Multi-Year Arctic Sea Ice Continues At Ten Year High

Eight years after experts declared that multi-year ice is gone from the Arctic, it now covers almost half of the Arctic Basin.


All winter, government climate scientists have been telling us that the Arctic is super-hot and melting. As always, they are lying. That is what they are paid to do.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Multi-Year Arctic Sea Ice Continues At Ten Year High

  1. Jim Hunt says:

    All winter, government climate scientists have been telling us that the Arctic is anomalously warm because the Arctic has been anomalously warm all winter:

    • tonyheller says:

      Jim apparently believes that ice melts at -20C.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Sea ice extent is currently above 2015, 2016 according to daily NSIDC data.

          That is DESPITE the “less cold” anomaly caused by the Jet Stream this year.

          Did you know that Jet Stream also brought freezing cold, deaths, hardship to northern Russia… or is a tiny change in Arctic sea ice more important to you than people DYING from cold because of the flip-side of the WEATHER event.

          Don’t bother answering that one.. we already know you couldn’t give a toss about people dying,

          … just big-noting yourself by LYING about Arctic sea

          What do the Canadians say about whole of Arctic multi-year sea ice, Jimbo.

          I can’t see your answer anywhere.

        • Sunsettommy says:

          Interesting article,Jimmy. But it is one dimensional,can you see it?

    • Susan says:

      I get that the X axis is dates, but the Y axis is number of days of freezing temperatures? What year has 5,000 days in it? Exactly what is this graph showing me?

      • -B- says:

        Asking a warmest to explain their ambiguous plots is pointless I have found. They either don’t understand what they’ve posted or they are being deliberately deceptive.
        This explains the Y-axis:

        Now we would have to go into how it is measured and calculated and how that has changed over time to see if that means anything.

        Index values like this always make me suspicious. They are too open to manipulation and when they cease to show what the presenter wants they tend to change the method of calculation or their use ends.

  2. Jim Hunt says:

    And what’s more your OSI SAF map still shows multi-year sea ice in the Beaufort Sea where there isn’t any:

    • AndyG55 says:

      So take it up with OSI, you worthless clown.

      That area is very much 50/50 having been blown across from above the NW passage. It certainly contains some older ice, but the Canadians wouldn’t know that would they, Jimbo.

      What do the Canadians say about whole of Arctic multi-year sea ice Jimbo?

      Russians also say its the highest (they go back to 2008)

      The topic is whole of Arctic multi-years sea ice

      I repeat, because I know you will run away again, like the slimy coward you are, and not answer

      What do the Canadians say about whole of Arctic multi-year sea ice, Jimbo?

      • Jim Hunt says:

        The Canadians show that the DMI ice age map is obviously erroneous.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The Satellite and Weather balloon data show that NASA and CRU and BOM are lying through their teeth.

        • AndyG55 says:

          No , they shows they interpret it differently.
          A lot of that region would be older sea ice blown across from above MW PAssage.

          The Canadians wouldn’t know that because they have no data above there, do they Jimbo

          I repeate . because I like everybody seeing you dodge questions yet again

          What do the Canadians say about whole of Arctic multi-year sea ice.?????

          Russians concur with OSI. 2017 is highest for 10 years.
          What does the Canadian data say about ARCTIC multi-year sea ice, Jimbo

          Stop dodging the question..

          I make you look like a moronic COWARD.

          • Jim Hunt says:

            Actually Andy, you do a very good impersonation of ” a moronic COWARD” completely unassisted!

          • AndyG55 says:

            So no, answer.. as expected…

            Your COWARDICE oozes through every one of your posts, Jimbo.

            Answer the question , slimy yellow-back.!!

        • Latitude says:

          “The Canadians show that the DMI ice age map is obviously erroneous.”

          The DMI ice age map shows that the Canadians is obviously erroneous….

          • AndyG55 says:

            I spent a considerable amount of time over the weekend looking a the DMI charts and wind charts.

            A lot of the ice in the tiny area that Jimbo is cherry-picking was actually blown there as the sea ice started to form this year.

            The Canadians don’t have that sort of data, OSI do.

            The Russians just use the same area as ice left from previous year, no movement taken into account.

            Its all a matter for interpretation, but I suspect OSI actually have it correct.

            Either way, OSi and the Russian show 2017 is higherst in 10 year for multi-year sea ice.

            And the Canadians only look at their own near-shore ice and are totally unable to comment on whole of Arctic multi-year sea ice.

            Wouldn’t you agree, Jimbo

            (note that he refuses to answer this question.)

          • Latitude says:

            yep…I look at his posts out of curiosity
            won’t answer

        • Sunsettommy says:

          Ha ha,

          you didn’t even show what the “error” evidence for DMI is at all. You OPINE that your source is right, because DMI is wrong.


    • AndyG55 says:

      Sea ice levels are above last year and the year before , Jimbo

      Go chase yourself up your own a**e again, slimy yellowback troll.

    • AndyG55 says:

      The topic is NOT Canadian shoreline sea ice, Jimbo

      Its ARCTIC multi-year ice.

      What do the Canadians tell us about that, Jimbo, you clown.?

      Waiting, Waiting !!

    • AZ1971 says:

      So the conclusion is that multiple sources of research and data show different things, yet one is inherently incorrect because … climate?

      Wouldn’t the more appropriate conclusion be that we don’t know, that there’s potentially different results and that the “settled” science is, in fact, not?

    • Gator says:

      Genocide Jim loves cherries, as long as he picks them. But he hates poor brown people that he has never met.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Jimbo doesn’t just hate the poor brown people ..

        he hates the Russians, and couldn’t care if the weather pattern that caused a “less cold” pool of air to sit over the Franz Joseph region also cause many deaths from anomalous cold over northern Russia.

        But to Jimbo, a tiny weather-related slow-down in sea ice growth is FAR more important that people’s lives, they don’t even rate a mention.

        I get the impression that Jimbo actually hates all humanity… especially himself.

        • -B- says:

          They’ve spent 30 years intentionally not understanding how the jetstream shifts move the cold weather. Why would they start to understand it now? Their entire world view, political ideology, and for the ones employed in the field their paychecks depend on not understanding it.

          When Chicago is in a deep freeze they talk about how it is warm in parts of Alaska. Never mind that the two are linked because of the jet stream’s course.

  3. Timo Soren says:

    All you are saying Hunt is that amongst the 3 easy to get data products, you prefer one over another. But why don’t you take the Western Arctic, AND the other Canadian maps and pull out the brown pixels and actually tell us the difference between the Canadians and the Norwegian? The prior post even gave you the code to run. Not hard to do. THEN someone might consider your slam. Variations in data sets occur, point to one and say SEE! is not the way to gain any favor.

    • TimboA says:

      That’s why I’ve said that data is a shell game with “Arctic Jimmy”!

    • Jim Hunt says:

      That’s not what I’m saying Timo.

      What’s the point of running code on obviously erroneous data?

    • Sunsettommy says:


      you are missing the main point here,that has been pointed out several times already in this thread.

      Tony,post about the ENTIRE Arctic,while Jimmy wants to talk about a small region,then say Tony is wrong. It is an irrational claim because he is ignoring at least 75% of the Arctic.

      Here is what Tony wrote:

      “Eight years after experts declared that multi-year ice is gone from the Arctic, it now covers almost half of the Arctic Basin.”

      He post an animate chart that covers a TEN year period centering on the March 12, day.

      What Jimmy is doing is dishonest.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Jimmy Boy INTENTIONALLY picks the southwest corner of Canada that looks sort of like a hand. Tony’s top graph SHOWS this ‘hand’ has first year ice.

        Jimmy boy ignores the fact that Tony’s graph shows that area has first year ice. Instead he not only makes a big deal of the fact HIS graph of a small corner of the southwest Arctic shows first year ice. He INTENTIONALLY cuts out most of that chart that shows the multi-year ice.

        Jimmy boy is INTENTIONALLY practiceing deception and he damn well knows it since he has been doing it for weeks and getting called on it each time.

        This is the chart as seen on the Canadian chart.
        Dark Green is Thick 1st Year Ice
        Brown is Multi-year Ice

  4. Gail Combs says:

    Jimmy Boy is CHOPPING the chart so it does not show the multi-year ice.

    How the heck they can tell the ‘thick’ first year vs the multi-year when the ice moves around beats me.

    • Stewart Pid says:

      Indeed Gail, as a geologist my first thought re Jim’s map (from my country / Canada) is that there is a ton of latitude for interpretation & therefore the margin of error is likely huge … how ever good enough for climate science right ;-)

      Andy had a good point re knowing if the ice is multi year or not.

    • Latitude says:

      …I believe we have a winner!

  5. Gail Combs says:

    And what Jimmy Boy DOES NOT SHOW is the ice is NORMAL!

    Regional Ice Chart – Departure from Normal Concentration for Western Arctic

    You really didn’t want us to actually look at that did you Jimmy Boy?

  6. Joe says:

    “Multi-Year Arctic Sea Ice Continues At Ten Year High” That’s all well and good for a few days of measurements, but what about annual?
    By the way, I support you and your work, I’m not trying to troll just asking what I think is an important question. Thanks

  7. RAH says:

    Still plenty cold up there.

  8. Robertv says:

    Without wind pressing it together, how thick would 1st year sea ice grow in normal winter conditions. In other words, At what thickness there is a 100 % isolation where it can not grow thicker?

  9. GW Smith says:

    Hi Tony – I think it would be more effective if you choose news releases for this date, March 12, instead of November 17 and 22. Wasn’t it unusually warm then?

Leave a Reply

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