Arctic Sea Ice Volume Up 84% Since 2012

End of September Arctic sea ice volume is up 84% since 2012, and second highest since 2006. Experts say it is in a “Death Spiral”

ScreenHunter_3480 Oct. 09 15.16

About stevengoddard

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

41 Responses to Arctic Sea Ice Volume Up 84% Since 2012

  1. njsnowfan says:

    Right in line the the AMOs trend lower but going the total opposite if C02.

  2. Robert B says:

    On the validation page there is this picture

    You’ll notice that where the models predict a 4m thickness that the submarine data is spread evenly between 2.5 and 6 m. Where the estimate is 1m the range is near 0 to almost 3.5.

    The error in thickness ranges from 50% to over 100%. Put the appropriate error bars on that plot (prior to 2013) and there might not have been a significant loss at all.

    The reasoning “Because total Arctic sea ice volume from PIOMAS is computed as an average over many grid points, the random error (scatter in above figures) doesn’t affect the uncertainty in the total ice volume and trend very much.” is just bollocks.

  3. tom0mason says:

    But I notice that Big Al has been out keeping up the noise on Carbon Trading while ensuring his waisteline and carbon footprint expands.

    Pay-up you underlings as the elites need an even better life!

  4. tom0mason says:

    Paul Dorian, meteorologist with Vencore, looks at the missing Nimbus satellite photos –

    Global Sea Ice
    In terms of global sea ice, our current satellite data records are quite good for a little more than the past 30 years or so. Pushing it back another 15 or 20 years could be crucial in the understanding of global sea ice cycles which have been occurring throughout history. Indeed, early findings have been quite surprising with respect to both the Arctic and Antarctica sea ice extent. According to NASA scientists, there have been “enormous holes” found in the Arctic ice that “we didn’t expect and can’t explain” in a decade considered to be colder-than-normal (i.e., the 1960’s).

    • Ron C. says:

      There is Arctic ice history prior to satellites, and it provides context of effects following the end of the Little Ice Age:

      Figure 16-3: Time series of April sea-ice extent in Nordic Sea (1864-1998) given by 2-year running mean and second-order polynomial curves. Top: Nordic Sea; middle: eastern area; bottom: western area (after Vinje, 2000).

    • Ron C. says:

      Here’s what they say about Arctic ice extent variability:

      “The extent of ice in the Nordic Seas measured in April has been subject to a reduction of ~33% over the past 135 yr. Nearly half of this reduction is observed over the period ~1860–1900, prior to the warming of the
      Arctic. Decadal variations with an average period of 12–14 yr are observed for the whole period. The observation series indicates that less than 3% of the variance with respect to time can be explained for a series
      shorter than 30 yr, less than 18% for a series shorter than 90 yr, and less than 42% for the whole 135-yr long series. While the mean annual reduction of the April ice extent is decelerating by a factor of 3 between 1880 and 1980, the mean annual reduction of the August ice extent
      is proceeding linearly.

      The August ice extent in the Eastern area has been more than halved over the past 80 yr. A similar meltback has not been observed since the temperature optimum during the eighteenth century. This retrospective
      comparison indicates accordingly that the recent reduction of the ice extent in the Eastern area is still within the variation range observed over the past 300 yr.”

      Anomalies and Trends of Sea-Ice Extent and Atmospheric Circulation in the Nordic Seas during the Period 1864–1998 by TORGNY VINJE, Norwegian Polar Institute, Oslo, Norway

  5. Sparks says:

    I call it by its technical term “runaway freshwater death spiral of ice increase”.

  6. markstoval says:

    I just don’t see how this is possible. Al Gore said the earth’s core was millions of degrees. I think that much heat should melt the ice. You don’t think Al could be wrong about anything do you? 🙂

  7. gofer says:

    Alarmists throw extremist sea ice Professor Wadhams under the bus:

    Are they trying to dig out of the hole?

  8. philjourdan says:

    Good thing it does not have Obamacare, or it would be dead.

  9. tom0mason says:

    NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center published a two-part set of videos some weeks ago, called A Selective History of Arctic Sea Ice Observations. These videos are short, simple, and informative.

    A Selective History of Arctic Sea Ice Observations Part1

    A Selective History of Arctic Sea Ice Observations Part2

  10. joeldshore says:

    One might wonder why Steve chose to start his graph in 2007. A glance at the full data set will show you why: Sept. 2006 (which was the LOWEST recorded values up to that time) was nonetheless 30% higher than Sept 2014. And, the volumes in the first 8 years of the satellite record (179-1986) averaged some 115% higher than Sept. 2014.

    The longer record makes it very clear what the general trend is, albeit with year-to-year ups and downs as one might expect.

    • Volume is up 84% since 2012. Deal with reality

      • joeldshore says:

        Just think what you will be able to do in the years after the first time that the sea ice disappears completely and then in the next years, “recovers” to, say, 1000 km^3.

        “Volume is up since 20XX by an infinite precentage. Deal with reality.”

        It must be great to be able to make arguments that get better and better the more the sea ice volume shrinks!

    • David A says:

      Joel, one might wonder why you choose 1979. Satellite data precedes 1979, and indicates that 1979 was a peak in a cyclical pattern. The general trend since 2007 is up. That is a simple fact.

      • joeldshore says:

        I choose 1979 because that is where the data that Steve linked to starts. I’ll bookmark this thread so we can revisit it in a few years and see in retrospect if Steve’s was the complete cherrypick that it seems like to me or whether the data from 2012 to 2014 is the start of a new trend.

        • Starting at 1979 is the ultimate cherry pick.

        • joeldshore says:

          I started when the data started…and then I averaged over the 1st 8 years, rather than just choosing the first year. And, I did this averaging precisely because the first year was the highest in the record. So, in other words, I bent over backwards not to cherry pick.

          You, on the other hand, only went as far back as you could without encountering a significantly higher ice volume than 2014, which forced you to go back no further than 2007 since ALL years earlier than that in that satellite record have a significantly higher ice volume.

        • Experts say ice-free in 2013 or 2014. One guy got a Nobel prize for that.

      • Wow Joel. You admit that you chose to start at 1979 and that you know it is the highest level since that time. Are you seriously not aware that the Team has truncated the data that existed before that time? Why can’t you see that Tony did the exact same thing you did, in order to make a point about bias, cherry picking, and scientifically fraudulent methods?


    • Gail Combs says:

      Maybe that is because the Climmunist Alarmists went all out in 2007 screaming “The ICE is MELTINGGGggggg” but it hasn’t so T H E Y. W E R E. W R O N G!

      “The longer record makes it very clear what the general trend is, albeit with year-to-year ups and downs as one might expect.”
      YUP, since the Wisconsin glaciation the general trend is down and anyone who has any brains knows a trend of sea ice and cold is BAD NEWS.

      Straight from the CIA report

      pg 9
      The archaeologists and climatotologists document a rather grim history… There is considerable evidence that these empires may not have been undone by barbarian invaders but by climatic change…. has tied several of these declines to specific global cool periods, major and minor, that affected global atmospheric circulation and brought wave upon wave of drought to formerly rich agricultural lands.

      Refugees from these collapsing civilizations were often able to migrate to better lands… This would be of little comfort however,… The world is too densely populated and politically divided to accommodate mass migration….

      page 22 states:
      The climate of the 1800s was far less favorable for agriculture in most areas of the world. In the United States during that century, the midwest grain-producing areas were cooler and wetter and snow lines of the Russian steppes lasted for longer periods of time. More extended periods of drought were noted in the areas of the Soviet Union now known as the new lands. More extensive monsoon failures were common around the world, affecting in particular China, the Philippines and the Indian Subcontinent.

      The Wisconsin analysis questions whether a return to these climate conditions could support a population that has grown….

      On the other hand it is well know that the Holocene Climate Optimum had a winter warming of 3–9°C and a summer warming of 2–6°C in the N. H. compared to the modern period and humans thrived. (The tilt of the Earth was at a maximum at the time of the Holocene Optimum meaning more direct sunlight at high latitudes combined with extended summers.)

      So why ever would anyone in his right mind say he wanted a COOLER Climate. Unless of course he was a paid troll.

    • Scott says:

      Man Joel, 115% higher, that’s a lot. Thanks for pointing it out. Can you go over to Neven’s blog and point out that this year’s PIOMAS minimum was >10x (>900%) higher than many of them were projecting just a few years ago? We’d appreciate that. Their value was ~4 sigma off, so it’s not just something that can swallowed by an uncertainty argument. Obviously, their assumptions in their projections/models were wrong because it’s not like it was some sort of math error. All with a 2013-2014 winter that wasn’t good for ice and a 2014 weather pattern that sure appeared to be bad for ice, but the melt/loss just didn’t happen.


    • Jo says:

      “The longer record makes it clear what general trend is…” But it doesn’t make clear what the cause is, which is whole point of the game, correct? If you’re right, you’re still only halfway there, as then you’d have to prove that the cause of such trend is mostly CO2 from humans. Good luck.

  11. ossqss says:

    One wonders what the deep water brine currents have been doing from all this ice formation ?

  12. Greg Bacon says:

    You say it’s increasing, another says it’s dropping..

    Because ice extent falls through the first part of September and rises in the latter part, statistics on the average daily rate of ice loss or gain through the month are largely meaningless. More relevant is the total ice loss through the melt season. Between the seasonal maximum extent that occurred on March 21, 2014 and the September 17 minimum, the Arctic Ocean lost a total of 9.89 million square kilometers (3.82 million square miles) of ice, which is the 9th largest in the satellite record, but the least amount of seasonal loss since 2006. This year’s loss was 1.92 million square kilometers 741,000 square miles) less than the total loss that occurred in 2012.

    Sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean melted to its sixth lowest extent this year, while sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent continued to break winter records, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

    And the Antarctica is increasing while the Arctic is decreasing?

    Mother Nature likes to play jokes.

  13. Chubster says:

    The good news in this rather lengthy AGW “Working Hypothesis”, is that this is the final and everlasting inter-glacial period, so we can now shed our winter gear 😉

  14. Brad says:

    There is an excellent link to a video at the bottom. Nimbus may change the way some folks think of sea ice. Or maybe not.

    • Scott says:

      I’d say “or maybe not”. With 1964 having the highest Antarctic ice extent measured (until this year) and 1966 having (by far) the smallest maximum Antarctic ice extent measured, they’re still claiming the sea ice extents were rock stable in the past and that Antarctica’s recent growth is due to AGW.


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