Hiding The Antarctic Sea Ice

I frequently write about how climate alarmists hide Arctic sea ice data prior to 1979, but now they are hiding Antarctic data too – claiming  a record low January extent.

S_20190104_conc_v3.0.png (420×500)

As is invariably the case with climate alarmists, they are lying and hiding data.  There was less ice around Antarctica in January 1976, near the peak of the ice-age scare. This map of Antarctic sea ice was published by National Geographic in 1976.

The National Geographic Archive | November 1976 | page 1

The low Antarctic sea ice extent in the 1970s was reported in the 1990 IPCC report.

1990 IPCC Report

January Antarctic sea ice extent has been trending upwards for 40 years, and was at a record high in 2014.

S_01_extent_anomaly_plot_hires_v3.0.png (1260×720)

In 1976, the CIA was predicting mass chaos and global instability as a result of the global cooling which had already occurred.

01 May 1976, 5 – Chicago Tribune at Newspapers.com

Two years later, the New York Times reported “no end in sight to the 30-year cooling trend.

International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30‐Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere – The New York Times

With Arctic sea ice extent very close to the 1981-2010 median, there should be no surprise that climate fraudsters have moved their abuse of science to the other pole.

N_20190105_extn_v3.0.png (420×500)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Hiding The Antarctic Sea Ice

  1. Anon says:

    Thanks for that Chicago Tribune article. I have seen the raw report here:

    http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

    But always wondered if it was just a perfunctory internal document or if its contents were widely read and disseminated.

    That article does it!

    • R Shearer says:

      Was the author of this identified anywhere?

      It’s interesting that the fear promulgated then was on availability of adequate food supplies. Everyone was starving and it was going to get worse.

      Look at us now.

  2. John F. Hultquist says:

    Reid Bryson (USA), 1920-2008, and Hubert Lamb (UK), 1913-1997, worked before the age of modern computers and satellite sensors. The historical record was an important source of information for them. I read and used some of their materials in the mid-1970s.
    I wonder how much of the scary CIA wording was added to the writings of Bryson and Lamb by government folks. In the short quotes here of Bryson, I note words such as “if”, “probably”, and “may cause.” Meanwhile the headline is: “CIA sees global famine, chaos …”
    Further, it is interesting that on blog postings in 2018, writers are severely criticized for using suggestive words.

    • Gator says:

      What many people do not understand is that the military and intelligence organizations work out all scenarios, so that they are preparef no matter what happens (within reason). Both my brother and my father worked on these projects, and the mapping out of scenarios does not contain words like “if”. These works are meant to be manuals for when the Shiite hits the fan.

      • Anon says:

        Right! That was my point about the 1974 CIA paper: was it a contingency study, or was it the prevalent way of thinking back then? From the Chicago Tribune article, we can conclude the later.

  3. daves says:

    I think it’s far more likely that the National Geographic story is inaccurate. Or faked by this website.

    • tonyheller says:

      Nutcase alert. Where do these whack jobs come from?

    • John F. Hultquist says:

      I clicked on the NatGeo link, and got
      In order to access, you must have an active subscription to National Geographic magazine” . . .

      Which we did have for about 40 years. Then about 7 years ago, finding the articles there were more often than not biased and not fully truthful, we did not renew. Likely, I could find the 1976 issues in a box in a shed. Not a chance of me doing that.

    • Disillusioned says:

      daves said: “I think it’s far more likely that the National Geographic story is inaccurate. Or faked by this website.”

      I think it’s far more likely that you didn’t read the 1990 UN IPCC report, which corroborates the Nat Geo article, before posting that drivel.

    • Bob Hoye says:

      The point in scanning the original pages, rather than quoting them is to visibly show authenticity.
      Tony has done the history of science, great errors, and frauds a scholarly service.

      • Johansen says:

        Agreed! Thanks to Tony for doing this much needed research (each day). No other blog is tying together the historical evidence with the actual data like this one is doing. And…. your typical news organization would need a team of 10 people just to crank out the shear volume of material that this blog posts each week. This is not meant as flattery, it’s just the truth

    • sunsettommy says:

      Ah another factless drive by comment that only make you appear foolish.

      You can do better than that daves…….

    • Gator says:

      Another climastrology proselyte! They never let facts get in the way of their anti-human agenda.

  4. Bulaman says:

    The ice at McMurdo tends to break up after the ice breaker opens a channel to bring n the annual supply ships. The view north from Observation hill shows no break up yet!

    https://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/mcmWebCam.cfm

  5. Devil's Advocate says:

    Why are you comparing data from Jan. 4 (2019) against data from “late January (1976)”? The record low is for the date, and Antarctica typically loses c. 2.5M sq. km of sea ice between early and late January.

    • tonyheller says:

      This year will probably get as low as 1976 later in the month. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

      • spike55 says:

        Maybe, but I get the impression that whatever caused the steep drop from day 350 last year, has gone, and it may flatten out and end above 2018 and 2017.

        Time will tell.

    • Mr GrimNasty says:

      Why does it even matter DA – explain why Antarctic sea ice was slowly increasing for so long, then suddenly underwent a regime shift – it’s clearly not man-made climate change that’s responsible.

      The same as man-made climate change is not responsible for documented regime-shifts in the Arctic (Spitsbergen event 1918 etc.)

      When the early Antarctic satellites images were belatedly examined they showed ice levels outside known bounds in the modern (post 1979) satellite records. Fit that with the CO2 theory.

    • JCalvertN(UK) says:

      “Antarctica”?
      We are talking about SEA ice here.

  6. Bob Hoye says:

    The “National Geographic” is likely the most collected magazine in history.
    I’ve been told that if they were all assembled in one place, it would depress the Earth’s crust by 10 feet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.