More Bad News for Climate Alarmists: Ice Melt Is Lower and Its Cause Dates 20,000 Years Ago
By Mary Theroux • Tuesday September 7, 2010 10:51 PM PDT • 4 Comments
In more bad news for Climate change alarmists, a new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience says that ice loss is much lower than predicted by the latest United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report.
Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming debate, should be halved, according to Dutch and US scientists.
The study also directs further consideration to root causes far predating man’s burning of fossil fuels:
Glaciers that were kilometers (miles) thick smothered Antarctica and most of the northern hemisphere for tens of thousands of years, compressing the elastic crust beneath it with their titanic weight. When the glaciers started to retreat around 20,000 years ago, the crust started to rebound, and is still doing so.
May we now have a reconsideration of cap-and-trade, government funding of “green” initiatives, and other headlong commitments of our own and others’ limited resources—and the future of millions of less-advantaged individuals? Anyone for the separation of Science and State?
Tags: Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Propaganda, United Nations 
The ice melt is less than predicted because the model used by the IPCC has no basis in science. Twenty-five climate models were submitted to the IPCC by 2004. Not one of them met the criteria for predictive accuracy. The IPCC then used 24 of the 25 models to create a “meta-model”. It met the criteria of predicting 10 years of mean temperatures within 2 degrees centigrade in 95% of the worlds “zones” (not defined in the paper). However, the model was completely inaccurate in the polar regions and predicted yearly temperature means that were 6 degrees centigrade higher than actual means. This led to the false predictions of polar ice cap melting.
I created my own very simple model: I assumed that the mean yearly temperatures throughout the world for a 10 year period would be the same as the means of the previous 20 years, eg: no change in mean temperatures. This “no change” control model outperformed the IPCC’s “meta-model” in every respect. The IPCC knows that its model is junk science, but, for the IPCC leaders, politics, power, and money outweigh truth.
Dr. T | Sep 8, 2010 | Reply
I’m for the separation of everything and state. I’d recommend putting the politicians on the glaciers, but all their hot air might melt the ice for real!
Steve Hogan | Sep 8, 2010 | Reply
LOL!
pc | Sep 10, 2010 | Reply
Mary-
I don’t know if I’m for separation of state and science. But I am very much opposed to what generally passes for science today; political science, junk science, science fiction and so on. It’s not the science we were exposed to in high school and college and is in no way related to the science that has brought us to our current high level of civilization. In fact, what currently passes for science will destroy civilization altogether.
Politicians are forever going on these junket-things to study stuff in cool places like Africa and Israel. Perhaps a fact finding trip to some far away glacier is in order. Good idea Steve.
cam | Sep 14, 2010 | Reply