Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year with top scientists warning of global COOLING

The Daily Mail reports:

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

Read more…


  1. Reblogged this on luvsiesous and commented:
    We were warned that the ice caps would be gone by this summer.

    But, now the polar ice cap grew by 60%. Will all of the alarmists apologize?


  2. Such a large change over only one year would tend to indicate “weather” rather than “climate” anyway.

  3. One year does not make a trend. What has been the trend for arctic ice during the last few decades?

  4. No real trending. We often trumpet single incidents here because of the warmists’ definition of a trend: 100 measurements in a row that go the “wrong” way are just blips, but one day above average temps is conclusive proof of the warmist concept.

  5. Apologize? Like that’ll ever happen. If the MSM would publish predictions from the last 20 years from leading climatologists against what has actually happened, Global Warming support would dry up like the Aral Sea. What’s really aggravating is that most people don’t realize that all these carbon taxes and job killing regulations are being based on the “science” from 15 years ago. Most of the temp predictions from the mid-1990’s are off by 50%. Some are off by 100% or more. Yet they are still presenting the models as accurate, if not correct. (or is it correct, if not accurate? Ouch, it makes my head hurt)
    This begs the question. What is a climate expert? A person that constantly makes ridiculous unsupported long range predictions and markedly incorrect short term predictions? I always thought that an “expert” is supposed to be right most of the time.
    The only thing “climatologist” means to me is that you are a Global Warming fanaticist, whose sole mission is to eliminate opposition to the theory. Climatology is the only “science” I know of where the proponents spend more time on semantics and demonizing, than they do researching.

  6. You tell me, if you are so willing to discount clear facts for something you ‘just believe’ isn’t happening. Don’t expect me to prove your own argument.

  7. Overreact to short term phenomena? May I remind you of Al Gore and the hurricane graphic. How Katrina was just the beginning of larger, more numerous storms? Eight years later, the Atlantic is as tranquil as ever – and not just this year. The point most of us are making is that the Warmists make these wild claims (the Artic ice-free by 2013, etc.) yet they always seem to fail to materialize.
    And your defense, one cherry-picked data trend, that runs contrary to most of the data for the last 15 years on global temps. Even the Warmists have acknowledged that there hasn’t been any global warming to speak of for 15 years and are jumping through hoops trying to fit that into the narrative they’ve been preaching for 20 years.
    btw, climatecentral is hardly an unbiased news source, they live and breath global warming there.

  8. “Record Heat in June Extends Globe’s Streak to 340 Months”

    That’s great, hayd. Tell us about January, February, March, April, May, July, August, September, October, November, and shut up.

  9. you claimed it is the statistically significant LONG-TERM TREND.”

    you made the claim, you have to provide the data. That’s how the real science works.

  10. Did you even BOTHER to click (and then actually read) the link I posted? The *data* is there. Seriously.

    The data is there to back up my assertion. You provided NOTHING but questions that you expect *me* to answer??? Again, don’t ask me to prove *your* argument.)

  11. “one cherry-picked data trend, that runs contrary to most of the data for the last 15 years on global temps.”
    — Umm… that IS the data from the last 30 years. It is the ACTUAL recorded temperatures. Very simple and straightforward, tere is nothing obtuse or disingenuous about it. And they back up the very clear claim of 340 months. What numbers are you looking at/believing in?
    “Even the Warmists have acknowledged that there hasn’t been any global warming to speak of for 15 years and are jumping through hoops trying to fit that into the narrative they’ve been preaching for 20 years.
    — Warmists? There is no such group, hasn’t been for a long, long time… where are you getting your terms/info from? If you are referring to the scientists who believed in global warming, the overwhelming consensus EVOLVED into climate change, which refers to the rapidly increasing extremes of temperature and weather. If your terms are that out of date, then your awareness of the issue obviously is as well.
    “btw, climatecentral is hardly an unbiased news source, they live and breath global warming there.”
    — That’s good, attack the source. Not the research, numbers or actual facts presented.

  12. There is plenty of willful ignorance on this board, but your comment, Gamecock, takes the top prize. Sadly.

  13. Philosopher Karl Popper suggested that scientific inquiries properly conceived must have the property of falsifiability, i.e., they must have a logical structure such that it is possible to demonstrate they could be false. I think a couple of issues create tension among Skeptics and Warmists. Climate scientists of the Warmists persuasion should be asked what evidence would discredit their models. The problem with Climate Science is that there always seem to be excuses such as time scales, local anomalies, etc., which they say can account for deviations in projected versus actual warming. On the other hand I’m not sure the Skeptics are always honest skeptics and perhaps cherry pick data. I’m not a Climate Scientist but it seems to me the problem may be that the scientists are trying to make claims for a phenomena beyond the capability of their analytical equipment. It’s like claiming to know the weight of a sea captain on a ship by measuring the weight of the ship with the captain on the ship and then weighing the ship with the captain off the ship. They build a simulation based on the composition of the ship complete with allowances for changes in the density of the ship with temperature and try to give an accurate weight to within a few ounces. Based on a series of measurements they can then determine if the ship’s captain is eating too much and gaining excess weight which could imperil the safety of the crew. I don’t think Climate Science is so much a problem as the demands placed by policy makers on Climate Scientists to produce scientific results that support a policy position that benefits their key constituents and financial backers.

  14. Don’t take it so hard, Gamecock. He has one weapon in his arsenal and he can’t figure out why it’s not devastating us.
    Hint: anyone can find one statistic that supports his position. It’s how does it measure up to the rest of the statistics.
    I’m not sure if he created his name by randomly running his fingers over the key board, otherwise I might refer to him by his forum name. (I’m too lazy to cut and paste it) Anyway. Why do we not give this “devastating” statistic it’s due consideration? Well, might be surprised find that even non-skeptics have conceded that there is at least a hiatus in global warming.
    And why would German scientists be noting that no climate models have predicted the “pause” that “doesn’t exist”.
    When your vaunted piece of evidence flies in the face of accepted convention (i.e. global warming took a holiday), just maybe your evidence is an outlier and doesn’t represent the trend at all.
    See? Even I can find links too.


Your email address will not be published.