Arctic Sea Ice Hysteria – What Does Ice Free Really Mean?

Arctic will be ice free within 4 years according to Professor Peter Wadhams

This years record Arctic sea ice melt has got the warming alarmist doom sayers all fired up and predicting more environmental Armageddon in the Arctic, even though the warming alarmist propaganda machine had already predicted that the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2012.

Of course this is the start of the silly season for Big Green, the run up to COP18 in Doha, the same cycle that happens every year in preparation for the annually declining attendance at UN COP meetings.

This year the fear theme is Arctic Sea Ice, and this time the Arctic will be ice free in just 4 years according to Professor Peter Wadhams:

“At first this didn’t [get] noticed; the summer ice limits slowly shrank back, at a rate which suggested that the ice would last another 50 years or so. But in the end the summer melt overtook the winter growth such that the entire ice sheet melts or breaks up during the summer months.

“This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates”.

Ice Free, the northern polar region of the planet with zero ice for 2 months is what you are a supposed to think, but as Professor Judith Curry points out “ice free” does not mean ice free:

‘Ice free’ is put in quotes, because ‘ice free’ as commonly used doesn’t mean free of ice, as in zero ice. The usual definition of ‘ice free’ Arctic is ice extent below 1 M sq km (current minimum extent is around 3.5 M sq km). This definition is used because it is very difficult to melt the thick ice around the Canadian Archipelago. And the issue of ‘ice free’ in the 21st century is pretty much a non issue if your require this thick ice to disappear.

Meanwhile at the southern end of the planet, the Antarctic ice sheet has reached a record high, beating the record high set in 2007, when Arctic Sea Ice was at a record low.

If you remember your Global Warming scripture lessons,  global warming theory needs both poles to warm to together, instead what we have here is a cycle where ice decreases at the north pole and increases at the south pole,  then at a point in  the natural cycle the Antarctic ice decreases and the Arctic sea ice increases.

As usual the Greens are just spinning half a story, and ignoring their own “science” in the cause of the getting a global economic suicide pact at COP18, and, in 4 years time adding Wadhams failed predictions to Big Green’s incredibly long  list of failed predictions of environmental holocaust.

About Tory Aardvark

Climate Realist, Conservative and proud NRA member. I don't buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam, science is never settled. http://toryaardvark.com @ToryAardvark on Twitter ToryAardvark on Facebook

Posted on September 17, 2012, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Fear, Global Warming, Green Lies and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. Sea Ice melts all the time in summer months, some years more than others, but its the land ice you have to worry about, and the North Pole has no land under it like Anarctica. You have the arctic circle.countries that are warmed partly by the gulf stream. The thing is if fresh water from ice melts hits the North sea, because this is lighter than sea water, the warmer gulf stream is diverted and this causes cold weather, but then again the ice builds up again. Go and tell them to jump, Tory, into the north sea and see how bloody cold it is.
    They would live only a few minutes. Remember the Titanic? Even pilots are warned even when in cold weather flight suits they have a minute to get into their dingies if they crash into the north sea.

    • Typical Green silly season in the run up to COP18, expect more fear & hysteria

      • cynicalHighlander

        Or Tory ignorance to satisfy their corporate friends. Ice is white not green so what else are you unable to grasp like the jetstream disruption putting our future weather patterns into disarray or extended droughts disrupting agriculture etc.

  2. Cynical Highlander, do you know what the jetstream is. It is high level natural wind, pilots are warned to avoid it. Not caused by jets, dummy! Just google jetsteam and see the scientific explanation don’t take my word for it.

  3. http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?action=jetstream;sess=

    For your benefit pilots do use the jetstream to reduce there fuel consumption.

  4. cynicalHighlander, ‘were for my benefit do pilots use the jetstream to reduce fuel consumption?’
    Bullshhhh. if you want to make a comment on this blog just realize who you are talking too!
    I was married to a commercial and military pilot. He flew Boeing 747 and a check captain, and Vulcan V bombers (captain). They avoid jet streams as they are considered dangerous for passenger safety as the clear air turbulence they contain, 160 k per hour.
    Tropical jet stream is a bit too high over their ceiling, being 39,000-55000 ft. and cold air is a bit lower 23,000-33,000 ft. So there. Oh, maybe Tory he is one of the mob trying to place air born wind turbines to catch the wind from the jet stream. Fair Dinkum!

  5. Reblogged this on As the Moon Glows and commented:
    Although the only reason I read this was due to the fact that a polar bear happened to be the featured picture…this guy has some good insights. Poor polar bears!

  6. This article is purely nonsense. How one can dispute scientific fact that has been definitively proven by countless experiments is beyond me.

  7. To follow up on what I just said, the notion that scientific fact is invalidated by some scientists’ contradictory views is purely a lack of understanding of scientific processes, and beyond that, is a direct contradiction of all logical and mathematical systems of thought. Science is based on testing and observation. Scientists only report what they observe, and for you to disagree with that is to disagree with the obvious. An argument from ignorance is not an argument at all. In your case, it is instead a rather whiny attempt to justify illogical views for the sake of your own personal beliefs.

    You call yourself a “climate realist” in your bio, however any realist would be capable of seeing trends that clearly indicate an impending problem, regardless of how scientists predict the turnout will be.

    Based on your other postings I understand that you are too stupid to be swayed by fact, however, and so I leave this comment in the hope that someone ignorant who stumbles upon this page may read this and come to realize your ignorance undermines your argument.

  1. Pingback: The Arctic Could Be Ice Free By 2012, Er No, 2020, Er No, 2058 That’s Right | Tory Aardvark

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,999 other followers

%d bloggers like this: