Guest post by Steven Goddard
Two days ago I questioned how Antarctic ice could be both “melting faster than expected” and “expanding” at the same time. Yet (as WUWT has noted before) the answer is obvious – according to NASA, most of Antarctica is both cooling rapidly and heating rapidly at the same time.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6502
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WilkinsIceSheet/images/wilkins_avh_2007.jpg
Since nearly the entire continent is both cooling and heating simultaneously, it makes perfect sense (using AGW logic) that the ice would be rapidly expanding and rapidly retreating simultaneously. In 2004, NASA thought that Antarctica was cooling by as much as 15 degrees C per century. But after three more years of cooling, they changed the map to show a warming trend in 2007.
The hot red warming trend seen in the second map has a stated uncertainty of “between 2-3 degrees Celsius” which means that it might actually represent a rapid cooling trend, rather than a warming trend. Vostok is averaging -96F this week. Does that make anyone think of hot, red colors?
Penguins trying to keep cool in NASA’s rapidly warming world
Nylo posted a link to an excellent parody of the state of Antarctic climate science, written by Dr. John Christy.
“What we believe,” Dr. Frost told ecoEnquirer, “is that a new paradigm is needed in scientific thought. Since mutually exclusive sets of scientific results usually are published in respected scientific publications, we suggest that they are both true. There is a higher level of physical understanding that must be developed, one where the Yin and Yang of scientific findings are reconciled, better understood, and appreciated.”
Good to see tax dollars hard at work, supporting serious and coherent science from the same organisation which put men on the moon – 40 years ago this July.
Shakespeare apparently saw AGW coming:
Much Ado About Nothing
The Comedy of Errors
All’s Well That Ends Well
Measure for Measure A Midsummer Night’s Dream The Tempest
Dan Lee (08:30:57)
GISS routinely reports temperature anomalies to two decimal place accuracy, even though nearly 70% of the measurement sites are prone to measurement errors greater than 2 degrees Celsius, based on the surveys reported at surfacestations.org for approximately 70% of the temperature measurement sites.
That is more impressive than alchemy! Lead CAN be picked up by its clean end.
NASA as and organization has been bipolar in it’s mission as well. Conceived as a political response to the Soviet Union’s technology challenge in rocketry, it originally emphasized engineering over science. Gradually the scientific mission gained a foothold with the missions to the outer planets and earth orbit satellites to observe weather and vegetation, but politics is reflected to this day in the International Space Station which some criticize as an expensive exercise that does relatively little science.
POLITICIANS/SCIENTISTS ALWAYS FIND WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR
Thanks for showing the +/- temperature trends in the Antarctic.
Such trends in experimental data allow unscrupulous scientists and politicians to find exactly what they are looking for.
For example, the UN’s IPCC itself “does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters” [1]. Thus without bias the IPCC — operating under the myopic mandate to assess only “the risk of human-induced climate change” [1] — could report exactly what they were looking for: Rising temperatures (+) not falling temperatures (-).
[1] See the IPCC Mandate in the first paragraph of “About IPCC,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control: http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
…. “Good to see tax dollars hard at work, supporting serious and coherent science from the same organisation which put men on the moon – 40 years ago this July.”….
Yeah. Some where between then and now, good science died and was replaced with this Green zombie like substitute….. Perhaps the Martian Body Snatchers do exist 😉
OT, but very interesting paper
http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.54.2.394
To paraphrase Bill Clinton: It all depends on what your definition of “is not incosistent with” is not inconsistent with.
Some alarmist history – past and present.
————————————————————–
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=yd6U8zkU8z
This is the antarctic picture before massaging
http://www.giurfa.com/wilkins2007.jpg
REPLY: What is the source of that photo, can you reference where you got it? – Anthony
Obviously, the NASA that got us into space and onto the moon is now retired or dead. The politically reliable and correct NASA of today is simply pathetic.
Dr. Frost’s statement translated:
We don’t know what we’re talking about but we’re all correct and we’ll figure out a way to make it so.
Anthony —
Sorry for being OT but check this out.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=28053
The upshot is that the special test humvee is being airlifted to the destination after 1/2 trip because the weather is worse than expected. Sorta reminds one of the Catlin business.
Yes I know this is probably trivial but wanted to add the anecdotal article for those archiving such things…
It’s a new administration and there is a mad scramble for funding. If there is nothing to study then they don’t get funds. In addition the new leftist Obama group will encourage and promote AGW studies. Use it or lose it. My brother in law works for NASA and I will assure you there are some skeptics there. It’s the Political administrators that are the problem.
In a country where you can get a ticket for parking in your own driveway, nothing surprises me anymore. What all this tells me is that no matter what your agenda, you can find data to validate it somewhere in Antarctica. It is sort of like reading Pakistani newspapers.
OT.
Steve — at the risk of exposing my ignorance of the scientific world — is your last name related at all to the NASA facility of the same name?
Or just a coinkeedink…….
It’s just like IcyHot. Even Shaq knows all about it.
Oh, oh, do enjoy this full spectrum of colour as warmism infiltrates the NASA images. I posted all 6 mindlessly morphing images alongside my comments on Steig’s paper here: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/babyIce.htm#antarctic
Adolfo Giurfa: exactly! Flaming red with .2 difference in temperature, which measurement is a great big question mark! I am interested in the source of your image as well.
Remember, summertime in the Antartica is waning…
The big problem I see with those graphics is that no temperature is linked to them. A trend is superfluous if the min is -97F and the max is -77F.
100 degrees below freezing point of water is still frozen.
Until the temp reaches absolute zero, the ice is elastic, and will continue to flow outwards as it deepens.
It’s freezing and spreading. When it reaches the sea, it will break off and act to lower the temp of the surrounding ocean. Over time, the ice will have to travel further out to sea to melt.
When the globe is cooling quickly, it’s cooling everything.
When the glaciers grew in the Swiss Alps in the Little Ice Age, they grew quickly and shoved whole towns off the mountain.
The cries of desperation in the Yukon this past winter are just the beginning. Wait until next winter. The ice will spread further, and shove humans with it.
Now look at Wikipedia’s Connolley’s picture of Antarctica
and my edited version
Please enjoy and pass on.
This whole discussion of whether the Antarctic is warming or not goes back to the failed CO2 = AGW hypothesis. That’s what it’s all about. Alarmists truly believe that CO2 causes [non-existent] global warming, which, in their hypothesis, should show up at the poles first. They are wrong again: click
The NOAA uses Keeling’s distorted CO2 graph, which starts at 310 ppm instead of zero — which makes the CO2 apparently rise at a scary 45° angle. That makes it look very alarming: click
That graph shows carbon dioxide steadily increasing at a rapid rate. But it does not show if the CO2 is emitted by human activity, or if the rise is a result of ocean outgassing, or from being recorded on a volcano, or from a combination of the two. The unstated implication is that the rise is due to human emissions, which is deliberately misleading. In fact, only a very tiny fraction of the total is due to human activity. The anthropogenic CO2 emissions are too small to show up in the Keeling graph.
What the Keeling graph does show is an extremely smooth, regular rise, which does not fluctuate from year to year.
This next chart shows that the Keeling chart above reflects almost entirely non-anthropogenic CO2: click
Notice the large fluctuations in human generated CO2 emissions from one year to the next. Compare that with the smooth year to year rise in the Keeling chart, and it is obvious that the NOAA is showing almost entirely natural emissions. The anthropogenic emissions are not visible at all when the second chart is compared with the first.
The scary Keeling chart is reflecting natural biological activity. Any human emissions are so far down in the noise that they cannot be measured.
The Mauna Loa CO2 record claims to show human CO2 emissions. It does no such thing.
The NOAA and the UN/IPCC deliberately present their Mauna Loa charts in an alarming manner. Their intent is to convince the public that there is an imminent problem. Thus they are being deliberately deceptive. Propaganda is their aim, not science.
It’s called Relativism. In a relativistic society everybody, everything and every idea is right and must be respected. Therefore, religions that disagree theologically are both equally correct. All cultures are equal and correct. All beliefs and lifestyles are equal and correct. Science must respect religion, religion must respect science. They are both correct. Scientology is correct science and religion. Global warming is correct science and religion too and must be respected because out of 6.5 billion people there are 10,000 die hard protesting believers who must be respected despite the trouble they cause. I could carry on but it gets worse.
Remdial steps for advancing glaciation:
1.) Pack up belongings.
2.) Retreat to warmer climes before being trapped by impassable conditions.
3.) Repeat steps 1 & 2 until warmer climate returns.
Remember what happened to that Mr. Truman who sat it out as Mt. St. Helens was about to blow? He got cleaned off. Run for it, it’s healthier. Sacrificing one’s body to an impending volcanic eruption to cool the lava is no more significant than warming an advancing glaciation by laying down to freeze.
Contrary to what Mr. Gore says, mankind does not count in the face of terrestrial scale events.
I think it’s easy to forget how big Antarctica is since it looks small on maps. It’s the fifth largest continent so I think it’s reasonable to assume that there can be cooling and warming occurring simultaneously. Most is cooling and the largest ice masses are increasing. It’s possible that the string of extremely active solar cycles that have helped the warming until 2000ish (and that have now appear to have ended) would lead to oceans being proportionately warmer than land. As waters give off their stored heat, we can see episodes of warming on the Antarctic peninsula and higher ice melts in the Arctic until a new equilibrium is reached. It’s certainly not warm air temperatures that cause any ice melting in these areas.
It’s clear that there has been a tipping point – toward cooler temperatures… It’s just a slow process.
The Mauna Loa CO2 record claims to show human CO2 emissions. It does no such thing.
Indeed. Last I heard it was intended to track volcanic activity syptoms for the purpose of eruptive prediction capabilities. It is a perfect measure of the tectonic CO2 contribution, albeit a single volcano over a hot spot.
Better yet, subtract it’s contribution from man’s, and see whose the significant emitter. Bet the volcano wins. They usually do.
Adolfo Giurfa (10:45:34) :
This is the antarctic picture before massaging
http://www.giurfa.com/wilkins2007.jpg
REPLY: What is the source of that photo, can you reference where you got it? – Anthony
Anthony, seeing as even the text color has changed, that looks like someone just shifted the colors in Photoshop.
REPLY2: Exactly which is why I’m asking the question to show a source. – Anthony
NASA, the IPCC, Gore, Hansen, Obama and others have created “suspension of disbelief” with their scary anthropogenic global warming/climate change scenarios.
This link from MediaCollege.com explains suspension of disbelief: http://www.mediacollege.com/glossary/s/suspension-of-disbelief.html
The first line sums it up nicely: “In the world of fiction you are often required to believe a premise which you would never accept in the real world.”
Anthropogenic global warming/climate change theory has created suspension of disbelief in the mainstream media and for people all over the world, just as Gore’s fantasy film created the same effect for its millions of viewers.
Luckily there are sane people who realize the theory is a fantasy, and in time the whole world will know.