Antarctica Hits Record High

You have, once again, just demonstrated how clueless, reality-challenged, and blind to the evidence you are.

 

Yes, weather is climate variability at a point in time. Weather indicates nothing about global temperature trends. Climate variability is much, much greater than any global warming trend. Repeat the following as many times as required - we may be here a good long while.

 

Just more clueless denier cult drivel.

A radically high temperature in Antarctica is just part of a pattern of unusually high temperatures around the planet that is part of the evidence for global warming and its consequent climate changes. Record highs outnumber record lows enormously.

In the real world, the global warming trend is much stronger than the normal climate variability, no matter what bogus BS myths your cult holds dear. That is why global temperature averages have been steadily climbing so rapidly over the last fifty years.

Here's a good illustration of how fast temperatures have risen recently compared to the changes over the last two thousand years.


Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction by Moberg et al. (2005) shown in blue, Instrumental Temperatures from NASA shown in Red.

 

Just check out the Larsen ice shelf. This is not caused by weather. And wasn't Antarctic ice a deniers wet dream?

 

Great quote, and so evident on these Global Warming threads.

 

There are thousands of scientific papers whose consensus shows that the MWP was ~ 1 deg C warmer than today.

 

Nope! That's another one of your fraudulent denier cult myths.

And, of course, as usual, you offer only your unsupported word without any evidence.

In the real world....

Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England
New Scientist
By Michael Le Page
16 May 2007
See all climate myths in our special feature.

English wine production is once again thriving and the extent of the country’s vineyards probably surpasses that in the so-called Medieval Warm Period. So if you think vineyards are an accurate indicator of temperature, this suggests it is warmer now than it was then.

The point is that historical anecdotes about the past climate, such as the claim that Greenland used to be green, or that Newfoundland (Vinland) was full of grapes, have to be treated with caution.

For starters, the accuracy of some historical claims is questionable: it is not clear that Vinland of Viking sagas refers to modern-day Newfoundland, or even that there really were grapes, for instance.

Even when historical records are accurate, their interpretation is not as straightforward as many assume. Take the frost fairs held in London when the River Thames in England froze over, which are sometimes hailed as proof of how cold it was during the so-called Little Ice Age (see Myth - We are just recovering from the Little Ice Age). The slowing of water flow by the old London Bridge is now seen as a crucial factor in the freezing of the river, which explains why the lower reaches of the river did not freeze in 1963, even though it was the third-coldest winter in England since 1659 and parts of the river upstream of London did freeze.

Growth bands and coral
To work out how the average global temperature has changed over the centuries, climate scientists need long-term records from as many different parts of the world as possible. Historical records do not provide this, which is why they have turned to other indicators such as growth bands in trees and corals.

These proxy records have their problems too: tree rings can reflect the effects of rainfall as well as temperature, for instance. The uncertainties also become greater the further back you look, as the evidence becomes sparser. And there are also very few proxies from the southern hemisphere, so most reconstructions are of northern hemisphere temperature only.

There are a dozen or so temperature reconstructions for the northern hemisphere that go back beyond 1600, including the so-called “hockey stick” (see Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong). These studies suggest there were periods of unusual warmth from around AD 900 to AD 1300, but details vary widely in each reconstruction.

What matters most
In the southern hemisphere, the picture is even more mixed, with evidence of both warm and cool periods around this time. The Medieval Warm Period may have been mostly a regional phenomenon, with the extremes reflecting a redistribution of heat around the planet rather than a big overall rise in the average global temperature.

What is clear, both from the temperature reconstructions and from independent evidence – such as the extent of the recent melting of mountain glaciers – is that the planet has been warmer in the past few decades than at any time during the medieval period. In fact, the world may not have been so warm for 6000 or even 125,000 years (see Climate myths: It has been warmer in the past, what’s the big deal?).

What really matters, though, is not how warm it is now, but how warm it is going to get in the future. Even the temperature reconstructions that show the greatest variations in the past 1000 years suggest up until the 1980s, average temperature changes remained within a narrow band spanning 1ºC at most. Now we are climbing out of that band, and the latest IPCC report (pdf format) predicts a further rise of 0.5ºC by 2030 and a whopping 6.4ºC by 2100 in the worst case scenario.

 

No wonder the Trump administration wants to defund NASA. This doesn't fit with their FOX News anti-science propaganda.

 

We just had a massive El Nino, where do you think that heat released from the ocean goes? BTW, do you know what heats the ocean?

 

The sun heats the ocean waters down to several hundred meters. Backradiation from the CO2 in the air heats the skin layer on the surface of the oceans, as well as the layer of air over the oceans, both of which slows the transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, thus helping to cause an accumulation of heat in the oceans.

 

Warm water evaporates faster and warm air accepts more water vapor. You alarmists will believe anything.

 

LOLOLOL.....you have just described one of the feedback mechanisms that further adds to the warming of the Earth as CO2 increases the temperatures.

 

Or one of the forcings which acts to cool the globe. And it appears from the real world data that clouds which result from increased water vapor are a forcing which results in a cooling effect. Mother Nature frowns on positive feedbacks.

 

No, there's no data at all showing such a thing

Data does show that the observed climate sensitivity is > 3.0C per doubling of CO2. That wouldn't be possible without the positive feedback from water vapor.

No, nature has no problems with them. Your philosophy has a problem with them, but that's your problem.

 

Hold on a minute .... I'm off grid and on the internet. There are plenty of stand alones (power and water etc) online.

 

Sure there is. "The Great Global Warming Blunder."

Computer output is not data. Real world data indicates ~ 1 deg C.

Positive feedback in the real world is very much the exception. That is the reality.

 

That's a crank denier book that botches the science hilariously, not a scientific source.

Why are you making the false claim that AGW theory is based on computer output? Is it deliberate dishonesty, or are you that poorly informed about the science?

Total nonsense. Not even close. Discussed more on the other thread.

Which in no way says it can't exist here. Because it does.

 

Yes it is sudden and humans are causing it but the fix is not going to be overnight - but then most Trump supporters seem to believe in "magic wand" approaches to problems

 

Nothing but personal attacks and insults. And a denial of the feedbacks which predominate in nature. Plus the reliance on computer output as data.

 

Do you see Doctors when you're seriously ill or severely injured? If so, you are showing confidence in science. 97% of climate scientists agree the earth has warmed over the last century. Here's a link:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Don't let politics cloud your scientific judgement - you don't with your doctor.

 

Yeah, right - place implicit and unquestioning trust in the gov (with an agenda) paid experts ?? Who pays the salaries of these actively publishing climate scientists. And how is "extremely likely" defined.

The 97% refers to an acknowledgement that the globe is warming and that humans have some part of that. Only 3% believe that humans cause most of the warming.

 

Humans caused the record high temperatures in Antarctica ?? Well, there is absolutely no way that the clean energy act is going to turn that around. It's clear just who believes in magic wands.

 

Who pays the salaries of doctors? I actually think your quote is reasonable:

The 97% refers to an acknowledgement that the globe is warming and that humans have some part of that.

I don't know of any climatologist who says that all warming is due to human activity. And like you say, they will disagree with each other, about the degree of the effect of human activity. That's healthy debate. With the overwhelming scientific evidence, I don't think denial is healthy debate.

 

Who is denying global warming ??

 

Where did you get that statistic? From Lord Monckton?