Quote:
Originally Posted by wickydude
|
Ever notice that
all they look at is the West Antarctica section? There's a reason for that... the relatively warmer waters upwelling there, combined with the fact that that section of ice is about the only ice in Antarctica that overhangs the water, means it melts faster there. That's where the majority of that 159 square kilometers of melt per year takes place. Makes it look more "dramatic" to show melting ice than accumulating ice, don't you think? Especially for those who have an agenda.
In actuality, the average Antarctica temperature inland is -70 F. The average temperature on the coast is -4 F. Which means you'd have to raise the temperature by 102 F inland and 36 F on the coast just to get the ice to its melting point. The
only ice melting in Antarctica is that ice in contact with sea water... unless you've found a way to slip around the physical reality of the melting point of ice being 32 F. LOL
You'll note that they've been beating that "West Antarctica is going to drop off into the ocean and flood the world!" drum for the past 46 years at least... and the size of West Antarctica over the years?
Let's look at the Antarctic "ice loss" (most of which occurred in that Western leg) in context, shall we?
Lying with Statistics: The National Climate Assessment Falsely Hypes Ice Loss in Greenland and Antarctica | Watts Up With That?
Strange that the "time lapse" photo on the NASA site uses pictures from all the way back to 2003 as "proof" that excessive melting is taking place... take a look at this:
Access forbidden!
"During 2003 to 2008, the
mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gtlyr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The
net gain (86 Gtlyr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (W A and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry. "
So now NASA's constrained to saying the "excessive melting" is taking place from 2008 onwards... because they themselves admit it was adding ice from 1992 to 2008.
Stemming ice loss, giant atmospheric rivers add mass to Antarctica’s ice sheet | Watts Up With That?
"Extreme weather phenomena called atmospheric rivers were behind intense snowstorms recorded in 2009 and 2011 in East Antarctica. The resulting snow accumulation partly offset recent ice loss from the Antarctic ice sheet, report researchers from KU Leuven."
Whoops, now this "massive ice melt" is constrained to 2011 - present. Just how short a time frame do you want to go to? LOL
Antarctic Ice Sheet surface mass balance
"The Antarctic Peninsula has the highest accumulation rates (up to 1500 mm per year), followed by coastal West Antarctica, which has around 1000 mm accumulation per year."
From the graphic on that same web page, the several methods of measuring ice accumulation for 2012 (the latest studies to have been done) show anywhere from a 200 gT loss to a 150 gT gain. Given that radar and laser altimetry are the most accurate methods, and they both show net ice gain... just where is this "massive melt"?
To quote that web page:
"Overall, a recent estimate puts Antarctic net mass balance at -71 ± 53 gigatonnes per year8, so just negative over the 19 year survey."
Just barely negative over the 19 year survey, most of that over the past 7 years, most of that due to upwelling of relatively warmer water in the Edmundson Sea for the West Antarctica ice in contact with seawater. None of it "massive melt". Now, that's not very much, is it. Global warming alarmism to stir up the masses
"Periods of high accumulation occurred in the past, in the 1370s and 1610s AD, but there has been
an increase of 10% in snow accumulation in some coastal regions since 1850 – a fact that agrees with independent work on the Antarctic Peninsula."
Wait... an
increase in accumulation since the Little Ice Age ended?! LOL
Don't believe the global warming alarmist hype. It's designed for nothing more than to bilk you and everyone else out of your money by getting carbon exchanges set up, which will cause massive price increases for everyone, while profiting the ground-floor investors of those carbon exchanges (who just so happen to be the same people spewing the alarmist hype) in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year range.
"Climate models predict that, for a generally warmer climate, snowfall will
increase over Antarctica. Surface melt will increase around the more northerly Antarctic Peninsula, and dynamic changes such as increased ice discharge, ice-shelf collapse and grounding line recession, and marine ice-sheet instability are likely to offset any increases in precipitation. However, if no dynamical ice response is assumed, then increases in snowfall over the entire continent of 6-16% to 2100 AD and 8-25% to 2200 AD are likely to result in
a drop in sea level of 20-43 mm in 2100 and 73-163 in 2200, compared with today."
Whoopsie... what was that again? A drop in sea level? LOL
(references to the scientific peer-reviewed articles used to compile that report provided on the web site above)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickydude
|
See above. And SkepticalScience.com, predictably, provides no references to scientific articles, peer reviewed or otherwise. LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickydude
|
Correlation between solar forcing and Global Sea Surface Temperature:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/...-energy-model/
Note the nearly 100% correlation between solar activity and GSST.
(data reconstruction from peer reviewed scientific articles utilizing HADsst2GL, SSNLOD, SSN-SSBz data)
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/...ivergence-lie/
Ocean heat content has been dropping since 2013, as measured by ARGO.
(data reconstruction from peer reviewed scientific articles utilizing HADsst2GL)
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...4/06oct_abyss/
http://iceagenow.info/2014/10/nasa-s...s-warmed-2005/
“When scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in
Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature
data from 2005 to 2013, they found that “the ocean abyss below 1.24
miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably,” the space agency
announced in a press release on Monday.
Whoopsie... now the global warming alarmists can't use "all that heat is hiding deep in the ocean!" as an excuse for the 18 year, 6 month "global warming" hiatus... sure seems funny that the temperature change almost directly corresponds to solar and orbital forcing, though.
http://principia-scientific.org/brea...overnment.html
"Goddard continues: "I discovered a huge error in their adjustments between V1 and V2. This is their current US graph. Note that there is a discontinuity at 1998, which doesn’t look right. Globally, temperatures plummeted in 1999, but they didn’t in the US graph."
They didn't in the US graph because by that time, the climate researchers were altering the data. They later disposed of the raw data to cover their tracks. They got caught doing this during the ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0 hacking of their emails.
Now, shall we discuss the solar and orbital forcing influences?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickydude
|
That only goes to 2010...
Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI
The Greenland glacier added 500 gT of net ice in 2014. And it shows more ice than during the 1990-2011 period. And, rather than being unreferenced data from SkepticalScience.com, it comes from climate scientist Peter L. Langen, Danish Climate Centre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickydude
Back on topic: still don't see any real data on the fuel efficiency and emissions of the fuel vapor thingy...
|
Given that they've closed the thread in the Unicorn Corral pertaining to this subject, I'm still waiting for you to name a forum.