Thick ice

The Arctic is on thin ice.”

Such is the cry of global warming apocalyptics who like to broadcast claims of doom-and-gloom surrounding the melting of the polar ice cap at the North Pole.

Unfortunately for team warming, their ice narrative doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

Global warming campaigners love to talk about ice and weather.

They do this to cover for the fact that the climate computer simulations, upon which the entire climate scare depends, consistently project a warmer world than observations show. They never get to say, “temperatures are as we told you they would be.”

Unfortunately for team warming their ice narrative doesn’t hold up either. Antarctic ice has been reaching record extents in recent years. North pole ice thinned, but then recovered.

Marc Morano posted a report at CFACT’s Climate Depot.

“The narrative from activist ice watchers is along these lines:  2017 minimum is not especially low, but it is very thin. They are basing that notion on PIOMAS, a model-based estimate of ice volumes, combining extents with estimated thickness.  That technology is not mature, and in any case refers to the satellite era baseline, which began in 1979.

The formation of ice this year does not appear thin, since it is concentrated in the central Arctic.  For example, Consider how Laptev and East Siberian seas together added 180k km2 in the just the last ten days.”

Whether there is more or less ice one year to the next is irrelevant to understanding the climate.

All of the temperature data sets, even those upon which climate campaigners appear to have put their thumbs on the scale, record very small temperature fluctuations. There has not been enough temperature change under anyone’s measurement to cause major changes to the conditions we experience today.

Bottom line: It’s time to chill out about fears concerning melting Arctic ice.

Categories

About the Author: Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is the executive director and co-founder of CFACT.

  • Ian5

    “Whether there is more or less ice one year to the next is irrelevant to understanding the climate.”

    >> Precisely. That point along with the usual cherry picking is why this article is so misleading. Rapid changes have indeed been occurring in the Arctic, where the ice coverage has been declining at a substantial rate. North pole ice has not “recovered” as suggested by this article. For up-to-date science, readers should refer to the National Snow and Ice Data Center and the Cryosphere Science Research Portal,and avoid disinformation professional Marc Morano and his intentionally misleading website.
    https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234

  • Immortal600

    People should avoid anything NASA puts out on climate because they are misleading and dishonest. Anybody who believes the garbage they put out is a sheep.

    • MichaelR

      No, sadly sites like this are expecting you to follow like sheep and not check your facts. This post is cherry picking data and concealing more relevant evidence, again.

      • Immortal600

        Oh BS! You are another lemming without a clue. AGW is a farce. Anyone who truly understands thermodynamics would realize that. You obviously don’t.

        • MichaelR

          Lmao. Well if you are going to call me stupid then I get to tell you that I got a masters in engineering science from an elite university and spent a year on thermodynamics and fluid mechanics. It is f’ing complicated. I know that. But I know my place. I am no climate scientist, and I am guessing, neither are you. I can spot when a moron blogger is lying though.

          Oh, and way to go actually rebutting my discrediting of this blog post. The author has so clearly cherry picked his data to get the conclusion he wanted it’s almost laughable, except for the fact that it’s so transparently dishonest.

          • Immortal600

            You may have an education but that doesn’t mean you actually understand the issue. You are nothing more than another zealot trolling here. There are plenty of scientists that dispute AGW and THAT isn’t “ cherry picking “. Try looking for them and read what they say, you might become a bit more enlightened.

  • MichaelR

    Oh dear. You have been cherry picking your days again haven’t you. This is the data over a longer timeframe. Spot a downward trend now?
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2017/10/monthly_ice_09_NH_v2.1.png

    Taken from this recent update from NSIDC (not NASA)
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    In fact, a full explanation of the bullshit used to establish that sea ice “is just fine” is deftly explained here:
    https://youtu.be/bEieWJghRNY

    Your a sceptic right? Then you should surely take this opportunity to check the facts, right?

    • Leigh

      Yes, there is a trend from the period of maximum sea ice to a couple years ago when it stopped declining. Maybe you recall the hysteria du jour back in 1979 when “all scientists” agreed that the earth was entering another ice age and it was all mankind’s fault, since the Earth had generally cooled for about 30 years.

      • MichaelR

        Your second point first. That was never an accepted scientific theory. It was a hypothesis but about by a tiny group of scientists that Time didn’t bother to fact check and then made it their cover story, vastly overhyping it.

        To your first point, please cite your data on the trend of loss of stctic sea ice loss levelling off.

        Lastly, in actual fact, sea ice is not even the problem, it’s just a indicator. The real problem is ice on land, like the Greenland ice sheet at that is melting at unprecedented speed. Together with thermal expansion of the water in the ocean due to its higher mean temperature, sea levels are forecast to rise at an increasing rate, especially once more positive feedback mechanisms start to gather pace.

        • Leigh

          So that “hypothesis” was just like the 97% thing in which a very small (well under 100) group of “scientists” agree with the claims about CO2 driving climate and this has been cited since as a club to beat down anyone disputing the hypothesis? BTW, there is no doubt that CO2 is one of many factors that influence climate but its effect was largely maximized at current levels so even doubling the amount has virtually no impact.

          There have been many periods in the not too distant past that the Earth’s climate was much warmer than today’s and also many that were much cooler and all the species around today survived just fine, so I expect that polar bears will adapt and thrive as they currently are.

          In regard to sea levels, it has been rising for thousands of years since the end of the last ice age and will continue a bit yet till the onset of the next one though the rate of increase has slowed to a few millimeters per decade, almost impossible to measure against a backdrop of movement of the Earth’s crust.

          • MichaelR

            So first, I take it you could not find data to substantiate your assertion on no recent sea ice loss, or no recent Greenland ice sheet melt, so that is still just your personal assertion.

            Second on the 1970 cooling hypothesis, here is a published analysis of what happened.
            https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

            Over a number of years, there was a small group on scientists that published on this theory, 7. There were far more contemporary studies predicting warming, 44. The error in the cooling therory was this was measuring an effect (aerosol particulates) and not properly factoring in bigger factors like CO2 in the medium and long term so they got erroneous conclusions. In fact some papers were subsequently retracted when they were found to be methodology unsound.

            By contrast, in the last review off the current peer reviewed published literature, 97% of about 10,000 papers that expressed a position, supported the theory of AGW. So to see any equivalence between the cooling hypothesis of the 70s and modern theory of AGW is wrong both on the prevailing acceptance of the theory and the sheer scale of the evidence.

            What do you mean by not to distant past? If you think that warmer climates don’t cause extinction events then I would love to see your peer reviewed evidence for that. The widely accepted evidence of the geological record shows clearly that large changes in climate cause not just extinction evens but whole sale destruction of ecosystems. You only have to look at coral reef bleaching and the widespread destruction of the marine ecosystems to observe that happening now. This 2008 paper on Nature is one of the most cited on this subject.
            http://208.180.30.233/lib/reefs_endangered.071214.pdf
            So saying ‘it will all be fine, the natural world will cope fine’ is uninformed and irresponsible.

            Re sea levels rising, these go up and down and there was a small rise after the medieval warming period (which btw was nowhere as warm as it is today). Higher temperature of the ocean causes thermal expansion of the water but that reserves quickly when the temperature moderates. What we have now is a much much faster rise as a result of thermal expansion but also land ice sheet melt in Greenland, the Antarctic and the glaciers which is irreversible in the short or medium term. Here is a reconstruction of sea level over the last 2000 years
            http://www.realclimate.org/images//Kemp_sealevel_20111.png
            With the methodology explained here.
            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/2000-years-of-sea-level/
            The very substantial and accelerating increase in sea level rise is very recent.

            If you have better data, then feel free to get back to me. Else I hope you will accept that I have proved my points.