Arctic Sea Ice Unchanged From 60 Years Ago

From the 1920’s to the 1950’s, the Arctic warmed tremendously. Glaciers were disappearing and collapsing, and Arctic sea ice was thinning and shrinking.

2 Nov 1922, Page 1 – Great Bend Tribune at

17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier

10 Mar 1955, Page 3 – Democrat and Chronicle at

Sixty years ago, the New York Times reported that Arctic sea ice was two meters (seven feet) thick, and that it was fake news to believe Arctic sea ice was anything other than a thin crust.

Although the idea that a solid ice sheet covers the central Arctic has lingered stubbornly in the popular fancy, the northern cap of ice worn by our planet is actually a thin crust—on the whole, only about seven feet thick—over an ocean two miles deep in places.

The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic – The New York Times

Sixty years later, Arctic sea ice still two meters thick – 24,000 km³ spread out over a little more than 12,000,000 km².

FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180410.png (1337×1113)

Cyclical changes in the weather caused the ice to thicken after 1958, and by 1961 there was unanimous consensus that Earth was cooling.

January 30, 1961 – NYTimes

By 1970, the Arctic climate was becoming more frigid, the ice was getting “ominously thicker” – and scientists were worried about a new ice age.

U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic – The New York Times

The polar ice cap had expanded 12% by 1975. Icelandic ports were blocked with ice for the first time in the 20th century.

March 2, 1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? | Chicago Tribune Archive

In the 1985 DOE report (predecessor to the IPCC) they showed these cyclical changes in ice.

Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect

Current NOAA graphs hide all satellite data prior to 1979, in order to make it appear that the ice is disappearing due to global warming.

However the 1990 IPCC report showed the inconvenient data NOAA is now hiding.

in 1972-1975 sea-ice extent was significantly less.

1990 IPCC Report

The reason why NOAA starts their sea ice graphs in 1979, is because it was the coldest year on record in much of the Arctic and the ice was very thick. By starting in 1979, they can defraud the public into believing that the ice is disappearing. In fact, the Arctic was warmer around 1940 than in any recent years.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Eastern Arctic temperatures closely track the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and show no correlation with atmospheric CO2.

Reykjavik GISS V2             AMO

This wrecks global warming theory which is climate scientists’ bread and butter, so NASA simply erases the prior warmth.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

The good news is that skeptics are starting to have an impact on this corruption. People like myself have been complaining to NASA for years about their Arctic data tampering. This is what their homogenized graph looked like last October.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

And this is what it looks like now. Their homogenization is much less fraudulent than it used to be.

NASA has cleaned up their act considerably, thanks largely to the efforts of Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts. Two years ago, he called NASA out on their fake Arctic temperatures. Gavin Schmidt angrily denied that they were cheating, but as you can see in the graph above they have quietly stopped their cheating.


Kudos to Senator Malcolm Roberts.  A brave leader making a difference!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Arctic Sea Ice Unchanged From 60 Years Ago

  1. Paul Crovo says:

    One small victory, but a victory for the skeptic community nonetheless. The fight continues.

  2. AndyG55 says:

    Latest from Russian scientists, an Arctic sea ice reconstruction that actually matches Arctic temperature reasonably ,

    As opposed to the farcical messes we have seen put forward by climate scammers, that were totally unrelated to anything in history or reality.

    • Jim Hunt says:

      Gotta link (or two) to your source(s) Andy?

      • Gator says:

        Source is right st the bottom of the graph Genocide Jim.

        Thanks for illustrating once again that zero intelligence is necessary to be an evil brown people hating alsrmist.

        • Jim Hunt says:

          That’s not a link (or two) Gator.

          • Gator says:

            Ever hear of Google Genocide Jim? Are you incapable of doing what a child can do when they need something?

            Why do you hate poor brown people? Melting ice hurts nobody, yet you keep barking on and on about a nonissue. Why not admit we should stop focusing on climate change, and use those resources to save millions annually?

          • Jim Hunt says:

            Mornin’ Gator (UTC).

            Of course I’ve heard of Google.

            As usual you miss my point entirely.

            As usual Andy posts an image without context, and claims it proves something.


          • Gator says:

            I may have missedyour point? Hardly.

            Thanks for driving home the fact that you leftists are willing to sacrifice millions of innocent brown people for your agenda.

            That was your point.

          • Gator says:

            And again, Genocide Jim is incapable of wiping his own Google.

          • AndyG55 says:

            As usual jimbo yellow-back-troll has zero idea of anything to do with climate history.

            He is base-level, very IGNORANT CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER.

            Do you still DENY that the LIA was the coldest period in 10,000 year, jimbop

            Do you still DENY that the late 1970’s was the coldest period since probably 1900, and that Arctic sea ice was up there with the ANOMLOUS COLD of the LIA.??

            Big question is, why do you CHOOSE to remains WILFULLY IGNORANT.

            Why do you CHOOSE to be a complete slimebag scammer and liar con-thing.?

            What do you get out of it?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Jim’s ignorance yet gain highlighted.

        I thought you kept up with this stuff, jimbo the slime.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Or do you only read the BS on Neven site and that crap sent to you by your boyfriends at Exeter High.

    • Jim Hunt says:

      Just in case anybody here’s interested, this is Alekseev et al. from the Alekseev et al. referenced by Connolly et al.

      • Gator says:

        Nope. No interest in promoting genocidal propaganda.

        These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

        The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.

        And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

      • Latitude says:

        this is Alekseev et al…..

        that looks pretty fair….considering they could only look from land

        So we’re basically right back where we were in the 1930’s

  3. arn says:

    I’m pretty sure that in the last tens of thousands of years many things in the (ant) arctic have happened on such an epic scale that we can’t even imagine.

    Be it an enourmous melting or freezing
    or icebergs the size of cuba or enourmous underwater volcanos melting away everything above them.

    And all these things happened without ‘man made’ co2 and will always happen.
    The fairytale that implies that climate was a heavenly balanced paradise before man made co2 hit the atmosphere is the same epic BS as the legend
    about the noble savage who lived a perfectly peacefull live
    while in fact the impressive headdresses were the results(and proud proove) of crimes committed against other natives.

    • Disillusioned says:

      “And all these things happened without ‘man made’ co2….”

      An inconvenient truth that the useful idiot followers of the global-government religion of AGW climatism cannot dare admit. No matter how ridiculous the explanations get for why the previous predictions failed, they keep accepting the newest contortions projections as solid science – accepting it blindly – ignoring, denying all dissenting data that wreak havoc on the official narrative.

      I was there once. I had to allow myself to become disillusioned by the facts. It was difficult. I went through at least three years of back-and-forth cognitive dissonance before confidently emerging out on the other side – from believer to AGW skeptic. The deprogramming was not easy. It happened by allowing dissenting facts in – weighing them against the official line – accepting the facts for what they are and not just categorically denying them as “denier talking points.”

      Those screaming “denier” are embroiled in the one of the greatest denials of scientific reality since Ptolemaic Geocentrism. It is projection on a mass scale.

      • arn says:

        Whenever so many predictions are so wrong=it has nothing to do with science.

        Whenever namecalling,stigmatising and ridiculing the opposition is part
        of science=it is no longer science.

        Whenever truth is created by decree it is propanda and politics but not science.

        Whenever you see a bunch of people acting like spoiled little
        children that it is brainwashing-not science.

        Whenever people start to care about things noone cared before in history of mankind(eg. climate)
        while at the same time don’t giving a shit about their country and society going down the shithole-
        than big big lies are sold to the people.

      • EdB says:

        “I was there once. I had to allow myself to become disillusioned by the facts. It was difficult”

        That’s been my experience too. I am embarrassed to admit I preached the warmist line without doing any homework. I believed the “scientists”, but after Climategate, no more. I have a short list of trusted scientists and they have not disappointed. They, like TH, are patriots imo.

        • Disillusioned says:

          EdB, thank you for sharing your story. When I first began to become disillusioned, I had a knot in the pit of my stomach.

          I had already become disillusioned shortly before Climategate. That gave the fascist religion of climatism a hit. However, I remember the whitewashing with those pal-review phony hearings and quick exonerations – and the complicit media blackout. It all was swept so quickly under the proverbial rug.

          The whitewash was incredibly transparent to me. But I was closely studying all this at the time. Unfortunately, most true believers were unphased. The beat kept on.

  4. Griff says:

    and yet the ice extent is lowest for the time of year and volume second lowest. and both massively lower than 40 years ago.

    and if you care to go to Judith curry’s blog’s historical survey of arctic sea ice, you will find the proof extent is now much lower than the lowest point in the 1940s…

    Is posting this mass of random charts all the time really proving anything?

    • Robertv says:

      Luckily the next nuclear winter will solve the problem.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Wrong on ALL counts, because you continue DENY CLIMATE CHANGE.

      Arctic extent is STILL in the top 10% of the last 10,000 years.

      The world did not start in 1979, little trollette. !!

      Russians know more about Arctic sea ice that, and produce charts that actually show some resemblance to temperatures, unlike the FARCE that came from that “selected” history mess.

      • George says:

        It is only a denial in as much as the science is done by consensus. Consensus is a political term not a scientific term.

        Science is settled by hypothesis and proof, not consensus.

        I have not seen a single hypothesis that had a scientific method applied that proved anything. All of the predictions are wrong starting with Ice Free Artic years ago.

        Even if scientists could prove it, what is the ‘correct’ level of CO2?

        If we reduce it to 200ppm (lets assume a year without fires and volcanic activity), what? Where’s the chart? What happens at each 100ppm? Silence.

        “Believe and send money, we know what we’re doing. Have we every been wrong? ”

        I think this article was a good example of why we should all exercise healthy skepticism.

        The scientist is not the one that pushes an agenda with consensus, it is the one who proves a hypothesis with evidence that is repeatable and verifiable. Not picking from the past what did happen and applying a formula to it, but using it to catalog and prove it with future events. That hasn’t yet been successfully completed.

        The theory isn’t being denied, it is that it is being presented as settled science without fact that is denied. There is no such thing as “settled science” ask Isaac Newton.

        It was settled science the world was flat.
        It was settled science the Earth was the center of the solar system.
        People were killed for denying those things, by religious zealots.

        How is what you are doing here without verifiable proof any different?

        Many skeptics are considered heretics. I knew this going in. The more evidence that comes out that doesn’t support the theory, the tighter the cultist will cling to the belief/feeling over the facts.

    • Gator says:

      The Earth is 4.5 billion years old Ms Griff, and there is currently more ice in the Arctic than the average of the past 9000 years. This is a nonissue. Why do you hate poor brown people?

    • Mark Fife says:

      How about a resounding so what? Look at the record. 40 years is too short a time span to draw any useful inference from.

    • Latitude says:

      “Is posting this mass of random charts all the time really proving anything?”

      It takes a special kind of stupid….present company included….to want the weather to get colder

      …there’s plenty of ice in the Arctic…and no danger of ever running out

    • Caleb says:


      Please move your eyes up to the DMI volume graph above. Please note the increase in volume places 2018 above 2017 and 2016. How can you call that “second lowest”? It is now touching 2015.

      Oh, wait. I see. You deem that evidence merely a “random chart” and pay it no mind. That answers your question “Is posting this mass of random charts all the time really proving anything?” The answer is “Yes, for they prove you have eyes but cannot see. ”

      One other thing. About the sea-ice records from the 1940’s. They were not kept up very well due to a minor event called World War Two. However arctic convoys did supply Russia through its arctic ports, and those convoys had to travel in winter darkness. The one convoy they attempted in the summer got destroyed by Germany. Therefore there is evidence the sea-ice was at lower levels, or those convoys would not have been possible.

    • sunsettommy says:

      The usual misleading dishonest claims you post.

      The main cause of lower than usual ice levels are from a region that is way lower than usual, which melts out every summer anyway.

    • R. Shearer says:

      But the max extent in 1974 was the same as 2018, Griff.

  5. Caleb says:

    I like to watch them build the blue-ice jet-port up close to the North Pole called “Barneo” each April. There is something about jets landing on sea-ice (which is suppose to be gone by now) that really irks Alarmists.

    I noticed they mentioned that the so-called “baby-ice” (that is flat enough to land jets upon) is two feet thicker this year than it was in 2015, which was the last year they installed a “North Pole Camera.”

    Do you think the media will report the thicker ice the same way they reported the above-normal temperatures last winter?

    Don’t hold your breath.

  6. Ron Clutz says:

    Going farther back into the 19th century, a study of Arctic explorers’ records shows conditions comparable to today. From the article:

    “This article demonstrates the use of historical instrument and descriptive records to assess the hypothesis that environmental conditions observed by 19th-century explorers in the Canadian archipelago were consistent with a Little Ice Age as evident in proxy records. We find little evidence for extreme cold conditions.”

    “It is clear that the first-hand observations of 19th-century explorers are not consistent with the hypothesized severe conditions of a multi-decadal Little Ice Age. Explorers encountered both warm and cool seasons, and generally typical ice conditions, in comparison to 20th-century norms.”

    Synopsis and links at

    • Jim Hunt says:

      Surely you jest Ron?

      “Eos,Vol. 84, No. 40, 7 October 2003”

      Much has happened since then!

      • Gator says:

        Yep, millions of innocent poor brown people have been exterminated by your alarmist buddies since then. Close to 100,000,000.

        Is this what you meant Genocide Jim?

        • Caleb says:

          Jim AKA “Snow White” has zealously promoted the revisionist temperatures Tony documents so well above, but likely displays less zeal when it comes to mentioning the revisions have been largely erased, which Tony also documents above.

          The history Ron Clutz so kindly links-to hasn’t changed, for it involves ships that explored 150-200 years ago. They sailed places that revisionist maps show as being solid ice. There has been a willful attempt in some quarters to utterly ignore the past, and instead to live in a sort of theoretical dream.

          History does not change, but some chose to ignore what it teaches.

          • Gator says:

            History changes when leftists are in charge. Winston Smith comes to mind, along with Michael Mann.

          • Mark Fife says:

            Then there’s the evidence showing Vikings grew barley in Greenland 1000 years ago. And probably brewed beer. Barley requires a long growing season. It is direct evidence Greenland was at least a bit warmer then than now. There is certainly a lot more evidence of that. There is certainly a lot of evidence that was true of Europe as well. Such as the 300 year period of English winemaking which started in 1066. Which is why I want to pop Bill Nye in the head every time he mentions growing grapes in England as proof of global warming. He doesn’t know the golden age of English viticulture was during the MWP? Or is he just spewing something because it sounds good despite being less than factual?

            Such a shame we didn’t have satellites and accurate thermometers back then.

            Archeology is science too. Why do these frauds deny that science?

          • Jim Hunt says:

            History didn’t stop in 2003!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Nor did it start in 1979

            since 2008, Arctic has not changed much.

            Still impassable through the Larsen route, right Jimbo.

            You are aware that current Arctic sea ice extent is in the TOP 10% of Holocene extents, aren’t you

            Or are you retaining your base-level DENIAL of climate change. !!

      • rw says:

        He’s talking about a previous century, Jim, not what’s happened since 2003. (But I suppose the “past” doesn’t mean the same thing to you as it does to us pre-postmoderns.)

  7. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Unfortunately Malcolm Roberts was forced out of our Senate because of a citizenship rule (he has British citizenship inherited from his Welsh father). So he’s no longer a Senator. Several other politicians, especially of the left party, have not been booted despite the same citizenship issue.

    He’s got a fair chance at regaining his Senate seat at the next election though, which he can do having done all the paperwork to renounce his British citizenship.

  8. jackson says:

    Fantastic presentation. I like that you included a number of newspaper articles.
    Also that paper from the Russians (2016) would make the story even more complete.

  9. Robertv says:

    And like with all those who are a pain in the ass of those in power

    ‘Malcolm Ieuan Roberts (born 3 May 1955 in India) is an Australian politician and a member of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. He was a member of the Australian Senate, representing Queensland, until his election was declared invalid by the High Court of Australia in 2017.[2]’

Leave a Reply

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