5 Responses to Antarctic Sea Ice Extent sets new record, pierces 20 million square kilometer barrier

1. omanuel says:

   September 21, 2014 at 10:11

   Thanks, Ken, for confirming that the AGW fable is a fairy-tale.

   Here’s the rest of the story:

   Week in review

   Reply

2. Pingback: Antarctic Sea Ice Extent sets new record, pierces 20 million square kilometer barrier | Gaia Gazette

3. omanuel says:

   September 22, 2014 at 11:01

   For the UN’s latest Climate Conference opening in NYC on Monday, some might ask exactly “Who won WWII and formed the United Nations sixty-nine years ago?”

   The Peoples Climate March Is Not About Saving The Planet It Is About Power To The Elite Not The People

   Reply
4. js says:

   October 10, 2014 at 02:36

   This is faulty, you need to look at volume of Ice not area. If the Ice is getting warmer and melt, it will naturally move outwards but its total volume may decrease. So unless you actually measure volume this tells us nothing. And the pulsating behaviour due to seasons, makes it even less usable measurement, as we have no information of how much ice is converted to water in warm season and how much water is gained back to ice in cold season. If the measurements would be in volume we would have a way to approximate lost and gained energy.

   Volume itself is not really a good measurement of energy in form of temperature. If it’s done properly it should be measured in Watts. If you gain energy it becomes warmer if you lose energy it gets colder. It’s that simple. The trick is how to measure it. I’ve seen no one who even try to do that. Some do measure Volume and they usually tell a different story than those measuring Area.

   Reply
5. Ken McMurtrie says:

   October 11, 2014 at 11:09

   Volume is certainly a useful indicator for the amount of energy, absorbed by the ice mass to cause it to melt, and I suppose lost to the environment when the ice is formed.
   Nevertheless, if we are comparing the same criteria over time, the comparisons are still valid.
   I am not sure about melting ice creating more area, that needs looking into.
   Surely glaciers expand in area when the ice volume increases.
   Regardless of the technical theory, it seems that the “warmists” are quite comfortable with equating less ice area to ‘loss of ice due to “global warming”‘ so they cannot logically have it both ways!
   I think Energy is measured in “Joules”, Watts/second.
   Thanks for commenting, js.

   Reply