GASP!: Warming to Cause NYC Flooding

This article takes a different tact, distancing itself from descriptions of melting polar ice, icebergs, and glaciers, where in the past these immersed icy bodies have been erroneously described as dangerous, if warming were to melt them, raise sea levels, and cause floods (see Archimedes Principle). The writer makes sure to mention only Greenland this time--"melting LAND ice."

The problem is what we saw in previous articles--Greenland's ice sheet IS NOT MELTING. Neither is the North Pole, which had been predicted to completely dissolve last summer (and DID NOT melt).

Wakey-wakey, morons. Or scare yourself more: GASP! series and Dr. Brignell's warmlist.

Warming to make N.Y. vulnerable to storms-study

NEW YORK, March 15 (Reuters) - Global warming should lift sea levels along the U.S. Northeast nearly twice as fast as global rates this century, putting New York City at risk to damage from hurricanes and winter storm surges, scientists said.

"The northeast coast of the United States is among the most vulnerable regions to future changes in sea level and ocean circulation, especially when considering its population density," said Jianjun Yin, a climate modeler at Florida State University.

GASP!: Ice “hanging by a thread!”

Before I do the usual work of ripping this fear piece apart with fact, scientific reasoning, and cold logic, please notice the hysteria and hyperbole of the headline itself. We see these stories every few weeks in the environmentally-ignorant, agenda-driven media. Here was a similar piece where we saw that ice melts in the Arctic are "receding like mad." Then we always see antithetical stories where the ice isn’t as bad as once thought, and then we see counter-stories from the media believers that proclaim “newly-formed ice” isn’t as good as “old ice.” And on it goes...the usual media fear templates that are on the circular conveyor: ice is melting, hurricanes are strengthening, floods are growing, fire is raging, animals are going extinct, tornados are forming, diseases are expanding, and on it goes. FEAR, DOOM, DOOM, DOOOOOOMMM!!!! And it’s all a bunch of baloney. You can read the extensive list of silly “global warming results” on the warmlist; check that list out and ask yourself if the media’s campaign is ridiculous or not. The GASP! series illustrates the extent of the media’s propaganda campaign too—check it out.

And the common thread connecting ice stories is that these glaciers and ice fields are being monitored for changes by satellites year-to-year, and how long have satellites been circling (or stationary) up there, compared to the age of the Earth? Are we making inane proclamations based on statistically-flawed comparisons?

Our “measurements” of ice obtained from satellites compared to records of the same ice over a statistically-acceptable length of time are truly impossible to verify as incontrovertible; the baseline of time is too small compared to the Earth’s total age. In other words, WE’RE INCORRECTLY MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE EARTH BASED ON A RIDICULOUSLY TINY SPAN OF TIME. Satellites have been used for 40 or so years, and satellites that are good enough to “measure” ice have been up there for how long? I’d wager far less than 40 years.

A good analogy to what they’re doing would be to observe a single nanosecond of one year, noticing that at that exact nanosecond the wind changed from 5 mph to 10 mph, and then concluding that our world will obviously be destroyed by this scary doubling in wind speed, if the “trend in acceleration” continues unabated!!! For you alarmist psychos who aren’t savvy enough to follow the allegory, I’m saying that a nanosecond taken out of a year as a period of observation is STATISTICALLY TOO DAMN SMALL to draw silly, far reaching conclusions; a nanosecond is one-billionth of a second, and there are a hell of a lot of nanoseconds in a day, much less a year (5.256 x 10^14 nanoseconds in one year to be exact). Well, taking 30 years of observations (even if they can be shown to be absolutely accurate and unassailable) out of the 4.5 billion years that the Earth has existed (meaning that you’re missing 150 million similar periods of observation), and making bold climate proclamations of doom based on that very small span (30 years out of 4.5 billion years) is similarly retarded. I can’t understand for the life of me how someone in the media hasn’t caught on to this silliness yet, though some have in a few places.

Notice how they make the claim that the ice has been stable “most of the last century.” Really? We see it breaking up now with satellites, but we know with certainty the same ice NOT OBSERVED BY SATELLITES was stable for the last century? Are you laughing yet? You should be...

My guess is that they know about the statistical and scientific problems with their claims, but the myth and boondoggle must be propped up at all costs. Too many reputations are at stake now after all the prophecies of doom, as is the money and power to be acquired from dealing with this new “crisis.” Government and political hacks need crises to remain relevant; they want us to believe that we can’t get by without them and their intercession in our lives.

Antarctic ice shelf 'hanging by thread': European scientists

New evidence has emerged that a large plate of floating ice shelf attached to Antarctica is breaking up, in a troubling sign of global warming, the European Space Agency (ESA) said on Thursday.

Images taken by its Envisat remote-sensing satellite show that Wilkins Ice Shelf is "hanging by its last thread" to Charcot Island, one of the plate's key anchors to the Antarctic peninsula, ESA said in a press release.

"Since the connection to the island... helps stabilise the ice shelf, it is likely the breakup of the bridge will put the remainder of the ice shelf at risk," it said.

Wilkins Ice Shelf had been stable for most of the last century, covering around 16,000 square kilometres (6,000 square miles), or about the size of Northern Ireland, before it began to retreat in the 1990s.

Since then several large areas have broken away, and two big breakoffs this year left only a narrow ice bridge about 2.7 kilometres (1.7 miles) wide to connect the shelf to Charcot and nearby Latady Island.

N.H. snowfall nearing all-time record...IN LATE MARCH!

While icebergs are breaking apart and killing seals, winter in America (and most of the rest of the flat earth) threatens to continue into April. The story below is from March 28, 2008.

Again, if you consider empirical evidence like crumbling ice in the Antarctic, you also must consider the voluminous stories about the winter this year that erased 100 years of "warming" in one season!

N.H. snowfall now 3rd in all-time list - USATODAY.com:

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Today's snow has moved New Hampshire up a notch in the list of all-time snowy winters, making this the snowiest winter in 135 years.

The National Weather Service says that as of 7 a.m., an inch of snow had fallen in Concord from the latest storm. That inch moved the state into third place for all-time snowfall, at 113.4 inches. It hasn't snowed this much since the winter of 1872-73.

While seals continue "dying" in the Antarctic due to AGW-created melting ice, seal hunters in Canada have a different, opposing problem. Huh?

Thick ice hinders Canada's controversial seal hunt | Environment | Reuters:

CHARLOTTETOWN, Prince Edward Island (Reuters) - Canada's annual seal hunt, which the government promised would be more humane this year, cranked up slowly on Friday because of thick ice.

The government is allowing hunters to kill up to 275,000 young harp seals on the ice floes off Eastern Canada, but only three had been reported killed on the first morning of the hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

"It's a very slow start," said Phil Jenkins, spokesman for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, noting that sealing boats were finding it difficult to get to the herds because of thick ice.

Absolute iceberg malarkey

For the fearmongering and alarmist portions of the article, please follow the link and read it for yourself. I've highlighted the disclaimer portions below (my emphasis in bold), whereby the author is letting loose little facts that actually detract from the fear this story is meant to instill in you (because of your greenhouse gas emissions, loser).

These collapses happen. They ARE NOT PROOF that human-emitted CO2 is causing the earth to warm. Don't let them snow you, so to speak.

Now, look here to see where ice is reforming. Note how they're still not wanting to admit that the new ice means anything.

Pressdemo.com Headlines | Western Antarctic Ice Chunk Collapses:

While icebergs naturally break away from the mainland, collapses like this are unusual but are happening more frequently in recent decades, Vaughan said. The collapse is similar to what happens to hardened glass when it is smashed with a hammer, he said.

Climate in Antarctica is complicated and more isolated from the rest of the world.

Much of the continent is not warming and some parts are even cooling, Vaughan said. However, the western peninsula, which includes the Wilkins ice shelf, juts out into the ocean and is warming. This is the part of the continent where scientists are most concern about ice-melt triggering sea level rise.

Here's Reuter's version, which is even more preposterous. Note the huge leap he makes in the last paragraph; they're watching ice break up, and that's all. They HAVE NOT IN ANY WAY TIED THIS TO GREENHOUSE GASES. A high school science student could recognize what an abysmal bit of reaching that is in terms of the scientific method. PUH-LEEEZZZZEEE!!! Again, this is empirical evidence, and empirical evidence pointing in the other direction is always ignored or sited as proof of manmade climate change (i.e., record cold and snow THIS VERY WINTER ACROSS THE WORLD). Let's also not forget this unfortunate fact--the earth has cooled FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, while CO2 levels have reportedly continued rising; why are these "geniuses" ignoring this?

If he has to say it has been in place for "at least a few hundred years," does that mean he knows for sure? And if so, how did it form before 200 years ago. Can it form again? Scam-bos is a good name for this guy. The NYT is giving its opinion too, so I'll be watching the Wilkins ice shelf carefully, even though they admit in the editorial it will reform due to the winter that's now starting...which is funny, because it means it just broke up during a seasonally warmer period?!

Slab of Antarctic ice shelf collapses amid warming | Reuters:

"One corner of it that's exposed to the ocean is shattering in a pattern that we've seen in a few places over the past 10 or 15 years. In every case, we've eventually concluded that it's a result of climate warming," Scambos added.

Scambos said this ice shelf has been in place for at least a few hundred years, but warm air and exposure to ocean waves are causing a breakup.

"The warming that's going on in the peninsula is pretty clearly tied to greenhouse gas increases and the change that they have in the atmospheric circulation around the Antarctic," Scambos said.