Does Antarctic Sea Ice Growth Negate Global Warming Theory?

LA Times making frantic excuses


Eric Worrall writes: The LA Times has published an article which asks whether the faithful should worry about the rapid growth of Antarctic sea ice, an observation which sharply contradicts model predictions that the ice should all be melting away.

Naturally the article concludes that their readers should not be worried.

The prevailing theory amongst researchers interviewed by the Times, seems to be that global warming is strengthening circumpolar winds. They also suggest global warming is causing increased snowfall on the ice covered ocean.

Sharon Stammerjohn, a sea ice researcher at the University of Colorado; “It makes no sense to talk about a circumpolar average. There’s so much regional variability.”

According to Stammerjohn, it’s even possible that the current growth spurt is just a short upward wiggle in a larger downward trend. “Thirty years isn’t really that long,” Stammerjohn said.



newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)

‘Thirty years isn’t really that long.’
That’s what we’ve been telling you nimrods for 30 years!


Good one!!

Mike Bromley the Kurd

As long as their meme suits them. But darest not attempt to turn the tables!


So the LA Times message to their faithful readers is don’t worry, thermageddon is alive and well in the southern latitudes and we’re all going to die per the models. How do stories like that pass editorial muster?


It’s the editorial board that is dictaing the content. Latimes has had a problem with the separation of ‘news’ and opinion for years.


I believe they “can” any letter to editor that presents skeptical evidence

Steve in Seattle

Just like the Seattle Times .

You ask

So the LA Times message to their faithful readers is don’t worry, thermageddon is alive and well in the southern latitudes and we’re all going to die per the models. How do stories like that pass editorial muster?

They pass “editorial muster” because they are news and the LA Times is a newspaper.
‘Many experts say the plane flying from New York will arrive as scheduled’ is not news.
‘An expert says the plane flying from New York will crash’ is news.

M Courtney

“Ironically, one of the possible reasons to get more ice is warming.”

Which kind of means that the decline over thirty years of Arctic ice is not a sign of AGW.
Inconvenient that.


Your comment is a sign of AGW. So is the central meaning of the word “inconvenient”.


I like that! I’m going to use it …

So, twenty years (from 1979 to 1999) is long enough to signal significant/alarming/catastrophic warming but “Thirty years isn’t really that long,” when it may signal cooling. Got it.




Has anyone projected forward that 30 years of (alleged) human generated CO2 rise (forgetting all natural sources of course, as that goes without saying) compared to the CO2 level in Jan 1998, in order to obtain the expected CO2 change that produces 30 years of anticipated colder global temperatures? As it would be enlightening to see just how much more CO2 forcing you need to make Earth colder for that long, and to make the 2014 record sea ice cover look a bit ordinary.
Can we please have a ‘paper’ and a model about that nasty negative-feedback side-effect of CO2 … too? … and precautionarily principled ‘n all that good stuff.
And may the farce be with you.


Global warming . . . it’s proven by cooling, it’s proven by warming and it’s proven by no change . . . is there anything it CAN’T do?


I fail to understand why this overworked phrase “global warming” remains extant.
Firstly, it is not happening, not right now.
Secondly, it would appear from the last 17 years that our planet is cooling, on the outside at least.
Thirdly, why does the term “climate change” mitigate all the above?
I have always understood that changes in our world take time; not as we know it (most of us are not geologists), but in millennia. Records purporting to go back several hundred years are useful, maybe, but cannot possibly forecast climate change, per se.


It’s really quite simple.
Global warming is whats chiseled into the millstone they hung around their own collective necks.
Climate change was their first attempt to dump that millstone when the realization that it wasn’t warming hit home.
As a skeptic, one should not for a instance forget to remind them of that simple fact.
I personally, flatly refuse to let them get away with the name change.
In conversation with these “round earthians” I’ll continue to correct them if they refer to their fraud as climate change.
Try it.
Watching them trying to justify the name change is quite cringe worthy.


I agree with Leigh. Hold their feet to the fire: they picked the term to live or die with, and now they must pay the piper.
I also think the Climatistas efforts to change the terminology (Global Warming to Climate Change) reflects their attempt to move the goalposts, which they try to do by talking about storm frequency and severity, drought frequency and severity, warmth hiding in the ocean (= the theory is true, we just have to find the proof of it, and we’re now guessing “ocean”).
Though I may not remember correctly, I don’t recall them talking about any such markers or events back in 2000. Then, it was all about increases in SST, as projected by models.

“is there anything it CAN’T do?”
That’s why we call it hot/wet/dry/cold.


It can’t fool everyone all the time.






Yes, there is something it can’t do. It can’t succumb to falsification. You can stab it in the heart and write its obituary, but on the first day of an extreme weather event, it will come back to life as healthy and active as it ever was.

Zombie like in nature climate science it is. Sewed up with many different parts, it terrorizes the public… IT’S ALIVE, It’s ALIVE!!! CAWG just keeps coming at you.


“Global warming . . . is there anything it CAN’T do?”
Can’t seem to match any of the predictions made by all those super smart climate modelers.

Doug Proctor

If more warming leads to more snow and ice, does the corollary work, i.e. cooling leads to less snow and less ice?
Perhaps we are returning to the next Ice age after all. I am sitting on the Salton Sea where yesterday my Jeep overheated in the 111F/43C temperatures. I hope the ice comes quickly.

mark l

And this is from the newspaper that openly refuses to print skeptic letters to the editor. One by one the alarmist claims are proven wrong yet people still listen……why?


Any science article with the phrase “Ice requires cold temperatures to form” immediately turns me off.


Leaves me cold too.

30 years isn’t very long, when the heck do we get to long?

Mike Maguire

Global warming causes ice to melt. Then when observations show that ice is growing in some places………it causes ice to grow.
Global warming causes less snow. Then when observations show that snow is increasing in some places, it causes more snow.
Global warming causes less cold. Then when extreme cold increases in some places, it causes more cold.
This is clearly just spinning the analysis/interpretation of the empirical data/observations to match up with the theory.
It’s the result of severe cognitive bias.

Colin Gartner

Bang on, Mike. AGW is more religious dogma than it is science, IMO. No observable empirical evidence refutes or falsifies AGW. As it evidently cannot be falsified, it therefore cannot fall within the realm of legitimate scientific inquiry.

Ralph Kramden

It’s a good thing the LA Times published this article otherwise I’m sure a lot of people would be worried.

A basic tenet of AGW-idiocy is the constant need to reaffirm that AGW-alarmism is supported by all climate observations; an ice age would be indisputable confirmation of AGW. The psychopaths are running amuck; there’s no rational excuse for the belief that reality will impede them; control of the world’s financial assets and natural resources is bassed on political power, not credibility.

I,I,I,I,I,I I, (stammering)
am sure it is cooling from the top latitudes downward

Have these scientists get more information about subject resently? The abstract of their 2012, Oceanography 25(3):140–151 article says: “Yet, the failure of climate models to capture either the overall or regional behavior also reflects, in part, a poor understanding of sea ice processes.”
I think that total global sea ice area is better indicator of climate change than one of polar alone. And global sea ice area shows no big change.

The Mighty Quinn

We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

Douglas Proctor

Emmanuel Goldstein = Al-Qaeda


“Thirty years isn’t really that long,”

What if Antarctic sea ice extent declined for the next 29 years? Would Stammerjohn still say: “Thirty years isn’t really that long,”? We had global warming from the late 1970s to the standstill (about 20 years) but really twenty years isn’t really that long. Slick oil salesman.


By the way THIRTY YEARS or more is what the IPCC and the WMO accept as climate for the purpose of its reports. If thirty years is not long enough, what is?


A propaganda campaign just long enough to force an unelected, world-wide dictatorship on the US, courtesy of the EPA and the Administration.

Pedro Oliveira

Eternity wouldn’t be long enough…


The length of whatever record is being discussed.
In the case of surface temps…since the late 1870s.
Back when climatology was in its infancy, it was acknowledged that the longer the record, the better. They ‘settled’ for 35 yrs, because that was what they had…then somewhere along the line, that was shortened to 30 yrs. Many of the old texts on the subject suggest that as the record lengthens, that should be deciding factor as to what is ‘climate’.

“Dramatic changes in temperature, sea level and extreme weather around the world are proof enough the planet is warming…”
No temperature change for 15+ years, no change in rate of sea level change and no evidence for extreme weather. Apart from that, spot on.


The laymen misunderstand. SCIENCE tells us mankind (a.k.a “business as usual) MUST be changing the climate, the ecosystem, the course of evolution and the way things have always been and always ought to be. The only question is, what do we do about it?
What we do about “it”, where “it” means “change”, has absolutely nothing to do with the specific physical properties of the change. Change could be cooler or warmer. Dryer or wetter. More fat, or more starches. Resistant to insecticide — if mosquitoes and roaches — or more sensistive to it — if songbirds, butterflies, or honeybees. More acidic or more base — whether rains or oyster beds or farm run-off. A surplus of phosphates, or a shortage. Rising sea level or lower. More earthquakes or fewer. Plutonium dioxide or carbon dioxide. More ice, less ice, thicker ice, thinner ice, ice near the freezing point, ice near the melting point, ice in phase nine that melts or freezes at some new and different point on the temperature scale. The point is that humans cause change, and the change must be ameliorated by wise and powerful policy makers — guided by scientific experts. And amelioration requires — science says so! — that the general public give up pursuing their own short term happiness and be directed by their betters: to pay more tax, enjoy fewer choices, stay where they are put, and above all stop breeding more of themselves. This is what we must “DO” to stop “IT”. All else is merely noise.
Let me emphasize that. The type of change and the symptoms thereof are irrelevant. THE WHOLE WORLD MUST “DO” SOMETHING TO STOP “IT”. All correctly educated people agree. We must put aside political, religious, policy and personal differences, align our efforts, surrender our luxuries, and fall to.
It is anathema to believe that dry regions should divert resources into local attempts to be wetter, or low places higher, or rough places smoother, or fat places thinner, or urban places more park-like, or wild places cultivated and tamed. ALL places must address the global crisis (du jour) and make sacrifices for the common good. We must all strive together, now, or all perish individually, and eventually, at some future point, the exact date or decade of which need not be specified.
What we see in this instance is just more proof that pollution from industry causes chaotic, unpredictable, conditions. THIS IS INTOLERABLE! How can the global policy makers direct our global economies if polluters keep on introduction variation into our otherwise perfect forecasts, models, and five-year-plans? Polluters, and financial speculators. Polluters, financial speculators, and the patriarchy. Polluters, speculators, the partriarchy, and the reactionary elements of the hereditary power class. And bicyclists … All these counter-scientific resistance groups must be apprehended, re-educated, and — if that fails — destroyed.
At least 97% of those in the consensus agree with the above. The rest of the reading public hope the above is intended satirically.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)

What consensus?

97% of burnt, drowned and hanged witches regret the moronic consensus that dictated their fate…


Termites appeared about 200 million years ago.
The weight of the total global termite population is somewhere in the order of a dozen times plus the combined weight of all of humanity.
Termites eat grass roots, most species of trees, some whilst still alive, some dead timber plus timber of every type, most / all of which other species such as Fungi and mosses and all sorts of critters of the animal kingdom need but termites destroy that food and shelter those other plants and biological life would use if the termites hadn’t destroyed it first.
Termites have altered the entire global ecosystem often to the disadvantage, sometimes to the severe disadvantage of an incredible array of other species and to their own benefit and to their own advantage.
Perhaps the termite’s activities have also led to the extinction of a number of species over those aeons of time, species which could not compete for sustenance against the predatory activities of the termites.
So considering all the damage termites have done and have continued to do for the last couple of hundreds of millions of years to the Earth’s bio-systems, what have the termites done to stop all this damage and when do they intend to do something to stop all the damage they are doing..
By the way the species Homo sapiens is also an entirely natural creation of Nature and the Earth’s biological systems just like those termites.


The LA Times goes on to say.

But these critiques oversimplify the science of climate change, Maksym said.
Sea ice is a case in point, he said: “Ironically, one of the possible reasons to get more ice is warming.”

The following paper says otherwise.
“Study Finds Antarctic Sea Ice Increases When It Gets Colder”
August 17, 2013

Abstract – Qi Shu et. al. – July 2011
Sea ice trends in the Antarctic and their relationship to surface air temperature during 1979–2009
“Surface air temperature (SAT) from four reanalysis/analysis datasets are analyzed and compared with the observed SAT from 11 stations in the Antarctic……Antarctic SIC trends agree well with the local SAT trends in the most Antarctic regions. That is, Antarctic SIC and SAT show an inverse relationship: a cooling (warming) SAT trend is associated with an upward (downward) SIC trend.”

Jeff Alberts

So, if both are true, the planet should have been covered with the ever-increasing Antarctic ice long ago, since nothing can apparently stop it.

mark l

Speculate is a required verb? Scientists speculate? That sounds obscene.

Of course, scientists speculate. The speculation may be perfectly fine and agree with all past observations, but it is the testing by future observation (or, where possible, experiment) that turns this speculation into real science. At this point, with a whole churchyard full of failed climate models, there is no reason to get excited about a new one that is still awaiting its falsification by reality.

reading the LA Times comments, it appears their readers can spot government sponsored propaganda when they read it.


AR5 Summary For Policymakers 2013.

Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations. {9.4}….
There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of natural internal variability in that region (see Figure SPM.6). {10.5}

These people are all over the place.

If governments select the scientists that are to receive grants, how does one prevent the grants from being used to advance a political agenda or belief system?
For example, how do the evaluators judge which grants are likely to generate real scientific value? For example, say for example 100 years ago someone applied for a grant to study how fungi can cure infections in humans.
Likely it would have been turned down, because it didn’t fit the accepted belief system of how to cure infections. How can contamination of a wound with a fungi cure an infection? Under the belief system of the day it should cause and infection.
Yet, penicillin is produced by fungi to protect itself from bacteria. So, if we fund science based on what we believe is likely to work, we end up limiting scientific discovery to what we already believe to be true, while ignoring the much larger body of discover, that which we don’t yet know.

There was a wonderful comment a couple of months back which explained the peer-grant system and how researchers protect themselves and starve out dissenters. Does anyone remember that post? Can it be reposted?


we are cooling from the top latitudes downward
antarctic ice is already increasing

Steve Case

From the link:
Those winds have intensified in recent years because of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the presence of the ozone hole.
Greenhouse gas and the ozone hole, a double whammy!
Sea ice … also keeps warm ocean waters trapped beneath a frozen lid, insulating the ice sheet from their destructive heat.
Say what?
Scientists think changes in the winds have altered ocean circulation, allowing warmer waters below the surface layer to sneak in closer to the shore.
Sneaks in on little cat feet no doubt.
Julia Rosen says scientists said that. I say Julia made that crap up.

Yes, Steve, I think a lot of things are being “made-up”- do 97% of the scientists that global warming causes stronger winds regionally? What I find disturbing is that the warmists seem to find it okay to average global temperatures to claim the world is warming, but then when that is inconvenient they say “It makes no sense to talk about a circumpolar average. There’s so much regional variability.” Which is it? Personally I’ve never understood why a “global” warming average is useful on any level anyway. it’s like trying to make sense of the average the temperature inside everyone’s homes. Each home is unique with it’s own set of variables(Like what the thermostat is set at! 🙂 Averaging a temperature globally, and then saying that THAT global average is causing stronger winds? seems to be the real “oversimplification”-
If anyone has a clue where to find the scientific papers that proves average global warming causes stronger winds on a regional basis, I’d love to hear how that has been proven.

Dodgy Geezer

…Does Antarctic sea ice growth negate climate change? Scientists say no…
Er… the alternative is that ‘scientists’ say: ” We’ve been lying to you all along in order to keep our grants…”
And that isn’t going to happen. At least, not yet…

Why don’t we select politicians for office the same way we select juries? At random. Imagine what would happen to justice if people ran for election to juries.
Imagine the corruption that would result. Having spend money to win a seat on a jury, the jurists would then need to find a way to make back their investment. Lawyers would end up wining and dining jurists to gain favorable decisions.
Oh wait a minute. Judges stand for election in the US don’t they? What could possibly go wrong. Play ball and we will donate big time to your reelection campaign.

If wind speed is up, the question is has that increased wind erosion (ablation) of the Antarctica ice sheets creating a spurious claim of Antarctica Ice Sheet loss?

Remember … when the AGW cult brings up wind to xplain more sea ice, we should bring up ablation.
“Accurate quantification of surface snow accumulation over Antarctica is a key constraint for estimates of the Antarctic mass balance, as well as climatic interpretations of ice-core records1, 2.
Over Antarctica, near-surface winds accelerate down relatively steep surface slopes, eroding and sublimating the snow. This wind scour results in numerous localized regions (≤200 km2) with reduced surface accumulation3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Estimates of Antarctic surface mass balance rely on sparse point measurements or coarse atmospheric models that do not capture these local processes, and overestimate the net mass input in wind-scour zones3.
Here we combine airborne radar observations of unconformable stratigraphic layers with lidar-derived surface roughness measurements to identify extensive wind-scour zones over Dome A, in the interior of East Antarctica.
The scour zones are persistent because they are controlled by bedrock topography. On the basis of our Dome A observations, we develop an empirical model to predict wind-scour zones across the Antarctic continent and find that these zones are predominantly located in East Antarctica.
We estimate that ~ 2.7–6.6% of the surface area of Antarctica has persistent negative net accumulation due to wind scour, which suggests that, across the continent, the snow mass input is overestimated by 11–36.5 Gt yr−1 in present surface-mass-balance calculations.”


Soviet Propaganda with an Orwellian Double Speak. Such prose should be coming from the UK Government with blessings from the UN.

Brian K

When you claim to be the answer to everything you in reality stand for nothing. Such is the inconvenient truth for the Global Warming Scammers.

It’s really simple. We know the answer is always going to be “AGW exists and it requires higher taxes and more government control to fix.” So we just work backwards in our reasoning until we get to the latest problem.

Black Knight

NO! AGW is the Black Knight of theories!

Bill H

To quote Monty Python;
King Aurthur – Sir knight, you have no arms, no legs, and your bleeding out.
Black Night – Come over here I can still bite you.
King Aurthur – OK.! We’ll call it a draw.. (as he goes around the knight)
I would say this is pretty much the status of the AGW movement at the moment. Not quite dead yet, but close.


And the Black Knight’s reply was to tell King Arthur…”Come back here you coward!”….:-)


“Only a flesh wound!”

Claude Harvey

After deliberately fogging up the real story of the day, which is dramatic ARCTIC Sea Ice recovery, the L.A. Times concludes with its propaganda bottom line:
“Sea ice is a case in point, he said: ‘Ironically, one of the possible reasons to get more ice is warming’.”
We’ve gone from, “Your children will never see snow, the Arctic will be ice free by 2014, the polar bears are starving and the penguins are roasting alive” to “Ironically….”
The shameless mendacity of AGW propagandists is truly mind-boggling.


“Thirty years isn’t really that long,”
True that.
Any other numbers you want to put out there ?


“Sharon Stammerjohn, a sea ice researcher at the University of Colorado; “It makes no sense to talk about a circumpolar average. There’s so much regional variability.””
Then it also makes no sense to talk about tiny changes in a global temperature average anomaly. There’s so much regional and daily variability.
Stammerjohn is a denier of averaging. Therefore she denies climate. Climate is the average of weather.
We have found the climate deniers, and it is the climate scientists.

Matthew R Marler

“Thirty years isn’t really that long,” Stammerjohn said.
I do wish they could have told us that in the early 80s.

Gary Hladik

From the article:
“In fact, since scientists started making satellite observations in the late 1970s, they have watched winter sea ice around Antarctica swell slowly but indisputably, despite predictions that it should shrink.
If the “scientific” predictions were wrong, why should we trust any explanations “scientists” now offer?
“But these critiques oversimplify the science of climate change, Maksym said.”
Hey, we’re the ones who always said climate is complicated. You’re the ones who said you could predict the future!
‘Sea ice is a case in point, he said: “Ironically, one of the possible reasons to get more ice is warming.”‘
And another reason is cooling, right? How would you tell the difference, other than wishful thinking?


You just can’t get anything through to these people.

Paper – 2 June 2014
“…Over the last few decades, the two polar regions of our planet have exhibited strikingly different behaviours, as is evident in observed decadal trends in surface air temperature shown in figure 1. The Arctic has warmed, much more than in the global average, primarily in winter, while Arctic sea-ice extent has decreased dramatically. By contrast, the eastern Antarctic and Antarctic plateau have cooled, primarily in summer, with warming over the Antarctic Peninsula and Patagonia . Moreover, sea-ice extent around Antarctica has modestly increased….”


As long as the Progressive’s are in control of the media, the “Alarmists” will have the upper hand. We all must continue to question, question, question. Once America and the world cycle back to common sense, a real debate will be enabled. Until then – Islam is a religion of peace, and the world is on fire (both physically and metaphorically).


“Thirty years isn’t really that long,” Stammerjohn said.
Thirty years is twice as long as the period of “global warming” that might even theoretically be attributed to anthropogenic CO2.

Christopher Hanley

“The LA Times has published an article which asks whether the faithful should worry about the rapid growth of Antarctic sea ice, an observation which sharply contradicts model predictions that the ice should all be melting away … Naturally the article concludes that their readers should not be worried …”
LOL, that news must be very reassuring.
What a relief, there’s no need to worry about not worrying.

Well, remember it is LA – worrying about worrying is de rigueur there.


‘Thirty years isn’t really that long.’
Which is of course what they have been saying all along in relation to the “death spiral” in the Arctic.
Next weeks article will be entitled:
“Does Arctic Sea Ice Growth Negate Global Warming Theory?”


“But these critiques oversimplify the science of climate change, Maksym said.”
That’s a good one. IPCC says “most” of the warming of the last 50y is due to CO2.
And we are over simplifying that situation by saying what, exactly?
Grunt…. Earth… um…. flat. Grunt.

Yes but, what about the tipping point? If we don’t act now , the results will be irreversible. Horrible events will occur in the next 10 years. (2004) So, now it’s being pushed out 30 years? I have the math straight from the source that is flawless in its projection. One of the statements invalidates the other. It’s hard to argue with the math, and even harder to argue with reality. You can spin it however. Looks like an article on spin.


Ms. Rosen, (Reporter – Los Angeles Times)
I just read your article. I realize you are “reporting” (or at least I hope so?).
This article however reads just like, “The Earth is Cooling, so it must be Global Warming”. It could easily have been the secondary headline.
“Climate is a complicated thing,” said Ted Maksym, an oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts. “Understanding how these kinds of changes play out in different regions is tricky business” He’s right in saying this, so how can he come to any conclusions?
“Thirty years “isn’t a very long time”, per Ms. Stamerjohn – I agree. Then why was “thirty years from the late 1970’s till around 2000 enough time to have transpired to
create climate “alarmism”?
Why do not one of the climate “scientists” models work? None and I mean not one of their models work. They will even tell you this themselves if anyone would ask. Not one of them passes the test of telling us what occurred in the past. So were supposed to believe them about what will occur in the future?
Climate as Ms. Stamerjohn correctly implies is just too complex. Meteorologists only in the last 5 years have had any reasonable chance of telling us what the weather will be like in 5 days, climate?….not so much.
Did either of your interviewed scientists tell you that the world hasn’t warmed on average for the last 17 years and 10 months? Bet not. What happened to the unrelenting Hockey Stick of Dr. Michael Mann as shown in Vice President Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth”?
The Earth runs in natural cycles and no amount of incorrect experimental computer modeling will change that. The double speak of your interviewed scientists is astonishing.
They use the same nebulous language to defiantly inform the world of the impending doom of anthropogenic warming. Based on what?
Facts are indeed a most inconvenient truth. Ask former Vice President Gore about his absolute assertion that the Arctic Ice would all be gone by 2014. This year, it has increased by between 50-60 percent! All of this reeks of scientists want funding; Vice President Gore wants to make money on brokering “Cap and Trade”.
To get this funding, they must have a cause celeb or no one will listen to them. As I’m sure you’re aware, the public is very sound bite oriented.
The supposed climate scientists and alarmist politicians need to create a political constituency to keep the billions of dollars flowing into their “research grants” and other schemes.
According to the UN’s IPCC, “sea levels are rising!, the worlds glaciers are melting!”. Yes, in some places sea levels are rising and glaciers are melting. In other places the sea levels have fallen and the glaciers are growing! Yet another, “inconvenient truth”, but of course that one’s not mentioned in the sound bite world of the main stream media.
The UN is perhaps one of the most discredited organizations in the world as of this writing and the IPCC is all part of the scam.
I’m sure you’ve heard of “Climategate”? If not, may I suggest Andrew Montford’s book on the subject which can be found here:
If you wish to truly be a balance reporter, I suggest you do a follow up interview with Tim Ball, Phd. (Canadian) or Roy Spencer, Phd. (University of Alabama)
Science is all about the constant questioning of a theory. If your data and your theory cannot be discredited, you become a scientific giant. See Newton or Einstein; both of whom freely shared their findings and methods for the scientific community to disprove if they could. If you refuse to share your data to have the scientific community evaluate it, you become a scientific buffoon. Ask self described “Nobel Laureate”, Dr. Timothy Mann why he won’t release his data and methods to have a true scientific discussion of his politically popular Hockey Stick? Yet another in the long line of inconvenient truths.
No one believes you when you only tell one side of a scientific story, most especially if you do not present opposing views. Today, the science of “plate tectonics” is the null hypothesis of the Earth’s geologic progression. In 1912, when Alfred Wegener proposed this theory, “97%” of the scientific communities “consensus” laughed at him. Guess what? The 97% today, are not remembered. Alfred Wegener is. He wasn’t afraid to layout his theory and show his evidence. That’s what a scientist is and what he or she does.
If you cannot see your way to follow up with the other side of the scientific community, it just makes the LA Times look like a politically self serving op-ed opinion rag. When a newspaper starts to smell of politics instead of reportage, it only adds to the evidence as to why circulation continues to dwindle.
Scott Stolnitz, D.D.S.
Santa Barbara, CA

Frank Kotler

Don’t look now, but antarctic sea ice has declined rather abruptly over the last few days. I delight in telling my friends that gloval sea ice is above average. Right at the moment, it isn’t true. Kust sayin’…

Bruce Cobb

Dramatic changes in temperature, sea level and extreme weather around the world are proof enough the planet is warming, they say; the only question is how these changes affect the Antarctic as they ripple through the climate system.

By “dramatic changes”, I guess they must mean the halt in the warming these past 15-18 years, wherein the warming has dramatically and suddenly dove to the deep oceans where it can’t be measured. I’m not sure where the “drama” is in SLR observed to be rising at 0 to 3.2 mm/year, with zero evidence of any increased rate of SLR over the past 100 years, but I guess maybe drama is in the eye of the beholdren. The “extreme weather” changes is just laughably silly, since 1) there is no evidence of an increase of “extreme weather” of any sort; simply more widespread, instantaneous and breathlessly alarmist reporting of it by the mindless mainscream media, and 2) since no scientific connection has ever been made between the two.
So, as to the question of how these drama queens’ fantasized “dramatic changes” rippling through the climate system affect the Antarctic, well it can only affect it in their mind only. They will “see” whatever it is they want to see, in other words. More drama that way.


[snip -off topic, try leaving your tips in WUWT Tips and Notes where they belong rather than cluttering threads – thanks, -mod]

Frank: “Don’t look now, but antarctic sea ice has declined rather abruptly over the last few days.”
And recovered. It did the same thing in 2013 and recovered to set a record.

Frank Kotler

Okay, thanks. I was looking at this:
Your fherries may be more up-to-date than my cherries. L(


Actually it would be funny if after all the excuses to explain the record ice, the sea ice returns to and stays at average levels for awhile. In 2007 the blamed the low levels of sea ice on Global warming and in 2013-2014 they blamed the record amount on climate change.
How will they blame global warming for sea ice at normal/average level? Where’s the change in climate change?
Though never under estimate the ability of the Liberals/Alarmist to make up what ever lie they need to delude themselves.


“Extreme slowdown of global climate change”
“Catastrophic lack of modeled warming”
“Increase of extreme climate model failure events”
“Increased variability of climate unpredictability (by our models)”
“Alarming difficulty of explaining current events”
“Increased difficulty of obtaining grant money”
No, the last one is a joke, obviously.

NZ Willy

This drop is temporary and is due to dial-turning. Here’s a ridiculous statement: This short-term drop in Antarctic sea ice area is because the Arctic ice cap is re-freezing north of 80deg. Now here’s the justification:
Each satellite which measures ice area performs a global orbit which covers both Arctic and Antarctic regions. An ongoing issue with these satellite operations is calibration of the polarizing filters — if the calibration isn’t right, then surface ponds are mistaken for open sea, or the ice edge is wrongly placed, etc. The method of calibration is basically to take whichever setting yields the *smallest* global sea ice area. It’s quite a good method, actually, as it’s globally consistent and avoids runaways. The downside is that you get these silly-looking swings in ice area in which the Arctic area swings are opposite to the Antarctic area swings, a sort of hemispheric tango which is entirely created by the dial-turning.
So what’s happening is that the Arctic is re-freezing so suddenly there is far less variability in measuring the Arctic. Therefore the polarizer setting is turning to minimize the Antarctic ice more than it did so before. When the dial-turning is complete, the Antarctic sea ice area will resume its advance.


So having no global warming to worry about would be far more worrying than global warming itself?
“Dont worry because you can still worry. ”
Its the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine – worrying.
So – no worries, eh?