https://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovere...
> We have incredible new sea ice highs. That is the truth, that is a fact.
Of course, that's not the case: "Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent..."[1]
[1] "Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum" http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reache...
>Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected
And no, it isn't.
While it is hard to obtain the number from NSIDC, since they've stopped reporting it since it doesn't fit the narrative:
"Why don’t you publish a global sea ice extent number?
The combined number, while easy to derive from our online posted data, is not useful as an analysis tool or indicator of climate trends." (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#combined)
...you can still dig up some charts. Here's a few:
https://nsidc.org/sites/nsidc.org/files/images//arc_antarc_1...
Or here: http://www.cato.org/blog/spinning-global-sea-ice
As it turns out, I have been a bit hyperbolic I'll admit (I was going on memory). But the fact is combined sea ice isn't "decreasing as expected" as you say. It's above average. And the original post I was responding to that claimed "we have incredible sea ice lows" is also nonsense. We don't, we have some loss in the northern hemisphere and gains on a similar scale in the south.
> I easily imagine how this has been spun in certain circles
If you want to talk about "spinning in certain circles", you might want to ask why we hear endlessly about the decline in arctic ice, how it is seen as confirmation of the global warming hypothesis because it happens to fit the predictions, and yet at the other end of the globe we see large sea ice increases being ignored, dissembled and explained away with theories about ocean currents or wind patterns. That's not science, that's confirmation bias.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southe... http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/201...
There sure is, and that was my point. Did you read what I wrote at the end about confirmation bias? The mad scramble to provide a just-so explanation when something doesn't fit the hypothesis, but when it does then no need for questions. The reduction in Arctic sea ice could only be due to warming, there is no other possible reason right? Let's look at your thought process for example, because it is a classic:
>Yes, and there is quite a lot of science explaining why we are seeing a temporary rise in Antarctic
Why the fuck are you so certain that this is a temporary rise in Antartic sea ice? Stop and think about that for a moment. Why? You and all the models didn't predict it, the article we're commenting on says they can't quite explain it, but you're here to tell me it is temporary. Whereas anything happening at the other pole, well that isn't temporary according to you. No way, that is definitive evidence of the coming apocalypse.
It appears to actually be you who is guilty of confirmation bias, ignoring the forest in a vain search for the one tree that will prove that climate change is a lie, a belief to which you are irrationally wedded.