Global Warming Scientist Get Stuck in Growing Antartic Ice

[Politico]

Funniest part is that Abraham and Matthew are so friggin mad about this happening...

These clods probably planned expedition last year when the ice looked friendlier.. Couldn't change the date because it commemorates some AntArctic exploration.. Severly underestimated the risk of getting of getting iced in the peak summertime.. If this was the original expedition -- they'd be goners..

Why would they be mad? Not like either of them would actually go out and do their own research.

But have no fear Global warming is still on. I saw some CNN anchor talking to one of the scientists. He said they weren't actually stuck in the ice. It just looks that way.

 

[Abraham3]

And you DO do your own research? Let me guess, that's what you call struggling through the text in HotAir, ClimateAudit, InfoWars and WUWT.

 

[Abraham3]

See if you can find some physical evidence here to support the denier mantra that warming has ceased.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter04.pdf

Sea Ice

Continuing the trends reported in AR4, the annual Arctic sea ice extent decreased over the period
1979–2012: the rate of this decrease was very likely between 3.5 and 4.1% per decade. The average decrease in decadal extent of Arctic sea ice has been most rapid in summer and autumn (high confidence), but the extent has decreased in every season, and in every successive decade since 1979 (high confidence). [4.2.2, Figure 4.2]

The extent of Arctic perennial and multiyear sea ice decreased between 1979 and 2012 (very high
confidence). The perennial sea ice extent (sea ice area at summer minimum) decreased between 1979 and 2012 at at 11.5 ± 2.1% per decade (very likely) and the multiyear ice decreased at a rate of 13.5 ± 2.5% per decade (very likely). [4.2.2, Figures 4.4, 4.6]

The average winter sea ice thickness within the Arctic Basin decreased between 1980 and 2008 (high
confidence). The average decrease was likely between 1.3 and 2.3 m. High confidence in this assessment is based on observations from multiple sources: submarine, EM probes, and satellite altimetry, and is consistent with the decline in multiyear and perennial ice extent [4.2.2, Figure 4.5, Figure 4.6] Satellite measurements made in the period 2010–2012 show a decrease in sea ice volume compared to those made over the period 2003–2008 (medium confidence). There is high confidence that in the Arctic, where the sea ice thickness has decreased, the sea ice drift speed has increased. [4.2.2, Figure 4.6]

It is likely that the annual period of surface melt on Arctic perennial sea ice lengthened by 5.7 ± 0.9
days per decade over the period 1979–2012. Over this period, in the region between the East Siberian Sea and the western Beaufort Sea, the duration of ice-free conditions increased by nearly 2-months. [4.2.2, Figure 4.6]

It is very likely that the annual Antarctic sea ice extent increased at a rate of between 1.2 and 1.8% per decade between 1979 and 2012. There was a greater increase in sea ice area, due to a decrease in the percentage of open water within the ice pack. There is high confidence that there are strong regional differences in this annual rate, with some regions increasing in extent/area and some decreasing [4.2.3, Figure 4.7]

Glaciers

Since AR4, almost all glaciers world-wide have continued to shrink as revealed by the time series of
measured changes in glacier length, area, volume and mass (very high confidence). Measurements of
glacier change have increased substantially in number since AR4. Most of the new datasets, along with a globally complete glacier inventory, have been derived from satellite remote sensing. [4.3.1, 4.3.3, Figures 4.9, 4.10, 4.11]

During the last decade, most ice was lost from glaciers in Alaska, the Canadian Arctic, the periphery
of the Greenland ice sheet, the Southern Andes and the Asian Mountains (very high confidence).
Together these regions account for more than 80% of the total ice loss. [4.3.3, Figure 4.11, Table 4.4]

Total mass loss from all glaciers in the world, excluding those on the periphery of the ice sheets, was
very likely 226 ± 135 Gt yr–1 (sea-level equivalent, 0.62 ± 0.37 mm yr–1) in the period 1971–2009, 275 ± 135 Gt yr–1 (0.76 ± 0.37 mm yr–1) in the period 1993–2009, and 301 ± 135 Gt yr–1 (0.83 ± 0.37 mm yr–1) between 2005 and 2009. [4.3.3, Figure 4.12 and Table 4.5]

Current glacier extents are out of balance with current climatic conditions, indicating that glaciers will
continue to shrink in the future even without further temperature increase (high confidence). [4.3.3]

Ice Sheets

The Greenland Ice Sheet has lost ice during the last two decades (very high confidence). Combinations of satellite and airborne remote sensing together with field data indicate with high confidence that the ice loss has occurred in several sectors and that large rates of mass loss have spread to wider regions than reported in AR4. [4.4.2, 4.4.3, Figures 4.13, 4.15, 4.17]

The rate of ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet has accelerated since 1992: the average rate has very likely increased from 34 [–6 to 74] Gt yr–1 over the period 1992–2001 (sea-level equivalent, 0.09 [–0.02 to 0.20] mm yr–1), to 215 [157 to 274] Gt yr–1 over the period 2002–2011 (0.59 [0.43 to 0.76] mm yr–1). [4.4.3, Figures 4.15, 4.17]

Ice loss from Greenland is partitioned in approximately similar amounts between surface melt and outlet glacier discharge (medium confidence), and that both components have increased (high confidence). The area subject to summer melt has increased over the last two decades (high
confidence). [4.4.2]

The Antarctic Ice Sheet has been losing ice during the last two decades (high confidence). There is very high confidence that these losses are mainly from the northern Antarctic Peninsula and the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica, and high confidence that they result from the acceleration of outlet glaciers. [4.4.2, 4.4.3, Figures 4.14, 4.16, 4.17]

The average rate of ice loss from Antarctica likely increased from 30 [–37 to 97] Gt yr–1 (sea level equivalent, 0.08 [–0.10 to 0.27] mm yr–1) over the period 1992–2001, to 147 [72 to 221] Gt yr–1 over the period 2002–2011 (0.40 [0.20 to 0.61] mm yr–1). [4.4.3, Figures 4.16, 4.17]

In parts of Antarctica, floating ice shelves are undergoing substantial changes (high confidence). There is medium confidence that ice shelves are thinning in the Amundsen Sea region of West Antarctica, and low confidence that this is due to high ocean heat flux. There is high confidence that ice shelves round the Antarctic Peninsula continue a long-term trend of retreat and partial collapse that began decades ago.[4.4.2, 4.4.5]

Snow Cover

Snow cover extent has decreased in the Northern Hemisphere, especially in spring (very high
confidence). Satellite records indicate that over the period 1967–2012, annual mean snow cover extent decreased with statistical significance; the largest change, –53% [very likely, –40% to –66%], occurred in June. No months had statistically significant increases. Over the longer period, 1922–2012, data are only available for March and April, but these show a 7% [very likely, 4.5% to 9.5%] decline and a strong negative [–0.76] correlation with March-April 40°N–60°N land temperature. [4.5.2, 4.5.3]

Station observations of snow, nearly all of which are in the Northern Hemisphere, generally indicate
decreases in spring, especially at warmer locations (medium confidence). Results depend on station elevation, period of record, and variable measured (e.g., snow depth or duration of snow season), but in almost every study surveyed, a majority of stations showed decreasing trends, and stations at lower elevation or higher average temperature were the most liable to show decreases. In the Southern Hemisphere, evidence is too limited to conclude whether changes have occurred. [4.5.2, 4.5.3, Figures 4.19, 4.20, 4.21]

Freshwater Ice

The limited evidence available for freshwater (lake and river) ice indicates that ice duration is decreasing and average seasonal ice cover shrinking (low confidence). For 75 Northern Hemisphere lakes, for which trends were available for 150-, 100-, and 30-year periods ending in 2005, the most rapid changes were in the most recent period (medium confidence), with freeze-up occurring later (1.6 days per decade) and breakup earlier (1.9 days per decade). In the North American Great Lakes, the average duration of ice cover declined 71% over the period 1973–2010. [4.6]

Frozen Ground

Permafrost temperatures have increased in most regions since the early 1980s (high confidence) although the rate of increase has varied regionally. The temperature increase for colder permafrost was generally greater than for warmer permafrost (high confidence). [4.7.2, Table 4.8, Figure 4.24]

Significant permafrost degradation has occurred in the Russian European North (medium confidence).
There is medium confidence, that in this area, over the period 1975–2005, warm permafrost up to 15 m thick completely thawed, the southern limit of discontinuous permafrost moved north by up to 80 km, and the boundary of continuous permafrost moved north by up to 50 km. [4.7.2]

In situ measurements and satellite data show that surface subsidence associated with degradation of ice-rich permafrost, occurred at many locations over the past two to three decades (medium
confidence). [4.7.4]

In many regions, the depth and extent of seasonally frozen ground has changed in recent decades (high confidence). In these areas, active layer thicknesses increased since the 1990s (medium confidence), although the magnitude of the increase varied from a few centimetres to tens of centimetres. In other areas, especially in northern North America, there were large inter-annual variations but few significant trends (high confidence). The thickness of the seasonally frozen ground in some non-permafrost parts of the Eurasian continent likely decreased, in places by more than 30 cm from 1930 to 2000 (high confidence) [4.7.4]
***************************
In this Report, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain 99–100% probability, Very likely 90–100%, Likely 66–100%, About as likely as not 33–66%, Unlikely 0–33%, Very unlikely 0–10%, Exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (Extremely likely: 95–100%, More likely than not >50–100%, and Extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely (see Section 1.4 and Box TS.1 for more details). In this Report, the following summary terms are used to describe the available evidence: limited, medium, or robust; and for the degree of agreement: low, medium, or high. A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high, and very high, and typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence. For a given evidence and agreement statement, different confidence levels can be assigned, but increasing levels of evidence and degrees of agreement are correlated with increasing confidence (see Section 1.4 and Box TS.1 for more details)

 

[Theowl32]

How many times do I have to repeat this?

Global warming INCREASES the amount of ice in the Antarctic.

See if you can hang on to that thought for a day or two.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ladies and gentlemen, liberals in a nutshell.

"Come on, we've got to board up that last window! Seal off all the doorways! We must try to protect ourselves from the global warming.l"

"You go outside, and you'll die! By now, the global warming has... shifted the climate, bringing on a new ice age. Within the hour, the temperature outside will fall to over 70 million degrees below zero!"

 

[Theowl32]

Since AR4, almost all glaciers world-wide have continued to shrink as revealed by the time series of measured changes in glacier length, area, volume and mass (very high confidence). Measurements of glacier change have increased substantially in number since AR4. Most of the new datasets, along with a globally complete glacier inventory, have been derived from satellite remote sensing.

During the last decade, most ice was lost from glaciers in Alaska, the Canadian Arctic, the periphery of the Greenland ice sheet, the Southern Andes and the Asian Mountains (very high confidence). Together these regions account for more than 80% of the total ice loss. [4.3.3, Figure 4.11, Table 4.4]

Current glacier extents are out of balance with current climatic conditions, indicating that glaciers will continue to shrink in the future even without further temperature increase (high confidence).

How many times do I have to repeat this?

Global warming INCREASES the amount of ice in the Antarctic.

See if you can hang on to that thought for a day or two.

SO, in other words, the liberals like Abraham, in their twisted creepy logic, THE GLOBAL WARMING decreases the volume of glaciers, however THE GLOBAL WARMING in fact increases ICE expanses in the Antarctic.

YET, the liberals like Abraham went down there to prove MAN MADE global warming by showing that there would indeed be less ice.

SO, now that the EXACT OPPOSITE has been established, Abraham and his types now conclude that THE GLOABAL WARMING increases ICE in specific regions of the world, while THE GLOBAL WARMING decreases ice volume in other regions of the world.

THE GLOBAL WARMING also just happens to cause temperatures in the Summer to rise, and causes the temperatures in the Winter to fall.

No matter what the anomaly, no matter what event it is all THE GLOBAL WARMING.

The hurricane activity in 2005 (yet the hurricane activity in the Atlantic basin has never been slower over the last 10 years since they have been measuring them).

The morons on the left blamed THE GLOBAL WARMING on the hurricane in the Philippines. Ironically, when the Philippines was hit in 1970, the morons on the left blamed that typhoon on THE GLOBAL COOLING.

Real Science website: ‘There have been 35 cyclones in the last 800 years that have killed more than 10,000 people. Thirty-three occurred with CO2 below 350 PPM. The deadliest one in 1970 was blamed on global cooling at the time’

They have it all covered in order to maintain their utter bullshit. It is like this for every issue. Every one of them.

They still think Bush lied about WMDs. That is how stupid they are.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Pray tell, what "scientists" got stuck in all of this? I read there were a few scientist/passengers on the cruise ship, but it was NOT a research voyage and the scientists aboard had NOTHING to do with planning the route or its timing. Likewise, the icebreakers attempting to rescue the stuck cruise ship were just that: icebreakers: commercial vessels providing services for others, not research vessels.

Try outside your favorite leftist sources.. OR you could read the guardian article I posted in the PRIOR thread about this adventure. They have 2 journalists trapped on ship who were sent BECAUSE this is scientific expedition to commemorate some historical event...

well long before the ship left for the antarctic

the mission was to document the changes since the other expedition

Taking a team of 36 women and men south, the new Australasian Antarctic Expedition (AAE) aims to discover just how much change has taken place in this very special part of our planet. Retracing the route of the original AAE a century ago, team members will repeat the same measurements made on Mawson’s expedition and aim to fulfil the one failed objective: to reach the South Magnetic Pole.

The Australasian Antarctic Expedition

but as i posted earlier i can see why they would want to cover up

any mention about searching for evidence of man made global warming

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

Pray tell, what "scientists" got stuck in all of this? I read there were a few scientist/passengers on the cruise ship, but it was NOT a research voyage and the scientists aboard had NOTHING to do with planning the route or its timing. Likewise, the icebreakers attempting to rescue the stuck cruise ship were just that: icebreakers: commercial vessels providing services for others, not research vessels.

Try outside your favorite leftist sources.. OR you could read the guardian article I posted in the PRIOR thread about this adventure. They have 2 journalists trapped on ship who were sent BECAUSE this is scientific expedition to commemorate some historical event...

well long before the ship left for the antarctic

the mission was to document the changes since the other expedition

Taking a team of 36 women and men south, the new Australasian Antarctic Expedition (AAE) aims to discover just how much change has taken place in this very special part of our planet. Retracing the route of the original AAE a century ago, team members will repeat the same measurements made on Mawson’s expedition and aim to fulfil the one failed objective: to reach the South Magnetic Pole.

The Australasian Antarctic Expedition

but as i posted earlier i can see why they would want to cover up

any mention about searching for evidence of man made global warming

--LOL

the one question i do have

the website claimed that they planned on using a plethora of media

to pump the daily results of the change into classrooms all across the globe

did they pump these results into the class room

--LOL

 

[Meister]

If they had been able to navigate without the ice, it would have been in all the journals just how much the Earth has warmed. Glad to see that the Earth handed them their asses.

"Warmers" needed to be rescued because of the "ice".

 

[Abraham3]

Who knows, who cares. They were stuck in the ice due to an unforeseen storm, not from unforeseen climate changes. Besides, as has been posted here multiple times, GLOBAL WARMING WILL CAUSE INCREASED ICE OFF THE ANTARCTIC CONTINENT. The presence of extra ice in this location tends to verify AGW, not refute it.

 

[mamooth]

SO, in other words, the liberals like Abraham,

You mean to rational people who haven't been brainwashed by a political cult.

Dr. Syukuro Manabe, the godfather of AGW science, pointed out why Antarctic sea ice would increase back in 1991. Here, page 795.

Manabe 1991

So, 22 years ago, the AGW scientists were spot on correct in predicting why Antarctic sea ice would increase. And since that documented prediction that is inconvenient for the denialist political cult, most of them work hard to pretend it doesn't exist.

No matter what the anomaly, no matter what event it is all THE GLOBAL WARMING.

We don't say that. Only denlailist cultists claim we say that. But then, nobody pays much attention to them, because now most everyone correctly assumes most denialists are just parroting their political cult's mantras.

They still think Bush lied about WMDs. That is how stupid they are.

As I keep pointing out, this is _entirely_ about politics with denialists. They don't care about the science, which is fortunate for them, given how much they suck at it. Their political cult commands them to lie in the name of hating liberals, and few of 'em have the guts to contradict their cult's sacred commands. That would get them ejected from the herd, and to a conservative herdbeast, banishment from the herd is like death.

 

[Politico]

And you DO do your own research? Let me guess, that's what you call struggling through the text in HotAir, ClimateAudit, InfoWars and WUWT.

I don't even know what any of those are besides Infowars. And seeing as you mentioned them it shows how clueless you are. Everyone knows what I think of Alex Jones.

And I don't know why you nutters don't seem to get how arguments work. If you are making a claim you don't say hey God exists prove he doesn't or else. The burden of proof is yours. And copy and pasting other people's stuff is not research.

 

[flacaltenn]

And you DO do your own research? Let me guess, that's what you call struggling through the text in HotAir, ClimateAudit, InfoWars and WUWT.

I don't even now what any of those are besides Infowars. And seeing as you mentioned them it shows how clueless you are. Everyone knows what I think of Alex Jones.

And I don't know why you nutters don't seem to get how arguments work. If you are making a claim you don't say hey God exists prove he doesn't or else. The burden of proof is yours. And copy and pasting other people's stuff is not research.

Here is Abraham with half his brain operating on the skepticalscience website and the other half speed-linked to the rationalwiki (a site for n'er-do-wells who can't play well with others) --- tutoring others on their "librarians" that direct them to knowledge.. Very very entertaining..

Personally, ALL those blogs are useful if they DIRECT YOU to knowledge.. Rather than ABDUCTING YOU and stranding you in their own indoctrination.. Easier to get links OUT of WUWT -- than it is to try to have skepticalscience give you permission to think or encourage you to read the ORIGINAL sources..

 

[Meister]

Who knows, who cares. They were stuck in the ice due to an unforeseen storm, not from unforeseen climate changes. Besides, as has been posted here multiple times, GLOBAL WARMING WILL CAUSE INCREASED ICE OFF THE ANTARCTIC CONTINENT. The presence of extra ice in this location tends to verify AGW, not refute it.

Only a nutter would believe that if it warms it's agw and if it cools it's agw. Yeah, yeah
You have lost all critical thinking and common sense for your agenda, Abe.

 

[Abraham3]

Then you should have no problem refuting the following:

Increased temperatures of the Southern Ocean will increase evaporation
This will increase the amount of moisture in the air above the Antarctic continent
This will increase the amount of precipitation there
Since temperatures are still well below freezing, this precipitation will fall as snow which will become ice

AND

Warmer ocean waters have thinned and undermined the Antarctic ice shelves
This has caused several large ice shelf collapses
This has opened the path for the flow of glaciers on the Antarctic continent to the sea
By direct measurement, their flow rate has increased five-fold.

Okay, you with the common sense and critical thinking: have at it.

 

[elektra]

Global Warming Scientists get stuck in ice, why did they not predict the ice? Was this asked yet? The smartest people in the world and they can not see that in a few hours or in a day they would be helplessly stranded?

How are they credible, and as I read recent posts, this ice is just as the Scientist thereoized. So how do they not see the ice coming, its not like its a little bit of ice, its not like people have not died in these places since we have been exploring.

It is very apparent that these Scientists and all who support them, all who propagate their theories, are wrong.

These people have zero understanding of the real world and how it works. The proof is they are stuck.

 

[Meister]

Then you should have no problem refuting the following:

Increased temperatures of the Southern Ocean will increase evaporation
This will increase the amount of moisture in the air above the Antarctic continent
This will increase the amount of precipitation there
Since temperatures are still well below freezing, this precipitation will fall as snow which will become ice

AND

Warmer ocean waters have thinned and undermined the Antarctic ice shelves
This has caused several large ice shelf collapses
This has opened the path for the flow of glaciers on the Antarctic continent to the sea
By direct measurement, their flow rate has increased five-fold.

Okay, you with the common sense and critical thinking: have at it.

You said it, prove it, and then while you're at it, apply critical and common sense with proving it's agw.
Nobody is arguing about climate change, what they are arguing is agw, and you guys can only come up with theories along with manipulated data and revealing emails from your messiahs. So go pound sand, abe.

 

[flacaltenn]

Then you should have no problem refuting the following:

Increased temperatures of the Southern Ocean will increase evaporation
This will increase the amount of moisture in the air above the Antarctic continent
This will increase the amount of precipitation there
Since temperatures are still well below freezing, this precipitation will fall as snow which will become ice

AND

Warmer ocean waters have thinned and undermined the Antarctic ice shelves
This has caused several large ice shelf collapses
This has opened the path for the flow of glaciers on the Antarctic continent to the sea
By direct measurement, their flow rate has increased five-fold.

Okay, you with the common sense and critical thinking: have at it.

Ice is growing in Antarctica and the surface has experienced no significant warming has occured to INVOKE your excuses above.. Check yor watch.. Critical thinking just disarmed you in 8.4 seconds...

BTW -- show me a couple references where this was PROJECTED to happen from back in the 90s.......

 

[flacaltenn]

Global Warming Scientists get stuck in ice, why did they not predict the ice? Was this asked yet? The smartest people in the world and they can not see that in a few hours or in a day they would be helplessly stranded?

How are they credible, and as I read recent posts, this ice is just as the Scientist thereoized. So how do they not see the ice coming, its not like its a little bit of ice, its not like people have not died in these places since we have been exploring.

It is very apparent that these Scientists and all who support them, all who propagate their theories, are wrong.

These people have zero understanding of the real world and how it works. The proof is they are stuck.

Bingo. Their book learning just got trumped by a field trip with Gilligan and the Skipper too.

Had this been 100 years ago and the original expedition was as inept, Darwin would have taken them out of play......

Maybe we should suggest that Trenberth personally go looking for that hidden heat in the deep ocean.. This whole bad AGW dream might just solve itself. Briffa could get a chain saw and fell his oown trees... lmao

 

[Abraham3]

Are you wishing death on people?

I really thought you were smarter than this.

Let's have a vote. How many of you believe that this ship getting stuck in the ice refutes anthropogenic global warming?

Or, that it would be funny if climate scientists who accept AGW were killed in the course of their research?

Jeez,what a laugh riot.

 

[Theowl32]

So, they are in agreement then?

The ice expanse enlarges due to THE GLOBAL WARMING in the Antarctic.

Glaciers however, thins out in other regions of the world due to THE GLOBAL WARMING.

I mean that is what it would have to be. Why? Cause the ice in the Antarctic has trapped a bunch of Abraham types.

Hey, you know what? There is a distinct possibility that the ice is going to crush the hull of the Akademic Shokalskiy.

Interesting side note on this embarrassing situation for Abraham types.

Frozen Out: 98% of Stories Ignore That Ice-bound Ship Was On Global Warming Mission


A group of climate change scientists were rescued by helicopter Jan. 2, after being stranded in the ice since Christmas morning. But the majority of the broadcast networks’ reports about the ice-locked climate researchers never mentioned climate change.

The Russian ship, Akademic Shokalskiy, was stranded in the ice while on a climate change research expedition, yet nearly 98 percent of network news reports about the stranded researchers failed to mention their mission at all. Forty out of 41 stories (97.5 percent) on the network morning and evening news shows since Dec. 25 failed to mention climate change had anything to do with the expedition.

In fact, rather than point out the mission was to find evidence of climate change, the networks often referred to the stranded people as “passengers,” “trackers” and even “tourists,” without a word about climate change or global warming.

Chris Turney, the expedition’s leader, is a professor of climate change at the University of New South Wales. According to Turney’s personal website, the purpose of the expedition is to “discover and communicate the environmental changes taking place in the south.”

Twenty-two crew members stayed with the ship for the time being, as the scientists and researchers were rescued. According to CNN, the ship has enough supplies for “a very long time.”

Three rescue attempts had been thwarted by growing levels of sea ice and weather conditions.

"Outside, blizzard conditions packing an abnormal amount of ice in to the area for this time of the year, summer in the Antarctic," ABC News Correspondent Gio Benitez reported on “Good Morning America” Dec. 31.

On Jan. 2, all 52 passengers were airlifted to a nearby Australian icebreaker ship which had tried, and failed, to plow through the ice and free the Akademic Shokalskiy, on Dec. 30. “Good Morning America” said on Dec. 30, that “the ice could be as thick as 13 feet.”

According to Fox News, Turney admitted “we’re stuck in our own experiment.” They reported on Dec. 30, that a statement from the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said, “Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up.”

There was only one news story out of 41 that mentioned climate change. That was CBS “This Morning” Dec. 30. “Despite being frozen at a standstill, the team’s research on climate change and Antarctic wildlife is moving forward,” CBS News Correspondent Don Dahler said. That night, all three evening news programs still failed to make any mention of the group’s climate change research.

The MRC’s Business and Media Institute was unable to view a copy of CBS “Sunday Morning” for Dec. 29, so that broadcast had to be excluded from the tally.

Before their ship got stuck in ice, the researchers were following the trail of the explorer Douglas Mawson, who was stranded in Antarctica for more than a year, beginning in December 1912, according to the website about the expedition.


Read more: Frozen Out: 98% of Stories Ignore That Ice-bound Ship Was On Global Warming Mission | NewsBusters