37% Growth In Arctic Sea Ice Since 2012

ScreenHunter_10539 Sep. 30 02.52

Green shows the increase in sea ice since 2012. The Pope’s climate adviser says that the Arctic has been ice-free since 2013.


BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’


About stevengoddard

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

31 Responses to 37% Growth In Arctic Sea Ice Since 2012

  1. You quote the Biased Broadcasting Company …

  2. rah says:

    Basically Bull Crap! Is what I call it. It is so sad really. During WW II BBC Radio was universally praised among the soldiers of the Allies for it’s factual and honest reporting even when things were going badly for the war effort. From the many contemporaneous accounts it is apparent most of the allied troops, including the million of American troops exposed to it, thought it had the most accurate Newscasts in the world.

    • bit chilly says:

      it is indeed sad. they have gone from being the prime source of factual information around the world to a left wing advocacy group.

      • Marsh says:

        The honest, BBC employees of WWII, are now long dead ; along with their integrity.
        This level of propaganda today, was originally attributed to Nazi Germany of WWII.
        Just what were we fighting for again ?

  3. gator69 says:

    Holy See ice, it’s a popesickle!

    • Gail Combs says:


      Here is another good one.

      … A record setting area of cold water was found in the North Atlantic, which has caused some scientists to ring the alarms…..

      The energy output of the sun is in crash mode; historically this 300-year cycle has marked the rise and fall of empires. With the invasion of people from the Middle East into Europe, there is no housing. They have filled up stadiums and most are living in tents. The winter will be very cold and many may die from exposure. Migration patterns should be south, not north. This is a serious problem from a historical perspective. This is also why we are moving our offices south. If not, the computer may leave on its own.….

      His AOUT page is also rather interesting.

      ….When his history teacher showed an old black & white film, The Toast of New York, starting Edward Arnold and Cary Grant, which portrayed the gold manipulation of Jim Fisk that resulted in the Panic of 1869, his perception of the world was changed forever. This was the Panic when the term “Black Friday” was coined because the mob stormed Wall Street and was dragging the bankers from their offices and hanging them. The riot prompted troops to be sent in to restore peace. A scene in this movie showed Cary Grant reading the prices of gold from the tickertape as it hit $162 in 1869. Since gold was $35 in the 1960s, there was clearly something wrong with the whole linear thought process of economic history. Armstrong became captivated by this shocking revelation that there were not just booms and busts, but also peaks and valleys that would last centuries…..

      A bit more history on the various attacks on banksters by the same guy

      I don’t recall ever seeing that in history books, at least not the info about hanging the Wall Street Banksters.
      WIKI has nothing and this is what I found:
      Some threatened to hang bankers who wouldn’t pay out. The President realizing the serious nature of what was transpiring ordered his Treasury Secretary to announce that gold from the reserves would be sold into the market. (Looks like the same source, Armstrong)

      and this: http://seekingalpha.com/article/176286-bankers-arm-themselves-prepare-for-populace-retribution

      Seems even our recent history is being changed.

        • gator69 says:

          Howard Zinn? The lying marxist POS that even leftists now decry?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Thanks Gator, I never heard of him. However as we all know rewriting history IS used as a weapon by the Progressives.

          The 1970s Ice Age scare is a prime example.

      • Beale says:

        There was a Black Friday, but no source that I find remotely credible mentions bankers being lynched, which could not have escaped the notice of historians. Also this Armstrong didn’t do the research. In that period, to say that gold was at 162 meant that it took that many paper dollars to buy 100 gold dollars; naturally, during the Civil War, gold was often a good deal higher than that. I don’t know exactly what the gold price as so defined is now: more than 5000 anyway.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Thanks Beale, I was wondering about that. I saw that there were threats of lynchings but nothing except Armstrong’s word about actual lynchings.

          The nice thing about this website is if you fly a bad piece of info it gets shot down pretty quick with facts attached.

  4. Keto says:

    According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the Arctic minimum for 2012 occurred on 9/17/15 and was 339 million square kilometers. The minimum for this year occurred on 9/11/15 and was 441 million square kilometers. That is an increase of 30.1%. Not 37%, but still pretty good!

    • Keto says:

      According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the Arctic minimum for 2012 occurred on 9/17/12 and was 339 million square kilometers. The minimum for this year occurred on 9/11/15 and was 441 million square kilometers. That is an increase of 30.1%. Not 37%, but still pretty good!

    • Keto says:

      Opps! I meant 9/17/12 not 9/17/15 for Arctic Ice min in 2012….

  5. OrganicFool says:

    “Study raises doubt about viability of Northwest Passage as shipping route
    Thick ice means commercial shipping still decades off, researchers say.

    “It would take 30, or even 50 years, before the ice becomes weaker, he said. “It’s really thick in the winter and there is a chance that during individual summers, it can survive and stay thick. If we have a cooler summer, like we had in 2014 and 2013, there would be significantly thick ice surviving.”


  6. rah says:

    One thing about it. Been a few days since any of the Arctic is melting away types have shown their faces here to argue about it or dispute something that has been posted here on it.

  7. mogur2013 says:

    Hey, rah. You think that lack of argument is victory? Really? Lack of argument means that you are on your own, not that you are right.

    The ‘arctic has recovered’ types are you. And you are wrong.

    The arctic just had a really low summer extent. You want to quantify that? I don’t care. You and ‘Steven Goddard’ (how cute is that?, wanting to be credited with those that he now trashes). Tony is a Heller. He wants you to believe that the arctic is fine. It has recovered. He, of course, is absolutely wrong.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Again, your display your utter and complete IGNORANCE in every word you type.

      Current Arctic sea ice levels are ANOMALOUSLY HIGH compared to all but the last few hundred years of the Holocene.

      The reason they are so high is because we have just finished climbing out of the coldest period in the last 10,000 years.

      The reason why MORONS like you want to take 1979 as a reference starting point is because it was a peak in the already huge extent of summer sea ice, due to the cool phase of the AMO.

      Those are the FACTS, that you either don’t have the intelligence to understand,

      or are WILLFULLY LYING about.

      DECEITFUL LIES and IGNORANCE…….. Its all you have.

      • mogur2013 says:

        rah, take your tinfoil hat off. Sea ice observations from passive microwave sensors began in 1972 with the Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR) aboard NOAA’s Nimbus-5 satellite. In 1978, NASA’s Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) provided detailed, reliable information about sea ice. In 1987, a series of DMSP Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) sensors continued the time series, or long-term record, of sea ice data through present. In 2002, NASA launched the Aqua satellite, which carried the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer-Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) sensor. The system’s improved technology complemented the time series of sea ice data. ESMR, SMMR, SSM/I, and AMSR-E sea ice data are all available from NSID.

        The reason most scientists limit themselves to the post 1978 data is that it is the most consistent and reliable. Many climate scientists have reconstructed pre-satellite arctic sea ice data, and there is no 1979 maximum that Tony Heller screams about. He simply cannot paste a pre-1979 anomoly graph from the first IPCC report onto a modern anomoly graph without regard to the baseline of the two anomoly graphs. And circling two peak anomolies to claim that the arctic gained two million km^2 between 1974 and 1979 is just inane. He would be laughed out of any climate science seminar. When you look at the actual data that NSID and other groups provide, you will see that the summer minimum in 1974 is virtually identical to the summer minimum of 1979. The anomalies happened because 1974 had a relative low winter maximum, while 1979 had a rather high winter max.

        Look how difficult it is to use pre-1972 satellite data- http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22271972
        Notice how it is the disparaged ‘scientists’ that are doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to pre-satellite data- http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/star/documents/meetings/Ice2013/dayTwo/Walsh_Wed.pdf

        Where is Tony Heller’s pre-satellite references? A bunch of newspaper clippings from Samoa in 1927?


        • AndyG55 says:

          So you immediately use the post 1970 data, the last 30 or so years of the cycle.

          DOH !

          Ignore the fact that the ONLY reason the Arctic sea ice level is so high is because we are still only just above the coldest period of the whole last 10,000 years.

          It is only though that base-level ignorance that these childish scares have any worth what-so-ever.

        • rah says:

          I don’t need to “qualify” anything! The ICE up there has done that for me. It never approached 2012 low level this summer and remains withing 2 standard deviations of the rather high mean established during 1979.

          . In short THERE IS NO DEATH SPIRAL as predicted and there is no evidence that there will be one! We who watch but do not predict the end of ice have seen. The claim of the DEATH SPIRAL was unadulterated Bull Shit! All the words in the world can’t change the FACT that what the alarmists claimed would happen has not happened and there is absolutely no evidence that it is about to happen anytime in the foreseeable future.

          Game- Set- Match.

          Further. The very fact that you and so many others have put so much stock in a body of ice that floats in an ocean who’s coverage and concentration can be changed very quickly by factors having NOTHING directly to do with either the temperature of the water or air is HILARIOUS! Storms, winds, waves and currents effect sea ice greatly. But to hear you clowns one would think they are non factors and that is what really first clued me in to just how dishonest or ignorant people like you are!

  8. mogur2013 says:

    No, Andy, I did not immediately use the post 1970 data. Most of my posted links refer back to 1870 or so. 1970 was 45 years ago, not 30.

    Droll, rah, very droll. I am a dishonest and ignorant person who you just scored a ‘Game- Set- Match’ against by claiming that I am wrong as a DEATH SPIRAL predictor. Why you are yelling, and why you think I am a chicken little is as obscure as why you think that two standard deviations below the norm is standard operating procedure. I told you to take the tinfoil hat off, not everyone who disagrees with your world view is out to hamstring the world economy.

    • AndyG55 says:

      YAWN.. another empty, meaningless rant from the low-end git.

    • rah says:

      Didn’t dispute a single thing I said. That says it all.

      • mogur2013 says:

        “One thing about it. Been a few days since any of the Arctic is melting away types have shown their faces here to argue about it or dispute something that has been posted here on it.”

        The fact that I answered is your refutation. Are you simple minded?

    • AndyG55 says:

      “I am a dishonest and ignorant person”

      Yes.. the mirror has revealed your inner self to you… at last !!

    • Gail Combs says:

      95% of the values fall within 2 standard deviations of either side of the mean. For a result NOT to be considered part of the random distribution it must fall outside the expected results generally 3.0 standard deviations or 99.7%.

      In other words there is nothing unusual going on especially since 2015 is not as low as 2012.

      • AndyG55 says:

        In engineering we tend to consider that it should fall outside two sd’s before it can be considered to be significantly different from random chance. Seems there is a discrepancy somewhere.

        • Gail Combs says:

          If it falls outside of two sd’s I would certainly question it and watch closely to see if there is a pattern. (We did continuous process when I plotted Shewhart charts.) If it falls outside of three sd’s it is pretty much a slam dunk the data belongs to another ‘population’

          …The upper and lower control limits, labeled UCL and LCL, respectively, indicate the range of variation to be expected in the summary statistic when the process is in statistical control. The control limits are commonly computed as 3σ limits representing three standard errors of variation in the summary statistic above and below the central line…..

          The control limits are also determined by the subgroup sample size because the standard error of the summary statistic is a function of sample size. If the sample size is constant across subgroups, the control limits are typically horizontal lines, as in Figure 13.1. However, if the sample size varies from subgroup to subgroup, the limits are usually adjusted to compensate for the effect of sample size, resulting in step-like boundaries.

          Control limits can be estimated from the data being analyzed, or they can be standard, previously determined values. Estimated limits are often used when statistical control is being established, and standard limits are often used when statistical control is being maintained….

          A point outside the control limits signals the presence of a special cause of variation. Additionally, tests for special causes (also referred to as Western Electric rules and runs tests) can signal an out-of-control condition if a statistically unusual pattern of points is observed in the control chart. For example, one pattern used to diagnose the existence of a trend is seven consecutive steadily increasing points.

          When the process is in statistical control, a point may fall outside the control limits purely by chance, resulting in a false out-of-control signal. However, when the Shewhart chart correctly signals the presence of a special cause, additional action is needed to determine the nature of the problem and eliminate it.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s