I Showed You Mine . . . - Chris Horner - Planet Gore on National Review Online
Given that this gentleman is now on tap to be the chief science advisor to the president — despite an hysterical track record of projecting that millions would already be dying, now, from global warming — isn’t this a very good time to finally ask for something, anything to support the ritual claim that he parrots that the vast or even overwhelming majority of scientists adhere to climate catastrophism?ABC News: Antarctica: A Call to Action
Few people have actually witnessed, first-hand, the effects of climate change on Antarctica. But Sebastian Copeland, an award-winning photographer and environmental activist, has made it a personal mission to document this fragile and quickly changing part of the world.ABC News: Antarctica: A Call to Action
Antarctica has warmed by 4.5 degrees since 1945World Climate Report » Antarctica Ain’t Cooperating!
That is correct – despite all you have heard elsewhere on the subject, the South Pole has been cooling over the past half century.
Posts
3 comments:
Antarctica is a complex climate environment. The Peninsula--not Antarctica as a whole--has been warming at five times the global average, or 1F degree every decade for the last 50 years.
But the Antarctica continent as been warming by an average that is twice the global rate. The wide variety in terrain and high elevation account for this discrepancy. The warmer coastal temperatures create increased evaporation which translates into increased precipitation in the interior high elevations. Those regions have seen an increase in snow fall and ice, which in some cases have led to local cooling trends. This has accounted for many skeptics' inaccurate claim that Antarctica as a whole has been cooling. Ad to this the non-linear climate patterns and this does create room for confusion. On a multi year average, however the trend is un-mistakenly and alarmingly on the warming side. The fracturing of the many ice shelves over the last few years; the increased rate of pour of the interior glaciers and the persistent reduction of the sea ice are further proof to that effect. Additionally, the last five years have seen the greatest consecutive ice drop since instrumental history. Antarctica loses 31 billion tons of water, or 36 cubic miles, a year. That represents the amount of water consumed in Los Angeles in one year. Those numbers have been increasing in spite of the greater precipitation. These facts are what scientists base their conclusions from. I hope this was helpful.
"Those regions have seen an increase in snow fall and ice, which in some cases have led to local cooling trends. This has accounted for many skeptics' inaccurate claim that Antarctica as a whole has been cooling."
Did you bother to read the links in Tom's post? The World Climate Report does not say that increased snowfall means Antarctica has been cooling. The biggest problem with the Antarctica is that the historic data only goes back to 1950 without going to ice cores. That is not even a full ocean cycle of about 60 years. The records start near the peak of the last ocean warming period. That is not the ideal place to begin an analysis due to the extreme weather associated with the peaks and valleys.
the bottom line is obvious, the is little evidence for warming in Antarctica! They state “All records correlate significantly with all other records during all seasons from 1982 to 2001. Near-surface temperature trends are statistically insignificant (p >0.05) on annual timescales within every data set analyzed, for both the longer (1960–2002) and shorter (1982–2001) periods.
Antarctica loses 31 billion tons of water, or 36 cubic miles, a year. That represents the amount of water consumed in Los Angeles in one year.
I remember a while back some reporter announcing Greenland icepack annually losing enough water to put Washington DC 8 miles under.
I did the math and figured out it would take three months worth of flow by the Mississippi river to submerge the city of Washington 8 miles deep.
Think about the size of Greenland compared to the watershed of the Mississippi - 836,109 sq mi to 1,036,000 sq mi.
Can you think of a reason that Greenland would lose a normal amount of water for an area of it's size, but only for three months out of the year?
I sure can.
Copeland, I realize you have some pictures to peddle, but try selling crazy someplace else.
Post a Comment