More bad news for warmists

NASA finds no retreat of polar ice

The notion that the polar ice caps would melt and flood coastal cities was always the best marketing tool for the global warming fraud.  After all, some people prefer warm weather, and no part of the United States is in the tropics, where heat per se would be the most bothersome.  Until humans develop gills, flooded cities would be a write-off.

But the ice caps just didn't get the message, and, as we reported yesterday, the ice caps are just as thick as they were decades ago.  Those poor polar bears stranded on small pieces of ice will be just fine.

Now comes data from NASA, the space folks, who, when they are not touting the achievements of Muslim scientists, study climate change.  Their data show that the extent, as well as the thickness, of the polar ice caps is unchanged.  James Taylor of Forbes reports:

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth's polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede. ...

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as "proof" of a global warming crisis.) ...

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?

The answer, of course, is that outside of conservative media, these findings have been ignored.

http://www.americanthinker.com...at_of_polar_ice.html

 

 

The stupidity of liberals, ability to ignore their ignorance

and to Destroy what gives them freedom

 

Original Post

For what its worth, melting sea ice will not raise the sea levels.  Sea ice, like icebergs are 90 percent underwater.  Water, unlike most liquids, expands when frozen. Thus, when the ice melts, the total volume contracts.  Thus, the north pole ice melt, which is mostly sea ice will not cause a sea level rise.  Only the land based ice such as in Greenland and the Antarctic continent would do such.  

I have spent my life working and playing outside. Only in the last year have I began using vehicle A/C. It is getting warmer, not necessarily in the daytime, but at night. Check the heating degree days and the heating degree days and you can see the trend. And I'm not saying what the cause is.

direstraits posted:

For what its worth, melting sea ice will not raise the sea levels.  Sea ice, like icebergs are 90 percent underwater.  Water, unlike most liquids, expands when frozen. Thus, when the ice melts, the total volume contracts.  Thus, the north pole ice melt, which is mostly sea ice will not cause a sea level rise.  Only the land based ice such as in Greenland and the Antarctic continent would do such.  

Greenland's Ice Is Melting Faster

https://scied.ucar.edu/longcon...s-ice-melting-faster

Highest temperatures recorded for Antarctic region

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r.../03/170301084933.htm

image

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/per...lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf

A climatologist might see the correlation of rising CO2 levels plus rising temperatures and assume the correlation is causation. An astrophysicist who sees that there is a correlation between solar radiation strength and temperatures might assume that the sun is the causative factor for the  warming of the 20th Century. 

"The illustrations [below] show the raw data for temperature and solar activity at the top, then that data with a 11 year running average to filter out the normal solar activity period. The middle graph suggests a correlation between solar activity and temperature, even though the peaks are offset. But when the last few years of data are included, the curves diverge and severely weaken the case for the driving of temperature by this measure of solar activity. These illustrations were prepared by Chris Merchant, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh from the original data."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g...e/thermo/solact.html

OldSalt posted:

"The illustrations [below] show the raw data for temperature and solar activity at the top, then that data with a 11 year running average to filter out the normal solar activity period. The middle graph suggests a correlation between solar activity and temperature, even though the peaks are offset. But when the last few years of data are included, the curves diverge and severely weaken the case for the driving of temperature by this measure of solar activity. These illustrations were prepared by Chris Merchant, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh from the original data."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g...e/thermo/solact.html

And from the same website:

The temperature variations of the 20th century do not in fact track the CO2concentration well at all. The above illustration is a sketch of data presented by Durkin and is subject to comparison with more primary references. It could be argued that we have just gotten into the area where the radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases show the human influence since about 1970. But overall for the 20th century, it appears that solar activity correlates more closely with temperature change.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g...hermo/co2suf.html#c1

And I might note, the day with the most solar radiation in our hemisphere about June 21 is usually not the warmest day for the year, temperatures lag heating the top half of the planet.

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic  Intermediate  Advanced  

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.

Climate Myth...

It's the sun
"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer." (BBC)

 

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).

TSI vs. T
Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2015 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to quantify and remove the effects of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the surface and lower troposphere temperature data.  They found that from 1979 to 2010, solar activity had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade, depending on the data set (Table 1, Figure 2).

https://www.skepticalscience.c...ing-intermediate.htm

There has been an important development in the big crack cutting across the Larsen C Ice Shelf in Antarctica.

The fissure, which threatens to spawn one of the biggest bergs ever seen, has dramatically changed direction.

"The rift has propagated a further 16km, with a significant apparent right turn towards the end, moving the tip 13km from the ice edge," said Swansea University's Prof Adrian Luckman.

The calving of the berg could now be very close, he told BBC News.

However, he also quickly added that nothing was certain.

 

The fissure currently extends for about 200km in length, tracing the outline of a putative berg that covers some 5,000 sq km - an area about a quarter of the size of Wales.

The crack put on its latest spurt between 25 May and 31 May. These dates were the two most recent passes of the European Union's Sentinel-1 satellites. Their radar vision is keeping up a constant watch as the White Continent moves into the darkness of deep winter.

After some initial activity at the beginning of the year, the Larsen crack became stationary as it entered what is termed a "suture" zone - a region of soft, flexible ice. But this situation held only until the beginning of May, when the rift tip then suddenly forked. And it is the new branch that has now extended and turned towards the ocean.

When the berg's calving does finally take place, the block will probably drift away quite gradually from the ice shelf.

"It's unlikely to be fast because the Weddell Sea is full of sea-ice, but it'll certainly be faster than the last few months of gradual parting. It will depend on the currents and winds," explained Prof Luckman.

Taking out such a large chunk of ice would mean the Larsen C shelf would lose more than 10% of its area. Previous research by the Swansea group has shown that this will put the shelf in a much less stable configuration.

Similar calving events on the more northerly Larsen A and Larsen B ice shelves eventually led to their total break-up. Scientists are concerned that this same fate could now await Larsen C.

Were the shelf to collapse (and even if it did, it would still take many years to complete), it would continue a trend across the Antarctic Peninsula.

In recent decades, a dozen major ice shelves have disintegrated, significantly retreated or lost substantial volume - including Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller, Jones Channel, and Wilkins.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40113393

Since you used a global warming cheer leading website that was caught misrepresenting the papers of climate researchers ( http://www.populartechnology.n...entists.html#Update2 ), here's something from a denier site:

In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation. The significance of these observations are therefore ignored. At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.

As discussed at the end of this post, consideration of the geochemical cycles of CO2 and CH4 in ice, permafrost, terrestrial and oceanic biospheres and in deep ocean water during freeze – thaw glacial cycles suggests that it is inevitable that CO2 and CH4 are going to correlate with temperature in a general way. This correlation shows that CO2 and CH4 are controlled by temperature and so provides no evidence for CO2 or CH4 amplifying temperature signals that are linked to orbital cycles.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...-8000-year-time-lag/

jtdavis posted:

In 69, 70 &71, while in the service, I flew a good bit. When you got above the clouds, the air was clear. About 5 years ago, I flew to Boston, now the air is hazy. Is that preventing heat loss at night?

If you can see a few inches of snow and ice on the ground, but only
in the daytime.....
Bestworking posted:

Let it melt and let it burn. Why save it for the muzzies and slops?

wait... future generations of americans don't deserve an earth to live on?  you have to be the most hate filled person i've ever seen post on these forums...

no children/grandchildren... i'm not for leaving you a viable earth.. you may grow up to be a liberal or a muslim.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×