Sunday, May 24, 2015

That good ol' Antarctic peninsula again

These guys below are remarkably incurious.  They see the sudden change in parts of the Antarctic peninsula but are sure they have a magic decoder ring that tells then what causes the change -- global warming, of course.  But how come the change is so sudden and so recent?  And how come it has happened during a period when there has been NO global warming?  Their explanations linking it to global warming are obviously just desperate stabs in the dark

And the real cause is known anyhow.  There have been several recent reports of subsurface vulcanism in the Western margin and the peninsula.  Having a volcano underneath an ice mass is a pretty good way of melting some ice.  And volcanoes are sudden and episodic.  So  vulcanism explains what the Warmists could not -- the SUDDEN onset of the melting.  And the second aspect of volcanoes -- that they are episodic -- shows how absurd are the great extrapolations offered below.  Volcanoes are mostly caused by tectonic shifts so most erupt and then stop as the plates re-adjust. You cannot reasonably project vulcanism into the future, let alone the distant future.  It could stop tomorrow. So the alarming predictions below are just the usual sort of baseless scare that we expect from Greenies

The article below is from the Daily Mail and they obviously didn't like the Warmist claims either.  They followed the original story with a quote from a polar expert which pointed out a hole in the story and added a "box" to the article (the words from the capital letters onward) which also shows the absurdity of saying that the Antarctic is being affected by global warming

The Antarctic ice sheet in a previously stable part of the frozen continent is thinning at a rate that has added more than 300 trillion litres of water to the surrounding ocean in the past six years.

Scientists have expressed alarm at the rate of ice loss at the Southern Antarctic Peninsula, which had shown no signs of change until 2009, when it started suffering rapid destabilisation.

Now new research has revealed that glaciers along the peninsula have been melting at accelerating rates, causing the mass of ice there to reduce.

The loss of ice in the region is so large that it has caused the gravitation field of the Earth to change, according to some measurements conducted by scientists.

Since 2009, scientists estimate that the volume of water lost from the ice sheet is equivalent to a body of water larger than Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba, Canada or 350,000 Empire State Buildings.

Researchers warn that the melting glaciers are likely to drive rising sea levels if they continue to melt.

They blame the flow of warm subsurface water from the deep ocean for causing the melting of the ice sheets to accelerate.

The Amundsen Sea has long been thought to be the weakest ice sheet in the West Antarctic.

A study published in December suggests the barren region is haemorrhaging ice at a rate triple that of a decade ago.

Researchers believe that the melting of glaciers in West Antarctica, which contain enough water to raise sea levels by at least a metre, may be irreversible.

The findings of the 21-year study by Nasa and the University of California, Irvine claim to provide the most accurate estimates yet of just how fast glaciers are melting in the Amundsen Sea Embayment.

Scientists found the rate by taking radar, laser and satellite measurements of the glaciers' mass between 1992 and 2013.

They found they lost an average 83 gigatons per year (91.5 billion US tons), or the equivalent of losing the water weight of Mount Everest every two years.

Dr Bert Wouters, an earth observation scientist at the University of Bristol who lead the study, said: 'The fact that so many glaciers in such a large region suddenly started to lose ice came as a surprise to us.

'It shows a very fast response of the ice sheet: in just a few years the dynamic regime completely shifted.

'To date, the glaciers added roughly 300 cubic km of water to the ocean. That's the equivalent of the volume of nearly 350,000 Empire State Buildings combined.'

Ice sheets in Antarctica have until recently showed significant resilience to the impacts of global warming. Additional snowfall on the continent has meant some glaciers have actually grown in size.

On the Southern Antarctic Peninsula, the glaciers there appeared to be relatively stable – the flow of ice into the ocean occurred at the same rate as new ice was added at the top of the glaciers.

However, in 2009, several glaciers along the coastline – which measures 466 miles (750km) – started to lose ice at 14 cubic miles (60 cubic km) a year.

Dr Wouters and his colleagues, whose work is published in the journal Science, used radar measurements made by the European Space Agency's CryoSat-2 satellite to measure the thickness of the ice over the region.

Using five years of data they found the ice surface appears to be falling by around 13 feet (four meters) each year.

Another satellite mission – the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment – also revealed a slight change in the gravity field of the Earth as a result of the dwindling ice.

Dr Wouters said that it appears a change in the winds that encircle Antarcica in response to global warming, was pushing warmer waters from the Southern Ocean towards the ice sheet.

Here they eat away at the ice shelves and glaciers that float on the surface of the ocean from below.

Dr Wouters said: 'It appears that sometime around 2009, the ice shelf thinning and the subsurface melting of the glaciers passed a critical threshold which triggered the sudden ice loss.

'However, compared to other regions in Antarctica, the Southern Peninsula is rather understudied, exactly because it did not show any changes in the past, ironically.

'To pinpoint the cause of the changes, more data need to be collected.

'A detailed knowledge of the geometry of the local ice shelves, the ocean floor topography, ice sheet thickness and glacier flow speeds are crucial to tell how much longer the thinning will continue.'

However, Professor Andy Shepherd, director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at the University of Leeds, said he felt the ice loss may actually be smaller than the study estimated.

Professor Shepherd, who is also the principal scientific advisor to the European Space Agency's Cryosat mission, said: 'I think the new estimates of ice loss computed from them are far too high, because the glaciers in this sector just haven't speeded up that much.

'It could be that a bigger chunk of the thinning is down to snowfall fluctuations than the authors have accounted for, and so I would be cautious about the new numbers until more information is to hand.'


Growing sea ice surrounding Antarctica could prompt scientists to consider relocating research stations on the continent, according to the operations manager of the Australian Antarctic Division.

Rob Wooding said that resupplying Australia's Mawson Station - the longest continuously operated outpost in Antarctica - relied on access to a bay, a task increasingly complicated by sea ice blocking the way.

He said that at Mawson, the ice typically breaks up for one or two months of the summer, but in the last four to six years this has not happened every year and some years only partially.

He said: 'We are noticing that the sea ice situation is becoming more difficult.

'In the 2013-4 season we couldn't get anywhere near Mawson due to the sea ice and we had to get fuel in there by helicopter which is inadequate for the long-term sustainability of the station.'

He said that French and Japanese bases on the continent have had similar problems.

Tony Worby, from an Australian centre studying Antarctic climate and ecosystems, said that in contrast to the Arctic where global warming is causing ice to melt and glaciers to shrink, sea ice around Antarctica was increasing.

It hit a new record in September last year, with the US-based National Snow and Ice Data Center reporting that the ice averaged 20.0 million square kilometres (7.72 million square miles) during the month.

Scientists have struggled to predict sea ice conditions, which are believed to be affected by the strong winds of the Southern Ocean which can push the ice out from the continent of Antarctica.

This does not happen in the Arctic because the ocean is hemmed in by land masses.


Why a cold snap is 20 times more lethal than a heatwave

Yet the Warmists keep coming out with hokey arguments to the effect that slightly warmer weather will be bad for us all

Cold weather kills TWENTY times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study.

The findings, published in The Lancet, also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.

Researchers analysed more than 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries, including the UK.

Lead author Doctor Antonio Gasparrini, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: 'It's often assumed that extreme weather causes the majority of deaths, with most previous research focusing on the effects of extreme heat waves.

'Our findings, from an analysis of the largest dataset of temperature-related deaths ever collected, show that the majority of these deaths actually happen on moderately hot and cold days, with most deaths caused by moderately cold temperatures.'

The study analysed 74,225,200 deaths between 1985 and 2012 in 13 countries with a wide range of climates, from cold to subtropical.

The countries involved were Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, UK, and USA.

Data on daily average temperature, death rates, and confounding variables - such as humidity and air pollution - were used to calculate the temperature of minimum mortality - the optimal temperature, and to quantify total deaths due to non-optimal ambient temperature in each location.

The researchers then estimated the relative contributions of heat and cold, from moderate to extreme temperatures.

Around 7.71 per cent of all deaths were caused by non-optimal temperatures, with substantial differences between countries, ranging from around three per cent in Thailand, Brazil, and Sweden to about 11 per cent in China, Italy, and Japan.

Cold was responsible for the majority of these deaths (7.29 per cent), while just 0.42 per cent of deaths were attributable to heat.

The study also found that extreme temperatures were responsible for less than one per cent of all deaths, while mildly sub-optimal temperatures accounted for around seven per cent of all deaths _with most (6.66 per cent) related to moderate cold.

Dr Gasparrini added: 'Current public-health policies focus almost exclusively on minimising the health consequences of heat waves.

'Our findings suggest that these measures need to be refocused and extended to take account of a whole range of effects associated with temperature.'

Commenting on the findings, Keith Dear and Zhan Wang, from Duke Kunshan University in China, said: 'Factors such as susceptibility or resilience have not been included in the analysis, including socio-economic status, age, and confounding air pollutants.

'Since high or low temperatures affect susceptible groups such as unwell, young, and elderly people the most, attempts to mitigate the risk associated with temperature would benefit from in-depth studies of the interaction between attributable mortality and socio-economic factors, to avoid adverse policy outcomes and achieve effective adaptation.'


Offshore drilling: The eco-radical fiction ensnaring ‘conservative’ politicians

By Bill Wilson

Government-run energy policy in this country has been a debacle. From the “green jobs” scam of Left Coast solar companies like Solyndra to the ravaged heartland of Iowa (where government ethanol mandates have done tremendous environmental damage) — the failed central planning and false promises of Washington, D.C. eco-radicals should be painfully self-evident.

But this isn’t another column assailing the rogue bureaucracies of Barack Obama. For once, the Obama administration is actually doing something right — agreeing earlier this year to allow offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean from Virginia to the Georgia/Florida border as part of the U.S. Department of Interior’s upcoming five-year leasing plan.

Great news! Or so it seemed, anyway. Unfortunately so-called “conservatives” in some of these coastal states are trying to block the Obama administration’s decision to permit offshore energy exploration. Take Mark Sanford, the former South Carolina governor who will be forever remembered for that hike along the Appalachian Trail — the one he never took. The “Republican” congressman from the Palmetto State has flip-flopped on supporting offshore drilling — citing “potential impacts on the environment” including “large blocks of untouched coastal estuarine areas.”

Politicians like Sanford are kowtowing to liberal eco-radicals who would have us believe offshore drilling — and the “seismic air gun” exploration technique associated with it — is harmful to marine life.

“Seismic airgun testing currently being proposed in the Atlantic will injure 138,000 whales and dolphins and disturb millions more, according to government estimates.”

That’s a quote from eco-radical Samantha Siegel — who was promoting a recent appearance in South Carolina where she would “talk about the decision to open up the East Coast to seismic testing and offshore drilling, and what we can do to stop it.”

Is Siegel telling the truth? Not hardly. Months before her comments were published, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) definitively stated, “There has been no documented scientific evidence of noise from air guns used in geological and geophysical seismic activities adversely affecting animal populations.”

In fact two months ago, the agency (politely) called out Siegel and others for spreading false information.

“BOEM’s conclusion regarding the impact of these surveys is in stark contrast with public statements citing BOEM research and asserting that many thousands of marine mammals will be killed or injured through these surveys,” the agency noted. “This characterization of our conclusion … is not accurate.”

Agency leaders affirmed all this under oath during testimony before the U.S. House.

Of course, none of this is stopping eco-radicals from continuing to spread their fiction — nor is it keeping gullible politicians from being manipulated by the misinformation.

The truth is the economic benefits of offshore drilling in the Atlantic far outweigh the environmental risks. Last fall, a report from the Palmetto Policy Forum — a think tank started by former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint — determined that oil and gas drilling from Delaware to Georgia would generate anywhere between $10.8 billion to $60 billion in economic value (and anywhere between $2.1 billion and $11.6 billion in tax revenue).

Meanwhile environmental effects — air emissions, carbon pollution, and the possibility of cleaning up an oil spill — ranged from $395 million on the low-end to a worst-case scenario of $19 billion. Bottom line? The shrill eco-radical refrain — which holds that coastal drilling is “not worth the risk” — is every bit as false as the environmentalists’ disproven claims about marine life.

Americans support offshore drilling. They know it is critical to our economic future and to our national security — and for once the federal government is actually acknowledging as much and getting out of the way.

The last thing we need now is for “conservatives” to balk at this historic opportunity by caving to a liberal PR offensive based on demonstrable falsehoods.


What will America look like if the environmentalists win?

By Marita Noon

In every war, there are winners and losers. Whether the war is ideological or physical, or even if a truce is declared — there are still battles that end in victory or defeat.

In the United States, and most of the Western world, there is an ideological war with dire physical consequences. It is the war on fossil fuels. But, even if you understand (as I hope my readers do) that energy is central to everything in modern society, the war is much bigger than energy. It is about freedom. It is about control. It is about global governance.

In my book Energy Freedom, I make a case for why energy is so important; and, therefore, why it is under attack. I posit, “What would the world be like if we could suddenly wave a magic wand and give the environmentalists everything they want?” I then detail how our lives would change and how it would not be the utopia one might first think.

While we all know we can’t wave that magic wand, we are headed toward the same result. It is just happening a little at a time — one regulation after another, slowly, with some people, in the name of the planet, willingly giving up freedoms in favor of a promise of security. It comes in the form of the Endangered Species Act, Corporate Average Fuel Economy, and the Clean Power Plan — though the list could go on and on.

Others are not so gullible. They see the bigger plan and are willing to bear the brunt of scoffing, or even persecution. They fight for the principles upon which this great nation was founded.

This past week, I had the opportunity to speak to a group of expats in Mexico. Repeatedly, I heard, “If everything goes to hell in the U.S., this is where I am hiding out.”

While I was South of the Border, I read a novel cover-to-cover: Mountain Whispers, Days without Sun. It was sent to me by the author, who reads my column. It is his debut novel and not the usual light, fluffy stuff I like to read around the pool. I didn’t expect to like it. But I promised I’d read it. I am glad I did.

Mountain Whispers, Days without Sun picks up where Energy Freedom leaves off. Coleman Alderson, using a fiction format, carefully weaves the green narrative into a spellbinding thriller set just slightly more than 25 years from now — when all of the green policies have taken force — and paints a gripping picture of how the Global Energy Enforcement Organization (GEEO) takes control of every aspect of our lives, leaving people struggling to survive a bleak existence.

But not everyone is willing to abandon freedom for the neat and tidy life promised in “Progress City.” They resist being “registered” and moved to work on an organic farm or serve in “the administration.” Even many of those who accepted the move are beginning to realize the mistake they made. The friction creates the story as the “retros” — Appalachian Mountain folks, many of whom worked in the now-closed coal mines — resist registration and citification.

I chatted with Alderson about his book. I asked, “Why are cities important?” He explained the view that cities are “manageable regions,” that it is more efficient to have people in cities where they don’t use the resources. They don’t need cars. Instead they use public transportation or bicycles.

One of the lead characters is a young man named Agent Candler Greaves, who is sent to round up the rebellious “retros.” Having been raised with the “save the planet” mantra, he genuinely wants to “help guide humanity toward a harmonious existence with the planet.” But, as Mountain Whispers, Days without Sun makes vividly clear, the result of the GEEO’s efforts is a decrease in various public services, more land restrictions, limited availability of food, electricity, and medical treatments—while the leadership thrives in spite of it all.

Alderson explains, “You can tell a story and capture people’s emotions more effectively than with facts and statistics. I really tried to dial back on the exposition and instead work it into the fabric of these people’s lives. My main goal is to show the impact of these mandates that result in control of people.”

The idea of citizens being willingly chipped and tracked may seem extreme to some. But as I returned to the U.S. and scanned my passport while the kiosk took my picture and printed out a report that allowed me back into the country, I realized it is closer than we think. If you’ve seen advertising pop up on your computer based on websites you’ve visited, or as you pull out of your driveway on Monday morning, your phone, without your asking it to, tells you how long it will take you to get to work, you know the scenario Alderson presents, while fiction, is totally possible. Unless, like the Appalachian Mountain folks, we get what is going on and fight it while it is still an ideological war.

Alderson is an optimist. In the end, it is going to be OK. If we can figure out how to put a brake on the policies and bring reason into the discussion, we can, then, figure out how to avoid living out the future he laid out in Mountain Whispers, Days without Sun.


The Bin Laden Papers: Like Obama, al Qaeda Worried About Climate Change

On the same day President Obama told graduating Coast Guard cadets that climate change poses “a serious threat to global security” and “an immediate risk to our national security,” his administration released some of the documents found in Osama bin Laden's Pakistan hideout, showing that al Qaeda leaders also worried about the effects of climate change, particularly on the Muslim world.

One of the many declassified documents from "Bin Laden's Bookshelf" (as released by the Director of National Intelligence) is a four-page letter, addressed to "My Islamic Nation," discussing the "effects associated with the enormous climate changes."

The letter writer -- it's not clear if it is bin Laden himself -- says "traditional relief efforts are insufficient" to address the "great suffering the natural disasters are leaving behind."

"Although the provision of tents, food and medicine will always be crucial, the afflictions are taking a larger shape and volume; hence, the quality, method and timing of aid must be equally improved."

It warns that people "victimized by the current climate change is a very large number, expected to rise."

The letter -- written in the month of Ramadan, no year specified -- mentions drought in Africa and flooding in Pakistan, where "the calamity is considerable and beyond description." But then the writer goes on to describe the Pakistan flooding, likely referring to the events of 2010:

"You have seen one of your Muslim brothers in Pakistan, covered in water up to his chest while trying with both hands to hold two of his five- or six-year-old children above water. So, have you wondered what might have happened to the rest of his children, or haven't you heard about the women who are imploring you by Allah, the Glorious and Almighty, divine right to come to their rescue. It is incumbent, upon everyone who is capable, to aid the Muslims in Pakistan and demonstrate concern towards their precious being.

"Millions of children are left in the open, without a suitable living environment, including good drinking water, which has exposed them to dehydration, dangerous diseases and higher death rates. I pray to Allah Almighty to grant them both relief and mercy."

Given the "high frequency of such disasters caused by climate changes," the letter urges the establishment of "a distinct relief organization" with the ability to effectively deal with "more frequent, diverse and massive consequences of climate changes."

Such an organization would research housing built along the banks of rivers and valleys in the Islamic World to prevent future flooding disasters; revise dam and bridge safety regulations; address famine, improve irrigation, and encourage merchants and their families to "devote some of their sons to relief and agricultural work"; and increase Muslim awareness about depleting underground water supplies that are not "renewable."

Likewise, in his speech to cadets, President Obama focused on the "urgent need to combat and adapt to climate change," which he described as a "peril that can affect generations."

"Cadets, the threat of a changing climate cuts to the very core of your service," Obama said, as he mentioned melting glaciers and rising sea levels.

"Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. So I'm here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act -- and we need to act now."

Obama said climate change is "often at the top of our agenda" when he meets with world leaders. And he told the cadets they are the first generation of officers to begin serving in a world "where the effects of climate change are so clearly upon us."

He also gave specific examples:

"Around the world, climate change increases the risk of instability and conflict. Rising seas are already swallowing low-lying lands, from Bangladesh to Pacific islands, forcing people from their homes. Caribbean islands and Central American coasts are vulnerable, as well. Globally, we could see a rise in climate change refugees. And I guarantee you the Coast Guard will have to respond. Elsewhere, more intense droughts will exacerbate shortages of water and food, increase competition for resources, and create the potential for mass migrations and new tensions," Obama said.

"Around the world, climate change will mean more extreme storms. No single weather event can be blamed solely on climate change. But Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines gave us a possible glimpse of things to come," including more humanitarian missions.

"The only way the world is going to prevent the worst effects of climate change is to slow down the warming of the planet."

Obama talked about harmful emissions, renewable energy and said he is committed to "doubling the pace at which we cut carbon pollution."

"And it will not be easy," he promised. "It will require sacrifice, and the politics will be tough. But there is no other way," He insisted. "We have to make our homes and buildings more efficient. We have to invest in more energy research and renewable technologies. We have to move ahead with standards to cut the amount of carbon pollution in our power plants. And working with other nations, we have to achieve a strong global agreement this year to start reducing the total global emission -- because every nation must do its part. Every nation."


The Pope cuddles up to enemies of church teachings

Many Catholics and others were puzzled by the appearance of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Professor Jeffrey Sachs and former Senator Tim Wirth as speakers or honored guests at a Vatican sponsored conference on global warming.

All three have spent years actively undermining Church teaching on questions of abortion and UN-style family planning, which includes active population control.

In recent weeks, Ban issued a report calling for women in conflict situations to have access to abortion even if it’s against the law, ignoring the issue of national sovereignty.

Jeffrey Sachs, professor at Columbia University in New York, ran a global campaign for more than a decade to get abortion code language into the Millennium Development Goals, an important document that guided the spending of billions of dollars over the past 15 years.

Former Democratic Senator from Colorado Tim Wirth was U.S. Under-Secretary of State during the Cairo Conference on Population and Development. He, along with Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, was in open war with the Vatican over so-called “reproductive rights.” Wirth famously had a Christmas tree in his office that was festooned with condoms.

Stefano Gennarini, Director of Legal Studies at the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), a UN-accredited NGO, got an exclusive interview with the archbishop who sponsored the meeting at the Vatican and who invited these opponents of Church teaching. Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo is a progressive Argentine Bishop who heads the Pontifical Academies for Science and Social Sciences, which together hosted the “Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity” workshop.

Gennarini asked Sanchez if he knew Sachs had written that abortion is a “low-cost” way to to reduce fertility. Sanchez brushed off the question, “The climate crisis leads to poverty and poverty leads to new forms of slavery and forced migration, and drugs, and all this can also lead to abortion.”

Gennarini pressed Sanchez on collaborating so closely with abortion proponents such as Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs. Sanchez once again deflected by attacking the Tea Party and making accusations of dishonesty:

“The Tea Party and all those whose income derives from oil have criticized us, but not my superiors, who instead authorized me and several of them participated,” he said.

Gennarini wanted to know how the questions of abortion and population control were resolved prior to the Vatican meeting.

Sanchez said, “..the draft SDGs [new development goals replacing the MDGs] don’t even mention abortion or population control. They speak of access to family planning and sexual and reproductive rights. The interpretation and application of these depends on governments.” Sanchez seemed unaware that it is precisely the phrase “reproductive rights” that is used to promote a right to abortion.

Later in the interview Sanchez once more smeared American conservatives, when asked whether Pope Francis agrees that climate change can be assigned to human activity:

This I do not know. But I suppose yes, because he would not write an encyclical just to say that man is responsible for the earth but that everything is fine! Perhaps, you believe, like those who live off oil, that everything is fine? The Academy says otherwise, as do all the rest of scientific academies in the world. Only a few scientists paid by lobby groups think differently.

Gennarini challenged Sanchez on the science, specifically on the lack of temperature change over the past 18 years and the difficulty in finding any definitive correlation between human activity and large-scale climate change.

Sanchez proceeded to accuse Gennarini, C-Fam and others of making “false accusations against us.”

You can rest assured that the two academies of which I am chancellor are against abortion and against population control simply because we follow the Magisterium of the Popes, on which we directly depend. I hope that you too will follow this teaching, when it speaks of the gravity of the economic situation, which is all geared towards profit, and when it will speak of the gravity of human responsibility for changes in the climate, as I hope the next encyclical will say.

It has been reported that the controversial document has been delayed, quite possibly because of the push back the Vatican is getting from American and other political conservatives and global warning skeptics.



For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here



David said...


The world is warming you ignoramus. Rapidly. The atmosphere has slowed, but the warming of the ocean which accounts for 93.4% of warming is hasn't slowed. Why is that hard for you tinfoilers to understand?

Second, you seem to be completely oblivious to the difference between sea ice and an ice shelf. Google it.

JR said...

Your use of abuse is amusing. It suggests you know the weakness of your case

Can you explain why the ocean suddenly started absorbing the heat just 18 years ago?

Glaciers melt from the bottom so whether the ice is sea ice or land-based matters not. A volcano underneath will still hasten the melting