Antarctic sea ice is at a record high for the date, and close to an all-time record. Hansen predicted peak ice loss there, because climate models are completely useless.
Alarmists ignore Antarctica, because they have no integrity or any actual interest in science.
www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf
Do you have a reference for where Hansen predicted peak ice loss there?
It is right there, but EPA has removed it from their web site.
They removed it for good reason, the Antarctic ice/snow mass is phenomenal and really makes them look like fools!
OK, I assume you mean this –
“Ground albedo decrease also provides a substantial feedback (Figure 2-3). The ground albedo
change (Figure 2-4a) is largely due to reduced sea ice. Shielding of the ground by clouds and the atmosphere (Figure 2-4b) makes this feedback several times smaller than it would be in the absence of the atmosphere. However, it is a significant positive feedback, and for this model it is at least as large in the Southern Hemisphere as in the Northern Hemisphere. “
I would note that Hansen does not explicitly state anywhere that sea ice reduction in the south is expected to be the same as the north, but this can certainly be implied by reading quotations such as the one above.
Look at the map with the red circle in the post.
Look at the map right in the post.
But that seems to be a model of expected surface albedo change. Can’t see how I can work out how to translate that into sea ice loss in some sort of way that reconciles with your claim. On the other hand, I’ve read the article/paper, and your claim appears consistent with what Hansen has stated anyway…
Obviously, 40% predicted albedo loss in the Ross Sea is due to sea ice loss.
Yes sorry I realised that the moment I pressed the “post” button. The only explanation for albedo loss could be sea ice melt… must have had a blonde moment.
Where’s the #1 James Hansen apologist, Tony Duncan?
Let me fill in for him –
(1) This particular model is “obsolete”, the newer may or may not be somewhat less crappy…
(2) 97% of scientists agree with whatever I think up
(3) Yeah maybe they can’t predict anything but since you can’t do better either, we must believe what they tell us*
(4) This is a moral issue and you are evil if you don’t accept my opinion.
Did I miss one?
* Special thanks to David Appell.
Yes, you forgot – That was a misquote or the reporter made it up.
You can’t use the standard “he never really said something as stupid as that” explanation in this case, because it’s from a textbook chapter he wrote…