Category: Uncategorized

New Paper Indicates Subantarctic Glacier Retreat More Extensive In 1700s Than Now

New Paper Indicates Subantarctic Glacier Retreat More Extensive In 1700s Than Now

via NoTricksZone
http://notrickszone.com

Historical Context Reveals Undetectable

Human Influence On Modern Ice Sheets

Yesterday we learned that a giant iceberg just split off from the Antarctic Peninsula.

Most media outlets were uncharacteristically mild with their declarations of concern.  Even The Guardian pointed out that the breakup of the ice is naturally occurring, glaciologists are “not unduly concerned about it“, and while the event “might look dramatic, experts say it will not itself result in sea level rises.”

Rolling Stone‘s Jeff Goodell, on the other hand, was not quite so apt to dismiss the importance of the Antarctic ice “crack-up“.  He insisted that there is a certain big-deal connection between the calving of the Larsen C ice shelf and both catastrophic sea level rise…

Given that Antarctica contains enough ice to raise sea levels about 220 feet … the break-up for Larsen C is certainly a big deal.”

…and human-caused “cooking the planet”.

“It is also well-timed politically. Larsen C has broken off just a month or so after President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, when people around the world are wondering just how much time we have left before the climate spins out of control – and what to do about it. A story in New York magazine about how climate change is cooking the planet kicked up a lot of debate about the usefulness of fear in inspiring political change. Meanwhile, the responsibility for the Larsen C crack-up is already being doled out: Climate activists have launched a campaign to rename the now-liberated Larsen C ice shelf as the Exxon Knew 1 iceberg.”


Scientists: The Antarctic Peninsula Has Been Rapidly Cooling Since 1999


Apparently Jeff Goodell hasn’t been keeping up with the latest cryosphere science.

It is now well established in the scientific literature that the Antarctic Peninsula  – the location of the Larsen C ice break-up – has been cooling since the 21st century began.  In fact, the Antarctic Peninsula as a whole is cooler now than it was in 1979 (+0.32 °C per decade for 1979-1997, but -0.47 °C per decade during 1999-2014).

Glacier retreat in the region has begun to slow down or shift to surface mass gains.

And the ocean surrounding Antarctica as a whole (the Southern Ocean) has also been cooling since 1979, consistent with the overall trend of sea ice growth during this time period.


Turner et al., 2016

“Here we use a stacked temperature record to show an absence of regional [Antarctic Peninsula] warming since the late 1990s. The annual mean temperature has decreased at a statistically significant rate, with the most rapid cooling during the Austral summer.”


Oliva et al., 2017

“However, a recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of −0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014. … This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP [Antarctic Peninsula], including slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.”


Fan et al., 2014

Cooling is evident over most of the Southern Ocean in all seasons and the annual mean, with magnitudes approximately 0.2–0.4°C per decade or 0.7–1.3°C over the 33 year period [1979-2011].”


Comiso et al., 2017     

The Antarctic sea ice extent has been slowly increasing contrary to expected trends due to global warming and results from coupled climate models. After a record high extent in 2012 the extent was even higher in 2014 when the magnitude exceeded 20 × 106 km2 for the first time during the satellite era. … [T]he trend in sea ice cover is strongly influenced by the trend in surface temperature [cooling].”


New Paper Indicates Subantarctic Glacier Retreat Higher In Late 1700s, 1100-1550 AD


A new scientific paper reveals that modern rates of glacier recession – including the recent fate of the Larsen C ice shelf – are well within the range of natural variability.

Van der Bilt et al. (2017) have produced a glacier reconstruction for Southern Ocean islands near Antarctica (South Georgia) indicating glacier recession was more pronounced than today during the late 18th century, and that the second highest glacier advance of the last 1,000 years occurred in the 1960s and 1970s.  Only the peak glacier advances of the late 1600s were more extensive than the advances of ~50 years ago.

Similar to the recent Antarctic Peninsula and Southern Ocean cooling and nearly 4 decades of sea ice growth described above, this millennial-scale record of glacier retreat and advance supports the position that humans and variations in carbon dioxide concentrations do not play an influential role in determining the fate of polar ice.


Van der Bilt et al., 2017

Late Holocene glacier reconstruction reveals retreat behind present limits…

“Regional palaeoclimate evidence from the adjoining Southern Ocean region also reveal contemporaneous shifts. For example, reconstructed sea surface temperatures (SSTs) west of the Antarctic Peninsular rose 3 °C in less than a century (Shevenell et al., 2011). … Following the termination of a Late Holocene glacier maximum around 1250 cal a BP, warming created conditions unfavourable for glacier growth during the regional expression of an MCA [Medieval Climate Anomaly] between 950 and 700 cal a BP (Villalba, 1994). From 500 cal a BP [years before present], the Hamberg overspill glacier rapidly retreated behind its present-day position, possibly driven by local warming and/or major shifts in regional atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns (Moy et al., 2008; Shevenell et al., 2011; Abram et al., 2014; Foster et al., 2016).”


To further put yesterday’s ice “crack-up” news into a long-term context, scientists have found there was a widespread (∼280,000 km2 ) collapse of the “world’s largest” ice shelf that occurred between 4,000 and 1,500 years ago.   Retreat rates averaged about 10 kilometers per century during this period.

Of course, this ice sheet collapse occurred while CO2 concentrations hovered near a stable 275 parts per million (ppm), which is about 130 ppm lower than today’s CO2 levels.

Succinctly, the Larsen C ice shelf calving event is not unusual, unprecedented, or even remarkable in the context of Antarctica’s long-term natural variability.


Yokoyama et al., 2016

Widespread collapse of the Ross Ice Shelf during the late Holocene

The Ross Sea is a major drainage basin for the Antarctic Ice Sheet and contains the world’s largest ice shelf. Newly acquired swath bathymetry data and sediment cores provide evidence for two episodes of ice-shelf collapse. Two novel geochemical proxies, compound specific radiocarbon dating and radiogenic beryllium (10Be), constrain the timing of the most recent and widespread (∼280,000 km2) breakup as having occurred in the late Holocene. … Breakup initiated around 5 ka, with the ice shelf reaching its current configuration ∼1.5 ka. In the eastern Ross Sea, the ice shelf retreated up to 100 km in about a thousand years. Three-dimensional thermodynamic ice-shelf/ocean modeling results and comparison with ice-core records indicate that ice-shelf breakup resulted from combined atmospheric warming and warm ocean currents impinging onto the continental shelf.”

via NoTricksZone http://notrickszone.com

July 13, 2017 at 05:34AM

AP Style Guide Warns Against Legitimising Climate Sceptics

AP Style Guide Warns Against Legitimising Climate Sceptics

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

In the new edition, the AP Stylebook tells journalists to stop calling climate change skeptics “deniers.”

The 2017 Associated Press (AP) yearly style guide is out, and it boasts numerous changes where the wire service again favors liberal biases over impartiality or conservative ideals. This is most telling in areas of abortion, illegal immigrants, terrorism, guns, and climate change.

The AP Stylebook is ostensibly a middle-of-the-road guide that most journalists can rely on for universal rules on grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and word choice. Yet with each edition, AP’s covert bias becomes more pronounced, none more so than this year.

Even climate change has been updated. Having previously told journalists to refer to global warming as “climate change” and to call climate change skeptics “doubters,” AP is ready to move on and squash the climate resistance once and for all.

In the new edition, the AP Stylebook tells journalists to stop calling climate change skeptics “deniers.” It tells writers to “describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute that the world is warming from man-made forces” and “use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers.”

But above all, never use the word “skeptic,” the guide warns. Skepticism is one of the very cornerstones that science is built upon. Calling someone a skeptic invites discussion and tells the reader that other people don’t subscribe to all tenets of global warming theory. In an attempt to dismiss skeptics, writers and editors use the pejorative term “deniers” in copy in both print and web.

The new entry also includes a lengthy dissection on why man-made global warming is backed up by verifiable, accurate substantiation. Sounding like PolitiFact, AP instructs journalists that climate change theory is now fact and man-made warming is the consensus belief. But there’s no such thing as consensus in science, and climate change theory changes weekly.

Yet despite that none of the catastrophic global warming predictions are coming true, AP is as resolute as ever in its issuance of these stylistic guidelines. Writers, meet your new science overlords.

Most journalists, especially those at The New York Times and Washington Post, went out of their way to call Scott Pruitt a climate denier when President Donald Trump first nominated him as EPA administrator.

After first running a rather benign, well-informed online article about the announcement, The Times’ bias police descended from grappling hooks and rewrote the headline to include the words ‘climate denier’ and surreptitiously added a new paragraph detailing Pruitt’s alleged links to Big Oil.

The slanted edits were uncovered by The Daily Caller. The outlet caught the online revisions via screen captures.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

July 13, 2017 at 04:34AM

Why The Renewable Energy Industry Is (Mostly) A Scam

Why The Renewable Energy Industry Is (Mostly) A Scam

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

Renewable energy is irrelevant. It will remain irrelevant and won’t power the future.

Renewable energy advocates have claimed for decades that solar and wind power are the future—and the future is right around the corner.

Some boldly state that the world could be powered by renewable energy sources as early as 2030, given the exponential growth of solar and wind electrical capacity.

And of course, the mainstream media plays up the importance of solar and wind energy in defeating the scarecrow that is climate change.

While there’s no doubt that wind and solar energy capacity has grown rapidly over the last three decades—wind power’s grown by an average of 24.3% per year since 1990, while solar’s grown by 46.2% per year over the same period—does it really matter?

Are renewable energy sources making a difference?  What is the current state of renewable energy, and its future?

No.  Renewable energy is irrelevant, and will remain irrelevant for the foreseeable future—wind and solar energy are simply inferior to fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Period.

3 Key Facts About Renewable Energy You Need To Know

Here are three statistics you need to know about renewable energy:

1. Wind Turbines Produce Just 0.46% of Global Energy

Despite thirty years of government subsidies and hundreds of billions in direct investments in green technologies, wind power still meets just 0.46%of the earth’s energy demands.  That’s next to nothing.

Wind power is useless, and will remain useless due to limited potential efficiency gains (restricted by the Betz limit), and land space requirements—we’d need to cover an area the size of the British Isles with wind turbines just to meet our annual growth in energy consumption.  There’s simply not enough land.

Never mind the problem of intermittentcy, and the hidden systemic risks it entails.

2. Burning Feces & Wood Produces More Energy Than Wind & Solar Energy Combined

Renewable energy advocates mislead the public about the truth of renewable energy consumption—they make it seem like we’re making a difference.  We’re not.

According to the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends Report, wind, solar, and tidal energy combined met just 0.81% of earth’s aggregated energy demands.

And yet we’re constantly told that renewable energy makes up a much larger percentage than that.  Why the disconnect?

Because green energy advocates mislead the public by either talking about (i) electrical energy or (ii) implying that “renewable energy” means solar and wind energy.

But the facts aren’t on their side: electrical energy only represents one-fifth of global energy consumption.  The vast majority is consumed as fuel for transportation, heating, and cooking.

Green energy advocates also imply that wind and solar energy make up a large proportion of global energy consumption by implying that they dominate the “renewable” energy sector.

But that’s not even remotely true.

While 13.6% of world energy comes from renewable sources, the vast majority—72.8%—is just people in developing countries burning wood, charcoal, and dung for energy.

That’s right: feces is a more important energy source than wind power.

 

graph of world energy sources by type, renewables make up only 13.8% of global energywind energy produces just 0.46% of global energy demand, we would need to build 350,000 new wind turbines every year just to meet our growing demands

3. We’d Need 7.2 Earth’s Worth of Rare Minerals to Switch to Solar Energy

Photovoltaic cells require a staggering variety of rare earth minerals to build, one of the most important of which is silver.

Given current technology (and assuming 20% efficiency), we’d need to cover an area the size of Spain in solar panels to generate enough electricity to meet our global electricity demands by 2030.

This is a lot of land, which would be better off being farmed, or preserved.

But even if we wanted to build that many solar panels, we couldn’t do it—there’s simply not enough silver in the world.

Here are the numbers, briefly (you can read the full article on the futility of solar power here):

Each standard 1.8 square meters uses 20 grams.

There are 1 million square meters in a square kilometer: this means that we’d need 11.1 million grams, or 11.1 tons, of silver per square kilometer of solar panels.

Spain is 506,000 square kilometers in area—which is how much area we’d need to cover..

This means that 5,616,600 tons of silver would be required to build enough solar panels to power the world.

That’s way more silver (7.2 times more) than we have—or that exists.

Thus far, humans only have only mined, and have access to a total of 777,275 tons of silver.

In fact, even if we mined all of the silver on earth’s crust, there still wouldn’t be enough to make the transition to 100% solar power—even if solar panels became four-times as efficient (80%) we still couldn’t do it.

Solar power’s a dead-end.

Renewable Energy Won’t Power the Future

My point?

The renewable energy industry greatly overstates its progress, and downright lies about solar and wind energy being the way of the future.

They’ve convinced us into giving them billions to chase a pipe dream.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

July 13, 2017 at 04:04AM

Temperature and Forcing

Temperature and Forcing

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach Over at Dr. Curry’s excellent website, she’s discussing the Red and Blue Team approach. If I ran the zoo and could re-examine the climate question, I’d want to look at what I see as the central misunderstanding in the current theory of climate. This is the mistaken idea that changes … Continue reading Temperature and Forcing

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

July 13, 2017 at 03:21AM