NSIDC continues to show record sea ice levels in Antarctica, but Antarctica is like Valdemort in their press releases (at least since the collapsing ice-shelf scam collapsed.)
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
The One Who’s Name Must Not Be Spoken
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
From their website:
“While both Arctic and Antarctic ice are of vital importance to the marine mammals and birds for which they are habitats, sea ice in the Arctic appears to play a more crucial role in regulating climate.” http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html
So there you have it: the Arctic appears to play a more crucial role in regulating climate
How convenient!
If it was the Antarctic that showed a downtrend, they probably would have said it was the other way around. Climate science, you just can’t go wrong with it. And it pays good, so come and join the fun!
They managed to find one citation for polar bears but it appears they couldn’t dig up anything for their claim that sea ice loss regulates climate…
No, some continent 3,000 miles across covered in ice couldn’t possibly affect the weather anywhere; well not as much as the slushie in the north.
Alarmist deniers claim there is no increase in Antarctic ice. Well, maybe just a teeney weeny little bit. And it is doesn’t apply to the areas that are about ready to collapse. They have to keep that myth alive at any cost.
If a weather event or anomaly doesn’t confirm the AGW scare, it is ignored or downplayed by the Chicken Little scientists in government and academia. There is big money at stake. Congress reports that $68.4 billion in federal money was spent between 2008 and 2012 to address man-induced climate change. The pseudo scientists pushing the CO2-is-warming-the-planet scare don’t want that well to dry up. Hence, their all-out criminal campaign to lie to and deceive the public with childish horror stories about an overheating planet.
The One Who’s Name Must Not Be Spoken
Nice. 🙂
It used to be Steve McIntyre.
Voldemort. The one whose name must be spelled right. Who is Valdemort? The Dark Lord’s gay cousin?
Oh no you’ve started the spelling curse!
Or is it a spelling spell?
A mothe!#f!!king cussing curse?…
The last 10 year’s of Arctic sea ice is 7.3% below the previous 10 years. Antarctic sea ice is 2.3% above (in an entirely different environment that responds in different ways). Total sea ice is down 2.5% compared to the decade earlier.
Why is there an apostrophe on “year’s”?
So that people who won’t address the facts have something to complain about anyway.
You didn’t properly answer my question … why is there an apostrophe on “year’s”?
I’m just trying to follow the rules of this blog: write first, think later.
(I see you are, too.)
“(I see you are, too.)”
How so?
Wrong. According to every single model ever published in a peer-reviewed paper, both poles should react the same to global warming.
Please show you evidence.
Of course, it’s precisely the same evidence you showed last time. Look it up.
Can you please provide citations to support your claims? Thanks.
David, other than the Hansen textbook stuff that Steve has cited here a half dozen times, you can also look at:
“The climate change projections over the 21st century reveal that the annual mean sea ice extent decreases at similar rates in both hemispheres…”
Gregory, 2000
The above is cited by the IPCC.
Also:
Sea ice evolution over the 20th and 21st centuries as simulated by current AOGCMs
Olivier Arzel *, Thierry Fichefet, Hugues Goosse
The above is cited by the IPCC.
Also consult the IPCC AR4 discussion:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-2-4.html
And why, again, do we think that a 24-year old paper was the last word in climate science?
Re Gregory 2000: Is there, perhaps, a journal this was published in? Are there other papers on the same subject? I heard recently that this is yet no good model of Antarctic sea ice, because copious snowfall in the Antarctic makes modeling snow/ice depth difficult, but then when I inquired was told the main PIOMAS author at U Wash is trying to build such a model.
“And why, again, do we think that a 24-year old paper was the last word in climate science?”
This is what the IPCC cited David, only a few years ago. Maybe you should ask them rather than complain to me. Presumably if they thought the paper was obsolete, irrelevant or whatever, they wouldn’t cite it.
“Re Gregory 2000: Is there, perhaps, a journal this was published in?…”
Read the IPCC discussion where Gregory 2000 is cited.
“Are there other papers on the same subject?”
Yes.
“I heard recently that this is yet no good model of Antarctic sea ice, because copious snowfall in the Antarctic makes modeling snow/ice depth difficult, but then when I inquired was told the main PIOMAS author at U Wash is trying to build such a model.”
There is no good regional model out there of anything, full stop. LOL. 😉
Where did the IPCC cite Hansen 1988?
In what context?
Such details matter.
>> “Read the IPCC discussion where Gregory 2000 is cited.”
Read WHERE???? The IPCC published a lot of documents.
Where am I supposed to read this?
Sthelensoregon s… what you seem to be suggesting is that if current trends continue, we will be in a new ice age shortly. Hmmm….
Uh, no. But thanks for writing.
LOL.
The world is doomed. Sea ice never used to fluctuate more than 2.4% previously.
When was that, and why?
Just in case David Appell is too lazy to do his own reading, the evidence is clear & uncontradictory, both poles should react the same to global warming: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
This is a bland and meaningless link, and not evidence of any sort.
Do you have evidence to support your claim? It doesn’t appear so….
I gave you better links David. I’m surprised you appear totally ignorant on this topic. Shouldn’t you know this stuff before you blog about “thought crime”. Now if they ever made ignorance a crime… 😉
“Gregory 2000” is not a link.
Is there a full citation?
This is where the paper is cited:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-2-4.html
As for digging out a link. You can do that as readily as me, so don’t bother me once I point you in the right direction. Even if I did this for you, you would only come up with some stupid remark like “the paper is obsolete” (or some other excuse), when obviously the IPCC doesn’t think it is.
@David: Here is a link to the abstract of the “Gregory 2000 paper”. The full paper costs $39.95.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/buedbbvwtbgxhbg9/
Unfortunately, I couldn’t find the relevant quote in the abstract or the 1 page preview.
Thanks for at least finally providing a link to something specific.
Now, what in this citation proves your point that the poles should react symmetrically?
Because what I read is:
“In 20th- and 21st-century simulations, antarctic sea ice cover is projected to decrease more slowly than in the Arctic…”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-2-4.html
Theres no helping Appells kind of brain dead will.
So you’re citing a paper you haven’t read. Nice.
(Hint: Usually, if you write to the author and ask, they are happy to send you a copy.)
It is not “brain dead” to ask for a specific link to a specific paper. Unless you don’t care about the details.
“In 20th- and 21st-century simulations, antarctic sea ice cover is projected to decrease more slowly than in the Arctic…”
Correct. Many of the cited papers cite equivalent levels of sea ice cover. Some postulate that sea ice will be somewhat less in Antarctica. None suggest no loss or gain, which is the current situation.
David Appell says:
September 27, 2012 at 2:40 am
Do you wake up in the morning and vow to be as stupid as possible? Read Stark’s quote and then the ipcc quote. Do you still not get it?
Also David, unless you’re as dumb as dog shit you can just look at: Figure 10.13. Multi-model simulated anomalies in sea ice extent for the 20th century (20c3m) and 21st century using the SRES A2, A1B and B1 as well as the commitment scenario for (a) Northern Hemisphere January to March (JFM), (b) Northern Hemisphere July to September (JAS). Panels (c) and (d) are as for (a) and (b) but for the Southern Hemisphere.
In the link I’ve already cited… Graphs (a) and (b) are for Antarctica, which clearly show accelerating sea ice loss for all scenarios except “commitment”. That’s your “scientific consensus” on the subject.
Will, please try to control your anger and profanity.
All that I read, and the scientists I talk to, admit that the Antarctic is a complex situation that no one precisely understands. By all means, please contribute to the existing body of knowledge.
On the other hand, the Arctic is melting faster than projections. Uncertainty cuts both ways.
We are all doomed.
I’ve got my rubber-ducky floaties at the ready.
David why do you think the Arctic is melting faster than projections? Citations please. IPCC Figure 10.13 pretty much shows a “death spiral” as you would say. Old school skeptics are a cranky bunch and don’t suffer fools lightly. (Let’s not comment further on your moving of the goal posts.)
Look, it’s simple. Heat rises to the top, so as the world overheats it’s obvious that the Arctic will melt, which is why there’s no need to worry about the Antarctic at all.