Our energy and environment deserve better – in South Africa and Qatar
Guest post by Dr. Kelvin Kemm
A few weeks ago, perhaps as a prologue to the “global warming disaster” convention in Doha, Qatar, South Africa’s Department of Environment Affairs took out a full-page advertisement in our country’s newspapers, promoting National Marine Week.
The ad showed a map of the Antarctic continent, from above the pole, surrounded by the vast blue Southern Ocean. It also promoted South Africa’s new Antarctic research vessel, SA Agulhas II.
The advertisement’s text mentioned the massive Antarctic Circumpolar Current, which is responsible for distributing vital nutrients to the world’s oceans. It noted that the truly massive quantities of phytoplankton found in the ocean are vital marine building blocks in ocean processes. All that is true, and I certainly applaud efforts to protect the environment and promote National Marine Week and our country’s research efforts.
But then, sadly, the ad’s discussion of physics content went off the rails. Referring to phytoplankton, it said “these microscopic creatures also use carbon to create energy.” Wrong!
The most basic law of thermodynamics says energy is neither created nor destroyed, but merely converted from one form to another. The only way to “create” energy is via a nuclear process, whereby matter is converted to energy in a nuclear reaction, as Einstein famously postulated over a century ago. Nuclear processes operate outside the laws of thermodynamics, but there is certainly no nuclear process going on in phytoplankton.
I could have lived with that slip up in the physics. But it got worse – much worse. The ad went on to blame global warming for upsetting the phytoplankton. In a declaration straight out of Alice in Wonderland, it asserted: “The increase in surface temperature over Antarctica from climate change is having a catastrophic knock-on effect, depleting phytoplankton stocks, melting the Antarctic ice sheet and causing an alarming reduction in all marine life.”
First, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no “alarming reduction in all marine life.” None of my colleagues are aware of it. Second, the surface temperature over Antarctica is not increasing.
In fact, a new record has just been attained. Antarctic sea ice has just reached an all-time record for total acreage. Day 265 of the year 2012 set an all time record, and then on day 266 that record was broken. The days 265 to 270 were the six highest Antarctic sea ice extent days of all time.
The environment department then compounded these errors by committing the unforgivable scientific sin of claiming a supposed increase in surface air temperature over Antarctica “is having a catastrophic knock-on effect” – then providing no evidence to back up its assertion and not telling readers what the alleged knock-on effect is.
I cannot even begin to imagine how this knock-on is supposed to alter the Circumpolar Current, which in turn is somehow supposed to affect the “energy creation” capabilities of phytoplankton. Come off it, folks.
There is so much good Antarctic science to be proud of – and, for that matter, really fine South African scientific achievements in the Antarctic to brag about. That the DEA would feel compelled to celebrate National Maritime Week by resorting to phytoplankton scares supposedly related to nonexistent Antarctic heating is beyond mystifying.
Meanwhile, over the last few months, newspaper stories have told of reduced sea ice extent at our planet’s other pole, the Arctic. Terms like “alarming rate” of ice depletion were bandied about casually. Yes, there were reductions in Arctic sea ice cover.
However, on September 18, a video posted by NASA on its website showed that a large and long lasting Arctic cyclone “wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover,” by “breaking up sea ice.” The unusual reduction in Arctic sea ice cover was due to high winds – not to any warming of the Arctic or global warming in general. NASA’s belated analysis demonstrated that a large section of ice north of the Chukchi Sea was cut off by the churning storm, broken up and pushed south into warmer waters, where it melted.
The storm also broke up other ice, accelerating drifting and melting elsewhere. Reuters finally reported that “NASA says a powerful cyclone formed off the coast of Alaska in early August and moved toward the centre of the Arctic Ocean, weakening the already thin sea ice as it went.”
NASA noted that this was an “uncommon event” and that there have been only about eight storms of similar strength during August in 34 yearsof satellite records. However, a major storm every four years is not all that “uncommon.” Paul A. Newman, Chief Scientist for Atmospheric Sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, added that such wind disturbances produce many effects and can also lift warmer water from the depths of the Arctic Ocean up to the surface to accelerate melting.
For some reason – probably having to do with its regular promotion of “dangerous manmade global warming” claims – the storm story was barely mentioned in the mainstream popular media. By contrast, the “alarming ice cover reduction” narrative was covered extensively.
Now jump back in time five years, to December 12, 2007. On that date Associated Press writer Seth Borenstein distributed an article that stated: “An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer – a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.”
Well, five years have come and gone. Borenstein was dead wrong. Does anyone suppose the AP will now publish an apology, admitting that its “science writer” was on thin ice when he made this outlandish statement, and saying he should not have tried to scare thepublic like that?
Perhaps the answer can be found in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland.
“There’s no use trying,” Alice said. “One can’t believe impossible things.” “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Especially with the Doha climate change confab in full swing, taxpayers, newspaper readers – and anyone dreaming of a better life through reliable, affordable energy – deserves more honest reporting and more science-based energy and environmental policies than they have been getting.
_______________
Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and business strategy consultant in Pretoria, South Africa. He is a member of the International Board of Advisors of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), based in Washington, DC (www.CFACT.org). Dr. Kemm received the prestigious Lifetime Achievers Award of the National Science and Technology Forum of South Africa.
The endothermic nature of photosynthesis seems to be a concept-too-far for Warmistas.
If anything odd is happening in the Antarctic, don’t blame humanity, blame the changes on the sun which are directly plugged into the Antarctic
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
The poor phytoplankton – feed ’em some tax dollars to make ’em immune to climate…
Facts are for the little people.
And what’s really going to bake your noodle later on is that *your* specialty isn’t the only one they get wrong – they do this with everything.
Quote “Nuclear processes operate outside the laws of thermodynamics”
Nothing operates outside of the laws of thermodynamics, nuclear or otherwise. Also, all energy processes can be thought of as a change in mass. It is just more noticeable with nuclear energy. Carbon containing organisms are food (energy); all of which ultimately leads back to solar illumination. The rest of your article is enlightening.
The increase in surface temperature over Antarctica from climate change is having a catastrophic knock-on effect, depleting phytoplankton stocks, melting the Antarctic ice sheet and causing an alarming reduction in all marine life.”
—————–
Of course. When will these barstards stop the lies? What alarming reduction in “all marine life”? All???
Humpty teaches Alice, in Wonderland, who is to be master, that is all!
Humpty appears in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice.
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
For years I’ve read about Man controlling the weather … but I’ve read a lot of science fiction and fantasy books.
If we could just get The Enerprise to transport The Carbon Ring to Mount Doom ……
Well, Dr. Kemm, did you offer an Op-Ed to set the record straight? Or at least write a letter to the editor(s)? Not that they’re likely to publish it.
You’re not telling anyone here something they don’t already know. Misinformation and outright lies are the stock-in-trade for climate alarmism. It’s evident to anyone who looks and most of the media systematically avert their eyes. They are complicit in deceit. One gets so tired of their relentless cant.
It should be noted that the NASA website specifies that Paul A. Newman ESTIMATES that there have only been about eight storms of similar strength during the month of August in the last 34 years of satellite records.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-storm.html
It would be nice to know how many storms of similar strength during the month of August in the last 34 years of satellite records there actually were.
“The days 265 to 270 were the six highest Antarctic sea ice extent days of all time.”
In the interest of accuracy and consistency should it not be “the six highest … days since satellite records began”. If one is going to criticise hyperbole and inaccuracy, then one should not commit the same sins.
This little gem from the CBC report today about the Science paper on polar ice.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/11/29/pol-ice-sheets-melting-greenland.html
“In contrast, Antarctica is more or less stable, although the research shows there has been a 50 per cent increase in ice loss since 1992.”
Words fail me on this quote…
Gunga Din says:
November 29, 2012 at 3:26 pm
For years I’ve read about Man controlling the weather …
_____________________________________________
No, No, you have that wrong. It is Mann controlling the weather data…. Or was that Hansen, or Jones. They all seem the same after awhile. Just ask Humpty Dumpty.
It is like when they say that “trees sequester carbon” It is just truth avoiding propaganda. Phytoplankton, trees and grass are NOT carbon sinks, they are living creatures that use CO2 to grow. It is called metabolism and is is a life defining process.
It is so painful for me to see this carbon sink idea being spread in biology and ecology papers. A biologist or ecologist should study living creatures, they should never objectify them.
Nothing unusual. It is not just carbon but a lot of chemical energy carriers or storage are marketed those days as source of energy. Hydrogen is another substance that will produce energy by magic creating a fantasy land called the “Hydrogen Economy” where energy is available cheaply, non-polluting (the emissions are all water), the source is inexhaustible ( hydrogen could be derived by breaking water to hydrogen and oxygen) and electricity could be generated off grid. The meetings of parties of the Kyoto Protocol and conference of parties of the UNFCCC used to have a number of side events promoting the emergence of the “Hydrogen economy” or the ” hydrogen age”. With good graphics, sound effects and “Disneyland like presentation” in those side events you could see the delegates, press and NGOs really fixated. Mere mention that it requires more energy to get hydrogen from water than the energy released when hydrogen is converted back to water and you could get booed down. The magazine “The Economist” run a number of articles on the coming paradise called the “Hydrogen Economy” in the same way as the other world respected British establishment the BBC is doing to climate change. With The Economist running those articles it was difficult to find a decision maker anywhere in the world who is not sold out to the Hydrogen economy.
The poor phytoplankton – feed ‘em some tax dollars to make ‘em immune to climate…
“Nuclear processes operate outside the laws of thermodynamics”
Wrong!
Nothing really operates outside the laws of thermodynamics, not even black holes. Nuclear processes certainly not.
But microscopic creatures, using carbon to create energy is an even more surrealistic notion. Belongs to the realm of Not Even Wrong.
falling into the Carbon-Data Void:
29 Nov: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: Qatar Hosting Climate Talks Spotlights Carbon-Data Void
Five of 2,199 publicly traded companies in the Middle East reported their CO2 output last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Those that did report, which included National Bank of Oman SAOG (NBOB) and Strauss Group Ltd. (STRS) of Israel, were 0.2 percent of the total. That compares with 4.2 percent in the 27- nation European Union, 3.9 percent in both Latin America and Africa, 3.2 percent in Asia and 1.3 percent in North America…
Of the EU’s 11,331 listed companies, 475 report emissions, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. In Asia-Pacific, the tally was 762 out of 24,144; in Latin America it was 68 out of 1,722 and in North America it was 229 out of 17,371. Fifty-six of Africa’s 1,425 listed companies disclosed emissions in their most recent annual reports…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-29/qatar-hosting-climate-talks-spotlights-carbon-data-void.html
looks like common sense is winning everywhere. why should any company be wasting time and energy & money on such a ridiculous exercise?
The increase in surface temperature over Antarctica
Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
What increase in surface temperature over Antarctica?
RSS Southern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;
[caption id="attachment_54067" align="alignnone" width="568"]
I think that we need to redefine “science” to take into account AGW; because if we don’t, AGW might be disproved. This would be a major problem to the hypocritical parasites who cannot then jet off to exotic places to wag their fingers at those of us who like warm houses, fast cars and politically incorrect thoughts.
This was a National U.K. News Broadcast by I.T.V. tonight,
http://www.itv.com/news/2012-11-29/ice-sheets-melting-three-times-faster-than-in-1990s-new-study-says/
Is this true or B.S.?.
No reference to a ‘Scientific Paper’ just some-one called Dr. Andrew Shepheard of Leeds University.
Anyone heard this before?
If this is untrue who do I complain to?
Am I wrong to think that the only way to “trap” energy on Earth is to convert it to mass ?
Gail Combs says:
November 29, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Gunga Din says:
November 29, 2012 at 3:26 pm
For years I’ve read about Man controlling the weather …
_____________________________________________
No, No, you have that wrong. It is Mann controlling the weather data…. Or was that Hansen, or Jones. They all seem the same after awhile. Just ask Humpty Dumpty.
==============================================================
I stand corrected. (If only they would!)
William Sears, you are right that is why Engineers (especially Chemical Engineers) have a discipline called heat and mass transfer. -something no so called “climate scientist” understands. (Dr) Gavin Schmidt (of the RealClimate blog), on another blog, basically admitted he did not know about the Schmidt number . He looked it up on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmidt_number) but did not understand its use (as well, he probably had not heard about the Prandtl number ). Engineering science is based on empirical measurement. It goes well beyond simple physics to which people with no engineering knowledge on this and other blogs continually make reference. It is not possible to make any assessment of climate without a thorough knowledge of the full range of engineering science.
vukcevic above at least has knowledge of some engineering science and his contribution is worth noting.
“…the surface temperature over Antarctica is not increasing. In fact, a new record has just been attained. Antarctic sea ice has just reached an all-time record for total acreage.”
—
If that is true, how can a new peer-reviewed study, published today in the journal Science, claim that Antarctic ice is melting at an increasing rate? Can anyone explain the contradiction that Antarctic sea ice is at an all-time high, yet Antarctica is losing ice overall? Something doesn’t quite add up. The quote below is from a news report on the new paper:
‘…experts on Thursday published a peer-reviewed study they say puts to rest the debate over whether the poles added to, or subtracted from, sea level rise over the last two decades. “This improved certainty allows us to stay [sic] definitively that both Antarctica and Greenland have been losing ice,” lead author Andrew Shepherd of the University of Leeds in Britain, told reporters. Not only that, but the pace has tripled from the 1990’s the data indicate.’
@ Doug: Interestingly prophetic quotes from Carroll/Dodgson – thanks.
I pick up on “Alice” references because I once lived in the house originally occupied by Alice Liddell’s governess. (Damask wallpaper still attached to the walls in some places.)
“The days 265 to 270 were the six highest Antarctic sea ice extent days of all time.”
Say what ??????? Maybe within our very limited records.
but saying something like that makes him sound like a warmist in reverse.. not a good look !!
Ben Cubby, “Environmental Editor” of the Sydney Morning Herald seems to think “More of the sun’s heat reaches the earth because of human contributions to global warming” in a report “Where even the earth is melting” – about permafrost of course. Alice couldn’t understand what was happening either.
The lead author of the paper referred to says
“We’re seeing biological activity in various places in Alaska that’s much more active than I would have expected, and also much more variable from place to place … There are changes as much as 10 to 12 parts per million for CO2 – so that’s telling us that the local biology is doing something like five or six years worth of change in the space of a few hundred metres.”
Parse that for bovine excrement.
He thinks they’ve found the fingerprint of permafrost melt
“What we can say is that methane is significantly elevated in places – about 2000 parts per billion, against a normal background of about 1850 parts per billion”.
That’s “significantly elevated”? They’ve found a bit more CO2 and a bit more methane, in a place where one might expect a bit more of both in normal circumstances. We might as well all pack it in now then? Jump off the nearest bridge? Wait – wouldn’t that add to sea-level rise? Damned if we do, damned we don’t.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/where-even-the-earth-is-melting-20121127-2a5tp.html
Vukcevic, your website is not user friendly. Please create (or link if you already did it) a thesis. I’m trying to understand why your message about the magnetic fields is important. I see lots of charts and data, curve fits and equations, but no big picture. What’s your point?
“these microscopic creatures also use carbon to create energy.” Wrong!
====================================
C’mon you guys, they create energy for themselves by transforming the energy from the sun and the energy stored in carbon. And there is a very good reason they do it in the upwelling zones.That upwelling water is nearly fizzing with CO2.
Just on TV3 news tonight poles melting 3 times faster now than 20 years ago.
New laws coming in here in New Zealand that homes built near the sea have to
have the floor 1.2 mtre above the ground.
This is an over-reaction to conversational language. The plankton use carbon to create energy in a form they can use. Not unlike what happens when you go to a bar and knock back buffalo wings all night. Nobody thinks you are going to create energy in the raw from buffalo wings although you may from the chili. I give this rant a 2 – good rhythm but you’re banging the wrong drum.
Finally, a real scientist (not Lewandowski) from University of WA wins an award: http://pindanpost.com/2012/11/30/winning-with-science/
Same reason Nature publish papers depicting hockey stick graphs. Nothing published is gospel, not even “peer-reviewed” studies.
I just sent a disparaging email to the South Africa’s DEA with a link to this posting. You can find the Media contacts for the DEA at http://www.environment.gov.za/?q=content/contacts/media-contacts
cementafriend says:
……
Thanks.Yes, all working life in practical engineering (strongly biased towards electro-magnetism).
Sarcasm says:
vukcevic …… What’s your point?
Yes, website is not user friendly. Not everything found in the data is immediately translatable to a simple theory or even hypothesis. My point is: no strong data correlation of two physical events should be automatically excluded, just because I’m not in position to give a full scientifically verifiable account of the process that may be taking place.
NASA scientists also have a hunch that there is something in the geo-magnetic correlations :
“One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes……Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously. “
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110309.html
You might ask: “What’s the NASA’s point?”
Climate change cannot be responsible for changes in climate. That is what constitutes climate change. Likewise, global warming cannot be caused by, or be the cause of, rising temperatures. My height is not caused by the distance from my head to my feet.
Interesting post. I also live in Pretoria. I think I heard the honourable dr. on radio here the other day. Not that I agreed with him then – I think you all know that am not particularly in favor of nuclear energy. But here it seems we can agree on antarctica – there is no warming there. In fact there is no warming anywhere. What we have is pockets of warming here and there due to the increased clouds and weather systems which in turn is due to the increase in cooling. It looks like we are now near at the bottom of the curve.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
but we are not there yet……
Henry@Just the facts
Could you provide me with the raw data of the station of that graph (of surface temps for Antarctica). I could not find any station on antarctica with complete daily temp. records. I am particularly interested in looking at maxima data.
There’s no warming of the Southern Ocean – in fact it almost seems to have gone trough a step-like cooling during 2005-2008: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/13-southern.png
cementafriend says:
November 29, 2012 at 5:23 pm
William Sears, you are right that is why Engineers (especially Chemical Engineers) have a discipline called heat and mass transfer. -something no so called “climate scientist” understands….
__________________________
Boy have you got that right!
dp says:
November 29, 2012 at 10:09 pm
This is an over-reaction to conversational language. The plankton use carbon to create energy in a form they can use…
____________________________________
It is STILL WRONG. What the plankton are doing is using carbon (CO2) to STORE the energy from the sun in a usable form for future use. They are not CREATING energy.
For example for the glucose produced: C6H12O6 + 6O2 —> 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy
vukcevic says:
November 30, 2012 at 2:08 am
____________________________________
Did you see this? Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field Discovered
And they keep telling us the “Science is settled”
There are so many potential flaws in the whole polar ice thing.The methodology for arriving at the sea ice numbers is fatally flawed because it ignores the effects of the wind and especially in Antarctica the effect of the currents. When glacial ice enters the ocean it increases sea level but then it cools the sea water causing a lowering of sea level. Since the ice melt water is fresh water it cools the sea surface. It is also less dense preventing warmer water from rising to the surface. None of which we read about in the media.
No they do not. This is what one calls “internal energy” in thermodynamics.
Could be inadvertently useful if NZ starts seeing regular heavy snow.
Hi Ms Combs
Thanks. One more stone into the foundation of a new approach to the climate science; he says forever hopeful.
I’ve been going on for some time now about geomagnetic storms, North Atlantic Precursor (geological records) and the AMO (N. Atlantic SST) correlations
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm
they aren’t perfect, but again neither is the data, in addition only CMEs which hit the Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma starting a geomagnetic storm.
Note disparity between number of geomagnetic storms and the SSN
http://www.bu.edu/cawses/images/image020.jpg
When someone starts out an argument by discussing conservation of energy and reveals immediately a lack of understanding of same by implying that this conservation law applies differently in “nuclear reactions” than in other reactions, “ Nuclear processes operate outside the laws of thermodynamics” it is hard to focus on the rest of the argument. Dr. Kemm seems to think E=MC2 applies only to nuclear reactions but it applies to all reactions and all systems. Compressed springs are heavier than uncompressed ones, wound up clocks are more massive than run down clocks, hot objects are more massive than cold ones, the output molecular products in exothermic chemical reactions weigh less than the input molecular molecules, etc, etc.
The shudderingly low level of grasp of physics by the typical AGW religion believer is past incredible, it’s got to be nothing more than an attempt to see how big a mob of stupid, evil people can be built, using mass communications principles, and a government employee’s lack of fear of fraud laws.
These people claim there’s no way to look into the atmosphere and actually check whether it’s gotten hotter.
These people claim there’s no instrument on earth to check whether a narrow spectrum of low power infrared light has increased in the planet earth’s atmosphere.
These people claim there’s no way to check whether the troposphere where about 50% of all man’s aviation takes place, has gotten on average, a whole lot warmer the past 40 years.
These people claim there is magically undetectable radiation being deflected down toward the ground a night and say when man put liquid nitrogen-cooled infrared detectors out on the ground at night, that ‘yew awl jus don’t wawnuh buhLEEvE!.’
These people believe in a universe where a man invented a ‘whole new branch of mathematics’ only to have his algorithms leaked accidentally after sharing online with a cohort and discovered to make hockey sticks from calibration data; and anyone can do it, it’s well known –
yet the followers of the AGW religion are utterly silent on why ‘climate math’ hasn’t been proclaimed on math sites to be the greatest thing since invention of electricity: a WHOLE NEW BRANCH of MATH.
These people believe there is a magic gas hiding magic infrared from every instrument known to man, but that the magic hockey stick math and some bore holes, say it has never been this hot.
And the entire array of mankind’s raw instruments – infrared astronomy, sensors on military and other high flight commercial aircraft where human life’s the gold standard for reliability and accuracy in instrumentation – find an instrument bank not jiggled by these government employees’ ‘magical math’ – not one of these can detect any more heat in the atmosphere than normal – but everybody who doesn’t want to put these government employees’ policies into place are ‘murderous child hating rabble.’
But they don’t dare show their work because either ‘all you would want to do is find something wrong with it,’ or ‘I might need these proprietary algorithms for something MORE important, later.’
More important than the impending doom of civilization.
From magical low energy light in the atmosphere not one infrared telescope can find one trace of.
And which not one thermometer on any instrument cluster not jiggled by these very government employees, shows exists.
And it doesn’t matter that it’s not actually happening, the thing is, we should all be scared.
And install the policies these government employees want, making the breath you breathe out, pollution, while men in nuclear subs have lived with 4,000 ppm carbon dioxide levels in submarine air for fifty years.
But when you breathe out, or start a fire, it’s a pollutant and you have to be taxed on that. Because of your ‘carbon usage.’
It’s crime.
Pure
Simple
Crime.
Here’s the details on Antarctic ice.
Sorry, forgot to paste the link.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/
Louis says:
November 29, 2012 at 5:27 pm
“…the surface temperature over Antarctica is not increasing. In fact, a new record has just been attained. Antarctic sea ice has just reached an all-time record for total acreage.”
—
If that is true, how can a new peer-reviewed study, published today in the journal Science, claim that Antarctic ice is melting at an increasing rate? Can anyone explain the contradiction that Antarctic sea ice is at an all-time high, yet Antarctica is losing ice overall? Something doesn’t quite add up. The quote below is from a news report on the new paper:
‘…experts on Thursday published a peer-reviewed study they say puts to rest the debate over whether the poles added to, or subtracted from, sea level rise over the last two decades. “This improved certainty allows us to stay [sic] definitively that both Antarctica and Greenland have been losing ice,” lead author Andrew Shepherd of the University of Leeds in Britain, told reporters. Not only that, but the pace has tripled from the 1990′s the data indicate.’
*************************************************************************************************************
One has to read very carefully when dealing with these slippery people. The art of comprehension is gradually being lost. When things are not specific there is a reason. Sometimes an error, but often there is an intent to mislead. When John Major (British Prime Minister in early nineties) was confronted by things he had said which were now considered wrong, he always knew EXACTLY what he had said and was able to quote himself showing that he hadn’t said EXACTLY what people thought. This deflected the discussion away from the deliberate intention to mislead in his original statement.
First, ice is always melting somewhere, the last paragraph doesn’t mention overall ice loss.
There is no doubt that Arctic ice had fallen sharply earlier this summer ( but, according to NASA (see up thread) this is largely due to severe storms) but is now recovering in terms off recent coverage.
There is no link to the Antarctic ice melting article, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find it refers to a specific part of Antarctica (probably the western peninsula ice sheet) which sticks out into the southern ocean. Eastern Antarctica is gaining ice I believe.
There is also no mention of the newer report (peer reviewed etc.) which has been featured on WUWT this past week, that says the rate of loss of Greenland ice has probably been overestimated – they’ve had their headlines and now make a comparatively under-publicized climb down.
As I say, one has to read carefully and critically or you are lost.
Steve T