Small Reduction In Arctic Sea Ice Since 1971

In 1971, National Geographic published this map of late summer Arctic sea ice extent.

ARCTIC OCEAN

Here is their current map.

N_daily_extent.png (420×500)

The image below overlays the current NSIDC map (green) on the 1971 National Geographic Map (red.) There is less ice in the western Arctic than 1971, and more ice in the Eastern Arctic

But what is really interesting in the map above is the position of the NSIDC median ice edge line, which extends far outside the 1971 area. This is because NSIDC ignores all of the pre-1979 data, when sea ice extent was very low.

Arctic Sea Ice Fraud | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

In the 1950’s experts thought the Arctic would be ice-free within a generation.

The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic 

In order to create their fake linear trend graphs, they start right at the peak in 1979, and ignore all the prior data. Junk science doesn’t get any worse than that.

ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/arctic/documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2016.pdf

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to Small Reduction In Arctic Sea Ice Since 1971

  1. Latitude says:

    Well something’s not right….
    Showing no ice on the Russian tanker route….when the Russian tanker icebreaker ran into ice

  2. arn says:

    I’m shocked that during the official ice age scare the ice extent has been almost the same as during the current global warming armageddon.

    Maybe the reason is that both of them never really existed
    and just some common climate variations are used to scare people and make them pay.
    (or sea ice is just one of the most fanatic climate deniers)

  3. griff says:

    I’ve looked carefully and nowhere on that map can I find it says that it shows ‘ this map of late summer Arctic sea ice extent’

    It is just a drawing until we establish the data from which it was constructed.

    And we don’t know what the concentration and thickness of the ice were in 1971 – both are on the low side in 2017.

    Oh – do tell us what the VOLUME is compared to 1971 ???

    • Gonzo says:

      Reading the fine print they say the tanker SS Manhattan completed the first Northwest Passage by a commercial ship in 1964!!!!! Whaaaaat. It’s been closed forevah until now.

      • Griff says:

        Except to massive icebreakers…

        “SS Manhattan was an oil tanker constructed at the Fore River Shipyard in Quincy, Massachusetts that became the first commercial ship to cross the Northwest Passage in 1969. Having been built as an ordinary tanker in 1962, she was refitted for this voyage with an icebreaker bow in 1968–69. Registered in the United States at the time, she was the largest US merchant vessel as well as the biggest icebreaker in history.”

    • Andy DC says:

      http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/

      Griff,

      This attachment above from NOAA shows that sea ice is now running ABOVE the average for the last ten years. Do you admit the obvious, that there has been a pause in sea ice reduction over the last ten years?

      Do you also admit the obvious, that the 1979 starting year was an outlier and a huge cherry pick? When sea ice was at a level not seen since the Little Ice Age, and thus not at all representative of sea ice levels before 1979?

      If you are willing to admit these two obvious fact, there might be some basis for a rational discussion. If not, you are hopelessly brainwashed and thus you are wasting everyone else’s time.

      • Griff says:

        Nope.

        The trend lines are still down – extent and volume.

        Obviously there’s a weather driven variation from year to year: this year is at the extreme of the swing in the cold direction.

        Just look at the volume, concentration and thickness: this ice is in a worse state now than before, even if due to dispersion the extent is not as low as it might have been.

    • gator69 says:

      Oh – do tell us what the VOLUME is compared to 1971 ???

      How about the volume for 1850? You are always crowing about 1850. So what was it?

      And why do you hate poor brown people Ms Griff?

  4. Anon says:

    Hi Tony, I love all you other work, which is probably more important and crucial, but this arctic sea ice extent sleuthing (showing the graph start in 1978), in my opinion is by far the most effective and easiest way to show a non-scientist what is really going on.

    When people ask why I have changed my opinion on AGW over the past year, I start with this graph (and analyze it seriously with whomever I am talking to):

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2015/10/monthly_ice_09_NH.png

    Then together we watch the video you created here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIEGo8E9s_8

    After that, it is pretty much all over. Most of the people I talk to are fairly scientifically literate and they immediately recognize the problem. Afterward, I give them the link to your website and encourage them to see all the rest independently. And I also say, that you are not the only one, and then provide links to other sites, recently this one:

    http://columbia-phd.org/RealClimatologists/AboutUs/index.html

    The last question that usually comes up is WHY? An this article goes into that:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/#cbfc31e68a37

    Finally I conclude with making the comparison: the Democrats had no problem rigging their primary against Sanders, elevating Trump with $2 Billion in free media coverage, giving away debate questions, having the DOJ & FBI conduct a phony Clinton investigation, etc… “so if they are capable of all that do you really think they would have any qualms about tampering with or misrepresenting the climate record”?

    I did not intentionally do this, but the effect is that it suddenly reverses the situation: instead of me having to assert why AGW is probably a fraud, they need now need to explain away all that I have showed them.

    I know it is difficult to compete with the MSM, however, slowly but surely, the message is getting out.

    I just wanted to say, that without your work, this would be impossible, or much more time consuming and less compelling.

    A big thanks!!!

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Well put.

      • Anon says:

        The one advantage I have, is that I used to teach AGW and in particular Ocean Acidification at the college level. (So people’s heads spin when I start to raise my doubts.)

        Last year I began reading what Tony was putting out about the practical non-existence of a global temperature record, which just requires a mercury thermometer and monkey to record.

        To record pH, you need a far more and expensive instrument as well as trained people to make the measurement, especially to the number of significant digits they are using to substantiate OA. So, how many people do you think were recording pH over the past hundred years?

        So, if you think the global temperature record is flimsy… you would not believe what the global pH record looks like. (facepalm)

        • Gonzo says:

          My daughter was in 6th grade last year and they did a project about OA. I didn’t have the heart to completely rip their project a new one. I gently explained to my daughter how there really isn’t a longterm record and it’s really complicated to measure PH ie…keeping the sensitive instruments clean and how PH fluctuates hourly, daily etc.. I too was once an ardent supporter of the cause. Gorebull’s first movie got me looking under the rocks.

          • Anon says:

            I am what would be considered a basic researcher in the hard sciences, molecular spectroscopy in particular, Raman, FTIR, NMR, etc. In this field you can’t fake your research and the peer review process is tight. I just made the same assumption about climate science before I started to teach it, never thinking about going back to look at the raw data, or question the peer review process. Big error on my part, I can say now, thanks to Tony etal…

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            I know some very decent people with solid scientific and technical background who believe the climate science crap because they didn’t take the time to look at the data. And they don’t see the need to look into it because they believe the “experts” in the field. The scientific rigor in their own disciplines and the hard requirements in their prospective endeavors doesn’t allow them to imagine anybody anywhere running such a long term scam without the whole thing blowing up.

        • AZ1971 says:

          which just requires a mercury thermometer and monkey to record

          Monkeys could do a better job than those doing it today. Not employing them is a clear sign of antisimianism.

        • Robert B says:

          Measured? Read the fine print. A pH probe was not used.

  5. Keith says:

    Hi Tony,
    Like another poster above, I also enjoy your site, and love how you document data that flies in the face of the global warming scare.
    However, I think this Nat Geo map is a composite, rather than specific to a certain date. For example, the small print says that the Northwest Passage is shown as in 1953 – 7. It goes on to say Amundsen navigated it in the period 1903 – 6 (something similar to what you highlight in old news clippings). It further says the Royal Canadian Mounted Police schooner St Rooi navigated it eastward 1940 – 2, and westward in 1944, the 1st navigation in a single year.
    At present, the Crystal Serenity is trying to navigate the Northwest Passage unsuccessfully, and yesterday resorted to the help of an icebreaker to make progress. (I only know that from coming to your site). This shows that present ice in that area is thicker and more extensive than in 1940 – 2, and in 1944. This last point agrees with the data you compiled showing Arctic ice extent back to 1920, with 1944 – 45 being the 3rd lowest point.
    Not sure about off the Severniya Zemlya islands (close to where Pen Hadow is trying to reach the north pole by yacht), but there the small print says the islands were discovered by a Russian icebreaker in 1913, exploring for a northern sea route. The LNG tanker that recently crossed that area is also a ship with ice-breaking capabilities, and normally other shipping needs an icebreaker escort in that area, so not much change indicated by these observations.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Keith, if the warmist loons stop using their COMPOSITE arctic sea ice maps (with little to zero data) before 1965,then you will have a point.

      From WUWT is a post on this very thing:

      What do we know about Arctic sea ice trends?

      “The main problem is that the pre-satellite data is unfortunately very limited. If a ship travelled through a particular region in a given season, then they could have reported how much ice was in that region, or whether it was ice-free. But, what do you do if there were no ships (or airplanes, buoys, etc. ) in that region?

      It seems that in a lot of cases when Walsh & Chapman didn’t have measurements for a given region they effectively ended up assuming that those regions were ice-filled!

      For example, in the figure below, the map on the left shows the main data source used by Walsh & Chapman for August 1952. It’s an estimate of the Arctic sea ice extent that was compiled by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI). On the map, the red lines indicate the ice boundaries where the DMI actually had taken measurements – in this case, mostly around Greenland and eastern Canada. The white regions on the rest of the map indicate regions where “ice supposed, but no information at hand”. In other words, the DMI was guessing that there might be ice there, but didn’t know!”

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/17/what-do-we-know-about-arctic-sea-ice-trends/

    • Griff says:

      Yes – its just a picture, with no provenance, no date, no origin.

      • gator69 says:

        And you are just a genocidal ice loving troll, with no climate science knowledge, no love for you fellow humans, no ethics.

        The picture is killing nobody.

  6. Keith says:

    Correction, Pen Hadow is closer to the Novosibirskiye Ostrova (New Siberian Islands), which were discovered in 1730, and then charted in the 1730’s and 1740’s by Russian expedition. The same Nat Geo map says frozen mammoths and frozen remains of deer and a tiger like cat have been found there.

  7. Keith says:

    Dear Sunsettommy,

    I understand that pre-satellite estimates of Arctic ice are poor. I also saw the post you refer to at WUWT, which I think is a good effort to try to calibrate pre-satellite estimates.

    I think you and I may be slightly at cross-purposes here. I am not knocking anything on this excellent site. I was just trying to point out that the Nat Geo map, based on the comments in small print scattered over it, is a composite.

    A point that Tony makes here is to compare it to late summer 2017 data. The comments on the map comparing it to extents in the 50’s and comparison to the times that Amundsen (in 1903 – 6), and then the Royal Canadian Mounted Police navigated the Northwest Channel (in 1940 – 2, and then 1944) suggests it is a minimum ice extent estimate. However, the legends and comments on the map do not clarify that. They rather suggest it is a composite, possibly incorporating data from the 40’s, 50’s and possibly 70’s.
    In the Connolly Connolly WUWT post you reference, a low point is dated at 1943. In the Vinnikov 1980 graph which Mr Heller has highlighted here, a low point occurs at 1945, but is also low in 1943 and 44. This appears to align with the navigation eastward in 1940 – 2 and westward in 1944 of the Northwest Channel.

    best wishes, Keith

    • Griff says:

      No Keith: there is very detailed pre-satellite data… all of which has been collated by the NSIDC.

      and that record shows we now have less ice than at any time in the period they checked the records for (back to 1850)

      • Gator says:

        1850? You mean since the Little Ice Age. Nice cherry!

        Why do you hate poor brown people Ms Griff?

      • sunsettommy says:

        Griff, the records going back to 1850,has long been shown to lack sufficient resolution, to confidentally say there was this much ice in the entire region.

        You were told this specifically at WUWT a few months ago,by actual scientists who read them. It is NOT very detailed at all!

        You just stated that the far more recent 1971 Arctic map is no good,yet it is better supported than your silly 1850 claims.

        Why persist in your dishonesty?

    • sunsettommy says:

      Yes I agree about it being a composite,but we do have real NIMBUS sea ice data from 1964 to 1973 that will likely show there were indeed similar size ice extent at the time.

      The problem is that it is difficult to get all this in one place with comparable resolution to show how much of that 1971 composite is real.

  8. Jackson says:

    The graphic with the ‘arctic sea ice fraud’ where it points out “NOAA graphs start here” is a thing of beauty.
    Awesome. Telling. Thought provoking.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Recent science on the Arctic shows just how much of a LIE this Arctic sea ice scam really is.

      Current levels are above what they have been for 90-95% of the last 10,000 years.

      Only marginally down from the massive extremes of that coldest of periods, the Little Ice Age.

      • Andy says:

        That graph is bogus, it was not produced by Stein et al, it was modified by a website.

        It should not be used to show anything as it is altered and bogus.

        Andy

        • gator69 says:

          Now Andy has an issue with tampered data. LOL

        • AndyG55 says:

          The data in it was NOT tampered with in any way.
          Purely presented in a way that even FOOLS like you could understand.

          You seem to be almost as DISHONEST as Jimbo

          Do you REALLY want to present yourself as living in the bottom of the SEWER with that cretin??

          • Andy says:

            The graph was tampered with, extra labels were added so the Notrickszone blogger could put his fake spin on it. According to Stein –
            “The author has even changed one of our main figures by adding „20th Century“ and „Little Ice Age (LIA)“. In our paper we say no word about the most recent past as our age model is not good enough to identify specific warm or cold periods (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period and theLIA) are the 20th Century. ”

            So the person changing it did not even understand the paper…..

            It is FAKE SCIENCE as Donald would say. Stop quoting it, just means you are spreading the incorrect graph further. Made me laugh that came from a website called NoTricksZone… irony….

            Andy

          • gator69 says:

            Andy, it doesn’t matter if their “age model” cannot ID the LIA or MWP, because intelligent humans can. And they did! Whining about it does not make it wrong, it just makes the whiners look childish and small minded.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You are a MORONIC IDIOT, little Andy

            The underlying data HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED.

            Adding labels to make the graph more accessible for idiots like you is NOT data tampering.

            Are you saying that the MWP was not about 1000 years ago ?

            Are you saying that the LIA was not about 250 years ago ?

            Are you saying the end of the graph is not the 20th century ?

            Are you really THAT IGNORANT !!!!!!!

            WAKE th **** up, you are beginning to look like a 5 year old mentality and severely embarrassing yourself.

        • sunsettommy says:

          Andy,

          the chart is real,yes words were added to it as Kenneth himself explained:

          “Kenneth Richard 6. March 2017 at 1:23 AM | Permalink

          I have no idea why it couldn’t be recognized in the first place since its colors and description were visibly clear in the paper. It’s not as if there are dozens of tri-hue blue graphs with “sea ice cover” on them from the paper, and one had to wade through them all to find it.

          For the record, I “chopped” it from the table because the other elements from the same table were not going to be recognizable to the casual viewer as having anything to do with sea ice. The more convoluted and complicated a graph is, the less likely people will understand it or try to decipher it. There is nothing “tricky” about specifically selecting a sea ice graph from a table that includes depictions of brassicasterol, as few people would find any relevance to sea ice.

          And the reason I compressed it (which in no way changes what it depicts) is because this particular format (WordPress) does not support wide images, as the wider it is the smaller the font and the harder it is to read. I don’t find anything sinister about aiding user-friendliness, making images easier for viewers to read. Same with vertical/sideways graphs versus horizontal. No one looks at a graph of sea ice or temperature from a sideways angle. The only reason it was sideways in the paper is because the authors were trying to squeeze in as many images as they could into the existing space.

          As for your very odd contention that this graph created by the authors “misrepresents” what the authors themselves were “saying in the first place”, perhaps you didn’t read the abstract of the paper itself:

          The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP.

          What the abstract says is exactly what this graph actually depicts. In other words, it is probably the most cogent graph from the entire paper. If you think otherwise, please illuminate us with what graph you think should be used as representative from the paper.

          It is my suspicion that the only reason you are daftly attempting to criticize what has been done here is that you don’t like what you see. You don’t like to think that Arctic sea ice is more extensive now than it has been for nearly the entire Holocene. You don’t like to think that scientists attribute sea ice trend variations to solar forcing, as these conclusions undermine the narrative that humans cause sea ice to rise up and down. So, instead of offering something substantive, you whine that the graph’s X axis has been compressed and been re-positioned horizontally for easier viewing. You whine about the “lables” [sic] for the 20C, MWP, and LIA.

          I would also surmise that you were being dishonest when you wrote that you “can’t find” the graph in the paper you claimed to have downloaded, as you were disingenuously trying to suggest that this graph wasn’t even in the paper when it is very prominent and easy to see with even a cursory skimming.

          It does not appear that your tactic has worked here, Andy1. Perhaps you can offer criticism that is a little more substantive than “you had chopped the scale out of another table” next time.”

          http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/#comment-1179992

          • Andy says:

            I don’t like what I see because I like science . End of story. I don’t like non scientists changing what they like want to show to suit their world view, either way ;)

            The actual SCIENTIST view on this, who spent about 100x longer on this paper than the blogger who took an evening on his PC

            thanks for your email and making me aware about this online news citing our study not in a correct way. The author has even changed one of our main figures by adding „20th Century“ and „Little Ice Age (LIA)“. In our paper we say no word about the most recent past as our age model is not good enough to identify specific warm or cold periods (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period and theLIA) are the 20th Century. Looking at the original figure in our paper (see attachment) we clearly indicate that out last exact age fix point is about 3500 years BP and that above it’s simply inter-(extra-)polation. The last couple of hundred of years might even be missing in our record!! In other words, our paper is dealing with the long-term Holocene cooling and increase of sea ice observed in many circum-Arctic sediment cores, a change that coincided with the decrease in solar insolation. In addition, the inflow of Pacific Water is important for the local/regional sea-ice formation in the Chukchi Sea. Main focus of our study was to get more insight into the processes influencing the natural variability of past sea ice changes. This knowledge of natural climate variability is certainly important for distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic processes controlling the most recent climate change. In my understanding, the recent extreme increase in man-driven CO2 is certainly a main factor controlling the recent global warming.

            Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly, I have to say that I should have mention in the introduction of our last article more clearly the influence of CO2 on climate change as we have done in several other articles of our work. In one of our most recent work dealing with past Arctic sea ice in the Miocene, for example, we have shown that ice-free summers were only possible under quite high CO2 concentrations of about 450 ppm (a value that we may reach in the near future). This article I have also attached to my email.

            If you can’t understand the difference, then you are really SAD.

            Show me that graph as NoTricksZone showed it in the actual paper.

            Show it or shut up.

            Andy

          • gator69 says:

            I still don’t see the issue. It doesn’t matter if their “age model” cannot ID the LIA or MWP, because intelligent humans can.

            And they did!

            Whining about it does not make it wrong, it just makes the whiners look childish and small minded.

            And why do you not go after this clown for claiming “In one of our most recent work dealing with past Arctic sea ice in the Miocene, for example, we have shown that ice-free summers were only possible under quite high CO2 concentrations of about 450 ppm…

            At best they suggested that ice-free summers were only possible under quite high CO2 concentrations of about 450 ppm. Your go too guy doesn’t talk like a scientist, he speaks the language of salesmen.

            I thought you liked science Andy.

            Not Andy

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            “I don’t like what I see because I like science.”

            Andy, your writing indicates more than anything else that you like drugs. I also suspect that you hate the holocene. The former may be related to the latter.

        • sunsettommy says:

          Andy,

          The Graph is real and part of the science paper. It is on page 9

          Here is the link to see for yourself:

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/jqs.2929/full

        • sunsettommy says:

          Andy

          You made the same mistake Jim Hunt made,he vanished when I pointed out the existence of the graph by linking to the science paper, where it is on page 9.

          Jim stated he READ the paper,but somehow didn’t see the chart.

          Did you read the paper,Andy?

          • Andy says:

            Yes I did

            Show me the link in that paper with the same chart with those labels.

            Or shut up

            Andy

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor child.. are you really THAT DUMB that you can’t see that the chart is presenting exactly the same data as the original?

            You seriously need to get a better education and learn to use that single brain cell of yours a bit better.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Andy,

            You didn’t read what Kenneth said. He stated that he ADDED the three words onto the far left end of the chart,but doesn’t alter in any way what Dr. Stein talked about.

            You are being irrational since Kenneth also produced the ABSTRACT that describes the chart very well.

            You originally stated that the chart is BOGUS.

            “That graph is bogus, it was not produced by Stein et al, it was modified by a website.

            It should not be used to show anything as it is altered and bogus.”

            Andy, you are being incredibly STUPID here because the labels you irrationally object to doesn’t effect the conclusions of the chart at all, as the modifications didn’t damage the charts conclusions one bit.

            Your objections are irrational and stupid.

          • sunsettommy says:

            By the way Andy, you already moved the goal post because you stated the chart is bogus because it has some harmless words added to far left of the chart.

            This AFTER I told you that the chart itself exist on page 9.

            This AFTER I showed you the Abstract that describes the chart well.

            You go on with this crap,

            “The graph was tampered with, extra labels were added so the Notrickszone blogger could put his fake spin on it. According to Stein –
            “The author has even changed one of our main figures by adding „20th Century“ and „Little Ice Age (LIA)“. In our paper we say no word about the most recent past as our age model is not good enough to identify specific warm or cold periods (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period and theLIA) are the 20th Century. ”

            So the person changing it did not even understand the paper…..”

            You LIE! since you and even DR. Stein never claimed any data was tampered,that the original chart was never changed either,just three words ADDED onto an EXISTING chart Dr. Stein created. No part of his “FIGURES” he generated when he created the chart were changed either.

            It NEVER changed the meaning of the Abstract or the conclusions of the paper at all,which Kenneth posted in full.

            Give it up, you idiot!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Do the labels point to the wrong time periods? NO, THEY DON’T

            Take the labels out, and the graph shows EXACTLY the same thing.

            1. MASSIVE INCREASE IN SEA ICE since 3000BC. (as noted in abstract)

            2. PEAK levels of sea ice in the last few hundred years

            Do you DENY that this is what the graph shows ???

  9. Jim Hunt says:

    An interesting historical snippet from the annals of the voyage of the good ship Gjøa:

    As early as September 2 progress was stopped at King Point, near Herschel Island, and within a week it was evident that another winter had to be spent in the Arctic. This time the Gjøa had much company because no fewer than 12 ships had been caught at Herschel Island.

    How many ships do you predict will be caught at Herschel Island tomorrow?

    • AndyG55 says:

      How many ships made it through the Larsen, Manhattan route this year Jimbo.?

      I notice you are COWARDLY avoiding answering the question from the other thread.

      What SHOULD the current level of sea ice be, Jimbo.

      Give reasons for your answer.

      Should it be up there with the extent of the LIA..

      or should it be much lower, like during the MWP and the first 7000-8000 year of the current interglacial?

      Awaiting your clown-like response… or are you too much of a COWARDLY SNIVELLING SLIMEBAG to answer. !!

      • Jim Hunt says:

        How many ships made it through the Larsen, Manhattan route in 1905 Andy?

        • sunsettommy says:

          How many tried,how many icebreakers were there in those days to help the slow WOODEN ships get through?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor Jimbo.. is that the best you can come up with

          You get more and more PATHETIC by the day. !!

        • gator69 says:

          How many innocent people starved to death in 2005, who could have been saved with the money we wasted on climate change.

          You are worse than a coward, worse than a conman, and likely the worst person that I have ever encountered. Are you proud of your body count Genocide Jim? Is that it?

    • Gator says:

      How many people died Genocide Jim?

      Why do you hate poor brown people?

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      I have more important questions:

      How many other sick global warming morons will come here today wishing that no fewer than 12 ships would be caught at Herschel Island tomorrow?

      And what is the source of this morbid obsession with ice and bad weather?

      I don’t know the answers but they really belong in the annals of psychopathology.

      • Gator69 says:

        A classic example was the clown who argued with me on an earlier post here, and actually argued against saving human lives. He tried to be clever and failed (just like Genocide Jim) by first going after the figures I quoted, I guess figuring that 3-4 million innocent humans starved to death is OK. After days of contortions that only prople with all left limbs can manage, he crapped one last time on the thread and strutted off feeling superior.

        Total nutjob.

    • Robert B says:

      Pen Haddow quit trying to make it to the North Pole at 80°10″N and 148 ° 51″W. Look at the 1971 map. He could have made it that far back then. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/31/arctic-climate-explorers-give-up-sailing-to-the-north-pole-because-theres-too-much-ice/

  10. Ulric Lyons says:

    The warm AMO since 1995 has driven most of the sea ice loss. The warm AMO is normal for a solar minimum, as low solar increases negative North Atlantic Oscillation states.
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/association-between-sunspot-cycles-amo-ulric-lyons

  11. Andy says:

    “And the reason I compressed it (which in no way changes what it depicts) is because this particular format (WordPress) does not support wide images, as the wider it is the smaller the font and the harder it is to read. I don’t find anything sinister about aiding user-friendliness, making images easier for viewers to read. Same with vertical/sideways graphs versus horizontal. No one looks at a graph of sea ice or temperature from a sideways angle. The only reason it was sideways in the paper is because the authors were trying to squeeze in as many images as they could into the existing space.”

    And you added your own labels as well. which you seem to have forgotten

    “The author has even changed one of our main figures by adding „20th Century“ and „Little Ice Age (LIA)“. In our paper we say no word about the most recent past as our age model is not good enough to identify specific warm or cold periods (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period and theLIA) are the 20th Century. Looking at the original figure in our paper (see attachment) we clearly indicate that out last exact age fix point is about 3500 years BP and that above it’s simply inter-(extra-)polation. The last couple of hundred of years might even be missing in our record!”

    Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly,
    Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly,
    Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly,
    Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly,
    Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly,
    Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly,

    Keep reading that from the original author.

    :)

    Andy

    • gator69 says:

      Whining upon multiple lines does not make it less whiny.

      Why can’t your pen pal come here and stand on his own two tiny feet?

    • AndyG55 says:

      You poor brainless little child.

      Ok.

      on that graph…..Point to where the MWP, LIA and 20th century are.

      Or is that too difficult for you?

      And perhaps if you look at the GISP temperature data, you will see EXACTLY the same pattern.

      Go and hunt down the work of Julianne Mueller, who shows exactly the same thing

      Why do you CHOOSE to remain MORONICALLY IGNORANT ??

    • sunsettommy says:

      Question,

      did Dr. Stein create the original chart or not,the one that Kenneth added three words onto,otherwise didn’t do anything else on the chart?

      Here is the Abstract again full,showing that three words didn’t conflict with the Abstract at all:

      “The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP.”

      That describes the chart to a tee.

      Snicker…..

    • AndyG55 says:

      “And you added your own labels as well. which you seem to have forgotten”

      SO WHAT.!!

      Do the labels point to the wrong time periods? NO, THEY DON’T

      Take the labels out, and the graph shows EXACTLY the same thing.

      1. MASSIVE INCREASE IN SEA ICE since 3000BC. (as noted in abstract)

      2. PEAK levels of sea ice in the last few hundred years

      Do you DENY that this is what the graph shows ???

      • sunsettommy says:

        He is too stupid to realize that those three words doesn’t conflict with the Abstract at all:

        “The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP.”

        Doesn’t alter any of the Bio marker lines on the chart either,nor the time frame of the chart.

        EVERYTHING else of that chart was created by DR. Stein,which was never changed at all,just those three words added onto the EXISTING chart is the ONLY difference.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Andy whining again with help from the author of the paper,

      “Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly,..”

      This is what was CITED at the NTZ site,

      “Stein et al., 2017

      The causes that are controlling the decrease in sea ice are still under discussion. In several studies changes in extent, thickness and drift of Arctic sea ice are related to changes in the overall atmospheric circulation patterns as reflected in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). The NAO and AO are influencing changes of the relative position and strength of the two major surface-current systems of the Arctic Ocean.

      The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon, coinciding with major glacier advances on Franz Josef Land, Spitsbergen and Scandinavia. The increase in sea ice may have resulted from the continuing cooling trend due to decreased solar insolation and reduced heat flow from the Pacific.

      The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon as PIP25-based sea ice records from the Fram Strait, Laptev Sea, East Siberian Sea and Chukchi Sea display a generally quite similar evolution, all coinciding with the decrease in solar radiation.

      The main factors controlling the millennial variability in sea ice and surface-water productivity are probably changes in surface water and heat flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean as well as the long-term decrease in summer insolation, whereas short-term centennial variability observed in the high-resolution middle Holocene record was possibly triggered by solar forcing.”

      Kenneth posted the link to the paper.

      http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/#comment-1179992

      You can stop now,Andy as your silly complaints are REFUTED by DR. Steins own words!

      You are a terrible thinker.

  12. sunsettommy says:

    Quoting part of DR. Steins complaint:

    “thanks for your email and making me aware about this online news citing our study not in a correct way. The author has even changed one of our main figures by adding „20th Century“ and „Little Ice Age (LIA)“. In our paper we say no word about the most recent past as our age model is not good enough to identify specific warm or cold periods (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period and theLIA) are the 20th Century. Looking at the original figure in our paper (see attachment) we clearly indicate that out last exact age fix point is about 3500 years BP and that above it’s simply inter-(extra-)polation. The last couple of hundred of years might even be missing in our record!! In other words, our paper is dealing with the long-term Holocene cooling and increase of sea ice observed in many circum-Arctic sediment cores, a change that coincided with the decrease in solar insolation. In addition, the inflow of Pacific Water is important for the local/regional sea-ice formation in the Chukchi Sea. Main focus of our study was to get more insight into the processes influencing the natural variability of past sea ice changes. This knowledge of natural climate variability is certainly important for distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic processes controlling the most recent climate change. In my understanding, the recent extreme increase in man-driven CO2 is certainly a main factor controlling the recent global warming. ”

    Now go take a good look at his chart:

    http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Holocene-Stein-17-768×496.jpg

    Does his two Bio Marker lines end within the last 100 years of our date?

    It seems he is arguing AGAINST his own chart,since states here:

    “Looking at the original figure in our paper (see attachment) we clearly indicate that out last exact age fix point is about 3500 years BP and that above it’s simply inter-(extra-)polation. The last couple of hundred of years might even be missing in our record!!”

    Why run those bio marker lines to year ZERO,if the data doesn’t exist or that he really meant the last data point was 3,500 years ago.

    He is a sloppy chart maker then.

    Snicker…..

    • AndyG55 says:

      Stein has taken a LOT of flak from the Climate Mafia about the REALITY of his paper.

      He is almost certainly just trying to cover his butt by cow-towing to the anti-CO2 bullies

      His findings are backed up by several other biodata papers, as well as by the GISP temperature data, which follows very much the same pattern

      They even have a period call NEOGLACIATION, which started just at the point where the sea ice level in Stein’s graph starts to climb.

      We do understand that the AGW scammers MUST absolutely DENY the fact that we are currently very much at a COOLER period of the last 10,000 years, and you can see the UTTER DESPERATION when paper’s like Steins get passed he peer-review gatekeepers.

    • Andy says:

      But that is not his chart. As I said it got changed by the website owner.

      So you wasted all your time writing that…

      Andy

      • AndyG55 says:

        The data WAS NOT CHANGED

        Do the labels point to the wrong time periods? NO, THEY DON’T

        Take the labels out, and the graph shows EXACTLY the same thing.

        1. MASSIVE INCREASE IN SEA ICE since about 3000BC. (as noted in abstract)

        2. PEAK levels of sea ice in the last few hundred years

        Do you DENY that this is what the graph shows ???

        You are proving yourself, yet again, to be a MORONIC IDIOT with your puerile yapping.

        • Andy says:

          See below where I show the proper graph against the changed one.

          Do you actually know what the full graph shows, with all 3 plots?

          Andy

          • AndyG55 says:

            Do you DENY that the Stein chart shows

            1. Reduced sea ice cover during the first 7000 or so years of the Holocene

            2. Then a increase is sea ice from about 3000 BC to a PEAK in about 300 years ago

            It is noted by everyone that you are COWARDLY avoiding answering this question !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Stein’s words from the text..

            Do you DENY that the graph shows

            1. Reduced sea ice cover during the first 7000 or so years of the Holocene

            2. Then a increase is sea ice from about 3000 BC to a PEAK in about 300 years ago

      • AndyG55 says:

        It most definitely IS his chart.

        A rotation and a couple of correctly place labels that DO NOT change the chart’s data in any way.

        Do you DENY that the Stein chart shows

        1. Reduced sea ice cover during the first 7000 or so years of the Holocene

        2. Then a increase is sea ice from about 3000 BC to a PEAK in about 300 years ago

  13. Andy says:

    “sunsettommy says:
    September 2, 2017 at 8:17 pm
    Andy whining again with help from the author of the paper,”

    Being sort of old fashioned and sort of scientific I sort of go with the scientist rather, more fule me.

    ;)

    Andy

    • gator69 says:

      Those who cannot think for themselves must blindly follow someone. Glad you found a go to salesmanist Andy.

      Not Andy

      • Andy says:

        Salesmanist is not even a word.

        Though actually it does sum up most bl0ggers rather than scientists.

        :)

        Andy

        • AndyG55 says:

          You have shown that you have basically ZERO comprehension of ANYTHING to do with science.

          Your posts dribble with chronic IGNORANCE.

        • gator69 says:

          Andy, how do you know it isn’t a word? Have you consulted an expert on salesmanism?

          And where is this example of you hounding an alarmist for years on end? Still waiting. Or are you a fraud?

          Not Andy

  14. Andy says:

    Here’s the original chart compared to the load of bullshit one. Notricks idiot managed to somehow rotate it 90 degrees ( or did he ask a friend?) but rather than stopping there with this success completely became a Redneck attempting to be “a scientist”

    Under a graph the words explain what the graph is about, shame the Not tricks idiot could not even put that in. I have put some in for him in red.

    http://imgur.com/a/hU4T5

    And you say no tampering ? Er , er none at all … and we wonder why scientists get upset when their paper gets ripped out of context to do a US political load of complete bullshit.

    :)

    Andy

    • gator69 says:

      Straight from your link…

      • gator69 says:

        Not sure what you are going for. Same graph. Same whiny childish objections.

        Are you mad that smarter people know about the LIA and MWP?

        Or do you hate poor brown people too Andy?

        Not Andy

      • Andy says:

        Thanks Gator, I need to turn my head sideways now to read it !

        :p

        Andy

        • gator69 says:

          Still says the same thing. Hear anything rattle?

        • AndyG55 says:

          So, you now ADMIT that the ONLY change is a rotation and a couple of correctly placed labels.

          Maybe you are not quite as DUMB as you seem. !!

          Do you DENY that the graph shows

          1. Reduced sea ice cover during the first 7000 or so years of the Holocene

          2. Then a increase is sea ice from about 3000 BC to a PEAK in about 300 years ago

          Are you INCAPABLE of reading a graph ?????

    • AndyG55 says:

      WOW..look

      REDUCED levels of sea ice up until 3500 years ago, then a big increase up to a peak in sea ice , about 300 years ago.

      That is EXACTLY what the data says.

      The data WAS NOT TAMPERED WITH

      You are proving yourself to be a very IGNORANT little cretin.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And from the text..

      reduced ice cover early in Holocene

      extended cover “ESPECIALLY DURING THE LAST 1K”

      Any arguments ??

    • sunsettommy says:

      Pathetic Andy whining again,

      “Here’s the original chart compared to the load of bullshit one. Notricks idiot managed to somehow rotate it 90 degrees ( or did he ask a friend?) but rather than stopping there with this success completely became a Redneck attempting to be “a scientist”

      Once again you IGNORED what Kenneth stated about getting that chart:

      “For the record, I “chopped” it from the table because the other elements from the same table were not going to be recognizable to the casual viewer as having anything to do with sea ice. ”

      1) You showed that chart does exist. I showed that Kenneth removed that same chart.

      “And the reason I compressed it (which in no way changes what it depicts) is because this particular format (WordPress) does not support wide images, as the wider it is the smaller the font and the harder it is to read. I don’t find anything sinister about aiding user-friendliness, making images easier for viewers to read. Same with vertical/sideways graphs versus horizontal. No one looks at a graph of sea ice or temperature from a sideways angle. ”

      2) You showed that the chart does exist. I showed that Kenneth rotated and compressed the chart to fit the wordpress set up.

      “As for your very odd contention that this graph created by the authors “misrepresents” what the authors themselves were “saying in the first place”, perhaps you didn’t read the abstract of the paper itself:”

      3) You showed that the chart exist. I showed that Kenneth posted the Abstract that supports the chart.

      The Abstract Dr. Stein wrote matches with the chart he created,

      “The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP.”

      The ONLY difference was three words added onto the chart,which doesn’t materially contradict the Abstract or the original chart found in the paper. The underlying data remains the same,the Biomarkers data for the chart is the same,the Biomarkers lines on the chart is the same.

      “So, instead of offering something substantive, you whine that the graph’s X axis has been compressed and been re-positioned horizontally for easier viewing. You whine about the “lables” [sic] for the 20C, MWP, and LIA. ”

      http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/#comment-1179992
      =============================================
      You are so pathetic since you fall apart over three words that somehow in your fevered delusional brain manage to believe they destroyed a published science paper and chart.

      That is pure stupidity.

      Here once again to show that Kenneth faithfully quoted the paper right at the top of the post he created:

      “Stein et al., 2017

      The causes that are controlling the decrease in sea ice are still under discussion. In several studies changes in extent, thickness and drift of Arctic sea ice are related to changes in the overall atmospheric circulation patterns as reflected in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). The NAO and AO are influencing changes of the relative position and strength of the two major surface-current systems of the Arctic Ocean.

      The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon, coinciding with major glacier advances on Franz Josef Land, Spitsbergen and Scandinavia. The increase in sea ice may have resulted from the continuing cooling trend due to decreased solar insolation and reduced heat flow from the Pacific.

      The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon as PIP25-based sea ice records from the Fram Strait, Laptev Sea, East Siberian Sea and Chukchi Sea display a generally quite similar evolution, all coinciding with the decrease in solar radiation.

      The main factors controlling the millennial variability in sea ice and surface-water productivity are probably changes in surface water and heat flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean as well as the long-term decrease in summer insolation, whereas short-term centennial variability observed in the high-resolution middle Holocene record was possibly triggered by solar forcing.”

  15. Andy says:

    SCIENCE gator

    SCIENCE

    Not people in pissing competitions and taking things out of context.

    The original website poster seemed to think this paper showed solar forcing rather than other mechanisms for polar change. It might well do, but you do know what this paper is all about? It is plant life showing history

    So solar effects will have a big change.

    :)

    Andy

  16. Andy says:

    No tricks

    “In a new paper (Stein et al., 2017), scientists find that Arctic sea ice retreat and advance is modulated by variations in solar activity.”
    That’s because it is related to plants not human activity in the 21stC

    “In addition, the sea ice cover during the last century has only slightly retreated from the extent reached during coldest centuries of the Little Ice Age (1600s to 1800s AD), which had the highest sea ice cover of the last 10,000 years and flirted with excursions into year-round sea ice.”

    Nothing to do with the paper, he makes it sound as if they proved that! then he started adding labels to back it up.

    “Of note, the paper makes no reference to carbon dioxide or anthropogenic forcing as factors modulating Arctic sea ice.”

    Yes because it was nothing to do with that. Like saying I painted my house and then someone proving that meant no AGW!

    Really really shabby bit of work by him. He should be a polician

    http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/#sthash.6XMWC2ko.dpbs

    pathetic

    Andy

    • gator69 says:

      Andy, who claims that the science is settled? Skeptics or…

      Take your time, I don’t want you to hurt yourself.

      Not Andy

      • Andy says:

        I certainly don’t gator. I am AGW neutral. When Tony catches them out I am all for it.

        I just hate bullshit . That graph is bullshit.

        So I will keep up the fight to stop it being put forward as a proof of something.

        If it was proof of AGW I would still try and shoot it down. Because it is not right.

        Andy

        • gator69 says:

          Can you show me an example where you have hounded an alarmist for years on end?

          If so, we will know you are not a liar.

          Not Andy

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I just hate bullshit”

          They WHY are you carrying on with SO MUCH of it !!

          A constant stream of ignorance and BS is all you seem to have available to you.

          The ONLY change in the Stein graph is a rotation and a couple of correctly placed labels.

          Do you DENY that the Stein graph shows …….

          1. Reduced sea ice cover during the first 7000 or so years of the Holocene

          2. Then a increase is sea ice from about 3000 BC to a PEAK in about 300 years ago

          • sunsettommy says:

            AndyG55,

            You just backed him into the corner.

            He will not answer because anyone who is rational will see that is basically what Dr. Stein stated here:

            “The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP.”

            LOL

          • AndyG55 says:

            And in the text on the same page as the original graph.. which has the following added…

            “especially in the last 1k”

            Seems the original graphs shows exactly what is in the abstract and in the text.

            1. Reduced sea ice cover during the first 7000 or so years of the Holocene

            2. Then a increase is sea ice from about 3000 BC to a PEAK in about 300 years ago

            I think the rotation of the graph was just too much for his child-mind to process. !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          ” I am AGW neutral.”

          BULLSHIT..

          Pretend to yourself, but cover the mirror first !!

          • gator69 says:

            Did you notice when Andy went silent? Appears his claims of neutrality are greatly exaggerated, if not complete BS.

            Not Andy

    • AndyG55 says:

      From the text

      Extended sea ice cover… ESPECIALLY DURING THE LAST 1K

      Get over it, little child.

      You are making a MANIC FOOL of yourself.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Andy the whiner,

      Here is his ENTIRE post about the paper:

      “Solar Forcing Of Modern, Historic Arctic Sea Ice
      Only Slightly Less Sea Ice Now Than Little Ice Age
      In a new paper (Stein et al., 2017), scientists find that Arctic sea ice retreat and advance is modulated by variations in solar activity.
      In addition, the sea ice cover during the last century has only slightly retreated from the extent reached during coldest centuries of the Little Ice Age (1600s to 1800s AD), which had the highest sea ice cover of the last 10,000 years and flirted with excursions into year-round sea ice.
      The Medieval Warm Period sea ice record (~900 to 1200 AD) had the lowest coverage since the Roman era ~2,000 years ago.
      Of note, the paper makes no reference to carbon dioxide or anthropogenic forcing as factors modulating Arctic sea ice.
      Stein et al., 2017

      The causes that are controlling the decrease in sea ice are still under discussion. In several studies changes in extent, thickness and drift of Arctic sea ice are related to changes in the overall atmospheric circulation patterns as reflected in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). The NAO and AO are influencing changes of the relative position and strength of the two major surface-current systems of the Arctic Ocean.

      The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon, coinciding with major glacier advances on Franz Josef Land, Spitsbergen and Scandinavia. The increase in sea ice may have resulted from the continuing cooling trend due to decreased solar insolation and reduced heat flow from the Pacific.

      The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon as PIP25-based sea ice records from the Fram Strait, Laptev Sea, East Siberian Sea and Chukchi Sea display a generally quite similar evolution, all coinciding with the decrease in solar radiation.

      The main factors controlling the millennial variability in sea ice and surface-water productivity are probably changes in surface water and heat flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean as well as the long-term decrease in summer insolation, whereas short-term centennial variability observed in the high-resolution middle Holocene record was possibly triggered by solar forcing.”

      He in a comment added this:

      “The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP.”

      The chart support what he said since it DOES show a short period of time during the LIA time frame to be year round ice cover. Look at the bottom of the chart for the time fame, it is obvious that the peak is during the LIA time frame since it is around 400-500 years ago.

      You clearly distorted what Kenneth wrote.

      AndyG55 quotes from the paper itself this:

      “https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/62954-1.jpg”

      ESPECIALLY DURING THE LAST 1K

      You should be banned for the repeated lies and distortions over what Kenneth writes. For being stupid as hell over three words added onto a chart that is otherwise unchanged. The TWO Biomarker data streams created the chart,Not Kenneth.

  17. Andy says:

    Also note that Stein says that solar forcing on the century basis happened in the middle Holocene, so thousands of years back.

    The No tricks author has been very disingenuous with his spin ;)

    Makes it sound like it is happening right here right now.

    And on which note …. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub747pprmJ8

    Andy

    • gator69 says:

      What is more dishonest than claiming that the science is settled Andy?

      Not Andy

    • AndyG55 says:

      You have ADMITTED (above) that the ONLY change is a rotation and a couple of correctly placed labels.

      Do you DENY that the graph shows

      1. Reduced sea ice cover during the first 7000 or so years of the Holocene

      2. Then a increase is sea ice from about 3000 BC to a PEAK in about 300 years ago

      Try to be HONEST, if you even know what that means.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Now we see that Andy has entered the distortion,LYING zone.

      Kenneth writes at the beginning of the post:

      “In a new paper (Stein et al., 2017), scientists find that Arctic sea ice retreat and advance is modulated by variations in solar activity.
      In addition, the sea ice cover during the last century has only slightly retreated from the extent reached during coldest centuries of the Little Ice Age (1600s to 1800s AD), which had the highest sea ice cover of the last 10,000 years and flirted with excursions into year-round sea ice.
      The Medieval Warm Period sea ice record (~900 to 1200 AD) had the lowest coverage since the Roman era ~2,000 years ago.
      Of note, the paper makes no reference to carbon dioxide or anthropogenic forcing as factors modulating Arctic sea ice.”

      From Dr. Stein own hand, quoted, in the NTZ website:

      “The causes that are controlling the decrease in sea ice are still under discussion. In several studies changes in extent, thickness and drift of Arctic sea ice are related to changes in the overall atmospheric circulation patterns as reflected in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). The NAO and AO are influencing changes of the relative position and strength of the two major surface-current systems of the Arctic Ocean.

      The biomarker proxy records show (i) minimum sea ice extent during the Early Holocene, (ii) a prominent Mid-Holocene short-term high-amplitude variability in sea ice, primary production and Pacific-Water inflow, and (iii) significantly increased sea ice extent during the last ca. 4.5k cal a BP.”

      and,

      “The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon, coinciding with major glacier advances on Franz Josef Land, Spitsbergen and Scandinavia. The increase in sea ice may have resulted from the continuing cooling trend due to decreased solar insolation and reduced heat flow from the Pacific.

      The increase in sea ice extent during the late Holocene seems to be a circum-Arctic phenomenon as PIP25-based sea ice records from the Fram Strait, Laptev Sea, East Siberian Sea and Chukchi Sea display a generally quite similar evolution, all coinciding with the decrease in solar radiation.

      The main factors controlling the millennial variability in sea ice and surface-water productivity are probably changes in surface water and heat flow from the Pacific into the Arctic Ocean as well as the long-term decrease in summer insolation, whereas short-term centennial variability observed in the high-resolution middle Holocene record was possibly triggered by solar forcing.”

      http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/#sthash.ZCaAEtag.PeebACiU.dpbs

      Quoted from the science paper,

      https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/62956-1.jpg

      Stop LYING!

  18. AndyG55 says:

    What I find incomprehensible is that that someone can be so INCREDIBLY DUMB as to think that rotating a graph and adding some correctly positioned labels somehow makes a peer-reviewed graph “wrong”

    Then to DENY the very text in the abstract and in the notes.

    You really have to worry about how some people ever got out of kindergarten.

    And this same ignorant cretin tries to makes comments about “science” ? !!!!?? #

    He has GOT to be joking.. or half way through his third durry for the morning !!

  19. Gary Seymour says:

    This is wrong on so many levels, that the mind boggles… First, NG did not say that their 1971 map was as Tony Heller portrayed it, a map of the 1971 ice edge. For those that are brain handicapped, please zoom in to the dashed line, and observe that it says, “EXTENT OF THE MULTI-YEAR ICE EDGE”. You don’t get to use that as the 1971 annual summer ice edge, and then overlay how much more our current arctic ice is. You simply don’t. It is as simple as that . You don’t. You don’t get to say that since 1971, NG maps are showing an increase of arctic sea ice. If you actually look at NG maps themselves, you will see that ‘Steve Goddard’, aka a wannabe scientist, is simply an engineer, named Heller that wants to be important.

    • tonyheller says:

      Any ice which survives the summer is by definition multi-year ice. So the comparison for this date is good and you are being an idiot.

    • gator69 says:

      I wonder if Ms Gary gets as excited when data is adjusted?

    • sunsettommy says:

      Gary,

      has it occurred to you that most of the new thin sea ice forms AFTER the Summer minimum passes?

      It becomes Multi-year ice after January 1 of the next year.

    • neal s says:

      “simply an engineer” !?!

      When you want to think you understand something, you might consider scientists.
      When you want something that actually works (and that you REALLY understand) then have an engineer make it work for you.

      It wasn’t scientists that got us to the moon or to space. Without engineers, we would never have gotten there. Scientists may figure out some things as being ‘theoretically possible’. We write about large-scale feats of engineering. Not about large-scale feats of science. When it comes time to take that ‘theoretical’ stuff and make it actually work, you had best have capable engineers.

      Scientists get paid whether what they come up with actually works or makes sense or is a bunch of lies. Engineers don’t get paid unless they actually produce something that is of value. Unlike many ‘scientists’ who push the whole CAGW crap, you can trust what Tony writes and says. Tony shares his code and data with you and you can see for yourself.

      Despite congressional subpoenas and FOIA requests, we still don’t have full information on how the lies of CAGW have been produced. That is pure crap as is what our mis-spent tax dollars for climate ‘science’ have paid for.

      I suggest that Gary is wrong on so many levels.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Poor Garry is WRONG on so many levels.

      The current sea ice is very close to the minimum for this year.

      Once it starts to grow, the remaining ice becomes ice that has existed for more than 1 year.. ie Multi-year ice.

      The ignorance behind your comment makes it clear that you are not even a pseudo-scientist nor do you have any sort of education passed a very “basic” level.

  20. RAH says:

    Such reactions from the minions are to be expected. Mother nature is striking them a terrible blow right in the place where they said that mans effects on her would be most visible. And so, while some of the low level minions still try to deny the undeniable reality of what is happening in the Arctic, others, along with their high priests, must look elsewhere. And so for now, hurricanes during the hurricane season are the sign.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.