Another Futile Attempt At Antarctic AGW Spin
B0NZ0
January 17, 2008
Steven Milloy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323645,00.html
A new study, much hyped by the media, blames humans for escalating ice
loss in Antarctica. The media, however, seems to have no idea as to how
truly manmade the supposed ice loss may be.
"Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica; Sheets Melting in an Area Once
Thought to Be Unaffected by Global Warming" was the Washington Post's
front-page, above-the-fold headline last Monday (Jan. 14). The headline
for the continuation of the article was "Antarctic Ice Loss Could Speed
Rise in Ocean Levels."
If true, it would be quite a worrisome situation given that Antarctica
contains enough ice to raise ocean levels by about 60 meters, a deluge
that would put every major coastal city in the world deep under water
and uproot hundreds of millions, if not billions of people.
NASA scientist Eric Rignot reported in Nature Geoscience (Jan. 13) that
increased melting had been detected in the ice sheets of western
Antarctica, an area where surface temperatures have remained unchanged.
As warming surface temperatures could not be blamed for the ice loss,
Rignot hypothesized that the cause may be the flow of warmer waters from
the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that circles much of the continent.
"Something must be changing the ocean to trigger such changes," Rignot
told the Post. "We believe it is related to [manmade global warming]",
he added.
Rignot may indeed "believe" that humans are the cause - he is, after
all, part of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
an organization founded on the belief that humans are causing
catastrophic global warming. But the facts belie such beliefs.
First, standard climate alarmism claims that manmade emissions of
greenhouse gases are warming surface temperatures. But not only is such
warming not being observed in Antarctica, it's actually getting cooler
in western Antarctica, according to surface temperature analysis from
each of eight NASA stations located there.
Rignot, of course, admits that standard climate alarmism can't possibly
explain the western Antarctic melting; that's why he shifted to blaming
man for the warmer Antarctic Circumpolar Current. But is this true?
In an effort to support Rignot's hypothesis, Columbia University's
Douglas Martinson told The Washington Post that "the [Antarctic
Circumpolar Current", which flows about 200 yards below the frigid
surface water, began to warm significantly in the 1980s, and that
warming in turn caused wind patterns to change in ways that ultimately
brought more warm water to shore."
But Martinson also admitted to the Post that there is not enough data to
say for certain that the process was set in motion by global warming.
Truth be told, there is good reason to question Martinson's assertion
about the temperature trend, let alone its hypothetical cause.
According to World Climate Report, a 2007 study by University of
Washington researchers reported that, although there is much interest
among scientists in ocean temperature, "below-surface ocean temperature
data are sparse, and the existing data sets involve substantial
'interpolation, extrapolation, and averaging' that may compromise the
integrity of results from such data sets."
Adding to the mix is the most recent IPCC report, which says that the
upper ocean adjacent to west Antarctica warmed by 1 degree Celsius from
1951 to 1994. But global surface temperatures actually declined from
1940 to 1976, even as manmade emissions of carbon dioxide dramatically
increased.
The bottom line is there is no established linkage between manmade
emissions of greenhouse gases and any melting in the western Antarctic.
But then, is there even any net ice loss in the western Antarctic to
begin with?
While Rignot did use satellite observations of Antarctica's coastline to
estimate melting, he compared this real-life data to computer model
estimates of Antarctic interior snow accumulation. So the western
Antarctic appears to be losing mass only when compared to computer
models that, when it comes to global climate, are of questionable
relevance to the real world.
At JunkScience.com, we label these sorts of computer modeling exercises
as "PlayStationŽ climatology."
Even if you put faith in climate models, Rignot's don't seem to agree
with those of the IPCC, which stated in its most recent assessment,
"Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will
remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain
in mass due to increased snowfall."
Finally, according to NOAA data presented on the web site of Bill
Chapman of the Polar Research Group at the University of Illinois
(Urbana-Champaign), the global level of sea ice has reached about the
same level as it was at in 2003. The current change in global sea ice
coverage is a positive 1 million square kilometers - that is, a gain of
1.8 million square kilometers in the Southern Hemisphere netted against
a loss of 800,000 square kilometers in the Northern Hemisphere.
It's quite possible that the reported Antarctic melting is manmade - but
the "man" may be Eric Rignot, as opposed to the term's broader
connotation.
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is
ajunk science expert, andadvocate of free enterprise and an adjunct
scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
--
Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/
Regards
Bonzo
"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo
"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences
"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen
[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
Vote out Brendan Nelson
that joke of a news channel.
Ouroboros_Rex
"B0NZ0" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote in message
news:4790...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Manmade Antarctic Melting, Indeed
>
> January 17, 2008
>
> Steven Milloy
Yep, that's another futile effort, all right.
Milloy should stick to lying about cigarette smoke. lol
Tunderbar
Did you notice that in the Northern Hemisphere summer, agw tards post
dozens of studies and pictures proving that the Arctic is melting, and
you hear nothing about the Antarctic. Then in the Southern hemisphere
summer, all you hear about is the Antarctic melting. I guess no-one in
the agw camp understands the concept of seasonal and cyclical ice melt.
Ouroboros_Rex
"Tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8958d2e-2884-421e...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Poor crazy tundy is setting up another fantasy again, let's see where it
gets him.
Then in the Southern hemisphere
summer, all you hear about is the Antarctic melting. I guess no-one in
the agw camp understands the concept of seasonal and cyclical ice melt.
Odd, you seem to be the one with that problem. Or do you expect melting
in the dead of winter?
Wouldn't be surprised. lol
Phil.
> "Tunderbar" <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Check this out:
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/app/WsvPageDsp.cfm?id=11892&Lang=eng
kdt...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
So what. An educated person knows that the glaciers that came into the
sea from Greenland, all melted off by the late thirties. Therfore
there is not the calving of the glaciers that makes the really
dangerous ice bergs in the north atlantic.
Analysis of C14 under the glaciers in Greenland, show that they were
melted back during the medieaval warm period also. But facts such as
these are not important to the peer review of the consensus of climate
catastrophe KOOKS.
Let's see, according to AGW, CO2 was about 300 ppm in 1930. Up only
10 points from the claimed natural level of 289 ppm. So what in the
hell made all of this ice melt back to the land????
If you idiots claim as you do that the 10% melted the glaciers it in
the short time of 20 years, you cannot explain the 87ppm increase you
claim since this time and the lack of effect from this much greater
concentration increase.
Even the corrupt IPCC now shows proxy graphs that are not the hockey
stick, but show a temperature level in the thirties about as high as
now, and then a dip and a rise to present levels.
It is customary for the fraud though, to only take statistics back to
the upswing and then correlate this to increasing CO2, et al 'Algore',
the 'supermodel' for AGW.
Look at him walk that walk,,
Now he is talking that talk,,,
(you think he really keeps a corn cob up his butt to reduce his
personal emssions or is that just his normal demeanor?)
HAHAHAhahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHhhahahahahah
No statistical evidence for effect of CO2 is yet available. Must be
'hidden' somewhere in some 'sink' as of yet, NOT clearly identified
but theoretically available in imaginings of any AGWKOOK.
KD