No Sign Of Warming: Global Sea Ice Well Below Normal Only 4 Of Last 36 Years…Normal Over Last 2.5 Years!

NoTricksZone is finally back online after having been unavailable for some 32 or so hours.

Apparently a WordPress version update “had faultily written the htaccess file“, the host company has just informed me. Don’t ask me what that is supposed to mean.  At any rate, the problem seems to be resolved, and we’re well back in the “denial” business. 🙂

I’m short on time today and so this post will be a short one.

Awhile back I wrote a piece here about global sea ice. When one examines the chart objectively, one finds no sign of any global warming – assuming that it is an indication of global temperature as the warmists like to tell us (especially when sea ice shrinks).

global sea_ice_area_4 2015

Global sea ice shows no sign of any global warming. Source: arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/dpuf.

Again we note that sea ice has been normal for over 2 years now. Antarctica has been constantly above normal for a long period of 3 years – something that is unprecedented and a record since satellite measurements began.

And when one really looks honestly and objectively at the above chart above, we see that global sea ice has been markedly below normal only about 4 of 36 years: half of 2006, 2007, half of 2010, 2011 and half of 2012. That’s 3.5 years – but we can round it up to four whole years out of 36.

One could argue 2002 should be included, but the amount is not significantly below normal. In 2008 there was only a sharp but brief dip.  The last 4 years have seen a strong upward trend. Four years of course is too short to draw any conclusions (except when the ice melts).

The bottom line: Global sea ice shows no signs of a globe that is experiencing galloping warming.

 

25 responses to “No Sign Of Warming: Global Sea Ice Well Below Normal Only 4 Of Last 36 Years…Normal Over Last 2.5 Years!”

  1. Pops

    Welcome back! I thought for a while that you had fallen foul of ‘the man’.

  2. Alfred Alexander

    Glad you are back.

  3. Graeme No.3

    Glad you’re back.

    There is little evidence that arctic ice is related to “global” temperature. It was low in 1660, 1815(or before)-1830, and from roughly 1910, all periods of cooling esp. the first 2.

    Antarctic ice has definitely expanded in the last few years. Recall the “ship of fools” who got stuck in ice over 100 kilometres from their expected landfall where Mawson’s expedition landed.

    1. DirkH

      I so enjoyed it. Especially the Guardian reporting about it. The crowning achievement of warmunism. Who needs clowns when you have leftists.

      1. DirkH

        THIS JUST IN: Giant fail in the making, promoted by state media, from my hometown: Two warmunists have decided that the time is right to entertain the unwashed masses with a video game where you fight against…

        Global Warming!
        http://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/braunschweig_harz_goettingen/Virtuelle-Oeko-Konflikte-made-in-Braunschweig,computerspiele178.html

        Well, probably it will vanish without a sound.

        1. DirkH

          Article says the two warmunists spent 7 years making it. Got nominated for a price of 30k EUR but lost. Now they try to sell their eco-heavy sim game via Steam.

        2. Colorado Wellington

          The Imagine Earth game is just as ‘faultily written’ as this blog’s old htaccess file. The article says that saving the climate in the game is a complicated thing. Has anyone looked into the backgrounds of the two comrade developers? What are the authorities in Braunschweig doing about it?

          It’s easy to save the climate—workers and peasants led by the Party will liquidate the producers of CO2 emissions. There is nothing complicated about it. This whole thing reeks of Menshevism and sabotage. It will confuse and paralyze the youth. There is no need for such bourgeois games. They must be immediately prohibited.

          1. DirkH

            “Has anyone looked into the backgrounds of the two comrade developers? What are the authorities in Braunschweig doing about it?”

            Oh they look 100% successfully brainwashed. Brunswick has been captured by the Red-Greens in the last election. Wouldn’t be surprised if the two kids are themselves offspring of the nomenklatura.

          2. DirkH

            Looks like you’re a god like central planner character that can be sued into oblivion by your peons.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AQk9ySEEkQ

            And, as a bonus to be the technocrat god, you get nice graphics but they’re rather annoying when all you wanna do is plan your layout of your civilisation. IMHO. Looks like more effect-obsessed than thought out.

            I’ve been playing these kinds of buildup games, my favorites being Age Of Empires and Z; both of them have simple clear graphics and extremely usable interfaces. This is not one of them… The narrator of the playthrough is pretty entertaining, not one of the German ecos who developed it.

          3. Colorado Wellington

            Heh, you’re right. SplatterCat’s playthrough commentary is funny:

            1:02: “Just to give everybody a feel for what it’s like to ‘run a planet’ and to be ‘a God’ …”

            7:50 “… and if we build a power plant right here people will be grubby because they have to live next to like all the different soot and they’ll be inhaling it and they will be getting emphysema and they will be trying to sue us and we don’t have the money for that kind of litigation, so we are going to say, forget about it for right now …”

            It looks like Nietzsche and Hegel were wrong. God is alive, just not well. The comrades are going to sue him if he misbehaves.

          4. DirkH

            And, you can rotate the planet below you with the mouse BUT you cannot change your position in space so you’re forced to look at the nightside of the planet you just rotated while at the same time staring into the sun as it passes over the screen behind your planet. This is, I don’t know, a bit thoughtless maybe? So they could show off how well they simulated the lighting while forcing you to stare at it while at the same time demonstrating their total ignorance of everything.

          5. Bernd Felsche

            Sounds worse than SimEarth™

            You know; the climate model favoured by climatologists. 😉

            The planet-savers were at it, even in the 1990’s. Simulation games were simplistic and NOT fun is you looked at them critically. The “messages” were clear.

  4. John F. Hultquist

    My spouse writes about her week’s activities. I help get it into WordPress. Sometimes the process is a challenge and I just close it out and start over. Currently there is a story of a man shooting his computer within city limits, and that being a no-no, got him arrested. I live in a rural zone and am allowed to shoot mine – if I wanted to. I don’t.
    Knowing there are layers upon layers of code and people easily distracted I am amazed things don’t go wrong more often.
    That being said, I tried more than a few times during the 32 hours NTZ was gone.
    It is good to have you back.

  5. Rick W

    It does not matter what happens with snow and ice or temperatures on land, the atmosphere or the oceans, increased CO2 is the cause of climate change. No matter how climate changes it is always caused by increasing levels of CO2 due to burning fossils fuels. Here is proof:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hauoepPqns4

    The science is settled that CO2 causes global warming or rather climate change or better still climate disruption. That disruption could be temperatures rising or could be temperatures cooling; could be more snow or less snow; could be more sea ice or less sea ice; could be more rainfall in a location or less rainfall; could be more wind or less wind in a location; could be higher sea levels or lower sea levels but no matter what happens it is all due to humans burning fossil fuel and adding CO2 to the atmosphere – for sure the science is settled. The science is settled. THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED.

  6. sod

    global sea ice is just not a good indicator.

    Look at the graph on page 15 of this pdf:

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/sbsta40/SB40_research_dialogue_hezel_wgI.pdf

    winter sea ice extent is not expected to sink that much, not even in the arctic (8% till 2100). By adding antarctic and arctic together, you get a number that is mostly winter sea ice.

    That is a bad indicator of any change.

    1. David Johnson

      Good you have just admitted that your own crowd are idiots! Well done again

  7. Ron C.

    An International Temperature Data Review Project has been announced, along with a call for analyses of surface temperature records to be submitted. The project is described here:http://www.tempdatareview.org/

    Here’s an overview of my submission to the Temperature Data Review Project.

    I did a study of 2013 records from the CRN top rated US surface stations. It was published Aug. 20, 2014 at No Tricks Zone. Most remarkable about these records is the extensive local climate diversity that appears when station sites are relatively free of urban heat sources. 35% (8 of 23) of the stations reported cooling over the century. Indeed, if we remove the 8 warmest records, the rate flips from +0.16°C to -0.14°C. In order to respect the intrinsic quality of temperatures, I calculated monthly slopes for each station, and averaged them for station trends.

    Recently I updated that study with 2014 data and compared adjusted to unadjusted records. The analysis shows the effect of GHCN adjustments on each of the 23 stations in the sample. The average station was warmed by +0.58 C/Century, from +.18 to +.76, comparing adjusted to unadjusted records. 19 station records were warmed, 6 of them by more than +1 C/century. 4 stations were cooled, most of the total cooling coming at one station, Tallahassee. So for this set of stations, the chance of adjustments producing warming is 19/23 or 83%.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/temperature-data-review-project-my-submission/

    1. Rick W

      The temperature review project will be a meaningless exercise. The GWPF crowd are already cast in the unscientific mould who simply do not understand or accept the science is settled.

      What does it matter if the temperature has gone up or down. Whatever way it goes it is the result of CO2 in the atmosphere due to humans burning fossil fuel and causing climate disruption. We see evidence of it every day. The earthquake in Nepal is clear evidence:
      http://www.countercurrents.org/srivastava260415.htm
      Quote ” It now appears that there exists a clear relationship between the global warming and earthquakes and other under earth activities.

      When the permafrost dissolves as has happened in Arctic and associated areas due to the increased global temperature, it is quite likely that the under located areas of the earth are affected due to alteration in the pressure on the earth crust.” Unquote

      All this damage is caused by burning fossil fuel. The science is settled.

      And here is more evidence of the damage CO2 is causing:
      http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/nsw-storms-are-a-sign-of-things-to-come-climate-scientist-warns/story-fnjwvztl-1227319043962
      Quote ” Professor Matthew England from the Climate Change Research Centre says the destructive storm that’s devastated areas of Sydney and regional areas including the Hunter Region and Maitland, came in line with global warming trends, and it’s the kind of weather event we better get used to.”

      These climate scientist are never wrong. They get it right every time there is a disaster. It is all because humans are burning fossil fuel. The science is settled. Once you accept that the science is settled it makes life much easier. It is explains all the bad things that happen in life.

      1. Ron C.

        You forgot to end with sarc/off

        1. AndyG55

          Certainly, without the “sarc off”, it would be difficult to tell the difference between Rick’s words and a rant by someone like Karoly, Obummer, Flannery, etc etc ie a “climate tragic” !

    2. AndyG55

      Ron, If you take the data from here..

      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=3

      which is the data from the new reference network, you should find a cooling trend of about -0.4ºF/decade since it was established.

      Over that period, USHCN, which has no data after August last year, shows a cooling trend of about 0.8ºF/decade

      1. Ron C.

        Andy, as you know that dataset in only 10 years old, and I wanted a century-long view. There are some well-sited USHCN stations, as assessed by the surfacestations project, and they serve as a random sample to study the effects of adjustments upon historical records.

        1. AndyG55

          Ron, might also be interesting to see how the data from the new stations compares with the stations you are using, over that short 10 year period.