Quote of the week: "crazy stuff in the Arctic"

The overly excitable director of that National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is at it again. Previously, we’ve heard him declare “death spiral” and “the Arctic is screaming” to convey his alarmed viewpoint on Arctic Sea Ice. Now, he’s got a new one, courtesy of Seth Borenstein at The Associated Press:

“It’s just crazy, crazy stuff,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, who has been studying the Arctic since 1982. “These heat waves, I’ve never seen anything like this.”

Well of course you haven’t seen anything like it before. We only have a short duration record of Arctic Sea Ice/Arctic weather, and Mr. Serreze probably isn’t a fan of historical anecdotes, like what happened well before he was born, such as this report from 1922:

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Hmmm, well “crazy stuff” or not, according to the NSIDC Sea Ice Report on March 6th, the same day as “crazy stuff” was uttered, we see that the Arctic sea ice is still there. The headline was apparently written by one of the calmer employees at NSIDC:

A warm approach to the equinox


Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for February 2018 was 13.95 million square kilometers (5.39 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1981 to 2010 average extent for that month.Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

As temperatures at the North Pole approached the melting point at the end of February, Arctic sea ice extent tracked at record low levels for this time of year. Extent was low on both the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Arctic, with open water areas expanding rapidly in the Bering Sea during the latter half of the month. On the other side of the globe, Antarctic sea ice has reached its minimum extent for the year, the second lowest in the satellite record.

Winter continues to be mild over the Arctic Ocean. Sea ice extent remained at record low daily levels for the month. Arctic sea ice extent for February 2018 averaged 13.95 million square kilometers (5.39 million square miles). This is the lowest monthly average  recorded for February, 1.35 million square kilometers (521,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average and 160,000 square kilometers (62,000) below the previous record low monthly average in 2017.

Figure 2a. The graph above shows Arctic sea ice extent as of March 4, 2018, along with daily ice extent data for four previous years. 2017 to 2018 is shown in blue, 2016 to 2017 in green, 2015 to 2016 in orange, 2014 to 2015 in brown, 2013 to 2014 in purple, and 2011 to 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. Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Extent was especially low in the Bering Sea where sea ice declined during the first three weeks of the month. The eastern part of the Bering Sea was largely ice-free for most of the month; extent was low on the western side, with the ice edge further north than normal. In the Chukchi Sea, extent also retreated during part of February, with open water developing north of the Bering Strait on both the Siberian and Alaskan coasts. As seen all winter, ice extent continued to be below average in the Barents Sea, and at the end of February, a wedge of open water formed north of Svalbard that extended well into the Arctic Ocean.

Low pressure centered just east of the Kamchatka Peninsula and high pressure centered over Alaska and the Yukon during February set up southerly winds that brought warm air and warm ocean waters into the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean, impeding southward ice growth. This helps to explain the rapid loss of ice extent in the Bering Sea and the ice-free regions within the Chukchi Sea during the month. The warm air intrusion is evident in the 925 mb air temperatures, with monthly temperatures 10 to 12 degrees Celsius (18 to 22 degrees Fahrenheit) above average in the Chukchi and Bering Sea.

On the Atlantic side, low pressure off the southeast coast of Greenland and high pressure over northern Eurasia helped to funnel warm winds into the region and may have also enhanced the northward transport of oceanic heat. At the end of the month, this atmospheric circulation pattern was particularly strong, associated with a remarkable inflow of warm air from the south, raising the temperatures near the North Pole to above freezing, around 20 to 30 degrees Celsius (36 to 54 degrees Fahrenheit) above average. Air temperatures at Cape Morris Jesup in northern Greenland (83°37’N, 33°22’W) exceeded 0 degrees Celsius for several hours and open water formed to the north of Greenland at the end of the month. This is the third winter in a row in which extreme heat waves have been recorded over the Arctic Ocean. A study published last year by Robert Graham from the Norwegian Polar Institute showed that recent warm winters represent a trend towards increased duration and intensity of winter warming events within the central Arctic. While the Arctic has been relatively warm for this time of year, northern Europe was hit by extreme cold conditions at the end of February.

Full report with additional graphs here: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2018/03/a-warm-approach-to-the-equinox/

I guess I just can’t get too worked up about Serreze and his “crazy stuff” opinion, especially when the official NSIDC report is much more sedate.

As I’ve said before, given his own irresponsible pronouncements to the press, Mr. Serreze probably isn’t the best spokesman for NSIDC.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard K.
March 9, 2018 10:35 am

Thanks Seth for forgetting the past. Is that why you will be celebrating your 40th birthday this year?

Reply to  Richard K.
March 9, 2018 10:42 am

More like a fourth birthday. Congratulations.

Reply to  Curious George
March 9, 2018 12:57 pm

Sure there is a shortage of ice and snow most of it has been falling in N Am. and Europe.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Curious George
March 9, 2018 7:44 pm

“…who has been studying the Arctic since 1982”
Has he studied the history of the region which he frets over, or just the record since it first drew his interest?

Reply to  Curious George
March 9, 2018 9:59 pm

What is he wearing … pajamas?

Reply to  Curious George
March 12, 2018 9:44 am

@teaparty – that’s a buffalo – the mascot of the University of Colorado @ Boulder – home of the NSIDC

March 9, 2018 10:45 am

At least it’s not officially crazy like with Obama in the White House.

Tom Halla
March 9, 2018 10:48 am

Only 14 wadhams? We are all going to die!/s

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 9, 2018 7:49 pm

Don’t spend your entire wadhams on one thing, now. Save a little for the dead of winter.

March 9, 2018 11:01 am

True arctic craziness would be a major embarrassment for those invested in vocally denying the science of Anthropogenic Global Weirding. How many record-breakingly weird years in a row do we need to have before the hardcore skeptics admit that our activities are literally weirding the very climate we breathe?

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 11:11 am

Our understanding of the radiative physics of the carbon-pollution molecule—which absorbs and scatters IR-range weirdness, preventing that weirdness from escaping back to the Sun—has been understood since Arrhenius.
Literally nothing important has changed in climate science for 150 years.
And still you people, not naming any names, scoff that it’s “not a real science.”

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 11:34 am

I think you will find the molecule is carbon dioxide, which is plant food, not a pollutant. I also don’t think that Arrhenius knew much about quantum mechanics.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
March 9, 2018 11:38 am

“I also don’t think that Arrhenius knew much about quantum mechanics.”
Then it’s even worse than I thought! Adding QM to the mix, we get:
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Prinicple + Lewandowsky’s Uncertainty Principle
[Uncertainty is] Not Your Friend!
No wonder Arrhenius was so blissfully complacent.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 11:47 am

As you’ve shown us Brad, we have little left but ridicule to show that: “There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See”
Stagnate science is so much easier to study than that which experiences continued advancements. Of course, distinguishing a stagnate theory from a failed theory becomes tedious. so best not to consider that option.

Reply to  Thomas Homer
March 9, 2018 11:59 am

it goes without saying that highly conjectural, volatile, immature sciences like medical research are continually “learning” things at a rate that would make most climate scientists reach for the Travacalm. But so is my 10-week-old girl. That doesn’t make her smarter than me—au contraire, she’s an ignoramus (albeit an adorable one).
Climate science, on the other hand, is a mature, stable, dare I say “settled” science. And it has to be. You couldn’t very well ask entire nations to enter into long-term industrial/economic treaties predicated on the shifting sands of (say) chemistry, could you? No. If we’re to build a climate policy that will vouchsafe the planet’s future for my children’s children’s children, we have to build it on the ossified, sclerotic, monolithic bedrock of a science that doesn’t change its mind every couple of years.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 12:09 pm

Given the fact that thunderstorms move massive amounts of heat from the surface to the top of the troposphere, how does carbon dioxide interact with this dynamic? Show me the science please, Brad.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 12:17 pm

So far you have only presented your opinions and propaganda. When you have something brilliant to say, let us know..

Reply to  SkepticGoneWild
March 9, 2018 12:20 pm

“So far you have only presented your opinions and propaganda.”
Well I’d be only too happy to present someone else’s opinions, but that would be a bit disingenuous, n’est-ce pas?

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 12:29 pm


Given the fact that thunderstorms move massive amounts of heat

How much mass is “massive”? A few kilograms of heat? A metric ton of heat? And what equipment do you rely on to accurately weigh these “thunderstorms” you speak of?

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 12:31 pm

Brad–I suspect Alfred Wegener (and others) would respectfully disagree with you. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion and your absolute convictions.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 12:55 pm

Brad keys: we people say that a non falsifiable conjecture is not real science, nobody doubts the validity of Arrhenius, just the massive positive feedback that has to be added to it to force (excuse me, “paramaterize”) a fit to make the models match reality.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 12:58 pm

Okay the IPCC which is the God like prognosticator for alarmists like you Mr. Keyes says that in the last 138 years the average global temperature has risen 0.85 C. Considering that industrialization has really only got going since 1950
( we can do the numbers a different way if you want to say industrialization started before that), that means that in 68 years CO2 maybe has been the cause of that warming since 1950. Okay that means that even if all the warming has happened since 1950 you have 0.85C in 68 years which is 0.0125 C per year. Since the CO2 increase is a steady 1/2 % a year and will get less as the years go on because it seems to be only 2ppm increase per year, that means if it is only because of CO2 then for the next 100 years we have 100x 0.0125 = 1.25 C increase for the next century.
But wait you say.What about the CO2 forcing an increase in water vapour. ? That can only happen if the temperature goes up because of the relative humidity and dew point laws of physics. So what would cause the temperature to go up drastically more than the small increase we have seen for the last 80 years or so of industrialization? Of course you would have to have the CO2 force more water vapour. But consider this. If you take CO2 out of the equation and go back to pre 1880 or however far you want to go back in time, we always had a natural cycle of evaporation from the world’s oceans and condensation of that water vapour back into the land and oceans. And of course the major rivers make sure that the condensation that dropped on the land gets back into the oceans. Okay here is the crux of the matter. When the water from the oceans evaporates it cools both the oceans (because heat is lost to the water molecule in the form of latent heat to effect the phase change from liquid to a gas) and from the atmosphere because of the pressure differential requiring energy to get the water molecule into the air( again latent heat into the water molecule, because the heat has to go somewhere). Now latent heat also gets created when ice changes to water. However latent heat is only created in one direction either from ice to water or from water to a gaseous state. In the other direction when the water vapour condenses(rains or snows) the latent heat is released not created. If that wasn’t true then the latent heat would get back into the oceans and the oceans would boil over. Sooooo One of 2 things happens when the latent heat is released upon condensation. Either 1) the latent heat escapes out to space or 2) it gets absorbed by greenhouse gases. Dont forget we are talking about 1880 here. If it was reabsorbed by other water vapour molecules (the only significant greenhouse gas around in 1880 ) then we would have had runaway global warming back then, because the planet has always had evaporation and condensation as long as the oceans have been in existence. Each time there was evaporation there would have had to be more conensation and if the latent heat was always being absorbed by other water molecules then the temperature would have gone up to create even more evaporation and more condensation (exactly the scenario the warmists are predicting for CAGW). However we are still talking about 1880. Since there was no runaway global warming then, scenario No. 1 must have occurred. That is the latent heat being released from the water vapour condensing had to escape from space or at least there had to be a net release to space to balance the heat budget of the globe.
So let us now go back to the present where CO2 comes into the picture. Since the average amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is anywhere from 20 to 50 times more than the amount of CO2 and the amount of water vapour itself can not cause the increase in warming as we have just proved in the above then we are left to conclude that the CO2 itself causes increased temperatures. Okay let us agree that it has for the last 68 years or so . But there is not runaway increases in the CO2 that remains in the atmosphere. So the increase in CO2 that there has been has only increased temperatures 0.85 C in the last 138 years. I calculated in the above that based on the last 68 years the temperature increase will only be 1.25 C at the end of a 100 years from now. You alarmists will argue that there will be a tipping point at which the slow steady increase of CO2 will cause an acceleration in the Temperature increase. Well we have seen a 10 year pause in temperature increases since 2000. So obviously natural factors overide the CO2 cause. However warmists are still arguing that an increase is occuring. However until we see a definite acceleration in the increase over a number of years we can only conclude that yes maybe CO2 causes warming but it hasnt yet caused any H2O forcing of extra water vapour in the atmosphere. The Goddard Institute of Space sciences a division of NASA used to measure the amount of H2O in the atmosphere to see if it was increasing. Hansen the director at that time in 2009 shut the program down when they couldnt prove any increase in H2O in the atmosphere and they had been measuring for 20 years. So until someone can prove that a tipping point will occur I will assume it cant and will continue to enjoy the slight increase of 0.0125 C per year. The plants like it too as seen in the increase in the 18% vegetation in the last 30 years. we need more CO2 in the atmosphere NOT less.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 1:10 pm

Oh dear.
Oh dear oh dear.
The ‘real science’ as you pout it predicts an utterly insignificant effect of CO2 on climate.
Thats why they had to invent ‘climate amplification’ bit ‘positive feedback’
Which if it existed would have made cliamte so unstable to aANY drver that we wouldnt be here now.
And predicted a tropospheric hotspot, that didn’t exist, and predicted that temperatures by now would be two plus degrees warmer than they are.
You are very green and wet behind the ears if you think that skeptics deny the basic physics. They dont. The real issue is that the AGW hypothesis takes the basic physics and multiplies it by scary numbers that not only have no rational justification, but also have been proved to make predictions that have simply not come true.

They got way with that when for presumably unrelated reasons the temperature rose quite sharply between about 1980 and 2000. Then just as suddenly, it stopped rising while CO2 marched in. Theyy couldn’t make the IPCC equation fit both periods. Ergo the equation was bunk, and whatever it is that drives climate, it certainly isn’t CO2.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 2:18 pm

Brad Keyes, the continuous Media/science journal stream of ridiculous “effects” of CAGW should clue you in to the fact that they actually can’t find any discernible bad effects. Some less Arctic ice may sound scary to the credulous, but really doesn’t hurt anything or anybody & actually increases Arctic ocean biological productivity.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 5:20 pm

“…Du jour. Not de jour. Is your science any more croyable than your French?…”
Well it is certainly “soup du jour” (technically “soupe du jour,”), but there’s plenty of “de jour” out there as well…for instance, the French novel and movie “Bella de Jour.” Many climate scientists should be able to relate to that story.

Phil R
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 5:22 pm

Alan Tomalty,

Okay the IPCC which is the God like prognosticator for alarmists like you Mr. Keyes…

Mr. Keyes certainly doesn’t need me or anyone else coming to his defense, but it’s Friday (night for me), get a sense of humor.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 5:22 pm

“…Well I’d be only too happy to present someone else’s opinions, but that would be a bit disingenuous, n’est-ce pas?…”
They were wanting facts and legitimate points. It is expecting a bit much, apparently.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 6:19 pm

If you actually believe any of that guff you just wrote – well, I have a really great bridge to sell you. Climate science is in it’s infancy, and there have been all sorts of major advancements and changes over the last 150 years. So stop fooling yourself, because you’re sure not fooling any of us, you’re just wasting everyone’s time with your ignorant claims.
I’ll just pop in a little conversation I had on a different comment section with someone like you…

“why is AGW garbage”

There are reams of reasons. First, are you familiar with the null hypothesis in the scientific method? It’s key, basic, essential. The null hypothesis in climate change is natural variability – and natural variability fits all the available climate data VASTLY better than the AGW hypothesis does. Right there it means the AGW hypothesis is a failed hypothesis and must be discarded or significantly modified and retested against the empirical data. Until it explains all the available data at least as well or better than the null, the null stands and AGW must be discarded. That’s how the scientific method works.
There are plenty of other reasons too. CO2 doesn’t even correlate well with temperature. In fact, even during the relatively brief periods in Earth’s history where it does seem to correlate, it virtually always LAGS temperature, which means it’s not driving temperature change but reacting to it. Solar cycles – especially when multi-decadal ocean cycles are also factored in – correlate far better with temperature changes than greenhouse gasses do. Of course, correlation is not causation – but if you don’t even have a good correlation you very likely don’t have squat.
Then there’s the fact that it’s been warmer multiple times even just during the holocene than it presently is – e.g., Medieval Warm Period, Roman Optimum, Minoan Warm Period, Holocene Optimum – all long long before man was using any fossil fuels and emitting significant amounts of CO2. Then there’s the fact that the degree of warming since AGW supposedly began isn’t in any way unprecedented or unusual either in rate or magnitude to changes that have occurred prior to AGW supposedly starting. Add to that the fact that roughly half the recent warming (since the end of the Little Ice Age) occurred BEFORE man was emitting any significant CO2 – and the rate and magnitude of that warming was about the same as that which has occurred since AGW supposedly began.
Then you’ve got the problem that according to the AGW hypothesis, there are a number of “fingerprints” which MUST be present for it to be AGW rather than natural variability – but, oopsie, several of those required “fingerprints” have never developed even though they were supposedly to show up very very early in the process. For example, if it’s AGW, there must be a mid-tropospheric tropical hot spot. Only millions of measurements taken, and there is none. Both poles MUST be warming faster than anywhere else on Earth, and the tropics the least. The Arctic might be complying, but the Antarctic certainly isn’t. And so on.
Add to that the fact that much of “climate science” totally fails to account for confounding factors – and in science, you MUST control for or at least adequately account for confounding factors (e.g., factors other than your hypothesis which might be affecting the results). They fail to account for natural variation for one, and all the things that go into that. I’ve mentioned other confounding factors they’re not addressing later also.
There are all SORTS of issues like this which show very clearly that the AGW hypothesis is a failed hypothesis.
Oh, and sorry, but your “Earth/Moon” analogy is a very bad one, which shows that you don’t understand the physics involved. Greenhouse gasses work on a logarithmic curve – the vast majority of their effect occurs in the first few TENS of ppm – we’ve long ago made it up into the plateau portion of the curve where added greenhouse gasses, theoretically, have little effect. You’ve also got a saturation problem – e.g., the wavelengths of energy that CO2 absorbs overlap with others, including water vapor – and the curve is essentially saturated, which means that only the very top layer of the atmosphere is affected. Which brings us to the issue of water vapor – which is also a greenhouse gas, but is vastly more present in the atmosphere than CO2 & methane. A SMALL change in the percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere would be all it would take to account for temperature changes.
Meanwhile, we’re still in an ice age, just an interglacial period of that ice age – and the vast majority of the Earth’s history both temperatures and CO2 levels have been notably higher than present day levels. In fact, the Antarctic ice cap FORMED while CO2 levels were 50% higher than present day levels… and the Earth has been in full blown glaciated states of an ice age at times when CO2 levels were as much as 5x to 20x HIGHER than present day levels.
I could go on and on with these sorts of facts – the AGW hypothesis is a very poor one that the body of science simply doesn’t support – not even close.

“This has to warm the planet.”

No, in fact it doesn’t “have to” at all. You’re totally ignoring the fact that there are all sorts of other mechanisms involved which may very well counteract that sort of effect. For example, when the temperature warms, trees and plants naturally produce more isoprene – an aerosol that helps cool the atmosphere. There are all sorts of feedback mechanisms like this – it’s an incredibly complex system that we’re in our infancy in trying to understand.

“Scientists can measure gas heat absorption, temperatures, gas levels, etc. to accuracy levels adequate to make calculations. Then its math.”

No, in fact they can’t – not even close. It’s NOT anywhere near that simple. You’ve got extremely complex systems involved that we can’t even remotely come close to modeling accurately. The hydrological system in the atmosphere is very complex, and the models don’t represent it well at all. Then you’ve got other factors such as varying dust and soot levels, aerosols, cosmic ray levels, cosmic dust levels, variations in solar input, geothermal effects, multi-decadal ocean cycles and almost certainly even longer term ocean cycles, cloud types and height changes, etc., etc., etc. ALL of these would have to be ACCURATELY measured across the entire globe, and we’d have to know exactly how each affects the climate system etc., to be able to boil down into just ‘doing the math.’ In fact, it’s almost certainly a chaotic system – which cannot be modeled.

“The only question is how fast will the warming happen.”

Sorry, but you’ve done a fine job of proving you really don’t have an understanding of what you’re talking about at all.

“No conspiracy theory possible, too many scientists (tens of thousands around world) in too many countries to keep a conspiracy of this size secret.

I’ve certainly never said anything about a “conspiracy.” I think they’re primarily just chasing the money and trying to further their careers. If, however, you read the climategate emails you will in fact find that many of the top “climate scientists” have in fact been working together as activists and NOT as scientists – working to push the AGW hypothesis and to stop any skeptical papers from being published, they even got a major journal editor fired because he let a single skeptical paper get published, tweak their own data to make the AGW hypothesis appear far more solid than it is and so on. So I guess technically you could certainly call that a conspiracy, although I generally wouldn’t. And obviously, they didn’t manage to keep it secret.
Oh, and science isn’t done by consensus – politics is. But if you’re going to insist on “thousands of scientists around the world” well, the simple fact is that there are far more qualified scientists in the hard sciences who have put in writing that they do NOT believe in any significant AGW than there are who’ve said they think it’s occurring.
Oh, and by the way – exactly what is the temperature that the Earth “ought to be” anyhow – and why?
Anyhow, any rational/scientific way you look at it, the AGW hypothesis fails. In fact, it fails very very badly.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 9:55 pm

Why do you guys let Keyes string you along so? He’s just a blather of incoherent, mediocre sarcasm. Best just ignored.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 10:36 pm

the French ‘de’ simply means ‘of’ as in Anne de Mortimer = Anne of Mortimer.
Du is the masculine form of de la =”of the” as in soupe du jour, soup of the day. Un peau de la confiture. A little of the jam..

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 10, 2018 10:40 am

Brad. Are you suggesting to us that experiments done by Svante Arrhenius 125 years ago in a closed container explains anything about the possible effect of CO2 on our open atmosphere? Using a much higher concentration of CO2 than is available in our open atmosphere thus preventing convection and gas escape from the container is hardly a proof of much of anything, related to our climate.
Of course almost any substance in high enough concentrations might be considered pollution but using that term to describe an odorless, tasteless, invisible trace gas making up 0.04% of our atmosphere is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.
Further, if you bother to check CO2 levels and temperature readings over the last 20 years, you’ll note that as our atmospheric CO2 concentrations have steadily increased, there has been no significant increase in global mean temperature. In fact, our global temperature (as if anyone really knew) has been claimed to increase only about 0.8 degrees C since Arrhenius did his experiments, an amount far too small to feel or notice.
According to (Büntgen et al, 2017) there has been no warming at all in the Northern Hemisphere since the 1940s or 1950s.
Perhaps it is you who needs to brush up on some “real science.”

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 10, 2018 1:26 pm

“carbon pollution molecule”? Please explain in scientific terms what exactly that means. What exactly is the ‘carbon’ polluting? Heck, our bodies are composed of a great deal of carbon, if we didn’t have it, we wouldn’t exist. If CO2 ‘pollution’ in the atmosphere falls below 150ppm, life would not exist. I’d offer that there are many other ‘molecules’ that have more effect than CO2, Benzene & methane among them.
I grow tired of these non-scientific (dare I say anti-scientific) expressions like ‘climate pollution’, ‘climate disruption’. They convey no substantive information and serve only to scare the unwary. Please stop.

Geir L
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 11:36 am

It won’t happen. In the future, after x number of years with increasing ice extent, people will forget about the past and start screaming of a new ice age.. and of course, that will probably be our fault as well.

Bryan A
Reply to  Geir L
March 9, 2018 12:11 pm

That is called Climate Science De-Jour

Reply to  Geir L
March 9, 2018 12:17 pm

Du jour. Not de jour. Is your science any more croyable than your French?

Reply to  Geir L
March 9, 2018 1:03 pm

It already was. That was the 1970s. I’m looking forward to the hype going full circle. From global cooling and ice age returns to global warming to climate change.

Geir L
Reply to  Geir L
March 9, 2018 1:29 pm

The question is whether 39 years of measuring the sea ice extent is enough to predict the destiny of the ice extent in 80 years from now. I don’t think so. A trend is visible, but in no way there is any indication of a catastrophy. Even if the same trend goes on for another 80 years, which I think would be highly unlikely, the arctic will not be ice free at any point. According to what ‘experts’ said 15-20 years ago, the summer ice should have been long gone by now. The reality is quite different. Doomsday predictions made by computer simulations is junk science, based upon lacking physical theories and inadequate input data.

Reply to  Geir L
March 9, 2018 4:51 pm

Brad, tuhmaytoe … tuhmawtoe …
your seeing nits where there really are none … incroyable.

Reply to  Geir L
March 9, 2018 9:23 pm

My understanding of the “de” vs “du” usage is roughly that, for example, soup du jour is “soup of the day” and soup de jour would roughly translate to “day-soup”. I’m not sure of the correct semantic terms, but these are my usual mental translations.
In this context “du” is right and “de” is not (Climate Science practiced during the day, perhaps?).
I only lived in France for a couple of years, so I may be wrong, of course, and am happy to be corrected.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 12:08 pm

The 2000s were the craziest decade since records began, with many countries experiencing mad-waves in areas that have been mentally healthy for centuries. And guess what? Scientists say the 2010s are on track to be even crazier.
Yet still we pretend we can spew teraton after teraton of carbon pollution into an already-saturated climate without messing up Earth’s fragile veneer of sanity.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 12:12 pm

“already-saturate climate”
Ok, I’ll bite…what’s the saturation point for our climate?

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 12:55 pm

Well, despite the wise rule “Don’t feed the troll”, here’s a little fodder for Brad:
Quote: “The 2000s were the craziest decade since records began, with many countries experiencing mad-waves in areas that have been mentally healthy for centuries.”
Are you sure? AGW zealots like you don’t know climate history very well. Here are two helpful links:
(there is an automatic translation function in English at the top right of the website)

James Beaver
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 12:57 pm

Good thing CO2 is not pollution. My trees and the crop plants love the stuff.

Geir L
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 2:00 pm

..2010s are on track to be even crazier? It’s 2018.. do you have a list of crazy events other than all the media hype on weather events that are to be expected based upon knowledge from the past? Have you read historical records of weather events in the past? If you make a serious effort, you will find thousands of stories of extreme weather events that took place in the past, long before humans made any significant intervention in nature.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 6:30 pm

ROFL!! That’s some good crazy parody right there! What alternate universe are you living in? Also, hate to break it to you my dear, but your body is composed of about 19% of that scary “carbon pollution” stuff, without which there’d be no human, animal, or plant life that’s recognizable to us today – and you breath out about 38,000 ppm of that horrible “carbon pollution” stuff with every single breath you take – when the atmospheric levels are only around 400 ppm. Even more amazing, your body actually knows to breath based on the level of that evil “carbon pollution” stuff, without which your autonomic breathing reflex would fail. And that terrible “carbon pollution” stuff is what allows plants to live, thus giving off oxygen which WE have to have to live.
And “already saturated climate?” Gee, I guess you’re not aware of the fact that for over 90% of the Earth’s entire history of 4.6 billion years or so, atmospheric levels of that “carbon pollution” stuff were far HIGHER than present day levels. We’re in a CO2 drought. Which is why greenhouses pump in MORE CO2 to help plants grow far better, healthier, with less need for water and fertilizer – they generally use about 1,200 ppm of CO in greenhouses to accomplish that.
Frankly, your comments are so wacked out that I strongly suspect you’re just trolling, in which case I fell for it by responding to you at all. Trolling is so pathetic. Regardless, wake up and join the real world already!

Reply to  Rational Db8
March 9, 2018 6:44 pm

ROFL!! That’s some good crazy parody right there!

Thanks, Rational db8! Glad you enjoyed it. I was groaning in anticipation of yet another long and humorless correction by some Poe’s-Law-confirming American. No offense to our fellow denihilati in the Home of the Brave—I usually enjoy being schooled, as it’s enlightening even when strictly unnecessary—but there’s only so much point-missing umbrage one can take before getting bored.

What alternate universe are you living in? Also, hate to break it to you my dear, but …

*awkward pause*
It’s so refreshing when someone gets it for once.<

Smart Rock
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 7:07 pm

Good stuff Brad, you’ve got them going tonight (today, whatever)

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 7:10 pm

I suggest you up your daily Xanax dose. Let’s keep the crazies in your head at bay.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 10:52 pm

So you really do just enjoy being a pathetic troll, until you get bored with being lectured over saying really absurd things. You’ve got nothing better to do, for heaven’s sake? Sad.
The problem is that these days it’s virtually impossible to tell when someone really is trolling with Poe’s law or when they’re nutty enough to mean exactly what they say no matter how insane. Which, of course, is the entire point of Poe’s law, which you are clearly aware of.
So exactly what is your point in trolling like this? I can’t imagine there’s any good answer to that – but who knows, I could be wrong, so let’s hear it.

Chris Wright
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 10, 2018 2:24 am

“The 2000s were the craziest decade since records began, with many countries experiencing mad-waves in areas that have been mentally healthy for centuries. And guess what? Scientists say the 2010s are on track to be even crazier.”
Brad, if you really believe that nonsense then I’m seriously worried about your mental health.
All the global data shows that mankind and the planet is thriving. Average life expectancy is increasing. The world is producing more food per head of population than ever before and agricultural productivity is higher than ever before. The numbers of people killed by extreme weather has fallen dramatically. The overall intensity of hurricanes has been falling for decades.
And get this: due to emissions of what you call “pollution”, the planet is getting greener. It’s getting greener also due to global warming. Nature always prefers warmth to cold.
I assume you think of yourself as “green”, and yet you demonise the very thing that makes the planet green. Now that’s what I call crazy.

Reply to  Chris Wright
March 10, 2018 2:38 am

I assume you think of yourself as “green”, and yet you demonise the very thing that makes the planet green.
Chris, when you presume you make a PRES out of U and ME both.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 12:12 pm

As a longtime advocate for better access to mental health for our climate, it just makes me so mad.
It’s not often I say this, but after reading this post I’m literally ineloquent with angerness.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 12:18 pm

“Mad” as in “craxy”?.. Thought so.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 12:24 pm

No, I was thinking more along the lines of “crazy.” Sure, there’s a bit of ambiguity, and I could’ve meant “craxy,” but that’s what contextual common sense. Ask yourself: have you ever known me, in my commenting history, to be craxy? What crax have I ever indicated I was suffering from? Absent any evidence of crax, your duty is clear: you must find me crazy, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

Geir L
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 2:17 pm

You better face reality, the sooner the better. Unortunately, the whole climate crisis is about MONEY. Think about it for a while…

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 12:29 pm

When did the radiative physics of CO2 become a complete theory of climate, Brad?
What part of it accounts for convection, evaporation/condensation, cloud formation and precipitation, storm production and latent heat emission to space?
None of that can be described in physical theory, nor modeled correctly. Neither can the oceans be. No one knows what, if anything at all, CO2 emissions will do to the climate.
You\r climate “weirding” is no more than unfounded inference driven by political prejudice and personal hysteria. It has no basis whatever in science.
Radiative physics became of age in the 1950’s, not with Arrhenius.

R Shearer
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 12:37 pm


Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 1:09 pm

To Brad Keyes:
I can’t follow the technical side as most people can’t due to it being very heavy on math (especially statistics) and science. So do we “believe” one group or another? No, belief is for religion not science. Do we go with whatever the consensus is? No, consensus is for politics not science.
So what do we follow? The scientific method! See this 1 minute clip for an explanation:

Get PREDICTIONS with DATES attached to them from both the cyclical and CO2 groups. Then check up to see if their predictions happen. So far the cyclical group has more accurate predictions (Dr Easterbrook for example). The CO2 camp has not had its predictions happen despite 40% of all the CO2 ever emitted by humans being done in the last 25 years.
So what are the predictions from the 2 camps for the next 5-10-15-20 years? The CO2 camp says it will get warmer and the cyclical camp says cold. They can’t both be right. So if it is cold for the next 2+ decades will you admit then that the CO2 controls the climate theory is wrong?

Reply to  TRM
March 9, 2018 1:25 pm

No, belief is for religion not science.

Well, you may like to believe that (which is not very scientific of you, is it?), but I believe belief DOES have a valid role in science. You probably don’t believe me, because that would be too religious for your taste, but I’m sure you don’t believe I’m wrong either (since you’re a man of science, and believing is for religion). But if you don’t believe I’m wrong, does that mean we both agree I’m right, or should we just agree to disagree (assuming you’re agreeable to such an arrangement)?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  TRM
March 9, 2018 1:27 pm

One of the greatest scientists ever

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  TRM
March 9, 2018 1:31 pm

In horror I saw that my comment was inserted after the comment of Mr. Keyes. So in that case if you thought I was referring to Mr. Keyes then put a bigggggggggggg sarc) after it

Reply to  TRM
March 9, 2018 1:32 pm

Anyway, what would a Nobel laureate like Richard Feynman know about the scientific method? Remember, science is the belief in the ignorance of experts [source: R. P. Feynman], and they don’t get much more expert than Feynman. So as a person of science, I don’t believe he has the slightest clue what he’s talking about.

Reply to  TRM
March 10, 2018 1:29 pm

Okay, I’m pretty sure you’re trolling now. “what would a Nobel laureate like Richard Feynman know about the scientific method? ”
LOL, are you having fun, yet?

charles nelson
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 9, 2018 1:25 pm

Brad Keyes is a Water Vapour convective cooling ‘denier’.

Reply to  charles nelson
March 9, 2018 10:41 pm

No, he’s just here to stir people up, and most people fall for it hook, line, sinker and boat.

Randy in Ridgecrest
Reply to  charles nelson
March 10, 2018 3:28 am

With a 20 day old baby I’m guessing Brad is starting to get a little sleep deprived. Based on personal experience I predict an increase in the “madness” of BK, then a slide (gradual or abrupt?) into a zombie mental state.

Nigel S
March 9, 2018 11:02 am

“The Arctic is screaming …”
‘The sky is crying
Can you see the tears roll down the street
The sky is crying
Can you see the tears roll down the street
I’ve been looking for my baby
And I’ve been wondering where can she be’
Elmore James

Reply to  Nigel S
March 9, 2018 11:27 am

“I’ve been looking for my baby”
The dingos ate your baby.

Reply to  Marv
March 9, 2018 11:52 am

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Nigel S
Reply to  Marv
March 9, 2018 2:00 pm

“it’s not a lie if you believe it.”

Reply to  Marv
March 9, 2018 4:15 pm

“I’m out”

Reply to  Marv
March 10, 2018 1:31 pm

Very sad movie, that

March 9, 2018 11:03 am

So ENSO and the PDO are scary to the scare director of ice. Nuts

Robert from oz
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 9, 2018 1:55 pm

I’d just like to know when was the climate ever stable ?

Reply to  Robert from oz
March 10, 2018 1:34 pm

‘Climate’ is a feedback system, as such it is NEVER ‘stable’ (if, by ‘stable’ you mean ‘unchanging’). It will NEVER reach an equilibrium state in which in never changes. Open feedback systems just don’t do that

Reply to  Robert from oz
March 10, 2018 1:36 pm

See Lorenz, 1972

Nigel S
March 9, 2018 11:08 am

It’s so hot a walrus has come south to cool off. ‘Five years after the “once-in-a-lifetime” sighting of a walrus in Orkney, a second animal has been spotted there.’

March 9, 2018 11:17 am

To Warmists this is pass the ammo stuff. BTW, I just took a walk on the beach I grew up on in SoCal…nothings changed.

Reply to  Wharfplank
March 9, 2018 11:18 am

•60 years.

Joe Civis
Reply to  Wharfplank
March 9, 2018 11:25 am

surely you must mean you took a walk on the cliff above the beach you grew up on….. I mean with all the sea level rise it must be so!
/Sarc – for all those that need it.

Reply to  Wharfplank
March 9, 2018 12:31 pm

But it has been so bitterly cold here (according to the meteorologist on KNX). How could you have not noticed that?

March 9, 2018 11:20 am

“This is the third winter in a row in which extreme heat waves have been recorded over the Arctic Ocean.”
Yet Greenland’s ice mass accumulation has accelerated upward, likely due to open ocean around it pumping in more moisture to its snow machine. Counter-balancing forces at work. And those processes are all moving heat out of the oceans into the cold atmosphere to be lost to space.
Venting heat to darkness of Arctic winter — that’s what the poles do. They cool the planet as radiators during the cold continuous winter nights. Sea ice changes reflect that venting, especially as the reponse just a few years after a major equatorial OHC release event — the 2015-2016 super El Nino.
And now with the current La Nina phase running in the equatorial Pacific as we approach the solar cycle minimum, the Earth’s climate system will not get the equatorial heat recharge like it did in the 1999-2001 La Nina which occurred during the SC 23 Max period. That was Trenberth’s step-up. This current decadal climatic cycle going in 2022 will be the climate’s relaxation to the mean, ergo, a step down, especially as the ~65 year AMO enters its negative phase (going negative somewhere around 2012-2013, it will continue downward totill around 2030 and remain “negative” till around 2045).
Investing Suggestion: Buy fossil fuel stocks.

charles nelson
Reply to  joelobryan
March 9, 2018 1:26 pm

Correct. A winter ‘heatwave’ in the arctic is a Global Cooling event.

Reply to  joelobryan
March 9, 2018 2:48 pm

T⁴ rules!

John in Oz
Reply to  joelobryan
March 9, 2018 5:41 pm

Venting heat to darkness of Arctic winter — that’s what the poles do.

You would think the pro-CAGW crowd would be happy that the heat is being removed by the Earth countering us pesky humans using the same mechanisms it has used for millennia. Not doing so would give them heat levels they could really froth at the mouth about.

Reply to  joelobryan
March 9, 2018 9:58 pm

“Yet Greenland’s ice mass accumulation has accelerated upward,”
Here we go again.
If you are referring to the SURFACE mass, hardly…comment image
If you are talking total mass – on the contrary

Geir L
Reply to  zazove
March 10, 2018 7:17 am

The total mass of the Greenland ice sheet is about 28500000 billion tons. At an average loss of about 286 billion tons per year, it will take near 10000 years for the ice to melt. We’ll be well into a new grand ice age before that.

Reply to  zazove
March 10, 2018 7:30 am

28500000 / 286 = 99650

Off by an order of magnitude

March 9, 2018 11:21 am

The music being played behind Markies’ passionate speal broke my heart. Gotta love that greasy long haired hippie. Sarc
I wonder if he only baths once a week and never uses deodorant to save the planet. I feel sorry for interviewer and camera person. They probably had to hold their breath.

March 9, 2018 11:24 am

Sea ice extent is junk science. Climate scientists admit that northerly winds and currents compacted the ice northwards away from the Bering Strait and Greenland. Yet most of them always imply that sea ice extent is driven by temperature.

Reply to  icisil
March 9, 2018 11:43 am

Here’s how the sea ice extent scam works. Imagine in the picture below that the temperature is above freezing. A wind comes from the right and blows the ice floes in the bottom 2/3 of the picture to fill up the open water section to the left. Ice is not freezing, but sea ice extent just went up 100%.
Next, a wind blows from the left, compacting the ice like it looks in the picture. Temperature hasn’t changed, but sea ice extent decreased by 50%.
Next, temperature plunges to -60*C and the individual floes freeze together. The wind shifts again and blows from the right, but the floes don’t move like they did before because it’s all one big mass now. It’s freezing really hard, but sea ice extent remains the same.comment image

Reply to  icisil
March 9, 2018 3:22 pm

Add to the last paragraph above:
The -60*C temp causes the area of open water to the left to freeze over. However, since the satellite can’t ‘see’ newly formed thin sea ice, that area is not included in sea ice extent.

David Becker
Reply to  icisil
March 9, 2018 12:04 pm

This is a relevant point. Sea ice extent is determined to some large extent by winds and storms. I would like to know what the volume of ice is. This would certainly be important to determining whether ice is melting or just compacting.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  David Becker
March 9, 2018 12:49 pm

The way sea ice is measured produces results that are entirely dependent upon the wind. Satellite images are divided up into grids, and then any grid that has at least a 15% area of sea ice is then counted as the entire grid. This means that if there were only a single grid containing sea ice, and that grid had 100% ice, then if the wind were to distribute that ice evenly over six grids, the same amount of ice is registered as 6 grids or six times as much ice. If the wind were to then distribute that same amount of ice over 7 grids the total sea ice becomes zero.
1, 6, and zero – all perfectly viable “measurements” of the same amount of sea ice.

Reply to  David Becker
March 9, 2018 1:36 pm

That 15% corresponds to the integer value of 38, which is 15.2% of the 0-250 value range of each grid (pixel). I don’t know if NSIDC standards specify 15% or 38, but if the former, then technically 37 (14.8%) could be used (I guess) if someone wanted to exclude a large quantity of pixels that had a value of 38. Yes, I am cynical in this matter.

Reply to  David Becker
March 9, 2018 2:16 pm

i must have been asleep or thinking about something else when I wrote the above. If 37 were used that would not exclude pixel values of 38. Using 37 would increase the sea ice extent.

Reply to  David Becker
March 9, 2018 10:08 pm

Volume has dropped far more sharply than extent and thinner ice is obviously far more vulnerable to further warming. http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

Reply to  David Becker
March 10, 2018 3:25 am

DMI volume graph shows greater volume than last year. Also note that, even using the PIOMAS graph you link to, the volume is the same as in 2010. The trend over 8 years is flat. Only by starting in 1979 is trend a steep decline. If you use records of a low-extent year that we actually have, from around 1975, the trend is again flat.

Reply to  David Becker
March 10, 2018 3:51 am

No good using 1979, but 2010, that’s ok.

Reply to  David Becker
March 10, 2018 4:43 am

Sea ice volume is highly modeled based on low quality data. One group (eg, NSIDC) makes their assumptions and adjustments to the raw data, another group (eg, PSC/PIOMAS) makes theirs. Consequently, none of it can really be trusted.

Reply to  David Becker
March 10, 2018 5:10 am

“No good using 1979, but 2010, that’s ok.”
No good using early 1970s (ESMR satellite), but 1979, that’s ok.

Reply to  icisil
March 9, 2018 2:56 pm

It’s complicated. (1) the definition of extent is, as stated, largely subjective. (2) ice thickness is not included in ‘extent.’ (3) extent is geographically constrained in much of the region in question. (4) loss of ice is not dependent on just temperature, but on wind velocity, wind direction, and humidity, as well. (5) there are active volcanic seeps below the Arctic Ocean.

Reply to  icisil
March 10, 2018 3:17 am

Good points. Allow me to add a few.
1.) Sea-ice can be fractured in the dead of winter, and polynyas of open water form even in extreme cold. It happens on the coast of Antarctica even with wind-chills of minus a hundred. In such cases open water has nothing to do with warming. Mr. Lavergne fails to comprehend this in his tweet.
2.) Such polynyas swiftly skim over with “baby ice”, but people such as Mr. Lavergne don’t then tweet about the swift formation of a foot of ice. Nor do they note this foot of ice would only have been an inch of ice, if the same waters had remained protected by the ice that was blown away. The “volume” of ice is increased even as the “area” shrinks when the polynya first forms, and then returns to the former level as the “baby-ice” form.
3.) In the case Mr. Lavergne tweeted about on February 26, fresh “baby-ice” had formed both north of Greenland and north of Svalbard by March 5, as soon as the south winds swung around to the north. There never seems to be a follow-up tweet when ice reforms.
4.) The formation of ice releases the latent heat in water during the phase change from liquid to solid. If a polynya forms a foot of ice (rather than the inch that would form if waters remained ice-covered), that much more heat is released to be lost to the arctic night. Then, when that increased amount of ice is melted in the summer, the same amount of heat must be sucked up again in the phase-change from ice back to water. It is a lose-lose dynamic that few Alarmists seem to tweet about.
5.) Though the sea-ice has been pushed north on both the Pacific and Atlantic side, reducing the “area” of the sea-ice, the “volume” has increased over last year. Crickets about this, among Alarmists.
6.) The “volume” should not have increased. Why? Because usually the prime contribution to the volume of sea-ice in the Central Arctic comes from ice exported north from the Laptev Sea. Winds ordinary roar north from Siberia and create polynyas on the coast of the Laptev Sea. These winds, and the resultant polynyas, have been absent most of this winter, due to differing weather patterns. Therefore the increase in volume must come from a differing source. Again, crickets.

Reply to  Caleb
March 10, 2018 4:58 am

Excellent. Apparently, newly formed thin ice (baby ice) is undetectable by satellite because it is unable to mask the underlying H2O microwave signal. Do you know how thick sea ice has to be to become ‘visible’?

Reply to  icisil
March 10, 2018 5:20 am

No, I don’t know when the baby-ice becomes detectable by satellite. The NRL thickness map has a scale where purple fades to white at around a foot, but I have no idea how sensitive it is.
As sea-ice forms at less-cold temperatures it sometimes goes through a stage where it is basically slush sloshing about. I’m not whether the satellite sees that as water or ice. Also there have been problems in the past during the summer, when melt-water pools on top of the ice are mistaken as being open water, but that never becomes a problem until May.

Reply to  Caleb
March 10, 2018 7:27 am

As I understand it, satellite inability to distinguish melt pools in summer from open water is the justification for using sea ice extent rather than sea ice area (same as sea ice concentration). Sea ice area more accurately quantifies ice coverage because it’s the sum of each unit area multiplied by each area’s % ice cover that is >15%.

Bruce Cobb
March 9, 2018 11:24 am

We’ve had “crazy crazy” aka cray cray weather here in New England too. Warmish-ish weather, including record-breaking warmth in February, preceded by some record-breaking cold in January. And now, in March, we are back to winter weather, with cold, and snowstorms. Why can’t Ma Nature make up her mind? Sheesh!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 9, 2018 12:18 pm

In WI it has been cold…very cold since Xmas. This snow needs to go away

March 9, 2018 11:27 am

….warm air migrates to Arctic and leaves the Earth.
That is not warming. That is cooling.
The alarmists are beyond ignorant.

Geir L
Reply to  hunter
March 9, 2018 12:04 pm

Indeed, and the air (cooled down in the arctic) is then moving southward along the other side of the jet stream ‘bulge’, causing record breaking cold waves. Records are often being broken (both cold and warm records) because we have only been measuring temperatures for a very short time. The larger the normal variation from day to day or year to year is, the longer time series of collecting data is needed before you can speak of a trend or considering what is ‘normal’. This is weather in practice, and historically there is nothing abnormal to it.

Reply to  hunter
March 9, 2018 12:15 pm

If the focus is on the pole, all should note that the temperature there in the summer has never exceeded just above freezing and does not change for anyone. No matter if they want to look at it upside down.

Reply to  KLohrn
March 10, 2018 3:44 am

If you look at recent summer temperatures north of 80 degrees latitude as recorded by DMI, you will note they dip below normal from May to September. You are correct to state that polar temperatures are only slightly above freezing, summer after summer, in the 24 hour sunshine, but in that narrow window they have been closer to freezing, in recent years. (Effect of “Quiet Sun”?) This is never noticed by Alarmists. Instead they focus on the fact winter temperatures spike above normal.
The joke is that winter temperatures are very cold. Even the spikes well above normal still represent cold that forms sea-ice. In conclusion, Alarmists focus on the temperatures that form ice, and ignore the temperatures that melt ice.

March 9, 2018 11:31 am

Still doesn’t look like the Northwest Passage is open but I’ll wager some fool will decide it is passable and either die or have to be rescued….

Reply to  pameladragon
March 10, 2018 3:55 am

I like those fools. They tweet out pictures of ice-conditions I’d otherwise lack.
The Passage varies greatly from year to year. One thing to watch is how the ice behaves north of Alaska and Mainland Canada. In April they can get some rip-roaring gales as returning spring warmth battles arctic cold, and strong southeast gales can create open water (polynyas) along the coast, especially at the entrance region to the Passage at the Mackenzie Delta. Watch to see if that occurs. If it doesn’t it is a lot rougher on the sailors.
There are some interesting clots of ice further east in the Passage this year, as well as an interesting polynya where I haven’t seen one before. I need some fools to head in there for a closer look. Please don’t discourage them.

NZ Willy
March 9, 2018 11:33 am

For what little it’s worth, the past week has been properly cold in the Arctic:

Richard Keen
March 9, 2018 11:45 am

Gee, MY little ice cap is gone, too. I moved out to Chicago (from Philadelphia) in 1964, hoping to get a glimpse of the Laurentide ice sheet.
But it was gone. I was 12,000 years too late.

Richard Keen
Reply to  Richard Keen
March 9, 2018 11:54 am

So then, in 1982, I went up Kilimanjaro to enjoy that ice cap. I was NOT 12,000 years too late – matter of fact, that ice cap wasn’t there 12,000 years ago! It starting forming during the moister equatorial climate after the ice age.
In 1996 (and again in 97, 98, …, 2011) I spent months on the 100-mile-long Juneau Ice Field in Alaska, which likewise did NOT exist 8,000 years ago. It’s a product of the cooler climate following the post-glacial warm “optimum” of 8,000 BC.
What’s the point? Ice caps come and go, and not all in unison, according to the whims of the Earth’s orbit, ocean currents, solar oscillations, and who knows what.
Get a life, Serreze, and find yourself another ice cap. There’s lots of them.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Richard Keen
March 9, 2018 1:23 pm

Even if all the glaciers melted in the world the sea would rise only 40mm

March 9, 2018 11:48 am

Saying, at the peak of an interglacial period, that it is scary warm, is like saying that people are unusually hungry when they wake up in the morning.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 9, 2018 12:16 pm

I thought the peak for this inter-glacial was several thousand years ago, in terms of temperature? Anyway, some think that remembering things within living memory is a good measure, whereas we probably need a few 10s of thousands of years of data to see where this is going. And we do, and it was warmer than now about 8,000 years ago.

Sandy b
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
March 9, 2018 1:09 pm

More like millions of years of data. We don’t have it and never will. Just guesses from alarmists with no meaningfull stats.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 9, 2018 3:41 pm

Interstadial. Sorry. Typed too fast.

Stephen Skinner
March 9, 2018 12:16 pm

“Its Dying”. Can’t find this in any physics book in relation to ice. Maybe we should have a march for science.

R Shearer
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
March 9, 2018 12:44 pm

I imagine on his deathbed, he’ll say something like, “This narrowing vision , I’ve never seen anything like it.”

March 9, 2018 12:22 pm

FWIW, both NSIDC and NCEI (of karlization fame) are located in very left leaning cities – Boulder, CO and Asheville, NC. The latter has been called the San Francisco of the East.

Mumbles McGuirck
March 9, 2018 12:27 pm

Notice his shirt in the video. Either he is trying to buffalo us or he is full of buffalo “chips”.

R Shearer
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
March 9, 2018 12:41 pm

Colorado Buffaloes

Reply to  R Shearer
March 9, 2018 1:03 pm

Yes, where they are rapidly urbanizing the Rockies, the Plains, and everything else.

Mumbles McGuirck
March 9, 2018 12:35 pm

A quick note that the National Snow and Ice Data Center is a part of the Univ. of Colorado (Boulder)’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. As such, it relies on grant money mostly from the Federal Government (NASA, NOAA, etc) It is, however, not a government body. So its continued existence is dependent on keeping the cash flowing in. This is why the Director continues to make statements that are meant to grab headlines rather than promote reasonable science. This is climate corruption at its worst.

March 9, 2018 12:42 pm

“It’s just crazy, crazy stuff,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, who has been studying the Arctic since 1982. “These heat waves, I’ve never seen anything like this.”
It’s a “cooling hole” caused by, you guessed it, global warming. What’s really weird is that “warming holes” are cooler and “cooling holes” are warmer. But then with global warming claims everything is weird and weirding and weirder and weirdest. Seems kinda weird to me.

Geir L
Reply to  eyesonu
March 9, 2018 3:17 pm

It gets even crazier.. At the same time a crazy cold wave hits Europe, breaking numerous records and causing conditions some places not seen for decades. I live in Norway and I can confirm it was crazy cold here right after the crazy heat wave in the arctic. We only think it is crazy and weird because we don’t understand how often different weather patterns can develop – we simply haven’t collected enough detailed data for a long enough time period to establish what can be considered as normal.

Bruce Cobb
March 9, 2018 12:58 pm

Come to think of it, this whole ice age thing is pretty crazy. I mean, we’re in an ice age, so where are all the mile-high glaciers? It’s crazy, right?

Alexander Vissers
March 9, 2018 12:59 pm

It is really very fascinating what is happening in the arctic and getting carried away is not a crime. In 1922 people did not have the tools we have now to investigate the causes, it would be great to find out what is going on, many consecutive years of warm average winter temperatures in the arctic and low sea ice levels. .

Richard M
Reply to  Alexander Vissers
March 9, 2018 7:53 pm

It’s called the +AMO. Warm water melts ice. Still a few years before it goes negative but I noticed the AMO index just dropped this past month. It will probably come down a little from the record levels we had last year.

March 9, 2018 1:02 pm

It’s the “Agent Orange” he ingested during his Vietnam tour that is talking.
Ha ha

March 9, 2018 1:20 pm

When the sun goes away for 6 months yer gonna get ice.

Reply to  u.k.(us)
March 9, 2018 3:30 pm

Well, yes. That old T⁴ factor will make ice every winter. Especially with the black body temperature of the sky @ 4⁰K.

Taylor Pohlman
March 9, 2018 3:46 pm

Yes the Arctic has been unusually warm – DMI showed that a week ago or so, but it never got close (on average) to the freezing point, and now it has plummeted over the last 4 days to near normal (-25 C) or about -14 F. Not much melting going on – Air temp is irrelevant to ice forming or melting anyway, at least on the edges – that is driven by water temps.
However, think about all the heat in the arctic atmosphere that was measured in February and early March – it came from lower latitudes (because no heat is generated up there – no sun), and then when the temperature dropped, it meant that the lower latitude heat disappeared – did it go back south? No, it radiated back into space, and was lost to the planet. The more heat that moves to the arctic, the cooler the planet becomes. It’s like opening the damper on your fireplace chimney in the dead of winter – all the heat goes up the chimney. I expect a cool spring, and likely late ice breakup again – the ocean must be really getting cold as the heat is lost to open water.
It will also be interesting to see how late the max extent is this year. We are already seeing continued growth in Arctic Sea Ice volume, no sign of that abating yet.
Note that Antarctica had one of the earliest minimums a few weeks ago, and ice down there appears to be reforming more rapidly than usual.

Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
March 9, 2018 4:06 pm

“The more heat that moves to the arctic, the cooler the planet becomes.”

That is not true. The more heat that moves to the arctic shows that the rest of the planet is getting warmer, and the Arctic cannot shed the heat fast enough.

Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
March 9, 2018 6:14 pm

do you think that the warm air that moves to the arctic stays there c.paul pieret ? the heat in the air leaves faster than anywhere else on the planet during arctic winter as the height of the tropopause above the arctic is approximately half that of the equator.
warm arctic winters are indeed planetary cooling events.

Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
March 9, 2018 7:18 pm

‘C’, do you have any evidence to back up your wishful thinking?
First off, the planet isn’t warming. The only warming in the last 20 years was the recent El Nino, and it’s impact is rapidly fading. Seconly, it’s well known that the end pulse of an El Nino is to send warm water up to the Arctic.

Geir L
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
March 9, 2018 8:05 pm

When it’s unusually warm in the arctic, you can be sure it’s unusually cold in areas nearby the arctic. This is weather and conmected to specific weather patterns, it has nothing to do with the planet getting warmer or cooler.

Brett Keane
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
March 10, 2018 1:19 am

C. Paul Pierett
March 9, 2018 at 4:06 pm: The proof, C. Paul, lies in the falling tropical heat content. Elsewhere too, if you really want to look…. Brett

Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
March 10, 2018 4:27 am

C. Paul Pierett,
Taylor is spot on. You need to think about where all the heat, that you admit is being shed, is coming from.
First, much (if not most) of the “warming” being seen in the world average comes from adding in the arctic warmth. If you subtract that warmth from the average, the rest of the world is close to normal. Is it not a trick an accountant might be arrested for, to say heat that does not exist in non-arctic areas is heating the arctic?
Second, arctic air is very dry. Most of the humidity in it has gone through the phase changes from gas-to-liquid and from liquid-to-solid, and snowed out. What you are left with is air that is is easy to warm, as no water is involved. A degree of temperature-rise in dry, arctic air involves far less energy than the same temperature-rise in hot, humid tropical air. To weight the temperature-changes the same is silly.To have tropical air a half-degree colder should have the weight of a ten degree rise in the arctic.
Third, energy does not merely exist in a form measured by heat and humidity, but also in the form we call “wind”. What does less wind (energy) in the tropics do? It results in warmer temperatures. How? If the trade winds are less there is less up-welling of cold water. Result? Less wind results in weaker La Ninas and stronger El Ninos. Conclusion? Though it is counter-intuitive, less energy as wind results in more energy as warm humid air. In this manner less energy, from the “Quiet Sun”, can result in more energy escaping the oceans. That is where the heat is coming from, that you notice heading up to the Pole.

Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
March 10, 2018 7:29 am

We have had significant amounts of energy moving from lower latitudes to the artic through the recent influx of relatively warm air for the artic.
Given that the artic especially around winter months has a significant net heat loss to space this suggests that this recent occurrence will in fact accelerate the cooling of the planet.
Yes the artic warmed above its average (although still predominately below freezing) but it will have radiated most of this energy to space. During this same period the lower latitudes saw a dramatic cooling as witnessed.
In light of the above, does anyone have any figures on how readily the poles sink/radiate heat on a monthly basis? There is data here from Nasa indicating that at the equinox months of march and sept there is a net radiation effect of -200W/sqm across the poles on average. The arctic is still largely in darkness as it has only just moved into march and will have a higher average radiation level. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page3.php
It would be good to determine if during colder periods the disruption of the polar vortex happens more readily resulting in more heat being transported to the poles and a larger net heat loss to space. This is a positive cooling feedback scenario.
However, perhaps the system acts as a negative feedback system and only when the planet warms the vortex is disrupted potentially causing net heat loss and cooling.
The length of time ice ages last could lend to the former or the fact that the global climate seems to have some strong feedback mechanisms lends itself to the latter.
Would anyone have any thoughts or data?
Do we see evidence of more polar vortex disruption during the little ice ages? I see most new data shows a worldwide cooling during these events so that would suggest the cooling feedback cycle dominates if the polar vortex is more actively disrupted in these periods…
Sensible discussion always welcome.
All my best regards

Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
March 10, 2018 6:13 pm

Whenever arctic air plummets south, it is replaced by new air that comes from an area south to well south of the arctic.
It’s hardly surprising that when the jet stream is aligned to make it easy for polar air to move south, that the poles will warm.
It also isn’t surprising when the clueless, the deceitful or both, try to take advantage of this to make an unsupportable claim about warming in the arctic.

save energy
March 9, 2018 4:14 pm

Where’s Griff these days, has he/she/it gone back into rehab ?
Is that the reason we have the replacement idiot troll Brad Keyes ?

Michael Jankowski
March 9, 2018 5:31 pm

Brad Keyes, infamous for such things as likening Michael Mann to Jesus.
His skills in rhetorical douchebaggery are pretty unique. Take, for example…
“Part of being a science communicator is hoping a natural disaster kills as many members of the audience as possible, as soon as possible, with as much media exposure as possible. As a communicator myself, I’d like nothing better than if thousands of middle-class white people died in an extreme weather event—preferably one with global warming’s fingerprints on it. Live on cable news. Tomorrow.”
Best of all, he’s really not even concerned about facts and science, really.
“Deniers are continually pressing for a scientific debate. Why? Because they can’t refute the political reality (that climate change necessitates a new world order). So they attack the weakest link—the science—instead.”

michael hart
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 9, 2018 8:48 pm

I think there are quite a lot of readers here who think Brad is serious. Humor using irony and sarcasm often doesn’t work very well on the internet.

Geir L
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 10, 2018 6:48 am

What an awful ideology, it’s outright scary that some people can wish for the tragedy of people they don’t know.
We have to fight for our freedom to speak openly about science and politics without having to turn to threats and possible violence. In the past people were actually punished for thinking the earth was round. For a very long time it was impossible to challenge the flat-earth dogma. This resembles what we’re seeing know, the science is settled and it doesn’t matter if observations contradicts the proposed hypotheses of CO2. The only thing missing is the implementation of a law that will control what you’re allowed to claim officially in public as a scientist. Any public attempts by scientists to describe reality differently than what has been agreed on would then be a subject to legal prosecution. This is appears to be the ultimate goal of many of the policy makers of the IPCC.
People are blinded by fancy computer generated graphs and maps that are being generated by state-of-the-art models. It is so advanced and pretty looking that it simply has to be a valid representation of reality. And when observations doesn’t fit the models, it is perfectly valid to make some adjustments to the raw data as long as you can cook up some reasonable explanations. Most people will buy it even if such adjustments can’t be physically validated in reality.

March 9, 2018 5:52 pm

The ever proselyte CBC quoted the Borenstein article, suppressing comments as usual so crowd education could be stifled… http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/warmest-arctic-winter-1.4565495

Alan Tomalty
March 9, 2018 6:00 pm

The IPCC and every warmist talks about doubling the CO2 We havent doubled it yet from pre industrial level of 280ppm . So now we are at 408 ppm. It has taken us 68 years to increase it by 128 ppm or to put it in financial terms the growth rate has been .0055 or just a little bit higher than 1/2 % . The warmists will argue that the trend line is a quadratic or some such similar curve. However if you look at the increases since 2000 there has not been an acceleration. Therefore if we project from the present to the next doubling at a growth rate of 0.0055 it will be 126 years before we get a doubling in the atmosphere, And there is still argument of how much temperature increase there will be with a doubling . Well if you look at past doublings for any range you want to pick the sensitivity has been very low; much lower than any IPCC future projections. The problem for the warmists is we have had 68 years of CO2 readings and 68 years of temperature readings and not only have we not seen CAGW; we havent even seen AGW to any large degree. The increases in temperature have been so small as to be laughable. I will take an increase of even 1C every century. The plants will love it. We arent even on track for that. I have noticed that the global warming hoax has now scared not only every climate scientist to shut their mouth about their true feelings about this massive hoax but it has permeated to every faculty in the world at every university. Everyone is so scared about their careers that they dont dare speak the truth. Very few non retired scientists have come out against this hoax. Pat Frank, Judith Curry,….Willy Soon ……….etc have risked their careers to speak the truth. As more and more scientists retire we will see vast increases of scientists who are against this hoax.

michael hart
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
March 9, 2018 8:40 pm

Yup. CO2 levels will not double because we simply won’t be able to burn enough fossil fuels to do so. We won’t extract enough fossil fuels, and what we do extract, we are not burning fast enough. The cAGW arguments fail at multiple points in the logical chain of events needed before the much-hoped-for disaster can occur. But the proponents of disaster don’t give up hope. It is a strange mental condition.

Karl Baumgarten
March 9, 2018 9:36 pm

Mark, I’ll bet you’re bald before the Arctic is free of ice. And you’re already losing that bet.

March 10, 2018 12:35 am

So lots of blame goes to CO 2… Yet we know so little about how much non man-made there actually is…http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/do_current_climate_change_models_contain_an_epic_error/

March 10, 2018 2:08 am

It is noteworthy (and not coincidental) that the northernmost province of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the Gakkel Ridge, which extends from the northern tip of Greenland to the depths off the Siberian Coast, corresponds to the largest intrusion of open water into the ice cap AND a notoriously active volcanic zone. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0625_030625_gakkelridge.html

March 10, 2018 8:04 am

“The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer..”
White Star Line were just too quick off the mark with their ship ‘Titanic’. They should have waited a few years before sending it on its maiden voyage.

March 10, 2018 8:47 am

In 1874 HMS Alert, with an R & W Hawthorn compound-expansion engine, reached 82° north.
t was the eleventh ship of the Royal Navy to bear the name (or a variant of it), and was noted for her Arctic exploration work; in 1876 it reached a record latitude of 82° North. The British Arctic Expedition was commanded by Captain George Strong Nares, and comprised Alert (Captain Nares) and Discovery (Captain Henry Frederick Stephenson). The expedition aimed to reach the North Pole via Smith Sound, the sea passage between Greenland and Canada’s northernmost island, Ellesmere Island.
The geography of northern Canada and Greenland is dotted with the names of those connected with the expedition: Nares Strait, Nares Lake, Markham Ice Shelf, Ayles Ice Shelf, and Mount Ayles. The northernmost permanently inhabited place on earth, the settlement of Alert at the northern point of Ellesmere Island, was named for the ship.

March 10, 2018 9:53 am

Extent was especially low in the Bering Sea where sea ice declined during the first three weeks of the month. The eastern part of the Bering Sea was largely ice-free for most of the month; extent was low on the western side, with the ice edge further north than normal. In the Chukchi Sea, extent also retreated during part of February, with open water developing north of the Bering Strait on both the Siberian and Alaskan coasts. As seen all winter, ice extent continued to be below average in the Barents Sea, and at the end of February, a wedge of open water formed north of Svalbard that extended well into the Arctic Ocean.

Now, let me point out a few more ominous observations, more threatening even than [Serreze’s] forecasts. Remember, Ice ages are said to begin when the Arctic (60-70 north latitude band) becomes more reflective with a higher total albedo. (Land area is much, more important in terms of area and albedo than sea area, and the Arctic land mass is darkening as more plants grow longer and more productively due to increased CO2 levels. So sea ice is less important than land snow and ice between 60 and 70 degrees north.)
Summer 2016 and summer 2017 were the FIRST years EVER in the satellite era that the Bering Sea ice (latitude 60-62 north) did NOT melt out completely.
Summer 2016 and summer 2017 were the FIRST years EVER in the satellite era that the Sea Ice covering the Sea of Okhotsk (latitude 58-60 north) did NOT melt out completely.
Winter 2017 (November-December, just four months ago) saw increases in the Hudson Bay sea ice (latitude 60 north) over its recent average daily areas. (The 30 year Hudson Bay sea ice daily average areas remain higher than the November-December 2017 daily areas.)
In summer 2017, the Gulf of St Lawrence did melt out (as it always has before), but the Gulf of St Lawrence River (latitude 48 north) had an extended sea ice coverage several weeks later than ANY previous year in the satellite records.
So, why do these small areas matter?
The “extra” solar energy reflected from “excess sea ice” at the lower latitudes of 48-67 north is 2-3 times that of an equal area up in the Arctic Ocean itself. Classic (conventional) arctic sea ice theory is represented by [Serrezes’] “Arctic Death Spiral”: Less sea ice => More solar energy absorbed => Warmer Arctic Ocean => More sea ice melting => More solar energy absorbed => Warmer Arctic ocean …
And, to a limited degree, this is what happens. In the 4 summer months from mid-April to mid-August.
But, for the remaining 8 moths of the year, the opposite occurs. Less sea ice = More energy lost from the newly exposed Arctic Ocean due to increased long wave radiation (the ocean radiates at +2 to +4 degrees C, the ice radiates at -25 degrees or less), more evaporation of the wind-thrashed open ocean surface (compared to an ice-covered surface with only limited ablation heat losses) , less thermal conduction (insulation losses through the 1-2 meters of solid ice compared to freely circulating ocean water to the exposed surface), and convection losses to the Arctic winds across the warmer ocean surface.
So: Less sea ice => More heat losses from the newly exposed ocean surface for a longer period of time. But, what is the difference over the course of an entire year? No one in the “conventional” Arctic sea ice community has publicly written about the differences over the course of an entire year.

March 10, 2018 10:23 am

There’s crazy stuff in the Arctic, all right, especially when Serreze is there.

%d bloggers like this: