The latest survey of Antarctic ice shows it has hit a new record extent (since measurements began in 1980). Explanations as to why would be interesting from those who write in telling us they can forecast the weather and these important environmental matters.
October 22, 2013
I wonder if this will get a mention on the BBC ?
October 24, 2013
Still nothing from the BBC, 2 days later !!!!
October 22, 2013
Perhaps the glaciers have slithered down the Himalayas into the Oceans and floated to the Arctic where they now reside?
Doesn’t alter the Global Warning hypotheses at all.
October 22, 2013
It’a because global warming is a load of b*******.
October 22, 2013
Indeed Mr Redwood this fact plus many other facts which do not accord with the many dire predictions made over the last twenty or so years must be causing some worry for the IPCC and their believers.
I notice a great silence on these things from them, rather like an embarrassing relative the family doesn’t ever mention.
No runaway increases from 2000 as predicted. Far from it, as from 2000 we are in a period of such low increase that even the IPCC has had to call it statistically insignificant.
No real explanation from them for this “lull” as they call it, except that some heat is being stored in the oceans in a process which is not supported by regular scientific theory.
Also:-
No sign of those pesky islands being submerged yet as AL Gore predicted.
Still snow on the mountains that Al Gore said would have disappeared by now.
Still glaciers visible which we were told were to have melted by now.
More polar bears now than twenty years ago despite all the hype.
The great thing about being alive today is that you can see their predictions have not or are not coming true.
Their bare faced nerve to say in their latest report that the temperature rise in this century will be even higher than they predicted in their previous failed report shows that this is a political construct and not a scientific one.
And all this for a global average rise of less than one degree in the last 100 years !
October 23, 2013
Far from it, as from 2000 we are in a period of such low increase that even the IPCC has had to call it statistically insignificant.
While the IPCC has said that the average global temperature increase has slowed down, they never said that these increases were statistically insignificant.
No real explanation from them for this “lull” as they call it, except that some heat is being stored in the oceans in a process which is not supported by regular scientific theory.
What about all the scientific evidence showing that the average temperature of the oceans has been increasing over the past 15 years?
More polar bears now than twenty years ago despite all the hype.
Either provide evidence for this claim or admit you made it up. The reduction in Arctic ice has reduced polar bear numbers.
Their bare faced nerve to say in their latest report that the temperature rise in this century will be even higher than they predicted in their previous failed report shows that this is a political construct and not a scientific one.
Either provide evidence to back up this claim or admit you just made it up.
October 23, 2013
Last November (2012) the Labour Peer Lord Donoughue tabled a written question asking whether the government considered the 0.8 degrees C rise in global temperature since 1880 to be “statistically significant”.
The reply given with the official assurance of the Met Office was “yes”.
With the advice of a talented mathematician behind him, the Noble Lord then asked what was the scientific/mathematical basis for the Met Office claim.
The Met Office refused to answer. It refused to answer FIVE TIMES when the same question was put again and again.
This put the then energy Minister (Baroness Verma) in an impossible position.
Only after this did the Met Office admit that it had NO scientific or statistical basis for their claim.
(Source: the Spectator, 13th July 2013)
October 23, 2013
The minimal research, on your part, about Polar Bear numbers will cause you to alter your position on this.
The small rises in some ocean temperatures do not qualify to account for the so-called “missing heat”. That is why warming alarmists refer to it as “missing”. They claim the heat is “there”, and “hidden in the deep ocean” – and not yet detected.
October 23, 2013
Its your theory Uni. You need to prove it.
No reply on the tricky questions as expected from you.
October 22, 2013
This of course runs directly contrary to the climate models, first produced in the late 80s/early 90s, upon which all anti-carbon legislation is based. Other significant facts are the absence of the forecast increase in extreme weather events, and most interestingly, consensus analysis that for up to 3C of warming since preindustrial times, there is a net benefit to global warming / increased CO2.
Whatever else this means surely it is time for Parliament to force proper public scrutiny and debate on this issue, calling climate scientists to answer their critics, and for a rational cost-benefit analysis of climate and energy policies.
October 23, 2013
There’s no net benefit to global warming, as all it causes is famines and droughts.
Also given that the deniers have failed to back up any of their claims the climate scientists will easily show just how uniformed the deniers are.
October 23, 2013
This is a meaningless post as readers will readily see – just an assertion and an insult. Matt Ridley has written an excellent summary of the current consensus evaluation showing the net costs/benefits of higher CO2 / global warming & referring to peer-reviewed research by scientists, economists and other experts. It shows that we do not see negative effects until we get > 3C of warming / the end of C21st. The reason is such effects as lower winter deaths from cold, higher agricultural productivity due to CO2 and improved water access in some parts of the world.
you should read the relevant research and then comment.
October 23, 2013
Its not a science Richard its a politically based religion so no evidence will be enough for the believers.
October 23, 2013
So Uni all droughts and famines are now due to a less than one degree increase in average global temperature over the last 100 years.
Its amazing how much can be claimed to be the fault of this small rise in temperature.
Its like its almost everything you can think of.
October 23, 2013
I don’t suppose it ever occurs to you that your unthinking boundless faith in those “climate scientists” may be misplaced?
October 22, 2013
I think you may find that it’s the wrong kind of ice, just the wrong kind you’d expect from the theory of global warming accepted by 99.9% of sensible scientists.
October 22, 2013
Mr. Redwood MP said;
“Explanations as to why . . . . ”
Perhaps the planet is ‘cooling down’ and when water becomes cold, in fact, very cold it freezes. But don’t take my word for it, I am not a ‘Scientist’, I do not have an ‘ology in anything. Just some common sense.
Or maybe its because the climate is changing, like it always has. Oh, I don’t know.
October 23, 2013
Unlikely given that the temperature of the Antarctic have been rising over the past 100 years.
October 22, 2013
It is necessary to understand the difference between land ice and sea ice.
“Antarctica is a continent with 98% of the land covered by ice, and is surrounded by ocean that has much of its surface covered by seasonal sea ice. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the fundamental difference between sea ice and land ice. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once evaporated and then fell as precipitation on the land. Antarctic sea ice is entirely different as it is ice which forms in salt water during the winter and almost entirely melts again in the summer.
Importantly, when land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably but other parts of the climate system are affected, like increased absorbtion of solar energy by the darker oceans.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm
Reply It is the seasonal sea ice which has expanded.
October 23, 2013
You refer to a website which displays a cartoon of two penguins looking in surprise as a green shoot springs up through the ice. Doesn’t it strike you as a little strange that a website which claims to be giving dispassionate consideration to the science should choose to display what is nothing more than another alarmist propaganda image, albeit one with some humour rather than the pathos of the poor polar bear and her cub supposedly stranded on an ice floe?
October 23, 2013
So Dennis you’re unable to criticise any of the science and have decided to instead criticise a picture. I guess that’s the level of ability the deniers have.
October 23, 2013
So you think that it’s wrong to criticise propaganda images?
Maybe (words left out ed) you even think it fine to photoshop images for propaganda purposes, blackening the emissions from cooling towers to give the impression that they are smoke not steam.
October 22, 2013
Arctic sea-ice levels are also high relative to the last 15 years or so – although still below levels of 35 years ago.
See Danish sea-ice Institute’s graph (this is live and the graph will automatically up-date)
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
October 23, 2013
Ah, but that’s also the wrong kind of ice, just the wrong kind you’d expect from the theory of global warming accepted by 99.9% of sensible scientists.
October 23, 2013
No idea what you’re talking about Dennis. Have you confused the Arctic and Antarctic?
October 23, 2013
Of course you have no idea what I’m talking about …
October 22, 2013
“too much ice at the south pole”
Since AGW is causing the earth to heat up, all the hot air is rising to the North pole, causing the Arctic ice to melt and drown all the poor Polar bears. Since all the hot air is rising, then obviously the cold air has fallen to the bottom of the world, causing more ice at the South pole.
We all realise what this means? The earth will become bottom heavy and spin off its axis, throwing us all into the sun for a fiery death, or out into outer space for an icy death.
Take your pick.
October 23, 2013
I will peer review your excellent theory APL and then I suggest we do a video then go to the EU and UN and apply for a large grant.
Then with the money we can go and produce a report using computer modelling and live the high life!
Its worked before.
October 23, 2013
Edward2: “then go to the EU and UN and apply for a large grant.”
What an excellent idea.
It may help me redress the destruction done to my very modest pension fund by this governments and its predecessors policy of quantitative easing.
October 23, 2013
Why let the facts get in the way of a narrative and potty religion if you are still making money from this absurd exaggeration religion and AGW scam.? Also the proponents, Ed Davey, the Libdumbs, Labour, the EU, Cameron & the all the BBC pushers of this nonsense will look very stupid if they ever admit they have been pushing this huge job destroying lie, exaggeration, scam using voters money for so many, many years.
October 23, 2013
Will David Cameron be going there for a camera shoot with a team of huskies?
October 23, 2013
Notwithstanding the fact that Global Warming may well be over-hyped and, simply, wrong – it still makes sense to me to get as much energy as possible from sources that do not involve burning carbon.
I remember the smog in London in the 1950s. Going to school with a handkerchief tied across out mouths – and it being yellow by the time we got to school.
October 23, 2013
I agree – we need carbon capture for coal etc – we do need clean air but wind turbines at a macro level are not the answer – they are now providing over 10% of the UK’s consumption (4.5 GW today) but this is the exception rather than the rule – especially when we are told that the new Power Station will give us 7GW.
Nuclear has got better though its end to end lifecycle makes it expensive long term.
October 23, 2013
1. Carbon capture for coal: this is an expensive and not very efficient way of reducing CO2 output from power stations at present. It only captures around 20% of the CO2 but could improve as the technology improves, but not by much I fear.
2 Wind turbines. I think you’ll find these are supplying rather less than 10%; more like 0.3% I believe.
3. In all the talk about nuclear power there has been very little mention of Thorium as a nuclear fuel. This produces lower levels of radioactive waste than Uranium and its half-life is much shorter. It is much more abundant than Uranium (there is more of it than Lead) and it is much safer to use and handle.
The reason it hasn’t been developed is that the US, Russia and the UK needed to use Uranium in order to produce weapons grade material for the Atom and the H bombs. Now, the reason is that the Uranium industry and the nuclear waste management industry would be threatened.
It’s time we took Thorium seriously for power production.
October 23, 2013
“I remember the smog in London in the 1950s. Going to school with a handkerchief tied across out mouths – and it being yellow by the time we got to school.”
That would be before the clean air acts which stopped people burning cheap high sulphur coal in their grates, the high tension National Grid which removed the necessity for the south bank power stations, and the arrival of natural gas for domestic heating.
I agree that exhaust gases should be cleaned, but CO2 is not dirty. As dirty diesel is being used to replace clean but totally unreliable renewables, presumably you would be against that?
I think we should use the cheapest fuels available to generate electricity just like those of our competitors who are not stark raving mad. We should also declare Carbon Credits as funny money and outlaw it.
October 23, 2013
Wasn’t the smog the result of some of the carbon NOT being burned?
October 23, 2013
You won’t get an explanation John, this whole debate is mired on both sides in the psychological phenomenon of “confirmation bias” – this means that information is selectively seized on by both sides to support their own position and other information is ignored. Sometimes the same piece of information is used in support of entirely contradictory positions. The facts of the matter are few and simple.
In the long run having more CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere will raise temperatures. But we don’t know by how much. And we don’t know whether the overall consequences of that will be good or bad.
In the very long term the earth is returning to its normal state of having no ice anywhere. This has been its condition for over 90% of its history. There is nothing we can do to stop that even if it were a good idea to do so.
October 23, 2013
Get a copy of, “TheNeglected Sun”, by Fritz Vahrenholt. As fellow engineer and engineering manager, you should have no difficulty in following his arguments. An explanation of Antarctic ice accretion is in there.
October 23, 2013
So not a single alarmist willing to provide an answer (unless sjb’s was intended as such).
I echo Alan Jutson’s interest in whether the BBC will get round to reporting it or whether it will once again prove to be the most (biased broadcaster etc ed)
October 23, 2013
The latest survey of Antarctic ice shows it has hit a new record extent (since measurements began in 1980).
Meanwhile the Arctic is currently the 6th lowest on record.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-in-2013-is-sixth-lowest-on-record/#.UmfIhBB2mMh
Explanations as to why would be interesting from those who write in telling us they can forecast the weather and these important environmental matters.
Well since climate and weather are different things I guess you don’t want any comment from people who usually point out the flaws in your posts on climate.
Nevertheless given that Antarctic sea ice is mainly influenced by the circumpolar winds carrying frigid air from the continent, rather than air temperature or ocean currents, this is most likely why there’s increased sea ice growth in the East Antarctica sea ice but a reduction in West Antarctica sea ice. Also the average temperature in the Antarctic keeps rising which is why Antarctic land ice has been in decline for decades.
October 23, 2013
Ah, this hory old story again.
The sea ice extent in the anarctic has been increasing since records began. Funnily enough this is not because the south is getting colder, but because it is getting wetter and more windy. The more rain / snow that falls, the less salty the ocean surface gets, and the more easily it freezes; the stronger the wind, the more the colder more southerly air is pushed north.
Another result of the increased wind is that the land ice melts faster because when you blow the cold air north, warmer air must flow south.
To be clear, sea ice in the south is seasonal, it just about completely melts every summer, all the permanent ice in the south is on land. It is a completely different system to the wholly sea based ice in the north.
October 23, 2013
Thanks Simonro, some understanding on here at last.
October 24, 2013
The story is certainly noteworthy given it runs directly counter to the forecasts of climate models. If its so obvious that a warmer and wetter Antarctica leads to more sea ice, why did the climate models not forecast an increase not a decrease?
Land ice in Antarctica, as alluded to elsewhere, has been declining since the end of the last glaciation 18,000 years ago. Does anyone claim climate scientists attribute a gradual decline in land ice in Antarctica to man-made CO2? (I think not).
Reply And if warming causes more sea ice in the Antartic why not in the Arctic?
October 24, 2013
JR asks: And if warming causes more sea ice in the Antartic why not in the Arctic?
“The Arctic Ocean is surrounded by land, so changed winds cannot cause Arctic [sea] ice to expand in the same way.”[1]
Which is fortunate for us because Antarctica’s sea ice “expands to an area roughly twice the size of Europe.”[2] 🙂
[1] http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=1967
[2] ibid.
P.S The lead author is Dr Paul Holland of the British Antarctic Survey; his email address is listed.
October 24, 2013
A small short term change of a larger area, but thinner ice proves nothing and is not a licence to put unlimited amounts of CO2 from whatever human sources and then just blaming it on natural sources or other fatalistic right wing nonsense.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/record-antarctic-sea-ice-extent-puzzles-climate-change-experts.html
October 24, 2013
Various possibilities:
– 90% of the earth’s population is in the northern hemisphere
– warm air in the north displaces cold air southwards
– the hole in the ozone layer is closing faster in the south
– smog generated in Asia is partially blocking out the sun
– the earth’s magnetic field is changing
Who on earth knows? And I mean KNOWS.