You are here: HomeSci/TechEnvironmentArctic Ice Expands, Dispelling Myths of Climate Change
Wednesday, 11 September 2013 09:11

Arctic Ice Expands, Dispelling Myths of Climate Change

Written by 

According to a report in the U.K. Mail on Sunday, a rapidly expanding ice sheet in the Arctic has definitively refuted the computer models used by advocates of the theory of man-made climate change. But the latest facts regarding “global cooling” have done little to cool the ardor of the theory’s advocates. And, in the assessment of some critics of the theory of global warming, the theory’s advocates would rather resort to ad hominem attacks than face the facts.

The report from the Mail presents a picture of a theory that has now been refuted on the basis of observation. As David Rose writes:

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year — an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

The BBC report that Rose references was a December 12, 2007 article which proclaimed, “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013.’” It continued:

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

It could be argued that 2007 was a low point for the long-term credibility of reporting on the theory of global warming. It was, after all, the year that former Vice President Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shared the Nobel Peace Prize, and Gore declared: “The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity." 

When the “Climategate” scandal broke in November 2009, the global-warming theory suffered a public relations backlash from which it has never fully recovered. The latest data of the growth of the Arctic ice sheet may not have the emotional impact of the photos of polar bears standing vigil on dwindling chunks of ice that accompanied hundreds of articles a few years ago reporting on the retreat of the Arctic ice, but the facts continue to accumulate that cast doubt on the credibility of the theory that was pushed alongside the photos.

As Rose explained in his most recent article, the extensive growth this year in the Arctic ice is consistent with expectations published in The Mail on Sunday earlier this year:

The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has "paused" since the beginning of 1997 — an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.

In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with "90 per cent certainty."

The pause — which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre — is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into "green" measures to counter climate change.

Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.

Although the new data should, at the very least, be a cause for measured reconsideration of both the global-warming theory, and the computer models that purportedly support that theory, such a reconsideration will have to wait for the attacks on Rose (and other critics) to die down. For example, Phil Plait came out swinging in an article for Slate.com:

When I heard that the Mail on Sunday ran a climate change article over the weekend, I knew it would be bad. But when I clicked the link and saw it was written by David Rose, I braced myself for the worst.

Man, sometimes I hate being right.

Rose is a guy who denies climate change in the way creationists deny evolution, and flat-Earthers deny the Earth is, well, not flat. That is to say, with claims so ridiculously wrong it’s charitable to call them "ridiculously wrong."

Plait’s attack was hardly an isolated event. While Nuccitelli’s article for The Guardian was a little less blunt, the attack was just as sweeping: 

When it comes to climate science reporting, the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph are only reliable in the sense that you can rely on them to usually get the science wrong. This weekend's Arctic sea ice articles from David Rose of the Mail and Hayley Dixon at the Telegraph unfortunately fit that pattern.

Both Plait’s and Nuccitelli’s articles do attempt to counter the information presented by the Mail on Sunday, and elsewhere the increasingly shrill tone that has been emitted by advocates of the climate-change theory in the aftermath of “Climategate” shows little sign of moderating. 

Rose’s story broke just as NASA was attempting to blame the industrial revolution for changes in European glaciers during the 19th century. Even as evidence continues to mount that fundamentally challenges the entire theory of man-made climate change, the theory’s advocates seem bent on converting it into the climatological equivalent of a “theory of everything."

7 comments

  • Comment Link Mike Tuesday, 17 September 2013 10:55 posted by Mike

    On Global warming, I do not believe it is anthropocentric [AGW], but possibly, more so driven by the seasons of the sun. It is my understanding the CO2 is considered AGW's main driver, and CO2 is part of the natural process of carbon based life. So it seems to me if we consider it a pollutant, we might as well tax people for exhaling. :p I would put my philosophical money on CO2 as actually promoting plant life that would eventually warm the poles and make them livable again. CO2 in our biosphere will increase plant growth, water retention and promote life. Since coal is recognize as being organic, and that it is found throughout the world, we can also assume it was once in our atmosphere, and that we are most likely at a high state of Oxygen saturation which would consequently inhibit plant life. Not to mention forests decay releasing CO2 and the oceans...

    Evolutionary science is based on speculation, you can't know all you need to know about a fossil, thus it is not true science at all, but scientism, a belief system. We must also remember AGW and Evolutions are systems based on the truth that the universe is matter and energy.

    When we study the genome, we find the genes exhibit degeneration. Degeneration cannot produce an increase of information, and by definition, is destructive to the genome leading to extinction. Also degeneration requires the genome must have been fully functional in the beginning.
    And now the new science of Information and the current study of DNA as a storage medium of information AND the beginning understanding of the living cell as a complex computational system; these for me are the dirt on the coffin of evolution. Life as we know it is designed. And Information reveals something more interesting; information is non material [spiritual], and we now have a scientific evidence of a 3rd component of reality, Information.
    All philosophies built on materialism is false.

  • Comment Link REMant Friday, 13 September 2013 20:26 posted by REMant

    I would certainly object to anyone saying they could feel global warming over 30 yrs, without relying on some signs to look for based on a theory. The evidence is that there's been considerable variability in that timespan, and the probability of cycles. The hottest day in Antarctica was in 1974, New Zealand's, 1973.

  • Comment Link rprew Thursday, 12 September 2013 18:57 posted by rprew

    James George, Australopithecus is based upon a 40% skeleton scattered over a wide area. Even evolutionists no longer consider it a transitional form, but merely a extinct species of chimpanzee. Piltdown Man was "discovered" in 1912-1914. The fraud was not discovered until 1953, hardly a quick discovery! Homo Habilis, Homo , Homo Neanderthensis are simply temporal, regional, climatic, dietary or pathological variants of human beings. There has yet to be discovered a single transitional example of evolution.

    You have noted several examples of MICRO-evolution. This accounts for the wide variety within a species. Black moths, white moths, tall people, short people, dachshunds and boxers.

    There is NO evidence supporting MACRO-evolution.

    While it is true that the Piltdown hoax was uncovered by evolutionists, the fact that it took 40 years during which there was skepticism, it was accepted by a community who were so closed minded to the truth of creation that it just HAD to be true.You, James George, are also so dedicated to evolution (and global warming, too) that you are grasping at straws. There was a time when I was an AVID evolutionist and dead set against any "ludicrous" concept of creation. I made the mistake of deciding to look at the issue with an open mind. In the beginning I had no doubt about the results of my open mindedness. Boy, was I surprised! I learned a ton of information about evolution that ended up working against me. You should try it. Works for global warming, too.

  • Comment Link James George Thursday, 12 September 2013 12:34 posted by James George

    Actually, the Daily Mail is a British equivalent of "People" magazine. It's far from a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

    The Arctic (North Pole) is melting. The Antarctic (South Pole) is expanding. Warming has resulted in more precipitation that, in turn, falls as snow over the poles and accumulates as ice. Thanks to several decades of CFC regulation, we"re closing the ozone hole, and this accounts for the Antarctic growth.

    As a professional meteorologist for close to 30 years, I was never concerned with what I was "supposed" to believe. I was only concerned with what actually worked. And in all that time, I've only seen signs that the climate was warming, to the point that I could make accurate predictions based on that assumption.

    I'm not trying to be shrill or emotional here. It's just that nothing in my professional experience contradicts the idea of warming...

  • Comment Link James George Thursday, 12 September 2013 12:08 posted by James George

    rprew,
    We have extensive (and quite complete) fossils for Australopithecus, Home Erectus, Homo Habilis, Homo Neanderthalensis, and, of course, Homo Sapiens, all of which just "happen" to show an evolutionary sequence. Some coincidence, eh? Ditto for thousands of other species. Evolutionary assumptions allow us to develop medicines, breed disease-resistant crops, and locate oil and natural gas. Creationism simply cannot do this.

    This is admittedly much more than just a "tooth". Piltdown Man (your reference) was a hoax quickly identified as such by evolutionary scientists (and not Creationists) because it did not fit with what was already known. Science is self-correcting.

    You need to clarify what a "solid zero" means...

  • Comment Link Terrance Ferebee Wednesday, 11 September 2013 21:38 posted by Terrance Ferebee

    I haven't read nor heard anything about this from the Rothschild/Rockefeller Controlled Major Mass Media (RRCMMM). The same cesspool has hidden the truth about 9-11, OKC, Tucson, Aurora, Boston, Sandy Hook and 7-7. Time to remove them from human contact.

  • Comment Link rprew Wednesday, 11 September 2013 11:59 posted by rprew

    The fact is. people who stubbornly stick to the "science" of global warming have MUCH more in common with flat-Earthers than any other group. Who but flat-Earthers and global warmists so adamantly ignore the overwhelming evidence stacked against them?

    Both groups so want their fantasies to be real they are willing to grasp at any straw, swallow any line, or attack anybody who chastises them for their foolishness.

    And I might also point out there is more real science going for the creationists than the evolutionists. No creationist has ever had to "create" an "ancestor" from the tooth of an extinct pig or fall so completely for a total hoax. For all the research done, all the money spent, all the time consumed, and all the papers written, the total evidence to date for macro-evolution remains at a solid zero! Evolutionists - another good candidate for the flat-Earth society.

    Global warmists, evolutionists, and flat-Earthers are capable of screaming louder than those opposed to them. This is not proof of anything, but may be a sign of a serious symptom of some deep emotional problem.

Log in
Sign up for The New American daily highlights