Polar ice at record highs, but…but…global warming!

Everything from the increase of extreme weather events to the decrease of extreme weather events is attributed to Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming, or AGW for short.  Well it it seems global warming also causes record amounts of ice at the Poles.

(Washington Post) — Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.

On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site.  That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978.

The same is true for the Antarctic’s counter-pole.  There is nearly 1 million more square miles of ice in the Arctic than at this same time last year.

(DailyMail) — A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.

In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’.

The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter  climate change.

Rather than admit the idea that man is responsible for warming temperatures, climate activists prefer to dismiss contrary data.

The case against AGW grows stronger every day.


  1. I don’t know if global warming is man made, whether the whole thing is blown out of proportion, or just a natural cycle – but I see no real advantage of a bunch of scientists getting together to make this stuff up. I also see no real disadvantage of having a cleaner environment with less emissions from humans. So this is kind of a non-issue to me either way.

    The only thing that bothers me is when Global Warming is used as a political tool.

    • Funding and job security.

    • Also theres a confirmation bias. If theyre convinced they will filter any and all information through the idea that its true. Any deviant data is dismissed as anomaly.

      • Holden (the co-author of my blog) is a geographer and somewhat of a scientist himself. He is a conservative guy. He thinks that global warming is real and that 99% of the science coming out of the GW community is good science. I don’t think there is a mass conspiracy going on in the scientific community. Most likely – humans combined with nature – are having a real effect on the earth over the long run. In general, we need to invest in alternate forms of energy and treat the environment better. So it just seems like one of those issues that even if GW is a hoax – the underlying principals are still okay. So I never worry too much about it.

  2. There is really no “case against AGW”. There are facts associated with climate and global warming that are consistent with AGW and established climate science that seem counter intuitive to people who do not understand climate science. These facts can then be presented as being “proof” that AGW is not happening even though there is no inconsistency with established climate science.
    Of course, the great thing for “climate deniers” is that every time someone points this out they can just say that AGW predicts EVERYTHING and that scientists just make up excuses. This is not so- but it sure sounds plausible to people who don’t understand science.
    Science and simple observation have shown that a short period of cooling is not only possible but probable and predictable. An increase in Antarctic sea ice has also been predicted by scientists as far back as the mid 2000’s. The reason deniers latch onto these things is because to the average person they seem to be contrary to what THEY might expect of a warming planet. But they are not contrary to what the experts predict will happen.
    If you take the time to learn at least a little about climate science, you find that there has never been an observation that falls outside of climate models. If the scientists are predicting things and they are actually happening- what could possibly explain that other than the theory that they know better than you what is changing the climate?

    • The models have been way off. Nearly all of them from as early as a decade ago was predicting much warmer temps by now and MUCH less polar ice than now. The models used to predict falling skies are way off, they are also what people based the hysteria on…and that’s the problem.

  3. If I were to give you conclusive proof that you are wrong that climate scientists did not predict a potential slowing of observed average global temperatures and an increase in Antarctic sea ice- would you accept that you might be wrong?
    When would these studies have to have been published in order to sway you that scientists are not “changing their minds for the convenience of their pet theory”?

    • It is my understanding that none of the climatologists who are pressing AGW had predicted a warming reversal or hiatus ant time prior to it actually happening. If they had in fact predicted this, how then could they blame man for it all?

      If you were to have the climate scientists on record predicting the slowdown and stopping of the warming prior to it happening — mid 90s — I’d be happy to concede they predicted it.

      What I’ve seen, is the models offered predicted ever increasing warming, and melted ice caps.

  4. If you read the IPCC report and look at the handy graph they published, observed temperatures have consistently fallen in line with FAR projections (from the 1990 report of the IPCC). This should satisfy your objection.
    The likely future increase in Antarctic ice cover was discussed in a peer reviewed paper published in 2005.
    So models have not contradicted observed temperatures from projections as far back as 1990 and scientists discussed the likelihood of increased Antarctic sea ice back in 2005.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: