CLIMATE’S FATAL FLAW : ‘Greenhouse Gases Simply Do Not Absorb Enough Heat To Cause Global Warming’


“What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know,
it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Mark Twain

***

H/t Science Matters

IF we lived in a sane world where logic, reason and cool heads prevailed over alarmism, sensationalism and hysteria, then basic CO2-science, as illustrated by ‘scientist’ Peter L. Ward, below, would steer us in a positive, less climate-divisive direction, preserving the integrity of science … and do a great deal to lower electricity bills along the way.

BUT, don’t hold your breath. ClimateChange™️ has morphed into a $1.5 TRILLION per year, or $4 BILLION per day business, according to a 2015 figure by Climate Change Business Journal. And, besides the lucrative and seemingly unlimited taxpayer funds available to feed-the-green-beast, far too many egos, jobs and reputations are now at stake for ClimateChange™️ to go anywhere soon.

*

A must read for policy makers, the mainstream media and all those interested in the molecule at the centre of the Global Warming Climate Change debate – carbon dioxide

*

Via The Hill :


 

Mark Twain, in his inimitable way, is reputed to have quipped “what gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know, it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”

Today, many climate scientists “know for sure” that observed global warming is caused by greenhouse-gas emissions. Many have worked tirelessly for decades, publishing thick summary reports, forging the appearance of a scientific consensus sufficient to convince political leaders to take action to prevent runaway global warming.

Such an agreement was reached in Paris on December 12, 2015. If greenhouse-gases are indeed the problem, their work will go down in history as heroic.

But science is not done by consensus, by popular vote, or by group think. As Michael Crichton put it: “In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

The drive to demonstrate scientific consensus over greenhouse-warming theory has had the unintended consequence of inhibiting genuine scientific debate about the ultimate cause of global warming.

Believers of “the consensus” argue that anyone not agreeing with them is uninformed, an idiot or being paid by nefarious companies. The last thing most climate scientists want to consider at this point, when they think they are finally winning the climate wars, is the possibility of some problem with the science of greenhouse-warming theory. Believe me, I have tried for several years to communicate the problem to numerous leading climate scientists.

New data and improved understanding now show that there is a fatal flaw in greenhouse-warming theory. Simply put: greenhouse gases do not absorb enough of the heat radiated by Earth to cause global warming.

Understanding this very surprising and rather blunt statement is much easier than you might think. It gets down to understanding why a traditional light bulb gives off a great deal of heat whereas a new LED light bulb producing the same amount of light remains quite cool.

Heat is what makes us feel warm. More formally, heat is thermal energy flowing spontaneously from a warmer body to a cooler body. Thermal energy is well observed at the molecular level to be the oscillation of all the bonds that hold matter together. The hotter the body of matter, the higher the frequencies of oscillation and the higher the amplitudes of oscillation at each frequency of oscillation. In this way, heat and the temperature that results from absorbing heat both consist of a very broad spectrum of all of these frequencies of oscillation.

A traditional light bulb uses a large amount of electricity to heat the tungsten filament to temperatures around 5500 degrees, causing the filament to glow white hot. This high temperature is required to produce visible white light. The glowing filament gives off a very broad spectrum of frequencies of radiation, however, that we perceive as heat. Only a very small number of the highest of these frequencies are useful as visible light.

A new LED light bulb, on the other hand, uses a very small amount of electricity to cause a diode to emit a very narrow range of frequencies within the spectrum of visible light. The LED radiates only visible light — it does not radiate heat.

The primary purpose of a light bulb is to provide visible light. To repeat, a traditional light bulb radiates heat, a small portion of which is visible light. An LED on the other hand, only radiates visible light, requiring much less electricity. This is why you can substantially reduce your electric bills by replacing traditional incandescent light bulbs with LED light bulbs.

How does this apply to greenhouse gases? Detailed laboratory studies of absorption of radiation show that carbon dioxide absorbs less than 16 percent of all the frequencies making up the heat radiated by Earth. Just like LEDs, this limited number of frequencies absorbed by carbon dioxide does not constitute heat. This limited number of frequencies cannot cause an absorbing body of matter to get much hotter because it contains only a very small part of the heat required to do so.

Current radiation theory and current climate models assume that all radiation is created equal—that all radiation is the same no matter the temperature of the radiating body. Current theory simply assumes that what changes is the amount of such generic radiation measured in watts per square meter.

Extensive observations of radiation emitted by matter at different temperatures, however, show us clearly that the physical properties of radiation, the frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation making up radiation, increase in value rapidly with increasing temperature of the radiating body.

Climate scientists argue that the thermal energy absorbed by greenhouse gases is re-radiated, causing warming of air, slowing cooling of Earth and even directly warming Earth. There simply is not enough heat involved in any of these proposed processes to have any significant effect on global warming. Greenhouse-warming theory “just ain’t so.”

Peter L. Ward worked 27 years with the United States Geological Survey. He was the chairman of the White House Working Group on Natural Disaster Information Systems during the Clinton administration. He’s published more than 50 scientific papers. He retired in 1998 but continues working to resolve several enigmatic observations related to climate change. His work is described in detail at WhyClimateChanges.com and in his book What Really Causes Global Warming? Greenhouse gases or ozone depletion? Follow him on Twitter at @yclimatechanges.

***

CLIMATISM addendum :

IMPORTANT part of the climate debate ‘conveniently’ overlooked : The heat absorption ability of the CO2 molecule diminishes as concentration increases in the atmosphere. 90%+ of warming is achieved in the first 20ppm. Further rises make little difference.

CO2 PPM.jpg

CO2 Sensitivity

THE same applies with Methane (CH4).

•••

SEE also :

CO2 Related :

EXTREME WEATHER Related :

STATE Of The Climate Report :

TEMPERATURE Related :

ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Pls Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps!

Click link for more info…

Thank You! Jamie.

Donate with PayPal

•••

 


CLIMATE CHANGE – The Facts

CLIMATISM - State Of The Climate 2019


WHEN presented with the unemotional facts on global warming climate change, one can begin to see clearly that the entire global phenomena, that has consumed; academia, our political, scientific and financial institutions and sycophant mainstream media, is nothing more than a political agenda, as laid out by the fabricators of theorised CO2-induced climate change — the United Nations — in their very own words :

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
Fmr President of the UN Foundation

***

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

I have been asked by a couple of people to produce a simple climate change factsheet, and it might be worth bookmarking for future use.

I have kept it simple, with no graphs or references. As those familiar with this blog, everything below has been fully covered a number of times. Anybody who needs more explanation on a particular item only needs to ask.

Any comments are welcome.

View original post 1,018 more words


INCONVENIENT : ‘The World Is Literally A Greener Place Than It Was Twenty Years Ago’ – NASA


“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 Russel

***

DON’T expect to see this ‘good’ environmental news on the mainstream media anytime soon.

WHEN you’re in the business of demonising carbon dioxide and frightening the Thunberg’s kiddies for political and ideological ends, such good news comes as a rather unwelcome message!

Via NASA Earth Observatory :

China and India Lead the Way in Greening

The world is literally a greener place than it was twenty years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage. A new study shows that China and India—the world’s most populous countries—are leading the increase in greening on land. The effect comes mostly from ambitious tree-planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries.

Ranga Myneni of Boston University and colleagues first detected the greening phenomenon in satellite data from the mid-1990s, but they did not know whether human activity was a chief cause. They then set out to track the total amount of Earth’s land area covered by vegetation and how it changed over time.

The research team found that global green leaf area has increased by 5 percent since the early 2000s, an area equivalent to all of the Amazon rainforests. At least 25 percent of that gain came in China. Overall, one-third of Earth’s vegetated lands are greening, while 5 percent are growing browner. The study was published on February 11, 2019, in the journal Nature Sustainability.

The maps on this page show the increase or decrease in green vegetation—measured in average leaf area per year—in different regions of the world between 2000 and 2017. Note that the maps are not measuring the overall greenness, which explains why the Amazon and eastern North America do not stand out, among other forested areas.

“China and India account for one-third of the greening, but contain only 9 percent of the planet’s land area covered in vegetation,” said lead author Chi Chen of Boston University. “That is a surprising finding, considering the general notion of land degradation in populous countries from overexploitation.”

globalgreening_tamo_2017

globalgreening_tamo_2017

This study was made possible thanks to a two-decade-long data record from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instruments on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. An advantage of MODIS is the intensive coverage they provide in space and time: the sensors have captured up to four shots of nearly every place on Earth, every day, for the past 20 years.

“This long-term data lets us dig deeper,” said Rama Nemani, a research scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center and a co-author of the study. “When the greening of the Earth was first observed, we thought it was due to a warmer, wetter climate and fertilization from the added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Now with the MODIS data, we see that humans are also contributing.”

China’s outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes in large part from its programs to conserve and expand forests (about 42 percent of the greening contribution). These programs were developed in an effort to reduce the effects of soil erosion, air pollution, and climate change.

Another 32 percent of the greening change in China, and 82 percent in India, comes from intensive cultivation of food crops. The land area used to grow crops in China and India has not changed much since the early 2000s. Yet both countries have greatly increased both their annual total green leaf area and their food production in order to feed their large populations. The agricultural greening was achieved through multiple cropping practices, whereby a field is replanted to produce another harvest several times a year. Production of grains, vegetables, fruits and more have increased by 35 to 40 percent since 2000.

countrieschart_tamo_2017

countrieschart_tamo_2017

How the greening trend may change in the future depends on numerous factors. For example, increased food production in India is facilitated by groundwater irrigation. If the groundwater is depleted, this trend may change. The researchers also pointed out that the gain in greenness around the world does not necessarily offset the loss of natural vegetation in tropical regions such as Brazil and Indonesia. There are consequences for sustainability and biodiversity in those ecosystems beyond the simple greenness of the landscape.

Nemani sees a positive message in the new findings. “Once people realize there is a problem, they tend to fix it,” he said. “In the 1970s and 80s in India and China, the situation around vegetation loss was not good. In the 1990s, people realized it, and today things have improved. Humans are incredibly resilient. That’s what we see in the satellite data.”

NASA Earth Observatory images by Joshua Stevens, using data courtesy of Chen et al.,(2019). Story by Abby Tabor, NASA Ames Research Center, with Mike Carlowicz, Earth Observatory.

*

GLOBAL GREENING…

“A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.” – NASA

NASA previously reported on the ‘greening of the earth’ thanks to the CO2 ‘fertilisation’ effect.

HOWEVER, such good news was again carefully omitted by the mainstream media and environmental activists keen to preserve their ‘catastrophic’ global warming climate change narrative and continue their demonisation of life-giving gas carbon dioxide, deceptively referring to it as “carbon pollution” :

NASA ON (inconvenient) GLOBAL GREENING

“A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.” – NASA

*

BIAS BY OMISSION – THE WORST FORM OF PROPAGANDA

CSIRO Censoring Their Own Climate Research

IN 2013, the CSIRO commissioned a study that found “Deserts ‘greening’ from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world’s arid regions.”

THE ‘greening’ of deserts, thanks to rising CO2, happens to be a very unwelcome message for the environmental movement and apparently for the CSIRO, too! So, they simply removed the study from their website!

CSIRO’s peer-reviewed study can be found at Science Daily :

H/t @FrankWi74044551

•••

MORE on Global Greening :

STATE Of The Climate Report :

IPCC Extreme Weather Report 2018 SR15 :

EXTREME WEATHER Related :

TEMPERATURE Related :

ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Pls Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps!

Click link for more info…

Thank You! Jamie.

Donate with PayPal

•••


MASSIVE Victory For Climate Change Realism And Academic Freedom!


“BLIND trust in authority
is the greatest enemy of the truth.”
Albert Einstein

***

A BIG WIN for freedom of speech and academic freedom as former JCU Great Barrier Reef expert, Peter Ridd, wins wrongful dismissal case against James Cook ‘University’.

ALSO, a massive win for climate scepticism and the fight against sloppy, pseudoscientific ‘science’ driven by Leftist dominated academia driving the $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) man-made global warming climate change agenda.

*

via The Australian :

James Cook professor’s sacking ruled ‘unlawful’

A Federal Court judge has ruled that James Cook University acted unlawfully when it sacked professor Peter Ridd after he publicly criticised the institution and one of its star scientists over claims about the impact global warming had on the Great Barrier Reef.

Professor Ridd, who worked at the university for 40 years, challenged the dismissal in the Federal Circuit Court, saying the university breached its own enterprise agreement which allowed all staff to express controversial or unpopular views.

The physics professor argued that the Townsville-based university, which is renowned for its marine science expertise, dismissed him for breaching the university’s code of conduct.

Handing down his decision today, judge Salvatore Vasta said that the 17 findings used by the university to justify the sacking were unlawful.

“The Court rules that the 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure given by the University and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful,” Judge Vasta said.

A penalty hearing will be set for a later date.

At a hearing last month, Professor Ridd’s barrister Stuart Wood argued his client was entitled to criticise his colleagues and the university’s perceived lack of quality assurance processes.

In 2016, Professor Ridd emailed a journalist to allege that images given to the media by the Australian Institute of Marine Science and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority were misleading because they showed poorly affected corals, which were selected over nearby healthy coral and used to show “broad scale decline” of reef health.

Professor Ridd claimed the use of the images was “a dramatic example of how scientific organisations are happy to spin a story for their own purposes”.

He also said his colleague Professor Terry Hughes, the head of JCU’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, would “wriggle and squirm” when asked to explain the discrepancies in the images.

Professor Ridd was censured again when he repeated the claims on Sky News.

After a third alleged violation of the code of conduct, Professor Ridd was sacked in April 2018.

***

RELATED :

GREAT BARRIER REEF related :

A GBR Must Read :

STATE Of The Climate Report :

IPCC Extreme Weather Report 2018 SR15 :

TEMPERATURE Related :

ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Pls Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps!

Click link for more info…

Thank You! Jamie.

Donate with PayPal

•••


GLOBAL Wildfire Area Has Declined, Contrary To Popular Myth

“Time after time, forestry experts tell us that wildfires are not getting worse because of climate change, that from a historical perspective current wildfire activity is not unusual, and that we are now seeing the results of decades of fire suppression and poor forest management.”

ANOTHER ‘inconvenient’ study directly contradicting the apocalyptic narrative of the 2 TRILLION dollar per year, Climate Crisis Industry…

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Another thorough assessment of wildfire trends wrecks alarmist claims:

image

ABSTRACT

Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth’s surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses…

View original post 919 more words


DEAR Climate Change Alarmists, We Are Doing Just Fine Thanks, And So Is Our Sea-Ice! Regards, Polar Bears

POLAR BEARS - We Are Fine | CLIMATISM

POLAR BEARS – We Are Fine | CLIMATISM


“Inuit believe there are now so many bears that
public safety has become a major concern,”
Nunavut’s polar bear population is unsafe,
government document says – The Globe and Mail

“Public safety concerns, combined with the effects of
polar bears on other species, suggest that
in many Nunavut communities, the polar bear
may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”
Nunavut’s polar bear population is unsafe,
government document says – The Globe and Mail

***

DIRE predictions of an “ice-free” Arctic have remained popular on the climate change fear-mongering circuit, owing to the psychological and political currency of all things melting and not least the emotional relevance applicable to the fate of the Arctic’s most famous resident and ‘global warming’ mascot – the polar bear.

SOME of the failed Arctic sea-ice predictions by alarmists ‘scientists’ and the fake news media over the years :

  • “Arctic summers ice-free by 2013” (BBC 2007)
  • “Could all Arctic ice be gone by 2012?” (AP 2007)
  • “Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?”(National Geographic 2007)
  • “Imagine yourself in a world five years from now, where there is no more ice over the Arctic” – Tim Flannery (2008)
  • “North Pole could be ice-free in 2008” – Mark Serreze (New Scientist 2008)
  • “Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014” (USA Today 2009)
  • “Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within 4 years” (Guardian 2012)
  • “Say Goodbye to Arctic Summer Ice” (Live Science 2013)
  • “Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist” (The Guardian 2013)
  • “Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” (Sierra Club 2013)
  • “Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’” – Peter Wadhams (The Guardian 2016)

Source : CLIMATE DUD-PREDICTIONS : ‘Ice-Free’ Arctic Prophesies By The ‘97% Consensus’ And Compliant Mainstream Media | Climatism

*

CURRENT STATE OF THE ARCTIC 

MINIMUM sea-ice extent has been trending up over the past twelve years. The EXACT opposite of what the mainstream media and ‘97% experts’ have been telling you :

MINIMUM Arctic sea-ice volume has been rising, not declining, since 2007 :

dtpq2wcvaaab84w

@KiryeNet キリエ on Twitter : “The Arctic has been refreezing for 12 years…minimum sea ice volume has been rising since 2007”

*

ARCTIC SEA-ICE EXTENT TO DATE

ARCTIC sea-ice extent is very close to the 1981-2010 median :

*

ARCTIC TEMPS & MELT CYCLES

ARCTIC temperatures and melt cycles correlate almost perfectly with ocean circulation cycles (AMO), and show no correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels :

reykjavik-iceland-temperatures-vs-the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation

Reykjavik, Iceland Temperatures Vs. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

***

POLAR BEARS 

*

NO other icon of ‘Global Warming’ epitomises its very own false narrative like the polar bear does for ‘Climate Change’.

WITH deadly irony, polar bear numbers have grown dramatically as carbon dioxide emissions have risen in lock-step. A CO2 correlation, at last!

INDIGENOUS Inuit’s of Northern Canada are now facing the very real task of having to cull the population as “the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”

“Inuit believe there are now so many bears that public safety has become a major concern,”

“Public safety concerns, combined with the effects of polar bears on other species, suggest that in many Nunavut communities, the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”

Nunavut’s polar bear population is unsafe, government document says – The Globe and Mail

*

POLAR BEAR POPULATION (1981 – 2015)

screen-shot-2019-01-19-at-4.26.11-am.png

Polar Bear Population (1981 – 2015)

*

POLAR BEAR POPULATION – THE LATEST COUNT!

via Susan Crockford PhD :

Susan Crockford is zoologist with more than 35 years experience, including published work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals. She is currently an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.

About | polarbearscience

Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000)

It’s long past time for polar bear specialists to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate that will never be achieved and determine a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Since they have so far refused to do this, I have done it for them. My extrapolated estimate of 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible.

In 2014, the chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) emailed me to say that their global population size number ‘has never been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.’

In my new book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, I contend that this situation will probably never change, so it’s time to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate and generate a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Recent surveys from several critical polar bear subpopulations have given us the information necessary to do this.

These new numbers make it possible to extrapolate from ‘known’ to ‘unknown’ subpopulations within so-called ‘sea ice ecoregions’ (defined in 2007 by polar bear scientists at the US Geological Survey, see Amstrup et al. 2007), as shown below, to update old estimates and generate new ones for never-studied areas.

usgs-polar-bear_ecoregions_icedrift.jpg

USGS – Polar Bear Ecoregions

Since the PBSG has so far refused to take this step, I took on the challenge. I contend that an estimate of about 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible. See the graph below from my new book:

population-size-estimate-graph-chapter-10-e1553617271572

Global polar bear population size estimates to 2018. From Chapter 10 of The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (Crockford 2019).

This new estimate for 2018 is a modest 4-6 fold increase over the 10,000 or so bears that existed in the 1960s and after 25 years, a credible increase over the estimate of 25,000 that the PBSG offered in 1993 (Wiig et al. 1995).

However, my new estimate is much larger than the improbable figure of about 26,000 (range 22,000-31,000) offered by PGSG biologists in 2015 (Regehr et al. 2016; Wiig et al. 2015). The scary question is this: what do Arctic residents do if there are actually as many as 58,000?

See my new book (Crockford 2019) for the full rationale and references used to arrive at this figure.

The bottom line: it is scientifically unacceptable for the PBSG to continue to refuse to provide an extrapolated ‘best guess’ global estimate for polar bears, given that the scientifically accurate estimate they crave is essentially unattainable. An estimate of about 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible. Read the rest of this entry »


POLAR BEAR Habitat Update: Abundant Sea Ice Across The Arctic, Even In The Barents Sea

  • “Arctic summers ice-free by 2013” (BBC 2007)
  • “Could all Arctic ice be gone by 2012?” (AP 2007)
  • “Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?”(National Geographic 2007)
  • “Imagine yourself in a world five years from now, where there is no more ice over the Arctic” – Tim Flannery (2008)
  • “North Pole could be ice-free in 2008” – Mark Serreze (New Scientist 2008)
  • “Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014” (USA Today 2009)
  • “Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within 4 years” (Guardian 2012)
  • “Say Goodbye to Arctic Summer Ice” (Live Science 2013)
  • “Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist” (The Guardian 2013)
  • “Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” (Sierra Club 2013)
  • “Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’” – Peter Wadhams (The Guardian 2016)

DIRE predictions of an “ice-free” Arctic have remained popular on the climate change fear-mongering circuit, owing to the psychological and political currency of all things melting and not least the emotional relevance applicable to the fate of the Arctic’s most famous resident and ‘global warming’ mascot – the polar bear.

CLIMATE DUD-PREDICTIONS : ‘Ice-Free’ Arctic Prophesies By The ‘97% Consensus’ And Compliant Mainstream Media | Climatism

polarbearscience

Abundant ice in Svalbard, East Greenland and the Labrador Sea is excellent news for the spring feeding season ahead because this is when bears truly need the presence of ice for hunting and mating. As far as I can tell, sea ice has not reached Bear Island, Norway at this time of year since 2010 but this year ice moved down to the island on 3 March and has been there ever since. This may mean we’ll be getting reports of polar bear sightings from the meteorological station there, so stay tuned.

Walking bear shutterstock_329214941_web size

Sea ice extent as of 11 March 2019, from NSIDC Masie:

masie_all_zoom_4km 2019 March 11

Much of the ice that was blown out of the Bering Sea early in the month has returned and ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence on the East Coast of Canada is the highest its been in years, threatening to impede ferry traffic between Nova…

View original post 456 more words