Arctic Melt Season Crashes And Burns

Tough times for climate alarmists. Arctic sea ice extent is increasing several weeks earlier than normal.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Index of /DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/images/2018/

But have no fear!  The press will continue to lie about the Arctic for as long as they can get away with it..

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Arctic Melt Season Crashes And Burns

  1. MrGrimNasty says:

    Griff will pop up to point out the volume has dribbled away somewhat, proving his/her hypocrisy, so there Griff, saved you the bother – you like extent as a measure, so stick with it!

    • RAH says:

      Yep. Hope springs eternal for those which hanker for signs of doom. She will look elsewhere for confirmation of her bias. Never mind that the ice is not gone and there is no indication it will be. The fact she can find sources which present the melt as more extensive than DMI will do for those with highly selective memories.

  2. frederik wisse says:

    Overtime for the canadian coast guard !

  3. Mr Sir says:

    The extent is still far below the 1981-2000 average.

    • R Shearer says:

      Which is higher than most of the past 10,000 years.

    • AndyDC says:

      The 1981-2000 average was no doubt higher that the 1940-1970 average. So why should a period with unusually high sea ice be the measuring stick? Without their cherry picks, the alarmists have nothing.

      • Jason Calley says:


      • Mr Sir says:

        “The 1981-2000 average was no doubt higher that the 1940-1970 average. ”

        Source, please?

        • Stewart Pid says:

          Griffy is that u with a new handle?

        • spike55 says:

          Gees you really ARE an ignorant twerp, aren’t you, little sur.

        • spike55 says:

          You do know that current levels are in the TOP 10% of the current interglacial, don’t you ??

          And that it is only a small amount down from the extremes of the LIA and 1970s.???

          • Andy says:

            Please can people stop using that graph, it is not from Stein. et al 2017.

            It is from a website that modified it to show something Stein never showed.


            Stein said the below in an email to me :-

            “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.”

          • spike55 says:

            Just because you are totally INCOMPETNET and can’t see that the ONLY change has been the orientation and image scaling

            Can you tell me ..

            What information has been changed from the original graph.

            No-one has tampered with the data, the AGW scammers do… just made the graph more user friendly. Rotated , stretched and notation added in the correct place so base level morons like you can comprehend.

            Also matches other Arctic graphs

            Stop carrying on like you are a brainless TWIT, little andy, as if you have any other choice.

          • spike55 says:

            Here is that section of the graph as posted by Stein et al.. axis moved over


          • spike55 says:

            And from the text…

          • spike55 says:

            Would you like me to put some pointers on the ORIGINAL Stein graph, so that you know where the LIA, MWP, 20th Century are, little-andy

            Are you THAT ignorant that you don’t know???

          • spike55 says:

            And BTW.. Who TF do you think you are to tell me what graph I can use…

            Note the RAPID INCREASE leading up to the current high anomaly, still in top 10% of the last 10,000 years

          • Andy says:


            As per the text I posted which you did not read, there are additional labels added, can you not see them in the FAKE graph you showed?

            Show the original if you wish to, that would be fine, but not the one from the ironically called NOTRICKSZONE…..

            As mentioned in my reply to you the original author of the paper was very unhappy with what was done to his graph and said the advised labels misrepresented what his paper was showing. So it is FAKE and it is WRONG.

            Feel free to post shit graphs if you want, but I can post it is not worth the bytes uploaded. It makes people wonder the validity of any graph you post……..

            Contact Stein if you want to hear it from him.


          • spike55 says:

            so little-andy needs instruction on graphs.

            Cannot see that the original has EXACTLY the same data as the one that easier to read.

            Do you need me to point to where the LIA, MWP and 20th century are, little-andy

            Are you saying that the labels in the NTZ graph are in the wrong place.

            Please take the original Stein graph as shown above, and point out where the correct positions of those labels should be.. I DARE YOU.

            STOP YOUR CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL, little-andy

          • sunsettommy says:


            you are being absurd since the only change was having the words 20th Century, Little Ice age and Medieval Warm Period added onto the chart as Kenneth explained here from the link YOU provided:

            “The graph is indeed in the actual paper. It’s on the 9th page, right hand side, in a vertical position (that was re-positioned to horizontal for easier viewing). The “20th century”, “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” annotations were added, corresponding with their accepted dating from the last millennium. The timing of the sea ice cover changes for the Arctic areas during the last millennium studied correspond quite well to the records for Iceland, as shown in the subsequent graph.”

            Here is another one that drives home the reason for its appearance on the No Tricks Blog:

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

            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.


        • RAH says:

          When posters like “Mr Sir” ask for a source, they have no intention of learning. Facts are not what they seek.

          • Anon says:

            Good observation.

            But now it is time to move on to MONSTER HURRICANES and leave the Arctic behind for another year. Any of the following will indicate CAGW / AGW this year:

            For CAGW we have:

            1] More Powerful and More Numerous

            2] More Powerful and Less Numerous

            3] Less Powerful and More Numerous

            And for just AGW:

            4] Less Powerful and Less Numerous

            We need to have at least one of these babies get up to Greenland to explain the increase in ice mass up there.

    • gregole says:

      So what?

      When will the Arctic be ice free?

  4. JCalvertN(UK) says:

    The geniuses round at PIOMAS have just realised something that should have been obvious to anyone who has given the matter more than a moment’s thought.
    Not “puzzling”.
    Winter storms => stronger thicker sea-ice. (The opposite applies to summer storms.)

  5. Psalmon says:

    There are around 55 vessels operating in the Arctic right now between Baffin Bay and the Kara Sea. According to Marine Traffic they are tracking 175,424 total vessels.

    So Arctic vessels represent 314 VPM or Vessels per Million.

    There is your “Arctic Shipping Highway” headline for you. Arctic vessels are as common as CO2 in the atmosphere. If we reach 400 VPM the Earth tips over, there’s no stopping it.

  6. Andy says:

    Looks like my 4.1 guess is going to be way to low for summer extent, more likely 4.6 to 4.5. I very average year up there this year, slightly above the 2010 onwards average.

    Antarctic still very low and so global value is low too. I still have not seen a theory that explains the sudden flip in 2015 from the large extent years before then to low values. I wonder if it will flip back high again ?


    • spike55 says:

      No little andy,

      The extent is STILL in the top 10% of the Holocene.

    • spike55 says:

      And of course the Antarctic has a distinct downward temperature trend, only interrupted by the recent El Nino.

      I guess that if you want to make yourself look like a cherry-picking fool, you could make a big point about the slightly lower Antarctic sea ice as the recover from the El Nino continues

    • spike55 says:

      And ignore the fact that sea ice extent has been increasing

      • Andy says:

        Hey Dumber55,

        Did I ignore increase when I said

        “I still have not seen a theory that explains the sudden flip in 2015 from the large extent years before then to low values. I wonder if it will flip back high again ?”

        So I obviously did know the extent was large until recently as I mentioned it, before wondering whether it would become large again ?

        You either are so busy putting in charts ( quantity not quality) that you either are not reading properly or else cannot read. Ask and adult to sit you on their knee and read them out aloud to you……

    • spike55 says:

      And we would understand WHY the Arctic sea ice is currently SO HIGH compared to the rest of the Holocene.

      Its because the temperatures are SO COLD

    • spike55 says:

      “Looks like my 4.1 guess is going to be way to low for summer extent”

      Being alarmist is always going to lead you to erroneous projections.

      Its the only thing alarmists are good at, erroneous projection.

  7. Douglas Hoyt says:

    Another WW2 aircraft has been found in Greenland under 300 feet of ice.

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.