Eleven Years Of Arctic Sea Ice Thickening

Arctic sea ice volume continues its eleven year long expansion.

Spreadsheet

There has been a large expansion of thick ice into the Chukchi, Beaufort and East Siberian Seas since 2008.

2008                    2019

Arctic sea ice extent is close to the 1981-2010 median.

N_daily_extent.png (420×500)

Experts describe this expansion of Arctic ice and normal levels of ice as being a melting death spiral, which is wreaking havoc on weather patterns.  They say the Arctic is gone, and ask what “we” can do to stop it.

The world’s leading climate expert predicted the Arctic would be ice-free last year.

The Argus-Press – Google News Archive Search

And a Nobel laureate predicted the ice would be gone five years ago. His science fiction movie has been shown to nearly every public school child in the world.

Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014

A simple solution for the press, scientists, educators and politicians would be to simply stop lying about the climate.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Eleven Years Of Arctic Sea Ice Thickening

  1. David Jay says:

    Total arctic sea ice volume has been inside the “normal” band for a year and a half (per DMI volume graph). But they are still publishing these articles. But those of us who point out the inconvenient truth are the “science deniers”.

  2. Steven Fraser says:

    I really love the hype in the language of such phrases:

    Most Unprecdented…
    Ice melt is in ‘Overdrive’…
    The Arctic is in the throes…
    The Arctic is breaking local weather information…
    Catastrophic melting of Arctic ice…

    A continual source of amusement!

  3. Gator says:

    I’m much more concerned about the Earth’s intellectual climate.

  4. jkneps73 says:

    R^2 for Artic sea ice volume trend line is 0.056 and p-value for yearly coefficient is 0.458…

  5. Stewart Pid says:

    Only Jan 3rd and Tony is causing the Grifftard / Griffturd to get his panties all in a knot.
    Poor Griffy …. the Arctic won’t obey his Guardian masters.

  6. Maxime Lacombe says:

    Could you list the web address of your sources so I can verify the graphics you are showing?

  7. John says:

    The volume of sea ice is declining for the 15 year period according to the data cited here.
    During the 10 year period from 2008 to 2018 sea ice in the arctic appears to have stabilized but has not increased significantly.
    These graphs show the total average volume of sea ice by year, not simply the volume of ice on 1/2 of each year.
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mqeriQTvH0_5nJ-fbIE8hWM2AugzDbj7USbyEye_P_E/edit?usp=sharing

    • tonyheller says:

      So the Arctic is ice-free as Hansen predicted

    • Gator says:

      John, there is currently more ice in the Arctic than the average of the past 9000 years.

      A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since.

      http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf

      So what is your point?

    • spike55 says:

      Arctic sea ice levels are actually anomalously HIGH compared to the rest of the Holocene.

      In the top 10% of extents.

      Did you know that ??

  8. Jonathan Odlum says:

    The CO 2 numbers are fact. The CO 2 latency period of decades is fact. The Methane numbers are fact. The feedback loops are fact. The melting ice is fact. The ocean and land temp increases are fact. Exponential as a mathematical concept is fully understandable. Global dimming is a fact. The baseline is 1750, not 1850 and we are easily past 1.5 C and already very near 2.0; actually 4.0 in the Arctic where it really matters. There are known temperature numbers for decline and failure of agriculture which we are now flirting with. The world population continues to grow as does the use of fossil fuels. The 6th mass extinction is factually underway. Literally nothing of a meaningful nature was done 40 years ago when it mattered and nothing is being done or will be done even now when it is too late. Human beings will vanish from this planet in very short order, probably years……

    • tonyheller says:

      Your rant is religion, not fact.

      • countyguard says:

        No, his rant is certainly not religion because “religion” (read the ‘bible”) says we will be here till the creator returns to straighten us all out. Global warming science has become political/financial/fraud.

    • Gator says:

      Fact free Jonathan! LOL

    • spike55 says:

      “The baseline is 1750”

      So you choose the COLDEST point in the last 10,000 years

      I bet you choose to live somewhere warm.. How about you move to Siberia if you think the COLDEST period in 10,000 years is actually desirable.

      “The melting ice is fact.”
      Arctic sea ice extent is in the top 10% of the extent of the last 10,000 years

      “decline and failure of agriculture which we are now flirting with”
      What utter rubbish !!… Crop yields are increasing year after year after year..

      “The 6th mass extinction is factually underway. “
      What a lot of unmitigated BS. !!

      We can only hope that mindless, gullible mantra drones like you disappear from the planet as quickly as possible. !! Take the hint, and do something about it.

      Although the thought of you living with your inner despair and pathetic disgust of yourself is quite pleasing.

    • spike55 says:

      “The 6th mass extinction is factually underway”

      Total balderdash .. or deceitful LIE ??

      Name one species that has gone extinct in the last 50 years.

      Humans actually do everything they can to help species they think are in trouble.

      • Gator says:

        Not to mention that extinction is the rule, and not the exception. I have zero tolerance for self inflicted stupidity, so Jonathan, please go away.

      • William Blair says:

        Spike — obviously not a biologist … if you don’t think biodiversity is decreasing dramatically …. thats just a belief … do some research around the world… start with tropical rainforests …. do you know what to look for ?

    • Disillusioned says:

      “The CO 2 [sic] latency period of decades is fact.”

      It’s not fact. You’re parroting what you have been told.

      What is fact: Decades of empirical data show CO2 is the follower. It follows temperature, with a lag time of 9-12 months. Read what actually happens:

      http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf

      https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-blockbuster-paper-finds-man-made.html

      “The baseline is 1750, not 1850 and we are easily past 1.5 C”

      The baseline? Starting at the trough of the Little Ice Age to prove there is a warming problem only proves how badly you are willing cherry pick to push your non-scientific apocalypse scaremongering.

      “Human beings will vanish from this planet in very short order, probably years……”

      You must be so open-minded your brains fell out. Get a grip, dude. There is no problem. There is nothing that needs to be done.

      • Alivation says:

        The graph you’ve displayed shows seasonal changes in CO2 and temperature. This is well understood and is due to fluctuations in photosynthesis due to the seasons. What you really need to look at is CO2 concentration and global average temperature. This paints a very different picture. It shows a relentless rise in CO2 concentration (up to 415 ppm this year) and a relentless rise in ave. temp. The cause (CO2) and effect (ave. global temp.) is very well understood. It’s the greenhouse effect.
        30 seconds of searching gave me these two links selected randomly based on their apparent credentials.
        https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
        https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/global-temperature-and-carbon-dioxide

        • Disillusioned says:

          Late to the party, Alivation says, The cause (CO2) and effect (ave. global temp.) is very well understood. It’s the greenhouse effect.

          Well, I was once an ignorant fool who believed that CO2 was the climate control knob, also. I believed exactly the anti-scientific drivel you believe. No, It is NOT well understood, and you cannot provide any empirical proof of this fiction. You believe in voodoo science and model predictions (all of which continue to fail) – not what empirical data show.

          Open your brain, Alivation. Disillusionment is a good thing.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Alivation said:It’s the greenhouse effect.
          30 seconds of searching gave me these two links selected randomly based on their apparent credentials.

          Exactly the kind of crap I used to do, thinking I had an edge over AGW skeptics. I had a LOT to learn. And I have. The greenhouse effect is an unproven hypothesis. It has been over a century, and the GHE projections continue to fail. MISERABLY. It is not as cut and dried as you think, grasshopper. My decade of disillusioned scientific study trumps your 30 seconds of faith-based belief in people with “credentials.”

          Again, I used to believe your empty religion, also. After all, people with “credentials” were pushing it!

          So, don’t spend 30 seconds finding a link. Bring on those radiative forcing studies – and the empirical data that prove your religious fantasy is real science. Waiting. ;-P

        • Clo says:

          Both government documents.. There’s ur answer, data that is driven by policy not scientific research independant of government..like the ipcc which is government led, which is why top scientists walked awAy from it..

    • jak says:

      Camn down!!!

    • Mike Nelson says:

      Chicken Little always has dire predictions. Politicians pay “scientists”, aka witch doctors, to corroborate Chicken Little’s (Al Gore’s) phony dire predictions. It helps politicians with their Marxist agendas. The voters are credulous, so a little misinformation goes a long ways. Meanwhile, climate change falls right in line with climate change over the course of the past 450,000 years, from ice age to warming to another ice age. Right no we are enjoying a nice warmer period, no glaciers across North America for the past 12,000 years. They’ll be back. And if humans are still here when they do, socialists will blame capitalists for the next glacial age.

  9. Sarah says:

    Thanks for this Tony! Out of interest, why didn’t you use the other years data (2003-2007) from the datasource? They’re available too if you follow the link on your spreadsheet – did you deliberately leave them out for a reason?

  10. Thomas says:

    The science all appears to right. But the science doesn’t explain how the world keeps going from ice to no ice to ice over and over again. The feed back loops all tell you that when it’s getting hotter or colder it’s going to keep going in that direction, so what causes it to change. I have not heard a single climate scientist explain how climate is cycling? Is the left against climate change or just man influenced climate change? If the planet goes into a colder cycle are we going to let the planet freeze or are we going to use man made climate change to keep it from happening? Ice age would most likely kill at least 50% of world population.

  11. Blasto says:

    I believe the temperature data that says the world is warming. You can’t fake that data. That said, you’re right that the ice cap was supposed to be ice free by now, per predictions from ten years ago. The climate system is complex. That said, only right-wing morons would insist on perpetuating filthy, environmentally damaging fossil fuel industries. They’re not necessary. SOME of them are still needed of course, but we need to reduce their use, also because they will run out anyway.

    This stupid science face off ignores the reality that fossil fuels need to be reduced in use, period

  12. Peter says:

    This seems to contradict the Polar Science Center readings…

    https://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2019/02/piomas-february-2019.html

    Polar sea ice is continually receding.

    • tonyheller says:

      No it isn’t

    • wadelightly says:

      Evidence for that

      • Mark Fisher says:

        With respect, you need to establish specific criteria; objective empirical measures that you judge influential or persuasive BEFORE asking for proof of anything. The trouble with the AGW faith is the ever shifting goal posts. It’s intellectually dishonest to posit a prediction of future events and then constantly change how those predictions are to be measured. The Arctic was supposed to be “ice free” in the summer by [insert year] but 1) ice free isn’t defined, but is some generic alarmist phrase. 2) despite 2012 showing a less abundant amount it wasn’t “ice free” by sny measure and subsequent seasons have all been within the standard deviations of the limited baseline period. 3) large swings in the sea ice extent were documented over the course of human exploration of the region since the 18th century long before CO2 levels increased.

    • Bruce Frykman says:

      What is the parameter being measured to chronicle “climate change?”

      Who picked the reference period and why?

      Is ice area or ice volume the salient metric?

      Is there a difference? Which is more “important and why is it more important?

      Much of the arctic ice is wind blown pieces of a giant jig-saw puzzle of ice pieces that are both gathered and scattered by wind.

      Which has the largest ice extent: 1,000,000 sq km with 100% ice cover or 2,000,000 km sq of 15% ice.

      How much larger is the larger of these two sea ice extents if you were comparing them on a graph to illustrate “climate change”?

      Can any “expert” here answer these rather simple but rather fundamental questions?

  13. Roger Ahier says:

    Let me just put this here to remind everyone what our climate has been doing. It is doing the exact same thing it has every 100k years recently. How can anyone look at this and not see it’s even going to get warmer? How do people ignore this? You do know that the ice will come back, don’t you? Do you not realize that we will have another glacial period where the shore is the end of the continental shelf?

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

  14. Orion Alexanders says:

    Higher volume of sea ice could be a result of large chunks of the Greenlandic Icesheet falling off, turning into icebergs… http://www.eniscuola.net/en/2018/12/13/arctic-record-temperatures-2018/

    As for all the bad/overly exaggerated predictions made (especially by politicians), I will firstly say that politicians should not be listened to when it comes to relating science, as they have no idea what they’re talking about and only care for their political agendas. However, this should NOT take away from the fact that we have a serious climate problem on our hands. Scientists are still working on understanding the many details of how the planets climate works and is effected by various factors, but the sheer fact that scientific consensus has been achieved regarding climate warming should not be dismissed so easily… and I’m not just talking about a climate-scientists, but astrophysicists, geologists, etc. Do you have any idea how much scientists can argue among themselves about various theories and topics and how rarely consensus on a theory is reached? Not that often, I can tell you.

    Rambling aside, my point is that there is a huge amount of data that scientists are working with, which is not easily compiled. If you only look at certain sets of data and draw your conclusions on that… I’m afraid you’re not seeing the real picture (assuming you are indeed trying to objectively see the real picture and not just push your own agenda for whatever reason).

    This coming from a geologist that as a student didn’t believe in man-made climate change and sough out all sort of alternative theories and explanations… until slowly I gained a more critical mindset and started thinking less emotionally and more objectively/curiously at all possibilities and which matched all data better.

    • Bruce Frykman says:

      If politicians are not trustworthy to spend the correct levels of our money on “climate policy” would it be better if “climate scientists” were given the power to tax us directly to support their vital work since only they know how important they are ?

    • tonyheller says:

      Snopes? ROFL

    • Gator says:

      Here is the real problem alarmists have, from your Snopes link…

      If we rank the annual surface mass balance since 1981…

      The Earth did not form in 1981. There is currently more ice in the Arctic than the average of the past 9000 years.

      Which is much more significant? 38 years? Or 9000 years? Which would be definitely considered a cherry pick?

  15. Robert Cannon says:

    Could somebody please tell me what is wrong with these death spiral graphs showing reduced ice volumes since 1980? The contradict the above data.
    https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs/sea-ice-volume

  16. Rob McAnally says:

    If any of this were true (melting arctic) we would be reading abut “The Northwest Passage” and we are not! now what is your explanation?!

  17. Rob McAnally says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v66SPTYqF0
    If any of this were true (melting arctic) we would be reading abut “The Northwest Passage” and we are not! now what is your explanation?!

    Global Temperature Has Dropped .420 Degrees C In The Last 2 Years
    https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29684085_1823726077645890_3337036451939703862_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=6a9764dc97f9cf41c7358c2920e40059&oe=5B7374ED

    • Robert Cannon says:

      Your link expired. But I wonder how a single temperature over a year representing the average temp, can mean anything over one year. Surely this average must be trended over several years to have any meaning. I know this is what is done by many but we keep hearing about a +0.07 degree record breaking increase. This cannot possibly have any significance with anything. Such a number is well within any tolerance on the number. How IS the tolerance determined? And is it +/- 3 sigma?

  18. Robert Cannon says:

    Anyone familiar with the CFC connection to ozone hole and subsequent reduction when CFCs were restricted (no more R12). Dr Lu says starting 2002 as temp gradually reduces, the melting will reduce until the temp goes back down due to ozone hole reduction. Is that what is happening now? (ice thickening). https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S0217979213500732

    • neal s says:

      I understand we were told there was a connection between CFC and ozone hole. But if that were actually true, it would have been possible to sample the upper atmosphere to find the trace amounts of CFC that supposedly managed to get there. Don’t think that was done. It seems there may be some natural explanation for the periodic changes in the ozone hole. But like with these other effects, some folk can’t make their money without keeping others alarmed.

  19. B T Johnson says:

    Here is an inconvenient truth for you:

    The earth was created to endure the presence of humans.

    We are still here aren’t we? Crickets…

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.