From NASA Goddard, October 7, 2014:
![antarctic_seaice_sept19[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/antarctic_seaice_sept191.jpg?resize=720%2C405&quality=83)
The new Antarctic sea ice record reflects the diversity and complexity of Earth’s environments, said NASA researchers. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has referred to changes in sea ice coverage as a microcosm of global climate change. Just as the temperatures in some regions of the planet are colder than average, even in our warming world, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and bucking the overall trend of ice loss.
“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.
Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers).
The single-day maximum extent this year was reached on Sept. 20, according to NSIDC data, when the sea ice covered 7.78 million square miles (20.14 million square kilometers). This year’s five-day average maximum was reached on Sept. 22, when sea ice covered 7.76 million square miles (20.11 million square kilometers), according to NSIDC.
A warming climate changes weather patterns, said Walt Meier, a research scientist at Goddard. Sometimes those weather patterns will bring cooler air to some areas. And in the Antarctic, where sea ice circles the continent and covers such a large area, it doesn’t take that much additional ice extent to set a new record.
“Part of it is just the geography and geometry. With no northern barrier around the whole perimeter of the ice, the ice can easily expand if conditions are favorable,” he said.
Researchers are investigating a number of other possible explanations as well. One clue, Parkinson said, could be found around the Antarctic Peninsula – a finger of land stretching up toward South America. There, the temperatures are warming, and in the Bellingshausen Sea just to the west of the peninsula the sea ice is shrinking. Beyond the Bellingshausen Sea and past the Amundsen Sea, lies the Ross Sea – where much of the sea ice growth is occurring.
That suggests that a low-pressure system centered in the Amundsen Sea could be intensifying or becoming more frequent in the area, she said – changing the wind patterns and circulating warm air over the peninsula, while sweeping cold air from the Antarctic continent over the Ross Sea. This, and other wind and lower atmospheric pattern changes, could be influenced by the ozone hole higher up in the atmosphere – a possibility that has received scientific attention in the past several years, Parkinson said.“The winds really play a big role,” Meier said. They whip around the continent, constantly pushing the thin ice. And if they change direction or get stronger in a more northward direction, he said, they push the ice further and grow the extent. When researchers measure ice extent, they look for areas of ocean where at least 15 percent is covered by sea ice.
While scientists have observed some stronger-than-normal pressure systems – which increase winds – over the last month or so, that element alone is probably not the reason for this year’s record extent, Meier said. To better understand this year and the overall increase in Antarctic sea ice, scientists are looking at other possibilities as well.
Melting ice on the edges of the Antarctic continent could be leading to more fresh, just-above-freezing water, which makes refreezing into sea ice easier, Parkinson said. Or changes in water circulation patterns, bringing colder waters up to the surface around the landmass, could help grow more ice.
Snowfall could be a factor as well, Meier said. Snow landing on thin ice can actually push the thin ice below the water, which then allows cold ocean water to seep up through the ice and flood the snow – leading to a slushy mixture that freezes in the cold atmosphere and adds to the thickness of the ice. This new, thicker ice would be more resilient to melting.
“There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said. “Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect. One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models.”For Antarctica, key variables include the atmospheric and oceanic conditions, as well as the effects of an icy land surface, changing atmospheric chemistry, the ozone hole, months of darkness and more.
“Its really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected – it would be amazing if everything did,” Parkinson said. “The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it’s natural for scientists to ask, ‘OK, this isn’t what we expected, now how can we explain it?’”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
The Earth is going to keep shoving the Grapefruit of Facts in the faces of climate alarmists until they finally get a clue.
A powerful image is it not. Antarctic sea ice are versus Arctic in September 2014. Spread it around.
http://s29.postimg.org/w1i4kwbzr/Antarctic_sea_ice_vs_Arctic_Sept_14.jpg
Add to the image this comment / observation on solar radiation at the poles from RACookPE1978.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/08/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/#comment-1757581
Thought-provoking images. The Arctic ocean looks like the new Tethys sea.
I sorry Phineas, alarmists still don’t have a clue. Even when they are clearly wrong, they are right. This is the fairytale world of Climastrology-voodoo. This is not science.
WE WERE WRONG.
BUT WE WERE ACTUALLY RIGHT.
Co2, is there anything it cannot do?
Even the IPCC has said that most of the models project a decrease in Antarctica’s sea ice extent yet Mr. Williams thinks he can fool all of the people all of the time. Shame on you.
Sadly, that’s too true.
They could just have said; “The Antarctic is adding ice extent and we have no idea why”
or… “The average globe temperature is not increasing and we have no idea why”
“we have no idea why” = new discoveries to be made. Unfortunately, for this to be true then the science cannot be settled.
I like how they used magnitude to confuse.
How about the Antarctic is adding ice because it’s colder, they forgot that one, and also the most likely reason.
That’s not what is expected
and while they were being honest they could have said this long term cooling of Antarctica may be why there has been no detectable acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. In fact, some studies have detected small a deceleration (slowing). Here are some papers which have reported the lack of acceleration in rate of sea level rise (h/t to Alberto Boretti, Robert Dean & Doug Lord):
1.Douglas B (1992). Global Sea Level Acceleration. J. Geophysical Research, Vol. 97, No. C8, pp. 12,699-12,706, 1992. doi:10.1029/92JC01133
2.Douglas B and Peltier W R (2002). The Puzzle of Global Sea-Level Rise. Physics Today 55(3):35-40.
3.Daly J (2003). Tasmanian Sea Levels: The ‘Isle of the Dead’ Revisited. [Internet].
4.Daly J (2004). Testing the Waters: A Report on Sea Levels for the Greening Earth Society. [Internet].
5.Jevrejeva S, et al (2006). Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records. J. Geophysical Research, 111, C09012, 2006. doi:10.1029/2005JC003229. (data)
6.Holgate SJ (2007). On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century. Geophysical Research Letters. 34, L01602.
7.Wunsch R, Ponte R and Heimbach P (2007). Decadal trends in sea level patterns: 1993-2004. Journal of Climatology. 5889-5911.
over twenty more available on request, some of which show a slowing down of the rate of SL rise.
…or surface temperature have been cooling in the area for decades…http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/01/southern-ocean-cooling-since-1996-global-warming-scientists-deny-logic-that-cold-causes-more-ice/
or they could have said, “Hey, the ice is increasing because it has been cooling down there for decades…
http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/01/southern-ocean-cooling-since-1996-global-warming-scientists-deny-logic-that-cold-causes-more-ice/
…. and the only areas where that have warmed have active volcanism…http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/surprise-west-antarctic-volcano-melts-ice/
and I was wrong when I said…”The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.” What I should have said was in the last three years the SH ice has grown so much, that for the majority of that time global sea ice has been above average, especially true now that the arctic ice is showing signs of recovery.
They could have sail all of this, but that would require honesty.
If they wanted to clear their conscience they would have said that in 2005 we knew that Antarctica was cooling, but we decided to get out our red crayons and go way outside the lines. We are sorry. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/nasa-antarctic-temperature-fraud-2/
Or even, actually, “There is rather a lot we have no idea about what happens – let alone why. Perhaps science will seek to find out these things, so they become settled.”
There is a likelihood that Team Hockey will not, in fact, say such a thing, however.
And politics – well, that drives it all, with the money driving the politics.
Auto
What would be really “amazing” is climate scientists admitting that “the settled science” of man-made global warming is anything but settled. Of course that will never happen.
This really sounds like damage control. Why not just announce the South Pole findings and let it be.
The corruption of our govt is pretty much complete.
Can’t they have the IRS and FBI probe investigate the South Pole?
“and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models.”For Antarctica, key variables include the atmospheric and oceanic conditions, as well as the effects of an icy land surface, changing atmospheric chemistry, the ozone hole, months of darkness and more.” ……really, you must be joking, surely not!!
“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming.”
So SHE expected the pause even though nobody else did I guess.
She must know something nobody else knows… maybe she should t\alk to the people who make models.
Yep, that’s what happens when you put water in the oven, ice cubes.
Pat – I predicted the pause in early 2000′, Mark steyn predicted the pause in circa 2008.
It wasnt hard to predict, the earth has had 3 pauses since circa 1850
The earth has had 4 periods of rapid warming since circa 1850
The the pause wasnt hard to predict. Its like the esteemed and much smarter than even one else climate sciencists didnot know about the amo/pdo. duh.
Either the climate scientists
1) did not know about the AMO/PDO which means they werent very smart or
2) the thought co2 was more powerful than mother nature – which means they werent very smart or
3) they were trying to pull a fast one – which means they are very dishonest.
And your evidence for this claim is………?
I see only three such periods in the instrumental data since the end of the LIA (c. 1850): the slope & magnitude of warming c. 1858 to 1879 & c. 1918 to 1945 are comparable to c. 1977 to 96. When corrupt adjustments are factored out, the early 20th century warming was probably more pronounced than the late 20th century warming.
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm
The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.
====
…and when they do compare the two…..they act like they can
it’s apples and oranges………
I’m confused… I could have sworn that the overall global sea ice anomaly had been cycling across zero for roughly two years now…
Yep.
Yep, if anyone knows Claire, could they give her some help on how to work a computer so that she can keep up-to-date and thereby not look like a buffoon in public.
It looks like they refer to ice loss in the summer in the Arctic is greater than the ice loss in the summer in the Antarctic. Now, can they explain the record ice gain during winter? It might be due to a change weather patterns because of global warming. OOPS! Climate change.
Read more below. Total sea ice numbers are worse than useless. They are deliberately misleading and wrong.
In percentage points the Arctic decrease is bigger than the Antarctic increase, because there is less ice in the Arctic. Counted in area (square kilometers) they are about the same: c. 1.5 million sq km.
Consequently the total global sea-ice area has been hovering about “normal” for the last few years.
Sorry to pick nits here, but, you could say: the Global Sea Ice has been hovering about the 35 year average. However, calling it “Normal”, even in quotes, presumes way too much
searching for wiggle words to make the money come in.
Coming of a position is difficult so credit must be given that it is reported at all.
Most of the commentators both scientific and spin, adopt the standard position in the world of propaganda of half truths. No lies just half truths. In my view its a product of the adversarial justice system. Each party presents their polarized position and then you strive to defeat the presentation of the opposing equally polarized position.
Orwell i think pointed out the strength of being the victor or the ruler, the ultimate removal of the opposing position.
Yep. More Antarctic sea ice in a warming world. An intriguing apparent contradiction
Do try to keep up. The world isn’t warming.
So the Great Cooling has begun?
Warm globally, cool locally! Why is it the warmer it gets the colder I feel?
No cooling, just the pause that hurts the cause. We’ll need another grant to find new ways to boost temperatures. Pumping massive amounts of Co2 into the air doesn’t seem to be working.
The Southern Ocean and Antarctica are the canary in the coal mine. But depending on what years base period one chooses to Cherry pick will show which side of the Climate debate one is on.
The early Grace data, pre 2006, is clearly in favor of the alarmists. The more recent post 2012 data and the trend since then is in favor of the “its natural variability at work” camp.
IMO the one thing that is certain is that all that Sea ice remaining well into the Antarctic spring sunshine will be a negative feedback on solar radiation absorption by the Southern Ocean. That higher ice surface area into the springtime warming season, occurring year after year must eventually have an impact on OHC. Not something that the models anticipate or handle.
The models CANNOT handle it because the IPCC models used project a decrease in Antarctica’s sea ice extent. This is one of the reasons the models fail. Bad input, garbage out.
Open water radiates a more heat than water insulated with ice. I think someone made the point on this site that there is not a whole lot of heat being absorbed at the high latitudes even in summer so the insulating properties of ice might be more important than the albedo. They had numbers I just have a vague memory.
Johnny:
Actually ALL losses increase when sea ice is lost under today’s conditions:
Long wave radiation is much higher. Emissivities of sea ice and open water are the same (nearly) but the open water is at 2-4 degrees C. The top of sea ice is much colder at the air temperature – as little as -25 to -30 degrees C. And then multiply the temperature to the 4th power.
Evaporation is non-existent when sea ice covers the ocean, but many watts/sec when it is exposed.
Conduction losses and convection losses are greater when sea ice is missing
All of this spin by the “warmists” would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic… for science.
Actually, sea ice is not really the issue, but the amount of frozen water, in whatever form. I can see that there will be a limit to the amount of sea ice that can fit within the freezing zone area of the Antactic Sea.
I mean, you run out of space for sea ice at some point. The real issue concerns the amount of frozen water. How has the total volume changed? And since warming has been halted all these years, why would anyone expect any overall change in the rate of melting, which has been going on for a very long time, raising sea levels for a very long time, and at quite a raapid rate until fairly recently.
The albedo means something in terms of the energy balance and radiation reflected out into space. You start to get into the nasty non-linear stuff in a hurry.
Thank goodness it is safely in the south. The tipping point into ice age is approached when record levels of ice start to accumulate in the north. As to the nasty non-linear stuff – we don’t need ice for that. The albedo effect of clouds brings us heaps of non-linearity.
There IS a maximum practical limit to the Arctic sea ice at 15 million sq kilometers. It is bounded by the Canadian Arctic shore, the Siberian north shore, and the top of Greenland and the Canadian islands.
There is NO limit at to the maximum Antarctic sea ice. Unless you consider the shores of Tahiti and Guam and India a limit. Now 20 million sq kilometers, next year it could 21. Then 22, 23, 24, 25, ….
I’m not sure I buy this idea… unless the ocean circulation around Antarctica ebbs and flows with the sea ice, it would seem that once the ice reached the edge of the cold water it wouldn’t stand a chance.
I think that the shores of the southern most tip of South America would be a more immediate limit before Tahiti, Guam or India.
IF the ice reaches South America, the bulk of the ocean current’s through Drake’s Passage would not be affected except maybe the warmer water current near the surface of the ocen.
Thank you for reading, but – please! – recognize my sarcasm. 8<)
If today's trends continue, and if the Antarctic sea ice were a true, uniform cap around Antarctica rather than the irregular mass that it is actually, the Straits of Magellan and Cape Horn could be blocked to sea travel in 8-12 years.
So, no matter what, it always is “climate change on a warming world” … which tells me even if we dive into a deep ice age, it will still be CAGW.
I am afraid we keep seeing the SAME rhetoric and our answers are still the same. Once a smart man said that lunacy was seeking different results repeating the same over and over (or something of the sort).
Wonder if there is a way to change our tune and see if it gets through the thick heads
The definition of Insane is doing the same thing multiple times and expecting different results.
Claire Parkinson is mistaken( or she is a liar) when she says that “sea ice as a whole is decreasing”.
She is neither, sea ice as a whole has decreased. Not in the Antarctic but in the Arctic. Taking the two together it has decreased.
False. She (and you) are completely wrong. Deliberately deceitful or simply mistaken by years of propaganda? We do not know yet, so prove your statement. Show me your calculations for energy reflected and energy absorbed in direct sunlight.
Do you not care about total albedo?
Show me how much energy is being reflected TODAY at the edges of BOTH the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.
Today, right now, the Antarctic sea ice at latitude 59 south has FIVE TIMES the effect on reflected energy than the Arctic does at latitude 80 north.
Indeed total sea-ice has decreased, catastrophically, at the moment it is actually down to as little as… uh…..98% of normal. And it has been hovering between 97 and 103% for the last couple of years.
Harry van Loon:
Best not come to this site and state your case with studied imprecision; you will be sniffed out. Parkinson is quoted “is decreasing” but you attribute to her something else: “has decreased”. The sea ice is not “decreasing” worldwide and I suspect that Claire knows this. I would not be surprised if you did too.
[Jimbo’s Christmas tree removed, to the disappointment of millions. 8<) .mod]
OOOPS! Let me try the blockquoting again.
Let’s play some word games.
In years to come you might even see
I actually liked the pyramid quoting better 🙂
Breaks up the day when I’m not the only one screwing up.
Cheers
I thought he did it on purpose 🙂
Jim, the first one was really effective!……..LOL
This first version was better, IMO. 😀
OK
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Right on Jimbo! Not sure where NASA Goddard is getting their numbers. Statments like:
“The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.”
seam to be a little out of sync with reality!
Thanks, Jimbo. I was to post these when I found you already had.
Jimbo!
I am surprised you – of all the people I respect for their knowledge, care and detailed research – have fallen for their “equal areas of sea ice must mean equal energy is reflected or absorbed” …
From today’s Arctic sea ice extents, losing more sea ice in the Arctic means more heat loss from the ocean 7 months of the year.
From today’s Antarctic sea ice extents, gaining sea around the Antarctic ANY month of the year means more heat loss from the planet EVERY month of the year.
RACookPE1978 ! I agree! Open water in the Arctic from now = heat loss to the atmosphere.
Warmists like to ignore negative feedback. Antarctica should present more sea ice in the SH Spring and Summer.
I read that quote and immediately thought of this chart, and thought ‘Oh really…..”
What data set is he referring to that shows the world is warming? Over what time period? Certainly none of the 5 major ones and not for the last 14-18 years.
It’s not warming now, the past is cooling….. every month, another year falls back into the pack so recent years move to the lead. Once you know the game plan…………
“Melting ice on the edges of the Antarctic continent could be leading to more fresh, just-above-freezing water”
Anybody with elementary school math background would call BS on that, and point out that salinity change due to alleged increased glacier melting is negligible:
Hint#1: “gigatones” of alleged glacier melt are literally drop in the bucket compared to millions of cubic kilometers volume of Southern ocean. Plus, the idea of “accelerated” ice melt is a fantasy not really supported by robust measurements.
Hint#2: Numerous salinity map found on google don’t show much of a difference in salinity in the Antarctic region compared to the rest of the ocean, which means that freezing point of water is hardly affected by small salinity variation
During Antarctica’s winter.
Here are the latest spring temperatures for Antarctica, most from its edge:
http://www.wunderground.com/weather-forecast/Antarctica.html
Only one (Argentine Base Esperanza) of the many had a high today above freezing, & it’s far north (Hope Bay, Trinity Peninsula).
Great to see Walt; I’ve always admired him. He’s a real scientist.
That’s why he so freely admits the mystery of the increase in Antarctic sea ice. It is a scientific mystery and since he’s not a political hack, he’s happy to talk about it.
Real scientists are always looking for good thesis topics.
See here. Quote:
It’s the cold not the ‘error’ or the hidden heat. It’s damned cold in winter in Antarctica, no matter how you swing the cat.
Walt Meir says that global warming has caused the record ice extent, according to the attribution of the article. Is this what you mean when you say that he is a “real scientist” and when you say “he admits the mystery of the increase in Antarctic sea ice”?
Frederick Michael, you do not convince.
mpainter October 8, 2014 at 2:03 pm
Walt Meir says that global warming has caused the record ice extent, according to the attribution of the article.
Where?
Frederick Michael:
“A warming climate changes weather patterns said Walter Meir, a research scientist at Goddard. Sometimes those weather patterns will bring cooler air to some areas.”
No quotation marks but the attribution is clear, as is the implication: global warming made Antarctica more frigid.
Oh, good grief. Walt is a scientist speaking of a hypothetical mechanism. “Some areas” means some areas.
He definitely did not say, and did not mean, “Global warming made Antarctica more frigid.” He also did not say, and did not mean, “Global warming has caused the record ice extent.”
Conversely, in the video he did, explicitly, use the words, “spectacular” and, “mystery” to describe this year’s Antarctic maximum.
He a scientist, not a spin doctor. He meant what he said. He’s genuinely curious about the data and that attitude comes through in the video.
I know it’s hard to believe that anyone could be genuine in this area, but don’t forget that Walt has repeatedly been invited to write guest posts here. That put him in a pretty select group. He is respected by many in the WUWT community.
Anthony posted his video for a reason.
Spin doctor? Funny you should use that term.
The context was the record ice extent of Antarctica. Read other comments. They read it the same way. Let Walt Meier speak for himself if he meant something else.
‘A warming climate changes weather patterns, said Walt Meier,’
By corollary does that mean a cooling climate does not?
I have the opposite opinion of Walt, I find what he is doing despicable. Surely he should know that Arctic ice has shown great variability long before the satellites. That the satellite era began at a peak in the arctic ice extent. He should also compare maximum winter Arctic ice to winter Antarctic ice and not to summer Arctic ice, where the trend is two thirds (2/3) less.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi_range_ice-ext.png
That graphic tells the real story of Arctic ice.
If the maximum extent is declining at -2.574%/decade and the minimum extent is declining at -8.951%/decade. It therefore follows that annual ice formation (extent) is increasing by 6.381%/decade.
The reality is that sea ice formation is increasing at both poles. The difference is that Arctic sea ice is melting at much greater rate especially late in the NH summer.
Warming temperatures cannot cause both increasing sea ice formation and increasing sea ice melt. The reason for the increased Arctic sea melt very likely to be insolation and albedo changes due to aerosols and black carbon. Both effects are of course absent in the NH winter. Thus have no effect on sea ice formation.
They have looked into all the possibilities except it’s bloody getting colder!!!!!
“Study Finds Antarctic Sea Ice Increases When It Gets Colder”
August 17, 2013
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/study-finds-antarctic-sea-ice-increases-when-it-gets-colder/
There are no air surface temperature measurements over the Arctic Ocean or the Southern Ocean. These studies refer to model extrapolations of land temperatures (and perhaps interpretations of satellite data).
and those show cooling, just like NASA used to..http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/01/southern-ocean-cooling-since-1996-global-warming-scientists-deny-logic-that-cold-causes-more-ice/
and http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/nasa-antarctic-temperature-fraud-2/
What does the IABP measure?
Here are some more
hockeyschtick – Monday, August 20, 2012
“New paper finds Southern Oceans are losing heat ”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-paper-finds-southern-oceans-are.html
Evidence of deep ocean cooling
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/05/evidence-of-deep-ocean-cooling/
“Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year”
I’m struggling to figure out what they mean with these numbers. Anybody any ideas?
They mean to sound scary.
For a long time that’s all CAGW could talk about was how the poles were melting and that was proof of global warming. And now record sea ice extent and it’s still global warming. Where did all that cold air come from? I can see why I wasn’t invited into their club, I’m still puzzled over the Great Lakes freezing over. I know that’s global warming too. I am wondering what kind of story will come out when the Arctic ice extent exceeds older records.
Here’s my guess…. A blocking high pressure system is keeping the Arctic air confined. However this sea or that is unusually warm and creating a polar vortex that is keeping the land areas cold and snowy, further proving CAGW.
Warming = more ice.
Got it…
Except when warming = less ice.
Well, they’re talking about the warming causing more ice in the southern hemisphere, where obviously eveything is the opposite.
Just like the spin of a turd being flushed down the toilet.