Comments on: Antarctic ice http://blog.rightsideup.org/2008/02/23/antarctic-ice/ Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:57:49 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Timothy Birdnow http://blog.rightsideup.org/2008/02/23/antarctic-ice/comment-page-1/#comment-61 Timothy Birdnow Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:08:31 +0000 http://blog.rightsideup.org/2008/02/23/antarctic-ice/#comment-61 I don`t agree that Global Warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, but I will say this about the issue of increasing ice; that is to be expected in a warming trend whether it is caused by GHG`s or increased solar activity. Global Warming means more evaporation from the oceans, and in the polar regions this will fall as snow which will thicken the pack ice. The GW crowd was using the reduction in ice on the Amundson Ice Shelf and the Antarctic peninsula to ``prove`` their pet theory. If they hadn`t backed themselves into a corner with that, they could use this increase in ice to argue that the world is warming; all of their models predicted that would happen-but then so do the models based on direct solar forcing. All it means is that, yes, the Earth has warmed a whopping 1* in the last century. It in no way verifies the theory that CO2 and methane are driving the planet into an emergency. Oh, and it should be pointed out that, according to Smith et al, there was no increase in percipitation in the South Pacific between 1979 and 2004 despite the warming of the `80`s and `90`s. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/05/noahs_flood_cancelled.html On average we have seen no warming since 1999, despite the numerous ``hottest on record`` shrillness from hysterics and the media. I don`t agree that Global Warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, but I will say this about the issue of increasing ice; that is to be expected in a warming trend whether it is caused by GHG`s or increased solar activity. Global Warming means more evaporation from the oceans, and in the polar regions this will fall as snow which will thicken the pack ice.

The GW crowd was using the reduction in ice on the Amundson Ice Shelf and the Antarctic peninsula to “prove“ their pet theory. If they hadn`t backed themselves into a corner with that, they could use this increase in ice to argue that the world is warming; all of their models predicted that would happen-but then so do the models based on direct solar forcing.

All it means is that, yes, the Earth has warmed a whopping 1* in the last century. It in no way verifies the theory that CO2 and methane are driving the planet into an emergency.

Oh, and it should be pointed out that, according to Smith et al, there was no increase in percipitation in the South Pacific between 1979 and 2004 despite the warming of the `80`s and `90`s. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/05/noahs_flood_cancelled.html

On average we have seen no warming since 1999, despite the numerous “hottest on record“ shrillness from hysterics and the media.

]]>