Arctic Sea Ice Extent At A Decadal High Every Day In November

Arctic sea ice extent has been at a 10 year high every day in November. Experts call the high ice extent an unprecedented meltdown.

ScreenHunter_4814 Nov. 25 16.05 COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Arctic Sea Ice Extent At A Decadal High Every Day In November

  1. De Paus says:

    There is another high. Watch the clock. As i write this, the debt clock is on 17,95 trillion dollars. It won’t take long before the US debt is execeeding 18 trillion dollars.
    Who was that Democrate politician again who told us that a debt of 9 trillion dollar was unpatriotic? O yeah,
    Does that mean that a 18 trillion dollar debt is double unpatriotic? He said that Bush was drawing a credit card from the Bank of China. He himself did no such thing, or did he? Now we understand why the USA is cutting down on its CO2 production and why China can raise its CO2 production.
    Now the Chinese control his credit card, no other result of the America-China CO2 output negotiations was possible.

  2. Watch out. When Antarctic sea ice set records, we heard 9 ridiculous theories. How many will we hear now?

  3. gregole says:

    Death spiral is back and it’s worse (better?) than ever!
    Article is from September 2014, so the warmunist true-believer party-line is alive and well; or “ The Cause if you will.

    “Professor Mark Serreze, director of NSIDC – who will also speak at the Royal Society – agreed with Professor Wadhams that the ice cap was disappearing and added that it would eventually shrink below one million square kilometres (386,000 square miles), therefore reaching the definition of an “ice-free Arctic”.”

    Shameless hucksters. Charlatans.

    • Mike D says:

      WTF? He measures something in 1976. Goes back now with clearly different equipment capabilities, and concludes the ice is going to disappear. We know he didn’t measure a meaningful amount of the arctic, particularly back in 1976.

      Not only is that bad science, the article is junk journalism. “The figures revealed that the Arctic cap lost a staggering 11,100 square miles of ice per day in the first half of September – for comparison Wales measures just 8,100 square miles.” How does that compare to any other year?

      “The minimum size of the Arctic ice cap this year was 1.9 million square miles.” Same question. How does that compare to any other year?

      Oh, but who cares how it compares, because this guy has 2 data points using different equipment 38 years apart, and clearly the world is ending.

  4. The ‘band width’ of winter freezing is much narrower than that of summer melting. Accurate data is of such short duration (30/40 years) it’s hard to say if that is the norm.

  5. bretshroyer says:

    typo in your headline: Ever vs. Every

  6. kirkmyers says:

    Global warming idiots like Serreze won’t give up on their pet theory without a fight. There are reputations to preserve and lucrative research grants at stake. And they know that if they buck “the consensus,” they’ll be shunned by peers and left off the cocktail party invitation list. I don’t pay any attention to them. They abandon their integrity long ago.

  7. Send Al to the Pole says:

    Mark has his thumb on the scale, or the results would likely be higher. Great Lakes have started to freeze. Earliest ever. Soon there will be no place to hide. Death Spiral Barbie will have to bundle up like an Eskimo. That’s the only down side.

  8. darrylb says:

    Published in Nature Geoscience is a report that robots used to analyze sea ice underwater found that Antarctic sea ice is not only increasing in area, but is much thicker than previously thought.

    • Antarctic sea ice is caused by warming. It’s due to the ozone halocline wind.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Ozone changes are directly related to the Sun. Specifically high energy UV where the sun is the most variable. The shorter the wavelength the more the change. TSI has a 0.1% change while UV/EUV has 1% to 100% change. The ozone effecting (100 – 300nm) wavelengths change between 1% and 30%. NASA

        According to the EPA:

        UVB: Wavelength: 280-314 nm. Mostly absorbed by the ozone layer, but some does reach the Earth’s surface.
        UVC: Wavelength: 100-279 nm. Completely absorbed by the ozone layer and atmosphere.

        “visible light” corresponds to a wavelength range of 400 – 700 nanometers ( nm)

        Seems some are finding more variability and attributiong it to the sun’s UV.

        Midlatitude atmospheric OH response to the most recent 11-y solar cycle
        The hydroxyl radical (OH) plays an important role in middle atmospheric photochemistry, particularly in ozone (O3) chemistry. Because it is mainly produced through photolysis and has a short chemical lifetime, OH is expected to show rapid responses to solar forcing [e.g., the 11-y solar cycle (SC)], resulting in variabilities in related middle atmospheric O3 chemistry. Here, we present an effort to investigate such OH variability using long-term observations (from space and the surface) and model simulations. Ground-based measurements and data from the Microwave Limb Sounder on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Aura satellite suggest an ~7–10% decrease in OH column abundance from solar maximum to solar minimum that is highly correlated with changes in total solar irradiance, solar Mg-II index, and Lyman-α index during SC 23. However, model simulations using a commonly accepted solar UV variability parameterization give much smaller OH variability (~3%). Although this discrepancy could result partially from the limitations in our current understanding of middle atmospheric chemistry, recently published solar spectral irradiance data from the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment suggest a solar UV variability that is much larger than previously believed. With a solar forcing derived from the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment data, modeled OH variability (~6–7%) agrees much better with observations. Model simulations reveal the detailed chemical mechanisms, suggesting that such OH variability and the corresponding catalytic chemistry may dominate the O3 SC signal in the upper stratosphere….

        The impact of ozone changes on the jet stream.

        The Brewer-Dobson circulation (ozone) has actually slowed. At altitudes of around 20–25 km across much of the northern hemisphere, the air, which is on average about three years old, became roughly 0.4 years older between 2005–2006 and 2010–2011.

        Impact of stratospheric ozone on Southern Hemisphere circulation change: A multimodel assessment

        The impact of stratospheric ozone on the tropospheric general circulation of the Southern Hemisphere (SH) is examined with a set of chemistry-climate models participating in the Stratospheric Processes and their Role in Climate (SPARC)/Chemistry-Climate Model Validation project phase 2 (CCMVal-2). Model integrations of both the past and future climates reveal the crucial role of stratospheric ozone in driving SH circulation change: stronger ozone depletion in late spring generally leads to greater poleward displacement and intensification of the tropospheric midlatitude jet, and greater expansion of the SH Hadley cell in the summer. These circulation changes are systematic as poleward displacement of the jet is typically accompanied by intensification of the jet and expansion of the Hadley cell….

  9. Incanus says:

    The absolute ice extent seems to show a different story

  10. emsnews says:

    ALL the warmists use 1978 as the ‘Year Zero’ for all the global warming stories. That is because that year was ridiculously cold and everyone was worried about Ice Ages.

    • darrylb says:

      There is a lot of evidence that, that year was when we had a climatic shift which happens to coincide with the beginning of satellite monitoring.
      The Pacific shifted to its cool phase and the Atlantic to its warm phase.
      I have maintained that there is strong evidence that the Arctic sea ice began decreasing in area then and the Antarctic began increasing in area..
      That climatic shift caused a change in some ocean currents and winds, and as a result a weather change and a movement of more and/or less saline water.
      (My hypothesis)

  11. The Iconoclast says:

    The hockey team have learned to avoid making predictions less than a hundred years out these days, to avoid embarrassment. However in the rush to explain whatever is happening through the lens of manmade global warming they make near term claims that nature herself easily refutes, even in only a few years. As Roy Spencer said, they predicted less snow until they looked out their windows and saw it was snowing.

    All too soon they will have to come up with a new explanation for cold winters in light of growing arctic ice. As dumb and uninformed as the electorate is said to be, people are still pretty good at smelling a rat, and the low concern people show for global warming in the face of herculean propaganda efforts from the government and the press (one of the pillars of government) proves it.

  12. AZ1971 says:

    “Experts call the high ice extent an unprecedented meltdown.”

    I see a huge jump from the record lows reached in 2012. I would like for CAGW alarmists to tell me what percent of that is man-made, and what is merely natural variation.

    Look at the latest Arctic sea ice thickness map:
    It’s not even December yet, and the projection is for nearly all of the ice to be on the cusp of 1.5 meters by the middle of next month, headed towards 2+ meters by the dead of winter in February. What spin will they use then? Polar bears won’t be able to break through the ice because it’s too thick?

    They’re nothing but tossers, the whole lot of ’em.

  13. lorne50 says:

    Serreze either digging his own grave:
    just digging deeper and deeper stop digging move to the light dumba$$ ;>)

  14. lorne50 says:

    Oops if he was up here in the -43C there is but .5 hours of sun 21 Dec no sun for another 2.5 months ;>) heating us up LOL

  15. You are showing a graph made by the experts as evidence for what the experts were saying? Or as a refutation of what the experts were saying? I am a bit confused what you are actually telling the reader. To what specific statements made where and when by what experts are you referring? Do you have any original quotes? With proof of source?

Leave a Reply