DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Just for fun, more "climate change" nonsense

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ear-since-1998/

Climate Scientists: Antarctic Temperatures Cooling Every Year Since 1998

Writing in the journal Nature, a group of scientists have documented that temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula have been falling steadily for the last 18 years at the rate of nearly one degree Fahrenheit per decade, countering earlier warming trends.

During the second half of the 20th century, the Antarctic Peninsula experienced an extended warming period igniting fears of apocalyptic catastrophes like that depicted in the 2004 Hollywood climate change disaster film, “The Day After Tomorrow.” According to the new essay, however, titled “Climate science: Cooling in the Antarctic,” scientists are now saying that the warming trend was caused by natural factors and reversed itself again by natural causes just before the turn of the millennium.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/23/kerry-air-conditioners-as-big-threat-as-isis.html

Secretary of State John Kerry said in Vienna on Friday that air conditioners and refrigerators are as big of a threat to life as the threat of terrorism posed by groups like the Islamic State.

The Washington Examiner reported that Kerry was in Vienna to amend the 1987 Montreal Protocol that would phase out hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, from basic household and commercial appliances like air conditioners, refrigerators, and inhalers.

“As we were working together on the challenge of [ISIS] and terrorism,” Kerry said. “It’s hard for some people to grasp it, but what we–you–are doing here right now is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself.”

But wait!!! It's been getting colder in the Antarctic for the past 18 years. I wonder if Kerry gets driven about DC without AC.

Kerry will be just fine. The area between his ears is well ventilated.

Spoken like a true denier. How this for ya..... Their plan is to shut down a intake tube or two in 2017 for the turbines that have been distributing clean renewable electrical energy to millions of residents throughout the west for decades. They will need make that up from other energy sources. Drill baby drill.

Maybe he wanted you to see that cool bridge they built in front of it.

As usual, part of the problem.

Follow the Money if you want to know the TRUTH about Climate Change.

j/c

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ener...be-coming-true/

A stunning prediction of climate science — and basic physics — may now be coming true


By Chris Mooney

July 27 at 7:01 AM 


An undated image made available by NASA on May 12 shows a top-down view from a NOAA P-3 aircraft of the calving front of Sermeq Kujatdleq Glacier, Greenland. (John Sonntag/European Pressphoto Agency/NASA)

A lot of people deny climate change. Not many, though, deny gravity.

That’s why a recent animation released by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory — well, it came out in April, but people seem to be noticing it now — is so striking. Because it suggests the likely gravitational imprint of our changing climate on key features of the Earth in a way that’s truly startling.

The animation uses measurements from NASA’s squadron of GRACE satellites (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment), which detect changes in mass below them as they fly over the Earth, to calculate how the ocean changed from April 2002 until July 2013, based on corresponding changes in the mass of the continents. The resulting animation suggests the oceans gained mass overall, as seas rose, albeit with seasonal variations that result from water moving from the continents into the seas and back again.

But in key areas where glaciers have been melting — coastal Alaska, West Antarctica and, above all, Greenland — it suggests something very different happened. Here, the animation finds that the ocean actually fell, and in some places by as much as 50 millimeters (2 inches) over this short decadal span:


NASA created an animation showing “sea level fingerprints,” or patterns of rising and falling sea levels across the globe in response to changes in Earth’s gravitational and rotational fields. (NASA)



It’s important to stress that the animation above shows a mathematical inference based on gravitational measurements and a model that extends them to the oceans, rather than a direct sampling of sea levels around Greenland’s remote coasts. It also doesn’t take into account other factors that affect sea level, such as ocean temperatures, currents and salinity.

But if it is right, well, then it’s showing exactly what climate scientists have long been predicting would happen.

“When an ice sheet loses mass, for example, the gravity drops locally (remember that gravity is proportional to mass) — meaning the gravitational attraction between the continent and surrounding ocean diminishes, thus causing the ocean mass to move to the farfield,” explains NASA’s Surendra Adhikari, whose research is behind the animation.

The result, combined with other factors, is that “the relative sea level tends to drop locally and it tends to rise at a much higher pace than global mean (or eustatic) rate in the farfield,” he said by email.

Erik Ivins, Adhikari’s co-author, acknowledged that the animation does not present a direct measurement of sea level around Greenland from, say, local tide gauges. But given the strength of understanding of the core physics, he said, “we rather confidently predict these global and local sea-level rises and falls to be occurring over the same time scales as ice sheets change [their] mass.”

Adhikari and Ivins were also behind recent research showing another, perhaps even more stunning consequence of mass change from the planet’s ice sheets — the Earth’s rotation has changed accordingly. The animation above takes into account these rotational changes as well and how they impact sea levels.

[Greenland and Antarctic melt isn’t just raising seas — it’s changing the Earth’s rotation]

One thing is very clear: Greenland is losing large amounts of mass. Scientists recently reported that the ice-covered island lost 1 trillion tons of ice mass to the ocean in just four years, between 2011 and 2014. The animation shows a longer and not entirely overlapping period, but one in which the total mass loss was surely even larger.

Several scientists contacted by The Post said the results were intriguing, while cautioning that they did not constitute a direct measurement of sea level.

“I find the results interesting and plausible,” said David Holland, a New York University geoscientist who studies Greenland.

“For sure the ice sheet in coastal Greenland has lowered, and since gravity is a very solid physical fact, then for sure one would expect the coastal ocean to lower, close to the ice sheet where there would be a sizeable gravitational impact,” Holland continued.

Holland said he has plans to more directly measure sea level around the icy island, which would confirm the results and put them on a “more solid footing.”

“I believe that the authors have calculated that there now should be a signal of locally dropping sea level near the ice sheets from the mass loss causing reduction in the gravitational attraction of the ice for the ocean, but, the authors haven’t measured that sea-level fall close to the ice sheet,” added Penn State glaciologist Richard Alley by email. “Identifying it will be complicated by the lack of tide gauges, the high latitude (the main satellite sea-level analyses just reach the southern end of Greenland), and the various complicating things such as changing winds and changing salinity affecting the local sea level, etc.”

“The ocean can adjust to these changes in gravity in the timespan of days to a couple weeks, making the impact happen quickly,” noted Christopher Harig, a geoscientist at Princeton who also conducts research using the GRACE satellites, and who said the findings fit his expectations. “The effect is also much greater than the average sea level rise you would see far away. While sea level might rise a meter far away from the ice sheets, we would see a drop several times this in the sea level on the coast of Greenland for instance.” But Harig, too, noted an important role for direct sea-level measurements to confirm the findings.

[The vast, shrinking northern glaciers that we never even talk about]

If those verify what the animation shows, incidentally, it would amount to a stunningly good example of scientific predictions about climate change being borne out.

Researchers have long predicted that we would see precisely this effect — although their calculations have more often tended to show seas falling around West Antarctica and rising around the United States, which is what you’d expect for major ice loss from the South Pole while Greenland stays relatively intact.



Energy and Environment newsletter

The science and policy of environmental issues.

[The U.S. has contributed more to global warming than any other country. Here’s how the Earth will get its revenge]

Yet Greenland, at least so far, has been outstripping Antarctica for ice loss because it is exposed to very warm Arctic air temperatures. Antarctica has vastly more ice to lose, but it has been more insulated from strong surface temperature change (although the oceans are melting parts of it from below). So the gravity calculations are currently weighting Greenland’s loss, and its sea level consequences, more heavily than Antarctica’s.

Accordingly, the animation suggests, sea level fall has been around Greenland, and the sea rise, in the “farfield,” has been much farther away including East Antarctica and southern Africa.

“The fall we predict follows from extraordinarily straightforward physics — the physics [of] Newton and those who brought the rigor of 19th-century mathematical physics to bear on elastic response and gravitation,” said NASA’s Ivins by email.

And still, there is no proof either way as to this being natural or man made. The earth has been warming since the last ice age, and it will continue until it cools again. This planet has been totally iced over and completely without ice long before we showed up in the fossil record.

And I was just reading the Antarctic ice is expanding.

Lets not be so vain by making this all about us.

Follow the money for TRUTH.

It has been expanding. Here's the deal, these scientists are trying to create a global problem using about 100,000 years of weather data that they get from ice cores and geological factors. Add in the fudging of data from a great many of these scientists, and we have little more than a large kluge. We all know the infamous 'hockey stick' graph was based on false data. We also know many of their weather stations were placed in bad areas (next to AC units, surrounded by concrete, etc) The computer models were not based in fact or science (if you put in weather data from the early 1900s, the models would not show accurate weather of today). The global warmists' predictions have not come true, nor will they ever come true. All of their predictions are based on little more than speculation.

Fluctuations can still be described as just being the weather.

This is Palm Springs, not Las Vegas. But yeah, it's a problem.

California, the land of just add water.

nm, realized the conversation isn't worth it. enjoy your echo chamber.

Do you put your fingers in your ears while singing, "LALALALALALALALALALALA"?

Look up what's happening around Siberia, and Alaska. Record methane release due to thawing permafrost, extremely mild winters, and locals in remote places noticing this change for YEARS.

....but I don't think you will, and you'll continue to ignore firsthand accounts.

Leave it to some geeky scientist guys to act like two inches is a lot.

Uh huh.

http://iceagenow.info/category/glaciers-are-growing-around-the-world/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/...climate-change/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/22/the-hubbard-glacier-defies-climate-change-continues-to-grow/

From your own link:



lol

Ah yes. One of the dissenting scientists in the article. Let's post the whole thing instead of picking out pieces.

A NASA study has climate scientists up in arms; here’s what it means.

By Brian Clark Howard, National Geographic

PUBLISHED November 3, 2015

What happens in Antarctica doesn't stay in Antarctica, since the continent's ice can affect global weather and sea level.

Are the Antarctic’s ice sheets shrinking or growing? And what does that mean for global sea-level rise?

Those questions are being hotly debated by the world’s climate scientists as global leaders prepare for the UN climate talks in Paris at the end of this month. Now, a new study by a team of NASA climate scientists has sparked controversy by reporting that “Antarctica is actually gaining ice.”


Scientists concluded in the Journal of Glaciology that the loss of glacier mass in Antarctica’s western region is being offset by thickening of glaciers on the continent’s eastern interior, which has experienced increased snowfall. The result: A net gain of about 100 billion tons of ice per year, according to the report.


That increase in ice translates to about a quarter of a millimeter per year less sea level rise than was previously predicted, says lead author Jay Zwally, chief cryospheric scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

Here’s what you need to know about the new findings:

Do prominent climate scientists agree with the primary conclusions?


No. Some leading scientists vocally disagree with the study, which also runs contrary to the prevailing view of experts that Antarctica has been losing ice mass over the past few decades.


“I think there's a serious issue with the study,” says Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center in Colorado. “It’s unfortunate that it made it through peer review.”


The paper is inconsistent with other studies that show an overall loss of ice there of around 100 billion tons, based on satellite measurements of the gravity of the ice and snow. (Learn more about climate change in the most recent cover story of National Geographic magazine.)


So what are the limitations of the NASA study?


Zwally’s team used satellites to measure the elevations of glaciers on Antarctica. But University of Washington glaciologist Ben Smith, who was not involved with the study, points out that the technology might not be up to the task of distinguishing snowpack volume based on a difference in elevation of one or two centimeters.


Scambos agrees, adding that the complex geography of some areas of Antarctica make it hard to characterize with one satellite alone.


University of Alaska, Fairbanks glaciology professor Erin Pettit calls the methodology “a really, really hard measurement that I would take with a heavy load of salt.”


If Antarctica’s ice sheets have indeed been growing overall, then why is the continent contributing to global sea level rise?


That’s a good question, says Scambos. Climate scientists have previously reported that melting ice in the Antarctic has been contributing a small amount to sea level rise over the past few decades. The exact amount is hotly debated, but it is likely on the order of a few centimeters.


If the Antarctic’s ice sheets are growing, what would that mean for global sea levels in the long-term?


“I don't think Zwally's estimates really matter so much in the grand scheme because adding a little snow to Antarctica in no way offsets the complete disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet in the near future,” says Pettit, who is also a National Geographic explorer who works on the continent. “It’s completely different timescale behavior.”


If all the ice in West Antarctica melts and slides into the sea, it is likely to contribute several meters to sea level rise. That process is already underway, says Scambos, and may happen over the next few centuries, regardless of what is going on in the eastern highlands.


There are too many different lines of evidence and active inquiry “to let one paper hold sway,” says Scambos. The consensus view seems to be that Antarctica is experiencing melting in important ways and will likely contribute more to sea level rise in the coming centuries.

I posted this one to show the hypocrisy in the 'climate change' documentation system. They are able to show the glaciers are growing, and another group says, 'it will never solve the problem' without any facts behind them. The entire global warming/climate change flap is nothing but crap.

BTW, I noticed you completely skipped over the growing glacier article. Should I post a LOL back to you?

I would imagine the Earth's temperature has been rising since the last ice age. There are places (like the great lakes) where the Earth's crust is still rebounding from the weight of the ice from the last ice age.

We are just an insignificant speck on the scales that the Earth and solar system use. I am sure we can affect our ecosystem, but I doubt we can reverse its direction. The universe is going to do what it do.

Sure. Feel free to laugh at me not checking out your .info website and one with a pun in it's name. I also won't check out links you post from briebart or other less than reputable sites because they're jank. Just because someone posts in on the internet doesn't mean it's true. Soz homie.

I only checked your NatGeo link because it's NatGeo and they have a high standard for journalism. And unsurprisingly they spent most of their article describing the problems with how NASA reached its conclusion because NASA's methodology is janky.

Feel free to respond with a laugh or maybe another article from an Onion-esque website.

Smart Scientists say one thing while another group of Smart Scientists says the opposite. What does this tell us Scientifically?

Nobody knows anything for sure.

Then you throw in who gets grants for playing the game and who is left in the dark for disagreeing. What does that say to a Scientific Investigator?

Follow the money, there you will find the TRUTH.

So Breitbart, one of the fastest growing news websites in the world right now, because they post their news without the liberal filter, is not good enough? But you'll take nat geo as gospel, as if they've never had an agenda. They've bought into the global warming falsehood from the very beginning, and now when someone at NASA (which is now supposed to tout muslim science) comes up with data showing otherwise, you believe the bought and paid for global warming scientists without researching anything? Talk about Kool-Aid drinking.

I don't read Breitbart because it has the journalistic integrity of TMZ. I also don't take NatGeo as Gospel. I just know it's not The Onion. I can't say that about a .info. Also, I've never heard the idea that NASA is supposed to tout muslim science and since you said that I've never been more justified to never read Breitbart ever.

Personally I don't care if it's natural or not. I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and say it's a lost cause and or my religion will protect me from it all.

I'd question the journalistic integrity of those news outlets that hide stories.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/...-feel-good.html

Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.

"One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."

I guess you don't keep up with the news. BTW, in the first 4 google pages, there is no mention of this story from CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC or any other liberal leaning site.

I'm curious. What are you going to do to change and control the weather? As I have stated many times before, I am not religious, so I have no idea why that came up.

Probably because the story was published 6 years ago. Also, I don't read CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC or any other main stream media. They have a little bit more credibility than Fox or BB, but still have extremely little.

Ironically, your article cites an interview with one of the outlets I read. Al Jazeera.

I can tell you 110 percent for sure that Erik does not think his religion while protect him from anything because he is not religious. We have butted heads many. many times over my belief and his lack of belief in the God of the Bible. I agree with Eric a lot of the time and I disagree with him a lot of the time. BUT he has always been straight forward and honest with me if we agree or disagree. He is a stand up guy who has earned my respect.

Personally I'd suggest going to an accredited university for 4 years and doing your own research. I mean I guess there are a few universities in the south that might beg to differ. I'd guess those universities might have a vested interest in oil, just a guess though.

I used to work in the oil and gas industry until I saw first hand what goes on in the field. I now work with renewable resource companies and fiber optic networks. I've helped engineer co generation plants, geo thermal plants, wind farms, fiber-optic pathways, and solar energy fields. How about you?

The religious comment was uncalled for, I'm sorry. It really wasn't directed at anyone in general and I shouldn't have mentioned it here. Again sorry.

I never worked for an energy producer, but what does this have to do with the discussion? Are you going to tell me that a more 'green' production of energy is better? It costs significantly more for starters. You can't make solar panels without oil, and the process in itself is toxic, not to mention inefficient. Wind farms kill birds by the score, and drives people that live near them crazy with vibrations. Solar farms kill birds by the score too. And none of them are able to produce power at the same levels as fossil fuels.

Erik valuing a few birds over thousands of species including Humans. Truly a Saint.

So you believe the death of a few is justified when it is for the good of the many?

If we're talking about pigeons, then yes.

You absolutely handled that trap question. Good stuff bro

Yea, he did well.

I thought that's what liberals do, so I tried to express it in terms they might understand. Seeing as they like to stop fossil fuel production on lands that are inhabited by some sort of rare lizard or fruit fly that only lives in that area, but it's good to see they never understand their own hypocrisy. Haven't you ever heard of the Delta Smelt, which caused the shutdown of water to California's Central Valley, or the Dune Lizard that shut down oil production in Texas' Eagle Ford Field? They sure as hell don't care about those Bald Eagles that are killed by those wind farms, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtnu9b701RE

Here