West Antarctic Fraud

Climate experts say that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is collapsing because of your SUV, but they have known for 40 years that whatever is going on there has nothing to do with climate

Screenshot 2016-02-01 at 06.51.08 PM-down23 Jan 1977, Page 13 – at Newspapers.com

About stevengoddard

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

17 Responses to West Antarctic Fraud

  1. Leon Brozyna says:

    Amazing the way science worked before it became politically correct and adopted an agenda of pre-approved results.

  2. Jamal Munshi says:

    also climate has nothing to do with fossil fuel emissionshttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743

  3. gator69 says:

    … in 300 years the west sheet could collapse.

    In 300 years, all life on Earth could be extinct. Headline please!

  4. The bedrock the WAIS sits on is below sea level. How? The WAIS formed when the sea level was 400 feet lower than now. 10,000 years ago the sea level rose and is slowly creeping under the ice sheet. It doesn’t take a bottlenose dolphin to figure out what happens when saltwater creeps under ice.

  5. Marsh says:

    The West Antarctic melt : reports & papers should be done by a Volcanologist instead of Global Warming extremist. For all of human history involving Polar exploration ; the west side has had active / hot bed rock ; even fire has been reported by researchers. When it finally does erupt
    and recorded by Warmists ; I wonder if the event, will also be attributed to Glo-bull Warming.?

    • Jason Calley says:

      There actually have been CAGW enthusiasts who have claimed that increased CO2 will cause more volcanoes and earthquakes. Their argument, paraphrased, is this: “Melting ice sheets will changed the pressure downward at someplaces on the earth’s crust. This release of pressure will allow crustal rebound, which will trigger increased volcanoes and earthquakes.”

      If there were division of CAGW called “astroclimatology science” I am sure that we would hear that supernovas and quasars are triggered by changes in the earth’s CO2.

      • RAH says:

        Well I think that thick ice caps do in effect cap some geothermic features with their mass. How could they not when their weight can cause the very land those features poke up through the strata to subside? But as for the melting being sustained enough for that to happen anywhere but very specific areas? No way!

        • Jason Calley says:

          Actually, there may very well be a correlation between climate and geological events. Not, a causal relationship, but correlation. Consider this; the largest single element in climate is now and has always been the Sun. There is the obvious part, radiant energy which leaves the Sun and warms the Earth, but what about the less obvious parts, the gravitational effects, the magnet field interaction, the solar wind and the electric field of the Sun? It would certainly seem possible that those elements have some influence on the earth’s core, mantle and crust. If there is any correlation between those more subtle solar attributes and on the solar constant, then there will also be a correlation between earth climate and volcanoes and earthquakes. It would be interesting to see some studies done on that once CAGW is dead and scientists are once again allowed to get back to real science.

        • RAH says:

          Don’t forget the elephant in the room. The moons gravity.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Excellent point.

        • inMAGICn says:

          JASON,
          There is a direct relationship between climate and geological events: erosion. In addition to the general whittling down of things that go up, selective erosion in active tectonic areas (esp. the Himalayas) may have an impact on rates of uplift. I can’t comment one way or the other: the geologic map I have from Nepal is mind-alteringly complex.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey inMAGICn! I don’t usually think about it, but yes, what you say makes sense. Erosion has to have some influence on climate – but talk about sloooooow! We see multi-decadal and millennial time scales in climate, but even the 100,000 year cycles of glacial to interglacial would not be strongly influenced by erosion. As for tectonic uplift, I would think that you have to be correct: erosion makes a difference, but the time scale must be very long.

          There is a story that Gutzom Borglum (the man who designed the Mt. Rushmore statues) was sitting in his studio when a visitor stopped by. Borglum was contemplating the model of what would later be the statues. When asked what he was thinking, Borglum replied, “Granite erodes at the rate of one inch every ten thousand years. I think I will make Washington’s nose twelve inches longer.” I am trying to think of instances where erosion would have a quicker impact. Certainly erosion that changed river courses could impact regional climate much quicker than just general erosion. (Speaking of which, pull up satellite photos of the Nile delta and north Egypt. Look about 100 miles to the west and you will see what appears to be an ancient delta and a different Nile river course. Rivers do change, given enough time.)

        • gator69 says:

          There are no permanent features on the surface of the Earth. Change is the only constant.

  6. DD More says:

    Except where is isn’t.

    From 2004 Climate Variability in West Antarctica Derived from Annual Accumulation-Rate Records from ITASE Firn/Ice Cores

    The ice cores from this study were analyzed to look for recent changes in accumulation rates. The period 1970–present was chosen due to numerous previous studies reporting changes in accumulation during this same time period. Mean accumulation since 1970 for each site was compared to the long-term mean and, due to the different time period covered by each record, the mean from 1922 to 1991 (the period of overlap between records) (Table 2). Results for cores 01-5 and 99-1 are disregarded because of the possible need for topographic corrections (see previous section). The results indicate a slight decrease (1–4%) in accumulation at sites 00-4, RIDS C and Siple Dome, and a larger decrease (9%) at site 00-5. Accumulation increased (5–10%) at sites 01-3, 01-2 and 00-1. The geographical clustering of these sites suggests that there has been an increase in accumulation since 1970 in the western sector of the Pine Island–Thwaites drainage system (00-1, 01-2, 01-3) (Fig. 2; Table 2).

    http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=ers_facpub

    So they compare average accumulation 1922 to 1991 against accumulation 1970 to present. Since there was growth 1922 to 1991, it would take a 100% decrease between the two before any ‘Alarming loss’ is seen. So far only one core is 9% less than average and the whole group shows growth not melting.

  7. gregole says:

    Slightly off-topic, but I wonder what’s going on here: http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/anon-steals-a-bunch-of-data-from-nasa-threatens-to-release-it.html

    I wonder how you steal something that is public record? I mean, NASA isn’t doing anything proprietary or somehow secret are they? Inquiring minds and all…

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