Dramatic Slowdown in Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Surprises Scientists (But Not Climate Sceptics)
The melting of sea ice in the Arctic has slowed dramatically in the past 20 years, scientists have reported, with no statistically significant decline in its extent since 2005. The Guardian (of all newspapers) has more.
The finding is surprising, the researchers say, given that carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning have continued to rise and trap ever more heat over that time.
They said natural variations in ocean currents that limit ice melting had probably balanced out the continuing rise in global temperatures. However, they said this was only a temporary reprieve and melting was highly likely to start again at about double the long-term rate at some point in the next five to 10 years.
The findings do not mean Arctic sea ice is rebounding. Sea ice area in September, when it reaches its annual minimum, has halved since 1979, when satellite measurements began. The climate crisis remains “unequivocally real”, the scientists said, and the need for urgent action to avoid the worst impacts remains unchanged.
The natural variation causing the slowdown is probably the multi-decadal fluctuations in currents in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which change the amount of warmed water flowing into the Arctic. The Arctic is still expected to see ice-free conditions later in the century, harming people and wildlife in the region and boosting global heating by exposing the dark, heat-absorbing ocean.
Dr Mark England, who led the study while at the University of Exeter, said: “It is surprising, when there is a current debate about whether global warming is accelerating, that we’re talking about a slowdown.
“The good news is that 10 to 15 years ago when sea ice loss was accelerating, some people were talking about an ice-free Arctic before 2020. But now the [natural] variability has switched to largely cancelling out sea ice loss. It has bought us a bit more time but it is a temporary reprieve – when it ends, it isn’t good news.”
The research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used two different datasets of Arctic sea ice levels from 1979 to the present day. The scientists analysed the sea ice area for every month of the year and the slowdown was seen in all cases.
To see if such a slowdown could be a result of natural variation, they examined the results of thousands of climate model runs. “This is not an extremely rare event – over a century, it should happen a couple of times,” said England, now at the University of California, Irvine. Furthermore, all the simulations showed sea ice loss accelerating again after the slowdown.
Prof Julienne Stroeve, of University College London, said: “We know climate records, be it in global temperatures or sea ice, can remain the same for several years in a row as a result of internal climate variability.”
Stroeve’s analysis of the long-term trend from 1979 to 2024 shows that about 2.5sq metres of September ice is lost for every tonne of CO2 emitted.
Worth reading in full.
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.
“melting was highly likely to start again at about double the long-term rate at some point in the next five to 10 years.” Another prediction to add to the list of pure unsubstantiated climate alarmism.
Al Whore said the Arctic would be ice free in 2014. I would guess that ice mass is increasing, and over the long duration nothing is happening, but as you said, they will say that the ‘pause’ means ‘it is worse than we had ever imagined…
The words ‘straw’ and ‘clutching’ come to mind. And in all these decades not a single prediction has come true. Climate science fiction is another area ripe for a good DOGE leaving the globalist fascist billionaires to pay for it if they want. Perhaps we could then tax it.
I wonder if any of these so called scientists are willing to wager anything on their predictions. Like their homes. Will they bet their homes on these predictions of theirs?
I somehow doubt they would.
They only bet their funding. Whatever the narrative wants is what they will profess.
But, but, but….. “all the simulations showed sea ice loss accelerating again after the slowdown “. Another prediction bound to bite the dust?
The models are clearly junk and, at best, are an approximation of reality. On their own they prove nothing.
Fascinating how they can hold a straight face and claim that its
This highly precise prediction is based on what? Telling fortunes with chicken gizzards and ankle bones?
Don’t forget however, we must “Follow The Science™”
Maybe it is polar bear entrails and now there are so many of them the message has got confused.
The 1979 start date used fits the coverage provided by the satellites launched at that time, it was also a convenient time as it was the date of a peak in sea ice extent. Came across this reconstruction a while back of the minimum sea ice extents for September dating back to 1900.
What does Stroeve’s analysis show for the period 1925 – 1979?
Climate science in summary.
The Earth’s climate started in 1860 (since records began) – before that it didn’t have one, global warming started in 1979, before that there never had been any, CO2 took complete charge of the Earth’s climate during the 1990s but prior to that it had played no part, and there was no Arctic Ice before 1979, sea levels had never risen before the 20th Century, the Earth’s climate and environment have been in complete stasis until we started burning coal and building steam engines.
Things run in cycles but to this day they are not able to say what triggers the cycle changes. We know what ENSO is but there is no explanation for why it occurs and in which phase so consequently predictions of it are just as bad as all their models.
“… and melting was highly likely to start again at about double the long-term rate at some point in the next five to 10 years.”
A claim that is backed by no evidence and is unfalsifiable – the modus operandi of the Climate Cult and its pseudo-science.
Translated: the scientists found results that didn’t square with their preconceived ideas, they have no proper explanation for the reason for this deviation but are quite confident that at some point in the near future, yet to be defined, things will definitely start getting much worse again, and twice as fast as before, because reasons.
Just shows all their models are GIGO cr@p!
If natural variability¹ can cause ice levels in the Artic to increase, it obviously also can cause them to decrease. So, why are “scientists who said” certain that the former must have been caused by “nature” without significant “human” influences while the latter must be caused by “humans” without significant “natural” influences?
¹ Really code language for “something happend and we don’t know why.”
People will say anything if their job depends upon it.
Our models failed to predict their own inadequacy!
So the results didn’t fit the settled science so the answer is to say well we may have been totally wrong but wait and we’ll be right eventually?
2.5 sq m of September ice lost for every tonne of CO2 emitted? Cause and effect? Not necessarily. Might be coincidence.
The Science(tm) says it is true. Evidence is not needed.
It gives me the creeps that every paragraph of this piece of ‘journalism’ that starts with a factual statement of the study’s results has to end with a ‘but that’s not really what’s happening, so don’t stop supporting the decimation of everyone’s living standards on shaky evidence’. And that I didn’t use to notice that that’s what was being done.
It’s not even shaky evidence but actually, no evidence, if not evidence to the contrary: If there was an existential crisis for mankind caused by man-made CO₂ emissions, global CO₂ emissions would need to be reduced as a matter of urgency. But that’s not the plan, the plan is highly expensive “CO₂ bungee jumping” in so-called developed countries despite these overwhelmingly don’t contribute significantly to global CO₂ emissions.
Ergo: The climate savers obviously don’t really believe in their own stories. That’s just something we are supposed to believe in to accept their demands for £££.
” However, they said this was only a temporary reprieve and melting was highly likely to start again at about double the long-term rate at some point in the next five to 10 years”
Inote they come to these conclusions by studying the many models!
Models! Aaargh!
“Stroeve’s analysis of the long-term trend from 1979 to 2024 shows that about 2.5sq metres of September ice is lost for every tonne of CO2 emitted.” I suggest that this is BS unless he can prove that (man-made?) CO2 is driving temperature change. More GIGO models I suppose.
If they knew what was actually happening with the climate they would have been able to predict this, but didn’t so they obviously don’t know everything about the climate, they can’t predict the future, their climate models are wrong and the science is not ‘settled’.