Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Fuckin Magnets--How Do They Work?

The Chronicle's resident right-wing climate denialist dimwit scores what she thinks is a great big gotcha:
A funny thing happened during Australian climate-change professor Chris Turney's venture to retrace a 1912 research expedition in Antarctica and gauge how climate change has affected the continent: Two weeks into a five-week excursion, Turney's good ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy got trapped in ice. It turns out, global warming notwithstanding, that there's so much ice down under that two ice-breaking vessels sent to rescue the research team cannot reach the Australasian Antarctic Expedition.
Hilarious, amirite?

What follows is a sort of greatest hits of climate-denialism. Unseasonable cold!
Years ago, global warming believers renamed the phenomenon "climate change" - probably because of pesky details like unusually cold weather undercutting the warming argument.
They can't even predict the weather!
Too bad the folks who are supposed to predict climate decades into the future are guided by scientists who could not manage to avoid ice floes during a five-week trip.
Quote from ideologically-aligned pseudo-expert!
"I'm sure some researchers can find a possible explanation where humans are causing both Arctic ice melting and Antarctic ice growth, but I'm skeptical of scientists who blame every change in nature on human activities. Nature routinely causes its own changes, without any help from us," quoth Spencer, himself a climate change contrarian.1
If I don't understand it, it can't be explained!
"Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up," the Australasian Antarctic Expedition acknowledges. It's a conundrum. If warming is melting ice in the North, why isn't it melting ice in the South?
And so on, in similar fashion.

Shockingly, it turns out that this happy little denialist talking point about Antarctic sea ice is only part of the story:
Antarctica is a continent with 98% of the land covered by ice, and is surrounded by ocean that has much of its surface covered by seasonal sea ice. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the fundamental difference between sea ice and land ice. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once evaporated and then fell as precipitation on the land. Antarctic sea ice is entirely different as it is ice which forms in salt water during the winter and almost entirely melts again in the summer.

Importantly, when land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably but other parts of the climate system are affected, like increased absorbtion of solar energy by the darker oceans.
And while there's no definitive answer as to why Antarctic sea ice is increasing, it isn't incompatible with climate-change models:
It’s clear to Zhang and other experts who look at sea ice that the seeming paradox of Antarctic ice increasing while Arctic ice is decreasing is really no paradox at all. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean. In the Arctic, moreover, you’ve got sea ice decreasing in the summer; at the opposite pole, you’ve got sea ice increasing in the winter. It’s not just an apples-and-oranges comparison: it’s more like comparing apple pie with orange juice.

It does serve as a reminder, however, that while the planet is warming overall, largely due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, the complexity of the climate system guarantees that the changes to come won’t unfold in a completely straightforward way.
But hey, poor little Debra can't be bothered with a bunch of trivial detail. What matters is the soundbites this gives her and Fox and the rest of the denialists. Because catastrophic change that would kill millions and devastate entire nations is nothing compared to winning the spin cycle.


1Spencer, by the way, also happens to be an evolution "contrarian"; make of that what you will.

11 comments:

Never Ben Better said...

I make of it that the ideologically driven stupid are impervious to reality, and will go down denying objective truths even when some climate catastrophe overwhelms them.

Because "Algore is fat."

Ten Bears said...

There's only one cure for stupid: death.

Rightfully so.

No fear.

Nefer said...

"Contrarian" = two year old toddler in my experience.

Examinator said...

["Hilarious, amirite?"] um No!
The ship in question is a tourist ship with tourists on board too and in danger of being crushed.
People in real trouble isn't funny unless you're the type who likes to see orphans trapped in a burning orphanage or Nero. Which by the way is, while a stretch, isn't that different to most AGW (sic) deniers and certainly appropriate for the denialists cheer squad.
Any reason way you look at this this woman is antisocial and a myopically selfish professional
sadist.

Victor said...

You know how I get by without having a cerebral hemorrhage when I encounter Conservatives and Conservatism?

I look at FOX, Rush, Drudge, Conservative pundits and politicians, and all Reich-Wing mediums, print and electric, the whole ” Republican Rage Machine,” as Performance Art.

Watch FOX, and tell me the people on that network aren’t Performance Artists.
Ditto, Rush.
Ditto Drudge.
Ditto Bobo.
Ditto, Issa.
And, ditto, Conservative people – aka: rubes, suckers, fools, bobo’s, marks, nit/half/dim/f*ck-wits; oh, and especially Christian Conservatives.

It’s all Performance Art.
They’re all Performance Artists.
Say it.
Feel it.
Absorb it.

Grok that, and never forget it.

See?
Don’t you feel better already?

Monte Davis said...

Also worth noting that -- to the extent the adoption of "climate change" was political and deliberate -- the initiator was Republican strategist Frank Luntz.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

Soccer Dad said...

Some history
Back in the 1800s, scientists learned that CO2 would absorb heat (Infra Red radiation) and that Humans (principally the UK at the time) were actually emitting enough CO2 to change the atmosphere's composition
So, by the late 1800, people were thinking about anthropogenic climate change.
Then, someone pointed out that there is already so much CO2 in the air that IR radiation is totally absorbed..and for 50 years there was a scientific consensus that man cause warming could not occur
a consensus I say
Views changed in the 50s, largely as a result of DoD financed research on the upper atmosphere (I think they needed to know for missiles)
but the point is, liberals are placing a lot of trust in the science community..ask you self one question: are you feeling lucky ?

DJBurton65 said...

They are also forgetting basic physics. Ocean water freezes at a lower temperature than fresh water. Salt water is also heavier than fresh water. If the land ice is melting, the fresh water released will flow into the ocean - because the fresh water is lighter than the salt water it will float on top. The ocean water is colder than the freezing point of fresh water and freezes it into sea ice. Anyone with a degree in chemistry or geology could likely explain this - they just don't want to find the answer.

Joey Blau said...

"Then, someone pointed out that there is already so much CO2 in the air that IR radiation is totally absorbed..and for 50 years there was a scientific consensus that man cause warming could not occur"

annnd this is false.

Barry said...

Denier? What is the hypothesis test that proves global warming is false if both warming and cooling prove its existence? If decreasing ice verifies it and increasing ice is simply ignored by the religious followers as yourselves, just what is a valid test to falsify your hypothesis. Do you need to see ice advancing on your door before you can admit you are wrong?

Interesting that you are actually the ones in denial. According to Dr. Judith Curry, over 15 years with lack of warming.

Unknown said...

Just few weeks ago I saw a comment about Dr. Ekpen Temple, someone talking about how he has help him in his relationship break up, I also contacted him because i was facing the same problem in my relationship, today i can boldly recommend Dr. Ekpen Temple to someone who is also facing break up in his or her relationship to contact him for help today because he has help me restore my relationship back to normal, here is he contact details (ekpentemple@gmail.com) or whatsapp him on +2347050270218