Low sea-ice cover in the Arctic

Second-lowest September minimum since observations began

Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research

Map of the Arctic sea ice extent on September 11, 2019. Credit Graphic: meereisportal.de
Map of the Arctic sea ice extent on September 11, 2019. Credit Graphic: meereisportal.de

The sea-ice extent in the Arctic is nearing its annual minimum at the end of the melt season in September. Only circa 3.9 million square kilometres of the Arctic Ocean are covered by sea ice any more, according to researchers from the Alfred Wegener Institute and the University of Bremen. This is only the second time that the annual minimum has dropped below four million square kilometres since satellite measurements began in 1979.

Until mid-August, it looked as though a notable record would be reached: the area of the Arctic Ocean covered by ice (defined as the area with a sea-ice concentration of more than 15 percent) from late March to early August was the smallest measured by satellites since 1979. “Our satellite data show that between March and April 2019, there was an unusually large decrease in the ice extent, from which the Arctic sea ice was unable to recover,” explain Professor Christian Haas, a geophysicist and head of the Sea Ice section at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) and Dr Gunnar Spreen from the University of Bremen’s Institute for Environmental Physics. Since the second half of August, however, the seasonal reduction has slowed down, overlaid by short-term fluctuations. The lowest value so far for 2019 was 3.82 million square kilometres, observed on 3 September. This means that this year, the September average could be below 4 million square kilometres for only the second time.

But in the coming weeks, the ice could retreat further: even though in early fall air temperatures in the Arctic have now fallen below freezing, the heat stored in the water can continue to melt the underside of the ice for a few more weeks. However, if it becomes extremely cold in the Arctic in the days ahead, the ice cover can already increase again. In October, the scientists will analyse the data for the whole of September, and will then be able to make a final assessment of the sea-ice minimum in 2019. It appears unlikely that this year we will see a new absolute record, below the sea-ice extent of 3.4 million square kilometres observed in 2012. “Record or not, this year confirms the continued long-term reduction of Arctic sea ice as a result of climate change, making it ever more likely that in a few decades the Arctic will be ice free in summer. This will mean drastic changes in the Arctic, with consequences for the climate and ecosystems, as well as for people, including us in Europe,” says Christian Haas.

Scientists at the Alfred Wegener Institute and the Institute for Environmental Physics at the University of Bremen are together analysing the complete satellite data on the ice concentration, extent, and thickness, as well as atmospheric measurements. The website https://www.meereisportal.de/en/ , for example, publishes daily updated ice maps and provides detailed summaries of the sea-ice developments. Ice extent estimates from other institutions (e.g. NSIDC or OSI-SAF) can provide slightly different results. Currently, for 2019 they predict the third-lowest ice extent. “These slight differences are due to the higher resolution of our data and the slightly different methods used to calculate the ice concentration. They show the uncertainties that even the most modern satellite observations can have. Data from the MOSAiC expedition will help to reduce these uncertainties,” explains Dr Gunnar Spreen from the University of Bremen’s Institute for Environmental Physics.

The researchers are currently particularly interested in the northern Laptev Sea: on 20 September, the research icebreaker Polarstern will set sail from Tromsø, in Norway, for the start of the MOSAiC expedition. In the northern Laptev Sea they will search for a suitable ice floe to moor the Polarstern to, in order to drift, icebound, through the Central Arctic for an entire year. “We’re following the ice situation very closely and have developed a series of new data products to offer the best-possible, detailed insights into the current conditions,” reports Christian Haas. “In the Laptev Sea, the ice situation is similar to previous years with an Arctic-wide low ice extent. This means that it will be relatively easy for us to reach our research area, at a latitude of 85 degrees north. But being so close to the ice edge will make it difficult to find a suitable ice floe that is large enough and thick enough to set up our ice camp. Our computer models show that the ice south of 88 degrees north is less than 80 centimetres thick, which is less than the 1.2 metres we’d ideally like to have to safely set up our measuring stations. We may have to travel farther north than planned to find the right conditions,” expects Christian Haas, who will lead the second leg of the MOSAiC expedition from mid-December.

###

Joint Press Release: Alfred Wegener Institute and University of Bremen

From EurekAlert

0 0 votes
Article Rating
383 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 15, 2019 6:08 am

“But in the coming weeks, the ice could retreat further”
So it’s a bit early to be writing about a minimum.

Jeroen
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 6:27 am

No it won’t. Look at the forecasts.

Also:

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

4.25 over here on this site.

Reply to  Jeroen
September 15, 2019 6:42 am

Jeroen 2019 is still on a downward trend.

Jeroen
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 8:13 am

I aint talking trend(year to year), just that the bottom is reached. It might vary 100KM² in the coming week, but you could pretty much call it. My biggest point was that on my source the extend is 300KM² more extend. So that must be a different way of calcutaling things.

Also if we do talk trend then it is all a matter of interpetation. If you start high then trend down and then hit a plateau are you then still trending down? Any year with no change would still add to the down trend.

Greg
Reply to  Jeroen
September 15, 2019 8:44 am

Both NSIDC and Norwegian extractions are well over 4M , even today. Odd that NSIDC has 2019 and 2007 indistinguishable, where are this crew has it half way between 2007 and 2012 and 2018 dead on 2007 where as NSIDC had last year well above 2007.

Looks like someone has a thumb on the scales, yet again.

Sadly we do not see any error bars on their pics.

Reply to  Jeroen
September 17, 2019 8:48 am

2019 is still on a downward trend.

This year the arctic was warmed by inflowing warmer tropical waters from the Nino 3 & 4 regions, and from the concurrent warm tropical flow through the N Atlantic. The NH sea-ice lags Nino34 by 6-8 months, which peaked in May-June, making the maximum effect on the arctic ice by November-December. The reverse, increaseing ice, will begin in earnest thereafter including Greenland AMB.

comment image from ESRL.

Nino 34 now below zero anomaly.

Reply to  Jeroen
September 21, 2019 4:31 am

Apparently NOAA has early satellite data showing 1973 was a very low sea-ice year. I’d like to know more about that year. It is a bit lame to start sea-ice graphs in 1979, which was the highest recent sea-ice year:

comment image?w=500

This definitely is a low sea-ice year, but to me what is more important is not the amount of sea-ice but the motion. The motion is indicative of the pattern, and if you want to get alarmed about anything, it should be that the sea-ice jamming over to the Atlantic side is similar to the summer before the winter of 1962-1963, which was a wild winter old-timers in England like to brag about surviving.

https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2019/09/20/arctic-sea-ice-a-denier-pride-parade/

Reply to  Jeroen
September 22, 2019 1:36 pm

Caleb – I can’t display the image here it seems, but check out the NSIDC’s pre 1979 numbers here:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/mean_anomaly_1953-2012.png

What do you make of the late 60s – early 70s?

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 8:16 am

“Record or not, this year confirms the continued long-term reduction of Arctic sea ice as a result of climate change, making it ever more likely that in a few decades the Arctic will be ice free in summer.

Firstly it’s unclear where they are getting these figures from. NSIDC 15% extent is still clearly above 4 million km^2 and it’s far from clear it will even reach less than that figure.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Norwegian estimate for extent also above 4.
https://web.nersc.no/WebData/arctic-roos.org/observation/DailyArcticIceAreaExtent.txt

Maybe they are confusing with sea ice area. An easy error for anyone who does not know anything about sea ice to make !!

In fact it looks like this year will be indistinguishable from 2007 – over a DECADE AGO – when Al Gore and IPCC started all the shouting and wailing about the imminent disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Pretending that essentially flat lining for 12 years “confirms the continued long-term reduction ” is simply a lie. If you do nothing more than fit one straight line to the whole record, it is negative but that does not mean there is a continued reduction. It means there was a reduction which is NOT continuing.

Why do they mention sea ice minimum a week or two before it happens? As Nick says that seems a bit odd.

Oh, wait, isn’t there some climate meeting coming in NY. Maybe they just could not wait happened to get this misleading statement out until the event ACTUALLY since they would miss the chance to flood the media with fake climate news before the meeting.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 15, 2019 8:29 am

Greta Thunberg is reportedly able to melt millions of square kilometers of sea ice, simply by means of those 40.000 ppm emerging from her lungs at a climate rally.

Greg
Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 15, 2019 9:02 am

No, she just needs to give the Arctic ocean one of her famous, frosty stares and it would instantly freeze over. Sadly she does not care enough about polar bears to do that, she would rather see them suffer and become extinct so that she can give us all another of her “my patience is running out, I’m really cross now” looks from her climate pulpit.

MarkH
Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 15, 2019 2:56 pm

The record starts in the late 70s. I’m not surprised that there has been a downward trend since then as in the 70s we were apparently headed for an imminent ice age.

It is a pity that the observations don’t go back to the 1920s or 30s, then you might get some more interesting data to look at.

Linear interpolation of cyclical phenomina also looks to be a problem. They have data for something like -sin(x), been 0 and pi/2.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 15, 2019 4:13 pm

There are sea ice records going back well over 100 years.
Here are a few graphs that combined go back to before 1925.
There is nothing in the least bit unusual about the amounts of sea ice in the Arctic this past year, ten years, twenty years…
The only thing unusual is seeing so many people who purport to be educated and knowledgeable acting like such ignorant jackasses.

See here:
https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1173374067468066816?s=20

Smart Rock
Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 15, 2019 4:19 pm

Seems to me that using 15% ice cover as a threshold between “ice” and “no ice” gives them plenty of opportunity for getting the results they want (in this case, they want the ice cover to be low, you can tell by the tone of the article).

E.g. by choosing smaller cell sizes. A hypothetical example: imagine a 100 km² cell containing 15 km² of ice floe, that’s 15%, so the 100 km² is “ice covered”. But then visualize if they used a 50 km² cell size to look at the same 100 km² with its 15 km² of ice, and the western 50 km² had 8 km² of ice, that’s 50 km² with 16% ice, so it’s “ice covered”, and the eastern 50 km² had 7 km² of ice floe,so that’s 50 km² with 14% of ice, so it’s “no ice”. So without having to falsify the data, they’ve just turned 100 km² of “ice cover” into 50 km² of “ice cover” and 50 km² of “open water”.

Perhaps the”higher resolution of our data” is being used creatively to generate yet another “worse than we thought. Isn’t science wonderful!

Also you no doubt noticed “Our computer models show that the ice south of 88 degrees north is less than 80 centimetres thick“. Model results taking the place of observational data; this article is in the very best tradition of climate science!

Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 15, 2019 7:16 pm
Loydo
Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 15, 2019 10:52 pm

There are sea ice records going back well over 100 years.
“Here are a few graphs that combined go back to before 1925.
There is nothing in the least bit unusual about the amounts of sea ice in the Arctic this past year, ten years, twenty years…
The only thing unusual is seeing so many people who purport to be educated and knowledgeable acting like such ignorant jackasses.

See here:
https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1173374067468066816?s=20

I can only see one graph at your link Nick. It shows that even at its lowest (about 1945-55), at 6 million sqkm it was still 50% higher than today.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 16, 2019 7:11 am

You have to scroll through my tweets before and after that one.
Note the legend on the graph: Those are YEARLY average values.
They are not monthly.
What is the yearly average value recently, Lloydo?
If the coverage is 14 msk for most of the year and falls for a few months in Summer to 4-6 msk, what is the annual average?
Do you know how to read and interpret graphs and data?

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 16, 2019 10:10 am

Just a few days ago, Loydo couldn’t differentiate between count and area. Now he can’t differentiate between annual and monthly…and possibly daily.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 8:26 am

NSIDC har Arctic sea ice extent of 4.251 mill. km2 Sept. 14th, practically same as for 216. Nothing dramatic here. Just another crises that refuses to materialize.

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

Greg
Reply to  Henning Nielsen
September 15, 2019 8:57 am

Just noticed one detail NSIDC graph says ” sea ice extent at least 15%” , Wegener say “>15%”

So if Wegener measure to nearest % , “>15%” means ” at least 16%” . However, this does not explain the notable differences in 2007 and 2018 between the two datasets. IMO someone has moved the goal posts to mask the recovery since 2012 OMG minimum.

BTW CPOM ice volume shows sustained recovery in minimum since 2012.
comment image

I see another dip forming and expect minimum to be 16th/17th this year.

icisil
Reply to  Henning Nielsen
September 15, 2019 6:28 pm

I’ve wondered if they use different pixel values for the 15% threshold. 37/250 = 14.8%, or 15% rounded; 38/250 = 15.2%, or 15% rounded. The difference is 0.4%. So potentially they can decrease ice extent by 0.4% while still using a 15% threshold. The appearance, of course, is that ice extent has gone down, whereas in reality they just moved the goal post.

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 1:09 pm

Up since 2012 is a downward trend?

tty
Reply to  MarkW
September 16, 2019 3:04 am

There are NO volume data before 2011 when Cryosat 2 was launched. All earlier volume data are guesses. Volume since 2011 has been remarkably stable:

http://www.cpom.ucl.ac.uk/csopr/sidata/vol_ts_0.large.png

And as for “Our computer models show that the ice south of 88 degrees north is less than 80 centimetres thick”, it is of course pure whistling in the dark as the thickness is not measurable during the melt season when there is meltwater pools on the ice. The average thickness at the beginning of the freeze season (October) has varied between 0.9 and 1.3 meters in recent years:

http://www.cpom.ucl.ac.uk/csopr/sidata/thk_ts_0.large.png?version=1

Editor
Reply to  MarkW
September 16, 2019 3:12 pm

Yes, when the cherry pickers are blatantly obvious.

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkW
September 19, 2019 2:52 pm

Loydo,

That’s volume, not extent.

The trend since 2012 is still up. And flat since 2007.

Phil.
Reply to  Jeroen
September 16, 2019 9:46 am

4.22 as of today and that’s the average over the last five days.

Bruce
Reply to  Jeroen
September 17, 2019 2:38 am

Weren’t we supposed to be “ice free” like 10 years ago?

2hotel9
Reply to  Bruce
September 18, 2019 5:55 am

We have all been dead since 2000, don’t understand what all the bruhaha is about!

Bob boder
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 6:27 am

Nope, the minimum is past, this all BS, if you look at the surface temp records it’s clear the ice did not melt as much as stated these are all models not actual measure, no worse then the fourth lowest extent and the ice thickness is up again this year

Reply to  Bob boder
September 15, 2019 6:34 am

According to Jaxa, recent days have all shown melting. Same with NSIDC, including 71,000 sq km on most recent day.

Bob boder
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 6:55 am

Yah and NRL sea surface temperature makes it clear that ice extent is much higher than any of these models say. You look at it an explain.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 7:00 am

@Nick

recent days have all shown melting.

Starting 8.8th – ending 9.14th

2
-131
-165
19
-50
-97
4
-49
-21
-33
-79
-26
-28
-12
-94
23
17
11
-25
29
-21
-15
-58
-73
-97
-21
-112
-48
46
49
-9
-16
34
-27
-35
0
-71
-38

Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 15, 2019 1:04 pm

So does that look like we have shifted from negative to positive?

Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 15, 2019 1:31 pm

@Nick

So does that look like we have shifted from negative to positive?

It contradicts your comment: “recent days have all shown melting.”
Not mor, not less.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 15, 2019 2:41 pm

“It contradicts your comment”
For detecting a minimum, recent means the last few days. In your case, the last five days have melting, except for one zero, which may well just be a day without an update. For Jaxa, which I linked, all five days have melting.

bit chilly
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 8:58 am

At this time of year it is unlikely to be surface melting Nick, more likely to be compaction and dispersion as a result of wind direction.

John in oZ
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 2:46 pm

From many of the replies to this thread, I can base the sea ice extent on the number of crows flying over my house, seasonally adjusted of course, then homogenise this figure with the number of galahs sitting on the fence.

Standards are so wonderful because there are so many to choose from.

Being able to pick and choose which ‘data’ source to use can give credence to anyone’s argument but does not make it correct. This applies to all arguments and why we should not take any single proclamation as the truth but look behind the curtain.

MarkW
Reply to  John in oZ
September 16, 2019 7:16 am

Even better, by hopping from one standard to another, you can artificially create any trend you need.

icisil
Reply to  Bob boder
September 15, 2019 6:58 am

The thing about sea ice extent is that it reveals nothing about ice quantity or quality, and sometimes even ice existence. All that it really indicates is there is ice of some indeterminate area, volume and thickness in a certain grid location that emits a microwave signal above a certain threshold (15% of measurement range). New ice up to a certain point isn’t even detectable.

icisil
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 11:59 am

So what does that tell us? What will be, or what has been? If ice volume increases or decreases from this point we would see the same thing.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 3:24 pm

Trend for last 10 years is level. no decrease.

Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 5:16 pm

Gerald – The past 5 years show a steep decline. (I too can cherry)

The long term trend is very much down.

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 7:40 pm

Since the start of the satellite record, the trend is down.
However there are records that go much further back, and they indicate that their is no trend.
As you say, you can cherry pick with the best of them.

Simon
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 10:38 pm

Mark w
“However there are records that go much further back, and they indicate that their is no trend.”
Really let’s see these records. Not some old guys sketches or a sailer who thought there was more ice. Real data.

tty
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 16, 2019 3:09 am

Use actual data please, not models:

http://www.cpom.ucl.ac.uk/csopr/seaice.html

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 16, 2019 7:17 am

Fascinating how you reject real data, just because it doesn’t fit into your religious convictions.

Simon
Reply to  icisil
September 16, 2019 11:50 am

Markw
“Fascinating how you reject real data, just because it doesn’t fit into your religious convictions.”
Once again all mouth no facts. You should run for president.

griff
Reply to  Bob boder
September 15, 2019 7:11 am

These are NOT models: they are from direct satellite observations. And what is more you can see they are accurate by looking at satellite pics online.

commieBob
Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 7:46 am

When I go to the sea ice page all I find are graphs that make this year look a lot like 2012. ie. I’m more inclined to agree with Griff and Nick than I usually am. 🙂

Editor
Reply to  commieBob
September 15, 2019 7:56 am

What should I be worried about……..?

Greg
Reply to  commieBob
September 15, 2019 8:19 am

No Bob, it’s running very close to 2007 substantially more than 2012.

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

commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
September 15, 2019 8:58 am

Greg September 15, 2019 at 8:19 am

No Bob, it’s running very close to 2007 substantially more than 2012.

There are a number of graphs which all seem to be produced differently. Plus there’s time for something weird to happen. I’m not betting on anything.

angech
Reply to  commieBob
September 15, 2019 7:15 pm

Very clever using a month old graph commiebob

commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
September 18, 2019 9:09 am

angech September 15, 2019 at 7:15 pm

Very clever using a month old graph commiebob

Not clever at all. Mea culpa. There are six arctic sea ice extent graphs at the Sea Ice Page, and as you note, they are all a month behind. Groan.

Steve Keohane
Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 8:13 am

Isn’t it great to see the Arctic get some ice after having none for several thousand years as it recovers from the Holocene onset?

icisil
Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 8:15 am

Sea ice extent is not a direct measurement. The raw passive microwave signal data have to be conditioned with proprietary algorithms and numerous assumptions about weather and surface conditions. That’s why sea ice extent can vary amongst the various agencies.

Yooper
Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 8:19 am

Oh yeah?
“Our computer models show that the ice south of 88 degrees north is less than 80 centimetres thick, which is less than the 1.2 metres we’d ideally like to have to safely set up our measuring stations.”
Take a hike, or learn to read.

MFKBoulder
Reply to  Yooper
September 15, 2019 1:09 pm

Ice thickness = models
Ice extent = measurements.

Take a hike yourself

angech
Reply to  Yooper
September 15, 2019 7:19 pm

Very clever using a month old graph commiebob

angech
Reply to  Yooper
September 15, 2019 7:32 pm

“This means that it will be relatively easy for us to reach our research area, at a latitude of 85 degrees north. But being so close to the ice edge will make it difficult to find a suitable ice floe that is large enough and thick enough to set up our ice camp. Our computer models show that the ice south of 88 degrees north is less than 80 centimetres thick, which is less than the 1.2 metres we’d ideally like to have to safely set up our measuring stations.”

At least it will be thick enough for their icebreaker to go through. Once it starts freezing it will get to 1.2 metres in a few days. Once it does it will not be an artificially created ice flo anymore, it will be part of a thick extensive ice plain

Steve case
Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 8:35 am


Sunsettommy September 15, 2019 at 7:56 am
What should I be worried about……..?

B I N G O

Or in other words, so what?

Loydo
Reply to  Steve case
September 15, 2019 11:01 pm

Just because you’ve chosen not to look for the reasons Steve, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Steve case
September 16, 2019 4:02 am

What reasons? All are accompanied with ‘may’, ‘could’ etc.

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 11:00 am

Griff, do you really believe you can measure accurately from satellite pictures without knowing the angle or other processing operations on the pictures, and judge what is 15% ice and what is not……….. you are talking rubbish again. All measurements are essentially models that make assumptions about coastlines and what is/isn’t ice.

icisil
Reply to  MrGrimNasty
September 15, 2019 11:54 am

You may know this, but since it keeps being repeated… This is what I learned from reading about it; different agencies may use different methods. I think I read this on NSIDC.

Sea ice extent is not 15% coverage, i.e., it is not area. They really should use sea ice area, but don’t because using passive microwaves they can’t distinguish melt pools on top of ice from open water. So instead of using area in winter and extent in summer, they use extent year round. That’s unfortunate for accuracy.

Extent is minimum 15% of microwave signal range per grid area, quantified by pixel value in satellite “photos”. In other words, every grid cell photo pixel value (8-bit grey scale; 0-255) with a value between 38-250 (15%-100%) is considered to have ice present. That’s it. So that means a grid area could be 100% covered with crappy ice that emits a 15% signal, or a grid area could be whatever-percent covered with thicker ice that emits a 15% signal.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  MrGrimNasty
September 15, 2019 4:12 pm

Icisil

For clarity I think you have to state the wavelength at which this assessment is made. If it is 15% it must be in a visible range.

icisil
Reply to  MrGrimNasty
September 15, 2019 5:19 pm

It’s microwave, non-visible. The technology digitizes microwave signal strength (0-250) for each grid cell. Any grid cell value below 38 (15% of 250) is considered to be open water; 38-250 (15-100%) is considered to be ice.

Bob boder
Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 7:16 pm

Griff being wrong again
Take the bet

ATheoK
Reply to  Bob boder
September 15, 2019 8:45 am

“Second-lowest September minimum since observations began”

Except, if one clicks on the years between 2012 and 2019 to add them back into the NSIDC graph, 2019 is not lower than 2016. Or one could access a chart developed by the Arctic-roos.org:
comment image

As Bob Boder points out, the actual data is collected by passive satellite microwave sensors. Satellite sensors require many satellite passes to complete a picture. Daily sea ice estimates are courtesy models/assumptions; using datasets provided by that allegedly trustworthy agency NSIDC.

commieBob
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 6:33 am

Last winter appears to be cooler than recent winters. link As well, there was a report that ships were encountering thicker than normal ice (but I’m darned if I can find the link). The arctic ice is cranky and almost anything could happen in the next few weeks. On the other hand, the trend does look a lot like 2012.

Bob boder
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 6:39 am

The other interesting thing is the minimum appears to be coming earlier in the month again, like it did prior to 2007. May or may not be an indication of a cycle change, only time will tell. What is pretty clear, like every other doomsday warming, the arctic sea ice death spiral was just another scam.

Loydo
Reply to  Bob boder
September 15, 2019 11:06 pm

“May or may not…”

Sounds like you’ve already made your mind up about that Bob: that an appearance does actually make it a scam. You obviously think this graph is upside down.

http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/TimeSeries2017-1024×582.png

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 6:40 am

Maybe so Nick, but surely that doesn’t negate the AWI’s point that, using their metric at least, 2019 will post the “Second-lowest September minimum since observations began”?

Or are you seriously suggesting that going lower than 2012 is still possible?

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 15, 2019 7:29 am

He just wants to take exception to the headline and declare that all is therefore wrong with WUWT.

Greg
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
September 15, 2019 8:24 am

It is Wegner Institute which is making pre-emptive claims and apparently getting their numbers wrong as well. Why are you trying to think that Nick is criticising WUWT, rather than those making the silly statements?

I can tell you why they are trying to talk about the min before it even happens it is to get their fake “continued decline” comments in in time for NY meeting. More PR pretending to be science.

Reply to  Greg
September 15, 2019 8:52 am

AWI are not “making pre-emptive claims”, unless you are seriously suggesting that going lower than 2012 is still possible!

They are not “getting their numbers wrong” either. They are not using NSIDC or JAXA numbers, that’s all.

Greg
Reply to  Greg
September 15, 2019 9:19 am

They are discussing sea ice minimum before it has happened. That is pre-emptive. The reason for it is political PR , not science, like I said.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 15, 2019 3:27 pm

**since observations began”?**
And when did they begin?

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
September 16, 2019 12:21 am

Good morning Gerald (UTC),

The AWI weren’t very specific. However assuming that they are referring to passive microwave satellite data:

SSMR: 1978
SSM/I: 1987
AMSR-E: 2002
SSMIS: 2005
AMSR2: 2012

Pre the NSIDC’s very own Sea Ice Index there’s also EMSR: 1975

griff
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 7:10 am

The point is, now is the time when a minimum should be occurring – but! this year the ice could still be melting further. On top of the second lowest extent, that shows exactly how bad the state of the ice is…

Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 7:51 am

The latest minimum we had if I remember well was on 20th of Sept. as an exception.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 9:06 am

Griff where is it Cast in Stone that Sea Ice Minimum must always fall on a specific day?
Sea Ice Minimum can be affected by many differing Weather Dependant Variables.
It has almost always fallen within the same two week stretch between the first and third week of September (1979 – 3rd week, 1984 – 2nd week, 2007 – 3rd week, 2012 – 2nd week, 2016 – 1st week)
It Never turns the corner on a single date like Autumn is always Sept 23.

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  Bryan A
September 15, 2019 4:16 pm

It is just like Autumn, the date depends on the year.
http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/fall/first-day-of-fall.html

Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 9:12 am

Yes, it could melt some more. And it could also start re-freezing. It could melt a lot or freeze even more. Stop acting like you can predict the future. Just fyi – you CAN’T!

Greg Goodman
Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 9:28 am

The point is, now is the time when a minimum should be occurring

Please enlighten us on how to know when sea ice “should ” reach minimum.

this year the ice could still be melting further … that shows exactly how bad the state of the ice is

Your claim that it “could” go lower … shows exactly nothing because it has not happened. The key problem for alarmists is not knowing the difference of maybe-could-be speculations and FACTS.

If you would like to inform yourself about the timing of Arctic minimum you could read my article studying how it got later and later until 2007 and had been drifting earlier since. Exactly now “bad” is that?
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/arctic_min_extent_dates/
comment image

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 15, 2019 9:47 am

Sorry, missed the full article over at Climate Etc.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/18/is-the-arctic-sea-ice-spiral-of-death-dead/

tty
Reply to  griff
September 16, 2019 3:15 am

However according to the russians new ice is already forming:

http://www.aari.ru/main.php?lg=0&id=94

Reply to  tty
September 16, 2019 1:38 pm
Steven Mosher
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 7:42 am

yup there may be some compaction going on over the next 2 days

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 8:50 am

Nick just wants to complain because well, he’s Nick.

The typical date range for the sea ice minimum in the Arctic is Sept 18th to 22nd.

So, it is a good time to be talking about the minimum. WUWT usually notes and reports the minimum before official agencies do, that will likely be the case again this year.

Greg
Reply to  Anthony Watts
September 15, 2019 9:12 am

Don’t assume ill will unnecessarily. WUWT was simply reporting Wegener Institute’s pre-emptive statements. If anything I would think his criticism applies to them, it was their timing and their announcement.

What is more relevant is why they should chose to try to talk about minimum now instead of wait a week or 10 days to have something concrete to report instead of speculative commentary.

The reason is almost certainly the NY climate meeting and the MSM conspiracy to saturate news with climate coverage in the week preceding this event.

mike the morlock
Reply to  Greg
September 15, 2019 12:16 pm

Greg September 15, 2019 at 9:12 am
It may also have something to do with the institute’s little boating adventure.

“RV Polarstern”

michael

Reply to  Greg
September 15, 2019 1:15 pm

Thanks, Greg. I quoted what I was querying, and it was indeed the statement from the Wegener Institute.

Robertvd
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 9:48 am

So the Arctic ocean will lose an enormous quantity of energy because not being covered by ice.

Reply to  Robertvd
September 15, 2019 6:56 pm

Gerald – The past 5 years show a steep decline. (I too can cherry)

The long term trend is very much down.

Editor
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 9:06 pm

No, not really. The last 12 years (2007 through 2019) are all right about at the same level. 1/3 of the entire satellite record makes somewhat an exaggerated linear extrapolation not really really very important, doesn’t it?

The cycle seems to be about 72-74 years – with a peak at 82-84, and is now at its low point of 2007-2012. And each year that remains near the 2010-2018 average makes your exaggerated linear trend more useless.

Loydo
Reply to  Robertvd
September 15, 2019 10:39 pm

“So the Arctic ocean will lose an enormous quantity of energy because not being covered by ice.”

Yes, there is so much more energy to lose. Its warmer, close to 3C warmer.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/TimeSeries2017-1024×582.png

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
September 16, 2019 7:23 am

Which would be 276C above absolute zero.

Given how dry the air is above the arctic, it’s fairly easy for that heat to escape to space.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 12:20 pm

I’ve seen nothing with a 3 in front of on the DMI site

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Stephen Richards
September 15, 2019 4:53 pm

This graph has the extent over 5 msk:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php

The numbers are essentially the same over all of the recent years.
We are one or two unusually cold Arctic Winters away from a sharply increasing trend.
Just as a couple of years of globally lower temps and we will be below the 1980-2010 average.
The only place anything dramatic is happening is in the pronouncements of shrill alarmists and the world of doctored data and graphs.

Loydo
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 15, 2019 11:15 pm

Whaat? Are you looking at the graph in your own link?
Let me get this straight: IF we have as few as one “unusually cold Arctic Winter” that will refute the data and the graphs. Kool aid anyone?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Loydo
September 16, 2019 7:25 am

Yes, that is right.
Historically, it is evident that a huge amount of ice can form and persist in a single year.
No Kool Aid required to know this, just an ability to look at historical data and understand what you are looking at.
Warmistas are incredibly unable to see what is in front of their eyes, if it conflicts with their world view.
Trends can and have change very quickly.
During the 1970s, around the time of the peak, there were huge swings in ice amount.
We saw a muted version of that phenomenon in 2013 when ice amount snapped back sharply.
Look what occurred between 1960 and 1963-64.
Lowest level of that 50+ year period to very close to the highest level of the century.
In the mid 1970s were some low ice years, but 1979 was a huge spike upwards in ice amount, and it persisted for many years of warming temps.
I suspect you were not alive in the 1970s, or at least not old enough to be aware are anything.
I was.
Why do you suppose there was an effort to launch satellites in the late 1970s and keep an eye on temperatures and ice?
It was not due to warming.
It was due to concerns about cooling and an impenetrable Arctic.
The Soviets were way ahead in icebreaker technology, and the cold war was red hot.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Loydo
September 16, 2019 7:33 am

Okay, I see what you mean. Between last night and this morning they updated that graph and the last dot went below the 5msk line. It was above it, with a “?”.
It is even now just below the 5msk line.
It was late last night, and perhaps I was holding my mouse over the August tab and not realized.
Not sure, but it is clear it is no where near 4.

Personally, I do not care how much ice melts.
My view on perpetually frozen lifeless wastelands is clear: Less of them is better.
Anyone wishing for an even more frigidly frozen polar wasteland is insane, IMO.

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 1:29 pm

Yawn

Mike
Reply to  Derg
September 15, 2019 5:04 pm

Best reply so far. They are getting their panties in a knot over something that’s been going on for millennia.

ironargonaut
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 1:43 pm

The point isn’t to be accurate. The point is to be able to get “second lowest” into a press release and headlines. Therefore, if data goes otherway it won’t be reported and John Q Public only hears second lowest. You are mistaking these people for scientists.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  ironargonaut
September 16, 2019 7:36 am

Bingo!

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 15, 2019 1:59 pm

Nick, No mention of the expedition from Russia a week or so ago which was taken by surpise when it encoutered 3 or more metres of solid packed ice all the way from Svalbard to the North Pole. The big, new nuke powered breaker had to back up many times to break through and the planned trip took an extra two days. The ice in the Arctic basin is actually 100% extent! This means the ice is actually growing strongly. Spread this hard packed mass out to 15% and redo the assessment.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 15, 2019 2:44 pm

Gary,

You state “The ice in the Arctic basin is actually 100% extent!”

Oh no it isn’t! A picture is worth a 1000 words, but it seems they are unavailable on here.

In which case please take a look at some more data from the University of Bremen:

comment image

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 16, 2019 10:16 am

Jim I’m merely reporting an actual trip from Svalbard to the Northpole a week ago. The fact that Bremen data doesn’t show this thickness and that it was a big surprise to all on the trip, including the Russian Navy makes Bremen data wrong. One of the world’s largest and most powerful breakers had to back up numerous times to get a run at the ice. This added two days onto the expected duration of the transect.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 16, 2019 1:41 pm

Gary,

FYI “Svalbard to the North Pole” != “The Arctic basin”

crosspatch
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 16, 2019 8:26 am

Are we talking about area or extent? Neither one seems to look particularly bad according to Nansen.

comment image

Ice area looking better than extent would imply some compaction rather than dispersal from wind.

comment image

Trebla
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 18, 2019 3:51 am

It almost sounds like they were disappointed that a record wasn’t set.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 28, 2019 9:38 am

“…So it’s a bit early to be writing about a minimum…”

It wasn’t. You didn’t get your wish.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
September 28, 2019 10:40 am

What are you on about Michael?

The JAXA minimum was on September 17th. The NSIDC version reached a minimum on the 18th:

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2019/09/arctic-sea-ice-reaches-second-lowest-minimum-in-satellite-record/

Ric
September 15, 2019 6:11 am

Run to the hills!

RStabb
September 15, 2019 6:21 am

Al Gore claimed scientists said the arctic would be gone by 2014.

Reply to  RStabb
September 15, 2019 6:58 am

What Al Gore really said:

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/gore/26118-al-gore-nobel-lecture-2007/

Scissor
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 7:44 am

Masolwski, Wadhams, Zwally, Serezze, Barber and others made similar statements. Perhaps the Arctic can’t hear them because it’s screaming.

What would satellites have shown for 1910, 1920 or during the LIA?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
September 15, 2019 10:35 am

“What would satellites have shown for 1910, 1920 or during the LIA?”

Good question! It would look something like the first link below. As you can see, the arctic sea ice has been lower in the recent past (the 1930’s). Starting the chart from 1979, when satellites first started making these measurements, is, as can be seen, very misleading as to the trend.

comment image

And the reason why more ice melted in the arctic in the 1930’s is because it was warmer in the arctic in the 1930’s than it is today. Nothing unprecedented is happening today in the arctic with the temperatures or the ice melting.

comment image

Tom Schaefer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 16, 2019 6:01 am

Is there anything that cores could do to resolve the ice extent? You know that magnetic dust that you can collect in your storm gutters from meteorites? Maybe if there are extended periods of ice coverage of on-island pools, it would build up, and only be released and sink to the bottom of pools when the ice covering those pools melted. By comparing strata of pools at various latitudes, maybe you would get some insight?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 16, 2019 7:44 am

These 20th century graphs also plainly depict how rapidly a trend can and often does change, as also how drastically year to year variations within a secular trend can be.
Also obvious that what happened in 2012 is not unusual, that there is no death spiral in the ice under current climate conditions.
Every year it gets dark up there for 6 months, and all the water freezes over.
Enormous amounts of ice can form or melt in a small interval of time, and a low value one year does not mean the ice is going away, nor does a high value mean it cannot melt back to below average in a year or two. We have seen how the ice can be blow out of the Arctic basin and melt in warmer water further south. One huge storm can bust up a lot of ice.

How many people on this comment thread think it would be a good thing to have year-round 80-100 foot thick ice covering the entire basin, as some reports from the LIA assert?

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 8:06 am

That was only ONE comment.

Gore made similar statement several other times in subsequent years. Often he referenced Dr. Wieslav Maslowski as his source, ignoring that fact that these results were far more aggressive than those of other scientists.

Worst of all, Dr. Maslowski himself said he did not know where Gore was getting substantiation for those claims out of his work.

Fail.

Scissor
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 8:08 am

James Hansen was more confident, in 2008 he said the Arctic “will” be ice free in summer in 5 to 10 years.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 8:36 am

“…scientists reported with unprecedented distress…” Yeah right, Gore has of course made a study of scientific distress through the ages and reached this stunning conclusion. And to think that such BS was uttered in my home town, in MY City Hall!

RonS
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 16, 2019 3:14 am

jack,

Gore has upped his game. “Climate Crisis” is the new name.

Dave
Reply to  RStabb
September 15, 2019 7:15 am

2013 but who’s counting

philincalifornia
Reply to  Dave
September 15, 2019 2:50 pm

Yes, it was in December, 2008 when he spoke stridently, in a German museum with a dinosaur skeleton in the background, about no sea ice in 5 years

RonS
Reply to  Dave
September 16, 2019 4:34 am

Dave,

I stand corrected.

Dipchip
September 15, 2019 6:26 am

As of 9-14-2019 JAXA data shows it still above 4 million

9 8 4163470
9 9 4170163
9 10 4149896
9 11 4110564
9 12 4087341
9 13 4053800
9 14 4025718

Phil.
Reply to  Dipchip
September 16, 2019 10:13 am

9 15 4006036

Getting close.

Phil.
Reply to  Phil.
September 16, 2019 9:15 pm

As of 9 16 it’s 3.991187.

September 15, 2019 6:29 am

The Data from NSIDC shows Artic Sea Ice extent of above 4.251 Million km2 till date ?
See
Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph

John Tillman
Reply to  Ashok Patel
September 15, 2019 7:30 am

Yes. In NSIDC data this year is still above 2016 and 2007, as well as 2012. Thus fourth lowest is still possible. Just depends upon how long the melt lasts.

But in any case, won’t come close to 2012, despite increase in Russian ice breaking activity.

MrGrimNasty
September 15, 2019 6:31 am

So this article is using the now common alarmist tactic of the pre-announced record, to flood the media with fake news – even though it is obvious that there is near zero chance it will actually be a record low 15% extent. And NSIDC and DMI are both above the suggested level (and given the sizable discrepancy between those 2 sources too – who would believe any of them!)

griff
Reply to  MrGrimNasty
September 15, 2019 7:12 am

Hey: it is ALREADY a record second lowest, even though it is STILL melting.

Archer
Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 7:51 am

It’s not still melting. Stop spreading that bullshit.

This is like that “greenland all melted at once!” lie your lot were throwing around a while back.

Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 7:54 am

No, griff, that’s wishfull thinking</a<

Bryan A
Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 15, 2019 9:11 am

Griff there is no such thing, except in alarmist speak, as a “Record Second Lowest”
Second places at a track meet doesn’t set any records. Sorry

John Tillman
Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 8:02 am

No, it isn’t.

The minimum was lower in 2016 and 2007. To be second it needs to be lower than 4.155 in NSDIC observations.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 8:08 am

You left out “since 1979”, Mr Panic. In 1979 I had already been on this Earth 28 years, but those don’t count. My Father had been on this Earth for 57 years, but those don’t count. It was 203 years before that the Founding Fathers declared independence, but those years don’t count. It was 1979 years since the start of the current calendar, but those years don’t count. It was over 12,000 years ago that the post Younger Dryas warming started, but none of those years count. So not so much a record.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 8:48 am

Griff; what on earth does it matter if the sea ice is still melting or not? Is it only important in order to score some silly debating point? What if, by some Goreatric Miracle, the minimum would stop at 1,5 mill. km2, and stay there for a few days, before starting the freeeze again? How much would that alter global temperature?

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 10:56 am

Griff, no it isn’t according to multiple sources, and it isn’t going to change significantly now – the volume has already increased – so any change in extent is just wind pushing it around, and as you know the ice decline stopped 15 years ago, all years are so close it makes no difference, to suggest otherwise is dishonest, but we know you have no problem suggesting otherwise.

There is absolutely no correlation between Arctic ice and CO2, the Arctic is no warmer than c.1940, the peak of the last major cycle, as you full well know.

There is also no credible (accurate enough to compare) record of extent outside of the satellite era – despite ludicrous attempts to claim otherwise. But we do know with near certainty that the Arctic has had considerably less/no ice for thousands of years at a time in at least 2 distinct periods in the last 11k years.

Your alarmism is bogus.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
September 15, 2019 7:42 pm

It’s not melting, and it’s not the second lowest.
griff is eager to believe any lie that supports what he is paid to believe.

September 15, 2019 6:32 am

This is only the second time that the annual minimum has dropped below four million square kilometres since satellite measurements began in 1979.

I count three, 2007,2012,2016 – the day the statement was published.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 15, 2019 7:06 am

Which of the numerous different extent metrics are you looking at Krishna?

Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 15, 2019 8:49 am

But AWI are referencing the University of Bremen’s numbers, so it’s hardly surprising that there’s a discrepancy!

Olavi Vulkko
September 15, 2019 6:33 am

Next summer there has to be more icebreakers to melt ice, because othervice prediktions fail

tty
September 15, 2019 6:34 am

“this year confirms the continued long-term reduction of Arctic sea ice as a result of climate change”

Climate Newspeak for the fact that the amount of ice has been remarkably stable for 12 years now, both in area and volume:

http://www.cpom.ucl.ac.uk/csopr/sidata/vol_ts_0.large.png

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/osisaf_nh_iceextent_seasonal_en.png

Greg Goodman
Reply to  tty
September 15, 2019 9:34 am

Thanks tty , exactly what I’ve been trying to point out for the last few years. The death spiral dead , run away melting has stopped running away. The naive +ve feedback hypothesis is disproven.

Ulric Lyons
September 15, 2019 6:38 am

Normal for a centennial solar minimum. No wonder the British Navy observed a great loss of Arctic sea ice in 1815-1817 in the Dalton Minimum. 4 months of negative North Atlantic Oscillation this summer was bound to reduce the sea ice.

comment image

September 15, 2019 6:39 am

The northwest passage and the northern sea route were open.

comment image

tty
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 6:46 am

For your information the northern searoute has been open every year since 1933.

And yes, the southern, shallow, northwest passage is open this year – unlike last year.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 6:54 am

How odd that the press is not full of ships using the North West Passage as it is so open.

icisil
Reply to  A C Osborn
September 15, 2019 7:30 am

Odd maybe. I monitored the progress of ms The World and another cruise ship as they passed through the NW passage a week ago. There is an ice breaker (Terry Fox) stationed up there that makes regular runs through the route. I don’t know if that’s to keep the passage clear, or simply to monitor the situation.

Don K
Reply to  icisil
September 15, 2019 11:29 am

“I don’t know if that’s to keep the passage clear, or simply to monitor the situation.”

Quite possibly because basically nobody lives in the Canadian Arctic. If a cruise ship has an engine room fire or hits a reef or gets trapped in wind blown ice, without that icebreaker, they’re going to have to depend on the resources of Cambridge Bay — population less than 1800 — for help. And they don’t really have all that much time for help to be mobilized. It’s not like the sailing season in the Northwest Passages is all that long. Neither is ever likely to be very long. But an icebreaker conceptually can extend it considerably.

icisil
Reply to  Don K
September 15, 2019 12:26 pm

” It’s not like the sailing season in the Northwest Passages is all that long.”

I think it’s over. There’s not a single ship in the area except Terry Fox. ms The World has moved on to the Kamchatka Krai peninsula in Russia.

tty
Reply to  Don K
September 15, 2019 2:01 pm

The icebreaker is probably mostly around to ensure that supply shipments get through to the settlements up there. Last year several supply ships got stuck and they had to fly in a lot of supplies which was very expensive.

And the southern route – which is the only one that is open – will never amount to much, it is to narrow, too crooked and too shallow (20 feet). The northern, deep one, through the McClure strait, requires stronger icebreakers, probably nuclear. It has only ever been passed by non-icebreakers in four seasons: 1944, 2010, 2012 and 2014.

Phil.
Reply to  Don K
September 18, 2019 4:01 pm

tty, McClure wasn’t passable in 1944.

Blake
Reply to  A C Osborn
September 15, 2019 8:23 am

Oh no… SHIPS are slow and take TIME. Important press and media people demand JET travel.
SURRRE, it goes against the whole narrative, but IMPORTANT people delivering the IMPORTANT message about imminent climate calamity (media people- including news anchors, magazine writers, talk-show hosts; Hollywood spokespeople, social media “influencers,” and TV stars; “Important Voices of Authority” from academia (but only the ‘correct’ schools); and of course, POLITICAL authorities) who can explain why it is NECESSARY to suspend your cautious, investigative nature, and FULLY trust these vaunted cultural icons as they parrot off talking points about the liberties and lucre you must sacrifice to the new international religion…
But FEAR NOT!! Simply sign over your civil liberties, your disposable income, and your right to direct your own life— and in exchange, the all-wise climate SCIENTISTS will inform you regularly as they travel the world to SHOW you how their “CO2-scrubbing” technology is steadily, little by little, FIXING the problem! Oh, but don’t think of cutting off funding just yet– oh, not at all! It’ll take YEARS and YEARS of “scrubbing” to make any real progress!!

I can predict how the Leftists & Marxist-Communists would spin the narrative, because it is THEY who are dim, stupid, and as predictable as Tax Day.
The one-size-fits-all “magic solution” prescribed by government will be said to be working, and that the outlook is very positive, but it will take a long, long time to fix all the “damage” done by the proletariat (certainly can’t have the revenue stream dry up before all the government aristocracy are impossibly rich, now CAN we?!).
And the world will descend into totalitarian serfdom under an all-powerful aristocracy.
The time it would then take for the under-class to revolt and murder the ruling class depends only on how ruthless and cruel the latter is, and how angry the oppressed become over time.
For ME, that would be 30 seconds. For the upcoming generation, I fear they could be happy for generations, as long as they could play “Call of Duty” 24/7, and not have to leave the house.

September 15, 2019 6:40 am
Latitude
September 15, 2019 6:45 am

“Record or not, this year confirms the continued long-term reduction of Arctic sea ice as a result of climate change, making it ever more likely that in a few decades the Arctic will be ice free in summer. ”

staying the same for past 7 years….is not a long term reduction

Reply to  Latitude
September 15, 2019 6:56 am

Long term Arctic sea ice decline

comment image

John Tillman
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 7:38 am

Sure it’s down since the maximum of the 20th century, but it’s still above the minimum of the 20th century, not shown on the chart. Sea ice is naturally cyclical. We’re also above most of the Holocene summer minimum.

Reply to  John Tillman
September 15, 2019 9:02 am
Steve Keohane
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 8:18 am

Yeah, but it’s up from zero just a few thousand years ago when the seas were six feet higher.

Latitude
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 8:46 am

Jack….second lowest in 7 years…..is exactly what it says

..and more ice than there was 7 years ago is not a sign of continued long term reduction

that’s not saying there been no long term change….only that more ice is not a sign of it

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 3:32 pm

Those pre 1979 “estimates” or “reports” are not accurate. Check the source. They said”use with caution\\\\\\\\\\’

Thomas Robbins
September 15, 2019 7:03 am

Try the DMI, it’s the same as in previous years…. certainly nothing at all like a record and the Melt season is over as you can see it’s up turning already.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

SAMURAI
September 15, 2019 7:21 am

These Leftist “scientists” are such liars.

2019’s Arctic Ice Extent will be the FOURTH lowest, and about 900,000 KM^2 larger than the 2012 record low.

Why must Leftist always lie about the facts?

A rhetorical question, BTW…

September 15, 2019 7:22 am

The arctic sea icecover was likely similar to 2019 during the last Franklin expedition in 1845, when the ships maneuvered around up to 77 °N in the Wellington channel. How can that be during times when LIA (Little Ice Age) has just ended. The claims about lowest sea ice coverage is less relevant if the time span is only 40 years, wait some more 40 years and we‘ll observe there is cyclic event due atlantic currents and cycles (AMO, …).

Lasse
September 15, 2019 7:25 am

Less ice in a cold climate with cloud cover will:
Warm the earth?
or
Cool the earth?

Underlying water will be exposed to wind and cool temperatures so I guess a lid on the heating pot is good to preserve the heat.

Loydo
Reply to  Lasse
September 16, 2019 1:54 am

Its 3C warmer than 100 years ago and climbing, now above the 40 year trend. Warming means warming not cooling.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Arctic2017.png

A C Osborn
Reply to  Loydo
September 16, 2019 4:25 am

I suggest that you aquaint yourself of how the Berkeleyearth dataset is actually compiled, they are not “real” temperatures.

MarkW
Reply to  A C Osborn
September 16, 2019 7:27 am

Real is defined by whether it supports the cause.

Loydo
Reply to  A C Osborn
September 16, 2019 11:15 pm

Berkely Earth’s graph shows the temperature north of 60° N has risen 2.5C since 1980. Happy to be shown if that is incorrect AC. Do you have a link?

R Taylor
September 15, 2019 7:36 am

Whatever difference Arctic ice makes to the habitability of the earth, deuterium/CO2 lead/lag in ice-cores indicates that CO2 has no significant effect on its extent so we can continue to make our lives better using hydrocarbon fuels.

Gordon Dressler
September 15, 2019 7:37 am

P.S. It’s called an interglacial period for a reason.

Reply to  Gordon Dressler
September 15, 2019 10:27 am

The Holocene Optimum was 6000 years ago, followed by long term cooling which abruptly reversed about 2 centuries ago with the Industrial Revolution and the reliance on fossil fuels. We have emitted 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 which, using carbon isotope analysis, can directly attributed to human activities. We now have CO2 levels not recorded to 3-5 million years.

Instead of continuing to cool, we are warming.

John Tillman
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 11:39 am

The long-term trend is still cooling. HCO ended about 5000 years ago. Since then, the secular cooling trend has been interrupted at about millennial intervals by countertrend warming cycles. The Egyptian 4 Ka and Minoan 3 Ka Warm Periods were about equally balmy, with the Bronze Age Collapse Cool Period in between. The Greek Dark Ages CP was followed by the Roman 2 Ka WP, which was cooler than the Minoan. The Dark Ages CP preceded the Medieval 1Ka WP, which was cooler than the Roman. The Little Ice Age CP preceded the Modern WP, which is still cooler than the Medieval.

So the T downtrend is intact. The massive East Antarctic Ice Sheet quit retreating after the Minoan WP.

Editor
Reply to  John Tillman
September 15, 2019 9:12 pm

Is the Egyptian Warming Period recognized widely?

I’ve been familiar with the Minoan Warming Period for a while (at -3000 years ago), and the Roman Warming Period (at -2000 years ago -which makes a nice contrast between the Medieval Warming Period at -1000 years ago) and the Modern Warming Period (2000 AD), but yours is the first referencing the Egyptian Warming Period.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 3:42 pm

Do you really believe Earth’s climate prior to the appearance of humans was so well behaved that an interglacial period was always characterized by continuous warming to a maximum, and then continuous cooling until the onset of the next glacial period?

Also, since the Earth is around 4.3 BILLION years old, why did you cherry pick the last 3-5 million years (i.e., the last 0.1% of climate history) . . . could it be that you did not want to address those past periods of Earth’s climate that had atmospheric CO2 levels 3-10 times the current level of 410 ppm . . . levels that Earth survived and recovered from quite naturally without panicked, ill-considered actions from puny humans?

Life flourished during the Cambrian period, despite atmospheric CO2 about 10 times higher than today and whatever “greenhouse effect” those CO2 levels MIGHT have created.

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
September 15, 2019 7:46 pm

The cooling ended about 100 years prior to the dumping of huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Regardless, we are still 3 to 5C below the level of the Holocene optimum during which time life on earth flourished.
Tell me again why a small increase in temperature is a bad thing?

ghalfrunt
September 15, 2019 7:42 am

a simple plot of arctic sea ice with data from https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

no models just their data
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

Sea ice is 2nd lowest extent
Rate of change per day of extent is still showing a loss (2012 which was lowest was at this date showing zero change per day).
loss rate is changing rapidly to gain and sea ice may possibly reach zero from Sept 15th onward

All plots of extent on selected days show a rate of loss conforming to the start line approximation.

Because vast areas of ocean will be near freezing one can expect a large positive rate of change (similar to 2012) to occur this month.

comment image

Steven Mosher
September 15, 2019 7:45 am
Schitzree
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 15, 2019 1:40 pm

It was launched a year ago. What are we waiting for?

~¿~

tty
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 3:42 am

The data must be properly adjusted first.

Editor
September 15, 2019 7:58 am

From mid-August through the end of the year, more heat is lost from the newly-exposed open Arctic ocean each day than than is gained from the ever-shorter Arctic daylight hours. Dr Curry (SHEBA, August 12 1998) reported melt water ponds froze over each night beginning August 12.

But the year starts over again in January, and from January through mid-April, more heat is lost from the exposed Arctic Ocean each day than is gained from the sunlight. For 8 months of the year, less sea ice means more heat is lost.

2019 is a low year, but the only two years in the last 20 when Arctic Sea Ice was higher than the 1980-2010 average in March or April were 2007 and 2010. And, in both of those years – when “excess sea ice” in Mar-April was present to insulate the Arctic Ocean from heat loss to space, 2010 set a new record low sea ice extents in the summer, and 2007 set an all-time record low sea ice extents at its September minimum.

2019 is certainly a low year, but compared to the most recent years, it is near the middle of the pack (with 6 higher, 3 lower for early September), slightly below the recent average for August-September.

Matthew Sykes
September 15, 2019 8:00 am

Loss of sea ice is a negative feedback, it allows the ocean to lose heat to space.

Greg
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 15, 2019 9:43 am

Indeed, and by evaporation and conduction to the air. The simplistic assumption that open sea will be a +ve f/b because of minimal insolation at glazing incidence is willfully simplistic but fits the catastrophic mindset so they look no further.

The DATA of the last 12 years solidly refutes the idea of a dominant positive f/b : tipping point : death spiral of what ever other silly names they can invent.

The death spiral is dead

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Greg
September 16, 2019 8:40 am

Correct…insolation up there is low to near zero for most of the year, and water has a high albedo at a low angle of incidence anyhow.
But the main thing is…in Winter it is very cold and very dark and the entire basin freezes over, except to the extent that winds can clear ice from one area or another for a time.
In fact, wind piling up ice into piles at the same time as it is extremely cold for months on end is almost surely how the huge increases in ice we have seen in the past can occur.
Wind clears an area of ice, it refreezes, wind pushes the new ice onto the pack, lather rinse and repeat for a whole Winter.

Phil.
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 19, 2019 11:11 am

Correct…insolation up there is low to near zero for most of the year, and water has a high albedo at a low angle of incidence anyhow.

The insolation at the pole is greater than that at the equator from early May to early August.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-k_S7N0VlMRg/UH4RNvJ3cjI/AAAAAAAAFjk/lqjQhGqLWOk/s1600/insolation_latitude.gif

Editor
Reply to  Phil.
September 19, 2019 2:00 pm

For reference on insolation at the North Pole.

Scissor
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
September 15, 2019 12:22 pm

James Hansen said it was a tipping point and the Arctic was behaving just like predicted. Of course he said that it would be ice free in summer by now. He’s clearly wrong on both points.

eliza
September 15, 2019 8:12 am

Satellite record since 1979?? Completely meaningless in climate terms

Reply to  eliza
September 15, 2019 8:31 am

Arctic seaice lost startet about more than 150 years.

WWF reconstructs climate change in the Arctic

Düsseldorf (rpo). The Arctic ice has been on the retreat for at least 150 years. This is the result of a new study by the WWF and the Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI).

The researchers consulted the records of long deceased polar explorers and discoverers and reconstructed the extent of Arctic ice in different epochs on the basis of these sources. The slow but steady melting of the ice can be seen on 6,000 maps.

So far, the observation of climate change was mainly based on satellite images. To reconstruct the climatic conditions in the past, scientists used computer modelling or so-called ice core drilling.

For the first time, the WWF study systematically evaluates the climate observations of earlier epochs. The researchers analysed logbooks of seafarers and whalers, among other things. For more than 500 years, the captains have been recording weather conditions and special events, such as the appearance of whales or icebergs, in these logbooks.
[…]
As the oldest document, the records of Sir Hugh Willoughby were included in the investigation. The English captain set sail from London in 1553 with an attempt to find a northeast route to China. It remained with the attempt. His ship got stuck in the ice near Murmansk and most of the crew perished. However, his logbook was found. There is information about the weather conditions in the region of almost 500 years ago.

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator

german source

Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 15, 2019 8:48 am

I found now the archive, as my bookmarks have been out of date and it has moved to:
Historical Ice Chart Archive

Snarling Dolphin
September 15, 2019 8:12 am

In my experience nature is adept at exploiting every single opportunity it is presented with. Surely reduced ice cover has bee a boon to sea life. Perhaps some aspiring young degree seeker can check. The lesson taught mankind? Adapt.

James Clarke
Reply to  Snarling Dolphin
September 15, 2019 11:01 am

“Surely reduced ice cover has bee a boon to sea life. Perhaps some aspiring young degree seeker can check.”

Degree seekers learn early that ‘problems’ get attention, and good news is ignored (unfunded). You can’t get a good grade or hope for a career talking about the good things climate change is producing.

Phil.
Reply to  Snarling Dolphin
September 16, 2019 6:56 am

Surely reduced ice cover has bee a boon to sea life.

Not in the Bering sea apparently. The algae growth on the ice is a major source of nutrition there and the lack of sea ice there in the last two winters has had an impact on the sea life.

Snarling Dolphin
Reply to  Phil.
September 18, 2019 10:37 am

Maybe so but the Bering Sea is a teeny tiny part of the world and 2 years is less than a blink of the eye in terms of ecological niche exploitation. I’m sure Mother Nature is feeling no sense of panic regardless. On balance over time less ice = more life. It’s just common sense, is it not?

Phil.
Reply to  Snarling Dolphin
September 19, 2019 11:23 am

In the high Arctic seaice algae contributes over 50% of primary production, towards the edge of the ice sheet it’s lower at ~25%. The ice algae form before pelagic phytoplankton which requires warmer temperatures and more light. It’s not clear that less ice will lead to more life.

Robert W. Turner
September 15, 2019 8:19 am

Global sea ice has never recovered…from the malfunctioning and replacement of the DMSP F17 satellite.

Jeff Alberts
September 15, 2019 8:30 am

“Only circa 3.9 million square kilometres of the Arctic Ocean are covered by sea ice any more”

And? Why should we worry about these little blips?

TRM
September 15, 2019 8:35 am

“Record or not, this year confirms the continued long-term reduction of Arctic sea ice as a result of the “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” ” – Fixed it for them.

James Clarke
Reply to  TRM
September 15, 2019 10:35 am

I searched for the AMO in the comments, because that is the elephant in the room that the article is ignoring, and I wanted to see if anyone else mentioned it. You beat me to it, TRM!

Arctic sea ice extent has been changing every year for as long as any records exist, including the anecdotal ones. CO2 has been increasing significantly since the 1940s. If Arctic sea ice extent is only a function of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, than the ice extent would have started decreasing in the 1940s, but the decrease started 30 years later. Obviously there are other things at play. Some of the other things might be man-made, like soot from polluted air, but there are natural factors as well, that are not accounted for in the CO2 narrative above.

The narrative is setting itself up to fail when it ignores the natural variables, just like it did when it claimed that the record heat of 1999 was the result of increasing CO2. The global warming pause that followed was really embarrassing, and required another super El Nino to rescue it (sort of).

Javier
September 15, 2019 8:43 am

Liars, liars! 2016 minimum was 4.165 million km2 and 2007 was 4.155. The absolute minimum in 2012 was below 3.4 million km2

The lowest value so far this year was yesterday at 4.251 million km2 which makes it fourth lowest year, 86,000 km2 above 2016, and 96,000 km2 above 2007.

We don’t know yet what the September average will be, but pretty sure it will be above 2012 and 2007.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
You can zoom the chart all you want.

The real truth is that, despite all the doom predictions, Arctic summer sea ice has not decreased in 12 years, as I said it would happen a few years ago. Meanwhile CO2 has increased by >25 ppm. Alarmist predictions were absolutely ridiculous, as usual. They have no clue how the climate changes.

See for example Tamino that showed his absolute lack of knowledge about sea ice criticizing an article of mine in 2016:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/extreme-cherry-ice/
Are you eating crow Tamino? Three more years without a decline. Do you need more?

Reply to  Javier
September 15, 2019 10:09 am

I very much doubt that Tamino is “eating crow” at this juncture Javier, and AWI are not “liars”.

Once again, they are not quoting NSIDC data, or JAXA, or even Arctic ROOS.

They are quoting the Bremen AMSR2 numbers.

Javier
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 15, 2019 10:30 am

Well, he should. So these people are making their own “make believe” numbers. The official European numbers are produced by EUMETSAT OSISAF (Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility). They also show 2019 above 2012, 2007 and 2016.
http://osisaf.met.no/quicklooks/sie_graphs/nh/en/osisaf_nh_iceextent_daily_5years.png
http://osisaf.met.no/quicklooks/sie_graphs/nh/en/osisaf_nh_iceextent_daily_2019.png

Reply to  Javier
September 15, 2019 11:38 am

Whatever your opinion in these matters the OSI-SAF numbers are derived from SSMIS sensor data, whereas AWI/Bremen use AMSR2 data. Hence the extent numbers are inevitably going to be different.

Getting back to Tamino, is it possible to display images here? This summarises (if it shows anything at all!) his 2016 argument:

comment image

What’s your response?

Javier
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 15, 2019 12:29 pm

Tamino wouldn’t know what a climatic shift is even if it hit him in the head. Yet the climate is full of them given the periodical nature of oceanic oscillations, like the 1976 Pacific climate shift. His simplistic analysis is unable to predict anything, that’s why he gets everything wrong.
There was a fundamental shift in the Arctic in the 2006-2007 season as the data clearly shows.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/100517_1140_arcticicena5.png
comment image

The fact remains. No Arctic summer sea ice extent decrease since 2007. 12 years and counting. There is an unexpected and unrecognized pause in Arctic sea ice melting.

Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 15, 2019 12:41 pm

It looks as though displaying images in comments here is out of the question?

“Seasonal sea ice melt” based on extent numbers? Plus a polynomial fit! Surely you jest?

Javier
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 15, 2019 1:42 pm

The joke was to predict a summer sea-ice free Arctic for 2008, 2012, 2016, 2030…
Expert judgement in sea ice is worth nothing.

I should be updating this figure next month with 2018 & 2019 data.
comment image

Reply to  Javier
September 15, 2019 1:46 pm

It seems my “in jest” assessment was correct then 🙂

Javier
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 15, 2019 2:14 pm

So you think. Facts are stubborn. No summer Arctic sea ice decrease in 12 years. It should be 13 next year. Somebody should tell Greta. For most of her life Arctic sea ice has not melted and polar bears have been happy eating seal pups.

Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 15, 2019 2:55 pm

Javier,

I await your up to date extent graph with much anticipation.

I don’t suppose you’ve ever done something similar for volume have you?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 15, 2019 4:34 pm

Jim, multiyear ice is up sharply from those other years when extent was near where it is now.
At various times we were told by so called experts that in the end the ice would all vanish rapidly away, as loss of ice would inevitably accelerate.
This was obviously false.
At other times these same experts claimed that what really mattered was multiyear ice, and once IT was gone, there would never be any new thick multiyear ice.
This as well was proven to be false.
As we saw during the 1970s, a few very cold years could cause an amount of ice formation that would take decades to melt away.
There has been an increasing trend in multiyear ice going back to 2008.
The past two Winters have seen the entire Arctic covered with multiyear ice.
If history is any guide, the recent sharp rise in alarmist inanity will be answered by the actual Earth with the exact opposite of what is being predicted by “experts”.

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/01/expansion-of-thick-arctic-sea-ice-since-2008/

Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 16, 2019 12:34 am

Mornin’ Nicholas,

Oh no it isn’t!

You quote Steve/Tony at me? I’ve have just proved unequivocally (to my own satisfaction at least!) that he has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to Arctic sea ice. Please see:

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/04/northwest-passage-closed-for-business/#comment-249956

As luck would have it I have also recently produced this video, which assuming you believe the NSIDC sea ice age data reinforces the point that multi-year ice in the Arctic is currently as lower than it’s ever been (since satellite records began):

https://youtu.be/1Paq5Us1EPE

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 16, 2019 8:34 am

I am pretty sure they told us a bunch of years ago that all the thick multi year ice was gone and it was never coming back.
So how can it just now be lower than ever, logically speaking?
Only if there is a blizzard of BS flying around, that is how.
There is ample evidence of a ~60 year cycle.
The ice did not all melt suddenly away as we were warned it might.

But in any case…why is more ice better?
It is pretty clear that polar bears do fine no matter what ice is up to.
Stop hunting them and numbers explode.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 16, 2019 11:16 am

“It looks as though displaying images in comments here is out of the question?”

Images used to show up as pictures when you posted a link. That no longer happens now. There has never been an explanation for why the change.

WUWT at one point a couple of years ago, installed new comment software, that allowed for pictures to post and had “like” buttons and highlighted new posts with each new visit you made (which really makes sense when you have comments that run over 850), but then for some reason, the website crashed, presumably because of the new comment software, so the new software was removed and the comment software was reverted back to the primitive method we have now.

What’s strange about the current situation is that pictures could be posted *before* the new software update, and during the use of the new software, but when the new software was removed, somehow the posting of pictures never worked again.

Do I have that about right, Mods? 🙂

Would sure love an explanation as to why we have to put up with clunky software when much better versions are out there. What is the roadblock to good comment software?

If we want WUWT to speak to the world about the issue of human-caused Climate Change, then we should make the website as user-friendly as possible.

Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 16, 2019 1:46 pm

Nicholas,

Gotta link to the “they” of which you speak?

Did you watch the ice age animation?

Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 16, 2019 1:54 pm

Tom,

Thanks very much for the images history lesson.

As you may have gathered I am not a regular in here!

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 16, 2019 3:31 pm

I have been working Jim.
I will watch your video after dinner, and comment on it.
As for Tony Heller and agreeing or not agreeing with other things he has to say, I am not sure what bearing this has on the DMI maps he featured in that blog post I linked to.
It has an animation which flashes back and forth from the January 2008 sea ice thickness and volume map and chart, to the January 2019 one.
It looks fairly clear to me there is an increase over that time.
The only objection I could see is that the red area, the thickest ice, is perhaps somewhat diminished, but it is also more patchy so it is hard to say by eyeballing it.
But the increase in lesser thickness ice is dramatic from 2008 to 2019.
I have never learned how to make animations from a series of maps, but if someone who is able to do so was to go to the DMI site, and download ice volume/thickness maps from every year in that time frame, we could all get a good look at how the ice has evolved over the past 12 years.
One other point I have not seen anyone make is that there are several sources for sea ice data out there, and they all seem to disagree with each other somewhat. The difference from the lowest to the highest is pretty large.
But none show error bars on the maps they present. Given a wide variance from one estimate to another, I would be inclined to think that small differences from year to year that are smaller than the variance from one group’s estimates to another, should be taken as statistically equivalent. Whether ice is slightly more of less in any particular year over the past 12 is less significant to me than the fact that most “experts” were asserting back then that there would be a positive feedback effect from albedo, and the ice loss would accelerate as a matter of certainty, and the last bits would disappear very quickly.
We are not seeing that.
I look at charts all day long, and evaluate trends using stochastics and other statistical methods to predict trend reversals.
There is not obvious reason why such disparate sorts of data should me amenable to the same sort of pattern analysis, and yet it seems that this is often the case.
In short…the past 10-12 years look to me like a bottoming pattern, why if true means a trend reversal can be expected.
Adding to that the fact that for about a hundred years the sea ice up there appears to follow a cyclic pattern, not a linear one.
I expect that to continue to be the case.
The global warming crowd believes it is a one way trend, same as with global temps.
Time will tell.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 16, 2019 3:37 pm

As for who “they” are, of which I speak…I will take it for granted that you are genuinely not sure who I am referring to. It is a long list, from the media alarmists to the Peter Wadham’s of the climate science community. Mark Serreze, among others, and various people who are not sea ice experts but self appointed “climate experts”.
I would not be surprised if there was an article here in the archives with a list of predictions that have failed to materialize.
More after chores and dinner.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 16, 2019 3:55 pm

OK, I looked at your video…I did not realize it was just a short montage.
Several things…it is a short time segment of only, what, four years?
And it is from another source.
Anyone can pick a short time period and show a different trend from some other period.
The period around 2007 was significant because it was when the ice had a big melt off and the klaxon horns of alarm really became a cacophony. Various experts assured the world that the ice was gonna all be gone in a few years, although so many people said so many things that it is hard to nail anyone down…because the predictions were very inconsistent.
But the loudest voices were the most dire and certain of what was going to happen.
None of them predicted that 12 years hence the ice would be about the same. Far from it.
But it is about the same, and this is after several el niños and what have supposedly been year after year the warmest in history.
Still about the same.
There is still multiyear ice, and in a week or two all the ice remaining now becomes multi year ice as the season rolls over.
No sun spots, la niña forming, TSI at a very low value, optical clarity of the stratosphere very high, several decades since a major volcanic eruption sent a lot of SO2 into the stratosphere…
Stay tuned.
This movie is not over yet.
In the meantime…what harm has come from low sea ice for the past 12+ years?

Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 17, 2019 2:19 am

Good morning Nicholas (UTC),

I’ve been sleeping, and it seems I have a lot to catch up on!

Addressing your initial point, Tony Heller is a cherry picker par excellence. Since you link to an article of his I assume you approve of his methods, or possibly are merely unacquainted with them?

Why do you suppose Tony chose to display DMI thickness maps in that article? I suggest you look at the sea ice age animation I suggested once again, and also take a look at this longer term if less up to date one from NASA:

https://youtu.be/xlPVUB8svuI

Do you still agree with Tony’s “analysis”?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 17, 2019 11:06 am

I have a completely different perspective on the work that Tony Heller has done.
In my view, he has been one of the standout leaders in highlighting the bad science that has been foisted off onto the public, at exposing the extent and degree of adjustments to various data sets, and in general refuting alarmism.
He no doubt rubs many people the wrong way, but I see this as a consequence of his pointed refutations of people with big egos and weak or no justification for the things they predict or assert.
He uses official data sources and archives, press releases and historical accounts and interviews from a vast trove of digitized newspapers and periodicals, and does so very effectively to back up his assertions.
He is not just spouting off opinions given with no evidence.
He refutes specific things said by specific people with regard to specific predictions and assertions.
Using specific information to counter things said by other people is not what I would call cherry picking.
How else can one refute assertions, except by giving specific examples?
If someone makes a broad assertion that is untrue, one only need find specific information that refutes the assertion in order to prove it to be false.
Print journalists routinely make unfounded assertions blared in large above the fold headlines, based on out of date information, an isolated occurrence at some specific time many years ago, etc.
Greenland is an excellent example: After some years of above average melting there, many news outlets continued to blare that Greenland was melting down, while providing faulty, out of date, or outright false information.
The average person is in no position to be able to check on such reportage.
The average person remembers countless alarmist predictions, but can think of zero instances of the same people or sources admitting they were wrong, or follow up article in the MSM checking up on those predictions and letting everyone know when they were not born out by subsequent observation.
The press provides blatantly one sided coverage of anything that touches on global warming or climate change.
They do not even allow skeptical opinions or scientists with other views to appear in their pages of on their air…ever. This is stated policy for many of them. And they adhere to it assiduously.
BTW I did look at your animation…I commented that it was a short period of time and was itself chosen to show a recent high point in ice coverage and end here in the end of Summer melt season. When the post I linked to was made, it was January, and it was compared directly to the same day of the year, ten years ago, when the assertions and predictions he was refuting were made! So those people who said those things back then were wrong. Is that not good news? If it was gonna be a disaster when it was predicted, and up to now has not come to pass, why are not people relieved, rather than making fresh assertions of dire doom while implying they were right all along. they had been correct all along?
How can it always be “Worse than we thought”, and yet never happen, and then continue to be worse than they thought? Clearly it is not what they thought would happen.
Little has changed in 12 long years, and yet few layperson would know it from press accounts.
Certain types of people get mad when they are contradicted, and lash out angrily. Particularly if they are egotistical blowhards who have a history of being incorrect.
These are the people and entities he is addressing.

One of his recurring subjects is the problematic adjustments to historical data sets.
The people making these adjustments would have us believe every alteration is perfectly justified, well documented, easily understood and 100% proper to correct faulty data.
But then how to explain this one simple graph, linked to below?
No one has refuted this graph or proved it to be false or faulty.
And I think we can be pretty sure that they would have done so, if the graph itself was incorrect or made up, or a mere opinion.
The adjustments, when combined, forma perfectly straight line when plotted vs CO2, proving with an R-squared of 0.99 that the adjustments are in fact algorithmically derived to force the historical time series of temperature to match the CO2 concentration in the air.
The graphs of surface temperature bear no resemblance to what was universally accepted to represent measured data in past decades. The implications are grave and outrageous.
When official records can be altered by people with a vested interest, and done so in a way which in every case confirms their own hypothesis which is otherwise poorly supported, what becomes of science?
It becomes, by definition, a propaganda tool by people whose primary concern is not truth, but pushing a highly politicized point of view.

https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1150523905293148160?s=20

https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1150523905293148160?s=20

Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 18, 2019 12:07 pm

Evenin’ Nick,

You have spent an inordinate number of paragraphs avoiding answering my question. Answer me this:

Why do you suppose Steve/Tony chose to show his faithful follows the DMI thickness map instead of the US Navy’s?

comment image

The Navy seem to have neglected to update their certificates. You can click through any error messages in safety. Unless of course, like Tony, you don’t trust the Navy for some reason?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 18, 2019 2:20 pm

I think I did answer your questions. There were at least three in this comment:
“Since you link to an article of his I assume you approve of his methods, or possibly are merely unacquainted with them?”
Which I addressed with pretty much my entire last comment.
And this one:
“Why do you suppose Tony chose to display DMI thickness maps in that article?”
My guess is because they have a excellent website with many sorts of very good maps, good meaning they are detailed and have high resolution and are clearly identifiable what is being presented.
I have a question: How can you assert anyone who does not use the same source of data as you does not know what they are talking about, or are being dishonest. If that is true, someone could as easily say the same for another source.
Me, I have seen the people from NASA and the Navy many times, like in front of congress or at protests.
They have people at those places who are activists, and/or would have a lot of egg on their face when their predictions are not true.
What is wrong with DMI?
The maps are clearer. Everything is clearly labelled. They have all sorts of different ways of presenting, all easily searched. And as far as I know they are more interested in the actual situation and not political posturing.
Why DMI?
How should I know?

Someone using the ice mapping agency from one country rather than another is not a strong point or evidence that anything is amiss, necessarily.
And the site is archived very well.
And they are people who are very familiar with what is going on up there.
And they have, as far as I can tell, no one on the payroll who has made a career of sticking their neck out with specific predictions.

I started out making a very specific point about a particular time period, but now the questions have nothing to do with that.
The time period in question is significant for the reason already stated…lots of people made very loud and specific predictions of which they expressed what can only be called doubtless certainty, and they were wrong.

And you asked:
“Do you still agree with Tony’s “analysis”?”

I am pretty sure I answered this.
If you want to say one particular other data source says different, so he is wrong, then we could go on forever.
There appears to be general agreement that 2019 is not a new low, and last Winter had a lot of ice and a late beginning to the melt season.
I am really not sure what you are saying that is different.
And then you seem to be getting a little snippy about not answering your question, but you have asked several and each time it is somewhat different.
Why DMI and not the Navy?
I had to click on about five messages telling me not to open that page before it opened. That might be a good enough reason for some.
Some people no doubt would need to change settings to open those pages at all.

Again, what is wrong with DMI?
The source of data was not germane to the point I made that stated this conversation, but I am happy to change the subject.
But are we going to decide if there was an increase in thick ice from 2008-2019, January view?
Lets look at extent and area too, and lets look at as many sources as we can dig up, if there is reason to be skeptical of one source or metric.
They do all tell a slightly different story.

On another subject, I do not usually do this, especially since the last time I did the other guy disappeared after commenting here regularly for years…but I will go out on a limb and speculate that there will be, between now and the next solar max, increasing ice by every metric, and all of the values will be above that long term average line.
I would even bet on it.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 15, 2019 11:32 am

“…They are quoting the Bremen AMSR2 numbers…”

AMSR-2 data has only been available since 2013.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
September 15, 2019 11:58 am

You have a point Michael, although AMSR2 did capture the 2012 minimum.

Take the 2007 numbers with a pinch of salt, but I assume they used Aqua’s AMSR-E in that case. NSIDC have of course used a variety of different satellites for their data over the years.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 15, 2019 4:13 pm

The Bremen website https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/sea-ice-concentration/ says
1 June, 2002 to 4 Oct, 2011 (AMSR-E)
July, 2012 to 17 Nov, 2018 (AMSR2)

Despite what I had read elsewhere, it looks like some folks did go back and use 2012 data from AMSR2 (which was launched May 2012 but was to have spent time calibrating and validating).

Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 16, 2019 12:41 am

As you say Michael,

See also my recent comment upthread. I further assume that if AWI/Bremen want to look back beyond 2002 they use SSM/I, plus SSMIS to fill in the little gap.

Reply to  Javier
September 15, 2019 11:49 pm

“The lowest value so far this year was yesterday at 4.251 million km2 which makes it fourth lowest year”
No, according to their table data, September 14 was 4.171, very close, and still going down.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 16, 2019 2:12 am

There seems to be some confusion between the NSIDC daily Sea Ice Index numbers and the 5 day average displayed in their Charctic graph?

At the risk of repeating myself, neither number corresponds to the AMSR2 derived AWI/Bremen extent referred to in the OP.

Phil.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 18, 2019 7:07 am

Yes and today the daily value is at 4.100 below the values recorded at minimum in 2016 and 2007.

beng135
September 15, 2019 8:56 am

OMG! The sea ice is gone! What will we do?!? We’re going to run out of ice! The animals will have no ice to eat! Those that were standing on the ice will fall in & drown!

/extreme sarc

John Tillman
Reply to  beng135
September 15, 2019 9:30 am

Few if any animals rely on high summer Arctic sea ice for survival. The odd seal might haul out for a rest or to sun itself. Polar bears might wander around on it, but they don’t eat much in summer and would find more food on land.

Hungry polie sows emerging from their winter dena with cubs do rely on ringed seal pups in snow lairs on land fast ice in early spring to break their long fast.

Phil.
Reply to  John Tillman
September 16, 2019 7:36 pm

But lots of fish do!

Bruce Cobb
September 15, 2019 9:08 am

“…making it ever more likely that in a few decades the Arctic will be ice free in summer. This will mean drastic changes in the Arctic, with consequences for the climate and ecosystems, as well as for people, including us in Europe,” says Christian Haas.
Yeah, keep pounding that “ice free in summer” drum. Getting old, doncha think? And the Alarmist tagline about the “consequences” for climate, ecosystems, people, blah, blah, blah, that’s rich.
Science. Ever heard of it?

Rob_Dawg
September 15, 2019 9:10 am

> “Record or not, this year confirms the continued long-term reduction of Arctic sea ice as a result of climate change…”

Does not follow. Lots of things affect sea ice cover. Wind. Seasons. Ice breaking. Currents. To be able to tease out “climate change” from everything else with a dataset barely 40 years long is arrogance and hubris.

Greg
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
September 15, 2019 9:50 am

It’s not hubris, it politically motivated deception. That is why the announced this week to hit the media PR campaign, and not next week when they have some science to report.

September 15, 2019 9:42 am

In 1975 AMO started turning into the warm phase, in 1997 AMO passed the 0 index (smothed data)
So it’s time now to change into cooling mode, will see what will happen with seaice.

CO2isLife
September 15, 2019 9:53 am

News Flash!!! Arctic Sea Ice melts MOSTLY FROM BELOW. The melting is due to warm Pacific Ocean Waters entering the Arctic. What is warming the Oceans is melting the Arctic Ice, not the Atmosphere. CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 Micron won’t warm water. Visible radiation warms the Oceans. Clearer skies is why the Arctic Ice is melting, not CO2.

The water temp on the Pacific Side where the water enters is higher than the Atlantic side where it exists. That difference in temperature is the energy lost do melting ice. The atmospheric temperatures are mostly sub-zero. Ice doesn’t melt in sub-zero temperatures.

Guess what? Cloud cover has been decreasing.
comment image

Phil.
Reply to  CO2isLife
September 16, 2019 6:44 pm

Arctic Sea Ice melts MOSTLY FROM BELOW. The melting is due to warm Pacific Ocean Waters entering the Arctic. What is warming the Oceans is melting the Arctic Ice, not the Atmosphere. CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 Micron won’t warm water.

Certainly a lot of melting from below, but over 300W/m^2 of IR in the summer will certainly melt its share.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic-zone/np2008/gallery_np_weatherdata.html

rah
September 15, 2019 10:01 am

Nit picking over sea ice extent year to year as if it is a valid indicator of climate is just silly and for some on both sides of the climate change argument it seems to approach being a psychosis. One they wish to project on everyone. Year after year after year we see the same crap. An itch that no matter how much they scratch it never goes away that I suspect is just as irritating to rational people interested in climate and weather as their dog having fleas.

Year after year we have been subjected to memes of climate doom based on sea ice extent and projections by “scientists”. And year after year our lives go on with nobody but the relatively miniscule number of people that work or live in the Arctic being able to point to how sea ice extent being up or down relative to puny timescale means has effected their lives in any meaningful way.

The hype and obsession changes no ones minds. “Climate Change” remains at or very near the bottom of the list of concerns for everyday people getting on with their lives, Yet year after year we see the same cast worrying the same old tired Artic sea ice bone. It’s enough to make this truck driver pray for the
AMO to hurry up and go negative.

beng135
Reply to  rah
September 16, 2019 7:55 am

+100. I also see it as some kind of psychosis (Ice Derangement Syndrome?) since there are no obvious effects other than there is less ice in the summer (which recovers just months later). In fact, photosynthetic biologic productivity increases.

AZeeman
September 15, 2019 10:02 am

It’s now been established beyond a reasonable doubt that Arctic sea ice varies a lot. The amount it varies is not important unless the variation is down which is climate related. Any variations up are purely weather related.
What is more interesting is that it’s been well over 30 years since the normal deviation has been calculated. Presumably, the known variation is now too high for “climate science” purposes and is unsuitable for scary graphs.

john cooknell
September 15, 2019 10:15 am

Extent, Area.

I wish they would not confuse these two very different things, each has a different definition and measuring algorithm.

rah
Reply to  john cooknell
September 15, 2019 11:33 am

Area = Extent- voids/holes

September 15, 2019 10:15 am

As some have noted, Arctic winds during the melt season can push the ice around. Changing the apparent surface extent rather quickly.
One summer I worked on a property north of Yellowknife. In May our bush plane with skis landed on the ice on the lake. Maybe two feet thick, then the heat and sun turned to to very thick “candle ice” as they called it. Rotten and porous it was “bendy” to walk on. Then one day the wind came up and in very little time most of it was gone. Some pushed up on shore.
A practical indicator of Arctic temps seems to be the snow cover extent.
comment image
For this melt season the cover has been well above the high-side of the mean band.
The third consecutive season.
Last October the DMI reported that 2018 was unusual as was the average albedo through the summer.
The report noted much the same for the 2017 summer.

taxed
September 15, 2019 10:17 am

With the Arctic sea extent low this year, the odds are on that with this coming winter the NH snow extent will be high. lf 2007 and 2012 is any guide.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  taxed
September 16, 2019 7:03 pm

yep. and when the snow extent is high nect years minimum is higher

negative feedback

Tom Abbott
September 15, 2019 10:58 am

The satellite era mainly began about 1979, although there are satellites readings from a few earlier satellites, which is only about 40 years of record keeping, yet this is what the alarmists want to base all their calculation on.

The late 1970’s were the time of the coldest temperatures since the early 20th century, and were a time when many climate scientists were warning that the Earth might be entering into another Ice Age because the temperatures had been declining for decades with no end in sight (at least to the alarmists).

So the alarmists start with a record that starts in 1979, in the coldest period in decades and then wants us all to panic because after it warmed up in recent years, some arctic ice melted.

More arctic ice melting occurred during the 1930’s, but the alarmists don’t include this period in their calculations. The reason they don’t is because if they did, then people would see that we are not experiencing anything unprecedented weather-wise because this has all happened in the recent past, which means CO2 is not distorting Earth’s weather systems. The alarmists don’t want you to see that picture.

Just remember whenever discussing this subject to be sure to point out that arctic sea ice records started long before 1979, and the older records do not justify getting hysterical over current-day arctic sea ice melting.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 15, 2019 10:51 pm

Tom Abbott
“So the alarmists start with a record that starts in 1979, in the coldest period in decades and then wants us all to panic because after it warmed up in recent years, some arctic ice melted.”
Tom, with all due respect the point you are making is complete bunkem. I’ve never seem a graph showing 1979 as cooler than any year around it…. If you are going to make stuff up at least make it hard to find evidence you are telling porkies/Trumpies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
September 16, 2019 7:26 am

Simon wrote: “Tom, with all due respect the point you are making is complete bunkem.

That doesn’t sound very respectful. Oh, I see, you put “due” in there. So that’s just a backhanded slap under the appearance of civility.

Simon wrote: ” I’ve never seem a graph showing 1979 as cooler than any year around it….

I can understand that, Simon, since you don’t consider any chart except the bogus Hockey Stick chart as legitimate. Yes, your Hockey Stick chart doesn’t show the magnitude of the cold period of the 1970s. This was necessary in order for the Climategate Chalatans to erase the 1930’s warm period. They cooled the past which made the subsequent years look warmer including the 1970’s. But it’s all just a Big Lie meant to fool people, Simon.

Simon wrote: ” If you are going to make stuff up at least make it hard to find evidence you are telling porkies/Trumpies.”

Well, I don’t expect a fair judgement out of you, but I’m fine with allowing others to make up their own minds about who is telling porkies and who isn’t.

So here’s some evidence that the 1970’s were a very cold period in history. Recall that climate scientists were warning of a new Ice Age back then. Thanks for this opportunity to straighten you out, Simon.

Now, here a chart of the arctic. See that cold period in the late 1970’s on the chart?

comment image

Here’s a chart of the AMO. See that cold period in the late 1970’s? See the simliar cold period in the 1910’s? See the warm peaks in the 1930’s?

comment image

And here’s the Hansen 1999 US surface temperature chart. See the cold period in the late 1970’s? See the cold period in the 1910’s? See the warm peaks in the 1930’s?

comment image

There are three charts that show the 1970’s cold period. Are you going to continue to call this data “porkies”?

And just for the fun of it, here’s the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart Simon hangs his hat on:

comment image

Now, looking at this chart, it is understandable that Simon doesn’t see any cold spike in the 1970’s because the Data Manipulators changed the surface temperature chart from looking like the Hansen 1999 chart to the “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart. In the process they not only erased the hot period of the 1930’s, they also erased the cold period of the 1970’s, even though it is common knowledge among climate scientists that the 1970’s was a very cold period in our history. It’s instructive of something that this little picadillo of the Hockey Stick chart is never mentioned.

Here’s a comparison of Hansen 1999, the *true* temperatue profile of the Earth (just as warm in the 1930’s as today), with the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

All unmodified regional temperature charts from around the world and in both hemispheres, resemble the temperature profile of the Hansen 1999 chart. NONE of the unmodified regional charts resemble the “hotter and hotter” temperature profile of the bogus Hockey Stick chart.

Simon, if you are basing your understanding on the Hockey Stick chart, you are making a big mistake. The facts are out there if you care to see them.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 16, 2019 12:02 pm

Tom
It is so laughable that you accuse main stream scientists of producing bogus graphs then you put up a bunch of graphs that wouldn’t be out of place in a comedy sketch. I can see why you think the 70’s were cool if you believe the tripe in that data. It’s amazing what the internet will allow you to find if you look hard enough. Yawn….

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
September 16, 2019 2:58 pm

I didn’t figure you would be impressed, Simon. You already have your mind made up.

You know, if I were afraid for my grandchildren’s future because of possible harm by CO2, I would be looking to see if maybe the doomsters were not wrong about their claims and perhaps they missed some crucial point that would negate the coming disaster. I wouldn’t buy into their scaremongering right off the bat, I would have to have some evidence of what they say.

One little piece of evidence would change a skeptic to a believer, Simon. Got any? No, you don’t. You could prove me wrong but you won’t because you can’t, because there is no evidence. The same thing happens every time a skeptic asks for evidence: Silence from the alarmists. That ought to tell everybody something about the state of climate science when the scaremongers can’t even produce one shed of evidence showing human-caused climate change. They are reduced to seeing CAGW in every weather system and thunderstorm.

I don’t see that you or your grandchildren have anything to worry about, Simon. I’m sorry my reassurances won’t make any difference to you, as I assume you will continue to worry.

It’s really a shame what the Data Manipulating Conspirators of Climategate and beyond have done to people. I don’t think their behavior will get them past the Pearly Gates. They might get away with it here on Earth. Maybe.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Simon
September 16, 2019 7:14 pm

Simon, how old are you?
The 1970s being cool is a fact, massaged out of existence by the climate mafia.
If you are unable to believe that, it only proves you are very gullible and probably very young.
Every single graph and interview and photograph and historical account says the same thing prior the advent of global warming alarmism.
Many of us grew up in those days, and were in college studying this stuff long before anyone dreamed up global warming alarmism.
Me for one.
Tom Carl of NOAA, in a 1989 interview:
https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1160940811699347456?s=20

Changes to NASA GISS global average surface temperature graphs between 2000 and 2019. From 2017 to 2019 they altered the trend data by over 0.5°C!

https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1152807348555137024?s=20

By 2000 though, the graphs had already been altered so much that they bear no relationship with the data that was actually measured at the time by the people reading the thermometers.
Here are graphs from NCAR in 1974, NASA GISS in 1981, the IPCC in 1995, and one of the Greenland ice core data for the past 10,000 years:
https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1150655100509143040?s=20

Here is a memo from James Hansen of NASA GISS in 1999 lamenting that the US was not showing any warming for over 100 years. By then the global time series had already been massaged into shape by “climate scientists”, but actually changing US data took a lot more gumption. But they eventually learned how to bury the last honest bone in their bodies within a few years. Nowadays, they adjust the hell out of even recent data to ensure every year is a new hottest year evah.
https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1150655100509143040?s=20

Here are graphs of the long term temp trend in Iceland’s capital, an excerpt from a article about global cooling that was in National Geographic in 1976, and a graph of the satellite time series of global temp since 1979 showing that the Earth is less that 0.4°C warmer than the perhaps the coldest year in the past century:
https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1148787183039524864?s=20

Anyone who decides to go check on the whole story for themselves finds out the same thing.
I will leave it to you to decide if you feel like learning anything, or if you like to be lied to by people you thought you could trust.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 17, 2019 1:13 am

“I will leave it to you to decide if you feel like learning anything, or if you like to be lied to by people you thought you could trust.”
Nicholas… Those graphs of yours are not good enough to go on the back of a cornflakes packet. Sorry my boy but it is not me who is being lied to. All adjustments done by the mainstream data centres are fully explained and justified. If you don’t like them, write a paper explaining why. Many have tried and all failed. The GWPF tried a few years ago and never got past first base. A crackpot team in New Zealand (The Climate Science Coalition) took NIWA to court and were laughed out of town. Actually they were ordered to pay costs but ran for the hills costing the NZ tax payer 80 grand. Many spout here about the corruption of the data, but no one can prove it beyond a few crayon quality graphs.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Simon
September 17, 2019 11:58 am

You have drunk too deeply of the KoolAid my friend.
It appears you are beyond hope of being informed and educated.
You dismiss information that conflicts with your prior assumptions out of hand and with no justification.
Every scrap of information that has been shown to you is from official sources.
None is opinion.
Many are from the same organizations you find credible, but then you cast scorn and derision on the mere suggestion that there is more to this story that your gullible mindset has locked into place inside your apparent cement like noggin.
Your mind is locked up tight, and no contrary facts will be permitted to intrude upon your smug and self assured worldview.
The fact is you have been duped, hook line and sinker, and are walking around completely certain of the veracity of a blizzard of lies.
Good luck wit’ dat.

Martin Hovland
September 15, 2019 10:58 am

When it comes to freezing the vessel ‘Polarstern’ into the polar Ice in the Laptev Sea, this is a chilling and interesting experiment. This location is chosen because there should only be one-year old ice there. Thus, there is little danger of getting aggressive ‘skru’is’, or compressive ice ridges. Let’s hope they have chosen the right location, and that they have a bon voyage.

tty
Reply to  Martin Hovland
September 16, 2019 3:54 am

Has been done before in the same area. Fram was first, in 1893. So, what could be done 126 years ago, may still be possible, perhaps not very impressive.

And if you think compression ridges only occur in multiyear ice you are sadly ignorant, Öresund off Malmö February 1940 (admittedly a very bad ice winter):

comment image

Editor
September 15, 2019 11:07 am

No sign of the “second lowest” on DMI

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Reply to  Paul Homewood
September 15, 2019 11:46 am

How many times do I need to repeat this Paul?

AWI are not referring to the DMI numbers. They are talking about the Bremen AMSR2 numbers!

Bindidon
Reply to  Jim Hunt
September 15, 2019 5:24 pm

Jim Hunt

Not only facts can be stubborn, I guess.

Reply to  Bindidon
September 16, 2019 12:43 am

Good morning Bindidon (UTC),

Quite so!

Reply to  Paul Homewood
September 15, 2019 7:07 pm

Look at the operational record, the red dot.

2hotel9
September 15, 2019 11:48 am

” 3.9 million square kilometres” So, the Arctic is still frozen, and going to freeze even more in the coming months, leading to thawing in the months after that, then to freezing in the months after that, meaning the only problem is the spewing of politically motivated crap. Got it.

Dennis G Sandberg
September 15, 2019 12:00 pm

Why all this attention paid to the “lowest extent of the year”? That’s like only looking at the hottest day in each year and determining a “climate” trend from that data. Take a look at the July 21 and December 21 data at NSIDC.ORG. Charctic. The lines essentially cover each other up indicating that from 2007-2019 ice extent has been essentially unchanged (ignore a couple “flyer years” that are clearly weather not climate related).