Skip to content

Booker & Arctic Sea Ice

February 26, 2017

By Paul Homewood

 

matt d licence front

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/25/dear-bbc-better-ifs-ss-gb-plus-arctic-myths-real-eurocrat-pensions/

 

Booker on Arctic sea ice this week. For some reason, the printed version includes my MASIE graph, but the online goes with NSIDC.

 

Arctic Myths

 

Ice data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center

Ice data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center/National Snow and Ice Data Center

 

 

As the fake science of global warming continues to crumble, one scare story the zealots are determined to hold on to at all costs is their claim that ice in the Arctic is dangerously vanishing. Yet again lately we have been treated to a barrage of such headlines as “Hottest Arctic on record triggers massive ice melt”.

But that ever-diligent blogger Paul Homewood has drawn on official sources such as the US National Snow and Ice Data Center to uncover what is actually happening. Under “Arctic Fake News”, on NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat, he posted a graph showing that last week the extent of sea ice was much the same as it has been at this date ever since 2001. Indeed, according to the Danish Meteorological Institute, there is even more of it today than in February 2006, and it is also significantly thicker. Back in 2008 much of the ice was only a metre thick. Today that has risen to two metres, and in some places four.

The DMI data also show that the Greenland ice sheet, which we are told is melting at horrendous speed, is actually growing this year at a record rate, to a size way above its average for the past 26 years. And the most authoritative record of Northern Hemisphere snow cover shows this year’s ranking as one of the six highest since 1967.

The Deplorable Climate Science blog, run by US expert Tony Heller, gleefully reproduces a 2007 headline: “Scientists: ‘Arctic is screaming’, global warming may have passed tipping point”. As Heller comments: “The Arctic is indeed screaming at climate scientists – to shut up.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/25/dear-bbc-better-ifs-ss-gb-plus-arctic-myths-real-eurocrat-pensions/

 

 

My relevant posts are:

 

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/latest-data-from-masie/

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-in-2006/

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/arctic-ice-fake-news/

Advertisements
23 Comments
  1. February 26, 2017 1:54 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “As the fake science of global warming continues to crumble, one scare story the zealots are determined to hold on to at all costs is their claim that ice in the Arctic is dangerously vanishing.

    “But that ever-diligent blogger Paul Homewood has drawn on official sources such as the US National Snow and Ice Data Center to uncover what is actually happening” – Booker : Telegraph UK

    ✔️

  2. February 26, 2017 2:13 pm

    I don’t think it is possible to over-estimate the contribution this blog makes to the global warming debate.

    Paul, I doubt if in the present climate you are likely to be in line for an OBE but when sanity finally returns to Brtitish politics something of the sort will be warranted.

    Though I suspect that the citation “for services to honest science” will still stick in some craws!

    Keep it up.

  3. Harry Passfield permalink
    February 26, 2017 2:46 pm

    I’m greatly chuffed, Paul, that you can put Booker’s columns up here as since the DT pay-walled them I can (will) no longer read them.

    This line was interesting: “[…]is their claim that ice in the Arctic is dangerously vanishing”. My comment is: has anyone ever defined the ‘danger’ (to the planet/human race?) of the Arctic ice ‘vanishing’ (at the extreme) or just reducing? I mean, ‘vanishing’ is an extreme unlikely to become fact, so how is ‘dangerously’ calibrated for these fools.

  4. John F. Hultquist permalink
    February 26, 2017 5:28 pm

    @Harry
    The original mantra was “ice free” but that got changed to one million square kilometers (<1M K^2), or sometimes 1 Wadhams – after the so named Peter.
    In this statement: "dangerously vanishing” there is the double urgency of it going without a trace to some unknown place, that is to vanish, and being seriously harmful in the process of doing so. This makes me think of a bomb going boom! Not only after it goes boom is it no longer around but a person nearby will be killed or wounded. Same for a Polley Bear if one was walking by at the moment of Boom.
    Another image, of course, is if you imagine someone camped on the ice and it vanishes, with or without a Boom!, it would ruin the rest of your day.

  5. February 26, 2017 5:52 pm

    Of course if Mr. Booker were to have considered Arctic sea ice volume he might have thought twice about his “there is even more of it today than in February 2006, and it is also significantly thicker.” remark?

    • February 26, 2017 6:40 pm

      PIOMAS is not a reliable set of measurements of volume. It is simply the product of modelling.

      Even they admit that the margins of error are much greater than the supposed anomalies.

      As for the thicknes,, go and check the DMI link

    • February 26, 2017 8:05 pm

      Every now and again I am affected by bouts of hysteria and an urge to throttle the cat.

      These usually coincide with reading posts from people who pontificate on the real world by quoting the output of electronic guesswork.

      • Athelstan permalink
        February 26, 2017 8:47 pm

        I used to develop a similar sort of mood, an irrational ’bout’, not due to hysteria but thick, dark, acid fulmination when, Norman Betts he of the UK civil services to UNIPCC and of the Wets Office used to pop up on the Bishop and spout his statistically enhanced, hormonally imblanced regurgitated tripe.

    • AZ1971 permalink
      February 26, 2017 10:06 pm

      Even if you want to believe the PIOMAS graph, the truth is that anti-cyclonic storms in recent years have washed out much of the older, thick ice through the Fram Strait—as opposed to having been melted (as implied) through warmer Arctic atmospheric temperatures.

      Because the truth is sorely lacking as reported by the media, and generally ignored by polar scientists, the equivalent result being pushed is one of utter fraud and should be ignored as “fact”.

  6. AlecM permalink
    February 26, 2017 6:16 pm

    The problem is that real scientists who accepted the IPCC mantra now realise there are doubts about the scientific basics. Thus Richard Lindzen urges a petition to Tump urging the USA withdraw from the United Nations Convention on Climate Change: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/25/richard-lindzen-petition-to-president-trump-withdraw-from-the-un-convention-on-climate-change/

    This is a man taught like others Goody’s atmospheric physics who has in the past worked out that the GHE is up to ~80 K. However, he has measured with others real radiative fluxes, and finds it is insufficient. The explanation is very simple: there is a basic problem in the bidirectional photon diffusion argument – Max Planck was correct for a vacuum but the atmosphere is not a vacuum.

    The rest is easy: the real CO2 ECS is kept near zero by the water cycle. Furthermore, the hot-house World was mainly from ~16% higher atmospheric pressure before, in the middle of the Carboniferous era, bacteria evolved that consumed lignin so carbon was oxidised to CO2 and dissolved in the newly cold seas. 18 months more and the scam is ended.

    • Will Janoschka permalink
      February 27, 2017 12:01 am

      “This is a man taught like others Goody’s atmospheric physics who has in the past worked out that the GHE is up to ~80 K. However, he has measured with others real radiative fluxes, and finds it is insufficient.”

      Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis 2nd Edition by R. M. Goody (Author), Y. L. Yung
      A complete revision of Goody’s classic 1964 work. Both textbooks contain the QM nonsense of early work on thermal EMR by Dr. Satyendra Nath Bose Dr. Bose tried to get Thermal EMR to work as physical ‘sensible heat’ with some theoretical belief of QM. These beliefs including that mass physically emits electromagnetic flux proportional to the fourth power of the temperature of that mass without regard to opposing radiance at each frequency and in each direction. Such ‘flux’ has never been observed nor measured. Here we are 53 years later with no one bringing this falsity into the light of day!

      *The explanation is very simple: there is a basic problem in the bidirectional photon diffusion argument – Max Planck was correct for a vacuum but the atmosphere is not a vacuum.”

      Max Planck is indeed correct but never wrote of a power flux, but only of the electromagnetic ‘field strength’ (specific intensity), now normalized in four space as “spectral radiance”. As Jon Poynting correctly shows; electromagnet flux is generated and exists only to the degree of the vector summation of all field strength vectors at that location and frequency.

      “18 months more and the scam is ended”.

      Not unless the basic scientific physical is corrected and 50 years of error admitted. There are vast sums of wealth dependent on such admission and correction never being introduced into science, government, or society in general.

      • AlecM permalink
        February 27, 2017 8:34 am

        The comparison is with Phlogiston, which took three years to die.

        In the UK, those who rose o the top are scattering like mad to avoid being the fall guys. Wadhams and the Stern Gang are apparently the last ones left!

      • Will Janoschka permalink
        February 28, 2017 12:17 am

        AlecM February 27, 2017 8:34 am

        “The comparison is with Phlogiston, which took three years to die.”

        But, but, but, Phlogiston, came from honest conjecture, not from Theatrical Science! The whole CAGW farce is but a social science experiment to observe ‘Human feelings’! The observable visceral response to some acting, performing, or reporting with intent to elicit some predetermined preferred response! The ‘proper’ response is worth trillions in profit.

  7. February 26, 2017 7:08 pm

    I’m guessing that the difference between MASIE and SII, both being available through NSIDC, is not obvious to those with only an occasional look at Arctic ice. Others know, as you have posted repeated here, that MASIE is the higher resolution, and typically shows more ice than SII, with the challenges of satellite microwave sensor readings Arctic sea surfaces.

  8. Dave Vought permalink
    February 26, 2017 9:03 pm

    Over here in oz, we are told the rapidly melting ice will swell the ocean sea levels and drown our sea side cities, plus all the pacific islands in between.
    Own own scientists have came out with (it will never rain enough to ever fill our dams again) . A decade & Billions of dollars later, we now have unused desalination plants and scientists who base their whole weather extremes on post 1910 data because they don’t trust our forefathers thermometer placements or reading records.
    Simple books and digitised newspaper searches (post & pre 1910) of Australia’s past heatwaves and extreme weather events have proven to me that all our past temperature records have been re- worked to suit their extreme reports of today.

  9. Ross King permalink
    February 26, 2017 9:46 pm

    My wife got an on-line catastrophist feed this a.m. hi’lighting the 45m. per day advance of certain G’land glaciers, accompanied by the very clear implication that this is what we can expect from Global Warming & Climate Change. “These ice blocks are the same volume as sky-scrapers” was the breathless commentary in a David Attenborough-esque tone of certitude

  10. Tom Dowter permalink
    February 26, 2017 10:51 pm

    The main concern of the alarmists is the alleged disappearing sea ice during the summer. Why then are we expending so much energy on what might have happened for a few days in the winter?

    On a wider point, there are many different measurements relating to sea ice. What we are faced with is a compromise between accuracy and relevance. For most purposes volume is the most relevant, but itis also the least accurate. Coverage/are is usually the best compromise.

    Strictly speaking, Paul is perfectly correct when he points out that sea ice volume is model dependent. However, it is a very different sort of model from those climate models that are, quite rightly, the butt of so much criticism. Climate models are predictive whereas the PIOMAS model is interpretive.

    Basically, PIOMAS is used to convert actual measurments, mainly of surface area and thickness, into supposed volume. We cannot do this directly, because the thickness measurments are too sparse. So, we have to use a model to estimate what they would have been elsewhere had we measured them.

    • Athelstan permalink
      February 27, 2017 12:22 am

      Whose “we”?

      • bea permalink
        February 27, 2017 12:01 pm

        “Why then are we expending so much energy on what might have happened for a few days in the winter?”

        (1) Because there is an (erroneous) belief that any and all “shortfalls” at any time of the year are carried over into all future years by some sort of system “memory.” An analogy would be a cricket Test Match where you come out in the morning and resume your innings at the score of the night before. A better analogy, because of the huge seasonal swings in insolation, would be T-20 cricket where each game is a fresh one,and it does not matter if you got a duck the previous day (except to the extent that a succession of ducks might mean your form had changed for the worse).

        (2) Warmunistas always succeed in setting the agenda through their pals in the MSM..

    • Will Janoschka permalink
      February 28, 2017 12:29 am

      Athelstan February 27, 2017 12:22 am

      “Whose “we”?”

      That is the ‘royal we’, used only by the self appointed elite!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: