Claim: Past evidence supports complete loss of Arctic sea-ice by 2035

A new study, published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, supports predictions that the Arctic could be free of sea ice by 2035.


A new study, published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, supports predictions that the Arctic could be free of sea ice by 2035.

High temperatures in the Arctic during the last interglacial – the warm period around 127,000 years ago – have puzzled scientists for decades. Now the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre climate model has enabled an international team of researchers to compare Arctic sea ice conditions during the last interglacial with present day. Their findings are important for improving predictions of future sea ice change.

During spring and early summer, shallow pools of water form on the surface of Arctic sea-ice. These ‘melt ponds’ are important for how much sunlight is absorbed by the ice and how much is reflected back into space. The new Hadley Centre model is the UK’s most advanced physical representation of the Earth’s climate and a critical tool for climate research and incorporates sea-ice and melt ponds.

Using the model to look at Arctic sea ice during the last interglacial, the team concludes that the impact of intense springtime sunshine created many melt ponds, which played a crucial role in sea-ice melt. A simulation of the future using the same model indicates that the Arctic may become sea ice-free by 2035.

Joint lead author Dr Maria Vittoria Guarino, Earth System Modeller at British Antarctic Survey (BAS), says:

“High temperatures in the Arctic have puzzled scientists for decades. Unravelling this mystery was technically and scientifically challenging. For the first time, we can begin to see how the Arctic became sea ice-free during the last interglacial. The advances made in climate modelling means that we can create a more accurate simulation of the Earth’s past climate, which, in turn gives us greater confidence in model predictions for the future.”

Dr Louise Sime, the group head of the Palaeoclimate group and joint lead author at BAS, says:

“We know the Arctic is undergoing significant changes as our planet warms. By understanding what happened during Earth’s last warm period we are in a better position to understand what will happen in the future. The prospect of loss of sea-ice by 2035 should really be focussing all our minds on achieving a low-carbon world as soon as humanly feasible.”

Dr David Schroeder and Prof Danny Feltham from the University of Reading, who developed and co-led the implementation of the melt pond scheme in the climate model, say:

“This shows just how important sea-ice processes like melt ponds are in the Arctic, and why it is crucial that they are incorporated into climate models.”


The work is funded by NERC, grant number NE/P013279/1 and is part of the TiPES project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme

Sea ice-free Arctic during the Last Interglacial supports fast future loss by Maria Vittoria Guarino, Louise Sime, David Schroeder, Irene Malmierca-Vallet, Erica Rosenblum, Mark Ringer, Jeff Ridley, Daniel Feltham, Cecilia Bitz, Eric Steig, Eric Wolff, Julienne Stroeve, Alistair Sellar is published in the journal Nature Climate Change:

305 thoughts on “Claim: Past evidence supports complete loss of Arctic sea-ice by 2035

  1. “Using the model to look at Arctic sea ice during the last interglacial, the team concludes that the impact of intense springtime sunshine created many melt ponds, which played a crucial role in sea-ice melt”

    And that it was about 5C warmer in the Eemian should also be taken into account maybe.

    In any case sea ice melt in the current warm period of the Holocene does not appear to be driven by atmospheric temperature.

    • Most of the alarmists are predicting that kind of warming, or more.
      The real world, still fails to heed the models.

      • I prdict that by 2035 the climate alarmist movement will be free of any significant political or scientific support.

      • “The new Hadley Centre model is the UK’s most advanced physical representation of the Earth’s climate”

        I hope they haven’t disposed of the runes and chicken guts. They were the most accurate forecasting tools they ever used.

        • Climate Models are not “Physical” representations. They are mathematical constructs that are the product of partial understanding of the climate system and contain numerous assumptions that have not been validated. Calling them a Physical representation is a gross exaggeration of what they actually are.

          • Since climate models aren’t physical anyway, they can’t be a physical representation of anything. They’re a virtual representation, and highly incomplete at that.

          • Once pon a time, long long ago but on this very planet an 3rd year engineering student class was given the task of choosing something to model and then seek an optimum solution. Being a poor, starving student I decided to model a healthy diet with a view to minimising its cost. My lecturer was not happy with such a non-engineering focus but such is life.

            I came up with soy beans and spinach as the cheapest way to supply all the energy and nutrients that the human body needs. So, on the one hand I demonstrated the viability of veganism and simultaneously just what an optimised mathematical modelled world might look like. I did not do a sensitivity study regarding unit pricing or even one which identified the next chepest combinations but hey, thats modelling for you, once you have a result’ ya gotta run with it cos thats what you are being rewarded for. I got a pass and some red ink commentary for my efforts.

          • They left out the prefix “meta” when describing their models.

            Ask them to fix that, and it’s all good, no?

    • The reported modeling disagrees with paleoproxy observations from 2017. Of course. And with previous simulations based upon such data:

      Arctic Ocean sea ice cover during the penultimate glacial and the last interglacial

      Coinciding with global warming, Arctic sea ice has rapidly decreased during the last four decades and climate scenarios suggest that sea ice may completely disappear during summer within the next about 50–100 years. Here we produce Arctic sea ice biomarker proxy records for the penultimate glacial (Marine Isotope Stage 6) and the subsequent last interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage 5e). The latter is a time interval when the high latitudes were significantly warmer than today. We document that even under such warmer climate conditions, sea ice existed in the central Arctic Ocean during summer, whereas sea ice was significantly reduced along the Barents Sea continental margin influenced by Atlantic Water inflow. Our proxy reconstruction of the last interglacial sea ice cover is supported by climate simulations, although some proxy data/model inconsistencies still exist. During late Marine Isotope Stage 6, polynya-type conditions occurred off the major ice sheets along the northern Barents and East Siberian continental margins, contradicting a giant Marine Isotope Stage 6 ice shelf that covered the entire Arctic Ocean.

      The Eemian is variously dated from around 130 to 115 Ka, +/-2.

      • À la recherche d’interglaiares perdus:

        MIS 5, Eemian (~130-115 Ka): warmer and longer lasting than the current Holocene.
        MIS 7, La Bouchet (~242–230 Ka): two peaks separated by a cool interval, with the first warmer, but less so than the Eemian.
        MIS 9, Purfleet (British term) (~337-300 Ka): Less toasty than the Eemian and possibly the Holocene Climatic Maximum.
        MIS 11, Hoxnian (British) (~424-374 Ka): Hottest and longest of recent interglacials.
        MIS 13, Cromerian (British) (~524-474 Ka): Split into three warm peaks separated by two cooler phases, following a weak glacial.

  2. If the Arctic Ocean was ice free 127000 years ago, why are so many so-called climate experts wetting their pants over the possibility of that same event occurring once again.

    • “David Kamakaris August 11, 2020 at 6:12 am
      If the Arctic Ocean was ice free 127000 years ago, why are so many so-called climate experts wetting their pants over the possibility of that same event occurring once again.”

      Interesting question by David Kamakaris.

      Maybe this whole narrative of fearful impacts of fossil fuels is just a case of shit happens but something that can be used to sell the snake oil of your choice. The Eemian would have surely made for a better snake oil sales opportunity because their WAIS + SLR orgasm had come true back then. The whole of the WAIS had had collapsed with catastrophic sea level rise. The Eemian link is in my prior comment.

    • Good point. There many periods in the past that were warmer than the present. From all indications, life flourished during these periods. So what’s the problem?

    • Another study
      Another model
      Another scary climate prediction
      Ho hum

      Also, 2035 does not matter.

      The world will end in 12 years
      according to Perfesser Greta.

      2020 plus 12 years is 2032.

      So who cares what is allegedly
      going to happen in 2035 ?

      These people have some nerve
      calling themselves scientists.

      • …. and then there’s the data. Arctic summer sea ice minima started bottoming out around 2007 (an inconvenient Gore effect on steroids). Looks like this year will be no exception:

        The interactivity of this site is really good. Check out 2007 and 2019 traces.

        Arctic ice bedwetters do try to save on laundry bills please.

        Antarctica is interesting too. When is that sea ice going to disappear? 130,000 years from now?

      • She said that in January of last year, maybe even before that. We only have until 2030 for that failed prediction to come to pass.

    • The ice free sea of that time was because of the then orbital mechanics. Without that Milankovitchian influence we today see the lowest ice levels since that ice free period. Or observable impact from climate change.

      Perhaps you’d like to tell me why an ice free arctic doesn’t have an influence on future climate from that point? (a warming influence)

      • Griff,

        nothing horrible happened then, thus nothing horrible will happen in 15 years.

        How come Polar Bears and the Seals they eat are in abundance today, despite low summer sea ice level values?

        • Thomas Pearson says :

          They simply refuse to perish, in spite of the warmist’s fervent hopes.

        • What polar bears?
          They became extinct during the Roman warming period.
          Then they became extinct again during the Medieval Warming period.

          • They first went extinct during the Eemian, warmer and less icy than any time in the Holocene. Then they died out again during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Then they were yet again wiped out in the Egyptian and Minoan Warm Periods.

            They are bears of great resilience. They re-evolve during every climatic downturn, disappear in the following cyclical warming, only to re-re-evolve in the subsequent cooling.

            Hard to die, those ringed seal-eating monsters!

        • Tom: FWIW: and no-one – nobody on the planet – can tell its inhabitants what the ideal climate should be, or how to achieve it. Thereby lies the scam, and the reason why ‘they’ think it can succeed.

      • Oh griff, you said Milankovitch. Be careful, or you might get trapped into having to explain how CO2 causes orbital irregularities, in addition to its time-traveling control of atmospheric temperature.

      • Now that we know the arctic has been ice free in the recent past (geologically speaking), griff now has to try and pretend that why the arctic is ice free matters.

        The ice levels are low because the current phase of the AMO/PMO are pumping large amounts of warm water into the arctic.

        Loss of sea ice in the arctic means the arctic becomes a much more efficient radiator, pumping huge amounts of heat into space. The claims that the sun hitting the waters will cause the waters to further warm has been refuted many times over. But as always, useful lies will be repeated ad infinitum by those who are being paid to do so.

      • Griffiepoo,

        You’ve been asked many, many times how Polar Bears survived the Holocene Warm Period. Why have you never once given an answer?

        BTW, you’re beginning to sound a bit desperate and hysterical, almost as though you know deep down the game is up for your lies.

      • Arctic sea ice was lower than now not just in the Eemian, the previous interglacial, but also during this one, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, possibly 8000, 9000 and 10,000 years ago.

        Yet again your prediction for Icemageddon this year has been shown wrong, just as in 2013. 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.

      • Griff, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Arctic will be ice free by 2035. Can you tell me why the 2035 ice free Arctic was caused by anthropogenic CO2 and not whatever natural forcings that caused the Eemian ice free conditions, poorly understood though they may be? I’ll wait.

      • Arctic was regularly pretty much Ice Free for most of the first 3/4 of the current interglacial.

        Current levels are WAY ABOVE the Holocene norm. !

      • WRONG AGAIN griff.

        The LIA was the ANOMALY… thank goodness for the partial recovery !

        And which Milankovič cycle caused The Little Ice Age?
        The 26,000 year precession (only halfway through)?
        The 41,000 year axial tilt (only about halfway through its cycle)?
        Or the 10,000 year orbital eccentricity (not expected to finish the current cycle for about 50,000 years)?

        Show us all your expertise on the Milankovič cycles… LOL

        or did you just read the words somewhere! 😉

      • No need to speculate about an ice-free Arctic and its influence on the climate since it isn’t going to happen for a long time. We don’t know why we entered a glacial period nor when it will end.

    • 1 – The word they didn’t use was ‘seasonally’. There will still be ice in the winter.
      2 – There is evidence that the arctic has been seasonally ice free during the Holocene.
      3 – The polar bears survived previous episodes of a seasonally ice free arctic. Against the expert predictions of people like Dr. Ian Stirling, for whom I actually have a lot of respect, the polar bears are not doomed by a seasonally ice free arctic ocean.

    • Yeah…just what is it about perpetually frozen wastelands that is supposed to be so vital for human beings and life in general?
      Now, when the polar regions went from being filled with life to all but sterile…now that was a catastrophe!
      Imagine how many species and how much habitat must have existed when Antarctica was a covered in plants and roaming with animals?
      And when it froze over, imagine the dying that took place.

    • It’s refreshing that they finally acknowledge it. For years we have heard that the current melt is “unprecedented”.
      Cue griff in 3 – 2- 1-

    • It’s what happens after the Arctic Ocean is ice-free that is interesting. A ‘for public consumption’ article that looks at that is at:

      The gentlemen who were interviewed for the article also had two papers published in “Science”.

      Quote: These two serious, careful scientists — geophysicist Maurice Ewing, director of Columbia University’s Lamont Geological Observatory, and geologist-meteorologist William Donn believe they have finally found the explanation for the giant glaciers, which four times during the past million years have advanced and retreated over the earth. If they are right, the world is now heading into another Ice Age. It will come not as sudden catastrophe, but as the inevitable culmination of a process that has already begun in northern oceans. End quote.

      It’s a 15 to 20 minute read – well worth the time…..

      • That’s from 1958, before Betty Friedan gained notoriety.

        Scientists now know that there were ten, not just four, glaciations in the past million years.

        The abrupt end to the Younger Dryas which the profiled scientists studied is also now better understood.

        • John Tillman

          Thanks for the update on the number of ice ages John. I didn’t become interested in Global Warming till about a year ago – I still have a lot to learn, especially about the earlier work.

          I pulled up a web page on one of the papers they had in “Science” – it showed a partial image of the first page. Their thoughts were apparently respectable enough to be published.

          When it gets to just who can I believe, I quickly learned about the Bristlecone Pine. I walked among those trees in the White Mountains in 1975. Then I find out – the tree ring data headed down when thermometers went up. Gave me an insight into the thinking of certain researchers. I’m still learning.

          It’s the little things. What I knew as the “International Geophysical Year” when I was in High School is now known as the “Third Polar Year” – which meant I had a lot more reading to do; the First and Second Polar Years, and the Fourth and Fifth. So much to look at, so little time.

  3. “low carbon future”…you’re made of carbon–you first!

    Yes, lets kill off all plant life because we need to save the ice. Sounds like a great idea!

  4. “low carbon future”…you’re made of carbon–you first!

    Yes, lets knock off all plant life because we need to save the ice. Sounds like a great idea!

    *made an oops..used the moderation word K & L L*

  5. The advances made in climate modelling means that we can create a more accurate simulation of the Earth’s past climate, which, in turn gives us greater confidence in model predictions for the future.”

    What circular logic!! Because we believe our model’s simulation of the past, er believe even MORE in its simulation of the future. I DO believe in faeries, I DO believe in faeries….

    • Are systems that appear chaotic actually predictable once enough is known about how they work? Is the climate system chaotic or predictable? Do we just need more model pieces to put the puzzle together? How are volcanic eruptions, extra terrestrial impacts and clouds going to be modeled?

      • > Is the climate system chaotic or predictable?
        Climate is chaotic, you can’t predict it exactly like “it will be raining on the 14th of July, 2044 in Rome at 10 AM”. However, you can calculate the average (or mean) of a lot variables with very good accuracy, like precipitation, temperature, etc. Like rainfall in Italy will be 223 mm plusminus whatever in 2044 (data is made up). Current models match observations very well.

        • “…we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
          – IPCC AR4 WG1

          You got three words right, “Climate is chaotic”. Very good, but if you try harder, you could reach fourth word, sometimes in future. If you´re lucky.

          Current models run 3C-6C too hot.

    • > What circular logic!!
      No, it’s not. They have a climate reconstruction for past climates, and simulations match this reconstruction accurately. In other words, models have passed a very strong test. Again.

      • “models have passed a very strong test”

        The ones that sashay down the catwalks at fashion shows certainly have, but the gimpy ones that knuckle-drag out of universities are pathetic.

        • > When have they ever matched these reconstructions “accurately”?
          Now and back. “Accuracy” means within error bounds, and they are narrowing those bounds each year. Reconstructions are getting better as well.

      • Incorrect. Models have been FORCED (“tuned”) by twiddling hundreds of parameters until they reproduce historical data. They have zero predictive skill.

      • Oh, please. When running climate models for the past they already know the answer. Any fool can predict the past. The models are full of arbitrary factors that can be adjusted – it’s known as parameterisation. Obviously these factors will be adjusted in such a way as to get the best fit with the past climate. It’s little more than curve-fitting and it does not rely on any improved understanding of how the climate works.

        With this in mind, an obvious prediction would be that the models predict the past climate quite well, but they fail miserably to predict the future. This is exactly what has happened. Over decades the models have predicted roughly three times more warming than actually occurred. In other words, they are junk, you could probably do better by flipping a coin. And studies, like this one, that assume the models really do model how the climate works are also junk.

      • Do those very strong tested passed models show what was the reason to past warmer periods? Like the one in the beginning of last century?

  6. depends on what “ice free” means….

    Had a conversation with Julienne one time about that….

    …she tells me “ice free” means anything less that 1 million square kilometers

    now that’s the size of Egypt…..and for any normal person….that is hardly ice free

  7. And then 2045… er, 2055… we meant 2065…

    As long as there’s money funding this doodoo it will always be just around the corner.

  8. Waiting for Griff (the slanderer) to come on and say how bad the arctic ice looks now, its going to be the second worst on record, oh wait it took a right turn on him and is now behind even last year.

    • But last year was the 2nd lowest on record. Even with average melt to end of season it is highly unlikely to come in now lower than third. which would put 4 of the 5 lowest values in the last 5 years.

      and it has been at lowest for date for some weeks now, which ought to be of concern

      • Still not as low as 2012.
        The world is still warming up out of the Little Ice Age.

        You have yet to give a solid reason as to why a completely ice free arctic would be a problem.

      • last year was the 2nd lowest on record. Even with average melt to end of season it is highly unlikely to come in now lower than third. which would put 4 of the 5 lowest values in the last 5 years.

        Come on Griff. That’s goalpost moving. The predictions are for summer ice-free Arctic, not for low ice. Let’s see the record of failed predictions by climate scientists regarding Arctic sea ice:

        9. Arctic sea ice predictions

        2007 Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski from Dept. Oceanography of the US Navy predicted an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer 2013, and said the prediction was conservative.
        2007 NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally predicted that the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer in 2012.
        2008 University of Manitoba Prof. David Barber predicted an ice-free North Pole for the first time in history in 2008.
        2010 Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC predicts the Arctic will be ice free in the summer by 2030.
        2012 Prof. Peter Wadhams, head of the polar ocean physics group at the University of Cambridge (UK), predicted a collapse of the Arctic ice sheet by 2015-2016.

        Reality check: No decrease in September Arctic sea ice extent has been observed since 2007.

        We’ll just add this new prediction for 2035 to the list of failed predictions in due time.

        • Didn’t Al Gore claim the Arctic would be ice-free by 2007?

          The last time it was this warm, in the Early Twentieth Century, the arctic ice levels were also low.

          Then the world cooled off for a few decades and the ice levels increased.

          • Al Gore isn’t qualified to make predictions about science. He was just repeating Maslowski’s prediction.

      • Last year was the fourth lowest:

        2012: 3387 M sq km
        2007: 4155
        2016: 4165
        2019: 4192
        2011: 4344

        Why do you keep lying, when year after year, you’ve been shown reality, according to NOAA?

      • griff, ready to accept, that the Greeland melting period seems to be over ? 😀
        4 billion tons new snow in one day

        On 10.8.2020, the Greenland ice has grown by 4 billion tonnes (4 Gt) due to the fourth snow bomb in a row: this is very unusual at this time of year and should be a new daily record: In the lower graph, the blue line is far above the zero line in the white area of the previously unmeasured increase. After heavy snowfalls on 7 and 8 August 2020 without loss of mass, an unusually early gain in mass had already occurred in the Greenland ice sheet on 9 August 2020. The mass balance is thus much more favourable than in the WMO climate mean 1981-2010, which has been binding worldwide since 2015, at this time of year (lower graph, blue line clearly above the dark grey line).

        Translated with (free version)


      • WRONG as always

        Biodata clear shows that Arctic sea ice levels were MUCH LOWER during at least 90% of the last 10,000 years

        The record you refer to is pitifully short and totally meaningless….

        But you KNOW that, don’t you griff..

        Why are you such a manic CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER, griff?.

    • By the way, please provide evidence of my ‘slander’ I can pass to my legal team… or you could just argue based on evidence?

        • Has it been that long since he smeared Susan Crockford?

          I noticed Susan treated Griff very well in a recent comment. I thought that showed a lot of character on her part.

      • If you had a legal team they would tell you slander is verbal defamation, libel is written defamation.

        • If you had a legal team they would tell you slander is verbal defamation, libel is written defamation.

          Fair point, but you need to direct it to Bob boder, not griff.

          • Anyone that has been here for a long time will remembesr when Griff made all kinds of accusations about Susan Crockfords credentials only to have dozens of people through it right back in his face. He accused Willie Soon of being both a fraud and being on the take, was made to look like a fool again. Hes done it to many contributes here and when ever someone passes a study he doesn’t like he attacks the author. For him to state” or you could just argue based on evidence?” is beyond laughable. Why Anthony lets on the site i will never know.

      • Griff

        Take the bet.
        You name the year that the north pole will be open water and if it happens then or before I will never post again. If not you never post again. Your buddy TonyM took the bet and lost and isn’t here any more, but at least he had the guts to take the bet.

        Griff has been spewing his none sense for ever now, 6 or 7 (around 2012) years ago he was sure the north pole would be ice free with in a few years, but like all frauds he just moves the goal posts when he’s proven wrong.

      • You would have to be one of the most slimy little climate change deniers there is, griff.

        Pretending you have a legal team… LOL

        Paid for from the climate trough, no doubt ! 😉

        You are a JOKE !

      • “or you could just argue based on evidence?”

        Something that griff is INCAPABLE of doing !

        He only know mindless anti-science propaganda pap.

        • Yessh!

          Griff is science denier, like “them” all. I use that term, and “they” turn red and start screaming. It works and it´s funny.

      • griff

        “my legal team”…..Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah!

        Where did your Dog get it’s degree in Law from?

        The University of Kenneltucky?

    • I think it’s up to about 5 years he has been bleating on about the ice. We had him shipping up plastic islands for the polar bears for a while, solving both the plastic waste problem at helping the bears. Hey it would be more than any climate scientist has done and at least it would be practical.

      • its bin a lot more than 5 years, he was sure 2013 was going to be the year and than when it wasn’t he started shifting dates.

    • take the bet Griff (the slanderer)!
      your full sh** and have been since the first post you ever made.

  9. Is there no end to the things that scientists can take money for?

    During the Cold War it was nice and simple. They took money for developing weapons. But since the Cold War has ended, we have seem a HUGE expansion in the sorts of things scientists can offer.

    We have just closed much of the West’s economy down in order to have a go at eradicating a common flu virus. With no preparation, so much of what we were doing was ill-informed and based on blind hope.

    So we’re now going to have a go at eliminating an Interglacial. Good luck with that.

    Perhaps the next wild idea will be to reposition Pluto so that it can become a planet again? Really, I think that i might prefer war. At least you know where you are with an enemy…

  10. This is entirely consistent with the observed rate of decline over the 41 years of the satellite record.

    NASA says ‘September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 12.85 percent per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.’

    This year’s extent is just in third lowest for date, after a long spell as lowest for date…

    The NSIDC news bulletin from start of august may prove enlightening:

        • Since the article repeats the lie that a lack of sea ice will mean the sun will warm the arctic waters in the summer, nothing else it mentions is worth paying attention to.

        • griff, ready to accept, that the Greeland melting period seems to be over ? 😀
          4 billion tons new snow in one day

          On 10.8.2020, the Greenland ice has grown by 4 billion tonnes (4 Gt) due to the fourth snow bomb in a row: this is very unusual at this time of year and should be a new daily record: In the lower graph, the blue line is far above the zero line in the white area of the previously unmeasured increase. After heavy snowfalls on 7 and 8 August 2020 without loss of mass, an unusually early gain in mass had already occurred in the Greenland ice sheet on 9 August 2020. The mass balance is thus much more favourable than in the WMO climate mean 1981-2010, which has been binding worldwide since 2015, at this time of year (lower graph, blue line clearly above the dark grey line).

          Translated with (free version)


    • I’d be much more concerned over increasing sea ice. Don’t give a hoot about loss of sea ice.

      • Loss of sea ice increases the amount of heat the arctic is able to radiate to space. It’s a very efficient negative feedback.

    • This is entirely consistent with the observed rate of decline over the 41 years of the satellite record. NASA says ‘September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 12.85 percent per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.’

      Except that the rate of decline for the last 12 years (soon 13) has been zero %. That is entirely inconsistent, and puts the usefulness of that decadal rate to shame, because the decadal rate at 2012 and the decadal rate at 2020 are significantly different. Does the decrease in the decadal rate over time mean that global warming is slowing down? It appears so, as the rate of warming is also decreasing:

    • So at least we now know what the “record” is. 41 years.

      Why should anyone give a rat’s ass about a record that goes back barely half a lifetime on a planet that has been around for 4.5 billion years?

    • “This year’s extent is just in third lowest for date”


      For most of the last 10,000 years, Arctic sea ice levels have been MUCH LOWER.

      The period from 1979 starts at ANOMALOUSLY EXTREME HIGH sea ice extents similar to those of the LIA.


    • **NASA says ‘September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 12.85 percent per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.’**

      That is a lie as it has not changed in the last decade.

  11. I have noticed that climate alarmists have indeed learned over the past 20 years. Instead of coming up with dire predictions for the next 5-10 years, they are now coming up with dire predictions for the next 15-20 years…

  12. I thought that Arctic became ice free 2013. Did not Mr Gore tell us that ?

    I do not at all understand why people are skeptical. Oceania is under water, arctic is ice free, New York is flooded , terrible hurricanes and typhones rages, famine due to climate change is a fact … or ?
    Why do anyone listen to all this crap. They have been totally wrong in all their predictions, and I am very sure that they will continue being totally wrong.

  13. 2035, 2035, I know that number, IPCC, grey literature, Schellnhuber…..
    ahhh, yeah, Himalaya, free of all glaciers, citation of ther error base, and now,
    ok, now the Arctic ice free in 2035, the magic year 😀

  14. Isn’t it time someone suggested that these benighted souls who are so fearful of climate “change” get some professional help with their problem?

    I mean, really, when you come right down to it, it’s always about money (preferably yours) and more studies and that excessive use of the word “change”, indicating that there may just be some paranoia about change going on with these poor, lost souls. I mean, seriously (not!), folks, we should have some sympathy for them and their obvious fear of change of any kind.

    Even Mars doesn’t have a steady state climate, nor does Jupiter or Saturn, and Uranus and Neptune have their own agendas, too, so — well, you just have to feel some kind of sympathy – maybe about ten cents’ worth – for these lost souls. Buy them a beer or something and have a nice chat, and maybe you can get them to understand how feeble the Hooman Rayss is in regard to controlling anything on any planet anywhere, and that perhaps they get therapy for their untenable Fear of Change.

    Just a suggestion, nothing else.

    • I think professional help with their problem of being defunded would be more appropriate.

  15. I suppose that in 2035 we’ll see another “Ship Of Fools” expedition get stuck in the ice that isn’t there. 😂

  16. Does this mean that polar bears will have to drink warm beer for the first time in 127,000 years?

  17. The arctic was ice free 127,000 years ago. And nothing bad happened.
    Ergo, there is no reason to assume that anything will happen, even if the arctic goes ice free again in the future.

    BTW, the arctic being ice free, means that it will be much easier to access the natural resources up there, and that’s a good thing.

    • > The arctic was ice free 127,000 years ago. And nothing bad happened.
      How do you know that “nothing bad happened”? Do you know anything at all about this?

      • nyolci

        did we have run away global warming?
        dis we have a mass extinction event?
        did early homo whatever get wiped out?
        did the seas burn away leaving the planet barren?
        did the polar bears even disappear?

        Come on, what universe are you living in!

        • Homo sapiens sapiens, ie we Anatomically Modern Humans, were then probably restricted to Africa, so remained relatively unaffected by Arctic sea ice fluctuations during the Eemian.

          Neanderthals in Europe, West and Central Asia; Denisovans in Central and East Asia; H. erectus in South and East Asia, plus undiscovered archaic groups in Asia and Africa, known only from their genetic traces, not fossils most likely did notice climatic changes. Our ancestors by that time had long since wiped out H. naledi, the archaic type holding out in subtropical woodlands of South Africa.

        • > did we have run away global warming?
          Very likely yes.

          > dis we have a mass extinction event?
          Scientists always talk about the importance of the rate of change. This is unprecedented now. Reconstructions show much milder rates in the past. So the answer is no, and this is what’s expected.

          > did early homo whatever get wiped out?
          Why should early homo have gotten wiped out?

          > did the seas burn away leaving the planet barren?
          ??? What’s this stupidity?

          > did the polar bears even disappear?
          A lot of species disappeared, a lot appeared. Polar bears, as a species, is relatively young.

          • nyolci says in reply to:
            did the seas burn away leaving the planet barren?
            “??? What’s this stupidity?”

            About 12 years ago the North American Great Lakes were at historic lows. Regional and local news agencies published “experts” saying that within 50 years the Great Lakes would be empty and dry … because of climate change.

            As of last year the Great Lakes are now at near historic high levels, and the Washington Post says…
            wait for it….. “because of of climate change”.

            I was already tired of this CO2 prairie fertilizer by 2005.

          • So where is the evidence of this runaway global warming you assert happened?

            How do you know the rate of climate change today is faster than in the past?

          • “> did we have run away global warming?
            Very likely yes.”

            He’s right. There is evidence.

          • Perhaps try reading nyolci

            The runaway greenhouse effect is often formulated with water vapor as the condensable species. In this case the water vapor reaches the stratosphere and escapes into space via hydrodynamic escape, resulting in a desiccated planet.

            Only a greentard or a climate scientist(tm) would believe you can have a desiccated planet that magically fixes itself so we could live on it.

            So try again could Earth ever have gone into runaway greenhouse effect?

          • LdB says :

            So try again could Earth ever have gone into runaway greenhouse effect?

            Looking at the long term temperature record of the last 500K Years the “up and down” changes look very similar in steep slope.

            So, if one names the up-slope as “runaway global warming” … to be intellectually honest you have to tag the down-slopes into glaciations as “runaway global cooling”. A plunge. The “breadbaskets” of the Northern Hemisphere would be totally unproductive in less than a century, … perhaps as little as a decade from the initial onset of the next glaciation.

          • nyolci says in reply to:
            did the seas burn away leaving the planet barren?
            “??? What’s this stupidity?”

            Alternate answer to sendergreen’s:

            Take it up with Dr. James Hansen sir. It’s not only stupidity, it quite possibly could be the most wrong calculation in the history of this planet.

          • There is nothing unusual about the rate of change. Regardless, only total idiots try to compare the resolution of century scale proxies with daily and yearly “weather” records.

            Polar Bears are young, but they are older than 127K years.

          • Then it becomes Nick Stokes redefinition games, Thermal runaway has a definition and behaviour and some climate scientist believe that is possible

            What is talked about now is “periods of sharp instability” and mixing the two terms just muddies the water and you have to wonder if that is the intent. So it’s the runaway you are having when you aren’t having a runaway because the emotion to the end audience plays better.

      • Actually we know lots of Neanderthals died that year. About as many as the year before. Summer heat waves may have killed some or at least shortened their lives somewhat. They were better prepared for the cold than us so not having all that ice in the Arctic was a bitch to them 😉

        • Lol, along with almost every other type of animal. Thank god the run away global warming reversed it self miraculously.

      • I’ll tell you what “bad happened.”

        An Ice age covering all of Canada, 1/3 of the US, most of Europe, etc., etc. 22,000 years ago it started to melt, raising sea levels worldwide about 135 meters until it essentially flattened out about 2,000 years ago, with only minimal rise thereafter.

        • G’day Tomwys;

          You stated I’ll tell you what “bad happened.” An Ice age covering …


          Yup – 127,000 years ago the latest ice age began, with an ice-free Arctic Ocean.

          Note that the article in Harper’s magazine (written in the 1950’s!!) was intended for the general public. The two researchers involved also had papers published in “Science” during that decade.

          Quote: It is this melting of Arctic ice which Ewing and Donn believe will set off another Ice Age on earth. They predict that it will cause great snows to fall in the north — perennial unmelting snows which the world has not seen since the last Ice Age thousands of years ago. These snows will make the Arctic glaciers grow again, until their towering height forces them forward. The advance south will be slow, but if it follows the route of previous ice ages, it will encase in ice large parts of North America and Europe. It would, of course, take many centuries for that wall of ice to reach New York and Chicago, London and Paris. But its coming is an inevitable consequence of the cycle which Ewing and Donn believe is now taking place. End quote.

          It was a reprint of this article that I read about a year ago that got me to looking to see what the current state of the research was. Nothing I’ve seen or read in the past 12 months, here or any other web site, negates what was written in the 1950’s. It’s well worth the 15 to 20 minutes to read. (And not a single mention of carbon dioxide.)

        • Nah, he is right as Javier points out lots of “bad things” happened, of course they are the normal “bad things” that happen through out history. But that’s OK because apparently he thinks we had run away global warming! Not sure what planet he thinks he’s living on, but hey whatever. But the one the rest of us are living on is quite cool compared to most of its history.

  18. Thanks very much for the heads up Charles/Anthony,

    What does the team think about melt pond coverage across the Arctic Ocean during the 2020 Arctic sea ice melting season?

  19. “Using the model”

    No actual data were harmed during the construction of this fantasy.

    The difference between models and science is the same as the difference between science and science fiction.

  20. My prediction is that climate alarmism will disappear (completely) 2026.

    Then they will start alarming about something else. That is my second prediction.

    • What exactly is your bet? Sea ice area is already way below 4million sq km, today 3.35 million sq km.

  21. Once again, people at a university who cannot get a real job are predicting the future, far enough out that they will never be called on it. No money back guarantee.
    Why don’t they predict the stock market or bonds? Lots of fodder there.

    • They would lose their a$$e(t)$ predicting stocks and bonds. Much easier to suck money out of gullible fools and power-hungry governments.

  22. Which got lost I think. £100 says that Arctic ice will bottom out above four million square kilometres in September as every year since 2007 save 2012. Less I pay. No takers this year so far.

      • The spirit of truth is not in you. Yet again you conveniently forget 2007.

        NSDIC says 4.165 million sq km for 2016 and 4192 for 2019, both higher than 2007’s 4.155.

        Please commit these NSDIC figures to memory (not that I trust NOAA):

        2012: 3387
        2007: 4155
        2016: 4165
        2019: 4192
        2011: 4344

        2015: 4433
        2008: 4590
        2010: 4615
        2018: 4656
        2017: 4665

        2014: 5029
        2013: 5054
        2009: 5119

        Please note that two of the lowest years happened after the record minimum in 2012, but so did two before it. The highest year since 2007 occurred before 2012, but the next two highest after it. Also observe that 2017 and 2018 are fourth and fifth highest since Arctic sea ice started bottoming out in 2007, and both are since the low of 2012.

        The trend is sideways since 2007, with the lowest years all experiencing late summer Arctic cyclones, two in the case of 2016. IOW, weather events.

        • Thus, it appears that in September 2020, with a high degree of confidence, Arctic sea ice summer minimum should come in between 4.1 and 4.7 million sq km, same as for all but four of the past 13 years.

          So, Griff, you’d be unwise to take the bet.

          • Which is also why he didn’t give the 2010-2020 decline average because it’s basically flat. You can see it clearly on any arctic sea ice graph. The ice declined from whatever to 2007 and then runs flat for 13 years. Same problem has happened to sea level rise, even since jason 3 has come online it’s a lot less than historic.

          • ‘all but 4’… you don’t think that having 4 of the lowest years since 2011 shows the ice is not recovering and in a still declining state?

            Please give me you view on the state of the ice: static, recovering, what?

          • Griff,

            Please look at the actual numbers.

            Since 2012 low, three years have been below the arithmetic mean since 2007 and four above it.

            Before and including 2012, three were above this average and three below it.

            The trend is flat since 2007 and up since 2012.

          • Griff

            The bottoming of a trough, you know like a sin wave, almost all natural processes go through waning and waxing periods. its just the frequency and amplitude that changes over time to give us something fun to argue about. Its only the chicken little’s who think the sky is falling every time something goes through a transition that don’t understand that, you know the real science deniers like yourself.

        • Median: 4590 M sq km
          Mean: 4493

          This is liable to be an average year, with final figure, as noted, dependent upon weather later this month and early September.

      • Except 07 is one of the four. Which is 13 years ago in about a 40 year “ever” record, which started with a record high period as compared to the previous 40 years.

        Take bet

      • “It is hardly ‘recovering’ is it?”

        True, It has stopped recovering from the anomalous highest extent since the LIA. (1979)

        Pity, isn’t it. !

        Nowhere near down to the Holocene norm, is it, griff. !

        Still very much on the HIGH side.

        SO MUCH Arctic sea ice up there, one would think we were in a COLDER period compared to the last 10,000 years.

      • That poll is very funny, and they are no experts at all. They know nothing about the golden rule of forecasting.

        So the last seven years the ASIE September daily minimum has been:
        2013 4.81
        2014 4.88
        2015 4.26
        2016 4.02
        2017 4.47
        2018 4.46
        2019 3.96

        Yet out of 67 votes the median vote is between 3.25 and 3.75 million km^2 and only four votes (6%) are between 4.00 and 4.50 million km^2 and none above 4.50.

        That poll is actually measuring participant bias and someone should explain those supposed experts that what the sea ice does between April and July is not related to the September minimum.

        The daily minimum is also a bad metric. The September monthly average or the lowest 30-day average are much better metrics.

        • You raise an interesting point Javier.

          What’s your current best estimate for the 2020 “September monthly average” Arctic sea ice extent?

          • I don’t have a best estimate. I just think that the flat trend started in 2007 is going to continue one more year.

            Must be sad for your Arctic sea ice forum over 12 years of Arctic sea ice going nowhere. Talk about futility. Like looking at grass growing, except that the grass actually grows.

          • Btw I follow charctic Interactive Sea Ice graph on the nsdic. org website where vexed 2019 bottomed at 4.192sq KM. Am I not wrong? Looking at it today there’s room for a bet still but I usually close about now as I don’t want to get a reputation for ripping off the punters.

      • Griff,

        Are you still “thinking”, or have you once more skulked away after drive-by trolling?

      • This is really funny.,80.0.html

        If we define Arctic sea ice free as less than one million of square kilometers measured with the official NSIDC sea ice extent (monthly average), when do you believe that the Arctic will be sea ice free?
        2013-2016 44 (45.4%)
        2017-2020 41 (42.3%)
        2021-2030 9 (9.3%)
        2031-2040 2 (2.1%)
        2041-2060 1 (1%)
        2061-2100 0 (0%)
        Later than 2100 0 (0%)
        Total Members Voted: 96
        Voting closed: April 01, 2013, 10:12:01 PM

        Lol, 88% of them already proven absolutely wrong, the rest in due time. What a bunch of alarmists, and the funny thing is that they consider themselves experts on the matter. They are still making polls and moving the date forward, like this one in 2018:,2348.0.html
        where 18% voted for an Arctic sea ice free in 2018-2019, and 89% by 2040.

        What a bunch of losers. In 5 years (2013 to 2018) the date when >85% believe the Arctic will be ice free has moved 20 years into the future (2020 to 2040). They’ll predict 2100 by 2035.

        I guess this speaks volumes about the harsh times for Giff and his ice alarmists buddies.

    • If you define the precise terms of the wager more clearly I’ll probably be happy to take the other side Richard (says he guessing!).

      Are you talking the daily minimum or monthly average? NSIDC or JAXA? Area or extent? etc. etc.

  23. Back when Mark of ice-be-gone fame at CU Boulder made a splash about an ice free arctic, I called CU to ask why it didn’t happen when they said it would, since the open water year had come with the pesky ice still remaining. At the time, I believe it was either 2013 or 2015 (don’t quote me). Anyway, I was given a reference to a paper that declared that the models were in need of fine tuning and that they were working on “hind casting” to improve the prediction. Please, no one try to explain that process to me; I read the paper. And time marches on. Now that whole debacle has been forgotten by practically everybody, here we are still having fun with predictions of dubious fabrication, if I may say so. I still wonder about the “hind-cast-product” from time to time, but knowing full well what is usually cast from the hind, I’ll pass on that result and dispose of it along with this the most current “finding”.

  24. A) Models do not represent REAL data – you cannot compare today with the past as modeled on a computer – all you are doing is comparing today against your ASSUMPTIONS about the past.

    B) The loss of sea ice does NOT raise average ocean levels one iota.

    C) If one accepts the Arctic has been ice free in the past, then one must accept that the ice melting in the Arctic is a NATURAL phenomenon and there is nothing unusual about it other than we get to watch.

    D) If the Arctic ice melted in the past without man’s additional CO2, then one must accept that man’s additional CO2 is NOT the culprit.

    • but we have 41 years of actual and comparable data showing a continued decline – not just in annual extent, but in volume, age and thickness of ice, which is more important.

      Nobody said this would raise sea levels…

      We know why the artic was ice free the last time this occurred… orbital mechanics. But that cause is not in effect today… there’s another reason for low ice and it is obviously a warming planet… if the arctic melted for a reason in the past not now in operation, that is no reason at all why it can’t melt now because of human warming. Is it?

  25. Has anyone bothered to look at the drop in the heat content anomaly for the West Barents Sea and West Spitsbergen Sea?

  26. Same story every year for two decades:
    2000: “First ice-free North Pole in 50m years”
    2001: “The Arctic Ice Cap is Shrinking!”
    2002: “Arctic to lose all summer ice by 2100”
    2003: ” Arctic sea ice may be gone by the year 2100.”
    2004: “If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century.”
    2005: ” in the near future (within 50-70 years) the Arctic Ocean will be ice free ”
    2006: “Arctic Ocean will have no ice in September by the year 2060”
    2007: “entirely free of sea ice sometime between 2050 and 2100”
    2008: “the Arctic could be completely ice free in the summer by the 2030s”
    2009: “Arctic could be free of summer sea ice by 2030”
    2010: ” At the end of each summer in 30 years, the projections show that sea ice in the Arctic will be very thin or totally absent.”
    2011: ” summer melt could lead to ice-free Arctic seas by 2016″
    2012: “It is truly the case that it will be all gone by 2015”
    2013: “US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016”
    2014: “Expert predicts ice-free Arctic by 2020 as UN releases climate report”
    2015: “an ice-free Arctic in September is “likely” before 2050″
    2016: “free of sea ice this year or next ”
    2017: “the disappearance of sea ice by the 2030s”
    2018: “ice in the Arctic has declined by a stunning 95 percent”
    2019: “ice-free Septembers as early as 2026”

    • Yeah its funny from 2000 to 2007 their linear line on there graph showed no ice by 2100, then 2007 happened and all the sudden there line showed 2020 or there about. Then 2012 hit and their line showed next year or 2 or 3 years at the latest, then came 2013 and they were back to 2100 and then came 2019 and we are back to 2050. Too funny just putting a slope to a graph and that’s what they call science. LMAO

    • ‘Experts say’. An expert: someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows nothing about everything 🧐🤣🤣.

      Thank goodness the science is settled then.

  27. I’m coming to the conclusion that arguments about carbon and temps are becoming pointless . IF you realize that achieving a low carbon world is so ridiculously easy and inexpensive if you admit an EV car world and a wor;ld of small modular molten salt nuclear reactors, which are safer than any power generation technology and have non of the claimed deficiencies of conventional nuclear. Just buildthe damn molten salt reactors and
    put an end to the endless squabbling over carbon emissions – everyone can agree with this move to a clearly superior and cheaper power generation technology.

    • Green Meanies can agree to no such thing. They were anti-nuke in all its forms before the CACA Cult polluted politics, and will be after it.

    • modular and/or salt technology is a great step forward…

      …when it arrives.

      There isn’t any now and a working prototype is still years off.

      don’t count your chickens before they’ve hatched

  28. I am unable to find words to express how sick I am of acting like climate models actually tell us anything factual.

  29. the ‘claim’ is self-evidently true.

    Sadly, deniers are playing Russia’s game; Russia is the clear winner in the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. As Russia sells access to Europe for goods from China, US industry is the loser due – in part – to transportation costs.

    • chris says :
      “Sadly, deniers are playing Russia’s game”

      What, MORE fake Russia collusion accusations?
      Yes, I deny CO2 has anything but a miniscule effect on world climate.
      Yes, I’ve been saying for a decade and a half that the Arctic of the last interglacial warm period was completely ice free at it’s peak, and after. Completely naturally of course, free of influence from either Neanderthal, or Sapien industrial activity.

      Let’s say the Arctic becomes navigable (low to zero ice), before the next stage in a return to Ice Age temperatures manifest. The Canadian North is not going to stay Canadian. There would most certainly be a race by the major powers to claim / seize claim the northern coast and major coastal islands.

    • Anyone who starts a comment by using the phrase “denier” has already indicated that he knows nothing about science and only cares about insulting those who dare to not agree with him.

      Beyond that, this post just shows how desperate chris is to change the subject, even if he has to embarrass himself to do it.

    • Wow, so we need to end the use of carbon based energy, decrease the worlds populations, end capitalism, get rid of individualism and self reliance all because the Russians might profit from a little global warming.

  30. But don’t you understand that this is great news!
    Scientists say that the arctic was Ice free 127,000 years ago, and the polar bears survived!!
    That is so awesome, i’ll go have a vegan latte now and celebrate 🎉.

    ( polar bears apparently evolved as a separate species between 350,000 and 6,000,000 years ago, at least according to (maybe someone should narrow that down a bit))

      • During the Eemian the earth’s orbit around the sun was more eccentric and its perihelion coincided with summer in the Northern Hemisphere (today it corresponds to the aphelion). During summer months, temperatures in the Arctic region were about 2-4 °C higher than today

        That increase in summer insolation melted the ice.

        I don’t understand how people can’t recognise that the conditions 127 to 106 thousand years ago are massively different from today and that we need to look at another reason why the ice is low today

        • If CO2 is well mixed, why did Arctic sea ice decline from 1979 to 2012, while Antarctic sea ice grew from 1979 to 2014?

          How did CO2 grow Antarctic ice while diminishing Arctic ice?

          The key Milankovitch cycle is axial tilt, which is always about the same during interglacials. Indeed the 41,000-year cycle causes them and interstadials.

    • A CNN reporter traveled back in time to 127,000 BP a year ago and interviewed Oog.
      Oog was sitting by his campfire chipping away at a rock with another rock to make a cutting edge.
      The reporter asked him why he was burning wood.
      … adding CO2 to the already dangerously warming atmosphere.
      Oog grunted quizzically.
      Then, the reporter told Oog he was harming the planet.
      ( fill in your own ending )

      • Oog (in local Neanderthalish dialect): More warm, more better.
        CNN: Ninety-seven percent of all Anatomically Modern Scientists say you’re wrong!
        Oog: Oog right. Oog know. You skull small but has brain in it. (Bash!) Yum! Animal fat! Good.

      • The little Oogs eagerly look forward to another treat of eyeballs, firm on the outside and moist and juicy on the inside, while Mrs. Oog and Mama Oog anticipate the delectable marrow from the long bones of the thin, lightly built stranger.

          • John Tillman says:

            Unfortunately, a childrens’ book on Neanderthal Family Oog is probably not going to sell.

            You’re wrong there John ….
            Already have an order for 50 copies.

            on Visa Card for one … Addams, Gomez
            A “

          • Happy to be wrong, but how realistic is the book?

            Do the Neanderthal kids eat their neighbors’ brains, bone marrow and eyeballs?

            As even many Anatomically Modern Human hunter gatherer groups have done until recently?

    • The Brown bear (Ursus arctos) and Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) diverged less than 500 kya according to comparison of their genomes.

  31. The balmy interval 121,000 to 125,000 BC probably enjoyed the best climate of the past 500,000 years, at least.

    • We know you have crystal balls. Cracked as soon as you saw the pay check.

      A sell-out to the AGW meme, no self-worth whatsoever.

      You do know current levels are far higher than for most of the last 10,000 years, don’t you.!

        • There is strong evidence that the 1930s and 1940s were lower certainly comparable to today and 10,000 years ago there was most likely no ice all year round.

    • In 2050, Arctic ice should be on the way back down again after reaching its natural cyclic high c. 2040. But still higher than now, recovering from its cyclic trough.

          • Hi Coeur,

            You seem to be ignoring me? Perhaps that’s because I guessed your first name wrong? If so my apologies.

            You seem to be gradually firming up the terms of our wager, which is all to the good! If you lose £100 goes to my chosen charity?


            What’s yours?

          • Given his (presumably?) continuing silence regarding my proposed wager perhaps “Coeur de Lion” would be well advised to change his name by deed poll to “Coeur de Souris”?

        • Why?

          Arctic sea ice naturally waxes and wanes in an approximately 60-year cycle, due to oceanic oscillations, ie the PDO and AMO.

          In the 1940s, Arctic sea ice was low and the Siberian coast clear in summer. In the 1970s, the USSR needed a nuclear-powered icebreaker to keep its Northern Sea Route open. In this century, it opened again, but now some summers it’s closed. The cycle continues.

          No noticeable CO2 effect. After WWII, CO2 grew but so did ice, until the PDO switch of 1977.

        • Griff,

          Following its natural cycle, Arctic sea ice has been growing for eight years.

          Do you still expect a new, lower low than 2012 soon?

          During its natural downtrend, 1979-2012, Arctic sea ice summer minimum made a new record low at least every five years. Since 2012, not even close.

    • I’d take the bet, but ufortunately I won’t be around to pay out. Sorry, I meant collect.

    • Mosh the only reason you want 2050 is because of all people you know this is BS and by 2050 you won’t be around so you won’t have to defend people like Griff any more.
      Come on you can finally come out of the closet and tell the truth, you know it.

  32. “This shows just how important sea-ice processes like melt ponds are in the Arctic, and why it is crucial that they are incorporated into climate models.”

    Heresy as everyone who’s anyone in the climate changing business knows the dooming is settled and you can’t have upstart interlopers plugging any old data into the computer models. The noive of these people!

  33. ” Using a model ” I stopped reading there. Don’t these enviroMENTAL loonies ever get tired of crying wolf?

  34. The authors certainly have overseen that “physical” observations of the solar cycle foresee a deep solar minimum around 2035. How deep it’s going to be is open, but it’s quite probable that it’s going to be freezing cold…

Comments are closed.