Antarctic sea ice above average for 1000 straight days

AntarcticIceAnomaly.jpg


Antarctic sea ice above average for 1,000 straight days. Liberal mainstream media explaining how this is caused by Global Warming in 3… 2… 1…

J.P. Travis: Born and raised in Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976 graduate of University of Michigan, father, grandfather, husband, founder and CEO of Travelyn Publishing (http://www.travelynpublishing.com/), and passionate anti-government believer in individual liberty.

View Comments (36)

  • Clearly what's needed here is for NASA, NOAA, Penna or East Anglia, one of theses AGW places of worship, to masssage the data to make it better 'fit' the global warming models. Dr. Mann! Dr. Mann! Paging Dr. Mann. You are needed in the data editing room, STAT!

  • This appears to be cheer-picked information

    The Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140820110538.htm

    states the following:

    “… whereas both the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Antarctic Peninsula, on the far west of the continent, are rapidly losing volume, East Antarctica is gaining volume — though at a moderate rate that doesn’t compensate the losses on the other side of the continent.”

    Also this articles discusses volume loss in glaciers that existed before the last mini ice age.

    Source:http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/08/signal-of-anthropogenic-climate-change-is-written-in-the-ice/

    • Your link refers to glaciers on the land. The article referenced here is about sea ice. Two different things.

          • I thought Chicago Jesus was going to stand on the shore and stop the oceans rise and global warming.???? looks like he fucked that up to.....That Leave AL Gorzerra to run around and do his best chicken little impression...Climate Clingers....Clueless.....

          • For one, it covers a three-year period, admits one side of the continent is melting but the other side is growing, but doesn't give you any numbers to show the overall difference. You see the problem there? Plus, let's be real, the overall ice content of a continent full of glaciers is almost impossible to measure, so those results are tentative at best while the coverage of sea ice, which this post was about, is easily measurable and is definitely increasing. It's nice that you mentioned cherry picking, because that's exactly what you are doing. The clear numbers show clearly enumerated increasing sea ice, the tentative numbers suggest vague decreases in overall glacier HEIGHT (which may or may not be related to ice content), and you decide, "Ah ha! Global Warming is confirmed!" It's a madness you have, a madness related to mass hysteria, where people are afraid to question the consensus. It's sad.

            Let me ask you a question: when Antarctica's sea ice reaches Brazil, will you still cling to your AGW dogma or will you finally see the light?

          • You do realize while sea ice is increasing (which is caused by the drop in the ozone levels which increases cooling in the stratosphere Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5643/273.abstract)

            You also forgot to mention the last few words from the article: "East Antarctica is gaining volume -- though at a moderate rate that doesn't compensate the losses on the other side of the continent." Therefore there is a NET lose. The keyword here is "NET".

            To answer your question nope. At this rate, the Antartica land size is decreasing enough to raise sea levels.

          • Number one: the ozone hole has stabilized so cannot possibly be causing an increase in sea ice right now.

            Number two: no matter what is happening to the ozone, for you to declare sea ice is increasing because of it... well, that's just another example of blind faith in your Global Warming religion - clearly you will say anything that supports your belief system.

            Number three: your link is merely another example of presenting a "model" as though it is actual science, which fools only the naïve at this point. It's easy to "model" the past but, as we have seen over and over again, as the years pass those climate models which looked so good predicting the past are dismal failures at predicting the future.

          • In response to your numbers:

            1) It is stabilizing not stabilized. This is a significant difference.

            2) My apologies: the paper I previously linked you requires the user to have an account (I have an account so I wasn't aware of this at first). Here is another paper discussing this phenomena: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL037524/full

            Essentially, the drop of the Ozone levels over Antarctica causes stratospheric cooling and there is also an increase in wind which leads to more areas of open water that can be frozen. A more thorough explanation can be found in the paper I cited above. Please let me know if that still doesn't make sense to you.

            3) Models are used extensively in engineering and science. They are never 100% accurate but the results they produce can be used to create chemical plants and to investigate problems such as climate change. In a climate system with net positive feedback, uncertainty is skewed more towards a stronger climate response, making several IPCC predictions to be underestimated.

            Also, the fact that models match empirical data is telling and further supports the dangers of climate change.

          • Again - and I find it very frustrating to talk to someone who seemingly cannot comprehend simple English words - your link is to a scientific paper (and I use the word "scientific" loosely here) which draws conclusions from a climate model, not from any sort of actual physical science. And while you disingenuously defend models by mentioning completely different spheres of human endeavor where modeling is effective, the fact is, CLIMATE modeling is ludicrously inaccurate. Embarrassingly inaccurate. To the point where the fraudulent nature of it fairly screams at you.

            When your link mentions performing an "experiment," my goodness that sounds scientific, doesn't it? But then you read on in the abstract (which you apparently did not) and learn the "experiment" was merely an experiment within the model, not in the actual world we live in. That's fantasy science, not physical science.

          • Interesting article. Thank you for sharing.

            I think the important thing to realize here is that the geothermal heat has been present in this region for 1000s of years. However, we are seeing an ACCELERATION in ice shrinking on land. This is only explained by the additional heat load (CO2) that was added by humans in recent history.

          • Just an aside JP, not even a very good story really but one thing jumped out at me

            "He told the paper that the ocean, during the time the arrowhead was likely used, was about 100 miles farther than it is today..."

            So, 8,000 years ago the Jersey Shore was waaayyyy over there. Hmph, must have been all those internal combustion canoes.

          • Are you seriously asserting that we measured that ice "1000s of years" ago? I didn't think so. And since we didn't and couldn't have, how in the world can you possibly know that the present amount of ice shrinkage (if such is actually happening) is anywhere out of the normal range, or any different than it was "1000s of years" ago?

          • The article you linked me is about the Himalayan Glaciers. That science daily article is concerning the Greenlandic and Antarctic glaciers.

          • It is easy to make a sarcastic remark like that when you are not able to discuss what exactly is wrong with the article.

            Still waiting...

          • My apologies Sir, I cannot speak for anyone else but the problem for me is less the article but of the whole premise of anthropogenic global warming- particularly with the proposed taxes and revenue generating measures and regulatory stranglehold the progressives are aiming to get over established fuel sources-- juxtaposed with the narrative proclaiming a dire crisis. To me none of it makes any sense so any source that deals with AGW like its a foregone conclusion becomes self indicting as far as I'm concerned. It seems less about saving the planet and more about gaining control and making as much money as possible.

            Being a working stiff I haven't the time to do the research that so many liberals demand be done to justify skepticism. Within the global warming hoax-narrative, the article contains no flaws if that pleases you... I simply smell a rat- particularly when the biggest boosters of the hoax ride their private jets, live in their huge, petrochemically powered and warmed mansions would dictate to me how I'm to spend my modest resources to address a crisis that by their own actions they prove to be false.

    • Glad I saw this before I posted the same thing!
      At least now, there is a good correlation between hockey sticks and the polar ice. Since there is so much more ice, there is more use for hockey sticks year round.

  • Looks like we need to lay off all the activities to slow global warming before we all freeze to death. God knew there would be internal combustion engines and coal fired energy plants. That's why there is such an abundance of oil, gas and coal.
    Yes, we need to control pollution and America is doing its part, but it is idiotic to shut everything down before sufficient alternative sources of renewable energy is available.

  • Does AlGore know of this?

    Does the IPCC or John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) know of this?

    Me, personally i will go with the computer models rather than reality.

    • AlGore will soon find out and will take a motorcade escorted limo ride to his personal hangar where his own personal private jet will be prepared for takeoff and he'll jet off to where he can impress on us the urgency to reduce our carbon footprint because "scientists" are busy reconciling this as further proof of climate's chaos and inverse warming setback related polar bear death and taxes and a sign that the Koch brothers are hard at work subverting the 99.99999% consensus that we need to regulate dangerous pollutants like carbon and conservatives.

  • They don't explain it. They keep telling the ignorant that the ice is melting and the penguins are roasting and we're all gonna die if we don't contribute to Al Gore.

    • I read this yesterday and just wanted to come back and say thanks for the song that's been playing in my head off and on ever since ♫♪ penguins roasting on an open fire...♪♫

    • Fact.

      I recently spoke to my 75 year old - more conservative than I am - mother and she even remarked how climate has been more extreme "lately". It was just reflexive. No real thought given just repeated what she had so heard many times in the media. My recommendation to check out sites such as wattsupwiththat.com and a rational curious mind led to her understanding what was really happening.

      • If your mom is still in CT, I would think she might have commented about how the climate was much more mild this summer, since they are having one of the mildest summers in decades.

        BTW:
        Kalifornia had a globull warming incident this morning, a 6.0 earthquake in Napa, which is obviously because the earth is heating up and expanding, making the fault lines shift. :roll:

Related Post
  1. DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING: ‘ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE ASSAULT VEHICLE AND TROOP TRANSPORT’
  2. Kim Jong-un was a child prodigy
  3. Top GOP Leader Promises Total Amnesty In 2015