Arctic Ice The Same As 10 Years Ago

Posted on April 30, 2015 by Tony Heller

For the past two years, Arctic sea ice extent has been tracking 2005/2006 – which had the two highest summer minimums of the past decade.

ScreenHunter_8815 Apr. 30 06.04Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Arctic sea ice volume is just below 2006

ScreenHunter_8816 Apr. 30 06.13BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png (1364×992)

Climate experts will protest by saying “but the long term trend is down two million km sq.” – based on NSIDC graphs, which not so cleverly start in 1979

ScreenHunter_8823 Apr. 30 06.31

NSIDC performs this optical illusion by truncating the years prior to 1979, when Arctic sea ice extent grew by two million km sq.

ScreenHunter_8822 Apr. 30 06.28 ScreenHunter_8824 Apr. 30 06.35 ScreenHunter_8825 Apr. 30 06.36

In other words, Arctic sea ice extent is about the same as it was 40 years ago.

The Northwest Passage is blocked by three meter thick ice in the Beaufort Sea

ictn2015042818_2015050600_040_arcticictn.001

ictn2015042818_2015050600_040_arcticictn.001.gif (740×666)

But the Northwest Passage was open in 1904

ScreenHunter_208 May. 30 21.56ScreenHunter_209 May. 30 21.57

FRANCE HONORS AMUNDSEN. – Explorer Says Northwest Passage Is Not Practicable for Trade. – View Article – NYTimes.com

In other words, there is probably more ice now in the Beaufort Sea than there was in 1904.

Experts told us that the Arctic would be ice-free in 2013.

ScreenHunter_8818 Apr. 30 06.17

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’

Nobel Prize winners told us the Arctic would be ice-free by 2014.

B4BW0yICIAAPJQB

Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014

NASA’s top scientist/prophet told us that the Arctic would be ice-free in 2013

ScreenHunter_8819 Apr. 30 06.19

The Argus-Press – Google News Archive Search

These scientists are incompetent political hacks, who are paid to spread propaganda for the government. They have no idea what drives climate cycles, and have no idea what they are talking about.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Arctic Ice The Same As 10 Years Ago

  2. Marsh says:
    April 30, 2015 at 11:33 am

    I am interested to see the response from Warmist’s, once the Arctic Ice “exceeds” the average; I wait with baited breath…lol.

    Reply
  5. rhymeafterrhyme says:
    April 30, 2015 at 11:42 am

    “I wish I believed in global warming…” http://wp.me/p3KQlH-GD

    Reply
  6. James Strom says:
    April 30, 2015 at 11:57 am

    So Hansen made his prediction of the Arctic meltdown in 2008, and I assume there are other similar quotes from around that time. Hansen must have some scientific ability, but this has the look of a panicked reaction to the extreme low point hit in 2007. Shouldn’t he have some kind of internal editor telling him not to extrapolate from outliers?

    Reply
  7. Caleb says:
    April 30, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    I love the way you encapsulate everything in a nutshell, and keep the overview short. However I really liked the PIOMAS graph that you included last week, that showed the average thickness of the ice increasing. After all, thicker ice would seem to be harder to melt, and lead to slower and less melting in the summer.

    https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/arctic-sea-ice-thickening/

    Reply
  8. darrylb says:
    April 30, 2015 at 2:03 pm

    Hansen and then Schmidt—same old, same old

    and who can get any post which might have skeptical undertones posted at
    Real Climate?

    Reply
  9. emsnews says:
    April 30, 2015 at 2:42 pm

    Good review of the lies.

    Reply
  10. Gail Combs says:
    April 30, 2015 at 2:45 pm

    I was reading papers by Dr. Jaworowski and Dr. Segalstad this moring and thought this passage was approoriate to bring up here:

    ….The temperature fluctuations in five Antarctic regions, reconstructed from the ice core stable isotope records between 1800 and 1999, are similar to the CO2 fluctuations measured directly in the atmosphere since 1812 (Figure 7). According to the IPCC, the highest rise of temperature caused by the emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, should occur in Antarctica and the Arctic. These predictions do not fit the temperature data in Figure 7, which, according to Schneider et al. 2006, are also representative for the whole Southern Hemisphere. In Antarctica, the temperature in the 1990s was lower than during many decades in the past two centuries, and much lower than the mean for 1961 to 1990, represented by the zero line.

    In the northern part of the Earth, direct temperature measurements in the boreholes at the Summit and Dye sites in Greenland (Figure 8) demonstrated that during the last 8,000 years, the temperature in the Arctic fluctuated similarly as the proxy global temperature reconstructed in the IPCC 1990 report (Figure 4), and that at the end of 20th Century, the temperature in the Arctic was lower than during the Medieval and Holocene Warmings. The proxy temperature reconstruction spanning nearly 2,500 years at Taimyr Peninsula in Russia (poleward of 70° N) revealed also the Holocene, Medieval, and Modern Warmings, with the first two warmer than the 20th Century one, in which the temperature peak appeared around 1940 (Naurzbayev et al. 2002).

    Instrumental measurements of surface air temperature in the Arctic were started in 1874 in Greenland, followed by stations at Spitsbergen, Canada, and Russia. Since that year, until about 2000, the highest temperature at 37 Arctic and 6 sub-Arctic stations was observed in the 1930s, and was higher by about 2 to 5°C than those occurring prior to the 1920s. Even in the 1950s, the temperature in the Arctic was higher than in the 1990s. In Greenland, the level of temperature in the 1980s and in the 1990s was similar to that observed in the 19th Century (Przybylak 2000).

    Other instrumental records covering the last 100 years demonstrate similar temperature fluctuations in the Arctic. According to Chylek et al. (2004), instrumental temperature measurements in Greenland show that the highest temperaure there occurred in the 1920s, when in less than ten years it increased by 2-4°C, and at some stations even by 6°C. At that time, the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 were nine times lower than now (Marland et al. 2006).

    Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal data have predominantly undergone cooling. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet, the summer average temperature has decreased at a rate of 2.2°C per decade, since the beginning of measurements in 1987. Similar results are reported for Arctic temperature measurements carried out between 1875 and 2000 (Polyakov et al. 2003). This is against all the predictions of climate models.
    ….
    CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time
    by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., March 2007
    EIR Science 16 March 2007. (Note typo error near top of page 50 . After ‘The Near Future’, the “..2 million years..” should be 1 million.)
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

    If you have never read that paper do so. It is no wonder the Con artists hated him.
    WIKI says

    Jaworowski has suggested that the long-term CO2 record is an artifact caused by the structural changes of the ice with depth and by postcoring processes.

    However, Jaworowski’s views are rejected by the scientific community….. Hans Oeschger [4] states that “…Some of (Jaworowski’s) statements are drastically wrong from the physical point of view”…..Stephen Schneider said of him that “Jaworowski is perhaps even more contrarian than most….

    That brings to mind the very appropriate forward to one of Jaworowski’s papers written by Professor Dr. Hartmut Frank
    Environmental Chemistry and Exotoxicology
    University of Bayreuth,
    Bayeurth, Germany

    ….There are many occasions where analytical data have not been validated or checked for their significance. In fact, it is common that environmental data are not subjected to normal statistical test as to their precision, variation, standard deviation, significance or probability of difference…..

    Also in scientific discussions sometimes the sentiment of the “generally accepted view of the scientific community” is heard — as if verification or falsification is a matter of majority vote. There are many historic examples when the common belief, the majority of those who knew, hindered true progress. Derogatory statements about a person’s scientific reputation are the least helpful. Often the less firm arguments are, the more is the interpretation based upon scientific “authority through majority”…..
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/IceCoreSprg97.pdf

    What a great description of CAGW and the entire environmental movement.

    Reply
  11. Casey says:
    April 30, 2015 at 4:53 pm

    There are so many things wrong with this. First off, NSIDC is not trying to pull one over on everyone by starting the trend in 1979. Satellite observations began in late 1978, and therefore to create a homogeneous graph of the best data available, it begins in 1978! Secondly, the declining trend refers to moving averages (the darker averaged line in the plots). Anyone can pick out a high and a low week/month to compare and exaggerate the data. The stretch that arctic sea ice is the same as 40 years ago is unfounded. There are plenty of paleoclimate reconstructions, as well as in situ observations (while sparse and not spatially complete) that support that the trend seen since 1979 is, indeed, alarming.

    Reply
  12. Eliza says:
    April 30, 2015 at 5:09 pm

    Ice extent/thickness means absolutely nothing re human presence on earth. We are looking at glaciations occurring every ~11,000 years like clockwork. At that time man/women were basically two legged monkeys. Cool down! Pun intended LOL BTW same goes for climate change (ie You wont see it in your lifetime). Unless you clone yourself.

    Reply
  13. pjie2 (@pjie2) says:
    April 30, 2015 at 7:12 pm

    After a slightly slower than usual start to the melting season, 2015 has just dipped below all other contenders and now has the lowest extent in the satellite record for the date. And so, as happens every year around this time, I thought to myself, “I bet good old Tony H had posted a ‘Tracking 2006!!!1!!!1!’ post” – 2006 being the previous record low extent throughout May.

    And sure enough, here it is. I can almost set my cherry blossom by him. Bless.

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      April 30, 2015 at 8:30 pm

      And we can be very sure the most Warmist Alarming measure of sea ice will be reported. EXTENT is based on wind and how far apart the ice pack is blown. The amount of five, four, three and two year ice is more important as is the ice thickness. Those peramaters are increasing.

      But that is alright the earth is getting ready to enter the next ice age, Big or Little is the only question since we are past due for glaciation by about two centuries. The one thing we can be very very sure of is the earth will not be warming except for brief periods for the next 65,000 years.

      A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records
      Lisiecki & Raymo
      ABSTRACT
      We present a 5.3-Myr stack (the ‘‘LR04’’ stack) of benthic d18O records from 57 globally distributed sites aligned by an automated graphic correlation algorithm. This is the first benthic d18O stack composed of more than three records to extend beyond 850 ka,…

      RESULTS
      Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA Community Members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with d18O values below 3.6% for 20 kyr, from 398 – 418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6% for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398– 418 ka as from 250–650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence….

      The fall 2012 paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? agrees with Lisieck and Raymo …

      …although it has been unclear whether the subdued current summer insolation minimum (479 W m?2 ), the lowest of the last 800 kyr, would be sufficient to lead to glaciation (e.g. Crucifix, 2011). Comparison with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474 W m?2 ) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240 ± 5 ppmv (Tzedakis et al., 2012). …..

      An older paper from 2007 also agrees Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception

      ….Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….
      (wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379107002715

      Given the age of the Holocene and the low level of solar insolation resulting, the witch hunt against CO2 is really rather humorous.

      You can look up the Solar insolation values for 60 degrees North in June (2nd column ) at NOAA and see how close the earth is to the lowest sun energy value (insolation).
      http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/orbital_variations/berger_insolation/insol91.jun

      Holocene peak insolation: 523 Wm-2
      ………………………………………….decreased = 47 Wm-2
      NOW (modern Warm Period) 476 Wm-2
      …………………………………………. decreased = 12 Wm-2
      Depth of the last ice age – around 464 Wm?2

      The two questions I have is

      1. If we pump out enough CO2 into the atmosphere will it be enough to keep the earth from massive cooling? Even during the time between the two precession cycle peaks in MIS11 the temperature was darn cold and nasty. (Think Little Ice Age or worse.)

      2. Do the Elite actually believe we are headed into either Little Ice Age conditions or worse. Are we being Grubered so they and their descendants can survive while we die? Is that why there is so much emphasis on population control started in the 1970s at the same time Hays and Shackleton proved the Milancovitch theory with hard data from sea bed cores?

      Reply
  14. inMAGICn says:
    April 30, 2015 at 8:21 pm

    “Calling Professor Maslowski…”
    “Calling Doctor Hansen…”
    “Calling Veep Al Gore…”
    “Please call us.”

    Reply
  15. Robertv says:
    April 30, 2015 at 8:55 pm

    http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2015/04/dutch-researchers-disappear-on-their-way-to-the-north-pole/

    The experienced Pole researchers Marc Cornelissen and Philip de Roo sent out an SOS signal on Wednesday and a helicopter was launched. The pilot saw one of the pair’s dogs on the ice, but no traces of the two men.

    The coordination centre says it is warm in the area and the ice is breaking up.

    Reply
  16. SMS says:
    April 30, 2015 at 9:19 pm

    Just curious. How much would the error boundaries for Arctic Sea Ice change if you included the low number for 1975? Do the past ten years fall into that error boundary?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *