Arctic Sea Ice (part 4)
A bracing analysis of the poster child of globalist alarmism: what you always wanted to know about Arctic sea ice but were afraid to ask
One more thing I want to do with NSDIC’s Sea Ice Index (SII) is to extend it back in time using pre-satellite era data.
There is a splendid paper by the grand master of sea ice – Konstantin Y. Vinnikov – plus a few chums in the December 1999 edition of Science Magazine entitled Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent, a copy of which may be found here.
In it you’ll find this fabulous little slide showing observations of annual mean extent dating back to 1901, along with a couple of models:
I found a high resolution version of this vital slide sitting on servers at Rutgers University over in New Jersey, this august establishment being a leading academic hub for all things snow and ice.
IPCC AR1
9.0.2 The best estimate in each case is made up mainly of positive contributions from thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting of glaciers.
Although, over the next 100 years, the effect of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets is expected to be small, they make a major contribution to the uncertainty in predictions.
9.0.5 The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is of special concern. A large portion of it, containing an amount of ice equivalent to about 5 m of global sea level, is grounded far below sea level.
There have been suggestions that a sudden outflow of ice might result from global warming and raise sea level quickly and substantially.
Recent studies have shown that individual ice streams are changing rapidly on a decade-to century timescale: however this is not necessarily related to climate change.
Within the next century, it is not likely that there will be a major outflow of ice from West Antarctica due directly to global warming.
Arctic sea ice loss does get a brief mention in The policymaker summary of working group II (Potential Impacts of Climate Change) under section 5.0.20:
5.0.20 […] On the other hand, decreased sea ice could provide greater access to northern ports and even enable regular use of the Arctic Ocean for shipping. Moderate sea-level rise could also increase the allowable draught for ships using shallow channels.
Sneaking Around The Big Problem
The big problem here for moi is not so much feeble policy waffle and a rarely-mentioned positive benefit of melting Arctic sea ice but having access to raw data from ancient publications.
Thus, there is a sneaky trick I’ve developed in these circumstances using a vector graphics package (CorelDRAW) that enables me to take a decent raster image, overlay a vector layer, and conjure numerical values with a fair degree of precision, thus permitting statistical analysis that would otherwise be impossible.
Admittedly, this takes a great deal of patience but the rewards are boon enough, the exercise also being a decent excuse to scoff a bucket load of biscuits. It is indeed a labour of love. Let us then have a look at my handiwork…
Tada!
There are a few curious features within this plot starting with a modest build-up in mean annual sea ice from 1901 – 1952 that amounts to a positive trend estimated at an extra 0.13 million square kilometres per decade (p<0.001; OLSR).
I don’t know about you but a build-up of ice as global industries started to explode and kick-out CO2 at an exponential rate doesn’t sit easy with me if I am to don my foil hat of alarmism!
Then we’ve got that sudden plunge in mean ice extent from 1953 to 1960, which corresponds to some pretty cold post-war winters. Talk about the polar vortex dropping a clanger!
If this dip was due to sudden and rather inexplicable polar warming arising from steadily mounting CO2 then how come things went into reverse gear from 1960 to 1969?
All very odd indeed, and the sort of thing that requires coffee and cogitation, to which end I shall be digging out polar land and sea surface temperatures for the same period to see if these make sense of what we are seeing.
Dee’s Nature Trick
Michael Mann once did a “nature trick“ by (amongst other things) bolting modern temperature data on to the end of a mangled paleoclimatological time series to get his infamous ‘hockey stick’ so I am going to do the same.
I am going to bolt modern microwave satellite data on to the end of observations made using old-fashioned survey gear. Herewith the result:
Whoops-a-daisy!
Either NOAA seem to have lost a lot of sea ice or Vinnikov’s mob should have gone to Specsavers.
My eyeballs suggest a consistent difference of 3 million square kilometres for it all depends on where you stick your theodolite, or where you sail your survey vessels, or where you point your satellite, or what you consider to be the Arctic.
Differences are bound to happen and so I am going to develop a simple nature trick, starting with a dual axis plot of the overlap period of 1979 – 1998:
Isn’t that a cracker?!
The close mirroring of these two series over this 20-year period (Pearson bivariate correlation r = 0.933, p<0.001, n=20) gives me confidence in forging ahead with a simple linear model for the adjustment of the earlier survey data so we may marry the two series together in perfect harmony. Herewith the fruits of that union:
I’m rather pleased with this, and shall put it to good use in the next article when I come to look at Arctic land surface and sea surface temperature records for the same period.
Meanwhile, that hole in the sock for the war years 1940 – 1945 needs to remain for the time being.
See more here substack.com
Bold emphasis added
About the author: John Dee (not his real name) is a former British government G7-level scientist who now uses his analytical skills to highlight where the public is being lied to on various subjects.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi John O’Sullivan,
While a group of people founded PSI because they could not get their scholarly SCIENTIFIC ideas published in existing scientific journals of that time, you were the one who organized this group and invested great effort and time to EDIT this website.
We, you and I, have discussed this issue of censorship and over time we, you and I, have agreed to the policy of no censorship of ideas at PSI. However, I just read, written by someone at PSI: “About the author: John Dee (not his real name) is a former British government G7-level scientist who now uses his analytical skills to highlight where the public is being lied to on various subjects.”
To refuse to publish John Dee’s analysis is not censorship. If an author of a PSI article does not have the courage to write under his/her own name, it should not be published. To do so dishonors Galileo’s (who demonstrated his SCIENCE of observation) courage.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Hi Jerry, Thanks for acknowledging the history and reason why Principia Scientific International came into being. Of course, we do not support ‘secret science’ of any color. However, ‘John Dee’ has made his identity known to us and we understand that he would be in jeopardy of being sanctioned/losing his pension if he revealed his real name. For that reason, we have made an exception in his case.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi John,
Thanks for this information and It satisfies my concerns.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Ahhh. But does it satisfy Moffin’s concerns? Moffin is very pedantic.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Hi Jerry, I already knew ‘John Dee’ under his real name when he was posting his work on a social media site before he became involved with substack, and I believe I was the first to suggest his articles to John to see if they were suitable for PSI. The reasons ‘John’ gave for his anonymity are correct 🙂
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy,
Can you tell us (me) how it is John Dee could post his analysis, under his real name. on social media and now no longer can? Is it related to “substack”?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
I believe it is because on social media he hadn’t announced his former employment, so as far as everyone was concerned, he was just a person with a knack of knowing where to get data from and how to analyse it.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy,
So Andy, are you writing that John (whomever) was considered a BUFFON like it might seem to many that I am until it was learned that maybe he wasn’t and he maybe knew something because of what he had done? And therefore there is evidence that others knew what he knew and therefore it would be embarrassing to these “higher powers” that they did nothing to set the record straight?
Have a good day, Jerry
sunsettommy
| #
Jerry, I have also protected a couple of people who were still working as a scientist but needed their anonymity status to be able to post freely without reprisals.
This John Dee wants to post without a lot of fuss which over his name while his post is wide open to anyone to reply too which is always the same whether you know the author or not.
It is post that we respond to not the author who wrote it.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sunsettommy,
If an author doesn’t have the courage to write about his ideas
, he/she should not write anything.
Galileo wrote about his observations which proved that the Earth did not standstill which Aristotle and the Pope claimed to be the TRUTH. Do you deny what happened after Galileo’s observations and his conclusion about his observations was published?
Medical doctors have had the courage to refuse to wear masks and suffered the consequence of this. There is right and wrong. Good and Evil.
Have a good day, Jerry
Howdy
| #
Modded again? what for this time since I haven’t posted in days.
Howdy
| #
Bravo@sunsettommy and the team.
Jerry, people have courage to write about their ideas, real name or not, but it works both ways as the reader needs the courage to read them, distastefull, blasphemy, taboo, outright far-fetched, or whatever they may appear to be. The vast majority are afraid.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
I believe I actually understand what you have written in your two comments. Do you believe I could be correct?
Have a good day, Jerry
Howdy
| #
Since you didn’t explain what you thought my comments meant, I couldn’t say Jerry.
My second comment is actually my first, which was added to the mod queue for as usual, unknown reasons, but I couldn’t resubmit it because it existed and the site doesn’t allow double posts (or apparently so). I posted about my modded comment, waited a few moments, and submitted again, which was successfull. This means my original entry is now deleted for unexplained reasons.
My second post was at the site stance of protecting third parties.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
I initially believed your comments were about me. Then I concluded you were referring to what had just happened to you because of people at PSI and not because of me.
Does that make sense to you? And now else whereI have been told to forget what has happened and to just move on.
Have a good day, Jerry
Howdy
| #
My comment about being afraid is about people in general, Jerry, though I have hit your limits before. I understand the reasons why, but it would make a change if people engaged from both sides as a show of ‘courage’, not just the ‘learned’ ones.
There is no subject I will shun, though obviously, not here.
PSI isn’t the place for much of it, but often, questions on subjects I raise are marked by the silent, “parade of the tumbleweeds”, instead of answers.
Howdy
| #
I guess you are asked to move on as the matter is clarified, done and dusted. It seems fine to me.
Brian James
| #
JANUARY 29, 2023 Scientists Struggle to Understand Why Antarctica Hasn’t Warmed for Over 70 Years Despite Rise in CO2
Scientists are scrambling to explain why the continent of Antarctica has shown Net Zero warming for the last seven decades and almost certainly much longer. The lack of warming over a significant portion of the Earth undermines the unproven hypothesis that the carbon dioxide humans add to the atmosphere is the main determinant of global climate.
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/01/29/scientists-struggle-to-understand-why-antarctica-hasnt-warmed-for-over-70-years-despite-rise-in-co2/
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Brian,
Have you read: (https://principia-scientific.com/?s=solar+radiation+sufficient+)?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
(https://principia-scientific.com/10-fallacies-about-arctic-sea-ice-polar-bears/) Susan Crockford has for several (many?) years attempted to inform us of a different SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY pushing misinformation about the Arctic Sea ice.
You all have to ask: Why is this happening?
My simple answer is: Galileo, with his experiments and observations, knocked the “brilliant philosophers, who only reasoned and debated, off of their INTELLECTUAL THRONE and these “intellectuals” have been fighting to get back on this throne ever since.
Have a good day, Jerry.
(Corrected your e-mail address) SUNMOD
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
(https://principia-scientific.com/10-fallacies-about-arctic-sea-ice-polar-bears/) Susan Crockford has for several (many?) years been informing us of a different SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY pushing misinformation about the Arctic Sea ice.
We should ask: Why is this happening?
My simple answer is: Galileo, with his experiments and observations, knocked the “brilliant philosophers’, who only reasoned and debated, off their INTELLECTUAL THRONE. And these “intellectuals” have been fighting ever since to get back on this throne.
Have a good day, Jerry.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy,
Howdy, just wrote: “The vast majority are afraid.” And you just wrote (else where): “John Dee doesn’t read PSI so won’t respond. May I suggest you put your thoughts on his substack, which he tells me he will respond to?” Evidently, Howdy is right on.
If John Dee (assumed name) is unwilling to read “anything” at PSI and comment on what he reads, why does PSI give this “chicken” opportunity to publish anything on PSI? Let him attract his readers to his “substack”.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Jerry, John already explained his decision which you seem to have forgotten already:
“However, ‘John Dee’ has made his identity known to us and we understand that he would be in jeopardy of being sanctioned/losing his pension if he revealed his real name. For that reason, we have made an exception in his case.”
Lets move on now……..
Reply