Waiting for 350.org to make an announcement...

By: hcubed , 12:32 AM GMT on September 20, 2012

Share this Blog
1
+

...about the new record set (surely another extreme, unprecedented, CO2 fueled CAGW scare).

O.K., I've led you on enough. What record are we talking about - the low Arctic ice extent?

Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record

"...Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data..."

We should have heard from Mann, Hansen, McKibben, Gore - the usual suspects.

"...National Public Radio (NPR) published an article on its website last month claiming, “Ten years ago, a piece of ice the size of Rhode Island disintegrated and melted in the waters off Antarctica. Two other massive ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula had suffered similar fates a few years before. The events became poster children for the effects of global warming...There’s no question that unusually warm air triggered the final demise of these huge chunks of ice...”

So the unusually warm air this year, affecting the Arctic, should also be causing havoc on the Antarctic, too.

"...NPR failed to mention anywhere in its article that Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012.

Indeed, none of the mainstream media are covering this important story. A Google News search of the terms Antarctic, sea ice and record turns up not a single article on the Antarctic sea ice record. Amusingly, page after page of Google News results for Antarctic sea ice record show links to news articles breathlessly spreading fear and warning of calamity because Arctic sea ice recently set a 33-year low.

Sea ice around one pole is shrinking while sea ice around another pole is growing. This sure sounds like a global warming crisis to me..."

Me too. BTW, on my ASK search, there was ONE story on the new record. The rest were centered on the Arctic decline. So I hope, somehow, we do hear from McKibben. How else will we know if this story is true?

P.S. I also believe the moon landing was real...

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 4 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

4. hcubed
6:32 AM GMT on September 22, 2012
Well, last comment here (unless Tamino jumps back in).

We're used to seeing comments like this (from the source, NOAA's NCDC) "...August 2012 was the 330th consecutive month with global temperatures warmer than the 20th century average; the last time global temperatures were below average was February 1985..."

So it seems like seeing long term values above the average are an effective way of spreading the word about CAGW. I mean, 330 months (over 27 years) IS a long time.

But remember this chart?



You know, the one that shows Antarctic trends rising - and shows the Antarctic anomaly has been ABOVE zero since 1992 - about 20 years - approximately 240 months.

And yes, the Arctic has dropped at a faster rate during that same time (dropped 1.5 million sq km, while Antarctic has risen by .5 million sq km).

But the point is still the same. Why aren't people who see global warming in long-trend values trying to prove that man is 100% responsible for that increase in Antarctic ice?

BTW, lets look at a line from his post:

"...It might look like 2012 just barely broke the all-time record, but actually it did not. It just barely missed..."

True - and depends on who you use, I guess.

If you look at The Cryosphere Today (Link) site, and their interactive chart, you'll see just how close it was:

2007, day 263, 16.23238 sq km

2012, day 259, 16.14588 sq km

So it's short of the record by 0.0865 sq km

Let's add one more year (3rd place)

2010, day 227, 16.05034 sq km

Short of the record by 0.18204 sq km.

But the top three have been in the last 5 years.

It looks like the WORST season (the one with the LOWEST peak) was 1998, with 14.60395. And, some have stated that 1998 was the warmest year ever. But, strange thing is, every Antarctic season since then has had a higher peak than that. That's unprecedented right there.

And the three highest values have occurred in the last 5 years? Can that be right?

So, in short, while some think mentioning the Antarctic increase is an attempt to mask over the exceptional Arctic ice loss (since the satellite record started), it's not.

It's an attempt to get the believers in CAGW to talk about their favorite subject - about how ALL extremes can absolutely, positively be tied to man's use of fossil fuels (remember, according to some scientists, 100 percent of the current warming can be tied to man).

So we'll continue to see articles like this:

"...Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don't Disprove Global Warming..." (LiveScience.com – Wed, Sep 19, 2012).

Question, then - since every other extreme weather or climate event seems to prove CAGW, why wouldn't this one?
Member Since: May 18, 2007 Posts: 289 Comments: 1639
3. hcubed
3:22 AM GMT on September 21, 2012
One of the interesting things I've found so far would be considered "an appeal to authority".

So, naturally, you have to be sure that the authority is well accepted.

It is:

Here is what the IPCC AR4 SPM says, page 15:

"...Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios..."

I don't see any mention of any difference between the two poles (they're BOTH supposed to shrink).

In the summary of chapter 10 it says"

"...There is a projected reduction of sea ice in the 21st century in both the Arctic and Antarctic with a rather large range of model responses..."

So, if it's as Tamino says, that the TREND is the all important metric, I'll agree. His charts clearly show that the ARCTIC trend is dropping faster than the ANTARCTIC trend is rising:



But that flies in the face of the IPCC report. Surely the scientists working with the IPCC would have seen that rising Antarctic trend, right?

And, knowing that, they were still able to say "...There is a projected reduction of sea ice in the 21st century in both the Arctic and Antarctic...

Maybe they can explain the difference.

But let's continue. To borrow another drawing, he shows a plate of spaghetti, with one strand highlighted:



And that strand is 2012.

Thanks for highlighting it, because it DOES show the point of the original post - that the Antarctic Ice Extent, for that day, was HIGHER than all the other traces.

It's THAT "record" that the NSIDC didn't mention. It is unprecedented, isn't it?

Since he likes charts so much, maybe he could clean it up a bit. Just for fun, that is.

Take that spaghetti of Antarctic extent (except for 2012), and find the average. Then plot 2012 against that average. Let us see just how far above or below average the 2012 season is.

We might just be surprised.
Member Since: May 18, 2007 Posts: 289 Comments: 1639
2. hcubed
11:38 PM GMT on September 20, 2012
Other places that are starting to pick up on the story:

Link

But while we're being open-minded about it, let's fill in the timeline:

1. First mention was here:

September 16, 2012

from there, Forbes picked it up:

September 19, 2012

Which I found as a comment on September 19, 2012 at 10:38 am (link to first), and on September 19, 2012 at 11:27 am (link to second).

My blog post appeared at 7:32 PM CDT on September 19, 2012.

So after all that, and the fact that nsidc.org still hasn't mentioned the Antarctic "record" on their news page (which was the whole point), Tamino at Open Mind finally chimes in, on the 20th.

Remember, his site lists itself as concerned with "Science, Politics, Life, the Universe, and Everything".

So I'm glad to see he finally jumped in.
Member Since: May 18, 2007 Posts: 289 Comments: 1639
1. hcubed
8:30 PM GMT on September 20, 2012
Wow.

First of all, I think I've made the big time - Tamino, from Open Mind actually linked to this posting in his latest article (seen here).

Thanks - I think. And it's WunderBlog, BTW.

As you see, though, I've moved on. But it did make me re-read it just to see what's got him so upset, and I realized a big error - I failed to link to the original story.

So here it is, from Forbes:

Forbes

Naturally, he'll jump all over the poster of the original article.

I'll let you read it and see what part he'll jump on.

I would post a reply there, but they have a habit of not allowing "denialists" a chance to comment. Never fear, one of his faithful followers will check this out, and report their findings over there.

Story's not over yet...
Member Since: May 18, 2007 Posts: 289 Comments: 1639

Viewing: 4 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

Top of Page

About hcubed

Living in Biloxi MS, have been here since '85 (first Hurricane was Elena).