The Positive Feedback Loop That Wasn’t Global Sea Ice Anomaly Over The Last Nine Years A Trip Down Memory Lane


Remember all of the hyperbole and foaming at the mouth about the melting ice and the doom of the planet? 

For those not familiar, this was usually called the “ice albedo positive feedback loop”.  So their bedwetting story went, the earth was loosing ice.  Sea ice, among other things, was said to be a major factor in our energy equilibrium.  That is to say, the snow and ice reflected much of the solar energy back out of the system.  So, because we had less ice, the earth would get more solar energy, creating a warming planet and less ice, and so on.  We were in a perpetual loop of warming doom!!!!  Text books and universities would illustrate it like so.


Source is some super smart sciency geoscience research division at Scripps Institute of Oceanography..

Terrifying!!!  And, look at what the anomaly showed!!!


Our demise was certain!!! 

But, that’s not what happened. 



Note that the anomaly is lower than what the crazies have deemed normal.  All of that forcing …..  the CO2, the methane, the ice loss.  Our doom was certain!  Look at the picture!!!  We were on a spiral to hell!!!



It didn’t happen just like skeptics said it wouldn’t.  There are many reasons for this, but, the largest reasons for the alarmist stupidity was that they didn’t understand things at the level skeptics did.  And, frankly, in spite of nature showing them how wrong they are, they still don’t understand things at the level skeptics do. 

Two of their largest mistakes in this notion is that they underestimate the albedo of ocean water at the sun’s various positions in the sky.  They like to average crap, but, the averages are meaningless because different dynamics apply when things are different.  The other large error the lunatics made was never understanding that ice acts as an insulator.  That is to say, it traps heat.  (Igloos being a foreign concept to the crazies, I guess).  Many of us said, if the ice recedes then heat would be released from the oceans which would otherwise remain.  I never once saw an albedo energy calculation which factored that in. 

I’m wondering how the sciency people will handle the data after the shutdown.  The graph above only goes to Sept. 29.  Since then, the SH ice and the NH ice have both increased relative to recent years, which for the SH only means more record extent.  I think this time next month, we’ll see arctic ice at about 2002-2003 levels. 

Lastly, let’s note what this anomaly is actually showing.  The peak global ices extent is about 23.5 million km2.  Well, we don’t know for sure, because the tools they used to measure the ice was pretty archaic compared to today’s standards.  Still, the lunatics believed it.  They were, and many still are, wetting themselves over a drop of about 1/40th of the global sea ice.  Operating under the assumption that the 1980s were what our sea ice was suppose to be. 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Positive Feedback Loop That Wasn’t Global Sea Ice Anomaly Over The Last Nine Years A Trip Down Memory Lane

  1. DirkH says:

    Positive feedback loops work both ways.
    Alarmists must therefore prepare for a glaciation now; or alternatively, admit that they were believing in computer models that turned out to be junk.
    Soon we can harvest Polar Bears in the UK! (instead of olives)

  2. tom0mason says:

    And of course there are a few other ‘little’ things missing from the models – no accurate method of modeling clouds, effects of the sun’s variation, thunder storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc., but that’s only the little stuff. No, the big thing that is missing is the lack of an accurate, verified, and published explanation as to how the climate works over the long term (60 years or greater).
    Here’s another little thing that they don’t fully account for, ozone –

    • suyts says:

      The problem with ozone is that they haven’t a clue as to what it’s doing, why, or how. In a climate argument I once pointed out that I hadn’t seen a calc accounting for the UV energy from the sun, or how ozone what affecting it. Crickets chirping.

      • tom0mason says:

        Yep, naturally made greenhouse gas and no one knows ….

      • cdquarles says:

        Keep in mind that sunlight both makes and destroys ozone. Relative kinetics matter here and matter a lot. No, they don’t have good numbers and won’t as long as they remain blinded by the carbon dioxide.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s