    Seb uses a know El Nino event to claim a 3-4 year loss of sea ice

    ROFLMAO !!

    Slap-stick comedy from seb, yet again.

    1. Josh

      It’s Seb’s stock in trade. It’s both annoying and entertaining.

    2. SebastianH

      Seb uses a know El Nino event to claim a 3-4 year loss of sea ice

      ROFLMAO !!

      Slap-stick comedy from seb, yet again.

      There have been other El Ninos in that timespan. Where are their signatures?
      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1979/compress:12

      Clown away, AndyG55! It’s what you are good at 😉

      1. AndyG55

        ROFLMAO

        seb thinks all El Ninos are the same.

        You really didn’t follow what happened in the recent El Nino AT ALL did you seb.

        And you aren’t SERIOUSLY going to pretend it was human caused.

        That would be slap-stick type HILARIOUS !!

        So Ignorant, so clownish.. so very seb.

  15. Washington Post Exposed in Fake News Antarctic Ice Melt Claims | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read more at notrickszone.com […]

  16. Yonason

    Do You Believe In Science?

    That shining city on a hill has a humongous sewer.
    https://zombiesymmetry.com/2014/04/08/the-peer-reviewed-scientific-literature-is-mostly-crap/.

    If real scientists can be that sloppy, how much more so are internet troll activists with no science credentials?!

    1. SebastianH

      Tell that to Pierre and Kenneth who regularly emphasize the “peer-reviewed-ness” of their linked papers. But of course, those scientists aren’t wrong or their results aren’t possibly interpreted wrongly by you guys 😉

  17. Yonason

    Ice loss in the East.

    “Taylor Glacier, an outlet of the East Antarctic ice sheet, flows through the Transantarctic Mountains and terminates in the Dry Valleys. Understanding how this glacier fluctuates is important for studies of glacial geology, paleoclimate, ice dynamics and ecology. Sublimation is the primary mass-loss process for most of the glacier.
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/sublimation-and-surface-energy-budget-of-taylor-glacier-antarctica/68BFAB12588AED915561A65113B32EEF

    If the ice isn’t replaced by snowfall, the there’s an overall loss. But whatever loss there is has nothing to do with CO2.

  18. Val Valerian

    “NASA Finds Huge Heat-Source In Antarctic Behind Ice Shelf Crumbling” “A massive subterranean heat source has been discovered under the West Antarctic Ice Shelf. NASA scientists have discovered a fiercely hot geothermal heat source known as a mantle plume underneath the Antarctica’s Marie Byrd Land. In the year 2000 an iceberg the size of Wales broke away from the shelf and the whole of the western edge is famously unstable. Many environmentalists blamed “man-made climate change”. […]” 

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/971119/NASA-Antarctic-global-warming-denial-climate-change-Mount-Kilauea-Ross-Ice-Shelf

  19. M E

    https://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/how-science-works-what-is-the-scientific-method/

    Provided for Sebastian. at no cost! 🙂 Read it or don’t .You don’t convince anyone , you know, by ranting on and on.. So you are flogging a dead horse ( English idiom).

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close