The Arctic Surge

Over the past month, there has been a large surge in Arctic ice growth, leading to the largest extent for the date since at least 2004. This went on all through #COP21 – where tens of thousands of criminals met in an effort to steal your money, freedom and energy security.

2015-12-18-05-51-38Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Green below shows ice growth since mid-November.


Growth will slow down rapidly now, because there aren’t a lot of places left for the ice to grow.


About stevengoddard

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

109 Responses to The Arctic Surge

  1. Henry P says:

    it is globally cooling
    from the top [latitudes] down
    although more apparent in the winter @arctic and winter@antarctic

  2. Henry P says:

    Did anyone already figure out why we are globally cooling?

    here is a hint

    • Stewart Pid says:

      Thanks Henry … I especially like the 21/22, 22/23 & 23/24 series of graphs. CO2 may not be the satanic molecule the greens claim it to be 😉
      Imagine that … the climate is more complex than just one trace gas!

      • Henry P says:

        You can draw a binomial, obviously showing declining solar activity, from 21-24.
        This can also be correlated with declining solar polar field strengths

        You won’t believe it, but I can correlate all that activity to the increase in another tiny trace gas, namely ozone.
        The increase in ozone, peroxides and N-oxides is what is causing the global cooling.

        • cfgjd says:

          What cooling are you talking about Henry? We probably going to have the hottest year on record thanks to the large El Nino taking place.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Only in the GHCN based farce where nearly half the data is fabricated and the rest tortured to fit them smeared as heat to wherever they need to create non-existence warming.

          There is no way that 2015 will be the warmest in either of the satellite temperature sets.

          You do understand that an El Nino is an ocean COOLING event don’t you,?

          …. nah, you probably don’t.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Henry, they ClimAstrologist need a few more HONEST Chemists…. Like us.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Not only has the current warm period been beneficial it occurred as a Step-Change!

      Ice cores from the Freemont Glacier show it went from Little Ice Age cold to Modern Warming warm in the ten years around 1850.

      An ice core removed from the Upper Fremont Glacier in Wyoming provides evidence for abrupt climate change during the mid-1800s….

      At a depth of 152 m the refined age-depth profile shows good agreement (1736±10 A.D.) with the 14C age date (1729±95 A.D.). The δ18O profile of the Upper Fremont Glacier (UFG) ice core indicates a change in climate known as the Little Ice Age (LIA)….

      At this depth, the age-depth profile predicts an age of 1845 A.D. Results indicate the termination of the LIA was abrupt with a major climatic shift to warmer temperatures around 1845 A.D. and continuing to present day. Prediction limits (error bars) calculated for the profile ages are ±10 years (90% confidence level). Thus a conservative estimate for the time taken to complete the LIA climatic shift to present-day climate is about 10 years, suggesting the LIA termination in alpine regions of central North America may have occurred on a relatively short (decadal) timescale.

      Dr. Evans Solar Notch-Delay Theory predicts a delay of about 11 years from a change in solar conditions to a change in earth climate.

      So what happened around 1840? Solar Cycle 8. It began in November 1833 with a smoothed sunspot number of 7.3 and ended in July 1843. Max sunspot number ~210. The prior Solar Cycle 7,began in May 1823 with a smoothed sunspot number of 0.1 and ended in November 1833. Max sunspot number ~105. And thus began the Grand Solar Maximum, highest in 3,000 years which has just ended.

      In the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics, Usoskin et al. “present the first fully adjustment-free physical reconstruction of solar activity” covering the past 3,000 years, which record allowed them “to study different modes of solar activity at an unprecedented level of detail.” Their reconstruction of solar activity displays several “distinct features,” including several “well-defined Grand minima of solar activity, ca. 770 BC, 350 BC, 680 AD, 1050 AD, 1310 AD, 1470 AD, and 1680 AD,” as well as “the modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19-23, i.e., 1950-2009),” described as “a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia.”

      PAPER: Usoskin, I.G., Hulot, G., Gallet, Y., Roth, R., Licht, A., Joos, F., Kovaltsov, G.A., Thebault, E. and Khokhlov, A. 2014. Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity Astronomy and Astrophysics 562: L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423391.

      Also SEE: A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

      And in further news from Royal Astronomical Society (RAS):

      “Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to ‘mini ice age’ levels: Sun driven by double dynamo.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 9 July 2015.

  3. rah says:

    “Growth will slow down rapidly now, because there aren’t a lot of places left for the ice to grow.”

    And because we are going to see a considerable warming in the Arctic later this winter if the meteorological models the boys at weatherbell are using are correct.
    See the 12/17 daily update:

    • Andy says:

      Steve’s right, the main limitation on growth is the geoography, the Arctic being surrounded by land. The Atlantic growth is limited on the eastern side by the relatively warm North Atlantic drift as well.

      Considerable warming in the Arctic might mean it is -20C rather than -25C, but that will not have too much of an effect actually, not when it is butted up against land already.


      • rah says:

        Though below freezing for sea water is what it is the fact remains there are other factors which effect the ice including storms and tides. The colder it is the faster it refreezes after the break ups of sheets from agitation.

        • Andy says:

          That’s far more of an effect in summer than winter, in winter outflow from the Framm straight etc is more important.


  4. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    ARCTIC ice “Growth will slow down rapidly now, because there aren’t a lot of places left for the ice to grow.”

    Watch that factual, evidence based statement of Arctic sea-ice health and dramatic growth twisted into some “death spiral” prognostication when/if it does begin to ‘slow down’!

    One way or another, warming alarmists will never mention this dramatic sea ice growth, growth that’s occurred against all AGW predictions, because government climate activist scientists and their media sycophants will do anything to protect their funding, jobs and reputations.

    We know this is true because the dramatic growth of Arctic sea ice that has occurred over the past 5+ years is never mentioned anywhere in the global warming sympathetic press: CNN, BBC, ABC, NPR, SMH, AGE, NYtimes etc etc. A constant, planned and deliberate bias by omission that would make Pravda blush.

    • Andy says:

      Are you that stupid you haven’t read Steve’s post t or you just taking the piss?


      • Climatism says:

        Chill out tuff guy. There’s one main fact yur missing in my comment. – The Arctic certainly ain’t melting away as predicted by every alarmist expert. Right now it’s doing the opposite.
        And the media is not reporting this. They expect/hope it doesn’t grow in order to prove their theory.
        Not hoping to get too techy on you smart ass. Just watching that graph go a above the median.

        • Andy says:

          You quoted Steve completely out of context so your remaining points are irrelevant I’m afraid. You obviously didn’t understand the point of his you quoted.


        • Climatism says:

          I opened with Steve’s quote, “Growth will slow down rapidly now, because there aren’t a lot of places left for the ice to grow.”

          The basis of my comment angled on my amazement that ice growth is so healthy that it will slow as has no where else to go.
          I then quipped that this “slowing” might lend alarmists an excuse to turn that “slowdown” into a “see it’s not growing rapidly” angle.

          All hypothetical Andy of course, but alarmist media twist and turn any positive into a negative, as we are keenly aware.

          I then explained that there are no positive headlines about the Arctics recent recovery (via alarmist media. That news doesn’t fit their disaster scenarios.
          Poor journalism, designed to promote CAGW.

          That explained, it is in fact YOU who are taking my comment completely out of context. But more importantly, and a valuable insight into your demeanour, you manufactured what you wanted my comment to mean, in order to give yourself an opportunity to play the know-all tuff guy, who gets his kicks out of vapid take downs to make himself feel important.

          I hope it worked for Andy, and made you feel better. Really.


        • David A says:

          Andy did misunderstand your comment, but I think, more then a personality flaw, it was a honest misunderstanding cogent to the reality of dealing with some of the trolls that frequent here which precipitated an impatient over the top response.

        • Climatism says:

          Hi David,
          I’ve spent more time than I should (foregoing work, friends, family) reading and contributing to the debate in a measured and calm way for many years now.
          I have learnt a great deal from researchers like Steve, in particular climate history comparisons.
          Andy deserved a kick up his righteous, il informed ass for not doing his research on me and my history, and shooting from his arrogant hip. So yes, there is a personality flaw, something he has to acknowledge and manage in time.
          I won’t be bullied and taken out of context, even labelled a “parrot”, considering the unpaid efforts I have dedicated, doing my bit in exposing this massive deception, fraud and the damage to the rep of science that CAGW alarmism had wrought.

          Appreciate you picking up and commenting on Andy’s flip, such that he may hopefully learn and not make a tosser of himself again.




  5. oppti says:

    DMI has another graf:
    The difference is great and might bee of interest to discuss.
    Why are the shores more free from ice now-days?
    Why is ice on the open areas growing faster?
    Are the AMOC currents not reaching the shore areas.

  6. cfgjd says:

    Here’s some more info:

    Arctic Sea Ice Volume is still on a downward trend:

    Greenland continues to lose ice:

    Arctic See Ice Extent increase this autumn is wholly unremarkable:

    • rah says:

      Yes we all gonna die and the coastal cities will be underwater before long. This despite your own charts showing the Arctic sea ice volume trend going up since 2012 and current extent being within 2 standard deviations of the mean. And despite the fact that NO MELTING at either Pole is happening to an extent that has not happened before in the last 100 years.

      • AndyG55 says:

        and Rah.. look where the current position of the AMO is compared to the period used fro that mean..

        The Arctic sea ice is almost exactly where the AMO would predict, just passed its lowest period, and starting to climb.

        NATURAL CYCLES !!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Whoops, the second link didn’t copy

          try again

        • rah says:


          Does it really matter with this dope? You’ve posted those graphs and tried to educate the fool for weeks now on this blog and none of it sinks through what is obviously a very thick and tough dura matter.

          You can lead a horse to water……………

          It’s like expecting Obama and his leftist PC minions to get some common sense in their heads. This is what has gotten my goat even more than the Republicans giving him everything he wanted in the latest budget deal here in the US.

          Special Operations: SOCOM Ordered To Use Female Commandos

          Lets me just state some facts here:
          As I have said many times before, women have their place and can take their place in combat arms and special operations IF they can prove they can meet the exact same standards as the men that are trying out for the same job or qualification. The stakes are far too high for lowering standards for political correctness. But the Army with a PC idiot as Commander & Chief will do exactly that for women.

          Women have their place in Special Operations. They are great for covert/espionage work because they can get away with going places and doing things men can’t. They can also help the men to go places and do things. Two Lovers sitting on a bench are far less likely to arouse suspicion than a single male of military age. DELTA (I will only use their old name) has had a “Funny Company” of women just for these kinds of situations for over a decade. But finding even enough women to fill out a 12 man A-team will cause excessive expense and effort that will simply overload the system if there are many female applicants.

          FACT: Attrition for men that try to make it through the US Army Special Forces Assessment is about 70% with a further loss of 10 to 15% during the Special Forces Qualification Course (SFQC) afterward. And it doesn’t end there from my own experience.. There were four of us SF medics that graduated in my SFQC class that were sent to 10th Special Forces Group and all were assigned to A teams in 2nd and 3rd Bn. We arrived at Ft. Devens late in November. All new SF qualified troops are on probationary status their first year. The first of us four voluntarily terminated his SF status during the first Winter warfare exercise in Feb. The next was QMPed (Qualitative Managements Program) out of SF 6 months later having failed to perform on two different A teams and assigned to the medical battalion on post that worked the Troop Medical Clinic and at the Hospital .

          Cost of training for an SF medic runs about half the cost of training a fighter pilot in the USAF. Cost for training the other 3 primary jobs, (Weapons, Engineer, and Communications) is somewhat less but still not cheap by any means.

          This guy in the White House is now tearing out something near and dear to my heart. It’s gotten personal for me.

      • Gail Combs says:


        I am with you on the idiocy of having females in combat. We are NOT men and we do not have the muscle mass or bone structure needed. On top of that is the psychological problem. The guys are going to instinctively want to protect the female. It is in the DNA. Also sex will rear its ugly head complicating the units dynamics. (This is the reason open gays don’t belong either.)

        The military manuals have been written and re-written for over 2000 years and are some of the finest examples of technical manuals going yet Obummer, who has NEVER even been in the military wants to do a major re-write? Someone needs to stuff those new manuals back up the dark hole Obummer plucked them from.

        Worth the read by a tough woman Marine officer. Her personal experience with the wear and tear, that she didn’t see in male counterparts — Get Over It! We’re Not All Created Equal

    • wizzum says:

      Nice post!
      A model, a graph of a suspect data set that captures all gravity data and then attempts to apportion all changes to ice and a 2 1/2 week old chart.

      Good to see you keeping up the high standard of CAGW rebuttal.

    • Climatism says:

      cfgjd, If you were really interested in climate, as opposed to your obvious ideological bent, you would understand the very first lesson in Arctic ice melt deceit 101 – using the graph that starts at the 1979 century maximum, leaving off the pre-1979 years which showed ice levels were much lower. Pretty similar to now.

      See the IPCC’s own pre-1979 graph here:

      If you are using this stuff as evidence, nothing you write can be believed. You have an agenda and you are useless to anyone who actually wants to be informed on climate stuff.

      Go and hang out here sharpen your skills.

      • cfgjd says:

        There’s no reason to believe that the sea ice VOLUME was very small prior to 1979. I’m pretty sure that can be ruled out by weather reanalyses as well, even though satellite data was sparse.

        • Ernest Bush says:

          Satellite data (same satellites) goes back to 1974. The year 1979 as the beginning of all things Arctic was, shall we say “cherry picked” because if you go back to 1974 the decline doesn’t really look that bad.

          In the 60s there was satellite data which was put on film There was a rush to examine the data when it was found, but that data quietly disappeared from view. To the surprise of those viewing the film, there were big holes in the ice. There are photos showing nuclear submarines surfacing at the north pole in the early 60s in rather large looking holes. An objective look at all sources from that period may rule out your preconceived ideas.

        • rah says:


          From what I have read the 2nd generation of satellites for measuring polar ice came into service in 1979 to replace the 1st generation which went into service in 1974 has some problems with the imagery they produced.

          This is not to say though that the 1st Generation did not provide much superior information to what was available before. Just to say there is significant differences in the data produced by the 1st generation as compared to the 2nd.

      • Andy says:

        That’s very rich coming from you considering your last post which took Steve’s words completely out of context just so you could add your own climate biased 2p worth.


        • Climatism says:

          You’re ranting up the wrong tree and making no sense bud.

          Quick fix:

          Read the title of the post “The Arctic Surge” and maybe then that’ll put yur angry misguided rant to bed.

          Hint: It ain’t melting away as predicted by all those experts. Capiche?

        • dave1billioon says:

          Andy, I think you misunderstood Climatism’s post.

          He’s coming from the same place as you are.

          I believe that he was saying that while totally ignoring the impressive 30% Ice Extent growth this fall/winter, the MSM will be quick to point out that we will have “record slow growth” over a period once the geographical limiting factors have been reached.

          Of course I could be misunderstanding BOTH of your posts.

        • Ted says:


          I’ve re-read the comment in question from Climatism several times now, and I just can’t find the point you’re arguing with. I don’t have a dog in this fight, possibly because I can’t see what the fight is about. Can you expand on your complaint?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Gees, see how quickly that Piomas has turned around in the last few years.

      Anyone would think it was driven by some sort of cycle that has also just gone through it peak.

      Thanks for showing that Piomas graph again, bozo.. …

      …it illustrates the GAIN in ice mass very nicely. 🙂

      Arctic sea ice is almost exactly where it would expected to be with respect to the phase of the AMO.

      Nothing untoward is happening. Just natural cycles, that are being used by the alarmista chiefs to FOOL their FOOLISH followers.. and they FOOL cfool every time.

      And compared to the first 3/4 of the Holocene, Arctic sea ice level is anomalously HIGH. that’s because we are still only just above the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Since CFool loves pee-reviewed paers here are the papers to back up what you are saying Andy.

        New insights on Arctic Quaternary climate variability from palaeo-records and numerical modelling

        …..Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean……

        Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue.

        …..We therefore conclude that for a period in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer……

        Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based reconstructions for the eastern Chukchi Sea

        Cores from site HLY0501-05 on the Alaskan margin in the eastern Chukchi Sea were analyzed for their geochemical (organic carbon, δ13Corg, Corg/N, and CaCO3) and palynological (dinocyst, pollen, and spores) content to document oceanographic changes during the Holocene. The chronology of the cores was established from 210Pb dating of near-surface sediments and 14C dating of bivalve shells. The sediments span the last 9000 years, possibly more, but with a gap between the base of the trigger core and top of the piston core. Sedimentation rates are very high (∼156 cm/ka), allowing analyses with a decadal to centennial resolution. The data suggest a shift from a dominantly terrigenous to marine input from the early to late Holocene. Dinocyst assemblages are characterized by relatively high concentrations (600–7200 cysts/cm3) and high species diversity, allowing the use of the modern analogue technique for the reconstruction of sea-ice cover, summer temperature, and salinity. Results indicate a decrease in sea-ice cover and a corresponding, albeit much smaller, increase in summer sea-surface temperature over the past 9000 years. Superimposed on these long-term trends are millennial-scale fluctuations characterized by periods of low sea-ice and high sea-surface temperature and salinity that appear quasi-cyclic with a frequency of about one every 2500–3000 years. The results of this study clearly show that sea-ice cover in the western Arctic Ocean has varied throughout the Holocene. More importantly, there have been times when sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century.

        Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic Miller et al
        Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, USA et al

        …. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers re-established or advanced, sea ice expanded

        A more recent paper looking at glaciers in Norway.

        A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier January 2012
        Kristian Vasskoga Øyvind Paaschec, Atle Nesjea, John F. Boyled, H.J.B. Birks

        …. A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~ 8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. This signal is …independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700–5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP….

        The authors of BOTH those papers simply state that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, and the highest period of glacial activity (growth) has been in the past 600 years. This is hardly surprising with ~9% less solar energy.

        Jim Steele of

        Trees are very resilient but cold is more deadly. About 9000 years ago trees reached the Arctic Ocean coastline and remained during the Holocene Optimum. As temperatures began to cool the trees retreated and are now several hundred kilometers further south.

        HIking the high elevation in the Sierra Nevada you can see ancient tree remnants. A 1997 study in Sequoia National Park found that “Tree-line elevation was higher than at present throughout most of the last 3500 years.

        In the Ural Mountains (which divides Asia from Europe), researchers found thousands of more than 500-year-old dead trees that grew before the LIA struck. In contrast, remnants of any new trees that could have sprouted during the LIA were almost entirely absent. However the ancient rootstocks often remain and allow trees to suddenly emerge whenever local conditions are mild enough to promote growth. For example the world’s oldest-known living tree, a Norway Spruce, was recently discovered in Sweden. Although the living 13-foot high trunk emerged relatively recently, it had sprouted from the same rootstock that has persisted for nearly 10,000 years. Scientists found four different “generations” of above-ground remains with ages that dated 375, 5660, 9000 and 9550 years old.

        Retreating Alaskan Glacier Reveals Remains Of Medieval Forest

        “….Park Service personnel recently discovered evidence of a buried forest dating back to at least 1170 AD high in the Forelands near the current glacier’s edge….”

        A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since.

        Click to access mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf

        • AndyG55 says:

          one for you , Gail..

          Click to access Dissertation_Mueller_2011.pdf

          Also other work from Muller shows similar patterns

        • AndyG55 says:

          There was one paper of his (can’t find the link, sorry) that yielded a curve for the Holocene very similar to this ones from Gisp, grip etc etc and again showed that for much of the first 3/4 of the Holocene the Arctic may have been ice free in summer , more often than not.

          Then we entered the “Neoglaciation” which bottomed, so far, in the LIA
          We are current only just above that bottom point.

        • Gail Combs says:

          AndyG, thanks for the paper. (Glad I do not have to haul out my very rusty technical German to read it.)

          I found this pasage very amusing:

          …a clear synopsis of the various feedback mechanisms between Arctic sea ice coverage, shifts in oceanic and atmospheric temperature and circulation patterns, and the importance of Arctic Ocean sea ice for glacial and interglacial climate cycles was already established 55 years ago by Ewing and Donn (1956). They considered that Pleistocene climate variability (i.e. shifts from glacial to interglacial stages) resulted from alternations of ice-covered and ice-free states of the Arctic Ocean. Soon after, fluctuations in earth’s orbital geometry were identified as fundamental cause of large-scale changes in the Arctic’s radiation budget to force the succession of ice ages during the Quaternary (e.g. Hays et al., 1976; Imbrie et al., 1992).

          You would think, given he is working with sea cores, he would have a better understanding of the history. On the other hand since the Milankovitch cycles are not CO2 based, maybe not.

          …One theory proved resoundingly successful in explaining the ice ages. About 1911, a Yugoslavian professor of mathematics, Milutin Milankovitch, began work on a theory “capable of describing the climates of earth, Mars, and Venus — today and in the past.” ….

          …These variations were calculated mathematically by several workers during the latter half of the 19th century. Milankovitch used the existing calculations of variations in eccentricity, precession and tilt to calculate how much solar radiation strikes the surface of the earth during each season and at each latitude. He published his first results in 1920, which contained a graph showing how summer radiation at latitudes 55Deg, 60Deg, and 65Deg North varied over the past 650,000 years. His next results were published in 1930, and included radiation curves for each of eight latitudes ranging from 5Deg North to 75Deg North. The curves calculated for high latitudes are dominated by the 41,000 year tilt cycle, while those for low latitudes are dominated by the 22,000 year precession cycle. By 1941 he had finished his calculations….

          Evidence confirming the Milankovitch radiation curves continued to appear. In 1965

          geochemist Wallace S. Broecker reported some interesting findings that he and some colleagues had made when they dated fossil coral reefs in the Florida Keys and the Bahamas. Since coral can grow only at certain depths, it provides an accurate record of former sea levels. Broecker’s studies indicated that the sea had stood much higher 120,000 and 80,000 years ago, presumably during periods of warm climate when vast amounts of water had been released from the melting ice sheets. Noting that present sea levels are also considerably higher than they have been at times of great glaciation, Broecker observed that these three known periods of high sea levels closely correspond to the warm periods calculated by Milankovitch in his radiation curve for lat. 65Deg N.

          ….A century after Croll published his theory and 50 years after Milankovitch mailed his radiation curves to Koppen and Wegener, two cores from the Indian Ocean confirmed the astronomical theory of the ice ages. At last, geologists had clear evidence that the motions of the earth in its orbit around the sun triggered the succession of late Pleistocene ice ages…..

          There were a lot of others involved who showed the Milankovitch cycle was evident not only in sea cores, but on the lnad in coral reef terraces, soil-loess layers…

        • Gail Combs says:

          AndyG, aside from my bit of snark (above) this does look like a good paper with lots of info. With over 100 pages it looks like you found my reading material for the weekend.

    • sunsettommy says:

      As usual cfgjd, fails to realize that all those predictions by warmist scientists along with climate charlatans like Al $ Gore of a vanished Summer ice has not made him any wiser.

      1979 is a high point in the Arctic ice cover that warmists loons deliberately cling to because it make the slope more impressive,but the 1995 IPCC report included ice data back to 1973 showing that a much lower ice cover than the 1979 peak existed.

      It is now in slow recovery as shown by the gradual increase in multi-year ice and increasing summer extent data.

    • AndyG55 says:

      The first graph on your page doesn’t appear to be working, Ron.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Coming up in Firefox, not IE..

        • Gail Combs says:

          In the last month or so a lot of graphs have quit showing in Opera. Even the ones that used to show without a problem. I just switched back to Firefox. Unfortunately no spell check for those of us crippled by the US education system.

        • Neal S says:

          Gail, you could consider composing posts in a gmail compose window and use its spell-check. When done, just cut and paste the whole thing. This also has the advantage that if a post goes into the bit-bucket due to some verboten word or URL, you can just re-edit your post in the compose window and try again.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I could also use LibreOffice…. If it doesn’t crash and burn or lock-up. I quit using Opera because it was gobbling up all my free memory within a day or two. (I really want a new computer but a new roof comes first.)

        • rah says:

          Gail Combs says:
          “(I really want a new computer but a new roof comes first.)”

          Metal or shingle?

        • Gail Combs says:

          You guys convinced me to spring for a metal roof. Ivory in color, to match the house and the climate.

        • rah says:

          Well Gail as long as you have someone who knows what they’re doing install it and you go for the heavier gauge metal from a good manufacturer, then you should be very happy with it.

    • Ron Clutz says:

      Andy, I didn’t notice, always working in Chrome.

  7. swood1000 says:

    When one goes to the origin of the graph there is this message: “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.” Why do you show the graph you showed rather than the one showing absolute extent?

    • Ted says:

      The two graphs measure different things. The graph in the post is of 30% (or more) ice coverage, with coastal areas masked out, and going back to 2005. The alternate you suggest is for 15% (or more) coverage, without the coastal mask, and only going back to 2010. The older data used the coastal mask because the technology at the time couldn’t reliably distinguish ice from very shallow water. I presume they feel they solved that problem around 2010, hence the new data. I don’t know why they changed it from 30% to 15%.

      Steven Goddard uses the 30% graph for the same reasons that DMI continues to publish it; Consistency, and a longer record. To their credit, DMI has chosen not to combine the graphs through remodeling and renorming of the original data, as is commonly done with temperature records, and instead continued publishing both series seperately. To my knowledge, this site has always used the 30% graph, possibly going back to the time before the alternate graph began. To switch now, particularly while DMI still insists than both measurements are correct, would make comparisons with earlier data impossible. If the 15% graph starts showing data more in line with Goddard’s beliefs, and he then switches, I’ll join you in condemning the change. But for now, he’s just continuing with the same data set he’s always used.

  8. Andy says:

    The more and more I look at that DMI graph the more and more I distrust it. It’s too far out of alignment with all the other graphs, including others from DMI to not be called into question.

    I think DMI should be asked to comment on it as it now shows a value for ice extent 1 whole month ahead of all past years. ie where you would expect it to show mid Jan.

    Something’s not right.


  9. Andy says:

    To show this, here is Crysosphere image for 6th Dec for 2015 and 2005. On the DMI graph 2015 is way ahead of 2015 in early Dec, but on the image it looks pretty the same if you add an subtract different areas.

    On the DMI graph, current sea ice extent is same as would normally expect in early Jan. So lets compare the cryosphere image 1st week Jan 2006 to Dec in 2015.

    I think most people can see, without pixel counting, that the DMI masked out coastline graph has gone AWOL.


    • Ted says:

      My best guess is that it’s the difference between the 15% standard, and the 30% standard. This year, there’s much more old ice than in the last several. Older ice would be almost entirely made up of bigger sheets, as opposed to open slush. If there was a lot of area between the 15% and 30% concentrations in recent years, and very little of it this year, as you’d expect from old vs. new ice, the graphs could be consistent. If not, then I agree, there’s something wrong.

      Does anyone have the data for those concentration numbers from the last 10 years?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Andy, I am seeing a lot more ice in Hudson Bay and in the atlantic down the east side of Greenland in 2015 vs 2005. 2006 is closer to 2015.

      To me it looks like the amount of ice in the Greenland/Iceland area is going to make the difference and as Ted says that is where the 15% vs 30% could make a big difference.

      • Andy says:

        Hi Gail

        See above

        Currently the DMI 30% graph with mapped out margins is 1 month ahead of graphs and maps than the Cryosphere 30% charts and maps. Cryosphere uses area not extent but at this time of year that does not make much difference.

        People here want to believe in that one chart rather than question it. We should be questioning it. Not to prove a point but to understand why.


        • Gail Combs says:

          Andy, the other tning of note is the 2015 Ice is pretty much solid 100% ice compared to the 2005 and 2006 images. Judging by the color there is a lot of ~80% ice especially in 2006.

          It is pretty much wall to wall ice today within the Arctic Sea.

    • AndyG55 says:

      If you look at the right hand end of the first graph, you will see that the AMO has just started to turn downwards.

      Should be fun watching the over the next several years as Arctic sea ice levels start to climb. 🙂

    • AndyG55 says:

      You can also see why the alarmista absolutely MUST start their Arctic sea ice graphs in late 1970’s

      • DavidS says:

        It does look like a strong indication regarding AMO and Arctic ice. Will be watching this closely. If only we had satellites since about 1900. So much could be cleared up in second.

  10. Mike H says:


    At the link, at the bottom, it has this comment:

    “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.”

    Do you know what they mean by “coastal zones masked out”?
    Thanks for any reply


    • Andy says:

      Hi Mike,

      It means they do not apply their algorithm to work out ice extent to areas where coastal regions may cause the accuracy of extent to go down. If you look at the other DMI graph you will see the extent is a lot higher as it does not include these regions.

      In the summer minima the difference is less, as you would expect, as the ice has retreated a long way from coastlines on the Russian side. In winter the difference is a lot larger between the two extents as there is a lot of coast to mask out as the ice is right up against it on Russian and Canadian/ US sides.

      However, you would expect the two graphs to follow the same shape, but they don’t now. They did all the way to the summer this year, but now they are out of alignment.

      The shape is the same though, it is just as if though the masked graph has move to the left, so being 1 month in advance of the actual.


      • Andy says:

        re-reading that change ” you will see the extent is a lot higher as it does not include these regions” to “you will see the extent is a lot higher as it includes the masked regions” which makes more sense.

      • Scott says:

        I agree with you Andy. Steve has typically preferred this data set over others, but in the past it agreed with them pretty well. Not so much now–no other data set has 2015 being the best in the last 10 yr, much less the leader by an enormous margin.

        Instead of looking at this possibly errant graph, we skeptics should be pointing at that the projections made by the CAGWers in 2011/2012 had this year’s September ice at zero (actually negative), whereas the actual result has been no decrease since then. IIRC, in 2014 they were off by something like 5 sigma, so I’m assuming in 2015 it’s more like a 7-sigma effect.


        • Andy says:

          Hi Scott,

          I had a chat on email with a polar scientist about that graph in the last couple of hours and although they don’t have any connection to the people running it their comment was

          “there may be an error in processing that is not being noticed since it is the old product and probably is not being quality-controlled. ”

          Given that someone needs to be on the blower to DMI to see what they say. Is there a Bat phone 🙂

          Meanwhile it will be interesting to see how it goes. Could give us some entertainment in the short run I think 🙂


        • Scott says:

          QC was definitely on my mind too.

          What bothers me is that when a product has a pro-warming bias, the CAGWers fully embrace it and skeptics cry foul. When the opposite is true, skeptics embrace it and CAGWers throw a fit. It really seems like very few can be objective about things. At this point, it’s hard to trust anyone in the debate.


        • Gail Combs says:

          Here is the 15% graph with no masking of coastlines but it is only for a five years. It also shows ‘recovery’ but not as dramatic with 2013, 14 and 15 overlaying each other from October on.

          I agree with AndyG. The AMO is turning and we should see the Arctic ice recover )in fits and starts) in the coming years.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I really do need to put my glasses on so I can poof wread! Here is that 15% DMI chart.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Gail, unfortunately wordpriss has some sort of caching issue.

          The only way you can guarantee an up-to-date graph is by capturing the screen, crop and save as a .jpg or something, and host the pic somewhere.

        • AndyG55 says:

          like this one wot I dun yestaday

        • AndyG55 says:

          Trying a direct link

        • AndyG55 says:

          See, its about a month out of date.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Just trying something

          from the source site, and up to date, I think

  11. Henry P says:

    cfcjd says

    Henry says
    I think
    one year does not set the global climate

    • cfgjd says:

      What is that graph and why those stations? I guess one of them could be from Contiguous US, otherwise that relatively small patch of land will be over-represented…

      • Henry P says:

        that graph is my summary of a random sample of
        54 weather stations
        balanced to zero latitude
        going back to 1973 = 42 years = 1/2 Gleissberg cycle = 2 Hale Nicholson solar cycles= 4 Schwabe solar cycles
        There is one minimum every day,
        that makes
        54 x 42 x 365 = 827920 actual measurements.
        Not so small a sample, perhaps?
        [longitude does not matter, as long as we look at the change in T per annum. Do you know why?]
        Must say that my results closely correspond with those of RSS, who also noted the drop in T from 2000.
        It must be because my sample of terrestrial weather stations is the only one set that is properly balanced?
        I look forward to seeing some of your own results?

        • dave1billion says:


        • cfgjd says:

          How’s the latitude-spread of your stations? In any case you should make a map of the locations to show if the distribution makes sense.

        • Ted says:


          Cfgjd clearly assumes you’re just an America-centric hick, who knows nothing of the world beyond your own back yard, probably somewhere in the American south east. He probably also thinks you comment on this site purely because you’re an evil, selfish bastard, who’d rather see all the world’s children die, than give up your Big Macs, and 6 mile per gallon Suburban.

          I don’t know why he expects us to believe his “research,” when he’s plainly too lazy to click on your name, and adjust his snide comments appropriately. Much like Tony, you appear to have done infinitely more to make the world better than cfgjd has ever dreamt of doing.

        • dave1billion says:

          I’m curious where cfgjd thinks those 27 Southern Hemisphere stations in the contiguous US are located.

          Or maybe my understandings of both “contiguous” and “US” are incorrect.

          To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, “… that Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.”

        • Gail Combs says:

          Ted says,
          “Cfgjd clearly assumes you’re just an America-centric hick, who knows nothing of the world beyond your own back yard,….”

          And O Boy, would he be WRONG! He is not even in the Northern Hemisphere.

          Hint, English is not the only language of his country. The country has eleven official languages.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I look forward to seeing some of your own results?”

          Now who’s delusional, Henry..

          No way is cfool capable of anything of his own.

        • AndyG55 says:

          just trying something

  12. Henry P says:

    here is RSS

    note the drop of almost 0.1K since 1998

    My graph {for minima} sees an average drop of 0.009K/annum since 2000, it is 0.13K

    so I am seeing a bit more cooling than RSS

    but not too bad for an amateur though

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Henry! “not too bad for an amateur though”

      I just wish that all the professionals were as good! Nice work.

  13. Henry P says:

    Thanks Jason!
    I must say that I was stunned into silence when I first saw my plot, –
    nature had thrown me a ball and it was coming right at me!
    There was a 100% correlation for the plot of the speed of that ball, proving [to me] there is no man made global warming.
    [AGW suggests an unnatural increase in minima – chaos- pushing up means, and I saw the opposite.]
    My wife still laughs at me, because
    -0.1K [of global cooling] is not too much when the T in our rooms in our house differ by more than 1K at any given time.
    It appears we had the [close to] zero solar magnetic field strengths around the end of 2014 or beginning of 2015. There is one more Hale Nicholson cycle (22 years) to go before it starts warming again.
    [you must imagine my plot as being half of a sine wave]
    That means we could drop another -0.3K or so, globally.
    Then we will be back where we were in 1950……

    • Gail Combs says:

      “That means we could drop another -0.3K”

      That is what Dr Evans is suggesting with his Notch-Delay solar theory.

      Main Message

      Global temperatures will come off the current plateau into a sustained and significant cooling, beginning 2017 or maybe as late as 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3 °C in the 2020s, taking the planet back to the global temperature that prevailed in the 1980s. This was signaled (though not caused) by a fall in underlying solar radiation starting in 2004, one of the three largest falls since 1610 when records started. There is a delay of one sunspot cycle, currently 13 years (2004+13 = 2017)….

      Dr Evans is not the only one saying we are staring at global cooling going forward. Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory: “we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years”

      Dr. Norman Page (Geologist) is another who sees cooling ahead.
      His long but really good article Commonsense Climate Science and Forecasting after AR5 and the Coming Cooling.

      ….The trends in the neutron count over the last few solar cycles strengthens the forecast of coming cooling made from projecting the PDO and Millennial cycle temperature trends.The decline in solar activity from 1990 (Cycle 22) to the present (Cycle 24) is obvious. It has been estimated that there is about a 12 year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data. see Fig3 in Usoskin et al…19U.
      With that in mind it is reasonable to correlate the cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity and SSN) with the peak in the SST trend in about 2003 and project forward the possible general temperature decline in the coming decades….
      Here are the conclusions of those posts.

      1/22/13 (NH)

      1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
      2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
      3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
      4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.

      4/02/13 ( Global)

      1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
      2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
      3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
      4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
      5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
      6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
      7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
      8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
      9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.

      How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures……

      A Growing number of scientists are predicting global cooling

  14. OrganicFool says:

    Half the planet already lives the Green dream

    • Frank K. says:

      I remember about 9 years ago I took a trip to India on business. I flew into Mumbai airport. As we approached the city, I saw literally miles and miles of miles of shanty town dwellings just as you have pictured above. Very eye opening. Then there were the people living on street burning coal in their tents to stay alive…

  15. Henry P says:

    cf etc says

    Henry says
    it goes from [80] to zero
    you must have equal stations NH and SH
    and total NH + SH latitudes must come to zero.
    Longitude does not matter, as long as you look at the average change per year,
    i.e. the value before the x, of the regression performed over the specified period
    Do you know why?
    If you want to do a sample yourself, you are most welcome, just can ask me how I did it,

    • Henry P says:

      Yes [Ted]
      I do come from a third world country,
      that last sentence should read
      you are most welcome to ask me how I did it,
      [I mean about the design of the sampling procedure and the source of all the data]

  16. Henry P says:

    cf etc says

    henry says
    the trend is in fact not in contradiction with my data sets
    If you can read my graph there: it shows that global minima increased at an average rate of 0.004K/annum since 1973.
    That is now + 0.2K since 1973, on average.
    So, if we look at T [min] we are [still] up by 0.2K since 1973
    By various calculations (6 or 7 different calculations) , especially means, I come to 1995/1996 when we passed the zero line, ie. when there was no cooling or warming.
    In 1998 we just had earth’s highest output….
    However, we must not ignore the rest of the graph! It shows that we are now on a path of global cooling. The average cooling from 2000 is now ca. -0.01K/year.
    In the graph above, note the upward trend in arctic ice since 2010…
    So the main surge [in cooling] is beginning, and it is starting to show in the arctic. I warned the oil companies, and it seems Shell listened. They decided not to drill in the Alaskan arctic……

  17. Henry P says:

    Just a remark
    As I investigated the data related to weather,
    for example rainfall, here,

    I continue to be amazed…it was the pendulum swing that surprised me here.
    Everything just works like one big clock. The sun, the planets, the universe, all work in tandem to produce the weather that we need to keep life going.
    Isn’t that something?

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 )

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