Climate 'Experts' Said Arctic Sea Ice Would Melt Entirely by September 2016 - They Were Wrong!

Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more now than in 2012.

Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Moderey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.

Prof Wadhams, a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeats the assertion that the polar region would free of ice in the middle of this decade.

As late as this summer, he was still predicting an ice-free September.

Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.

For the month of September overall, there was 31 per cent more ice than in 2012, figures released this week from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) show. This amounts to an extra 421,000 (1.09 million square kilometres) of sea ice, making the month only the fifth lowest since records began.

Although a quick glance at NSIDC satellite data going back to 1981 shows an undeniable downward trend in sea ice over the past 35 years, scientists have accused Prof Wadhams and others of "crying wolf" and harming the message of climate change through "dramatic", "incorrect" and "confusing" predictions.

Dr Ed Hawkins, associate professor in the Department of Meterology, at the University of Reading, said: “There has been one prominent scientist who has regularly made more dramatic, and incorrect, in my view predictions suggesting that we would by now be in ice-free conditions.

archive.is/H77wI
telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion
wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/29/the-log-in-the-eye-of-greenpeace/
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Any anons have any pictures of old global warming scare mongering reports?

I found one site a while back ago that had TONS of them, dating all the way back to the 1930s! All archived. Can't seem to find that site anymore.

In the 70s they used to rant about "Global Cooling" rather than global warming as they do now. However ALL of their predictions to this very date have been completely wrong!

I want to make my on archive of this to redpill anons about all the FAKE "climate threats."

Bumping so ya'll see this.

A whole lot of liberal professors have recently been BTFO over this. Hilarious!

The general consensus is that yes climate change is happening, but there's no real proof humans are causing it
However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't clean up and stop dumping shit into our local environments though

Furthermore, even if it human caused, there's nothing you can do to stop it since the nations that put out the most shit are the developing ones and they have no incentive to stop

Well I agree we should clean up our environments, and promote recycling and all that but I still find it amusing that every single doomsday prediction has been utterly wrong for many, many years.

Humans do contribute to [some] environmental problems, but nothing that mother nature can't handle. I also find it ironic that even a small volcano eruption produces more Co2 than humans have produced over the last 100+ years. You don't see these scientists arguing that fact very often though.

I have come to the conclusion that these scientists are paid to push an agenda, global carbon taxes.

Society and it's crazy trends will start making a lot more sense if you remember that almost every person is born religious and that you don't need to be a Christian to belief that "We are all One in Christ" or that the end times are here.

Well, minus the religious aspect, I agree that the world and human life will go on no matter what. I don't believe there will be one single event, even multiple events, that will wipe out the planet or the human species. The world will go on even if there is WWIII and it rains nukes.

For example: do you know that there was a secret US military experiment back in the 1960s where they decided to nuke the upper atmosphere? They propelled dozens of nukes into the upper atmosphere (over Hawaii) to see if they could tear a hole in the ozone layer! Go look it up. Even after firing off around a hundred nukes they realized no damage was done to the ozone layer! The only damage done were some power outages in certain parts of Hawaii (likely from the electromagnetic pulse). It sounds crazy, but its true.

Mother nature is very resilient.

That's not something to boast about…
Peter was wrong and that's that.

FREEZE THE KIKES, ICE AGE NOW!

Maybe they need a little "democracy" dropped on them.

Reminder that you can't be an environmentalist if you want 3rd world immigration. The Sierra club used to be anti immigration, but were pressured to stop that by leftists.

You realize that a higher minimum means it will build a higher maximum and that if conditions continue it could well grow beyond the previous average right? The fact that it is rebounding from its low in 2012 (the year we had a massive uptick in solar activity) just shows that its doing pretty well.


My country is carbon negative and they still want carbon taxes, its obviously just a revenue tool.

...

Anyone got a better graph? Been searching and most are useless 1 year graphs.

Can't get grants from the government for ocean/atmospheric science research without cucking for global warming.

Global Warming / Climate Change is bullshit, but so is your image.

Have they ever been right about anything? I would actually like to know.

"This Will Be the End of the Arctic Icebergs," Says Increasingly Nervous Man for Seven Hundredth Time this Decade

Congratulations for being the biggest idiot in the world. Carbon taxes are levied on Carbon Dioxide (CO2) not Carbon Monoxide (CO). You exhale CO2, cars release CO2. While it true that almost all combustion also puts out CO, it is very limited as it is a sign of inefficient combustion.

If you actually believe in climate change you need to read a chemistry book

Climate change exists, you denier.

The only reason temperatures are rising is because we just exited a cold age. It was much, much hotter about 400 years ago

Read a book, CO2, and CFCs are heavier than the surrounding air. They never make it to the ozone layer

Well that's what you won't get. The two most important things in our environment that I can see are

1. Environmental toxins / chemical load. A combination of the things in our built environment that leech chemicals into us and the release or dumping of hazardous waste into the air and sea. NOT carbon, NOT CFCs, but things like mercury, cyanide, arsenic, lead, xenoestrogens and other petroleum byproducts, they have made much of the stuff coming out of the sea too dangerous to eat full time, and I believe contribute to cancer and other diseases.

Also includes our built or manufactured environment, that which we take for granted as "non-hazardous", such things as plastic everywhere, chemical coatings on things that have great effect on those who go near them, chemicals used in the agricultural industry that get absorbed into the food supply, all these add up to our overall toxic load.

2. Localized particulate pollution. It comes a lot from cars, can also be from powerplants, this would be the measure of foreign particulate matter in the air as a function of parts per million. In some cases like shanghai or Paris you can lose visibility due to particulate matter, this sort of environment happening on a regular basis can cut life expectancy by up to half (Beijing traffic cops live an average of 38 years I believe?). Most cities are not this bad but still have their own problem. Hybrid cars can actually help here, but for the most part "congestion charges" serve only to annoy the working class; the hybrid car still exists mostly as an upper tier trim package not really affordable to most, and the wealthy continue to pay to have their giant petrol cars without stop.

Stopping either of these would mean upsetting wealthy jews, whereas climate change is a more vague thing that serves to justify global taxation through the EU.

sauce b4 I waste time on a fairy tale.

And it only will get colder and colder. As always.

The climate changes naturally. It's well documented.

who are you, who do you work for and why do you think you can slack off with these basic bitch shaming tactics

(just kidding you're probably new here)

Best graphs I have found are here.
He regularly writes about the sea ice and produces OC graphs and images.
You can search his site for all sea ice related posts as well.

ealclimatescience.com

polite sage for double post/off-topic

It wasn't over Hawaii, it was a fishbowl effect that caused radiation to arc through the atmosphere via the ionosphere and form an aurora over Hawaii. Knocked out electronics from a few hundred miles away because of it.
The project was referred to as Dominic. Vid related.

This one is the Starfish Prime blast, one of the few actual successes during the operation, and the one the first post I replied to was talking about.

It goes further. Understand that to achieve global agreements on CO2 goals, a large amount of general policy to facilitate worldwide negotiations, planning and actions, which would necessitate the formation of a body of government or at least empowered organization above the federal level to administer it. In the same way the League of Nations first formed as an organization ostensibly to "maintain world peace", it really laid the foundations for the cancer that is the UN.

Global warming hysteria is in reality just one cog in the perpetual crisis machine, along with the so called "population crisis", the "Middle East crisis", and the latter's attendant "migrant crisis", a forever increasing list of problems which besiege us to which all answers lead to the Globalist's ideal future of a World Government. All of this international cooperation and free trade, all of it, is to lay the policy foundations for an organization to grow and metastasize into a Global Administration.

You're right, it does exist. Human influenced climate change does not exist however.

We are exiting our current hot period as the sun cools down to its solar minimum starting this year.

That's kind of not how it works actually…
There area few major factors that affect the overall ice coverage. And it's entirely based on the overall trend. Unless if you get multiple years of record cold, the coverage will only expand, but the total mass will continue its net decrease.

Got a source for that image? Because I noticed that PIOMAS has an entirely different graph based upon their data.
It's kind of weird, because whoever L hamilton is, they arrived at an entirely different conclusion than PIOMAS did.

A note about my perspective (It doesn't matter really but who cares). I trust the data on AGW, but think that countries and corrupt af governments are pushing policies which are absolute shit shows.

Look what I was responding to. Climate change is not AGW.

The first graph is weird. It's 12 graphs, one for each month. The first graph would be the sea ice in Oct since 1979. Probably the same data as yours, just reformatted.

That's just it innit? Why is there a curve upwards when PIOMAS data doesn't show that? I included two other graphs from the PIOMAS source because the data looked weird. The person cites PIOMAS as a source, but their data representation is entirely different.

I've been a weather wonk for years, and my second degree (I have 2.5 (Associates in network analysis, geology bachelors, computer science bachelors) dealt with a lot of chemistry work (FYI, I hate everything that carbon represents. It's a weird ass atom and that's that), so when it comes to the infrared properties of CO2, I tend to trust the data, but think that a uniform warming curve is wrong as CO2 concentrations tend to be higher in the polar regions. I don't think that the current science represents this well enough. It's led to an overall higher temperature, which means that water vapor is held easier in the antarctic (And also a good explanation as to why they're seeing ice increase. More water vapor= more precip= more ice). So when it comes to the CO2+water vapor increase = warming, I tend to trust that. I'd like to see more process of elimination studies concerning solar irradiance as a whole though since there's only like 5 studies that deal with that. It's a weakness that needs to be heavily studied so that exact changes are better known.

So I tend to keep my criticisms very specifically dialed into governments and shit.

I tell ya though, when I was doing field work with Dr Holtz last year (He's a paleontologist), one of the most fun things I did (I'm weird I know) was extrapolating the sites past climate based upon the rock record. Neat shit seeing the minor geologic indicators of climate.

Probably cause it only goes until 2015 where there was an increasing trend. I've also seen this graph, but I don't know how they reconstructed the ice levels.

I agre about water vapor. That's the worst greenhouse gas by far. Humans have undoubtedly increased co2 levels but that's the only 100% undeniable thing of AGW research.

that should be
realclimatescience.com
sorry I queered the link

REPORTED FOR OBVIOUS PAID SHILL

No one has ever said anything about carbon monoxide, you cocksucking faggot.

Reported for obvious shill.

Recent sea ice graph along with genius prediction

wrong picture

Trump curse eh?


I do know that the antartic is making record ice thickness gains, not sure about arctic.

Latest data suggests that it's generally thinner and that it tends to not last too long.


He's made fun of by climatologists. The general consensus is that "Oh fuck. We have to deal with yet another politician making up bullshit claims when the variability does not support an ice free arctic, which is impossible by the way due to the reduced sunlight reaching it. But what the fuck ever. We got funding. Let's buy that NASA drone and do some Greenland ice sheet research" - Literal conversation. Nasa has a drone out at wallops. It goes up to Greenland and such to do aerial ice studies for various projects.

Also, can I just say that drones have the best software?


I'm talking about the trend in… Oh hell I read that damn graph wrong. The data is correct.

Pardon me whilst I go an hero or something for sheer idiocy. I definitely needed that hour break to replace the wireless card in this computer. Gave me time to look at that graph with a fresh set of eyes tbh.

We could genocide them. And we should genocide them.

daily reminder that The Day After Tomorrow was filmed produced and released explicitly because of the both the global warming and cooling narratives played off each other and was lauded by the climate change conspiracy theorists as a possible scenario albeit less cinematic.

The climate changes every day, it's called the day/night cycle. And it also changes throughout the year, we even have word for it, "seasons".

The point of contention is that trace amounts of CO2 (literally less than 1%), nd cow farts, are somehow going to kill all life on earth by raising the temperature by a single degree. It's a complete load of bulshit and you'd have to be utterly indoctrinated to believe it (this isn't directed at you user).

Indeed, the entire reason for the hysteria around climate change is so they can introduce "carbon credits". A recent newreport in New Zealand explained it like this.
It's literally a tax on a nation for not being infested with shitskins that care nothing for nature. And of course, an international global tax requires an international governing body for the whole world; a One World Government, if you will.

To be a little more accurate it is 0.04% user
400 parts per million

I watch that shit with Rifftrax on the first snowfall of every year. It’s one of the few lights left in my life.

That 1977 time.


Ho ho ho.

...

If you believe the climate is static, then you need to hike the Appalachian trail. The ice ages of the past left undeniable scars on the landscape. Leave your city or suburb, spend some time in nature, and you will find them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion

climate change in the context that user is talking about is the popular conspiracy theory of man made climate change, i presume

Some anons said the Ice Age will come on 2030. Is this true? That is 14 years to go.

...

Now they won't even measure the ice. They measure krill. Then say since they can't measure krill correctly there must be less ice.

bump cause I wanted to know.

Daily reminder that whenever a jew accuses his opposition of a crime, the truth is rather that he is himself is guilty of that crime.

wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/29/the-log-in-the-eye-of-greenpeace/

Looks like about 10 total tests.

Yeah and then wait about 3000 years for it to crank up.
Earth time creeps by in millennia not days or years.

>reddit spacing

And it all ties back to those who stand to gain from Americas demise.


Anyone here suprised?
Didn't think so…

What about Solar hibernation? They said it is long enough to trigger a ice age.

GOOD LUCK ICE AGE CHAN

one of the SWPL's at my college was claiming that global warming was causing global cooling when I told him the ice caps were growing

these are truly some of the stupidest goys in the multiverse

They will twist the words to make them look smart but in reality they just shoot their feet. If the ice age is coming then it will reduce the bogan population.

the pattern of the solar activity is similar to the maunder minimum

likelihood is what we're seeing is the rising temperatures leading up to the 90's, and the current period of stability in anticipation of a great plunge

the extreme weather may also be related, since some of the greatest storms in recorded history happened around that time back then as well

Yep.

If anyone remembers, the ozone layer was supposed to be gone ages ago too.

Global warming is the new eco alarmist agenda which is quickly on its way out.

What's the next big thing I wonder?

The only reason it isn't gone is because CFCs were banned. Don't be stupid.

This is completely false. They said very clearly it would be gone by now even if CFCs were banned. Not only that, but CFCs don't even have such a power, at least not the rates they claimed. It is simply impossible.

Didn't Al Gore make this claim during his nobel prize acceptance speech? Maybe you can use that.


Meanwhile… the ice sheet on Antarctica has been growing.

You shojld probably mention that as well because otherwise you are just being deceptive.

*should*

damn phone

One word: (((ICEBERG!!!)))
Pic related.

This needs to stop. The whole point of science is that you change your predictions based on new evidence. A 180-degree flip does seem suspicious, and has a whiff of a scaremongering conspiracy to it, but just saying "lol 40 years ago they thought it was getting colder, they don't know what they're talking about" doesn't make us look very clever.

Did (((they))) give you a time frame?