Are The Ice Caps Melting?

[Emma Robertson]

Global Warming Theory ‘Completely
Disconnected From the Observations’

I acknowledge KNMI Climate Explorer and GHCN for access to daily and monthly Tmax/Tmin data, to the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, at Boulder, CO, USA for use of their ice cover graph and to Dr Simon Lister for his help with manuscript

Extensive analysis of temperature trends in the Arctic reveals that there has been no detectable long-term change since the beginning of the 20th century, and thus predictions of a sea ice-free Arctic in the coming decades due to dramatically rising temperatures are not rooted in observation.

Butina, 2015
IS THE ARCTIC MELTING?
THEORY VS. OBSERVATIONS
Abstract

[T]he Arctic Circle is the most extreme place on our planet where seasonal changes can range from +35.0°C in July and -65.0°C in February; […] on average 75% of the year is spent below the melting point of water [and] on average the Arctic will be covered by ice/snow for the same proportion of time, i.e., 75% or 9 months of the year.
The same seasonal extreme variations in air temperatures are also observed in ice cover variations observed in the Arctic where the winter‘s ice cover can be between 14- 16 million km2, while during summer the area covered can vary between 4 and 8 million km2. Based on observations, dating back to 1900, it can be concluded that it is physically impossible for the Arctic to be ice/snow free in the foreseeable future since the air temperatures were as cold in 2013 as they were in 1900.
Since ice cannot melt below 0.0°C, all these observations point towards the Arctic remaining ice-covered for the next 100 years. It must also follow that any theory predicting imminent melting of the Arctic ice cap cannot be based on thermometer-recorded data and, therefore, must be wrong and will merely be an artefact of using the term temperature where there is no true association with the calibrated thermometer, the instrument used to measure temperature in all physical, medical and engineering sciences.
Conclusion

So, what are the hard facts about Arctic that are based on the observations made by calibrated thermometers at 20 stations across the Arctic Circle and which conclusions can be made based on those observations?

1. Temperatures in the Arctic between 1900 and the present day are a long distance below 0.0°C for at least 9 months per year and can be as low as -64.0°C

2. It is impossible to separate the youngest from the oldest years using thermometerbased daily or monthly Tmax/Tmin data

3. The total ranges observed in daily Tmax/Tmin data can be as high as 100.0°C and as low as 75.0°C making the Arctic Circle the most variable and extreme area on our planet therefore making any accurate forecasting of future temperature patterns and trends impossible

4. The switches between the extreme hot to extreme cold temperatures are very frequent and very unpredictable and can occur within the same month, same year or between two consecutive years

5. The large observed ice gain/loss variations are pre-determined by the large observed variations in air temperatures

6. Since the air temperatures are chaotic in nature it must follow that the extent of the ice cover has to be chaotic as well and, since we cannot predict future events of a chaotic system, we cannot predict future trends of either air temperatures or ice cover patterns

Based on the facts above only one conclusion can be made in reference to the putative melting of the Arctic: historical thermometer-based data tells us that between 1900 and 2014 arctic temperatures were for 75% of the time consistently long distance below 0.0°C; the ice cover in the winter months is still consistently more than 14,000,000km2 and, therefore, it is physically impossible for the Arctic to be already melting since nothing has changed since 1900 till present day. The only sensible forecast for the future would be to expect the same extreme events to continue until thermometer-based evidence tell us otherwise.

Let me conclude this paper by answering the question asked in the first part of the title by a categorical No, the Arctic is not melting. As long as temperatures remain the same as they have been for the last 100 years the Arctic will remain frozen in the long winter months and partly melt during very short summer months.

The answer to the second question is that the theory of global warming is completely disconnected from the observations since their definition of temperature is based on some theoretical number that has nothing to do with the temperature that is measured by calibrated thermometer and, most importantly, used as an international standard by the scientific community. Since the theory is clearly wrong about forecasting the temperature patterns in the Arctic, all other predictions made by the theory must be wrong too.

 

[Emma Robertson]

Just for reference here is what the National Snow & Ice Data Center (supported by NASA among other federal agencies) says instead:

Why is Arctic sea ice important
Arctic sea ice keeps the polar regions cool and helps moderate global climate. Sea ice has a bright surface; 80 percent of the sunlight that strikes it is reflected back into space. As sea ice melts in the summer, it exposes the dark ocean surface. Instead of reflecting 80 percent of the sunlight, the ocean absorbs 90 percent of the sunlight. The oceans heat up, and Arctic temperatures rise further.

A small temperature increase at the poles leads to still greater warming over time, making the poles the most sensitive regions to climate change on Earth. According to scientific measurements, both the thickness and extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic have shown a dramatic decline over the past thirty years. This is consisistent with observations of a warming Arctic. The loss of sea ice also has the potential to accelerate global warming trends and to change climate patterns.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/seaice.html

 

[Emma Robertson]

The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened
Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened explains why the catastrophic decline in polar bear numbers we were promised in 2007 failed to materialize. It’s the story of how and why the polar bear came to be considered 'Threatened' with extinction, and tracks its rise and fall as an icon of the global warming movement. The book also tells the story of Crockford’s role in bringing that failure to public attention and the backlash against her that ensued – and why, among all others who have attempted to do so previously, she was uniquely positioned to do so. In general, this is a cautionary tale of scientific hubris and of scientific failure, of researchers staking their careers on untested computer simulations and later obfuscating inconvenient facts. For the first time, you'll see a frank and detailed account of attempts by scientists to conceal population growth as numbers rose from an historical low in the 1960s to the astonishing highs that surely must exist after almost 50 years of protection from overhunting. There is also a blunt account of what truly abundant populations of bears mean for the millions of people who live and work in areas of the Arctic inhabited by polar bears.

https://www.amazon.com/Polar-Bear-Catastrophe-Never-Happened-ebook/dp/B07PT7SCZ8

 

[Emma Robertson]

I believed the story of poles ice melting for a while, years ago, without investigating. Then I just felt inside it wasn't true when I was supposed instead to convince myself of it's gravity and imminence and act. It's hilarious how it happened: I was at an important international eco-village (I used to be very "green" before) as a living guest. We were given various training sessions and one of these was by a convinced ecologist all about zero carbon footprints.

We were thrown in our face the desperate situation of our planet because of human activity, ice melting among other things. Then we were asked to notice how we felt and share with others. Worry, shock, anger, sorrow, guilt... People suddenly faced with the hard fact had strong reactions, some cried. I felt nothing instead, no worry, shock, anger, sorrow, guilt. At the cortex level I believed what I was told, but inside there was no emotional reaction. At the time I thought there was something wrong in me, I thought that I didn't care for the planet, but later I understood that I unconsciously just felt it was not true.

The hilarious thing is that that training aimed at mobilizing people to do something to "save" the planet. Instead it convinced me that the planet doesn't need to be saved. (It's not in a brilliant shape, but we are not on the brink of a natural catastrophe due to human irresponsibility).

The woman proving that polar bears have increased and not at risk, is probably believing in good faith like many people that Arctic glaciers are melting, as we have all been bombarded by this as if it was fact, and she delevoped her theory, right or not, that explains why bears can thrive despite increased temperatures.

I don't care about her theory, what matters to me is that polar bears have increased. Another catastrophic fairy tale (one of the many) debunked.

 

[Ruby Gray]

Yes Emma, I myself often wonder ... what is the "correct" number of polar bears that this world is supposed to support?

Something that is little discussed is the phenomenon of continental rebound.

Antarctica is weighed down by several kilometres of snow, as is Greenland and other landmasses.
When this ice melts, we are told, the unimaginable volume of meltwater will overwhelm the low-lying coastlands of all continents, and submerge many islands.
So far, despite the claim that much polar ice has already melted, there has been no rise in sea levels. The sea laps at the shore of my local beach in precisely the same place that it did when I played with my bucket and spade there over 60 years ago.

When this phenomenal weight of ice melts over Antarctica, the plasticity of earth's substructure allows the mountains of this great continent to rise up. There is then much less of the solid mass of Antarctica submerged below sea level, compensating for the extra volume of water released into the oceans.
The net result is balance. The sea levels remain the same.
The fact that volcanic and tectonic and erosive activity results in a few small islands forming and subsiding, is not evidence of the global increased height of sea levels we are warned about.

This however does not mean I discount the dire scriptural warnings about coming oceanic events.

LUKE 21
23b "For there will be great distress upon the earth
and wrath against this people.
24 They will fall by the edge of the sword
and be led captive among all nations,
and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles,
until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

25 “And tthere will be signs in sun and moon and stars,
and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity
because of the ROARING OF THE SEA AND THE WAVES,
26 people fainting with fear
and with foreboding of what is coming on the world.
For the POWERS OF THE HEAVENS will be shaken.
27 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud
with power and great glory.
28 Now when these things begin to take place,
straighten up and raise your heads,
because your redemption is drawing near.”

Apparently, the cause of these roaring waves will be at least partially extraterrestrial.
An event involving a "great mountain" falling from the sky into the sea is foretold.
No doubt the prophesied earthquakes of unprecedented magnitude will also cause tsunamis of unimaginable extent.
These events are quite outside of the capacity of MMGW to produce.

REVELATION 6:12-17
12 When he opened the sixth seal, I looked,
and behold, ithere was a great earthquake,
and the sun became black as sackcloth,
the full moon became like blood,
13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth
as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale.
14 The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up,
and every mountain and island was removed from its place.

15 Then the kings of the earth and the great ones
and the generals and the rich and the powerful,
and everyone, slave and free,
hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains,
16 calling to the mountains and rocks,
“Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne,
and from the wrath of the Lamb,
17 for the great day of their wrath has come,
and who can stand?”


REVELATION 8:7-9
7 The first angel blew his trumpet,
and there followed hail and fire, mixed with blood,
and these were THROWN UPON THE EARTH.
And a third of the earth was burned up,
and a third of gthe trees were burned up,
and all green grass was burned up.

8 The second angel blew his trumpet,
and something like A GREAT MOUNTAIN, BURNING WITH FIRE,
was THROWN INTO THE SEA,
and a third of the sea became blood.
9 A third of the living creatures in the sea died,
and a third of the ships were destroyed.


As if these cataclysms were not enough, there is more to come.
Another mighty and sudden, unavoidable extraterrestrial impact is foretold.

REVELATION 8:10-12
10 The third angel blew his trumpet,
and A GREAT STAR FELL FROM HEAVEN, BLAZING LIKE A TORCH,
and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water.
11 The name of the star is WORMWOOD.
2 A third of the waters became wormwood,
and many people died from the water, because it had been made bitter.

Although for some period during this prolonged onslaught, the sun "WILL BE ALLOWED TO SCORCH MEN WITH FIRE", it will first be prevented from shining at full strength. Sounds like a universal dust and ash cloud, as seen from massive volcanic eruptions.

12 The fourth angel blew his trumpet,
and a third of othe sun was struck,
and a third of the moon, and a third of the stars,
so that a third of their light might be darkened,
and a third of the day might be kept from shining,
and likewise a third of the night.

It is interesting that the word for "Wormwood" in Russian is "CHERNOBYL".

Anyway, according to the Bible, these plages are episodes of divine wrath executed against the wicked on earth.
That is, including those who pollute it with toxic emissions and mountains of "disposable" synthetic chemical products, of course.

 

[Emma Robertson]

This thread is part of the bigger thread about global warming and we have started to talk about ice caps melting here: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/globalist-warming-denial-the-green-new-deal.1536/page-4#post-12515

where I provide an article that shows that temperatures at the Arctic have not increased over the last 100 years and thus ice caps are not melting.

Something that is little discussed is the phenomenon of continental rebound.

Antarctica is weighed down by several kilometres of snow, as is Greenland and other landmasses.
When this ice melts, we are told, the unimaginable volume of meltwater will overwhelm the low-lying coastlands of all continents, and submerge many islands.
So far, despite the claim that much polar ice has already melted, there has been no rise in sea levels. The sea laps at the shore of my local beach in precisely the same place that it did when I played with my bucket and spade there over 60 years ago.

When this phenomenal weight of ice melts over Antarctica, the plasticity of earth's substructure allows the mountains of this great continent to rise up. There is then much less of the solid mass of Antarctica submerged below sea level, compensating for the extra volume of water released into the oceans.
The net result is balance. The sea levels remain the same.
The fact that volcanic and tectonic and erosive activity results in a few small islands forming and subsiding, is not evidence of the global increased height of sea levels we are warned about.

That makes perfect sense. In fact, in summer more than half of Arctic ice melts! (to froze again in winter). We should be experiencing consistent sea level increases then and we don't.

The sea laps at the shore of my local beach in precisely the same place that it did when I played with my bucket and spade there over 60 years ago.

Actually, the see level increases officially maintained are now of the order of just 3,3 mm per year! So, the see level should have increased by just about 10-15 cm in 60 years, something not easy to detect to the human eye. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Which allows them to maintain the theory that see levels are increasing, because the increases are so small that we cannot verify with our eyes whether its true or not.

But one could then object: if these increases are so small, why should we worry? So they have come forward with their second part of theory: that at a certain point the increase will, or might, become huge and suddain, and our coastal areas flooded.

Which does not make sense. I am sure they have invented some theory to explain why from millimetric increases we will pass to a huge tzunami that will flood hundreds of miles of inland.

But I am not interested in that theory. These are those fake theories like the Butterfly Effect, which states that if you fart in Australia, a tzunami will be produced in Brazil. So people don't fart or we will face destruction!

What I notice is that the global warming theory is just a convenient way to explain why coastal areas will be flooded, holding human consumption of fossil fuels as the culprit.

Coastal areas are the most densily populated areas. Half of world population live within 200 miles from coasts, where major cities are, and the phenomenon is increasing: https://www.prb.org/rippleeffectspopulationandcoastalregions/

The impact of coastal flooding foreseen is exactly the range of 200 km or more, or less, depending on the altitude of each coast.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/

That's a fast way to eliminate a good part of the world population all together.

I imagine those geniuses behind this plan, and looking at the world population distribution to figure out a way to eliminate us. They obviosly realized they had to flood the coastal areas and then found a justification for it, something that could hold all humans responsible. So they came up with the global warming theory.

Thankfully, you Ruby can understand how they will achieve the coastal flooding. They have been testing their technology with tzunamies in the last years, haven't they? The first huge one in the Indian Ocean, exactly where the highest density of population is found in coastal areas.

 

[Emma Robertson]

For ice caps melting I have created a new thread where we are going on with discussion: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/are-the-ice-caps-melting.2543/

 

[Ruby Gray]

Thanks, Emma! I found those Barrow temperature charts enlightening. At the very least they make me happy not to live there!

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hello Emma & Ruby, I hope you won't mind that I've combined the relevant posts from two threads here, and put the new thread in the Global Warming sub-forum.

The full paper from Darko Butina is found here: http://l4patterns.com/uploads/arctic-paper-2015.pdf

Extensive analysis of temperature trends in the Arctic reveals that there has been no detectable long-term change since the beginning of the 20th century, and thus predictions of a sea ice-free Arctic in the coming decades due to dramatically rising temperatures are not rooted in observation.

There is no such extensive analysis to be found in this paper. Instead, Butina has cherry-picked the data from 4 out of 20 measuring stations, and then analyzed only monthly min-max temperatures. He admits that the max and min temperatures are effected by extreme weather events that sometimes cause data collection failures, and excludes the stations where such events have occurred.

Furthermore, there is no actual statistical analysis of the data points. But rather, he just presents the graphs, using inappropriate scaling, and expects the reader to jump to conclusions. The temperature changes we're looking for are on the order of a degree or two, which is dwarfed by the annual variability. It looks to me like the expected upward slope is indeed present in this data, but you have to squint to see it.

Based on the facts above only one conclusion can be made in reference to the putative melting of the Arctic: historical thermometer-based data tells us that between 1900 and 2014 arctic temperatures were for 75% of the time consistently long distance below 0.0°C; the ice cover in the winter months is still consistently more than 14,000,000km2 and, therefore, it is physically impossible for the Arctic to be already melting since nothing has changed since 1900 till present day.

During winter months, the entire Arctic ocean is indeed still covered with ice, as it always has been. The difference is that the ice is getting thinner and thinner. Over great areas, it disappears completely over the summer. So whereas before the sea ice consisted largely of old ice that had been frozen solid for many years, now it's mostly new ice frozen each winter.

The change in minimum sea ice extent during the summer months is dramatic. The drop is not remorseless every single year, but it's a consistent trend nevertheless.

Darko Butina doesn't deny this, because it's well known fact. So why does he fail to mention it, as if it doesn't matter??

It must also follow that any theory predicting imminent melting of the Arctic ice cap cannot be based on thermometer-recorded data and, therefore, must be wrong and will merely be an artefact of using the term temperature where there is no true association with the calibrated thermometer, the instrument used to measure temperature in all physical, medical and engineering sciences.

Elsewhere in the paper, Butina explains what he means with this strange claim: he does not consider that the concept of an "average temperature" has any grounding in reality. This is an utterly bizarre viewpoint.

International Journal of Chemical Modeling

The above-mentioned journal sounds like a real journal, and this title implies that this is a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

But the phenomenon of fake journals should be well-known by now. No peer reviewed journal would allow a junk paper like this. This is simply an object lesson in lying with statistics.

Here's a list of journal quality ratings, compiled from twelve sources. "IJCM" doesn't even appear on this list.

https://harzing.com/download/jql2019-07_title.pdf

The journal does get indexed by google scholar, where you can see that no other scientific author has quoted Butina's article, aside from himself.

According to scientific measurements, both the thickness and extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic have shown a dramatic decline over the past thirty years. This is consisistent with observations of a warming Arctic.

That's the true factual situation. If you don't trust government reports, I'd recommend checking out the book "A Farewell to Ice" by Peter Wadhams. From the Amazon blurb:

Peter Wadhams has been studying ice first-hand since 1970, completing 50 trips to the world's poles and observing for himself the changes over the course of nearly five decades. His conclusions are stark: the ice caps are melting.​

By comparison: Darko Butina is a retired corporate pharmaceutical data analyst, and makes no claims to have ever seen the Arctic.

Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened explains why the catastrophic decline in polar bear numbers we were promised in 2007 failed to materialize... For the first time, you'll see a frank and detailed account of attempts by scientists to conceal population growth as numbers rose from an historical low in the 1960s to the astonishing highs that surely must exist after almost 50 years of protection from overhunting.

Just from this book summary, I see some major problems. Polar bears were identified as a threatened species in the 1960's because of hunting, not global warming. So they passed laws against hunting polar bears, and their numbers have increased. A conservation success story, one of few and far between. What's the problem here?

What does this mean, "the astonishing highs that surely must exist"? How many polar bears is that? According to this article at factcheck.org, the US Dept. of the Interior says the polar bear population recovered from a low of 12,000, increasing to 25,000 in 2008. However, the article goes on to state that field research in polar bears is challenging, and estimates range from 5,000 to 31,000 bears.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/polar-bear-population/

So the bears have been saved from the hunting problem. But as factcheck goes on to explain: starting in 2007, scientists started warning about global warming. They said that polar bear populations could be cut by two-thirds (that is, even less than estimated 1960's levels) by 2050.

It's not 2050 yet!! Why is this book gloating about the alleged failure of predictions for conditions to exist in 2050??

I myself often wonder ... what is the "correct" number of polar bears that this world is supposed to support?

If there are 25,000 polar bears in the world, that would be one for every 300,000 humans on the planet. Is that too many? The book summary seems to indicate that there is some fearsome threat to human beings, from this vast number of polar bears and their seal-eating ways. Seriously??

So far, despite the claim that much polar ice has already melted, there has been no rise in sea levels.

In this case, Emma has provided the correct figures. Sea levels have risen, on the average, worldwide, about 9 cm or 4" since the 1990's. It's entirely possible that some locations would have seen no change at all, or even a fall in apparent sea level, due to local factors.

But one could then object: if these increases are so small, why should we worry? So they have come forward with their second part of theory: that at a certain point the increase will, or might, become huge and suddain, and our coastal areas flooded.

Which does not make sense. I am sure they have invented some theory to explain why from millimetric increases we will pass to a huge tzunami that will flood hundreds of miles of inland.

But I am not interested in that theory. These are those fake theories like the Butterfly Effect, which states that if you fart in Australia, a tzunami will be produced in Brazil. So people don't fart or we will face destruction!

A very revealing comment. The reason you're not interested, Emma, is because the facts contradict your entrenched world view.

Rates of sea level rise will increase, if the earth's temperature continues to rise. This is because every year, in Greenland and Antarctica, snow falls in the winter and melts in the summer. Up until now there's been a balance, and the amount of continental ice stays about the same.

But if we have warmer summers, more of the snow melts, and the total amount of ice cover falls. This is happening already in Greenland, at a slow rate. The amount of sea level rise that's happened so far, is more or less consistent with the amount of ice that's melted.

And as the ice disappears, the earth's albedo changes, causing more warming and more melting.

Paleo-climatologists say that in ancient times, at temperatures a few degrees warmer than pre-industrial, the ice caps completely disappeared. Sea levels were many feet higher, putting vast coastal areas underwater.

Projections of disastrous sea level rise are generally pointing to 2050 and later. Nobody is expecting New York to be underwater in the next year or two.

But this is no "butterfly effect". Not that you've correctly understood the butterfly effect, either. It's a real thing, but the butterfly doesn't cause the tornado. The butterfly effect is this: A billion butterflies all have the ability to perturb the weather system, and all of them are flapping on a regular basis. Which is why nobody can predict where the tornado will be, or when it will hit.

They have been testing their technology with tzunamies in the last years, haven't they?

According to this theory, the PTB are using nuclear weapons to trigger tsunamis.

https://www.conspiracies.net/2004-indian-ocean-tsunami-nuclear-trigger/

But then, you don't believe in nuclear weapons, do you Emma? Please explain how to cause a tsunami without a nuclear weapon?

Not that I've ever seen the slightest scrap of evidence that anyone is using nuclear weapons to trigger tsunamis. Dmitry Orlov said the same thing about the Fukushima disaster, and also with no evidence.

Also, tsunamis are epic waves that kill suddenly. Sea level rise, even catastrophic sea level rise, happens inch by inch over the years. Surely people will know the difference?

 

[Emma Robertson]

WHAT ABOUT ANTARCTICA?

We have talked about the Arctic temperatures, but what about Antarctica?

If you type "Antarctica+green" as key words in Google you are flooded by websites affirming that the South Pole is getting green, that is ice caps are melting.

This Antartica expedition team member must have not read the news as he says:

Antarctica calls for tradies and ladies
LAUREN ROBERTS, NT News

January 12, 2018 2:30pm

"ONE of the worst things about living in Antarctica is a complete lack of the colour green, according to Alice Springs sparky Zachary Lockhard.
“There’s no green in Antarctica — when you step outside there’s nothing but white,” he said.

“We’re growing lettuces and tomatoes indoors, and I’m spending a lot of time with them. That’s the only green here.”

Mr Lockhard moved to Casey Station last October to work as an instrument electrician.

“I get to work on some of the complex and technical side of being an electrician,” he said.

“I’ve always wanted to work down here, I really enjoy the remote work, that’s all I’ve ever done. This is the most remote I’ve ever worked.”

The Australian Antarctic Division is currently looking for people to fill more than 150 roles, and are calling on tradies, and chefs to join the frosty adventure.

“If you’ve thought about doing it, do it,” Mr Lockhard said.

He would be on base until November 2018, and admitted the biggest adjustment was the climate.

“One of the biggest things is the weather, today’s a pretty warm day because it’s just above 0C,” he said.

“When we arrived, it was -30C with the wind chill, you just couldn’t get enough jackets. I’m sorts used to it now.”



Mr Lockhard said he was grateful for the experience. “The best thing is waking up in the morning and looking out my window to rays of golden sunshine hitting the icebergs on the horizon,” he said.

On weekends, Mr Lockhard loves getting out to field huts on to see thousands of penguins and seals lazing around.

“I love the fact that you can be working away and there’s a few penguins that come and check you out — they’re like children, really curious,” he added.

Human resources manager Andrew Groom said the recruitment drive was an incredible opportunity for people to live and work in one of the most remote places on the planet.

“Antarctica is a place that many people dream of experiencing, but few have the chance to,” he said.

People can apply for a variety of roles — and can get contracts from between four months and 18 months

“Becoming an Australian Antarctic expeditioner gives you unique access to the icy continent, you’ll be able to immerse yourself in the Antarctic environment, see icebergs and penguins first-hand, and become part of a vibrant station community,” Mr Groom said.

The team wants to enhance diversity on station, and are encouraging females to apple for the 2018-19 season.

“All applicants are assessed for their job specific skills, but also undergo comprehensive medical and adaptability assessments to determine their fitness and suitability for life in Antarctica.”

Before heading south, expeditioners may get the chance to be trained to undertake other roles while on station, including being part of the lay surgical team, search and rescue or firefighting crew.

The recruitment round for the 2018-19 season is open until January 2014. For more information, visit — http://www.antarctica.gov.au/jobs/antarctica



MORE IN NEWS


https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/northern-territory/antarctica-calls-for-tradies-and-ladies/news-story/680e36476e883b6f2d8f7820851428e5?nk=d7dc378bd1e19fb11974dd6d75273a67-1549858646

 

[Emma Robertson]

There is no mention in his talk about any melting of ice caps, something that to an expeditioner living there should be quite clear and important.

Neither you can find any mention to ice caps melting in the Australian Government website with its Autralian Antartic Program for recruiting workers in Antartica. No pictures showing any green.
https://jobs.antarctica.gov.au/

No mention either to ice caps melting, nor green pictures in this website organizing expeditions to the South Pole:
https://global.hurtigruten.com/destinations/antarctica/inspiration/weather-in-antarctica/

The only mention to ice melting I found is: https://global.hurtigruten.com/destinations/antarctica/inspiration/15-interesting-facts-about-antarctica/

"4. Scientists claim that if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet were to melt, it would raise global sea levels by about 16 feet."

It says IF ice sheet were to melt, it doesn't say that ice sheets are melting.

These ecologist people should very well be concerned by ice melting if that was really happening, and they aren't.

 

[Jerry Russell]

If you type "Antarctica+green" as key words in Google you are flooded by websites affirming that the South Pole is getting green, that is ice caps are melting.

I tried that search. All the top results were reports of a study showing increased moss growth on the Antarctic Peninsula. So this is really happening. Furthermore, the ice shelves of the Antarctic Peninsula (Larsen A, Larsen B and now Larsen C) have been breaking up as well.

On the mainland of Antarctica, which is the vast majority of the surface area of the continent, it's a different story. There's been little if any ice melt there.