Top Scientists : Either Shrinking Or Expanding Antarctic Sea Ice Is A Sign Of Global Warming Catastrophe

In 1981, George Kukla of Columbia University warned of a new ice age.


Daytona Beach Morning Journal – Google News Archive Search

One year later he said shrinking Antarctic sea ice was a signal that we were all going to die from global warming.

ScreenHunter_869 Dec. 25 22.53

ScreenHunter_870 Dec. 25 22.54

The Montreal Gazette – Google News Archive Search

Government scientists are much smarter now though, and they know that expanding Antarctic sea ice means we are all going to die from global warming.

ScreenHunter_868 Dec. 25 22.48

Antarctic Sea Ice Hits Record … High?

Note that this genius is arguing the exact opposite of polar amplification, which is a core principle of global warming theory.

So you have the warming world and a cold Antarctica, and the difference between the two is increasing

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Top Scientists : Either Shrinking Or Expanding Antarctic Sea Ice Is A Sign Of Global Warming Catastrophe

  1. Andy Oz says:

    Kukla and Rignot need psychological help. They are definitely bi-polar!

    • Jimbo says:

      Hey, there’s more from George Kukla.

      Published: March 28, 2011
      Prepare for new Ice Age now says Top Paleoclimatologist
      …..Co-author of an important section of the book “Natural Climate Variability on Decade to Century Time Scales,” Kukla asserts all Ice Ages start with a period of global warming. They are the harbingers of new Ice Ages. Actually, he explains, warming is good. Ice Ages are deadly and may even kill millions…….

      So, the climate scientists tell us warming, cooling, standstill, little bit up, little bit down are all SURE SIGNS OF GLOBAL WARMING AND COOLING. What is a sceptic to do?

      Wait, there is still some more….. 🙂

      Letters To Nature – 16 January 1992
      Gifford H. Miller et. al.
      Will greenhouse warming lead to Northern Hemisphere ice-sheet growth?
      ALTHOUGH model simulations predict a higher mean global temperature by the middle of the next century in response to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases1, the response of the cryosphere to specific changes in latitudinal and seasonal temperature distribution is poorly constrained by modelling2,3 or through instrumental measurements of recent variations in snow cover4and ice thickness5,6. Here we examine the recent geological record (130 kyr to present) to obtain an independent assessment of ice-sheet response to climate change. The age and distribution of glacial sediments, coupled with marine and terrestrial proxy records of climate, support arguments that initial ice-sheet growth at the beginning of the last glacial cycle occurred at high northern latitudes (65–80° N) under climate conditions rather similar to present. In particular, the conditions most favourable for glacier inception are warm high-latitude oceans, low terrestrial summer temperature and elevated winter temperature. We find that the geological data support the idea that greenhouse warming, which is expected to be most pronounced in the Arctic and in the winter months, coupled with decreasing summer insolation7 may lead to more snow deposition than melting at high northern latitudes8 and thus to ice-sheet growth.

      There is still some more. 😦 I have so many I no longer know what to do. How do you attack this? How can you be sceptical about something we can no longer identify? It’s a religion.

  2. Robertv says:

    No no no it’s not the faster wind but the missing heat. NASA has it all wrong.

    “Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing despite the warming global climate,” said the study’s lead author Richard Bintanja, from the KNMI.
    “This is caused by melting of the ice sheets from below,” he told the Reuters news agency.

  3. rah says:

    I don’t believe in their crap any more than you do. But for the sake of clarity I must mention that from what I have read they have been pretty consistent in saying that Polar Amplification does not apply to the Antarctic to the extent that it applies to the Arctic because they claim the southern seas act as a heat sink. The claim has been that Polar Amplification will cause significant warming in the Arctic but only limited warming in the Antarctic.

    Anyway does it really matter? This year at both poles the amplification at both poles has been in the growing extent of ice, snow snow cover, and cold temps so they’re still full of it!

    • So your argument is that a negative number in the Antarctic is a smaller positive number than the amount of warming Arctic.

      You might want to think that over.

      Old Jedi mind trick from the team.

      • hpjunior says:

        His argument was, “I don’t believe in their crap any more than you do.” However, I understand it’s a difficult sentence to parse, however, and its meaning could be any old thing.

        Then he cited THEIR argument, the one in which he does NOT believe.

        English is so hard on a person. It can make one attack a friend, much like another, saner person might attack an enemy.

  4. Phil Jones says:

    That’s why they renamed it from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” …. To cover all the bases and have it both ways, the Media willingly accepted this. Any weather event or cycle can now be called “Climate Change”…. These folks won’t acknowledge normal cycles of our planet, the Sun, all the orbits, etc… Anything outside of Man Made CO2.

    Why do we accept this BS???

    The Alarmists tell us it WILL get warmer, the Ice WILL melt, and oceans WILL rise… Yet we’ve had an expansion of ice and a 17 year pause right when Warmists said all our CO2 production would lead to disaster… With 95% Confidence…

  5. rah says:

    My argument was merely concerning your statement: “Note that this genius is arguing the exact opposite of polar amplification, which is a core principle of global warming theory.”

    And pointing out that the at that very core principle they have been pretty consistent in saying it applies to a much larger extent in the Arctic than to the Antarctic. This in the Context of Rignut’s (yes I meant to spell it that way) comments.

    • Polar amplification means that the poles are warming faster than lower latitudes. His claim is that the south pole is warming slower than lower latitudes. That is the exact opposite of polar amplification and is not consistent with global warming theory.

    • Jimbo says:

      I can no longer tell what the IPCC projects. It’s full of it.

      Climate Change 2007: Working Group II:
      Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
      In contrast to the unanimity of the models in predicting a north-polar amplification of warming, there are differences among the model projections concerning polar amplification in Antarctica, especially over the continent (Parkinson, 2004). However, in several simulations, the warming is amplified over a narrow Southern Ocean band from which sea ice retreats.

      You see they will give you many simulation results for all manner of climate change indicators so they can pick it and say they got it right no matter what happens. This is the game the IPCC and con artist Warmists play. If the Arctic sea ice began expanding they would simply include the paper I referenced above in their reviews and have expanding Arctic sea ice caused by global warming to fall back on.

  6. wwlee4411 says:

    Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
    They can’t admit the truth! It’s all natural.

  7. Gamecock says:

    But Lea says government scientists are the smartest people in the world! If one says expanding ice means global warming, and another says shrinking ice means global warming, it must be TRUE!

    You vill be happy.

  8. edward1968 says:

    This guy reminds me of the soothsayer from the movie Ed Wood.
    “I make it up, it’s horse-shit.”

  9. GoneWithTheWind says:

    The two factors at work here are: 1. It is normal for someone who dedicates his life to a area of study to see everything from the perspective of that discipline. No matter what a climate scientist observes he will see it in the context of his belief system and today that is global warming while 40 years ago it was global cooling.
    2. Everyone is unique in their own mind. The world began the day they were born and it continues to exist because they are there to observe it. They expect something “important” to happen during their lifetime and of course it will happen in the area of their interest. And it would be so much the better it they themselves could discover it or predict it. In may ways it is like religion. Global warming it the religion of the warmist and the deniers are the devil and you will probably never change them. As Oprah said “they will just have to die before there is a change in their beliefs”.

  10. jfreed27 says:

    The amount of melting Arctic ice is far greater than the increase in Antarctic sea ice. This is cause for concern.

    Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth’s energy balance because when it increasingly melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth’s energy balance largely unchanged.

    Also, sea ice aside, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly. This land ice is what increases sea level, not sea ice.

    In a complex system one will not see uniform effects. That is why, even with 99% of the earth warmer than average, one might see 1% colder than average.

    • The global sea ice area anomaly is +900,000 km^2, indicating that the positive Antarctic sea ice anomaly is far higher than the Arctic negative anomaly.

      It is the middle of summer in Antarctica, and they have a huge excess in ice, which is reflecting sunlight and cooling the Earth. The Arctic minimum occurs in late September, just as the sun sets and has no effect on the SW balance.

      “Skeptical Science” is a paid propaganda site, and almost everything they say there is incorrect.

    • tom0mason says:

      “Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth’s energy balance because when it increasingly melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth’s energy balance largely unchanged.”

      That’s because mysteriously the antarctic ice changes in to fairy dust and drifts aways to the secret deep ocean where all the heat hides.

  11. derfel cadarn says:

    Please note, that when ANY possible conditions are evidence of your particular cause, then your cause is no longer “science” it has become religion. We all know just how exacting the thought process behind religion is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s