Greenie leftists for years have been saying the Antarctic is melting.
Well, based on this latest news from AFP, the Antarctic ice is not melting as fast as predicted.
Runaway W. Antarctic ice sheet collapse not ‘inevitable’: study
Both the North and South pole regions have warmed by roughly three degrees Celsius compared to late 19th-century levels, nearly three times the global average.
The global temperature has risen less than two degrees Fahrenheit (1.06C) in the last 150 years.
There is no scientific data that shows that this small rise is caused by:
- An exponential rise in coal and oil use.
- An exponential rise in gas-powered cars, machinery, trucks, and planes.
- An extra six million people breathing out CO2.
- Cows producing methane gas.
- Gas grills and furnaces.
- Power plants, which greatly improve our quality and length of life.
The rise occurred because a 400-year-plus “Little Ice Age” ended around 1860.
A small rise in temperature occurs cyclically and naturally after ice ages happen.
The ice is melting more slowly than predicted NOT because:
- Politicians and bureaucrats signed the Paris Climate accord.
- The U.N. has had multiple gabfests where a huge number of politicians and rich people fly in private jets to discuss climate change.
- Worthless pieces of paper called carbon credits are bought and sold.
- Solar panels and wind turbines take up huge pieces of land.
- People are being forced to buy expensive, impractical, inefficient vehicles powered by flammable pollutants.
Here is a hint as to why the ice is melting slower than predicted:
Antarctica had a record-cold winter in 2021. This could not have occurred if everything that we are told causes warming actually did.
Antarctica’s last six months were the coldest on record.
For the polar darkness period, from April through September, the average temperature was -60.9 degrees Celsius (-77.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a record for those months,” the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) said.
For the entire Antarctic continent, the winter of 2021 was the second-coldest on record, with the “temperature for June, July, and August 3.4 degrees Celsius (6.1 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than the 1981 to 2010 average at -62.9 degrees Celsius (-81.2 degrees Fahrenheit),” according to a new report from the NSIDC.
“This is the second-coldest winter (June-July-August months) on record, behind only 2004 in the 60-year weather record at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station[.”]
There was also a global cooling period from 1940 to 1975 that disproves the theory that humans, our use of natural resources, and rising CO2 cause warming.
If we had real journalists, instead of people pushing the radical agenda, 100 years of false predictions would be properly called misinformation.
Instead, the people posing as journalists don’t care that the dire predictions have been completely wrong. They call it settled science.
Real journalists would ask questions and do research, but today’s journalists just repeat what they are told, and they call those of us who do research, ask questions, and tell the truth that the climate has always changed cyclically and naturally “climate change deniers.”
It is an intentional lie to call people deniers and meant to discredit us and shut us up.
What we never see in these articles is scientific data showing a direct correlation between the minor temperature rise after an ice age ended, and the exponential increase in the consumption of natural resources—because there is none.
If there is no correlation, there can be no causation.
Instead of telling the truth, this is what is printed as news:
Scientists say the warming of the planet is primarily caused by human activities that emit heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The effects include higher sea levels, drought, wildfires, increased precipitation and wetter hurricanes.
Tweets using terms associated with climate denial such as “climate fraud,” “climate hoax” and “climate scam” more than tripled in 2022, up 300% from 2021, according to Advance Democracy, a research organization that studies misinformation.
Twitter has always been a hotspot for climate change misinformation. On Musk’s watch, it’s heating up.
What is truly sad is that students are taught to repeat talking points instead of learning to do research, ask questions, and debate.
They are taught that they will be chastised if they dare disagree with their teachers or the government.
Journalists should be ashamed that this is the message they send to children.
Top photo by PxHere
Read more at American Thinker
Funny how those who think that the West Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of climate change never mention the several active volcanoes under the ice, in the Antarctic Ocean. They might just have an effect on the rate of melting…Try google and you’ll find papers going back years on this effect, but it rather spoils Drewski’s apocalyptic forecasts…
There’s reports that the waters south of New Zealand are “unusually” warm. NZ is a volcanic island , situated along the Ring of Fire.
The Warmists are guilty of using half truths. Dig deeper if you want the truth.
There was no “sparring”
You ask questions and I ask answer
I ask questions and you deflect
Same old same old
BTW – it’s an extra 6 BILLION people breathing out CO2, not 6 MILLION. And probably more like 7 billion since LIA. Don’t hold your breath…
How many billion animals have been destroyed along with their CO2-absorbing habitat? Speaking of which, about one Cuba-sized patch of old growth forest has been destroyed every year this century.
Confess, Drewski, you’re a solid Malthusian.
Where is the data to support your claim? Without fossil fuels, that de-forestation will only INCREASE when large swaths of the p[opulation burn WOOD to heat their homes in the winter. That is already happening in the EU…
This link (below) was chosen at random – took 10 seconds. For more academic reading, try searching Google Scholar.
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/29/864151879/climate-change-and-deforestation-mean-earths-trees-are-younger-and-shorter
There is a LOT more to forest management than one study cited on NPR. As a long time environmental professional, I’ve done my share of research. So, my inclination is to “hold my fire”…
Hence the reason why I directed you to Google Scholar. BTW, did you happen to note the citations to OTHER publications in my link?
Just out of curiosity, why does it seem that I am the only guy who posts on this rag who ever backs up what he says with citations?
Duly noted. I’ll be retiring next week after 30 years in regulatory. I have a feeling that within the next couple weeks, I’ll rarely be looking at any articles or weighing in on any environmental policy or energy matters. I’v done my part. I’ve enjoyed “sparring” with you. Peace out…
The earth appears to be modestly warming. No one looking at data denies that. There seems to be a LOT of conflicting information, and everyone wants to win their climate argument. I take a different approach. I’m practical. If we are in a climate crisis, what clean, scalable, sustainable & affordable alternative do you suggest to replace 80% of the world’s primary energy (fossil fuels)? Don’t say wind, solar & battery storage because I’m not aware of a single creditable, peer reviewed engineering study that will support the current net zero “Green Agenda.” Energy is not a discretionary item. It is FOUNDATIONAL to modern existence. Folks need to work together for solutions. Any energy transition is going to take decades. We need to open an honest, thoughtful & fully informed debate on climate & attendant environmental policy. Anything less will continue to be a disservice to our country…
It is NOT warning modestly but “alarmingly”. At a rate never seen in the paleo record outside of extinction level events. At the current rate of the past 70 years and without the expected feedback loops accelerating this trend, Dallas will be as hot as Phoenix next century and Boston as hot as Charlotte.
The feedback loop that really deserves attention is the kickbacks from renewable energy suppliers to politicians.
In the past few decades, I have heard this “argument” a lot but what I have never heard are the NAMES of people who are supposedly doing it or any EVIDENCE at all that it even happens.
Go figure.
I have a different idea. Instead of arguing about political intrigue, how about eliminating ALL SUBSIDIES in the energy sector? I mean actual subsidies, where taxpayer money is used to subsidize capital expenditures, not accelerated tax deductions (like intangible drilling costs) where private money is at risk. Since renewables are supposedly so much cheaper than fossil fuels (now), then there should be NO FEAR by wind, solar & battery developers to compete on a level playing field in the power sector. True, free market competition. I won’t hold my breath on that one…
Sure. I guess I will have to wait another decade for someone to finally back up that absurdity with evidence.
“2022 US subsidies: $16 billion goes towards oil and gas, while the remaining $4 billion benefits the coal industry.
There is also data to suggest that the problem is getting worse rather than better. Between 2017 and 2019 production subsidies for fossil fuels grew by 28%.”
Currently renewables are receiving more money than fossil fuels but you must keep in mind that it also employs 20 times the people and it a much newer industry. Fossil fuels have earned trillions over the past 100 years and certainly don’t need them to survive.
Didn’t answer my question, did you? You have NO REPLACEMENT for 80% of the world’s primary energy. You have NO crediatbale data to support any possibility of a “net zero” economy by 2050. FICTION. The result of prematurely retiring fossil fuels, I’d submit, will create FAR MORE suffering, death & loss of economic opportunity than any impacts from warming over the next 50 years. Like just about all “activists,” you ONLY look at the potential negative impacts of petroleum but REFUSE to look at the MANY benefits it brings to our world. BTW. I grew up in Dallas. When you look at the “heat index,” it’s just the SAME as Phoenix and has been that way since the 1960’s.
Actually, I DID answer your question in another post – find it.
HOWEVER, it is not the responsibility of scientists to impliment policy – their job is to conduct science and inform the public.
Was it your post talking abstractly about thorium reactors. solar, molten salt batteries, etc.? That isn’t a definitive answer, just conjecture. The responsibility of scientists, in the formation of policy, is to provide facts & evidence so those policymakers can make INFORMED decisions, especially on matters that have great importance. Why not have a red v. blue debate? that is absolutely consistent with the scientific method. Eradicating fossil fuels prematurely is NOT sound policy when you don’t have suitable alternatives…
When was the last time Dallas got to 118F?
Now imagine that and humid to.
I was in Dallas in 1980 when it was 113F. I have been in Phoenix in the 70″s in the summer when it was 115F. So, when you factor in the heat index, there remains not a whole lot of difference.
Actually, ice is melting at a FAR HIGHER rate than even the most dire predictions. For example, Actic sea ice in the late summer months has decreased an astounding 75%+ since 1978 (volume not extent).
BTW, it takes 80 calories of heat to change the state of 1 gram of ice at zeroC to liquid water at zeroC but it takes only 1 calorie to raise that same water to 1C.
What do you think will happen to the ocean temps when there is no ice left to reflect solar radiation back into space?
Finally, check out the Thwaites glacier in Antarctica and then tell me that ice isn’t melting there.
The year 1978 is the favourite of cherry picking alarmists. I consider it unfortunate that satellite data begins around the same time.
There is a reason for that – 1978 is when accurate satellites became operational. And, in point of fact, choosing any other year would be cherry picking.
The first accurate thermometer was invented by Daniel Fahrenheit in 1709. When did one land in Greenland ? Proxy data is inferior to modern measurements. 1978 was cold. 1933 was hot. Satellite data collection will take time to prove the cyclical nature of Earth’s temperature.
The topic is ice melt not proxy data.
However, in the “modern” instrumental record of approximately 150 years, 23 of the warmest 24 years on record happened this century and the last 8 years were the hottest of all.
1933 was hot in the continental US – an area less than 2% of the globe.
And the Thwaites glacier is also frequently hit on by cherry picking alarmists.Just once, could they point their cameras at another part of the Antarctic ice sheet?
Thwaites is chosen because huge cracks have formed for miles across its surface recently and if it breaks free, it will raise sea levels by more than 2 feet (not immediately but by the end of this century).
Also, it is a cork holding back ice sheets many times bigger.