Watching The Arctic Sea Ice Scam Unravel

The Arctic sea ice scam began to rapidly unravel last March, when all records for Arctic sea ice volume gain were blown away.

Spreadsheet    Data

So far this month, ice volume gain has also been a record high.

And January 9 Arctic sea ice volume has been increasing for over a decade.

Spreadsheet    Data

The area of the Arctic covered with thick sea ice has greatly expanded over the past eleven years.

2008   2019

Ice extent is very close to the 1981-2010 median, and rapidly increasing.

N_20190110_extn_v3.0.png (420×500)

My Northwest Passage cruise had to be cancelled last year, because of too much ice.

Climate experts describe these record large increases in ice as an unprecedented meltdown.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to Watching The Arctic Sea Ice Scam Unravel

  1. kevin roche says:

    Tony, can you please comment on Zeke’s latest work, published in Science, on ocean temperatures. I am assuming there are some very questionable statistical games going on there, but I don’t have the knowledge to conduct the analysis.

    • tonyheller says:

      Sea surface temperatures are below normal in most of the Southern Hemisphere and the North Atlantic. Zeke is a propagandist.

      • JCalvertN(UK) says:

        The above is several weeks out-of-date. Look at all the coolness now! (if you can – the US Federal shutdown isn’t helping)

        • Crashex says:

          JCalvert–Nice job cropping off the coldest areas discussed in the post. Such petty deceit.

          Though a close comparison of the visible regions shows a modest trend from red to yellow.

          • JCalvertN(UK) says:

            It was the best picture I could find due to the shutdown. I wasn’t being sarcastic. Maybe I should have been more specific.
            Notice that off the coast of Chile, where there was a large patch of yellow, there is now a large patch of deep blue.

          • JCalvertN(UK) says:

            Try this one instead. My above comment was intended to be about the large *new* area of blue in the south-eastern Pacific Ocean.

          • Crashex says:

            Okay, sorry. There is a lot of “slight of hand” used to make arguments in this debate. Your cropped view looked like that. Visually averaging the ocean areas are markedly different when you eliminate the cold Antarctic Zones.

            That cold zone West of S America and the cooling streak of yellow across the equator make it look like the El Nino is fading.

    • Owen Suppes says:

      Zeke and Kevin employ four estimates, one of which is Resplandy. I’m not sure how they’ve weighted the four papers. But I think Resplandy is not yet fit for prime time. My opinion.

  2. John of Cloverdale, Western Australia says:

    As well as polar bears, Global warming ice is killing cute little seals too.

  3. TexCIS says:

    Greece just hit -23C as Europe gets dumped on by trillions of tons of snow. Isreal sets records for snowfall. People need to wake up about the non-warming world (COOLING).

    • AndyDC says:

      The alarmists love to say that when the low latitude places are cold and snowy, it is due to the hot Arctic. The Arctic has been so hot that there was one station in Alaska was -53F this morning and another was -54F. Temperatures in Siberia have been running at least -60F. Arctic sea ice is running very close to the 1981-2010 normal and has been recovering for the last 10 years.

      So where is all this imaginary warming? Without their blatant cherry picks and fraudulent data manipulation, the alarmists have very little to show for all the $ billions that they have scammed from the taxpayers.

    • griff says:

      That isn’t because its getting colder…

      This is a 1 in a hundred year piece of exceptional weather as far as Austria is concerned.

  4. Mr Sir says:

    While 2019 may have more sea ice thickness than 2008, you shouldn’t ignore the averages of the 4 years that preceded them. Compare the lines from 2004-2007 and the lines from 2015-2018.

    • Gator says:

      A four year cherry pick? Little Man. Are you a New Earther?

      • Mr Sir says:

        Tony’s the one cherry-picking.

        • Gator says:

          No, Tony is pointing out a trend, that goes back over a decade, and goes against the alarmist meme.

          Are you a New Earther Little Man?

          • Cam says:

            He is cherry-picking his starting date, though when there is data in this set dating back to 2003 which was quite a bit higher (look at the link to his spreadsheet). He complains when they only show ice extent back to 1979 when they know there is data (from IPCC 1) back to the early 70’s that doesn’t match the AGW narrative. The same standard should be followed here even if it shows a negative trend line.

          • David A says:

            Yes, yet Tony is not predicting an ice age in ten years, whereas many prominent alarmists have predicted the end of arctic ice within a 5 to 10 year period. Those now failed predictions are therefore legitimate fodder for graphics depicting their shameful anti-science rhetoric.

          • spike55 says:

            Levelled off since 2008, cam.

            10 years of zero trend.

            Get over it.

            Yo do know that the late 1970s was a time of extreme high Arctic sea ice extent, up there with the LIA …

            and that Arctic sea ice extent is actually anomalously HIGH compared to the last 10,000 year (top 10%)

            Or are you a ignorant of nature climate change ?

            Or are you IGNORANT as well?

    • Joe Knepley says:

      Not sure why all the data available from 2003 to 2018 isn’t used in charts displayed in post. Also not sure why annual average ice volume were not calculated. If annual averages were used to perform linear regressions, it would show there are only two linear regressions with slopes that are statistically significant at 5%: from 2003 to 2018 and from 2004 to 2018 (and both slopes are negative).

      Year Avg Volume R^2 Slope P-value for Slope % Change Per Year
      2003 1.87E+13 0.4594 -1.93E+11 0.0039 -1.0%
      2004 1.91E+13 0.3641 -1.70E+11 0.0172 -0.9%
      2005 1.83E+13 0.2257 -1.17E+11 0.0860 -0.6%
      2006 1.76E+13 0.0794 -6.10E+10 0.3511 -0.3%
      2007 1.58E+13 0.0002 -2.70E+09 0.9665 0.0%
      2008 1.53E+13 0.0002 -3.17E+09 0.9673 0.0%
      2009 1.63E+13 0.0259 -4.07E+10 0.6570 -0.2%
      2010 1.65E+13 0.0038 -1.79E+10 0.8744 -0.1%
      2011 1.53E+13 0.0240 50488774524 0.7144 0.3%
      2012 1.46E+13 0.0031 21841819747 0.9056 0.1%
      2013 1.64E+13 0.2434 -1.96E+11 0.3200 -1.2%
      2014 1.70E+13 0.1779 -2.12E+11 0.4794 -1.2%
      2015 1.59E+13 0.0874 1.31276E+11 0.7043 0.8%
      2016 1.50E+13 0.9410 6.35799E+11 0.1562 4.3%
      2017 1.53E+13
      2018 1.62E+13

  5. daves says:

    Amazing that there are still folks trying to sow doubt on the overwhelming evidence of global warming.

    • tonyheller says:

      “Blind trust in authority is the greatest enemy of the truth”

      – Albert Einstein

      What is amazing to me is that someone would be foolish enough to come on this blog and make such a simple-minded statement as you just did. We deal with data here, not parrot propaganda.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey daves! “Amazing that there are still folks trying to sow doubt on the overwhelming evidence of global warming.”

      I don’t think anyone here is “trying to sow doubt on the overwhelming evidence of global warming.” What is going on here that folks are sowing doubt on “the overwhelming baseless assertions of catastrophic global warming.”

      Seriously, the evidence for whether the earth has recently or is currently experiencing warming is difficult to sort out, mostly because the error bars on the data are so huge. Also, warming since when? Since 20,000 years ago? You bet! Since 80 years ago? Probably not, but I can see where arguments can be made for either opinion. On the other hand the evidence that the earth has recently or is currently experiencing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is not just shaky, it is literally nonexistent. Assertions, yes, but evidence, no.

    • Gator says:

      Dave’s what, exactly?

    • Squidly says:

      Evidence? … Please share….

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      **Amazing that there are still folks trying to sow doubt on the overwhelming evidence of global warming.**
      I am still looking for one.

    • spike55 says:

      “overwhelming evidence of global warming.”

      You are welcome to link to a paper showing empirical evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2.

      That is the very basis of the whole AGW scam

      Can you MAN UP, dave, or are you just a yapper. !!!!

    • Jay says:

      Welcome to the realization of how real science works. Critical thinkers always ask skeptical questions.

    • thurman zhou says:

      @ daves…. you left out the “N ” in ” sow ” . The problem with the Arctic was… ice free by 2008. ice free by 2013. ice free by 2018…. ice free by 2050? ice free by 2100??
      You know about the tipping point right? Run a way global warming that would make the Arctic ice free by 2008. I totally agree that IF…. IF the IPCC math was correct it would have happened. It didn’t and it doesn’t look like it will ever happen. I was wondering if you live in an alternate reality.
      On the one hand AGW likes to paint the whole world as being warm, shows a photo opp of one place, but ignores the overwhelming evidence the Arctic is far from melting.

  6. Frank S. says:

    Right on, Right on, Right on
    Can anyone get this Data to the people who have Al Gore his Nobel award ?
    Maybe they’ll crawl out of their Ice Caves and talk to the Reindeer

  7. Ian T says:

    Can someone please help me?

    I’ve been looking at NOAA’s sea ice index daily extent report for some time (yes, I need to get a life!) and have been a little concerned about the integrity of the data. My concerns are centred on the daily increases and decreases in ice extent.

    Just recently I’ve gained access to a spreadsheet and have exported NOAA’s data there to do a few calculations.

    I understand that the daily data from year to year will bounce around a little bit. In a period of expansion (or contraction) the ice extent will sometimes level off or even retreat (advance) for a day or so before once again expanding (or contracting).

    However, over the 30 year period from 1981 to 2010, you would expect that the data would average out and have a reasonably consistent daily increase or decrease in ice extent, with the numbers tapering off as they reach the maximum or minimum extents.

    What I have found is that the 4 largest increases and 3 largest decreases in ice extent have occurred on the 1st of the month. In addition, these increases and decreases are often 2 to 3 times larger than the increases or decreases in the days preceding or following the 1st day of that month. They are often larger than any daily increase or decrease for the entire month and / or preceding month.

    By way of example, the increase in ice extent on the 1st December, for the 1981 to 2010 period, is 181,000 square kilometres (11,883,000 – 11,702,000). This is more than twice as large as any other daily increase for all of December and November (other than for the 1st of November).

    I may be completely wrong, but I get a sense that the increases (or decreases) in ice extent and are being suppressed in the lead up to the end of the month in order to manipulate that month’s, or the following month’s total ice extent. There is then a step up (or down) on the 1st of the month which is often followed by a further suppression of the data.

    I’m speculating, but unless the step up or down is done, the NOAA data set would quickly get out of sync with comparable data sets.

    The 5 day extent numbers would obviously include these daily numbers, but by their very nature, would tend to hide the extent of these apparent adjustments.

    Given that the 30 year data set is an average, there will be years and months where there are little or no changes, and correspondingly, there will others which exceed the average.

    I believe my concerns have been validated. If so, it calls into question the entire data set as there could be other adjustments, mid-month for example, which are not as easily identifiable.

    My apologies if this matter has been raised and addressed previously.

    I hope this all makes sense and I look forward to any comments. I’m happy to be proven wrong as I have no experience in this area I haven’t touched a spreadsheet for many years. Unfortunately I don’t know how to attach my spreadsheet, but it wouldn’t be to hard for someone to replicate.

    I’m a first time blogger, so please go easy on me!

    • spike55 says:

      NASA ignores the fact that current Arctic sea ice levels are WAY higher than all but some 500 years of the last 10,000 years. Top 10% actually

      The first 7000+ year 0f the current interglacial was often summer ice free (no not 1 million km², actually ice free)

      They don’t want you to know this fact.

      Nor do they want you to know the fact that the extent in the late 1970s was anomalously HIGH, being up there with the extent of the Little Ice Age anomaly.

      They DENY the global cooling scare of the mid 1970s, but they can’t erase all the data.

    • griff says:

      If you are serious about this, you can go here, register and post the question.,2413.0.html

      The forum is a place where active sea ice researchers post and has some authority. It isn’t just some guy with a political axe to grind posting on a blog…

      • spike55 says:

        That blog is designed to show ONLY the scam part of Arctic sea ice. It is a highly biased propaganda site, nothing more.

        It is full of lies and mis-truths and totally bent by its political agenda. Not to be trusted, because it REFUSES to tell the whole truth

        Its the natural place for griffool to get his nonsense and climate change denial from

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        And here comes the very serious Ms Griff, a noted researcher of Arctic sea ice, posting scientific comments on a blog of “some guy with a political axe to grind”.

        It doesn’t get any better than this.

  8. Rick Saitama Sanchez says:

    Your data is correct but the conclusions are wildly off base.

    Jan or Mar sea ice volume change is increasing but that because there is more open water in regions that should have already frozen. This is the Arctic trying to play catch up.

    As an analogy, imagine a rubber band that you fix to one end and pull and release from the other. Over time, you would be able to pull the rubber band to relatively longer distances before releasing it. And you could conclude that over time, the rubber band is able to travel longer distances as you pull and release it more. But obviously, it will snap one day and cannot travel any distance.

    Also, 2019 (to date) has definitely had more Arctic sea ice than previous years (extent was only 9th lowest on record yesterday) but that’s been the outlier not the trend. If fact, if you see on your own 2008 vs 2019 gif, you can see that the graphs for more recent time frame lurch downwards as compared to the graphs from the mid 2000s.

    Systems don’t collapse gradually, they prefer to be in equilibrium. So, with all the inputs forcing the sea ice system to collapse, it is trying to fight its way back to its old equilibrium (hence the disproportionately high volume increases in the late freeze season).

    • tonyheller says:

      Arctic sea ice is very close to the 1981-2010 median edge

      • Rick Saitama Sanchez says:

        Rubber bands return back to the median when released till the day they snap. It’s not shocking that 1 year out of 10 may have a refreeze season that brings it close to the long term average.

        Little thought exercise for you – if arctic sea ice were actually to go to 0, how do you reckon it would manifest in the annual data leading up to the collapse? What factors would drive it? Do you expect it to be a downward sloping sine curve or a noisy, ‘stable’ curve that suddenly starts showing more volatility and wild swings before abruptly falling off the cliff.

        I obviously don’t know if how I see it playing out is exactly how it will happen but it’s a good exercise to help account for all the factors that affect the system.

        • spike55 says:

          You should try a little thought of your own some time.

          Try to base it on some actual knowledge next time, instead of coming up with mindless analogies and idiotic hypotheticals of things you are obviously totally ignorant about..

    • spike55 says:

      “that should have already frozen”

      What a wildly STUPID statement.

      Did you know that Arctic sea ice extent is still in the top 10% of the last 10,000 years?

      How the F*** do you know what it “should” be. !!

      Do you base all your mindless cojectures on extreme levels up with those of the LIA like the late 1970s ???

      Or are you just totally CLUELESS of Arctic sea ice history???

      • Rick Saitama Sanchez says:

        You seem like a rational and balanced individual …

        • spike55 says:

          You appear to be a brain-washed, low-educated mindless troll.

          I notice you don’t answer why you think parts “should already be frozen”

          No reason ?? Just “because”. ;-)

          • Rick Saitama Sanchez says:

            I gave you a well reasoned explanation of the phenomenon we are seeing and you responded by calling me STUPID, mindless, CLUELESS and swearing at me … “should be already frozen” simply refers to the trend in data over the satellite record.

            I honestly couldn’t care less if you don’t ‘believe’ in anthropogenic climate change. It’s in my best interest for you to keep sticking your head in the sand – can’t benefit from investing in the rapidly changing global dynamics if we don’t have morons making the counter bet.

            Someone’s gotta be the bag holder watching the cat 5 Hurricane approach their Miami penthouse and I appreciate you taking one for the team.

            Given your abusive conversational style, there is no point providing you with any more reasoned discussion.

            Enjoy living in a world where you believe millions of scientists spend 20-25 years studying and making the top grades so they can get into progressively tougher programs just so they can ruin their credibility immediately after getting their PhD by joining the global conspiracy to destroy the poor oil & gas industry …

          • spike55 says:

            “I gave you a well reasoned explanation “

            Based on cluelessness of the reality of the history of Arctic sea ice, a form of climate change denial.

            For all but about 400-500 years of the current interglacial there has been FAR LESS sea ice than now. Choose to remain ignorant.. it is what AGW apologists do.

            Been a long time since a Cat 5 hasn’t hit mainland USA.. 12 year null or something ???

            Must be “climate change”

            Maybe you can produce some actual empirical evidence to the most basic fallacy of the AGW scam, warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2

            … or do you just “believe” in myths and failed hypotheses because someone with a vested interest told you so.

            Why should anyone be polite to those who support a SCAM that is intentionally aimed at taking down the developed world economy.

            Your statement was that of an ignorant twit.

            Live with it.

          • Gator says:

            Enjoy living in a world where you believe millions of scientists spend 20-25 years studying and making the top grades so they can get into progressively tougher programs just so they can ruin their credibility immediately after getting their PhD by joining the global conspiracy to destroy the poor oil & gas industry …

            Millions? LOL

            Cue the Twilight Zone theme!

    • spike55 says:

      “As an analogy, “

      ie , you can’t describe it using rational science.

    • spike55 says:

      “So, with all the inputs forcing the sea ice system to collapse,”

      Again, another idiotic, scientifically-unsupportable, load of mindless twaddle.

  9. wadesworld says:


    Why the huge disparity between the DMI and the NSIDC?

  10. griff says:

    completely at odds with the facts, as set out by actual scientists here:

  11. sunsettommy says:

    Warmist obsession over north sea ice never ends, since they think doom is around the corner if the ice vanish in the summer.

    Yet it HAS done that and for CENTURIES in the early Holocene, the Polar Nears are still here, so are Eskimos, Seals, Walrus and more.

  12. Gamecock says:

    ‘The Arctic sea ice scam began to rapidly unravel last March, when all records for Arctic sea ice volume gain were blown away.’

    It’s great to know that all of the deaths from low sea ice volume will end.

    Wait . . . what?

  13. James Burke says:

    It suits politicians to raise Carbon Taxes. Here in Ireland they don’t even ringfence the money raised for renewable energy projects such as hydro. When I was a teenager, scientists based their work on actual findings. Sadly now it’s seems they use some shite they read on an inflight magazine.

  14. Bob Hurtt says:

    is the rocking of the planet slowing thus altering the timing of seasonal influences on temps

  15. Danny says:

    Thanks for your excellent work, Tony. I’ve just linked to this article on Facebook, with a provocative status update (I’ll paste it below). Something I’ve been thinking about with regard to the “hot” (AKA: not quite as cryogenic) arctic winter temperature is that it isn’t only caused by mixing of warmer air from the south. Part of the winter temperature rise is because of the latent heat of solidification of the water that’s turning to ice. All of that energy is left in the air, increasing its temperature above what it would’ve been if it were just a mass-weighted mean of the cold and warm air masses. In short, a less cold than average arctic winter means moist air is going northward and dumping snow onto the ice-cap. Contrary to popular belief, it means that the ice is growing!

    Now for my FB post:
    Arctic sea ice is growing in volume due to the large swings in the polar vortex taking moist air north this northern winter and the one before. The extra thermal mass has also kept the Arctic summer maximum daily temperatures below average over the last summer, so the only time when ice can melt up there has seen less melting than average. So, that begs the question: why is the media saying that the less cold than average Arctic winter temperature is causing the ice to melt? They say it’s hot up there, but I bet that they wouldn’t take up a challenge to spend an hour in shorts, a tee-shirt and thongs (AKA: flip-flops) up there in the blisteringly hot -20’C temperatures. The Arctic ice sheet doesn’t melt when the air is at -20’C. It only starts to melt when the air gets up past 0’C.

  16. Romanda says:

    My Momma was always pointing hergrainled finger into the sky.
    What is it my dear she asked me is this big thing that heat us.
    Later thru my physics, I have larned that Helios is not a predictable god to bet on

Leave a Reply

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