There has been a steady rash of papers over the years that claim ice is receding in the Antarctic - and global warming is afoot, melting the ice to unsustainable levels (and a tipping point is approaching fast). Invariably this is a ploy whereby the authors are able to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public by being miserly with the facts. The expression above goes back to the days when we tended to wear pullovers in northern Europe and N America on nippy days outside in the fresh air.
Climate change news
At http://phys.org/print350561270.html ... ocean acidification has been ruled out in the wake of the K/T boundary event (the end of Cretaceous extinction event). A paper in PNAS claims other factors must be looked for in order to account for the disappearance of so many marine life forms, such as ammonites and planktonic calcifera. The amount of soot and aerosols thrown up by the impact event is one avenue to explore - including intense and prolonged darkness.
At http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/02/151-degrees-of-fudging-energy-physici... .. which is all about cooling the heels of climate data - the oldest parts of the climate records. Mike Brakey is described as an engineering physicist and energy expert, and has a lot of experience. He hails from New England, or more properly, the State of Maine, and he forwarded to Pierre Gosselin a summary analysis of NOAA past temperature 'adjustments' for the region.
At http://phys.org/print348319050.html ... some upside down thinking has been set the right way up as a result of field studies conducted by Cardiff University. Icebergs in the North Atlantic are the result of cooling rather than being the cause of cooling. Funny how the latter idea took off - but it did. The research we may note is associated with a 1995 study - so what paper or papers is this directed at? Presumably, climate science published between 1995 and 2015.
At http://phys.org/print348140840.html ... a rib tickler from climate change troughers feeding on the public teat that was predictably broadcast loud and clear by the BBC news networks, and shoe-horned into the eyesight of the proles (watching their goggleboxes) by a metropolitan elite that fill their pockets (in the background).
At http://phys.org/print346054232.html ... Fongliang He and a research team have been looking at what causes trees to flourish and prosper - or struggle to reach the light. They conclude, from 1680 samples, that competition between trees in forest landscapes is the major cause, rather than climate change. Competition can constrict growth. This was obvious, of course, but climate scientists used tree rings to wish away the medieval warm period and the little ice age. This might be considered something of payback.
I'll leave you to read the link. Unintended consequences from Green policies - a never ending saga - go to www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/3/9/ditch-the-greens-if-you-want-to-keep-t...
This is a tale of two takes on a single paper in Nature journal (Feb 25th 2015) and the press release can be read at http://phys.org/print344084581.html ... where scientists using 'incredibly precise' spectroscopic instruments in Oklahoma and Alaska have 'observed' an increase in co2 and the greenhouse effect on the surface of the Earth for the first time - but what did they really see? We know there has been an increase in co2 (all those Chinese coal fired power stations) but where did the extra heat at the surface come from?
As the weather warms up towards our spring meeting and the visit of Piers Corbyn (see next SIS meeting in Watford in May) it might be worthwhile if we get a flavour of where he is coming from. He has several You Tube videos of previous talks and we shall have another one after he talks at our meeting. There is of course the great talk he gave to the Electric Universe people a year or two ago but most people have probably seen that one (previously linked at this site).
Willie Soon and Sally Baluinas upset the Green Blob some years ago by writing a peer reviewed article in a climate journal that claimed the Sun controlled the Earth's climate rather than a trace gas, co2. It might seem obvious to most people that the Sun is the controller of the climate on Earth - but not it seems to those of the CAGW faith. You may also wonder why an astrophysicist's views are dismissed but social scientists and people with a degree in English Literature, for example, are lauded as all-knowing of how the climate works - but that is the state of play.