Now Scientists Claim Near 20-Year Stable Arctic Sea Ice is “Unsurprising” and Predicted by Models

By Chris Morrison in The Daily Sceptic

Dramatic confirmation that the sea ice in the Arctic has been stable for nearly two decades is contained in a recently published science paper from a team led by Dr Mark England from the University of Exeter. The finding is of course obvious to anyone who studies the data but it will inconvenience the activist cranks who continue to promote supposed reductions in Arctic sea ice as an important sign of their imaginary ‘tipping points’ and their fake climate crisis. Despite the data showing the ice has been stable over every month in the year since around 2007, Sir David Attenborough told BBC viewers in 2022 that the region could be summer ice-free by 2035. The climate hysteric Al Gore never quite recovered his authority when he said all the ice could be gone by 2014.

There is still an occasional sighting in mainstream media but the ice vanishing act is having to be retired. In fact the smarter scientists seem to be rushing to accept the ice data while moving the climate trenches back to more defendable lines. The England paper notes a “surprising, but not unexpected pause” simulated by climate models, “relatively frequently”. Old school to the end, the Guardian reported last March that “scientists say” that ice-free summers were possible in the Arctic within the next decade.

Here is the graphic evidence from the two databases consulted by the England team.

These scientists are not the only ones to spot something that appears to have alluded mainstream journalists, scientists and politicians, keen as always to promote the Net Zero fantasy. Recently, the Arctic scientist Allan Astrup Jensen noted that the summer ice had plateaued from 1979-97, and then fell for 10 years. Either side of the drop – manna from heaven for climate cranks – there have been losses, albeit minimal ones. In fact, evidence shows that 1979 was a high cyclical point in Arctic sea ice, a cherry-picked date that conveniently marks the start of more accurate satellite measurements. Sea ice extent was lower in the 1950s and observations stretching back 200 years suggest a 70-80 year waxing and waning cycle. In line with these findings, scientists suggest ocean currents play a large part in determining the sea ice extent.

Last year, the Daily Sceptic noted that Arctic sea ice had soared to its highest level for 21 years. The article noted this interesting and correct fact but made our usual point that ice trends can only be understood over a long, preferably very long term context. The BBC More or Less statistical radio programme referred to the article without putting the high in context. Rather it provided a case study in how alarmists counter the obvious lengthy pause. Professor Julienne Stroeve from UCL suggested the ice extent was thinner, although the presenter Tom Colls had to admit, “the data is not available yet”. What you see, claimed Stroeve, is that the trend is downwards for four decades. The overall decline in long-term Arctic ice is very easy to see, added Colls. A more statistically objective view, something the programme constantly tells listeners it aims to provide, might have noted the lower levels of the 1950s and the recent obvious lengthy pause.

Of course when you are in the climate alarm business, there is a frequent need to explain why the various scares and tipping points never seem to occur. One favoured approach is to simply ignore any unwelcome improvement such as the coral growing back in record amounts on the Great Barrier Reef, and hope nobody has noticed. The other favoured tactic is to state that the computer models that predict one thing are in fact still entirely correct when the opposite occurs. We might refer to this as the ‘global warming leads to global cooling’ explanation. Since computer models rely on inadequate human input of a chaotic and non-linear atmosphere that is impossible to fully understand, it is usually possible to claim with a tweak or two that they were right all along.

The England paper is to be congratulated for laying out the Arctic sea ice data but most of its work is seemingly designed to stay onside with those using computer models to provide what is sometimes called ‘evidence’ of a climate crisis. Rather than the multi-decadal pause being an unexpected event, the scientists note, “comprehensive climate models from CMIP5 and CMIP6 simulate such pauses relatively frequently”. According to these climate model simulations, it is noted, “this pause in the loss of Arctic sea ice could plausibly continue for the next five to 10 years”. ‘Plausible’ and ‘evidence’, it might be reasonably pointed out, are not words that always spring to mind when considering the output of climate computer models. It is of course only one small step that is needed for the crystal ball pseudoscientists to claim they can use models to attribute individual weather events to humans eating Big Macs and driving SUVs.

We can assume that the sea ice predictions of Gore and Attenborough were also derived from computer models – ever reliable to provide whatever scare you want to promote.

But all can be forgiven in the climate Armageddon business, particularly if you happen to be a high-profile eco loon like Gore. It would have been a “rather brave person” to have predicted that a sustained slowdown in ice loss was just around the corner after the large losses of 2007 and 2012, states the England team. This despite the ensuing pause which many have shown was “entirely consistent with what climate models simulate”. What utter bunk. How brave do you need to be to understand past sea ice cyclical trends? How much intelligence is required to abstain from making ludicrous predictions of an ice-free Arctic on the basis of two years’ data? And why give a free pass to a redundant American politician looking for a role who has helped cause enormous societal distress and economic destruction by inventing a climate crisis primarily designed to impose a supra-national collectivist agenda?

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.