Plentiful Arctic Ice Sept. 2021

The hype never melts.
No Media, Greenland Ice Loss Isn’t Catastrophic, Nor Increasing
GREENLAND ICE MELT NOVEMBER 17, 2021

 

Ocean temperature cycles are longer than was previously assumed.
Arctic Ocean Started Getting Warmer Decades Earlier Than We Thought – Study
Charles Rotter
“Climate simulations generally do not reproduce this kind of warming in the Arctic Ocean, meaning there’s an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms driving Atlantification,” said Tommaso. “We rely on these…

 

Greenland's ice isn't going anywhere.
There Has Been No Trend In A ‘Key Holistic Variable Indicating Climate Change’ Since 2001
By Kenneth Richard on 29. November 2021

Share this...
The Greenland end-of-melt-season snowline should presumably be exhibiting a trend consistent with consequential Greenland ice sheet melt, especially an increase in the bare ice area. Yet, consistent with the recent non-warming trend for Greenland, there has been no statistically significant linear trend in these key climate change metrics.
The Polar Portal Arctic tracking website includes a snowline metric that “integrates the competing effects of melt (increasing snowline elevation) and snow accumulation (decreasing snowline elevation)” for the Greenland ice sheet. The overseers of these observational data acknowledge that snowline “provides a key holistic variable indicating climate change”.

And yet in the last 20 years of alleged “staggering” and “stunning, dangerous” Greenland ice sheet melt, there has effectively been no net change in this rudimentary metric.

Scientists have needed to admit that neither the end-of-melt-season snowline nor observations of bare ice extent “exhibits a statistically significant trend over the entire study period [2001-2017]” (Ryan et al., 2019). . . .

 

Glaciers are advancing.
More Evidence: Glaciers Existing Today Were Absent For Nearly All Of The Last 10,000 Years
By Kenneth Richard on 27. December 2021

Share this...
The cryosphere is failing to cooperate with the anthropogenic global warming narrative that says rising greenhouse gas emissions should be catastrophically melting Arctic ice.
Scientists (O’Regan et al., 2021) report Ryder Glacier in north Greenland has advanced 2,881 m from 1948-2015 given its advancing rate of 43 m/yr-1. Its modern ice extent is about 50 km greater than 6,300 years ago.

Nearby, the ~60 km-tongued Petermann Glacier, didn’t even exist during the Roman Warm Period. As the chart on the bottom right of the image below shows, there was no ice in this region for all but a few centuries of the Holocene prior to 2,000 years ago. Petermann’s Little Ice Age size was similar to its modern condition.



Image Source: O’Regan et al., 2021 . . .

 

Research results undermine the CO2 narrative.
Arctic Ocean Warming Began Already In Early 20th Century, Meaning Natural Factors Strongly At Play, Not CO2
By P Gosselin on 29. December 2021

Share this...
In a recent paper, scientists expressed their surprise that the Arctic had started warming already back in the early 20th century, 100 years ago. This, along with the obligatory CO2 climate warming lip service, is described in a Cambridge University press release.

Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne
==================================

Arctic Ocean started getting warmer decades earlier than we thought, study finds
by University of Cambridge


An international group of researchers reconstructed the recent history of ocean warming at the gateway to the Arctic Ocean in a region called the Fram Strait, between Greenland and Svalbard, and found that the Arctic Ocean has been warming for much longer than earlier records have suggested. Credit: Sara Giansiracusa

Natural oceanic currents

The Arctic Ocean has been getting warmer since the beginning of the 20th century—decades earlier than records suggest—due to warmer water flowing into the delicate polar ecosystem from the Atlantic Ocean.

An international group of researchers reconstructed the recent history of ocean warming at the gateway to the Arctic Ocean in a region called the Fram Strait, between Greenland and Svalbard. . . .

 

Plentiful Arctic Ice Sept. 2021​

~ Obvious they have not been told of " global warming " ...

 

Sometimes it's hard to understand how the data are handled.
More Disappearing Arctic Data
Posted on December 29, 2021 by tonyheller

 

~ Yes indeed. It almost appears the entire theory is based on a ruse ...

 

2021 was a good year for Arctic sea ice.
Highest Arctic Sea Ice Extent In Eighteen Years
Posted on December 31, 2021 by tonyheller
This year finished up with the highest Arctic sea ice extent since 2003.



Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

 

The truth is often just too inconvenient to report these days.

 

It will be very interesting to see what warmist/alarmists latest explanation will be but after the beatdown replies last November 12 in the thread I doubt there will be any response since the chart is from NSIDC website.

There has been a lot of silence these days because their climate cult doesn't base itself on the hard sciences but on Consensus, Propaganda and Intimidation which is why they are badly losing the science part of the debate.

 

~ They can always blame Covid - or Putin .

 

Well said.

 

Alway remember: 2+2=5. It's important.

“Still, propaganda posters were churned out just the same, proclaiming success regardless of the numbers.

Today, circumstances may have changed, but political falsehoods live on. Orwell’s work is being re-read like never before and Stalin is once again admired by the Russian state. As for 2+2=5, it feels like the slogan is only one press conference, one tweet, or TV interview away from resurfacing – from being proudly shouted at anyone within earshot. It’s something George Orwell understood very well and a phenomenon that we’ll have plenty of time to think about.”
PHILOSOPHY OF SHAVING, IN THE NEWS, George Orwell, Joseph Stalin, Nineteen Eighty-Four Poster Propaganda 2+2=5, David Michael Newstead, 2/11/17.
https://philosophyofshaving.wordpress.com/2017/02/11/225/

 

There was plentiful Arctic sea ice in September of this year and that trend has continued through the end of December. Will that trend continue
for the next 20 years? No. The long-term trend since 1978 has been for Arctic sea ice extent to decline by 5% per decade and the volume of
Arctic sea ice has been declining at a greater rate than that because Arctic sea ice has been thinning. The IPCC AR6 report projects that late
September Arctic sea ice will be down to around 1 million square kilometers, or ice free, at least once by the year 2050. The world has experienced
back-to-back La Nina conditions this year and last year, bringing colder weather to Canada and to the entire planet. Also, Antactica sea ice has
been decreasing in recent months.

CarbonBrief presents an in-depth Q&A on the IPCC report on climate | Red, Green, and Blue (redgreenandblue.org)

Climate change is causing ice and snow to melt across much of the planet. The report has high confidence that, between the decades of 1979-88 and 2010-19, average monthly August-October Arctic sea ice area shrunk by around one quarter – resulting in the loss of around 2m square kilometres (km2) of ice.

Furthermore, rising temperatures have driven a shift from thick, multiyear ice towards thinner, younger ice. While multi-year ice made up roughly one third of Arctic sea ice coverage in March 1985, according to the report, multiyear ice made up only 1.2% in March 2019. The loss of multi-year sea ice was particularly rapid during the 2000s, it adds.

The possibility of an “ice-free” Arctic summer has long been a research area of interest. The SPM states that “The Arctic is likely to be practically sea-ice free [indicating a sea-ice area below 1m km2] in September at least once before 2050 under the five illustrative scenarios considered in this report, with more frequent occurrences for higher warming levels”.



Figure 3. Monthly November ice extent for 1979 to 2021 shows a decline of 5.0 percent per decade.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image




Plot of estimated development of arctic sea ice volume between 1979 and now. Blue curve are data as determined by the numerical model PIOMAS. An error margin of +- 1.35 10³ km³ is given for october single values (minima) as orientation
Dominiklenne - {{Volume time series and uncertainties: Schweiger, A., R. Lindsay, J. Zhang, M. Steele, H. Stern, Uncertainty in modeled arctic sea ice volume, J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2011JC007084, 2011, Plot: own work, done with Gnumeric}}, based on published data of Polar Science Center, University of Washington, http://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/

 

Globally sea ice decreased during 2021 because Antarctica's sea ice was decreasing at a faster rate than the Arctic sea ice was increasing.
Yes, Arctic sea ice extent was at the second highest in 18 years but no one knowledgeable about climate science thinks that this is going
to change the long-term trajectory of Arctic sea ice loss.

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Second Highest in 18 Years at the end of 2021, Now Close to 13 million square kilometers, while the Hudson Bay Finally Froze in the Last 2 weeks (severe-weather.eu)

The Sea Ice Extent in the Arctic this year is in contrast with what is happening globally, and in particular because the Antarctic sea ice is in sharp decline. Although stable above the long-term average from March to the end of August, Antarctic Sea Ice started its rapid decline in September. At present the anomaly is equal to about 2 million square kilometers.

 

Notice that the average temperature of the Arctic has declined significantly in 2021 relative to 2020.

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Second Highest in 18 Years at the end of 2021, Now Close to 13 million square kilometers, while the Hudson Bay Finally Froze in the Last 2 weeks (severe-weather.eu)

 

Carbon Brief is an advocacy site.

 

~

 

Carbon Brief - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)

• Overall, we rate Carbon Brief left-Center Biased and Pro-Science based on adherence to science consensus with climate change. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.

How does What's Up With That, one of your favorite blogs, rate?
Watts Up with That - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)

• Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on promoting consistent human-influenced climate denialism propaganda and several failed fact checks.

The No Tricks Zone, another one of your favorites, rates high on the pseudoscience level. NoTricksZone - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)
I have noticed how the No Tricks Zone mischaracterizes scientific research by jumping to conclusions not supported by the scientific articles cited in order
to push an anti-anthropogenic climate change narrative, and also presenting research that is faulty and evaded peer-review to push the same narrative.

• Overall, we rate NoTricksZone a pseudoscience blog based on the publication of climate change disinformation opposing the consensus of science.

 

Yawn.
In 2018, the Columbia Journalism Review described Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[2]

Advocates for climate orthodoxy will of course identify accuracy with "adherence" to the claimed climate consensus.

You're making my point.

And of course, in general:
Fact Checking the Fact Checkers
2021 › 06 › 06 › fact-checking-the-fact-checkers
authors get this basic "fact" wrong, how can we rely on any later statements of "fact." Several of the Climate ... driven by other climate factors unrelated to rising CO2. The so-called fact checkers failed to acknowledge

 

I fact checked the "Fact Checking the Fact Checkers" and found many false claims and crazy statements by those scientists. I am familiar with some of
them like Patrick Michaels who has a history of misrepresenting the truth.

The problem with this political forum and other political forums is that people already have their minds made up and no amount of debunking nonsense is going to change most of them. One person who fits that description liked your post. Did that person like your post because it was factually accurate or because it promoted his political belief?
I feel like this "environmental forum" is worse than a joke and mostly a waste of time. I think of it as an "anti-environmental forum that has turned-off
nearly everyone interested in environmental issues. They get fed up and leave.

 

~ Yes indeed. Journalist John Stossel recently won his lawsuit forcing a popular "fact checker " to admit they are merely opinions - not necessarily facts .

 

The bullying tactics that are the stock in trade of climate alarmists cannot prevail against data-based arguments enabled by a free debate forum. I'm sure the bullies are indeed turned off when they actually have to engage the evidence. To the extent they get fed up and leave, that's addition by subtraction for the cause of serious debate.

 

~ This is a very serious and overlooked fact. How can the entire western hemisphere agree to something so invasive without open debate, discussion and proof of cause.
John Stossel has attempted to interview members of the Global Alliance, NASA , UN and was rejected each time. Why ..? He was finally told off-the-record by a retired government "expert " that everyone is held under nondisclosure contract. If ture - why .. ? If not - where is the public discussion to put at rest any doubts the public has ?
Very suspicious ... '