AGW Arctic Sea Ice Propaganda in 4 Easy Steps with an added bonus.
The Yellow is the amount of ice where 2012 was higher than 2007.
The Pink is the amount of ice where 2007 was higher than 2012.
One of those areas is an indicator of the end of the world according to AGW. The other area is to be ignored.
AGW Arctic Sea Ice Propaganda in 4 Easy Steps
Notice which years beat out September 2012 … 5 from the 1930s … 3 from the 1920s. 1897. 1906. Not much evidence of “dangerous warming” this September.
Once upon a time there was a global average temperature set call HADCRUT3.
HADCRUT3 loved 1998. 4 out of the top 10 warmest months were from 1998.
| year | month | anomaly |
| 1998 | Jul | 0.671 |
| 1998 | Apr | 0.647 |
| 2007 | Jan | 0.61 |
| 2002 | Mar | 0.609 |
| 1998 | Jun | 0.606 |
| 2002 | Jan | 0.598 |
| 2010 | Mar | 0.583 |
| 2010 | Apr | 0.571 |
| 2003 | Oct | 0.566 |
| 1998 | Mar | 0.548 |
And then along came HADCRUT4 whose primary purpose seems to be to make sure the graph of the last 15 years slopes up instead of down.
HADCRUT4 hates 1998. Not only did 2 months from 1998 drop out of the top 10, but Jan 2007 was made .208C warmer than the old Jan 2007.
| year | month | anomaly |
| 2007 | Jan | 0.818 |
| 2002 | Mar | 0.689 |
| 2006 | Dec | 0.687 |
| 2010 | Apr | 0.673 |
| 2010 | Mar | 0.662 |
| 1998 | Jul | 0.66 |
| 2002 | Jan | 0.66 |
| 1998 | Apr | 0.611 |
| 2003 | Oct | 0.602 |
| 2010 | Jul | 0.601 |
Why? I have no idea.
Paul Homewood has more. Take note of his footnote. There are no new stations in Antarctica. It looks like maybe 6 new stations south of the equator … and we know it is cooling in the south.
Experts: Global warming means more Antarctic ice (h/t Marc Morano)
“This subtle growth in winter sea ice since scientists began measuring it in 1979 was initially surprising, they say, but makes sense the more it is studied.”
Translation: It was embarrassing us, so we’ll make something up.
“A warming world can have complex and sometimes surprising consequences,”
Translation: Antarctica is cooling, we don’t know why, so we will claim it is warming.
“”It sounds counterintuitive, but the Antarctic is part of the warming as well.”
Translation: More Ice = Warming and Less Ice = Warming. Our scam wins either way!
“But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be paying attention to it and shouldn’t be talking about it.”
Translation: We ignored the records in 2006 and 2012 and finally a few bloggers embarrassed us so much about 2012 that we had our buddy Seth Borenstein make up some crap.
“Antarctica’s weather peculiarities, on the other hand, don’t have much effect on civilization.”
Translation: It threatens our gravy train of grant money so we kept quiet about it.
“And the wind works in combination with the ozone hole, the huge gap in Earth’s protective ozone layer that usually appears over the South Pole”
Translation: We plan to ignore the ozone hole over the Arctic … which we never predicted either.
“Antarctic sea ice is also getting snowier because climate change has allowed the air to carry more moisture.
Guffaw.
“Winter sea ice has grown by about 1 percent a decade in Antarctica. ”
Actually, only one year before 1998 (1980 had 3) had days over 19 million sq km of Antarctic Ice. 2006 had 30 and 2012 had 28.
“computer models have long predicted that Antarctica would not respond as quickly to global warming as other places. ”
Translation; Models said it would melt too. Our models are crap.
“Scientists on the cruise with Maksym are spending eight to 12 hours a day on the ice bundled up against the fierce wind with boots that look like Bugs Bunny’s feet.”
Translation: Clown Feet would be more appropriate.
HADCRUT4 is the new Met Office dataset designed to replaced HADCRUT3. Why do they need to replace HADCRUT3?
Because the trend for the last 15 years in HADCRUT3 is negative and therefore it must be exterminated – like the Medieval Warming Period.
The following graph compares HADCRUT4 to HADCRUT3. (Click for a larger version)
Take note of the following:
1) HADCRUT3 and HADCRUT4 overlaps until about 2002 with minor differences.
2) For some reason, after 2002, there appears to be corrections of .1 to .2C. Why was the data ok in 1997-2002 and suddenly it was so bad it had to be “corrected”.
3) What justifies a .2C adjustment up in 2007? Thats 40% higher!
4) Every place a red line is well above the blue they have adjusted up to make the the “new dataset” hotter.
5) HADCRUT3 trend (the dashed line) was negative (-.016C/Decade). HADCRUT4 is positive (.033C/Decade).
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent set an all time record in 2012. The previous record was set in 2006. In 2006 there were 30 days where the ice extent was over 19 million sq km. That record has not been broken and was 9 days more than the previous record holder (1998).
So what did the NSIDC have to say about it in 2006?
Nothing.
They mentioned the Arctic a lot. And Al Gore’s movie. And that there was going to be an open house. But they ignored Antarctica. If they were scientists and not propagandists shouldn’t they be interested in both poles and maximum records too?
A few days I asked the question about the record Antarctic Sea Ice Extent in 2012 “Anyone wonder why NOAA isn’t making a fuss about this?”
One caveat is that I should have said NSIDC instead of NOAA (NOAA does partially fund NSIDC).
Today Justin Gillis took a cheap shot at bloggers (h/t Tom Nelson) and said:
“The National Snow and Ice Data Center uses a five-day moving average to track such matters, and always waits a few days before announcing a minimum or maximum in sea ice at either pole. That is to make sure the low or high point for the year has really been reached, given that sea ice can change abruptly in response to winds and other factors. The five-day averaging also helps smooth out small errors in the satellite tracking data.
.
This longstanding practice has been explained publicly many times, but that has not stopped climate-change contrarians from asserting that the snow and ice center had been trying to hide this year’s record in Antarctica by supposedly failing to make any announcement.”
I checked. The Arctic record was broken on the August 24th and NSIDC waited 3 days to call a news conference for the media on the 27th,
The Antarctic Extent record was broken on September 24th. I wrote about the Antarctic Ice Area coming close to the record on September 24th, but I was 5 days late writing about the Antarctic Ice Extent breaking the record (NSIDC uses Extent and I had not come across the NSIDC data) and did not post until September 29th.
So of course NSIDC held a news conference on September 27th to announce the new record … didn’t they?
No. No news conference.
Obviously there was a media advisory on the 27th. Nope.
If you go the press page for NSIDC you will see that Antarctic Ice Extent record is not mentioned until October 2nd, 2012.
Justin Gillis and the NY Times owes a lot of bloggers an apology.
“Drax Group Plc (DRX) will spend $1 billion to turn the U.K.’s biggest coal-fired plant into western Europe’s largest clean- energy producer. The utility plans to convert one of the site’s six units to burn wood pellets by June, said Chief Executive Officer Dorothy Thompson. It intends to switch two more units to wood at a later date, investments that if completed will see it harvest a forest four times the size of Rhode Island each year“
“While burning biomass releases carbon dioxide, the EU deems the technology carbon-neutral because trees absorb emissions in a similar proportion to what they release in burning. Opponents argue that it’s hard to ensure enough is being planted to compensate for what is burned.”
Opponents? By opponents do they mean sane people? Or do they mean greenies who are slightly less insane than the average greenie?
“Wood pellets are bulkier than coal, need to be kept dry and handled more gently. They can create dust if stored in the open. To deal with this, Drax is building silos out of plastics, foam, steel and concrete, with conveyor floors and capable of holding 700,000 metric tons of biomass.”
This is great … all those jobs and all that plastic and foam and steel and concrete (did you know concrete produces a lot of CO2?)
Green policies are saving the poor unfortunate coal and killing off four forests the size of Rhode Island (which is actually quite small but it sounds scary).
I like trees. I have no objection to trees being cut down to provide useful things like houses and paper.
But to burn vast quantities of trees and to build up a huge new infrastructure to burn wood instead of burning coal (or preferably natural gas) is insane. But thats what green policies do. They distort the market. They rewards people for doing insane things … like burning forests instead of coal or building wind turbines (and backup power plants) instead of reliable natural gas power plants.
Imagine … power plants burning forests will act as the backup power for unreliable wind turbines!
sunshine hours 