It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Extent of Antarctic sea ice reaches record levels, scientists say

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 09:42 AM
a reply to: network dude

Yes, you are right...i don't want to be that guy, got a little carried away.

I think if that sea ice doesn't get caught up somewhere cold, then we could be looking at rising sea levels. Much doom is to come.

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 09:45 AM
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Alright, yes, i am biased towards one side. And Yes, your right.

Both sides screw the pooch, and nothing gets done. I don't wanna be that guy on this thread. No excuse.

But there has to be a collaborative effort to fix the problem occurring.

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 09:47 AM

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Yea, I go with cow farts too. Easy to blame them as the won't confirm nor deny anything.

Damn cows.

Maybe we could bottle the Methane and sell it to druggie's and tell them I won't get you high but it sure smells good. We could have a boatload butt bottles with blue labels, and call it Blue Moo Moo. Slogan: For a but load of fun breath a little Blue Moo for you too and enjoy the hay burner craze.

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 09:48 AM
a reply to: network dude

Neither the growth of Antarctica sea ice, nor the growth of Arctic ice last year was predicted by the IPCC or any other model.

The IPCC seems not to know about the scientific method. They keep presenting their predictions as if they are based on something sound, ignoring the fact that everything they predict is faulty. Ergo, their model is faulty. By definition they should be going back to the drawing board.

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 10:25 AM
a reply to: network dude

It certainly could be significant. Like one poster said it could change ocean salinity...and thus prevailing currents, thus weather. Or it could do something else. Predicting what happens due to this ice coverage is speculation, as these developments are new to this modern age.

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 10:42 AM

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: SirKonstantin

No doubt it is happening. It has happened (climate change) since the first dawn on earth, so to speak.

There are clearly documented cycles of glaciation and interglacial periods since a single land mass began blocking the currents that used to virtually circle the earth. As a result we can see that we are nearing the end of the current interglacial period. Also, as we can see, this interglacial period has not yet, and may not, experienced the higher global temperatures as seen in previous interglacials.

I would like to point out that the growth in Antarctic ice coverage (sea ice) increases the planet's albedo, as has the slight increase in Arctic ice over the last year. Combine that with the drop in average global temps over the last 4 years and maybe we have something significant, or maybe not. 1 year of ice growth in the north does not a trend make. 4 years of dropping temps is not enough to establish a pattern either.

Hence, the temperatures we see, and have experienced over the last 150 years are not outside the norm. Add to that the GHG hype is vastly overstated. Glacial periods have begun with co2 levels at multiple times our current level.

Therefore, the questioning of man's responsibility for the temperature increases over the last 150 years is valid. It is well known that co2 rises as ocean temps rise. In fact, there is documentation that shows a typical lag of 800-1000 years of co2 increases as compared to the rise of temperatures.

The co2 hysteria is being manipulated to forward the green agenda.

I can provide academic, in most cases, sources to support my above statements. The sources that are not academic are not from tin-foil-hat wearing websites, but rather NOAA and other similar sources.

Being a semi-retired, no longer practicing geologist I knew the whole co2 hysteria agenda was bogus when I first watched Al Gore's a "Convenient Lie". Obvious manipulation of truth, combined with (most importantly) the exclusion of data which promoted the belief that man was directly and provably responsible for global warming.

The approach that our climate was in balance until man's Industrial Age is such a load of bull crap it boggles the mind. Climate is never in balance. It is always changing...always. Again, I stress that we are not outside the norms of previous interglacial periods and, indeed, we are actually below the highs in temps reached in previous interglacial periods.

17 years of global warming pause, combined with a decrease in average global temp over the last 4 years, may not mean much, or it may be signaling the approaching end of our current interglacial period. There is not enough time involved to declare it...but in the future we will know which is true.

I dont think anyone disagree's with the fact that the climate has changed before but what about measurements and studies that reveal that the PH of the oceans hasn't varied much in the past 12,000 years yet is falling outside of previous boundaries now due to Co2?

Co2 is absorbed partly by the oceans. This becomes carbonic acid. This means a lower PH. Less PH means less calcium carbonate, which can cause part of this ecosystem to crash. Salinity impacts density. Less saline and warmer means density is decreased, and this impacts the great conveyer belt. The deep water currents impact surface currents, which impact weather.

What they are seeing is building a theory(theories), as to where this will lead using a common sense approach. If things are outside of average range based on studies they need to attempt to make predictions. That's what is happening and I personally feel the difference in the past few years. It may not kill us all but it will change that ecosystem, which will impact us, and potentially make life much harder. Noone, including scientists can say with 100% certainty what the measurements mean. When they surpass those of past levels it is concerning.

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 10:57 AM
a reply to: Dianec

You are saying they are "outside the average for the last 12000 years" and yet that encompasses the current interglacial period.

The fact is, when you look at previous interglacial periods they ALL (except one) reached higher temp levels before beginning to cool and going back into a period of glacial growth. The one exception was an interglacial that reached the same (approx) temp levels we are at now before entering the next glaciation period.

Much the same can be said regarding co2 levels. In fact, in some cases, co2 levels were much higher than those we are experiencing now. In at least one case the co2 level was multiples of times higher than what we see now.

Therefore we are not outside the norms.

I can provide some scientific evidence that would suggest that the co2/greenhouse effect models are faulty as well. Which would be backed up by prehistoric levels of co2. Al Gore misrepresented co2 levels, as have many. Co2 levels have, in the past, been as high as 7000ppm vs our current almost 400ppm. Life was actually more diverse and plentiful during that period. There have been periods where co2 levels were high and only dropped after glacial growth began.

The evidence I speak of in the above paragraph has nothing to do with geological history, but rather the physics.

From a geological and astronomical point of view, glaciation is not dependent on greenhouse gases, but rather insolence. Milankovich cycles are the drivers. Greenhouse gases are a very minor player that are "overpowered" in virtually every case (every case I am aware of) by the Milankovich cycles.

This would also imply that no matter what man does, glaciation will return. At best co2 and methane levels will merely delay onset of glaciation by a very small amount of time.

edit on 15-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 11:05 AM
a reply to: Dianec

You mention being able to "feel the difference" the last few years. Unfortunately local anecdotal evidence of weather anomalies does not have anything to do with global climate.

Globally, the last 17 years have seen a flat, overall, average of temperatures globally. In fact, the last 4 years, globally, have established a minor trend of cooling.

Just to clarify: the 4 year cooling trend is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It may be noted in the future as as the point where cooling began, or warming may take over for a period before a peak is reached at which point cooling actually begins. It is too early in the game to make such predictions. 4 years is insufficient to declare global cooling.

Here is the chart of the last 17 years. Note the last 4 years:

Here is a cyclic chart that may be important, or may just be a cyclic event that will not significantly impact global temps:

This is the Pacific decadal oscillation.

edit on 15-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 11:13 AM
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

One thing about increased ice coverage that is certain is an increase in albedo. The amount of radiation that is reflected by the earth's surface. Ice coverage exceeds clouds in albedo. More clouding at the South Pole, for instance, will actually raise temps when compared to clear skies at the South Pole.

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 11:24 AM
Just so everyone knows my position on doom porn: 99.9% of it is hogwash. It is generated for one of 2 or 3 reasons, none the least of which is so some guy or a group of people can profit from it. Al Gore is one of those.

It does make for entertainment though

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 11:28 AM
a reply to: SirKonstantin

I am glad you didn't take offence to that. None was meant.

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 11:33 AM

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: network dude

Neither the growth of Antarctica sea ice, nor the growth of Arctic ice last year was predicted by the IPCC or any other model.

The IPCC seems not to know about the scientific method. They keep presenting their predictions as if they are based on something sound, ignoring the fact that everything they predict is faulty. Ergo, their model is faulty. By definition they should be going back to the drawing board.

That seems to be my biggest sticking point. If the models are all off, (and claiming a + or - 2 degree margin of error on a .7 degree chart is a bit disingenuous) then why are we still basing future predictions on them? How is the scientific community not backing up a bit and admitting it's time to re-evaluate this?

I have been trying to look at this with as much optimism as I can, but as time goes on, things seem to stick with a big cycle, just as it has been every other time.

If it's really as it appears, at what point will "science" admit it?

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 11:42 AM
a reply to: network dude

At what point? When the bias for awarding climatology research money/grants does not depend on supporting the whole man made GW or GE hypothesis.

If you examine the scientific method, one performs experiments based on the hypothesis, then compare results with what the hypothesis predicts. If the prediction does not match the measurable phenomena, then it's back to the drawing board and an adjustment to the hypothesis.

They are, instead, making predictions as factual based on a hypothesis that does not survive the test.

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 12:47 PM

originally posted by: network dude

Scientists say the extent of Antarctic sea ice cover is at its highest level since records began.

Satellite imagery reveals an area of about 20 million square kilometres covered by sea ice around the Antarctic continent.

Jan Lieser from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) said the discovery was made two days ago.


Is this proof of Global warming, or is this expected? I don't want to just claim it's significant, but damn, it sure sounds like it.
Or perhaps this is irrelevant.

Proof of global warming? I don't know. The Antarctic is different from the Arctic in that it actually is the coldest place on earth due to reduced UV. The other day I posted something on the subject of the difference between the two and one of the reasons cited for the increased ice is the work of CFCs within the ozone layer. CFCs are largely banned but some levels are still getting emitted and the molecules themselves may have an infinite "life" as a catalyst. Unlike the Arctic which actually has a fairly good air circulation, the Antarctic is wound pretty tight (cold air condenses). That's added in yet another factor in terms of sea ice in terms of ozone layer and holes within it. While the Arctic has had less of an issue with holes in the ozone layer, the Antarctic has a sizable hole due to that "tightly locked in" air apparently. The ozone layer actually both protects the earth from harmful UV and also helps trap in heat.

From what I read, this hole is thought to be the major cause for increased sea ice so the ecology of the area is actually getting doubly hit. Not only is the ecology altering due to that increased ice and cold but, on top of it, mutagenic effects due to UV radiation have also been noted in a number of lifeforms down South. It's not good at all and what will happen depends on a whole lot of things.

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 01:27 PM
a reply to: bbracken677

A few things:
1) 2010 was, according to some data sets, the hottest year ever measured.
Per GISTEMP, annual average (2σ = ±0.57 °C):
1979: +0.12 °C
1980: +0.22 °C
1981: +0.28 °C
1982: +0.08 °C
1983: +0.27 °C
1984: +0.12 °C
1985: +0.08 °C
1986: +0.14 °C
1987: +0.28 °C
1988: +0.35 °C
1989: +0.24 °C
1990: +0.39 °C
1991: +0.37 °C
1992: +0.18 °C
1993: +0.20 °C
1994: +0.28 °C
1995: +0.42 °C
1996: +0.32 °C
1997: +0.45 °C
1998: +0.61 °C
1999: +0.40 °C
2000: +0.40 °C
2001: +0.52 °C
2002: +0.61 °C
2003: +0.60 °C
2004: +0.51 °C
2005: +0.65 °C
2006: +0.59 °C
2007: +0.62 °C
2008: +0.49 °C
2009: +0.59 °C
2010: +0.66 °C
2011: +0.54 °C
2012: +0.57 °C
2013: +0.59 °C

2) RSS tends to be an outlier, mostly in measurements prior to them revising it in 2011.
Trend calculator:
GISTEMP, BEST, RSS, NOAA (land/ocean), NOAA (land), UAH, HadCRUT4, HadCRUT4 hybrid

Ranges and exceptions (verify this yourself):
1979 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
1996 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
1997 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1998 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1999 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2000 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2001 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2002 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2003 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2004 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2005 through 2013 shows warming only in UAH.
2006 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except HadCRUT4, NOAA (land), and BEST.
2007 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except NOAA (land) and BEST.
2008 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2009 through 2013 shows warming only in NOAA (land) and BEST.
2010 through 2013 shows warming in no data set.
2011 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2012 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.

3) Satellite measurements really aren't all that accurate (RSS being one of the satellite data sets)

The fact is that the devices satellites use to measure temperature are not particularly accurate. There are two main devices that satellites use to measure temperature: Microwave Sounders and Infrared Sounders. GPS radio occultation is a more recent method and seem to be more accurate.

Microwave Sounders have great coverage and sampling rates, but rather coarse vertical resolution.
Infrared Sounders also have great coverage at a high sampling rate, but it also has decent vertical resolution. It is messed up by cloud and aerosol contamination, though.

RSS uses microwave sounders, which work by measuring atmospheric microwave emissions. You might ask - how do they get separate atmospheric layers? They use various measurements and weighting math to deduce temperature values. Doing such things increases the uncertainty of the measurement.

Skeptic articles have claimed otherwise, because they don't actually know what they're talking about:

The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

Here, the author conflates two things - the device doing the measurement and the device calibrating the measuring device. A platinum resistance thermometer has no capability to remotely measure anything, but is embedded in a blackbody to calibrate the actual remote measurement device - a microwave sounder. Accurate calibrations can correct the offset of a measurement device, but it cannot correct the inherent inaccuracy of the device itself.

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 01:57 PM
a reply to: Greven

lol not sure what you are implying here, other than the accepted means of measuring temperatures globally are wrong. You really like this post, since I have seen it posted numerous times.

So, let's just assume for a moment that this data presentation is accurate. You have established that since 1979 temps are increasing at over the average of a previous period. No arguments here.

I notice that your supporting links take us to websites marketing the measurement systems. Ok..not exactly what I would call unimpeachable, but ok.

Just so others will understand the numbers I would like to state that the delta temps provided are not cumulative. They are a difference from an unstated period average, I would assume. That is normally how these things happen...but remember, the temps are differentials, and not cumulative.

Is this data set supposed to imply anything regarding man made co2? That man is responsible for higher temps?

What is your point regarding posting an alternate take on recent temps? Specially given that I have stated that the trends in the "other" data set do not necessarily mean anything given comparisons to previous interglacial periods.

I calculated the average delta for the last 17 years and it works out to +.55C.

Oh, and another critical piece of data: What is the baseline and what period is it based on?

One more thing: What is the margin of error for the data you presented?

edit on 15-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:27 PM
a reply to: Greven

From (not a skeptical article, but rather a proponent of global warming, referring to various recent research papers)

Lovejoy's new study concludes that there has been a natural cooling fluctuation of about 0.28 to 0.37 degrees Celsius since 1998—a pattern that is in line with variations that occur historically every 20 to 50 years, according to the analysis. "We find many examples of these variations in pre-industrial temperature reconstructions" based on proxies such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediment, Lovejoy says. "Being based on climate records, this approach avoids any biases that might affect the sophisticated computer models that are commonly used for understanding global warming."
What's more, the cooling effect observed between 1998 and 2013 "exactly follows a slightly larger pre-pause warming event, from 1992 to 1998," so that the natural cooling during the "pause" is no more than a return to the longer term natural variability, Lovejoy concludes. "The pause thus has a convincing statistical explanation." The methodology developed in Lovejoy's two recent papers could also be used by researchers to help analyze precipitation trends and regional climate variability and to develop new stochastic methods of climate forecasting, he adds.


Whether there has been a cooling trend over the last 17 years, whether flat, or whether slight warming (if you graph the numbers Greven presents, above) is virtually immaterial.

This trend was not predicted, nor was the growth in Sea Ice at both poles (North Pole showed positive growth during the last year).

Bottom line is: We are still well within normal ranges as established in previous interglacial periods. Short term trends, until they become long term are pretty meaningless. There has been a longer term trend since 150 years ago, but that also coincides with the rapidly weakening magnetosphere. How much of an effect does that have on global warming?

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:38 PM
a reply to: network dude

Oh please! Future generations? If we actually cared about future generations we would be simplifying our lifestyles... Not throwing so much crap into landfills, abandoning monoculture farming, manage our forests and ecosystems better, allowing more Americans to own productive land, quit consuming all the crap that ends up polluting our rivers and streams. Look at women for example.....look at all the crap industries that cater to their superficial insecurities while polluting and toxifying landfills, water etc. hair products, make up, dyes, fake nails, etc. Men and their obsession with electronics, etc. But yeah let's blame climate change? Humans especially Americans are so cluelessly stupid when it comes to the environment.

It's like the idiot soccer moms at the checkout stand with their reusable grocery bags all the while slathering her skin and hair and nails in petroleum products, buying her feedlot meat and GMO food while driving off in her gas guzzling SUV while her FIRE industry employed husband figured out a way to make more money in the ever per suit of the American conspicuous consumptive lifestyle!

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:45 PM
a reply to: GreenMtnBoys

LOL dang! Well said!

Man does not have to be responsible for climate change in order to be a responsible caretaker of the environment.

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 03:14 PM
a reply to: Greven

I appreciate your input. Now, I ask you to look at exhibit A. A question of which is the hottest year on record.

It was never supposed to be a trick question. Which year is the hottest on record? Depending where one looks, there are three different answers: 2006, 1998 or 1934. Until last week, the answer was supposed to be 2006, but it might have been 1998. Now, citing corrections of faulty data, NASA says it was actually 1934. The National Climactic Data Center disagrees; it still says 1998.

The differences are a matter of tenths of a degree Celsius, which might seem to diminish the significance of the corrections. Except that unusually warm years in the 1920s, 1930s and 1950s are themselves only a few tenths of a degree Celsius away from the purportedly dangerous hot temperatures of the present. Only one thing is certain: The political debate over global warming has rushed far ahead of the science.

Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

The last line kind of sums up my take on it too.

If you look for answers, you will find two sets of them. They both claim the other is wrong. All I know is it's standard operating procedure to slag the source first, then, if needed, provide source data. (see why this is still being debated?)

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in