“Vanishing” Arctic Sea Ice Same Thickness As 1940

by Steve MacDonald

Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Jan 4 -2017Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice™ continues to be the lead Global Warming story. All the most reputable climate cult propagandists claim the ice is thinner. Its demise is imminent. What will become of us?

Sandwich-board wearing prophets roaming digital streetcorners shouting about the end of the world. But the perennial ice today is the same thickness reported in 1940 and 1958.

Read All About It! Polar Ice Cap the same thickness as 77 years ago! Only half the Arctic has multi-year ice. The End is Near!

TDCSB

Leave a Comment

  • Bruce Currie

    As always with Goddard/Heller, what he leaves out is what calls his narrative into question—to put it mildly.
    https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/SeaIceAge_1985_2016_1240.png
    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/videos/old-ice-arctic-vanishingly-rare

    • Radical Moderate

      Pitiful attempt at deflecting from the main point of the column. Its a look at the ice cap between 1940 and 2016 not 1985 and 2016.
      Is that all ya got kid? Gimme your lunch money. By the way your mom dresses you funny too. Now go home and get your old man!

      • Herb

        The pitiful part of it is Macdonald doesn’t know that sea ice thickness isn’t measured in “millions of sq. km” or what the definition of “anomaly” is. Must have missed science class…..

      • Bruce Currie

        Here you go:
        “The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.”
        https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/polyakfig2.jpg
        http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf
        http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/hadisst/HadISST_paper.pdf

        Goddard /Heller is a piece of work, routinely accusing government officials and climate scientists of lying, when he’s the one who plays fast and loose with the truth. Heller’s big claim is that the adjusted/homogenized data used is fraudulent. But the unadjusted data is readily available for a computer wizard like him to use. https://moyhu.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2016-12-11T20:32:00%2B11:00&max-results=7
        The problem for deniers like him is that the unadjusted data produces similar results. The GWPF launched an investigation into the supposed fraudulent data. The result: […crickets…]. https://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/gwpf-inquiry-anniversary.html

        • Ed Naile

          Bruce: Apparently you don’t read your CARBON JESUS BIBLE very well.
          The very first article you reference attributes the growth and shrinking of polar ice to Milankovitch Cycles.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
          And these cycles are very predictable.
          Get a new gig man.

          • Bruce Currie

            Read again, slowly, this sentence: “This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.”

          • Ed Naile

            The Quaterny Science Review you linked to says, right off the bat, that alterations in the Earths axis cause the ice caps in the Arctic to vary and THAT has an effect on climate conditions above the ice caps.
            Milanovitch Cycles are predictable. Like in science experiments.
            But if facts don’t fit in the Carbon Jesus Bible you ignore them.
            NAZI’s burn books.
            Communists burn anyone who can read.
            Socialists just re-write anything they don’t like.
            Religious zealots possess all the answers.

          • Bruce Currie

            One more time: You neglected the last sentence in the abstract, which for the THIRD TIME states:

            This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.”

            We are currently in an interglacial cycle, and over-riding what would otherwise by a long-term (thousands of years) cooling trend by adding greenhouse gases at a rate and to a level not seen in at least 800,000 years. The effect of this additional GHG component is, predictably, enhanced warming. Which is exactly what the data all show. Or as John Tyndall, who discovered the GHG effect in 1859, put it: ” As a dam across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere , thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.”

      • Nosmokewithout

        It isn’t a look at the ice cap in 1940. It is a look at one location in the arctic in 1940 against a satellite measurement of the entire arctic between 1985 and now.

        Is that statistically sound, absolutely not.

Previous post:

Next post: