YOU will not see this inconvenient empirical data anywhere on the climate-theory-obsessed mainstream media, because it’s good news about the Arctic, and that directly contradicts their relentless bombardment of doom and gloom about Arctic sea-ice and its apparent “Death Spiral”.
TO report the massive expansion of thick, multi-year ice that has built up over the past ten years threatens both media and alarmist scientists – egos, jobs, reputations and government (taxpayer) grant money…
Arctic sea ice volume data show earlier projections of ice-free Arctic summers were a sham. Sea ice now steady 10 years.
Lately Arctic sea ice volume has been a topic which climate skeptics have been looking at quite closely.
According to Al Gore and a number of climate ambulance chasers, Arctic sea ice in late summer should have long disappeared by now, see here…
So naturally skeptics have since then been watching volume, which we were told by alarmists would shrink, and shrink, and shrink – until totally gone in late summer. In 2007 one US climate official declared the Arctic sea ice was in a “death spiral”.
Those alarmist projections have since turned up totally false
First, looking at peak ice, which occurs around April 1st, using the data from the Danish meteorological Institute (DMI) here, we find that Arctic sea ice VOLUME has totally defied the downward death spiral trend projected by experts and their models.
The chart above depicts Arctic sea ice volume on April 1st for the years 2003 to 2018, using the data from the DMI. Note the growing chasm between alarmist projections and reality.
The most closely watched measure of Arctic sea ice magnitude is the minimum that is typically reached in very late summer, i.e. around September 20.
Here as well using the DMI data, I’ve plotted the September 20 Arctic sea ice going back to 2003.
Here’s the result of the plot:
Al Gore’s hysterical projections of ice-free Arctic late summers are exposed as an absolute sham. 2018 uses a conservative projected value.
Today the doomsday scenarios and projections made 10 years ago have yet to show any signs of materializing. Late summer Arctic sea ice has been surprisingly stable over the past decade. Gore and alarmists fell into the trap of applying an idiotic polynomial curve extrapolation into the future.
In fact there are indications that Arctic sea ice may be starting an upward trend as oceanic and solar cycles enter their cooler phases.
Low sea ice also occurred in the past
There’s no doubt that Arctic sea ice has dwindled considerably since it peaked back at around 1980, a time when climate scientists had warned the globe risked cooling into an ice age.
Also, today’s Arctic sea ice amount is in the same neighborhood as it was back in the 1930s. Moreover, today’s levels are considerbly higher than they were over a large part of the Holocene, which saw periods that were far warmer than today.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
ONE of the biggest problems with the “climate change” debate today is that so many have been irresponsibly and irreparably brainwashed by political memes; “the science is settled” and that there is a “consensus of scientists” who know with “97%” certainty that humans are destroying the planet thanks to their excessive lifestyles and ‘frivolous’ use of cheap, reliable energy – fossil fuels.
THIS mantra has become so widespread and ‘believed’ that it has unfortunately robbed many of individual sense and reason and the ability, desire or need to investigate objectively information pertaining to the issue.
THEY are then no better than a cheerleading member of a herd protected by the belief system of the mob. A position demanded by the authority where enquiry is discouraged, thus discovery and advancement in knowledge and in ‘science’ is quashed!
A CLASSIC CASE IN POINT (repeated over and over and over again, everyday on social media):
A MUST read op/ed written by Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT and CFACT President David Rothbard.
THIS excellent piece focuses on an important part of the climate debate often overlooked – the heat absorption ability of the carbon dioxide molecule as its concentration increases in the atmosphere.
THE article received “coast to coast” attention via a media usually dismissive of sceptical arguments to the supposed “climate crisis”…
RUCKER’s forward received via email …
“Newspapers coast to coast”
This CFACT Op Ed appeared in the newspapers above and more!
Media bias against climate realism is rampant – especially on the national level. Some major publications, like the Los Angeles Times, have actually positioned themselves in opposition to free speech by imposing bans on opinions running counter to the Al Gore narrative.
Fortunately that is not the case with many local media outlets.
I’d like to call your attention, for a couple reasons, to a recent op/ed I co-wrote with CFACT President David Rothbard.
First, as we’ve discussed so often before, the contents of our article reveal that the hysterical case for global warming doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. There are good reasons, scientifically speaking, why those who are skeptical of climate alarmism have their doubts.
Secondly, and most encouragingly, our op/ed hasn’t been circular filed – as it might have been by the establishment media. In fact, it appeared in a host of local newspapers from one end of the United States to the other!
Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming
Many people are actively worried about global warming. And it frustrates them that skeptics and “deniers” refuse to acknowledge the “science” of such an urgent, manmade problem.
But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn’t so clearcut, here’s a basic climate question to ponder:
As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease or remain the same?
Most people will assume the answer is “increase.” After all, CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being “trapped.”
The correct answer, however, is decrease.
How do we know this? Because the U.N.’s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The IPCC explains that CO2 follows a “logarithmic dependence,” which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the IPCC recognizes that the middle of this band is already “saturated.”
People who fret about manmade warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 actually loses “heat-trapping” ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned IPCC admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear manmade warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.
This begs the question … are they right? The answer is “No.”
Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere — and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. In order to make their case, the IPCC theorizes that any additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this “feedback loop” that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.
It’s an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the IPCC admits that “an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.”
One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.
The IPCC rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar “irradiance” (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun’s output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind — which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.
As the IPCC observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia “has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more.” It’s very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of manmade climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue.
Characterizing a professional, respected scientist as an unqualified vengeful opinion writer is the same kind of power attack as rape. It’s meant to humiliate and intimidate.
I said this as part of a response to a comment at WUWT late yesterday (copied in full below). The picture above shows Steven Amstrup holding polar bear cubs against their will — not for any scientific purpose, just for a photo that shows he can.
Also yesterday, Tom Fuller at ClimateScepticism wrote a hard-hitting critique of the Bioscience article that similarly noted the sexist nature of this harassment and the fact that this is the way Michael Mann and his colleagues behave toward female scientists who cross them or their supporters. He concludes:
“The purpose of these papers is not to communicate.
It is to excommunicate.”
As I said when this paper first came out, this response is all about my reasoned and…
Global effects of El Niño event seem to have passed, and we’ve cooled to a value just before the event, according to data from the UK Hadley Climate Centre
Earlier we reported on ocean temperatures dropping, now we have confirmation that global air temperature is dropping as well. The latest data is in, and now according to HadCRUT data, we are back to the same level as before the 2014/2016 super El Niño event heated up the planet.
The HadCRUT4.5 temperature anomaly for September calculated by spherical triangulation is 0.54C, a fall of 0.17C since August. Temperatures have seemingly returned to a long trend after the 2016 El Niño.
Monthly temperature anomalies for HadCRUT4.5 (HadSST3 and CRUTEM4.6 stations data) calculated by spherical triangulation method. Click for a larger image
Image: Paul Bongiorno, RN ABC Breakfast Political Commentator (ABC RN/Elliot Dunn)
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russell
A STARK lesson in climate facts and data Vs ABC groupthink eco-ideology via “denier” numero uno – Andrew Bolt of The Herald Sun.
MAKE your own mind up. Who really are the real “science deniers”, the sceptics or the “save the planet” virtue-signalling, eco-zealots? …
PAUL BONGIORNO, THE REAL DENIER
The real “deniers” are generally not the global warming sceptics but the extremists who denounce them. Take ABC commentator Paul Bongiorno, who today denied the science in attacking Tony Abbott’s speech in London overnight.
In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial.
ABC presenter Fran Kelly on ABC Radio Breakfast quoted this at Paul Bongiorno this morning. His response:
This just flies in the face of contemporary science.
Actually, it’s warmist Paul himself who flies in the face of science.
Cold weather is 20 times as deadly as hot weather... The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.
A new study published in The Lancet shows 6.5% of deaths in this country are attributed to cold weather, compared with 0.5% from hot weather. Most deaths will be from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, as it’s the heart and lungs that struggle when we are outside our comfort zone.
The situation has become so dire that 77 per cent of low-income NSW households are going without heating in a bid to reduce their onerous power bills, new research from the NSW Council of Social Service (NCOSS) shows. And one in three low-income earners have been forced to stop using hot water for bathing to pay for energy bills.
Then there’s the increased crops we’re getting as the world (mildly) warms.
The latest indications for the current season point to record cereal production in 2017 at the world level with total inventories hitting a new peak.
It’s the invincible ignorance of Bongiorno that staggers me. Confronted with facts that challenge his ideology he instinctively denies them, and, indeed, went on to insult Abbott as someone he falsely claimed had said he couldn’t be believed unless he’d written it down (which, incidentally, Abbott had actually done in this case).
And what of Fran Kelly? She fancies herself as someone who is pretty well informed on global warming, which she, too, spruiks.
But to Bongiorno’s false claims she offered not a word of demurral.