Revenge of the Ice (reblogged from: Daily Mail UK)

And now it’s global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

By David Rose

PUBLISHED: 23:37 GMT, 7 September 2013 | UPDATED: 12:01 GMT, 8 September 2013

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.

global cooling


The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

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.


Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a ‘conservative’ forecast. Perhaps it was their confidence that led more than 20 yachts to try to sail the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to  the Pacific this summer. As of last week, all these vessels were stuck in the ice, some at the eastern end of the passage in Prince Regent Inlet, others further west at Cape Bathurst.

Shipping experts said the only way these vessels were likely to be freed was by the icebreakers of the Canadian coastguard. According to the official Canadian government website, the Northwest Passage has remained ice-bound and impassable  all summer.

The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist  Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice’.

He was confident his results were ‘much more realistic’ than other projections, which ‘underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice’. Also quoted was Cambridge University expert

Professor Peter Wadhams. He backed Professor Maslowski, saying his model was ‘more efficient’ than others because it ‘takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice’.

He added: ‘This is not a cycle; not just a fluctuation. In the end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.’



The continuing furore caused by The Mail on Sunday’s revelations – which will now be amplified by the return of the Arctic ice sheet – has forced the UN’s climate change body to hold a crisis meeting.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was due in October to start publishing its Fifth Assessment Report – a huge three-volume study issued every six or seven years. It will now hold a pre-summit in Stockholm later this month.

Leaked documents show that governments which support and finance the IPCC are demanding more than 1,500 changes to the report’s ‘summary for policymakers’. They say its current draft does not properly explain the pause.

At the heart of the row lie two questions: the extent to which temperatures will rise with carbon dioxide levels, as well as how much of the warming over the past 150 years – so far, just 0.8C – is down to human greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural variability.


In its draft report, the IPCC says it is ‘95 per cent confident’ that global warming has been caused by humans – up from 90 per cent in 2007.


This claim is already hotly disputed. US climate expert Professor Judith Curry said last night: ‘In fact, the uncertainty is getting bigger. It’s now clear the models are way too sensitive to carbon dioxide. I cannot see any basis for the IPCC increasing its confidence level.’

She pointed to long-term cycles  in ocean temperature, which have a huge influence on climate and  suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend. This led some scientists at the time to forecast an imminent ice age.

Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, was one of the first to investigate the ocean cycles. He said: ‘We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.

Then... NASA satelite images showing the spread of Artic sea ice 27th August 2012Then… NASA satelite images showing the spread of Artic sea ice 27th August 2012


...And now, much bigger: The spread of Artic sea ice on August 15 2013…And now, much bigger: The same Nasa image taken in 2013



‘The IPCC claims its models show a pause of 15 years can be expected. But that means that after only a very few years more, they will have to admit they are wrong.’


Others are more cautious. Dr Ed Hawkins, of Reading University, drew the graph published by The Mail on Sunday in March showing how far world temperatures have diverged from computer predictions. He admitted the cycles may have caused some of the recorded warming, but insisted that natural variability alone could not explain all of the temperature rise over the past 150 years.

Nonetheless, the belief that summer Arctic ice is about to disappear remains an IPCC tenet, frequently flung in the face of critics who point to the pause.

Yet there is mounting evidence that Arctic ice levels are cyclical. Data uncovered by climate historians show that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by intense re-freezes that ended only in 1979 – the year the IPCC says that shrinking began.

Professor Curry said the ice’s behaviour over the next five years would be crucial, both for understanding the climate and for future policy. ‘Arctic sea ice is the indicator to watch,’ she said.

…gipsika’s comment:
They shouldn’t try to predict!  Haven’t they figured it out yet?  The best way to reverse a trend is to predict it!  😉

25 thoughts on “Revenge of the Ice (reblogged from: Daily Mail UK)

  1. Well, I for one was warmer this winter and although I still had to sit down to go for a wee I didn’t wear my fingerless gloves once while typing.
    Furthermore, knowing your penchant for a laugh I strongly believe you have photoshopped these images for their sensationalist value. I can tell because I don’t see a single polar bear or penguin.

    • Honestly? Who can tell! My daughter, who was born in 1997 in September, has never had personal experience of global warming… but how statistically significant is that?

      I think the major point being made here is: How predictable are these things in the first place? The climatologists seem to have made a bit of a booboo with their predictions there.

    • … but, 60% increase from one year to the next? 30 individuals is considered a statistically significant sample. I think it might just be significant, at least in breaking the pattern. Or is it breaking a pattern?

      Who knows? Maybe the greener fuels, the CFCs that were reduced and the general switch to low-energy power saving options have made a significant difference. I’d like to see some stats on this, because I’m sure the air in a lot of American cities is cleaner today than it was 30 years back. I remember us demonstrating with gas masks.

    • We’ll wait and see. Moscow was pretty snowed under last winter, and in 2011, some Romanian villages’ houses were buried all the way under snow. Wisconsin had a blizzard in April, when we were rehearsing the octet – our friend still commented that he was glad he’d parked underground. And Pretoria had snow last year in July. That never happens.

      But who knows, maybe 2014 brings different news. I find all this trying to predict “trends” rather suspect. Antarctic ice shelves are growing, meanwhile; and someone comes up with an argument that the reason there is more ice is because there’s more precipitation because it’s warmer? Following that logic, it ought to snow in summer, not winter, and ice ages ought to be ice free due to not enough warmth for precipitation. ??? Climate science, y’know!

    • gipsika, you don’t understand what climate change means. It means patterns are changing in response to warming. This means more rain as well as less rain further from the mean and this is what we’re seeing. It means warmer temperature as well as colder temperatures further from the mean and this is what we’re seeing. Stop asserting that global warming is denied by offering evidence of spots of cooling; this reveals a profound ignorance of the topic, of what the evidence is, of why the evidence is overwhelmingly endorsed by every major scientific organization in the world. I

      Furthermore, your comments reveal that you assume yourself more informed and better able to determine what these trends do NOT mean than all the scientists who constitute NASA, than those who constitute the The Royal Academy of Science, than those who constitute the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and so on. You know better. You see what they collectively don’t. You know better than the dozens of national meteorological societies and the atmospheric scientists who work with climate data every day, who populate the active and working climate research and data gathering, who are all wrong. But you’re not. You may not have all the answers, of course, but you know they’re wrong based on… what, misplaced ego?

      Stop spreading disinformation. Stop aiding those who are intentionally trying to fool you and make you their stooge. Stop abetting those who have a financial interest in promoting doubt and misplaced skepticism. Stop being a fool. Put your inflated ego aside, and learn about what’s true in reality rather spread this kind of gross distortions about it. The master you serve is not one that cares about reality or what’s true.

    • @ tildeB:

      You wrote: ” your comments reveal that you assume yourself more informed and better able to determine what these trends do NOT mean than all the scientists who constitute NASA, than those who constitute the The Royal Academy of Science, than those who constitute the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and so on. You know better. You see what they collectively don’t. You know better than the dozens of national meteorological societies and the atmospheric scientists who work with climate data every day, who populate the active and working climate research and data gathering, who are all wrong. But you’re not. You may not have all the answers, of course, but you know they’re wrong based on… what, misplaced ego?

      Stop spreading disinformation. ”

      I find this funny because I merely reblogged a post out of the

      …wait for it…


      Are you saying Daily Mail UK is spreading disinformation, just because they don’t happen to coincide with your POV?

      Can you tell me the exact percentage (perhaps, to about two or three points after the comma) of CO2 in the atmosphere?

      And: If these are localized “cold spots” could you please bring a few localized “hot spots” to counter? Not just verbally bash?

      Also judging by your tone, dear… who’s the ego? LOL

    • and:
      “who have a financial interest in promoting doubt and misplaced skepticism. ”

      Who has a financial interest? Ever heard of “carbon taxes”? There’s your financial interest. Can you please show how sceptics have a financial interest in dismantling the “global warming” story?

      Just asking. You’re making assertions, so it’s up to you to stave them with facts, please.

    • gipsika, the facts are all around you but choose to apply unreasonable skepticism where there is the least cause and the least amount of skepticism where there is the most cause. This is a clue…

      A wake-up call resides in what the insurance and reinsurance business is doing. This link lays out the necessary and factual responses by insurance companies to changing climate caused by human activity and its effects on their core business. What we (and the insurance company sector as a whole) are experiencing is not usual. This is not the way the planet’s climate should be operating and fluctuating unless and until we factor in human activity. And when we do that, we (and the insurance/reinsurance businesses) see formidable problems coming our way., problems that require we (and the insurance/reinsurance companies) respond sooner than later if cost matters. And it seems to matter a very great deal to the insurance/reinsurance business (reinsurers insure insurance companies for those unaware).

      As for you specific question, the current rate of CO2 reliably and predictably rises month after month after month and and has now reached levels never experienced by other humans (over the past 15 million years), climbing past 400ppm this past August. (Welcome to the Titanic. Are you sure we have no need to change course?) We see exactly what the climate models predict but with some variation in rates – faster here, slower there): more extreme events more often causing greater damage. The insurance and reinsurance businesses have to adapt to this new reality. Note, please, that my ‘beliefs’ have nothing whatsoever to do with Munich RE’s business decisions whereas your beliefs stand in conflict with the reality these business have to face, the reality forced upon insurance companies by human activity that really does alter climate patterns that directly affects the cost of their reinsurance (This is how insurance companies spread the risk they must take).

      If all you had done is ‘merely reblogged’ the Mail article, I wouldn’t care… other than be disappointed another blogger is doing the job of the Heartland Institute and the Koch bros for free. But you made many comments that show you hold climate science in contempt and disagree with 97% of those scientists working in climate studies under the label of skepticism. This is dishonest. This kind of rejection of the findings you make based on your willful ignorance of good science is not skepticism: it’s reality denial. And it doesn’t stop here. You then advocate that your ignorance to be an equivalent knowledge position, conveniently ignoring and dismissing everything that stands contrary to the ‘reasons’ you have for your denial of reality. That’s why I charge you with spreading disinformation.

  2. Ark, like you and armed with a healthy dose of skepticism (as well as some knowledge having schooled and worked in hydrology – including lab work with ice core samples), I mistrusted doom and gloom scenarios about human-caused global warming. Like you, I could find all kinds of reasons to support my skepticism. But then I started following Open Parachute and realized that what I though was good evidence against climate change caused by human behaviour was, in fact, eerily similar to creationist thinking that argues that there are too many questions about evolution to warrant continued skepticism.

    But then I learned.

    Good climate science is complicated because it has to work within reality. And the reality is that climate is not a state but an ongoing process. Is this process producing results that clearly and unequivocally shows global warming attributable to human behaviour?

    To answer that question requires massive work. As strange as this may sound, within this work is all the evidence climate deniers need to support their skepticism, in the same way that within evolutionary biology is all the evidence creationists require to support their skepticism. But this isn’t the right conclusion. The conclusion has to deal with the entire body of evidence – both in support of and contrary to any preferred conclusion. We are all susceptible to confirmation bias, and this is exactly what I was doing: selecting and giving more weight to what supported by preferred conclusion rather than standing back and looking at the big picture that incorporated the whole data set.

    In evolutionary biology, I recognized that the scientific consensus had done much of this work for me, that all the evidence from different avenues of inquiry was mutually supportive of the theory of evolution regardless of which bits seemed to stand in conflict with it; the evolutionary biologists themselves had already dealt with the bits used by creationists (in isolation) to be thought of as important contrary evidence. But it takes work to figure out how this has been successfully done and why this contrary evidence is no such thing.

    In the same way, the scientific consensus around anthropogenic global warming has done this work for us. We really do understand how and why climate patterns are compelling evidence for AGW, which is why every major scientific body in the world accepts that this phenomena – global warming caused by human activity – is true. And the key information not effectively dealt with by those exercising what they presume is healthy skepticism lies with pattern frequency and amplitude that defines climate change.

    Once I recognized the importance of these patterns and understood the unprecedented changes to them linked directly to the rising concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere (and all that entails), I then was startled to find myself in the unenviable position of having been fooled. I hate being fooled because I disappoint myself. But hey, in for a penny, in for a pound.

    I realized that If I wanted to maintain my intellectual integrity (and I do), I had to be willing to change my mind if evidence from reality indicated that my previous position was no longer tenable. My skepticism about AGW was no longer tenable once I understood how I was fooling myself to maintain my skepticism in the face of the entire et data arbitrated by reality. And there is simply no way to account for the accuracy of the predicted changes in frequency and amplitude of climate patterns across all avenues of inquiry into climate without appreciating that all roads point to AGW in the same way that all roads in biology point to evolution.

    If you want to understand how you have been fooled (I understand the lack of zeal to want do so), a good place to start is assuming that tens of thousand of working climate scientists really do know something about what they’re talking about and may, in fact, have good information that deals quite adequately with issues of controversy raised by pop media. For example, in the picture you provide, do you see for yourself the loss of ice density by the colouration of the ice sheet? What you presume is ice ‘growth’ by area also has to take into account ice thickness, n’est pas? But the appearance of a larger ice sheet (when carefully compared only to when the sheet was at its smallest the previous year) is a false positive … a cherry-picking technique used to great effect by those who financially benefit from maintaining public skepticism about an ongoing and very real process. It is a method to fool people and clearly, you are willing to be fooled in order to support your previous position.

    The real question you’re going to have to face (sooner, I hope, than later) is whether or not you have the intellectual cojones to accept reality’s arbitration of your skepticism. A point that helped bring me about was to look at the company I was keeping, and I when I realized that I was on the side of conspiracy nuts and creationists, I took this to be a clue…

    • Oh, I am not necessarily disagreeing, I just thought it was an interesting post.
      Logic would suggest forest denudation and the motor car must have some negative effects.

    • TildeB, I’m now very curious what you do professionally.

      “scientific consensus” is one of those suspect terms. In the 16th century there was scientific consensus that Guayak wood cured syphilis, and that the Earth is flat.

      There is currently scientific consensus (in the face of contrary evidence) that the flu vaccine is 1) effective and 2) beneficial.

      The very nature of the scientific method is to question everything, including “established” theories. Someone in recent years questioned the general scientific consensus that we cannot “see” finer detail than the electron microscope due to the wavelength limitations. And voila, now we can “see” atoms.

      So let me repeat: The nature (and purpose) of the scientific method is to question everything.

      Whenever you see “dissident”, “denialist” etc, you’re not dealing with science anymore but with religion. It’s the quick-patch way to get people who question, to shut up.

      Instead, their questions need to be investigated and more research (or more evidence that is already available, if they are not aware of it) presented to them (rather than, attacking their personalities, which shows that you’re out of real replies). This cherrypicking pseudoscientific method that suits the mainstream media, is actually not for scientific but political purposes, usually to achieve someone’s financial goal.

      I don’t know how much you actually know about science, but you will practically always find evidence for and against the same theory. This is why I find it amusing that specifically the summer that was supposed to be “ice free” according to the global warmists, happens to show a dramatic recovery of the northern ice cap (meanwhile southern ice shelves have been growing consistently for the past few years – but don’t worry – I’ve even found arguments that this itself is “evidence for global warming”).

      I’m not predicting any “trends”. Read again.

    • Trouble is, if I do a literary one it will in any case be faded out by my feedback on the library event this afternoon. Also, people can’t debate with the same gusto on literary stuff. Don’t you just live for the debate? 😉

    • Actually i often just enjoy the read…I am busy reading some stuff about Thomas Aquinas on this side..Tres interesting.

      You should be in my garden this morning. For some reason there has been a mini scent explosion…Jasmin, roses, irises and lots of other stuff. It is marvelous.

      Hope everything goes super well this afternoon for you.
      I’ll reblog that post when it’s up, okay?
      I noticed you left a message on Eric’s blog. Did he pop over to ‘see’ you?

Your thoughts on this:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.