Is Arctic Sea Ice really declining?
image source: carbonbrief.org
There has been a 4–6% decline in Arctic Sea Ice over the satellite era (see graphs below). Antarctic sea ice increased almost the same amount in 2016–2018, but it is now down slightly (1–3%) as well. It is hard to be sure that this change is significant as the longer term records required to be certain do not exist.
However, it is almost certain that during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), when the Viking colonized Greenland (farm fields and graveyards then that are permafrost now), that the Arctic Sea Ice was far less extensive. The glaciers in Alaska were definitely less extensive then than they are today. It is also hard to be worried about even a 6% decline in sea ice as it has NO effect on sea level and ships are still being caught in the sea ice every year.
Also, the voyage of the St. Roch in 1940 (during WW2) by the NORTHERN Northwest Passage has not been repeated recently due to heavy sea ice. In other words, despite the lack of satellite data, there is significant evidence that today’s ice is at least as extensive as it was in 1940 (before Human CO2 could have had any effect). IN 1940, human CO2 emissions were about 2 billion tonnes per year compared to over 800 billion tonnes from the natural Carbon cycle. I.e. we were negligible. Even today at 38 billion tonnes per year, we are less than 5% of the carbon cycle. The photosynthetic bacteria (blue green) in the ocean can respond immediately if they have more nutrients and they already are.
Also, if anything would demonstrate that Global Warming is a truly significant factor it would be Arctic/Antarctic Sea ice and the temperature at the South Pole. That is because when it is really cold, it is also really dry. According to consensus climate science, Water Vapor dominates in the Greenhouse Wavelengths and for the “Greenhouse Effect” when its concentration is 10–20 times higher (on a molecule by molecule basis) as it is at temperate and tropical latitudes.
SO, if the Sea Ice and the South Pole Temperatures have not shown a DRAMATIC change that correlates with increasing CO2, then the temperature increases we have seen at temperate latitudes are probably NOT caused by CO2. Besides they are VERY VERY mild. According to HADCRUT4 from the Hadley Center (NOT a center for Global Warming Skepticism!!!! – home of Climategate!), the temperature rise in the last 100 years is LESS THAN 0.5 deg. C (0.3–0.6 deg C/century). VERY VERY minor indeed – see Hadcrut4 graph below.
Very very minor changes which are greatly exaggerated by the choice of axes, and cherry picking of data and of course the chorus of “true believers” saying that a “disaster” is occurring. Warmth is GOOD for mankind! We are tropical species and more people STILL die from the cold than from warmth!!
Be skeptical! It is the only way to find the truth
Ian in Vancouver
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY
Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Tom O
| #
One of the things that I have always wondered about, when it comes to the sea ice in the Arctic, is just how much impact ice breaking has on the coverage. Yes, the ice breakers aren’t wide, but the more edges exposed to the drier Arctic air with warmer water beneath, allows for more evaporation or sublimation of the ice surfaces.
Each time one of the ice breakers crush their way from port to port, shepherding sea cargo, and it is on the Russian side of the Arctic where the majority of the ice loss appears to be, it can’t help but allow more melt when the air warms a little from influxes of Pacific air masses.
I have always noticed that the ice tends to grow more slowly in those areas where there is sea commerce, and, again, wonder just what the impact on Arctic ice cover will be as Russia builds more and bigger ice breakers. And no, I am not saying the ice loss in the Arctic is Putin’s fault! He’s blamed enough for everything else already!
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Tom O,
You wrote: “the more edges exposed to the drier Arctic air with warmer water beneath.”
I do not believe your understanding is correct so I refer you to (https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/index.html) if you are interested in better informing yourself.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry
| #
It is hard to be sure that this change is significant as the longer term records required to be certain do not exist.
Very very minor changes which are greatly exaggerated by the choice of axes, and cherry picking of data and of course the chorus of “true believers” saying that a “disaster” is occurring. Warmth is GOOD for mankind! We are tropical species and more people STILL die from the cold than from warmth!!
Some much needed perspective on glaciers and the climate change issue.
Thank you Mr. Wylie.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Ian and Tom,
Your article and Tom’s comment greatly helped me as I had begun to compose Part 5 of my series: How Prehistorical Glaciers Could Have Been Formed. For they forced me to do a little literature search which I should have done but had not.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Excellent article, well written.
Reply