Sea Ice Same Thickness As 60 Years Ago

Three years ago, climate alarmists announced that Arctic sea ice extent had dropped (at -30C)  to record low winter levels. Mark Serreze said “We’re heading for summers with no sea ice coverage at all.”

Arctic’s Winter Sea Ice Drops to Its Lowest Recorded Level – The New York Times

In 2008, Serreze predicted an ice-free North Pole that summer, and announced that the Arctic is screaming.

North Pole could be ice free in 2008 | New Scientist

Scientists: ‘Arctic Is Screaming,’ Global Warming May Have Passed Tipping Point | Fox News

Star-News – Google News Archive Search

Four years ago, he suggested that some sailors try to sail to the North Pole.

After unusual Arctic storms, sea ice coverage in region is plummeting

There has been no trend in Arctic sea ice extent since the start of MASIE records in 2006.

DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/masie_4km_allyears_extent_sqkm.csv

Ice extent is now “normal” – so climate alarmists have quite predictably determined that winter extent is no longer a relevant metric.

N_daily_extent.png (420×500)

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

Now they want to focus on ice thickness, which is about two meters.

DMI Modelled ice thickness

Which is the same as 1958, when sea ice extent was low.

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

Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide 

In 1922, the region between the North Pole and Alaska was “new, thin, rotten ice.”

29 Jan 1922, Page 35 – The St. Louis Star and Times at Newspapers.com

Nothing is happening in the Arctic. I’ve been calling out this scam for twelve years.

Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered • The Register

And Congressional Democrats want me silenced so that they can continue lying to the public about the Arctic climate, as well as the rest of the world.

Congress urges Google to act against climate misinformation on YouTube

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Sea Ice Same Thickness As 60 Years Ago

  1. Jim Hunt says:

    Hi Tony,

    It’s great to see that you’re looking at Arctic Sea Ice thickness once again. I feel compelled to quibble with your headline though! See the recent “measured” thickness map below. For chapter and verse please also see:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/01/wheres-the-thickest-arctic-sea-ice-gone/

    I hope you and Toto are OK?

    Best wishes,

    Jim

    • Robert Austin says:

      Jim,
      It is fun to “quibble” about “measured” Arctic ice thickness, especially when the more directly observed Arctic ice extent is non-newsworthy. How about that Mark Serreze though? Do you approve of his outlandish projections? Or is it de rigueur to fight skeptics such as Tony for every inch of ground and give the Serrezes of climatedom a free pass?

      • Jim Hunt says:

        What “outlandish projections” might those be Robert?

        I interviewed Mark about such “outlandish allegations”. Here is what he told me:

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/mark-serreze-and-the-arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral/

        • Robert Austin says:

          “No matter where we stand at the end of the melt season it’s just reinforcing this notion that Arctic ice is in its death spiral,” said Mark Serreze, a scientist at the center. The Arctic could be free of summer ice by 2030, Serreze said by telephone.

          Jim, Jim, Jim,
          Quotation from your article. Still talks of “death spiral” and ice free projection in the near future. And playing the old “get out of jail free” card of this being a “projection” and not a prediction. Scientists should be much more circumspect about their “projections” as the general public has the funny idea that scientists hold themselves to a higher standard of proof than the hoi polloi. “Projections” not backed by hard science such as “the Arctic could be free of summer ice by 2030” are unprofessional and irresponsible.

          • Nicholas McGinley says:

            When normal people were young and first hear the expression “Heads I win, tails you lose”, we understood it to be a bad joke.
            Some people took it to be one of their instructions for how to think.
            Those people are now warmistas and Democrats.

          • Jim Hunt says:

            I don’t think you can have read the linked article very carefully Robert? I quote:

            Note that no “predictions” or even “projections” are mentioned.

        • Gator says:

          Still talks of “death spiral”…

          Genocide Jim loves death spirals, especially when they involve poor brown people.

      • Gator says:

        Genocide Jim hates poor brown people. There is nothing more important to Jim than starving to death poor women and children in third world countries.

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Fragrant as ever Gator.

          As wrong as ever also.

          • Gator says:

            If I am wrong, then why do you promote alarmism over saving human lives? They are diametrically opposed, so there is absolutely no way to support both.

            Your best option is to simply slither away now.

          • Jim Hunt says:

            I don’t “promote alarmism” Gator. I publish data:

            http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/

            At Anthony Watts’ suggestion!

          • Gator says:

            BS Jim!

            You promote alarmist data, and Anthony banned you from his site, so I doubt he is a fan.

            So here we go again…

            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.

            http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/transcript?language=en

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

            So why do you hate poor brown people Genocide Jim?

      • Caleb Shaw says:

        Also it should be noted that “thickness” (and the “volume” graphs which are created using “thickness”) involve considerable challenges for the scientists involved. Most data comes from satellites far overhead, and because of the distance involved they miss finer details, like the volume in the thinner pressure ridges. For this reason there can be surprising differences between maps. For example, the above “thickness” map fails to show a fascinating reef of thicker ice which appears in the DMI “thickness” map.

        I wonder about this “reef” in my most recent, (typically long-winded) sea-ice post:

        https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2020/01/29/arctic-sea-ice-saints-and-chihuahuas/

        I think I may have been deemed “dangerous climate misinformation” by Google. Some of my sea-ice posts have recieved several thousand hits, and when you typed “sea ice” in the Google search engine my posts once would show up in the first few pages. Now they are nowhere to be found (or at least not found in the first fifteen pages, when you type “arctic sea-ice” into Google).

        The way around this censorship is to share links, especially links to Tony’s site, and to his exposes on YouTube.

        • Jim Hunt says:

          Caleb – The AWI thickness map at the top is “measured”.

          The DMI one you refer to is “modelled”.

          Which one are you (and Tony) inclined to plump for?

        • Jim Hunt says:

          I just tried the Google test that you suggested Caleb:

          lmgtfy.com/?q=arctic+sea+ice

          I was pleasantly surprised! How about you?

          Snow White’s Google Analytics are astonishing. How about yours?

          • spike55 says:

            Snow White’s putrid site is a nothing but an IGNORANT Climate Change DENIAL site.

            Deplete of any real information about Arctic sea ice.

            The cowardly cretin that runs it is too scared to put any Holocene sea ice data on the site.

            A slimy CON site based on wilful denial.

        • Gator says:

          Snow White? Is that code? I know that you hate poor brown people Jim, that is where SW truly excels.

    • spike55 says:

      Stop linking to that childish anti-science CON site of yours, Jimbo the clown.

      You must know by now that Arctic sea ice is still in the top 5% of the last 10,000 years

      Still very much ANOMALOUSLY HIGH..

      Only just down from the EXTREME HIGH EXTENT of the late 1970’s

      If your site doesn’t show these two FACTS, your site is LYING

      It is a CON and a SHAM.

  2. Logic n reason says:

    So now they’ve turned their attention to the Antarctic and are telling us that glaciers are melting and sea level rise is going to be catastrophic due to the ice shelves breaking off.

  3. G W Smith says:

    Incredible! They just won’t quit lying. If it’s day they will call it night. If it’s night they will call it day. It’s clear they want power and riches, but they want it on the backs of the ignorant and helpless. It’s disgusting. These people are mental.
    Keep it up, Tony!

  4. John F. Hultquist says:

    Mark Serreze is “the director” of the NSIDC, and that explains why he still has a job. A real director would fire him. His boss (s) must be as ill-informed about how ice on the Arctic Ocean is formed, moves, and dissipates.

    They seem not to grasp that this is an active ocean.

    He and Seth Borenstein make a good pair – always wrong.

  5. Dave Postetter says:

    Just wrote my Congresswoman stating this is the kind of censorship expected in China or North Korea – Thanks for bringing it to our attention!

  6. Patrick says:

    Peak Arctic Ice Extent was supposedly before the satellite era. The median Arctic Ice Extent is still too high in my opinion. The 30-year median is from 1981-2010. The current Arctic Sea Ice Extent is even more close to “normal extent” than what is being portrayed.

  7. Nils Egil Nødland says:

    Thanks alot for an interesting post supporting the fact that Artic ice coverage has a natural dynamic. A recent article published by the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research supports the same:
    https://www.hi.no/en/hi/news/2020/january/the-barents-sea-has-become-cooler,-pushing-the-marginal-ice-zone-south

  8. CheshireRed says:

    Yet another busted flush.

    Tony, you’ve built up a whole slew of these climate buster articles. How about compiling a Greatest Hits version of the top 10 or 15 of them?

    It could make for an absolute blockbuster video. Short points, cleanly set out. Perhaps with links below the article for those interested in details.

    In no particular order I recall the following devastating points.

    1. Sea ice is normal, and matches from 60 years ago.
    2. Manipulated historical data.
    3. Manipulated sea surface data.
    4. Manipulated ocean heat content.
    5. Ice core data falsifies AGW.
    6. Geological data falsifies AGW twice. No long term correlation between T and CO2.
    7. Previous high levels of CO2 did NOT trigger ‘tipping points’ and ‘runway warming’.
    8. Which also shows ECS is NOT high.
    9. Computer model failures.
    10. Computer model manipulation of error margins.
    11. Tropospheric Hotspot missing
    12. Hundreds of old media articles prove conclusively extreme weather has ALL happened before, with todays weather not being unprecedented at all.
    13. Refusal of major AGW advocates to discuss or debate AGW theory, or even share data.
    14. Absolutely zero empirical evidence of positive feedbacks or amplification at levels required for ‘runaway warming’.
    15. Tree stumps in high altitude areas, confirming much warmer millions of years ago.
    16. Nikolov’s planetary alignment showing Venus + Earth temperatures essentially match, once distance + solar irradiation taken into account.
    17. Failure of Mars to overheat despite >95% CO2.

    There’s enough to make my point.

    Your videos are now top-drawer and are watched by many thousands. They would share the hell out of a Tony Heller mega video compilation. How about going for a big knockout punch? (especially so given your latest article about You Tube)

    Just a thought. Cheers for everything you’ve done so far.

    PS Have you seen the BBC’s attempts at framing the very significant IPCC retraction on ECS? This is a BIG story and deserves a video all its own.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51281986?fbclid=IwAR0CqVapqZH2D8OzFVU3bA5UvNg6uCB49ZR3sK49lnWxJMJZMwOLxPVpQnE

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      However:
      ** Those models are said to show that temperatures are more sensitive to CO2 than previously thought. **
      Nonsense.

      • CheshireRed says:

        Of course it’s nonsense. Funny how they’re being forced to abandon high ECS claims but then assert sensitivity is greater than previously thought. It’s the exact opposite!

        That just reinforces how important it is to undermine this massive scam before AGW loons cause genuine damage to the west.

  9. Al says:

    You’re not alone, we’re the like-minded majority, even though it looks the other way around.

  10. LexingtonGreen says:

    Thank you! I was trying to find the thickness. You always are there to fill in my curiosities.

  11. anothermaninthemirror says:

    ” and Congressional Democrats want me silenced so that they can continue lying to the public about the Arctic climate, as well as the rest of the world.”…..

    Tony, keep up the pressure, there is light at the end of the tunnel, however long that tunnel maybe. All my CACCC- Catastrophic Alarmist Climate Change Cult – acquaintances know your name and the nature of your work…. which when challenged they immediately, reflexively, without thinking, retort “… but he has been debunked”….. not your work, but you personally as is the inherent, predictable nature and modus operandi of the woke left, “if you can’t or won’t debate the subject, shower personal attacks on that person, their credibility and berate that person’s views”….

    You have a very positive YouTube base numbers, so keep the videos coming, your message is slowly percolating through many minds. Thanks…

  12. Petit_Barde says:

    “Congress urges Google to act against climate misinformation on YouTube”

    Those dictators in short pants are just proving that they have no argument whatsoever to support their narrative.

    US “democrats” is a self-oxymoron :
    – a bunch of self accounted democrates advocating dictatorship.

  13. Tonyb says:

    Hi tony

    Bob Tisdale posted a link to here from wuwt yesterday and I think my response is very relevant here and references the Hempelman Adams comment within your article

    “I note that the link to realclimatescience has a scare report from 4 years ago about sending people by boat to the north pole as it was largely ice free to the 86th degree north.

    I wrote this article below a scary 10 years ago showing that in 1817 it was completely ice free to the 84 th degree and it was only logistics and supplies that stopped the British whalers and expedition from exploring any further north and reaching the pole

    Contemporary reports from the time include the following 1817 book;

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EpwSAAAAYAAJ&dq=illustrations+of+greenland+1817&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=3cjiizphFa&sig=nFNcBtJE-Bv3DDAf9U4lK2Y-JYg&hl=en&ei=1eEySpGRB4iZjAeItuyBCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

    “We learn that a vessel is to be fitted out by Government for the purpose of attempting again the north-west passage, the season being considered as peculiarly favourable to such an expedition. Our readers need not be informed that larger masses of ice than ever were before known have this year been seen floating in the Atlantic, and that from their magnitude and solidity, they reached even the fortieth latitude before they were melted into a fluid state. From an examination of the Greenland captains, it has been found that owing to some convulsions of nature , the sea was more open and more free from compact ice than in any former voyage they ever made: that several ships actually reached the eighty-fourth degree of latitude, in which no ice whatever was found; that for the first time for 400 years, vessels penetrated to the west coast of Greenland, and that they apprehended no obstacle to their even reaching the pole, if it had consisted with their duty to their employers to make the attempt. This curious and important information has, we learn, induced the Royal Society to apply to ministers to renew the attempt of exploring a north-west passage as well as to give encouragement to fishing vessels to try how far northward they can reach , by dividing the bounty to be given, on the actual discovery, into portions, as a reward for every degree beyond eighty-four that they shall penetrate For the same reason we think it would be advisable for the merchants engaged in the Greenland whale fishery not to postpone the sailing of their ships to the usual season but expedite them at once so as to take advantage”

    The captain of the resultant royal society sponsored expedition lived in my home town. His name was scoresby and there is a plaque to him as the first arctic scientist on the wall of the local church. Poignantly, it is next to a plaque of someone lost with the titanic when the ice melted once again, creating the icebergs that sunk that ship in an arctic melt episode that lasted from 1908 to around 1940

    Makes you think doesn’t it?

    Tonyb

  14. Nicholas McGinley says:

    You have to ignore a lot to be a warmista.
    All of history, among other things.
    Plus what is actually happening.

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.