Record Arctic Ice Growth Continues

Arctic sea ice continues its record growth this autumn, having gained four million km² since September 1 after the shortest melt season on record.

2015-11-07-03-21-22

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Land ice has also grown at a record rate since September 1, with Greenland gaining about three billion tons of ice a day since September 1.

2015-11-07-03-22-15

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI 

Meanwhile, climate scientists demand racketeering money, as they continue to lie about the condition of the Arctic and man’s ability to influence it.

2015-11-07-03-31-33

Arctic ice melting faster and earlier as scientists demand action | Environment | The Guardian

2015-11-07-03-43-54 Greenland Is Melting Away – The New York Times

About stevengoddard

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

103 Responses to Record Arctic Ice Growth Continues

  1. QV says:

    It’s ironic that probably the only people HOPING for lower ice this year will be Paris climate conference delegates.

    • Yes, they want it really bad because they say it’s really bad.

      There are also people who worry about growing ice and wish the alarmist liars were right. The world population wouldn’t do well during reglaciation.

      • menicholas says:

        You got that right, CW.
        Count me in that group.
        Compared to failed crops, I see shrinking polar wastelands as a good thing.
        Melting ice is no catastrophe.
        The thing is, for realists, the truth must be known, in order to plan and adopt strategies for successful adaptation to whatever the future holds.
        Perpetuating lies is a problem for people who wish to actually plan for the future.

  2. AndyG55 says:

    The AMO has turned.

    As it is a major driver of Arctic sea ice, we will see a gradual increase of Arctic sea ice levels over the next 20 or so years.

    That is why they are so, so, so DESPERATE to get some totalitarian control mechanism in place at the Paris climate soirée.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Bit Chilly over at Jo Nova said

      …this summers north sea surface temperature peaked 6c lower than last year. amo going cold rather quickly.

      Anyone have any hard data to back that up?

      • Martin Smith says:

        Surprised you haven’t seen it, Gail. The North Atlantic blob has raised a lot of discussion. How could you miss it all? You won’t like the current explanation.

        • menicholas says:

          So Martin, you admit that you “like” your alarmist predictions!
          Accidental I am sure, but your slip is obvious to anyone who knows how to think.
          Realists do not like or dislike what the data shows…we just want the truth to be known, and despise the lying BS of the thoroughly detestable scaremongering alarmists.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Martin I am well aware of the “blob’ shown by the maps I also live on the east coast where it has been DARN COLD despite that ‘blob’ — so WUWT?

          Also North Sea =/= North Atlantic and certainly not the ocean along the north American shore.

          On the left is the UK
          rest of the countries are labeled in this map:
          http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/northsea.htm

      • bit chilly says:

        i need to go and correct that gail, i misread the chart here. http://project.ncof.co.uk/B4G/indicator.php?indicator=sst&tseries=long it was 3 c . i have been trying to get a time series of the last few years for the north east atlantic as a whole as this year has seen several large areas with drops of up to 7c .

  3. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, you are still using the wrong graph. By now you know that the wrong graph is deceptive. This is the correct graph.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Steven is using the correct graph. The same one he has always used.

      • AndyG55 says:

        What don’t you understand about this one… REAL DATA is hard for you, isn’t it !🙂

        • Martin Smith says:

          Andy, this is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
          It explains why the graph Steven used is wrong. It shows that the sea ice extent is more than 1 standard deviation below normal.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Who says its the correct graph.. you ?

          Your opinion is irrelevant to any logical discussion.

          The graph SG is using is the same graph he has always used.

        • Martin Smith says:

          The Danish Meteorological Institute says this is the correct graph and the one Steven doctored and then posted is incorrect. The Danish Meteorological Institute says so: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

        • AndyG55 says:

          Please quote where DMI say SG’s graph is not the one he should use.

          Its the one he has been using for several years.

          Sorry if the REAL DATA is inconvenient for you again.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Read the comment at the bottom of the correct graph. Then follow the link to the graph Steven used, and read the comment at the bottom of that graph, which Steven removed.

          Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php It shows the Arctic sea ice extent is more than 1 standard deviation below the norm, disproving Steven’s Blog post title claim.

        • menicholas says:

          The graph is not doctored , and sane people do not want to hear any more of the switcheroo misdirection nonsense that warmistas constantly push: “Look over here, not over there. Nothing to see over there!”
          Yeah, right.

          Whether it is graphs of ice extent that then must be switched for ice volume graphs, or phony adjusted historical data, or whatever…the list is long and growing… the endless moving targets of alarmist jackassery is way past wearisome, way past laughable…it is far into the realm of the ludicrous.
          The posted graph is the using the data that alarmists have used for the past ten years to try and keep CAGW scaremongering alive after the pause became undeniable (To anyone with a brain cell, anyways) and some other fake BS needed to be dreamt up.
          Next up, will it be sea level which begins to rise instead of fall, or cooling which is so dramatic it cannot be adjusted away with a wave of a mouse pad?
          Whatever happens next, one thing we can be fairly certain of is that alarmists like you, Martin, will be completely wrong, as always.
          How does it feel to bat .000 over DECADES of failed predictions?

      • Frank K. says:

        Why is it wrong? As long as you use a consistent metric, the illustration is valid. The particular metric sited by Steve goes back to 2005. Your does not.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Oh, come on. If you use the link to the graph Steven used, instead of the doctored copy he posted, you will see that it contains an explanation of why the graph is wrong and where to find the correct graph. Here it is: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

        • AndyG55 says:

          Martin thinks its wrong.. So what.
          Immaterial and irrelevant.

        • Martin Smith says:

          The Danish Meteorological Institute also thinks it is wrong. Read what they wrote: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

        • rah says:

          Martin Smith says:
          November 7, 2015 at 1:36 pm

          Oh, come on. If you use the link to the graph Steven used, instead of the doctored copy he posted, you will see that it contains an explanation of why the graph is wrong and where to find the correct graph. Here it is: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
          ———————————————————————————————————–
          Quote where the DMi says “the graph is wrong”?

        • Martin Smith says:

          Read the note at the bottom, rah, and don’t play semantics with me.

        • Martin Smith says:

          It’s not a consistent metric, according to the Danish Meteorological Institute.

        • AndyG55 says:

          It is a consistent metric.. It the one SG has used all along.

          And it shows that the current Arctic sea ice level is above all years back to 2005, when measured using the same consistent metric,

          That is what the data shows.. get over it. (I know you hate REAL DATA)

        • rah says:

          Martin Smith says:
          November 7, 2015 at 1:46 pm

          Read the note at the bottom, rah, and don’t play semantics with me.
          ————————
          I’m not “playing” anything with you Martin. Your the one that is pumping out missinformattion here. DMi doesn’t say anywhere that the graph it continues to update DAILY is “wrong” or not accurate. It does say:
          “The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed here for a while.”

          IOW the graph is not “wrong”. If it were DMi would not continue to update it! Your insistence that Steven MUST change and use the other graph the DMi is publishing because the older version is “wrong” is just plain incorrect. Steven has consistently used the graph he copies and pastes here for years so it provides a consistent history.

          You wanna get on peoples bad side just come to a blog and demand the author that he MUST do this or that or the other on his own forum. Wanna get even further on the bad side, misrepresent the reason why. You have done both!

        • menicholas says:

          “The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated.”
          Exactly Rah!
          Just read the text quoted above and think about what it is saying.
          Translation:
          “For years we have been underestimating ice, using a method that made it appear worse than it was, but now that method no longer makes it appear as bad as we want things to appear…so we invented a new graph to make it appear worse than our old method.”

          And Martin, your continued use of the word “normal” to refer to the average of the given period is disingenuous to the extreme, and that is putting it politely.
          In fact it is a misrepresentation of the known cyclical nature of Arctic seas ice extent and volume!
          There is no “normal” level!
          What is normal is constant variation, as the ice waxes and wanes over cycles with various periodicities, the most prominent of which seems to be the approximate 60 year one which is so well documented in historical accounts.

          There are two possible reasons for your apparent ignorance, Martin: Either you are truly oblivious to Earth history, and in particular the past cycles of Arctic ice, or you are purposely lying.
          Which is it?
          What are you?
          Liar or fool?

      • AndyG55 says:

        You don’t understand the effects of the AMO either, do you.?

        And why NH ice levels will now start climbing from the bottom of the cycle.

        In fact, the average yearly Arctic sea ice has been climbing for the last few years.

        You won’t read that on any alarmista sites though.

        • Martin Smith says:

          The AMO is not part of this discussion. Arctic sea ice extent is way below normal, more than 1 standard deviation from the mean. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

        • Martin Smith says:

          Sorry. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

        • Hey Martin Bullsmith,

          Why the Arctic sea ice? Why not the Antarctic? Why not global sea ice (stable) or global land ice (stable). If you are any sort of scientist you’d have an answer.

        • Martin Smith says:

          I do have an answer. The answer is: We are discussing Arctic sea ice extent, because Steven Goddard wrote a blog post about it, falsely claiming it is growing and using a doctored, incorrect graph in his attempt to prove it.

        • AndyG55 says:

          No Arctic sea ice is way ABOVE normal for the current interglacial.

          For the first 3/4 of the Holocene, zero sea ice was the norm.

          If you want to cherry pick a small period based on the coldest period in the last half century, starting at the base of the AMO.. then you are obviously basing your comments on GROSS IGNORANCE and propaganda… yet again.

        • Martin Smith says:

          That’s irrelevant, Andy. The trend is down, steeply so, and AGW is the cause.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “The AMO is not part of this discussion”

          The AMO is very much part of the discussion, because it explains why 1979 had a lot of Arctic sea ice (your chosen reference point of course) and explains why Arctic sea ice is now starting to build up again.

        • Martin Smith says:

          No it isn’t, Andy. This discussion is about Steven’s claim that Arctic sea ice is growing. It’s not. Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php It shows the Arctic sea ice extent is more than 1 standard deviation below the norm, disproving Steven’s Blog post title claim.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The trend has started to reverse, and its has all been to do with the AMO.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Nope. The trend has not started to reverse, ad there is no forcing that could cause such a reversal.

          Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php It shows the Arctic sea ice extent is more than 1 standard deviation below the norm, disproving Steven’s Blog post title claim.

        • Bob123 says:

          People like Martin will continue to latch onto one single data point thinking it proves thie case. When you point out contrary evidence they charge that you are going off topic. It’s like arguing with a 6 year old.

          Martin does not seem to understand that using the same metric that he always has, SG has shown a significant increase. Martin will try any redirection he can to detract from that inconvenient truth.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Your description fits you to a T, Bob.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “That’s irrelevant, Andy.”

          Love the way you again TOTALLY IGNORE reality.

          During the first 3/4 of the Holocene the Arctic was often ice free in summer (proven by biomarkers) We have in fact only just finished climbing out of the COLDEST period in the whole of the last 10,00 years.

          Its a pity you don’t have more understand of all this stuff, and the AMO etc.. because you really are coming across more and more as a brain-washed ignorant drone with NOTHING to back up any of your claims.

        • Martin Smith says:

          It’s irrelevant to this discussion, andy, which is about the misleading graph Steven used, and how he made it even more misleading. Deliberately.

          Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php It shows the Arctic sea ice extent is more than 1 standard deviation below the norm, disproving Steven’s Blog post title claim.

        • darwin says:

          “Nope. The trend has not started to reverse, ad there is no forcing that could cause such a reversal”.

          Martin look at the date on the graph.

        • Martin Smith says:

          The date on which graph?

        • AndyG55 says:

          The trend has started to reverse.

          Remain ignorant.. it suits you.

          Your so-called “mean” is based on a pitifully small period that just happens to coincide with the dip in the AMO.

          But that is what alarmists have to do to fabricate any alarm. Cherry-pick the colder period to show warming.

        • Martin Smith says:

          You can’t determine that a long term trend with lots of noise in it is reversing by looking at one or two years. You can’t do that. The trend i not reversing. Besides, there is no cause that can reverse it at the moment.

        • darwin says:

          Never mind, read it wrong

        • AndyG55 says:

          SG is not using a misleading graph. He is using the same graph he has always used.

          You just don’t like the REAL DATA it is showing.

        • Martin Smith says:

          It’s the wrong graph, Andy. Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php It shows the Arctic sea ice extent is more than 1 standard deviation below the norm, disproving Steven’s Blog post title claim.

        • gator69 says:

          From your much ballyhooed link…

          The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed here for a while.

          They only say that they are replacing the old (inconvenient) graph with a new (cherry picked) graph, and do not say that the old graph is “wrong”. They claim the old graph “implied” previous estimates were underestimated. You do understand that these measurements are based upon models, right? And just what is an “absolute estimate”?😆

        • AndyG55 says:

          SG has NOT used the wrong graph.. he has used the same graph he always uses.

          He has NOT doctored the graph.

          The one he is using is FAR more relevant because it shows that the Arctic sea ice level is NOW ABOVE ALL YEARS BACK TO 2005. (measured using the same system)

          I know you can’t abide REAL DATA…. but the data is what it is, and you are not in a position to change it. Bad luck.

          Also, the mean is meaningless because it is based on a very small period at the very bottom of the AMO cycle.

          That cycle has now turned, and the Arctic sea ice is starting to respond accordingly.

        • menicholas says:

          “Nope. The trend has not started to reverse, ad there is no forcing that could cause such a reversal” (sic)

          Well, there it is.
          You are on record Martin, as claiming it is impossible for Arctic ice to reverse trend and grow.
          This is plainly wrong, as anyone who chooses to subscribe to evidence and observation based science can plainly see.
          You alarmist nonsense is really over the top Martin.

          You are on record here, a permanent record as it turns out, as a science denier.
          Funny,. is it not, how nearly every single utterance of alarmist turns out to be a clear case of psychological projection, as they try to foist there own mental defects onto others?
          It must be the cognitive dissonance of insisting on continuing to believe an obvious lie.
          I am guessing I am not the only one here who feels actual pity for you, sir.

        • catweazle666 says:

          Please do not feed the troll!

          I know it’s tempting, but you must R E S I S T !

        • bit chilly says:

          oh look, we gotta live one here. there is nothing wrong with the 30% extent graph and well you know it martin. i have been in contact with dmi on a few occasions this year and they say they will maintain both the 30% and 15% charts as long as the funding is there to do so.
          it was the original metric used by most people ,so is actually more relevant than the recent use of 15% .

    • I am using the best Arctic sea ice graph available, and your idiotic comments are … idiotic..

    • Martin Smith says:

      Irrelevant, Morgan. Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php It shows the Arctic sea ice extent is more than 1 standard deviation below the norm, disproving Steven’s Blog post title claim.

      • AndyG55 says:

        SG has NOT used the wrong graph.. he has used the same graph he always uses.

        He has NOT doctored the graph.

        The one he is using is FAR more relevant because it shows that the Arctic sea ice level is NOW ABOVE ALL YEARS BACK TO 2005. (measured using the same system)

        I know you can’t abide REAL DATA…. but the data is what it is, and you are not in a position to change it. Bad luck.

        Also, the mean is meaningless because it is based on a very small period at the very bottom of the AMO cycle.

        That cycle has now turned, and the Arctic sea ice is starting to respond accordingly.

      • catweazle666 says:

        “Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it”

        Bollox.

        Stop making stuff up.

        • gator69 says:

          catweazle666 says:
          November 7, 2015 at 4:52 pm

          Please do not feed the troll!

          I know it’s tempting, but you must R E S I S T !

          That didn’t last long!😆

        • Gail Combs says:

          But Catweazle, it is so much fun to play wack-a-mole with trols although not very sporting when the mole is mentally unarmed.

      • Martin is a liar. I will block him soon if he keeps this up.

        • bit chilly says:

          better than that tony, post his ip addy up, looks like auk based name, if nearby i will go and knock on his door and see how smart he is face to face. i am getting sick to the back teeth of these cretins.

          i live fairly near another cretin, “and then there’s physics” . i long for the day i bump into him, i really do🙂

  4. Martin, send somebody else from Obama’s Department of Climate Propaganda, you aren’t doing well here.

    • Martin Smith says:

      I’m not an Obama fan, Morgan. Didn’t vote for him last time. Steven used the wrong graph, and he doctored it. This is the correct graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php It shows the Arctic sea ice extent is more than 1 standard deviation below the norm, disproving Steven’s Blog post title claim.

      • AndyG55 says:

        SG has NOT used the wrong graph.. he has used the same graph he always uses.

        He has NOT doctored the graph.

        The one he is using is FAR more relevant because it shows that the Arctic sea ice level is NOW ABOVE ALL YEARS BACK TO 2005. (measured using the same system)

        I know you can’t abide REAL DATA…. but the data is what it is, and you are not in a position to change it. Bad luck.

        Also, the mean is meaningless because it is based on a very small period at the very bottom of the AMO cycle.

        That cycle has now turned, and the Arctic sea ice is starting to respond accordingly.

      • menicholas says:

        Evidently Martin subscribes to the belief that repeating a lie over and over again will cause it to morph into truth.
        This may work on the ignorant and the weak-minded, but not on people who pay attention and have actual knowledge of the subject matter at hand.
        You make yourself look quite ridiculous Martin.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Steven says that ice has grown by four million km^2 since Sept 1st, setting a growth record. You say that is wrong because ice area is more than one SD below normal. You must realize that the two statements are not mutually exclusive. One does not disprove the other.

  5. eliza says:

    Actually to please MS why don’t we show him a 100% warmista site that has to show the real picture for both poles cryosphere today. NH hasn’t changed for 4 years and SH has been consistently way way above for 4 years. The NH data I believe has been fiddled because they change the boundaries of each section. They cant do that for SH ice its one whole area. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
    of course what MS is avoiding is the fact that NH is still 1sd below for whatever average they fiddled but its still highest for the last 12 years and of course Greenland is really increasing dramatically.

  6. eliza says:

    And of course Pole ice has probably no correlation whatsoever with global temps and has never had. Its more like AMO PDO and continental shift *ie snowball earth

  7. eliza says:

    BTw this is a genuine graph from DMI its NOT doctored you must be really very very young or mentally problematic LOL
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php READ READ LOOK LOOK

    • Martin Smith says:

      Steven doctored it by removing the qualifying comment at the bottom, written by DMI, explaining why the the graph should not be used and linking to the graph that should be used.

      • AndyG55 says:

        SG has NOT used the wrong graph.. he has used the same graph he always uses.

        He has NOT doctored the graph.

        The one he is using is FAR more relevant because it shows that the Arctic sea ice level is NOW ABOVE ALL YEARS BACK TO 2005. (measured using the same system)

        I know you can’t abide REAL DATA…. but the data is what it is, and you are not in a position to change it. Bad luck.

        Also, the mean is meaningless because it is based on a very small period at the very bottom of the AMO cycle.

        That cycle has now turned, and the Arctic sea ice is starting to respond accordingly.

      • menicholas says:

        Martin Smith. you are a tiresome and discredited troll.
        Your insistence that sane people must subscribe to alarmist doublespeak and misdirection is ludicrous and silly.
        Why do you not make a decision to be on the side of those who use information to become educated to actual truth, instead of one who latches onto a lie and then goes down with that ship of fools?

      • Anthony S says:

        That statement is not part of the chart. No doctoring.

      • rah says:

        BS! He provided the link for anyone to go see that statement that IS NOT PART OF THE GRAPH. Again, DMi still updates that graph daily! What does that tell you Martin?

      • bit chilly says:

        dmi statement “Please notice, that the sea ice extent in this plot is calculated with the coastal zones masked out. To see the absolute extent, go to this page. ”

        the map with coastal zones masked out is actually more accurate as there is less ambiguity involved in discerning what is and is not ice.

  8. gator69 says:

    We have focus on future climate projections as a consequence of the anthropogenic greenhouse emissions…

    Funding: EU-FP7 programme.

    http://research.dmi.dk/research/research-topics/climate/

    “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”
    -Abraham Maslow, “The Psychology of Science”

  9. Martin Smith says:

    Well, once again, we are repeating ourselves, so let’s end this. Move on.

    • AndyG55 says:

      When you have nothing to offer by way of real data….. yes, move on.

    • AndyG55 says:

      ps.. you do realise that SG’s graph actually UNDER-ESTIMATES the real amount of sea ice, don’t you 🙂

      So funny.. :-

      How many feet can you fit in your mouth at one time, bozo !!

    • menicholas says:

      “Well, once again, we are repeating ourselves, so let’s end this.”

      You are the one who can only lie, and choose to repeat yourself over and over again.
      I for one can post a nearly limitless litany of separate and valid criticisms of your alarmist meme.
      There are so many holes in the sieve of CAGW alarmism, it is easy to find new ways to discredit it.
      The truth is akin to a monolithic wall, but the scaremongering memes of warmistas is a flimsy spider-web of hooey and bunkum.

      “Move on.”

      He who pays the piper calls the tune.
      This is not your show dude, and no one is obligated to pay one whit of attention to anything you say.

  10. eliza says:

    Its 30% ice not 15% the graph you refer too. In fact its more accurate as it shows 30% thick ice you silly dolt LOL

  11. Gail Combs says:

    Martin Smith says:

    That’s irrelevant, Andy. The trend is down, steeply so, and AGW is the cause.

    And that statement is just refried BS. Even NASA said so.

    2007: Arctic Sea ice loss – “it’s the wind” says NASA

    2012: NASA finally admits it Arctic cyclone in August ‘broke up’ and ‘wreaked havoc’ on sea ice — Reuters reports Arctic storm played ‘key role’ in this season’s sea ice reduction.

    As Stephen has been showing the Arctic seaice has been recovering since these storms blew the ice out into the warm North Atlantic.

    Once the NAO turns the Arctic will have gains in ice.

  12. lectrikdog says:

    67,796.6 Manhattans!

  13. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    If you didn’t believe in the climate scam, you should understand how it operates now…

    In-your-face lies from activist scientists and their environmental extremist media outlets.

    And yet another clear example of why activist media outlets like The Guardian and The New York Times are the last places on earth to read the truth on ‘global warming’.

  14. OrganicFool says:

    I think UK and Europe are expected to be below normal cold this year? I’ve heard about certain birds migrating South much sooner than other years, indicators of a colder winter coming.

    How do warmistas expect to heat their homes this winter? With warm wishes and delusions of warming? Why don’t they show us all how it’s done and turn off their furnaces?

    • Gail Combs says:

      That was the Siberian swans who leave just ahead of the bad weather. They arrived 25 days early

      Britain faces longest winter in 50 years after earliest ever arrival of Siberian swan. The arrival of winter, traditionally heralded by the migration of Siberian swans, has come early as 300 birds flock to Britain

      The arrival of winter, traditionally heralded by the migration of Siberian swans, has come early as 300 birds flock to Britain
      Britain is facing its longest winter in 50 years after the earliest-ever arrival of a Siberian swan which traditionally heralds the start of the season.

      Each year around 300 Bewick’s swans migrate 2,500 miles from Arctic Russia to escape the approaching cold weather which follows closely behind them.

      They flock to the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust reserve at Slimbridge, Glos, where their arrival has been recorded since 1963.

      The first bird arrived on Sunday – a full 25 days earlier than last year and the earliest date on record.

      It coincided with the first frosts of the autumn in the area and experts say its early return could be a sign of a long, hard winter ahead.

      The premature arrival of winter in many European countries has encouraged Bewick’s swans to flock westwards earlier than usual.

      Temperatures are currently five to 10 degrees below average in parts of western Russia and eastern Europe and are expected to drop to the minus 30s….

  15. Oh how I love reading this blog on a cold Sunday morning. Thanks guys!

  16. rah says:

    Now Sunshine hours is graph is starting to agree with DMI. Significant climb in the last couple days:

    https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/arctic_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2015_day_311_1981-2010.png?w=1024&h=682

  17. This is getting tiring. I would ask mister warmunist how it was possible for submarines to surface at the north pole in 1958 and again in 1959, but it has been impossible for the last couple of years. Ice is growing, and the people who claim to care about the climate just pretend and try to lie the problem away, since their real concern is with their watermelon cause, not saving anything on this planet except themselves. Cold can be a real problem. Heat can’t. There are absolute limits on how hot it can get, and humans can survive it all. Crops grow fine at 50C. Not so much closer to 0.

  18. herddog505 says:

    I have to offer an objection to this post as it seems to me a blatant example of cherry-picking. Our own National Snow and Ice Data Center has data going back to 1979; their information shows that while (contrary to the gorebots) the Arctic isn’t on the cusp of being ice-free, ice there isn’t exactly booming, either: at present, it is just inside the bottom of the +/- 2s range based on 1981 – 2010 data. The data showed here only go back to ’05 and apparently shows coastal zones masked out. If one includes them, the picture is very different, much more in line with NSIDC.

    Or do I read the data wrong?

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 )

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