27 votes

Well, well, well - Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year with top scientists warning of global cooling

David Rose
Daily Mail UK
Sun, 08 Sep 2013 00:42 CDT

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.

read more http://www.sott.net/article/266106-Well-well-well-Record-ret...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

-1 for poor reading comprehension.

I did not say "the Chinese".


You deserve more minus points for equating the people with the government, i.e. for your collectivist thinking.

Citing Government as an Entity is Collectivist Thinking

When I read your post I assumed you were talking about countries generally because comparing government to all else is arbitrary. Of course large governments pollute more then anything else because nothing is as large as governments. The US Govt has approximately 500,000 buildings and 600,000 vehicles. But you are the collectivist by assuming government is an entity when it is no more than a bunch of people doing jobs. 22,461,691 people in the US in 2008. If the government didn't exist those 22 million people 500,000 buildings and 600,000 vehicles would be in the private sector still polluting more or less.


It's different if you "pollute" X particulates, say, when you are ADDING ECONOMIC VALUE in your "job" vs. the same pollution when you ADD NO ECONOMIC VALUE or, in fact, SUBTRACT economic value from the economy.

So, no, it cannot be compared at all.


I'm not arguing the economic value of government. I'm pointing out that you comparing government "pollution" to anything is inapplicable and the irony in you using government as a single entity and calling me a collectivist. You are changing the argument completely to "win". What did you say about reading comprehension??

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant...

...any more than water is a pollutant.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

Really? Can you support that statement?

I rather doubt it because the science clearly shows (for way over a century now) that CO2 is the thermostat that controls the temperature of the planet. In that way, you could call it natural or polluting, that doesn't matter, but you can't ignore that artificially increasing it will cause higher temperatures.

Picture a greenhouse. It receives sunlight through its clear roof. It has insulation and venting. By altering the vents, the owner can easily moderate the internal temperature to his desired temp at any day of the year. The Earth works the same way.

How can this be, you ask? It's because compared to the effect of the vents, the incoming sun has very little to do with the internal temp. When less sun comes in, the owner will close more vents. More sun on a hot day and he'll open them.

The Earth does this too. When it heats up, it begins processes that will eventually (hundreds of years delayed) lower the CO2 being created. When it cools off, CO2 eventually will be increased. The problem comes in from that delay. If we increase CO2 rapidly AND remove those processes that reduce it (forests), then temps will rise faster than the Earth can compensate.

It's simply irresponsible to parrot the MSM and fossil fuel industry talking points that it's not a pollutant without a full understanding of what's actually happening.

Al gore

Has investments in the Chinese slave factories, so it magically offsets the impacts.


Was coopted. The real environmental issues are ignored and we were guided into the new control religion of man made global warming (now branded as climate change). In this new religion of control, god will punish us is we don't make our carbon tax sacrifices to Obama, Al Gore and Rothschilds. Meanwhile oil spills, refinery fires, fukashima, deforestation, etc. are overshadowed by the phony carbon crisis.

What can be done about this?

From my perspective, little has been lost or gained in your above analysis of the current trends of "environmentalism."

The "real" issues have been a part of my worldview for more than 50 years. I first heard the word "eco-system" in a freshman college course in the '60s.

The "environmental movement" has remained about as anemic of force since then as it is now. In fact, it rivals the "peace movement" in its many failures to model any viable, global solutions over these decades.

Maybe, the time has come when the liberty-lovers take the lead and add Nature to our agenda of systems that need to be restored.

In fact, the NAP is rarely thought of to also apply to the other millions of species. This idea alone could start a nice, little paradigm shift.

Centralized power

Is the real problem, because the worst people will always use it to legitimize their own bad deeds and profiteering while eliminating thier competition.
I think the only chance we will have to create a sustainable world is through freedom of choice and private property.
Many will blast these ideas as ridiculous, but please consider the following:

1. Would you buy a product that caused environmental damage if given an informed choice?
2. Would you pollute, overhunt or overfish your own land if it affected your future profit?
3. Wouldn't you sue your neighbor if he/she polluted their land and it encroached on yours instead of expecting the EPA to take care of it?
4. Would you use oil for energy if something else much cheaper and cleaner available?
5. Would you support giant global multinationals that produce jobs outside of your economy and pay taxes in Switzerland, or buy locally produced goods that support your local ecomomy?
6. Would you keep water in your in your hydrologic cycle or support bottled water that ships the water into hydrologic cycles that run into the salinated sea never to return?

Some of these items we still have the right to vote with our dollars on, but the more the fascistic power structure gains centralized control, the more we will lose the power of free markets and private property rights. Enabling a centralized overseer will never end well.

Nature has our answers...

I have learned from several experimental projects in which I participated that attempts designed as environmental solutions based on force do not work. This applies on the local level as well as all the way up the chains of command to include attempts at global management.

We (the humans) don't need laws to compel us to wash our dishes or make our beds. There are many voluntary cultural behaviors that remain outside of forced, central management and continue to be passed down through generations because they are good ideas and common sense.

There is obviously a critical missing ingredient in our overall cultural infrastructure, though. Why else would all of our civilizations, one after another, fail? Unsustainability seems to be a hallmark of human nature. Nature-at-large is nothing if it isn't our wordly master on the sustainability of life.

Yet, we choose to marginalize the validity of her working models and ignore her hundreds of millions of years of successful survival strategies for all the other species.

It reminds me in some ways of Ron Paul's career.

I think you nailed it when you said

Cultural infrastructure. Our culture is not organic and has it always been feed to us from the top down? Materialism is a scurge on our planet no doubt, but I don't subscribe to the notion that it evolved organically out of our evil human nature. We were, are and will continue to be fed a steady diet of materialism because it benefits the few. I sometimes think how different and better life might be if we did not live in the phony Rockefeller petroleum based society we live in today. It is truly a false construct and a destructive one. I believe our human nature would make better choices if given the opportunity. I'm afraid we are all so complacent, dumbed down and dependent that we will never demand the power to really change. Instead, we will be brainwashed to self-hate our species and to support forced austerity (carbon taxes) and forced depopulation via eugenics social engineering. Our society is skewed to support the elite at any and all costs. One example of this is how Africa is not allowed to develop it's own resources and organically reduce population via becoming 1st world. Instead, they overtly sterilize their populations in their vaccines, while the multinational corporations like GE rape their resources.

I think Ron Paul achieved way more than he ever dreamed to. The fact that so many people are awake to the real power structures due to Ron, yet he is still alive is a miracle. Rand is a much better politician and plays the game. Rand may just have a shot at the presidency...we can only hope.

You may be over-generalizing, BSdetector...

"Top-down" may be bad government or bad economics. But, culturally, it has it place. Not only tribal units, but our basic family structures are top-down systems.

In nature, there are many examples of top-down and bottom-up controls of eco-systems. Sometimes top predators control the structure of population dynamics. Some eco-systems utilize bottom-up control like planktons whose populations are controlled by the avalablity of nutrients.

While we may be unduly controlled by and be un-naturally dependent on the "elite", they, their families and progeny are negatively impacted by environmental degradation, too. Even Bill Gates doesn't have enough money to order a totally mercury-free wild salmon for dinner.

And you nailed it too

"I believe our human nature would make better choices if given the opportunity. "

Would you agree that if given the technologies to become self sufficient on energy (and some other needs) and for a fair price, and we could do it with clean energy, that people would choose to do so?

If so, that would change the whole game, wouldn't it? No more energy monopoly over the government. No more forced indebtedness just to survive. Probably no more forced indebtedness for other things as well because at that point, we'll likely be self reliant enough to be able to walk away from central banking.

If so, it's a good thing then that the big changes coming to the energy industry are all centered around a 'purchase once and benefit forever' model and not a centralized 'rent the service' model.

Yes, many people would

Yes, I think many people would invest in energy self-sufficiency if they could.

It is a grand vision to conceive a civilization where most families or neighborhoods or villages all were stewards of there own personal energy sources under their own control. Add their own food production and water management to this scenario and all one could say is "what a wonderful world!"

But, "how many?" "how fast?" would do this out of the billions of us from so many market levels around the world (mostly impoverished) are the big questions.

I am doubtful that this leap for mankind is possible under current conditions and trends. Do you have a sense of what such a best-case timeline would look like? Have you seen any global projections regarding this in your research?

In my opinion, an unknown, yet powerful precursor idea must be appear and be adopted within a very short window of time in order for civilization to be able to veer off of its present trajectory into such a desirable new direction.

It gets better than that...

Not only are we headed for sensibly affordable self-ownership of energy resources, and water and food (over half of our foods in the short-term anyway), but nearly every other issue is being solved as we speak.

Picture unlimited communications in all forms being completely free (after buying a little equipment) by using a global mesh system. Add to that the security that comes with open source so that no one can snoop on you. Envision new types of schools that meld all the best 'new' techniques together so that whatever a child, or college student, responds to best is what they end up using. Just imagine more than one privately owned, publicly available mass transportation systems where autonomous control, high speed, cheap cost offers more benefits than any other system. Picture all of this built by small local factories scattered around to offer jobs to a community rather than robbing wealth from it.

All of this and more, is coming... is being laid out now... and is being organized in a manner that can quickly be rolled out to any community on the planet.

To answer your time-frame question, I'll pose a different one back to you. You may remember how ice distribution used to be centralized and only available to wealthy nations. Then one day, the refrigerator was invented. A few companies dominated their manufacture and they ended up being the sole factor in how fast fridges reached the masses. What if, instead of centralized manufacture, they had licensed and funded tiny factories that could support a few to a dozen counties. Anyone wanting to own a factory could qualify and get one, make fridges locally, and push them out to their local community. Now add in the mass awareness potential that we saw when the iPhone came out with it's latest release. That was insane in how fast it took over the market.

Another great example was the 1980's satellite TV industry. Those big dishes actually reached 5 million homes in 5 years. (That kind of penetration would kill any monopolized market right there.) They were big, bulky, finicky, prone to maintenance and most of all, very expensive for what they offered. The reason they went viral (in 80's terms) was that they broke the centralized control paradigm of television. People saw a full featured option that was a refined, complete, turn-key alternative to paying a monthly bill (even if it still cost 100 months worth of payments) and they jumped on it. Why? They realized that after 100 months of payments, they will never have to pay again. (Sorry that didn't remain true for long!)

Every one of these new technologies offers that same freedom. Now to get a full idea of the scope that's possible, go figure out your retirement date if everything you paid for 'each month' was magically paid off in 100 months and then free. Hopefully that should give you a sense of how long this will take. It's not 'overnight', but it's not 50 years either. As you can imagine, there are some major hurdles along the way (like trying to spend your playtime drawing chalk art when you're sitting in the current financial sandbox), but solving them has exponential growth to support each other. Stay tuned.


And I would add no more forced war :-)

I do believe that such technologies exist and have for some time.

Also agreed, but...

Once correction on what you said. These technologies haven't 'existed' and actually are just beginning to make it through testing/funding.

We're not talking about 100 mpg carburetors, onboard hydrogen from water or cold fusion. Those are the scams that have made funding the real solutions virtually impossible.

We're not even talking about wind, geothermal, wave or PV in the forms you've seen on TV. Those are the scams that have soaked up the funding and supposedly 'proven' to the public that it can't be done better/cheaper than fossil fuels.

We're talking about game changers that are merely breakthroughs in standard engineering that lies behind commonly accepted energy systems. In other words, not solar PV but concentrated solar thermal. Not wind turbines on a half million dollar tower but on a kite in the jet stream. Not floating platforms of PV in the ocean but massive (and massively cheap) spinning mirrors on the ocean which make desalinated water as a byproduct of massive concentrated solar.

There are so many others getting ready to hit the market that you won't have to worry about energy. The problem is that we have to stop the carbon tax and nwo crap between now and then.

Lots of Three-card Monte losers here on this thread...

I've been a member on the DP for many years. When it comes to our eco-system, many of us have fallen right into the PTBs and their MSM messengers' con game.

It is DP 101 to see through the political left/right smokescreen... "rah/rah for my red team" or "your blue team sucks" etc.

When it comes to the natural qualities of our bio-sphere, many of us fall to the same deception.

Do you really think this story is all about whether civilization has radically altered (and continues to alter) our eons-old natural systems or not?

My impression of this forum is that we regularly post highly intelligent discussions about almost all topics... except this one.

It reminds me of school kids when I read responses that sound to me like "nah-nah-nah-nah-nah, humans don't cause (currently unsolvable) global eco-system problems (especially climate-related ones) after all" when a story like the one cited above appears.

Are there any grown-ups here capable of a deeper dialogue?

very good post, thank you


"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Thanks, Big Chicken

Mind you, I am not a proponent of the carbon-footprint, global-warming school.

But, I do not feel like we (humanity) have made any progress with this problem just because one group of activists fail to make their case.

And, I take no comfort when a large number of my fellow travelers on this fragile spaceship gloat when this happens... especially when they have no solutions of their own to offer.

I honestly don't know what's the matter with you people

Why is it so freakin' hard to understand how this stuff works? One year, does not CLIMATE make. One year is anomalous and sporadic. One region, one country, one storm... none of it. It's the overall trend. How can you even consider taking serious any person who suggests that this is indicative of any turn in the trend? Absolutely amazing. I really wonder sometimes just how dumbed down are population is and I'm getting an idea now.

I totally understand the DP-mentality desire to pin this on the obvious conspiracy. Really, it makes complete sense. But while they definitely ARE trying to take advantage of a bad situation, their doing so does not mean the problem isn't real.

On every other conspiracy out there, rational people step up and advocate for logic and reason by presenting the facts. At that point, the majority often cools off a little. But not here. Oh, no. This one get fervent arguments that even the facts are wrong. How is that any different from the closed minded murikans who refuse to look at police state or monetary corruption? Please do tell me how this blindness is any different? You can't because it's not. It's identical so you all should be ashamed.

So, here's all you should need to know about the great 2013 ice 'lack of melting':

Certainly doesn't look to me like we can base an entire shift in thinking on it.

You want real scientific data?

The correlation between global temperature and CO2 had been linked in research of ice core data and indicated to be relevant ...
until we started adding "man-made" pollutants into our atmosphere, that is to say, our current era.
That is where the data does not show any statistical relation between temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations.
Highlighted in the first minute of the video below.


And written in Nature (nature, 453, 379-382) found here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature0...
Also, found at The Koshland Science Museum:
The graphic presentations are of the Vostok ice core data and includes the current air sampling from Mauna Loa as referenced.

If there is "global warming" or "climate change" it has nothing to do with CO2.
In other words ... It's not our fault.
Pollution of our planet however: smog, radioactivity, toxic waste - Yeah, our industries have done that ... and worse.
While we keep buying the products they keep producing.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

You can't possibly be serious, can you?

That's your answer for 'real scientific data'? It's not factual, sourced in science or statistically accurate. It makes points based on assumptions that simply aren't valid.

To be brief, I believe your entire point centers around the statement that CO2 and temp have broken their correlation. What is that based on? Have you any data anywhere in all of history showing a non-natural forcing of CO2 and how that affects temperature as a feedback? Nope, didn't think so.

The temp and CO2 correlation is a catch-22, positive feedback cycle with a couple caveats. Completely understanding what that means will show you just how errant it is to compare past temp/CO2 charts to future results with no external factors. In other words, let me simplify.

IN THE PAST: "Something" started a chain of events. The sun, the magnetosphere (minimal really), the ecosystem, the CO2 levels, the water vapor, the earth's tilt... something started a change. That resulted in some temp rise. Many years later, the CO2 rose a little. To our current time scale, this delay of 400-700 years seems long but to our historical record of ancient measurements, it's indistinguishable. So, CO2 rose and that caused more temp increase. This cycle repeated for very long periods. In the end, the CO2 really didn't rise much because the cycle was broken somewhere else. This caused the return to normal.

IN THE PRESENT: We have burned a very measureable amount of fossil fuels in a very measureable time frame. We have energy records and industry records and so forth. We know very well how much CO2 we've put in the atmosphere. When we calculate how that should affect the concentration, we're damn close to perfect. Now, given that the CO2 has now been artificially raised, we're seeing the beginnings of the temp rise that should result. Keep in mind that for the past 'small' rises, the temp is delayed by some unknown amount of time which we can't determine because CO2 increases follow temp increases by a long delay.

It's like A causes more B which causes more A which causes more B. Natural things cause some A and we're causing more B. The fact is that just because temp has caused CO2 to rise in the past doesn't mean that CO2 rise doesn't cause temp rises.

In conclusion, we ARE causing CO2 rise (unprecedented) and it IS causing increased temperature and that IS causing a CHANGE in how various climates around the world work. Some places see more heat, some more cold, some more violent weather, some less, some may even see what people would term uncharacteristically beautiful weather. But on the whole, it's a change and it's happening faster than ecosystems can adapt to. ...humans included.

Oh, and just so you know. A youtube guy quoting MET is not real scientific data. Neither is a science museum but I'll give you the quoted paper on ice depth core readings. I just don't see the relevance (as I stated above).

If you want hard science quotes in youtube form you should check out this playlist:


The Nature Article

is the reference for the "youtube guy" and the museum.
You want to simplify?
Yeah, you're simple, all right.
Look here -
The historic correlation between CO2 and global Temps are calculated from the ice core samples. That is where ALL the legitimate data regarding the relationship between temps and atmospheric gases comes from. The same data the IPCC used to try and prove global warming.
Only, it's erroneous. Have you seen the new data on the polar ice cap increasing by 60%?
In a document leaked from the UN's IPCC. The very body claiming we're warming up, now scientists warn there may be a mini ice age!

Again, it's not our fault if the earth cycles the climate one way or the other. There is zero evidence to the contrary.

And, even if there was rock solid evidence, (which there isn't) the emerging industrial countries (who are not even bothering to limit or regulate ANY effluence pouring out of their factories and power plants) are not, and will not be subject to any regulations imposed by the UN.
More importantly, Have you forgotten the emails from the IPCC directing that the data be 'omitted' from the report where it shows their models to be false? They lied. Or, tried to. Just as Kerry, Obama, and the rest of them have lied about whatever agenda they want to push.
So, the whole 'argument' is really moot ...
As pointless as your multi-paragraph attempt to push Al Gore's agenda on those of us who see it for what it is. A big lie to push a new tax on only the countries who are dumb enough to sign on to it.
Ours is the top of the list.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

I'm sorry but every point you just made is wrong

Go watch the videos I posted above. He very clearly debunks every one of your points. What you're quoting is articles written by news reporters (cough cough David Rose) who write the exact OPPOSITE of what the peer reviewed papers he quotes say.

You are unfortunately being led down a road of lies and deceptions. You think that just because you've uncovered this hidden agenda 21 to enslave everyone through climate change that it negates the climate change science. Yes the NWO elites are trying to use it against us but also yes, it's still a real problem.

You just really need to stop posting in public until you've heard both sides.

Sorry, you are the one misinformed

If it is a problem, it will take 10 to 20 years of objective empirical study to even suggest an impact has take place.
You're making it sound like in 5 years there will be no ice on either pole! Hmmm. Didn't I hear that somewhere before ...???

Five hours of videos? Are out-a-your mind? I'd rather get my facts from science journals and reputable observation websites, thanks.

Didn't you say your youtube guy was using REAL science quotes?
He doesn't give any references in his video description, something MY GUY does. With EVERY single video. Ya know, so you can check his work?

Check this reference -
Just go to the NASA website here:

You'll see an interactive time line that compares the ice formations year to year.

David Rose may be a lousy reporter, I don't know him, but where he got his info from IS the NASA site.

See the images? You tell me. More or less ice pack from last year? From all the years previous starting with 2000, actually.
Or are you saying NASA faked the photos? Bloody unlikely.

YOU need to stop posting in public your OPINION of climate change and presenting it as fact when all the data is not supporting it.
Careful there Tam, your intelligence is showing.

Update** Okay, just saw that he placed his accreditation on the last video description. Where he actually cites some of HIS OWN VIDEOS as the reference!
Tip, you cannot use your own work as a reference to verify your work. Makes him look a bit foolish.
And this is where you get your facts from? No wonder you're confused.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

nor does a century or even a thousand years make a trend

The fact is the earth has been far hotter than today and far cooler, it changes and it's not caused by man. The sun, with just a small 1 mile expansion of its gas outer corona area cause more global heating of the earth than all the volcanic eruptions in history.

While the earth was heating up the past few years, so was Mercury, Venus and Mars. Does man cause more heat to be created, absolutely and nearly all of it is expelled into space.

Most environmental damage and heat increase on earth is caused from deforestation. Forests act as inter coolers and help transfer heat, big cities and urban areas act as heat islands and increase temps by as much as 10-15 degrees higher. The liberals who all think we should live in vast concrete areas covered with buildings, all riding our bikes or mass transit are causing huge problems to the environment. Total loss of habitat for animals because of the governments ever increasing push to throw out people from the countryside and confiscate their land to have huge cities of controllable people is a big culprit. On the florida coast, almost all of it is developed, when sea turtles hatch they naturally move towards the brightest portion of the sky, it use to be the ocean with reflected star and moonlight, but now they are moving inland towards city lights and dying by the thousands because they are confused.

GMO's, pesticide manipulated crops, etc., are killing off bees, butterflies, moths for birds by the hundreds of millions,
honestly carbon based emissions are the least of our worries and is just a scam to make money.

You're both correct and incorrect on parts

I commend you on identifying some alternative problems we face but your overall analysis that heating is natural and not caused by man is false. The data simply doesn't support that.

Yes, the Earth has been warmer and cooler at times. Those are obviously from natural causes. As you probably know, more heating causes more CO2 to be generated. This is why CO2 increases lag temp increases on past graphs.

However, the function of CO2 is to increase heat trapping (stopping it from going back to space) so putting more into the atmosphere quickly (a century is extremely fast as compared to an ice age beginning) will increase the temp. Then, when the temp increases, the normal process will further increase the CO2 and cause an even faster temp rise. It's called a positive feedback cycle for this reason. What we've done to the CO2 amounts in the atmosphere in a century would have taken the natural processes thousand(s) of years to accomplish.

On the longer time scale, other natural processes would have had time to ramp up to begin countering it. As it stands (and you identified), we have eliminated the rain forests that naturally fight this off. The result? We're headed for 3-4 and possibly 6 degrees of temp rise at a faster rate than the Earth has ever experienced. But keep in mind that it's not warmer days that affect humans and ecology, it's the normality and predictability of weather that we cannot tolerate.

Your other issues elude to one of the biggest problems that we simply cannot allow to get away from us. That is the fish depopulation caused by ocean acidification. When you increase the ocean temp and the CO2 absorption by it TOO QUICKLY, corals and other bases for the food chain cannot move. Their only response is to go extinct. We are currently running around 90% down that path.

A lot of highly paid

A lot of highly paid scientists would lose their jobs if they admitted they could not predict a damn thing. If they can convince the world there is some kind of a crisis then they have job security and their name in the paper.