The Big Melt: Antarctica's Retreating Ice May Re-Shape Earth

They report what they’re ORDERED to report, comrade! /s;)

The average summer high in Antarctica is nearly aways below 32deg.
The highest temp ever measured was 59deg in 1974.
Last time I checked, water still melts at 32deg.

We’re all gonna DIE! Women and minorities affected most.

Most insensitive of you to ignore the plight of the LGBTG community.

Ask globull warming alarmists one question: What is the “correct” temperature of the earth?

Add one more question to your list...is there a temperature increase anywhere else in the solar system ? (there is)

Ah, I hesitate to bring this up, but it's summer in Antarctica now.

Oh, don’t you know, those periods never existed. They were corrected by the climate scientists. It was always cooler than it is today, never warmer and Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia.

what the article fails to mention is that the ice is melting due to geothermal reasons- as proven out by studies- that is an inconvenient truth that they are covering up.

And on a similar note-

I keep seeing the claim beign made concerning man’s insignificant contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere- a contributuion so small as to be3 practically zero 0.0015% of the total atmosphere to be exact-

“Please understand, even a small change in atmospheric conditions can have a massive impact.”

I keep seeing that claim being made- yet NO evidence to back it up- And how ‘small a change’ are you talking? a tiny fraction of our insignificant 0.0015%? How much of the heat trapped by that insignificant amount is making it back to earth?, and why do you folks NEVER show that actual heat being re-released and causing local changes? Once that heat gets back to earth- what % is it of ALL the molecules/volume of air below the atmosphere? 1 trillion’th of a percentage point? 100,000,00’th of a percentage point? 1,000,000? 1,000’th of a percentage point? You can’t just make the claim that “Small changes can have big effects” and walk away- you MUST back up your claim with hard verifiable proof!

I keep hearing ‘even a small change can be catastrophic’ Yeah? How small? Where’s the evidence? The only thing they really have is “It has become warmer recently... man produces CO2... CO2 ‘can absorb and back radiate heat”... therefor man must be causing climate change!” -

We can just as easily claim “Man lights matches... Matches heat up the surrounding air molecules... “Therefore man must be causing climate change!” Unless I can show the actual heat from all the lit matches ‘causing GLOBAL temperatures to rise’ My claim is meaningless- Unless I can show you thermal evidence showing that temps are rising as a direct result of matches being lit, then my claim is useless- Show us the heat making it back to earth- show us the heat being re-released and causing the surrounding temperatures to rise as a DIRECT RESULT of that heat being released- Simply stating that “Russia was warmer this year, therefore man must be responsible” isn’t going to cut it- Show that tons of heated molecules are being back radiate to Russia and show it being released, and show it directly influencing the surrounding air-

“A small change in the atmosphere can have profound effects’ isn’t an effective argument unless you can show beyond a shadow of a doubt that your claim is actually true- The fact is that the3 amount of man caused CO2 is so small that it is insignificant- and for you to claim that a small amount ‘can have a large effect’ is no more valid than me to claim that someone smoking a cigarette across a parking lot for a few puffs ‘caused the person clear across the lot to get cancer later in life” I could just as easily claim “Cigarettes cause cancer, someone I n the general area smoked a cigarette one day-, therefore that person caused this person’s cancer” Really? Show us the actual scientific evidence that particles from that very cigarette invaded that person’s body, and changed that person’s cells- otherwise the claim is false and unethical- accusing the smoker of a terrible thing without ANY actual proof other than ‘cigarettes cause cancer, therefore your cigarette caused this person’s cancer”

[[I saw an article in the last six months that someone had gotten a device under the Antarctic sea ice and found it was much thicker than was previously thought.]]

That may be just in a certain area- the melting that they are talking about in this article is likely due to geothermal causes, not global warming- something the article fails to mention- Some texas university did a scientific study and found underwater volcanos were causing ice melt- yet main stream scientists hardly ever mention nthat fact because it hurts their ‘man is evil and causing warming’ agenda Ice in the south of Antarctica is growing while ice near the volcanos is melting some-

Here’s the link to the study of melting that found volcanos were the culprit

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9070.full.pdf+html

[[I’m still trying to figure out where all the CO2 came from that melted the glaciers that carved out the Great Lakes.]]

Camel farts

I read this article several days ago at “Watts Up With That.”

I’m interested to hear your comments.

“Almost 30 years after Hansen’s 1988 “alarm” on global warming, a claim of confirmation on CO2 forcing”

“First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface.”

“Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/25/almost-30-years-after-hansens-1988-alarm-on-global-warming-a-claim-of-confirmation-on-co2-forcing/

From the article at WUWT: “measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.”

Or 11 years of increasing water vapor, i.e. a long term weather cycle. Of course I’m sure they have some way of ruling it out, and that probably involves a bogus climate model, but I don’t have time right now to read further.

ok- first off the supposed back radiation will amount to .2 Watts in a decade- which is first of all laughable- is this a constant? A variable figure? is it .2 one day, and .002 another? Do trade winds & such concentrate incoming back radiation? Are there areas where there is NO increase per square meter? Are there other factors which cancel this out? so many questions so little time

second, use your ‘find’ tool in ie and type in ‘.2’ and read the users comemnts in the comments section of that site you listed- Here’s an excerpt of one:

[[Trend? Just how do the researchers define trend?

Offhand, the eyeball effect shows an approximate max to max difference of .2 watts.

Again, was there any attempt to directly measure the effect of .2 watts back radiation on temperature? If not, why not!?]]

Also in the article :

[[Gregory calculated from test “radiosonde data from 1960 to date” using scientific method: “Climate sensitivity at doubled CO2 concentration was calculated to be 0.26C…..As global warming may be caused by factors unrelated to greenhouse gases”]]

They are using correlation to infer causation- just like in my cigarette example ie: soemoen clear across a parking lot smokes a cigg, ciggs cause cancer, I get cancer later in klife, therefore that person’s cigarette o nthat particular day one year ‘must be the ‘cause’ of my cancer”

From the article’s coments section

[[The average radiative forcings go down in 2002 from 0.033586957 in 2001 to 0.026244275 a drop of 0.007342682.
It also dropped in 2009 from 0.220432314 in 2008 to 0.213569405 a drop of 0.006862909.
So how does that happen with continuously increasing CO2 when everything else has supposedly been accounted for.]]

[[This teeny tiny amount of forcing only has the GROSS potential of increasing global temps by 1.2C, and once NEGATIVE feedbacks are accounted for, the NET amount of CO2 forcing is perhaps around 0.05~0.6C by 2100, which is almost an order of magnitude LESS than the stupid CAGW hypothesis projects.]]

You should go through the comments section- there’s a ton of folks far smarter on this issue than I am- As one person pointed out, they mention forcing I nthe article, but omit the fact that there is

Also do a keyword search for ‘forcing’ for some very insightful information into this controversial hypothesis-

Thanks, Bob.

The complexity of this subject astounds me.

Every time I think I have a grasp on the basic arguments, someone introduces a brand new argument and half a dozen new scientific terms and charts I’ve never seen before.

According to satellite imagery, in 2014 the extent of the Antarctic ice was at an all-time high.

Source: http://earthsky.org/earth/while-arctic-sea-ice-declines-in-2014-antarctic-sea-ice-increases

yeah basically the latest from the climate change alarmists is the term ‘forcings’ (which is why I said to do keyword search for ‘forcing’ on that whatsupwiththat.com site article you posted- the comments below the article go into pretty good detail on the hypothesis- and the commenters there are pretty knowledgeable- a lot of it is beyond me- but I can usually grasp the basics- enough ot formulate an argument sometimes at least-

The graph that was given in that article showing the ‘forcings’ didn’t jive with temp recordings in the 80’s and 90’s apparently- and basically the article was stating that the readings were only taken in specific spots- and not very thoroughly enough to establish a probability

There were other problems brought up by the commenters there- but these were the key ones- others were correlation does not = causation- I’m too tired right now to think of the other main issues- but I’ll go over them tomorrow possibly and post the key points as I understand them

yeah but the alarmists are whining about some melting going on in the west I think it is- but there was a study done showing that undersea volcanos were responsible, not global warming- something the alarmsits are failing to mention

What confused me the most is that Anthony Watts, the proprietor of Watts Up With That, is a well known skeptic.

He wrote the article, and he seemed to be endorsing the UC Berkeley research.

But the comments were overwhelmingly skeptical.

Yeah I don’t know what to make of his statement in that article- it seems though that he is acknowledging that CO2 is capable of absorbing heat, then radiating it outwards- which would very slightly, cause a miniscule rise in temps (but which would very quickly be brought back to ‘room temperature’ so to speak by the overwhelming cooler temps surrounding it- kinda like lighting a match in a stadium heats the air immediately surrounding the match, but the volume of cooler air vastly outweighs the heated air, and the stadiums temps remains steady as the heated air is quickly overwhelmed by the cooler-

I use that analogy because it is akin to the amount of CO2 that man produces compared to the total volume of the atmosphere (or the earth’s surface for that matter- once the heat has ‘back radiated from the atmosphere)- Man’s total output of CO2 in comparison to the earth’s atmosphere by volume amounts to just 0.0015%- I actually think I’m beign too generous comparing it to a match in a stadium- I think the space would have to be much larger to replicate the percentage of 0.0015%- but at least you get the idea what I’m getting at)

Let’s be clear though- CO2 does not cause warming- it simply transfers energy/heat that has escaped from the earths surface to the atmosphere back down to earth- it doesn’t, as far as I’m aware, cause that heat that it captures to become even hotter- it simply returns that energy back to earth- but let’s remember also, that iot’s only capturing a VERY SMALL amount of heat because there simply isn’t enough CO2 I nthe atmosphere to capture more- the atmosphere has just 0.04% CO2 in it- so let’s imagine al lthe CO2 is concentrated in one small spot hovering over us

That would mean that 99.96% of our atmosphere would have NO CO2 in it, and any escaping heat owudl simply slip right past into space in all directions where there was no CO2- you would have only this very tiny spot in the atmosphere that was able to capture any energy- thin of it like putting a tiny screen, perhaps 1 inch by one inch, in the niagra falls in an attempt to screen out all the sand particles travelling along the river- the vast majority of sand will simply slip right on past the screen because there simply isn’t enough screen to completely cover the whole river-

I know there’s problems with this analogy, but it gives a general sense of howl little CO2 there really is, and howl little heat/energy is captured and sent back to earth

and let’s not forget also, that even this tiny amount of CO2 become saturated, and can’t absorb any more while it is saturated, so all remaining rising heat/energy slips right on past it while the CO2 is saturated-

Bottom lien is that nearly 100% of the heat/energy leaving the earth’s surface keeps right on going- and nearly Zero percent is captured and sent back- and what little is captured and sent back, and hten released again gets immediately overwhelmed by the surrounding cooler air and overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the earth’s air- only a very tiny fraction or a percentage point of energy/heat gets captured and back radiated-

Like the match in the stadium, that heat is very quickly overwhelmed

There are some, when confronted by the FACT that man produces so little CO2 compared to the actual volume of our atmosphere, that “It only takes small changes to cause drastic results” are trying to hide the fact that man’s contribution is so small that it is near zero- and that it would take much much much more than man’s contribution to have any real measurable difference-

My analogies are crude, have mistakes, I know, but logic dictates we compare how much man is producing compared to how much volume our atmosphere has, and compare the two, and see if the ‘man is almost entirely responsible for climate change’ claim passes the smell test- and quite clearly it doesn’t