Myth Of Arctic meltdown exposed again

Posted: August 31, 2014 by oldbrew in propaganda, sea ice, Uncertainty

Arctic ice [image credit: NASA]

Arctic ice [image credit: NASA]

This one runs and runs, but as it’s featured in a story in the UK national press (Daily Mail Online) quoting leading climate science figures like professor Judith Curry, we’ll give it another airing.

There does seem to be a good deal of suspect logic being thrown at the inconvenient fact that Arctic sea ice is refusing to go away as predicted by the UN IPCC and assorted like-minded pundits peddling their biases. Claims that ‘natural variability’ is just a confounding factor interfering with the supposed real story – i.e. significant man-made effects – have the appearance of wishful thinking, as no actual data is offered in support.

GWPF summary of the full DM report: Myth Of Arctic Meltdown: Satellite Images Show Ice Cap Thicker And Growing Back .

Professor Curry comments: ‘I suspect that the portion of the decline in the sea ice attributable to natural variability could be even larger than half.’

‘I think the natural variability component of Arctic sea ice extent is in the process of bottoming out, with a reversal to start within the next decade. And when it does, the reversal period could last for several decades.’

In that case any claim that ‘it’s global warming except when it isn’t’ will become too lame to mention, if it isn’t already so.

Daily Mail headline: ‘Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago…despite Al Gore’s prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now’

  1. oldbrew says:

    Global sea ice since 2000:

  2. ren says:

    You can see that the temperature of the polar circle is below average.

    The distribution of ozone in September and October over the polar circle defines the shape of the polar vortex and circulation in winter.

    I predict once again the lock the circulation of the Bering Strait and the harsh winter in the north-eastern North America.

    [reply] a prediction – let’s see what happens

  3. Bob Greene says:

    Reblogged this on and commented:
    Missed predictions do not seem to count

  4. w.w.wygart says:

    Bob Greene,

    Well put, but not strongly enough said.

    Global warming alarmism has many of the hallmarks of a personality disorder, especially a basic unwillingness to look at and admit their own errors and mistakes – another would be the pervasive ‘folie de grandeur’.

  5. Nothing seems as inconvenient, as the truth that the Polar Ice cap isn’t in permanent melt down!

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    It’s a fact:
    BS models with interminable lives have one cause: taxes we all paid.

    Failures won’t stop bad model existence.
    Cuts in government funding would be needed to kill bad models.

    There’s no good solution. Solar & climate science are so deep into corruption that all the powers could do even with the best good intentions is supplant corruption with a different flavor of corruption. Cynicism — nevermind skepticism — is warranted.

  7. Paul Vaughan says: September 1, 2014 at 6:26 am

    “It’s a fact: BS models with interminable lives have one cause: taxes we all paid.

    Failures won’t stop bad model existence.
    Cuts in government funding would be needed to kill bad models.

    There’s no good solution. Solar & climate science are so deep into corruption that all the powers could do even with the best good intentions is supplant corruption with a different flavor of corruption. Cynicism — nevermind skepticism — is warranted.”

    How about fine weapons, with skillful shooters? No need to hurt anyone unintentionally!

  8. ren says:

    Blockade will be reinforced by the low solar activity and high cosmic rays.

  9. ren says:

    Current distribution of ozone in the stratosphere and the pressure very well shows the radiation monitor at cruise altitudes. It is a clear link between solar activity and pressure over the Arctic Circle.

  10. ren says: September 1, 2014 at 7:08 am

    “Blockade will be reinforced by the low solar activity and high cosmic rays.”

    Does this mean that the ClimAstrologists have no clue, and they cannot find own gluteal muscles with one or more upper appendages

  11. ren says:

    The above picture shows that the jet stream moves over Iceland and in Europe it gets warmer.

  12. ren says: September 1, 2014 at 7:08 am
    Blockade will be reinforced by the low solar activity and high cosmic rays.

    Is this still EMR (gamma) or charged or uncharged particle flux? -will-

  13. ren says:

    Neutrons have stronger impact on the ozone. Are concentrated at the poles because they are produced by cosmic protons.

  14. oldbrew says:

    Current GHG ideas seem a worthy successor to phlogiston which had its own ‘sceptics’ – who were vindicated.
    Does anything below sound familiar?


    ‘The theory maintained its position in scientific thought for 100 years, though throughout that period loopholes were identified and then carefully patched up with new variations and terms, like the impurities of fixed and foul air. Objections were consistently countered with new information from Phlogistonists who were not keen to see their theories blown apart.’

  15. oldbrew says:

    ren: compare sea ice with 1990, not much difference? Slightly more now to the north.

  16. Paul Vaughan says:

    Recommended Reading:

    Davis, B.A.S.; & Brewer, S. (2011). A unified approach to Orbital, Solar and Lunar forcing based on Earth’s Latitudinal Insolation/Temperature Gradient. Quaternary Science Reviews 30(15-16), 1861-1874.

    Davis, B.A.S.; & Brewer, S. (2009). Orbital forcing and role of the Latitudinal Insolation/Temperature Gradient. Climate Dynamics 32, 143-165.

    Davis, B.; Mauri, A; Kaplan, J.; & Brewer, S. (2009). Which orbital forcing caused the mid-Holocene thermal optimum? [poster]

  17. AlecM says:

    The explanation of the Arctic ice extent periodicity is local climate change as ice becomes contaminated with trace materials which alter cloud albedo. The same mechanism occurs at the end of ice ages in Antarctica!

    There can be no CO2 effect because the warming effect of all well mixed GHGs is negated by one of the major negative feedback control mechanisms in the atmosphere, totally missed by the Climate Alchemists!

    By 2020, the Arctic will be frozen solid as we enter the new LIA. That cooling, about 1.5 K, will seriously affect northern crop yields, offset a little bit by the rise of CO2 to a plateau of about 450 ppmV, then a fall as the oceans cool.

    In 2020, there will be a mass emigration of Climate Alchemists to northern Norway, where they will jump to their death in their 1000s from high cliffs. The Hadley Centre will hire out its supercomputer to data miners from the supermarkets.

    If I have failed to insult anybody associated with the IPCC fraud, can someone please tell me….:o)

    [reply] early retirement seems a more likely option?

  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    Let’s try that link again:

    Click to access 72e7e51a6448a2e1d7.pdf

    (You may need to copy/paste it. I got a redirect when I simply clicked.)

    Here’s another:

    Jain, S.; Lall, U.; & Mann, M.E. (1999) Seasonality and interannual variations of Northern Hemisphere temperature: equator-to-pole gradient and ocean-land contrast. Journal of Climate 12(4), 1086-1100.
    […] equator-to-pole surface temperature gradient (EPG) and the ocean-land surface temperature contrast (OLC) […] The two temperature gradients represent zonally symmetric and asymmetric thermal forcings of the atmosphere. The strength and position of the Hadley cell and of the westerlies is related to the EPG, while the strength of the eddies coupled to the mid/high-latitude quasigeostrophic flow is related to the OLC. […] simple yet highly meaningful diagnostics of the low-frequency variability of the atmosphere and climate system […]

    How naive I was before. I just assumed climate models obeyed conservation laws (mass, momentum). They don’t.

  19. oldbrew says:

    From PV’s poster: ‘Climate models and data appear to respond to different orbital forcings’

    What to believe – models or data… errr… 😉

  20. Ed Martin says:

    Jeez, and my PVSD (Polar Vortex Stress Disorder) was trying to ease up a little because it’s been a little warm. :-/

  21. Ed Blancke says:

    Your interesting cryptic postings are one reason why I follow these blogs.
    However, please could you add a little more explanation to your posts – sometimes they are just too brief and isolated to understand your message.
    Please don’t stop – just add some more information and details!

  22. ren says:

    Ed Blancke compare the graph of radiation and atmospheric pressure at an altitude of 15 km, the lower stratosphere.

    Pay attention to the line 16300th It is exactly this shape as graphics strongest radiation. Thus, the lower the pressure above the polar circle, the stronger the radiation. The pressure in the stratosphere depends in turn on the amount of ozone.

    You can see that ozone absorbs UV not only, but also secondary cosmic rays.

  23. ren says:

    Now look the jet stream. It is compatible with the pressure in the lower stratosphere.

  24. ren says:

    Although the ozone in the atmosphere is quantitatively little but the ozone zone is important for the climate and life on earth. Ozone while the strictly dependent on changes in solar activity.

  25. Bill H. says:

    Oldbrew, maybe if you write a post on the IPCC’s predictions it might be worth finding out what those predictions actually are. It’s not as if it’s difficult to find them online, e.g. , which states:

    “Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century”

    So the “refusal”, as you put it, of arctic sea ice “to go away” in the early 21st century is entirely consistent with the IPCC predictions. If you want to attack the IPCC on this issue it would make more sense to say that it has UNDER-estimated melting, since that is what the models have so far done.

    Funny how AGW-gainsayers only draw attention to those variables that are changing less rapidly than predicted and not those that are changing more rapidly. A cynic might suspect cherry picking. But now I’m sounding like “Bishop Hill”.

    [reply] interesting logic – less melting is an underestimate of melting?

  26. Brett Keane says:

    Thanks, Ren et al. So, I’m watching the SH closely, to see how it develops from the cosmic ray spike. There is an awful lot of coolth down here. Brett Keane

  27. Ed Blancke says:

    The additional detail in your latest post above makes your point very clear and easy to understand. Thank you. Please keep up the good work and we look forward to many more explanatory posts from you.

  28. AlecM says:

    Looks like the Arctic ice extent has minimised two weeks early:

  29. The dip and recovery of the sea ice at both poles as well as the Arctic surface temps reflect the recent heliocentric conjunction of Earth and Neptune on the 29th August, so I expect that the global ice area will bounce up again soon as the less meridional flow patterns get reset post conjunction. We may be close to Arctic minimum sea ice area now, there may be some period of more melt before mid September, but I don’t think it will drop much or very fast from here.

  30. 24 hour temperature change shows the discharge path of the global circuit moving as a cold front with free electrons on the leading edges.
    With the corresponding lightning activity
    These images may be linked to auto updated maps so may change with time.

  31. ren says:

    How important is the solar activity can be clearly seen in the southern polar circle.
    As I wrote there has been a shift in the direction of the polar vortex and blocking circulation. This resulted in a sharp decline in growth of ice in Antarctica.

  32. ren says:

    Many explains the distribution of ozone in the south and the high cosmic radiation.

  33. ren says:

    It can be seen that the melting ice in the Arctic in September will be very slow, and northern Canada will begin to ice cover will increase.

  34. ren says:

    You can also see a significant increase in the volume of ice relative to the years preceding.

  35. Ed Martin says:

    Hey Ren, check this out, of course I am now going to stand the moderation corner again with my nose against the wall. 🙂

  36. ren says:

    Ed Martin REIKI let the cosmic energy will be with you.

  37. ren says:

    Ed Martin for you- will bloom in Arizona the desert (8 September).

  38. Ed Martin says:

    Thanks, Ren, I’m blasting across Tennessee in a rental car on my way to Charlotte, North Carolina to get a new truck. I will tell them to send me through Sunspot, New Mexico and the desert southwest to see that. After a swim in the Clinch River. 😉

  39. Bill H. says:

    Oldbrew, You attempt to dismiss my comment with the sneer: “interesting logic”. However,you fail to offer any justification for your claim that the “failure” of arctic ice to “go away” as of 2014 undermines the IPCC’s predictions, when the IPCC doesn’t predict any such “going away” before the second half of the present century.

    Try taking off your ideological blinkers and actually look at the link I provided.

  40. tallbloke says:

    Hey Bill, have you had enough time to think about my question about the opacity of seawater to back-radiated IR yet – it’s been a couple of years.

    You’re right that the IPCC report predicts a disappearance of arctic sumer ice later this century. However, this hasn’t stopped the pundits (including NSIDC chief Mark “Death Spiral” Serreze) piling on the agony with dire “It’s worse than we thought!!” predictions of a much earlier disappearance in the meantime, has it?

    You’d think those scientists would know better, but they seem to play the media headline grabbing game as glibly as the politicians; usually with some mealy mouthed caveat nobody remembers to include when it gets re-written for tabloid consumption.

  41. oldbrew says:

    Bill H says: ‘the IPCC doesn’t predict any such “going away” before the second half of the present century’

    They say it should be gone by then but there has to be an ongoing decline for that to happen.
    Even the IPCC’s claim of an average 4% decline per year is not happening any more – there’s been a recovery.

    Other sensationalist claims have failed completely e.g: ‘Could Arctic summers be sea ice-free in three years’ time?’

    Amusingly that article backs away from its own headline at the end.

  42. Jaime says:

    The IPCC says:

    “Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea ice loss since 1979”.

    Which of course means that AGW may have ‘contributed’ anything from a very small percentage to nearly 100% of NH sea-ice decline. The fact is, the IPCC are not able to quantify with any meaningful certainty man-made or natural influences on sea-ice decline and growth. On this subject, they just say:

    “There is medium confidence from reconstructions that over the past three decades, Arctic summer sea ice retreat was unprecedented”

    Which is so vague as to be virtually meaningless. With sea-ice decline now having effectively halted and the pattern of NH sea-ice anomalies looking suspiciously more and more like a sinusoidal wave form, it gives rise to question whether natural variability has played a significant, even dominant role in sea-ice decline since 1979. If, in the next 5 or 10 years, the Arctic sea-ice recovery is sustained, and we begin to see a continual rise in summer minimums, the case for minimal anthropogenic influence on Arctic sea-ice melt will start to look unequivocal, especially if atmospheric CO2 concentration keeps steadily rising.

    The point is, even though they lack the ability to quantify anthropogenic Arctic ice melt, this does not stop the IPCC from making a prediction that Arctic sea-ice will VERY LIKELY decline in the 21st Century:

    “It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern
    Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface
    temperature rises.”

    How do they make the leap? Oh, we were just talking about the ‘long term trend’ they will say. Of course, ‘hiatuses’ in sea-ice decline may occur due to ‘short term’ natural variability. Well, their graph of projected summer sea-ice decline for all emissions scenarios doesn’t appear to show any ‘short term’ recoveries of any real significance but does detail just a few ‘hiatuses’. Overall, it looks fairly ‘death spiral’ to me, especially RCP8.5 which predicts no summer ice mid 21st Century [Fig. SPM.7 (b) p34].

  43. tallbloke says:

    The ‘death spiral’ of Arctic ice seems to have stabilised. Apocalypse delayed for another year.

  44. oldbrew says:

    Yes, climate doomsters left speechless again. Nothing to see here.

    This August’s Arctic sea ice ‘well above the average August coverage measured in the biggest-melt years, 2012, 2007 and 2011’