According to NOAA data, all time Antarctic sea ice extent record was set on Sept 22nd, 2012

Ferdberple says
We are in a period of rapid magnetic pole change.
As the north magnetic pole moves towards the north geographic poles, the ice is decreasing at the north pole. As the south magnetic pole moves away from the south geographic pole, the ice is increasing at the south pole.
100 billion dollars spend on climate research, at the “best” minds in the field missed this very simple connection between climate change and the earth’s magnetic field. The paleo evidence is clear, the climate changes when the magnetic poles change.
Or, are we to believe that CO2 and climate change control the magnetic poles?
Henry says
Considering there are giga tons of bicarbonate in the oceans, that react like
heat + HCO3- => CO2 g + OH-
it is clear that the heat increase was leading CO2 up, as from about 1950 or 1951, when (natural) global warming started. So that was a red herring to start off with.
I doubt the connection you make, though, as my results are showing that, although the SH and NH are cooling at different rates, the absolute value for the rate of cooling down (when looking at energy-in) is more or less constant for both hemispheres.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/29/according-to-noaa-data-all-time-antarctic-sea-ice-rxtent-record-was-set-on-sept-22nd-2012/#comment-1095536
I think my connection with a difference in the shield on top of earth makes more sense, but if you can prove to me that this could somehow be related to the earth’s magnetic fields, somehow, I am open to that, but waiting for some proof. (Vukcevic?)
I’m looking specifically for changes that occurred at around 1951 and 1995.

NOAA probably isn’t making a fuss about this because it is behavior that is well within the limits of models. The Arctic, on the other hand, IS outside of most modeled ranges.

Skeptic and Alarmist talking:
(Any resemblance to any actual conversation is coincidental.)
Alarmist: The ice is melting, we’re doomed!
Skeptic: What ice?
Alarmist: The arctic sea ice is melting unprecedentedly; this proves that the world is warming catastrophically due to man’s activities.
Skeptic: The arctic is one region not the whole world, Antarctic sea ice is growing. Evidence of regional warming is not evidence of Global Warming or whether the warming will be catastrophic or what causes the warming.
Alarmist: The Antarctic sea ice doesn’t matter.
Skeptic: Antarctica is part of the world isn’t it?
Alarmist: You’re not a climatologist.
Skeptic: I’m not a mathematician either, but I still know 2+2=4.
Alarmist: It’s more complicated than that; it takes computer models to figure out what’s going to happen and why.
Skeptic: A computer model can only make projections based on its programming, GIGO.
Alarmist: Most climatologists agree that the world is dangerously warming due to man’s activities.
Skeptic: Most cryptozoologists agree that the North American Wood Ape exists.
Alarmist: Why would climatologists lie?
Skeptic: I didn’t say they were lying, most probably believe what they’re saying.
Alarmists: So, if you believe that they believe and they’re the experts then why not believe them?
Skeptic: Because they could be under the influence of confirmation bias, noble cause corruption, or conflicts of interest.
Alarmists: You’re a denier.
Skeptic: What am I denying?
Alarmist: You probably don’t believe we went to the moon.
Skeptic: There’s ample evidence we went to the moon, so I do believe we went to the moon.
Alarmist: The same people, NASA, say the world is warming dangerously from CO2 emissions.
Skeptic: It’s not exactly the same people, but nevertheless it’s not about who says what but rather what can be reasonably established by evidence.
Alarmist: Evidence like the arctic sea ice disappearing?
Skeptic: Yes, that is evidence of arctic warming but not necessarily evidence of global warming and certainly not evidence that it’s anthropogenic or catastrophic.
Alarmist: But arctic melting is consistent with the models that project dangerous global warming due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions so it is evidence of man-made dangerous global warming.
Skeptic: Ok, but its thin evidence at best, for example, a half-eaten cookie on Christmas Morning is consistent with a visit from Santa Claus, it’s not solid evidence of a visit from Santa Claus.
Alarmist: But the climatologists say they can’t think of anything else that might have caused the warming, unlike you’re example where others could have eaten half the cookie.
Skeptic: So, I’m to take “argumentum ad ignorantiam” as evidence solid enough to base policy that effects the entire population of the world?
Alarmist: Yes, the precautionary principle demands we act now, just in case.
Skeptic: The precautionary principle demands we not apply the precautionary principle, it’s self-contradictory. We’d never do anything or make any progress if we didn’t violate the precautionary principle.
Alarmist: You’re exaggerating; taking it too far.
Skeptic: Well, do tell, what is the acceptable threshold of precautionary principle application?
Alarmist: It depends.
Skeptic: Let me guess, on the opinion of the experts?
Alarmist: What’s wrong with that?
Skeptic: Only everything.
Alarmist: You’re such a cynic.
Skeptic: Hey, I have some future beach front property I’m selling, think of your great grandchildren.

Curious
I too was pretty lost when I began to look into this area. With two postgraduate degrees, I believed that I could learn the subject to some extent, but as my areas of study had zero to do with what all climate science involves, I decided to begin at a very basic level and build on that foundation. A number of books were highly readable, understandable and well-documented.
1) Bjorn Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the State of the Real World” (Revised 2001) served well as a basic primer on the broad topic of enviromentalism and pollution. The book covers the entire issue of what and how bad certain pollutants are. CO2 gets a large review. The book also provides a detailed history of how the IPCC muscled into the area and stretched data and internationalized the cabal. The book is a good but not easy read and the reader needs to pay close attention. It is studded with footnotes that support his statements (2930 of them). There is also a large, but probably now out of date bibliography.
2) Lomborg has a second, smaller book, “Cool It” (2007) that is not as encyclopedic as TSE, but his thesis is “OK, assuming we are going to have this global warming you are predicting, what is the most practical, reasonable and economical response to it.” Rather than the Kioto and other wildly expensive and expansive (of governmental power) responses the AGW’s are clammoring for, Lomborg shows that a rational,universal and appropriate response can be raised that will save millions upon millions of lives (assumimg what we’re assuming) and cost billions upon billions of dollars less. His suggestions are so obvious and attainable that one wonders why Lomborg is the only one espousing his program. (Naw: follow the Money).
3) One of the Holy Scriptures of the CAGW people is the 1998 paper by Mann, Bradley and Hughes and its bastard spawn purporting to show the hockey stick-like elevation of world tempetures in the late 20th century. A.W. Montford has produced a book, “The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climatgate and the Corruption of Science” (2010). The book explores the Mann, Bradley, Hughes (MBH) paper and explodes its validity in a large number of areas. The book reads like a great detective story except that the clues, dead bodies and missing persons are arcane (to me) statistical concepts used (improperly) in MBH. The book relates in Conan Doyle style how the heroes (McIntyre and McKitrick among others) followed the statistical clues and evidence in MBH that led them to the startling conclusion that MBH is not just flawed but is junk science. That part of the book does not require a statistical background in the reader as Montford educates while he elucidates. Other parts of the book show in shocking detail how the “Team”protected their own rather than scientific fact. This is disturbing to read how these AGW advocates hide and fake data, refuse to release data which forms the bases of their conclusions and began to entrain governments to their AGW purposes. The book is a great read; It does cover some complex and arcane issues but Montford does a splendid job of simplifying and explaining. I also am renewing my forty-year ago relationship with statistical analysis.
4) Another invaluable book is “Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed” (2008) by Christopher C. Horner. This book is more polemical than the preceeding ones but it is very eye opening to learn how the Team and governments collude (am I getting conspirational? Read the book) to thrust wave upon wave of AGW agitprop on all levels of society. The book will shock you, but it is documented with copious footnotes.