(4A) Profiles in Malicious Deception - 1000frolly: NASA-The "Mystery" of Antarctic Cooling

Oh the relief, finally, I'm finished!  Welcome to the final installment of my review of 1000frolly's malicious YouTube fraud-video.  For an introduction to this series visit (1) Profiles in Malicious Deception - 1000frolly.

NASA - The "Mystery" of Antarctic Cooling

Published on Jan 25, 2016  |  1000frolly  |  30:04 painful minutes long

1000frolly writes in his description: NASA scientists Walt Meier and Nathan Kurtz are baffled by the "Mystery" of just why the Antarctic simply refuses to warm. {Wrong!  Someone simply did an execrable job of putting together that NASAGoddard video.  Vital information was left on the cutting room floor!}

Instead, it's been cooling for decades! {Michael Crichton may say so, but he's a dead fiction thriller writer, can't you do better than that?  

There's plenty of warming happening on and around Antarctica.}

Their CO2-driven computer models insist that it has to be warming!

It must be! After all; The Science is "Settled" - isn't it? {Yes, Antarctica is warming! Yes, the fundamentals are settled.  Actually, models are plenty accurate, just need to be willing to assess them honestly.}

This is the "Mystery of Antarctica"! The "Canary in the Coal Mine"! 

I will explain just why the Antarctic refuses to warm {But, he never does.}, 

and why this means that the Enhanced Carbon Dioxide hypothesis (CAGW) has to be thrown out. {Only by ignoring tons of evidence can one cling to such disconnected nonsense.}

___________________________________________________

Introduction

It's been interesting in a masochistic sort of way, it's helped teach me about "cosmoclimatology" and Antarctica is always fascinating (if sad) to research and I learned a few more facts, such as that eye popping map of Antarctic bottom waters.  

But dealing with 1000frolly's words was the heart of this.  My ongoing struggle to comprehend how someone can believe and broadcast such cobbled together kindergarden 'science', glued will tons of malicious slander towards honest competent experts.  

Supported with a gross double standard toward evidentiary expectations.  A crank's notions are given more weight than decades worth of Air Force research, followed by literally thousands of scientists and tens of thousands of support staff around globe, studying our planet with ever greater detail and understanding.

All of this is forced through with an attitude of absolute self-certainty and total disregard, nay hostility, towards all contrary information.

He, they, turn what should be a learning process into malicious political theater focused on sowing confusion, distrust and resentment.  It has nothing to do with learning.  Please join me in my examination of 1000frolly many deceptions and lies, check out the footnotes, for corroborating evidence. You can open them in a second window for side by side viewing "(4B) Profiles in Malicious Deception (footnotes): YouTube's 1000frolly: Antarctic Fraud" 

___________________________________________________

22:55  - 1000frolly:  Let's get back to the Antarctic, (Polyakov et. al 2002b)

Now global circulation models forced by carbon dioxide, as they all are show that both poles should warm far more than tropical regions.{Well yes.  Climate models utilize established physics, can't get away from the CO2 reality, any more than you can ignore gravity.}{see #1} 

There's various technical reasons, which I won't get into right now.   You can consult the paper by Polyakov(2002b) 2002 if you wanna find out all about all that.  but that's not what's seen in the data.  Antarctica cools when the rest of the planet warms and vice versa. {You speak as though Antarctica were a single point.  There is much warming happening on and around Antarctica - information that frolly censors from this one-sided contrived presentation.}{see #2}

23:25  You can see the perfect angle Ingolsson et al 2003.  Now the question we will answer here is, why?  Why does this happen, why does it totally contradict the co2 hypothesis?  {Well?  Frolly, why not stop to consider the answers before moving on?}{see #3}

As is always the case it's a combinations of factors:

Ozone hole - diminishing atmospheric insulation over the continent,

Circumpolar Winds - isolating central Antarctica,

Ocean currents - sucking heat into the depths before getting to the continent.

This observation based information makes it clear that there's much warming going on throughout the southern hemisphere, and oceans.

Mind you, Antarctica makes less than 5% of the Southern Hemisphere.

Frolly and pals, this is not a game, this is important information that all citizens have a right to be aware of.

Why it has invalidated the enhanced CO2 hypotheses, which it has invalidated it completely. {You haven't invalidated a damned thing.}{#4} Now what the CO2 guys have done basically since the 1980s is screwed up cause and effect.   CO2 is not a cause, it is an effect. {Another example of willful disconnect from reality - injecting 2 to 3 gigatons of atmosphere insulating CO² into our atmosphere is a human driven "cause" - denying it doesn't change that physical reality, nor the physics of what it does as it accumulates up there.}{#5}

24:00 So what causes it to change the temperature changes on Earth. {Hello frolly, temperature change is not what's caused humans to burn fossil fuels and inject billions of tons of this (insulating medium) into our atmosphere.}  And CO2 doesn't drive anything.  It doesn't drive the climate. {Warming a system will energize that system - think cascading consequences} Changes in cloud cover and properties cause changes in global temperatures so in effect the clouds are driving climate changes. {ludicrous} And what's driving the cloud changes is solar activity changes.  {But observations show that solar activity has remained very stable!  Same with cosmic ray flux.  JCR hypothesis is a fail.  See th precious installments of this review #2B and #3B.}{#6}

Through the JCR link which we've already looked at extensively  {You have no clue what 'extensive' means, stop pretending.  Look at the information within some of my footnotes for a taste of extensive.}{#7}

What it boils down to in the case of Antarctica is albedo.  Antarctica is the whitest surface on Earth, far wider than the Arctic, whiter than clouds, any clouds.

So when you've got cloudiness over Antarctica that actually warms the surface.   It doesn't cool it like it does in the rest of the planet.  Now what you got here you actually have a climatic seesaw.  Anything south of 60 degrees south will seesaw with anything north of 60 degrees south.{Nonsense, saying it seesaws, does it no justice.  And it's not really at "60° south", it's the Antarctic Convergence zone.} Now this is seen in the lot of the literature and a lot of the data. {#8}

25:25  -  OK, you have to put thinking cap on here a little bit now.  Normally over most of the planet high clouds warm, cause warming, low clouds cause cooling during the daytime and warming at night time.  Now in the Antarctic its different, when there's more low clouds over the Antarctic, {How often does Antarctica have cloudy days?} that causes warming, {Enough to warm the whole world?  Where's the math?  What about all that dense bottom water, you really think some clouds are producing that heat?  Take a look at #15} whether it's daytime or nighttime it causes warming, anytime of the year you get warming from lower clouds over Antarctica. {Which isn't too often.  Frolly do you understand the colder air gets the less moisture it can hold?}  Same over Greenland incidentally.  {Incidentally, here's an example of frolly being way behind on the news.  

Okay, it's actually a favorite contrarian tactic, ignore updated information.}

Same over Greenland incidentally {Nope - see #9}

This is because of albedo, because the Antarctic is the whitest surface on the planet, it reflects more incoming solar energy but even more than the clouds do,  So more low clouds {Which isn't that often} do not have a cooling effect, as they do for the rest of the planet.

I'll just run through that again.

It's all to do with albedo, less low cloudiness and the world warms.

But the Antarctic cools, and Greenland incidentally cools as well.

Because Greenland is very white and fluffy on the surface 

{Hello frolly, not any more it isn't!}{#9}

Now, more low cloudiness cools the world {No clouds don't cool the world, they cool regions below them, their global impact is quite small compared to others attributions}, but the Antarctic warms. And Greenland warms too. {#10}

26:55  -  Ok, now we got that down, so basically clouds always have a warming effect on Antarctica whether they are lower clouds, high clouds, day time or night time they always have a warming effect.  {Frolly, albedo effects are quite minimal at night, and Antarctica has a three to five month Long Night.  Not much "cloud heating" going on in the dark, nor during the long twilight for that matter.}{#11}

Now clouds else where warm at night, they cool during the day.  I'm talking about lower clouds now. They cool during the day because they reflect insolation, they warm at night because they act as an insulator keeping long wave radiation from escaping.

{This all sound very logical, but ask frolly about how cloudy Antarctica actually gets.}{#12} 

Antarctica Time lapse: A Year on Ice 

Anthony Powell  | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TemK6CF6lF0 |  19:00 min

Now Svensmark has tried to look at early data and calculated that 4% more lower clouds cause 1 degree temperature fall at the equator and 0.5°C degree rise in the Antarctic.  Now 4 percent less clouds would increase the temperature at the equator by one degrees centigrade and cause .5 degree loss at the temperatures in the Antarctic.   {But, that's Svensmark's numbers.  Does anyone outside the echo-chamber agree?  

Besides we are talking tiny fluctuations in localized air temps - how in creation can that supply the heat for melting glaciers and warming deep ocean water, or the heat waves/domes we're witnessing?  Show us your math.}

Now the effect of less low clouds globally like we have from 1975 to 2000 is warming. {But the complete data shows something quite different, look at this report from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography look at that period} {#13} Even though the Antarctic cooled or stayed almost stable for that time. {There's nothing stable about Antarctica !}{#14} The fact is globally we get global warming.  Now I'm trying to keep this simple of course, but that is the general idea. {... that a fractional change in clouds in causing all the global warming we are witnessing.  Is that it?}  Of why atmospheric temperatures and global temperatures have gone the way they have over the last few hundred years that we have been measuring them. {the deep ocean is warming... and you satisfy yourself with such a hollow argument?}{#15}

YaleClimateConnections | Apr 14, 2015 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pDB_C-jwkU

28:40 So, climate change, its not driven by co2, it's not largely determined by co2 changes in the atmosphere, or by our co2 emissions. {Such delusion would be funny, if not for the fact that a handful of über-wealthy industrialist and their Republican political pawns, hide behind such insanely disconnected reasoning to justify their continued ignoring of this reality that is barreling down on us with increasing momentum.}{#16}

28:51 so in conclusion {here comes the pitch} I would say don't worry so much about CO2 { Oh really -> #16}, worry about real pollutants {Noble.}, worry about real problems that we have in the world {Like the prospect of losing our coastal cities and infrastructure?} of which there are very many. {like intensified storms and droughts battering our farmlands?}{#17}  Stop wasting money on solar panels and windmills if you want to push forward with alternative energy sources so-called cleaner sources then by all means spend money on R&D look into that.  {There's the dog whistle: let's ignore this a few more years, so we can sit on our contented lazy rears.}

But don't change too much drastic now {Look out your cubicle frolly, the drastic change is already happening all over the world.}{#18} because this will have a really detrimental effect on global economies which would cost lives. {You can bet drastic global warming driven climate change, that hired guns like you have invited into our lives will certainly cost, more likely destroy our global economy.}  Many many lives there's no doubt about that. Worried about people first economist second and don't worry about CO2 at all. {Get what this guy is saying.  Ignore our protective atmosphere, the thing standing between us and freezing outer space.  Sorry but that's nothing less than criminal.}

1000frolly, how can you peddle this destructive nonsense?

This sort of malicious willful misdirection away from - proven well beyond reasonable doubt - down to Earth understanding.   We've already squandered irretrievable decades.  Continuing this sort of fraud is a criminal offense against our democratic society and our children in particular. 

What frolly is doing here is no honorable act of civic minded 'free speech' - it's malicious stupefying vandalism in the service of pure egomaniacal greed. 

Why leaders and representative who know better continue condoning it, silent as lambs being led off to slaughter, mystifies me.

In the middle of all this deception we have a small cabal of über-wealthy self-satisfied hubristic 'masters of the Universe' who are doing everything in their seemingly omnipotent power to run out the clock, so they can finish up their smug little lives unbesmirched by the havoc they've done so much to help insure, let the kids have the hind end.

Though I'm totally powerless to do anything about it, I will at least be a witness.  Who knows someone may find something helpful (or hopeful) within.  Hope springs eternal.  

____________________________________________________________

Also see: 

This is what a scientist sounds like, Dr. Randall on Clouds and such.

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/04/davidrandall-clouds-co2science.html