Earth Has More Sea Ice Than 1990

Planet Earth currently has 333,000 Manhattans of sea ice, which is more ice than on the same date in 1990. (Note that there was a small dip a few years ago which caused many leading scientists to become hysterical.)

ScreenHunter_728 Sep. 19 09.04

Climate experts say that the poles are melting down, because they never look at any actual data.

About stevengoddard

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

41 Responses to Earth Has More Sea Ice Than 1990

  1. Ragtag Media says:

    And we still have 5 more months of growth to go.
    There could be so much sea Ice that it could block the Panama Canal… Hahah

  2. Ilma says:

    Can we stop calling them ‘experts’, as they clearly are not.

    • Shazaam says:

      I don’t know….. A pun-ish definition of an ex-spurt is a “had-been drip under pressure”. By that definition, they are all climate ex-spurts…. And the pressure is increasing!!

  3. Jono says:

    Oh dear. You seem to be forgetting about sea ice thickness, which is well below 1990 levels. So the actual volume of sea ice is much lower. Whoops, I think you’re the one who hasn’t looked at any data

    • Boneheado – nobody keeps data for global sea ice thickness

      • Jono says:

        Satellite data provides a good proxy.
        “A younger, thinner Arctic ice cover: Increased potential for rapid, extensive sea-ice loss”

        Submarine data:
        “Thinning of the Arctic Sea-Ice Cover”

        Click to access Rothrock-etal.1999-GRL.pdf

        Sea ice age is also associated with thickness:
        “Satellite-derived evolution of Arctic sea ice age: October 1978 to March 2003”

        Click to access fowleretal_SatelliteDerivedEvolutionofArcticSeaIceAge_October1978toMarch2003_GRSL_1_2_2004.pdf

        Nevertheless, Arctic sea ice is very variable, both seasonally and on interannual-geologic timescales, hence the need for a long term “baseline”. The Arctic is an incredibly complex, interlinked and sensitive system, hence why it is an area of intensive research and observation.

        Hope that helps 🙂

        • Andyj says:

          “A younger, thinner Arctic ice cover: Increased potential for rapid, extensive sea-ice loss” and a proxy, not a reality at that.. How about “A younger, thinner Arctic ice cover: Increased potential for rapid, extensive sea-ice gain”.
          You actually agree with yourself the air temperature has shot up so profoundly that the IR absorption means the deep seas will cool down. There has never been enough air heating to heat the sea at this rate.

          The Romans ventured North in the Warm period.
          The Saxons went West to a more stable climate (Warmer in winter) and the Vikings went South as the climate changed for the worse. Each time resulted in Britons being thrown to the dogs. The local hill to me is called “Winter Hill”. From the viking “Vin Tor” (Wine Hill).. It must of been very nice weather to grow vines around that place!!!
          However, lets hope armies will not be marching across the Baltic sea to war any more. 10 million people died in one year in Europe that saw no summer in the little ice age.

          Hope that helps.

        • Hugh K says:

          “The Arctic is an incredibly complex, interlinked and sensitive system, hence why it is an area of intensive research and observation.”

          Just a couple of questions my young aspiring scientist; What marketable product is being developed by that costly “intensive research and observation” and if not who foots the bill for such a costly endeavor (to the detriment of other ongoing programs that in actuality do provide immediate aid to the citizens of those residing in third world countries that depend on the support of more developed nations)?

          Second: Why are you relying on “observation” while NASA’s GISS continues to engage in the manipulation of that observed data, which to date, has only resulted in cooling the past and warms the present (which is statistically absurd)?

          And a follow-up question if you would be so kind; Among all the disciplines, why do you think that climate science alone has become so singularly politicized and who benefits from that political power?

        • jwelr says:

          Hello Hugh K. Yes, as you may have noticed in my profile on here, I have completed an MSc in Polar and Alpine Change. I now work in environmental consultancy, but keep updated in the sciences. A lot of the comments on here are quite imaginative and entertaining. I’m afraid I have better things to do than reply to everything (of which I could, believe me), but since you asked so nicely, Hugh K, and since I love this topic and enjoy a debate, I’ve tried to concisely respond to your questions. I’m sure you have your own agenda, but anyway….


          The “marketable product” of research into climate change and the environmental impacts? Knowledge and understanding that drives action at all levels in society in order to minimise and mitigate the devastating impacts of climate change on the poorest and on our children and their children etc. You can’t manage what you don’t measure.

          You think this research is to the detriment of programmes that provide “immediate” aid? How about trying to prevent the cause of that aid in future generations (i.e. climate change and sea level rise)? Immediate aid is only short term and temporary. This Earth cannot sustain a projected 9 billion people the way we are currently living. The marketable product is sustainability. It’s saving lives by protecting the environment that we are dependent upon.

          Who foots the bill? Research councils such as NERC. This is what their website says:
          “NERC is a non-departmental public body. We receive around £370 million of annual funding from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)…. Our research contributes to a strong UK economy and improves people’s lives. We encourage public engagement with environmental science and the benefits it brings.”

          In answer to your follow up question: “Climate” science is not singularly politicised, the “environmental” sciences are also, as it is all interlinked. These have become so politicised because our planet that supports and sustains life demands that we change the very foundations and fabrics of society. To be honest, I am puzzled why some politicians think that climate change is an option to “believe” or not. The debate has long been settled… it’s happening at an unprecedented rate and scale, we are the primary cause of it, and the only thing to decide is how best to become sustainable and mitigate and manage the impacts. I suppose politicians think it’s an inconvenience or something in which they can either win or lose votes over – so some choose to naively deny it in the face of it.

          Who benefits from the political power? You mean the political power gained by promoting sustainability in the face of climate change and environmental disasters? I’m afraid I don’t think that question makes full sense. The benefactors are you and me, but particularly those who are most vulnerable in this world, whose homes and livelihoods are being devastated by disasters.

          If you are one of those who think climate and environmental change is all a con, what are you benefitting from as a result of believing so and voting in those who also believe so? Is it because you don’t want to reduce your energy consumption or stop filling your car with fossil fuels? Is it because you want to keep flying around this planet without feeling guilty?
          To believe this is all a con is quite imaginative and naïve.


          NASA GISS manipulates data resulting in cooling the past and warming the present? This is “STATISTICALLY absurd”? You’ll have to give me an example of what you are referring to. How is this absurd: 7 billion people pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per day, chopping down rainforests and urbanising and farming swathes of the planet for decades if not centuries …. not having an enormous impact on the climate? Previously, significant changes in the climate have occurred naturally from relatively small natural changes (excluding massive and immediate changes such as supervolcanic eruptions and asteroid collisions, of course). Just look at the last 2 million years in the Quaternary record. This planet has seen nothing like human civilisation before. Of course we’re having an enormous impact. Don’t be so naïve.

          Right then, I’m off to help save the planet 😉

          Oh and, this is a nice little video if sea ice VOLUME decline:

        • jwelr says:

          You can start your education by opening your eyes to the world around you.

          I watched this recently, this might help too: A personal recommendation from me 😉

        • Latitude says:

          The debate has long been settled…

          pretty much… of the predictions have come true

        • Jono says:

          Increased extreme events… That is one prediction that is very true!! Check out MunichRe – fantastic datasets on natural disasters

        • Latitude says:

          …are you 12?

        • Jono says:

          There’s no point trying to make this personal. I’ve wondered the same with what I’ve read

        • Latitude says:

          you are 12!

          ..only a stupid 12 yo would pick the most obscure reference and claim they got one thing right

        • Jono says:

          Oh sorry, I just couldn’t be bothered and clearly over estimated your ability to research things yourself. Tell me, how did you guys all become such experts? The internet? The media? I thought so (but please prove me wrong)

        • Latitude says:

          Oh sorry, I just couldn’t be bothered and clearly over estimated your age and ability to think for yourself and not be fooled. Tell me, how did you become such and expert at your young and naive age? The internet? The media? I thought so (but please prove me wrong)

    • Of course the thickness isn’t the same as much older ice, you dope. However the area covered is proportional to the thickness at the highest points, and the first to melt will be the thinnest areas at the periiphery. The increased area is equal to more ice in fact as any simple experiment in your freezer can show due to gravity.

  4. scizzorbill says:

    Data not conforming to the agenda is ignored.

  5. denzel says:

    So how is it okay to not know the thickness but rather to make somekind of naming competition?

    And really, why couldn’t ICESat measure or estimate mass.. what is this series from UIUC anyway?! Here, same institute:

  6. The actual thickness of the polar ice caps is not known. There are many estimates and they vary from 3,000 to 4,500 meters. Therefore those cretins who bleat on about how the increased ice area at the poles is offset by the supposedly thinner ice left over, are inventing this “theory” ad hoc and as a prevaricated response to the only important data, the increased surface area. Due to gravity, the surface area will increase with increased thickness and just as the thinnest ice will be that at the edges and that which forms first, it will be that which melts first again in its turn.

    Don’t be swayed by the seemingly logical assertion that the ice is thinner therefore more surface area is offset. Not only does this assume we know the exact thickness within a few meters (because that’s all we’re talking about from max to minimum survivable difference on the surface) which we don’t it also ignores simple science regarding ice sheet formation and degradation.

    • PJ London says:

      But what about the ice that is at the bottom of the ocean?
      The heat is hiding at the bottom of the ocean, so why should the ice not hide there too?

  7. T says:

    Take a look at Mike Rivero’s climate page at to see some old publication covers like Time and how they were fearmongering at different points in time. It exemplifies insanity and the diabolical nature of the criminal elite. Cue the crowd who is quick to chant “conspiracy theorists” because they are too ignorant and lazy to do the research themselves, have something to gain from the lies and/or have simply taken a side which they actually believe which is lying just to be with the popular crowd. Just like in high school. Very sad they are still stuck there. Peace.

  8. Lewi says:

    Anyone ever consider that much of this ice that has been melting is a hundred plus years old and left over from the little ice age which was probably the result of man made global cooling caused by the thick smoke of the industrial revoloution , Is my theory any worse than current scientific consesus?

    • Sea ice never lasts more than about 5-10 years

    • Glacierman says:

      I don’t know about worse, but it is wrong just the same. Steve is right and I see this as a common misconception about Arctic Sea Ice. It never gets very old. It is not something left over from some event like an ice age in the distant past. The ocean will freeze every winter. The ice is not some precious natural resource that is being lost forever.

    • Sunsettommy says:

      Where is your evidence of 100 years old ice?

    • Andyj says:

      Man made global cooling from the Little Ice Age (LIA)?
      Wow. I never knew we had an industrial revolution so early! Haha. That kicked out those pesky Vikings from farming Greenland in the 1100’s.
      And to read wiki saying those glaciers “abruptly” began retreating from 1850.

      • tom0mason says:

        those glaciers “abruptly” began retreating from 1850…as the Viking icebreakers powered through the thin, first year ice and the industrialization of Europe began.

        • Andyj says:

          Were 1850’s icebreakers full of greenies attempting to save the planet by any chance?
          When it comes to man’s endeavours the irony of “abruptly” for 1850 is sadly not lost on the Earthly scale of things.
          Could it be instant 1850’s soot cooling the atmosfear (Hansen et al) or soot making the glaciers go black. Or could it of been the soot that fell out of the historians head when he tilted it to reach the pen?
          The latter seems most likely.

        • tom0mason says:

          I aways enjoy the idea of warming only started from 1850 as this totally ignores the 400-500 years of industrial scale European deforestation that went on before it. 🙂

        • Andyj says:

          1850 ignores, no, totally excludes the LIA. 10 million pre-Germans dying in one year from starvation and cold kinda puts the holocaust into perspective.

        • tom0mason says:

          Thankfully there is written history, from the time, that bears witness to these inconvenient facts.

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