The BBC recently ran a story claiming that the Antarctic ocean currents were heading for collapse, and to drive home the scare there was even a reference to the 2004 climate disaster film, The Day After Tomorrow. Rapidly melting Antarctic ice was reported to be causing a dramatic slowdown in deep ocean currents, “and could have a disastrous effect on the climate”. Like most of these fanciful scare stories, “could” is doing a lot of the heavy lifting work. But alas, missing from this Net Zero-promoting, model-inventing Armageddon tall tale was a note that the Antarctica ice cap appears to be in balance, and is not actually melting.
According to a paper written by NASA satellite ice-mapping scientists in 2021, Antarctica is “close to balance” in the period 2012-16 at -12 +/- 64 Gt a-1. Gt are gigatonnes and the formula is a scientific way of saying that as near as damn it, well within a margin of error, the Antarctica ice sheet loss is, more or less, zero. Back to 1992, the scientists found large total gains for the sheet.
According to the story in the BBC, reported faithfully in numerous media, as fresh water from the ice cap melts, sea water becomes less salty and dense and a downwards movement of water towards the sea bottom is interrupted. This in turn can affect world oceanic currents. The activist science blog the Conversation reported that “torrents of Antarctic meltwater are slowing the currents that drive our vital ocean ‘overturning’ – and threaten its collapse”. The BBC noted that a similar collapse in the North Atlantic was depicted in The Day After Tomorrow.
As regular readers will recall, the Daily Sceptic has observed that Antarctica is a difficult neighbourhood for activists to get a good scare story going. Over the last seven decades, there has been little or no warming over large parts of the continent. According to a recent paper, (Singh and Polvani), the Antarctica sea ice has “modestly expanded”, and warming has been “nearly non-existent” over much of the ice sheet. According to NASA figures, the ice loss is 0.0005% per year.
The latest scare arises from a paper published in Nature. It is the product of climate models – the BBC noting that the scientists spent 35 million computer hours over two years collecting their results. However, this story is also of considerable interest since it shows that the BBC and most mainstream media are seemingly incapable of questioning any statement that promotes human-caused climate change and the proposed command-and-control Net Zero political solution. This endemic lack of curiosity means that vast areas of science, including atmospheric physics and chemistry, together with weather, geology and geography, are simply off limits in case any doubt should be cast on the suggestion that humans control the CO2 climate thermostat.
The study lead author, Professor Matthew England from Sydney’s University of New South Wales, is able to state, without any inquiring question or contradiction, that “our modelling shows that if global carbon emissions continue at the current rate, then the Antarctica overturning will slow by more than 40% in the next 30 years”. The BBC repeats emissions continuing at the current rate, but England’s paper states that his model has been loaded with a “high emissions” scenario. The paper is behind a paywall, but the abstract in which this admission occurs is freely available.
These “high emission” scenarios are almost certainly RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5 that forecast global rises in temperatures of 4-5°C within less than 80 years. As Dr. Judith Curry has recently pointed out, these have been dropped in many science circles on the grounds they are recognised as implausible. Global warming of barely 0.1°C over the last 20 years is almost certainly a factor in this reassessment. Nevertheless, Curry notes that many of the extreme events based on the scenarios are still quoted in IPCC documents. “Rejecting these extreme scenarios has rendered obsolete much of the climate literature and assessments of the last decade,” she states.
Not at the BBC, of course. Settled science – the Science – cannot move on because it suffers from the anti-science proposition that it is somehow settled. Model results suggest deep water circulation in the Antarctic could slow at twice the rate of decline in the North Atlantic, reports the BBC. “It’s stunning to see that happen so quickly,” said climatologist Alan Mix from Oregon State University, a co-author of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment. “It appears to be kicking into gear right now. That’s headline news,” he told Reuters. No, Dr. Mix, it’s a model based on assumptions that are regularly contradicted by the data. Some climatologists it appears have trouble distinguishing fact from their own fevered predictions.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Man of the ppl, Dr professor vice chancellor king of the world Chris Packham, the worlds greatest scientist!
Jeez Louise, seriously, an article about Chris Packham’s choice of hat?!
If I had a pub I’d call it The Cock and Bull, and there’d naturally be a picture of a cockerel and a bull outside.
Am I the only one homing in on the fantastically named The Pecker and Bush pub?
It goes without saying that if I owned a launderette I’d call it ‘Sit&Spin’. Rude not to.
In fairness any chance to mock the man who sees himself as the heir to Attenbore has to be taken with glee. Of course the fact that this jumped up trouble causer is wearing a £500 piece of headgear only confirms that for his childish mumblings the
BBCtaxpayers are paying ridiculous money.Well personally, I can hardly wait for the next riveting installment about which aftershave Chris favours and how much it sets him back. I’d be quite intrigued to know what his skin care routine involves as well, seeing as he looks nowhere near his age. You bring the wine and I’ll bring the snacks.
It’s just unusual to see an article about Mr Packham that has the comments section open for business, to be honest. Or is it just anything that Toby writes about him where we’re not allowed to comment…?
Apologies if there are alcohol-free beer enthusiasts among our number but I am suspicious of people who drink it
Revolting stuff.
Friday night is gallon night.
I just don’t see the point
Every night is vino night chez ToF, though as I’ve said before I am
also partial to locally brewed golden
ale.
Completely off topic now there is a beach wedding going on in front of us and not only is there an army of professional photographers and cameramen provided by the resort but most of the guests are sitting there filming instead of paying attention. I find people weird!
It’s the same at concerts. An artist you have paid a fortune to see, and they are playing all your favourites, yet you are distracted by the numpties holding up their phones recording it all. Why don’t they just enjoy the experience? Do they ever actually watch what they’ve filmed? I always think they are missing out.
One of the last concerts I went to before I got too grumpy was Ben Harper. You’d think his audience would be fairly reverential but I ended up having a row with people around me who kept chatting.
I did traumatise my tastebuds by trying an alcohol-free Becks when I was pregnant and it was so vile it was grapefruit and soda from that day forth. One of the things I don’t understand about alcohol-free drinks is that they’re the same price as the real stuff. Over here it’s 17 euros for a bottle of Gordon’s gin, but it’s also 17 euros for a bottle of sugary water with flavourings that has ‘Gordon’s’ on the label. Who in their right mind is going to buy this alcohol-free version for that money when they can just buy the tonic ( or mixer of choice ) for a tiny fraction of the price and just make do with that on it’s own? It’s mental, right? A glass of lemonade would be a few cents in comparison, stick some ice and a slice in it, there’s your alcohol-free beverage! People are strange.
Anyway, I’ve never liked gin because it tastes like old ladies’ perfume, as does tonic actually.
Alcohol-free “spirits” are plain weird if you ask me. At least alcohol-free beer hydrates you.
The hat still has its security tag affixed.
He must have stolen it.
On the salary he gets from the BBC he can afford it.
Anyone who drinks an alcohol-free beer whilst wearing a stupid hat that cost £520 from Prada (but about £5.20 at Primark) is a colossal plonker.
Perhaps it’s the Primark version.
Alcohol free beer has a nasty ‘dry’ taste, its the only way I can describe it. Drinking fake alcohol is like vegans eating fake meat. Why bother, when there are tasty alternatives available, if that’s your thing.
I think it lacks taste. In fact, it’s a bit like drinking decaf coffee or tea. To me they just taste like hot water. As if somebody poured some water from the boiled kettle and went, ”There’s your coffee/tea” and you’re meant to close your eyes and imagine you’re drinking an Americano/Rington’s brew. Tastes of nothing. I’m harking back to when I was preggers though, a dim and distant memory now, as I stay well away from that sort of kack these days, of course.
Same with skimmed milk – it’s just water with a smidgen of milk added – but people kid themselves they are drinking milk. Someone’s making a profit!
He probably thought it said Pravda.
Is Truth his thing though?
Biggest take from this is How TLF-ck can a Bush Hat be £520 !!
The cost of his nylon (i.e. fossil fuel based hat) is notable.
But just remember that his hat size is certainly greater than his IQ score.
Shows how stupid he really is: £500 plus for a hat = T*at.