Global sea ice area is the highest this millennium, is approaching the highest area ever measured, and has been above normal for most of 2013.
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008
The Washington Post reports that the poles are melting at an alarming rate.
 | gelcarrion0t on “New computer modeling… |
 | Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp |
 | Christopher Simpson on 1896 : Japan Hit By Earthquake… |
 | energywise on What’s At Stake? |
 | Robert Cherba on Too Hot To Live |
| gelcarrion0t on Too Hot To Live |
 | Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
 | Colin Barton on “world is on edge of cli… |
Tthe claims of catastrophic Arctic/Antarctic warming and the demise of polar bears and penguins are totally inaccurate and fraudulent.
Washington Post reporting is thin, weak, first year reporting and will dissipate quite quickly.
Stupid question: Does an increase in global sea ice have any significant impact on sea levels?
No, it is like ice cubes in a drink. Ice that forms or melts does not change sea level.
Google “Two Minute Conservative,” http://adrianvance.blogspot.com When you speak ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.
Accept when that ice is above the water level.
I don’t except your nonsense.
Ice is less dense and about 10% is seen above the surface, the amount of expansion, thus the level does not change. Please, this is in every junior high school General Science taexbook. Even Al Gore should be able to understand it in spite of having flunked the one, required, dumbell science survey course required.
I refuse to accept that which you except.
What am I “excepting?” You have confused “accept” and “except” in a previous post, refuse to consider elementary physics taught to children in schools. What do you have against rationality?
No, but don’t feel bad, Joseph. You’re not the only one who finds this confusing.
The National Science Foundation is the arbiter of who gets federal grants to do scientific research in America. Their scientists evaluate something like 40,000 grant requests per year, determine who’s doing the best science, and hand out some 10,000 grants. But they don’t understand this subject, either. They’ve had misinformation about it on their web site for more than eight years.
In 2011 I noticed their error, pointed it out to them, and asked them to fix it in the two places I found it: the html and pdf versions of their online book, America’s Investment in the Future. Both versions said:
In the html version, that has now been replaced with the following mea culpa:
But, even though I told them about both locations where the error occurred, they still haven’t fixed it in the pdf version. The error is on the 9th page (which is numbered page 140), in a subsection entitled, “The importance of sea ice,” here:
http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/pdf/arctic.pdf
There was a discussion of this on WUWT, here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/10/nsf-just-now-figures-out-archimedes-buoyancy-principle/
Notice that the NSF claims/claimed that temperature changes which increase water density in the upper ocean (by melting ice) will cause coastal sea-level rise to occur elsewhere. Contrast that with the IPCC’s claim that a temperature changes which decrease water density in the upper ocean will cause coastal sea-level rise to occur elsewhere. Does anyone see a conflict?
No wonder they’re so sure that sea-level is going to rise dramatically. According to the experts, everything causes sea-level rise.
If the present rate of recovery of the Arctic and records of the Antarctic continue in 2014, we’ll certainly have the highest sea ice of 2 millenius by October.
The Antarctic ice was considerably lower than now at the beginning of the 1980’s, when the Arctic ice was very high, that’s why this possibility is really open.
… and AGW would be buried in snow and ice forever!! 🙂
What a good way it’d be for Mother Nature to teach these hoaxers a good lesson.
It’s time to ask, “What would the temperatures be according to your models if we didn’t have 400ppm CO2? Ice age?
Zero Kelvin. 😀
Don’t say 2 millennia that the kind of wording that weakens an argument rather than strengthens it. It’s the kind of talk the alarmists use. 13 years of 1 millennium and a few decades of another isn’t 2 millennia. Overblown speech has less of an effect than rigorous scientific wording.