The real story the MSM won't report: GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS TRAPPED IN ANTARCTIC ICE

It is absolutely hilarious.

Read the whole story Via News Busters

 

 

Follow Andy on Twitter

Like us on Facebook

Comments

[Michael Smyth]

1.

To be fair, the ABC did report it - for about 2 minutes - before announcing new climate-related testing of the effects of CO2 in the Antarctic. Slowly, people are starting to realise that anthrogenic climate change is significantly overstated.

On a completely unrelated note, you wouldn't also happen to be the Andrew Semple who did some work on GTA San Andreas, would you?

[Andy's RANT!]

2.

No, that's not me :) Must be some distant relative from Scotland

[Anton]

3.

It won't be long before the term "climate changer" replaces "flat earther" as the standard insult implying scientific illiteracy.

Ironically, it will be leftards peddling the latest government created truth using it as an ad hom aganst those that choose to apply the scientific method.

Leftism, the natural home of the ignorant

[kraka]

4.

As most regulars would know AGW is a pet hate of mine. The blatant hypocrisy and ignorance of the warmists is the most annoying-especially when they use terms like deniers when it is they who are denying the evidence. The ultimate irony is the religious fervour of their belief in AGW in the absence of any verifiable proof or evidence that CO2, specifically human induced co2,is the main driver of the temperature. The irony being you will find most warmists are atheists or anti- religious.

It goes without saying that if ever some scientist can actually produce verifiable evidence supporting the AGW theory then the discussion would be over. The longer they continue to use hearsay, terms like the discredited peer review process and produce as proof fraudulent evidence such as the hockey stick, the quicker the cult that is the belief in AGW will die.

[Country lad]

5.

Kraka, an excellent piece on http://morningmail.org/ makes a fool of Nicky Phillips science editor for Sydney Herald. She say nothing about global warming when she writes from the icebreaker Australis. The pic is worth a laugh.

[Grumpyoldman2]

6.

It beggars my belief that this "team" of climate scientists and fellow travellers have managed to keep up their pretence of research and observation, putting ships and other's lives at risk, all the while promising on TV daily that they are fine and looking forward to a good New Year party before they pack up and piss off.

[Georgina]

7.

It's about time this fraud is put in the dustbin. It is nothing but a scam perpetrated by greedy people/ idiotic scientists. Good comments above by Andy, Kraka and Grumpyoldman2. The nail has been hit on the head well and good. Pictures show Akademic could be buried in ice before long!!! Funny that Mawson was able to get through on several occasions. All the predictions of Flannery, Gore and brainless people have hit the ground like a stone. Can't understand why people fall for this scam. And it is irresponsible for young children to be taught such rubbish. The same thing is happening in the Arctic and when the world cools there will be much more devastation that warming.

[Jim Witt]

8.

This really tickles my funny-bone, could not happen to a dumber bunch of "climate scientists". The only thing they have right, is that eventually it will get much warmer on planet earth but it will have nothing to do with AGW or anything man has done, just part of the normal cycle when this current ice-age ends in thousands (maybe millions) of years.

[Account Deleted]

9.

Never underestimate the number of weak minded fools out there, Georgina.

Most ppl are sheep and are easily lead. History has shown this time and time again.

of course the "climate is changing" it has done so since day 1, but to think Humans, and only Humans can effect the climate so "severely" as proclaimed by the Flannery's, Gore's of the world is pure fantasy.
CAGW is nothing but a dreamt up scam to fleece money on a global scale. The perps are peddling nothing but imaginary fear. Fortunately, more ppl are now realising its a massive con job.

[Account Deleted]

10.

Jim,

FYI

http://www.andysrant.com/2013/10/a-historical-perspective-of-climate-change-from-central-greenland.html

we’re probably about due for another ice age — since interglacials, over the past half million years or so, have tended to last only 10,000 years or so. And Ice ages aren’t that beneficial to agriculture and general well-being of both humans and animals.

[Account Deleted]

11.

Well Worth reading in today's OZ

Crowds go cold on climate cost

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/crowds-go-cold-on-climate-cost/story-e6frgd0x-1226792154483

Spot on...

"From the UN down, the climate change delusion is a gigantic money tree. It is a tyranny that, despite its pretensions, favours the rich and politically powerful at the expense of the poor and powerless. But the madness of the crowds is waning and, as Mackay writes of the perpetrators: "Punishment is sure to overtake them sooner or later." We can only hope it comes before most of us descend into serfdom."

[Jim Witt]

12.

Andy, we are currently in an ice-age, the fifth the earth has experienced via geological evidence. The earth is actually ice free 85% of the time, and any time there is ice at the poles, Greenland has an ice field, and there are glaciers in our mountains we are in an ice-age. This is a very moderate ice-age however that has been punctuated by periods of glacial's (little ice-age 1550-1850} and inter-glacial's (Medieval Warm Period 950-1250 and now). Previous ice-age's were much more severe and one of them produced a "snowball" earth.

[Jim Witt]

13.

And AGW is not just a money making scam, it is a devious plot to get all people on the planet on the same page about something, so they will allow further centralization of political control. It is an attempt to advance socialism pure and simple.

[AlterEgo]

14.

Not another (North Pole) Polar Bear Andy!

As this post is about the South Polar Region, a picture of a Penguin would be more appropriate.

But to the post. Following the link to the News Busters site leads to another link to quality site Watts Up With That.

Read the original article here :

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/26/so-much-ice-in-antarctica-that-a-research-vessel-gets-stuck-in-summer/

Then go to the WUWT Sea Ice Page.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

Graph of Antarctic Sea Ice records here :

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

As can be seen, this year the ice is about two standard deviations above the 1981/2010 average. In 2012, a more typical result was recorded.

What does make things interesting is that the WUWT Sea Ice Page also has a graph of the Arctic Sea Ice records.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

Remembering you earlier Polar Bear post, you can see how extreme the reduction in Arctic Ice was for 2012, way below the two standard deviations control limit.

The 2013 record, that caused the "Big Increase in Arctic Ice" stir, has now realigned itself with the record low 2012 result as the Arctic enters Winter.

Meanwhile, in the Land of Oz, the Bureau of Meteorology reports :

Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record, again

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a005-sep-2013-warmest-on-record.shtml

Oh well .....

[AlterEgo]

15.

I understood that we were living in the Quaternary period which started at the onset of Northern Hemisphere glaciation approximately 2.6 million years ago.

The Earth has had four major glaciations in this period.

Previous ice-age's were much more severe and one of them produced a "snowball" earth.

"Snowball Earth" is only an hypothesis that claims the Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, some time earlier than 650 million years ago.

It is nonetheless a working hypothesis that provides a good explanation for some early geological anomolies.

But 650 million years ago? Would not be too worried.

[Andy's Rant!]

16.

Yeah another polar bear because I couldn't find a penguin covering their eyes...

[Arthur Dent]

17.

Has anyone else noted that no-one ever seems to mention ocean acidification on MH?
Is it because that evidence is indisputable?

[Peter Simmons]

18.

Arty adds Oceanography and Marine Science to his vast repertoire.

Ocean Acidification - yet another dubious Computer Projection.

Where did you dig this one up, Arthur?

[AlterEgo]

19.

How about this one?

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://images.wikia.com/batman/images/d/dc/Batman-returns_-the-penguin-wallpapers_25785_1024x768.png&imgrefurl=http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/The_Penguin_(Danny_DeVito)&h=768&w=1024&sz=1299&tbnid=nGo2ExuZpt8WPM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__jy70QItrzK469MMClUultW0naDM=&docid=dmL646w30vjzTM&sa=X&ei=XlzCUqfLOMGQlQWv8oCQCw&ved=0CCsQ9QEwAA">http://images.wikia.com/batman/images/d/dc/Batman-returns_-the-penguin-wallpapers_25785_1024x768.png&imgrefurl=http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/The_Penguin_(Danny_DeVito)&h=768&w=1024&sz=1299&tbnid=nGo2ExuZpt8WPM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__jy70QItrzK469MMClUultW0naDM=&docid=dmL646w30vjzTM&sa=X&ei=XlzCUqfLOMGQlQWv8oCQCw&ved=0CCsQ9QEwAA">http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://images.wikia.com/batman/images/d/dc/Batman-returns_-the-penguin-wallpapers_25785_1024x768.png&imgrefurl=http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/The_Penguin_(Danny_DeVito)&h=768&w=1024&sz=1299&tbnid=nGo2ExuZpt8WPM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__jy70QItrzK469MMClUultW0naDM=&docid=dmL646w30vjzTM&sa=X&ei=XlzCUqfLOMGQlQWv8oCQCw&ved=0CCsQ9QEwAA

Penguin from "Batman Returns".

[AlterEgo]

20.

Forget the above - link too long - was Danny de Vito as Penguin.

[Arthur Dent]

21.

It's the experiment Michael, the first poster referred to.
So, you're an Ocean Acidification sceptic, Peter - good for you.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

[Grumpyoldman2]

22.

Arthur, you personify how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. When the pH of the oceans passes 7.0 on its way down then, and only then, can anyone say it is acidifying. Until and if that occurs oceans are very nicely buffered solutions rich in NaCl with pH in the ALKALINE range. They also are home to more CO2 than the atmosphere.

[Arthur Dent]

23.

Touché Grumpyoldpedanticmantoo.

Perhaps "ocean dealkalinasion" is not as marketable .
If you think the term needs correcting on the net, it's going to be a big job. Should we start with Jo Nova's (a MH darling) site.

Re knowledge - isn't "a little" all we can hope for ?

[AlterEgo]

24.

Acidic means pH less than 7, acidification means pH falling, but still within the alkaline range.

Without getting carried away :

PH number is defined as the negative of the logarithm of Hydrogen ion concentration in a solution.

Logarithmic scales are used for other measurements, commonly known would be the Richter scale for earthquakes.

The point to bear in mind is that (say) a fall of pH from 9 to 8 in a solution would mean that there are 10 times as many Hydrogen ions in the solution.

One problem with ocean acidification (more Hydrogen ions in the ocean) is that these ions cause a chain of chemical reactions which result in a net decrease in the amount of carbonate ions available.

This makes it more difficult for marine calcifying organisms, such as coral and some plankton, to form biogenic calcium carbonate, and such structures become vulnerable to dissolution.(from Wikipedia).

Far too technical Wikipedia article here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Of interest to note, the predicted value (Wikipedia article, link above) predicts an ocean surface pH of 7.824 in 2100. Still acidifying, but not acidic.

[Michael F Smyth]

25.

Actually, the experiment I refer to has nothing to do with acidification levels in the ocean, but more testing of what impacts CO2 have. The site link you provided doesn't talk about the Antarctic, but feel free to keep on throwing furphees around, don't let me stop you.

[Jim Witt]

26.

No, I am not worried about the next snowball earth or either the ice free earth period that will precede it for a couple of reasons. One, neither me or any of my descendants for hundreds of generations will be here to experience it, and two, there is not a damn thing man can do to prevent either from happening. Mankind would be far better off learning to adapt to changing conditions rather than attempt to modify those changes and charge all of us taxes to do so. AGW is a rort pure and simple.

[AlterEgo]

27.

Prefer to say that CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming), as Andy S uses, will not happen. At this stage though, it really is not worth the argument.

Whether AGW or some other cause is at work here, there is compelling evidence that our planet is in a warming period, at the same time as our sun is going through a solar minimum.

Surely our Bureau of Meteorology is not part of an international conspiracy :

Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record, again

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a005-sep-2013-warmest-on-record.shtml

We are locked in to the consequences.

What is missing in the science, is what compensating counter-effects will occur.

[Anton]

28.

Sometimes it is not prudent to use Wikipedia as a reference:

The complete reaction (no subscripts available on this text editor):

CO2+H2O -> H2CO3 (carbonic acid) -> H+ + HCO3- (first pronation plus bicarbonate) -> 2H+ + CO3 (second pronation plus carbonate)

Acidification due to carbon dioxide does not alter the carbonate availability, as additional carbonate is produced together with the hydrogen ions (hydronium).

Actually, the above sequence of reactions is strongly balanced towards the left - the equilibrium constant favours CO2 gas over acid and carbonate etc. This is so characteristic of the reaction that CO2 is an effective self-buffer against over acidification in industrial processes

[AlterEgo]

29.

I'll have to bow to your knowledge of chemistry.

My understanding though is that the formula you quoted is exactly that quoted in the Wiki article, but the further conclusions are different.

CO2+H2O -> H2CO3 (carbonic acid) -> H+ + HCO3- (first pronation plus bicarbonate) -> 2H+ + CO3 (second pronation plus carbonate)

Certainly the chemical reaction produces 2H+ hence an increase in hydrogen ion concentration, leading to acidification.

But is this balanced out by the CO3-- ions? Not sure, but don't you have to have OH- ions to increase alkalinity?

Tried a Google search, but some articles (e.g. Wiki) too complicated, while others too simplistic (state as a done deal).

Incidentally, the Wiki article states in the header :

This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve this article to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details.

What I did get though was that this alteration in the concentration of CO3-- ions (somehow) mucks up the ability of Ca++ ions to combine as CaCO3 to form protective shells for sea critters.

My tip is that "Mother Nature" will find a way so that these sea critters will adapt their way out of this (maybe) problem.

Not too different from my view concerning us land critters.

[pk]

30.

>And AGW is not just a money making scam, it is a devious plot to get all people on the planet on the same page about something, so they will allow further centralization of political control. It is an attempt to advance socialism pure and simple

Peer reviewed science for some, UN conspiracy theories for others.

[Anton]

31.

The carbon (dioxide/carbonate) cycle is half the reaction. The rest is determined by whatever else is in the water. Calcium carbonate is almost insoluble, so calcium combines with the carbonate (biological or as lime) and mostly precipitates out (easier for shell growing animals). But there are plenty of other cations and anions in the sea, I would not try to work it out without some fancy software doing the hard work.

If there is a problem with acidification or calcium precipitation it is being caused by something other than carbon dioxide

[Anton]

32.

Pal reviewed science for some, UN conspiracy theories for others.

It depends on whether you consider facts as relevant to the debate, or are satisfied with being told what to think