Peter Wadhams was wrong – Arctic sea ice still there, no record low this year

Last week on September 11th I was the first to call the Arctic Sea Ice minimum.

2015-DMI-icecover_current_new

Arctic sea ice extent with September 9th data from my post on September 11th, 2015

It seems both NSIDC and NASA Goddard agree with my initial claim.

Dr. Peter Wadhams had famously claimed that Arctic Sea Ice would be completely gone this year, even Gavin said it was ridiculous:

gavin_wadham_tweetClearly he’s been proven wrong.

From NSIDC:

Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent on September 11, 2015. Sea ice extent on that day was measured at 4.41 million square kilometers (1.70 million square miles). It was the fourth lowest extent recorded since satellites began measuring sea ice in 1979. 

Please note that the Arctic sea ice extent number is preliminary—changing winds could still push the ice extent lower. NSIDC will issue a formal announcement at the beginning of October with full analysis of the possible causes behind this year’s ice conditions, particularly interesting aspects of the melt season, the set up going into the winter growth season ahead, and graphics comparing this year to the long-term record.

Source: http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/2015-arctic-sea-ice-minimum


From NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

According to a NASA analysis of satellite data, the 2015 Arctic sea ice minimum extent is the fourth lowest on record since observations from space began.

The 2015 Arctic sea ice summertime minimum is 699,000 square miles below the 1981-2010 average, shown here as a gold line. Credits: NASA/Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio

The 2015 Arctic sea ice summertime minimum is 699,000 square miles below the 1981-2010 average, shown here as a gold line.
Credits: NASA/Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio

The analysis by NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder showed the annual minimum extent was 1.70 million square miles (4.41 million square kilometers) on Sept. 11. This year’s minimum is 699,000 square miles (1.81 million square kilometers) lower than the 1981-2010 average.

Arctic sea ice cover, made of frozen seawater that floats on top of the ocean, helps regulate the planet’s temperature by reflecting solar energy back to space. The sea ice cap grows and shrinks cyclically with the seasons. Its minimum summertime extent, which occurs at the end of the melt season, has been decreasing since the late 1970s in response to warming temperatures.

In some recent years, low sea-ice minimum extent has been at least in part exacerbated by meteorological factors, but that was not the case this year.

“This year is the fourth lowest, and yet we haven’t seen any major weather event or persistent weather pattern in the Arctic this summer that helped push the extent lower as often happens,” said Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “It was a bit warmer in some areas than last year, but it was cooler in other places, too.”

In contrast, the lowest year on record, 2012, saw a powerful August cyclone that fractured the ice cover, accelerating its decline.

The sea ice decline has accelerated since 1996. The 10 lowest minimum extents in the satellite record have occurred in the last 11 years. The 2014 minimum was 1.94 million square miles (5.03 million square kilometers), the seventh lowest on record. Although the 2015 minimum appears to have been reached, there is a chance that changing winds or late-season melt could reduce the Arctic extent even further in the next few days.

“The ice cover becomes less and less resilient, and it doesn’t take as much to melt it as it used to,” Meier said. “The sea ice cap, which used to be a solid sheet of ice, now is fragmented into smaller floes that are more exposed to warm ocean waters. In the past, Arctic sea ice was like a fortress. The ocean could only attack it from the sides. Now it’s like the invaders have tunneled in from underneath and the ice pack melts from within.”

Some analyses have hinted the Arctic’s multiyear sea ice, the oldest and thickest ice that survives the summer melt season, appeared to have recuperated partially after the 2012 record low. But according to Joey Comiso, a sea ice scientist at Goddard, the recovery flattened last winter and will likely reverse after this melt season.

“The thicker ice will likely continue to decline,” Comiso said. “There might be some recoveries during some years, especially when the winter is unusually cold, but it is expected to go down again because the surface temperature in the region continues to increase.”

This year, the Arctic sea ice cover experienced relatively slow rates of melt in June, which is the month the Arctic receives the most solar energy. However, the rate of ice loss picked up during July, when the sun is still strong. Faster than normal ice loss rates continued through August, a transition month when ice loss typically begins to slow. A big “hole” appeared in August in the ice pack in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, north of Alaska, when thinner seasonal ice surrounded by thicker, older ice melted. The huge opening allowed for the ocean to absorb more solar energy, accelerating the melt.

It’s unclear whether this year’s strong El Niño event, which is a naturally occurring phenomenon that typically occurs every two to seven years where the surface water of the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean warms, has had any impact on the Arctic sea ice minimum extent.

“Historically, the Arctic had a thicker, more rigid sea ice that covered more of the Arctic basin, so it was difficult to tell whether El Niño had any effect on it,” said Richard Cullather, a climate modeler at Goddard. “Although we haven’t been able to detect a strong El Niño impact on Arctic sea ice yet, now that the ice is thinner and more mobile, we should begin to see a larger response to atmospheric events from lower latitudes.”

In comparison, research has found a strong link between El Niño and the behavior of the sea ice cover around Antarctica. El Niño causes higher sea level pressure, warmer air temperature and warmer sea surface temperature in west Antarctica that affect sea ice distribution. This could explain why this year the growth of the Antarctic sea ice cover, which currently is headed toward its yearly maximum extent and was at much higher than normal levels throughout much of the first half of 2015, dipped below normal levels in mid-August.

Starting next week, NASA’s Operation IceBridge, an airborne survey of polar ice, will be carrying science flights over sea ice in the Arctic, to help validate satellite readings and provide insight into the impact of the summer melt season on land and sea ice.

###

Note: shortly after publication this story was edited to fix a text formatting error and to include a URL for NSIDC’s story

Advertisements

264 thoughts on “Peter Wadhams was wrong – Arctic sea ice still there, no record low this year

      • This is a paper from 1998 that has been discussing the North Atlantic interdecadal variability.

        “The authors focus on the physics of the North Atlantic interdecadal variability. If, for instance, the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation is anomalously strong, the ocean is covered by positive sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies. The atmospheric response to these SST anomalies involves a strengthened North Atlantic Oscillation, which leads to anomalously weak evaporation and Ekman transport off Newfoundland and in the Greenland Sea, and the generation of negative sea surface salinity (SSS) anomalies. These SSS anomalies weaken the deep convection in the oceanic sinking regions and subsequently the strength of the thermohaline circulation. This leads to a reduced poleward heat transport and the formation of negative SST anomalies, which completes the phase reversal.”

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442-11.8.1906

      • No mention either of the massive volcanic activity that amazingly happens all along the same Antarctic Peninsula that is of course Ground Zero of global warming.

      • PDO, AMO, what the hell, an ice report is an ice report.

        Last week on September 11th I was the first to call the Arctic Sea Ice minimum.

        Well one of the risks of an early “call” is getting it wrong. Don’t crow too loudly yet.

        As I suggested in comments to the article on the 11th, that was improbably early. It is now taking another downward dip as I predicted.

    • Here is the deal on Wadhams. I have been tracking him for some time now.

      He said that the Arctic ocean would be ‘ice-free’ in 2015.

      He also said it would be ‘ice free’ in 2015 or 2016.

      He changed his mind last year and said 2020.

      Read my post on Wadhams on WUWT here.

      A commenter queried his predictions and he allegedly responded to him here. It says:

      WUWT
      tom s says:
      May 24, 2014 at 10:33 am
      I wrote a correspondence to “Professor Peter ‘hot head’ Wadhams” and he actually responded; Here is my email to him;
      “Good day professor….. do you still stand by these words? Because in light of NOAA’s forecast for above average ice this coming Aug and Sep it appears your time is running out……

      To which he responded; “Dear Mr Skinner, I think you should wait until September 2015 before you assert that I’m wrong, since that remains my prediction. Yours sincerely, Peter Wadhams”…..
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/23/sea-ice-news-volume-5-2-noaa-forecasts-above-normal-arctic-ice-extent-for-summer/#comment-1644854

      Wadhams has also been going on about Arctic methane and how worried he is. Gavin Schmidt has pointed out that there is no methane spice in the ice cores during the Holocene Climate Optimum when some say the Arctic was ”ice free (peer reviewed papers I have here).

      It’s time for Wadhams to take a chill pill and simply go away.

      • Professor Wadhams is a co-founder of the alarmist outfit the ARCTIC METHANE EMERGENCY GROUP. Another of the co-founders is Paul Beckwith, AMEG blogger and studied[s] paleoclimatology and climatology. Here is what Paul said:

        Sierra Club – March 23, 2013
        “For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean….”
        [Paul Beckwith – PhD student paleoclimatology and climatology – part-time professor]
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/18/sea-ice-news-volume-4-number-4-the-maslowski-countdown-to-an-ice-free-arctic-begins/#comment-1394083

        Here are other predictors of Arctic sea ice gone!

        THE GREAT WALL OF SHAME.

        =====================
        Xinhua News Agency – 1 March 2008
        “If Norway’s average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions,” Orheim said.
        [Dr. Olav Orheim – Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat]
        __________________

        Canada.com – 16 November 2007
        “According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

        “And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” said Fortier,””
        [Professor Louis Fortier – Université Laval, Director ArcticNet]
        __________________

        National Geographic – 12 December 2007
        “NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” ”
        [Dr. Jay Zwally – NASA]
        __________________

        BBC – 12 December 2007
        Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,”…….”So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
        [Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
        __________________

        National Snow and Ice Data Center – 5 May 2008
        “Could the North Pole be ice free this melt season? Given that this region is currently covered with first-year ice, that seems quite possible.”
        __________________

        National Geographic News – 20 June 2008
        North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer
        “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.
        [Dr. David Barber]
        __________________

        Independent – 27 June 2008
        Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer
        “…..It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer – it’s not happened before,” Professor Wadhams said.”
        [Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University]
        __________________

        Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Report – 2009
        “…There is a possibility of an ice-free Arctic Ocean for a short period in summer perhaps as early as 2015. This would mean the disappearance of multi-year ice, as no sea ice would survive the summer melt season….”
        http://www.arctis-search.com/Arctic+Marine+Shipping+Assessment+%28AMSA%29
        __________________

        Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
        Vol. 40: 625-654 – May 2012
        The Future of Arctic Sea Ice
        “…..one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover…..”
        [Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
        __________________

        Guardian – 11 August 2012
        Very soon we may experience the iconic moment when, one day in the summer, we look at satellite images and see no sea ice coverage in the Arctic, just open water.”
        [Dr Seymour Laxon – Centre for Polar Observation & Modelling – UCL]
        __________________

        Yale Environment360 – 30 August 2012
        “If this rate of melting [in 2012] is sustained in 2013, we are staring down the barrel and looking at a summer Arctic which is potentially free of sea ice within this decade,”
        [Dr. Mark Drinkwater]
        __________________

        Guardian – 17 September 2012
        This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates“.
        [Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University]
        __________________

        Sierra Club – March 23, 2013
        “For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean….”
        [Paul Beckwith – PhD student paleoclimatology and climatology – part-time professor]
        __________________

        Financial Times Magazine – 2 August 2013
        “It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,”
        [Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University]
        __________________

        The Scotsman – 12 September 2013
        “The entire ice cover is now on the point of collapse.
        …….It is truly the case that it will be all gone by 2015. The consequences are enormous and represent a huge boost to global warming.”
        [Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University]
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/18/sea-ice-news-volume-4-number-4-the-maslowski-countdown-to-an-ice-free-arctic-begins/#comment-1394083

      • TYPO
        Schmidt has pointed out that there is no methane spike in the ice cores
        ————

        NOTE:
        The NORTH POLE being ice-free is not meaningful or unprecedented. This is according to the NOAA Faqs as well as observations. Read about that fact here.

      • Lack of ice core methane spikes implies two things, probability of large methane release is much smaller than hypothesised and/or the climate and biosphere respond quickly to massive spikes and make short shrift of the high concentrations.

  1. helps regulate the planet’s temperature by reflecting solar energy back to space

    Call me -ist, but Arctic ice also prevents cooling by insulating top water layers. Warming caused by less reflecting ice happens in May-June-July. Cooling caused by less insulating cover happens basically all year round.

    That was Wadhams. Gore had same (2007 + 7). Now, what was Hansen’s prediction?

    • Even in the summer, the sun is so low that there is little solar insolation to begin with.
      Beyond that, the difference between water and ice at those low angles is not that great anyway.
      The extra heat escaping from water compared to ice is the dominant factor by a good margin.

      • I believe the Bragg angle is 57° but that’s from a pretty useless memory. Maybe I’ll check google late.

      • There’s also the point that since the winter maximum doesn’t change much, then a low summer results in more cooling as a larger area has to freeze.

      • johnb, i wonder if that contributes to the cooling phase of the amo ? currently no large pulses of heat being given off in the arctic basin despite low temps. the longer this lasts the more water will be cooled given current surface temps.

    • Take a gander at that Guardian photograph of the very large (height) ice mass. Then look over here on the right side at Dr. Roy Spencer’s comic picture showing the underneath.
      I think Roy is exaggerating; but it is true that 9/10 or 10/11 or thereabouts of the floating sea ice is underwater, where it is in constant contact with the warmer waters that come up from the tropics via gulf steams, Japan currents and the like, and the thermal conductivity of water is very much greater than that of air.

      Even if the summer air Temperature over the sea ice were above zero, the vast majority of the melting must come from the warm ocean water.

      Just imagine how cold the arctic would be, if there was no massive heat transport from the tropics (where most of our heat is manufactured from formerly pristine solar EM radiant energy, that arrives there and is captured in the deep ocean.)

      That suggests that all that ice remains there in the arctic, because there actually is very little solar radiant energy arriving there in the arctic, compared to global average rates of insolation.

      So I think the issue of solar warming of newly open arctic water, is a bit of a red herring; there’s not that much energy to get absorbed compared to what has already been brought up there as heat from the tropics.

      No I’m not suggesting we can ignore solar melting; but I see no reason to exaggerate it either; it isn’t the cause of arctic ice melting.

      And if all those Russian ice breakers would stop stomping around up there, perhaps it would give the thicker ice a better chance of recovery.

      g

  2. Looking at the chart just now there has been a further downtick after the snapshot above so it might not have bottomed out yet.

    You don’t want to be accused of terminating the data early to fit an agenda.

    Wadhams was still wrong…but only by 6,000,000km2.

    • Wadhams was wrong and so was Nafeez Ahmed of the Guardian. I see his name below the image of ice and Gavin Schmids’s tweet.

      Guardian – Wednesday 24 July 2013
      Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist
      Professor Peter Wadhams, co-author of new Nature paper on costs of Arctic warming, explains the danger of inaction

      A ‘journalist’ who failed to do his job properly. He defended the Shakhova hypothesis on Arctic methane bomb, supported by Wadhams. He came back when he realised that move was wrong.

      Planet3.0
      Nafeez says:
      September 10, 2013 at 11:43 pm

      Dear Michael

      I’m dropping by to say thank you for your posts on this, including this. They have provoked a lot of reflection for me.

      As just another journo trying to make sense of the science, it wasn’t obvious to me at all that Shakhova’s work is speculative.

      That some prominent Arctic scientists seem to agree with her only made it seem more incredible to me that her assertions about gas hydrates at the ESAS are not actually confirmed, but rather hypotheses. Yours and Gavin Schmidts comments have now made this point really clear.

      I didn’t really get this before – the language that has been used by Shakhova and others on this issue has been almost definitive in tone (there *are* this quantity of hydrates etc etc).

      On twitter when Gavin first responded saying ‘but there’s no evidence for this’ after I’d sent a link to a paper by Shakhova and Semiletov talking in some detail about methane clathrates at the ESAS and permafrost, I didn’t grasp that their discussions were actually not proven……
      http://planet3.org/2013/09/05/nafeez-ahmed-responds/#comment-40721

      • GRRRR! I messed up the blockquotes. Mod, here it is again. Please remove earlier post.

        Wadhams was wrong and so was Nafeez Ahmed of the Guardian. I see his name below the image of ice and Gavin Schmids’s tweet.

        Guardian – Wednesday 24 July 2013
        Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist
        Professor Peter Wadhams, co-author of new Nature paper on costs of Arctic warming, explains the danger of inaction

        A ‘journalist’ who failed to do his job properly. He defended the Shakhova hypothesis on Arctic methane bomb, supported by Wadhams. He came back when he realised that move was wrong.

        Planet3.0
        Nafeez says:
        September 10, 2013 at 11:43 pm

        Dear Michael

        I’m dropping by to say thank you for your posts on this, including this. They have provoked a lot of reflection for me.

        As just another journo trying to make sense of the science, it wasn’t obvious to me at all that Shakhova’s work is speculative.

        That some prominent Arctic scientists seem to agree with her only made it seem more incredible to me that her assertions about gas hydrates at the ESAS are not actually confirmed, but rather hypotheses. Yours and Gavin Schmidts comments have now made this point really clear.

        I didn’t really get this before – the language that has been used by Shakhova and others on this issue has been almost definitive in tone (there *are* this quantity of hydrates etc etc).

        On twitter when Gavin first responded saying ‘but there’s no evidence for this’ after I’d sent a link to a paper by Shakhova and Semiletov talking in some detail about methane clathrates at the ESAS and permafrost, I didn’t grasp that their discussions were actually not proven……
        http://planet3.org/2013/09/05/nafeez-ahmed-responds/#comment-40721

        Maybe Nafeez should have called Gain a ‘denier’.

      • Nafeez Ahmad is a researcher and a journalist who tries to do his job diligently and honestly, but in my opinion he is burdened by his leftist and green political biases and also by his naive trust in “the experts” when it comes to the climate issue. Incidentally, he was fired from the Guardian last year after he wandered into a journalistic exclusion zone when he penned an article about the natural gas deposits off the coast of Gaza which was judged too “political”.

        The day after posting it, I received a phone call from James Randerson, assistant national news editor. He sounded riled and rushed. Without beating around the bush, James told me point blank that my Guardian blog was to be immediately discontinued. Not because my article was incorrect, factually flawed, or outrageously defamatory. Not because I’d somehow breached journalistic ethics, or violated my contract. No. The Gaza gas piece, he said, was “not an environment story,” and therefore was an “inappropriate post” for the Guardian’s environment website

        http://www.mintpressnews.com/censored-guardian-writing-israels-war-gazas-gas/199619/

        The Guardian is a very aptly-named publication. The editorial hierarchy there are constantly standing guard to protect their narratives.

    • Tim Groves
      September 16, 2015 at 7:43 pm

      Nafeez Ahmad is a researcher and a journalist who tries to do his job diligently and honestly,…….

      That may well be correct but one thing is for SURE he is a conspiracy theorist on 9/11. With thinking like that no wonder he was easily suckered into the methane bomb hypothesis.

      BOOK
      The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism 1st Edition
      by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (Author)
      …..Deconstructing the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Joint Congressional Inquiry, he exposes disturbing liaisons between American, British and European intelligence services and al-Qaeda operatives in the Balkans, Caucasus, North Africa, Middle East, Central Asia and Asia-Pacific…..

  3. “The thicker ice will likely continue to decline,” Comiso said. “There might be some recoveries during some years, especially when the winter is unusually cold, but it is expected to go down again because the surface temperature in the region continues to increase.”

    In anyone able to clarify how surface temperatures are monitored “in the region?” Number/coverage of surface stations, etc? Thanks to anyone who can provide some insight.

  4. After a couple of hundred years of satellite observations, we should have a pretty good idea of how the Arctic sea ice behaves.

    • …and miss out on a couple hundreds years worth of copius carbon taxes and control over people’s livelihood??? … the Left would be apoplectic at that idea.

      • Yes, and the tree ring shaman and climate supercomputer salesmen would have a thing or two to say about that.

  5. Even though the Arctic Ice is at one of its lowest minima since 1979, the Antarctic ice extent is at an all-time high, both minimal and maximal. The satellites measuring Earth’s average temperature have said there has been no warming for 18+ years. I do not think it logical to accept that AGW is happening at anything like the rate the doom-mongers suggest.
    I wonder which one of the above facts will be trumpeted in December in Paris and which ones will be conveniently ignored?

    • The December conference will be all about re-distribution of Western wealth to the already ridiculously wealthy and to tinpot dictators who will go along with the scam. It will have absolutely nothing to do with climate or weather.

    • Records indicate a 60 year cycle in arctic ice extent roughly corresponding with the PDO.
      1979 was close to the end of the last cold cycle of the PDO, it was also the time of maximum ice extent.
      Personally I expect the ice levels to begin it’s cyclical recovery to 1979 levels in the next year or two.

    • “I wonder which one of the above facts will be trumpeted in December in Paris and which ones will be conveniently ignored?”

      No need to ignore any of the “facts”: they will all be blamed on “climate change”; even when the conditions reverse.

    • As of today (17th September) Antarctic ice is half a million sq km below average.

      Add in the 1.5 million sq km deficit in Arctic ice, and the world is missing about 2 million sq km (over 10 per cent) of sea ice.

  6. “”Please note that the Arctic sea ice extent number is preliminary—changing winds could still push the ice extent lower. NSIDC will issue a formal announcement at the beginning of October with full analysis of the possible causes behind this year’s ice conditions,…””

    In other words : We reserve the right to announce a much lower ice extent in time for the COP meeting of Parisites in December.

  7. NASA mentioned the the possibility this year’s strong El Niño may have quickened Arctic ice melt, however, they conveniently forgot to mention the Ridiculously Resiliant Ridge (RRR) and “The Blob”, which collectively contributed to Arctic Ice melt and a lower total Arctic Maximum Ice Extent and accelerated ice melt.

    Next year: a La Niña will be in effect, “The Blob” and the “RRR” will be long gone, the AMO 30-yr warm cycle will continue to wind down, the 30-yr PDO cool cycle already started in 2008, and the current solar cycle will continue to weaken.

    Arctic ice has been recovering since 2007 (the peak of the AMO warm cycle) and will likely continue to do so. Once the CAGW zealots no longer have Arctic Ice melt to scare small children and low-information voters, they’ll have nothing.

    Things are not looking good for the CAGW hypothesis…


    • SAMURAI September 16, 2015 at 8:47 am said:
      “they’ll have nothing”

      Oh but the alarmists have:

      Ocean Acidification
      Coral Bleaching
      Pole ward migration of species
      _
      The CAGW religion is strong.

      • Ferdinand- The CAGW advocates will never voluntarily give up their fight for more CAGW grants, however, the polling data definitely shows voter support for CAGW is waning

        The almost two decades of no global warming trend, the complete lack of evidence of global trends in severe weather incidence and intensity, the record Antarctic Ice Extents, the bitterly cold winters, the recovering Arctic Ice, etc., are starting to take their toll in the polls.

        As soon as political support for CAGW becomes a polical liability, even Leftist politicians will be forced to weaken and eventually abandon their support for CAGW…

        CAGW is a polical phenomenon not a scientific phenomenon…

        Also, I see more scientists outside of climatology taking a pragmatic stand against CAGW as it’s becoming an untenable hypothesis. It’s also restricting research grants to their respective fields of study..

        We’ll see, but I’m quite confident the demise of CAGW will be much a fairly fast process…

      • An increasing trend of Arctic sea ice extent would certainly harm their credibility big time. They will of course keep pointing to the 1979 extent and say it’s still lower, forgetting all about their ice-free projections, death spirals, dark open water ocean heat absorption, thinner broken sea ice et al.

      • as the north east atlantic cools watch the mackerel migration routes switch back to what they were pre 90,s. you will know when it happens as the bickering between iceland,the faroes and the eu over who catches what amount every year will cease when there are no longer mackerel in sufficient numbers in icelandic waters worth fishing for.

    • Samurai, I appreciate your optimism, but you are expecting the AGW proponents to act with scientific scruples and admit that they have overestimated the magnitude of that which is the entire platform of the quasi-religious and ideological agenda of global control which they represent.
      I look for claims that carbon pollution (in some silly manner) is still the cause of the longer winters and shorter summers which history warns we are soon to embark upon. This will keep the populus hypnotized by whirling blades and the glare of solar collectors.

      • Dawtgtomis– I agree with you that CAGW zealot “scientist” will NEVER voluntarily give up $billions in CAGW research grants. They’ll continue to churn out more pal-reviewed papers like Karl2015, tamper with raw data, develop new excuses for why their precious CAGW hypothesis has crashed and burned so spectacularly,etc., however, scientist outside of climatology and logical and rational people just ain’t buying the snake oil anymore….

        I think once the “hiatus” hits 20+ years in satellite data, more and more people will laugh and eye roll the CAGW hypothesis onto the trash heap of failed ideas…

        I also believe the political blowback against Leftists following the demise of CAGW will be quite spectacular, once taxpayers realize the $trillions government hacks have wasted on needless CAGW mitigation policies…

        We’ll see soon enough.

    • Actually my interpretation is that there is about a 2-year lag between El Nino and Arctic ice, which fits with 2005-2007 and 2010-2012 data. Therefore I am making a prediction that Arctic ice will be low in 2017. After that it should have good chances of recovery.

      Rich.

  8. “Historically” as used in the above article refers to ‘since 1979’. So this ‘history’ is very short indeed and begins at the coolest period of the 20th century.

    • It’s a cherry picked range… one of the most dishonest ways to do “science”.
      If this had anything to do with Science it would be an average of 1979 to 2015… therefore the whole entire arctic ice panic is nothing but politics and transparent fear mongering.

  9. “Big freighter traverses Northwest Passage for 1st time …
    http://www.reuters.com/…/us-shipping-coal-arctic-idUSBRE98Q0K720130927
    27 Sep 2013 – Related: Environment. Big freighter traverses Northwest Passage for 1st time … Northwest Passage for the first time this week, showing the potential for cutting shipment times and costs as global warming opens new routes”

    1930- North-West Passage
    THREE SHIPS GET THROUGH
    For the first time in its history
    three ships of the Hudson’s Bay
    Company have made the hazardous
    North-West Passage in one season.
    They are the Fort James, a stout
    little schooner of 130 tons with a crew
    of fewer than 20 souls, the even
    smaller Macpherson, which is perman-
    ently stationed in the Arctic seas, and
    the Baychimo, a vessel of 1,500 tons.

    1839 -“North-west Passage.
    Colonial Times (Hobart, Tas. : 1828 – 1857) Tuesday 15 October 1839 p 5 Article
    … North-west Passage. From a number of the Penny Magazine, for April 1838 … , we gather the intelligence, that the north-west passage has been achieved,and that the continent ……”

      • my Climate of Joel, comes after eating onion rings or a Outback Blooming onion, and usually gets me banished to the guest bedroom. I assume Climate of Gavin is also mostly a 24/7 warm, sulphurous methane release as well.

  10. Arctic sea ice cover, made of frozen seawater that floats on top of the ocean, helps regulate the planet’s temperature by reflecting solar energy back to space. The sea ice cap grows and shrinks cyclically with the seasons. Its minimum summertime extent, which occurs at the end of the melt season, has been decreasing since the late 1970s in response to warming temperatures.

    … Antarctic sea ice cover, which currently is headed toward its yearly maximum extent and was at much higher than normal levels throughout much of the first half of 2015,…

    Funny how they try to avoid the fact that the Antarctic sea ice cover reached its largest maximum extent last year since satellites began measuring sea ice. Maybe because that fact does not fit with the explanation given for the shrinking Arctic ice cover.

    If your theory cannot explain some empirical data, then your theory is wrong.

  11. “It was a bit warmer in some areas than last year, but it was cooler in other places, too.”

    This, my friends, is the ESSENCE of climate “science”…

  12. “The thicker ice will likely continue to decline,” Comiso said. “There might be some recoveries during some years, especially when the winter is unusually cold, but it is expected to go down again because the surface temperature in the region continues to increase.”

    Just a bunch of guesses with no real sciency stuff….

    How come nobody talks about “ice volume”? How well is ice volume and multiyear ice documented through the last century or two?
    What about the lakes and bays that have had ice last longer than usual?

    How come the the mean for healthy arctic ice was started at the end of 70s, when the fear was a new ice age, and arctic ice was very high, and that was considered bad, and now we are in a warmer regime and the new ice level that is lower, is bad too???

    all i want is sanity
    is there anybody out there?

    • There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.
      — Rod Serling

      We’re Here

  13. IF the arctice sea ice help regulate earths temperature, shouldn’t the number we care about be extent on June 21 By Septeber 11 or whatever, there is very little sunlight, and almost no engergy from the sun at those lattatudes.

    • the pertinant metric is Arctic sea ice extent on December 21. The polar oceans are Earth’s radiators, not its solar absorbers. The CAGW alarmists need sheeple to believe in the positive feedback myth.

  14. Why do we focus so much attention on polar ice extent?

    Ice has been receding for 12,000 years mostly without any human influence. Whether or not it continues will be determined by natural events we cannot hope to control. If we are emerging from the current ice house earth to a new hot house earth we will not be able to stop it. If we are seeing the end of the current inter glacial and the glaciers return we can’t stop that either.

    The reality is we do not know which will occur, but we do know that CO2 is not driving the climate. We have had hot house earth with low CO2 and ice house earth with high (>3,000ppm) CO2 and vise versa. All these events have occurred many times in the geological record before humans existed. Whatever the outcome humanity will have to adopt or perish, assuming some calamity other than climate doesn’t end humanity first.

  15. Arctic sea ice cover, made of frozen seawater that floats on top of the ocean, helps regulate the planet’s temperature by reflecting solar energy back to space. ”

    A Minor Half truth. The major truth is a blanket of sea ice (usually with dusting of insulating snow) reduces radiative cooling during the winter darkness. The negative feedback of that is much more dominate on Earth’s heat budgethan the positive feedback of polar ice albedo.

  16. Anthony:

    For editorial purposes I suggest the following change in narrative to get past the continued alarmist ruminations about “4th lowest year”, etc.:

    remove the 2012 cyclone induced (outlier) minimum from the data series [clear outliers should be removed anyway from a statistical perspective] and it is evident for all to see that 2007 was the turning point in ice loss – all minima bar 2012 are above the 2007 minimum. Even 2015, a strong El Nino plus North Pacific warm blob year.

    This narrative gains further support from the ice volume/thickness data which appear to be on the increase, also having turned the corner. How the apparent change in the AMO to a cold phase might add to this remains speculation at present.

  17. The real problem is…no Arctic ice is great news! And during the Ice Ages, the Arctic was never covered by glaciation anyways, Canada, Greenland and much of the upper NE USA was under miles of ice. Not most of Alaska nor much of Siberia, etc.

    This blunderbuss yelling about insignificant icing is immensely annoying. The growing ice in Antarctica, on the other hand, is significant news.

  18. The alarmist crowd always ignores the Antarctic. They shouldn’t, because the AGW scare refers to global warming. The globe has two poles.

    The Antarctic contains about 10X the volume of Arctic ice, and Antarctic ice is steadily increasing:

    Also, the low for Arctic ice was in 2006-7. Here’s a comparison of 2006 with 2015:

    Arctic ice is increasing. Once again, the climate alarmists are wrong.

      • ralfellis
        You can play it how you like, but the fact is the combined sea ice area is in decline. It doesn’t really matter long term whether Antarctica grows a little one year and the Arctic shrinks a little. If the combined total is negative over a number of years you have a trend.

      • Simon (replying to ralfellis)

        You can play it how you like, but the fact is the combined sea ice area is in decline. It doesn’t really matter long term whether Antarctica grows a little one year and the Arctic shrinks a little. If the combined total is negative over a number of years you have a trend.

        False.

        The effect of the Antarctic is growing much more since 1992, at a much faster rate the past 5 years in the latitudes that matter (62 to 58 degrees south latitude) than the Arctic sea ice has declined (between 71 and 81 degrees north latitude) since 1979 Over the course of a year, every sq meter of Antarctic sea ice gained reflects 1.68 MORE energy than any meter of Arctic sea ice lost. Arctic sea has gone from a start point of +0.5 Mkm^2 – and note, we don’t know what the actual “average sea ice” actually is! – down to a recent average of -1.0 Mkm^2.
        The Antarctic sea ice has risen from a start point in 1979 of -0.32 to a new average of +1.0 Mkm^2. So, the effect of the Antarctic sea ice is much more important, and even your claim that the Arctic Ocean has lost more area is also wrong.

      • RACookPE1978
        False. Argue with NASA.

        “Sea ice increases in Antarctica do not make up for the accelerated Arctic sea ice loss of the last decades, a new NASA study finds. As a whole, the planet has been shedding sea ice at an average annual rate of 13,500 square miles (35,000 square kilometers) since 1979, the equivalent of losing an area of sea ice larger than the state of Maryland every year.”
        https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains

      • Actually, there is one correct sentence from your NASA-GISS propaganda piece:

        “When I give public lectures or talk with random people interested in the topic, often somebody will say something in the order of ‘well, the ice is decreasing in the Arctic but it’s increasing in the Antarctic, so don’t they cancel out?’” Parkinson said. “The answer is no, they don’t cancel out.”

        No, the increase in Antarctic sea ice extents is more important to the earth’s heat balance than any further loss of Arctic sea ice extents. Their total area remains the same – her “data” was truncated in 2013 to eliminate the past 36 months of positive total sea ice anomaly. Her claims are wrong in both detail and in calculations.

      • RACookPE1978
        I see where you are going wrong. You seem to convince yourself that every time a piece of evidence that doesn’t support your denial comes along, (which is often) it has to be propaganda. It is a logic that wont serve you well, unless you want to stay in the dark.

        And her quote was saying the opposite to your interpretation. They don’t cancel each other. The loss of Arctic sea ice is more detrimental than the small gains in the Antarctic.

      • And her quote was saying the opposite to your interpretation. They don’t cancel each other. The loss of Arctic sea ice is more detrimental than the small gains in the Antarctic.

        I agree, they don’t “cancel” each other. The antarctic receives significantly more solar energy over the course of a year than the arctic, and that energy is reflecting from much higher solar elevation angles every day of the year. Plus, the arctic sea ice during its melt season (15 April – 15 September has a significantly lower albedo than the antarctic sea ice does during its shorter melt season; and that decline in arctic sea ice albedo occurs during the time of the year when the earth receives much less solar radiation.

        Net? Your claims loses.

        False. Show any calculation demonstrating the reasons you claim the arctic sea ice is more important.

      • RACookPE1978
        “False. Show any calculation demonstrating the reasons you claim the arctic sea ice is more important.”

        I just sent you a link from NASA explaining quite the opposite of what you are saying. Oh, but then you dismiss what is regarded internationally as some of the finest data on the planet as propaganda. It must be easy living in your simple world. If it doesn’t fit my belief it is all a conspiracy to annoy the hell out of me.

        Anyway, tell me what you think is happening in the Antarctic right now? Interesting don’t you think. It is almost that the Antarctic is far less stable and doesn’t know what to do, where as the Arctic has a plan and that is to head straight on down.

      • Chris,

        I wrote: 2006-7.

        Arctic ice cover is normal. It goes up, it goes down. But the Arctic is only half the story.

        You avoid discussing the Antarctic. Global ice is right on it long-term average. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening.

        You are just trying to sound a false alarm. That’s not honest.

      • But, but, but – when I contended with some Warmists on the Grauniad, that last year Antarctica had the greatest ever sea ice extent, they produced ‘evidence’ (papers) to say that increasing sea ice was due to Global Warming.

        So now the sea ice is reducing, does this mean we are experiencing Global Cooling? Or is this ‘heads you win, tails I lose’ stuff? Really, this is like debating with kids.

        Ralph

      • Sorry, but at the moment Antarctic sea ice is smack dab in the middle of the normal zone, after having been well above it for most of the year.

      • The sole reason for the drop in southern sea ice was due to prolonged flows of warm, moist surface winds which penetrated in to the coast line. The melt created large open pockets in the sea ice strictly within the bounds of where the wind stream pushed in towards the coast line. This probably has much to do with why Australia experienced such a cold winter this season.

      • How ignorant trolls are! Anything within 2SD is scientifically normal. For years, Antarctica has been at the top, and the Arctic near the bottom, of 2SD. Maybe slightly in or out sometimes. Nothing to justify claims of abnormality, even for those who don’t know the longer term data. It, has greater variation.

      • Simon,

        I’ve repeatedly posted examples of NSIDC fudging the numbers. The truth is not in them. They are government bureaucrats and job security is more important than honesty. They do it so mindless parrots will stay on the Man-made global warming reservation.

        So I will take the time to re-post those examples of NSIDC’s diddling with the data — if you will agree that you will no longer post their fabrications. They are misinformation.

        I’ve been posting the most accurate and up to date global, Arctic, and Antarctic ice data in chart form that is currently available:

        It is compiled by one of the premier scholars of polar ice and climate, Dr. Ole Humlum.

        Dr. Humlum has authored 96 peer reviewed papers, 80 Newsletters, 3 Technical Handbooks, 8 Scientific Field Guides, 3 Scientific Reports, 53 Abstracts and Posters, 2 Journal Special Issues, 3 books, he has given 46 radio, newspaper and TV interviews. He is the webmaster for the International Permafrost Association, principal researcher for the International Norwegian Permafrost Monitoring Initiative; an International Polar Year (IPY) research project.

        Scandinavian scientists are among the world’s best authorities on Polar ice, on the cryosphere, and related studies. Dr. Humlum is considered the best of the best.

        Dr. Humlum also maintains the Official webpage for The Norwegian Organisation of Cryosphere Scientists (CRYONOR), which organises all active cryosphere scientists at Norwegian Universities and other research institutions; he is a national contact for the International Permafrost Association, webmaster of the Climate4You site, and he is the Project Coordinator for the Hanne H. Christiansen UNIS, Svalbard, funded by the Norwegian Research Council.

        Now, you can be spoon-fed the fabricated NSIDC government charts that confirm your alarmist bias, or you can pay attention to someone who knows what he’s talking about.

        Global ice is right at its long-term average. The Arctic is below its average, and the Antarctic is above its average. This is as of last month, August, 2015 — the most recent data available.

        Further, the Antarctic holds 10X the ice volume of the Arctic. That’s why the alarmist crowd does not want to discuss the Antarctic.

        You’re way out of your depth here, Simon, both you and Bucky. I suggest doing at least a few weeks reading. Use the WUWT search box, key word: ice. That should get you kids started, at least.

      • Stealey commits the “Appeal to Authority Fallacy”

        Wrong again, Booby.

        It’s a fallacy when the ‘authority’ has been corrupted, or isn’t a real authority, etc.

        You could look it up. I have. You’re wrong. Dr. Humlum is a true authority. The NSIDC isn’t.

        I know which are fallacies, and which aren’t.

        But nice try, and thanx for playing. Better luck next time.

      • DB

        “I’ve been posting the most accurate and up to date global, Arctic, and Antarctic ice data in chart form that is currently available:”

        Um no you didn’t. For that see my post at 12.23 pm. What do you make of it DB? Why do you think the Antarctic is not all over the place?

      • Simon sez:

        Um no you didn’t.

        THAT is your argument?? “No you didn’t”?? Lame.

        Simon, you are a complete failure. When two charts disagree, intelligent people refer to the one produced by the more credible source. As I scolled you, NSIDC is a political bureaucracy, while the Scandinavians are recognized world wide as the premier cryosphere experts. Further, NSIDC is primarily a national (ie: a U.S.) remit. They like to throw in their 2¢ on Arctic ice, but it’s out of their league.

        You love being spoon-fed misinformation. I offered to re-post irrefutable evidence showing that NSIDC fabricates what it pretends is “data”.

        But you avoided responding to that. Simon, tucking tail and running away shows that your mind is made up, and closed tight. Climate alarmism is your religion. Being fixated on a natural, normal phenomenon and trying to convince more intelligent readers that your propaganda source should be trusted is nothing but confirmation bias.

        As for your pal Bucky… Pf-f-f-f-ft.

      • dbstealey September 16, 2015 at 8:20 pm
        I’ve repeatedly posted examples of NSIDC fudging the numbers. The truth is not in them. They are government bureaucrats and job security is more important than honesty. They do it so mindless parrots will stay on the Man-made global warming reservation.

        So I will take the time to re-post those examples of NSIDC’s diddling with the data — if you will agree that you will no longer post their fabrications. They are misinformation.

        I’ve been posting the most accurate and up to date global, Arctic, and Antarctic ice data in chart form that is currently available:

        It is compiled by one of the premier scholars of polar ice and climate, Dr. Ole Humlum.

        You really should read the material you post!

        The data for the graph that you attribute to Humlum is from NSIDC!

        Now, you can be spoon-fed the fabricated NSIDC government charts that confirm your alarmist bias, or you can pay attention to someone who knows what he’s talking about.

        Well the “someone who knows what he’s talking about” uses NSIDC data.

        Global ice is right at its long-term average. The Arctic is below its average, and the Antarctic is above its average. This is as of last month, August, 2015 — the most recent data available.

        And yet according to Cryosphere Today it’s about 2 million sq. km below average.
        I suggest that it’s you who needs to do some reading.

      • “Phil.” is being disingenuous again. He says:

        The data for the graph that you attribute to Humlum is from NSIDC!

        As ‘Phil.’ prevaricates, I’ll repeat what I wrote: that I have evidence that NSIDC “adjusts” the numbers. Dr. Humlum uses a mountain of data from numerous sources, and I have no doubt that he has verified the data he used by cross-checking with other sources. I posted part of Dr. Humlum’s CV, anyone can check the sources. That does not alter the fact that NSIDC has been caught altering the data.

        Next, ‘Phil.’ selects a less than totally reputable source:

        And yet according to Cryosphere Today it’s about 2 million sq. km below average.

        I’ve posted Dr. Humlum’s charts of Arctic, Global, and Antarctic ice. Those charts are current: as of last month (September numbers are not available yet), and they show that global ice is right on its long-term, 36-year trend line. But ‘Phil.’ cherry-picked a source that is not in agreement. Hmm-m-m. Who to believe? And why would he do that, anyway?

        I might start to consider “Phil.” credible if he posted his own CV here. But so far, he’s only an anonymous screen name with an opinion. There are lots of those.

      • dbstealey September 17, 2015 at 10:23 am
        “Phil.” is being disingenuous again. He says:

        “The data for the graph that you attribute to Humlum is from NSIDC!”

        As ‘Phil.’ prevaricates, I’ll repeat what I wrote: that I have evidence that NSIDC “adjusts” the numbers. Dr. Humlum uses a mountain of data from numerous sources, and I have no doubt that he has verified the data he used by cross-checking with other sources.

        Humlum uses the raw data from NSIDC, he lists the link so clearly he has no problem with NSIDC data.

        Next, ‘Phil.’ selects a less than totally reputable source:

        “And yet according to Cryosphere Today it’s about 2 million sq. km below average.”

        I’ve posted Dr. Humlum’s charts of Arctic, Global, and Antarctic ice. Those charts are current: as of last month (September numbers are not available yet), and they show that global ice is right on its long-term, 36-year trend line.

        That isn’t a “trend line”, it’s the 36 year average over all seasons which isn’t relevant for the comparison you make. By your comparison global sea ice was 5 million km^2 below average earlier this year and before that about 3 million km^2 above average, not very relevant. The normal comparison is with the average for the day/month concerned, when you do that you find that it’s about 2 million km^2 below the average for the day (ref 1979-2006)

        But ‘Phil.’ cherry-picked a source that is not in agreement. Hmm-m-m. Who to believe? And why would he do that, anyway?

        As we see the disagreement is because you don’t understand the concept of averages and anomalies.

        I might start to consider “Phil.” credible if he posted his own CV here. But so far, he’s only an anonymous screen name with an opinion. There are lots of those.

        Yes and of the 4 names you’ve used on here one was a pseudonym, one a set of initials, I’ve always used my actual name to post here.
        You should learn what ‘anonymous’ mean:
        “(of a person) not identified by name; of unknown name.”

      • simon says “where as the Arctic has a plan and that is to head straight on down.” . i would be able to take you more seriously if you had some skin in the game simon. would you like to have a charity wager on the arctic heading straight on down ?
        when do you foresee the minimum summer extent dropping below 1 million square km ? the offer of the charity wager is extended to every single nasa employee, in fact any person on the planet that believes we will see less than 1 million square km within the next 6 years. i would be happy to extend the timescale but not by too long,but i live a life that is fairly hard on the body in winter time and would not want to welch on the bet due to death :)

      • “Phil.”

        ‘Phil-dot’. Hmm-m. Never heard of anyone named that before.

        Mr. Dot sez:

        Humlum uses the raw data from NSIDC, he lists the link so clearly he has no problem with NSIDC data.

        Yes, and notice the data Dr. Humlum posted is quite different from what Simon posted; the chart usually used by the general public. If that doesn’t make you suspicious of NSIDC, what would?

        Probably nothing; rhetorical question.

        Next:

        …of the 4 names you’ve used on here one was a pseudonym, one a set of initials, I’ve always used my actual name to post here.

        Four names? Name them. I recall using 3: At first I used a nickname, ‘Smokey’. When Anthony said he did not appreciate anonymous cowards, I changed it to the middle name on my drivers licence. That was very temporary, and I decided what the heck, why not just use my real initials and my last name (my first name is Dave, thus the ‘db’). Who wants to be an anonymous coward? And I never once used more than one name at any time. Those were all in succession.

        So, your real name is Phil-dot, is it? That is as believable as runaway global warming. No wonder you won’t post your C.V. — if you even have one.

        Hey, I have a suggestion! Why not use initials, too? How about: ACPhil? Unique, and it fits.

        Some folks have a good reason for a screen name. The best reason I can think of is if you were on a university payroll, and you were a skeptic of dangerous AGW. Anonymity would protect your identity from retribution byt the far-Left faculty at most unis. Same if you’re a gov’t employee and a skeptic. Or a journal publisher and a skeptic.

        But you’re no skeptic; far from it. You constantly argue with skeptics.

        So, Mr. Phil-dot, you know exactly who I am, and no doubt my science background and employer before I retired. But we know nothing about you, except you’re pretty hypocritical, and you’re afraid to disclose your own identity. For all we know, you’re David Appell. Or Pee Wee Herman.

        Now, aren’t you glad you brought that up? Did you expect no push-back from me?☺

      • dbstealey September 17, 2015 at 5:35 pm
        “Phil.”

        ‘Phil-dot’. Hmm-m. Never heard of anyone named that before.

        English not your strong point either.
        It’s termed an abbreviation, my full name is Philip. As is customary in English when an abbreviation ends in a different letter than the full word a period is used to indicate that, thus ‘Phil.’, whereas ‘Charles’ is abbreviated to ‘Chas’, see Fowler’s Modern English Usage.

        “Humlum uses the raw data from NSIDC, he lists the link so clearly he has no problem with NSIDC data.

        Yes, and notice the data Dr. Humlum posted is quite different from what Simon posted; the chart usually used by the general public. If that doesn’t make you suspicious of NSIDC, what would?

        Apparently you have problems with graphs too, Humlum plots the NSIDC data averaged monthly whereas the graph shown by Simon smooths over a few days. The NSIDC graph shows a maximum at about 14.5 for the arctic as does Humlum. Humlum shows an August average of ~5.5 whereas the NSIDC graph shows 6.9 – 4.7 for August, nothing suspicious there!

        …of the 4 names you’ve used on here one was a pseudonym, one a set of initials, I’ve always used my actual name to post here.

        Four names? Name them. I recall using 3: At first I used a nickname, ‘Smokey’. When Anthony said he did not appreciate anonymous cowards, I changed it to the middle name on my drivers licence. That was very temporary, and I decided what the heck, why not just use my real initials and my last name (my first name is Dave, thus the ‘db’). Who wants to be an anonymous coward? And I never once used more than one name at any time. Those were all in succession.

        As I recall you changed from your longtime screen name, smokey, after your real name became known, to D Boehm, followed shortly thereafter by dbstealey, during that time you were also identified in your moderator role as dbs

        Hey, I have a suggestion! Why not use initials, too? How about: ACPhil? Unique, and it fits.

        I’m quite happy with my present one thank you.

        Some folks have a good reason for a screen name. The best reason I can think of is if you were on a university payroll, and you were a skeptic of dangerous AGW. Anonymity would protect your identity from retribution byt the far-Left faculty at most unis. Same if you’re a gov’t employee and a skeptic. Or a journal publisher and a skeptic.

        But you’re no skeptic; far from it. You constantly argue with skeptics.

        As I have said before on WUWT the reason for my use of a screen name was a denial of service spamming attack which caused significant inconvenience (not on this site).

        So, Mr. Phil-dot, you know exactly who I am, and no doubt my science background and employer before I retired. But we know nothing about you, except you’re pretty hypocritical, and you’re afraid to disclose your own identity. For all we know, you’re David Appell. Or Pee Wee Herman.

        Your background is of no interest to me, it has no influence on my opinions of your postings, when you’re wrong you’re wrong. I’m surprised you’re interested in my CV since knowing my background wouldn’t change your mind, not even if I were a Nobel laureate!

      • ACPhil. says:

        “It’s termed an abbreviation, my full name is Philip.”

        An ‘abbreviation’! LOL!! You’re either posting your full name, or an “abbreviation”. Can’t be both.

        Is your ‘abbreviation’ like the musician Prince, whose name is an unpronouncable symbol? ☺

        ‘Phil-dot’ is not your “full name”. “Full name”. We know a “full name” when we see one.

        Without a verifiable identity, your comments are no more credible than if Pee Wee Herman used a fake name here.

      • dbstealey September 18, 2015 at 10:41 am
        ACPhil. says:

        “It’s termed an abbreviation, my full name is Philip.”

        An ‘abbreviation’! LOL!! You’re either posting your full name, or an “abbreviation”. Can’t be both.

        Is your ‘abbreviation’ like the musician Prince, whose name is an unpronouncable symbol? ☺

        ‘Phil-dot’ is not your “full name”. “Full name”. We know a “full name” when we see one.

        Really? Are you really trying to prove your stupidity?

        Without a verifiable identity, your comments are no more credible than if Pee Wee Herman used a fake name here.

        How are we able to verify your identity?

      • “Phil.” says:

        How are we able to verify your identity?

        Since it’s the name on every comment I make, even you can probably figure it out.

        And:

        Your background is of no interest to me, it has no influence on my opinions of your postings…&etc.

        So why even ask about my identity? I was asking about yours. because for what i can see, you just cut and paste answers you find with a quick search, and pretend to have the knowledge. So I’m calling you on it. Verify that you understand, and that you’re not a poseur.

        And: when you’re wrong you’re wrong….

        When I am wrong, I am wrong. But it doesn’t happen very often. In fact, everyone is wrong, and you have had more than your share of being wrong. That kind of schoolyard taunt takes you down to Bucky’s level. Juvenile taunts are about 60% of his comments. Is that rubbing off on you now?

        Really, “Phil.”, why are you so terrified of posting your name? Claiming “Phil.” is your whole name makes me laugh, it’s such a ridiculous claim. So quit being a ‘fraidy-cat, and answer. You will be a better man for it.

      • dbstealey September 19, 2015 at 4:45 pm
        “Phil.” says:

        “How are we able to verify your identity?”

        Since it’s the name on every comment I make, even you can probably figure it out.

        As you said, how do we know that it’s not Pee Wee Herman using ‘dbstealey’ as a screen name?
        You using the name verifies nothing, no more than most who post on here can be.

        And: “when you’re wrong you’re wrong….”

        When I am wrong, I am wrong. But it doesn’t happen very often. In fact, everyone is wrong, and you have had more than your share of being wrong.

        You’re frequently wrong, most recently your blunder in identifying the 35 year average on Humlum’s graph as a ‘trend line’, you also apparently hadn’t realized that he used NSIDC data and then tried to make a bogus claim that his graph showed data “quite different” from the daily NSIDC graph, as I pointed out you were wrong. Needless to say in your usual fashion you avoid addressing your errors and try to switch the subject, in this case by focussing on posters identity.

        Claiming “Phil.” is your whole name makes me laugh, it’s such a ridiculous claim.

        I made no such claim, you apparently don’t understand what an ‘abbreviation’ is, (did no-one ever call you Dave.)?

        dbstealey September 19, 2015 at 4:58 pm

        Chris says:

        “…about the Antarctic – why do you always bring that in on threads about the Arctic?”

        Because, Chris, the basic debate is about anthropogenic GLOBAL warming: “AGW”. You are trying to limit the discussion to one cherry-picked location.

        It was Anthony who chose the topic “Peter Wadhams was wrong – Arctic sea ice still there, no record low this year”, not Chris.

      • “Phil.” says:

        As you said, how do we know that it’s not Pee Wee Herman using ‘dbstealey’ as a screen name?

        Ask Anthony. End of problem, Pee Wee.

        Next:

        …I pointed out you were wrong.

        Assertions don’t cut it. You’re just deflecting from the central point: you, and everyone on the alarmist side, has been completely wrong regarding your wild-eyed stories about Arctic ice disappearing. You have been totally, consistently, completely wrong. To quote the anonymous “Phil.”:

        Needless to say in your usual fashion you avoid addressing your errors and try to switch the subject, in this case by focussing on posters identity.

        The issue [see the article’s title] is Wadhams and your own busted predictions. Stand-up guys would admit they were flat wrong.

        Next:

        You’re still hiding behind an anonymous screen name. Time to ‘fess up — unless you like the label “anonymous coward”.

        Finally, trying to deflect my comment from Chris onto Anthony is typical of your fuzzy-headed ‘logic’. Better luck next time, Pee Wee.

    • DB Stealey said: “Chris,

      I wrote: 2006-7.
      Arctic ice cover is normal. It goes up, it goes down. But the Arctic is only half the story.
      You avoid discussing the Antarctic. Global ice is right on it long-term average. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening.
      You are just trying to sound a false alarm. That’s not honest.”

      First, your picture IS of 2006. And second, there is no such thing as 2006/2007 when it comes to a low year. The lowest point occurs in September, so either you were saying 2006 was the lowest, or 2007.They can’t both be the lowest. Which was it? But it doesn’t matter – both are incorrect statements.

      Second, about the Antarctic – why do you always bring that in on threads about the Arctic? It’s not a question of avoiding anything. It’s irrelevant to a discussion about Arctic ice. If you want to introduce irrelevant topics, don’t lay a guilt trip on others for not responding.

      Third, introducing the topic of global ice extent is analogous to saying it’s no big deal if Africa is in drought as long as other parts of the world are getting more rainfall than normal. As long as global rainfall totals are the same as normal, then the planet is in good shape! The Arctic region has a huge impact on weather for countries in the northern hemisphere. How does growing ice in Antarctica help counter the decline in Arctic ice and the associated impact on weather in the northern hemisphere?

      • Chris says:

        …there is no such thing as 2006/2007 when it comes to a low year… They can’t both be the lowest. &etc.

        Chris, you are splitting hairs, and I know why: because that kind of nitpicking is all you’ve got.

        Look at this graph. You will seee that 2006 – 2012 was the low point in Arctic ice over the past 15 years, and 2007 was lower than 2006:

        And here we see that 2006 was not as low as 2007:

        Sorry about your climate panic over “ice”, but Arctic ice isn’t disappearing. What the recent, temporary decline shows is a normal cyclical fluctuation — which is fully offset by Antarctic ice, and which is something you really wish we wouldn’t mention.

        Chris is upset that I would post contrary information debunking his belief in “dangerous AGW”. Chris says:

        …about the Antarctic – why do you always bring that in on threads about the Arctic?

        Because, Chris, the basic debate is about anthropogenic GLOBAL warming: “AGW”. You are trying to limit the discussion to one cherry-picked location. But there are two Poles on the globe, and if there is global warming, then they are both fair game. Wadhams does the same thing. It’s called “confirmation bias”. And I note that there are very few climate prognosticators who have been as consistently wrong as Peter Wadhams. He is a perfect contrary indicator. If he says there is a problem, you can be sure there isn’t.

        Climate alarmists cling to “Arctic ice” like a drowning man clings to a stick. But when we look at global ice, we see that it is completely normal, which deconstructs the wild-eyed alarmist predictions:

        It amuses me no end to see people running around in circles and clucking about “ice”. They sound like Chicken Little yelling that the sky is falling. But it isn’t; it was only a tiny acorn that conked Chicken Little on the noggin. The Arctic “ice” scare isn’t even an acorn, Chris. Really, it’s nothing.

    • DBStealey:

      You’re confusing 2 different sorts of ice.

      Antarctica has 10x the mass of LAND ice that the northern hemisphere (mostly Greenland) does. The Antarctic LAND ice is declining, as observed by the GRACE mission, as is Greenland’s mass.

      The SEA ice, which is what your graphics are for, and the trend lines you show are for, is declining in the Arctic, increasing in the Antarctic. Masses … well, haven’t redone the computation, but the Arctic, back when it averaged around 7 million km^2 ice at the seasonal minimum, also averaged about 3 meters thick at that time. Versus the Antarctic, whose minimum was (and still is) about 4 million km^2 of ice only about 1 meter thick. So, back then, the Arctic had about 5x the sea ice mass of the Antarctic.

      The sea ice is trivial in mass compared to the land ice. Antarctic continent is about 10 million km^2, averaging far over 1000 meters of ice thickness.

      • Robert Grumbine said:

        You’re confusing 2 different sorts of ice… The Antarctic LAND ice is declining…

        Since there is no Arctic land ice, that comparison is meaningless.

      • The people of Greenland will be surprised to hear that they’re not in the Arctic.

        In any case, it was your comparison to say 10x ice mass in the Antarctic. That’s only true for land ice (and only if you do include Greenland), but you gave sea ice plots.

      • I was being generous, and trying to find a way where you weren’t wrong to say 10x ice mass in the Antarctic.

        For sea ice, you’re simply and strikingly wrong.

      • Robert Grumbine says:

        I was being generous, and trying to find a way where you weren’t wrong to say 10x ice mass in the Antarctic.

        Sure you were. It’s always a pleasure meeting such a generous person.☺

        Depending on several factors such as the time of the year, which year in particular is being discussed, etc., Antarctic ice volume is ≈30,000,000 cubic kilometers, compared with the Arctic’s ≈3,000,000 cubic kilometers.

        Those numbers vary a lot, but they are in the ball park. Thus, the Antarctic has ≈10X the volume of ice that the Arctic contains.

        Next:

        For sea ice, you’re simply and strikingly wrong.

        Let me help you dig that hole you’re in a little deeper, Robert.

        Two of the graphs show sea ice, but I couldn’t easily find graphs that showed polar ice volume, which is what I wrote about. There are probably graphs of ice volume somewhere, but the ones I posted made my point just as well.

        You can see that my comment you were replying to does not have the word “sea” in it. I only wrote about Arctic vs Antarctic “ice”. (Every time I see the hand-waving over “ice” I have to larf. As if the amount of polar ice has anything to do with human CO2 emissions; which is always the basis for the whole ‘dangerous AGW’ debate.)

        There is a LOT more ice in the Antarctic than in the Arctic — including Greenland. The ratio is still about 10:1. But if it makes you happy I’ll give you half, and we can agree that it’s only 5:1. See, I can be generous, too.

        So you brought up sea ice. But it doesn’t matter. In fact, I can’t understand why you’re arguing, except to try and say I was “simply and strikingly wrong.” Sorry for your failure; I was right, neener.

        You also contradicted yourself when you wrote:

        “I was being generous, and trying to find a way where you weren’t wrong to say 10x ice mass in the Antarctic.”

        Because you also wrote:

        “…it was your comparison to say 10x ice mass in the Antarctic. That’s only true for land ice”

        So you claimed I was wrong when I pointed out that there is 10X more ice in the Antarctic… but then you said that’s true for land ice. Climate alarmists always get tangled up in explanations like that.

        Actually, I wasn’t really referring to sea ice or land ice, but to ice volume. That’s a more relevant metric, wouldn’t you agree?

        The measurements of ice volume are not precise, but it’s clear that the Antarctic has much greater ice volume than both the Arctic and Greenland combined. That observation supports my argument that while the Arctic lost ice (sea ice and volume) for several years, Antarctic sea ice, land ice, and ice volume has been steadily rising. Since the Antarctic contains so much more ice, it easily offsets the decline in the Arctic and Greenland.

        Result: global ice is near its long term average. The basic debate is over global warming (which anyway stopped many years ago), so what we are observing is merely regional variability.

  19. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a radiation budget for the Arctic specifically.

    Yes, some sunlight will hit the Arctic ocean when it is exposed, but the Arctic ocean also radiates accumulated heat energy out into space much more than it would if it were covered by an ice sheet.

    It seems that if Arctic sea ice extent is a major concern, then there should be an exact radiation budget that has been calculated to show exact how much net energy increase to expect (+ for increased solar, – for increased heat radiation to space) for any given latitude.

    • Comparison of temperature over the North Pole in 2014 and 2015.

      You can go all the way back to the 1950’s and see exactly the same graph. Since their 80 north temperature record began, the DMI summer air temperature has NEVER changed! (Winter temps go up by about 5 degrees, and vary greatly from day-to-day, but the summer temperatures are going down slightly since 1988.)

  20. Interesting stuff. Two observations from a novice. In the last few months the Antarctic sea ice graphs moved from being well above average to being around average. At the same time the Arctic sea ice graphs have moved from being inside the grey 2SD area to being well below.

    Can anybody assist me to understand what’s happening?

    • Two observations from a novice. In the last few months the Antarctic sea ice graphs moved from being well above average to being around average. At the same time the Arctic sea ice graphs have moved from being inside the grey 2SD area to being well below.

      Can anybody assist me to understand what’s happening?

      Yes, we (Anthony and I) have been tracking that since the spring equinox. And, no, there has been NO consistent explanation nor notice of either trend in the mainstream press, nor their CAGW self-called “climate” press releases. I’ve got a story in editing about these discrepancies – your comment is a good impetus for finishing it this evening for review.

      • The Antarctic sea ice loss is being driven by changes in surface winds. Note the big hole slightly to the west side of the Ross Sea area. Take a look at the current daily picture from the Sea Ice Index. Then take a look at earth:nullschool and note how that same spot is being hit by warm southerly flowing surface winds. Last month a similar size melt occurred a short distance east of the Ross Sea. That was also driven by warm southerly surface winds, as was a second melt hole halfway around the continent from the Ross Sea. This caused the below average sea ice trend. The sea ice gain back to the average line was as these two melt areas regained sea ice after the focus of the winds shifted westward. Both areas gained sea ice back to the average trend line. As the winds shifted westward, then the sea ice in new areas pushed back well below the average trend line, while at the same time much of the sea ice extent still remains average to above average.

      • goldminer: What rubbish! Winds have not melted/compacted 2 million sq km of ice. Tell your fairy story elsewhere.

      • goldminor is correct. I’ll add the other factor: ocean currents.

        Ice also melts from below (sublimation causes much of the disappearance on the surface), so between wind and currents, ice changes from year to year.

        The alarmist crowd is trying to sell the discredited idea that Arctic ice (but not Antarctic) is declining because of AGW. That is nothing more than another of their baseless assertions.

        Even NASA shows that the Antarctic has been cooling (blue area):

        The WAIS is warmer because of geological heat sources — not because of CO2.

        Really, the last desperate attempt to convince rational folks of their catastrophic AGW fantasy is “Arctic ice”. It’s amusing to think they really beieve that nonsense. We are observing nature in action; nothing more.

        If Arctic ice disappeared like the endless predictions said it would, it would be a net benefit to humanity. But it’s not disappearing. There are millions upon millions of square kilometers even in the warmest time of the year. But desperate people tend to make up unbelievable fantasies, rather than just accepting reality: there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. What’s being observed now has happened repeatedly, and to a much greater degree before there were any human CO2 emissions outside of people exhaling and lighting campfires.

        The whole “ice” scare looks like it was invented in a clown college.

      • @dbstealey…thanks for the support, but I did overstate my position by saying further up in the comments that “…the sole reason for the sea ice loss was…”. I should have said “…a main reason for the sea ice loss was due to wind flow..”.

        @NZ Willy…I noticed the drop in southern sea ice in early August. At the time it occurred to me that I should be able to see what ever it was that was driving the sea ice loss. Viewing the wind patterns at earth:nullschool supplied the answer. Here is a comment which I made on the 23rd of last month ….https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/arctic-water-extent-great-leap-ahead/

        I made that comment after watching the sea ice changes over a 3 week period, from early August on. When I made that comment I also noted that the winds had shifted away from the heavy ice loss areas, and that those areas would likely spring back to the average trend line as a result. That is exactly what happened starting on the very next day as the sea ice anomaly stopped it,s downward trend and showed an upward gain in sea ice within 24 hours of the shift in the wind pattern. In the following weeks afterwards, the area regained most of what had been lost. Either that was just a coincidence, or my thoughts were in fact correct. For another example of this process take a look at the big hole to the east side of the Ross Sea that is currently shown on the Sea Ice Index. Then take a look at the wind pattern striking that area. That pattern has held in place for around 2 weeks now. Let us see what happens to that large below average melt area when that wind pattern fades away….http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-77.48,-83.12,497

      • goldminor says:

        I should have said “…a main reason…

        We all do things like that occasionally. I just happened to recall some pretty thorough discussions on that issue a year or two ago, and added my 2¢.

      • dbstealey may say that “goldminor is correct”, but that does not make him correct. Consider the enthalpy required to melt out 2m km2 of sea ice — your winds are puny zephyrs by comparison. And where were those winds in previous years? And why aren’t we NZers getting much colder southerlies than in previous years? You have no case. I have previously stated why Antarctic ice is seen to be in decline this year, and my case is far stronger than yours. NZW

      • NZWilly says:

        your winds are puny zephyrs by comparison.

        Wake up, Willy. You are replying to my post where I said that ocean currents are part of the reason for ice melt. By re-framing my comment, you misrepresented it.

        You should do as I do, and paste the verbatim quote you’re arguing with. That would save you this kind of embarassment.

      • @NZ Willy…another point, you twice mention the problem of surface winds melting 2 mil sq km of sea ice. I do not see where that thought applies to what has happened over the last several months. The sea ice has continued to make slight gains through the entire period. The only difference from the previous 2 high sea ice years is that from late July through August conditions prevented the sea ice from reaching the high extent of past seasons.

        The current daily Sea Ice Index shows the very large hole in one area of the ice shield, approximately at 70S 155E. If you were to look back 3 to 4 weeks ago, then you would have seen a very large hole in the ice shield sitting about 1500 miles to the east of where the current melt has occurred. That same melt spot has now been at the average trend line for weeks. One was situated at 65S 53E. The other was situated at 69S 170E. At the time that those two large melt areas were open, the rest of the ice shield was at average or above in extent. The drop from +2 SD to slightly below the average trend line happened primarily in only those two spots. Since then both of those two areas filled back in. I understand that this is only conjecture on my part as to what exactly caused the change in sea ice conditions in those 2 locations, but I am correctly describing what I observed. I see that a somewhat similar surface wind pattern has returned to impact the east side of the Ross Sea since yesterday at 69S 170E. If there is any validity to what I am suggesting, then in the following week a new hole should open in the ice shield at that location, although the wind pattern should be colder as it is starting from a position that is 15 degrees closer to the Antarctic than the original wind flow back in July/August.

      • In terms of ocean currents, I think it’s restrained the Antarctic sea ice growth in the Drake Passage because the currents are strong there. This year is the first recent one in which the sea ice has bulged in that direction, so the resultant cut-back has been significant. I look forward to the upcoming stories of travail of scientists trying to get to their Antarctic peninsula bases in the Southern summer.

        But I give no credence to goldminor’s point which was that the Antarctic’s sea ice cutback of the past 2 months was due to winds. No embarrassment here, dbstealey, check your own logic where you say “goldminor is correct. I’ll add the other factor: ocean currents” — but goldminor’s point was exclusively “The Antarctic sea ice loss is being driven by changes in surface winds”, which is the only point to which I was responding.

      • @ NZ Willy…note that in the 2 days since I made my last comment that a new hole in the sea ice extent is opening at 69S 170E. This could be coincidental. Also the hole to the west of there is still growing a bit as the winds are still in place there, although they are weaker now than they were originally.

      • A further note 3 days after my last comment. The sea ice at 69S 170E continued to steadily erode as the warm moist surface winds continued to push through that area. The area west of there around 72S 149E also continued to open a bit further. Looking at the areas today, it can be seen that the surface winds have now shifted away from the coast and are moving due east. Let’s see how the open areas respond now that the wind has broken off it,s attack.

        The area around 65S 111E has also been a wind influenced spot for around several weeks. Although that wind is a mix of warmer latitude wind and cold polar wind. That may explain why the below average sea ice area has not opened more extensively as happened back in early August

    • Wind. Polar sea ice levels are determined by ocean temperatures and wind. I suspect that Antarctic winds have become more zonal lately while an August storm once again reduced the Arctic sea ice.

  21. “The sea ice cap … now is fragmented into smaller floes …”

    It seems to me that increasing activity from ice-breakers (both government and NGO) is inevitably going to increase fragmentation of the ice pack, creating the aforementioned smaller floes.

    Are those that are studying the impacts on the ice pack via polar expedition inadvertently creating more evidence that justifies further research funding?

    • The reason that the Arctic ice is increasing is that insufficient numbers of icebreakers have been steaming around the Arctic smashing up the ice. The Russians go up to the pole with a bunch of tourists every year but the 2008 recession kind of cramped the style of the numerous other icebreaker owning nations driving around the Arctic smashing up the ice into meltable chunks.

  22. Question: Am I dong something wrong or is NSIDC doing something wrong? I download and plot their data, updating almost daily. I get 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012 lower than 2015. This should make 2015 the 5th lowest, not the 4th lowest. Can someone else check? Here are the numbers I have from their site.

    Year		minimum	rank(low)
    2006	5640540.95		10
    2007	3986945.93		2
    2008	4223400.12		3
    2009	4871392.35		8
    2010	4716943.6		7
    2011	4302977.96		4
    2012	3368882.08		1
    2013	4677324.53		6
    2014	5066134.38		9
    2015	4500650.19		5
    
    
  23. So Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard was right all along to be insisting on this. It seems WUWT is now emulating it more and more as people and lukewarmers realize how they have been continuously had by the establishment meteorologists/scientist/journals ect. BTW… in any case the lowest ice was in 1974 well below anything recent. A bit of advice READ and LOOK at SG site for actual factual real data and information from way way back LOL

    • Eliza, I am a sceptic to the core but I don’t understand everything you say.

      Please elaborate on

      “So Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard was right all along to be insisting on this.”

      What?

      “in any case the lowest ice was in 1974 well below anything recent.”

      I thought 2012 was lower.

      • The zero point of the vertical axis of the graph above is simply the average of the data on that graph. The zero point of today’s graphs is usually “average of 1980-2010” or some such, but is labelled in each case. Check your groceries.

      • Upon comparing maxima & minima on Ockham’s graph compared with the graph above, I’ll amend that to 0.5m km2 that the left side of Ockham’s graph should be raised up by.

      • With the north west passage and the North sea routes used in the 1930s- Spitzpergen seas open all year in the 1920s, Russian arctic sea lanes open for 8 months in the 1950s- a great shame we have no maps that we can compare to today, The DMi maps from back then are pretty useless and based on estimations with huge areas guessed at.

      • richard September 16, 2015 at 2:11 pm
        With the north west passage and the North sea routes used in the 1930s- Spitzpergen seas open all year in the 1920s, Russian arctic sea lanes open for 8 months in the 1950s- a great shame we have no maps that we can compare to today, The DMi maps from back then are pretty useless and based on estimations with huge areas guessed at.

        The NW Passage was not open in the 30’s.

    • Its clear that in the northern hemisphere black carbon or soot (from Chinese and other industries) is driving down sea ice coverage. Where as, in the southern hemisphere sea ice for the most part is may above the average the last 5 years. Mainly because of the absence of highly polluting industries in the southern hemisphere. If CO2 were a factor we would see the 5 year 2 standard deviations you mentioned at the south pole too.

    • Lewis, are you honestly trying to claim that it’s not a turnaround until it returns to average?
      I suppose Obama’s economy hasn’t turned around since we are still way below the highs seen before the crash?

    • Lewis,

      Looks as if it was in the average zone quite recently to me.

      What makes you imagine that Arctic sea ice extent bears any connection whatsoever with CO2?

      Among the many valid reasons for it to be lower now are more icebreakers, more soot from China and India, clearer skies generally in the NH thanks to pollution control by developed nations, natural oceanic circulation fluctuations, and a host of other factors beside of which one more molecule of CO2 per 10,000 dry air molecules is not a pimple on the posterior.

    • But MarkW,

      It’s TWO STANDARD DEVIATIONS!!

      Aren’t you alarmed? Especially when he yelled it at you.

      Of course, 2 sd is an arbitrary convention. It’s not a physical standard, like the triple point of water.

      Furthermore, while Arctic ice has naturally fluctuated below its long term average, the other end of the planet — the polar area the alarmist crowd ignores — is above its long term average:

      And as we see, global ice is right at its long-term, 36-year average. So…

      EVERYBODY PANIC!!

      …not.

    • Buckingham misrepresents again, writing:

      He says: “2 sd is an arbitrary convention. It’s not a physical standard”

      By conveniently deleting the comparison with a physical standard, Bucky re-frames it to mean something different. I wrote:

      …2 sd is an arbitrary convention. It’s not a physical standard, like the triple point of water.

      I’ve not found many in the climate alarmist crowd who value honesty.

    • Buckyboi sez:

      Look at the lower right hand drop off at 2015

      Your chart isn’t quite up to date. This has the latest data:

      Note that global ice is right on its 36-year average trend line.

      Excuse me for not panicking.

      Also, Antarctic ice is rising, as we see. The Antarctic contains ten times the ice volume of the Arctic.

      Go ahead and panic over the Arctic. It’s amusing.

    • Bucky, you are as far out of your depth here as Simon is:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/16/peter-wadhams-was-wrong-arctic-sea-ice-still-there-no-record-low-this-year/#comment-2028999

      Bucky admits:

      …did ya know that pi ( π ) is not a “physical standard” either?

      Hey, maybe now Bucky is beginning to understand! …But then, he tries to conflate particle physics with the “Arctic ice” scare. Very lame, and desperate. “Arctic ice” is a false alarm, and claiming that a few years out of the 10,000+ year Holocene means anything is nothing more than pseudo-science cherry-picking.

  24. So long as Siberia and Alaska keeps on developing the Arctic sea ice extent will be lower than it was when there was no heating there.

    All that waste heated water has to flow somewhere – where do you think the rivers flow up there?

    • Do you have any data that shows that towns in Alaska and Siberia are dumping their excess heat into rivers?
      Do you have any data that shows that towns in Alaska and Siberia have any excess heat to be dumping in the first place?
      BTW: What about the Canadian tundra? Do they not small villages up there as well?

      • Do you have any data that shows that towns in Alaska and Siberia are dumping their excess heat into rivers?

        1) See the definition of heat pollution.

        Do you have any data that shows that towns in Alaska and Siberia have any excess heat to be dumping in the first place?

        2) Never bothered to look; it’s self-evident.
        The towns in Alaska and Siberia must have excess heat to be dumped. It’s cold up there – they must heat their homes and their showers and their washing water.

        What about the Canadian tundra? Do they not small villages up there as well?

        3) Yes, I agree. Canada has an influence as well. And that influence is to melt the Arctic sea ice.

      • The four largest communities above the Arctic Circle are situated in Russia and Norway; Murmansk (population 307,257), Norilsk (175,365), Tromsø (71,590) and Vorkuta (70,548).

        Barrow, AK has only about 4373, but oil operations on the North Slope could have contributed to warmer water since the 1970s, too. Nome’s population is 3788. Iqaluit, Canada has grown rapidly now that it’s a capital, but still has only around 6699 people.

        The Siberian coast and Alaska is the side of the Arctic Ocean that shows the most melt-back.

      • MCourtney, that’s what you get for assuming rather than finding out for yourself.
        You assume that there is heat pollution. You haven’t proven that there is any, or that it is going into the rivers, or that it is bigger now than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

        You know what they say about making assumptions, and you have done so big time.

    • And you think Wadhams comes up with spectacular claims? I think he is an outlier, but I think you are too. Both as bad as each other, it could be said.

  25. Climate Justice Warriors are never wrong. Remember whenever contradicted by reality just assert that the idea is still valid but you just needed to go over the top get people to “meet in the middle.” That way all the alarmist psychotic behavior is then justified. Or you meant well. Meaning well seems to replace doing well.

  26. “According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.” Are all climate models created by the same people?

  27. Seems as you like computer models so much.

    “However, we find that both the AMO and AMOC indices are significantly correlated with SIE in all the models considered.”

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034011/meta;jsessionid=FF3D6DFA1F2E2DC541372F5EE06E485C.c1

    “The regionally and temporally resolved spectral analysis of six Arctic annual ice core δ18O time series points towards a considerable natural spatial and temporal variability of the Greenland climate and one of its driving forces the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The most dominant observed quasi-periodicity is that of ∼20 years followed by a longer multidecadal band between 45 and 65 years. The observed intermittency of these modes over the last 4000 years supports the view that these are internal ocean-atmosphere modes, with little or no external forcing. The Little Ice Age was dominated by a ∼20 year AMO cycle with no other decadal or multidecadal variability above the noise level. During the preceding Medieval Warm Period the 20 year cycle was replaced by a longer scale cycle centered near a period of 43 years and an additional ∼11.5 year periodicity.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051241/full

    “When land-ice is allowed to melt, the global surface temperature is
    0.44 K (10%) lower at 4CO2, which represents a noticeable
    uncertainty on climate sensitivity. This is attributed to a
    28% larger reduction of the AMOC in this simulation.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL025765/pdf

    The answer is very high.

  28. Why do they end the average at 2010? Why not compare 2015 against the 1981-2014 or 1985-2014 average instead of 1981-2010?

    • The conventional thing to do for forming climate ‘normals’, for over a century, is to average 30 years of data, ending in the most recent 0 year of a decade (2010, 2000, 1990, … etc.).

      To violate that convention, present reasons why it should be. And why in the particular way that you prefer and not some other way.

  29. What I don’t understand is what all that ice is still doing in the Arctic in the first place. Didn’t Bill McKibben in 2013 state, “We have already melted the Arctic.” There simply can not be any more ice in the Arctic. So, case closed and stop the quibbling, ok?

    • On Democracy Now, Sep 10 2015, just a few days ago, McFibben talking about the Arctic sea ice said “the water has melted.”

      http://www.democracynow.org/2015/9/10/victory_for_peoples_uprising_bill_mckibben#
      “But he’s [Obama] unable so far to break with the habit of giving the oil industry what it wants. And what it wanted this time was one of the stupidest things on Earth. I mean, look at Shell Oil up in the Arctic.

      “It watched, as scientists said would happen, as the Arctic melted from the increasing temperature on this planet.

      “Instead of looking at that and saying, ‘Huh, maybe we should become an energy company and start putting up solar panels,’ Shell looked at that and said, ‘The water has melted. That will make it easier to drill.’ If there is a more irresponsible company on Earth, I don’t know what it is. And it’s a shame to see Barack Obama helping in that process.”

  30. I commented several months ago on the methane threat poppycock from melting of ice on land in the Arctic region. The average depth to overburden throughout Northern Canada is only 3 to 5 metres, below which is solid rock – totally free of methane. As an exploration geologist having managed drilling and mapping programs for mining exploration for many years and as a geological survey geologist mapping northern geology, it has been my experience but there also have been some studies of this. Moreover, the active layer from 1 to 3 metres thaws every year and would have released its methane or we may have only about a metre or two where any methane remains locked.

    Jockey’s like Wadhams and others don’t know how to study and sample these situations so they make stuff up. They come to the idea while agonizing on the failing warming models. They employ a priori reasoning – the kind a smart teenager uses to argue with his parents because he lacks the empirical knowledge to do otherwise. Here is an overburden map of central Northwest Territories Canada: Scroll to the last page for a map. You’ll see that more than 75% of it is </=2m. Now if you remove ~3m (for this latitude) of annual thaw layer, over 85% of the terrain could have no stored methane. The thick hummocky till and eskers are pretty much devoid of organic matter anyway – largely gravel, sand and inert clay. There is no place to hide enough methane to matter.

    http://dmec.ca/ex07-dvd/E07/pdfs/97.pdf

  31. Another thing about the “low” on September 11th, it will be interesting to see where it is by the 22nd. It may be above all the others and have a head start on the season, essentially what it would have if it had simply bottomed at that level on the 22nd. They tend to refreeze on a steep trend shortly after the bottom.

    • What will be interesting will be to see the re-emergence of the Beaufort “arm” of ice which has disappeared from most ice maps, but is still there in a lower concentration.

      • and the hudson bay ice that was invisible to the low resolution (relatively) satellite that nsidc get their data from. nsidc output from a resolution of 25 square km,dmi 100 m.

  32. A few thoughts occur.
    1) The “accelerated warming” they claim is happening in the Arctic is an artifact of their homogenization algorithms, not based on actual measurement.
    2) When arctic water is exposed in summer, it does allow more insolation, but when summer ends and less sunlight hits the Arctic, that open ocean will allow more cooling, more LWR leaving the atmosphere, because it’s not insulated by ice and the “greenhouse effect” is minimal at the poles where the troposphere thins. They don’t seem to acknowledge this phenomenon.
    3) They seem surprised that the ice is being melted from below, even though warm deep currents due to the effects of the AMO push past the rim of the Arctic Basin, allowing inflow of warmer water, which melt the sea ice from below.

    Why do they continue to ignore factors which explain what we’re seeing? Because they don’t fit with CAGW theory? Because the climate conference in Paris is coming? Because they’re anti-industry “environmental” extremists fashioned in the mold of James Hansen?

    Yes, Gavin rightly ridiculed Wadham – it seems Wadham is more than a half-bubble off plumb – but Gavin’s crew and NSIDC are also a brick shy …

  33. Speaking of Arctic Ice I like this bit from the Sept.2 post at http://www.polarbearscience.com : “Two out of seven polar bears with collars in the Southern Beaufort Sea either spent the month of August on ice that satellites couldn’t see – or they spent the entire month swimming around the Beaufort. Which seems most likely?”

  34. Wow…..2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 all TWO STANDARD DEVIATIONS below the “average”

    With only 10 data points………? Don’t get too excited.

  35. Arctic winter sea ice, and consequently the summer extent has a lot to do with the rainfall thousands of miles away, in the Altai mountains on the Siberia-Mongolian borders, feeding Ob, Yenisey and Lena rivers, with the total fresh water discharge into the Arctic Ocean averaging about 50,000 m3/s .

    • Open waters in the Arctic sea would also result in increased snow fall for the early part of the winter, until the oceans fully re-freeze.

      • Thicker snow packs would take longer to melt in the following spring resulting in more sunlight reflected during each spring.

  36. “The sea ice cap, which used to be a solid sheet of ice, now is fragmented into smaller floes that are more exposed to warm ocean waters.”

    If that was ever true it must have been long before any explorers reached the Arctic. Read Nansen’s or Peary’s descriptions of the sea-ice they walked (and occasionally kayaked) across 120 years ago. It was anything but a “solid sheet”. If it had been, the North Pole would have been reached much earlier.

  37. Buckingham’s comment shows a lack of understanding of statistics and the geological timescales in which these systems operate. Over a few thousand years, there would probably be numerous consecutive periods of lower than average sea ice. Also, you treat the mean and standard deviations as absolutes. They are not. If we had 50 years of data taken during the minoan warm, would the mean and standard deviations be the same as they are using the current dataset?

    • AP

      If we had 50 years of data taken during the minoan warm, would the mean and standard deviations be the same as they are using the current dataset?

      And, regretably, we don’t even have a single half-cycle of data for the present Warming Period. We know too little to talk about trends, other than the obvios: Conventional CAGW climate “wisdom” about any mythical “Arctic death spiral” is falsified. The actual satellite trend is broadly:
      High spring Arctic sea ice levels usually mean lower-than-normal fall Arctic sea ice minimums.
      Low spring sea ice levels usually mean higher-than-normal fall sea ice extents at minimum.
      A low fall sea ice at minimum is usually followed by a high spring sea ice at maximum.
      Arctic sea ice anomalies have oscillated in the past by an area equal to the size of Greenland in just one season, and they will continue to do that in the future.

    • None of the pictures in that link were taken ‘at the North Pole’ in 1958 or 1959. Here’s what it actually looked like on March 17 1959 when the Skate actually surfaced at the N Pole.

  38. I appreciate all of the solid science in the post and particularly in the parade of comments here. It is very informative and educational. Thank you all. But, please, try to keep this all in perspective. The Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. We know very little about the climate on the planet for the first 4.1 billion years, but we have good science that indicates dramatic swings in climate on a more or less regular basis for the past 400,000. To attribute any importance to the comparative ice measurements since satellite observations of the ice were first calculated in 1979 is a making a mountain out of molehill.

    • John, Perspective can be a very useful thing. Geology and Cosmology make for some fun with their 4.5 and 13.7 billion year time spans. But such spans don’t strike me as having much to do with humans and any questions about our climate.

      Just for starters, for most of the history of the universe, the earth did not exist. (About 2/3rds)

      For most of the history of the earth, there were no multicellular organisms. (Only the last 1.7 billion years of the 4.5)

      For most of the history of multicelled organisms, there were no animals (0.7 of the 1.7)

      Even when there have been animals, there usually haven’t been mammals (only 0.25 billion years of the 0.7 that there have been animals).

      Net: mammalian life is only 0.25 of 4.5 billion years of the planet’s history, 5.6%, and even less of the history of the universe. As far as climate goes, the climates mammals have ever adapted to represent a very small fraction of the climates of earth history. But we’re humans, not just any mammal. Dropping down to millions of years now:

      Primates, our order, have only been around for about 60 million years (i.e., after the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, or, at most, very slightly before it. Less than 25% of the span that mammals have been around.

      Our family, homonidae, have only been around for about 20 million years. Less than 10% of the time there have been mammals, only 33% the span of primates. And, perhaps significant for pondering climate change, the entire time our family has existed, there has been a major ice cap on Antarctica. Our family has never experienced a non-ice age earth (from the long view of ice age). Even though ice-free is the most common status.

      Genus Homo (us) is about 2.8 million years old. If they can get solid dates on the recent Homo naledi, this might be pushed back a few tenths. Still, only about 15% of the span our family has existed has there been our genus. Climatically, this is also about the same span has having significant ice in the northern hemisphere (Greenland glaciated about this time).

      Then come to our species. Anthropologists are arguing, of course, but a fair number seems to be 0.2 million years. Our species has been around for less than 10% the history of our genus. In that span we’ve mostly experienced glacials (only about 25 ky have been interglacial) with sea levels 100 meters or more lower than current.

      Against the big picture of the history of the earth, our species 0.004 % is pretty tiny. Even smaller percentage than the fraction of the atmosphere which is CO2. Yet most humans seem to care about this tiny fraction.

      So, drop to mere thousands of years. Out of the 200 kyears of our species:
      Farming is only the past 12 kyears (all of it being during the current interglacial)
      Living in cities is only about 6 kyears old (give or take some singular examples)
      Human population has been over 1 billion for only 0.2 kyears (0.1% of our species history)
      We passed 5 billion only around 0.030 kyears ago (quite a few readers here were on the planet for that event).

      The long view leads to … well, depends on the viewer. Clearly life on earth (3.8 of the 4.5 billion years) has and will continue to exist despite or because of the changes currently in process. But the circumstances of most of earth history would put large fractions of the world’s population below sea level (geologically speaking, we’re low for now), and unable to farm (life on land is only 0.4 billion years of the 4.5 billion year planetary history).

  39. I have never understood why, given the weather pattern change prone nature of the Arctic, any ice melt changes would immediately be ascribed to CO2. My God, every Northern Hemispheric major weather pattern oscillation, be it atmospheric, oceanic or both in a teleconnected dance, reaches into the Arctic.

    • But the climate criminals of the CAGW gang attribute all weather phenomena, whether in the tropics, temperate zone or polar regions, to the One Great Control Knob, ie the magic laughable gas CO2.

      • DB Stealey,

        That is not what I said. Why do you make intentional misstatements like that? Do you think they actually fool anyone? I refuted Lady G’s point that climate researchers attribute all weather phenomenon to AGW. You then take the massive, unfounded leap of logic to say that means I say that CO2 causes none of these weather events.

      • Chris says:

        …I say that CO2 causes none of these weather events.

        Help us out here, Chris: what, exactly do you believe?

        My position all along has been that rising CO2 is a non-problem. There is no evidence of any global damage, or harm, due to the added CO2. Therefore, it follows that we think CO2 is “harmless”. (We already know that CO2 doesn’t cause weather. Why even mention that nonsense?)

        No global “harm”; then the most reasonable assumption is “harmless”.

        But if you believe that CO2 is causing global damage, or global harm, you need to post verifiable, testable evidence showing that is happening. I’ve seen no one else ever show that, but if that’s what you believe, post measurements of the global harm being caused by the rise in CO2 from 3 parts in 10,000, to 4 parts in 10,000 — over the past century and a half..

  40. @Lewis P: Another warmista. 2 sigma is normal, within natural variability. Anything to do with weather has huge natural variability. Study the long term to learn a bit. We have centuries of northern Admiralty. Check what is happening to the dominant portal for northern waters, the North Atlantic temperatures. Understand that they are starting a regular cyclic cooldown of c.32yrs, after a similar warmup period. Consider what this might mean for those profiting from pushing fry-mageddon.

    • 2-sigma below the average five years in a row is not “natural variability”

      True. And the Antarctic has been more than 2 std deviations above its previous average for almost all of the past three years. The arctic sea ice has not been decreasing the past 8 years, but has been oscillating at -1.0 Mkn^2 the entire time. There is no specific evidence its anomaly is getting any smaller (nor any larger), while the Antarctic sea ice “excess” anomaly in 2014 was larger than Greenlands’s entire ice cap.

    • Bucky sez:

      2-sigma below the average five years in a row is not “natural variability”

      And there we see the total “evidence” the alarmist cult has: a baseless assertion, unsupported by any geological measurements — because we don’t have precise measurements.

      But we know the Arctic was very likely ice-free some 6,000 years ago. That alone debunks the assertion that the current small fluctuation at one of the Poles is anything other than natural variability.

    • DB Stealey said:

      “But we know the Arctic was very likely ice-free some 6,000 years ago. That alone debunks the assertion that the current small fluctuation at one of the Poles is anything other than natural variability.”

      It debunks nothing. All fires 10,000 years ago were naturally caused (by lightning). Does that mean that all fires today are naturally caused? Of course not.

    • The fact that it is still below the arbitrary average does not disguise the fact that for the last 3 years running, the amount of ice has been increasing.

    • Chis, until you can prove that whatever caused the arctic to go ice free 6000 years ago is not in operation today, then you have proven nothing.

    • lewis , the north sea summer surface temperatures peaked 6 c cooler than last summer . i now expect your head to explode.

    • @Chris…how can you be so certain that some careless or crazed caveman never set fire to the woods or brush land accidentally or on purpose. Now that I think on that, I thought that I had read that setting fire to brush land was one way for early hunters to drive game into traps. So your analogy is nothing but a figment of your thoughts.

    • Mark said: :Chis, until you can prove that whatever caused the arctic to go ice free 6000 years ago is not in operation today, then you have proven nothing.”

      No, the is incorrect. Stealey made the statement that the fact that the Artcic was ice free 6,000 years ago disproved AGW. I gave an example of how that could not be true. I agree that the cause (until studied) could be either natural or man made, but you cannot eliminate man made using his logic.

    • Chris said that I stated …the fact that the Artcic was ice free 6,000 years ago disproved AGW.

      Actually, I wrote:

      What’s being observed now has happened repeatedly, and to a much greater degree before there were any human CO2 emissions outside of people exhaling and lighting campfires.

      Chris knows nothing of the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. Since no measurable changes have been observed due to the rise in human CO2 emissions, the Null Hypothesis says that we must accept that for all practical purposes, human CO2 emissions have no effect.

      The alarmist cult claims that emissions will cause accelerating global warming. They were wrong. The Null Hypothesis remains unfalsified, which in turn means the alternate hypothesis is falsified.

      Chris doesn’t understand this because he can’t understand the Null Hypothesis. But he Believes, which is enough for him.

      • Chris,

        Why should anyone take you seriously?

        I’ve said consistently that I think AGW exists. I’ve never said anything else. So you are just spouting nonsense.

        FYI: the host of WUWT accepts that AGW exists, and this is certainly not a propaganda blog like realclimate. So your ‘guess’ is flat wrong.

      • the fact that chris is even here tells me the doubts are creeping in.saw signs of this on another forum this past year. once the uncertainty monster gets even a tiny nod the game is over for the believer involved. I predict he will be an ardent “denier” within 24 months ;)

      • DB Stealey,

        You’ve said it exists but is so small it is indistinguishable from natural causes, too small to be measured in nature. There is a huge difference between that and the position that AGW is having a measurable impact on climate.

      • Chris says:

        DB Stealey,

        You’ve said it [AGW] exists but is so small it is indistinguishable from natural causes, too small to be measured in nature. There is a huge difference between that and the position that AGW is having a measurable impact on climate.

        Well… DUH.

        Because your eco-belief seems to be that AGW is having a measurable impact on climate. Show us.

        Post a few empirical, testable measurements quantifying the fraction of man-made global warming (MMGW), out of total global warming from all causes, including causes like the planet’s recovery from the LIA, from the AMO, from solar changes, etc., etc. What fraction of global warming is caused by human CO2 emissions?

        No opinions, please. No conjectures. No ‘what-ifs’. Only verifiable measurements quantifying the fraction of MMGW. That’s the number we want. And it has to be testable.

        If you don’t understand ‘testable’, read up on Popper. And if you actually do find any measurements accurately quantifying MMGW, and which everyone can agree on and replicate, you will certainly be on the short list for a real Nobel Prize… instead of being an anonymous commenter with a baseless opinion.

  41. OK, I have an ice-related question. Apologies if it’s stupid, but it’s really been bugging me!

    When I look at the SST anomaly graphs on the Sea Ice reference page, there’s a raging set of reds around the remaining Arctic ice pack – indicating temperatures between 2 and 4C above the long-term average. Which is probably what you would expect if you’re measuring the temperature of what is now water as opposed to the ice that USED to be there when the extent was greater.

    Now, setting aside the possible REASON for there being water rather than Ice there, NASA, GISS, Met Office etc. ALL repeat the mantra that “temperatures are rising faster at the poles than anywhere else” and produce their nasty looking anomaly maps with the planet topped in red.

    The question, then: Is what they are reporting as a significant temperature anomaly in the Arctic simply a result of including the SSTs for the region that are measuring the temperature of water rather than ice? If so, what impact is that having on the global measurement / anomaly? And is it something, like land use changes, UHI, etc, than needs to be factored into “homogenisation”?

    • i believe these are artifacts of the methodology used to “measure” sea surface temps. sea of cortez still showing warm anomalies when it is actually cooler than expected for the time of year as evidenced by species of bait fish currently present,and the scottish east coast of the north sea was showing the same up until two updates ago of the noaa global sea surface temperature anomaly map despite summer temps peaking 6cbelow those of last year,around 2 c lower than the long term average.

      i posted this observation in a few places and it appeared to get “noticed” as the north sea area in question is now displaying the correct cool anomaly colour coding, though still for too small an area. it must be crap to be one of these scientists using fancy extrapolation algorithms when a cretin like me can make them look dumb purely by speaking to a number of friends that spend more time at sea every year than the combined total of the wrlds marine biologists actually noting important things like real time water temps.

      most people that post in this blog know plenty more about science than i ever will,but there is no one that will be telling me anything about water temps in the north east atlantic, no matter how many letters they have after their name, no one.

  42. Thanks for interesting piece, seems opinions are divided on the fate of Arctic ice cap … I recently did an opinion post over what another “science” site was saying about GW – http://doncharisma.org/2015/09/10/wtf-artic-ice-cap-is-growing-not-shrinking-don-charismas-opinion/ , most interestingly a lot of people seem to be sceptical that there’s actually a problem and whether it’s a man made issue or not … also fair comment was made that the Earth has been around for millions of years and goes through phases of cooler and hotter, which last far far longer than records since 1970 …

    If I’m posting about GW again, I’ll be sure to see what’s current here, thanks for the site and the hard work you’ve put in here :)

    Cheers

    Don Charisma

Comments are closed.