NASA finds "vast regions" of Antarctic melting

NASA released a new report today revealing clear evidence of extensive snow melt in 2005 due to warmer than normal temperatures.

Using their new QuikScat satellite, NASA found “the most significant melt observed using satellites during the past three decades.”

According to Conrad Steffen at the University of Colorado: “Antarctica has shown little to no warming in the recent past with the exception of the Antarctic Peninsula, but now large regions are showing the first signs of the impacts of warming..”


These government “scientists” with their “QuackScat” don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s just the urban heat island effect.

Now we have an “eco-hitler” and “environazi” commenting on the site. 

This comment is about as in-depth as you can get. So do you have any “research” to back up your claim? 

Nice sock-puppet, Kevin.

What is that exactly?

Here's a good definition of “urban heat island.”

“An Urban Heat Island is a metropolitan area which is significantly warmer than its surroundings. As population centers grow in size , they tend to have a corresponding increase in average temperature. Not to be confused with global warming, scientists refer to this phenomenon as the “Urban Heat Island Effect” (UHIE). There is little controversy in the existence of the UHIE. What is more controversial is whether, and if so how much, this additional warmth affects the (global) temperature record. The current state of the science is that the effect on the global temperature record is small to negligible. More information can be found here.”

Where or where is the urban heat island in the Antarctica? There are less than 1000 residents living there. 

The deniers’ argument about the UHI has been long refuted. See here:

and pages 243-245 here:

This is the take of Steve Milloy, bete noir to all good Desmoggers, on this story:

“Is any loss of Antarctic ice mass suspected? No. Was there any increase in Antarctic temperature detected? No. The article says this hasn’t been observed before in three decades of satellite monitoring – has this particular technique been employed for three decades? No, it actually said we hadn’t seen it before and threw in the fact that there have been polar orbiting satellites for about 30 years but the two statements aren’t really related. Do we know that this represents any form of change or novel event? No. Is this a breathless blurt about a mildly interesting but largely irrelevant observation? Yes.”

You’re welcome.

Why should I rely on anything the IPCC says? It is a group with an obvious agenda, namely to promote cut-backs in CO2 based on the unproven assumption that human activity is causing global warming. The IPCC was locked into this stance before it had any research to support this assumption. An abundance of research since has raised serious doubt about this simplistic notion.

Yet the UN-backed IPCC minions plod along pretending that if humans just tinker enough with CO2 output levels at a cost of untold billions, we can … what? Prevent a few tenths of a degree rise in global temperature? Such an amount would be indistinguishable from natural variations in global temperatures. And while we waste time and money on this nonsense, real pollution problems go unsolved.

This is why informed people see the global warming industry as a vast hoax. Milloy simply draws attention to this fraud like he does other types of junk science.

faraday unsympathizable incisal unawardableness prognathi statolithic smokelessly unpleasurable
BDM Associates