A major assertion made by those peddling disinformation about the science of climate change is that sea ice is growing, not shrinking.
A major assertion made by those peddling disinformation about the science of climate change is that sea ice is growing, not shrinking. The Daily Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker is one of those to have argued this in justifying his position that climate change is all a myth.
Booker wrote:
“Sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But for some reason the warmists are less keen on the latest satellite findings, reported by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration…
“Its graph of northern hemisphere sea ice area, which shows the ice shrinking from 13,000 sq km to just 4m from the start of 2007 to October, also shows it now almost back to 13m sq km.”
Alongside his piece, he republished a graph showing that the ice had indeed expanded between September 2007 and January 2008. That prompted George Monbiot to write:
“The Sunday Telegraph continues to employ a man who cannot tell the difference between summer and winter.”
But today Climate Progress reports on new data just published which proves Booker to be just plain wrong. The new evidence shows we’ve had record low ice volume for the past three years.
Joe Romm reports:
“The big Arctic news remains the staggering decline in multiyear ice – and hence ice volume. If we get near the Arctic’s sea ice area (or extent) seen in recent years this summer, then this may well mean record low ice volume – the fourth straight year of low volume. And the latest extent data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center suggests we will:
“Of course, the anti-science crowd – and much of the media – remain stuck in two-dimensional thinking. So the headlines last month were mostly about how the Arctic ice was supposedly ‘recovering’ to the 1979-2000 average. Now, it was reasonable to ignore the third dimension – ice thickness – when we didn’t have good data on it.
“But now we do, so it is unreasonable to continue focusing on just two dimensions in the Arctic. Trends in multi-year ice — ice volume — are what matter most in terms of the long-term survivability of the Arctic ice in the summer (see New study supports finding that “the amount of [multi-year] sea ice in the northern hemisphere was the lowest on record in 2009”).
“As we’ll see, even when the ice was supposedly recovering in area 2008 and 2009, it was still rapidly shedding the thickest ice — ice older than 2 years.”
Romm looks into the implications of the new evidence more fully, and George Monbiot has debunked some of Booker’s other claims before.
Also today, the Press Complaints Commission issued surely their most amusing ruling ever against UKIP’s Lord Monckton – seen here calling Jewish climate activists “Hitler Youth” – and in favour of George Monbiot. It really is worth a read. One highlight:
“The (Monbiot) blog was simply, and within the bounds of fair comment, taking a swipe at Viscount Monckton’s claim that he could be reasonably termed a Nobel Prize winner.”
And
“While the complainant may indeed have read the draft Copenhagen Treaty, he could not have known with certainty, when speaking in mid-October, what precisely would be signed in mid-December.”
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
8 Responses to “New data dispels sceptics’ myths as PCC rules against UKIP climate denier”
gankon
here is a very balanced article from the economist on the theory and disputes in climate change science
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15719298
no one piece of data will convince a skeptic or a believer. the science will finally emerge over the decades. the question now is do we really believe climate change will cause a global catastrophe or that we will just adapt. this is far from settled.
Anonymous
I will say from the state, allowing you to make your predjudice first, I am a climate change skeptic.
It is not the data I have a problem with, it is the cause. It is pretty apparent that something is happening with regard to climate, and without knowing the contribution humans make to the co2 emissions, we do seem to be a major contributor.
However I do feel too many things go into the equation that make the assertion that it must be the fault of humans quite an untenable position.
The environment is by far the largest contributor to Co2 and yet the varying amounts emitted by volcanos/sea haven’t yet caused climate catastrophe! Adding to that the fact that Ice ages run on huge cycles, lasting many thousands of years. We could be emerging from an ice age, we know from tree samples that the climate was hotter in the middle ages than it is today and rising sea levels and freak weather didn’t finish them all off back then.
A lot of climate science is not exact science. The man made theory of climate change is also far from proved. One leading climate change skeptic pointed to the fact that many Global Warming proponants have asserted that we need to act now because rapid temperature increase would cause a great deal of povert and increase the size of the 3rd world, yet the cost of that, if sent directly into tackling poverty in the 3rd world would alleviate a great deal many more from their poverty stricken lives!
There are so many issues, and the science is so unproven, based on computer models and fudged scientific results. We have to be careful
gankon
global warming catastrophism – reminds me of the ERM and the Euro. just one of those things that gains its own momentum and anybody who argues against is a little englander/’denier’/etc