The warming of Antarctica

[IanC]

when Steig got his antarctica paper published in Nature (or was it Science) complete with a cover page diagram showing warming over the whole continent, the skeptics immediately poked huge holes in the shoddy data collection and demonstrably incorrect methodologies. Gavin Schmidt and other hockey team members at Real Climate laughed at them, thumbed their noses and taunted them to write their own skeptical paper if Steig's paper upset them so much. So the skeptics did. the hockey team thought they could bury any efforts to discredit one of their own because they had done so many times in the past. this time was different. even though the gang at Real Climate were able to force many changes to the skeptic's paper through onerous peer review that would have been unheard of with proAGW articles the skeptics were finally published in a less prestigious journal. the warming in the penninsula was shown to have been spread throughout the continent only because of faulty methodology, just as the sceptics had originally claimed. in a pointed example of how corrupt peer review can be Steig(the author of the original paper) actually attacked the new paper for a change that he FORCED to be made with his authority as one of the reviewers. peer review may work in other areas of science but it is just a weapon to enforce concensus in climate science.

people like Old Rocks will point to the original article in a top tier journal and totally dismiss the refutation because it was only in a second rate journal. but sooner or later the larger scientific community is going to get tired of ignoring blatant errors in climate science because of professional courtesy and undefined 'greater good' and start cleaning up the mess of politcal interference by the old boys club that control climate science and the IPCC right now.

 

[Old Rocks]

No place on the fringes of Antarctica has warmed with the swiftness of the Antarctic Peninsula, a crooked, 900-mile finger of land that juts toward the tip of South America. A 60-year temperature record on the northwestern Antarctic Peninsula, taken at a research base originally built by the British and now run by the Ukrainians, paints a stark picture: Winter temperatures have increased by 11 degrees F and annual average temperatures by 5 degrees F. Ninety percent of 244 glaciers along the western Antarctic Peninsula have retreated since 1940. Sea ice now blankets the Southern Ocean off the western Antarctic Peninsula three fewer months a year than in 1979, according to satellite data.

The Warming of Antarctica: A Citadel of Ice Begins to Melt | Reuters

Great, more land to develop. Who was it that drew that map of Antarctica showing two land masses? the one everyone thought was bogus until RADAR mapping found the same thing?

The mans name was Piri Reis and he copied his map from an earlier source. And he did it in the mid 1500's.

LOL!!!!! You and Franky boy, the perfect pair! And how hollow is your moon, Walleyes?

 

[Old Rocks]

Whaaaa? As Jon Stewart would say. How come there's so much extra ice in Antarctica then? Me thinks someone's fibbing here!

Yes, there is a liar, here. You.

Present anomoly on the Antarctic Ice, -0.091

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

Ice Loss Accelerates in Greenland, Antarctica, NASA Study Finds - Bloomberg

Greenland and Antarctica’s ice sheets are shrinking more quickly, suggesting United Nations projections for sea-level rise are too conservative, a U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration-funded study said.

From 1992 to 2009, the two regions lost on average 36.3 billion tons more ice every year than the previous year, scientists led by Eric Rignot at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, said in a study in the Geophysical Research Letters journal. The researchers said they linked two independent sets of measurements to validate them.

 

[Old Rocks]

when Steig got his antarctica paper published in Nature (or was it Science) complete with a cover page diagram showing warming over the whole continent, the skeptics immediately poked huge holes in the shoddy data collection and demonstrably incorrect methodologies. Gavin Schmidt and other hockey team members at Real Climate laughed at them, thumbed their noses and taunted them to write their own skeptical paper if Steig's paper upset them so much. So the skeptics did. the hockey team thought they could bury any efforts to discredit one of their own because they had done so many times in the past. this time was different. even though the gang at Real Climate were able to force many changes to the skeptic's paper through onerous peer review that would have been unheard of with proAGW articles the skeptics were finally published in a less prestigious journal. the warming in the penninsula was shown to have been spread throughout the continent only because of faulty methodology, just as the sceptics had originally claimed. in a pointed example of how corrupt peer review can be Steig(the author of the original paper) actually attacked the new paper for a change that he FORCED to be made with his authority as one of the reviewers. peer review may work in other areas of science but it is just a weapon to enforce concensus in climate science.

people like Old Rocks will point to the original article in a top tier journal and totally dismiss the refutation because it was only in a second rate journal. but sooner or later the larger scientific community is going to get tired of ignoring blatant errors in climate science because of professional courtesy and undefined 'greater good' and start cleaning up the mess of politcal interference by the old boys club that control climate science and the IPCC right now.

Ice melt in Arctic running right with 2007 at present. Siberia and northern Alaska way too warm since June. The melt from Greenland and Antarctica increasing by tens of billions of tons per year. According to NASA

Ice Loss Accelerates in Greenland, Antarctica, NASA Study Finds - Bloomberg

But nothing is happening. LOL

And then there is the weather for this past year, worldwide, and it's effects on the food supply. But, that is a non-starter with people like you, Ian. After all, you can still see plenty in the supermarket.

Go ahead, Ian, be a kiss ass for the know-nothings. Deny science and scientists. Give accolades to undegreed ex-TV weathermen and drugged out radio jocks. People like you have won. We will do the grand experiment on the world's climate. Just as we are going to find out just how serious a default will be. Both are going to have very interesting and unforeseen results. Be Happy

 

[Old Rocks]

when Steig got his antarctica paper published in Nature (or was it Science) complete with a cover page diagram showing warming over the whole continent, the skeptics immediately poked huge holes in the shoddy data collection and demonstrably incorrect methodologies. Gavin Schmidt and other hockey team members at Real Climate laughed at them, thumbed their noses and taunted them to write their own skeptical paper if Steig's paper upset them so much. So the skeptics did. the hockey team thought they could bury any efforts to discredit one of their own because they had done so many times in the past. this time was different. even though the gang at Real Climate were able to force many changes to the skeptic's paper through onerous peer review that would have been unheard of with proAGW articles the skeptics were finally published in a less prestigious journal. the warming in the penninsula was shown to have been spread throughout the continent only because of faulty methodology, just as the sceptics had originally claimed. in a pointed example of how corrupt peer review can be Steig(the author of the original paper) actually attacked the new paper for a change that he FORCED to be made with his authority as one of the reviewers. peer review may work in other areas of science but it is just a weapon to enforce concensus in climate science.

people like Old Rocks will point to the original article in a top tier journal and totally dismiss the refutation because it was only in a second rate journal. but sooner or later the larger scientific community is going to get tired of ignoring blatant errors in climate science because of professional courtesy and undefined 'greater good' and start cleaning up the mess of politcal interference by the old boys club that control climate science and the IPCC right now.

By the way, Ian, who were these 'skeptics', and where were they published? Links are real nice when you are discussing science. Nice to have the links to real scientific sites, also.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, we could have Muller review this data, also.

 

[westwall]

Great, more land to develop. Who was it that drew that map of Antarctica showing two land masses? the one everyone thought was bogus until RADAR mapping found the same thing?

The mans name was Piri Reis and he copied his map from an earlier source. And he did it in the mid 1500's.

LOL!!!!! You and Franky boy, the perfect pair! And how hollow is your moon, Walleyes?

What???? Are you so uneducated that you've never heard of one of the most famous maps in history? And you claim to have a semi college education...

 

[westwall]

when Steig got his antarctica paper published in Nature (or was it Science) complete with a cover page diagram showing warming over the whole continent, the skeptics immediately poked huge holes in the shoddy data collection and demonstrably incorrect methodologies. Gavin Schmidt and other hockey team members at Real Climate laughed at them, thumbed their noses and taunted them to write their own skeptical paper if Steig's paper upset them so much. So the skeptics did. the hockey team thought they could bury any efforts to discredit one of their own because they had done so many times in the past. this time was different. even though the gang at Real Climate were able to force many changes to the skeptic's paper through onerous peer review that would have been unheard of with proAGW articles the skeptics were finally published in a less prestigious journal. the warming in the penninsula was shown to have been spread throughout the continent only because of faulty methodology, just as the sceptics had originally claimed. in a pointed example of how corrupt peer review can be Steig(the author of the original paper) actually attacked the new paper for a change that he FORCED to be made with his authority as one of the reviewers. peer review may work in other areas of science but it is just a weapon to enforce concensus in climate science.

people like Old Rocks will point to the original article in a top tier journal and totally dismiss the refutation because it was only in a second rate journal. but sooner or later the larger scientific community is going to get tired of ignoring blatant errors in climate science because of professional courtesy and undefined 'greater good' and start cleaning up the mess of politcal interference by the old boys club that control climate science and the IPCC right now.

By the way, Ian, who were these 'skeptics', and where were they published? Links are real nice when you are discussing science. Nice to have the links to real scientific sites, also.

Ohh, poor olfraud. Here are a few of the links. I am using blogs for speed but they have the links to the actual journals.

The perfidy of the climate mafia is well exposed in these links. You don't care but others will.








Steig and the “KNUCKLEHEADED REVIEWERS” « Climate Audit


Steig’s Trick « Climate Audit

Peer Review, Pal Review, and Broccoli | Watts Up With That?

 

[wirebender]

Antarctic Ice's Future Still Mired in Its Murky Past

"Antarctic Ice's Future Still Mired in Its Murky Past

Richard A. Kerr




A new reanalysis by two NASA scientists of the three standard ice-monitoring techniques slashes the estimated loss from East Antarctica, challenging the large, headline-grabbing losses reported lately for the continent as a whole. Although not the final word, the new study shows that researchers still have a lot to learn about the vast East Antarctic Ice Sheet. Understanding the role of East Antarctica is one key to figuring out what the ice sheets, and thus sea level, will be doing by century's end. "

 

[Old Rocks]

Antarctic Ice's Future Still Mired in Its Murky Past

"Antarctic Ice's Future Still Mired in Its Murky Past

Richard A. Kerr




A new reanalysis by two NASA scientists of the three standard ice-monitoring techniques slashes the estimated loss from East Antarctica, challenging the large, headline-grabbing losses reported lately for the continent as a whole. Although not the final word, the new study shows that researchers still have a lot to learn about the vast East Antarctic Ice Sheet. Understanding the role of East Antarctica is one key to figuring out what the ice sheets, and thus sea level, will be doing by century's end. "

Well, while none here can do all the science connected with the GRACE satellites and other methods of measurement, we can all see the ice shelfs that have been breaking up. Shelves that have been there as long we have had maps of the area.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Piri Reis.

The Map Room: Hoaxes & Controversies

The Piri Reis Map of 1513
Thursday, February 1, 2007 at 1:40 PM • Hoaxes & Controversies

The story of the Piri Reis map is the story of how a perfectly innocent 16th-century navigational chart can end up, through no fault of its own, at the centre of a crackpot theory about our planet’s ancient history.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We conclude that ocean core temperature (Fig. 2d) leads to the illogical result that climate sensitivity depends on time.
We conclude that ocean core data are correct in indicating that global surface temperature was only slightly higher in the Eemian and Holsteinian interglacial periods than in the Holocene, at most by about 1°C, but probably by only several tenths of a degree Celsius. By extension (see Fig. 6), the Pliocene was at most 1-2°C warmer then the Holocene on global mean.


http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.0968.pdf


The further you go back in time the weaker the solar output is because a younger star puts out less. Dimmer in nature. So without the green house effect, unless some other natural factor comes into play it can't be too much warmer.

I can understand when your dealing with a desert like continent that earth had 100, 200, 300 million years ago, but 5 million years ago that doesn't make any sense. Most of the continents were near they're today, and the orbit as far as we know was near todays.

 

[westwall]

LOL. Piri Reis.

The Map Room: Hoaxes & Controversies

The Piri Reis Map of 1513
Thursday, February 1, 2007 at 1:40 PM • Hoaxes & Controversies

The story of the Piri Reis map is the story of how a perfectly innocent 16th-century navigational chart can end up, through no fault of its own, at the centre of a crackpot theory about our planet’s ancient history.

From YOUR LINK

"Ironically, it is the map’s correctness and reliability that has since become the issue."


Thanks for the assist!

 

[FireFly]

This video explains why Antarctica got heated up!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZmliDWqcls"]Heating up Antarctica[/ame]