100 Year Old Log Book Debunks Global Warming: Not Much Difference in The Ice Cover in Antarctica Since Captain Scott's Expedition!
Looks like the hoax of global warming has been debunked once again with the recent discovery of the logs from the expedition led by Captain Robert Scott and Sir Ernest Shackleton early in the 1900's.
Lt Henry Bowers, Dr Edward Wilson (sitting, left to right) [Photo Credit]
A study conducted by scientists from the University of Reading has found that the log books, which detail the extent of ice cover, the state of the sea and the weather, shows that not much has changed in the sea ice cover in that part of the planet in the last hundred years! In fact they found that there is a change of only 14% in the summer ice cover in that period!
This discovery has challenged the popular alarmist notion that the earth is heating up dramatically and that drastic measures shall have to be taken if we were to contain this, and avoid the world from literally drowning!
In fact a member of the study team, Dr Jonathan Day, remarked:
Scientists have been grappling to understand this trend in the context of global warming, but these findings suggest it may not be anything new.
If ice levels were as low a century ago as estimated in this research, then a similar increase may have occurred between then and the middle of the century, when previous studies suggest ice levels were far higher
He further went on to say
The missions of Scott and Shackleton are remembered in history as heroic failures, yet the data collected by these and other explorers could profoundly change the way we view the ebb and flow of Antarctic sea ice
In the study, the team examined the ice observations recorded in the ships' logbooks of explorers such as the British Captain Robert Scott and Ernest Shackleton and the German Erich von Drygalski to compare where the Antarctic ice edge was during the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration (1897-1917) and where satellites show it is today.
- http://www.deccanchronicle.com/science/science/251116/100-yr-old-antarctic-logbooks-show-no-change-in-sea-ice-cover.html
- http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/antarctic-hasnt-lost-much-sea-ice-in-last-100-years/articleshow/55602072.cms
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3970082/How-Captain-Robert-Scott-s-log-book-expedition-Antarctica-100-years-ago-raises-troubling-new-doubts-global-warming.html
You may also click the down-arrow next to my name (before my reputation score below) to follow me. Or you may just re-steem to share the love! 😊
interesting read. Thanks for the sources and further reading.
You are welcome!
What I think about the subject - it's undeniable that some human activities are highly destructive, and we should seek alternative methods of replacing those destructive activities. Deniers and believers both have their own agendas to manipulate information in whatever way, but what remains is the nature of human activities, and it's up to us to evaluate.
Agreed, we have been destroying nature with our crass consumerism and "progress" in the manufacturing sphere, but the question of global warming was a little far fetched! The cycles the earth goes through is natural, but our way of life has been hurting the other beings on the planet to extinction, and harming even the forests which produce our oxygen. This is disgusting and must stop!
Im 100% agree with you. Also I ask the "funny" question to a post about the North Polo, what was happening with the Sud one. But Im also agree with @kevinwong that both side have an agenda and that humans are a destructive virus in the planet.
... and just for finish, as the good George Carlin :)
Once, they claimed that we were on the verge of the next ice age.
Then, they said global warming.
Now, they use "climate change."
I guess that doesn't make them look as foolish...
Lol, exactly! And we the people are thoroughly confused and don't know what to believe! But I have started believing maybe all that was a figment of someone's imagination, as basic concepts about nature is still not grasped by "modern Science".
And thanks for the 5 stars!
You earned the 5 stars!
You can use that GIF on others too!
I just made it as a way to give more than a vote with no cents!
Anyone can copy and paste the address if they want!
Thanks for that!
We're at war with Oceania, Eurasia is our ally.
We're at war with Eurasia, Oceania is our ally.
Believe what we tell you. INGSOC!
Haha good one, it feels that way sometimes!
OK, I'll believe!
I like this post. I still believe there is some validity to global warming. Yet no changes from where the ice was 100 years. I wonder if it might be more pollution instead.
I too was a believer in global warming till I came upon stuff like these and other ancient texts from my own culture. I live in the Himalayas but our old texts seem to indicate that the is a natural cycle to the earth of which rise and fall of temperatures is a natural event, and will affect our environment here.
But like you do, I too cannot contemplate the effect of pollution and am confused! Thanks!
volcanoes...nature's polluters...big time.
last word..there are over four million of them on the sea floor.
And they been always there since time started!
What about the northern arctic ice sheet size? Just more people posting things of which they have no understanding. Honestly its depressing reading posts like these, because the facts are so twisted and contorted. Almost laughable.
I'm with you. I've left a more comprehensive comment above - based on the journal article itself.
So much of any public debate relies on cherry-picked examples. Yes, these journals are one form of evidence. Another, more reliable form, in a different location, are the photos of Glacier Park in Montana, where they've photographed the same glaciers from the same locations (or as close as they can reconstruct) decades apart, clearly showing a retreat of those glaciers.
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/retreat-glaciers-glacier-national-park?qt-science_center_objects=8#qt-science_center_objects
One of the biggest misunderstandings revolves around the phrase "global warming," which to most people implies a simple shift upwards in average temperature, by exactly the same amount in all locations. That's not how a chaotic system like the weather works. Add more energy and the variability of the system increases along with the average.
http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/lessons/FireProbabilityChaos/
This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the first half of Nov 25. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $7.54 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Nov 25 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
I'm guessing that not a single person has gone to read the actual article - which is an open-access publication. The abstract is here and anyone can read the whole article.
The article puts the research into context with the IPCC's statement of low confidence in its last report (i.e., no scandal) based on limited observations that make it hard to measure the different forces affecting Antarctic ice.
The article's ultimate conclusions are that sea ice extent back then was a lot greater for the Weddell Sea area and greater for the rest of the Antarctic. Not that there's been no change.
Here are their conclusions, extracted from their paper:
So the paper says that from 1931-1961 there was more ice than back then -- and more than today. That doesn't debunk anything about global warming. It says that the recent ice extent is lower than back then, but in between, there has been more ice.
Thanks for the links to the article, I had only seen the news report and put it up here under the news tag. I agree I should have researched more.
It's hard to know how to take a lot of science stories in the news, @norbu. The journalists often are not scientists and they need sensational headlines to hook readers. A key tipoff for me is that no single study will debunk a whole body of evidence from many, many studies. Scientists, by their nature, are looking at the things that are uncertain or unknown, because that's where they find things out. So each piece or work just builds evidence one way or another. And the conclusions slowly adjust to the new evidence. I'm glad that people, like you, too, care about our world, and have an interest in the way our world works!
What's a little funny (and encouraging) to see is ... there are (as of this comment) no counter-arguments posting hockey sticks or pseudo-data to back their hive mind programming.
So perhaps the programming is wearing off and people finally see it for what it always was, another mechanism for control (and taxes).
Actually, I regret posting this because this was a news article which I came across and used their words, but I have received flak for relaying an opinion which was not mine in the first place. I do have my opinions on this but nowhere in the post have I expressed them.
And thanks, your comments are always welcome.
Thank you for your request to include this post in the STEEM BOOSTER list! The post is approved because you powered up minimum 100 STEEM in the last 24 h and you are not currently powering down!