A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year - an increase of 60 per cent. The rebound from 2012's record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores. The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century - a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has 'paused' since the beginning of 1997 - an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.


In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with '90 per cent certainty'.

The pause - which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre - is important, because the models' predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world's economies divert billions of pounds into 'green' measures to counter climate change.

Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.

There won't be any ice at all! How the BBC predicted chaos in 2007

Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a 'conservative' forecast. Perhaps it was their confidence that led more than 20 yachts to try to sail the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific this summer. As of last week, all these vessels were stuck in the ice, some at the eastern end of the passage in Prince Regent Inlet, others further west at Cape Bathurst.

Shipping experts said the only way these vessels were likely to be freed was by the icebreakers of the Canadian coastguard. According to the official Canadian government website, the Northwest Passage has remained ice-bound and impassable all summer.

The BBC's 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that 'we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice'.

He was confident his results were 'much more realistic' than other projections, which 'underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice'. Also quoted was Cambridge University expert Professor Peter Wadhams. He backed Professor Maslowski, saying his model was 'more efficient' than others because it 'takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice'.

He added: 'This is not a cycle; not just a fluctuation. In the end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.'



The continuing furore caused by The Mail on Sunday's revelations - which will now be amplified by the return of the Arctic ice sheet - has forced the UN's climate change body to hold a crisis meeting.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was due in October to start publishing its Fifth Assessment Report - a huge three-volume study issued every six or seven years. It will now hold a pre-summit in Stockholm later this month.

Leaked documents show that governments which support and finance the IPCC are demanding more than 1,500 changes to the report's 'summary for policymakers'. They say its current draft does not properly explain the pause.

At the heart of the row lie two questions: the extent to which temperatures will rise with carbon dioxide levels, as well as how much of the warming over the past 150 years - so far, just 0.8C - is down to human greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural variability.

In its draft report, the IPCC says it is '95 per cent confident' that global warming has been caused by humans - up from 90 per cent in 2007.

This claim is already hotly disputed. US climate expert Professor Judith Curry said last night: 'In fact, the uncertainty is getting bigger. It's now clear the models are way too sensitive to carbon dioxide. I cannot see any basis for the IPCC increasing its confidence level.'

She pointed to long-term cycles in ocean temperature, which have a huge influence on climate and suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend. This led some scientists at the time to forecast an imminent ice age.

Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, was one of the first to investigate the ocean cycles. He said: 'We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.

'The IPCC claims its models show a pause of 15 years can be expected. But that means that after only a very few years more, they will have to admit they are wrong.'

Others are more cautious. Dr Ed Hawkins, of Reading University, drew the graph published by The Mail on Sunday in March showing how far world temperatures have diverged from computer predictions. He admitted the cycles may have caused some of the recorded warming, but insisted that natural variability alone could not explain all of the temperature rise over the past 150 years.

Nonetheless, the belief that summer Arctic ice is about to disappear remains an IPCC tenet, frequently flung in the face of critics who point to the pause.

Yet there is mounting evidence that Arctic ice levels are cyclical. Data uncovered by climate historians show that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by intense re-freezes that ended only in 1979 - the year the IPCC says that shrinking began.

Professor Curry said the ice's behaviour over the next five years would be crucial, both for understanding the climate and for future policy. 'Arctic sea ice is the indicator to watch,' she said.

Intriguing! thx for sharing!

These so called scientists don't know a thing. Who pays these guys to stir up the pot anyways? Everytime we turn around, someones predicting Catastrophic events.

Well I didn't personally see all this Ice and see the yachts stuck in it, so should I believe everythung I read anymore? Give me all the FAKE proof you want. Its their story and I didn't believe the global warming catastrophy predictions and I certainly won't believe this new one...its all politics and about money.

Thankyou for the post though, it was interesting

The story about the ice sheet growing and causing (or resulting from) a "pause" in global warming was exposed as a hoax. The volume of ice has actually reduced.

not a hoax, where do you come up with this crap at?

you post a stupid graph and then say your right and everyone else is wrong?

i can guarantee i can post just as much crap about global warming being a hoax just as you can post it about it not being a hoax...

i'm starting to wonder if you know what the difference between opinion and fact is..

the "fact" is that neither one of as really know one way or the other about global warming... i choose to believe that its not happening the way the paid scientists that work for gore and the other green agencies are saying...

you seem to think everyone else is wrong, when you don't have anything but an opinion about it...

maybe you could look up the word "fact" in the dictionary, and get back to me when you understand what the difference between a fact and opinion is...

Well, actually this is the situation. I know more about science than you can imagine and I constantly correct the crap you post. If you did ANY real research, you would know the chart is correct and the original story is a hoax posted in a British paper and has since been made fun of by many. The area of ice sheet has little to do with volume of ice (a fact). The 60% referred to a record low, not the average (a fact). The trend is accelerated loss of ice volume. (a fact)

97% of the climatologists are in full agreement as to the cause and trends of global warming (a fact). The oil companies pay stooges to publish just enough misinformation to convince people like you that there is some question about what is going on... any you buy into it without the education or intelligence to do your own research to verify which is correct.

But to be more responsive to your exact comment, I'm saying 97% of the world's climatologists are right and you are wrong.

And here is the text of Brad's Blog where I FIRST saw the chart I posted. You can follow it to the source.

"British tabloid offers completely misleading and inaccurate claim that globe is 'cooling'; Fox 'News', Limbaugh and their reliable stooges help spread the irresponsible reporting like herpes...
By Brad Friedman on 9/13/2013, 6:11pm PT

Dear incurious dupes, stooges, patsies, pawns, chumps, rubes and suckers of the Climate Change Denial Industry: Please study the animated GIF below (courtesy of Skeptical Science) carefully.

That chart could help you become less of an incurious dupe, stooge, patsy, pawn, chump, rube and/or sucker of the Climate Change Denial Industry, which is the fully-owned subsidiary of the Fossil Fuel Industry, which also happens to be the most profitable industry in the history of civilization. (Remember that whole "follow the money!" thing you folks like to parrot when you believe you're being clever and think you're debunking global warming, but are actually only debunking yourselves? Yes, please do "follow the money" in this case. No, the money ain't going to the scientists, it's going to the Fossil Fuel Industry. If scientists were only interested in money, they'd be making the big bucks working for the Fossil Fuel Industry which is dying to pay for science that discredits global warming!)

But, I suspect you aren't really worried about continuously embarrassing yourselves at this point, now that you've surrounded yourselves with similarly incurious dupes who support the confirmation bias you seek for your disinformed contrarianist blather on a daily basis.

Yes, the dupes, stooges, etc., have a fresh scam they've fallen for this week, which they've been spreading broadly amongst themselves and others of late. It stems from a wildly (and purposefully) misleading article by David Rose in the British tabloid Mail on Sunday with this purposely misleading headline (the only part of the article, if any, that the dupes and stooges likely bothered to read anyway):"

Let's see if you have the integrity to withdraw the crap you posted?

here... post more your crap now...

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-antarctic-sea-ice-effects-climate.html

like i said, we can do this all day, neither one of will ever be right or wrong...

when you understand there is no facts in any of this, then we can get back to better things...


so keep on pasting your crap, i can counter every bit of it...

Look, both of you are wrong. The chart reflects this from both sides. the earth is not heading for ice age and its not heading for global warming. Scientist do NOT have "facts" when it comes to nature. No one does. Sometimes one will get lucky based on readings they measure but truth be told, scientist are just like weathermen, they can give a best guess only. How many times almost everyday do weathermen get it wrong? Alot. So put down the big sticks and worry more about making your lives more positive and happy then all this doom and gloom. Truth is, we will all be dead of desease, accidents, murder or old age before ANYTHING that changes the earths surface will affect us to extinction. Have a good day.

You posted the crap. I posted the truth and then you come back with some info about the antarctic cause your info on the arctic was wrong.

That's really sad. You won't admit that you were duped.

http://www.mojvideo.com/video-courage-the-cowardly-dog-snowman-s-revenge/173dc49666835957940a

Snowman`s Revenge

well all I nO is that for the last 20 years the winters in east Texas have gotten a lot warmer

i agree, they do seem to be not as bad as they used to...

see, that's the same thing i'm griping at metal about... there's a lot of absolutes in your statement, but no facts and only your OPINION... my opinion is that we will see a mini ice-age in the next 50 years, regardless of any man made influences in climate change... seems like people are forgetting that CO2 is what plants breath to make oxygen, meaning the earth will balance itself out, eventually...

OK I'll open another can of worms

Its HAARP messing around with our weather lol

HAARP
http://youtu.be/2TdIkI1ory8

More on haarp
http://youtu.be/4Noek5qkJ9I

http://youtu.be/SToVBicIrJU

This mixture of different types of Antarctic sea ice was photographed Oct. 13, 2012, by a NASA aircraft flying over the Bellingshausen Sea.
Much attention is paid to melting sea ice in the Arctic. But less clear is the situation on the other side of the planet. Despite warmer air and oceans, there's more sea ice in Antarctica now than in the 1970s - a fact often pounced on by global warming skeptics. The latest numbers suggest the Antarctic sea ice may be heading toward a record high this year.


Comment: "Melting sea ice in the Arctic?" We wonder if the so called scientists in the University of Washington:
a) live on the same planet
b) are dangerously ignorant
c) deliberately distort the facts
because last time we heard about Arctic ice, it was actually growing:
Ice Age cometh: Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year; top scientists warn of global cooling
NASA stumped: Summer Arctic ice extent among highest this decade, Antarctica "headed toward record extent"


While changes in weather may play a big role in short-term changes in sea ice seen in the past couple of months, changes in winds have apparently led to the more general upward sea ice trend during the past few decades, according to University of Washington research. A new modeling study to be published in the Journal of Climate shows that stronger polar winds lead to an increase in Antarctic sea ice, even in a warming climate.


Comment: Oh, so it's still a Global Warming, but we will find ourselves under a mile of ice...ahem...just like during an Ice Age? Don't let the corrupted science confuse you. Read Fire and Ice: The Day After Tomorrow to learn about the reality of the situation.


"The overwhelming evidence is that the Southern Ocean is warming," said author Jinlun Zhang, an oceanographer at the UW Applied Physics Laboratory. "Why would sea ice be increasing? Although the rate of increase is small, it is a puzzle to scientists."

His new study shows that stronger westerly winds swirling around the South Pole can explain 80 percent of the increase in Antarctic sea ice volume in the past three decades.

The polar vortex that swirls around the South Pole is not just stronger than it was when satellite records began in the 1970s, it has more convergence, meaning it shoves the sea ice together to cause ridging. Stronger winds also drive ice faster, which leads to still more deformation and ridging. This creates thicker, longer-lasting ice, while exposing surrounding water and thin ice to the blistering cold winds that cause more ice growth.
� U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center
Antarctic sea ice concentration changes from 1981 to 2011.
In a computer simulation that includes detailed interactions between wind and sea, thick ice - more than 6 feet deep - increased by about 1 percent per year from 1979 to 2010, while the amount of thin ice stayed fairly constant. The end result is a thicker, slightly larger ice pack that lasts longer into the summer.

"You've got more thick ice, more ridged ice, and at the same time you will get more ice extent because the ice just survives longer," Zhang said.

When the model held the polar winds at a constant level, the sea ice increased only 20 percent as much. A previous study by Zhang showed that changes in water density could explain the remaining increase.

"People have been talking about the possible link between winds and Antarctic sea ice expansion before, but I think this is the first study that confirms this link through a model experiment," commented Axel Schweiger, a polar scientist at the UW Applied Physics Lab. "This is another process by which dynamic changes in the atmosphere can make changes in sea ice that are not necessarily expected."

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Still unknown is why the southern winds have been getting stronger. Some scientists have theorized that it could be related to global warming, or to the ozone depletion in the Southern Hemisphere, or just to natural cycles of variability.

Differences between the two poles could explain why they are not behaving in the same way. Surface air warming in the Arctic appears to be greater and more uniform, Zhang said. Another difference is that northern water is in a fairly protected basin, while the Antarctic sea ice floats in open oceans where it expands freely in winter and melts almost completely in summer.

The sea ice uptick in Antarctica is small compared with the amount being lost in the Arctic, meaning there is an overall decrease in sea ice worldwide.


Comment: And again, we must wonder if the "bright minds" from the University of Washington talk about the same Arctic sea ice NASA said "was over 1.5 million sq. km above last year, and is thus at one of the highest late summer extents in the last 10 years."


Many of the global climate models have been unable to explain the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice. Researchers have been working to improve models to better reproduce the observed increase in sea ice there and predict what the future may bring.

Eventually, Zhang anticipates that if warmer temperatures come to dominate they will resolve the apparent contradiction.

"If the warming continues, at some point the trend will reverse," Zhang said.

Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.

A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.

Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.

The report is the result of six years' work by UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is seen as the world authority on the extent of climate change and what is causing it - on which governments including Britain's base their green policies.

But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.

Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was 'misleading' and they should focus on decades or centuries.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed its tune after issuing stern warnings about climate change for years

Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.

IPCC logo
� IPCC
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed its tune after issuing stern warnings about climate change for years

The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the 'leading hypothesis' among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean - which has got hotter.

The last IPCC 'assessment report' was published in 2007 and has been the subject of huge controversy after it had to correct the embarrassing claim that the Himalayas would melt by 2035.

It was then engulfed in the 'Climategate' scandal surrounding leaked emails allegedly showing scientists involved in it trying to manipulate their data to make it look more convincing - although several inquiries found no wrongdoing.

The latest report, which runs to 2,000 pages, will be shown to representatives from all 195 governments next week at a meeting in Stockholm, who can discuss alterations they want to make.

But since it was issued to governments in June, they have raised hundreds of objections about the 20-page summary for policymakers, which sums up the findings of the scientists.

What it says will inform renewable energy policies and how much consumers and businesses will pay for them.

The report is expected to say the rate of warming between 1998 and 2012 was about half of the average rate since 1951 - and put this down to natural variations such as the El Nino and La Nina ocean cycles and the cooling effects of volcanoes.

A German climate scientist - Stefan Rahmstorf, who reviewed the chapter on sea levels - yesterday admitted it was possible the report's authors were feeling under pressure to address the slowdown in warming due to the 'public debate' around the issue.

The draft report, which is not new research but a synthesis of all the work being done by scientists around the world, is likely to be highly disputed at the three-day meeting.

It will make the case that humans are causing global warming with carbon emissions even more strongly upgrading it from 'very likely' in 2007 to 'extremely likely' it is manmade.

But scientists are under pressure to explain why the warming has not exceeded 1998 levels although the decade 2000-2010 was the hottest on record.

Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists based in Washington, said yesterday: 'I think to not address it would be a problem because then you basically have the denialists saying: 'Look the IPCC is silent on this issue.'

Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the IPCC said yesterday: 'This is the culmination of four years' work by hundreds of scientists, where governments get a chance to ensure the summary for policymakers is clear and concise in a dialogue with the scientists who wrote it, and have the opportunity to raise any topics they think should be highlighted.'