Arctic Sea Ice not cooperating with doomsday climate predictions

This year’s Arctic sea ice minimum is just a few days away, but it isn’t going to be a new record low, in fact, it’s likely to come in within 2 standard deviations

By  Harry Wilkinson

Arctic sea ice is proving remarkably reluctant to enter its appointed ‘death throes’, despite the usual suspects having already planned the funeral. Climate Change Anxiety Disorder, it turns out, is yet to impose its angst on the actual climate, no matter how hard the BBC tries to make it.

The latest observations show that Arctic sea ice is on course to have a greater minimum extent than in 2015 and 2016, and is running higher than levels seen a decade ago. Back then, the BBC reported that Arctic summers may be ice-free by 2013, although this estimate was described as being ‘too conservative’.

That prediction was spectacularly wrong, and contrary to warnings of an ‘Arctic death spiral’, sea ice extent has been remarkably stable in the last decade. No one can say what exactly will happen next; if this humbling affair teaches anything it should be precisely that.

The climate has misbehaved in other ways too. The Greenland Ice Sheet has been gaining mass at a record rate for the second year running, and Antarctic sea ice extent is perfectly normal relative to the 1981-2010 average. These facts get little coverage because they don’t sound alarming at all, and for most reporters that means they’re not news. These ‘inconvenient truths’ are nonetheless a helpful reminder that climate change coverage should be taken with a healthy dose of scepticism. There is a long way to go before we can make accurate predictions about how the climate will behave, if indeed we ever can.

Climate science has to be more deeply grounded in real-world observations rather than models that are inevitably riddled with flawed human assumptions.

Full story here

Advertisements

242 thoughts on “Arctic Sea Ice not cooperating with doomsday climate predictions

  1. Mother Nature continues to be the biggest global warming denier of all. Humans have settled the science. Who does she think she is to not follow it? In a just world, she would have been tried, convicted, and punished years ago. How long will we allow her to continue before we hold her accountable for the misery she inflicts?

      • That assume a normal distribution which may be a decent assumption, but I see some people think those values apply always.

    • littlepeaks

      I’m curious why they use +/- 2 SDs. I would like to see the graph show +/- 3 SDs.

      +/- Two std deviations are a common definition of “what is the normal random difference (deviation) from the average value of this measurement? How big should a measurement be from the average before I consider it “unusual” or “excessive”?

      However, that is a statistical tool. For +/1 2 std dev’s to be meaningful in real life, several other things MUST OCCUR in the problem:
      The “average” of the measurements must be constant, must be accurate, and must be meaningful.
      The distribution of errors or differences or changes must be randomly distributed around that average: The erros are assumed to be a Bell Curve around the average. If they are not (if there are more high differences than low differences, there are still ways to calculate the std deviation, but those calc’s are rarely done. Note that I used “differences” from the average – just because some measurement is different does not make it wrong, does not make it an error in science. (In manufacturing – Yes, a difference from the intended design is almost always an error. In farming, a super-sized pumpkin may be a prize-winner! A super-fast runner may be the next champion, a super-steady gymnast or rock-stiff ballet dancer may be the next star.)

      In sea ice extents, the 1980-2010 “daily average” is clearly NOT steady with time: Only once since 2006 has ANY daily sea ice extents been above the average! Clearly, the differences (deviations) have ALL been negative for more than 1/2 a “climate length” of 30 years, so the old idea of an “average sea ice extents” for any given day is incorrect.

      When you look at 3 year and 5 year averages, you see a very a near steady maximum from 1978-1985-86, then a steeper decrease from 1982-1983 high through 2004-2005, then a steadying from 2006-2012. We are now beginning the increase back towards some future cyclical maximum.

      This is true for any cyclical event:
      The increase in daily temperatures from January through April CANNOT be used to extrapolate the temperature in August, Sept, or November.
      The average of July, August, and Sept CANNOT be used to calculate the temperatures in April or May.
      The number of hurricanes in Jan-Feb_March CANNOT be used to predict the hurricanes in Sept and Oct off of the US coastline.

      • But, one can use the September (or similarly for other months) multi-year average to predict the probable extent of next year’s September ice coverage. Or more correctly, the improbability of exceeding the 2 SD of the series.

        • It is a cyclical range of values – not only from its month-by-month, but it varies over a 55-60 year cycle as well. The climastrologists are using the simple 1980-2010 averages for each day. Which is fine – but they ONLY use the first half of the long cycle: They are using the higher half of the cycle (as if the average of every day’s maximum temperatures from May through August for 1980-2010) to compare with the Dec-Jan-Feb temperatures of 2018. And then proclaiming there will a catastrophic low temperature in 2030!

        • Yes, you could use it.
          No it would not be accurate.
          2007 and 2012 should give pause for thought.
          No one saw those coming, or the most recent improvements.

          • Angech,

            I respectfully beg to differ. All those who have studied the history of Arctic ice expected the upturn about 30 years after the downturn.

    • “I’m curious why they use +/- 2 SDs.”

      Because if they used their best estimates of measurement uncertainty the entire data series, and all discussions based on it, wold be meaningless. All years would fall inside the uncertainty bars.

      • Yes, we do have enough information to know how to calculate a std deviation.
        We do NOT have enough measurements to calculate what the yearly AVERAGE should be to determine WHERE that +/- 2 std dev band should be!

        • What if alarmists were to say, since they hypothesize a current ice level is significantly below the mean, that a one-sided test is appropriate and makes it easier to reach the rejection level at any selected value of alpha? What’s the rejoinder?

          • What if alarmists were to say, since they hypothesize a current ice level is significantly below the mean, that a one-sided test is appropriate and makes it easier to reach the rejection level at any selected value of alpha? What’s the rejoinder?

            The only real answer is: “We do not know the Arctic ice cycle: We have observed it for now about 5/8 of one probable cycle period. Not even one: We know absolutely the maximum possible Arctic sea ice extent (14-15 Mkm^2 over the Arctic Ocean when it freezes over in late March + 2-4 Mkm^2 further south at 60 north latitude (Sea of Okhotsk, Hudson Bay, Bering Sea, Gulf of St Lawrence.) We know the fall minimum (0.0 Mkm^2) in mid-Sept. That is all we know. Calculations show there is no “Arctic Death Spiral” because too little sunlight falls over the summer to make up for a year-long extra loss of energy. Beyond that, we do not know. “

          • RACook, we know two things. 1) The earth is getting warmer and 2) Arctic sea ice is in decline.
            .
            .
            Please explain to us why these two things are happening.

            Thanks in advance.

          • Climatereason,

            We also know that Earth has been getting cyclically warmer for about 300 years during its 3000 to 5000 year-long secular decline.

            We know that during that time, Arctic sea ice has waxed an waned in about a 60-year complete cycle. The latest waning cycle apparently ended in 2012, and now it’s waxing again. No CO2 need apply, especially since Antarctic sea ice strongly waxed while the Arctic waned after 1979.

            We know that the Earth was getting warmer long before CO2 took off, and that it has enjoyed warming cycles much longer in duration and stronger in amplitude before the “industrial age” than before, as when coming out of the Maunder Minimum in the early 18th century.

            We also now know that Arctic sea ice is no longer in decline. It’s yet again cyclically waxing.

  2. No, it is actually worse than that.

    Today’s 10 Sept NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice Extent chart is out for the last three weeks :
    2018 Arctic Sea Ice Extents are higher than 7 of the previous 11 years’ going back to 2007.
    2018 recently passed 2008, has been larger than 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017. In a few days, 2018 will most likely exceed 2010 as well – making 2018 larger than 8 of the past 11 years!

    In fact, 2018 is simply right above the middle of the most recent years’ sea ice extents, staying at -2 std deviations from the (too high) publicized daily average all year.

    True, 2018 is less than the “accepted” 1980-2010 average Arctic Sea Ice Extents, but the “accepted” linear trend line for Arctic Sea Ice also begins above any recorded Sea Ice extents, and continues down well below any recent measured sea ice extents.
    The much-publicized trend simply linearly extrapolates what appears to be a 60-70 year cycle down towards 0. Because it has to go to zero: CO2 is increasing near-linearly, therefore Arctic Sea Ice must decrease in a matching straight line if sea ice is to be used as a symptom and a publicity number.

    A simple 55-60 year cycle, maximum at 1982-1983, minimum 2006-2012? Can’t have that.

      • Perhaps due to sea ice occupying the navigable waters, having run aground itself because of its submerged mass.

      • Sigh…and the ship of fools ran aground trying to evade the above-expected quantity and thickness of ice.

        Who here is surprised that the amount of ice in the NW Passage was high this year? Anyone? No hands at the back? Right then.

        It was an interesting adventure and probably taught the participants something they would never have otherwise believed even if they were told 100 times: the NW Passage is not open, is not going to open anytime soon, and they will just have to wait until it is, either until the world gets a heck of a lot warmer, or until the next interglacial.

  3. You guys keep up this talk and you will convince the Ship of Fools to not set sail. Then who will feed the starving polar bears?

    • I was wondering, if there actually is as much plastic in the oceans as the activists have been claiming, wouldn’t that be enough to raise water levels?

  4. Arctic sea ice is not kowtowing to a forecast. Well, now what are the Warmians gonna do?
    If it is, in fact, growing then isn’t that an indicator that we may have a normal to possibly excessively snowy winter in various places? (I don’t mind snow. Just do not want really, really bitter cold.)
    This report makes me very happy. It is nice to see another “alarm” message refuted by hard evidence.

    • Thank you for this link! I have come to believe that our present warming period is most likely caused by the opening of the Arctic making Northern regions into a marine climate. This is most likely a cyclical event caused by heat trapped in Arctic ocean water under the ice until it overwhelms the cooling effect of Northern winters. Once the ice opens, wind and summer sun contributes to the opening even as the waters cool in winter. Eventually they cool to the point that the ice grows more in winter than it melts in summer. As the ice covers the Arctic ocean the heat begins to build again.
      The ice extent is a balance between the air temperature and the ocean temperature, wit complicating factors of winter heat loss, summer heat gain and wind.

      • that right there is the position i have john. the observations support the case. could the wax and wane of arctic sea ice be the driver of the amo ?

    • It is counter-intuitive, but the classic Arctic Death Spiral so often spouted appears to be backwards.

      Calculations using Arctic sea ice albedo measurements, the Russian North Pole2-32 Drifting Ice Stations radiation measurements, the SHEBA experiments on ice, and at-sea ocean albedo measurements show the opposite: Less sea ice all year-round means “More heat is lost from the newly-exposed (darker) Arctic Ocean over 12 months than is gained by the Arctic Ocean in the short 5 months of summer.”

      Less sea ice = Cooler Arctic ocean.
      The opposite is true for the sea ice further south at 60 north latitude, and for the Antarctic sea ice. Closer you get to the equator, the more correct the classic calculation becomes: Less Sea Ice = A warmer ocean surface.

      • Yes! Our present slightly higher Northern Hemisphere temperatures area symptom of a period of higher global heat loss. This swing is governed by the Arctic ice extent.

      • i tried to make this point with jim hunt.it appears many arctic alarmists will partake in mental gymnastics to deny basic physics. funny as they appear to like the term “basic physics” when uttered by those of an alarmist persuasion.

  5. Another reason AGW messaging always targets the young – they haven’t been through several decades of failed Doomsday predictions. Yet.

  6. Article: Climate science has to be more deeply grounded in real-world observations rather than models that are inevitably riddled with flawed human assumptions.

    There is an old saying: If the map says there is a bridge and there is no bridge believe the terrain.

    • Yep. If the AMO acts like it has the last 100 years or so, we should see growing arctic ice and cooling temps around the north Atlantic. I think we are in the midst of a very interesting natural experiment.

  7. As is well known, sea ice is said to be critical to polar bear survival. So I thought I’d look to see what the experts have to say about polar bear population estimates now and in the past. I found this link:

    Are polar bear populations increasing: in fact, booming? Dr. Steven C. Amstrup

    If you follow the link, Dr. Amstrup absolutely does not tell you if polar bear populations over the last several years have increased or not. Dr. Amstrup is the chief scientist for Polar Bears International.

    • steve case

      If you follow the link, Dr. Amstrup absolutely does not tell you if polar bear populations over the last several years have increased or not. Dr. Amstrup is the chief scientist for Polar Bears International.

      It is not in Dr Amstrup’s financial nor political nor public-relations interest to admit that polar bear populations have been increasing dramatically in 23 of the 24 polar bear groups arctic-wide. To do so would undermine his position, his funding, his power in the world news media.

    • Check out Susan Crockford on this. Polar bear populations survived much warmer climes than this and have increased over the last 20-30 years.

    • Amstrup was the lead author on the USGS report (2007) used to support the 2008 listing of polar bears under the ESA. It was his opinion alone that was used in the models to determine how polar bears would respond to declining sea ice.

      By his own admission (in an interview he gave, don’t have the link at the moment), he joined PBI (as a paid employee) so that he could be a more effective advocate. To say he has a vested interest in polar bears being ‘threatened’ is an understatement: his professional reputation, his legacy, is dependent on that outcome.

      Sea ice unpredictability and polar bear resilience has made Amstrup look a fool and he is not happy about it. His buddy Ian Stirling is in the same boat.

      • Thanks Susan,
        I wondered if you would appear.

        Folks should realize that your name (above) is a link to your site.
        Several hours of reading there should help those interested in the topic.

    • As is well known, sea ice is said to be critical to polar bear survival

      Of course. They can’t drink salt-water…..

      /sarc if necessary

  8. WUWT posted up similar at this time last year …

    “https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/19/arctic-sea-ice-extent-ends-up-not-even-close-to-setting-a-new-low-record/”

    Then we got this …..

    https://mogreenstats.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/sea-ice-chart.png

    The 2nd lowest max extent in the sat record (previous year being lowest).
    AGW is impacting winter arctic sea-ice growth to a greater extent than summer melt, as can be seen from from the series of warm winters….

    https://mogreenstats.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/sea-ice-chart.png

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZYyBHwVMAAVojP.jpg

      • Except that winter sea-ice growth was declining during the cold phase (up until the mid 90’s). I would expect sea temp to be maximised in the winter as a means of inhibiting ice growth.

        • Be listen to the same garbage for years now Anthony. kept hearing the north pole will be ice free next year for sure, so I started betting them that if they are right I would leave WUWT and never post again and if they weren’t they would leave. I am still here, they are not, so how about it bud you want to take the bet? You let us know when the north pole will be ice free and I’ll bet you it won’t, you pick the time the year whatever.

          • i have a 1k bet with jim hunt out to 2022. the data set we were using appears to have come to an end .amazing how this is supposed to be the greatest threat to mankind yet when the data doesn’t support the narrative these important research programs suddenly lose funding and come to an end.fortunately climate science supported techniques will make it an easy comparison to other data sets.

          • Why is there less ice? More heat.
            Why is there more heat escaping? More heat.

            On your planet more heat means less heat right?

            [?? .mod]

          • Just as I thought, Ryan has no idea what a negative feedback is and why the existence of them proves that CO2 can’t be a problem.

            You’re the only one talking about heat, so your attempt to put words in my mouth fails.
            But then again, thinking logically has never been something you are good at.

          • No: It’s because the emissivity of open water is high, while that of ice is low, and provided that cloud cover doesn’t interfere, that leaves a fairly direct path to space during the long winter night.

          • It doesn’t add up…

            No: It’s because the emissivity of open water is high, while that of ice is low, and provided that cloud cover doesn’t interfere, that leaves a fairly direct path to space during the long winter night.

            No, I will disagree with you there.
            The LW emissivity of open ocean water (between -2 deg C and 4 deg C) and sea ice (the ice surface varies between -36 deg C and 2 deg C) are very nearly identical: 0.96 and 0.965 (Sources vary a little bit, emissivity varies slightly with temperature.)

            However, the SURFACE TEMPERATURE that is emitting at T^4 power is VERY different. The very much warmer open ocean water emits many. many times the LW radiation that the very cold ice surface does. Then you must add in extra evaporation losses (none for an ice-covered surface), increased convection losses from the open water, and the insulating effect of 2-3 meters of solid ice between the ocean top and the cold winter air. No ice no insulation = Greater losses to the air.

            Those increased losses (that difference in surface type and surface temperature), over a 365 day year, more than makes up for the short summer days when more solar energy is absorbed.

          • Agree with everything until: “…more than makes up for…”.

            but that is where you go wrong.

            Because if it were true, the Arctic Ocean would be getting progressively colder. It is not, it is not “more than”. For the last several decades it has been less than. The only way it can emit more is by being warmer. Of course it is a negative feedback, but higher emissivity is just a consequence of a higher temperature.

          • Not true. More heat is lost from an exposed ocean surface year-long than can be gained over those short 5 months of summer (mid-April-mid-August).

            Now, you CLAIM that the Arctic Ocean is heating up, but you do not show measurements of the arctic ocean surface, middle or deep temperatures.
            You CLAIM that the Arctic is warmer – and mid-winter air temperatures are indeed warmer than earlier mid-winter air measurements.
            Guess where that “heat energy” from those newly-exposed millions of sq kilometers of open Arctic Ocean is going?
            First from the ocean deeps, to the ocean upper surface, to the air above the exposed ocean, then to the infinite black cold of space.
            Mid-summer air temperatures today are exactly the same as those first recorded/predicted by DMI in the mid-50’s.
            Same with the Russian NP-2 to NP 36 surface measurements. Mid-summer air temperatures are the same as they always have been.

            If I remove insulation (convective, conductive, evaporative, and LW radiation) resistance between a hot object and an infinitely cold object, the source becomes colder, the middle warmer, the sink does not change. The warm object does not become “warmer” by removing the insulation – by increasing the losses from the warm object.

            Now, if indeed the Arctic sea ice extents are now increasing (as they appear to be for 1/3 of our actual measurement period) then this is the feedback needed: Less Arctic sea ice = increased losses to space = a cooler arctic ocean = greater sea ice extents during an extended growth period of sea ice => Greater insulation effect (less open ocean heat loss to space) (1970’s) => Warmer Arctic oceans under the larger areas of sea ice (1980’s) => trend back towards the faster melting of what sea ice is excessive (1990’s and early 2000’s)=> and a slide back towards today’s “too low” period during which the open ocean is losing “too much” to remain static.

            See, you only think the Arctic Ocean was ever stable at one constant temperature and one constant sea ice area from year-to-year. (it always cycles from maximum to minimum every year.) But it is never “stable” in thermal equilibrium from decade to decade except in a simplified physics classroom.

          • You completely miss my point. Despite what you write the Arctic is warming, the source for some of the warmth is advection. The overall net is a warming.

          • the reason winter temps are warmer is due to the increased area of open water. the water itself ,especially at the surface isn’t warmer in winter than it would be if insulated by ice. all that fiery red and orange in sea surface temp charts is just the difference between an open water surface and ice.

            if you are convinced you are correct let’s have a bet on when all the ice will disappear.

          • Well, it has been steady (or increasing) for 11 years now, not 6 years. You’re focusing too narrowly on the single “extreme minimum point” of 2012, Not the broader, far longer low point of the cycle.

        • AB,

          We can know that CO2 has nothing to do with the waxing or waning of sea ice, since Antarctic sea ice minimum summer extent grew from 1979-2014, while Arctic minimum fell from 1979-2012.

      • Drawing straight lines through a cyclical trend are we?
        Starting the straight line above the data, ending it below the data?
        Then extrapolating them past the end of the data – just like I said above.

    • I think the first 2 graphs are explained by the warm phase of the AMO. I would like to see a chart of the unadjusted data in for chart 3

      • Chart 3 is also the Winter Anomaly which means that the temperature anomaly would reflect a temperature change from -32C to -28C no from Mind numbingly cold to snot freezing cold

    • So while the world always wants make it about low minimum extents, now you want to make it about low maximum extents because the minimum extent is inconveniently high, lol.

      Pretty amazing how we get a minimum that is within 2 SD of average while starting from the 2nd lowest maximum on record, eh? Is global warming/climate change starting to hibernate during winter?

      I personally like how you show Dec-Feb temperature data but March sea ice data and act as if the time periods equate. I also like how you present “average monthly extent” as “maximum extent.”

      Maybe you should present data which says what you claim it says.

    • AB,

      Winter maximum means nothing. Whether it’s 14.5 million or 15.5 million sq km doesn’t signify. In polar night, there is no sunlight to be reflected. Extent has no impact on albedo at all.

      Even after the sun comes up in spring, it’s so low that there is still practically no reflection, and the albedo of ice scarcely differs from that of water.

      Only male polar bears hunt during the winter. The sows are denned up with their cubs. When they emerge in the spring, they are some hungry bears. What they rely upon are ringed seal pups in their snow lairs atop landfast ice, which is there even when summer minimum is much lower than now, as during the Holocene Optimum and subsequent warm periods.

      • “Winter maximum means nothing.”

        For one it means that there is less ice around to be melted during the summer.
        Also it is where AGW is expected to have greatest effect …..
        ….
        https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01556

        “Observed current and simulated future trends of Arctic climate exhibit a strong decline in sea ice (cover and volume), as well as a very pronounced seasonally varying temperature response, with winter warming being at least four times as large as summer warming (independent of the magnitude of climate forcing). Near-surface winter atmospheric warming is conclusively linked to diminishing winter sea ice…… ”
        “This weak summer warming can be attributed mainly to the absence of amplifying summer feedbacks. With amplified winter warming in the Arctic being one of the most outstanding features of ongoing and projected greenhouse warming …”

    • Ice has decreased from when it reached a maximum for the last century.

      Regardless, your belief that only the month of March matters is so darn cute!

  9. A couple of weeks ago it was in the news that the oldest arctic ice was breaking up and that this was serious. Does anyone know anything about this?

  10. “in fact, it’s likely to come in within 2 standard deviations”

    Something that should happen 95% of the time.

  11. It seems to me that the 2012 trend like gave some valid reason for concern. And I don’t know if I’d say that this year’s ice trend is “perfectly normal” when it’s dancing on the 95th percentile line.

    However, it is absolutely the case that trends have reversed, and the death spiral did not happen. Do the “consensus scientists” have any theories for an increasing sea ice extent in the face of gradually increasing CO2 concentrations? Do they say this is a “head fake” and the decreasing trend will return?

    Or will they say that this is a natural fluctuation? (And why does that last argument sound familiar…)

  12. Considering there isn’t suppose to be any ice, I wonder why it’s not melting? It will long be forgotten along with the Great American drought of a few years ago… as proof of global warming. AGW, like grasshoppers, jump from one climate anomaly to another. Then when nothing happens, they’ll find another.
    I don’t know, but it seems that in desperation, AGW is/was pinning their hopes on a melting Arctic.

    • Maybe this desperation to find Arctic melting is due to the fact that for years they proclaimed the Arctic was the proverbial “canary in a coal mine”.

  13. “Climate science has to be more deeply grounded in real-world observations rather than models that are inevitably riddled with flawed human assumptions.” If only we could get more scientists, politicians and reporters to realize this turth.

    • Yes, DMI publishes numbers and graphs of Arctic sea Ice volume on a daily basis.

      i track it, and do some stats occasionally. What would you like to know?

  14. NSIDC’s Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph differs from that cited in the story.

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

    It shows 2018 still outside the +/-2 SD range.

    But it does show that this year is liable to beat last year’s extent, and all other of the past 12 years except for 2009, 2013 and 2014. The three record low years, ie 2007, 2012 and 2016, all suffered at least one Arctic cyclone in August. Without its second cyclone, 2016 extent would have been higher. Of the six in-between years, 2018 is likely to be the iciest.

    The inconvenient truth is that Arctic sea ice summer minimum extent has been growing since 2012.

    • No, you are wrong.

      Yes, back in January, 2018 was slightly below the -2 std dev curve for the 1980-2010 average. But that claim is NOT TRUE the rest of the year, and – today (1/3 through Sept, the spring maximum, all of the summer months, etc – the NSIDC sea ice extents is well within +/- 2 std deviation band. Even the band for the past 38 years!

      For the past 12 years – the years that really count since we are above the minimum period of the 55-60 cycle – 2018 is above 7 of the past 11 daily sea ice extents values. So 2018 is not even at the low end of recent years!

      • Why is Mr. Tillman wrong ??? Look at the Charctic interactive sea ice graph ! It does NOT match the graph shown at the head of this article. That’s all that he and i are asserting.

      • Using data from satellites CANNOT demonstrate a 55-60 year cycle because…..
        .
        .
        (drum roll)

        There isn’t enough satellite data to discern a cycle of that length, since we haven’t been flying sea ice observing birds for 60 years (Sputnik was launched in 1957)

        • Mermelstein,

          But we don’t need satellite data. We have ice maps and historical accounts.

          The Northern Sea Route was open in the 1930s and ’40s, then as now, but closed in between, which is why the USSR built nuclear powered ice breakers. For instance.

          We also know how low ice was earlier in the Holocene from every available paleo proxy, such as bowhead whale skeletons and subfossils.

        • Remy Mermelstein

          Using data from satellites CANNOT demonstrate a 55-60 year cycle because…..
          .
          .
          (drum roll)

          There isn’t enough satellite data to discern a cycle of that length, since we haven’t been flying sea ice observing birds for 60 years (Sputnik was launched in 1957)

          Not true. Well, not completely true.
          There is not enough measurement data to confirm that the Arctic Sea Ice Extents follows a 55-60 year cycle. That would require 2 cycles to show that cyclic behavior exists. It would require 5-6 complete cycles to BEGIN confirming the length of the average cycle, the probable average cycle amplitude, and to BEGIN the discussion of whether the cycle itself follows a changing longer-period cycle. Sunspots, for example, follow a definitive 11 year average cycle, and we’ve confirmed that by observation since the early 1600’s. But we are only now beginning to argue about whether those cycles themselves are periodic in amplitude and length!

          There IS enough data to imply (indicate) that the Arctic Sea Ice extents follows a 55-60 year cycle.
          There is absolutely enough data to show that the idea of a static, fixed “30 year ‘climate average’ of Arctic Sea Ice” is wrong.
          There is absolutely enough data to show that the idea of a constant decline in Arctic sea ice extents since 1978 extending towards 0.0 is wrong.

          We are at Wegner’s point in 1920 with respect to continental drift.

          The data suggest the continents touched in the past, that they are separate now, and so they must have moved in the past. There is no data showing the continents are moving in the present (yet), and yet there is NO contrary data to show they do not move at all, and many separate data points across many disciples to prove they were touching for hundreds of millions of years prior to separation. There is no data and no theory to show how they moved in the past, nor how (why) they may be moving in the present.

          But the mere fact that there is no theory to explain the movement does not mean that the continents are not moving! The mere fact that the textbooks do not allow for continental drift and that the classrooms do not teach continental drift does not stop earthquakes, volcanoes, sea floor rifting, and tectonic movement one bit!

  15. Yeah, right…..this doesn’t get reported because it’s “not News”
    “Goes against their narrative” is more accurate

  16. Hi Harry, see this chart
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/ArgoCircumArcticSince200401%2055N-65N.gif
    available here
    http://www.climate4you.com/ under oceans
    The deep arctic waters have been slowly cooling since approx 2007. Over time it is getting easier for sea ice to build in winter over open water. More latent heat exchange of sea ice formation is escaping into the atmosphere and more cold deep water is being produced. This will lead to the slow accumulation of pack ice over the next 30 years.

  17. What I don’t understand: shouldn’t the alarmists be happy about a warming Arctic? After all the Arctic is cooling the planet by radiating twice as much energy as it receives. A warmer Arctic radiates even more energy and is thus cooling the planet even better. I’m very concerned now with so much ice left…

  18. SOW.

    Save Our Winters.

    I laughed when i saw some air-head Barbie waving that.
    Thats how messed up the Maoist Marxists have them.

  19. 2018 extent is two standard deviations below the 1981-2010 average. If the sea ice extent over that 30 year period is stable (no increasing or decreasing trend) and approximately Gaussian, then this year is 44% below the mean. Yikes, that’s quite dramatic! But all the plots from 2010 and later are all below that 2SD range.

    so it seems that 2018 continues a trend, and a very rapid one at that (a guess, since we don’t have reliable data from before 1981). Note that this seems consistent with the Russians starting a “Northwest passage” business for shipping from China to Europe (saves 33% of the time and cost).

    Am I missing something in your post? You seem to imply that “there is nothing to see here”, but the trend of a dramatic decrease in Arctic sea ice is continuing.

    • chris

      Am I missing something in your post? You seem to imply that “there is nothing to see here”, but the trend of a dramatic decrease in Arctic sea ice is continuing.

      Yes. You ARE “missing something here.” The Arctic sea ice extents trend is NOT decreasing” – much less “decreasing dramatically”!
      For the past 11 We have only 38 years of accurate sea ice measurements.
      5 years – 1978-1985 – they were steady, but oscillating around a maximum point.
      20 years, 1986-2006, they decreased. Just like a sine wave, they decreased.
      5 years, 2006-2011, they were steady but oscillating slightly around a minimum point.
      7 years, 2011-2018, they have been steady, beginning to increase again. 2018 > 2017, 2016, 2015, 2012, 2011, 2008.

      What possible evidence is there anywhere that Arctic sea ice levels are decreasing dramatically?

      • Several posts point to the paucity of long-term data (which is implied to contradict the 30 year trend) and others point to very short-term (4 year) “trend” (which is implied to hold for all n, to borrow an induction proof conclusion :-)). The short-term thinkers imply that 2018 line – which is 2 standard deviations below the 30-year mean – is somehow evidence of reestablishment of the century ago levels.

        I dunno. You guys took Statistics out of different books than did I. 🙂

        FWIW, my academic history: BS, Math. MS, Math. MS, Industrial and Systems Engineering. PhD, Engineering and Public Policy.

        • chris

          Several posts point to the paucity of long-term data (which is implied to contradict the 30 year trend) and others point to very short-term (4 year) “trend” (which is implied to hold for all n, to borrow an induction proof conclusion :-)).

          Chris, your doctorate [in] public Policy must include “re-writing the record” by claiming to find a “30 year trend” (of a straight line decline) in a 38 year record. Then by claiming a only a 4-year trend in an 11 year record across the minimum point of a cycle between 2007 and 2018 (11 years of that 38-year long record is almost 1/3 of the entire period!).
          As stated before, the most recent 1/3 of all arctic sea ice minimums show a period of increasing sea ice minimums, just as the 8 years of the arctic sea ice extents between 1978 and 1986 show the high point of that 55-60 year cycle. Your much-hyped “more than 2 std dev’s below the 30 year record” is meaningless if the 30-year record is based on the averages that no longer apply.

    • Chris,

      Arctic sea ice, as with so much else, is cyclical. The Northeast Passage (Northern Sea Route, which is what you meant) was open in the 1930s and ’40s, playing a role in WWII.

      The declining trend ended dramatically in 2012. For it to continue, there would have to be a new record low. The trend since 2007 is flat, and up since 2012.

      This year and the prior five years average higher minimum extent than the previous six years, ie 2007-12.

      The NW Passage was closed again this year. The trend of growing ice is not our friend.

      • the Northwest Passage is from Greenland to Alaska, no? The route the Russians are now charging for is from [Bering] Straight to Sweden.

        Also, according to https://geology.com/articles/northwest-passage.shtml, Henry Larsen made but one trip through the NW Passage in 1944 and it was not sufficiently open for commercial traffic.

        The Internet could be wrong, but I’m too lazy to go to a real library to check your claim. I think I’ll just agree to disagree and watch what happens over the next few years. In the meantime, you might want to contact Mersk and COSTCO and tell them they wasted their money building those ice-qualified ships. 🙂

        cheers

    • Who cares that the last 7 or 8 years, the ice has been increasing?
      Prior to that it had been decreasing for 30 years. So let’s focus on that and ignore all more recent data.

      Of course the 30 years before that, the ice was increasing, but lets ignore that and concentrate on the 30 years where the ice was decreasing.

      • The sea ice minimum has been growing for six years, and was flat for the six years before that.

        If it were a security or commodity, it made a triple bottom, with 2012 the lowest and 2016 higher than 2007 (despite two August cyclones in 2016). That’s a classic triple bottom in market technical analysis.

        [Should the mods short cycle, hold, sell futures, or buy everything visible, invisible, and indivisible? .mod]

          • Sea ice levels are so low, that the small variations are interpreted as “growing” when you look at short time intervals.

          • Another way to put it is that 10 successive years with minimums below 2 standard deviations is not very probable.

          • Remy Mermelstein

            Another way to put it is that 10 successive years with minimums below 2 standard deviations is not very probable.

            So, what does it say for the validity of an “accepted 30 year average” and a “+2 std deviation band” that has NEVER been exceeded in 38 years of daily measurements? Not “38 measurements” but “38 years of daily measurements”? (More exactly, 38 years of the 90 days around the yearly minimum.)

          • I think you misinterpreted Remy’s statement. 10 years below 2 SD is such a low-probability observation if the 30-year distribution is stable or skewed to the higher (increasing) side. What this means is that a Gaussian or skewed distribution is vanishingly improbable (way lower than p=0.001, I don’t bother to compute such tiny probabilities :-)).

            What Remy is saying is that the _data_ is consistent with the hypothesis of (rapid) sea-ice extent decline. Statisticians can compute the number of above-mean years (not just not-decreasing!) required to reestablish a plausible hypothesis of non-decreasing Arctic sea ice extent. If you do the calculation it would be more than 30 years (future) above-average observations.

            Sorry to be pedantic; I just think these discussions should be based on data and Mathematically-sound predictive analysis. :-}

            cheers

          • You are back to the “We want the Arctic Sea Ice to have a constant, 30-year average” argument because “Climate is defined as a 30-year average because we said climate is defined as a 30 year average.”
            The real world appears to disagree with your classroom. There are no facts, no measurements that show Arctic sea ice is continuing to decline past its 2007-2012 minimum points. Over a 38 year record of “facts” there is, however, one simplistic straight line begun 7 years before a maximum point in 1982-1983 ending 8 years after a minimum point in 2012. As intended, this 42 year straight-line extrapolation does continue infinitely towards 0.0

            If the Arctic sea ice extents follows a 55-60 year cycle between maximums and minimums, this natural cycle follows the usual over-compensated feedback found in nature: “Excessive heat loss” before, during, and after the peak of each hot half of the maximum sea ice area of arctic sea ice cycle leads PAST the theoretical “equilibrium” point between incoming and outgoing radiation, followed by a period of “too little cooling” (excessive heat gain) before, during, and after the minimum sea ice area part of the cycle.

          • I know. There have not been ten years with minima that low, let alone consecutive years.

            According to NSIDC, 2007 and 2008 were. Also 2010, 2011 and 2012. Then 2015, 2016 and 2017. One NOAA graph has this year in the 2 SD range, but another doesn’t. We’ll see where it ends up.

          • Mermelstein,

            With Arctic sea ice in the down leg of its natural cycle, one should expect the third decade of the half cycle to be lower than the other two.

            The salient point is that, just as predicted by climate skeptics, Arctic sea ice is now waxing, after having naturally waned since the PDO shift of 1977. Same as has happened since at least the end of LIA.

            And in any case, as noted, we can have confidence that CO2 has nothing to do with Arctic sea ice decline, since during the same decades, Antarctic sea ice grew.

          • The well-known and supported Arctic sea ice cycle. It’s around 30 years up and 30 years down, like so many other natural climatic cycles.

          • “What natural cycle are you talking about?”

            At least he know’s that he’s ignorant.
            That’s better than your average warmista.

          • Mark,

            I’ll grant you that.

            Decent of Remy to admit to not knowing anything about climatology, oceanography, meteorology, Arctic archaeology or paleontology.

          • Remy Mermelstein

            Sea ice levels are so low, that the small variations are interpreted as “growing” when you look at short time intervals.

            Oh my gosh no! No! No! March was hotter than February, and it was hotter than January, and it was hotter than December, and now April AND May are BOTH hotter than Dec, AND Jan AND Feb AND March! And May is hotter than April AND March and Feb AND Jan AND Dec …. And by November we will be melting the streets and boiling the ocean!

          • Mermelstein,

            Yes. Please see response below.

            I observed factually that the six years after 2012 have been higher than the six years before.

            It’s no surprise that in nine of the 12 past years, minimum extent has remained below the 2 SD range at the bottom of an over 30-year natural cycle. When the baseline is moved in 2020, it’ll probably be in the 2 SD range.

            Why do you suppose that Antarctic sea ice has been above the 2 SD range for so much of this century?

          • Looking at six years doesn’t make a “trend”…..however, if you compare the same six years against the 30 year average, you see where we stand.

          • Tillman, you also forget that 2012 was the lowest record year for Arctic sea ice, so using it as a comparison point is a serious cherry pick. Same thing as comparing the six years after the 1998 El Nino, and claiming the earth was cooling.

          • Interesting, using the lowest level in 2012 for comparison is a cherry pick.
            But using the highest level in 1979 for comparison isn’t.

          • Well, the high points were 1982-1983, not 1978 (start of the sea ice measurements) or 1979 (first full year of sea ice measurements).

            Beware of how you use 1987-1988! The NSIDC is missing data between 18 Dec 87 to 14 Dec 88. (Blanks in the record.)

            Any “averages” or “yearly total” for the whole year must correct for those missing days, or must exclude the two years completely. For example, since the arctic sea ice extents changes during that period, simple yearly averages should be compare only 15 Jan – 15 Dec of every year.

            Also, the “blank” unscanned area around the north pole varies as the satellite viewing windows, satellite sensors, and algorthims have been updated since 1978. This problem is more important when you use the satellite “area” records for the Arctic because the “extents” measurements assume the unscanned sectors are filled with at least 15% sea ice – just like the rest of the region.

          • Mermelstein,

            Of course I didn’t forget. That’s why I started it there. That’s the trough of the cycle, so of course it starts a new half cycle.

            Starting in 1979 is a cherry pick. What about the low ice of the interwar years? The higher ice of the postwar years until the late ’70s?

            It makes at least as much sense to start a trend at a record low, ie the trough of a cycle, than at or near the peak of a cycle, as was the case with 1979. The late ’70s were either the high of the 20th century for Arctic sea ice, or close to it, in a virtual tie with the first decade or two of the century.

          • ROTFLMFAO @ Tillman: “Starting in 1979 is a cherry pick. ”
            ..
            You obviously don’t know when satellites started mapping sea ice.

          • Can’t tell what the extents were in the “postwar years” because….
            ..
            (drum roll)
            ..
            ..

            They didn’t have satellites then.

          • Not splicing. Just comparing. And not just shipboard obs. Also aerial photography. And the evidence from archaeology and paleontology, etc.

            Do you seriously believe that in studying climate, only the past 40 years counts?

          • I do know. And it is warmunistas who don’t like to look at satellite data from before the dedicated satellite era.

            Ice fluctuated widely, with 1973 about the same as now, but generally satellite observations from the 1960s and ’70s show higher ice, with the peak right before 1979.

          • So Remy, you admit that you have no idea whether prior to 1979 sea ice levels were higher, lower, or the same.

            Yet you want to declare, with absolutely no evidence, that the last 30 years is definitive.

          • Mermelstein,

            It’s not just six years of gain. It’s also 12 years of flat.

            Thus the decline has been arrested for the past 12 of the 40 years in the dedicated satellite record.

          • I guess you still don’t understand what 2 standard deviations means. All 12 of the “flat” years were still significantly below the average.
            ..
            Take a refresher course in Statistics 101

          • Remy Mermelstein

            I guess you still don’t understand what 2 standard deviations means. All 12 of the “flat” years were still significantly below the average.
            ..

            As stated earlier, “if” and ONLY “if” you assume that the 1980-2010 “30 year flat average” is a valid average to base the +/- 2 std dev FROM. Bad average = Useless std dev band. 2018 is well within the most recent ten year band, above most of the values in the most recent 12 years.
            So. if 1/3 of the available data (12 years of the available 38) supports a given band, and the oldest data proves only an invalid theory of “constant sea ice until CO2 began warming the Arctic” … which is the correct theory?

          • Mermelstein,

            I suggest you do the same.

            Forty years out of 11,400 in the Holocene aren’t statistically significant, especially when during a natural warm cycle in a long-term, secular cooling trend of 3000 to 5000 years.

            The vast majority of summers in the Holocene have been less icy than now. Ditto previous interglacials.

            Arctic sea ice since the late ’70s has behaved much as it did during the late 1910s to ’40s.

          • You don’t have data for sea ice for the past 11,360 years.

            “The vast majority of summers in the Holocene have been less icy than now.” …..based on what kind of data?

          • 30 years defines “climate.” There’s no evidence of 60/100 year cycles. Wait a minute, ….there might be a 60 year cycle in tree rings no?

          • 30 years defines “climate.

            No. Simplified self-called “scientists” claim 30 years defines “climate”.
            That is no more true than what they claim it is: No more than a spring temperature on March 22 at the equinox defines the yearly average temperature at the yearly average radiation insolation at the yearly average latitude at the yearly average daily maximum/minimum temperature.
            It’s merely a lecture hall simplification – between ice ages.

          • RACook, 30 years of data does in fact define a climate parameter.
            ..
            Please tell us what you define it as.

          • No. As stated, 30 years is what YOU have chosen (the self-called climatologist community) as a convenient period. You started at a maximum, followed the average area down to a minimum, we now see that cycle beginning to go back uptowards its next maximum. Just like the PDO, AMO, ENSO, tides, MWP, RWP, MWP, and MWP, and the ice ages.

            The real period in the real world are endless feedback cycles of varying periods and amplitudes; the Arctic Sea Ice looks like it follows a 55-60 year cycle. We don’t know more than that yet.

          • There is not enough satellite data to determine a 55-60 year cycle. What data are you basing your conjecture on?

          • Remy Mermelstein

            Arctic sea ice has not hit “average” since Apr 2012, and the past six minimums have all been more than 2 standard deviations below average.

            Is that very fact not evidence AGAINST the very popular “Arctic Death Spiral Theory”?
            Let me rephrase your claim: The last time the Arctic Sea Extents were “above average” was in late spring 2012, just after maximum, just as the spring sunlight was beginning its yearly peak in May-June. A period IMEDIATELY followed by the lowest ever sea ice extents in August-September!

            Thus, Sereze’s theory that “More sea reflects more sunlight and thus cools the Arctic Ocean” is falsified by real-world example. Highest sea ice extents in a sunlet period in more than 25 years (of our 38 year record!) – There can be no better “experiment” … and the theory fails absolutely! Not only did Arctic sea NOT remain high, it did NOT even remain average. Instead, it set a record LOW sea ice extent immediately afterwords!

            And in fact, if you look at the entire 38 year Arctic sea ice record, you see the same pattern happen many times: The simplistic Arctic Death Spiral is – to be blunt – dead wrong.

            Instead, less arctic sea ice over the entire year means MORE heat lost to the infinite cold of outer space by increased evaporation losses, increased convection losses, increased LW radiation losses, and increased conduction losses from the newly exposed arctic ocean than is gained over the short 5 month summer period of continuous arctic daylight.

          • “Is that very fact not evidence AGAINST the very popular “Arctic Death Spiral Theory”

            Nope

          • “less arctic sea ice over the entire year means MORE heat lost” ..
            .
            TRUE…
            ..
            but

            All that means is that the source of the heat energy is increasing year over year. (not enough heat loss to balance heat gain)

          • No, it doesn’t mean that the source of heat is necessarily increasing.

            There’s a lag effect. Heat accumulated under more solar insolation of the tropics takes a while to work its way through the oceanic and atmospheric circulation oscillations.

          • there is only one meaningful source of energy for earth and that is the sun. i think a certain dr. svalgaard would take issue with your claim it’s output is increasing.

            if you are so sure the arctic ice is about to melt out how much would you like to bet on it ?

          • Sea ice is less than it was in 1979, when it reached the highest levels in the last several hundred years.

            And from that single fact, you want people to start panicking?

            Pretty pathetic, but then again, it’s the best you’ve got.

          • MarkW there haven’t been satellites in the last several hundred years, so you’re full of bovine excrement.

          • I don’t know of a single link. There are so many data, so widely distributed.

            You have to study the topic. But Denmark has a lot of maps for the 20th century,plus other documentary sources. There’s the famous newspaper report of declining Arctic ice in 1922, for instance.

            Amundsen was able to succeed in 1903 where Franklin had failed in 1845 partly due to less ice. Also shallower draft and not getting snookered into a lead which closed behind him. Ice in the NW Passage was less in 1903 than now. Ice was less or about the same in the NE Passage during WWII as now.

            Before that, we have the observations of North Atlantic and North Pacific whalers and other seafarers. Little Ice Age appears to have peaked in the late 18th century, rather than the Maunder Minimum.

            Lots of material. We even know that Arctic sea ice extent has been lower than now for most of the Holocene from good paleoclimatic data, archaeological and paleontological.

            Summer sea ice extent was lower for most if not all of 4000 years, 6000 to 10,000 years ago, and at intervals since then, during the warm periods toastier than now.

            Arctic Ocean perennial sea ice breakdown during the Early Holocene Insolation Maximum

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162

            And please never forget the prodigious Antarctic sea ice growth from 1979 to 2014 in the dedicated satellite record.

          • LOL @ Tillman doesn’t know the difference between Arctic and Antarctic.
            .
            .
            2nd try: “the centuries worth of data on the Antarctica sea ice?”

          • Sorry.

            I know the difference. Just didn’t read correctly this late and with poor vision and small script.

            But, yes, we do have centuries of Antarctic data, from at least the early 19th century. The continent was officially discovered in 1820, but its ice edge had been encountered since the 1500s.

          • Yes the edge of ice may have been encountered that early, but we have no clue on sea ice extent for the entire Antarctic area until satellites began mapping it.

          • Once again, Remy declares that only data that agrees with him is data.
            There were satellites in existence long before 1979. They didn’t take continuous pictures the way they do now, but photos do exist and they can be compared to current conditions.
            We also have logs, observations and proxy records.

            There is a lot more data than your mind is willing to accept.

  20. “The Greenland Ice Sheet has been gaining mass at a record rate for the second year running, and Antarctic sea ice extent is perfectly normal relative to the 1981-2010 average. These facts get little coverage because…”

    They are not facts.

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kqhrT-fV-Lw/WNSnlzv7DvI/AAAAAAAADqA/doLY_ZtjpPsjfzbg3FBT9y9ZvZkMvRL4ACK4B/s1600/Greenland2e.png

    https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1759.0;attach=108033;image

    • What RyanS doesn’t tell you is that even if accurate, this represents about 0.001% of Greenland’s ice mass. At this rate it will take over 10,000 years for all the ice to melt.

      Another thing that RyanS isn’t telling you is that most of that trend consists of adjustments for isostatic rebound. Absent that adjustment, Greenland is gaining mass.

      What RyanS is assuming is that this trend, even if real, will continue forever, since in his “mind” CO2 is the only thing that impacts temperatures.

      • The Greenland ice sheet weighs about 2.9 x10^15 US tons. At recent GRACE melting rates it would require only about 1,000 years or less for it to melt.
        Adjustments for isostatic rebound is applied to all situations where it is applicable, including compilations of tidal gauge sea rise and satellite sea rise measurement.
        Do you not believe in isostatic adjustments? GPS data of many land features demonstrate it in action.

        Are you now going to “read my assumptions” as you do Ryan’s?

        • Donb,

          The Holocene Climatic Optimum was warmer in the Arctic than today. By a lot. Maybe 10 K. And it lasted ~4000 years, briefly interrupted by the 8.2 K cold snap. Yet the Greenland Ice Sheet didn’t melt.

          The Eemian Interglacial lasted about 5000 years longer than the Holocene has to date, and was even warmer than the HCO, with hippos swimming in the Thames at London and raised beaches around the world. Yet the GIS didn’t melt. Its Southern Dome lost maybe some 25% more ice than it has to date in the Holocene.

          Maps from the early 20th century show the average winter and summer limits of the ice edge. Those observations were at least as good where taken as satellites, which rely on areas with 15% ice cover. Satellites also used to have trouble discriminating melt water ponds atop ice from open seawater.

          So, no worries.

        • donb

          Do you not believe in isostatic adjustments? GPS data of many land features demonstrate it in action.

          Well, no we do NOT know the isostatic rebound – or compression! – underneath Greenland’s icecap.
          We do know absolutely that planes “floating” in Greenland’s central icecap have been submerged in hundreds of feet of ice in only a 60 years. Those planes did not “submerge” through the ice due to metal pressure; vintage planes with no structural damage will float on water for days. on ice, the wheels will be pressed down, but not the wings, tails, stabilizers and fuselage.
          We have only two depth measurements to rock in Greenland: Both on the mountain tops exposed on both sides of the many thousand kilometers across the icecap. You are trying to pretend that, because we do have ground-rock measurements elsewhere, we know where the rock is going (up or down) under the Greenland icecap. It is like claiming, “I have measured the Appalachians in TN and the Rocky Mountains in Colorado and can tell you that the bottom of the Mississippi River is going down 3 cm per year faster than the delta surface is rising.”

        • I believe that isostatic rebound takes place.
          Which is not the same thing as saying that I believe that 100% of the adjustment being done for Greenland is justified.

          You really shouldn’t be so quick to jump to conclusions, it makes it look like your mind is closed to those who disagree with you.

          • That was in response to this obsessiveness.

            MarkW
            What RyanS doesn’t tell you is that even if accurate, this represents about 0.001% of Greenland’s ice mass. At this rate it will take over 10,000 years for all the ice to melt.

            Another thing that RyanS isn’t telling you is that most of that trend consists of adjustments for isostatic rebound. Absent that adjustment, Greenland is gaining mass.

            What RyanS is assuming is that this trend, even if real, will continue forever, since in his “mind” CO2 is the only thing that impacts temperatures.

          • I guess that means you admit that you can’t refute anything I wrote. If the only thing you have to complain about is the use of your name when addressing points that you made.

    • So you couldn’t actually compute the modern average extent and you claim that somehow you have facts to present? Were you convinced the antarctic was in record territory in 2012-2014, or was that just “weather?”

  21. Ice emits longwave Infrared radiation between 6 and 18 microns, with a peak of 10.5 microns. If longwave Infrared radiation between 13 and 18 microns could melt ice, ice would melt itself. The existence of ice pretty much proves the CAGW Theory to be a complete joke, and CO2 certainly isn’t causing sea ice or glaciers to melt.

    Quantum Physics 101; Why CO2 Can’t be Melting the Glaciers and Sea Ice
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/09/10/quantum-physics-101-why-co2-cant-be-melting-the-glaciers-and-sea-ice/

    • I don’t know of anybody who has ever claimed that it is the radiation from CO2 that is causing the ice to melt.

  22. “The Greenland Ice Sheet has been gaining mass at a record rate for the second year running”

    GRACE data (the most accurate) show that the Greenland ice sheet has lost several trillion tons of ice over the past two years.

  23. “Antarctic sea ice extent is perfectly normal relative to the 1981-2010 average.”

    As of 9th September Antarctic sea ice extent is the second lowest on record for this time of year, the lowest since 1986.

    • It only just dropped below the 2 SD range. Fluctuating like that is usual this time of year. There were two freak WX events in the super El Nino year of 2016 which caused a rare decrease in Antarctic sea ice, from which it is recovering.

      How do you explain the fact that Antarctic sea ice grew from 1979 to 2014, if you imagine that CO2 has some effect on sea ice?

      • “Fluctuating like that is usual”.

        Not even wrong. Its now the lowest on record and plunging back toard the 6 and 8σ territory of Nov 2016.

      • “Fluctuating like that is usual this time of year.”

        I don’t think there’s much difference between summer and winter, but if you prefer we could look at last summer, where 2018 set the second lowest minimum, a record set in 2017.

        “There were two freak WX events in the super El Nino year of 2016 which caused a rare decrease in Antarctic sea ice, from which it is recovering.”

        But 2016 was already well down on the previous two years, and it’s difficult to see how a couple of freak events could wipe out all the ice gains of the previous decades, and not recover for a couple more years. There’s no obvious sign to me that the Antarctic is recovering.

        https://i.imgur.com/jNLENaN.png

        “How do you explain the fact that Antarctic sea ice grew from 1979 to 2014, if you imagine that CO2 has some effect on sea ice?”

        I don’t have any explanation, and I’m not trying to suggest that the last few years represent a pause in Antarctic sea ice growth. I just found the claim that Antarctic sea ice extent was “perfectly normal” was odd, when we have been seeing record lows over the last couple of years. Especially when in the same sentence it’s claimed that Greenland has gained a record amount over the last two years. By the same 2 SD argument the last two years have been “perfectly normal” in Greenland.

    • Just in June 2014, the Antarctic sea ice extents were so far above average for that date, that the anomaly alone was larger than the entire area of Greenland. 2012, 2013, 2015 were nearly that large. If the loss of “one Greenland” in only three years (2017 – 2014) does not affect the global average surface temperature by any more than 0.19 one year later (and that trendline is going down the more Antarctic sea ice declines!), then there is no Arctic Death Spiral. Nor Antarctic Death Spiral of warm water melting the ice which causes more exposed ocean which causes more heat to be absorbed which causes more ice melt….

      The experiment has been done

  24. Arctic Sea Ice Extents closely follow PDO/AMO/NAO 30-year warm/cool cycles.

    The PDO entered its 30-year cool cycle around 2007, and since then, 8 out of the past 11 Arctic Minimums have been higher than 2007.

    Once the AMO and NAO oceans enter their respective 30-year cool cycles from the early 2020’s, Arctic Sea Ice Extents will gradually increase and eventually approach levels observed at the end of the last PDO/AMO/NAO 30-year cool cycles in the last 1970’s.

    Within 5 years, the increase of Arctic Sea Ice Extents will be impossible for Leftist CAGW fanatics to explain.

  25. Not being a mathematician I’ve only just this minute learned that <=2 sigma means no statistical significance. Crikey that means that sea is sometimes more and sometimes less – no wonder everyone is worried to death.

Comments are closed.