Plentiful Arctic Ice Sept. 2021

and you shouldn't have used a graph that contradicts your argument.

 

On the contrary, it supports my argument quite nicely. What it does not support is your fake version of my argument.

 

Only rubes buy at the peaks. You shoulda sold in 1980, when it was clear the peak was near:
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Image0310502019-2-1024x577.png
and bought in 2020, when the bottom was in. Buy low, sell high. Not rocket science.

 

Yes, and what we have here is a dead cat bounce

 

Even a dead cat will bounce if it falls far enough.

 

Nope. The graph I linked to shows arctic sea ice was similarly low in the 1940s and 50s, yet rebounded to the 1980 high. In the MWP, when the Vikings were farming in Greenland, it was much lower than now. In the LIA, it was higher. Nothing to do with CO2.

 

Meanwhile, in Antarctica:
New Study Affirms Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Play No Role In Larsen Ice Shelf Melt
By Kenneth Richard on 3. October 2022

Share this...
There are four main reasons why Antarctica’s Larsen C Ice Shelf may be melting. None of them involve human forcing or CO2 concentration changes.
Scientists have recently completed an exhaustive 20-year study of the “most significant causes of melting” of the Larsen C Ice Shelf in the Antarctic Peninsula. They have concluded the 4 main surface melt drivers are:

1. Shortwave solar radiation.

2. Foehn wind variations.

3. Cloud cover changes.

4. Natural circulation variations (SAM, ENSO).

Neither anthropogenic forcing nor CO2 emissions are listed as causal factors in Antarctic ice melt processes.



Image Source: Gilbert et al., 2022 . . . .

 

The Real Inconvenient Truth is becoming too obvious to ignore.

“Steig disputed Gore's statement that you can visibly see the effect that the United States Clean Air Act has had on ice cores in Antarctica. "One can neither see, nor even detect using sensitive chemical methods any evidence in Antarctica of the Clean Air Act," he said, but did note that they are "clearly recorded in ice core records from Greenland."[44]”

An Inconvenient Truth, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

 

More from Antarctica:

Nature Geoscience: “Eastern Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet HAS GROWN Over Last 20 Years”
By P Gosselin on 30. October 2022

Share this...
The German Klimaschau here presents a new video, this one featuring a new study on the Antarctic Ice Shelf published in Nature Geoscience:



Ice sheet “has grown”

According to a University of Cambridge press release dated May 13, 2022, “The eastern Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet has grown in area over the last 20 years, due to changing wind and sea ice patterns.”. . . .

 

The Inconvenient Truth -- again.

 

Notice that warmist/alarmists have nearly vanished from the forum and when they do appear they avoid the evidence to scream at us instead.

It is clear that their AGW delusions have failed massively with numerous prediction failures dogging their every step.

The warmist/alarmist climate scam is a failure.

 

The truth will eventually garner broad based support, but the damage done by climate fanatics to the credibility of science makes it far more difficult to achieve a consensus.

"To do that (reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climactic change) we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This "double ethical bind" that we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." atmospheric scientist Stephen Schneider, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "Discover" magazine, Oct. 1989.

In 1991 Schneider won the AAAS(American Association for the Advancement of Science) "Award for the Public Understanding of Science." Paul R. Gross, and Norman Levitt, "Higher Superstition," Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994, pp 167,168.

There must be a lot of money in Fake Science.

 

That such a despicable creature could be called a scientist is a disgrace. Science does not admit of any "balance" between being honest and any other consideration whatsoever.

That award was if anything an even bigger disgrace.

Not for the "scientists" themselves; but there is lots of status, which is generally more important to them. The people who are getting the real dough are on the business end: dealers in carbon credits, cap and trade, subsidies for renewables, etc.

 

The current "Replication Crisis" is a Fake Science crisis.

“For many scientists, the effect is especially troubling because of what it exposes about the scientific process. If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved? Which results should we believe? Francis Bacon, the early-modern philosopher and pioneer of the scientific method, once declared that experiments were essential, because they allowed us to “put nature to the question.” But it appears that nature often gives us different answers.”

“For many scientists, the effect is especially troubling because of what it exposes about the scientific process. If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved? Which results should we believe? Francis Bacon, the early-modern philosopher and pioneer of the scientific method, once declared that experiments were essential, because they allowed us to “put nature to the question.” But it appears that nature often gives us different answers.”

THE NEW YORKER, The Truth Wears Off, Is there something wrong with the scientific method?, By Jonah Lehrer, Annals of Science, December 13, 2010 Issue, December 5, 2010.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off

 

No New York Times, Melting Ice in Greenland Isn’t a Serious Threat
GLACIERS NOVEMBER 1, 2022

". . . . But the real elephant (or maybe we should say mouse) in the room is the claims of ice loss made in the NYT article where they say: “From April 2002 to July 2022, Greenland has lost more than 5,000 gigatons of ice to the ocean.”

Sounds huge, but as pointed out in Climate at a Glance: Greenland Ice Melt, compared to all the ice in Greenland, the loss of ice is hardly noticeable as seen in Figure 1. When recent ice loss since about 2002 is compared to the full Greenland ice sheet, the loss is so small that it is almost undetectable.




Figure 1. A comparison of presentations of satellite data capturing Greenland’s ice mass loss. The image on the right shows changes in Greenland’s ice mass relative to Greenland’s total ice mass. Sources: The data plotted in these graphs are from the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-Comparison Exercise, a joint exercise by NASA and the European Space Agency.4 Graphs originally by Willis Eschenbach. Adapted and annotated by Anthony Watts.


While the NYT might give a good story here of observations via airplane flyovers and quotes from locals that say they’ve seen ice disappear, it is all anecdotal, and not science. As seen in Figure 1, the full-context examination of the Greenland ice data shows only a tiny fraction of Greenland’s ice sheet is melting, and with very little impact—the exact opposite of what many climate activists and media outlets claim. . . . "

 

One extra April-July period....

I wonder why?

 

You can do your own data downloads from IMBIE LINK

It shows the yearly data.

 

More cooling, more ice.

Dramatic Cooling And Recent Ice Shelf Advance Over The Antarctic Peninsula
By Kenneth Richard on 3. November 2022

Share this...
Scientists struggle to keep their stories straight regarding the anthropogenic CO2 impact on polar climates.
It is claimed that anthropogenic CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are responsible for amplifying warming (“polar amplification“) and ice melt in polar climates, consistent with pronouncements pertaining to anthropogenic global warming.

However, Antarctica’s Larsen Ice Shelf station indicates a massive cooling trend, -1.1°C per decade, has been ongoing since the late 1990s (Bozkurt et al., 2020).



Image Source: Bozkurt et al., 2020
About 85% of the East Antarctic Peninsula ice sheet has sustained “uninterrupted advance” since 2003 (Christie et al., 2022).



Image Source: Christie et al., 2022
. . . .

 

Arctic sea ice: the canary in the coal mine
Posted on October 21, 2023 by curryja | 19 comments
by Greg Goodman

With over a decade and a half since the IPCC AR4, it is instructive to see how the “run away melting” of Arctic sea ice is progressing.

Continue reading →
. . . .
Conclusion

The detailed daily satellite data of sea ice extent provides the basis for extended study to understand the variation and forces driving change. Sadly much of the discussion seems based on drawing a straight line through the entire dataset and reducing it to single scalar value: the “trend”, which is instantly, and spuriously, attributed to the monotonic rise in atmospheric CO2. This is lazy and convenient but not scientific. The rich granularity of 45y of daily data shows the variation is anything but monotonic and that other factors and feedbacks are at play.

More serious analysis is necessary to determine the extent that long term temperature rise is contributing to change, what feedbacks ( both positive and negative ) are at play and what this tells us about long term change. Trivial “trend” fitting is clearly grossly inadequate to understand the cryosphere and inform energy policy consequences and adaptation measures.

More honest reporting is required from media outlets, climate scientists and government bodies about the true nature of change, good news as well as bad, instead of highly selective reporting or misreporting to build an alarmist narrative.

 

One.
Just one.
Show me one doomsday prediction from the last 100 years that has proven true.
Then we can talk about climate cooling climate warming climate destruction climate change climate shift climate crisis

 

Which is alive and well.

When someone tries to pretend that any polynomial -- let alone a linear trend line -- represents data that has been known to be chaotic-cyclical for its entire history, they can only be doing it with the deliberate intent to deceive. I can't imagine any informed, reasonable, honest person taking such nonscience seriously for a second.

Exactly.

 

Greenland’s Tipping Point Cancelled? Claims Of A Runaway Melt Are Overblown
By P Gosselin on 22. October 2023

Share this...
By KlimaNachrichten
We have carefully read the definition of a “tipping point” as conveyed by Potsdam Institute (PIK): “It’s like a pencil that you push further and further over the edge of a table with your finger. First nothing happens – then it falls.” That’s what the PIK website says.

Nothing can bring the pencil back to the table except a failure of gravity, which is not conceivable. Then PIK lists various “elements” that are supposed to exhibit such behavior. To the ice sheet of Greenland one finds there

There are indications that the tipping point, which leads to an almost complete loss of ice in the long term (about 10,000 years), could probably be reached at a global warming of just under 1.5°C (possible from 0.8°C global warming, at the latest at 3°C).“

Now there’s a paper on the subject has appeared in “Nature“, which paints a different picture. It finds that even after a possibly “critical warming threshold” has been crossed, “the pencil does not fall down:

We find several stable intermediate ice-sheet configurations … that return to the present-day state if the climate returns to present-day conditions.”

in addition, models often determine the warming in Greenland (the root of the evil) using the mean global warming rate and then apply an “Arctic amplification” factor to each warming to determine the temperature swing in Greenland. The paper states:

Recently, it has been shown that the Arctic warms four times faster than the global average and thus substantially exceeds previous estimates and projections from climate models. Arctic amplification of this magnitude would reduce the safe space for the GrIS substantially. However, surface temperatures around Greenland might not increase that severely in the future.”

Observations since 2000 now show that during this period the warming of the Arctic is far from uniform:


The warming trends (in °C / year) since 2000 of the Arctic region. The figure was generated with the KNMI Climate Explorer. The “Arctic amplification” in the Arctic strikes in large parts of its European part, but in Greenland, of all places, the observed trends are much lower, especially in the area in the south and center of the island, which is particularly vulnerable to “thawing”.

A constant factor, therefore, according to observations, is a further overestimation of the danger of the occurrence of “galloping ice melt” in Greenland. The “Last Generation – before the tipping points” has perhaps been misled not only with the characteristics of tipping points (the “falling pencil”) , but also with the real dangers of the tipping elements.

 

There's a lot of ice in the Arctic.
New Study: Modern Sea Ice Extent Is Nearly The Highest In 9000 Years Across the Arctic
By Kenneth Richard on 20. November 2023

Millennial-scale Arctic sea ice reconstructions do not corroborate alarmist claims of unprecedented sea ice losses in modern times.
Using sea ice biomarker proxy (IP25), scientists (Kolling et al., 2023) have determined that the sea ice extent in the Labrador Sea was nearly absent throughout the year (close to 0.0 μg/gTOC) for much of the last 9,000 years. The sea ice was lowest (~0.1 μg/gTOC) 9,300 to 8,900 years ago, and low (~0.4 μg/gTOC) from 7,500 to 4,000 years ago.

In contrast, modern sea ice now lasts 23 weeks per year and is the highest in the last 9,000+ years (~1.6 μg/gTOC).

Image Source: Kolling et al., 2023

 

Expect this reaction:

 

It is more and more obvious that when they are derived from actual data rather than contrived from models, claims of unprecedented recent warming are based on relentlessly dishonest cherry picking of locations, times, and proxies.