100 Year old Explorer's logbooks Show---Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years

How can it be both less and more ice?

No change in 100 years, but why let hard facts get in the way? Log book from arctic exporers100 years ago show conditions are the same as they were way back then.

Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after pouring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton. Experts were concerned that ice at the South Pole had declined significantly since the 1950s, which they feared was driven by man-made climate change. But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming

www.climatedepot.com...

Well, the Artic isn't fairing so well if some of the articles I've read this week are correct. Of course, I don't know if they are, as I've never been there, but they make for scary reading.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

As designed.

Of course, I don't know if they are, as I've never been there, but they make for scary reading.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

...and lots of $$ for those speculating in the carbon credit market. If it ever comes out that the entire Climate Change movement was merely created to enrich the 1%, at the expense of the 99%, look out. Expect this logbook to be debunked or "lost" very quickly. The truth is a negative profit game these days.

a reply to: seasonal

SHHHHhhhhhh.....you'll screw up everything.

a reply to: seasonal

I'm willing to give scientists the benefit of a doubt.

However I'm also keeping in mind. Most of the data they have is from some 30 years since satellite data began. So they don't have the full picture.

But I will agree that. Pollution is bad. And we really should be working on reducing pollution worldwide.

a reply to: seasonal

Ahh a big can of worms for everyone to eat on Turkey Day.

a reply to: seasonal

Really good find.

And in response to Cobaltic1978: You raise a good point. I chased the links starting
with the one from the OP and was led to an article from October of 2015 on NASA's website.

www.nasa.gov...

They used radar to measure ice thickness and are saying that we're looking at a net gain.

But I agree, with the conflicting info out there it gets scary.

a reply to: IAMTAT

True, there is a lot of $ to be made of off a melting Arctic, and, I guess, there is $ to be made off a non-melting Arctic.

SHHHHhhhhhh.....you'll screw up very thing.

I would be careful If I were you. This could get you charged as a criminal climate change denier by the Environazis. I understand the current penalties for this kind heresy are particularly harsh. I am joking, but not very much.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: IAMTAT

True, there is a lot of $ to be made of off a melting Arctic, and, I guess, there is $ to be made off a non-melting Arctic.

SHHHHhhhhhh.....you'll screw up very thing.

...and LOTS 'n' LOTS of government grant money going to scientists and organizations who push the Globalist Elite's agenda with BullSh#t studies.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

This could get you charged as a criminal climate change denier by the Environazis.

I deny the climate change Nazis, they all have an agenda: To avoid the real elephant in the room, environmental and global pollution.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: CulturalResilience

This could get you charged as a criminal climate change denier by the Environazis.

I deny the climate change Nazis, they all have an agenda: To avoid the real elephant in the room, environmental and global pollution.

I am unable to discern whether you are agreeing or not. Your meaning is not clear to me.

Data fraud in the scientific community preceded the fact fraud we now openly see in the MSM. But almost no one complained or did anything about it. I once thought protecting credibility was of paramount importance to these institutions.

So now, who knows what to believe?

Cry wolf often enough and no one will listen to you when you're actually eaten.

If the anthropogenic GW theory is correct, we are screwed. And if it is not, we will be screwed later on by something else, because no one will believe anything they have to say.

Such is our time.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

As designed.

Of course, I don't know if they are, as I've never been there, but they make for scary reading.

I know, I was being facetious.

I'm sold. Of course some logs made by observation without very accurate positioning technology will be just as accurate as in today's world for placing land mass position.

If you click to the homepage of the OP's link, you will clearly see that website is dedicated entirely to Anti-Climate Change articles. A common ATS debunking tactic...investigate the rest of the works done by the "source".

I have not heard from one scientist on the field saying the opposite of climate change is happening and all the scientific data from charts, graphs, and numbers to samples, photos, and video is all staged; with the amount of people involved it's 1000X as ludicrous as the Moon Landing Hoax!

Check your source. Climatedepot.com is a site devoted to make the average idiot believe man made climate change is a myth.

Some would call it a disinfo site.

originally posted by: game over man
If you click to the homepage of the OP's link, you will clearly see that website is dedicated entirely to Anti-Climate Change articles. A common ATS debunking tactic...investigate the rest of the works done by the "source".

I have not heard from one scientist on the field saying the opposite of climate change is happening and all the scientific data from charts, graphs, and numbers to samples, photos, and video is all staged; with the amount of people involved it's 1000X as ludicrous as the Moon Landing Hoax!

It's well known now that Antarctica is gaining it's ice volume yearly and temperatures are stable with even a decline. Nothing to do with an anti-climate change website 'promoting' these articles.
Facts show otherwise, yet the MSM is still posting articles that in a 100 years time Antarctica will have lost most of it's ice.

There is still a lot to learn about the climate, let's say we barely scratched the surface. Scientists thought a 100 years ago that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will gain 5-10 degrees C worldwide.
I believe they misplaced the digits, temps rose 0.5-1 degrees C since 1900 without taking into account the observation errors.
It's way too early to say, the science is settled.
For some it's settled indeed, those who gain the most out of it.

originally posted by: seasonal
How can it be both less and more ice?

No change in 100 years, but why let hard facts get in the way? Log book from arctic exporers100 years ago show conditions are the same as they were way back then.

Less and more?
They weren't exploring the arctic, which is experienceing a decline.
This is the southern hemisphere, and there is a landmass that isn't present in the north.
This article is only discussing sea ice.
So there can be less and more.

And what about that land ice? The ice that would have an impact on sea level changes?
IS that more or less?