Reports of shrinking sea ice are fake news
By Snowfan (June 19)
The Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) expects sea ice extent growth in June 2019:
The DMI plot for the development of Arctic sea ice area (extent) from June 1979 to the PROGNOSE for June, 2019. Since 2010, i.e. 9 years ago, the sea ice areas of the Arctic have been growing in trend. Reports about disappearing sea ice in the Arctic are fake news. See also: No ice melting in the Arctic in this decade. Source: DMI-Plots Ice Cover
May Arctic sea ice trend now stable 15 years
The DMI plot for the development of Arctic sea ice area (extent) from May 1979 to May 2019. Since 2004, i.e. for 15 years, the sea ice areas of the Arctic have been stable at around 13 million km². Reports about disappearing sea ice in the Arctic are fake news. Source: DMI-Plots Ice Cover.
Greenland sees 8 consecutive days of heavy snowfall
Also heavy snowfall continues for eight days In Greenland – loss of ice mass even lower than yesterday and still well below average.
After the eighth heavy snowfall in a row and without end, the loss of mass in the Greenland ice on June 27, 2019 continues to be below average (lower chart, blue line above the dark grey line) and even somewhat lower than yesterday. Source: DMI Greenland ice mass balance with supplements.
You have to laugh. No ice melting in the supposedly, hottest years EVAH, EVAH!!
Ice is the new warm !
The Greenland part is funny, because of the recent picture in the media claiming ice loss is unprecedented and it’s all due to global warming. I wonder how many mainstream media will report on the sudden change in weather up there. It would be ethical to do a follow-up you know.
Those green “trend” lines are laughable. That is not how you draw a trend line. The recent spike is still within the downward trend’s normal deviations through even the most basic of visual analysis.
Also, the ice mass in Greenland in blue is well within the snow pack standard deviation (light grey background) for the years listed. Nothing new to see here.
This type of misleading analysis is frankly embarrassing to any real scientist. Data doesn’t lie, stop misleading people DMI.
All is well. Go back to your margarita machines and enjoy.
The fact that the trend starts in 1979 is considerably more laughable. Satellite measurements of the arctic existed as early as 1973 (shown in the 1990 IPCC report but later redacted from the report- I wonder why?) when the arctic ice was considerably less than 1979, but DMI like IPCC won’t show that data……https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Screen-Shot-2017-02-14-at-5.53.39-AM-down.gif
Further, the director of DMI back in 1991 said, “temperatures have been falling steadily since the 1940s in Greenland, and the polar ice cap is getting thicker and thicker”……..https://realclimatescience.com/2017/12/dmi-1991-arctic-ice-thickening-since-the-1940s/
All run by the AMO. Arctic sea ice has plateaued because the AMO has plateaued. The Arctic Ocean has nearly no connection with the Pacific Ocean because of the Bering Strait bottleneck. So the conditions in the Atlantic drive the Arctic.
The AMO is cyclic on a ~60 year wavelength, so as you see from this graph it’ll plummet and Arctic sea ice will skyrocket.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/28/arctic-sea-ice-surprise-global-warming-experts-by-remaining-stab… […]
[…] P. Gosselin, June 28, 2019 in […]
No-one is “expert on the future”. Because there are no experiments, only manifestly biased (“error prone”)observations/measurements, so-called Climate Science is nothing but a classification scheme with all the predictive power of esoteric botany.
For the record, Australian researcher Robert Holmes’ peer-reviewed Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law (pub. December 2017) definitively refutes any possible CO2 connection to climate variations: Where Temperature T = PM/Rp, any planet’s near-surface global Temperature T equates to its Atmospheric Pressure P times Mean Molar Mass M over its Gas Constant R times Atmospheric Density p.
Anyone with the slightest acquaintance of century-old agitprop techniques sees Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen, John Holdren, Michael Mann and all their chiliastic ilk for the Luddite commissars-in-waiting that they are.
“Climate Science is nothing but a classification scheme with all the predictive power of esoteric botany.”
When I first read that line I thought you wrote “Climate Science is nothing but a classification scheme with all the predictive power of eccentric lobotomy .” 😀
Thinking about it though … 🙂
Those trends (green) don’t look right.
Ya, looks like it’s just a connection of the 1st and last points, whereas the actual trend would be even more positive.
Idiots cherry pick data on a extremely short trend, apply it to long trend, ignore all other days to claim climate change is a hoax committed by every expert on the planet. Same idiots ignore the fact warming planet can be scientifically prove in any freshman college sciency course.
”Idiots…claim…climate change is a hoax committed by EVERY expert on the planet.” – Garrett Moffitt
Sorry, G.M., but your strawmann argumont doesn’t hold up. Here are just a few who prove your claim is false.
Will Happer
Richard Lindzen
Ivan Giaever
Bob Carter
Tim Ball
Nir Shaviv
Richard Keen
Murry Salby
Nils Axel Mörner
Willie Soon
Sally Baliunas
Don Easterbrook
…and over 30,000 others
http://www.petitionproject.org/
OK, technically not a “strawman” – more of a bald faced lie; a variant of the debunked 97% consensus.
(Yes, it has been debunked.)
https://judithcurry.com/2015/08/27/the-conceits-of-consensus/
https://www.cfact.org/2016/02/17/propaganda-top-mit-climate-scientist-trashes-97-consensus-claim/
Thank you for listing the climate nutters or worst offenders as we like to call them. This list misses a few names, but those are the people misleading you guys. They aren’t experts … well, experts in trolling maybe 😉
Do you “very smart people” even know the science at all?
In fact, it’s so simple even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strikes an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other greenhouse gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don’t actual address the facts of AGW? Don’t have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
Do you have references to the so-called tests you think have been made? If so, than supply them, please. It’s called “scholarship,” Ted.
Ted, your comment shows that you know nothing of the complexity of the climate and what climate realists are actually saying. If that wasn’t bad enough, you have attempted to dehumanise the rest of us with the childish use of the term ‘denier’. The author of this site has shared numerous publications that call the entire AGW theory into question. You could learn something if you cared to look.
Like that Harde paper currently at the front page? 😉
what exactly can we learn from papers like that? How the author still doesn’t know the difference between residence time and adjustment time? Something like that? Yeah 😉
Humans produce more CO2 than can be absorbed through the cycle because of geoengineering!..take that out of the equation and release the hidden technology.