Arctic Non-Melt Continues

OSISAF maps show almost no change in Arctic sea ice over the past week.2016-05-30-03-55-58

This is not very surprising, because temperatures are below the freezing point of water over the ice pack.


DMI graphs are finally starting to show the flattening, about 10 days late.

icecover_current_new (7)

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

DMI still shows a lot less ice than last year, but their maps show about 1% more ice than last year.2016-05-30-04-03-04

I will continue to track this, because I don’t trust any government agency anymore.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to Arctic Non-Melt Continues

  1. Jim Hunt says:

    Is this psychedelic enough for you?

  2. Caleb says:

    Thanks for continuing to track this.

    I don’t trust the government either, but perhaps they just have to many relatives hired for jobs they can’t handle, too many people over their heads, and the problems are not intentional, but due to bumbling. The problems seem too glaring to be done by sinister genius.

    One thing I can’t figure out was pointed out by Svend Ferdinandsen at the end of the last post, and involves a visual increase in the ice between May 24 and May 25, in the DMI Ice Drift maps. All is not well in Denmark.

  3. AndyG55 says:

    Ice volume is flattening out too.

  4. Gail Combs says:

    “I will continue to track this, because I don’t trust any government agency anymore.”
    Trust the government? — You have to be kidding!

    I just read Judicial Watch deposition transcript from Lewis Lukens

    Lewis Lukens is the former deputy assistant secretary of state and executive director of the State Department’s executive secretariat. He was the person in charge of setting-up the office for Hitlery when she moved in as Secretary of State. HE made ZERO attempt to make sure Hillary and Huma used SECURE government equipment (computers and blackberrys) so as NOT to compromise the security of the USA. He made NO attempt to train people on security. The idiot even sent US Docs to his yahoo mail so he could then print a hard copy while oveseas!!!

    Hillary insisted on using a personnal blackberry because ‘she couldn’t read her e-mails on a computer’ and insisted on a private server because she did not want to bother with the passwords on the government server.

    Thes are TOP USA government officials??? After reading that transcript, I would not trust a government employee or politician to cross a street without an adult holding their hand!

    Sorry, Tony but that transcript just totally blew my mind and I am not security or computer savvy. If that is how sensative top level information is handled you can imagine the mess elsewhere. Given that example, my guess would be the governments are rotten to the core throughout western civilization.

  5. gregole says:

    I wonder how this is going to work out?

    Check out those prices; and hit the link for the gear you will need.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      No worries, gregole, it’s all well organized. The vacationers can rent big boots onboard and they will get complimentary red parkas and hats.

      Also, the cruise operator hired famous professional adventurer and experienced polar explorer Chris Turney as an evacuation expert.

  6. “DMI still shows a lot less ice than last year, but their maps show about 1% more ice than last year.”

    Thanks – hopefully this months satellite will show a significant drop. This won’t affect sceptics because how can we read anything into one month of data!

    But for the alarmists – the failure to get their “step up” in temperature they were expecting will be a body blow. My expectation is that by around the US presidential election we’ll be into La Nina conditions with colder global temperatures than recent years “norm”. So, particularly if the trend by the election since 1998 is again cooling, and given the alarmists political hatred of Trump, I think the climate may turn into a hot topic.

    • Craig T says:

      Another El Nino is unlikely so temperatures will have to cool. I look forward to politicians saying the warming stopped in 2016 even if they won’t be calling satellite data the “gold standard” anymore. When we vote the world will have gone 9 months without warming.

  7. Jussi says:

    Here is an animation of four past days
    I can see obvious shrinking in area.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Not “obvious” at all.

      And any shrinkage in area is only a RECOVERY from the peak Arctic sea ice during the LIA and the trough of the AMO in 1979 and the effects of an strong EL Nino.

      Considering the WEATHER that it has had to put p with…. the Arctic sea ice is extraordinarily resilient.

      You do know that for most of the first 3/4 of the Holocene when CO2 levels were apparently at plant subsistence level, the Arctic was basically ICE FREE IN SUMMER…… don’t you ?

      or are you yet another ignorant putz from the Arctic sea ice scare club?

      Go for a swim in the ocean.. you will see obvious “shinkage” them, as well

    • wert says:

      Tony might tell if his pixel count is applied on an equiareal map or did he add a sin(latitude) term or suchlike to fix projection errors.

  8. SondreB says:

    For anyone who cares, it is possible to visually compare 2014, 2015 and 2016 with this tool:;2015-05-30/8-N79.92863-E18.75882

  9. AndyG55 says:

    You moronic ignorant twerp.

    Different methods give different results.. get over it.

    Any recent changes are ABSOLUTELY TINY changes compared to the near zero sea ice from the first 3/4 of the Holocene, and the massive amounts of sea ice the Arctic is still recovering from, that occurred during the LIA.

    Why are you wasting your obviously previous time (lol) trying to make such TRIVIAL, CHILDISH points?

    You KNOW that the Arctic is still WAY ABOVE the Holocene average, even if you don’t have the COURAGE to ADMIT IT.

  10. mogur says:

    DMI explains why there is a difference of 1.4 million sq kms of winter arctic sea ice between 2015 and 2016. Of course, everyone here thinks it is a big (Danish) government conspiracy, but get over the politics and pay attention to the science.

    A new algorithm with a much higher resolution coast mask was used following the summer of 2015. Although the new graphs are drawn with this difference in total extent accounted for, the maps before and after this change are not comparable. They show side by side comparisons of a winter 2015 map and a winter 2016 map with very different coast masks. They conclude this explanation with the sentence, “A comparison of the 2015/2016 sea ice extent with previous years does therefore not make sense.”

    There is no mystery here, DMI put a warning about this ‘apparent divergence’ in bold, bright red lettering right under their graph with a link-

    If you want to understand how completely wrong Tony is, you will have to click on that link and read a few paragraphs.

    • Caleb says:

      1.4 Million sq km is a nice figure for winter sea-ice, but even in the winter there are problems with it, because when the weather patterns are meridienal even in the winter the ice may not be snug with the shore, as polynyas form even when temperatures are far below zero in places like the top of Baffin Bay or the coasts of Siberia, when off-shore winds roar.

      If there is no ice at all along the shore, it doesn’t matter if you mask more or mask less; zero ice is zero ice. Any program that assumes you need to add ice along that shore, due to less masking, is an adjustment that will need adjusting.

      Now we are no longer talking about winter sea-ice. We are talking about June sea-ice, and there will be a lot more open water along the shores. It matters less and less whether you halve or double the masking along the shores, because there is no ice in the area you are masking.

      In the winter such a potential glitch is minor, as polynyas swiftly skim over with thin layers of ice. In the spring polynyas stop freezing over, and appear downwind of every shoreline. (For example, downwind of Wrangle Island.)

      I very much doubt that the fellows at DMI go on blithely adding 1.4 million sq km of ice as a “masking adjustment” right through the summer. After all, they aren’t nincompoops. What I mean to suggest is that the jobs becomes more difficult, due to the need for the adjusted adjustment.

      Often I notice maps show sudden appearances or disappearances of ice, such as the one I pointed out earlier in this post. My assumption always is that the fellows behind the scenes are dealing with some difficult problem, and have had to “tweak” the way the program handles data.

      Often, when you simply ask, or simply point out ice has vanished and/or appeared, and do so to the scientists involved with a polite email, you will receive a polite and sometimes quite lengthy and detailed explanation.

      We should not stop asking questions. We especially shouldn’t automatically deride either the questioned (in this case DMI) or the questioner (in this case our host.)

      Of course, when you are polite and receive answers that are rude, deceitful, and at times sheer balderdash…….look out!

      • mogur says:

        Caleb, obviously you have thought about this. Yes, coastal mask matters less as the summer melt proceeds. But to show an obvious map difference and claim that it invalidates a graph, is to say that Tony (and you) ignore the explanation that DMI provided. Please, do due diligence. Explain how DMI is wrong.

    • geran says:

      mogur, you seem to have no clue.

      It is difficult to track sea ice from satellites. Cracks in the ice (leads), and winds, and surface melts, cause problems. The solution if to publish ALL data, not just the data that suit an agenda.

      • geran says:

        “if” translates to “is” in English.

        Don’t ask me for my birth certificate…

        • mogur says:

          I believe you are a citizen. And I agree that there should be no unpublished info. Unfortunately, Tony picks whatever shows the greatest support for his agenda. You should spend equal time figuring out the ‘government’ agenda, including Denmark, Norway, Japan, US, Germany, all European countries, UK, and a litany of other countries. There is no government conspiracy, here. It is simply scientists doing their thing. Some are right, some are wrong. But let them duke it out, not make political condemnations of honest people.

          • geran says:

            mogur says: “Some are right, some are wrong. But let them duke it out, not make political condemnations of honest people.”

            >>>mogul, “they” don’t duke it out. Leftists always agree on perversion and corruption. The “honest people” that think for ourselves are left to fight the battle.

  11. mogur says:

    For sure you guys are right. Doesn’t matter if the coast mask is thin or thick. When sea ice lessens, the coastal mask matters less. But we are actually talking about Tony using a difference in coastal mask to pretend that ice is more this year than last. You don’t find that dishonest? He knows about the difference, yet continues to show ice maps that are not comparable. If you guys are ok with that, then I guess we are no longer talking about science, and are just jousting for anything that makes the scientists look bad. Including their own explanation about why sea ice differs. Would you even give credit for their explanation about why maps vary when they change the coastal mask, much less improve the algorithm?

  12. Craig T says:

    “DMI still shows a lot less ice than last year, but their maps show about 1% more ice than last year.”
    It all depends on if the old coastal map is used on both images:

  13. mogur says:

    You get it. Thank god. Tony would do a fair comparison? I think not. He is ignoring their own explanation of the difference between last year maps, and this year maps. He is exploiting that to bolster his conspiracy theories, that now include DMI. DMI is not getting paid by Obama. And Tony is not getting paid by big oil. Duh, they only pay the real scientists, not wannabe engineers.

  14. Craig T says:

    Even without the old coastal mask the histogram of 5/29/16 shows 18361 pixels, fewer than the 19033 white pixels on the 5/29/15 map. Adding the old coastal map takes the white pixels in the 5/289/16 map down to 17556 pixels, showing about 8% less ice than a year ago.

  15. Craig T says:

    Higher resolution of the 5/22/16 and 5/29/16 maps also show less ice. Comparing the white pixel count in both images shows that 5/29/16 has 4% less ice.

    • Caleb says:

      Thanks for doing that work.

      • Caleb says:

        Other results:

        2015 may 30: 86448 cells = 8,644,800 km2
        2016 may 30.: 88253 cells = 8,825,300 km2

        You’ll need to use the translate key.

        • Jim Hunt says:

          I suspect you will find that Craig prefers to perform his own pixel counts rather than relying on Google Translate.

          • Szilard says:

            That’s my post. What I’ve done:
            I’ve downloaded the HDF files from the OSISAF page:
            I’ve used the HDFView software to export these files to text files and I’ve imported it to Excel.
            The description of the Sea Ice Edge product contains this: cells with “1 – No ice (less than 30% ice concentration), 2 – Open ice (30-70% ice concentration), 3 – Closed ice (more than 70% ice concentration)”
            So, I’ve counted for the number of cells containing values of 2 or 3, and here is what I’ve obtained:
            2015 may 30: 86448 cells = 8,644,800 km2
            2016 may 30.: 88253 cells = 8,825,300 km2
            These are only the values of the >30% ice for the two date, it doesn’t tells anything about the masks.

          • Craig T says:

            I haven’t manage to use the data files yet. Caleb’s link is hard to understand through Google’s semi-translation, but 8,825,300 km2 is over 1 million km2 less ice than DMI shows on its graph.

            Worrying about the data since September 2015 seems trivial since the downward trend in May ice has been going on for years.

          • Jim Hunt says:

            Craig – The May 2016 extent is clearly below all previous years whichever source the data comes from, excluding Mr. Heller of course.

            I suspect you will find that Tony doesn’t trust Scandinavian data these days, since he needs to “massage” it in increasingly extravagant ways in order to shoehorn it into his dearly beloved Arctic sea ice narrative.

          • Jim Hunt says:

            Szilard – I suspect that’s because you have failed to notice the effect of the different coastal masks.

            I downloaded the May 30th NetCDF OSI-SAF ice concentration files and amongst other things I generated these two images. Would you like to play “spot the difference” with me?

            Here’s May 30th 2015:

          • Jim Hunt says:

            And here’s May 30th 2016:

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor Jimbo et al..

            Destined to deal in trivial minor weather related changes, while ignoring completely the MASSIVE changes from the ZERO Arctic sea ice of the first 3/4 of the Holocene, to the DEVASTATINGLY HUGE amount of sea ice during the LIA.

            The recovery is over Jimbo. Sorry.

            Arctic sea ice will increase next year.

            I know its unfortunate for all those people living up there… but do try not to cry and rant too much .

            Your trivial life will go on somehow.

          • Craig T says:

            Tony didn’t mention the LIA in his last three blogs about the DMI “scam”. This discussion is about polar ice in the last year.

        • Caleb says:

          I think this data was downloaded from the source that was used the old DMI 30% graph. I am not capable of such downloading skill, but my question would be, when does the “masking error” start? Is it included in both the 2015 data and the 2016 data?

          • Craig T says:

            DMI’s page explaining the change in masks says it was done in the summer of 2015.

            Looking through the maps, September 13 is the last one using the old mask.

          • Peter Ellis says:

            It’s a bit more complicated than that.

            Prior to 2012, the the algorithm used by DMI to calculate concentration from the raw microwave intensity was prone to errors around coastlines, and also not very accurate at calling low concentration ice. Consequently, for data calculated with the old algorithm, they used a 30% threshold was used for calling ice as present/absent, and a wide coastal mask.

            In 2012, they transitioned to using a better algorithm for calculating sea ice concentration. This allowed them to move to the industry standard 15% threshold for calling ice as present/absent. Since the characteristics of the algorithm around coastal zones was not fully known yet, they carried on using the thick coastal mask while they got used to things.

            At this point (in 2012), the old sea ice product was deprecated, and left online for historical interest only.

            Fast forward to September 2015, and DMI have now worked out that the new algorithm works just fine near the coast, and so they changed to the new thinner coastal mask. All the data from the new algorithm (from 2012 onwards) was reprocessed at this point, so the current graph is a reliable and accurate comparison between years. The reprocessed data is available as grid files, and somewhere there is also an archive of the previous dataset (i.e. the 15% algorithm, but with the wider coastal mask).


            However, when they updated the image mask, two things got overlooked.

            Firstly, the old 30% graph product (which had been chugging along in the background, quite unsupervised) now started applying the new image mask to all incoming data. Since the historical data from the deprecated 30% algorithm was _not_ reprocessed (because that algorithm needs the thicker mask), this caused a discontinuity in the 30% graph. The graph was removed once this was pointed out, because it hadn’t been an operationally relevant product since 2012.

            Secondly, and most importantly for the purposes of this thread, they did not update the daily image files when they reprocessed the data with the new coastal mask, This means that all the images from 2012 through to 2015 still use the thicker coastal mask. It’s a shame, but no big deal since anyone wanting to do actual science will use the gridded data files (which have been updated) rather than the compressed .jpg image files (which haven’t).

            When Steve does his overlays, he is comparing like-for-like with the algorithm (i.e. all the images were generated with the new algorithm and the 15% threshold), but the mask is not consistent between years. He also appears to be using the heavily-compressed, low-resolution thumbnails rather than the full-size images. Why, I know not.

  16. Jim Hunt says:

    In answer to my own question before the goalposts moved:

    What do you suppose happens to sea ice when you combine “somewhat warmer ocean water” with “somewhat above freezing point air”?

    It melts.

  17. Andy says:

    Don’t you trust JAXA ?

    Or Bremen ?

    Same to show the same thing, and Bremen is not even a governmental organisation.

    You need to do your own algorithms and graphs it is becoming clear as that is the only graph you are likely to trust nowadays.

    You only seem to be able to trust a graph that shows less Arctic ice loss, like you did with DMI last year. Fitting the graphs to your worldview, when they no longer show your worldview, well, then it’s not your worldview that is wrong, the graphs become bogus.


  18. We need sea ice so we can be like our ancestors in the LIA. I’m into keeping traditions. Polar bears can’t live without it, except I don’t know how they have survived for 3 million years when most of the interglacials, including the bulk of the Holocene, had no sea ice at all in the summer

    • AndyG55 says:

      “the bulk of the Holocene, had no sea ice at all in the summer”

      A FCAT that the Arctic sea ice WORRIERS absolutely refuse to admit.

      So funny that they keep handing us the club to pay wack-a-dope with.

      But if they WANT to remain ignorant.. that’s up to them… they seem to like living in ignorant leftist dumbness.. the alarmist way of life. :-)

  19. AndyG55 says:

    The very fact that we are arguing about very minor changes in Arctic sea ice shows just how incredibly well the Arctic sea ice has stood up the battering it has taken this year.

    First the large El Nino energy release from the tropical oceans that was sucked up through northern Russia by the wobbly jet stream giving very high relative temperatures, affecting the Barents Sea. Then a major storm breaking up a lot of the thinner sea ice, then the Fort McMurray fires pumping heat and soot up from Alaska, and a steady wind that has pushed the sea ice away from the Canada/Alaska shore in the Beaufort Sea.

    Thing is, that Alaskan wind has pushed a lot of the older, thicker sea ice into the central Arctic where it will NOT melt. The total sea ice volume is actually dropping of much slower than previous years.

    The El Nino is GONE, a strong La Nina is forecast.

    The AMO is heading back down.

    The Sun is having a snooze.

    NO WONDER the alarmist are getting DESPERATE !!!

    It will certainly be interesting to see if Arctic sea ice panickers like Jimbo the clown stick around for the egg-on-the-face gags we will all enjoy this time next year.

    Or will he run and hide back up Richard Bett’s crevasse where he came from?

    • Craig T says:

      Tony was arguing that the changes in the last year didn’t happen except on the DMI website. There may be more ice a year from now, just like there was more ice in 2013 than 2012. But in the years following the 1997-98 El Nino only 2001 had a more ice coverage in September. Tony made a big deal about September 2014 Arctic sea ice volume being 84% higher than 2012 and how “Arctic Viagra Dooms Alarmists.” September 2014 had 40% less ice than 1998, so the decade level trend is not in your or Tony’s favor.

      • AndyG55 says:

        luv the way you start at the very base of the AMO..

        You mark yourself immediately as a RABID Arctic sea ice WORRIER,

        That incessant PANIC is brought about by IGNORANCE of any real Arctic sea ice history.

        If you actually ever bothered to study any, you would see that the current level is anomalously high for the Holocene,

        Its only been higher during the Little Ice age and the recovery from that most cold of periods.

        But don’t let the FACTS get in the way of a good SCARE, hey. ;-)

  20. Jim Hunt says:


    You’ll will no doubt continue to “argue” about irrelevancies.

    I’m arguing about Tony’s ludicrous accusations of fraud by DMI on the basis of his laughably erroneous self generated “data”.

    Here’s the one day delta for the Chukchi Sea:,382.msg78920.html#msg78920

    As you can no doubt see, the sea ice there is melting.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Yes Jimbo.

      We know these changes are trivial, and basically a weather driven irrelevance, especially when compared to the massive growth from the zero levels of most of the first 3/4 of the Holocene to the peaks of the LIA which the Arctic is still trying to recover from.

      Your point is ?

Leave a Reply

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