Josh writes:
Bob Ward’s tweets today have been a revelation – historic even – see the Bish’s post here. Happily they have coincided with a couple of Antarctic stories that deserve cartooning. Thanks, Bob!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ward’s antics remind me of the child who is going to hold his breath until he gets his way.
I wonder if everyone ignores him, will he pass out eventually?
Rignot is just trying to ‘pull a Zwally out of the interferograms.’ A.g. Zwally’s comment about the Arctic Ocean without sea ice in 2010.
Ha ha
richard says:
May 13, 2014 at 8:32 am
The water was on the land as epicontinental seas & higher coasts. Sea level was high during the Eocene, before the onset of Antarctic glaciation, but even more so during the Cretaceous, when seaways covered North America from the Gulf to the Arctic.
http://www.stromboidea.de/?n=People.RonBlakey
Thanks Josh, but I just have to go into sarcasm here: Oh that EVIL reality, it never follows our wise and true computer simulations !!!!
😎
The only addition I could suggest would be to have “The Ship of Fools” stuck in the alarmism iceberg.
New York Times front page article: Western Antarctic Ice shelf breaking up and going to sea, goes on to say a study shows global warming is the cause… Wow
These questions are designed to provide examples of how empty the hype about sea level change really is and how empty all other facets of the Climate Change hysteria which are of a similar non factual or misleading basis such as found at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
Q1. How much sea level change do you expect world wide should the arctic ice melt completely?
Note this refers to ARCTIC ice which is floating ice. Therefore the answer to question 1. is ZERO as floating ice displaces its own weight in water, making no difference in any level change.
The picture refers to Antarctic ice which rests on land and therefore would have a effect on sea level should it melt. Note your reference does NOT give a figure for sea level change for the Arctic.
Although it appears to represent fact, on careful read. one realises that the reference (bove) is simply hypothesising that “should the Antarctic Ice cap etc. melt, and omits to mention as far as I can see, that total Antarctic ice has been and is INCREASING in volume.
“The Antarctic Ice Sheet is projected to remain too cold for widespread surface melting, and to receive increased snowfall, leading to a gain of ice. Loss of ice from the ice sheet could occur through increased ice discharge into the ocean following weakening of ice shelves by melting at the base or on the surface. In current models, the net projected contribution to sea level rise is negative for coming centuries, but it is possible that acceleration of ice discharge could become dominant, causing a net positive contribution. Owing to limited understanding of the relevant ice flow processes, there is presently no consensus on the long-term future of the ice sheet or its contribution to sea level rise.”
(b)(Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis AR4)
Q2. There is no doubt that should the Greenland ice cap melt completely there will be up to approx. 6 meters of sea level rise. What is the time period given by the IPCC in which the Greenland icecap is expected to completely melt?
The period ascribed to this event in AR4 is “millennia”, (Being the plural of “millennium”) which means at least two thousand years. (Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report)
“Except for remnant glaciers in the mountains, the Greenland Ice Sheet would largely be eliminated, raising sea level by about 7 m, if a sufficiently warm climate were maintained for millennia” (Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis AR4)
In AR5 I see they have quietly changed this to “over a millennium or more ” (AR5 Summary for policy makers P 27)
Interesting that they have almost knocked a thousand years off the melting time with some clever wording although they do not appear to be forecasting any increased rate as a result of any recent “scientific” research.
Still think there is a prob from Antarctica?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com