Antarctic sea ice 'obliterates' previous minimum record, in remarkable reverse

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
Antarctic sea ice 'obliterates' previous minimum record, in remarkable reverse

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...rd-in-remarkable-reverse-20170227-gumt5r.html

There is about 10 per cent less sea ice in Antarctica this year than the previous record minimum - a stunning reversal after new highs were set in 2014.

The sea ice extent around the southern continent has shrunk to 2.1091 million square kilometres on Tuesday, Jan Lieser, a sea ice scientist at the Hobart-based Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre, said.

Antarctic ice cores tell a global story
Epic 1300km endurance test across a frozen continent for the Australian Antarctic Division as they collect a historic picture of global climate changes.
The area covered by sea ice has been tracking below the previous record low of 2.32 million square kilometres set in February 2011 for most of the past three weeks, and is now about 10 per cent lower. (See chart compiled by Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency for ice coverage.)


RELATED CONTENT
Coral bleaching returns to the Great Barrier Reef
Sea ice spread around Antarctica hit a record low
"One would probably say that the old record was obliterated," Dr Lieser said.

An increase in sea-ice extent earlier in the week that appeared to have signalled an end to the melting phase now looks premature, with even smaller ice coverage still possible.

The switch from a sea-ice maximum around Antarctica to its annual low is "one of the biggest natural cycles we see in the world", with as much as 90 per cent of the ice only a year old at the most, he said.

Reliable satellite records only go back to 1979, and it's harder to access ice thickness compared with the North Pole, with Arctic ice mostly accessible from above or via submarine below.

Last winter, though, ice around Antarctica began thawing about a month earlier than normal. Minimum air temperatures have been breaking records daily since about early November in a region of the planet where global warming has been amongst the most rapid, Dr Lieser said.

"[Sea-ice] variability was typical of what we'd seen for the whole period [since 1979], but then along came 2016," said Ian Simmonds, from the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne. "It's remarkable."

The average ice coverage around Antarctica last year shrank 1.2 million square kilometres – or about the size of NSW, Tasmania and Victoria – compared with 2015, he said.

(See chart below from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, showing how rapidly ice coverage anomalies shifted.)


Arctic too

Sea ice is now at record lows at both ends of the planet, exposing more of the dark seas to solar radiation, rather it being reflected back to space.

The lack of ice will likely add to the build-up in heat in the oceans that could hinder ice recovery in the south and accelerate the melt in the north as seasons shift towards winter and summer, respectively.


The Ross Sea is virtually ice free and half the Weddell Sea ice has gone, Dr Lieser said.

While the loss of floating ice doesn't affect sea levels, its absence leaves shore-based ice shelves exposed to faster melting and accelerated glacier movement. "It opens up the vulnerability of the ice shelves around there," Dr Lieser said.

Professor Simmonds said several factors were at play in the Antarctic, such as the strengthening of westerly winds that tend to push sea-ice northwards.

Countering that, though, was the long-anticipated thermodynamic effect that warming ocean temperatures - with the Southern Ocean a major heat sink globally - would limit sea ice growth by melting the bergs from below.

While it's too early to tell whether the second effect is becoming a dominant factor during the current ice retreat, long-term climate models suggest that it will play the major role at some point, Professor Simmonds said..

Antarctic temperatures - along with those in the high Arctic - have been among the fastest rising anywhere, as rising greenhouse gases drive climate change.

Gwen Fenton, chief scientist of the Australian Antarctic Division, told Senate estimates on Monday that air over the Antarctic Peninsula had warmed about 2.8 degrees over the past 50 years alone.
 
Yet back in November NASA was reporting a new record maximum for sea ice!!

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/...antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists

Just curious what motivates you to hatefully middle finger the vast consensus of science, even after big oil concedes. There is no dog in the hunt. It's over. You are like a hick in the woods fighting the civil war 50 years after surrender to Grant
 
Just curious what motivates you to hatefully middle finger the vast consensus of science, even after big oil concedes. There is no dog in the hunt. It's over. You are like a hick in the woods fighting the civil war 50 years after surrender to Grant

I am sorry but Scientologists like you are just not worth debating. There are many eminent scientists that refute CAGW theory. Off the top of my head there is Richard Lindzen, Freeman Dyson, Nir Shaviv, Judith Curry, Hendrik Svensmark, Ivan Giaever, Jasper Kirkby, William Happer, Bjorn Lomberg, Kiminori​ Itoh, Patrick Michaels and Ian Plimer. That is just for starters, if I could be arsed there are at least another hundred I could name but what's the point?

I now expect you to tread a well trodden route and seek some dirt on these guys, don't bother I know a hundred times more than you, and just about everybody on here, on the subject.

As for the old chestnut about oil companies, previously they were the great Satan but now they are seemingly the good guys. The trouble with idiots like you is your naivety and lack of awareness. Have you never heard of PR and brand image ffs.

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
Last edited:
'theory' is a misnomer. It meets the definition of a hypothesis.
The point is the science is far from settled only arseholes like Bill Nye or Al Gore spout such rubbish, yet neither of them has ever studied climate science. There is actually precious little evidence of anything other than gentle warming from the end of the Maunder Minimum to now. Arrhenius predicted the forcing effect due to CO2 more than a century ago. The ECS is now well established as being around 1.2k, any evidence for the much vaunted positive feedbacks are only to be found in climate models. MIT Emiritus Professor Richard Lindzen has sent a petition to President Trump signed by 300 scientists calling for him to withdraw from the UNFCCC. I applaud them for their intellectual honesty.

https://cloudup.com/iHcBpTDmCNu

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2017/2/27/petition-to-the-president.html
 
Last edited:
Yeah it must be warming we had a really warm winter. Oh wait climate doesn't affect weather. Oh wait it affects everything, its climate change.
 
The point is the science is far from settled
Oh, I know that. That's what makes it a hypothesis.
only arseholes like Bill Nye or Al Gore spout such rubbish, yet neither of them has ever studied climate science. There is actually precious little evidence of anything other than gentle warming from the end of the Maunder Minimum to now. Arrhenius predicted the forcing effect due to CO2 more than a century ago. The ECS is now well established as being around 1.2k, any evidence for the much vaunted positive feedbacks are only to be found in climate models.
Ever meet T-Cat or Titanium Cat on one of these boards? You and he could have a nice debate. I just happen to be a skeptic/realist because AGW has never reached the point of being an accepted theory. "Consensus" doesn't even come close to being an accepted theory.
"[ “Consensus" is a political term, not a scientific one.]"
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

By Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner

Full paper, 114 pages, 1.54MB at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Richard Lindzen has sent a petition to president Trump signed by 300 scientists calling for him to withdraw from the UNFCCC.
I hope he can accomplish that. Even if AGW was proven , more regulation won't change anything. Consumption of fossil fuels is a product of human development. Laws of Economics are more powerful than artificial and often temporary gubmint regulation IMO.
We're doomed anyways. Eventually the sun will become a red giant.
 
Last edited:
Appealling to authority and claiming consensus are just two ways that idiots like Bill Nye attempt to shut down debate. As for the chap you mentioned, I've never heard of him but it would be nice to have somebody on here that has some kind of scientific hinterland.

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
Last edited:
Appealling to authority and claiming consensus are two ways that idiots like Bill Nye approach the subject.
Bill Nye the Science Guy? Dolts like him and Al Gore appeal to children and those with a room temperature (Fdeg) IQ.

Forgot in my previous post: Even if there are positive feedbacks, there certainly exists negative feedbacks in Nature. Plenty of examples out there.
 
Last edited:
Bill Nye the Science Guy? Dolts like him and Al Gore appeal to children and those with a room temperature (Fdeg) IQ.

Forgot in my previous post: Even if there are positive feedbacks, there certainly exists negative feedbacks in Nature. Plenty of examples out there.

Yes I am in Thailand at the moment so I was able to see him being spit roasted by Tucker Carlson on Fox News. Man did he do a good job on that pompous twat.

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
Yes I am in Thailand at the moment so I was able to see him being spit roasted by Tucker Carlson on Fox News. Man did he do a good job on that pompous twat.
Holy shit! I just watched that exchange on youtube. I was embarrassed for The Science Guy. Tucker Carlson was just asking some pretty common sense questions.
 
Last edited:
Just curious what motivates you to hatefully middle finger the vast consensus of science, even after big oil concedes. There is no dog in the hunt. It's over. You are like a hick in the woods fighting the civil war 50 years after surrender to Grant

He is a shill for BP.
 
Holy shit! I just watched that exchange on youtube. I was embarrassed for The Science Guy. Tucker Carlson was just asking some pretty common sense questions.
That fool was going on about growing grapes in England. It is a shame that Carlson didn't point out that the monks used to grow wine grapes near the Scottish borders during the Medieval Warming Period.

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
Science is about likelihood, not absolute truth, and the huge likelihood is that man-made overheating will destroy our world unless we do something about it. Willed primitivism such as is fashionable in the American backwoods convinces only those practised in lying to themselves.
 
Science is about likelihood, not absolute truth, and the huge likelihood is that man-made overheating will destroy our world unless we do something about it. Willed primitivism such as is fashionable in the American backwoods convinces only those practised in lying to themselves.
Forgot to ban your arse, you have nothing of any consequence to add to the debate. I mean Wales is as cold as fuck most of year, maybe a bit of warming might stop you lot from being so bloody miserable?

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
the middle east becomes unlivable with global warming right? Maybe its a good thing it would solve a lot of problems :)
 
Back
Top