Good, Thick, Strong Arctic Ice Is Totally In-line With ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

This sounds like a bit of excuse-making, much like we’ve seen with the Great Pause, the lack of landfalling hurricanes, lack of strong hurricanes, winter weather, and so on. Set the BS Meter to stun

How Sea Ice Can Still Be Thick in Places in a Warming Arctic

It might seem to you that unusually thick local sea ice contradicts scientists’ predictions of declining Arctic sea ice cover, but that would be an overly simplistic and incorrect assumption. That misconception of both climate science and the behavior of sea ice has surfaced in the past when polar research vessels encountered difficulties with sea ice, and this time is (sadly) no exception.

What it really proves is that Warmists are part of a cult that bares no resemblance to scientific endevours, but, please, continue

These stories may assume (either implicitly or explicitly) that sea ice conditions are tied directly and simply to global temperature.

Um, that’s what we’ve been told for 25+ years by the Cultists. Is Desmog, as in from Desmog Blog, telling us that the Cultists have been full of mule fritters this whole time?

However, the conditions in any specific location are actually a function of many factors. Trends in polar atmosphere and ocean temperatures do drive long-term changes in sea ice cover (as shown in the video below), but short-term natural variability is very important, just as weather is naturally variable.

Additionally, sea ice is transported around by winds and ocean currents — controlled by persistent regional patterns as well as temporary effects like storms. (See, for example, this recent satellite imagery.)

That sounds dangerously like Desmog is telling us this is all about natural variability. And if NV can make these changes, why can’t it be the primary cause for any Arctic melting? Oh, right, you just have to take it on Faith that it’s mankind driving in fossil fueled vehicles that’s causing the warming, while, when things happen that disagree with the Cultists positions, it’s natural variability and totally is utterly in line with their prognostications AND WHY ARE YOU ASKING SO MANY QUESTIONS! LISTEN TO YOUR BETTERS! DON’T QUESTION OUR DOGMA, ER, SCIENCE!

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “Good, Thick, Strong Arctic Ice Is Totally In-line With ‘Climate Change’ Or Something”

  1. Saturday morning links

    Check out the new format of American Digest  – With cool video of LA night landing   Why We Love The Color Green: It’s The Color Of New Life KIDS TODAY: THEY DON’T WORK SUMMER JOBS THE WAY THEY USED TO  (h.t Insty)  Wan

  2. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: That sounds dangerously like Desmog is telling us this is all about natural variability.

    In climate science, it’s termed internal variability.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Potato, patahto

      • Zachriel says:

        That’s right. So pretending climate scientists don’t acknowledge the existence of natural variability is poppycock.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          No, they acknowledge natural variability as an excuse for their failed climate models.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: No, they acknowledge natural variability as an excuse for their failed climate models.

            Huh? Who do you think studies natural climate variations? Your bartender?

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Yep, the bartender.

            I’ve already written about the epic moment, when IPCC apparently recognized that most of the recent warming had been due to the natural variability. Instead of telling that to the world, IPCC has just altered the definition of climate change in its Third Assessment Report (TAR, 2001) to include natural variability and changes in solar activity, and proceeded as if nothing happened.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/22/some-fun-with-ipcc-texts/

          • DrTorch says:

            Failed again. You suck at logic.

  3. Zachriel says:

    For years we have been told the Earth is melting like a popcycle, and that humanity will would soon be boiled alive in a rising sea. Well, today that lie stands exposed with evidence that any child can understand. I give you frozen water, falling from the sky.”

  4. Ralph Kramden says:

    No one​ expects
    The Spanish Inquisition

  5. Jeffery says:

    So let’s get this straight. According to the Deniosaurs, they “believe” data on internal variability, but data on CO2 dependent warming is false. And it comes from the same scientists.

    According to TEACH, WUWT and Roy Spencer (who misrepresents the models and data) 95% of the models are FAILURES!! Simple question. If it’s a massive conspiracy, why don’t the co-conspirators do a better job matching the models and temp data? Or is that part of their conspiracy – to make the data just close enough so it doesn’t look too perfect? N.B. – Roy Spencer has misrepresented the relationship between the models and the temp data, and the likes of TEACH have swallowed Spencer’s fraud.

  6. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: “I’ve already written about the epic moment, when IPCC apparently recognized that most of the recent warming had been due to the natural variability.

    Where did he write it? Natural variability has always been part of climate science.

    Seriously? Semantics is supposed to be an argument against the scientific evidence concerning climate change?

Bad Behavior has blocked 7693 access attempts in the last 7 days.