Antarctica: Record Cold and Growing Ice Chills Global Warming Theories

science, Antarctica, global warming, modern warming, opinion

The big news from Antarctica these days is the record low temperature of -135.8 degrees Fahrenheit, which is the coldest temperature ever recorded on the planet. What seems to be going unreported, is that on top of the record cold in Antarctica, the southern ice sheet is growing at a pace faster than Global Warming theories can account for. Sea ice around the Antarctic averaged 17.16 million square kilometers (6.63 million square miles) in November. The long-term 1981 to 2010 average for November is 16.30 million square kilometers (6.29 million square miles). The arguments from the Climate Change camp all seem to be “no matter what happens, it is still evidence of Global Warming.”

If contradictory evidences -like record cold vs. rising global temperatures- can be sited as equally proving the same hypothesis, can it really be called science? Had the lowest temperatures in Antarctica been seen to creep steadily upward, while the ice dwindled quickly away (which were the predictions being made for the past dozen or more years) those happenings would also have been stridently sited as “proof” of Global Warming. Is their any evidence or occurrence, which the proponents of Climate Change will accept as contradictory to their claims?

When questioned about the utter lack of warming recorded over the past few years, the Climate Change camp will quietly, grudgingly, admit to a “pause.” A pause indicates only a brief halt to this lack of warming, which they know is going to resume, any day now. As if they have ever been able to accurately predict what the climate is going to do, in the past. This “pause” is occurring right now today, when “greenhouse gases” are being pumped into the atmosphere at record levels by countries like China, which seems to have no interest in crippling its economy in deference to the “scientific consensus.” Perhaps, the chill of growing ice and the record cold in Antarctica have caused China to theorize that global warming is a hoax.

 A ‘Consensus of Scientists’ Works Both Ways

An analysis of scholarly literature, found in such august journals as the Geophysical Review Letters, Science and Nature, shows that more than 500 scientists have published articles contradictory to the current Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming theories. Most of the articles produced evidence that a 1,500-year cycle is responsible for more than a dozen “warmings” linking back to the last Ice Age. Which Man can have had no impact on, whatsoever. It is much more reasonable to come to the conclusion that our modern warming is also linked primarily to fluctuations in solar irradiance, just as past warmings always have been.

“This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a ‘scientific consensus’ blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,” said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow, Dennis Avery. “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”

The peer review process itself has come under a lot of scrutiny lately, as well. Traditionally, in order to eliminate potential bias which might be caused by personal friendships or philosophical differences, an editor would remove an author’s name, then send the article to peers who would review and comment. A “double blind” peer review process, kept everyone honest. Unfortunately, in today’s politically charged, grant-hungry world of “climate science” where billions of dollars in research money influence trillions of dollars in policy, peer review has become something far less than honest. There is simply no “double blind” practiced anymore. All of the major climate journal editors have taken to leaving the authors’ names on the documents sent out for review so the “in crowd” reviewers can rubber stamp one another’s papers.

That system can also work to keep evidence refuting global warming from being printed, until a suitable rebuttal from the “in crowd” can be crafted: When the University of Rochester’s David Douglass submitted a paper to the International Journal of Climatology, showing that a large warming at high altitudes in the tropics -one of the key factors by which the “enhanced greenhouse effect” purportedly changes the climate- just isn’t happening (thus proving, unequivocally, that the IPCC computer models which foretold of “global warming” have little to do with the actual observed data) the editor held up printing until the right players could write a counterpoint.

All of the “proofs” of global warming seem to be embarrassed by the observed data. Sea levels are failing to rise in any significant amount. Storms are less frequent and milder, which completely contradicts the dire warnings issued about the dangers of global warming. In fact, a mere 13 named storms formed in the Atlantic for 2013, only two of which became hurricanes. Tropical Storm Andrea was the only one to make landfall in the U.S. About 70 percent of the earth’s post-1850 warming occurred before 1940. So it’s a safe bet that the post-WW2 build up of industry and the global economy had nothing to do with it. More significantly, the total net post-1940 “warming” totals only a minuscule 0.2 degrees C.

Fifteen years ago, no one in the Global Warming camp would have dared predict a “growing ice sheet” or “record cold temperatures” in Antarctica for 2013. Saying those things out loud could have gotten someone’s sanity questioned, or at least their credentials. Why are we now to believe those things have been expected, all along?

By Ben Gaul


Guardian LV
Arctic Sea Ice News
NY Daily News
Canada Free Press


87 Responses to "Antarctica: Record Cold and Growing Ice Chills Global Warming Theories"

  1. malware hunter pro review   March 14, 2019 at 4:31 am

    Everyone loves what you guys tend to be up too. This kind of clever work and coverage! Keep up the awesome works guys I’ve included you guys to my own blogroll.

  2. Hoosier Daddy   December 23, 2013 at 6:43 pm

    Riso is rice in Italian. RIZZO has nothing to do with RICE.

    As for this opinion piece, just another right wing hack.

    • Heber Rizzo   December 24, 2013 at 5:46 am

      Have you ever heard about the evolution of words and names?
      Riso, Risso, Rizo, Rizzo, all of them have the same root.

      On the other issue, it seems that you can´t refute data and numbers with your own, so you have come to rely on an ad hominem attack

      All in all, you are showing an evident ignorance.

      • Justin Wilson   December 24, 2013 at 7:30 am

        That’s not an ad hominem attack. Because your name sounds like riso, doesn’t mean it’s derived from it. That’s like saying your name means direction because of indirizzo. Anyway – every post you made on here is very defensive. There is no need.

  3. Heber Rizzo   December 17, 2013 at 9:37 am

    Mr Wilson:
    My last name comes from italian “rice” (do you know what it is?), and I am proud of it.
    Of course you couldn’t insult me, no matter how hard you could try. I will not bother to tell you why because surely you wouldn´t be able to understand it.
    Any way, I rely on facts and data, and on studies and papers on them, not on Youtube videos. And facts say there is a lag that AGW hypothesis cannot explain.
    Your efforts to dismiss those facts is proof of desperation, nothing else. Your ad hominem attacks are proof too.
    But don´t worry. I don´t want to change your mind, because I know it is impossible. Religious beliefs are impervious to reason.

  4. Heber Rizzo   December 17, 2013 at 1:14 am

    Justin Wilson:

    You warmists are fanny. When something seems to prove your hypothesis, like the Vostok ice cores at first, you make a lot of noise and even put it in a film.
    But when it backfires, you try at first to minimize losses with crazy postulates, like CO2 increasing warming. And finally, when you see that everybody is laughing at you, you try to discard the evidence.
    Yes, there are some discussions about CO2 levels in Vostok ice cores, but the sequence is clear enough (in Greenland too): CO2 lags temperature by 400~1000 years, with an average of about 800 years.
    That is final, Mr Wilson; it is settled evidence.
    But, of course, you warmists do not rely on evidence (after all, there is no evidence at all that CO2 manages climate); you only rely on dogma and GIGO computer models, the same models that have failed completely.

    • Justin Wilson   December 17, 2013 at 6:33 am

      Mr. Rizzo (no offense, but I can’t help but think of the Muppet rat when I read your name)

      I’d love to continue about the Vostok Ice Core data. I’ve read the papers published on the topic and they couldn’t disagree with your position more. There is nothing I can say or do to change your mind, but if anyone else reading your comment wants to know about the lagging co2 in Vostok please view this video:

      There are a lot of video’s online and this one of SUPER dry and boring, but it’s one of the better jobs done to address Mr. Rizzo’s (Muppet’s again) misunderstanding.

      • bob   February 25, 2014 at 12:33 am

        Justin its hard to believe what you say because of your emotional ranting. Ad hominem attacks are used by people with weak arguments because they don’t have facts to support their argument. All these comments about “Muppet” would probably appeal to a child and not an adult.

        From what I have seen of the arctic ice shelf it seems that warming is what is happening but when I see a well reasoned article like this it makes me question if global warming is the correct hypothesis.

        Seeing emotional attacks from warming supporters makes me think they don’t really have any proof. Was hoping for a rational discussion where people from both side would discuss rationally and science would be the winner.

  5. Turboblocke   December 16, 2013 at 10:06 am

    There can be no “concentration of heat” in the oceans because heat is a process, which exclusively follows a temperature gradient.

    you’re wrong: for convection, heat can follow a density gradiant. So as surface salt water heats up it can become more dense due to evaporation and sink taking the heat with it. You should also read up on the “mechanical/dynamic” effects in the up/downwelling gyres.

    BTW note that the Antarctic record low is the lowest temperature MEASURED. It’s only because we have the new technology to measure it that it’s been found. Kinda reminds me about the deniers’ ballyhoo about newly discovered volcanoes under the Arctic a while back: the volcanoes had been there for yonks.

  6. Ben Gaul   December 16, 2013 at 9:12 am

    15 years ago, the climate change camp predicted 2 to 20 feet of ocean rise, by today. 13 years ago, the climate change camp predicted snow would be a rare and special treat, by today. Five years ago, the climate change camp predicted the northern polar ice-cap would be substantially melted away, by today.

    Your high priests of doom have been wrong about everything they have predicted, and yet you still cling bitterly to your deeply religious faith in their holy utterances.

    Science and the truth are not subject to consensus or political ideology. Using either of those tropes as “evidence” is evidence in itself, that you are NOT using science.

    • Justin Wilson   December 16, 2013 at 10:28 am

      Ben, Again your noise is just noise. Could you please let us know who was making the claim? 2-20 feet is a big claim and would require analysis. To me, all science deserves review which is why your last sentence is complete bull. As for the polar ice cap it grows and shrinks annually. We call that natural variability and it’s usually measured over the course of years. As for my political ideology, I’m a liberal with some serious conservative reservations ranging from topic to topic and I don’t drive a hybrid. I’m only here to debate the science though.

      According to the longest measured records sea ice has continued to shrink (calculating out mean averages) since 1979. This data doesn’t predict its future. It could rebound completely, but with what we know about an overall warming planet it seems unlikely. I put the data into context and hope for the best. Glaciers have been recorded shrinking and there are some beautiful photography examples of it.

      All the best to you and yours. I look forward to your next random post about how climate change is bunk.

      • Ben Gaul   December 23, 2013 at 4:21 pm

        Sorry I’ve been over a week answering your initial question, Justin.

        The answer is Al “Inconvenient Truth” Gore, in the movie adaptation of his book by the same title. I’d post in the relevant video if I could put a link in this response.

        Al also famously said that the Arctic Icecap would be GONE by 2013. It would appear that the Goricle has failed to have ANY of his predictions come true.

        • Justin Wilson   December 23, 2013 at 6:43 pm


          First – Merry Christmas and I hope the New Year brings you good fortune.

          Second – An Inconvenient Truth is a piece of work released in 2006 citing cutting edge research that had not been vetted by the peer review process. Cherry picking errors in the film are easy, but then again Al Gore is presenting complex science that takes years to grasp in a 108 minute documentary designed to provoke an emotional response.

          I don’t much care for his film, but he points out a possible 20 foot rise if all of Greenland melts and that would be about correct. He simplifies this issue and omits that Greenland will not likely melt to that level and that Greenland has even experienced these temperatures before in the 1930s. If you want to critique the film – I’m in, but much of its science has withstood the peer review process and has only solidified the link between human activity and overall climate change.

          I know that at the moment Gore is speaking about the Navy submarine data he says, “There are now two major studies showing that in the next 50 to 70 years in summertime it will be completely gone.” That’s from the film. I can’t find a claim about 2013. I know John Kerry said in ’09 the quote you’re attributing to the film. Maybe there was some disconnect in your attribution.

          • Ben Gaul   December 24, 2013 at 10:45 am

            Thank you, Justin. Merry Christmas to you and yours!

            Al the Goracle, in spite of the data manipulation, backwards heat/Co2 correlation chart and propensity to demand happy endings, is one of the most visible spokesmodels for AGW. He shared a Nobel Peace Prize for it, in fact.

            A scientifically under-educated population has allowed the more inflammatory predictions of his award winning Docuprop, to be what informs most of the civilians on the AGW side of the discussion.

            The monetary and social costs of “fighting” global warming, clearly indicate a Leftist agenda is being pursued as the “answer” to the problem. Most of the elements within the UN, as well as whole bureaucracies here in the United States, seem bent on placing all the World’s resources and their distribution into the hands of a Selected Elite.

            Nothing short of “impending global catastrophe” would offer the opportunity, so THAT is all that is allowed into their official dialogs.

            Anyone -or any group- willing to point out the flaws in their arguments are summarily labeled “deniers” (and many less printable words) in a disinformation/defamation campaign which dwarfs anything Joseph Goebbels could have imagined.

  7. deminthon   December 15, 2013 at 11:49 pm

    “Antarctica: Record Cold and Growing Ice Chills Global Warming Theories ”

    The scientific illiteracy of that headline is remarkable. The measurements made in Antarctica have no bearing on AGW, as the scientists who made them will gladly tell you.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.