Scientists Affirm: ‘No, The Arctic Is Not Melting’ … ‘Nothing Has Changed Since 1900’

Global Warming Theory ‘Completely

Disconnected From the Observations’


Extensive analysis of temperature trends in the Arctic reveals that there has been no detectable long-term change since the beginning of the 20th century, and thus predictions of a sea ice-free Arctic in the coming decades due to dramatically rising temperatures are not rooted in observation.


Butina, 2015  

IS THE ARCTIC MELTING? 

THEORY VS. OBSERVATIONS

Abstract

[T]he Arctic Circle is the most extreme place on our planet where seasonal changes can range from +35.0°C in July and -65.0°C in February; […] on average 75% of the year is spent below the melting point of water [and] on average the Arctic will be covered by ice/snow for the same proportion of time, i.e., 75% or 9 months of the year.
The same seasonal extreme variations in air temperatures are also observed in ice cover variations observed in the Arctic where the winter‘s ice cover can be between 14- 16 million km2, while during summer the area covered can vary between 4 and 8 million km2.  Based on observations, dating back to 1900, it can be concluded that it is physically impossible for the Arctic to be ice/snow free in the foreseeable future since the air temperatures were as cold in 2013 as they were in 1900.
Since ice cannot melt below 0.0°C, all these observations point towards the Arctic remaining ice-covered for the next 100 years. It must also follow that any theory predicting imminent melting of the Arctic ice cap cannot be based on thermometer-recorded data and, therefore, must be wrong and will merely be an artefact of using the term temperature where there is no true association with the calibrated thermometer, the instrument used to measure temperature in all physical, medical and engineering sciences.

Conclusion

So, what are the hard facts about Arctic that are based on the observations made by calibrated thermometers at 20 stations across the Arctic Circle and which conclusions can be made based on those observations?
1. Temperatures in the Arctic between 1900 and the present day are a long distance below 0.0°C for at least 9 months per year and can be as low as -64.0°C
2. It is impossible to separate the youngest from the oldest years using thermometerbased daily or monthly Tmax/Tmin data
3. The total ranges observed in daily Tmax/Tmin data can be as high as 100.0°C and as low as 75.0°C making the Arctic Circle the most variable and extreme area on our planet therefore making any accurate forecasting of future temperature patterns and trends impossible
4. The switches between the extreme hot to extreme cold temperatures are very frequent and very unpredictable and can occur within the same month, same year or between two consecutive years
5. The large observed ice gain/loss variations are pre-determined by the large observed variations in air temperatures
6. Since the air temperatures are chaotic in nature it must follow that the extent of the ice cover has to be chaotic as well and, since we cannot predict future events of a chaotic system, we cannot predict future trends of either air temperatures or ice cover patterns
Based on the facts above only one conclusion can be made in reference to the putative melting of the Arctic: historical thermometer-based data tells us that between 1900 and 2014 arctic temperatures were for 75% of the time consistently long distance below 0.0°C; the ice cover in the winter months is still consistently more than 14,000,000km2 and, therefore, it is physically impossible for the Arctic to be already melting since nothing has changed since 1900 till present day. The only sensible forecast for the future would be to expect the same extreme events to continue until thermometer-based evidence tell us otherwise.
Let me conclude this paper by answering the question asked in the first part of the title by a categorical No, the Arctic is not melting. As long as temperatures remain the same as they have been for the last 100 years the Arctic will remain frozen in the long winter months and partly melt during very short summer months.
The answer to the second question is that the theory of global warming is completely disconnected from the observations since their definition of temperature is based on some theoretical number that has nothing to do with the temperature that is measured by calibrated thermometer and, most importantly, used as an international standard by the scientific community. Since the theory is clearly wrong about forecasting the temperature patterns in the Arctic, all other predictions made by the theory must be wrong too.


New Paper: No  Greenland Temperature Or Sea Ice Changes Since 1600 Either


Kryk et al., 2017     

“Our study aims to investigate the oceanographic changes in SW Greenland over the past four centuries (1600-2010) based on high-resolution diatom record using both, qualitative and quantitative methods.  July SST during last 400 years varied only slightly from a minimum of 2.9 to a maximum of 4.7 °C and total average of 4°C. 4°C is a typical surface water temperature in SW Greenland during summer. … The average April SIC was low (c. 13%) [during the 20th century], however a strong peak of 56.5% was recorded at 1965. This peak was accompanied by a clear drop in salinity (33.2 PSU).”


Greenland Ice Sheet In BalanceMelt Added  Just 1.5 cm (0.6  Inch) To Sea Levels Since 1900


Fettweis et al ., 2017

“[T]he integrated contribution of the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] SMB [surface mass balance] anomalies over 1900–2010 is a sea level rise of about 15 ± 5 mm [1.5 cm]with a null contribution from the 1940s to the 2000s

Like The Arctic, Antarctica Has Not Warmed In The Last Century Either


Stenni et al., 2017

[N]o continent-scale warming of Antarctic temperature is evident in the last century.”

Antarctica’s Ice Sheet Has Been Gaining Mass Since 1800


Thomas et al., 2017

Our results show that SMB [surface mass balance] for the total Antarctic Ice Sheet (including ice shelves) has increased at a rate of 7 ± 0.13 Gt decade−1 since 1800 AD…”

Antarctica’s Mass Gains Have Reduced Sea Levels By -0.04 mm-¹ Per Decade Since 1900


Thomas et al., 2017

“…representing a net reduction in sea level of0.02 mm decade−1 since 1800 and ∼ 0.04 mm decade−1 since 1900 AD.  The largest contribution is from the Antarctic Peninsula (∼ 75 %) where the annual average SMB during the most recent decade (2001–2010) is 123 ± 44 Gt yr−1 higher than the annual average during the first decade of the 19th century.”

In sum, there is nothing thermally unusual occurring today in either the Arctic or Antarctic, precluding the clear detection of an anthropogenic temperature or ice-melt signal in the polar regions.

29 responses to “Scientists Affirm: ‘No, The Arctic Is Not Melting’ … ‘Nothing Has Changed Since 1900’”

  1. richard verney

    You have previously shown Arctic temperatures as compiled by HadCru, viz:

    http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Arctic-Temperatures-1920-2017-HadCRUT4.jpg

    If you look at this chart which goes back to 1920, it is clear that the 24 year period between 1922 and 1946, is considerably warmer than the 24 year period between 1992 and 2016 (the data for the year 2017 not being in yet).

    In the 24 year period between 1922 and 1946 some 12 years, ie., half the period had a positive + 4degC anomaly, whereas in the 24 year period between 1992 to 2016, only 6 years, ie., just a quarter, had a positive anomaly of + 4degC.

    yet further, in the latest period, ie., 1992 to 2016 the high temperature peaks only just reached the positive + 4 degC anomaly, whereas in the earlier period, ie., 1922 to 1946, the high temperature peaks reached + 5 degC, + 6deg C and even + 7 degC. No year has come close to the year 1936/7 with its plus + 7 degC temperature.

    It is quite clear that when one looks at the position over a period of 100 years, Arctic temperatures are not rising. Of course, there is multidecadal variations, as there is with ice conditions, and these multidecadal variations appear to track the AMO. They certainly to dot track changes in CO2.

    1. John F. Hultquist

      richard,

      You wrote: “They certainly to dot track changes in CO2.” [do not]

      One of the more interesting things about all the things being written about Earth systems and CO2 is the, so called, ‘greening’.

      This is a very visible thing, and where it leads is worth watching.

      However, there may be other things happening we do not see directly.
      Maybe the formation of Calcium carbonate is increasing. I assuming this is being studied, but I have not seen reports.

      Anyway, several years ago I took the view that CO2 induced global warming was not happening and not going to happen. This frees up reading time to focus on things that are happening.
      I mentioned the ‘greening’ issue.
      I’m also trying to read more about demography. Several countries (Japan, Russia, …) have declining and aging populations. This is an important issue.
      Another subject: In the USA, we have been fighting forest fires for over 100 years. Prior to that (about 1880) the natives (aka Indians) used fire as a land management tool.
      So, for about 140 years there has been an in-filling of woody material. Fuel has built up in layers. Further, trees have matured and died or have reached mature stages and are unsound.
      In some places, Oregon, Washington, Montana and into Canada, we are entering a era of mega-fires. This will be fascinating to watch.
      Meanwhile, we are cutting, chipping and in other ways trying to make our home (in a rural area) fire-safe. [Official wording is “FireWise.”]

  2. Michael Jones

    Can anybody explain what the author means by:

    “…their definition of temperature is based on some theoretical number that has nothing to do with the temperature that is measured by calibrated thermometer.”

    Thanks.

  3. SebastianH

    Based on observations, dating back to 1900, it can be concluded that it is physically impossible for the Arctic to be ice/snow free in the foreseeable future since the air temperatures were as cold in 2013 as they were in 1900.

    So when it is convenient, the energy needed to melt ice comes from the air? In any other case, you argue – correctly – that the ocean has the majority of the heat content.

    So this is completely normal? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA

  4. How Does Ice Melt in Sub-Zero Temperatures? – CO2 is Life

    […] Recently there have been a lot of alarmist claims that CO2 is causing the polar ice sheets to melt. In order to melt ice, it takes a ginormous amount of energy, and for the atmosphere to melt ice the #1 criteria is that the atmospheric temperature must be above 0°C. 0°C represents the melting point of water, 100°C represents boiling. In order for the polar ice to be melting due to CO2 caused Global Warming ( and it has to be warming not climate change, only warmth melts ice), one would have to demonstrate that the polar regions have temperatures above 0°C during the time of the ice melt. The problem is, the polar regions haven’t shown any warming over the past 100 years. […]

  5. How Does Ice Melt in Sub-Zero Temperatures? – Gaia Gazette

    […] Recently there have been a lot of alarmist claims that CO2 is causing the polar ice sheets to melt. In order to melt ice, it takes a ginormous amount of energy, and for the atmosphere to melt ice the #1 criteria is that the atmospheric temperature must be above 0°C. 0°C represents the melting point of water, 100°C represents boiling. In order for the polar ice to be melting due to CO2 caused Global Warming ( and it has to be warming not climate change, only warmth melts ice), one would have to demonstrate that the polar regions have temperatures above 0°C during the time of the ice melt. The problem is, the polar regions haven’t shown any warming over the past 100 years. […]

  6. Michael Jones

    “Of course he is retired and is only slightly more qualified than you and me to write a paper about climate science…”

    It is irrelevant whether or not he is retired.

    Indeed in many cases it is almost impossible to challenge the dogma prior to retirement as a result of the incessant intimidation and career limiting consequences that tend to follow.

    As for his qualifications to write a paper, if this is anything to go by…

    http://www.l4patterns.com/uploads/1941-3955_4_2-3_19-db-paper.pdf

    …then all his data is in the public domain and his paper takes the reader very clearly and methodically through his methods and calculations. In other words, it is an open invitation for anybody who cares to do so, to refute his reasoning.

    Whether he is right or wrong, it is a particularly well written paper.

    1. tom0mason

      What kind of child would attempt to divert the conversion from the essence of the written paper to questioning the quality of the man?

      The same sort of ‘settled science’ types that questioned the bona fides of a mere patent clerk and failed teacher to publish a paper about the basic workings of the universe.

      ‘Settled science’ types were wrong then, are wrong now.

  7. Bitter&twisted

    But has this study used correctly homogenised temperatures?
    You know the sort that shows what Sebastian likes?

  8. Lasse

    The models can not melt as much ice as nature.
    There is a flow of ice between Greenland and Iceland that can explain what the models can not.

  9. Scientists Affirm: 'No, The Arctic Is Not Melting' … 'Nothing Has Changed Since 1900' | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  10. Steve

    I do have a science degree albeit in a different area.
    That said, the local council at Bondi put a plaque at the north end of the beach in 2007. This was in response to hysterical claims that the beach would be gone if ‘we’ did not do something about stopping sea level rise.
    The plaque showed 2007 level ? and projection for 2016 ( naturally higher).
    I have no idea whether the plaque was put up at low or high tide.
    Anyway the beach is as deep today as at any time I’ve seen it over 50 yrs.
    So I went to check the levels on the plaque.
    This was at the top of a summer High King Tide and very flat surf!
    Not only could I not see the plaque because it was covered in sand, the water was at least 10 mts shy of the plaque. !!!

    As a side note the Murray Darling river…one of the longest in the world was going to run dry and the people in Adelaide I assume would therefore die of thirst. ( if we didn’t do something )
    It is currently full to near overflowing !

  11. Scientists Affirm: 'No, The Arctic Is Not Melting' … 'Nothing Has Changed Since 1900' | Newsfeed - Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  12. yonason

    One of Tony Heller’s latest videos.
    https://youtu.be/RFsK_9JWbHs

    He hits it out of the park again. Yet more proof that NASA cannot be trusted when it comes to anything related to climate!

  13. Continental Breakfast

    […] Since the theory is clearly wrong about forecasting the temperature patterns in the Arctic, all other predictions made by the theory must be wrong too. […]