Antarctica is not melting
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-polar-ice-caps-are-not-melting
Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time - and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all. "Previous ocean models ... have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a …
This post has been deleted by its author
"The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria."
James Lovelock would agree with you Lewis. He now thinks the environmentalists with degrees in political science need a new religion. (And I'll add degrees in computer science.)
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel
Yes, but JL's remarkable insight was that you could consider the earth climate/ecosystem as analagous to a cybernetic system. That insight, for all its value, doesn't guarantee that JL understood how that fantastically complicated system would work. It didn't then, it doesn't now.
So all of the panic about melting Antarctica is based on a model without any baseline data. Wow!!!
I wish I could get away with making a wild-ass guess at the data, building a model predicting doom, and then asking for billions of dollars.
Maybe the next edict from IPCC will be that we must burn oil in Antarctica to get the melt rate up to the models.
There seems to be a lot of 'believing' in the comments.
I now know that the human race is fucked. It will not survive the mass extinction event now going on.
Or may be this 'belief' will comfort you all!
http://www.olivet-discourse-revelation.com/sequential_order_of_events_in_the_book_of_revelation.html
I don't know if it will save us from extinction, but it might save your life. You see, if you believe you will survive the deadly global warming that will melt our mothers and toast our toenails, there is higher chance of you survivng than someone who doesn't believe they will. In fact, it's possible someone fearing climate change will die of stress related body malfunctions.
I'm glad so called scientists are having a look at these things. However, as another comentard has said, no one is proposing any solutions other than taxes. So, how am I supposed to believe the climatards? It all seems a bit too suspect. I'm all for solar and tidal electric farms. However, it's really the creation of all the new shinny shinnys that you must buy every other year or so that is using all this electricity. That right there any time would be a good idea to consider. Do I need the new shinny shinny? Does the TV (and other propaganda machines) affect my life and am I a rat on a consumerist treadmill? You can think about that whether the earth's atmosphere is heating or cooling. Pollution is a bad idea regardless of the climate.
So in short, I don't think climate change should be the stimulus for curbing waste and pollution. We should be thinking of those things regardless. Which then shows the climatards for what they really are. Take Al Gore for example.
This planet is a bit older than us. In that time we have had hot periods some with massively more CO2 than today; and cold periods - at least four major ice ages - based on the reading of the Milankivitch cycles of Earth axis movement. Right now we are 10,000 years post ice age and approximately 40,000 – 50,000 from the next ice age. So yes, things will get warmer for a little while.... and yes we are helping that along quite nicley thank you very much (although penguin farts have their part to play too). Then guess what? The earth will wobble and tilt a little the wrong way and it will be time to wrap up nice and warm folks... the funny thing about inevitability... it keeps on chugging along right for you...
Geologically speaking we humans have been around for the last 30 seconds of this planet's 12 hour clock of history. It matters not one whit what we do in the scheme of things. Personally I give us as a species another 2 minutes on the clock. Don't worrk though, something else will come along and fill the gap.
... only three more billion years to go!
Only clicked to see if Lewis the one-eyed narrow-minded moron was the author. That was all I needed to know about it.
No risk of learning anything useful or interesting in the actual article. After all, we know that those morons have taken a mighty oath not to reveal who is paying them.
In the last 10 years, we have had 3 or 4 of the hottest summers ever registered (in over 100 years) in France. I remember ice-skating on the "canals" in northern Germany every year when I was young, that was early 80's. Today, they never freeze enough and have not done so for over 20 years, according to locals. Locals claim that they had been able to skate for centuries, paintings and photos seem to back that up.
I do not understand computer climate modeling and don't want to, I just believe what I see ...
I do not think we should stop driving cars. I do not think we should stop anything, except nuclear power. Solar power or wind power is not the solution, I believe in hydraulic power, geothermal energy and lunar power. Something that can pull the oceans up by a few meters - oceans which cover 70% of our planet's surface - should power our needs. I also think we waste a lot of methane and other flammable gases in green waste (for example organic house waste, hedge trimmings, wastewater etc etc).
Oh, and by the way, those backing nuclear power are failures - nothing can compensate for the need to stock highly toxic waste for millions (billions?) of years, nothing can and never will - besides, we barely have 50 years of Uranium left in the quarries. ITER is a complete failure - should we not first try a build the box where we want to put the sun on a small scale? Also, ITER is way too little, too late.
Don't get me wrong, I drive a Porsche, eat mostly organic local stuff (because I care for taste) and enjoy life, preserving the planet without letting it interfere too much with my life - don't think I am a greentard.
I just think that PHD's, university degrees, modeled "facts and figures" cannot beat experience.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201001-201012.gif
If you look at the graph above you will see that the curve is flattening, so to the extent that you think the world getting warmer is a bad thing, it is not getting 'worse'.
Having a cluster of the 'hottest' years sounds ominous, but if you muse upon the drawing above, you will realize that even on the downward side of the peak you would *expect* years to still be among the locally 'hottest'. The fact that the world has been warming is neither unusual nor alarming.
Taking the long view (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif), modern temperatures are lower than average. Modern climate is nothing to get excited about, unless your grant money depends upon alarm.
Re: I just think that PHD's, university degrees, modeled "facts and figures" cannot beat experience.
It is sad that science and education have been brought into such disrepute. Hopefully, scientists will be able to earn back your trust.
when it come to reporting climate stuff the reg gets it wrong http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/06/fimbul-ice-shelf-not-melting-as-fast-as-thought-and-why-this-does-not-mean-the-antarctic-is-not-losing-ice and http://www.open-ocean.org/gallery/show/107
"A few days after our article was published, a piece profiling our work appeared at the Register of the UK written by Lewis Page entitled, "Antarctic ice shelves not melting at all, new field data show." This is the equivalent of turning the statement "the cancer is not as bad as we thought" into "you don't have cancer." The severely distorted version of our study's conclusions then spread rapidly across the internet. It is a pattern that climate researchers have unfortunately observed many times, part of a widening gulf of misinformation between scientists and society. As one of the authors of this study, I can only repeat: this is not what we said. We have been misrepresented, and you, the reader, have been misled by some of those who claim---as scientists and journalists both surely should---to provide you with facts"
Actually, in 2004 NASA used some new technology to scan the Sahara, found previously unknown underground lakes and rivers along with surface dried lakes and rivers. Upon follow up during the past 8 years evidence was found humans lived in the area during the last fertile cycle of the Sahara. The results of the ongoing investigations suggest a new evolving theory that the earth rocks as we go along, as she rocks the angle of her orbital tilt towards the sun shifts, resulting in regular cycles of desert, fertility, desert. These shifts would of course affect the climate, world wide. Ocean core samples suggest the cycles have been consistent for at least 3 million years.
Suspect that as the evidence is building this may be the reason so many scientists are quietly distancing themselves from the man made global warming hysteria. Do we effect the environment? Of course. Can we fix it with massive hysterical movements, based on false models, designed to make a few very rich while there are ridiculous rules regulations and ridicule heaped on the rest of us? I think not. Windmills come to mind.
The History Channel shown on US cable providers has a series called How the Earth is Made. A episode from the series named "Sahara Info" is available through the History Store for 20.00 US which presents a well referenced presentation on the subject . They also have another informational show named Sahara that covers some of the anthropological evidence they're building. I think if you Google Sahara climate changes you should be able to find the papers being published on the subject. Since the discovery is less than 10 years old the History Channel may be the best resource.
BTW I thought using the seals to gather data was brilliant.IMHO
Congrats, you discovered Milankovitch cycles, which have been known and studied for decades. This would be covered in a first year course surveying climate change. There was a section on it in the last IPCC report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html
Here's a 36 year old paper on the subject:
http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hays1976.pdf
Not exactly hidden or hushed. Or new.