Sea Ice Extent Now Normal in Arctic

NOTHING seems to be going to plan for those who believe in anthropogenic global warming and an imminent climate crisis.   According to thermometer and satellite data global surface temperatures are not increasing, the oceans aren’t warming, and now it seems not even the Arctic is melting.

The latest satellite data on Arctic sea ice extent suggests that there is now a normal amount of sea ice in the Arctic – normal is defined as about average for the period 1979 – 2007. 

And when all is said and done, if the climate system is not accumulating heat, the AGW hypothesis is invalid.

**************

Notes and Links

The graph is from ‘Daily Updated Time series of Arctic sea ice area and extent derived from SSMI data provided by NANSEN’,  http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

More discussion at WUWT on sea ice extent, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/07/nansen-corrects-sea-ice-data-sea-ice-extent-now-greater-normal-for-most-of-aprilmay/ 

The oceans aren’t warming: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/ocean-cooling-falsifies-global-warming-hypothesis/

Global surface temperatures aren’t increasing: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/global-temperature-revisited/ 

Click on the above graph for a better/larger view.

50 Responses to Sea Ice Extent Now Normal in Arctic

  1. Luke June 8, 2009 at 2:35 pm #

    Nonsense

    sea ice is less than 1 std of normal and trending down

    “the linear trend in ocean heat content remain similar to our earlier estimate.” says …

    Levitus, S., J. I. Antonov, T. P. Boyer, R. A. Locarnini, H. E. Garcia, and A. V. Mishonov (2009), Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems, Geophys. Res. Lett.

    Deniers wish upon a star that it all isn’t true. Sigh !
    I wish and wish and wish – I might.
    But the stars are still there tonight.

    NEXT !

  2. spangled drongo June 8, 2009 at 3:07 pm #

    Luke, you wouldn’t have a clue,

    The only denier here is you.

    If Roald Amundsen sailed this little, engineless, wooden boat through the NWP over a hundred years ago, you have no idea as to what constitutes “average” Arctic ice.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOUDizAULLk

  3. spangled drongo June 8, 2009 at 3:15 pm #

    If the ground at Hvalbad cemetry is still too stiff to bury the stiffs in that they buried there 1,000 years ago you have no idea what constitutes “average” Arctic ice.

    Stiff cheddar, old chap.

  4. SJT June 8, 2009 at 3:31 pm #

    “NOTHING seems to be going to plan for those who believe in anthropogenic global warming and an imminent climate crisis. ”

    Those snarky little comments only debase your dignity. There is no ‘plan’.

    The ice extent is once again outside the standard range, and this when the La Nina has exerted it’s influence. Do you wonder what will happen in the long term?

  5. spangled drongo June 8, 2009 at 3:37 pm #

    Read about some Russian cruises and ice observations in the Arctic from 1920-1940 and then tell me if you have any idea as to what constitutes “average” Arctic ice.

    http://mclean.ch/climate/Arctic_1920_40.htm

  6. janama June 8, 2009 at 4:03 pm #

    and while you are at it Luke, read “Sea Ice” at http://www.climate4you.com/

    at least you didn’t deny temperatures are falling, as I had expected.

  7. Neville June 8, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    Golly gee luke gets sillier every day, the artic’s back to normal and the antarctic has increased ice cover by 100,000sq klms every decade for the last 30 years, so I don’t think we’ll be running out of ice anytime soon.
    Just to better understand the numbskulls we’re dealing with Jensen just told the parliament that our chief scientist didn’t know that the effects of co2 are logrythmic and not linear, so what hope have we got.

  8. SJT June 8, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    The arctic sea ice extent is just about at the 2007 levels, which were the record low.

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

  9. spangled drongo June 8, 2009 at 5:00 pm #

    “The arctic sea ice extent is just about at the 2007 levels, which were the record low.”

    SJT, your link has been out of action due to satellite problems. The current situation is:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    “Do try to keep up”

  10. spangled drongo June 8, 2009 at 5:04 pm #

    In my post # 3 above, I should have said Hvalsey, not Hvalbad, sorry.

  11. Arjay June 8, 2009 at 5:23 pm #

    Surely this argument can be simply resolved by satellite photos of the actual sea ice instead of these stupid claims and counter claims.An up to date google earth comparing previous yrs pictures would put an end to all this nonsense.

  12. janama June 8, 2009 at 5:29 pm #

    SJT- what’s the point of posting information if you don’t read it?

    I say again – Sea Ice – http://www.climate4you.com/

  13. janama June 8, 2009 at 6:28 pm #

    Really – the point is that the sea ice of the arctic is not about to disappear but even if it did it would not be unusual.

  14. spangled drongo June 8, 2009 at 7:01 pm #

    janama,
    That’s right. Everything is pretty, boringly, normal. Not even natural climate change. Oh, well!

    Ya know, these alarmists are really putting our weights up. Ya cry wolf long enough and sooner or later the stuff hits the fan. I somehow feel we’ll end up with a disaster out of left field that no one was expecting, that has nothing to do with AGW, that will be a real cataclysmic catastastrofe disaster and it will be all because these wankers really want one.
    I just hope it lands in the ranks of the religious true believers. Like in the tail of Al’s plane or somewhere.

  15. Luke June 8, 2009 at 10:05 pm #

    What’s the last 2009 reading on the graph denialist scumbos.

    Just tell me !

    hahahahahahahahahahahaha

  16. CoRev June 9, 2009 at 2:14 am #

    Lukes says: “What’s the last 2009 reading on the graph denialist scumbos.

    Just tell me !

    hahahahahahahahahahahaha”

    Absolutely correct again Lukey! Certainly provides evidence that Spring has sprung.

    I am forever amazed that the Arctic Sea ice is such an issue. It is enclosed within land masses with a few escape paths. it warms and melts in the Summer. It refreezes in the Winter and its area is limited by the land masses. We have historidal evidence that it has been less than and more than today’s average. But its just so much more interesting to make a big deal of it as it is a proxy for …. ?! Uhh, global warming?

    Yup! It is. So what????? Don’t trip over the tipping points.

  17. sod June 9, 2009 at 4:41 am #

    this is the sea ice extent as shown by the link on right side of watts up:

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

    we are currently very similar to the lowest year on record (2007). what counts is the summer sea ice.

    Surely this argument can be simply resolved by satellite photos of the actual sea ice instead of these stupid claims and counter claims.An up to date google earth comparing previous yrs pictures would put an end to all this nonsense.

    you don t have the slightest clue what you are talking about. sea ice extent is water with at least 15% ice. the ice might be at different places in different years. comparing one day in one year to a random other day in another year is a plainly stupid methodology…

    I am forever amazed that the Arctic Sea ice is such an issue. It is enclosed within land masses with a few escape paths. it warms and melts in the Summer. It refreezes in the Winter and its area is limited by the land masses.

    as the link show there is an obvious long term trend in the arctic sea ice. fact.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg

    We have historidal evidence that it has been less than and more than today’s average.

    no, you have NOT. unless you are talking about prehistoric times…

    ut its just so much more interesting to make a big deal of it as it is a proxy for …. ?! Uhh, global warming?

    arctic sea ice is behaving exactly like “predicted” by the climate scientists. it hurts your denialist mind a little, doesn t it?

  18. Kevin McKinney June 9, 2009 at 5:22 am #

    Uh, actually, the NSIDC link is up to date, and shows exactly what SJT said.

    I guess this is the “new normal.”

  19. CoRev June 9, 2009 at 5:27 am #

    Sod, get a grip. 30 years is a long way from long term trend. Even you have to admit it is the normal for determining a climate trend. We hear it from folks like you all the time.

    Furthermore, making general statements: “arctic sea ice is behaving exactly like “predicted” by the climate scientists.” without specifics is just bad form and makes no point. And, ?exactly? Care to provide the specific example, again? It would be nice to compare the exactness of the prediction(s) against the empirical evidence, daily/monthly or whatever time units your predictions provided.

    Believers just can’t seem to make a point without the hyperbole.

  20. hunter June 9, 2009 at 6:14 am #

    SJT,
    “There is no plan….”
    Are you kidding yourself? Because no one else is fooled.

  21. Luke June 9, 2009 at 6:55 am #

    All of which dear friends is why they call them deniers. It’s the flesh wound skit – nothing could be serious – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

  22. Ian Beale June 9, 2009 at 7:27 am #

    Re Levitus et al

    And another correction coming up?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/02/anomalous-spike-in-ocean-heat-content/

  23. janama June 9, 2009 at 8:53 am #

    Here’s where the sea ice global sits relative to the two previous years.

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/seaice_2.jpg

    nothing to be concerned about. Natural variation.

  24. DJ June 9, 2009 at 9:07 am #

    Sea ice is now hitting a new record low. You are right Jen about this being normal – as we now set record low ice extent most years.

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

  25. Eli Rabett June 9, 2009 at 12:33 pm #

    Arjay asks:

    “Surely this argument can be simply resolved by satellite photos of the actual sea ice instead of these stupid claims and counter claims.An up to date google earth comparing previous yrs pictures would put an end to all this nonsense.”

    Which would be true if

    a. you didn’t have to worry about areas where there is mixed ice and ocean within a pixel. Read the various sea ice sites to see how they handle this. They all do it slightly differently, which accounts for the differences between them. Watch if the trends among the sites agree. Do not compare their absolute amounts to each other

    b. there was not a whole lot of clouds in the arctic and no light during the winter. Pictures from space in this case are not as good as radar.

  26. hunter June 9, 2009 at 1:10 pm #

    Luke, I think the AGW consensus science is much better summed up by our friends at Monty Python:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU
    As for ‘flesh wounds’, just how many more AGW claims have to be proven wrong before you guys will consider reviewing the claims?

  27. spangled drongo June 9, 2009 at 7:55 pm #

    Luke,
    Even Freeman Dyson has given up on you lot.

    http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

  28. cohenite June 9, 2009 at 8:15 pm #

    sod; if you are going to bring your Deltoid lack of manners with you could you at least be right? You talk of a long term trend in Arctic ice based on the satellite history; that’s rich; here’s a slightly better perspective;

    Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

    By Petr Chylek, C.K. Folland, G. Lesins, M. Dubey and M. Wang

    Abstract

    Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910-1940 and 1970-2008) by a significant 1940-1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi- decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910-1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970-2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.

    The paper has just been accepted in Geophysical Research letters.

  29. Sid Reynolds June 9, 2009 at 8:24 pm #

    What “Sod” didnt say about the AMSRE Graph, is that for the past 7 weeks until a few days ago, the sea ice extent was the greatest since the graphing commenced in 2002.
    During this period the reality deniers were strangly quiet on the sea ice extent.

    The main point here is that we only have seven & a half yrs. graphing to work on. How interesting this graph would look if it even went back 100 yrs. showing the low ice periods of the 1920’s and even the mid fifties when Us nuclear submarines surfaced at the North Pole with little ice about, (not in late summer, but in May).

  30. Steve Case June 9, 2009 at 10:51 pm #

    “NOTHING seems to be going to plan for those who believe in anthropogenic global warming and an imminent climate crisis. ”

    I am reminded of Linus and the “Great Pumpkin”

  31. Brad Arnold June 10, 2009 at 6:58 am #

    OK, let’s assume that Jennifer is correct, and Arctic sea ice extent is normal (as defined as about average for the time period 1979-2007). Is the thickness the same?

    Let me remind Jennifer that sunspot activity is the at a record low, and mankind’s short-lived sun dimming pollution is at an all time high.

    Oh well, even the most ideological will have to acknowledge in a couple of decades that global warming is a dire threat when non-irrigated crops routinely fail due to record high summer temperatures:

    “Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them.” –Dr James Lovelock’s lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. ’07

    By the way:

    More than 2T tons of ice melted in arctic since ’03

    (AP Dec ’08) More than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data that show the latest signs of what scientists say is global warming. More than half of the loss of landlocked ice in the past five years has occurred in Greenland, based on measurements of ice weight by NASA’s GRACE satellite, said NASA geophysicist Scott Luthcke. The water melting from Greenland in the past five years would fill up about 11 Chesapeake Bays, he said, and the Greenland melt seems to be accelerating. NASA scientists planned to present their findings Thursday at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco.

  32. Ian Mott June 10, 2009 at 10:17 am #

    Did you notice in the time lapse sequence how the annual melt in Hudson Bay sometimes starts in the north and in other years starts in the south? And guess which years the IUCN conduct their surveys of West Hudson Bay Polar Bears? Yep, when the ice first breaks with land in the north west then all those bears out in the middle end up in the south east and are not included in the WH population count. And shock, horror, we have climate induced population decline to scare the kids with.

  33. SJT June 10, 2009 at 11:00 am #

    “SJT, your link has been out of action due to satellite problems. The current situation is:”

    I’m going by the graph presented here, from Watts site. It briefly touched the ‘normal’ bounds, and is out of them again. The word “currently” seems to mean something different to you and me.

  34. Ian Mott June 10, 2009 at 3:39 pm #

    Yeah, right, Brad. Quotes Lovelock and expects to be taken seriously. And then follows up with some crap that uses “Chesapeake Bays” as a unit of volume. If Luthke was a scientists armpit he would not be quoting volume in tonnes but, rather, cubic Km. The use of tonnes as the unit of volume is designed to scare the heebie jeebies out of ignorant dumb ass bogans.

    For the record, Brad, a trillion tonnes is 1,000km3 and if NASA had a rudimentary grasp of the physical reality on the ground they would know that Antarctica needs to “lose” 1,000km3 every year just to match annual ice formation from precipitation. And Greenland has more than 1.5 million km3 of ice so 1000km3 over 5 years, or 200km3/year, leaves us 7,500 years to worry about the 7 metres of sea level rise, or 10cm by year 2100. Assuming it all goes to water and none is gasified.

  35. Flanagan June 10, 2009 at 3:57 pm #

    Well, following NSIDC and JAXA, the extent is now below that of 2007 (THE record year).

    Everything is allright, folks, no need to worry!

  36. spangled drongo June 10, 2009 at 5:26 pm #

    “Well, following NSIDC and JAXA, the extent is now below that of 2007 (THE record year).”

    Is that right?

    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png

  37. Kohl Piersen June 13, 2009 at 9:41 am #

    1. Contrary to the claim made in the article, the graph shows very clearly that present extent is below the ‘normal’ as defined.
    2. So what?

    I am unimpressed with arguments about the exact extent of Arctic sea ice. Whether it is going up or down says practically nothing about global warming and CO2.

    Ice extent has always fluctuated. The evidence is extensive, independent of any AGW debate and absolutely unambiguous and human beings had nothing to do with it – that is a matter of fact.

    Before advancing explanations for a postulated problem with global climate, commonly referred to these days as AGW, evidence is required that shows that there is something different about the present climate which invites investigation and explanation.

    The climate has become hotter (and colder) at a greater rate than it is now changing. Ocean levels have been much higher (and lower) and have changed at greater rates than they now are. Through all of this, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been much higher (but not much lower) than they now are. All of this happened without the assistance or otherwise of human beings.

    No evidence is adduced that shows anything happening with global climate that is outside the known range of climate change. Without evidence of a problem, proposed solutions are fatuous – non-solutions to a non-problem – as someone once said.

    In the end, credulity and ignorance married to a penchant for belief in catastrophism, rumour and conspiracy theory, are no substitute for cold hard facts.

  38. Ian Mott June 13, 2009 at 1:58 pm #

    Well said, Kohl.

    The essence of climate cretinism is that CO2 is driving a physical/chemical reaction that is warming the planet. But one must ask, how can this reaction be present when it has clearly gone AWOL for a number of decades, ie from 1940 to 1976 and again from 1998 to present?

    And if it is present then why isn’t the IPCC investigating what it was that turned it on and off in the past. Why would a sane body of people bother to tinker with the elements of this reaction when it is clear that the entire reaction can be turned off?

  39. Magnus A June 16, 2009 at 9:36 am #

    drongo: “Is that right?”

    You’re doubt is right. That isn’t right. Obviously a climate church believer. (I’ve heard that name before.) Anyway Flanagan about 2007 also says: “THE record year”, but in June 2007 the data was above the lowest year (JAXA).

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

    It’s btw funny that the climate church (or is “warming church” a better name?) and its believers puts so much effort in the Arctic ice (and the Antarctica just happen to be of no interrest, except a small little part of it). They don’t bother about science. All glaciologists who says this this is all about patterns in weather and sea currents and has nothing to do with radiation from the sky they don’t even comment. I guess they do what they have to do. Their message is that science is settled, and there’s “consensus” of invented catastrophes. This is apologetic business.

  40. Joseph G. Gallagher Jr. July 8, 2009 at 11:22 pm #

    The Japanese “Ibuki” satellite will start sending
    information on the density of CO2 and methane
    gas from the entire surface of the earth in 2010.
    Nearly 56,000 data points, daily. If it turns out
    that CO2 and/or methane concentrations are not
    high above 75 deg north Latitude, then science
    and dense data coverage instead of simulations
    will have to prevail again and a cause for the
    warming in the Arctic Ocean will have to be
    further investigated.

    A good place to start would
    be changes in the current directions in the Arctic
    Ocean or changes in the depth circulation of
    fresh and denser salt water with the seasons.
    Another influence to consider is the drift of
    almost 1500 km in the North Magnetic Pole that
    has occurred since 1969 when a “Jerk” was
    recorder that increased the rate of migration in
    the NMP. Today, the North Magnetic Pole is
    almost located near 86 degree North Latitude,
    125 degree West Longitude, within the Arctic
    Sea. In 1970, the Latitude and Longitude were
    approximately 75.5 deg North and 101 deg
    West, respectively. Has this migration of the
    North Magnetic Pole had an induced EMF effect on the
    circulation currents in the Arctic Ocean which in
    turn has increased the temperature of the Arctic
    Ocean affecting the melting and generation of
    thinner pack ice in the 1990’s and early 2000’s
    time frame, thus contributing to a warming of the
    Arctic Sea? It is noted here that pack ice froze
    over earlier in 2008 than in 2007, almost being
    completely frozen over by the end of October
    2008 except near the entrance to the Bering
    Straits. This year, it will be interesting to see
    how much melting occurs by mid September in
    the Arctic Sea and how fast is freezes over
    again.

    What ever the reason for the advanced melting and
    thinning of the Arctic sea ice, the “Ibuki” satellite will
    tell the facts on CO2 and methane concentrations
    world wide when it starts transmitting its data in 2010.

  41. Don July 10, 2009 at 8:46 am #

    Pardon me? Ice mass in the Antarctic reached a new height just last year, it went just through the roof (source: Cryosphere Today)! No fast melting whatsoever continent-wide. In the Arctic no ice-free passages in sight. Sorry for the freight-business. Hudson Bay still partly frozen in mid-july 2009. No reason to panic whatsoever.

  42. Don July 10, 2009 at 8:55 am #

    Correction: I meant: (sea) ice EXTENSION in the Antarctic. But the MASS in the central Antarctic regions is also steadily growing.

  43. Will October 15, 2010 at 10:32 pm #

    And looking back for 2010 we had a near record low which makes your comment above look very foolish for not realising, as the experts were saying, that the ice was thinner than in previous years.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Latest Global Warming news - Page 5 - theBubbler - June 9, 2009

    […] as Evidence in a Court of Law? Roy Spencer, Ph. D. Nothing is going as planned for the alarmists: Jennifer Marohasy Sea Ice Extent Now Normal in Arctic __________________ I don’t need an […]

  2. Arctic sea ice melting fast, near all time low for June » Mind of Dan - June 23, 2009

    […] all of this, we should expect the deniers who were previously claiming that the sea ice had recovered (and by extinction that global warming was bunk) to issue corrections indicating that, in fact, the […]

  3. ScienceBlogs Channel : Physical Science | BlogCABLE.COM - June 23, 2009

    […] back in May and early June when the denialists were gleefully proclaiming arctic sea ice had recovered to the 1979-2000 average, and by induction global warming must be […]

  4. Climate Change Ignorance from the Alaska Dispatch | Cynics Global Warming - January 8, 2010

    […] believe global warming is real AND that the Arctic is changing quickly for the worse.  Actually, Arctic sea ice seems to be just fine.  Mr. Woodham, please take the time to research your articles before just reciting lines from your […]

Website by 46digital