Antarctica hits highest temp recorded—63 F

a reply to: Grimpachi

...20% less impact on sea level rise based off predictions.

They initially thought that based off of computer models. They proved themselves 20% wrong.

Just for clarification, my post said...

There findings showed that the increased snowfall would have 20% less of an impact on balancing rising ocean levels than previously thought.

Meaning, they originally thought the increase in global temperature would cause enough evaporation to offset the rise in ocean levels by dumping that moisture on top of Antarctica. Their findings showed a 20% reduction in the ability to do that.

So again, maybe we are screwed.

I just watched the documentary chasing ice tonight

Is that the equivalent to watching the grass grow?

It's autumn down there right now, there will be "warm" days.

a reply to: eisegesis

So they are saying it will be 20% worse than they predicted?

Is that the equivalent to watching the grass grow?

I have three screens hooked up to my computer lets just call it multi-tasking.

And the ostriches pull their heads out of the sand just long enough to type .

a reply to: Grimpachi

More like 20% less likely to offset rising ocean levels than they previously predicted.

a reply to: Greven

U.S. and the rest of the world was above average temperature during this cold period.

You mean the cold period that has lasted the last 10 years! Clearly even governments are having difficulty hiding the fact that the world has been cooling so has turned to media propaganda to try sway public opinion regardless of the facts (like the media mantra .. WMD in Iraq, WMD in Iraq, WMD in Iraq, when there was none).

US in cooling trend for last 10 years

Glad to see the climate change guys are not having all their own way on this thread, was going to type climate nazi's, but thought that was somewhat unfair, I agree with Mark Twain "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics" which brings up the other saying, author unknown "87 percent of statistics are made up on the spot".
Those worried about sea level rise, move to higher ground, (I'm 50 feet about sea level, hope that's enough) worried about temperature rise? 20 feet below ground temperature does not vary, summer or winter...

It hit 100 in Phoenix today and broke a record . It's snowing in ND . It's called normal . Its called weather.

Stop the lies . Wake up you dummies .

What's normal ?

Climate changes.

Are people really so dumb to believe global warming crap?

TPTB just want to take the peasants hard earned money .
Peasants are so willing or stupid to believe the propaganda .
Ez targets are the weak minded peasants .

Headlines from climate depot blog, Russians are saying mini ice age on its way, lead author on IPCC climate documents Dr Richard Tol says " 97% climate consensus is bunk" . To be honest, I tend to go with the guy who keeps 'climate depot' going, he will sometime show adverse reports about himself!

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: ugmold

LOL, Antartica ice extent is largest on record but if you do search google news you get nothing but global warming news, funny that!

And yet again yet another denier who does not understand the difference between area and volume. The area of ice cover is increasing due in no small part to the amount of fresh water floating on the surface of the salty water. This less saline water freezes readily with the cold temperatures and wind. However it is not 2 miles fricking thick like the bulk of the problem that is slipping off and shrinking from the land mass of Antartica

SHEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSHHHHHHH !!!!!!!

Have you seen the labels on either side of the ATS pages ?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Deniers will still deny it. It could hit 100 degrees there and they'd say "it was hotter in Arizona so what's the big deal?"

I just don't understand it. People readily accept the yearly screwed up weather patterns called "the little boy (el nino)" and "the little girl (la nina)". But they can't accept that more than 100 years of constantly burning fossil fuels would add particles into the atmosphere and change its balance.

Sadly, I think it's already too late.

I'm afraid it is too late. Because of the massive negativity towards this subject the climate scientists themselves hold back on a lot of their research because the numbers are too scary. So they publish the less scary numbers that they hope will be more acceptable.....which is quite ironic given the reaction it gets !

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Deniers will still deny it. It could hit 100 degrees there and they'd say "it was hotter in Arizona so what's the big deal?"

I just don't understand it. People readily accept the yearly screwed up weather patterns called "the little boy (el nino)" and "the little girl (la nina)". But they can't accept that more than 100 years of constantly burning fossil fuels would add particles into the atmosphere and change its balance.

Sadly, I think it's already too late.

"Deniers" will state that the amount of time that accurate temperature data has been collected on the exposed ground of Esperanza Base is not indicative of anything resembling climate. I wonder what the temperature was on top of the middle of the snow in the background of the picture of the base...I bet it was cooler. Why wouldn't they take that reading instead?

I wish these stories would detail how and where this temp data was collected...then I wouldn't have to sit here and wonder if they're only using the hottest temperature recorded over the warmest area (darker exposed ground) at their base.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: eisegesis
The article hasn't missrepresented anything.

Sure, they may not have technically misrepresented anything, but they also don't include the big, overall picture, either. But that's where doing one's own research comes into play--I don't think the article needs to tell the bigger picture, but the article can't also be used as a gauge for anything useful in measuring climate...at least not by anyone doing anything in a responsible manner.

We nearly set a record low here in the Cincinnati area over the weekend--but who cares, right?

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
And yet again yet another denier who does not understand the difference between area and volume. The area of ice cover is increasing due in no small part to the amount of fresh water floating on the surface of the salty water. This less saline water freezes readily with the cold temperatures and wind. However it is not 2 miles fricking thick like the bulk of the problem that is slipping off and shrinking from the land mass of Antartica

SHEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSHHHHHHH !!!!!!!

Unlike the rapid sea ice losses reported in the Arctic, satellite observations show an overall increase in Antarctic sea ice concentration over recent decades. However, observations of decadal trends in Antarctic ice thickness, and hence ice volume, do not currently exist. In this study a model of the Southern Ocean and its sea ice, forced by atmospheric reanalyses, is used to assess 1992–2010 trends in ice thickness and volume. The model successfully reproduces observations of mean ice concentration, thickness, and drift, and decadal trends in ice concentration and drift, imparting some confidence in the hindcasted trends in ice thickness. The model suggests that overall Antarctic sea ice volume has increased by approximately 30 km3 yr−1 (0.4% yr−1) as an equal result of areal expansion (20 × 103 km2 yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1) and thickening (1.5 mm yr−1 or 0.2% yr−1).

AMS Journals

What's the term I'm looking for...oh yeah:

SHEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSHHHHHHH !!!!!!!

And then there's this reality concerning the melting of ice on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (the main area where land ice is decreasing...it's increasing on the eastern side of Antarctica):

Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below

Now, a new study finds that these subglacial volcanoes and other geothermal "hotspots" are contributing to the melting of Thwaites Glacier, a major river of ice that flows into Antarctica's Pine Island Bay. Areas of the glacier that sit near geologic features thought to be volcanic are melting faster than regions farther away from hotspots, said Dustin Schroeder, the study's lead author and a geophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin.

This melting could significantly affect ice loss in the West Antarctic, an area that is losing ice quickly.

"It's not just the fact that there is melting water, and that water is coming out," Schroeder told Live Science. "It's how that affects the flow and stability of the ice."

...

Scientists use computer models to try to predict the future of the ice sheet, but their lack of understanding of subglacial geothermal energy has been a glaring gap in these models. Measuring geothermal activity under the ice sheet is so difficult that researchers usually just enter one, uniform estimate for the contributions of geothermal heat to melting, Schroeder said.

Of course, volcanism isn't uniform. Geothermal hotspots no doubt influence melting more in some areas than in others.

...

The minimum average heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier is 114 milliwatts per square meter (or per about 10 square feet) with some areas giving off 200 milliwatts per square meter or more, the researchers report today (June 9) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (A milliwatt is one-thousandth of a watt.) In comparison, Schroeder said, the average heat flow of the rest of the continents is 65 milliwatts per square meter.

"It's pretty hot by continental standards," he said.

The extra melt caused by subglacial volcanoes could lubricate the ice sheet from beneath, hastening its flow toward the sea, Schroeder said. To understand how much the volcanic melt contributes to this flow — and what that means for the future of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet — glaciologists and climate scientists will have to include the new, finer-grained findings in their models. Schroeder and his colleagues also plan to expand their study to other glaciers in the region.

Emphasis is mine.

My point is that you can not just sit there and lecture someone on what they do and don't know when you seem to be failing to put everything into context, too. Yes, parts of the earth are warming (which is a good thing, threatened coastal cities or droughty areas[who need to adapt] aside), and that's okay. The thing is that, not you nor any scientist can prove that the main driver is the activity of humans.

originally posted by: glend
You mean the cold period that has lasted the last 10 years! Clearly even governments are having difficulty hiding the fact that the world has been cooling so has turned to media propaganda to try sway public opinion regardless of the facts (like the media mantra .. WMD in Iraq, WMD in Iraq, WMD in Iraq, when there was none).

US in cooling trend for last 10 years

Good for the U.S. and bad for the rest of the world. Not all of it is experiencing the same thing - see California's drought. A few summers ago, Oklahoma was insanely hot. The last couple of summers have been rather mild. You might notice that most of the rest of the world is screaming about climate change while the U.S. is not. Do you feel that is a coincidence?

Also, linking to Forbes as a source on climate change is pretty hilarious.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Deniers will still deny it. It could hit 100 degrees there and they'd say "it was hotter in Arizona so what's the big deal?"

I just don't understand it. People readily accept the yearly screwed up weather patterns called "the little boy (el nino)" and "the little girl (la nina)". But they can't accept that more than 100 years of constantly burning fossil fuels would add particles into the atmosphere and change its balance.

Sadly, I think it's already too late.

I'm afraid it is too late. Because of the massive negativity towards this subject the climate scientists themselves hold back on a lot of their research because the numbers are too scary.

Im officially terrified now..




Is there somewhere I can go to pay the extra fear fee

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: glend

You might notice that most of the rest of the world is screaming about climate change while the U.S. is not. Do you feel that is a coincidence?

I found this particularly funny ;-)

1. The rest of the world is listening to propaganda and political theatre
2. They don't really know what science is or the scientific method
3. They see a payday at the end of this with wealth transfer
4. They have been leaving their TV's on while they sleep (subliminal programming)

What they should do;

1. Learn the difference between science and propaganda
2. Educate themselves in the sciences
3. Do their own research
4. STOP listening to alleged experts and authority
5. Get rid of the conformational bias
6. Start formulating their own opinions

Personally, AGCC as far as I am concerned is bunk. It's a political tool used to drive an agenda and that agenda is to separate you from what little money/value you have left. Corporations causing much, if not most, of the problem are like the banks. When they get caught and fined for their illegal activity, they just transfer the costs of their fines to the depositors, banks lose nothing, depositors do. The IPCC/AGCC agenda is just a fast track to your pocket that cuts out the middleman (banks/corporations) while still not providing any value whatsoever.

And that's about as close as you're going to get to the truth about climate change ;-)

Ocean levels are rising, great! It's about time the snobs sitting on ocean front property lost it and let the people a few blocks back have some LOL. New York will be under what, so? The big apple has been rotten to the core for a while, at least it won't stink so much under water. Florida under water? Well that'll teach 'em to build on a swamp. New Orleans, shame because I like the food and the music, but c'est la vie. Need I go on? Climates change, earth is in constant flux subject to both internal and external forces and there is a confirmed trend of ice ages and temperate periods over hundreds of thousands of years. Adapt or die, bitching and moaning will get you nowhere fast, be active, not reactive.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Ocean levels are rising, great! It's about time the snobs sitting on ocean front property lost it and let the people a few blocks back have some LOL. New York will be under what, so? The big apple has been rotten to the core for a while, at least it won't stink so much under water. Florida under water? Well that'll teach 'em to build on a swamp. New Orleans, shame because I like the food and the music, but c'est la vie. Need I go on?

Please do! I found that hilarious.

The earth is heating up because it has the flu.

A virus.

Humans...

Of course, there are many changes in climate that are out of our control, but I do think we are helping accelerate whatever trend the earth is currently in. We will just have to adapt like we've been doing for ages. I am under the impression we've been manipulating jet streams and moisture in the air for decades.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Deniers will still deny it. It could hit 100 degrees there and they'd say "it was hotter in Arizona so what's the big deal?"

I just don't understand it. People readily accept the yearly screwed up weather patterns called "the little boy (el nino)" and "the little girl (la nina)". But they can't accept that more than 100 years of constantly burning fossil fuels would add particles into the atmosphere and change its balance.

Sadly, I think it's already too late.

Well if they had not been caught lying, then covering it up, then passing
emails talking about wanting to kill people who disagreed with them
even though they were caught lying, etc etc...

Hadley CRU email hacker explains his position

Ad naseum




Laundry list of fraud in climate science

That final site has a list of links to mainstream media that is not
part of the latest "Operation Mockingbird" psyop on the sheeple.

Operation Mockingbird

When you realize the Intelligence agencies of the world have a chokehold
on the media and we are often receiving propaganda, then so called
news has to pass the smell test of "Next level BS" and global warming does not.

This all began with bernays, and he told us who was driving the bus.

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.”[6]

Propaganda

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Deniers will still deny it. It could hit 100 degrees there and they'd say "it was hotter in Arizona so what's the big deal?"

I just don't understand it. People readily accept the yearly screwed up weather patterns called "the little boy (el nino)" and "the little girl (la nina)". But they can't accept that more than 100 years of constantly burning fossil fuels would add particles into the atmosphere and change its balance.

Sadly, I think it's already too late.

I'm afraid it is too late. Because of the massive negativity towards this subject the climate scientists themselves hold back on a lot of their research because the numbers are too scary. So they publish the less scary numbers that they hope will be more acceptable.....which is quite ironic given the reaction it gets !

I agree. They keep giving out the conservative estimates then acting surprised when reality exceeds those conservative estimates.