Exactly What They Predicted

Nine years ago experts said record high sea ice in Antarctica was due to global warming and was exactly what they predicted.

“Antarctic ice floes extended further than ever recorded this southern winter, confounding the world’s most-trusted climate models.

the increasing sea ice was well understood by scientists. “In some ways it’s a bit counterintuitive for people trying to understand how global warming is affecting our polar regions, but in fact it’s actually completely in line with how climate scientists expect Antarctica and the Southern Ocean to respond. Particularly in respect to increased winds and increased melt water,” said Williams.”

Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming? | Sea ice | The Guardian

Now they say record low Antarctic sea ice is due to global warming and is exactly what they expected.

There has been no trend in Antarctic sea ice or temperature over the last 40 years.

OSI-420 | osisaf-hl.met.no

RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Southern Polar_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png (440×240)

There was almost no sea ice around Antarctica in January 1976, near the peak of the ice age scare.

National Geographic Magazine Archive

March 1, 1975 | Science News

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Exactly What They Predicted

  1. dm says:

    Welcome back, Tony!!

  2. Robert Austin says:

    These so called “scientists” have no humility or integrity. True scientists in the Feynman mould would just say that that we just don’t know the answer and that not knowing is just as wonderful as knowing.

  3. arn says:

    “If you predict all possible scenarios you can never be wrong.”

    Michael Mann

  4. GWS says:

    “Well understood,” he says. Nothing new here to surprise him. Exactly as he predicted. — Every time I hear talk like this red flags go up. We will never be able to completely understand our universe, try as we will to convince ourselves that we can. Our inability to measure things ‘exactly’ should give us a clue as to what we’re up against.

  5. I am reminded of the Oracle at Delphi, who phrased its predictions so ambiguously such that any outcome could be interpreted as consistent with prophesy. If global warming theory predicts global cooling, then ‘global warming’ cannot be considered a problem.

    • Doesn’t the global warming liturgy include the tenet of faith that the effects are most profound at the poles?

      • arn says:

        The poles seems to be ultimate fetish of the doomsday scientists.
        Already during the 70ies and 80ies,
        CFC’s,mostly released in Europe and the USA didn’t do damage the ozone layer where they were released.
        Instead they travelled thousands of miles to the poles to do their damage.(big red flag)
        And especially in the southern hemisphere where only a fraction of CFC was released and where the pole is thousand miles away from any significant population the damage to the ozone layer was the worst above the southpole.

        Despite this very Himalaya sized red flag scientist didn’t bother to question the official narrative.
        Therefore,decades after the ban of CFC’s the ozone hole is still there as big as ever,
        but it lost its relevance in terms of indoctrination(its George Floyd status)after successfully paving the way for the first global law justified by BS science.
        (some claim this already happened with the ban of DDT,
        but in case of CFC’s the BS is way more obvious )

        • Since ozone is created by the interaction of ultra-violet radiation from the Sun with oxygen, I could never understand why allegedly brilliant people were surprised to find that the ozone concentration is least where the solar flux is a minimum. Mind you the objectives of generating global panic, and most importantly, destroying the sales prospects for the then new Concorde supersonic airliner, were achieved.

          • arn says:

            Lowering ozone concentrations during solar minimums also indicates that something else is responsible for the depletion of ozone or at least that half life of ozone simply isn’t that long.
            But I guess the scientists were too busy to use their brilliance for ignorance.

            I was way too small(or not existent) to understand the Conccorde thing.
            Was it a massive threat to Boeing/Pan Am
            so they used phony Ozone layer excuses to keep french competition down and out and to surpress public supersonic planes from going mainstream ?

          • Regarding Concorde, Boeing had spent almost as much as the British and French on their B2707, which was much bigger and intended to fly at Mach 2.7, using titanium, rather than the Mach 2.2 limitation imposed by duralumin. It all proved too ambitious, development costs were escalating and all they had to show for it was a wooden mock-up, and the project was abandoned. Almost overnight supersonic transports became the harbingers of doom. The US aviation industry suddenly became concerned about noise pollution, a problem that had never worried them in the past. The ozone hole was a godsend. After that the commercial failure of Concorde and the TU 144 was pretty well assured. Since then European plane makers have had the good sense to split the opposition by, for example, fitting General Electric engines. or Ratheon radar.

          • arn says:

            Thank you sir.
            (so it’s again the same old saboteurs from the USA pretending to save the evironment/bring freedom and democracy while doing evil and strengthen their grip on the rest of the world)

        • John Baker says:

          The doomsday scientists like to talk all about the poles because most of us cannot and will not ever get to see with our own eyes what is actually happening there.

  6. MGJ says:

    No sign to an end in the decline of journalistic standards. They show an inability to perform even the most basic processing of information or to parse what they are told for obvious error or contradiction.

    “… confounding the world’s most-trusted climate models…it’s actually completely in line with how climate scientists expect…”

    Choose one, it cannot be both.

    “…in some ways it’s a bit counterintuitive…”, so we’ll just lie about it.

    Go on, tell me how it’s “a bit more nuanced…”, that’s always a winner.

Leave a Reply

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