TOT: Arctic to be free of ice by 2013

[Bill Wright]

Bill

[dennis]

We can all find stuff where the warmists got it wrong, it just means they were wrong and holds no value to them.

I find it more of a challenge to find something they got correct to a reasonable margin.

[Matty F]

"Real world Using supercomputers to crunch through possible future outcomes has become a standard part of climate science in recent years.

Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams."

So it's not the real world is it? Are they still paying Professor Maslowski, because they should stop paying him.

[Chris Hogg]

That report from 2007, AIUI the first year that sea ice area was measured by satellite.

The minimum in the area of arctic sea ice for 2013 is quite a lot higher than the record low of 2012, but changes in the minimum area of arctic sea ice are not monotonic: the minimum area does jump around quite a lot, and this year being higher than last year doesn't necessarily change the long-term trend. The data for the next few years will confirm, or rule out, any trend.

See

What I find odd and contradictory is that the long-term trend in the area of antarctic (?antartic*) sea ice is actually increasing. See the above reference and scroll down. How to explain that?

*AIUI antartic (one c) is strictly correct, but everyone uses antarctic these days. I don't know why it was antartic in the first place, or where the name came from.

[F]

They really do need to take a long term view. A very long term view. So long that it's meaningful in terms of how, for example. the geology of the planet changes, not how long it takes the ice in their drinks to melt!

They keep telling us that glaciers are retreating. That's true for some, but others (more than a few in Svalbard) are subject to glacial surge where the glacier gets stuck until the accumulating weight high up is sufficient to unstick it. When it's stuck, the toe melts back and the glacier retreats. When it unsticks the glacier advances. Nothing to do with 'global warming' (sic).

and a really good video at the Svalbard Museum in Longyearbyen explains.

It's Antarctic as in Antarctica. I've been there. It's the yanks wot carn't spel. 'Color' (sic), 'canceled' (sic) etc. Check

and for confirmation.

I'll check out the expansion of the sea ice in January when I'm there next :-)

[Tim Streater]

No, you have it back to front. Arctic and Antarctic are the correct names, but there are some people who appear unable to pronounce the first "c". Perhaps they are wannabee Pythonists.

I am as I type looking at a map of Antarctica on the opposite wall. Published by National Geographic in 1987.

[Andrew Gabriel]

My Shorter Oxford English Dictionary says both are correct, with antarctic preferred.

Occurs in Late Middle English (1350-1469) as Antarctica Also old french antartique, Latin antarcticus, Greek antarktikos. (It meant southern continent, not specifically the antarctic, which wasn't discovered then.)

So it looks like it originally had the 'c' sound, and the french dropped it at some point. English draws on lots of sources of course, including all of these.

[Richard]

A pox on those French unts.

[David.WE.Roberts]

Bill - if you are going to post the same link and topic in two NGs (or perhaps more) it would be helpful if you cross-posted instead of starting two separate threads.

Makes the general following of comments much easier.

Thanks

Dave R

[The Natural Philosopher]

there are no examples of that at all that I have found.

[polygonum]

Why on earth (ha!) would it ever have been "antartic"? Unless the other side was "artic". We all know where that leads...

[Nightjar]

On 09/11/2013 09:48, Chris Hogg wrote: ...

Nobody is sure. Suggestions include changes in wind circulation, due to warmer oceans, and the hole in the ozone layer causing localised cooling.

Colin Bignell

[The Natural Philosopher]

Actually it has been explained somewhere.

the differences are due to the fact that Antarctica is wholly surrounded by oceans..one of the Svensmark models I think showed that losses in the Arctic would be balanced by gains in Antarctica..Of course this requires that you junk CO2 as the main influence on climate :-)

In short the 'no one can explain' is actually the 'IPCC theory of CO2 dominated climate change cannot explain'..

Once you look at more complex models that have more and different drivers, it starts to be quite explicable.

[The Medway Handyman]

Won't the hole in the ozone layer have killed us all before that becomes a problem?

[newshound]

That's if this didn't get us first

[The Medway Handyman]

We're doomed Captain Mainwaring, doomed...

[Nightjar]

I didn't say it can't be explained. The problem is that there is more than one explanation and, until one of those can be demonstrated to be true, nobody is sure.

Colin Bignell

[The Natural Philosopher]

Science doesn't work like that. Demonstrably science has proved the CO2 hypothesis essentially WRONG. Alternatives are on offer, but none have the outrageous chutzpah to suggest that 'the science is settled'....

[Bill Wright]

I was under the impression that cross-posting was a sin. Is it not? I never could think why it should be a sin, but my past experience of other matters* has been that things I regarded as harmless fun were in facts seen by my moral superiors as sins.

*1954: Throwing Janet Green into the nettles because she wet her pants in class. 1959: Running a book on an arranged fight in the coal bunker. 1962: Sneaking into the Sunday School hut and putting drawing pins on every felt hammer in the piano. 1968: [redacted]

Bill

[harryagain]