Arctic Ice Expansion Over The Past Year

Arctic sea ice extent is almost exactly “normal.”

2017

There has been a huge increase in extent since this date last year.

2016   2017

The lack of anything interesting happening in the Arctic frightens scientists, because it threatens their funding. So they simply lie about, as do their fellow criminals in the press. Here is an article from yesterday.

As Arctic sea ice shows record decline, scientists prepare to go blind

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Arctic Ice Expansion Over The Past Year

  1. BBould says:

    I agree. If it is normal at it’s lowest point, the climate alarmists will be in trouble.

    • tonyheller says:

      The scientists are lying right now. What the ice does in the future doesn’t change that in any way.

      • Latitude says:

        but but Paris!

        • RAH says:

          Rip it out by the roots. As we speak the POTUS at the G7 is talking Islamic terrorism and trade while most of the others came expecting to talk climate change. The Manchester attack though has helped take the wind out of the sails of the Climate Change crowd. It is time to end this “climate change” insanity here in the US and let the others decide if they want to continue to drive their own economies into the ground. Sooner or later the social and economic realities of expensive and unreliable “green” energy are going to become evident to the masses and lies tend not to work so well on motivated people that are unemployed and hungry.

        • arn says:

          “We”ll always have Paris,Ils…oops Hansen”

          (deplorable people always will find a way to make them look indispensable.Especially those who get tons of taxpayers money.
          And Paris will show this+
          where Trump really stands.
          Wether he was just talking crap to get voted((like with the saudis which he called terrorist sponsors(=what they indeed are) and then visited them)
          or not.

          • Uwe Hayek says:

            He just balanced the books by some 800 billion dollars. What is the use of conventional arms ?

            Divide et Impera !

            I wish we had a Trump in Europe.

            Wonna trade him for Merkel ?

      • Rob. R. says:

        Tony,

        As you know the Cryosphere Today daily satellite pictures initially did not include snow cover. Subsequent years included snow cover, and it was removed again last year.

        I’m convinced (using a series of trials) that the snow cover was removed because there has been a dramatic increase in snow cover for the periods available. That is to say; if you compare day for day coverage for any given year (most apparent comparing early years with the final available years) that the entire land area is gaining compacted snow.

        Maybe you can crunch the data and drive the point home with descriptive graphics.

    • BillD says:

      What’s the reason why this post doesn’t show the long term data? Seems to be confusing seasonal increases and decreases that happen each year with the long term trend, where sea ice extent has been declining since 1978. Just search under “sea ice extent” to find the data from “National Snow Ice Data Center. You can look at data for the current year, but see what has happened since 1978, 1990 and 2010.
      https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  2. Andy DC says:

    In another month, the sun will already be headed south, yet the Arctic Ocean is still packed to the brim. But according to Griff, those 3-4 ice cubes that have disappeared since the all time record cold year of 1979 are going to cause us to go extinct within just a few years, unless we turn in our cars and turn off our heat and AC. Essentially go back to a 16th Century lifestyle. Have you ever heard of anything so ludicrous?

  3. garyh845 says:

    LAT’s editorial this morning. Among other absurdities, there is this:

    “Scientists say glaciers and sea ice in the Arctic are melting faster than expected, meaning that sea levels are also likely to rise faster than predicted.”

    Guess they missed the ice cubes melting in a full glass of water demo.

    And this:

    “Without intervention, up to 67% of the state’s beaches could be lost to sea level rise and erosion by the end of the century, according to recent modeling by the U.S. Geological Survey.”

    SLR per NOAA’s data shows the rate in Los Angeles to be a mere 3 1/4 in per 100 yrs, with no acceleration in the record.

    Here: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-cool-pavement-20170526-story.html

  4. AndyG55 says:

    Both MASIE and NSIDC show Arctic sea ice in May to have the SLOWEST MELT this century.

    • wert says:

      Andy, good point. Headstarted, but no acceleration, on the contrary. I believe there are negative feedbacks during the spring.

    • Andy says:

      Century …. woo. One month this CENTURY. Why didn’t you say last 17 years rather than trying to egg it up?

      So what?

      Long term averages matter, not just one month.

      No matter what century.

      Andy

      • RAH says:

        Really? Then why the hell do we start hearing the alarmists banshees start screaming whenever there is a winter when extent falls below average? And yes this lack of melt does matter because for the Arctic to become “virtually ice free” as we have been told time and again it would or will it will require far above average temperatures and thus melting during the summer months. That hasn’t been happening as Arctic summer temps have run at or slightly below average for several years now and this summer we’re off to a colder than average start so the probability of a “virtually ice free” Arctic is very low. Bottom line, what has been declared would happen is not and at this time we’re further from a “virtually ice free Arctic” than we were five years ago.

      • sunsettommy says:

        Most people above the IQ of a turnip knows that 17 years is all we have for the 21st century.

        What really bothers you?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Just stating facts..

        Sorry if that upsets you, child Andy.

        Long term, the Arctic is FAR higher now than for 95% of the Holocene.

        Or do you want to cherry pick a short period on a small temperature bump , only just out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.

  5. garyh845 says:

    Looking back to a change in Arctic Ocean circulation. Anyone have any insight here?

    NOVEMBER 13, 2007 – NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face

    Here: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2007-131

    The opening paragraph makes a sensible understanding:

    “A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming. “

    • Latitude says:

      gary, I remember seeing/reading that
      …and not another word about it since then

    • Louis Hooffstetter says:

      Please correct me if I’m wrong, but after reading the article, I don’t see how they could possibly determine what Arctic ocean circulation is doing. The article says they measured changes in the weight of columns of Arctic Ocean water, from the surface to the ocean bottom using the GRACE satellite and very precise deep-sea pressure gauges. GRACE monitors tiny month-to-month changes in Earth’s gravity field… and can infer changes in the weight of columns of ocean water. The “very precise” pressure gauges are simply pressure transducers that do the same thing. The direction of water flow (which is simple to measure) was never measured at all.

      By their own admission, the weight of the water column is influenced by factors such as the height of the ocean’s surface, and its salinity. The graphic in the article has a nice red to blue color scheme, but doesn’t indicate what the colors mean. And even if they are correct, how do they know it’s “triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales”?

      It looks like they’re just making stuff up (again).

  6. John F. Hultquist says:

    Ms. Dickie claims scientists are “to go blind” with respect to Arctic Ocean ice cover and related things.
    This is not true, of course.

    What would be nice is to have someone summarize the field regarding expected changes. For example, a unusual rocket successfully reached space (not orbit) from a New Zealand launch site. The low cost of launches in the future may make viewing the Arctic much easier, so a reassessment of current efforts – based on older technology – seems warranted.
    It is a wasted effort that Gloria D. did not do so.

    • RAH says:

      Well obviously some of them wouldn’t “go blind” anyway since they apparently don’t pay attention to the imagery or data from the satellites and continue to sing their same old song of doom despite the fact that Arctic sea ice is within the very average parameters that they set and Greenland’s been adding mass since the beginning of last winter.

    • Andy says:

      New Zealand rocket launches are good for Polar orbits so this is something that may well take off, pardon the pun. Good point

      Andy

  7. Ross says:

    O/t but it needs to be shared

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-26/after-controversial-debate-g7-leaders-fail-persuade-trump-back-climate-deal

    Great move by President Trump and congrats to Tony –your work in the background in DC must have helped in this step. ( I just hope it proves to be a big step !)

  8. Andy says:

    Almost

    Exactly

    Normal

    Which is it?

    It’s actually lower than the averages for 1980’s, 1990’s and 2000

    https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

    So it’s actually almost un-normal :)

    It it is higher than last year at this current point granted

    How is the Antarctic doing?

    Andy

    • AndyG55 says:

      Normal for the Arctic is MUCH lower than now.

      Extent is currently HIGHER than it has been for around 95% of the Holocene.

      Antarctic is gradually gaining from its ONE OFF drop in a general rising trend.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Who wrote this?

      “Long term averages matter, not just one month. No matter what century.”

      How about the ENTIRE Holocene then,which then makes today’s Arctic Ice levels well above average.

      You are as usual stumbling around.

    • AndyG55 says:

      The FACT is that apart from storm breakup in 2012, the Arctic has been stable this century, EXACTLY as you would expect as the AMO generally has a flattish top.

      But that AMO is now starting to head downwards, as are North Atlantic sea temperatures.

      The next couple of years will most likely see the Arctic sea ice extent start to climb again…. More’s the pity.

      Cold is NOT good, and the benefits of a more open Arctic would have been massive for the people in the region.

    • gator69 says:

      Long term averages matter, not just one month.

      It’s actually lower than the averages for 1980’s, 1990’s and 2000

      So it’s actually almost un-normal :)

      What’s un-normal is calling thirty some odd years of Arctic ice observations “long term”.

      What’s un-honest is cherry picking 1979 as the start date for Arctic ice observations.

      Only an idiot would think we would fall for such childish crap.

    • AZ1971 says:

      Andy wrote:
      How is the Antarctic doing?

      The Antarctic’s sea ice extent is somewhat irrelevant because nearly all of it melts every summer. And if you wish to insinuate something, please refer back to the graphs which show that the past 10 years have had the highest extents on record. Abrupt changes from highest extent to lowest in our southern hemisphere are meaningless and certainly not attributable to atmospheric forcings.

  9. Gerald Machnee says:

    Are those three Russian ships still stuck?
    Have not heard anything lately.

  10. AndyG55 says:

    Two graphs. The DOE one for the Arctic Ocean from 1985

    Minimum spike is about 5.75 Mkm²

    • AndyG55 says:

      now the NSIDC Arctic Sea sea ice extent.

      Note at which point it gets down to 5.75 Mkm²

      • Aztecbill says:

        1972-1975 was significantly lower than 1979. It was about 2m sq km lower

        • AndyG55 says:

          Yep, and that shows up very clearly on the Icelandic sea ice charts,

          A MASSIVE spike yup to the same levels of the LIA.

        • AndyG55 says:

          We can see how the Iceland regions temperatures track with the sea ice data.

          Cold before about 1920.. high sea ice index
          Warmer through the AMO with a drop in temperatures in 1979, then gradual warming again, and Arctic sea ice drops

Leave a Reply

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