According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (nsidc.org), ice currently covers 6 million square miles, or one tenth the Land area on Earth, about the area of South America. Floating ice, or Sea Ice, alternately called Pack Ice at the North and South Poles covers 6% of the ocean’s surface (nsidc.org), an area similar to North America. The most important measure of ice is its thickness. The United States Geologic Survey estimates the total ice on Earth weighs 28 million Gigatons(a billion tons). Antarctica and Greenland combined represent 99% of all ice on Earth. The remaining one per cent is in glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice. Antarctica can exceed 3 miles in thickness and Greenland one mile. If they were to melt sea level would indeed rise over 200 feet, but not even the most radical alarmists suggest that possibility arising due to the use of fossil fuels. However the ice that flows off of the Antarctic and Greenland called shelf ice represents only half a percent of all the Earth’s ice and which if melted would raise sea level only 14 inches, (nsidc.com).
By Rich Enthoven – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Recently, NASA released its annual report on global temperatures and reported that 2018 was the fourth hottest year on record, surpassed only by three recent years. This claim was accompanied by dire predictions of climate change and for immediate action to dramatically curtail CO2 emissions around the globe. Like every concerned citizen read this report with interest. I also read it as an informed and trained climate analyst – and I can tell that there are some serious problems with the report and its conclusions.
For starters, I can assure my readers that I am not a climate change “denier.” No one doubts the climate changed when it experienced the Ice Age that ended 12,000 years ago. I have read enough scientific literature to believe the well documented view that the planet experienced the Medieval Warm Period (950 – 1250 AD) and Little Ice Age (1550 – 1850 AD) when global temperatures changed materially. I have also read enough scientific literature to understand that solar and ocean cycles affect global climate.
By Kip Hansen – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Last week Dr. Roy Spencer treated us to the latest UAH Global Temperature Update. Overall, the ”global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2018 was +0.22 deg. C, up a little from +0.14 deg. C in September”.
Dr. Spencer was kind enough to include in his post, as he usually does, a chart with the actual figures from his ongoing research. The entire post was mirrored here at WUWT.
Here’s the part that I found interesting, which only can be seen if one graphs the data from this chart:
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 22 months are:
By Dr. Richard Lindzen – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Over half a century ago, C.P. Snow (a novelist and English physical chemist who also served in several important positions in the British Civil Service and briefly in the UK government) famously examined the implications of ‘two cultures’:
A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?
I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question – such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had.
By Kip Hansen – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Note: Please read Part 1 before reading this — this is a continuation of that essay (a rather long continuation….)
The last point I made in Part 1 of this essay was this:
The IPCC in their synthesis report for policy makers says that human emissions of greenhouse gases [“atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide”] and “other anthropogenic drivers,” are “extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Brought to You by www.SEPP.org
Infinite Rise? For the past several weeks TWTW has discussed recent studies and reports claiming accelerating sea level rise. A questionable example included a report from NOAA and was cited by the state of Rhode Island in its litigation against oil companies – “The State of Narraganset Bay and Its Watershed 2017.” In the Technical Summary, Figures 1 & 2 (pp. 76 & 77) show the decades-long sea level trends in Newport and Providence, RI, of 2.78 +/- 0.16 mm per year (1.1 inches per decade) and 2.25 +/- 0.25 mm per year (0.9 inches per decade), respectively. These come from the established NOAA publication “Tides and Currents.” (Newport is at the mouth and Providence at the top of Narraganset Bay) Then, Figure 3 (p. 78) shows NOAA projections of a rise of up to 11 feet in Newport by the end of the century (extreme case)! How did a rise of 10 inches per century, with an error of about 10%, turn in to rise of 11 feet by the end of the century (280 mm per century to 3352 mm per century)? This increase in rate of rise is more than 10 times that being measured.
By Keith Henderson – Re-Blogged From WUWT
As a car buyer, would you be willing to pay anything significant to get a vehicle with 0.011% better gas mileage? As a businessman, does a 0.011% change make a difference to your plans? Would you change your neighborhood of 20+ years for a 0.011% decrease in security risk, particularly if you knew it could reverse itself shortly thereafter?
Just to be sure we’re thinking realistically about the magnitude of 0.011%, we can also express it as only 110 in a million.