Arctic Sea Ice Still Quite Abundant for Early Summer

From Polar Bear Science

Dr. Susan Crockford,

Despite rhetoric to the contrary, there is still plenty of sea ice over Arctic regions this summer, supplying feeding platforms for polar bears, ice-dependent seals, and walrus cows nursing their young calves. Forget about whether the numbers are below or above some short-term average, there is no catastrophe in the making for marine mammals in the Arctic at this time.

Remember, by early summer, young seals have left the surface of the ice and are in the water feeding; predator-savvy adults and subadults are hauled out on broken chunks of ice moulting their hair-coat. They may look like sitting ducks but polar bears have a hard time catching them because the seals are vigilant and have many escape routes available (due to all the open water). Most polar bears in Hudson Bay are still on the ice (you’ll see why below): the live cams near Churchill set up to watch polar bears are presently showing images of ravens with sea ice in the background, not bears.

This post is predominantly sea ice charts for mid-July, what we in the science field call observational evidence, aka ‘facts’. Keep in mind that satellites used to produce these images have an especially hard time distinguishing ice topped with melt water from open water, which means much more ice useful to these marine mammals is almost certainly present than is shown in the charts (as much as 20% more in some regions).

Arctic-wide levels, NSIDC Masie

For 13 July 2022

Canada (entire and then by region)Canadian Ice Service

Note that regional charts are for the week of July 11, shown here by ‘stage of development’ (ice thickness, with brown being old, multiyear ice and dark green ice >1.2m thick) and in the ‘departure from normal’ charts, dark blue is much more than average and dark red is much less.

Svalbard, Norwegian Ice Service

Chukchi/Beaufort Seas, Alaska Sea Ice Program

By stage of development and then, concentration:

5 15 votes
Article Rating
99 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
2hotel9
July 14, 2022 3:01 pm

Imagine that! Arctic is still covered in ice and snow, just like it always has been.

Ron
Reply to  2hotel9
July 15, 2022 1:32 am

Al Gore said in 2009 that “the North Pole will be ice-free in the summer by 2013 because of man-made global warming.”

July 14, 2022 3:27 pm

There are a lot of colorful charts.
Not very useful
At my climate science blog.
I presented six useful charts on Greenland ice mass
and Arctic sea ice extent yesterday:

Honest global warming chart Blog: Greenland ice mass (chart 1, 2 and 3) and Arctic sea ice extent (chart 4, 5 and 6) = no climate emergency ! (elonionbloggle.blogspot.com)

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 14, 2022 6:02 pm

Thanks. Logical flow from chart to chart.

Top chart- CO2 levels dip during the 30s. Having to squint to see the 1C-1.5C
temp rise over the past 140 yrs adds much needed perspective. The temp doesn’t
stay warmer until 1981 with CO2 @ 350ppm (usual correlation/causation warning)

Chart 4- In most yrs since 2005, the warmer winter months were followed by
average/cooler summer months which destroyed the overly optimistic open Arctic
predictions. (Archives on the left)

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Charts 5 & 6- The minimum Arctic sea ice levels vary much more than the maximum
levels. One factor rarely mentioned with minimum levels is that late summer
storms can blow ice into the N Atlantic.

Thanks again.

Last edited 2 months ago by Old Man Winter
Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Old Man Winter
July 14, 2022 10:52 pm

What’s interesting about that DMI Arctic temperature chart is how long the temperature has been below the 1958-2002 Mean, getting on for 3 months.

Greenland has been defying the experts again this year.
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-con

Bindidon
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
July 16, 2022 2:41 pm

” Greenland has been defying the experts again this year. ”

2022’s SMB is indeed very high.

But let us wait about a month until saying something useful:

comment image

Between 2018, the highest, and 2012, the lowest since 2011, there is still some warm place in between for the joungest child.

Last edited 2 months ago by Bindidon
Bindidon
Reply to  Old Man Winter
July 16, 2022 2:46 pm

Did you realize that DMI posts Arctic data above 80N?

Arctic starts for example in the UAH record at 60N:

comment image

Maybe that speaks to you a little bit…

Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
July 14, 2022 3:47 pm

This can’t be right. I’m sure the climate experts told us the Arctic ice cap melted sometime back in 2014-2015.

/sarc

H.R.
Reply to  Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
July 14, 2022 9:01 pm

Quite sure, Paul. It’s to be so balmy, I had planned on swimming the Northwest Passage stark nekkid this Summer.

Sadly, I had to postpone that lark as I had already scheduled a pedicure appointment.

But ever onward and upward. Tally ho! I shall put that on the calendar for next year.

/sarc^2

Dave Fair
Reply to  H.R.
July 15, 2022 5:47 pm

Be sure to wear a fir codpiece.

Edim
July 14, 2022 3:55 pm

Arctic sea ice will be “canary in the coal mine’ – an early warning of the coming falsification of the AGW hypothesis.

peter schell
Reply to  Edim
July 14, 2022 6:06 pm

The AGW hypothesis is constructed in such a way that it can’t be falsified. Which means it’s not real science.

If the Arctic froze solid in the summer, and the Great Lakes iced totally in the winter, that would be presented as proof that it is worse than we thought.

Reply to  peter schell
July 14, 2022 8:25 pm

AGW can’t be falsified because it can’t be measured. There are too many climate variables to know what percentage is man made/
Very unlikely to be 0% or 100%.

CAGW can’t be falsified because it is always “coming” in the future.
It has been coming in 10 to 20 years for the past 50 years.
And always will be coming on the future.
You can’t falsify predictions of the future when they are made.
You can point out that 100% of dismal environmental predictions
since the 1960s have been wrong. The media ignores that fact
and so do schools, so few people seem to know, or care.

Always wrong predictions of the future climate are not science
They are climate astrology.

aussiecol
Reply to  peter schell
July 15, 2022 3:04 am

 cartoonist Rick McKee has it sorted…

comment image

Reply to  peter schell
July 15, 2022 5:52 am

The AGW hypothesis is constructed in such a way that it can’t be falsified. Which means it’s not real science.”

It is falsified by real science. 12-month average changes in CO2 don’t correlate with MME, but they correlate significantly with 12-month changes in SST. Of course, not all the CO2 was outgassed, we are responsible for some CO2 but the ocean handles what the flora doesn’t use for more beneficial planetary greening.

AGW supporters only see the top plot and refuse to learn any deeper meanings.

comment image

comment image

comment image

Furthermore I can and often show the 30y HadSST3 correlates with the 109y SN with an 11y lag, r=.95, greater than 99% significant, so AGW is completely falsified.

Climate change is caused by solar variability. Rising CO2 is an after-effect.

Reply to  Edim
July 14, 2022 8:20 pm

Antarctica temperatures and sea ice are doing a good job.
Artic sea ice extent used to be the canary in the coalmine (poster child) for global warming. And those pesky polar bears too … in reality. they are doing better than ever. and they are great swimmers too, but those facts were never mentioned.

My poster child for the actual global warming since the 1970s
is warmer winter nights in Siberia, about which no one is complaining.
Not even polar bears.

Reply to  Richard Greene
July 15, 2022 6:10 am

Antarctica temperatures and sea ice are doing a good job.”
Yes, looks like Antarctic sea ice extent will be an all low this season, already lowest minimum and looks like being a lowest maximum.

Reply to  Phil.
July 15, 2022 8:35 am

You might want to consider record low Antarctica temperatures in winter 2021, or does your memory not extend back that far?

Drake
Reply to  Phil.
July 15, 2022 3:06 pm

After being a NEW RECRD HIGH!!! in 2014.

Of course that is as measured starting in 1979.

What a crock. How old is THE CLIMATE??

Edim
Reply to  Edim
July 15, 2022 1:04 pm

Mostly agree with the replies, but still, when the (completely natural) multidecadal warming reverses, it will be impossible to ignore it. And I stand by my prediction – it will be Arctic sea ice that reverses first and it’s hardest to manipulate. Just from the latest Nature paper, which btw is interesting:
“The recent weakening and reversing of several NH-climate trends, despite the ongoing anthropogenic forcing, has increased the interests in understanding and predicting the decadal-to-multidecadal climate variability.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-022-00275-1

Last edited 2 months ago by Edim
Dave Fair
Reply to  Edim
July 15, 2022 6:32 pm

As I read the article, even with the identified cyclical coupling of NH phenomena (ala stadium wave), their climate model runs still predict long-term anthropogenic global warming. What a waste of good observations by polluting them with CliSciFi modeling.

Rud Istvan
July 14, 2022 3:58 pm

Darned. The Summer Arctic ice is NOT behaving as modeled. The Arctic animals like walrus and polar bear rejoice. The Arctic warmunist alarmists despair. OK

Redge
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 14, 2022 11:17 pm

The Summer Arctic ice is NOT behaving as modeled.

Don’t worry Rud, the data will be adjusted to fit the models

SAMURAI
July 14, 2022 5:31 pm

I checked the NSIDC Arctic Ice Extent data and this year’s Arctic Sea Ice Extent is currently ranked the 11th lowest, which really doesn’t fit the Leftists’ catastrophic narrative…

According to one debunked prophesy, it’s summer Sea Ice Extent should have been zero by 2012… Not so much….

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

Just wait until the AMO reenters its 30-year ocean cool phase by around 2025, and it’ll slowly increase back to 1990’s levels over the next 30+ years.

bdgwx
July 14, 2022 5:58 pm

Per NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent the 1991-2020 average for July 13th is 9.00e6 km2. The value for 2022 is 8.64e6 km2. Arctic sea ice extents are below average this year.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  bdgwx
July 14, 2022 6:45 pm

Great news for the prey- they’ll have more open water to dive into when fleeing
vicious, racist white polar bears!

Last edited 2 months ago by Old Man Winter
John Hultquist
Reply to  bdgwx
July 14, 2022 9:27 pm

Is it possible to always be above average?
ht/ Garrison Keeler 

bdgwx
Reply to  John Hultquist
July 15, 2022 7:29 am

Probably. But I should point out that Arctic sea ice extents for July 13th have been below average for 22 consecutive years.

Drake
Reply to  bdgwx
July 15, 2022 3:09 pm

Not without a link you can’t.

Drake
Reply to  bdgwx
July 15, 2022 5:11 pm

So in the data you provided 5 of the last 20 years are over the average you provided, WHAT?

bdgwx
Reply to  Drake
July 16, 2022 6:56 am

I standby what I said. Arctic sea ice extent for July 13th has been below average for 22 consecutive years. Download Sea_Ice_Index_Daily_Extent_G02135_v3.0.xlsx and check row 196 on the NH-Daily-Extent tab.

Mr.
Reply to  bdgwx
July 14, 2022 10:26 pm

So things are going along pretty well as before.
EXCEPT – the climate forecasters had Arctic-free summers by now?
What’s up with that?

bdgwx
Reply to  Mr.
July 15, 2022 7:19 am

The IPCC predicts the first excursion below 1e6 km2 of extent around year 2050.

The forecasts you are probably looking at are inconsistent with the abundance of evidence. Actually, most of the forecasts for “ice-free” conditions by now either come from those who have no understanding of ice dynamics (like Al Gore) or who were misrepresented (like Maslowski).

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Call me a skeptic
Reply to  Mr.
July 15, 2022 8:37 am

So why doesn’t NSIDC update their graphs to show median ice data for 1991 to 2020 instead of 1981 to 2010? After all the climate fraudsters have identified climate as a 30 year average. They haven’t switched because it makes the fraudsters case look weaker. How much has sea ice in the Arctic since 2012? See , we can play this game too.

bdgwx
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
July 15, 2022 11:04 am

Call me a skeptic: “So why doesn’t NSIDC update their graphs to show median ice data for 1991 to 2020 instead of 1981 to 2010?”

MASIE data only goes back to 2006. Neither 1981-2010 nor 1991-2020 are used by the MASIE products or even possible to derive. Note that the author of this article is using the MASIE data.

Call me a skeptic said: “How much has sea ice in the Arctic since 2012?”

I’m not sure what the question is exactly. I can say that according to NSIDC MASIE the 2012 average is 10.69e6 km2. The trend since 2012 is -0.16e6 km2/yr.

You can download the data the author used here.

Redge
Reply to  bdgwx
July 14, 2022 11:20 pm

So?

The extent of sea ice is just a measure of the extent of sea ice, it doesn’t say anything about why

Stating it’s CO2 is just conjecture.

bdgwx
Reply to  Redge
July 15, 2022 7:20 am

I would not call below average “Abundant”.

Redge
Reply to  bdgwx
July 15, 2022 7:34 am

I would not call below average “Abundant”.

I don’t care what you would call it

I care about the reasons for ice loss – without evidence stating it’s CO2 is just conjecture.

bdgwx
Reply to  Redge
July 15, 2022 10:27 am

The article claimed that sea ice was “quite abundant” for July 13th.

Redge
Reply to  bdgwx
July 15, 2022 10:54 am

And?

Where is your empirical evidence linking CO2 with sea ice loss?

If you don’t have any, your whole statements are moot.

bdgwx
Reply to  Redge
July 15, 2022 11:59 am

Redge said: “And?”

I would not call below average quite abundant.

Redge said: “Where is your empirical evidence linking CO2 with sea ice loss?”

The IPCC AR6 WG1 Physical Science Basis always a good starting point for drilling down into the evidence. They have an extensive bibliography.

Anyway, are you suggesting that “quite abundant” can be assigned to a quantity if that quantity is not linked to CO2? Is the amount of water in Lake Mead “quite abundant” right now?

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Redge
Reply to  bdgwx
July 15, 2022 2:05 pm

Redge said: “Where is your empirical evidence linking CO2 with sea ice loss?”

The IPCC AR6 WG1 Physical Science Basis always a good starting point for drilling down into the evidence. They have an extensive bibliography.

You don’t get away with asking me to do your homework

Which specific part of AR6 WG1 demonstrates unequivocally CO2 is the cause of sea ice reduction.

No unsupported declarations – hard, empirical data

I won’t hold my breath.

bdgwx
Reply to  Redge
July 15, 2022 3:44 pm

Redge said: “Which specific part of AR6 WG1 demonstrates unequivocally CO2 is the cause of sea ice reduction.”

All of it. Unfortunately there is so much evidence now it can only be summarized at a very high level with a 2000 page report. But the content is approachable even for those with only a high school level of science understanding. It is a pretty easy read actually. You can get through it in a few months. It is certainly better than reading through the millions if not hundreds of millions of pages of literature and data on the topic which no single person could get through in a lifetime.

If you have specific questions regarding the link between CO2, global warming, and cryosphere heat uptake I might be able to point you more narrowly.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Redge
Reply to  bdgwx
July 15, 2022 11:20 pm

If you have specific questions regarding the link between CO2, global warming, and cryosphere heat uptake I might be able to point you more narrowly.

I’ve already stated my specific questions. I’ll ask again:

Where is your empirical evidence linking CO2 with sea ice loss?

Which specific part of AR6 WG1 demonstrates unequivocally CO2 is the cause of sea ice reduction.

Name the peer-reviewed literature, ideally with links.

You won’t. You’ll just hand wave as you and your ilk always do.

bdgwx
Reply to  Redge
July 16, 2022 6:52 am

WUWT won’t let me copy the list or link direct. But here are the page numbers containing the citations for the peer-reviewed literature you requested.

IPCC AR6 WG1 Physical Science Basis

pg. 250-280
pg. 382-422
pg. 521-551
pg. 646-672
pg. 779-815
pg. 897-921
pg. 1026-1054
pg. 1159-1210
pg. 1322-1361
pg. 1464-1512
pg. 1706-1758
pg. 1877-1925
pg. 2027-2058
pg. 2077-2085
pg. 2121-2137
pg. 2150-2151
pg. 2180-2192
pg. 2200-2204
pg. 2213-2214
pg. 2255-2256

Redge
Reply to  bdgwx
July 16, 2022 7:12 am

You’re just giving a bunch of references without having a clue which one paper you think states unequivocally CO2 is the cause of sea ice melt.

WUWT won’t let me copy the list or link direct. 

That’s BS, I can do it, so can you

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter01.pdf

I’ll ask yet again:

Where is your empirical evidence linking CO2 with sea ice loss?

Which specific part of AR6 WG1 demonstrates unequivocally CO2 is the cause of sea ice reduction.

Name one peer-reviewed paper – I’ll give you a clue: there isn’t one

Last edited 2 months ago by Redge
bdgwx
Reply to  Redge
July 16, 2022 11:21 am

I’m giving you a bunch of references because there is a bunch of evidence. There isn’t just one line of evidence supporting the link between CO2 and cryosphere heat uptake; there is tens of thousands. And that’s only the 1st order lines of evidence cited by the IPCC. If you include 2nd, 3rd, etc. order citation it quickly expands to millions. Some of these lines of evidence are only indirectly and tangentially relevant. Others are more directly relevant. But it’s all relevant and linked in some way because the climate system is a complex and interconnected system that is itself interconnected with other aspects of the world around us.

Are you asking for a single source that summarizes the knowledge and understanding of the topic today? If so I believe the best starting point is the IPCC AR6 WG1 report. All of it. You must review it in its entirety before drilling down into the minutia of details.

Are you asking for my recommendation for the 1st piece of evidence chronologically that I think you should look at? If so and assuming you aware of evidence of fundamental laws of physics like classical mechanics, quantum mechanics (yes it is relevant), thermodynamics, etc. from which the link between CO2 and climate (and ultimately cryosphere modulation) is based. I believe Pouilett 1837 would be a good place to start chronologically since it is the first publication to hypothesize CO2’s effect on the planet in the context of climate based on the evidence available at the time. Some would argue that I’m ignoring Fourier 1822 here. But I feel like the evidence he presents can be skipped since it does not mention CO2 directly.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Redge
Reply to  bdgwx
July 16, 2022 10:56 pm

I’m giving you a bunch of references because there is a bunch of evidence.

Link to a single paper showing a direct link between CO2 and sea-ice loss.

bdgwx
Reply to  Redge
July 17, 2022 11:39 am

Redge said: “Link to a single paper showing a direct link between CO2 and sea-ice loss.”

My answer hasn’t changed. IPCC AR6 WG1.

Redge
Reply to  bdgwx
July 16, 2022 11:39 pm

Just to be clear:

The paper needs to present empirical data, not a climate model fantasy

bdgwx
Reply to  Redge
July 17, 2022 11:40 am

Redge said: “The paper needs to present empirical data, not a climate model fantasy”

My answer still hasn’t changed. IPCC AR6 WG1.

Redge
Reply to  bdgwx
July 17, 2022 11:03 pm

So you don’t have one single paper showing empirically a direct link between CO2 and sea-ice loss

Thanks for admitting that

bdgwx
Reply to  Redge
July 19, 2022 4:38 pm

Redge said: “So you don’t have one single paper showing empirically a direct link between CO2 and sea-ice loss.”

Not one; tens of thousands. But, like I said, if you want a one stop shop for the summary of what is available I recommend IPCC AR6 WG1. That is a “single paper” if that is important to you.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Redge
Reply to  bdgwx
July 19, 2022 11:30 pm

Not one; tens of thousands. 

Name one of the tens of thousands, just one

Note the IPCC doesn’t produce any papers as they themselves state

Ron
Reply to  bdgwx
July 15, 2022 1:34 am

Al Gore said in 2009 that “the North Pole will be ice-free in the summer by 2013 because of man-made global warming.”

bdgwx
Reply to  Ron
July 15, 2022 7:21 am

You should base your worldview on the abundance of evidence; not Al Gore.

Mr.
Reply to  bdgwx
July 15, 2022 7:36 am

Really?
So why did the Nobel Prize people award him?
Why did the UN jump on board with promoting Al’s slideshow?

So many questions Grasshopper . . .

bdgwx
Reply to  Mr.
July 15, 2022 10:38 am

Yes really.

I have no idea why Al Gore was awarded a Nobel Prize. I didn’t even know he was a recipient.

I have no idea why the UN jumped on board with promoting his slideshow. I didn’t even know they did.

Yes, there are a lot of question. For example, why did the abundance of evidence and IPCC consistently underestimate Arctic sea ice declines? Was the extreme decline in the last 15 or so years a transient anomaly or a new normal?

Graemethecat
Reply to  bdgwx
July 15, 2022 12:45 pm

The Arctic was seasonally ice-free during the Holocene Thermal Optimum 5-7000 years ago, at a time when CO2 was much lower than today.

bdgwx
Reply to  Graemethecat
July 15, 2022 1:27 pm

Would you say sea ice was “quite abundant” back then?

Mr.
Reply to  bdgwx
July 15, 2022 3:09 pm

Apparently it was also a shock to the world back in about 1922 when the Arctic fishing fleet reported balmy conditions up there.

“Unprecedented” warm conditions they probably described the situation as.

Redge
Reply to  bdgwx
July 16, 2022 7:20 am

You should base your worldview on the abundance of evidence; not Al Gore.

So you’re saying, Al Gores’ “An Inconvenient Truth” was a lie?



Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  bdgwx
July 15, 2022 3:02 am

So, not ice free. In complete opposition to what the “experts” had told us.
Why do you still listen to these supposed experts?

bdgwx
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
July 15, 2022 7:24 am

Actually the IPCC predicted the first excursion below 10.5e6 km2 for annual average extent would not occur until 2040. It actually occurred in 2007 and several times since. The experts have been consistently underestimating the decline for decades now.

And as of right now the abundance of evidence still suggestions the first “essentially ice free” (< 1 e6 km2) condition at the summer minimum would not occur until 2050. See IPCC AR6 for details.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  bdgwx
July 15, 2022 7:54 am

Oh, come on: Wadhams et al have been predicting the end of ice for ages now and keep having to revise their predictions whenever they get it hopelessly wrong. The problem is, the media latch on to these ridiculous predictions and ramp up the fear, as you well know.
2050 is a handy prediction: most of the members of the IPCC will be long dead when the ice still there in 2050 and they won’t be there to defend their stupid hysteria.
Besides, prove the decline in sea ice isn’t part of perfectly natural variation – you can’t.

bdgwx
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
July 15, 2022 10:50 am

Wadhams 2012 predicts an “ice free summer” (< 1e6 km2) before 2042.

I should also point out that Wadhams does not provide the abundance of evidence. His research represents but a very small portion of the available evidence.

ATheoK
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
July 16, 2022 3:58 am

2050 is a handy prediction”

Alarmist, which definitely includes IPCC climate predictions are pure fantasy. Press release and political climate predictions without any real basis in reality.

2050 alarmist climate predictions are fantasies meant to drive headlines to keep the green money trough flush with cash.

Dr. Crockford accurately states:

Despite rhetoric to the contrary, there is still plenty of sea ice over Arctic regions this summer, supplying feeding platforms for polar bears, ice-dependent seals, and walrus cows nursing their young calves. Forget about whether the numbers are below or above some short-term average, there is no catastrophe in the making for marine mammals in the Arctic at this time.”

No amount of budgerigarwx’s ‘Arctic average’ games changes the 2022 Arctic situation.

jeff corbin
Reply to  bdgwx
July 15, 2022 1:37 pm

The Bering sea ice extent was since last fall and currently is well above average. https://www.knom.org/wp/blog/2022/02/23/bering-sea-ice-reaches-st-paul-for-a-week-now-recedes-north/ See for your self. The article blames the weather for the increased Bering sea ice extent. Also see http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php which demonstrates the average Arctic day time temps are trending lower than average. So it is just weather or an actual climate trend is anybody’s guess. For anthropomorphic climate change people weather is always an indication of climate change, for the rest of of it’s just weather.

jeff corbin
Reply to  jeff corbin
July 15, 2022 1:39 pm

I tried to post the most current Bering sea ice graph that compares with the average. It just would not go. So if you go to Rick Thoman with ACCAP, for Bering sea ice extent you will find the graph in there.

Last edited 2 months ago by jeff corbin
bdgwx
Reply to  jeff corbin
July 15, 2022 1:49 pm

I see that. If being below average is “quite abundant” then what do we can call being above average?

jeff corbin
Reply to  bdgwx
July 15, 2022 2:30 pm

Absolutely abundant! Ice extent is absolutely abundantly variable as the weather. It can demonstrate massive expansion beyond the average in one region in any given year and recede in all the other regions any given year. The key is to watch the trends long term. Our current record is less than 70 years.. This is my beef. In 2017 I did a poll at work of 65 staff members. ‘Is there an ice cap in the arctic?’, 94% of the staff said “no”. with a request to comment. The vast majority said global warming had wiped out the ice cap. They didn’t believe their eyes when I sent them a satellite graphic of that day’s ice extent… it was in July. This is the power of misinformation and irresponsible prima facie predictions made by experts and scientists. This issue is far more important than the sea ice extent in the arctic itself. How long will the public endure being gaslighted on stupid stuff like Arctic sea ice extent?? There are many factor’s we don’t understand and can’t measure that effect Arctic sea ice extent. To assume prima facie that anthropomorphic climate change is the only key factor in sea ice extent is anti-science. Some of the other possible factors that are not currently measurable are regional geothermal warming, gravitational variance, sea level anomalies caused by gravitational variance and the impact on currents. I am sure there are experts in WUWT that could name many others.

jeff corbin
Reply to  jeff corbin
July 15, 2022 2:34 pm

correction. .”some of the other factors that MAY effect sea ice extent’.

jeff corbin
Reply to  bdgwx
July 15, 2022 2:56 pm

BTW… my info used is based on abundant Satellite data. The veracity of your abundant evidence of lower than average Artic sea ice extent is not challenged. Nor should you challenge the veracity of my abundant evidence that the sea ice extent in the Bering sea is above average. BOTH/AND my friend. So what is your point?

bdgwx
Reply to  jeff corbin
July 15, 2022 3:50 pm

My point is that “quite abundant” is a strange way of describing below average conditions.

rah
Reply to  bdgwx
July 15, 2022 7:24 pm

Below the average based on a 30 year mean. But certainly not in much longer time scales. And the authors point is that it is quite enough for the Polar bears.

In the end the alarmists are losing. What they claimed should have already happened has not. And it does not appear it is going to either.

Every summer over the last several years summer air temps in the Arctic have run below the average. The variance in sea ice metrics are governed more by wind and waves more than anything else. And there is no trend over the last few years.

comment image

Ron Long
July 14, 2022 5:59 pm

Darn, how will David Attenborough make a disaster movie if everything is normal?

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Ron Long
July 14, 2022 6:28 pm

You may not make his day either if you tell him The Team™ has unwittingly shown that
natural variation dominated for the past 730k yrs. Ouch! 😉

Last edited 2 months ago by Old Man Winter
Elliot W
Reply to  Ron Long
July 14, 2022 7:53 pm

Attenborough will simply tweak what you see, like using drones to stampede animals while editing in a drop of melting ice that has a heater blowing on it. C’mon!

Redge
Reply to  Ron Long
July 14, 2022 11:21 pm

He managed it with the Netflix mockumentary

rah
Reply to  Ron Long
July 15, 2022 2:08 am

Darn, how will David Attenborough make a disaster movie if everything is normal?

He’ll lie, just like he has before.

John Hultquist
July 14, 2022 9:24 pm

Thanks Susan. It is good to get the facts into the ether.

Being in central Washington State, I don’t use ice as my gauge of the season’s weather. I use wildflowers, especially the Mariposa Lily:
Calochortus macrocarpus | Green-banded Mariposa-lily | Wildflowers of the Pacific Northwest (pnwflowers.com)

They normally bloom on or about July 4th at my place. This year a cold and wet spring has delayed plants, so the first bloom I found was on July 12th.

JMurphy
July 15, 2022 2:01 am

“Quite abundant” and “plenty of sea ice”?! What are these general, non-scientific terms being compared to? How much is “quite abundant”? Very scientific…not! 🤦🏻‍♂️

rah
Reply to  JMurphy
July 15, 2022 2:08 am

Yea, never mind all the charts and graphs.

JMurphy
Reply to  rah
July 15, 2022 3:39 am

OK, so I see from the first link that the extent is 8.7 million km², which is at least 1 million km² less than the average. So 8.7 million km² is abundant and plenty? How should the average figure be described? More than abundant or super abundant? What is the scientific “abundant” term?

rah
Reply to  JMurphy
July 15, 2022 7:15 am

Look at my post below and look at this one.
Loss Of Arctic Ice From 1988-1996 | Real Climate Science

comment image

Arctic sea ice is indeed very abundant relative to what so many “experts” both in and out of government, declared that it would be by this time. Even ignoring the fact that Susan’s comment is made in the context of what is believed to be best for the Polar bears.

There is not enough lipstick in the universe to cover up the pig that was the prediction of so many alarmists that were and still are declared to be “experts”! Artic sea ice is not only still there, but there is still no indication that we will see “virtually ice free” summers anytime in the near future. But there are people like you that are silly enough to still try to nitpick and obfuscate that oh so obvious fact.

And then there is the Greenland ice sheet. Despite all the claims of declining mass balance, the ice sheet has been growing relative to the 30 year mean.

comment image

And all of this is happening even as the AMO is still in its positive phase, though it appears to be heading south. And I have no doubt that when it does pass neutral on it’s way down and we start seeing temperatures here in the states like we had in the 70’s that there will be fools declaring THAT has been caused by “human caused climate change” also.

Last edited 2 months ago by rah
JMurphy
Reply to  rah
July 15, 2022 8:02 am

Still no scientific definition of abundant, then? Just a description that you and the main post wish to use to say…what? Ignore the trend and focus on the present? Ignore the figures and focus on vague, unscientific descriptions? OK, if that’s what this website prefers…

rah
Reply to  JMurphy
July 15, 2022 8:08 am

l won’t argue anymore. No need too. Let the conversation stand as it is for others to judge.

Drake
Reply to  JMurphy
July 15, 2022 3:21 pm

Who was the article written by?

What is her area of expertise?

What is she reporting on and why?

If you cannot answer these questions, you cannot understand her use of “abundant”.

I suggest you read up on Polar Bears and what they need for hunting and what seals need for reproduction, THEN you might get some sort of clue.

But you, like bdgyx above are just trolling on ONE WORD, which you would call a LIE!!! because “below average”.

So answer the above questions and you can possible get a cue as to what abundant applies to.

JMurphy
Reply to  Drake
July 16, 2022 6:49 am

1 Dr. Susan Crockford
2 Zoology, particularly polar bears
3 Arctic Sea Ice, saying it’s abundant

And no, I have no idea how “abundant” relates to all this scientifically. Maybe you can explain and reveal how average conditions could be described, seeing as how conditions at the moment are below average.

Mr.
Reply to  JMurphy
July 16, 2022 7:24 am

“And no, I have no idea”

You should have stopped typing after this statement of fact.

rah
July 15, 2022 2:06 am

Extent this year is pretty similar to 1995.
Ice Loss Since 1995 | Real Climate Science

comment image

YallaYPoora Kid
Reply to  rah
July 15, 2022 3:03 am

One man’s loss is another man’s input to the average.

Harri Luuppala
July 15, 2022 9:04 am

Breaking News. One walrus found in the town Hamina, southern cost of Finland!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/14/arctic-sea-ice-still-quite-abundant-for-early-summer/#comment-3555535

Last edited 2 months ago by Harri Luuppala
Gary Meyers
July 15, 2022 9:10 am

Here is an interesting chart. The avg. temp in the arctic is below a baseline for this time of year. Constantly so! http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

jeff corbin
Reply to  Gary Meyers
July 15, 2022 12:26 pm

Very nice data feed. I looked at all of the years 1958-2022. It is rare, (relatively rare we taking a 64 year data set) for the day time temp average to dip below the mean by that much for the long during the Summer months. The 2022 graph is very close to the 2009 graph. I could not find any others that were similar. I remember Bastardi predicted three cold winters (2011,2012 and 2013..which turned out cold in PA) after the solar minimum of the 23rd cycle, (the minimum of the 24th cycle was very similar to the minimum of the 23rd cycle). Anyway, Bastardi cited a cooling trend in the artic as one of the factors for his prediction. I wonder what he now thinks of the current arctic cooling trend? Ice in and out ice out dates are also another data proxy for arctic temp trends.

Gary Meyers
Reply to  jeff corbin
July 15, 2022 2:52 pm

Where is Joe now? Does he have a site? Also, Greenland is not melting on schedule as well.

jeff corbin
July 15, 2022 11:49 am

Geez the narrative protection on Bering sea ice makes it nearly impossible to find good information. There was a very inconvenient expansion of Bering sea ice this Winter and it stuck around awhile…into MAY?…. but it was just due to weather. LOL

https://scitechdaily.com/a-sea-of-icy-variability-expansion-of-sea-ice-in-the-bering-sea/

Ireneusz Palmowski
July 15, 2022 2:02 pm

It’s a bit chilly in July in the North Pole.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2022.png

Last edited 2 months ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
%d bloggers like this: