Blog | The Great White Con | Putting the Arctic sea ice record straight
By: Jim Hunt
2007, Al Gore and the Arctic Ice Sheet Revisited...
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
My apologies for the mixed metaphors in today's title, but the news I bear is beyond bizarre.
In a press release earlier today The Global Warming Policy Foundation proudly announced that:
A new paper by an eminent meteorologist says that trends in polar sea-ice levels give little cause for alarm. The paper, by Professor J. Ray Bates has just been published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
According to Professor Bates, climate model simulations indicate significantly decreasing sea ice levels in both hemispheres, with the greatest decreases occurring in September each year. However, the observed September trend in the Antarctic is actually slightly upwards, and while observed levels in the Arctic have fallen over the last 40 years, they have been quite stable since around 2007.
Professor Bates said:
"In 2007, Al Gore told us that Arctic sea ice levels were 'falling off a cliff'. It's clear now that he was completely wrong. In fact, the trends in sea-ice are an antidote to climate alarm."
Professor Bates also says that little reliance should be placed on model simulations of future sea-ice decline:
"Climate models failed to predict the growth in Antarctic sea ice, and they missed the recent marked slowdown of sea-ice decline in the Arctic. It would be unwarranted to think they are going to get things right over the next 30 years."
Professor Bates' paper is published today, and can be downloaded here (pdf).
By all means download Ray's "paper" from the link above and take a look at his introduction, which begins as follows:
The recent publication of the book Unsettled by Steven Koonin has led to the likelihood of increased scrutiny of the perception of a climate emergency,1 an idea which has become so widely established in recent years. Koonin, a former scientific advisor to the Obama administration, has demonstrated that what the public are being told by the media is not necessarily what the scientists are saying. He has also shown that what is being relayed in the national and UN climate assessments has often been written for the purpose of persuading rather than informing.
Unsettled clearly shows that important aspects of climate science, which the public have been persuaded to regard as beyond dispute are, in fact, quite unsettled.
Regular readers may recall that as soon as Steve's book was published in machine readable format we established that it made no mention whatsoever of sea ice, whether of the Arctic or Antarctic variety.
Furthermore, when I attempted to debate that fact with Prof. Koonin he disappeared without trace before justifying that strange omission, beyond asserting that:
The topic is somewhat distant from ordinary folks' perception.
It seems that Prof. Bates and the GWPF disagree with Prof. Koonin on this topic, since presumably their "paper" is addressed to ordinary folks? Ray even explicitly states that:
Although Unsettled covers a broad spectrum of climate topics, it does not treat in depth the issue of recent polar sea-ice trends, which are key indicators of changes in the global climate.
His "paper" goes on to assert in section 2 that:
Since the introduction of passive-microwave satellite observations in the late 1970s, polar sea-ice extent has been among the most accurately observed climate indicators. Sea-ice volume, on the other hand, is much more difficult to measure.
So far so good I suppose, but then we are told:
In December 2007, former US vice-president Al Gore, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo, referred to scientific studies warning that the Arctic sea ice was 'falling off a cliff'. He highlighted forthcoming model results that projected largely ice-free Arctic summers in 'as little as seven years'. He repeated this warning two years later at the 2009 COP15 climate meeting in Copenhagen.
Gore's claim was based on a study by researchers from the US Naval Postgraduate School, who used a regional model of the sea ice-ocean system in the Arctic, constrained using observational data for the 12-year period 1996-2007, and concluded that the Arctic would be nearly ice-free in summer by 2016 (plus or minus three years).
Prof. Bates seems blithely unaware that we thoroughly debunked this nonsense many moons ago. What Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski, one of those pesky "researchers from the US Naval Postgraduate School", actually said in December 2007 was:
If we project this trend ongoing for the last 10-15 years, we probably will reach zero in summer some time mid next decade.
At the risk of repeating myself it seems I must once again:
Reiterate for the benefit of those who seem unable to understand either English or Mathematics that a "projection" is not the same thing as a "prediction".
Ray then goes on to quibble with the NSIDC's graph of September average Arctic sea ice extent:
preferring instead a version of his own construction, which looks like this:
Ray then confidently asserts that:
The current slowdown in the rate of sea-ice loss was not expected, and the reasons for it are uncertain.
Sadly Ray's exhaustive list of references fails to mention this learned journal article from 2011 by authors from the University of Washington and Los Alamos National Laboratory, which not only anticipated such a "slow transition" but also offered reasons for it:
Given the strong thickness-growth feedback of sea ice (Bitz and Roe 2004), where in a warming climate we can expect the thicker MY ice to thin at a greater rate than the thinner FY ice, and the fact that the ratio of MY to FY ice entering into the MY ice category each year is decreasing, it is likely that the difference between FY and MY ice survival ratios will decrease in a warming climate. If this occurs, the Arctic sea ice system would move toward a regime of decreased memory and decreased sensitivity to climate forcing…
There is of course plenty more GWPF sea ice nonsense where that lot came from, but it's already past my tea time (UTC) and so further debunking will have to wait a while. In the meantime here's a wake up call for Professor J. Ray Bates:
[Edit - December 17th]
Moving further down section 2 Ray assures us that:
Any objective discussion of the recent Arctic sea-ice decline also requires that some consideration be given to the evidence regarding past natural variability on a multi-decadal timescale. In the pre-satellite era, reliable data on sea-ice coverage was sparse.
So far so good again? Not really! Ray's gets on to his go to reference, Connolly, Connolly and Soon (2017):
By combining the temperature and partial sea-ice records, statistical reconstructions of the total sea-ice extent going back to the early 1900s can be created. Some of these reconstructions indicate that between the 1900s and 1940s, Arctic sea-ice extent comparable to the present reduced levels may have occurred.
Ray doesn't sound very certain, which is perhaps because the paper in question blithely states that:
Because Arctic sea ice trends are closely correlated to Arctic temperature trends, they are often discussed in the context of global temperature trends.
Maybe so, but to the best of my recollection Connolly et al. never attempt to "prove" the asserted correlation. Here's an alternative assessment of "Arctic sea-ice extentbetween the 1900s and 1940s":
Watch this space!
Tags
Who is online
436 visitors
15 years later, and we should be able to sail to the North Pole in the summer.... Al Gore said So!!! {chuckle}
On issues of global warming and climate change it is time to openly mock and ridicule the so called “consensus of science” and laugh at those who support such ridiculous nonsense to their faces. It is they who are illegitimate engaging in fraud and hoaxes as well as questionable pseudoscience.
Even with the plethora of empirical evidence the science denier crowd is still at it. So sad.
So what do you call it when the "Empirical Evidence" and the predictions based upon it and claimed as "Science" and the "science doesn't lie" crowd makes and publishes claims that are not backed up by the actual eyeballs on the scene, when the prediction based upon all that science comes due?
Or, better put another way, how did your sailing excursion vaycay to the north pole go last summer? see any ice?
What about all that science data coming from the satellites in orbit monitoring and confirming this phenomenon of no arctic ice in the summer? That Al Gore predicted...
Oh you mean there isn't any? that's what is SAD....
{chuckle}
You do realize that the seed is satire?
I'm well aware of it, in fact it's why I posted it...
Still doesn't escape the fact that Al Gore made a prediction that HASN'T come true... In fact that is what it's satirizing...
What is sad is that the money has been spent and the public didn't get anything of value. Al Gore certainly benefited from his portrayal of a dystopian apocalypse. But what has the pubic gotten from that fear mongering? The public is still on the hook.
Amen brother...
Al Gore was (and still is) selling a product. He ranks right up there with Billy Mays...
In other words, the only reason you seeded the article was that Gore's name was mentioned. And no, the article is not satirizing Gore's statement, it is satirizing the Global Warming Policy Foundation and a number of its authors.
I thought the article was rather clever as a parody of arguments of esoteric, obscure, confusing, and, ultimately, meaningless science. The 'deniers/climate criers' argument in the article has as much value as the climate science argument overall. Debate over the issue highlighted in the parody would be pointless AND that's the point.
To me, it's a parody of how climate science attempts to both dazzle with brilliance AND baffle with bullshit. And that's where Al Gore fits in. Perfect.
The real funny part is Nerm, you gots to explain it to them.... {chuckle} Right on target...
And the icing on the cake is that after explaining it to them, they still don't get it. They're so confused they don't what to be offended about.
Yep the biggest joke of all?
2004, the democrats want a candidate to go up against Bush II a second time, the FIRST person they look to is....... AL GORE!!! You know what he said? To hell with you, I don't need the presidency with all it's bullshit, I gots GLOBAL WARMING!! it's made me a millionaire multiple times over without all the hassle's... Take your presidency and shove it! I don't need it or want it!
You can't make this stuff up!
Wasn’t one of his coastal mansions that has 21x the carbon footprint of the average Americans home supposed to be flooded by rising sea levels by now?
It’s ridiculous that I now have to consider myself lucky to get 91 octane fuel for my car at $4.35 a gallon here in California where most stations are charging $.50 to $.60 more per gallon for it. And yes, my car runs cleaner, faster, and more MPG with that fuel per manufacturers recommendation. It’s 22 years old and in great shape and gets the best. I just liked it better when Trump was President and I could get that gas for $2.15 a gallon
And since his 2000 campaign he’s gone so far to the left from the conservative democrat he once was that Tipper divorced him.
It was a great mockery of the so called consensus of science as it’s described in the MBFC website on issues of science. Openly mocking people who hold to that view point described there is always welcome…
But they did know to be offended…
Yep. It's like Hillary Clinton crying to the bank after losing. Poor, poor Hillary. NOT.
Shush. Nobody's supposed to know about that. Some facts are just too inconvenient.
Run for office then it's all expenses paid. You can lie with a straight face, can't you?
xxJefferson is the most qualified candidate ever! A chicken in every pot and free, free, free stuff. We'll just tax the rich -- in Texas. Just vote for xxJefferson. If that's too difficult we can do that for you, too. We promise full service government; no need to inconvenience yourself.
Oh, and, don't forget climate change is a crisis that's gonna kill us all. The Arctic ice proves it! Be afraid, very afraid.
Yep. Why isn't really important.
So you don't know that "empirical evidence" is actually "eyeballs on the scene"?
If you're going to trash science you should at least understand some of the terminology.
Hilarious!!!
Even after the science experts have accumulated a mountain of facts funded by government debt, they still haven't accomplished anything. And liberal support of these science experts is liberal politics doing what it does best.
The climate crisis is nothing more than an intellectual, globally interconnected, politically woke circle jerk. It's a crisis, somebody has to DO something. Better send another science expedition to the arctic to show that the crisis is being taken seriously.
The consensus is that the climate is warming and that human activities are contributing to the warming. Neither should be a surprising or particularly remarkable 'discovery'. We are in an interglacial period so a warming climate should be expected. And the environmental degradation caused by humans is so extensive and easily observed that it can't be denied.
Unfortunately the political response in the neoliberal era is to deploy finance. And the infusion of public money naturally attracts the attention of academic science which is parasitic. Academic science is motivated more by the search for sustainable funding rather than the search for knowledge. Academic science does not produce anything of commercial value so must act the part of beggar.
How would a reconstruction (best guess) of the extent of arctic sea ice provide anything of commercial value that could sustain itself? What does that reconstruction contribute to deploying anything that would address the identified problem? The data and graphs may convince government to provide more funding but the utility of that information for addressing the identified problem is highly questionable.
And during the neoliberal era, capital sits on the sideline awaiting public subsidies and guaranteed profit. Finance during the neoliberal era has adopted a risk adverse posture refusing to venture into the arena of commercial competition. No risk is too small to become an insurmountable obstacle to innovation requiring government incentives with public funds (and more often public debt).
After the churn of pointless academic science and financial maneuvering, the final consensus solution is that the public must lower their standard of living while a patchwork of poorly designed solutions are deployed in a haphazard manner at public expense. Those benefiting from the supposed crisis are all parasitic burdens imposed on the public.
If we were really serious about addressing climate change the government funding would be shifted away from academic science and directed toward industrial research. And we would place the burden of risk onto finance where it belongs and expect finance to profit from industrial production rather than feeding at the public trough. We certainly aren't going to address climate change while neoliberal stagnation persists.
That one sentence highlights all the nonsense in your post from 'T' to '.'
So tell us what academics actually produces? other than more and more addled beggars pursuing the government teat?
Then why does academic science need a constant influx of public funds to pursue research that doesn't provide public benefit? How will knowing when the Arctic will be free of ice, to the second, contribute to addressing the problem of climate change? The research has entertainment value in pop science publications but what is the utility of that knowledge?
You, too, can become a government sponsored climate scientist. (Or any other scientist you choose, just change the search criteria.)
Is it your assertion that private industry does not fund research and then hire those 'researches' who published supportive 'data' in their own pop sites? The seeded article is trashing pop denialists who apparently have secured a kaching market all of their own.
Then why does academic science need a constant influx of public funds? My assertion in that the government is funding academic research and the only benefit the public receives is pop science entertainment.
Yes, the seeded article is trashing pop denialists. But the satire is using the same method that academic science uses to seek government funding. And the satire is making arguments that have as much utility as academic science. The satire is a parody of how academic science functions and a parody of the utility of academic science. The parody of scientific argument is why the seeded article is satire.
Publically funded academic research paid for studies on grasshopper compound eyes, the paper was picked up by Volvo engineers who applied it to crash avoidance systems ... such a waste of public monies. The world is chock full of such examples.
Academics produce educated people of which AGW deniers obviously aren't.
I have to wonder how many science deniers actually graduated high school.
I understand the opinion, anyone who disagrees with academia or an academician must be stupid and uneducated, but, by that standard, Abraham Lincoln, considered one of the geniuses of all humankind, who only had a 9th grade education, educated himself on the law, would be considered uneducated by an academician... And many academicians said so back then...
I would consider it an honor to be considered in the same class of people as Abraham Lincoln by an academician...
And how does the professional academic survive?
Some here have been openly critical of science research done by academics who are funded by capitalism through their funding of think tanks, on campus or not. I think that they provide a valuable public service and a counter to regime funded research
And after decades of actually reading dozens and dozens of the reports and studies of paid for academicians that usually support the positions of those that paid for them, virtually ALL of them support as you call it a "Regime" much of the time it is a political regime.. Others are a scientific regime supporting a political regime...
Such academia work requires a grain of salt when reading, scrupulous investigation, and critical inquiry... Those that survive that, (commonly known as peer reviewed) then need to fit in a practical world...
The Academic ideal that AGW can be altered by man, (either way, create more, or slow down and prevent) does not fit in a practical world... what such represents is the attitude that we, the educated, know better... Science is always correct, is a presupposition that is incorrect on it's face... and in some social circles, has become biblical in proportion, a religion of the elite of which everyone else cannot understand simply cause they are beneath us...
And I think given your experiences on the board you would understand this...
Yes there are.. but answer me one question...
WHY HASN'T THE WORLD HEARD ABOUT THEM???
Cause, scientific fact established to specifically advance technological capabilities or discovered in the search to advance technological capabilities are fully paid for... And once discovered are taken over by the industry that most benefits and are fully funded by them... Ownership, (and hence profits) are acquired by the person or entity that paid for the study...
AGW has no such ownership! Hence no private source of funding to make a profit... AL Gore's profits were made from the advertising and political expounding of scientific theories that have no real source of funding... All the societies that support the theories have also learned the way to funding (profit) is by government taxation.. And when you involve government they ALWAYS want their piece of the pie... so the cost of these theories goes up exponentially...
Funding for AGW research is designed to make politicians and their buddies the Academicians and industry rich without producing one single thing of worth to society in general... And as soon as something is discovered that does have a worth, it is bought and paid for so others can make a serious profit...
It's a scheme to get paid for something that NO ONE can do a damned thing about... Nobody got rich off of the theory of evolution... nobody got rich off the theory of relativity (Until someone figured out how to physically split the atom then many got rich building faulty nuclear reactors that kill people)
Personally I don't want my public monies going to make the elite rich...
A very rational explanation. Kudos!
Someone should inform Maersk Lines the world's largest ocean carrier and those others that are following suit along with the navies of the US, Russian, and Canada.
This makes it sound like a scientific paper, written by a climate scientist has been peer-reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal. So I looked into that aspect of it.
Dr Bates does hold a PhD in meteorology and does appear to have had a long career in climate science . That’s a good starting point.
But this Foundation is another matter. It’s not a scientific organization. It’s group of lobbyists. Their director is a social anthropologist. Their board of trustees are mainly former members of the House of Lords and a bishop. They can publish whatever nonsense they want. That doesn’t make it something worth reading.
I didn't say it was did I?
Then why seed these lies?
I guess you really did take your sailing excursion vaycay to the north pole last summer... Did you see any ice? {chuckle}
Please, tell me where the lie is?
Why do you have the impression I was writing something about - or to - you specifically? I quoted a line from the article and responded only to that. I didn’t address my comment to you and it wasn’t posted as a reply to one of your comments. Why be defensive about something you didn’t say?
My apologies for the misunderstanding, I though you were addressing the intent of the article... It is worth reading, but not for it's scientific content...
My masters degrees are in Earth Science and Biology. This is what I taught for over 20 years.
I have done a ton of reading on peer-reviewed papers on this subject, and it is complex
The sheet is larger now, but their depth is shallow. Furthermore, the icebergs, which are indicative of ocean temp are shrinking worldwide.
Excellent! Kudos to you Girl,
Yes on a scientific basis, it is a VERY complex subject yes... This article satirizes those whose only wish is to make money off of something that no one really fully understands... AL Gore being only the most open target...
It was never an attempt to have a serious scientific look at the subject... It's too big a subject for this board especially with all the biased unknowledgable opinions floating around... It isn't even about the sheet being larger, just that it still exists in the summer, when one of the biggest leeches in the GW dichotomy actually said wasn't going to be...
Separate the science from the bloodsuckers and then maybe a decent conversation could be had, it isn't going to happen as long as the bloodsuckers are running the show...
Greta Thunberg is an environment activist and certainly not a climate scientist. And she can say whatever nonsense she wants, too. That doesn't make it something worth listening to.
“How dare you!”
It's a good thing that Thunberg listens to actual climate scientists.
Most scientists aren't very good at public speaking and fighting anti-scientists. She's good at it.
The anti AGW propagandists at Heartland and Heritage aren't scientists either.
True, but she doesn’t present herself in a way that encourages you to respect her opinion based on an implied expertise or expert endorsement. She’s a concerned layperson and does not play disingenuous games meant to imply that she is anything more than that.
She definitely doesn't pull her punches. I'd Like to meet her and have a talk.
She is a troll out to get her parents rich, and by extension herself. Just like Al Gore.
She damn well expects to be taken seriously. She should be laugh back into schooled; that she is missing a ton of already, and so badly needs.
All that for a hypocrite that loves to virtue signal; while her own carbon footprint should be what she should be protesting against.
Read the full article if you want the detail of the carbon footprint of the rest of her travels.
Yes, Greta Thunberg is a political activist unencumbered by expertise. Thunberg need not be correct; Thunberg only need be right as she sees right and wrong.
"I'm no expert but experts say" is a declaration of humble authority. In other times, Thunberg would be the 'voice of God'. A humble prophet delivering the message of a higher authority. Thunberg's devotion avoids scrutiny of whether she is a true prophet delivering a message from God - or - a false prophet delivering a message from the church or state.
Greta Thunberg is more metaphysics than physics. Laypeople claiming humble authority have turned political activism of climate change into a pagan religion. (And 'pagan' is not used in a disparaging manner.) We're debating climate change in an emotional manner and not in a rational manner.
Yeah, she’s in good company in that regard. It seems like a lot of environmental activists like to do a lot of carbon-producing traveling. I mean we just had that big climate summit in Glasgow in November. Something wrong with Zoom?
She’s not perfect, but I don’t object to her either. I mean, I’m glad she’s enthusiastic about taking care of our environment. There’s nothing wrong with that. I think many of us could care more than we do.
My objection to the climate activism of people like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg is that they oversimplify the problem. Climate change isn't a single problem but, in reality, a number of smaller problems. Climate change isn't like depletion of the ozone layer and can't be addressed like depletion of the ozone layer.
Greta Thunberg may be enthusiastic but in reality she is doing a disservice by oversimplifying climate change and encouraging people to adopt a feel good attitude toward addressing climate change. We can't just switch from CFCs to HFCs and keep doing what we were doing. Carbon dioxide isn't the only gas contributing to greenhouse warming. And there isn't only one source of carbon dioxide emissions.
Sending expeditions to the Arctic gives the appearance that climate change is being taken seriously but doesn't really accomplish anything to address numerous problems that are contributing to climate change.
We also need to be realistic about the fact that change is happening, regardless of the cause and respond to it in a practical way. For example, some people are going to need to move away from coastlines.
Yeah maybe, but the real question is "WHEN"
The latest consensus on sea level rise is about 8" -18" a century... Depending on whos info your looking at.... Of course if we look back at the history of the predictions, most of our east coast cities should already be under water...
So if the predictions over the last 30 years haven't come true, the "Scientific" models clearly haven't been accurate, the question remains when is it going to happen...
Practicality rather than theory is what everyone wants, most have had enough theory..
We need to be realistic that a number of changes are happening and they may not all be related and may not all be caused by fossil fuel emissions. A one size fits all solution isn't going to work.
The last 20 years, alone, have been extraordinarily damaging to the environment at various locations around the planet.
And melting Arctic ice doesn't affect sea level rise. Floating ice sheets that break off Antarctica and melt won't affect sea level rise. The only melting ice that contributes to sea level rise is ice on land.
That’s exactly right!
And that land ice melt is what happens before the ice age which is why the sea level is higher before an ice age and the natural progression of the sea level drop at the end of an ice age because the water is locked up in ice on land, it is that simple. What we are seeing is just the climate naturally progressing to the next ice age.
Yep, sea levels have been much higher and much lower in the past. That does seem to be the natural cycle.
But that doesn't let us humans off the hook. There's no denying that humans are crapping on their own plate. We really do need to clean up our act.
The problem is that climate activism has divided us into tribes with their phony religion. And the Montreal Protocol to address ozone depletion was an extraordinarily rare international agreement that globalists are desperately trying to repeat (more for political reasons than anything else).
If climate change really was an existential threat, as liberal fear mongers are trying to convince us, then we are addressing that threat in the stupidest way possible. Cities are the biggest polluters simply because of the size and density of population. And we're worried about cow farts, electric charging stations in Montana, and Arctic ice? The very activists and politicians crying panic aren't taking the problem seriously.
Greta Thunberg provides a very convincing argument that this all about politics which means there's really nothing to worry about. Modern politicians don't address real problems and when they're forced to deal with a real problem, they botch it up.