Free Markets, Free People

What? We’ve lost no ice mass in Antarctica? But “consensus” said we would!

And, as we’ve said for a while, “consensus” is wrong.  I won’t call it ‘scientific consensus’ because there’s no such thing.  And, as you’ll see, there wasn’t much science involved in previous predictions anyway.  But first the news according to The Register:

Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time – and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all.

“Previous ocean models … have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place,” says Tore Hattermann of the Norwegian Polar Institute, member of a team which has obtained two years’ worth of direct measurements below the massive Fimbul Ice Shelf in eastern Antarctica – the first ever to be taken.

You don’t say.  And why is that?

It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.

The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted …

So let me see if I get this straight … previous “scientific” studies were based in models that used no “direct data for comparison or guidance” and led us on this unscientific wild goose chase for what, 20 years?

But don’t expect this to stop anyone.  Scientific findings?  Bah, humbug.  They’re meeting right now, under the auspices of the UN, to save the world from the dire predictions the same sorts of models have forecast for our future – most likely based on about as flimsy a basis as these models were.

The rational among us know that. The ‘environ – mental’ crowd, however, will ignore this as they have every other bit of actual contrary evidence and we’ll continue to hear them claim that we’re losing antarctic ice mass at an alarming level (because remember, that sort of land based ice mass is bad because it will raise ocean levels and that fits their worldview and their agenda).

Science per se is not at all something they worship – unless it says what they want it to say.  If it doesn’t, they feel free to ignore it and pretend the contrary info comes from charlatans and “deniers”.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

10 Responses to What? We’ve lost no ice mass in Antarctica? But “consensus” said we would!

  • Yet another reason to ban fracking. And offshore drilling.

    And evil, evil coal.

  • “The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted …”
    I think that should probably be something like “..water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted based on faulty initial temperature assumptions by the models’ creators.”  In other words, “Garbage in, garbage out”, an old saw that has been around since the invention of the computer.
    It is neither consensus nor scientific.

  • But the sky IS falling, it IS!!
    A piece of it fell and hit me on the head.  It was…
    Cancel that last statement.
    Seems it was just an incontinent goose flying overhead (ewww).

    • Dude!  Gorbal Climate Thingy is CAUSING goose incontinence…!!!  There is sciency stuff PROVING it.

      • What we need is a consensus!   Let’s get some.   We need to get a couple thousand signatures from people who don’t know incontinent geese from gophers, that’ll prove it!

      • it’s those migrating Canadian geese!  When the cross the border they’re engaged in “incontinental” travel and commerce….or something….
        Maybe instead of flying they can travel on Ozymandias-on-the-Potomac’s “Intercontinental Railroad.”
        That ought do to it.

        • Hmm…  A carriage liner for the cars on the RR?  A worthy use of the NYT!  I want the fertilizer concession.  I could clean up!