Arctic Adds Amazing 2 Trillion (2,000,000,000,000) Tonnes Of Sea Ice Since 2016…Enough To Circle Earth 50,000 Times!

We’ve heard about all the cold and icy weather reports and results coming from all corners of the planet lately, and so naturally most of us sense that it just doesn’t jive with all the alarmist global warming claims and rhetoric we hear.

Tremendous ice growth

For example over the past winter the Arctic ice cap did see unusually warm surface temperatures, yet Arctic sea ice did not shrink as some would intuitively expect it to do.

The truth is that Arctic sea ice volume has gained close to 2 trillion cubic meters over last year alone, and over 2016 – using the data provided by the Danish Meteorological Institute here.

Obviously Arctic sea ice has a lot more to do with other factors than just surface air temperatures in the region. Clearly other major factors must be at play in causing this huge increase.

Japanese skeptic blogger Kirye provided at Twitter a nice animation showing the recent development from April 20 – to May 10:

As one can see, there’s about 2000 cubic kilometers (2 trillion cubic meters) more ice volume than there was a year earlier and in 2016.

Enormous amount of energy

To put this in perspective, 2 trillion cubic meters of ice are enough to…

– Provide every single human being on the planet with 250 tonnes of ice!

– Cover entire United States with more than 20 cm of solid ice.

– Cover 67,000 Manhattans with almost a meter of ice!

– Circle the earth with 1 cubic meter blocks 50,000 times!

– Stack 1 m³ blocks to make a pile high enough to reach the sun…13 times!

Imagine: 250 tonnes of ice for each and every person. I’d have to run through the numbers, but I don’t think the average person could freeze that amount of water with the total power he/she uses in a year. We’re talking some serious energy here.

So where could all the ice have come from when we consider that the Arctic surface air temperatures have been so warm?

And what about all the heat that had to be extracted from the water to form the ice? Where did it all go? Most of it of course go radiated out into space and so is forever gone and lost.

Surface temperatures not decisive

As discussed above, surface atmospheric temperatures of course do not play the only major role when it comes to the Arctic sea ice show. Obviously other very powerful factors play huge roles, such as natural oceanic cycles and weather patterns over all Arctic atmospheric layers.

Complex, poorly-understood oceanic-atmospheric system

And vice versa, it also implies that these factors also play a role during the summertime when the Arctic sees unusual summer time melt. Surface temperature cannot be the one and only explanation here, as global warming alarmists like to insist it is. Here as well the oceans, winds and clouds, to name a few, play crucial roles.

Polar sea ice depends on the entire oceanic-atmospheric polar “weather” system — from seabed to upper stratosphere — which sober scientists have long realized is an extremely complex one and is still very poorly understood.

===================================
Check out latest on Southern Hemisphere here.

38 responses to “Arctic Adds Amazing 2 Trillion (2,000,000,000,000) Tonnes Of Sea Ice Since 2016…Enough To Circle Earth 50,000 Times!”

  1. AndyG55

    NICE 🙂

    That’ll bring the attention-seekers out from their lair 😉

    2018 is 10th highest since 2003.

    And that’s AFTER the incessant attack from the El Nino and the wobbly Jet stream.

    I wonder how HIGH it will get next year !!

    1. AndyG55

      Must be the weekend.. Someone is not at work. 😉

  2. Lasse

    When and where is the Arctic hot?
    Max summer temperature +3 degrees C.
    Every Year since 1958:
    Min summer temperature +3 degrees C.
    Every Year since 1958
    Sun is up 24/7.
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.php

  3. Ipe

    Wouldn’t that weight gain on poles increase volcanic activity around the world by changing weight distribution? Such a thought just got to pass through my mind..

    1. SebastianH

      Wait for the summer months, when the Arctic is losing that amount of weight within a week, every week, until the ice volume decreased by 10 times the amount that it increased from 2017 to 2018 at this time of the year.

      Note, it was as “high” as today in 2015, before the El Nino. It also was 250 tonnes per person higher (than today) in 2014 and 2010.

      Another thing I don’t understand is, that you guys like to emphasize that natural variability is high, e.g. between seasons or on larger timescales. And that a small increase by whatever would not be noticeable against these larger variations. And now comes Pierre and boasts about a tiny change in sea ice volume that is completely within the variability of the last few years, barely scratches the first lowe std barrier of the 2004-2013 period and is super small compared to the seasonal changes of ice volume.

      This is strange, as skeptics so far haven’t accepted such small changes as the beginning of a trend or “recovery”. You know, it is not unprecedented, remarkable, and whatever else you guys say about the CO2 GHE 😉

      Anyway, we’ll see if this is a trend towards more sea ice volume that you guys are hoping for, or if the general trend from the 80s until today continues over the next few years/decades. I’ll bet on the later scenario …

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Anyway, we’ll see if this is a trend towards more sea ice volume that you guys are hoping for, or if the general trend from the 80s until today continues over the next few years/decades. I’ll bet on the later scenario …

        It’s already plateaued/paused since 2007. No more net decline in the last 10+ years.

        http://notrickszone.com/2018/04/23/12-new-papers-affirm-a-21st-century-cessation-of-arctic-warming-and-a-rapid-cooling-across-antarctica/

        1. SebastianH

          It’s already plateaued/paused since 2007. No more net decline in the last 10+ years.

          No, it didn’t. In the same as the Arctic sea ice extent (not volume, notice the difference) increasing dramatically from 2012 or from 1990 to 1996 is/was a change from the longterm trend. 2007 and 2012 are outliers, your very own graph shows that the last few years were continuing the longterm trend.

          1. AndyG55

            Long term trend toward more sea ice, seb.

            You are talking about a very short term trend since the COLDEST period in 100 or so years.

            You want to talk short term..

            https://s19.postimg.cc/umq1x3h4j/Arctic_ice_area_trend.png

            You want to talk mid-length trend

            https://s19.postimg.cc/hcmhnqak3/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Alekseev-2016-as-shown-in-_Connolly-2017.jpg

            You want to talk longer term

            https://s19.postimg.cc/vgdnb299v/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Holocene-_Stein-17.jpg

          2. AndyG55

            DMI volume also zero trend for 10 years

            https://s19.postimg.cc/84aexi5k3/DMI_Arctic_sea_Ice_Volume.png

          3. Kenneth Richard

            2007 and 2012 are outliers

            So were the late 1970s, when graphs of Arctic sea ice begin. In contrast, places like the Bering Sea were ice free year round when CO2 concentrations were in the 260 ppm range…

            http://notrickszone.com/2018/05/07/activists-continue-to-peddle-unsupportable-claims-of-never-before-climate-alarm-ignoring-new-science/
            The Bering Sea’s surface temperatures ranged between 6°C to 9°C during the Early Holocene (~11,800 to 9,500 years ago). Slightly further south, in the subarctic North Pacific, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were as high as 10°C to 12°C between ~9,000 and 5,000 years ago. CO2 concentrations hovered around 260 ppm during this period (versus ~410 ppm today), and yet these Early Holocene SSTs were warm enough that year-round open waters — no sea ice — prevailed in the Arctic’s Bering Sea and the subarctic North Pacific.

            Comparatively, saltwater freezes to form a layer of sea ice at temperatures of -1.7°C (NOAA). And in modern times, the Bering Sea maintains a layer of sea ice from about November to May every year, meaning that today’s SSTs are sub-zero for much of the year in this region.

            Arctic Temps 2°-6°C Warmer Than Today With 4.5 Fewer Months Of Sea Ice Coverage 2,000 Years Ago

          4. SebastianH

            Won’t again engage in that discussion. It’s pointless. You keep believing that the year 2007 started a pause. Whatever.

          5. Kenneth Richard

            You keep believing that the year 2007 started a pause. Whatever.

            Just repeating what scientists have written in scientific journals…and extending the “near-zero” trend another 4 years. Why do you have such a problem with them pointing this out?

            http://re.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Arctic%20sea-ice%20trends.pdf
            “from 2007–2013 there was a near-zero trend in observed Arctic September sea-ice extent”

          6. AndyG55

            “Won’t again engage in that discussion.”

            Don’t blame you.

            Being a constant LOSER must hurt your baseless ego.

            Try not be so PETULANT about it, though.

            And I bet you can’t “not” reply.

          7. SebastianH

            Just repeating what scientists have written in scientific journals…and extending the “near-zero” trend another 4 years. Why do you have such a problem with them pointing this out?

            You aren’t “just repeating”, you make it your own claim. Nothing skeptic about your behaviour regarding this topic …

            I have problem with people grasping every straw they can to justify their weird oppinion of how the world works. Calling themselves skeptical of the scientific consensus, but no hint of skepticism against the conclusions of papers that sound like they would support their view.

            On top of that you claim that I am the one with the confirmation bias 😉

          8. AndyG55

            “I have problem with people grasping every straw they can to justify their weird oppinion of how the world works”

            THEN STOP DOING IT

            You have proven over and over again that you have basically ZERO comprehension of how the world works

            The world is NOT your fantasy la-la-land seb !!

            No trend in either volume

            https://s19.postimg.cc/84aexi5k3/DMI_Arctic_sea_Ice_Volume.png

            or extent for more than 10 years .

            https://s19.postimg.cc/90mpuhc37/MASIE_Growth.png

            GET OVER IT !!!

        2. AndyG55

          Yep, K

          The world is VERY MUCH at a COLD period in the current interglacial.

          A small bump above the coldest period in 10,000 years

          That is what makes the AGW-mantra so ludicrous.

          Its as if they think the world SHOULD remain in LIA conditions, rather than much more liveable MWP or RWP climate.

          Quite bizarre really. !

      2. AndyG55

        “This is strange, as skeptics so far haven’t accepted such small changes as the beginning of a trend or “recovery”. “

        The “RECOVERY” started in 1979, according to the available data.

        That is when it started to drop from the peak similar to the LIA cold anomaly toward more normal extents like during the first 9000+ years of the interglacial.

        Still has a long way to go, because its still in the top 10% of Holocene extents, still way above even the MWP.

        Unfortunately, that “recovery” from the extreme extents of the LIA seems to have stalled.

        And what CO2 GHE effect is this you are fantasising about.

        The one that you STILL have zero empirical proof of?

        Pretty pathetic attempt to push AGW farce, seb.

        1. SebastianH

          You guys have to get yours stories straight. One claims that ice extent/volume was as low in the 30s/40s, the other one claims that it start “to recover” in 1979, not before … what is it now?

          And I don’t know how often you need to read/hear this, but it doesn’t matter that it was warmer before today. That says exactly zero about the reason for the current warming. But it fits with the worship of curve fitting papers and you probably also play Roulette like this: “the 8 follow the 25 last time and now we saw an 8 again, so let’s bet on 25!” 😉

          1. Kenneth Richard

            One claims that ice extent/volume was as low in the 30s/40s, the other one claims that it start “to recover” in 1979, not before … what is it now?

            The sea ice extent was high in the 1950s to 1970s, and it began to decline again modestly in the 1980s and then robustly during 1995 through about 2007. Since then it’s been flat (no net losses).

            it doesn’t matter that it was warmer before today. That says exactly zero about the reason for the current warming.

            That’s only because you presuppose that 100% of modern warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. You do not believe that any natural factors played a role. Because you have that as your confirmation-biased assumption, of course it doesn’t matter that modern sea ice is still much, much more extensive than almost any time in the last 9,000 to 10,000 years except for the Little Ice Age, the coldest centennial-scale period of this current interglacial. Nothing else matters but your belief in 100% human causation. It’s unfalsifiable. That’s what makes it a belief. There is nothing that will change your mind that 100% of modern warming is human caused.

          2. AndyG55

            “That says exactly zero about the reason for the current warming.”

            You have ZERO PROOF that current , highly beneficial warming is ANYTHING BUT NATURAL

          3. AndyG55

            Poor seb,

            The Extreme extent of the 1970s and LIA was the ANOMALY.

            Do try to keep up !!!

            It “recovered” out of the LIA to a more reasonable, but still very high level, then the sea ice grew to anomalous high levels in the mid-late 1970’s

            It has since RECOVERED back slightly towards a more normal Holocene level.

            That recovery seems to have stalled for the last decade, and it looks like it might be heading into another anomalously high period.

            This is NOT GOOD for the people up there. It would be far more beneficial if the sea ice extent continued to drop.

            But you only care about using the recovery in a childish attempt to support your baseless CO2 warming belief. You couldn’t care less what is best for those people, could you, seb

          4. SebastianH

            through about 2007. Since then it’s been flat (no net losses).

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Pause-2007-2017.jpg
            Look at this graph of yours … do you really see a pause that began in 2007 or do you see – like probably everybody else – two outliers in 2007 and 2012 to the general trend?

            Or asked differently, how would you have described the graph in the year 2000? Has there been a pause between 1990 and 2000 or 2002 in your version of reality?

            That’s only because you presuppose that 100% of modern warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. You do not believe that any natural factors played a role.

            That is not true Kenneth. I know for a fact that natural factors play a role. As can be seen very clearly in forcing graphs that split up the variables, natural forces would have caused a slight cooling in the past decades and human aerosols somewhat compensate for the huge CO2 increase.

            of course it doesn’t matter that modern sea ice is still much, much more extensive than almost any time in the last 9,000 to 10,000 years except for the Little Ice Age, the coldest centennial-scale period of this current interglacial.

            It really doesn’t matter. Past warmings (coming from an ice age) obviously weren’t caused by human CO2 emissions. So why should that be evidence that today’s warming would be natural?

            Nothing else matters but your belief in 100% human causation. It’s unfalsifiable. That’s what makes it a belief. There is nothing that will change your mind that 100% of modern warming is human caused.

            It’s actually pretty well documented, not a belief. It’s you who believes something for whatever reason. Maybe it bothers you that humans have something to do with the current climate change, I don’t know. And it’s also you who has proven that nothing can change your mind. You don’t even accept it when someone notifies you of a broken link … no, that’s AGW talk too … *sigh*

          5. AndyG55

            “It’s actually pretty well documented,”

            WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH

            Another load of unproven BS from seb.

            You STILL haven’t produced a single bit of evidence that CO2 causes warming.

            You just keep yapping mindless with zero-science cult mantra.

            “Past warmings (coming from an ice age) obviously weren’t caused by human CO2 emissions. “

            The current slight, but highly beneficial warming out of the LIA cold anomaly, obviously HASN’T been caused by human CO2 emissions , either

            If you have any real proof that it was….

            THEN PRODUCE IT.

          6. AndyG55

            “It’s actually pretty well documented”

            ROFLMAO

            Yet you are unable to produce one iota of empirical proof.

            There is NO REASON except the AGW fabrications and fantasies to think that the slight but highly beneficial warming out of the LIA cold anomaly is ANYTHING BUT NATURAL

            Do you have any proof otherwise???

            Then PRODUCE IT !!

          7. AndyG55

            “Maybe it bothers you that humans have something to do with the current climate change”

            No proof at all that they do.

            Climate hasn’t changed in 40 years except for El Nino and ocean events..

            …and they sure as heck are NOT anything to do with human anything.

            Except in some bizarre anti-science fantasy land.

          8. AndyG55

            “So why should that be evidence that today’s warming would be natural?”

            We are STILL waiting for empirical evidence that this slight solar/ocean based warming is ANYTHING BUT NATURAL.

            You have NONE. !!

  4. tom0mason

    IMO Igor V. Polyakov said it all back in December 2000—

    Arctic decadal and interdecadal variability Igor V. Polyakov International Arctic ResearchCenter, University of Alaska Fairbanks
    Mark A. Johnson Institute of Marine Science,University of Alaska Fairbanks
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 27, NO. 24, PAGES 4097-4100, DECEMBER 15, 2000

    Their Conclusions —
    The recent retreat of arctic ice requires understanding an of whether the ice reduction is a persistent signature of global warming due to anthropogenic impact on climate or it is a minimum of a low-frequency natural climate oscillation.
    Numerical models Earth climate system of [Vinnikov et al., 1999] and direct observations [Rothrock al., 1999] show substantial ice decline in the recent decades. Vinnikov et al., suggested that the observed decrease of arctic ice extent is related to anthropogenic global warming. However, Vinje [2000]using observations over the past 135 years showed that the recent decrease in ice extent in the Nordic Seas is within the range of natural variability since the 18th century. A combination of century- and half-a-century-long data records and model integrations leads us to conclude that the natural low-frequency oscillation (LFO) exists and is an important contributor the recent anomalous to environmental conditions in the Arctic. This mode of oscillation is related to fluctuations in the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic [Delworth Mann,2000]. Comparison of the century-long NAO index time series and half a century time series the polar region of SAT,SLP differences, wind vorticity and index shows existence the the of LFO mode in the latter time series. There is evidence that the LFO has a strong impact on ice and ocean variability. Our results suggest the decadal and multidecadal that AO LFO drive large amplitude natural variability the Arctic in making detection possible of long-term trends induced by greenhouse warming gas most difficult.

    [my bold]

    IMO not very much more has been shown since then, though there has been a lot of screeching about ‘death spirals’ since 2000 but that is all it has been, all noise and no substance.
    Today we are probably at the beginning of the other side of the LFO cycle, with multidecadal ice mass variations showing up more on the Pacific side of the Arctic basin.
    There certainly is nothing unusual happening at the Arctic, and there has never been anything to be alarmed about in recent times.

    1. AndyG55

      Those oscillations existed before and during the LIA.

      You can see the fairly regular “less ice” periods clearly in the Icelandic sea ice index.

      https://s19.postimg.cc/9fnv8ma43/Icelandic_sea_ice_index_3.png

      1. tom0mason

        Indeed trying to melt sea-ice from it’s temperature of -2°C and below takes an awful lot of energy, energy only the might of nature controls not humans.

  5. MarcSaunders

    250 Tonnes of ice need 23,255 kWh of energy to melt. It will provide a household electricity during 100 months.

    1. SebastianH

      To make ice out of 0 degree water you need 333.55 kJ per kg. To get 2 trillion cubic meters of ice (2 * 10^15 kg) around 6.7 * 10^20 J need to “leave” the water for it to solidify.

      Pierre wrote:

      And what about all the heat that had to be extracted from the water to form the ice? Where did it all go? Most of it of course go radiated out into space and so is forever gone and lost.

      Physics 101, the energy gets “spent” by the surrounding water and atmosphere. Solidification of 1 kg water causes warming of 1 degree in roughly 100 kg (colder) water or a lot of air if the atmosphere was the cause. Since you say that the surface was warm, this additional volume energy likely wasn’t directly radiated to space, but just caused the surrounding water not be as cold as it would have been without solidification.

      But if your concern really is that the energy “is forever gone and lost”, what a surprise must it be for you that this happens every year from summer to winter at ten times the volume change? And even that change is barely visible in the fluctuations in graphs like this one: https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png

      The Ocean heat content increase per year is roughly the same as the energy that is required for the winter to summer melt of the Arctic sea ice … each year in the past 30+ years. So each year the heat content globally increases 10 times more than what is needed for that 2 trillion qubic meters change. In other words, this year it might have only increases by 9 times that amount.

      Can we now go back to not exaggerating tiny changes into huge wins for the “it’s cooling” claim and look at the other tiny changes of much larger magnitude that add up each year instead of ignoring them by claiming the effect isn’t real? 😉

      1. AndyG55

        “Can we now go back to not exaggerating tiny changes”

        I agree. Arctic sea ice still in the top 10% of the last 10,000 years.

        Barely a degree of warming, out of the coldest period in 10,000 years

        But exaggerating tiny changes is all that the AGW-cult has to offer.

        Rant the mantra, seb.

        Its yours life’s work… pretty SAD, hey !

      2. AndyG55

        And that tiny change in OHC you keep yapping about….

        Why are you going on and on and on about it ???

        https://s19.postimg.cc/l7ypganoz/OHC_in_perspective.png

        ““Can we now go back to not exaggerating tiny changes””

        And sea level rise. maximum 2-3 mm/year and decelerating.

        https://s19.postimg.cc/vbe9vvo4z/Sea_level_slows_Puls_1.jpg

        ““Can we now go back to not exaggerating tiny changes””

      3. AndyG55

        ” The Ocean heat content increase per year is roughly the same as the energy that is required for the winter to summer melt of the Arctic sea ice … each year in the past 30+ years.
        So each year the heat content globally increases 10 times more than what is needed for that 2 trillion qubic meters change. In other words, this year it might have only increases by 9 times that amount.”

        What a load of mindless gibberish.

        Did you forget about the Antarctic, and the fact that it freezes as the Arctic thaws.

        Just DUMB !!!

        And what’s with this “30+ years” gibberish ??

        Arctic and Antarctic have been melting and freezing on a yearly basis for probably billions of years.

  6. clipe

    most of us sense that it just doesn’t jive jibe

    i got roasted once for the same mistake.

  7. AndyG55

    LOL !!!

    When that was pretty much on the cards, wasn’t it. 🙂

    Bifurcation. !!!!

    Macaroon to the rescue…….???? roflmao !!!

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/05/12/12-may-18-world-view-climate-change-conference-collapses-as-china-backs-down-from-emission-commitments/

  8. L'Artico aggiunge 2.000 miliardi di tonnellate (2.000.000.000.000) di ghiaccio marino dal 2016 ... abbastanza da girare la Terra 50.000 volte! : Attività Solare ( Solar Activity )

    […] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]

  9. Japanese Meteorological Agency Corrects Antarctic’s Long-Term Sea Ice Growth Trend Upwards

    […] mean Arctic sea ice cover has remained mostly steady over the past 11 years (since 2007). Moreover, Arctic and Greenland ice volume have piled up […]

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

Close