|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 27, 2017 12:52:00 GMT
"A warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014."
{SNIP} "The peninsula was the only bit of the Antarctic that suited the Warmists. They gleefully reported glacial breakups there, quite ignoring that the Antarctic as a whole was certainly not warming and was in fact tending to cool. The study below however shows that the warmer period on the peninsula was an atypical blip that has now reversed." wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/27/oops-warmists-just-lost-the-antarctic-peninsula-it-is-now-cooling/
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 27, 2017 14:30:54 GMT
"A warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014."
{SNIP} "The peninsula was the only bit of the Antarctic that suited the Warmists. They gleefully reported glacial breakups there, quite ignoring that the Antarctic as a whole was certainly not warming and was in fact tending to cool. The study below however shows that the warmer period on the peninsula was an atypical blip that has now reversed." wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/27/oops-warmists-just-lost-the-antarctic-peninsula-it-is-now-cooling/ That ~year 2000 inflection point seems to show up in an awful lot of data bases. Read while listening to public radio preaching solar panels as the cure for global warming, and how China is taking over panel manufacturing.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 27, 2017 16:06:37 GMT
"A warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014."
{SNIP} "The peninsula was the only bit of the Antarctic that suited the Warmists. They gleefully reported glacial breakups there, quite ignoring that the Antarctic as a whole was certainly not warming and was in fact tending to cool. The study below however shows that the warmer period on the peninsula was an atypical blip that has now reversed." wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/27/oops-warmists-just-lost-the-antarctic-peninsula-it-is-now-cooling/ That ~year 2000 inflection point seems to show up in an awful lot of data bases. Read while listening to public radio preaching solar panels as the cure for global warming, and how China is taking over panel manufacturing. For awhile. China dumps the nasty crap that is a by product of solar panel making. At some point, the peasants are going to get tired of the pollution and then China will be out of the solar game. Wonder...has Steyner sold his stock in solar yet?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 9, 2017 4:56:40 GMT
Maybe its to early in the morning here....but i read that and am completely none the wiser as to what theyre saying there??
Maybe im too used to seeing a pro/anti warming slant in articles???
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 9, 2017 12:59:40 GMT
Smog awakens.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jul 12, 2017 12:51:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 12, 2017 13:17:24 GMT
No reason to have a cow - it is a natural process. Now that A68 will be cooling more of the Southern Ocean which doesn't really need it.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 12, 2017 16:26:14 GMT
Yep, and as the actual scientists keep repeating this is a normal event which AGW had no part in. And it will happen again.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jul 13, 2017 12:33:20 GMT
Agreed the calving is long anticipated and overdue but the interest is two fold.
Whilst in place the last bit to break off was also a snag point which had slowed down the flow of the ice stream beyond. That feed is now unfettled.
We have been seeing mid winter 'melt events' across the shelf as Fohn winds descend from the Peninsula behind. This leads to surface melt and then refreeze. As glaciers travel they slide over obstacles which rip open fissures in the ice. As the ice travels on those crevasses close up but the weakness remains. The melt water from melt events and summer warmth seep into these weak spots and then freeze pushing the old crevasse apart again. This is what we saw collapse on Larsen B after it calved its last berg.
Is Larsen C preconditioned as Larsen B was? Should it also domino into the ocean then that will be a signal of the warming we have been measuring there since the middle of the last century
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 13, 2017 13:41:50 GMT
Agreed the calving is long anticipated and overdue but the interest is two fold. Whilst in place the last bit to break off was also a snag point which had slowed down the flow of the ice stream beyond. That feed is now unfettled. We have been seeing mid winter 'melt events' across the shelf as Fohn winds descend from the Peninsula behind. This leads to surface melt and then refreeze. As glaciers travel they slide over obstacles which rip open fissures in the ice. As the ice travels on those crevasses close up but the weakness remains. The melt water from melt events and summer warmth seep into these weak spots and then freeze pushing the old crevasse apart again. This is what we saw collapse on Larsen B after it calved its last berg. Is Larsen C preconditioned as Larsen B was? Should it also domino into the ocean then that will be a signal of the warming we have been measuring there since the middle of the last century Graywolf: We are at the beginning 1/4 of an interglacial period. Ice shelves will calf during this period. The Holocene has so many parameters that resemble MIS-11 one has to realize that that cycle is being repeated. There are NO high resolution temperature reconstructs from MIS-11. However, there ARE temperature reconstructs. Clearly show a cool interglacial with bumps up and down, just as the Holocene reconstructs demonstrate. The world is not coming to an end because the climate is changing. It has NEVER been static, this utopia of perfection that some seem to think it should be. I understand your interest, but I really don't understand your alarm at natural events happening.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 14, 2017 18:06:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 14, 2017 20:39:43 GMT
On the contrary - if the earlier icebergs were Massachusetts and Connecticut and this one was smaller than Delaware, then the next ones will barely be Long Island size and by 2050 there will be no new icebergs and Antarctica will grow till it reaches Tierra Del Fuego and the circumpolar current is cut off and we will all freeze! The standard linear progression thought process of the alarmists
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jul 17, 2017 22:25:54 GMT
On the contrary - if the earlier icebergs were Massachusetts and Connecticut and this one was smaller than Delaware, then the next ones will barely be Long Island size and by 2050 there will be no new icebergs and Antarctica will grow till it reaches Tierra Del Fuego and the circumpolar current is cut off and we will all freeze! The standard linear progression thought process of the alarmists True, Naut! But at least Graywolf will be happy.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 14, 2017 23:30:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 14, 2017 23:51:13 GMT
Sounds like a good place for a potential hot time!
|
|