NASA : Antarctica Cooling And Ice Growing

NASA’s top temperature expert says Antarctic temperatures have decreased significantly.

2015-12-08-22-39-19

Pubs.GISS: Abstract of Shindell and Schmidt 2004

NASA’s top ice expert says that Antarctic land ice is increasing.

2015-12-08-22-54-182015-12-08-22-51-06

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses | NASA

NASA says that Antarctic sea ice is increasing to record levels.

2015-12-08-22-54-18

2015-12-08-23-00-24

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum | NASA

Antarctica is cooling and the ice is expanding.

Scientists respond to this by saying that global warming threatens penguins.

2015-12-08-23-10-46

Unhappy Feet: Global Warming Threatens Emperor Penguins

Climate science is the first fully fact-free science.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

136 Responses to NASA : Antarctica Cooling And Ice Growing

  1. cfgjd says:

    Zwally’s Antarctic estimate is just one study out of literally dozens in the past several years….it’s also the only one showing mass increase. But of course skeptics must believe it’s the only valid estimate…cherrypicking and cognitive bias anyone?

    • AndyG55 says:

      That’s the thing with real science, a new paper should always give a more enlightened view. Its called REALITY..

      You should try it sometime when you can get off whatever you are habitually taking.

      Again, you are totally unable to present any contrary evidence, just providing yet another EMPTY rant.

      • cfgjd says:

        Well, often it doesn’t. Better to listen to the scientistS, not just a single one.

        • Listen to me turd brain. Don’t listen to any scientists, listen to me.

          1. Antarctica has 22,000,000 gigatons of ice

          2. The oceans hold 1,350,000,000 gigatons of water

          3. If you wonder whether is matters whether Antarctica gains 80 gigatons a year or loses 100 gigatons a year, read points 1 and 2 again.

          4. Stop being an idiot.

        • catweazle666 says:

          “4. Stop being an idiot.”

          I hope you’re not holding your breath.

        • lectrikdog says:

          catweazle666 sez: “I hope you’re not holding your breath.”
          Well, that’s one way to stop being an idiot.😉

        • AndyG55 says:

          Ignore the EVIDENCE all you like.. it only makes you more of a FOOL.

          Southern sea temps are dropping

          South pole temperatures aren’t going anywhere.

          You have to have a chuckle at Zwally, though..
          He is scientist enough to present the data and conclusion as it REALLY IS.. but he does do everything he can to spin the AGW farce. Must have been very difficult for him.😉

          http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

        • DD More says:

          Morgan Wright says: 1. Antarctica has 22,000,000 gigatons of ice

          Not to nitpick, but – Antarctica has between 26 and 30 million and Greenland has 2.5 million of those KM^3.
          http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml

          As posted before with 112 billion –
          112 billion tons of ice per year sounds like a lot of ice, but Antarctica has between 26 and 30 million tons of the stuff.

          112/28,000,000 = 0.000004. If the total measurement was in kilometers, you would be measuring the change as 0.4 mm. Are they really that accurate?

          And to go from the Ice to Sea Water, “Where’s the Energy?”
          4.13 x 10^17 joules / KM^3. What does that number represent? That is the energy it takes to convert one cubic kilometer of continental ice from -30 °C to water at 4 °C – See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/03/el-nino-strengthens-the-pause-lengthens/#comment-1953030

          from http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c07/e2-02-03-02.pdf

          Evaporation of water from the surface of the World Ocean and land of the planet is the main process providing water vapor transport to the atmosphere. Evaporation of water takes much heat (1.26 x 10^24 joules), or about 25% of all the energy recieved at the Earth’s surface.

          1.26 E+24 * 4 = 5.04 E+24 => 5.04 e+24 / 4.13 E+17 joules/Km^3 = 1.22 E+07 Km^3 of ice per year.

          30,000,000 Km^3 of Ice / 12,200,000 Km^/year (with all the solar power directed to melting ice) = 2.46 years.

          Of course everything else would freeze up, so the levels would not change that much.

        • Not to nitpick, but:

          “As posted before with 112 billion –
          112 billion tons of ice per year sounds like a lot of ice, but Antarctica has between 26 and 30 million tons of the stuff. ”

          You meant 26 to 30 million gigatons, not tons. And I always heard 22 million but not worth arguing over.

    • Ted says:

      Tom Karl’s temperature estimate is just one out of literally dozens in the past several years…it’s also the only one that fails to show a leveling off of temperatures. But of course alarmists must believe it’s the only valid estimate…cherrypicking and cognitive bias anyone?

    • catweazle666 says:

      “Zwally’s Antarctic estimate is just one study out of literally dozens in the past several years”

      Actually it is a re-analysis of several datasets from various satellite databases going back a number of years and using the latest technology and analytical techniques.

      You really haven’t the first clue what you’re wittering about, have you?

  2. Barbara says:

    Thank you, Morgan Wright. We are a water planet. What is the percentage? 70% ? Most of that water is very cold, I believe. Do any of you have the numbers?

    • DD More says:

      Barbara –
      Water covers 73 percent of the earth
      Oceans cover 70 percent of the earth
      Land covers 30 percent of the earth

      Yes the extra 3 percent is that hard white stuff that you don’t have to be Jesus to walk on, but it is still water. USGS states “Almost 10 percent of the world’s land mass is currently covered with glaciers.”

      http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthglacier.html

  3. cfgjd says:

    The glaciers that have accelerated in the Amundsen Sea sector hold a meter or two of sea-level rise in them..and as they are on a retrograde bed once you push them far enough they will go all the way and won’t recover. This is not a problem this century though.

    • wizzum says:

      You mean like Guam don’t you.

    • wizzum says:

      Sorry, the link didn’t get there.

    • Those glaciers have been melting for 10,000 years when the ice age ended. The ocean rose so much that the bottoms of those glaciers are below sea level, so they are melting. It has NOTHING to do with humans.

      Sorry, I don’t usually yell with caps, but this guy made me mad.

    • gator69 says:

      You mean they will melt just like they have since the interglacial started. The same interglacial that has not yet ended. Are you hoping for the end of the interglacial?

      Ice melts dumbass.

      • cfgjd says:

        Seems more non-linear. The interglacial is close to 10000 years old but Larsen B and friends decided to collapse now, after having been stable for the whole interglacial so far, coincidence?

        Amundsen Sea sector could also have gone unstable during the last 10000 years but didn’t…it seems to be happening only now. Funny stuff, I though the Earth was cooling towards the next ice-age already…

        • gator69 says:

          Your delusions are not “rigorous science”.

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          Remember, you are the party requiring peer review!

        • gator69 says:

          Remember this from waaaay back?

          cfgjd says:
          December 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm
          Submit to a Journal or it does not exist…simple rule.

          So refutation of natural variability “does not exist”!😆

        • “Seems more non-linear. The interglacial is close to 10000 years old but Larsen B and friends decided to collapse now, after having been stable for the whole interglacial so far, coincidence? ”

          I looked up stupid in the dictionary and there was a picture of you claiming that ice in Antarctica has been stable for the whole interglacial.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I thought the Earth was cooling towards the next ice-age already…”

          Yep, and this is probably the ONLY thing you have ever got correct on this forum.

  4. Latitude says:

    I think someone needs a reality check….

  5. Jim Steele says:

    I posted on WUWT about resilient Emperor Penguins and had two published experts email me in agreement, but asking for strict confidence. http://landscapesandcycles.net/resilient-emperor-penguin.html

    They confessed that editors try to pressure them to slant their conclusions into a climate change framework.

  6. AndyG55 says:

    Oh dear, another nail in the Antarctic AGW coffin !!

    Surely this zombie has to die a natural death soon.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/12/giant-blob-of-superheated-rock-under-west-antarctica/

    • gator69 says:

      OMG! It’s worse than we thought! Man made CO2 has made the ice so hot, that the ice is now melting the rock beneath!

    • cfgjd says:

      Oh that’s rilly sophisticated analysis, how come joannenova hasn’t published it anywhere? BTW how come the “Solar Notch Theory” has been silently buried…unpublishable “results” is my best guess…

      • Because science publications are public funded and the government, as far as climate science is concerned, is corrupt. But you already know that because you are part of the corruption.

      • AndyG55 says:

        If it hasn’t been published.. how do you know about it?

        Again you show just how ignorant and stupid you are.

        It has received FAR MORE PEER REVIEW than most papers in climate science would ever receive.

        • AndyG55 says:

          the above was about Dr Evan’s notch theory…

        • AndyG55 says:

          And guess what, because the original notch theory had a few slight issues, bought to notice by the WIDE-RANGING PEER REVIEW, a much more robust notch based theory is now in the pipeline.

          That is how science works, in case you didn’t know.

      • AndyG55 says:

        And the study HAS been peer-reviewed

        A quote that you can look for yourself……

        “†This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1002/2015JB012455”

        Again, your moronic ignorance precedes you…… you wear it as a badge.

  7. ntesdorf says:

    “While most of the Earth warmed rapidly”…they just couldn’t resist sticking that in, but I can see no justification for it, in the last two decades of the satellite temperature record of the Earth. Still they do now admit that the ice is building up in Antarctica, despite “While most of the Earth warmed rapidly”….whatever that means.

    • cfgjd says:

      Added CO2 has already changed Earth’s spectra measured from space. That is irrefutable direct evidence that added CO2 is warming the planet:

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

      Later studies have corroborated this with other satellite datasets.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Oh dear , it seems OLWR has been increasing…. no trapped energy there. !

      • AndyG55 says:

        John Daly RIPS APART the Harries paper…

        http://www.john-daly.com/smoking.htm

        I particularly like this update section

        “The following `erratum’ notice appeared in Nature on 26th April on the last page of the `letters to Nature’ section 5 weeks after this critique was published on this site on 19th March.

        “Erratum: Increase in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

        JOHN E. HARRIES, HELEN E. BRINDLEY, PRETTY J. SAGOO & RICHARD J. BANTGES

        Nature 410, 355; 2001

        In Fig. 1a of this paper, the labels for the two curves were inadvertently switched. The grey curve represents IMG and the black curve represents IRIS.”

        The comparison given above between the Guam plot and the IRIS plot is no longer valid, given this erratum notice. There is no indication in the notice as to who was responsible for the accidental switching of labels, particularly relevant if it was the original authors. If this was indeed the case, it raises questions as to what other inaccuracies may exist in the paper, and why the peer reviewers failed to detect the error. Had they discovered the mismatch described above, that alone would have raised the alarm bells that a key mistake had been made. – JD”

        So funny !!! 🙂

        thanks again, cfool, for providing us with the farcical comedy.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Again.. SHODDY peer-review in climate non-science……

          ….. having to be corrected by people of far greater intellect.

        • cfgjd says:

          John Daly does not even understand averaging so it will not surprise me when you tell me his “rebuttal” is unpublishable bullshit.

        • AndyG55 says:

          John Daly understood more about everything than you will understand even about how to butter bread.

          You have proven time and again that you are an incompetent clown.

          You have absolutely NOTHING to back up your claim, and your rancid posts prove it.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And seriously.. is that insipid childlike ADD rant the best science you can come up with?

          Seems to be. !! We have seen nothing else from you.

        • AndyG55 says:

          John Daly’s rebuttal is published…… just here. http://www.john-daly.com/smoking.htm

          Even you could read it if your screen weren’t covered in your own spittle and verbal spew.

  8. cfgjd says:

    Added CO2 is visible in the emitted spectra of the Earth. This is direct proof of AGW. Are you dense to understand?

    • AndyG55 says:

      There is proof of radiative absorption.

      There is no proof of warming, because there are other methods of energy transfer that you are ignoring.

      Please provide proof that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.

      You have NOT proven anything that was not already known.

    • rah says:

      Only a person that has no knowledge of the earths history would claim increased CO2 increases temperature. The facts as we know them only demonstrates a loose correlation where rise in atmospheric CO2 follows rises in temperatures not proceeds them. Besides the fact that CO2 levels often were much higher than present while temperatures were lower.

    • That’s proof that increased CO2 at our saturated level doesn’t warm anymore. It does if you increase it from 10 ppm to 20 but not from 300 to 400. All the IR in that band is absorbed.

      It takes a month for temperature changes to reach equilibrium due to changes in absorption of radiation. One month. It’s been 18 years without any warming that should have taken only a month.

      • cfgjd says:

        The spectra changed measurably which is direct proof that at least so far absorption has not saturated.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Do you mean the modelled tiny spectral change in that Harries paper… that John Daly eviscerated…. basically error in measurement from two vastly different satellites.

          Or do you mean this, clearly showing a large increase on outgoing longwave infrared.. ie HEAT

        • AndyG55 says:

          And it seem that Harries himself didn’t really know satellite was which. !

          Sloppy stuff that should never have got through even pal-review.

          Pals don’t let pals make such an amateurish mistake.

        • AndyG55 says:

          typo correction….
          “And it seem that Harries himself didn’t really know which satellite was which. !”

        • You are right, it’s not saturated, because of the tiny wings on either side of the 15 micron band. It’s only 97% saturated. My bad. Actually I think it’s more like 99% but I love the number 97 for some reason.

          That 1% of the IR that isn’t saturated is all you morons have to go on. Your entire AGW doctrine is based entirely on that 1%. That’s pathetic and disgusting.

        • gator69 says:

          Pathetic and disgusting just like the claims of ocean warming. Notice how the trolls run when I ask how much warming and where.

        • Watch how they run when you ask how CO2 causes the bottom of the ocean to warm.

        • Ted says:

          Morgan-

          Lord Obama says it’s 99.5% now. You’re living in the past.

    • skeohane says:

      You need to study Arrhenius and Angstrom, they proved your perspective perverted, prior to your birth.

  9. cfgjd says:

    The spectral-change was reported in at least two studies, so far I haven’t seen any “rebuttals” in the published literature.

    • Latitude says:

      cf, what is your reasoning that in spite of the spectral-change, in spite of the increase in CO2….
      …temperatures have not reacted to it…and have been flat for the past two decades

      • cfgjd says:

        Oceans have warmed and swelled up which is easily detectable with altimetry. Note that classical thermometers also measure the length of a column of liquid. There are studies of ocean temperatures using temperature measurements, sea-level measurements and models. Denialists don’t like models.

        If you have peer-reviewed papers arguing oceans have not been warming up in the past 20 years please post the references and I promise to take a look. No blog posts please

        • gator69 says:

          How much and where?

        • Oceans have been warming since the end of the LIA, and sea level rise is not accelerating.

        • Latitude says:

          …and the rate of sea level rise and ocean temperature has not changed…in spite of increases in CO2 levels
          The increase in sea level rise and ocean temp should have kept up with the increase in CO2
          …it has not

          What is your reasoning for that discrepancy

        • Jason Calley says:

          http://www.jstor.org/stable/4298049?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

          Rotational rate of the Earth is tied to sea level rise. There has been no long term decrease in rotational rate which can be attributed to increase in sea level rise rates. Measurements indicate that the MAXIMUM present sea level rise is about 1.1mm per year. If the oceans were warming at the rate that the CAGW crowd says, the seas would be rising quicker and the length of day would be increasing faster.

          You do believe in conservation of angular momentum, don’t you?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Oceans have warmed and swelled up which is easily detectable with altimetry”

          That is a LIE.

          The reference points of the satellites use for sea level have been shown to be subsiding.

          The actually value produced if this was corrected for would be around 1.4 mm/year, exactly the same as the sea level gauges.

          There is absolutely NO CO2 warming signal in the sea level data. None Whatsoever.

      • Glacierman says:

        Chinese aerosols, or that volcano nobody saw erupt……lol

    • Cf, as I said before, radiative response time to equilibrium in temperatures is reached ONE MONTH after changes in radiation. (p. 2 Atmospheric Radiation by Jim Coakley). If the CO2 started going up decades ago, why isn’t it warmer yet? We just had 18 years of one-month equilibriums.

      • Glacierman says:

        The answer from the alarmists will be that the heat is hiding in the oceans…..even though it cannot be accurately measured, they have a model that demonstrates that.

  10. cfgjd says:

    Why are people posting graphs that do not show spectra and somehow think they are relevant?

    • rah says:

      Besides the fact that the topic of this post is about a cooling Antarctic and the increase in ice there over recent years, there is a person using so called spectral analysis to claim that CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming and it isn’t. Thus the graph based on analysis of ice cores to demonstrate that paleo evidence points to the fact that increased atmospheric CO2 has not resulted in warming in the past but in fact has followed increased temperatures.

      • cfgjd says:

        Oh, sorry for providing ample empirical evidence that CO2-increase has already changed the spectra, and therefore the radiation-balance of the planet. Some so-called denialists would like to try to deny these facts, as you can see🙂

        • rah says:

          No your “just sorry”. The radiation I’m concerned about is that which we would receive in the event of a massive solar flare or perhaps a gamma ray burst from WR104 or of course that from a nuclear weapon.

          Your worrying about CO2 warming the planet catastrophically when there is absolutely no empirical evidence it ever has would be just plain silly if it weren’t for the leeches of the world using dupes like you to support their drive for total control of our lives and wealth based on that scam.

        • gator69 says:

          Even the IPCC admits that additional CO2 will not cause significant warming, and that is why the alarmists place positive feedbacks in their models that do not exist in nature.

  11. cfgjd says:

    There is ample empirical evidence that CO2 absorbs outgoing radiation and clearly is has done it in the “open atmosphere” as the change is measurable from outside of the atmosphere.

    • Latitude says:

      And increase in CO2 would result in an increase in absorption of outgoing radiation.
      …which should result in an equal increase in temp

      Temp have decoupled from the increase in CO2 levels and temp have remained essentially flat for the past two decades.

      What is your reasoning for that?

      • cfgjd says:

        An increase on C02 has, ceteris paribus, a warming effect and the planet (including the oceans) has been warming up without any kind of a hiatus. There are aerosols and other things affecting the spectrum of the Earth as well so it would be naive to think that C02 is the only factor.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey cfgjd! “An increase on C02 has, ceteris paribus, a warming effect and the planet (including the oceans) has been warming up without any kind of a hiatus.”

          I think that most (not all) of us here would at least agree with the first half of that sentence, “”An increase on C02 has, ceteris paribus, a warming effect”. The question is how big that warming effect is, and also, do all other things stay the same. Most sceptics would say that while CO2 may very well have some warming, evidence indicates that the warming is so small that it is lost in the noise. Additionally, no one I know of thinks that all other factors stay the same when CO2 is introduced. Certainly GISS and others think that it initiates a positive feedback with increasing water vapor. Most sceptics would probably argue that if such a positive feedback were correct, then any warming from whatever source would initiate the same positive feedbacks, and history shows this not to be the case. In my opinion (just opinion) any extra warming from CO2 just speeds up convection ever so slightly.

          The second half of your sentence, “the planet (including the oceans) has been warming up without any kind of a hiatus.” is a major point of disagreement. The ocean warming figures of less than a tenth of a degree (24 X 10^22 joules down to 2000 meters) is far less than any reasonable estimate of error bars. Additionally, there has been no measured (yes, measured, not inferred or adjusted) increase in global average temperatures of the lower troposphere for almost 20 years — and without that warming, there is no known mechanism for atmosphereic CO2 warming of the oceans.

        • Latitude says:

          cf…an increase in CO2 would have an exponential effect on temperature…
          …not linear

          Yet, temp have remained constant while CO2 levels have increased.

          What is you rational for that?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “and the planet (including the oceans) has been warming up without any kind of a hiatus”

          You LIE, yet again.

          The atmosphere, you know, that part that CO2 is meant to warm, has not shown ANY warming for the last 18 or so year.

          The outgoing longwave shows a big increase.

    • AndyG55 says:

      yes it is

  12. wizzum says:

    Most of the heavy lifting that Co2 was capable of WRT temp increase has already been achieved.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

    • cfgjd says:

      Was that analysis peer-reviewed and published somewhere? As I pointed out earlier, in the age of open access open review journals there is NO EXCUSE for not publishing, except lack of confidence in one’s own work.

      • pmc47025 says:

        The logarithmic increase in atmospheric absorbed earth radiation due to a doubling of CO2 is not in question. The modtrans graphs in the link wizzum gave were very likely derived from MODTRAN, an atmospheric propagation model developed by the Air Force in the 50s. The question is, does that increased absorption result in catastrophic water vapor feedback induced ocean boiling the alarmists promise? RSS, UAH, and balloon data (the most reliable) say no.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MODTRAN

        • Latitude says:

          exactly pmc….global warming theory is about run away global humidity
          a slight increase in temp was supposed to increase humidity…which would lead to another slight increase in temp….then another increase in humidity again
          wash…rinse…repeat

        • pmc47025 says:

          Uh, obviously, MODTRAN was not written in the 50s.

      • wizzum says:

        Bullshit pure and simple bullshit. Your obsession with peer review to confirm physics is disturbing.

      • AndyG55 says:

        It was published on a site that gives it far more peer-review than any journal will ever get.

        Getting two of your mates to check for spelling is what passes for peer-review in climate science nowadays, as the total mess made in that Harries et al paper you linked to yesterday aptly showed.

      • Ted says:

        cfgjd-

        “…there is NO EXCUSE for not publishing, except lack of confidence in one’s own work.”

        So you accept that those who are adjusting temperatures have a lack of confidence in their work. If the math and reasoning behind those adjustments has been published, it would be trivially easy for you to give us a link to it. Until someone can provide that information, peer review is utterly impossible. Without peer review, how can we trust the adjustments?

  13. cfgjd says:

    Jason do you have a reference for the your claim that only atmospheric warming can warm the oceans? Also a reference to a published paper arguing that oceans have not been warming is needed.

    Oceans have been rising steadily, no hiatus, so no indication that warming has stopped. Or do some people think that lack of sea level rise due to warming was almost perfectly compensated by increased land ice melting?

    • Latitude says:

      You seem to think that only warming can cause sea level rise…..

    • Jason Calley says:

      cfgjd, I am not quite sure if you are joking or not. You say, “do you have a reference for the your claim that only atmospheric warming can warm the oceans?” Well, the subject under discussion is possible radiative effects of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Unless CO2 has some sort of non-photon, action at a distance, I am at a complete loss of how CO2 can warm the oceans without having the IR travel through the atmosphere first. Can you think of any way that CO2 can warm the oceans but not the atmosphere?

      “Also a reference to a published paper arguing that oceans have not been warming is needed.” No, actually you do not need that. Even the papers which claim 24 X 10^22 joules heat added can be used for arguing no warming. Remember, as long as the measured effect is smaller than the error bars of the measurement, you cannot have any confidence in the measurement. In the case of 2000 meter ocean heat added, the effect is less than 1/10th degree change over a half century. There is no way that we can know what the temperature of the global oceans were 50 years ago to within a 1/10th degree. Add to that the fact that the atmosphere does not show the needed warming to make that change in the oceans, and you are looking at a case of “we cannot say for certain, but overall evidence does not support ocean warming at a measureable level.”

      • Ted says:

        “Remember, as long as the measured effect is smaller than the error bars of the measurement, you cannot have any confidence in the measurement.”

        But when the adjustments are an order of magnitude greater than the error bars, and STILL outside the error bars of the model, the IPCC calls it proof of the model.

        Incidentally, until the Karl adjustments, ALL of the records listed the temperature change during this century as statistically indistinguishable from zero. Every single one of them included the zero slope line within the error bars, from 2001-2015.

    • Ted says:

      cfgjd-

      “Jason do you have a reference for the your claim that only atmospheric warming can warm the oceans?”

      Can you give us a theoretical mechanism by which CO2 increases water temperatures, without first increasing air temperatures? When there’s not even a theoretical mechanism, simply assuming it’s happening is an absurd leap of faith.

  14. cfgjd says:

    3.3mm > 1.7mm

  15. cfgjd says:

    As far as I know, altimeters and tide-gauges agree when altimeter-measurements closest to the tide-gauges are compared. Of course, tide-gauges sample the global sea level very poorly and for obvious reasons there are zero tide-gauges far away from land.

    • rah says:

      Yes we know that global gravitational masses change all the time causing huge mountains of water to accumulate in the middle of the oceans where they never have before. And that water temperatures actually effect sea levels so much that massive hills of water exist that do not seek to level. Eye Roll.

      Really now. The gravity of mass draws water to a higher level in it’s vicinity. Thus water levels next to land masses are generally higher than they are in the vast majority of open water.
      Watch and learn:

      • cfgjd says:

        Air pressure fluctuations can move the surface by meters. El Nino is visible as 50cm bulge in the middle of the Pacific Ocean right now.

        • rah says:

          Very temporary and transient anomalies which generally have no effect on human activities or habitation or unless connected with a storm. There is a bump of water that develops under tropical cyclones because of the decreased pressure also but WTF does all that have to do with sea levels in the context of climate or climate change or substantive measurements of sea levels where it counts for humans unless your on the coast where the storm comes ashore? It doesn’t.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s