Archive for September, 2012

Arctic vs Antarctic Ice

September 20, 2012

Joanne Nova suggests newspapers are being biased by not covering the “almost new record” of Antarctic sea ice and instead seem to be more preoccupied with how the Arctic has lost 50% of its summer sea ice.

In her haste to claim wrongdoing she forgets a number of key facts.

  • The current Antarctic sea ice anomaly is only 60% of the one recorded in 2007, so it’s not a record.
  • Even if the increase continued for this year, and it became a new record, it is not part of a dramatic trend unlike the Arctic situation.
  • The extra 7% of Antarctic sea ice area, does not offset the 50% loss of Artic ice. Globally the trend is downward.
  • The Antarctic ice is thinner; having slightly more thinner ice is no substitute for the loss of thick multi-year Arctic ice.
  • The Antarctic ice cannot be feasibly moved to the northern hemisphere so it’s no help to the polar animals that depend upon the ice.
  • The causes for sea ice increase may well be explained by a number of factors.
  • The Antarctic (not just sea ice) is continuing to lose mass.
  • From a feedback mechanism point of view (less ice means more sun enters the water rather than being reflected) the increase in ice during winter does not have as much impact on the feedback as loos of ice during summer because it occurs at a time when there is less direct sunlight.
  • The small increase in Antarctic sea ice is not sucking methane back in.

The difference in sea ice of the Artic vs Antarctic is explained well on the website. Nova should read more and write less – but that might interfere with her scare campaign.

Perhaps Nova prefers video?

Nova’s Warm Period

September 3, 2012

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is defined the time as between AD 950 to 1250 where evidence shows that some parts of the planet were warmer than average.

Nova claims that her friends at the denialist, Exxon funded website CO2Science have demonstrated that the MWP was globally warmer in the past, without CO2.

  • Firstly, SO WHAT? We know it was certainly warmer sometime in the past. What matters today is that we are causing it, at a very rapid rate and the science says we are going to heat up well beyond what the MWP might have been.
  • Secondly, if were warmer n the MWP than today, then this is evidence for a high sensitivity value, something climate denialists don’t want.
  • Thirdly, CO2Science don’t perform science, they draw their own conclusions from other peoples science. The Co2Science analysis is not peer-reviewed, contains some serious flaws and it would appear they deliberately aim to deceive their readers.