Vinny Burgoo wrote:
"The summer meltback in the Arctic has ended and the ice is on the march ..."
I'm no fan of global warming alarmists but here is the latest snapshot of the Arctic Sea Ice Extent:
This year's minimum extent is unlikely to be smaller than last's but it probably won't be larger by much.
Mr North, you're a good man. Your blog is the tops. But your real beef with the climate alarmists should always be their alarmism. It's almost certainly true that Man is nudging globally averaged temperatures slightly upwards. So it shouldn't be vastly surprising that a 20- or 30-year average of sea-ice extents shows a decline. Beyond that, any claims by anyone to certainty and "consensus" are almost certainly hokum. Nobody nowhere knows what this slight mostly theoretical upwards trend will do on a regional or local level. Nobody. Really. Nobody at all. The models can't do that.
And nobody nowhere has ever proved that - or even convincingly hypothesized how - net climate feedbacks will convert a slight theoretical warming trend into a real-life runaway doom. The science can justify claims that Man is slightly warming the world. What that might mean in practice, nobody knows. (Am I repeating myself?) But the overwhelming probability (for all sorts of reasons, not all of them bearing the increasingly corrupted imprimatur of Science) is that things will change so slowly that nobody nowhere will, when looking back, ever be able to pick out the Global Warming signal from everything else that was going on.
I think your ice information is out of date - that is why I use Cryosphere Today, which gives the most recent, unfiltered information. At this time of year, even one day can make the difference and if, as CT indicates, we have reached the end of the meltback, then this is highly significant for two reasons. First, it marks the earliest time since records began in 1979 that the ice reached its annual minimum. Secondly, it confounds the pundits who have been forecasting a continuous decrease in ice extent, and who have failed to predict an increased minimum.
As to whether mans' activities are "nudging" the climate is anyone's guess but, with the current climate trends, any effect is easily buried by the macro-effects of natural variation. However, the preponderance of (undisputed) evidence is that we have entered a cooling period, the extent and duration of which we do not know. That was also not predicted by any of the models, which suggests (to no one's surprise) that our knowledge of climate systems is more sparce than even the most cynical of sceptics would suggest.
That is not to say that we need to be alarmed by cooling - per se. This is manageable. The problem is, as I pointed out, that in order to manage the consequences, we need appropriate policy responses. There, as long as policy is directed at reducing a warming effect that is no longer apparent, then those responses will be the wrong ones and will exacerbate rather than mitigate the effects of cooling. That really is something to worry about.