Antarctica could follow same path as Arctic sea ice melt
In the rapidly warming Arctic, the Greenland ice sheet has been melting, leading to substantial net ice loss in recent years. The worry is that if global warming continues on the track predicted by many climate scientists, Antarctica’s sea ice and its vast land-based ice sheet will eventually follow.
No doubt the Greenland ice sheet has been melting like crazy at -35C, and Antarctica is soon to follow.
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.south.anom.1979-2008
The moral of the story is – if you get enough government scientists lying at the same time, you can make lots of people very stupid.
What worry?
If warming continues as predicted we have nothing to worry about, I mean how much worse than no warming in 16 years can it get 😀
You are looking at data which hasn’t been properly corrupted by NOAA.
If one’s funding is dependent upon continued warming, then 17+ years could be much worse.
Who ya gonna believe ? The government or your own eyes ? It’s disgusting and pathetic that the american government has become the symbal of deception and corruption . We have a president who can not be believed and the leadership in every government agency follows suit . Truth is a foreign concept in upper management and the lower levels are no better as they go along with the flow in order to keep their jobs .
More ice, less ice, whatever, it is all consistent with a warming planet. What a farce!
Southern sea ice – It’s obviously worse than we thought.
“now tell me about that ozone layer ‘hole’ thingy again”………….
“hmm, see what you mean – it always appears when the sun disappears in winter”……….
“what……………………… it’s not our fault?”
“Nope”.
Because acid rain killed all trees in Antarctica the ozone layer ‘hole’ is getting even bigger they say.
Speaking of ozone and acid rain, and the like, check out this post by Donna Laframboise:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/10/11/deja-vu-all-over-again-1991s-world-on-fire/
eventually
I can hardly wait for -35C instead of -37C this winter…i mean, i could get down to shorts and T shirt at that change!
I wonder if we will see this picked up by the ‘Grauniad’? It could be seen as an inconvenient truth.
The Univ. of Illinois plot of their own data for southern sea-ice anamoly does not exactly convey the same picture that you are trying to convey here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
If the antarctic sea ice is increasing, and the southern ocean temperature is also increasing what is the physics causing that?
That is why we scientists apply low pass filters to clean up noisy data.
Emperor,
‘We scientists’ do understand data smoothing. ‘We scientists’ also know that you can compress the x-axis to visually emphasize the slope the curve, and thereby convincing ‘non-scientists’ that there might be much more there than ‘Much Ado About Nothing.’
‘We scientists’ also know that you can do the opposite, such as with the tidal gauge data at Tuvalu that you provided a link to. ‘We scientists’ know that the y-axis scale can be so large that small changes cannot be seen easily by the non-scientist who does not plot the data. ‘We scientists’ know that if you plot the Tuvalu data on an appropriate scale you can see about 30mm increase in sea level in 15 years, which is exactly the same amount as could be determined from the data in the .png file link I provided.
But by letting the ‘fingers do the walking’ thru the internet ‘we scientists’ can find (DeSmog, Climate Crock) that you have a long and distinguished history of doing exactly what I have said – cherry picking supreme. Maybe ‘we scientists’ should change your call sign from ‘Emperor’ to ‘Cherry Pie.’
Then you must have noticed how Hansen’s temperature graphs are wildly exaggerated.
@Physicist: “But by letting the ‘fingers do the walking’ thru the internet ‘we scientists’ can find (DeSmog, Climate Crock)”
For someone who prides himself on being a scientist, you couldn’t have picked two websites much worse than DeSmog (a far left smear site) and Climate Crocks (Peter Sinclair is not only not a scientist, he is also a green zealot). Sorry, but those two sites lack any shred of scientific objectivity.
You have to reach a new level of clueless when you cite blogs such as DeSmog, Climate Crock, etc. Those are the sorts of websites and claims that are mocked here for their idiocy…
@LLAP,
Pot? Kettle? Black? Ye who comments on this blog which is a pretty disgusting right wind smear, global warming denier site?
Your ad homs are getting extremely lame tonight.
In other shock news today ‘physicist’ reports that the American Institute of Homeopathy has declared ‘sceptics’ as homeopathy deniers. Too funny.
@LLAP,
Are you the one who said you are teaching 10th graders climate science? Do you teach them that clipping old newspaper articles constitutes original climate science? That a few old newspaper articles undoes 180 years of basic science and climate science research, 100s of thousands of peer reviewed papers? Do you teach them to make ad hominem attacks against scientists?
I can crap on about how millions of peer reviewed papers support whatever I believe too! For example, of the millions & millions of peer reviewed scientific papers out there, not one of them defends ‘physicist’ from the assertion that he is an idiot! Too funny.
@will,
Keep it up. let’s see what kind of record you can set for content free comments. but you’ve got some pretty stiff competition at this site. go, baby, go
physicist could use some low pass filtering. He’s been hitting the sauce pretty hard it seems.
I think every blog needs its Village Idiot.
@Physicst: “Pot? Kettle? Black? Ye who comments on this blog which is a pretty disgusting right wind smear, global warming denier site?”
Your reply is funny for two reasons:
1) Despite what you think of this site, it is you who are posting far more comments here than me.
2) If the word “denier” isn’t the ultimate smear tactic, I don’t know what is. I have absoutely no respect for anyone who uses it.
You’re a physicist, why don’t you tell us?
Since the emperor call this ‘realscience’ just trying to find out how much science there is there.
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1977: Ilya Prigogine, for his contributions to non-equilibrium thermodynamics, particularly the theory of dissipative structures.
“The Univ. of Illinois plot of their own data for southern sea-ice anamoly does not exactly convey the same picture that you are trying to convey here”
What sort of imbecile cites a link to an image ‘contradicting’ the ‘picture conveyed here’ when the image directly to the left of it on the same page (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/) does support the picture that is presented here…?
That Antarctic ice is just 1st year ice, it could all just suddenly melt away (©NSIDC).
Actually since almost all Antarctic sea ice melts every year, it is indeed essentialy all 1st year ice. And since almost all melts every year, you could indeed say that it suddenly melts away.
Hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers cannot make it warm if there is no warming.
Google Scholar scores 107,000 hits for ‘astrology’ so astrology can’t be wrong with so much peer reviewed science behind it.
I’m just illustrating the qualify of a ‘physicist’ style argument. 😉
@ Andy,
If there is no warming, why has the USDA had to change the planting zones for plants in a warming direction?
Could it be that plants in the ground are smarter than global warming deniers who have planted themselves at this denier site?
Everyone understands that the earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age and the ice age scare of the 1970s. Your idiotic straw men arguments grow increasingly tiresome.
Not good on irony are you?
The Age of the Earth
Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 260-340): obtained 3184 BC, based on biblical chronology.
Kepler found the begining was in 3993 BC, combining biblical and other sources
.
Hevelius found it occurred on October 24, 3963 BC at 6 pm, by means similar to Kepler’s.
Newton found the year 3998 BC, using biblical and classical texts, but also including the voyage of Jason and the Argonauts as an historical event(!).
George-Louis Leclerc Buffon “was convinced of the Earth’s antiquity from his geological studies. Experimented with heating iron spheres and scaling their cooling to an Earth-sized mass
Got an age of 74,832 years.
In the 1890s, the British physicist Lord Kelvin refined Buffon’s calculation, and derived an age of 20-40 Million years.
http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast105/Ast105week05.html
There’s more sea ice precisely because the melt is faster… and more glaciers disintegrating. I prefer to get my facts from scientists working long term in situ re facts, not derogatory slurs disguised as intelligent articles, possibly deliberately designed to make people ignore human impacts and real risk concerns about the planet ecology of which we are an integral part.
As in a local council who has forbidden the term “climate change” to be used in its planning processes….more money and less hassle for it short term. But will it compensate all the people who, mislead by risk minimising articles which distort the real possibilities, build their homes on low lying beachfront which could be inundated this lifetime? I think not.
A responsible human being takes a sensible informed approach to risk management. Denigrating people is only going to mislead and muddy the facts up for discussion.
By all means present whatever real science facts you have available. But personally I’ve zero interest in reading articles containing petty insults.
I prefer to get facts, and not talking points from the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry.
Climates have always changed, and always will. Get over it, and do your own research, instead of being a lacky for the grantologists.