Charles Rotter
Last Friday’s Science Advances served up a new Antarctic doom paper, perfectly timed for the weekend news cycle. A team led by researchers at the University of Southampton announced they had diagnosed the cause of the decline in Antarctic sea ice since 2015 — a self-reinforcing combination of stronger westerlies, deepwater upwelling, and a positive feedback loop that the authors’ press release dubbed:
“a triple whammy of climate chaos.”
The press did its job. CNN, Euronews, and most of the major science desks ran with the framing intact. Co-author Alberto Naveira Garabato warned that, under continued low-ice conditions, the Southern Ocean itself could shift from a climate stabilizer to a major contributor to global warming. Lead author Aditya Narayanan added that the recent losses had wiped out an area of sea ice nearly the size of Greenland.
There is, however, a small problem with the timing.
Meanwhile, In the Actual Data
Two months earlier, in early March, the National Snow and Ice Data Center announced that the 2026 Antarctic summer minimum had landed at roughly 2.58 million square kilometers — the largest summer minimum in five years, and 730,000 square kilometers above the 2023 record low. The 2026 minimum ranked 16th smallest in the 47-year satellite record. NSIDC’s Ted Scambos credited favorable winds that:
“pushed sea ice outward in the Weddell Sea”
during the late austral summer.
In other words: by the time the “triple whammy” paper went to press, Antarctic sea ice had already done the thing the paper now says is unlikely. It bounced — sharply, in a single year.
It is worth noting that Scambos appears in both stories. In March, his framing for NSIDC was that the rebound was real and tied to favorable wind patterns. This week, in CNN’s coverage of the Southampton paper, his framing is that recovery is unlikely. Both statements may turn out to be true on different timescales. But a reader who learned about Antarctica only from press releases would never know the rebound happened at all. Earth.com’s follow-up coverage was more measured, framing 2026 as possibly:
“a pause inside a rough new era”
— which is at least an honest acknowledgment that the system did, in fact, recover this year.
And Then There’s the Ice Sheet
There is another inconvenient data point. In February, a separate paper published in Nature‘s Communications Earth & Environment (Kolbe et al., “Atmospheric rivers and winter sea ice drive recent reversal in Antarctic ice mass loss”) reported that the Antarctic Ice Sheet — which had been losing mass at a near-linear rate since 2000 — slowed that loss after 2016 and has shown:
“a net mass gain since 2020.”
The cause, per Kolbe et al.: increased precipitation driven by intensified atmospheric river activity and stronger westerlies. The same westerlies the Southampton group identifies as the principal villain in the sea ice story.
Both papers can be right. Sea ice extent and ice sheet mass balance are different physical quantities, governed by different mechanisms. The atmospheric circulation that thins floating sea ice can also deliver more snow to the continent. Honest physics will sometimes give you both answers at once.
But the press release ecosystem treats only one of those answers as newsworthy. There has been wall-to-wall coverage of the “triple whammy” paper in the four days since it appeared. The Kolbe paper, published in a Nature journal three months ago, with a finding that runs in the opposite direction, generated almost no coverage at all.
The reader is invited to draw their own conclusions about why.
The Familiar Pattern
This is the now-standard Antarctic news cycle:
- A new minimum or anomaly produces a wave of tipping point coverage.
- The system reverts toward its long-term mean.
- The reversion gets a single news cycle, if any.
- The next paper modeling the prior anomaly is published as though the reversion never happened.
A reader following only headlines from 2023 forward would have been told, in sequence: that Antarctic sea ice was in unprecedented decline (true at the time); that this was a sign of regime change; that recovery was unlikely; that 2026’s near-average minimum was a brief reprieve; and now — published four days ago — that a feedback loop has effectively locked the continent into permanent low-ice conditions.
The actual data, meanwhile, has done what data does. It has been noisy. It has been variable. And it is currently moving in the opposite direction of the headlines.
What to Watch
The 2026 Antarctic winter maximum will arrive in September. If it lands near the long-term average — as the summer minimum did — then the “triple whammy” paper will join a growing list of Antarctic regime-change studies that arrived just as the regime they predicted began to dissolve.
If extent stays low, the Southampton team will have a stronger case.
Either way, the answer will come from satellite extent measurements, not from press releases. Readers may want to bookmark NSIDC’s daily extent chart and check it against the next round of doom-spiral coverage.
“Readers may want to bookmark NSIDC’s daily extent chart and check it against the next round of doom-spiral coverage.”
Good point. I look at the graphs for Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent every day just out of curiosity.
I seem to remember some time ago that Willis Eschenbach emphasized looking at the ice area data, not just extent.
Here is the monthly ice area data for the SH.
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/monthly/data/s_icearea.mon.data
Compare recent years to the earliest years in the record. Nothing to write home about.
That is all for now.
Of course, none of your comments dispute the facts that A) the long term trend in sea ice — both Antarctic and Arctic –is down, or B) the world continues to warm faster than at any time in millennia, due to the steady rise in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.
As for you point A, so what?
As for your point B, completely unsupported by any data.
Would you prefer it had been getting colder for the last 200 years?
“As for you point A, so what?” Because Dibbell’s implications — that the report was wrong, or that sea ice wasn’t in decline –were incorrect.
“As for your point B, completely unsupported by any data.” Actually, it’s the universal conclusion of all scientific research. You could start by reading any of the reports from the 80 National Scientific Academies in the world.
Since 1979, the Antarctic is COOLING
Sure, Nasty. Your unsourced charts are as credible as you are
CSFR is NOT unsourced ! It is exactly what it is.
You really do have a major problem with actual DATA, don’t you.
More credible than your false assertions.
Truth to a socialist is like sunlight to a vampire.
You have just demonstrated in one false assertion that you are not a scientist, you have no idea what science is or what you are talking about, and anything else can (or should be) completely ignored.
Actually I’ve concluded that you know nothing about the state of scientific research on climate issues.
Pot calling kettle black…
Project much?
First standard of climate science.
Anything that disagrees with us, is not science and must be ignored.
It’s not “the universal conclusion of all scientific research.” There are many studies refuting that or do you not read this swebsite?
There are no such studies, nor can you cite any. They don’t exist.
Your lies flow easily, that is why you are getting a lot of opposing responses because you are not reliable.
Says another irrelevant Denier
See what I mean you have nothing but bull to offer, try sticking with science instead, leave out the ideology you clearly love.
You don’t understand, anything that disagrees with the climate science “consensus”, is by definition, not science.
Please define “all scientific research”. 80 national Academies is not all scientists.
All research AND all researching scientists AND all scientific institutions. Vs you
And then in that case you should be able to prove your hypothesis
[ From your OP ] “… or B) the world continues to warm faster than at any time in millennia”
[ From the post I hit “Reply” on ] “Actually, it’s the universal conclusion of all scientific research.”
In 2013 Marcott et al published a peer-reviewed paper in the journal Science … maybe you’ve heard of it, it has a good reputation in scientific circles … with the title “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years”.
Following some “controversy” over the media reporting of that paper, they got their friends at the “Real Climate” website to post a FAQ about the scientific difficulties when it comes to attempting to calculate temperatures over the Holocene.
Direct URL : https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/
Some extracts from that FAQ.
.
Your bald assertion that “all” scientific research reached the definitive conclusion that “Oh my $DEITY, we’re all gonna diiiiiiiie ! ! !” …
…excuse me, that “the world continues to warm faster than at any time in millennia” is falsified by the above.
Speculation about the causes(s) of that purported “faster warming” are hence irrelevant.
Mark BLR: When your own source contradicts you, it must be embarrassing:
“Details of the claims and counterclaims involve lengthy and arcane statistical arguments, so let’s skip straight to the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science (pdf). The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick.
“Array of evidence”The report states: “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20thcentury warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world”.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/
1) MBH (1998) ≠ Marcott et al (2013).
2) Not only is 2013 > 1998, it is also > (= “more recent than”) 2006.
3) “millennia” is the plural of “millennium”, AKA “one thousand years”.
“… the past 11,300 years”, as used by the Marcott et al team in both their paper and the extract from the RC FAQ above, merits use of the word “millennia”.
“… the last 1000 years” does not.
Be really careful about using the world “all”.
“A) the long term trend in sea ice”
Is still well above Holocene averages
“the world continues to warm faster than at any time in millennia,”
You fell for blatant propaganda. They took the average rate of warming coming out of the last ice age over thousands of years from low resolution proxies and compared that rate to the short term modern high resolution instrument record. Scientific fraud to compare those as if they are equal.
“They took the average rate of warming coming out of the last ice age over thousands of years from low resolution proxies and compared that rate to the short term modern high resolution instrument record. ”
No, they did not. Significant climate shifts can be observed over periods of less than 250 years following the last major ice age, including abrupt changes within the current, relatively stable, Holocene epoch. Records such as ice cores and glacier data show smaller, rapid climate fluctuations, like the “Little Ice Age” and subsequent warming, that occur on centennial timescales.
Evidence of Rapid Change: Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica indicate that “abrupt climate change” can happen quickly.The Little Ice Age Example: The Little Ice Age (approximately 1300-1850 AD) saw notable cooling in the Northern Hemisphere (less than 1C), followed by accelerated warming since 1850.Glacial Fluctuations: Glaciers in the European Alps showed substantial changes, such as retreating several kilometers, within just 160 years after their maximum extent around 1850.
“No, they did not”
Yes, they did and complicit media has run with the fraudulent claim ever since.
“the world continues to warm faster than at any time in millennia,”
“Significant climate shifts can be observed over periods of less than 250 years following the last major ice age, including abrupt changes within the current, relatively stable, Holocene epoch.”
You can’t even recognize your own contradictions.
She’s not here for the contradictions, she’s here for the attention.
“ In the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science (pdf). The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick.
“Array of evidence”The report states: “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20thcentury warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world”.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/
The lies goes on and on and on.
Give it up many here already know what you presented has been addressed many times as garbage papers.
The hockey stick has been thoroughly debunked.
Arctic sea ice hasn’t changed much at all since 2007. (See chart)
Antarctic sea ice looks like it has recovered form the effect of the HT volcano, and is currently within the “normal” range
Sure, Nasty. Any other bridges you’ve got to sell us?
Its called DATA… you should look at some some time.. !!
Here is the current position of Antarctic sea ice extent, direct from NOAA’s sea ice page. (graph data goes from 2000)
The red is 2026, and as you can see, it is a bit below the 25 year average, but very much within the normal range.
Above the level at same time of year, of 2006, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2023, and 2025.
Same info, difference source…. OSI Norway
and Beetle has gone silent.
“ In the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science (pdf). The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick.
“Array of evidence”The report states: “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20thcentury warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world”.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/
“ In the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science (pdf). The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick.
“Array of evidence”The report states: “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20thcentury warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world”.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/
ie the people who INVENTED the AGW scam pretend to believe it is happening.
Only a complete fool takes the fakery of Mickey Mann seriously.
Is Mickey your boyfriend or something. ???
As I said before, GISP data shows FAR LARGER swings in temperature than the tiny warming since 1900.
(yes, your Mickey’s graph shows the uptick starts in 1900, so the peak is around 1940, which was similar to first decade of this century, so the “current” line is in the correct place.)
Your comment above, “during at least the last 1000 years.” covers most of the freezing cold period knows as The Little Ice Age, and shows just how LUCKY we are to have had some slight warming out of that COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years.
As for the Antarctic, here is a graph clearly showing there was a dip just after the 2016 El Nino.. then a recovery, then another dip starting in 2022 when the HT erupted (Southern Gyre goes right past the Tonga area and funnels warmer water to the Antarctic) and continuing through the strong 2023/24 El Nino.
Not on the graph yet, but current extent is sitting well within the “normal” range for this time of year.
Uhhmmm, the 4 watts per doubling of CO2 is peanuts compared to the 1/3 of the planet that was covered by ice 10,000 years ago for which we now have local albedo of about .1 for water, .25 for boreal forest, instead of .9 for snow. The oceans are still warming from that time. Vestigial amounts of ice and glaciers remain.
You should re-review the Hockey Stick. It would be good for you.
You should review Briffa’s tree data since 1900.. would be good for you.
The hokey stick is proven abuse of the scientific process. How much does Mann pay you to push discredited BS?
He is still stuck in 1998, that is why he hangs onto it like a child.
I reviewed Mann’s Hockey Stick, and I’m now absolutely certain it’s utter garbage.
I was under the impression that you were a disciple of M E Mann. Thanks for confirming that you follow someone who based his paper on cherry picking tree rings from 4 Bristle Cone Pine trees by using Principle Component Analysis and then using the result as a proxy for 1,000 years of global temperature.
The further you go back with tree rings, the less CO2 there was, and the more it acts as a constraint to grow..
Trees rings are a REALLY BAD thermometer in a low CO2 period.
If you remove the tree CO2 deprivation effect from Mickey’s tree-ring statistical farce, you get a graph which is much closer to written history… and not dissimilar to the GISP data
Why should anyone review a study that has been thoroughly discredited.
Massive funding from the AGW trough !! Its called “swilling”
1) The “longterm trend” is a trick, by starting arctic data during the ice age scare,
back then when the “longterm trend” saw an increase in sea ice and peaked around 1978 / 79 = that’s the starting point of the new “longterm trend” using an extension anomaly and selling it as mean.
It is actually not a trick, but lying by omission as arctic data goes back till 1964( Nimbus satellite qs),
the same trick used by the Blinken regime in terms of forest fires,
where available official gov. data only went back till 1981 on their website to pretend an (existing) increase in burned acreage,while the complete data set shows a decrease by 85% during the last 100+ years
and a man made increase since 1981 (at that point northern Florida lost all citrus fruit production as result of cooling, just in case you wonder why Cytrus County has no Cytrusses, coompletely unrelated to the greening disease )as result of sabotaging forest management.
2) You have 0 proof of how fast current warming is compared to recent millenia.
We don’t even have a near complete dataset for the last century let alone the time before that.
And world was actually warming faster during the MWP with a massive population increase in Europe and China as result and a decrease in desert regions like the southwest of the USA that wiped the Anasazi out there.
Significant climate shifts can be observed over periods of less than 250 years following the last major ice age, including abrupt changes within the current, relatively stable, Holocene epoch. Records such as ice cores and glacier data show smaller, rapid climate fluctuations, like the “Little Ice Age” and subsequent warming, that occur on centennial timescales.
Evidence of Rapid Change: Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica indicate that “abrupt climate change” can happen quickly.The Little Ice Age Example: The Little Ice Age (approximately 1300-1850 AD) saw notable cooling in the Northern Hemisphere (less than 1C), followed by accelerated warming since 1850.Glacial Fluctuations: Glaciers in the European Alps showed substantial changes, such as retreating several kilometers, within just 160 years after their maximum extent around 1850.
“Glaciers in the European Alps showed substantial changes, such as retreating several kilometers, within just 160 years after their maximum extent around 1850.” And still revealing tree stumps. 😉
GISP data shows changes in temperature at least as steep and much more protracted than the tiny change since 1900.
Comparison of the GISP graph with Mann’s hockey stick shows the TINY uptick from the coldest period since the MWP started in about 1900, so the peak at the end is the 1940s, which everyone knows in real life was similar to the first two decades of this century..
More zero credibility unsourced graphs from Nasty.
LOL.. so GISP has zero credibility.. How amusing !!
Nothing is stopping you from posting real data with references, as bnice2000 does. But you won’t.
Translation: I can’t refute the data, so I’ll pretend it doesn’t exist.
Why are you lying again, the Arctic decline stopped over 15 years ago. Antarctica shows large variable swings of which we have insufficient data available to show long term trends.
The steady rise of CO2 has a negligible warm forcing at the 430 level, heck the entire warm forcing increase from 1750 to now is about 2 W/m2 total which is negligible.
You have no credibility when you spout lies and stupid claims that are easily exposed to be pseudoscience in thought.
You’re in serious need of a basic review of science: https://climate.nasa.gov
Just for fun, I’ve taken the NOAA CO2 graph and put in a little green dot to represent the current temperature, cool end of the Holocene.
(temperature graphs exist that show temperature leads CO2 and can be scaled to match CO2 levels through the whole period.)
This clearly shows that atmospheric CO2 has absolutely ZERO effect on global temperatures.
Your reply alone prove you are just another warmest/Alarmists following the bullcrap and that you didn’t address anything I said about the sea ice levels and that several times bnice posted the official charts that shows what I stated is grounded on official data.
Too bad you are another victim of the propaganda you slurp up so uncritically.
Arctic sea ice is actually very much on the HIGH side of the last 10,000 years after an extreme high level in the LIA, which was nearly matched in 1979
Extent since 1979 has been far above the range for the rest of the Holocene.
Darn graph didn’t attach
WB, thank you so much for the courage it took to reply. Even as we disagree, you have my best wishes for a full recovery from the internal errors that seem to torment you to the point of anxious confusion. Get well soon.
That depends on how you define long term.
If like most cliministas, you declare that since 1979 is long term, then you are right.
If you chose longer time periods such as since the end of the little ice age, or since the end of the Holocene Optimum, then the trend in ice at both poles is strongly positive.
The claim that we are warming faster than anytime in millennia is a claim that cannot be defended. Unless you are willing to completely ignore science.
“The claim that we are warming faster than anytime in millennia is a claim that cannot be defended.”
Actually, it’s basic data. From 1970 to 2000, the climate warmed at a rate of 0.18C/decade. From 2000 to current day, the rate has increased to 0.29C/decade. Nothing of the magnitude has been observed for several thousand years, in spite of the fact that significant climate shifts can be observed over periods of less than 250 years following the last major ice age, including changes within the current, relatively stable, Holocene epoch. Records such as ice cores and glacier data show smaller, rapid climate fluctuations, like the “Little Ice Age” and subsequent warming, that occur on centennial timescales.
From 200-2015 , there was NO WARMING.
Then an El Nino event… THEN COOLING
Then a strong El Nino event probably exacerbated by the HT eruption.
Those two events are responsible for ALL the warming this century
There is no signature of any human caused warming in UAH this century.
And I notice that instead of defending your claim, you just make more naked assurances.
I’m starting to believe that even you know that you can’t defend the nonsense you spew.
Anyone who believes the utter nonsense posted by BNICE deserves the same fate: relegation to the dust bin of history.
You have nothing here, that is why many consider you profoundly unreliable hence the many negative votes.
Sea ice is trending upwards since the effects of the HT volcano in 2022/23
World has cooled since the peak of the 2023/24 El Nino.
The only warming in UAH data comes at El Nino events, which have absolutely nothing to do with humans
Ho hum.
Thank you for admitting that you can’t refute bnice.
WB, are you the Warren Beeton mentioned here?
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/climate-change-conferences/conservative/
Their website says everything –
doomster activists promoting “action against climate change” –
Climate solutions we supportHere are some examples of climate policy ideas we’re working to advance, which help achieve our policy commitments:
Just whack in a few nature corridors around town Warren and you’ve got the 1.5C bogeyman fixed for centuries mate-
East London is getting a new ‘nature corridor’ designed to cool the city by 7°C
Not too many at once as you don’t want the old folks freezing to death and we’ll have to bitumise them over with the next Ice Age.
I look at it all the time, so much so, I wrote a software suite that automatically downloads multiple climate time series. This plot is daily sea ice, it is automatically converted to anomaly, otherwise it would look like a sinusoid, the vertical bands you see are automatically computed from the ENSO ONI indicator. But this is the daily data, you want a copy of this software?
Very interesting, thank you for this reply. I’ll pass for now on the software, but it is a credit to you to have written it.
Just from visual examination, it seems to me that there has been effectively zero loss of Arctic ice extent since about 2007 or thereabouts, whereas Antarctic ice actually increased until 2016.
Why does Mrs Beeton get her panties in a wad about this?
That is the quandary, why did Antarctic Sea Ice experience decades of gains, only to have it all erased in just 4 years. The only thing that I see that correlates with it is a big reduction in SO2 emissions of global shipping in the Southern Ocean. Before that there were no restrictions, you could burn tires to make steam on the open ocean if you wanted to. The graph I attached is a model of global shipping SO2 (Sulfur) emissions converted to the amount of forcing in DEG. C. It appears the change in cloud brightness because of the 80% reduction of Sulfur emissions is a major forcing change.
So, every bit of data recorded about climate since the mid 70’s existed with a negative forcing, because of sunlight being reflected back into space over the Southern Ocean. With the large reduction is SO2 emissions from shipping that started in 2015 caused more sunlight to reach the ocean’s surface and caused a step change in Southern SST. That step change in temperature will have a direct impact on Sea Ice extent.
I’m replying to myself here to address the claim that incremental CO2 has the power to drive a climate system “warming” tendency. It sure is impressive when you quantify it! That is, in the sense of being impressively weak in the proper context of dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=drive_link
There is no good physical reason to ever have supposed that incremental CO2 has anything to do with trends or cycles of ice extent, area, or mass at the poles.
Thank you for your attention to this matter of attribution.
There are less than fifty years of satellite records, so having a real sense of the inherent variability is not yet achievable.
There should be more than 60 years of data (even Bremen Universitiies goes back till 1974 iirc)
as result of the Nimbus program.
The whole Ozone layer scam refers to data going back to 1969 and the arctics are right below the “holes”.
Nimbus 3 is these days considered the first satellite reference prooving global warming,
while the ice age scare started after Nimbus 4 )
Funny Science is always good for creating bizarre Anachronisms.
Dr Michael Mann first exposed that misconception.. His work has subsequently been replicated multiple times in the scientific literature, showing that variability does not mask the long term trend.
Mann’s work, MBH 98, is a cherry picked atrocity with an algorithm that produces hockey sticks from red noise.
Since your claim is debunked by every published scientific paper on the topic, Dr Mann has little to worry about.
one presumes you don’t read Mark Steyn?
You should.
Mark Steyn? That famous Peer reviewed climate scientist?
You don’t have to be a peer reviewed climate scientist to recognise fraud.
But using peer review to make sure that no paper you disagree with can be published is how modern science works.
Peer review is not science. It is the shell that science hides under when they know that can’t prove what they are claiming.
This is what Judge Alfred Irving of the DC Superior Court had to say about your crush “Professor” Michael E Mann:
Here, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Dr. Mann, through Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Williams [his lawyers], acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding. . . . The Court does not reach this decision lightly.
If Mann is prepared to lie about the supposed damages he suffered from Steyn’s book, why should he be any more honest in his scientific work? (I use the word “scientific” ironically).
Funny how pledging to make sure that no paper that contradicts them will get published, has become the norm for climate science.
You continue the lying as they all used the same exposed improper algorithm, and it is for the Northern Hemisphere only thus an incomplete coverage at best……
Meanwhile you still haven’t realized that the CO2 data he used is from the Isdo paper that was about CO2 fertilization effect NOT temperature thus you are defending a paper that uses the data incorrectly from the start.
The ‘scientific literature’ is no paragon of virtue nor truth given the recent demise of RCP8.5.
Many are waiting for the retraction of the thousands of papers in the ‘scientific literature’ to be recalled and news of this being widely distributed in the same scientific literature.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the authors to accept they were wrong
no surprise you don’t understand the point of RCPs. There are multiple RCPs, none of which are predictions.
And once again, Beetle shows that he either doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or hopes to confuse everyone else so that they don’t know what he’s talking about.
You lied again since the IPCC made it clear they are model based projections for the future and with an array of RCP’s were based on the rate of CO2 and the rate of warming based on scenarios.
You are a terrible liar.
Replicated, only if you mean using the same disproven data and the same refuted methods.
The long term trend is towards a COOLING planet…
We are far cooler than most of the last 10,000 ears.
We are very fortunate to be in a slight natural warming period out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.
Satellite data as given by UAH, shows very clearly that the warming since 1979 has come from major El Nino spike+ step events, which have absolutely nothing to do with human CO2.
Apart from those El Nino events, there is essentially no warming.
Since the end of the Holocene Optimum about 5 thousand years ago, the earth has been steadily cooling, interrupted by warm spikes about every thousand years or so.
We are currently in the midst of the 5th such warming.
And next up – Chris Turney leader of the “ship of fools” AGW Antarctic “science” tour that got caught in a sudden everyday sea ice expansion event publishes an article titled –
“I Told You It Wasn’t My Fault”
Let’s not forget Lewis Pugh,
who, after Al Gore got the Nobel Propaganda Prize for predicting the end of Arctic Sea Ice (and everything else),
Kayaked to the North Pole to protest the end of arctic ice.
He started 700 miles away in Norway and returned after 100 miles , as he got stuck – in Ice.
As of now he still hasn’t reached the North Pole.
Yes, and just about every year there are some intrepid sailors who attempt the “now open” north west passage based on media reports of Arctic ice melting.
Many finish up being ice-bound and having to ask Russian ice breakers to pull them out and get them to a suitable port, where they have to hole up for months waiting for navigable conditions, which sometimes don’t occur until a year later.
” there lies around the pole a large expanse of warm water ”
London Colonial News 1873
Spitzbergen average water temperature in summer 1922 = 15 degrees Celsius.
Let’s guess ho the Arctic Ice Coverage looked back then?
” Is the North Pole going to melt?… a great climate change… unheard of high temperatures … Glaciers melting away ”
American Weekly, march march12, 1922
News haven’t changed much in 100years,
neither sea ice nor glaciers.
Still melting into extinction every year
Al Gore is not a scientist. Neither are you.
nor you.
So what’s your point?
There are more scientists on this forum than Ms Beeton has ever met. !
Your argument is pointless
Your argument is baseless. There is zero empirical evidence that indicates atmospheric CO2 has ever been the “driver” of the Earth’s climate, and a good deal that refutes that assertion.
But you don’t understand.
Models that have been tuned to eliminate every possible driver other than CO2, have proven that CO2 is the only control that matters.
More dodging and weaving. You really need to take lessons from Nick, you just aren’t any good at this.
Your replies are dead on arrival due to having the same warmest charades seen by many here for the last 30 years which is why you are unreliable today.
Try some new material……
Only those who are recognized as “scientists” by the existing “climate scientists” are allowed to talk about this subject.
1)I never claimed to be a scientist,
and as this profession is getting more and more the reputation of journalism
(remember Hunter S Thompson quote about journalism ?)
I’d feel ashamed to be called so.
Being part of the replication crisis gang, that got so bad that even Lancet had to admitt that up to half of all scientific papers are trash just confirming Ioannidis “crazy” claim from 2 decades ago that was restricted to the medical field,
” Why most published research findings are False”.
You obviously are a scientist,
therefore you don’t mind that ice age scare was right before AGW = an impossibility by any rational standards in an empirical field.
Well, Ghislaine Maxwells father held a quasi monopol
in scientific literature printing, down to educational books.
You are the result.
2) Your comment about Al Gore is irrelevant if Al Gore is perceived as a scientist by the plebs, as an expert, since he got a Nobel Prize.
( no movie freak would use such a cheap argument against him because he is not a filmmaker btw).
But the main point is that Al Gore used the work of scientists to proof his points in his documentary – and got everything wrong, just as his scientists.
The only thing he got very right is his bank account – he went from no millionaire to 300 mio +
The other problem with scientists?
Paul Ehrlich, highly regarded climate liar who went from ice age scare to global warming (alongside his buddy John Holdron)got all his predictions wrong was a scientists – an expert in terms of biology,specific butterflies.
So being a scientists does not mean much at all,
especially when people like me get most predictions right for more than a decade.
Neither are most of the people who call themselves climate scientists.
He was for a while back in the early 1990’s taken seriously after they got Dr. Hansen started the global warming charade with over the top claims he made that have since been shown to be false and his 3 scenarios predictions were a failure.
How old are you anyway, 15?
“A familiar pattern”. So true. But once the news bomb drops, never to be recanted, the damage is done.
A familiar pattern for 150 years
“The growing heat of summers,
The drying up of streams,
the increased frequency in hurricanes … the ice of the present polar region will melt ”
NYT, nov19th, 1881,
It started as a satire back then and turned into full blown science by now
You forgot to put “science” in quotation marks. No real science in the alarmist realm, just activist fear-mongering dressed up to look like science.
I keep reading articles from the “Chicken Little” media about some new climate doom for the world that will only get worse in the future due to a positive feedback mechanism.
Yet, after we get more data, it just turns out to be an oscillation within the normal variability of a complex natural system.
I don’t understand how people go through life then their learning curve is set to a zero slope?
“I don’t understand how people go through life then their learning curve is set to a zero slope?”
They self identified who they are with ideas that can’t survive critical examination so they must reject any information outside of the faraday cage they locked themselves into to preserve the false ego’s moral superiority. How things actually work in the real world would destroy their personality. Why Trump is hated so intensely. He literally is a threat to the world view that defines them.
Agreed. Witness the popular claims that you can just look out your window to see climate change happening! Huh??? Anyone who says this is as dumb as a post, with a zero slope learning curve.
Well, that is what they do when conflating WEATHER with “climate.”
Which, of course, is ONLY when the weather is “bad.”
Reminds me of Mad Magazine’s “The Lighter Side of Ripoffs.”
I like to troll with “What a beautiful day! Must be ‘climate change’.”
In the larger view variations in Antarctic sea ice and the ice sheet are of no importance. The modern icehouse climate, marked by enduring Antarctic glaciation, took hold ~34 million years ago as plate tectonics open Drake Passage and the Tasman Gateway, creating the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) and thermally isolating Antarctica from ocean heat. This tectonic shift—detailed in Kennett (1977) and evidenced by sediment records of ACC onset (Pfuhl & McCave 2005)—locked Earth into a persistent cold state that dwarfs the influence of atmospheric CO2. CO2 fluctuations will play no role in dismantling the icehouse; modeling by Huber & Nof (2006) shows that only the reverse tectonic reconfiguration—ACC closure through plate convergence in 50–250 million years—can flood Antarctica with heat transport, ushering in true climate change to greenhouse world.
“a triple whammy of climate chaos.”
An outrageous psychological manipulation! Impossible for the easily manipulated to not fall for it…
The Antarctic Sea Ice loss over the last ten years was puzzling, but now, it’s pretty obvious that it is declining SO2 emissions, possibly with HT water vapor in the forcing mix as well, that has caused the anomalous oscillations of Antarctic Sea Ice Maximum Extent over the last decade.
Are we forgetting about undersea volcanic activity, which is probably the main reason for loss of Antarctic sea ice? Particularly near the Antarctic peninsula?
I graduated in physics from Southampton in the 1970s. It used to be seen as having a good physics department. I used to send it money as an alumni. I stopped that a few decades ago when they sold out to the climate alarm.
Those darn physicists. Always annoying us with those inconvenient FACTS.
You mean like Will Happer, John Clauser, Freeman Dyson etc etc etc
Not real peer reviewed climate scientists. Frauds.
“Not real peer reviewed climate scientists. Frauds.”
The most respected physicists in the world.. Try again.
Anyone who holds “Pal review” and Michael “One Tree” Mann in high esteem is no supporter of actual science.
Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with the people I call scientists, are frauds and must be ignored.
Freeman Dyson is a fraud…..
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW.…..
You are a fool.
Beetle hates it when real data gets in the way of the climate narrative.
Floating sea ice loss doesn’t significantly affect sea levels, while Antarctic continental ice accumulation might.
By the way, thousands if not 10,000s of climate-related papers are published each year, mostly based on the work of young and inexperienced graduate students trying to get a degree. Many of these have such poor to not existent experimental designs and statistics as to be equivalent to a bad high school science fair demonstration project. How does one’s research gain attention and separation from this massive baseline crowd of papers?
The solution is to draw extreme inferences from one’s own very limited research, and then mount a concerted PR campaign. The host universities are clamoring for notoriety and funding, competing with the thousands of other universities around the world in a deadly cage match, so their offices of marketing and communications write insane press releases trumpeting their breakthrough findings that will forever change life on earth as we know it. It helps if the work is conducted under the tutelage of a narcissistic media-obsessed professor such as Michael Mann or Andrew Dessler.
The
“Climate – Political – Media – Industrial Complex”
doing just what it was commissioned and designed to do.
Sure. It’s so distressing to see such promising talent as the bloggers on WUWT go to waste. Why, they could be selling their snake oil to the entire WORLD if it weren’t for those annoying real scientists — u know, the ones that publish in real scientific journals, and actually do real WORK.
Well, I have 200+ publications in real scientific journals and book chapters. I don’t sell snake oil but, like many posters on WUWT, I refuse to buy it. Which, by the way, is how real science works.
“Real scientific journal’?You mean like ” The Flat Earth Reference Book”?
15 papers in PNAS, 5 or 6 in each of Science and Nature when they were scientific journals and not magazines. and many more in the more specific top journals like Cell, JBC, Biochemistry, J. Chem. Soc, to name a few. What about you dork ?
Crickets. Your scientific credentials are that you occasionally drive by a University Campus ??
HA HA HA…….
What’s really sad is that poor Beetle actually believes he’s hurting our feelings by calling us names instead of looking at the facts being presented.
Yet you convince everyone here that you are a peddler of pseudoscience and badly at it too, I am impressed!
Nothing to say about your big pal, top Scientist “Professor” Michael Mann and his proven record of lying in Court?
Hw odd…
It’s uncanny, that triple whammy
No one knows how all that ice froze
They, as Maxwell Smart would say, have …
https://youtu.be/oPwrodxghrw
“Predictions are hard. Especially about the future”
I would not call it a rebound, not by a long shot. Unless the global shipping fleet starts adding SO2 back into the exhaust stream or global civil aviation is cut in half, my modeling indicates that we will never see Antarctic Sea Ice redound and sustain levels comparable to pre-2015.
If your modelling is based on SO2.. Your prediction is bound to be incorrect.
Just as incorrect as modelling based on CO2.
Antarctic sea ice has been increasing each year since the low after the HT volcano.
That depends on who the “we” are. If you’re talking about all humanity, and we can avoid exterminating ourselves, its rebound will be seen. Rather a shame that CO2 won’t be able to stop it, actually. At least we have nuclear.
One good volcano later…