You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Sea ice about the same as in Sir Ernest Shackleton's 1917 expedition
2016-11-26
[Daily Caller] Scientists were shocked by what they found while pouring over accounts by famous South Pole explorers from about a century ago -- findings that could change the way experts think about Antarctica and global warming.

Researchers found that Antarctic sea ice extent has barely changed since Ernest Shackleton’s botched expedition to map out the South Pole in 1917.

Antarctic sea ice conditions in Shackleton’s day mirrored those of today, according to a new study using logs compiled by Shackleton, in addition to data from other noteworthy Antarctic forays during the early 20th Century.

Lead researcher Dr. Jonathan Day and his team were the first to calculate Antarctic sea ice conditions prior to the 1930s. Day estimates sea ice extent ranged from 3.3 and 4.3 million square miles and continued to grow into the 1950s.
Posted by:Besoeker

#7  Consensusy Scienceâ„¢. Who needs data?
Posted by: Frank G   2016-11-26 13:09  

#6  Not surprising. It will grow and shrink in cycles along with the warming and cooling cycles in the area.

Just like everywhere else in the world.
Posted by: DarthVader   2016-11-26 12:43  

#5  Scientists were not shocked, because they understand the science is not settled. Global warming alarmists were disappointed, though.
Posted by: Bobby   2016-11-26 12:21  

#4  Shocked?

US news media trying to catch up with the Brits for hyperbole.
Posted by: Pappy   2016-11-26 10:09  

#3  This suggests that maybe the extent of sea ice isn't as permanent or indicative a thing as the media believes.

This could be said about anything sciencey that the media believes implicitly even as they report it entirely wrong.
Posted by: trailing wife   2016-11-26 09:40  

#2  Shocked?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2016-11-26 08:21  

#1  A few months ago I read The Worst Journey in the World by Apsley Cherry-Garrard, who accompanied Scott on his push to the Pole, but who (among many) was not selected to go to the Pole itself (and so lived to tell the tale).

At one point, in a preliminary expedition, he and several other men camped on the sea ice, at a spot which you would have thought "as good as terra firma". Shackleton had had a depot nearby.

They woke in the middle of the night to find the ice cracking. One of their ponies was missing, having fallen into a crack that opened beneath him. The immediately scrambled to leave, their solid ice turning to ice floes, and the men barely got to solid ground in time. (There's a gripping bit about the ponies which I'll spare you.)

That vast shelf of solid, as they thought, ice had broken up and was swept out to sea within the course of a day or two. This suggests that maybe the extent of sea ice isn't as permanent or indicative a thing as the media believes.
Posted by: Angie Schultz   2016-11-26 04:23  

00:00