back to article Arctic ice returns to 1980s levels of cap cover

The Arctic ice cap has not, contrary to the predictions of climate alarmists, completely disappeared: in fact it has been growing rapidly, increasing by an entire third just in 2013 and more since. "It would suggest that sea ice is more resilient perhaps. If you get one year of cooler temperatures, we've almost wound the clock …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Clear evidence that Al Gore was right and government energy policies are having the required effect…….No?

    1. The Axe
      Flame

      No

      No. It's clear evidence that Al Gore is a lying little shit and that western government energy policies don't make any difference.

      Governments are increasing taxes on the poor in their countries to make the rich feel good that they are doing something, anything. But none of the actions make any difference because countries like China & India are increasing their CO2 output as developed countries shoot themselves in the foot. China won't start to cut back till 2030 and any lessening in it's annual increase in CO2 is only due to increasing efficiency as its economy booms, not due to climate control actions.

      1. caradoc

        Re: No, clear evidence that Al Gore is a lying little

        I think anon coward may have had his tongue in his cheek, but I still agree totally with what you say.

      2. Hollerith 1

        Re: No

        Mr Axe, no government (except perhaps the Danish one) has done anything of significance at all to address climate change. I do not mean just China and India, I mean USA and Canada and Brasil and Mexico and France and so on. I see no evidence that any country's carbon footprint is being reduced in any meaningful way.

        The artic ice cover is one of many indications of climate change. Every time a country or an area has a good summer or a fiendishly cold winter, it and it alone is pointed to as All the Proof You Need for whatever side you are on. The scientific opinion is based on the aggregate.

        1. EH

          Re: No

          Germany?

          1. hplasm Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: No

            "Germany?"

            Belgium!

      3. veti Silver badge

        Re: No

        All this is "clear evidence" of, is that Lewis Page is an accomplished troll who can reliably get The Faithful to click through and approve his articles without checking the sources.

        If you could be bothered, you'd have noticed that the authors of this paper don't dispute that Arctic sea ice is in decline. What they do say is that it " may be more resilient than has been previously considered."

        This is good news, but anyone who extrapolates from that to "therefore, AGW is bunk" is someone who is not even trying to pay lip service to logic, science or facts.

        1. MondoMan
          WTF?

          Re: No

          veti, what does " may be more resilient than has been previously considered" even mean wrt Arctic sea ice? That it bends more easily without breaking? That the climate scientists who study it must now bend over backwards to fit the new observations into their alarmist predictions?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: No

            >climate scientists who study it must now bend over backwards to fit the new observations into their alarmist predictions

            Wow. Go watch Chasing Ice and then try and tell me it's "alarmist".

            Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIZTMVNBjc4

            Footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE4ynZB0Wj0

            Full doc: http://www.netflix.com/watch/70229919

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: No

              Ha ha! Gotta laugh at those downvotes. Are you suggesting the Chasing Ice guy's footage was faked?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: No

                Do you have any idea what the normal, cyclical (annual) melting/calving process looks like? From what I've seen of this footage, they were mostly just capturing that, only up close and personal this time around. (I've never actually watched the whole thing, but I will try to find time to do that soon enough.) In fact, the only thing which really bothers me here is all of that dust or dirt or whatever that seems to be so abundant. Is that normal, or something new? What causes it? Generally speaking, any darkening of the snow and ice (which may still be there even if it isn't necessarily as readily apparent as what you see in this footage) will cause an increase in the melting rate when exposed to the sun, even if all other things (temperature, amount of sunshine, etc.) stay pretty much the same.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: No

                  >Do you have any idea what the normal, cyclical (annual) melting/calving process looks like? From what I've seen of this footage, they were mostly just capturing that, only up close and personal this time around. (I've never actually watched the whole thing, but I will try to find time to do that soon enough.)

                  No I appreciate that the calving process is natural (and spectacular to watch) however the really interesting stuff is when he's monitored the same glacier over a long period with time lapse cameras and you can see just how much they've deflated and retreated over a comparatively short space of time. Some of that is covered in that YouTube video linked above. Anyone who downvoted it has either not bothered watching it or is in outright denial.

          2. Jtom Bronze badge

            Re: No

            Must NOW bend over backwards? No, that has been their position for over a decade. They are quick to say the long term temperature trend for the Arctic is warming, as they repeated here, but never, ever point out that the thirty-year temperature trend for the Antarctic is COOLING. No, no. That's...different. Doesn't mean a thing. Global warming is global, even if it isn't, because if it weren't, they couldn't blame it on Man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere.

        2. mhenriday
          Boffin

          Re: No

          On the other hand, there are alternatives to Mr Page, who has no scientific background and whose credibility with respect to these matters is nil. Those interested in the (almost) current extent of Arctic sea ice and how it compares with that seen in previous years can, for example, consult the readily available Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC)....

          But on the other hand, what do they know, compared with the omniscient Mr Page ?...

          Henri

          1. Chris Miller

            @Henri

            I'm sure Mr Page can defend himself, but a cursory glance at his details reveals him to hold an engineering degree from Cambridge. I don't know if that gives someone a 'scientific background' in your circles, but it does in mine. Still I suppose he must be unlikely to be a real scientist, because (as we all know) "99% of scientists" subscribe to warmist alarmism.

        3. kingkp

          Re: No

          Oh dear. Clearly another Arts student who knows nothing about science. First of all the people doing the extrapolating here are your orthodox climatologists. Based on 25 years of data they managed to predict the end of world being nigh....unfortunately had they waited 5 more years they may have realised they were measuring a fluctuation not a trend. In science you observe and collate data, then you hypothesise and formulate typically a set of rules that extend or are based upon your current collection of rules that have been verified over a considerable amount of time by many independent observers. Then you carefully calculate what this means and check the predictions against empirical data. Typically this extension to the rule set predicts something else that can also be measured and verified. There are many example of this in physics. A real science.

          Now for all the intellectually challenged Art students like yourself out there here's a quick intro to the scientific method...

          <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY">The scientific method in one minute</a>

          In orthodox climatology a bunch of idiots who should have studied English literature rather than science have take a very basic principle and extrapolated from this utter bollocks.

          1. David 18

            Re: No

            Kingkp I cannot upvote you enough for that post.

      4. icetrout

        Re: No

        over breeding 3'rd world planet eaters should be taxed per birth... 1 birth = both nads !

      5. ReduceGHGs

        Re: No

        Gore is NOT the issue. He's been telling us what the experts have been saying for decades.

        We here in the West are responsible for most of the pollution in the atmosphere and oceans. We've also benefited the most from the polluting activities. Shifting the focus to China and India is self-serving. Let's get our house cleaned up first before we point fingers at others. And with enforceable trade laws/policies our trading partners will follow suit if they want to continue trading with the world's largest consumers.

        Learn more about climate change and join the efforts to force a change in course.

        ExhaustingHabitability(dot)org

    2. TheVogon Silver badge

      "Clear evidence that Al Gore was right"

      At least in regards to Anthropomorphic Global Warming, that hasn't been in any credible scientific doubt for at least a decade now.

      "and government energy policies are having the required effect"

      If the desired policy is to put heads in the sand and pretend it isn't happening, and the required effect being larger short term corporate profits then yes.

      1. Chris Miller

        @TheVogon

        I think you mean anthropogenic, rather than anthropomorphic. As for the "that hasn't been in any credible scientific doubt for at least a decade now", it all depends what you mean by AGW. Mankind has dumped gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere over the last couple of centuries. There's no scientific doubt that doing this will tend to increase atmospheric temperatures through the greenhouse effect and associated changes. There's a great deal of scientific uncertainty about (a) how much of the temperature increase over the last couple of centuries is properly attributable to AGW; and (b) how much increase we might expect if we continue our atmospheric pollution unchecked.

        1. TheVogon Silver badge

          Re: @TheVogon

          "anthropogenic, rather than anthropomorphic"

          Yes - ooops.

          "There's a great deal of scientific uncertainty about (a) how much"

          True, and over what timescale - but there is no uncertainty that things are already changing due to AGW, and that the predicted results mostly are not going to be good. At a minimum the sea level rise we already know is going to happen due to AGW is going to cause massive issues even at the most conservative estimates of eventual magnitude.

        2. Stuart21551

          Re: @TheVogon

          Thank god we have found some doubt.

          Carry on polluting, hell ain't full yet!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Anthropoligot

        I agree. It should be called 'anthropomorphic' global warming. People are definitely attributing human characteristics to the environment. However, unlike the pope and Greenpeace, I doubt the climate has taken on a persona - unfortunately I am not scientifically credible...

  2. bill 36
    Thumb Up

    This should be good

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDe9msExUK8

    Can't beat a good stoning Lewis :>)

    1. Elmer Phud Silver badge

      Re: This should be good

      Do you mean:

      "Yes, but what Jesus fails to see is it's the meek that causes the problem"

  3. knarf

    Good news for Polar Bears

    They love a bit of ice with their seals.

    Mind you ice growth proves Global Warming is you adjust.. eh ... recalibrate... fix... massage the figures enough

    1. Dazed and Confused Silver badge

      Re: Good news for Polar Bears

      No, this is special warm ice, no good for Polar bears who only like good old fashioned cold ice to keep their seal suppers fresh.

      1. Preston Munchensonton
        Stop

        Re: Good news for Polar Bears

        No, this is special warm ice

        Of course. That tricky substance known as liquid water. Now, you may want to dispute the depth of the ice, i.e. surface area vs. volume, but let's dispense with such retarded, ambiguous terms as "warm ice", FFS.

        1. ToddR

          Re: Good news for Polar Bears

          @Preston

          I think you missed the irony

          1. Dazed and Confused Silver badge
            Joke

            Re: Good news for Polar Bears

            Thanks ToddR, I keep forgetting the need to spell the existence of irony in some of my posts for the benefit of readers with a humour impairment.

            1. ToddR

              Re: Good news for Polar Bears

              T'is a worry

            2. JohnMurray

              Re: Good news for Polar Bears

              Anthropogenic irony impairment?

        2. Kumar2012
          Facepalm

          Re: Good news for Polar Bears

          If Dazed's comment was the peak of Everest, then Preston's comprehension of it was somewhere in the Marianas Trench...

        3. hplasm Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: Good news for Polar Bears

          The ice is MOLTEN!!! eleventy-one!

          Dooooooomed, we are all!

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Good news for Polar Bears

        "this is special warm ice"

        Depending on the salinity, it might well be - and with large volumes of fresh water being dumped into that area by Greenland, it's worth checking up on.

    2. psest328

      Re: Good news for Polar Bears

      **Mind you, ice growth proves Global Warming since it's been proven that as temperatures rise, more humidity is carried into freezing regions, and that not only results in, but aids in the creation of surface ice. That is also why seasonal geographic locations may see more snow and have that snow start falling earlier in the winter season and end later.

      (There, I fixed it for you)

      1. Gary Bickford

        Re: Good news for Polar Bears

        Hmm. Increased snow, longer winter ... So, the next Ice Age is happening as some scientists have predicted for a while now?

        1. kyndair

          Re: Good news for Polar Bears

          Scientists (at least those who have worked out how to hold a pencil) are not predicating an ice age, we are already in an ice age (which is defined as a period when there is a permanent polar ice cap on the planet). What some predicted was that we may have another glacial period (when ice builds up on land masses away from the poles). It's worth pointing out that ice ages are not the 'normal' state for planet earth so at some point it is likely that the ice age will end. The debate at the moment (at least among some) is how much human activity is altering the balance or speed of change and what can be done to make things manageable

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Good news for Polar Bears

        "seasonal geographic locations may see more snow and have that snow start falling earlier in the winter season and end later."

        Yet paradoxically have a significantly warmer average winter temperature (as is happening in Siberia). When you're that far below freezing you can go a _long_ way up and still have snow.

  4. Matthew Smith

    " we've almost wound the clock back A FEW YEARS on this gradual decline that's been happening over DECADES". Well thats OK then.

    Meanwhile, in a bit of creative accounting, the landmass of Antartica is melting and shedding its glaciers onto the southern oceans at an ever quickening rate. Happily, this means that the loss of ice at the arctic is now balanced out, so the overall percentage of sea-ice shows no difference from 30 years ago. So no need to panic. Phew.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

    Yay, the ice is back, lets burn more fuels, climate change is all a lie to promote gay marriage etc. etc. etc.

    First glowing reviews of Fiat 500s (Really? A hairdressers car. For IT people?)

    Next you'll be telling us wind-powered generators are noisy - just like Murdoch's favourite lap-dog The Mad Abbott.

    Why not just ... take a cautious approach and reduce fossil fuel use, while promoting alternative fuels? What the hell is wrong with that? It's only wind and solar, not orgone energy or luminiferous aether we're dealing with.

    1. caradoc

      Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

      "reduce fossil fuel use, while promoting alternative fuels? What the hell is wrong with that?"

      Well, clearly fossil fuels are not doing what is claimed for them, so why reduce the use of a cheap and efficient power source and alternative fuels are producing more problems for the environment than they are supposed to be solving.

      "climate change is all a lie to promote gay marriage" Not as such, but they are both part of the "Progressive" agenda.

      1. Hollerith 1

        Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

        Progressive agenda. 'Progressives' tend to believe a consensus by scientists. 'Progressives' tend to believe all people should have equal rights. What are they: insane, evil, or just to be pitied for the fools they are?

        1. Cynic_999 Silver badge

          Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

          "'

          Progressives' tend to believe a consensus by scientists.

          "

          At the risk of being accused of making a "No true scot" argument, there is real science and then there is political science. When you see a washing powder or toothpaste advert that claims that a product has been "scientifically proven" to clean whiter than any other product, that's an example of political science - the scientist (if there really was one) has produced data to support a desired conclusion. The "proven" effects of second-hand smoking, recreational drugs and much of the dietary "science" we hear about frequently is similarly skewed to support whatever the establishment or paymasters would like to be true. Real science does not change according to the fashion of the day (how's the ozone doing these days, BTW?)

          Real science goes from observation to theory to proof (or at least validation), and theory is driven by data, not the other way about.

          Proving a scientific theory (the last time I read about scientific method) is an inductive process that requires that the scientist make a prediction based upon the theory and then carry out an experiment or observation to see whether the prediction was correct. From what I have read about climate change, so far practically none of the predictions made by the "climate scientists" has turned out to have been accurate, and some observations have turned out to have shown the opposite of what was predicted. Therefore I cannot understand why the theory is touted as being fact - which suggests it has been all but proven. I really don't care how many scientists agree or disagree with the theory - physical laws are not made by taking a democratic vote on whether to adopt them or not.

          I also know with certainty that we (Mankind) are not going to change our ways by a sufficient amount to make any significant difference whether the theory is correct or not no matter how much our governments tax us or fine us for putting our rubbish in the wrong bin. Earth's climate has been changing in cycles for many millions of years, and it is not likely to stop now. The reason for the change (and whether the reason this time around is different to the reasons for cycles over the past millions of years) is not as important as being able to ride the change unscathed. Therefore IMO all the money spent on CO2 reduction would be far better spent helping us to better survive a change in climate than on a few pathetic, half-hearted and ultimately futile attempts to stop it happening. Digging drains is more likely to avert a flood than trying to prevent the rain.

          1. Moving Pictures

            Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

            Best comment ever.

            I particularly liked [paraphrased] "The laws of physics are not made by taking a vote."

          2. Wombling_Free

            Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

            " From what I have read about climate change, so far practically none of the predictions made by the "climate scientists" has turned out to have been accurate, and some observations have turned out to have shown the opposite of what was predicted."

            Funny, you could change 'climate scientists' to 'respected economists' and the sentence would still make sense.

            Funny also how the same "economics" (care to prove that? no, I'll wait...) is being used as the argument FOR fossil fuels. Just goes to show how selective people are with their truths.

            Oddly enough, nuclear is a great option! Far, far cleaner than fossil fuels, even with the accidents.

        2. The Dude

          Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

          All of the above.

        3. Kumar2012

          Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

          FTFY: Progressives tend to believe all people should have equal rights as long as they agree with the opinion of said progressives.

        4. Frank Bough

          Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

          Progressives didn't take science degrees. All is opinion in their 'society', reality holds no sway.

        5. MondoMan
          Mushroom

          Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

          @Hollerith

          None of those, just naive. Just as anthropogenic climate change alarmism isn't a conspiracy, just well-meaning groupthink by folks who are inclined to believe in human-caused giant environmental disasters.

        6. Working Dog

          Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

          "Progressives' tend to believe a consensus by scientists."

          Anyone who uses the word "consensus" in the context of science is demonstrating their ignorance for all to see. The only thing that counts in science is hard, repeatable, verifiable data. Anything else is BS. One good way to pick out the BS is to look for the error bars in any graph.... No error bars=B.S.

      2. psest328

        Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

        Ok, let's say fossil fuels don't contribute to climate change. Why reduce the use of a cheap and efficient power source?

        here's some reasons:

        1. It's actually not very efficient, we've just been using it so long, we've found more efficient ways to utilize it

        2. Personal heath effects of breathing in fossil fuel fumes and exhaust. Look at the air quality of china, where they have to cancel events due to health risks, and watch satellite images that show how the jet stream drags that crap over land and oceans to other countries

        3. Cost. I still say fossil fuels are our best source of power, but that's only because enough hasn't been done in alternative research. $3 a gallon is nuts! I'd push for us to look to more renewable sources of fuel just for the cost savings alone.

        I don't want my kids hacking and coughing because every time they take a deep breath, half of what they take in is fuel exhaust in the future. I don't want that for myself. Even if we're not destroying the environment, at the very least, we're destroying ourselves. If you disagree, breath in car exhaust fumes for a few hours and see how you feel.

        1. chivo243 Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

          @psest328

          Well said.

          Even if it costs us nothing for fossil fuels, they are just wrong.

          I would like to cycle to work with out breathing exhaust from infernal combustion engines.

          Breathing in car exhaust fumes for a few hours will lead to darkness.

          1. Charles Manning

            Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

            "Even if it costs us nothing for fossil fuels, they are just wrong."

            Except that cheap energy has lead to a step change in our ability to support people. It is what allows us to feed 9 bn people well, when just 60 years ago we had only 3 bn people - many of them starving. In that same time, the air has also become cleaner.

            "I would like to cycle to work with out breathing exhaust from infernal combustion engines." But on the flip side, being able to eat and keep warm in winter are not too bad.

            1. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

              "Except that cheap energy has lead to a step change in our ability to support people"

              But burning fossilised plants or algae should be a stepping stone to developing better, more reliable(*) energy sources, not an endpoint in itself.

              For starters, the substances being burned are far more valuable as feedstock for production processes than as fuel.

              (* Windmills, solar panels and Tidal are not "better" or "more reliable", as they all generate peaky output and have substantial periods of downtime which can't easily be mitigated without spending far more than just getting on with building safer nuke plants)

          2. MondoMan

            Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

            @chivo

            Come visit the western United States. Our cars emit pretty much only H2O and CO2, so no nasty fumes to breath while cycling. Perhaps your own country's government might want to emulate our regulations?

            1. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

              "Our cars emit pretty much only H2O and CO2"

              Only when warmed up. They're a substantial source of unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide before the catalytic converters light up.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

            "Even if it costs us nothing for fossil fuels, they are just wrong."

            Before we started burning fossil fuels in a big way, we mostly burned trees - which are a renewable resource, of course, at least in the long term. Trouble is, they're also highly polluting in a "you don't really want to breathe THAT air" way. Plus, we cut them down and burned them much faster than they were able to grow back, often leading to a near-complete denuding of forest lands. This made more room for agriculture and settlements, though.

            We lost so much forest back then that there are actually more trees growing now in a lot of places than there were some centuries ago. In fact, in the urban/suburban environment where I live, if you look at local pictures going back 100 or more years, you'll see almost no trees (certainly not many large ones), while today we are often referred to as "a tree city". So in that respect, at least, the switch to fossil fuels has been a net positive.

          4. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

            >I would like to cycle to work with out breathing exhaust from infernal combustion engines.

            And that long line of cars all in second gear would like to get past you.

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

          "$3 a gallon is nuts!"

          Nutso cheap. Try $10-12 like it is in eu-land.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

            Petrol is not expensive because it is expensive to produce and deliver. It is expensive because it is taxed massively. Blame greedy self-serving governments for the petrol (and diesel) price, along with the millions of bludgers on social security who should not be there.

        3. MondoMan
          Alien

          Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

          psest worries: "I don't want my kids hacking and coughing because every time they take a deep breath, half of what they take in is fuel exhaust in the future. "

          No worries, then. Modern engines do a great job of fully combusting gas with only H20 and CO2 as "fuel exhaust". No hacking, no coughing, no problem.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Same tired old story...

          Same tired old story we've been hearing since the 1970s...

          We've been 'sounding the alarms' for over 35 years and I still don't need 900 SPF sunblock. Still breathing without a WWII gas mask too. Didn't have to put my home on stilts to avoid the arctic flooding.

          It's called "The Weather". Deal with it.

      3. Indolent Wretch

        Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

        "Well, clearly fossil fuels are not doing what is claimed for them"

        Yes because 1 point always makes such a pretty graph.

        "both part of the "Progressive" agenda"

        Good, that's the fun one .

    2. Kumar2012

      Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

      Wait are you actually suggesting wind farms are a useful form of energy production...kek, expensive and inefficient vanity projects which only exist to make a few watermelons feel good about themselves in the meantime driving up energy costs for the rest of us who are not millionaires like Al Bore.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Did El Reg get bought by Murdoch?

        I live in fucking Danmark.

        Jesus H. Fucking Christ, the watermelons have been ejaculating their nonsense right, left and centre after that 140% generation day.

        The place is enough to make one puke to start with, but every time something like this that supports the progressive left agenda happens, in the echo chamber of righteousness, the thunder is deafening.

  6. Panicnow

    Arctic sea ice extent for June 2015 was the third lowest in the satellite record.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    Well done Lewis, keep choosing your reports from a bias standpoint.

    If EL Reg can't provide a balanced author, don't cover it! It is damaging your brand!!!

    1. Justin Pasher

      Re: Arctic sea ice extent for June 2015 was the third lowest in the satellite record.

      You realize that the two reports are measuring two different things, right?

      Sea ice extent vs Sea ice thickness

      Which one is more important? I would imagine volume is a bigger deal than surface area, considering you can have a little visible surface area with a lot volume (and vice versa), but I'm not a climatologist (for lack of a better term).

      1. TheVogon Silver badge

        Re: Arctic sea ice extent for June 2015 was the third lowest in the satellite record.

        "You realize that the two reports are measuring two different things, right?

        Sea ice extent vs Sea ice thickness

        Which one is more important?"

        Likely extent as a smaller ice extent impacts how much of the ocean surface is less reflective and will absorb more heat from the sun.

        However the sea ice isn't what we really need to worry about as it is floating and when it melts doesn't cause sea level rise. The real issue is the ice shelves and glaciers - some of which do seem to be melting - and even if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow will likely already cause an eventual rise in sea level of several metres.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Arctic sea ice extent for June 2015 was the third lowest in the satellite record.

          I think you got your meters and millimeters crossed up!

          The right answer tot he math is just a 1/10th of an inch worst case for your scenario. Sorry!

        2. MondoMan
          Alien

          Typical Vogon exaggeration :)

          @vogon: you worry "even if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow will likely already cause an eventual rise in sea level of several metres."

          In this case, "eventual" means "thousands of years from now", so not really something we need to worry about in the 21st century. Now you know.

    2. ToddR

      Re: Arctic sea ice extent for June 2015 was the third lowest in the satellite record.

      Actually all he did was take a report from the Earth Sciences department at UCL, (who appear to be warmists), so don't always shoot the messenger

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Arctic sea ice extent for June 2015 was the third lowest in the satellite record.

        No - all he did was selectively quote from a UCL paper. you get warm summers and cold summers, warm winters and cold winters. The paper suggests that ice is more sensitive to fluctuating temps in summer (no real surprise!). Meanwhile, in 2015, - you know, the present? - , June Arctic ice was at the third lowest since 1979 (start of satellite record).

        'World returns to sea ice cover seen in the 1980s' as a title is at best disingenuous. The article refers to sea Ice volume, and an honest title would be 'Arctic sea ice volume returns for one year to level last seen in 2010"

        For June The 2013 'high' was still lower than pre 2000 low levels, and more than 90% of the 'gain' in 2013/14 has been lost already.

        1. ToddR

          Re: Arctic sea ice extent for June 2015 was the third lowest in the satellite record.

          @AC I wouldn't just have a pop at the journalist. The article is about sea ice volume and yet they say, " it has been difficult to quantify trends in sea ice volume because detailed thickness observations have been lacking."

          Complete waste of time. UCL is not what it once was.

    3. veti Silver badge

      Re: Arctic sea ice extent for June 2015 was the third lowest in the satellite record.

      @Panicnow: "damaging your brand!!!"?

      I suspect you don't understand what El Reg's brand is.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Don't panic, we're all still doomed, scientists insist

    No they don't. Speaking as one myself, none of the many I know does, and nobody qualified to call themselves a scientist should, say anything so stupid.

    There are certainly varying degrees of concern ranging from "Not that again. Why not do something useful for a change?" to "It may cause unpredictable environmental change and thus ecological change over the coming centuries so should be investigated further" but certainly not "still doomed, scientists insist" Not anywhere. Not ever.

    The popular press of course is another matter entirely and seems singularly incapable of comprehending risk or uncertainty or even the fundamental principle of science - at all.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Very nice of you to reassure us.

      Had you actually put your name to your words, it would have been even more reassuring.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Maybe the fear for their job by commenting: some employers don't like it. Maybe they don't like the abuse you get for having a 'dissenting' opinion on El Reg these days.

        Anon. See above.

        I remember when it was all Pentium Pros round 'ere; when the comments were a source of wit and mirth, and didn't sound like a Murdoch press bullhorn.

    2. kyndair

      Re: Don't panic, we're all still doomed, scientists insist

      Unless you know of a way to escape this universe into a younger one then yes we're all doomed, even if we managed not to wipe ourselves out, escape from earth before the sun goes into its red giant phase and destroys all life on earth we would still have the problem of either the big crunch or eventual heat death (and possibly the big rip) and neither of those outcomes looks survivable.

  8. psest328

    Horrible Research

    Wow! This is incredibly one-sided.

    They sited 1 scientist about ice, while not bothering to mention the dozens of studies (with math and fun actual numbers) that show that as temperatures rise, so does humidity, which will cause an increase in surface ice at both polls. These studies were done 2 years ago when the arctic ice was in decline.

    The climate models actually predicted this.

    This article also fails to mention from that same scientist that the ice in the arctic is getting snowier, which happens when the air carries more moisture.

    Am I saying we're all doomed and we're causing global warming? No. Global warming exists with or without human interference (though the evidence does point to us exasperating the effect to an incredible degree). All I'm saying is that this is expected behavior given a warming trend.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: The climate models actually predicted this

      The climate models are bullcrap. We need to refine them, extend them and ensure that they can actually predict something that is then verified by measurement.

      We're not there yet.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The climate models actually predicted this

        He's got a silver wotsit, so you know he speaks sage truth!

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: The climate models actually predicted this

        "We need to refine them, extend them and ensure that they can actually predict something that is then verified by measurement."

        Measurement itself is contentious, varying methods over the decades result in peturbations which make it hard to nail everything down, even more so when the historical distribution of measurement devices is pretty much useless (lots in some areas, none in large tracts of the globe)

        There _are_ ways of measuring global averages using 40 years of satellite data, but getting funding to collate the imagery, calibrate it so the resulting data is consistent and then crunching through several petabytes of data is hard to come by - and that's despite it being less than typically gets spent on _one_ "climate crisis conference". The result is that what research is being done, is badly hamstrung.

        That's a shame, as knowing the answers would go a long way towards pointing to which climate models are most accurate and whether we should be worried or not.

    2. Charles Manning

      Re: Horrible Research

      The climate models I've looked at (yes, I even looked at the code!) didn't even have latent heat modelled.

      That's broken, but entirely understandable since most of the things that we need to look at are not understood well enough to model.

    3. MondoMan

      Re: perhaps election observers are the answer?

      Since psest is worried about "sites" regarding "polls", surely election observers could provide an impartial report on the issue?

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  9. Scott Sinnock

    The article ends with, "But that's not changing many world views in the climatology departments.". We scientists seem to believe our models more than our data. Statins, anyone?

  10. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

    In the meantime... Lake Michigan back to normal water levels if not more.

    While this little tidbit may not have much to say about ice, it does show that there's a change in the weather pattern... (El Nino) where Chicago is cooler and damper than years past. The water level is somewhere 3 feet above normal which is important because it was down by as much as 3 feet just a couple years ago.

    What does this prove? Nothing much but that the weather is cyclical and that ice and water tend to move around the planet. That while we (man) still pollute the environment, we still have a much less effect on nature than say things like cosmic radiation, magnetic poles shifting, volcanoes.

    Don't get me wrong. I hate pollution, I hate trash... The Kyoto treaty was a joke. BRIC could pollute as much as they want, but Western countries were tied and it became more expensive to manufacture in the West. You want to stop pollution.. good luck with that. Talk to the BRICs

  11. Panicnow
    Flame

    Lewis bias

    I'll (and other should) pop at any journalist who consistently, over several years, cherry picks what he covers to provide an emphasis to his personal view. I.e. Not a reporter but a politician. Without a disclaimer that he IS cherry picking.

    1. Kumar2012

      Re: Lewis bias

      Maybe when we get a disclaimer from the rest of the media? Always amazing when the one guy who has a different opinion is a problem for some, while 90% of the media parrots the same old line, no dissent allowed by the goosestepping green shirts eh...

    2. GitMeMyShootinIrons

      Re: Lewis bias

      It's funny. The usual eco-warrior types bleat that Lewis is a heretic who should be flayed alive for reporting something that doesn't fit their opinion, while they calmly accept, without question equally bias drivel from the opposite corner (ie Auntie Beeb).

      Good for comedy value, less so for open mindedness. So very "progressive"...

  12. nsld
    Pint

    Good News

    I am off to celebrate by slinging a couple of Penguins on the BBQ.

    1. GitMeMyShootinIrons

      Re: Good News

      Needs a nice spicy BBQ sauce with that.

    2. hplasm Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Good News

      Don't forget to take the wrapper off first...

  13. scrubber

    You Buried the Lead

    Polar Bear Attacks Imminent!

    Recent studies show that the natural habitat of the godless, ghostly killing machines is spreading towards the UK. People in the north of Scotland have been told to evacuate and gun laws are being reconsidered in light of the growing threat.

    C'mon El Reg, get tabloiditis.

    1. Nunyabiznes

      Re: You Buried the Lead

      No one should ever go full tabloid.

  14. fearnothing

    Terrible article, giving the impression that an increase in surface coverage is an indication that the global trend towards warming may have been changed and that we don't need to worry. All because of one cool summer. Newsflash: the reason global warming is a problem is because it's a long term trend. One cool summer does not a trend make. Cherry picking this most certainly is, along with supporting the side of those with an absurd and frankly dangerous level of denial.

    El Reg, please can we get someone on these articles who isn't drinking the kool-aid?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Page has reached the Angry Old Man Shouts At Clouds stage of his career, I'm afraid.

      And unfortunately, this is one place on the web that is intellectually semi-respectable where deniers can come and puff each other up. Echo chamber, indeed.

      1. *jr*

        Agreed. Original title of the article and the email was "Arctic ice cap GROWING massively, returns to 1980s levels of cover". Don't think I can trust the rest of the site if this sort of cherry picking gets this level of airplay. I'm out of here. Unsubscribed.

    2. Wombling_Free
      Headmaster

      Yet Piracy is rising in Austfailia!

      ...as claimed in this very publication! With a chart with real numbers from a staunch No-Climate-Change Sensible Government (so you KNOW ITS TRUE!), thus clearly we now HAVE the scientificamatically proven evidence that Global Warming IS caused by lowering pirate numbers.

      WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

  15. 45RPM Silver badge

    Given that the climate boffins base their warnings on (one assumes) a good deal of research and years of study, I think I'll make the intelligent decision to give them more credence than I might give to the head in the sand brigade like Page and Clarkson.

    I'd love to share in the optimism - I really would. But I think that a little caution might be more prudent - especially since it's my children and grandchildren who'll really be suffering if the big brains turn out to be right.

    Lewis's attitude to the environment is like that of a teenage motorist. The car in front is slowing to turn - but does the teenager take his foot off the gas? No! He does not. He ploughs on regardless, secure in the knowledge that the car in front will have moved out of the way by the time he reaches it. And it has. He's passed! And now he's slamming straight into the back of the bus that he hadn't noticed- because he'd fixated on one piece of evidence only.

    1. Wombling_Free

      Nope

      ...all those university trained people are wrong.

      These OTHER trained people however, are right. Totally.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It must be global warming!

    Recently it seems that all scientific comments on climate contain something like the following:

    "Notwithstanding the evidence described above, global warming is real and will continue per the IPPC model."

    That's a sure sign that shows that scientists are definitely afraid of the Warmist bloc in the funding organizations and also the sheer terror of heresy against the given truth.

    Let's get the truth out. Warmism is a failure and the sacred model fails to take into account solar activity and other factors. It even has "corrections" to data that make warming look more serious.

    This is bad science, and it's time we called it!

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The problem with arguing with idiots...

    ... is that you can feel it lowering your own IQ.

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: The problem with arguing with idiots...

      Or... "you can try to teach a pig to sing but all it does is irritate the pig and wastes your time".

    2. kyndair

      Re: The problem with arguing with idiots...

      never argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level then beat you with experiance

  18. Full Picture

    Meanwhile, on planet earth ....

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    Arctic sea ice is about 20% below what it was in 1980. And we had the lowest winter max ever in the winter just gone.

    Don't take my word for it. Actually look.

    1. GrumpenKraut Silver badge

      ... Actually look.

      Thanks, have an upvote.

      > Don't take my word for it. Actually look.

      WHY did your post get a downvote?

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is it even worse than thought?

    If warming causes the Greenland ice cap to melt, will that desalinate the sea water slightly, thereby raising its freezing point? That is, is more sea ice a warning sign?

    Just speculating.

    1. 45RPM Silver badge

      Re: Is it even worse than thought?

      Correct. Have a gold star. But don't think you'll get any praise for coming here with some actual scientifically based facts in a forum overrun by the Lewis Page fan club. Brickbats are more likely.

      One small correction though - even I would prefer a change from "That is, is more sea ice a warning sign" to "That is, could more sea ice be a warning sign?" It seems likely to me that it could be - but without empirical evidence I'd like to leave some small room for doubt.

  20. Palpy

    See Cryosphere research center.

    http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234

  21. herman Silver badge

    On a geological time scale, all our available climate data is just a blip - statistically insignificant.

    1. 45RPM Silver badge

      @herman

      Not actually true. We have climate data which covers a period of billions of years. The weather data that we have available to us covers a shorter period (a mere handful of hundreds of years). Climate data can be gleaned from ice-cores (between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years) and from the fossil record (over a billion years) and rocks (as far back as you like).

      We're even building up a fair few hypotheses on the climate of Mars. Clever apes that we are.

      1. Dan Paul

        @45rpm

        no, what you say is not true and you should know the difference.

        THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "BILLIONS OF YEARS OF CLIMATE DATA".

        ALL ANYONE HAS ARE THEORIES, SUPPOSITION, CONJECTURE AND OUTRIGHT LIES!

        Inference is not data. The ONLY ACTUAL DATA are the roughly 300 years of actual RAW MEASUREMENTS starting when man made the thermometer. The ACCURACY of that data, it's references or of the instruments used to record it, is not absolute either. You don't "glean" data, you measure it. Rocks and Ice do not contain temperature data, we infer data from them and there is plenty of opportunity for incorrect inferences.

        Making those measurements fit a curve that you THEORIZE is correct; is not RAW DATA. Picking only the data points that support your arguments is the very pinnacle of arrogance. Removing or deleting the points that don't support your argument is the same as lying.

        It is fudged data, only one step removed from an outright lie. You can NEVER trust someone who lies!

    2. Dan Paul

      Herman, have an

      upvote for telling the truth! Too bad the brainwashed AGW Cult proponents here don't even understand what statistically insignificant means.

  22. Philanthropic Philanderer

    Clairvoyance

    The article references repeatedly to Atmos over at uiuc; Even if they are just say 50% correct, that level of clairvoyance is outstanding. In fact, I like to employ them for a small project mine (involving stock market..).

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/

    (Last updated April 05, 2008)

  23. lorisarvendu

    Can someone answer a genuine question please

    All the CO2 we're releasing now comes from fossil fuels, right? That's oil and coal. Now, as far as I know that all came from organic material originally (coal obviously from Carboniferous era trees, and oil from crushed sea-life, probably). It got into that organic material through being "fixed" from the air by living organisms. So doesn't that mean that the CO2 was originally in the atmosphere anyway, and we're just releasing stuff back where it originally came from?

    Doesn't this mean that runaway greenhouse effects aren't going to happen, because if they were...they would have happened already, before the coal and the oil was made?

    1. 45RPM Silver badge

      Re: Can someone answer a genuine question please

      @lorisarvendu

      Absolutely correct. My understanding is that, even in the worst case, we won't be magically creating conditions on Earth that haven't existed in the past. The problem is that the conditions we're recreating will not be survivable for many animals, plants and funguses alive now, and the change is happening far faster than it's ever happened previously; this seriously impacts the ability of evolution to cope with the change (that said, getting hit by a planet killer asteroid causes faster changes - and Earth has survived that before). In fact, Mankind (or, at the very least, civilisation) may not be able to cope with the change either - think in terms of global warfare (with nukes, chemical and bio) as we duke it out over the dwindling remaining resources (drinkable water, food and so forth).

      Life, of course, will survive. Early earth was a toxic, overheated, hell stew until early life swabbed up the excess CO2 and replaced it with Oxygen. Trouble is, it took billions of years to make the planet habitable for us - and I'm not certain that we can afford to wait that long for the mess that we're making now to be reversed.

    2. PapaD

      Re: Can someone answer a genuine question please

      I respectfully suggest that you consider what the Earths 'environment was actually like, back when these fossil fuels were living organisms.

      1. lorisarvendu

        Re: Can someone answer a genuine question please

        @45RPM. Thanks for your reply. I had read about a study in 2014 that claimed Jurassic CO2 was of the order of 1500ppm compared to today's 350-44ppm, but of course you're right about the differing timescales, which is something to ponder.

        @ PapaD. If you will read my question again I made no comments about what the Earth's environment was like. I was merely asking about the spectre of "runaway greenhouse effect" that is often accompanied by meaningful nods towards the planet Venus.

        This was a genuine question, not an attempt at a hidden agenda or trolling. So please don't use phrases like "I respectfully" and "with respect", as in my experience they are always intended to mean the exact opposite.

        1. PapaD

          Re: Can someone answer a genuine question please

          @lorisarvendu

          I wasn't trolling either, I was just hoping that you might consider that a return to CO2 levels (and corresponding temperatures) from the period that provided us with our fossil fuels could result in a global temperature increase of 2-14 centigrade, which would have a significant impact on the environment as we know it. It wouldn't be considered a runaway greenhouse effect, but a return to such temperatures would still have a major impact on life as we know it.

          My short comment was just because I was being lazy and didn't want to have to write out too much whilst at work (Even this comment is fairly brief for the same reasons)

  24. John Deeb
    Mushroom

    The EMBIGGENING

    The main things to take away from this article is first and foremost the clever use of the word EMBIGGENS and from the abstract of the Nature article called Increased Arctic sea ice volume after anomalously low melting in 2013:

    - "it has been difficult to quantify trends in sea ice volume because detailed thickness observations have been lacking"

    - "5% drop in the number of days on which melting occurred—conditions more typical of the late 1990s".

    Combine this with the BBC statement by Tilling: "we've almost wound the clock back a few years on this gradual decline" and we arrive at a picture emerging showing that on top of the ongoing hiatus of "global warming", many increasing doubts on the exact number of the actual and all-important number of climate sensitivity and all the emerging data on historical sudden non-anthropogenic climate shifts over the millennia, we have now even more uncertainty, not less, about where to spend our trillions of virtual cash on --to, as usual with all spending over the trillion, deliver the world from Evil.

  25. Bloakey1

    "I think you missed the irony"

    I go clubbing in seal season and I never miss with my irony thing.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Forgot to sync my bookmark

    I was using a browser again today on which I had not removed the bookmark for The Register, stumbled over this, remembered why I now read Ars Technica UK instead.

    1. 45RPM Silver badge

      Re: Forgot to sync my bookmark

      @AC

      Of course, the flip side to the coin is that you’re missing out on BOFH and Lester Haines' SPB.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Forgot to sync my bookmark

      They are not all bell-ends.Most content is reasonable. Certainly better than the clusterfsck of Slashdot. Don't judge a whole site by one contributor with a narrow mind set and an axe to grind.

      1. Wombling_Free
        Devil

        Re: Forgot to sync my bookmark

        it's just that said contributor contributes so much, and has a happy-clappy fanbase worthy of the most rabid political nutjobs.

        Did anyone else notice the 'gay marriage' = Progressive = EEEEVIL vibe? There are some really threatened Regtards out there. Threatened by what other people are doing! :-O

        1. 45RPM Silver badge

          Re: Forgot to sync my bookmark

          @Wombling_Free

          Yup. They’re probably just omega-males covering up for the fact that they aren’t very good at computer games.

        2. GrumpenKraut Silver badge
          Unhappy

          Re: Forgot to sync my bookmark

          > Did anyone else notice the 'gay marriage' = Progressive = EEEEVIL vibe?

          Yes, makes me wanna puke. Here in Grumpenland people saying shit like this tend to great each other with a salute involving extending the right arm about 45 degress upward.

      2. GrumpenKraut Silver badge

        Re: Forgot to sync my bookmark

        > Don't judge a whole site by one contributor ...

        That's what I tell myself why I keep visiting.

        Apart from what others already said, Alistair Dabbs and Trevor Pott have to be mentioned for quality content.

        ...and some comment threads are a pleasure to behold (but NOT those at articles like this one).

  27. Selden

    On what planet?

    "Arctic sea ice extent for June 2015 was the third lowest in the satellite record. June snow cover for the Northern Hemisphere was the second lowest on record. In contrast, Antarctic sea ice extent remained higher than average. The pace of sea ice loss was near average for the month of June, but persistently warm conditions and increased melting late in the month may have set the stage for rapid ice loss in the coming weeks....

    Arctic sea ice extent for June 2015 averaged 11.0 million square kilometers (4.24 million square miles), the third lowest June extent in the satellite record."

    Source: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  28. Snipp

    Noble spirit

    Short term fluctuations (i.e. the last two years) are filed under weather, not climate. This article can not be construed as a cromulent assessment of global weather patterns.

  29. Miguel526

    Some time back in time, I remember reading the comentary of some Russian scientists (who were Not on any Western Governments' enviro-generated "global warming" dole), saying that more evidence pointed toward a global cooling beginninmg to start, in some very subtle, unseen, ways, Not a global warming. They pointed to the big piles of unmelted snow still left outside of some of their Northern cities at the end of summertime. Normally these big piles of snow scrapped from their city streets in the winter time would have melted during the summer time. But, the snow piles still stood, mostly unmelted in August. They said that something was going on which we had little concept of, but that the ready Al Gore-ist answering machine of Western environmentalists was a desperate sham, and, as such, was scientifically laughable.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Science to explain why global warming CAN LEAD TO MORE ICE is available...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/27/climate-change-skeptics-may-be-about-to-lose-one-of-their-favorite-arguments/

    Not that this author of these varied (register.co.uk) anti-global-warming articles will ever want to contemplate such things, but there are some rather compelling reasons why ice cover would increase (in the near-term) during global warming.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019