Arctic Meltdown Update

Arctic sea ice volume is normal and highest for the date in 13 years.

FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180607.png (1337×1113)

For the second year in a row, Greenland’s surface is gaining ice at a rate far above normal, with 50 billion tons of new snow and ice in the past week.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Actual data is the enemy of climate science funding, so we continue to see this sort of mindless nonsense in the press day after day.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Arctic Meltdown Update

  1. Robertv says:


    More man made warming footprints.

    “The moon’s surface unexpectedly warmed slightly during the 1970s, baffling scientists for decades as to the cause. Now, data originally collected by the NASA Apollo moon missions has been recovered – and offers an answer. ”

    “After all this analysis, it became clear that the reason for the temperature increase was the astronauts on the Apollo missions themselves. The space travellers disturbed the surface of the moon when they landed and walked on it. The darkened soil meant the moon reflected less of the moon’s surface, causing it to increase by 1-2 degrees Celsius (1.8-3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).”

    • RAH says:

      So the relatively tiny areas where the astronauts and space craft disturbed the lunar surface caused the whole 14.6 million square miles of the lunar surface to heat up 1-2 deg C?

      Just think how much harder the astronauts space suits had to work when their white surface was covered in lunar dust. It’s a wonder they didn’t cook! LOL!

      • Tom says:

        The temperature probes were inserted directly into the lunar surface at various levels. Only isolated temperatures were transmitted from a few sites. I think the take home is that UHI and other activity around earth based ground sensors could induce spurious warming.

    • --B-- says:

      WTF? The moon’s surface is black. Moon dust is black. It’s sharp faceted particles and thus reflective even though it is black in color. Talk about preying the ignorance of the public. Did anyone look at what happened to the space suits? Dark, dirty black. The sharp particles got into everything.

      And let’s not even get into relative areas….

    • Andy says:

      Thanks for that, very interesting. Shows how when you put in equipment to take measurements you have to be very careful you do not bias the measurement whilst doing so and making results warmer.

      We are not sure we have AGW here but we do have ALW definitetly where L is for Lunar :D

      Let’s hope the politicians do not hear of this…..


  2. Robertv says:

    “If we could hold a piece of the moon in our hands here on earth it would appear dark gray, or nearly black.”

  3. Griff says:

    But of course extent is at the second lowest for the time of year and by the weekend likely to be a new record low for the date.

    • RAH says:

      Keep hanging on tight to that extent straw Griff. It’s the only metric you have.

      • Andy says:

        The area one is equally low.

        So that is 2 v just one volume one.

        Also extent is more accurate to measure of course … just sayin ‘ ;)


    • Stewart Pid says:

      Griff you are beyond a moron. Take a look at Hudson Bay’s current ice coverage. I don’t think “extent” matters until the ice is melted in HB and the melt has barely began. Just like when you earlier nattered on about the Bering Sea which is totally outside the Arctic Circle you seem to focus on irrelevant details while being oblivious to actual science and the big picture.
      What did you study? Fine Arts?

      • Griff says:

        When the Bering and Barents and Beaufort melt, they expose the central basin to warm water.

        The Ice N of Svalbard and in the Laptev is already on the low side.

        Yes, we have 2 thirds of the melt to go and June is the big month.

    • tonyheller says:

      thickness = volume / area.

      So a high volume and low extent means thick ice, which will break Griff’s heart later in the summer.

      • Caleb says:


        I agree that the thicker ice will be harder to melt. It takes a lot of heat to turn 32 degree ice to 32 degree water. Even though the thermometer doesn’t rise the available heat becomes latent heat. There is only so much heat up there in the summer, and I doubt there’s enough to melt the bulk of ice that exists this year, especially if temperatures continue below normal and the sun stays hidden by storm clouds. I expect the slope of the “extent” graph the become less steep.

      • Griff says:

        Except all the different charts show little ice over 3m.

        there doesn’t seem to be much thick ice…

    • Cam says:

      Extent on 10 Jun 16 was 10.782 m km2. If you think we will lose 310,000 km2 in the next 3 days, you’re on crack considering we’ve only lost 200,000 km2 in the last 4 days.

    • Andy says:

      Extent is no longer used on here Griff, as the value is low. Get with the flow.

      Like the Antarctic is no longer mentioned on here, because the extent is low there too.

      Volume is where it is at baby.

      If that is low I am not sure what Tony will be posting about. Number of icebergs?


      • RAH says:

        Extent is the least valuable and revealing metric for sea ice for the purposes of climate. The greatest variations in the short term are due to storms, wind and wave action, and currents. I reveals far more about climate when it really grows such as during the LIA when for a couple winters Iceland was completely surrounded.

        Griffs big argument is that extent is very important because of Albedo but more recent research reveals that exposed water in the Arctic is actually releasing more energy in the atmosphere than it’s gaining. When it does so it is releasing it where the earths atmosphere is shallowest. And when there is exposed water, cloud formation kicks up adding their own albedo.

        • Andy says:

          “Extent is the least valuable and revealing metric for sea ice for the purposes of climate.”

          Please show this scientifically compared to other metrics on sea ice in the Arctic.

          We have been talking about extent for the last several years on here.

          I suggest rather than it being a poor metric it rather is an metric no longer in favour as giving low values.

          Same as Antarctic sea ice extent is no longer mentioned since it dipped in 2015.


          • RAH says:

            I gave the reasons why and you did not dispute them. You can do your own research but it does not matter what you find because my opinion is based on just watching the extent bounce around and how it varies in location such a great deal from year to year depending on where, when, and how strong the wind blows. Extent as a tool for gauging climate SUCKS!

            The only reason why it is discussed here so much is because alarmists hung their hat on that metric long ago and it was the basis for their false claim that their poster child Polar Bears would drown or starve. Arguing about it is a great pass time as we go year after year after year with the Arctic being not being “ice free” despite the multiple predictions of alarmists and Tony specializes is digging up and pointing out the failed predictions. It is a big part of what this site is about. Exposing the BS. And speaking of BS. The great BSer Hanson will be exposed as a failed Artic ice prophet this year come September when the minimum is reached and I have no doubt that will be noted here also.

          • Andy says:

            “because my opinion is ”

            I summarised your argument into those 4 words.

            Strangely back last month on this post


            You forgot to mention, in multiple posts, that sea ice extent was actually a poor marker, in fact you seemed to be very much on the bandwagon.

            Go back and post

            Extent as a tool for gauging climate SUCKS!

            on it so we discuss…..


          • RAH says:

            Andy every regular poster here knows my opinion about extent and it has not changed in years. It is as I stated. In fact my opinion about sea ice in any metric being an invalid proxy for climate in the shorter term has remained the same for several years. It sucks! But extent sucks the most.

            That does not mean that I won’t argue about it year to year. I especially like doing so with those that think sea ice is so important as a proxy.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Extent is at the mercy of short term weather.

            It really all depends on how much sea ice gets pushed down through Fram Strait, and how much warmer water takes its place through Bering Strait (like this year as the remnants of the El Nino) and around the east of Svalbard.

            Absolutely NOTHING to do with atmospheric CO2.

            ALL to do with Solar energy penetration of tropical waters over time.

      • R. Shearer says:

        The maximum extent in 2018 was insignificantly higher than in 1974, i.e. the same.

        • Andy says:

          Can you supply any data so we can compare?


          • R. Shearer says:

            It was 14.4 million km2 in 1974 and slightly higher in 2018.

            The 1974 reference is: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 94, NO. C10, PAGES 14,499-14,523, OCTOBER 15, 1989


            Claire L. Parkinson and Donald J. Cavalieri

      • Griff says:

        Given the ice is thin, there’s a lot of first year ice, Bering and Svalbard have melted early and we now are reaching a record new low in extent, the conditions are set for a low minimum. Frankly the volume is not relevant (and there is some muttering it might not be accurate)

  4. Bob Hoye says:

    I have bookmarked the DMI charts for North of 80 Temp and the Arctic ice thickness, as well as the mass balance on Greenland.
    I’m sure they are posted daily, but I’ll look at them a few times during each day. The data train is fascinating–and the recent extension on the high-side of the mean–makes me feel good.
    Quite the opposite of liberals looking at false charts and getting an anxiety high.
    Bob Hoye

  5. Steven Fraser says:

    2018 DMI ice volume is still #4, and its 7-day decline rate is still the lowest of the 16 years of the record.

    The gap between it and the next highest year, 2005, has declined by nearly 400 cu km since jun 1.

    If you look closely, the 2018 line is emerging from behind the ‘average’ line. 2018 continues to track progressively higher than the 16-year average, and plotted year average, 2004-2013.

    Stay tuned!

    • Steven Fraser says:

      And a small data-presentation sidenote: DMI’s plotting system is not correctly coloring the emerging 2018 line as it exceeds the average. As of today, the 2018 line is now the same grey as the ‘average’ line, rather than the black it should be.

      • Caleb says:

        Keep in mind there is a decent storm moving north from the Kara Sea towards the Pole. While it should lower air temperatures, reduce sunshine, and coat the ice with fresh snow, such storms usually reduce extent and volume by smashing up the ice and churning the sea. If volume remains resistant to ordinary shrinkage I take it as a sign the trend toward so-called “revovery” is strong.

      • Cornelius says:

        If you look very closely at the graph, you can just see that a little black dot has emerged to the right of the gray line. 2018 has crossed over and is above average.

        Would be nice if they’d show the lines crossing the gray so it was more obvious.

      • AndyG55 says:

        dotted is 2003-2017 average
        shaded is +/- 1 SD

        • AndyG55 says:

          and red is 2018.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Just for griff, I would love to see it follow the thin red line or above

          The pitiful whimpering would be hilarious to watch.

          • Andy says:

            That could happen, but unlikely.

            The full graph shows that all the years tend to compress as the melt season gets underway.

            It will not be until August or so when you can hear Griff squeal like a stuck piggy if values are high, or completely ignored on here if values are low.

            Stay tuned.


          • Steven Fraser says:

            Do what you can to include x and y axis values, please. I’d like to be able to see the values for when you’ve projected 2018 to exceed 2005, the light grey line.

          • Steven Fraser says:

            The kelly-green one appears to be 2014, which had an inauspicious peak, but flattened out like this year did, and then continued with a conspicuous low rate of decline well past the other year’s low point. After they started growth again, it continued decline until the the 2004-2013 average rose to join it, and then they tracked together for a good bit of the rise.

            All that is the red line on the DMI plot.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Is this better, Steven?

            You should be able to view it better if you increase your screen magnification.

          • AndyG55 says:

            And Steven, I wouldn’t call that a projection, in any shape of the word.

            I would just to see griff’s face if it did do that, :-)

            Imagine if it finished higher than any of the years in the data set. ;-)

            It could, but probably not.

          • Steven Fraser says:

            AndyG55: Yes, that is much better. Thanks!

            On one of Andy (not G55) comments, he wrote:

            “The full graph shows that all the years tend to compress as the melt season gets underway.”

            I just checked this today, doing a comparison of the high year and low year for the 2nd of each month. Interestingly, for a given date, the span stays pretty constant, except at the where the melt rate is its max.

            Here are the numbers (for both Andys)

            MonMin Max Span
            Jan 16563 21621 5059
            Feb 19321 24229 4908
            Mar 21161 26208 5047
            Apr 22505 27813 5307
            May 22659 27574 4915
            Jun 20296 25824 5528
            July 10443 16687 6244
            Aug 5293 9008 3715
            Sep 4553 8923 4370
            Oct 5839 11330 5492
            Nov 10036 15318 5282
            Dec 14384 20106 5721

            I think that the ‘bunching’ is partly an effect of the slope of the melt line for each year.

  6. W Barkley says:

    This is big news. HUGE.
    Is there no failing news organization that wants to break the story.

    • Andy says:

      There is no news I’m afraid.

      From our Denmark friends

      “31st May 2018

      Today was 3rd consecutive day with more than 5% of #icesheet melting, ranking 26 out of 38 yr record. Important: start date of melt season does not correlate with annual SMB!”

      So a slow start, 25 out of 38 years started earlier. But see last sentence.

      Let’s see. I think it will be an average year or slightly higher than average.


      • tonyheller says:

        Even more desperation

        • Andy says:

          I have to say, from a viewers perspective, this is an exciting start to the 2018 melt season Tony. We’ve seen a few together over the years. Normally it is a slow start but this is hot out of the blocks.

          Great! I do not care who wins.

          Still not sure how ice extent can be so low and ice volume so high for sea ice whilst thickness charts are middling???? Might be worth noting now for reference later after the melt.


          PS Your photos are still excellent as always on the wetlands. Hope that gets sorted out.

      • Steven Fraser says:

        …and what they mean by % melting is the area where melting occurred.

        But curiosity… WHICH 38-year record is being discussed?

        • Andy says:

          They use a number of days positive ice melt to determine if ice melt has started. Otherwise they may get one day of melt and then it goes the other way. Sea ice melt season is done the same way. Although not perfectly accurate, and it sometimes catches them out, they use a running day average to see the ice melt day. NSIDC use 5 day running average also for ice max and min.


        • Steven Fraser says:

          Oh… duh, 1981-2018.

      • R. Shearer says:

        The satellite record is actually 45 years old, but the first 7 years are inconvenient so to speak, so are ignored.

  7. RAH says:

    What has been happening is that it has been warm in the southern 1/4 of Greenland and that warm air is battling much colder air over the rest of the island resulting in a jump in snow fall. So you have melt on about 25% of the island but heavy snow on much of the rest and thus SMB growing as melt also shows an increase. But that is about to change and the anomaly for about the whole island is forecast to go cold.

  8. Alfred (Cairns) says:

    Arctic sea ice melting >> More evapouration >> More clouds >> more precipitation >> more snow and rain on land

    Martin Armstrong explains why global cooling is not such a good thing

  9. Griff says:

    This will be of interest: a cyclone in the arctic this week

    and as I predicted the extent just dropped to equal to prev lowest…

  10. Phil. says:

    For the second year in a row, Greenland’s surface is gaining ice mass at a rate far above normal, with 50 billion tons of new snow, rain and ice in the past week.

Leave a Reply

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