The Arctic Is Ice Free – How Can Sea Ice Be Declining?

Experts say the Arctic is ice-free. They also say the non-existent ice is melting rapidly.

North Pole already ice-free in 2000


Ages-Old Icecap at North Pole Is Now Liquid, Scientists Find –

Arctic ice-free by 2012.


The Daily Reporter – Google News Archive Search



Arctic ice-free by 2013


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

Arctic ice-free by 2014.

CXKkfn8UEAAjWPl (1)

Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014

Arctic ice-free by 2015.


What climate scientists talk about now –

ScreenHunter_9954 Jul. 20 08.27

The End of the Arctic? Ocean Could be Ice Free by 2015 – The Daily Beast


The Argus-Press – Google News Archive Search

Scientists have been saying this same story for generations.


04 Apr 1923 – THE NORTH POLE. – Trove


The Changing Face of the Arctic – The Changing Face of the Arctic – View Article –


TimesMachine: Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea; Catastrophic Shifts in Climate Feared if Change Occurs Other Specialists See No Thinning of Polar Ice Cap –


The Argus-Press – Google News Archive Search


19 Jun 1972, Page 41 – at


12 Dec 2007, Page 25 – Arizona Republic at

CdRIbn7UMAAga9P (1)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to The Arctic Is Ice Free – How Can Sea Ice Be Declining?

  1. Steve Case says:

    Off Topic:

    If you’re going to take in “Climate Hustle” this comming Monday, it may be a very good opportunity for lots of people who share a common view of Climate Change/Global Warming to connect with one another. Bring a notebook and a pack of calling cards. Most theaters these days have cafes of some sort for people to gather before or after the show.

    I bought my ticket in person a week or so ago, and I asked what the turnout was so far. Very good for a one time presentation I was told.

  2. Brad says:

    A paper about the loss of local ice in Finland and Japan. They claim that CO2 is the driving factor, which is odd because they claim CO2 has a greater correlation that air temperature on ice melt after the industrial revolution. The CO2 itself doesn’t melt the ice. They failed to take into account particulate matter such as soot that would also correspond to CO2 and would have an effect on ice melt independent of air temperature. If they bin their 1950-2013 data into decades I would bet they would see a reduction in the correlation of CO2 and ice melt as industry has become cleaner over that past two decades. I feel like the peer review process for climate papers is simply a rubber stamp these days.

    • wert says:

      A paper about the loss of local ice in Finland and Japan.

      There is NO permanent glaciers or sea/lake ice in Finland. The temperature difference between north and south Finland is about 5C over the year. Raising temperature by 1C moves vegetation zones about 200km; to make Oulu in the middle like South Finland now requires increase from +1C to +5C on the yearly average.

      • Brad says:

        It isn’t about glaciers, it is about the duration and extent of seasonal ice coverage of a local river and lake for which there is over 500 years of recorded observation. Changes in which are blamed on man’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere, and amazingly, independent of air temperature (I suspect there is not any profound change in local temperatures at these places, same as here in the US. Changes in the temperature record only occur when it is a ‘global’ record with poor coverage beset with estimated data.)

        The point was about how even scientific literature on the subject of global warming lacks any real scrutiny. Why should we expect truth from an uneducated media producing propaganda for the unwashed masses.

  3. Coeur de Lion says:

    Real climate science – do hope you can publicise the devastating exposure of the BBC’s bias seen on notalotofpeopleknowthat website. 162 pages – every one worth reading.

  4. Posted this on the old site by accident…

    he insulating effect of ice is very high. As soon as ice opens even a little, heat is lost from the ocean to the atmosphere through convection and evaporation, and almost directly to space via radiation. Even using the radiative losses alone (which are small compared to the others), any open water will get cooled very quickly, closing the ice again. The radiative losses from ice are small (because the surface cools to almost match the much cooler air temperature, reducing radiation at T^4, and due to slow conduction of heat through ice, (which allows the upper layer to match air temp)). But once open water exists, the radiation goes at the usual rate for an emissivity of 1, less any DW radiation from above. Open water can also cause clouds, which will reduce radiation to space somewhat at the first pass, but the clouds (droplets) themselves also radiate from the top of the cloud, making an even more efficient heat transfer media to radiate it away from the ambient air to space.

    Open water is a huge negative feedback with LOTS of headroom.

    Of course, this is ignored completely and the nearly insignificant factor of albedo is used as the one that is important.

  5. Stewart Pid says:

    Has anyone seen any further pearls of wisdom from the nitwit Beckwith?
    He seems to have vanished from posting etc.

  6. Jason Calley says:

    I particularly liked the article above from 2000 — the one that says “Ages-Old Ice Cap at North Pole is Now Liquid” and “The last time that scientists can be certain the pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago.”

    I don’t know whether that was really the state of the “settled science” in 2000, but multiple papers since then have shown that the Arctic was ice free much more recently. It was certainly ice free during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, as recently as 5,000 years ago, and very likely during some of the other warm periods since then. It may have been ice free as recently as 1,000 years ago, a mere eye-blink in geological time. That is obviously why the planet was destroyed and human civilization ended in the year 1016 AD.

    As for 50 million years, that is only an error of 49,999,000 years.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Norwegian/Icelandic whaling logs show we are probably at a level pretty much the same as the late Medieval period after it had started to dip down to the LIA. This increase of sea ice effectively stopped all fishing and whaling.

      • Jason Calley says:

        The worst part is that the CAGW enthusiasts want MORE ice — and there is every chance that they will get it in the next decade or two. I do not think that will be an improvement.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          It’s a sick crowd.

          They say that warming will be disastrous but they cheer and run victory laps every time they think they discovered evidence of the coming catastrophe. And then there is the civilization death wish of the glaciation lovers.

          Smug, overfed and ignorant progressive first world urbanites. Just about everyone else umderstands that a warmer world would be better.

  7. AndyG55 says:

    Can someone tell me what the level of Arctic sea ice SHOULD be?

    Biomarkers clearly indicate that during the first 3/4 of the Holocene, there was often zero summer Arctic sea ice.

    Then we had a massive expansion of Arctic sea ice during the coldest period in the last 10,000 years. We are at the tail end of a partial recovery from that.

    The Holocene average would be far less than we currently have.

    • Latitude says:

      amazing isn’t it….

      If we were in a period where the Arctic was ice free in the summer…
      ..and ice was increasing

      some paranoid pathetic nutjob would be screaming their heads off

    • gator69 says:

      Can someone tell me what the level of Arctic sea ice SHOULD be?

      For the right price, yes! And then I will require a sizable annual income to monitor the ice for you.

  8. Doug Cotton says:

    Nobody can PROVE carbon dioxide warms based on any valid physics. Note the following supporting this ….


    The “science” put forward by Joseph Postma and Jef Reynen on the Principia Scientific International site is SERIOUSLY FLAWED. Because they recognize the fact that back radiation does not help the solar radiation to heat the surface, they then try to explain the surface temperatures of Earth and Venus with direct solar radiation impinging on those surfaces. Postma even includes solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere as if it reached the surface! This demonstrates a COMPLETE LACK of UNDERSTANDING of standard physics, in particular the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to explain such temperatures with solar radiation alone. The ONLY correct explanation of both the temperatures and the heat transfer mechanisms (which works with all planets) is what I have been first in the world to explain, BASED on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and thus CORRECT. Consider the following …

    A location on the Moon’s surface can cool by over 200 degrees in about two weeks, getting down to around -150°C on the dark side. Now, Antarctica is on the dark side of Earth for over three months in winter, but its temperature remains fairly steady in the vicinity of -50°C to -60°C. But there must be at least some loss of energy via radiation through the atmospheric window to Space. So what replenishes that energy? Clearly the difference between the Moon and the Earth has something to do with the atmosphere. Hence the energy must come from the atmosphere, but wherever the atmosphere is colder than the Antarctic surface, there can be no heat transfer by radiation. There can however be a process which increases entropy in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics* and you can read about that process at because that is where this mystery energy does in fact come from. When you understand this process and note the overwhelming evidence supporting its existence then, and only then, will you have a correct understanding as to why the radiative greenhouse is nothing but fiction.

    * Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.

  9. ralph says:

    Something I thought was quite interesting, maybe a bit OT.

    Meteo Group forecaster Billy Payne said temperatures across the UK were about five degrees colder than expected for late April, with average lows this week due to be below freezing at around -1C, compared to expected levels of 5-6C.

    But he poured cold water on the reports of snow blizzards in southern areas, claiming the conditions could actually be “soft hail”.

    “I think a lot of it might just be soft hail,” he said. “It appears quite like snow in texture but it might be soft hail.

    Soft hail is “similar to summer hail” but softer with more air, meaning it breaks up like snow, he said: “It’s just a different formation process”.

    • Jason Calley says:

      “I think a lot of it might just be soft hail,” he said. “It appears quite like snow in texture but it might be soft hail.

      Then again, it MIGHT be volcanic ash. Or soap flakes. Or canary feathers.

  10. Pingback: Arctic Will Be Ice Free By (Insert Next Year Here) — GraniteGrok

  11. ralph says:

    It MIGHT be fairy dust.

  12. AndyG55 says:

    Since none of the AGW trolls seem to be able to answer, I’ll ask again

    “Can someone tell me what the level of Arctic sea ice SHOULD be?”

    Make reference to the full Holocene period in your answer.

  13. Andyj says:

    Well Andy If the Arctic melts, the bears will go South onto land.
    If the Arctic gets too cold, the food will go away and the bears will go south.
    Right now they are confused so it must be perfect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.