Skip to content

Arctic Fake News

February 19, 2017
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

image

 

As we all know, the Arctic has been experiencing a heatwave this winter, with resultant massive ice melt.

This is what the new ice free Arctic looks like now:

 

 

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

 

 

According to NSIDC, ice extent has already surpassed last year’s at this date, and is only 111,000 sq km less than back in 2005.

 

image

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives.html

 

 

The growth in Greenland’s ice sheet has been blowing away records:

 

accumulatedsmb

http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

 

 

And NH snow cover extent was amongst the highest on record last month:

 

image

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1

 

I hate to think what the Arctic would look like after a cold spell.

Advertisements
35 Comments
  1. Bloke down the pub permalink
    February 19, 2017 5:52 pm

    This is what the new ice free Arctic looks like now:

    Ah yes, but we all know that that is weak, thin ice that very soon will just disappear ! Can I have my grant money now please?

    • February 19, 2017 8:10 pm

      I’m sure it must be the wrong kind of ice.

      • CheshireRed permalink
        February 19, 2017 9:47 pm

        Whatever happened to claims of ‘rotten’ ice a few years back? It’s almost as if its just vanished off the face of the earth.

    • AndyG55 permalink
      February 21, 2017 10:22 am

      I’ve been watching Climate Reanalyser. There is a big bulge of “very cold” out from north-east Greenland that could easily freeze over the next couple of weeks. (also a patch outside Bering Strait.)

      If it does freeze, the level could easily climb over 15 Wadhams !

      That would be lovely egg on the alarmista faces 🙂

  2. February 19, 2017 6:47 pm

    The fact that a series of storms brought warmer air into the arctic is actually a massive cooling event, as the heat radiates to space in the dark Arctic winter. And this warmth is still -20C.

    • AlecM permalink
      February 19, 2017 6:58 pm

      Correct: it’s just one of the planet’s control mechanisms.

      • MrGrimNasty permalink
        February 19, 2017 8:04 pm

        According to the DMI, the Arctic 80N+ surface temperature is only about 1C above ‘average’, this is the coldest it has been during the freeze up season relative to average for some time. Average is about -28C with vast areas near -40C. If this stays stable, the next 30 days should see a very impressive volume/extent rise.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 21, 2017 10:24 am

        I concur.

        Could be great fun to watch the Arctic Worriers flapping about ! 🙂

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 21, 2017 10:36 am

        2017 day 50 is higher than 2016 and 2006.

        2016 – 14.175
        2006 – 14.277
        2017 – 14.328

      • Andy DC permalink
        February 22, 2017 3:25 am

        Can you count the billions of dollars wasted on frivolous research, plus the millions of hysterical words spewed by “experts,” over something that has hardly changed over the last 12 years?

    • Richard111 permalink
      February 19, 2017 7:54 pm

      ristvan, I also try to point this out to people. All the warm air reaching the Arctic is a global cooling phase and the temperature never goes above zero during the winter so how can the ice melt?

    • tom0mason permalink
      February 19, 2017 8:49 pm

      Those storms were the result of Sudden Stratospheric Warming that was precipitated by the action of the larger amount than normal of solar particles hitting the upper reaches of the atmosphere causing it to warm. This sudden influx of particles were the effects of the large coronal hole in the sun face directly at this planet. Overall since early December 2016 we have been subjected to probably 3 of these events the worst of them gave us the big freeze over Siberia and USA, the last one (a milder affair) resulted in the recent February snows in Britain.
      These events directly affect the jetstream causing them to both weaken and expand out from the Arctic region, and if intense enough result in a high pressure zone over the pole that pushes the Arctic winds further south and generally messes-up the usual tight coordination of these winds sometime leading to them reversing. That is what happen in January.

      This warming though anomalous solar effect is just a weather event — nothing more — and is not caused by CO2 or anything to do with global warming global warming.

      I did warn back in early January that this event would be blamed on global warming — nice to see one of my predictions of sheeple reaction has come true.

      See https://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/86485-stratosphere-temperature-watch-201617/

  3. John F. Hultquist permalink
    February 19, 2017 6:57 pm

    These stories are “cut & paste” journalism. The earlier practitioners of this profession were called investigative reporters. Some were not very nice folks but they did their own work. Then the internet was invented.
    The cAGW folks know about “cut & paste” journalism, and feed it.

    • John Palmer permalink
      February 19, 2017 7:43 pm

      +10! Do they ever!

  4. Kevin McArdle permalink
    February 19, 2017 8:12 pm

    Apparently, current Arctic sea ice extent compares extremely favourably with the very low recorded trough of 1930-1960, not to mention previous historical lows, never mind the relative ‘high’ of 2005. I presume, as those earlier periods were well before the modern ‘man-made’ catastrophical warming, the older catastrophic warming events must’ve clearly been caused by a conspiracy between Santa’s naughty elves, the Easter bunny and the last remnants of Erik the Red’s Greenland Vikings going a bit overboard firing up those old fuel injected sleighs they used to knock about on? Either that, or they must have been caused by, dare I say it, dreaded ‘natural variability’? That cyclical curse thrown at us by Mother Nature since time immemorial that certain climate scientists of a particular ‘bent’ repeatedly try to bury in their furiously adjusted, homogenised, massaged, tortured and, plain beaten to death, data sets. God forbid! Those poor polar bears must be really suffering up there now. In 1960 there were less than 10,000 of our cuddly friends sipping cocktails in the balmy -20c temperatures overlooking the Northern Lights. Now I there’s only 30,000+ left. It’s a tragedy.

  5. February 19, 2017 10:20 pm

    Tony Heller has a nice animation showing ice growth as reported by EUMETSAT, an alternate to NSIDC.

  6. Svend Ferdinandsen permalink
    February 19, 2017 10:23 pm

    The missing ice in the polar sea seems to have settled in Greenland.
    I am sure some climateers can explain that.

  7. Tom Dowter permalink
    February 20, 2017 2:16 am

    What is all the fuss about? Arctic sea ice concentration is not a good proxy for global temperatures – and an even worse one for temperatures in the rest of the world.

    If we correlate the year on year changes in sea ice with the global temperature changes as measured by UAH, We find that the best covariance is for the month of August at 10.26% and the worst is for February at 0.01%. Overall the covariance for the year is only 5.07%.

    If we use temperatures in the rest of the world outside the Arctic, the yearly figure drops to 3.36%

  8. richard verney permalink
    February 20, 2017 8:43 am

    You post the NH snow anomaly, but do not post the early data on Arctic sea ice extent going back to 1920.

    In the 1940s & 1950s the sea ice area was down to about 6 million sq. km (with a low of about 5.7 sq. km in 1959/60), and thus today’s level is nothing unusual. It is nothing to get unduly concerned about. Viz:

  9. John Atkins permalink
    February 20, 2017 9:25 am

    What about the heat being generated in the planets core? Is anyone trying to measure this? I do not believe the suns rays are the only heat source on earth. Eg – Everytime a deep oil or gas field is burnt in the hot core the fossil fuel ‘burn’ number for the planet as a whole increases wildly.(similar to when Saddam torched the Iraq Oil Fields.)
    Then there is the radioactive material and of course the tremendous pressure near the centre of the earth.

    • nigel permalink
      February 20, 2017 2:44 pm

      The amount of heat which escapes, in one way or another, from the interior of the earth to the surface, has been comprehensively investigated. It is a tiny trickle (0.03%) of the energy input from the sun.

      • John Atkins permalink
        February 21, 2017 6:53 pm

        I am reading that recent research suggests that past estimates of earths core temperature are far too low. Similarly the amount of heat being generated internally is far higher than previously believed. One scientist said that ‘text books will have to be rewritten’. Throughout recorded history it has been the case that the more we learn, the more we realise we do not know.
        Archimedes said he had ‘comprehensively investigated’ the universe.

      • Ippy permalink
        February 22, 2017 8:09 am

        I have a problem with ‘comprehensively investigated’.
        About 70% of the planet is covered by water. How was the heat flow from the extensive oceanic mid-ocean rifts with ever present but intermittent volcanic eruptions etc measured ‘comprehensively’?

      • nigel permalink
        February 22, 2017 12:12 pm

        The topic of the thread is seasonal changes in Arctic sea-ice extent, not deep geology.

        The temperature of the bottom of the oceans – which would be “the canary” for large fluctuations in heat flow from inside the earth – has not measurably changed since the voyages of “HMS Challenger” in the 1870s.

        The following article uses 24,774 measurements from 20,201 sites, covering 62% of the surface of the globe. Which is reasonably, “comprehensively.”

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93RG01249/full

        The actual methods often use electrical probes of resistivity as mentioned here. I am not a technician and so I only know the principle:

        http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13131-013-0384-3?no-access=true

      • nigel permalink
        February 22, 2017 12:20 pm

        This is the sort of instrument used:

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002532270200213X

        Of course, the actual heat content of any extruded magma is not directly measurable – but an upper limit can be placed on that, based on estimates of the amount extruded.

  10. February 20, 2017 10:51 am

    The case for AGW is the only thing getting thinner.

  11. Tom Dowter permalink
    February 21, 2017 1:28 am

    If the warmist propaganda merchants had tried to deny the “pause” by pointing to Arctic temperatures, (which do not display a slowing down but a speeding up in warming – and not just for the past year), then they would, quite rightly, be accused of cherry picking.

    However, by focusing on sea ice, they can avoid this. Most of the world’s sea ice is in the Arctic, (the Antarctic is mainly land).

    Nice trick!

    Actually, the main reason why the Arctic was so warm at the end of last year and the begiining of this is that other places a bit to the South were unusually cold. This was caused by cold air from the Arctic moving South. Naturally this had to be replaced by, (presumably warmer), air from elsewhere.

    • Athelstan permalink
      February 21, 2017 6:56 am

      You know you really do want to read some of the crap you scribble back to yourself and see if it scans, literally and scientifically.

      In an above post you aver that:

      What is all the fuss about? Arctic sea ice concentration is not a good proxy for global temperatures – and an even worse one for temperatures in the rest of the world.

      Which is about right, you were on a winner so why bother with the latter effort?

      However, by focusing on sea ice, they can avoid this. Most of the world’s sea ice is in the Arctic, (the Antarctic is mainly land).

      Yeah good spot, me old “dowter” [wasup can’t spell?]……………. “the Antarctic is mainly land” but we talking “sea ice” – ain’t we? The northern Polar sea ice fluctuates and wildly according to recent records and going back before “records began!” circa 1979……….it’s been a slightly declining trend in the North but overall the sea ice is in balance – that’s what Gaia likes – equilibrium and besides even if and it won’t but even if all of the Northern Sea Ice disappeared – so bloody what. Furthermore and it’s not sea ice true!……. but the Greenland icecap……………..doesn’t look like melting anytime soon.
      Finally, the chimera of “rising Arctic Temperatures” – where’s the evidence of this remarkable assumption, let us see the data sets – remote sensing maybe?

      I’ll tell you what scientists really need to comprehend but are way off understanding is how the Arctic basin is affected by Oceanic currents and warmer waters which are being pumped into the Arctic sea because until we commence to be able to fathom the ‘Conveyor’ we are nowhere and thus, all else is just idle, alarmist speculation.

      • nigel permalink
        February 21, 2017 9:29 am

        Brrh.

        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

      • Athelstan permalink
        February 21, 2017 9:37 am

        Danish met office, I keep forgetting they [ta – nigel btw:-))]……… eh and how cold do you like it?

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 21, 2017 10:12 am

        Remote sensing of Arctic temperature before the current El Nino (nothing to do with CO2)

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 21, 2017 10:14 am

        Icelandic sea ice data going way back, showing 1979 up there with the levels of the LIA.

        Also showing very low levels before that.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 21, 2017 10:17 am

        Arctic sea ice levels are only a “scary thing” if you ignore real data prior to 1979, and prior to LIA.

        Bio-data has shown that during the first 3/4 or more of the Holocene, there was often ZERO summer sea ice.

        So you see, Arctic sea ice is only a problem for those who DENY climate change.

  12. Athelstan permalink
    February 21, 2017 1:53 pm

    “deny climate change” I still don’t know what you are gibbering on about.

    • AndyG55 permalink
      February 22, 2017 6:38 am

      Those people who refuse to look at longer term climate changes,

      Refuse to admit that early Holocene levels of sea ice were much lower than now.

      They are deniers of natural climate change

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: