This is not the first time “climate scientists” and a compliant media attempted to Blamestorm the growth of Antarctic sea ice on Hotcoldwetdry, and probably won’t be the last.
Antarctic sea ice shows record growth, climate change likely cause
The growth of sea ice is not evidence against the effects of climate change, but rather the consequence of it.Antarctic sea ice is seeing a rapid period of growth this year, but that doesn’t mean the Poles are safe from climate change, says NASA.
NASA reported the ice measurements to be at 7.78 million square miles (20.14 million square kilometers), a day after it exceeded the extent of 20 million square kilometers (7.72 million square miles).
“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” said Claire Parkinson of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.
The growth of sea ice is not evidence against the effects of climate change but rather the consequence of it. This could be the result of the rapid melting of land ice which sends fresh water into the ocean making it freeze at higher decision. It could also be the result of changing wind patterns and other external factors.
Remember when all the “climate scientists” told us that global warming/climate change would cause Antarctic sea ice to increase? And, if the ice starts to decrease, this will be Blamed on climate change, as well. Because this is a cult, and everything validates their Beliefs.
Best comment
I heard that if nothing is doing as predicted, we’re to shut up because science.
Exactly. Because you’re anti-science if you dare question the reality of what’s occuring, and you’re nasty if you mention that Warmists rarely practice what they preach.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
It’s an interesting scientific question. How does the surface sea ice extent INCREASE in the Southern Hemisphere around Antarctica even as the ocean and air temperatures are increasing and the Antarctic continental ice sheet is melting?
Deniers would just Deny the data, accusing the satellites of being part of the communist sponsored hoax, but scientists are different. They are compelled to acknowledge and even explain the paradox. Scientists cannot just Deny facts as Deniers do. Deniers have but one hypothesis to explain the Antarctic sea ice – global warming is a hoax perpetrated by leftists, Democrats, scientists, the media and poor Africans to take over the Earth and take away American conservatives’ guns.
On the other hand, actual scientists recognize the overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of AGW, so they look for more appropriate and testable hypotheses to explain the paradox. For example, the warmer Southern Ocean is melting the Antarctic land ice (at the land-ocean interface) at a higher rate. Fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than salt water. Or, the increased water vapor content leads to more rain and snow over the Southern Ocean. Fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than salt water.
Teach the sea ice in Antarctica comprises about 2% of the total ice at the South Pole
That area is one area warming very fast and the total ice is melting fast
But I guess that 2% is about all you have going for your argument about the PAUSE!!!
Teach are you saying that there is mire ice because it is getting colder ?
Why do you Teach believe the ice us growing. ?
Ok, so sea ice only matters when it’s convenient to your alarmist progonstications.
Teach,
What is your hypothesis for why the Antarctic Southern Ocean sea ice extent is growing?
Natural variability.
Let me guess, you think it’s growing because of too much CO2, right?
Yeah, sure. There’s a lot of ice down there. But it’s really warm ice. Like 85 degrees F. Don’t you know anything, Teach? Global warming caused the freezing point to go up by 60 degrees so it could fake us out.
The answer to your question, Jeffrey, is ‘natural climate variations’, like most of everything else we’ve seen with the weather and climate.
Or possibly the higher temperature ice thing I just came up with. I think that one has legs.
Teach and Kevin,
I said that I don’t know why the extent (area) of Antarctic sea ice has increased, although I presented two hypotheses. Since the Southern Ocean is warmer and the air is warmer, what is your hypothesis that incorporates these two facts?
I understand if you don’t want to think about it, after all, science is hard. It’s easier to just say it’s “natural”. On the other hand, scientists, for hard to understand reasons, pursue these quests for much less reward than a back-up 2nd baseman. They study long hours for many years. Not everyone has the work ethic and intelligence to do what they do.
How long must you study to be a conservapundit, lol?
Kevin,
Your hypothesis that global warming (I assume increased atmospheric CO2) raises the freezing point of water is easily testable.
You could equilibrate sealed vessels of pure water with varying concentrations of CO2 in air and then carefully measure the freezing point of the water. Eazy-peazy.
dave is an expert on the conversion of CO2 to HCO3- in aqueous solutions. My simple interpretation is that adding any solute (e.g., HCO3-) would, in theory lower the freezing point, the opposite effect of what you envision. This certainly happens if you add NaCl to water (http://chemistry.about.com/od/workedchemistryproblems/a/Freezing-Point-Depression-Example-Problem.htm).
That author concludes that a 2.5 mole/liter salt solution has a freezing point 9C LESS than pure water! If pure water freezes at 0C, this salt water solution doesn’t freeze until 9C below! Seawater, at 0.6 mole/liter salt freezes at approximately 2C below. In addition, seawater is denser than freshwater, meaning that freshwater can “float” on seawater! It sounds crazy but at 1C below, this system would have a thin layer of freshwater ice over liquid seawater.
So, if there was more freshwater on the ocean surface, it’s possible there could be more ice even with slightly elevated ocean and air temperatures! Now, if you could figure out a way to get more freshwater there.
Actualky, Jeff, the Antarctic landmass has seen slight cooling over the last 35 years, per NASA. We can consider it statistically insignificant, but there is no trend for warming. There’s a small area that is seeing warmer water, but that doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation.
Jeff,
You really should not try to come up with any “hypothesis”. You don’t have enough knowledge for such activity. Your comments did not make sense and are really out there.
The one paper that I read (Science Daily), called for the fact that there was a cold surface current with a warmer deeper current which was causing the ice. But that does not make much sense as cold water will seek a deeper area than warm.
And yes Jeff, this whole so called “science” is being manipulated by certain groups for grants or political power. If you can’t see that then something is wrong with you, which I think is redundant.
Teach,
Your citation is for the South Pole only. Like most continents, Antarctica’s temperatures vary across regions. If Antarctica is not warming, why do you think the ice sheet there is melting?
J-“What’s your hypothesis…?” J, where’s your proof that none of this has happened before?
It may have happened before. So? Aren’t you interested in understanding why there’s greater Antarctic sea ice when both the sea and continent are warmer? It’s OK if you’re not curious, but criticize those who are?
“I said that I don’t know why the extent (area) of Antarctic sea ice has increased…”
We get that. Stop trying to base the future of mankind as if you did Jeff.
Kevin,
One lie at a time, please. The decisions we have to make as world citizens should be based on the best available information, right?
The implication from people such as you and Mr. Teach is that the increased ice extent in the Southern ocean is evidence that the theory of AGW is false. Actually, it’s just another bit of data to be fit into the theory, added to the overwhelming evidence that supports that human-added CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.
Me saying I don’t know why the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased doesn’t mean we know nothing. This is always a hazard when talking with right-wing authoritarian followers who value certainty and authoritarian leadership more than anything. It has to do with your insecurity, ignorance of the natural world, belief in magic and fear – but that’s for another time. Your response was as predictable as a family values Republican being caught with a hooker.
Well, the “so?” part is obvious, as in if the conditions you state are true have happened before, then I wonder why warmists seem to look no further than the alleged AGW aspect of it. Speaking of being curious, they seem never to be curious of potential natural causes, just zeroing in on a trace gas necessary for life. Second, it wasn’t a criticism but rather a question. Third- So, in other words, you don’t know the answer to the very pertinent question?
“Your response was as predictable as a family values Republican being caught with a hooker.” That would be sorta like a hypocritical Liberal preaching tolerance while at the same time being totally intolerant of those with opposing view points, correct?
Actual scientists have been looking for all causes of warming, as well as all causes of other related phenomena, such as increased ice extent in the Southern ocean. To just throw up our hands and say it’s all “natural” is not helpful, except to a narrow slice of the population.
Which always leads to the same question. What are the “natural” causes you tout? The Sun? No. Volcanic aerosols? No. Asteroids? No. Cosmic rays impacting the magnetosphere? No.
Mr. Teach teaches that decades ago leftist leaders created a global conspiracy for world dominance using global warming as a rallying cry. They then recruited (bought) scientists with promises of grants and lifetime employment as long as they supported the global warming conspiracy. Conspiracist ideation typically requires science denialism. Whether one ignorantly believes vaccines cause autism, or that 9/11 was as inside job, or that AGW is a hoax, that cigarettes don’t cause cancer or that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS – the beliefs are all contrary to the body of scientific evidence. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be skeptical. We should.
Note too that part of your confusion stems from the interconnectedness of actual natural phenomena, i.e., major ocean currents, jet streams, El Nino, water vapor content, Pacific Decadal oscillation etc, with global warming itself. These important natural phenomena are not independent of global warming.
CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation (heat) released from the Earth, slowing the amount of heat that radiates into space. This is a good thing for us in that it keeps the Earth from being too cold to support life. But the current increased CO2 is causing the Earth to retain more of the Sun’s energy leading to an increase in the overall warmth of the Earth.
Some of the commenters here may actually be arguing in good faith, but understand that Mr. Teach is not.
j,
Tolerance does not mean tolerating lying, bad faith, willful ignorance, bad ideas and bad manners. All ideas are not equal. Criticizing your ideas is not intolerance. It’s debate.
This tactic has been used against liberals for a long time. Just another ad hominem attack to help you win.
“Some tolerant liberal. You’re a hypocrite for fighting back! You’re supposed to turn the other cheek!”
Heh. Jeffrey said he didn’t know why the ice is increasing. And when I merely quoted him, he suggested I said 2 or more lies 🙂
“Kevin,One lie at a time, please. ”
Too funny.
kevin,
I know it’s difficult, but try to keep up.
Too funny.
I guess the question is:
Why is Antarctic sea ice increasing when Antarctica and the sea are warming? (Mr. Teach’s earlier claim that Antarctica is cooling was incorrect)
Scientists said, “We don’t know, let’s find out. The explanation must be consistent with the known physical laws of the universe.”
Skeptics said, “We do know. It’s natural. Global warming is a hoax.”
It’s not at all difficult to keep up with you, jeffrey :). It’s like speaking to a child. No offense.
I find it quite fun. But I like speaking to kids. Their silly ideas are often very humorous. One of them just mentioned to me that mankind was so powerful that he could control the very temperature of the world! Oh wait. That was you :).
kevin,
There may be hope for you. Most conservatives, being envious of youthful exuberance and free thinking, despise children.
180 to 280 ppm CO2 has kept the Earth reasonably livable for hundreds of thousands of years. 280 ppm correlates with interglacial periods (such as the current Holocene) and 180 ppm correlates with glacial periods, when the temperature drops some 6C.
The current epoch (some 12,000 years old), the Holocene, has supported the explosive growth of all the human civilization you see around you! Compared to today, the best estimates show early Holocene temperatures similar to now. About 5000 years ago the Earth started a slow and gradual cooling, dropping almost 0.6C by the so-called “Little Ice Age”! So over the course of 5000 yrs the Earth cooled a whopping 0.6C! In the past 100 years it’s warmed a miniscule (according to Mr. Teach) 0.6C. Atmospheric CO2 varied little from 280 ppm during the Holocene – during the entire history of human civilization – but it is now 400 ppm and shooting ever higher – carrying the Earth’s temperature with it.
So, yes, human activities are causing the Earth to warm. How? By adding CO2 to the atmosphere. How are we doing that? By burning fossil fuels, such as coal, gas and oil. Burning adds oxygen to low oxygen hydrocarbons converting them (e.g., C8H18 + O2) to carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). Considering no other phenomena, we’ve added enough carbon dioxide to the atmosphere to increase the heat content of the Earth, which is what we’re seeing. It doesn’t take a computer model for this – Arrhenius did it a century ago with pen and paper. In 1906 he predicted a doubling of atmospheric would increase temperature 1.6 to 2.1C. (Arrhenius believed this increased temperature would benefit mankind, but as an actual scientist he wouldn’t deny that CO2 causes warming, as you just did).
So, yes, human activities can and are causing changes in the Earth’s temperature. Your belief doesn’t change that fact. Listen, I get it. Deniers start with the unscientific premise that adding CO2 to the atmosphere cannot cause warming. It’s colorless. You can’t smell it or taste it. There’s not much of it. Generating it has caused incalculable good for human civilization. How can something so good have a downside? I get it. It’s not fair. But your beliefs do not change the facts.
Don’t forget that pure water is frozen at 10F. Even if the temperature increases to 20F, the water is still frozen. Even at 30F. So you can still get ice with global warming! Is it possible to get increased ice with global warming? Obviously, you can. Just look at Antarctic sea ice (not the continental ice sheet – it’s melting).
Now add in the yearly temporal component – Antarctica has seasons too. Ice melts in summer and freezes in winter still. For the ice sheet, a little more melts each summer than freezes in winter. For sea ice there, it’s the opposite. Since global warming is a fact, of course scientists are curious if it’s related.
“There may be hope for you. Most conservatives, being envious of youthful exuberance and free thinking, despise children.”
Weird thinking jeffrey. We’re the only ones having kids while you guys are busy snuffing them out. Don’t worry. It will all resolve itself in a few decades Jeffrey. Conservatives are the scientists and the engineers of the world, and we’re raising the scientists and engineers of the future.
You didn’t know that because you don’t know any actual scientists or engineers. But now you know at least one.
Keep trying to sound like you know what you’re talking about though. It’s immensely enjoyable.
Kevin,
So climate scientists are conservatives? Does that make sense to you? If you really believe that most scientists are conservative, I would hold that as evidence you don’t know many.
In my decades long career in drug discovery and development, I’ve met hundreds of scientists at universities, drug companies and at NCI, NIH and the FDA – including Nobel laureates. Most scientists I’ve known don’t discuss politics. We have 4 PhD scientists in my current company, 1 conservative atheist, 1 liberal agnostic, 1 liberal Christian and 1 moderate Christian. The conservative is a brilliant chemist who is skeptical of global warming – but makes the same sort of arguments you guys do.
My PhD is in physiology and my postdoc training in molecular biology. I learned drug development in the industry.
What’s your scientist background? And why are you only interested in discrediting me personally and not discussing the science of climate?
So, J, still no answer to the question? All your deflecting ranting aside? J-Tolerance doesn’t mean lying, bad faith, willfull ignorance, bad manors…” Actually it does, as who decides who the arbitrator is to decide what’s on your list? Seems to me the First Amendment covers all of the above, though as a Liberal it’s not surprising that you wouldn’t know that. But thanks for proving my “hypocritical liberals preaching tolerance” line from above true.
J-“Just look at the Antarctic sea ice-it’s melting.” Again, means nothing as it obviously has happened before. Before SUVs. And, if so, proves absolutely nothing as to the cause of such melting. So you’re still only half-way there, J. “Since global warming is a fact..” Why, yes- and so is global cooling a fact. What’s not a fact is the cause of such warming. “Arrhenius did it a century ago-he predicted a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would increase temps 1.6 to 2.1 C.” Many of his theories have been proven wrong. He also predicted that the Artic would have masses of people living there growing crops. Looks like he was the first astrologer with failed predictions. Many more to follow, as we’ve seen.
“So climate scientists are conservatives?”
No. Climate scientists are not scientists. Anyone who thinks science can be determined by group-think (aka consensus) has no right to claim any relation to science.
“And why are you only interested in discrediting me personally and not discussing the science of climate?”
I was just returning the favor, jeffrey. FWIW, I am ChemE with backgrounds in plastic monomer production and (for the last 12 years) pharmaceuticals. And I’m better than you. I know that because you believe in ‘consensus science’ 🙂
Just to be clear though, I think you’re overstating your limited science background. I believe your PhD in physiology is, in reality, a BA in physical therapy, and you consider that to be science. No way to prove it though. So we’ll have to leave it at that.
It does sound like you made it to college though. If only to learn how to rub people’s muscles.
Haha, that was mean :). Sorry. It’s just comments on a blog. Get over it.
It was the general consensus that the Earth is flat. That turned out to be false. It’s rounder than a cue ball.
It was the general consensus that ‘God does not play dice with the Universe.’ Turns out he does. Every picosecond.
It was the general consensus that nitroglycerin could not be made stable. Turns out it can, much to the chagrin of mountains that we choose to mine.
Consensus is meaningless. Just because a bunch of people who don’t know anything decide on what is true, it doesn’t make it true. In fact, it usually makes them look like fools for believing it years down the line.
It is the consensus among climatologists and their brethren astrologists that CO2 is in control of the Earth’s temperature. It’s not. It’s the sun.
Try not to do too much damage to mankind before you finally come to know that jeff.
j,
“Seems to me the First Amendment covers all of the above,…” The First Amendment refers to governments oppressing speech, not commenters on blogs not tolerating your bad ideas. I’m embarrassed for you.
Because the Earth has warmed before without burning fossil fuels, it cannot be warming now from burning fossil fuels.
Is that your stance? In addition, you think the 1st Amendment protects you from criticism.
kevin,
Good for you. I’ll accept your claims. You argue like a chemist, not a scientist.
I have nothing to get over, sport. Being called a liar by someone who refuses to debate is not really a thing. I’m used to it here.
The problem with comments on a blog (and the blog itself) is the spreading of mis- and disinformation by people like Teach and yourself.
Is your position that CO2 is incapable of changing the global temperature based on a lack of evidence or a belief?
Monday morning links
When Columbus came back to Spain with news of the West Indies, it was no big deal and of little interest in Europe. Bruegel’s Hunting Dogs Red Bull Settles False Advertising Lawsuit for $13 Million Because It Actually Doesn’t Give You Wings The Trou
Actually, “actual scientists” are quite skeptical of AGW or man caused climate change. Nothing this so called science predicts has happened. If it is science, then its results are predictable or falsifiable. Neither is possible with AGW. It is not science. It is faux science. It is promulgated by politicians for more power and control and by poor scientists whose sole objective is to get more grant money. There is little science behind the whole fraud.