Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth Continues On Last Day Of COP21

On the last day of COP 21 in Paris, the Arctic is giving COP 21 criminals the finger with unprecedented fast ice growth,


Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Ice is growing very rapidly in the Barents and Kara Seas, and will likely be close to the NSIDC “normal” in a few weeks.

N_daily_extent (1)

N_daily_extent.png (420×500)

The green areas below show ice growth during the past two weeks.


Meanwhile, criminals at CNN claim that Greenland is melting down at -32C, and that they can see it happening from thousands of miles away.




Greenland’s surface has seen record ice gain this autumn of more than 250 billion tons of ice and snow – averaging three billion tons of new ice per day. CNN calls that “melting”


Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Temperatures at Greenland’s capital have been plummeting since 2003, and are the coldest since the Mt. Pinatubo cooled year of 1993.


Make no mistake about it, climate change is the biggest fraud in history. The climate criminals are lying every time they open their mouth.


About stevengoddard

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

79 Responses to Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth Continues On Last Day Of COP21

  1. oppti says:


    “The 1990 IPCC Assessment Report recognized the cyclic nature of the Arctic sea ice extent. Figure 7.20 of that report shows a minimum extent in 1974 and a maximum extent in 1979. All observations since then have been well within those two extremes”. – See more at:

  2. QV says:

    Don’t worry, nobody at COP 21 will hear about this.

  3. michaelspencer2 says:

    Global warming must have struck since I checked on Summit Station several hours ago. It was -41C then, and look! Disaster! It’s heated to -32C now!

    We’re all going to die ….. 😦

  4. cfgjd says:

    Even with high snow accumulation, Greenland is still losing mass as we speak thanks to calving. Here’s the most recent GRACE-estimate from Polar Portal:

    • AndyG55 says:

      Wow, even Grace has levelled off because of the AMO.

      That takes some doing !!

      remember that Grace said that Antarctic was loosing ice rapidly..

      Ouch! How did that turn out for them. 😉

    • AndyG55 says:

      Oh dear.. Poor Grace

      tell you want.. how about we use something consistent and meaningful, and without horrendous error margins..

    • rah says:

      You seem to imply that glacier calving is a manifestation of unnatural processes? Lets be clear that is not the case. There will be calving no matter if it is cold with heavy accumulation of ice or if it is warm with less accumulation. Actually the real manifestation of true long term warming would be less calving as the face of the glacier would retreat away from it’s sea interface in the case of glaciers with minimal slope incline at the coast. But according to DMI data plots over all Greenland is NOT losing ice mass over all and THAT is the point.

      I find it curious that even at DMI the statement made that “Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.” does not agree with their own plot of the data. And I wonder why that is?

      • cfgjd says:

        SMB = Surface Mass Balance so it does not include calving. GRACE sees the full picture as does altimetry and SAR-analysis together with SMB. Greenalnd is still losing mass folks.

    • DMI records show that it was just as warm in Greenland in the 1930’s and 40’s

      Which of course was the last time the AMO was positive

    • gator69 says:

      GRACE doesn’t measure ice, it measures gravity anomalies.

    • ”Even with high snow accumulation, Greenland is still losing mass as we speak thanks to calving.”

      Fox Butterfield, is that you? Dr. Butterfield, I presume.

    • dave1billion says:

      cfgd – Extrapolating from your chart:

      1. How long will it take Greenland to completely lose all of its ice mass if the trend continues linearly?
      2. What is the annual (or 100 year) contribution to sea level rise from this melting?

      Here’s a chance to prove to your critics that you have the chops to make an actual calculation rather than just copying and pasting other people’s work.

      • cfgjd says:

        Oh I should do the calculations instead of scientists? Nice disregard for quality-controlled science right there. Would you really rather trust a random dude on the internets instead of published research? If yes, you have a problem.

        • dave1billion says:

          I am an engineer. We can do math. My 10 year old daughter does math when she makes a double batch of cookies.

          Here’s the process. Interpret an annual loss from the chart. Divide the total mass of the Greenland Ice sheet by that projected loss.

          For sea level rise, convert interpreted loss from above from mass to volume (no need to complicate the calculation by figuring a density difference between ice and water) and then divide that volume by the surface area of all of the world’s oceans. That should give you a height for the sea level rise.

        • Our dog did the math when he could choose between two uneven bowls of food. The visitor’s dog was larger and we gave him a bigger pile but ours got there first. He showed an open “disregard for quality-controlled science”.

        • Ted says:

          Therein lies the problem. Cfgjd feels himself unworthy to do even the simplest calculations, if a more qualified person can be found. He feels that such matters should be handled by his betters. His mind can’t accept that he has no betters. Nor do I, nor does Dave, or Rah, or Gator, or anyone else. Whoever you are, no one has ever been better at being you than you are.. His is the perspective that comes from a hostility toward the idea of a higher power. If humanity is all that is, all that can be, then a person’s worth is determined by his value to humanity. Perversely, this rejection of a higher power leads directly to the elevation of mere mortals to that status. From this perspective, because Jim Hansen has been more consequential to humanity than I have, he must be existentially better than me. And because he’s better than me, his opinions are beyond both my comprehension, and my criticism. Totally lost in this mindset is the fact that some truths are absolute. 2+2=4, whether that’s said by a dullard or a genius. If Isaac Newton had said that 2+2=5, and Alert Einstein and Steven Hawking had agreed with him, they still wouldn’t be correct. But in the mindset of cfgjd, none of us mere mortals could possibly have the eminence to point out their error. Logic is irrelevant, because logic is a construct of human minds. We’re inferiors, therefore our logic is inferior, therefore our answers are inferior. That’s why cfgjd can’t be reasoned with. He doesn’t merely see US as incompetent in this discussion, he also sees HIMSELF as incompetent. To maintain consistency within his own world view, he has to defer to the most eminent person in the discussion. That person’s opinions carry more weight than any data, calculation, or logic, when presented by an inferior. Cfgjd’s only purpose here is to demonstrate his intelligence, through the only means available to an inferior; uncritical agreement with his betters. Those of us who subscribe to Thomas Jefferson’s belief that, “all men were created equal,” can’t have a rational discussion with people of this mindset, because the evidentiary rules are incompatible. To us, reality is independent from the credentials of the observer. To cfgjd, reality is a construct of the most credentialed observer.

        • gator69 says:


          I consider myself a Jeffersonian Liberal, and would add one more quote from him…

          Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
          -Thomas Jefferson

          The trolls prefer blindfolded fear.

        • An excellent summation, Ted. We all should be grateful to abcde for giving you a reason to write it.

        • dave1billion says:

          Well said, Ted and Gator.

          I was actually surprised by cfgjd’s snarky (and irrational in my opinion) reply. But I guess I shouldn’t have been.

          Just one more person to add to my personal ignore list for here.

          My grandmother always said that “If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas”. In this case, reading or thinking about any of his posts can only, by definition, make me stupider.

          At least he took longer than Martin to make the list.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Oh I should do the calculations instead of scientists? ”

          Are you saying you have never checked any of the stuff you believe in?

          WOW !!!

          I mean, I know you don’t have the capability to check these things….

          …. but to just BELIEVE unquestioningly… that really is SAD. !

          And most of “climate science” is NOT quality controlled, it is pal-reviewed ie checked for spelling, and that it tells the right message.

          That is blatantly obvious from some of the manifest crap that gets though to “climate” journals.

        • “I should do the calculations instead of scientists?”

          Moron alert.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Grace has major issues. Like anything that the alarmista try to hang their farce on..

      …. large errors and even larger “adjustments™”

  5. saveenergy says:

    The only way the Warmists can get Greenland ice to melt is to collect 80tons & take it to Paris
    (Carbon footprint: 30 tonnes CO2e.) !!

    Today Greenland ≈ – 25°C, Paris = +7°C

  6. saveenergy says:

    sorry omitted links
    The only way the Warmists can get Greenland ice to melt is to collect 80tons & take it to Paris
    (Carbon footprint: 30 tonnes CO2e.) !!

    Today Greenland ≈ – 25°C, Paris = +7°C,63.77,408

  7. cfgjd says:

    rah you seem to be fact-resistant. your bad.

    • rah says:

      Your “facts” do not match up with the observations of the real world. In fact that is the problem with all of you warmists and most of your claims. You claim the western ice shelf is losing ice mass. I provide one of two of the most recent and complete studies that both say it has actually been accumulating ice for the last decade despite the fact that a very recent seismic survey has found there more volcanic activity under that area than was previously known. You say it isn’t happening without even bothering to provide a single one of the several other older studies that have declared it was losing mass. And I’m the one that is “fact-resistant”?

      Research advances and thus what we know changes as those that are doing real research work to find the FACTS! And you ignore their labors and findings as if they are irrelevant because it disputes what you want to believe. And I’m the one that is “fact-resistant”?

      Yea, I’m bad. I’m just a dumb ass truck driver that has been trying to understand the science. I will freely admit that in some areas I am very much like a hog trying to figure out the workings of a wrist watch. I have no training in statistics and my math skills end at trig level. The math I know is that which I needed to do the various work I have done during my life. Be it ratios & proportions for dosage cal or figuring out the area of a helix or irregular shape or angles and miters or laying in a section or mortars. But what I have is a bunch more time in frozen wildernesses and mountains in the US and Europe than most people during which I observed the nature I was immersed in. Not just casual tourist like observation either because our very survival depended on knowing it. How many glaciers have you been on cfgjd? Ever self arrested and climbed out of a crevasse? Ever seen the strata of accumulated ice and or snow close up and personal? Ever even been on a rope line? Had an ice axe in your hand? Put in a snow screw that your own precious ass is going to hang off of? Lived outside during early winter above the arctic circle? Built and slept in a snow caves? Been caught in an avalanche? Ever even seen an avalanche up close and personal? Have you even seen an iceberg close up with your own eyes?

      I also have pretty well developed bull shit detection ability and thus am very wary of politicians their motivations and those who serve them. And I have a very healthy skepticism of anyone so arrogantly ignorant as to believe that we humans have figured out how this climate works to the extent you and those you believe in claim. Even when so many claims have turned out to be false and predicted events have failed to occur.

      And really all one needs to see is that your claiming the Greenland is losing ice mass when it’s been such a cold year that they couldn’t even grow fodder for their sheep and temps have been running well below freezing nearly all the time and the AMOC has been weakening so the FACT is that it is cold and the waters are getting colder also and will do so for some years to come.

      • cfgjd says:

        Yes I have been caught in an avalanche, jumped over crevasses and skied on glaciers, been to Greenland and been talking to the top researchers who monitor the ice sheets. The fact is that three largely independent measurement-techniques of altimetry, gravity and SAR-velocity + SMB all show that both Greenland and WAIS (the S stands for Sheet BTW) are both losing mass since a couple of decades. That’s why the mass-loss is an established fact.

        • Ted says:

          How do you define the phrase, “established fact”? Is that a point beyond which no further evidence can be allowed? Or is that the current understanding, based on the currently available data? Rah has presented you with data in opposition to what you call an established fact. There are only two possibilities. Either the new data is wrong, or the current understanding is incomplete. ALL data must be accommodated, either by falsification, or by modification of the current understanding. To do neither is to remove one’s self from the realm of science. So would you like to incorporate the data Rah has introduced, would you like to logically falsify it, or would you like to concede that you’re no longer discussing science? Those are the only three possible options. Failure to answer can only be interpreted as conceding that your position is not based in science.

        • catweazle666 says:

          And after all that, you’re still an ignorant, scientifically illiterate prat.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Again.. totally ignore the data that shows Greenland making big gains.

          The AMO is just over its peak starting downward again. These gains will continue for the next 30 or so years..

          It will be fun watching ignorant fools like you scurrying back under the rock crevasses where you came from. 🙂

  8. Alf says:

    Cfgjd; are Greenland glaciers retreating?

  9. Tom Ryan says:

    I’m new to this site, but if you call yourself “Real Science” you’re belittling the work of any scientists who disagree with your findings. That’s counterproductive, to say the least. And whether or not your stats are better than the other fellow’s, doesn’t it make you a tad uneasy that your position dovetails with the likes of BP, Exxon, the Koch Brothers, etc., who for decades have denied any impact on air quality or the world’s climate from burning their products?

    • Doug says:

      I’m just a reader of the site, but here’s my take:
      When you mention BP, Exxon, and the Koch Brothers in your first post, you immediately identify yourself as a screaming liberal with no independent thought, capacity for logic, or desire to understand facts. I doubt you will be taken seriously.

    • Frank K. says:

      Hi Tom,

      Do you use any petroleum-based products in your daily life? How about energy sources or transportation derived from fossil fuels? Why do you hate the oil companies?

      And why do you hate the Koch Brothers? What did they ever do to the climate? Where do you get your information?


    • gator69 says:

      How is our host “dovetailing” with oil companies when oil companies are supporting these folks?

      1. Climate Research Unit (CRU)

      2. Sierra Club

      3. Delhi Sustainable Development Summit [Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC]

      4. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST)


      6. Union of Concerned Scientists

      7. University of California, Berkeley CalCAP,

      8. University of California, Berkeley UC

      9. Climate Institute

      10. EcoLiving

      11. Nature Conservancy Climate Change Threats and Impacts

      12. Nature Conservancy

      13. America’s WETLAND Foundation< !–

      14. Green Energy Futures

      15. World Resources Institute Climate WRI

      16. Purdue Solar Navitas

      17. AGU

      18. Science Museum

      19. Dr. Michael Mann

      20. Stanford University

      21. National Science Teachers Association

      22. Duke University

      23. Alberta Water Council

      24. University of California, Davis Institute of Transportation

      25. Washington Free Beacon

      Last I checked, our host called Michael Mann a fraud.

    • Ted says:


      If you’d like to assail any scientific reasoning you see printed here, by all means, do so. We’re happy to discuss actual science, whether or not we agree with the conclusions drawn. Your argument is no different than saying, “Pol Pot ate rice. I think Pol Pot was evil. If you don’t want me to think you’re evil, you’d better not eat rice.” It’s utterly devoid of both science and logic. Even if we accept your implication that the entities you mentioned above are evil, that has no bearing what so ever on the validity of any scientific positions supported by them. Does the fact that the American space program was led by Von Braun prove that Americans have never left the atmosphere?

    • AndyG55 says:

      The whole aim of being in “science” is to have your work questioned and counter-argued.

      That is what science is.

      If a scientist can’t take their work being questioned, and hides their data etc.. they must know that their science is very weak !!

      And by the way… what impacts on air quality or the world’s climate are you talking about ?

  10. ST says:

    You are cherry picking data again- one of the oldest cognitive biases – ice is growing faster than a few of the most recent years – so global warming is a hoax? Where do I begin? So many opportunities to pick low hanging fruit from all of your flawed “analyses” and your reliance on using weather to make climate arguments- ugh! Anyone with a half functional and real BS meter can see right through all your your biases and data analysis mistakes.

  11. Latitude says:

    greenland’s mass is snow…’s been too cold and dry
    (cold freezes the moisture out of the air)

    You would expect greenland to gain mass when it’s warmer and more humid.

  12. ntesdorf says:

    Wow, It looks like sea ice is growing as far south as Dalian and even Beijing, from that map.

  13. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Q. What’s the quickest way to get named, shamed, locked up and stoned, or perhaps burned at the stake, at the UN’s Paris climate gabfest?

    A. Bring a slide of this rather inconvenient fact into the negotiating room, and question the Lysenkoists how is it possible for 2015 to be the “Hottest Year On Record” with record Arctic sea-ice growth?

    The “Science Is Settled” LOL.

  14. Reblogged this on CRIKEY !#&@ …… IT'S THE WEATHER CYCLES and commented:
    This is like when GORE comes to Australia… we have snow dump. chuckle..

  15. Is GORE in Greenland. …re: the gore effect.. LOL

  16. ronarch13 says:

    This disagrees with the entire post. There is slightly more ice than the all time low (2012) and still way under the average for the last 29 years (which doesn’t include the all time low (2012), in the average). 11.771 Million square KM.

  17. ronarch13 says:

    If you click the link to “”
    You find out this below the graph:
    “Sea ice extent in recent years (in million km2) for the northern hemisphere, as a
    function of date.

    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.”

    When you click on “this page”
    you get a different story.

  18. cfgjd says:

    Other data sources disagree

    • Latitude says:

      I’ll be you can’t tell us why you get a different result when you include and don’t include near shore waters (coastal zone)…..
      ….and which one would show the least amount of ice this time of the year

      And how NSIDI could go back and recreate coastal zones for an honest comparison….when coastal zones were never measured before

    • AndyG55 says:

      Poor cfool, doesn’t understand that by not masking the coast, with all it fjords and inlets, and shelves, the error margin is greatly increased and is also much more liable to human bias and “adjustment” in deciding how much area there actually is.

      cfool likes it when human bias by his alarmista mates comes into the result.

      but absolutely hates it when a consistent, reliable, longer term measurement is used.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s