Arctic Sea Ice Extent Same As 2006
By Paul Homewood
Susan Crockford writes:
Sea ice charts for 18 January from NSIDC Masie show exactly as much sea ice in 2017 as there was back in 2006 – 13.4 mkm2.
Masie image below from 2006 (enlarged and cropped from archived version and label re-inserted) shows the distribution of ice was slightly different than this year (less in Baffin Bay/Davis Strait/Labrador Sea, more in the Barents and Bering Seas):
Considering only Canada (where 2/3 of the world’s polar bears live), Canadian Ice Service comparative graphs going back to 1971 show average amounts of ice existed the week of 15 January 2017, but considerably more than the estimates for the 1970s (odd that we never hear about that):
Meanwhile, DMI show Arctic sea ice extent close to the level of the last four years.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
And NH snow cover during December was well above average:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=12
And the Greenland ice sheet has been growing at a phenomenal pace since September:
http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
Experts say the Arctic is overheating.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Well, that’s all settled then.
Best tell Prince Charles, Kate Humble and co how right they are to be worried.
Even the Arctic is not cooperating with the warmunist meme. The polar storm that drew warmth north and caused media hyperventilation weeks ago is shown to be just weather. It did cause two Russian icebreakers to get stuck for a week in 2.5 meter pressure ridged ice.
ya, but it was rotten ice… /sarc
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Just show how completely vacant the establishment are. Bit like banking management, just because they have a procedure, they think they can sack everyone and any old dimwit paid peanuts can do the job.
Just a small point and I have mentioned it before, you should transition to using the term hydrocarbon fuel and not fossil fuel. They are not fossils, not even coal. There is a new paradigm developing about how hydro carbons form. And it bears no relationship to how they say it does. Whilst you don’t have to accept this thinking just yet it would be wise too shift your language so that when it does become accepted, as it surely will, you are not left unnecessarily defending a position that is currently based on dubious science.
Just a little taster of how dramatic this shift is going to be, one of Germans brown coal mines, this so called coal that is only 60 million years old, has a Roman aqueduct buried beneath it. This is slightly hard to explain using all the usual explanations.
PMG, if they are not fossils then why do they indisputably contain fossils. The Illinois state fossil, the ‘Tully Monster’, is found only in its coal beds. Newly announced this week is a wolf sized otter with a complete cranium recovered from the Ahuitangba lignite bed in Yunnan China. Futher proof comes from 12C/13C isotope ratios, since 12C is preferentially taken up by photosynthesis. Finally, the only known roman aquaduct in Germany is the Eiffel to Koln. It was built largely 1 meter underground to aboid winter freezing. It does NOT underly lignite mines. When you assert something very odd, make it less easy to fact check and disprove next time.
I suggest everyone does some serious reading. I don’t know which of the competing theories is correct about the formation of coal, but I do know the science surrounding it being formed millions of years ago is seriously flawed. This is why I suggest that Paul changes his language, not that he adopts some far flung theory but moves away from a form of words associated with the false global warming paradigm.
Carbon dating only goes back a few tens of thousands of years. So it is useless if you are trying to establish that Coal is a fossil millions of years old. Secondly anyone who has looked closely at the original science around carbon dating will see that some of the original number are assumptions, and seriously flawed ones at that.
Then there is the whole discussion around the electrical nature of the Universe. If this is true, and every probe in space is currently doing nothing but confirm this and not able to affirm the nuclear model then radio dating will be shown to be false and due to changes in the electrical potential of a body you will get changes in the results for radio dating anything.
We are on the cusp of a new age of discovery. The old world of political control is falling down faster than anyone could have predicted. It has held back science for 100 years during which our understanding has not progressed.
We accuse Global warming of being a religion, I would say the most of our cosmology is religious belief, and this in turn is tainting every area of science.
Actually, in NSIDC data, day 21 extent is 0.153 Wadhams ABOVE that of 2006.
OOPS.. that’s day 20. (morning here, line 21 on my spreadsheet.. DOH !!!)
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Paul why do you keep using facts?
Don’t you know it’s all “post-normal” science now?
Facts don’t matter.
When it suits crack climate experts they tell us climate is ’30 years or more’ and ‘anything less is just weather’. 3 months ago when Arctic ice was on the low side they screamed it was due to climate change, yet here we are back to the same rate as in 2006 and this will be flat-out ignored. The truth is it’s ALL weather, and so-called man-made climate change is simply nonsense on stilts.
Suggest you read “The Deep Hot Biosphere – the Myth of Fossil Fuels”, by Thomas Gold (1999) – Foreword by Freeman Dyson (who sits in Einstein’s chair at Princeton).
nabbiz, are you like PeterMG, open minded on the “Electric Universe”.
Because I am, in fact Science seems to have taken a wrong turn around the turn of this century and dug itself ever deeper with the reliance on Dark Matter, Dark Energy and the Big Bang.
There is also a great deal of “forgotten” or “hidden” science out there, folks like E M Smith (Chiefio) and Tim Cullen (Malaga Bay) have been digging up quite a bit of it.
13.4 million? Make that 13.9 million now:
http://nsidc.org/data/masie/
.
All this talk about the new administration totally throwing out climate change as a hoax, I don’t think is really the case.
The scientific data is pretty obvious that there has been a serious problem that does need our attention.
There is also some strange recordings lately that are rather unnerving, like the sudden warmth in Antarctica after it had been colder than usual.
The Data scientists are, to me, trying to just portray what is actually out there.
They need our continued support & appreciation for continuously & tediously gathering daily & monthly data, keeping us always at the very top of global climate change science worldwide.
I’m convinced that we have the best & most brilliant scientists that there are anywhere & look forward to every bit of information that they make public.
You scientists are the most notable in the world! Please feel this rich, heartfelt Thank you for all that you do!