Twenty Years Of Unprecedented Melting Has Left Arctic Sea Ice Unchanged

Posted on May 8, 2015 by Tony Heller

Climate experts say that the Arctic sea ice is melting down, and will be gone by 2013.

The amount of sea ice in the Arctic is essentially identical to 20 years ago.

ScreenHunter_9057 May. 08 07.45

Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps

ScreenHunter_4681 Nov. 16 22.25

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

About Tony Heller

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

43 Responses to Twenty Years Of Unprecedented Melting Has Left Arctic Sea Ice Unchanged

  1. Michael E. Newton says:
    May 8, 2015 at 12:55 pm

    But snow coverage has increased dramatically, and we know that this was caused by global warming.

    Reply
    • Gary H says:
      May 8, 2015 at 3:55 pm

      To be fair – the 1995 image didn’t show snow coverage. On the other hand, even though the extent – around the edges – is slightly less today than back then (as if that meant anything of note), if the color coding is accurate – the ice looks to thicker (older) now, then back in the 1995 image.

      Reply
      • David A says:
        May 8, 2015 at 9:18 pm

        Compare 2014 snow cover to 2015. I will check, but am willing to wager 2015 snow cover is as high as 1995.

        Reply
    • Phillippe Jones says:
      May 8, 2015 at 11:37 pm

      Problem is these ‘Scientists’ simply project out a downward trend … assume it will continue with no changes but more CO2…

      Well… the past 2 years were colder than 1998… which was a peak in a warming cycle of 30ish years… something changed… CO2 went up but something else changed… sun activity or whatever… rather than admit being wrong … going back to the drawing board…. they double down and attack their critics..

      Reply
    • [email protected] says:
      May 10, 2015 at 9:52 am

      And you point is Michael? Cold means Global Warming Hot means Global Warming ah whatever happens it’s Global Warming.

      Reply
  2. richard says:
    May 8, 2015 at 1:30 pm

    That is a bucket load of snow.

    Reply
  4. Mike D says:
    May 8, 2015 at 1:55 pm

    It’s all the feedback loops kicking in. The alarmists used to acknowledge that CO2 couldn’t cause catastrophic warming, hence their imagined feedback loops that would get out of control. Now they just claim carbon pollution is destroying the world. And not even pseudo scientific explanations are required for that, since the true believers never even understood what was claimed before.

    Reply
  5. rhymeafterrhyme says:
    May 8, 2015 at 2:05 pm

    “Remember the nineties, when we we’re put in a panic;
    Global warming was coming, it would all get quite manic.
    The temperatures would rise like never before,
    Doom and disaster for us all, of that they were sure.

    No more snow for our children, no more wintry scenes,
    Hello blazing hot summers; goodbye village greens.
    There was trouble looming, crops would be affected,
    As more carbon dioxide was being detected….”

    Read more..http://wp.me/p3KQlH-6X

    Reply
  7. Caleb says:
    May 8, 2015 at 2:56 pm

    Besides the sea-ice “death spiral”, another failed forecast is the “Tropospheric Hot Spot”. Dr. Bill Gray has come out with a statement explaining the big mistake which computer climate models swallowed hook, line and sinker, which makes them be so wrong.

    I hope you can find some way to allow your excellent site to link to Dr. Gray’s statement, for, though it will contain too-much-information for some, I think it is one of the clearest explanations I’ve ever read of the problem. It deserves to be spread all over the web.

    https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/why-climate-models-fail-a-very-important-point-by-dr-bill-gray/

    Reply
    • ren says:
      May 8, 2015 at 3:15 pm

      “Summary. The global climate modelers assumed that CO2 enhanced global rainfall will bring about large upper-tropospheric water-vapor and temperature increases. These upper-level water-vapor increases are then projected to bring about even larger temperature increases and additional water-vapor (positive water-vapor feedback) amounts which add twice as much additional blockage of infrared (IR) energy to space than the initial influence of the CO2 blockage alone. Such large water-vapor and temperature increases are not at all realistic. This is the Achilles-heel of the whole AGW theory.”

      Reply
      • ren says:
        May 8, 2015 at 3:17 pm

        Wind strength determines the evaporation. At low solar activity, wind force decreases.

        Reply
      • Caleb says:
        May 8, 2015 at 3:24 pm

        What really opened my eyes was Gray’s ability to explain what actually happens at the very tops of hurricanes and tropical thunderstorms, and how it is in some ways the opposite of what is plugged into the climate models.

        Reply
        • ren says:
          May 8, 2015 at 4:07 pm

          Is the pilot may get confused about the state of the atmosphere?
          “The altitude of the tropopause, and thus the thickness of the troposphere, varies considerably. Typical altitudes are 55 000 feet in the tropics with a temperature of –70 °C and 29 000 feet in polar regions with a temperature of –50 °C. Because of the very low surface temperatures in polar regions and the associated low level inversion, the temperature lapse profile is markedly different to the mid-latitude norms. In mid-latitudes the height of the troposphere varies seasonally and daily with the passage of high and low pressure systems.

          In the chart above an exaggerated environmental temperature lapse rate profile has been superimposed to illustrate the temperature layer possibilities starting with a superadiabatic lapse layer at the surface, a normal lapse rate layer above it then a temperature inversion layer and an isothermal layer.”
          http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/met/images2/17.gif
          http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/met/hm_temp.htm
          http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_AMJ_EQ_2015.gif
          https://youtu.be/9RexrOEOmvk

        • ren says:
          May 8, 2015 at 4:13 pm

          Is the AMO a natural phenomenon, or is it related to global warming?
          Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. However, studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation. In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain.
          Monthly Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index values since January 1979. The thin line indicates 3 month average values, and the thick line is the simple running 11 year average. By choosing January 1979 as starting point, the diagram is easy to compare with other types of temperature diagrams covering the satellite period since 1979. Further explanation in text above. Data source: Earth System Research Laboratory at NOAA. Last month shown: March 2015. Last diagram update: 14 April 2015.
          AMO began to decline. More than 30 years drop in temperature in the Atlantic.
          http://www.climate4you.com/images/AMO%20GlobalMonthlyIndexSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

        • ren says:
          May 8, 2015 at 4:24 pm

          “Since the direction of the thermal gradient is reversed above the tropopause the thermal wind reverses to easterly. The horizontal thermal gradient is at maximum just below the tropopause, where the jet stream occurs.

          At latitude 45° S a temperature difference of 1 °C in 100 km will cause an increase in thermal wind of 10 m/sec, or about 20 knots, for every 10 000 feet of altitude, giving jet stream speeds at 30 000 feet, ignoring geostrophic wind. Temperature contrasts between air masses at the polar front will be greatest during winter, giving the strongest jet stream.”

  8. mat says:
    May 8, 2015 at 3:10 pm

    If climatologist were engineers…?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C67ULHBg2hw

    Reply
  9. Notnigh Arealscienceguy says:
    May 8, 2015 at 4:52 pm

    “Two Arctic ice researchers presumed drowned after unseasonably high temperatures”
    Amy Westervelt, The Guardian, Saturday 2 May 201500.46 BST Last modified on Tuesday 5 May 201511.54 BST
    “Police have called off the search for two Dutch scientists. Unusually thin ice likely played a role in their presumed death in the Canadian Arctic this week.
    Researchers Marc Cornelissen and Philip de Roo are presumed drowned after they appear to have broken through the ice while on a scientific expedition.
    In a voicemail on Tuesday, Dutch researcher Marc Cornelissen, founder of Cold Facts, an organization supporting scientific research in Polar Regions, laughed at his predicament. He explained that unexpectedly warm weather had forced him and fellow explorer Philip de Roo to complete that afternoon’s skiing in the Canadian Arctic in their underwear.”

    SOME COLD HARD FACTS FOR “COLD FACTS” AND THE GUARDIAN
    The nearest weather station to the accident site is 200 km to the south at the airport in Resolute, Nunavut Territory. The temperature there on Tuesday the 28th April rose to a high of -9°C (16°F) the low was -12°C (10.4°F), light snow fell throughout the day. There were light winds out of the east. The previous day was very sunny with a high of -8°C (17.6°F) and a low of -13°C (10.4°F). The airport is in a sheltered cove on the south end of Cornwallis Island. The skiers were 200 km (124 mi.) to the north on the open ice (of Penny Strait?). Currently the ice thickness in the Strait varies from 2 meters (6 feet) to 5 meters (16 feet). The nearest “open” water is a tiny patch in the Mackenzie delta about 1100 kilometers away. Open ocean is over 2,000 km away near Nuuk, southern Greenland. There is still minor ice cover on Lake Superior 3,300 km to the south. Total global sea ice cover at the time was about 1 million square km. above the mean.

    All land expeditions to the Bathurst Island area are carried out in April, after the sun reappears but before spring makes ice travel hazardous. Spring arrives in early July. The ice is perfectly safe in April except for occasional leads (cracks) caused by winds, tides and currents. These three elements are amplified in narrow straits. “Shore leads” form between the drift ice and a shoreline. “Flaw leads” form between fast ice (frozen onto the seafloor or shore) and the drift ice. Leads form and heal throughout the year, temperature is not a factor. It is likely that the skiers experienced overheating while pulling sledges on Monday afternoon in bright sunshine and a “mild” temperature of -8°C. There was a fresh breeze in the hamlet of Resolute most of that day; such a breeze can shift ice, which could open a lead, and then cover it with snow.

    The skiers were pulling sledges from the front and may not have been tied together. To defend their needless deaths while performing a grossly negligent publicity stunt, they have been described as scientists or experienced polar explorers and “researchers”. One cannot fall into a lead on the beaches of Antarctica. A tourist trip to Antarctica hardly qualifies someone to travel over sea ice on the opposite pole. The so-called Cold Facts support team lodged in a warm hotel room in Resolute attempted to send a rescue flight but it was grounded for days by a blizzard. They opted for a ground attempt by snowmobile. Did they believe they were rushing out onto a melting ice sheet? Did the government plane refuse to land at the accident site because of “poor ice conditions”, or did the blizzard and numerous pressure ridges or the possibility of a hidden lead discourage them? Did they even have skis?

    Take a look at Resolute (or any other Arctic village) on Google earth. The tank farms for diesel and gasoline storage are huge, almost as big as the town sites. Petroleum makes it possible for people like the Cold Facts team to live comfortably in the arctic. Perhaps next year they can go in their underwear and go solar due to global warming.

    The Guardian story says that the thin ice and open water was encountered 200 km south of Bathurst Island. That puts the “drowning” site in the middle of Prince of Wales Island.

    More and more frequently neophytes from outside this country are coming here to sail the Northwest Passage or photograph the last polar bear or make a phony claim to have rowed to the pole. They get stuck in the ice or eaten by an extinct bear or they drag a rowboat over ice to where the magnetic pole used to be in 1996. All of this nonsense by these nimrods costs money. The territorial Government has a tax base of perhaps 15,000 people. The search and rescue costs are too much for the locals and their semi autonomous status. Rich, over privileged, misinformed kids from suburban Amsterdam or London are imposing unnecessary costs on a struggling regional economy for political grandstanding. This is the Arctic equivalent of defacing ancient artifacts on the Nazca Plateau. It’s all lies all the way down.

    Just last month the Guardian had displayed supreme hypocrisy in claiming that David Rose, a writer for the Mail on Sunday, “is known for his inaccurate and misleading climate change coverage.” The Guardian regularly publishes hatchet jobs on Dr. Willie Soon, implying he is not a serious scientist. “Cold Facts” is probably a front for the WWF and possibly underwritten by the Guardian as well. Now its founder is dead. These unfortunate bumpkins were neither scientists nor researchers; they were cannon fodder in a disgustingly corrupt political stunt. Instead of effusive praise and a fictional hagiography, the Guardian should pay for a recovery effort so the families can take them home.

    Reply
  10. ren says:
    May 8, 2015 at 7:09 pm

    Solar EUV radiation
    The Sun emits electromagnetic radiation across a wide spectrum. At the wavelengths
    of visible light, where the solar irradiance is at its maximum, the emission
    is quite constant, but both at shorter wavelengths (ultraviolet) and longer wavelengths
    (radio), the level of emission is related to the level of activity of the Sun’s
    magnetic field, and the interaction of this magnetic field with gases on the solar
    surface, the photosphere, and in its atmosphere, the chromosphere and corona. The
    emissions at the shortest wavelengths, of 170 nm and less, are responsible for
    heating the Earth’s thermosphere. Radiation in this wavelength range is often
    designated Extreme Ultraviolet, or EUV radiation. Note that different publications
    might use slightly different definitions for the wavelength ranges in this
    part of the spectrum. The designations XUV (soft X-rays), EUV and FUV (Far Ultraviolet)
    may be encountered. In the following, we will simply use the term EUV
    for all solar radiation that affects the thermosphere, unless otherwise noted.
    The heating of the thermosphere by EUV radiation occurs through excitation,
    dissociation or ionization of the atoms or molecules (primarily O, O2 and N2).
    The excess energy of each photon is converted into kinetic energy of the reaction
    products [Rees, 1989; Hargreaves, 1992].
    Variations in EUV radiation are wavelength-dependent, as the shortest wavelengths
    are generally formed higher in the Sun’s atmosphere and are more variable
    than shorter wavelengths [Lean, 1991]. They are also generally absorbed at
    higher altitudes in the Earth’s atmosphere [Tobiska et al., 2006]. Ideally, knowledge
    of the variability in irradiance over the entire UV and EUV spectrum is required
    in order to model the heating input in the atmosphere correctly.
    The absorption of EUV radiation in the thermosphere results in a so-called diurnal
    bulge in temperature and density, on the daylight side of the Earth. For this
    reason, density variations in a horizontal plane are usually mapped in a coordinate
    system of local solar time versus latitude (see Section 2.1.3). Local solar time
    (LST) is equivalent to the longitude coordinate on normal maps, but usually expressed
    in hours instead of degrees, and with the defining meridian, at 12h (noon)
    LST, passing through the sub-solar point instead of through Greenwich. Due to
    thermal inertia, the diurnal bulge has its peak at around 14h–15h local solar time.
    http://oi57.tinypic.com/2n1dw1y.jpg

    Reply
  11. ren says:
    May 8, 2015 at 7:18 pm

    Satellite accelerometers, such as those carried on the CHAMP and GRACE satellites, can provide
    valuable data for improving our knowledge of thermosphere density and winds. These data are now
    available over a wide range of the defining conditions, including more than half a solar cycle. Continuity
    and enhancement of this multi-satellite accelerometer data set will be provided by ESA’s Swarm mission.
    This investigation covers the processing steps required for accurately converting accelerometer data into
    density and wind data, and the subsequent use of this data for improving the understanding of the
    thermosphere.
    The investigation of the data processing is based on data from the CHAMP and GRACE accelerometers,
    star cameras and GPS receivers and equivalent simulated data that has been created for Swarm. The
    investigation encompasses the calibration of the accelerometer instrument, accurate aerodynamic and
    radiation pressure force modelling and the enhancement of processing algorithms. This has resulted in
    improved accuracy of the data and increased insight in the possible sources of error.
    The largest remaining error sources in the density derivation are the gas-surface interaction modelling,
    modelling of the satellite geometry, the calibration scale factor for the in-track accelerometer component,
    and the knowledge of the atmospheric in-track wind speed, composition and temperature. These sources
    lead to density errors which are largely systematic in nature and are estimated at about 15% of the density
    signal for CHAMP, GRACE and Swarm.
    The crosswind determination accuracy is very much dependent on the strength of the aerodynamic drag
    signal, compared to solar radiation pressure modelling errors and accelerometer cross-track calibration
    errors. Therefore, reliable results can only be obtained for a combination of a sufficiently low altitude, high
    enough solar activity and a favourable orbit geometry in terms of radiation pressure accelerations. For
    CHAMP, a multi-year time series of crosswind speeds has been obtained that is within the statistical
    uncertainty of current empirical thermosphere wind models. However, for the higher altitude GRACE
    satellites, radiation pressure modelling errors dominate.
    The CHAMP- and GRACE-derived density and wind data has subsequently been used in extensive
    evaluations using empirical and physical models of the thermosphere, and geophysical studies of large
    scale structures and patterns in the data. Experiments with an accelerometer-calibrated empirical density
    model indicate that improvements in the standard deviation of data/model ratios of at least 30% are
    possible. The work concludes with recommendations for Swarm and other possible future thermosphere
    missions.
    http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/EarthObservation/acceldrag_finalreport_compressed.pdf

    Reply
  12. Hugh says:
    May 8, 2015 at 7:28 pm

    Mr. Goddard,

    It is ice free summer which is being projected, not May 5.

    Look at September 5, and there is a difference between 1995 and 2014. Smaller, admittedly than Wadhams projected, which is not a surprise.

    Reply
  13. Phillippe Jones says:
    May 8, 2015 at 11:40 pm

    Steven… any idea why nobody in the Big Media nor some Big Politician is picking up on Arctic Ice Recovery or all this Data Fraud??

    Are the Political Forces of Alarmism and the EnvironMeNTaL movement just that strong??

    Reply
  15. John Swallow says:
    May 10, 2015 at 6:36 pm

    What this unfulfilled prediction that Professor Wieslaw Maslowski made in December 2007 shows just how unreliable these powerful computer models are. “In particular, Professor Maslowski is adamant that models need to incorporate more realistic representations of the way warm water is moving into the Arctic basin from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.” It must have done no good to do this judging from how far off his predictions are.

    “Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at “The Bergen, Norway.”
    Who reported this ? the IPCC, the Meteorological Office…. No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.

    “The source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic has been found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922. It is much more detailed than the Washington Post (Associated Press) article. It seems the AP heaviliy relied on the report from Norway Consulate George Ifft, which is shown below. See the original MWR article below and click the newsprint copy for a complete artice or see the link to the original PDF below:”
    http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200389-Flashback-1922-Extra-Extra-Read-all-about-it-Arctic-Ocean-Getting-Warm-Seals-Perish-Glaciers-and-Icebergs-Melt-

    Why do these alarmist continue to make themselves out to be fools?

    Reply
  16. Robert Applegate says:
    May 10, 2015 at 8:44 pm

    Right after hurricane Katrine hit N.Orleans the weather prognosticators were predicting that due to man made global warming we would have 5 major hurricanes a year hit our coasts, and 3 of these would in all probability be cat 5, duh, what happened? We haven’t had the first. In Dec. 2007 Al Gore’s noble prize winning speech he said the ice cap was falling off a cliff and would be completely gone in as little as 7 years, so I guess all his polar bears have since drowned, what a tragedy another species wiped out by man.

    Reply
  17. johnbuna says:
    May 17, 2015 at 4:13 pm

    Reblogged this on John Hargrove’s Weblog.

    Reply
  18. Ted Preston says:
    May 17, 2015 at 7:39 pm

    What do you make of these two photos? Do you see any difference there? If so, why might that be?

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=20&fy=1995&sm=09&sd=20&sy=2014

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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