Monday, September 21, 2009

Buy the Beach House Back: Antarctica may not be melting after all

There are many reasons to think that We're All Going to Die, but there could be one less reason to think so, now that Antarctic ice seems to be up over this time last year. Not only are media claims that Antarctica is melting based on upside-down thermometers, says Anthony Watts, but they are apparently also based on upside down ice sensors.

Here is The Snow and Ice Data Center chart on Antarctic ice extent:

But don't worry. Someone is bound to come up with at least two other reasons We're All Going to Die to replace this one.

Trust me.



3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Back on January 6, 2009 this blog had a post by Martin that made much of the extent of Winter sea ice for the Arctic being at record levels, yet it turns out that the extent of Summer sea ice for the Arctic for 2009 was of third largest extent since the first records of 1979 (see: http://nsidc.org/news/ ). Now that it is near the end of Winter in Antarctica, denialists are pointing out that sea ice in Antarctic waters are slightly above average. Martin, will you report on the extent of Summer sea ice in Antarctica near the end of the season next year?

Anonymous said...

Major typo on the last post, see below:

Back on January 6, 2009 this blog had a post by Martin that made much of the extent of Winter sea ice for the Arctic being at record levels, yet it turns out that the extent of Summer sea ice for the Arctic for 2009 was of third LOWEST (not largest as mistakenly typed above)extent since the first records of 1979 (see: http://nsidc.org/news/ ). Now that it is near the end of Winter in Antarctica, denialists are pointing out that sea ice in Antarctic waters are slightly above average. Martin, will you report on the extent of Summer sea ice in Antarctica near the end of the season next year?

Martin Cothran said...

I don't know which post you're referring to, nor am I clear on whether you are saying that I misreported it or that I related an inaccurate report. Neither, certainly, is impossible, but it would be good to know which it is.

But what always strikes me in these cases is how much is still gotten wrong, even by people far more knowledgeable than myself on such matters. The incidence of error in these analyses belies the level of certainly projected by those who argue for Global Warming.

Since the threshold of sufficient evidence is much lower for the skeptic than the dogmatist, it is much less disturbing for a 'denialist' to get it wrong than a Global Warming Alarmist. The latter is the one, after all, who has the burden of proof.

Not to mention the fact that if the skeptic is wrong, it won't cost billions of dollars.