The Bad News For Alarmists Just Won’t Stop

NSIDC reports a large increase in multi-year Arctic sea ice over last year – about the size of Alaska.

ScreenHunter_155 Apr. 06 13.34

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to The Bad News For Alarmists Just Won’t Stop

  1. Chewer says:

    And thankfully the wind speed is down to a low road down south ;-)

  2. Gunny G says:

    Reblogged this on CLINGERS… BLOGGING BAD ~ DICK.G: AMERICAN ! and commented:

  3. Morgan says:

    It’s impossible to convince alarmists they are wrong, because of groupthink. To change their mind they would have to quit their group. Most won’t do that.

    • There Is No Substitute for Victory. says:

      Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity within the group results in irrational or dysfunctional decision-making. Group members also try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences including the truth.

  4. Jimbo says:

    But they told us multi year ice was in a death spiral. Same with extent. Is this climate change? Or is 1 year too short unless it’s hot?

  5. Psalmon says:

    2012 Arctic minimum was about 4 x the size of Alaska, but the media reported it as a near
    catastrophe. I don’t think the Alaska comparison will resonate. Only 25,833 Manhattans will be understood.

  6. Send Al to the Pole says:

    When the Arctic oscillates back to 1979 levels, my guess is we will still see charts claiming it is low, even while the satellite image will show it has met or exceeded past levels. Hope you’ve got lots of imagery saved Steve. History may start changing there too.

    What will the nutters do when the Arctic returns to those levels? Their whole world revolves around this fantasy. They’re likely scheming how to get control of UAH and RSS.

  7. gator69 says:

    Standard measurements Steven! How many Manhattans is that?

  8. matayaya says:

    You really gum of the works of the truth with this one and no one notices. At least you could not conceal the truth completely and show the NSIDC graph of the Arctic sea ice trend from 1979 till now. The trend in in sea ice extent for the Arctic is steadily down and March was the fifth lowest during that time. Also, any serious scientist knows that trying to compare the Antarctic sea ice extent with Arctic sea ice extent and say there is no warming is just being silly; especially if you ignore the land mass melting and the warming Southern Ocean. Too much counter-intuitive stuff going on there for your crowd.

    • During years when winter extent is high, alarmists yell “the mutli-year ice is all gone”

      Now they yell the exact opposite. ROFLMAO

      • matayaya says:

        The only reason the winter extent is mentioned more than usual this year is because of all the polar vortex talk and cold temperatures in the lower 48. Scientist want to emphasize that the Arctic is where the serious story is happening. That 79 till now downward trend of winter and summer Arctic sea ice extent is where the focus should be.

        • Anyone who has paid attention to the discussion over the past few years knows that the primary factor regulating the summer minimum is the amount of multi-year ice.

        • matayaya says:

          The issue is not “multi year ice” but volume of ice. The volume is way down.

        • gator69 says:

          Matayaya, do you have anything of value to offer? So far all you have discussed is models and cherry picked dates. Is that all you have?

        • Nonsense. Muti-year ice is thick, hard ice. Volume and thickness is up substantially since 2011, according to NSIDC and ESA.

        • matayaya says:

          You are trying to pull the escalator trick again; two year trend of 2011 till now. The real trend is from 1979 till now and Arctic sea ice volume is significantly down.

        • Multi-year ice has been increasing because winter winds have been favoring retention over the last few years. It has nothing to do with global warming or CO2.

        • matayaya says:

          March just had above average temperatures in the Arctic negating your Earth is cooling hypothesis. The Arctic has warmed 1.5 celsius over the past 100 years, double the .7 for the rest of the globe. Ocean waters are warmer. And your focus is on two years patches of “thick ice” I see your next answer coming already, it’s all a lie. We are supposed to trust you and not all those other guys.

        • Shazaam says:

          Matayayaya sez: The real trend is from 1979 till now and Arctic sea ice volume is significantly down.

          Escalator trick?

          That’s a hilarious accusation coming from someone who is deathly afraid to use a longer time frame. Like maybe 1970 to present? I’m pretty sure there were a few satellites in orbit waaaay back then.

        • matayaya says:

          I use 79 cause that is when the climate science satellite era began. That is when NSIDC, NASA, NOAA and all the rest began feeling much more confident about the science.

        • Nonsense. The 1990 IPCC report had satellite sea ice data going back to 1973.

        • Shazaam says:

          Methinks “Matayaya” just might have run aground on the hard rocks of facts when he/she/it actually viewed the data from 1973-2014….

  9. Shazaam says:

    Where’s Reggie and his “Brawndo-Fueled Blow-Hard Blowtorch from Hell” ?? There’s more ice to melt!!! I’m sure Reggie would claim that he and his “blowtorch” would make quick work of all that new ice. Gone in no time!!

    Those arctic rowers really appreciated Reggie’s hard work last summer. Too bad all of the computer-generated fantasy climate model predictions for a complete melting of the Arctic ice missed the mark so very badly. Reality does has a way of rearing up, and biting. Hard.

  10. As always, when all else fails, just claim that the volume is decreasing, since there are no good measures of Arctic sea-ice volume.

  11. Gail Combs says:

    matayaya says: @ April 7, 2014 at 4:12 pm
    …..Scientists want to emphasize that the Arctic is where the serious story is happening….
    That is completely wrong. The only reason CAGW scientists mention the Arctic is because it was losing ice while the Antarctic was gaining.

    The Antarctic is where the REAL Action is.

    #1. The movement of the Antarctic over the pole and the opening of Drake Passage as well as the closing of the Isthmus of Panama are thought to be what started the current Ice Age.

    #2 The Effect of the Antarctic on the Atlantic and the global thermohaline circulation.

    Effect of Drake Passage on the global thermohaline circulation
    The Ekman divergence around Antarctica raises a large amount of deep water to the ocean’s surface. The regional Ekman transport moves the upwelled deep water northward out of the circumpolar zone. The divergence and northward surface drift combine, in effect, to remove deep water from the interior of the ocean. This wind-driven removal process is facilitated by a unique dynamic constraint operating in the latitude band containing Drake Passage. Through a simple model sensitivity experiment WC show that the upwelling and removal of deep water in the circumpolar belt may be quantitatively related to the formation of new deep water in the northern North Atlantic. These results show that stronger winds in the south can induct more deep water formation in the north and more deep outflow through the South Atlantic. The fact that winds in the southern hemisphere might influence the formation of deep water in the North Atlantic brings into question long-standing notions about the forces that drive the ocean’ thermohaline circulation….

    #3. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current hits drake passage splits and forms the Humboldt Current that runs up the coast of South America. This current is a factor in what drives ENSO.
    A retired EPA scientist who has studied climate commented:

    If I were asked to pick a single point on earth that most likely has the greatest effect on global weather and climate, it would be 0 and 90W (Galapagos). This is where El-nino winds, the deep sea Cromwell current, the Panama current, and the Humboldt current meet. These flows are not constant and each has different cycles and those cycles are not constant. Cycles on cycles create extremes in weather and climate. These extremes have an effect globally. I suspect these cycles are also controlling our observed atmospheric concentration of CO2. CO2 is very likely a lagging indicator and not a cause of climate change.

    #4. ALBEDO!

    For the past two years, Antarctic sea ice has been consistently two std deviations ABOVE normal levels for sea ice, AND that sea ice extends around the continent to latitude 60 south at maximum extents in September. The Antarctic sea ice extents maximum is just under 20 Mkm^2, but the entire Arctic ocean is only 14 Mkm^2: There is much more Antarctic sea ice than Arctic. At minimum extents, the difference is more impressive: Antarctic continental ice (14 Mkm^2) is as large as the entire Arctic itself, but that rock-based icecap is in turn surrounded by 3.5 Mkm^2 of permanent ice shelves, and then by the ever-changing Antarctic sea ice. So even at today’s minimum Antarctic sea ice extents 2-3 Mkm^2 (and increasing!) the total southern ice is 14 + 3.5 + 2.5 = 20 Mkm^2. At maximum southern extents, those become 14.0 + 3.5 + 19.5 = 35 Mkm^2 is frozen. 2-1/2 times the maximum of what sea water is available up north.

    On the other hand, Arctic sea ice lately (last 12 years) is only 3.5 – 4.0 million sq km AT ITS MINIMUM in September. We can lose AT MOST only another 3.5 million sq km2. That is it.

    How much larger can Antarctic sea ice get? There is no limit. At today’s rate of Antarctic sea ice increase, Cape Horn itself could be closed to ship traffic due to sea ice within 8-10 years for months at a time every September and October. It probably won’t happen, but the trend is there: we have been seeing just under 1.0 Mkm^2 more sea ice each year for several years now.

    To the specific point of open Arctic waters being a heat loss area from the earth. Notice that we are assuming far-north openings here, not a theoretical physics textbook ice mass of theoretical albedo = .95 floating off the ice-filled (Equatorial) waters of Polynesia where the sun is directly overhead (Air Mass = 1.0) with perfectly clear skies and no humidity. 8<)

    But this little bit of remaining 3.5 Mkm^2 Arctic sea ice is actually in the water up between latitude 78 north to 83 north. At that latitude, in mid and late September when arctic sea ice is at its minimum extents, there is MORE heat lost from open waters due to more evaporation losses, more conduction losses, more convective losses, and more radiation losses from open sea water than can be gained from that exposed water getting heated by the ever-lower sun angles! At those latitudes, at that time of year, the HIGHEST the sun can get is 8 – 12 degrees above the horizon, air masses are 18 to 34. There simply is no solar heat penetrating the atmosphere at those low solar angles to be gained if the Arctic ice continues to melt.

    The more the Arctic sea ice melts from today’s minimum extents in August and September, the more the planet loses heat energy to space and cools down ever more. Your CAGW’s religiously amplified but majestically feared “arctic amplification” due to sea ice meltdown is totally, completely backwards.

    But it is worse than you think!

    At today’s levels of BOTH minimum AND maximum extent in the Antarctic seas, today’s (and last year’s!) record breaking sea ice extents DO reflect much more solar energy than the exposed waters! At the edge of the Antarctic sea ice at 60 – 70 south latitude, ALL YEAR, every day, the record-breaking Antarctic sea ice extents IS reflecting MORE solar energy and IS cooling the planet down even more.

    And thus we slide quickly into the next major ice age.
    ~ RACookPE1978

    OK, The last sentence was tongue in cheek as he mentions later but the physics is correct. And he defends this comment with a lot more in depth analysis. Also Dr Judith Curry has done actual measurements that Cook draws from.

    • Gail Combs says:

      And just for a reference Fort McMurray, Alberta Canada is at 56.7° N and Churchill at 58.7° N.

    • matayaya says:

      Gail, the difference between the amount of sea ice Antarctica gains over the average maximum and the amount the Arctic loses over it’s year to year average minimum doesn’t explain much. Arctic sea ice minimum is down 40 percent in 30 years. If loss of sea ice, warming Arctic sea and albedo in the Arctic do not explain why the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of globe, what does?
      Antarctica is certainly one of the drivers of much of the world’s ocean currents as your piece says. But with relatively little land mass apart from the Antarctic continent to interact with, the jet streams circling there don’t influence southern hemisphere atmospheric temperatures the same as in the north. Most land masses are in the north. Antarctica is more of a closed system compared with the Arctic. Even so, Antarctica is losing ice. See for that last statement.

      • That explains why global sea ice area has been above normal for most of the last 16 months Common Core math graduate at work.

        • matayaya says:

          Explain how a little more, and it is just a little more, sea ice negates 1.5 celsius rise in Arctic temperature, .7 celsius rise for the rest of the globe, warming ocean; Greenland, Antarctica and most other glaciers around the world are losing ice.
          You are presumptuous to presume additional sea ice makes your case. Hypotheses range from stronger winds churning up the ice and moving it out to open up more areas for freezing to continent melt fresh water and snow on the surface. Fresh water freezes easier than salt water. You might want to wait till more science comes in.

        • matayaya says:

          There was no suggestion in any of your three sources that volcanic activity was a primary source of the current ice melting in the Arctic or West Antarctic. The scientist specifically said, regarding the Arctic, that only the column of water directly above the volcanos would be affected.
          No one cause usually fully explains anything. Some melting is occurring underneath the Antarctic glacier and volcanoes could be part of that. The explanation I usually see for the increasing calving in the West Antarctic is that being a series of islands with a massive ice cap over all of them, the glacier edge reaches down to the bottom of the deep sea. The sea has warmed some destabilizing those edges allowing the glacier to slip toward the sea. Melt coming from the land interior underneath the glacier, some possibly volcano related, further greases the skids of the glacier.
          The jury is still out as the science pours in, but few suggest the primary cause of ice melting in the Arctic and Antarctic is not primarily AGW related.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Warm water is what melts sea ice. Some comes from volcanoes and both the Arctic and Antarctic are more active than was originally thought

          In the Arctic warm water is also coming from the Atlantic. From 1994 to 2007 the AMO AND PDO were BOTH WARM. The Arctic Oscilation was also warm NOAA Graph of oscillation

          On top of that there was a major storms in 2007 and again in 2012. Winds from the storms broke up the sea ice and then blow a large portion of the Arctic sea ice out through the straits into warmer waters where it melted, meanwhile the remaining ice was buffeted by winds and waves, which contributed to its break-up and melting.,

          With a cold AMO, PDO and AO the situation, over time should reverse. Though why anyone in their right mind would want that to happen I do not know.

          North American Drought

          Drought over north America has been correlated to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The correlations account for the drought in the Great Plains during the 1930s dust bowl and more recent droughts.
          [map see below]
          The relationship between drought in the continental US and the phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The most severe droughts occur when the PDO is in a negative phase, and the AMO is in a positive phase.
          From McCabe (2004).

          More than half (52%) of the space and time variance in multidecadal drought frequency over the conterminous United States is attributable to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). An additional 22% of the variance in drought frequency is related to a complex spatial pattern of positive and negative trends in drought occurrence possibly related to increasing Northern Hemisphere temperatures or some other unidirectional climate trend. Recent droughts with broad impacts over the conterminous U.S. (1996, 1999-2002) were associated with North Atlantic warming (positive AMO) and northeastern and tropical Pacific cooling (negative PDO). Much of the long-term predictability of drought frequency may reside in the multidecadal behavior of the North Atlantic Ocean. Should the current positive AMO (warm North Atlantic) conditions persist into the upcoming decade, we suggest two possible drought scenarios that resemble the continental-scale patterns of the 1930s (positive PDO) and 1950s (negative PDO) drought.
          —McCabe (2004)

          PDO and AMO and effect on drought in the USA MAP

          (+ AMO and +PDO) also give almost as much drought.

        • matayaya says:

          You just laid out the natural variability of the system very well. However, you excluded all the science of AGW that goes hand in hand with the natural variability. Top of atmosphere measurements of solar energy coming into the system and top of atmosphere measurements of energy leaving the atmosphere to space show an energy imbalance build up. Less is escaping. For some reason, the climate system is retaining more energy than before. That extra energy is added through-out the climate system and affects all the natural variability you laid out. You might want to consider CO2 to get a fuller projection of what is going on.
          To follow up a question you asked me before, the following link gives a good description of what climate science contrarians like Steve do with their presentations.

      • Gail Combs says:

        You also seem to have missed my entire point. The bipolar seesaw with Arctic losing ice while Antarctic is gaining means a MAJOR LOSS OF ENERGY for the planet.

        Since the Arctic is an ocean, the Arctic ice is closer to the poles. Therefore when the sea ice is at the minimum (September) the HIGHEST the sun can gets is 8 – 12 degrees above the horizon.
        Therefore loss of ice means there is MORE heat lost from open waters due to more evaporation losses, more conduction losses, more convective losses, and more radiation losses from that open sea water than can be gained from that exposed water getting heated by the ever-lower sun angles!

        Next the Antarctic.
        Antarctica Sea Ice Hitting Record Highs

        September marks the end of Antarctica’s winter, and daily sea ice reports posted online at the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colo., suggest the growing ice pack has already smashed the all-time record ice extent set in September 2012. This year’s massive sea ice reached 7.53 million square miles (19.51 million square km) on Sept. 14, 2013, the NSIDC reports. The old record was 7.51 million square miles (19.44) million square km.

        So that is two year in a row for record sea ice. The report of record ice September 22 2013 was confimed by NASAs Earth Observatory. Actually the graph at NASA Earth Observatory shows the Antarctic sea ice maximum extent has been growing since 1985.

        The Antarctic sea ice extents ANOMALY in October 2013 was also very high – over 1.5 Mkm^2 of “excess” southern sea ice extents. ALL of this “excess” sea ice was between latitude 60 south and latitude 59 south. ALL of this “excess” southern sea ice extents covered an area LARGER than the entire area of Hudson Bay

        What does this mean?
        At maximum extents, the “edge” Arctic sea ice when it is at its closest point to the equator is only down to 72 north latitude, not even as close to the equator as the minimum Antarctic sea ice. But at its maximum, Antarctic sea ice extents is much, much higher – 59.2S to 59.0S latitude. This is closer to the equator than even the most southern tip of Greenland.

        At the equinoxes, when both Arctic and Antarctic are both hit by the same solar intensity, the Antarctic Sea Ice receives between 2x (Feb-March) to 5x (September-October) the energy that the Arctic sea ice receives. Thus, to reflect equal energy into space, the “gain” of even 1.0 Mkm^2 of southern sea ice extents needs to be balanced by a loss 2 to 5 LARGER in the Arctic.

        Instead, we see near even sea ice changes. So, since at today’s levels of sea ice extents, “more Arctic sea ice loss” up north means a net loss of energy from the planet; and “more sea ice extents gain” down south means a net loss of energy from the planet, we are facing a future big problem if today’s trends continue.

        • matayaya says:

          The idea of the growing Antarctic sea ice extent having a significant impact on albedo is interesting. The numbers sound big, Antarctica is big, but when you look at the recent satellite picture that shows the mean sea ice extent drawn over the recent record extent, there is not enough there to be making albedo a significant issue. Besides, there is really no comparison between the Arctic system and the Antarctic system. The Arctic is showing rapid changes and the Antarctic seems more stable.
          Also, it is premature to assume that growing Antarctic sea ice makes the contrarian’s case against AGW. It may very well be proven to be an AGW effect. One hypothesis is that the ozone hole over the Antarctic lets in cold air from space that fuels the circular winds around the Antarctic system churning the ice outward to open up new water for freezing. Another hypothesis says there is more fresh water in the Antarctic ocean that somehow comes from the Antarctic glacier and more snow fall. Fresh water floats on top of the salt water and freezes faster than salt water. It is premature to say just what is going on and it is premature to presume growing Antarctic sea ice makes your case.
          Also, your hypothesis of any loss of albedo-cooling from the melting ice of the Arctic being mitigated by evaporation and Arctic ocean heat loss to space is interesting. You presume that heat escapes the climate system to space. That heat would simply be added to the troposphere circulation and stay in the system. The heat energy imbalance of the climate system would not be affected. Besides, you have to ignore a lot of science to conclude that loss of Arctic albedo is not contributing to Arctic warming. Besides the science, anecdotally to me, it gets warmer in the Arctic in summer so some of that warmth must come from the sun. That sun effect would have a warming effect on the recently uncovered dark water of the Arctic ocean the same way it warms the atmosphere. Regards Avery

        • Antarctic sea ice is much more important than Arctic sea ice to Earth’s radiative balance. Antarctic sea ice is at lower latitudes, and the Arctic minimum occurs when the sun is setting in the Arctic.

  12. Gail Combs says:


    You also missed my second point. I will try to make it simple.

    1. Over 70% of the earth is covered with water.

    2. The suns energy penetrates to 100 meters

    3. Water, because its heat capacity is so much large than the atmosphere, influences the atmospheric temperature not the other way around.

    This is why the Antarctic’s effect on ENSO (El Niño and La Niña) in the Pacific and the halocline/thermocline in the Atlantic is so important.
    A good map and discussion of the currents:

    • matayaya says:

      I don’t disagree with your points here. However, ocean heat from the sun is not limited to the top 100 meters. All these ocean circulation systems you note also churn the heat down much lower than 100 meters. La Nina, for one, has the trade winds blowing from east to west in the Pacific “piling up” warm surface water in the western Pacific. The weight of that piled up water presses down, taking warm water down with it. This effects what happens in the eastern Pacific as some of that cold Antarctic water you speak of along the western shore of South America gets pushed up to the surface.
      Basically, 90 percent of the heat in the climate system is sloshing about in the world’s oceans; only about 10 percent is in the atmosphere. Still, none of this supersedes the energy imbalance measured from the top-of-atmosphere.
      Your second link doesn’t work, I’d like to take a look. Cheers

  13. matayaya says:

    Steve, you say “Antarctic sea ice is much more important than Arctic sea ice to Earth’s radiative balance.” No one disagrees with that. But the Antarctic is relatively stable compared to the Arctic. The additional sea ice in the Antarctic is not significant enough to affect that radiative balance that existed before AGW began.
    Also, you may be premature presuming that the additional sea ice makes your case. There are reasonable hypotheses suggesting the additional sea supports AGW as I have mentioned in my previous recent post. It is all premature to make conclusions one way or the other regarding the Antarctic sea ice expansion. Besides, if you consider all the world’s glaciers and snow packs, ice and snow volume is receding.

  14. David A says:

    The Antarctic sea ice extents ANOMALY in October 2013 was also very high – over 1.5 Mkm^2 of “excess” southern sea ice extents. ALL of this “excess” sea ice was between latitude 60 south and latitude 59 south. I think you forget to acknowledge this. Also global sea ice has been above normal for five of the last seven years for significant portions of the year. There has been an increase in NH snow pack, and no decrease in the SH.

    Also your idea of the warm eastern pacific trade wind water forcing up cold water in the western pacific is somewhat novel to me. Any links?

  15. geran says:

    Mata and David A–Do you realize your “science” has been wrong for over 20 years now? Do you realize all of the dire predictions have failed? Do you ever wonder about your false religion?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s