Shrinking Down The Rabbit Hole

“xenomoly” is correct. The Arctic and Antarctic trends move opposite each other.


During the summer of 1976, almost all of the sea ice around Antarctica melted.

The National Geographic Archive | November 1976 | page 1

 But this is what “shrinking” looks like to “Andy”.


Antarctic sea ice extent is very close to the 1979-1990 average.

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Shrinking Down The Rabbit Hole

  1. Gator says:

    “Shrinking currently” is an amazingly versatile description. Just exactly what would be the start date for this “current” observation? 50,000 years ago? Last year? 1979?

    By carefully choosing a start date, anyone can make any claim about any trend. Long term trends, which are meaningful, show no issue. And this is why Andy Andy wants to deny the entire Holocene, and only focus on meaningless contemporary fluctuations in ice, ice younger than me.

    Congratulations Andy Andy, your diarrhea of the keyboard has won you your own post.

  2. MrGrimnasty says:

    Andy expects general natural phenomena to exhibit perfectly, and seems oblivious to the fact that even if the vague assertion that both poles were currently shrinking were true, it does not invalidate what xenomoly has suggested (and is well known/observed by some mainstream scientists).

    And yet Andy thinks the complete inability of climate change doomster theory to predict anything more correctly than entirely arse about face, is completely credible.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    A triple el Nino will do that for an aspirational ice cap.
    The current EN Modokai is back to back with the 2015-16 and 2017-18 el Ninos.
    It’ll be interesting to see what that enormous efflux of heat out to space will do for SSTs in the next year or so.

  4. spren says:

    “The Arctic and Antarctic move in opposite trends.” So you are saying they are polar opposites:)

  5. pick1name says:

    Study debunks “Greenhouse Gas” effect/man-made climate change.
    Christopher Monckton explains the study and talks about how universities acted to prevent the researchers from sharing their work.

  6. xenomoly says:

    I appreciate the response Tony. I did not come back to the page to see Andy’s response – but it might be a good idea to do a video about the polar seesaw as it has been a long established relationship anecdotally. Obviously we have not had instrumental measurement of these phenomena long enough to make generalizations – but it is certainly something that I’ve found interesting.

    The fact that there are active volcanoes under the western antarctic ice sheet is also something that is not often covered. That could CERTAINLY be a source of added variability as the intermittent nature of such eruptions could heat the region much more than solar heating and then immediately shut off.

    Benthic heating from geothermal activity is not something well understood in general. It would be great if we had more deep water surveillance like the Argo system – but for the deep ocean.

    We are on the thin rocky skin of a red hot nickel and iron ball, after all. All that energy makes its way through the atmosphere before it radiates out of TOA. It might be that most of these warming episodes are just the periodic cycling of benthic heat. That might also explain large fossil CO2 proportion in the atmosphere. Deep water CO2 is going to be mostly bereft heavy carbon isotopes.

  7. Jason Calley says:

    There has been increasing talk lately concerning the role of solar induced electric current flow both through the Earth and its atmosphere. One magnetic pole preferentially funnels electrons down, the other does protons, creating a current through the planet. Current plus resistance equals heat. Does the interaction of solar wind and Earth’s magnetic field vary in such a way that the heating effect oscillates from one pole to the other over decades long periods? The positively charged solar protons are less mobile than the solar wind electrons. Does a positive charge build up at one pole (and a negative at the other) until the electrical forces overwhelm the Earth’s natural magnetic sorting, and the electrons and protons start going to the other pole until the charge gets more balanced? If the polar seesaw is real (I think it is) there must be a reason. An oscillating global electrical circuit may be the cause.

Leave a Reply

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