Antarctic Sea Ice Recovery Surprises Scientists; Media Silent
Just two years ago, many of Germany’s mainstream media outlets declared sea ice at the South Pole was melting at an “astonishing” rate.
German national daily Süddeutsche Zeitung reported in June 2019 that Antarctic sea ice had “shrunk 1.8 million square kilometers”, writing: “the massive disappearance of ice is astonishing”.
But many readers here, who are aware of the real data, know nothing of the sort has happened over the long term since satellite measurements began over 40 years ago.
Massive sea ice rebound goes unreported
Today, two years later, German climate science site Die kalte Sonne looks at recent sea ice developments in Antarctica – noting that the climate-ambulance chasing mainstream media like the Süddeutsche Zeitung have since mysteriously stopped reporting on Antarctica.
Here’s why:
Sea ice at the South Pole has rebounded over the past two years to levels seen 30 years ago. In June 2021, Antarctic sea ice was even well above normal.
The doomsday scenario has disappeared, and not the ice.
The Antarctic sea ice rebound shows that there’s still a lot about natural drivers that remain unknown, says Die kalte Sonne.
It appears that oceanic cycles, such as ENSO, SAM, or the Indian Ocean play major roles in Antarctic sea ice variability.
Classic disinformation technique
“Researchers are in agreement that the strong decline in Antarctic sea ice from 2016 to 2019 is mainly due to natural causes,” says Die kalte Sonne. “Obviously this is not a good topic for the Süddeutsche Zeitung, who prefer not to report on the ice recovery.”
Not informing the public about the most recent developments, but instead leaving them with a false impression based on carefully cherry-picked data two years earlier, is a classic disinformation technique that has long been perfected by the activist media.
See more here: climatechangedispatch.com
Header image: Earth Sky
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I can to my computer this morning after pondering (this morning) the need to somehow report the the unquestionable evidence of the past which has been documented by art and literature relative to the ancient practice known as ALCHEMY. One cannot say that this ALCHEMY has been forgotten for I and others are well aware of it; but what we unquestionably know has been SIMPLY IGNORED and today what we unquestionably know is being IGNORED!!!
The question I was pondering, before I came to read PSI this morning was: How can we better draw attention to ALL that IS BEING IGNORED because such ARTICLES as this seems not to have MUCH INFLUENCE!!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Alan
| #
It is because the mainstream media and celebrities dominate all the debate and the masses no longer have the ability for rational thought,
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alan,
You should not go through life blaming others for what is happening unless you have courage to try to something about the problem.
Copernicus knew what might happen to him if he, a Catholic, told the Pope that the Earth did not STANDSTILL. So I read that he waited until he knew he was near death to share his idea with the PUBLIC.
But Galileo, a Catholic, had the courage to go PUBLIC with his observations that PROVED the Earth could not STANDSTILL. So he had to lie (lye?) to PREVENT BEING BURNED ON A STAKE so he could write his well known, but seldom read, book ‘Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences’. In which he (Galileo) proved by observed experimental results that the great philosopher’s, Aristotle, idea that BODIES TWICE AS HEAVY FALL TWICE AS FAST was absolutely a WRONG IDEA.
While we should know that the foundation for Galileo’s SCIENCE was OBSERVATION and ACCURATE DEFINITION OF THE ‘SYSTEM’ BEING STUDIED, However, a seldom acknowledged fact about Galileo’s book is he clearly espoused that the OBSERVATIONS (MEASUREMENTS) needed to be supplemented with rational reason (argument, debate). Which resulted in Newton refusing to accept the validity of Tycho Brahe’s astronomical measurements and Johannes Kepler’s rigid mathematical analysis of Brahe’s data which showed that elliptical orbits for the planets best fit Brahe’s data and not the circular orbits which Galileo believed to be the case because of his rational reasoning.
So, a historical fact is that Galileo not only demonstrated the importance of SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION and ACCURATE DEFINITION but he also demonstrated the FAILURE of using SCIENTIFIC RATIONAL REASONING to overrule clearly established OBSERVATIONS (MEASUREMENTS).
A modern case of such a MISTAKE is the CASE OF CONTINENTAL DRIFT. Which if you, Alan, are not familiar with its history is YOUR FAULT and not anyone else’s FAULT. For, yes a SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY has demonstrated that they made a TERRIBLE MISTAKE and I have READ a book by a member of the this COMMUNITY who blamed ALFRED WEGENER (sp?), who had observed (once fairly accurate maps of the earth were surveyed and published) that the west coast of Africa fit the east coast of South America like two jigsaw pieces, for not be argumentative enough in stating his case.
I cannot remember this author’s name nor the book’s title; but I know I have given you, Alan, enough information to do a Google Search and find it (the book) and possibly read it if you haven’t already done so.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Howdy
| #
One thing not stated is that even though the mass be the same, the actual shape of the bodies is just as important. A body with a high drag will not accelerate the same as one with low drag. A large box, versus a ball, for example.
I came across your 2017 PSI article on this Jerry, but found It hard to digest.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
You need to give me the link because I forget easily and quickly. Forgetting is the only activity in which I am FAST!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Templar
| #
True, however, a large box and a ball, when dropped in a vacuum, will experience the same acceleration and hit the bottom at the same time.
LLOYD
| #
Blaming people on this website when the Mainstream Media controls much of the airways is contra-productive. Lambasting people for not reading certain books is contra-productive. Do you wish to lead a revolt, maybe some large demonstrations in the streets, set some dumpsters on fire? Walk the Walk before you start beating people here over the head for not doing enough. Lead, or quit trying to shame people for NOT leading.
Reply
SuperStan
| #
I don’t actually read articles, comments or comment anymore because you have “things” here on this website.
Frank GL
| #
I’ve recognized by now how most sites “work”. I’ll say it straight, Jon Rappoport, for instance, is essentially a statist troll.
Frank GL
| #
Like, the attackers, don’t actually address any context or issues, it’s projection, ad hominem that they revert to. Based on just how annoying it is to the “egregore” narrative, so they go off the rails…
ANYWAY…I don’t have much to say, but don’t say I didn’t tell you the winter in the northern hemisphere will be kinda fucking horrifying.
https://tombs666.bandcamp.com/album/the-grand-annihilation
Frank GL
| #
Wow, I decided to check out what other “people” thought…and holy shit this is a descriptive opening paragraph:
“The bridge and tunnel men are back to herd a compilation of creature like songs that flourish in the sewer. ‘Tombs’ is a product of their environment with a resiliency of same, true survivors with a story or maybe more of a warning that builds on the bleak, calls attention to the languid and stirs the omnipresent cauldron of our petty existence. The bulls of ‘Brooklyn’, ‘Tombs’ are motivated with burning hearts of ancient fire. Mike Hill deserves any and all of the blue and gold adulation for propagating the colossal contradiction of life in the ‘Tombs’.”
https://outlawsofthesun.blogspot.com/2017/06/tombs-grand-annihilation-album-review.html
I could even explain the song descriptions and how it relates to bodily function.
Howdy
| #
Hi Jerry
https://principia-scientific.com/galileo-proved-ideas-false/
I went through It a couple of times, but I couldn’t find the answer to the article title, quickly.
Not appropriate in all cases, I know, but I want the answer Itself spelled out ASAP, and If interest is piqued as to why that answer exists, I’ll delve deeper.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
I admit I am confused because the title did not contain a question. Yet, you keep searching for an answer. Which maybe explains why you didn’t find an answer QUICKLY!!! It seems to me that the problem was that you didn’t know what the question was???
I had written: “If we read Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, we will discover that even the simplest of these three false ancient ideas to test by experiment and thereby proven to be false would not be willingly accepted by one of the characters created by Galileo. About this, Galileo had Salviati state (as translated by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio , 1914): “I greatly doubt that Aristotle ever tested by experiment whether it be true that two stones, on weighing ten times as much as the other, if allowed to fall, at the same instant, from a height of, say, 100 cubits, would so differ in speed that when the heavier had reached the ground, the other would not have fallen more than 10 cubits.”
To which Simplicio, the doubter, replied: “His language would seem to indicate that he had tried the experiment, because he says: We see the heavier; now the word see shows he had made the experiment.”
To which Sagredo responded:
“But I, Simplicio, who have made the test can assure you that a cannon ball weighing one or two hundred pounds, or even more, will not reach the ground by as much as a span ahead of a musket ball weighing only half a pound, provided both are dropper from a height of 200 cubits.”
Howdy, are you admitting you can not quickly understand this potion of the dialogue which Galileo wrote??? This is a question to which I would like to read your answer.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hi Jerry,
Galileo said the objects would fall at different rates. Sagredo stated he had done the experiment himself (which was the only real way to get an answer), and the objects landed together. It proved Galileo wrong. Galileo made an assumption.
The above Is what I would see as easier to understand, though possibly with a little expansion needed. I guess the quotations make It difficult for me to see. Not a style I’m used to.
Reply