Scientists Recycling Scare Stories

Today’s scare of the day is that Antarctica is going to collapse and drown us all – in about 1,000 years. Scientists told exactly the same story in 1922

ScreenHunter_388 May. 12 17.28ScreenHunter_389 May. 12 17.29
ScreenHunter_390 May. 12 17.30

29 Apr 1922 – ANOTHER FLOOD

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Scientists Recycling Scare Stories

  1. Andy Oz says:

    Scientists say that it will never be cold again!
    So what caused the deaths of the Japanese climbers? Excess CO2??

    • Andy Oz says:

      “We live in a world full of predictions.

      People are always predicting things like the weather, the outcome of hurricane season, sporting events and, of course, the stock market. The scary part about all these predictions is how often they are wrong — and how often individuals rely on them. If humans were such great predictors of events, there would be more far more successful investors and wealthy gamblers.”

      • Gail Combs says:

        Humans (and animals) rely on the ability to predict.

        I predict that if it is raining I wil get wet if I go out side. My goats and sheep predict if they see a strange animal it will try to eat them so they run away. They can even tell the difference between me and a stranger and will change their behavior accordingly.

        The critical part of predicting is the willingness to change the resulting behavior when the prediction proves wrong. As I said my goats and sheep come running when they see me hoping I am going to feed them. However they do not come running for several days after we give them their shots, worm and trim feet. We have to win their trust back again.

        As I said my sheep are smarter than the Warmist Sheeple. They haven’t lost their ability to learn from experience. {:>)

      • Phil Jones says:

        Good analogy… Problem is nobody alive today has been affected by excessive warming or cooling… The Alarmists are thus never held to account for their failed predictions …

  2. emsnews says:

    Antarctica is always melting. I bet Napoleon was told this right before invading Russia. No one told him about winter.

  3. philjourdan says:

    Well, with rounding, it is still 1000 years away as it was in 1923.

  4. James the Elder says:

    Didn’t they just tell us today that Earth was expanding? Wouldn’t that offset the water rising? Help me here.

  5. tom0mason says:


    A bit of the ice breaks off the Antarctic and NASA is in full panic mode. They’ve got 2 reports out saying it’s the begining of the end.
    News agencies are geared-up for a news fest of nonsense.

    “These glaciers will keep retreating for decades and even centuries to come and we can’t stop it,” said lead study author Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at the University of California, Irvine, and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. “A large sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has passed the point of no return.”…

    But thakfully

    “Over the next few centuries, the rate of sea level rise will be pretty moderate,” said lead study author Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory.

    • Andy Oz says:

      Whew! I thought Algorithm and Tim Flannery esq. would have to evacuate their waterside properties if the sea levels kept rising.

    • richard says:

      nothing new.

      In 1893 (after arriving in Nelson in September 92), the iron sailing ship “Margaret Galbraith” was homeward bound around Cape Horn. Mr. N.H. Burgess the 2nd Officer reported that from three days north of the Falklands to about one weeks sailing north of the Falklands they were “among the ice,” which culminated with a days sailing past a single giant berg “40 to 50 miles long,” The account suggest the ship may have been only making 3 to 5 knots around this time, certainly at night one would expect them to throttle back. They had a close call on first encountering the ice north of the Falklands.
      It may be partly by chance that the length of this iceberg was reported because the sailing people seemed more impressed by the height of ice encountered than the extent of any particular piece. The 40 to 50 mile long berg mentioned above was reported as being 1000 ft asl at the NE end.

      [5] The 1000 ton plus iron sailing ship “Himalaya”, on a 109 day voyage from Liverpool to Wellington, departed 9, November 1894 and arrived 25, February, 1895. The captain reported seeing several icebergs off the Cape (of Good Hope) and then, “.. that from the Cape to the Crozets was a most trying time as icebergs were in sight for a distance of two thousand miles.”

      • tom0mason says:

        Just imagine, sailing around thousand of miles of icebergs laden seas at night in an iron-clad sail ship. No GPS, no RADAR, no SONAR, unreliable radio if you were lucky.

        Kids today just don’t know what adventure is!

  6. Andy Oz says:

    Climate Experts at Australian National University study says Antarctica is NOT melting!
    This is because CO2 caused global warming has sped up the polar vortex and trapped the cold air over the white continent and will not let it out!!!
    I say we march on Canberra and demand they Free the Vortex! Free the Vortex!

    Do alarmists understand how schizophrenic they sound? Antarctica is melting, then it’s not melting, then it’s melting again. FFS wake up!! It’s irrelevant!!!

  7. timothy says:

    I would say um, about 1032 years, 14 days, 6 hours and 2 minutes, to be precise. Now all I have to do is get 1000 politicians that claim to be scientists to agree with me and it will be settled science.

  8. QV says:

    There was a report about the Antarctica story on BBC R4 this morning and I don’t recall the time-scale being mentioned.
    Will have to listen to it again.
    A lot can happen in 200-500 years and we’ll never know how accurate the predictions were.
    The BBC website has a report which is slightly contradictory:

    “The results are not based on computer simulations or numerical models; they are based on the interpretation of observations,” he told reporters.
    Prof Rignot and colleagues put no real timescales on events, but a paper released by the journal Science to coincide with the Nasa media conference tries to do just this.
    It does include computer modelling and was led by Dr Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory. The study considers the particular case of Thwaites Glacier.
    In the model, Dr Joughin’s team is able to reproduce very accurately the behaviour of the glacier over the past 20 years.
    The group then runs the model forwards to try to forecast future trends.
    This, likewise, indicates that a collapse of the glacier is inevitable, and suggests it will most likely occur in the next 200 to 500 years.”
    Ah, hindcasts work so forecasts must be correct.
    We all know what a success that technique has been in temperature forecasts!

  9. jr says:

    Amazing. It seems that no one wants to believe these things may actually happen. You guys work so hard to debunk any study you don’t like. Why? Afraid you might get blamed for the future mess when your great-grandkids have the advantage of hindsight (and are enjoying the sailing lifestyle albeit floating on a sea of trash or freezing from the new ice age and there are no fossil fuels to burn for warmth )? Forget about it – your legacy is in the clear unless you have left a paper trail on the forever internet. Ooops!

  10. Andy DC says:

    We lost 58,000 men in Vietnam, because the “experts” were saying that if it was lost, communism would take over the world. It was lost and instead, communism imploded. When “experts” try to preempt the future, more often than not, it does not work out as planned.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yes but think of all the money the corporations and Banksters made. So it was worth it.

      After all WWI, WWII and Vietnam helped hike the USA federal debt up to the trillions of dollars. The National Debt in 1913 was $2.9 billion. The National Debt is now over $17.6 trillion and the U.S. dollar has lost 96% of its purchasing power versus gold.

    • _Jim says:

      Just a little perspective; I recall from a defensive driving course (a few years back) hearing the figure of 50,000 ppl a year died of auto-related accidents .. indeed the figure was correct (for the time period) …

      • Gail Combs says:

        More perspective: People killed by their own government

        169,202,000 Murdered: -20th Century Democide

        4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
        5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
        6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
        7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime


        8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
        9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
        10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
        11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
        12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
        13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
        14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse


        15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
        16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
        17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          Think an Obama Democrat would have any reservations about turning the USA into Pyongyang?

        • Gail Combs says:


          I lived in Cambridge MA for a while. One of the ‘Democrats” said to my husband, “When we take over we are going to kill people like you!”

          Murdering anyone who isn’t a boot licker is SOP for the communist totalitarians.

  11. Jbird says:

    Since we are headed into the Southern Hemisphere winter, I have to wonder if this sort of calving simply won’t increase the Antarctic ice extent over time as the space within the fissure fills with more frozen ice. Doesn’t calving have to be part of the process of ice regrowth?

  12. Gary H says:

    OK – I’ve got a question folks. (going back I see Jbird’s comment – interesting as well)

    Shelf ice and sea ice are two different things. Knew that.

    Shelf ice is glacier ice that is pushed out over the sea. But, it still float’s (or most of it) – correct? From one source, I see that glacier ice/shelf ice is more dense than sea ice (none of this surprises me) and that approx 90% of it’s mass will be found below the water line (that seems a bit high).

    Still – if it’s floating and most of it is below water – wouldn’t the effect of it melting (and/or breaking off/calving and melting as ice bergs) be more or less similar to the effect of sea ice melting, on sea level rise?

    Now I get that it’s ice than came from over the land – and there are other side effects there – but isn’t sea level to rise only if and when the ice cap on land (the glaciers) volume results in a net loss?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Well worth the read: A comment at WUWT from Doug Proctor who was was a glaciology student. ( December 13, 2012 at 3:48 pm) says in response to the comment: “Between 30 and 65 percent of the ice gain due to enhanced snowfall in Antarctica is countervailed by enhanced ice loss along the coastline”

      As Penny on Big Bang Theory would say, “Holy crap on a cracker!”

      I was a glaciology student. Okay, I have an edge. A very little edge. As Anthony says, the author of the above comment (at least) fails on the concept. Since the snowfall comes from the ocean (the first principle), 35 – 70% of the increased, held (short-term) snowfall means a LOWERING of sea-level.

      The second principle of glaciology that appears lost on all climate warmists is that glaciers move because the accumulated weight (force) of ice causes the solid (ice) to become plastic and flow. All glaciers, ice masses that move, are by definition unstable: they will continue to “thin-out” until the weight (causing flowage) is equal to the resistive pressures of friction and crystalline rigidity. Glacial movement does not indicate climate change, warming weather at all, but the current result of an earlier, historical period in which the rate of mass additions exceeded the rate of melting, sublimation and plastic flow.

      There is still a third principle of glaciology that is lost on climate warmists: that all glacial mass reductions are attributable to three processes:

      1) plastic flowage that terminates in the ocean or large lakes (so that calving occurs and movement to warmer climes),

      2) sublimation, and

      3) melting.

      All glacial mass increases are due to one process: snowfall.

      Greenland and Antarctica lose glacial mass year-to-year ONLY IF the rate of loss is greater than the rate of gain. Of the three methods of ice mass, only two are in any way related to warming. Melting is an obvious result of warming, but as most of the continental ice volumes are in areas which are below zero for most of the year, you can easily determine the change of amount of ice potentially melted, IF YOU CONCLUDE that thermal conductivity of ice is low. Ratio delta ice melt = delta temp increase X ratio delta time above melting X 1/heat of solid-liquid state change.

      I say, IF YOU CONCLUDE, because the second method of ice loss, increased plastic flowage to the sea, claimed by warmists to be significant, assumes a high thermal conductivity to ice. Only if the general ice mass has warmed can increases in flowrate be attributed to warming, but this consideration reduces the potential for melting (as heat is conducted into the lower zones rather than used to effect a state change). So plastic flowage and melting are opposing considerations, in that you cannot pump for one while pumping for the other. There is only so much energy around.

      Sublimation, while impacted by warming, is only marginally impacted by warming when you are hovering around zero. Sublimation is only a real force when sunshine is strong under dry atmospheric conditions. The more you make water vapour rise, the less sublimation occurs, especially if you think more water vapour leads to more clouds (which reduces sunshine getting to the glacier).

      With all the above considerations, what really causes loss of glacial mass is the non-deposition of replacement snow. Since the existing glacial flow is a function not of recent ice gain, but of historical gain, you must be very careful in attributing glacial net ice loss to current conditions: you first must determine that current snowfall is not significantly less than historical amounts.

      I do not believe this has been determined. If winter precipitation has dropped below historical levels, then you have, like Kilamanjaro, a problem not of warming, but of precipitation sourcing.

      So far I have heard absolutely zero increase in iceberg activity. The large shelves don’t count. They break off all the time, and do not contribute to sea-levels. We need to see icebergs increasing. And we still need to talk about replacement snow.

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        It’s real simple. Snow falls on a roof with snow already on it, and the snow on the edge of the roof gets pushed off.

      • philjourdan says:

        Gail – that is patently nonsense! Why would you post such disinformation? The Antarctic ice was created a million years ago and has remained the same ever since! There was no accretion or loss until CO2 was discovered 65 years ago!

        Such twaddle.

        (Do I really need a /sarc?)

  13. Phil Jones says:

    Geez… That’s what Ice from Antarctica does… Builds up to massive levels over water… Then breaks off… This explains why periodically we have reports of Giant Bergs much further north…

    Antarctic ice is at it’s highest ever recorded levels… Yet SOMEHOW the story is melting ice and flooding…Amazing…. 180 degrees out of phase…

Leave a Reply