Increased Sea Ice Now Caused by ‘Climate Change’

by Steve MacDonald

sea_ice_current with 10 year averageRemember when the Climate Cult said our children would never see snow in New Hampshire because of Global Warming but the snow wouldn’t cooperate, so it was decided that all that snow was caused by Global Warming? The same thing is happening with sea ice in the Arctic.

Large Canadian Arctic climate change study canceled due to climate change (ISYN)

“Considering the severe ice conditions and the increasing demand for Search And Rescue operations (SAR) and ice escort, we decided to cancel the BaySys mission. A second week of delay meant our research objectives just could not be safely achieved – the challenge for us all was that the marine ice hazards were exceedingly difficult for the maritime industry, the CCG, and science,” says Dr. David Barber, Expedition Chief Scientist and BaySys Scientific Lead

We’d like to able to sail unhindered through the Arctic because there isn’t supposed to be any ice there but sadly, there’s too much ice, and we can’t even pretend there isn’t. And that’s your fault.

But this is great news for the seals, yes?

Coming up on the evening news, shooting congressman and dressing up like the flying nun (red squadron)…also caused by climate change. With your tax dollars “scientists” will soon reveal how not doing those things is also caused by climate change.

BTW – Total Northern Hemisphere Ice is also not just within the ten-year average (according to NOAA) but has been trending above it.

Leave a Comment

  • roger

    The graph provided shows that 2017 ice coverage tracked well below the mean and average as recently as last month but why bother stating facts that go against your agenda. More editorializing from you Steven, why not take a stab at actual journalism? It might help your cause!

    You can’t point to one data point and debunk a widely accepted scientific theory. Well, I mean you can…because you live in a fantasy world. But the rest of us trying to better the earth four children can’t.

    • I could swear I was reading about another “science research” junket ship needing rescue by another “ice breaker” that was ALSO “in trouble”.
      But I’m not sure my “intellectual French” level is up to Le Devoir’s
      version of the story reporting the suspensions of L’Amundsen “research” due to ..um…(relatively) southern glacial, and berg, ice.

    • This is NOAA’s data set. Given that NOAA has a habit of tweaking data to fit the desired thoery we also can’t ignore that while it did track below the mean moving past that, heading into the melt season it tracked above the 10-year mean.

      Btw, blood letting was a widely accepted theory. Piltdown man was a widely accepted theory (for about 40 years). Most of what the government passes off as food and dietary science has been widely accepted and then reversed by ‘experts’ years after; because the very nature of science and research is to assume that what is widely accepted might not be true. You must test and challenge it often.

      So yes, you can take one data point and from there begin the conversation, the examination, and this is critical because the people who believe in the unassailable theory of man-made global warming go to great lengths to discredit and even silence anyone who dares to contradict them.

  • “Remember when the Climate Cult said our children would never see snow in New Hampshire because of Global Warming but the snow wouldn’t cooperate, so it was decided that all that snow was caused by Global Warming?”

    No, actually, I don’t. Neither does anyone else.

    It’s actually not that difficult to comprehend why melting polar ice can engender local cooling over fairly extended periods. In England, for example, which is at a fairly far northern latitude and relies on a certain Atlantic stream for its comparatively warm climate. If you abandoned the politics of the AGW issue I doubt you would find this and other climate facts objectionable, but because you see it as a war you cannot help but fight the tide of reason and thereby embarrass yourself.

    It’s clear none of you here are in the business of even feigning an interest in factual dialogue. That’s fine. But if you don’t want to look like any more than a howling ignoramus than is necessary, don’t post about things you clearly know nothing about.

    You’re the kind of person I would advise to pipe down even if you were firmly on the side of the evidence, because your grasp of the scientific basics are so remarkably poor that you could no nothing more than babble like an infact.

Previous post:

Next post: