Good news from #AGU14 'Arctic sea ice is holding up to global warming better than expected'

From the “no death spiral” department comes this press release made at AGU from ESA.

Arctic sea ice is holding up to global warming better than expected, according to the latest data from the CryoSat-2 satellite, a team from University College London will tell the AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco.

Five_years_ice-thickness_change[1]

Arctic sea ice volumes in the autumn of 2014 are above the average set over the last five years and sharply up on the lows seen in 2011 and 2012, according to the latest satellite data.

Data from the European Space Agency (ESA) CryoSat-2 satellite to be presented to the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco later today (Monday 15 December, 2014) will show Arctic sea ice volumes in October and November 2014 averaging 10,200km3 – slightly down on the 10,900km3 reported in 2013 but sharply up on the lows seen in 2011 and 2012.

This is the second year in a row where a relatively cool Arctic summer has led to less sea ice melting than has been typical during the summers of recent years and this has resulted in thicker and older ice surviving into the autumn and winter during both 2013 and 2014.

Arctic_sea-ice_thickness_node_full_image_2

The team of researchers from University College London (UCL) who are presenting the CryoSat-2 data to the AGU Fall Meeting state in the abstract of their presentation that their data indicates “the Arctic sea ice pack may be more resilient than has been previously considered”.

The autumn 2014 volume is the second-highest since satellite measurements of Arctic sea ice thickness began in 2010, and the data shows that “the five-year average is relatively stable”, according to ESA.

This news comes as the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported that Arctic sea ice extent – the area of ocean covered by sea ice – in November was “fairly average”.

It is a combination of sea ice extent and sea ice thickness which gives rise to sea ice volume. CryoSat was designed to measure sea-ice thickness across the entire Arctic Ocean using radars, and this has allowed scientists to monitor the overall change in Arctic sea ice volume accurately over the last five years.

However, researchers are careful to caution that this apparent stability shown in the satellite data does not mean there has been a recovery in Arctic sea ice. A news release from ESA quotes Professor Andrew Shepherd from UCL and the University of Leeds as saying: “We must to take care when computing long-term trends as this CryoSat assessment is short when compared to other climate records”. Shepherd is one of the authors of the AGU presentation.

Here is a news release from the European Space Agency regarding this research issued on 15 December 2014:

CryoSat Extends Its reach Into The Arctic

CryoSat has delivered this year’s map of autumn sea-ice thickness in the Arctic, revealing a small decrease in ice volume. In a new phase for ESA’s ice mission, the measurements can now also be used to help vessels navigate through the north coastal waters of Alaska, for example.

Measurements made during October and November show that the volume of Arctic sea ice now stands at about 10 200 cubic km – a small drop compared to last year’s 10 900 cubic km.

The volume is the second-highest since measurements began in 2010, and the five-year average is relatively stable. This, however, does not necessarily indicate a turn in the long-term downward trend.

“We must to take care when computing long-term trends as this CryoSat assessment is short when compared to other climate records,” said Prof. Andrew Shepherd from University College London and the University of Leeds.

“For reliable predictions, we should try other approaches, like considering what is forcing the changes, incorporating the CryoSat data into predictive models based on solid physics, or simply waiting until more measurements have been collected.”

CryoSat was designed to measure sea-ice thickness across the entire Arctic Ocean, enabling scientists to monitor accurately the overall change in volume.

While the amount of ice normally fluctuates depending on the season, longer-term satellite records show a constant downward trend in ice extent during all seasons, in particular in summer, with a minimum occurring in the autumn of 2012.

Establishing whether the ice volume is following a similar trend is one of CryoSat’s key mission objectives.

A team of UK researchers at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling are presenting their findings this week at the American Geophysical Union’s autumn meeting in San Francisco, California.

“October is interesting because it is the first month we get data directly following the sea-ice minimum in September, so that’s where we see the largest interannual variability in our volume estimates,” said the Centre’s Rachel Tilling, who is working on the CryoSat measurements as part of her PhD studies.

Launched in 2010, CryoSat has long surpassed its planned three-year life. At the mission’s recent mid-term review, it was further extended until February 2017.

Tommaso Parrinello, ESA’s CryoSat Mission Manager, said, “CryoSat has already achieved outstanding results, both within its original mission objectives and for unexpected applications.

“Looking ahead, we are working hard to prototype new operational capabilities so that the measurements can be used for routine assessments in climate science and for services affected by Arctic sea ice.”

To test this, scientists have produced an assessment of sea-ice thickness north of Alaska and eastern Russia with data acquired over the last month. Products like this could prove useful for maritime services, such as shipping and exploration.

End of ESA news release.

Abstract

Despite a well-documented ~40% decline in summer Arctic sea ice extent since the late 1970’s, it has been difficult to estimate trends in sea ice volume because thickness observations have been spatially incomplete and temporally sporadic. While numerical models suggest that the decline in extent has been accompanied by a reduction in volume, there is considerable disagreement over the rate at which this has occurred. We present the first complete assessment of trends in northern hemisphere sea ice thickness and volume using 4 years of measurements from CryoSat-2. Between autumn 2010 and spring 2013, there was a 14% and 5% reduction in autumn and spring Arctic sea ice volume, respectively, in keeping with the long-term decline in extent. However, since then there has been a marked 41% and 9% recovery in autumn and spring sea ice volume, respectively, more than offsetting losses of the previous three years. The recovery was driven by the retention of thick ice around north Greenland and Canada during summer 2013 which, in turn, was associated with a 6% drop in the number of days on which melting occurred – climatic conditions more typical of the early 1990’s. Such a sharp increase in volume after just one cool summer indicates that the Arctic sea ice pack may be more resilient than has been previously considered.

Citation

CryoSat-2 observes Arctic sea ice volume recovery, after anomalously low melting in summer 2013 by Rachel Tilling, Andy Ridout, Andrew Shepherd and Duncan Wingham presented to the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San francisco on 15 December 2014.

Read the abstract here.

Advertisements

106 thoughts on “Good news from #AGU14 'Arctic sea ice is holding up to global warming better than expected'

    • Precisely my thought.
      Maybe, just maybe, there is no “global warming”, but rather temp fluctuations throght the years?
      After all, the models say the poles willl warm faster than the rest of the earth, but these pesky places refuse to cooperate.

      • Eyal Porat! Do you know how glad I am to see you post? Glad you are still in the land of the living — very dangerous where you are (even if you feel quite safe!).
        And, yes, good point (re: computer simulations missing it on the poles, see Bob Tisdale’s book: Climate Models Fail).
        HAPPY CHANUKAH!
        (I put up my first Menorah with little pretend-flickering flame lightbulbs last night — in the window in front of my Christmas tree — it made me so happy to see it there …. I don’t have the honor of being Jewish, but I love the Jews so much!)
        #(:))
        Your American Ally for Truth,
        Janice

  1. However, researchers are careful to caution that this apparent stability shown in the satellite data does not mean there has been a recovery in Arctic sea ice.

    Translation: “Please don’t pull our funding! We still believe.”

    • Well why would it need to recover, if it was AOK in the first place.
      After it is all gone for good in2015, then we can talk about recovery.
      Until then, I’m working on recover from Ocean Acidosis; so don’t bother me with sea ice recovery. The Ocean plastic recovery program has first priority anyway.

      • It would be nice if we could all get out of this holiday spirit of frivolity, and get back to some serious science and or math.
        Even I get tired of sarcastic semi-witticisms. (including my own)
        But it is also good to know that Armageddon has been postponed due to lack of interest.

      • Also worth reporting, on this morning’s radio news, I was forced to listen to UK’s socialist Prime Minister, David Cameron, railing on endlessly, trying to dress down the Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbot, for having the good sense to opt out on behalf of Australia, to the mass suicide of Western Culture.
        Come on David. You guys chose to export these Aussie misfits out of the northern hemisphere, for simply stealing a lump of coal to warm their English muffins; or was it their buns or bums they were warming.
        So if’n you think these chaps are a little weird now; don’t worry about it. The Kiwi’s will see that our SH cousins don’t send you any more coal back to warm your bums; scuse me that was meant to be buns.
        If the UK wants to take a 15 foot leap across a 20 foot gap in the Chunnel, well don’t try taking us colonials with you. We like it down here in the far flung reaches, of the Temperature regulated southern oceans.
        So nyet on castigating the Aussies; they just don’t know any better. Whew ! I nearly got a Malapropism in there in place of “castigating.”
        G

  2. “Relatively stable” and “fairly average” are good technical terms for the masses. We wouldn’t want anyone to believe it is normal.

  3. “We must to take care when computing long-term trends as this CryoSat assessment is short when compared to other climate records,” said Prof. Andrew Shepherd from University College London and the University of Leeds.
    Strange how the alarmists jump on any old short term event to tell us how this shows global warming, but when it comes to anything which contradicts their predictions – the trend is just too short!

    • I thought that was a reasonable statement. And…

      “For reliable predictions, we should try other approaches, like considering what is forcing the changes, incorporating the CryoSat data into predictive models based on solid physics, or simply waiting until more measurements have been collected.”


      Sounds right too.

    • How odd: Not a single mention of winds and currents, which are known to be the major short term factor (intra-annual, inter-annual).

  4. This will certainly spawn a number of studies to find out why the latent heat of melting of water has suddenly increased over the past half dozen years or so in only that location. I mean, that has to be the reason why the Arctic is not ice free.
    We can expect more veritable joules of research in the near future.

  5. So once again skeptics were right to question the climate alarmist consensus. Once again the climate obsessed predictions fail.

    • Don’t worry, the science is settled.
      The science is incorrect, but it is settled (i.e.: 97% of some goof-ball group or other still believes it).
      This absurdity will exist until complicit politicians (even dumber than “client scientists”) are rejected by tax-paying voters.

  6. “Arctic sea ice is holding up to global warming better than expected, according to the latest data from the CryoSat-2 satellite.”
    Is this because global warming is holding up to global warming better than expected, as measured by thermometers, rather than climate models?

  7. The models tell us that the arctic is going to melt.
    So scientists get together and come up with a way to measure it. (any good scientist needs data and understands that models are not data)
    They send up a satellite to measure.
    The measurements begin to support the models during the first three years of data collection.
    Then the fourth year shows the models are wrong. Instead of concluding that the Arctic is recovering and the models and theory are not working, they conclude the ice is just more resilient. Did I miss something or is ice still what happens to water that freezes? Any way I look at it, it appears the tail(AGW) is wagging the dog.

  8. Wow… that had to be hard for them to say.
    I suppose it would be asking way too much to get them to mention Antarctic ice volume and coverage, too.

    • Or more completely: “The global warming expectations are holding up worse to the arctic sea ice”.

  9. This is the second year in a row where a relatively cool Arctic summer has led to less sea ice melting than has been typical during the summers of recent years and this has resulted in thicker and older ice surviving into the autumn and winter during both 2013 and 2014.
    But. But. Warmest year evar! How can it be? I thought the Arctic was where all the warming was hiding from the thermometers.

    • They told us that the Arctic is the fastest warming place on Earth.

      NASA News – July 25, 2013
      An unrecognizable Arctic

      The Arctic acts as an early warning system for the entire planet.
      – Dr. Chip Miller, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

      Human burning of fossil fuels continues to increase the amount of carbon, a potent heat-trapping greenhouse gas, in our atmosphere. As a result, our planet is warming, and that warming is pushing Earth systems past critical points. This is especially true within the icy realm of the Arctic, the northernmost polar region of the planet, where the effects of climate change are expected to be most exaggerated [1] and have the biggest impact (see sidebar).

      If Arctic extent and volume starts to climb won’t that mean their theory is crap? We may be getting closer than we thought!

      • Agreed, Jimbo. I still don’t get how arctic ice melting completely can lead us to a tipping point. Clearly, the arctic has been ice-free before, and will probably be ice-free again sometime. I presume that this wasn’t a bad thing then (we’re still here), so why is it potentially bad in the future?
        The thing that worries me more is that the ice extent might keep growing, pushing us back into glacial ice-age conditions.

      • xyzzy11,

        The thing that worries me more is that the ice extent might keep growing, pushing us back into glacial ice-age conditions.

        A tipping point, so to speak.

      • Yes Brandon during the current glacial period we know that two more or less stable attractors exist – glacial and interglacial, with a valley in the probabilistic landscape between them that you like to call a tipping point.
        However the existence of a third hotter attractor above interglacial is pure fantasy with zero basis in fact.

  10. Wouldn’t “resilient” imply that the ice isn’t melting as fast as they thought.
    The fact that the levels have been growing for the last several years implies other words.

  11. We must to take care when computing long-term trends as this CryoSat assessment is short when compared to other climate records…
    So, how long has the ice got to expand for before the Arctic is no longer considered to be melting? 15 years? Or was that 18?

  12. Actually the CryoSat results are extremely shaky. Remember they measure the thickness of the ice by measuring the altitude of the top of the ice, which gives the freeboard of the ice above the sea-level. Then you multiply by ten to get the thickness. Simple? No.
    How do you find what the sea-level is? It is fairly simple in summer when there are open leads all over, then you know that the lowest flat surface you measure in the area is the sea level (unless it is a meltwater pool, or there is a storm so it isn’t flat).
    In winter You have to calculate what the sea-level is at each point in space and time, taking into account tides (very badly known in the Arctic), wind (ditto), barometric pressure (ditto) and geoid variation (ditto). And remember that each centimetre of error in sea-level translates to a 10 cm error in ice-thickness.
    Then there is snow. The satellite altimeter can presumably separate ice and snow, since they have rather different physical properties, but you also need to know the thickness and density of the snow on top of the ice since it weighs down the ice and makes it seem thinner than it is. On the other hand there are ice-crusts, (“skare” in Swedish, no really good word for it in English). A period of mild weather will cause the top layer of snow to melt, and then it refreeze as a thin ice-layer on top of (and later at some depth in) the snow. Not easy to separate from the real thing from a few hundred kilometres away.
    And then you should correct for the density of the ice and the seawater, which each vary by about 1% depending on salinity and temperature, but given all the other uncertainties this is really overkill.

  13. “However, researchers are careful to caution that this apparent stability shown in the satellite data does not mean there has been a recovery in Arctic sea ice.”
    Eeeh, what does this even mean? They are not believing in their own Satellite data? I thought Satellite data is the most accurate data you can get. They’re still trying very hard denying it.

  14. Who cares whether it holding up or not. It is all going to be gone by next year so we don’t care if it holds up after that.

  15. Clearly, the computer models predicting ‘Man Made Global Warming’ are not holding up nearly as well as the naturally occurring polar ice caps! The only ‘settled’ part of the science is the climate computer models et.al. have no predictive value.

  16. “Such a sharp increase in volume after just one cool summer indicates that the Arctic sea ice pack may be more resilient than has been previously considered.”
    That one must have hurt coming out.

  17. Measurements made during October and November show that the volume of Arctic sea ice now stands at about 10 200 cubic km – a small drop compared to last year’s 10 900 cubic km.

    Well. PIOMAS says:
    2013.10 6.953
    2013.11 10.076
    2014.10 8.159
    2014.11 11.481
    In my vocabulary 11 481 cubic km is substantially more than 10 076 cubic km (the former value is 17.5% higher than the latter one).
    Who is telling the truth? PIOMAS or the ESA?

    • Probably neithe. PIOMAS is a shaky modelling and CryoSat is shaky data. Actually beding within 10% of each other is pretty good.

  18. Bad news here in the UK! Rumours are circulating that the Queen will abdicate in the new year. This will mean numpty-right-Charlie will take the helm. And, despite what some think, the Monarchy here does wield some power and influence. The undemocratic appointment of his royal Richard-head will mean that we sceptics here in the UK will find the cause that much harder to fight. He will be writing (as he does, much) to the BBC, insisting on more pro-AGW TV. Only things like a complete Arctic recovery will swing things away. So we will all be wishing for dramatic ice cover.

  19. Arctic Ice, geothermal heat, Fram strait and the AMO.
    This graph
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Arctic-GmEC.gif
    shows the AMO and sweep of the annual change in the Geomagnetic East Component at 80N, in 10 degree longitudinal steps. Geomagnetic East Component annual change (daily change is used by Svalgaard et al to reconstruct past solar activity) varies widely along global latitude/longitude locations. Weakest and least uniform changes are those along the Equator, and the strongest are towards the poles; the Arctic being of interest here. As it can be observed the Fram Strait (80N, 10W-10E) stands out, having a degree of correlation with AMO.
    Alfred Wegener Institute:
    “The Fram Strait represents the unique deep water connection between the Arctic Ocean and the rest of the world oceans. Its bathymetry controls the exchange of water masses between the Arctic basin and the North Atlantic. The significant heat flux through water mass exchange and sea ice transport, i.e. transport of fresh water and sea ice southwards and transport of warm saline waters northwards, influences the thermohaline circulation at a global scale.”
    The strait is a bottleneck on the superhighway in the oceans global circulation, where piling up of the Arctic’s sea-ice may sufficiently impede its southward flow, eventually resulting in the increased ice coverage north of the strait.
    Mid Atlantic Ridge runs straight trough Fram strait. Increased magma activity in the ridge (as mirrored in the magnetic changes shown above) may release just about enough geothermal heat to ameliorate the ice blockage.

    • Actually the sea-ice never “piles up” or forms a “blockage” in the Fram Strait. It is carried south by the East Greenland current, while the eastern side of the strait near Svalbard never freezes even in winter since it is warmed by a branch of the Gulfstream. Any geothermic component is utterly insignificant in comparison as even a back-of-the-envelope estimate shows.

    • That’s a very cool graphic Vuk. In consideration of your point about Svalgaard et al using such change as a measure of solar activity, I’d like to point out some things on your graph.
      For 1900-15 both indices drop less in magnitude than their drop during 1960-75, when 1900-15 was significantly lower in solar activity than ’60-75, based on SSNs [1900-15 averaged 26-27 and 1960-75 averaged 61-57 (SIDC and rGSN respectively)].
      Shouldn’t it be the other way around as higher solar activity increases geomagnetism? Shouldn’t have the geomagnetic drop in 1900-1910 been lower than the 1960-75 drop?
      The rise of both indices from 1920 to 1940 coincides with the arc of sunspot activity during that time but thereafter there appears to be no sign of solar cycles 18 & 19 in the data (when #19 was the highest recorded cycle yet), although after the early 1970s dip from low cycle 20, the data responds again to higher solar cycles 21 & 22.
      It’s like a hit and miss solar-geomagnetic link.
      How would you reconcile those inconsistencies? I’d like to see this without the 10 year AMO advance. Thanks Vuk.

      • BTW. Strongest geomagnetic activity (on the annual basis, remember it is annual change in my graph) in the last 30 years was in 2003 (Tromso 85 nT) when the annual SSN was only 63.7, while the highest SSN was in 1989 at 157.6 (Tromso 59 nT)
        [ 85/63.7 against 59/157 or 1.33 against 0.37 per 1 SSN, or finally geomagnetic activity in 2003 was 3.5 times stronger than in 1989 per sunspot number, while solar activity ratio was 2.5 times the other way around ]

      • Appreciate your response. I was thinking if the AMO was already advanced by a decade in your original graph then if were retarded by a decade it would have to be shifted to the left in your second graph you linked. Is this a full moon moment (and it’s not a full moon today) and for whom?

      • No full moon this time, Bob. I was about to buy a new car next year 2015, but I advanced my purchase to this year 2014. My wife had as usual a different view, she said that instead advancing purchase to 2014 I should delay to 2016. Have a good Xmas. I hope we agree, or at least on that the annual geomagnetic change is not necessarily directly proportional to the annual sunspot number, so no conflict with Svalgard et al

      • Gotcha. Thank you. You and yours also have a Merry Christmas.
        Solar flux shot up to 198 today… and the USAF is calling for more high flux through Christmas, right here http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/text/45-day-ap-forecast.txt. Today’s daily forecast for the next eight days is 20 points higher than their forecast from three days ago. The next eight day forecast average is 183 sfu/day. I expect some ice to melt somewhere because of it…

  20. Since 2007, season end ice extent has reached a new equilibrium, fluctuating about a lower mean extent. Ice decline is over and has been since circa 2007.

  21. Did they think ice would melt because it’s a half a degree warmer. Ice still won’t melt at -20º even if they thought it was supposed to be –21º.

  22. “the Arctic sea ice pack may be more resilient than has been previously considered”.
    Global warming isn’t the problem. The problem is this tough Arctic ice.

  23. “the Arctic sea ice pack may be more resilient than has been previously considered”…..
    ….but our model that said it melted a few years ago is as robust as ever!

  24. We haven’t heard from Turney, master of the Ship of Fools, lately. Possibly he has been navigating the sub that Wadhams claims he took his ice measurements from. It seems they accidentally sailed under the Baltic Sea (to early a right turn). I grant you Wad would be right about the Baltic – it clears every summer.

    • Gary Pearse June 30, 2009 at 9:05 am (on another matter)
      “Actually, vukcevic’s equation certainly looks good so far, as good as anything else put forward on the subject.”
      Thanks Gary.
      So, how are [we] doing some five and half years on ?
      I’d say, not to bad, as you can see HERE
      but I could predisposed to a case of confirmation bias.

  25. We are breathlessly awaiting a similar pronouncement from Antarctica, since it is apparently on the same planet as the Arctic, and therefore should be expected to respond to the same global forces. We wait, and we wait … breathe is getting short… still waiting….

  26. You will not hear this mentioned on the CBC or any lame stream media outlets. According to them Al Gore said that there will be no ice by 2013 and the polar bears will drown. This does not fit in with their agenda.

  27. Arctic Sea Ice – The canary in the coal mine – We’ll see evidence of global warming there first. The canary has flown the coop, heading south toward warmer temps.

  28. Translation from Warmist Speak : “All our predictions were wrong and the sea ice is increasing all over the World, but don’t say too much or they could lose faith in Global Warming and our funding and conference junkets could be cut back..”

  29. And that despite the best efforts of the Arctic squirrels and beavers…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/11300380/Squirrels-and-beavers-contributing-to-global-warming-more-than-previously-thought.html
    New global warming terminology coming up:
    “It means scientists will in the future have to alter their theories around anthropogenic, or man-made, climate change to take account of ‘rodentopogenic’ influences, scientists told Mail Online.”

  30. I bet Mark “the arctic is screaming” Serreze is crapping his pants. And right now I think the arctic is laughing………hysterically. No. Wait a minute. With all that dangerous arctic methane release, maybe the arctic is…….um……oh never mind.

  31. The ice is “holding up”? That reminds me of the politically-driven canard in Ferguson. There wasn’t anything wrong with the policing there. Is their next report going to say the ice can’t breathe?

  32. Natural lifetime of Ozone is 1 to 24 hours. Upper atmospheric Ozone is almost exclusively created by Solar EUV. Ozone is a greenhouse gas! They say it is only about 10% effective as CO2 [I think that figure is a lab figure and very wrong in the upper atmosphere].
    As Solar output decreases between the 24-25 Solar cycles, the Ozone holes will become huge [my prediction]. This is like opening the windows into space for heat to escape.
    Too bad that none of the “models” model the Ozone layer as a greenhouse gas!!!!

  33. “For reliable predictions, we should try other approaches, like considering what is forcing the changes, incorporating the CryoSat data into predictive models based on solid physics, or simply waiting until more measurements have been collected.”
    It requires long range NAO forecasts for individual seasons. The broader picture for the next decade is renewed warming of the AMO and an increase in sea ice loss again. The AMO tends to run out of phase with sunspot cycles in its warm mode, hence its [slight] cooling around this sunspot maximum:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1880/mean:13/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/normalise

  34. Quite pleased and impressed to see this site posting up what is quite a well written and balanced item of current scientific research. But before we all jump onto the bandwagon, as virtually every person contributing to this thread above seems to have done, I think it may be sensible to take a leaf out of the scientists’ book and do what they have done – put this small item of research into its proper perspective.
    Having looked at this article I am quite convinced of the conclusion which CANNOT be drawn from it – that this somehow represents evidence that the initial predictions of melting Arctic sea ice as a result of global warming are false. Given the small time scale which this study represents it shows a minor (although positive) and probably temporary change. The research shows that, for a couple of years – which is itself a tiny time interval within the context of climate change – the Arctic sea ice may have been holding up to the warming induced by climate change. This in itself is of no real consequence. It doesn’t say anything which would lend support to the hypothesis that previous predictions of shrinking sea ice are in some way mistaken or false. It simply shows that, in a couple of years, which is a time interval far too small to make any meaningful conclusions about any long term changes which may or may not be occurring, the Arctic sea ice appears to have been bearing up to the threat caused by increasing temperatures. The fact that it is bearing up does not mean that the threat was mistaken or does not exist.
    Perhaps an analogy may help to illustrate this point further. Imagine your community is afflicted by a virus, similar to flu, which affects thousands of people producing symptoms such as high fever. Of the thousands afflicted, 2 or 3 lucky individuals have symptoms which are significantly milder, resulting in either no fever at all or a fever which results in a much lower temperature, leading it to be classified as just low or medium. Does the fact that these lucky 2/3 individuals suffer much milder symptoms show that the flu virus affecting the rest of their community is somehow some kind of illusion or that the authorities’ response to it (regarding it as a serious public health issue) was unwarranted, or worse, a deliberate deception? Of course not! It just shows that for the 2/3 lucky individuals concerned, they were more resilient to the infection.
    Exactly the same conclusion can be drawn from this latest research into the extent of shrinking Arctic sea ice. For a couple of years when measurements were taken, the sea ice appears, in parts, to be slightly more resilient to warming temperatures than had previously been observed. This tell us nothing about the long term trends at work here or whether this is nothing more than a temporary blip. If this study were to repeated over longer time scales (eg say every 10 years), it is entirely possible that the trend observed in this particular study disappears or is even reversed. Only further research will be able to clarify this. For the moment though, this illustrates nothing more than a blip, probably temporary, in a longer term trend.

Comments are closed.