quote:

For all your Penis Pump NeedsContact

ZERO?Thanks, Barney

Parts of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are already collapsing and probably can't be saved. Two independent studies suggest that several glaciers have gone past the point of no return, dooming them to fall into the sea and cause several metres of sea level rise. However the collapse will take centuries.

"A large sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has gone into irreversible retreat," says Eric Rignot of the University of California at Irvine, who led one of the studies. "We've gone beyond the point of no return."

A study led by Ian Joughin of the University of Washington in Seattle, focuses on the Thwaites glacier, a key component of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). It predicts that the glacier will collapse completely within 200 to 1000 years, raising global sea levels by about 60 centimetres.

But because the Thwaites glacier keeps much of the rest of the WAIS in check, its disappearance could destabilise the entire sheet, releasing enough ice to raise sea levels by a further 3 to 4 metres

Antarctic wind vortex is strongest for 1000 years





Our greenhouse gas emissions are helping to spin up a giant vortex of winds around Antarctica.

Antarctica has been warming relatively slowly compared with the rest of the world. The explanation seems to be that the winds spinning clockwise around the continent have been getting stronger, preventing warm air from entering.

In a way, those winds have done us a favour by keeping warm air away from the South Pole. Otherwise it might be melting. But as this atmospheric maelstrom accelerates, it shrinks, leaving the most vulnerable parts of Antarctica out in the warm and dragging winter rain away from Western Australia.

In 2009, it seemed that the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica was responsible for boosting the winds. Now Nerilie Abram from the Australian National University in Canberra and her colleagues have shown the ozone hole is only part of the story. Global warming is just as important.

Warming powers winds

The team reconstructed Antarctic temperatures over the past 1000 years, using an ice core from James Ross Island near the Antarctic Peninsula. The temperatures correlated with how strong and tight the winds are, so they could construct a record of wind strength.



They found that the current strength of the winds is unprecedented over the past millennium. But the surge in strength started in the 1940s, decades before the ozone hole.

So Abram's team simulated the last millennium using eight climate models, driven by actual greenhouse gas levels previously reconstructed from ice cores. All the models predicted that the winds would pick up by the 1940s, suggesting greenhouse gases were playing a role. That may be because the northern hemisphere is warming faster than the south – because it has more continents – creating a strong temperature gradient that boosts the winds.

Such historical data is vital, says Wenju Cai from the CSIRO, Australia's national research agency, in Melbourne. In as-yet-unpublished work, he estimates that ozone depletion has caused two-thirds of the impact on the Antarctic winds, with greenhouse gases responsible for the rest.


Futureshock

If greenhouse gases really are contributing to the winds, it changes our expectations for what will happen to the climate in Australia and Antarctica.

The ozone hole is expected to heal in the coming decades, and if it was the only factor controlling the winds they would weaken and expand. So Australia would get its rain back, while the western parts of Antarctica might get some more protection against warming.

However, Abram says rising global temperatures will counteract this weakening effect on the winds. That means Western Australia will stay dry and the western parts of Antarctica, stranded outside the winds, will keep melting.

Cai estimates that, on our current emissions pathway, the two factors will counteract each other until 2045 so the winds will stay constant. After that, without reducing our emissions, greenhouse gases will boost the winds further.

Journal reference: Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2235

quote:

Parts of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are already collapsing and probably can't be saved. Two independent studies suggest that several glaciers have gone past the point of no return, dooming them to fall into the sea and cause several metres of sea level rise. However the collapse will take centuries."A large sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has gone into irreversible retreat," says Eric Rignot of the University of California at Irvine, who led one of the studies. "We've gone beyond the point of no return."A study led by Ian Joughin of the University of Washington in Seattle, focuses on the Thwaites glacier, a key component of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). It predicts that the glacier will collapse completely within 200 to 1000 years, raising global sea levels by about 60 centimetres.But because the Thwaites glacier keeps much of the rest of the WAIS in check, its disappearance could destabilise the entire sheet, releasing enough ice to raise sea levels by a further 3 to 4 metres

ZERO/Barney Fife

quote:

However, Abram says rising global temperatures will counteract this weakening effect on the winds. That means Western Australia will stay dry and the western parts of Antarctica, stranded outside the winds, will keep melting.Cai estimates that, on our current emissions pathway, the two factors will counteract each other until 2045 so the winds will stay constant. After that, without reducing our emissions, greenhouse gases will boost the winds further.Journal reference: Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2235

ZERO/Barney Fife

Not surprising that a duped boob RETARD doesn't know that I didn't say (WINTER!), I said SO FAR 2014 has set a record for coldest year TO DATE!!!!! Anoher SEVERE case of no reading comprehension!!!!!
IDIOTS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO EDUCATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For the duped boob HOAXEES!!!!!
To this point 2014 has been the coldest year on record in the United States!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Augusta Warrior Project
Gpa

In a better world, debates about science — and nearly everything else — would be conducted without resort to demagoguery, sentimentality, cynical manipulation, or hysteria. In the world we inhabit, those tactics are dismayingly routine. Still, the great weakness of overwrought predictions of doom is that they can be checked.

The past year has not been kind to the most potent symbols of climate-change hysteria. Consider the polar bear. Among the most moving images of the warmists’ warnings was the solitary polar bear, supposedly marooned on an ice floe. The image became iconic after it was published in Science magazine. Among the most memorable moments in Al Gore’s film was an animated clip depicting struggling polar bears.

You don’t hear stories, as you do with dolphins, of polar bears rescuing drowning humans. But polar bears, especially cubs, have a different claim on our sympathy — they’re adorable. We shudder to see winsome, furry mammals drifting off to sea on ice floes — all because we couldn’t part with our SUVs. A children’s book prepared by the United Nations put it just that way.

Advertisement
Well, the picture of that “stranded” polar bear has been lampooned as “Ursus bogus.” Experts on those creatures always found the warmists’ interpretation of that photo odd, since polar bears can swim for hundreds of miles at a time. The longest recorded polar-bear swim, according to National Geographic, was 426 miles straight (though National Geographic is all-in on climate change). Since polar bears swim for a living, they’re probably pretty good at gauging where land and ice floes are.

A new study from Canada, based on aerial surveys along the western shore of Hudson Bay — a region considered a bellwether for bear numbers in the Arctic generally — found that the polar-bear population was 66 percent higher than expected. Drikus Gissing, director of wildlife management for the Nanavut region, told the Globe and Mail, “The bear population is not in crisis as people believed. There is no doom and gloom.” Oh, and the scientist for the Department of the Interior whose 2004 work on drowning polar bears inspired Al Gore and others has been placed on administrative leave for unspecified wrongdoing.

On the other side of the globe, a new survey using satellite technology has found that there are twice as many emperor penguins in Antarctica as previously thought. Science Daily reports: “Using a technique known as pan-sharpening to increase the resolution of the satellite imagery, the science teams were able to differentiate between birds, ice, shadow and penguin poo or guano. They then used ground counts and aerial photography to calibrate the analysis.” The results: 595,000 birds dressed in black tie, almost double the previous estimates.

Less beguiling but no less important for symbolic value are the melting glaciers. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore) had predicted in 2007 that “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and . . . the likelihood of their disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the earth keeps warming at the current rate.” The melting glaciers, we were told, would “devastate” the lives of more than a billion people living in Asia, and would eventually swamp Manhattan and other coastal cities.

In 2010, the IPCC admitted that the melting-Himalayas prediction was not based on science but on a 1999 media interview given by one scientist. They said they regretted the error.

Now, a study in Nature, based on satellite imagery, has shown that some melting of lower-altitude glaciers is taking place, but that higher glaciers have been adding ice. The range called Karakorum, which includes the K2 peak, has been adding mass over the past decade, while other regions have lost mass. None of the glaciologists know why.

Nature reports that the loss of ice from the Himalayas, once estimated at 50 gigatons per year, was actually measured at only 4 gigatons per year between 2003 and 2010. That’s quite a difference.

That the climate is warming is not, if you ask most scientists, in question (though it hasn’t warmed much, if at all, in the past decade). But the panic mongering of the global warmists has not just undermined their own cause — it has diminished the prestige of science generally, and that is a serious loss.

quote:

Now, a study in Nature, based on satellite imagery, has shown that some melting of lower-altitude glaciers is taking place, but that higher glaciers have been adding ice. The range called Karakorum, which includes the K2 peak, has been adding mass over the past decade, while other regions have lost mass. None of the glaciologists know why.

That is almost poetic!

Professor Lennart Bengtsson - the scientist at the heart of the "Climate McCarthyism" row - has hit back at his critics by accusing them of suppressing one of his studies for political reasons.
The paper, which Prof Bengtsson wrote with four co-authors, suggested that climate is probably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than is admitted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and that more research needs to be done to "reduce the underlying uncertainty". However, when submitted for publication in the leading journal Environmental Research Letters, the paper failed the peer-review process and was rejected.
One of the peer-reviewers reportedly wrote:
‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’
This, Prof Bengtsson told the Times, was "utterly unacceptable" and "an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views."
He added:
‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist.’
In truth, to anyone familiar with the Climategate emails there will be nothing surprising or unusual in this incident or this claim. As the emails leaked in 2009 made abundantly clear, the organised suppression of sceptical papers in learned journals by the alarmist establishment has long been rife within the field of climate science.
What's more significant is that this story has made it to the front page of the Times. Like most of the mainstream media, the Times has been remarkably slow to latch onto the corruption, malfeasance, waste, dishonesty, bullying and lies which are rife throughout the climate change industry. If it hadn't been for the internet and sites like Watts Up With That? and blogposts like this one the Climategate scandal would have passed almost without notice.
Finally, it seems, the MSM is beginning to wake up to something it really ought to have picked up on long ago: the greatest and most expensive scientific scandal in history, in which a cabal of lavishly grant-funded, activist-scientists from Britain to Australia, Germany to the US, has exaggerated the evidence for "man-made global warming" and attempted ruthlessly to suppress the work of sceptical scientists who dispute the "consensus."
Professor Bengtsson's McCarthyite purging may one day come to be seen as the climate alarmists' "Bridge Too Far" moment. As Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has argued, "It has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails."
The reason, quite simply, is that it shows the climate change establishment in such an appalling light. These people have long traded on the public's acceptance that they are the "experts", the guys we can trust. Yet here they are shown behaving not like loftily-minded seekers-after-truth but simple playground bullies. One German physicist is said hysterically to have compared Bengtsson's decision to join the Global Warming Policy Foundation (a politically neutral think tank) to joining the Ku Klux Klan. Another warmist scientist - an American one this time - petulantly refused to be named as co-author on any of Bengtsson's papers, a form of professional assassination.
This does all rather invite the question: if the climate establishment is really so sure of the solidity of the science underpinning its doomsday predictions, how come it needs to adopt such desperate, unethical and unscientific methods to shut out dissenting voices?
The Bengtsson scandal comes at the end of an exceedingly bad week for the cause of climate alarmism. In other news, still further scorn has been poured on the methodology of the Cook et al paper on the "97 per cent consensus."
John Cook is an Australian alarmist who a year ago produced a paper purporting to show that 97 per cent of studies supported the "consensus" on man-made global warming. It was eagerly seized on by the left-wing activists who run President Obama's Twitter account, who gleefully tweeted under the name @barackobama "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous" - with a link to the paper.
But the paper, in fact, showed nothing of the kind. Recently a researcher named Brandon Shollenberger gained access to some of the data used in Cook's paper and found the statistical methodology to be fatally flawed. However, when he raised these points with Cook's employer the University of Queensland he received a stiff lawyer's letter forbidding him from contacting Cook or even making any mention that he had been sent the letter.
Given how often the "97 per cent" consensus figure is quoted by politicians and scientists alike to justify the extreme measures being adopted to "combat climate change", you can well understand why the alarmist establishment is so eager to suppress this inconvenient truth.
Their ability to do so for much longer, however, looks increasingly doubtful. The word is out: establishment climate science is little more than pseudo-science, propped up by bullying political activists, but unsupported by real-world data.

by TaboolaSponsored ContentWe Recommend

quote:

The word is out: establishment climate science is little more than pseudo-science, propped up by bullying political activists, but unsupported by real-world data.

Yep! I hope the hits keep coming its time to show what this "science" really is!

quote:

suggested that climate is probably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than is admitted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and that more research needs to be done to "reduce the underlying uncertainty".

"More research" is the operative word in the above quote. Lets see, where does the money come from for all these scientists to do their research. It's a vicious insider circle made up of people with no morals.

Immediately upon the "further research" not complying with the preconceived results the money for the individual not toeing the line DRIES UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not to worry OLD MAN, you be dead in a couple of years....................

http://mashable.com/2014/05/20...e-sheet-how-worried/

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bob H:
Boob=turd aka penis pump 1 QUOTE]

Tremendous' Lack of Interest in Our Climate Change Stories
CNN boss Jeff Zucker conceded that his audience is not interested in the network's global warming agenda, but he indicated that he will try to find more creative ways to make them care.

"Climate change is one of those stories that deserves more attention, that we all talk about, but we haven't figured out how to engage the audience in that story in a meaningful way," Zucker said Monday at an awards dinner in New York. "When we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience's part."

CNN's ratings have suffered because the network masquerades as being objective while backing a blatantly liberal agenda. However, its climate change push, by Zucker's own admission, may be even too much for the few people who still regularly watch what had once been the "most trusted name in news."

CNN Boss Zucker:



Augusta Warrior Project
Gpa

I truly miss George Carlin's intellect and insight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cjRGee5ipM