Arctic Ice Cap Rebounds From 2012 — But Does That Matter?

bricko writes "There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of almost a million square miles. In a rebound from 2012's record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin. The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes. A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century." "Some scientsts" in this case do not include Dana Nuccitelli, who blogs cogently in reaction at The Guardian that the 60 percent increase observed in Arctic ice is "technically true, [but] also largely irrelevant." He has no kind words for the analysis in the Daily Mail (and similar report in The Telegraph), and writes "In short, this year's higher sea ice extent is merely due to the fact that last year's minimum extent was record-shattering, and the weather was not as optimal for sea ice loss this summer. However, the long-term trend is one of rapid Arctic sea ice decline, and research has shown this is mostly due to human-caused global warming." If you want to keep track of the ice yourself, Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis offers frequent updates.

Comments

Re:When did reality ever matter to climate change?

[Kjella]

Ah, this reminds me of the dicussion about evolution. One side has a scientific model - or actually a heap of scientific models based on the same idea - they keep tweaking and rejecting all the time but no matter what weird creature shows up evolution can be tweaked to fit. While the other side has picked a story and is sticking with it and because it's been literally unchanged for the last 2000 years that "proves" it's the right answer while the other side is constantly fudging their numbers to make it look right. I mean it's not like the other side brings any alternative models or explanations to the table, it's the same beat up record that natural changes are large and unpredictable while your data is short and weak and you're just chasing statistical blips and coming up with fancy explanations. There's no data about AGW that can't be explained away either.