The dramatic, if largely unpublicised, recovery in Arctic sea ice is continuing into the New Year. Despite the contestable claims of the ‘hottest year ever’ (and even hotter in 2024), Arctic sea ice on January 8th stood at its highest level in 21 years. Last December, the U.S.-based National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) revealed that sea ice recorded its third highest monthly gain in the modern 45-year record. According to the science blog No Tricks Zone, the reading up to January 8th has now far exceeded the average for the years 2011-2020. It also exceeds the average for the years 2001-2010, and points directly upwards with regard to the average for the years 1991-2000.
The graph below shows the scale of the recovery compared to all the years tracked in the modern satellite record.
Of course this is only about half a winter’s worth of data, and we must be careful not to follow alarmists down their chosen political path of cherry picking and warning of climate collapse on the basis of individual events. But as we have seen in recent Daily Sceptic articles, the current recovery in Arctic sea ice is a climate trend that can be taken back to around 2007. In a recent paper, the Danish scientist Allan Astrup Jensen provided data showing a fall in the sea ice between 1997 and 2007 but minimal losses in the 45-year record both before and after this period. The investigative journalist Tony Heller draws a four-year moving average to show a small recovery in the lowest ice extent in September from around 2012. He also notes that 1979 was a recent high point, with lower ice levels in the 1970s going back to the 1950s.
Where does all this leave the alarmists promoting their insane collectivist Net Zero project? Stuck up a frozen creek without an ice pick, it might be suggested. In 2022, Sir David Attenborough told BBC viewers that the summer sea ice could all be gone within 12 years. Climate models fed with opinions and wishful thinking seem to have guided him in his lamentations rather than the actual data. But if the ice continues to roar back, it is likely that the sea ice scare will have to be retired, along with all the disappearing coral popping up in record amounts on the Great Barrier Reef.
Cyclical natural climate variations, observed in the past record going back to the early 1800s, appear to offer a better explanation of trends in the polar sea ice extent. Little understood effects of ocean currents and atmospheric heat exchanges are obvious drivers of the climate in the far north. Taking the view that humans, and only humans, control the climate temperature would appear to be a dead end in understanding Arctic glaciology.
Ditto Antarctica, where the cherry pickings for catastrophists seemed to offer good prospects of late. Last year the BBC reported on lower levels of winter sea ice than those recorded in the recent past. The BBC said it showed a new benchmark for a region “that once seemed resistant to global warming”. This inconvenient resistance of course refers to the fact that Antarctica has shown “nearly non-existent” warming over the last 70 years. Dr. Walter Meier from the NSIDC helpfully added: “It’s so far outside anything we’re seen, it’s almost mind-blowing.” The “mind-blowing” quote made headlines around mainstream media. Alas, Dr. Meier seemed to forget that barely a decade ago he was part of a science team that cracked the secrets of early Nimbus satellite data that showed even lower winter levels of sea ice in 1966
At the time, the Nimbus team won awards and the Daily Sceptic has been able to jog Dr. Meier’s memory on what he said at the time.
Even in the passive microwave record [available since 1979] for the Antarctic you see these seesaws where the ice concentrations go up and down, so extreme high or extreme low are not that unusual. What the Nimbus data tells us is that there’s variability in the Antarctica sea ice that’s larger than any we had seen from the passive microwave data. Nimbus helps put this in a longer term context and extends the record.
Three cheers for the longer record. It doesn’t seem to get much of a look-in these days as the Earth starts to boil. Below, Professor Ole Humlum maps the sea ice extent in Antarctica going back to 1979.
Allan Jensen looks at the same data and notes that any downward trend in the period was very small. The only discernible trend is a rise from around July 2013 followed by a small fall. Jensen points to a recent decline in 2022 and 2023. But, of late, any decline has been slowed with the NSIDC-recorded extent at the end of the last month only the sixth lowest in the record.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
How awful to find out that the ‘wrong sort of people’ are actually already members of your elite club.
[sarcasm]
Brilliant comment.
One can’t help feeling sorry for the anguish expressed so plaintively by the eminent Professor.
“Any pleasure I may take in the distinction of the honour of an FRS is diminished by the fact it is shared with someone who appears to be modelling himself on a Bond villain, a man who has immeasurable wealth and power which he will use to threaten scientists who disagree.. . . having him in the Royal Society seemed such a contradiction of all the values of the Royal Society
Perhaps Mr. Musk might agree with the great philosopher, Groucho Marx: “I don’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member!”
The Telegraph reports that anonymous Fellows of this worthy institution revealed that they will not voice their support in public, for fear of being ostracised – not least due to the unpopularity of defending Musk’s position on climate change.
Ah, so – climate change heresy, eh? Groucho had it right again – “Blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.” Unlike the gullible believers of the ecocidal Cult of Net Zeroism, mandated by Starmer and his abominable acolytes, Marx G put it very plainly;
“I’m not crazy about reality, but it’s still the only place to get a decent meal.” He saw long ago the basic flaw in modern human society, regardless of the level of so-called sophistication,:- “Only one man in a thousand is a leader of men — the other 999 follow women.”
It will be interesting to see how many of the sheepish Fellows of the Society follow this woman.
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. (Alexandre Dumas (Jr) 1865
Some scientist she is…
Nothing scientific about her. Another philosopher is all she is. Kantian theologist, a Relativist, a Stuff happensists, a Climate tard.
She is anti-science, like most of them.
Specialises in developmental disorders which seems apt for somebody who believes in global warming.
Oh well, never mind. Science is not built on consensus and needs free speech. If she can’t handle that, then good riddance and may she take all the other nodding consensus “scientists” with her.
Well said
What a self important cow she is!
I doubt whether Dorothy Bishop would agree with the following.
“If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part”
Richard Feynman
“Don’t pay attention to ‘authorities,’ think for yourself.”
Richard Feynman
“We live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television-words, books, and so on-are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.”
Richard Feynman
No, her head would explode.
The Royal Society has been captured, and therefore has lost its credibility.
In the Telegraph article cited, it quotes a Royal Society council member uttering the following statement: “There are quite a few, astonishingly, who don’t believe that man-made climate change is real.”
This clearly shows that a cult-like belief has taken over from science.
The Royal Society published its statement on climate change in 2020:
https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/
as if the subject is “settled science” (nonsense term).
Nearly all their Answers have been shown to be wrong by newer studies.
This is how science works, though that shouldn’t need to be pointed out to the Royal Society.
Moreover, essentially all the arguments presented boil down to a belief in modelling, which is essentially scientism, not science.
It would be nice to think that the Royal Society would publish a revision of their
statement using up-to-date research, but I’m not going to hold my breath for that.
The Royal Society also receives a substantial amount of taxpayer money.
You have to wonder whether that’s to ensure they only come up with the “right” answers.
When did Musk become sceptical of the idea of man made climate change?
If he has, I am glad.
Maybe he was mocking the save the planet brigade all along, by claiming that Tesla needs taxpayer’s money to build “plant-friendly electric vehicles”… I really hope so!
I would happily redirect all my venom from him to people like “Professor” Dorothy Bishop.
My goodness, it’s a tangled world.
Maybe I was wrong about Musk all these years. Hmm. I’ll wait and see.
I guess the offended lady and most of the Society are Rejoiner, globalist elite supporters. Any opinion outside the envelope they deem suitable for a leftie are to be condemned. Any member expressing such views has to go.
Dorothy Bishop, professor, is a member of the state bourgeoisie.
The point about the state bourgeoisie as a class is that it’s both a dependent class and a parasite class. Being utterly dependent on the taxpayers for its livelihood, its relationship with the rest of society is one of parasite to host. For this reason the state bourgeoisie seeks to bring the rest of society under minute, micro-managed control in a developing total-control state. Hence the adoption by the state bourgeoisie of the total-control ideology of marxo-fascism (aka wokism). Part of this ideology is, as we all know, the huge effort to squeeze all forms of intellectual freedom and independence out of society. Hence the need of creatures like Dorothy Bishop to silence and ostracise independent people like Elon Musk.
Parasite class…rather than elite class…I rather like the sound of that…how much more appropriate.
Something Iain Davis used in his book…..Pseudo Pandemic New Normal Technocracy.
I’m pretty sure that she would struggle to associate with some of the founders and early members of the society but that didn’t stop her joining. I’m also sure that scientists from the various golden ages would be appalled by the concept of settled science as they were always seeking to improve their knowledge.
I wonder how many of the Royal Society’s members support the idea that there are more than two genders.
She is entitled to her opinion, it is a great pity that self examination is not a strong point, the scientific community shut down discussion and debate regarding the causes of the pandemic, the reality of who and what percentage of the population would be seriously affected, they shut down discussion and debate regarding the efficacy and safety of the MRNA experimental products, and they supported criminal Lockdowns which we are reeling from to this day.
Science used to be about debate and testing of theories, unfortunately it has become a dogmatic, tyrannical religion for the promotion of Pharma, and Government funded zealots.
Musk may not always be right, but he has achieved wonderful things and believes in freedom for all, not just a tiny Oxbridge breed few.
“An Oxford scientist has resigned from the Royal Society…”
Which is all the better for it. The Clifford Suspension Bridge has left X in protest too.
It’s like observing 5 year olds.
Similar to the current government…or is that an insult to 5 year olds?
Probably. Five year olds aren’t grifters and criminals.
What very stupid woman! Standards of entry have obviously fallen since Newtons time.
My thoughts exactly. How on earth did this clearly stupid woman become a member of the Royal Society.
I’m not sure what values this woman is talking about because so far as the RS website is concerned its values are solely the promotion of science.
This woman takes herself very seriously.
Somebody has to.
Euphemisms for communist:
Social Democrat
Progressive
Liberal
Democratic Socialist
Socialist
Centrist
Centre Left
Centre Right
Remainer
And don’t forget now “Conservative” or “Tory”.
For balance we have Liberal Democrat = Fascist… the intellectual’s Communism.
The saddest thing of this is this: “But not every FRS approves of Bishop’s decision, and some have told the Telegraph, anonymously, that they support Musk’s fellowship”. People too afraid of putting their head above the parapet because some dusty old philosophy professor from Oxford has taken offence. Come on, show some spirit, PLEASE.
Yes, that is the most offensive thing about this sorry tale.
It proves that they should remove the science bit from the RS. Hello, I’m a fellow of the society. We used to do science but now we do The Science(tm).
Cat woman throws a strop. Hold the front page!
Your headline says “Scientist”. While I do not dispute that a psychologist/psychiatrist like Bishop may well merit the title Scientist she nevertheless appears to have no scientific qualifications to spout on about a subject upon which she frequently pontificates loufly and alarmingly: climate change.
Her position is funded by the Welcome Trust. Say no more.
“Prestigious”
Pah!
Another nobody who has done nothing and said nothing worth listening to
I am unsure whether an experimental psychologist can be truly classed as a scientist; equally I am sceptical of the decision to include psychology as a science as it seems to lack the objective nature that I have always considered a requirement for science.
Agree. There are too many variables involved in psychology for it to be a science for a start
Musk is not a scientist, has not achieved anything in science, so should not be an RS member. He should be offered something by the Royal Academy of Engineering.
The RS has exceeded its remit, but not just via Musk, also via adopting a “position” on Climate Change, even if the entirety of its members agree, such “positions” are unscientific. Does scientific integrity still exist in such bodies?
This Oxford scientist should just quit and leave it at that, but the fact that she thinks the RS will ditch Musk in response suggests another defect with the RS.
TheRS had a position on continental drift back in the day,the proponents of the theory were treated in the same way as today’s climate sceptics.The rest is history.
Had it existed in Ptolemy’s time I suspect I know where it’s opinion would lie as to the relationship between the Earth and the Sun.
The article says she is a scientist whereas the internet says she is a psychologist.
As much a scientist as Mystic Meg.
I’m trying to think what this woman has achieved compared to Musk (like or loathe him). The answer is SFA, so just go, nobody will miss you
The Royal Society has long been hollowed out by virtue signalling, hubristic Lefties.
Consider Geneticist Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society 2010-2015.
Nurse was one of the occupiers of Birmingham University’s Vice Chancellor back in the late 1960s and was already selling Socialist Worker on street corners, which he continued for many years. Now boasts of being a Labour Party Member for over 40 years.
As President of the Royal Society he was on telly a lot pontificating about Climate Change, or ‘Global Warming’ as it was then called.
I remember him being asked how much CO2 was already in the atmosphere. About 7% was the prompt reply. Actually then, about 0.035%.
Such an inspiration to us all. And he is VERY far from being the only one.
Well, that has probably increased the average IQ of the remaining members.
I don’t think she has ever realized that the motto of the RS is translated as ‘Take nobody’s word’.
So at last she has shown some wisdom in her decision. There seems to be several others who would do well to reflect on this.
The Royal Society has had a Professor specialising in language impediments in children, resign over Elon Musk’s climate science scepticism? Such a cancel culture academic is no great loss.
She’s a professor of neuropsychology. Very convenient to have existing raw material to work on.
What other kinds are there?
In science you question everything. So why can’t Musk question Climate Change?—-This silly Liberal Progressive (Communist) only reveals one thing by wanting rid of Elon Musk. That Climate Change isn’t and never was about science. It is a Political Agenda to be rid of Capitalism. It is about control of wealth resources and YOU, and Elon Musk in the new Trum Government puts a spanner in the anti Capitalist works. These idiots just don’t realise how absurd they are when they come way withe stuff like “We follow the science” or “The science is settled”——NOPE. What they mean is that they follow the Politics and that the Politics is settled.
This woman came from the scientific speciality that was used to push the Covid propaganda. So much so, that the majority of people still cannot accept that Covid 19 was 98% survivable and the jabs have a higher risk than Covid 19 in most age groups.
So she is either stupid or a useful State tool against the masses.
She probably doesn’t understand the depths of her own stupidity, which in her chosen field is irony at its best!
Rather than resigning why doesn’t she put a compelling case proving that anthropogenic climate change is real and thus prove E Musk wrong? Ah thought so….
What has ” her/ she” brought to the table?. Nothing of note I wager. The RS is an outdated concept that went down hill following Newton’s departure.
I wonder what the arrogant, “woke,” Prof Bishop has ever really contributed to the advancement of science?
I’ve never heard of her, so I suspect it’s the square root of SFA. But she obviously has a nice, cosy sinecure at Oxford which she is desperate to maintain …. so perhaps she was involved in the development of the AstraZeneca jab – now withdrawn because it was killing people.
So because someone doesn’t share your “views” they must be a terrible person, well here’s a thing dear, I agree with him and you’re not exactly a “scientist” are you?.
No great loss to the prestigious society!
That has shattered my illusion’s, I thought you had to be bright to be a member of the RS. There is a lot I don’t like about a lot of people but, I am not so fool hardy as to want to cancel them. I detest some peoples attitudes to some things but, not all things. What a boring world it would be if we were all made in each other’s shadows and images. Frightening in fact. It’s the road to hell or, communism.
It sounds as if the right person has left the society, maybe more from the cult of The Science(tm) will leave.
Sorry, Dorothy who?
I’ve heard of the other Musk chap though…
I thought Musk had restored free speech. Previously, it was the woke liberals preventing discussion of Lockdown and Climate Chane
God bless Elan Musk. Grateful to have him in our lives.
Marvellous, the whole damn lot of them can’t resign too soon as far as I’m concerned. Elon is absolutely right to call for the prosecution of Fauci. Rand Paul will incarcerate him sooner or later for crimes against humanity.
The vaccines have already killed millions, far more than the virus.
Elon is of course right about Climate Change. Most of the leaders across the world are laughing at the stupidity of the British following this scam.
The pompous posturing by Royal Society fellows is more likely to relate to their funding drying up rather than genuine concern for the citizens and climate.
Good riddance.
The only media that can be trusted to produce reality and differing opinions is X. The rest is bought and paid for.
Yet another high brow, left wing, academic who believes that anyone who doesn’t believe that her views are superior to anyone else’s should be disregarded. Rod Liddle said recently (on a different matter), “I had thought that was one of the things – one of the important things – that distinguished us from those insufferable middle-class liberal lefties who cannot believe that other people have views which differ from their own. And if they do have those views then they are not merely wrong, but loathsome. And perhaps reprehensible. And that those views shouldn’t count because they should be illegal”. His comments describe, exactly, what we see here; Dorothy Bishop, essentially storming out in a huff because someone had the temerity of holding a view contrary to her own. Good riddance Ms/Miss/Mrs/whatever Bishop, in my humble opinion.