Sea ice levels are quite important to the discussion surrounding climate change. This is because changes in sea ice volume are considered the most tangible impact of changes in global temperature levels.
Climatologists and climate change enthusiasts have thus always followed the changes in Arctic and Antarctic sea ice volume. And Greenland also has been at the center of attention, as it hosts the largest ice mass outside of the polar regions.
Of the three regions, Antarctica has seen the most consistent gain in sea ice volume (increasing in mass during the past three decades, peaking in 2014). Since this statistic does not fit well with the alarmist doomsday agenda, climate alarmists have largely ignored Antarctica and focused on the Arctic and Greenland, the decrease in Arctic sea ice volume particularly touted as proof of global warming.
Al Gore, in his 2006 climate change documentary An Inconvenient Truth, suggested that both the Arctic and Antarctic would face a huge loss of ice because of global warming. However, contrary to popular claims, measurement of sea ice in these regions actually reveals that there has been no drastic reduction in volume, and global temperature has been largely stable, not headed towards apocalypse.
Arctic Sea Ice Volume
Prior to the Modern Warm Period (18th century to the present), the world was in a deep freeze known as the Little Ice Age (LIA). According to paleoclimate records, the highest Arctic sea ice levels in 10,000 years were observed during the LIA. This 10,000-year-old climate period is also known as Holocene.
Arctic sea ice volume has been on a steady decline during the last three centuries. The primary reason for this decline is the onset of the Modern Warm Period during the 18th century.
However, although Arctic sea ice volumes began declining after the end of the LIA in the 17th century, the decrease is not unprecedented, and the volume of sea ice is nowhere near the lowest recorded levels. Rather, Arctic sea ice is still at one of its highest levels in 10,000 years.
Furthermore, rising carbon dioxide emissions have failed to cause any drastic reduction in Arctic sea ice volumes. This corresponds to the stability of global temperature levels, which have shown poor correlation with rising concentration of atmospheric CO2.
2016 was the worst year for Arctic sea ice as a strong El Niño caused a dramatic increase in temperature globally. But sea ice returned to normal levels once the El Niño ended in 2016. Most recently, Arctic sea ice thickness for 2019 has shown no major deviation from the 9-year average (2004–2013) and has mostly displayed a close correlation with the thickness of sea ice observed during 2015.
However, nothing of this makes it into the alarmist news articles in our mainstream media. Instead they continue to peddle lies and fear, buoyed by even more and greater lies from authoritative figures like Al Gore.
The Greenland Ice Sheet
Greenland, like the Arctic, has shown no signs of abnormal deviation in the past three decades.
Danish Arctic research institutions provide up-to-date advanced data on Greenland’s ice sheet; gains and losses are carefully recorded in their Polar Portal site. Greenland’s ice sheet surface mass balance for 2018–19 is similar to the 30-year mean running from 1981 to 2010 and, in fact, overshot the mean during the winter of 2018–19. Even the drastic melting in July, 2019, is well within the levels of the 30-year mean.
However, the alarmist media provoke panic among the public whenever there is a steep decline. They do this by providing no context, totally ignoring the historic changes in the ice sheet and how the present decline or increase corresponds to the mean values.
Scientifically, there is no reason for panic about the volume of sea ice or the impact of changing climate on our polar regions and Greenland. On a purely historical basis, we have every reason to be happy that we live in a time of continuing health and stability of our polar regions.
This article was originally published at The Christian Post.
Featured image Photo by Filip Gielda on Unsplash.
louis wachsmuth says
I don’t understand, maybe you can help. Yesterday a very large document from the UN was released which was the combined research of a hundred scientists from far reaches of the earth. People who are out in the field, taking measurements with modern tools. Yet Cornwall Alliance, with no field researchers, knows more than all the UN scientists. How can this be? Second question, is there a tipping point that even Cornwall will have to admit there is a serious human-caused pollution environmental destruction worldwide? How about your own Ganges River in India? A total sewer of which millions are drinking its water? As world population increases, all water ways will become like the Ganges. The “dead zones” out side of America’s major rivers are growing yearly, most seafood is disappearing. No problems?
Ian says
Hi Louis,
I’ll try to answer your questions.
[1]
The United Nations is a political organization so documents they release are designed
to promote their political agenda as determined by the political bureaucrats.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is necessary for photosynthesis.
Growers raise the CO2 level in their green houses as high as
1500ppm while the ambient air concentration is around 400ppm.
When confronted with the fact that higher levels of CO2 improve
plant growth some global warming advocates have countered that
the higher levels lower the quality of fruits and vegetables.
If this were true then why would growers spend money to raise CO2
levels in order to produce an inferior crop?
[2]
China and India have some of the most polluted rivers in the world;
they are also the greatest producers of greenhouse gases so why
are they exempt from the Paris Climate Accord?
Perhaps the following provides the answer.
Quote from Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer
IPCC co-chair of Working Group #3, November 13, 2010
“We [UN-IPCC] redistribute de facto the world’s
wealth by climate policy…”
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that
international climate policy is environmental policy.
This has almost nothing to do with environmental
policy any more…”
———————————–
Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2010-2016.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting
ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time,
to change the economic development model that has been reigning
for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
J says
To answer your questions everything in this article is easily debunked nonsense. Artic sea ice volume has been dropping since the 1700s, but it has dropped more in the past 30 years than it did from the 18th century to the 1990s. Antarctic sea ice is expanding, because the continental ice sheets are melting. This is pure propaganda based on cherry picked facts, spun to fit their political agenda.
Ian says
Hi J,
I’ll assume you were replying to me but you failed to address any of
of my questions but let’s move on.
You provide us with some information that is meant to convince us
that we should be concerned about the rate of change of polar ice melt
but there is no context to draw a conclusion so please answer the following.
1. Dividing each ice cap into quadrants, what is the correct volume of sea and land ice for each cap for each of the four seasons?
2. What is the correct rate of ice melt or deposition for each quadrant for
each season?
3. What are the maximum and minimum volumes of ice permitted for
each quadrant for each season beyond which we should be concerned?
4. How do you know your answers to the above questions are correct?