Further scientific evidence has been produced to show that summer sea ice in the Arctic has shown no significant decline since 2007. The facts produced make a mockery of attempts by alarmists such as Al Gore and Sir David Attenborough to push the collectivist Net Zero agenda by stating that all the ice will be gone in just a few years. A leading Danish scientist notes a fall in sea ice between 1997 and 2007, but minimal loss in the 44-year satellite record both before and after this period. Furthermore, he concludes in a recently published paper that there is no apparent correlation between the variable extent of Arctic sea ice and the gradually increasing concentrations of the trace gas carbon dioxide.
Allan Astrup Jensen lays out the facts and states that “there is no indication that we should expect the Arctic summer sea ice to disappear, as predicted, in one or two decades”. Jensen is a distinguished scientist of long standing with over 300 publications to his name. He is the Research Director of the Nordic Institute of Product Sustainability, Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology, and sits on the editorial board of the Springer publication, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
The facts are very clear, as the graph below shows.
The red bar shows the monthly average for the lowest extent of summer sea ice, invariably reached in September. The fall over 10 years from the 1979-97 plateau can be seen, as can the resumption of the minimal downward trend from 2007.
The September ice trend from 2007 onwards can be seen in the following graph.
Even with the lower extent in 2023, the author notes there has been no significant downward movement during the last 17 years. The figures for these graphs come from the U.S.-based National Snow and Ice Data Centre where Mark Serreze predicted in 2007 that the sea ice would all be gone by 2030.
The decade fall to 2007 was catnip to many climate extremists, and remains so to this day. Declining Arctic sea ice has been one of the main poster scares of the climate catastrophists. Having lost coral on the Great Barrier Reef – two years of record growth – and polar bears – more wandering around these days than you can shake a stick at – alarmists seem loath to give up another old friend that has served them so well. In 2022, David Attenborough reported on the BBC’s Frozen Planet II that the sea ice could all be gone by 2035. Computer models rather than data were thought to be behind his claim. Jensen details other scaremongers including Professor Peter Wadhams from the University of Cambridge, who predicted in the Guardian in 2012 that there would be a final collapse of the ice within four years.
In 2021, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated: “The September Arctic sea ice is projected (by CIM6 model simulations) to be practically ice-free near mid-century under mid and high GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions.” The scare is also kept going with science papers like Kim et al. which predicted last year that the summer sea ice would be “completely absent” in one to two decades. Another author is said to have told the Guardian that it was “too late to save the summer ice”. The prediction was of course wrong, observed Jensen – “unsubstantiated, unscientific, absurd and alarmist”.
There is mounting evidence that Arctic sea ice is cyclical rather than linear, and owes a great deal to natural influences such as a powerful ocean current called the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). Historical observations going back to the early 1800s suggest considerable waxing and waning of the ice over periods of around 70-90 years.
In the near record, there is evidence to suggest that the sea ice extent was lower in the 1970s and it peaked in 1979, the year satellite records are said to have began. Of course by starting modern records at this date, a lower trend can be reported from what is a particularly high year. Investigative science journalist Tony Heller notes that there were satellite records available in the 1970s, and he presents two IPCC sea ice graphs – one published in 1990 and the other in 2001.
In the first graph the IPCC plots the lower levels of ice in the 1970s with a peak shown in 1979. But by 2001, the IPCC had removed much of the increase of that decade and the chart showed the ice actually starting to fall from around 1977. Heller also provides evidence that the 1950s, which are not shown on these charts, had lower ice than the 1970s.
Quite what role human-caused carbon dioxide plays in all this is somewhat unclear. No obvious correlation with regard to this one, as Allan Astrup Jensen and Tony Heller clearly show.
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.
Beautifully expressed, Jack. I have a child your age and thank you for speaking up on his behalf.
Seconded…except my kiddo is still in primary school. Always enjoy reading Jack’s articles as it’s so important and insightful to hear from a kid’s perspective just how much this whole fiasco impacted them. Never ever to be repeated. :-/
A suggestion I feel like making here: Can we perhaps stop making a topic out of the age of this guy? He tends to write sensible stuff and that’s what matters. Compared to that, whether he’s 14 or 1400 isn’t important.
It’s the perspective that matters, as Mogwai rightly says. my year 9 certainly couldn’t write like that so it’s great that Jack can represent his generation so eloquently.
”The origin of all correlation is causality.” I like that and think I’ll start using it. Anyway, here is a recent research paper which shows a strong relationship between the death jabs and infection/mortality in Europe. Any data-heads in the house may want to scrutinise it further as it gets very technical so here’s the abstract;
”This report investigates short-term causal vaccine-mortality interactions during booster campaigns in 2022 in 30 European countries (population ~530M). An infection-vaccination-mortality model is introduced with causal aspects of repeatability, random chance, temporal order and confounding. The model is simple, has few or even zero prior model parameters and is unbiased in causal mechanisms and strengths. Confounders are taken into account explicitly of mortality-caused fear incentivizing vaccinations and four related to covid infections, and generically for all long-term confounding. Bayesian probabilities quantify all interactions, and from
observed weekly administered vaccine doses and all-cause mortality, mortality on short-term caused by a vaccination dose is estimated as Vaccine Fatality Ratio (VFR).”
#VFR results are 0.13% (0.05%-0.21%, 95% confidence interval) in The Netherlands and 0.35% (0.15%-0.55%) in Europe, subtantially transcending covid IFR. Additionally, sewer-viral-particle experiments suggested vaccination induces covid-infections and/or reactivates latent viral reservoirs.”
#The evidence of a causal relationship from vaccination to both infection and mortality is a very strong alarm signal to immediately stop current mass vaccination programmes.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368777703_Causal_effect_of_covid_vaccination_on_mortality_in_Europe
During the Covid years children were treated appallingly; our authorities most certainly took advantage of their ‘good nature’ and tolerance of authority.
IMO the worst aspect of this abuse was in the deliberate (and documented) use of peer pressure to force hesitant children to comply with state diktat (eg, in making peers socially isolate children who didn’t get a dose of vaccine) — this is deeply unethical and I can only hope that there is a review of the way in which psychological techniques were used to manipulate (relatively) innocent children.
Adults should be reminded that today’s children are tomorrow’s adults. It is always a mistake to treat children unfairly, as in time they’ll be making decisions on our behalf.
The way that children were treated was child abuse. I had regular training in child protection throughout my career, the frequency & quality of which decreased over time, it was emotional abuse & neglect.
Incredibly few professionals working with or advocating for children called it out for what it was. Abuse. Pure & simple.
Agreed. And delivered solely to support the fragile ego of an incompetent politician and the power trip of teaching union leaders. And none of the above will be called to account and suffer any sanctions for the suffering they caused. See you next Tuesdays the lot of them. A plague on all their houses.
Jack … this is a very well-written testimony to the damage done to a generation of schoolchildren by the egotistical idiots in Government. There is no justification for what was done to you and your cohorts.
However, I am very confident that you will “survive and thrive” and have a great career. Anyone who can write and express themselves so fluently at age 15 (or thereabouts) has a bright future.
Whilst I’m not trivialising the situation you have had to deal with, my late father who lived in a rural location in Hampshire, was age 13 when WW2 broke out. That’s when his education was permanently terminated …. he and the other older boys were needed to work on the farms, replacing the men who had been called up.
He continued to educate himself throughout his life.
What a sensible young man and well written. I wept just reading how that imbecile of a health minister has ruined so many young lives spuriously and idiotically.
Judging by the recent disgusting behaviour of those in our Parliament walking out during Andrew Bridgen‘s speech it would appear things haven’t changed much.
The really worrying thing is that governments are full of Hancocks.
My daughter dropped out from her degree in music technology because despite that her last year and a bit was supposed to be heavily biased towards practical work, she was told it was all going to be on-line and there would be no practical work due to covid. The course had already had less practical work than she expected and as the practical aspect was what she had hoped to be instructed in and was the reason she took the course, once this was eliminated from it, she saw no point in continuing with it. I imagine there are many similar cases in many courses that needed similar person to person interfaces, which became inadequate or not completed due to educational establishments following Hancock’s unnecessary restrictions.
Hancock and I agree about one thing: Teachers are lazy buggers who don’t want to work.