Most Ice Gain Ever Recorded

With a few weeks of growth still to occur, the Arctic has blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter. This is only the third winter in history when more than 10 million km² of new ice has formed.

ScreenHunter_175 Feb. 12 10.35

About stevengoddard

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

146 Responses to Most Ice Gain Ever Recorded

  1. gator69 says:



    Proof of AGW, and caused by a lack of Arctic sea ice. ;)

    • TPeel says:

      You possibly meant it ironically, but you are quite correct. The reason is indeed the loss of sea ice in the summer of 2012.

      • gator69 says:

        And there you have it folks! Melting ice proves man is warming the planet through his CO2 emissions.

        What a maroon! :lol:

        • These people slay me, man. When it warms up, it’s global warming. When it cools down, it’s global warming. When you burn your supper, it’s global warming. Or climate change. Or climate chaos.

  2. Terrence says:

    It is incredible what AGW can do!!! All that NEW ICE – IT MUST BE VERY IN THE ARCTIC THIS WINTER!!!!

  3. Kyle K says:

    Everyone knows dirty ice doesn’t count.

  4. Eric Simpson says:

    Steven, I saw that wuwt had a report on record ice gain. So I thought I’d report that here, than I see that you are the source! My wuwt comment:
    The hotter it is, the more ice we get. Don’t be a denier of basic physics. It’s like reverse condensation, like a refrigerator makes it hot in the room, a counter-intuitive thing certainly that is beyond the intellect of dumb deniers.
    “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” -Kenneth E.F. Watt, Earth Day 1970
    “Telltale signs are everywhere (regarding the coming of the next Ice Age) from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.” -Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia U in Time Mag, 1974.,8816,944914,00.html

  5. squid2112 says:

    Record “rotten” ice I am sure, and surrounded by a lot of “hot snow” .. double whammy!

  6. John says:

    If you have record ice melt in the summer as we did in 2012, then it freezes back to “median” during winter, wouldn’t that account for the record ice growth? Or has our record ice growth exceeded median by a record amount?

  7. Well, remember that they’ve got an answer for everything:

    “…Obviously, annual gain in arctic sea ice extent has been increasing and will continue to do so because the discrepancy between the minimum and maximum is getting larger and larger…”

    In other words, “…more ice will be gained as years go by; there’s less of it every summer…”

    Not sure about that statement.

    But remember, according to some . it should be noted that ice that’s being added to area and extent measurements now is thin and brittle first-year ice that will quickly breakup and melt after the maximum is reached sometime in the next two to six weeks. Look for new record minimums across the board come September.

    After that (using their logic), since this year will get a new minimum, we should expect an even greater record for ice gain NEXT winter.

  8. HL Mencken says:

    This wonderful blog and its following never disappoint.
    They are like a parade of characters out of a Damon
    Runyon story, like “Harry the Horse” and “Broadway.”
    HL Mencken

  9. miked1947 says:

    Seeing how the “Record” is 32/33 years old, It don’t amount to a “Hill of Beans” as far as historical records go. Of course if real scientists worked at NSIDC they would have long ago admitted that little “Fact”! ;)

  10. Michael Palmer says:

    in history ? C’mon .

  11. It is I only says:

    This darn Global Warming!!!

  12. Traitor in Chief says:

    The Ice will now disappear! …. Unless it doesn’t…. in which case, it will rapidly decline!….except when it increases, or when it does something else…. or not…. unless we say so. Hari Krishna Hari Krishna!

  13. davidappell says:

    This post finally proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are the most dishonest, miserable, cowardly blogger in existence.

  14. Its in Km2 so we are talking about ice area right? Last summer the Arctic lost unprecedented amounts of ice, so the ice gain over winter is to be expected surely because more areas of ice had melted by the fall and as those areas refreeze they are counted as ice gain.

    • Peter Davis says:

      We are told by the alarmists that the ice melt last summer was unprecedented.

      This is utter rubbish. Propaganda to fuel the fear machine.

      The Washington Post, November 2, 1922, reports virtually no ice north of 81 degrees north. Entire glaciers have disappeared, leaving a few stony moraines. That is within living memory.

      In 1908, the explorer Amundsen sailed a small wooden boat through the North West Passage. Ice free. No powerful ice breakers like today.

      There are numerous reports in newspapers, in the period 1890 to about 1902 of no ice in the Arctic at all, including small papers like the Mount Isa Times.

      The current cycles of arctic ice loss and gain are just part of the natural cycle.

    • Obama’s science advisor told us that after ice-free summers comes ice-free winters. Obviously that is not happening.

  15. Retired Dave says:

    Well – of course there was no record Arctic sea ice melt this last Summer, as NASA has admitted the massive storm in the first week of August 2012 broke up the ice and drove it in to warmer waters. WUWT covered that well here, with a post by Marc Morano –

    Even accepting all that – NSIDC’s new much better product (their words) MASIE did not show a low record – I wonder why they didn’t tell us that? Also IMS did not show a new low at all.

    A more careful study of real melt shows the low point was probably 2007 – it has all happened before though and several times – with much alarm expressed by the President of the UK Royal Society about the lack of Arctic sea ice – and that was in 1817 !!!

    Tell an untruth often enough and even sceptics or Skeptics will repeat it.

    BUT for what ever reason ice started at a low level this last autumn and therefore that has contributed to a 30 year record freeze rate so far this winter – but as our host points out this is not the story that CAGW has been peddling AND Arctic sea ice was at the 1979-2008 average area in March 2012 and is heading that way at present.

    If I was a CAGW proponent I would be a little disturbed by 4 intense Northern Hemisphere (NH) winters in a row, especially as record low temps have been recorded in those winters in Alaska, Finland, Siberia, China and elsewhere. Weather is not climate, but the IPCC AR4 in 2007 told us that winters would get increasingly wet and mild in the NH.

    What we are doing here is looking at data – it always amazes me how that upsets some people. I realise that Climate Science doesn’t do data, except when it suits, but the lack of integrity is very revealing.

    I hope those Sun watchers are wrong about the coming decades, because warmer temps mean longer growing seasons and lower temps are when the growing season declines and people (especially old ones like me) die.

  16. jonny old boy says:

    Arctic sea ice is irrelevant really. There will never be ice-free winters, thats impossible. Summer melt is,,,,, well,,,,, because its summer…. yes there is a trend of old-ice-loss but so what !? Neither record ice gain nor record ice loss have any relevance at all other than to provide a statistic…

    • Clearly the earth is doomed. Global sea ice area has been at the 30 year mean all year.

      • pandy says:

        Not trying to discuss the matter, just pointing out that the good Doctor saw this one before you did… but he has a history of good predictions

      • Obviously this was going to happen. The delta is the difference between the minimum and maximum. A smaller minimum means a larger delta.

        The point of this post is that I am making fun of the idiots who only care about ice extent for two weeks in September.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        As it happens, the data files from the NSIDC carry this caveat:

        “… However, the “area” column excludes the area not imaged by
        the sensor. This area is 1.19 million square kilometers for SMMR (from the
        beginning of the series through June 1987) and 0.31 million square
        kilometers for SSM/I (from July 1987 to present). Therefore, there is a
        discontinuity in the “area” data values in this file at the June/July 1987

        If you plot the area data, there does appear to be a discontinuity of about 1 million square kilometers at that point, in which case the January sea ice area was probably more like 12.50 million km^2 in 1984, rather than 11.60, and hence about 0.9 million km^2 more than in 2013, in which case the ice area this year is clearly not “almost identical” to that in 1984.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        O.K., looking at the NSIDC sea ice area data for January, I see 1984 was a clear cherry pick (1984 and 1985 being the lowest area between 1979 and 2006), why not go back to the start of the satelite record, where the ice area was 12.33 million km^2 in 1979 and 11.57 in 2013 (according to the NSIDC).

        Also if the gain is present only in the area and not the extent, it means that the growth is only in areas with very patchy sea ice (less than 15%) which is likely to melt very quickly once the melting season starts, so it isn’t of any real importance as an indicator of changes in Arctic sea ice.

      • Perhaps you should learn the difference between area and extent before posting.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        Not according to the NSIDC it isn’t, according to them, January sea ice extent in 1984 was 14.61 million km^2, and this year it is 13.78 million km^2. The difference isn’t as big as the difference in the minimum, but (i) anybody that understood the physics would be aware of that and (ii) the trend is clearly downward.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        Pointing out that the winter maximum extents have also been declining would have been more effective.

  17. pandy says:

    Really, that’s the point? If your post is not to be taken seriously you should warn Watts, since he’s making a big deal out of it… I guess he didn’t learn in 2007…

  18. alex says:

    We already have ‘a new kind of rain’, so why not a new kind of sea-ice, a new kind of snow, and maybe also a new kind of science, such as warming causes freezing.

  19. erschroedinger says: (Look at Fig 3)
    The average sea ice extent for January 2013 was 13.78 million square kilometers (5.32 million square miles). This is 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for the month, and is the sixth-lowest January extent in the satellite record. The last ten years (2004 to 2013) have seen the ten lowest January extents in the satellite record.
    Average Arctic sea ice extent for January 2013 was the sixth lowest for the month in the satellite record. Through 2013, the linear rate of decline for January ice extent is -3.2 percent per decade relative to the 1979 to 2000 average.

    • Yet using the DMI data set records seem to be getting broken for this time of year.

      The thing about ice and snow is that it’s not that stable on our planet. There is a lot of year to year and decadal variability. You have to be careful about looking at changes over short periods of time, otherwise you’ll end up seeing what you want to see.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        I didn’t say newspaper articles can’t be trusted, I said they are not scientific data. Science and history have different standards of evidence. Historians cannot perform experiments, or make direct observations of the past, hence they do have to use diaries, personal letters, newspaper articles etc. However, a good historian will gather all of the evidence, whether it supports their position or not, and provide a balanced view of e.g. what was being reported in the newspapers, rather than just cherry pick what suits them. Historians also know not to trust what they read in an isolated newspaper clipping, and would require corroboration.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        So the newspaper reports were “overwhelming and went on for three decades”, but you can find no record of Carlson ever having presented his results to a learned organisation, or published them in a journal (or even having documented them in his log book), despite having been a leading arctic expert of his day? O.K., if you want to put your trust in uncorroborated news clippings, rather than scientific journals or satelite observations, that is your choice.

      • Dr. Richard Carlson was a leading Arctic expert of his day. He must have been lying about all that warming and melt, eh?

      • Apparently Carlson didn’t use the Internet much in the 1940s.

        The whole thing is a conspiracy. Skeptics traveled back in time and altered the newspaper records to make it look like there was a meltdown occurring. And GISS did the same thing with their temperature records.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        stevengoddard wrote “Apparently Carlson didn’t use the Internet much in the 1940s.”

        The newspapers didn’t use the intenet much in the 1940s either, but you seem to have been able to find the clippings.

        Most academic journals at least have indexing information available on-line, if not scanned versions of the journals; the procedings of learned institutions, likewise. Failing that, you could try going to a library. If on the other hand, you just want to search the intenet for newspaper clippings that suit your argument, and ignore serious research into the historical records (for instance ships logs, then don’t expect to convince anybody who doesn’t share such low standards of evidence.

        The satelite records show that Arctic sea ice extent, area, volume etc. are all declining, the March maximum less so than the September minimum, but declining nevertheless. The annual gain is expected to increase as the declining September minimum leaves more open water for ice to form in, so the graph at the top of the article is of no surprise at all. No amount of newpaper clippings will change that.

      • The newspaper reports are overwhelming and went on for three decades. No doubt a conspiracy of future global warming deniers.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        Fine, I’m sure Dr. Richard Carlson wrote up his findings for some prestigeous journal or the procedings of some learned society (which might actually include the observations themselves). Rather than settle for newspaper clippings, try and find some actual data.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        The DMI data only goes back to 2005, so erschroedinger is commenting on a much longer period of time than you are. There is nothing broken about the DMI data as far as I can see, just normal variation about the long term trend (except the long term trend isn’t visible as the data only go back as far as 2005). Note that 2006, a year with one of the lowest March maximums had one of the highest September minimums and 2012 had one of the higest March maximums and the lowest September minimums. So this years data suggesting a March average being high for the 2005-2012 period tells you very little about whether there has been a meaningful recovery in terms of its effect on the September minimum.

        A better approach is to look at something like a LOESS smooth of all of the available data (taking into account the discontinuity in the area data, due to the change of satelite) and draw conclusions from that.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        Newspaper articles are not scientific data, no matter how many of them you post. The trends in satelite Arctic sea ice observations are all downwards, for the March maximum as well as the September minimum.

      • You probably believe that the Holocaust never happened, because newspaper articles can’t be trusted.

  20. TPeel says:

    what the University of Illinois Sea Ice Dataset actually tells us is that the summer ice cover of 2012 was the lowest ever recorded. Of course, Steve Goddard doesn’t mention that.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Oh they have a database that is at least 15,000 years long?

      But a number of peer reviewed science papers have showed evidence that the Arctic ice cover has been much less a number of times during this interglacial.

      Dr. Meier himself stated this in a guest post at Watts Up With That and refers to a science paper:

      “Can the Arctic really become sea ice-free during summer?

      It has been suggested that the Arctic really can’t lose all its sea ice during summer because there isn’t enough energy to melt all of the ice in the short summer. There are a couple of reasons why this thinking is faulty.

      First, we know the Arctic can potentially lose all its sea ice during summer because it has done so in the past. Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago (Polyak et al., 2010) when Arctic temperatures were not much warmer than today.”

      You need to spot this absurd infatuation of a phenomenon that has happened a few times before and without the increase of CO2 that we have now.

    • I’ve mentioned that about 300 times. As well as a lot of other things.

    • gator69 says:

      Hey! If you are into melting ice, and it appears you are, Steven has kindly supplied an entire section on it.

      Bon appetite!

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        So you don’t want to discuss modern satelite measurements of sea ice thickness then?

      • gator69 says:

        Don’t worry Steven, I’m sure the alarmists are receiving equal treatment from dumberthanmarsupial. :lol:

      • None of the satellite data from 1940 contradicts the Russian’s claims.

        My experience is that scientists now are far more likely to be dishonest than newspapers were 50 years ago.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        A newspaper clipping is not scientific data. The soviet explorers would have documented their measurements and findings, if you can find their report, that would be better. The clipping doesn’t even say where the measurements were taken. If you want to discuss ice thickness, how about discussing the results from CryoSat-2?

      • Oh, you must mean like ice thickness – ROFLMAO

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        stevengoddard wrote “Where did you get the idea that science meant focusing on only one statistic, and that looking at any other data is prohibited?”

        You mean like looking at sea ice area, but not extent or volume? Also newspaper articles describing a talk given by a scientist are not data, there is no reason to suppose the press did any better job reporting science then than they are now. Posting a scientific article writtn by the prof (rather than a journalist), that actually contained his measuements, would be better.

  21. Stephen Richards says:

    stevengoddard says:

    February 13, 2013 at 4:08 am
    I found the magic statistic which makes Appell completely lose his marbles.

    You were too late steve. I found them and have been playing with them for many years.

  22. Billy Liar says:

    I see you have a bad dikranmarsupial infestation. These pesky little critters are very hard to get rid of. For their own safety, they need to be encouraged to return their usual habitat – Tamino or Real Climate – where there are no predators.

  23. sunsettommy says:

    dikranmarsupial says:

    “A newspaper clipping is not scientific data. The soviet explorers would have documented their measurements and findings, if you can find their report, that would be better. The clipping doesn’t even say where the measurements were taken. If you want to discuss ice thickness, how about discussing the results from CryoSat-2?”

    There were no satellites in those days and also that what Steve posted was based on a LECTURE to the Swedish Geographical Society by a scientist who was actually there.

    • dikranmarsupial says:

      In which case, why not go and find the proceedings of the Sweedish Geographical Society, and get hold of the actual observations, which ARE scientific data, rather than just a report of a talk. There are good reasons why learned societies keep published proceedings and scientists publish their work in scientific journals, rather than newspapers.

      • sunsettommy says:


        It is funny that you will not do the the work yourself and what is more you warmist assholes confine your propaganda ice is vanishing bullshit to just the last few decades of history and ignore the many newspaper reports of 50+ years ago based on actual FIELD research and statements made by the people who are scientists at the time and the recent PUBLISHED science papers that does show evidence of similar and less ice cover during the earlier part of the interglacial and with no evidence of elevated CO2 to blame it on.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        It isn’t my job to substantiate Steve Goddards’ arguments, it is his. Believe it or not, there has been quite a lot of work done to collate historical records of sear ice, for instance here: . As I said, the “actual FIELD research” will have been published by a journal of the day, rather than merely reported in a newspaper.

      • Me says:

        Nice deflection thar groundhog, spin much?

  24. sunsettommy says:

    TPeel writes:

    “That is not a response. The issue is that the reason for the ice gain since last summer is not that there is more ice cover now than in previous years (there isn’t), but that the ice cover in 2012 reached a record low. Just posting some 70 year old newspaper clipping doesn’t alter the results of current research, nor the fact that your “Most Ice Gain Ever Recorded” claim is a distortion of reality.”

    You are just another warmist who does not look past the last 30 years to learn that several times during this interglacial that the Arctic ice has been smaller than now.

    The 70 year old information gives us a glimpse of what it was like THEN and was observed first hand by scientists who did not have computers and models to fabricate conclusions thus went right to the site’s and did some measurements and that is why it should be considered seriously.

    • TPeel says:

      sunsettommy – if you want to refer back to the last interglacial then I can tell you where you can find some coastal caves with tidemarks on the wall which prove that the sea level was around 3-4 meters higher than today back then, and that as a result of a relatively small temperature increase compared with current temperatures.

      • sunsettommy says:

        Ha ha,

        you quickly deflect from my statement about past arctic ice levels according to what scientists of the day who where actually there to talk about sea levels that is not part of the topic and not what I mentioned at all.

        You are pathetic!

    • dikranmarsupial says:

      Here is some information on sea ice from about 70 years ago (August 1939 – collected by DMI):

      Here is some information on sea ice from August 2012 for comparison:

      The sea ice extent is clearly *much* lower in August 2012 than it was in August 1936. The rest of the DMI maps are here:

      • Satellites were available in 1974, and the 1990 IPCC report showed a sharp gain in Arctic ice between 1974 and 1979. NSIDC chooses to ignore that data.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        The data in that plot was not from satelite data, as you imply, but from marine observations, reconnaisance flights and costal radar, which you ought to know having read the report. Secondly you are performing your usual cherry pick of comparing the highest peaks on the plot with the lowest, rather than looking at trends. In this case look at the moving average, which suggests an increase of about 0.4 million km^2 from 1972 to 1979, which is rather small compared to the decrease of 3.59 million km^2 in September sea ice since 1979 and the decrease in March ice extent of 1.24 million km^2. The interannual variability in monthly sea ice extent is often around 0.4 million km^2, so this is nothing unusual.

        Also, the increase in extent between 1973 and 1979 clearly is not ignored by the NSIDC, as you claim, see this paper by Meier et al (who work at the NSIDC),

        Specifically, see Figure 4, which shows a clear dip around 1972, and that the extent was much higher in 1969 than it was in 1979. The increase between 1972 and 1979 looks no different to the interannual variability in the data.

        Again, you objections do not stand up to scrutiny.

      • Ice extent today is almost identical to the same day in 1994.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        You are picking cherries again. The trend in sea ice extent is downwards in the satelite records, for all months. Looking at the ice extent for a particular day is not very informative because of the annual variation due to the weather, which is why scientists use trend analysis instead.

      • Most of the world’s ice is located in Antarctica, and they have been above normal for 14 months in a row.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        None of which changes the fact that satelite records show that Arctic sea ice is in decline in all months, and that the ice gain seen this year is just what would be expected following last Septembers record minumum. Changing the topic to the Antarctic is just a tacit admission that you know that is true.

      • 1979 is a wonderful year for alarmists to start Arctic ice records, since it was the coldest winter in history.

      • It was from satellite data, and I have confirmed that with NSIDC. The Nimbus satellite collected passive microwave data from 1972 to 1994.

        Again, you don’t know what you are talking about.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        Appologies, I made an error there, the data in the IPCC report may well be satelite data. However, that does not change the point that the “sharp increase” between 1975 and 1979 is a cherry pick, and nothing at all unusual given the interannual variability of sea ice extent, and also ignores the fact that the exten was higher still prior to 1975.

      • Cherry pick? It is the entire satellite record the IPCC had available in 1990.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        The cherry pick is yours, not the IPCCs. They didn’t draw the line shown in red, connecting a high and a low point on the graph (they used a running average), and as I have already pointed out, the “sharp increase” is small compared with the decline in sea ice extent we have seen since 1979.

      • You don’t know what you are talking about

        Kukla & Kukla (1974) report that the area of snow and ice, integrated over the year across the Northern Hemisphere, was 12% more in 1973 than in 1967, when the first satellite surveys were made.

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        “Snow and ice” is not the same as sea ice extent, so you are comparing apples with oranges, and thus it does not contradict the evidence for sea ice extent (covering 1967) that I have already referenced.

      • Me says:

        Never mind about Me spin much question to you thar Groundhog, :lol: I see ya do!

      • dikranmarsupial says:

        Trend analysis is based on all of the data, not just 1979, which is why scientists use linear trends rather than just comparing individual years. If you actually look at the data, it is very clear that 1979 was not a year of conspicuously high ice extent, either at the September minimum or the March maximum, and both show gradual trends downwards. Also if you look at longer datasets, again 1979 is not conspicuous, and indeed the decline in sea ice extent evidently began before 1979.

        So clearly there is nothing special about 1979, other than that is about when the satelite data began to become available.

  25. Latitude says:

    so if the ice completely disappears we should expect more earthquakes, volcano eruptions, tsunamis, meteors, and comets….but only in the summer

  26. John Watson says:

    sure enough. within a given year increased summer melting will allow for increased surface of refreeze.

  27. Balance says:

    One can only laugh at the hypocritical warmists that claimed a record melt last June was meaningful but a mirror image record ice gain now isn’t. Absolute proof that they aren’t scientific in the least.

  28. David says:

    These warmist are a sick joke. Tpeel uses words like lowest level in history, when he is talking about satelite data cherry picked from 1979, that could have started years earlier, but would have showed a rapid rise to the 79 high point. dikranmarsupial ignores the reason for the decline in the North, as well as ignoring that SL rise is a non factor as far as any disaster. dikranmarsupial, a real scientist looks at all the data, and the reasons for the observations, as well as error bars to those observations.

    support the influence of wind and Atmospheric Oscillations:
    In this October, 1 2007 NASA article;
    Son V. Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said that “the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.
    “The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.”
    This 2010 Guardian article states that;
    “Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down to the region’s swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a new study reveals.”:
    This 2011 paper submitted to The Cryosphere by L. H. Smedsrud, et al. “used “geostrophic winds derived from reanalysis data to calculate the Fram Strait ice area export back to 1957, finding that the sea ice area export recently is about 25% larger than during the 1960’s.”
    This 2007 paper “Rapid reduction of Arctic perennial sea ice” by Nghiem, Rigor, Perovich, Clemente-Colo, Weatherly and Neumann states that;
    “Perennial-ice extent loss in March within the DM domain was noticeable after the 1960s, and the loss became more rapid in the 2000s when QSCAT observations were available to verify the model results. QSCAT data also revealed mechanisms contributing to the perennial-ice extent loss: ice compression toward the western Arctic, ice loading into the Transpolar Drift (TD) together with an acceleration of the TD carrying excessive ice out of Fram Strait, and ice export to Baffin Bay.”
    This 2004 paper “Variations in the Age of Arctic Sea-ice and Summer Sea-ice Extent” by Ignatius G. Rigor & John M. Wallace, states that;
    “The winter AO-index explains as much as 64% of the variance in summer sea-ice extent in the Eurasian sector, but the winter and summer AO-indices combined explain less than 20% of the variance along the Alaskan coast, where the age of sea-ice explains over 50% of the year-to year variability. If this interpretation is correct, low summer sea-ice extents are likely to persist for at least a few years. However, it is conceivable that, given an extended interval of low-index AO conditions, ice thickness and summertime sea-ice extent could gradually return to the levels characteristic of the 1980′s.”
    2004 Science Daily article,” Extreme changes in the Arctic Oscillation in the early 1990s — and not warmer temperatures of recent years — are largely responsible for declines in how much sea ice covers the Arctic Ocean, with near record lows having been observed during the last three years, University of Washington researchers say.”
    “It may have happened more than a decade ago, but the sea ice appears to still “remember” those Arctic Oscillation conditions, according to Ignatius Rigor, a mathematician with the UW’s Applied Physics Laboratory.”
    This 2010 paper, “Influence of winter and summer surface wind anomalies on summer Arctic sea ice extent” by Masayo Ogi, Koji Yamazaki and John M. Wallace, published in Geophysical Research Letters states that;
    “We have shown results indicating that wind‐induced, year‐to‐year differences in the rate of flow of ice toward and through Fram Strait play an important role in modulating September SIE on a year‐to‐year basis and that a trend toward an increased wind‐induced rate of flow has contributed to the decline in the areal coverage of Arctic summer sea ice.”
    This 2001 paper, Fram Strait Ice Fluxes and Atmospheric Circulation: 1950–2000
    by Torgny Vinje found that:
    “Observations reveal a strong correlation between the ice fluxes through the Fram Strait and the cross-strait air pressure difference.”
    “Although the 1950s and 1990s stand out as the two decades with maximum flux variability, significant variations seem more to be the rule than the exception over the whole period considered.”
    “A noticeable fall in the winter air pressure of 7 hPa is observed in the Fram Strait and the Barents Sea during the last five decades.”
    “The corresponding decadal maximum change in the Arctic Ocean ice thickness is of the order of 0.8 m. These temporal wind-induced variations may help explain observed changes in portions of the Arctic Ocean ice cover over the last decades. Due to an increasing rate in the ice drainage through the Fram Strait during the 1990s, this decade is characterized by a state of decreasing ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean.”
    “The decreases in recent decades, which are also partially due to circulation-driven ice export through the Fram Strait between Greenland and Svalbard (Vinje, 2001), have coincided with a positive trend in the NAO, with unusually high index values in the late 1980s and 1990s. During this period, the variability of ice motion and ice export through the Fram Strait was correlated strongly with the NAO; r∼ 0.86 for the ice area flux (Kwok and Rothrock, 1999) and r∼ 0.7 for the ice volume flux (Hilmer and Jung, 2000), although the relationship was insignificant (r∼ 0.1) before the mid 1970s (Hilmer and Jung, 2000). Deser et al. (2000) analysed a 40-yr gridded data set (1958–97) to determine the association between arctic sea ice, SAT and SLP, concluding that the multidecadal trends in the NAO/AO in the past three decades have been ‘imprinted upon the distribution of Arctic sea ice’, with the first principal component of sea-ice concentration significantly correlated (r∼−0.63) with the NAO index, recently cause-and-effect modelled by Hu et al. (2002). None the less, our calculations and those of Deser et al. (2000) indicate that, even in recent decades, only about one third of the variability in arctic total ice extent and MY ice area (Johannessen et al., 1999) is explained by the NAO index ”
    ” The decadal-scale mode associated with the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and a low-frequency oscillation (LFO) with an approximate time scale of 60-80 years, dominate. Both modes were positive in the 1990s, signifying a prolonged phase of anomalously low atmospheric sea level pressure and above normal surface air temperature in the central Arctic. Consistent with an enhanced cyclonic component, the arctic anticyclone was weakened and vorticity of winds became positive. The rapid reduction of arctic ice thickness in the 1990s may be one manifestation of the intense atmosphere and ice cyclonic circulation regime due to the synchronous actions of the AO and LFO. Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.”
    Igor V. Polyakov and Mark A. Johnson, 2000
    “Hilmer and Jung (2000) note a secular change in the relationship between the Fram Strait ice flux and the NAO; the high correlation noted by Kwok and Rothrock (1999) from 1978 to 1996 was not found in data prior to 1978. We expect our overall results to be more robust given the strong relationship between the AO and SIM over the Arctic, as compared to the weaker relationship between the north–south flow through Fram Strait and the AO. Even if one ignored the effect of the AO on the flux of ice through Fram Strait, the divergence of ice in the eastern Arctic would be still be ;50% greater under high-index conditions than under low-index conditions, and the heat flux would be ;25% greater.”
    ” We have shown that sea ice provides memory for the Arctic climate system so that changes in SIM driven by the AO during winter can be felt during the ensuing seasons; that is, the AO drives dynamic thinning of the sea ice in the eastern Arctic during winter, allowing more heat to be released from the ocean through the thinner ice during spring, and resulting in lower SIC during summer and the liberation of more heat by the freezing of the ice in autumn. The correlations between the wintertime AO and SIC and SAT during the subsequent seasons offers the hope of some predictability, which may be useful for navigation along the Northern Sea route.”
    August 14, 2012 at 11:02 am
    This paper shows that there is more ice now than the average of the past 9000 years.
    It is widely known that the current ice conditions are nothing special…
    “Arctic Ice Loss Has Been Much Worse Historically”
    “The meltdown underway in the Arctic is remarkable, but an international team of beachcombers has uncovered evidence it’s been much worse before.”
    “Based on the paleoclimate record from ice and ocean cores, the last warm period in the Arctic peaked about 8,000 years ago, during the so-called Holocene Thermal Maximum. Some studies suggest that as recent as 5,500 years ago, the Arctic had less summertime sea ice than today. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time.”

    So you wacko CAGW warmist nut jobs, the short version of the above is that the major reasons for the recent NH decline are mainly caused by wind and ocean current changes, and have happened many times in the past, and there is NONE, as in ZERO evidence that CAGW is a major factor in any of this, or that SL rise is accelerating.

  29. Why doesn’t someone just go to the Arctic and obtain an ice core.

    That alone should tell us just what the conditions were like over the past millennium.

    And if you’re really interested in the Arctic, try here:

    They’ve got journals going back to 1948 (vol 1, issue 1 in the archives):

    Maybe this is the “prestigeous journal or the procedings of some learned society” that dikranmarsupial says he needs rather than newspaper clippings.

    But what will you do if that “prestigeous journal” backs up the newspaper reports?

    • Sea ice never lasts much more than about five years. It floats out into the Atlantic and melts.

      • sunsettommy says:

        I think you made a post showing that a lot of the older ice was pushed out by winds in the 1990’s and it was a video but I can’t find it.

        It would show that it was winds and warm water that caused the decline and NOT air temperature or CO2 effects.

        Can you post it Steve?

      • sunsettommy says:

        The very fact that there is little ice beyond 5 years of age indicates natural forces are in operation that removes or melts it on a periodic time frame and thus allows for cyclic phases between a lot of old ice and a lot new ice cover in the Arctic region.

      • stevengoddard said (February 18, 2013 at 3:10 pm).

        “…Sea ice never lasts much more than about five years. It floats out into the Atlantic and melts….”

        Exactly. Now if they could only find a link between CO2 and the ability of ice to float easier…

  30. JohnM says:

    I can’t believe so many people have been taken in by this misleading statistic. Of course the amount of new ice was going to be a record amount – just as the previous record, in 2008, followed the previous record minimum in September 2007.

    For those of you who can’t work out why this was a mathematical certainty, though not necessarily an actual certainty, think about how the latent heat of fusion depends on the available open water surface as it exits the Arctic Ocean.

    Had it not been a record ice gain this winter, a possible conclusion would’ve been that catastrophe has happened. Meanwhile, congratulations to Mr Goddard for pulling the wool over so many pairs of eyes.

    • Excellent. Another sucker takes the bait.

      Last summer alarmists were hysterical about the rate of ice loss – for exactly the same reasons you are complaining about. What is good for the goose is …..

      John Holdren, Obama’s seance advisor, says that ice-free winters come after ice-free summers. I suggest that you call him up and tell him that he is an idiot.

      • JohnM says:

        Except that Mr Holdren is very likely to be right – though idiots can be right sometimes. As you can personally attest, no doubt -but won’t. The difference is that idiots don’t know when they are wrong, believing that they are also right under all other circumstances.

        The previous record low (2007) was followed by a record low winter (2007-8). This winter’s ice (2012-13), as shown by PIOMAS measurements, is likely to be a new record low. We’ll have to wait until about mid-April to know, as it seems the volume data takes a lot more effort to amass and publish than that for the frozen surface area of ocean. But at least it uses a metric for the ice that is not subject to those inexorable foibles of mathematical reasoning.

      • Ice extent is the highest in at least five years. Temperatures are -30C. You are brainless.

    • Jhn, what do you think people are confused about and exactly on what basis have you formed the opinion that you’re the smartest person here? ;-)

      • I don’t know what you think people are reading into this or how you’re able to reach into everyone’s mind and conclude we’ve all been fooled. Clearly you have this magical power, or think you do. Or maybe I am wrong. You don’t say why you think we have all been fooled. You just point out how smart you are, and how you believe everyone has been fooled because you’re so clever. ;-)

      • JohnM says:

        If anyone has been confused, which I doubt they have been, it will be because of the graph above. Everyone with a reasonable degree of mathematical nous must know this is a cheat, but because of their psychological state over climate change, denialists will be able to consciously choose to ignore what is a charlatan’s trick.

        I have no opinion one way or another about who might be the smartest person here, though Mr Goddard must rank pretty high seeing how easily he’s fooled so many people.

      • John, You seem to be psychotic. I posted some data from the Cryosphere Today web site. Are you disputing it?

      • JohnM says:

        It seems to be you not me, pointing out that I am smarter than others here, having “intellectual brilliance”, etc. In fact, nowhere in what I have written do I claim to be any more intelligent than anyone else here. If this is the method you commonly use for critical judgment, i.e. pulling supposition out of your arse. then it is understandable why you have the views you currently hold on the subject of climate change.

        Neither have I claimed that Mr Goddard has fooled everyone. Reading the comments above I see several others who, like myself, are not taken in by spurious application of less-than-relevant, rate-of-ice-gain data. I suspect there may be more, but perhaps they wish to retain and support their current political affiliation.

      • JohnM says:

        Except that you seemingly did nothing of the sort. What you appear to have done is take some data from a webpage belonging to “Cryosphere Today” and constructed a graph from it. This graph shows a maximum for this winter.

        Your description of the graph,”…the Arctic has blown away the previous record. This is only the third winter in history when more than 10 million km² of new ice has formed.”, strongly implies that this is something notable, when in fact it is merely an artifact of an exceptionally low September value. It is not difficult to guess what you would like the readers to imply from this, especially when you make no deduction yourself about what has caused it..

      • Don’t worry, according to the experts the Arctic will be ice free this summer

      • JohnM says:

        To predict the ice-free Arctic in a specific year rather than within a range of years, seems like the height of folly, considering one is hardly dealing with a stringently deterministic system. I wonder what the Prof. actually said before the media began to toss it around.

    • JohnM says:

      The data here:

      says you lie in your teeth. Ice extent is currently lower than four of the last five years – last year, is the exception. I’m obviously not as brainless as you, for I check facts before putting pen to paper.

      This graphic:

      shows that -30 is the average at this time of year.
      Interesting how it dips below average in the last few days, when it has mostly been well above, or occasionally very near, average for the last two years. Perhaps the magic, bearded sky-pixie is trying to get you out of a bind. And they say prayer doesn’t work

    • JohnM says:

      Had they been constructed using false premisses and were clearly the work of a snake-oil salesperson, masquerading as science, then I would certainly have complained.

      • JohnM says:

        If that’s what they were, and I’ll take your word on it, then as I said “I would certainly have complained” Compiling meaningless and misleading data and graphing it, as these sites and Mr Goddard did is scientifically nothing short of disgraceful.

      • Balance says:

        John, that’s exactly what they were. They used the fact we had a rather high maximum and a late maximum to claim a record loss rate. Sorry, you showed you are a hypocrite by not claiming these articles were ” the work of a snake-oil salesperson, masquerading as science”. Hence, you’ve lost all credibility.

      • I see because of your intellectual brilliance you have made yourself arbiter of what is deeply insightful data versus meaningless data. You don’t need to present an argument for why this is so. Anonymous internet troll says so, so it must be true. Hmmm… haven’t seen that before… ;-)

  31. David says:

    John, What false premise. The post says what the graph shows. Nothing is unfactual about it.. BTW using the 30% mtric Steves comment was fine….see DMI 30 here…

    • JohnM says:

      The false premise is: ‘there is no marked decline in Arctic sea ice’. Uncritical observers would believe that is what the graph actually shows, perhaps even equating it to a rise in sea ice..
      I am at a loss to understand what “30% mtrc” refers to.

  32. David says:

    The data here:
    John says…
    says you lie in your teeth. Ice extent is currently lower than four of the last five years – last year, is the exception. I’m obviously not as brainless as you, for I check facts before putting pen to paper.
    I think you blew it. Your chart shows one, one year chart, ma,ely 2013, currently above 2010-11 and 12 average, and even with the 2000 – 2009 average.

    • JohnM says:

      I’m uncertain if the graph you are looking at is the one I saw, the spiral chart with different coloured traces for each year, as it is not showing on the site just now. That chart of ice extent shows just 2012 as less extensive than the current situation.

      • The climate Vatican says that the laypeople may not see this data. The Arctic is ice-free and that is all that the people need to know.

        You are a throwback to the 16th century John. .

    • JohnM says:

      Oops. My bad. Either they changed the chart layout recently, or I’ve been reading it incorrectly from the get-go. It is indeed the case that there are 4 years lower than 2013, the faint grey lines are hard to discern on small screen areas. The single prominent line I now see is an average of the last four years.

      Apologies to Mr Goddard, too, if you are reading this.

  33. David says:

    John, good of you to apologise, however your post here was full of arrogance that has now backfired. Perhaps reading it again will show you how not to behave in the future.
    JohnM says:
    February 19, 2013 at 9:54 pm
    The data here:

    says you lie in your teeth. Ice extent is currently lower than four of the last five years – last year, is the exception. I’m obviously not as brainless as you, for I check facts before putting pen to paper.
    Now John, the DMI 30% index is not hard to find. Look it up, as it supports other points Mr G has stated here. Please consider to think more and speak less.

    • JohnM says:

      I see you appear to have done exactly what Mr Goddard probably hoped you would do. You have conceptually linked the rate of growth in ice extent with current ice extent, and are of a mindset to conclude the Arctic ice is undergoing a recovery.

      As for measuring the extent using 30% vs. 15 %, the Danish graphs shows little difference to, say, those from NSIDC in this latter regard In all presentations of this feature, there is a trend to lower and lower ice extents in summer over the past 30 years. It would be a good idea to face up to that reality and consider if anything needs to be done about it. Putting one’s head in the sand by disseminating misleading presentations of data doesn’t quite cut the mustard.

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