Kook And Nutter Math

ScreenHunter_3183 Sep. 29 19.56

How does Arctic sea ice loss compare to Antarctic sea ice gain?

Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain.

Climate Myth…

Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain
In fact, the global sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, because the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice. Indeed, when the summer extent of Arctic sea ice reached its lowest point in the 30-year record in mid-September 2007, just three weeks later the Antarctic sea extent reached a 30-year record high. The record low was widely reported; the corresponding record high was almost entirely unreported. (Chris Monckton)

How does Arctic sea ice loss compare to Antarctic sea ice gain?

Kook and Nutter solve the equation :

-3x + 1x = a positive number

The amount of sea on Earth is above the post 1979 mean, meaning that Antarctic gain is greater than Arctic loss

iphone.anomaly.global

iphone.anomaly.global.png (512×412)

I’m skeptical that their combined IQ matches that of a turnip.

About stevengoddard

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

42 Responses to Kook And Nutter Math

  1. 1957chev says:

    Are these individuals some sort of victims of “common core” math? That stuff will rot out anyone’s brain. Heaven only knows what will happen to future generations…

  2. terrence says:

    Please do not insult turnips by comparing these delusional bozos to them; turnips have a number of uses.

  3. njsnowfan says:

    Erratic N&S Hem sea ice anomalies linked to Natural Cold & Warm ocean cycles. Ice grows ice, les ice grows open water. Thicker Sea Ice is more stable, resulting from Cold Ocean cycles, Warmer cycles result in thinner sea ice and More erratic anomalies. AMO and PDO

    • njsnowfan says:

      oops, forgot the chart

      • Gail Combs says:

        Interesting.

        Joseph D’Aleo has a round up of info on the ocean cycles, PDO and AMO link

        His ending statement is a classic: “We are told, natural variability has been ruled out. It seems to me they never seriously looked. These are the same folks (including Mann and Schmidt) who this week admitted they didn’t [know] the difference between a derecho and the Geico gecko.”

        It fits in so nicely with the Kook and Nutter math.

      • Smokey says:

        Not only that, but Antarctica has 10X the ice volume of the Arctic.

        Global sea ice is right at it’s 30-year average. This daily sea ice chart debunks skepticalscience’s bogus propaganda:

  4. omanuel says:

    False propaganda – disguised as “consensus science” – simply confirms:

    JOSEPH STALIN

    1. Won WWII in Aug- Sept 1945
    2. Established the UN in Oct 1945
    3. False models of heavy atoms and stars in 1946

    Click to access Solar_Energy.pdf

    Government deceit will continue until we address the root problem.

  5. philjourdan says:

    No wonder they had to fudge the hokey stick.

  6. Henry says:

    I’d like to know the “albedo” math. Antarctic sea ice is further from the pole, and thus receives much more sunlight. but the Antarctic is further away, or something.

    the point being, ice and snow reflects considerably more long-wave radiation right back into outer space than sea water does

    Apparently, calculating the relative reflective albedo pole vs pole is very complicated. Is a sq k of sea ice on either pole equal?

    • Gail Combs says:

      RACookPE1978 over on WUWT has done some work on that.

      Comment 1

      Comment 2

      Comment 3 (Has spread sheet of actual solar Insolation values)

      The Earthshine Project at Bigbear Observatory shows a marked change in albedo after the 1997/98 El Nino: graph
      From the paper:

      Click to access Palle_etal_2004_Science.pdf

      You will notice on the Earthshine website they have ‘updated’ the graph and cut off the inflection point on their newest version of the graph:
      (wwwDOT)bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
      (Reminds me of starting the Arctic sea ice graphs at the inflection point)

      What is interesting is Dr. Joan Feynman et al also saw a lessening in solar strength back in 1997.

      Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature

      • thegriss says:

        Gail, do you know if RACookPE1978 took into account that at angles of less than about 10 degrees incidence, water has pretty close to “total external surface reflection” ?

        (not a cut and dried value, does depend on the polarity etc)

        In other words, when the sun’s incident angle is less than about 10 degrees, there is basically zero penetration of the sun’s energy

        • Gail Combs says:

          He does because he makes the following points

          The second assumption about Arctic Amplification, and easily the second most important assumption in the entire CAGW religion, is how the CAGW dogma assumes the albedo change as the polar icecap reduces will affect future climate. Sea Ice vs Open Ocean albedo does matter, and, in truth, really deserves a long conversation in its own entire thread, but let’s look at few important things.

          One. Continuously increasing positive Antarctic Sea Ice anomalies between 70 south latitudes and 59 south latitudes every day of the year for the past 15 years DO affect the world’s heat balance, but Arctic sea ice declines since 1979 – which occur between 78 north and 85 north in September each year do NOT affect the earth;’s heat balance.

          Two. Arctic sea ice albedo DOES change routinely over the year, and is lowest during the yearly June-July-August melt season. Actual Arctic sea ice is NOT the pristine…. link

          And then he gets into the math…

          It is worth doing a search and finding all his comment on that thread at WUWT.

          In other words the Climastrologists in directing attention towards the Arctic is a typical case of misdirection on thier part.

          I am of the opinion that it is the Antarctic sea ice that is more of a controlling factor.
          F.H. Haynie, a former EPA scientist made the point.

          fhhaynie says: @ January 18, 2014 at 8:24 am

          If I were asked to pick a single point on earth that most likely has the greatest effect on global weather and climate, it would be 0 and 90W (Galapagos). This is where El-nino winds, the deep sea Cromwell current, the Panama current, and the Humbolt current meet…

          The Humbolt current is the tongue of cold water that branches off the Antarctic Circumpolar Current at Drakes Passage and runs up the side of South America. You can see it in this map

          Research on Drakes Passage today:

          …Significance

          The experiments address a fundamental question of how the circulation of the ocean works. Since the global overturning circulation is apparently sensitive to wind even in regions where the ocean has eastern and western boundaries, it may be influenced by wind outside the Drake Passage latitudes. However, our results indicate that the unique geometry of the Drake Passage latitudes does make the global circulation – and perhaps the climate of the North Atlantic – especially sensitive to wind there.
          http://climate.gmu.edu/research/drake.php

          Effect of Drake Passage on the global thermohaline circulation

          Abstract
          -The Ekman divergence around Antarctica raises a large amount of deep water to the ocean’ surface. The regional Ekman transport moves the up-welled deep water northward out of the circumpolar zone. The divergence and northward surface drift combine, in effect, to remove deep water from the interior of the ocean. This wind-driven removal process is facilitated by a unique dynamic constraint operating in the latitude band containing Drake Passage. Through a simple model sensitivity experiment WC show that the upwelling and removal of deep water in the circumpolar belt may be quantitatively related to the formation of new deep water in the northern North Atlantic. These results show that stronger winds in the south can induct more deep water formation in the north and more deep outflow through the South Atlantic. The fact that winds in the southern hemisphere might influence the formation of deep water in the North Atlantic brings into question long-standing notions about the forces that drive the ocean’ thermohaline s circulation.

          Antarctic Circumpolar Current is wind driven and sometimes called the West Wind Drift.

          Antarctic Circumpolar Current – Response to recent Climate change (2008)
          The westerlies, the prevailing winds between 30oS and 60oS, in the Southern Hemisphere have been observed to have intensified significantly over the past decades.

          So what does covering that part of the ocean in more sea ice do to the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, especially in the restricted area around the tip of South America.

  7. Password protected says:

    They are a propaganda site, everything reported through the lens of CO2 controls heat retention on earth. I do find it entertaining in a car crash kinda way.

  8. John F. Hultquist says:

    -3x + 1x = a positive number

    If x is negative …
    Sorry, I did not go to SS and have no idea about X.

  9. Joe says:

    Skeptical Science nails it again.

  10. Robert B says:

    I was angry that they excluded data after 2012. Then I read that it was last updated in Nov 2011. I then saw that Figure 4 was up to date except that the Cryosat2 data showing a 50% growth in ice volume in October of 2013 was not there. You would think that they had a gut full of cherries by now.

    The first comment included “Measurements are taken by satellite, submarine, and by scientists on the ground,then extrapolated for the whole area of coverage. From what I read the results are reliable, in fact slightly overestimating the thickness of the ice”, Crysoat2 has only been running for a few years and it shows ice volume growing. The submarine data is all over the shop. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/validation/Fig2.png

  11. Send Al To The Pole says:

    Its because they asked Mikey (sooper Genius) Mann, and he told them that negative numbers are the same as positive ones.

  12. Charles Nelson nelson says:

    William Maurice Ewing, American Oceanographer and father of Plate Tectonics new a thing or two about the oceans. He firmly believed (on the basis of observations carried out by US Navy) that reduced Arctic Sea ice cover enabled much greater interaction between ocean and atmosphere and subsequently resulted in planetary cooling.

  13. Andyj says:

    How SkS handles respondents with a firm Marxist hand with threats of deletion and expulsion says a lot about how delicate their belief system is.

  14. Andyj says:

    And.. A WFT version. This is what they are attempting to obfuscate.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:12/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/mean:12

  15. pinroot says:

    Kook is going to be teaching a class in “Making Sense of Climate Science Denial.” It’s an online class, and anyone can sign up. It starts March 10,2015. I’ve signed up for the heck of it, just to see what it’s about. I don’t expect to pass lol.

    more here:
    https://www.edx.org/course/uqx/uqx-denial101x-making-sense-climate-4371

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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