Another New Paper Shows Arctic Sea Ice Has Been INCREASING Overall Since The 1930s

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

The CO2-Controlled Arctic Sea Ice

Narrative Continues To Crumble

Image Source: H.H. Lamb (1982) Climate, History, and the Modern World

In his seminal 1982 book Climate, History, and the Modern World, the renown climatologist Dr. H.H. Lamb revealed that sea ice in the subarctic and Arctic regions was much less extensive during the Medieval Warm Period (9th-13th centuries) compared to today.

For example, records indicate that there were decadal and centennial-scale periods without any sea ice invading any of Iceland’s coasts.  These no-ice periods coincided with atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 275 ppm, which is about 130 ppm less than today’s calculated CO2 values.

Considering climate models are predicated on the presumption that the higher the CO2 concentration, the greater the loss of sea ice, these long-term trends strongly suggest that CO2 concentration changes are not the modulators of polar sea ice changes they are claimed to be.   After all, for the last 35 years, Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent has been steadily rising (Comiso et al., 2017), and during the last 90 years, Arctic sea ice has undergone an oscillation rather than a linear recession (Connolly et al., 2017).

Arctic Sea Ice Was Less Extensive Before Man-Made CO2 Emissions Began Rising (~1950s)

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions really didn’t begin rising until about 1950.

Since the 1950s, however, there has been a slight overall sea ice extent increase in many regions of the Arctic and subarctic.  For example, sea ice cover north of Iceland was lower than now during the 1925-1960 period — when CO2 concentrations hovered between 310 and 320 ppm.

Ran et al., 2010

In Southwest Greenland, the overall sea ice concentration has grown dramatically since the 1930s.  The modern (2010) extent is no lower than it was during several decadal-scale periods in the 18th century.

Kryk et al., 2017

In the Arctic’s Beaufort Sea, the surface temperatures were 3°C warmer than now and sea ice cover values averaged 1.1 months lower than today during 1887-1945, or when CO2 concentrations puttered around 300 ppm.

Durantou et al., 2012

“Sea surface temperature [Arctic Ocean] between ∼ AD 1885–1935 are warmer by up to 3°C with respect to the average modern temperature at the coring site.
For the period ∼ AD 1887–1945, reconstructed sea ice cover values are on average 8.3 months per year which is 1.1 months per year lower than the modern values.”


A New Paper Documents An Overall Rising Sea Ice Trend Since The 1920s-’40s In West Greenland

In a new paper, Allan et al. (2018) find the months-per-year sea ice cover during the last century (1900-2007) are quite similar to the average months-per-year sea ice cover during the 1600 B.C.E. to 500 C.E. period in West Greenland.  Upon close inspection, their reconstruction also shows that most of the lowest sea ice cover values of the last century occurred during the 1920s to 1940s, with a sharp spike and an overall increase after the 1950s.

Allan et al., 2018

“Our record shows variations with a mean 200 years periodicity until ~2 ka BP, which supports the hypothesis of climate variations driven by solar variability. After 1.5 ka BP, our data show a variability characterized by a 60–70 year periodicity, which suggests linkages with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and southwestward migration of the atmospheric polar front. The most recent part of the record, from ~1900 CE to 2007 CE, is characterized by assemblages reflecting warmer surface conditions and reduced sea ice cover.”

Throughout Much Of The Holocene, The Arctic Ocean Periodically Became Ice Free…While CO2 Was Stable And Low

Scientists have determined that sea ice in the Arctic Ocean was “greatly reduced” and likely “periodically ice free” during the Early- to Mid-Holocene, when CO2 concentrations lingered around 260 ppm.

Geological Survey of Norway

In The Canadian Arctic, Temperatures May Have Reached 6°C Warmer Than Now, With 4 Months More Open Water (No Ice) Than Present

The Canadian Arctic sea ice cover fluctuated rapidly during the Mid-Holocene (6500 to 2600 years ago), with temperatures ranging between about 3°C colder to 6°C warmer than now, and sea ice cover spanning 2 months more to 4 months less per year compared to today.   These warming and cooling events took as little as 50 to 100 years to develop.   Throughout these rapid decadal- and centennial-scale changes, CO2 concentrations remained both stable and low.

Mudie et al., 2005

“Our data show that from ∼6500 to 2600 yrs BP, there were large oscillations in [Canadian Arctic] summer SST [sea surface temperatures] from 2–4°C cooler than present to 6°C warmer and SIC [sea ice cover] ranged from 2 months more sea ice to 4 months more open water [than present]. The warming took ∼50–100 years and lasted ∼300 years before replacement by colder intervals lasting ∼200–500 years.”

In The Arctic’s Chukchi Sea And N. Iceland, Proxy Data Indicate That Modern Sea Ice Values Are Still Higher Than Much Of The Holocene

Yamamoto et al., 2017

Perner et al., 2018

Nothing Unusual About Modern Sea Ice Extent … ‘Internal Variability’ Responsible For Half The Sea Ice Loss Since 1979

Zhang, 2015

Observations reveal multidecadal variations in Arctic surface air temperature (SAT), and amplified Arctic warming similar to that observed in recent decades also occurred during 1930–1940. Both observations and climate modeling results suggest that the reduced Arctic sea ice is crucial for the early twentieth century Arctic warming, and internal variability is a very likely cause for that event. … The estimated increase in the Atlantic heat transport into the Arctic since 1979 is consistent with the strengthening of AMOC since the mid 1970s implied by indirect evidence such as the AMOC fingerprints, and could have contributed substantially to the observed summer Arctic SIE decline. If the AMOC and the associated Atlantic heat transport into the Arctic were to weaken in the near future due to internal variability, there might be a hiatus in the decline of September Arctic SIE, and a delay in attaining a summer ice-free Arctic. … Since the two predictors (HTBSO and AD) are independent from each other, together, they have contributed ∼49% of the observed September Arctic SIE decline trend (1979−2013), i.e., about half of the observed September Arctic SIE decline trend since 1979 might be due to internal variability.”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter

64 responses to “Another New Paper Shows Arctic Sea Ice Has Been INCREASING Overall Since The 1930s”

  1. Steve

    Don’t tell me there is yet another compressive report showing that the Warmists have got it all wrong!!

  2. SebastianH

    Sorry for needing to “parrot” again, but …

    Considering climate models are predicated on the presumption that the higher the CO2 concentration, the greater the loss of sea ice, these long-term trends strongly suggest that CO2 concentration changes are not the modulators of polar sea ice changes they are claimed to be.

    … that is a strange argument. Are you seriously suggesting that identical effects are always caused by the same cause?

    There is no logic in that assumption.

    1. Bitter&twisted


    2. Paul Aubrin

      If a cause A implies a consequence B, then the absence the consequence B implies the absence of the cause A. The hypothesis which says that higher CO2 concentrations imply less sea ice seems seems really questionable.

      1. AndyG55

        Basically ZERO correlation over anything but a TINY window of time.

        Absolutely ZERO scientific causality.

        Its a NON-hypothesis. !

      2. SebastianH

        First of all the CO2 GHE does not directly influence sea ice extend. That is an indirect effect of increased overall heat content.

        Next, if the amount of money in your bank account increases, then there is no single cause for that. It could be your wage, you won the lottery or someone just gifted you the money.

        If the sea ice extent decreases that is probably caused by an increase in temperature and that can have many causes, too.

        So, what Kenneth says is a pretty strange argument. It’s the same as saying that you are wrong in that you said your account balance increased because of a win in the lottery, because that wasn’t the case in the past, there it was always the wage. See the problem?

        1. AndyG55

          “First of all the CO2 GHE does not directly influence sea ice extend.”

          First of all, CO2 DOES NOT effect any temperatures, in any way what-so-ever.

          CERTAINLY NOT oceans,

          CERTAINLY NOT the atmosphere…

          NO PROOF it can warm ANYTHING.

          If you have empirical proof otherwise…

          THEN PRODUCE IT..

          Or remain an empty sack.

          1. SebastianH

            Have you managed to answer my question about the work a chair performs to hold you up? How much work for 1h of sitting on the chair? How much work for 2h? I don’t remember you answering that.

          2. tom0mason

            “First of all the CO2 GHE does not directly influence sea ice extend.”
            I note that these climate models incorporate a direct link between CO2 and sea ice loss —

            CSIRO Mk3.6.0
            GFDL CM3

            Probably all climate models have such a relationship baked into their code.

          3. AndyG55

            ROFLMAO, seb

            Your IGNORANCE astounds even me.

            I’ll give you the hint again,

            The units for “Strain Energy” are already in the units for “work”

            Are you REALLY that mathematically ILLITERATE that you cannot grasp a simple concept ???????

            Its apparent that you MOST DEFINITELY ARE.

            You don’t even realise, from the hint, that your question is a NONSENSE question.

            What SI units is “work X time”, seb?

            TOTALLY HILARIOUS. 🙂

          4. SebastianH

            Dear AndyG55,

            it’s good that you seem to be able to understand that the unit of work is not Joule, but Watt. To warm something up however, you need to add Joules and you do that by performing work for a time X. Sitting down on a chair makes to chair perform work exactly once, there is no continuous output of X Watt that could add to the heat content of anything.

            That’s why I am asking you how much work a chair is performing in 1h vs. 2h. There is no difference. And I don’t think you are getting that. This means whatever heating happens when you sit on the chair, it’s not going to last.

            Back to the atmosphere: your claim is that a continous compression is responsible for the incoming side of the heat content (unit Joule) equation, not the radiative properties of the atmosphere (“CO2 DOES NOT effect any temperatures, in any way what-so-ever”). For this to happen the compression would have to perform work (unit Watt) continously over time to provide Joules (work X time) for the heat content. But that is not the case. Otherwise you could demonstrate to us that there is a difference in the work output between sitting on a chair for 1h vs. 2h.

            In case you are not trolling and really mean that sitting down on a chair is a one time thing, but the warming from that event causes a constant temperature increase, please explain why the Joules added by this one time event don’t radiate/convect/evaporate away the same way all other Joules added to the heat content do?

            Or are you trolling us? Since you seem to also believe that one time warming events like an El Nino could cause step jumps in temperatures …

          5. AndyG55

            ROFLMAO……Poor seb,

            You have PROVEN to EVERYONE that you are TOTALLY CLUELESS.

            “perform work (unit Watt)” BS !!!!

            ANYONE can look up anywhere and find out that the unit of work is JOULE.

            A Watt is a unit of power (Joules/second)

            Strain energy is in Joules

            and there is NO SUCH UNIT as Joules X Time

            You really are one IGNORANT, MENTALLY and MATHEMATICALLY CONFUSED, little headless chook.

            No wonder you “believe” in fantasies like CO2 warming, and don’t comprehend basic physics such as auto compression of air raising it to and maintaining it at a certain temperature.

            Concepts of basic structural mechanics are WAY BEYOND YOU, because you can’t let go of your base level ignorance from the AGW scam.

          6. AndyG55

            “Back to the atmosphere:”

            You still haven’t got the intelligence to grasp basic physics of structures, how are you going to comprehend basic physics of gasses?

            The increase in lower atmosphere temperatures comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere as predicted by the ideal gas law itself.

            The low altitude molecules have decreased mean free path, higher collision rate, thus higher kinetic energy is registered, thus increased temperature.

            The units of kinetic energy are.. guess what, seb….

            …. JOULES, same as the work done by “strain energy”

            All this is very obviously WAY BEYOND YOU.

            No wonder you are SO GULLIBLE as to believe the fallacy of CO2 warming despite the TOTAL LACK of any sort of evidence.

          7. AndyG55

            “it’s good that you seem to be able to understand that the unit of work is not Joule, but Watt.”

            ROFLMAO… !!!

            Since you are so NIL-educated in physics…

            …maybe you should check basic units first…

            save embarrassing yourself.


            You really are looking like a NON-educated, D-Class IDIOT, today, seb. .. so..

            … No change from yesterday, or any day before that..

          8. yonason (from my cell phone)


            Evasive Activist Chatbot Sideshow Seb…
            …still making excuses for why he can’t produce the non-existent data to back up the “CO2 causes warming” assertion. Never a straight answer. Always with the distractions.

          9. SebastianH

            Oh there was a reply, but still no answer to the question.

            The units of kinetic energy are.. guess what, seb….

            …. JOULES, same as the work done by “strain energy”

            Guess what, the released energy from a detonation also has the unit Joules. Do those Joules cause an increase in temperature that lasts? No. Why?

            Compression of a gas to a certain point is also a one time event. The gas gets warmer during the compression and then the heat dissipates. There is no ongoing compression that causes a higher than expected surface temperature. Or can you forecast the date when sea level pressure will not be 1015 mb, but 1500 mb?

          10. AndyG55

            Poor seb, STILL running away from simple answers.

            STILL showing he has ZERO comprehension passed junior high level.

            Your understanding of atmospheric processes is basically anti-reality.

            The increase in temperature as you go lower in the atmosphere comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere, as predicted by the ideal gas law itself.

            The low altitude molecules have decreased mean free path, higher collision rate, thus increased temperature.

            That energy from compression is STORED as kinetic energy, just as the strain energy is stored in the chair you are sitting on.

            They are both measured in Joules, just like work done during that compression

        2. AndyG55

          “It’s the same as saying… blaaaahhhhh !!!”

          OMG, yet another totally illogical, totally IRRELEVANT, anti-science, fantasy anomaly from seb !!

          FFS, stick to science..

          oops.. you CAN’T…. you have NONE.

        3. Luke

          I like the bank account analogy, because it reminds me of the comment here that energy in the climate system cannot exceed 340 W per m squared. That’s like telling me I can never have more money in my bank account than my monthly wage! No wonder I’ m always skint!

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)

            You left out the part about expenses. If your expenditures exceed your income, of course you’ll be “skint.”

            If you’re referring to what I think you are, the warmists show a vast excess in places where it doesn’t belong. I.e., their “balance” doesn’t.

    3. Steve

      I am suggesting warmists have acute logical fallacyitis.
      That is on top of their other ‘acute bloated ego syndrome’ causing them to believe that CO2 is anything other than a non toxic gas beneficial to the greening to the planet.

    4. Virginia Llorca

      We are not talking about identical effects.

  3. AndyG55

    “In The Canadian Arctic, Temperatures May Have Reached 6°C Warmer Than Now, With 4 Months More Open Water (No Ice) Than Present”

    The OPPORTUNITIES for this open Arctic would be enormous. !!

    As opposed to the Arctic Ocean being a “no travel” zone for large proportions of the year.

    Unfortunately, the RECOVERY from the EXTREME extents of the late 1970s seems to have come to an end, and with the AMO turning, Arctic sea ice is likely to start increasing again.


    We are VERY MUCH in a COOLER period of the current interglacial, a minor bump above THE COLDEST PERIOD IN 10,000 years.

  4. tom0mason

    All those time there was low Arctic ice.
    Oh horror of horrors, how did the Polar Bears survive?

    1. AndyG55

      “how did the Polar Bears survive?”

      Well, obviously they couldn’t have.

      Polar bears are a thing of the past… like snow 😉

      1. yonason (from my cell phone)

        Bob Carter dealt with that in a video of his. While looking for that I found this and decided to make a different point. Specifically, Carter shows how they distort the data (lie) to sell their socialist program. Now, my point is, once you catch them lying to you, why on earth would you EVER trust them on anything ever again?! And yes, that includes activist chatbot shills for utter nonsense.


        1. Virginia Llorca

          I don’t have time to look this up again because I have laundry to fold, but could someone look up the article showing clearly where climate change fanatics erased parts of graphs so it wouldn’t show previous warming periods?

      2. yonason (from my cell phone)

        Lost another here, Pierre.

      3. tom0mason

        Indeed I have a mere 8cm of snow via the time machine just outside my window, and it ain’t going anywhere quick as it had a glaze of freezing rain cover overnight.

        The maverick gardening neighbors are very upset as took all the ‘climate authorities’ at their word and over the last few years planted drought resistant Mediterranean and subtropical plants — oh dear palm trees, citrus, and the like do not like freezing rain!
        The rock garden has survived. 🙂

  5. yonason (from my cell phone)

    “Throughout Much Of The Holocene, The Arctic Ocean Periodically Became Ice Free…”

    My guess is that they know the cyclical nature of climate, and we’re expecting temps to go up and ice to melt. If that had had happened they could claim their theory predicted it, and if they had been successful at putting their fascist policies in place, they could have claimed they had averted a catastrophe of global proportions wh n the cycle reversed. Sadly for them, but fortunately for us, many experts have been able to use the net to expose their scam.

    1. Virginia Llorca

      I hope the political (economic) agenda will become more obvious. How old is Al Gore? Maybe. . .

  6. tom0mason

    This bunch signed a paper by James Hansen
    A paper that specifically linked CO2 levels to global ice loss.

    Realization that today’s climate is far out of equilibrium with current climate forcings raises the specter of ‘tipping points’, the concept that climate can reach a point where, without additional forcing, rapid changes proceed practically out of our control….Arctic sea ice and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are examples of potential tipping points. Arctic sea ice loss is magnified by the positive feedback of increased absorption of sunlight as global warming initiates sea ice retreat… West Antarctic ice loss can be accelerated by several feedbacks, once ice loss is substantial… We define: (1) the tipping level, the global climate forcing that, if long maintained, gives rise to a specific consequence, and (2) the point of no return, a climate state beyond which the consequence is inevitable, even if climate forcings are reduced. A point of no return can be avoided, even if the tipping level is temporarily exceeded. Ocean and ice sheet inertia permit overshoot, provided the climate forcing is returned below the tipping level before initiating irreversible dynamic change.

    Makiko Sato—NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute.
    Pushker Kharecha – NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, NY
    David Beerling—Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, UK
    Robert Berner—Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University
    Valerie Masson-Delmotte – Universite de Versailles
    Mark Pagani—Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University
    Maureen Raymo—Department of Earth Sciences, Boston University
    Dana L. Royer—Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wesleyan University
    James C. Zachos —Earth & Planetary Sciences Dept., University of California, Santa Cruz

    and of course endorsed by weepy Bill McKibben and loony Dr. Joe Romm.

    The only ‘tipping point’ that actually happened was how much expensive liquor these numpties tipped before writing this nonsense.

    Read the summary of this pre-fossilized coprolite if you can find it, or go to here for a long précis of it.

    1. tom0mason

      Also see more modeled nonsense at
      From this 2016 stupidity comes —

      While climate models also simulate the observed linear relationship between sea ice area
      and CO2 emissions, they usually have a much lower sensitivity of the ice cover than has
      been observed. The study also finds that this is most likely because the models
      underestimate the atmospheric warming in the Arctic that is induced by a given CO

    2. yonason (from my cell phone)

      “…pre-fossilized coprolite…”


      Looks like 0bunko’s outreach to irrelevance was successful.

  7. tom0mason

    And of course from

    Many question that may be asked (again) have already been answered.

    1. yonason (from my cell phone)

      Not an answered question the chatbots won’t stop asking.

  8. Another New Paper Shows Arctic Sea Ice Has Been INCREASING Overall Since The 1930s | Un hobby...

    […] by K.  Richard, March 1st, 2018 in NoTricksZone […]

  9. AndyG55

    World UAH drops slightly for February.

    COOLER than, from least cool to more cool, for February…

    2016, 1998, 2010,2017, 2002, 2003, 2004.

    Drop is greatest in NH.

    1. tom0mason

      @ AndyG55
      What a non-suprise.

  10. studies: Arctic Sea Ice INCREASING Since The 1930s | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read rest at No Tricks Zone […]

  11. mwhite

    Meanwhile down south where it’s not even winter yet

    “Mission to giant A-68 berg thwarted by sea-ice”

    1. mwhite
    2. yonason (from my cell phone)


      You say it’s still summertime down below the equator? Well, that explains it. They don’t want to be bothered by academic subjects, like science. Warmists just want to have fun.

      Woo Hoo – Party Time!

      (Warmunistas are just dropouts from reality.)

  12. mwhite

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy