8 thoughts on “No global warming at Mawson – Antarctic”

  1. The world does not warm uniformly. Global Warming Deniers search data records to try to find examples of “outliers” that do not represent global trends.
    In regard to Antarctica. Ozone is a greenhouse gas. The Ozone Hole (which is local to Antarctica) is another consequence of human activity. If you destroy ozone, you take away a thermal blanket which is the opposite of the increase in carbon dioxide which adds a thermal blanket.
    Over Antarctica, the two forcing events have been offsetting each other – which is why warming over Antarctica has been minimal (if any at all).
    In time, warming due to carbon dioxide will overwhelm all other local variations. We are beginning to see that now as Antarctic sea ice extent has joined Arctic sea ice extent with both currently making all time record lows.

  2. There have been problems with the sea ice satellite sensors for over a year now, and without verification from other sources (which don’t exist for the Antarctic), I’m treating the data with scepticism. It’s probably not a coincidence that over the period of satellite data problems, Antarctic sea ice went from a record high to a record low.

  3. Bill Butler as with all so-called climate scientists and their followers you have no qualifications to assess weather or climate changes and have no technical understanding. The effect of CO2 other than be necessary for plant growth is insignificant to atmospheric conditions and changes of conditions. Go and read (if you are capable of reading) texts on heat transfer such as that written by Prof Hoyt Hottel in Mark’s Mechanical Engineering Handbook or Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook. Then have a look at engineering texts on Thermodynamics and Fluid dynamics. Unfortunately, you will not have enough mathematical knowledge to understand the process calculations.

  4. Comment from cementafriend:

    > “Unfortunately, you will not have enough mathematical knowledge to understand the process calculations”

    Tis always so with the Billy Butlers of the world.

    Ask this question of them: please define the “consensus” you claim exists amongst scientists. Be precise, with numbers and no backtracking.

    At best, the reply will quote from the political section of the IPCC reports, with no hard papers referenced. At worst, the usual ad-hom rhetoric that avoids the question completely will be used, or else total cowardly silence.

  5. I was wondering if someone might come along and “explain” the non-warming at Mawson. But actually I was expecting a different explanation: the “one swallow doth not a summer make” line. And Billy was looking good for that one with his opening gambit that warming is not uniform.

    That argument normally continues along the line that warming will disrupt circulation patterns so that some areas will get boiling hot and others stay the same or even get colder. The ones that will get colder are, of course, as in any good disaster scenario, the ones that are too cold already.

    But Billy has an elegant variation – Mawson is not warming because in addition to frying the planet with GHGs we are freezing Antarctica by punching holes in the ozone. Doubleplusungood, even though the net effect is zero.

    This “double trouble manblaming” has been around for a long time in this field. The first use I remember was Rasool and Schneider, 1971. Does anyone remember that contribution to settled Science (published in the mag of the same name)? It proved that there were two dire threats to the world – a new Ice Age from sulphate aerosols blocking the sun, and the greenhouse sizzle we all know.

    They were cancelling each out too, just like at Mawson now, but the authors proved beyond shadow of doubt that…greenhouse warming was far too weak to offset the aerosol effects, and in a Business as Usual scenario, those aerosols would freeze our spheroid(s) in a century or so. They made movies about it later, but it didn’t catch on. When the global temperature rose a couple of tenths of a degree at the end of the 70s, Schneider changed his tune and became a pioneer of the greenhouse disaster line.

    A timely application of Occam’s Razor many years ago might have put paid to this unscientific tendency to find an elaborate explanation of “nothing’s happening”.

    John Daly’s classic take on Steve Schneider: www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm

  6. Perhaps just hallucinating but can we see the 22 year magnetic sun cycle in that chart? Have often wondered how much heat comes from those big arc lamps called aurora Australis and aurora Borealis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *