Antarctic sea ice reaches record high while IPCC models predicted the opposite

[SSDD]

In response to the barrage of recent posts by a certain member of this board, the vast majority of which reflect, and discuss nothing more than the output of computer models, I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation. The contrast is remarkable.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

This paper, recently published in the Journal of Climate finds that most of the climate models predicted, in error, that the Antarctic Sea Ice extent would decrease over the past 30 years. This is a considerable deviation from actual observation as the Antarctic sea ice is currently 2 standard deviations above the 1979 - 2000 average. More evidence of the abject failure of climate models.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, um, er, it's predicted by the AGW model

 

[SSDD]

Well, um, er, it's predicted by the AGW model

Now that it has happened, of course they predicted it. So it is with the unfalsifiable hypothesis.

 

[Katzndogz]

Retroactive predictions is part of the government model.

 

[RollingThunder]

In response to the barrage of recent posts by a certain member of this board, the vast majority of which reflect, and discuss nothing more than the output of computer models, I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation. The contrast is remarkable.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

This paper, recently published in the Journal of Climate finds that most of the climate models predicted, in error, that the Antarctic Sea Ice extent would decrease over the past 30 years. This is a considerable deviation from actual observation as the Antarctic sea ice is currently 2 standard deviations above the 1979 - 2000 average. More evidence of the abject failure of climate models.

Just more futile grasping at straws by the denier cult dingbats.

Poles apart: satellites reveal why Antarctic sea ice grows as Arctic melts
US military satellite data exposes complexity of climate change and impact of changing wind patterns on polar regions

The Guardian
Damian Carrington
11 November 2012
(excerpts)

The mystery of the expansion of sea ice around Antarctica, at the same time as global warming is melting swaths of Arctic sea ice, has been solved using data from US military satellites. Two decades of measurements show that changing wind patterns around Antarctica have caused a small increase in sea ice, the result of cold winds off the continent blowing ice away from the coastline. "Until now these changes in ice drift were only speculated upon using computer models," said Paul Holland at the British Antarctic Survey. "Our study of direct satellite observations shows the complexity of climate change. "The Arctic is losing sea ice five times faster than the Antarctic is gaining it, so, on average, the Earth is losing sea ice very quickly. There is no inconsistency between our results and global warming." This summer saw a record low in Arctic sea ice since satellite measurements began 30 years ago. He noted that while Antarctic sea ice was growing, the Antarctic ice cap – the glacier and snow pack on the continent – was losing mass, with the fresh water flowing into the ocean.

The research on Antarctic sea ice, published in Nature Geoscience, revealed large regional variations. In places where warm winds blowing from the tropics towards Antarctica had become stronger, sea ice was being lost rapidly. "In some areas, such as the Bellingshausen Sea, the sea ice is being lost as fast as in the Arctic," said Holland. But in other areas, sea ice was being added as sea water left behind ice being blown away from the coast froze. The net effect is that there has been an extra 17,000 sq km of sea ice each year since 1978 – about a tenth of a percent of the maximum sea ice cover.

 

[SSDD]

Now all you need to do is show some actual proof that the loss of arctic ice is due to our contribution to a trace atmospheric gas. Good luck with that. Maybe a radiosonde can help you out.

 

[RollingThunder]

Now all you need to do is show some actual proof that the loss of arctic ice is due to our contribution to a trace atmospheric gas. Good luck with that. Maybe a radiosonde can help you out.

Your ignorance of physics is your own problem, little retard, as is your inability to comprehend how raising atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas by 40% over pre-industrial levels could have any effect.

Maybe a brain transplant can help you out.

 

[SSDD]

Your ignorance of physics is your own problem, little retard, as is your inability to comprehend how raising atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas by 40% over pre-industrial levels could have any effect.

If it is true that CO2 is a "powerful" greenhouse gas, then you should be able to show at least one experiment that proves that raising the amount of that gas in an open atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise. We both know, however, that you can't and never will be able to because it simply doesn't happen.

Maybe a brain transplant can help you out.

What, so I can be a duped cut and paste slug like you? No thanks.

 

[RollingThunder]

Your ignorance of physics is your own problem, little retard, as is your inability to comprehend how raising atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas by 40% over pre-industrial levels could have any effect.

If it is true that CO2 is a "powerful" greenhouse gas, then you should be able to show at least one experiment that proves that raising the amount of that gas in an open atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise. We both know, however, that you can't and never will be able to because it simply doesn't happen.

Someone on one of your denier cult blogs told you that particular myth but it is not true. Sadly, you've shown yourself to be much too stupid to understand the science and too ideologically blinded to even try. But here's a good summary of the relevant experiments anyway for those who maybe have more than just two brain cells to rub together.

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

 

[Old Rocks]

From the largest scientific society in the world, a society of societies, the American Institute of Physics;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Of course, since this article is written by real scientists, our resident ignoramouses will immediatly dismiss it as part of the grand conspiracy by ___________ to take over the world.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmers have no science so instead you get insults and the same warmed over stupid and wrong articles

 

[RollingThunder]

Warmers have no science so instead you get insults and the same warmed over stupid and wrong articles

CrazyFruitcake Detector - he pegs the needle with every post he makes.

 

[Dubya]

In response to the barrage of recent posts by a certain member of this board, the vast majority of which reflect, and discuss nothing more than the output of computer models, I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation. The contrast is remarkable.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

This paper, recently published in the Journal of Climate finds that most of the climate models predicted, in error, that the Antarctic Sea Ice extent would decrease over the past 30 years. This is a considerable deviation from actual observation as the Antarctic sea ice is currently 2 standard deviations above the 1979 - 2000 average. More evidence of the abject failure of climate models.

Let's attempt to retake our Science 001 course in summer school and I'll tutor you thru it!

First off, the premise that global warming will affect antarctic sea ice extent by reducing it is faulty. The only antarctic sea ice that remains after a minimum is sea ice caught in gyres allowing it to exist for a time, so basically the sea ice during summer is zero around Antarctica, each year. If it grows larger during a winter, because the winds change to stronger driving sea ice further to sea or there is more snow cover temporally increasing it's quality with increasing temperatures, does it make a difference? It's all going to melt anyway.

The Antarctic has two ice sheet on it the eastern or EAIS and western called WAIS and Greenland has one called GIS. There is also a small one in Patogonia, that's already divided in two. The scientific evidence clearly shows it was warmer, got colder and became warmer.

Oh, it ain't us or whatever you like to believe, but the facts are except for us introducing CO2 into the atmosphere, science has no answer to why our planet is currently warming and not slowly cooling, like it should do.

Of course the models are wrong, but it's the north that will warm much faster than the south just as the models predict, because the models are way too conservative in their predictions and it's the north, where people live, that's a concern for mankind. O' gee, the models are wrong and people like you aren't? Well, that's very comforting!

What the hell do you people want? Do you want cheap energy, then get governments to work together and make thorium MSR reactors. These reactors can't meltdown or be used to easily make nuclear weapons and we've known about them since the '50s. There's 4 times as much thorium on Earth than uranium. Science can only show opportunities and has never had the power to make mankind act. Countries didn't develop thorium technology, because they can't easily make nuclear weapons out of it.

Try a little research on your own and we'll get you thru that Science 001 class! No tutor can take the class for you.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

More evidence of the abject failure of climate models.

The abstract doesn't say abject failure. It says:

suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly.

 

[SSDD]

Your ignorance of physics is your own problem, little retard, as is your inability to comprehend how raising atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas by 40% over pre-industrial levels could have any effect.

If it is true that CO2 is a "powerful" greenhouse gas, then you should be able to show at least one experiment that proves that raising the amount of that gas in an open atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise. We both know, however, that you can't and never will be able to because it simply doesn't happen.

Someone on one of your denier cult blogs told you that particular myth but it is not true. Sadly, you've shown yourself to be much too stupid to understand the science and too ideologically blinded to even try. But here's a good summary of the relevant experiments anyway for those who maybe have more than just two brain cells to rub together.

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Which part of that op ed do you believe is proof of anything other than climate science's willingness to perpetrate a hoax for enough money and your gullibility in believing them?

 

[SSDD]

From the largest scientific society in the world, a society of societies, the American Institute of Physics;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Of course, since this article is written by real scientists, our resident ignoramouses will immediatly dismiss it as part of the grand conspiracy by ___________ to take over the world.

I have asked before which part of that link, or any of the links it refers to do you believe constitutes any sort of proof? Thus far, you haven't answered.

 

[SSDD]

More evidence of the abject failure of climate models.

The abstract doesn't say abject failure. It says:

suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly.

Translation = abject failure...no relation to reality...total BS

 

[RollingThunder]

abject failure...no relation to reality...total BS

Yup....that perfectly describes all of your posts.

 

[Old Rocks]

More evidence of the abject failure of climate models.

The abstract doesn't say abject failure. It says:

suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly.

Translation = abject failure...no relation to reality...total BS

Given the fact that the denialists have had total failure to predict the changing climate, the fact that the present models being worked on by the very meteorologists that are writing these articles shows that this is a science that is still working on getting it right.

Yes, the models predicted more snow than occured over the mainland Antarctica, and less sea ice. They also predicted a far slower melt of Greenland and the Arctic Sea Ice than what we have seen. And the scientists involved weekly write articles stating what the models got wrong, and how they hope to do better using the new information they are discovering.

Science is a self correcting discipline. Unlike you right wing nutters that repeat the same disproven lies over and over again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmers have no science so instead you get insults and the same warmed over stupid and wrong articles

CrazyFruitcake Detector - he pegs the needle with every post he makes.

Why Global Warming "Science" is a total joke

Time to play Thunder's game of Fake Science

Wheel

Of

Climate

Change!