Happy New Year! Polar Ice Caps More Stable Than Predicted, New Observations Show
![global.daily.ice.area.withtrend[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/global-daily-ice-area-withtrend1.jpg?quality=83)
Daily Express, 25 December 2014
Levi Winchester
THE North and South Poles are “not melting”, according to a leading global warming expert. In fact, the poles are “much more stable” than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought. For years, scientists have suggested that both poles are melting at an alarming rate because of warming temperatures – dangerously raising the Earth’s sea levels while threatening the homes of Arctic and Antarctic animals.
But the uncertainty surrounding climate change and the polar ice caps reached a new level this month when research suggested the ice in the Antarctic is actually growing.
And there could even be evidence to suggest the polar bear population is not under threat.
Ted Maksym, an oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, conducted a study in which he sent an underwater robot into the depths of the Antarctic sea to measure the ice.
His results contradicted previous assumptions made by scientists and showed that the ice is actually much thicker than has been predicted over the last 20 years.
Dr Benny Peiser, from the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF), said this latest research adds further proof to the unpredictability of the supposed effects of global warming.
He said:
“The Antarctic is actually growing and all the evidence in the last few months suggests many assumptions about the poles were wrong. “Global sea ice is at a record high, another key indicator that something is working in the opposite direction of what was predicted.”
He added:
“Most people think the poles are melting… they’re not. This is a huge inconvenience that reality is now catching up with climate alarmists, who were predicting that the poles would be melting fairly soon.”
Separate satellite data released this month showed evidence that at the other end of the globe, the ice in the Arctic sea is also holding up against climate change better than expected.The data from the European Space Agency CryoSat-2 satellite suggests that Arctic sea ice volumes in the autumn of 2014 were above the average set over the last five years, and sharply up on the lows recorded in 2011 and 2012.
According to this research, Arctic sea ice volumes in October and November this year averaged at 10,200 cubic kilometres.
This figure is only slightly down on the 2013 average of 10,900 cubic kilometres, yet massively up on the 2011 low of 4,275 cubic kilometres and the 6,000 cubic kilometres recorded in 2012.
Dr Peiser, who believes the threat of global warming has been overstated by climate scientists, described this occurrence as “some kind of rebound” adding that no-one knows what will continue to happen to the poles.
He added:
“This depends on whether or not we have further warming to come… and this is not certain.
“We do not know what the climate will be in 10, 20 years.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
For Sir Harry – you made the frightening claim that the average US bill for electricity is roughly the same as it is for the unfortunate Germans. Please can you let us see your source? Because if this is true, given the relative price of domestic electricity in the two countries, Germany should be ashamed of it’s energy policy. Well, actually, it should be ashamed of it anyway.
October 2014 US average consumer cost $0.101 per kwhhttp://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a
German domestic electricity cost Jan-Jun 2014 $0.4038 . https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/international-domestic-energy-prices – you’ll have to open an xls file for that data.
That’s actually 4 times the price – so the only way that the Germans can have the same bill is if they are using 1/4 as much. With allegedly 600k homes being cut off every year in Germany, I’m going to take a wild stab that the reason for them using only 25% of the average US consumer is that the power is too expensive. This is not something to celebrate – it’s misanthropy and deliberate denial of energy to the poorest in society. In short, it disgusts me. Someone should tell that Pope fella.
You’re partially right, US prices are about half of German, not 25%, ( http://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/) and German bills are relatively in line with US because the Germans are enormously more efficient. That said, their quality of life isn’t suffering for it (my father-in-law is German, so I hear about the superiority of the fatherland frequently.)
However, wholesale electricity prices (what businesses pay) are generally lower than in the US, principally because of the low cost of all the renewables that have come online. The higher prices at the retail level are a policy decision, and about 20% of overall cost goes to fund the move to those renewables. That said, when the buildout is done, it will be vastly cheaper per KwH to support and maintain than a fossil-fuel infrastructure requiring a constant input of variably priced fuel, and will avoid most of the socialized costs of pollution.
http://www.dw.de/german-electricity-price-is-half-taxes-and-fees/a-17849142
Sir Harry Flashman
I write to correct your typographical error for you. You wrote
Obviously, that is an error which even you must recognise, so I suppose you intended to write
However, wholesale electricity prices (what businesses pay) are generally lower than in the US, principally because of the high subsidies given to all of the renewables that have come online. The higher prices at the retail level result from a policy decision to adopt expensive renewables, and about 20% of overall cost goes to fund the move to those renewables.
I trust you are grateful for this correction to your off-topic comment and – now the correction has been made – there is no excuse to continue this off-topic matter.
Richard
Sir: You haven’t been correct about ANYTHING, other than your choice of a pen name. My suggestion is to read more and write less. Faith in the religion of AGW, is hardly virtuous and exposes you as a naive non scientist. Try not to live up to your fictional character’s profile. Reciting mantras will get you nowhere. GK
SHF,
Your argument makes no sense.
The comment concerned the relative cost of electricity. And Germany’s ‘quality of life’ certainly is suffering, due to the 4X higher cost for the same product. [And using only one person’s hearsay doesn’t make for a credible argument.]
Finally, I think you cherry-picked your stats. There is at least one more chart in that link that shows Germany’s cost at 14.25¢ per kwh. [Lots of their charts require a premium account, so I couldn’t view them.]
The fact remains that Germany’s electric power costs much more than Americans’. Since cheap power equates with national prosperity, Germany is shooting itself in the foot with their ‘green’ nonsense. Higher energy prices are not nearly as ‘sustainable’ as low prices are. National policy in every country should be to encourage the lowest energy costs. But the situation both here and in Germany is to encouraage the very most inefficient energy production. That is stupid.
Finally, ‘renewables’ [with the exception of hydro power, which isn’t usually counted anyway] are extremely inefficient. In many if not most cases, they require more fossil fuel to build and maintain than using straight fossil fuel energy requires.
The push for windmills and other ‘renewables’ is economic nonsense. It enriches a very few at the expense of everyone else — and the poor are affected the most, since they have the least to spend.
So try as you might, you can’t avoid the plain fact that your position and beliefs are directly hurting the country’s poorest people. What’s your answer to that? More government?
This thread is moving so fast (rolling in laughter) that this may have gotten lost: the average German kWh costs $0.34; the USA average is $0.12 (http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-electricity-prices-kwh).
It’s a 3-1 cost disadvantage for Germany.
that “Pope fella” is banking on the $100 Billion pledged by richer nations to poorer nations regardless of the dubious reason.
Does a local parish priest refuse offering plate donations from families engaged in Mafia activities? A 1000 years of anecdotal evidence from Sicily to Rome provides the clear implication he does not. This pope spent his adult life witnessing the poor streets of Argentina, with a rich upperclass tossing down offerings.
Sir Harry Flashman,
You are inventing assertions never made.
No one here is jumping to conclusions about what the new ice data means to the climate.
You can get over yourself and your correcting the straw man you fabricated.
The observation and significance is what’s happening in Antarctica certainly contradicts what alarmists have been lecturing us about. Acknowledging that contradiction is not the same as asserting the opposite.
It is the alarmists you need to be “advising”. They are gang of truth thieves jumping to every conclusion they can imagine.
Stop mangling and obfuscating the conversation here with your petulant hypocrisy.
So Antarctic ice was measured accurately enough to determine that it was melting. Now supposedly it was not measured accurately and yet we are capable of determining that it is melting? Let’s determine how to get the measurement accurate before we come to all kinds of conclusions. Right, SHF?
Wonderful news!
The next ice age is proceeding according to schedule.
Current Antarctic sea-ice is really remarkable. Sea-ice extent is at 138% of normal, and sea-ice area is more than four sigmas above normal. If sea-ice area is normally distributed, the probability of this happening is less than one in 15,000.
Now, the ice-area probably isn’t normally distributed (though NSIDC implies that it is, by including the SD in their chart), but even so the current situation is definitely unprecedented in the satellite era. Strangely enough, the MSM are very quiet, despite their usual enthusiasm for unprecedentedness.
Sometimes I am ashamed of some of the Geoscientists in our world. I was trained that the “Present is the key to the Past.” But Conversely I know that the “Past is also key to the Present.” I was also trained that data always, is the proof we need to back up any hypothesis. Without data a hypothesis is nothing but a model without proof. Any data which is contrary to the model, makes it invalid.
So how can any scientist ever say that any hypothesis is settled without the data to back it up. It is not scientists who are claiming the debate is settled, but politicians, and their lackeys who receive significant government funding, so much so, that they are prostituting themselves to the Global Warming Demi God.
The Global Warming Hypothesis requires several things for the warming to be a significant threat to the earth. Experiments at the turn of the 20th Century showed that a doubling of CO2 in the Atmosphere would cause between 1 to 1.3 degrees Celsius of warming, all things being equal. To get runaway warming this has to be reinforced by feedbacks such as adding significant water vapor to the atmosphere, and by a decrease in hear radiation into space.
Unfortunately for them neither is present in the data. NOAA data shows the atmosphere is declining in water vapor content. The Satellite data shows an increase in outgoing radiation of heat into space.
My training says that CAGW is wrong. Columbus proved the world was round in contrast to the consensus that the world was flat. Data trumped belief.
Columbus proved the world was round in contrast to the consensus that the world was flat.
Uh, the round Earth was already well-known when Columbus sailed. Let’s put that schoolbook myth to rest.
agree. A better analogy is the invention of the telescope. The early data on Jupiter’s moons put serious holes in solar geocentrism theory. The holes became gappingly bigger until it collapsed under the weight of data and a simplified mathematical explanation by Kepler.
My bet is OCO-2 will be the modern equivalent to the telescope with regards to human CO2 and global warming theory.
Not only that, Columbus had been to Denmark, knew the content of the Icelandic Sagas and knew perfectly well, along with lots of other folk, that Leif Erikson had found land to the SW of Greenland. He was a sea captain, after all.
Oh, come on now – It is well known that folks can walk to the edge of the flat Earth and stick their heads under the edge of the firmament and check this fact for themselves. Hope it is okay to use Wikipedia for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammarion_engraving#mediaviewer/File:Flammarion.jpg
I started to make this walk one time but forgot my lunch and had to go back home.
Seriously, there are late 1800s and early 1900s American school books that claim Columbus had to overcome the flat earth view prior to his voyage. Eratosthenes was so ancient history.
Early 1900s? I was taught this in elementary school in the early 1960s.
Sir Larry Flashman,
Here is a recap of what I find interesting in your rebuttal.
The linked word “before” refers to:
Surprise: Robot Sub Finds Much Thicker Than Expected Antarctic Sea Ice
WUWT – November 24, 2014
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/24/surprise-robot-sub-finds-much-thicker-than-expected-antarctic-sea-ice/
So it is now clear that you will no longer refer to any 1 year observation or weather event to back you up. I have copied you quotes with links for future reference.
I dunno, nothing in the story says anything about the ice being thicker than expected, that’s only in the WUWT headline. The story just says that they now have a better idea how thick it is. However I didn’t look at the original study so may be wrong.
However, if the original expectations were based on erroneous data, without a baseline we still have no idea whether the thickness has changed due to climate change or any other reason.
Yep you are wrong. Here it is again with some more. Click this link and read the words: “The data collected from the AUV allowed scientist to conclude that sea ice was much thicker than earlier believed.”
Let me remind you that you said:
I have shown this statement to be false – see HERE. You will read at that comment the following from NASA. This make your statement FALSE.
Hank
Two pieces of advice:
(1) change your screen name
(2) go back to troll land
Sir Harry, here is the abstract of the paper.
Thanks, I was wrong. Appreciate the correction.
I just hope that you have learned something from this disastrous episode of yours. When you make any claim on WUWT you can bet your bottom dollar it will be looked into. My advice is to be utterly sceptical of anything (warmist or sceptic) BEFORE commenting. I make mistakes all the time – I am human too.
The climate system has much noise in it due to the fact it is random, chaotic ,non linear and subject to thresholds. This is why when an item is said to influence the climate unless it achieves extreme values for a sufficient length of time it will be thought not to be influencing the climate, because it’s climate signal although present will be lost in the noise of the climatic system.
Added to this is the initial state the climate is in with respect to an item or items that may influence it ,such as land/ocean arrangements , or how far the climate is from glacial versus non glacial conditions.
This is why for instance the immense Antarctic Sea Ice deviation coverage does not correlate to a drop in S.H. temperatures which would be below the recent averages. It’s signal is being lost in the noise of the climate but I venture to guess there is a deviation value that if met would allow the Antarctic Sea Ice to overcome the noise in the climate and exert a more definitive influence .
The same can be said with the sun in that unless certain low value solar parameters are attained for a sufficient length of time will they to will often have their climate signal lost to the nature of the climatic system although solar is always influencing the climate as is Antarctic Sea Ice.
I do not know what values needed are needed for Antarctic Sea Ice to show a more direct correlation between it and the climate. Maybe it is a deviation sustained above 2.0 million sq. kilometers or maybe even a greater number. I do know however there is a threshold value out there just as there is for solar parameters which I have talked about many times in the past.
To all: Unfortunately, given the volume of responses to my posts, I don’t have time to research and respond in detail to all criticisms. Some of the things I read on here I agree with, but I don’t see the evidence that temperatures have been stable for the last 18 years (look north for tangible physical evidence), and I believe from other reading that the fingerprints of CO2 are all over the warming that we’re currently seeing. This information is available via IPCC reports and other sources for anyone who wants to swallow their bias and belief in far-fetched lefty conspiracies and take a look.
Anyway, honest disagreement should not be construed as trolling, nor should a failure to provide deeply researched and cited responses to throwaway comments from multiple commenters. This is not a full-time job.
Appreciate the tip-off on the dragons, though, I have contacted my insurance agent.
At least in the US, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution provides the homeowner some self-insurance from dragons and burly men with baseball bats (see RGB at Duke, above, for that reference to burly men with bats).
Sir Harry Flashman
You made the blatantly untrue assertion; viz.
Several people – including me – asked you to say what you claim to have “seen”.
You have ignored all those requests but now say
There is no evidence of a “fingerprint” for AGW; the ‘hot spot’ is missing.
There is no evidence of AGW in any IPCC Report and you cite none.
You have NOT “seen” them because they do not exist. Your claim to have “seen” them can only be a lie or a delusion.
But you say you “believe” such things exist. Do you also “believe” in fairies? Believing something is not seeing it.
You are right when you say
and that is why your trolling has caused such offence: your falsehoods inhibit honest disagreements.
Crawl back under your bridge.
Richard
I’ve answered your question above, but feel sure it will not be sufficient. Anyway, the collective you have convinced me, I will continue to read, but no longer comment. Happy New Year, chaps.
No, you haven’t answered “above”, but adios anyway and not a moment too soon. I’ve already gone through my new sack of Troll Feed.
Sir Harry Flashman says “I’ve seen the evidence for AGW”
The IPCC uses words such as “extremely likely” with plenty of caveats. Sir Harry MUST contact the IPCC and show them his certainty. He will be in line for a ‘certain’ Nobel prize. Do it Sir.
Sir
The reason there are so many skeptics on this site is exactly that they have read the IPCC and numerous other reports on AGW and the observational data do not confirm the assertions or projections in those reports. Most here have performed their due diligenceand they see the warmist orthodoxy is woefully lacking in true science. When the data confirm the projections and there is an absence of confirmation bias and there is pervasive evidence of the scientific method begin used by the establishment, then there will lots of these skeptics lining up to support what needs to done. To date that has not
occurred. Climate science is in a pathetic state.
@SHF:
Instead of doing more ‘research’, why not admit that there are plenty of highly educated people commenting here; that they have done their research, and that they are satisfied that the ‘disappearing Arctic ice’ scare is complete nonsense?
Or are you just looking for confirmation bias of your personal beliefs?
Hank
re “…but I don’t see the evidence that temperatures have been stable for the last 18 years …
The evidence is there; what you really mean is you don’t accept the evidence.
———————————————-
ps: assuming you live somewhere in the USA, I wish to sell you elephant insurance. I saw your astute response to the dragon insurance ruse, and I assure you there are plenty of North American mammoth skeletons lying around…if one of these babies wanders thru your uninsured teepee, it’ll ruin your entire day.
The second to last paragraph should be
The same can be said with the sun in that unless certain low value solar parameters are attained for a sufficient length of time they to will often have their climate signal lost to the nature of the climate system although solar is always influencing the climate as is Antarctic Sea Ice.
Steve Oregon
January 5, 2015 at 7:34 am
“True but only to those who subordinate the substance.
The significance of the substance would still be the same if it were written by Dr. Seuss.”
Reply
Sir Harry Flashman
January 5, 2015 at 7:37 am
>>>>>>> “True, and it would still tell us nothing about climate change.” <<<<<<
How can ANYTHING tell us anything about something that is nothing (i.e. doesn't exist or has always existed)?
"Climate Change" is an invention, a construct fallen for by the gullible who are never in short supply.
It never gets old watching an alarmist get completely dismantled in the comments section. Next!
It’s even more fun to watch the alarmist try to pretend that he hasn’t been refuted.
To Sir Harry Flashman past history shows no correlations between CO2 concentrations and climate. At best CO2 FOLLOWS the temperature trend and even worse many times in the past such as during the Ordovician Period of time CO2 concentrations were much higher while the earth was in an Ice Age.
Even if on compares the present temperatures to the more recent past such as the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period or the Minoan Warm Period one will find temperatures as warm or warmer then today while CO2 concentrations were much lower then today.
There is no correlation or at best if their is. it is very weak and lost in the noise of the climatic system as well as being trumped by other items that exert a greater influence on the climate which is easy to believe since CO2 accounts for some 400 ppm of earth’s atmosphere with an increase of around 100 ppm over the last 100 years. That small amount and small increase is in no way going to head the climate into a new direction in my opinion.
adding that no-one knows what will continue to happen to the poles….
To be a climate scientist you have to hold to just two things….
“the climate is stable” and “if this trend continues”
The rest of us know what will continue to happen to the poles…
Mr Flashman
I haven’t had chance to respond to your comments, I will read avidly and check any references you provide but probably not until tomorrow. It seems on scanning though that you have had to suffer some very sharp criticism. That wasn’t my intent, I am all for calm professional debate and an exchange of ideas and opinions whatever the contributor’s expertise or qualifications. I will catch up and answer you tomorrow
Badger
Seems a decent sort of troll, more needed with Flashman sense of houmour.
Agreed thus far.
I’ve said it before that I do have a grudging respect for the chap. In fact, I feel some of the responses he’s had here today have been unduly “terse”. There, said it……
Then again, I might just be too sensitive.
Sir Harry , don’t forget , was at Rugby School where the junior boys were frequently “roasted” in front of the dorm fire. He no doubt had his share of that experience before rising to the stage where he could inflict the same on that dear poor boy Tom Brown. Any roasting here will be just a tickle in comparison.
Yup; you’re too sensitive.
Yes, and he did accept that he was wrong at least once when Jimbo had him over a barrel.
I thought humour might be a better way to refute the claim of AGW evidence because I guessed he would get the joke.
Here’s my question to rgb above. Can anyone answer my question?
January 5, 2015 at 1:36 pm
But rgb how much higher do we want the premium to grow? Trenberth is an author of the latest RS and NAS report about AGW. At point 20 they state that the entire planet could stop all human emissions of co2 today and there wouldn’t be a change in climate, temp or co2 levels for thousands of years.
So how many thousands of trillions $ premium should humans pay to get a desirable result? Can anyone please explain?
https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-20/
Neville,
Big problems when you swallow the cAGW garbage. The trick is not to believe it. Just simply don’t believe it.
Can anyone please explain?
Yes, apparently you can’t read. The response to point 20 does not say what you assert.
Two men in a room. Both have their hands around the other chaps neck. One is yelling: “But you don’t understand the basic physics”. The other replies, turning blue, “It’s all cognitive bias and cherry picking, you hypocrite”. They tighten their grip. Outside, the sunset is delightful. An asteroid is about to smash into the house and destroy everything, but they have no clue this is about to happen. “Look at the data” screams the first, beginning to froth. “What’s your qualification?” bleats the second.
The planet is in good hands, people. Carry on. Fascinating discussion.
Where is the asteroid? Point your finger to the sky and show me that hotspot – the human ‘fingerprint’ of AGW. 28 million weather balloons cannot find it. The hypothesis is sh!t.
“Yet another paper shows the hot spot is missing”
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/yet-another-paper-shows-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/
The obvious answer Neville is there is no price high enough that will achieve the stated result, rendering the attempt futile and useless from the get-go.
In other words, it’s really a get-rich quick scheme for all who wish to slurp at the public trough, including insurance companies.
Apologies to rgb if by any chance those two sentences were going to be his exact reply.
Good Morning Mr Flashman
I have read your data links carefully and cannot find the empirical evidence. There is a great deal of suggestion, modeling and poor scientific conclusion, but no empirical evidence of AGW. I think it is highly unfortunate to provide a link to the 97% consensus when that has been thoroughly discredited and is used as a propaganda tool by interested parties. Indeed, it devalues the argument immensely. No one is disputing that warming has taken place, the planet warms and cools in cycles and has always done so, very few dispute that mankind has an influence on the climate, especially at a local level by land use change, but CAGW is unproven and alarmist and the empirical evidence contradicts the theory. Normally, science would accept that the theory is unproven and thus seek to find alternate explanation for observation (indeed so many do but are ignored or denigrated by IPCC Al Gore, Mann etc) but the orthodox establishment continues to cling aggressively to that which maintains its income. So, to return to this post, Dr Peiser is a knowledgeable, calm and respected scientist who has great concern on how we are following a damaging, expensive and unnecessary path and its impact on global societies and economies and the confirmation of observation of the Antarctic ice should be welcomed by all if it is observed evidence that the proposed dangerous melt is not occurring. The question then should be: if the world is not warming as theorised, what is happening? Let us observe,look at the evidence and create a hypothesis and then test it. Let us not try to twist, create or alter evidence to fit a hypothesis that has failed.
Badger
September arctic sea ice volume has declined by more than 75% during the satellite record. If Peiser is going to cite woodshole et al for some modest recovery in the last year or so, he’s going to have to accept the rest of the record. Unless he thinks the record is only ‘robust’ when it tells an anti-warming story…
And, on that same mid-September day when the sun is shining on both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, (when the Antarctic sea ice is setting record HIGH anomaly levels ALL YEAR long, when the Antarctic sea ice has been steadily increasing for 22 years, when just the “excess” Antarctic sea ice has been as large as the entire ice cap over Greenland, when for the last 4 years the Antarctic sea ice has been expanding fast enough to block sea traffic around Cape Horn within 8-12 years) the edge of that ever-increasing Antarctic sea ice is reflecting FIVE TIMES the solar energy than the Arctic sea ice is receiving.
But is even worse than that!
From today’s levels, for seven months of the year, the newly exposed Arctic Ocean LOSES more heat from the open ocean waters than it gains from the ever-lower sun rays. Less Arctic sea ice from today’s levels? More heat loss from evaporation, convection, conduction, and LW radiation.
barry, here is some good news.
Here are some surprises during this 1960s cooler time.
Here is the research.
Last year Antarctica sea ice reached 20 million square kilometers according to NASA.
Here is another lesson for the Warmists. Stop worrying about what you are told and understand that we are always learning. Now how can REDUCED sea ice extent threaten emperor penguins? They have less distance to walk.
Just like hurricanes it’s down to observations. Sir Harry this is an example of how your statement about no one saying Antarctic sea was thinning. They did say it and observations show your statement and alarmist claims to be sh!t.
Here it is in more focus.
If there is more ice does that mean the estimated heat content of the oceans is currently overstated?
Nik, as you can see global sea ice anomaly is virtually back to the 1979 level over the last few years. The Arctic sea ice spiral meltdown has stopped over the last few years and Antarctica is at near record levels the las few years. The next 5 years will be interesting, especially if global mean temps start heading south.
Here is a quick search regarding Thinning Antarctic Ice
https://www.google.com/search?q=thinning+of+ice+sheets+in+antarctica&hl=en&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&safe=active&gws_rd=ssl&oq=&gs_l=
The articles are regarding the thinning of Land Ice reather than Sea Ice though. Didn’t find anything on “Sea Ice”
Although a number of those returns are regarding “Thinning Sheet Ice”
You may have missed my comment earlier where I posted this.