Skip to content

The Superhot Arctic Refuses To Melt!

April 2, 2017

By Paul Homewood




We know that Arctic sea ice extent has been at relatively low levels this past winter. However, most of the deficit has been on the periphery, mainly in the Barents Sea, or way outside the Arctic anyway, areas which would soon melt away anyway.

The natural consequence of this reduced ice coverage is that enormous amounts of heat have been escaping from the oceans during the Arctic winter, a phenomenon that is part of the Earth’s thermostat.

However, largely as a consequence of this low ice extent, the spring melt has been slow to arrive.


Normally, the Arctic reaches maximum extent on Feb 28th, yet this year extent was till above that day’s level on 13th March, and in the last week has actually been growing again. Currently it is only slightly below the level of a month ago.





Meanwhile, according to DMI, ice extent is now above that of both 2015 and 2016.





Most of the thin ice is, again, centred around the Barents Sea, due to the influx of warmer water from the Atlantic. As already stated, this would normally melt away quickly anyway.

But across most of the Arctic basin, the ice is much thicker.


In the meantime, Greenland continues to blow away all records with the expansion of its ice sheet.




It is unlikely you will hear any of this from the BBC or their chums in Greenpeace.

  1. Broadlands permalink
    April 3, 2017 12:26 am

    Paul.. Your tall March bar graph begins at zero, but a better representation would be one that has the axis at 12 or 14.

    • April 3, 2017 6:18 am

      Nonsense. The full ice extent puts it into context.

      • bea permalink
        April 3, 2017 7:30 am

        “…into context…”

        You are ENTIRELY CORRECT, and I write as someone with a Master’s in Statistics.

        ‘Ways to lie with Statistical Graphs 101’ says on Page One:

        “If your finding is footling, do not show the full-scale picture.”

      • Broadlands permalink
        April 5, 2017 9:00 pm

        I understand, but the trend is more difficult to see. I just put a cover over that chart at 14 million km and I can see a trend better. That was the point of the daily chart, was it not?

    • April 3, 2017 8:24 am

      Precisely the opposite is true.
      it would be considered bad/mistleading statistics to start the graph at any other figure than zero.

      • bea permalink
        April 3, 2017 8:38 am

        At the very least one, would start at zero and show a break-sign on the y-axis, to indicate that much of the axis has been suppressed.

    • Joe Public permalink
      April 3, 2017 10:51 am

      When scaremongers predict “It’ll all melt”, it is essential to show the full amount that’s supposed to melt:

      • CheshireRed permalink
        April 3, 2017 1:54 pm

        Nafeez Ahmed was just another Guardian Green extremist. Hysteria is their stock-in-trade, but they NEVER apologise or retract when their ‘predictions’ don’t come to pass. Strange, eh?

  2. April 3, 2017 1:45 am

    MASIE shows ice extents down a bit in the marginal seas.

  3. April 3, 2017 1:56 am

    Very good article, Paul.

    The Climate-Industrial Complex’s spin machine has convinced millions of people that warming can produce only two effects, both of which cause sea-level rise: melting grounded ice, and thermal expansion.

    Even while wringing their hands about slight declines in sea ice, they never mention the effects of those declines.

    They never mention the effects of reduced ice cover on the Southern and Arctic Oceans: increased evaporation, causing:
    1. increased cooling of the water (a negative feedback which, as you say, “is part of the Earth’s thermostat”),
    2. increased ocean-effect snow on neighboring land masses (which offsets ice sheet and glacier melting), and
    3. probably also increased cloud cover (which has complex effects: cooling when the Sun is up, but warming when the sun is below the horizon).

    Warming does increase melting where temperatures are close to 0°C, though not where temperatures are -40° (which is above average for Antarctica). That increases meltwater from grounded ice, and hence increases sea-level. But warming also increase snow deposition on ice sheets and glaciers, which adds to ice sheets and glaciers and decreases sea-level.

    The two effects must be similar in magnitude, because sea-level rise has been almost perfectly linear for over 85 years everywhere, and for more than a century in most places. If net meltwater flow from grounded ice (ice sheets and glaciers) had increased substantially in response to global warming, you couldn’t see graphs like these:

    This is a very high-quality sea-level measurement record in Europe:

    Interactive version (same graph):

    That happens to be a German sea-level measurement record. But the story is the same everywhere: sea-level is rising no faster now, with CO2 above 400 ppmv, than it was >85 years ago, when CO2 was under 310 ppmv.

    Here’s a Finnish tide gauge:

    The rate is different (sea-level is actually declining there), but the acceleration story is the same: there is none.

    Here’s a Pacific tide gauge; same story:

    Here’s the best southern hemisphere gauge; same story:

    If someone can look at graphs like those, and still believe that anthropogenic carbon emissions cause significantly accelerated sea-level rise, he either doesn’t know how to read a graph, or he’s a true climate science denier.

    • April 3, 2017 11:58 am


      “…has convinced millions of people that warming can produce only two effects”
      should be:
      “…has convinced millions of people that warming can produce only two effects which affect sea-level”

      The green trace in that graph of German sea-level is CO2.
      (In the interactive version of the graphs you can hover your mouse cursor over the various traces to see the values displayed.)

  4. John F. Hultquist permalink
    April 3, 2017 2:47 am

    Inquiring minds wish to know how many cruise ships and freighters have used the Northwest Passage in the last few months?

  5. Brian H permalink
    April 3, 2017 5:54 am

    Go, Greenland, Grow!

  6. April 3, 2017 6:48 am

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “It is unlikely you will hear any of this from the BBC or their chums in Greenpeace.”


    • bea permalink
      April 3, 2017 8:30 am

      Another thing that you will not be hearing from the BBC, is that the 2016/2017 tropical storm season in the Southern Hemisphere is shaping up to be the QUIETIST EVER RECORDED.

      Of course, after a pause for mental reboot, it will be trotted out sooner or later as PROOF of global warming, as a reduction in such storms was the original prediction – a prediction which was dropped in favour of the opposite assertion, when it was stormy for a while.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        April 3, 2017 1:04 pm

        It does contradict the claimed increase in extreme weather events somewhat.

  7. Ben Vorlich permalink
    April 3, 2017 7:03 am

    Caleb at Sunrise’s Swansong is a bit of a weather and Arctic watcher. He had a series of posts about a low pressure area over the Arctic which elevated the temperature and transferred a huge amount of energy from lower latitudes into space. He called this particular low pressure Ralph, and it lasted a year or more. He likes giving things names and has done longer than the MO,

  8. AlecM permalink
    April 3, 2017 9:35 am

    But Paul, you are being pragmatic, like any engineer. Only when such pragmatic thinking explains the data better than an assumed but wrong science can a new theory emerge**.

    **AND the supporters of the previously dominant theory have to die, or voluntarily state they were wrong in the past. Empirically just 3% of atmospheric scientists behave in that way!

  9. CheshireRed permalink
    April 3, 2017 10:14 am

    I won’t believe a word of this until I read it in the Guardian.

  10. Athelstan permalink
    April 3, 2017 12:20 pm

    Funny to reflect the earth just goes on, doing its thing and revolving, evolving so slow, it has time, the only creature which devolves is, degenerating mankind and post modernism, Socialism = regression.

    • bea permalink
      April 3, 2017 12:44 pm

      There are hundreds of different, naturally variable, observable things which, potentially, could be boldly (i.e. unscientifically and emotionally) said to be “proving” CAGW. Some of these will ALWAYS be found to be doing something unusual, with the metric different from long-term average. Those will be highlighted to the total exclusion of the ones which are ordinary at present. Thus are minor sins of commission and omission joined to form a perpetual mortal scientific sin.

      • Athelstan permalink
        April 3, 2017 5:21 pm

        I really wasn’t gonna bother, attempting to decipher this random collection of words and its gobbledegook but you know……………..strewth, over the years I’ve oft’ come across this sort of claptrap and – are you Icarus?

        There are hundreds of different, naturally variable, observable things which, potentially, could be boldly (i.e. unscientifically and emotionally) said to be “proving” CAGW.

        My bold highlight.

        Don’t bother explaining – I really don’t want to know…………..BUT!?

        Thinking allowed, I beg, asking rhetorically…………… How can something which is in your words ‘naturally variable’ – next, be said to ‘proving’ [again your words] man made warbling or – aught?

        It don’t figure, but come to think of it, you never did – you’re harmless though and I do not decry your evident ardour, just focus it on something worthwhile – could you please.

      • nigel permalink
        April 3, 2017 5:43 pm

        Dear me Athelstan, you are dense or pissed. Can’t you see that ‘bea’ is DENOUNCING all attempts to twist natural variability into proof of CAGW? That is why “proving” is in inverted commas – to show that it is not any such thing. And ‘bea’ is pointing out that alarmists will always find spurious examples.

      • Athelstan permalink
        April 3, 2017 7:42 pm

        No, I do not see it.

        I’ve read this sort of jargonized twaddle before, in many a governmental handout, corporate apology, council pravda, NGO, EU, UN propaganda, as always: at best it is ambiguous guff.

        I cannot fathom the abstract gobbledegook, to me, it might mean anything.

  11. BLACK PEARL permalink
    April 3, 2017 2:18 pm

    Can you get a Noble Prize or a “gong” for consistently reporting the truth and facing off a scientific totalitarian regime ?

    or do they usually award such things to fabricators & falsifiers

  12. Nordisch-geo-climber permalink
    April 3, 2017 3:35 pm

    Well, with closing on 5 million hits on this site, there would be plenty of support for nominating Paul (via our UK government) for a Nobel prize if he wished to be nominated. If Obama, the IPCC, Gore and Dylan can be recipients, surely Paul is more worthy in the peace, truth, literature or physics categories. The climate-industrial complex has been well and truly held to account by Paul (and others) and we will see over the next ten years the hubris of that group being rolled back as reality and truth bites back.

    • bea permalink
      April 3, 2017 5:26 pm

      “…reality and truth bites back…”

      UAH temperature anomaly for March down by 0.16 C and is now + 0.19 C

  13. nigel permalink
    April 3, 2017 6:41 pm

    “…reported by the BBC…”

    Has the BBC EVER reported either UAH and RSS analyses of satellite measurements, or the findings of radiosondes. I ask seriously because I have not listened or watched any BBC news programmes this Century.

  14. April 3, 2017 9:18 pm

    Last week I suddenly get a tweet from Mosher saying that I was WRONG to say that last months unconfirmed fall in temp trend back to 2015 level would be confirmed
    Well I checked the latest which did confirm I was right
    after that for some reason Mosher stopped the conversation

  15. April 9, 2017 2:20 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: