Massive Expansion Of Thick Arctic Sea Ice Over The Past Decade

The animation below shows the extent of 5+ foot thick sea ice at present vs. the same date ten years ago. Ice thinner than five feet thick has been masked out.

2007      2017

As you can see, the thick ice edge has expanded about 700 miles into the East Siberian Sea.

According to NASA and NOAA, the last ten years have been the hottest on record, and most of the warming has been in the Arctic. Yet there has been a massive expansion in the area of thick Arctic sea ice.

The Arctic is Warming Twice as Fast as the Rest of the Planet – Here’s Why You Need to Care | One Green Planet

Now compare vs. the first half of the 20th century, when the amount of thick ice was rapidly declining.

13 Oct 1940, Page 76 – Hartford Courant at Newspapers.com

Similarly, the last two years have seen near record ice gain in Greenland.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

But in 1939, the glaciers of Greenland and Norway were melting rapidly and facing “catastrophic collapse.”

17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier at Newspapers.com

According to NASA and NOAA, Earth and the Arctic are much warmer now than they were in 1940. Yet in 1940 Arctic ice was melting, and in 2017 Arctic ice is expanding. Ice doesn’t lie, but government climate scientists do – at least 97% of the time.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Massive Expansion Of Thick Arctic Sea Ice Over The Past Decade

  1. MrZ says:

    Hi Tony!

    A message from the troll on your side.
    Here is an alternative way to prove heat existed. The instructions are not to describe how to do it but to explain the method:
    “http://matzh.myqnapcloud.com:8000/cfys/docs/ProposalToTony.pdf”

    • Klaus Berger says:

      Wow! This is a very good idea, MrZ!

      • MrZ says:

        Thanks Klaus!
        I am also on this side of the pond, in Stockholm and as frustrated as you.
        I don’t believe there have to be a major conspiracy going on. The scientists just got carried away with their anomaly thinking. In the process they forgot what heat is.

        Lets look at two extremes for clarity, think desert vs polar (I use energy in terms of solar radiation)…
        Really hot and really cold need approximately the same weather, high pressure and low humidity. The hot location needs constant energy to stay hot. The cold location needs zero energy to stay cold, only still weather. Likewise the cold needs zero energy to get warmer only some wind. Once warner the cold location will stay warm while the weather conditions remains the same, zero energy.

        Now, with anomalies you value changes linearly on both side of the freezing point. This can’t be right!

        • Klaus Berger says:

          Exactly! Your idea of just showing all the data on the same site, is very good. Now they can see that Tony is not just cheating. He was right all the time. Interesting that he was an alarmist once! Just like me!

          • MrZ says:

            Now it will look as if a love my own voice. Just testing one more on you.
            It is about the carbon cycle… The green blob pretends we can do without fossil and replace it with biomass.
            In the carbon cycle we have the photosynthese and the oceans circling rest-products of energy through the atmosphere. There are different figures here but the photosynthese balance is approx 300Gton. The greenies thinks if we could ride on that 300Gton cycle we are home. Here is the problem.
            Out of the 300Gton only a small fraction is even theoretically accessible. If we burnt everything we possibly could instead of eating etc it would still be only 1,2 or 3Gton. Beyond this point we will have to burn faster than plants grows back.
            Fossil gives us 9-10Gton!!!

            They always forget to address this gap which in near term is a much larger and concrete threat than climate change.
            Luckily reality rules, whatever they sign in Bonn is not implementable.

        • arn says:

          I’d say that group think is and always has been the driving factor.

        • arn says:

          AGW is like UFO’s and Aliens.

          They always exist,
          all the times
          and everywhere
          but suddenly disappear as soon as someone is taking a closer look :)

        • Klaus Berger says:

          Yes. Burning biomass instead of fossils fuels is a very bad idea. It is ‘The Devil’s work’. It is also hard to get more energy out of it than you put into it. Bio ethanol, bio diesel, etc. They need fertilizer, a lot of energy and work. The netto energy output is very low. The same with solar panels. There you even have to put more energy into production and installation than you can get out of them.
          (If you want, just e-mail me, klaus.e.berger@mail.dk then we don’t need English)

        • Mark Fife says:

          Very impressive work. I always found their insistence on reporting anomalies to be kind of, well, stupid. You plot the deviation from the 1950 to 1981 average (or whatever), but that doesn’t fix the bad data. It is a meaningless activity. Same as adding or subtracting a random number from everything.

          What it does do is divorce what is being reported from what you can experience and see right outside your door. When someone says wow! We are all 1.7° F warmer than it used to be! Shocking! you go outside and it’s 85° and it feels hot to you. So you say bad bad bad!

          Now I don’t buy the massive conspiracy idea either. By which I mean massive numbers of people involved. That’s really a poor model for conspiracies to follow. I do believe there are a small number of people for whom it is a massive conspiracy. The rest of those involved are either opportunists or true believers. For such things to succeed you really do need a few at least of the highly corruptible and fair number of the highly incorruptible to come along for the ride.

          In effect, not much different from the Marxist revolution in Russia or China.

          • Gator says:

            Anomalies are crap. Who gets to define “normal’?

            a·nom·a·ly /əˈnäməlē/ noun

            1. something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified.

            There is nothing ‘normal’ about climate or weather. Climate and weather are chaotic systems, and anomalies depend on the time period selected, or cherry picked.

          • MrZ says:

            Maybe it was not a conspiracy from the beginning but since the world refuses to follow sue they started to cover up.
            The anomaly and “the benefits” it generates like cancelling out errors etc is a statistical argument that very few understands hence it can fool many.

            Anyway in the process they forgot what heat is… As above

        • Mark Fife says:

          I reread your comments on heat. I would suggest cold is in fact a relative term and doesn’t require zero energy. It only requires less energy. Cooling is where the incoming energy is less than the outgoing. Heating is the opposite. Steady state temperature is at an energy equilibrium point.

          Temperature always flows from hot to cold. The rate of flow is dependent upon the temperature difference. Hence, by definition, heat should always be flowing to the poles.

          However, the poles always remain cold. At least they have over the past umpity ump millions of years. Hence the amount of energy leaving the polar regions is less than the amount flowing into them.

          It should be pretty obvious energy isn’t flowing back from the polar regions to the non polar regions.

          So where does that energy go?

          Just because something is cold relative to our frame of the definition of cold doesn’t mean it isn’t transferring energy somewhere at an even level energy level. In fact, a large area and volume of relatively cold matter could as an aggregate transfer massive amounts of energy.

          Remember, all matter not at absolute zero radiates energy.

          • Mark Fife says:

            I meant at an even lower energy level.

          • Mark Fife says:

            And I meant the exact opposite. The amount of energy flowing into the polar regions is less than the amount flowing out. Jeeze!!!

          • MrZ says:

            Hi Mark!
            Must admit I am under the influence of wine, we what we call a little Saturday.
            Looks like you are discussing the planetary energy flux. I was talking about the weather stations. One in a cold climate the other in a warm. They are under totally different conditions (I tried to illustrate what drives changes) still the experts use the same anomaly. Can this be right?

            Would you reconsider your response under those conditions? I am not saying I must be right.

          • MrZ says:

            Mark please disregard my last comment. I think I now understand what you say and I believe you are right.
            I used the pole to illustrate that no external energy is needed for its temperature to fluctuate. A termometer at the pole will show a delayed average of what is happening in the whole area that is affecting it (namely almost the whole globe)

            Now picture the hot location.
            It takes some special circumstances to take the temperature from say 90-100F.
            It takes extraordinary circumstances to take it from 100-110F. It is NOT linear.
            Then it takes what comes after extra… to maintain 110F for any period of time.

            Now with anomalies the “lazy” pole termometer gives us an averages that we in our minds think is applicable on the hot location. We have an extreme anomaly of +20F at the pole. Next time it may hit Chicago and we might reach 130F for the first time.

            Makes sense?

          • Mark Fife says:

            Maybe I need to do a little wine and read it again…. No, I think I understand what you are saying. I am not sure about solids in the ranges involved, but for gases and gas mixtures the specific heat or heat capacity varies depending upon temperature and pressure. Which makes sense.

  2. Klaus Berger says:

    They are reporting the exact opposite of the reality here in our Danish media as well. And all the politicians in my country are true believers in CAGW. Not one single voice against it. No debate what so ever. We need a man like you here, Tony Heller!

  3. Cam says:

    Unless you’re the U.S. Navy and reduce the thickness overnight by 50-75%.

    https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/navo/arcticictnnowcast.gif

  4. garyh845 says:

    Was searching around (I’m sure that Tony has previously posted such) for articles (other than the Time one) of expanding Arctic sea ice extent and glaciers in Greenland – thinking it’d be neat to have the articles side by side, as a demonstration of the cyclic manner of this.

    In the process, ran across a great piece from 2013 in Forbes. It’s a keeper:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/#3003fb934dcf

    I’d like to re-do the headline on the piece, as it’s more about revisting Earth’s changing climate from the MWP through the end of the LIA, and it does an excellent job of that.

  5. Joe says:

    Climate alarmists don’t give things enough time to change (or change back in the sea ice case). That has been one of the fundamental flaws of their theory – not enough observational evidence to make conclusions.

    • MrZ says:

      Whith you 100%. And if it does not happen in the real world in time for a major event they make it happen.
      How? Look at how statistics suddenly changes. Latest I remember was sea temps just before the Paris negotiations. Now the artic ice changed during the ongoing Bonn event.

Leave a Reply

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