Bummer: New Paper Proclaims Doom From Antarctic Melt

Of course it does. And, of course, the media itself has shifted into Dooooom! mode. Here’s the NY Times’ resident climahysteric, Justin Gillis, along with Kenneth Change

Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans From Polar Melt

A large section of the mighty West Antarctica ice sheet has begun falling apart and its continued melting now appears to be unstoppable, two groups of scientists reported on Monday. If the findings hold up, they suggest that the melting could destabilize neighboring parts of the ice sheet and a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more may be unavoidable in coming centuries.

Global warming caused by the human-driven release of greenhouse gases has helped to destabilize the ice sheet, though other factors may also be involved, the scientists said.

And there’s your “science”, folks. It was preconceived to Blame Humanity….say, how did the scientists get to Antarctica to study the ice? Fossil fuels, perhaps? They sure didn’t sail or swim.

The rise of the sea is likely to continue to be relatively slow for the rest of the 21st century, the scientists added, but in the more distant future it may accelerate markedly, potentially throwing society into crisis.

“This is really happening,” Thomas P. Wagner, who runs NASA’s programs on polar ice and helped oversee some of the research, said in an interview. “There’s nothing to stop it now. But you are still limited by the physics of how fast the ice can flow.” (snip)

Those six glaciers alone could cause the ocean to rise four feet as they disappear, Dr. Rignot said, possibly within a couple of centuries. He added that their disappearance will most likely destabilize other sectors of the ice sheet, so the ultimate rise could be triple that.

By a “couple centuries”, they mean somewhere in the range of 1000 years.

Thing is, did they even go to Antarctica to perform science? The abstract notes

We measure the grounding line retreat of glaciers draining the Amundsen Sea Embayment of West Antarctica using Earth Remote Sensing (ERS-1/2) satellite radar interferometry from 1992 to 2011.

That’s not even 9 years, nor does it take into account the growth of the rest of Antarctic ice. We’ve been told again and again that a pause of 17+ years is too short to be a trend. Now, Warmists are trumping this study as doom.

In fact, the trends, per RSS, for Antarctica show that the areas where sea ice form are flatlined since 1980, and Antarctica overall shows a statistically insignificant rise since 1980. And, as Anthony Watts further notes

A lot can happen in several centuries, why even in the last couple of years Antarctic has seen  record levels on Antarctic sea ice.

A lot can happen, and, realistically, there is nothing unusual about some melting at the poles during a warm period, which have occurred off and on since the end of the last glacial age.

Scientists said the ice sheet was not melting because of warmer air temperatures, but rather because relatively warm water that occurs naturally in the depths of the ocean was being pulled to the surface by an intensification, over the past several decades, of the powerful winds that encircle Antarctica.

Hooray, those are two of the blames Warmists have been pushing, mostly to find a way to deflect criticism that warming has essentially stopped for over 17 years. Interestingly, the release seems to coincide with the IPCC report, which also talks about “corks being released”, though the IPCC report talks in terms of 2,000-10,000 years.

Anyhow, Warmists, there’s your cue: give up all use of fossil fuels to save Antarctica.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

9 Comments

Comment by Jeffery
2014-05-13 08:39:14

It’s like giving a cat a bath… hiss, spit, scratch.

First, Teach criticizes the researchers for burning fossil fuels to reach Antarctica, HISS!

Then Teach complains that they didn’t go to Antarctica but used satellite imagery, SPIT!

(By the way, yes, 1992 to 2011 is “not even 9 years”, it is 19 years.)

Once again, you want liberals to give up all fossil fuel use so that you can use all you want. SCRATCH!

Two different scientific research teams, using different methods, find similar results, and they publish the results in two separate peer reviewed, prestigious scientific journals. You counter with Anthony Watts’ opinion. I’m pretty certain that Anthony neither traveled to Antarctica nor studied the satellite records.

 
Comment by david7134
2014-05-13 09:44:56

Jeff,
Lets really read the material. Something you are not known to do. The organizations that reported all receive government funds. If you want to continue receiving government funds, you provide the data and interpretation that is desired. The same thing occurred in the medical world with fatty diets, and now we find that the data was all wrong and that fatty diets have nothing to do with your health (google the subject, the article is in the Wall Street Journal with medical references). Note that human warming is only one of many possibilities and some how the deep ocean is warmer than the surface. In other words, a complete reversal in a sense. This whole thing is so obviously engineered that it hurts and only makes the ones believing the religion to look extremely stupid.

 
Comment by Bob
2014-05-13 10:30:50

From Wikipedia:

“The Ross Ice Shelf is the largest ice shelf of Antarctica (an area of roughly 487,000 square kilometres (188,000 sq mi) and about 800 kilometres (500 mi) across: about the size of France).[1] It is several hundred metres thick. The nearly vertical ice front to the open sea is more than 600 kilometres (370 mi) long, and between 15 and 50 metres (50 and 160 ft) high above the water surface. Ninety percent of the floating ice, however, is below the water surface.”

Ninety percent of it under water. And what does ice do when it melts? It turns to water and takes up less volume.

Try this at home. Take a glass, put a few ice cubes in it, and then cover the ice with water. Measure where the water comes up to in the glass. Let the ice melt.

Did the water level in the glass go up?

Jeez.

 
Comment by john
2014-05-13 10:40:54

yeah David let’s not forget that science has been wrong in the past. Right ? so why should we believe ANYTHING that scientists tell us?
In fact why not just BAN science from schools and just go and teach on a Faith based curriculum ?
Gee I can remember when some “scientists” also said smoking was good for you; doctors preffered Chesterfields.
David latest Gallup (not a FRC paid for poll) showed only 25% of Americans strongly disputed climate change
That is about the same percentage that were the 9/11 truthers led by right wing Alex Jones

 
Comment by david7134
2014-05-13 11:32:46

John,
First, why do you site polls. You can get the stupid people in the US to believe anything. Just look at the Dems.

Then, science is very frequently wrong. Another example, remember blood letting and leaches. All scientist agreed that was necessary. Or the fact that it was not necessary to wash hands. Or that you should not have pain relief, that is still going. You can go on and on, the fact is that you don’t make economic policy on the poor science of the climate bunch. They are all being paid for their results and the peer review process is dead.

 
2014-05-13 14:34:18
 
Comment by Stan
2014-05-14 00:55:05

Really, The climate DoDo yet again chanting in unison DOOM ON YOU, DOOM ON YOU. The same tripe from a new generation of followers/believers using different words than their parents did generations ago.
The climate “what ever you believers say its named today” really need to go to the closest library, sit in an unoccupied corner, then use the next ten hours or so to fumble your way through the short fable of Chicken Little.
Please allow me to save the DoDo some time even if by some stroke of unfathomable blind luck you turn out to be almost close to being partially correct, will anyone believe? Even if they do believe will the family actually see these changes by their great great great grand children? Did any climate model known to man forecast this terrible unprecedented calamity found on google earth?

 
Comment by Jeffery
2014-05-14 01:08:54

david,

It’s common for deniers such as you to ignore the evidence and to condemn the source. Do you have any evidence to support your contention that the scientists falsified their data to satisfy the funding agencies? Do you have any evidence that the funding agencies desire a particular outcome from their sponsored research?

Your understanding of research seems a bit weak too. The researcher or research group that actually produces solid data refuting the Theory of AGW will be quite famous.

I don’t understand why conspiracy theories are almost always a conservative product. The theory of AGW would have to involve a massive conspiracy between climate scientists, governments, the UN, scientific societies, national academies of science and the facts.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2014-05-14 07:49:49

Stan,

You are fixated on either extinct or folk tale avians. Whatever.

If I decipher what I think your concern is, it’s that talking about the likely outcomes of a significant increase in the global average surface temperature, scares people and makes them less likely to accept the conclusions and less likely to act. You may be right.

The Earth is warming from the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere from the rapid burning of fossil fuels.

“Did any climate model known to man forecast this terrible unprecedented calamity found on google earth?”… What does that even mean?

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7854 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE