These headlines have been recently making the rounds, such as this article at vox.com which describes “sudden scary ice melt in the Arctic, in three charts
One of the charts is below, along with some peer reviewed science that says otherwise.
h/t Andyg55
In December, NOAA released its latest annual Arctic Report Card, which analyzes the state of the frozen ocean at the top of our world. Overall, it’s not good.
“The Arctic is going through the most unprecedented transition in human history,” Jeremy Mathis, director of NOAA’s Arctic research program, said at a press conference. “This year’s observations confirm that the Arctic shows no signs of returning to the reliably frozen state it was in just a decade ago.”
The report, which you can read in full here, compiles trends that scientists have been seeing for years. The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. And 2017 saw a new record low for the maximum sea ice extent (i.e., how much of the Arctic ocean freezes in the coldest depths of winter).

That huge drop-off at the end? That’s “the largest magnitude decline in sea ice, and the greatest sustained rate in sea ice decline in that 1,500-year record,” said Emily Osborne, the NOAA scientist who compiled the data for the chart.
Further to NOAA’s claim that Arctic sea ice extent is at its lowest for at least 1500 years, Kenneth Richard highlighted three studies last year that show the claim to be bunkum.
Re-posted from No Tricks Zone:
Earlier this year, Stein et al., 2017 published a reconstruction of Arctic sea ice variations throughout the Holocene that appeared to establish that there is more Arctic sea ice now than for nearly all of the last 10,000 years.
The study region, the Chukchi Sea, was deemed representative of most of the Arctic, as the authors asserted that “the increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon as PIP25-based sea ice records from the Fram Strait, Laptev Sea, East Siberian Sea and Chukchi Sea display a generally quite similar evolution, all coinciding with the decrease in solar radiation.”
The proxy data used to reconstruct Arctic-wide sea ice variations over the Holocene (PIP25) clearly show that modern sea ice extent has only modestly retreated relative to the heights reached during the Little Ice Age (the 17th and 18th centuries), and that the from about 1400 A.D.on through the rest of the 10,000-year-long Holocene, Arctic sea ice extent was much lower than it is today.

In 2014, Dr. Qinghua Ding and colleagues published a consequential paper in the journal Nature contending that much of the warming trend in the Arctic since 1979 can be traced to “unforced natural variability” rather than anthropogenic forcing.
“A substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.”
Then, a few months ago, Dr. Ding and co-authors published another Nature paper (Ding et al., 2017) that extended a natural attribution to trends in Arctic sea ice variability, concluding that as much as half of the decline in Arctic sea ice since 1979 is due to internal (natural) factors, further undermining the position that anthropogenic forcing dominates Arctic sea ice changes.
“Internal variability dominates the Arctic summer circulation trend and may be responsible for about 30–50% of the overall decline in September sea ice since 1979.”
Within the last month, two more papers have been published that further affirm the conclusion that modern Arctic sea ice extent has not changed significantly relative to even the last few centuries, nor has it fallen outside the range of natural variability.
1. Like Stein et al. (2017), Yamamoto et al., 2017 largely attribute Holocene sea ice concentration variations to solar forcing, and they assemble a reconstruction of sea ice trends for the region that once again clearly shows sea ice coverage is greater now than it has been for almost all of the Holocene.
“Millennial to multi-centennial variability in the quartz / feldspar ratio (the BG [Beaufort Gyre] circulation) is consistent with fluctuations in solar irradiance, suggesting that solar activity affected the BG [Beaufort Gyre] strength on these timescales. … The intensified BSI [Bering Strait in-flow] was associated with decrease in sea-ice concentrations and increase in marine production, as indicated by biomarker concentrations, suggesting a major influence of the BSI on sea-ice and biological conditions in the Chukchi Sea. Multi-century to millennial fluctuations, presumably controlled by solar activity, were also identified in a proxy-based BSI record characterized by the highest age resolution. … Proxy records consistent with solar forcing were reported from a number of paleoclimatic archives, such as Chinese stalagmites (Hu et al., 2008), Yukon lake sediments (Anderson et al., 2005), and ice cores (Fisher et al., 2008), as well as marine sediments in the northwestern Pacific (Sagawa et al., 2014) and the Chukchi Sea (Stein et al., 2017).”

2. In another new paper, Moffa-Sánchez and Hall, 2017 analyze subpolar temperature changes, glacier advances and declines, and sea ice variations in the Labrador Sea, North Atlantic, North Iceland, Alaska, Swedish Lapland, and Northwestern Europe region.
“Paleoceanographic reconstructions from a more northward location of the polar front on the North Iceland margin show centennial-scale cold events and marked increases in sea ice with similar timing to the cold events recorded in the eastern Labrador Sea. … The records from the northernmost sites show a linear cooling trend perhaps driven by the Neoglacial decrease in summer insolation in the northern high latitudes and its effects on Arctic sea ice production. “
“Periods of increased influence of polar waters in the eastern Labrador Sea, reduced LSW [Labrador Sea Water] formation and weaker subpolar gyre largely coincide with well-established cold periods recorded in glacier advances, tree-ring and pollen records in the circum-North Atlantic and northwest Europe [Dark Ages Cold Period, Little Ice Age]. … Conversely, periods of reduced influence of polar waters in the eastern Labrador Sea, stronger subpolar gyre and increase LSW [Labrador Sea Water] formation largely coincide with mild/warm periods in Europe namely the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Climatic Anomaly.”
The authors find that while Arctic sea ice coverage was more advanced during the Little Ice Age, sea ice concentrations in the waters north of Iceland were far lower than now from about 500 years ago onward, especially during the centuries encompassing the Medieval Warm Period (or Medieval Climate Anomaly) and Roman Warm Period.

Read the full post here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The warmists choose proxies to suit their agenda.
The skeptics choose proxies to suit their agenda.
So? What am I missing?
The real experts we should be turning to here are the likes of Shakun and Marcott, who killed the true Holocene proxy record of the isotopes in ice core and sediment, ironing them flat with an inflated host of bogus bio proxies.
This shameless scam is being perpetuated by the Pages2k consortium (conspiracy).
While climate mandarins deny outsiders access to the really telling Antarctic Law Dome (e.g. C) core data, with the end goal of its being forgotten and destroyed (see Climate Audit).
The data you want isn’t here?
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/reports/location?dataTypeId=7&search=true
roflmao.
Poor Nick, a re-orientation and labelling for clarity makes it a mis-representation ????
Sorry Nick.. BUT NO IT DOESN’T
I’m not really sure if the point of this post was to debunk the NOAA statement, but I haven’t seen anything that even contradicts it – did I miss something? These other articles are talking about actual extent, while NOAA refers to, “the largest magnitude decline in sea ice, and the greatest sustained rate in sea ice decline in that 1,500-year record.” That’s the direct quote. Just below it, Anthony says, “Further to NOAA’s claim that Arctic sea ice extent is at its lowest for at least 1500 years.” Abnormal magnitude and rate of decline are strong support for unnatural forcing, and in that sense mean more than whether the ice was thinner or thicker 600 years ago. It’s possible these papers do debunk a NOAA statement, but I couldn’t find it by following the link.
The graph by Moffa-Sánchez and Hall, 2017 supports the NOAA statement, doesn’t it?
The Yamamoto paper is interesting in its discussion of the currents and natural variation that might affect sea ice. “). This pattern contrasts with reconstructions from
other Arctic regions that show lower sea-ice concentrations
in the early Holocene (de Vernal et al., 2013). This discrepancy
suggests that the intensified BG circulation exported
more ice from the Beaufort Sea to the northeastern Chukchi
Sea margin. Furthermore, the heat transport from the North
Pacific to the Arctic Ocean by the BSI was likely weaker
in the early Holocene than at later times as indicated by the
C/ I and CK / I ratios of cores 06JPC and 01A-GC (Fig. 8).
We infer that this combination of stronger BG circulation
and weaker BSI in the early Holocene resulted in increased
sea-ice concentration in the northeastern Chukchi Sea despite
high insolation levels”
A little later they discuss tests with PIP25, and conclude, ” This suggests that marine production was not a simple response to nutrient supply but was affected by other processes such as the increase in irradiance in the water column (Frey et al., 2011; Lee and Whitledge, 2005) and wind-induced mixing that replenishes sea surface nutrients (Carmack et al., 2006).”
(Another abstract by some of the same people talks more about PIP25 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683616645939)
The Ding paper was apparently posted because of what it says about natural variation, but that doesn’t contradict or weaken the ideas of AGW.
I’m afraid I don’t see what’s been debunked here. What am I missing?