Scott and Shackleton logbooks prove Antarctic sea ice is not shrinking 100 years after expeditions

Posted: November 24, 2016 by oldbrew in research, sea ice
Tags: ,

What is shrinking – with evidence like this – is the credibility of current IPCC-led global warming theories.


By Paul Homewood

h/t Green Sand


An interesting article in the Telegraph:

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.

Scott's ship the Terra Nova

Scott’s ship the Terra Nova

It also explains why sea ice levels in the South Pole have begun to rise again in recent years, a trend which has left climate scientists scratching their heads.

“The missions of Scott and…

View original post 638 more words

  1. oldbrew says:

    Even the BBC report is forced to admit:
    ‘But the log books of the “heroic explorers” show that over the long term, the amount of [Antarctic sea] ice has changed very little. It has merely ebbed and flowed.’

    ‘Merely’. Not something climate alarmists want to talk about in public really 😐

  2. John F. Munro, PhD says:

    What organization do you represent and what is your credibility? I am not buying your silliness.

  3. oldbrew says:

    John F: we’re quoting media reports. Suit yourself if you don’t like what they find.

    PS there is no organization, just a few private citizens.

  4. catweazle666 says:

    Poor attempt at shooting the messenger, John F.

    Perhaps if you had bothered to read the article instead of going off half-cocked you might have learned that the original source was Nature (a publication I presume you are familiar with), and you could have saved yourself some embarrassment.

    PS What organization do you represent and what is your credibility?

    Nothing of any particular consequence, I suspect.

  5. E.M.Smith says:

    @John F. & Oldbrew:

    I would assert there is organization, but not an organization.

    IMHO, Global Warming Skeptics are an example of a “self organizing system”. Like free markets and ecosystems; even potluck Thanksgiving dinner (that we at the Smith’s will be doing in a few hours… I’m doing the turkey and a surprise pie 😉 In some ways the most efficient and effective systems on the planet.

    So looking for The Organization is a bit of a fools errand. ..

    With that, happy American schedule Thanksgiving to all!

    [reply] cheers EM!

  6. oldbrew says:

    catweazle: my intro didn’t go down too well with our friend it seems.

    But with a net zero change to Antarctic sea ice in 100 years (‘It has merely ebbed and flowed’ – BBC) there is some explaining to do 😎

  7. craigm350 says:

    Well since we’re doubting credibility the paper I found was hardly a surprise;

    PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FIELD: The Inevitability of Global Climate Change: Lessons from Political and Economic Theory

    Despite the growing number empirical studies (and scientific consensus) pointing to the devastating impacts of global warming (Peterson, Stott, and Herring, 2012), the evolution of leading atmospheric scientists and scientific organizations (e.g., American Meteorological Society) into advocates for programs and policies that mitigate carbon-based emissions, the climate-related concerns of some business leaders, and the prominence given climate change in President Barack Obama’s second inaugural address, we must recognize that fundamental climate policy change will not occur in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, intransigence, disinterest, imaginary thinking, and inaction characterize both national and international political decision making when it comes to passing policies to reduce carbon emissions significantly.


    Somehow I don’t think the new administration will be buying this silliness


  8. Chaeremon says:

    SCNR, “From the Restoration in 1660, to the end of World War II, the Royal society enforced the scientific method. If you wanted respect and esteem as a scientist, you had to tell us new and interesting things, and you had to show everyone how you knew these new and interesting things from what you saw with your eyes and touched with your hands.
    After World War II, Harvard got the upper hand over the Royal Society, and you no longer have to show your work.
    Instead, your work must be approved by the most holy synod of mother church — in other words, must pass peer review behind closed doors. Peer Review is new. Attempts to root it in the past of science before World War II are artificial and contrived. Somehow we obtained almost all of science that matters before we had peer review, and since we have had peer review, things have started to go terribly wrong with science.
    Peer Review is ‘science’ by social consensus, and Galileo told us that that does not work.”

  9. oldmanK says:

    I have already posted this in another thread, but still makes useful reading — here, just page 3.

    There is a hell of a lot that still needs to be discarded and reviewed anew. In many areas. And the sooner the better. Worryingly an interview on CNN said the young ‘Millennials’ are turning to religious dogma for guidance.

  10. ren says:

    We have a strong magnetic storm and another strong earthquake.

  11. oldbrew says:

    Booker: ‘what is going on at the bottom of the world is the most embarrassing single flaw in the whole global warming theory.’

  12. thefordprefect says:

    1. I think you will find both arctic and Antarctic sea ice areas are all low. Antarctic is consistently low. Arctic is low and doing strange surges in area. DMI temperatures are also odd for 80+N.doing a quick high temperature flip this month and still 10 to 15°C above average.

    2. With regard to ships logs.
    It is very difficult assessing the whole of Antarctica when it would take weeks to circumnavigate the land mass.

    Sea ice does not grow and shrink evenly round the continent.This is one rather useful output of those satellites that NASA puts up for $millions which Trump wants to kill – the whole continent can be mapped in only a few days.
    using logs will only give you a guesstimate for the total scene.

  13. catweazle666 says:

    “I think you will find both arctic and Antarctic sea ice areas are all low.”

    I think not.

    “Antarctic is consistently low.”

    No it isn’t.

    Stop making stuff up.

    “those satellites that NASA puts up for $millions which Trump wants to kill “

    More BS.

  14. tchannon says:

    “John F. Munro, PhD says:
    November 24, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    What organization do you represent and what is your credibility? I am not buying your silliness.”

    You first Mr Munro.

  15. oldbrew says:

    2015 Antarctic Maximum Sea Ice Extent Breaks Streak of Record Highs

    [2015] – ‘this year’s maximum extent is both the 22nd lowest and the 16th highest. More remarkably, this year’s maximum is quite a bit smaller than the previous three years, which correspond to the three highest maximum extents in the satellite era, and is also the lowest since 2008.’ [bold added]

    With a big El Niño running into 2016 nobody would expect Antarctic sea ice figures to be breaking any maximums this year. However the Antarctic dipole could be a confounding factor.

    ‘Numerous studies suggest a strong link between the tropical El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon and Antarctic sea ice variability’

  16. Brett Keane says:

    @tchannon says:
    November 25, 2016 at 4:57 pm: Yes, I see. Mr Munro is one of the propagandist taskforce of ‘useful idiots’. If he has ever met the Poisson Relation, it never sunk in. Or, he just might not care….Hopefully, this may change; don’t care may be made to care.