Arctic Defies Fake News Stories
By Paul Homewood
We have had countless fake news stories over the winter about heatwaves in the Arctic and record ice melt.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Arctic sea ice is just where it has been for the last few years.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Average April ice extent has now been stable since 2004.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php
Most of the Arctic basin is covered by ice at least two meters thick or more:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php
In stark contrast to 2008, when most of the ice was extremely thin, and most of the thick stuff to the north of Greenland was about to be swept out into the Atlantic that summer.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php
Arctic temperatures have been 20C or more below zero all year so far, and are currently below average.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
And the Greenland ice sheet continue to grow at record rates.
http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
I would hate to think what the Arctic would look like if it was actually cold up there!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I’m waiting for the BBC to pick up on this story.
You’ll be a collection of bones before that happens. Nothing off message will escape the home of fake news.
the bbc don’t report fake information
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Arctic “Death Spiral” Update…
The only thing for alarmists to go on about is the retreat of ice in the Pacific ahead of schedule.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/april-arctic-ice-beats-expectations/
According to Russian charts for the Arctic “old” sea ice
2017 is approximately :
12% HIGHER than 2016
41% HIGHER than 2008
26.4% HIGHER than 2009
30% HIGHER than 2012
Unfortunately 2008 is as far back as the comparable Russian charts go,
MASIE shows the current total extent of sea ice ABOVE that of 2006. 2007, 2009, 2011, 2015 and 2016
Earth facing solar coronal holes (see http://www.solarham.net/older.htm)have been exercising the planet’s upper atmosphere causing abnormal sudden stratospheric warming especially over the polar areas.
These natural, though unusual, events are what has been misinterpreted by the AGW advocates as examples of CO2 warming. They are not of course, and each time the sun has done this (in November, December, February and April) the press reports on the subsequent ‘massive heat’ at the Arctic and the increased wobbliness of the jet-streams. These are of course just effect from the increase in solar particles hitting the upper atmosphere and warming it. (See https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/arctic-fake-news/#comment-88163 )
I wonder this variable is parametrized and properly accounted for in the climate models?
All of the IPCC reports start off with a radiative forcing function, RFF which gives the extra heat flux in W/m2 arriving at the earth. This is the basic weak-link of the models as it is not much better than a guess, albeit made by a panel of IPCC goons. In the assessments they discount changes of cloud cover, moisture in the atmosphere as it warms (especially its effects on clouds), etc. Solar variability is more or less totally discounted at less than +/-1 W/m2.
A different panel of experts could conclude, from the information that was used, that the RFF was negative and the earth cooling: that is how weak the underlying science is. From these “assessed” RFF values, then applying an incorrect feedback mechanism that doubles the amount of extra heat, originate all the climate-scares and the passionate belief in global warming of the non-questioning majority.
The IPCC reports are deliberately long-winded and obscure where the science is weakest as in the fundamental driver that is solar radiation.
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News.
Why not draw a 3 sigma range like every other industry? 2 sigma is used only to create alarm.
+/- 2 sigma cover 95% of a normal distribution. That corresponds to p=0.05, the usual standard for scientific data analysis. You are thinking industrial quality control, a field with a very different set of constraints.
Its so funny that you used MODELLED temperatures.. DMI temperatures are not observations.
Even more hilarious you used Modelled Thickness and Modelled Volume.
You skeptics.. too funny
Here is the documentation on the MODEL DATA
So basically you posted modelled data for Thickness and didnt even check on the model
“Modelled Arctic sea ice
The graphics on right shows a map with modelled sea-ice thickness and curves with calculated total sea-ice volume for the Arctic as a function of the day of the year. The mean volume and its standard deviation for the years 2004-2013 is shown with gray. The figures is based on calculations using the DMI operational coupled ocean- and sea-ice model HYCOM-CICE. The total sea-ice volume is a product of the sea-ice concentration and its thichness.
Today, the sea-ice concentration is in general well estimated using satellite products, while the sea-ice thickness is poor known. “
Haven’t you got a dodgy second-hand temperature database to peddle, Mosher?
“while the sea-ice thickness is poor known.”
I keep telling warmists that when they claim it is getting thinner!
TOO FUNNY!
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
There goes another Warmist, eco-zealot narrative. It seems the ice isn’t vanishing, after all.
Hmm . . I hope you are right. But looking at the two sea-ice volume graphs, I’m not so confident that this year will be better that 2008. While all that yellow in the middle of the Ocean and on the American side certainly looks better than 2008, the Russian side currently shows a lot a purple which will melt out very soon.