Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows

[ScienceRocks]

For Dec. 7th JAXA has posted 10,249,836 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 201,103 km2.

 

[ScienceRocks]

For Dec. 9th JAXA has posted 9,720,337 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 255,905 km2.

 

[ScienceRocks]

For Dec. 10th JAXA has posted 9,398,098 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 322,239 km2. We started this month with 11,508,508 km2. More than 2 million km2 gone in 9 days.

 

[ScienceRocks]

For Dec. 11th JAXA has posted 9,078,802 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 319,296 km2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

More fake news

 

[ScienceRocks]

More fake news

So data is now fake news? You're not a serious person taking this position.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

More fake news

So data is now fake news? You're not a serious person taking this position.

Obama ordered NASA and NOAA to make it "the hotterest year evah!!!"

 

[Crick]

You have evidence of that or should we conclude that since you don't have a chance in the face of factual data, you've decided to just blow this conversation off and, thus, we can simply ignore you?

 

[ScienceRocks]

For Dec. 12th JAXA has posted 8,769,622 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 309,180 km2

 

[ScienceRocks]

For Dec. 13th, JAXA has posted 8,519,734 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 249,888 km2.

 

[ScienceRocks]

For Dec. 14th JAXA has posted 8,278,712 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 241,022 km2.

 

[ding]

For Dec. 14th JAXA has posted 8,278,712 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 241,022 km2.

Matthew, that's what happens in an interglacial cycle, lol. It's natural. Relax.

 

[westwall]

For Dec. 14th JAXA has posted 8,278,712 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 241,022 km2.

That's funny. How come you weren't talking about the record high extents a couple of years ago?

 

[ScienceRocks]

You really wish for me to just stop and ignore? well, this is how science is done as observations(data) is important part of the process.

For Dec. 15th JAXA has posted 8,047,850 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 230,862 km2.

 

[westwall]

You really wish for me to just stop and ignore? well, this is how science is done as observations(data) is important part of the process.

For Dec. 15th JAXA has posted 8,047,850 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 230,862 km2.

Not at all. What I expect is context. Something you totally, and completely ignore.

 

[ScienceRocks]

For Dec. 17th JAXA has posted 7,685,353 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 362,497 km2 from that of the 15th.

 

[Old Rocks]

You really wish for me to just stop and ignore? well, this is how science is done as observations(data) is important part of the process.

For Dec. 15th JAXA has posted 8,047,850 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 230,862 km2.

Not at all. What I expect is context. Something you totally, and completely ignore.

There you go, you old fraud, context;

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

And now they are finding that the East Shelf is also unstable. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

For Dec. 14th JAXA has posted 8,278,712 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 241,022 km2.

That's funny. How come you weren't talking about the record high extents a couple of years ago?

But we were. And that is what makes this very rapid change both unexpected, and disturbing. The scientists, you know, the people you constantly denigrate, are trying right now to find out the why of the sudden change, and what it portends for the future.

 

[ding]

For Dec. 14th JAXA has posted 8,278,712 km2 for SIE around Antarctica.

Down by 241,022 km2.

That's funny. How come you weren't talking about the record high extents a couple of years ago?

But we were. And that is what makes this very rapid change both unexpected, and disturbing. The scientists, you know, the people you constantly denigrate, are trying right now to find out the why of the sudden change, and what it portends for the future.

Their climate models have been proven wrong. The amplifying feedbacks have been proven wrong. Then it was severe weather events. As soon as one is proven wrong you people latch onto something else. You dismiss your defeats and ignore your incongruities. Now you have latched on to "very rapid change" as your new battle cry. When that folly is shown to be false it will be something else. You are the worst kind of stupid.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why yes, the models have been proven wrong. Far too conservative. The melting of the ice at both poles is proceeding far faster than the 'alarmists' predicted.

Latched onto 'very rapid change'? That is the terms the scientists that are studying the climate are using. You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.