In the news (MSM) we see
reports about glacier drainage that relate "Fast-flowing and narrow glaciers have the potential to trigger massive
changes in the Antarctic ice sheet and contribute to rapid ice-sheet
decay and sea-level rise, a new study has found."
But climate realists are also aware of
studies that indicate that
conclusions about the Antarctic ice sheet melt are all wet. Antarctica is gaining ice mass according to
GRACE.
So how is it possible to conclude that the science is settled when there are conflicting reports about the state of the Antarctic ice sheet? Excuse us our skepticism but conflicting reports about the same phenomenon is evidence of disagreement among scientists. The science is not settled. It is in flux as people try to sort out what is really going on.
We see a similar Armageddon approach to the record low ice melt in the Arctic in the summer of 2012. Proof positive that global warming via human CO2 emissions is happening. Predictions of an ice-free Arctic by summer
2015 and ice free year round by 2030 have followed.
Where have we heard these kind of predictions before? Similar concerns about Arctic warming were on the minds of people back in the
1920s,
30s and
40s. We are
still waiting for the arrival of an ice free Arctic.
"We are in a planetary emergency," said
Hansen, decrying "the gap
between what is understood by scientific community and what is known by
the public."
And yet
others say 'Don't Panic' and present evidence that Arctic ice melt is nothing to get excited about because it has happened before and is due to natural causes.
What is a layperson to do? Who to believe?
And to make it worse some people
claim the reduced Arctic ice will cause Northern Hemisphere winters to become worse while others
decry the loss of the world's 'air-conditioner' and fear it is a harbinger of even greater global warming. Yet another study says N. Hemisphere winters
may not get worse. Warmer winters; colder winters.
Which is it? How about
snowy winters?
Meanwhile at the south end of the planet
Antarctic sea ice is at a maximum in direct contradiction to the direction predicted by astute climate models. That heat trapping gas, CO2, seems to act preferentially in the Northern Hemisphere. Maybe it is too cold for it in the South. And it is
getting colder in Antarctica.
Warm in the Arctic; cold in the Antarctic.
Hot here; cold there.
Heat distribution not so rare.
Could it be that the atmosphere adjusts to warming in one area by inducing cold elsewhere?
And what are we to make of a Snow and Ice expert like
Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, who can't keep his story straight on what is going on in the Arctic.Click the link for an overview of his confusion.
There were 11
snowfall records set in the US state of Nevada on Sept 17, 2012 and yet we are told by global warming alarmists that snow is a
thing of the past.
Then we get
reports that say the sea ice volume in the Arctic is decreasing both slower and faster than the sea ice extent.
There is this bit of 'settled science' about American Crows reported at
Tom Nelson's blog. Someone reports that crows are a threatened species and someone else can't stand the stench of their deposits as thousands of them converge on the town.
So what are people to think about what the experts 'know' when we are given such conflicting opinions? The state of climate science is reminiscent of the caffeine is good/bad for you studies and the latest man-made chemical that can cause cancer. People soon tune out and conclude that the 'experts' don't know what they are talking about. Conflicting media reports spawn skepticism and this is bad for science. Scientists need to come to the media and the public with their stories straight if they expect us to take them seriously. Otherwise, they enter the category of entertainment rather than providing the good guidance we would like to receive from our scientists.
But scientists have a vested interest in manufacturing and exaggerating scares because it keeps the funding coming. Conflicting results mean more studies are required. The MSM loves a good scare as it is good for advertising revenues. More viewers mean better ratings. And politicians rush to get on the bandwagon of the latest scare so they are seen to be taking the moral high road. This is good for their re-election prospects.
Meanwhile the truth gets lost until scientists finally sort it out. And since we are still here all previous 'end times' scares have turned out to be bogus or politicians claim that the actions they took were successful whether those actions were necessary or not.
To an interested public climate science is
hopelessly confused.
Here is another example of muddled thinking on climate change. Some
excerpts below, emphasis added.
"Heat waves. Drought. Flooding. Cold spells. Wildfires. The
climate system is changing before our very eyes, and there is no more
glaring proof than the record-shattering loss of Arctic sea ice this
summer.
...It now appears, however, that a gradual warming may not be the primary concern, as the gases may also fuel extreme weather around the world.
...
The
weather we experience at mid-latitudes is largely dictated by these
waves in the jet stream. The slower the waves move, the longer the
weather associated with them will persist. Essentially, “hot,” “dry,”
“cold,” and “rainy” are all terms to describe very normal weather
conditions. It’s only when those conditions persist in one area for too
long that they are dubbed with the names of their extreme alter egos:
heat waves, drought, cold spells, and floods. And these kinds of extreme events are precisely what we’ve seen more of in recent years.
Global
warming now has a face and a fingerprint that directly touch each of
our lives. Rather than just a gradual increase in temperature, we can
recognize its influence in a shift toward more extreme weather events. A
warmer atmosphere also means a moister atmosphere, so any given storm
will have more moisture and energy to work with, increasing the chances of flooding or heavy snows."
Jennifer admits to a gradual warming that is responsible for
both heat waves and cold spells. The warming may not be the most important result of GHG gases as they lead to more extreme weather. The warming atmosphere may also be responsible for
heavy snows. So warm produces cold? It must be cold to be cold but somehow that nasty heat trapping CO2 manages to generate heavy snow and cold spells? It would be interesting to know the mechanism by which that takes place. Do the CO2 molecules congregate in the warm areas thus reducing CO2 in cold places? Is that why they are cold? How do CO2 molecules decide where to hold their convention of warmth? Did they pick the US Midwest in the summer of 2012 and leave Britain and Sweden without sufficient protection so they had cold summers? Jennifer might like to
re-check her info on the
prevalence of
extreme weather in our
recent history. It has been on the
decrease.Can we conclude that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere leads to less severe weather?
The pundits are parroting the conventional wisdom uncritically because it fits with their view of the world. It is getting warmer and humans are at fault. Pogo science. Those who know have a responsibility to educate and for their efforts they are called deniers which adds credence to the view that the issue of climate change is all about a political agenda and has nothing to do with the truth. The Club of Rome has said as much.
"In
searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that
pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the
like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human
intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity
itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common
adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if
this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
One invented for the purpose.... kind of says it all. And misanthropic Pogo science drives it.
