Comments on: Yet Another Incorrect IPCC Assessment: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase

By: ¿Calentamiento global?, ¿Hacia una nueva glaciación?

¿Calentamiento global?, ¿Hacia una nueva glaciación? — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:29:56 +0000

[...] consiguiendo finalmente que sí fuera insignificante el incremento. Leer el siguiente artículo: http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/yet-another-incorrect-ipcc-assessment-antarctic-sea-ice-increa... Gráfico de variaciones en la banquisa [...]

By: Bienvenidos al Frío! « ::: Prometeus Team :::

Bienvenidos al Frío! « ::: Prometeus Team ::: — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 05:58:40 +0000

[...] http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/yet-another-incorrect-ipcc-assessment-antarctic-sea-ice-increa... [...]

By: IPCC’s Odd Approach to “Assessing” the Literature | Austrian Economics Blog

IPCC’s Odd Approach to “Assessing” the Literature | Austrian Economics Blog — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:03:22 +0000

[...] Knappenberger has a fantastic post in which he goes through the paper trail to document just how poorly the Intergovernmental Panel on [...]

By: chip knappenberger on climate change

chip knappenberger on climate change — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:10:41 +0000

[...] gents, I give you this attack on the credibility of the IPCC climate change bureau. This entry was posted in uncategorized. [...]

By: Guard

Guard — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:08:16 +0000

Thank you. I greatly appreciate those who have committed their time, perhaps risked their reputations, to investigate these matters and make them known. You do a great service in my opinion.

By: NASA data worse than UEA « TWAWKI

NASA data worse than UEA « TWAWKI — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:58:53 +0000

[...] Germany not warming, Floats show ocean cooling, Taking up arms on climate alarmism, Natural climate variation, Another in the long list of UN IPCC blunders, [...]

By: Marlo Lewis

Marlo Lewis — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:21:59 +0000

Outstanding, Chip! Great sleuthing and thanks for breaking it all down in terms even a layman can understand.

By: PaulM

PaulM — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:18:03 +0000

The false claims of the IPCC regarding Antarctic sea ice have been noted on my website for nearly two years, and probably at other sites. I noted there that the IPCC relied on a single book chapter and ignored several peer-reviewed papers that showed a much larger rate of increase. So Chip is not correct to say it was first uncovered a couple of weeks ago. [Thanks for pointing this out, PaulM. I probably should have qualified my statement a bit. You have put together quite a list of IPCC shortcomings! -Chip] It is interesting that the papers Chip found (that the IPCC ignored) are different from the ones I found. The point about the first draft and the comments is very interesting, I had not noticed that. This makes the IPCC manipulation much more blatant and transparent. I’ll add a comment to my page.

By: Paul M

Paul M — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:48:04 +0000

This certainly looks like bad behavior by the IPCC. But AGW proponents will point to research that ice mass has been lost in Antarctica:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html

Any response to that line of argument or research?

[Still a lot of work to be done in quantifying ice mass variability and trends on Antarctica. The climate models, as they are now, project that ice mass should grow on Antarctica as a warmer atmosphere leads to more (frozen) precipitation there--and snow/ice accumulation. But also, there could be glacial loss from the margins. So, there are a lot of processes still to be worked out and observations to be understood--both in terms of their accuracy as well as their long-term implications. -Chip]

By: ian hilliar

ian hilliar — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:22:24 +0000

Nur Ritter-Thanks for the link. read the article. Why do Turner et al believe the ozone hole will heal? According to “Forty Years of Ozone at Oxford- A History”, published in Annals of Optics, 1968,by Gordon Dobson the “relative ozone lack” stood out in the data from Halley Bay in Antarctica in the spring of 1957 and again in 1958. It lasts approximately 3 months and heals every year, as more ozone is produced by the summer sun.. It has of course increased in size, so Dobson was no doubt correct in attributing its anual appearance to 1/ lack of winter sun=no ozone production, 2/antarctic vortex, and 3/extreme cold. not a lot of CFCs in 1950s.