NOAA Showing 36% More Ice Than The 2007 Minimum

Turquoise represents ice present in 2012 which wasn’t present at the 2007 minimum. Red shows the opposite. There is 36% more ice than there was at the 2007 minimum.

Passive microwave measurements are missing vast areas of ice, because an early winter storm broke the ice up into chunks which the satellites are unable to detect. Alarmists are going hysterical, based on garbage data.


About stevengoddard

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

160 Responses to NOAA Showing 36% More Ice Than The 2007 Minimum

  1. pjie2 says:

    The same source shows Aug 24 2012 as worse than Aug 24 2007. Moreover, much of this year’s ice is, as you point out, at low concentrations at low latitudes in the Chukchi and thus likely to melt out. Look for 2012 to continue to pull away from 2007 and set a record in this source too.

  2. R. Gates says:

    Every major sea ice area or extent chart shows less ice right now than any time since at least 1979 and most likely far longer. The Arctc will be ice free by 2020. The rapid nature of this loss is nothing short of stunning.

    • Please, spare me the early morning BS

    • sunsettommy says:

      Your adherence to the warmist line is noted for what it is.

      Meanwhile it was already melted out in 2008 and 2010 according to your scam masters.


    • johnmcguire says:

      You keep smoking that crack and pretty soon you’ll have a problem . And you said yeasterday that the ice would be gone in a few years not eight as you are saying now . Try to keep on task will you .

      • R. Gates says:

        Yes, it’s definitely even worse than I thought, and I thought it was pretty bad. But I realize that this site is dedicated to something other than its title would attempt to state. Perhaps a name change is in order– Real Science Fiction.

      • R. Gates

        Of course it’s worse than you thought. You are a Chicken Little. Everything you see will always be worse than you thought.

    • NoMoreGore says:

      “Ice FREE by 2020…..nothing short of stunning”

      Hysterical. Great entertainment. First, it was Purple Unicorns, and now it’s floating ice in the arctic. Oh, the humanity!

    • Blade says:

      R. Gates [August 25, 2012 at 3:22 pm] says:

      “Every major sea ice area or extent chart shows less ice right now than any time since at least 1979 and most likely far longer.”

      Clearly you’ve got it in your head that 1979 sea-ice extent is representative of all prior periods including the 1950’s, 1930’s, 1910’s, 1890’s …

      That must be your thinking for you to state “most likely far longer”, implying that extent looks like an upside down hockey stick in your mind. You are going to need medication when ice extent again matches or exceeds 1979 in the near future.

      “The Arctc will be ice free by 2020. The rapid nature of this loss is nothing short of stunning.”

      ~sigh~ change your panties R.Gates. Sea-Ice is never lost. Really it’s not. It’s still there, in liquid form, I assure you. It will return again and again. The Earth is tilted on its axis and the top part will shortly be pointing away from the sun once more. It will be cold, it will be dark, it will be freezing. As it always has. And it will continue.

      We have extensive snow caps still with us even during an interglacial, they haven’t melted away and the rate has slowed dramatically since the Holocene began. do you seriously think the Holocene is going to get a second wind thanks to man, another meltwater pulse? Isn’t it obvious that things are set in motion, the Holocene will eventually end and many humans will suffer and die. As they die they will be cursing you warmies to their dying breath, you and your obsession with one point something degree warming in hundreds of years.

      • R. Gates says:

        Blade, you seem to know less than nothing about the importance of sea ice to global temperture and weather patterns. Convince me otherwise…

      • 2020? Some predicted the Arctic would be ice free by 2012. Didn’t Mark Serreze predict it would be ice free by 2013? None of these has or will happen. Now it’s 2020? I have no reason to believe this prediction either.

      • Blade says:

        R. Gates [August 25, 2012 at 4:48 pm] says:

        “Blade, you seem to know less than nothing about the importance of sea ice to global temperture and weather patterns. Convince me otherwise…”

        Yeah that’s right. I know of no importance of sea-ice on global anything, and certainly not weather patterns. You’ve got it backwards as usual, sea-ice extent is a product of weather patterns.

        But one thing I do know, and it is something you should learn, is the importance of axial tilt on global temperature and everything else.

        Now stop ducking questions. Was 1979 sea-ice extent representative of all prior periods including the 1950’s, 1930’s, 1910’s, 1890’s … etc?

    • Otter says:

      Care to give us your best guess, how much ice was up there during the height of the MWP, or, even better, the HCO?

    • R. Gates

      the only thing that is stunning in your comment is your assumptions. The sky is falling.

  3. Andy DC says:

    It is ironic that an unusually frigid out of season blizzard is what broke up the ice. Assuming the alarmists are right about a record min (which is questionable), they are right for the wrong reason with respect to global warming. It is a very hollow reason for celebration on their part.

    • Julienne Stroeve says:

      AndyDC, summer storms are not unusual. While the strength of that storm was, look at summer 2002 for example – that year was dominated by cyclones the entire summer in the central Arctic basin. Also recall a recent paper by Screen et al. (2011) that evaluated the role of summer cyclones to the ice extent, and concluded that during summers with more cyclones the ice extent tended to be anomalously high, the reverse true for summers dominated by high SLP (like in 2007 and 2008).
      The reason the storm this summer could remove so much ice is because it was already thin to begin with. What we are noticing is that it doesn’t matter so much anymore what the weather is doing. I think what is missing is the fact that the Arctic has been warming for many years now, and this warming has helped to thin the ice cover to a point that it becomes especially vulnerable to atmospheric forcing.

      • R. Gates says:

        Dr. Stroeve! Thank goodness an actual ice expert here! Why don’t you bother to comment over at Neven’s site. You expertise would be highly welcomed there…honestly.

      • Andy DC says:


        You admit the storm was unusually strong. The 2002 storms, though more frequent were probably not as strong Is there a possiblity that the unusual strength of the storm may have broken up the ice? That cyclones with 30 kt winds may be a net positive, but those much rarer storms with 60 kt winds could be a big negative?


      • Sparks says:

        Or maybe it has been cooling for a number of years and the storms have broke the ice up making it appear thiner, what is the definition of thiner Ice? are we talking city sized icebergs or millions of square miles of house sized blocks of Ice?

  4. Most of the evidence shows that Arctic ice, Greenland and Iceland glaciers etc were at their maximum during the LIA, probably since the end of the ice age, following a gradual Neoglacial advance which began 4000 years ago, interrupted by warmer phases such as the MWP and RWP.

    Should it really surprise anybody that the ice has retreated in the last century?

  5. Andy says:

    “an early winter storm ”

    What in mid August? When does winter start in the Northern Hemisphere? Do you mean early like in actual summer? Before Autumn?

    Lets see if this low concentration ice melts out quickly now? Should do. It must be less than 15% and the reason NIC report it is because as Steve mentions they are in the business or reporting to shipping rather than general trends.

    Most of the blue on that map could be actually more better termed as a large iceberg field rather than the ice edge itself.

    So does not count :p


  6. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Steve, in 2007 the NIC ice extent was also higher than that from passive microwave, sometimes by as much as 500,000 sq-km, but at the time of the minimum, they converged, so the minimum was about the same, although in 2007 the NIC minimum was actually a little below the NSIDC passive microwave minimum. I would expect the two curves to converge in a few days as the very low concentration ice that NIC is picking up will probably melt out. And R. Gates is correct that in 2007 the NIC extent was above the 2012 extent at this time of year.

    • Julienne

      There is much evidence to show that most, if not all of the Arctic, was probably colder at the end of the LIA than at any point since the end of the ice age. Evidence also suggests that ice cover was less extensive in the MWP than now and even smaller for much of the holocene previously.

      Given that, can we say that by historical standards there is anything unusual or unprecedented about the current state of the Arctic?

      I posted a load of links earlier today if you want to have a look. (and have just seen you have spotted them!!)

      Many thanks


  7. Julienne Stroeve says:

    Hi R. Gates, I do give Neven input at times when he contacts me.

    • R. Gates says:

      Good to hear. Overall the general content and input there seems to make it the best public blog around related to sea ice. I really come here as a psychological study to see how “skeptics” are handling this rather historic Arctic melt season. Predictably…which much denial.

  8. Gondo says:

    Does anyone want to make a bet what the August PIOMAS number for the sea ice volume will be? How many standard deviations are we under the old 3000km3 ice-loss per decade? Are there people who want the deny that volume has been lost extraordinarily quickly?

  9. If what is happening in Arctic ice really was from “global warming” then it would be happening with Antarctic ice too. The globe contains both Arctic ice and Antarctic ice, i.e. both North Pole and South Pole ice. But what is happening to Arctic ice is not happening to Antarctic ice. The opposite is happening to Antarctic ice. So what is happening with Arctic ice is not from “global warming”.

    That’s about as simple as I can say it.

    Also, the globe is not warming. The earth is in a cooling trend since 1998. And there has been nothing statistically significant happening in temperature for 18 years, Warming is not happening. Thus, what is happening with Arctic ice is not from warming. Arctic ice has decreased for 3 decades, while Antarctic ice has increased for decades even longer than that.

    • Gondo says:

      The Arctc is warming very rapidly – why? And there is nothing “opposite” happening to the Antarctic sea, i.e. there wasn’t a recent explosion of sea ice volume on top of a decade-long increasing trend.

      • What data shows ‘rapid’ warming?

        And again, since you were unable to comprehend it with the first reading, it is “global” warming.

      • There is no “explosion”. That is pure, unbridled alarmism. But that is where “global warming” came from in the first place—alarmism. The sky is falling! We must run and tell the king!

      • Also, please tell me what data shows warming in the globe since 1998?

      • Gondo

        Please show the graphs that have Antarctic ice decreasing.

        You won’t be able to. There are none. Antarctic ice is not decreasing. It is increasing. The opposite of what is happening to Arctic ice is happening to Antarctic ice.

        Sorry to ruin your “global” warming alarmism.

      • You going to reply Gondo? Or are you just another hit and run commenter?

      • Travis says:

        Maybe he hasn’t had a chance to read your five posts in the past 21 minutes yet?

      • Travis says:

        I personally am unsure whether you are referring to sea ice or glacial ice in the Antarctic. I presume you are talking about sea ice.

      • Gondo,

        You have any substance to you? Or are you just shallow and repeating what you’ve read on an alarmist blog that gives out prefabricated rebuttals for you to type out like a clone?

      • Here’s still here. He just posted 2 comments below, one at 5:34 and one at 5:37. I knew he was still here. You didn’t. Please pay more attention.

      • Travis says:


        No, I am not. I think it will take longer than that.

      • He’s been here all along. My comments are short. It only takes seconds to read them.

      • Travis says:

        Apologies; I was not looking at other the conversations going on.

      • Travis?

        You don’t know what I am saying? I can’t do anything for your reading comprehension issues. Please take a class on reading skills or something.

      • Travis says:
        August 25, 2012 at 5:47 pm




        Most times when someone comments like you did there it’s because they’re trying to be a butthead. So I thought you were going along that same line.

      • Travis says:


        I presumed you were talking about sea ice, which has indeed been increasing slowly. Satellite measurements indicate that the mass balance of the land-based Antarctic ice sheet has not. I just wanted to make sure I was understanding you correctly.

      • Please link to your satellite information.

      • Travis says:


        Mainly, the influx of warmer water from places to the south of 80N as well as winds pushing the ice to warmer areas. Additionally, but to a smaller extent, warmer surface temperatures around the margins of the ice.

      • Travis says:


        Here are two. The first is an analysis of satellite data from GRACE from 2002 to 2009. The second is more recent with a longer time frame, but it is model-based, which I know people around here don’t put much stock in.

      • I see.

        There really isn’t a lot of useful scientific substance to either. And that’s what I knew your information would be.

        You fellows are stuck with the issue of the earth being in a slight cooling trend since 1998. Your global warming models are wrong. I don’t know why that isn’t important to you.

      • That data set is way to short to conclude anything long term. That is what I mean. Why is that so hard to understand?

      • Travis says:

        Actually, even UAH shows a slight warming trend globally since 1998. I don’t think it’s a statistically significant trend yet, but it does not support the idea that Earth has cooled since then.

      • By the way, these are not data showing manmade co2 changes climate. That is an issue no manmade global warming believer ever addresses.They will always bring up something else instead and try to say that that something else is evidence of manmade co2 causing climate change, or global warming, or climate weirding, or whatever they change the name to. The computer models that say what is supposed to happen from manmade co2 are not panning out to be correct. Why not just drop the hypothesis behind those models and say they are wrong instead all this changing of the goal posts?

      • Since other data sets show cooling why say there is warming? As you say statistical significance is a factor.

        What can easily be said is that the manmade global warming climate models from computers are wrong. Why not then throw out the hypothesis used to create those computer models??

      • The circumference of ice in the Antarctic is in a growing trend. That is not supposed to be happening in “manmade global warming”.

      • Ice in the inner parts of Antarctic is supposed to be growing according the to “manmade global warming” hypothesis. That isn’t happening either, as you pointed out.

      • After reading a little to refresh myself on GRACE, which your link uses, I am reminded that GRACE was not settled in the amount it was concluded to show losing from Antarctica. The about was ~5 billions tons a year. There is ~150 million billion tons of ice in Antarctica. The amount estimated, if the estimate is even correct, to be lost is a pin prick. But even that data may not be reliable since working with GRACE is still new.

      • Isn’t it profound how much trust “manmade global warming” adherents put in such sketchy information? Don’t they have any doubts?

      • Travis says:


        Sorry for taking so long to reply. Getting ready for a busy afternoon. Speaking only for me, yes, I often have doubts about much of what is said about AGW. I am particularly skeptical of people like Al Gore and Hansen who seek to politicize things and often end up making themselves look foolish. As for models, my motto goes something along the lines of “all models are wrong (and some more than others), but some are useful.” Like you, I don’t understand people who put all of their arguments in with a particular group of models; however, I try my best to understand the limitations of those models and evaluate the results accordingly.

        I recognize that there’s much I don’t know and that my arguments will have weak points in them, but I base my arguments on what I do know. I do learn things here occasionally that change my perspective on way or the other. I often don’t agree with arguments that people base primarily on their own logic or what I know to be a very narrow interpretation of fact, but I suppose that’s where the rubber meets the road.

        Thanks for the conversation. I probably won’t be checking in much for the rest of the day.

      • Hope you had a nice afternoon.

        One factor that could account for the small ice loss from 2000 to 2009 is calving. With the growing trend of Antarctic ice comes more calving. More calving means more ice loss.

        The data set is so short and GRACE is so new it’s hard to say at this point exactly what is happening. You can’t conclusively say it’s from manmade global warming though, especially since there has been no warming for longer than the time frame in the data set.

    • R. Gates says:

      Amino Acids said:

      “If what is happening in Arctic ice really was from “global warming” then it would be happening with Antarctic ice too.”

      Of course this is nonsense and not based on any scientific study of these two vastly different regions of the Earth.

  10. Jean Croton says:

    Yer all wrong and all those fancy shmancy satellites are total crap.

    Mark Serreze, that über smart science guy told us years ago the Arctic Ocean would be ice free by 2012 so it has to be so.

    Just has to be.

    Because a Climate Scientology kinda guy would never, ever make just make shit up for a semsationalistic headline or make mistakes or peddle fear mongering stories that might keep the R&D Gravy Train rolling.

    Never. . . That is why I trust him and why he is right and there is no ice right now in the Arctic.

    I weep for the drowned reindeer at the north pole and for Santa losing his house and workshop.
    Such a tragedy.

  11. Gondo says:

    All temperature datasets show rapid warming in the Arctic – or show me the ones which don’t. It’s also very clear on weather reanalysis datasets like the one from ECMWF. Weather models work,!2T!anom!Arctic!195701-201212!/

  12. Gondo says:

    Yes Mr. Amino, I’d call a breakdown from a trend that is already decling 3000km3/decade pretty catastrophic.

    • Your graph starts at 1980.

      It was far warmer on earth 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period. You can be certain of nothing. You can only assume by using such a short data set that you have used. You can only make things up. You can only assume. And you are an alarmist. You see the sky falling. So you assume the worst.

      • Gondo says:

        It’s pretty much certain that nothing similar to this has happened during the industrial age as the Arctic did not get warm enough for it. Why did the near-catastrophic loss happen now that the Sun is not getting any hotter? We need answers, and we need them quick.

      • Who cares what you are “pretty much certain” of. You are an alarmist. You make alarming things up and then try to scare people with it.

      • you need answers Gondo?? Al Gore and Barack Obama say they know all the answers already.

        What you are doing is transparent. You are the worst alarmist I have come across in a while!

      • Gondo

        You still haven’t addressed that Antarctic ice has been in a growing trend for decades. You cherry pick out Arctic ice and run around screaming bloody murder.

        Buy a helmet so you don’t get any head injury from the falling sky.

  13. This year we seem to have had a meridional pattern in the jetstream, rather than a polar one. With the polar version the cold air is largely kept up in the arctic. With a meridional flow, you tend to get blocking patterns, which, as Glen Tamblyn said earlier, causes heatwaves, floods and droughts. It also causes the cold summers we have had in the UK this year. ( And many recent years seem to have been similar)

    These patterns have been said to be caused by Arctic melting. But, simple question, is the reverse actually true? A meridional flow brings cold air into lower latitudes, which is what we have in the UK. But on the other side of the kink in the jetstream, you get the opposite – warm air sent north to the Arctic. In other words the changes in the jetstream could be causing warming of the Arctic, and not vice versa.

    Anyone like to shoot me down?

  14. Gondo says:

    How come such a rapic loss of ice volume is not alarming? It damn well should be.

  15. Gondo says:

    “want to bet” I tried to say..

  16. Gondo says:

    CryoSat-2 and ICESat are both altimeters and they’re measureing the same thing – sea ice freeboard height. The loss in volume is way bigger than the errors, just wait for the non-preliminary data to come out.

    • What part of `NSIDC shows an increase in multi-year ice` is not clear?

      • Gondo says:

        How does NSIDC measure ice-thickness?

      • Did you get that helmet yet Gondo? Never can be to safe you know.

      • pjie2 says:

        I’ve already offered to bet £50 that NSIDC shows a decrease in MYI this year. Are you in? Note that the bet is for absolute amount, not percentage.

      • pjie2 says:

        So, if the entire arctic melted except for one cubic metre of MYI, you’d win, because it would be 100%? Some fucking “increase”.

        Either you are an absolute moron, or you’re flat out admitting that you’re arguing in bad faith. Or both, I suppose.

      • pjie2 says:

        No, I’m forecasting that the NSIDC will tell us that the amount (not percentage) of MYI is less this year than last. Can’t you read?

      • pjie2 says:

        *sigh* Last year the minimum was 4.33 million, with ~25% MYI (years 3+). That is ~1.08 million sq km of MYI. You say this has increased.

        However, you also say that you will only bet on percentage. So, if ice drops to say 3.8 million, and MYI drops to 1 million, you would claim victory because it was a percentage increase to 26%, despite it being a loss in absolute terms.

        You are either a moron, arguing in bad faith, or both.

      • Peter Ellis says:

        As a total, or as a percentage? If total Arctic ice drops by 10% over last year (which is pretty much a dead certainty at this point, and 15%+ isn’t impossible), then the percentage of 5-year ice could easily rise by 7 or 8 even while the amount of 5-year ice declines in absolute terms.

      • Peter Ellis says:

        Oh right, we’re back to the “Steven only cares about one cohort of ice” stupidity again. Sorry, I thought you were talking about MYI as a whole. Yes, I am quite happy to admit that the yellow band in this graph is likely to get wider this year. It may even almost double. What on Earth is the relevance?

        Talking in absolute rather than percentage terms, I think it is very likely that there will be less 1-year ice, less 2-year ice, less 3-year ice and less 5-year ice at this summer minimum. The only cohort that might increase is the 4-year cohort (which as you say will be 5-year ice once they give it a birthday: the figure is drawn up before the birthday and shows it as 4-year ice). You can see just how irrelevant that is in the most recent ice age graph here.

        It is absolutely false to claim that MYI is going up, or that perennial ice is going up, or that “the oldest” ice is going up. One specific cohort is showing an increase. Funnily enough, that’s the only one you’re interested in.

    • Calm down, Gondo.

      We’re not all going to die tomorrow. Even if a bit more ice melts out this year, it will quickly refreeze again.

      And I know many in Iceland who would really think it disastrous if the Arctic grew cold again as it did in the 60’s and 70’s. They called it the “Sea Ice Years”, when agriculture, fishing and the economy generally tanked, leading to mass unemployment and a 50% currency devaluation.

      Do you really want a return to that?

      • Gondo says:

        Well, there are signs that the sea ice is already affecting the weather at mid-latitudes. I wonder how much bigger those changes will be if the arctic becomes sea-ice free by the end of the summer.

      • Well, there are signs that the sea ice is already affecting the weather at mid-latitudes. I wonder how much bigger those changes will be if the arctic becomes sea-ice free by the end of the summer.

        But it did exactly the same in the 60’s when Arctic ice was expanding. It is not the ice that is causing these changes. See what Hubert Lamb had to say at the time.

        He then goes into a lot of detail about the effects of the changing climate of the 1960’s and 1970’s, summarising the changing precipitation patterns which resulted from a cooler climate.

        1) Examples of the consequences of these features include a number of serious items besides the extremes of cold and warmth, drought and flood associated with the occurrences of blocking in middle latitudes.,

        2)The greater yield of equatorial rains since 1961 over the equator led to abrupt rises of the levels of the great lakes there, drowning harbours and much land.

        3)But , far more serious were the droughts in the zones to the North and South. In the Sahel between 200,000 and 400,000 died in the drought of 1972-73.

        4)In those parts of N and NW India, near the limit reached by the summer monsoon, Bryson (1973) has noted a corresponding effect, scarcely less threatening to the inhabitants than the 6 year drought from 1968-73 in the West African Sahel.

        In the first quarter of the century, there was a severe drought in N and NW India every 3rd or 4th year. Then, as the Earth warmed up and the circumpolar vortex contracted, the monsoon rains penetrated regularly into Northern India, and drought frequency declined to 2 in 36 years, from 1925-60. But since 1960, with the cooling of the Earth and the southern movement of the subtropical high pressure areas, drought frequency has been increasing again and the probability may be now more than once a decade.

        Bryson adds that if a drought frequency like that which prevailed at the start of the century were to occur now, with India’s population having increased by a factor of 4, the human and political consequences would be enormous.

  17. Sparks says:

    The 36% of thin Ice looks larger than the UK. How does the satellites detect Ice that is under water using Passive microwaves?

  18. Gondo says:

    What issues are you referring to Amino?

  19. Gondo says:

    Amino the three spaceborne techniques for ice sheet mass balance estimation all agree. I think Antarctica is pretty close to balance but Greenland is far from it.

    • Gondo

      In the LIA the Greenland icecap was much bigger than it had been at any time in the past since the ice age. It would hardly be surprising if it receded a little. It still has a long way to go to get back to even MWP levels, never mind the earlier Holocene.

      I would be a lot more worried if the ice was expanding again.

      The trend during the past 4000 years or so has been towards a gradual cooling in the Arctic. It even has a name – “Neoglacial Advance”. Maybe CO2 has arrested this trend, or maybe we are just seeing the same sort of warm interlude that we had in the MWP, Roman and Minoan Warming Periods.

      Either way, be grateful we are not in another LIA. That really was a dreadful period for humanity.

      • sunsettommy says:

        The warming interludes are occurring around 900-1100 years apart.Thus the “Modern warming” is to be expected since it was around 900 years from the MWP.

      • Gondo says:

        It’s the rapidity of the change that is worrying, it almost looks like a tipping-point was passed some years ago. The bad news is that due to ice-albedo feedback this change should speed up the warming of the Arctic even more. We’re rapidly sailing into uncharted territory here.

      • How much ice was in the Arctic during the Medieval Warm Period?

      • Gondo

        If there were tipping points, they would have tipped many times in the past. e.g.

        Presently, the Baffin Bay southern sea-ice boundary extends from Disko Island to the southwest, towards Canada. This would imply that prior to AD 1250 this boundary was more northerly and gradually moved towards the vicinity of the core site until after AD 1500 (Little Ice Age), when it was positioned south of the core site.

        In other words ice was further to the north in the MWP. Did it tip? Apparently not.

  20. Gondo says:

    So now we’re suddenly in a second Medieval Warm Period? How did that happen??

  21. Tom B. says:

    Well, Gondo, how did the first one happen?

  22. Chillville says:

    Check the 4500′ and above level all around the northern hemisphere. Do you see white?
    The freeze has hit every month this summer and the snowline reached it’s minimum extent throughout the Wrangell mountains last week…
    By the way, the permafrost, both continuous and discontinuous peaked in warmth in 2005 and has been returning to normal ever since.

  23. Chillville says:

    Are we talking about 3um or 11um instrumentation?
    How much longer do the warmista’s think they can get away with BS? Erasing the past is not possible and our Finnish records from 1731- 1885 tell us what the northern hemisphere has done in the past.

    • Gondo says:

      How big is Finnish Lapland again? If my memory server me right the contnental US is about 4% of the surface area of the Earth. WEll, somebody here tried to argue that the current situqtion is normal based on a si gnle datapoint taken by a submarine in the 1940s’….

      • Chillville says:

        As you may know the majority of the Finnish population enjoy neutral territory and like many in the human race, funding for science is key.
        The three somatotypes and their sub-classifications really do speak!

      • You’re talking in terms he won’t understand. He’ll just reply something to the effect of peril, horror, nightmare, and panic.

  24. Chillville says:

    We may as well rid Webster of the term “Inter-Glacial”, right?
    Has man stopped the possibility of the next glaciation phase?
    Please let me know!

  25. Gondo says:

    Well if the Arctic was free of sea ice during MWP summers it probably tipped over then too. At the moment recovery of the sea ice volume does not look probable.

  26. Chillville says:

    The tipping point referred to may just be the beginning of the next glaciation period.
    Do you remember some of the science being considered in the early 80’s, where we eventually hit the average high temperature and then drop from there?
    Indeed the Lapland region is quite small, similar to a few craniums…
    Again, cloud cover % between dayside and night must have impacts, but rifting and volcanic activity are apt to cause massive cooling in weeks, not years or longer periods. Attenuation of OLR and attenuation of spectral incoming are important in regard to tropospheric clouding, more so in shorter monitoring periods, than long ones.

  27. El;iza says:

    Stroeve, R gates Why the hell are Arctic temperatures normal or below for all this summer. Satellite temperatures normal and Antarctic ice above anomaly so where is the global warming? It sall complete BS. NH has been ice free numerous times in the past it depends on wind and water direction. I will concede soot (which is human and also natural volcanoes etc may contribute to extra melting in summer but the fact is arctic surface temepratures are complete normal (see DMI). According to AGW Antarctic ice should be melting at same rate and its not at all.

  28. Jon says:

    Ash from 2 Icelandic volcanoes could also be a factor for the melt?

    • CraigM says:

      Jon, for Eyja most of the ash went south over Europe causing an alarmist media frenzy. Although Grimsvotn was larger, tho’ short duration, I believe the prevailing winds were also south of Iceland. It seems it would be minimal impact. The change of wind direction, river flow from Russia and that storm would seem to be far more reasonable causes. The paucity of data would make jumping to any conclusion premature.

      I recall a thread on Tallblokes talkshop a few months ago noting a poasible change of amplitude circa 2007. CET seems to show this change too. Certainly a change to the pattern we have experienced in the satellite era is happening. However to believe we are causing it is like that kid with the remote control in the car ad.

  29. Eric says:

    Forget NOAA, what do the companies that drill in the arctic say? I heard that they had to wait till Aug 15th to start drilling because of the amount of ice. 2 weeks later than normal.

  30. HL Mencken says:

    Guys, This endless food fight reads like there are far too many otherwise intelligent people with too much time on their hands. Could this be one more sign of a failed Obama economy?
    HL Mencken

  31. hawaii596 says:

    Hi All. First time poster here. I am a METROLOGIST (measurement scientist), and a lay-person as regards METEOROGICAL topics. I find the above thread truly fascinating. I am not a warmist – at all (no real, true good-science evidence of it in my view). But a question occurred to me as I was reading that maybe one or more of you could answer… There is in the debate the topic of reduction of arctic ice while antarctic ice increases (and I presume vice versa as well). Is there a long term statistic available of the combined sum of Arctic plus Antarctic Ice available. I think that would seem an interesting way to more fairly calculate the polar ice caps as an index of global temperature. Or are they so far removed from each other and such a complex global weather system that there would likely be no significant (honest) statistical value in such a statistic? If there is, and such a statistic is available on line, I’d appreciate a link if anyone knows. Or any comments (hopefully I haven’t just further stirred the pot on this emotional (unfortunately) political (but should be scientific) topic. Have a great day all.

    • Blade says:

      Interesting (and welcome to the party!). By any chance are up at Mauna Loa? It would be great to hear from some people on the inside with direct knowledge of the CO2 operation they got up there considering the all the worldwide drama the alarmists have created over such a harmless and useful little molecule.

      “Is there a long term statistic available of the combined sum of Arctic plus Antarctic Ice available. I think that would seem an interesting way to more fairly calculate the polar ice caps as an index of global temperature. Or are they so far removed from each other and such a complex global weather system that there would likely be no significant (honest) statistical value in such a statistic?”Is there a long term statistic available of the combined sum of Arctic plus Antarctic Ice available. I think that would seem an interesting way to more fairly calculate the polar ice caps as an index of global temperature. Or are they so far removed from each other and such a complex global weather system that there would likely be no significant (honest) statistical value in such a statistic?”

      Well, one can always just add up the questionable numbers floating about. But no, IMHO this is an unlikely model because they cannot honestly measure either one yet without stitching several methods together, just like the hockey stick. Even when you do see only one method used, there exists suspicion of errors or even fraud.

      Just for starters, they are using 15% as the threshold for sea-ice concentration, which means ocean with 14% sea-ice is counted as 0% sea-ice. And Steve has recently noted that icebergs under a certain size don’t even show up on passive satellite returns. One other thing that gets forgotton is that about 90% of sea-ice is underwater, 10% is visible, which means to me that a visible sea-ice concentration of 15% contains a whole lot of ice, rather than very little.

      IMHO, there is widespread disregard for scientific controls and the Scientific Method itself, not to mention logic and common sense. Agenda driven pseudo-scientists populate a great many government agencies and college laboratories. They’re bad enough, but they are reinforced by the Amen choir of fanboys and sycophants eager to outdo each other scaring themselves to death.

      It is quite amazing really that all the climate doomsday scenarios are based on nothing more than garbage in, garbage out. This site has been displaying historical articles dating to well over a hundred years ago, revealing man’s unerring tendency to jump to conclusions again and again, never learning from the past.

  32. Black Pearl says:

    Had a quick look on NOAA’s site re artic ice
    Where the map with the Turquoise ?

  33. Gond says:

    Steven, why don’t you acknowledge those new measurements and write a short snippet about them? Real Science, eh?

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s