Ice Sea Ice Sea – And Repeat

Models (and history) project that Nova will likely post about near record Antarctica sea ice for the next few decades at least.

Climate Scientists don’t expect Antarctic to behave the same way as the Arctic. Here’s the projection for Antarctic Sea Ice with observations well within the bounds of model projections.

Antarctic Sea Ice Projection

Antarctic Sea Ice Projection. Source

Not only do the models not expect Antarctic Maximum Sea Ice Extent to drop away for several decades, there is also other science that indicates other factors greatly influence sea ice creation – it’s not just about temperatures as Nova wants you to believe.

Nova Cherry Picks Again

Strangely (or not given that Nova’s intent is to confuse you rather than educate you) Nova chooses a few selected years to compare against. The full set shows the maximum, whilst being close to a record, is really only remarkable for its late melt.

Antarctic Observations

Antarctic Observations

Poles Apart

Joanne talks about the media only showing one side of the argument – Ironic that she only gives half the picture. If you compare the images of the Antarctic and the Arctic, it’s obvious that the slight increase in Antarctic sea ice does not make up for the dramatic loss of ice in the Arctic.

Sept. 2013. The Antarctic has increased slightly but does not make up for the massive loss in Arctic ice. That contrast in 2012 was even more stark.

Sept. 2013. The Antarctic has increased slightly but does not make up for the massive loss in Arctic ice. That contrast in 2012 was even more stark. Source

DeJa Vu

Yes, we’ve been here before …

See you same time next year!

Tags: , , , ,

13 Responses to “Ice Sea Ice Sea – And Repeat”

  1. Unbolt Says:

    I have only just stumbled onto your site. Thank you for restoring my sanity. I have tried to counter some of the nonsense on Nova’s blog but didn’t last long. Apparently my English was not up to the standard required to post. I hope it good enough here.

  2. Michael the Realist Says:

    Similarly been frustrated by the silly arguments at jonovas site. Just yesterday I was arguing a poster claiming that the CO2 is coming from the warming oceans. Apparently the fact that the oceans are actually a net sink of CO2 and increasing in carbon and that the increase in CO2 matches mans emissions were not logical enough for his anti science. Keep up the good work.

  3. Marco Says:

    Michael, ask them to quantify the ppm released per degree warming.

    Then ask them how much colder the ice age was (not the LIA!) and what this means for their “ppm per degree warming” (hint: CO2 concentrations become negative)

    Then ask them to tell us why the CO2 concentration apparently did not go waaaaaay above 400 ppm during the MWP, which most of them will maintain was warmer than today.

    Watch yourself being shouted away for asking inconvenient questions.

    • Michael the Realist Says:

      Hi Marco
      The biggest problem is that when you prove anything they cannot shout down easily they switch to personal attacks, insults and threats. I proved with current science and data over the last 60 years that the .6 deg c of warming could not occur without AGW and I provided the facts to show that natural factors produce a slight cooling.

      I asked them to come up with an alternative explanation with provable science. Only 1 even tried, and that was pathetic. The basic thrust of her argument was that science is so backward that we have not discovered the reason yet. So in the face of all the evidence pointing to and matching the science of AGW even imaginary reasons where more enticing. How do you argue with that kind of ingrained, brainwashed denial. Hundreds of other posts were increasingly nasty personal attacks, to the point they were trying (and succeeding) to find more and more personal info about me to attack with.

      • Marco Says:

        Michael, sorry for the late response. As I noted, you’ll be shouted away for asking inconvenient questions. I know how the deniosphere works.

        The only good thing is that whenever someone claims the ‘skeptics’ are much nicer when people ask questions, you (we) can point to such threads.

  4. Reality check Says:

    Skeptics are nice people until personal insults enter. And continual repetition instead of answering questions. Some blogs have rules about no personal attacks, but Michael didn’t like said blogs and went back to name calling on Jo Nova’s blog.

    • mrfabsblog Says:

      When have I name called? I am called names extensively and insulted and put down in virtually every way possible. I don’t think I have gone anywhere near that kind of level. I remember changing truth seeker to truth maker upper, but that is about it, i think. Truth seeker does not even believe the greenhouse effect exists or greenhouse gases, which is even greater denier behavioir than jo nova herself, who does accept the basic science.

      • Reality check Says:

        “Oh, you are another conspiracy theorist” in response to Oliver Manuel
        skeptic rockstars

        “Take a physics course” then ignoring that the person has (thus refusing to accept your own criteria)
        scientific attempt at brainwashing children
        (that is calling someone a bad or evil teacher)

      • mrfabsblog Says:

        Your joking aren’t you? Firstly they not insults they are facts. Have you read Olivers theories, he is back on theories in the 40’s about the sun being made of iron and truth being hidden for some unseen purposes to do with uranium or something. Tell me you agree with him, go on.

        You do turn astronauts and bloggers who say what you want to hear rockstars. You bleat about the consensus and arguments from authority when we only accept what the thousands of practising scientists are saying while you love you small group or retirees from NASA, a banker in the australian and an opinion blogger in the australian. Those are the depths of current posts by Nova, hypocrite much. Nontruthseeker does not believe in greenhouse gases etc etc. Really think about what you are saying.

        Lets compare that to some recent insults directed at me…
        “What a load of outright unmitigated BS !!!!!”
        “Micheal the (what a joke) Realist!”
        “Oh, Michael’s doctor must have signed the consent form for a day pass”
        “You and those like you are a JOKE !!!”
        “Well, that could have come out of the Komsomol cookbook, well done, comrade.”
        “You have to remember, this fool is one of the GREEN 9%”
        “Michael, are you a misanthropist? ”
        “It seems that Michael has turned into a seagull”
        “Michael the Deluded”
        … and that is just a sample from my latest postings on a simple blog post of Jos, and they seem to be quite polite at the moment.

        So you can stop with the crocodile tears.

      • mrfabsblog Says:

        Oh and must comment on the ‘teacher’ (I use the term loosely) who was putting posters in the class on the % of atmosphere is human CO2 and telling the kids about conspiracies. I am sorry but pushing your own ideology on chldren and going outside of the curriculum is just evil.

    • mrfabsblog Says:

      Also I have asked questios extensively but they have been continuously avoided. Maybe you can answer one of them?

      Over the last 60 years temps have increased 0.6 deg c, the Arctic has lost 50% of its summer extent, sea level have fallen, ocean ph is falling, oceans have warmed, extreme precipitation events are up by roughly 5%, hot day records over cold days broken are 3 to 1 and 5 to 1 at night and globally ice volume is down, to name just a few.

      Considering that the solar has fallen slightly over the period, we have had some strong cooling volcanos and ENSO has been neutral over the period and predominantly cooling la ninas over the last decade and cosmic rays are going in the opposite direction to contribute to warming.

      Can you provide a scientifically accepted, valid explanation to explain observations? Nobody at JoNova can (accept insults and conspiracies), the closest anyone has come is something we have not discovered yet. Do you find that response scientific when we have a valid scientific theory such as AGW that explains all observations?

      • Reality check Says:

        At least myself and Jo have answered your lists over and over. You don’t like the answers, so you repeat the question, apparently hoping for a new answers.

        From Jo: Have done many times, and nobody can answer it. I will try again.
[Not remotely true. We’ve answered your comments, but you make the same point many times, not just on this site, not just in one thread, but sometimes in the same comment. See below. – Jo]
        **The greenhouse effect comes from over 100 years of accepted proven science.
[Yep, and I agree and perhaps when I’ve told you the 40th time you’ll remember that “feedbacks are the issue” here, not the GHG effect, which all major skeptics agree with. But perhaps you want to hijack the threads with non-points that distract from real ones? – Jo]
        **CO2 is a greenhouse gas with known measurable radiative properties and its concentration in the atmosphere, as well as all the other gases and their properties are also known.
[That non-point was so boring and irrelevant, you had to say it twice? ]
        **It is measured by satellite that the energy entering the planet is more than leaving, by the first law of thermodynamics this means that energy within the planet is increasing.
[Congrats, you have mastered Year 8 science – Jo]
        **By the laws of physics this can take on many forms and change forms but cannot diminish. It is a planet, there are many places it can go, the atmosphere is but 5%, including land, oceans and melting ice. Use some common sense and logic ppppllleeeaaasseee!
[Same point again. I think I’ll add “laws of physics” to the moderation filter. Feedbacks MTR. Can you say the word “feedbacks”? Try really hard. Then look at observations vs models and how 98% of them use the “laws of physics” and get the climate 100% wrong. See Hand von storch 2013 (Again)]

        My answers are on my blog, where if you want to continue this, there’s an open thread for that. I’m done here.

      • mrfabsblog Says:

        lol, read it again, she has agreed with all of the science and then discounted the observations that match the science, and then did not answer my actual question, which is, what is the alternative explanation, with accepted science and data, that matches observations over 60 years. ie: 0.6 deg c temp rise, sea level rise, falling ocean ph, ocean warming, falling global ice volume and rising extreme precipitation events.

        It needs repeating because most of Jos readers and supporters do not accept most of what Jo has admitted to accepting. Go read some of their comments, some do not even believe in greenhouse gases, period. Erverybody joins together in the denier crowd without a consistent science basis, they are all just all over the place. ITs a case of ‘you don’t agree?, your IN the club’, the reason is irrelevent.

        So question not even remotely answered, the ffedback issue is an open one and does not answer the observations already observed, which more fit the feedbacks as understoof by the IPCC. Most observations are worse than expected.

        So willing to try again? See if you can do better than Jo, who mostly agrees with me, but does not have an answer for obs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: