How's this for a laugh, Anthony Watts (WUWT) was asked by a third party to help with a weather forecast to see when the Akademik Shokalsky should be able to move due to wind change. He was out shopping when he received the message, so rushed back to his office, but his help was ignored. He reported that the wind would be favourable within a few days, which it was. Had his advice been heeded, it could have saved the expense of the "rescue" that ensued and saved other ships from getting stranded, not to mention a massive saving in fuel and CO2 emissions.
As ice pack melts, it will move into the ocean and refreeze. This is not a huge temperature window. So little is really known about Antarctic weather and climate that it makes a bad example for either side to use because the records are so scant and scattered. They also have volcanic activity under the ice pack which may be part of the cause of the melt. I really don't know that correlation exists, let alone causation. The AGW theorists have a duty to prove their theory and disprove competing theories, and they have only managed to do that with others in their group-thinking way. I don't rule out AGW, but I don't accept it either. I also do not believe that we can do anything about it one way or the other. Civilization will adapt to rising temperatures far more readily than it would to no petrol fuels and in a much shorter window.
His point was it isn't quite global. Meaning one region or area to another it could vary quite a bit. As for the arctic or antarctic ice, it could be a number of things the most obvious being weather in a given region may be different than another..
Is there any evidence for this. The southern hemisphere had a ferocious summer last year followed by a fairly mild winter, yet the sea ice continued to expand. Why?
someday, science-deniers will learn that higher temperatures allow for more precipitation and thicker ice.
Warmmongers argue in the moment and it never occurs to them that their present argument might contradict their previous more important arguments.
Uh yes there is evidence of this, go outside. Notice your weather may different than another area.. Pretty obvious really... Also your argument is actually showing my point that an area may have different weather than another area. The sea ice grew despite a warmer summer and mild winter in the southern hemisphere, weather at work. The sea ice growth has more to do with water temperature than it would atmospheric temperature or regional weather. Perhaps some very warm water came into the area. Or perhaps the salinity dropped. A lot of things effect sea ice.
Your warmer-science has maintained that Arctic ice loss has been due to the warming planet.. And according to warmer-science, the Antarctic sea ice may have grown, but at the same time the Antarctic land ice has thinned again due to a warming planet. Which seems to oppose your claim... Ya know I really wish you guys would get your story straight. It seems like global warming causes everything and everything is evidence of global warming.. Ice loss? Global warming. Ice growth? Global warming. Warming global warming, cooling global warming... Talk about a safe bet...
Which is proving my point. The poster I responded to claimed the expanding sea ice is direct proof there is no warming. The sea ice in the area has been expanding since the late 1940's despite evidence of general warming on the continent and in spite of the year to year temperature changes both warm and colder That is why the graph he presented uses the word anomaly, because that is exactly what it is
ArndB permalink January 12, 2014 12:30 am @” Nowadays, charlatans try to make us believe otherwise.” Only few decades ago scientists on atmospheric issues were not necessarily more competent, but more honest, if one considers the following two comments from HH Lamp (1969) and F. Kenneth Hare (1979): __“Only thirty years ago climatology was generally regarded as the mere dry-as-dust bookkeeping end of meteorology.” H.H. Lamb, Meteorological Office Bracknell, Berkshire (UK), “The New Look of Climatology”, NATURE, Vol. 223, September 20, 1969, pp.1209ff; __“This is obviously the decade in which climate is coming into its own. You hardly heard the word professionally in the 1940s. It was a layman’s word. Climatologists were the halt and the lame. And as for the climatologists in public service, in the British service you actually, had to be medically disabled in order to get into the climatological division ! Climatology was a menial occupation that came on the pecking scale somewhat below the advertising profession. It was clearly not the age of climate.” F. Kenneth Hare, 1979; „The Vaulting of Intellectual Barriers: The Madison Thrust in Climatology“, Bulletin American Meteorological Society , Vol. 60, 1979, p. 1171 – 1124
Federal Government to seek full cost recovery for Antarctic expedition rescue Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt yesterday said costs, estimated at about $2.4 million, would be sought from the insurer of the operators of the vessel. The MV Akademik Shokalskiy, chartered by the University of NSW-associated Australasian Antarctic Expedition to retrace the steps of explorer Sir Douglas Mawson, became stuck in thick sea ice on Christmas Eve. The 52 passengers were rescued by the Aurora Australis on January 2. Mr Hunt said the Commonwealth would seek compensation for the recovery effort. “We will be seeking full cost recovery through insurers for the up to $2.4 million costs incurred by the Australian government,” he said. “We have a duty to protect life at sea and we do that willingly. “However, what we see here is that there are some questions as to whether or not the ship was detained by the action of those on board within an area the captain had identified as potentially being subject to being frozen in. “I think we have a duty on behalf of taxpayers to seek full cost recovery.” Source: Federal Government to seek full cost recovery for Antarctic expedition rescue | News.com.au
