Climate Blockbuster: New NASA Data Shows Polar Ice Has Not Receded Since 1979

global.daily.ice.area.withtrendBy Paul Joseph Watson, prisonplanet.com

Global warming alarmists claimed Arctic ice cap would be gone by now, but sea ice is 5% above 35 year average

NASA has updated its data from satellite readings, revealing that the planet’s polar ice caps have not retreated significantly since 1979, when measurements began.

Indeed, the polar ice has, for almost three years now, remained above the 35 year average.

The data shows that the ice caps remained at more or less the same level until 2005, when they slightly receded for a few years.

However, the 1979 measurements represented the tail end of a 30-year cooling period, meaning that a higher level of ice was taken as the baseline measurement. Everything since has been compared to those figures.

The figures show that by 2012, sea ice was down almost 10 percent from the figures measured in 1979. This was used by warming proponents to forecast disaster.

Those alarmists, however, ignored the fact that total polar ice had only receded by a modest amount, no where near ten percent.

Al Gore used the 10 percent figure and even warned that the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

In reality, by 2012 ice quickly came back and even surpassed the 1979 readings, reaching a new record maximum in the Antarctic in 2014. Since that time it has remained above that previous baseline.

According to NASA’s latest data, it is now 5% above the mean average.

This is not to say that the ice will not retreat again at some point. It is generally considered that the Earth’s temperatures are still rising slowly since the so called ‘little ice age’ which ended in the mid 1800s. The rise is thought to be due to a combination of natural and, to a much lesser extent, human influence.

Still, alarmist headlines continue to be used in respect to polar ice, with some claiming that satellite data shows ice is melting at an unprecedented rate.

Not so, according to NASA’s newest data.

NASA is on it’s best behavior with regards to climate data, since it emerged recently that the agency may have altered weather station data to falsely indicate warming & sea rises.

Critics, or “deniers” as the mainstream media would call them, charge that the data that has been so relied upon to ‘prove’ global warming’s trend for years, has been in fact manipulated.

President Obama will today give a high profile speech on climate change as the biggest threat to national security, according to the New York Times.

Obama will tell those gathered that “Climate change, especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security — our economy, infrastructure, and the safety and health of the American people.”

In a report issued Wednesday, the White House said climate change would act as “an accelerant of instability around the world,” could escalate global tensions, and lead to overpopulation. The report also declared that a warming Earth will “change the nature of U.S. military missions.”

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is a London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

  • Dog

    Lets not forget that the data gathered is slim pickings. That is, very little data has been gathered about subsea perafrosts, etc…

  • Dog

    “In a report issued Wednesday, the White House said climate change would act as “an accelerant of instability around the world,” could escalate global tensions, and lead to overpopulation. The report also declared that a warming Earth will “change the nature of U.S. military missions.””

    Those who are attuned are well aware that this is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Anyone in their right mind knows that there are several naturally occurring mechanisms in place that somewhat keep our climate in balance after billions of years of evolution. The true threat is environmentally destructive industries, such as Monsanto, who are systematically destroying these natural mechanisms by genetically engineering crops to act as pesticides all year round. Hence the reason why the honey bee is becoming extinct. Most plants during spring release natural pesticides for only a month so that they have a chance to grow, but now their poisons are being released all year round which is even making humans sick…

  • Here is what nasa has published.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

  • Ryan

    The global sea ice area remaining unshrunk DOES NOT mean that ice is not melting. Please if you are going to form an opinion about this do any amount of research into what scientists on the ground in Greenland and Antarctica say about the issue.

    The ice surrounding the polar ice caps is many hundreds of times thinner than the ice that composes the bulk of the polar ice caps. It is the ice underneath these much more massive chunks that is melting, which in turn causes pieces of land ice to break off and float out into the ocean, which is why the polar ice caps appear to be expanding.

    Presenting this data as a reason for why global warming is a hoax is irresponsible. If you are going to join in a discussion about an issue that could potentially mean a major challenge for humanity you should give more care to your research and be more thoughtful in forming your opinion.

    • Judith77

      The graph of co2 levels on the program Cosmos is what is alarming my teenage sons. I believe there is alarmists and there is refuters; it seems I am somewhere in the middle but want TRUTH. When I was in high school I was tortured by fear of global cooling.

      • Judith77

        I also know that governments have been corrupt since the beginning of time. Overpopulation is a myth and regulations are put in place more to control and tax than any warming concern.

        • Ryan

          I really don’t mean to come off as an alarmist. I care about the issue, but I’d never call this a life or death situation. The data about climate change seems scary because it is scary, but I don’t think anyone thats serious about climate change would say that if we don’t stop this it will likely ruin your son’s future lives or anything like that. However, I don’t think it’s wise to sit around and wait to see if anyone in the government has been stretching the truth about this. Ignore anything politicians are saying and just look at the massive amounts of non-political information that talks about the subject. All the many many reports by scientists, books, documentaries, articles, etc.. are not secretly being controlled by the government. Maybe they have a bias in them, just like everything has a bias, but read between the lines and looks at the huge amount of information before you draw your conclusion.

      • LouisD

        Here are facts they never tell you Judith.

        1. H2O or water in 100 x more common as a vapor in the atmoshere, and 40x as common when measured by weight. They tell you that CO2 is 2x as powerful a GHG as H2O which when compared on s molecular count of 1:1 is true. But when compared on a weight:weight volume of = values, H2O is 22% more powerful as a green house gas and there is 40 x the H2O as CO2 in the air. Therefore, H2O is 50 x the importance of CO2.

        2. The arguments surrounding GHGs are minor compared to normal re-radiation of all thermal masd heat sources that absorve energy from the sun and then shed it back into the atmosphere at night and during the day. Think of your oven at home. It is hot because thermal masses inside get hot and radiate that energy into the air trapped inside it. Put you hand on a stone or metal tombstone or concrete pavement at night after a long summer day. It is transferring heat back into every molecule of air with which it comes in contact. It would do that with or without any GHGs. N2 and O2 make up nearly 96% of the atmosphere not part of CO2 and H2O components. While they do not directly trap solar energy and are somewhat invisible to it, they are still an enormous thermal blanket that is heated from the sondary radiation of the surface landmasses an water, seas and oceans. They are warm because the surface gains solar energy, heats and then cools at night transferring that heat to the dark night air.

        3) To summarize 1 & 2, Water is 50 x more important than CO2 as a GHG. The thermal mass transfers are roughly 18 x as important as water in heating the atmosphere. Therefore CO2 is but 1/1800th of the reason the atmosphere is warm at all. Not significant in the big global picture.

        • LouisD

          I meant 1/900th but I am unable to go back and edit the bottom lines on this mobile device.

    • LouisD

      Nice propaganda attempt, but untrue. Surface ice us always relative to undersurface volume. The overall volume is greater. Also , the calving of glacial ice from landborn sources is not evidence of less icepack. It is evidence of increasing glaciation that results from expanding glaciers.

      The breaking off of a huge (California sized) part of the Ross ice shelf a decade ago was not evidence of global warming. It was evidence of the laws of physics at play on the variably floating portion of the ice mass at a breaking hinge point near the non-boiant land born art of the entire ice feature. That propagandists funded by grants from idiot governments cheat true science and make quite false claims as to cause is just evidence of mass corruption and that most scientists have become part of the court monarch’s plan to solidify and expand political power. You are a dupe and a bad one at that. Your argument has no actual validity in science.

  • LeAnn Boser

    Funny how the links to the data referred to do not go to the NASA website. If they did though it would show that this article, it’s arguments, and indeed most of the “facts” used to deny climate change are fabricated.

    • Asshole

      Are you referring to the link in the original article? I clicked it and it did, in fact, go to the NASA website.

    • LouisD

      Bullshit, and I know many scuentists in the fields af chemistry, physics and geology that would argue changing the claim does not change bogus science. No intelligent, educated person denies that climates change They always change. In fact the relative regukarity with which they change is never questioned…but neither are these scientusts alarmists or claiming unprecidented changes are occuring. That is total crap. Only the one world government left claims that. Of course climate changes. But a miniscule rise in a relatively unimportant component of the total GHG model is not causing the atmosphere to warm (and I do question even that assumption). CO2 is x math only 1:50th as important as water in the HERV cycle, and combined those GHGs only account for 1/36th of the reason the air is warm at all.

  • LeAnn Boser

    Read the actual report here. In fact avail yourself to the huge amount of data available on the NASA site. It comes complete with pictures and references to the actual science used to compile the data.
    http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/2015-arctic-sea-ice-maximum-annual-extent-is-lowest-on-record

  • LouisD

    One area climate models completely ignore are the obsorption of solar energy that is trapped by the entire gkobal botanical ecosystems and stored until millions of years later. This is a slow process, but very real. The coal burned today is the effective release of the suns energy captured 300 million years ago. AGW alarmist will say, yes we are releasing millions of years of energy back nto the atmosphere in just hundreds of years. That argument would be effective if 300 million years ago the entire global botanical mass was as advanced and all encompassing as it is today. But it wasnt. It comprised perhaps a thousand species in only very small areas of the earths land masses…rich ys, but limited. From thence came coal. The earth’s enormous botanical diversity probably traps half again as much energy as humans artificially release in a given year. In warm climates, botanicals expand and in higher CO2 atmospheres they absorb and grow far more rapidly. Yes GE the trees do not hug CO2 limiting houses and factories. The trees would all prefer to hug the CO2 producing smoke stacks for the most part.

    The warmer the climate, the wetter and greener it gets. The Sahare went from swamp to sand in a thousand years because the mid Holocene climate cooled 2-5 degrees, not because it got warmer.

  • Aiden

    Look at basically all the charts that this webpage has:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    Give me one related to sea ice coverage that corresponds to out chart in the article. I believe NSIDC has messed with the charts!

  • Tod Inherit

    There is less ice at the North Pole:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.