Andrei Martyanov is very good at what he knows, but he should stick to what he knows and not push pet theories on subjects he obviously knows little about. I suppose I could say the same about myself too, but ‘I’ am not the subject of this piece and I do try to self-regulate as best I can – mostly. What am I talking about? His take on Climate change, especially as it relates to conditions in the Arctic. I have let a few comments slip by, but his latest sloppy work cannot pass unchallenged.
Yes, Russia is building huge, in fact a number of sized, as well as a large number of, ice-breaker ships for use in the Arctic – and with good reason. The Arctic circle will never be entirely free of ice and has never been, so far, more than barely navigable on a small number of routes for more than a few weeks in the northern summer season and not every season in recent years either.
And yes, the Greenland ice-cap (the only land-based ice in the Arctic region which matters) is increasingly melting year by year and will most definitely and catastrophically affect global sea levels, and that region is also recorded as suffering the highest anomalous temperatures (which simply means the greatest variance from normal) of anywhere else in the world, and the Arctic ocean ecosystem has altered considerably over recent decades – attracting new species like killer whales and endangering polar bears. So there is more than ample evidence (ignored by Martyanov) of indubitable climate change under way there.
And yes, crazy scientists – mostly in the west – the group I have for years referred to as ‘The Mad Scientists of AMEG’, of which Al Gore was a member, led by Prof. Peter Wadhams, with leading lights like Paul Beckwith and Sam Carana, has since 2012 been declaring emergency conditions in the Arctic and calling for lunatic action which would in fact endanger the global climate and all life, if pursued. It would be more useful and productive to protest against such action and all other ‘climate change action’ being even considered (since that is something achievable – i.e. we have to do nothing except preventing the proposed actions from going ahead), rather than protesting against climate change itself (which is not achievable). None of us are living dangerously bad lives in terms of climate damage. It is just that there are far too many of us now living – producing a totality of accumulative bad effects which may or may not, but are likely contributing to the unbalancing of the global climate. For example: It would not matter if all of us chopped down trees to burn for heat in wood-burning stoves if there were less than a billion of us to do that. The world, i.e. the planet, would cope. The same goes for all the other bad things we are told we are doing, such as driving cars and flying to places we never had the opportunity to visit in earlier times. The only effective climate change action would be to cull humanity. Paring ourselves down to less than 1 billion folks – as it always was, for millennia, prior to the major industrialisation of little more than a century ago. We went mad. We went wild. Our success went to our heads. And now we must pay the price. We will not reduce our numbers ourselves. So much is obvious …and who would decide who is to go and who to stay? Best to leave that to nature to determine. As it will, soon. And we have only seen the beginnings of nature’s fury so far. The thing we need to recognise absolutely is, there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop or prevent that. It’s just a question of waiting for it to happen. We could of course try to prepare ourselves as best we can for when it happens. But there are no guarantees. How do we prepare? We disentangle ourselves from the life we have been living, which is totally dependent on the continuation of the sort of unstable society we have foolishly created for ourselves – at least until the nature-driven cull is over. There are still no guarantees.
But of course, being humans, being modern impulsive humans, we can’t wait. It is not in our nature. So, some humans, being of more evil nature than most, have taken it upon themselves to work on that problem – the cull, I mean – and have devised a cunning plan – mostly to control events (another folly) and to save their own skins. They call it The Great Reset. What!!? You didn’t know that was a euphemism for ‘The Cull’? What do you think COVID is all about? They have engineered a stronger than normal ‘flu’ and propagandised it into a ‘pandemic’. Why? Simple. Purely in order to get as many people as possible (because the influenza vaccines were never going to become popular enough to cut it) to accept, in fear for their lives, what both Moderna and Pfizer have confirmed as being…
“…ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy. I always like to say: if we had surveyed two years ago in the public – ‘would you be willing to take a gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body?’ – we probably would have had a 95% refusal rate.”Stefan Oelrich, President of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division, speech at the World Health Summit 2021
…and the whole world, or the greater part of it, fell for the ruse. All those people who accepted the mRNA so-called vaccines are now held hostage awaiting their turn for the exit door from life. That may be as simple as withholding booster shots, or simply allowing the already inserted toxins to do their job of organ destruction within the bodies of the ‘vaxxed’. There is also the question of the protein effect on human fertility, which I don’t think there is need for me to go into here. It kind of speaks for itself.
That is one side of the story. Then there is Martyanov’s view, as flawed as I believe it is. Because he seems to think there is no problem, and even if there is some small issue, Russia is on top of all that. He is bloviating of course.
This is Martyanov’s blog piece…
‘Seemengly (sic) Insignificant News’ – Andrei Martyanov blog – November 11, 2021
The most obvious thing, apart from what I mentioned above, which he has incorrectly subverted to support his claim is the two ice-maps presented as ‘evidence’ I will show them here side by side for clarity, and then proceed to deconstruct his argument.
First of all, these are map images drawn from satellite photography some eight years apart, in different though consecutive months and not of exactly the same area of the globe. All of that makes any comparison worthless – unless you provide some background material, which if you do, and I will, refutes all his conjecture.
To make a first point, even a cursory examination of the images – ignoring the pale blue of open ocean (which I admit is hard to do because of the different shape of the shaded areas) it is easy to visualise that there is considerably more ice present in the older, Dec 2013 image (left), than the more recent Nov 2021 view – especially along the Greenland coast, the Svarlbard Islands and Novaya Zemlya. As proof of that, it can be seen on the NSIDC Interactive Sea Ice Graph below, that there is almost 3 million square kilometers less of sea ice present in early-Nov 2021 (the blue line) than there was in mid-Dec 2013 (the green line)
A second point I can make is that the combined area of one year old ice (green) and multiple year ice (brown) is now considerably smaller than 8 years ago – one year ice now having almost entirely disappeared – some of it obviously having become multi-year ice and the rest being replaced by less than one year ice (pink). The 2021 image also indicating the multi-year ice now showing signs of breaking down. The reasons for all of that are very significant. I will attempt to explain.
Let’s start with the most obvious. The extensive new ice (pink area), is ice that has formed only since the end of the 2021 summer melt season – i.e. is less than 2 months old. This is unusually extensive for recent years (as can be seen if you play with the interactive chart on the link I provided above) and is indicated by the steep rise of the blue line since mid-September – an effect not seen since the similar years of 2013/14. In recent years the ice buildup has been much slower than this year. So to use that as an indicator of increasing Arctic ice levels is not justified. The overarching trend of ice ebb and flow can be easily seen in the image of decadal averages below. Increasingly less ice every decade (at both winter build and summer melt peaks) and increasingly broad time-spread (across more weeks) of lower ice levels in summer months.
We can then go to looking at why so much one year ice back in 2013. To understand this we need to know that the previous year, 2012 was the freak ice-melt year which brought the lowest levels of ice across the board ever seen in modern times. That record year has not been repeated since, although it is expected to become the norm, perhaps a decade or so from now if current trends continue. The outcome of the 2012 summer melt was that all one-year (or less) ice disappeared along with some multi-year ice. This was followed by two unremarkable years of melt seasons but not a return to more extensive ice build up. The result of that, as shown in the Dec 2013 image, was all ice produced after Sep 2012, by Dec 2013 had become one-year ice (the green area) and the small amount of ice build up between Sep 2013 and Dec 2013 was the less than one-year ice (pink on that map). Those unusual circumstances – a high melt year followed by a low melt year – produced an unusually large amount of one-year ice in the Arctic – a feature not repeated since. Come 2015, the green area would have more resembled the situation in the Nov 2021 image – not much green but a lot of fresh ice pink.
It is the fresh-ice pink we have to be concerned about, not the one-year or older ice. Not yet anyway. Not until the next freak melt year. There seems to be at least one of those every decade. It could be next year.
The most important thing to take from this is not some false image taken from distorted circumstances – and Martyanov should know better than to use those tactics – but that the trend continues relentlessly and irresistibly towards less and less Arctic ice. And like I said, that is not something we could, or even should, do or even try to do, anything about.
And Andrei, if you want to compare, don’t use apples and pears.