[Jabberwalker]

As the Antarctic warms up, it is logical that the snowfall there will increase. Warmer air can carry more water vapour in from the ocean around. The glaciers may surge a bit as precip. increases.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well then no offense, but you're not paying attention. This is from NSIDC



http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html

Yeah, like I said, not much of a signal. You referred to "record growth." That doesn't look like "record growth" to me. Certainly not nearly as clear a signal as arctic ice.

[N_Fiddledog]

When there is more ice than there has been in recorded history that is a record.

Now it's true you don't have data manipulators here with that ice graph like James Hansen with his temperature fantasy graphs to smooth out the curves by lessening the old and increasing the new, or making a tenth of a degree look like a whole degree, then offering a graph with an elongated vertical axis. But basically if there is no record growth in Antarctic ice extant, there is no record warmth in global temperatures.

But that argument is only for funsies. Let's get back to the actual argument. My argument in reference to this new paper is not that the data is not remarkable. My argument is they lack actual data. They are infilling large areas with data they invent with magic math. In that way it is like the now mocked, once glorified, Steig et al study. In fact now that you mention it, it is also similar to Mann's stuff in that it lacks actual data for support, and relies on made up math.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

When there is more ice than there has been in recorded history that is a record.

Now it's true you don't have data manipulators here with that ice graph like James Hansen with his temperature fantasy graphs to smooth out the curves by lessening the old and increasing the new, or making a tenth of a degree look like a whole degree, then offering a graph with an elongated vertical axis. But basically if there is no record growth in Antarctic ice extant, there is no record warmth in global temperatures.

What do you mena by "recorded history"? The instrumental record goes back to 1979, during which Antarctic ice has been growing at about 1% per decade. Arctic ice in the same time period has been declining around 12% per decade.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-announces-new-record-growth-of-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/

$1:

The result is based on data from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) on board of the Japanese satellite “GCOM-W1″. “The winter maximum has been a record for on the second consecutive year” said Walt Meier, a meteorologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. However, he stressed that it is by no means a rapid growth: The now measured maximum extent is only 3.6 percent above the average maximum extent of 1981 to 2010. “This year, the ice edge extends therefore only 35 kilometres further out to sea than in an average year,” Meier said.

Moreover, the mere extent of sea ice does not necessarily say something about the volume of the ice, because that also depends on the thickness of the frozen layer. And the vast majority of the Antarctic ice mass is located on the Antarctic continent – and there the ice has decreased in recent years as a whole, particularly in West Antarctica.

$1:

But that argument is only for funsies. Let's get back to the actual argument. My argument in reference to this new paper is not that the data is not remarkable. My argument is they lack actual data. They are infilling large areas with data they invent with magic math. In that way it is like the now mocked, once glorified, Steig et al study. In fact now that you mention it, it is also similar to Mann's stuff in that it lacks actual data for support, and relies on made up math.

Yeah, that study doesn't do much for me.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What do you mena by "recorded history"? The instrumental record goes back to 1979, during which Antarctic ice has been growing at about 1% per decade. Arctic ice in the same time period has been declining around 12% per decade.

Very well, let's have this argument. Let's agree though, it has nothing to do with the point of the actual thread. I don't want some Prog popping up and telling me I created a strawman. I didn't. You want to go there. I'll go with you.

OK, so I don't know how what you're talking about was measured, but have you ever seen it measured out graphically? There's a well known graph showing north versus south, versus global. The downward slope of global sea ice is just not that impressive. As I recall the graph is too big to post here, but you can see it at Watt's sea ice reference page here.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pa ... -ice-page/

I also stumbled on this post concerning record Antarctic highs, which is what you are having a problem with, and my only real point as far as that is concerned is they exist.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/s ... h-of-2007/

[N_Fiddledog]

2013 was an interesting year - Second Largest Gain In Sea Ice On Record – Averaging 462 Manhattans Above Normal In 2013.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013 ... l-in-2013/

There's a link to the data if you want to add it up yourself.

[Jabberwalker]

$1:

Averaging 462 Manhattans Above Normal In 2013.

Is with or without the maraschino cherry garnish on top?

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Why does it always take 1 page of ad Hominem arguments to get people to focus on the message and not the messenger?

Because that's what you do when you can't refute the data...

[N_Fiddledog]

bootlegga bootlegga:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Why does it always take 1 page of ad Hominem arguments to get people to focus on the message and not the messenger?

Because that's what you do when you can't refute the data...

What data? Infilling with made up numbers is not data.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Very well, let's have this argument. Let's agree though, it has nothing to do with the point of the actual thread. I don't want some Prog popping up and telling me I created a strawman. I didn't. You want to go there. I'll go with you.

OK, so I don't know how what you're talking about was measured, but have you ever seen it measured out graphically? There's a well known graph showing north versus south, versus global. The downward slope of global sea ice is just not that impressive. As I recall the graph is too big to post here, but you can see it at Watt's sea ice reference page here.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pa ... -ice-page/

I also stumbled on this post concerning record Antarctic highs, which is what you are having a problem with, and my only real point as far as that is concerned is they exist.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/s ... h-of-2007/

I'm not arguing whether the sea ice extent in the Arctic or Antarctic is "impressive" or not. I'm saying that the Arctic ice extent is decreasing about 12% per decade since 1979, and the Antarctic ice has increased at around 1% per decade. Actually the 12% number seems high, now I've looked into it. The numbers are done for different months and apparently range from 2.6% to 13.0% depending on the month.

[N_Fiddledog]

It doesn't matter anyway. My reference to the Antartic was as support to a relevant point of similar studies to the one in the OP contradicting what would seem to be reality, and proven to be bogus. That background was the claim the Antarctic has reached record sea ice extents lately, and it has.

http://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.co ... 1024&h=682

[Jabberwalker]

As it warms up, it should snow more in the Arctic/Antarctic because warmer air carries more water vapour. Both the North and South Polar regions are surrounded by frozen deserts.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

It doesn't matter anyway. My reference to the Antartic was as support to a relevant point of similar studies to the one in the OP contradicting what would seem to be reality, and proven to be bogus. That background was the claim the Antarctic has reached record sea ice extents lately, and it has.

http://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.co ... 1024&h=682

Yes well you said record growth in recorded history. I was just pointing out that it was actually record growth since 1979.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

It doesn't matter anyway. My reference to the Antartic was as support to a relevant point of similar studies to the one in the OP contradicting what would seem to be reality, and proven to be bogus. That background was the claim the Antarctic has reached record sea ice extents lately, and it has.

http://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.co ... 1024&h=682

Yes well you said record growth in recorded history. I was just pointing out that it was actually record growth since 1979.

That is recorded history for sea ice extent. Only satellites have been able to offer a reliable record.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

That is recorded history for sea ice extent. Only satellites have been able to offer a reliable record.

Oh OK, I thought by "recorded history" you meant the past 5000 years or so.