so many lies by little crick
Large variations from year to year often occur, and they are usually the result of wind patterns, which either blow away from the continent, thus pushing ice outwards, or towards it.
wattsupwiththat.com
The hypothesis for Antarctic sea ice fluctuations is that warmer temperatures over the (little) Wast and (huge) East Ice Sheets cause more melting, hence more sea ice. But it’s rarely above freezing on the EAIS. The South Pole has enjoyed no warming since continuous records began there in 1958
So, let's have a look at the WUWT article to which you linked. It begins with a screen capture from a Bloomberg story (which I will not reproduce here) on the same Antarctic sea ice shortfall discussed in the OP. There is a paywall at Bloomberg and I do not have access to it. The WUWT article is short enough that we can post the entire thing here in its entirety.
It’s strange that scientists were not panicking about going into an imminent ice age in 2014, when Antarctic sea ice was at a record high!
Large variations from year to year often occur, and they are usually the result of wind patterns, which either blow away from the continent, thus pushing ice outwards, or towards it.
We only started collecting data in 1979, so the idea that any of this is unprecedented or concerning is nonsense. In fact, the claims of a six-sigma event are fraudulent; you would need thousands of years of data to calculate the statistical significance of this event.
Meanwhile, aforesaid scientists seem to have gone very quiet about their favourite scare, the Arctic, where the ice refuses to disappear as ordered:
AND.... that's it. So Paul Homewood, the author, gives us:
1) What-aboutism: Scientists not fearing an imminent ice age in 2014 from rising sea ice extents. This record high was noted in the OP's linked article.
2) An observation that wind patterns affects ice extents but makes NO attempt to demonstrate this has been the case here. Wind pattern's effects on sea ice are noted in the Guardian article in the OP.
3) Claims that it would require thousands of years of data to calculate the statistical significance of this event. This contention is completely false. I don't have access to the Bloomberg article to which WUWT is responding, but their use of "Six Sigma" is certainly hyperbolic and may have occasioned copyright concerns.
4) More What-aboutism concerning Arctic ice extents with the most blatantly cherry-picked graphic I've ever seen. I first thought that to be a joke.
And, of course, on the basis of this article, thrown up against the Guardian article to which I linked in the OP, Elektra accuses me of lying. Interestingly, as you will see, Elektra had not read the Guardian article when he accused me of lying by linking to it.
An interesting and rather sad point is that no one seems to have noticed that my Guardian link in the OP was incomplete and did not work. Here is a working link to the Guardian article from the OP
Some scientists fear the ‘shocking’ shift is the beginning of a global heating-linked collapse of the ice that could have alarming knock-on effects
www.theguardian.com
This article is several times the size of the WUWT whine and contains other graphics like this one.
