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

a reply to: seasonal

Well considering one of the soul reason why the south pole is so cold is due to it's ocean currents swirling around and around the continent it's no wonder nothing has happened. Even if the earth was raising in temperature, the one place that would see the least amount of change, would be Antarctica.
In theory, if the ice everywhere else on the earth was melting it should accumulate in south pole regions, the only way it would melt is if it (the entire continent) moved and the ocean currents changed, or, if the over all earth temperature rose significantly in a small span of time.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Which is precisely the point of the exercise. You're supposed to be alarmed, and since it's rather difficult to make a weekend trip to the arctic...you can't really see for yourself. You're being forced to rely on information that can be, shall we say, biased to a certain extent.

I lived and worked for a year above the Arctic Circle--twenty years plus ago, now--and you really don't travel there on a whim...

Many, I won't say all, of these climate alarmist are merely parroting what they've been told, or read--they've never been there. They don't know any more than most of us. They're operating from an agenda, either for climate change, or against.

The ice, from my limited experience, fluctuates from year to year, as might be expected. If the ice doesn't, seemingly, reach the Pribilof Islands every year it's doom and gloom, the earth is dying.

The global climate changes, that's nature in action. ...and we, like the polar bear is doing, adapt. Or we'll die. It really is that simple. Red of claw and tooth.

Climate change turned a vast area of fertile land into the Sahara Desert, and man could not be blamed for that.

I know the climate is changing, but to turn it into a money making scheme for a futile project, is so ridiculous.

Wow, do people really buy this? There's a difference from sea/land ice volume, and sea/land ice area. That the article mentions not once volume should be a red flag that this is propaganda.

Scientists have known for a while that volume is decreasing, and ice is breaking off from land, reforming on the surrounding surface.

a reply to: grey580

The problem is both sides have scientists that swear it is or isn't happening.

So who do you want to give the benefit of the doubt?

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

a reply to: IAMTAT

Ahhhh the $$$$, that is why these climate scientists report like their jobs depend on it. The Govt grants, that sweet sweet tax payer money, it just ain't for bankers anymore.

...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: SignalMal
Decreasing?
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

NASA Study Shows Global Sea Ice Diminishing, Despite Antarctic Gains

Ice gain vs ice loss is still greater, yet it has been slowing down in the last decades

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

Who is going to tell what is going to happen in the next decades? The models? You can't put a reliability stamp on trends, right?
Modeling a chaotic system is nearly impossible imo as it has been shown many times in the past.
What is going to happen in the future is a big mystery, there are too many (unknown) variables.
Not only on this planet but in the entire solar system.
With the Sun 'going to sleep' who knows how this will affect our planet?

Another question in ask myself is why the MSM tells us or focuses on the fact that the biggest threat from melting sea ice is sea-level rise. That would actually be the positive part of it i believe(for the economy). Cities will have to be relocated which creates millions of new jobs f.e.
A more serious threat from sea ice melt is that it can mess up/disrupt the oceans circulation which can lead to a global cooling rather than a warming. Although i believe if it happens gradually there won't be too much problem, but still.
Global catastrophes are much more common than think.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Very true, how can a computer model realistically determine a future? I laugh when these people on both sides make it sound like it is scientific fact that something is going to happen when it is a tax payer funded guess.

a reply to: seasonal

I love listening to all the hardcore climate change crowd telling us how we need a carbon tax. Meanwhile I watch the mountains above my house puking out huge plumes of smoke as the Department of Natural Resources does open burning of slash piles. Back in Florida they burned hundreds of acres a week to prevent wild fires.

Forgive me for getting nervous when the government starts talking about taxing something I exhale.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Hmm, could have sworn I've seen reports that sea Ice area in the Antarctic was high while the volume was lowering, ie the depth of the ice was decreasing over time. I could be wrong. The trend is with an overall decrease in global volume of sea ice as your links show.

Well, the complex system has a multitude of variables, and GHG are only a few in it. We're interacting with this system, and while I would agree nature can with ease trump our actions overall, we are also capable of mucking with that system and changing the course of earth's climate.

Personally, I'm not all too concerned with climate change, because I have hopes we'll explore the galaxy and have more options before we thrash this place too much.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

True, that doesn't mean i am on board with burning gas in cars and putting exhaust in our atmosphere, Pi$$ing in my drinking water well seems to be very similar.

And carbon taxes are being done to make people $, that's it.

How about not building one aircraft carrier and let's get this energy thing off the ground and away from burning stuff we take out of the ground? Like thorium reactors? The reactors are safe, very build-able and no radiation like the present nuclear plants.

a reply to: seasonal

Morano left Inhofe and became the proprietor of the website "Climate Depot." Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, an Exxon funded think tank

Says it all really .

a reply to: hutch622

Maybe about as objective as Gore, who made huge $ off global warming, oops climate change.

a reply to: seasonal

a reply to: hutch622

27 years is a very short period of time, If this is real, and is showing us the ice loss, why would there be videos on both sides?

And this isn't an argument, there is little we can do with the power structure as it is.

I really think this is politics, control and $$$.

a reply to: hutch622

It is futile with some.

Confirmation bias is blinding to many.

The same 'Think tanks' who defended cigarettes are also using the same deception strategies to argue anthropogenic climate change is just a libtard conspiracy to tax us to death.

I do not know how they can properly gauge anything with any certainty, before satellite imaging..especially 100yrs ago.
I'm not saying one way or the other what is true. I do believe thing's are changing, I don't believe charging carbon credits is going to fix anything ..just a cash grab for the most part.

Well they say that a picture says a thousand words . . . so I'll leave here a few pictures to tell a story. It is kind of funny that the older pictures have more water and less ice. I especially like the one where the submarine is being attacked by a polar bear. Not having taken these myself, I sadly cannot verify them, but they all claim to be at or near the North Pole.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: grey580

The problem is both sides have scientists that swear it is or isn't happening.

So who do you want to give the benefit of the doubt?

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

The vast majority are in the side of humans contributing to climate change.