Arctic Sea Ice’s Rapid Growth In November
By Paul Homewood
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php
Arctic sea ice extent in November was the highest since 2008, and higher than even 2006, according to DMI.
As Arctic alarmists, DMI like to impose a linear trend since the start of the record in 1979. Gullible people are thus persuaded that “Arctic ice is continuing to shrink”, just as the alarmists intended.
Highly conveniently however, the start of the satellite record in 1979 came at the end of the coldest period in the Arctic for several decades:
Unsurprisingly, sea ice extent grew during these years, which were known in Iceland as “The Sea Ice Years”. The cold climate then played havoc with Iceland’s fishing and agriculture.
No serious scientist would use a linear trend halfway through a cycle, yet that is exactly what both DMI and NSIDC do. You have to ask yourself why.
Sea ice extent may have been marginally higher in 2008, but the ice is much thicker this year, particularly in the central Arctic.
DMI’s volume figures only start in 2003, but it is evident that it has not been declining in the last decade.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt
But you will not discover any of this from the BBC or most of the rest of the MSM, who prefer to peddle the fake propaganda.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
According to the map, don’t get your sail boat out yet!!
Yet another illustration that the WMO definition of climate as being a 30 year cycle is incorrect: everything that I’ve seen points to a 60 year minimum period for the earth’s main climate-cycle.
The massive economic damage being caused by the abuse of data ought to be the cause of outrage: but the meja are complicit in making sure that information is rationed carefully to avoid any data assessments. The same comment about the meja applies to Brexit!
Brian Fagan, Floods, Famines, and Emperors: El Niño and the Fate of Civilizations (Basic
Books, 1999). Ch 10 LIA
“Sea temperatures around Greenland and Iceland dropped precipitously for much of the time between 1600 and 1830, decimating cod populations, another staple of the Icelandic diet. Cod flourish in waters between two and thirteen degrees Celsius, but their kidneys do not function in colder water.
Even a minor shift in polar water causes the fish to follow warmth. The Norse had subsisted off cod during the heyday of their settlements in Greenland, but there were no stocks off Greenland during the Little Ice Age. Cod disappeared completely from the Norwegian Sea during the seventeenth century as polar water spread southward.
Iceland has exported fish since the fourteenth century, although the size of cargoes was limited until the introduction of decked ships in 1890. But the industry has always been at the mercy of cooler sea temperatures. Even with modern industrial-scale fishing, herring and cod catches rise and fall with water temperatures.
One of the major reasons for Iceland’s bitter confrontations with Britain in the 1960s over fishing rights was the deterioration of fish stocks around Iceland as a result of falling sea temperatures.”
(Cod migrated south towards warmer waters, seems Iceland kept increasing their no fishing zone to follow them)
http://britishseafishing.co.uk/the-cod-wars/
“Although it was never a war in the conventional sense, the Cod Wars none the less showed how close two countries would come to combat over the issue of fishing rights. In the end Iceland were successful in extending their EEZ massively, and today the 200-mile limit is accepted internationally.
The loss of access to these fisheries devastated many British fishing communities such as Hull and Grimsby and many Scottish ports, with as many as 1,500 fishermen and several thousand shore-based workers from these areas losing their jobs.
Iceland, on the other hand, has remained outside of the European Union and therefore free from the Common Fisheries Policy. This has allowed Iceland to manage its own fish stocks responsibly and sustainably, meaning today it has the highest fish stocks in Europe and one of the most productive and modern fishing industries in the world.”
Sea ice is stable, the world always gets back to equilibrium as far as a chaotic and dynamic system will allow.
NB, therefore arbitrarily cherry picking end points, start points for comparison at best is, specious nonsense.
But that is what the
greensMarxists do, they don’t care a fig about warming or saving the planet…………stiffing the taxpayers and keeping them in a semi state of perma anxiety – that’s what it is all about: TAXES and FEAR.“Cycles of 60 to 80 years have been identified before in atmospheric temperature records in the Arctic. The old records that we recovered from ships’ logs and other sources may show that similar cycles are present in sea ice.”
Dr Chad Dick, a Scottish scientist working at the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromso, 2005.
Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/future-scotland/tech/polar-history-shows-melting-ice-cap-may-be-a-natural-cycle-1-738894
It does look like the Arctic ice formation has slowed rapidly with the change of month though, and fallen back already compared to previous years. I think it’s a bit daft obsessing over daily/weekly/monthly figures, Heller does that, and it’s a bit silly.
And Antarctica seems to be sticking with lower levels of sea ice after the sudden switch from the long period of stability/increase a few years ago.
To me it looks like sea ice is more dominated by natural regime shifts rather that man-made warming.
There is often a slowdown in ice formation sometime in late November/early December, have a look at the sea ice reference page at Watts Up With That. Looking at the longer term trends, it seems to me that there was a phase change around 2007, with the trend suddenly switching from a fairly rapid decline to being basically stable. The same looks like it may have just happened in Antarctica, with a change from gradual increase to stable but at a much lower level, although the change was only a few years ago so it is harder to know if the past few years are the beginning of a new phase or not. I’m pretty sure none of the climate models predicted step (or phase) changes, yet another example of them getting it wrong. According to Svensmark’s solar cloud theory, an increase in cloud cover due to lower solar activity (which we’ve seen with solar cycle 24 being weaker than 23 and 22) will produce global cooling except in Antarctica where increased cloud has an insulating effect and at least in the short term produces slight warming. Therefore if the temperature in the Arctic is starting to decrease (as shown by stable or increasing sea ice) then the temperature in Antarctica should increase, leading to a loss of sea ice. It think it would be unreasonable to expect phase changes to occour at exactly the same time in the Arctic and Antarctica. I agree with Jack Broughton that there are shorter term cycles, e.g. the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, but these tend to cancel out over the full cycle (a period of warming will be followed by a period of cooling) so on a time scale of centuries it is only the sun that has any effect, although on a decadal time scale ocean cycles can heave more effect than solar effects. The challenge is to try and work out which is currently having the most effect, long term solar cycles, or short term oceanic oscillations
I am new to all of this.Pleas explain to me why so much Fake News is being peddled,especially by The BBC and news papers like The EDP.Why is hardly anyone taking
notice of what all you good people are saying.
The MSM is almost entirely aboard the UN global socialist governance through climate alarmism vehicle, they have a near monopoly and refuse debate. Google even manipulates searches away from ‘denier’ sites, and main platforms are shadow and actually banning supposedly ‘far right’ contributors.
But they still can’t convince people, people aren’t as stupid or controllable as they think. Apparently climate change was the first option presented – but still ranks last!
http://data.myworld2015.org/
Another similarity with 2008 is that we’re at the end of a low-sunspot solar cycle.
We shouldn’t take much notice of ‘arctic’ temperature anomalies. Given the lack of reporting stations they are guesses and satellites are just useless in this part of the atmosphere. Two effects of this, firstly we don’t really have a clue what average temperatures are in the arctic, and given it represents 16% of the NH satellite numbers , casts a huge shadow over their use.
Jim, check out this study done on records from stations around the Arctic Circle:
Arctic temperature trends from the early nineteenth century to the present W. A. van Wijngaarden, Theoretical & Applied Climatology (2015) http://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/files/2015/11/Arctic-Europe-Paper-2015.pdf
Temperatures were examined at 118 stations located in the Arctic and compared to observations at 50 European stations whose records averaged 200 years and in a few cases extend to the early 1700s.
The Arctic has warmed at the same rate as Europe over the past two centuries. . . The warming has not occurred at a steady rate. . .During the 1900s, all four (Arctic) regions experienced increasing temperatures until about 1940. Temperatures then decreased by about 1 °C over the next 50 years until rising in the 1990s.
For the period 1820–2014, the trends for the January, July and annual temperatures are 1.0, 0.0 and 0.7 °C per century, respectively. . . Much of the warming trends found during 1820 to 2014 occurred in the late 1990s, and the data show temperatures levelled off after 2000.
My synopsis: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/arctic-warming-unalarming/
Ron, hardly any of those stations are above 70deg. Most are just over 60deg.
I stand by my comments, we have hardly any records in the arctic.
“…the arctic…represents 16% of the NH satellite numbers.”
Assuming one is defining ‘the arctic’ as area north of the arctic circle, the true figure is 8%.
To be precise, RSS analyzes from 70 S to 82.5 N while UAH goes pretty much from Pole to Pole. GLOBALLY, therefore, RSS can only weight polar regions with (a little under) 4% for the arctic and 1% for the antarctic; while UAH can use 4% for the arctic and 4% for the antarctic.
Despite the slightly different cover, the analyses broadly agree.
The HIGH arctic – say the area north of 80 N – is 0.7 % of the surface of the earth.
Here are November ice extents reported by MASIE and SII. Hudson Bay refroze mostly over the last 18 days.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/12/05/november-arctic-ice-recovery/
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.