Arctic sea ice expanding faster than normal

Ice grew at 5,100 square kilometers (2,000 square miles) per day faster than the average rate of ice growth for the month during October

From the National Snow and Ice Data Center:

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for October 2017 was 6.71 million square kilometers (2.60 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1981 to 2010 average extent for that month. Sea Ice Index data. Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Rapid expansion of the Arctic sea ice cover is the norm for October as solar input dwindles and the remaining heat in the upper ocean is released upwards, warming the lower atmosphere and escaping to space. Because of late season growth, the seasonal Antarctic maximum we previously reported as occurring on September 15 was exceeded, with a new maximum set on October 11 and 12. This is the second-lowest and second-latest seasonal maximum extent in the satellite record.

Arctic sea ice extent for October 2017 averaged 6.71 million square kilometers (2.60 million square miles), the fifth lowest in the 1979 to 2017 satellite record. This was 1.64 million square kilometers (633,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average and 820,000 square kilometers (317,000 square miles) above the record low October extent recorded in 2012. By the end of October, extent remained below average throughout most of the Arctic except within the Laptev Sea, which is fully ice covered. Ice growth over the month was most prominent within the Beaufort, East Siberian, and Laptev Seas and within Baffin Bay. In the Chukchi, Kara, and Barents Seas, the rate of ice growth was slower. Ice extent also remains far below average in the East Greenland Sea.

Ice growth during October 2017 averaged 94,200 square kilometers (36,000 square miles) per day. This was 5,100 square kilometers (2,000 square miles) per day faster than the average rate of ice growth for the month. Total ice extent for the month remains more than 2 standard deviations below the 1981 to 2010 average.

Figure 2a. The graph above shows Arctic sea ice extent as of November 2, 2017 along with daily ice extent data for five previous years. 2017 is shown in blue, 2016 in green, 2015 in orange, 2014 in brown, 2013 in purple, and 2012 in dotted brown. The 1981 to 2010 median is in dark gray. The gray areas around the median line show the interquartile and interdecile ranges of the data. Sea Ice Index data. Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Here is the current sea-ice graph from NSIDC:

Source: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

More at NSIDC sea Ice News

Advertisements

176 thoughts on “Arctic sea ice expanding faster than normal

  1. … and yet “Arctic sea ice extent for October 2017 averaged 6.71 million square kilometers (2.60 million square miles), the fifth lowest in the 1979 to 2017 satellite record. ”

    So a 6% above-average growth rate is noteworthy, even though that STILL leaves the extent well below average.

    • “leaves the extent well below average.”

      Only in a period down from the highest extent since the LIA.

      Arctic sea ice extent is still in the top 10% of the Holocene

      Anomalously HIGH.

      • “Arctic sea ice extent is still in the top 10% of the Holocene”

        and you have the holocene satellite data to prove it.

        faux skeptic

      • You are an empty sack, mosh..

        A paid mouthpiece.. and a failure at that.

        I have been keeping track of bio-data studies for a long time

        Stein summarized them well in this graph adapted from his paper

        You will probably have trouble reading the graph, though.

        For the first 7000+ years of the Holocene there was a lot less sea ice than now.

        Only been higher during a brief period of the LIA. (500-800 year less than 10%)

      • @Steven Mosher
        by that logic then surely you must dismiss Mann’s paleo-reconstruction as faux science? We don’t have satellite data showing the hokey stick either.

      • ‘Mosh, Is that your new comment moniker or was that just a spitball?’

        At least he didn’t bring up friggin’ unicorns this time.

      • Be careful how you argue your point Mr Mosher. The same arguement could be used for the typical statement regarding Lowest Arctic Sea Ice Levels in history. Do you have the satellite records from the LIA or Roman Climate Optimum that prove it?
        But then EVERY record is only based on data gathered since 1978 (39 year satellite era). EVERYTHING else is strictly low resolution Proxy or Heavily adjusted small sampling area altered thermometer records.

      • Mosh actually know basically ZERO about different sorts of proxies.

        Eng lit, ZERO-science….. but can still barely put a coherent sentence together.

        Poor mosh. just regurgitates the pap sold to him at WORST.

    • tjfokerts

      Neither is noteworthy. The gains are not noteworthy but the fifth lowest in the last 38 years isn’t either.

    • It’s “noteworthy” because so many, including several scientists, have claimed that this would not be happening. Just like the SMB of the Greenland ice sheet growing at near record levels for well over a year now.

      We are nowhere near a “virtually ice free” Arctic and the climate is not moving that direction. For the last few years the Arctic winters have been warmer than the 1998 to 2000 average but are still well below freezing while the summer temps have been running at or below that average. The reality is that it will take massive warming during the summer to melt all that ice. But you never hear that from the alarmists.

      • The graph posted by RAH (average temperatures north of 80 degrees latitude as function of Julian date) shows why it is unlikely that all the Arctic ice (especially within 10 degrees of the North Pole) will ever melt.

        Even if winter temperatures over the Arctic sometimes run 5 to 10 K above average (possibly due to northward convection of warmer air), winter temperatures of 250 to 260 K (-23 to -13 C) are well below freezing and will not melt any ice, particularly when the sky is dark (sunless) 24 hours per day.

        When the polar temperatures (north of 80 degrees) reach the freezing point (273 K) in early June, there is already open water along the northern coasts of Russia, Scandinavia, Alaska, and the Canadian archipelago, which allows for evaporation and the formation of clouds and storms in the 70 – 80 degree latitude ring. This evaporation removes lots of heat, and prevents temperatures north of 80 degrees latitude from rising much above freezing, while the clouds block sunlight during the season of highest sun angle. The maximum temperatures north of 80 degrees latitude are about 275 K, or 2 C or 36 F.

        For those living in areas with severe winters, does ice on a frozen lake melt very fast on a cloudy day at 36 F? Why would ice melt any faster in similar weather near the North Pole in summer?

      • Due to a caching oddity with WordPress, sometimes you you only get the latest version when you actually click on the image.

      • Steve Zell
        November 21, 2017 at 1:50 pm

        The graph posted by RAH (average temperatures north of 80 degrees latitude as function of Julian date) shows why it is unlikely that all the Arctic ice (especially within 10 degrees of the North Pole) will ever melt.
        …………………….

        For those living in areas with severe winters, does ice on a frozen lake melt very fast on a cloudy day at 36 F? Why would ice melt any faster in similar weather near the North Pole in summer?

        Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought most of the arctic melting was from “warmer” currents of water below the ice. The temperature above the ice is not the main driver of ice melt.

        SteveT

    • TJ,

      Arctic sea ice has been stable since 2007 and growing since 2012. The downward trend from the near-century high in 1979 to the low in 2012 has reversed. This year was the first time since 1979 in which a new. lower low in summer extent was not made. The average for the five years 2013-17 was higher than for the previous five years, 2008-12.

      Sea ice fluctuates naturally, based upon oceanic oscillations and cycles. The balmy decades have ended and chill is once again descending on Arctic waters. Unfortunately.

    • My friend recently ran a marathon. He completed it with a time that was unprecedented in the history of the marathon and finished in 5th place.

      Can anyone see a problem with my statement? If you do, you must not be a climate scientist. They have no problem claiming that we are experiencing unprecedented global warming when the ice extent comes in fifth lowest in recent times. The Arctic was suppose to have ice-free summers by now. And the poles are supposed to be warming at a rate about 8 times that of the rest of the globe, according to a peer-reviewed paper by Cowtan and Way. If that’s true, the rest of the planet is warming at a Snell’s pace, if at all.

    • It is worth noting that the “5th lowest’ is qualified by the very short period “of the satellite era”.
      Also worth noting, in the first IPCC report, the satellite era seems to have actually extended back about a decade before what it is now reported to be…and that ten years of the 1970s shows quite a different story when it is tacked onto the beginning of the graphs.
      There is very credible, one might say reliable, data going back several decades further, and historical accounts decades further than that, which show that the beginning of what is now being called the satellite era was in fact a period of very high ice extent which was in place due to the very cold period culminating in the 1970s with rapidly expanding ice extent in the Arctic.
      Measuring against a point that is known to have been a recent maximum while never mentioning this fact is simply disingenuous.
      And furthermore…supposing that something bad is happening because Arctic ice was much higher in the recent past is ludicrous when one considers that perpetual ice is a wasteland for life…a frozen desert of death.
      We should be celebrating loss of ice, and worried that the trend towards less ice has now seemed to have reversed.

      • Menicholis,
        Thanks for the above comment. My understanding is that the starting dates for Arctic ice extent are based on a period of unusually high Arctic ice extent, correct me if I am wrong.
        Similarly the Temperature increase seems to be based using as a starting point that was part of an unusually cold period in the late 1800’s.
        Is this a coincidence or am I wrong.

    • In other words, the arctic ice levels have been increasing for most of the last 5 or 6 years.
      And somehow the alarmists try to paint that as a disaster around the corner.

      • Annual Sea ice extent has been pretty much constant for 10+ years now.
        Annual Sea ice extent has been pretty much constant for 10+ years now.
        Annual Sea ice extent has been pretty much constant for 10+ years now.
        Etc, etc, etc…

      • Tony,

        Two freak WX events caused low Antarctic sea ice last November and December, from which extent recovered this year. The high for Antarctic sea ice in the satellite era was 2014. It grew from 1979 to 2014, while Arctic sea ice was trending down. Hence, CO2 can’t be responsible for Arctic sea ice decline.

        In any case, Arctic sea ice extent has been growing now for five years, 2013-17, despite continuing CO2 rise. It also previously grew from the 1940s to ’70s, again despite rising CO2.

      • Yes Bob, a sinful, wicked, dishonourable alarmist (leftist alarmist no less).
        I appoint you as my personal umbrage inspector to wait and watch and remind me of what a despicable bastard I am every time I have the temerity to, as a quasi-anonomous dude on the internet, post something.
        I cordially invite you to join ParrotG55 in this task.

        Btw, I thank ParrotG55 for turning this site into the exalted, honourable place it is today.

        Ps I still think you’re a good bloke Bob.

        Pss You too Anthony. And even Eric. I don’t really blame any of you. Cept for you Parrot.

      • Mods

        Tony McLeod bet fair and square that the geographical North Pole would be ice free this year. If it was I would never post here again, if it wasn’t he wouldn’t. Many were privy to this bet has it was made here on WUWT and much discussed. He is not honoring the terms of the bet and should not be posting here.

      • Gabro November 21, 2017 at 2:48 pm
        Tony,

        “Two freak WX events caused low Antarctic sea ice last November and December…”

        Could be natural variation. I hope you are right. That’s why the global figure is a better indicator.

        So much natural variation all in synch.

      • Mods

        The bet was made on March 3rd at 3:45 am on WUWT.
        Tony knows he made the bet, he’s not denying it, he’s just not honoring it.

      • “Oh, thats right, parrots can’t read, they only squawk.”

        As you said, YOU are the parrot. Squawking is all you seem to have left to you.

        And you seem to live with one foot permanently in your yappy, mindless, DISHONEST gob. !

      • “Bob boder November 21, 2017 at 4:36 pm

        (I have not seen this bet you talk about) MOD”

        I do recall a bet being made by Bob and accepted by Tony. I don’t recall exactly when and in what thread.

      • “tony mcleod November 21, 2017 at 2:39 pm”

        I am pretty sure I have been to the site detailed in the image and the data is mostly made from estimates IIRC.

      • He made a bet with me too, right here on these very pages.
        He bet that there would be an ice free Arctic by this Summer. I took him up on it.
        It was right here.

      • MODs

        Here’s the header and back and forth on the Bet made on March 3rd between Tony and myself, it was further discussed on many occasions.

        UAH Global Temperature Report: February 2017 warmest in 39 years

        Bob boder

        March 3, 2017 at 3:45 am

        Tony

        i’ll make a bet with you.
        if the geographical North Pole is ice free this year I will never post here on WUWT again. If it isn’t you never post here again.

        will you take the bet?

        tony mcleod

        March 3, 2017 at 3:56 am

        Your on Bob.

        Bob boder

        March 3, 2017 at 8:38 am

        Tony

        It’s a bet.
        Koodos to you for being willing to stand behind your prediction.

    • The whole exercise is meaningless because the measurement uncertainty is much larger than the spread of the different years. It is unscientific to report measurements without reporting the uncertainty range.

    • I believe it is because they say 30 years indicates a “Norm” and 2010 is the last “Complete” decade
      The real test will be when 2020 is in the can and they start using 1990 – 2020 and then discover that Warming has stopped…Or argue that 40 years is better so they can keep their warming intact.

      • They only advertised “30 years” because the alarmists thought that by then it would average out in favour of “Alarm!”. It didn’t. There is a pretty obvious 60 year cycle. So to get a meaningful look at ‘how things work’ the period of review should be 120 years.

    • Since the mid-1930s things climatological have been compared to a 30 year average — called a ‘normal’ ** — with the first of those years ending in a ‘1’ and the last of those years ending in a ‘0’.

      ** This is the term chosen to be defined. You may have a different idea or a different word. I doubt you were at the meetings when this was discussed and voted on. Thus you, I, and everyone must live with what was decided those many years ago. Not all things are treated to this average by all people, but when it is done one has to realize that international agreements are being followed. Take note that his was established before modern computers and digital equipment.

      • Again Deceitful, Dishonest welcher on bets Tony Mcleod

        MODs

        Here’s the header and back and forth on the Bet made on March 3rd between Tony and myself, it was further discussed on many occasions.

        UAH Global Temperature Report: February 2017 warmest in 39 years

        Bob boder

        March 3, 2017 at 3:45 am

        Tony

        i’ll make a bet with you.
        if the geographical North Pole is ice free this year I will never post here on WUWT again. If it isn’t you never post here again.

        will you take the bet?

        tony mcleod

        March 3, 2017 at 3:56 am

        Your on Bob.

        Bob boder

        March 3, 2017 at 8:38 am

        Tony

        It’s a bet.
        Koodos to you for being willing to stand behind your prediction.

        *Sorry, but we aren’t in the ‘bet enforcement’ business — mod* :)

      • MODs

        This is the problem with the world today, people with no honor taking advantage of people who do, with the honorable people having no recourse except to just suck it up and take it. It would have pained me greatly but I would have honored the bet. You could have at least acknowledged Tony’s lack of honor in your reply on the subject. Oh well I guess I am alone in my view on the subject of honor, I am used to that though as I thought most here would also be, but so be it.

      • WOW.. Look at the massive RECOVERY from the 2016 El Nino WEATHER affected sea ice area.

        Arctic (which is what the thread topic is about) particularly, has recovered VERY quickly.

      • Here is what the Danish (much more honest that the Lysenkoists of NASA) show for the Arctic:
        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

        Note: the Antarctic is not in the Danish graph, of course. This is because melting in the Antarctic is caused by massive geothermal activity under the ice sheet, as anyone following actual Antarctic science knows.

        Three independent satellite datasets and four independent balloon datasets all show the the TCR around 1, the ECS around 2. The IPCC models say the value should be 3.2 (despite them throwing 108 darts at the dartboard and then claiming their ‘prediction’ was correct they are way, way off – if their model was good they only make 1 prediction and it would match reality instead of being a factor of 2-3 off). This is the “1-2-3” that falsifies the IPCC AGW Hypothesis and cannot be used for predicting climate let alone institute wealth and sovereignty distribution to the unelected and anti-democratic UN globalists.

      • “because melting in the Antarctic is caused by massive geothermal activity under the ice sheet, as anyone following actual Antarctic science knows.”

        You’re making this up.

      • Tony, baby, you really need to keep up with the latest science. Or read WUWT, which has been on the Antarctic volcanic case for years. Now even the Grauniad has caught up. Next, maybe you:

        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica

        The gigantic East Antarctic Ice Sheet, repository of most of the fresh water on earth, has been growing dramatically. What little melting on the relatively tiny West AIS that might actually have occurred is due to volcanism, not “climate change”.

      • To be fair, I think we are discussing sea ice, not land ice.
        Still, Moa is correct to bring a different graph into the discussion, since we know that NASA is as reliable in these matters as…as…well…words fail me, but not very reliable, at all.
        And their graph does not jibe whatsoever with that of other sources.
        I bet Tony that between now and the Spring maximum, we will see Arctic sea ice cross the normal average line.

      • “I bet Tony….. ”

        Pointless doing that, the guy is a cowardly welching worm.

        Makes a bet and doesn’t stick by it.

    • Unfortunate, isn’t it.

      Imagine the massive benefits for travel, commerce, fishing etc if the sea ice had dropped down to MWP extents or less.

      But the AMO is turning, and the sea ice will soon start to increase again. :-(

      • When we fail to make this the first point and the last point of rebuttal to the alarmistas, we are playing their game, arguing on their terms.
        In short, we are allowing ourselves to be misdirected by not standing up to the lie that a warmer Earth is a bad thing.
        We should be so lucky as to have a notable and sustained warming trend.

      • No one has yet beat it by more than around 115 years.
        Where are all the 120, 130, 140, 150, 250, 350 450 year olds?
        (gone to cemetaries every one)

      • Identifying as immortal is as effective as claiming innocence of sexual abuse if you’re a powerful Democrat.

      • No problem…you just have to learn the rules…say you were joking, admit you made some mistakes, and call for a congressional investigation to resolve the matter.
        And that will be the end of that.

  2. Ugh, just a silly article, now I will have to listen to Griff’s mindless nonsense again. Please let’s post something when it is actually significant unlike this report.

      • “If you should go skating
        On the thin ice of modern life

        Dragging behind you the silent reproach
        Of a million tear-stained eyes
        Don’t be surprised when a crack in the ice
        Appears under your feet

        You slip out of your depth and out of your mind
        With your fear flowing out from behind you
        As you claw the (thin) ice”

    • Well I guess Griff is taking the week off. Maybe he is really in the US and taking Thanksgiving week off instead of being in the UK as he claims. I am In the US and I am really thankful for trolls. They not only provide entertainment but target practice as well. I’m looking at you Tony Mcleod,

      AGAPE(and all that entailes) to Janice

  3. “Total ice extent for the month remains more than 2 standard deviations below the 1981 to 2010 average.”

    2 million km sq less than the extreme maximum for the date…..not enough to fool with

  4. How many Manhattans is that, and how many Hiroshimas are being released from the oceans are the important questions.

    • Heap big bunchy-bunchy Manhattens
      De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again.

    • I really like that graph. For it shows the first derivative of Arctic ice, which eliminates that cherry-picked high 1981-2010 median effect bias of perception that their is something anomalous gong on in the Arctic climate.

      (the first derivative eliminates the constant, as in introductory differential calculus)

      • similarly, a 2nd derivative graph, showing acceleration and deceleration of sea ice growth rates would be useful to expose the climate lie. That climate lie (a favorite Algorism) is that the Arctic has somehow undergone a recent anomalous climatic shift.

  5. That first paragraph is poorly constructed in the extreme. The lead sentence starts by talking about Arctic Ice extent. And then it switches to Antarctic ice in the second sentence without some kind of rhetorical grammactical break to ensure the reader sees the switch. Purposeful?

    “Rapid expansion of the Arctic sea ice cover is the norm for October as solar input dwindles and the remaining heat in the upper ocean is released upwards, warming the lower atmosphere and escaping to space. Because of late season growth, the seasonal Antarctic maximum we previously reported as occurring on September 15 was exceeded, with a new maximum set on October 11 and 12. This is the second-lowest and second-latest seasonal maximum extent in the satellite record.”

    • “Purposeful”

      Doubtful. When was the last time we saw a Arctic seasonal maximum in September, bested by one in October?

      • No, my purposeful point was the mixing of Arctic and Antarctic in the first paragraph. I said nothing about the content or the facts presented. And none of the posted graphs are of Antarctic sea ice maxima.

        Learn to read Paul.

      • “Learn to read Paul.”

        I can read joel. That’s why I quoted just “Purposeful” from your post, and provided a very easy way to determine the poorly constructed paragraph wasn’t “Purposeful”.

      • Paul is quite confused apparently. Sea ice maximums do not occur in the Arctic’s Sept-Oct.season. That is minimum season.

      • They reported the 2017 maximum of Antarctic sea ice in September.

        It then dipped slightly but came back up again to establish a slightly higher 2017 maximum in October.

        Obviously , it is now heading downwards.

        I hope that clears things up.

    • Joel..
      I noticed the same thing, had to read it twice.
      I thought it was intentional to spoil the good news from the Arctic and confuse the casual reader. Is that what purposeful means?

  6. Northern Atlantic Storm Shows How Natural Causes Affect Arctic Sea Ice

    A few years ago the climate alarmists were going hysterical about the sudden loss of Arctic Sea Ice. Alarmist claims of an ice free North Pole dominated the headlines. It’s been a little over four years since an “Arctic expert” claimed the North Pole would be ice-free by the summer of 2016.
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/northern-atlantic-storm-shows-how-natural-causes-affect-arctic-sea-ice/

    • Your bang on, all that is needed are still nights when the sea is as flat as glass. Presto and Ice sheets are formed. If there is an onward ocean swell it may break it up and is quite the norm. I trapped on St Ignace Island Canada’s largest in Lake Superior in the early 70’s. From 75 on we commuted daily sometimes 7 days a week working, building new Boilers and Electrostatic Precipitators then rebuilding the new Recovery Boiler 2 years later when it was run dry of water. Then they had a Turpentine Fire which burnt a good portion of the Pulp Mill.
      Anyway most winters behind the Rossport Islands there would be freshly formed ice which would get broken up by heavy Lake swells blowing in from the east. The winter of
      2014-015 the Great Lakes were 92 % frozen over.
      Nature is a Freak Show with Soothsayers making graphs and predictions that can be all laid too waste.
      Co2islife, Thanks for the Link on Arctic Storms. That is nature’s reality. One winter Iused my boat uuntil January 11th from Gurney to St Ignace Island, another winter we got froze in 3 days before Christmas. I sure understood why the Inuit Parkas were low to the knees after walking miles across Nipigon Bay into a fierce north wind. The progeny particles were nowhere to be found.

    • Excellent point. I have a Shore house on the Barnegat bay in NJ with a long N_S oriented lagoon close to the Bay. I notice that regardless of how cold it gets if the wind is N or S, it will not freeze over. On the other hand with zero wind a skim of ice forms readily in the winter and once the ice gets thick enough it stays for quite a while. Another aspect of the wind is that it circulates warmer water to the top to prevent freezing
      I watch closely since I have an ice eater that circulates warmer water from the bottom to keep ice from forming.
      Why would these “smart” professors no be aware of simple things in nature.

      • Catcracking, I attended a Lakehead U event on Global warming and overheard 2 municipal politicians discussing how advantageous it is to include the phrase “global warming” when applying for funding from senior government. Our government Ministers of the Environment now use the additional tag, “and Climate Change”.

  7. Last year , as I was keeping an eye on the Arctic ice advance (on the reference page) from Sept onwards, I was intrigued by the regular wave pattern on the growth curve. I was expecting someone of meteorological expertise to point it out and explain it as cyclonic waves or something , but no one did . Or if they did I did not catch it .
    The wave pattern , which is clearly visible in the first graph in the article, is not present this year . Was it an El Nino related effect?

    • Mikewaite, re wave pattern in growth:
      I suspect it has to do with the geometry of the individual ice forming regions. For example, in the Laptev Sea, ice first advances from the north and simultaneous forms off the coast while the middle of the sea continues to cool. Once freezing temp is reached, the middle then freezes. Each region does this one after another with this year going in the order of roughly Laptev, then East Siberian, Beaufort, Baffin, soon Hudson Bay, Kara, and Chuchki. The last to form regions are not contained by land and so ice isn’t creating a perimeter then infilling. Just a WAG.

  8. A quick scan of this main article seems to contradict the article’s title.

    Clarity is of utmost importance, not lost at the expense of grasping at straws. Even a quick scan should find resonance between the title and main statements of fact.

  9. What l think is of more interest has been the total snow mass for the NH this season.
    Ever since the start of the season it has been running above the 1982-2012 average range.
    So much for the claim that global warming is making snow “a thing of the past” its appears to be leading to a increase in snowfall.
    Now is this one of the factors that could cause the move from a warm climate into cooling.?

    • People worried about fish and irrigated crops have been told to plan for earlier melt and faster runoff. Thus there will be less water in streams in late summer. They also expect more rain and less snow, overall. True or not, this is what they have been told and what they are now planning for. The States of Oregon and Washington have numerous agencies and groups involved. Money has been spent. More money is looked for.
      Answer to your question. This time of year the Sun is low so the albedo is less affected by the large extent of snow cover in the NH. Next March, April, May — a large extent snow cover will have a large solar reflection and would slow warming. Is this climate or weather?

      • lts interesting that when there was large snow extent over northern Russia last spring. There was also cooler then average temps over that area as well.
        The big question is “was this large snow extent the cause of the cooling or just the result of the cooling.

      • Wasn’t the cooling mainly to do with the Jet Stream wobbling about?

        One areas gets a warm anomaly, while another one gets a cold anomaly.

    • taxed on, a heavy snowfall on fresh ice is detrimental to those needing good thick ice for transportation. The insulation effect of the snow further south will cause water over the Ice creating slush, creating problems for Northern communities relying on Ice Roads to bring in diesel fuel and dry goods. The storms Co2islife shared with a Link is what causes the Ice Pans all thrown on top of each other in disarray and freezing en masse. This is when snow blizzards after the fact were beneficial for Inuit hunters to cover up the irregular heaps of ice to cross over with their dogs sleds or power sleds.

    • AndyG55
      Yes the way the jet stream flowed meant that the area was getting flooded with cold air.
      But what am wondering is did the extra amount of snow help to “lock in the cold” and so help to extend the cooling to last longer then otherwise would have been the case.

  10. How many years ago was the Arctic supposed to be “ice free”? (Because on Man’ CO2, of course.)
    It’s not.
    They were wrong.
    Now the same who point to recent events such as hurricanes as being worse than they would have been if not for Man’s CO2 dismiss this?

    Does Man emit CO2?
    Yes.
    Does Man’s CO2 cause everything?
    In the real world, No.
    Does Man’s CO2 cause evgerthing?
    In the political science world, Yes.
    Therefore…..

    • Gore said the Arctic would be ice free in a number of years some years back. That worked out to be 2013. The great thing about people making relatively short term predictions is that we don’t have long to wait for them to be proven spectacularly wrong.

      • If Gore ever went there it would be colder!
        But just like the rest of us, he likes warm places.
        He belongs in the warmest place of all!

  11. Speaking of bets, let’s bet on when Leo DiCaprio’s house on Malibu Beach goes underwater (not including tsunamis).

    • isn’t the whole of california due to sink under the sea with the next earthquake. I am sure I saw it on TV

  12. Ice generally recovers to the same level in February. When you have less ice in the summer, it will increase at a faster rate.

  13. What I’d like to know is what is Al gore et al going to say when the prediction bogus factor becomes un-avoidable? Will they all point to someone saying ”they said it, I was just told what to say by them”? And what will ”they” say???

  14. The Arctic Ice Extent is the Left’s last bastion of hope to keep the CAGW gravy train chugging along.

    The Left’s comical CAGW projections for: Sea Level Rise, Global Warming trends, severe weather incidence/severity, ocean “acidification”, collapsing crop yields, CH4 concentrations, rapid Antarctic Land Ice loss, etc., have all been completely disconfirmed by empirical evidence and physics.

    From the early 2020’s, both the PDO and AMO will be in their respective 30-yr cool cycles and the weakest solar cycle since 1790 will begin from 2021, which will cause Arctic Ice Extents to grow at an average rate of around 100,000 KM^2/yr for the next 30 years, and eventually approaching 1980’s levels.

    Because of the coming La Niña cycle and the aforementioned imminent natural climatic cooling events, it’s very likely the global warming trend from mid-1996 to 2021 will mark 25 years without a statiscally significant global warming trend, creating a disparity exceeding 3 standard deviations between CAGW’s Mean Global Warming Model Projections vs. UAH observations.

    At that point, every single CAGW projection will be completely devoid from reality and this CAGW turkey will be cooked…

    • In 2021, Arctic sea ice extent will probably have grown for nine years, so the propaganda goose laying golden CACA eggs will be well and truly cooked.

    • “creating a disparity exceeding 3 standard deviations between CAGW’s Mean Global Warming Model Projections vs. UAH observations.”

      Doesn’t need to drop by much !!

      If the UAH temp drops to around the red dot by 2018, it will be HILARIOUS to watch the AGWer scammbling about.

  15. This is clearly a wind up…

    The extent is at the third lowest for this time of year (by now it may well have crossed the 2012 level to be second lowest)

    There is record low extent for the time of year… MUCH LESS ice has formed than at any point in the satellite record except last year and 2012…

    And the volume, thickness of that MUCH LESS ice is also MUCH LESS.

    Given an average melt year next year, rather than the cold outlier year of 2017 – there’s going to be a record new low. We only just diodged that bullet in 2017.

    • I knew sooner or later Griff would show up with more of his non-sense.

      Griff you predict the same thing every year and are wrong every year, as nearly everyone one points out to you again and again. If you actually believe your BS take the bet I offered as the honorless Tony Mcleod did and lost last year when he spewed the same non-sense. Even if you lose you could just welch on the bet like Tony Mcleod has so what’s the difference? At least if you win you would know that I would honor my end of the deal and then you could have been right once in your life.

    • “And the volume, thickness of that MUCH LESS ice is also MUCH LESS.”

      Um, that would be a no, wrong, false.
      Stop lying griffy-pooh

    • The current sea ice extent is still above what it has been for some 90-95% of the Holocene.

      Only just a small amount down from the largest extent in 10,000 year, during the LIA and late 1970’s

      Even you must know that by now.

      Your childish bed-wetting needs to stop.

      You need to grow up and get control of it griff…..

      you can’t keep doing it into your teen years.

    • Yes, I was right: currently sea ice extent now at second lowest for time of year for satellite record.

      And yes it is MUCH LESs that for most of that time in volume and thickness.

      and yes, given an average melt season, a new record.

      Look at 207: ice extent at record low until early August: only an unusually cold year saved a record

      Really, we can’t keep pretending that this is NOT a new state for the ice, that the ice is recovering, that it is not going to go lower.

      2nd lowest extent for this time of yeat!

  16. Looking through all the temp graphs on dim, I notice that summer highs never go appreciably (maybe a tiny wiggle) above the green line. Makes me wonder if there is a ceiling to how warm the arctic go …. ie, the influx of warm water can only warm the arctic so much, as ice melts, the greater the radiation to space. Just curious.

  17. “faster than the average rate of ice growth for the month during October”

    Another example of confusing “weather” with “climate” The rate of change for one month of this season says nothing of the long term 30 year average.

    A typical misleading article.

    • Ralph, try reading the article again, you missed a lot since it already addressed your whining complaint.

    • The article is from the NSIDC website:

      “Ice growth during October 2017 averaged 94,200 square kilometers (36,000 square miles) per day. This was 5,100 square kilometers (2,000 square miles) per day faster than the average rate of ice growth for the month. Total ice extent for the month remains more than 2 standard deviations below the 1981 to 2010 average.”

      Poor little ralph making a fool of himself out in the open. I haven’t disputed the article at all,just pointing out that you didn’t read it very well…. obviously.

      • Ralph simply can’t stop making a fool of himself:

        He first wrote

        ““faster than the average rate of ice growth for the month during October”

        Another example of confusing “weather” with “climate” The rate of change for one month of this season says nothing of the long term 30 year average.

        A typical misleading article.”

        I replied by suggesting he didn’t read the article well,said NOTHING about weather and climate stuff,

        “Ralph, try reading the article again, you missed a lot since it already addressed your whining complaint.”

        he came back trying create an argument over something I never said,

        “Poor little tommy doesn’t know the difference between actual extent and the rate of change of said extent. Do you like the picked cherries with or without whipped cream?”

        Then I pointed out what the folks at NSIDC said about it,

        “The article is from the NSIDC website:

        “Ice growth during October 2017 averaged 94,200 square kilometers (36,000 square miles) per day. This was 5,100 square kilometers (2,000 square miles) per day faster than the average rate of ice growth for the month. Total ice extent for the month remains more than 2 standard deviations below the 1981 to 2010 average.”

        Poor little ralph making a fool of himself out in the open. I haven’t disputed the article at all,just pointing out that you didn’t read it very well…. obviously.”

        now the ralph the mouth comes back to AGAIN push the Weather/Climate difference,I never commented on.

        “LOL Tommy, do you know the difference between weather and climate?”

        The NSIDC quote I gave you answered your first comment,never said anything about weather/climate at all.

        Ralph says: “The rate of change for one month of this season says nothing of the long term 30 year average.”

        NSDIC says: “Ice growth during October 2017 averaged 94,200 square kilometers (36,000 square miles) per day. This was 5,100 square kilometers (2,000 square miles) per day faster than the average rate of ice growth for the month. Total ice extent for the month remains more than 2 standard deviations below the 1981 to 2010 average.”

        They DID include a 30 year average,while talking about above average OCTOBER sea ice growth.growth for year 2017,compared to past October sea ice growth patterns.

        Forget your glasses?

        You have voices in your head,ralph?

        You are now being beyond STUPID,go away!

      • Poor little tommy thinks that what the NSIDC “said” makes a difference.
        ..
        You have a serious problem if you think that one month’s worth of change in sea ice extent is going to dictate a large effect on 30 year’s worth of extent data.
        ..
        You don’t understand the difference between climate and weather.

        DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT “PER DAY” MEASUREMENTS DETERMINE 30 YEAR AVERAGES???????

        LOL

      • Tommy says: ” Total ice extent for the month remains more than 2 standard deviations below the 1981 to 2010 average.”
        ..
        Thank you
        Thank you
        Thank you
        Thank you

        Do you understand what 2 standard deviations means?

        Do you understand what one month will do to a 30 year average that is below 2 standard deviations ?

Comments are closed.